The Iraq War - Chapter 3 [Archive]

Miulang

February 17th, 2005, 06:25 AM

subsailor

February 17th, 2005, 07:49 AM

In testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence yesterday, the CIA said that our continued occupation of Iraq has become a breeding ground (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/021705B.shtml) for terrorists.

"Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists," CIA Director Porter J. Goss told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. "These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced and focused on acts of urban terrorism," he said. "They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries."

Yeah, well, DUUUUUUUH. :mad:

Miulang

Sometimes it seems the administration would tire of the smell...having their head so far up their rear ends and all. :)

I remember Bush once boasting about how much of al Qaeda we'd neutralized...funny, it seems AQ is getting bigger now, since we invaded Iraq. We've sure given them a recruiting theme to run with, and thousands of pissed off Iraqis who are now more than happy to join what they likely see as a "freedom fight".

Miulang

February 17th, 2005, 09:50 AM

We may never really know how many innocent civilians were killed by US forces in the battle of Fallujah. But here is a report (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8093.htm) from an Iraqi doctor who was part of an aid team that brought relief to the city after the battle. It's not a very pretty picture. Someone earlier in this thread told me that the US couldn't have be anywhere near as bad as Saddam in the genocide of his people, but it looks like what we did in the name of "routing terrorism" is pretty close to that.

"...On 12 November Eyad Naji Latif and eight members of his family-one of them a six month old child-gathered their belongings and walked in single file, as instructed, to the mosque.

When they reached the main road outside the mosque they heard a shout, but they could not understand what was being shouted. Eyad told me it could have been "now" in English. Then the firing began. US soldiers appeared on the roofs of surrounding houses and opened fire. Eyad's father was shot in the heart and his mother in the chest.

They died instantly. Two of Eyad's brothers were also hit, one in the chest and one in the neck. Two of the women were hit, one in the hand and one in the leg. Then the snipers killed the wife of one of Eyad's brothers. When she fell her five year old son ran to her and stood over her body. They shot him dead too. Survivors made desperate appeals to the troops to stop firing.

But Eyad told me that whenever one of them tried to raise a white flag they were shot. After several hours he tried to raise his arm with the flag. But they shot him in the arm. Finally he tried to raise his hand. So they shot him in the hand. ..."

And how will we justify scenes like the ones described above???? :mad:

Miulang

Miulang

February 18th, 2005, 08:41 PM

This is really alarming and sickening. We're now getting reports that there was widespread abuse (http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,1417396,00.html) of prisoners in Afghanistan as well as in Iraq, and the photos that were taken of the abuse in Afghanistan apparently were destroyed after the disclosure of abuses at Abu Ghraib.

So now it can be said that Abu Ghraib was not an isolated incident, but one which was repeated in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and probably at all other US detainee locations.

There was another report of one detainee dying while being suspended by his wrists in Iraq.

Shame on our government for allowing this kind of inhumane treatment of people who have not yet been charged with crimes! :mad:

Miulang

Miulang

February 18th, 2005, 08:51 PM

Do you call yourself a Christian (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8113.htm)? Do you believe in the American occupation of Iraq? Do you believe in killing innocent civilians because "they might be terrorists"?

"“Jesus says, ‘Blessed are the peacemakers,’ which means he does not say, ‘Blessed are the warmakers,’ which means, the warmakers are not blessed, which means warmakers are cursed, which means, if you want to follow the nonviolent Jesus you have to work for peace, which means, we all have to resist this horrific, evil war on the people of Iraq.” ...

"I see many people consciously siding with the culture of war, choosing the path of violence, supporting corporate greed, rampant militarism, and global domination. I see many others swept up in the raging current of patriotism. Since most of these people, beginning with the president, claim to be Christian, I am ashamed and appalled that they support war and systemic injustice, that they do it in the name of God, and that they feign fidelity to the nonviolent Jesus who gave his life resisting institutionalized injustice. "...

If you are a Christian, and you believe war is the only solution, does that make you a Pharisee?

Miulang

Miulang

February 20th, 2005, 07:04 PM

"...Sometimes it's hard to know who your friends are - even if they're helping you fight a war. President Bush, who hopes to coax more Iraq support from European allies next week, used to boast that some 50 nations had joined the United States in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Today, a public listing is nowhere to be found...."
The quote above (http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/breaking_news/10936384.htm) is rather interesting because it was published in a newspaper in red state Mississippi.

It is true that the "coalition of the willing" is shrinking faster than the polar ice cap. Before long, most of our partners will have fulfilled their original commitments to us and will fold their tents and leave the desert.

I think it's rather telling that Dubya is now in Europe talking to some of our "partners", trying to smooth over the rifts his idiotic foreign policies over the last 5 years have wrought. Unfortunately, it's not going to be easy to win our friends back. What do we have to offer them, anyway?

Yup, ole "Mungo" Bush (that's another story for another time) has headed to the East to try to win friends. I really wonder why all of a sudden he's saying, "We will never attack Iraq. We will use diplomacy to settle the situation. No wait! You don't ever want your President to say 'never'".

Hmmm...methinks his solution to the Iran nuclear ramp up (with Russia hard by the side of the Iranians) is to let Israel "preemptively" attack Iran, and which point we will have no recourse but to assist the Israelis defend themselves. What a tidy package that will be.

Miulang

Miulang

February 21st, 2005, 08:17 AM

US Marines and Iraqi forces are on the eve of invading Ramadi (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=613165), another Sunni stronghold. Ramadi has again fallen into the hands of the insurgents. We can fully expect the same kinds of scenes that were seen in Fallujah, where innocent civilians were put in harm's way and the town was totally destroyed.

I seriously doubt the Coalition forces will ever be able to fully eradicate the insurgency because as we level one town, the insurgent jihadists simply move on to capture another town.

Miulang

subsailor

February 21st, 2005, 04:01 PM

Just in case anyone was curious as to where current US policy for the Middle East (or foreign policy in general) comes from...a little research project from Progressive Blogger Union (http://pbu.blogspot.com/) (here's my contribution (http://robschumacher.blogspot.com/2005/02/just-what-is-pnac-project-for-new.html)).

Read 'em (http://www.technorati.com/tag/PBU8) and weep...

Miulang

February 23rd, 2005, 08:02 AM

Iyad Allawi (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20050223/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_050223144504) is trying to cause trouble in Iraq. Now he's trying to put together a "coalition" to challenge Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the secular Shiite who was nominated to the office of Prime Minister by the United Iraqi Alliance, which won the most votes in the Jan. 30 national elections.

Allawi should just go away...go back whence he came from in exile. The country of Iraq needs more Iraqi residents to take control of their own government, not Westernized exiles who only care about serving their own best interests.

Miulang

Miulang

February 23rd, 2005, 11:58 AM

Here's a little known fact:

"Mexico, which unlike its Central American neighbors was never a member of George Bush's "Coalition of the Willing", now has the largest contingent (http://www.counterpunch.org/ross02212005.html) of any Latin nation fighting on the ground in Iraq--8000 Mexican and Mexican-descent troops who voluntarily joined the U.S. armed forces.

All Central American contingents save for Salvador, which also has a considerable number of security and construction personnel on the ground, have been withdrawn from Iraq by their governments...." and they have marched along side American soldiers since Pearl Harbor.

"...Just about half of the 110,000 Latinos (Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Central Americans, Ecuadorians, Mexicans) in the U.S. military are of Mexican descent, and 22,000 out of the 37,000 non-citizens serving in anticipation of obtaining U.S. citizenship, are similarly of the Mexican persuasion--most of them smuggled into the U.S. as kids without legal documents.
Because Latino troop numbers (two thirds of all Latinos are Mexican) still do not match general population proportions, Mexican descent youth are pursued assiduously by high school recruiters--the U.S. Marine Corps is particularly aggressive and Mexicans now form 13% of that branch of service.

Because Marine units from Camp Pendleton in San Diego, which have high numbers of Mexican recruits, led the initial invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and later were brought back to level Fallujah in November, the casualty rates have come home painfully to Mexican communities on both sides of the border.

Of the first 1000 U.S. deaths recorded in Iraq, almost all of them the lowest-ranked, poorest-paid, and worst trained troops, 122 were Latinos, about 70 of them of Mexican descent. Their deaths in a war that most Mexicans strongly oppose have triggered complicated reactions north and south. ..."

So we have these highly patriotic Mexican citizens, many of them illegal aliens, enlisting in the Marines in particular, hoping that through their military service they will be able to obtain legal residency.

Isn't this kind of outsourcing our soldiers? These grunts are the ones who are first on the ground and first killed off.

If I was the Mexican government, I would be hopping mad and would be asking the US government for some kind of reparations. After all, is it any better to use young Mexican men as cannon fodder than our own sons (and daughters)? A life lost at a young age is a life wasted, regardless of nationality.

Miulang

Miulang

February 26th, 2005, 11:37 AM

How much money would we, the taxpayers, have saved if those no-bid contracts that Halliburton (http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story.asp?StoryId=CqH6W0eidDxmTAgfSBgLIDxj 0B24) (via their subsidiary KBR) won for ancillary services in Iraq had gone out to competitive bidding? We've already paid out $6.6 billion since the occupation began, with another $3 billion scheduled to be paid when the work is done. This is on top of the $1 billion for work in Afghanistan. In 2005, we can expect to pay this company another $6 billion.

"...Halliburton's fortunes increased dramatically with the onset of the Iraq war. In 2003 alone it received contracts from the Defense Department worth $4.3 billion, more in one year than it won in Pentagon contracts over the previous five years combined, according to the Center for Public Integrity. The total worth of DOD contracts from 1998 to 2003 was $2.5 billion...."

What I don't understand is why this company is still allowed to do work for the government even after they have been found to be double charging the goverment for past work? If the Administration had been any other business, would they still be doing business with crooks?

Miulang

kimo55

February 26th, 2005, 11:39 AM

What I don't understand is why this company is still allowed to do work for the government even after they have been found to be double charging the goverment for past work? Miulang

One word:
Cheneyburton

Miulang

February 26th, 2005, 06:07 PM

War is hell--and expensive, too. The Army reported that it will cost $570 million dollars to replace equipment (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&u=/afp/20050225/pl_afp/usiraqafghanistan_050225211423&printer=1) lost in battles in Afghanistan and Iraq. It will cost another $4 billion to replace and repair other combat equipment that has been damaged by the environmental conditions, and that's just for ARMY equipment. Lord knows how much it's going to cost to replace Marine equipment.

Lesee...$5 billion annually for at least the next 2 years...pretty staggering numbers. Not to mention the combat pay we pay our deserving troops. What other things could this nation do with $10 billion?

Miulang

Miulang

February 26th, 2005, 06:17 PM

You know who else is making lots of money over there? Private security contractors (http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050226/NEWS/50226001/1033/NEWS01)--most of them seasoned veterans--who can make around $500 a day compared to the average entry level soldier's $1200 a month.

Mercenaries (soldiers of fortune) have also been in demand, and they command high pay because they know their stuff and are mostly trained killers. I used to know a mercenary (he started out in the Marines) who used to go on these secret missions all over the world to "retrieve" politically sensitive individuals. He got kicked out of this country (lives in Victoria, BC now) for tax evasion (he got paid in cash...lots of it...and couldn't declare any of it because what he was doing was kind of illegal in the eyes of the government).

$30 billion of the defense budget for Iraq has gone to paying for private security forces, which is a pretty staggering amount. How many $1200/mo grunts could we have "hired" for that money?

Miulang

waioli kai

February 27th, 2005, 09:16 AM

What I don't understand is why Halliburton is still allowed to do work for the government even after they have been found to be double charging the goverment for past work? Miulang

There is really no comparable U.S. or British company that has Halliburton's expertise in the oil field industry. Getting hydocarbons from inside Earth is now very high tech, machinery and supplies intensive. Halliburton (however fortunate or unfortunate it is) pretty much has a monopoly in its field of expertise, its material assets and the ability to operate on large scales under most of the worst of security and physical conditions. They could (if they have done so already) triple or quadruple their charges to the U.S. government and no doubt get away with it. Operation Iraqi Liberation is totally dependent on Halliburton, though, in Iraq and elsewhere, Halliburton is not so totally dependent on the managers of the militarUSt state's operation OIL.

Of course Halliburton is not the only horse in US's OIL crusade, and, its knight Dick Cheney would hardly drop off of OIL's line of offense by having his horse shot out from under him. There is no shortage of corporation horses just begging to be ridden by Cheney.

Miulang

February 27th, 2005, 02:08 PM

From what I understand, though, Waioli, the KBR contracts are for "logistical" services, not oil drilling services. I'm sure there are other vendors who can feed the troops, erect buildings, etc. for our soldiers just as well as KBR----for less money, too.

I don't know about the oil technology expertise. I'm sure you're right about that. There apparently is at least one other US company that can provide "logistical services" besides KBR---Dynacorp, which had the Defense contract for about 3 years (right after Halliburton got caught with its hands in the double dipper pot).

What is surprising, though, is if there are multiple companies who can compete comparably and the only differentiator is price, how could KBR still get the contract unless somebody knows somebody who knows somebody? Most government businesses would go with the lowest bidder.

Miulang

waioli kai

March 4th, 2005, 01:47 PM

U.S. Forces Fired on Car Carrying Freed Italian Hostage in Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq.html?hp%3E)
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, an ally of the United States who has kept Italian troops in Iraq despite public opposition at home, demanded an explanation ``for such a serious incident, for which someone must take the responsibility.'' ...Someone take responsibility? In this lifetime?

waioli kai

March 5th, 2005, 01:34 AM

U.S. Forces Fired on Car Carrying Freed Italian Hostage in Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq.html?hp%3E)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- American troops fired on a car rushing Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena to freedom on Friday after a month in captivity, killing the Italian intelligence officer who helped negotiate her release and wounding the reporter in another friendly-fire tragedy at a U.S. checkpoint.

Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, an ally of the United States who has kept Italian troops in Iraq despite public opposition at home, demanded an explanation "for such a serious incident, for which someone must take the responsibility." ... ...

The intelligence agent was killed when he threw himself over Sgrena to protect her from U.S. fire, Apcom quoted Gabriele Polo, the editor of the leftist Italian newspaper Il Manifesto, as saying. Sgrena works for Il Manifesto.

Berlusconi identified the dead intelligence officer as Nicola Calipari and said he had been at the forefront of negotiations with the kidnappers. The prime minister said Calipari had been involved in the release of other Italian hostages in Iraq in the past.

U.S. troops took Sgrena to an American military hospital, where shrapnel was removed from her left shoulder. Apcom said Sgrena was fit to travel and would return to Rome on Saturday.

Sgrena, 56, was abducted Feb. 4 by gunmen who blocked her car outside Baghdad University ... ...

www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq.html?hp

... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Someone take responsibility? In this lifetime?

Miulang

March 12th, 2005, 11:05 AM

Who do we hold responsible for the imprisonment at Abu Ghraib (http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2005/03/10/nation/doc4230d8186b9d8265969234.txt) of civilians that are reported to be as young as 12? And what did the chain of command think these children would disclose? :mad:

I'm sure there will be more disclosures of atrocities committed at Abu Ghraib and the other military prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan before all is said and done.

Miulang

Miulang

March 12th, 2005, 06:45 PM

waioli kai

March 12th, 2005, 07:00 PM

no clamoring for any greater truth

Who do we hold responsible for the imprisonment at Abu Ghraib (http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2005/03/10/nation/doc4230d8186b9d8265969234.txt) of civilians that are reported to be as young as 12? And what did the chain of command think these children would disclose? :mad:

I'm sure there will be more disclosures of atrocities committed at Abu Ghraib and the other military prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan before all is said and done.
Miulang

I would be amazed were signifigantly more disclosures forthcoming. The government seems to have a pretty firm clamp on what passes for reality for the vast majority of the general public. I do not perceive that a majority of the general public of the United States is clamoring for any greater truth than that to which their leaders expose them about the means and consequences of their government's militarism on Earth and beyond.

Miulang

March 12th, 2005, 07:02 PM

If, as this story (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8248.htm) says, Saddam was not actually captured in a "spiderhole" but was captured the day before after a gunfight and then drugged and pushed into the spiderhole the next day as a way of humiliating him and making the Coalition forces look better, then Mungo Bush and his PsyOps and PR teams have done another snow job on the American public. First, it was talk of WMDs (none found). Then it was "isolated incidents of torture" (more revelations coming out daily about atrocities our troops committed)...what next?!

Miulang

kimo55

March 14th, 2005, 10:09 AM

"This ain't some jolly freakin' peacekeeping mission"

(let da bodies hit da flo'. let da bodies wave hello)

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/news/epaper/2005/03/06/m16a_videoscene_0305.html

********

Excellent video footage of our boys in action and the tools at their disposal.
don't miss helo thunder.

http://www.grouchymedia.com

http://www.grouchymedia.com/other_videos/helo_thunder/index.cfm

Miulang

March 15th, 2005, 11:41 AM

There will be protest demonstrations held across the country this coming Saturday, March 19, to observe the 2nd anniversary of the Coalition occupation of Iraq. More and more, returned troops are joining in the antiwar movement. The focus of the marches will be that to support the troops (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050328&s=sifton), we need to bring them home sooner, rather than later. I plan to be at the protest march in downtown Seattle this Saturday. Honolulu will probably have a small demonstration, too.

In other Middle East war-related news, the new Operations Commander (http://www.thehawaiichannel.com/news/4288032/detail.html) of troops based in Afghanistan, Maj. Gen. Jason Kamiya, is a Hawai'i boy.

Miulang

There are scheduled anti-war activities on March 19 in the following Hawai'i towns: HAWAII: Hilo, Honolulu, Kahului, Pahoa. Here's some information (http://meetup.radicaldesigns.org/calendar_display.php?state=HI) on the Honolulu and Hilo gatherings.

Miulang

March 16th, 2005, 07:21 AM

Remember the Coalition's "resounding" victory in Fallujah (http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_ID=7500)? Wonder why the press hasn't mentioned that war zone in months? Only about 9,000 residents have been able to return to their destroyed city, many more are living in tents in the hills outside the city, and the reparations that were promised to civilians to aid in rebuilding their shattered lives still has not materialized. :mad:

Miulang

prettyday

March 16th, 2005, 01:55 PM

I can not stop fuming that if we had this many troops, we did not use them to suffocate the Khyber Pass, the villages, the everywhere in Afghanistan with friendly, but constant coverage. Someone would have blabbed as to Bin Laden's placement. It is just human nature...and that would have given more morale boosting than all the election "such as it is" results in Iraq.

We should have gotten that guy, and yes, put HIS head on a spike.
Oh, it is hard to even talk about this....as for WMD, goodness, ever since...whoever first invaded Iraq (let us not forget British Petrol, etc.,) there has been enough nitro, rifles, detonators, grenades, from all Wars and Engineering that nuclear possiblities are an ironic afterthought.

Not to mention that a country that claims Plum Island is not exactly planning a Utopian existence for the rest of the globe...

So! I would appreciate it, not so much for me, but for the parents, the children and the spouses, oh! also the the lovers of those not married yet but lost over in Iraq, if we stopped trying to come up with a "New! Improved!" reason for making war in that country...

I'll say it! Our government just wanted to keep the approval momentum going...shameful.

kimo55

March 16th, 2005, 01:59 PM

Someone would have blabbed as to Bin Laden's placement.

I am still surprised mercenaries of one type or another, from one source or another, have not yet exterminated the roach.

Miulang

March 16th, 2005, 03:17 PM

I am still surprised mercenaries of one type or another, from one source or another, have not yet exterminated the roach.
Yeah, if the government contracted with my friend Alec (former Marine Green Beret, now-retired mercenary) and his motley crew, they could have finished Osama off no problem. But the Feds wanted him more for tax evasion and deported him, so now he's in Canada, working as a bodyguard for a Triad head. Alec went all over the world on "assignments"...the Congo, Bosnia, Iraq...you name it, he went there to "liberate" certain people.

Miulang

kimo55

March 16th, 2005, 03:19 PM

Yeah, if the government contracted with my friend Alec (former Marine Green Beret, now-retired mercenary).....

cool!
I mean, too bad about da tax t'ing, but cool story.

Miulang

March 16th, 2005, 03:32 PM

Billions of dollars have been set aside for the reconstruction of Iraq and post-tsunami Asia, but a good portion has been diverted away from actual reconstruction efforts and into the pockets of crooked (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/031605I.shtml) government officials and even more crooked construction companies.

"... Transparency International (TI)'s 2005 report, published Wednesday, March 16, is not designed to reassure them. The NGO, which has made tracking corruption its specialty, has chosen to focus on the construction sector this year. "From the hydraulic project in the high plains of Lesotho to the post-war reconstruction in Iraq, corruption is nowhere more deeply rooted than it is in the building and public works sector," asserts TI president Peter Eigen.

The construction market, which covers transportation infrastructure and electric power generating stations as well as private dwellings, is estimated at 3,200 billion dollars a year for the whole world. Transparency International estimates at 10 % - some 300 billion dollars - the sums paid out in bribes and kickbacks. ..."

Why isn't there any accountability for the funds? Where does the buck stop, anyway?? Why aren't we more upset about the graft? Is it because the media is not reporting it, or does the American tax-paying electorate really not care? Some of the funds are our tax money! :mad:

Miulang

Miulang

March 17th, 2005, 05:11 AM

Here is a story from today's Advertiser (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Mar/17/ln/ln01p.html) about a local woman who was severely injured while on tour with the National Guard in Iraq. The fact that she even survived her injuries is a miracle; the story of her long rehabilitation is one that needs to be told. It's bad enough when a soldier gets killed in the line of duty...the family grieves and gets on with their lives.

When a person as severely injured as Maj. Tammy Duckworth survives and returns to us, she and her whole family will suffer for years. Tammy Duckworth puts a "local" face on the war in Iraq.

What's worse is in the President's proposed budget for 2006, there will be cuts in the VA funding, which might preclude her and others returning from the war from getting the care they need and deserve for having fought for our country.

Miulang

Miulang

March 17th, 2005, 12:26 PM

Another myth about our meddling in Iraq and the Middle East because of its oil resources should be dispelled by this article (http://www.baou.com/newswire/main.php?action=recent&rid=20107) which describes the plans that were drawn up prior to our invasion of Iraq, to privatize the oil fields in Iraq for the benefit of the US oil companies.

Miulang

Miulang

March 18th, 2005, 05:58 AM

When a person as severely injured as Maj. Tammy Duckworth survives and returns to us, she and her whole family will suffer for years. Tammy Duckworth puts a "local" face on the war in Iraq.

What's worse is in the President's proposed budget for 2006, there will be cuts in the VA funding, which might preclude her and others returning from the war from getting the care they need and deserve for having fought for our country.

Miulang

Maj. Duckworth testified (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Mar/18/ln/ln05p.html) before the US Senate Veterans Committee yesterday and appealed for adequate funding of VA services so that returning troops could get the care and support they need to make the transition back to civilian life.

Here is a woman who had a life outside of the war until her Illinois National Guard unit was called to duty in Iraq. Here is a woman who was so severely wounded that she has lost both legs and badly fractured an arm, and yet she came to testify before the Committee to ask not for herself, but for all the other seriously wounded (both physically and emotionally) who will need all kinds of care when they return stateside.

Miulang

Miulang

March 24th, 2005, 09:00 AM

Even though this nation's attention has been momentarily diverted by the Terri Schiavo case, there still IS a war going on in Iraq, and people and troops are still being killed.

And even though we hailed the Iraqi citizens' bravery for going out and voting on January 30, they STILL don't have a government in place, even though Parliament (http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=6466) is scheduled to convene later this week.

I wonder if we had this much trouble establishing this country and our Constitution way back when...I bet we did.

Miulang

Miulang

March 31st, 2005, 06:25 AM

OK, we've been in Iraq for over 2 years now, where is the rebuilding? Why are there more malnourished children (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/033105Z.shtml) now than when Saddam was in power?

Miulang

Miulang

March 31st, 2005, 06:34 AM

According to military analysts, unless we pull our troops out of Iraq by mid-2006, we will have to reinstate the draft (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0330draft30-ON.html), which would be bad news for the Republicans, since their party platform stated that a draft was unnecessary. Maybe this time, women will also be conscripted for non-combat roles, too.

Miulang

Miulang

April 9th, 2005, 03:23 PM

There's nothing more emotionally powerful than the sight of 1,546 pairs of boots bearing the names of our troops who have been killed in Iraq since March 2003. You wonder as you walk past the boots---some with their spit shines reflecting your image as you slowly walk past, some combat boots scuffed and covered with sand---who the families were who sacrificed their son, father, mother, daughter, or other loved one to an unjust war. Each pair of boots represents a person who went overseas to protect us, and came back in a box. There were also hundreds of "civilian" shoes ringing the boots...symbolic of the estimated more-than 100,000 innocent Iraqis who have been killed.

The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) has had these boots on tour for over a year now. Seattle is the last stop.

Some things to ponder: a family earning about $80,000 paid approximately $11,000 in taxes. Of that, more than $3,000 went to funding the war machine. The next largest chunk of money was for education and health, but the defense budget equalled the education and health budgets put together in 2003!

I am proud of every single soldier, corpsman, airman and Marine who has served honorably in the Middle East, but it's time to bring them home. If they were all brought home, that $3,000+ that I'm paying to keep the troops in the Middle East could be used to help make our schools better or help poor people get access to health care..in this country.

Miulang

Miulang

April 10th, 2005, 09:52 AM

Most of the world's press has been busily covering the funeral of Pope John Paul II or the wedding of Prince Charles and the Rottweiler Camilla to pay attention to what happened yesterday in Baghdad, where a massive demonstration (http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5723) to observe the second anniversary of the toppling of Saddam Hussein and the occupation of Iraq by the Coalition forces was held.

Interesting that the Shias, who were the majority of protestors were yelling for the US to get out of Iraq AND for the speedy trial of Saddam Hussein. Here is Riverbend's opinion (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/) on what's going on in Baghdad>

Miulang

DaveNSoKona

April 11th, 2005, 09:11 AM

See my blog post: Dollar cost of war (http://www.konamist.com/wordpress/index.php?p=59)

Miulang

April 17th, 2005, 04:25 PM

Here are two accounts of the same incident (one from the US press' viewpoint and the other from an Iraqi in Baghdad who knew the victims personally).

In the US version (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050418/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_activist_killed), Marla Ruczika, the American founder of Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, died Saturday in the car bomb explosion, which also killed an Iraqi and another foreigner, officials said.

This is how a friend of hers, Justin Alexander, also in Baghdad, described the events (http://www.justinalexander.net/) leading to her death. She apparently wasn't the immediate target but ended up getting blown to bits because of her humanitarian beliefs. This is also what's happening to countless Iraqi civilians, every day.

Just because I haven't reported on the toll lately doesn't mean that many people are not dying over there because of the war. They are.

Miulang

Miulang

April 17th, 2005, 04:36 PM

And so far today, there has been nothing reported about the blast next to our base in Kandahar, Afghanistan (http://www.aopnews.com/today.html), in which the Taliban blew up 5 fuel trucks and injured 3 Pakistani drivers. I guess it must be because no Americans were injured or killed.

Miulang

Miulang

April 19th, 2005, 05:37 AM

A few days ago, there were reports that an unknown number of Shia hostages (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4452093.stm) had been captured by Sunni rebels in the town of Madain, south of Baghdad. The press made a big deal about how the Iraqi and US security forces were going in to save the hostages. The interesting thing to note is that Madain is a town that has had Sunni and Shia residents coexisting peacefully for many years. It has the geographic misfortune to be part of the Sunni Triangle, which is where Sunni insurgency has been at its highest, and where the Coalition forces have spent much time and energy routing "terrorists".

And yet when the conquering forces finally did hit town, they could not find any evidence whatsoever of any hostage taking. The locals believed this was an American plot to come in and disrupt their lives and the rumors of hostages was the only legitimate way the troops could invade the town. So now we have to create falsehoods in order to invade a town? Read the April 18th blog entry (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2005_04_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#111381582849 501363) from Baghdad Burning to hear what the Iraqis have to say about the whole fiasco.

Miulang

Miulang

April 19th, 2005, 05:49 AM

According to Raed Jarrar (http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/), in his blog entry from today, there was a Shia protest against US occupation of Iraq yesterday in Baghdad, due in part of the Iraqi belief that the supposed hostage taking in Madain was a ploy to try to create tension between the Shia and the Sunni that was crafted mostly by the US.

Apparently the Iraqis think we're trying to create civil war and to keep their country in an unstable situation.

Miulang

Miulang

April 20th, 2005, 07:16 AM

Miulang

April 21st, 2005, 07:01 AM

Economically and morally, our continued occupation of Iraq will bankrupt (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8609.htm) us. How short our collective memory is of how Saddam Hussein rose to power in the first place---we, the United States of America, gave Saddam the power and resources to fund his regime. :eek:

When we invaded Iraq, Saddam was no direct threat to us, except for the fact that he held onto some vast oilfields. Now that he is gone, and with the continued fighting between Coalition forces, the insurgents and now apparently even between the civilians of different religious sects, we have turned Iraq into a breeding ground for international terrorists.

The day we announce we are finally "declaring victory", folding up our tents and leaving the Iraqis to control their own destinies is the day that most of the violence that is occurring today all over Iraq will cease.

Miulang

Miulang

April 21st, 2005, 10:19 AM

Reports out of Iraq today indicate that at least 70 bodies (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/20/iraq.main/index.html) were pulled from the Tigris River near Madain. The bodies were presumed to be the "hostages" that the Iraqi government claimed had been captured by Sunni terrorists late last week. When Iraqi forces "invaded" Madain, they found no evidence of any hostage taking, and the Shia residents claimed no one had been taken hostage.

Hmmm...somebody is covering something up. Who killed the people found in the river? Were they all Shia? Why didn't the people in Madain say anything about people being taken hostage? This is a very peculiar situation.

Miulang
This little interview that was published in Democracy Now! (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/21/1418219) may explain who committed the mass murders...could it have been one of the ex-Baathist militia groups that the US is secretly outsourcing some of the hunting down of insurgents to?

Miulang

Miulang

April 22nd, 2005, 03:44 PM

The Egyptian press is reporting that the purported hostage taking (http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/739/re9.htm) and subsequent slaughter of Shia by Sunni rebels in al Madain was a hoax. Most Middle Eastern news outlets are reporting the same; only the US press appears to believe this was the result of terrorists.

And the Pentagon will not confirm that the Russian made chopper that crashed yesterday on its way to Tikrit was hit by insurgent rockets, even though Al Jazeera and the US media outlets have shown clips of the downing. 6 more mercenary bodyguards killed. Wonder who they were flying up to Tikrit to protect?

Miulang

Miulang

April 22nd, 2005, 03:47 PM

And Al Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A3A23A56-A7A9-4082-AACC-DB64753C5F54.htm) is reporting that doctors on the scene don't believe the bodies are recent casualties, so the question remains: who is lying about the bodies, and why?

Miulang

kimo55

April 22nd, 2005, 03:56 PM

Miulang

April 23rd, 2005, 06:34 AM

More fallout from the al Madain "massacre." Raed Jarrar (http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/) reports from Baghdad that there have been no pictures of any women or children pulled from the Tigris as a result of the hostage taking, only grisly pictures of men, which is a different story than what the new Iraqi government claims.

Raed theorizes that the bodies may be from an incident that occurred in late March where Iraqi forces and American troops killed over 50 ex-Baathist and al-Quaeda members at a terrorist training camp (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/138980/1/.html) north of Baghdad. This matches what medical staff in al Madain are saying about how long the bodies had been in the river (at least 3 weeks), and also matches the number of so-called "hostages" that were purportedly taken at al-Madain.

Miulang

Miulang

April 27th, 2005, 08:59 AM

We can all remember the victory statements issued by the coalition forces late last year after the second seige of Fallujah, which was purported to be the hiding place for Sheikh Mohammad al-Zarqawi.

There have been very few reports about the rebuilding of Fallujah because of the tight security that still exists around that bombed out city.

Here is a recent account that was published in the Guardian UK (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8673.htm) about residents who are still living in tents, a city without adequate water or electricity. I thought we were supposed to start rebuilding the city? Why are residents not being permitted to return to claim their bombed out houses? Why are the citizens not being paid reparations so they can start the rebuilding process?

The town of Guernica in Spain became the symbol of wanton murder and destruction in the 1930s. It appears that Fallujah may be the poster child for our Iraqi occupation.

Miulang

Miulang

May 3rd, 2005, 09:54 AM

Now there are reports coming out of Iraq that Iraqi reporters (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/050305K.shtml) are being detained, beaten and threatened by the government for taking pictures of the true conditions that still exist in Iraq (long lines for gas, bombed out buildings, etc.)

Seems that the US is really wanting to cover up the fact that very little has been done to restore basic services to Iraq since we announced the end of operations 2 years ago.

Thank god for the bloggers like raed in the middle (http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/) and riverbend (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/). They may soon be the only ones who can report on what's really going on in Iraq.

Miulang

Miulang

May 4th, 2005, 06:48 AM

Remember about a month ago when the Italian bodyguard, Nicola Calipari, was killed by US troops as he was escorting the released hostage Giuliana Srgena to the airport?

As much as the US government wanted to keep the reports on the investigation secret, it was released in its uncensored version (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8713.htm) (much to the Pentagon's dismay) the other day. And here is how the report was restored (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5694982.html?tag=zdnn.alert) to its uncensored (unredacted) version without Pentagon approval.

Miulang

Miulang

May 4th, 2005, 08:04 AM

Remember Pat Tillman, the former Arizona Cardinals pro football player who was killed in Afghanistan? At first, the Pentagon listed his death as the result of enemy fire...only after weeks of questioning did the truth finally come out...Pat Tillman was murdered (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/050405Y.shtml) by his own troops.

What makes the whole sad episode even more egregious is that evidence (his body armor, uniform, etc) were destroyed by other officers, who also allowed Tillman's patrol to modify their statements so that the guilty soliders have still not been charged or prosecuted.

It's bad enough that our troops are being sent overseas with the possibility of being injured or killed by enemy forces. It's outrageous that they should be killed by members of their own unit who are ill-trained or not mentally suited for combat, which is apparently what happened in this case.

And the armed forces are now signing up people with psychiatric histories (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/050305Y.shtml) and minor medical problems (that should eliminate them from service) because they can't meet their quota of able-bodied people. How many more Pat Tillmans being killed by our own troops because they are cracking under the pressure of being on the firing line is it going to take to get us the hell out of Afghanistan and Iraq?

Miulang

Miulang

May 4th, 2005, 01:00 PM

Not only did the Prez lie, but he and the Prime Minister of Britain conspired in 2002 to invade Iraq by having the CIA and MI-6 fabricate and twist intelligence to support the attack, according to this article (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8748.htm).

Naysayers will pooh pooh the contents of the secret memo issued to Blair by his then head of MI-6, the British equivalent to our CIA, which described how the Bush Administration planned to invade Iraq. But now the document has been leaked, and the Prime Minister is not denying its existence.

I wonder if this had been released during the last Presidential election if Mungo would be in the White House today?

Miulang

Miulang

May 4th, 2005, 01:01 PM

Miulang

May 4th, 2005, 05:52 PM

Lynndie England, the dubious "poster girl" of the Abu Ghraib prison atrocities, was all set to plead guilty to charges that she abused prisoners in the infamous prison. But the judge this afternoon threw out that plea (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PRISONER_ABUSE_ENGLAND?SITE=MAQUI&SECTION=HOME), saying that he was not convinced that Lynndie knew what the real motives were for the staging of the photos.

She testified that she did it because her then-boyfriend and father of her son, told her to be in the pictures because that would amuse her fellow guards. Charles Graner testified for the defense that the photos were meant to be used as training tools for other guards. The judge in the case couldn't reconcile Lynndie's statements with what Graner said, so he denied her guilty plea, essentially declaring a mistrial, which puts the whole thing back to square one.

In the meantime, the higher ups have been absolved of all responsibility for the incident, so where does this put Lynndie? Charles Graner is serving a 10-year jail term for being the ringleader of the conspiracy. He also ditched Lynndie as soon as the allegations surfaced (leaving her combat booted and preggers), and recently married in absentia another former Guardsman who served with him in Iraq. Graner commented that by testifying for the defense, he hoped the judge would go easy on Lynndie, but at this point, Lynndie being a woman scorned and abandoned, could care a rat's patootie about the guy. Talk about Peyton Place. Maybe Hollywood will come up with a drama called "Baghdad Square", about the lives and loves of our combat troops... :eek:

Miulang

Miulang

May 4th, 2005, 06:53 PM

OK, so maybe $100 million looks like chump change when compared to the overall cost to us taxpayers for the Iraq war thus far, but that is the amount that appears to be "missing" from the reconstruction funds we gave to Iraq to try to help them rebuild their country.

Oh wait, I take that back..."only" $7 million really truly is missing, the rest "might" be missing but there's no adequate documentation that it has actually be used for the purpose it was intended.

The money "disappeared" during a time between 2003-2004 when the US and coalition forces, under the direction of Paul Bremer, were in charge of the country. So why didn't we ask for more accountability from the Iraqi officials to whom the money was given? Read here (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050505/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_money) for some of the "excuses". None of us would be able to get away with such slipshod accounting practices. We'd be headed for Leavenworth, posthaste. :mad:

Lessee...we're going to be sending over another chunk of money...how much of that will go "missing" too? And how much of that money will illegally line the pockets of Halliburton, Bechtel et al through overbillings?

Miulang

Miulang

May 5th, 2005, 12:56 PM

The reason why the insurgents have been so successful with their car bombs and land mines is because they "borrowed" technical information (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8740.htm) that we gave Saddam Hussein when he was our buddy!

Miulang

Miulang

May 5th, 2005, 07:29 PM

Here is a very powerful Flash photomontage (http://www.bushflash.com/y2.html) of the sights and scenes from Iraq and the US, depicting the hurt and damage to Iraqis and American troops and their families over the last 2 years.

It might take awhile to download, but it really is very powerful.

If Mel can rant about no new taxes, then I can rant about NO MORE WAR! No more occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan! Bring our troops home!

Miulang

Miulang

May 12th, 2005, 06:05 AM

It appears that I am not the only one who believes Iraq is now in the middle of a civil war (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051205C.shtml). The insurgents, while still taking pot shots at American troops, now apparently are wreaking their vengence on their fellow citizens. There is also a battle going on between Iraqi insurgents and foreign jihadists.

It really is time to bring our troops home before we suffer any more casualties.

Miulang

Miulang

May 12th, 2005, 06:47 AM

Tragic news that an entire squad of Marines (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051205Y.shtml) (4 killed, 10 wounded; 4 days earlier this same squad had 2 men killed and 5 wounded ) was destroyed yesterday in Iraq. How many more American lives need to be lost? At what cost?

Miulang

Miulang

May 13th, 2005, 04:23 PM

"...Reliable estimates have put the number of private security contractors employed by the Pentagon in Iraq at about 20,000. Some 5,000 of those are heavily armed, while others engaged in vital military logistical support roles such as driving, maintenance, training, communications, and interrogating prisoners are less heavily armed. All are paid very handsomely for their services. Private security firms have given new meaning to the term “soldier of fortune,” and money is typically a very important factor in the contractors' decisions to risk their lives for the Bush administration's plan to democratize Iraq at gun point and secure that country's oil reserves for U.S. oil companies. A Washington Post article reported last month that security contract personnel in Iraq average $500 to $600 per day for their services: ..." (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8830.htm)

Private security contractors, mercenaries, soldiers of fortune, killers for hire...whatever you want to call them...really have no allegiance to America. They will go wherever they are sent, mostly because living dangerously and making beaucoup bux is what keeps these guys going. I knew someone who was in the Marine Special Forces who went to Panama (among other places) to quell riots there and to the Congo during the riots. When he left the service, he became a mercenary and went all over the world retrieving people from dangerous situations. He had a band of young men to command, most were refugees from the Irish Republican Army but who knew how to fight dirty.

I just went to the "Special Forces (http://www.delta-green.com/opensource/textbook/socom.html)" website and found the following description of the kinds of missions these troops are trained to do. Small wonder that when they leave the service, they can find lucrative assignments with companies like Blackwater USA, which is providing the majority of private security contractors in Iraq. George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld have outsourced part of the war in Iraq, so they can avoid for a little longer the need to reinstate a draft.

"MISSIONS
Unconventional Warfare (UW)
Direct Action (DA)
Special Reconnaissance (SR)
Foreign Internal Defense (FID) (Note: these can be bodyguards to foreign dictators)
Counter-Terrorism (CT)
Psychological Operations (PSYOP)
Civil Affairs (CA)
Coalition Warfare/Support ..."

Miulang

Miulang

May 13th, 2005, 04:51 PM

I'm really glad at least 51 Congressmen (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8832.htm) aren't going to let the White House off the hook with regard to the now published and verified widespread reports of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and in Afghanistan.

It's amazing to me that with Abu Ghraib, the only people who got jail time or who were severely punished were the soldiers and not their commanders. The only 2 officers who were punished were National Guard Colonel Janice Karpinski, the only officer who told the truth, and she was demoted to General by the Prez, so essentially her career is over, but she can "retire" with an honorable discharge, and another commander who was merely removed from his post but not punished otherwise. How does this look to the already demoralized troops in Iraq, who mostly were following orders???

It'll be interesting to see how the "Attorney General of Torture" Alberto Chavez (the chief architect of the "interrogation" plans at Gitmo) will respond to the official request by Congress. Maybe he'll try to stall for another 3 years...

Miulang

Miulang

May 13th, 2005, 04:59 PM

I don't get it...Congress just last week approved an $82 billion emergency appropriation for supporting the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now today the Senate Armed Services Committee agreed that another $50 billion (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050513/pl_nm/iraq_congress_funding_dc_1) emergency funding bill will be required before October.

What does Congress and the President think this country is made of? Money??? How many low cost housing units could be built in this country? How many low income families could have medical care for that money?

Sheesh.

Miulang

Miulang

May 13th, 2005, 05:32 PM

Miulang

May 14th, 2005, 01:37 PM

Those of you who only watch American news accounts of the war in Iraq don't really know what's going on. You need to read the foreign press (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8836.htm) and the blogs from Iraqi citizens to know the real truth.

And the real truth of the situation is this: the civil war in Iraq between the different religious factions is causing hundreds of innocent civilians to be killed (450 in the last 2 weeks). The US press only reports on car bombings in which there were injuries or fatalities; they don't mention the scores of other bombings that occur daily which only destroy property.

The White House and the Pentagon want the American public to believe that the war in Iraq is going in our favor. It's not. And experts say that the kinds of resistance that are being used now (suicide bombers, etc.) could go on for years, with us there or if we pull out. If that's the case, let's declare "victory" and beat feet. We've already spent $250 billion and there's a good chance that amount will exceed $300 billion before October. :mad:

Miulang

Miulang

May 15th, 2005, 07:46 AM

I'm not blaming our troops for accidentally shooting and killing or wounding innocent Iraqi civilians. I'm blaming their commanders and the ultimate Commander-in-Chief for overtaxing our troops, lowering their morale through stop-loss orders and multiple rotations through Iraq and giving orders to shoot first (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8842.htm) and then ask questions.

Even the Brits have told the US commanders that the increased killing and wounding of Iraqi civilians is creating resentment among the people which will make disengagement from that warfront virtually impossible.

The US response to the Brit concerns? "...The [British] officer said: "US troops have the attitude of shoot first and ask questions later. They simply won't take any risk.

"It has been explained to US commanders that we made mistakes in Northern Ireland, namely Bloody Sunday, and paid the price.

"I explained that their tactics were alienating the civil population and could lengthen the insurgency by a decade. Unfortunately, when we explained our rules of engagement which are based around the principle of minimum force, the US troops just laughed."

Miulang

Miulang

May 15th, 2005, 08:09 AM

Here's one of the most recent instances (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/BF689067-A19A-46C5-BE05-601CBDE17FB1.htm) of innocent Iraqi civilians being killed by US troops.

Miulang

Miulang

May 15th, 2005, 08:31 AM

Imagine you lived in a country that was occupied by foreigners carrying guns who had orders to shoot if you disobeyed a command. Imagine what it would be like to be tortured, humiliated and abused. Imagine having your family split apart. Imagine living in a war zone where car bombs are exploding not once, but numerous times throughout the day, every day. Imagine only having running water and electricity for parts of the day. Imagine hoping things would get better after you "democratically" elect a new government, only to see your hopes dashed by political infighting.

Imagine you are a citizen of Iraq...go here (http://www.mothers-milk.org/IraqUncensored/exhibitintro.html).

Miulang

Miulang

May 15th, 2005, 08:55 AM

This actually relates to an atrocity that was reported in Newsweek's May 9 issue in which they reported that interrogators at Gitmo not only placed copies of the Koran, Islam's holy book, in bathrooms, but actually flushed (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051305Y.shtml) one copy down the toilet.
Miulang
The allegations of mishandling of the Koran at Gitmo are being denied (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051505D.shtml) by the State Dept. (of course). The Newsweek reporter who wrote the story is the same one who uncovered the original abuses at Gitmo.

Even if the Newsweek article is only partially true, the fact remains that because of the documented instances of torture at Gitmo, this kind of humiliation as part of the PSYOPS campaign to soften prisoners has been proven. And now that the story is out, no amount of explaining or retraction from Newsweek or the State Dept. is going to change the Muslims' opinion of us.

Miulang

Miulang

May 15th, 2005, 11:53 AM

The leaders of America, Great Britain, and Australia duped (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8839.htm) the citizens of their respective countries into believing that an invasion of Iraq was necessary because of evidence of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein's maniacal regime.

Now the truth has started to trickle out. No WMDs, no nuclear weapons, no tie between terrorists and Saddam Hussein (until we invaded Iraq) and a country that is worse off now than when it was ruled by Saddam...

George Bush won re-election (barely) in November and a few weeks ago, Tony Blair's party won a slight majority of votes, although party members are strongly advocating that Blair step down within a year.

What will tip the people of 3 countries into the kind of anger that will force the governments to publicly state clear plans for withdrawal of their troops? That is probably the only way there will ever be peace in the Middle East.

Miulang

Miulang

May 17th, 2005, 04:43 PM

Here's is Riverbend's latest blog entry (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/) from Baghdad. She comments on Condoleeeeza's surprise visit to Iraq last week and her feelings about the now-discredited Newsweek account of the Koran being desecrated. The reason why nothing we can do from this point forward to try to smooth over ruffled features over this little brouhaha will work is because there have been enough other documented atrocities waged against Muslims (Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan, Gitmo) that even if you take this incident away, there is more than enough reason for all Muslims to hate Americans.

It didn't have to be this way...if our military commanders had just observed the Geneva Convention and taught their troops to do the same, much of this would not have happened.

As the Iraqis have said, the genie is out of the bottle now, and there is no stuffing him back into it. :mad:

Miulang

Miulang

May 19th, 2005, 10:11 AM

If we were "winning" the war in Iraq, why did Condoleeeeeza Rice have to make that secret trip to Iraq last week to consult with the new Iraqi government? (BTW: she does NOT look fetching in a helmet and Kevlar vest).

If we were "winning" the war, why are some generals (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051905Y.shtml) in the field now admitting that the US might have to keep troops in Iraq for an extended period of time instead of bringing them home? If we were "winning" the war, why have there been 21 car bombings in just the last month compared to 25 for all of last year? If we were "winning" the war, why were more than 400 Iraqi civilians slaughtered within 2 weeks? :mad:

Miulang

Miulang

May 19th, 2005, 05:29 PM

If there is anything good about "this" war in Iraq v. the war in Vietnam, it's that our side has suffered fewer casualties. The bad part of the war is that of those of our troops who have been injured, the majority are suffering traumatic brain damage (http://www.nynewsday.com/news/health/ny-hsbrai194265946may19,0,4509298.story?coll=ny-health-headlines) and many will have symptoms and be suffering for many years into the future. The kevlar body vests are preventing a lot of core body injuries, but our soldiers' heads are only protected by a helmet. Extremities are also not protected, so many of our wounded troops are suffering from amputated limbs too.

We need to be prepared to support these troops when they return home. These traumatized brain injured people will probably come home to a really bad support system and will probably end up living on the streets. It's a travesty that they should have this happen to them, after they gave so much to this country. Write to your Congresspeople and tell them that cutting VA benefits is not only stupid, but dangerous.

Miulang

Miulang

May 31st, 2005, 06:04 PM

I wonder what Rummy and the Veep have been smoking lately...Cheney declared on the Larry King show last night ""I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."

Um, that's why it's taking 40,000 Iraqi troops (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8990.htm) plus 10,000 of our own forces to form a ring around Baghdad to try to stop the insurgency. In the meantime, out in the hinterlands, the killing continues unabated. :mad:

Miulang

Miulang

June 5th, 2005, 08:06 AM

Talk about government boondoggles...the taxpayers of the United States have already sent close to $1 billion to the DoD for support of a US "embassy" in Baghdad. In the latest defense budget supplemental, another $1.3 billion was allocated for the building of a new "embassy". The compound will even have its own power plant because electricity in Iraq is spotty and unreliable. Um, why should Americans in the US embassy in Baghdad have reliable power when the civilians around them (after all, Iraq is the "host" country and we are just "visitors") have to suffer intermittent blackouts and brownouts and sabotage attempts?

Why is the mission (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050602-040125-3089r.htm) in Baghdad today so much larger than it was pre-invasion?
"...With a staff of about 1,000 Americans and 400 Iraqis, the mission is one of the United States' largest. It is dramatically larger than what came before it in Baghdad: When the United States pulled out of the country after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, the embassy staff numbered around 50 and had an annual operating budget of $3.5 million...."

Miulang

arrakis

June 5th, 2005, 12:23 PM

militarism,hegemony,puppet governments,cia,vietnam,iraq,chile,nicaragua,
native americans,african slaves,shooting buffalo from trains,interned japanese,hawaii,etc.etc.etc.

wonder why the world likes canada and hates america?

Miulang

June 6th, 2005, 05:36 PM

The new Iraqi government on Sunday announced they were planning to cut budgets and government jobs (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/060605J.shtml), citing studies that indicated that the government payroll is too bloated and needed to be trimmed (hmmm, in what other country have we heard that?)

"... "Many government ministries can carry out their duties with only about 40 to 60% of [their] employees," Kubba, a spokesman for Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari, told reporters at a news conference. "There are many senior employees who are receiving high salaries but who do not have a great deal to do."

As many as half of Iraq's 6.5 million-strong workforce is employed by the state, thanks in part to ousted President Saddam Hussein, who increased the public payroll to mask unemployment and shore up a faltering economy...."

So maybe 40% of the current government workers stand to lose their jobs. What will they do for work? The US seems to be a little stingy in releasing the money allocated for reconstruction, so what is a poor Iraqi ex-government worker going to do to support his family?

I think the people of Iraq are headed for some pretty dark days ahead. We caused the problem; we should be there trying to help find a solution.

Miulang

Miulang

June 9th, 2005, 06:07 PM

Oh boy. Now our occupation of Iraq is beginning to look like a really bad episode of Spy v. Spy. Now the Marines (http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1718477,00.html) are detaining US private contractors (otherwise known as "mercenaries") for allegedly shooting at Marines, and the mercenaries (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9088.htm) are claiming that the Marines have detained them and tortured them.

I guess this is what happens when you outsource part of your armed forces. Pretty soon our troops will be firing on each other, and it won't be by accident. :mad: They're all overworked and stressed out from having multiple tours of duty in Iraq. Bring them home. If the mercenaries really were shooting at Marines, they would kill them. Mercenaries are better killers than our armed forces.

Miulang

Miulang

June 9th, 2005, 06:20 PM

If any of you are parents of sons who are soon-to-be seniors in high school, please read this cautionary tale (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/060905O.shtml) about the hell one mom in WA had to go through to rescue her son from the Marines.

According to the latest stories, both the Army and Marines have fallen way below their quotas of new enlistees, so tactics like the ones used in this story are probably going to be used more and more.

This is kind of like having your kid captured by a cult, with all the bullying and brain washing that it appears the Marines are doing to get recruits. :mad:

Miulang

newroots

June 10th, 2005, 07:43 AM

the military is not a fun thing to join....... its just pieces on a politicians chess board , and you follow orders from arrogant egotistical old white men. who would want to do that?

newroots

June 10th, 2005, 07:48 AM

the iraq war shows other countries americas weaknes... if we have a hard time fighting a third world army...... we'd surely lose against russia or something.. not that fighting russia is something to look foward to. but its a point. plus ...... the war in iraq on cnn. gave away alot of american military tactics.

Miulang

June 11th, 2005, 03:16 PM

The Army and Reserves have missed their recruitment goals again for the month of May. So how do they plan to entice more volunteers? By doubling the enlistment bonus (http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1047310&tw=wn_wire_story) from $20k to $40k. They're even going to implement a pilot program which will give a recruit $50k upon completion of an 8-year tour of duty to go towards the down payment on a house.

Gee, how utterly thoughtful those fried egg colonels are. Thinking that more money is what will increase the ranks of soldiers. The only people who think it's a good deal are the lower income, poorly educated kids who are desperate to pull themselves up to better lives. How can you have a better life if you're guaranteed to be sent to a war zone multiple times (and IF you survive, THEN you get the education) and may not be around to collect on all the perks that are promised you? Most of the "smart" kids who are now officers (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002329425_iraqofficers11.html) are thinking about quitting and going into the private sector once their commission expires. Apparently, "playing soldier" is no longer any fun.

Upping the cash incentive to be cannon fodder is the typical solution for non-thinking bureaucrats who think you can solve any problem by throwing more money at it. :mad:

Miulang

kimo55

June 11th, 2005, 04:11 PM

This is really alarming and sickening. We're now getting reports that there was widespread abuse (http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,1417396,00.html) of prisoners in Afghanistan as well as in Iraq,

ok, 'splain it to me;
abuse of soldiers and jihad adherents and terrorist backers, who are trying to kill americans, (you and me) is considered bad...

Miulang

June 11th, 2005, 04:50 PM

ok, 'splain it to me;
abuse of soldiers and jihad adherents and terrorist backers, who are trying to kill americans, (you and me) is considered bad...
OK, here's one 'splanation: I don't believe in "an eye for an eye". I also believe that if the rest of the world is supposed to admire our country and what we stand for, we have to seek a higher standard of behavior, lest we also be classed as heathens and "terrorists".

Second, many of the so-called "terrorists" who are being detained in Abu Ghraib and at Bagram and at Gitmo have NOT been found to actually be terrorists; in Abu Ghraib, for instance, many of the so-called "terrorists" are petty criminals who have absolutely no "terrorist" information to give to us. Maybe that's why we had to resort to torturing these people...because we thought they had "something to hide", when, in fact, they knew nothing. That's why a lot of people turn stoolies when the heat is on them...they would rather lie (and possibly confess to something they didn't do or give misleading information) to stop being tortured. It doesn't have to be physical torture, either. The US PSYOPS handbook says that things like sleep deprivation, humiliation, etc. are all kosher in trying to obtain information from the enemy.

I would like to think that our armed forces are held to a standard which says treat all prisoners humanely (as in the Geneva Conventions). For the most part, even the freedom fighters, when they have captured Western prisoners, have not rounded up "enemy suspects" en masse, as we have. I don't like that we have to resort to the same tactics that thugs do. Have you also noticed how in the cases where our military has been charged with abuse or murder of civilians that the majority of them are acquitted or just get a slap on the wrist as punishment? Does this not imply to the rest of our troops that it's safe to torture other human beings because their commanders, who get caught red handed, only get a slap on the wrist when caught?

Miulang

kimo55

June 12th, 2005, 08:10 AM

OK, here's one 'splanation: I don't believe in "an eye for an eye". I also believe that if the rest of the world is supposed to admire our country and what we stand for, we have to seek a higher standard of behavior, lest we also be classed as heathens and "terrorists".

welllll... all that's thrown right out the window when we find ourselves in a world and a time where something like the World Trade Center massacre occurs.

Miulang

June 12th, 2005, 08:43 AM

welllll... all that's thrown right out the window when we find ourselves in a world and a time where something like the World Trade Center massacre occurs.
The World Trade Center tragedy, when history finally reveals all the truths about it, will probably turn out to be less of an issue of terrorists sneaking up on us, as much as it is the failure of our government to heed the warnings issued by other parts of the government that knew with a great degree of certainty that something like this was going to happen...as in, the FAA sent memoes (reported on earlier) that there was a high degree of possibility of something like this happening prior to 9/11 that would involve hijacked planes. Condoleeeeeza conveniently ignored the warnings; the tragedy at the Pentagon was also an improbable event because DC is supposed to have a ring of missiles and other defensive mechanisms in place to prevent anything from coming anywhere near the Pentagon, and surprise of all surprises, why did the terrorists aim the plane at the part of the Pentagon that was in the process of being remodeled and where most of those killed where civilian workers, not the highly paid officers? There is also some audiotape floating around that indicates the plane that was supposedly brought to the ground by "patriotic" American passengers was in fact shot down by our own fighter planes.

Yes, we should have gone after Osama Bin Laden and his people for orchestrating and carrying out the disaster, but in the case of the World Trade Center, it had been bombed once before: why hadn't the NYC officials taken that as a warning that another catastrophe of that nature might happen again?

Why is the White House not concerned about Osama bin Laden now? Why did the Prez say a couple of years ago that he didn't care where bin Laden was????

Oh yeah, and here's another good one for you: all that touting by the Bush Administration of how we need to make all provisions of the Patriot Act permanent because look how we already caught 200 "terrorists" in this country since it was instituted? Well, according to a story in this morning's Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002331444_terror12.html), only 39 have actually been found to be directly linked to terrorist groups. Are there sleeper cells in this country? Probably. They are more likely to do something nasty so long as we continue to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan, than if they saw that we had issued a definite timetable for pulling out of Iraq.

Miulang

kimo55

June 12th, 2005, 08:46 AM

I just can't take the position that it's all our fault.

Miulang

June 12th, 2005, 08:52 AM

I just can't take the position that it's all our fault.
I'm not saying it's ALL our fault. But I AM saying that we (the government) has to assume some culpability for the disaster because there is evidence to prove that the government didn't do everything in its power to follow up on the warnings issued by the FAA and FBI.

Second, as with most issues of any magnitude, it's never a case of the blame being placed 100% on the other party. That's called a cop out. That's why America is in the tough shape it's in now. Any major problem: oh, it's the other guy's fault. That's why idiots file multimillion dollar lawsuits because they can't admit they are partially at fault.

Miulang

kimo55

June 12th, 2005, 09:01 AM

Any major problem: oh, it's the other guy's fault. That's why idiots file multimillion dollar lawsuits because they can't admit they are partially at fault.

Miulang

the world trade center act of terrorism is not a major problem like a mishap you can blame the city for, fer not putting up a road guardrail.
This is not a car accident or a slip and fall in the supermarket that you respond with by calling yer lawyer.

that's like saying; "oh we shouldn't activate our air defenses and hit back hard at these japanese Zeros decimating pearl harbor and our fleet and soldiers and Hawaii denizens, this December morning, cuz, well, we shoulda known this was agonna happen. Prolly was telltale signs they were gonna do this. after all, who wouldn't pull a sneak attack on the world's hated bully? It's justified.
It's our fault, so let em continue killing our citizens."

No, sorry, can't buy it. Not for a dime or a dollar.

kimo55

June 12th, 2005, 09:18 AM

why did the terrorists aim the plane at the part of the Pentagon that was in the process of being remodeled and where most of those killed where civilian workers, not the highly paid officers?

who knows where they aimed? did they leave a diary or manifest of their detailed plans?

Miulang

June 12th, 2005, 01:50 PM

If you read the historical records (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#United_States_preparedness) carefully, you will note that the War Department did have an inkling that Japan was about to attack Pearl Harbor or some US outpost before Dec. 7.

All I'm saying is that maybe something could have been done to prevent the hijacking of the planes that went into the World Trade Center. Where were the missile defenses surrounding the Pentagon and White House? The plane that crashed into the Pentagon was moving rather slowly, so it's not like the National Guard or Air Force couldn't scramble jets to intercept that plane. All this while the President read a story to a class of kids in Florida.

At the moment the planes hit the World Trade Center, was the President whisked away by the SS to some secure place? No. He stuck around the classroom and finished his story. This was a national emergency, so why wasn't anyone in government alarmed immediately??? I saw on TV the second jet crash into the World Trade Center as it was happening. It was tragic, yes, but now we have reports that the FBI muffed following up on 11 critical tips prior to 9/11 that would have netted some of the pilots of the planes that were hijacked. Also interesting that Moussaoui and Rassam, the 2 people who have been linked directly to al Quaeda, were captured BEFORE 9/11 and before the development of the Patriot Act, and no other major terrorist has been captured since on our soil. I think it was because everyone in America was lulled into a false sense of security, that "it would never happen to us on our own soil." And that, my friend, is the White House's justification for the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Miulang

P.S. Apparently due to technical problems with transmission, the Japanese declaration of war against the US was supposed to be delivered to Pres. Roosevelt about a half hour before the airstrike at Pearl Harbor, but it finally got to the Pres. a little after the attack. It's also interesting that in 1991, the Japanese gov't officially apologized, not for attacking Pearl Harbor, but for having the declaration of war delayed so the attack happened before war was declared. It is also of historical note that on the European front, the Allies, if they had been reading their intelligence correctly, would have known about the German attacks in advance. For whatever reason, the Allies didn't prepare themselves adequately and therefore got surprised big time. But then again, hindsight is always 20/20, isn't it? ;)

Miulang

June 12th, 2005, 02:34 PM

Since the US media so thoughtfully self-censored itself and didn't make much of a deal about the original "smoking gun" British memo that described how Pres. Bush had already decided to invade Iraq in July, 2002 and that one of the only possible ways was to use the UN to force sanctions upon Saddam Hussein which he would likely refuse to follow, comes this new little bit (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9112.htm) of information.

Finally, Congress and the American people are waking up. There will be a Congressional hearing (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9111.htm) this coming Thursday (sponsored by the Demo-rats) into whether or not the White House deliberately falsified reasons to justify our invasion of Iraq. More than likely, the Republicans will cause a ruckus and try to sabotage the meeting, just like they did this past week during Patriot Act hearings. But that's OK. It's all politics, anyway. What Americans should want to know is the TRUTH, and we can't even get a solid denial out of the White House that the allegations are true. I think both Bush and Blair are painting themselves into corners they won't be able to get out of, because the paint (the blood of our troops) will never dry.

Miulang

Miulang

June 12th, 2005, 02:52 PM

Whoa. Now we have moderate Republicans chiming in and agreeing that it's time to have a timetable for withdrawal (http://www.thehawaiichannel.com/news/4599369/detail.html) of troops from Iraq. And the death toll of US troops is now over 1,700 and still climbing.

Miulang

Miulang

June 12th, 2005, 03:21 PM

So if there were no widespread acts of torture at Abu Ghraib, why is the Pentagon all of a sudden revising its rules for interrogation and ordering additional training for security guards?

"...although we've seen no indication that blame will attach to any official or command officer at any level for these killings, there are small signs that conclusions have been drawn somewhere between the Pentagon and White House, signs of an overdue housecleaning, or maybe just a tidying up. By the coldest cost-benefit calculation, a dead detainee is a disaster: he cannot be a source of "actionable intelligence," only fury. So there's now a new policy, "Procedures for Investigations Into the Death of Detainees in the Custody of the Armed Forces of the US," that was duly conveyed last month to the Committee Against Torture, a United Nations body, in a subsection of a longer report. The subsection's heading even carried a whiff of contrition. It was "Lessons Learned and Policy Reforms." Also, the Pentagon has let it be known that it's preparing a new manual for interrogators that prohibits physical and psychological humiliation of detainees. What interrogation techniques it does allow are listed in a classified annex as, presumably, are any hints of what can happen when those techniques fail to produce the desired results. Can the detainee then be handed over to another agency, like the Central Intelligence Agency, that may not be constrained by the new directives? Or to units of a foreign government like the counterterrorism units now being financed and coordinated in Iraq by the United States? ..."

"...Only after a new commanding officer had arrived and official inquiries had issued their reports did we learn that 40 percent of those penned up at Guantánamo never belonged there in the first place. At Abu Ghraib in Iraq, the record was even worse: two-thirds of the detainees were eventually said to have been innocent of terrorist links. At least when they were picked up. Who knows what leanings they developed or links they forged during and after their interrogations? ..."

Miulang

kimo55

June 12th, 2005, 03:31 PM

Miulang

June 12th, 2005, 03:42 PM

to give the public what it wants to hear maybe?
More than likely to curry favor with the United Nations again, because of the stuff that's coming out (the photos and testimony from former prisoners) about Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, which clearly violates the Geneva Convention and UN rules about interrogation of prisoners. Hell, as the latest leaked British memo indicates, we might need the UN later on to put sanctions on somebody like the dictator of Uzbekistan, who will probably do exactly what Saddam would have done (ignore UN sanctions) so we could justify overthrowing another regime.

And all it does apparently is hold our armed forces accountable for future documented acts of torture; no one knows what will happen to those detainees who are handed over to the CIA and "extraordinarily renditioned" to places like Syria and Uzbekistan where torture of prisoners is the norm ("yeah, that's the ticket! Let's outsource the torture!").

Miulang

P.S. My assessment of Cheney and Head of the Democratic Party Howard Dean: Cheney= the personification of evil; Dean= the royal buffoon.

Miulang

June 12th, 2005, 04:34 PM

Coming soon, possibly to a shopping mall near you:

"Psst...you. The kid over there with the GameBoy. You like playing games, doncha?"

Kid: "Yeah! But I'm tired of this game I'm playing and I don't have any money to buy any more until my birthday."

"Hey! I've got a greeeat idea! Here's a game called 'America's Army' (http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200506/r49562_131314.ram). It has all the action and realism of being in a real war!"

Kid: "Really? How much does it cost?"

"Absolutely nothing. Free. Gratis. Just take it home or even better yet, go download it from this website. I guarantee you'll have fun playing this game. Make sure you tell all your friends about it, too, OK?"

Kid: "Yeah, sure! Hey, I'm gonna run home right now and go download it and check it out..." Kid runs home, downloads game.

Before you can say, "your ass belongs to me now, soldier," your kid will be watched over by the Army.

This is one of the most crass and outrageously unethical things the Army could possibly do to try to meet their quotas of recruits because 1) they know young kids (especially young men between the ages of 17-25) LOVE playing videogames. 2) They can find out things about the kids without actually having to interview them.

If you're a parent with teenaged boys and you don't want the Army to be spying on your sons without your knowledge, forbid them to download or play this game. Seriously, this is dangerous, subliminal stuff that the Defense Dept. has to resort to because it's too chicken to reinstate the draft (bad for the election, you know) or issue a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

Miulang

Miulang

June 13th, 2005, 11:38 AM

Rutro...
What was merely a trickle of top secret information leaked to the British press, has now become a floodgate. Today 6 more classified documents (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9125.htm) were leaked that show even more clearly what the tactics of the Bush Administration were in architecting the illegal invasion and regime change in Iraq.

There's supposed to be a big rally in Washington, DC this coming Thursday, just prior to the Democratic-sponsored hearing on whether there are grounds for issuing the articles of impeachment against the Prez and his cohorts. The six leaked documents only add more fuel to the fire.

Miulang

Miulang

June 13th, 2005, 02:34 PM

Here, for your edification, gentlepeople, is a timeline of the events (http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/muriel/path_of_war_timeline_613.htm) which have all led to us being stuck in the muck in Iraq. This goes all the way back to 1998.

The public demonstration in Washington DC this coming Thursday will be held in Lafayette Sq., across from the White House, at 5 p.m. ET. If I lived on the East Coast, I would be there in a heartbeat.

Miulang

Miulang

June 13th, 2005, 03:41 PM

Here's an irony for you: if we truly want to control Iraq because of its oil resources, how come the Iraqi government has to import $200 million worth of oil (http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/business/?id=13556) for its people every month now? Could it be because the oil fields to the north are controlled by the Kurds, who don't like the idea of nationalizing "their" oil fields?

Miulang

Miulang

June 14th, 2005, 01:41 PM

From out there in the Middle East, this blog entry (http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000254.php) from Dhar Jamail.

Now the Iraqi government (with help from us) is funding terrorists out in the open. The civil war in growing daily, and we're just getting in the way.

Miulang

Miulang

June 19th, 2005, 06:50 AM

People all over (including the media (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/06/19/INGEOD8MJR1.DTL), finally) are beginning to piece together the disparate facts about the leadup to the Iraqi invasion.

Now we know that even before Oct. 2002 when the Congress debated whether to give the White House permission to invade Iraq, we sent planes into Iraq and bombed strategic locations (a violation of the Iraqi airspace), presumably in an pre-emptive attempt to "soften" strategic enemy assets to make it easier for the "Coalition of the willing" to occupy the country.

"...Earlier this month, Jeremy Scahill wrote a powerful piece on the Web site of the Nation, describing a huge air assault in September 2002. "Approximately 100 U.S. and British planes flew from Kuwait into Iraqi airspace," Scahill writes.

"At least seven types of aircraft were part of this massive operation, including U.S. F-15 Strike Eagles and Royal Air Force Tornado ground-attack planes. They dropped precision-guided munitions on Saddam Hussein's major western air-defense facility, clearing the path for Special Forces helicopters that lay in wait in Jordan.

"Earlier attacks had been carried out against Iraqi command and control centers, radar detection systems, Revolutionary Guard units, communication centers and mobile air-defense systems. The Pentagon's goal was clear: Destroy Iraq's ability to resist."

As Scahill points out, this was a month before the congressional vote and two months before the U.N. resolution. The United States hadn't declared war. Bush had no authorization, not even a fig leaf. This pre-emptive war pre- empted Congress and international law.

Most Americans don't know about these prewar attacks. The bombings that destroyed Iraq's air defenses were under the radar for both the American media and American citizens. ..."

Again, history is repeating itself. This is what the US government did in Laos and Cambodia before the heavy fighting in Vietnam started. We sent CIA "consultants" into both countries (remember "Air America"?) to help stir up the insurgency. Only in Iraq, we just bombed anything that could have been used to repel our invasion.

Miulang

Miulang

June 19th, 2005, 01:31 PM

More info (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9195.htm) from the Brits. If they are found to have illegally bombed Iraq to "pre-emptively" get rid of Saddam's defenses prior to the UN sanctions, then the US will be guilty of the same international crime. Whoosh!

Miulang

shaveice

June 19th, 2005, 02:24 PM

Miulang

June 19th, 2005, 02:50 PM

hi miulang, seems like the links you've posted are broken. nothing comes up. is it my browser? don't think so. would like to see those articles.

thanks for posting these items. yeah, the u.s. is certainly guilty of not following international law and as long as they're not held accountable, it just goes to show how corrupt the world is and how far the u.s. is from what it claims to be its ideals. sick and disgusting. so two-faced....
OK, because you can't seem to get to the stories as posted on www.informationclearinghouse.info, here's a direct link to The Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-523-1660300-523,00.html) (London) for the last link I posted.

Miulang

June 21st, 2005, 06:20 PM

82 members of the new Iraqi Parliament (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=925971&C=america) drafted a letter to the Speaker of the Parliament demanding the withdrawal of the occupying forces from the country. The information was released to the press on June 19.

"...In the letter, Shanshal said the 275-member parliament was the Iraqi people’s legitimate representative and guardian of their interests.

”We have asked in several sessions for occupation troops to withdraw,” the letter said. “Our request was ignored.”

”It is dangerous that the Iraqi government has asked the U.N. Security Council to prolong the stay of occupation forces without consulting representatives of the people who have the mandate for such a decision.

”Therefore we must reject the occupation’s legitimacy and renew our demand for these forces to withdraw,” the letter added...."

If a growing number of members of the legitimate Iraqi parliament want us to leave, why are we ignoring their request? Why are we not issuing a timetable for withdrawal?

Miulang

Miulang

June 22nd, 2005, 05:03 AM

You can take the boy from Hawai'i and stick him in Iraq, but you can't take away his need for his sticky rice (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/dispatches/stories/062205)!

Miulang

Miulang

June 22nd, 2005, 12:04 PM

You either want to know the truth (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9232.htm) about the lead up to the Iraq war, or you will continue to stick your fingers into your ears and keeping humming loudly.

It's getting to the point where you will have to choose one or the other. Which will you be?

Miulang

Miulang

June 25th, 2005, 09:42 AM

A convoy with female Marines (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050625/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_050625185213) was ambused in Fallujah yesterday killing one woman Marine. The current DoD policy forbids women being placed on the front lines, but in this "war on terror" no front lines can be defined; the danger is everywhere. To date, 36 American women have died in Iraq.

Yes, American women are being placed in mortal danger, right along with American men. For what? Cheney and Rumsfeld and Bush apologists are absolutely, positively wrong about the insurgency winding down. Every day, more of our troops are being killed. We need to stop the madness now.

Miulang

Miulang

June 26th, 2005, 06:08 PM

The other day, the London press announced they had evidence that the US military has engaged in secret talks with the insurgents on at least 2 occasions in June.

Donald Rumsfeld (http://p204.news.mud.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050626/wl_afp/iraq_050626163659;_ylt=A0SOwj2W2r5C.DMBWAtX6GMA) had to admit that the talks had occurred, but brushed off reports of the meetings as being overblown.

"...Sure, my goodness, yeah. The first thing you want to do is split people off and get some people to be supportive. The same thing's going on in Afghanistan," he told US television.

"The meetings... go on all the time," Rumsfeld said, adding: "I think the attention to this is overblown."

The paper had reported that a US team had held face-to-face talks with insurgent leaders, including representatives of the Al-Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Sunna group.

But Ansar, which has claimed a string of suicide bombings, including one against the mess hall of a US base in Mosul last year that killed 22 people, denied it and vowed to press on with holy war.

"We categorically deny that any negotiation took place between the Ansar al-Sunna Army and any crusader or apostate" wrote al-Sunna leader Abu Abdallah al-Hassan in an Internet statement, whose authenticity could not be verified.

Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari has said he was ready to talk to armed groups willing to renounce violence while taking a hard line against those implicated in the killing of civilians.

Critics say that it was US opposition that undermined a similar offer made by his interim predecessor Iyad Allawi...."

If the war was winding down, and we were winning, why would we have to go talk to our enemies? On another front, Rummy declared that we'd have to be in Iraq for at least 12 years. I don't know where he got that number from (was Gen. Abazaid feeding him the numbers?), but it seems to me that we won't have the bodies to stay engaged in a prolonged war in Iraq (we pulled out of Vietnam after about 7 years).

Miulang

Miulang

June 27th, 2005, 02:46 PM

It seems longer than Feb. 2005 when I first reported that the alternative press had gotten wind of the fact that the White House authorized the use of napalm in Iraq (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9307.htm), and now, our friends in the British press have once again scooped the American media by corroborating the fact that napalm was used during the Battle of Fallujah. the US Command even mislead their British counterparts by assuring the Brits that we weren't using napalm.

Turns out that "...The use of firebombs puts the US in breach of the 1980 Convention on Certain Chemical Weapons (CCW) and is a violation the Geneva Protocol against the use of white phosphorous, "since its use causes indiscriminate and extreme injuries especially when deployed in an urban area...."

Obviously our military leaders believe they are above international law, which is another reason why we have no supporters anywhere in the world. Maybe many of you were too young to remember the Vietnam war, but I'm sure you remember the image of the young girl, who was running naked through the streets. She was a victim of napalm; she's alive and carries the scars of that war. How many innocent victims were there in Fallujah?

Miulang

waioli kai

June 28th, 2005, 06:37 AM

Obviously our military leaders believe they are above international law, which is another reason why we have no supporters anywhere in the world. Maybe many of you were too young to remember the Vietnam war, but I'm sure you remember the image of the young girl, who was running naked through the streets. She was a victim of napalm; she's alive and carries the scars of that war. How many innocent victims were there in Fallujah?

"Innocent victims" of the U.S. wars on Iraq, on Afghanistan, on Colombia, on all that does not square with the U.S. Right Wing zionUSism, capitalUSism?

Innocent victims? When was the last time the U.S. military said it had killed innocent victims in Iraq? When it comes to those killed by the the U.S. war machine in Iraq, Afghanistan, Colombia the dead are increasingly all labeled as "insurgents" .

Miulang

June 29th, 2005, 02:51 PM

Hardly anyone remembers the wounded Iraqi troops, and for sure the government really doesn't think too much of them because they cost MONEY to rehabilitate (hence the finding that VA was short over $1 billion) the injured when they return home.

Some of the true heroes are the ones who went to Iraq on a mission and came back less than whole. While we can honor the dead, we also have to remember the more than 12,000 wounded vets like the ones in this montage (http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0412/purplehearts_intro.html). It's just heartbreaking to read their stories and about how they now have to struggle to survive. How many more of these wounded vets are we going to have to see before we say enough is enough? They don't want to be a burden on society, but they will be, and it's not their fault. It's the fault of the White House with its stupid "I'm right no matter if you think I'm wrong" mentality.

Miulang

waioli kai

June 29th, 2005, 07:11 PM

US capitalUSt$'/militarUSt$' warring in Iraq. Right?

Hardly anyone remembers the wounded Iraqi troops, and for sure the government really doesn't think too much of them because they cost MONEY to rehabilitate (hence the finding that VA was short over $1 billion) the injured when they return home.

Some of the true heroes are the ones who went to Iraq on a mission and came back less than whole. While we can honor the dead, we also have to remember the more than 12,000 wounded vets like the ones in this montage (http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0412/purplehearts_intro.html). It's just heartbreaking to read their stories and about how they now have to struggle to survive. How many more of these wounded vets are we going to have to see before we say enough is enough? They don't want to be a burden on society, but they will be, and it's not their fault. It's the fault of the White House "I'm right no matter if you think I'm wrong" mentality.

The Purple Hearts montage of survivors (circa 2003-2004) of U.S. military service is most informative. Could? an updated montage (circa 2004-2005) be forthcoming, one wonders.

Regarding your above reference to remembering "...the wounded Iraqi troops...", am sure you mean US capitalUSt$'/militarUSt$' U.S. troops wounded in US capitalUSt$'/militarUSt$' warring in Iraq. Right?

Miulang

June 30th, 2005, 05:01 AM

Regarding your above reference to remembering "...the wounded Iraqi troops...", am sure you mean US capitalUSt$'/militarUSt$' U.S. troops wounded in US capitalUSt$'/militarUSt$' warring in Iraq. Right?
Yes, I meant our troops. But I also am sad about the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who are caught in the middle.

Miulang

Miulang

July 1st, 2005, 12:18 PM

The Navy SEALs who were shot out of the sky the other day in their Chinook helicopter (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Jul/01/ln/ln03p.html) while on a rescue mission in the hills of Afghanistan were based out of Peal Harbor. There are some fishy details that are inconsistent with some other stories that have been reported (i.e., the number of dead, the number of missing). Since it was presumably some covert operation, we will probably never know the true scope of the mission or the number of troops affected, suffice to say that the DoD is poohpoohing the whole thing by saying that the chopper was brought down by a terrorist rocket propelled grenade. It was luck and not skill that brought the chopper down, said the DoD.

Does it really matter how those brave men died? The fact is, they were sent in to try to save some other SEALs who were under attack and they ended up getting killed. Enough is enough. Bring all of them home.

Miulang

waioli kai

July 1st, 2005, 11:55 PM

the DoD is poohpoohing the whole thing by saying that the chopper was brought down by a terrorist rocket propelled grenade. It was luck and not skill that brought the chopper down, said the DoD.

Does it really matter how those brave men died?

It does really matter how the chopper was brought down. Not until the US-supplied and financed mujahadeen got their hands on the stinger missiles supplied by the U.S.'s US spies, sabateurs and arms dealers did the Soviets begin to steadily lose a grip on warring in Afghanistan. In the mountains of Afghanistan, a chopper can be far off the ground vertically, yet quite near horizontally.

Miulang

July 2nd, 2005, 07:35 AM

It does really matter how the chopper was brought down. Not until the US-supplied and financed mujahadeen got their hands on the stinger missiles supplied by the U.S.'s US spies, sabateurs and arms dealers did the Soviets begin to steadily lose a grip on warring in Afghanistan. In the mountains of Afghanistan, a chopper can be far off the ground vertically, yet quite near horizontally.
Well, isn't that the case in most countries where we have "interests" that are diametrically opposed to the current regimes? The US is famous for assisting countries with "regime change" by supplying the opposition with arms, money and advice. And the thanks we get every time is the people we help to overthrow a regime turn around and use the stuff we gave them against us! Then we end up having to go in and fight against people we train, who use weapons we gave them. :eek: When will we ever learn???

Miulang