(AKI) - Italian charity Emergency has closed its three hospitals in Afghanistan, the organization said Thursday. The decision was taken over a month after an Emergency official, Rahmatullah Hanefi, who mediated for the release of reporter Daniele Mastrogiacomo in March, was arrested by Afghan authorities and accused of being an accessory to the murder of the journalist's interpreter at the hands of Taliban rebels who had abducted the two. The organization also said its personnel left the country Thursday after police visited its Kabul hospital and demanded that foreign employees hand over their passports.
The request was rejected but Emergency decided it wasn't safe for them to remain in the country and the personnel left Afghanistan with the aid of the Italian embassy in Kabul.
"This last serious episode confirms how the Afghan government has been trying by all means available to expel Emergency from Afghanistan," said the statement, recalling that the head of Afghan security services Amrullah Saleh had called the charity "an organization which supports terrorists and even members of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan."
"The impossibility for the international personnel to remain makes the hospitals unable to offer services of sufficient quality to satisfy the needs of patients," Emergency also said in the statement. "We cannot take the responsibility of deceiving the wounded and sick with illusions that would damage them."
Hanefi, who risks the death penalty, was arrested by Afghan intelligence officials on 20 March and accused of cooperating with the Taliban. An Afghan citizen, he worked for Emergency's hospital in Lashkar Gah in the southern volatile Helmand province.
Hanefi had directly mediated with the Taliban for the release of Mastrogiacomo but Afghan authorities claim he left the interpreter Adjmal Nashkbandi in the hands of the Taliban though he was supposed to be released with the Italian reporter.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/27/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Tough to be a sick Afghani, but getting all these potential hostages out of the country before they can be turned into freed terrorists or terrorist cash is not all bad.
A VIDEO posted on a hardline Islamic website to promote a soccer tournament in western Sydney has outraged Muslim leaders by featuring an Arabic song often used by al-Qaeda to promote jihad. The song calls on militants to "exterminate" non-believers and make them "hear the tunes of death".
The video is used by the Global Islamic Youth Centre, headed by radical cleric Faiz Mohamad, who has praised jihadists and compared Jews to pigs. It plays the jihad tune, which also says "we shall go to heaven fearing no death", to images of local and international soccer players displaying their skills.
Bomb explosions and missiles launching form part of the music in the clip promoting the Liverpool Youth Cup. "With the swords we shall exterminate the infidels and death is the desire of the pure," one translated verse says. "With jihad the banners of the evident victory shall rise high.
"We shall go to heaven fearing no death. We shall not waver ... we are the cubs of the victorious conquerors."
Senior Muslim leader Ameer Ali attacked the seemingly "hidden agenda" of the video, which was pulled down by GIYC yesterday afternoon following The Weekend Australian's inquiry. "I'm worried and I am concerned there is a hidden message behind this soccer tournament (promotion)," said the former chairman of John Howard's Muslim reference board. "This sort of message should be avoided. Why bring controversy into a sports match? Sport promotes co-operation, friendliness - that's what you expect from sport."
Prominent Sydney-based cleric Khalil Shami also condemned the video, saying it was wrong to conflate sporting images and "fighting". He attacked the fundamentalist GIYC for further damaging the Muslim community's standing in the eyes of mainstream Australia. "I don't know how they are driving this community - they drive it in a very, very bad way," said the imam at Penshurst mosque in Sydney's southwest."It's not fair for the community. Why mix sport with the fighting? Why?"
GIYC's president, Zunaid Moosa, yesterday told The Weekend Australian that he was unaware of what the song meant because he didn't speak Arabic. He said Islamic songs were often chosen for video-clips based on their "catchy" tune, and denied having anything to do with the production of the clip. "Often a lot of anasheed (Islamic vocal music) we got no idea (about) because we are not Arabic-speaking people," he said. "It would just be more of a tempo of the beat and a catchy type tune, that's all."
But now you'll be more careful, right?
A list of sponsors on the soccer clip includes charity group Human Appeal International and Krispy Kreme Donuts. A spokesman yesterday said HAI was not aware that GIYC had any political agendas when it agreed to sponsor the event. But a spokeswoman for Krispy Kreme denied the organisation had sponsored the soccer tournament and said she would take the matter up with GIYC.
#1
The video is used by the Global Islamic Youth Centre, headed by radical cleric Faiz Mohamad, who has praised jihadists and compared Jews to pigs.
Another Islamic hand tipped too soon. Deport the scumbag.
GIYC's president, Zunaid Moosa, yesterday told The Weekend Australian that he was unaware of what the song meant because he didn't speak Arabic. He said Islamic songs were often chosen for video-clips based on their "catchy" tune, and denied having anything to do with the production of the clip.
Not that the bomb explosions and rocket launches were a dead giveaway or anything.
But a spokeswoman for Krispy Kreme denied the organisation had sponsored the soccer tournament and said she would take the matter up with GIYC.
Reached for later comments, Krispy Kreme Doughnuts only response was, "We're frosted!"
A school in Amsterdam has halted lessons on rural life because the Islamic children refused to talk about pigs. They'd rather the wild boars were a surprise.
Reporting this, Alderman Lodewijk Asscher said he wants to take "tough measures." Subsidies for all kinds of dubious groups must stop and parents of unruly children penalised financially. Asscher told newspaper De Volkskrant: "A primary school in Amsterdam-Noord has decided no longer to teach about living on a farm. Various pupils began to demolish the classroom when the pig came up for discussion. Apparently it has gone that far. These children, 9, 10 years old, have not been given even the most elementary rules at home about why they must go to school."
Asscher, who is also the Labour (PvdA) leader in Amsterdam, wants to subject the parents to an 'upbringing requirement,' enforced with negative financial spurs. He is thinking of cuts in the children's allowance or lower welfare payments. In the Lower House, Youth and Family Minister Rouvoet recently rejected a plea for this from Party for Freedom (PVV).
Asscher also wants to prune the forest of subsidies for all kinds of foundations and organisations that say they work for multicultural goals. They receive 160 million euros annually from Amsterdam. Asscher wants to work out for each of these organisations in the "welfare industry" whether they do useful work and if not, halt the subsidy.
Asscher gave an example of abuse: "A Moroccan man took 50 youths off the streets, who were really an enormous nuisance. Now they collect wheelchairs for the handicapped in Surinam, Morocco and Turkey. Suddenly, a welfare body was set up alongside him, which is now trying to take the boys over from him, because they would then receive subsidies of 4,000 to 6,000 euros per kid. They are too timid to take these lads of the street themselves and now want them in their card-index because of the subsidy. Our Moroccan volunteer does not want to do it any more. I understand him."
Asscher is also shocked by the powerlessness of welfare bodies who try to talk criminal youngsters back onto the right track. In Slotervaart district, a mother of 10 children, of whom half have a criminal record, is guided by 35 different social workers, the alderman discovered. They have little or no idea of what each other is doing, according to Asscher.
Words fail.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/27/2007 07:25 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What I find baffling (and yes I realize this is a small point considering) is why a proscription against eating pork translates into a taboo against thinking or speaking about pigs. Again, I realize it is a bit much to point out how f*cking ludicrous this is considering the rest of the behavior of these cultists but there it is.
What is worse is thinking, reasoning, free people would tolerate this imbecile behavior for a moment. If muslim brats can take control of a classroom in this way there is no reason not to expect all the rest to follow. It is, as they say, the camel's nose in the tent; soon you have the whole camel.
#6
Completely brain washed little urchins. But then again these are the same people that send their kids out as suicide boomers. Screw em if they can't take a joke. Oh, what was I thinking--they don't understand humor. Send em Rosie O'Donnell as an emissary and a token of understanding. Alec Baldwin too.
#8
Subsidies for all kinds of dubious groups must stop and parents of unruly children penalised financially.
Asscher, who is also the Labour (PvdA) leader in Amsterdam, wants to subject the parents to an 'upbringing requirement,' enforced with negative financial spurs. He is thinking of cuts in the children's allowance or lower welfare payments.
Asscher also wants to prune the forest of subsidies for all kinds of foundations and organisations that say they work for multicultural goals.
Someone in the Netherlands has finally purchased a clue. I hope it's not too late.
Expell the disruptive kids. Make passing the course mandatory. Hold them back a year if they refuse. Make life hell for these whiners. If Muslims have such a big problem with pigs and dogs, why have they moved to countries where these animals play a prominent role? This shit has gone on for far too long.
Mass deportations are the only answer. We need to funnel this human waste stright back up the Muslim anus that shat it out. Repopulating Islamic countries with all these helpless welfare leeches will overburden their support systems. Maybe a few cholera epidemics or famines will result and start reducing the threat profile for us.
That's a profoundly insulting statement unfairly targeting the vast majority of peaceful, slop-loving pigs who are traumatized by the constant stream of negative stereotypes foisted on them by an ignorant American public. We demand a groveling apology for comparing innocent pigs to Rosie O'Donnell.
- Ibrahim Porker, CRAP (Council on Relations of Americans and Pigs)
#13
I guess it's OK for little muzzies to send P0rn to one another via cell phone since mo-ham-head was a child molesting, whoremonger. Just don't look at, or touch a pig. Makes sense to me.
#14
Mass deportations are the only answer. We need to funnel this human waste stright back up the Muslim anus that shat it out. Repopulating Islamic countries with all these helpless welfare leeches will overburden their support systems. Maybe a few cholera epidemics or famines will result and start reducing the threat profile for us.
#15
A peek into the minds of moderate Muslims and the pious control of thought and action practiced by Muslims the world over. With such a foundation, together, we can build a better tomorrow.
Oh, that is if we kill all the Joooos and surrender to dhimmitude. *coughbullshit*
#16
Even the Onion would have had difficulty in coming up with that headline. The level of absurdity in our world with regard to Muslims outstrips even the wildest imaginations of our most gifted satirists.
#17
Thank you, Excalibur. Short of horrific concentration camps and bulk executions, mass deportations represent one of the only measures that hold out any chances for our survival. It should be pretty obvious by now that I'm losing all hope for alternative solutions.
Islam is so intractable and aggressive that it must be excised from places where it has begun to root itself. Those Muslims who have attained citizenship and are not complicit in terrorism or other criminal activity will probably have to be given a choice of repatriation to their country of origin or permanent internment. All other immigrants will be forcifully deported. Any with known terrorist connections should have their property confiscated to help fund the effort.
Look to Sweden and Norway for a glimpse of what awaits us here in America. Europe is so far gone that they will either succumb entirely or once again revert to their usual charnel house. I doubt they will come to their senses in time to use the deportation option.
Muslim majority countries must be force fed the results of their treachery. They have permitted this noxious and lethal strain of Islam to breed itself up and must pay the piper for it. The sooner their respective governments crack under the increased burden, the more quickly these same countries can begin their democratic experiments. If like Iran, should they even think to toy with the notion of Islamic theocracy, then they should be subjected to decapitating strikes against their government along with their military if needed.
Just as hothouse flowers are forced into bloom through manipulation of their environment, so must the West begin to alter the socioploitical topography of the MME (Muslim Middle East). The Islamic regimes must be dismantled and their people given no alternative but the installation of democracy. This dictum must be backed by military force with examples made out of less than eager participants.
This world can no longer continue with the charade that Islam is anything but a fatal strain of death-obsessed cult worship. We have very little time to begin acting upon this, be it in concert or unilaterally. America has the military might to implement a vast portion of this under nuclear threat and it needs to begin yesterday.
#18
The poor bastards...
To have never gorged on ribs.
And washed it down with BEER!
(roadside am ate my delicious rib photos...
The Chicago ones, the Saint Louis ones, The Memphis ones, the KC kind, the NC SC and Georgia kind...
and before you hit all those fine beers)
We should broadcast multiple channels of rib and beer eating shows to the MidEast...
French presidential front-runner Nicolas Sarkozy outlined his stance on key foreign policy issues Thursday, saying that if elected he would contemplate pulling France's troops out of Afghanistan.
Talibunnies just need to take another hostage ...
He also denounced the United States' refusal to cap carbon emissions and proposed taxing imports from China because it too has refused to limit greenhouse gases.
I guess this is 'running to the center' in a French election ...
Sarkozy, the governing conservatives' candidate, said he supported outgoing President Jacques Chirac's decision to pull 200 French special forces out of Afghanistan late last year. He said he would continue that policy if elected in the May 6 runoff vote. "The long-term presence of French troops in that part of the world does not look definitive to me," he said in an interview with France-2 television. Some 1,100 French soldiers are currently part of the at least 30,000-strong NATO force in Afghanistan.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/27/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Get them home and post to banilues. Get ready for a showdown & fight to the finish.
#13
Let's wait and see if this is just campaign blather, or if he really does it after he wins the election. And, does "troops" mean their special forces, too? Those are the ones that count in the French donation to the cause.
#14
The Dhimmi's have come home to roost. What makes Sarkoy think that by removing the troops will buy him special favor with the terrorists? Look at Spain if you want to see your countries future by caving in.
#17
He aslo say that America was a friend and an ally. I can tell you that is highly unusual nowadays in France. And he has taken a risk by saying this.
#18
JFM, as sad as it is, I hope this leftist wins the election.
I just hope nobody like him wins our next presidential election.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
04/27/2007 19:34 Comments ||
Top||
#19
JFM - as a resident of California, represented by people I CERTAINLY didn't vote for. I understand your frustration
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/27/2007 20:51 Comments ||
Top||
#20
i have a different view... since he's facing stiff competition from the socialists candidate, maybe he's posturing to pull in any left leaning votes to put him over the top. it MAY be all political. i realize he's frenchy, but he's right of the normal socialist. i gotta hope there's a good frenchman somewhere....
Posted by: Lee ||
04/27/2007 22:25 Comments ||
Top||
#21
France needs to clean its own house right now. Just like we do.
(AKI) - An overwhelming majority of MEPs on Thursday adopted a resolution backing a universal moratorium on capital punishment and urging European Union presidency to heed the parliament's call earlier this year to table an immediate resolution at the United Nations. The EU should every seize "every opportunity" to foster "regional abolitionist coalitions" in its campaign for a universal moratorium that has now gathered 88 signatures among UN countries, the parliament stated. Can we have a moratorium on murder, too?
Lastly, the parliament called on the EU's institutions, together with the Council of Europe, "to support the World Day against the Death Penalty by declaring 10 October, as from 2007, a European Day against the Death Penalty." A total 88 countries have completely abolished capital punishment and 11 have ended the death penalty for all but exceptional crimes such as war crimes, according to top campaign group Amnesty International.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/27/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Also today, Corleone Imports & Exports[tm] offered the public access to their 'executive' services for those who feel that the outrage and terror visited upon them by the less savory elements of society are not being effectively addressed by the bureaucracy. Why put up with higher taxes when other services are there at a fraction of the cost and deliver real results.
#3
The EU needs to go piss up a rope with its sanctimonious bullshit. They're being voluntarily overthrown by Muslim terrorists but still have time to moralize about the exact measures they need to curb their problem.
Some interesting polling results in recent days. For example:
* According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, 61% of Americans oppose denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq, and opposition is up from 58% in February. (3/23-25, 2007).
* A Bloomberg poll reveals 61% of Americans believe withholding funding for the war is a bad idea, while only 28% believe it is a good idea (3/3-11, 2007).
* A recent Public Opinion Strategies (POS) poll found that 56% of registered voters favor fully funding the war in Iraq, with more voters strongly favoring funding (40%) than totally opposing it (38%); (3/25-27, 2007).
* POS found also that a majority of voters (54%) oppose the Democrats imposing a reduction in troops below the level military commanders requested (3/25-27, 2007).
* A separate POS poll finds 57% of voters support staying in Iraq until the job is finished and the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people. And 59% of voters say pulling out of Iraq immediately would do more to harm Americas reputation in the world than staying until order is restored (35%); (2/5-7, 2007).
* A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll show 69% of American voters trust military commanders more than members of Congress (18%) to decide when United States troops should leave Iraq. This includes 52% of Democrats, 69% of Independents and 88% of Republicans (3/27-28, 2007).
* According to a recent Pew Research survey, only 17% of Americans want an immediate withdrawal of troops (4/18-22, 2007). That same poll found a plurality of adults (45%) believe a terrorist attack against the United States is more likely if we withdraw our troops from Iraq while the country remains unstable
* Should a date for withdrawal be set, 70% of American believe it is likely that insurgents will increase their attacks in Iraq starting on that day. This is supported by 85% of Republicans, 71% of Independents and 60% of Democrats. (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 4/17-18, 2007).
* An LA Times/Bloomberg polls reveals that 50% of Americans say setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq hurts the troops, while only 27% believe it helps the troops (4/5-9, 2007).
Emphasis added. None of this can possibly be good news for Searchlight Harry Reid.
#2
As long as Harry has the MSM in his back pocket this poll will never see the light of day, except here on Rantburg and other blogs. The most revealing of all the numbers is 69% trust the military commanders more than MoC 18% to decide strategy in Iraq. But that is the number the talking heads need to shout to the rafters.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
04/27/2007 16:14 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The surrendercrats are only shooting themselves in the foot.
#4
They will not attack until after the next President is inagurated.
And then only if he is a Democrat. A first training instruction, as it were.
They will most likely lay off if a Republican is elected. A death by a thousand cuts is a much more logical and safer strategy from their point of view.
In either case I am not too worried about the immediate future. Long term .... I'm glad I am not young anymore. I think the future is going to suck.
Posted by: kelly ||
04/27/2007 16:24 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Oh, and one other thing of interest:
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
Occasionally someone hits the nail straight on the head! Following is the winning entry from an annual contest calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term.
This year's term: Political Correctness.
"Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by delusional,
illogical, liberal minority, and rapidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a
turd by the clean end"
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
04/27/2007 16:34 Comments ||
Top||
#6
How about funding only for the military mission? Get rid of all the pork attached to the bill.
#8
WND.com > TERRORISTS ECSTATIC OVER DEM DEBATE - Paleos view debate as Hillary + other candidiates competing as to whom will withdraw from the ME + whom are guilty of suppor the Iraq invasion. Also holds debate as MOMENT OF GLORY for REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENTS IN THE ARAB WORLD AND FOR IRAQ RESISTANCE GROUPS. A DEM POTUS IN 2008 may be seen by many Muslims espec islamist Radicals + aligned Xtremists as a sign that the Amer people ARE GETTING TIRED.
Also in WND > JOSEPH FARAH > WHY DEMOCRACY DOESN'T WORK. Amers, personally = politically, love Govt-subsidized Welfarism too much. Would rather see USA dead than give up their freebies.
Appears Rudy has struck a nerve...
WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidates on Wednesday rebuked Republican rival Rudy Giuliani for suggesting that the United States could face another major terrorist attack if a Democrat is elected in 2008. The former New York mayor did not back down.
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama said Giuliani, who was in office on Sept. 11, 2001, should not be making the terrorist threat into "the punchline of another political attack." Were you standing under those buildings when they came down, Barak? Unlike yourself, I don't think Guiliani considers terrorism a "punchline".
"Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low and I believe Americans are ready to reject those kind of politics," Obama said in a statement. It says so right here in my talking points cliche book that my staff received from the DNC...
Former North Carolina Sen.John Edwards said Giuliani knows better than to suggest there is a "superior Republican way to fight terrorism." What do you suggest, Johnny? Spray Osama in the eyes with hairspray? Oooooh, I'll bet that would really sting...
Sen.Hillary Rodham Clinton said protecting the country from terrorism "shouldn't be a political football." Unless, of course, she's the one making it one...
"It should be a solemn responsibility that all of us pledge to fulfill regardless of what party we're in," she said when asked about her fellow New Yorker's comment at a Capitol Hill news conference. ...or at least make it look like it.
Giuliani stood by his comments Wednesday, saying Democrats don't understand the threat posed by terrorists."They do not seem to get the fact that there are people, terrorists in this world, really dangerous people that want to come here and kill us," Giuliani said on "The Sean Hannity Show," according to a transcript distributed by his campaign. "They want to take us back to not being as alert which to me will just extend this war much, much longer." He was defending his remark Tuesday in New Hampshire, where he echoed sentiments expressed by other Republicans in election time. The former mayor said if a Democrat is elected, "it sounds to me like we're going on defense. We're going to wave the white flag there." But, he said, if a Republican wins, "we will remain on offense" trying to anticipate what the terrorists are going to do and "trying to stop them before they do it."
GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney told reporters in Salem, N.H., Wednesday night that he agrees with Giuliani. "There's no question in my mind that Republican values ... keep America safer," Romney said.
"America's mayor should know that when it comes to 9-11 and fighting terrorists, America is united," Obama said. "We know we can win this war based on shared purpose, not the same divisive politics that question your patriotism if you dare to question failed policies that have made us less secure." They want another hit here so bad before 2008 that they can taste it. How many dead Americans on US soil do you think they'd be willing to accept for maybe 10 percentage points in the polls?
Edwards, the 2004 vice presidential nominee making a second run for the White House, said it's wrong to suggest Republicans are better at fighting terror. "The current Republican administration led us into a war in Iraq that has made us less safe and undermined the fight against al-Qaida," Edwards said in a statement. "If that's the Republican way to fight terror, Giuliani should know that the American people are looking for a better plan." So what is it, pretty boy? Care to let us in on it? Of course you don't. Cuz you don't have one.
Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, a Democratic presidential candidate, said Republican candidates are continuing "the smear tactics and fearmongering of the current administration. Americans want real solutions to the many problems our nation faces, not divisive and false rhetoric," Dodd said in a statement. "We need a president who has the experience and ability to unite America, move us forward and make us safer together, and that means leading with hope, not fear." Well, I guess that leaves him out then. He would be one of my two picks for the Waitress Sandwich Olympics though...
The Democratic National Committee accused Giuliani of failing to prepare for the World Trade Center attacks, among other criticisms of his record. "So far Rudy's rhetoric sounds like more of the same failed policies, incompetence and arrogance we've had to suffer for the past six years," said DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney. Quick question, Karen... Have we been hit again yet? A short answer will suffice.
New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who succeeded Giuliani and also is a potential presidential candidate, said he doesn't see terrorism as a partisan issue."There are some people I think who would do a better job fighting terrorism than others, but I don't think there's any party affiliations, no partisanship in that," Bloomberg said. Why don't you stick to protecting the nation from the evils of trans fats, okay, Mike?
#1
Democratic presidential candidates on Wednesday rebuked Republican rival Rudy Giuliani for suggesting that the United States could face another major terrorist attack if a Democrat is elected in 2008.
Giuliani stood by his comments Wednesday, saying Democrats don't understand the threat posed by terrorists. "They do not seem to get the fact that there are people, terrorists in this world, really dangerous people that want to come here and kill us, They want to take us back to not being as alert which to me will just extend this war much, much longer."
Giuliani gets it.
Obama said. "We know we can win this war based on shared purpose, not the same divisive politics that question your patriotism if you dare to question failed policies that have made us less secure."
Do tell. Exactly what sort of shared purpose is there with Islam, whose sole objective is world domination? Obama displays such a profound lack of comprehension that he has automatically disqualified himself from the presidency. I can only hope he continues to exhibit this sort of lunacy and thereby forfeit all chance of being elected.
The democrats, each and every one of them, continue to prove that they have not a single damn clue in how to fight Islam.
#2
reading a blog yesterday ( Captain's Quarters?) that cut these fools down fairly quickly; seems each and every one mis-quoted Rudy. too bad however that the MSM won't pick that up and share with Mr and Mrs Six-Pack
#3
Dems reacted to the NY Times misinterpretation of Guilliani's statements by basically saying and confirming exactly what he said. They'd play defense.
#6
Raj, you see, as a Republican mayor of New York city, Rudy was responsible for stopping the attacks. (Except for the part that George Bush was also responsible.) So, we need to be reminded that it was Rudy's fault...
#8
During the debate, moderator Brian Williams of NBC News brought up Giulianis comment, and the candidates quickly pronounced it a myth. But Williams then turned to Sen. Barack Obama, second in the polls but gaining fast on the frontrunner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. If, God forbid, a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight, we learned that two American cities had been hit simultaneously by terrorists, Williams said, and we further learned beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of al Qaeda, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?
The question was specifically focused on a military response, but Obama didnt talk about the military, or any use of force at all. Well, first thing wed have to do is make sure that weve got an effective emergency response, something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans, Obama said. And I think that we have to review how we operate in the event of not only a natural disaster, but also a terrorist attack.
The second thing, Obama continued, is to make sure that weve got good intelligence, A, to find out that we dont have other threats and attacks potentially out there; and B, to find out do we have any intelligence on who might have carried it out so that we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network.
The reference to some action might be interpreted as an endorsement of the use of force, but in the rest of his response, Obama softened even that notion. But what we cant do is then alienate the world community based on faulty intelligence, based on bluster and bombast, he said. Instead, the next thing we would have to do, in addition to talking to the American people, is making sure that we are talking to the international community. Because as has already been stated, were not going to defeat terrorists on our own. Weve got to strengthen our intelligence relationships with them, and theyve got to feel a stake in our security by recognizing that we have mutual security interests at stake.
That was it. Obamas answer to a question of how, as commander-in-chief, he would change Americas military stance in response to an attack by al Qaeda did not involve using the military.
Williams then turned to former Sen. John Edwards, the strong third in the Democratic race. Senator Edwards, same question: God forbid, two simultaneous attacks tonight, we knew it was al Qaeda. What would you change about U.S. military stance overseas?
Well, the first thing I would do is be certain I knew who was responsible, and I would act swiftly and strongly to hold them responsible for that, Edwards said. The second thing I would do, and some of these have been mentioned already, is find out how that this happened without our intelligence operations finding out that it was in a planning stage.
Edwards offered nothing on how the United States might strike back. How did they get through what we all recognize is a fairly porous homeland security system that we have in this country that has not been built the way it needed to be built? he continued. You know, did the weapons that created this these two simultaneous strikes come through our ports? Were they in one of the containers that have not been checked? How did these weapons get here? And how do we stop this from happening again? I believe and this goes to the question you asked earlier, just a few minutes ago global war on terror. I think there are dangerous people and dangerous leaders in the world that America must deal with and deal with strongly, but we have more tools available to us than bombs. And America needs to use the tools that are available to them so that these people who are sitting on the fence, who terrorists are trying to recruit, the next generation, get pushed to our side, not to the other side. Weve had no long-term strategy, and we need one, and I will provide one.
Just as with Obama, there was nothing on a military response: One question, two leading candidates, and no explicit promise that either man would use military force in the event of not one but two more attacks on the United States by al Qaeda. It was only when Williams directed the same question to the Democratic frontrunner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, that the audience heard a suggestion that the United States might actually take military action if attacked. I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate, Clinton said. If we are attacked and we can determine who was behind that attack, and if there were nations that supported or gave material aid to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond.
Congrats, boys. Right outta the box, Hillary comes out sounding like she's got more balls then the two of you combined.
#9
The comments of Hillary + Obama this AM as shown on both CNN + FOX all but officially affirms the correctness = broad parameters of Dubya's policies - IMO the only thing Hillary + Obama did not say THAT COULD BE INTERPRETED AS PRIMA FACIE SUPPOR FOR DUBYA = GOP was that they would send US milfors into the ME in direct response to any Terror attack agz America. THE GOOD NEWS FOR THE DEMS IS THAT BOTH OF THE ABOVE'S COMMENTS COULD ALSO BE INTERPRETED AS SUPPOR FOR INCREASED UNIVERSAL GOVT-ISM, AKA SOCIALISM + "REGULATION".
In a bold wartime challenge to President Bush, the Democratic-controlled Congress cleared legislation Thursday to begin withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later. The White House dismissed the legislation as "dead before arrival."
The 51-46 Senate vote was largely along party lines, and like House passage a day earlier it underscored that the war's congressional opponents are far short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a Bush veto.
Democrats marked Thursday's final passage with a news conference during which they repeatedly urged Bush to reconsider his veto threat. "This bill for the first time gives the president of the United States an exit strategy" from Iraq, said Rep. David Obey (news, bio, voting record) of Wisconsin.
The legislation is "in keeping with what the American people want," added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/27/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
These people have NO IDEA what the American people want! Where in blazes have we come up with such a bunch of spineless self serving jackasses? Smith of Oregon is first in my current list of abominations in the Senate. How does one go about getting rid of a worthless SOB like that? I would vote for the dogcatcher over him next time!
Posted by: Dave S ||
04/27/2007 0:55 Comments ||
Top||
#2
CHIN MIL FORUM > Poster "CPUSA" [Commie Party of USA] > FREEDOM ROAD SOCIALIST ORGANIZATION article > THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL AND THE STRUGGLE FOR A CONSENT ON AFRICAN AMERICAN NATIONAL QUORUM [redux from May 2006]. Legal iff not separate + parallel African American and other ethnic-based States within Amerikkka. ["Race-based Amer SHARIA" Law???] ALSO, BOLIVIA AND LATIN AMERICAS: NEW SPACES FOR THE COMMUNIST PARTY artiiikkkle.
#3
Oh yes..a "bold move". That could just as easily read "traitorous" It's not bold at all, for they know well that there will be no price to pay for their treason. Thatis the fault of the Repubs. So now, we are left with a political party that has shredded the Constitution and will continue to do so in the pursuit of power, and another party that is too busy trying to hold on to positions of power to defend the Constitution. That leaves us. What is our tipping point? When do we finally gather up the pitchforks and torches and march to the city square to reclaim what has been taken from us? It's not going to happen any other way, as I see it. Our govt. is seriously broken.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
04/27/2007 3:05 Comments ||
Top||
#4
This war would have been wrapped up a long time ago if it were not for the main stream media and the donks. Spineless traitors all of them.
Ignoring President George W Bush's staunch vow of a veto, the US House of Representatives on Wednesday approved a war funding bill that includes a timetable for pulling US troops out of Iraq. Lawmakers paid little heed to the visiting top army general in Iraq, David Petraeus, who during a closed-door session earlier in the day championed the troop "surge" strategy and appealed for time so it could show results.
The narrow 218-208 vote by the Democratic-majority House links release of 124 billion dollars in military spending for Iraq and Afghanistan to a schedule for the pullout of American troops, beginning as early as October.
The bill next faces a vote in the Senate, expected on Thursday, when it is likely to be approved. Then it heads to Bush, who has repeatedly vowed to block it. "Tonight, the House of Representatives voted for failure in Iraq," said a statement by White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. "Democrats have forced this process to continue for too long. The president calls on the Senate to quickly pass this legislation so the president can veto it."
Bush would then "work with the Congressional leadership on a clean bill that funds our troops while respecting the judgment of our military commanders and helping ensure the safety of the American people," Perino said.
Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi played up the thousands of casualties endured by US troops and the "scores of thousands" of Iraqi lives lost in the war, which she added would "cost well over a trillion dollars if it ended today."
"The sacrifices borne by our troops and their families demand more than the blank checks the president is asking for, for a war without end," she said. She urged Bush "to sign the bill so that we can focus on winning the war against terrorism, which is the real threat to the American people."
Democrats were also boosted by the release of a poll that showed a majority of Americans side with them on the issue and believe victory in Iraq is no longer possible. According to the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 56 percent said they agreed with setting a deadline for troop withdrawal, while 37 percent sided with Bush in opposing the move.
The bill provides more cash than the administration sought to bankroll operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but says US troops are to start withdrawing from Iraq in October, with a non-binding target of completing the pullout by March 31.
Petraeus urged lawmakers to withhold judgment on the latest US drive for success in Iraq despite a spike in violence including in Diyala on Monday where nine US troops were killed. He spoke of nearly "breathtaking" progress in parts of Iraq since the US military began its "surge" of troops to secure the country. "We are ahead, I think, with respect ... to the reduction of sectarian murders in Baghdad," he told reporters, after meeting with representatives and senators in Congress. "Progress in Anbar is almost something that's breathtaking," he added, referring to the western Sunni province hit hard by a violent insurgency.
Republican Duncan Hunter, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, said Petraeus "reminded us... this is a test of wills."
Ahead of the promised presidential veto both sides are scrambling to squeeze the maximum political mileage out of the debate. Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday that "timetable legislation ... would guarantee defeat" and blasted Democratic Senate majority leader Harry Reid for "defeatism" after Reid said the war in Iraq was "lost."
Hunter urged Reid to resign over the controversial comments, saying lawmakers should give the Iraq reinforcement plan time to show results.
No one doubts that Congress will disburse the funds the Pentagon is requesting -- but on terms that remain very much up in the air. The Democrats could release funds one small piece at a time to keep the Iraq debate centre-stage, or impose targets forcing the administration to justify its claims of progress.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/27/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Democrats were also boosted by the release of a poll that showed a majority of Americans side with them on the issue and believe victory in Iraq is no longer possible. According to the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 56 percent said they agreed with setting a deadline for troop withdrawal, while 37 percent sided with Bush in opposing the move.
Depends on your polls. How about these, which clearly state the opposite:
A separate POS poll finds 57% of voters support staying in Iraq until the job is finished and the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people. And 59% of voters say pulling out of Iraq immediately would do more to harm Americas reputation in the world than staying until order is restored (35%)
The US Congress' vote to push for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq was wrong and will bring comfort to Al-Qaeda insurgents, Australian Prime Minister John Howard said Friday. Howard, a staunch Bush supporter who has also committed troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, said the vote by the US Congress was "probably not helpful to the general situation in Iraq."
"I think it is wrong, and I don't think it is doing anything other than giving great comfort and encouragement to Al-Qaeda and the insurgency in Iraq," Howard said. "They are looking at all this, they read newspapers, they see it on television and they say, 'The American domestic resolve is weakening, therefore we should maintain our resolve.' If there is a perception of an America defeat in Iraq, that will leave the whole of the Middle East in great turmoil and will be an enormous victory for terrorism."
I have to wonder: of the damage that would result from an American withdrawal from Iraq, how much has already been caused by four solid years of the Democrats' anti-war yammering and the MSM's nonstop gloom-and-doom, all-is-lost, it's-Vietnam-all-over-again propaganda?
The U.S. Congress is our enemies' most steadfast ally.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/27/2007 06:02 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
My take FWIIW, is Afghanistan is lost. Nato and the Euros don't have the stomach for it and its not strategic for the USA. Maybe India will come in and fill the gap.
Iraq is already won, it just remains to be seen which of the ethnic groups comes out dominant where and what (quasi-federal) accomodation results.
Iraq aint Vietnam. But I secretly pray Iran and Syria think it is.
#2
"Iraq is already won, it just remains to be seen which of the ethnic groups comes out dominant where and what (quasi-federal) accomodation results."
I'm sorry, but I just can't make sense of that statement. What do you mean, "already won"?
I can certainly understand that we can win-- and even win without a great deal of difficulty-- provided only that we don't give up the fight as our Democrats seem hell-bent on doing.
But "already won"? 'Fraid not.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/27/2007 8:30 Comments ||
Top||
#3
yeah, uh-huh...just waiting for the Dread Summer Offensive, Phil? Jeesh
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/27/2007 8:32 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"...how much [damage] has already been caused by four solid years of the Democrats' anti-war yammering and the MSM's nonstop gloom-and-doom...:
#6
Dave D., it's not just Dem yammering and media distortion the last 4 years - it's been the administration's body English and tone, at least from early 2005. As I've whined/ranted before, we adopted a "can't wait to get outta here" posture starting at least by March of that year (to the gasps and shaking heads of yours truly and many others, in and out of uniform, in the palace).
Casey's and Khalilzad's doomed rapid handover/99% political solution, combined with the clear signals that we were racing to disengage, probably as much or more damage. Not worth trying to measure it - clearly the behavior of most Dems and most media has been contemptible, or worse, for the most part.
With all due respect, on balance it's quite disastrous to chant the incantation about there being "no military solutions" in Iraq, as Petraeus does, as Casey and Chiarelli and even the MEF commander did. The reality is that any solution/success WILL be based primarily and unavoidably on MILITARY results (i.e., security, detained/killed enemy, control) as a prerequisite.
The deck of the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay in September 1945 was a political solution, a diplomatic resolution, based entirely on military outcomes. In Iraq, as has been shown repeatedly for several years now, and in accord with common sense and the place's history, things will be typical, but even more so: the conflict will end when there are winners and losers, and esp. when the losers accept their defeat and calculate the costs of spoiling the new order to outweigh the potential benefits of doing so. Oh - and when many, many of the losers are DEAD.
No amount of grad school theory or political finesse or deal-making will go anywhere without the predicates for such deals, which are mostly security OUTCOMES on the ground.
These outcomes are available given the commitment and the realization that they are what matters. The former seems to have always been lacking, the latter has been either dimly perceived or the lack of resources has compelled the military and administration implementers into attempting to achieve the impossible with inadequate means and fancy footwork.
#7
Iraq is won and we just don't know it yet. Everything is moving in the right direction. Sunni's are taking on Al Queda now and Sadr has been marginalized. As more provinces quiet down and are turned over the US can act as firemen to put down threats rather than police men patroling the streets. Then we'll become border guards. Hopefully it'll happen by the next election, or at least be visible enough that things are going well by then.
Afghanistan is won. I'm not sure where phil_b negativity came from.
Number 1: BIG NO. 1 are the traitors in the US congress.
Number 2: Iran, and as a footnote, Syria.
I consider the Dems to be just as much an enemy to the WoT as Iran and Al Q, because they are enablers.
We can deal with Iran. They need some tipping in critical nodes. That is doable. We have the people and the minds to do that.
The toughest nut to crack are the Dems in Congress. That is the most pressing problem that we have. So, how will the dems be dealt with so they feel the heat and get the f*ck out of the way? The Bush Administration absolutely SUCKS on this area. For people that are supposedly highly educated, they cannot write and communicate with beans. What the hell is wrong with them?????
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
04/27/2007 15:35 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Worth beans, not with beans. Ima too pi$$ed off to even preview right.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
04/27/2007 15:36 Comments ||
Top||
#10
"Dave D., it's not just Dem yammering and media distortion the last 4 years - it's been the administration's body English and tone, at least from early 2005. As I've whined/ranted before, we adopted a "can't wait to get outta here" posture starting at least by March of that year (to the gasps and shaking heads of yours truly and many others, in and out of uniform, in the palace)."
Good point. I'd forgotten until you brought it up, but I do remember wincing the first time I heard Bush say we're going to bring the troops home "as soon as possible", or words to that effect. I don't know whether he actually meant it then-- that is, that one of our objectives was to leave-- but he's since acquiesced to the Democrats' view of bringing the troops home as somehow being "A Good Thing".
We've still got troops stationed in Japan and Germany 60+ years after WWII ended, and in Korea more than 50 years after the Armistice-- and those places don't even have any oil to secure. One of the objectives I'd always assumed we were working toward, right from the start of OIF, was to get troops over there and keep them there-- not only for their proximity to the Middle East's oil, but for easy access, should it be needed, to the three prime sources of Islamic trouble: Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
So hearing that the Bush administration wanted to bring them home, was a disappointment.
This gets added to my "Bush's Blunders" list. It's getting pretty long...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/27/2007 17:29 Comments ||
Top||
(AKI) - Pakistan's secret services are not aiding the Taliban or seeking to weaken the Afghan government led by president Hamid Karzai: on the contrary, Pakistan "wants a strong and democratic Afghanistan," Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf told Spanish daily El Pais in a wide-ranging interview. Osama bin Laden and [Taliban leader] Mullah Omar are probably hiding in Afghanistan. I doubt they have ever entered Pakistan, but it's impossible to be sure," Musharraf stated. Pakistan is considered by many to be a bastion for Islamist terrorism - a claim Musharraf has steadfastly denied.
The Pakistani leader had condemnation for Karzai "and those like him who do nothing to fight terrorism and cricitise Pakistan, which has deployed 80,000 soldiers along the 2,600 kilometre long border with Afghanistan." Pakistan "does not want to govern Afghanistan or turn it into a protectorate," Musharraf underlined.
Turning to the conflict wracked Iraq, Musharraf told El Pais he saw no alternative to negotiation. A move towards this would be a conference attended by Iraq's neighbours Iran and Syria. Another prerequisite for peace in Iraq is the "transfer of security to the Iraqis themselves," and a less visible US troop presence, Musharraf said.
He did not rule out US intervention in Iran if the stand-off over its uranium enrichment programme continues. "Such an event would have an impact on everyone, including Pakistan," Musharraf warned. "While recognising the strategic value of our country's decades-long alliance with the US, most Pakistanis are anti-American and this sentiment would intensify in such a scenario," he said.
Musharraf, who is currently on his first official visit to Spain, was due on Thursday to give a keynote speech on dialogue and cooperation between the Muslim and Western worlds organised by the newly formed Casa Arabe which bring Spain and the Arab/Muslim world closer together. There are believed to be around one million Muslims living in Spain.
Musharaff's visit to Spain is the first leg of a week-long European tour to that will take in Poland, Spain, Bosnia Herzegovina and Turkey.
Amid heightened security, Musharraf on Wednesday visited the southern city of Cordoba's cathedral-mosque but did not pray inside the building. Although Muslims in Spain have asked to be allowed to pray there, Spain's Catholic Church has turned down their request on the grounds that joint use of consecrated places of worship would "generate confusion" and lead to "religious indifference."
The Cordoba mosque - a UNESCO world heritage site - was turned into a Catholic cathedral in the 13th Century after the city was conquered by King Ferdinand III in the war to drive the North African Moors from the Iberian peninsula. Cordoba was the capital of 'al-Andalus' or the area of southern Spain under Arab rule from the eighth to the 15th century AD.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/27/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Even Pelosi doesn't emit this much BS in a single sitting.
(AKI) - The leader of Pakistan's ruling party, the Pakistan Muslim League (Quaid-e-Azam), has said that the standoff between the government and the radical Islamabad mosque, Lal Masjid (Red Mosque), has been resolved amicably. In an interview with Pakistani television channel Geo TV, PML-Q chief Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain the administration at Lal Masjid had agreed to discontinue their self-proclaimed Sharia or Islamic court while the female students at the affiliated madrassa or Islamic seminary, Jamia Hafsa, will continue to occupy the children's library in the capital until the reconstruction of mosques that had been torn down for being unauthorised. I think the Frenchies look at the Paks and roll their eyes at the way they surrender to the turbans at the least excuse.
In the interview, Shujaat said that Pakistani prime minister Shaukat Aziz had told him to resolve the dispute and that he had succeeded in getting the clerics of the Lal Masjid, Maulana Abdul Aziz and Maulana Abdul Rashid Ghazi, to agree to nine out of ten points. The clerics, who are also brothers, agreed to remove extremist signs from Jamia Hafsa madrassa and the suspension of the self-established Sharia court, which they had insisted was necesssary to curb "vulgar" activities. They also agreement that the men armed with sticks around the mosque and madrassa would be displaced and that only students would come to the madrassa to study. At the same time, they also agreed that the blocked roads leading to the mosque and the madrassa would be opened.
Maulana Abdul Aziz said that it had been decided that the demolished mosques would be rebuilt in first phase while Sharia would be imposed in the second phase.
Shujaat also said that the female students however had decided to keep the children's library in Islamabad under their control until the mosques, that had been demolished, were rebuilt. He said that it was now up to the authorities in Islamabad to begin the reconstruction of the mosques as soon as possible.
Also interviewed by Geo TV, was the main cleric of Lal Masjid, Maulana Abdul Aziz, who said that there was an agreement reached and that it had been decided during the talks with Shujaat that the demolished mosques would be rebuilt in first phase while Sharia or Islamic law would be imposed in the country in the second phase.
The clerics went on to say that the madrassa students would continue to occupy the library until the matter is resolved. However he said that the movements of the students would not be blocked.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/27/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
Facts do not support the claim that the U.S. military has abandoned the training of the Iraqi Security Forces
In the conventional template of reporting on Iraq, glossy, controversial headlines often fail to reflect the reality of the situation on the ground. Take the latest reporting by McClatchy Newspapers' Nancy A. Youssef concerning the purported shift of U.S. military power away from training Iraqi Security Forces and back toward stability operations. The Detroit Free Press titles the article "U.S. plan backs off training of Iraqis," with a subtitle of "Policy shift entrusts security to American troop buildup." The Kansas City Star leads with "In a reversal, U.S. reliance on Iraqi army is fading," and subtitles with "Training troops is no longer a priority, changing the role of American forces." Forget the fact that Youssef provides no evidence within the article to back up such bold assertions. She relies on vague or nonexistent quotes from unnamed Pentagon and Washington officials, as well as Defense Secretary Robert Gates' failure to mention training last Thursday, to support her unfounded claim. In fact, many of the named officials in her article refute her assertion.
The fact is that the U.S. and Iraqi government continue to push the training of additional Iraqi combat and support troops, and are funding a dramatic growth in the capabilities in the Iraqi Security Forces. The Congress' failure to pass the Fiscal Year 2007 (FY07) Supplemental Budget is the only thing holding up the growth and training of the Iraqi military. In the FY07 budget, Congress has inserted the demand for a date for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, a demand which has prompted President Bush to insist he will veto the legislation.
The decrease in the training of the Iraqi Security Forces Youssef is detecting is the first effect of delaying the FY07 supplemental budget. The money to train the Iraqi units has dried up. While about 75 percent of the expansion of the Iraqi Security Forces is funded by the Iraqi government, this money is focused on equipping and training new combat units, including upgrading units to armored and mechanized divisions. The funds to train and equip over 33,000 Iraqi Army logistics, sustainment, maintenance, and support personnel comes from the U.S. FY07 supplemental budget.
Currently, the Iraqi Army has about 13,000 support personnel to sustain a 138,000 man force. The expansion of support personnel by 33,000 troops by the end of 2007 would provide the bare minimum support necessary for independent operations. The money to train the support units cannot be legally reappropriated from U.S. budgets to fund a foreign military equipment/training program, so the programs has stopped. This weakness in current Iraqi Security Forces structure is the focus of U.S. training in the "Year of Logistics."
It is highly unusual for U.S. generals to weigh in on disputes between the executive and legislative branches. The cut in funding for the training programming has caused U.S. generals to mention the situation no less than four times since the delay in the FY07 Supplemental Budget became a critical issue. "At the current moment, because of this lack of funding, MNSTC-I is unable to continue at the pace they were in the developmental process of the Iraqi security forces," Major General William Caldwell said in a recent press briefing. "It is starting to have some impact today, and will only have more of an impact over time."
Youssef's article also fails to note some very real and significant changes which are occurring with the structure and development of the Iraqi Army. The Army is expanding from 10 to 12 divisions. The current Iraqi Army has nine light infantry divisions and one mechanized division. This will expand to 12 divisions, with one armored division and two additional mechanized divisions, which will significantly increase the Army's mobility and striking power. To augment these new heavy divisions and to accelerate the motorization of the light infantry divisions, the Iraqi government is in the process of purchasing somewhere between 600 to 800 U.S. made M60 tanks and over 4,000 assorted armored personnel carriers.
In order to man these divisions, the Iraqi Army is using existing units as incubators. The 4th Iraqi Army Division is creating a 4th Brigade and the 7th Division is creating a 4th Brigade as well, both will help form the nucleus of a new Iraqi division. Over 6,000 recruits are being raised in the Kirkuk region--they will likely form the nucleus of the 11th Division, and another 5,000 troops are being raised in Basra.
Unfortunately, the expansion of the Iraqi Army by two divisions will force the service to poach trained cadres from existing units. This will result in a short term decrease in combat effectiveness for the cannibalized units, causing some to fall from an "in the lead" status to a lower level that requires Coalition partnering until they can increase their skill sets. When this happens, it will undoubtedly will be used to show the Iraqi Army is failing in its mission to take over security.
The U.S. military and Iraqi Ministry of Defense continue to raise troops and are in the process of an intensive training Program. Brigadier General Terry Wolff, the commander of the Military Assistant Training Team, highlighted this in a briefing in early March. "And you asked about replenishing the forces that were here as part of Baghdad security. Well, many of the young soldiers are going through basic training right now, and there are about 7,000 that are in basic training... Additionally, there are three training battalions in this force, and the training battalions are putting and are preparing soldiers for those units I described in the prime minister's initiative... So all total, about 15,000 soldiers training. You know, we've been as low as 6,000 at different cycles, based on whether we've got basic training running heavily or not, up to 15,000 is the highest I've seen.
The training isn't stopping with the foot soldiers, mechanized troops and supply and logistics soldiers. Multinational Forces Iraq established the 370th Air Expeditionary Advisory Group and Squadron at the New Al Muthana Air Base on April 22. The 370th Air Expeditionary Advisory Group is training the nucleus of the nascent Iraqi Air Force. And an Iraqi Military Intelligence Academy has recently been established to "prepare Iraqi security force graduates for counter-insurgency tactical and urban military intelligence operations."
Unlike what some would claim, training for the Iraqi Security Forces could only be higher if the FY07 supplemental budget submitted in February was not delayed for political reasons. The proponents of this delay claim that they want to bring the troops home sooner but, the delay in standing up their replacements (the Iraqi Security Forces) caused by Congress' actions has had the opposite effect of delaying the eventual reductions and the withdrawal of U.S. forces.
To put it bluntly, the facts do not support Nancy Youssef's highly provocative and patently false claim that the U.S. military has abandoned the training of the Iraqi Security Forces in order to fight al Qaeda and the insurgency. We've established the Iraqi Security Forces Order of Battle to document the progress and setbacks in the development of the Iraqi Army, police and other services, and there are no indications the training has been curtailed, other than what is being restricted by the U.S. Congress' failure to pass the supplemental funding bill. Youssef should do her homework before making such provocative and inaccurate statements.
#1
Found out elsewhere that the US is selling a number of M198 155mm howitzers to the Iraqis. Used in a purely defensive mode, they can use Target Reference Points on a map like the Russians did, since their primary target would be the Iranians or Syrians.
#2
The IA will take many more years of both training and equipment additions before they can even begin to consider taking on any of thier nations either Syria or Iran.
The primary goal with the IA is for them to take over the security operations so we can fall draw down and back into a rapid reaction support force and of course like S. Korea or Japan or Germany the garantee to both the neighbors and internal coups don't go there.
#3
I disagree. We have given them some incredible tools that nobody else in the region except Israel has. For example, the biggest organic unit that anyone can field in the region is the separate brigade. Their divisions and Corps are paper units only.
However, we have organized and trained the Iraqis with division level operations, which about triples the effective strength of their units. It is priceless training that distinguishes the best armies.
And this training was done under the guidance of the US Army and Marine Corps, which imparts an incredible cohesion to a unit. Virtually their entire army has real combat experience, too, and they are using western, not Russian tactics.
If the US pulled out right now, I would expect the Iraqi army to be able to apply hurt to the Iranians way beyond anything the Iranians could imagine.
The Iranians might be numerically superior, but their army is young, inexperienced, led by fools and political appointees loyal to the Mullahs, and for them to attack Iraq would be walking into the valley of the shadow of death.
An Iraqi government spokesman criticized the U.S. Senate vote to begin withdrawing U.S. troops by Oct. 1. "We see some negative signs in the decision because it sends wrong signals to some sides that might think of alternatives to the political process," Ali al-Dabbagh told The Associated Press.
He spoke after the Senate passed legislation Thursday that would require the start of troop withdrawals from Iraq by Oct. 1. The House passed the same bill a day earlier, and President Bush has promised a veto.
The legislation is the first binding challenge on the war that Democrats have managed to send to Bush since they reclaimed control of both houses of Congress in January. "Coalition forces gave lots of sacrifices and they should continue their mission, which is building Iraqi security forces to take over," al-Dabbagh said. "We see (it) as a loss of four years of sacrifices."
Posted by: Fred ||
04/27/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
The European Union will not transfer funds directly to the Palestinian Authority until it recognizes Israel, renounces violence and respects previously signed agreements, Israel Radio reported overnight Thursday. The EU, Louis Michel, the commissioner for development and humanitarian aid told reporters in Tel Aviv, will continue to provide aid to the Palestinians by transferring money to sources not affiliated to the Authority. Officials estimate that the Palestinians will receive approximately 34 million US dollars every month. Michel had met earlier Thursday with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/27/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
So they won't give aid to the "Authority", but they will give aid -- lots of it -- to the individuals who happen to work for the authority administering things. Goody.
#5
"The EU, Louis Michel, the commissioner for development and humanitarian aid told reporters in Tel Aviv, will continue to provide aid to the Palestinians by transferring money to sources not affiliated to the Authority."
Money if fungible. With the negligible level of oversight over how it is spent there we can be sure it will find its way into the pockets of those we should never give a nickel to.
"The Palestinians are using the security fence as an excuse to continue their violent attacks, but from Israel's point of view, the fence saves lives and does not diminish the possibility of creating a Palestinian state, quite the opposite," said Foreign Minister Tzipi on Thursday.
Livni made the remarks after meeting Louis Michel, the European Union commissioner for development and humanitarian aid.
The foreign minister went on to say that any portrayal of terrorists as freedom fighters must be avoided. "Israel shares European values and expects Europe to fairly judge others according to the attributes prevalent there," she said, adding that the Gaza Strip could have flourished following the disengagement but instead it was turned into a "nest of terror" by Palestinians. "There is no excuse for what is happening is Gaza or for the Kassam fire," Livni exclaimed.
Earlier Thursday, a top UN refugee official urged the European Union to do more to alleviate the crisis in the Palestinian territories caused by international sanctions and a collapsing economy.
Karen AbuZayd, commissioner general for UN Relief and Works Agency, said her agency urgently needed US$246 million in emergency funding to continue providing education, health care, social services and aid to 4.4 million Palestinian refugees living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan.
AbuZayd cited the recent Arab League peace initiative and formation of a Palestinian Authority national unity government including the Hamas and Fatah as positive signs which required some "reward" from the international community.
Since Hamas won the Palestinian election in 2006, the international community has bypassed the government and paid hundreds of millions of dollars in social assistance through the so-called Temporary International Mechanism.
The principles set out by the "Quartet" of Middle East peacemakers - the United Nations, EU, Russia and the United States - include accepting the right of Israel to exist, renouncing violence and accepting previous Palestinian-Israeli agreements. The European Union already has said it is willing to deal directly with non-Hamas members of the new government who support Quartet principles, including PA Finance Minister Salam Fayyad.
AbuZayd said that most Palestinians had a positive view of the 27-nation EU in contrast to their view of Israel and the United States, which they blame for their economic difficulties. Last year, the EU provided about 694 million Euros (US$930 million) in assistance to the Palestinians under the Temporary International Mechanism. "It's important for Europe to hear that (Palestinians) count on the Europeans to be more impartial, less biased toward one party, listening to their side of the story and to help more," she said in Brussels where she is meeting European lawmakers and EU officials.
AbuZayd said that in certain parts of the Palestinian territories such as Gaza, four-fifths of the population now lived beneath the poverty line. "The economy is almost completely devastated. All the businesses are gone, the Erez industrial zone is gone."
She said the deterioration of the security situation caused by widespread poverty was also affecting the work of the UN relief agency. UN staff were no longer allowed to live and move freely in Gaza. "We all need armored cars we all need a presidential guard or police escort," she said.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/27/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
HAARETZ? Opinion > MILITARY CONFRONTATION IN GAZA AGZ HAMAS IS INEVITABLE. Author believes HAMAS and aligned Groups want and are seeking battle agz the IDF. YNETNEWS > WILLIAM COHEN > ARAB NATIONS FEAR IRAN THE MOST + Opinion > ISRAEL MUST PREPARE FOR WAR FROM ISRAELI ARABS. Author believes many lawful Israeli Arabs are in wilful, even violent, collusion wid external Muslim Radicalists-Terror groups agz Israel.
#3
"Israel shares European values and expects Europe to fairly judge others according to the attributes prevalent there"
Silly Israel.
What's the definition of insanity? Oh, yeah - Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
04/27/2007 10:19 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"It's important for Europe to hear that (Palestinians) count on the Europeans to be more impartial, less biased toward one party, listening to their side of the story and to help more,"
Europe's ability "to be more impartial, less biased" towards a gang of genocidal terrorist thugs is hardly anything to admire. Helping more only increases their culpability.
AbuZayd said that in certain parts of the Palestinian territories such as Gaza, four-fifths of the population now lived beneath the poverty line. "The economy is almost completely devastated. All the businesses are gone, the Erez industrial zone is gone."
Notice how Israel has not destroyed all of the Palestinian's factories and other elements of their mercantile base. Palestinians only have themselves to blame for the poverty and economic collapse they are experiencing. It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of murderers.
From Thursday's press release PACIFIC MISSILE RANGE FACILITY, KAUAI, Hawaii, April 26, 2007 /PRNewswire/ -- In a first-of-its-kind dual missile defense test today, Raytheon Company produced Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) and Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) simultaneously engaged targets over the Pacific Ocean.
This was the first time a U.S. Navy ship demonstrated simultaneous ship engagements against both cruise and ballistic missile targets. It was the eighth successful intercept for the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system's SM-3.
The SM-3 Block IA destroyed a short-range ballistic missile target in space while SM-2 Block IIIA engaged a cruise missile threat at a lower altitude. Both intercepting missiles were fired from guided missile cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG 70) by the ship's crew. The ballistic missile target was launched from the U.S. Navy's Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai. The subsonic cruise missile target was launched from a range aircraft. Another bad day for the "It'll never work!" crowd.
Posted by: Uncle Joe ||
04/27/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
NEWS > MISSLE/AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM PLANNED FOR GUAM; + EAST-ASIA INTEL [WorldTribune] > EIGHT KILOS SUBS NOT ENOUGH - CHINA [PLAN]WANTS MORE.
WORLDNEWS > TAIWAN THREATENS TO LAUNCH MISSLES AT CHINA IF ATTACKED, to include not ruling out attacks agz any Chinese controlled/allied target used agz it, e.g. HONG KONG + SINGAPORE. CHIN MIL FORUM > TAIPEITIMES > PRC NO MATCH FOR JAPAN'S MILITARY; + Poster - VIETNAM READY TO DEFEND SPRATLY ISLANDS INTERESTS AGZ CHINA, via QQ.COM website. Smaller Viet military will prob lose agz larger, more modern PLA but is willing to fight anyways.
After months of confusion over the fate of a former Revolutionary Guard commander missing since December, friends and former officials in Tehran are concluding that he has defected to foreign intelligence services.
They told the Financial Times that Ali Reza Asgari, 46, was frustrated and angry after spending about 18 months in jail between 2003 and 2005 on charges of espionage and corruption. "He was cleared of all the charges but psychologically he became disturbed and unbalanced," said a former official, who played down Asgari's potential importance to the United States or Israeli intelligence services. He added that Asgari had been a distinguished Revolutionary Guard commander.
A second official, who said he had seen Asgari just before he disappeared, agreed that he was "resentful about his arrest". He said Asgari retired five years ago as deputy defence minister and had become an importer of vegetable oil.
It was initially reported that Asgari, who served the previous government of Mohammad Khatami, had disappeared in February while on a trip to Istanbul. Tehran had claimed that Asgari was kidnapped by US or Israeli intelligence services. But media reports have cited western or Israeli security officials as saying that he had defected along with his family.
A friend said Asgari had been released from jail thanks to "a lot of support" from Ali Shamkhani, the defence minister under whom he served. But the friend was not ready to explain further the charges brought. "His arrest wasn't a smart move," said the friend. "The worst thing about this kind of move is the insecurity it can create among other security people."
The disappearance of a former FBI agent, Robert Levinson, in Iran has raised speculation that Tehran might try to swap Asgari for Levinson. Both Iran and the United States deny any knowledge of the whereabouts of the two men.
#1
"After months of confusion over the fate of a former Revolutionary Guard commander missing since December"
We ain't confused.
"friends and former officials in Tehran are concluding that he has defected to foreign intelligence services"
Duh. Ya' think?
"He was cleared of all the charges but psychologically he became disturbed and unbalanced"
"Disturbed and unbalanced" - I take it that's Persian for "pissed as sh*t at you idiots"?
Who's next?
Here's an idea for the CIA (when/if they're not too busy breaking their oaths in a effort to destroy the President): Figure out which Iranain higher-up is least likely to defect, then slide out some rumors that he's going to.
Hilarity will ensue.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
04/27/2007 10:17 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"The worst thing about this kind of move is the insecurity it can create among other security people."
Ratcheting up the pucker factor always keeps them on their toes. If Asgari is such a treasure trove, let's see some damn action taken on the information.
(AKI) - Iran will attack Israel if Washington decides to launch a military strike against the country over its nuclear programme, the Iranian deputy interior minister Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr said on Thursday. "If the United States should attack us we will launch tens of thousands of missiles able to strike US targets and destroy Israel," said Zolghadr, a former commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, the Pasdaran. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel, a state which is not recognized by the Islamic Republic.
"The United States at this time is trying to weaken the Islamic Republic by attempting to create instability and crises," the government official added.
Iran is facing a second wave of UN sanctions if it does not halt in the coming month sensitive nuclear work which world powers fear is aimed at building nuclear weapons. Washington, which has lobbied for strong punitive measures within the UN Security Council, has not ruled out military intervention if sanctions fail to curb Tehran's atomic ambitions.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/27/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
SPACEWAR > there will be "NOWHERE SAFE" IN AMERICA iff the USA attacks Iran; + BAHRAIN SAYS IS READY FOR ANY US-IRAN CONFLICT. Second Gulf Sttae after Kuwait to prep for war contingency. WORLDTRIBUNE > USA PREPARES [MIL-/NAVEX]FOR IRAN ATTACK ON FIFTH FLEET.
#12
Iran: Tehran Would Launch Missile Attack On Israel In The Case Of U.S. Strike
This is a desperate threat from a government with a weak (external) military. A government with a strong military would just go after those responsible with a proportional response, but delusional islamonuts wouldn't appreciate the difference.
#13
In probably less then 10 minutes later, everything within a 5 mile radius of the launch point will either be a huge crater or a glass mirror. Tehran would probably follow shortly after. I don't think that the Iranian leadership is that anxious to meet the 72 virgins.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
(AKI) - Italian charity Emergency has closed its three hospitals in Afghanistan, the organization said Thursday. The decision was taken over a month after an Emergency official, Rahmatullah Hanefi, who mediated for the release of reporter Daniele Mastrogiacomo in March, was arrested by Afghan authorities and accused of being an accessory to the murder of the journalist's interpreter at the hands of Taliban rebels who had abducted the two. The organization also said its personnel left the country Thursday after police visited its Kabul hospital and demanded that foreign employees hand over their passports.
French presidential front-runner Nicolas Sarkozy outlined his stance on key foreign policy issues Thursday, saying that if elected he would contemplate pulling France's troops out of Afghanistan. 
* A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll show 69% of American voters trust military commanders more than members of Congress (18%) to decide when United States troops should leave Iraq. This includes 52% of Democrats, 69% of Independents and 88% of Republicans (3/27-28, 2007).
In a bold wartime challenge to President Bush, the Democratic-controlled Congress cleared legislation Thursday to begin withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later. The White House dismissed the legislation as "dead before arrival." 
Ignoring President George W Bush's staunch vow of a veto, the US House of Representatives on Wednesday approved a war funding bill that includes a timetable for pulling US troops out of Iraq. Lawmakers paid little heed to the visiting top army general in Iraq, David Petraeus, who during a closed-door session earlier in the day championed the troop "surge" strategy and appealed for time so it could show results. 
(AKI) - Pakistan's secret services are not aiding the Taliban or seeking to weaken the Afghan government led by president Hamid Karzai: on the contrary, Pakistan "wants a strong and democratic Afghanistan," Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf told Spanish daily El Pais in a wide-ranging interview. Osama bin Laden and [Taliban leader] Mullah Omar are probably hiding in Afghanistan. I doubt they have ever entered Pakistan, but it's impossible to be sure," Musharraf stated. Pakistan is considered by many to be a bastion for Islamist terrorism - a claim Musharraf has steadfastly denied.
(AKI) - The leader of Pakistan's ruling party, the Pakistan Muslim League (Quaid-e-Azam), has said that the standoff between the government and the radical Islamabad mosque, Lal Masjid (Red Mosque), has been resolved amicably. In an interview with Pakistani television channel Geo TV, PML-Q chief Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain the administration at Lal Masjid had agreed to discontinue their self-proclaimed Sharia or Islamic court while the female students at the affiliated madrassa or Islamic seminary, Jamia Hafsa, will continue to occupy the children's library in the capital until the reconstruction of mosques that had been torn down for being unauthorised.
(AKI) - Iran will attack Israel if Washington decides to launch a military strike against the country over its nuclear programme, the Iranian deputy interior minister Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr said on Thursday. "If the United States should attack us we will launch tens of thousands of missiles able to strike US targets and destroy Israel," said Zolghadr, a former commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, the Pasdaran. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel, a state which is not recognized by the Islamic Republic.
