SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   PoliticsWorld Affairs Discussion


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Yaacov who wrote (1909)9/13/2002 5:51:48 PM
From: average joe
   of 3959
 
They did not produce that poll on Morocco public opinion Gus was fretting about here?

#reply-17879568

The sleeping giant (islamic terrorists) will go back to sleep when they are no longer being funded by the Sheikhs.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (1919)9/13/2002 6:15:27 PM
From: Raymond Duray
   of 3959
 
Gus,

Re: C'mon, that guy Brzezinski's been out of the loop for the past 22 years!!!

I believe you are demonstrating naivete about this. Brzezinski has been very much involved, albeit not in public office, for the entire period. He has a very important role to play at the Council on Foreign Relations and is recently installed on the board of directors of a newly formed Central Asia pipeline company.

Cf.:
cooperativeresearch.org

Article Citation:

Date: 9-2-2002
Outline: U.S. ruling elites divided over Iraq, Israel calls for immediate war
RE: Scowcroft, Baker, and Brzezinski have all expressed some degree of opposition to the Pentagon's war plans - one interpretation of why this is so.

TEXT:

G Observations.
1 Division among the ‘elites,’ as they are often called, is rooted in their diverging interests.
a Summary.

i CCR interprets the current infighting over how to proceed in Iraq as a reflection of the diverging interests of the current U.S. leadership. While it is impossible to know for sure why the Baker et al crowd is opposed to the Pentagon’s war plans, there exists some significant clues that might indicate what is behind their sudden change of heart.

On August 1, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company (BTC Co.) was founded to construct and operate the long awaited pipeline that will bring oil from the Caspian oil fields of Azerbaijan to the Mediterranean Sea. The BTC pipeline route, the viability of which as been repeatedly challenged by both ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco, was strongly endorsed and lobbied for by the U.S.-Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce (USACC) [profile]. Several of the most prominent “anti-war” voices happen to be on its board of directors, including James Baker III, Zbigniew Brzezinski,

<Continues.........>

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: Raymond Duray who wrote (1921)9/13/2002 7:56:59 PM
From: lorne
   of 3959
 
Board candidate's ideas kindle Hispanics' outcry
Sep. 11, 2002
"Senior citizens often work part-time just to pay bills -- yet the illegal alien is provided a free education, welfare, food stamps, medical care," Morris wrote. "We cannot afford to continue to be held hostage to this kind of loose and unpatriotic expenditure of the American dollar."
Full story >>>
kansascity.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (1919)9/13/2002 8:48:29 PM
From: lorne
   of 3959
 
Looks like Israel was correct in the way they dealt with the arab/pals....you agree? :o)
Arafat's political defeat called end of one-man rule
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Friday, September 13, 2002
RAMALLAH — The joint resignation of Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat's cabinet spared the humiliation of a vote of no-confidence and constituted a significant political defeat, analysts said.

Palestinian sources said the vote against Arafat was a signal by at least 57 out of 88 legislators for the PA chairman to agree to the appointment of a prime minister and end his one-man rule. They said the Fatah Central Council had approached Arafat's key aide, Mahmoud Abbas, in late August to submit his candidacy.

Arafat was forced to disband his 21-member Cabinet on Wednesday when Palestinian legislators refused to approve a motion of confidence. Arafat now has two weeks to present a new Cabinet to the Palestinian Legislative Council.

"For years, we have thought that the chairman requires strategic ministers and should not deal with daily tasks," Palestinian legislator Khaddoura Fares said. "We are talking of the need of new leadership, rather than just one man."

Israeli and Palestinian analysts said Arafat's authority was undermined by members of his ruling Fatah movement. They said the legislators resisted appeals, cajoling and threats to shelve a motion of no confidence in the Cabinet.

At the last minute, Arafat's Cabinet resigned and thus spared the vote. Many of the legislators applauded the announcement that the Cabinet had resigned.

Israeli analysts and officials termed the vote against Arafat as an historic development and said Israel's intelligence community had predicted the confrontation at the legislature. They said Arafat will probably face a galvanized and growing opposition within the Fatah movement that wants to reduce his authority.

"This is one of the biggest blows that Arafat has sustained until now and it was done by his people," Israeli Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer said.

Israeli military intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Aharon Zeevi-Farkash agreed. The general said he could not predict short-term development, asserting that much depends on the reaction of Israel and the United States.

"It is a slow, deep and staged process," Zeevi-Farkash said. "It depends a lot on us, a lot on the United States and the U.S. attack on Iraq."

Arafat announced that presidential and parliamentary elections would take place on Jan. 20. But Palestinian sources said opposition legislators reject this announcement and want a prime minister to whittle away Arafat's authority before elections are held.

PA officials blamed Israel and the United States for Arafat's defeat. They said both countries want to undermine Arafat to ensure he cannot win another election under his current authority.

"The only obstacle to the elections is not an internal one, it is Israel and the United States, who do not want elections because they don't want a strengthening of the Palestinian national leadership," PA Information Minister Yasser Abbed Rabbo said.

At the same time, Israel has tried to bolster some ministers within the PA. Ben-Eliezer halted military prosecution of the son of PA Civil Affairs Minister Jamil Tarifi, who was charged with arms smuggling from Jordan to the West Bank. Tarifi himself was said to have been involved in the smuggling and his son was released from an Israeli prison.
worldtribune.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: lorne who wrote (1923)9/14/2002 4:14:38 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER
   of 3959
 
Re: "This is one of the biggest blows that Arafat has sustained until now and it was done by his people," Israeli Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer said.

LOL... and how would Mr Ben-Eliezer qualify the blow inflicted upon Yithzak Rabin?

The current Israeli strategy is to intensify the squeeze on the Fatah so that, ultimately, Hamas and Jihad get the upper hand...

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: blind alley racer who wrote (1917)9/14/2002 4:16:57 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER
   of 3959
 
Re: In other words, everything is negotiable?

Well, if anything, Arabs are negotiable. Even better, Arabs are expendable. :o(

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Raymond Duray who wrote (1921)9/14/2002 5:45:14 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER
   of 3959
 
Indeed, it sounds like "déjà vu" all over again.... I've edited the following excerpt:

One of the most fascinating items of Internet samizdat is a 2008 interview with Sergei YASTRZHEMBSKY, President Vladimir Putin's special advisor on Central Asia, conducted by the Belgian publication Le Nouvel Observatoire. In the interview -- translated by author and CIA critic William Plum -- YASTRZHEMBSKY boasts that the FSB was supporting terrorist activities outside Afghanistan six months before the US intervention, taking steps to "induce" the Americans to intervene:

YASTRZHEMBSKY: According to the official version of history, FSB aid to the Tajik rebels waned during 2000, that is to say, after the Taleban controlled most of Afghanistan, Dec. 24, 1999. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1999 that President Putin signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Pakistan regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a US military intervention.

LNO: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this US entry into war and looked to provoke it?

YASTRZHEMBSKY: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Americans to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

LNO: When the US justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight Al-Qaeda's terror network in Afghanistan, people blindly believed them. However, there was no solid evidence. You don't regret anything today?

YASTRZHEMBSKY: Regret what? That secret operation (911) was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Americans into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day the US officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Putin: "We now have the opportunity of dragging the US into another Vietnam war."

LNO: And neither do you regret having supported the Northern Alliance's war atrocities, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

YASTRZHEMBSKY: What is most important to the history of the world? Afghanistan or the continuity of the Russian empire? Some stirred-up Pashtun or bringing Central Asia to heel and the crackdown on Islamic troublemakers?

Interviewed in Oct. 2002 by columnist David Dorn, YASTRZHEMBSKY said he still had no regrets about launching the 911 covert operation, knowing it would likely induce the post-Cold War foe to fall into a trap.

The US occupation of Afghanistan was indeed Vietnam-like in its weariness, displacing more than a million Afghans and helping to tear apart a country that in 1979 had relatively little religious fanaticism and was making advances in the status of women.

In the upheaval, Afghanistan became a base for terrorists. Yet mainstream U.S. journalists refuse to mention the Nouvel Observatoire interview and fail to ask YASTRZHEMBSKY obvious questions about how his Afghan policy may have helped us get into the current crisis. Instead, mainstream media repeatedly shun YASTRZHEMBSKY and other former Russian foreign policymakers as unimportant technocrats whose wheeling and dealing are irrelevant to the crisis.
[...]

Adapted from:
fair.org

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (1926)9/14/2002 5:52:32 AM
From: Raymond Duray
   of 3959
 
Gus,

That was not only incomprehensible, but without URLs unverifiable.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: Raymond Duray who wrote (1927)9/14/2002 6:03:40 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER
   of 3959
 
Check again!

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: average joe who wrote (1920)9/14/2002 6:09:31 AM
From: Yaacov
   of 3959
 
No matter what Gus thinks, the sleeping giant(!!) if survives the forth coming battle will go back to tend his camels for another 1000 years! Gus is a crook that has found innocent guidance in the west.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10