Iraq drafts deal on oil riches

Legislation reached to divide oil wealth among Iraq's ethnic and sectarian divisions.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0227/p99s01-duts.html

Feb. 27, 2007, 4:30PM

Iraqi officials say crackdown working

By KIM GAMEL Associated Press Writer
© 2007 The Associated Press

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4586958.html

Who Wins in Iraq?

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php...rc=ealert070226

Who Won in Iraq: The Iraqi People

By Jalal Talabani

The past four years have been a roller-coaster for the Iraqi people. We’ve been liberated from our oppressive tyrant, only to be thrust into deadly sectarian warfare. But the fight for Iraq is not just the fight of the Iraqi people; the entire civilized world has a stake in what happens here. And simply abandoning the country to the terrorists would be everyone’s shame.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php...rc=ealert070226

Originally posted: March 1, 2007

McCain: U.S. lives 'wasted' in Iraq

Posted by William Neikirk at 12:10 p.m. CST and updated at 1:30 pm

Did he really say that?

That was the reaction around town today about Sen. John McCain's statement on the David Letterman show that the lives of American soldiers are being wasted in Iraq.

It was bad enough that Sen. Barack Obama said essentially the same thing when he announced for the presidency last month. Obama quickly apologized and retracted his statement. As an opponent of the war and a relative newcomer to politics, that mistake might have been understood, though it hurt him.

McCain today came forward with regrets of his own for his choice of words.

But this was John McCain, a supporter of the war and advocate of the "surge" in forces in Iraq, a war hero himself, saying this? Did he intend to imply that the deployment of troops there was a big mistake and a terrible waste of military resources, and that our troops are, in effect, cannon fodder?

"Americans are very frustrated, and they have right to be," McCain said on the Letterman show when talking about the war. "We've wasted a lot our most precious treasure, which is American lives."

This was the kind of statement that many American soldiers in Vietnam resented when some politician back home would dismiss their sacrifices. McCain was one of these soldiers, and suffered terribly as a prisoner of war.

Democrats pounced on the senator for this statement. "Sen. McCain should apologize immediately for his callous comments," said Karen Finney, a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee. "How is it that John McCain now believes American lives are being wasted yet he so stubbornly supports the president's plan to escalate the war in Iraq and put more American lives in harm's way?"

And McCain responded today with a written statement regretting his choice of words:

"I should have used the word, sacrificed, as I have in the past," the senator said today, after Democrats demanded he apologize as Obama had. "No one appreciates and honors more than I do the selfless patriotism of American servicemen and women in the Iraq War.''

Obama also escaped from his misstatement by apologizing and saying that he was upset with himself for saying lives were wasted. This "slip," however, tarnished the young senator a bit. It appeared to magnify his inexperience and raised questions about his qualifications as a potential commander in chief.

But McCain? He's 70 years old, a war hero, a man who has long been a supporter of the military, and knows his way around Washington and politics. He doesn't make statements lightly.

It was probably harder for him to apologize.

If nothing else, McCain's remarks give Obama's original statement more credibility.

One thing you can be sure of is that the troops will not be happy to hear this from one of their own.


http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_t...n_us_lives.html

Obama Bin Laden having announced the same but for entire different motivations but TO THE SAME AUDIENCE in intent and taking a hit for it "oddly" defends McCain "wink, wink, surprise!!! then, he immediately rejects the story a;

Researcher reported Barack Obama's White Ancestors May Have Owned Slaves. Surprise!!

Perhaps Jesse Jacksons ancestor were owned by Obamas'? Like Strom Thurmond and Al-I need attention Sharpton.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256138,00.html

Politics; the nexus of incest!

The beat goes on!!

Strange bedfellows co-joined in differing motivations yet, co-joined nevertheless in wind testing intent seeking an audience to equally dupe. eh?

I know I am happy to hear how, I, my sons and many of my relatives, now in 4 wars, have paid in death and or lifetimes of pain and agony such a WASTED PRICE so that the majority, having never paid any price at all, who GAINED THE MOST, can enjoy their gains capitalized from those very wasted deaths and lifetimes of pain in prosperous opportunities and freedom without any risk of death nor pain for all they would gain!!

Yay, the crackdown is working! I know because the U.S. and Iraqi government tells me so!

Just like how the insurgency was in its "last throes" right?

Just like how this administration's policy in Iraq was 'Stay the Course' while their rivals were 'Cut and Run'

Just like how this administration's policy in Iraq was never 'Stay the Course' and it's a mystery as to why in the world that's the case?

And on and on and on...

Perhaps you are more comfortable with the words from CNN, NPR and Joe Scarborough. After all journalist NEVER lie. Fool.

You Neocons have the same condition that you guys accuse Liberals of having; I call it "Media-Derangement Syndrome" where everything comes back to the media, or Nancy Pelosi.

It's sad when the media has more credibility than the man in charge of this country.

Waste may be the wrong word, by some definitions. Sacrificed is far better, suggesting an image of Abraham offering up his own son on an altar to God. Still, here's a good dictionary's definition of wasted: to use something in a way that does not produce the best result; to use more of something than is necessary; to fail to make effective use of something which is valuable.

The lives of good men are being used up, without producing the best result.

Fit...we're working on it...we're working on it. Sorry we are not perfect in all respects.
Bean

Perfection, KenBean? I ain't asking for no perfection; I'm just asking for a reasonable amount of obedience on the part of those who call themselves the children of God (Matthew 5:9, 44, 45) I know you guys are working on it, in the way you honestly think is best. It's just that you guys are so Scripturally wrong, so ethically wrong, that 'perfection' isn't the extreme I'm worried about.

But you, Bean, are not one of those who believe, "Kill them all, and let God sort them out." For that, I'm grateful, as grateful as MLK Jr. was when he wrote that "Letter From Birmingham City Jail," at the moderate White Christians who just wanted the Negroes to wait many more years until the Whites got slightly more ethical......more moral....more Christian....is there an emoticon for "sigh...."?

The media has more credibility only with those that seek validation of their own beliefs. Sadly these dumb sh!ts are the ones that got their beliefs from the media in the first place. A lie repeated enough becomes the truth to the weak minded.

Obviously, conveyed as satirized witticism right?

For surely you jest, if sincere? As that would, of recent 5 or perhaps 8 years, be far less than provable in the court of public opinion. Which is after all, the ultimate judge of media credibility.

Few these days can honestly say, with a straight face, that they have not noticed how increasingly inaccurate the overly competitive for ad dollars and even more so, over reliant on to few and to select media sources the media has been of late.

Few can say they have not noticed how often stories are driven internally by Editor's bias, organizational agenda ans or niche demographic targeted reporting from such evolving niche medias pandering to speific agenda audences such as NBC, MsNBC and Fox News and the NY and LA Times and their opposite with conservative bias.

Few can say honestly that have not noticed the increasing trend of superficial news reporting or media created news stories. Much of it often driving a story as opposed to merely reporting one, many spun from polled ratings that dictate it to be driven further.

Nor do I think many can now say they have not noticed how more often than not, the news medias have been shown to be as inaccurate as accurate. Few can, with any manner of objectivity, not plainly see some medias are spinning a ratings hook to their key demographics, be it liberal, conservative or moderate and or young, middle aged or old or what ever.

In all my years I have never mistrusted the media more than now. The very proof of its deceptive evolution of agenda and niche reporting focusing is shown in how differing media sources spin the exact same story, adding or subtracting facts and or focus as they will to make one realize could it be possible these various media are actually looking at the same facts, and circumstances?

Thus creating so many varying views of the facts, situation and circumstances, that is now more often merely disinformation and no longer information.

Here are some last year pre-election polls on Journalism:



http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics4.asp

Is the media to;

9/7-10/06 –
to liberal-44% --About right-33%-- to conservative-19%-- insure-4%

Where do you get you news?

News sites- Yes-86%--NO- 14%

Political web sites- Yes-46%--NO- 54%

Candidates' web sites- YES-36%-- 64%

Blogs- YES-24%-- NO-76%

In general, how much trust and confidence do you have in the news media -- such as newspapers, TV, and radio -- when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately, and fairly: a great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or none at all?"

ALL adults-A Great-Deal –15%--A Fair-Amount- 48%--Not Very-Much- 28%--None at All- 8%--unsure- 1%

Republicans-A Great-Deal –9%--A Fair-Amount- 43%--Not Very-Much- 35%--None at All- 13%--Unsure-0%

Democrats-A Great-Deal–22%--A Fair-Amount-53%--Not Very-Much-21%--None at All-4%--Unsure-0%

Independents-A Great-Deal–13%--A Fair-Amount-49%--Not Very-Much-29%-- None at All-8%--Unsure-1%

http://www.pollingreport.com/media.htm

Take your own poll and see how people think.

http://survey10i.pollingpoint.com/vDG2PNl2TDtYdK

You proved my point, thanks!

Also, polls are good for you in this instance, compared to the others which are biased against you, eh?



Hey, don't get so down on yourself! You aren't weak-minded, just easily fooled.

I don't pay much attention to CNN, or even MSNBC. I think I leave FOX on longer than any of them.

Scantly-clad women on news channels rock!

Exactly, any polls critical of your position(s) must be a biased by-product of the menacing LIEberal Media and therefor not valid.

Queerly odd response, it is almost like your so naïve that, if you assume you have come to a knife fight, you and your opponent must bring a knife. Sweetie, you need a reality check, why on earth would those who oppose you, not show up with a shotgun, to win and survive, why your lying there in the dust trying figure out why they did not fight fair.

You need more hormones, as this is mean cruel world, which leaves the weak and foolish lying in the dust of yesterday...You obviously have lived a cloistered life far from any direct reality of criminal and evil ruthlessness and often harming if not deadly intent.

Perhaps my space would suit your temperament more for you seemingly fail to grasp just how carnivores the world around you really is. Every day you are stalked and hunted but just do not know it. Because human number’s schooling, like in fish schooling, really does work, especially in societies where others protect the human schools effectively from the abundant predators all around them.

You may not think you are not your brothers keeper, but when he stops thinking he is your keeper, you will know why we all must be our brothers keeper, risking even own lives to stop those who would do harm to our brother and his and well as us and ours and all in the future.

There is no greater peacemaker than those that lay their lives down for another, so that he may live, prosper and grow to have a better life!

Me-ist Narcissism is not the rule, it is but the self-effecting fashion of our times!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070319/wl_uk...afghanistanbomb

Bomb attacks in Afghanistan rose three-fold between 2005 and 2006, figures released by the government on Monday showed.

According to Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram, attacks using improvised explosive devices (IEDs) rose from about 500 in 2005, to 1,525 last year.

Ingram said that while the figures were an estimate, most of the attacks were against either International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops, or soldiers from the Afghan National Security Forces.

Of the total number of bombings, suicide attacks rose by six times -- from 25 two years ago to 150 in 2006.

"In 2006, it is assessed that there were approximately 1,525 IED attacks, of which approximately 150 were suicide IED attacks," Ingram said.

"These figures do not necessarily represent the complete statistics but are an estimate."

Since the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in November 2001, 52 British soldiers have died there.

Why of course, first, they hear you weak kneed whiners and are encouraged to continue.

Second, your report does not show that in 2006, only 69 more Coalition troops were killed compared to 2005 and that over 6,385 Taliban Fighters died in increase Coalition initated fighting compared to only 1,080 in 2005..

Total-6385

Mar07-141
Feb07-311
Jan07-278
Dec06-600
Nov06-812
Oct-06-511
Sep06-811
Aug06-603
Jul06-771
Jun06-455
May06-605
Apr06-487


If you actually knew anything about what has been going on there in 2006 and soon, more so, in 2007, you would know factual that the Coalition then, in 2006, under UK Command in Operation Herrick, began pushing out into previously controlled Taliban territories and thus inflicting heavy loses on them thereby the fighting has intensified. In 2007, pushing opertions have already begun and will soon show an increase in fighting in previous controlled Taliban areas on the Afghanistan and Pakistan side of the border.

Then again, being informed verse ill informed, is not a part of the mantra of moon battery is it?



Yet in typical Moonbattery always one eyed and always leaning to one side, the whole truth is not the objective eh comrade, moonbattery?

Yadda yadda yadda. I was just reporting news, not claiming that Afghanistan is crumbling as badly as Iraq currently; but of course you're quite eager to attack something over nothing, aren't ya?

I was literally just posting news.

Of course, I'm the rabid one...


(Down, dog, down!)

I really have grown fond of the naïveté inequality of expressions in your credibility so often used in these multi-tiered implicitly of unresponsive zoomorphism and defined inadequacies, void in dealing with the difficult, determined and unrelenting, who do not surrender, do not yield and do not fight fairly, but to win.

It shows just how disconnected you are as to those you support in placid cascades, who are far more determined to end your reality and way of life than a mild puppy like myself and those who stand up for you when you won’t and can’t for yourself.


Scores of foreign militants killed in Pakistan clashes, risks further bloodshed

Matthew Pennington, Associated Press
Published: Wednesday, March 21, 2007

SLAMABAD, Pakistan — Fighting this week between local and foreign militants near the Afghan border was cited Wednesday by Pakistan’s government as a testament to the success of efforts to get tribesmen to root out al-Qaida fighters.

But the bloodshed, which has killed about 100 people, underscored the government’s inability to police the region and could unleash a cycle of violence between the warring factions, experts warned.

At least two children were killed and around 20 wounded when a stray mortar round hit their school bus after the fighting broke out Monday in South Waziristan, where international humanitarian agencies have no access.

Senior government and intelligence officials said about 105 people — mostly Uzbeks and Chechens and their local supporters — had been killed in three days of clashes. It was the deadliest episode reported involving foreign militants who fled to Pakistan’s lawless tribal regions from Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001.

It was not possible to confirm the death toll independently because phone lines to South Waziristan were down and journalists have minimal access to the lawless region, a possible hiding place of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri.

Interior Minister Aftab Khan Sherpao said the battle proved the government’s policy of trying to get local tribesmen to expel foreign militants was working. Army spokesman Maj.-Gen. Wahid Arshad described the local militants as “patriots.”

In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that tribal groups have started to fight back against extremists.

“You have to separate the population from the foreign fighters. And you do that through fighting — the Pakistani army fighting them, through the tribals fighting them,” she said.

Experts, however, say militants with links to Taliban and al-Qaida are involved on both sides of the current conflict, which also pits local tribes against each other. That could fuel blood feuds and further deepen the insecurity in South Waziristan, they said.

Rahimullah Yousafzai, a prominent journalist and expert on the Taliban, said he suspected the government was covertly backing local militants. The allegation was denied by the army, which said it had no part in the fighting.

Yousafzai said that artillery was reportedly being used against the foreign militants from South Waziristan’s main town of Wana, and local tribesmen would not have access to such weaponry.

“It’s a very dangerous game the government is playing, and it’s local people who will suffer. Tribesmen still supporting the foreign militants will become desperate and do anything, even suicide bombings. They will have nowhere to go,” he said.

Hundreds of Central Asian and Arab militants linked to al-Qaida fled to the semiautonomous region after the collapse of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and forged alliances with local tribes. Other Uzbeks opposed to the regime of President Islam Karimov in their homeland have reportedly since joined them from Uzbekistan.

Pakistan, as part of its support of the U.S.-led war on terrorism, launched military operations in 2004 to wipe the foreign militants out. They succeeded in busting camps used by al-Qaida but suffered heavy casualties and failed to expel the foreign fighters.

More recently, Pakistan has cut deals with pro-Taliban militants and urged local tribal elders to police the region themselves. That’s sparked concern that Taliban and other militants now have freer rein to launch cross-border attacks into Afghanistan on U.S. and NATO forces. U.S. officials are also worried it has allowed al-Qaida to regroup.

Yousafzai said that while Arabs have stayed out of local affairs in Waziristan, Uzbek militants have become increasingly unpopular because of their disregard for tribal norms and criminality — a disaffection Pakistan could be eager to exploit.

Talat Masood, a former Pakistani general, said this week’s clashes showed that the government was not in control of the region, but the infighting could reduce the militants’ ability to stage attacks against NATO, U.S. and Afghan forces across the border.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/st...6a16005&k=24279

Almost 100 killed in Afghanistan as attacks mount
National Post
Published: Saturday, March 24, 2007

KABUL — At least 89 people, including 69 Taliban rebels, were killed in two days of fighting in Afghanistan, officials said yesterday, as violence soared with the onset of spring.

The Islamist rebels were killed in fighting with Afghan forces in the south on Thursday after the troops, backed by NATO forces including Canadians, launched an offensive against the rebels in two areas in Girishk district of Helmand province.

Seven policemen were also killed and 19 Afghan soldiers wounded, Defense Ministry spokesman Zahir Azimi told a news conference, adding troops had begun a "cleaning up operation" after the
"Even though our forces did not have enough equipment like tanks and armed vehicles but with the weapons that they had ... they could inflict heavy losses on the enemy in several hours of fighting," Azimi said.
Email to a friendEmail to a friendPrinter friendlyPrinter friendly


He said many rebel bodies still remained on the battlefield while the Taliban had taken away 10 of their fallen comrades. Seventeen guerrillas had also been arrested, Azimi added.

Elsewhere, 12 private Afghan security guards and an Afghan driver were killed in the southern province of Kandahar yesterday when the Taliban ambushed their convoy of supplies for coalition troops, their Afghan contractor said.

Fighting has intensified across Afghanistan after winter and analysts say 2007 is a make-or-break year for the Taliban as well as their opponents.

Last year was the bloodiest since the hardline Islamists were ousted by U.S.-led forces in 2001.

NATO and the Afghan armed forces have launched their largest offensive ever in Helmand, targeting the Taliban and drug lords who are reaping record crops for the second year running.

Operation Achilles in northern Helmand involves 4,500 NATO troops including Canadians and 1,000 Afghans.

A statement from the coalition said NATO troops provided flank protection, air support and medical evacuation during Thursday's offensive.

"This particular component of Operation Achilles is being conducted to put pressure on Taliban extremists, foreign terrorists and their narco-trafficking criminal associates that continue to operate within the general population," it said.

Helmand is the main drug-producing region of Afghanistan, the world's leading producer of heroin.

Separately, a suicide bomber attacked a convoy of Western troops in the eastern province of Nangarhar yesterday and at least one soldier, a woman and a child were wounded, witnesses and officials said.

REUTERS


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...c0-922506928cb1


Friday March 23, 2007 9:46 AM

By MOHAMMED RIAZ

Associated Press Writer

PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AP) - Clashes between Pakistani tribesmen and foreign militants near the Afghan border this week have left up to 160 people dead, including about 130 Uzbek and Chechen fighters, the provincial governor said Friday.

Ali Mohammed Jan Aurakzai, the top government official in North West Frontier Province, said between 25 and 30 tribesmen also had died in fighting that started Monday in the South Waziristan tribal region and was continuing Friday.

The government says the bloodletting shows the success of its decision to use local tribesmen to root out foreign militants linked to al-Qaida. However, experts say it also exposes authorities' lack of control of a region also used by the Taliban to support attacks in Afghanistan.

Aurakzai, a retired Pakistani army general, said tribal militants had captured another 63 foreigners and were hunting 200 more who had scattered into the area's mountains.

``Our forces are not involved. Local tribesmen are not allowing foreigners to live in their areas,'' he told reporters at his British colonial-era residence in the regional capital, Peshawar.

The death toll from the fighting in several towns in South Waziristan has risen rapidly, and had stood at about 135 on Thursday. Officials say the two sides have observed brief truces to allow for the burial of dead, but that attempts by local militant leaders to broker an agreement to halt the fighting had failed.

Hundreds of Central Asian and Arab militants linked to al-Qaida fled to this semiautonomous region after the collapse of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and forged alliances with local tribes. Other Uzbek Islamists opposed to the regime of President Islam Karimov in their homeland have reportedly since joined them from Uzbekistan.

Aurakzai said that Tahir Yuldash, the leader of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, a militant opposition group, was in the area when fighting started but would not say what had happened to him.

As part of its support of the U.S.-led war on terror, Pakistan launched military operations in 2004 to wipe the foreign militants out. They succeeded in busting camps used by al-Qaida but suffered hundreds of casualties and failed to expel the foreign fighters.

The military said at the time that Yuldash, one of Uzbekistan's most wanted men, was wounded but escaped during a raid on a suspected al-Qaida camp near Wana, South Waziristan's main town.

More recently, Pakistan has cut deals with pro-Taliban militants and urged local tribal elders to police the region themselves.

That has sparked concern that Taliban and other militants now have freer rein to launch crossborder attacks into Afghanistan on U.S. and NATO forces. American officials are also worried it has allowed al-Qaida to regroup.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Wednesday that the fighting between tribal groups and foreign fighters could help defeat extremists.

Some analysts, however, say militants with links to Taliban and al-Qaida are involved on both sides of the current conflict, which also pits local tribes against each other, and that blood feuds could deepen insecurity in a region viewed as a possible hiding place for Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...6502444,00.html

Taliban attacks into Afghanistan curbed’
Published: Friday, 6 April, 2007, 01:23 PM Doha Time

PESHAWAR: Taliban attacks into Afghanistan from Pakistan have virtually stopped since Pakistan imposed stringent controls on its border, a senior aide to President Pervez Musharraf said yesterday.

Cross-border militant incursions have long been a bone of contention between Islamabad and Kabul, and US and Afghan officials said attacks increased several fold after Pakistan struck a pact with militants in the North Waziristan region last September.

But Ali Mohamed Jan Orakzai, governor of North West Frontier Province (NWFP) bordering Afghanistan, said Pakistan had sent in more troops, set up more check-posts, started some selective fencing and imposed night curfews to stem infiltration.

"These measures have virtually stopped cross-border movements," Orakzai said in an interview in his British colonial-era offices set in a sprawling garden in Peshawar, capital of NWFP.

"Now there are no reports of any cross-border movement ... Our friends have admitted and acknowledged our efforts," he said, referring to the US.

Orakzai is a former lieutenant-general who commanded Pakistani forces in NWFP and its semi-autonomous tribal belt from just after September 11, 2001, when militants flooded into the area from Afghanistan, until March 2004.

A member of the Pashtun ethnic group, who inhabit both sides of the rugged border, Orakzai is seen as the architect of the Waziristan deal which critics say has created a sanctuary for Al Qaeda and Taliban militants in a region where the central government's writ barely reaches.

But Orakzai said the pact had helped reduce militant attacks into Afghanistan and also brought down violence in the region where hundreds of people were killed in battles between security forces and militants.

"I am very satisfied with the accord ... there has been tremendous improvement in law and order. The writ of the government is quite effective now."

The government signed a similar deal with militants in neighbouring South Waziristan in 2005. The Pashtun tribes in the Bajaur region to the north vowed their co-operation last month.

All three deals are aimed at invigorating tribal power structures and marginalising the militants.
Under the pacts, the tribes are given responsibility for making foreign militants either leave or live peacefully.

Referring to a month of bloody clashes in South Waziristan between tribal forces and Al Qaeda-linked foreign, mostly Uzbek militants, Orakzai said the foreigners had violated the pact, forcing the tribesmen to act.

He said more than 200 foreign fighters and up to 40 tribesmen had been killed since early last month when militants tried to kill a pro-government tribal elder.
The two sides traded intermittent fire yesterday, a day after about 50 people, most of them Uzbeks, were killed.

Orakzai said Tahir Yuldashev, head of the Al Qaeda-linked Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, was reported to be in South Waziristan. But he said there was no clue to the whereabouts of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden or his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri.

"Frankly speaking, after 9/11 nobody knows where Osama bin Laden is. There are speculations, everybody is making his own guess," he said.

"Somebody says he is in Afghanistan. Somebody says he is in Pakistan, so the exact location is not known. It is not even known if he is still alive or dead." - Reuters

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/arti...41&parent_id=23

US General Says Iran-Linked Group Attacked US Troops

http://voanews.com/english/2007-04-26-voa33.cfm

Crossfire War - Iran-"Iran Can Launch Tens of Thousands of Missiles a Day"

http://newsblaze.com/story/20070426181556p...S/Opinions.html



Iraqi government criticises Senate

Iraq's government has criticised the US Senate vote to begin withdrawing US troops by October 1.

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/s1907627.htm

The American way, loving Losers...
April 27, 2007 03:06 PM EST

WASHINGTON -- If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is right, nearly 60 percent of Americans agree with him that the war in Iraq is already lost. And if he is correct in saying that losing the war will increase Democrat majorities in future elections, then it may be fair to conclude that Americans now love losers. I'm not buying any of it -- and neither are the troops who are fighting this war.

In the days since Reid announced "this war is lost," I have heard from dozens of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen and Marines that I have covered in eight trips to Iraq and two to Afghanistan for FOX News. Some of those who correspond with me are there now, others are home. Some are preparing to deploy again. None of them agree with Reid's assessment.

One e-mail from Ramadi, Iraq observed: "Good thing this guy Reid wasn't around in 1940 when Winston Churchill promised the people of Great Britain nothing but 'blood, toil, tears and sweat.'" Another, a Guardsman who recently returned from Mesopotamia with a Purple Heart, noted that Reid has become "Al Qaeda's most powerful ally." A Marine corporal I last saw along the banks of the Tigris River -- now a Mississippi State University student -- asked me, "Do those people who think we've lost this war have any idea what things will be like if we really do lose?" It's an important question that none of the potentates on the Potomac who just voted to withdraw U.S. troops appear willing to address.

According to military folklore, Napoleon kept a corporal at his side to ensure that the orders issued in battle were understandable by the troops who had to carry them out. Whether true or not, it's time for Reid and Nancy Pelosi to find such a corporal who will ask them such questions, for if the Democrats continue their current course, we may well lose this war -- and they will have embraced defeat and all that comes with it.

What would losing the war in Iraq mean? It's a picture so dark and depressing that it makes the collapse in Vietnam, 32 years ago next week, look like a Sunday school picnic. The fall of Saigon was horrific for the people of Vietnam and their neighbors in Cambodia and Laos. More than 5 million became refugees and by the most conservative estimates at least a million others perished.

For most Americans, the consequences were minimal. The vast majority of the 2.8 million of us who had fought and bled there mourned the loss of 58,253 of our comrades, swallowed the bitterness of defeat and got on with our lives. Our nation spent a few hundred million tax dollars on refugee relief and resettlement, and tried to forget what people in Reid's party called "the long nightmare of Vietnam."

But classified U.S. intelligence assessments, military contingency plans and staff studies evaluating the consequences of a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, coupled with the lack of funding for political reform measures, as contained in the legislation just passed by Reid's party, paint a far more dismal picture than anything that happened after Vietnam.

-- Within months, an immediate upsurge in vicious sectarian violence fomented by Iranian intervention on behalf of Shiite militias and Wahabbi-supported, Al Qaeda-affiliated terror groups. As U.S. forces retreat to a half-dozen staging areas for retrograde through Kuwait and Jordan, American casualties will dramatically increase as suicide bombers seek "martyrdom" in their victory.

-- Inside of 18 months, the fragile democratically elected government in Baghdad will collapse, precipitating a real sectarian civil war and the creation of Taliban-like "regional governments" that will impose brutal, misogynistic rule throughout the country. The ensuing flood of refuges into Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iran will overwhelm relief organizations, creating a humanitarian disaster making what's happening in Darfur pale by comparison.

-- The Kurds in northern Iraq are likely to declare an autonomous region that could well result in Turkish, Iranian and even Syrian military intervention.

-- In the course of withdrawing U.S. combat brigades and support units, billions of dollars in American military equipment and ordnance will have to be destroyed or left behind. More than $40 billion in reconstruction projects for schools, health-care facilities, sanitation, clean water, electrical distribution and agricultural development will be abandoned. Plans to exploit the new West Qurna oil field in southeastern Iraq will be forsaken.

-- The governments of Kuwait, Jordan, Abu Dhabi and Bahrain, intimidated by Iranian boldness in acquiring nuclear weapons, will likely insist on the withdrawal of American military bases from their territories. Such a move will jeopardize U.S. naval operations in the Persian Gulf and logistics, intelligence collection and command and control facilities supporting operations in Afghanistan.

-- As Iraq becomes a battleground for the centuries-long Sunni-Shia conflict, radical Islamic terror organizations will use the territories they control to prepare and launch increasingly deadly terror attacks around the globe against U.S. citizens, businesses and interests.

Reid and his cohorts in Congress who believe "this war is lost" have acted to ensure that it will be. No one asked them: "If we lost, who won?" The answer should be obvious.

Thanks for the aticle, Trader.

I think the Demos have finally "demoed" their helplessness to defend Americans, and the Constitution clearly enough for just about any 5th grader to understand.

I now refer you to an article by Orson Card over at
"The Ornery American" entitled "Honor".

I can only hope that a majority of Americans will begin to see that a loss in Iraq begins a long painful retreat to our own borders while the world goes to hell in a bucket......or.....perhaps the American people must have their noses ground in the muck so deeply, to realize that we will have to fight our way all the way back.

The "no blood for oil" crowd will change their colors quickly enough riding a bike to work in winter time.

Best regards
Bean

JOINT NEWS RELEASE


Is bush succeeding in his Iraq Strategic Objective?

Iran kicked out Al-Jazeera Sunni arab terrorist supporter network

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_21854.shtml

The lady in the red dress offends Iran, WAR Declared!!

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_21864.shtml

Iran seeks, becoming successful in dissolving NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty)

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_21851.shtml

Amerce gave Iraq to Iran as sweet desert..


Do you remember when saudia arabia and amerce and saddam were fighting Iran ..

Push he did forget ..

That is why he is losing the war ..

Now there is (( 300,000 )) Iran intelligence killing Iraq sonnies ..

The head is alhakeem and aljafri and alamri and others ..

Most of the Iraq government are saite Iranian original.

And push still convincing him self by stupid way ..

He should put eiad allawy the prime Minster and kik all shate out of Iraq to Iran.

Derab, thank you for your post here. I admire your efforts to post in a foreign language. I can only wish I could write as well in your language.

Tell us/me more.

When you say "shate," do you mean "shite?"

"Push" means "Bush?"