The Iraq War - Chapter 4 [Archive]

Miulang

August 29th, 2005, 11:58 AM

When all is said and done and the Iraqi occupation is just another citation in history books, who will the true heroes of that time be? Yes, every single military person who served in Iraq for sure, but the true patriots will be people like Gen. Eric Shinseki, who told the White House that a minimum of 300,000 troops would be needed to do the job in Iraq and who was then "retired" because Rummy found another general who said the job could be done with 125,000 troops; Brigadier Gen. Janis Karpinski (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082405Z.shtml), the Army Reserve officer in charge of Abu Ghraib prision during its darkest and most ugly period and who became the highest ranking officer to be punished for the atrocities that occurred, and Bunnatine "Bunny" Greenhouse (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082905J.shtml), the Army's top ranking procurement officer who revealed some of the no-bid contracts Halliburton had been awarded and who now has been removed for "unsatisfactory" performance reviews after being employed since 1997 by the Corps with no complaints about her performance until she went public about Halliburton.

In the 3 cases above, each individual could have continued in his or her job and thrived if their consciences and duty to telling the truth hadn't gotten in the way of the White House's determination to keep the American public in the dark about what was really going on. Someday soon, all 3 will be vindicated and honored for their courage, just as our troops are being honored today.

"I had been hesitant to speak out before because this Administration is so vindictive. But now I will ... Anybody who confronts this Administration or Rumsfeld or the Pentagon with a true assessment, they find themselves either out of a job, out of their positions, fired, relieved or chastised. Their career comes to an end.
-- Janis Karpinski, interview with Marjorie Cohn, August 3, 2005"

Miulang

waioli kai

August 29th, 2005, 12:48 PM

"...why are our troops still so trigger happy that they can't stop and ask questions before they shoot?"

Becoming ever more the rule of US wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Colombia those who are killed by US troops and supporting armies and paramilitary are deemed to be "insurgents", "terrorists", "Taliban" or "Marxist rebels" depending on where they happened to be killed in the supposed promotion of US security. All the anti-US fighters who fight against US apparently do so in the absence of their families and girlfriends, or else all the unarmed people fired upon by US miraculously escape. Most likely it is that all who are shot by US are, because they were shot by US forces, deemed by US to have been deserving of having been shot.

Glen Miyashiro

August 29th, 2005, 03:08 PM

The Rev. Fred Phelps and his brethren are now saying that American soldiers are being killed in Iraq (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050828/ap_on_re_us/soldier_funeral_protests) because God hates fags (http://www.godhatesfags.com).
Led by the Rev. Fred Phelps, the Kansas church preaches that God hates America because the country has been taken over by gays, a sin that God punishes by killing troops. Yesterday's funerals were not the first where the protesters have appeared.

"They're fighting for a fag country," said Libby Phelps, 22, a granddaughter of Fred Phelps who protested in Smyrna. "There's nothing heroic or prideful about that. ... God put us here to preach the word."

(The Tennessean (http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050828/NEWS01/508280380/1229/RAGE10))Not everyone at the soldiers' funerals agreed. (http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050828/NEWS01/508280380/1229/RAGE10)

Funny, I thought American soldiers were being killed because Iraqis hate armies who invade their country and won't go home.

Miulang

August 29th, 2005, 05:26 PM

One returning Iraqi veteran's observations (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10011.htm) on being in Iraq and what it means to be back in America.

"...There is nothing that I feel can alleviate the guilt for being directly involved with our illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq. I ask myself from time to time, “Why was I so afraid to resist the order to go to war? Why didn’t I object to the whole damned thing?” I have been told many times not to be ashamed for my service to this country, but I can’t help a genuine intuition that this war is not designed to promote freedom and our beautiful American way of life, but instead only carried out to proliferate Western imperialism and corporate profits every time a bullet is fired. My guilt is synonymous with the sentiment that I was indeed on the wrong side of the wire....

"...As incredibly bad as the army can be at times, it did teach me some very valuable lessons. One is that just because someone with authority is “in charge”, that doesn’t necessarily mean that person is Right, or even a Good person. Not every order handed down is based off of good moral pretexts, and many times the outcome of immoral orders makes the situation as a whole much worse. Eventually common sense, self respect, and real honor for first-rate decency must prevail. Whether you are subjected to the draconian structure of the military or that of our pernicious government, honest dissidence should always remain constant. In the words of the wise Timothy Leary, “ Think for yourself; question authority.”

Miulang

waioli kai

August 30th, 2005, 03:20 AM

"... I thought American soldiers were being killed because Iraqis hate armies who invade their country and won't go home. (Glen)"

Of course Iraqi and other indigenous peoples of the Middle East are not the only peoples of the world who "hate armies who invade their country and won't go home."

One can be sure that well before the time that Captain George Washington was burning Iroquois 'settlements' to secure British Colony lands and waters in the Crown's west Atlantic "properties", "territories", and other stolen lands....well before young George on horseback was to Native Americans in "New England" the most hated white man on Earth...well before, young George was so hated for commanding the desecration of Native Americans' settlements when not Native Americans themselves....'well before', because, preceding George was over two centuries of genocide, and genocidal rites, by the economic/political ruling classes of Europe perpetrated throughout the entire Caribbean and the major indigenous societies of the Americas east of the Mississippi and south of northern Mexico. Obviously (though not so obvious to US), New England Revolution of the 18th CE Century, and its aftermath of more than two centuries now of nationalUSt$ ideology, nationalUSt$ economics, nationalUSt$ politics, nationalUSt$ hierarchy was preceded by such catastrophe to Humanity and Life as a whole as is celebrated (even in Hawaii of all places) by US's "Columbus Day" about three weeks before Halloween, about three weeks after earth's northern hemisphere's autumnal equinox (aka "Fall").

The Rev. Fred Phelps and his brethren are now saying that American soldiers are being killed in Iraq (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050828/ap_on_re_us/soldier_funeral_protests) because God hates fags (http://www.godhatesfags.com).
Not everyone at the soldiers' funerals agreed. (http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050828/NEWS01/508280380/1229/RAGE10)

Though of course i might wonder, i wouldn't presume to know what God thinks, likes or hates.

About "fags"; one syllable for 'faggots'? It's sometimes interesting to search for some definition (encyclopedia.com) in terminology:

***bundle or faggot of herbs that is added to a soup, stew, sauce, or poaching liquid to give flavour. It is removed before the dish is served. The classic bouquet garni consists of sprigs of parsley ....
***In the region from Greenland to the Mackenzie River, Sedna is the highest spirit and controls the sea mammals; the Moon is a male deity who lives incestuously with his sister, the Sun. When she discovers he is her brother, she seizes a burning faggot and rushes away into the sky, the Moon pursuing her.
***Rope and Faggot: A Biography of Judge Lynch (1929) by Walter Francis White (1893-1955)

***fag·got
Pronunciation: fa-gt
Function: noun
Etymology: earlier and dialect, contemptuous word for a woman or child, probably from fagot
Date: 1914
usually disparaging : a male homosexual

*** (wikipedia.com :Categories: Obsolete units of measure) A faggot is an archaic imperial unit applied to collections of sticks:

1 short faggot of sticks = 2 ft. girth × 32 in. long bundle of short wood sticks/billets
1 long faggot of sticks = 2 ft. girth × 4 ft. long bundle of long wood sticks/billets
1 faggot of iron = 2 ft. girth × 1 ft. long bundle of iron/steel rods/bars

*** (encyclopedia.com re: fascism) Europe's first fascist leader, Benito Mussolini, took the name of his party from the Latin word fasces, which referred to a bundle of, a faggot of, elm or birch rods usually containing an ax used as a symbol of penal authority in ancient Rome.

Getting back to thinking about what God loves and hates, thinking of (besides fags, faggots, fascism) hurricanes, tsunamis, wars, genocides, injustice/justUS, personal wealth and luxury in a world of so much intolerable hell for so many, democrUSy and the free dumb of the United States, the result of such pondering is unfalteringly one of concluding that God, whatever God's loves 'and hates' may be, has withheld acting upon those feelings; choosing instead to let The Christian Era war itself into utter shame and disgrace.

Miulang

August 31st, 2005, 11:59 AM

I never thought I'd live to see the day when the President, in his never ending quest for a reason to invade Iraq (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/083105A.shtml), would FINALLY tell the American public the real motivation: OIL.

Only he deftly tried to tie the whole thing about controlling Iraqi oil resources into keeping Iraqi oil out of the hands of the TERRORISTS. Gee, how much of a bonus did he give the speechwriter who came up with that???

"...President Bush answered growing antiwar protests yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields, which he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.

The president, standing against a backdrop of the USS Ronald Reagan, the newest aircraft carrier in the Navy's fleet, said terrorists would be denied their goal of making Iraq a base from which to recruit followers, train them, and finance attacks.

"We will defeat the terrorists," Bush said. "We will build a free Iraq that will fight terrorists instead of giving them aid and sanctuary." ...

I'm sorry, Mr. President. We have a natural disaster of monumental proportions in this country that deserves more attention than your fanciful fabrications and justifications of the illegal war do.

Miulang

Miulang

August 31st, 2005, 02:11 PM

About a year ago, I made a comment that our Army Reserve and National Guard troops should not be deployed to Iraq but rather should be kept in this country to help during times of natural disaster and to help in domestic anti-terror activities (like working with the TSA). It would have been far far better for those troops' moral and their families if they could have stayed home.

Now I finally see at least one other soul (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/083105B.shtml) who agrees with me. Too bad it took a hurricane to do that.

"... But after New Orleans levees collapsed and the scope of the catastrophe became more clear, such reassuring claims lost credibility. The Washington Post reported on Wednesday: "With thousands of their citizen-soldiers away fighting in Iraq, states hit hard by Hurricane Katrina scrambled to muster forces for rescue and security missions yesterday - calling up Army bands and water-purification teams, among other units, and requesting help from distant states and the active-duty military."

The back-page Post story added: "National Guard officials in the states acknowledged that the scale of the destruction is stretching the limits of available manpower while placing another extraordinary demand on their troops - most of whom have already served tours in Iraq or Afghanistan or in homeland defense missions since 2001."

Speaking for the Mississippi National Guard, Lt. Andy Thaggard said: "Missing the personnel is the big thing in this particular event. We need our people." According to the Washington Post, the Mississippi National Guard "has a brigade of more than 4,000 troops in central Iraq" while "Louisiana also has about 3,000 Guard troops in Baghdad."

Miulang

waioli kai

August 31st, 2005, 09:19 PM

.
nationalUSt security is about oil......
Miulang: "I never thought I'd live to see the day when the President, in his never ending quest for a reason to invade Iraq (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/083105A.shtml), would FINALLY tell the American public the real motivation: OIL.

Only he deftly tried to tie the whole thing about controlling Iraqi oil resources into keeping Iraqi oil out of the hands of the TERRORISTS.

'...President Bush answered growing antiwar protests yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the Iraq's vast oil fields, which he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.

The president said terrorists would be denied their goal of making Iraq a base from which to recruit followers, train them, and finance attacks. ' "

Some US nationalUSt security elements would as soon see Iraq wiped off the surface of the planet before US would allow potential Iraqi oil wealth to be realized by anyone other than US.

Miulang

September 26th, 2005, 09:43 AM

Yippee skipee! The government of Britain is scheduled to announce officially that it intends to withdraw its troops (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/092505A.shtml) from Iraq beginning next May.

That means unless the Iraqi security forces can get more hardened, and if the Bush White House wants to stay the course in Iraq rather than start to withdraw our troops, Congress may have to look into reinstating the draft in order to have the number of bodies it will need to replace the retreating British forces.

"...Senior military sources have told The Observer that the document will lay out a point-by-point 'road map' for military disengagement by multinational forces, the first steps of which could be put in place soon after December's nationwide elections.

Each stage of the withdrawal would be locally judged on regional improvements in stability, with units being withdrawn as Iraqi units are deemed capable of taking over. Officials familiar with the negotiations said that conditions for withdrawal would not demand a complete cessation of insurgent violence, or the end of al-Qaeda atrocities.

According to the agreement under negotiation, each phase would be triggered when key security, stability and political targets have been reached. The phased withdrawal strategy - the British side of which is expected to take at least 12 months to complete - would see UK troops hand over command responsibility for security to senior Iraqi officers, while remaining in support as a reserve force.

In the second phase British Warriors and other armoured vehicles would be removed from daily patrols, before a complete withdrawal of British forces to barracks.

The final phase - departure of units - would follow a period of months where Iraqi units had demonstrated their ability to deal with violence in their areas of operation...."

I think it's time for the US government to also start crafting this type of plan now, even if the intention is to not leave until we can be assured that Iraq will be able to handle security on its own.

Miulang

Miulang

October 3rd, 2005, 04:00 PM

I think the admissions by more troops (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/100305J.shtml) who were involved in the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib is just the prelude to the releasing of more photos showing prisoners being humiliated and tortured by American troops. Some of these troops claim the actions were condoned because they offered "stress relief" for the troops. Hmmmm...I can think of less inhuman ways to accomplish get rid of the stress.

"... The soldiers referred to their Iraqi captives as PUCs - persons under control - and used the expressions "f***ing a PUC" and "smoking a PUC" to refer respectively to torture and forced physical exertion.

One sergeant provided graphic descriptions to Human Rights Watch investigators about acts of abuse carried out both by himself and others. He now says he regrets his actions. His regiment arrived at FOB Mercury in August 2003. He said: " The first interrogation that I observed was the first time I saw a PUC pushed to the brink of a stroke or a heart attack. At first I was surprised, like, 'This is what we are allowed to do?'"

The troops would put sand-bags on prisoners' heads and cuff them with plastic zip-ties. The sergeant, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said if he was told that prisoners had been found with homemade bombs, "we would f*** them up, put them in stress positions and put them in a tent and withhold water. It was like a game. You know, how far could you make this guy go before he passes out or just collapses on you?"

He explained: "To 'f*** a PUC' means to beat him up. We would give them blows to the head, chest, legs and stomach, pull them down, kick dirt on them. This happened every day. To 'smoke' someone is to put them in stress positions until they get muscle fatigue and pass out. That happened every day.

"Some days we would just get bored so we would have everyone sit in a corner and then make them get in a pyramid. We did that for amusement."

Iraqis were "smoked" for up to 12 hours. That would entail being made to hold five-gallon water cans in both hands with out-stretched arms, made to do press-ups and star jumps. At no time, during these sessions, would they get water or food apart from dry biscuits. Sleep deprivation was also "a really big thing", the sergeant added...."

Miulang

Miulang

October 19th, 2005, 02:10 PM

Comparable studies weren't done on returning vets in previous conflicts in which our troops were involved, so I'm not sure if these stats are really much different than what would be found in the population of returning vets in prior conflicts, but it is troublesome to note that 1 in 4 veterans returning from the Iraq war have medical or psychological problems that required treatment.

I hope the government doesn't cut back on spending to get these brave soldiers the best care we can give them. Many didn't want to be in the war, but went anyway, out of a sense of duty to this country. They and the 1900+ soldiers who sacrificed their lives in Iraq should be treated as heroes...but the troops who are still in Iraq need to be brought home soon, so we don't have to keep counting the numbers of injured and dead Americans.

"...Almost 1,700 servicemembers returning from the war this year said they harbored thoughts of hurting themselves or that they would be better off dead. More than 250 said they had such thoughts "a lot." Nearly 20,000 reported nightmares or unwanted war recollections; more than 3,700 said they had concerns that they might "hurt or lose control" with someone else.

These survey results, which have not been publicly released, were provided to USA TODAY (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-10-18-troops-side_x.htm?csp=14) by the Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine. They offer a window on the war and how the ongoing insurgency has added to the strain on troops.

Overall, since the war began, about 28% of Iraq veterans — about 50,000 servicemembers this year alone — returned with problems ranging from lingering battle wounds to toothaches, from suicidal thoughts to strained marriages. The figure dwarfs the Pentagon's official Iraq casualty count: 1,971 U.S. troops dead and 15,220 wounded as of Tuesday.

A greater percentage of soldiers and Marines surveyed in 2004-05 said they felt in "great danger" of being killed than said so in 2003, after a more conventional phase of fighting. Twice as many surveyed in 2004-05 had fired a weapon in combat...."

Miulang

Miulang

October 24th, 2005, 12:44 PM

It started out with Blackwater agents guarding certain key members of the Iraqi government and has spread even farther today. The highly trained elite ex-members of the SEALS, Green Berets, and other Special Forces units from other countries are hiring themselves out as security guards (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10738.htm) for as much as $1,000 a day. Their tours of duty only have to last 4 months or less in order for them to make enough money not to have to work for the rest of the year.

"...Aegis, together with the more than 50 foreign security companies licensed to operate in Iraq, is the new face of warfare. For as the western world's armed forces have shrunk from government defence cuts in the post-cold-war era, the business of war has been progressively privatised. Nowhere more than by America in Iraq, where the overstretched US military has had to hand over tasks it would normally perform itself to these PSCs.

Historically, there is nothing new about the military's use of private contractors. But Iraq has seen the subcontracting-out of war on an unprecedented scale. Whereas in the first Gulf war there was one private contractor serving on the ground for every 50 American soldiers, it is estimated that there is now one contractor for fewer than 10 servicemen, probably saving the Americans the cost of fielding an entire extra division, according to Spicer.

The truth is that the US can no longer manage a war like Iraq without private contractors. Its military has shrunk from 2.1m to 1.4m since the end of the cold war, creating a severe shortage of manpower in wartime.

The American forte in warfare is firepower. But in Iraq, the tradition of fighting through the massive deployment of troops and armour which had applied since the second world war went out of the window. The American defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, argued for "invasion lite" where air power, information dominance and speed would favour a small, agile force packing a big punch.

He was proved right with his "shock and awe" campaign. A small American force quickly overwhelmed the Iraqi army and captured Baghdad. But the 140,000 uniformed American troops who remain behind have proved insufficient and inadequate to deal with the explosive complexity of the post-invasion period. The Americans have found using PSCs is convenient, affordable and apparently effective.

The threats these foreign security companies are asked to meet, however, provide a grim summary of the dangers American and British forces still face 2½ years after President Bush declared the main fighting in Iraq over. A typical PSC contract says they have to be prepared to deal with all manner of dangers: vehicles containing explosive devices, improvised explosives planted on roads, direct fire and ground assaults by upwards of 12 personnel with military rifles, machineguns and rocket-propelled grenades, indirect fire by mortars and rockets, individual suicide bombers, and employment of other weapons of mass destruction in an unconventional warfare setting.

These PSCs saturate the highways of war-torn Iraq, their armoured Land Cruisers and Chevrolet Suburbans packed with armed men brandishing rifles to clear traffic in which a suicide bomber may be lurking out of their way. They are doing one of the most dangerous jobs in the world: escorting convoys, guarding diplomats and officials, and protecting infrastructure from attack.

The companies employ as many as 25,000 armed foreigners and Iraqi civilians; many are special-forces veterans from the British and American armies. They also recruit many soldiers from South Africa and ex-Gurkhas....

"...There are complaints that security companies are poaching highly trained American and British special-forces soldiers with these huge salaries. The Pentagon has responded by offering $150,000 cash bonuses for special-forces soldiers to re-enlist. The British have yet to react to the threat. The British Army likes to claim that Britain, with 8,500 men, has the second largest contingent in Iraq after the Americans. Clearly this is false. That distinction has to go to these PSCs; their security forces outnumber the British by a factor of 2½ to 1, and they have suffered more casualties. More than 300 private contractors and security men have been killed.

Questions are now being asked inside and outside the military about the virtues of allowing a shadow army to operate in Iraq that is largely unregulated and beyond the law. The system is also under scrutiny as a result of several shooting incidents in which civilians were killed or wounded. "It's the Wild West," says Peter Singer, a former Pentagon official and expert on the private military industry who is now a foreign-policy fellow at the Brookings Institution think-tank in Washington and a critic of privatising war....

"...The $293m Pentagon contract Aegis was awarded in May last year, which runs until 2007, evolved out of an atrocity that shook America: the lynching of four American private security contractors escorting a supply convoy to Falluja, west of Baghdad. The gruesome pictures of two of their charred bodies hanging from a bridge reminded the American public of the shocking lynching of soldiers in Mogadishu and forced the US Marines — who did not even know the contractors were in their area — to attack the city to hunt the killers. Hundreds of Iraqis and dozens of marines were killed and large parts of Falluja were razed.

The killings of the Americans made the US military realise it had to solve a serious co-ordination problem with the legion of foreign security contractors flourishing in Iraq.

It had also become imperative for it to make the work of American government agencies and reconstruction firms in Iraq safer. The Bush administration's plan to stabilise Iraq by funding a $24 billion reconstruction programme was foundering as insurgents targeted the infrastructure and anyone involved in protecting it or working for the US or Iraqi government.

As a result, the Pentagon tendered to the private sector to set up a system to co-ordinate and track all the private security forces operating in Iraq. Spicer came up with a remedy that the Pentagon liked. He devised the idea of a computerised control centre in Baghdad called the ROC (Reconstruction Operations Centre) plugged directly into the US military, which would use Tapestry, a civilianised version of Blue Force, the American military satellite system, to track every convoy and private security team moving through the country. He is contracted to provide protective and preventive security using qualified personnel with experience in anti-terrorism operations, to supply escorts and close personal protection to those involved in reconstruction work and — perhaps most innovatively for a security company — to run a "hearts and minds" campaign among Iraqis...."

Meanwhile our troops continue to occupy Iraq and are being killed or wounded in large numbers because of a lack of body armor and poorly maintained equipment. These brave troops are not in Iraq for the money like the mercenaries but for a far nobler cause.

Miulang

Miulang

October 31st, 2005, 07:47 AM

In case there is any one in this country naive enough to believe that our government (whichever regime happens to be in power at the time) isn't capable of fabricating and distorting information just to get us into war, it was revealed today that the National Security Agency (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10836.htm) (NSA) deliberately withheld the truth regarding an incident in the Tonkin Gulf which was one of the catalysts that caused us to go to war in Vietnam.

"...the initial misinterpretation of North Vietnamese intercepts was probably an honest mistake. But after months of detective work in the agency's archives, Mr Hanyok concluded mid-level agency officials discovered the error almost immediately, but covered it up and doctored documents so that they appeared to provide evidence of an attack.

"Rather than come clean about their mistake, they helped launch the United States into a bloody war that would last for 10 years," Mr Aid said.

President Lyndon Johnson cited the August 4 episode to persuade Congress in 1964 to authorise military action in Vietnam, despite doubts about the attack that arose almost immediately. Asked about Mr Hanyok's research, an agency spokesman, Don Weber, said the agency intended to release the material late next month but delayed the release "in an effort to be consistent with our preferred practice of providing the public [with] a more contextual perspective".

The intelligence official said agency staff historians first pushed for public release in 2002, but the idea lost momentum in 2003, in part because of the concerns about parallels with Iraq intelligence. Mr Aid said he had heard from other intelligence officials the same explanation for the delay in public release.

Robert McNamara, who as defence secretary played a central role in the Tonkin Gulf affair, said in an interview he had never been told of evidence intelligence had been altered to shore up the scant evidence of a North Vietnamese attack.

"That really is surprising to me," said Mr McNamara, 89. Mr Hanyok said Mr McNamara had used the altered intercepts in 1964 and 1968 in testimony before Congress. "I think they ought to make all the material public, period," he said.

The supposed second North Vietnamese attack, on the US destroyers Maddox and C. Turner Joy, played a significant role in history. Johnson responded by ordering retaliatory airstrikes on North Vietnam and obtaining congressional backing for war."

Miulang

waioli kai

November 1st, 2005, 02:15 AM

Re: US War on Iraq, Vietnam redux

The US Wars Department (aka, "Defense" Department) does not encourage comparisons of its US Iraq War to its US War on Vietnam, or Korea or any US wars or subterfuges post WW2. Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld's US Wars Department loves WW2 comparisons to enhance the image of their Terror War**.

Linked from US Wars Department (http://www.defenselink.mil/) the following Marines Return to the Fight story is just such an example. One must ask: What is "the Fight" these Marines are returning to, not in the South Pacific and not against the Japanese?

Marines Return to the Fight
CAMP FALLUJAH (http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/main5/09C7E3F3D2A73C26852570AB003F4603?opendocument), Iraq, Oct. 31, 2005 – The last time 5th Battalion, 14th Marines, 4th Marine Division, was deployed to a combat zone Franklin D. Roosevelt was president and the United States was in a world war against the Japanese in the South Pacific.

Arriving here late September after more than 60 years of readiness, the battalion is back in the fight.

Various elements of 5th Bn., 14th Marines, served in support of Operation Desert Storm in the early 1990s, however this marks the first time the whole battalion was deployed to a combat zone since World War II.

For these Marines, transitioning from an artillery unit to a provisional military police battalion was not as difficult a task as it may have been for other units.

Stacked with civilian law enforcement personnel from various state and federal departments, the battalion was more than ready to accept its new role.

“The mission pulls very heavily from our civilian skills,” said Tomka. “We have law enforcement people and we also have Marines who work for state and federal corrections. This isn’t your normal reserve unit; it’s a very experienced unit.” ...

Another question is: Alleged to be "a very experienced unit", albeit not in a combat zone for the past 60 years, does such experience include some basic skills in the Arabic language so they will can properly master their Arabic speaking prisoners?

**Terror War is how the US Wars Dept. headlines its latest Cheney arse kissing story.

'Cheney Thanks Robins AFB Troops for Terror War Support (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2005/20051028_3185.html) Robins Air Force Base, Ga. 28Oct'05 ...

Cheney thanked the troops for meeting their commitment to the nation during what he called "a very challenging hour in American history," helping support a long and difficult global conflict.

"Our nation counts on our military to preserve our freedom and to defend our interests," Cheney said, noting that the troops reaffirm the country's confidence every day. "It is a war we are going to win," he said. '

Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld war criminals are going to win the Terror War? The terrorUSts will defeat terrorists (anti-terrorUSts), fighting terror with terror?

'These contributions are evident around the world, Cheney said, including Iraq, which he said terrorists regard as a central front in the terror war.

"The only way the terrorists can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon our mission," the vice president said. '

That's not the only way. Just as terrorUSts' destruction of Iraq created a new front for terrorists in US's Terror War, terrorUSts can do the same with Syria, Iran, North Korea, China, Russia... terrorUSts' inherently give rise to anti-terrorUSts, although the population of the former is static, if not declining, compared to the virtually infinite potential population of anti-terrorUSts created by the militarUSt justUS of terrorUSts.

'Nothing can take away the sense of loss experienced by families of the fallen, Cheney said. "We can only say with complete certainty that these Americans served in a noble and a necessary cause, and their sacrifice has made our nation and the world more secure," he said.'

Cheney's "We can only say with complete certainty..." has to be a word for word translation of some Himmleresque speeches of certitude that were the driving force behind so much of the fanaticism that wrecked the world not that long ago.

Miulang

November 13th, 2005, 01:47 PM

A disturbing report that was issued last week by the Center for American Progress (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111305A.shtml), states that the DoD will be unable to continue to keep 140,000 troops in Iraq without seriously depleting the all-voluntary military and jeopardizing our national security.

"..."It has become clear that if we still have 140,000 ground troops in Iraq a year from now, we will destroy the all-volunteer army," said the a report written by the center's Lawrence Korb and Brian Katulis. Korb served as assistant secretary of defense under President Ronald Reagan.

The United States must reduce troop levels in Iraq, ideally with 80,000 leaving the country in 2006 and most of the rest leaving by the end of 2007, to avoid losing a broader "struggle against violent extremists" that goes beyond Iraq, the report says.

A timetable for U.S. troop reductions would carry the additional benefit of putting pressure on Iraqi leaders to stabilize the country quickly, Korb said during a panel discussion at the center on Wednesday - an argument recently used by Democrats including Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware and Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan...."

The only logical conclusions one can draw from these findings is 1) we need to start planning for the withdrawal within the next year of a significant number of troops currently stationed in Iraq or, as an alternative, reinstitute the draft. To stay the course and actually gain the upper hand against the insurgency in Iraq, politicians like John McCain contend we have to INCREASE the size of our deployment in Iraq to allow time for Iraqi security forces to get up to speed and keep the insurgency in check. :mad:

Miulang

Miulang

November 17th, 2005, 06:22 PM

Here is the complete text (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11053.htm) of the speech that Rep. John Murtha, a Vietnam Marine vet and Congressional warhawk, delivered this morning. He had tears in his eyes as he described what he has seen while visiting troops in Iraq. He knows the sacrifice the men and women who have served nobly does not justify the continued danger that we continue to put all these brave men and women into, nor does he believe that the 2,081 troops who gave their lives need to have any more names added to this sad list.

How dare people like Cheney and the President declare that this Congressman, who saw battle himself, doesn't know of what he speaks. At least he was in a war zone...what could the occupants of the White House say about their war experiences? Did they have to endure the physical and emotional hardships of being sent to a far off land to get shot at and to shoot others? What could many of the current Senators and Congresspeople say about being on the firing line like Rep. Murtha? He is a brave, patriotic American who is not thinking of his own political future but instead admits now that the war has gone on too long and that a plan needs to be drawn up that will have many of our troops home before the end of next year.

I believe the only reason Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush want to stay the course in Iraq is because they want to save face, nevermind that they are sacrificing lives for that cause. :mad:

Miulang

Miulang

November 19th, 2005, 08:29 AM

This is just wonderful. Last year, during the battle of Fallujah, it was reported that the coalition forces were using new versions of napalm against the civilians in that town. At the time, the DoD vehemently denied that it was using white phosphorous (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11056.htm) as part of its arsenal.

Now, there is official confirmation in the form of reports and video out of Italy and the DoD that "white pete" WAS used in Fallujah, only the DoD is saying it wasn't meant to be directed against the innocent civilians in that town.

The question is: why was it used at all? After Vietnam, use of chemical agents like napalm against civilians was supposedly banned by the UN. And here we are, claiming that the "collateral damage" that was suffered in the form of people literally melting in their clothes was necessary to get rid of the terrorists who were supposedly hunkered down in Fallujah.

How can we believe the DoD and the White House anymore? They say one thing and then when there is visual proof of their lies, then they admit that "oopsie, we maybe killed some innocent people". Why is winning at all costs the mantra of the White House? :mad:

"...The US military on Wednesday acknowledged it might have killed civilians in the Iraqi city of Falluja with white phosphorus munitions during the battle against insurgents a year ago.

The Pentagon insisted civilians had not been targeted, however, and that it had avoided unnecessary casualties by evacuating the city before the offensive.

White phosphorus, which is fired by artillery or mortars, can be used as an incendiary device or to create a smokescreen.

While it is not classified as a chemical weapon, the chemical is covered by Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons, which prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against military forces located within concentrations of civilians – as was the case with the insurgents in Falluja. The US is party to the convention but, unlike a number of its allies, including the UK, it has not signed Protocol III.

Last week, Italy’s Rai 24 news channel broadcast a documentary that alleged many civilians had been burned to death by the incendiary devices during the assault. It showed bodies burned to the bone inside clothes that remained intact...."

And this from blogger Riverbend (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/) in Baghdad Burning:"...Image after image of men, women and children so burnt and scarred that the only way you could tell the males apart from the females, and the children apart from the adults, was by the clothes they are wearing… the clothes which were eerily intact- like each corpse had been burnt to the bone, and then dressed up lovingly in their everyday attire- the polka dot nightgown with a lace collar… the baby girl in her cotton pajamas- little earrings dangling from little ears.

Some of them look like they died almost peacefully, in their sleep… others look like they suffered a great deal- skin burnt completely black and falling away from scorched bones.

I imagine what it must have been like for some of them. They were probably huddled in their houses- some of them- tens of thousands of them- couldn’t leave the city. They didn’t have transport or they simply didn’t have a place to go. They sat in their homes, hoping that what people said about Americans was actually true- that in spite of their huge machines and endless weapons, they were human too.

And then the rain of bombs would begin… the wooooosh of the missiles as they fell and the sound of the explosion as it hit its target… and no matter how prepared you think you are for that explosion- it always makes you flinch. I imagine their children covering their ears and some of them crying, trying to cover up the mechanical sounds of war with their more human wails. I imagine that as the tanks got closer, and the planes got lower- the fear increased- and parents searched each other’s faces for a solution, for a way out of the horror. Some of them probably decided to wait it out in their homes, and others must have been desperate to get out- fearing the rain of concrete and steel and thinking their chances were better in the open air, than confined in the homes that could at any moment turn into their tombs...."

Miulang

waioli kai

November 19th, 2005, 10:15 AM

.
As he heads to Beijing, Bush says ‘sober judgment’ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10042690/) must prevail on war.

"Sober judgement" ? Whatever Mr. Bush wants to call it, it is judgement: the plethora of USwars he's in charge of, simultaneous with his figureheading the immoral quest to free the capitalUS wealth class, the corporatUSts, from their burden to be taxed to feed the militarUSt machinery required to maintain when not otherwise advance corporatUSts' interests. To nourish said interest$ to the point of national bankrupcy of soul, merit and fiscal integrity ...held together with incantations, invocations, and representations of "God" .

It was allegedly "sober judgements" of Cheneybush2 neo-conmen/conwomen that created US's anti-terrorUSt$ trap in Iraq (2003- present) out of a severely enfeebled and crippled anti-zionUSt Iraq.

Within these militant corporatUSt$' "sober judgements" were prayers that they could fight their militant anti-terrorUSt opposition strictly within/over/upon Arab, Persian, Moslem societies and populations. Today's battleground Iraq, FOB Iraq, Camp Iraq, U.S. possesion Iraq, is terrorUSts' prayers come true. They got what they prayed for. While miscalculating their nations' tolerance for death and maimings of U.S. soldiers and marines in corporatUSts', militarUSts' US in Iraq war on militant anti-terrorUSism, terrorUSts did not miscalculate their nations' seemingly boundless tolerance for deaths, maimings, destruction, suffering borne by those being "liberated" by terrorUSts.

The overriding mission of the U.S. Military is to dutifully obey their Commander in Chief, for better or for worse. The U.S. Military gets its orders exclusively from the Executive Branch. Not from the House, Senate or judicial branch. It is not up to active members of the U.S. Military to decide to act upon their Commander in Chief's orders once they themselves have determined whether their Commander's orders are constitutional, legal, ethical, moral or even achievable.

waioli kai

November 19th, 2005, 09:27 PM

.
"...And then the rain of bombs would begin… the wooooosh of the missiles as they fell and the sound of the explosion as it hit its target… and no matter how prepared you think you are for that explosion- it always makes you flinch. I imagine their children covering their ears and some of them crying, trying to cover up the mechanical sounds of war with their more human wails. I imagine that as the tanks got closer, and the planes got lower- the fear increased- and parents searched each other’s faces for a solution, for a way out of the horror. Some of them probably decided to wait it out in their homes, and others must have been desperate to get out- fearing the rain of concrete and steel and thinking their chances were better in the open air, than confined in the homes that could at any moment turn into their tombs...."

Flush 'em out from under the dwellings then hit them with white phosphorous, and claim it is not chemical warfare. Just like claiming that 'How the West was Won' was not state-tolerated, when not othwerwise state-sponsored, genocide; that how Hawaii ceased to be a sovereign nation was not a crime; that how the United States evolved into 50 states was/is not a blight on Humanity.

"At this place, liberty and life were stolen and sold. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030708-1.html) Human beings were delivered and sorted, and weighed, and branded with the marks of commercial enterprises, and loaded as cargo on a voyage without return. One of the largest migrations of history was also one of the greatest crimes of history." www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/

There is "U.S. warmongering officialdom", and, there is unofficial U.S. warmongering ( http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3995.htm ) The Carlyle Group , immune to not just litigation but immune to public scrutiny as well.

Karen

November 27th, 2005, 11:35 AM

This is so pitiful, yet hilarious! Check this link to see pics of Cindy Sheehan's book signing.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47599

Miulang

November 27th, 2005, 02:23 PM

Our troops are now cremating dead guerillas (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112705Z.shtml) and taunting bystanders over a PA system in Afghanistan. The DoD claims it was for "hygenic reasons" and will not court martial the guilty parties (only reprimand and discipline them). What's interesting is if in fact it was for "hygenic reasons", why did the Psyops officer taunt the locals as they watched the bodies burn? Again, it's a case of "do as I say, not as I do." It's no wonder the rest of the world looks upon us as godless infidels.

"...The U.S. military admitted on Saturday that its soldiers in Afghanistan had burned the bodies of two dead Taliban guerrillas and taunted insurgents about it, but had not meant it as a desecration.

The U.S. military said an investigation into the incident concluded the soldiers had burned the bodies for "hygienic reasons" and said it would reprimand two non-commissioned officers for calling out taunts about it over a loudspeaker.

"Our investigation found there was no intent to desecrate the remains, but only to dispose them for hygienic reasons," U.S.-led forces operational commander, Major General Jason Kamiya said.

The investigation stems from footage shown on Australian television in a report which says the pictures show U.S. soldiers watching as flames lick two charred corpses in the hills above the village of Gondaz north of Kandahar.

It also shows two U.S. soldiers reading messages they said had been broadcast over loudspeakers as propaganda.

"You allowed your fighters to be laid down facing west and burned. You are too scared to retrieve their bodies. This just proves you are the lady boys we always believed you to be," read one soldier identified as psyops specialist Sgt. Jim Baker.

The U.S. military said the soldiers implicated in the burning incident, would face disciplinary action and that the two junior officers who ordered the burning would be reprimanded for showing a lack of cultural and religious understanding.

The incident has caused anger among Afghans already upset with U.S.-led forces over accusations of mistreating militant prisoners and using heavy handed tactics to hunt down the Taliban and members of al Qaeda believed to be hiding there...."

Miulang

P.S. I believe the commander of the forces in Afghanistan is from Hawai'i.

Kalalau

November 29th, 2005, 05:33 AM

Republicans are now beginning to talk about pulling out at least some of the troops, as early as 2006. It makes me happy because my idea of supporting the troops is having them in the loving arms of their moms and dads, husbands, wives, boy or girlfriends, sons, daughters...friends, at home here in America. And I do not believe they ever should have been used in Iraq in the first place. Afghanistan was obviously another story.

It also makes me kinda sad, and kinda mad, because nothing has changed except the poll numbers. A majority of the public now does not believe in the war. To me, if you believe in something, you go ahead and do it regardless of what anybody else thinks, so changing their opinion on the war merely because poll numbers have shifted tells me that the Republicans never had a deep moral conviction about the need for the war in the first place. Kind of like the Terri Schaivo case. Remember that one? That poor brain dead Florida woman; Republicans flew in from vacation, Bush even flew in from one of his many vacations to sign special legislation requiring Florida to keep that poor woman hooked up to feeding tubes. The very next day poll results showed 77 % of the public thought it was an unwise, unwarranted intrusion into a family's private tragedy, and the Republicans dropped their great moral principal stance. Like now, with Bush's War. If you do not deeply believe in something as serious as starting a war doesn't basic human morality require not starting one?

So I thank God the disaster may finally be winding down, I thank God it has taken "ONLY" 2,100 American deaths and what, 100,000 or so Iraqi deaths, not the 58,000 American deaths and what, 2,000,000 Vietnamese and Cambodian deaths that the Vietnam War took to turn the public around.

sinjin

November 30th, 2005, 10:35 AM

Yeah, God's doing a great job. :confused:

Leo Lakio

November 30th, 2005, 10:42 AM

the Republicans never had a deep moral conviction
Why is it that's the part of the quote that jumped out at me? :D

Okay, okay - to be perfectly fair, I know many Republicans who are exceptional human beings, worthy of respect. But not in the current Administration.

Unbelievable how that bunch of chicken-hawks, who worked overtime to keep their own @$$es away from combat duty (or even military service in general) have no problem sending other people's sons and daughters off to be killed, as well as having the audacity to question the patriotism of veterans who disagree with them. :mad:

Miulang

December 1st, 2005, 06:48 PM

I still contend that the National Guard (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11186.htm) should never have been deployed to Iraq in the first place because they were needed at home to help in disaster recovery operations, but now there are reports that the DoD may be planning to bring about 75% of those troops home in 2006.

That would not only be a relief to the families of these civilian soldiers, but a relief to the companies that had to suffer the loss of productivity by their absence.

Welcome home, men and women of the National Guard! You served nobly and honorably in a fabricated war.

"...THE US National Guard is planning to cut the number of its troops in Iraq by 75 per cent over the next year in a dramatic change of approach by the American military, The Times has learnt.

The substantial reduction in part-time troops — from eight combat brigades to two — follows growing evidence that the National Guard’s supply of equipment is becoming exhausted, leaving it unable to cope with domestic emergencies, such as Hurricane Katrina. ..."

Miulang

P.S. One other good reason for the downsizing is most of the National Guard troops have seen Iraq at least twice already in 2 1/2 years, and their contracts say they can only serve on active duty for 2 years. So I guess if the Prez insists on staying the course with the same number of troops that are in Iraq now, that would probably mean reinstating the draft to fill the ranks of active duty troops.

greentara

December 3rd, 2005, 12:42 PM

Check out this site for more atrocities in Iraqi. If anyone saw the Round Table Discussion from Baghdad on Night Line last night the general consensus was that they were better off under Sadam. At least they had their country in tact now they are a battle ground for terrorist from all over the Islamic world. Not to mention the terrorist from the good old US. It will take many generations to curb the generational hatred that has manifested from this attack on a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 – that is the real danger.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0401-14.htm

Miulang

December 16th, 2005, 02:23 PM

In case we've forgotten about the escalating cost of our occupation in Iraq, go here (http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182). You can even find out what share Hawai'i is paying of the staggering cost.

When you see the sobering number, please remember the victims of Hurricanes Wilma and Katrina in this country, many of whom still find themselves uprooted and unemployed. How many of these American citizens could we help with the money we're burning in Iraq? Not many of these people will have a holiday season at all. :(

Miulang

Miulang

January 3rd, 2006, 09:36 AM

OK, so what gives? The White House, when it first got us into the occupation of Iraq, pledged that we would help rebuild the country.

After squandering more than $18 billion of our tax dollars (on things like getting the courtroom ready for Saddam's trial), reports now say that the White House will not ask for more money this year to put into the hands of KBR and other defense contractors who have made out like bandits the last 3 years.

Iraqi oil production is at an all time low. If we don't help the Iraqis rebuild, we will be turning our backs on the very people we are supposed to be helping to build a new "democracy".

"...The US government is not planning to continue funding reconstruction (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010306Y.shtml) projects in Iraq, in what appears to be a major climbdown from the White House's one-time pledge to build the best infrastructure in the region.

According to officials cited in yesterday's Washington Post, the Bush administration will not be adding construction funds to the $18.4bn (£10.7bn) it has allocated since the 2003 invasion.

In future it will be up to other foreign donors and the Iraqi government to do what it can to complete even basic tasks such as supplying reliable electricity and water to the country's 26 million people....

If confirmed, the withdrawal of reconstruction funds from America would be a further signal that the Bush administration is looking at ways to lessen the US commitment to Iraq as it faces increasing political pressure to start finding a way out.

It is also one further sign that US ambitions for Iraq have been thwarted by realities on the ground. Iraq's oil production, seen before and after the war as a key strategic asset, has been so hampered by infrastructural problems and sabotage that it remains significantly lower than it was at the time of the invasion...."

Keep the pressure on, folks. Looks like the White House is finally admitting that things are not going as well with our occupation as they have tried to brainwash us into believing. :mad:

Miulang

Miulang

January 9th, 2006, 07:35 AM

Two professors at Harvard and Columbia University have released a study on the true economic cost (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11495.htm) of our occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan. The costs are staggering. :mad:

Miulang

Miulang

January 13th, 2006, 04:29 PM

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011306A.shtml) has issued a statement to the President and Congress asking both to begin reducing the numbers of troops in Iraq sooner rather than later. This is the first time the Church has publicly and officially issued this type of statement during the Iraq occupation.

If the faithful listen to their Church leaders, can this be the turning point in public opinion of our occupation of Iraq?

"...Declaring that the United States was at a crossroads in Iraq, the nation's Roman Catholic bishops said Thursday the time had come to withdraw US troops as fast as responsibly possible and to hand control of the country to Iraqis.

"Our nation's military forces should remain in Iraq only as long as it takes for a responsible transition, leaving sooner than later," said Bishop Thomas G. Wenski of Orlando, Fla., speaking for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Wenski, chairman of the bishops Committee on International Policy, said recent statements by the Bush administration that troop levels would be reduced were not enough. He said the US must send an unmistakable signal that the goal was not to occupy Iraq "for an indeterminate period," but to help Iraqis assume full control of their government.

The eight-page statement, in the works for months and delivered to the White House and members of Congress on Thursday, was candid in its assessment of the war, which US bishops and the late pope, John Paul II, had opposed from the start.

It underscored failures but also highlighted successes in the nearly three years since the US-led invasion. Weapons of mass destruction were not found; more than 2,200 American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed; US-held prisoners were tortured and mistreated; and violence was continuing in the streets.

The bishops said they remained "highly skeptical" of Bush's doctrine of "preventive war." But they also saw signs of hope, including the Iraqi elections..."

"...On Thursday, Catholic bishops forcefully restated their abhorrence to torture and said the US must live up to constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment, and abide by international accords outlawing torture.

Bishops were careful not to criticize US troops. By raising "grave moral questions" about the decision to invade Iraq, bishops said they were not questioning "the moral integrity of those serving in the military."

Bishops also called for religious freedoms in Iraq, including tolerance for non-Muslims, and the protection of Iraqi refugees and asylum seekers.

They said that as the US pursued the war on terrorism and the rebuilding of Iraq, it should not forget pressing concerns at home and abroad, particularly caring for the poor. ..."

Miulang

Miulang

January 18th, 2006, 04:14 PM

"Riverbend", a young Iraqi woman in Baghdad, blogged the following account (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#113754150457 330274) of the difference in reconstruction efforts between Gulf 1 (waged during the first President Bush's reign) v. Gulf 2 (the current occupation).

The first assault, she reports, was only 42 days. There was major damage incurred. But she also reports that the majority of the reconstruction during that time was done using Iraqi money and that most of the reconstruction was done within months. Here we are, 3 years into the current occupation, and the only reconstruction that has happened is additional fortification of the Green Zone!

"...What happened in the south in 1991 is similar to what happened in Baghdad in 2003- burning, looting and attacks. The area fell into chaos after the Republican Guard was pulled out to different governorates for the duration of the war. Meanwhile, the US was bombing the Iraqi army as it was pulling out of Kuwait and the Tawabin were killing off some of the Iraqi troops who had abandoned their tanks and artillery and were coming back on foot through the south. Many of those troops, and the civilians killed during the attacks, looting, and burning, were buried in some of the mass graves we conveniently blame solely on Saddam and the Republican Guard- but no one bothers to mention this anymore because it’s easier to blame the dictator.

But I digress- the topic today is reconstruction. Immediately after the war, various ministries were brought together to do the reconstruction work. The focus was on the infrastructure- to bring back the refineries, electricity, water, bridges, and telecommunications.

The task was a daunting one because so many of Iraq’s major infrastructure projects and buildings had been designed and built by foreign contractors from all over the world including French, German, Chinese and Japanese companies. The foreign expertise was unavailable after 1991 due to the war and embargo and Iraqi engineers and technicians found themselves facing the devastation of the Gulf War all alone with limited supplies.

Two years and approximately 8 billion Iraqi dinars later, nearly 90% of the damage had been repaired. It took an estimated 6,000 engineers (all Iraqi), 42,000 technicians, and 12,000 administrators, but bridges were soon up again, telephones were more or less functioning in most areas, refineries were working, water was running and electricity wasn’t back 100%, but it was certainly better than it is today. Within the first two years over 100 small and large bridges had been reconstructed, 16 refineries, over 50 factories and industrial compounds, etc.

It wasn’t perfect- it wasn’t Halliburton… It wasn’t KBR…but it was Iraqi. There was that sense of satisfaction and pride looking upon a building or bridge that was damaged during the war and seeing it up and running and looking better than it did before.

Now, nearly three years after this war, the buildings are still piles of debris. Electricity is terrible. Water is cut off for days at a time. Telephone lines come and go. Oil production isn’t even at pre-war levels… and Iraqis hear about the billions upon billions that come and go. A billion here for security… Five hundred million there for the infrastructure… Millions for voting… Iraq falling into deeper debt… Engineers without jobs simply because they are not a part of this political party or that religious group… And the country still in shambles.

One of the biggest, most complicated and most swiftly executed reconstruction projects was the Dawra Refinery in Baghdad. It is Iraq’s oldest refinery and one of its largest. It was bombed several times during the Gulf War and oil production came to a halt. After the war, it is said that the Iraqi government negotiated with an Italian company to reconstruct it but the price requested by the company was extremely high. It was decided then that the reconstruction effort would be completely local and the work began almost immediately. Several months later, during the summer of 1991, when the Italian experts came back to assess the damage, they found that the refinery was functioning...."

Time for us to leave and let the Iraqis start with the daunting task of rebuilding their country. They obviously can do it better and faster than we can, if given the chance!

Miulang

Miulang

January 19th, 2006, 07:13 PM

Here's the translated text (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11615.htm) of Osama bin Laden's latest tirade to the Americans. The CIA says that the voice is definitely his, which means he's definitely still alive.

Putting on my sardonic hat, I wonder if the coalition doesn't already have the bugger in custody somewhere (or at least know exactly where he's hiding) but is not doing anything to try to capture him? After all, once he is dead, wouldn't that end the US justification for staging the "War on Terror"? Would we then have to gin up another figurehead "terrorist" to take his place so we could keep pouring taxpayer money down that rathole? :confused:

Miulang

Miulang

January 22nd, 2006, 06:29 PM

The Iraq war is now going to impact the citizens of Hawai'i in a very critical, direct, and life endangering way: all Black Hawk helicopters (http://www.thehawaiichannel.com/news/6344096/detail.html), which for years have been used on mercy missions (at no cost to the State or Counties) to rescue injured people and fly them to emergency care, are being grounded and sent to support the US war efforts in Iraq.

"...For more than three decades the Army Black Hawk Medevac helicopters have helped save thousands of lives in Hawaii by airlifting patients to emergency care.

This week, however, the U.S. Army announced it would be suspending emergency services for at least a year while the Black Hawks are used for the war in Iraq.

KITV 4 News' Denby Fawcett reported the grounding of all 12 helicopters sent shock waves through the medical community.

Fawcett reported that the helicopters are vital to medical evacuations, like the Sacred Fall's rockslide in May 1999.

On Oahu, the Black Hawks are the only full emergency helicopter evacuation option.

"It is very critically important and has been for many years," said Rich Meiers, CEO of the Healthcare Association. "With the crowded highways, you have got to be able to respond when somebody is injured."

Since 1974, the helicopters have rescued around 7,000 patients on about 6,000 missions, according to the Army.

The flights were flown at no cost to the state and provided over $91 million in services...."

For the State to provide temporary services equivalent to what the Black Hawk helicopter and their crews were providing, is going to cost the State some kala.

Miulang

Miulang

January 23rd, 2006, 12:16 PM

Not only are our troops in Iraq subject to danger from IEDs and hostile fire, but apparently soldiers and civilians at at least one US base were also exposed to contaminated water, and even though employees of Halliburton (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012306K.shtml), the contractor, tried to get management to disclose the truth to the troops, it remained hush hush.

"...Washington - Troops and civilians at a U.S. military base in Iraq were exposed to contaminated water last year and employees for the responsible contractor, Halliburton, couldn't get their company to inform camp residents, according to interviews and internal company documents.

Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, disputes the allegations about water problems at Camp Junction City, in Ramadi, even though they were made by its own employees and documented in company e-mails.

"We exposed a base camp population (military and civilian) to a water source that was not treated," said a July 15, 2005, memo written by William Granger, the official for Halliburton's KBR subsidiary who was in charge of water quality in Iraq and Kuwait.

"The level of contamination was roughly 2x the normal contamination of untreated water from the Euphrates River," Granger wrote in one of several documents. The Associated Press obtained the documents from Senate Democrats who are holding a public inquiry into the allegations Monday..."

Although bottled water was available, contaminated water was used for bathing, laundry and handwashing, which meant that personnel were still exposed to bacteria. Halliburton was too busy trying to maximize its profits to worry about the health and safety of Americans in Iraq. :mad:

Miulang

Miulang

January 23rd, 2006, 07:08 PM

Hmmm...it appears that our "enemy" in Iraq is deciding that blowing themselves up may not always be the prudent thing to gaining control of Iraq. The US forces have evidence that people linked to al Qaeda have been winning offices (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11647.htm) in provincial elections that were encouraged by the US.

"...Supporters of al-Qa'eda in Iraq have used the elections staged by the United States to gain positions of political power, the American military believes.

According to senior officers based in Anbar province, an insurgent stronghold in western Iraq, al-Qa'eda-linked politicians have gained seats in local elections to provincial assemblies.

None would publicly accuse any politicians by name or comment on the number under suspicion, but they are convinced that al-Qa'eda influence is particularly prevalent in the border towns of Qaim and Hit.

Al-Qa'eda was virulently opposed to the national elections held in Iraq last year, describing the votes in January and December as a "trick of Satan" and promising to kill anyone who voted.

But the news that some of the organisation's supporters have gained seats at the local level illustrates both how it has adapted its tactics and the level of penetration it has achieved in Iraqi society.

American intelligence has also learnt that not only are some of its supporters now politicians but that a number of its leaders have married into leading local tribes to secure alliances.

Guess they've decided to try to change things from the inside rather than through suicide bombings. How does the US stop a "democratic" process that is being undermined by a trickier opponent? Do we install another puppet dictator?

Miulang

Miulang

January 25th, 2006, 05:55 PM

These are the words of a veteran (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article340826.ece) who returned from the Iraq conflict, only to spiral so deeply into the depths of depression due to PTSD that he couldn't dig himself out and ultimately committed suicide:

"...'We live with permanent scars from horrific events'

Doug Barber wrote this internet article on 12 January, just before he died

My thought today is to help you the reader understand what happens to a soldier when they come home and the sacrifice we continue to make. This war on terror has become a personal war for so many, yet the Bush administration do not want to reveal to America that this is a personal war. They want to run it like a business, and thus they refuse to show the personal sacrifices the soldiers and their families have made for this country.

All is not OK or right for those of us who return home alive and supposedly well. What looks like normalcy and readjustment is only an illusion to be revealed by time and torment. Some soldiers come home missing limbs and other parts of their bodies. Still others will live with permanent scars from horrific events that no one other than those who served will ever understand. We come home from war trying to put our lives back together but some cannot stand the memories and decide that death is better. We kill ourselves because we are so haunted by seeing children killed and whole families wiped out.

Others come home to nothing, families have abandoned them: husbands and wives have left these soldiers, and so have parents. Post-traumatic stress disorder has become the norm amongst these soldiers because they don't know how to cope with returning to a society that will never understand what they have endured....

"...I myself have trouble coping with an everyday routine that often causes me to have a short fuse. A lot of soldiers lose jobs just because they are trained to be killers and they have lived in an environment that is conducive to that. We are always on guard for our safety and that of our comrades. When you go to bed at night you wonder will you be sent home in a flag-draped coffin because a mortar round went off on your sleeping area....

"...This is what PTSD comes in the shape of - soldiers can not often handle coming back to the same world they left behind. It is something that drives soldiers over the edge and causes them to withdraw from society. As Americans we turn our nose down at them wondering why they act the way they do. Who cares about them, why should we help them? ..."

We need to make sure that all our returning vets get the support they need to make that difficult transition back to civilian life. I don't want another generation of soldiers to end up like so many of the vets from Vietnam, who became alcoholics, drug addicts, psychotic, suicidal and homeless after returning to the United States. We don't need any more Doug Barbers to remind us of the horrors of surviving a war. :(

Miulang

manoasurfer123

January 25th, 2006, 06:01 PM

Miulang

January 25th, 2006, 06:19 PM

This is a statement from a person (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/chuong4.html) who fled Vietnam in1983 and how what he experienced then relates to what he is trying to do today to help bring peace to the world:

"...I look at myself, and I admit that I, myself, failed miserably in my self-imposed duty of passing my war-experience on to my nieces and nephews. There is something wrong with the people who lived through and experienced war, like me. I could pass on many things to my neighbors, and to my next generation, but not war. Their pro-war argument is possible because many of us, who lived through war, continue to support war, and even participate in the next war. Thus, according to them, there must be something positive; something righteous about going to war, and the "enemy" must be a devil, "sub-human."

I told my nieces and nephews that war is evil, and I explained to them that war does not bring any good thing, but brings destruction to not only property, and lives, but also most crucially destroys our humanity.

I told them during the war I watched TV and listened to radio news focusing on "our loss, our destruction" by the enemy. This nurtured my hatred, and the news that focused on our "enemy’s loss and destruction" not only soothed my anger, it also filled my collective pride and vented my aggression. I kept this "process" within myself in silence with satisfaction at first. People around me seemed to be like me, we exchanged our agreement with a sparking glance and a smile. Over time, I started to laugh out with joy at the positive news with images of enemy corpses; and I banged the door or kicked any thing around me with anger when I listened to our casualties. Then I went around the neighborhood to relay the story with full mixed agitation of joy and hatred. I asked my relatives how stupid I was?...

"...They listened with respect, but did not understand. They said that was alright, it was war, and it should be so. I was angry, frustrated with myself. I am incompetent.

How can I now explain to them that what I swallowed through official news as "reality" was a process of dehumanization?

This process was to dehumanize the "enemy." It demonized the enemy to a lowest, ugliest figure of devil that must be destroyed at all cost. Because they were no longer human, they could not and should not be treated as equal to us. Thus we, the good ones, had an exceptional right to use any way to make them suffer before we destroy them....

"...How can I explain to my next generation that I myself was dehumanized in the first place by that very process in order not only to see other human beings as demons, but also to hate and be ready to murder other human beings (not only combatants but also women and children) with joy, and with pride? Worst of all, which we thought we did as a favor to our human kind?

Please help me my friends, who lived through war, who experienced war around the world. Please tell me the way in which I can pass on this horrible experience to others. Please also tell me, explain to me why many of us still, as my friend observes, keep "quiet and cower."

Please tell me, explain to me why many of you, who experienced war, still even support and participate in war. ..."

Miulang

Miulang

January 25th, 2006, 06:33 PM

"...Across the country, VA hospitals and clinics (http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/opinion/13707004.htm) -- already facing budget crunches and backlogs -- report increases in veterans suffering PTSD. Ironically, many are Vietnam vets only now seeking help, but the VA is hardly prepared for the aftermath of Iraq and Afghanistan.
A recent New England Journal of Medicine study found that 17 percent of soldiers who returned from Iraq suffered PTSD, a 2 percent increase from that reported by Vietnam veterans.

The tangled web of bureaucracy and overstretched staffs at home only delays the help they need. For some, it comes too late. Capt. Michael Pelkey, an Iraq veteran from Spring, Texas, was diagnosed with PTSD in 2004. A week later, he killed himself with a shot to the chest.

Long after the war is but a memory, Pelkey's widow will still be describing him to the son he barely met, and Bocanegra and thousands of other former soldiers will still be struggling with the consequences of war. That goes for the ones who are back home, trying to piece their lives back together, and the ones still at the front, numb to the realities of war.

Today, Bocanegra feels abandoned. He sees a psychiatrist for about 10 minutes every three months. He takes one pill for anxiety and another for depression.

The doctor, he says, "just tells me, 'Take your medication.'"
After nearly five years in the military, he feels like someone else's problem now. If he needs an eye exam or a dental visit, he must drive four hours to San Antonio to the nearest VA hospital.

Supporting our troops means more than sticking a yellow-ribbon decal on our cars, a standing ovation at the airport or an American flag flying on Veterans Day. We can talk of patriotism, but until we demand that our soldiers get the treatment they need, our words are empty. Thousands of them and their families have been torn apart by war, while the rest of us sacrificed nothing.

"Stay the course" or "Pull out now," few of our leaders are concerned about making sure these soldiers have the health care they need once they return.
Congress must calculate the total cost of this war, which includes caring for Bocanegra and other vets long after the last gunshot or explosion. If not, they will continue to feel as if they're begging for handouts, and our leaders will have failed them...."

Medals and thank yous are not enough compensation for the men and women who laid their lives on the line for us! :mad:

Miulang

Miulang

January 25th, 2006, 06:41 PM

So where's all that Iraqi oil (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965520/site/newsweek/) that we were supposed to be securing under the pretense of fighting terrorism?

"...Only three years ago, before the United States led the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration dreamed of liberating the country on the cheap. Billions in untapped oil reserves would pay for reconstruction and nation-building. But hundreds of billions of American tax dollars later, Iraq's oil still isn't flowing at prewar levels. And in a country where 90 percent of the government's $35 billion in revenues comes from petroleum, the old promise has come to seem a curse. "Some people wish we didn't have all this oil," says National Assembly Speaker Hajim al-Hassani, "because it has brought us all these problems."

What happened? There's certainly no question that the Bush administration, heavily peopled with veterans of the oil industry, focused on the importance of petroleum to Iraq's economy. Even as the rest of Baghdad was left open to looters in April 2003, the Ministry of Oil was secured by U.S. troops. But no force was put in place to protect the pumps and pipes. Finally in August 2003, the Americans awarded $40 million to a private security firm for the training of 5,500 Iraqis. Largely drawn from Sunni tribes, the recruits were given one-year contracts to guard refineries and distribution hubs. But the contract was terminated as too expensive, say U.S. officials. Then the U.S. military took responsibility for the Oil Protection Force, but guards were never deployed to cover the 7,000 kilometers of pipelines, not even those vital for exports. Those pipelines soon became primary insurgent targets.

When the U.S. Congress allocated $18.4 billion to Iraq's reconstruction, no money was earmarked for oil security, so the job went to regular Iraqi Army and police units. After the elections last January, the task of protecting the nation's most precious resource was shifted to the Oil Ministry. Then last summer, a new 4,000-man unit called the Strategic Infrastructure Battalions started training. But the SIBs quickly fell into bureaucratic cracks. "The ministers have had the hardest time figuring out who the SIBs even work for," says Brig. Gen. William H. McCoy, commander of the Army Corps of Engineers in Baghdad. As late as October, confusion at critical oil facilities like the Fatah site, where Saif Mohammed worked, left it vulnerable to at least one attack per week....

"...Washington has allocated $1.7 billion to finance oil reconstruction projects across the country, but of that, only $77 million worth has been completed. Al-Aloum says U.S. confusion and incompetence has kept the work tangled in red tape: "Most of these projects were supposed to be done last year. If U.S. money had been made available, Iraqis could have done the job faster." Yet the United States has recently made clear that it no longer wants to be the principle donor. Other foreign investors are biding their time, hoping some sort of peace can be restored. "Whichever way you look in the short term, it comes back to security," says Lawrence Eagles of the International Energy Agency in Paris...."

Miulang

waioli kai

January 25th, 2006, 07:16 PM

"...prewar levels..."

pre-war levels; i.e., prior to U.S. sanctions @199! and September !!

waioli kai

January 25th, 2006, 07:18 PM

pre-war levels; i.e., prior to US's United States' "Shock 'n Awe" ?

Reconstruction from what? Iraq (US $upplicants, via US's $addam Hussein) post Iraq (US)initiated war on Iran ? US's United States' "Shock 'n Awe" ? US'$ United States' "Wars on Terror" ?

Miulang

January 30th, 2006, 07:49 AM

Janis Karpinski (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013006J.shtml), the highest ranked military officer punished for acts related to Abu Ghraib, testified that Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez issued orders to cover up the cause of death for some female American soldiers serving in Iraq.

"... Last week, Col. Janis Karpinski told a panel of judges at the Commission of Inquiry for Crimes against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration in New York that several women had died of dehydration because they refused to drink liquids late in the day. They were afraid of being assaulted or even raped by male soldiers if they had to use the women's latrine after dark.

The latrine for female soldiers at Camp Victory wasn't located near their barracks, so they had to go outside if they needed to use the bathroom. "There were no lights near any of their facilities, so women were doubly easy targets in the dark of the night," Karpinski told retired US Army Col. David Hackworth in a September 2004 interview. It was there that male soldiers assaulted and raped women soldiers. So the women took matters into their own hands. They didn't drink in the late afternoon so they wouldn't have to urinate at night. They didn't get raped. But some died of dehydration in the desert heat, Karpinski said...."

Apparently, Sanchez believed that since women signed up to be part of the war, they deserved whatever happened to them. But does it have to include dying of thirst because you're afraid you're going to get raped by fellow soldiers? :mad:

Miulang

Miulang

January 30th, 2006, 01:15 PM

The DoD's "Stop loss" policy stinks.

"...When soldiers enlist, they sign a contract to serve for a certain number of years, and know precisely when their service obligation ends so they can return to civilian life. But stop-loss allows the Army, mindful of having fully manned units, to keep soldiers on the verge of leaving the military.

Under the policy, soldiers who normally would leave when their commitments expire must remain in the Army, starting 90 days before their unit is scheduled to depart, through the end of their deployment and up to another 90 days after returning to their home base.

With yearlong tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, some soldiers can be forced to stay in the Army an extra 18 months...."

I wonder if the increasing number of US casualties (along with the upsurge in "enemy" activity) can be attributed to overtired, overstressed and inattentive (depressed) troops on the front line who know the government is not honoring its commitments? If the occupation of Iraq continues at the current pace, I fear that a draft is imminent. :mad:
Miulang

Miulang

February 2nd, 2006, 06:07 PM

Because US intelligence greatly underestimated the strength of the insurgency in Iraq, more than $5 billion out of an aid package worth $18.4 billion has had to be spent on increasing security (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020206G.shtml).

"...Guerrilla attacks in Iraq have forced the cancellation of more than 60 percent of water and sanitation projects, in part because American intelligence failed to predict the brutal insurgency, a US government audit said.

American goals to fix Iraq's infrastructure will never be reached, mainly because insurgents have chased away contractors and forced the diversion of repair funds into security, according to an audit of the Iraqi Relief and Reconstruction Program released last week. It is the latest in a series of auditing reports being issued by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.

The rise of Iraq's insurgency was never envisioned by US officials, who originally budgeted about 9 percent of reconstruction aid for project security, the audit said.

As kidnappings, killings and sabotage drove local laborers and foreign technicians from the reconstruction program, US administrators were forced to step up protection for workers.

New measures like armored vehicles, private security teams and blast walls absorbed as much as 22 percent of project costs, according to the audit by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction...

"...Of the 425 planned electric projects, 300 will be finished, meaning ambitious US promises to restore Iraqi power will not be fulfilled.

Projects canceled include $1 billion for six generating plants across Iraq, which will cut back US-funded increases in Iraq's power generation capacity from a planned 3,400 megawatts to 2,109 megawatts, the report said. The stated monthly goal was 6,000 megawatts...."

And with increasing reports of gross fiscal incompetence on the part of the Administrators of the Reconstruction fund (a la Paul Bremer et al) and other evidence of corruption in the handling of the funds, perhaps it would have been better for us to just hand the money over to the Iraqis and let them do what they thought was necessary, letting them put their own people to work. They would probably have been a whole lot more successful at it than we apparently have been (Riverbend in her blog had mentioned the rebuilding of Iraq after the 1991 invasion as only having taken a little more than a year, and they accomplished this with their own money and using unemployed professional people). We obviously don't have a clue what the Iraqis really need to put their country back together again. No wonder the average Iraqi citizen doesn't trust us.

Miulang

Miulang

March 16th, 2006, 05:11 PM

I find it awfully ironic that with the 3rd anniversary of our occupation of Iraq on March 19 coming up, that we should engage our BlackHawks and some troops in a little adventure called "Operation Swarmer (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11857580/)" today. I know Bush's advisers are sweating bullets because of the nation's unhappiness at the progress of the war, but this is just plain showboating. The timing of this little exercise is impeccable, but I doubt this will change anyone's minds about our being in Iraq or that the Prez' popularity will go up at all.

One of the commentators (retired former general or something) on cable said this evening that the US is only "flying the helicopters" and the Iraqi security forces (some 500-650 soldiers) are doing all the dirty work in Samarra (where the Golden Mosque was blown up about a month ago and what started the latest round of secterian fighting), but unless the footage they were showing tonight to describe the action in Samarra was file footage, none of the "soldiers" looked Iraqi to me...they all looked pretty white bread American. MSNBC in the meantime reported that there were about 650 US troops and 800 Iraqi troops involved in the maneuver.

And what's the cost? Well, as of day one, for the umpteen millions we've spent on this escapade, they apparently captured about 40 possible terrorists. Doesn't sound very cost effective to me.

Miulang

waioli kai

March 16th, 2006, 08:51 PM

In the name of
"If I can't have it nobody can," imperialUSt$ lay waste and design to lay waste.

Not enough to make peace is a dozen years of USrael's genocidal economic sanctions and undeclared warfare on the nation of Iraq, followed by a couple weeks of "Shock and Awe" destruction and three years of USrael sponsored and directed "reconstruction".

USrael's U.S. armed force's civilian directors Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Reich, Bolton, Negroponte club of former (albeit still) rabid militarist anti-communists, can only foresee their terrorUSt "War on Terror" de-occupation of Iraq in tandem with their desired obliteration of post-Shah Iran... don't worry about a pretext to act on their desires, terrorUSts will find one, create one, one way or another.

United States' terrorUSts know they need such a diversion, such new warfare to escape the justice they know many U.S. citizens and others want to await terrorUSts in this ever more enlightened world of peoples beyond nations of militarist nationalism.

waioli kai

March 16th, 2006, 09:10 PM

Operation Swarmer** U.S. launcheslargest Iraq air assault in 3 years (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11857580/)March 16: The U.S. military leads an offensive in Iraq dubbed Operation Swarmer.

Iraqi, Coalition Forces Launch Air Assault (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2006/20060316_4504.html) WASHINGTON, March 16, 2006 – Iraqi and coalition forces today launched the largest air assault operation since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom (aka Operation Iraqi Liberation) in southern Salah Ad Din province to clear a suspected insurgent operating area northeast of Samarra, military officials reported...

....
The President’s National Security Strategy (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/print/20060316.html) For Immediate Release March 16, 2006

Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends
If necessary we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur. The White House, George W. Bush

====== ====== =========

** "The name 'Swarmer' was derived from the name given to the largest peacetime airborne maneuvers ever conducted, in spring 1950 in North Carolina. Soon after this exercise, the 187th Infantry was selected to deploy to Korea as an Airborne Regimental Combat Team to provide Gen. MacArthur with an airborne capability."

...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11857580/
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2006/20060316_4504.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/print/20060316.html

Miulang

March 17th, 2006, 09:38 AM

I don't place all the blame for this massacre (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12379.htm) of innocent villagers on the US troops who bound, gagged and shot them in the head (one victim was 7 months old) and then tried to blow up the evidence. I mostly blame the people in the White House and Congress and the leaders of the US forces for these war crimes.

What was the cost? 11 members of an Iraqi family, including 5 children, dead. 1 terrorist killed. Oh wait, I forgot. Any Iraqi civilians who might get caught in the middle of the crossfire are not to be considered human beings, just "collateral damage." :mad:

Miulang

Miulang

March 17th, 2006, 09:50 AM

This is the price (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031706B.shtml) of our occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan: $9.8 BILLION a month (compared to the last FY, which averaged $6.8 billion), up 44% from 2005. I thought we were supposed to be stepping back and letting the Iraqis take over this war?

This morning, there was also news that the Navy may ship up to 1,000 Naval personnel (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002870555_navy17m.html) to Iraq to supplement troops there. I imagine that those sailors aren't going to be too thrilled to be taken off their ships to go work in the desert. Some people from the Seattle area will probably be deployed; don't know if it will impact Pearl Harbor.

Miulang

Miulang

March 18th, 2006, 05:50 PM

While most cable networks pronounced "Operation Swarmer" the largest airlift in Iraq in years, the print media came up with diametrically opposing descriptions of the event, which was staged on the eve of the 3rd anniversary of our occupation of Iraq.

So is Time Magazine (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031806A.shtml) or AP telling the truth? Did AP get its info from the White House?

Miulang

Miulang

March 19th, 2006, 08:34 AM

Shades of MyLai. Our troops are apparently killing innocent children (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12404.htm) in their zeal to ferret out suspected insurgents. No wonder the Iraqi population hates us so much. :(

At the very bottom of the story are thumbnail pictures of the murdered children. Please don't scroll down to the end or click on the thumbnails to enlarge them if you don't have a strong stomach because it will just make your heart hurt too much. :( These were pictures taken of some of the 11 members of one Iraqi family who were killed by US troops on March 15.

Miulang

waioli kai

March 19th, 2006, 08:48 AM

Is Iraq closer to democracy or civil war three years after the war began?

How can Iraq not already be in civil war in a major section inside the U.S. recognized borders of U.S. occupied Iraq? Since Kuwaiti emirs came knocking at the U.S. Treasury to begin cashing out of the Treasury's bond scheme because Saddam's Iraq had forced the Kuwait royal sycophancy to pack their bags for a new address in the West, terrorUSt$ have nutured conditions for civil insurrection in Iraq: the terrorUSts' invasion of Iraq was the last USraeli mischief needed to ignite insurrection.

waioli kai

April 12th, 2006, 12:59 PM

Reuters Odd News Summary

LONDON, April 11 — Zurich is the city with the highest quality of life in 2006, while Baghdad, for the third year running, has the lowest, a survey published Monday shows. ...

The CheneyBush administration's "Spreading Democracy in the World", beginning with their nation building (cornerstone being destruction via terrorUSts' Operation Iraqi Liberation) in Iraq was/is most obviously not a democratic process.

One may wonder on where in the scale of 'City Quality of Life' comparisons Baghdad registered prior to terrorUSts' March 2003 demockery mission in Baghdad?...prior to terrorUSt$' 1990's economic sanctions on Iraq?

Miulang

April 16th, 2006, 06:24 PM

Well, folks, when the dust finally clears in Iraq, we, the people of the United States of America will have a little piece of the US right in the middle of Baghdad. A billion or so dollars of our tax money that is funding the Iraq war has been diverted to the construction of a massive, well reinforced city within a city that is being called the "US Embassy (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041606A.shtml)". Now we can act like the Roman Catholics and have our own little country within another country, where we will be immune from the laws of Iraq and where we can continue to wheel and deal for our precious oil. The only difference is the Vatican police don't have the power to kill anyone; the armed guards (Marines and Army) who will stand guard at the gates of the Embassy will. :mad:

Miulang

waioli kai

April 16th, 2006, 09:09 PM

Billions of so-called "Reconstruction" monies have gone into the construction and maintenance of more than just the new, gargantuan US Embassy in Iraq. But for the substitution of Arabic words for Native American words the camps and bases could as well be the names given to such US facilities stretched across the American West into the Pacific. Obviously, when the Rumsfeld Military went into Iraq they had no intention of ever leaving, and, they still have no such plans for leaving:

US Iraq Facilities (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/iraq.htm )

Camps
Camp Adder [Tallil AB]
Camp Al Asad [al-Asad AB]
Camp Al-Hurya Al-Awal [Baquba AF]
Camp Al-Istiqlaal [Baghdad AB]
Camp Al-Saqr [Rasheed AB]
Camp Anaconda [Balad AB]
Camp Baharia [Fallujah]
Camp Balad [Balad AB]
Camp Basilone [Qalat Sukar AB]
Camp Cedar [Tallil AB]
Camp Cedar II [Tallil AB]
Camp Chesty [Kut AB]
Camp Claiborne [Mosul AB]
Camp Condor [Amarah AB]
Camp Cooke [Taji AB]
Camp Cropper [Baghdad IAP]
Camp Cuervo [Rasheed AB]
Camp Diamondback [Mosul AB]
Camp Dogwood [al-Iskandaryah AB]
Camp Falcon [Rasheed AB]
Camp Ferrin-Huggins [Rasheed AB]
Camp Freedom I [Baquba AF]
Camp Graceland [Rasheed AB]
Camp Griffin [Baghdad IAP]
Camp Headhunter [Baghdad AB]
Camp Independence [Baghdad AB]
Camp Lancer [K-2 AB]
Camp Manhattan [Habbaniyah AB]
Camp Marez [Mosul AB]
Camp Muleskinner [Rasheed AB]
Camp Pacesetter [Samarra East AB]
Camp Qayyarah [Quyarrah AB]
Camp Redcatcher [Rasheed AB]
Camp Renegade [Kirkuk AB]
Camp Ridgway/Ridgeway [Al Taqaddum AB]
Camp Rustamiyah [Rasheed AB]
Camp Sather [Baghdad IAP]
Camp Speicher [al-Sahra AB]
Camp Stryker [Baghdad IAP]
Camp Sycamore [al-Sahra AB]
Camp Taqaddum [Al Taqaddum AB]
Camp Taji [Taji AB]
Camp Viper [Jalibah AB]
Camp Warhorse [Baquba AF]
Camp Whitford [Tallil AB]

Forward Operating Bases, Air Bases and Airports

FOB al-Asad [al-Asad AB]
FOB Bernstein [Tuz Khurmatu AB]
FOB Chosin [Al Iskandariyah AB]
FOB Cooke [Taji AB]
FOB Delta [Kut AB]
FOB Endurance [Quyarrah AB]
FOB Ferrin-Huggins [Rasheed AB]
FOB Glory [Mosul AB]
FOB Grant [Tal Ashtah AB]
FOB Guardian City [Al Taqaddum AB]
FOB Gunner [Taji AB]
FOB Headhunter [Baghdad AB]
FOB Manhattan [Habbaniyah AB]
FOB McKenzie [Samarra East AB]
FOB Morgan [Baghdad IAP]
FOB Muleskinner [Rasheed AB]
FOB Pacesetter [Samarra East AB]
FOB Q-West [Quyarrah AB]
FOB Ridgway/Ridgeway [Al Taqaddum AB]
FOB Speicher [al-Sahra AB]
FOB Warhorse [Baquba AF]
FOB Warrior [Kirkuk AB]
FOB Webster [Al Asad AB]
FOB Wyatt [Balad AB]

Other Nomenclature,
Engineer Base Anvil [Rasheed AB]
Fire Base Glory [Mosul AB]
FLB Sycamore [al-Sahra AB]
LSA Adder [Tallil AB]
LSA Anaconda [Balad AB]
LSA Diamondback [Mosul AB]
LSA Viper [Jalibah AB]
OBJ Jaguar [Quyarrah AB]
OBJ Redskins [Al Taqaddum AB]
OBJ Weber [al-Asad AB]
TSP Whitford [Tallil AB]
Stryker Island [Baghdad IAP]
Bashur AB
H-1 Airstrip
Kirkuk AB
Kut AB
Redcatcher Field [Rasheed AB]
Tall 'Afar AB

Former Presidential Palaces
mp Al-Hurya Al-Thani [Green Zone]
Camp Al-Isdehar [Al Salam]
Camp al-Nasr [Abu Ghurayb]
Camp Al-Sharaf [Green Zone]
Camp al-Tahreer [Abu Ghurayb]
Camp Al-Tawheed Al-Awal [Al Sijood]
Camp Al-Tawheed Al-Thani [Al Sijood]
Camp Al-Watani [Green Zone]
Camp Arkansas [Al Salam]
Camp Blackjack [Abu Ghurayb]
Camp Blue Diamond [Ar Ramadi]
Camp Cobra [Abu Ghurayb]
Camp Dragoon [Baghdad]
Camp Freedom II [Green Zone]
Camp Greywolf [Al Sijood]
Camp Freedom [Mosul]
Camp Honor [Green Zone]
Camp Hurricane Point [Ar Ramadi]
Camp Iron Horse [Green Zone]
Camp Ironhorse [Tikrit]
Camp Junction City [Ar Ramadi]
Camp Liberty [Abu Ghurayb]
Camp Outlaw [Green Zone]
Camp Patriot [Green Zone]
Camp Prosperity [Al Salam]
Camp Raider [Tikrit]
Camp Slayer [Radwaniyah]
Camp Steel Dragon [Green Zone]
Camp Steel Falcon [Dora Farms]
Camp Union I [Al Sijood]
Camp Union II [Al Sijood]
Camp Victory [Abu Ghurayb]
Camp Victory (51 Papa) [Abu Ghurayb]
Camp Victory North [Abu Ghurayb]
Camp Warrior [Al Sijood]
Camp Wolfpack [Green Zone]
FOB Al-Tawheed Al-Thalith [Green Zone]
FOB Blue Diamond [Ar Ramadi]
FOB Champion Base [Ar Ramadi]
FOB Cobra [Abu Ghurayb]
FOB Danger [Tikrit]
FOB Eden [Hit]
FOB Hurricane [Ar Ramadi]
FOB Ironhorse [Tikrit]
FOB Junction City [Ar Ramadi]
FOB Paliden Base [Ar Ramadi]
FOB Raider [Tikrit]
FOB Sabre [Ar Ramadi]
FOB Steel Dragon [Green Zone]
FOB Trojan Horse [Green Zone]
FOB Union III [Green Zone]
Champion Main [Ar Ramadi]
Champion Base [Ar Ramadi]
Essayons Base [Republican Palace]
Hurricane Base [Ar Ramadi]
Loyalty Base [Ar Ramadi]
Rifles Base (3 ACR) [Ar Ramadi]
Victory Base [Abu Ghurayb]
Firebase Shoemaker [Ar Ramadi]
LSA Highlander [Al Salam]
Green Zone [Baghdad]
International Zone [Baghdad]
Post Freedom [Mosul]
Al Azimiyah Palace
Saddamiat Al-Tharthar

Other Locations
Camp ? ? ? ? ? ? [Dahuk]
Camp Abu Naji [Al Amarah]
Camp Al-Adala [Kadhamiyah/Baghdad]
Camp Al-Amal [Baghdad]
Camp Al-Tadamun [Adhamiyah/Baghdad]
Camp Andaluz [Kufa]
Camp Anderson [Diwaniyeh]
Camp Arrow [Ad Dawr]
Camp Avalanche [Abu Ghurayb Prison]
Camp Ashraf
Camp Babylon
Camp Black Jack
Camp Bonzai [Kadhamiyah/Baghdad]
Camp Boom [Baquba]
Camp Brassfield-Mora [Samarra]
Camp Bucca [Umm Qasr]
Camp Bushmaster [Najaf]
Camp Caldwell [Kirkush]
Camp Cold Steel
Camp Eagle III [Najaf]
Camp Duke [Najaf]
Camp Eagle [Baghdad]
Camp Edson [Diwaniyeh]
Camp Fallujah [I MEF]
Camp Fenway [Qalat Sukar]
Camp Ganci [Abu Ghurayb Prison]
Camp Golf [Najaf]
Camp Gunslinger [Adhamiyah/Baghdad]
Camp Hope [Diwaniyeh]
Camp Justice [Kadhamiyah/Baghdad]
Camp Hope [Baghdad]
Camp Hotel [Najaf]
Camp Jennings [Al Amarah]
Camp Korean Village [Ar Rutbah/H-3(?)]
Camp Leader [Mosul]
Camp Libeccio [Nasiriyah]
Camp Lima [Baghdad]
Camp Marlboro [Sadr City]
Camp Mercury
Camp Normandy [Muqdadiyah]
Camp Nakamura [Nippur]
Camp Paliwoda [Balad]
Camp Performance [Mosul]
Camp Redemption [Abu Ghurayb Prison]
Camp Scania [Nippur]
Camp Solidarity [Adhamiyah/Baghdad]
Camp St. Mere [Fallujah]
Camp Strike [Mosul]
Camp Top Gun [Mosul]
Camp Ultimo [Baghdad]
Camp Vigilant [Abu Ghurayb Prison]
Camp War Eagle [Baghdad]
Camp Whitehorse
Camp Zadan [Zadan]
FOB ? ? ? ? ? ? [Daquq]
FOB Arrow [Ad Dawr]
FOB Buzz
FOB Brassfield-Mora [Samarra]
FOB Caldwell [Kirkush]
FOB Duke [Najaf]
FOB Eagle [Balad]
FOB Gabe [Baquba]
FOB Kalsu [Iskandariyah]
FOB Laurie [Fallujah]
FOB Lion [Balad AB]
FOB Melody [Sadr City]
FOB Mercury [Fallujah]
FOB Normandy [Muqdadiyah]
FOB Packhorse [Tikrit]
FOB Rough Rider [Mandali]
FOB St. Mere [Fallujah]
FOB St. Michael [Mahmudiyah]
FOB Tiger [Al Qaim]
FOB Scania [Nippur]
FOB Volturno [Fallujah]
FOB War Eagle [Baghdad]
FOB Wilson [Ad Dawr]
Firebase Melody [Sadr City]
Log Base Seitz
Tiger Base [Al Qaim]
Butler Range Complex
Hard Site [Abu Ghurayb]
CMOC Ar Ramadi
CMOC Baghdad
CMOC Diwaniyah
CMOC Mosul
CMOC Samarra
CSC Scania [Nippur]
CJTF Babylon
Baghdad Convention Center
Haditha Dam
Hillah
al-Kûfah []
MFK Compound
Sinjar
Taji Military Camp

Un-Identified
Camp Bushwacker
Camp Red Knight
Camp Sustainer
Camp Thunder
FOB Bandit Island [1 AD]
FOB Broomhead (3 ACR)
FOB Byers (3 ACR)
FOB Echo
FOB Givens (3 ACR)
FOB Latham (3 ACR)
FOB Miller (3 ACR)
FOB O'Ryan (TF 2-108)
FOB Quinn (3 ACR)
FOB Summerall

And then there are US Central Command Primary Deployment Facilities (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/centcom.htm), Logistics Facilities, Training Facilities, Operation ENDURING FREEDOM Contingency Sites.

To the nearest 1000 here is an estimate of early 2005 US troop population of 148,000 was spread Iraq Facilities - Early 2005 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/iraq-2005.htm) around Iraq.

Camp and base names have evolved over the years, adopting Arabic names at the expense of dropping US point-of-view names. For example:

Mujahedin-E Khalq (MEK) Training Camp
Camp Fallujah
FOB St. Mere (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/mek.htm) was renamed Camp Fallujah when the US Marine Corps cast off the Army's monikers for their new homes as part of a wider USMC effort to put an Iraqi face on the Corps' mission.

An order issued March 25, 2004, by I MEF's commanding general, directed that all base names be changed immediately. As a result, and to connect with the local communities, the new camps' names were associated with the local urban or geographical areas that they are near.
.