Like that'll happen. Trying to bomb a grassroots political force
Posted By: sm on 2009-01-05
In Reply to: Good. Hope Israel can destroy HAMAS. - -who are terrorists, since you dont know.nm
into extinction will be about as effective and trying to bomb Iraq into democracy.
Thanks to their last fiasco when they tried this in Lebanon, Hezbollah has an 80+% approval rating among Lebanese factions (13 points higher than O) and its support among Lebanese Sunni Sunni, Christians and Druze soared in 2006. Their demonstrations attracted hundreds of thousands of protestors, especially in the aftermath of Israel's failed massacre, when protests against PM Siniora sent his approval ratings into a deep-6.
Hezbollah was given veto power in the parliment via the Doha Agreement in 2008 and under its newly formed National Unity Government, Hezbollah gained the Labor Minister's appointment and holds 11 out of 30 seats, or slightly over one-third alongside Greek Orthodox and Catholics, Maronites, Armenians, Shia, Sunni and Druz.
So you see, instead of giving Hezbollah the boot, Israel legitimized their standing the Lebanese government.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0728/p06s01-wome.html
http://www.mideastmonitor.org/issues/0609/0609_6.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006%E2%80%932008_Lebanese_political_protests
http://www.tayyar.org/Tayyar/UnityGovernmentEN.htm
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9155/hezbollah.html?breadcrumb=%2F
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
They are also a viable grass roots political force
in the region, just like Hezbollah. How successful was Israel in trying to eradicate Hezbollah by bombing them off the face of the earth just 2 short years ago in Lebanon? The harder they try to suppress with violence, starvation, dehumanization, occupation and genocidal wars, the stronger those movements become. Israel is the consummate poster child for Einstein's definition of insanity.
Until the US and Israel have the guts to come to terms with the root causes of WHY these Islamic movements are gaining such traction across the board in the region, we are doomed to stay mired in the same atrocious tit-for-tat cycles of wholesale slaughter and human suffering. There seems to be an endless supply of that on both sides of the fence. The question is why and what can e do to effect a different outcome? Here's a clue for you. End the occupation.
It'll never happen.
Just think what would happen if each individual earmark had to be voted on on its own merit instead of buried in a potentially helpful bill! Would we really spend $1B to study cow farts in Wisconsin?
As long as there are politicians who can't get what they want any other way, earmarks will continue to defile any bill that passes through congress.
Yep, that'll happen when pigs balance the budget......
nm
Patriots don't live in D.C., that's why grassroots
efforts are more effective than anyone can imagine. Very few people where I live can support Obama, and after 2 weeks, they see how he is leading, all the way to bread lines, joblessness, and homelessness. There ain't gonna be any money except for the elites. Nobody nowhere gonna be hiring, and all those people who voted for Obama, I give them a year, and they will deny they ever voted for him. Try to find one, just one, in a year's time.
When the libs hit the streets rioting, well, the government done got you covered. You'll go into the FEMA death camps already prepared and waiting. You think there is no such thing? Dream on. There is.
It's coming, wait and see.
Who should be bomb next?
Check thsi out..I hope it works, if not check out Crooks and Liars website and watch it there. People are asked which country we should bomb next and they actually name other countries!! And their knowledge of geography is frightening. If I was asked..what country should be bomb and invade next I would say NONE, LEAVE THE WORLD ALONE! Amazing.
Who would you bomb next?
CNNN (not US) asks people On the Streets of America who they would bomb next.
Video-Wmp Bittorrent-WMP
Video-QT- Bittorrent-QT
Your very first sentence, "Trying to bomb...
... a grassroots political force into extinction will be about as effective and trying to bomb Iraq into democracy," reminds me very much of a quote by Michael Corleone in Godfather II, where they're in Cuba trying to "do business" while in the midst of unrest and rebellion of the people.
Michael Corleone: I saw a strange thing today. Some rebels were being arrested. One of them pulled the pin on a grenade. He took himself and the captain of the command with him. Now, soldiers are paid to fight; the rebels aren't.
Hyman Roth: What does that tell you?
Michael Corleone: It means they could win.
Although Israel has very sophisticated American-made weapons, maybe, as above, that won't be enough. 
Conservative Sites for Non-Bomb-Throwers
I'm posting this again, since it got lost in the shuffle.
I realize I'll get bomb-throwers, but I could care less. I will probably just ignore it. These people are literally drunk on Kool-Aid!There are other forums for overall conservative thinkers. If you go to activitypit.com, it's for RedEye fans (like me). The show itself is very funny in my opinion. Of course, they do have some libs on there, but they don't behave anywhere near like these people. I've become very good friends with a couple people from there. I found out one of them lives in the same city as me. Talk about a small world! Here are a couple links from RedEye's Activity Pit:
There are many more. Here are a few off the top of my head:
townhall.com
heritage.org
pajamastv.com
newsbusters.org
tammybruce.com
nationalreview.com
hotair.com
michellemalkin.com
newt.org
Of course, let us not forget:
rushlimbaugh.com
marklevinshow.com
hannity.com
anncoulter.com
lauraingraham.com
Another thing many don't know is that The History Channel is owned/run by libs, so watch with caution. I personally prefer War Stories with Oliver North on FNC. Tammy Bruce was formerly president (or whatever they call it) of NOW, but not now. She has a very interesting story to tell about their ways of doing business. I wonder if any libs will look into this. And imagine this, a conservative lesbian!
So enjoy, you few conservatives!
Here are some others: breitbart.com, http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/, townhall.com,
The other friend, who lives in a very liberal state, was thrilled that she and her husband met ONE conservative couple.
Conservative Sites for Non-Bomb-Throwers
I'm posting this again, since it got lost in the shuffle.
I realize I'll get bomb-throwers, but I could care less. I will probably just ignore it. These people are literally drunk on Kool-Aid!There are other forums for overall conservative thinkers. If you go to activitypit.com, it's for RedEye fans (like me). The show itself is very funny in my opinion. Of course, they do have some libs on there, but they don't behave anywhere near like these people. I've become very good friends with a couple people from there. I found out one of them lives in the same city as me. Talk about a small world! Here are a couple links from RedEye's Activity Pit:
There are many more. Here are a few off the top of my head:
townhall.com
heritage.org
pajamastv.com
newsbusters.org
tammybruce.com
nationalreview.com
hotair.com
michellemalkin.com
newt.org
Of course, let us not forget:
rushlimbaugh.com
marklevinshow.com
hannity.com
anncoulter.com
lauraingraham.com
Another thing many don't know is that The History Channel is owned/run by libs, so watch with caution. I personally prefer War Stories with Oliver North on FNC. Tammy Bruce was formerly president (or whatever they call it) of NOW, but not now. She has a very interesting story to tell about their ways of doing business. I wonder if any libs will look into this. And imagine this, a conservative lesbian!
So enjoy, you few conservatives!
Here are some others: breitbart.com, http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/, townhall.com,
The other friend, who lives in a very liberal state, was thrilled that she and her husband met ONE conservative couple.
If Netanyahu continues to bomb Gaza,
then Obama has to do some action, words are not enough anymore regarding this conflict.
Most probably Obama, as he is a wise guy, he will curtail US' financial and weapon support to Israel.
Obama will not start the bombing and he will not torture.
Jesse Jackson gets bomb threats over Imus case...sm
Jesse Jackson gets bomb threats over Imus case
April 15, 2007
BY DAVE NEWBART Staff Reporter/ dnewbart@suntimes.com
The Rev. Jesse Jackson has been hit with a series of bomb threats since leading a charge to get shock jock Don Imus fired.
Jackson said he fielded a call Saturday morning urging him to watch his back and warning him to stay away from Rainbow/PUSH headquarters on the South Side.
Friday, a Jackson staffer took a call from someone who claimed to have planted a bomb at the headquarters at 50th and Drexel. The building was evacuated about 12:30 p.m., and police swept the building with bomb-sniffing dogs. Nothing was found.
Jackson said he has received 10 to 12 threats starting Wednesday or Thursday. The calls have gone to his office, his home and his cell phone. Although he hasn't fielded most of the calls, he said he believes there are different people behind them.
A police spokeswoman said an investigation is ongoing.
In New York, meanwhile, WCBSTV.com reported the Rev. Al Sharpton has also received death threats after criticizing Imus.
Imus was fired from his radio show for calling members of the Rutgers women's basketball team nappy-headed hos.
Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved
(Almost five years after 9/11, just how committed is Bush to keeping Americans safe?)
Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved
By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press WriterFri Aug 11, 5:56 PM ET
While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology.
Congressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of steps by the Homeland Security Department that has left lawmakers and some of the department's own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.
Homeland Security's research arm, called the Sciences & Technology Directorate, is a rudderless ship without a clear way to get back on course, Republican and Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee declared recently.
The committee is extremely disappointed with the manner in which S&T is being managed within the Department of Homeland Security, the panel wrote June 29 in a bipartisan report accompanying the agency's 2007 budget.
Rep. Martin Sabo, D-Minn., who joined Republicans to block the administration's recent diversion of explosives detection money, said research and development is crucial to thwarting future attacks and there is bipartisan agreement that Homeland Security has fallen short.
They clearly have been given lots of resources that they haven't been using, Sabo said.
Homeland Security said Friday its research arm has just gotten a new leader, former Navy research chief Rear Adm. Jay Cohen, and there is strong optimism for developing new detection technologies in the future.
I don't have any criticisms of anyone, said Kip Hawley, the assistant secretary for transportation security. I have great hope for the future. There is tremendous intensity on this issue among the senior management of this department to make this area a strength.
Lawmakers and recently retired Homeland Security officials say they are concerned the department's research and development effort is bogged down by bureaucracy, lack of strategic planning and failure to use money wisely.
The department failed to spend $200 million in research and development money from past years, forcing lawmakers to rescind the money this summer.
The administration also was slow to start testing a new liquid explosives detector that the Japanese government provided to the United States earlier this year.
The British plot to blow up as many as 10 American airlines on trans-Atlantic flights was to involve liquid explosives.
Hawley said Homeland Security now is going to test the detector in six American airports. It is very promising technology and we are extremely interested in it to help us operationally in the next several years, he said.
Japan has been using the liquid explosive detectors in its Narita International Airport in Tokyo and demonstrated the technology to U.S. officials at a conference in January, the Japanese Embassy in Washington said.
Homeland Security is spending a total of $732 million this year on various explosives deterrents and has tested several commercial liquid explosive detectors over the past few years but hasn't been satisfied enough with the results to deploy them.
Hawley said current liquid detectors that can scan only individual containers aren't suitable for wide deployment because they would bring security check lines to a crawl.
For more than four years, officials inside Homeland Security also have debated whether to deploy smaller trace explosive detectors — already in most American airports — to foreign airports to help stop any bomb chemicals or devices from making it onto U.S.-destined flights.
A 2002 Homeland report recommended immediate deployment of the trace units to key European airports, highlighting their low cost, $40,000 per unit, and their detection capabilities. The report said one such unit was able, 25 days later, to detect explosives residue inside the airplane where convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid was foiled in his attack in December 2001.
A 2005 report to Congress similarly urged that the trace detectors be used more aggressively, and strongly warned the continuing failure to distribute such detectors to foreign airports may be an invitation to terrorist to ply their trade, using techniques that they have already used on a number of occasions.
Tony Fainberg, who formerly oversaw Homeland Security's explosive and radiation detection research with the national labs, said he strongly urged deployment of the detectors overseas but was rebuffed.
It is not that expensive, said Fainberg, who retired recently. There was no resistance from any country that I was aware of, and yet we didn't deploy it.
Fainberg said research efforts were often frustrated inside Homeland Security by bureaucratic games, a lack of strategic goals and months-long delays in distributing money Congress had already approved.
There has not been a focused and coherent strategic plan for defining what we need ... and then matching the research and development plans to that overall strategy, he said.
Rep. Peter DeFazio (news, bio, voting record) of Oregon, a senior Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, said he urged the administration three years ago to buy electron scanners, like the ones used at London's airport to detect plastics that might be hidden beneath passenger clothes.
It's been an ongoing frustration about their resistance to purchase off-the-shelf, state-of-the-art equipment that can meet these threats, he said.
The administration's most recent budget request also mystified lawmakers. It asked to take $6 million from Homeland S&T's 2006 budget that was supposed to be used to develop explosives detection technology and instead divert it to cover a budget shortfall in the Federal Protective Service, which provides security around government buildings.
Sens. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., the top two lawmakers for Senate homeland appropriations, rejected the idea shortly after it arrived late last month, Senate leadership officials said.
Their House counterparts, Reps. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., and Sabo, likewise rejected the request in recent days, Appropriations Committee spokeswoman Kirsten Brost said. Homeland said Friday it won't divert the money.
___
Associated Press writer Leslie Miller contributed to this story.
Please review the Iraq Liberation Act and the speech given by clinton in 1988 explaining why he bomb
Operation Desert Fox. Bush, nor conservatives, were the first to call for regime change in Iraq. Clinton signed in a LAW calling for just that. I posted the act below. Both sides have called for regime change, only one side made it a law...that would be yours. Can we move on to another subject now?
OP said not to force beliefs on others...
if you don't want to read religious toned posts, don't open them.
O says that he will force insurance
companies to insure preexisting conditions. That sounds like something that will put them out of business to me. No need to buy insurance until you need it. Think of all the lost jobs.
PS, NOT ENCOURAGE, FORCE!!
XX
Require = force
xx
I don't believe I force people
to convert to my religion. I don't kill in the name of my God. I am nothing like the Jihad extremists and for you to say that is just absolute BS and you know it. What you people seem to forget is that we are at war here. A war were people want me and you dead. I don't want to torture them for revenge but if we can get other names of people or any plot information to save American lives.....I'm all for it....including saving your atheist behind in the process. Doesn't quite sound like I'm a Jihad extremists or I'd say something like blow your butt up too since you won't convert to my religion but I don't see me saying that. So don't you EVER compare me to a terrorist.
I see all the dems are out in force...keep it up ladies...sm
.....having a good ol' time ganging up on me....I have come to expect no less from the left on this site.
She's dynamite and will get rave reviews....wait and see....wait and see.....
Once again, a "civilian military force" that is
ENDORSED BY BUSH.
That little tidbit was conveniently deleted from the link that was provided.
Keep believing all the hype and the lies. That's your choice, but don't insult me because I can tell the difference.
There is no force involved whatsoever. I do it
because I "choose" to do what the Bible commands. I love the Lord and want to do what His Word says. There is nothing forced about. If you don't think it's a sin, that is your perogative. I, however, feel that it is and that is my perogative, too. 
I don't really understand the civilian force...
why not just beef up the military we already have? But, I don't actually think that it will ever happen, at least not to the extent that people are thinking and during Barrack's presidency. Americans will not allow that to come to fruition. It would take a very long gradual change for something like this to be implemented and accepted.
Does this help. Homeland security force.
KNOWN AS HOMELAND SECURITY FORCE, CIVIL DEFENSE.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwaAVJITx1Y&feature=related
This is about freedom of speech being taken away.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn_llXvTx5g
This is about section 899A (3), developing home grown terrorists in our own land (civil defense).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLQ68jBGK8o&feature=related
From a founding member of Delta Force
http://www.dailynews.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?article=3641046
'Unit's' military expert has fighting words for Bush
By David Kronke, TV Critic
U-Entertainment
Eric Haney, a retired command sergeant major of the U.S. Army, was a founding member of Delta Force, the military's elite covert counter-terrorist unit. He culled his experiences for Inside Delta Force (Delta; $14), a memoir rich with harrowing stories, though in an interview, Haney declines with a shrug to estimate the number of times he was almost killed. (Perhaps the most high-profile incident that almost claimed his life was the 1980 failed rescue of the hostages in Iran.) Today, he's doing nothing nearly as dangerous: He serves as an executive producer and technical adviser for The Unit, CBS' new hit drama based on his book, developed by playwright David Mamet. Even up against American Idol, The Unit shows muscle, drawing 18 million viewers in its first two airings.
Since he has devoted his life to protecting his country in some of the world's most dangerous hot spots, you might assume Haney is sympathetic to the Bush administration's current plight in Iraq (the laudatory cover blurb on his book comes from none other than Fox's News' Bill O'Reilly). But he's also someone with close ties to the Pentagon, so he's privy to information denied the rest of us.
We recently spoke to Haney, an amiable, soft-spoken Southern gentleman, on the set of The Unit.
Q: What's your assessment of the war in Iraq?
A: Utter debacle. But it had to be from the very first. The reasons were wrong. The reasons of this administration for taking this nation to war were not what they stated. (Army Gen.) Tommy Franks was brow-beaten and ... pursued warfare that he knew strategically was wrong in the long term. That's why he retired immediately afterward. His own staff could tell him what was going to happen afterward.
We have fomented civil war in Iraq. We have probably fomented internecine war in the Muslim world between the Shias and the Sunnis, and I think Bush may well have started the third world war, all for their own personal policies.
Q: What is the cost to our country?
A: For the first thing, our credibility is utterly zero. So we destroyed whatever credibility we had. ... And I say we, because the American public went along with this. They voted for a second Bush administration out of fear, so fear is what they're going to have from now on.
Our military is completely consumed, so were there a real threat - thankfully, there is no real threat to the U.S. in the world, but were there one, we couldn't confront it. Right now, that may not be a bad thing, because that keeps Bush from trying something with Iran or with Venezuela.
The harm that has been done is irreparable. There are more than 2,000 American kids that have been killed. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed � which no one in the U.S. really cares about those people, do they? I never hear anybody lament that fact. It has been a horror, and this administration has worked overtime to divert the American public's attention from it. Their lies are coming home to roost now, and it's gonna fall apart. But somebody's gonna have to clear up the aftermath and the harm that it's done just to what America stands for. It may be two or three generations in repairing.
Q: What do you make of the torture debate? Cheney ...
A: (Interrupting) That's Cheney's pursuit. The only reason anyone tortures is because they like to do it. It's about vengeance, it's about revenge, or it's about cover-up. You don't gain intelligence that way. Everyone in the world knows that. It's worse than small-minded, and look what it does.
I've argued this on Bill O'Reilly and other Fox News shows. I ask, who would you want to pay to be a torturer? Do you want someone that the American public pays to torture? He's an employee of yours. It's worse than ridiculous. It's criminal; it's utterly criminal. This administration has been masters of diverting attention away from real issues and debating the silly. Debating what constitutes torture: Mistreatment of helpless people in your power is torture, period. And (I'm saying this as) a man who has been involved in the most pointed of our activities. I know it, and all of my mates know it. You don't do it. It's an act of cowardice. I hear apologists for torture say, Well, they do it to us. Which is a ludicrous argument. ... The Saddam Husseins of the world are not our teachers. Christ almighty, we wrote a Constitution saying what's legal and what we believed in. Now we're going to throw it away.
Q: As someone who repeatedly put your life on the line, did some of the most hair-raising things to protect your country, and to see your country behave this way, that must be ...
A: It's pretty galling. But ultimately I believe in the good and the decency of the American people, and they're starting to see what's happening and the lies that have been told. We're seeing this current house of cards start to flutter away. The American people come around. They always do.
THE UNIT
What: Action-adventure about special-ops unit.
Where: CBS (Channel 2).
When: 9 p.m. Tuesdays.
---
David Kronke (818) 713-3638 david.kronke@dailynews.com
It's a beautiful thing to see dems out in force
nm
I see the Witches of Leftwick are out in force today....sm
just posting under different names.
Halloween must be around the corner.
wait for it......
.......the pig comments are about to be unleashed.....lol.....again.....
Civilian National Security Force...
These are Obama's words...
"We cannot rely only on our military for our national security, we need to have a Civilian National Security force that is just as strong, just as well funded."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
Civilian National Security Force
From FactCheck.org (Complete analysis at link below.)
Obama was not talking about a "security force" with guns or police powers. He was talking specifically about expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps, which is the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, and about increasing the number of trained Foreign Service officers who populate U.S. embassies overseas.
Israel air force is ready to attack Iran
capable of making nuclear bomb. I have been reading about Israel and Iran every day and looks like one of these days we are going to hear a special report that Israel is attacking Iran. My question is if the US is going to help? I read Iran would attack the US if US tries to help Israel. I also read Iran has missels pointed in our direction to hit our oil refineries and power plants in the gulf coast states.
The first 2 links are about Israel ready to attack Iran.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=75885§ionid=351020104
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,455005,00.html
This is about Iran nuclear capibility as of today from Fox news.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,455024,00.html
SINCE WHEN DOES THE KORAN FORCE PEOPLE TO CONVERT TO ISLAM?..
Are you still living in the stone ages?
Big Brother is I believe a covert force infiltrating each and every one's personal lives without
their knowledge. That is hardly the same thing as a poster on an MT board noticing that 4 different names post the same thing. I think that is creepy. I have been on this board for a long time and I recognize patterns, phrases that are repeated verbatim from far in the past, things people remember about me and say something like ***weren't you the one who ....*** and it is posted under a name different from the original. I leave Big Brother to our shadow government, wherever they are.
Air Force chief: Test weapons on US citizens before using on enemies.
Air Force chief: Test weapons on testy U.S. mobs
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before being used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday.
The object is basically public relations. Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions from others about possible safety considerations, said Secretary Michael Wynne.
If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation, said Wynne. (Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press.
The Air Force has paid for research into nonlethal weapons, but he said the service is unlikely to spend more money on development until injury problems are reviewed by medical experts and resolved.
Nonlethal weapons generally can weaken people if they are hit with the beam. Some of the weapons can emit short, intense energy pulses that also can be effective in disabling some electronic devices.
On another subject, Wynne said he expects to choose a new contractor for the next generation aerial refueling tankers by next summer. He said a draft request for bids will be put out next month, and there are two qualified bidders: the Boeing Co. and a team of Northrop Grumman Corp. and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., the majority owner of European jet maker Airbus SAS.
The contract is expected to be worth at least $20 billion (&euro15.75 billion).
Chicago, Illinois-based Boeing lost the tanker deal in 2004 amid revelations that it had hired a top Air Force acquisitions official who had given the company preferential treatment.
Wynne also said the Air Force, which is already chopping 40,000 active duty, civilian and reserves jobs, is now struggling to find new ways to slash about $1.8 billion (&euro1.4 billion) from its budget to cover costs from the latest round of base closings.
He said he can't cut more people, and it would not be wise to take funding from military programs that are needed to protect the country. But he said he also incurs resistance when he tries to save money on operations and maintenance by retiring aging aircraft.
We're finding out that those are, unfortunately, prized possessions of some congressional districts, said Wynne, adding that the Air Force will have to take some appetite suppressant pills. He said he has asked employees to look for efficiencies in their offices.
The base closings initially were expected to create savings by reducing Air Force infrastructure by 24 percent. |
|
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/12/usaf.weapons.ap/index.html |
I'll double that 'amen', and I'll raise you one!
amen
Britain to pull troops from Iraq as Blair says 'don't force me out' sm-long article
Britain to pull troops from Iraq as Blair says 'don't force me out'
· Defence Secretary confident withdrawal will start in May
· Plan follows pressure for exit strategy
Peter Beaumont and Gaby Hinsliff
Sunday September 25, 2005
The Observer
British troops will start a major withdrawal from Iraq next May under detailed plans on military disengagement to be published next month, The Observer can reveal.
The document being drawn up by the British government and the US will be presented to the Iraqi parliament in October and will spark fresh controversy over how long British troops will stay in the country. Tony Blair hopes that, despite continuing and widespread violence in Iraq, the move will show that there is progress following the conflict of 2003.
Britain has already privately informed Japan - which also has troops in Iraq - of its plans to begin withdrawing from southern Iraq in May, a move that officials in Tokyo say would make it impossible for their own 550 soldiers to remain.
The increasingly rapid pace of planning for British military disengagement has been revealed on the eve of the Labour Party conference, which will see renewed demands for a deadline for withdrawal. It is hoped that a clearer strategy on Iraq will quieten critics who say that the government will not be able to 'move on' until Blair quits. Yesterday, about 10,000 people demonstrated against the army's continued presence in the country.
Speaking to The Observer this weekend, the Defence Secretary, John Reid, insisted that the agreement being drawn up with Iraqi officials was contingent on the continuing political process, although he said he was still optimistic British troops would begin returning home by early summer.
'The two things I want to insist about the timetable is that it is not an event but a process, and that it will be a process that takes place at different speeds in different parts of the country. I have said before that I believe that it could begin in some parts of the country as early as next July. It is not a deadline, but it is where we might be and I honestly still believe we could have the conditions to begin handover. I don't see any reason to change my view.
'But if circumstances change I have no shame in revising my estimates.'
The disclosures follow rising demands for the government to establish a clearer strategy for bringing troops home following the kidnapping of two British SAS troopers in Basra and the scenes of violence that surrounded their rescue. Last week Blair's own envoy to Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, warned that Britain could be forced out if Iraq descends so far into chaos that 'we don't have any reasonable prospect of holding it together'.
Continued tension between the Iraqi police force, the Iraqi administration and British troops was revealed again yesterday when an Iraqi magistrate called for the arrest of the two British special forces soldiers. who were on a surveillance mission when they were taken into custody by Iraqi police and allegedly handed on to a militia.
For Blair, the question of withdrawal is one of the most difficult he is facing. The Prime Minister has abandoned plans, announced last February, to publish his own exit strategy setting out the milestones which would have to be met before quitting: instead, the plans are now being negotiated between a commission representing the Shia-dominated Iraqi government, and senior US and UK diplomats and military commanders in Baghdad.
Senior military sources have told The Observer that the document will lay out a point-by-point 'road map' for military disengagement by multinational forces, the first steps of which could be put in place soon after December's nationwide elections.
Each stage of the withdrawal would be locally judged on regional improvements in stability, with units being withdrawn as Iraqi units are deemed capable of taking over. Officials familiar with the negotiations said that conditions for withdrawal would not demand a complete cessation of insurgent violence, or the end of al-Qaeda atrocities.
According to the agreement under negotiation, each phase would be triggered when key security, stability and political targets have been reached. The phased withdrawal strategy - the British side of which is expected to take at least 12 months to complete - would see UK troops hand over command responsibility for security to senior Iraqi officers, while remaining in support as a reserve force.
In the second phase British Warriors and other armoured vehicles would be removed from daily patrols, before a complete withdrawal of British forces to barracks.
The final phase - departure of units - would follow a period of months where Iraqi units had demonstrated their ability to deal with violence in their areas of operation.
Blair will tackle his critics over Iraq in his conference speech, aides said this weekend, but would decline to give a public deadline for withdrawing troops. He is expected to make several major interventions on the war in the coming weeks, before a vote on the new constitution in mid-October, explaining how Iraq could be steered towards a sufficiently stable situation to allow troops to come home.
'What we are not going to set out is a timetable: what we are going to set out is a process of developing that security capability,' said a Downing Street source. 'We don't want to be there any longer than we have to be, the Iraqis don't want us to be there any longer than we have to be, but the Iraqi Prime Minister has made it very clear that our presence there is one that is necessary.'
It was revealed yesterday that an Iraqi judge issued the warrants for the arrest of the two rescued soldiers, accusing them of killing one policeman and wounding another, carrying unlicensed weapons and holding false identification.
The continuing preparations for a military withdrawal come, however, as officials are bracing themselves for a new political crisis in Iraq next month, with what many regard as the inevitable rejection of a new constitution by a two-thirds majority in three provinces, sufficient to kill the document and trigger new elections.
The same officials believe that a failure of the controversial constitution - which Sunnis say favours the Shia majority - would require at least another year of political negotiations, threatening any plans to disengage.
Oh. Well, they'll have to kill me before they'll censor
We'll see who'll be laughing tomorrow.
Bet it's me!
If O "fails", then you'll probably like him more cuz he'll
Probably won't ever happen though.
But,what will probably happen..
is that she will get elected anyway, and to many's surprise be one of the most effective president's yet. What I like about her is that she is energetic, is a workaholic, very very smart, has political clout, and even since her high school and college days has always tried looking out for the underprivileged. Obama has too always looked out for the underprivileged.
That could happen
On another topic, Alan Colmes is not a right-winger, and he said for all the world to hear that Sarah Palin caused her infant to have Down Syndrome due to poor prenatal care. The only "prenatal" care that would have stopped the Down Syndrome is to ether not get pregnant or have an abortion.
This is an example of nothing but ignorance and it is fostered by Alan and repeated by the blogs.
I used to give him the benefit of the doubt that he was a nice guy that has passion for his political views, but I'll have to hear an apology from him for that statement before I'll again think of him as anything other than a moonbat.
That tends to happen when there's... sm
Nothing a person CAN say.
My question is, why do you and your buddies (sam, Chele, etc.) feel the need to post something nearly EVERY SINGLE TIME a post shows up (like this one you just responded to, for example) that you don't agree with?
Your response was basically, well, no response. Sort of a "No comment." Why do you feel the need to do that? What is the point? Are you that insecure in your views that you have to try to do something, anything to negate every opposing opinion? Because it sure seems that way to me.
You guys are still constantly crying about being picked on by all the "liberals" (aka anyone who doesn't agree with you) on this board. How funny, because - news flash - you've chased most of them away! LOL
This board has become like watching the Jerry Springer show. I feel like I lose IQ points just scanning over it. Aside from the occasional interesting link, there is very little of value here anymore.
And that is exactly what can happen
if enough American people wake up and stop using their head just for a hat rack!!! Here's to the revolution I believe is coming.
It won't happen........
Do you see the FBI jumping in to investigate? What are they waiting on? We have an election in a few days? Do you see any democrats calling for an FBI investigation into any of this? No!!! Why?
I'm not sure if it would ever happen
People do not want to see the wrong in their candidate. I think a lot of people are so angry they want to blame the other side whether it is their fault or not. There is a lot to be angry about. We as Americans have the right to be asking questions. Blame needs to be accepted on both sides. What I see in Washington right now is if there are good issues they are voted against solely because someone from the other party came up with the idea. Both sides are at fault and I believe both dems and republicans are both to blame. But until we can stand back and say "I was wrong" nothing will get accomplished. I say fire every single person in congress no matter what side they are on and lets start over.
If it were to happen...
...she very well may not have the opportunity to tell you anything. 
Oh it will happen all right
Unfortunately the majority have been blissfully ignorant too long and the die has already been cast. Obama will just be the "fall" guy. He's already sold out to the Clintons, should have seen that coming. Wouldn't have made any difference if McCain was elected either, you can bet he's on the Bush side of the wagon which is on the same wagon as the Clintons IMHO. I'm still glad I voted for Obama rather than McCain, at least he offered a tiny hope for change in our direction. AND forget all those freebies......if we're lucky we'll have soup kitchens as they did in the Great Depression. Only thing is I don't believe this "great depression" will ever be over...at least not in the lifetime of anyone discussing this issue.
It would never happen to me.
be planted by a political party at an opponent's campaign rally and claim to be somebody I'm not for the sake of posing scripted rhetorical questions. People who put themselves out there like that during a heated campaign should expect to become hounded by the media and to lose their privacy....especially if they have something to hide. Besides that, in W's world of warrantless wiretapping and the Patriot Act's system of "preventative justice," nothing surprises me anymore.
It can't happen soon enough for me!
I don't ever want to see that ridiculous smirk on his face again!
There's no way that would happen
unless they outlawed the two parties which, we all know, will never happen. People will always vote for one or the other and not give independents a chance. Heck, one year a long time ago, I even voted for the Libertarian (sp) party cause I didn't like who was running on the dem or pub ticket and there was no indpendent candidate.
I agree, there should not be any "party" (whoever thought of that terminology must have had a great sense of humor). We are not getting anywhere with the 2 parties we have now. Bush had his goofball cabinet and O has his. Some of O's are worse IMHO. They open their mouths and stocks fall. The press secretary doesn't know how to answer a straight question. He looks very uncomfortable when asked a question he doesn't know how to answer. It doesn't help matters.
Why they really don't include the forerunner of every party to debate in public forums isn't fair or right. The "minor" parties don't really get their message out because of financing and a debate would be great for them, but it's always dems and pubs.
I think if things don't turn around in the next 4 years, an independent might have a better chance.
As much as I would like to see this happen...
I don't think anything can be done. These were contractual obligations, bonuses built into a contract, not based on performance. Lawsuits that could be brought on by this would only financially endanger the company further, cost the taxpayers more in legal fees, and probably result in the bonuses being paid out anyway.
Hopefully there will be a legal loophole that will make it possible to keep those bonuses from being paid, but I'm not optimistic on this one - definitely a story to keep watch on.
it does happen! My son is a FF for sm
9 years and has told me stories where they have done this. They also lower the physical standards for women. I guess that means if you have a fire you don't want a woman FF?? Its not fair. They should all have to pass the same test.
That could actually happen
if he is unable to give away enough stuff and make enough concessions. Or, if like the whole Palestinian conflict, the stated disagreement (we want our own homeland) is not the actualy purpose of the conflict (we all really want to wipe Israel off the map.)
It's like the schoolyard bully. He wants your money, so you give it to him. Now he wants your lunch, so you give him that. Then he likes your jacket, so that becomes his as well. Pretty soon you've run out of stuff to buy him off with and it dawns on you.....he was only looking for a way to puff himself up and reason to pound on you. The other stuff he gained was just icing on the cake.
|
