Author
|
Topic: The OBL Lottery
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 21 March 2004 08:21 AM
This is an excellent point: quote: After all, now that we are allegedly so close to capturing the world’s most wanted terrorist, why sacrifice still more taxpayer millions so that OBL’s local protectors can cash in doubly? Indeed, to paraphrase Sean Connery in Entrapment, “what can they do with fifty million dollars that they can’t do with twenty-five?”Well, the answer is quite a lot, if the “they” in question are indeed members of the world’s most formidable terrorist organization. $25 million could make the difference between four hijackings or two, between ten suitcase bombs or five. At this stage in the game, anyone in a position to know about bin Laden’s whereabouts can’t be someone to whom we would like to entrust 50 million dollars.
The bolded part seems like such a "duh" statement - and yet, if you think about it, terrorism is in the best interests of the Bush administration, really. When Americans are occupied with terrorism, they're not thinking so much about jobs, financial scandals, or cutbacks.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 21 March 2004 09:40 AM
That article takes its time getting to the heart of the issue, which is the immensely dangerous game that the U.S. admin is now playing in Pakistan, but the news it delivers is fascinating and justifies these conclusions: quote: In short, if the Pakistani government were to fall, the US could be confronted overnight by a populous and nuclear-armed state more dangerous than five Irans or North Koreas. The knock-on effects would involve the further destabilization of Afghanistan and cause nuclear-armed India onto an immediate and perhaps irreversible war footing.Leaning so heavily on Musharraf, just so that George Bush can ensure his re-election is a very bad gamble. It might well fail in its stated aim (capturing bin Laden) and in its unstated goals- to shore up Bush’s popularity while allowing lawmakers to display their phony patriotism with such gimmicks as the $50 million in cash and prizes trick.
I wish I didn't think that there is no "if" involved here.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674
|
posted 21 March 2004 11:00 AM
the balkananalysis article mentions a piece by sy hersh in the new yorker. it's also very interesting: quote: A Bush Administration intelligence officer with years of experience in nonproliferation issues told me last month, “One thing we do know is that this was not a rogue operation. Suppose Edward Teller had suddenly decided to spread nuclear technology and equipment around the world. Do you really think he could do that without the government knowing? How do you get missiles from North Korea to Pakistan? Do you think A.Q. shipped all the centrifuges by Federal Express? The military has to be involved, at high levels.”
quote: One of Musharraf’s most vocal critics inside Pakistan is retired Army Lieutenant General Hamid Gul, a fundamentalist Muslim who directed the I.S.I. from 1987 to 1989, at the height of the Afghan war with the Soviets. If American troops start operating from Pakistan, there will be “a rupture in the relationship,” Gul told me. “Americans think others are slaves to them.” Referring to the furor over A. Q. Khan, he added, “We may be in a jam, but we are a very honorable nation. We will not allow the American troops to come here. This will be the breaking point.” If Musharraf has made an agreement about letting American troops operate in Pakistan, Gul said, “he’s lying to you.”
quote: Two former C.I.A. operatives with firsthand knowledge of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border areas said that the American assault, if it did take place, would confront enormous logistical problems. “It’s impenetrable,” said Robert Baer, who visited the Hindu Kush area in the early nineties, before he was assigned to lead the C.I.A.’s anti-Saddam operations in northern Iraq. “There are no roads, and you can’t get armor up there. This is where Alexander the Great lost an entire division. The Russians didn’t even bother to go up there. Everybody’s got a gun. That area is worse than Iraq.” Milton Bearden, who ran the C.I.A.’s operations in Afghanistan during the war with the Soviet Union, recounted, “I’ve been all through there. The Pashtun population in that belt has lived there longer than almost any other ethnic group has lived anywhere on earth.” He said, “Our intelligence has got to be better than it’s been. Anytime we go into something driven entirely by electoral politics, it doesn’t work out.”
From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 22 March 2004 05:54 AM
After Days of Fighting, Pakistani Military Seeks Qaeda Surrender -- New York Times quote: The military called a temporary cease-fire while it held a jirga, or traditional tribal council, of all regional tribes in the town of Wana, said Brig. Mehmood Shah, the security chief in Pakistan's tribal areas. It was agreed at the meeting, he said, that elders would try to mediate a surrender of the armed militants and the release of some 14 soldiers and government officials they are holding hostage.
A very dubious success. Sounds more like, you give up your wounded, we let you sneak away and we get our people back, or something like that. [ 22 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|