Iraq

[Spaf]

Iraq


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq

[Quips]

Somebody mentioned on another thread on this site that Iraq is exporting some crude despite the chaotic environment. But it is less than what was being exported when Saddam was in power.

That may or may not be a fact -- their export of oil -- yet how much as each barrel cost since the military adventure stated? I won't even mentioned the loss of lives on both sides since that would really be a disgustingly low blow, but just in the financial cost of such an adventure.

Well, before the war began we could say the cost of Iraqi oil would also include the costs of keeping Saddam bottled up: no-fly zones, naval task force(s) steaming in the Persian Gulf, air bases in a few gulf nations, all the maintainence and upkeep, personnel, etc.

However, now, since Saddam was ousted that cost has increased how many fold? 20 times? 25 times? 40 times? 50 times? 100 times?

On the world market, well, that cost can be easily measured by the cost of a barrel of crude before the invasion and what it is today. But if we limit that cost to just Iraqi exports of crude, what would that price be per barrel? $1,000 a barrel? $5,000 a barrel? $10,000 a barrel?

I suppose it could be easily measured by the cost of the occupation -- in hundrends of billions of taxpayer dollars -- divided by the barrels of oil exported from Iraq since the occupation.

Mighty expensive oil ... and that is not counting the loss of life on both sides.

[Birchtree]

They are in the process of letting infrastructure contracts to outside companies world-wide. I wouldn't be surprised to see China show up to drill and produce. They will end up richer than the Sauds.

[Mike]

Somebody mentioned on another thread on this site that Iraq is exporting some crude despite the chaotic environment. But it is less than what was being exported when Saddam was in power.

That may or may not be a fact -- their export of oil
First off, if you're going to cite what I said, identify me. Don't act like some anonymous entity chimed in on something and then question the factual validity of the claim.

As for the factual basis, do a little research - or if you would have me do the heavy lifting, here is my source: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L04489410.htm

I may or may not feel the need to respond to the rest - I have a feeling you've made up your mind on why we went into Iraq long ago, and no amount of argument is going to convince you otherwise. For the time being, I'll just say this: if we wanted Iraq's oil, and if that was the real reason for going there, we simply would've dispatched whatever force was necessary to secure their oil fields and refineries. Our military is certainly capable of handling that, yet we didn't do it. Maybe the reason for that is because it has nothing to do with the actual mission over there.

[Quips]

Putin Tells Bush Russia Doesn't Need a Democracy Like Iraq's
July 15 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. President George W. Bush held up Iraq today as a model of democracy for Russia to follow. Russian President Vladimir Putin was quick to say he wasn't interested.

Bush made clear before arriving in St. Petersburg for talks with Putin he would raise concerns Russia was rolling back some of the democratic advances made in the 1990s, a charge Putin firmly denies. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have all spoken out on the issue over the last year.

``I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world like Iraq where there's a free press and free religion,'' Bush told a news conference with Putin after their talks. ``I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia would do the same thing.''

``We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, I will tell you quite honestly,'' Putin shot back.

Bush said he understood Russian democracy would develop in its own way.

[Quips]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/18/world/middleeast/18cnd-iraq.html?ex=1153368000&en=156f396010128b67&ei=5087%0A

[Quips]

Dismembering the body politic in Iraq
By Ahmed Janabi

Thursday 22 June 2006, 8:31 Makka Time, 5:31 GMT


Iraqi nationalists fear the break-up of their country





Tools:
Email Article
Print Article
Send Your Feedback




The US and British leaders may be getting domestic flak for their perceived mistakes in Iraq, but some observers in the Arab world see them as being quite successful - in carrying out a well-calculated plan to divide the country.



The debate dates back to July 13, 2003, when the Iraqi Governing Council was formed under Paul Bremer, the US administrator.

Sectarianism and ethnic extremism were strengthened in that council and various laws have since encouraged an aggressive sectarianism leading to a fierce militia war.

Anis Mansour, an Egyptian editor and author, believes the US is following the historical British policy of divide and rule.

He says: "What we are seeing now is just the beginning of a scheme to split the country up into regions.

"It is not true that the US has failed. It did what it wanted to do and this will last for a long time.

"It will stay the same whether a Democratic or a Republican president is to follow [George] Bush."

Continued chaos

US and other foreign soldiers continue to be killed in Iraq, while Iranian-backed militias take revenge on Iraqi officers who participated in the Iran-Iraq war.

Drive-by shootings are a daily occurrence, and mainly Sunni fighters are maintaining the battle against US-led forces as well as the Iraqi army and security forces backed and trained by the US.


Despite the exuberance, Iraqi
forces cannot keep law and order

The new government of Nuri al-Maliki is unlikely to succeed in curbing the violence.

More than three years since the US-led invasion, the foreign forces and the new Iraqi forces are both incapable of maintaining law and order.

Meanwhile, ordinary Iraqis are losing their sense of co-existence, in itself a dangerous characteristic of post-war Iraq.

US instigation

According to the Iraqi minister of expatriates and displaced people, sectarian violence has caused 14,000 Iraqi families to move.

Sunni families who lived in Shia majority areas have gone to Sunni majority neighbourhoods and vice versa.

The ongoing creation of ethnic and sectarian cantons worries Iraqi nationalists who fear a break up of their country.

The US is seen as the main instigator of sectarian sentiments, creating the right environment for the division of Iraq into sectarian and ethnic states unable to function without US protection.


Violence continues to be a part
of daily life for Iraqis

Hasan Nasr Allah, the leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon, says: "The US has driven the situation in Iraq to a state where they offer themselves to Shia as a guarantee [of protection] against Sunni, and offer themselves to Sunni as a guarantee against Shia.

"They present themselves to Arabs as a guarantee against Kurds, and present themselves to Kurds as a guarantee against Arabs.

"Their plot is doing just fine. Look at the situation in Iraq nowadays: What could possibly happen that is more appropriate for separatists to say that they have to split from Iraq to protect their community?"

Constitutional provision

Certain Iraqi politicians are also signalling that they favour a split. Masoud Barzani, the Kurdish leader who became president of Iraqi Kurdistan last year, cancelled his visit to China last May after Beijing refused to treat him as a head of state.

Barzani's move was seen as a renewed attempt to confirm the will of Kurdish politicians to secede from Iraq and form their long-desired independent Kurdish state.

"What we are seeing now is just the beginning of a scheme to split the country up into regions. It is not true that the US has failed. It did what it wanted to do and this will last for a long time"

Anis Mansour,
Egyptian editor and author

Maintaining the integrity of Iraq was the main issue that delayed approval of the new Iraqi constitution last year.

Iraqi nationalists were alarmed by an article in the constitution that allowed any governorate, alone or with other governorates, to form a ''region".

The constitution gives regions the right to form local security forces and freedom in managing the natural resources.

Kurds were the first to use that right when they announced their Kurdistan region and elected their government and president earlier this year.

Some Iraqi politicians say such entities will not be large enough to survive without foreign support.

Foreign aid

Haroun Muhammad, a London-based Iraqi political activist, says: "In addition to the seeds of separation in the new Iraqi constitution, separatists are getting foreign support, like Kuwait which has been backing both Kurdish and Shia leaders to separate from Iraq.

"It cannot be a coincidence that Ammar al-Hakim, the son of the senior Shia leader Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim, makes periodic visits to Kuwait."

The senior al-Hakim had demanded on several occasions that Iraqi Shia be given a federal state in southern Iraq, his last call being made on August 11, 2005, in Najaf as he was delivering a speech to a Shia gathering.

Muhammad says: "The reason for that is that Kuwait fears another future invasion from big Iraq. It is to their benefit to break it up into smaller parts unable to move troops south."

Saddam Hussein was not the first Iraqi leader to claim Kuwait, but he was the only one who sent troops across the border.

Abd al-Karim Qasim, the then Iraqi president, claimed Kuwait as a historical part of Iraq and moved troops to the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border, but British and Arab diplomatic efforts ended that crisis peacefully.

Shia demands

Barzani and the al-Hakim clan share the view that separate federal states for Shia and Kurds would protect them from the "suppression of the central government".


Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim (L) and
Masoud Barzani favour federalism

Iraqi and Shia political parties believe if Iraq were a federated state, Shia and Kurds would have avoided much of the suppression they suffered at the hands of Baghdad's central government in the past.

Khalid al-Atiya, a Shia member of parliament and leading member of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri), said in a recent interview that his sect's leaders would not give up its demands to establish a Shia federal state in central and southern Iraq.

"Shia insist on federalism because history has learned the lesson. They have suffered enough from dictatorship and central government.

"The central government will always be a reason to enrage sectarian violence. Federalism is the only way to secure Shia's rights," al-Atiya said.

Dhafir al-Ani, a Sunni member of parliament and spokesman for the Iraqi Accordance Front, told Aljazeera.net: "I regret to say that it is unlikely we will be able to prevent the partition of Iraq. I think it is going to be the way they want."


Aljazeera

[Quips]

Whose war is it?

By Hamid Golpira
What exactly is happening in Iraq and whose war is it, anyway?

Many argue that it is an imperialist war for conquest and control of vast oil reserves, but that does not seem to be the case.

The realpolitik of the 21st century is far more sophisticated than the colonialism of the 19th century.

Political analysts compare the occupation of Iraq to the Vietnam War. They are correct to make the comparison, but mostly for the wrong reasons.

The U.S. military and government lost the Vietnam War. Yet, it is said that some elements in the United States won the Vietnam War. How can that be?

The U.S. military-industrial complex earned billions and billions of dollars during the Vietnam War. This was the main objective of the major stockholders, and they didn’t care who won the war on the ground.

Now it seems that history is repeating itself, since the U.S. military-industrial complex is earning billions from the war in Iraq, with U.S. taxpayers footing the bill.

“No blood for oil” is the slogan of the peace activists, but this war is not about oil.

The extraction of oil requires engineers and oil workers.

The occupying forces have used over 500 tons of depleted uranium munitions in Iraq. On impact, a certain percentage of the DU fragments into dust, meaning thousands of kilos of uranium dust are blowing in the wind in Iraq, contaminating the people, the land, waterways, and crops and leaving large sections of the country an irradiated wasteland.

Very few engineers and oil workers will want to work in such an environment, so how can the war be about oil?

Yet, the so-called peace activists keep up the chorus about blood for oil. They do not realize they are being manipulated by forces that seek to neutralize the peace movement.

During the Vietnam War, peace activists were tricked into believing the peace movement was a one-issue struggle. Thus, when the war finally ended, most of them thought they had won, since their one issue had been resolved.

One day, the U.S. troops and their allies will leave Iraq, and most of the peace activists will retire from the struggle, just like an earlier generation of peace activists did after the Vietnam War, if all goes according to the evil plan.

The U.S. military-industrial complex will have made their billions, and those who sought to damage the gene pool of the Iraqi nation will also have attained their goal.

In addition, those who sought to neutralize the peace movement will have realized their objective.

However, there are still some things that peace activists can do now to prevent this bleak scenario from unfolding.

Many U.S. soldiers who served in Iraq have contracted Persian Gulf War Syndrome, a mysterious illness with no known cause, but which is probably caused by exposure to the uranium dust from DU weapons.

If a common struggle were to be established uniting the victims of depleted uranium munitions in the East and the West, maybe something could be accomplished.

An Iraqi citizen could very well say to a U.S. soldier: “GI Joe, don’t you get it? Wipe that uranium dust out of your eyes and take a good look at what’s happening. The same people who are killing us, are killing you, too.”

The military-industrial complex killing machine is basically a money-making machine. Therefore, it should be sued for damages.

And there could be very many plaintiffs.

At the height of the DU bombing, higher levels of radioactivity were even recorded in Britain.

Radiation detectors at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) in Aldermaston and four other stations recorded a fourfold increase in uranium levels in the atmosphere within a few weeks after the attack on Iraq began in March 2003.

Furthermore, some physicians have put forth the theory that the worldwide rise in diabetes over the past few years is due to the use of depleted uranium weapons on battlefields across the globe, since the wind carried the uranium dust all over the planet.

Governments responsible for war crimes like the use of DU weapons and the targeting of civilians should be tried at the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

Charges should be filed against government officials and executives of the military-industrial complex involved in these war crimes at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

Corporations that produce depleted uranium and other weapons of mass destruction that have been used against civilians should be sued for damages in national courts that have jurisdiction.

This won’t bring back the people who have been killed or cure the people affected by DU weapons or maimed, but it would be an effort to put the military-industrial complex killing machine out of business, which is what the peace activists say they are trying to do in the first place.

[Birchtree]

Jesus, give me a break.

[JOVARN]

Jesus, give me a break.
Jesus will give some a break not sure what will happen to the rest.
That’s if U believes in that sort of stuff.

[JOVARN]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4525412.stm
Iraq Body Count: War dead figures
The number of civilians reported to have been killed during the Iraq war and subsequent military presence is being recorded by the campaign group Iraq Body Count.
On 1 August 2006 it put the total number of civilian dead at 37,733 to 42,267 and the number of police dead at 2,280.
The issue of counting the number of Iraqis killed since the US-led invasion is highly controversial and the figure is disputed. ( Some reports say higher not many say lower)
The US and UK military authorities do not record the number of civilians killed by their forces. The security situation and administrative chaos also make counting extremely difficult.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/casualties.html
Military casualties provided by government sources
Figures represent total since the beginning of hostilities on March 20, 2003.
U.S.
Total military deaths: 2,568
Britain
Total military deaths: 114

Lets us not be so quick, to judge the views of others.

[JOVARN]

Going to the sandbar to have a few drinks on my day off
Happy investing

[Birchtree]

The number 2 Al-Qaida slime boss has been arrested. Hamed Jumaa Farid al-Saeedi should be tortured by breaking every bone in his body starting with his ten toes. Satan is waiting for this one.

[Birchtree]

To fight the slime Jihads, we and our allies simply have to become more ruthless and more experienced. The Vietnam generation is no longer helpful. An unspoken advantage of the current awful strife in Iraq and Afghanistan is that it is training tens of thousands of our young officers and soldiers to fight on the worst imaginable terrain, and gradually to learn how to confront, infiltrate, "turn", isolate and kill the worst imaginable enemy. These are faculties that we shall be needing in the future. It is a shame that we have to expend our talent in this way, but it was worse five years and two days ago, when the enemy knew that there was a war in progress, and was giggling at how easy the attacks would be, and "we" did not even know that hostilities has commenced. I have faith in this new generation and my daughter chose to defend my freedom by going to Iraq to do her best. And I realize that as a parent I'm not alone - many of us are currently making the same sacrifice. Hooah!

[Quips]

The war in Iraq had nothing to do with Qaida. It was an adventure of our own making. Saddam had nothing to do with Qaida and rebuffed them at every opportunity. There were no weapons of mass destruction either.

In fact, the carnage going on in Iraq now makes Saddam look like he should be presented with the Noble Peace Prize for keeping a lid on top of things.

Our involvement there made a bad situation worse, and now we will have more enemies rather than less. And besides that, Osama is still making videos.

Our involvement in Iraq was based on prefabricated, false evidence and that was used to topple a regime that was unpopular with most people -- but atleast it kept the peace in Iraq unlike anything that is being done there now.

Sadddam had nothing to do with Sept. 11, 2001.

[Birchtree]

Quips,

Many of your comments are factual - but you still miss the primary objective. That objective is next door - a bunch of lunatic, rag head Mullahs determined to have Muhammed conquer all. We now have infrastructure and enough logistics to set them straight when the time is ready. So Iraq was an essential step in preparation for a higher order conflict. And we as a country are so fortunate that we don't have yellow back Jimmy, promiscuous Bill and photo shoot John standing in the way.

[SkyPilot]

Quip, move on... the war with the Islamofacists in now in Iraq. There will be war, they declared it. The only question is; where do you want to fight it?

[rokid]

Quip, move on... the war with the Islamofacists in now in Iraq. There will be war, they declared it. The only question is; where do you want to fight it?
Did you get a chance to see Jim Webb debate George Allen on today's Meet the Press? He suggested that the U.S. diplomatically engage Iran and Syria to help get us out of the mess in Iraq! He also got Allen to agree that the U.S. should not maintain long term bases in Iraq. Since that's currently the plan, that was a big concession.

Webb thinks it was a mistake to get into Iraq. However, now that we're there, he thinks we need to figure out a way to extricate ourselves without making the situation even worse. In addition, according to Webb, putting more troops in, as recently suggested by Bill Kristol, without re-instituting the draft, is just not feasible. Finally, like McCain, Warner (the great Virginia Senator), and Graham, Webb is against CIA torture and reinterpreting the Geneva Accords to suit our perceived interrogation needs.

Webb made Allen look like a fool - which he is. :cheesy: It's interesting to see how politicians and pundits who have not gone to war (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Allen, Wolfowitz, Rice, Bill Kristol etc. ), and whose children are not serving, are so anxious to send other people's children to war.

In addition, by institutionalizing torture, we're putting our troops and CIA agents at risk. Finally, we're undermining what this country stands for - something better than some tin horn Third World dictatorship - and jeopardizing our position on the high moral ground.

If you're not familiar with Jim Webb, he's an Annapolis graduate, Vietnam War hero (Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and two Purple Hearts), wrote the book classic Vietnam War book, Fields of Fire, and was Secretary of the Navy under Reagan. Not exactly a wimp. In addition, his son is a Marine officer that was just deployed to Iraq (Webb missed a big Virginia Labor Day political event because he wanted to spend time with his son before he went to Iraq) . Although Webb's family hails from southwest Virginia, he is very serious and definitely not a back slapping good old boy.

Nice to see someone really smart, honorable, courageous and competent running for office - even if he is a Conservative! Maybe, the Swift Boat flotilla can attack him. However, I doubt it.:D

[Quips]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/chartier/chartier32.html

[Birchtree]

Quips,

I see the name Lew Rockwell and I know better than to wear a nice pair of shoes when I visit. He is so stank. What a waste of ink.

Dennis

[Birchtree]

I saw a news video of the habitat builder Jimmy Carter who was bashing George Bush about his policies in Iraq. As I looked closer it was becoming evident that ole Jimmy must have contracted Hepatitis. Now not only is his back side yellow but his lips and entire body has turned a pale shade of lemmon yellow. How appropriate, soon he'll be infecting Hugo.

[weatherweenie]

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A senior U.S. diplomat said the United States had shown "arrogance" and "stupidity" in Iraq but was now ready to talk with any group except Al-Qaida in Iraq to facilitate national reconciliation.

In an interview with Al-Jazeera television aired late Saturday, Alberto Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department offered an unusually candid assessment of America's war in Iraq.

[Quips]

They Lied About the Reasons for Going to War
by Jacob G. Hornberger
by Jacob G. Hornberger


DIGG THIS

In determining whether someone has lied, circumstantial evidence can oftentimes be as critical as direct evidence. For example, suppose someone says, “I was outside all last night and it did not rain.” A person who was inside might be tempted to conclude, “Well, since I wasn’t outside, I must assume that he is telling the truth.” However, if the person on the inside looks outside and sees that everything – the houses, yards, driveways, and cars – are wet and that streams of water are running in the streets, his conclusion might be different. Using such circumstantial evidence, he might well conclude that the person who is claiming that it did not rain is lying.


The circumstantial evidence with respect to the invasion of Iraq leads inexorably to but one conclusion: President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other U.S. officials lied about their reasons for invading Iraq. Those lies have profound consequences not only for the Iraqi people, who have borne the brunt of the invasion and subsequent occupation of their country, but also for the American people, including U.S. soldiers who have killed and maimed people whose government never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so.

Among the many justifications that the administration relied upon in the months leading up to invading Iraq were:

To protect the American people from an urgent and imminent threat of a WMD attack by Saddam Hussein;
To enforce UN resolutions requiring Saddam to disarm; and
To liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam’s tyranny.

The first justification was the one on which most Americans relied. In the critical months leading up to the invasion, which we here at FFF were ardently opposing, we were being inundated every day with critical emails taking us to task for not trusting our public officials, who obviously had access to secret information that they could not share with the public. There was no doubt that the senders of those critical emails were convinced that the United States was under an urgent threat of an impending WMD attack. “What would you do?” they nervously asked. “Wait until the nuclear bomb goes off?”

Most of the fear revolved around a nuclear attack, which was not surprising, given the statements that federal officials were feeding their minds.
In his speech to the United Nations, President Bush tried to shut down the political speculation. This is a life-and-death matter, the President insisted. “Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year,” he told the U.N. General Assembly in New York Thursday.

To those who say, we want more evidence that there’s a real threat, the Administration says, we can’t wait for a smoking gun to turn up. “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud,” National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said on CNN’s Late Edition recently. (CNN.com, September 12, 2002)
Some people suggest that President Bush and Vice President Cheney just made an honest mistake in relying on faulty intelligence reports about the threat posed by Saddam’s WMDs. There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that that the mistake was not an honest one – that they “cherry-picked” the parts of the intelligence reports to support what they wanted to believe.

However, while most of the postwar debate has revolved around whether Bush and others lied about or intentionally exaggerated the WMD threat posed by Saddam, the circumstantial evidence leads to but one conclusion on something much more important – that Bush, Cheney, and other U.S. officials were knowingly and intentionally lying with respect to the real reason that they were invading Iraq.

Let’s review that circumstantial evidence.

1. Prior to the actual invasion, President Bush spent months lobbying the UN Security Council to unanimously grant him authority to invade Iraq to enforce the UN resolutions that required Saddam to rid himself of his WMDs. Ultimately, once Bush realized that he was going to be unable to secure the votes of all the permanent members of the Security Council, he decided to invade anyway, with the assistance of a “coalition of the willing” – a coalition of nations that were willing to participate in the enforcement of the UN resolutions requiring Saddam to “disarm.”

Now ask yourself: If a foreign nation was really about to attack the United States, especially with WMDs, would any president spend any time whatever going to the UN to seek permission to attack that nation first or spend time to round up a group of countries to participate in a “coalition of the willing”? That is beyond the realm of reasonable probability. In a real-life situation in which America was about to come under a nuclear, biological, or chemical attack the president would strike hard immediately to defend the nation against such an attack without first seeking anyone’s consent or approval.

Indeed, if an enemy nation was really about to attack the United States, would the president even be talking about the importance of enforcing UN resolutions? Who in his right mind would care about the importance of enforcing UN resolutions if another nation was about to fire nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons at our country? All that would matter would be taking out attacking missiles immediately.

Yet even while feeding the fears of the American people by suggesting extreme urgency because of Saddam’s WMD threat, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and Secretary of State Powell were lobbying UN officials – that is, officials of other nations – for a new resolution authorizing them to enforce previous UN resolutions that required Saddam to “disarm.” Indeed, recall that when Powell made a famous speech with charts detailing Saddam’s WMDs that he would soon be firing at the United States, Powell was at the UN seeking a resolution, not at the Congress of the United States seeking a declaration of war against a nation that supposedly was about to attack the United States with WMDs.

Then, once it became clear to Bush that the UN was not going to give him the resolution he sought, the situation became “Hurry, hurry, hurry.” We can’t let those hapless UN inspectors continue searching for Saddam’s WMDs, Americans were told, because the situation is too dire and urgent. We’ve go to invade now because otherwise we might well see a mushroom cloud tomorrow. And there is no doubt that most Americans who supported the invasion believed it.

2. Among the alternative rationales that Bush, Cheney, and other U.S. officials relied on to justify their invasion of Iraq was to free the Iraqi people from Saddam’s tyranny. Granted, that wasn’t the primary justification – that is, it wasn’t the one that resonated deep within American people, like the threat of a nuclear attack did – but it certainly was one of reasons given for invading. Ask yourself: If our nation was really about to be attacked by an enemy nation, especially with nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, what is the likelihood that U.S. officials would be justifying their preemptive strike to take out those missiles by arguing that a collateral benefit of a preemptive strike would be to free the people of the enemy nation from tyranny? Would U.S. officials, including those in the military, really be thinking about such benefits? Not a chance. If our nation was really about to be attacked by an enemy nation, U.S. officials would strike them hard, without considering how this would help the people of the targeted nation.

In fact, the use of alternative and secondary rationales for invading Iraq is itself strong circumstantial evidence that the primary rationale given for invading – the dire threat of an imminent WMD attack – was bogus, because if such a threat really existed no one would be bothering to come up with alternative and secondary reasons for attacking.

3. On September 7, 2002 – that is, on the eve of the 2002 congressional elections – White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr., provided an additional piece of circumstantial proof that U.S. officials were lying about the urgent threat of an imminent WMD attack on the United States by Saddam Hussein. Card said, “From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.”

What was Card referring to? He was referring to the methods by which the Bush administration was selling the necessity of a war against Iraq. Keep in mind that this was the period of time when Democratic congressional candidates in the 2002 election were terrified that Bush and the Republicans would accuse them of being soft on terrorism and of being unpatriotic. Thus, Bush and his people knew that the best time for getting a congressional resolution authorizing Bush to declare war on Iraq was before, not after, the November 2002 election.

So what Card was suggesting was that in August people are on vacation and their minds are on the summer, fun, and their families. Therefore, the best time to produce the arguments for going to war on Iraq would be in September, when people were once again focused on politics and business, which would still provide plenty of time to terrify people before the November election into thinking that a WMD attack could come at any time.

[Quips]

Ask yourself: If the nation was really under threat of an imminent attack, would U.S. officials be concerned with developing a marketing plan for getting people behind the war effort? Would they be thinking that August would not be a good month for telling people about the fact that an enemy nation was preparing a nuclear, biological, or chemical attack and that September would be better? How likely is that? Not likely at all. If an enemy nation was truly preparing to strike the United States with WMDs, there would be no marketing strategy at all – U.S. officials would immediately begin preparing the preemptive strike, whether in June, July, or August, and would gravely inform the American people of what has happening. There would be no reason to try to develop a marketing strategy to sell the necessity of going to war – or to come up with alternative and secondary rationales for attacking.

4. Recently, Vice President Cheney stated that given what he now knows – that is, that the United States was not under an urgent threat of a WMD attack by Saddam – that there was no threat that Saddam would explode mushroom clouds over American cities – that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no connections to al- Qaeda – the United States would have invaded Iraq anyway.

Let that sink in for a moment. What Cheney is saying is that the United States would have invaded Iraq regardless. In other words, in the minds of Bush and Cheney, the imminent threat of a WMD attack on our country by Saddam was not a determining factor in invading Iraq. That is, even if Bush and Cheney knew beforehand that Saddam had “disarmed,” they would have attacked anyway.

5. A few months after the invasion of Iraq, when it was clear that no WMDs were going to be discovered, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair, “The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason.”

Ask yourself: If the United States were truly under the threat of an imminent WMD attack by a foreign nation, would federal bureaucrats be trying to figure out which issue everyone could agree on to justify an attack on that nation? Aren’t Wolfwitz’s words more consistent with the notion that U.S. officials were more concerned with coming up with the best excuses to justify an attack on Iraq rather than the notion that they were acting under the genuine threat of an imminent WMD attack on the United States?

Those pieces of circumstantial evidence inexorably lead but to one conclusion – that from the start, the threat of an imminent WMD attack on the United States was a bogus reason for going to war against Iraq. But U.S. officials knew that it was most effective marketing tool to get the American people and the members of Congress to become sufficiently trusting and fearful to cause them to immediately support the coming invasion.

So if the urgent WMD threat wasn’t the real reason for going to war, what was? For that answer, we must look, once again, to circumstantial evidence.

For more than 10 years after the Persian Gulf War, the U.S. government, operating in conjunction with the UN, imposed and enforced some of the most brutal and effective sanctions against Iraq that have ever been enforced against another country. For a good collection of articles on the devastating effects of the sanctions on the Iraqi people – especially with respect to the high death rate among Iraqi children from infectious diseases – click here.

Suffice it to say (1) that the sanctions contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children; (2) that U.S. Ambassador the UN Madeleine Albright expressed the sentiments of other U.S. officials when she said that the deaths were “worth it”; and (3) that high UN officials resigned in protest against the massive number of Iraqi children who were dying every year.

What was the purpose of the sanctions? The ostensible purpose was to compel Saddam Hussein to comply with UN resolutions requiring him to disarm himself of WMDs. Yet, even though Saddam continued to steadfastly maintain, year after year of rising deaths among the Iraqi populace, that he had complied with the UN resolutions, he was hit with the same response by U.S. officials – “He’s lying, and the only reason that the UN inspectors are unable to locate the WMDs is that they are incompetent.” Year after year, U.S. officials continued to maintain that Saddam had the burden of showing that he no longer had WMDs as a condition of lifting the sanctions, ignoring the obvious difficulty that anyone would have in trying to prove such a negative.

Ultimately, Saddam stopped cooperating with the UN inspectors not because he was trying to hide his WMDs, which is what U.S. officials steadfastly continued claiming, but rather because it finally became clear that U.S. officials would never permit the sanctions to be lifted, no matter whether Saddam could prove he had disarmed or not. They made it clear that the sanctions would be lifted only if Saddam Hussein left office and was replaced by a U.S.-approved substitute.

Thus, the real purpose of the sanctions was what has become known as “regime change” – the idea of squeezing a nation and its regime economically so hard that either the ruler abdicates or his own people oust him from office and replace him with a U.S.-approved substitute (such as Ahmed Chalabi), at which point the sanctions would be lifted and U.S. foreign aid would flow into the country to “rebuild it.”

Thus, given that “regime change” was the purpose of the sanctions throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, it stands to reason that “regime change” continued to be a major driving force behind the plans to invade Iraq in 2003.

That had to be why Cheney announced that they would have invaded Iraq even if they had known that there were no WMDs. They were going into Iraq to do what more than a decade of brutal and deadly sanctions had not done – oust Saddam from power and replace him with a U.S. substitute.

At the time he made that statement, Cheney suggested that it would have been necessary to remove Saddam anyway because he was a dangerous ruler, a postinvasion point that Bush has also used. That justification rings hollow as well. Of course Saddam was a dangerous ruler, but there are lots of dangerous rulers in the world, many of whom the U.S. government has ardently supported. Pervez Musharraf, the military general who took power in a coup in Pakistan, who won’t permit democratic elections, and who has nuclear weapons, is a good example. Another example would be Saddam Hussein himself, whom U.S. officials supported during the 1980s when they delivered to him the very WMDs that they later used as their primary pretext for invading Iraq. Click here for a collection of articles detailing where Saddam, a dangerous ruler, got his WMDs. (Thus, it’s not surprising that Bush and Cheney would market the war with the WMD rationale: in their minds it was inconceivable that Saddam would have actually destroyed the WMDs that the United States had delivered to him during the Reagan-Bush years.)

Another important piece of circumstantial evidence that inexorably leads to regime change, not the imminent threat of a WMD attack, as the real reason for invading Iraq is the famous (and previously secret) Downing Street Memo, in which British officials stated, “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

Defenders of the war might argue, “By relying on faulty intelligence, the president and vice president just made an honest mistake, and therefore, U.S. officials are not morally responsible for the massive death and destruction in Iraq.” But that’s just not true: even if the WMD intelligence reports had been faulty, the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly establishes that President Bush and Vice President Cheney and their associates were being dishonest with respect to the real reason they were sending the nation into war against Iraq. As Vice President Cheney pointed out, even if the president and vice president had known that the intelligence reports were false, they would have ordered an invasion anyway.

Is the WMD lie important? Yes, because it led an untold number of Americans to support a war and an occupation that have unleased forces that have resulted in the deaths and maiming of hundreds of thousands, on both sides. Thus, while it is entirely possible that Bush and Cheney would have invaded Iraq anyway if the American people had known the truth about why they were invading, at least the war and occupation would not have received the moral sanction of a deceived people.

[rokid]

So if the urgent WMD threat wasn’t the real reason for going to war, what was?
We don't attack countries that have nuclear weapons - see Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran.

However, regime change? Why? Saddam was our buddy for years. He was our weapon against the Iranians. In fact, Saddam thought we had given him the go ahead to invade Kuwait. Of course, he was wrong.:sick:

My list of possible reasons:

1. Saddam tried to kill Bush I. Nah. Bush I and Bush II don't seem all that friendly.

2. We wanted to establish freedom in the Middle East. Are you kidding? Nah.

3. We wanted to rescue the Iraq people from Saddam. Nah.

4. Bush is on a mission from God. Except for Bush and the Christian Right, nah. Can you imagine Cheney going along with that premise?:cheesy:

5. The neo-cons wanted to finish the unfinished business from Gulf War I. Makes the most sense to me. In addition, since all of the neo-con policy makers missed the last war against insurgents, i.e. Vietnam, they probably thought it was possible. However, why were the neo-cons so "hell bent" on finishing the job? We had Saddam in a box. This war is still a mystery to me.

Side note: Why, 30 years after Vietnam, does the military still remain clueless on how to fight a guerrilla war and "win hearts and minds"? Alternately, if winning guerrilla wars isn't possible, maybe we should leave preemptive invasions out of our foreign policy repertoire.:notrust:

[Show-me]

I don't want to debate politics but my quick opinion is that the Iraqi people are so imprinted with the ways of the sword that it will take much education and generations to change that way of thinking. We can not help a people that is not willing to help themselves become a better society, but we can not allow themselves to go back to living by the sword again. Who ever controls that county control the wealth and can use it as they please. To me that mean that a radical, nut bag, brainwashing, sheep herder could control the country if he has the right people killed and gains support of the brainwashed. Prime example is the nut bag cleric in Australia that preached that women deserve to get raped because of the way they dress. I like the way they dress and I don't even think of raping them. Show that they have no self discipline or they like the power to do as they wish with their poperty.......women. Sad!

That being said, I also believe that Saddam was a butcher and needed to be eliminated along with his family, and followers. The planet is getting smaller.

[FUTURESTRADER]

poor Dubyah can't get anything right. Now he and his cabinet are pushing 'benchmarks'. Don't they really mean 'milestones'? That does seem like a legitimate strategy. Somebody in his cabinet must have a MSProject file titled 'Iraq'.

[robo]

DEFEAT IN IRAQ
by Martin D. Weiss, Ph.D.
Editor, Safe Money Report & MoneyandMarkets.com
November 7, 2006

I’m in London, in transit for our return flight to Florida, and I have a brief, but painful, message for you this morning:

We’re going to lose the war in Iraq.

This is hard to swallow, I know. But it seems blatantly obvious to everyone except those who have the most to lose.

Every single newspaper on this side of the Atlantic is headlining the deepening chaos in Iraq. Even the sentencing of Saddam on Saturday, heralded in the U.S. as a victory, is likely to deepen the sectarian strife and inflame the anti-American insurgency, according to the Wall Street Journal’s Europe edition this morning.

In Washington, most politicians now seem vividly aware of the crisis — not to mention the sweeping impact it’s likely to have at the polls tomorrow.

But, strangely, the movers and shakers on Wall Street still seem oblivious to the impact the war could have on investors.

The Iraq war is the elephant in the living room. Investors look at it but don’t see it. They feel its presence but don’t want to touch it.





http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/weiss/2006/1107.html

[FUTURESTRADER]

It's not about winning or losing. BTW, I heard the word 'milestone' being eased into the rhetoric the other day. 'Bout time, Dubyah handlers.

[FUTURESTRADER]

Rumsfeld is resigning

[weatherweenie]

Rumsfeld is resigning

Market moves up a little on the news.

[BigJohn]

I think the answer to the Why we attached Iraq was Sept. 11th...and on one level it wasn't upper-level geo-politics, or some conspiracy theory with Big Oil and the Saudi Royal Family, I think it had more to do with the American personality than anything else. We (the good ol' USA) are the only Superpower left, the Greatest producing country the earth has ever seen...and we are the biggest kid in the sandbox. On 9/11, 3000 of our people got massacred by a bunch of cowards in airplanes...these 3000 weren't our soldiers on a battlefield fighting a convential enemy, they were regular citizens living their lives. So the biggest kid in the sandbox shook off the loss and decided it was time for to remind the world what happens when the biggest kid decides to exert himself, is it so hard to imagine that the intelligence estimates on WMD's were a bit off in such a climate?

And I know this begs the question...does this make the deaths of GI's in Iraq meaningless? Absolutely not in my opinion. Does fighting violent extremists by refusing to use violent means make any sense? Look at Libya as example of a country that was at one time on the top of the list of worrisome countries on the terror list...they voluntarily dismantled their nuke program after Gulf War I, not wanting the same to happen to them.

At the end of the day there were no easy answers to how to respond to 9/11 just as there are no easy answers to how do we address the Iraq situation now. It would be nice if people who talked about it remembered how it felt right after 9/11, how everyone had such strong feelings "ABOUT DOING SOMETHING" that seems to be forgotten now.

Sorry for the long missive...but it is what I think anyway.

[Birchtree]

I maintain the goal of Iraq is next door. The smelly ragheads in Iran are the dangerous perps. We are building infrastructure and logistical commands to take on this evil. And we will do it on their territory. They will end up suffering immensely for Allah.

[jfos]

I just registered today for this site but I must have been mistaken. I thought that this was a site related to investments and the TSP. I didn't realize it was a site for political bantering. I get enough of that crap from FOX and CNN. Can we stick to the issue of investments and the TSP and have some refuge from the daily views of conservatives and liberals? It would be appreciated.

[Show-me]

jfos,

This thread is for discussing Iraq and related subject whether TSP related or not. You are not required to view it.

[Locke]

I think we need more election coverage?

I guess I just didnt realize when it was that we entered into a confirmed bull market? Or was this cyclical bear?

Why is it that everyone wants to tell you when to buy but no one will tell you when to sell?

[Birchtree]

Locke,

Sell in October 2010. Many cycles will be nesting then.

[grandma]

It is interesting to consider in 1987 the Israelis found massive, massive amts of Russian weaponery, including tanks & armored vehicles, hidden in tunnels in Lebanon - ten times more Russian weapons than Israeli intelligence had reported....these are BIG tunnels, folks. Then when the US was considering going to Iraq - what was it? - six months before we actually did? Is there anyone that doesn't think Saddam had more than an adequate amount of time to move out/hide his WMDs?? ...before you answer, recall those tunnels that Were found by our troops just in Iraq, also that residue of WMDs was also detected. Also keep in mind that among the documents found in Saddam's papers were briefings to him from the Russians that included the location, type of weaponry & amount - including aircraft & ships, etc, etc., of our forces. Don't tell me our guys/gals aren't there for not only national, but also global safety. Any showing of weakness just gives those whose goal (stated & acted on) is to eliminate the USA -a stronger feeling of `their superiority' & reason to increase their aggresiveness. ...and that was their goal with 9/11 - BEFORE we invaded.

grandma

[recliner]

you hit it right on the nail grandma. I agree.

[vic]

The middle East is far more complicated with ramifications world wide, not only in the USA. Whether we "win" is not the issue. They are the ones that are threating to kill all Americans. blow up the White House and so on. Unfortunetly we have very short memories and for get 9/11. Forget they attempted to blow up the towers before, the USS COLE, the embassy and
many more, some of which we prevented. Every one says Iraq is a mess, what was it before we went there, paridise? It was worse. People were getting killed then too, only you did not read about it. Yes we are losing the war of the press. The insurgents are getting more print then they ever thought possible, because the press both written and TV hate George W. more then they love their country. The WMD were there,they have been moved and we will find them, hell he used them against his own people, different tribes. Europe and the Russians, French did not want to invade because they had their own deals with Saddam. Every one works their own deals to their benefit. We have all the might in the world, and the world knows we are not going to use it. Not since WW11. Why? Let's talk!There is a time for talking,usually after you kick them in the ass they listen better. We can not leave Iraq, not now. Not for a long time. Not as long as the world need the oil and you have the fundimentals running these countries. We need to use the press better and propaganda. Wars are not faught only thru firepower, that we will not ever lose. It is the prpaganda war we never are very good at. The article that was posted made some interresting points except we are not going to lose the war. Winning or losing is how you define win. If it was ti get mrid of Saddam? we have won. If it was ot convert Iraq into Christians, not going to happen. If it was to get closer to Iran and cause chaos, we are doing that. If it is to scare only, will not happen because they know we are a country divided. You are fighting against very smart people who have kept the majority of the population ignorant to world evants. They are still leaning on ideals from the 13 century. This will take some time. So please do not tell me we are going to lose. They say we lost in Viet Nam. We never lost a battle and when we bombed close to Hanoi, they wanted to talk. Today we are talking to the Vietnamese and I have cloth made in Viet Nam. Crazy but true.

[grandma]

The article that was posted made some interresting points except we are not going to lose the war. Winning or losing is how you define win. If it was ti get mrid of Saddam? we have won. If it was ot convert Iraq into Christians, not going to happen. .

Vic -Hopefully I did not word the post in such a way anyone would construe I think we are, or will, lose this war. As for conversions, this is happening - even tho the media is reporting the exact opposite. Morocco, Sudan ...in fact, any of the countries you read that are having additional vicious onslaughts against Christians, have increased their activity for one reason - their people are discovering the way of persecution Against them, the natives, by their very own leaders, is not the way of the Christian world. Example, 14 new churches have opened in Baghdad alone since the beginning of the war, business are being run without threat from hoodlums. Our troops over there Are doing their job, not to open churches, but to set the people free to do their own thing, whatever it may be. We all need to visit other News sites besides the mainline media. Also, a great deal of what I have mentioned is also found in Joel Rosenberg's book, EPICENTER., c2006. Previous administrations, as you noted, brought us to this point; we are now over there full force, and we are dealing with the knowledge Iran is now able to pop off a bomb where ever it chooses -America first to disable us, then eliminate Israel, a land barely the size of our smallest states!! Why anyone would elect those same guys again is beyond me. Knowing where my trust is does not rule out intense concern.

[vic]

I was just stating my opinion. Robo had posted an article by Martin D Weiss, we are going to lose the war in Iraq. I agree with you grandma that we are doing a lot od good things in Iraq that go unreported. the Iraqs are scarificing a lot for their freedom. They are dying daily and they continue to
over come and win. Remember they were dying before with Saddam, dying is a way of life at least they have hope that they will have some freedom. The insurgents want ot go back to an Iraq that was the same as before, only with out Saddam. The culture has to be changed and this will take a while.
The main stream media does not report ever any thing good from Iraq. I agrre with we should be voting most of these people out, we never do. Kerry and Kennedy can run for ever in Mass. and be reelected, why? What has he ever done? What good legeslation has he ever pushed thru congress? Out side of being a Kennedy, what has he done. Kerry, we could talk forever on his agenda, and he damn near became president. This country is in trouble because we can not get honest people to remain honest AFTER WE ELECT THEM. Again this is just my honest opinion. I do not see us leaving Iraq any time soon, and if we leave before the Iraqs are ready to control their destiny. we will be back there. It is in our national interrest to be there.

[grandma]

DEFEAT IN IRAQ
I’m in London, in transit for our return flight to Florida, and I have a brief, but painful, message for you this morning:

Every single newspaper on this side of the Atlantic is headlining the deepening chaos in Iraq.

Robo - the European countries have no interest in unbiased news - Russia is working on getting the USSR countries back besides moving on southward, and has convinced them that the Europeans have a vested interest in seeing to it.

Even should those newspapers be the only ones available, they would be worthless.
Please, everyone, read EPICENTER - non-fiction -(a very easy to read print) then make your own informed decision on just where the truth lies.

[Birchtree]

Well we all know that most dogs can swim better than Teddy Kennedy. Need I say more.

[vic]

The last democrat with a backbone was Harry S. Truman. Dropped the big one and then dropped it again. After the second one they said 'No Mas'. If we had done tha same in North Korea, we would not have the problems with them. If we had done that to Iran when they overran our embassy and took hostages, we would not have the problems there today. If the world knew we can not and will not be pushed by third world countries that are going to impose their doctrine on us we would not be in the trouble we are in today.
The world is constandly changing, our friends yesterday are not our friends today. China is quickly becoming a more capitalistic country. India's ecconomy is growing as are other european countries. This is not your fathers world any longer and it changes quickly. If we had fought differently back when, we may not be fighting today. IMHO

[weatherweenie]

we are now over there full force,

Part of the problem is that we are not over there in full force.

[Birchtree]

If we must sacrifice soldiers' lives then it should at least be on a 500 dead enemy to one american. That's the price that should be paid by both Shiite and Sunni.

[vic]

IMHO 1000 Shiiite and Sunni could never equal the courage of one American service man/woman. They do not need to be dying if they were allowed to fight the war properly. The Iraqes would not be dying like they are by cowards who have been brainwashed by a religion, that has been highjacked by a few militants for their own agenda. We as Americans do not understand completely, but we are being forced by circumstances beyond our control. Just pray that these human bombs stay over there and not cross the big pond. Look at Europe. We are not immune, we are the target. They have been baiting us into war for a long time. We need to repond with more force then they have ever seen. Unfortunately that is the only way they will understand. We are more concerned about gay marriages, stem cell reserch and if we want to imbeach the president because he listen to phone convversation from people that are trying to kill us. This president has two degrees from Yale and Harvard and they love to call him stupid. I do not get it. I think the media hate G.W. more then they hated Nixon and they{media} are going to do every thing they can to drive him out of office. G.W. is not the best president we have had, I would rather have him then Gore or Kerry.Maybe McCain can step up to the plate. God knows the democrates have no one. Only time will tell.

[rokid]

I just finished reading Hubris by Michael Isikoff and David Corn. As we now know, Iraq had no WMD. However, the administration knew there were no WMD before we went to war. The allegation that Iraq was seeking yellow cake in Nigeria, that their aluminum tubes were for centrifuges, and that they had mobile bio weapon labs were all proven false before the war. In addition, the administration knew, before the war, that Iraq was not involved in 9/11.

The CIA strongly suspects that the Iraq National Congress’ (INC) intelligence director, Aras Habib, was an Iranian agent. The INC is run by the administration’s favorite Iraqi, Ahmad Chalabi. Ironically, the CIA now suspects that Iran suckered us into defeating their old enemy Saddam Hussein. In fact, who had the most to gain from us attacking Iraq? Iran.

Finally, who was the neocon prime mover behind the war? Harvard professor Laurie Mylroie. Yeah, I never heard of her either. But apparently, Cheney and Wolfowitz thought a lot of her.

I hope Bush 41's guys, Baker and Gates, can get this back on track.

[weatherweenie]

I just finished reading Hubris by Michael Isikoff and David Corn. As we now know, Iraq had no WMD. However, the administration knew there were no WMD before we went to war. The allegation that Iraq was seeking yellow cake in Nigeria, that their aluminum tubes were for centrifuges, and that they had mobile bio weapon labs were all proven false before the war. In addition, the administration knew, before the war, that Iraq was not involved in 9/11.

The CIA strongly suspects that the Iraq National Congress’ (INC) intelligence director, Aras Habib, was an Iranian agent. The INC is run by the administration’s favorite Iraqi, Ahmad Chalabi. Ironically, the CIA now suspects that Iran suckered us into defeating their old enemy Saddam Hussein. In fact, who had the most to gain from us attacking Iraq? Iran.

Finally, who was the neocon prime mover behind the war? Harvard professor Laurie Mylroie. Yeah, I never heard of her either. But apparently, Cheney and Wolfowitz thought a lot of her.

I hope Bush 41's guys, Baker and Gates, can get this back on track.

Not to mention, haven't Colin Powell, and W himself, gone on record saying their 'intelligence' re: Iraq was incorrect after all?

Now we have kids over there dying, while their commander in chief is saying, 'oops I did it again.' :mad:

[grandma]

I just finished reading Hubris by Michael Isikoff and David Corn. .... Ironically, the CIA now suspects that Iran suckered us into defeating their old enemy Saddam Hussein..

Now that you have read HUBRIS, I'd like to ask you to take another 2-3 hours & read EPICENTER. :)
Rosenberg documents statements from these leaders that show how they Are working together & their goals ...statements that the newscaster/printers buried where not really noticible, or with sarcastic/denigrating comments.

[grandma]

From World Magazine 11/28/06 issue:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y106/triso/WorldMagNov1806.jpg

[rokid]

...I'd like to ask you to take another 2-3 hours & read EPICENTER. :) Rosenberg documents statements from these leaders that show how they Are working together & their goals ...statements that the newscaster/printers buried where not really noticible, or with sarcastic/denigrating comments.

Sorry. It appears the book is based, at least in part, on the biblical prophecy of end days. I don’t like to mix prophecy and politics.

[grandma]

Sorry. It appears the book is based, at least in part, on the biblical prophecy of end days. I don’t like to mix prophecy and politics.

You have it backwards. The book is based on exclusive interviews w/top political, military, intelligence, business, and, religious leaders in Iran, Iraq And Russia, also Israel. The book shows now declassified documents from the CIA, the Pentagon, and the White House. He talks of the oil reserves, much more abundant than ever before thought, recently found in Israel, of the oil companies that are taking notice & having profitable drillings. Mr Rosenberg uses the Old Testament to show where the different peoples in Europe originated, settled & moved on. Mitrofanov of Russia, Nitanyahu of Israel, Gen Sada of Iraq, Gen. Youssef of PA, Cap Weinberger, besides others from Russia, Morocco, Jordan, did not seem to mind talking with Mr. Rosenberg in preparation for this book.
You cannot separate these people from their history. Their history is their politics and for many, their religion, and that is what is/was/will rule their world.
Mr Rosenberg pulls no punches as to his belief; whether you agree or not is your responsibility. But I believe you are missing some eye openers as to the events in the middle east, considering much of it has been eliminated from reporting by our local newscasters and newspapers.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y106/triso/skateboarding4.gif

[Spaf]

In the News

Dubya, piles up strategy session. Plans to unveil a new strategggy!....:confused: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16150164/

Iraq Coalition Casualty Count
http://icasualties.org/oif/

Iraq death toll 'soared post-war'. Iraqis are now 58 times more likely to die a violent death, [Lancet]. Poor planning, air strikes by coalition forces and a "climate of violence" have led to more than 100,000 extra deaths in Iraq, scientists claim.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

[Birchtree]

Bulltinky - those dead are not Iraqi - but jihads from Syria, Iran, Algeria, Indonesia, and every other damn place. Too bad we can't kill another 500,000 of the Shiite militia and Sunni insurgency combined. Let the Kurds run the silly country.

[weatherweenie]

Judge: Saddam to be executed by Saturday

[James48843]

Judge: Saddam to be executed by Saturday


Sad.

Yep, he probably derseves it, but the kid in our town who died this week in Iraq won't be able to share Christmas anymore with his family. His family doesn't deserve it. The family learned about it the day before Christmas. Small town America lost another one. And this week, it's a kid in the next town over, and two more Michigan National Guardsmen that got killed.

I pray it ends soon. Please, God, let it end soon.

[mayday]

Sad.

Yep, he probably derseves it, but the kid in our town who died this week in Iraq won't be able to share Christmas anymore with his family. His family doesn't deserve it. The family learned about it the day before Christmas. Small town America lost another one. And this week, it's a kid in the next town over, and two more Michigan National Guardsmen that got killed.

I pray it ends soon. Please, God, let it end soon.

Amen

[Birchtree]

I'm sorry but the reality is still only 3,000 and not over 50,000. That's a heck of a difference. We'll send 30,000 more troops to clean out Sadar City and clean out Anbar Province as well. This should have been done two years ago. We'll seal the borders and allow the population to have some peace. And if it moves after 2200 hours kill it. It's time to take off the white hats and get down to serious business.

[airlift]

Sad times, but have to face the reality and responsibility of world leadership. The genie of hatred has come out of the bottle, and fanatical terrorists are out to do damage and destabilize what we understand to be the civilized world.

[James48843]

I'm sorry but the reality is still only 3,000 and not over 50,000. That's a heck of a difference. We'll send 30,000 more troops to clean out Sadar City and clean out Anbar Province as well. This should have been done two years ago. We'll seal the borders and allow the population to have some peace. And if it moves after 2200 hours kill it. It's time to take off the white hats and get down to serious business.

Sorry Birchtree, but you don't know what the heck you are talking about.

Al Anbar and Sadr City populations are not "the enemy". You simply can't open up on anything that moves after 2200 hours.

Population:
Towns in Al-Anbar Province Population
Falowja 425,774
Al-Kaime 116,129
Ramadi 444,582
Rowtba 24,813
Ana 37,211
Haditha 75,835
Hit 105,825
Total 1,230,169

Sadr city- population 2.5 million

So you think simply throwing another 30,000 US troops under the tires of a foreign war is going to quell a little over 3.7 million Shiites who don't want us there? Or a large number of Sunni who still think Saddam was a good guy?

Right.

Let's see- surge 140,000 Americans up to 170,000 Americans, and throw them in the middle of 3.7 million people who would rather we leave.

I'd say we were outnumbered about 22 to 1, even if all of our guys were only in Sadr City and Al Anbar.

But were not. We're trying to maintain order in all of Baghdad. That's about 7 million people. And we've got about 70,000 in that general area to do it with. And of those 70,000, only about 30,000 actually are available to patrol outside US bases. So we have 30,000 to bring order to an area of 7 million people.

That works out to being outnumbered 233 to 1 in Baghdad alone. And you say we should be ones to seal the borders. Hell, we can't even seal our own border with Mexico, one fourth as long as Iraq's border with Syria and Iran. You are not living in reality.

Birch, I don't know where you got your military training. I spent 21 years as enlisted and then officer before I retired. And I can tell you that 233 to 1, even with the surge, is not good odds for victory.

No.

The only thing we are doing now is keeping our soldiers there to give political cover to the President.

Sorry, but in my book, the life of one American soldier is worth a whole heck of a lot more than any misplaced political cover for a bungling misfit of a Commander in Chief.

You are entitled to your opinion.

You are not entitled to waste the lives of the good men and women who so valiently serve our nation.

Doesn't matter if it's, in your words "only 3,000, not 50,000".

3,000 is too many. And we don't need any more.

[wht00ss]

James 48843 I don't know where you got your training or what branch of the service you were in but it doesn't sound to me like you no what you are talking about no offense intended.

I was a 23 year old lieutenant in Korea at the Frozen Chosin 1st battalion 3rd Marines where my men and I were overrun by large number of Chinese troops. I received the silver star and purple heart and later when I was a light Colonel in vietnam where I received the bronze star.

The only reason I bring this up because in my opinion you are showing your shortsightedness about the big picture involving the Iraq conflict.

You are right about the numbers not being where they are to control this thing but do it wouldn't hurt to do a little study of history.

Factions in the middle east have been actively planning to kill us (the US) for the past 30 years from the Iran Embassy under Carter to the U.S. Cole to the 1st World trade center bombing to the twin towers with a few things left out inbetween.

Last time I checked before the twin towers we were minding our own business being those so called awful capitalist devils.

Let me spell it out for you so you can I understand what I'm saying. It's either them or us. That's from them.

I watched a movie with my grandson call Independence Day and I recall what the alien said when the President asked what we could do to coexist.
The alien said all they wanted was for us to die. As rediculous as they analogy appears on the surface it's about as true as one can get.

I was in the service for 22 years (infantry) and let me tell you I've never seen a more dangerous situation that we have to win or at some time we will pay the ultimate price. I would rather stop them now than let them make the decision for the next time and place of their chosing so don't talk about having a clue. Birch is on to something but in my opinion not stong enough.

[Birchtree]

Gents, my war was RVN from 11/67 to 7/69. Let's not lose Iraq on the streets of the USA like we lost Vietnam. I'm closer to the situation because I have a daughter deployed like many others in this country. James 48843 and I agree to disagree. I could be a lot more dramatic but our troops will do what is necessary to finish this thing. The jihads and insurgency and shiite militia understand the code of violence - they should fear what is coming because the gloves are coming off and they will face certain death. We left the back door open in Faluja (spelling) and the militia escaped - not this time. They either surrender or go to hell. It's their choice. Wht00ss thanks for your words and your courage. Now James I realize the population is not the enemy - that's why you set a curfew - if a young jihad wants to place an IED then he gets shot by a sniper - simple. No questions asked - if it moves after 2200 hours kill it. We are currently fighting revolutionary guards from Iran and every other damn place. And for crissakes keep the press away from the battles.

[SkyPilot]

To think that we can negotiate or appease this dangerous enemy is to misunderstand the culture and the theology that is driving this conflict. As a nation we are still approaching this with a Cold War mentality and seem to believe that our good intentions and noble action can win "hearts and minds". I am afraid this will be our undoing.

We only have to hear the words of their own leaders to understand that the intention is for global domination, and the crushing of western civilization.

We as a nation have not yet come to terms with the scope of what we are faced with. Half measures and political timidity will only embolden those who already suppose we do not have the resolve to step up to this task.

We cannot just "get out", as this conflict has already come to our shores (Trade Center #1). We did not recognize the danger then, and I fear we still refuse to accept what is daily becoming more apparent.

While we may disagree on the particular strategies, we must come to consensus that this issue must be addressed. And this time, diplomacy is not the answer, unless we are willing to negotiate away western civilization.

But, there are many good opinions regarding this issue, and some strong arguments that are contrary to those opinions expressed above.

Let us continue to pray for peace.

[airlift]

Sky,
Very well stated. I can't add more to your opinion. These are very tough times, when appeasing the enemy will only increase their resolve to destroy us. Only by facing up to the most radical interpretation of this theology and stopping them on their tracks we will manage to stay on top of the situation and then we will be able to influence change for the better. If we don't understand the destructive nature of this fanatical politico/theological enemy we will lose the better part of our civilization for the present and for the future.



To think that we can negotiate or appease this dangerous enemy is to misunderstand the culture and the theology that is driving this conflict. As a nation we are still approaching this with a Cold War mentality and seem to believe that our good intentions and noble action can win "hearts and minds". I am afraid this will be our undoing.

We only have to hear the words of their own leaders to understand that the intention is for global domination, and the crushing of western civilization.

We as a nation have not yet come to terms with the scope of what we are faced with. Half measures and political timidity will only embolden those who already suppose we do not have the resolve to step up to this task.

We cannot just "get out", as this conflict has already come to our shores (Trade Center #1). We did not recognize the danger then, and I fear we still refuse to accept what is daily becoming more apparent.

While we may disagree on the particular strategies, we must come to consensus that this issue must be addressed. And this time, diplomacy is not the answer, unless we are willing to negotiate away western civilization.

But, there are many good opinions regarding this issue, and some strong arguments that are contrary to those opinions expressed above.

Let us continue to pray for peace.

[nnuut]

To think that we can negotiate or appease this dangerous enemy is to misunderstand the culture and the theology that is driving this conflict. As a nation we are still approaching this with a Cold War mentality and seem to believe that our good intentions and noble action can win "hearts and minds". I am afraid this will be our undoing.

We only have to hear the words of their own leaders to understand that the intention is for global domination, and the crushing of western civilization.

We as a nation have not yet come to terms with the scope of what we are faced with. Half measures and political timidity will only embolden those who already suppose we do not have the resolve to step up to this task.
We cannot just "get out", as this conflict has already come to our shores (Trade Center #1). We did not recognize the danger then, and I fear we still refuse to accept what is daily becoming more apparent.

While we may disagree on the particular strategies, we must come to consensus that this issue must be addressed. And this time, diplomacy is not the answer, unless we are willing to negotiate away western civilization.

But, there are many good opinions regarding this issue, and some strong arguments that are contrary to those opinions expressed above.

Let us continue to pray for peace.
There is only one I can say "Saddam is dead, may the Christan's prevail"

[James48843]

To think that we can negotiate or appease this dangerous enemy is to misunderstand the culture and the theology that is driving this conflict. As a nation we are still approaching this with a Cold War mentality and seem to believe that our good intentions and noble action can win "hearts and minds". I am afraid this will be our undoing.

I agree. Except that it's not a cold war mentality- its a "We're not going to ask for sacrifice of the nation, except the kids who volunteer for this. We're not going to commit the nation resources that it takes, and we're not going to create a military of the size necessary to deal with the situation. No, we're going to try to rely on technoligy instead of "boots on the ground". Because we're not ready as a society to commit the boots on the ground necessary to get the job done." mentality that I object to. I agree with Colin Powell, we should have gone in with 500,000 or more, not the force we went it with. But that is water under the bridge now. So now we have to figure out what our military is supposed to do now. What is the mission?

Fight every Muslim? No, that's not the answer.

Provide security in every town and on every street corner?
Not with the paltry amount of forces we have on the ground. Can't do it physically, even with an additional 30 or 300 thousand.

Train Iraqi forces? Fine, but if what we are doing is training them, why do we have to train them there, in IED country, when we have a perfectly good National Training Center here, where our guys don't get blown up at the rate of 100 a month?

It's a lot less costly, both in terms of equipment and lives, to fly a few Iraqi Divisions to Fort Leonard Wood, Ft. Knox, and then Fort Irwin, and train and equip them up to standard in a year or two. You get them out of that environment and into a place they can learn to be soldiers, and then let them go back and fight their own war, if it is military capability you are trying to build.

But this war doesn't have a purely military solution. It must be a politcal solution by the Iraqi's themselves.

What exactly is it you want our soldiers and Marines to do? That is the problem. Decide what the mission is, and let's do it and come home.



We cannot just "get out", as this conflict has already come to our shores (Trade Center #1). We did not recognize the danger then, and I fear we still refuse to accept what is daily becoming more apparent.

I hate to point this out, but Iraq didn't conduct the World Trade Center attack. Osama did. And our resources are now stuck in Iraq rather that going after "the real killers", as OJ would say.


While we may disagree on the particular strategies, we must come to consensus that this issue must be addressed. And this time, diplomacy is not the answer, unless we are willing to negotiate away western civilization.

But, there are many good opinions regarding this issue, and some strong arguments that are contrary to those opinions expressed above.

Let us continue to pray for peace.


I agree. Let's all continue to pray for peace.

[James48843]

Tell you what-

let's just agree to disagree, and call it a day.

Saddam is dead. That's the news of the day.

What will that do to world markets next week?

Where is the market going next?

[mailmanusa]

I am for more troops for this aspect. Increase the effort to train Iraqi people to handle thier problems. They wont have to worry about being scrutinized by the world like America always is. They wont be held back by politics and world view and all that crap. They will just flat out kick butt. Didnt take em long to hang Sadam once the sentence was handed down, did it?

[grandma]

Didnt take em long to hang Sadam once the sentence was handed down, did it?
Very wise of them - less time to organize an escape, a bribe, or a martyr's death by bombing him.
Judging by all the videos over the past years, we see that the Iraqui's are a very demonstrative people -
-my question :
These folks we see dancing in the streets this morning -
- are they the same ones we watched dancing in the streets on
9/11???
I would wish that the trial over the 5,000 Kurds he gassed would continue, some folks are tending to forget that, along with all the other mass graves.
Finally - I wonder if those of his gang that died ahead of him are trying to beat him up for leading them straight into Hell, & demanding to know where their virgins are. I wonder if he is pleading with God to send a warning to his still living compatriots as did another fellow when he found himself in Hell?
I pray we do not allow ourselves to be blackmailed into lessening our stance against terror because of what `May Occur.'

[Spaf]

Iraq


Do we cut and run or do we stay?


I kind of agree with what this veteran has to say. It's worth the time to watch it.


Link --> http://www.youtube.com/v/m9Yc3wYJOtI

[weatherweenie]

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=Dick+Cheney) repeated his assertions of al-Qaida links to Saddam Hussein (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=Saddam+Hussein)'s Iraq (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=Iraq) on Thursday as the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group.

Cheney contended that al-Qaida was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaida. Others in al-Qaida planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaida operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June," Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview. "As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq."

However, a declassified Pentagon (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=Pentagon) report released Thursday said that interrogations of the deposed Iraqi leader and two of his former aides as well as seized Iraqi documents confirmed that the terrorist organization and the Saddam government were not working together before the invasion.

The Sept. 11 Commission's 2004 report also found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Osama bin Laden (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=Osama+bin+Laden)'s al-Qaida network during that period.

Sen. Carl Levin (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/politics/news/ap/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_pentagon_intelligence/22546162/*http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=news-storylinks&p=%22Carl%20Levin%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw), bio (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/capadv/bio/ap/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_pentagon_intelligence/22546162/SIG=1174b4srr/*http://yahoo.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=310), voting record (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/capadv/vote/ap/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_pentagon_intelligence/22546162/SIG=11gks6fph/*http://yahoo.capwiz.com/y/bio/keyvotes/?id=310)), D-Mich., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=Senate+Armed+Services+Committee), had requested that the Pentagon declassify the report prepared by acting Defense Department Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble. In a statement Thursday, Levin said the declassified document showed why a Defense Department investigation had concluded that some Pentagon prewar intelligence work was inappropriate.

The report, which had been released in summary form in February, said that former Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith had acted inappropriately but not illegally in reviewing prewar intelligence. Levin has claimed that Feith's intelligence assessment was wrong and distorted but nevertheless formed part of the basis on which President Bush (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=President+Bush) took the country to war.

Although Feith's assessment in mid-2002 offered several examples of cooperation between Saddam's government and al-Qaida, the report said, the CIA (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=CIA) had concluded months earlier that no evidence supported the existence of significant or long-term relationships.

[Tempest]

I remember months before September 11th I would be driving to work. My drive takes me past Pearl Harbor (Kam Hwy).One day (I believe it was April or May 2001) I saw an aircraft carrier -the USS John Stennis (brand new)-in port.
The John Stennis's dock is across the the USS Arizona Memorial reception center and not far from the Kam Hwy which I was taking. They had some huge stage being erected on the carriers deck and as it turned this was was for the movie premier ceremony for 'Pearl Harbor' (Starring Ben Affleck....). As the days went by the stage got bigger and more elaborate. They had more news about the movie premier on TV. There were interviews with locals, Navy PR types, Pearl Harbor vets, movie actors etc about how we should be prepared and never let another Pearl Harbor happen again yada yada yada blah blah blah. I personally though it was all a waste of money and resources. But I guess it was great public relations for Hawaii, the Navy, Pearl Harbor etc etc.

As the summer progressed before 9/11 you probably all have forgotten by now what the great national security problem that was being debated. More then enough video tape
was used on it.
Anyone remember?
Why it was the great 'Black Beret' debate.
Should the US Rangers give up their beloved black beret so the regular army types could get it. That move was designed to increase espirt in the regular US Army. I remember some pair of US Rangers were going do some protest march to show their displeasure on trading in their black beret for a tan one.


Now I'm not going to get political here saying who should have done what to whom and when back before 9/11-But what I related to you above are 2 vignettes I remember from my country running through my mind after an old girlfriend called me early 9/11 morning to tell me somebody had crashed a jet airliner into the World Trade Center and I better go turn on the TV etc etc etc.

I thought then as I watched that horror all unfold on 9/11 that all victories and all defeats are TEAM EFFORTS.

And I thought of the movie preimier on the USS John Stennis deck and all those words....("We should always be prepared blah blah blah) and the important Black Beret debate.

A lot of people will go on about who was responsible for 9/11. I have felt then as I feel now more then a few people-past and present -political (both parties) and military and media-had their collective heads in a very dark place.

Damn them and damn Osama Bin Laden to hell.

[Dodge_Em]

Here's a MadTV skit ... about the iRack (including blooper) :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGHty_S0TU0

[nnuut]

I remember months before September 11th I would be driving to work. My drive takes me past Pearl Harbor (Kam Hwy).One day (I believe it was April or May 2001) I saw an aircraft carrier -the USS John Stennis (brand new)-in port.
The John Stennis's dock is across the the USS Arizona Memorial reception center and not far from the Kam Hwy which I was taking. They had some huge stage being erected on the carriers deck and as it turned this was was for the movie premier ceremony for 'Pearl Harbor' (Starring Ben Affleck....). As the days went by the stage got bigger and more elaborate. They had more news about the movie premier on TV. There were interviews with locals, Navy PR types, Pearl Harbor vets, movie actors etc about how we should be prepared and never let another Pearl Harbor happen again yada yada yada blah blah blah. I personally though it was all a waste of money and resources. But I guess it was great public relations for Hawaii, the Navy, Pearl Harbor etc etc.

As the summer progressed before 9/11 you probably all have forgotten by now what the great national security problem that was being debated. More then enough video tape
was used on it.
Anyone remember?
Why it was the great 'Black Beret' debate.
Should the US Rangers give up their beloved black beret so the regular army types could get it. That move was designed to increase espirt in the regular US Army. I remember some pair of US Rangers were going do some protest march to show their displeasure on trading in their black beret for a tan one.


Now I'm not going to get political here saying who should have done what to whom and when back before 9/11-But what I related to you above are 2 vignettes I remember from my country running through my mind after an old girlfriend called me early 9/11 morning to tell me somebody had crashed a jet airliner into the World Trade Center and I better go turn on the TV etc etc etc.

I thought then as I watched that horror all unfold on 9/11 that all victories and all defeats are TEAM EFFORTS.

And I thought of the movie preimier on the USS John Stennis deck and all those words....("We should always be prepared blah blah blah) and the important Black Beret debate.

A lot of people will go on about who was responsible for 9/11. I have felt then as I feel now more then a few people-past and present -political (both parties) and military and media-had their collective heads in a very dark place.

Damn them and damn Osama Bin Laden to hell.
GREAT WORDS, THEY NEED TO PAY FOR THEIR ACTIONS!:mad:

[Show-me]

Will Turkey Invade Northern Iraq?


Reports of Turkish Troop Concentrations on Iraqi Border Spur Debate About Possible Invasion

By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA Associated Press Writer
ISTANBUL, Turkey Jul 9, 2007 (AP)

Reports that Turkey has massed a huge military force on its border with Iraq bolstered fears that an invasion targeting hideouts of Kurdish rebels could be imminent. But how deeply into Iraq is the Turkish army willing to go, how long would it stay and what kind of fallout could come from allies in Washington and other NATO partners?
All these questions weigh on Turkey's leaders, who have enough on their hands without embarking on a foreign military adventure. Turkey is caught up in an internal rift between the Islamic-rooted government and the military-backed, secular establishment, less than two weeks ahead of July 22 elections that were called early as a way to ease tensions in a polarized society.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3360172

[The_Technician]

Radical Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr ordered his dreaded Shiite militia on Wednesday to stop attacks on US-led forces as part of a six-month suspension of the militant group's activities.

AS I always said, he's bad news to his fellow humans......need I say more....

[James48843]

Foreign Service employees NOT happy campers today:

From: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071031/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_embassy&printer=1;_ylt=AmcDiWG9cYQH6zDgOmAVxfeWwvIE

Some US diplomats angry over Iraq posts
By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press

Several hundred U.S. diplomats vented anger and frustration Wednesday about the State Department's decision to force foreign service officers to take jobs in Iraq, with some likening it to a "potential death sentence."

In a contentious hour-long "town hall meeting" called to explain the step, these workers peppered the official who signed the order with often hostile complaints about the largest diplomatic call-up since Vietnam. Announced last week, it will require some diplomats - under threat of dismissal — to serve at the embassy in Baghdad and in so-called Provincial Reconstruction Teams in outlying provinces.

Many expressed serious concern about the ethics of sending diplomats against their will to serve in a war zone, where the embassy staff is largely confined to the so-called "Green Zone," and the safety outside the area is uncertain while a review of the department's use of private security contractors to protect its staff is under way.

"Incoming is coming in every day, rockets are hitting the Green Zone," said Jack Crotty, a senior foreign service officer who once worked as a political adviser with NATO forces.

Employees directly confronted Foreign Service Director General Harry Thomas, who approved the move to so-called "directed assignments" late last Friday to make up for a lack of volunteers to go to Iraq.

"It's one thing if someone believes in what's going on over there and volunteers, but it's another thing to send someone over there on a forced assignment," Crotty said. "I'm sorry, but basically that's a potential death sentence and you know it. Who will raise our children if we are dead or seriously wounded?"

"You know that at any other (country) in the world, the embassy would be closed at this point," Crotty said to loud and sustained applause from the about 300 diplomats who attended the meeting in a large State Department auditorium.

Thomas responded by saying the comments were "filled with inaccuracies" but did not elaborate until challenged by the head of the diplomats' union, the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), who like Crotty and others, demanded to know why many learned of the decision from news reports.

Thomas took full responsibility for the late notification but objected when AFSA President John Naland said that a recent survey found that only 12 percent of the union's membership believed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was "fighting for them."

"That's their right but they're wrong," Thomas said, prompting a testy exchange.

"Sometimes if it's 88 to 12, maybe the 88 percent are correct," Naland said.

"88 percent of the country believed in slavery at one time, was that correct?" shot back Thomas, who is black, in a remark that drew boos from the crowd. "Don't you or anybody else stand there and tell me I don't care about my colleagues. I am insulted," he added.
Rice was not present for the meeting, but her top adviser on Iraq, David Satterfield, did attend.

Other diplomats did not object to the idea of directed assignments but questioned why the State Department had been slow to respond to the medical needs of those who had served in dangerous posts.

"I would just urge you, now that now we are looking at compulsory service in a war zone, that we have a moral imperative as an agency to take care of people who ... come back with war wounds," said Rachel Schnelling, a diplomat who served in Basra, Iraq and said the department had been unresponsive to requests for mental heath care.

"I asked for treatment and I didn't get any of it," she said in comments that were greeted with a standing ovation.

Thomas, who has been in his current job for just a few months, said the department was working on improving its response to stress-related disorders that "we did not anticipate."

Under the new order, 200 to 300 diplomats have been identified as "prime candidates" to fill 48 vacancies that will open next year at the Baghdad embassy and in the provinces. Those notified that they have been selected for a one-year posting will have 10 days to accept or reject the position. If not enough say yes, some will be ordered to go. Only those with compelling reasons, such as a medical condition or extreme personal hardship, will be exempt from disciplinary action.

Diplomats who are forced into service in Iraq will receive the same extra hardship pay, vacation time and choice of future assignments as those who have volunteered.

[camper65]

(There's name behind all that and I believe the name is Rumsfelt)(sp?)

[James48843]

On April 30, 1967, Dr. Martin Luther King delivered a powerful sermon against the War in Vietnam.

"Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam" was delivered at the Riverside Church in New York.

His words spoken in 1967, could easily be heard today, with a substitution of Vietnam with another far-off nation.

Listen to the words- and think about what they mean.

Yes, it was a different war, and it was a different time....

But the words of this great leader resonnate across the boundaries of time.

this---is history.

And is worth listening very carefully to.

http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/videodir/pacificaviet/mlkriverside.ram

What can we learn today from this great American?

Here is the transcript of that message- you can read along as you hear the speech.

http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/pacificaviet/riversidetranscript.html

[Birchtree]

This great American had a distinct character flaw. Not only was he a minister he was also an adulterator. He is on the same wash out level as JFK - niether of whom deserve any of my time as a Vietrnam Veteran. I earned my freedom of speech and I have no fear in stating my opinions.

[Steadygain]

This great American had a distinct character flaw. Not only was he a minister he was also an adulterator. He is on the same wash out level as JFK - niether of whom deserve any of my time as a Vietrnam Veteran. I earned my freedom of speech and I have no fear in stating my opinions.

Hey Brother,
Please know that every Vietnam Vet - I've talked to (which is a fairly large number) all agree with the story I'm able to put on my Thread when James and I go to DC to rattle things up.