Don K Dyck
Devilish Don Downunder
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2002
- Posts
- 8,255
Good evening. Here is the news.
A poll results released bythe Sydney Morning Herald, the oldest newspaper in Oz, show that for various surveys about the U$-Iraq Imperialist War for Control of Undeveloped Middle East Oil Reserves, of those responding
1. 63% were against the war (31% for; 4% Undecided, 10,047));
2. 65% felt that protests should continue (34%against, 2% undecided, 3375)
3. 75% felt that the Oz government should release the legal advice they received on Iraq (21% against; 4% undecided)
4. 81% were NOT persuaded by the speech by Prim Monster Little Honest Johnnie "Flakjacket" Howard (18% persuaded; 3% undecided; 1994).
Meanwhile, only select AmeriKKKan corporations with close ties to the White House have been invited to bid for government contracts to re-build Iraq. This policy puts at risk Oz wheat and primary products trade valued conservatively at $us1.5 billion per year . . . good one, Honest Johnnie, the farmers will be pleased . . .
This unique strategy is designed to extract the maximum oil from Iraq for the least cost by applying a "Reverse Marshall Plan". Te U$ Dubyah Shrub appointed Administration has kindly allocated $us 250 billion expenditure by the Iraqis for each of the next ten years. These contracts let on behalf of the Iraqi people colonised by the U$ Invasion and ratified by the U$ Occupation Government, will guarantee that those nasty Europeans will not be able to access Iraqi oil reserves. The huge re-building costs will impose a "war debt" on the "liberated" Iraqi people for failing to overthrow Saddam Hussein when promised U$ aid was not provided during 1996.
From the Sydney Morning Herald
The emerging conflict: how to run the peace
By Martin Woollacott
March 27 2003
It may not be too much to say that the shape of the postwar world and not just of postwar Iraq could be decided in that country once the fighting is over.
The most immediate issue is the role of the United Nations in Iraq.
Mr Bush is under pressure from people inside and outside the Administration who want to keep the UN out.
Yet he may also see the UN might be the only "exit strategy" for a US military that does not want to stay in Iraq as a peacekeeping force in any strength, even though, paradoxically, it wants bases there, and for an American civilian mission that may not be able to manage Iraq's difficult politics on its own.
Mr Bush will want to keep his options open, but without committing himself at this stage.
Mr Blair, on the other hand, needs the UN to the fore now to reassure both his critics and supporters in Britain and as a way of mending fences with France and Germany.
At a deeper level the question is whether Mr Blair's belief in the international institutions at whose head the UN stands will be accommodated by the more pragmatic elements in the Bush Administration, or whether the ideologues will prevail.
It comes down to the basic question of how Iraq is to be run. A tripartite system for the governance of Iraq has already been created by the Americans. It is unlike any which has been put in place after conflicts in recent years.
In Cambodia, East Timor, Bosnia and Kosovo, peacekeeping - the military component - was in the hands of an internationally endorsed force drawn from many countries.
In Iraq the force will be overwhelmingly American, with some Britons and perhaps some troops from other countries which have supported America over the war. In those other territories, a multinational civil administration was established, while the Americans have created a purely American team, headed by retired army general Jay Garner.
No jobs for Britons are included in it, probably neither offered nor desired.
Finally, in the other territories, the UN agencies and the major non-governmental organisations were the main organisers of aid and reconstruction, while in Iraq commercial firms, so far only American, are bidding for contracts not only for roads, bridges, power plants and water treatment but even, apparently, for some aspects of political reconstruction, such as the reconstitution of local government.
This combination of military occupation, pro-consular administration, and corporate reconstruction is, however, not supposed to continue unalloyed for more than a couple of months.
That is why attention is focusing on the next stage - the partial handover of power to Iraqis - and an attempt to agree on a role for the UN.
The battle in Washington this week has been between those who want to draw most members of an interim Iraq administration from the leaders of the Iraqi National Congress and those who want an assembly of representatives from all the Iraqi regions to choose such an administration.
It is a classic post-liberation conflict between insiders and outsiders and between different groups of both, and it also raises the question of the participation of supposedly "clean" elements of President Saddam Hussein's forces.
Yet, as another Washington expert put it, "it is hard to overestimate the bloody-minded nationalism of some of these people".
Nor would the UN be a passive third party to such an argument in Washington.
Jan Kavan, president of the General Assembly, says the Security Council would have to be convinced the UN was being given a substantial and honourable role.
The US Administration is not divided on the need to have the dominant voice in post-Saddam Iraq. But it is divided on the means of doing so.
The armed forces want as little peacekeeping as they can get away with, yet the Pentagon wants to re-base its Middle Eastern forces from Saudi Arabia to Iraq.
The Administration does not want to pay huge sums, on top of the astonishing $75 billion requested for the war this week, to run Iraq, yet knows that taking the money out of Iraq's oil revenues would be politically counterproductive.
The anti-UN crowd want the world body kept out of Iraq except for humanitarian work.
Yet the US State Department knows the UN would bring some legitimacy, Mr Bush knows the road to other people's money lies through the UN, and his ally Mr Blair needs the UN to be in Iraq as a partner and not as a servant.
The Guardian
However, not every member of the White house staff of Fundamentalist Christians will reap the benefits of their Imperialist war of Conquest on Iraq.
Mr Perle appears to be working for a very rich Hong Kong Chinese, while he has been "advising" the Dubyah Shrub Appointed Administration.
From the Sydney Morning Herald
Invasion architect in hot water over conflicts of another kind
March 27 2003
A senior US Democrat has called for an investigation of Richard Perle, an architect of the war on Iraq, for possible conflicts of interest in his roles as corporate adviser and Pentagon consultant.
John Conyers, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives judiciary committee, asked the Pentagon's inspector-general to investigate Mr Perle's work as a paid adviser to the bankrupt telecommunications company Global Crossing and his guidance on investment opportunities resulting from the Iraq war.
"I am aware of several potential conflicts that warrant your immediate review," Mr Conyers said in a letter to the Defence Department's inspector-general, Joseph Schmitz.
"The President is confident that all laws will be followed by all people who are on all commissions," the White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said.
Mr Perle chairs the Defence Policy Board, created in 2001 to advise the Pentagon, but has no official policymaking role and is not paid. He has played an influential role in developing the Bush Administration's blueprint for ousting Saddam Hussein.
Critics have questioned Mr Perle's activities when not advising the Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld.
Mr Perle signed on to help Global Crossing, a bankrupt operator of an international fibre-optic network, win US approval to sell a 61.5per cent stake to Hutchison Whampoa and Singapore Technologies Telemedia.
The plan has run into trouble with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US. Including Mr Rumsfeld and other top national security officials, the panel can block mergers and acquisitions it feels could harm US interests.
Global Crossing began talks to restructure the deal after the committee raised concerns that its network would be controlled by a company with strong ties to China.
Hutchison is majority-owned by Hong Kong's richest man, Li Ka-shing.
Mr Perle has said he would be paid $US125,000 ($210,225) for his advice and another $US600,000 if the Government approved the deal.
Reuters
Meanwhile, back at the Imperialist War of Conquest in Iraq, the patriot missiles appear to have an appetite for "Coalition" aircraft.
From the Sydney Morning Herald
America's Patriots may be infected with deadly glitch
By Jonathan Weisman in Washington
March 27 2003
For the second time in two days, an American Patriot missile defence battery has apparently locked its sights on a coalition fighter plane, raising fears that the system's targeting software is infected with a deadly glitch.
United States defence officials said on Tuesday that a Patriot system about 48 kilometres south of Najaf apparently locked on to a US Air Force F-16 fighter on Monday and prepared to fire. The F-16 responded by firing a high-speed anti-radiation missile at the battery and destroying its radar dish. No one was injured.
The incident came a day after a Patriot missile shot down a British Royal Air Force Tornado, killing both crew members.
Hours later another two British servicemen were killed by friendly fire when their tank was mistakenly targeted by another British tank while fighting Iraqi forces west of Basra.
The latest casualties take the number of British servicemen listed as dead or missing in the war to 22. Only two were killed in action.
In Washington, a defence official was cautious about blaming the Patriot. "Error on the battlefield is more often than not human error. "I wouldn't want to pin this on anyone yet."
But other Pentagon officials and independent weapons experts were far less circumspect. "It's obviously a software glitch," one defence official said. "Jets go fast, but there's no way they should be mistaking them for a Scud going supersonic."
The details of both incidents raise doubts that human error could have been responsible, defence technology experts said. One said the Patriot crew took cover and left the missile battery operating largely on automatic, which indicated that the Patriot system, not human error, targeted the F-16.
John Pike, a defence technology expert, said the Tornado would have been tracked by multiple air defence systems as it returned to Kuwait, and only the Patriot fired. "There is evidently a problem."
The Patriot system is far too important for the two incidents to take it out of action, Mr Pike said.
The Washington Post and Reuters
Other propaganda about the Imperialist War of Conquest can be obtained from the SMH feature
IRAQ SPECIAL FEATURE
Now all we neeed is for Oz Radio ABC to resume normal programming rather than continue the plot from Ray bradbury's Fahrenheit 451.
That ends the news. Good night.
A poll results released bythe Sydney Morning Herald, the oldest newspaper in Oz, show that for various surveys about the U$-Iraq Imperialist War for Control of Undeveloped Middle East Oil Reserves, of those responding
1. 63% were against the war (31% for; 4% Undecided, 10,047));
2. 65% felt that protests should continue (34%against, 2% undecided, 3375)
3. 75% felt that the Oz government should release the legal advice they received on Iraq (21% against; 4% undecided)
4. 81% were NOT persuaded by the speech by Prim Monster Little Honest Johnnie "Flakjacket" Howard (18% persuaded; 3% undecided; 1994).
Meanwhile, only select AmeriKKKan corporations with close ties to the White House have been invited to bid for government contracts to re-build Iraq. This policy puts at risk Oz wheat and primary products trade valued conservatively at $us1.5 billion per year . . . good one, Honest Johnnie, the farmers will be pleased . . .
This unique strategy is designed to extract the maximum oil from Iraq for the least cost by applying a "Reverse Marshall Plan". Te U$ Dubyah Shrub appointed Administration has kindly allocated $us 250 billion expenditure by the Iraqis for each of the next ten years. These contracts let on behalf of the Iraqi people colonised by the U$ Invasion and ratified by the U$ Occupation Government, will guarantee that those nasty Europeans will not be able to access Iraqi oil reserves. The huge re-building costs will impose a "war debt" on the "liberated" Iraqi people for failing to overthrow Saddam Hussein when promised U$ aid was not provided during 1996.
From the Sydney Morning Herald
The emerging conflict: how to run the peace
By Martin Woollacott
March 27 2003
It may not be too much to say that the shape of the postwar world and not just of postwar Iraq could be decided in that country once the fighting is over.
The most immediate issue is the role of the United Nations in Iraq.
Mr Bush is under pressure from people inside and outside the Administration who want to keep the UN out.
Yet he may also see the UN might be the only "exit strategy" for a US military that does not want to stay in Iraq as a peacekeeping force in any strength, even though, paradoxically, it wants bases there, and for an American civilian mission that may not be able to manage Iraq's difficult politics on its own.
Mr Bush will want to keep his options open, but without committing himself at this stage.
Mr Blair, on the other hand, needs the UN to the fore now to reassure both his critics and supporters in Britain and as a way of mending fences with France and Germany.
At a deeper level the question is whether Mr Blair's belief in the international institutions at whose head the UN stands will be accommodated by the more pragmatic elements in the Bush Administration, or whether the ideologues will prevail.
It comes down to the basic question of how Iraq is to be run. A tripartite system for the governance of Iraq has already been created by the Americans. It is unlike any which has been put in place after conflicts in recent years.
In Cambodia, East Timor, Bosnia and Kosovo, peacekeeping - the military component - was in the hands of an internationally endorsed force drawn from many countries.
In Iraq the force will be overwhelmingly American, with some Britons and perhaps some troops from other countries which have supported America over the war. In those other territories, a multinational civil administration was established, while the Americans have created a purely American team, headed by retired army general Jay Garner.
No jobs for Britons are included in it, probably neither offered nor desired.
Finally, in the other territories, the UN agencies and the major non-governmental organisations were the main organisers of aid and reconstruction, while in Iraq commercial firms, so far only American, are bidding for contracts not only for roads, bridges, power plants and water treatment but even, apparently, for some aspects of political reconstruction, such as the reconstitution of local government.
This combination of military occupation, pro-consular administration, and corporate reconstruction is, however, not supposed to continue unalloyed for more than a couple of months.
That is why attention is focusing on the next stage - the partial handover of power to Iraqis - and an attempt to agree on a role for the UN.
The battle in Washington this week has been between those who want to draw most members of an interim Iraq administration from the leaders of the Iraqi National Congress and those who want an assembly of representatives from all the Iraqi regions to choose such an administration.
It is a classic post-liberation conflict between insiders and outsiders and between different groups of both, and it also raises the question of the participation of supposedly "clean" elements of President Saddam Hussein's forces.
Yet, as another Washington expert put it, "it is hard to overestimate the bloody-minded nationalism of some of these people".
Nor would the UN be a passive third party to such an argument in Washington.
Jan Kavan, president of the General Assembly, says the Security Council would have to be convinced the UN was being given a substantial and honourable role.
The US Administration is not divided on the need to have the dominant voice in post-Saddam Iraq. But it is divided on the means of doing so.
The armed forces want as little peacekeeping as they can get away with, yet the Pentagon wants to re-base its Middle Eastern forces from Saudi Arabia to Iraq.
The Administration does not want to pay huge sums, on top of the astonishing $75 billion requested for the war this week, to run Iraq, yet knows that taking the money out of Iraq's oil revenues would be politically counterproductive.
The anti-UN crowd want the world body kept out of Iraq except for humanitarian work.
Yet the US State Department knows the UN would bring some legitimacy, Mr Bush knows the road to other people's money lies through the UN, and his ally Mr Blair needs the UN to be in Iraq as a partner and not as a servant.
The Guardian
However, not every member of the White house staff of Fundamentalist Christians will reap the benefits of their Imperialist war of Conquest on Iraq.
Mr Perle appears to be working for a very rich Hong Kong Chinese, while he has been "advising" the Dubyah Shrub Appointed Administration.
From the Sydney Morning Herald
Invasion architect in hot water over conflicts of another kind
March 27 2003
A senior US Democrat has called for an investigation of Richard Perle, an architect of the war on Iraq, for possible conflicts of interest in his roles as corporate adviser and Pentagon consultant.
John Conyers, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives judiciary committee, asked the Pentagon's inspector-general to investigate Mr Perle's work as a paid adviser to the bankrupt telecommunications company Global Crossing and his guidance on investment opportunities resulting from the Iraq war.
"I am aware of several potential conflicts that warrant your immediate review," Mr Conyers said in a letter to the Defence Department's inspector-general, Joseph Schmitz.
"The President is confident that all laws will be followed by all people who are on all commissions," the White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said.
Mr Perle chairs the Defence Policy Board, created in 2001 to advise the Pentagon, but has no official policymaking role and is not paid. He has played an influential role in developing the Bush Administration's blueprint for ousting Saddam Hussein.
Critics have questioned Mr Perle's activities when not advising the Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld.
Mr Perle signed on to help Global Crossing, a bankrupt operator of an international fibre-optic network, win US approval to sell a 61.5per cent stake to Hutchison Whampoa and Singapore Technologies Telemedia.
The plan has run into trouble with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US. Including Mr Rumsfeld and other top national security officials, the panel can block mergers and acquisitions it feels could harm US interests.
Global Crossing began talks to restructure the deal after the committee raised concerns that its network would be controlled by a company with strong ties to China.
Hutchison is majority-owned by Hong Kong's richest man, Li Ka-shing.
Mr Perle has said he would be paid $US125,000 ($210,225) for his advice and another $US600,000 if the Government approved the deal.
Reuters
Meanwhile, back at the Imperialist War of Conquest in Iraq, the patriot missiles appear to have an appetite for "Coalition" aircraft.
From the Sydney Morning Herald
America's Patriots may be infected with deadly glitch
By Jonathan Weisman in Washington
March 27 2003
For the second time in two days, an American Patriot missile defence battery has apparently locked its sights on a coalition fighter plane, raising fears that the system's targeting software is infected with a deadly glitch.
United States defence officials said on Tuesday that a Patriot system about 48 kilometres south of Najaf apparently locked on to a US Air Force F-16 fighter on Monday and prepared to fire. The F-16 responded by firing a high-speed anti-radiation missile at the battery and destroying its radar dish. No one was injured.
The incident came a day after a Patriot missile shot down a British Royal Air Force Tornado, killing both crew members.
Hours later another two British servicemen were killed by friendly fire when their tank was mistakenly targeted by another British tank while fighting Iraqi forces west of Basra.
The latest casualties take the number of British servicemen listed as dead or missing in the war to 22. Only two were killed in action.
In Washington, a defence official was cautious about blaming the Patriot. "Error on the battlefield is more often than not human error. "I wouldn't want to pin this on anyone yet."
But other Pentagon officials and independent weapons experts were far less circumspect. "It's obviously a software glitch," one defence official said. "Jets go fast, but there's no way they should be mistaking them for a Scud going supersonic."
The details of both incidents raise doubts that human error could have been responsible, defence technology experts said. One said the Patriot crew took cover and left the missile battery operating largely on automatic, which indicated that the Patriot system, not human error, targeted the F-16.
John Pike, a defence technology expert, said the Tornado would have been tracked by multiple air defence systems as it returned to Kuwait, and only the Patriot fired. "There is evidently a problem."
The Patriot system is far too important for the two incidents to take it out of action, Mr Pike said.
The Washington Post and Reuters
Other propaganda about the Imperialist War of Conquest can be obtained from the SMH feature
IRAQ SPECIAL FEATURE
Now all we neeed is for Oz Radio ABC to resume normal programming rather than continue the plot from Ray bradbury's Fahrenheit 451.
That ends the news. Good night.
