Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Afghanistan - war on Al Quaeda and Taliban; Iraqi FREEDOM - kill Saddam Hussein

Posted By: sm on 2009-02-17
In Reply to: Actually, it was my understanding that both arenas represent the - SM

Two different wars based on entirely different premises.........


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Saddam Hussein set the example
of how the UN's ''stern warnings'' are to be regarded.  One simply ignores them and does as one wishes.  In time, a ''sterner warning'' is issued, which one pays no attention to, etc.  This can go on for years, the warnings becoming more and more urgent, the UN doing nothing about the situation, except hold meetings, blather and warn and sanction.  The difference?  Oh, NK now has nuclear weapons.  Give them several years' worth of warnings and their nuclear program should progress very nicely.  They may actually be able to hit something with a missile eventually.
Saddam Hussein would provide anyone...
with anything if he thought it would be used to help bring down the United States and would make a "deal with the devil" (Al Qaeda) in order to attack the US, and I think anyone who thought differently would be disingenuous to say the least. Mortal enemies are often joined together by their hatred of some other entity....in this case of the United States, and Americans.

As to the 18 generals lined up behind Obama...what about the hundreds not lined up with him?

We will definitely disagree on this one.

Have a good night.
Rumsfeld's Handshake Deal With Saddam Hussein

Rumsfeld is full of history (among other substances), but he neglected to share this piece of history with the American majority he criticized.


(I suggest Breaking Up Is Hard To Do as the perfect background music for this.) 















Published on Thursday, December 8, 2005 by CommonDreams.org

Rumsfeld's Handshake Deal with Saddam

by Norman Solomon
 

Christmas came 11 days early for Donald Rumsfeld two years ago when the news broke that American forces had pulled Saddam Hussein from a spidery hole. During interviews about the capture, on CBS and ABC, the Pentagon's top man was upbeat. And he didn't have to deal with a question that Lesley Stahl or Peter Jennings could have logically chosen to ask: Secretary Rumsfeld, you met with Saddam almost exactly 20 years ago and shook his hand. What kind of guy was he?

Now, Saddam Hussein has gone on trial, but such questions remain unasked by mainstream U.S. journalists. Rumsfeld met with Hussein in Baghdad on behalf of the Reagan administration, opening up strong diplomatic and military ties that lasted through six more years of Saddam's murderous brutality.

As it happens, the initial trial of Saddam and co-defendants is focusing on grisly crimes that occurred the year before Rumsfeld gripped his hand. The first witness, Ahmad Hassan Muhammad, 38, riveted the courtroom with the scenes of torture he witnessed after his arrest in 1982, including a meat grinder with human hair and blood under it, the New York Times reported Tuesday. And: At one point, Mr. Muhammad briefly broke down in tears as he recalled how his brother was tortured with electrical shocks in front of their 77-year-old father.

The victims were Shiites -- 143 men and adolescent boys, according to the charges -- tortured and killed in the Iraqi town of Dujail after an assassination attempt against Saddam in early July of 1982. Donald Rumsfeld became the Reagan administration's Middle East special envoy 15 months later.

On Dec. 20, 1983, the Washington Post reported that Rumsfeld visited Iraq in what U.S. officials said was an attempt to bolster the already improving U.S. relations with that country. A couple of days later, the New York Times cited a senior American official who said that the United States remained ready to establish full diplomatic relations with Iraq and that it was up to the Iraqis.

On March 29, 1984, the Times reported: American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name. Washington had some goodies for Saddam's regime, the Times account noted, including agricultural-commodity credits totaling $840 million. And while no results of the talks have been announced after the Rumsfeld visit to Baghdad three months earlier, Western European diplomats assume that the United States now exchanges some intelligence on Iran with Iraq.

A few months later, on July 17, 1984, a Times article with a Baghdad dateline sketchily filled in a bit more information, saying that the U.S. government granted Iraq about $2 billion in commodity credits to buy food over the last two years. The story recalled that Donald Rumsfeld, the former Middle East special envoy, held two private meetings with the Iraqi president here, and the dispatch mentioned in passing that State Department human rights reports have been uniformly critical of the Iraqi President, contending that he ran a police state.

Full diplomatic relations between Washington and Baghdad were restored 11 months after Rumsfeld's December 1983 visit with Saddam. He went on to use poison gas later in the decade, actions which scarcely harmed relations with the Reagan administration.

As the most senior U.S. official to visit Iraq in six years, Rumsfeld had served as Reagan's point man for warming relations with Saddam. In 1984, the administration engineered the sale to Baghdad of 45 ostensibly civilian-use Bell 214ST helicopters. Saddam's military found them quite useful for attacking Kurdish civilians with poison gas in 1988, according to U.S. intelligence sources. In response to the gassing, journalist Jeremy Scahill has pointed out, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the U.S. Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most U.S. technology. The measure was killed by the White House.

The USA's big media institutions did little to illuminate how Washington and business interests combined to strengthen and arm Saddam Hussein during many of his worst crimes. In the 1980s and afterward, the United States underwrote 24 American corporations so they could sell to Saddam Hussein weapons of mass destruction, which he used against Iran, at that time the prime Middle Eastern enemy of the United States, writes Ben Bagdikian, a former assistant managing editor of the Washington Post, in his book The New Media Monopoly. Hussein used U.S.-supplied poison gas against Iranians and Kurds while the United States looked the other way.

Of course the crimes of the Saddam Hussein regime were not just in the future when Rumsfeld came bearing gifts in 1983. Saddam's large-scale atrocities had been going on for a long time. Among them were the methodical torture and murders in Dujail that have been front-paged this week in coverage of the former dictator's trial; they occurred 17 months before Rumsfeld arrived in Baghdad.

Today, inside the corporate media frame, history can be supremely relevant when it focuses on Hussein's torture and genocide. But the historic assistance of the U.S. government and American firms is largely off the subject and beside the point.

A photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand on Dec. 20, 1983, is easily available. (It takes a few seconds to find via Google.) But the picture has been notably absent from the array of historic images that U.S. media outlets are providing to viewers and readers in coverage of the Saddam Hussein trial. And journalistic mention of Rumsfeld's key role in aiding the Iraqi tyrant has been similarly absent. Apparently, in the world according to U.S. mass media, some history matters profoundly and some doesn't matter at all.

Norman Solomon is the author of the new book War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. For information, go to: www.WarMadeEasy.com.


I disagree...I do not think Saddam Hussein left to do what he would in Iraq....
would have helped this country's security. I still believe there was WMD and I believe it is in Syria. He obviously had WMD in form of chemicals, he used them on his own people. That all had to go somewhere. But people totally discount that. What if Hussein had given AL Qaeda a container of Ricin that they released in New York City in the subway system?

I want a man in the white house that AL Qaeda is afraid would retaliate and will keep their feet to the fire. I don't think that man is Obama.

I respect your take on it...I just have a different take on it.
Where was the concern of anyone when Saddam was killing the Iraqi people?
I must say, this is one of the most egregious of all arguments that is made in this country, or any country.  Saddam tortured, killed, maimed and raped his own people for decades and not a word was said.  Now with a chance for a free Iraq, this concern surfaces. Where was it all these years?
True freedom of religion if you are Christian, or freedom to Islam,Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, agnostic, a
all are religious beliefs, and if you are looking for true FREEDOM, all must be tolerated, understood, and welcomed. cannot put parameters on FREEDOM
Uhhh...more to the point, Al-Quaeda is
Can't see the forest for the trees? Blinded by the hate machine? This post in no way implies that McCain is a Moslem. That's the McCain camp O slur.

To read terrorist network chatter is not unAmerican. Go to the link and read the article. Al-Hesbah is a notorious jihadist internet forum. Follow the context and pay especially close attention to the logic of this endorsement.
Al-Quaeda in support of McCain

It would be very unwise to underestimate this group as just another blindly, fanatical extremist group that needs to be wiped off the map.  They are very purposeful in their philosophies.  They have been doing the same thing with Bush this whole time.  And he has played right into their hands . . . just like McCain would were he to win.  They know a gool 'ole war monger when they see one.   What better way to wear us (the US) down than by goading us into a exhaustive, endless, draining, useless war?  How dare Barack Obama voice his desire to sit down and have a conversation with these extremist groups instead of pulling out the bombs?  God forgive anyone who should try something so radical as to possibly try to make peace with anyone!!  We have created a very sad world in which someone who proposed going the peaceful route would be labeled as a socialist or radical?


You said you had no problem taking on the Taliban...
there is no evidence THEY had anything to do with 9-11 either. Iraq had as much to do with 9-11 as the Taliban did. Both countries had Al Qaeda training camps. Both harbored Al Qaeda operatives. Saddam Hussein funded all kinds of terror operations, including bounties to families of suicide bombers. It was proven that a member of the Sadam Feyadeen met with Mohammed Atta prior to 9-11. Of course, they could have been discussing the weather. Saddam harbored the man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer and his wheelchair off the Achille Lauro...he harbored Al Zarqawi. What more do you need? Him on one of the planes? Your arguments make no sense. Basically, bottom line...you do not care if your protests hurt the effort in Iraq and thereby the soldiers fighting there..and as to soldiers dying for something they did not believe in...the vast majority are not of that mind. If you watched anything but CNN and listened to anything but liberal spin you would see the interview after interview after interview where soldiers do affirm their mission and affirm their disappointment in lack of support of some Americans.

As to Cindy Sheehan's son...other members of her family, her husband included...have said numerous times on the record that Casey Sheehan believed in the effort, and would be appalled at what his mother was doing. We do not make those things up...just because the liberal press does not report it does not mean it does not happen...oh...but I guess in YOUR world, that is true. Because you just pooh-pooh it and say that means nothing to me. Why is it that liberals are so arrogant? Why is it ALL about you? I have tried and tried to wrap my mind around that and just can't. I cannot understand what it is that makes someone disregard the lives and the mission of our military in harm's way just so they can hold a sign and call attention to THEMselves. There is nothing noble about that. The noble ones are the ones in Iraq. How profoundly sad that you cannot see that...in one breath okay to fight the Taliban, in the other just throw Iraq and our boys and girls there to the dogs. How twisted is that...sigh. So...go on about your protesting. Only call a spade a spade. It is about YOU...and making yourself feel good. It is not, nor has it ever been, for anyone else.
What on earth does the Taliban in Pakistan....
getting stronger have to do with the war in Iraq? That has to do with the war in Afghanistan, which, by the way, Obama never said he would end, in fact, he wants to escalate, which he has. The war in Iraq was the one he vowed to put an end to...you don't remember the speech? "We do not belong there, we never belonged there, and when I am elected I will begin immediate withdrawal." Yeah..uh huh. Then he moved it out to 16 months. And he has moved it out again to 24 months. Your golden idol has clay feet, my friend. You are so blinded by the "light" you just can't see it, and I cannot decide if that is plain old denial or if you really are that naive. :-)
Bush could have snagged 100 Taliban but chose not to.

I wonder if the neocons will make a movie about this, and I wonder how many thank you notes Bush has received from terrorists in the last five years.  :-(


U.S. Declines Taliban Funeral Target

Sep 13, 6:29 PM (ET)

By LOLITA C. BALDOR


WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. military acknowledged Wednesday that it considered bombing a group of more than 100 Taliban insurgents in southern Afghanistan but decided not to after determining they were on the grounds of a cemetery.

The decision came to light after an NBC News correspondent's blog carried a photograph of the insurgents. Defense department officials first tried to block further publication of the photo, then struggled to explain what it depicted.

NBC News claimed U.S. Army officers wanted to attack the ceremony with missiles carried by an unmanned Predator drone but were prevented under rules of battlefield engagement that bar attacks on cemeteries.

In a statement released Wednesday, the U.S. military in Afghanistan said the picture - a grainy black-and-white photo taken in July - was given to a journalist to show that Taliban insurgents were congregating in large groups. The statement said U.S. forces considered attacking.

During the observation of the group over a significant period of time, it was determined that the group was located on the grounds of (the) cemetery and were likely conducting a funeral for Taliban insurgents killed in a coalition operation nearby earlier in the day, the statement said. A decision was made not to strike this group of insurgents at that specific location and time.

While not giving a reason for the decision, the military concluded the statement saying that while Taliban forces have killed innocent civilians during a funeral, coalition forces hold themselves to a higher moral and ethical standard than their enemies.

The photo shows what NBC News says are 190 Taliban militants standing in several rows near a vehicle in an open area of land. Gunsight-like brackets were positioned over the group in the photo.

The photo appeared on NBC News correspondent Kerry Sanders' blog. Initially military officials called it an unauthorized release, but they later said it was given to the journalist.

NBC News had quoted one Army officer who was involved with the spy mission as saying we were so excited that the group had been spotted and was in the sights of a U.S. drone. But the network quoted the officer, who was not identified, as saying that frustration soon set in after the officers realized they couldn't bomb the funeral under the military's rules of engagement.

Defense Department officials have said repeatedly that while they try to be mindful of religious and cultural sensitivities, they make no promises that such sites can always be avoided in battle because militants often seek cover in those and other civilian sites.

Mosques and similar locations have become frequent sites of violence in the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they have often been targets of insurgents and sectarian fighting in Iraq.


Gitmo contains Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists.
nm
Exposed: Prop. 8 part of 'Christian Taliban's' move to make Bible the law

The Protect Marriage Coalition, which led the fight to pass an anti-gay marriage initiative in California, is now suing to shield its financial records from public scrutiny.


The lawsuit claims that donors to Protect Marriage and a second group involved in the suit have received threatening phone calls and emails. It asks for existing donation lists to be removed from the California secretary of state's website and also seeks to have both plaintiffs and all similar groups be exempted in the future from ever having to file donation disclosure reports on this or any similar campaigns.


Although public access advocates believe this sweeping demand for donor anonymity has little chance of success, it does point up the secretive and even conspiratorial nature of much right-wing political activity in California.


Howard Ahmanson and Wayne C. Johnson


The man who more than any other has been associated with this kind of semi-covert activity over the past 25 years is reclusive billionaire Howard Ahmanson.


Ahmanson is a Christian Reconstructionist, a devout follower of the late R.J. Rushdoony, who advocated the replacement of the U.S. Constitution with the most extreme precepts of the Old Testament, including the execution -- preferably by stoning -- of homosexuals, adulterers, witches, blasphemers, and disobedient children.


Ahmanson himself has stated, "My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives."


As absurd as this Reconstructionist agenda may seem, the success of Proposition 8 demonstrates the ability of what is sometimes called the "Christian Taliban" to pursue its covert objectives behind the screen of seemingly mainstream initiatives and candidates.


Ahmanson's role in promoting Proposition 8 has drawn a lot of attention, but he appears to serve primarily as the money man, leaving his associates to carry out the practical details. One name in particular stands out as Ahmanson's chief lieutenant: political consultant Wayne C. Johnson, whose Johnson Clark Associates (formerly Johnson & Associates) coordinated the Proposition 8 campaign.


Johnson has spent many years working for Ahmanson-funded causes -- such as the battle against a 2004 initiative to promote stem cell research -- and organizations, like the anti-spending California Taxpayer Protection Committee.


Johnson Clark has also operated PACs for many candidates supported by Ahmanson. It ran Rep. John Doolittle's leadership PAC, which became notorious for sending a 15% commission to Doolittle's wife out of every donation received. It currently runs the PAC for Rep. Tom McClintock, a strong Proposition 8 supporter who was narrowly elected last fall to succeed the scandal-plagued Doolittle.
Proposition 8


The series of events leading to the approval of Proposition 8 began in 2000 with the passage of Proposition 22, which defined marriage in California as being solely between one man and one woman -- but did so only as a matter of law and not as a constitutional amendment.


Proposition 22 was quickly challenged in court, leading to the creation by its supporters of the the Proposition 22 Legal Defense Fund. In 2003, Johnson Clark Associates registered the domain ProtectMarriage.com on behalf of that fund.


ProtectMarriage.com began campaigning in early 2005 for an initiative that would add its restrictive definition of marriage to the California constitution, but it failed to gather sufficient signatures and was terminated in September 2006.


In 2008, however, a reborn ProtectMarriage.com, flush with nearly a million dollars in funding from Howard Ahmanson and tens of millions from other doners, succeeding in getting Proposition 8 placed on the ballot and approved by 52% of the voters.


Proposition 8 is now California law -- at least for the moment, pending challenges to its constitutionality -- and ProtectMarriage.com has turned its attention to demanding that all 18,000 existing same-sex marriages be declared invalid.
The Ahmanson-Johnson Strategy


The partnership between Ahmanson and Johnson, however, did not begin in 2003 or even in 2000. It goes back to at least 1983, if not earlier, and has been a continuing factor in California politics for the last 25 years.


In a 1994 article on Christian Reconstructionism, Public Eye described Johnson's central role in an Ahmanson-financed attempt by the Christian Right to take control of the California state legislation. The strategy involved first pushing through a term limits initiative, which was accomplished in 1990, and then promoting its own candidates for the seats this opened up:


"The practical impact of term limits is to remove the advantage of incumbency ... which the extreme Christian Right is prepared to exploit. ... At a Reconstructionist conference in 1983, Johnson outlined an early version of the strategy we see operating in California today. ... The key for the Christian Right was to be able to: 1) remove or minimize the advantage of incumbency, and 2) create a disciplined voting bloc from which to run candidates in Republican primaries, where voter turn out was low and scarce resources could be put to maximum effect. ...


"Since the mid-1970s, the extreme Christian Right, under the tutelage of then-State Senator H. L Richardson, targeted open seats and would finance only challengers, not incumbents. By 1983, they were able to increase the number of what Johnson called 'reasonably decent guys' in the legislature from four to 27. At the Third Annual Northwest Conference for Reconstruction in 1983, Johnson stated that he believed they may achieve 'political hegemony. . .in this generation.'"


The mention of H. L. "Bill" Richardson as the originator of the Johnson-Ahmanson strategy is both eye-catching and significant. Richardson, a former John Birch Society member, was considered to be one of the most extreme right-wing politicians of his time. In 1975, he co-founded Gun Owners of America (GOA), an organization which is widely regarded as being well to the right of the National Rife Association.


Wayne Johnson began his political career in 1976 by working for Richardson -- and Johnson Clark Associates still operates a PAC for GOA's state affiliate, the Gun Owners of California Campaign Committee.


In 1992, Johnson and Ahmanson managed to help send a batch of conservative Republicans to Congress. Foremost among these was Richard Pombo, one of whose first acts after taking office was to introduce a resolution of commendation for the Reconstructionist Chalcedon Foundation.


In 2004, Johnson told an interviewer that Pombo's election was a high point of his political career. "There have been a lot of great moments, but Richard Pombo's 1992 upset victory in his first congressional primary has got to be near the top. The television stations didn't even have his name listed on their pre-programmed screens election night. Today, he's chairman of the House Resources Committee."


Two years after Johnson's enthusiastic declaration, Pombo was defeated by a Democratic challenger, following wide-ranging allegation of corruption, including being named as the Congressman who had received more donations from Jack Abramoff than any other.
The Anti-Homosexual Agenda


Although the Christian Right never achieved its original goal of taking over California state government -- which may be why Ahmanson and Johnson have turned their attention to passing socially conservative initiatives instead -- it has been far more successful in establishing dominance over that state's Republican Party.


In 1998, Mother Jones reported:


"First they packed the then-moderate California Republican Assembly (CRA), a mainstream caucus with a heavy hand in the state party's nominating process, with their Bible-minded colleagues. By 1990 they controlled the CRA, and since then the CRA's clout has helped the religious conservatives nominate and elect local candidates and—crucially—catapult true believers into state party leadership slots. ...


"From radical fringe to kingmakers in a decade — how did they do it? 'Basically, there's two places you have influence: one is in the nominating process in the primaries, where you can elect people in ideological agreement with your views, and the other is in the party structure,' says former CRA vice president John Stoos, a former gun lobbyist, member of the fundamentalist Christian Reconstructionist movement, and senior consultant to the State Assembly."


Stoos appears to come out of precisely the same background as Johnson and Ahmanson. He served as the executive director of Gun Owners of California and was also the chief of staff and a legislative advisor to Tom McClintock from 1998 until 2003, when he got into trouble for his over-the-top Reconstructionist sentiments.


In the Mother Jones interview, Stoos referred to Christian politicians as God's "vice-regents ... those who believe in the Lordship of Christ and the dominion mandate" and pointed to the repeal in the 1970's of laws against homosexual acts as an example of the need for rule by "biblical justice."


"The proof is in the pudding," Stoos told Mother Jones. "Since we lifted those laws, we've had the biggest epidemic in history."


To many who voted for it, Proposition 8 may have been no more than a nostalgic attempt to keep a changing world more like the way it used to be. But for Reconstructionists like Ahmanson, Johnson, and Stoos, it clearly represents something else -- a dramatic first step towards "the total integration of biblical law into our lives."


Obama/Afghanistan

Obama stated many, MANY times during his campaign that we need to focus on Afghanistan and that he would send more troops there if he was elected president.  He said it was a mistake to put our resources into Iraq when bin Laden most likely was hiding out in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border somewhere.


I am sure the troops in Afghanistan would be interested to know they are not there.
,
I think you know exactly what I meant by leaving Afghanistan. nm
nm.
That might have worked, if all the terrorists were in Afghanistan. nm
.
CNN video coming out of Afghanistan should

the human cost of war and consequences of our foreign policies.  It is too bad that it took an election campaign to prompt the media to abandon previous censorship of these images.  If we can wage wars and perpetuate policies that bring this kind of unfathomable misery and human suffering down on village civilains(who up until now have carried the monolithic media moniker of "collateral damage") then I believe it is the media's job to report this side of the story and present these images every single time they occur.  


The Vietnam war was the first televised war.  The images that visited our living rooms nightly during the evening newcast compelled Americans with a conscience to oppose that war and call for its end.  Better late than never, I guess, but who knows what kind death and destruction could have been prevented on both sides of the conflict if we had access to these images all along?  


As a postscript observation, the images show us exactly why the tradition why diplomacy matters.  Some of us have been following this side of the story for years now.  For those voters, the war and the absence of EFFECTIVE international diplomacy and alliance building strategies are every bit as focal as the national issue of the economy.   


It will just transfer to Afghanistan. Obama has already said...
we need more troops in Afghanistan. McCain agrees. Obama also says now that to just pull everyone out of Iraq would not be the thing to do. McCain agrees. So as far as the war goes...we are still going to be fighting in both places as we gradually withdraw...and those withdrawn from Iraq are going to be sent to Afghanistan. That is what they are both saying.
Grim Appraisal of War in Afghanistan

National Security Team Delivers Grim Appraisal of War in Afghanistan



by: Craig Whitlock, The Washington Post  


Munich - President Obama's national security team gave a dire assessment Sunday of the war in Afghanistan, with one official calling it a challenge "much tougher than Iraq" and others hinting that it could take years to turn around.


    U.S. officials said more troops were urgently needed, both from America and its NATO allies, to counter the increasing strength of the Taliban and warlords opposed to the central government in Kabul. They also said new approaches were needed to untangle an inefficient and conflicting array of civilian-aid programs that have wasted billions of dollars.


    "NATO's future is on the line here," Richard C. Holbrooke, the State Department's special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, told attendees at an international security conference here. "It's going to be a long, difficult struggle.... In my view, it's going to be much tougher than Iraq."


    Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, head of the U.S. Central Command, said the war in Afghanistan "has deteriorated markedly in the past two years" and warned of a "downward spiral of security."


    In addition to more combat troops, Petraeus called for "a surge in civilian capacity" to help rebuild villages, train local police forces, tackle corruption in the Afghan government and reduce the country's thriving opium trade. He also suggested that the odds of success were low, given that foreign military powers have historically met with defeat in Afghanistan.


    "Afghanistan has been known over the years as the graveyard of empires," he said. "We cannot take that history lightly."


    The White House is conducting a strategic review of the war in Afghanistan and says it will unveil the results before NATO holds a 60th-anniversary summit in early April.


    Obama administration officials have said they expect to send 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, bringing the total U.S. deployment there to about 66,000. U.S. allies have a combined 32,000 troops in Afghanistan operating under NATO command. NATO officials have pressed European members of the alliance to send more, but few countries have been willing.


    Germany, which has 3,500 troops in Afghanistan, the third most of any country, has questioned the need for more combat forces. Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung said more attention should be paid to training Afghan forces and to reconstruction projects.


    "We won't win with military alone," he said at the conference. "There will be no development without security. But without development, we won't have security, either."


    The debate over troops has led to a split within NATO. Jaap DE Hoop Scheffer, NATO's secretary general, told conference attendees on Saturday that European members of the alliance needed to do more of the "heavy lifting" in Afghanistan.


    British Defense Secretary John Hutton openly disagreed with his German counterpart, saying the need for more combat troops was the highest priority in Afghanistan. Reconstruction efforts, he said, would fail if the Taliban remains strong.


    "We kid ourselves if we imagine that other contributions right now are of the same value, because they're not," he said. Britain has 8,900 troops in Afghanistan and has said it will probably send more.


    Afghan President Hamid Karzai said his country had made large strides since the U.S.-led military invasion in 2001. He said Afghanistan was home to a thriving free press, 17 universities, and schools for thousands of girls who had been barred by the Taliban from receiving an education. In 2001, he said, Afghanistan had no paved roads; now it has 2,500 miles of new highways.


    U.S. officials said one of the thorniest problems in Afghanistan is its flourishing drug trade, which accounts for an estimated 90 percent of the world's heroin supply. But Karzai, who faces reelection in August, dismissed portrayals of Afghanistan as being run by drug barons.


    "Yes, we produce poppies. Yes, we are insecure because of that," he said. "Are we a 'narco-state,' as we've been called the past few years? No, we are not."


    Karzai said the only way to bring stability to Afghanistan is to eventually negotiate a deal with the Taliban. He also blamed Afghanistan's slow recovery on a lack of coordination among donor countries.


    U.S. and European officials agreed that poor coordination is a major obstacle. "I've never seen anything remotely resembling the mess we've inherited," Holbrooke said.


    But some officials suggested the Afghan government was also responsible.


    Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush, cited a fumbled attempt by the United Nations last year to name Paddy Ashdown, a British diplomat, as the overseer of international aid projects in Afghanistan. Ashdown's appointment was torpedoed by Karzai, who saw it as an infringement on Afghanistan's sovereignty.


    Holbrooke replied that the Obama administration would revisit the idea of a development czar with Afghan officials. "The Paddy Ashdown fiasco - and there's no other word for it - really set back the international community."


    Last week, in an open letter to Holbrooke published in the Times of London, Ashdown expressed some sympathy for "poor President Karzai" and said NATO members were chasing different goals in Afghanistan, depending on where their forces operate.


    "The British think Afghanistan is Helmand, the Canadians think it's Kandahar, the Dutch think it's Uruzgan, the Germans think it's the Panjshir valley and the U.S. thinks it's chasing Osama bin Laden." He added, "Someone needs to bash heads together out there and if anyone can, you can."


    Also Sunday, Vice President Biden held talks in Munich with Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, a day after Biden said the White House wanted to "press the reset button" in its relations with the Kremlin. Ivanov praised Biden's speech, telling reporters that it was "very positive," and adding: "It is obvious the new U.S. administration has a very strong desire to change."


yea? well someone w/middle name Hussein

I'm not voting for Hillary but....


know that it scares the heck outta me and others, Obama.......his middle name is hussein.....


one of the bibles say something to the effect of when the *stuff* happens (the bad stuff) - it's going to happen from the *inside out* -


but glad you are ALL so trusting.......i trust nobody 100%. 


i cannot stand ALL of these candidates this time around......


JMHO - no flames please


Obama Hussein - Is that the best you can do.
How completely ignorant.
Anyone purposely pointing out Hussein
Is just a stupid loser.  You are a racist.  Obama is not Muslim but what if he was????  Timothy McVeigh was a Christian and he blew up government buildings.  There are many good muslims and good Christians AND good atheists.  Can you wrap your hands around that?  Anyone drawing attention to the middle name HUSSEIN is trying to cause trouble or fear that it sounds like a terrorist name.  How small minded you are.  Did you even graduate high school?  I won't be looking for your reply.  I'm busy planning a victory party for Obama.
As in Barry Hussein Obama.
xx
Barrack Hussein Obama

"This is the greatest country on the face of the Earth.  Join with me as we change it." -- Barrack Obama 2008


Who else called for change in this fashion? 


Karl Marx.


Joseph Stalin.


Adolf Hitler.


Benito Mussolini.


Fidel Castro.


And you want Obama for president?  Are you NUTS!


Iraq is a Middle Eastern country, Afghanistan NOT..sm
So Obama said correctly, 'I will bring troops home from the Middle East (Iraq) and send more troops to
Afghanistan.
And that is what he is doing, NO LIES HERE.
They forgot to mention what it was for & Afghanistan was part of the trip-a lot for 1 wk

Indeed, in a February 17 article, the ANSA English Media Service reported (accessed from the Nexis database): "Since arriving in Italy on Saturday, Pelosi has visited the American air base at Aviano in northeast Italy and the American military cemetery in Florence and is due at the NATO Joint Forces Command in Naples Wednesday." Further, a February 19 press release issued by Pelosi's office stated: "Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Congressional delegation today were briefed by U.S. Admiral Mark Fitzgerald, Commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe and Africa, and Commander of Allied Joint Force Command Naples. Admiral Fitzgerald and his NATO staff provided information on NATO activities in the Balkans, the ongoing training of Iraqi Security Forces, and operations against pirates off the coast of Somalia." The release further stated: "On Saturday, Speaker Pelosi and the Congressional delegation visited Aviano Air Base where the Speaker pinned the Bronze Star Medal on Technical Sergeant Phoebus Lazaridis for extraordinary service in Afghanistan. The delegation paid their respects to the more than 4,400 American World War II soldiers buried at the Florence American Cemetery on the outskirts of Florence on Sunday."


On February 21, Pelosi released a statement about her trip to Afghanistan, in which she said, "For the past two days, I have led an eight Member House delegation to Afghanistan to visit U.S. troops," during which the delegation "met with U.S. military leaders, and the U.S. Diplomatic team in Kabul to better assess the best course of action to further our national security interests in preparation for the completion of President Obama's strategic review of the Afghanistan policy" and "met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who is sending his own advisors to Washington as part of the review process."


Obama did say he would send more troops to Afghanistan while he was campaigning - nm
x
Oh, I feel you. I don't know which is better for the Iraqi's, b/c what is usually reported is sm
the military casualties, not the civilian casualties in Iraq.

Fox News did report this week about a military man whose family was murdered, wife and children while he was out working. That's awful, that's terror. When I hear stories like that I do think of the terror the people are experiencing due to this war, but they did have it bad under Sadaam. They're in a catch 22.

Iraqi death toll....sm

See link for full article below.

 

*According to the graph, Iraqi civilians and security forces were killed and wounded by insurgents at a rate of about 26 a day early in 2004, and at a rate of about 40 a day later that year. The rate increased in 2005 to about 51 a day, and by the end of August had jumped to about 63 a day.

Extrapolating the daily averages over the months from Jan. 1, 2004, to Sept. 16 of this year results in a total of 25,902 Iraqi civilians and security forces killed and wounded by insurgents.*


Detained Iraqi children

Okay, this is about as disturbing as it gets.  I came across this thread on the Democratic Underground website:


Source: AFP

Agence France-Presse

BAGHDAD -- US troops are holding nearly 950 children and teenagers in a military prison at a Baghdad base, some as young as 10, a top commander said Monday.

Brigadier General Michael Nevin of US military police said many of these youngsters, mainly 15, 16 or 17 years of age are illiterate and have been detained for planting bombs and even for "picking up a gun and firefighting."

...

"These juveniles have been involved in something that is perceived as a security threat to Iraq or coalition forces," Nevin told Agence France-Presse during a tour of Camp Cropper.

...

"In January we had around 100 juveniles. Now we have around 950," Nevin said.

...

One of the commanders at Camp Cropper, Lieutenant Colonel Malcolm McMullen, said the juveniles were now part of a wide-ranging educational program launched by the military.

"Many of them come from broken homes with no education," he said.


So, curious as to what type of educational program launched by the military, as I thought it funny this little tibit of information was left out, I came across this:


http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2007/11/10/9066.shtml


I think we need to dig further.


Obama and Iraqi oil for food...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/obamas_iraqi_oil_for_food_conn.html
Obama on his decision to deploy additional 17,000 troops in Afghanistan..sm
"There is no more solemn duty as President than the decision to deploy our armed forces into harm's way," Obama said. "I do it today mindful that the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention and swift action."


The Iraqi war has further destabilized the middle east. It has....sm
But obviously you don't think so so tell us how it has helepd to stabilize the region?
A blog by an Iraqi about his homeland and Democracy. sm
I read this every day until he stopped posting.  It's very informative and not something seen in the MSM.  There are other links there that are still active.
This is my first time hearing protestors against the Iraqi war...sm
getting soldiers killed??

This is not Vietnam. We are not trying to stop communism from spreading (not that I would have agreed with that then). This is supposedly to stop WMD, then to spread democracy to the Iraqi people, and now because there was a connection to al Queda.

The loss of live was tremendous in Vietnam compared to the Iraqi war. If we had lost the number of troops we did in Vietnam, I would be in Washington sitting on the lawn myself.

Not sure this answered your question, you have to explain your question further??
Iraqi terrorist training camps?
Links between Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda, as claimed by the Bush Administration (which formed a crucial part of the WMD justification for the Iraq invasion), were non-existent or exaggerated, according to the report of both the United States Government's 9/11 Commission and the Pentagon.  There was never any real proof of training camps in Iraq.  As far as terrorists having been in Iraq at one time or another....it's a middle eastern country.....they were way down toward the bottom of the list of terrorist hang-outs.
Oops, left out Barack Hussein Obama
in the above post.
PRESIDENT ELECT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA ! ! ! ! ! !
x
Iraqi Soldiers Speak Out in Favor of Murtha

On January 5, 2006, Congressman Murtha held a town hall meeting with Cong. Jim Moran (D-VA 08).


The soldier who asked the first question served in Afghanistan and said that morale among troops is high and that he would gladly serve in Iraq today. His comment was the only one replayed by Fox News the next day.

But the majority of soldiers in attendance spoke out against the current policy. Fox News did not broadcast their remarks.


Here are some excerpts.


John Brumes, Infantry Sgt. US Army:


Everything that the Bush Adminstration told us about that mission in Iraq is absolutely incorrect. Furthermore, I'd like to say ... I came home to no job, no health insurance. Until we take care of this war, we can't take care of the problems that matter like health care.

I've witnessed both ends... Congressman Murtha, I implore you to keep doing what you're doing.



John Powers, Capt. 1st Armored Division, served 12 months in Iraq:


The thing that hits me the most is the accountability. ... Where is the accountability for those men [who took us to war], as well as where is the accountability for Paul Bremmer, who misplaced millions of dollars and claims to keep accountability in the war zone?... I know that if we lost $500 we would be court marshaled. So where is the accountability for this leadership?

Garin Reppenhagen, served as a sniper in Iraq for a year in the First Infantry Division:


My question is also about accountability. The soldiers that you see, Congressman Murtha, at the hospitals... those are my friends. After coming back, being a veteran, my question is why? Why did we go to this war, why the hell did it happen, why are we in this condition. A lot of soldiers are debating whether this war was fraudulent to begin with. And there doesn't seem to be a clear answer. A lot of Americans now are debating the fact over whether or not the war was fraudulent in the first place. How come there hasn't been an investigation on the fraudulent lead up to the war by this Administration?

C-SPAN has the full broadcast here.



 

Iraqi Colleagues Killed U.S. Soldiers, Military Says

And 19 Republican senators and a conservative poster crashing this this board think that monsters like this should receive amnesty for killing our soldiers.  Unbelievable.







Iraqi colleagues killed U.S. soldiers, military says





SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Two California soldiers shot to death in Iraq were murdered by Iraqi civil-defense officers patrolling with them, military investigators have found.


The deaths of Army Spc. Patrick R. McCaffrey Sr. and 1st Lt. Andre D. Tyson were originally attributed to an ambush during a patrol near Balad, Iraq, on June 22, 2004.


But the Army's Criminal Investigation Command found that one or more of the Iraqis attached to the American soldiers on patrol fired at them, a military official said Tuesday. (Watch a mother's quest for truth -- 1:26)


A Pentagon spokesman knew of no other similar incident, calling it extremely rare.


The Army has conducted an extensive investigation into the deaths but declined to provide details out of respect for relatives of the soldiers, spokesman Paul Boyce said Tuesday evening.


It was unclear whether the investigators had established a motive or arrested any suspects.


The families of McCaffrey and Tyson were to be briefed on the report's conclusions Tuesday and Wednesday by Brig. Gen. Oscar Hilman, the soldiers' commander at the time, and three other officers.


When they come I have my list of questions ready, and I want these answers and I don't want lies, McCaffrey's mother, Nadia McCaffrey, said.


Soldiers who witnessed the attack have told her that two Iraqi patrolmen opened fire on her son's unit. The witnesses also said a third gunman simultaneously drove up to the American unit in a van, climbed onto the vehicle and fired at the Americans, she said.


Nothing is clear. Nothing is clear, she said. Her son was shot eight times by bullets of various calibers, some of which penetrated his body armor, she said. She believes he bled to death.


Nadia McCaffrey has become a vocal critic of the war in Iraq, and said her son had reservations about it, too, though he served well and was promoted posthumously to sergeant.


I really want this story to come out; I want people to know what happened to my son, she said. There is no doubt to me that this (ambushes by attached Iraqi units) is still happening to soldiers today, but our chain of command is awfully reckless; they don't seem to give a damn about what's happening to soldiers.


Iraqi forces who had trained with the Americans had fired at them twice before the incident that killed Patrick McCaffrey, and he had reported it to his superiors, she said.


Boyce said the U.S. military remained confident in its operations with Iraqis.


We continue to have confidence in our operations with Iraqi soldiers and have witnessed the evolution of a stronger fighting army for the Iraqi people, he said.


Patrick McCaffrey joined the National Guard the day after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, his mother said.


Tyson's family could not be located, and a message left with his former unit was not immediately returned.


McCaffrey, 34, and Tyson, 33, were members of the California National Guard. Both were assigned to the Army National Guard's 579th Engineer Battalion, based in Petaluma.


Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, pressed the Pentagon for answers about the case when Nadia McCaffrey was unsatisfied by explanations from the military.


Mrs. McCaffrey is set to receive a briefing from Pentagon officials (Wednesday) afternoon in California, during which we hope they will provide her with a full report of the facts surrounding Sgt. McCaffrey's death, said Natalie Ravitz, a Boxer spokeswoman.



Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.












 
 









 
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/21/soldiers.ambushed.ap/index.html
 

Raped Iraqi woman feared US troops...sm
I don't usually post reports of the bad side of US soldiers in Iraq because I believe the most of them are doing their jobs with integrity, so even after reading this it is still hard to believe. Thanks to the brave soldiers who spoke out against their comrades. This story reminds me of some of the bad stories I've heard of Vietnam.

Please somebody say it aint so...
------------------------------------------
Raped Iraqi woman feared US troops: report
Mon Jul 3, 2006 07:06 AM ET

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A woman apparently at the center of a rape-murder probe by the U.S. military in Iraq was only 15 and voiced fears about soldiers' advances before she and her family were killed in March, the Washington Post said on Monday.

Quoting the mayor of Mahmudiya, near Baghdad, an unnamed hospital official and neighbors of the alleged victims, the newspaper named the woman, her parents and 7-year-old sister as having been killed in their home in the town on March 11.

The paper did not affirm the woman, Abeer Qasim Hamza, was killed by Americans, but local people quoted appeared to believe the dead family was the one involved in the U.S. investigation.

A U.S. military official in Baghdad told Reuters details of the incident they described were at odds with U.S. documents in the 10-day-old investigation of at least three soldiers. U.S. officials had the rape victim's age as 20, he said. However, he added, he was not aware of any other such cases in the area.

The U.S. military has given few details publicly. Officials say at least three soldiers are under investigation over the alleged rape of a woman and the killing of three relatives, including a child, in their home at Mahmudiya on March 12.

Two are suspected of rape and one of these, since discharged from the army, is also suspected of murder, officials said.

The Washington Post quoted Omar Janabi, who said he was a neighbor, saying Abeer Qasim's mother had told him on March 10 that the young woman had complained repeatedly about advances made toward her by U.S. soldiers at a nearby checkpoint.

Janabi told the newspaper he was one of the first people to arrive at the family house after the attack. He said he found Abeer sprawled dead in a corner, her hair and a pillow next to her consumed by fire, and her dress pushed up to her neck.

DEATH CERTIFICATES

The paper said death certificates from Mahmudiya hospital identified the victims as Abeer Qasim Hamza, 15, shot in the head and burned; her mother Fakhriyah Taha Muhsin, 34, killed by gunshots to her head; her father Qasim Hamza Raheem, 45, whose head was smashed by bullets; and Hadeel Qasim Hamza, 7.

The inquiry was launched after two soldiers from the 502nd Infantry Regiment came forward last month to make allegations about comrades. The killings had previously been recorded by the military as the work of guerrillas, U.S. officers say.

Local residents and officials in the area, one of the most dangerous and violent in Iraq, have offered Reuters reporters conflicting accounts of incidents involving U.S. troops.

Two years after the scandal over U.S. prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib jail and coming after a string of murder charges against U.S. troops and accusations over the killing of 24 people in the western city of Haditha, the rape allegation is potentially incendiary in Iraq's conservative Muslim society.

Iraq's main organization of Sunni Muslim clerics, long hostile to the U.S. occupation, said on Sunday the Mahmudiya case revealed the real, ugly face of America.

In recent months, officials say, commanders have cracked down on rogue soldiers in a bid to gain the trust of ordinary Iraqis and of their new government after three years of growing resentment that U.S. officers say risks fuelling the insurgency.
Iraqi PM says Reckles soldiers should stay home.

So much for all that *winning their hearts and minds* talk. 


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060706/wl_nm/iraq_maliki_dc_2


Reckless soldiers should stay home: Iraqi PM





By Ibon Villelabeitia


Thu Jul 6, 1:41 PM ET



Iraq's prime minister urged the U.S. military on Thursday to keep reckless troops from serving in Iraq in order to prevent abuses like the alleged rape and murder of a teenager and her family by U.S. soldiers in March.


Expanding on calls for an independent inquiry and a review of foreign troops' immunity from Iraqi law, Nuri al-Maliki said commanders should do a better job in preparing their soldiers.


There needs to be a plan to educate and train soldiers, and those who are brought to serve in Iraq shouldn't bear prejudices nor be reckless toward people's honor, Maliki said.


The U.S. military is investigating a group of its soldiers over the rape and killing of a family of four in Mahmudiya, south of the capital, in a case that has strained relations between Washington and Baghdad.


Former private Steven Green, 21, has been charged with rape and murder in a U.S. federal court. He had been discharged from the army because of a personality disorder before the case came to light.


At least three other soldiers are being investigated in the case.


The Mahmudiya incident and other incidents before that ... produce sadness, pain and condemnation from Iraqis, Maliki said.


IMMUNITY


Maliki, facing pressure from Shi'ites and Sunnis to hold Americans accountable, has slammed a U.S. occupation authority decree that grants immunity from Iraqi law for the 140,000 or so foreign troops in Iraq, saying it emboldens soldiers.


I think this matter has become necessary to review and solve, either by reviewing the issue of immunity or reviewing the nature of the investigating committees, he told reporters in Baghdad, a day after he first called for a review of the law.


The rape and murder case is the fifth in a high-profile series of U.S. inquiries into killings of Iraqi civilians in recent months and has outraged Iraqis.


American commanders, keen to repair the military's tarnished image after three years of complaints from Iraqis that U.S. abuses go unpunished, pressed murder charges against 12 military personnel last month. Marines are under investigation for the killing of 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha.


Iraqis have complained of Americans' lack of cultural sensitivity -- including searching women's rooms during raids or not taking their boots off when entering. Commanders say they are improving such procedures.


Though heavily dependent on America's military muscle, Maliki faces delicate negotiations with its main ally Washington over how to regulate the presence of the U.S.-led forces in Iraq, now under a U.N. mandate that expires in December.










Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

Ever heard of Barack Hussein Obama before he started running?
that argument doesn't play out either! and she's the VP not the president!
Do you honestly believe that a evil tyrant like Sadam Hussein would NOT have WMDs?
He used chemical warefare on the Kurds in the 1980s. They exist.  They were well hidden and are probably now well hidden just across the border into Iraq or Syria.  Stop kidding yourselves! 
Okay to kill one but not the other?

I heard her on Sean Hannity's radio show a few days ago. 


Another real dandy is that Killer the Baby Killer in Kansas.


This so-called pro-choice types are the same ones who tore into Joe Horn for killing an illegal thug who was threatening private property.  Diane Sawyer is only one of these utopian elites.


Funny how the twisted logic of the left works.


Saddam US friend

Six months after the gassing of Kurds in 1988, the White House lent Saddam a billion dollars.  In 1991, at the end of the Gulf War, US troops stood idly by while Saddam's presidential guards ruthlessly suppressed the uprising by the Kurds that Poppy Bush encouraged and had called for.  In 1980, Saddam was made an honorary citizen of Detroit, Michigan.  He was our friend back then, even though we knew his blood thirsty ways.  We even supplied him with WMD, which we then destroyed with fly over bombing through the 1990's with sanctions placed on the country to weaken it even more.  We also were friends with Osama in the 1970's when we had him and Afghan freedom fighters fight against Russia as we did not want Russia to have control of Afghanistan.  In essence, Osama was trained by our CIA for war.


Saddam v. Bush

I agree 100%, especially after watching those videos you so kindly supplied.


We all know how terrible Saddam is.  It almost hurts to write that an American president could be worse.  He obviously doesn't personally care how many Americans and Iraqis he's killing over there. He doesn't care that he's created a huge deficit that didn't exist before he showed up.  I thought Republicans were supposed to be in favor of no deficits and less government.  He cares more about stem cells that are about to be thrown in the garbage than he does about living, breathing human Americans who are already here.


He's abrasive and arrogant, and I actually feel sorry for Tony Blair, who I think has stayed with Bush out of a sense of intense loyalty to America.  Bush has put Blair's career on shaky ground. 


As far as war crimes, it isn't over yet.  This whole war might be deemed to be illegal.  Wouldn't surprise me one bit.  That is, if we all live long enough to see it and aren't killed first by terrorists as a result of his neglect in securing his own country.


Seems to me if there's a WMD anywhere, it's in Crawford, and it's George W. Bush.


Who have they threatened to kill?

I'm serious.  WHO?  I honestly don't know because I don't listen to them, either.  But if they have aired similar threats upon a group of people, then I believe they are equally wrong.


If you are offended by my liberal beliefs being posted on the LIBERAL BOARD, then perhaps you would feel more comfortable on the Conservative Board.  Just a thought.


Hitler vs Saddam
I remember the stories as a young girl about Saddam throwing babies up in the air and shoting them as they fall. This was during Bush Sr.'s term. There is no doubt in my mind that he was tyrannical and murderous, but from what I understand the mass murderings, chemical genocide in Iraq happened in the 80's and early 90's. The threat of the Gulf War and UN sanctioning (and I know if it's failures)had pretty much tight gripped the dictator. There was no immediate humanitarian need for action in 2003 I'm aware of.

Hitler had a well publicized plan and factory like set up to eliminate the Jews. There was an immediate need to stop him.
He did kill his own people
Hundreds of mass graves prove it.  Saddam's sons killed their own people for bloodsport.