date:20030326

 
speaking of war in the heat of the desert, any time now the weather in iraq will be back to normal, avreage 45 degrees celsius.
 Pentagons high-tech equipment is sensitive to weather. ... The American superiority over Iraq in night-vision technology ... Copyright 2001 Times Record Inc., ASC ... 
 
 
weather in basra next week





WednesdayMostly sunny and hot.High 33° C / RF 34° C. Low 19° C / RF 19° C. Max. UV 8. 



ThursdayHot with plenty of sunshine.High 34° C / RF 35° C. Low 21° C / RF 19° C. Max. UV 8. 



FridaySome sun; hot and humid.High 33° C / RF 36° C. Low 18° C / RF 22° C. Max. UV 7. 



SaturdayPartly sunny; hot and humid.High 33° C / RF 36° C. Low 19° C / RF 21° C. Max. UV 8. 



SundayHumid with some sun.High 32° C / RF 33° C. Low 19° C / RF 21° C. Max. UV 7. 



MondayMostly sunny; hot and humid.High 33° C / RF 39° C. Low 21° C / RF 22° C. Max. UV 8. 



TuesdayMostly sunny and hot.High 33° C / RF 35° C. Low 18° C / RF 21° C. Max. UV 8. 



WednesdaySome sun.High 31° C / RF 32° C. Low 17° C / RF 19° C. Max. UV 8. 










Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!

Re: Ho Hum...Blair supports Bush

At 2003-03-26 23:43 -0600, you wrote:
Blair notes:
  "We will obviously have to discuss the details of how we make the handover
to civil administration in Iraq because it is important both to protect our
own troops and make sure, frankly, that they did not give their lives in
vain."
Hmm? Does he mean that it might be dangerous to hand administration to the
UN without keeping US and UK troops to keep order or is this code for we are
going to keep troops in Iraq until the second coming or the New American
Millenium?
It means that has been no joyous uprising, and Blair now knows that the 
occupying British troops will be killed in a post Saddam Iraq at the rate 
of half a dozen a week, for as long as it takes, 6 months, 12 months, two 
years, 5 years.

That's only about 300 a year, and the Brits put up with this in northern 
Ireland and don't get mawdlin about body bags like the soft yanks do, but 
it is rather awkward to sell politically And actually even Tony might 
not be up for it, sincerely anguished though he appears.

Chris Burford
London

Hans Blix

Hans Blix on BBC Newsnight Tuesday evening replied 'no' when asked whether 
the alleged discovery of 3,000 chemical suits, respirators, and atropine 
injections proved that the Saddam Hussein regime still had "weapons of mass 
destruction".

Chris Burford
London

"Stalingrad" - UK sources

That word again!

The official Downing steet statement on the Blair Bush meeting is that it 
is about the Middle East, post Saddam Iraq, and relations with the Arab 
nations.

BUT

The BBC reporter at the invading HQ, in Qatar, has a news story alleging a 
debate within the Pentagon with retired US generals  questioning Rumsfeld's 
view that it is possible to win this war with many fewer troops than the 
Gulf War.

AND

the BBC reporter in the USA (Whashington?) this morning admitted that the 
talk about post Saddam Iraq is a little premature and quoting one of the 
correspondents on the plane with Blair saying "there are concerns this 
could turn into another Stalingrad".

This would have been a briefing deliberately off the record, so that the 
reporter could not use it directly. He/she might get punished by having 
fewer minutes of private consultation with Alistair Campbell or Tony Blair 
on the next flight for leaking this. But then again he or she may have done 
what was expected - got off the plane, palled up with the BBC reporter in 
Washington, and chatted. Everything off the record, everything unattributable.

But Rumsfeld, cough, cough, is facing Stalingrad.

Meanwhile the "suicide"  columns of tanks heading south from Baghdad and 
Basra last night have melted away without providing convenient pictures of 
their massacre. The suggestion that the tanks were breaking out of Basra 
ahead of a rising (since when did tanks flee an urban insurrection?!) 
appears to be unconfirmed. The more mellow tones of Sir Tim Garden, former 
chief of the UK defence staff, on the BBC this morning, (who opposed the 
outbreak of war) notes that the Iraqi forces have got to do what they have 
to do, and sending these tanks south forces allied commanders to keep much 
more of their limited sources back to defend their lines

What we do not know for example is how much the British troops in the south 
are struggling and how much US troops have had to hold back in the Tigris 
valley. Interesting we have heard nothing of this alleged second prong of 
the supposed two prong race for Baghdad. It also would explain the mystery 
of how British troops are supposed to have besieged Basra, when they only 
have exhausted forces to the west of it, vulnerable to counter attack.

The official main BBC story this morning was that US troops have flown into 
northern Iraq, though Sir Tim queried why they had to be parachuted when 
they could have flown into an airstrip that was already secured in the 
hands of the Kurds! It is clear in fact that the northern front will not be 
able to harrass Saddam very much and the US has at best bought off Saddam's 
natural allies, the Turks.

Meanwhile this morning London time, an anxious British reporter in bed with 
the US troops in Nasiriyah (so a little more independent than a BBC 
reporter in bed with the troops near Basra) said of the Nasiriyah flank

"The situation just seems to get worse."

"It is a very dangerous situation for US forces."

This war is not just an accident waiting to happen (and there are plenty of 
those).

This is a disaster waiting to happen.

The image of Stalingrad is not fanciful.

When is George going to stop listening to Donald and listen to nice Tony 
instead?

And when is the global peace movement going to issue a coordinated call for 
a cease fire?

Chris Burford
London

Re: Krugman

2003-03-26 Thread Michael Pollak


On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Devine, James wrote:

> it's part of PK's attack on the Bushists

That's Bushits!  Bushits!

It makes more sense when you say it out loud.

Michael

Administrators in waiting

So is the UN supposed to just ultimately sanction this government or what?
If they dont get annointed by Washington the mullah and the warlords might
turn nasty.
I don't know what the banker would do. Abscond with their funds?


Cheers, Ken Hanly

Iraqi opposition groups forming interim government in Kurd stronghold

DAMIEN McELROY In Dokan, northern Iraq


THE Iraqi opposition has formed a government-in-waiting to assume office in
Baghdad in the wake of Saddam Hussein's downfall.

A four-man leadership committee of prominent opposition figures - Ahmed
Chalabi, Massoud Barzani, Jalal Talabani and Abul Aziz Hakim - has been
named at the head of the Iraqi Interim Authority.

The body unites disparate elements of opposition to the Baghdad regime, from
two Kurdish warlords with tens of thousands of peshmerga troops, a Shiite
ayatollah who has been backed by Iran for 20 years and an expat banker.

The Interim Authority has formed a joint command that will oversee the
military activities of the main militias in the opposition which have been
placed at the disposal of a US marines general, based in Kurdistan to
oversee a northern front. It has also named 14 new committees to take
control of important ministries in Baghdad as soon as the allied military
command turns over power to a civilian authority.

A list of names of prospective new ministers, some of whom are still inside
Saddam-controlled Iraq, has been submitted to the White House and Pentagon,
said Nabeel Musawi, a member of the joint command.

He added: "We don't have a single credible leader in Iraq as one leader who
will emerge and become a symbol for the whole country. But we need to add
credible alternative faces. To gain the leadership, we have to stand for
something.

"The first principle of the new set-up must be the de-Baathification of the
central government. That is why we have named what is effectively a cabinet
of 14 people, who are mostly technocrats, made up of people from inside and
outside Iraq. The first priorities must be to make ministries in charge of
areas like reconstruction, defence and health active immediately."

Powerful Pentagon sponsors of Ahmed Chalabi, the head of the Iraqi National
Congress, have promoted the Shia banker as the obvious candidate to replace
Saddam Hussein. Opposition from the State Department has faded since the
launch of military action, said Mr Musawi, Mr Chalabi's deputy and
spokesman. Still, he conceded that the White House has still not signed up
to the opposition scheme for a quick transfer of power.

He said: "This has not been totally approved by the White House but to
accept a military governor or a UN administration is not something
acceptable to us. It is giving up Iraqi sovereignty."

The Iraqi opposition has struggled to formulate an alternative to the
appointment of a military governor in Baghdad. Britain has pressed the US to
seek UN approval for any regime that replaces the current dictatorship.

For the Kurdish governments whose militia will make up the bulk of the
40,000 soldiers available to fight Saddam, the first task of the new
authority is the military battle.

A statement from the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan government said: "This
committee will unify the Iraqi opposition forces with the military forces of
the central government."

Mr Chalabi's lakeside headquarters in Dokan in Kurdish-controlled Iraq has
something of the feel of a provincial hotel's superior conference
facilities. Georgetown graduates in V-neck cashmere sweaters discuss the
prospects of the new administration in enthusiastic terms.

Aside from openly gaining American backing, the big challenge over the next
few days will be to make the joint command work. It will be based in the
village of Shawais and face the task of integrating fundamentalist Shia
militia, like the Iran-backed Badr Brigade with the tribal peshmerga and
Sunni Arab fighters drawn from the diaspora.

How well it accomplishes this task, working in parallel with the American
command under Maj Gen Pete Osman in the same building, may become crucial to
the task of wresting the northern oilfields from Saddam's grip.

The latest reports from inside Baghdad-controlled territory suggests that
Saddam has replaced Republican Guard units with the feared
Muhajideen-e-Halk, a murderous militia of Iranians that have been supported
by the regime for a decade.

"These people are worse than even the Fedayeen because they have nothing to
lose," said Musawi. "They will be killed whatever happens, if not by the
Americans then by us."

Ho Hum...Blair supports Bush

Blair notes:
  "We will obviously have to discuss the details of how we make the handover
to civil administration in Iraq because it is important both to protect our
own troops and make sure, frankly, that they did not give their lives in
vain."

Hmm? Does he mean that it might be dangerous to hand administration to the
UN without keeping US and UK troops to keep order or is this code for we are
going to keep troops in Iraq until the second coming or the New American
Millenium? How does the immaculately groomed Iraqi opposition fit into the
picture?
They have formed a provisional government in northern Iraq I gather.

Cheers, Ken Hanly

Blair says US military should control post-Saddam Iraq
By Andrew Grice, Paul Waugh and David Usborne
27 March 2003


Tony Blair lined up staunchly behind George Bush last night in agreeing that
the United States military should administer a post-Saddam Iraq before
handing the country over to the United Nations.

At a working dinner at the US President's Camp David retreat, the British
Prime Minister backed Washington's plans to install General Jay Garner as
civil governor for the country in the short term.

Mr Blair and Mr Bush agreed that a new UN Security Council resolution would
be needed to authorise an interim UN administration and release funds for
reconstruction - but only after the military situation stabilised. The talks
came amid growing controversy over the extent to which the UN should be
involved in Iraq even during the conflict and, more importantly, once the
fighting is over.

The current lack of consensus with France and Russia also meant that Britain
and the US were in no mood to go "rushing" back to the UN, the Prime
Minister told reporters.

Before he flew to Washington, Mr Blair said in the House of Commons that the
interim arrangements for Iraq had to be robust enough to ensure that
American and British troops "did not give their lives in vain".

Downing Street said that a new UN resolution for reconstruction was less of
a priority than a resolution giving Kofi Annan, the secretary general,
powers to run Iraq's £6.35bn-a-year oil-for-food programme. The Security
Council, which remains divided over the legitimacy of the Anglo-American
assault on Iraq, was struggling yesterday to agree a resolution authorising
Mr Annan to resume the programme after its suspension 10 days ago.

The secretary general is anxious to relaunch the programme under which Iraq
was allowed to import food, medicines and other civilian supplies using
revenue from its oil sales. Russia and Syria have balked on sovereignty
grounds, noting that, for now, the Iraqi government remains in place. With
some French backing, the two governments also fear that approving the
resolution would confer some legitimacy on the US-UK armed attacks.

Mr Blair and Mr Bush spent much of their time discussing the military
campaign but the Prime Minister also raised the importance of publishing the
much-delayed "road-map" for the Middle East peace process to repair
relations between the West and the Arab world.

Some members of the Bush administration would prefer there to be no UN
involvement in Iraq once the conflict is over and are keen that the French
and Russians do not benefit from lucrative civil contracts.

However, Mr Blair insisted yesterday that the President himself was
committed to a UN administration at some point.

"It is very clear that we should make sure that any post-conflict Iraqi
administration has the full endorsement of the UN. It actually releases
funds. It allows the international financial institutions to operate in a
better and more effective way," Mr Blair told MPs at Prime Minister's
Questions.

"American and British soldiers have put their lives on the line, and in some
cases given their lives, for the liberation of Iraq and the disarmament of
Saddam Hussein," he added.

"We will obviously have to discuss the details of how we make the handover
to civil administration in Iraq because it is important both to protect our
own troops and make sure, frankly, that they did not give their lives in
vain."

Washington wants an interim civilian authority to be headed by Jay Garner, a
retired general who heads the Pentagon's Office of Reconstruction and
Humanitarian Assistance.

Britain is siding with Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, who is
sympathetic to the British plan for the UN to play a central role in the
running of post-war Iraq.

But Mr Powell faces stiff opposition from the Washington hawks including
Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, who wants the Pentagon to be in the
driving seat.
   26 March 2003 23:33

Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Basra uprising wishful thinking ?

there is nothing wrong with a bit of infaltion, it may be time for some, given the choice between war and infaltion. japan, china, and soon the US and the EU will be asking for ways to reflate their economies.
a big push approach would kick both production and consumption in virtuous but inflationary circle.
"Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

of course, won't simply dropping money on the country cause inflation (or suppressed inflation, i.e., shortages, illegal markets, and unused currency)? it seems like one of the few situations when Milton Friedman is right... There isn't much chance that production can increase to prevent price changes. In fact, war reduces supply.
BTW, I'm not sure that the money multiplier process works in the normal way during war-time, since the banks are likely in crisis.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

-Original Message-From: soula avramidis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 3:13 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [PEN-L:36131] Re: Re: Re: Re: Basra uprising wishful thinking?
i had the multiplier in mind
Robert Scott Gassler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 02:01 26/03/03 -0800, soula avramidis wrote:>>>had the US managed a helicopter drop of 75 billion dollars on the Iraqipeople, I am sure that >this would raise percapita income five folds in iraq No but it would more than double it. The World Almanac 2003 gives Iraq'spopulation as 24 million and per capita income at 2500 US dollars. Roundingup I get 75 billion divided by 25 million equals 3000 dollars apiece.Scott

Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!

RE: al Jazeera link

Title: RE: [PEN-L:36160] al Jazeera link





sorry! This is a good source, but only has a link to al Jazeera, which is still down due to (presumable US-sponsored) hacker attacks.

Jim 


-Original Message-
From: Devine, James
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Sent: 3/26/2003 8:01 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:36160] al Jazeera link


if you can't get al Jazeera, try: 


http://www.cursor.org/aljazeera.htm
  


this shows recent stuff from al Jazeera. 


according to the web-site's sponsors: 
Cursor, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charity that educates the public
on the relationship between media and society through two free Web
sites, Cursor.org, and MediaTransparency.org. These sites are useful to
media practitioners, students, researchers, and the general public --
adding context to the mainstream media's output by illuminating the
structures and methods employed, as well as by providing an ongoing
library of links to the best media education, research and commentary
available on the Internet. We supplement this with our own original
research and commentary.


Cursor.org 


Cursor combines original material with a daily-updated media and
politics Web log that comments upon and links to the work of major news
organizations, as well as to other critical, independent voices
published on the Internet -- contextualizing the day's news in a broader
fashion than what is available from the mainstream media. In addition,
Cursor contains links to hundreds of magazines, newspapers and stand
alone Web sites, with an emphasis on media criticism and media research.
Cursor also has a Twin Cities edition that has been published since 1997
and focuses on media activities in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area.


MediaTransparency.org 


MediaTransparency.org is dedicated to news, opinion, analysis and
investigative data related to links between conservative philanthropies
and the organizations and people  which they fund, and their influence
in the media.


The heart of Media Transparency is its free, searchable database of
grants made by major conservative philanthropies since 1985. The
database presently contains over 21,000 grants totaling more than $1.25
billion, and is searchable by an array of criteria, including funder,
recipient, grant purpose, and date(s). Media Transparency is a
widely-cited and much used resource among the world's news media and
researchers at educational institutions.


 


Jim

war rents redux

[must mean the Army Corps. of Engineers]

Costain hopeful of Iraq work

Mark Milner
Thursday March 27, 2003
The Guardian

The construction firm Costain yesterday played down fears that British
companies could miss out on contracts to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure.

The US Agency for International Development has said foreign firms will be
awarded reconstruction work but is bound by law to give primary contracts
to American companies.

Some industry observers have warned that the reconstruction work will be
run by the American corps of engineers, which has established links with a
small group of US companies.

But yesterday Costain, in which the Kharafi organisation of Kuwait has a
23% stake, took a more relaxed view. "All we are saying at the moment is
that we are well placed to assist if required," said finance director
Charles McCole.

"We are hoping we will get involved, there's no reason why we should not
be involved, we have the experience of the area and we have the skills
available."

Costain took a further stride yesterday in its recovery from an
ill-advised expansion strategy in the 90s which threatened to bring it
down, reporting a 30% increase in pre-tax profits to £11.3m.

"Over the last 18 months we have seen significant recovery ... We think we
have got the monkey off our backs," Mr McCole said. "We think we are
perfectly placed to take the business forward."

Turnover was up 17% to £543m, helped by expansion in the water industry
and higher government spending on health and transport.

Mr McCole said the company was anxious to make a return to the dividend
list. "We are reviewing that on an ongoing basis."

One problem is that Costain has negative reserves in the balance sheet
which means that it cannot pay a dividend. Mr McCole said the group was
looking at ways of revamping the capital structure.

steel tariffs

[New York Times]
March 27, 2003
W.T.O. Rules Against U.S. on Steel Tariff
By ELIZABETH BECKER


WASHINGTON, March 26 - The World Trade Organization ruled today that the
steel tariffs imposed by President Bush last year were illegal.

The administration said it would appeal the decision.

While the trade decision was called interim, with the final report
expected next month, it is rare for an interim decision to be reversed. If
the United States loses next month, European and other nations could
impose trade sanctions of comparable value against the United States.

Last spring, Mr. Bush imposed tariffs of nearly 30 percent on most types
of steel imported from Europe, Asia and South America, the biggest
government action to protect an industry in several decades. While it was
praised by the steel industry and trade unionists, the move was criticized
by free trade advocates and companies that use steel in manufacturing.

The case against the tariffs was brought by the European Union, which
accused the United States of illegally protecting the steel industry.
Pascal Lamy, the European Union's trade commissioner, called the tariffs
"unjustified, highly protectionist U.S. measures."

"I am in no doubt that the U.S. will lose this case, as it has lost all
six previous safeguard cases," Mr. Lamy said when the initial case was
brought against the United States.

But there was no celebratory statement or any comment from the Europeans
today. All spokesmen said they would not discuss an interim decision, but
foreign officials also said Europe wanted to avoid creating a further
division with the United States in a time of war.

Today's ruling, which was not a surprise, was the second major loss for
the United States at the W.T.O. in the last year. The trade panel awarded
Europe the right to impose $4 billion worth of trade sanctions against the
United States for giving tax breaks to American exporters through foreign
sales corporations.

When administration officials imposed the steel tariffs they said they
were legal under provisions in the world trading rules allowing a response
to a surge of steel imports.

The tariffs were meant to help the American steel industry find its
footing in the global market. American trade officials said today that the
strategy worked.

"The domestic steel industry has undergone an unprecedented level of
consolidation and restructuring over the last year that have made it more
competitive," said one American trade official, who insisted on not being
identified.

Democratic lawmakers criticized the trade decision, citing a United States
International Trade Commission study done before the tariffs were imposed
that showed imports were seriously injuring important parts of the
American steel industry. They said the W.T.O. had exceeded its authority.

"I support the goal of an international trading system," said Senator Max
Baucus, Democrat of Montana. "But we have a growing problem with dispute
settlement decisions that are inventing obligations and requirements to
which the United States and other countries never agreed. Ultimately,
these types of decisions will only undermine confidence in the W.T.O."

Some Democrats said the administration was partly to blame for failing to
adopt an aggressive strategy to end a series of rulings against the United
States.

Representative Sander M. Levin, Democrat of Michigan and ranking minority
member of the House Ways and Means trade subcommittee, accused the
administration of overseeing the loss of 13 of 15 cases brought against
the United States since 2001.

"This decision furthers a trend that jeopardizes the credibility of the
W.T.O. dispute-settlement system and must serve as a wake-up call for the
administration," Mr. Levin said.

In Congressional hearings today, steel officials and union representatives
praised the tariffs. Leo W. Gerard, international president of the United
Steelworkers of America, told lawmakers that they should not forget the
history that led to the president's decision to impose the steel tariffs.
For several years, he said, the domestic steel industry was "under attack
from foreign producers, aided and abetted by foreign governments through
subsidies and other market manipulations."

"The consequences of this assault have been disastrous for our
steelworkers and for the American steel industry," Mr. Gerard said.

The result, he said, was that 37 companies were forced into bankruptcy,
54,000 steel workers lost their jobs, and pension plans and health care
programs were being scaled back for retirees, widows and other dependents.

But some manufacturers have complained that the tariffs have led to higher
prices for steel and hurt their companies.

Wes Smith, the president of the E&E Manufacturing Company, with 250
employees in Plymouth, Mich., testified that the tariffs and rising cost
of steel amounted to a new tax for him.

"We are willing to meet the challenge of competing with the Asians," Mr.
Smith said. "However, we c

al Jazeera link

Title: al Jazeera link

if you can't get al Jazeera, try:

http://www.cursor.org/aljazeera.htm

this shows recent stuff from al Jazeera.

according to the web-site's sponsors:
Cursor, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charity that educates the public on the relationship between media and society through two free Web sites, Cursor.org, and MediaTransparency.org. These sites are useful to media practitioners, students, researchers, and the general public -- adding context to the mainstream media's output by illuminating the structures and methods employed, as well as by providing an ongoing library of links to the best media education, research and commentary available on the Internet. We supplement this with our own original research and commentary.

Cursor.org

Cursor combines original material with a daily-updated media and politics Web log that comments upon and links to the work of major news organizations, as well as to other critical, independent voices published on the Internet -- contextualizing the day's news in a broader fashion than what is available from the mainstream media. In addition, Cursor contains links to hundreds of magazines, newspapers and stand alone Web sites, with an emphasis on media criticism and media research. Cursor also has a Twin Cities edition that has been published since 1997 and focuses on media activities in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area.

MediaTransparency.org

MediaTransparency.org is dedicated to news, opinion, analysis and investigative data related to links between conservative philanthropies and the organizations and people which they fund, and their influence in the media.

The heart of Media Transparency is its free, searchable database of grants made by major conservative philanthropies since 1985. The database presently contains over 21,000 grants totaling more than $1.25 billion, and is searchable by an array of criteria, including funder, recipient, grant purpose, and date(s). Media Transparency is a widely-cited and much used resource among the world's news media and researchers at educational institutions.

Jim

The 72 years old heroic farmer

2003-03-26 Thread Sabri Oncu

Iraq parades helicopter crew
Thu Mar 27 2003, ITV

Iraqi television has paraded two captured pilots of a US Apache
helicopter that was downed after attacking an elite Republican
Guard division southwest of Baghdad.

The Pentagon have identified the men but their names will not be
given until it is sure their families have been informed.

Both men appeared nervous and disheveled as their credit cards
and other possessions were paraded in front of the cameras.

Cheering Iraqis were shown waving their guns as they examined the
helicopter.

The television report said the helicopter was shot down by a
farmer, a claim the US military denied without saying what caused
it to come down in a field.

"The heroic farmer Ali Obeid-Mingash...shot down the Apache with
his rifle. These are the two American pilots who were sent by the
little Bush to the inferno of death," the report said, referring
to US President Bush.

The pilots' appearance came just a day after Iraq paraded on
television five US soldiers believed to have been captured after
an ambush near the southeastern town of Nassiriya.

The Apache shown on Iraqi television appeared to be in good
condition and was said to have come down near the city of
Kerbala, 70 miles from the capital.

US military officials said the helicopter had taken part in
strikes against the Republican Guard's Medina Division, which is
dug in and defending Baghdad's southern flanks.

http://www.itv.com/news/453830.html

Blair counterspins about crisis summit


Blair landed in the US just in time for Martha Kearney, one of the astute
BBC Newsnight team to get off the plane and tell the programme about her
interview with him. Blair makes a point of taking journalists on plane
journeys with him to flatter them with a personal briefing. (Probably
they take turns to sit beside him.)

Tonight he was comfortingly smoothing down the story. The main point of
the meeting was about the success of the war, and to have an
opportunity for private reflections - interesting term. Contrary to the
impressions Blair gave in the House of Comons yesterday, there would not
be a big set piece about what is going to happen in Iraq after allied
victory. It is necessary to have realistic expectations. It is really a
matter of timing. Iraq post victory will be US administered. Although
they want UN humanitarian aid, it is not realistic to expect it to be UN
administered. But the Brits would argue there should be a
transition to UN administration. 

So Blair's intimate mid-Atlantic briefing with Martha smoothed it over
just enough, leaving just enough for the astute reporter to say that
there will be "some fairly strong discussion behind the scenes at
Camp David" about post victory Iraq.

So there is spin and counterspin. But what is really going on? We do not
know. The Brits are clearly the people who have set this up so soon after
the start of the war, although they planted the first reports in the USA.
This is the cover for Blair to tell Bush if he needs to, that the war is
going disastrously. Perhaps he does not think so. But it is possible it
has crossed his mind. It has crossed our minds and we do not have the
briefings available to him. 

At the very least we know tonight that the hegemons have had to accept a
major change of strategy. the northern front is to be kept relatively
quiet, and the attack on Baghdad may be substantially delayed:- 

There has clearly been a deal with the Turkish Chiefs of Staff announcing
that Turkey will not send more troops into Kurdistan. Zerberi for the
Kurdistan Democratic Party has welcomed this, and announced that there
will be a liason committee of the Kurds the Turks and the Americans,
presumably to limit the scope of the northern front, like ensuring that
the Kurds do not occupy Kirkuk and Mosul and are nice to the Turkomans,
whom a US general has just met. A mere few thousand US troops have been
parachuted into Northern Iraq, and Zerberi commented that "this war
has to be won by humans not by technology". Meanwhile the US 4th
Division is being hyped up as wonderful and is being sent to the southern
front, having been blocked from going in through Turkey. The point is
that its 30,000 troops cannot be fully operational for two weeks.
Is the victorious and unbloody assault on Baghdad to be delayed for 2
weeks??? 

And while it is delayed, how are the invaders going to prevent more
harrassment of their extended lines, like those that have caused deaths
in Nasiriyah and further north which drew the Third Division into
counterattacking in Najaf when it was trying to thrust ahead to Karbala.
So HQ has announced emphatically that the strategy is to push ahead
without diverting too many troops to deal with minor guerrila attacks.
Can it afford to do that for two weeks? 

There is a crazy report tonight London time about columns of Iraqi tanks
racing south through the sandstorms from Baghdad and again from Basra.
The garbled reporting from embedded reporters just suggests this is
meaningless and they are going to be slaughtered by air power. But
perhaps they are not. Perhaps they have turned quickly to harrass the
extended invading lines. As far as the southernmost front is concerned,
we Brits have been told that the column has been racing for the Al Fao
peninsula but got dispersed on the way. In another bulletin an embedded
reporter let slip that the British soldiers (ineffectually) besieging
Basra are now exhausted. It is more likely that the Iraqi tanks have
turned right to attack the exposed British front to the west of Basra on
which one of their tanks blew (blue) up another of their tanks in
confusion a couple of nights ago.

So even if Blair does not yet realise that the hegemons are likely to
lose this war altogether, the urgent summit is for a rethink of the war
strategy as well as the peace strategy in a fairly radical way. The brits
know what it is like to have an army of occupation for years in a hostile
territory sitting ducks for snipers, in northern Ireland.



There is another agenda under the spin and counterspin. Blair has
successfully recruited his labour critics to be allies, in his shift of
position back to the middle of the Atlantic Oppostion to the war has been
silenced in Britain as a serious realistic news item in Britain since the
Commons vote but Tony Wright, MP came on Newsnight, to debate with an
American unilateralist about post war Iraq, in a well argued case which
exposed the underlying agenda. He managed to get in that t

Remember the dead and fight for the living

2003-03-26 Thread Sabri Oncu

http://www.nationalphilistine.com/baghdad/index2.html

meet the new, improved UN

US Forms Own UN
March 26, 2003

WASHINGTON, DC-Frustrated with the United Nations' "consistent, blatant
regard for the will of its 188 member nations," the U.S. announced Monday
the formation of its own international governing body, the U.S.U.N.

"The U.N. has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to act decisively in
carrying out actions the U.S. government deems necessary," U.S.U.N.
Secretary General Colin Powell said. "Every time we tried to get something
accomplished, it inevitably got bogged down in procedural policies,
bureaucratic formalities, and Security Council votes."

"I predict the U.S.U.N. will be extremely influential in world politics in
the coming decades," Powell continued. "In fact, you can count on it."

The new organization will be based in Houston, where a $400 million
U.S.U.N. Building is currently under construction. The U.S.U.N. Charter,
ratified unanimously by delegates in a four-minute vote Monday, sets forth
the mission of the organization as "the proliferation of peace and
international economic, social, and humanitarian progress through
deference to the U.S."

"The U.S.U.N. resembles the original in almost every way, right down to
all the flags outside our headquarters," said Condoleezza Rice, a U.S.
delegate to the U.S.U.N. "This organization will carry out peacekeeping
missions all over the world, but, unlike the U.N., these missions will not
be compromised by the threat of opposition by lesser nations."

In its first act, the U.S.U.N. Security Council unanimously backed a
resolution to liberate Iraq's people and natural resources from the rule
of Saddam Hussein.

"We gave the old U.N. a go for I don't know how many years, but it just
wasn't working," said Dick Cheney, a U.S. delegate to the U.S.U.N.
"Really, I have no idea what we were doing sacrificing all that power and
autonomy in exchange for a couple of lousy troops from New Zealand."

Added Cheney: "I can't tell you how much easier it is to achieve consensus
when you don't have to worry about dissent."

Cheney, along with Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Tom Ridge, and George W. Bush,
make up the five permanent members of the 15-person U.S.U.N. Security
Council.

"The five Security Council members have veto power to block U.S.U.N.
resolutions for military action," Rumsfeld said. "Not that anyone would,
but it's nice to have, nonetheless."

According to Powell, in spite of the fact that delegates hail from every
corner of the U.S., General Assembly meetings have been refreshingly free
of rancor.

"We've got Bill Frist from Tennessee, Tom DeLay from Texas, and Dennis
Hastert from way up in Illinois," U.S.U.N. delegate Rick Santorum said.
"Despite the diverse backgrounds of the delegates, cooperation has not
been a problem-unlike at some outmoded, gridlocked international
peacekeeping bodies I could name."

The official U.S.U.N. language is English. The official religion is
Christianity.
http://www.theonion.com/onion3911/us_forms_own_un.html

the dialectics of facts and retractions

When are facts facts? Not in a war

Claims and counter claims made during the media war in Iraq

Chris Tryhorn
Wednesday March 26, 2003
The  Guardian

"Fog" is beginning to be the watchword of this war, with the lines between
fact and propaganda being blurred on a daily basis.

The demands of round-the-clock news means that military claims are being
relayed instantly to millions without being confirmed or verified only to
be refuted later by reporters on the ground or by fresh military updates.

In due course, questions will be asked about the clashing interests of the
military and the media and the role of war propaganda in the pursuit of a
swift victory against Saddam's regime.

The worst example of false claims relates to the battle to take control of
Umm Qasr, the southern Iraqi deep-sea port and one of the key targets in
the early war.

On Sunday afternoon, it had been "taken" nine times. By Sunday night there
were still ugly skirmishes between coalition forces and irregulars loyal
to Saddam operating out of the old town. Umm Qasr was not, in fact, taken
until Tuesday.

Today, the fog of war rose again in Basra after premature reports of a
popular uprising.

Here MediaGuardian.co.uk charts the contradictory claims and counter
claims made so far.

Anyone who can point to other war claims that don't bear scrutiny, please
email [EMAIL PROTECTED]

BASRA UPRISING

Claims
Tuesday, March 25, 5.30pm
Widespread media reports of a popular uprising against President Saddam
Hussein in Iraq's second city of Basra, believed to have originated from
military sources. Follows reports from pool reporter Richard Gaisford.

Claims challenged
Tuesday, March 25, 6.10pm
British military sources say they are unable to confirm reports of any
popular uprising in Basra, but reiterate that they would do everything
possible to encourage and support any Iraqis planning to overthrow forces
loyal to Saddam."We don't know anything about a popular uprising," said
one British military source in Central Command in Qatar.

Iraq calls claims 'hallucinations'
Tuesday, March 25, 7.44pm
Iraq's information minister denies the reports, calling them
"hallucinations". "I want to affirm to you that Basra is continuing to
hold steadfast," Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf told the Arabic language
al-Jazeera television network.

Army 'confirms' claims
Wednesday, March 26, 2.27am
A British spokesman at US Central Command headquarters in Qatar says it
appears there has been an uprising. "We don't have a clear indication of
its scale or scope or where it will take us. But we will want to support
it to exploit its potential. It looks like this uprising is based on the
massive resentment of the population."

Al-Jazeera rejects claims
Wednesday, March, 7.40am
An Al-Jazeera reporter, who is stationed behind coalition lines in Basra,
says he has no evidence of an uprising. He says the city is crawling with
Iraqi military and the streets are littered with shrapnel.

Blair backs claims
Wednesday, March 26, 12.30pm
British prime minister Tony Blair says he believes there has been a
limited uprising overnight. "In relation to what has happened in Basra
overnight, truthfully reports are confused, but we believe there was some
limited form of uprising," he told the House of Commons.

BASRA 1
...where an hour is a long time in the military calender.

Claim
Tuesday, March 25, 8.13am
Reuters: "British military spokesman confirmed on Tuesday British troops
were probably going to go into Basra to battle irregular fighters
resisting US-led invasion forces in Iraq's second city. "We are meeting
resistance from irregulars, members of the Fedayeen, who are extremely
loyal to Saddam Hussein's regime," group captain Al Lockwood told CNN
television. "They are lightly armed, and very small in number, but they
are terrorising the citizens of Basra and we will probably need to go in
and meet any resistance."

Counter claim
Tuesday, March 25, 9.16am
Reuters: a British spokesman said on Tuesday British troops would not
enter the southern city of Basra to battle irregular Iraqi fighters -
contradicting an earlier statement. But the British did consider Basra a
military target. "We're not going into Basra, it's simply considered a
target," a British military spokesman at Central Command headquarters in
Qatar told Reuters. "The reason it is a potential target is because it has
an enormous political and military importance in the area."

UMM QASR

Claim
Thursday, March 20, 7.33pm
US-led troops have taken Iraqi border town of Umm Qasr, Iraq's only
deep-water port in the south, wires and TV report.

Counter claim
TV reporters, including Mark Austin on ITV's News Channel, challenge the
claims. They have it on Iraqi authority that Umm Qasr has certainly not
been taken. "Iraqi troops deny anyone has surrendered."

Confirmation
Friday , March 21, 11.35pm
Admiral Michael Boyce, chief of the British defence staff, confirms the
off-the-record briefings received by media in Kuwait and southern

Ledeen's feral nihilism

2003-03-26 Thread Tom Walker

Max Sawicky wrote,

>Interestingly, in the neo-conservative circles in which he runs, Ledeen is
>known not so much as an Iraq-hawk, but rather as an Iran-hawk.

Ledeen's 1985 _Grave New World_ is chock-a-block full of recrimination at what he saw 
as the Carter administration's loss of Iran.
Sort of a "who lost China?" redux.Viewing the invasion of Iraq as a prelude to massive 
presure on Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia
actually makes more sense -- albeit a macabre and megalomaniacal sense -- than the 
feeble WMD, 12 years is enough, Saddam is a
tyrant, al Qaeda link official justifications. Remember, the speech writers just threw 
in North Korea so it wouldn't look like Bush
was singling out Islamic countries.

This farce would be funny if it wasn't so murderous. Or to torture the tragedy/farce 
cliche, what would the repetition be to a
"mourning play" [trauerspiel]?

The right used to talk about overcoming the "Vietnam Syndrome", the reluctance to 
resort to armed conflict. I think what Ledeen
wants to overcome could be thought of as the World War I/World War II/Hiroshima 
Syndrome, the reluctance to engage in total war for
the glory of war. It will be interesting to see if our poet-warrior spends the 
duration sitting on his "freedom chair" at the AEI or
if he takes up arms in middle age like his idol D'Annunzio (supposedly). I hope if he 
does, he shaves his head first so we can
admire the glint of desert sun reflecting off his sublime cranium.

I'm not an expert on D'Annunzio. Ledeen is. But from reading Ledeen's account of 
D'Annunzio's exploits, it strikes me that they may
well have been fictional -- sort of an earlier "tail-gunner Joe" from the days when it 
would be easier to fake and harder to expose
such histrionics (or perhaps not?). In a similar vein, when I read Ledeen's September 
13, 2001 NRO column "Who Killed Barbara Olson"
the prose struck me as eerily, calculatedly overwrought.

http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/ledeen091301.shtml


Tom Walker
604 255 4812

Iraq debt repayment

Iraq Debt Debate Already Under Way

By David Chance
Reuters



LONDON -- Iraq will pay its debts after Saddam Hussein is removed but will
need a big write-off so the once-prosperous country's economy can grow
again, an exiled former central banker who is also a senior opposition
figure said.

Salah al-Shaikhly is a senior member of the Iraqi National Accord opposition
group exiled in London.

He was a governor of the Iraqi Central Bank in the 1970s, the director of
the Bureau of Statistics, the deputy director of state planning and the head
of Iraq's overseas humanitarian aid program.

He also headed the Arab Bureau of the United Nations Development Program in
1978 before he was prevented from returning to Iraq in the middle of the
1980s.

He said the country's economy had been ruined by Saddam Hussein's military
adventures, which have run up huge debts.

"The debt has accumulated. In our estimate it is in the region of $112
billion," al-Shaikhly said.

"[The debt] is with governments like Russia, France and Bulgaria for the
supply of arms," he said, adding that he believed Russia and France were the
biggest creditors with $8 billion to $9 billion apiece.

Bulgaria is owed $1.3 billion, and there is $1 billion in traded loans owed
to private sector banks.

Figures for Iraqi debts vary.

The current Iraqi government puts debts at $42.1 billion at the end of 1991,
but that figure excludes interest and $30 billion of loans from Gulf states,
which Iraq regards as grants, paid by those states to protect them from Iran
in the 1980s.

Iraq and Iran fought a war between 1980 and 1988.

The World Bank estimates that with almost no debt payments made after 1990,
foreign debt had risen to $126 billion by the end of 1998, of which $47
billion was arrears on interest.

"The reason it is difficult to find accurate figures is that during the
1980s when all of the technocrats departed, a number of departments were
authorized to sign agreements with international financial institutions --
the palace, acting as the Treasury, was an authorized signatory, the
Ministry of Finance, the Military Industrialization Ministry, the Central
Bank," al-Shaikhly said.

What is clear is the pattern of the increasing militarization of the
economy.

Independent economists estimate that in 1970, 19 percent of the gross
domestic product was spent on the military, rising to 23 percent in 1980.
>From 1981 to 1988, military spending amounted to $111 billion, or 40 percent
of that period's GDP, and 154 percent of oil revenues.

This military spending bankrupted the economy, prompting Saddam Hussein's
disastrous invasion of Kuwait.

Although the future economic state of Iraq is a matter for speculation,
plans are being made.

Iraqi economists, including al-Shaikhly, have been planning with the U.S.
State Department and U.S. Treasury an economic plan for the country,
post-Saddam, which includes debt resolution.

Most analysts accept that it would be impossible for Iraq's degraded oil
infrastructure to deliver any meaningful improvement in standards of living
to the population while at the same time paying out up to $300 billion in
reparations for the 1990 invasion of Kuwait as well as servicing its
commercial debts.

What is expected is that Iraq would win generous write-offs from creditors
along the lines of those granted to former Yugoslavia, which saw 66 percent
of its debts forgiven.

"It [Yugoslavia] is a very attractive model," said al-Shaikhly.

"Definitely we would like some of [the debt] to be negotiated away. The
other part we have to negotiate, we can have an equity exchange,"
al-Shaikhly said.

A deal along the lines of Yugoslavia could massively boost the value of the
$1 billion in private sector loans, which, although illiquid, are trading at
around 15 cents on the dollar, up from eight to 10 cents in September last
year.

Yugoslav debt has risen to 50 cents on the dollar from eight cents in the
past two and a half years, but Iraq could be a far better bet because of its
hugely valuable oil reserves and the increasing likelihood of some kind of
debt-for- equity swaps.

Even so, Iraq will need time to get its house in order as it would take 50
years to repay the debts at current oil production levels given that a
quarter of revenues go to reparations for the invasion of Kuwait.

"We have to extend the period of payment," al-Shaikhly said.

"We need a holiday of two to five years before we start paying
debts,otherwise we should not make any progress," he said.

Yugoslavia won a six-year grace period on its sovereign debts with 22 years
to repay.

But however willing post-Hussein Iraq might be to renegotiate the majority
of its sovereign debts, Al-Shaikhly took the same view as the current
regime: that the $30 billion from the Gulf Arab states should be excluded
from any repayment negotiation plans.

Among middle-income developing countries, Iraq's impoverishment is unique.

According to Iraqi officials, per capita income has fallen to $

Turkish CP

2003-03-26 Thread Louis Proyect

I just received some correspondence in English from the Turkish CP that 
is too lengthy to distribute as email, but urge you to read it at:

http://www.marxmail.org/TurkeyCP.htm

--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

On the Home Equity Front

2003-03-26 Thread Yoshie Furuhashi

*   New Home Sales Fall 8 Pct. in February
Wed March 26, 2003 12:01 PM ET
By Mark Felsenthal
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Purchases of new homes fell 8.1 percent in 
February to their lowest level in more than two years, the government 
said on Wednesday, the second straight monthly decline in spite of 
some of the lowest mortgage interest rates since the early 1960s.

New home sales slid to a seasonally adjusted 854,00 unit annual rate 
last month from an upwardly revised 929,000 unit clip in January. 
January's sales level marked a 12.6 percent drop from December.

Although an unusually cold and snowy month may have kept buyers 
indoors, sales fell well short of the expectations of analysts polled 
by Reuters, who on average had forecast a rise to a 935,000 unit 
sales pace.

Consumer worries about the state of the economy and the U.S.-led war 
on Iraq may now outweigh the appeal of cheap loans, one analyst said.

"This weakening in February, while it may have some special 
considerations, is also a harbinger of some weaker numbers to come. 
It doesn't look like there's anything positive out there in terms of 
consumer confidence and the war with Iraq," said Fred Breimyer, chief 
economist for State Street Corp.

Americans bought new homes at the slowest rate in February since 
August 2000, the Commerce Department said.

Inventories rose to the highest level in more than six years. The 
time it would take to sell homes on the market at current sales rates 
rose to 5 months from 4.5 months in January

 
*

*   US consumer confidence declines again
By Peronet Despeignes in Washington
Published: March 25 2003 15:33 | Last Updated: March 25 2003 15:33
US consumer confidence fell to a new  nine-year low in the days 
leading to the beginning of the US war with Iraq, according to 
figures released on Tuesday.

The Conference Board said its index of consumer confidence fell to a 
preliminary 62.5 in March, the lowest reading since October 1993. The 
index, which is based on a monthly survey of 5,000 households, has 
fallen more than 40 per cent from last  year's high of 110.3 in May.

The Board said it was hopeful that a quick resolution of the war with 
Iraq would lead to a rebound in confidence, but that the course of 
the job market would determine whether it would last.

While a quick and successful outcome in the Middle East conflict 
would certainly ease some of the uncertainties facing consumers and 
therefore boost confidence, it is the economic fundamentals that will 
determine whether a rebound is sustainable,? says Lynn Franco, a 
Board official.

The end of the Gulf War in 1991 produced a surge in confidence, but 
labour market conditions quickly diminished the spark. So if history 
repeats itself, the current job scenario will do little to maintain 
any post-war surge in confidence

 
*

*   New York Times   March 26, 2003
Home Equity Borrowing Rises to Worrisome Levels
By RIVA D. ATLAS
Americans are borrowing against their homes at unprecedented levels, 
leading some bankruptcy lawyers and consumer advocates to warn that 
many people could wind up losing their houses.

Homeowners raised $130 billion last year through home equity loans 
and lines of credit, nearly double the total a year earlier, 
according to the Federal Reserve.

This boom in borrowing comes at a time when housing prices nationwide 
are still strong, even in places like the New York metropolitan area 
where prices have risen sharply.

As long as their home values rise, borrowers who are having trouble 
making their payments can take out further loans or can sell their 
homes for more than they owe. Indeed, people have not fallen behind 
on their home equity loans nationwide in troubling numbers.

But in parts of the Midwest and the Southeast where home prices have 
softened, delinquencies on home equity debt have started to rise, and 
bankruptcy lawyers are reporting that a growing number of their 
clients are losing their homes to the banks.

"I'm representing a large number of newly homeless people," said 
Barbara May, a bankruptcy lawyer in St. Paul. Many of these people 
have taken on home equity loans in addition to their existing 
mortgages.

"We are just buried in foreclosures," she said.

Bankruptcy lawyers warn that the problem could spread to other parts 
of the country if home prices soften or if the economy does not 
improve

   *
--
Yoshie
* Calendar of Events in Columbus: 

* Student International Forum: 
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: 
* Al-Awda-Ohio: 
* Solidarity:

Turkey


U.S. Watches Warily as Turkey's Economy Teeters
By Paul Blustein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 26, 2003; Page A30


A severe financial crisis is engulfing Turkey as a result of its
diplomatic rift with the United States, raising the prospect of a debt
default that could wreak economic havoc in a country long viewed in
Washington as a linchpin of stability in the Muslim world.

The Turkish lira hit a new low against the U.S. dollar Monday, and the
yield demanded by investors for holding Turkish government domestic bonds
shot well above 70 percent, amid mounting fears that policymakers in
Washington would balk at funneling aid to Ankara's heavily indebted
regime. Turkey's refusal to cooperate fully with the U.S.-led attack on
Iraq has angered administration officials and many members of Congress.

Although Turkish markets rallied yesterday on news of a White House
proposal to Congress for $1 billion in aid to Ankara, the gains erased
only a modest portion of the sell-off that has battered Turkish currency,
bonds and stocks over the past couple of weeks. At 60 to 70 percent
interest rates, the government stands little chance of being able to carry
its debt burden for very long, analysts agree. Moreover, administration
officials suggested that the new aid offer -- much less than the $6
billion Washington once envisioned as compensation for Turkey's
cooperation in the war -- may not pan out.

Deepening the gloom surrounding Turkey's economic prospects, the country's
debt was downgraded yesterday by Fitch Ratings Ltd., the credit-rating
agency. Turkey's foreign debt rating is now the same as that of Moldova,
an impoverished nation that was recently forced to restructure its
obligations.

"Fitch is concerned over how the authorities will manage to fill a growing
public sector funding gap in 2003," the agency said, using polite
terminology for a possible default.

The crisis is a potentially enormous headache for the Bush administration
because Turkey's geopolitical importance far exceeds that of some other
"emerging markets" that have been stricken by financial panics --
Argentina, for example. Not only is the country strategically located, but
it also is a NATO ally and its moderate Muslim society is viewed by
Washington as a model for its neighbors.

Until recently, that was enough to convince investors that Washington
would move heaven and earth to keep Turkey's economy afloat, including
using its dominance at the International Monetary Fund, which committed
last year to lend Ankara $17 billion. But now irritated U.S. officials are
sending quite different signals, and in conveying their displeasure to
Ankara they risk worsening the Turkish crisis by confirming the market
perception that the country can no longer count on easy IMF support.

Some experts believe that the administration will ultimately resolve the
dilemma in Turkey's favor, perhaps by prodding the IMF to increase its
loan program.

"The last thing they need is a major financial crisis in Turkey on top of
everything else that's going on in the region," said Steven Radelet, a
fellow at the Center for Global Development, who previously oversaw
relations with Ankara at the Treasury Department.

But administration officials have shown little enthusiasm for increasing
the IMF loan and have confined themselves mainly to admonishing Ankara to
stick to the fund's requirements for fiscal discipline. The amount Turkey
owes the IMF is already more than five times what it would ordinarily be
permitted to borrow under fund rules.

So in the markets, many are betting that Turkey will eventually decide to
default because of a vicious circle that has taken hold. Worries about
U.S.-Turkey relations have prompted investors to insist on higher bond
yields, which drives up government borrowing costs, which worsens the
budgetary problem, which arouses even further market anxiety.

"They've got to get on a virtuous path of some sort, and it's hard to see
how they can do that even if they implement the IMF program," said Daniel
Hewitt, a senior international economist at Alliance Capital Management.

The overarching problem is that the government is staggering under a debt
of about $160 billion, close to the nation's annual national output. So
when interest rates shoot up a few percentage points, as they have
recently, the impact is huge. The same goes for declines in the lira,
because a substantial chunk of the government's debt is denominated in
dollars or linked to the U.S. currency.

The recently elected government has taken many of the budgetary steps
required by the IMF, which praised Ankara's latest moves yesterday. But
those measures are often "swamped by changes in financial market
sentiment" such as higher interest rates and a lower lira, said Dani
Rodrik, a Turkish-born economist at Harvard University who is advising the
nation's central bank.

If the government finally gives up and suspends payment on the debt, the
most likely effect would b

RE: The "Go Home" Movement After WWII

Title: RE: [PEN-L:36148] The "Go Home" Movement After WWII





at the end of World War II >This "Go Home" movement was organized  by the troops (GIs in the parlance of 
the times) or more precisely by the non-coms of the veteran outfits 
and had nothing to do with any anti-war movement in the U.S. which in 
any case did not exist.<


In the US, there were pacifists opposed to WW2, along with some Trotkyists, and of course the pro-Nazi or pro-fascist people. It wasn't a real movement, though.

some of the pacifists and Trotskyists later became advocates of the US side of the Cold War, often within the AFL-CIO structure, under the leadership of the late Max Schactman.

Jim

The "Go Home" Movement After WWII

2003-03-26 Thread Yoshie Furuhashi

Ed Kovacs posted a very interesting post in response to replies to my 
query about the origin of the slogan "Support the Troops -- Bring 
Them Home."  With his permission, I'm forwarding the post here:

*   Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:48:35 -0500 (EST)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SLDRTY-L]: The "Go Home" Movement After WWII
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Topica-Id: <1048661321.inmta006.26623.1189825>
List-Help: 
Hi All: The draftee army of World War Two, once the German Army and 
the Imperial Forces of Japan surrendered, were ready to go home and 
resume their civilian lives. The U.S. War Department (as it was then 
correctly named) however wanted to use the GIs still in uniform in 
Europe and in Asia to break with the allied Soviet Union and start at 
once what later became known as the Cold War. But the GIs would have 
none of it. Large demonstrations of GIs took place in Paris and 
German cities where U.S. were stationed, as well in the Far East, 
forcing President Truman to institute a point system by which the 
entire draftee army of World War was quickly demobilized. This "Go 
Home" movement was organized  by the troops (GIs in the parlance of 
the times) or more precisely by the non-coms of the veteran outfits 
and had nothing to do with any anti-war movement in the U.S. which in 
any case did not exist. I can speak with authority on this matter 
since I was a leading participant in it in Europe and spent many 
hours with Fred Halstead exchanging information about his similar 
experiences in the U.S. navy in the Far East. Thus the slogan 
"Support the troops, bring them home" did not originate in the 
immediate post WWII period: "(We) Go Home" was the slogan of the GIs 
themselves. Ed Kovacs   *

Two separate observations:

(1) I hope some left-wing artist will make a film or video 
documentary about the "Go Home" Movement after WWII.

(2) It made some sense for US leftists to add "Support the Troops" to 
the slogan "Bring the Troops Home" before the current war on Iraq 
began.  It doesn't now.  It will again make sense for US leftists to 
add "Support the Troops" to the slogan "Bring the Troops Home Now" if 
and when the US troops in Iraq and elsewhere begin to collectively 
make a demand that they be sent home.

--
Yoshie
* Calendar of Events in Columbus: 

* Student International Forum: 
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: 
* Al-Awda-Ohio: 
* Solidarity:

RE: Re: RE: From Amnesty International




JKS writes: 
> You are an unpatriotic rotten 
doctor Commie rat!<
 
how did you 
know?
 
(BTW, JKS quotes from an old Bob Dylan song, "Motopsycho 
Nightmare.")
 
JD

Re: RE: From Amnesty International

2003-03-26 Thread andie nachgeborenen

 
 "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


why can't the Iraqi government declare "coalition" prisoners to be unlawful combatants? 
oh yes, I forgot: it's might that makes right. 
 
Some people can't keep hold of the fundamentals. Our combatants are never unlawful. Our actions are never war crimes. You are an unpatriotic rotten doctor Commie rat!
jksDo you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!

Recent purported Russian Intelligence Reports

The link is at :

http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news078.htm

but it doesnt always work. Probably it is high traffic or maybe hackers are
trying to down it as well. There is also
a Russian language version. I still cant access Al Jezeera. CBC often relays
reports from the Arabic TV channel and uses pictures as well.

If  you have access to CBC TV there is a documentary by an  Afghan-Canadian
woman, Return to Kandahar. I believe the time is 9 PM Central Standard Time.

Cheers, Ken Hanly

March 25, 2003, 1230hrs MSK (GMT +3), Moscow - As of morning March 25 the
situation on Iraqi fronts remains quiet. Both sides are actively preparing
for future engagements. Exhausted in combat US 3rd Motorized Infantry
Division is now being reinforced with fresh units from Kuwait (presumably
with up to 1 Marine brigade and 1 tank brigade from the 1st Armored Division
(all coming from the coalition command reserves) and elements of the British
7th Tank Brigade from the area of Umm Qasr. The troops have a stringent
requirement to regroup and, after conducting additional reconnaissance, to
capture An-Nasiriya within two days.

The Iraqis have reinforced the An-Nasiriya garrison with several artillery
battalions and a large number of anti-tank weapons. Additionally, the Iraqis
are actively deploying landmines along the approaches to their positions.

However, currently all combat has nearly ceased due to a sand storm raging
over the region. Weather forecasts anticipate the storm's end by noon of
March 26. According to intercepted radio communications the coalition
advance will be tied to the end of the sand storm and is planned to take
place during the night of March 26-27. The coalition command believes that a
night attack will allow the its forces to achieve the element of surprise
and to use its advantage in specialized night fighting equipment.

There have been no reports of any losses resulting from direct combat in the
past 10 hours. However, there is information about two coalition combat
vehicles destroyed by landmines. Three US soldiers were wounded in one of
these incidents.

Positional warfare continues near Basra. The coalition forces in this area
are clearly insufficient to continue the attack and the main emphasis is
being placed on artillery and aviation. The city is under constant
bombardment but so far this had little impact on the combat readiness of the
Iraqi units. Thus, last night an Iraqi battalion reinforced with tanks swung
around the coalition positions in the area of Basra airport and attacked the
coalition forces in the flanks. As the result of this attack the US forces
have been thrown back 1.5-2 kilometers leaving the airport and the nearby
structures in the hands of the Iraqis. Two APCs and one tank were destroyed
in this encounter. According to radio intelligence at least two US soldiers
were killed and no less than six US soldiers were wounded.

The coalition forces are still unable to completely capture the small town
of Umm Qasr. By the end of yesterday coalition units were controlling only
the strategic roads going through the town, but fierce fighting continued in
the residential districts. At least two British servicemen were killed by
sniper fire in Umm Qasr during the past 24 hours.

The coalition command is extremely concerned with growing resistance
movement in the rear of the advancing forces. During a meeting at the
coalition command headquarters it was reported that up to 20 Iraqi
reconnaissance units are active behind the coalition rear. The Iraqis attack
lightly armed supply units; they deploy landmines and conduct
reconnaissance. Additionally, captured villages have active armed resistance
that is conducting reconnaissance in the interests of the Iraqi command and
is organizing attacks against coalition troops. During the past 24 hours
more than 30 coalition wheeled and armored vehicles have been lost to such
attacks. Some 7 coalition servicemen have disappeared, 3 soldiers died and
10 were wounded.

The coalition commander Gen. Tommy Franks ordered his forces to clear
coalition rears from Iraqi diversionary units and partisans in the shortest
possible time. The British side will be responsible for fulfilling these
orders. A unit from the 22nd SAS regiment supported by the US 1st, 5th and
10th Special Operations Groups will carry out this operation. Each of these
groups has up to 12 units numbering 12-15 troops each. All of these units
have some Asian or Arabic Americans. The groups also have guides and
translators from among local Iraqi collaborators, who went through rapid
training at specialized centers in the Czech Republic and the UK.

The sand storms turned out to be the main enemy of the American military
equipment. Just the 3rd Motorized Infantry Division had more than 100
disabled vehicles disabled. The repair crews are working around the clock to
return all the disabled equipment back into service. This is causing serious
concern on the part of the coalition comma

RE: From Amnesty International

Title: RE: [PEN-L:36142] From Amnesty International





why can't the Iraqi government declare "coalition" prisoners to be unlawful combatants? 


oh yes, I forgot: it's might that makes right. 



Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
stop the war now!




> -Original Message-
> From: k hanly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 9:09 AM
> To: pen
> Subject: [PEN-L:36142] From Amnesty International
> 
> 
> Actually Iraq could very well claim that captured US troops 
> are not governed
> by the Geneva Convention. Since the war is  illegal they 
> could very well
> have joined the US dept of inventive terminology and called 
> them illegal
> combatants and put them in 7 by 8 ft containers.
> 
> Cheers, Ken Hanly
> 
> AI-index: AMR 51/045/2003 25/03/2003
> Public
> 25 March 2003
> AI Index: AMR 51/045/2003
> http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/AMR510452003?Open&of=COUNTRIES\USA
> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
> International standards for all
> 
> "There are international standards that civilized regimes 
> adhere to and then
> there are regimes like Saddam Hussein['s] ...". US Secretary 
> of Defence, 23
> March 2003(1)
> 
> On 23 March 2003, following the news that US soldiers had 
> been captured by
> Iraqi forces during the US-led attack on Iraq, President 
> George Bush said
> that "we expect them to be treated humanely, just like we'll treat any
> prisoners of theirs that we capture humanely... If not, the people who
> mistreat the prisoners will be treated as war criminals."(2)
> 
> Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld added that "the Geneva Convention
> indicates that it's not permitted to photograph and embarrass 
> or humiliate
> prisoners of war, and if they do happen to be American or 
> coalition ground
> forces that have been captured, the Geneva Convention 
> indicates how they
> should be treated."(3) His statement came after interviews with five
> captured US soldiers had been broadcast on Iraqi television.(4)
> 
> On the same day, about 30 more detainees were flown from 
> Afghanistan to the
> US Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. This brought to about 660 the
> number of foreign nationals held in the base.(5) They come 
> from more than 40
> countries. Most were taken into custody during the international armed
> conflict in Afghanistan. Some have been held in Guantánamo, 
> without charge
> or trial, and without access to lawyers, relatives or the 
> courts, for more
> than a year. Their treatment has flouted international standards.
> 
> >From the outset, the US Government refused to grant any of 
> the Guantánamo
> detainees prisoner of war (POW) status or to have any disputed status
> determined by a "competent tribunal" as required under 
> Article 5 of the
> Third Geneva Convention. In April 2002, Amnesty International 
> warned the US
> administration that its selective approach to the Geneva Conventions
> threatened to undermine the effectiveness of international 
> humanitarian law
> protections for any US or other combatants captured in the 
> future.(6) The
> organization received no reply to this or other concerns it 
> raised about the
> detainees.
> 
> On the 9 February 2002, the International Committee of the 
> Red Cross (ICRC),
> the most authoritative body on the provisions of the Geneva 
> Conventions,
> revealed that there were "divergent views between the United 
> States and the
> ICRC on the procedures which apply on how to determine that 
> the persons
> detained are not entitled to prisoner of war status".(7) The ICRC news
> release said that the organization would pursue its dialogue 
> with the US
> Government on this issue. Nevertheless, to this day none of 
> the Guantánamo
> detainees have been granted POW status or appeared before a tribunal
> competent to determine their status.
> 
> The US has ignored not only the ICRC on this issue, but also 
> the United
> Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the 
> Inter-American Commission
> on Human Rights. More recently, on 16 December 2002, the UN 
> Working Group on
> Arbitrary Detention noted that "the authority which is competent to
> determine prisoner-of-war status is not the executive power, but the
> judicial power", as specified under article 5 of the Third Geneva
> Convention.
> 
> When the first of the detainees arrived in Guantánamo in 
> January 2002, the
> Pentagon released a photograph of the detainees in orange jumpsuits,
> kneeling before US soldiers, shackled, handcuffed, and 
> wearing blacked-out
> goggles over their eyes and masks over their mouths and noses. The
> photograph shocked world opinion and led Secretary Rumsfeld 
> to acknowledge
> that it was "probably unfortunate" that the picture had been 
> released, at
> least without better captioning. He added: "My recollection 
> is that there's
> something in the Geneva Conventions about press people being around
> prisoners; that - and not taking

Re: FT readers against the war

2003-03-26 Thread Carl Remick

From: Chris Burford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

... I am going to stick my neck out: if the people of the world and finance 
capitalism are not in favour of this war we should not expect it to be very 
successful politically. Who will be the fall guy?
Who will take the blame for any fiasco?  Judging from history, the left 
will.

Carl

_
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

From Amnesty International

Actually Iraq could very well claim that captured US troops are not governed
by the Geneva Convention. Since the war is  illegal they could very well
have joined the US dept of inventive terminology and called them illegal
combatants and put them in 7 by 8 ft containers.

Cheers, Ken Hanly

AI-index: AMR 51/045/2003 25/03/2003
Public
25 March 2003
AI Index: AMR 51/045/2003
http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/AMR510452003?Open&of=COUNTRIES\USA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
International standards for all

"There are international standards that civilized regimes adhere to and then
there are regimes like Saddam Hussein['s] ...". US Secretary of Defence, 23
March 2003(1)

On 23 March 2003, following the news that US soldiers had been captured by
Iraqi forces during the US-led attack on Iraq, President George Bush said
that "we expect them to be treated humanely, just like we'll treat any
prisoners of theirs that we capture humanely... If not, the people who
mistreat the prisoners will be treated as war criminals."(2)

Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld added that "the Geneva Convention
indicates that it's not permitted to photograph and embarrass or humiliate
prisoners of war, and if they do happen to be American or coalition ground
forces that have been captured, the Geneva Convention indicates how they
should be treated."(3) His statement came after interviews with five
captured US soldiers had been broadcast on Iraqi television.(4)

On the same day, about 30 more detainees were flown from Afghanistan to the
US Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. This brought to about 660 the
number of foreign nationals held in the base.(5) They come from more than 40
countries. Most were taken into custody during the international armed
conflict in Afghanistan. Some have been held in Guantánamo, without charge
or trial, and without access to lawyers, relatives or the courts, for more
than a year. Their treatment has flouted international standards.

>From the outset, the US Government refused to grant any of the Guantánamo
detainees prisoner of war (POW) status or to have any disputed status
determined by a "competent tribunal" as required under Article 5 of the
Third Geneva Convention. In April 2002, Amnesty International warned the US
administration that its selective approach to the Geneva Conventions
threatened to undermine the effectiveness of international humanitarian law
protections for any US or other combatants captured in the future.(6) The
organization received no reply to this or other concerns it raised about the
detainees.

On the 9 February 2002, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC),
the most authoritative body on the provisions of the Geneva Conventions,
revealed that there were "divergent views between the United States and the
ICRC on the procedures which apply on how to determine that the persons
detained are not entitled to prisoner of war status".(7) The ICRC news
release said that the organization would pursue its dialogue with the US
Government on this issue. Nevertheless, to this day none of the Guantánamo
detainees have been granted POW status or appeared before a tribunal
competent to determine their status.

The US has ignored not only the ICRC on this issue, but also the United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights. More recently, on 16 December 2002, the UN Working Group on
Arbitrary Detention noted that "the authority which is competent to
determine prisoner-of-war status is not the executive power, but the
judicial power", as specified under article 5 of the Third Geneva
Convention.

When the first of the detainees arrived in Guantánamo in January 2002, the
Pentagon released a photograph of the detainees in orange jumpsuits,
kneeling before US soldiers, shackled, handcuffed, and wearing blacked-out
goggles over their eyes and masks over their mouths and noses. The
photograph shocked world opinion and led Secretary Rumsfeld to acknowledge
that it was "probably unfortunate" that the picture had been released, at
least without better captioning. He added: "My recollection is that there's
something in the Geneva Conventions about press people being around
prisoners; that - and not taking pictures and not saying who they are and
not exposing them to ridicule".(8)

The USA's selective approach to the Geneva Conventions has been widely
noted. For example, with US soldiers captured in Iraq and shown on Iraqi
television to the anger of US officials, a Saudi Arabian newspaper, claiming
to be receiving one million visitors a day on its website, wrote:
"Rumsfeld's newfound affection for the Geneva Convention is remarkable...
The US does not believe that the prisoners now being held at Guantánamo Bay
are prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention. Pictures of the men there,
shackled and living in cages, were distributed by the Bush administration to
the world's media."(9)

Meanwhile the US continues to hold the Guantánamo detainee

RE: "Can't bomb Iraq and tell us to talk to Pak, India tells US"

2003-03-26 Thread Max B. Sawicky

More on Ledeen, poster child for U.S. imperialism,
as recounted by Josh Marshall:

This is the quote from Michael Ledeen, from this morning's event at AEI,
which I noted in the previous post.

The quote came in response to a question from the floor, asking how many
casualties the American public would be willing to endure and still support
the war in Iraq. This was the heart of his response ...

"I think it all depends how the war goes. And I think the level of
causalities is secondary. It may sound like an odd thing to say. But all the
great scholars who have studied American character have come to the
conclusion that we are a warlike people. And that we love war. And one of my
favorite comments on American character, which is Patton's speech at the
beginning of the movie, where he says "Americans love war. We love fighting.
We've always fought. We enjoy it. We're good at it. And so forth." What we
hate is not casualties but losing. And if the war goes well, and if the
American public has the conviction that we're being well-led, and that our
people are fighting well, and that we're winning, I don't think causalities
are gonna be the issue.

If the American public gets the idea that we're doing poorly, that we're
badly led, that the war plan is inferior, that we're being outmaneuvered,
outwitted and our guys are dying on behalf of a losing cause, then the
American people will turn against it. And that's the usual rule. "

Interestingly, in the neo-conservative circles in which he runs, Ledeen is
known not so much as an Iraq-hawk, but rather as an Iran-hawk.

RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Basra uprising wishful thinking?




of course, 
won't simply dropping money on the country cause inflation (or suppressed 
inflation, i.e., shortages, illegal markets, and unused currency)? it seems like 
one of the few situations when Milton Friedman is right... There isn't much 
chance that production can increase to prevent price changes. In fact, war 
reduces supply. 
 
BTW, I'm not 
sure that the money multiplier process works in the normal way during war-time, 
since the banks are likely in crisis. 
 
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine 

  -Original Message-From: soula avramidis 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 
  2003 3:13 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: 
  [PEN-L:36131] Re: Re: Re: Re: Basra uprising wishful 
  thinking?
  i had the multiplier in mind 
   Robert Scott Gassler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
  At 
02:01 26/03/03 -0800, soula avramidis wrote:>>>had 
the US managed a helicopter drop of 75 billion dollars on the 
Iraqipeople, I am sure that >this would raise percapita income five 
folds in iraq No but it would more than double it. The World Almanac 
2003 gives Iraq'spopulation as 24 million and per capita income at 2500 
US dollars. Roundingup I get 75 billion divided by 25 million equals 
3000 dollars apiece.Scott
  
  
  Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! 
  Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live 
  on your desktop!

re: US to lose war?




Chris writes: 
>I do not know quite where 
the odds have got to, 
but I share with Soula a feeling that there is a high probability the US 
will lose this war. I never bet money, but I would happily put 10 pounds on 
it.<
 
the 
experience with the US war against Vietnam showed (once again) that it's 
possible for both sides to lose a war. The US was humiliated, but did absolutely 
everything it could to destroy Vietnam, even after the war was officially 
over.
Jim

RE: Krugman

Title: RE: [PEN-L:36121] Krugman





it's interesting about Krugman and how he shows how the meaning of a concept can actually go from being reactionary to sort of progressive -- depending on the socio-political context. I'd say that the key concept in PK's columns these days is that of "crony capitalism" (though he's too good a writer to use the phrase over & over again). Originally, it summarized a Washington Consensus (IMF, World Bank, US Treasury) critique of places like South Korea, to justify the opening up of that country to Western (i.e., mostly US) capital and then (when the inflow of hot money turned into an outflow) to justify the fire-sale purchase of SK assets by Western capitalists. Now, it's part of PK's attack on the Bushists, from a left-establishmentarian perspective.

To my mind, crony capitalism has been the norm in the US as long as I've been conscious of what's going on (and even before, back in the 1950s). I guess that PK would say that the Bushist version is qualitatively worse? It's possible that he would be right (though McCarthyism, Cold War liberalism, etc. were pretty bad). A major reason for that shift has been the decline of the AFL-CIO from being a junior partner to being out of the game entirely, along with the post-1960s weakening of anti-establishmentarian movements (against war, environmental destruction, sexism, etc.) as they became bureaucratic and shrank into the Democratic Party. 

BTW, it's interesting that in the first paragraph he brings up fascism (though again he's too good a writer to use that word) by referring to Sinclair Lewis' novel of fascism coming to the US, IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE. As Lewis noted, when fascism comes to the US, it will be called "Americanism" or something like that. 


Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
stop the war now!




> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 10:02 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:36121] Krugman
> 
> 
> Krugman seems to be getting stronger and stronger.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/25/opinion/25KRUG.html
> -- 
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
> 
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>

The war against Islam in the North

What the heck why pay 250,000 a month when you can  call in US bombers for
free...

Cheers, Ken Hanly

PS. I have tried other addresses for Al Jezeera in English and cant get
through. At the time I sent the original address it worked. As well as being
hacked there seem to be technical troubles. Also, the US server is
withdrawing service at the end of this month.



US forces are now fighting two Islamic groups - one radical, one more
moderate - on a second front.

By Cameron W. Barr | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

SULAYMANIYAH, IRAQ - US troops are increasingly engaged in an attempt to
eliminate a militant group of several hundred Islamist fighters in
Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq.
In recent days the US has been expanding its military presence in the
region, in part to open an abbreviated "northern front" against areas
controlled by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. But an immediate goal is also
to assist Kurdish forces in the destruction of Ansar al Islam (Partisans of
Islam), an 18-month-old group, linked by the US to Al Qaeda, that controls
an enclave next to the Iranian border.


The US sent 40 to 50 cruise missiles into the area early Saturday morning
and aerial attacks have continued intermittently ever since.

Kurdish officials say they are waiting for a US go-ahead to mount a ground
assault.

But Ansar has not been the only target of US attack. Many of Saturday's
cruise missiles struck areas controlled by Komala Islami Kurdistan (Islamic
Group of Kurdistan), an armed but more moderate Islamist group that controls
villages next to the Ansar enclave. Despite PUK assertions to the contrary,
Komala leader Sheikh Ali Bapir said in an interview yesterday that his group
received no warning that it would come under US attack.

The US strikes have killed 43 Komala fighters, says Mr. Bapir. According to
Kamal Rahim, a senior member of the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan (IMK), a
third Kurdish group that wants an Islamic government, just seven Ansar
fighters have died as a result of US air assaults.

Targeting Komala may be an instance of making a problem worse in order to
make it better. The group has more fighters than Ansar and Bapir says many
of them now want to attack the the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), which
administers the eastern portion of the Kurdish zone.

But he says his group will remain "patient," at least until the larger war
to the south is concluded. The US attack against Iraq presents, he says, "a
severe situation for our nation and we must take it into consideration."

Mustafa Said Qadir, a PUK military commander, estimates that Komala has no
more than 1,000 fighters. Ansar is thought to include some 700 armed men.
Mr. Qadir says he is assembling a force of some 6,000 PUK militiamen for a
ground assault against Ansar that may include helicopter support and other
assistance from US soldiers and intelligence operatives, several hundred of
whom are now in the Kurdish zone.

The attacks on Komala may also reflect an inclination within the PUK to deal
aggressively with its Islamist opposition. Barham Salih, the PUK prime
minister, says his party advised Komala repeatedly to move away from the
Ansar enclave and to sever all contacts with its members.

Ansar has waged war against the secular PUK since it emerged as a coherent
group in September 2001. US and Kurdish officials assert that Ansar has ties
with Al Qaeda and that its mountainous enclave - which includes some 18
villages - has served as a haven for some of its fighters.

The group has imposed a fundamentalist version of Islam on the villagers in
its area, banning television, requiring beards, and insisting that stores
close during Muslim prayer times. It has also distributed gory footage of
its attacks against the PUK on its website.

As is true elsewhere in the Middle East, analysts caution that the
popularity of Islamic politics here is more a reflection of popular
frustration than a genuine response to the appeal of pious men with beards
and guns. "The Islamic groups in Kurdistan are the result of civil war and
the bad economic situation," says Shwan Ahmed, a writer and journalist who
has studied local Islamists. "They are not the result of people's belief in
the groups."

In contrast to Ansar, Komala cooperates with the PUK's administration of its
region in exchange for a monthly stipend of about $250,000. The group also
enforces Islamic principles but less stringent ones.

Dr. Salih says the group has continued to aid its radical brethren. "We told
them you are in bad company," Salih says. "You cannot have it both ways."

Another PUK official, speaking on condition of anonymity, isn't impressed by
the distinctions between the armed Islamist groups that operate in the
Kurdish areas. "They are all the same to us," he says. "To eliminate them
all is better," he adds. He nods his head in the affirmative when asked if
"eliminate" is a euphemism for "kill."

In early March, PUK soldiers at a checkpoint outside Sula

No Bones for Blair puppy yet..

They better make sure the port is secure before they get there. US civilian
casualties wouldnt look good.

Cheers, Ken Hanly

US firm wins Umm Qasr deal


There was greater resistance in Umm Qasr than the US expected
A US company has won a $4.8m (£3m) contract to manage Umm Qasr port in
southern Iraq.
The contract is the second awarded under US Government plans for
reconstruction in Iraq.

Stevedoring Services of America will be responsible for operating Iraq's
only deep-water port, with the aim of allowing food and other humanitarian
and reconstruction materials and supplies to be delivered efficiently.

The company "will provide an initial port assessment, develop improvement
plans... and supply technical expertise to ensure an adequate flow of
through shipment", said the US Agency for International Development (USAID),
the client for the project.

"The company will be responsible for the port pilots who will guide ships up
the channel, and will manage the access of trucking companies to the port
and establish a system of controls to avoid theft and corruption."

 UK firms were said to be incensed by the solicitation of bids from US
companies to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure



Analysis: UK firms' view

USAID did not say when work would start on the contract or how long it would
last.

UK ports operator P&O said it had put in a bid for the Umm Qasr work but had
been unsuccessful.

Oil well fires

US engineering firm Kellogg Brown & Root - part of Halliburton, the company
once headed by US vice-president Dick Cheney - picked up a contract to put
out oil well fires and repair oil facilities.

The US Army Corps of Engineers, which let the contract, said the work would
be of "limited duration" and was on a "cost-plus" basis with no defined
value.

The contractor said its initial task involved hazard assessment, putting out
fires, capping oil well blowouts and responding to any oil spills.

"Following this task, KBR will perform emergency repair, as directed, to
provide for the continuity of operations of the Iraqi oil infrastructure,"
it said.

KBR said it was awarded the contract because it was the only contractor that
could start work at extremely short notice.

It subcontracted the firefighting element of the work to Houston-based firms
Boots & Coots International Well Control and Wild Well Control.

UK complaints

Earlier this month, USAID invited five US engineering giants to submit bids
for Iraq reconstruction work expected to be worth up to $900m.

The companies were Bechtel, Louis Berger, Fluor, Kellogg Brown & Root and
The Parsons Corporation.

USAID plans call for operating ports and airports and repairing utility
networks, roads, bridges, schools and hospitals.

UK construction firms have complained privately about not being invited to
bid. But it is thought possible that some will pick up sub-contracting work
from US lead contractors.

Re: Re: From goofy dream to reality?

Let the arse be though the world perish!

Cheers, Ken Hanly

- Original Message - ht a
> certain kind of aesthetic freedom exemplified by the phrase, Fiat ars --
pereat mundus.
>
> Tom Walker
>

"Can't bomb Iraq and tell us to talk to Pak, India tells US"

2003-03-26 Thread Tom Walker

Dear Dubya-Dubya III & Duce bin Ledeen,

Unlike your designated demon, "Saddam Hussein," India and Pakistan have nukular 
weapons of mass destruction. Maybe after "taking
out" Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, you'll have enough cruise tomahawks and humvees 
left for a quick sweep across the sub-continent?

"New Delhi, March 25: India on Tuesday countered the renewed call by the US for 
resumption of talks with Pakistan, asking why
military action was resorted to against Iraq and Afghanistan instead of dialogue to 
resolve the crisis confronting the two
countries. "If dialogue per se is more critical than combating international terrorism 
with all necessary means, then one can
legitimately ask why both in Afghanistan and Iraq military action instead of dialogue 
has been resorted to," External Affairs
Ministry spokesman told reporters.

"He was asked about remarks made by US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher in 
Washington that "violence will not solve
Kashmir's problems. Dialogue remains a critical element in the normalization of 
relations between India and Pakistan."

Chickens. Home. Roost.

Duct tape is for dummies; stock up on piano wire.

Tom Walker
604 255 4812

Re: Press Lapdogs for "Coalition" Forces

2003-03-26 Thread Rob Schaap

G'day Michael,

Rendon - apparently the inventors of the Iraqi National Congress - is
another that comes to mind..

There's plenty on that via Google.

Cheers,
Rob.

Michael Hoover wrote:
> 
> "embedding" - pentagon-speak for new policy of attaching journalists to particular 
> military units  - has resulted in overwhelmingly pro-war/pro-military coverage thus 
> far...
> 
> any listers know which firms were contracted to create public support in months 
> preceding war, wirthlin group (founded by one-time prez raygun consultant richard 
> wirthlin) and Hill & Knowlton (who did work for right-wing el salvador arena party 
> in 80s) did bulk of propaganda prior to gulf war 1...  michael hoover
> 
> > Reporters Respond Eagerly to Pentagon Welcome Mat
> >
> > March 23, 2003
> > By TODD S. PURDUM and JIM RUTENBERG
> >
> >
> > WASHINGTON, March 22 - Last fall, the White House chief of
> > staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., likened the Bush
> > administration's drive to build support for the possible
> > war with Iraq to a product-marketing campaign. That effort
> > produced mixed results, but so far the war itself is
> > selling like beer on a troopship, thanks in part to
> > compelling news accounts from reporters bunking with
> > frontline units.
> >
> > Carefully devised by the Pentagon to counter years of
> > complaints by news organizations about restrictions on
> > combat coverage, the new policy of "embedding" more than
> > 500 reporters with invading troops has produced riveting
> > images of fighter jets on carriers and tanks plowing across
> > the Iraqi desert, accompanied by household faces like Ted
> > Koppel of ABC's "Nightline," and of surrendering Iraqi
> > soldiers with their hands held high.
> >
> > Like the most sophisticated Madison Avenue marketers,
> > Pentagon planners have also reached out to diverse outlets
> > where public opinion is shaped, by including reporters from
> > MTV, Rolling Stone, People magazine and Men's Health, and
> > foreign journalists running the gamut from Al Jazeera, the
> > Arabic-language television channel, to Russia's Itar-Tass
> > news agency.
> >
> > But for all the military's orchestration, news
> > organizations have so far expressed satisfaction with the
> > arrangements, which offer much greater access in exchange
> > for relatively few restrictions. And the bulk of the
> > coverage has been so positive as to verge on celebratory.
> >
> > Dave Sirulnick, the executive in charge of MTV News, whose
> > correspondent Gideon Yago recently asked a young marine,
> > "Dude, how was it to tell your wife that you were going off
> > to the Iraqi border?" said he was not sure of the
> > Pentagon's motivation. "But I do know that by allowing
> > their soldiers to speak openly and freely to us, they are
> > coming off a lot more credibly," Mr. Sirulnick said.
> > "Instead of thinking of these guys as G.I. Joes and
> > Robocops, you get to meet them and see they are young guys
> > and girls just like the folks who are watching."
> >
> > Some reporters have been given extraordinary access,
> > allowed to sit in on secret briefings, watching
> > computerized maps of the battlefield with the latest
> > satellite photos, in the middle of the Kuwait desert, for
> > example. The cardinal rule: No reporting, not even any
> > phone calls to their editors, that might divulge details of
> > future operations, and no private satellite telephones,
> > cellphones or sidearms. Showers are scarce, hot meals
> > spotty, but reporters assigned to military units recount
> > friendly, open conversations with G.I.'s, surgeons,
> > drivers, dentists and communications experts, described by
> > one correspondent as "quite talkative" and "extremely
> > interested in what I do."
> >
> > The new policy has only begun to be tested in battle, and
> > Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the allied commander in the Persian
> > Gulf, was said by associates to have been upset to read too
> > many details about planes and missiles in the war's
> > opening-night raids in his morning newspaper.
> >
> > The Pentagon's chief spokeswoman, Victoria Clarke, warned
> > editors in a conference call on Wednesday that some reports
> > had already provided too much specific information about
> > troop locations and movements, and that even if commanders
> > on the scene divulged such information, it was up to news
> > organizations to withhold it under detailed guidelines to
> > which each agreed in exchange for the reporting berths.
> >
> > Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld delivered his first
> > briefing on the war on Thursday in front of an image of a
> > little girl in pigtails and the warning: "Don't kill her
> > Daddy with careless words."
> >
> > But there have been no reports of serious disputes on the
> > scene, and by the end of the week Mr. Rumsfeld went so far
> > as to praise the robust reporting as "historic" and said,
> > "I doubt that in a conflict of this type, there's ever been
> > the degree of free press covera

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Basra uprising wishful thinking?

2003-03-26 Thread Robert Scott Gassler

Holy mackerel, you're right. I get sixfold. If the (money) multiplier is 5.

At 03:13 26/03/03 -0800, soula avramidis wrote:
>i had the multiplier in mind  <> wrote: At 02:01 26/03/03 -0800, soula
>avramidis wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>had the US managed a helicopter drop of 75 billion dollars on the Iraqi
>>this would raise percapita income five folds in iraq 
>
>No but it would more than double it. The World Almanac 2003 gives Iraq's
>population as 24 million and per capita income at 2500 US dollars. Rounding
>up I get 75 billion divided by 25 million equals 3000 dollars apiece.
>
>Scott
>
>
>Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Basra uprising wishful thinking?

i had the multiplier in mind
 Robert Scott Gassler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 02:01 26/03/03 -0800, soula avramidis wrote:>>>had the US managed a helicopter drop of 75 billion dollars on the Iraqipeople, I am sure that >this would raise percapita income five folds in iraq No but it would more than double it. The World Almanac 2003 gives Iraq'spopulation as 24 million and per capita income at 2500 US dollars. Roundingup I get 75 billion divided by 25 million equals 3000 dollars apiece.ScottDo you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!

Re: Re: Re: Basra uprising wishful thinking?

2003-03-26 Thread Robert Scott Gassler

At 02:01 26/03/03 -0800, soula avramidis wrote:
>
>
>
had the US managed a helicopter drop of 75 billion dollars on the Iraqi
people, I am sure that >this would raise percapita income five folds in iraq 

No but it would more than double it. The World Almanac 2003 gives Iraq's
population as 24 million and per capita income at 2500 US dollars. Rounding
up I get 75 billion divided by 25 million equals 3000 dollars apiece.

Scott

Re: Re: Basra uprising wishful thinking?

I do not know quite where the odds have got to, but I share with Soula a feeling that there is a high probability the US will lose this war. I never bet money, but I would happily put 10 pounds on it.Come to think of it, I wonder if Ladbrokes are quoting odds, or would that be unpatriotic?Chris BurfordLondon
judging by my own experience, the rift between dream and reality can be immense. in my youth I passed the question "what did you want to be when you grow up to a homeless person, and that led to a fight from which I escaped unscathed simply because then I could run"
later there was the impending brush with dialectics which in one respect says, things have their own logic and therefore it might be fool hardy to guess. guessing is the worst form of a travail d'esprit, or the closest thing to living hell.
but last night, four events occurred and none have to do with military balance- the US is far more superior: the Shiite mullahs in Lebanon, Iran, and Iraq said "fight for martyrdom," and the biggest demonstration in Beirut yet was carried out by Shiite factions brandishing the Iraqi flag. this irrespective of tech superiority tips things in Iraqs favour.
but another item is also developing, which is if the war lasts, and the Iraqi leadership can still have a voice to the outside, in its hour of parting it might take many Arab regimes with it. Jordan first. the buffer state will be no more and a billion Muslim lie behind those borders.
pragmatism is positivism or thought without any scope or vision. the US bush and his class have gravely miscalculated, they do not see that things are related to other things outside their immediate surroundings, and that although the universal in reality might not exist, but the general does.
had the US managed a helicopter drop of 75 billion dollars on the Iraqi people, I am sure that this would raise percapita income five folds in iraq and it would mean that the US may take the oil for free given the Iraqis traditional generosity. i recommend fish baked under the hot sands on the tigris with a local variety of alcohol made of dates, and may say iraqi cuisine is my favorite, mind i have been around.
instead one sees poor demoralized drafted soldiers who otherwise could have been unemployed at home acting as gun fodder for imperialism and a mass of people in Iraq victims of their man made fate on all counts. but on the up side of the dialectic of life, war is the best time for love.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!

FT readers against the war


In an opinion poll released yesterday, support for the war in Britain had
shot up to (I quote from memory) 54% against about 30% against. So
Blair's gamble that people would rally round the war, even without UN
approval, has been proved correct. Possibly they big show of a full
transparent debate provided the moral equivalent of that sense of due
process.

However the poll was taken at the weekend before the mounting troubles of
the campaign. 

One detail was interesting, although the base numbers were small for each
category, the results were analysed by newspaper readership. The readers
of the broadsheet press remained against the war, including the readers
of the Financial Times. 

This is not a clever war for finance capitalism even if the US armaments
industry may benefit. Fundamentally it does not represent the interests
of finance capitalism. 

Yes it is a stretch, but I am going to stick my neck out: if the people
of the world and finance capitalism are not in favour of
this war we should not expect it to be very successful politically. Who
will be the fall guy?

Chris Burford
London

Blair spins against Bush

At 2003-03-25 21:46 +, I wrote:
 Bush fails to back Blair


I think I got this a little wrong. I think this is a very clever typical 
Alistair Campbell spin. I am not being paranoid I am just being vigilant.

The Brits just managed to have the information about the summit ready for 
the Newsnight programme two nights ago, when they had Geoff Hoon on and it 
became apparent (to me IMHO!) that the coalition strategy cannot work. They 
are careful to say that the story about the summit first broke in the USA. 
That is easy to arrange.

This am the Downing Street reporter was extremely well briefed about how 
difficult this meeting was going to be for nice Tony: how Tony really wants 
the UN involved in the peace keeping process, and George does not. and how 
important the Road Map is. Claire Short is being given prominence  to 
provide another focus and a human interest story about the dilemmas of a 
tortured conscience while we struggle for rehabilitation of a country we 
are actually devastating.

And this morning British industrial spokespersons are well on queue with 
information about how not one nice British company has been given one 
contract for the rebuilding of Iraq, and how they have all gone to the US. 
How it is not really fair  or dignified that we have generously been 
allowed to bid to subcontract. And how nice Patricia Hewitt has done her 
best from the Department of Trade and Industry, and we all have to hope 
that Tony will have a not so quiet word with George.

The point of the spinning is this. Blair never suffered ever from 
confronting the left wing in his party, because he is expert at framing the 
agenda and has Campbell to manage the spin. It only added to his authority. 
The British government is now tacking a little bit back towards 
mid-Atlantic, and if you analyse it is spinning against Bush. It will 
bolster, not undermine, Tony's standing. He gets the best of both worlds. 
He remains central to the agenda.

He is also thinking ahead to an exit strategy, which Bush has not got. That 
weakens Bush's position however condescending he appears at the moment.

But lets see if the Guardian group provide any corroboration of my hunch.

Chris Burford
London

Re: Basra uprising wishful thinking?