Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Watching Iraq disintegrate
#1
Quote:U.S. media declare 'civil war' in Iraq
Nov. 27, 2006 at 7:23PM
A number of major U.S. news organizations have begun calling the sectarian strife in Iraq a "civil war."
On "The Today Show," Matt Lauer announced Monday that NBC News has "decided the change in terminology is warranted -- that the situation in Iraq, with armed militarized factions fighting for their own political agendas, can now be characterized as civil war."
The Bush administration has responded with denials. On Monday, national security adviser Steve Hadley told reporters on Air Force One only that the war has entered "a new phase." Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said that the conflict cannot be characterized as a civil war because most of the violence is in or near Baghdad, The Washington Post reported.
But other news organizations, including The New York Times, the Los <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/angelic005.gif" alt="Angel" title="" />es Times and Newsweek, are also using the term.
Michael Ware of CNN had what could be the best argument, the Post said -- "For the people living on the streets, for Iraqis in their homes, if this is not civil war, or a form of it, then they do not want to see what one really looks like."

http://www.washtimes.com/upi/20061127-071723-1562r.htm

Talk about FAILURE
Talk about INCOMPETENCE
Talk about forcing the effing RAPTURE..

What a travesty our country has committed.

snip
Quote:Monday, Nov. 27, 2006 4:56 p.m. EST
Talabani: Iraq 'In Dire Need of Iran's Help'

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani on Monday sought to enlist Iran's help in quelling the escalating violence that threatens to tear his country apart.
"The issue of establishing security in Iraq is the most important part of our talks. We are in dire need of Iran's help in establishing security and stability in Iraq," state-run television quoted Talabani as saying after he met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006 ... shtml?s=lh
Reply
#2
lt's sad.

l feel sorry for the people over there. Especially their kids.
????? ????
Reply
#3
I know, Wahya...
Can you imagine what its like with 123 degrees and no electricity?

No schools
no food
no infrastructure
no nothing ?


Sickening

I see these crying distraught innocent people
on the news and it breaks my heart.

Meanwhile over here in the land of plenty
we are getting all upset over
the semantics of newspeak.
Reply
#4
Look at this BS:



Although Baker has said the commission will develop its proposals by consensus, there were signs last week that the group had hit some speed bumps. Sources say renewed pressure from both political flanks in the U.S. is making it difficult for the commission's center to hold. Emboldened by their takeover of Congress, Democrats have sent unmistakable signals that they favor some movement, if not reduction, of forces at the earliest possible date. Meanwhile, present and former government officials say Vice President Cheney intends to oppose any proposal that would make regional talks with Iran or Syria a key part of the U.S.'s Iraq strategy, even though Baker favors such an opening. As the commission broke for Thanksgiving, the partisan pincer movement was beginning to provoke some talk of stalemate. "The impulse toward consensus has diminished somewhat," a close panel observer told TIME. "Everything that is happening--the election, the postelection, the situation in Baghdad--makes it more difficult."
Baker and Hamilton held dozens of listening sessions this summer and fall, but members for the most part were careful not to stake out their positions. With a tentative mid-December deadline just a couple of weeks away, the decision-making process is just beginning. Commission members, said a close adviser, "are just now trying to make sense of what they heard, what the choices are and who stands where on those choices." While a Baker-led deal is still a good bet, several sources said, the odds that the commission will be unable to provide a clear user's guide for cleaning up Iraq are narrowing. And that means Gates may need to sort out the options on his own.

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/005240.html
Reply
#5
Quote:It's becoming clearer every day that the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq is the worst catastrophe ever voluntarily undertaken by this nation, including Vietnam ......

So here's my proposal. How about every pundit who got on board with Bush and Co. to create this hell on Earth that is now engulfing Iraq explain to us why they were so wrong and what they've learned from their mistake? And if they're not willing to admit how wrong they were and explain how they have since amended their ways, why in the world should anyone listen to anything they say in the future? How many Iraqs can we -- and the rest of the world -- afford?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-alte ... 35015.html
Reply
#6
Some of Us from the beginning
had No Doubt
that Shock and Awe
would NOT win Their "Hearts and Minds".

What a Bunch of Dumb ASSES!
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#7
WTF?


snip

Bush Initiates Iraq Policy Review Separate From Baker Group's
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer


President Bush formally launched a sweeping internal review of Iraq policy yesterday, pulling together studies underway by various government agencies, according to U.S. officials.
The initiative, begun after Bush met at the White House with his foreign policy team, parallels the effort by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group to salvage U.S. policy in Iraq, develop an exit strategy and protect long-term U.S. interests in the region. The two reviews are not competitive, administration officials said, although the White House wants to complete the process before mid-December, about the time the Iraq Study Group's final report is expected.



The White House's decision changes the dynamics of what happens next to U.S. policy deliberations. The administration will have its own working document as well as recommendations from an independent bipartisan commission to consider as it struggles to prevent further deterioration in Iraq.

"The president has asked all his national security agencies to assess the situation in Iraq, review the options and recommend the best way forward. The ISG report will be duly considered, and we look forward to their recommendations, as the president has always said," a White House official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the new initiative has not been announced. "The president indicated Monday that he is interested in hearing interesting ideas both within his administration and from the Baker-Hamilton commission."


The White House review could give the administration alternatives so that it feels less pressure to fully implement the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group report, foreign policy experts said.

[url=Bush Initiates Iraq Policy Review Separate From Baker Group's
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 15, 2006; Page A16
President Bush formally launched a sweeping internal review of Iraq policy yesterday, pulling together studies underway by various government agencies, according to U.S. officials.
The initiative, begun after Bush met at the White House with his foreign policy team, parallels the effort by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group to salvage U.S. policy in Iraq, develop an exit strategy and protect long-term U.S. interests in the region. The two reviews are not competitive, administration officials said, although the White House wants to complete the process before mid-December, about the time the Iraq Study Group's final report is expected.


The White House's decision changes the dynamics of what happens next to U.S. policy deliberations. The administration will have its own working document as well as recommendations from an independent bipartisan commission to consider as it struggles to prevent further deterioration in Iraq.
"The president has asked all his national security agencies to assess the situation in Iraq, review the options and recommend the best way forward. The ISG report will be duly considered, and we look forward to their recommendations, as the president has always said," a White House official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the new initiative has not been announced. "The president indicated Monday that he is interested in hearing interesting ideas both within his administration and from the Baker-Hamilton commission."
The White House review could give the administration alternatives so that it feels less pressure to fully implement the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group report, foreign policy experts said.

Washington Post
Reply
#8
Wook-

Quote:Some of Us from the beginning
had No Doubt
that Shock and Awe
would NOT win Their "Hearts and Minds".
What a Bunch of Dumb ASSES!

That would be MOST OF THE US !!



<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cheers.gif" alt="Cheers" title="cheers" />

Hope you and Wahya had a nice weekend.

Every day is starting to seem precious somehow...
Reply
#9
It is strange how in Iraq slaughter soon seems to be part of normal life

A special dispatch by Patrick Cockburn on his journey through a country being torn apart by civil war
Published: 28 November 2006

Iraq is rending itself apart. The signs of collapse are everywhere. In Baghdad, the police often pick up more than 100 tortured and mutilated bodies in a single day. Government ministries make war on each other.

A new and ominous stage in the disintegration of the Iraqi state came earlier this month when police commandos from the Shia-controlled Interior Ministry kidnapped 150 people from the Sunni-run Higher Education Ministry in the heart of Baghdad.

Iraq may be getting close to what Americans call "the Saigon moment", the time when it becomes evident to all that the government is expiring. "They say that the killings and kidnappings are being carried out by men in police uniforms and with police vehicles," the Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said to me with a despairing laugh this summer. "But everybody in Baghdad knows that the killers and kidnappers are real policemen."

It is getting worse. The Iraqi army and police are not loyal to the state. If the US army decides to confront the Shia militias it could well find Shia military units from the Iraqi army cutting the main American supply route between Kuwait and Baghdad. One convoy was recently stopped at a supposedly fake police checkpoint near the Kuwait border and four American security men and an Austrian taken away.

The US and British position in Iraq is far more of a house built on sand than is realised in Washington or London, despite the disasters of the past three-and-a-half years. George Bush and Tony Blair show a unique inability to learn from their mistakes, largely because they do not want to admit having committed any errors in the first place.

Civil war is raging across central Iraq, home to a third of the country's 27 million people. As Shia and Sunni flee each other's neighbourhoods, Iraq is turning into a country of refugees.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees says that 1.6 million are displaced within the country and a further 1.8 million have fled abroad. In Baghdad, neighbouring Sunni and Shia districts have started to fire mortars at each other. On the day Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death, I phoned a friend in a Sunni area of the capital to ask what he thought of the verdict. He answered impatiently that "I was woken up this morning by the explosion of a mortar bomb on the roof of my next-door neighbour's house. I am more worried about staying alive myself than what happens to Saddam."

Iraqi friends used to reassure me that there would be no civil war because so many Shia and Sunni were married to each other. These mixed couples are now being compelled to divorce by their families. "I love my husband but my family has forced me to divorce him because we are Shia and he is Sunni," said Hiba Sami, a mother, to a UN official. "My family say they [the husband's family] are insurgents ... and that living with him is an offence to God." Members of mixed marriages had set up an association to protect each other called the Union for Peace in Iraq but they were soon compelled to dissolve it when several founding members were murdered.

Everything in Iraq is dominated by what in Belfast we used to call "the politics of the last atrocity". All three Iraqi communities - Shia, Sunni and Kurds - see themselves as victims and seldom sympathise with the tragedies of others. Every day brings its gruesome discoveries.

Earlier this month, I visited Mosul, the capital of northern Iraq that has a population of 1.7 million people, of whom about two thirds are Sunni Arabs and one third Kurds. It is not the most dangerous city in Iraq but it is still a place drenched in violence.

A local tribal leader called Sayid Tewfiq from the nearby city of Tal Afar told me of a man from there who went to recover the tortured body of his 16-year-old son. The corpse was wired to explosives that blew up, killing the father so their two bodies were buried together.

Khasro Goran, the efficient and highly effective deputy governor of Mosul, said there was no civil war yet in Mosul but it could easily happen.

He added that 70,000 Kurds had already fled the city because of assassinations. It is extraordinary how, in Iraq, slaughter that would be front-page news anywhere else in the world soon seems to be part of normal life.

On the day I arrived in Mosul, the police had found 11 bodies in the city which would have been on the low side in Baghdad. I spoke to Duraid Mohammed Kashmula, the governor of Mosul, whose office is decorated with pictures of smiling fresh-faced young men who turned out to be his son and four nephews, all of them killed by insurgents.

His own house, together with his furniture, was burned to the ground two years ago. He added in passing that Mr Goran and he himself were the prime targets for assassination in Mosul, a point that was dramatically proved true the day after we spoke when insurgents exploded a bomb beside his convoy - fortunately he was not in it at the time - killing one and wounding several of his bodyguards.

For the moment Mosul is more strongly controlled by pro-government forces than most Iraqi cities. That is because the US has powerful local allies in the shape of the Kurds. The two army divisions in the province are primarily Kurdish, but the 17,000 police in Nineveh, the province of which Mosul is the capital, are almost entirely Sunni and their loyalty is dubious.

One was dismissed on the day of Saddam's trial for putting a picture of the former leader in the window of his car. In November 2004, the entire Mosul police force abandoned their police stations to the insurgents who captured £20m worth of arms.

"The terrorists do not control a single district in Mosul," is the proud claim of Major General Wathiq Mohammed Abdul Qadir al-Hamdani, the bullet-headed police chief of Nineveh. "I challenge them to fight me face to face." But the situation is still very fragile. We went to see the police operations room where an officer was bellowing into a microphone: "There is a suicide bomber in a car in the city. Do not let him get near you or any of our buildings." There was a reason to be frightened. On my way into Mosul, I had seen the broken concrete walls of the party headquarters of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, one of the two big Kurdish political parties. In August, two men in a car packed with explosives shot their way past the outer guard post and then blew themselves up, killing 17 soldiers.

The balance of forces in Nineveh between American, Arab, Kurd, Turkoman, Sunni and Shia is complicated even by Iraqi standards. Power is fragmented.

Sayid Tewfiq, the Shia tribal leader from Tal Afar, resplendent in his flowing robes, admitted: "I would not last 24 hours in Tal Afar without Coalition [US] support." "That's probably about right," confirmed Mr Goran, explaining that Sayid Tewfiq's Shia Turkoman tribe was surrounded by Sunni tribes. Earlier I had heard him confidently invite all of Nineveh provincial council to visit him in Tal Afar. Nobody looked enthusiastic about taking him up on the offer.

"He may have 3,000 fighters from his tribe but he can't visit most of Tal Afar himself," said another member of the council, Mohammed Suleiman, as he declined the invitation. A few hours before somebody tried to assassinate him, Governor Kashmula claimed to me that "security in Mosul is the best in Iraq outside the Kurdish provinces".

It is a measure of the violence in Iraq that it is an arguable point. Khasro Goran said: "The situation is not perfect but it is better than Anbar, Baquba and Diyala." I could vouch for this. In Iraq however bad things are there is always somewhere worse.

It is obviously very difficult for reporters to discover what is happening in Iraq's most violent provinces without being killed themselves. But, at the end of September, I travelled south along the Iraqi side of the border with Iran, sticking to Kurdish villages to try to reach Diyala, a mixed Sunni-Shia province north-east of Baghdad where there had been savage fighting. It is a road on which a wrong turning could be fatal.

We drove from Sulaimaniyah through the mountains, passed through the Derbandikhan tunnel and then took the road that runs beside the Diyala river, its valley a vivid streak of lush green in the dun-coloured semi desert.

The area is a smuggler's paradise. At night, trucks drive through without lights, their drivers using night-vision goggles. It is not clear what cargoes they are carrying - presumably weapons or drugs - and nobody has the temerity to ask.

We had been warned it was essential to turn left after the tumbledown Kurdish town of Kalar before reaching the mixed Arab-Kurdish village of Jalula. We crossed the river by a long and rickety bridge, parts of which had fallen into the swirling waters below, and soon arrived in the Kurdish stronghold of Khanaqin in Diyala province. If I had any thoughts about driving further towards Baghdad they were put to rest by the sight, in one corner of the yard of the local police headquarters, of the wreckage of a blue-and-white police vehicle torn apart by a bomb.

"Five policemen were killed in it when it was blown up at an intersection in As-Sadiyah two months ago," a policeman told me. "Only their commander survived but his legs were amputated."

Officials in Khanaqin had no doubt about what is happening in their province. Lt Col Ahmed Nuri Hassan, the exhausted-looking commander of the federal police, said: "There is a sectarian civil war here and it is getting worse every day." The head of the local council estimated 100 people were being killed a week.

In Baquba, the provincial capital, Sunni Arabs were driving out Shia and Kurds. The army and police were divided along sectarian lines. The one Iraqi army division in Diyala was predominantly Shia and only arrested Sunni. On the day after I left, Sunni and Kurdish police officers fought a gun battle in Jalula, the village I had been warned not to enter. The fighting started when Kurdish police refused to accept a new Sunni Arab police chief and his followers. Here, in miniature, in Diyala it was possible to see Iraq breaking up. The province is ruled by its death squads. The police say at least 9,000 people had been murdered. It is difficult to see how Sunni and Shia in the province can ever live together again.

In much of Iraq, we long ago slipped down the rapids leading from crisis to catastrophe though it is only in the past six months that these dire facts have begun to be accepted abroad. For the first three years of the war, Republicans in the US regularly claimed the liberal media was ignoring signs of peace and progress. Some right-wingers even set up websites devoted to spreading the news of American achievements in this ruined land.

I remember a team from a US network news channel staying in my hotel in Baghdad complaining to me, as they buckled on their body armour and helmets, that they had been once again told by their bosses in New York, themselves under pressure from the White House, to "go and find some good news and report it."

Times have changed in Washington. The extent of the disaster in Iraq is admitted by almost all, aside from President Bush. Even before the Democrats' victory in the Congressional elections on 7 November the magazine Vanity Fair commented acidly that "the only group in the Bush camp at this point are the people who wait patiently for news of the WMD and continue to believe that Saddam and Osama were once lovers."

Previous supporters of the war are showing embarrassing haste in recanting past convictions.

These days, it is in Britain alone, or more specifically in Downing Street, that policies bloodily discredited in Iraq in the years since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein still get a hearing. I returned from Mosul to London just in time to hear Tony Blair speaking at the Lord Mayor's banquet. It was a far more extraordinary performance that his audience appreciated.

As the Prime Minister spoke with his usual Hugh Grant charm, it became clear he had learned nothing and forgotten nothing in three-and-a-half years of war. Misconception after misconception poured from his lips.

Contrary to views of his own generals and every opinion poll assessing Iraqi opinion, he discounted the idea that armed resistance in Iraq is fueled by hostility to foreign occupation. Instead he sees dark forces rising in the east, dedicated, like Sauron in Lord of the Rings, to principles of pure evil. The enemy, in this case, is "based on a thoroughly warped misinterpretation of Islam, which is fanatical and deadly."

Even by the standard of Middle Eastern conspiracy theories, it was puerile stuff. Everywhere Mr Blair saw hidden hands - "forces outside Iraq that are trying to create mayhem" - at work.

An expert on the politics of Iraq and Lebanon recently said to me: "The most dangerous error in the Middle East today is to believe the Shia communities in Iraq and Lebanon are pawns of Iran." But that is exactly what the Prime Minister does believe.

The fact that the largest Shia militia in Iraq - the Mehdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr - is anti-Iranian and Iraqi nationalist is conveniently ignored. Those misconceptions are important in terms of practical policy because they give support to the dangerous myth that if the US and Britain could only frighten or square the Iranians and Syrians then all would come right as their Shia cats-paws in Iraq and Lebanon would inevitably fall into line.

In a very British way, opponents of the war in Iraq have focused not on current events but on the past sins of the government in getting us into the war.

No doubt it was all very wrong for Downing Street to pretend that Saddam Hussein had WMD and was a threat to the world when they knew he was not. But this emphasis on the origins of the war in Iraq has diverted attention from the fact that, going by official statements, the British government knows no more about what was going on in Iraq in 2006 than it did in 2003.

The picture Mr Blair paints of Iraq seldom touches reality at any point. For instance, he says Iraqis "voted for an explicitly non-sectarian government," but every Iraqi knows the vote in two parliamentary elections in 2005 went wholly along sectarian and ethnic lines. The polls were the starting pistol for the start of the civil war.

Mr Blair steadfastly refuses to accept the fact that opposition to the American and British occupation of Iraq has been the main cause of the insurgency.

The commander of the British army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, was almost fired for his trouble when he made the obvious point that "we should get ourselves out some time soon because our presence exacerbates the security problem."

A series of opinion polls carried out by the US-based group WorldPublicOpinion.org at the end of September show why Gen. Dannatt is right and Mr Blair is wrong. The poll shows that 92 per cent of the Sunni and 62 per cent of the Shia - up from 41 per cent at the start of the year - approve of attacks on US-led forces. Only the Kurds support the occupation. Some 78 per cent of all Iraqis think the US military presence provokes more conflict than it prevents and 71 per cent want US-led forces out of Iraq within a year. The biggest and most menacing change this year is the growing hostility of Iraq's Shia to the American and British presence.

It used to be said that at least the foreign occupation prevented a civil war but, with 1,000 Iraqis being killed every week, it is now very clearly failing.

It was always true that in post-Saddam Iraq there was going to be friction between the Shia, Sunni and Kurds. But Iraqis were also forced to decide if they were for or against a foreign invader.

The Sunnis were always going to fight the occupation, the Kurds to welcome it and the Shia to co-operate for just so long as it served their interests. Patriotism and communal self-interest combined. Before 2003, a Sunni might see a Shia as the member of a different sect but once the war had started he started to see him as a traitor to his country.

Of course Messrs Bush and Blair argue there is no occupation. In June 2004, sovereignty was supposedly handed back to Iraq. "Let Freedom Reign," wrote Mr Bush. But the reality of power remained firmly with the US and Britain. The Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki said this month that he could not move a company of soldiers without seeking permission of the Coalition (the US and Britain). Officials in Mosul confirmed to me that they could not carry out a military operation without the agreement of US forces. There is a hidden history to the occupation of Iraq which helps explain why has proved such a disaster. In 1991, after the previous Gulf War, a crucial reason why President George HW Bush did not push on to Baghdad was that he feared the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would be followed by elections that would be won by Shia parties sympathetic to Iran. No worse outcome of the war could be imagined in Washington. After the capture of Baghdad in 2003, the US faced the same dilemma. Many of the contortions of US policy in Iraq since then have been a covert attempt to avoid or dilute the domination of Iraq's Shia majority.

For more than a year, the astute US envoy in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, tried to conciliate the Sunni. He failed. Attacks on US forces are on the increase. Dead and wounded US soldiers now total almost 1,000 a month..

An Iraqi government will only have real legitimacy and freedom to operate when US and British troops have withdrawn. Washington and London have to accept that if Iraq is to survive at all it will be as a loose federation run by a Shia-Kurdish alliance because together they are 80 per cent of the population. But, thanks to the miscalculations of Mr Bush and Mr Blair, the future of Iraq will be settled not by negotiations but on the battlefield.

The Occupation: War and Resistance in Iraq by Patrick Cockburn is published by Verso.

The toll of war

* US troops killed since invasion - 2,880

* UK troops killed - 126

* Iraqis who have died as result of invasion - 655,000

* Journalists killed - 77

* Daily attacks on coalition forces - 180

* Average number of US troops killed every day in October - 3.5

* Strength of insurgency - 30,000 nationwide

* Number of police - 180,000

* Trained judges - 740

* Percentage of Iraqi population that wants US forces to leave within 12 months - 71 per cent

* Hours of electricity per day in Baghdad in November - 8.6 (pre-war estimate 16-24 hours)

* Unemployment - 25-40 per cent

* Internet subscribers - 197,310 (pre-war 4,500)

* Population with access to clean drinking water - 9.7 million (12.9 million pre-war). Percentage of children suffering malnutrition - 33 per cent
On a satellite I ride. Nothing down below can hide.
Reply
#10
Yeah drop a couple M0AB's to scare the bejesus out of em, surely that will teach them about american love.

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dunno.gif" alt="Dunno" title="dunno" />


But... no electricity, food shortages, water shortages... that's tough and it does get really hot over there... but considering they survived that heat for thousands of years before the invention of AC, they'd have to be at least somewhat used to it.

Still, even with that, now they have a number of Mini-Saddams jockeying for power, bombs still going off, bullets in the air...

... and don't forget that DEPLETED URANIUM!


Saddam was a bad mofo, but at least he didnt saturate the nation with nasty radioactive toxic waste for generations to come.

Those poor buggers are right fucked. They were fucked when The Company helped put Saddam in power and they're really fucked now.
????? ????
Reply
#11
Quote:Every day is starting to seem precious somehow...
<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cheers.gif" alt="Cheers" title="cheers" />
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#12
I remember last year about this time,
we were looking at March being the true beginning of the end,
and that is really when the civil war got the momentum going.

Man. I think the CIA is going anaethesize the Chimp,
if you know what I mean,
if he fucks up too much more.


"...The fact that the largest Shia militia in Iraq -
the Mehdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr -
is anti-Iranian and Iraqi nationalist is conveniently ignored...."

This will change, and new alliances will be forged
against the US-British occupation.

The carnage is shocking ,
...how many died in Iraq
while Monday Night Football is on tonite ?
Media misdirection is doing a good propaganda job
deceiving the US public .

This catastrophe is just picking up steam ,
and our nation is trapped in a political stooge-pit.

watch for impending assasinations of important political figureheads

another one bites the dust

GW is insane in a narcissistic deception of his own
global political "capital",
and statesmanship.
I love it when Ahmadinejad or Chavez laughs at him
as the US clown.

Iran will do a much better job of security oversight in the region.
Let them have the remainder of the nightmare ,
because the civil war will be played out
with Sunni resistance to Iran.
Oil reserves be damned.

Somewhere along the line,
a large number of US soldiers will be killed
all at once ,
then it will get really shaky in Washington.
So far this has been a low casualty war for the US forces.
Reply
#13
Quote:So far this has been a low casualty war for the US forces.

It sure has. They've been spouting the same line about 2000 dead for how many years now? How many VA disability claims have been filed? 150,000?
Reply
#14
here it is Jane

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/ ... 859&page=1
Vets Skeptical VA Can Cope with Iraq War Wave

According to recent research by Columbia University economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard economist Linda Bilmes (LINK TO PDF), caring for Iraq's wounded will cost the government $127 billion.
More than a quarter of returning Iraq veterans are filing claims for permanent service-related disabilities.

http://www.veteransforamerica.org/

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20061010/index.htm
Washington DC, October 10, 2006 -
One in four veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars
are filing disability claims,
according to records released by the U.S. Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) under the Freedom of Information Act
after nine months of denying their existence
and posted today on the National Security Archive Web site.

The VA responded to the Archive's original January 2006 FOIA request for documents about the number of disability benefits claims filed by veterans from the current war in Iraq by claiming that no documents existed, apparently because the reports concern the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) rather than being limited to the Iraq War.
Reply
#15
Since we are going to execute him soon....

Review of Saddam's letter to us:


To the American people:
Peace upon those who believe in peace and desire it, and the mercy of God and His blessings.

I address you in this letter from the place of my confinement, as my attempt on the basis of my moral, human, and constitutional responsibility so that no one among you might say that no one came to us with a message of peace after the war began, refuting the arguments for it and desiring peace for you and for our upright, loyal, heroic people. And as I say this, I do no know whether my brothers and comrades who are leading the Resistance outside the prison have come to you with a letter before or not.

That is because the "democracy" of your leaders has prevented me since my arrest and until now from getting newspapers and magazines or hearing radio and television and has isolated me from the world and has isolated the world from me so that I might not hear or see anything from outside my place of confinement.


Is this the true face of democracy and human rights that they advocate outside America!? Or have your rulers lied about it? This includes the killing of people in prisons and jails, some of them by means of the pistols of the American investigators. Or has all of this along with other details that would turn an attentive person’s hair white been concealed from you by your officials such that you do not know the truth!?




Anyway, I address you with this letter of mine in the hop
e that it will reach you and that you will hear it or read it. And on the basis of my responsibility to bring the facts before people, whatever their color or nationality, for that is our duty to them, just as they have a duty to us not to accept evil.


I address you today as my attorney the eminent lawyer and Professor Ramsey Clark has asked that I write this letter of mine to you. Professor Ramsey has presented an excellent example of a humanitarian in his person and in his colleague Professor Curtis Dobler, both of whom left a positive personal impression on me. On this occasion I wish to salute their courage as they have volunteered for the task although they know the dangers that surround them in carrying out their duty, in particular after criminals have killed four of the defense attorneys.


People of America, it still seems to me that the officials in your government are still lying to you and are not giving you true explanations of the reasons that led them to embark on their aggression against Iraq.

In what they have said about the reasons they have deceived, from the starting point, not only the international community, and in particular the European Community but also the peoples of America themselves, knowing beforehand that the facts were contrary to what they were declaring.

Untrue is what they said, after their lies were exposed, about having been deceived by their intelligence agencies and by the stooges that they brought along to serve as their puppets in Iraq, just as old imperialism and the old empires of the 19th and 20th centuries used to do.

What we are saying is based on many facts, the major ones being as follows:
1. The inspection teams – that came to Iraq in the name of the United Nations and carried out searches even of some private houses as well as government departments, presidential palaces and government documents – those teams knew that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction because most of the leading members in those teams were Americans and British and in addition they had spies and volunteers of other nationalities.

Those teams searched Iraq piece by piece from one end to the other and never found any information contrary to what they and others were told by Iraqi government representatives. The inspections lasted for more than seven years. And in addition to the teams that traveled by car and on foot, they used spy planes, helicopters, and satellites in space.

The American and English officials thought that this was their historic chance to strike Iraq and destroy its legitimate aspirations and the lofty cultural and scientific achievements made in the course of 35 years, making use of the information gathered by their spies in the inspection teams and making use of the so-called war on terror after the 11 September incident that struck America.

They shuffled the cards to bring up the goals that they had already decided upon earlier, and these were not the goals that they publicly announced at the starting line.

It was their assessment that the unjust embargo had not destroyed Iraq’s will nor halted its legitimate aspirations to develop economically, culturally, scientifically, and as a civilization in the conditions of a new independence. They believed that Iraq had come close at that time to breaking the economic embargo as the result of the cooperation of those who cooperated with Iraq on the basis of mutual benefit and fraternal national feelings as far as the Arabs were concerned.

The officials in your country thought that this was their chance to impose their will on the world by means of their control of the Middle East’s oil and its production and marketing in new ways and for new goals – those about which we spoke in and before the year 2003 – in addition to attaining one of their Zionist goals and winning support in the election. Iran and its lackeys played a dirty role in making aggression appear attractive and in facilitating its implementation.


2. The American officials did not withdraw from Iraq after they became hard pressed, but declared that the facts were contrary to what they had claimed before the invasion that took place in March and April of the year 2003. If they had been truthful when they claimed that they had been deceived as a result of the information they had been given and which they used as the cover for their invasion, and which they declared at the time was sufficient justification for the invasion – declaring at the time that it involved things that they said affected the security of the United States – then they would have withdrawn from Iraq after discovering that that information had been false. They would have apologized to the heroic Iraqi people, to the American people and to the people of the world for what they had done.


None of the Americans asked their government before the war how Iraq, a country that had still not emerged from backwardness, could threaten the security of a country like America across the Atlantic. And for that matter why would Iraq want to threaten America, which at that time had not violated the territory of Iraq. If the American officials wanted to promote the claim that Iraq’s threat was precisely involved in the opposing stances taken by Iraq and America over the Zionist occupation of the land of Palestine and other Arab land, it could be said that Iraq is not the only state that takes an opposing stance to that of America in regards to the issue, whether that be Arab states or other states in the world.

Furthermore, who has authorized America to make the countries of the world tailor their policies to America’s measurements, and if they don’t oblige, then war should be waged against them? How can one understand America’s call for democracy if it does not permit a difference of opinion even in issues of a regional character, to say nothing of international ones?

Another lie was the claim of American officials that Iraq had links to what they called terrorism, although British Prime Minister Blair declared that Iraq does not have any ties to so-called terrorism and had no internationally prohibited weapons, forcing Bush to declare the same thing. Despite that, none of the important American personalities asked President Bush on what sort of rational analysis or what sort of realistic information this claim rested.

Do you know, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, why they didn’t ask? Because some of your prominent personalities are directed in what they do by hidden forces that distorted the image you received of Iraq’s positions.

They had been laying the groundwork for years to facilitate aggression from the start. Therefore no one asked the American officials, for example, why no Iraqi took part in the events of 11 September!? And if the participation of individuals in the attack on American targets isn’t to be taken as proof of the involvement of any country in those events, then how do you accuse a state like Iraq, the features of whose political system are known, of so-called relations with terror?

How can you consider this charge to be one of only two on the basis of which aggression was launched against the people of Iraq, destroying their property and achievements and bringing their lives under daily and direct threat?

Do you know, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, that I asked one of the American officials who talked with me perhaps two weeks after my arrest, just what was it that you based those false charges on? He said that as far as the weapons of mass destruction were concerned, "we didn’t have anything to confirm what you were saying."

And as for the links to terrorism, he said, because you, Saddam Hussein, did not send a letter of condolence to President Bush after the incident [of 11 September].

I smiled bitterly and told him: as regards your claim that you didn’t have confirmation of our statements, it seems that your officials lie and imagine that officials in countries around the world do not tell the truth, or that many of those who have relations with you in fact do not tell you the truth, neither when they oppose your policies nor when they agree with them.

This is a dangerous matter, not only for the countries of the world but because they then pose a danger for America as well, if nobody in the world will tell America: 'this is a mistake’ and 'this is unacceptable’! And at that time when American planes were striking targets in Iraq and destroying public and private property, killing Iraqi citizens including women and children for no reason and imposing on Iraq their unjust embargo, prohibiting Iraq from importing even pencils for children to use in primary schools, what exactly is it that should obligate Saddam Hussein to send a telegram of condolences to the president of the state whose officials have committed all those crimes, unless it be out of hypocrisy and weakness?

But because I am neither a hypocrite nor a weakling I didn’t send Bush a telegram of condolence. But I did agree on the telegram sent containing condolences in the name of the government of Iraq and sent by Comrade Tariq Aziz, the Deputy Prime Minister, to our friend Ramsey Clark and through him to the stricken families.


Are the great states so deluded as to imagine that whoever does not send a letter of condolence deserves that war should be waged against him, his country, and his people!? Here you see how the American officials used even your own blood to promote their reckless, aggressive policy. Is this the kind of morality that people should have? Or men? Or officials? There is nothing graver than for disasters to ravage people who have been stricken by delusions, committed wrongs, and wantonly despised the roles of others. The worst disease of the American officials who involved the Americans in war against Iraq is this.


3. After I was arrested they made vain attempts to use intimidation and threats against me. One of their generals conveyed that intimidation and host threats and tried to bargain with me, promising to let me live if I agreed to read in my own voice and sign a prepared announcement that was shown to me.

That stupid announcement called on the people of Iraq and the courageous Resistance to lay down arms. They said that if I refused, my fate would be that I would be shot just like Mussolini, as my interlocutor put it. But, as you know me and would expect of me, I disdainfully refused, not even touching that dirty document with my hand and sullying myself with it. I told them if I were given the chance to address my people, I would call them to more resistance.

Seven days later, to reinforce themselves, they sent a group to talk with me. They said they were from an American University and that they wanted to engage me in a broad discussion. I agreed and I confirmed to them that Iraq didn’t have any of the things the American officials claimed and I advised them [the US] to leave Iraq quickly and apologize to the people, warning them that they were going to get what they now are facing and what they are now embroiled in –


in fact, the fate I expect for them is worse than what they are facing now – and they will never have an adequate chance to pull their arms and equipment out of Iraq if the two halves of Iraq engulf them, and they will engulf them, God willing, because our people are deeply rooted and conscious.

They know that our liberation can be clean and complete only with their unity, and that tolerance must be the basis for the orientations of our people within their ranks, and that wounds must be bound up, not ripped open.

I say, I told them all that at that time but they didn’t change their methods; they didn’t replace the keys of falsehood, and they are still knocking on the doors of wrong, failing to try the door of legitimacy, even though they now know. In this connection, attached to this letter are some verses from a long ode; a selection of 56 verses. [Not translated here.]


4. It is neither reasonable nor convincing that a country like America to which the doors of the intelligence agencies in the east and most of the countries of the west have been opened did not know the truth and could not know the truth. Although I am convinced and believe that many countries in the world have an interest in war or wars, she [the United States] does not have an interest in war even though she might believe she does. The contrary, in fact, is the case.


America is a big country on the other side of the Atlantic. It has developed a unique unparalleled power such that I think some people there imagine that it is on its way to attaining the crown of the world all for itself as a world empire. Have they not learned a lesson from their war in Viet Nam?

The west used to promote the idea that world Communism and the Soviet bloc threatened their interests and also the security of the entire west. But despite that promotion, this was nothing but a flimsy cover. Nevertheless, America used it and wrapped itself in it until the heroic Vietnamese people expelled them by force.


As to their invasion of Iraq, it came in a situation that made the first step easy from the standpoint of the reaction of the international community because of the international balance of forces. But it came in a situation that might make it more costly that its war in Viet Nam. That is because when America was expelled from Viet Nam it did not lose its standing, or we might say it only lost a small part of its standing. But when it is expelled and routed from Iraq, which has no great power to support it directly, it will lose the fundamental basis of its standing.


In fact it has now already lost the foundation for that standing and its reputation has begun to decay. It is no longer able to wield the big stick that it formerly threatened to use. It used to accomplish more by threatening to use force than by really using force. I will go further and say that after its war in Iraq, that stick no longer frightens many people and America has come to need the silence of the smallest and simplest countries and tries to please them in order to get them to stay quiet about America’s crimes and reckless, deviant policies.


Before, many of the world’s countries used to court the United States and most countries in the world, all except a few, used to fear her threats or parried them with defensive arguments. But now Mao Zedong of fond memory is laughing in his grave because his prediction has been fulfilled and America is a paper tiger. This is by the will of the Living Eternal God, and by His agents on earth, the heroic Mujahideen in glorious, virtuous, militant, jihadist Iraq. So God bless the heroic people of Iraq and God bless the jihad and the mujahideen.


Esteemed ladies and gentlemen of the peoples of America, the time has come to an end in which greatest and best-equipped armies could scatter the organized formations of the opposing army and thereby bring a war to a close.

Now you see our courageous army, our heroic people, and our Mujahideen replacing the system of organized formations with a new kind of warfare.

And when the Americans on the ground become targets in the vicinity of the guns of the revolutionaries, who attack them as deadly human bombs with nothing more than their bodies filled with faith in God, American superiority is worn down over time.

In fact in the near future that superiority will become a burden whose equipment will be difficult to withdraw.

So, will America trust the voice of rationality and logic that calls for the preservation of what still remains, or will Satan the deceiver and the hate-filled supporters of Zionism keep pushing the Americans until the waves swallow them and they sink to the depths of the raging sea?


Who, after all, appointed the American government to be the world policeman, to form the world in the mold that it likes, giving national orders to the countries of the world?

Saddam Hussein, ladies and gentlemen, is an honorable patriot and an honest man. He is a statesman resolute in implementing the law, just, but benevolent. He loves his people and his nation. He is straightforward, doesn’t double-cross or deceive. He speaks the truth even against himself.

Do tyrants like Bush like such characteristics? If he were a person like De Gaulle or even like Reagan, perhaps he would understand them, or at least would not abhor them.

But I must say to you that your country will discover more, esteemed ladies and gentlemen. It has lost his reputation and his standing.

Indeed the American who used to travel around the world respected and safe and welcomed wherever he went, is now no longer able to step outside America without a mine detector. And the State Department issues warnings for you constantly about what world regions are dangerous to American lives


It was American officials and their polices themselves that have created an atmosphere of anti-American hatred in the world by means of their arrogant behavior, their haughty aggressive attitude, their lack of respect for international law and the security of the world – including the security of my Arab Nation through their support for the Zionist entity in Palestine – and other world and human issues.


Today you are in a bad predicament with the world and nobody can rescue you but yourselves. If you reform, you will open for the world and for yourselves a new opportunity. But if you are heedless, that is your decision. What you need is free and fair competition and peace in order to have security.


The years that followed the 18th century had long gone when they came as invaders to the Middle East to bring back memories of things that awaken and arouse. The Middle East, and the Arab homeland in particular, was the cradle of prophets and messengers from God. Is the cradle of the prophets, where the prophets are buried in their tombs, also the home of devils and their mirror images – the malicious invaders?

We have believed, and our faith was suited to us,

Then came the Zionists with a devil for a guide.

They stormed in on us as invaders, unjust.
The did not stop their advance nor sit still,
Their diabolical patron has prepared their dilemma.
But as for us, we have the Merciful God as Patron.

People of America, despite the crimes your government inflicted on our people, our Arab Nation and humanity, the people of Iraq – and I mean by that the Iraqis, not those with split loyalties who prefer to serve foreigners rather than their own people – I say the free people of Iraq even in their present circumstances are not thinking about their destiny alone but about the destiny of others wherever it’s possible to create a solution that treats a painful problem.


On this basis I said to some Americans when I was in my prison, why don’t you come to an agreement with the Resistance to designate a country with a charter and power to which the Resistance can hand over those American soldiers whom they capture, rather than executing them as currently is said to be taking place.

In fact the extent to which the Resistance is responsible for this is unknown, but people who are equitable know that America has not abided by international law in any of its activities in Iraq, including the Geneva Conventions regarding prisoners and detainees.

The Resistance has no secure place in Iraq where prisoners can be kept. So whether the Resistance is at all responsible, or whether the responsibility lies with some other parties that have no connection to the Resistance, the justification for it is that there is no secure place for prisoners to be kept.


Therefore in order to fulfill humanitarian needs and to eliminate the justification [for killing prisoners] I make this proposal to you and to the national Resistance and to anyone concerned, and I make this with the best of intentions.

If you accept it and respect the Geneva Conventions then the argument of those who kill rather than detain prisoners will have vanished. But if your government does not accept it, then it will bear the responsibility for refusing and for whatever befalls our people and the heroic Resistance as a result of your government’s violation of international law. This will be particularly true if the number of American prisoners increases in the future, and we think that it will increase. Or is it that your government can’t see anything until it feels it?


Esteemed ladies and gentlemen, the time has come for your government to look at all people as equals before international law regardless of the size of the countries to which they belong.

Whoever violates international law in his policies and the behavior of his army, he alone must bear the consequences for that policy. And if his policies are not in accordance with the letter of international law, he has no right to call others to protect his rights in accordance with that law.


Esteemed ladies and gentlemen, whoever missed his or her chance to take action to try to prevent the war still has a chance to act to end it and bring back peace and freedom to Iraq in accordance with the choice of its people without foreign interference by anyone whoever that may be.


People of America, I address you not from weakness nor as a supplicant. I, my people, my brothers, comrades, and my nation – we address you on the basis of our moral and human responsibility.

I tell you that officials whom you know, and first among them your President, lied to you and deceived you and tricked you using the media that portrayed Iraq to you as incorrigible, and Saddam Hussein as a hateful dictator, and that his people hate him and that his people are just waiting for their chance to get at him. Some of them just wallowed in lying falsehood to the point that they openly declared that the Iraqis would meet the invading armies with roses and celebration.


I know that lots of people don’t do a lot of analysis; they don’t have the time or the ability or the desire to do careful assessments when presented with falsified news so as to uncover the truth. The American peoples had no chance to inquire, for example: why, if the people of Iraq hate Saddam Hussein, how he managed to defeat the Iran of Khomeini after eight years in the aggressive war that Iran sought to impose on us under the slogan of exporting the revolution beginning with Iraq? People of America, the victory over Khomeini’s Iran was not due to the short length of the war, but came only after eight years of grinding warfare in which tens of thousands fell and hundreds of thousands on the Iranian side.


Then if Saddam Hussein were a dictator, why did he establish a parliament with elections for the first time in the year 1980 during wartime, when there had been no parliament in Iraq since 1958? If he and his government were dictators, how could he visit schools, universities, towns, and villages and spend the night with the people wherever the sun went down? How could he travel around and lead at the battle front at night and during the day even in the trenches in the front lines on the battlefield among the Muslim soldiers!?


Yes, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, your government deceived you, and you, or rather most of you, had no chance to inquire of themselves or of others in order to discover the truth because the Zionists in the lobby who advocated the war together with some of the centers of power were deceiving you and tricking you, hiding from your eyes the real truth, exchanging the facts for falsified and slanted information. Last but not least in this regard, if Saddam Hussein were a dictator hated and despised by his people, how is it that his people endured him and why was he chosen President by referendum?


People of America, the misfortunes that have afflicted you and afflicted our Arab Nation and within it our heroic Iraqi people – including the breakdown of America’s standing and reputation – were only caused by the reckless behavior of your government and by pressure from Zionism and power centers that influenced the government to commit those crimes and scandalous actions for specific ends that have nothing to do with the interest of the American peoples.


The massacres and blood that now flows in the streets and countryside of Iraq in torrents – the responsibility for that falls on America before all others. You know, or rather you have now come to learn, that neither the stooges whom the American forces brought in on board their aircraft or as shamefaced presents aboard their tanks, nor Iran, which pushed and still pushes forward those who support it and whom they support, would be able to cause the bloodshed, or the destruction of the honor, and property of our people and our state had not America undertaken the aggression and invasion and issued the orders.


It is still issuing orders in the Green Zone. Therefore America bears the burden of all those crimes and outrages. So, will you put an end to what is going on by using the methods of direct truth without evasion and digression? Or will you invite the machine of death to continue to eat away at the flesh of Iraqis and the flesh of Americans without doing anything to resolve this?


It is your historical responsibility, esteemed ladies and gentlemen. If you reform, you could save what remains of the standing and reputation of America and its legitimate interests. If you do nothing, you will be keeping silent over something evil. "God grant us patient perseverance and let us die as Muslims." [Qur’an, 7:126]


People of America, the wars that your government promotes in the world – one of them being the war in Iraq – with input from certain centers of power – which you know better than we – are not in the interests of the American people.

You know better than many how you paid in blood so that you might liberate yourselves from British colonialism and after that how the United States of America was unified and what rivers of blood were shed in order for that to come about. So, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, how do you accept this interference that abases America before it abases Iraq? How can you accept not only the invasion but becoming mired in the internal affairs of Iraq? You know that Iraq is a land of prophets, messengers, and righteous figures. You know that Baghdad is the fourth holiest city in the Arab homeland – after Mecca, al-Madinah, and Jerusalem – in the sight of all of the Islamic world and all of our Arab Nation.


How can one imagine that Iraq could reconcile itself to colonial rule, even if it comes, this time, under another name and with other slogans? Save your country, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, and leave Iraq.


Peace.
God is greatest. God is greatest.
[signed]
Saddam Hussein,
President of the Republic of Iraq and Commander in Chief of the Mujahid Armed Forces.
7 July 2006.
[Appended to the letter was a selection of poetry by Saddam Hussein dealing with the homeland, invasion and the struggle for liberation]


http://tinyurl.com/r7gmb
Reply
#16
From Keith's post:
Quote:Contrary to views of his own generals and every opinion poll assessing Iraqi opinion, he discounted the idea that armed resistance in Iraq is fueled by hostility to foreign occupation. Instead he sees dark forces rising in the east, dedicated, like Sauron in Lord of the Rings, to principles of pure evil. The enemy, in this case, is "based on a thoroughly warped misinterpretation of Islam, which is fanatical and deadly."

"Those with the darkest nightmares profit the most"~

The Power of Nightmares
http://tinyurl.com/yzd93s
Reply
#17
Are 70,000 Pentagon
Mercs Killing Iraqis?
(Is Grass Green?)

http://www.rense.com/general74/70th.htm


Contracting "Clean Break" Chaos in Iraq
Kurt Nimmo
Dick Fojut’s Are 70,000 Pentagon Mercs Killing Iraqis? (Is Grass Green?) is compelling enough to include here in total. But first, here’s the trailer from Shadow Company, a documentary concerning “contractors,” i.e., hired guns, in Iraq.

video


http://tinyurl.com/wccd3
Reply
#18
It appears Afghanistan isn't much different.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/11/2 ... -nato.html


We need backup, Canadians tell NATO allies
Last Updated: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 | 8:24 AM ET
CBC News

Prime Minister Stephen Harper arrived in Latvia on Tuesday for a NATO summit in which one of his tasks is to press other alliance members to take their share of the risks in Afghanistan.

After flying overnight from Ottawa to Riga, Harper was to meet with NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, who made it clear in a speech on Tuesday that the Afghan conflict would be the focal point of this summit.

He stressed that "while we have to be frank about the risks, we also need to avoid over-dramatizing our difficulties in ways that feed self-fulfilling prophecies of failure."

The CBC's David Common, reporting from Riga, said the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has two problems in Afghanistan, where American, British, Dutch and Canadian troops are carrying most of the load.

"The first has to do with troop numbers," Common said.

"When NATO nations agreed to carry out this mission in Afghanistan, they promised to put forward a certain number of soldiers. Well, 15 per cent of the soldiers that were promised have never been delivered, so NATO leaders are reissuing a call for those troops today.
Continue Article
Restrictions on troops a major issue

The second issue has to do with what the troops can do, he said.

"That's the issue of caveats — restrictions, essentially, that nations put on the soldiers they have on the ground. So some soldiers refuse to do such things as take part in combat operations, work in the snow, allow others to use their aircraft or, critically, redeploy some soldiers to the volatile south in the event of a great battle such as we saw in September."

Canada's deployment of more than 2,000 troops have played a leading role in the southern provinces, where the major battles with the Taliban and most of the NATO casualties have occurred.

NATO isn't naming names, but it is widely mentioned that Germany, France, Spain and Italy are to be targeted during the meeting, Common said.

"Canadian diplomats have been on the phone with the leaders of those nations, trying to get them to lift those caveats and contribute more troops, but so far to no avail. Prime Minister Stephen Harper will try again today."
Germany says no plans to contribute more

A spokesman for the German Defence Ministry told CBC News that Germany has no plans to increase its troop commitment to Afghanistan or to move troops to the more dangerous southern part of the country.

In Canada, one analyst said the stakes at the summit are high.

David Bercuson, a University of Calgary historian, said countries need to commit more troops and lift restrictions or NATO could fail to create lasting change in Afghanistan.

"You can't really hope to hold them off. And if you can't hold back the Taliban, then all the reconstruction work you want to do and all the development work you want to do isn't going to be worth anything," he said.

The meeting of the 26-nation alliance comes a day after two Canadian soldiers were killed by a suicide car bomb in southern Afghanistan on the outskirts of the city of Kandahar. Forty-four Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have died since Canada first sent troops to the country in 2002.

Bercuson said there is no question that Canada is doing its fair share and he expects Harper will join leaders from Britain and the United States in pushing other members to boost their commitments.

"Although you've got an effective force of close to 40,000 troops in Afghanistan, there's only a very small number, about 18,000, that can actually be used to fight the Taliban and Canada is about 2,300 of that 18,000," he said.

Privately, officials travelling with Harper said they have modest hopes for this summit, although call for backup does have the support of the most powerful member of the alliance.

As he prepared for the summit, U.S. President George W. Bush called on NATO countries to provide the forces military commanders require to succeed in Afghanistan.
With files from the Associated Press

Peace
Government is nothing more than the rationalization and exercise of violence. Everything done by government contains at least the implicit threat of lethal coercion. <br /><br />- William N. Grigg
Reply
#19
Quote:The years that followed the 18th century had long gone when they came as invaders to the Middle East to bring back memories of things that awaken and arouse. The Middle East, and the Arab homeland in particular, was the cradle of prophets and messengers from God. Is the cradle of the prophets, where the prophets are buried in their tombs, also the home of devils and their mirror images – the malicious invaders?


Thanks for posting that speech India !
You think that was a little esoteric jab ?
Tragic beyond belief..

This is the cradle of civilization..


Iraq and ruin..

As looters ransacked the Baghdad Museum after Saddam's fall, Donny George - the man responsible for its priceless collection - had to watch in horror, dodging bullets as he tried to stop them. He survived but most of the antiquities were stolen or smashed. So can he hope to rebuild Iraq's national collection? Neal Ascherson finds out

Friday May 2, 2003
The Guardian

Donny George reaches into his pocket and pulls out a piece of lined paper, torn off a pad. "I don't know why I still carry it around". Scribbled on it in ballpoint is a request for free access to the Baghdad Museum for George, the acting director, and Dr Jabir Khalil, of the Iraqi State Board of Antiquities. It is signed by Lieutenant-Colonel PA Zarcone, civil affairs officer for the 1st Marine Infantry Division.

That was Sunday, April 13. The two men, who had been sheltering from the fighting in nearby houses, had heard reports that the museum was being sacked and had managed to reach the Palestine hotel where the Marines had a command post. Colonel Zarcone assured them that he would order local American troops to protect the museum. But when they reached the site, they saw at once that it was too late. The "crime of the century", as George calls it, was over. It had taken place on the previous Thursday, Friday and Saturday, as hordes of looters, in pairs or in gangs, carried out of the galleries what they could steal and smashed what they could not. The nearby American tanks had done nothing to stop them. Their crews shrugged off frantic appeals from museum staff to move a few yards and block off the entrance. No way. They had no orders.

George went back to the Palestine, borrowed a satellite phone from the Channel 4 team and called his friend John Curtis at the British Museum. "I said, 'We are here with no protection, the museum has been looted, we are afraid that the looters will return and maybe set fire to this building ...' And I think Neil MacGregor [the British Museum director] and John Curtis did something at a very high level. I think maybe they talked to Blair who talked to Colin Powell. The tanks came to guard the museum - but not until three days later".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,947800,00.html

===

CNN LIVE EVENT/SPECIAL

Strike on Iraq: Sirens Blaring Again in Northern Iraq

Aired March 20, 2003 - 20:03 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Well, Wolf will be with us, so will Christiane. We are getting reports of sirens blaring in northern Iraq. Northern Iraq is among the most complicated strings of this story, because it -- depending on how far north you go, I guess, it is an area not necessarily, well -- northern Iraq, Mosul there, is not controlled by Saddam Hussein. It is Kurdish-controlled area. Jamie McIntyre is at the Pentagon. Jaime, can you give us anything on what this might be?

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SENIOR PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, we don't know at this point, Aaron, but it would be logical to assume that, as part of this campaign, that the U.S. might continue to, quote, "prepare the battlefield" by attacking air defenses in the north. You know, of course, the north falls within that northern no- fly zone that the U.S. regularly patrols anyway. They have a pretty good idea of what the defenses are up there. But at this point, we have no confirmation of precisely what may be going on in the north. And given how skittish everybody is in Iraq, it is also possible that it could be a false alarm.

BROWN: OK, just to make sure, I don't want to mislead anybody here. We showed a map, let me put the map up again. And the information I have is that the sirens are in the area of the city, or the area of Mosul. And we've actually been doing some reporting up there. Jamie, please correct me if I am making a mistake there. It is my belief that when you get that far north you are in Kurdish- controlled Iraq and not Saddam-controlled Iraq. Am I confusing the viewers?

MCINTYRE: Well, like you, Aaron, I'm not an absolute expert on the geography of northern Iraq, but my understanding is that Mosul was, in fact, an area where Saddam Hussein did have control. In fact, one of his Republican Guard units was based up there, but it was the unit that was pulled down to Crete. So they sort of left a little bit of a power vacuum there. There is an area, areas very close to there, that are not controlled, but I believe the city of Mosul is, at least was.

BROWN: OK, thank you.

Now, Jane Arraf who has been doing some considerable reporting from that area. And she may be just outside these pictures coming from al-Jazeera, and they show a city that still has its lights and still has, in this case, a correspondent as well. So we'll try and figure out what the sirens mean, if they mean -- across the region whether it is Kuwait or Baghdad, these air raid sirens, and warning sirens and all-clear sirens have been going on and off, and on and off all day. Sometimes they mean something. A lot of times they don't. People, as Jamie said, are very skittish out there, as you would be under the circumstances. You never know what's coming next. And if the next thing that comes is the so-called shock and awe. In any case, we're getting reports of these sirens, and we'll try to figure out what they mean as we go along.
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0303/20/se.26.html
&quot;The impure can become pure through the process of elimination, <br />but error can never be transformed into truth.&quot; <br /> Schwaller De Lubicz
Reply
#20
Quote:The years that followed the 18th century had long gone when they came as invaders to the Middle East to bring back memories of things that awaken and arouse. The Middle East, and the Arab homeland in particular, was the cradle of prophets and messengers from God. Is the cradle of the prophets, where the prophets are buried in their tombs, also the home of devils and their mirror images – the malicious invaders?


Thanks for posting that speech India !
You think that was a little esoteric jab ?
Tragic beyond belief..

This is the cradle of civilization..


Iraq and ruin..

As looters ransacked the Baghdad Museum after Saddam's fall, Donny George - the man responsible for its priceless collection - had to watch in horror, dodging bullets as he tried to stop them. He survived but most of the antiquities were stolen or smashed. So can he hope to rebuild Iraq's national collection? Neal Ascherson finds out

Friday May 2, 2003
The Guardian

Donny George reaches into his pocket and pulls out a piece of lined paper, torn off a pad. "I don't know why I still carry it around". Scribbled on it in ballpoint is a request for free access to the Baghdad Museum for George, the acting director, and Dr Jabir Khalil, of the Iraqi State Board of Antiquities. It is signed by Lieutenant-Colonel PA Zarcone, civil affairs officer for the 1st Marine Infantry Division.

That was Sunday, April 13. The two men, who had been sheltering from the fighting in nearby houses, had heard reports that the museum was being sacked and had managed to reach the Palestine hotel where the Marines had a command post. Colonel Zarcone assured them that he would order local American troops to protect the museum. But when they reached the site, they saw at once that it was too late. The "crime of the century", as George calls it, was over. It had taken place on the previous Thursday, Friday and Saturday, as hordes of looters, in pairs or in gangs, carried out of the galleries what they could steal and smashed what they could not. The nearby American tanks had done nothing to stop them. Their crews shrugged off frantic appeals from museum staff to move a few yards and block off the entrance. No way. They had no orders.

George went back to the Palestine, borrowed a satellite phone from the Channel 4 team and called his friend John Curtis at the British Museum. "I said, 'We are here with no protection, the museum has been looted, we are afraid that the looters will return and maybe set fire to this building ...' And I think Neil MacGregor [the British Museum director] and John Curtis did something at a very high level. I think maybe they talked to Blair who talked to Colin Powell. The tanks came to guard the museum - but not until three days later".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,947800,00.html

===

CNN LIVE EVENT/SPECIAL

Strike on Iraq: Sirens Blaring Again in Northern Iraq

Aired March 20, 2003 - 20:03 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Well, Wolf will be with us, so will Christiane. We are getting reports of sirens blaring in northern Iraq. Northern Iraq is among the most complicated strings of this story, because it -- depending on how far north you go, I guess, it is an area not necessarily, well -- northern Iraq, Mosul there, is not controlled by Saddam Hussein. It is Kurdish-controlled area. Jamie McIntyre is at the Pentagon. Jaime, can you give us anything on what this might be?

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SENIOR PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, we don't know at this point, Aaron, but it would be logical to assume that, as part of this campaign, that the U.S. might continue to, quote, "prepare the battlefield" by attacking air defenses in the north. You know, of course, the north falls within that northern no- fly zone that the U.S. regularly patrols anyway. They have a pretty good idea of what the defenses are up there. But at this point, we have no confirmation of precisely what may be going on in the north. And given how skittish everybody is in Iraq, it is also possible that it could be a false alarm.

BROWN: OK, just to make sure, I don't want to mislead anybody here. We showed a map, let me put the map up again. And the information I have is that the sirens are in the area of the city, or the area of Mosul. And we've actually been doing some reporting up there. Jamie, please correct me if I am making a mistake there. It is my belief that when you get that far north you are in Kurdish- controlled Iraq and not Saddam-controlled Iraq. Am I confusing the viewers?

MCINTYRE: Well, like you, Aaron, I'm not an absolute expert on the geography of northern Iraq, but my understanding is that Mosul was, in fact, an area where Saddam Hussein did have control. In fact, one of his Republican Guard units was based up there, but it was the unit that was pulled down to Crete. So they sort of left a little bit of a power vacuum there. There is an area, areas very close to there, that are not controlled, but I believe the city of Mosul is, at least was.

BROWN: OK, thank you.

Now, Jane Arraf who has been doing some considerable reporting from that area. And she may be just outside these pictures coming from al-Jazeera, and they show a city that still has its lights and still has, in this case, a correspondent as well. So we'll try and figure out what the sirens mean, if they mean -- across the region whether it is Kuwait or Baghdad, these air raid sirens, and warning sirens and all-clear sirens have been going on and off, and on and off all day. Sometimes they mean something. A lot of times they don't. People, as Jamie said, are very skittish out there, as you would be under the circumstances. You never know what's coming next. And if the next thing that comes is the so-called shock and awe. In any case, we're getting reports of these sirens, and we'll try to figure out what they mean as we go along.
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0303/20/se.26.html
&quot;The impure can become pure through the process of elimination, <br />but error can never be transformed into truth.&quot; <br /> Schwaller De Lubicz
Reply
#21
Quote:This is the cradle of civilization..


Iraq and ruin..

The lndians and Chinese might dispute that.
????? ????
Reply
#22
ok Wahya my bad Dunno
Wayha that would be a good thread..

..

hrm
Reply
#23
Yeah it would be better on another thread not here.

Not to quibble over which cultures are older than others...

True mesopotamian civilizations date back to great antiquity (or at least to mainstream historians), and it's a great tragedy.

lt's a tragedy what has happened to the lraqi people.

lt's a tragedy their forebears' artifacts have been looted or destroyed.

lt's a tragedy and a loss to all humanity.

No recompense, no repatriation, no reparations... will ever atone for this... for the lives lost, for the treasures lost, for their nation ruined.


l might say the loss of lraq's historical collection would compare to the burning of the Library of Alexandria.

Who knows what ancient secrets were there waiting to be translated... that now no one will ever know?


All that lost... for what?
????? ????
Reply
#24
Quote:November 29, 2006

EXTRAORDINARY RENDITIONS REPORT
Europe Knew about Secret CIA Flights
The European Parliament has issued a report into CIA secret flights and prisons in the European Union. It points the finger at 11 EU states, saying they knew all about the extraordinary renditions program....

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1 ... 49,00.html
Reply
#25
Quote:Key Bush summit on Iraq delayed
US President George W Bush's meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has been delayed, hours after a leaked memo raised US doubts about Mr Maliki.
The two men are in Jordan and were supposed to be having evening talks with King Abdullah to discuss how to contain the growing violence in Iraq.

President Bush will still be meeting the king, but he will not see Mr Maliki until Thursday, the White House said.

The US denied the move was a snub by Mr Maliki or related to the leaked memo.


We [urge] our brothers in Iraq, the Iraqi political and religious leadership - be they Shia or Sunni - to realise the seriousness of the situation
King Abdullah of Jordan


The New York Times newspaper has published details of a memo in which Mr Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, raised doubts about Mr Maliki's ability to control sectarian violence.
According to the Times, the 8 November memo said that while Mr Maliki's intentions seemed good, his capabilities were "not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into actions".

The Amman summit follows one of the bloodiest weeks in Iraq since the American-led invasion in 2003.

In protest against the planned meeting, the Iraqi political group loyal to Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr suspended its participation in the government.

The group, which has 30 MPs and a handful of ministers, said the meeting was a provocation to the Iraqi people.

The group had been making the threat for some days and had called for Mr Maliki to call off the Jordan meeting.

President Bush, who arrived from the Nato summit in Latvia, is expected to give public support to Mr Maliki, but privately will be renewing pressure on him to take action against Shia militias, our correspondent says.

When the two leaders do meet, they will also discuss moves to transfer more responsibility to Iraq's security forces.

Meanwhile Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, who has been holding talks with Iranian leaders in Tehran, has urged Iran to back the elected Iraqi government, not Shia militia groups.

'Whirlpool of violence'

Jordan's King Abdullah met Mr Maliki shortly after the Iraqi prime minister's arrival. He told him that "national reconciliation among all the Iraqi factions" was the only solution to the crisis in Iraq, a statement from the Royal Palace said.

On Tuesday, King Abdullah told the BBC Arabic Service he was very concerned about increasing violence in Iraq.


"We [urge] our brothers in Iraq, the Iraqi political and religious leadership - be they Shia or Sunni - to realise the seriousness of the situation and not to allow any conspiracy to pass aimed at dividing or destroying Iraq in a whirlpool of violence and chaos," he said.
White House spokesman Dan Bartlett said the decision to delay talks between Mr Bush and Mr Maliki was "absolutely not" linked to the leaked memo.

Earllier, White House spokesman Tony Snow, travelling with Mr Bush, said the chief aim of the memo was "to support Maliki and enhance his capabilities".

Mr Bush is facing growing political pressure over the lack of progress in Iraq and the rising tide of violence, says the BBC's Jonathan Beale in Washington.

Even the White House acknowledges the violence has reached a new phase, though it still dismisses talk of a civil war, he says.

Mr Bush is also under pressure to redouble US efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, our correspondent says, and will be told by King Abdullah that it is the most pressing crisis in the region.

Even Washington's strongest Arab allies are showing signs of frustration at US policies in the Middle East, he adds.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/m ... 194458.stm

Published: 2006/11/29 19:01:55 GMT

© BBC MMVI
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#26
So what is it ?
If the US withdraws from Iraq
will oil suddenly not be traded in dollars ?
Then we crash and burn as an economic entity?
If we have to leave our armies there
for decades just to counter
rapidly increasing Russian petropower and to
hold the world at hostage for trading oil in dollars,
then it is time to face the Big Market Crash
and get the hell out.

Funny how wars work these days,
you conquer a nation full of oil,
and the price of oil goes up back at home.
Fuck the Oil Corporations,
time for them to die off.

Let the Iranians have Iraq.

The Israelis are not going to let the US withdraw,
until the MidEast burns with Iranian blood.

It is already Armaggedon over there,
when do the Chinese and Russians
march on the Mid East ?
When Tehran looks like Dresden.
Reply
#27
Quote:Bush backs Iraq PM, says no U.S. "graceful exit"
Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:48 AM EST147
Printer Friendly
(Page 1 of 2)
Top News
Taliban scoff at NATO troop increase

Pope and Patriarch ponder an EU-member Turkey

UK monitoring five planes in radiation probe

Hundreds killed in south Sudan clashes: ex-officer

Humans must colonize other planets: Hawking

MORE
By Tabassum Zakaria and Suleiman al-Khalidi
AMMAN (Reuters) - President Bush strongly backed Iraq's prime minister on Thursday, saying Iraqi forces would be prepared more quickly to take over security and that Washington was not looking for a "graceful exit."
Bush supported Nuri al-Maliki as the "right guy" for Iraq at talks in Jordan amid spiraling sectarian bloodshed between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims that has overshadowed an already intractable Sunni insurgency in Iraq.
"Part of the prime minister's frustrations is that he doesn't have the tools necessary to take care of those who break the law," Bush said after the talks.
"We talked today about accelerating authority to the prime minister so he can do what the Iraqi people expect him to do," Bush told a joint news conference with Maliki.

http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsAr ... AQ-COL.XML
Reply
#28
saddam trial in chaos again

Quote:On Tuesday, a working party of the United Nations Human Rights Council said the first trial had fallen so far short of international standards that Saddam's detention was "arbitrary". The UN body urged the Iraqi government "to refrain from carrying out the sentence of death by hanging imposed in a proceeding which does not meet applicable standards of a fair trial." In the genocide trial, Saddam and six co-defendants are accused of killing 182,000 Kurds in 1988, when government troops swept through Kurdistan, burning and bombing thousands of villages.
Saddam and his former aides say it was a legitimate counter-insurgency operation against Kurdish separatists at a time when the country was locked in war with neighbouring Iran

http://www.kuwaittimes.net/regional.asp ... 1040643507
Reply
#29
President Bush is conducting his own separate review of policy.
As he made clear again in Jordan, there is no certainty that he will accept the recommendations of the Baker commission, or anyone else.
The impression is that the president still believes his own rhetoric about "staying the course".
Once again here in Jordan, Mr Bush painted this struggle in black and white terms, good against evil.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6159971.stm




WASHINGTON, Nov. 30, 2006
Quote
The report is apparently quite politically convenient, according to "one person involved in the commission's debates," who told the Times: “I think everyone felt good about where we ended up. It is neither ‘cut and run’ nor ‘stay the course.’”

Leaks Galore
The other Iraq-related issue taking up space on the front pages involved the jauntily named Iraq Study Group. "People familiar with" the deliberations of the ISG have leaked the panel's recommendations – that the US should call for a gradual withdrawal of the bulk of American combat forces in Iraq, but should not set a timetable for such a withdrawal.
According to the New York Times "the implicit message" of the report "was that the process should begin sometime next year." It does not specify whether the withdrawn troops would return to the U.S. or remain in Iraq's nearby bases.

"Some people knowledgeable about the group's deliberations" told the Washington Post that the possibility of reducing the size of the U.S.'s presence by half might be feasible in a year or two. The panel's approach "would place less emphasis on combat operations and more on logistics, intelligence and training and advising Iraqi units," writes the Post. That means, one "person familiar with the group's thinking noted," that the panel envisions a "substantial" military force remaining in Iraq.

The report is apparently quite politically convenient, according to "one person involved in the commission's debates," who told the Times: “I think everyone felt good about where we ended up. It is neither ‘cut and run’ nor ‘stay the course.’

link


And we pay money for this?



<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/pennywise.gif" alt="Pennywise" title="pennywise" />
Reply
#30
Quote:It is, however, too late to stop the bleeding in Iraq. Six hundred thousand dead Iraqis later, the United States will depart from Iraq leaving behind a nation whose citizens will be struggling to rebuild their society for decades.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq is a war crime of the first magnitude, an illegal war that destroyed a nation that had never attacked the United States, that did not have any weapons of mass destruction, that did not have any ties to al-Qaida, that had no connection to the September 11 attacks, and which—at the start of the war—was a small, impoverished country with a decimated army.

The civil war in Iraq may indeed get worse, and it may last for years. Each and every one of those deaths will be on George W. Bush’s conscience—if, in fact, the Bible-thumping hypocrite has any conscience left.



Even as the grown-ups in Washington scrambled to find a formula to end the war, Bush was reeling through another foreign trip like a manic Captain Queeg. “I’m not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete,” Bush ranted in Latvia, where he embarrassed America once again at a NATO summit. “We can accept nothing less than victory.” Departing Latvia, Bush bumbled into Amman, Jordan. There, he was humiliated by Nouri al-Maliki, the powerless and ineffectual prime minister of Iraq, who decided he had more important things to do than to keep a dinner appointment with the president of the United States. (With Bush sufficiently humbled, they will meet today.)


The wreckage of Bush’s Middle East policy sprawls in front of him. As Jordan’s King Abdullah impolitely pointed out, the Middle East faces not one, but three separate civil wars: Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/1 ... e_over.php


Quote:The wreckage of Bush’s Middle East [delete policy] sprawls in front of him.

that's called mission accomplished, or should we say
what it really is?
a calling, a vocation, a f-ing voice of the beast thing?

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictiona ... va=mission
Reply
#31
The Voice of the White House

Washington. D.C., November 26, 2006:” I have been talking about our imminent plans to institute a putsch in Baghdad, oust and “permanently remove” the current Iraqi government and replace it with a well-known Sunni general officer.

The CIA has been fomenting this for the past three months, on Bush’s orders, because he views the current government as “not responsive” to his views and, worse, in collusion with elements in Iraq that are hostile to the United States.

They are laying the groundwork here in Washington to prepare the PR way for this “urgent change of government,” and the chinless geeks in the Pentagon’s Public Relations division have sent out helpful directives to the captive press indicating the necessity for this radical change.

The new general, whose name I know and will publish, has agreed to “materially aid” American interests on the condition that he and his claque be allowed to govern without interference and who is certainly expected to slaughter all the Shiites in Iraq or drive them into Iran.

This, too, is a policy formulated by both Bush and Cheney. The Sunnis were always cozy with the U.S. government, back when the CIA hired Saddam to attack Iran and God alone know how much U.S. taxpayer’s money found its way into his pocket.

The CIA encouraged Saddam to use nerve gas on the Iranian military units, even supplying him with a good deal of it…which he did not use on the Iranians but did use on the rebellious Kurds.

If Saddam had been smart, he would have exposed the CIA and the DoS plus Bush Senior years ago. George Jr. doesn’t want to “establish Western Democracy” Iraq. He and his Zionist Neocon friends wanted to grab all their oil and use the country as a permanent military base in the Near East so as to be able to work with Israel in terrorizing other Arab countries and be able to launch attacks on any one of them that crossed their paths.

Now, I laugh to read that Cheney is being nice to the Saud Royal Family at the very same time the CIA is supporting yet another coup d’Etat in Saudi Arabia to replace the corrupt Saud dynasty with Waahabists.

One would think that this would be an act of rank idiocy because the latter are fanatic fundamentalists but then no one ever accused the CIA of having any more collective and working brains than a dead turtle.

Of course we won’t get any more oil from Saudi Arabia if there is a régime change but the oil is running out there and no one wants to talk about it.

The new Democratic rulers are still involved with pork issues but not like the thieving Republicans who actually chased the lobbyists around on K Street, offering their decaying and sagging bodies for sale for the price of a good dinner at the Jockey Club. And if the Democrats are fuzzy and liberal, at least they are not murderous ideologues who start wars, steal everything but a hot stove, slaughter legions of young Americans and even larger numbers of unarmed civilians like Josef Stalin in his glory days.

Or Saddam Hussein with his CIA nerve gas.”

Note: To the small claque of professional unbelievers who do not like the Voice of the White House and claim it never has any basis in truth (as if they were capable of discerning truth) we are publishing a selection of current news stories that are very obviously laying the foundation for the coming CIA putsch. Ed.
http://tbrnews.org/Archives/a2578.htm
Reply
#32
Quote:It is, however, too late to stop the bleeding in Iraq. Six hundred thousand dead Iraqis later, the United States will depart from Iraq leaving behind a nation whose citizens will be struggling to rebuild their society for decades.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq is a war crime of the first magnitude, an illegal war that destroyed a nation that had never attacked the United States, that did not have any weapons of mass destruction, that did not have any ties to al-Qaida, that had no connection to the September 11 attacks, and which—at the start of the war—was a small, impoverished country with a decimated army.

::

Captain Queeg: “I’m not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete,”

Quote:that's called mission accomplished, or should we say
what it really is?
a calling, a vocation, a f-ing voice of the beast thing?

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictiona ... va=mission




Oi Damned

Double damn that was the weirdest posting I ever made
I have some copycat freak
showing up on my Network wifi list
That bumps me into their secure network..
After I've made "my" connection
I was never able to hit send on this post
and yet here it is....

I need tech help...
or another cuppa

I know it is that timeline thing isn't it Coffee
&quot;The impure can become pure through the process of elimination, <br />but error can never be transformed into truth.&quot; <br /> Schwaller De Lubicz
Reply
#33
Imho, this is a war crime of a magnitude that rivals Nazi Germany. If the rest of the world doesn't see that, they should. This government & command of the military (highest levels) need to be brought to justice.

I have always felt like James Baker is really evil- far beyond arrogant & tyrannical. Virtually Cheney's equal. hmph. Apparently this mess is so bad that "even" he can't find a way to clean it up.
Doesn't matter. Bush is out of control & thinks he's above everyone. Starking raving crazy. I am afraid he will push this all the way to catastrophe.

I hadn't thought about it before, but wonder if this is how world war will take place- all other nations getting enough (as they did with Germany in the previous 2) & seeing no other option but to stop us. Will that bring the fighting to our soil?

Considering the circumstances between the Iraqis & Iranians, unless a whole lot has changed, that could only inflict further cruelty on them.
They need a saviour & I don't mean the Biblical kind. Scary because in the warf between the Soviets & Afghanistan, bin Laden was that saviour.
My God, all these years of "sanctions" to be followed by THIS?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)