I asked the question about what the difference is between the Shiiti groups--in regards to how the USA military knows who to trust and if any of the Shiiti political groups could be trusted?.
After reading several articles on Iraq's military readiness to handle a military crisis--- I am finding that military leaders do no find that Iraq has the infrastructure to handle a crisis internally or externally. One of the articles I read stated that it was believed that the USA military did the lack of equipment (like fighter jets for an Iraqi air force) and more advance weaponary arms for the Iraqi army to be an intentional decision on the part of our USA military. One reason given is the lack of trust on the part of our military in the Iraqi's different militias or political parties. The reasoning behind this is that our military believes that the Iraqi's could use advance weapons upon our military, if we supplied these weapons. However, the other side of this is... The Iraqi government's military is equiped the same as the militias that they are going up against. The Iraqi military may even be out gunned due to the weapons that Iran is supplying. This makes the war with disarming the militas not one that the Iraqi government can do and therefore, the USA has placed itself in the position that we must be the ones to remove the militias military--- if this has to be done.
The other part of this is that Sadr stands for wanting to institute an Islamic government--- instead of the parliament that the USA backs. However, Sadr's militias must survive militarily in order to bring this to past. Sadr, I believe is playing a waiting game. He knows that the USA must withdraw our combat teams for rest soon. I think April was suppose to be the troop routation.
What I am thinking is that the other Shiiti's supposely more educated and these other groups have businesses--- appear to be more accepting of a secular government than Sadr, despite all of there ties to Iran. Maybe they are thinking that the Iraqi government can be like some of the other governments like Europe's or Jordan, or Equpt.
Despite what the news said about the job of Maliki to take out all militas, Maliki was after the Mahdi militias. The Iraqi army took up positions in other neighborhoods that were run by other militias (but the army was unopposed) due to the militia's ties to the government officials (who are Shiiti's with other political militias parties).
Laura, you asked, "I am wanting to know what makes the other Shiiti political parties different from Sadr?".. and further stated that, "Reed made it plain that he believed the USA military was being set up in this fight between Shiiti parties."
Obviously, there are factions within the Shiite party which do not agree with one another on every issue. The trick appears to be figuring out which ones are acting in the best interests of the country. I agree with you that there appears to be a lot of groups under the government umbrella who call themselves Shiites. Sadr's military machine is not one of them. As for the ones "setting up" the US (or attempting to) that appears to be IRAN, because this is a proxy war. Note in the article they state that Iran is trying to get its hand into every place it can and have influence. If Iran had NO influence and stopped arming, training and helping the opposition, it would take no time for there to be a LOT more peace in Iraq.
Rob said that he would not be suprised if "both Al-Malaki and Al-Sadr coordinated the events in Basra to bolster the position of Al-Malaki." But because Maliki has been weakened by the events, if it was planned to bolster Maliki, it did not work. Indeed, Rob, you posted that some wish to assassinate Sadr.. not a good turn of events if this was orchestrated by Sadr along with Maliki. However, if it was IRAN (just fresh off a new "election" and now seeking to get working on the most pressing "business" they see in the region.. getting rid of the Americans and others and taking over or having a puppet government in Iraq), it makes perfect sense.
You see, Iran would sacrifice Maliki AND Sadr to have their aims accomplished whether either of them were sympathetic to Iranian goals and dreams or not. Early on in our board discussions, Carl said that he thought both of them were working closely with Iran and for their aims. I am not certain they are willing participants in this event on the behalf of Iran.. but they easily can be seen to have been manipulated into it for Iran's benefits by those who played on their desires for control. I believe it is called being "the cat's paw" in warfare. Iran has used these "cat's paws" (Maliki and Sadr) to do damage (inciting people to violence) and now the paws which did the harm (Sadr and Maliki) are also getting backlash.. whereas the Iranians come out smelling like a rose, and their aims are furthered. It is war strategy and works very fine.. historically as well as today. We also call it getting someone else to do the dirty work for you. In the strategy, only those who actually DID the dirty work (killing - like Sadr and Maliki's armies) appear to have done all the wrong.. and those who orchestrated it ("set it up" in Reed's words), don't even look complicit and can condemn everyone involved and look like the peacemakers.
By encouraging (and arming) discontent, Iran has caused this unrest, then sits back and plays the "peace maker" between the warring parties it has created. Would the insurgency within Sadr's group continue without arms and training from Iran.. and their encouragement? Very unlikely. It truly is a proxy war, and that is why the only way the peace was brought about was when the Iranians got into the action. So long as the "cat" is not happy, the claws continue to be out there causing wreckage in people's lives. When they negotiate with the "cat", then its "paw" is stopped from harming. The fact that the "cat" is seen as a peacemaker is an amazing feat of ingenuity.. a smart war strategy. What, by the way, got Sadr to pull back? His army sounds fit to be tied with anger over it, fuming they will kill Sadr for stopping their uprising. So whose persuasion is Sadr under? They obviously think it is the work of an enemy of Iraq.. certainly Iran fits that bill, if the wars of the past are anything to judge by (remember the Iran/Iraq war?).
Going into this, the Iranians were counting on the US to back down due to political pressure from back home. THAT is why they made their move now. Remember, Iran is playing for long-term goals and manipulating things on their timetable, using the US elections to try and get military advantage. Their stated goals are things like - the world dominated by their religious sect, the subjugation of the human race to their radical Islamic ideal, the destruction of the US and Israel.. among others. These goals take longer term planning than the few months time.. they are playing this game for keeps and with concentrated intent. Those who think this comes out of left field and is spur of the moment are missing something. They used Maliki's position to make him promise to get the Sadrists, then played on the US reluctance to engage in full warfare in order to motivate Maliki's weaker forces to back down.
Look at it this way.. Did Iran know how strong Sadrists were? Well, they were arming them.. of course they knew! Have you seen any footage of how well armed these people are? Whose arms.. whose training? (Think about it.) Did they know that Maliki could be moved to see it as a rebellion against his authority? They knew their man and his vulnerabilities, what areas they could play on, so, yes they knew. Did they know that the US would be reluctant to back them up with fullscale warfare as they are fighting a political campaign back home? You bet they knew it. So they chose the time and place and they knew all the strengths and weaknesses of the players, then they just moved them into play and stood back. Then they moved in and brokered for themselves concessions which go their way and toward their goals for Iraq.. sweet. I can see how it is that they were the ones who gave the world chess. They appear to have mastered some of its arts in warfare - to Maliki's embarrassment and Sadr's chagrin.
I was searching the net..
and found on CNN that what they said fits with a lot of what I was saying here before...
===
Observers interpret Iraq cease-fire, Iran's role
March 31, 2008
(CNN) -- The violence subsided only after Shiite lawmakers traveled to Iran Friday to negotiate with Iranian officials and with al-Sadr, who later called on his followers to end violent battles in the country and to cooperate with the Iraqi security forces.
"This is all about power," one of the senior U.S. military officials said.
Mahmoud Othman, an Iraqi parliament member and a Kurd, said what happened "is another victory for Iran," which he says has "the upper hand" in Iraq.
Speaking from London, England, Othman said Iran has created problems by fostering close relations with Shiite groups, including the Mehdi Army and the government. When Iran realized the situation was getting out of hand -- threatening a wider war and America's participation in it -- it got involved in the recent talks to stop the violence.
"They make problems," Othman said. "Then they end it the way they like."
Ali al-Dabbagh, an Iraqi government spokesman, Monday complimented the lawmakers for their efforts to end the violence, but he said the government itself wasn't involved in the effort. But Othman said the government was clearly involved, with al-Maliki sending a delegation to Qom in Iran.
For months, Mehdi Army militia fighters have been battling security forces largely controlled by the Badr Organization, considered an ally of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. In Basra, these two groups have been jockeying for power with a third movement, the Fadhila party. Al-Maliki's Dawa party and ISCI are allies.
George Joulwan, a retired U.S. Army general and former NATO supreme allied commander for Europe, said British troops that were in control in Basra have reduced their troop levels in the country and have receded to the outskirts of the city at Basra's airport.
"So this is a wide open area for factions to try to gain dominance," Joulwan said. "Maliki is one Shiite faction trying to get al-Sadr, which is another, and both trying to get influence in this region. And Iran, by the way, is supporting both factions."
Mirembe Nantongo, a U.S. Embassy spokeswoman, said the United States is "not aware of what involvement Iran may or may not have had in brokering the cease-fire."
"So far Iran has played a negative and unhelpful role in Iraq by financing and training extremist groups and we need to see a change in that behavior," she said.
Christopher Pang, head of the Middle East and North Africa program at the British-based Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies in London, said al-Sadr and al-Maliki have credibility problems that explain their stances and both are positioning themselves ahead of the provincial elections scheduled for later this year.
Al-Maliki, he said, hasn't been successful in his political reconciliation efforts, but this military "debut" can showcase a capable military force that he can deliver independently.
Al-Sadr, whose father was a famous ayatollah, has been trying to boost his credibility by undergoing more religious training. It is not in his movement's interest to allow the violence to fracture his movement and unravel the progress he has made since August, when he temporarily suspended the Mehdi Army's operations, Pang said.
But the Shiite power struggles continue, he said, among different security forces and in different locales, and Iran has spread its influence around to all factions, even though it is more inclined to support radicals.
Abdul Jabbar Ahmad -- an assistant political science professor at Baghdad University -- said the latest cease-fire agreement is hardly the last word in the intra-Shiite conflict, and he said the United States must be creative and realistic in its dealings with Iran if it wants to foster its own influence.
It should not reject everything about Iranian influence, he said -- it should accept what's reasonable and reject what it thinks is bad. He believes Iranian influence, which he says is basically religious, can be countered if patient efforts are taken to build a secular society.
When it says that both Sadr and Maliki are positioning themselves ahead of the elections.. that would have been a motivation the Iranians would have realized they both had.. and a way to manipulate the situation by playing on them, too.
Do FedEx on your own risk, I have never sent them FedEx, and I don't like it, wire the money, and you're safe.
RobN, Go to your bank, or to any financial insitution that are able to wire your money, and do that only. do the whole thing in one shot, and it will be cheapest for you. Send the stuff with FedEx, and I would send a little at a time to make sure you have a good spread on the risk. That will in itself financially motivate to send the money once with wire.
Wire = Safe. Do it all once.
FedEx = Risk, spread it, and it may be costly by that fact.
Sara,
Cults, well some may be less liked, and in many instances cults that were true cults or sects was surviving because they eventually was reacing out to the society, and became part of it.
If early Christianity was a sect or cult in the beginning, well it is called so by many, but in reality not really, it has always been a missionary activity, and the underground activity that took place in it's early stages was not of the groups choosing, but of outside pressure.
The Jones Sect , that did all a suicide, was a cult or sect. The inner middling of the group was hardcore, but as in a motorcycle gang, there are for each member that wears the color, a bunch of others that are riding with them, that are not, but are aspiring to become a member of the gang.
The Jones sect could perhaps have developed into a good organization, and as you say, they did a lot of good work, but then they did the act that made them per definition being a sect, they withdrew from society, and went to central America, any and all aspiration to continue to do good work was then by all practical means gone.
Up to that point they could hardly be a cult or sect, but after that point the withdrawal was the benchmark.
The Japanese cult or sect that gassed the Tokyo subway system, was a withdrawn group, same with the guys that all made suicide when a comet passed overhead. As the Jones group after they had moved out from the perople they belonged to, and separated themselves.
There are groups that are detestable, run by idiots, bigots, and morons, you mentioned a group that didn't like Hillary, and Obama had some activity with that Church.
A KKK meeting may be cultish, in that they only alwe whites in their ranks, as well as this Church that alowes only black in their Church. But that is another thing.
The whole US was a country of segregation up until late 50's early 60's, and the institutions, and the whole state apparatus was a white mans world. That didnt make the US a cult, or sect, but only ads to the fact that if you let smart people run a Nazi regime, you get very intelligent Nazism, if you let chimpansees run a Communist country, you will get chimpansee communism, and if you let racists run a Church, you will get a racist Church.
You can swap around the participants in any form, let chimpansee s run the Church, smart people run the Communist country, and racist run the the Nazi country, and you will get just that. Chimpansee Church, smart Communistic country, and a racist Nazi country.
That doesnt make Nazism, Communism or the Chruch a cult or a sect.
You can make anything you like of what you have.
National Socialist Workers party, is basically a workers party, that favours the nation they are with, and are socialistic in it's nature. Put a racist Hitler there and you get something that is completely different.
This church that only will admit black in it's membership rooster, is along the line of putting a Hitler running a workers party.
Every damn country has a workers party, and that doesn't make a workers party a sect or a cult.
Lot of illwilling people are using religion, as their platform, and that is what it is, idiots on a soap box.
I understand the reasoning about what you are saying on the Shiiti factions; however, what I am thinking about is an article I read about Sadr's reluctance to engage the USA military due to what happened in Falluja. It would appear that Sadr lost a lot of his Mahdi fighters in this direct confrontation with the USA military.
It would seem more prudent to wait out the military withdraw of combat troops in April - June than to have a direct confrontation with the USA. At least, this is what I would be thinking dispite the USA elections. After the troop withdrawal, then it would be an ideal time to start a military situation to affect USA elections.
For Iran, what did they gain in this temporary engagement of militia and government troops?. If I were them, fighting is what you would want before the USA election.
However, I am having a time believing that Sadr and Maliki co-planned this military engagement. Why would Sadr want to have his militia attacked by the government, knowing that the militia would have bodies to show for this engagement?.
Sadr would certainly know that the USA military would back Maliki. I think the USA military would have leveled Basra to get control of this port from Sadr. Now, the government is faced with disarming the Madhi milita and without disarming this militia, Sadr threat lifting the cease fire is nothing but political black mail.
Long-term investors are keen to pick up Iraqi debt, looking beyond the day-to-day violence to a perhaps more promising future for the oil-rich country a decade from now.
(www.noozz.com)
Sadrists-Government agreement apt to collapse, says MP 01/04/2008 14:56:00
Baghdad (NINA)- The Sadrist MP Naseer al-Esawi has stated that the arrangements made between the government and the Sadrist Trend over the recent incidents in several province, "is liable to collapse." In a statement to the National Iraqi News Agency.
(www.ninanews.com)
Sadrists-Government agreement apt to collapse, says MP 01/04/2008 14:56:00
Baghdad (NINA)- The Sadrist MP Naseer al-Esawi has stated that the arrangements made between the government and the Sadrist Trend over the recent incidents in several province, "is liable to collapse." In a statement to the National Iraqi News Age
(www.ninanews.com)
Give honor to whom honor is due:
____________________________________________________________
SEAL to Get Medal of Honor
April 01, 2008
Associated Press
SAN DIEGO - A Navy SEAL who threw himself on top of a grenade in Iraq to save his comrades in 2006 will be posthumously awarded the nation's highest military tribute, a White House spokeswoman announced March 31.
The Medal of Honor will be awarded to Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael A. Monsoor. His family will receive the medal during a White House ceremony April 8.
Monsoor is the fourth person to receive the medal since the beginning of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
"Petty Officer Monsoor distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism on Sept. 29, 2006," press secretary Dana Perino told reporters during a briefing aboard Air Force One as President Bush headed to Europe for a NATO summit.
Monsoor was part of a sniper security team in Ramadi with three other SEALs and eight Iraqi soldiers, according to a Navy account. An insurgent fighter threw the grenade, which struck Monsoor in the chest before falling in front of him.
Monsoor then threw himself on the grenade, according to a SEAL who spoke to The Associated Press in 2006 on condition of anonymity because his work requires his identity to remain secret.
"He never took his eye off the grenade, his only movement was down toward it," said a 28-year-old lieutenant, who suffered shrapnel wounds to both legs that day. "He undoubtedly saved mine and the other SEALs' lives, and we owe him."
Two SEALs next to Monsoor were injured; another who was 10 feet to 15 feet from the blast was unhurt. Monsoor, from Garden Grove, Calif., was 25 at the time.
Monsoor, a platoon machine gunner, had received the Silver Star, the third-highest award for combat valor, for his actions pulling a wounded SEAL to safety during a May 9, 2006, firefight in Ramadi.
He was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star for his sacrfice in Ramadi.
Sixteen SEALs have been killed in Afghanistan. Eleven of them died in June 2005 when a helicopter was shot down near the Pakistan border while ferrying reinforcements for troops pursuing al-Qaida militants.
There are about 2,300 of the elite fighters, based in Coronado and Little Creek, Va.
The Navy is trying to boost the number by 500 - a challenge considering more than 75 percent of candidates drop out of training, notorious for "Hell Week," five days of continual drills by the ocean broken by only four hours sleep total.
Monsoor made it through training on his second attempt.
(www.military.com)
COPENHAGEN, 01 April 2008 (Middle East Online)
Print article Send to friend
Source: Middle East Online
Gates on Iraqi forces: 'they seem to have done a pretty good job'
Iraqi forces appear to have done "a pretty good job" in an offensive to regain control of Basra from Shiite militias, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said Monday.
"We're obviously hopeful that he will achieve most of his objectives, and see calm return as well," Gates told reporters enroute here from Brussels, referring to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
His comments came as Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr called off his fighters, signalling an end to six days of clashes in Basra, Baghdad and other cities that left 461 people dead.
"I think we've all known at some point that the situation in Basra was going to have to be dealt with. It is the economic lifeline of the country. To have it under control of gangs and militias over the long term is not acceptable," Gates said.
"So I think all of us in the government were pleased to see Prime Minister Maliki take this on, take the initiative and go down there himself with Iraqi forces and try to resolve the issue."
Asked how the Iraqi army performed, he said first hand information was limited because the Iraqis were directing the campaign.
But based on that, he said, "they seem to have done a pretty good job."
US plans to reduce the size of its 156,000-member force in Iraq in the coming months hinges on the performance of the Iraqi army and whether it is capable of filling the void left by departing US troops.
Gates said he had seen nothing to indicate that the violence in the south would prompt changes in Washington's plans to drawdown US "surge" forces from Iraq by July.
So far, two of five combat brigades sent to Iraq last year to put a lid on spiralling sectarian violence have gone home. But some 156,000 US troops remain in Iraq.
Rockets fell on the Green Zone and random machine gun fire rang out Monday in the southern city of Basra as Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr sought to rein in his militia after a week of battles that claimed about 400 lives.
The peace deal between al-Sadr and Iraqi government forces — said to have been brokered in Iran — calmed the violence but left the cleric's Mahdi Army intact and Iraq's US-backed prime minister politically battered and humbled within his own Shiite power base.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had promised to crush the militias that have effectively ruled Basra for nearly three years. The US military launched air strikes in the city to back the Iraqi effort.
But the ferocious response by the Mahdi Army, including rocket fire on the US-controlled Green Zone and attacks throughout the Shiite south, caught the government by surprise and sent officials scrambling for a way out of the crisis.
The confrontation enabled al-Sadr to show that he remains a powerful force capable of challenging the Iraqi government, the Americans and mainstream Shiite parties that have sought for years to marginalize him. And the outcome cast doubt on President Bush's assessment that the Basra battle was "a defining moment" in the history "of a free Iraq."
With gunmen again off the streets, a round-the-clock curfew imposed in Baghdad last week was lifted at 6 a.m. Monday, except in Sadr City and two other Shiite neighborhoods. Streets of the capital buzzed with traffic and commerce.
Several rockets or mortars slammed Monday into the Green Zone, the nerve center of the American mission in Iraq. But the US Embassy said there no reports of serious injuries. At least two Americans working for the US government were killed in Green Zone attacks last week.
An American soldier was killed Monday by a roadside bomb in northeastern Baghdad, the US military said without specifying whether the attack occurred in a Shiite or Sunni area. The military also said a US soldier wounded south of Baghdad on March 23 died Sunday in Germany.
In ordering his militia to stop fighting, al-Sadr also demanded concessions from the Iraqi government, including an end to the "illegal raids and arrests" of his followers and the release of all detainees who have not been convicted of any offenses.
Sadrists in Basra complained police were still conducting raids in the area Monday night and that their followers might start carrying weapons again for self-defense.
Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh welcomed al-Sadr's decision but told reporters Monday that no political group was above the law. Al-Sadr's supporters believed the security crackdown in Basra was aimed at weakening their movement before provincial elections this fall.
US and Iraqi officials insisted the operation was directed at criminals and rogue militiamen — some allegedly linked to Iran — but not against the Sadrist movement, which controls 30 of the 275 seats in the national parliament.
But well-informed Iraqi political officials said the Iranians played a key role in hammering out the peace deal, boosting the Islamic Republic's influence among the majority Shiite community. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.
According to one Shiite official, the deal was struck after hours of negotiations in the Iranian holy city of Qom involving key figures in Iraq's major Shiite parties and representatives of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
Two of the Iraqis present — Ali Adeeb and Hadi al-Amri — presented documents and photos which they claimed proved that al-Sadr's militia was receiving Iranian weapons, the official said.
Shiite-dominated Iran is believed to supply weapons, money and training to most Iraqi Shiite factions — a charge the Iranians deny.
The Iraqi officials would not elaborate on Iran's role, and efforts to contact Iraqi representatives who took part in the Qom meetings were unsuccessful.
Iran has been eager to maintain unity among Iraq's factious Shiites, believing that is the best way to ensure a pro-Iranian government in Baghdad.
"By all reports, Iran's role is not good," said Michael O'Hanlon, foreign policy expert at the Brookings Institution. "They're arming all groups. ...They want influence with everyone."
A day after al-Sadr's call, Iraqi officials sought to present his decision as a victory for the government, despite the failure of US-backed Iraqi forces to dislodge Mahdi fighters from Basra strongholds.
Al-Dabbagh said security operations in Basra would continue until the city "reaches a secure and acceptable situation" where residents can live "without threats or terrorism from any side."
Nonetheless, the outcome of the Basra crisis dealt a blow to the credibility of al-Maliki, who flew to the city last week to oversee the crackdown personally.
On Saturday, al-Maliki had promised "a decisive and final battle" and gave assurances he would remain in Basra until the militias were crushed. A key adviser to al-Maliki, Sami al-Askari, said the prime minister was expected to return to Baghdad this week.
With tensions easing, Iraqi government television reported that a high-profile official was released Monday evening four days after he was seized by gunmen from his east Baghdad home.
Tahseen al-Shiekhly serves as the civilian spokesman for the Baghdad military command and regularly appears before reporters to tout improvements in security.
In Basra, residents said by telephone that the city, headquarters of Iraq's vital oil industry, was generally calm except for sporadic explosions and machine gun fire.
Some residents, however, estimated that only about a quarter of the shops and businesses opened Monday because any people were apprehensive that the truce would hold.
(www.iraqupdates.com)
01 April 2008 (Azzaman)
Print article Send to friend
Interior Minister Jawad Boulani has ordered the dismissal of thousands of police members and officers who allegedly refused orders to take part in the fight against the militiamen of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
The decision covers most of the police force in the predominantly Shiite neighborhoods of Baghdad and also several cities in the southern Iraq including Basra where most of the recent fighting took place.
The government’s crackdown on Mahdi Army, the military arm of the Sadr movement in the country, which started a few days ago, came to a halt yesterday.
Several cities in southern Iraq among them Baghdad and Basra were placed under tight curfews as battles between the militiamen and government troops raged.
U.S. occupation troops backed the government in its bid to disarm the militias.
But the Mahdi Army has once again emerged intact as the ceasefire announced yesterday does not call for the militiamen to surrender their weapons.
Thousands of police officers were reported to have refused fighting the militiamen and at least two army regiments joined them with their weapons in Baghdad.
More troops were said to have sided with the militiamen in Basra.
The move to sack police and army personnel sympathizing with Sadr is a risky step as it might derail the already fragile ceasefire.
The exact numbers of those who are covered by the move are not known but analysts say they should involve thousands of police officers and troops.
The analysts say those sacked will have no choice but to join the ranks of Mahdi Army with their weapons, boosting the militia’s strength and standing.
The recent fighting is said to have claimed more than 240 lives in the country since fighting began on Tuesday.
(www.iraqupdates.com)
Iraq Media Sees Big Victory Over Al Sadr - Iran-Backed “Fake Peaceful Militias” Will Now Be Exposed
Baghdad, Apr 1, (VOI) – Observers believe that Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr’s recent instructions to his Mahdi Army militias to end all armed activities in Baghdad and southern Iraq provinces would disclose the “recalcitrant groups” within his bloc. Researcher Haydar Saeed said Sadr’s decision was very important for the government’s battle against Mahdi Army or the militias acting under this name.
“At least, the decision would draw a clear line between two groups: the one committed to the hierarchical loyalty to Muqtada al-Sadr and the other rebelling against this allegiance,” said Saeed.
Sadr had announced in a statement on Sunday that he would “disown anyone carrying arms and targeting government and service facilities or parties’ offices,” ordering his followers to end all armed activities in Basra and other provinces.
The capital Baghdad and other southern Iraqi cities, including Basra, the country’s second largest city and oil hub, were gripped by fierce clashes a week ago between government forces and cleric Sadr’s Mahdi Army militias, hours after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki declared Operation Saulat al-Forsan (Knights’ Assault), which he said aimed at eliminating armed groups in Basra, 590 km south of Baghdad.
“Lacking its raison d’être, affiliation to the theological establishment, the second group – the rebels – would be the target for the government’s military operation,” Saeed reckons.
Reidar Visser, an expert in southern Iraq affairs, said targeting the Sadrists exclusively apart from other militias raises several question marks, perhaps the first of which had to do with political motives.
“The vague second battle of Basra seems outwardly acceptable to some extent: a port city rich in oil was sliding into a Mafia-like status, which negatively affected citizens’ security as well as oil proceeds, and so the central government had to interfere to clean (of gunmen),” Visser explains.
He viewed the issue from a different angle, believing in a disparity between the description of Basra as a “city ruled by the militias (in the plural form), and the facts about the military operations that targeted a certain one specific militia: Sadr’s Mahdi Army.”
“The objective of the operations – making Basra a safer place – would have made perfect sense if it included other militias rivaling the Sadrists: The (Shiite leader Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim’s) Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) and the armed groups with links to the Shiite Fadhila (Virtue) Party, which has been in control over the oil protection guard force for a long time,” Visser said.
The Basra incidents, he added, do not have to do with preparations for local elections in October 2008 or with control over the process to build federal entities.
“If the local elections or the federacy question had been the motive, the target would have been the Fadhila, not the Sadrists. The Fadhila and some other secularist leaders in Basra want to realize one federal entity for the city, a counter-plan that comes in defiance of the SIIC’s dream of building a unified Shiite federacy,” said Visser.
Ibrahim al-Samaydaie, a political analyst, said he agrees with Saeed’s conclusion that Sadr’s statement would “help settle many outstanding issues between the Sadrists and the government.”
“The content of Sadr’s statement represents items for an agreement tabled by parties close to the Sadrist bloc on the following day of the crisis, but the government’s refusal caused further complications,” Samaydaie told Aswat al-Iraq – Voices of Iraq – (VOI).
The Iraqi government, he added, perhaps put on its thinking cap and was hesitant to accept the items of the agreement. “May be it (the government) relied on a U.S. intervention to settle the conflict after the Iraqi forces commence the operations, he said.
“The U.S. forces avoided direct involvement because they did not want to lose the freeze (on the Mahdi Army militias) declared by Muqtada al-Sadr, particularly during the critical period of local elections,” he added.
Besides, Samaydaie, noted the Americans realized through experience that the Iraqi political parties “clinch, in one way or another, a kind of understanding once a chance for settlement of pending issues via dialogue is in place, which actually happened during this latest crisis.
I needed to break the bolded comments down for you. The Arablish used in the original translation forced me to search out their meaning through another translator. The bolded comments in RED are the NEWER translation I located.
Auction Comments for 04-01-08 from our Friendly Economic Experts
A big increase in the volume of demand to buy the dollar ERA CBE
Baghdad - Iraq votes 01 / 04 / 2008 at 13:30:09
Demand rose significantly to buy the dollar in the central bank auction for the sale and purchase of the dollar in the second trading sessions this week on Tuesday, recording a total volume of demand was 159 million and 170 thousand dollars compared to 35 million and 190 thousand dollars at a meeting on Monday.
The special bulletin ERA Central Bank, received the Independent News Agency (Voices of Iraq) copy of which was distributed to the demand by 17 million and 170 thousand dollars in cash and 142 million dollars in the form of remittances outside the country fully covered bank exchange rate low of $ 1205 dinars compared to 1206 dinars to the dollar at the meeting With Monday did not make any of the 14 banks participating in the auction offers to sell the dollar to the bank.
He said Mr. Ali Yasiri, one dealing with the auction told (Voices of Iraq) Tuesday that the demand has increased significantly because of the improved security situation and enable a greater number of banks to participate in the meeting of the auction.
Yasiri, and added that customers were able to access to banks and banking companies approved by the Central Bank to install applications and remittances purchased view after several days of stoppage, which was born increasing demands on both the cash and purchase orders.
He noted that the demand Yasiri cash during this meeting isthe highest in two months, which reflects the amount of market need for liquidity because foreign security circumstance.
Elsewhere economic expert criticized Abbas Amita steady acceleration in the reduction of the exchange rate, warning of a crisis if the Alkhvz at this pace.
Another translation of the above comment:
On the other side the economic expert Abbas Aliwi criticized the acceleration Al Mdtrd (
He added Ahuja told () 2010 and this is what causes accelerate the reduction by the Bank in a week to two weeks compensation that forced the auction to stabilize the exchange rate during the crisis undergone by the market first months of the current year. "
Another translation of the above comment:
And Aliwi in a statement added to ( Iraq sounds ) that " the bank apparently has put a plan they include a time limit for the exchange rate's raising of the dinar so that he comes to a price equals One thousand dinars of the single dollar at the beginning of year 2010 and this what causes the hastiness of bank in the reduction as much as two sessions weekly for the compensation of weeks that was forced in them
The expert said the economic and industrial Sadiq Abdul Razzaq told (Voices of Iraq) that "the market situation deprive live in the large vegetables and fruits imported because of the urban areas, which continued for a long time." He added that traders dealt with the situation Altattiyc trying to fill the shortage of such materials in addition to a number of other food items and even goods needed by the market, especially given that the border with Iran had been closed due to military operations before the Noruz holidays, creating a growing need in the market for products and imported goods.
For his part, Uday Shabib said Rustam's Office banking activity returned to the bourse's main street fight witnessed high levels of circulation in addition to the Stock Exchange in Harthiya remained stalled because of Stock Exchange Kazimiya attended curfew.
Shabib said that the commercial rate for the dollar hit 1221 dinars to the dollar for sale compared with 1215 for the purchase stabilized the exchange rate of the offices of the banking transactions of small 1225 dinars sale and purchase of 1215.
Here is the Arabic for the original translation of the 2010 comment if someone wants to run it through another translator...
واضاف عليوي في تصريح لـ ( أصوات العراق) ان " البنك على ما يبدو قد وضع خطة تتضمن سقفا زمنيا لرفع سعر الصرف الدينار ليصل الى سعر صرف يساوي
الف دينار للدولار الواحد في بداية عام 2010 وهذا ما يسبب تعجل البنك في الخفض بواقع جلستين اسبوعيا لتعويض الاسابيع التي اضطر فيها المزاد لتثبيت سعر الصرف اثناء فترة الازمة التي مر بها السوق الاشهر الاولى من العام الحالي."
Sounds like in your last article that it is saying that the dollar is in larger demand due to its value going up due to Iraq's security issues and that of the global economy as another factor. The Iraqi dinar went down in value and therefore, the USA dollar bought more dinars on the exchange.
That's what I make of it. However, the dinar will be adjusted with the increased security is my guess.
Baghdad, 02 April 2008 (Gulf News)
Print article Send to friend
Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki on Tuesday claimed a week-old operation against Shiite militias in the southern city of Basra has been a "success," despite a ceasefire that stopped short of disarming the gunmen and left him politically battered.
The battle between the government and Moqtada Al Sadr's Mahdi Army gunmen has calmed down on the surface, but the resulting quiet has raised many questions among Iraqi political sources.
Most important among them is that is Al Maliki, the most powerful man in Iraq?
"Surely Al Maliki has lost the support of Al Sadr who has a significant following in Shiite cities," said Tahseen Al Tamimi, an Iraqi political researcher.
"I do not exaggerate if I say that the followers consider Al Maliki as their mortal enemy after the US occupation. In turn, Al Maliki won the trust of a large number of Shiite intellectuals and elites who complained repeatedly that the militants' behaviour did not respect laws or education," Al Tamimi told Gulf News.
Al Maliki stopped short of declaring an end to the offensive that began a week ago in Basra which sparked retaliatory clashes in Baghdad and other southern cities, and criticism that his government was unprepared for the fierce backlash.
Al Sadr, meanwhile, thanked his fighters for "defending your people, your land and your honour."
Sporadic fighting continued in Baghdad and Basra, but the cities otherwise were calm two days after the radical Shiite cleric called on his fighters to stand down in a bid to end the widening conflict.
(www.iraqupdates.com)
Obama, McCain Criticize Each Other on Iraq
Tuesday, 1 April 2008
Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama had pointed exchanges over the Iraq war, each U.S. senator questioning the other's credentials.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Obama's rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, meanwhile criticized Obama's supporters for urging her to leave the race, the Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday.
McCain spoke out against Obama, saying the Illinois senator's position of withdrawing troops from Iraq soon showed a lack of understanding about U.S. troops stationed in countries after wars ended.
(It) displays a fundamental misunderstanding of history ... and what we need to do in the future to maintain our security in the face of the transcendent challenge of radical Islamic extremism, McCain said.
Campaigning in Allentown, Pa., Obama questioned both McCain's and Clinton's judgment in voting to authorize the war in Iraq.
John McCain and Hillary Clinton, they had a chance to make a good decision on the most important foreign-policy issue of a generation, and they got it wrong, Obama said.
Clinton, meanwhile, accused the Obama campaign of trying to pressure her to withdraw.
A lot of Senator Obama's supporters want to end this race because they don't want people to keep voting, Clinton said.
Oh.. a mistake.. they got it wrong?
What about that report they just released, of which it is said,
QUOTE:
The Pentagon report is important, least because it shows Iraq, far from being a distraction in the war on Islamist terrorists, was central to it. The captured Iraqi documents show that Hussein was a key supporter of jihadists precisely because he saw them as a tool against the United States.
More important, the report is less hindsight, however, than headlight. It illuminates the reality that al-Qaida isn't an isolated actor but is part of a whole - born into a constellation of jihadists cohesive enough in its hostility to the U.S. that Hussein saw fit to track it, train it and fund it. (end quote, url below)
If the US had been so foolish as to allow Saddam to continue to track, train and fund Jihadists, you would not see people in America today glibly going about their business without having experienced a new attack on US soil. The "pie-in-the-sky" castle building that Obama would have preferred would have left the terrorists alone - to arm, train and then go after the US. With the success of the WTC's destruction bringing Jihadism to prominence in the terrorist regions of the world, surely America is not so foolish as to believe they would have left it at that? Does America forget the words of Saddam given on that tape from ABC?
Quote:
In the "Nightline" version of the 1996 recording, Saddam predicts that Washington, D.C., would be hit by terrorists. But he adds that Iraq would have nothing to do with the attack. Tierney says, however, that what Saddam actually said was much more sinister. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity. In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?" [61]
This "Technique" would have been done by smugglers that Saddam equipped and trained and funded, as documented in this current report they just released. And remember as you read a bit more about this report (below), that this is a "technique" that Obama (who proudly did not connect these dots, and continues to refuse to do so) would have allowed to happen on US soil by NOT attempting to remove Saddam from his position of power and influence with the terrorists,
QUOTE:
Jihadists and their sugar daddy
Posted: March 22, 2008
Patrick McIlheran
The Iraq war finished its fifth year last week. Thanks to a Pentagon paper quietly released the week before, we are clearer about who the enemy is.
The paper detailed just how deep into terrorism Saddam Hussein was. The headline was made by an early leak that the report "found no 'smoking gun' " linking him to al-Qaida.
In the report, however, that line came right after one that said the Pentagon's Iraq Perspectives Project, which reviewed 600,000 captured documents, "uncovered strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism."
The paper also says, "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al-Qaida . . . or that generally shared al-Qaida's stated goals."
Smoking gun? More like smoking wallet. Hussein was sugar daddy to terrorists of any stripe.
For instance, Iraq trained men for suicide bombings and assassinations worldwide. One document lists weapons - missile launchers, plastic explosive, booby-trapped suitcases - stashed at Iraqi embassies for these grads to use. The regime recruited so heavily it had to set up a summer vacation training schedule.
Iraq also trained and supplied freelance groups. One 1993 memo briefs Hussein on his allies, chiefly Palestinian and Egyptian terror groups. It details who got money and help from Iraq and who did missions on Iraq's behalf, many against "American interests."
As of 1993, several memos show, Hussein decided to "form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil, especially Somalia" - site of the humanitarian mission that went disastrously wrong. Now we know who taught the bad guys to shoot.
Among those on the Iraqi payroll was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the Afghani warlord who hosted Osama bin Laden's training camp during the 1990s. An Iraqi memo notes that Hekmatyar's outfit is an "extreme religious movement against the West," one that Iraq had "good relations" with since 1989. Exactly in the time that bin Laden was incubating al-Qaida, he was under the wing of this "extreme religious" client of Iraq.
Iraq also supported the Egyptian group led by Ayman al-Zawahiri, the fellow who matched up manpower and ideology with bin Laden's money and will. Iraqi agents met with Zawahiri's people in Sudan at just the time Zawahiri was merging his Islamic Jihad into al-Qaida. The Iraqis "agreed to renew our relations."
The report is careful to note that Hussein and bin Laden had different ends. But pursuing separate but parallel visions, the two men "often found a common enemy in the United States."
The Pentagon report is important, least because it shows Iraq, far from being a distraction in the war on Islamist terrorists, was central to it. The captured Iraqi documents show that Hussein was a key supporter of jihadists precisely because he saw them as a tool against the United States.
More important, the report is less hindsight, however, than headlight. It illuminates the reality that al-Qaida isn't an isolated actor but is part of a whole - born into a constellation of jihadists cohesive enough in its hostility to the U.S. that Hussein saw fit to track it, train it and fund it.
This contrasts to the view, current among those who think the Iraq war was a massive fraud, that al-Qaida alone was the problem. That presumes that nations handle sneak attacks the way police handle a bank robbery - by finding the suspects and bringing them to justice, with no delusions of rooting out the idea of robbery overall.
This view would lead us back to the whack-a-mole that we saw through the 1980s and 1990s - hijackings, kidnappings, bombs here, blown-up embassies there, all of them pursued and the next never deterred by criminal justice.
What the uncovered Iraqi documents make plain is exactly how these were connected. The incontrovertible fact is that they were, by a common hostility to the west. Hussein could see that, so the secular pan-Arabist funded people wanting to set up a caliphate.
This is useful to know. It illuminates our enemy. It is the jihad overall, not merely one practitioner, that threatens us. It is a war we are in, not a series of inexplicable and unlinked crimes.
So Obama would not have taken care of this Jihadist threat to America and ridicules those who did.
Is it coincidence, then, that Obama's church bulletin in July of LAST YEAR published THIS:
QUOTE:
Obama church published Hamas terror manifesto Compares charter calling for murder of Jews to Declaration of Independence
Posted: March 20, 2008
By Aaron Klein
JERUSALEM – Sen. Barack Obama's Chicago church reprinted a manifesto by Hamas that defended terrorism as legitimate resistance, refused to recognize the right of Israel to exist and compared the terror group's official charter – which calls for the murder of Jews – to America's Declaration of Independence.
The Hamas piece was published on the "Pastor's Page" of the Trinity United Church of Christ newsletter reserved for Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., whose anti-American, anti-Israel remarks landed Obama in hot water, prompting the presidential candidate to deliver a major race speech earlier this week.
Hamas, responsible for scores of shootings, suicide bombings and rocket launchings against civilian population centers, is listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department.
The revelation follows a recent article quoting Israeli security officials who expressed "concern" about Robert Malley, an adviser to Obama who has advocated negotiations with Hamas and providing international assistance to the terrorist group.
In his July 22, 2007, church newsletter, Wright reprinted an article by Mousa Abu Marzook, identified in the publication as a "deputy of the political bureau of Hamas." A photo image of the piece was captured and posted today by the business blog BizzyBlog, which first brought attention to it. The Hamas article was first published by the Los Angeles Times, garnering the newspaper much criticism.
According to senior Israeli security officials, Marzook, who resides in Syria alongside Hamas chieftain Khaled Meshaal, is considered the "brains" behind Hamas, designing much of the terror group's policies and ideology. Israel possesses what it says is a large volume of specific evidence that Marzook has been directly involved in calling for or planning scores of Hamas terrorist offensives, including deadly suicide bombings. He was also accused of attempting to set up a Hamas network in the U.S.
Marzook's original piece was titled, "Hamas' stand" but was re-titled "A Fresh View of the Palestinian Struggle" by Obama's church newsletter. The newsletter also referred to Hamas as the "Islamic Resistance Movement," and added in its introduction that Marzook was addressing Hamas' goals for "all of Palestine."
In the manifesto, Marzook refers to Hamas' "resistance" – the group's perpetuation of anti-Israel terrorism targeting civilians – as "legal resistance," which, he argues, is "explicitly supported by the Fourth Geneva Convention."
The Convention, which refers to the rights of people living under occupation, does not support suicide bombings or rocket attacks against civilian population centers, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America noted.
Marzook refers to Hamas' official charter as "an essentially revolutionary document" and compares the violent creed to the Declaration of Independence, which, Marzook states, "simply did not countenance any such status for the 700,000 African slaves at that time."
Hamas' charter calls for the murder of Jews. Among its platforms is a statement that the "[resurrection] will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them, and the rock and the tree will say: 'Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, kill him!'"
In his piece, Marzook says Hamas only targets Israel and denies that Hamas' war is meant to be waged against the U.S., even though Hamas officials have threatened America, and Hamas' charter calls for Muslims to "pursue the cause of the Movement (Hamas), all over the globe."
Trinity Church did not respond to a phone message requesting comment.
Obama's campaign also did not reply to phone and e-mail requests today for comment.
Obama aide wants talks with terrorists
Malley, an Obama foreign policy adviser, has penned numerous opinion articles, many of them co-written with a former adviser to the late Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, petitioning for dialogue with Hamas and blasting Israel for policies he says harm the Palestinian cause.
He further petitioned Israel to hold talks with Hamas.
"An arrangement between Israel and Hamas could advance both sides' interests," Malley wrote.
In numerous other op-eds, Malley advocated a policy of engagement with Hamas.
Is it any wonder that a man who is joined to a terrorist sympathizing church and very obviously is personally a terrorist sympathizer decries the policies the US has pursued to protect its own Homeland?
When Obama smugly says of John McCain and Hillary Clinton that they had a chance to make a good decision on the most important foreign-policy issue of a generation, and "they got it wrong"... that smacks of arrogancy (he thinks he knows better, but the Homeland has had no second 911 attack which is what that policy move sought to accomplish) and it also shows a deep sympathy for the aims of the terrorists. Is that really what America wants on its own soil.. ??
If America were to elect this young man - give him a chance to show them what the world would have been like if the US had not pursued Saddam by pulling out and giving over Iraq to other enemies of America such as those Saddam equipped, supported and funded - will it make America safer?
Will any Jihadist enemies of the US - which the group to which Obama belongs to advocates in writing as being supportive of such terrorist aims - be allowed to support their aims within the country of America if the US were to elect Obama? It is unconscionable that the United States Republic would consider handing over the reigns of power to a terrorist sympathizer, unless America has a death wish, having turned from all wisdom.
Wisdom is personified as a person in the Bible (America is also depicted as a lady when we refer to America as "she") and wisdom says:
Pro 8:36 But he that sins against me (wisdom) wrongs his own soul: all they that hate me (wisdom) love death.
All those who hate wisdom love death. Surely the path Obama leads on is unwise to the point of embracing those who love death (suicide bombers). Will America turn from wisdom to her own death? Is she so foolish as to listen to terrorist sympathizers?
What if our ancestors had listened sympathetically to the Nazis and published pro-Nazi propaganda in their church bulletins? What if they had sought to put into the Whitehouse a man whose aims lined up with Hitler's viewpoints? Would America have been safer not to have engaged the Nazi threat?
History repeats itself.. but the pall of death hanging over that which permeates the dialog here in America is unparalleled in history. It isn't "fresh", "new" or a good "change of direction", nor any of those other adjectives the MSM so glibly drum up in their speaking.. it is death which is offered to the people of America, shrouded carefully in media and political spin.
Thank God there is a God over America who can guide her.. and will not leave her to the fate of her less discerning citizen's inclinations. In the song which says "God bless America, Land that I love" it is not lipservice given when it says, "guide her with the light from above".. it is a petition for wisdom, guidance and help. And America today stands in great peril and desperate need of that guidance... because she is entertaining the thought of a terrorist sympathizer for her highest office.... to the destruction of the foundation of her Republic.
Iraq makes its case for WTO membership
The Associated Press
Published: April 2, 2008
GENEVA: The Iraqi government made its case Wednesday for why Iraq should be put on the fast track for World Trade Organization membership, citing its plentiful oil resources and strategic position in the Middle East as great opportunities for the global expansion of commerce.
Iraq applied for membership in 2004, at which point it was given observer status in the body.
Al-Sudani said Iraq's membership would "represent a significant addition to the world community's effort toward the expansion of trade and investment."
CSPAN is on and the congress is discussing turning off funding to the war. The intended consequence is to force the military to withdraw from Iraq. This could be a real possibility. Just a heads up.
Iran inflation keeps pressure on Ahmadinejad
Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:45am EDT Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page| Recommend (0) [-] Text [+]
1 of 1Full Size
Related News
Iran leader encourages MPs, government to cooperate
20 Mar 2008
powered by Sphere
Featured Broker sponsored link
By Alistair Lyon, Special Correspondent
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Ali Daryani is embarrassed at the inflationary pain he is passing on to his customers.
"Sometimes we have to change the price stickers three times a day because of inflation," the 42-year-old Tehran grocer said.
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad survived this month's parliamentary election without a big blow to his prestige, even if his core support base among a broad conservative camp shrank.
Now the president's opponents in the Islamic Republic, both from the reformist minority and the victorious conservatives, could force him to rein in populist spending policies seen as partly to blame for inflation hovering around 19 percent.
Since Ahmadinejad swept to power in 2005 promising to spread Iran's oil wealth to the people, soaring world oil prices have swelled national revenues, but economists say colossal subsidies and presidential handouts have predictably fuelled inflation.
Ahmadinejad is basking in support from Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for his tough nuclear stance, but his economic record may dent his chances of re-election next year.
Iranians are cushioned by a vast array of costly subsidies, but runaway prices still hit the pockets of ordinary consumers.
"The prices of rice, meat, fruit and everything else have gone up," complained Baqer Gabai, a 54-year-old retired teacher, in Tehran's Mohseni Square. "The price of chicken has doubled in six months, but my income has not changed a bit."
Former Central Bank Governor Seyed Mohammad Hossein Adeli, who now heads a think-tank, said Ahmadinejad was aware of the danger and was already reverting to some more orthodox policies.
"He has helped the poor in some way with micro-attention," he said of the president's habit of touring the provinces, receiving petitions and trying to address problems directly.
"But if you go and spend money and have a huge expansionary fiscal policy without limits, it pushes inflationary pressures."
CURBING MONEY SUPPLY
Adeli told Reuters the Central Bank was now pursuing "very contractionary policies" to correct this.
The previous Central Bank governor, Ebrahim Sheibani, quit last year over differences with Ahmadinejad over interest rate policy. The current governor, Tahmasb Mazaheri, has proposed bank loan repayment rates, or "profit-sharing" rates, based on inflation plus a fee -- a move analysts saw reversing a policy backed by Ahmadinejad that had sent rates below inflation.
Iran, the world's fourth-biggest crude producer, has raked in $70 billion in oil revenue in the past year, the government says. But much of the cash flows out in lavish subsidies on everything from fuel and transport to food and medicine.
"The system is buying loyalty to pursue its nuclear program," economist Saeed Laylaz said.
Many of the subsidies are not targeted, which often means the rich benefit more than the poor because they consume more. Adeli put the direct and indirect cost of fuel subsidies alone at $45 billion a year.
Lacking the refining capacity to meet domestic demand, Iran had been importing at least $5 billion worth of petrol a year, which was sold cheaply to the public, encouraging waste and smuggling.
To reduce the import bill, the government began rationing petrol last year. Last week, in an apparent bid to streamline the subsidy, rationing was temporarily relaxed to let drivers buy extra petrol for five times more than the subsidized price.
The new system could be extended, although the liberalized petrol price may also have a short-term inflationary effect.
COMPLEX TASK
"Taking away subsidies is no easy matter," said Mohammad Ali Farzin, an Iranian economist who heads a United Nations Development Program poverty reduction unit. "The scale of the problem is just so overwhelming that it will take time."
Ali Reza Cheloyan, a farmer in Ahmadinejad's home town of Aradan, east of Tehran, acknowledged his dependence on state assistance with fertilizer, tractors, petrol, gas oil and bread, as well as the price he gets for his wheat and cotton.
"Inflation has gone up but it's a global problem. We support the government," he said.
Reliance on subsidies is growing, argued the UNDP's Farzin. "Where you have chronic inflation, disproportionate rises in property prices relative to income, serious unemployment and underemployment, it's only natural that low-income households cannot keep up," he said. "So they rely on subsidies."
Iran has reduced absolute poverty over the years, but officials say 7 to 10 percent of the population of 70 million still live below the line set at a minimum daily intake of 2,100 calories.
However, Farzin said, wealth inequalities are widening.
"Iran's economy doesn't produce in such a way as to generate sufficient employment, distribute the income well and alleviate relative poverty," Farzin said. "This is the core problem."
Iran is grappling with economic challenges that are exacerbated by U.N. and unilateral U.S. sanctions that have raised the cost of doing business and deterred badly needed Western investment in its oil and gas industry.
But it would be rash to assume more economic pressure would force Iran's leaders to compromise in their row with the United States and its allies over the nuclear program, which the West suspects has a military purpose. Tehran denies this.
"They're in a crunch, but the reality is they have a very high tolerance for economic hardship," a Western diplomat said.
Adeli, an ex-ambassador who thinks Iran should interact more with the world for economic reasons, called sanctions futile.
"Historically they haven't been able to serve their purpose, especially when it comes to Iranians, with their pride, their resilience, their resistance towards foreigners," he said.
(www.reuters.com)
I read your article entitled "Give honor to whom honor is due". Monsoor got a Silver star for saving someone's life, but only a Bronze for losing his own? I'm assuming Silver is higher than Bronze. Seems like a bit of an insult considering he saved lives by willingly giving up his own.
AGAIN, Laura? They want to try AGAIN to overthrow what the Republicans are doing in Iraq? Pull the troops out so the Dems can be seen to be doing something.. anything, to win votes? It seems to me that the only thing the Democrat party can do is try to overturn what is already in place to win points.. but FOR WHAT? They have become a party of rebellion, of destruction and not construction. They have no vision for the future to make it better.. they have no platform of ideas or ideals to call people to. I am not alone in that opinion, as it says below, they lack a big idea, or an ‘argument’, for how to govern and Most importantly, what has truly undermined the Democrats is not their organisational shortcomings per se but rather their lack of ideas and sense of purpose.
QUOTE:
The hole at the heart of the Democratic Party
by Sean Collins Mar 2008
Billionaire funders demanding cabinet jobs, clueless bloggers advising party bigwigs… the hollowed-out, ill-disciplined Democratic Party looks set to be overrun by opportunistic gatecrashers.
The knock-down, drag-out primary contest for the Democratic presidential nomination between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton has exposed serious divisions within the party. And the longer it has continued, the worse it has got.
In recent weeks, it has become personal: the campaigning has descended into identity-baiting and petty name-calling. People associated with either candidate – from activists to voters – are now more likely to say they won’t vote for the other come November. Not long ago the party establishment appeared to be behind Clinton, but the Washington elite has steadily abandoned her, causing bitter internal rows (1). The battle may run on to the party convention in late August, where it could get even uglier.
The fact that the Democrats won’t walk it to the Whitehouse is itself quite amazing: six months ago, who would have given the Republicans – with President George W Bush’s opinion ratings in the tank, and no evident candidate able to unite the party – any decent shot of winning? This turn of events alone illustrates the Democrats’ ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
All the sound and fury is enough to make you wonder: what the hell is going on inside the Democratic Party? Thankfully we have some help: Matt Bai, a reporter for the New York Times Magazine, has written a useful behind-the-scenes guide to the changing players and dynamics within the party. His book, The Argument, focuses on the new forces that have emerged within the party in recent years – from hands-on billionaire donors to internet-based grassroots activists – and their battles with the party establishment. In the process, he reveals an organisation in deep discord, and thus he anticipates the current infighting. But the bigger problem facing the Democrats, according to Bai, is that they lack a big idea, or an ‘argument’, for how to govern.
If you think the primary shows the Democrats in a bad light, just read this book: it leads to the conclusion that, even if the Democrats were to manage to win, their troubles would be far from over.
The strongest parts of Bai’s book are the profiles of the key people in the newly influential groups, often referred to as ‘progressives’ (to indicate being more radical than typical party liberals). Bai begins his journey with the story of the ‘billionaires’ – financiers, hi-tech entrepreneurs and philanthropists. Forming a group called the Democracy Alliance, they were going to run the party like a business, producing a better ‘product’ for the ‘customers’.
Underlying this move to intervene directly into the operations (something the Republican donors did not do) was a deep elitism and disdain for the public. Bai tells how George Soros, the legendary investor, drew the conclusion from the 2004 result that it was ‘the American people, and not their figurehead, who were misguided’, being fed lies by TV and talk radio.
Many Wall Street and Hollywood celebrities had, bizarrely, come to see themselves as the oppressed: ‘They knew they were right about what was best for the country, and if the voters didn’t see that as clearly as they did, then it could only be explained by some nefarious conservative plot. They imagined themselves to be victimized and powerless, kept down, somehow, by the Man’, writes Bai. At a party, one billionaire announced, to great applause: ‘We are so tired of being disenfranchised!’
At the other end of the income spectrum from the billionaires are the internet-based grassroots activists, or ‘netroots’. Bai profiles MoveOn.org, one of the most influential groups to emerge. MoveOn was founded in 1998 by Wes Boyd, the rich inventor of the once-ubiquitous flying toasters screensaver. Boyd, a political novice at the time (this is a theme), set up a website with a petition for congress to ‘move on’ past the Clinton impeachment hearings, and thousands signed up, providing a valuable list. Later, in 2001, a recent graduate, Eli Pariser, also emailed out a petition following the 9/11 attacks, calling on world leaders to respond with restraint. He too received thousands of names, and Boyd convinced him to join forces.
From its almost accidental origins, MoveOn today boasts over three million members and an annual budget of more than $25 million, mainly based on small donations. Its appeal is not complicated; its website is mainly a call for funds, with little need to waste words on argumentation. Its main theme, as Bai notes, is that Republicans are ‘evil, arrogant and corrupt’ – that seems to be enough.
MoveOn organises house parties to bring together otherwise isolated people whose only connection is via the internet. Bai attended one in 2005, in a well-to-do neighbourhood in Virginia. The party’s host, an ad executive named Chuck Fazio, tells Bai that he decided to get involved to spite a neighbour he refers to as ‘that asshole’, an elderly right-wing ideologue named Brent Bozell – even though Fazio has never even spoken to him.
Fazio tells Bai he contemplated peeing in Bozell’s pool, but decided to host a MoveOn party instead. From Bai we learn that many of the internet-linked activists are not twentysomethings, but rather middle-aged people (the average age of a MoveOn member is 50), often from the largely Republican ‘red states’ of Middle America. We also learn that these netroots are often nutcases.
Despite its disparate and sometimes eccentric membership, MoveOn has, in a short time, effectively become part of the party establishment: Bai tells how Tom Matzzie, MoveOn’s Washington organiser, had become a constant presence in the back rooms: ‘Hardly a day went by now when [Democratic leader Harry] Reid’s Senate staff didn’t confer with Tom about strategy or message, understanding that MoveOn was the best way for them to get their message out and raise money among disaffected liberal voters.’
In a similar vein, Bai traces the rise of the blogger-activists. These first emerged into public recognition in 2004, as supporters of Howard Dean’s meteoric rise-and-fall attempt to obtain the Democratic presidential nomination. Many bloggers entered politics a few years before, say in 1998, during the impeachment hearings, or 2000, when Bush supposedly ‘stole’ the election from Al Gore. Bai writes that ‘one of the hallmarks of the netroots culture was a complete disconnect from history – meaning, basically anything that happened before 1998…. It wasn’t just that bloggers didn’t know much about the political world before impeachment; it was that they didn’t want to know, either.’ Their views are fairly simplistic: they generally believe, according to Bai, ‘that Bush was tilting towards dictatorship’ and that supporters of Clinton-style compromises are ‘Vichy Democrats’.
In particular, Bai spends time with Markos Moulitsas Zuniga (‘Kos’), founder of the most influential blog, the Daily Kos, and Jerome Armstrong, an adviser to politicians on internet strategy (also referred to as ‘Blogfather’). They both come across in Bai’s account as confused lightweights. Kos, who does not seem to have read many books, says he is anti-centrist, but then argues for winning at all costs, which involves finding electable candidates. Armstrong becomes an adviser for Mark Warner’s campaign for president, seemingly oblivious to the fact that Warner, as one-time governor of Virginia, was a centrist linked to the Democratic Leadership Council and a frequent collaborator with Republicans while in office.
The current presidential election campaign has shown the candidates and party apparatus kow-towing to the blogger-activists. All of the main candidates appeared last summer at the ‘Yearly Kos’ convention. Obama, in particular, seems to have garnered their support – even though his main message is bipartisanship, a blogger sin. MoveOn has also endorsed Obama. Hillary Clinton has had a much more rocky relationship, especially since many bloggers associate her and her husband with, in Kos’ words, ‘failed corporatist bullshit’. Hillary has tried at different times to extend peace offerings, but with little success.
How did the Democratic Party leadership allow all these renegade groups to wield influence, to the point of seeming to get pulled into chaotic battles for control? To answer that question, you would need to understand the leadership’s perspective. Unfortunately, Bai’s focus on the newer, outsider groups is at the expense of examining the party insiders in much detail. As a result, it is hard to feel confident that his account tells the whole story.
Nevertheless, it is possible to glean from Bai (and others) roughly what has happened. The Democratic Party has endured a long-term decline in active membership. In electoral terms, this decline arguably began in 1964 when civil rights legislation signed by President Lyndon B Johnson led to the exodus of Southern conservatives from the party’s coalition. The ‘Reagan revolution’ of the 1980s also led to years of Democratic defensiveness and retreat. This was not reversed by the ascendancy of Bill Clinton to the presidency in the 1990s, as his regime did not address the crumbling foundation of the party organisation. In fact, in a number of ways, Clinton accelerated the deactivation of what remained of the party’s base, including by the outsourcing of canvassing to professionals (2). From Bai we learn that there are many parts of the country, especially in the South and West, where there is no Democratic Party that one can join.
As the party has gradually hollowed out, the party hierarchy has lost coherence and control of the apparatus, and has difficulty responding to these latest challenges. As Bai describes, a true sign of a lack of firm hand at the top is evidenced by how Howard Dean, the bloggers’ hero, was able to become chairman of the Democratic National Committee in 2004, to the horror of the Beltway elite. Further, the demise of the traditional machine has led to a lack of discipline, as evidenced this year by Florida and Michigan’s decisions to buck the party’s rules and hold early primaries (it’s still not clear whether their delegates will be seated at the convention). And as the 2008 nomination campaign heads to a deadlocked convention, with the prospect of ‘super delegates’ deciding the outcome, many expect party elders to intervene in a ‘backroom’ deal. However, the problem is, as one observer put it, ‘You don’t have the obvious party elders these days.’ (3)
Most importantly, what has truly undermined the Democrats is not their organisational shortcomings per se but rather their lack of ideas and sense of purpose. And this is a theme that Bai consistently extends through his narrative. The Democratic party leaders of today, he writes, ‘had inherited from their parents and grandparents the vessel of a once dominant political party…and in a few short decades, they had managed to run it aground on the shoals of neglect.’ Rather than face up to today’s challenges, the party harks back to the good old days of the New Deal of the 1930s. Under Bill Clinton, the party claimed to address ‘modernisation’, but his pragmatic (critics would say opportunistic) approach of ‘triangulation’ meant that the Democrats never set out a distinct outlook that could survive beyond the end of his presidency.
One of the best points Bai makes is that all sides of Democratic Party politics are now focused on tactics at the expense of vision and ideas. The gate-crashers from outside – that is, the billionaires, the bloggers, Howard Dean – are obsessed with money and electability, but have no sense of transforming the politics by means of ideas. And in that very important regard, they are one with the party’s insiders, who do not look beyond the next contested seat.
Again, Bai anticipates the lack of political substance in this year’s primary contest. He ridicules Hillary’s ‘I’m in it to win’ slogan (‘as if getting to the White House was a noble goal in itself’), as well as Obama’s call for ‘hope’ (‘whatever that meant’). Both downplay ideas, referring voters to the fine print to be found on their websites. Moreover, the lack of a true political party, with intermediaries that establish ties between party members and candidates, has led to voters being unsure of the candidates, lending the race an unpredictable and unstable character.
In November 2006, the Democrats won back control of both houses of Congress. To many of the party’s leadership, this was a major sign that the country had turned in the Democrats’ direction. However, as Bai notes, this was more of a rejection of Bush than an expression of confidence in the Democrats. And not long after the Democrats took control, their do-little approach led to poor approval ratings. The turn against them seemed to vindicate Bai’s verdict following the 2006 congressional win: ‘What voters had not done was to endorse any Democratic argument – because, of course, there wasn’t one.’
The same will be true if the Democrats capture the White House in November 2008 – it wouldn't be an endorsement of their ideas, because they haven’t put forward any. The only argument they’re left with is that they are not the Republicans, which is not exactly one to get excited about.
That is all the Democrats and their trumpeters the MSM can do.. say that they aren't Republicans.. and they AREN'T for having the troops in Iraq.. but what they stand FOR is not clear. They are not endorsed by the public because of any argument they put forward.. the entire thing is a PROTEST VOTE. People voting against the way things are being run.. but not for any new way. People dislike war.. we ALL do.. and they want it to stop (we ALL do). So they vote against those waging this war, not for someone with any coherent plan WHICH WILL WORK to bring about peace.
It is as though people can see World War Two beginning to form under Hitler and they say, "We want peace." and so they are willing to appease and give power to anyone promising them that vision of peace regardless of the truth and reality of gathering war. Peace at any cost.. even chucking out of power those who have the only plan which makes any rational sense - one which must include a plan where we must fight. As for their knowing what is right for the world where he says quote, ‘They knew they were right about what was best for the country, and if the voters didn’t see that as clearly as they did, then it could only be explained by some nefarious conservative plot.
Exactly HOW could they know what is best for the country (or world) when they have no solid plan with definite ideas and values themselves? He says, if they were to win the election it wouldn't be an endorsement of their ideas, because they haven’t put forward any.
How true.. they have no solid, tangible, working values or ideas.. only big "concepts" like peace or "unity" or "hope".. how do you expect to create these ideals - by appeasing America's enemies? I find it interesting that Obama has said that Iran's president would be welcome at the Whitehouse under him..
QUOTE:
OBAMA FURTHERS ISLAM
By J. Grant Swank, Jr.
MichNews.com
Apr 1, 2008
Barack Obama advocates for Muslim killers in Guantanamo to have access to the US legal system. The Guantanamo lawyers are enthusiastically supporting Obama.
Obama raised funds for Middle East extremist Islamic organizations.
Obama has been given the nod by Daniel Ortega, communist, former chief of the Weather Underground cadre. Also, communist Tom Hayden, Jesse Jackson and Muslim racist and anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan are ardent endorsers of Obama per JTF.org.
Obama has told media that in his first months in the Oval Office, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be a guest at the White House. Why? Under the guise of improving ties with America. Bank on Obama working with this Iranian thug to slip Iran state-of-the-art US technology linked to Iranian nuclear advances.
Obama supports cousin Kenyan Muslim Raila Odinga, the latter having lost in the presidential elections there. This Muslim relative promised to set in place legalistic Islam with sharia nationwide. When Obama was campaigning in New Hampshire, he phoned support to Odinga in the latter’s bid for the presidency there.
Obama’s upbringing includes being mentored by a communist, attending a Muslim Basuki School in Indonesia. He was registered as a religious Muslim in school.
Obama now claims to be ‘Christian’, praying to Jesus daily. It is not the biblical Jesus or Obama would be convicted by the Holy Spirit to denounce abortion and sodomy, two of his chief endorsements. His Jesus is the Islam prophet Jesus, not the incarnate God of the Bible.
Obama was on the board of a non-profit organization that gave funds to a Muslim killer group, Arab American Action Network, the latter boasting on destroying Israel and opposing all US immigration laws.
Appeasement to America's sworn enemies? The Democrats present the world and the American taxpayer with a beautiful box wrapped with lovely shiny paper and a big bow on it.. it sure looks good on the outside. But when you open it, the box is empty, and there is no substance to the party, only decimation of all we have worked so hard to achieve and protect.
The Democrats will allow unfettered immigration, tax and spend strategies like universal "healthcare" where we all get to pay (emulating the Cubans on that one), pulling out of Iraq and allowing the slaughter of the Iraqi people, a continuing lack of discernment in ethical matters (like allowing human embryo research and cloning).. they stand for so much which will destroy all we have achieved. It is far easier to dismantle something.. to destroy, than to build up. A building takes planning and many people putting in time and materials to construct. A plane can destroy it in a few hours.. as we saw on 911. The Democrats are seeking to put such a "plane" into office to destroy very quickly all we have achieved. They have no vision for the future, they can only look to the past. All they say is.. we shouldn't have done that! They never say what they can do NOW to make the world better. They have no vision for the future, and are only seeking to dismantle all the hard won achievements of the past. So it is with this vote.. AGAIN. Can the Democrats not just leave it alone and let there be some stability to the planning and implementation of a work in Iraq which IS WORKING... instead of creating fires to be put out again and again, making us defend the hard fought gains achieved by the US and coalition military for the people of Iraq?
The Democrats have no vision, because they do not know the future. God knows. And when HE makes the people vote the way the country should go and it "disenfranchises" these elite people who distain the common people, they rail at it because they cannot see God's plan, nor do they have one of their own. They just covet the power for themselves.. at any cost. They don't want what is best for the country, and they have no plan or purpose other than to gain power to do whatever they want to do. God forbid they EVER be allowed to force the troops from Iraq. They are a force for subversion and not for the good. The people of America need to know and understand that this is the reality of the party they listen to who are touted daily in the media as demigods and knights in shining armor who will lead away from war and into "peace" and "hope" and "unity"..
Pro 29:18 Where there is no vision, the people perish.
Whenever such visionless people parroting empty ideals are heeded by a people, it leads to an inevitable decline and ends up where the people of America do not wish to go. When radical Islam takes over a country by force the country has peace.. there is a peace which is ahieveable for America.. one without the freedom we have fought hard to achieve and protect. Is THAT where Americans wish to go?
Former Saddam Officer, Now NYT Reporter, Apparently Involved in Over 300 Stories
By Tom Blumer
April 1, 2008
To refresh from what I posted on earlier this morning -- here's the admission from New York Times reporter Qais Mizher, in his report from Basra in yesterday's Times,
QUOTE:
"Early last week, when the assault started, I happened to be in Diwaniya, another southern city, as part of my work as a reporter and translator for The New York Times.
Calling on my experience as a captain in the Iraqi Army before the 2003 invasion and essentially a war correspondent since then, I headed to Basra to see if I could make my way into the city and see what was happening there."
(end quote)
Yesterday, Richard Miniter at Pajamas Media pointed out that Mizher's self-professed "experience" means that he "was an officer in Saddam’s army."
A search on Mizher's full name in quotes at the Times shows that it comes up in 313 stories, going all the way back to September 2004. Mizher's regular reportorial contributions appear to have begun in late August 2005. He has rarely, if ever, had his byline alone on a story; the one excerpted above is either the first instance, or a rare exception.
Points/questions:
- Someone with more time than I have ought to go through the reports to which Mizher has contributed to see how a former Saddam officer might have colored them.
- How many other former Saddam officers are in Old Media's employ over in Iraq?
- Those skeptical of the need for folks like Yon, Totten, Ardolino, Dollard, et al need to remind me again -- Why should Old Media's wire services and "newspapers of record" deserve the presumption of greater credibility than the milbloggers?
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is a CPA based in Mason, Ohio and a contributing editor to NewsBusters
What are each of the Presidential candidates promising to do about this?
Do they articulate a clear agenda which will address this problem?
What if the Iranians one day suddenly announce they are nuclear armed?
How will each respond?
U.S. Diplomats Forecast Nuclear Arms Race in Middle East if Iran Gets the Bomb
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
WASHINGTON — Saudi Arabia most likely would develop nuclear weapons if Iran acquires them, according to a report to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
High-level American diplomats in Riyadh with excellent access to Saudi decision-makers said an Iranian nuclear weapon frightens the Saudis "to their core" and would compel the Saudis to seek nuclear weapons, the report said. The American diplomats were not identified.
Turkey also would come under pressure to follow suit if Iran builds nuclear weapons, said the report prepared by a committee staff member after interviewing hundreds of individuals in Washington and the Middle East last July through December.
While Turkey and Iran do not see themselves as adversaries, Turkey believes a power balance between them is the primary reason for a peaceful relationship, the report said.
A U.S. intelligence estimate late last year said Iran worked on nuclear weapons programs until 2003 before abandoning them. However, the intelligence analysts also reported Iran was continuing to enrich uranium, a key weapons component, and possessed the capacity to produce nuclear weapons if it decided to do so.
The spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East could reduce regional security and endanger U.S. interests, the report said.
In the next two or three years, the United States must take steps to restore Arab and Turkish confidence in U.S. security guarantees, the report concluded.
Otherwise, it said, "the future Middle East landscape may include a number of nuclear-armed or nuclear weapons-capable states vying for influence in a notoriously unstable region."
As for all that talk about it all being "blood for oil" in Iraq...
AP Says Military In Iraq Also Gouged By Big Oil
From a (perpetually) outraged Associated Press:
Military feels fuel-cost gouge in Iraq
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Think you’re being gouged by Big Oil? U.S. troops in Iraq are paying almost as much as Americans back home, despite burning fuel at staggering rates in a war to stabilize a country known for its oil reserves.
Military units pay an average of $3.23 a gallon for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, some $88 a day per service member in Iraq, according to an Associated Press review and interviews with defense officials. A penny or two increase in the price of fuel can add millions of dollars to U.S. costs.
Critics in Congress are fuming. The U.S., they say, is getting suckered as the cost of the war exceeds half a trillion dollars — $10.3 billion a month, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Some lawmakers say oil-rich allies in the Middle East should be doing more to subsidize fuel costs because of the stake they have in a secure Iraq. Others point to Iraq’s own burgeoning surplus as crude oil prices top $100 a barrel. Baghdad subsidies let Iraqis pay only about $1.36 a gallon.
The U.S. military, through its Defense Energy Support Center, buys fuel on the open market, paying from $1.99 a gallon to as much as $5.30 a gallon under contracts with private and government-owned oil companies. The center then sets a fixed rate for troops, currently $3.51 a gallon for diesel, $3.15 for gasoline, $3.04 for jet fuel and $13.61 for avgas, a high-octane fuel used mostly in unmanned aerial vehicles.
Kuwait does grant substantial subsidies, but they cover only about half the fuel used by the U.S. in Iraq. And the discount is eaten up by the Energy Support Center’s administrative costs and fluctuations in the market.
Overall, the military consumes about 1.2 million barrels, or more than 50 million gallons of fuel, each month in Iraq at an average $127.68 a barrel. That works out to about $153 million a month.
Historically, these figures are astounding. In World War II, the average fuel consumption per soldier or Marine was about 1.67 gallons a day; in Iraq, it’s 27.3 gallons, according to briefing slides prepared by a Pentagon task force established to review consumption…
[S]ome lawmakers say the U.S. is paying too much to secure an oil-rich nation that resides in a neighborhood swimming in the natural resource…
It’s unlikely the U.S. has pressed Saudi Arabia, Qatar or other oil-rich allies recently to help subsidize the cost of fuel in Iraq. The Defense Department referred questions about such negotiations to the State Department, where a spokesman said the agency was not aware of any.
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., also a member of the Armed Services Committee and a vocal advocate pushing the military to pursue alternative energy solutions, said he doubts such talks would be fruitful anyway because of the impression by many in the Middle East that the U.S. invaded Iraq for its oil to begin with.
"I’m not sure they’re as convinced we’re fighting for them, as they were in the first Gulf war," Bartlett said…
In the meantime, other lawmakers say they want to see the high costs of the war defrayed by Iraq dipping into its own oil revenues, which are projected to be substantial. Independent auditors estimate that Iraq is headed this year toward a massive surplus because of as much as $60 billion in oil revenues — a consequence of increased production paired with the sharp rise in prices.
"It’s totally unacceptable to me that we are spending tens of billions of dollars on rebuilding Iraq while they are putting tens of billions of dollars in banks around the world from oil revenues," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Armed Services Committee. "It doesn’t compute as far as I’m concerned." …
(end quote)
How is this possible when we were assured by our media masters that this was was simply "blood for oil"?
Hell, even some (idiot) Republicans seem to believe that:
Quote:
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., also a member of the Armed Services Committee and a vocal advocate pushing the military to pursue alternative energy solutions, said he doubts such talks would be fruitful anyway because of the impression by many in the Middle East that the U.S. invaded Iraq for its oil to begin with. (end quote)
It looks like we have been lied to.
This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Wednesday, April 2nd, 2008.
Analysis: Iraq moves on oil, graft laws
Published: April 3, 2008
By BEN LANDO
UPI Energy Editor
WASHINGTON, April 3 (UPI) -- Negotiators are hammering out a new draft Iraq oil law after previous versions stalled, and as Parliament is moving forward on two new laws, one reconstituting the state oil company and another cracking down on oil and fuel smuggling.
"Shortly, we'll see a new draft which there is more common ground," said Abdul-Hadi al-Hasani, deputy chair of the Iraqi Parliament's Oil, Gas and Natural Resources Committee, which has already seen four versions of a draft oil law. The latest draft is based on "good dialogue" between the central and Kurdistan region governments, he said, and the Council of Ministers will soon approve it and send it to his committee.
A new oil law has officially been in the works for two years, and sources United Press International spoke to both echoed Hasani's optimism as well as said a divide over the law remains too large.
The law is one piece in a four-part package of legislation aimed at modernizing Iraq's oil sector.
Another is a law re-establishing the Iraqi National Oil Co., the state company dissolved as Saddam Hussein consolidated power over Iraq's oil via the Oil Ministry. Hasani told UPI in a telephone interview from Baghdad that the INOC law has been passed from the Council to his committee.
"We are going to discuss it next week," he said, calling it "one step in the right direction."
Iraq cleared for next steps to WTO accession
Author: Moussa Ahmad
Source: BI-ME
Published: 03 April 2008
IRAQ. Members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) working party in Iraq on 2 April 2008, supported Iraq's rapid accession to the WTO and argued it would contribute to the country's integration into the world economy.
Iraq's Trade Minister, HE Dr Al-Sudani, stated that Iraq was determined to overcome the country's difficult circumstances to move forward on the accession process and added that Iraq's membership would represent a significant addition to the international community.
At this stage of the accession, members examine all aspects of Iraq's trade and economic policies to assess their conformity with WTO principles.
In the next steps, Iraq will update its legislative action plan, as appropriate, and will continue providing information to members. No date was decided or the next meeting.
A working party to examine the application of Iraq was established at the General Council meeting of 13 December 2004. Iraq submitted a Memorandum on the Foreign Trade Regime in September 2005, Foreign Trade Regime in September 2005, followed by Replies to Questions raised by WTO Members in November 2006.
Insider: Iraq Attack Was Preemptive Pentagon Insider Tells 60 Minutes U.S. Attack On Iraq Was Anticipatory Self-Defense; Not so much 9/11 Retaliation
April 3, 2008
Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense for policy (CBS/60 Minutes)
(CBS) The first Pentagon insider to give his account of the run-up to war says the attack on Iraq was more a defensive move against possible future threats from Saddam Hussein than a retaliation for the 9/11 attacks. Douglas Feith, the former undersecretary of defense for policy, also tells Steve Kroft that the Pentagon failed to foresee the insurgency or the need for more troops to prevent the post-war chaos that included looting. Feith’s interview will be broadcast on 60 Minutes Sunday, April 6 (7-8 p.m., ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.
"What we did after 9/11 was look broadly at the international terrorist network from which the next attack on the United States would come," says Feith, the No. 3 person in the Pentagon’s hierarchy from 2001 to 2005. "Our main goal was not merely retaliation for the 9/11 attack, it was preventing the next attack," he says. Pressed by Kroft on the importance of getting the 9/11 plotters, Feith responds that getting them was important, but "it was also important to go after the broader network … and prevent whatever plans there were for following attacks," Feith tells Kroft.
Feith concedes this line of thought could rationalize attacks on other countries, including North Korea, Syria and Iran. But he says Saddam’s attacks on his Middle Eastern neighbors, use of chemical weapons on his own people and his interest in building a nuclear weapon made Iraq a special case. "In an era where weapons of mass destruction can put countries in a position to do an enormous amount of harm, the old idea of having to wait until you actually see the country mobilizing for war doesn't make a lot of sense," says Feith.
When all the factors were considered, says Feith, Saddam had to go. "If we had left him in power, we would be fighting him down the road at a time and place of his choosing," Feith says. President Bush weighed the options.
"The president decided that the risks of war … were overweighed by the risks of leaving Saddam Hussein in power," Feith tells Kroft.
The risks of war, says Feith, were well known and documented in a memo from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that Feith refers to as “the parade of horribles” in his upcoming Harper Collins book, War and Decision. They included ruining the reputation of America overseas, strengthening Muslim militant resolve and the ethnic strife occurring in Iraq now. What they didn’t anticipate? "That the Bathist regime, even after it was overthrown, would be in a position to organize and recruit for and to finance and command and insurgency," says Feith. His book also addresses the fact that the smaller and more mobile American force conducting the attack saved U.S. lives, but was too small to control the country after the initial fighting, allowing widespread looting.
Feith acknowledges that few people are pleased about the war, but he believes it was and still is the right thing to do for America. "I think the president made the right decision given what he knew. … And to tell you the truth, even given what we’ve learned since," he tells Kroft.
Thank you for posting that article from the UPI about the long awaited oil law. The Iraqi's are sitting on a ton (hyperbole)of cash and literaly a ton of oil. We all are holding out hope that Parliment and the GoI finally get it. I read another article stating the TSAs will not be signed at the earliest until June. It may bare out that that the TSAs were a stall until the oil law is passed.
If the Parliment passes each part of the legislation that makes up the oil law they did it on their own accord without bending to any pressure from outside. The Iraqi Government can save face. Once the oil law is passed there is not a doubt in my mind that the managed rate imposed by the CBI can continue to be the way forward. Any talk from currency traders about a 1000/1 by 2010 cannot have one ounce of truthfulness to it.
Beware the next few months will see more articles from Iraq attempting to curb speculation on the Dinar. You and I know the truth. Do not give creditability to those negative and deceptive articles. Remember, follow the money. We know that the United States Government has enacted a kind of Marshall Plan; intent on rebuilding Iraq reminincence of Japan and Germany. The large sums of money invested in Iraq has not been spent so we can just walk away and not reap what we have sown.
The reward will be a prosperous and peaceful democratic Iraq. Enjoying a standard of living shared only with Saudi Arabia and Dubai. Part of this standard of living is a stable and valuable currency on a limited free float. Backed by Iraqi oil (Petro Dinars), cash, and gold reserves. What a wonderful scenario that is very plausible.
Everything I just shared is just my opinion, but from what I have seen this is very plausible. The Dinar is not a get rich quick scheme. It is an investment with pontentially high returns. I am bullish on the Dinar. I chose to increase my position. Based upon what you read, it you're decision whether to increase you're position or not. In the end, whatever you're exposure, I think we stand to reap a great reward.
I continued to listen to CSPAN and they had the morning session that I called to your attention. Then the afternoon session had two experts who have traveled through Iraq extensively. One expert, worked in the green zone and spoke about the issues of the government trying to govern. The other spoke as a reporter and also as a writer of a book on Iraq. He spent alot of time with the Sunni's as well as the Shiiti's.
In speaking about his experience in talking with Sunni's, the author spoke about how Sunni's view the Shiiti sect (and those in the central government) as agents of Iran. They are shocked that they lost the war to the Shiiti's and took the cease fire from the american's to get $300.00 a month for each person's cooperation in working with the americans. Interesting that we are paying each person, isn't it?. The sunni's are awaiting for a time when they are strong enough to take on the Shiiti sects to get rid of Iranian agents.
In the south (Baghdad to Basra), different sects are banding together in small/large malitias pockets. The central government is 3 of the political parties and the central government sects are not allowing the sharing of power with anyone else (especially Sadr's militas). The central government is trying to rule from the top down, but this expert stated that the real power is from each leader of the various militias.
Sadr's militias are the poor and it is a very large militia. Sadr's militia also controls the port of Basra that loads the oil.
The scene that the expert reporter/writer posed is that Iraq will be ruled like that of Somalia with War Lords and nothing like a democratic republic. The reporter was asked how he was able to travel Iraq without getting killed or taken hostage?. His answer is that he asked persmission to travel in the various areas of Iraq from the ruling warlord. When he was given permission to travel in a certain area of Iraq, his protection came from the warlord who ruled that particular area.
Currently, it was stated that Iraq saw ethnic cleaning in all parts of Iraq. The Kirkuk question on the Kurds has already been decided according to this expert because the Kurds control this area with their militias and in the south, various Shiiti sects control areas in various areas/neighborhoods.
This expert also stated that the Basra war by Maliki is not about going after outlaws, but about the central government's Shiiti sects wanting to further their power.
I know after listening to this testimony, I was quite alarmed. Both experts stated that the role of the american's is to play peace maker and to try and stay as neutral as possible. But essentially, we are looking at tribal groups all over Iraq. No one trust a central government (due to Saddam) and everyone trust only their local militias for security of their immediate sect. This is why, policemen and army people laid down weapons in this latest military situation in Baghdad and Basra.
What kinds of implications do you all think this information has on our Iraqi dinar?.
Listening to "experts" is really not the best way to guage a situation because each has an agenda to advance. It seems to me political, religious, and ethnic reconciliation can only occur once Iraq possess an economy. Cash sitting in a bank and the people not seeing much progress will continue to instability and mistrust on all sides. Bill Clinton's potitical campaign coined a phrase back in 1992; "its the economy stupid." Iraq has the potential at double digit growth. The GoI has to learn how to spend some of its reserves on rebuilding the infastructure. It is imperative that Parliment pass the series of laws that will open up the Iraqi Oil Industry.
Royal Dutch Shell and other oil majors are willing to invest billions of dollars in Iraq. My point, once money starts flowing into the country and oil starts flowing out of the country. Basic services are available to everyone. Their standard of living is raised to match that of Saudi Arabia and Dubai. Amazingly reconciliation will happen. Could this be years away? Of course.
From what I read, GWB's quasi Marshall Plan is making progress. You and I live in a society of instant gratification. We want Iraq up and running and for them to revalue their currency tomorrow. Fact, Iraq is still emerging from the bonds barbarianism. Nation building does not happen overnight. It took many years for Germany and Japan (even with the help from the United States) to rise from the ash heap of defeat. Back to Iraq, passage of the oil law offering the oil majors a protection on their investment is the first step in the right direction.
Iraq PM offers immunity, freeze of raids against militiamen
www.chinaview.cn
2008-04-04
BAGHDAD, April 4 (Xinhua) -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki offered Friday nationwide immunity and freeze of raids on militiamen who lay down their arms, Iraqi official television reported.
"In order to give a chance to those who repented, raids in all areas will stop and immunity will be granted to whoever wanted to lay down their arms," the television quoted a statement by Malikias saying.
Maliki's statement did not mention the Mahdi Army militia, loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, or put a timeframe for his new measures.
Last week, Sadr militia fought fierce battles in Iraq's southern city of Basra with U.S.-backed Iraqi security forces, as the latter launched a massive offensive, dubbed "Operation Cavalry Assault" aimed at restoring order in the city where instability was spreading.
I agree with Rob N, Laura.
The situation in Iraq is very politicized.
There is so much at stake and we are in a cloud of disinformation and distortion which takes into account not only both sides of the political spectrum in the US, but also the impending election. So much of what we hear is geared toward influencing that election... so that little information coming through is without political spin. I agree with Rob's statement, "Listening to "experts" is really not the best way to guage a situation because each has an agenda to advance." That is particularly so in light of the election influence peddling going on.
Also, Rob's assessment that the average Iraqi needs a job and a living - and that if they had the equivalent to Saudi Arabia's wealth for the people that would go a long way toward reconciliation I believe to be true, too. They can live side by side in different countries. I believe they can manage to get along within the borders of one country if the financial incentive is there to do so. If Iraq splits up, they would have instability, different currencies, and a lack of unity and cohesive policies on economic matters (how to split up the money from oil, etc). Indeed, they would each need to negotiate with anyone who would develop their oil fields. Divided they would be made much poorer and less politically viable, diminishing their value to the world market. Even the squabblers understand that. Who would develop their oil fields as tiny lordships? And if corruption is bad now, imagine how rampant it would be under shifting tiny tribal areas. Their separate currencies would be worth very little. This way, united, they stand a chance of a great deal of wealth for everyone. It is not in their interests to break up, even if their cultures are regional. They will work it out once they all negotiate for a nice big fat piece of the pie. Then they can squabble within their cultural area about how to spend it. But destroying or making the pie smaller (each area's "take" from the oil monies).. that is in no one's interests but the enemies of Iraq who want to impoverish Iraq then take it over and rule it themselves. (A poor Iraq area under a warlord is easy to pick off by a well funded country.. like Iran.. with its well trained military. We already see them with a great deal more influence now in Iraq than they should have.. this would increase that influence and step up their takeover efforts. Divide and conquer is the strategy employed by those wishing to take over - unity only hurts the ability of the wolf to pick off small regions of less well armed and defended "sheep".)
United, the Iraqis can have a strong military and deal with uprisings and insurrections from inside or outside-funded interests as a country. This protection of their people is a great plus. Divided, it devolves into small areas with tribally limited military powers and arms. Only those backed by Iran (Sadr?) would be able to take over in that scenerio.. and as I said, it is not in the economic interests of all Iraqis to have these small factions taking over areas and leaving the union. In my opinion, for their own good and prosperity, the Iraqis will find a way to figure out the "turf wars" and who is a player WITHIN the federal Iraqi government plan, and that means a kind of reconciliation or coexistence. THEN they all prosper. It is like the States, which were also set up with militias originally (second amendment to keep and bear arms was necessary for a militia in case of an invading country), each State has their regional areas and concerns. Even if they put Iraq into three "states" with their own regional interests and then a central government over them all.. that would work. But the idea that Iraq is like Africa with tons of warring tribes which are incapable of compromise.. just does not hold water. Iraq is not Africa, and the divides are not that huge that monetary and economic union will not solve almost all of them. They all WANT the prosperity and peace and stability of one currency and country.. it is just ridding Iraq of the usurping influence of Iran which is plaguing Iraqi politics with instability at this time. And that will have to be taken care of in a short period of time in order to move forward. I believe that is in the cards.. and the US will be forced to address the matter with Iran even though they do not wish to. Iran is ambitious and has plans in place to bring things to a head. They are only biding their time until they feel it will further their interests. The US must be planning contingency plans which will be triggered when Iran makes that move. I don't believe the US is provoking what will happen, but will be in the position of reacting appropriately to it. I continue to pray the US will have all the wisdom they will need to when the showdown at the OK corral happens with Iran. It is a pity the US is now in the position of waiting for the Iranian attack to happen instead of making a preemptive move, but such is the political situation. As the insider said yesterday, the preemptive decision to deal with Saddam was the right one, and this is the unfortunate fallout by those who cannot or will not see that it was necessary. But I believe the US will be prepared for Iran's eventual move when it comes.
Until then, a HUGE blow to Iran's plans for the region and a stroke of genius for Iraqis would be the RV of the Iraqi currency. It is the best possible political move the Iraqis could make, IMO. There is no better move for Iraq to make politically for stability and advancement of their unified agenda for prosperity, peace and wealth. It also would make them a power to be reckoned with rather than a "less than third world" player in the economic sphere. This would change their footing in every area, not just economically. There are only two powers on earth, God's and Money. (Jesus said you cannot serve two masters, you must serve God or money.. they are the two rival powers on earth.) People serve either of these two "masters". If Iraq suddenly has money.. they suddenly have a LOT more earthly power. The RV would give them more say and power than they ever dreamed of. I think they have the maturity to be a "lottery winner" and not squander all that newfound wealth and influence in the world. It also would make them an influence to be reckoned with in a way they obviously do not see right now. In economic terms, the lack of value to their currency makes them lightweights in the world's economy. If they wish influence, with money comes the power and influence they seek. Money talks.. it always has. Iraq has little (their Dinar is worthless), to change that to much (RV of the currency) changes the power, politics, influence and say of Iraqi politicians and voters alike. It is the smart move.. we just wonder how long until they "get it". I agree, they want little speculation on their currency.. but if they don't get their act together, their aims will not be furthered and I think that is the primary concern, even above the speculative market. Getting the country on course is more important than stopping people from buying a few more Dinar - investing in the belief it will go up. The Iraqis need to get their house in order and soon.
Petraeus to update Congress on Iraq
By Kristin Roberts
Apr 4, 2008
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, will not promise Congress large troop withdrawals beyond July, saying it is too soon to make decisions about the second half of the year, defense officials say.
Petraeus will tell Congress next week the U.S. military needs time to evaluate security conditions throughout Iraq before committing to more large troop reductions in 2008.
That assessment period, often referred to as a "pause" in withdrawals, has assumed greater significance for Pentagon officials after last week's clashes in Baghdad and Basra between Iraqi forces and Shi'ite militiaman -- fighting that raised doubts about the skill of U.S.-trained Iraqi soldiers.
"It is the kind of violence and lack of security that would certainly drive an assessment of what we would do after that (pause in withdrawals)," said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"The period of consolidation and evaluation will take place and we'll take recommendations based on conditions on the ground there," Mullen said ahead of Petraeus' testimony.
SURGE SUCCESS?
Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker will also be asked by lawmakers during the hearings next Tuesday and Wednesday to assess the success of the surge strategy.
The addition of combat troops last year has been credited with lowering attacks and deaths, especially in Baghdad. That led some U.S. officials to declare the surge a military success.
But other factors helped improve security too, including Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's order for his Mehdi Army militia to cease fire and a decision by Sunni leaders in Anbar to join U.S. and Iraqi forces in their fight against al Qaeda.
The New York Times, quoting senior U.S. officials, reported that a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq showed significant security improvements and progress toward resolving sectarian divisions. But the report added that security was still fragile and that extremist groups remained capable of big attacks, the officials told the Times.
"The N.I.E. update confirmed that the surge strategy the president announced in January of last year is working," a senior administration official told the Times in its Friday edition.
The period of reduced violence was supposed to create the calm needed for Iraqi politicians to move forward on measures seen by Washington as critical to long-term stability.
Progress, however, has been slow despite security gains.
The intra-Shi'ite violence in Basra, which led Britain to delay its withdrawal, appears to have underscored how far Iraqi factions are from reconciliation, some analysts said.
Note the political opportunists jumping on this bandwagon and saying that due to this uprising in Basra all the Iraqi factions are "far from reconciliation" - acting as though this is brand new in development though for months the US has been saying that this is a fragile and hard-won success with the surge. This is a political move to strengthen the Democrats in light of the election, but does not reflect the truth of Iraqi politics. As I posted yesterday, the Iraqi politicians are moving toward the oil law, and this uprising was likely the work of IRAN to create instability to further their aims of getting someone sympathetic to their aims into the Whitehouse. It was orchestrated by Iran, and well equipped, trained and funded by them. Iran's purpose is to show they have muscle in Iraq and can influence the dialog in the US through their Iraqi agents. It appears to be working and the US must adjust its strategy militarily to deal with this Iranian funded and trained militia. No matter how the Iranians worked their influence on or with Sadr to do this, the fact remains that the Iranians were the key to ending it (with all parties meeting in IRAN to make the deal) and that was a high handed way of showing that Iran has power and influence in Iraq and can affect its politics and AMERICAN election politics at their will.
Nothing like a razor sharp warning and illustration of the Iranian influence to remind the Republicans and Iraqis alike that they are dealing with a hostile power with definite political ambitions concerning Iraq - one which weilds great influence from within that country. Note that Sadr's people were livid that their leader was being influenced.. and that the Iranians brokered a "compromise" that they liked among the players. The powers in play are beyond the little people with guns in their hands in Basra.. this is political and aimed at the US elections and the greater ambitions of Iran for Iraq, the region and world. It is not, however, indicative of the Iraqi squabbling being irreconcilable, as I think the Iraqis are able to show shortly by finding a compromise on the oil law. In the interests of Iraqis and the country, they need to get their act together and move the country forward by getting the political compromises in place. I believe they have the will to make it so and show the world (and Iran) that they will not be bullied or manipulated into the instability which furthers the Iranian policy.
Bomb plot 'revenge for Iraq', British court told
04/04/2008
Six Britons accused of plotting to blow up at least seven transatlantic airliners recorded martyrdom videos saying the attacks were revenge for the US invasion of Iraq, a London court heard today.
In extracts played and read to the jury, the men said their mission was to punish non-Muslims and warned of "floods of martyrdom operations" because governments had ignored the warnings of Osama bin Laden.
Yesterday, the court was told that the men had planned to use liquid explosives disguised as soft drinks to simultaneously blow up at least seven transatlantic aircraft in mid-air.
In total, up to 18 suicide bombers may have taken part in the planned attack, the prosecution said.
The eight men on trial at Woolwich Crown Court in east London are charged with conspiracy to murder. They are also accused of plotting "to commit an act of violence likely to endanger the safety of an aircraft".
Prosecutor Peter Wright said the suicide videos had been discovered in a camera in one of the men's car and on a cassette tape in the garage of his home.
The prosecution has said the men were close to putting their scheme into action when they were arrested in August 2006.
As for the claim by some of no political progress...
U.S. Study Finds Progress in Iraq
By MARK MAZZETTI and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: April 4, 2008
WASHINGTON—A new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq cites significant security improvements and progress toward healing sectarian political rifts, but concludes that security remains fragile and terrorist groups remain capable of initiating large attacks, several American government officials said this week.
The classified document provides a more upbeat analysis of conditions in Iraq than the last major assessment by United States spy agencies, last summer. It was completed this week, just days before the top American commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, is due in Washington to give lawmakers a progress report on the military strategy in Iraq.
While the last assessment painted a grim picture of an Iraqi government paralyzed by sectarian strife, the new intelligence estimate cites slow but steady progress by Iraqi politicians on forging alliances between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq, said the government officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the document is classified.
At the same time, officials said that the document detailed several factors that could reverse these trends: including a campaign of violence by Shiite splinter groups and the possibility that the government would not carry out a series of reconciliation laws Iraq’s Parliament passed recently. Some Bush administration officials said that the report presented positive news, but they remained cautious about the future.
“The N.I.E. update confirmed that the surge strategy the president announced in January of last year is working,” said one senior administration official. “There’s more work to be done, but progress has obviously been made.”
National Intelligence Estimates represent a consensus of America’s 16 intelligence agencies. They are submitted to members of Congress and senior administration officials. Ross Feinstein, a spokesman for the director of national intelligence, who oversees the estimates, declined to comment on the Iraq assessment. On Thursday, intelligence officials said that they had no plans to declassify the latest estimate, even though the administration made public the major findings of the one last summer.
Al-Qaeda grooming 'western-looking' militants: CIA
March 31, 2008
CIA director Michael Hayden said al-Qaeda was training operatives who "look western" and could enter the United States undetected to conduct terrorist attacks.
General Hayden said the terror network over the past 18 months has established a safe haven in tribal areas along the Afghanistan-Pakistan where they are preparing militants for attacks against the West.
"They are bringing operatives into that region for training - operatives that, a phrase I would use, wouldn't attract your attention if they were going through the customs line at Dulles (airport near Washington DC) with you," Hayden told NBC television.
The new recruits "look western" and "would be able to come into this country ... without attracting the kind of attention that others might", he said.
He also stressed that while he was confident al-Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden was still hiding out near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, the Saudi-born fighter no longer has operational control over the terror network.
This now lies with Egyptian militants, he argued, although he said bin Laden remains an "iconic figure", and the Central Intelligence Agency is making every effort to "kill or capture" him along with his al-Qaeda lieutenants.
"Let me use (the term) iconic figure. His presence ... gives a certain punch, a certain image, to the global movement," Hayden said.
"But he's not operationally involved. An awful lot of the operational force of al-Qaeda -- the Arabic name is the name and then often finished by the country they are from -- an awful lot of them are the Egyptians."
Al-Qaeda's number two is the Egyptian militant Ayman Al-Zawahiri, who the US director of national intelligence Michael McConnell last September called "the real intellectual leader of al-Qaeda."
Hayden said bin Laden, Zawahiri and others remain top targets for US forces.
"Operationally, we are turning every effort to kill or capture that leadership from the top to the bottom," he said.
Bin Laden has claimed responsibility for the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US, which killed nearly 3000 people.
Explosive Materials Found in Man's Luggage at Orlando Airport
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Kevin Brown
ORLANDO, Fla. — A man was detained Tuesday at Orlando International Airport carrying materials in his luggage that could have been used for an explosive device, the FBI said on Tuesday.
Jamaican national Kevin Brown, 32, planned to board Air Jamaica flight 80 to Jamaica, until he was questioned by airport authorities, the FBI said in a statement.
A subsequent search of Browns checked baggage by airport authorities revealed two galvanized pipes, end caps, two small containers containing BBs, batteries, two containers with an unknown liquid, laptop, and bomb making literature, according to the FBI.
According to MyFOXOrlando.com, several ticket counters in the area were closed and a portion of the terminal roped off while members of the bomb squad searched the Brown's bags. He was taken into custody and turned over to the FBI.
Mica would not go so far as do call the incident a terrorist act. He did however say that it was very disturbing.
“From what I understand,” Mica said. “And what was described, if it’s confirmed, this posed a very serious threat to aviation security.”
I know you are just dying to know the answer to the question of: "Why Allah would tell Muslims to kill and rape innocent non-Muslims, including their wives and daughters?"
A question the Imam from East London was wondering and posed, too..
Quote:
Report: Non-Muslims Deserve to Be Punished
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
A report posted on Islam Watch, a site run by Muslims who oppose intolerant teachings and hatred for unbelievers, exposes a prominent Islamic cleric and lawyer who support extreme punishment for non-Muslims — including killing and rape.
A question-and-answer session with Imam Abdul Makin in an East London mosque asks why Allah would tell Muslims to kill and rape innocent non-Muslims, including their wives and daughters, according to Islam Watch.
"Because non-Muslims are never innocent, they are guilty of denying Allah and his prophet," the Imam says, according to the report. "If you don't believe me, here is the legal authority, the top Muslim lawyer of Britain."
The lawyer, Anjem Choudary, backs up the Imam's position, saying that all Muslims are innocent.
Click here to watch the interview with Islamic lawyer Anjem Choudary.
"You are innocent if you are a Muslim," Choudary tells the BBC. "Then you are innocent in the eyes of God. If you are not a Muslim, then you are guilty of not believing in God."
Choudary said he would not condemn a Muslim for any action.
"As a Muslim, I must support my Muslim brothers and sisters," Choudary said. "I must have hatred to everything that is not Muslim."
If you are a Muslim, quote, "Choudary said he would not condemn a Muslim for any action." So they can sin with impunity, breaking any and all of God's commands. But those who do not embrace Islam are "guilty of not believing in God" and so can be raped and killed with carefree abandon, subject to no law.
Have we thanked the US military and their allies today for their protecting missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world in the GWOT against such ferocious enemies of "innocent non-Muslims"? Do remember them in your prayers.. they stand between you.. and this.
China reveals Iranian nuclear information
April 3, 2008
BEIJING, April 3 (UPI) -- Diplomats say China has supplied the United Nations with intelligence on Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear technology.
Beijing is believed to have decided to help after seized Iranian documents included blueprints for turning uranium metal into warheads and the testing of high explosives used to set off radioactive material, The Telegraph, a London newspaper, reported.
Documents also are said to concern the procurement of dual-use technology.
Diplomats saw China's decision as a potentially significant breakthrough, the report said.
Officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nation's nuclear watchdog, recently discovered that Iran had obtained information on how to manufacture nuclear-armed weapons, The Telegraph reported.
Much of the new material was presented to the governors of the IAEA in February, a meeting thought to have convinced China to act, The Telegraph said.
China never does anything unless there is some strategic advantage to it, for China. So what's the advantage of cooperating with the UN, and ratting out the Iranians, over the nuclear issue? Especially since China is a high-growth economy, that's addicted to oil, and doesn't have nearly enough domestic production of oil to meet it's internal needs? Especially since Iran is one of the largest reserves of oil in the world, and China has signed several oil production agreements with Iran. Why would China seemingly go against it's own interests, in siding with the United States, and against Iran, it's future source of oil? Why would China aggravate the Iranians like that?
Maybe the Chinese are placing a bet. Maybe the Chinese are looking at the middle east, which contains much of the world's remaining known cheap oil reserves, especially in Iraq, and are betting that the United States will eventually be succesful in Iraq...... That makes sense.... China intends to grow, in the future. That will take a lot of oil. Where is that oil to come from? The middle east. If the United States is successful in Iraq, then America will be able to have a lot of influence over who gets to develop oil fields. China would love to be part of that game. If China is to grow economically, for several decades, China NEEDS to be part of the winning side in Iraq, and the middle east.
China has just placed a bet on America being successful in Iraq, IMO. Good news.
China never does anything unless there is some strategic advantage to it, for China. So what's the advantage of cooperating with the UN, and ratting out the Iranians, over the nuclear issue? Especially since China is a high-growth economy, that's addicted to oil, and doesn't have nearly enough domestic production of oil to meet it's internal needs? Especially since Iran is one of the largest reserves of oil in the world, and China has signed several oil production agreements with Iran. Why would China seemingly go against it's own interests, in siding with the United States, and against Iran, it's future source of oil? Why would China aggravate the Iranians like that?
Maybe the Chinese are placing a bet. Maybe the Chinese are looking at the middle east, which contains much of the world's remaining known cheap oil reserves, especially in Iraq, and are betting that the United States will eventually be succesful in Iraq...... That makes sense.... China intends to grow, in the future. That will take a lot of oil. Where is that oil to come from? The middle east. If the United States is successful in Iraq, then America will be able to have a lot of influence over who gets to develop oil fields. China would love to be part of that game. If China is to grow economically, for several decades, China NEEDS to be part of the winning side in Iraq, and the middle east.
China has just placed a bet on America being successful in Iraq, IMO. Good news.
As an added note, the Chinese are very cautious by nature. They do their homework. The Chinese are very good geo-political chess players. And their economy is very, very vulnerable. It is completely dependent on foreign oil, now and for the future. The Chinese do not do things haphazardly. A lot of thought goes into their decisions, especially major policy decisions that affect the long term economic prosperity of the country, like supply of oil, which is vital to a modern economy. So this decision is a BIG DEAL.
Very good insight, Investor.
Thank You! :)
That can only be good news..
and a plus for those of us who have invested in the Dinar..
and thus invested in the future good of Iraq.
Your sharing is very much appreciated.
Draft law to set up new national oil company at parliament-MP Baghdad - Voices of Iraq
Saturday , 05 /04 /2008 Time 1:01:53
Baghdad, Apr 5, (VOI)- Iraqi Parliament’s Oil and Gas internal committee is examining a draft law to set up a new national oil company along with the already exist two state-owned companies, an MP said on Saturday.
The draft law “included the establishment of a new national oil company which will be partly funded by the government to operate along with its already exist sisters North Oil Company and South Oil Company,” Abdel Hadi al-Hassani, deputy chairperson of Parliament’s Oil and Gas committee, told Aswat al-Iraq- Voices of Iraq- (VOI).
The parliamentarian added that the new oil company will expand to include two more companies operating in southern Iraqi provinces of Missan and Thi-Qar.
“The new oil company will be tasked with drilling oilfields and extracting, stockpiling and transferring crude,” the MP said.
As for the capital of the new company, the legislator explained, “Part of the fund will be offered by the government and the company may apply for loans as four times as the capital offered by the government once the company was set up.”
The Oil and Gas deputy chairperson told VOI “this is a prologue to enacting the oil and gas draft law.”
“Our committee requested to increase the suggested capital for the new company to enable it compete with other international oil companies,” the legislator concluded.
So far there are only two Iraqi oil companies operating in the oil-rich-country’s northern and southern regions and both are state-owned.
Iraq is waiting the enacting of a controversial draft law regulating exploration and production of oil in the country. The draft law, dubbed oil and gas draft law, was passed by the Iraqi government last July but it received criticism and rejection by some major blocs within the 275-member- Iraqi parliament.
I believe this latest action in Basra, Iraq was with military goals - stirred up (fomented) by Iran to offset the incredible gains in security made in Iraq - and intended to influence the dialog in the US, particularly the critical report General Petraeus is to give Tuesday. By attacking now, the Iranians could cast doubt on the incredible gains of the surge. That was the plan they had going into it - to strengthen the Iraq war critic's position, and it worked.
===
Spike in violence raises questions on eve of critical Iraq report
April 5, 2008
By John Yaukey,
Gannett News Service
WASHINGTON — The recent flare-up of violence in Iraq's Shiite regions was relatively brief.
But it has raised some critical questions Army Gen. David Petraeus, top commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker are sure to face as they make their second war report to Congress starting Tuesday:
• Are Iraqi forces, which struggled against Shiite militias in recent clashes, making sufficient progress to start restoring order on their own?
• Does Iraq have enough of a political center to forge the sort of national accommodation necessary to quell the sectarian fires?
• Has the U.S. troop surge, now more than a year old, really helped reduce violence and secure Iraq as President Bush has claimed? Or is it just a bandage over a wound about to hemorrhage again, as it almost did in the recent battle over the southern port city of Basra?
The general and ambassador have already been tipping their hands on what they'll tell lawmakers.
In a recent interview with USA TODAY, Crocker said the improved security in Iraq, which followed the troop surge, has contributed to an economic revival, and that the United States has a "moral imperative" to stay and continue to bring down the violence.
See: A 'MORAL IMPERATIVE': Crocker says U.S. must continue push to decrease violence
Petraeus is expected to ask for a pause in the ongoing drawdown of U.S. troops — leaving about 140,000 — to secure the gains of the troop surge.
Senior administration officials have been making the case that even though the nearly week-long skirmish in Basra ended indecisively, it nevertheless showed that Iraqi forces are making progress.
Army Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner conceded there were problems with the Basra operation, but said in a recent briefing that "overall, the majority of the Iraqi security forces performed their mission."
"There is no doubt that General Petraeus will present an impressive array of statistics illustrating reductions of violence in Iraq when he testifies before Congress," said Charles Pascual, vice president and director of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. "All key indicators on insurgent attacks, bombings, and civilian and military fatalities demonstrate that violence is down."
But, he said, "I would also predict that if most senior military officers were asked if this progress in security is viable without a political settlement in Iraq, their answer would be no."
That appears to be where the war critics will probe.
Petraeus and Crocker's first congressional report in September — where they convincingly argued the surge was working — changed the dialogue on Iraq and put war opponents on their heels.
As a result, the majority Democrats ended 2007 looking feckless in the face of a determined Bush backed by a widely respected general and one of the first real success stories in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad.
But this time around — as the Iraq campaign enters its sixth year — Petraeus and Crocker face critics clearly more eager for endgame scenarios and long-term policies than interim progress reports and surge statistics.
"For them, the question is, quite frankly, fairly simple," said Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., who also will chair one of the Iraq hearings. "What's next, gentlemen? Where are you going from here? What's the plan?"
If this attack in Basra was not aimed at strengthening the position of the critics of the war in Iraq.. it coincidentally managed to accomplish that Iranian goal without any planning.
As for the war in Iraq, as this piece observes.. historically,
QUOTE:
Battlefield victory is the easy bit. Building peace is a constant struggle -- and it's a matter of years, not weeks.
We didn't give up with Germany and look where that got us.. it took years, too.
Let's not rush to judgement based on one incident in Basra and say it all won't work and should be abandoned.
===
Iraq Is a Mess. But Germany Was, Too.
By David Stafford
Sunday, April 6, 2008; Page B03
Smash the enemy, deliver victory, topple the dictator, destroy his regime, eliminate his evil ideology, and establish peace and democracy. Oh, and -- almost forgot -- do this several thousand miles away on a distant continent while also fighting another life-or-death struggle elsewhere. Meanwhile, make sure to keep in step with our allies. And one last thing: Bring the troops back home as soon as possible.
Mission impossible? Entering year six of the Iraq war, with 4,000 Americans dead in the conflict, the president's popularity hitting new lows and results of the troop surge still fragile, it may look that way for the administration of George W. Bush. But we may also be rushing to judgment.
More than 60 years ago, during World War II, Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower didn't think that his similar, even more daunting, mission was impossible. By the time he had completed his crusade in Europe and thanked his staff for a job well done at a farewell ceremony in Frankfurt in July 1945, the German army, or Wehrmacht, no longer existed, Hitler was dead, the Nazi Party had been dissolved, war criminals were behind bars awaiting trial and retribution, de-Nazification had begun, and western Germany -- the part not occupied by the Soviet army -- was on its way to becoming one of the most successful liberal democracies of the Western world. The Third Reich was history.
So what did the United States do right 60 years ago that it has -- so far -- failed to accomplish in Iraq since the iconic toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue in Baghdad and Bush's "Mission Accomplished" declaration aboard a U.S. carrier on May 1, 2003?
The question is, of course, superficial. It would be harder to think of two more different societies than Germany in 1945 and contemporary Iraq. The former -- despite Hitler and the Third Reich -- had a long tradition of law, order, constitutional government and civic society to draw on in rebuilding democracy. Nor was it riven by deep-rooted ethnic and sectarian religious tensions that erupted to the surface once the dictator's iron fist was removed. And although Germany certainly had hostile neighbors -- especially to the communist East -- the threat they posed served to create, not crack, political cohesion.
Yet in looking at Iraq over the past five years, it's hard not to find poignant echoes of the post-WWII experience and to wonder whether a better knowledge of that history might have helped prevent some basic errors. Or even -- because there may be some small crumb of comfort for optimists here -- that it's too soon to declare that the mission has failed. Sen. John McCain's 100-year horizon for a U.S. presence in Iraq may be stretching things. But let's not forget that the postwar occupation of Germany lasted for a full decade.
In 1945, the Allies had a carefully thought-out plan for what would follow victory. For two years before his forces crossed the German frontier, Eisenhower and his staff at Allied headquarters worked on detailed plans for the occupation. The lines of command were clearly drawn, and everyone agreed that the military would be in charge. Thousands of soldiers were trained in the tasks of military government. Compare that with the chaotically devised schemes for Iraq that were cobbled together at the last minute amid squabbling between the Pentagon and the State Department. Or with the confused and confusing mandate handed to the hapless Jay Garner, the first administrator of postwar Iraq, to devise a comprehensive plan for its administration in a matter of weeks.
Nonetheless, plans, however thorough, are worthless if they cannot be implemented. For that, establishing law and order is a minimal and basic condition. There was plenty of looting and disorder when U.S. forces entered Germany. In fact, it was on a scale far greater than anticipated or now remembered, most of it due to the rage that millions of slave laborers who'd been deported to Germany from Nazi-occupied countries, chiefly Poland and the Soviet Union, vented on their captors upon liberation.
As in Baghdad five years ago, the disorder also engulfed cultural institutions. When U.S. forces entered Munich, Hitler's spiritual home and the seat of Nazi Party headquarters, scores of works of art simply disappeared from museums and art galleries. For two or three days, the northern city of Bremen was "probably among the most debauched places on the face of God's earth," wrote one witness of the frantic looting that took place after Allied soldiers entered its bomb-shattered streets.
But this anarchy was quickly and forcefully stamped out, and enough Allied forces remained in the country and in all major cities to impose stringent and often ruthless order. Military tribunals promptly disposed of Nazis who were inclined to continue the struggle by executing them or imposing severe terms of imprisonment.
The way victory was declared was crucial. Immediately after entering Germany in September 1944, Eisenhower issued a proclamation that declared: "We come as conquerors, but not as oppressors." The emphasis on conquest meant that military government ruled. There was no glib talk of liberation, and no dealing, either, with the large number of anti-Nazi exiles who had jockeyed for recognition as some sort of government in exile. Too many of them were long out of touch with realities on the ground or had axes to grind.
Critics of the Bush administration's handling of Iraq point to the decisions by L. Paul Bremer, Garner's replacement, to dismiss Baathists from public office and to dissolve the Iraqi army as critical and disastrous turning points that created a vast legion of the unemployed and disaffected. Yet in 1945, the Allies implemented a similarly draconian policy in Germany. They dissolved the Nazi Party, carried out a thorough purge of Nazis in public office and even abolished the ancient state of Prussia, which they believed was at the root of German militarism. Millions of Wehrmacht soldiers languished in prisoner-of-war camps while their families struggled to survive.
None of this, however, had the catastrophic consequences seen in Iraq. One reason is that pragmatism almost immediately took hold. It quickly became clear that Germany could be rebuilt only with the help of numerous people who had been members of the Nazi Party.
The Allies entered Germany with a strict policy of "non-fraternization" that forbade their forces to have any but the most minimal and formal dealings with Germans. "Don't get chummy with Jerry," urged the G.I. newspaper Stars and Stripes. "In heart, body and spirit every German is a Hitler." But by July 1945, the policy had been abandoned as unenforceable. It was also alienating the very Germans needed to rebuild the country and establish democracy.
As for de-Nazification, it sounded good, and indeed was morally and politically necessary. But distinguishing between real and nominal Nazis often proved extremely difficult. Small officials who'd joined the party out of necessity were thrown out of office, while big businessmen who'd profited under Hitler were left alone. The policy generated growing hostility to the occupiers, and its implementation was soon handed over to the Germans themselves. This caused its own bitterness as the Germans were often seen as being too lenient.
Even so, despite this willingness to rethink and adjust, occupation policy floundered. Two years after Allied victory, Germany was in desperate straits, facing an economic crisis that threatened to nip democracy in the bud. Only the Marshall Plan, with its massive program of financial aid, saved the country from disaster. Self-government did not come until 1949, and Allied troops remained in West Germany as occupiers until 1955, a full decade after the defeat of the Third Reich. Unrepentant Nazis stayed active on the extreme fringes of West German politics for years, and a few ex-Nazis held high positions even in mainstream politics until the 1960s. The Christian Democratic politician Kurt Georg Kiesinger, who had joined the Nazi Party in 1933, was chancellor of the Federal Republic from 1966 to 1969.
Rebuilding a nation is possible. But even in the best of circumstances, it takes effort, time, patience and pragmatism. As 1945 confirms, liberation from a dictator in itself offers no easy path to peace or democracy. Battlefield victory is the easy bit. Building peace is a constant struggle -- and it's a matter of years, not weeks.
David Stafford is the author of "Endgame 1945: The Missing Final Chapter of World War II."
"It is impossible to build a nuclear weapon without fissile material"... AND "We learned that Al-Qaida wants a weapon to use.."
think IRAN.
Does the West really think that Iran goes nuclear it won't give this "fissile material" to the Al-Qaida militants who say they "want a weapon to use"?
Tracing it back to Iran may be a bit difficult.. but so long as Iran's goals are carried out by these operatives, what does that matter to them? The goal is accomplished when they hand the fissile material to the Al-Qaida agents who are now (or being) moved into place in the US, according to this document (below).
Also, do remember the previous post yesterday which says the terrorists are grooming people who cannot be spotted using racial profiling in the article called, "Al-Qaeda grooming 'western-looking' militants: CIA", that is people who they say, "look western and could enter the United States undetected to conduct terrorist attacks."
Let's connect the dots here, people.. these people will not stop their plans if the US elects a dove to office who pulls out of Iraq. It will just give them more cover to do what they have intended to do. The article below states, Quote:
Observing that the Al-Qaida's nuclear intent remains clear, he said it obtained a fatwa in May 2003 that approved the use of weapons of mass destruction. Al-Qaida spokesman Suleyman Abu Ghayth declared that it is Al-Qaida's right to kill four million Americans in retaliation for Muslim deaths that Al-Qaida blames on the United States.
''Osama bin Laden said in 1998 that it was an Islamic duty to acquire weapons of mass destruction. In 2006, bin Laden reiterated his statement that Al-Qaida will return to the United States.
He said Al-Qaida has a track record of returning to finish a job they started. They failed at the World Trade Center in 1993. They came back in 2001. They canceled plans for chemical attacks in the US in 2003. ''We do not yet know when and where they intend to strike us next, but our past experience strongly suggests they are seeking an attack more spectacular than 9/11,'' he said.
(end quote)
This isn't over yet.. and at least four million American citizens really SHOULD be very concerned about their lives and American politics at this point in time instead of relaxing their guard, watching American Idol, drinking beer and listening to the Iraq war peacenik critics tell them everything the Bush Administration has done wrong, but not giving them a plan on how they intend to do it right.
Sara.
========
Al-Qaida nuclear attack in planning stages
Lalit K Jha
Saturday, April 5, 2008 (New York)
Al-Qaida's nuclear attack against the US is in planning stages, top American intelligence officials have said.
Deposing before a Congressional Committee on Homeland Security early this week, these US intelligence officials told US lawmakers that the threat of nuclear attack by the Taliban was growing and there is need to enhance its security measures.
Charles Allen, Undersecretary for Intelligence and Analysis and Chief Intelligence Officer at the Department of Homeland Security; and Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, the director of Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence for the Department of Energy testified before this key Congressional committee on nuclear terrorism on April 2.
''There's been a long-term effort by Al-Qaida, to develop an improvised nuclear device,'' Allen said. ''I have no doubt that Al-Qaida would like to obtain nuclear capability. I think the evidence in their statements that they've made over many years publicly indicate this,'' he argued in his testimony.
Giving details of the Al-Qaida preparation, based on years on intelligence inputs, Mowatt-Larssen said: ''An Al-Qaida nuclear attack would be in the planning stages at the same time as several other plots, and only Al-Qaida's most senior leadership will know which plot will be approved.''
In keeping with Al-Qaida's normal management structures such as the role of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad in the 9/11 attacks, Mowatt-Larssen said there is probably a single individual in charge, overseeing the effort to obtain materials and expertise.
The intelligence officials commented that some nuclear experts / scientists may have joined Al-Qaida years ago, long before the world began paying adequate attention to the proliferation of the kinds of technologies that could yield a terrorist nuclear weapon.
Referring to the planning of the 9/11 attack, Mowatt-Larssen said it was operationally very straightforward. ''It had a very small footprint, was highly compartmented. Al-Qaida's nuclear effort would be just as compartmented and probably would not require the involvement of more than a small number of operatives who carried out 9/11,'' he said.
Mowatt-Larssen then went out to divulge his information about a prototypical Al-Qaida nuclear attack plot. This would have, he said, approval and oversight from Al-Qaida's most senior leadership, with possible assistance from other groups and a planner responsible for organizing the material, expertise and fabrication of a device; operational support facilitator, responsible for arranging travel, money, documents, food and other necessities for the cell; assets in the United States or within range of other Western targets to case locations for an attack and to help move the attack team into place; and finally, the attack team itself.
This hearing was followed by another classified session wherein other details about the possible nuclear attack by the Al-Qaida terrorist network were possibly explained to the US lawmakers in details.
''Beyond the basics I have outlined here, we do not know what a terrorist plot might look like. There is, however, a chokepoint in a terrorist effort to develop a nuclear capability. It is impossible to build a nuclear weapon without fissile material,'' he said.
The officials said that the task for the intelligence community is not easy. ''We must find something that is tactical in size but strategic in impact. We must find a plot with its networks that cut across traditional lines of counter proliferation and counterterrorism. We must stop something from happening that we have never seen happen before,'' he said.
Mowatt-Larssen said the US successes against Taliban in Afghanistan have yielded volumes of information that completely changed its view of Al-Qaida's nuclear program. ''We learned that Al-Qaida wants a weapon to use, not a weapon to sustain and build a stockpile, as most states would,'' he said.
''The nuclear threats that surfaced in June 2002 and continued through the fall of 2003 demonstrated that Al-Qaida's desire for a nuclear capability may have survived their removal from their Afghanistan safe haven,'' he said.
Observing that the Al-Qaida's nuclear intent remains clear, he said it obtained a fatwa in May 2003 that approved the use of weapons of mass destruction. Al-Qaida spokesman Suleyman Abu Ghayth declared that it is Al-Qaida's right to kill four million Americans in retaliation for Muslim deaths that Al-Qaida blames on the United States.
''Osama bin Laden said in 1998 that it was an Islamic duty to acquire weapons of mass destruction. In 2006, bin Laden reiterated his statement that Al-Qaida will return to the United States.
He said Al-Qaida has a track record of returning to finish a job they started. They failed at the World Trade Center in 1993. They came back in 2001. They canceled plans for chemical attacks in the US in 2003. ''We do not yet know when and where they intend to strike us next, but our past experience strongly suggests they are seeking an attack more spectacular than 9/11,'' he said.
''To delve a little into how they may be thinking about the nuclear option, at any given moment, Al-Qaida probably has attack plans in development. Nine-eleven was planned when the USS Cole was attacked in Yemen and when our embassies in Dar es Salaam and Tanzania were attacked in Africa,'' he said.
Blackmailing tactics of Al-Qaida
In his testimony Dr. Matthew Bunn, a senior research associate for the Project on Managing the Atom at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's School of Government said there is greater chance than ever that the Al-Qaida would get the material and manage to make it into a bomb.
''I think then the next question is if they got the material, and they managed to make it into a bomb, could they somehow deliver it to Washington, or New York, or another major city somewhere around the world. I think, in my view, the answer is yes,'' he said.
Bunn said in case a bomb goes off there would be blackmailing tactics from these terrorists' organizations. ''One has to recall that the moment after a nuclear bomb goes off, someone -- either the perpetrator or another terrorist group -- is going to call up and say, ''I've got five more, and they're already hidden in U.S. cities, and I'm going to start setting them off unless you do X, Y and Z.'' And one bomb having just gone off, they will have substantial credibility,'' he argued.
''The prospect for panic, uncontrolled mass evacuation of our cities, economic chaos and disruption is, I think, very great."
Deposing before the Congressional committee, Gary Ackerman, research director for the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland said at present the efforts of non-state actors seeking to acquire and use nuclear weapons are growing in size and scope.
''Jihadists have, since the mid 1990s, made at least 10 statements advocating the possession or use of nuclear weapons, and there have been at least a dozen reports of jihadists' attempts to acquire nuclear weapons, fissile material or technical knowledge,'' he said.
''As an initial indicator of this trend, a recent analysis of online jihadist documents that deal explicitly with nuclear weapons has revealed that while their knowledge is still below par, there have been significant advances in the understanding of nuclear issues within the general jihadi community in only a few short years,'' Ackerman said.
Perhaps now you understand why I keep getting in prayer that the danger of what I saw in that vision has not passed, in spite of all the Homeland security measures and awareness concerning our sworn enemies (the terrorists). For now, we live under the hand of God.. and as long as President Bush is in office there will be no terrorist attack like there was on 911. But actions now can avert a future we do not wish to see.. where they accomplish their goal of killing millions of Americans and "panic, uncontrolled mass evacuation of our cities, economic chaos and disruption" in a very large scale.
Let's keep praying the right decisions are made, unclouded by political power-peddling. Taking our eyes off the ball, or, God forbid, dropping the ball concerning Homeland attack will have very far-reaching consequences for millions of American lives. Listening to the fringe elements influencing the Democrat party toward far left ideology (including scrapping measures to keep an eye on domestic terrorist threats) will have terrifying consequences. An ounce of nuclear prevention now is worth quite literally tons and tons of recovery and mop up "cure" after Al-Qaida nuclear disaster has happened on US soil.
Remember and do not let the MSM lull you into forgetting that, "Abu Ghayth declared that it is Al-Qaida's right to kill four million Americans... Osama bin Laden said in 1998 that it was an Islamic duty to acquire weapons of mass destruction. In 2006, bin Laden reiterated his statement that Al-Qaida will return to the United States. He said Al-Qaida has a track record of returning to finish a job they started." and "there have been significant advances in the understanding of nuclear issues within the general jihadi community in only a few short years."
There are those who call bringing these threats to the public's attention "scaremongering". However, if the US populace is not "scared" appropriately of these spoken and being acted upon death threats against the nation, then they are foolish. Ignoring sworn enemies like Al-Qaida and putting one's head in the sand like an ostrich - thinking that if you act nice toward them they will be nice to you, too - is only wishful fairytale thinking not worthy of those who live their lives in the real world where life and death happen regularly and the good guys are not always guaranteed (in the short term) that they will immediately and without effort win in any life and death confrontation with an enemy. God promises His people victory.. but that is long term, and not always short term - as the Bible is replete with examples (Ai, for instance) of unnecessary deaths due to mismanagement. Vigilance can protect the nation from unnecessary slaughter, if we have the will to live and the ability to see and act appropriately to defeat such death threats.
Connecting the dots linking Iran and Sadr.. hostages taken by Sadr end up in Tehran.
===
Britons seized in Iraq may now be held in Iran
April 6, 2008
David Leppard
FIVE British hostages who were kidnapped in Iraq last year may be being held in Tehran, the Iranian capital, according to intelligence reports received by the Foreign Office.
The disclosure, supported by two security sources in London and officials in Iraq, means that any rescue attempt by British special forces would be almost impossible.
The latest intelligence follows statements last year by General David Petraeus, commander of US forces in Iraq, that he believed the five men had been abducted by a group funded, trained and armed by Iran.
Petraeus stopped short of commenting on their whereabouts.
Four of the hostages were security men. They were guarding Peter Moore, a computer specialist.
The group was abducted in an apparently well planned operation on May 29 last year. About 40 heavily armed men dressed in police uniform stormed the finance ministry in Baghdad where Moore was training staff.
They were last seen being driven off in a convoy of 19 four-wheel drive vehicles towards Sadr City, Baghdad’s sprawling Shi’ite district.
Petraeus identified the kidnappers as a secret cell of the Mahdi Army, the Shi’ite militia loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical cleric. The militia has denied involvement.
On a video broadcast last December, the kidnappers identified themselves as the Shi’ite Islamic Resistance in Iraq. In that video one of the kidnapped men, who said his name was Jason, said: “I feel we have been forgotten.”
A senior official in Basra confirmed that the hostages were all in Iran. “You have to understand that the groups that kidnapped these men are affiliated to Iran,” he said.
“Iran acts as the embracing mother for them in their acts and deeds and will also benefit from the situation. It is their haven.”
He said that a British photographer working for CBS, who was kidnapped from his hotel in Basra last month, has also been taken to Iran but officials in London were unable to confirm this.
The Foreign Office said that it had a policy of not commenting on the whereabouts of any British hostages.
Iraq is rising the the challenge and uniting across party lines.
They will not allow their country to be usurped by Iranian elements through Sadr. "The main aim at this critical juncture is to ensure that our political choices are made in Iraq's interest," said al-Hashemi. If they can manage to "bite the bullet and put aside our political differences" as he further said..
this may end up with more progress politically than we before thought possible. :)
An attempt to destroy the country by Iranian elements may now end up uniting it against that common enemy.
The Iraqis are seeing the importance of the law applying to everyone.. for peace and prosperity for them and their future.
As Jalal Eddin al-Sagheer said below, "He must impose the law on everyone, and he (al-Maliki) told us this is his intention."
The rule of law which is negotiated law between all parties at the political table must rule their nation, not lawlessness and strongmen's militias.. or the underhanded efforts of outside powers fomenting insurrection against them.
===
Analysis: Iraq's al-Maliki wins rare Kurdish, Sunni support in militia crackdown
The Associated Press
April 5, 2008
BAGHDAD: Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's faltering crackdown on Shiite militants has won the backing of Sunni Arab and Kurdish parties that fear both the powerful sectarian militias and the effects of failure on Iraq's fragile government.
The emergence of a common cause could help bridge Iraq's political rifts.
The head of the Kurdish self-ruled region, Massoud Barzani, has offered Kurdish troops to help fight anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia.
More significantly, Sunni Arab Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi signed off on a statement by President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, and the Shiite vice president, Adil Abdul-Mahdi, expressing support for the crackdown in the city of Basra.
Al-Hashemi is one of al-Maliki's most bitter critics, on Thursday, however, al-Maliki paid al-Hashemi a rare visit. A statement by al-Hashemi's office said the vice president told al-Maliki that "we can bite the bullet and put aside our political differences."
"The main aim at this critical juncture is to ensure that our political choices are made in Iraq's interest," al-Hashemi said.
A top leadership council made up of Talabani, al-Maliki and leaders of major political blocs called Saturday on Iraqi parties to disband their militias or risk being barred from contesting elections and participating in political life.
The council also affirmed its support for al-Maliki's campaign against militias and outlaws.
"I think the government is now enjoying the support of most political groups because it has adopted a correct approach to the militia problem," said Hussein al-Falluji, a lawmaker from parliament's largest Sunni Arab bloc, the three-party Iraqi Accordance Front. Al-Hashemi heads one of the three, the Iraqi Islamic Party.
The Accordance Front pulled out of al-Maliki's Cabinet in August to protest his policies. The newfound support over militias could help al-Maliki persuade the five Sunni ministers who quit their posts to return.
If he succeeds, that would constitute a big step toward national reconciliation, something the U.S. has long demanded.
The Kurds, for years Washington's most reliable allies in Iraq, also see the Sadrists' anti-U.S. fervor as a threat to the country's political process and its stability.
"I think the events in Basra will help bridge the gap between the central government and Kurdistan authorities," said Fouad Massoum, a senior Kurdish lawmaker.
Key council figures also want the crackdown to continue — even at the risk of a new round of fighting.
"He must impose the law on everyone, and he (al-Maliki) told us this is his intention," said Jalal Eddin al-Sagheer, a hardline cleric associated with the Supreme Council, a close ally of Iraq's Kurds. "We reject any deals or negotiations."
We may well remember this upcoming week because all of us may witness the establishment of the a National Oil Company in Iraq. The first step toward the Hydro Carbon Law. I think the cataylst for this movement is Al-Malaki's military crackdown in Basra. Because of this incident, it appears that the political blocks inside Parliment, including the Kurds, may be ready to cooperate under the banner of unity and pass this legislation.
What we may witness are the beginnig steps of the GoI movement from barbarianism to a nation state. This movement towards a unified nation can only help their desire at WTO ascension. Sara is correct in her assessment that nation building takes years not weeks.
At this moment I am very....bullish on the Dinar. As I have previously stated, my position in the Dinar has increased. It seems we are in the right investment at the right time. Any wealth gained from this investment is a result of patient persistence. It is my strong belief we will see a peacful and prosperous Iraq. Liquidation for me is not an option. My advice to you for what it is worth, do not get discouraged but to hang onto that investment.
Thank you, Rob N.. on your upbeat assessment of the Dinar. I, too, believe that in time the Iraqis will win and become peaceful and prosperous, and that the Lord wills that their currency will not be worthless. It is His will that they RV the Dinar because it is in their country's best interests and will be a move to protect their homeland from attacks.. from without and within.
In a related article..
It turns out.. unsuprisingly, that the rockets fired last week into the Baghdad Green Zone were made in Iran in 2007. Also, the Iraqis "have a sense that Iran was involved in starting the Basra fighting."
===
Iranian regime plays a negative role in southern Iraq - US officials
Saturday, 05 April 2008
NCRI- In a discussion with western reporters on Thursday, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker said Iraqis have a sense that Iran was involved in starting the Basra fighting.
He unequivocally repeated that Iran continues to support militias in Iraq and added: Iran must decide whether "to support the state or the militias."
He said the rockets fired last week into the Baghdad Green Zone area were "quite literally made in Iran," and were manufactured in 2007.
Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Wednesday during a Pentagon press briefing: "We're still finding IEDs. We're finding weapons caches. We're finding rockets and mortars that are clearly provided by the Iranians. We're -- we've captured or killed Iraqis who have recently been trained in Iran. And so the overall thrust with respect to Iran's support of what's going on down there is still very negative."
Photo: Iranian weapons found in Baghdad, 15 February 2008
When Mr. Crocker states that "Iran must decide whether "to support the state or the militias."
I think they have shown already who they support by their actions and words.
They are not backing down from their stated objective of destroying both Israel and the US.
(Remember the comment about wiping Israel off the face of the earth, which Iran has never apologised for?)
Large ambitions - destroying Israel and the US - but they see themselves as David and the US and Israel as Goliath..
and they truly believe (erroneously) that God is on their side.
Such a mentality can be costly until it is disproved, because, if I remember my history right...
the avowed enemies of the Israelites (Goliath's people) did kill quite a few before they were put to flight by David.
The incorrect application of a fight where the champion (David) was outgunned but won..
was because David - who was an Israelite - was standing against those who would destroy the Israelite people.
Which would put Iran on the other side of the battle with Goliath, since they also vow to kill David's people, the Israelites.
1Sa 17:45 Then said David to the Philistine, "You come to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to you in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied."
Numbers and might were not the question in that scenerio.. it was who represented the people of God.
And in history between David and Goliath, God favored His people, the Israelites.
May He be pleased to do so again in this fight.. along with their allies, the US of A.
As Christian Paul wrote in the New Testament:
Rom 11:1 I say then, Has God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Rom 11:2 God has not cast away His people which He foreknew....
BAGHDAD, April 6 (UPI) -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Sunday that Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr must disband his Mehdi Army.
In an exclusive interview with CNN, the Iraqi official demanded that the radical Shiite leader immediately disband his forces, which recently clashed with the Iraqi military.
The Iraqi prime minister applauded his country's military forces for their efforts in those violent clashes and denied reports that neighboring Iran helped bring about a cease-fire.
CNN reported Maliki has the backing of top Iraqi political leaders to bar all followers of Sadr from engaging in the Iraqi political process if the dismantling of the cleric's militia does not begin.
Shell says ready to help Iraq boost oil output
Tue Apr 1, 2008 4:37pm EDT Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page| Recommend (0) [-] Text [+]
Related News
Oil reserve site raises ire, Bush policy tested
04 Apr 2008
Arabs without oil hard hit by food price spiral
03 Apr 2008
Senators ask Big Oil to help poor on fuel costs
01 Apr 2008
Cyclone forms off Australia, oil drillers on watch
26 Mar 2008
Heavy fighting in southern Iraqi oil hub
25 Mar 2008
powered by Sphere
Market News
G7 rescue plan dominates investors
Earnings key test as recession looms
Yahoo shares fall
More Business & Investing News... Featured Broker sponsored link
$0 stock trades. 10 free per month. WASHINGTON, April 1 (Reuters) - Royal Dutch Shell (RDSa.L: Quote, Profile, Research) is ready to help Iraq boost oil production once that country's government finalizes a petroleum law covering big energy projects, the head of the oil giant said on Tuesday.
"We are very much prepared to go back to Iraq," Shell chief executive officer Jeroen van der Veer said at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank in Washington.
But first, he said, Shell employees must be able to work safely in the country and a petroleum law must be passed.
"You have to know the rules of the game because you have to bring a lot of money to the country (to develop its oil)," he said. "We expect that the petroleum law, we hope that it is finally passed...during this year."
The law would provide conditions for investment and international participation in Iraq's oil and gas industry.
Iraq holds the world's third biggest oil reserves at 115 billion barrels and has some of the cheapest extraction costs, according to the U.S. Energy Department.
Increasing Iraq's oil production to take advantage of high crude prices is seen as key to rebuilding the country's economy.
Iraq's oil output averages almost 2.3 million barrels a day, but with enough investment, the country holds enough crude to double its production, according to some estimates. (Reporting by Tom Doggett; Editing by David Gregorio)
(www.reuters.com)
Commission on oil and gas received a draft law establishing the National Oil Company
Baghdad - Iraq votes 05 / 04 / 2008 at 12:04:01
A Vice-Chairman of the oil and gas in the House of Representatives of Iraq, Saturday, that the draft law establishing the National Oil Company arrived at the parliament, which is the subject of discussion within the Commission for oil and gas in the Council.
He said Abdul Hadi Al-Hasani, in a statement to the Independent News Agency (Voices of Iraq), the draft law "includes founding the National Oil Company, with capital supported by the Iraqi government, in addition to the currently existing companies, namely: NOC and the South."
Al-Hasani said that the National Oil Company to be established "will be added to other companies in future, such as the company Maysan, Dhi Qar, unlike the two currently existing," any oil north and the south. He pointed out that the new company "will be out digging and extracting oil, as well as transportation and storage."
He stated that "provision is made for the establishment of the new company, capitalized preliminary," pointing out that it would be right National Oil Company "to borrow four times their capital."
The Vice-Chairman of the oil and gas in Parliament that the establishment of the National Oil Company is the "Introduction of legislation oil and gas law," saying that the Committee "demanded to increase the size of the company's capital to enable it to compete with international companies."
And the Bill of oil and gas said Al-Hasani, a deputy in Parliament from the Bloc (United Iraqi Alliance) owner of the majority, that the parliament "did not receive, until now, no copy of the Act, because of political differences around," likely delay adoption of this law.
The delayed approval of the House bill Iraqi oil and gas, which was approved by the Government of Nuri al-Maliki and forwarded to the Parliament in July last year, due to strong opposition of several parliamentary and political influence of the law.
She says that the strong opposition, the draft gives "concessions" unprecedented for foreign investors to establish oil installations and refineries and invested for periods of up to (50) years, and he devoted controlled territories wealth owned all the Iraqi people.
(www.dinartrade.com)
Abdul-Hussain Abtan, deputy governor of al-Najaf al-Ashraf, announced he will head a delegation to an unnamed Gulf state to sign a construction contract between the civil administration of the governorate and a Gulf company to finance and build a $248m 8,000 unit residential complex.
(www.noozz.com)
When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush. He answered by saying, 'Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.'
You could have heard a pin drop.
Then there was a conference in France where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a break one of the French engineers came back into the room saying 'Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he intend to do, bomb them?' A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: 'Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck.. We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?'
You could have heard a pin drop.
A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included Admirals from the U.S., English, Canadian, Australian and French Navies. At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of Officers that included personnel from most of those countries. Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that, 'whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English.' He then asked, 'Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?' Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied 'Maybe it's because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it so you wouldn't have to speak German.'
You could have heard a pin drop.
AND THIS STORY FITS RIGHT IN WITH THE ABOVE...
A group of Americans, retired teachers, recently went to France on a tour. Robert Whiting, an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane. At French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his carry on. "You have been to France before, monsieur?" the customs officer asked sarcastically. Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to France previously. "Then you should know enough to have your passport ready." The American said, "The last time I was here, I didn't have to show it." "Impossible. Americans always have to show your passports on arrival in France!" The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard look. Then he quietly explained. "Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in 1944, I couldn't find a Frenchman to show it to."
There cannot be a militia existing in a country under a different banner than that country..
that makes them a rival power to the military, and a disturbance to unifed peace under its rule of law.
Obviously, the Iraqis think so, too.
For peace to prevail in the country, no usurping and government-opposing gun-toting militia can be allowed.
Such an opposing army to the government of Iraq must be disbanded for peace to prevail.
Iraq: Sadr party faces rising isolation
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Iraq's major Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish parties have closed ranks to force anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to disband his Mahdi Army militia or leave politics, lawmakers and officials involved in the effort said Sunday.
Such a bold move risks a violent backlash by al-Sadr's Shiite militia. But if it succeeds it could cause a major realignment of Iraq's political landscape.
The first step will be adding language to a draft election bill banning parties that operate militias from fielding candidates in provincial balloting this fall, the officials and lawmakers said. The government intends to send the draft to parliament within days and hopes to win approval within weeks.
"We, the Sadrists, are in a predicament," lawmaker Hassan al-Rubaie said Sunday. "Even the blocs that had in the past supported us are now against us and we cannot stop them from taking action against us in parliament."
Al-Sadr controls 30 of the 275 parliament seats, a substantial figure but not enough to block legislation.
Al-Rubaie said the threat was so serious that a delegation might have to discuss the issue with al-Sadr in person. The young cleric, who has disappeared from the public eye for nearly a year, is believed to be in the Iranian city of Qom.
In a rare public signal of dissent in Sadrist ranks, al-Rubaie complained that "those close" to al-Sadr "are radicals and that poses problems," suggesting that some of the cleric's confidants may be urging him toward a showdown.
"We must go and explain to him in person that there's a problem," he said.
U.S. and Iraqi officials insist the crackdown is directed at criminal gangs and splinter groups supported by Iran.
Al-Sadr ordered his fighters off the streets March 30 under a deal brokered in Iran. But the truce left the militia intact and armed and did not address the long-term threat.
"We want the Sadrists to disband the Mahdi Army. Just freezing it is no longer acceptable," said Sadiq al-Rikabi, a senior adviser to al-Maliki. "The new election law will prevent any party that has weapons or runs a militia from contesting elections."
Broad outlines of the strategy to combat the militias were made public late Saturday in a statement by the Political Council for National Security, a top leadership body including the national president, prime minister and leaders of major parties in parliament.
The statement called on parties to disband their militias or face a political ban. Although the statement did not mention the Sadrists, the intent was clear.
President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, said Sunday that the statement was adopted after "heated, cordial, frank and transparent discussion."
Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman said the Sadrists must either disband the militia "or face the Americans." He was alluding to the possibility of full-scale U.S. military involvement if al-Sadr refuses to disband his militia and the government decides to disarm it by force.
Obviously, the Sadr militia left in control in Iraq wants to rule Iraq instead of the Iraqi army.. there can be no compromise with a usurping militant force from within or from without of a country, for stability and peace for its people. (This corresponds with the vow to protect the country from all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC.)
The violence of Sadr's militia (with or without the blessing of its head) makes it apparent that those who are now fighting have chosen to go to war against the Iraqi forces. The proposed march for Sadr supporters Wednesday (supposedly for peaceful purposes) is belied by the strongarm and murderous tactics against the elected government's empowered authorites (and allies) given below.
In America, such a gathering would not be allowed by a militant power, and would be disbanded rather than tolerated unless proven to be peaceful, for the benefit of protecting the populace from further bloodshed by a proven volatile group. But it may take Iraq some time to become that civilized that they can live by rule of law instead of supporting strongarm tacticians and their calls for (not so veiled) public threats against the government.
===
Rockets slam Iraq's Green Zone
KIM GAMEL
Associated Press
April 6, 2008
BAGHDAD — Rockets or mortars slammed into the U.S.-protected Green Zone and a military base elsewhere in Baghdad on Sunday, killing three American soldiers and wounding 31, an official said.
The attacks occurred as U.S. and Iraqi forces battled Shiite militants in Sadr City in some of the fiercest fighting since radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr ordered a cease-fire a week ago. At least 16 Iraqi civilians were killed in the fighting, according to hospital officials.
A military official said two U.S. troops died and 17 were wounded in the attack on the Green Zone, which houses the U.S. embassy and the Iraqi government headquarters in central Baghdad.
Another American service member was killed and 14 were wounded in the attack on a base in the southeastern Baghdad area of Rustamiyah, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to release the information.
Nobody claimed responsibility for the Baghdad attacks, but U.S. commanders have blamed what they call Iranian-backed rogue militia groups for launching missiles against American forces.
The strikes occurred despite a strong push by the U.S. military to prevent militants from using suspected launching sites on the southern edge of Sadr City, the Baghdad stronghold of the Mahdi Army of anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
Hospital officials said at least 16 civilians were killed and nearly 100 wounded as fierce fighting erupted in Sadr City earlier Sunday.
American helicopters also fired Hellfire missiles that destroyed a vehicle and killed nine militants who were attacking Iraqi security forces, the military said in a statement.
“Where we have criminal elements that are threatening the security and peace of the people of Iraq, we take action,” said Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond, the top commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad.
The inability of the Iraqi security forces to curb the militias has cast doubt on their ability to take over their own security two days before the two top American officials in Iraq – General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker – are to brief Congress on the prospects for further reductions in the U.S. troop presence in Iraq.
At the edge of Sadr City, Lieutenant-Colonel Dan Barnett, the commander of the 1st Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment, said Iraqi forces had come under sustained fire overnight after establishing checkpoints deeper into the Shiite district.
“They're working to establish control,” he said, speaking to a small group of reporters as heavy gunfire resounded outside a joint U.S.-Iraqi base on the southern rim of Sadr City.
Mortar shells also fell on a popular commercial area in the Jamila neighbourhood, setting a fire that burned some 100 shops, according to the Baghdad military command. It said fire fighters came under heavy gunfire that slowed their efforts to extinguish the flames.
The Iraqi government relaxed security measures Saturday around the Mahdi Army strongholds of Sadr City and the Shula neighbourhood, allowing trucks carrying maintenance teams, food, oil products and ambulances into the areas that still face a vehicle ban despite the lifting of a citywide curfew.
But residents continued to complain of hardships.
“Our situation is miserable. We lack food, water and electricity. This morning I saw two men being shot by a sniper as they were trying to cross the street near my house. The government should do something to end our suffering,” said Hussein Khazim, a taxi driver who has been out of work since the turmoil erupted in late March.
Violence also continued in northern Iraq. Gunmen seized 42 students off a bus near the city of Mosul – the last major urban stronghold of al-Qaida in Iraq – but later released them unharmed.
Also Sunday, hundreds of mourners gathered in the capital's Karradah district for the funeral of Father Youssef Adel, an Assyrian Orthodox priest slain the day before at his home.
One of the mourners, Midhat Faez, said the assassination was aimed at provoking conflict between Muslims and the tiny Christian community.
“As Christians, we are terrified and our numbers are gradually diminishing,” Mr. Faez said.
BAGHDAD, April 6 (UPI) -- Coalition forces detained 22 suspected al-Qaida terrorists in Iraq Sunday, military officials said.
Officials with the U.S.-led multinational forces said in a news release that in addition to detaining the suspected terrorists in parts of central and north Iraq, coalition forces encountered and killed a man thought to a senior al-Qaida leader in Baghdad.
The man, who is suspected of organizing al-Qaida attacks in Anbar province, was killed when coalition forces stormed a targeted terrorist stronghold in the Iraqi capital, the military officials said.
One of those suspected al-Qaida operatives detained in Bayji is thought to have been an integral part of several bombing plots in Iraq.
Navy Capt. Vic Beck, a coalition spokesman, said Sunday's operations were indicative of the ongoing success against al-Qaida fighters in Iraq.
"We are eroding the very foundation of al-Qaida in Iraq's operations," Beck said. "These foreign terrorists have no place in the future the Iraqi people have chosen."
Charlton Heston, epic movie star, dies at 84
Published: April 6, 2008
Charlton Heston, who appeared in some 100 films in his 60-year acting career but who is remembered chiefly for his monumental, jut-jawed portrayals of Moses, Ben-Hur and Michelangelo, died Saturday night at his home in Beverly Hills, California. He was 84, his family said.
From what I am reading some inside Iraq's currency traders are predicting an exchange rate of 1000/1 by 2010. Let me be clear by saying these prognostications are not coming from the CBI. This exchange rate does not make sense to me for the following reasons. According to recent figures Iraq is expected to receive 60 Billion in oil revenue. With the establishment of the National Oil Company and the passage of the HCL we assume 70 Billion will be invested by the oil majors. In my opinion, the amount of oil flowing out of Iraq will necessitate a stronger Dinar than 1000/1. A weak Dinar will result in an agreesive inflation rate.
Next, earlier in the year the CBI required all banks to increase their cash reserves. According to what I read this morning Rafidain Bank now possesses 36 trillion in reserves. How can an exchange rate of 1000/1 be plausible? Will the Iraqi's goin the GCC in 2010? Not likely, the GCC itself says it cannot meet the 2010 deadline. Regardless of whether this date is met or not. the Dinar at an exchange rate of 1000/1 is not on par with the rest of the GCC states. To be admitted to the GCC, would not Iraq's currency need to have similar value?
Something else that makes me question this exchange rate are Petro-Dinars and de-dollarization. In my opinion, based upon the amount of proven reserves Iraq possesses Petro Dinars invalidates the worry regarding M2. With the Petro-Dinar de-dollarization will occur making the economy of Iraq solely dependant upon the Dinar. An economy like Iraq that has the potential to equal Saudi Arabia or Dubai in terms of wealth cannot sustain a peaceful and prosperous nation with this exchange rate.
The potential of Iraq is magnanomous. A robust economy based upon oil, industry, and agriculture is waiting. I think we are seeing the GoI move in a positive direction. In the long term, I do not see an exchange rate of 1000/1 by 2010 is not plausible. Instead, I look for a limited free float of the Iraqi Dinar. This may not occur after all the pieces are in play. It is also possible that the CBI could do a small revaluation until the limited free float becomes policy. The small revaluation would accomplish increasing the purchasing power of the average Iraqi and help in national reconciliation.
What do you think about an exchange rate of 1000/1 by 2010? I have shared my opinion, now I would like the boards.
"These likely consequences of America's failure in Iraq would, almost certainly, require us to return to Iraq or draw us into a wider and far costlier war."
True and wise words which history would unfortunately prove to be true, were the public foolish enough to choose Obama or Hillary for President, God forbid.
==
McCain: Democrats' Stance on Iraq Flawed
Apr 7, 2008
By LIBBY QUAID
Associated Press Writer
KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) -- Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Monday that calls from his Democratic rivals to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq stand as a "failure of leadership" as they are making promises they cannot keep.
"I do not believe that anyone should make promises as a candidate for president that they cannot keep if elected," McCain told the crowd.
"To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility," he said. "It is a failure of leadership."
For his part, McCain suggested the Democrats' promise to withdraw troops was motivated by ambition rather than honesty.
People deserve a candid assessment of progress in Iraq as well as of the serious difficulties that remain and of the consequences of hasty withdrawal, McCain said.
McCain warned against the swift withdrawal of troops advocated by Obama and Clinton, saying Iraq could quickly become a terrorist haven.
"These likely consequences of America's failure in Iraq would, almost certainly, require us to return to Iraq or draw us into a wider and far costlier war," the Arizona senator said.
He highlighted a sharp drop in violence in recent months in his speech to the VFW at the National World War I Museum. From June 2007 until last month, when McCain visited Iraq, violence, he said, fell by 90 percent, and deaths of civilians and coalition forces fell by 70 percent.
"The dramatic reduction in violence has opened the way for a return to something approaching normal political and economic life for the average Iraqi," McCain said.
McCain insisted he could rally support from the majority of Americans - "If we are honest about the opportunities and the risks, I believe they will have the patience to allow us the time necessary to obtain our objectives," McCain said.
It would give Iraq a much needed chance to rebuild, and for its citizens to feel safe and rebuild their lives. I don't think that I have to mention what it could mean to us.
This looks like good very good news if it's true. "Iraq's Sadr to disband Mehdi Army if clerics order. (end quote)
BritishKnite - will they? And, more importantly, should it be CLERICS determining the rule of Law in Iraq?
What I mean is.. here Sadr is saying he will submit to the rule of clerics, but not to the state or government of Iraq. He will stop murdering and uprising against the government.. on the say-so of clerics.. but what about Maliki and the government of Iraq? Isn't this a slap in the face and incredibly RUDE to the ruling powers in Iraq.. does it not say.. "I WON'T LISTEN TO YOU, BUT ONLY TO A CLERIC". Isn't he saying that the rule of law comes from a cleric and not from the duly elected parliament of Iraq? And then the question comes up.. are they radical Islamic terrorists clerics to which he is referring? WHICH clerics is he willing to listen to? Obviously, no matter how you slice it, this is saying that Sadr will not hear the government of Iraq nor submit to the government as the supreme rule of law. He is a rogue, a rebel, a usurper, a dissident, a force working toward the overthrow of the duly elected government of Iraq.. (and likely with the full cooperation, training and equipping of a foreign power - Iran) - how long can that be tolerated?
Now suppose this was here in the USA.
Let us suppose that a group of people armed themselves, say, a million strong in following a certain leader of some radical Communist faith. They become trained and equipped by Cuba and they start clashes with the US troops and a cease fire is brokered in nearby Cuba by sympathetic Fidel (or his new successor). These rogue elements are told by the US government to lay down their weapons and then they say that they won't listen to the US government (presumably because they do not acknowledge its authority) but that they will only listen to those of the radical sect they believe in's clerics.. in this case, true Communists who believe as they do and live within the country of the USA or speak from the ideological Communist position which is professed by nearby Cuba.
How do you see his proposal now? It is a slap in the face to the Iraqi government to allow this way to go through. And if they did (for the sake of peace in the immediate future) it still does not resolve the longterm issue if the peace is restored this way, because it is still not dealing with problem of a militia controlled by a radicalized ideological sect opposed to the rule of the government. Obviously, Sadr could wage war again at a future time, and the only people he will listen to is the leading figures (clerics) who are believers of his particular ideology, not the duly elected and representative Iraqi government. Is this the precedent that should be set? Can a government survive with such militant upstarts among its populace? Or will this eventually breed war? Isn't it enough that the Iraqi people have spoken and elected to parliament some they believe worthy of position and power to rule on their behalf? Must this armed sect be allowed to hold the country hostage to their radical ideology and viewpoint? - (aided and abetted by nearby Iran)
While no one is seeking to take away from the Iraqi people their differing peaceful observances and pilgrimmages within the faith in Islam and other ideological viewpoints.. it is not possible to have so many sects and differing views living together in harmony if there is not the enforcing of the rule of law as agreed upon by all parties within their elected parliamentary structure. They must politically bridge the divides and then impose that negotiated solution upon all and enforce it by military rule (if necessary) to become peaceful and prosperous as a nation. They can afford to allow peaceful demonstrations by peaceful and unarmed groups, but they cannot allow insurrection and rebellion by militants against the political order or it will destroy the peace of their nation. If they give in to the clerics in this way, they set up a new tier of government where there is no separation of church and state. Freedom to practice religion should not mean the freedom to force the government to its knees militarily and make it do the bidding of the ideology of a sect. If they have a view they feel should prevail, they should take that view to the public and win power in the elections. Sadr has only 30 seats in parliament, not enough to make a majority. If he wants more say, he should campaign, not take a militant fight to the streets.
Your view and take on this, BritishKnite? Anyone else have a thought on it.. Board? Has the time come for the Iraqi government to assert their right to exist and to impose the agreed upon laws over all the people of Iraq based on their endorsement by the majority of the populace? Or must they keep making "exceptions" due to the militance of some of the sects under its dominion? This would not work over here for long without civil war. I believe if they go this way, letting the clerics stop the clashes instead of determining who is running the country (the militants or the duly elected parliament of Iraq and its authority through the Iraqi army) that they are only delaying an inevitable clash. This is because a ceasefire with this firey cleric Sadr now will mean he ceases for a time but does not give up his MILITARY power.. and he is also not giving up the powers and influence through him of those who may be controlling him (Iran). They will just fight the Iraqi army and the government of Iraq another day because their ambition is not peaceful if they remain armed and they do not acknowlege that the Iraqi people have a right to control their own destiny through those they have elected to the positions of power within the parliamentary system.
Perhaps you are wondering why I chose to compare the trouble in Iraq to the US and Communist Cuba instead of a rogue religious sect within the US because Sadr has 30 representatives in parliament and so he is not outside of the parliamentary structure.
This article will give a little light on the subject of Iran and its influence and beliefs.. and whether they can allow a group trained and equipped by them to continue to grow. I think the reason for taking a hardline approach is self-explanatory here:
===
Group keeps fervor up in Iranian young
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Zahra Saremi took a different sort of vacation this year to celebrate Iranian New Year – touring the bloody battlefields of Iran's long war with Iraq at a week-long camp dedicated to martyrdom and patriotism.
Such tours are a crucial tool for Iran's clerical leaders as they seek to keep alive fervor for the 1979 Islamic Revolution, especially among young people with little or no memory of it.
Saremi and about 100 young men and women lined up at buses one morning in Tehran in late March, heading for the border regions of southwest Iran. About 1 million Iranians are taking the same journey during the three-week Nowruz holidays, which extend until mid-April, in tours organized by the Basij, the volunteer paramilitary wing of Iran's Revolutionary Guards.
They visit the desert scenes where Iranian troops threw themselves in deadly human wave attacks against Iraqi lines in offensives with codenames like "Dawn is Coming" and "Certain Conquest." They hear lectures from military officers, visit the old trenches and bunkers and sleep in military garrisons.
Most importantly, they commemorate martyrs.
"It is like a spiritual tour," said the 21-year-old Saremi, her black, all-encompassing chador flapping in the morning breeze. She has gone once before, two years ago. "I went there to pay tribute to those who fought the enemy and lost their lives to bring peace for us."
Many among the millions of Iranians born since 1979 just want to put the revolution – and its Islamic clerical rule – behind them.
That has made the Basij even more important for clerical leaders, who want to keep up the drumbeat of slogans re-enforcing the revolution's principles. Their role has increased under hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is believed to have stepped up state funding for Basij groups. That mirrors the growing prominence of the Basij's patron, the Revolutionary Guards: former and current Guards officers have gained important posts, and Guards-linked companies have received lucrative government contracts for construction and other projects.
The U.S. has branded the Guards' elite Quds Force a terrorist group, accusing it of backing militants in Iraq, and the U.N. has slapped sanctions on Guards-linked firms accused of links to Iran's nuclear program.
At times, the Basij plays its role through force. In 1999, they helped put down student protests that began at Tehran University in rioting that left several people dead. Basijis also are known to stop women in the streets, scolding them to wear Islamic dress.
Far more pervasive, though, are the cultural events that Basijis lead. Student groups organize seminars and films at universities. Basiji theater groups put on plays depicting stories of "revolution and resistance."
There's even a Basiji film company that produces movies about the Iran-Iraq war. One studio boasts a yard full of old tanks and other armor, on the side of the highway from the new Imam Khomeini airport into Tehran.
The battlefield tours resonate because the 1980-1988 war with Iraq, in which at least 1 million people died overall, is an emotional rallying point for Iranians.
Nearly every Iranian family lost a relative in the brutal fighting, and even Iranians with no love for the Islamic revolution express nationalist pride at fending off then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
For Hassan Taheri, a 53-year-old war veteran boarding the same bus as Saremi, the tour is a chance to reconnect with an earlier era. "Years of war, blood and resistance," said Taheri, who was bringing his wife. "Many of my friends never came back from the war. When I go there, I feel I am with them."
But most of those on the tours are young Basijis and their families – and a constant theme is linking the war to the "third generation of the revolution." Those joining Saremi's tour were largely from Tehran's poorer districts, strongholds of support for Ahmadinejad and other hard-liners.
The tours are extensively covered on state-run television, which throughout the holidays shows footage of young people touring battle zones or weeping at martyrs' graves.
They have been organized since 1992 by a Basiji-run agency. The group says 1 million people are participating this year, up from 700,000 last year.
"The willingness to obey shown by the martyrs is what made them successful," one military commander, Gen. Ali Asghar Rajai, told a group of young Basijis taking part in one late March tour, according to the group's news agency.
"Today, that should be the example for all of us to follow," he said.
Let me ask.. what exactly do they mean by an example for all of the Iranians to follow? How does it relate to their stirring up continuing hatreds of Iraqis? And what about their arming and training people in Iraq? What about their nuclear ambitions and who would be the recipients of their ire once they were nuclear armed? Iraqis? How about setting off a martrydom operation against the people they hate so much they commemorate fighting them in battle.. one million participating in keeping alive these old hatreds this year alone? Can Iraq really afford to ignore these elements and what it means for their country? They are much closer to Iran once the Iranians get the bomb.. and the Iranians work hard to keep the old hatreds around. Not to mention how easy and porous that border between their countries is.. shouldn't they be concerned enough to take a hardline now before they end up with a nuclear armed Quds force under their noses?
THAT is why the Communist Cuba comparison.. and why religion alone is not enough to explain what we are dealing with here.
NBC reported by Brit Hume reports that the Iraqi army did take the port of Basra district. This is the money making part of the port (oil export) and this part is under government control. There are pockets of Iraqi control and lots of residential areas of Mahdi militia control. Hume also reported that Sadr is looking grim and that he has agreed to disband his Mahdi milita. It could be that maybe Hume got it wrong.
In addition, the Kurds, Sunni's have said, they will send their troops to Basra to secure the area too. Talabani is reported to have said, "this is the closest that political parties have been in 5 years of war."
This to me, is a glimmer of hope. Sounds like political reconciliation. Even the Vice President (a sunni) said he supports Maliki and will send sunni troops to Basra!
In the meantime, american troops are taking on the Mahdi militas in Sadr City. I suspect, this has to do with the green zone bombings.
Apparently according to Hume, Sadr was told to disband the Mahdi militia or that Maliki would let the american's have a go at his militias.
In addition, I think the american's are already 'having a go' at Sadr's militias, inside of Sadr City. But, I think Hume was implying inside of Basra.
NBC reports by Brit Hume that the Iraq army took the port of Basra, where the government makes it's money from oil. The residential parts of Basra are still in hands of Sadr's milita.
The sunni's, kurds have agreed to sent troops from each region to help the Shiiti army to take the city of Basra according to Hume's report.
Sadr is not happy. He reportedly according to Hume agreed to disband his militia according to Hume. Hume reported that Maliki threatened to allow the american's a go at Sadr's militias if he did not disband them. Maliki stated it was not good enough to step down militias, and then allow the same problem to reform.
Talabani is reported to have said, "that this is first time that all government political parties have been this close since the start of the war." Sounds like political reconciliation to me. Let's hope!!
Sara, thank you for your views. It is always good to see different sides to an issue. In my opinion, it is good news if they disband and there is peace. I don't think you can compare Iraq (or any Arab state) directly with the USA or another western country. They operate differently. No matter what the issue, countries like Iraq will always start with religion as the basis point. It is the core of who they are and this will never change. Yes they understand democracy, but to them it is not as important as there religion. Democracy means free-thinking and acting within the law of the land. With gulf states, all laws and policies are written with religion as the base. In the article that I posted the link for, it suggests Al Sadr seems willing to call off his militia, but answers to higher religious authorities. It suggests he is not an independent cleric. If he did as he personally wanted, there may be other clerics to challenge him. Like it or not, this is how it is right now. The best we can hope for is that they find some middle ground in Iraq. From articles that I've read and things I've seen on the news, Al Sadr is against terrorism (believe it or not), that is why he teamed up with the Iraqi military and the US military to chase Al Quaeda out of Iraq. Now they are gone (?) he wants the US military to leave, hence his call for a peaceful million-man march against them being there. Remember, he was key in the success of the US military surge last year.
Funny I think at the begining of our nation we had similar characteristics, except our theology was a Chrisitan -Judeo foundation!
Secondly, I find it hard to give Sadr the credit you seem to want to give him! He is a common street thug, who is responsible for thousands of innocent lives, not to mention that his army has taken many of our soldiers lives! ( and more than likely a few limmees too!)
I think you are forgetting that Iraq under Saddam was a secularist government. They were not an Islamic government as Sadr would like. I think the similarities of Sara's comparision are right on for this reason. Religion will guide the lives of our people for morality but our own government does govern our laws. Such, is also the case in Iraq.
Of course, if USA goes and attacks Iran, than there we would have an Islamic government run by the clerics. That is if the USA would do another nation building situation. However, I do not think the USA would do this again.
I was away so I only just noticed Rob N's 3 posts in the past two days which were not posted (filters). I have now posted them to the site and here is the most recent of his posts which gave his view and commentary.
Dinar Admin.
All:
From what I am reading some inside Iraq's currency traders are predicting an exchange rate of 1000/1 by 2010. Let me be clear by saying these prognostications are not coming from the CBI. This exchange rate does not make sense to me for the following reasons. According to recent figures Iraq is expected to receive 60 Billion in oil revenue. With the establishment of the National Oil Company and the passage of the HCL we assume 70 Billion will be invested by the oil majors. In my opinion, the amount of oil flowing out of Iraq will necessitate a stronger Dinar than 1000/1. A weak Dinar will result in an agreesive inflation rate.
Next, earlier in the year the CBI required all banks to increase their cash reserves. According to what I read this morning Rafidain Bank now possesses 36 trillion in reserves. How can an exchange rate of 1000/1 be plausible? Will the Iraqi's goin the GCC in 2010? Not likely, the GCC itself says it cannot meet the 2010 deadline. Regardless of whether this date is met or not. the Dinar at an exchange rate of 1000/1 is not on par with the rest of the GCC states. To be admitted to the GCC, would not Iraq's currency need to have similar value?
Something else that makes me question this exchange rate are Petro-Dinars and de-dollarization. In my opinion, based upon the amount of proven reserves Iraq possesses Petro Dinars invalidates the worry regarding M2. With the Petro-Dinar de-dollarization will occur making the economy of Iraq solely dependant upon the Dinar. An economy like Iraq that has the potential to equal Saudi Arabia or Dubai in terms of wealth cannot sustain a peaceful and prosperous nation with this exchange rate.
The potential of Iraq is magnanomous. A robust economy based upon oil, industry, and agriculture is waiting. I think we are seeing the GoI move in a positive direction. In the long term, I do not see an exchange rate of 1000/1 by 2010 is not plausible. Instead, I look for a limited free float of the Iraqi Dinar. This may not occur after all the pieces are in play. It is also possible that the CBI could do a small revaluation until the limited free float becomes policy. The small revaluation would accomplish increasing the purchasing power of the average Iraqi and help in national reconciliation.
What do you think about an exchange rate of 1000/1 by 2010? I have shared my opinion, now I would like the boards.
Carol, I gave my opinion based on what I see happening. Yes, US and British soldiers have lost their lives, and yes Al Sadr is responsible for numerous deaths. You may well find it hard to give credit, but it is still due to him calling a cease fire of his militia that contributed to the success of the surge. I'm sure even if not stated publicly by other governments, it is recognised. Those are the facts as they stand.
Laura, yes Saddam's government was a secularist one, but the sunni and shiite religions/factions are looking for representation in THIS government.
It was the clerics in IRAN (and their Iraqi counterparts) that Sadr was referring to, as fitting my comparison to Cuba and their ideological sympathizers in the US, as it says:
Muqtada al Sadr had said that he would dissolve the armed group only upon a call from major clerics from Najaf and Iranian Qoom city.
===
Major clerics refuse to comment on Sadr call
8/4/2008
The major clerics of Iraq refuse to give order on the call of the young cleric Muqtada al Sadr bout dissolving Mahdi army Militia, a spokesman of the most powerful Shiite cleric Ayatuyllah Ali Sistani said.
Following Iraqi Prime Minister's call for disbanding Mahdi Army militia, young cleric Muqtada al Sadr had said that he would dissolve the armed group only upon a call from major clerics from Najaf and Iranian Qoom city.
"The major clerics in Najaf refuse to have orders on Sadr's call" Said Hamid al Khafaf.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki had called Sadr movement in an interview with CNN to disband Mahdi militia; accused of carrying out sectarian attacks across Iraq, threatening that they would be banned from taking part in the political process if they refused to obey.
British Knight,
Just can't bring my reasonable self to give one iotta of credit to this maniac! The reason he called back his "llegal militia" is because not doing do would have been his immediate demise. Remember, he fled to Iran and was underground for months before and during the surge. He was a marked man, not only by the allied forces but by his own followers who felt he was a traitor to the cause.
This man would sell his own mother for 1/8th of a dinar.....and it would be wise for the world involved in the Middle east conflicts to never forget that.
Given his lack of regard by his own followers, I believe he is more an advocate of the radical regieme of Iran at this point than anything else.......until they are through with him....either way his life line is very short....mostly because his arrogance will eventually ( sooner than later) bait him on the path to the 27 virgins!
I agree with you that Sadr has been a positive help to the Iraqi people in some ways, certainly his calling a ceasefire has been one of them. My concern is not with his religion because I believe all laws (which say what you can and cannot do) express an ideological viewpoint which is at its essence religious. And I believe every viewpoint is taken into account in a representative parliamentary system which is free, and it is the best form of government we have yet discovered.
When you say, "Democracy means free-thinking and acting within the law of the land. With gulf states, all laws and policies are written with religion as the base." I think you are trying to say that we have "free-thinking and acting" within our laws which you see as not religious and theirs are laws with religion at the base of it. However, I believe that all laws are in essence based on religious or ideological viewpoints concerning what is right and wrong so that you cannot say our laws are NOT religious and theirs are. For instance, we do not allow stealing in our society, whether it is the petty thief on the street, or the embezzler of millions in a stock scam. And the principle we are putting into law is "Thou Shalt Not Steal" (one of the Ten Commandments). Our laws come out of the religious and moral laws of Judeo-Christianity, as Laura pointed out. That is why Communism is not allowed here, because Communism is the government taking the wealth of the people by force and "redistributing" the wealth as they see fit, which is nothing more than institutionalizing theft by the government from the people.
What I am trying to say is, our ideology is based on religious views, too. Certainly, each democracy bases itself on what it thinks is "right" or "wrong" in its laws and that is a religious viewpoint. I recognise the intense religious views of the Iraqi people and I think it can work in their favor, to make them a better democracy than we are in some ways. For instance, they would not be likely to entrench in law the "right" to kill the unborn because of their religious views, unlike the public here which says that killing the unborn is a "right" a woman has because the baby in its initial stages is dependent on her body for survival and cannot survive outside the womb. "Survivability" and "personhood" debates would likely go nowhere due to the deeply held belief of the Islamic community that life begins at conception. On the other hand, they could place in their laws the allowing of "honor killings" (for adultery) and the murder of those who are homosexuals - so the "right to live" may reach to the womb, but not be allowed by them on other grounds which differ with our laws. But their viewpoint is not MORE religious than our viewpoint. Both views are saying what is right and wrong based on a deeply held group of values which, taken as a whole, is a religious view.
To refer to the law of the United States for affirmation of my view, in 1961, the Supreme Court of the United States recognised Humanism as a religion in the case "Torcaso v Watkins" of which it is said,
Quote:
"In 1961 the US Supreme Court took official cognizance of religious Humanism in the case of Roy R. Torcaso, a Humanist who was refused his commission as a Notary Public under a Maryland law requiring all public officers in the State to profess belief in God. In delivering the unanimous opinion of the Court that this statue was unconstitutional under the First Amendment, Justice Hugo L. Black observed: "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others."
"The "Texas Tech Law Review" states that, "The Seeger decision defined religion as all sincere beliefs based upon a power or being or upon a faith, to which all else is subordinate or upon which all else is ultimately dependent." Thus, according to Seeger, religion "includes atheists, agnostics, as well as adherents to traditional theism."
Such court decisions may account for Webster's 1970 dictionary definition of religion, which includes "any system of belief, practices, ethical values, etc., resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system [humanism as a religion]."
We tend to think belief in God is a religion, and therefore disbelief is not a religion. Actually, it is more accurate to say that one's view of God is a religious belief. Atheism cannot be proven (you cannot prove that God does not exist); consequently, all atheists believe in atheism. Thomas Jefferson, writer of the Declaration of Independence clearly understood this. During the debates that focused upon the separation of church and state, which ultimately led to the First Amendment, he defined the term religion to include "all believers or unbelievers of the Bible..." Thus religion applies equally to believers or unbelievers in God. (end quote)
==
The separation of church and state and the allowing of freedom of religion means that Atheists and Humanists, Buddhists and Taoists, Muslims, Christians and Jews, all may practice their faith within our culture without criminally harming one another for those beliefs. The laws of the land which our culture expressed allowed the view that peacefully holding any religious belief is allowed so long as they do no physical harm to another because of their differing view. The difference we see in Iraq is that some think religiously held viewpoints are necessary to be imposed upon others by force. This situation results in our asking.. Why does Sadr NOT wish to disband his militia? Why does he insist he must keep the arms and militia.. for what purpose? As you know, radical terrorist fundamental Islam will not peacefully coexist with the rest of the world but insists on world domination at the point of a sword. There can be no allowing of the free exercise of people's religiously held values (even disbelief such as Atheism or Humanism) under their rule. This ideology is embodied in a very full form in IRAN.
You say "In my opinion, it is good news if they disband and there is peace." I agree that it will be a good thing if Sadr disbands but his apparent allegiance to Iran and his militia being trained and armed by them is a very big problem because the fact is that Iran has nuclear ambitions and considers Iraq to be an enemy and keeps those hatreds alive. They also are of the belief that radical fundamental Islam must rule the earth through force (the sword). And, if Sadr's allegiance is to fundamentalist terrorist Islamic values, his militia will be working against the peaceful allowing of the free exercise of religion under the parliamentary system in Iraq. I refer you to this article, see BOLD:
==
Sadr threatens to end Iraq ceasefire
Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shia cleric, threatened on Tuesday to end a truce he imposed on his militia last year, Reuters reports from Baghdad.
The Mahdi army militia ceasefire had been credited with helping sharply to reduce violence across Iraq. Scrapping the truce could trigger widespread fighting with security forces and plunge Iraq back into a deadly spiral of sectarian violence.
Mr Sadr’s warning came a day after Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq’s Shia prime minister, threatened to bar the cleric’s movement from politics unless he were to disband the militia that has fought Iraqi and US forces during the past two weeks.
“The Iraqi government should know that the Mahdi army will stand shoulder-to- shoulder with the Iraqi people to provide all they need from security, stability and independence,” Mr Sadr said in a statement to offices across Iraq. “If it is required to lift the freeze [ie ceasefire]...to carry out our goals, objectives, doctrines and religious principles and patriotism, we will do that later.”
Hours after Mr Sadr’s statement, the government set a curfew on the capital for Wednesday’s fifth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad. He had called for a big anti-US march in Baghdad to mark the anniversary but cancelled it for fear his followers would be attacked.
Note here that he is saying he is keeping his arms to "carry out our goals, objectives, doctrines and religious principles and patriotism"... in other words, to keep to himself the option of using military force to bring about "RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES". Think about what that might mean to someone who does not fit into those principles and doctrinal teachings.. such as an Atheist or Humanist, a Christian or Jew. If he is an extension of Iran and their teachings.. if he feels he must defend and EXTEND his RELIGION by the sword, then it is not a peaceful religion which can co-exist with the others and openly discuss its views. It is a radical ideology which wants the ability to FORCE and coerce the people of Iraq into submission to its tenants. This is no different than Communism or Nazism, it is a world domination ideology.
Here Sadr is speaking of bringing the people of Iraq "security, stability and independence".. from what do they need independence? From their elected representative government? From the armed forces which are taken from among the Iraqi populace? Surly the stability and security the Iraqi people wish is already coming from their elected people and their men and women among the military force under the government's command? To say otherwise is to bring insurrection against the government.. and accuse it of acting as a dictatorship. Iraq is not a dictatorship. Therefore, I think the view he is expressing is RELIGIOUS in viewpoint, and has to do with radical Islamic extremist values he wishes to impose on the people and government - a view such as professed by the clerics in Iran.. which states that all people and governments must be forced by the sword to be under a radical terrorist form of Islam which rules by the sword.
This contrasts with our cultural view as taken from the founders of the US who were Christians. Our view is that God does not wish forced obedience at the point of a sword at all, but only that which comes from a true heart of allegiance and desire to serve Him with all the heart and mind, soul and will. We would rather see a sincere Atheist who disavows all belief in God than one who bastardizes religion by giving lipservice to God. Jesus mentioned this often in his rebuking those who were only outwardly religious (hypocrites) within the community of the religious. In one instance He said:
Mat 23:15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, you make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Not exactly kind words for these religiously observant people and their desire to make for themselves religious converts (proselytes). But such is the Jesus we Christians serve.. and the basis of the laws of the USA - a God who requires heart and not only outward observance. Outward observance alone is hypocrisy. So for us, freedom of religion allows those who will seek and find God to do so, and keeps the rest who do not wish to believe from acting the part of hypocrites before God. We see no point in forcing obedience to religious doctrines at the point of a sword. Submission to God in Christianity is willingly, or not at all. The concern with Sadr is that his CLERICAL collar coupled with a MILITIA means his goals are military and religious, making him a terrorist - unpeaceful toward the government and not a friend of the people of Iraq and their freedom to express their religious beliefs (in God or not as they will) from their hearts.
I hope from this you can understand the concern militarily concerning the threat that Sadr may be to Iraq, its people and government, and to the free exercise and observance of law and religion for them all.
Freedom of Religion is important.
Avoiding incidents like the below from being the rule in Iraq.. or here, is important.
Self- explanatory?
==
MUSLIM CONVERTS TO CHRIST. MOM TRIED TO MURDER HIM--IN CANADA
By J. Grant Swank, Jr.
MichNews.com
Apr 3, 2008
His mother broke his nose by slamming him in the face. He did not celebrate Ramadan. His mother was angry and so banged him in his face.
Adam, born a Muslim in Morocco, now lives for Christ in Canada. While there, he witnessed to two Muslims as they were going to a nearby mall. They got him near a balcony and pushed him over. He fell four stories, not expected to survive.
He broke his legs to such an extent that doctors say he will never walk again. Adam has no anger toward those who tried to kill him via his mother’s orders. He prays for them to know Christ.
Per CBNNews, “’I received a letter from my mom, threatening me that she was going to kill me if I do not go back to Islam,’ he said.”
This is the religion of peace??
Adam moved from that religion— to Christianity.
When 20 years old, Adam moved to Canada where he started viewing Christian television programs. Finally, investigating facts regarding Islam in comparison to biblical Christianity, Adam concluded that Islam was not for him. Christ was.
“How can a religion that is based on killing and slaughter and terrorism come from God?” Adam asked himself.
He approached a Canadian sheik with religious questions. The sheik told Adam that Islam is the only true faith. Adam concluded then that he was lied to all his life.
The sheik told him that bin Laden and AlZawahen are missionaries of the genuine faith in God. Adam was not at all convinced. That sealed it for Adam that Christ was indeed the true eternal Missionary to the repentant soul.
“’I finally felt like I found what I have been looking for all my life. I found a loving God, who died for me on the cross. I dedicated my time to study the Bible and pray and that's how I found my way to Jesus Christ.’”
It was then that Muslims sought to kill him, his mother instigating the murder. When he returned to Morocco for a visit, his family hung him upside down, beat him and tortured him without mercy.
His mother asked him if he would renounce Christ to take up Allah as deity. Adam replied that he would never forsake Christ. He was tortured some more.
He returned to Canada when Muslims lured him to the balcony from which he was tossed, left for dead. Instead, he lived to testify to everyone about Christ. For the last seven months he’s been confined to the hospitals for treatment.
He will spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair.
“’Even with all the pain, hurt and suffering I still rejoice because I know that I'm believing in the real God,’ he said.
‘What hurts most (is) knowing that my mom and my whole family believe in the wrong God. I always pray to God and ask him to bring them to Him and that's the only thing that will heal my wounds.’”
When we speak of Judeo-Christian hertiage as being founded in moral law, we must also not forget that Sharia law (Muslim faith) is the same law of Moses that came out of this same history. That is why to me, I can say without hesitation how repudiate the extremist view of Islam is to me. It is a complete corruption of the law of God. The Muslim faith does not replace Jewish/Christian faith or supercede it.
For those of you who do not know, there is a difference between the law of Moses and the law of God (or another term for it, the moral law of God) that we know as the Ten Commandments.
When biblical scholars refer to the law of Moses, they are not taking about the moral law (or ten commandments) but rules of government/clerics that were imposed upon people as if they were the original moral laws of God. These rules of government/clerics were supposedly grounded in the moral laws (ten commandments) but Jesus later taught how much in error these teachings had become due to clerics and their self righteousness for power and corruption. The Law of Moses (the ordinances) is temporary. The Law of Moses had curses attached to them. For instance, Thou Shalt not commit adultery. The curse/penalty is stoning. Another is Thou shalt not have any other Gods before me. Meaning to put God first. In the new testment, Jesus taught is he equal with God--- meaning he is God. The Gospel of John is devoted to the defense of Jesus being God. The curse for anyone making himself out to be God is stoning by the Jewish people. Muslims have this same belief. Neither Jews nor Muslims believe Jesus is God's son and equal with God (which is another way of saying, Jesus is God.) We, christians do not understand this relationship of the father, son and holy spirit (but they all part of the God head). Hopefully, I am not getting too deep for you all.
Then some of the ordinances or rules took on another form; like, one couldn't move your ox out of a ditch on the holy day and other such rules. This one was tied to the commandment of "Remember the sabbath" (sabbath meaning, holy day or day of rest for the worship of God). The ox would have to starve in that ditch or just suffer. This was never the intent of God to have that animal suffer. Instead, God's law was his desire to show mercy and get the ox out of the ditch.
Whereas, the moral law (ten commandments) are the permanent law of God (known as the ten commandments). Most secular governments write laws (they can't help themselves-- they are based in morality) on the ten commandments (law of God) as given to Moses.
Just a reminder. Even if you don't believe in God (or some other religious belief) as Sara points out - government laws are still based in some form of morality. To me, it is the law of God (ten commandments).
You have it wrong concerning Al-Sadr. The evidence suggest Al-Malaki deployed the Iraqi Security Forces to Basra with the intent to destroy the Mahdi Army. Other news articles confirm that the cease fire proposed by Al-Sadr resulted in his army running out of amunition. If you watched Patraeus and Crocker today, Ambassador Crocker confirmed Al-Sadr's offer of a cease fire came from a position of weakness not strength.
Al-Malaki has already begun to deal with the Sadrist movement by sacking them from their jobs within the government. Good for Al-Malaki. He is beginning to take his rightful place as the Prime Minister of Iraq.
Todays hearings on Capital Hill I believe will place added pressure on the GoI to pass the remaining six benchmarks including the oil and gas law. This can be done without the support of Al-Sadr since his block controls only 30 seats in Parliment. Al-Sadr's connection to Iran is further isolating him from the political progress in Iraq. Any credit given to Al-Sadr is misdirected.
Very well explained. I hope Britishknoght and others are clear on this guy AlSadr.
Sara, isn't is pathetic that our dissident US citizens misinterpret "freedom OF Religion..." as freedom FROM religion?
Many harmful and destructive judicial decisions made based on this error.
Also, about a year ago I read a commentary ( can't remember where) that it is very likely that the Saudis will take AlSadr out. They dealt with him in a humane and reasonable way with clear understandings that he was never to align himself with Iranians. Saudia's do not consider Iranians arabs!
He went diabolically against their urgings( not to mention the mass amount of favors and monies given to him by the Saudi shieks).
As I stated before, his over inflated ego and arrogance keeps him a marked man. And his ignorance allows the Iranians to bait him for their own agendas.
Hey, not to change the subject.... but isn't Putin looking more and more like an Aids victim these days? Rumors have it that he has his scientists all ready to put his body in deep freeze when he dies......hmmmmm, maybe he knows something...
Big al Qaeda weapons site destroyed in Iraq
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
BAGHDAD: U.S. troops destroyed an al qaeda training camp north of Baghdad last week that contained a large weapons cache of missiles, machine guns and mortar rounds, the U.S. military said on Wednesday.
A U.S. Special Forces team descended on the camp in the town of Balad, in Salahuddin province, after intelligence reports suggested an old radar station was being used by insurgents, the military said in a statement.
They found a cache that included more than 20,000 rounds of ammunition, surface-to-air missiles, machine guns, rockets, suicide-vest charges, mortar rounds, a rocket-propelled grenade launcher and warheads, the statement said.
I thought you might find this article interesting.
A bit off topic, but it is interesting to see how science and bias are dealt with in the schools..
and how strong belief in unproven theories are defended with religious fervor.
===
High School Student Raises Questions About Textbook Bias
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
WASHINGTON — Talk about a civics lesson: A high-school senior has raised questions about political bias in a popular textbook on U.S. government, and legal scholars and some top scientists say the teen's criticism is well-founded.
"I just realized from my own knowledge that some of this stuff in the book is just plain wrong," said LaClair, who is using the book as part of an AP government class at Kearny High School.
They say "American Government" by conservatives James Wilson and John Dilulio presents what he says is a skewed view of topics from global warming to separation of church and state. The publisher now says it will review the book, as will the College Board, which oversees college-level Advanced Placement courses used in high schools.
Both authors are considered conservative. LaClair said he was particularly upset about the book's treatment of global warming. James Hansen, the director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, recently heard about LaClair's concerns and has lent him some support.
Hansen has sent Houghton Mifflin a letter stating that the book's discussion on global warming contained "a large number of clearly erroneous statements" that give students "the mistaken impression that the scientific evidence of global warming is doubtful and uncertain."
The edition of the textbook published in 2005, which is in high school classrooms now, states that "science doesn't know whether we are experiencing a dangerous level of global warming or how bad the greenhouse effect is, if it exists at all."
A newer edition published late last year was changed to say, "Science doesn't know how bad the greenhouse effect is."
The authors kept a phrase stating that global warming is "enmeshed in scientific uncertainty."
While there are still some scientists who downplay global warming and the role of burning fossil fuels, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and peer-reviewed scientific research say human activity is causing climate change. Last year an international collection of hundreds of scientists and government officials unanimously approved wording that said the scientific community had "very high confidence," meaning more than 90 percent likelihood, that global warming is caused by humans.
LaClair added that he perceived a bias in the book too.
"All the statements for the most part were trying to lead the reader in one direction and not giving a fair account of everything," he said.
It's not the first time LaClair has raised alarm bells over teaching at his school. "I'm not looking to cause a huge controversy, but I want the students to be taught correct information," LaClair said.
His mother, Debra, says she thinks her son is giving his peers another kind of civics lesson.
"When he sees something that is incorrect, he wants to fix it," she said. "That's him. That's what he does."
Isn't it great that this teenager can help correct things from his own knowledge about the subject? - Note he isn't a scientist, adult or qualified to speak about the subject from an expert's view - he is a HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT.. and yet others will back his position up against the conservative viewpoint which is being given - a position which is seeking to strike balance on the issue and not present only one side or viewpoint since Global Warming is a THEORY and not a proven fact. Let's repeat that.. GW is not a proven fact, but only a theory.. hard to believe since consensus of scientists (above) gives the impression that their consensus makes the THEORY somehow turn into scientific FACT.
Saying that GW is "enmeshed in scientific uncertainty" is definitely true from the facts and figures and hard data.. though it may not be true of the scientific community's embracing of the theory and their vaunted "very high confidence" that it is so. It makes you wonder when any THEORY is so strongly embraced it is thought that it cannot be disproved... nor spoken against. Rigidity in science prevents further breakthrough, illumination and truth from being discovered - as was true with the majority of scientists who embraced a "flat earth" THEORY at one time, for instance.
One would almost think that such deeply held BELIEF in a THEORY could qualify it for being a religious belief according to the dictionary definition of quote, "Webster's 1970 dictionary definition of religion, includes "any system of belief, practices, ethical values, etc., resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system [humanism as a religion]."
From the comments on Newsbusters, a list of links to full articles (see url below to find them and click on if interested)
Al Gore's climate change film 'is propaganda' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
UK Court finds 9 Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (The New Party, UK)
- Al Gore's 'nine Inconvenient Untruths' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
- Al Gore told there are nine inconvenient truths in his film (The Times, UK)
- An Inconvenient Lie (WorldNetDaily)
- Gore caught lying (WorldNetDaily)
- Gore’s Nine Lies (FrontPage Magazine)
- Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore's 'alarmist' climate change film (Daily Mail, UK)
Schools must warn of Gore climate film bias (Daily Mail, UK)
- British Schools Ordered to Offer 'Balance' When Showing Al Gore's Global Warming Film (FOXNews)
35 Inconvenient Truths (Science and Public Policy Institute)
25 Inconvenient Truths for Al Gore (The National Review Online)
23 Scientific Errors (Science and Public Policy Institute)
20 More inaccuracies (PDF) (UKPRwire)
16 Errors in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (Science and Public Policy Institute)
6 Inconvenient Truths Indeed (Robert C. Balling, Ph.D. Geography)
Solar Activity Diminishes; Researchers Predict Another Ice Age (DailyTech)
Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age (National Post, Canada)
Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling (DailyTech)
The Oceans Have Stopped Warming! (Canada Free Press)
Global temperatures 'to decrease' (BBC)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
AND these links as well:
A few inconvenient truths for Al Gore and his ongoing con job. . .
Changes in the Sun’s Surface to Bring Next Climate Change
Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns
REPORT: GLOBAL TEMPS 'HAVE NOT RISEN SINCE 1998'...
Scientist explains 'global warming stopped a decade ago'...
Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III
Temperature Monitors Report Worldwide Global Cooling...
Global Warming Bill Could Cost Every U.S. Man, Woman and Child Up to $494 Annually
Behind the feel-good hype of carbon offsets, some of the deals don't deliver
Beware the Eco-Industrial Complex
Carbon Credit - The Latest Greenie Trend
Carbon Offsets - Buyer Beware
Carbon trade scheme 'is failing'
Carbon Trading Proposal May Put Mature Tropical Forests At Risk, Scientists Warn
Emission trading suffers as carbon prices plummet
Truth about Kyoto: huge profits, little carbon saved
World Bank accused of climate change "hijack"
LLOYD'S: Lack of natural disasters putting pressure on insurance firms...
Skeptical Scientists Descend on UN Climate Conference, Urge World To 'Do Nothing'...
Pope condemns climate change 'prophets'...
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Democrats plan to push legislation this spring that would force the Iraqi government to spend its own surplus in oil revenues to rebuild the country, sparing U.S. dollars.
(www.noozz.coom)
09 April 2008 (Azzaman)
Print article Send to friend
The call by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for Sadr’s Madhi Army to disband has divided the parliament with deputies urging other militia groups to disarm.
Deputies from the restive city of Mosul in an apparent move backing the Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his militiamen have asked for other militia groups to disarm namely Kurdish Peshmerga.
Other deputies doubted the prime minister had the authority to order the disbanding of militia groups whose formation and presence in the country is legalized.
Most militia groups operate under ‘murky’ legal cover and some are even paid by the government like the Kurdish Peshmerga militiamen.
All in all there are 28 militia groups in the country and one of them belongs to the prime minister himself and his political party al-Dawaa.
Preventing Sadr’s movement from taking part in the forthcoming provincial elections will set a precedent in Iraq and political parties with militias, including Dawaa, view the move with a suspicious eye.
Mahmoud Othman, a senor Kurdish legislator and politician has said under electoral rules Maliki “has no power to deny a political party nominating candidates for election.”
Sunni deputies were vociferous in calls for Maliki to add all militias to his order, including Kurdish Peshmerga.
They said Kurdish militia men operate “freely and unruly” in Mosul, its suburbs as well as the oil-rich city of Kirkuk.
(www.iraqupdates.com)
Baghdad, 09 April 2008 (Gulf News)
Print article Send to friend
An Iraqi military document has revealed important details of a security draft representing current talks between the government of Iraq and the US concerning an agreement between the two states, senior military officials said.
The suggested draft agreement will substitute the international resolution, which puts Iraq under the American tutelage according to chapter seven of the UN convention.
The document, which was prepared by the head of the military and security studies centre at the Iraqi Defence Ministry, Colonel Najm Al Deen Al Nakshabandi weeks before his retirement, says there is an Iraqi-American understanding to retain 100,000 American soldiers in Iraq until 2010.
Armed militias
It is stated that Iraq needs this number of forces to confront Al Qaida's activities and Shiite armed militias inside Iraq and also to secure its borders on the regional level.
The document adds, "The Iraqi - American treaty which must be completed at the end of July, will be a comprehensive economic, financial, commercial, cultural, political and military treaty." Al Nakshabandi's document suggests that the Iraqi-American military agreement will be similar to the joint defence treaty signed between the US and Kuwait and the number of American forces will decrease to less than fifty thousand American soldiers after 2010.
The document argues that regional dangers on Iraq particularly by Iran and Syria would have a decisive role in determining the important details and approaches of any Iraqi- American military agreement.
The document also revealed that Americans offered to establish three temporal military bases two years from now; one in the south specifically in Basra after the British military withdrawal, the second in Taji or Balad and the third one will be in the northern Iraq province of Mosul.
Obligations
Besides the signing of an Iraqi-American legal military agreement, a military cooperation agreement will also be signed. It is not immediately clear what the Iraqi reaction to the American offer will be.
The legal agreement will include determining the rights and obligations of American forces and this will focus on vital points like eliminating the impunity and privilege of American forces that will stay in Iraq next year.
The document states that the Iraqi government seeks a similar legal arrangement to the American-German agreement after the second world war.
For instance, they will not have the right to arrest an Iraqi citizen; wander within Iraqi cities or carry weapons without Iraqi authorisation. Iraq also wants American forces to pay fees and taxes on goods needed by Americans in Iraqi territories.
Meanwhile, the Iraqi government will have the right to detain any American involved in violating Iraqi laws and it can inspect American camps in the event that they threaten Iraqi national security.
Factfile: US military surge
General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker updated Congress on Tuesday on progress made during a "surge" of force in the war zone credited with helping to reduce violence. Here are facts about the surge strategy and its goals.
Surge strategy: President George W. Bush ordered the US military to increase troop levels in Iraq in January 2007 under a strategy known commonly as the "surge" that included security, political, economic and regional components.
Five brigade combat teams, including about 20,000 combat troops and another 10,000 support personnel, were sent to Iraq from February to mid-June.
Iraq agreed to deliver additional Iraqi forces to Baghdad and to bar political officials from interfering with security operations.
Goals for the government: Take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November 2007
Give US and coalition forces authority to pursue all extremists
Pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis
Reform de-Baathification laws and hold provincial elections in 2007
Progress towards goals: Attacks in Iraq declined 60 per cent during the surge, according to the US military. Deaths from sectarian violence dropped 90 per cent after the last additional US combat brigade arrived in Iraq in June 2007. But violence has climbed in 2008 due to Al Qaida activity in the north and intra-Shi'ite violence in the south.
(www.iraqupdates.com)
I know this site is generally anti-american, but I think it gives us something to think about at least in the short term.
____________________________________________________________
Americans, common enemy of all Iraqi sects
By Basil Adas
Baghdad, 09 April 2008 (Gulf News)
Print article Send to friend
Americans seemed more odious to Iraqis five years after the invasion and occupation of the country."
Jumaa Al Khafaji told Gulf News: "I am an Iraqi Shiite; frankly I can say that I was happy that Saddam's regime was toppled and I welcomed the US Army who helped us achieve that goal.
"But now I hate the Americans who have harmed and abused Iraqis and helped in spreading sectarianism among us, We are divided as Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. They killed Sunnis in Fallujah and Haditha, murdered Shiites in Sadr City, Najaf and Diwaniya. I hate them so much," Al Khafaji said.
"Throughout the last five years, the US army committed violations that offended the Iraqi people beginning with the abuse of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib, carrying out massacre of civilians in Hadith, and Baghdad's Al Nisr Square massacre which was perpetrated by armed men working for Blackwater, an American security company."
"What did Iraqis gain from this occupation which has put Iraq back hundred years," Samia Abdul Amir Al Samurai, an Iraqi University student, asked.
"This occupation made this country an arena for settling accounts, by terrorists, infiltrators and assassins to hit targets in scientific and academic communities. All these are done by parties supported by the American occupation, therefore I am certain that all Iraqis hate Americans," Al Samurai said.
Bakhtiar Berzinji, a Kurdish citizen, told Gulf News: "It is true that the American army is not deployed in Kurdistan regions but the Turkish invasion to our territories is supported by Americans who allow Turks to shell Kurdish villages and to displace hundreds of Kurds, besides the Kurdistan territory guard forces is under strict Americans surveillance so that there will be no Iraqi effective force to face internal and external threats."
"I am an Iraqi Christian. Before the American occupation, Christian population was more than one and a half million, but now this number has dramatically dropped to less than one million because of fear, murder and kidnapping," Hani Dnkha.
(www.iraqupdates.com)
I saw this a couple of days ago. The headline reads: Iraqi Dinar aspires to return to the past against the dollar. I have included the the google translation. A bit exciting if you ask me.
____________________________________________________________
Iraq dinar aspires to return to McCann in the past against the dollar
قال محافظ البنك المركزي سنان الشبيبي ان استقرار سعر صرف الدينار العراقي ازاء الدولار شجع المواطن على شراء الدينار والتعامل به وادخاره. Said Central Bank Governor Sinan Alshabibi The stability of the exchange rate of the Iraqi dinar against the dollar encouraged citizens to buy dinar and handling and keeping it.
واضاف في تصريح صحفي نشر اليوم الثلاثاء ان ثقة المواطن العراقي بعملته بدات تزداد يوما بعد يوم واصبح حريصا على تصريف الدولار وشراء الدينار بدلا عنه اذ شهد العامان المنصرمان عودة الدينار الى قوته ما ادى الى القضاء على التضخم الذي كنا نشكو منه في السابق . He added in a press statement issued today, Tuesday, that the confidence of Iraqi citizens currencies started increasing day after day and is keen on the conduct of the dollar and the dinar rather buy it revealed The last two years witnessed the return to power dinar, which led to the elimination of inflation, which we suffer from in the past.
واوضح الشبيبي ان العراق يطمح في المستقبل القريب الى عودة الدينار العراقي الى ما كان عليه في السبعينيات وبداية الثمانينيات ازاء الدولار والعملات الاجنبية الاخرى ونحن ساعون وجادون في هذا المضمار وان هذه العملية ليست بالسهلة والبسيطة وتتوقف على العرض والطلب للدينار العراقي . He explained that Iraq Alshabibi aspire in the near future to the return of Iraqi dinar to what it was in the seventies and early eighties about the dollar and other foreign currencies and we are endeavouring and serious in this regard and that this process is not easy and simple and depends on the supply and demand of Iraqi dinars.
وعن تشجيع القطاع الخاص في نقل رؤوس الاموال بين الدول افاد بان الفرص مفتوحة امام الجميع وبكل حرية في ان ينقل امواله الى اي بلد يريد منوها بانه تنقصنا القضايا التنظيمية في هذا المجال لاننا ما زلنا نعاني من روتين قاتل في معظم دوائر الدولة. And encourage the private sector in the transfer of capital between the States reported that opportunities are open to all and free to move money to any country that wants alluding shortage of regulatory issues in this area because we are still suffering from a routine killer in most government departments.
(www.dinartrade.com)
I do not believe the following has been posted here.
____________________________________________________________
Commission on oil and gas received a draft law establishing the National Oil Company
Baghdad - Iraq votes 05 / 04 / 2008 at 12:04:01
A Vice-Chairman of the oil and gas in the House of Representatives of Iraq, Saturday, that the draft law establishing the National Oil Company arrived at the parliament, which is the subject of discussion within the Commission for oil and gas in the Council.
He said Abdul Hadi Al-Hasani, in a statement to the Independent News Agency (Voices of Iraq), the draft law "includes founding the National Oil Company, with capital supported by the Iraqi government, in addition to the currently existing companies, namely: NOC and the South."
Al-Hasani said that the National Oil Company to be established "will be added to other companies in future, such as the company Maysan, Dhi Qar, unlike the two currently existing," any oil north and the south. He pointed out that the new company "will be out digging and extracting oil, as well as transportation and storage."
He stated that "provision is made for the establishment of the new company, capitalized preliminary," pointing out that it would be right National Oil Company "to borrow four times their capital."
The Vice-Chairman of the oil and gas in Parliament that the establishment of the National Oil Company is the "Introduction of legislation oil and gas law," saying that the Committee "demanded to increase the size of the company's capital to enable it to compete with international companies."
And the Bill of oil and gas said Al-Hasani, a deputy in Parliament from the Bloc (United Iraqi Alliance) owner of the majority, that the parliament "did not receive, until now, no copy of the Act, because of political differences around," likely delay adoption of this law.
The delayed approval of the House bill Iraqi oil and gas, which was approved by the Government of Nuri al-Maliki and forwarded to the Parliament in July last year, due to strong opposition of several parliamentary and political influence of the law.
She says that the strong opposition, the draft gives "concessions" unprecedented for foreign investors to establish oil installations and refineries and invested for periods of up to (50) years, and he devoted controlled territories wealth owned all the Iraqi people.
(www.dinartrade.com)
Thanks for the good posts, all. Carole - it is interesting that mankind thinks only of those who profess a belief in God as religious. Religious belief is how we think about God - whether we accept or reject that concept which is presented to our minds is equally religious. All men hold ultimate values and beliefs which are religious and are the basis of law, because law defines behavior as allowable or not. The US has the immortal words, "We find these truths to be self-evident... " enshrined in its laws. There are self-evident moral truths which are the basis of law. We know it innately and enshrine it within and codify it in law. For the vast majority of the population, these truths (such as that all men are created equal and no man is greater because of skin color, ethnicity, etc) is accepted. For those who accept the existence of God as a person (most religious views, that means) the presence of self-evident truths to mankind's minds is a proof of the existence of the Intelligent Creator whose laws are innately known. There are not "religious" people and "not religious" people on earth.. ALL are religious people. There is no one who does not hold to some truth or reasoning or values based on their own inner sense of "right" and "wrong".
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which do not have the law (of God), do by nature the things contained in the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another.
The work of God's law is written upon men's hearts even without the benefit of the written words such as the Ten Commandments to guide their behavior. There is no people who do not know that some things are evil and some are good. Mankind is not a blank slate, but has these laws engraved within their hearts and on their consciences from conception. They may accuse or excuse one another for violating those laws, but they are there just the same, and each one of us will one day be judged by God who is over us all (the next verse says, see Romans 2:16).
Jesus also said that people can serve inanimate objects as their God (money), even though they profess they do not have any religious belief in God Himself. For those who don't believe in God or choose something other than God to derive their moral code from and dedicate their lives to, it is just like those who don't believe in gravity - they may find the scientific reality a bit harsh one day when they step off a cliff.. or into the eternal realm at the time of their death - because true reality never changes.
As for Laura's post about not fully understanding God being absolutely ONE God, and ONLY One God, not three (polytheism) and yet manifesting to us in a way which shows us He is also three distinctly.. we can understand that ice, steam and liquid water are all H2O in different forms. Yet, you would not mistake ice for steam. God has chosen to explain to us that there are separations of Himself into three and yet, fully ONE. Personally, I think this is due to God being multi-dimensional and not living and existing only in our rather "Flatland" plane of four dimensional existence. He is trying to explain His multidimensionality to our finite minds who do not think above the fourth dimensional plane. String Theory says that there are AT LEAST eleven more planes.. God is higher above them all because He created each of them. This necessitates a person with a multidimensional personhood beyond our understanding on this plane. That is why He tries to explain it by saying He is ABSOLUTELY only ONE, and yet.. He can manifest Himself as three.
My favorite Scripture on the Oneness of God is in the Old Testament Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
Which Jesus repeated in Mar 12:29-30 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And you shall love the Lord...
These verses distinctly say that God is ONLY One God and not more. Yet, in trying to explain how God could become a man, the prophecy in the Old Testament is given of Jesus being born and Isaiah said that there is given to the coming Messiah/Savior the name of "The Everlasting Father".. of course, this shows His being absolutely only ONE God as there is ONLY one Father..
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, and unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Here is a child BORN who the prophet says is THE MIGHTY GOD, and also "The Everlasting Father".. Any person being born GOD in the Jewish mindset must be the only God, the SAME God of the Old Testament who is only One God and Father of us all.
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all,
So we see God states in the Bible that He is ONE in an absolute way, a Mighty single God who is yet able to be born as a child and remain in that manifestation as The Everlasting Father. There is only ONE God and yet, He stayed in heaven (the heaven did not fall down when He came to earth) and was also on earth as a man. Jesus knew we would have difficulty with these concepts when He said:
Joh 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and you do not believe, how shall you believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
Joh 3:13 And no man has ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
Here was Jesus standing before them as a man, and speaking of Himself (the Son of man) and saying that THEN, at that time, as they stood there, HE (Jesus) was IN HEAVEN right then. That is because He was not just on earth, but also simultaneously in all the other dimensions including the one we think of as "heaven". He tried to explain He came from heaven (no man has ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven) and was still there (the Son of man which is in heaven). Being One in essence with what we think of as the Father God, Creator of all.
Ok.. as Laura said, maybe a bit too deep. But God is very deep.. more deep than any theologian can ever plumb the depths of.. beyond human understanding. God is only ONE God, but yet, He was not limited by that to being unable to manifest as a human if He willed to. He had the capability to become a man and still retain His Godhead. Of Jesus it is said:
Col 2:9 For in Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Jesus somehow can have a body like a man, and still be fully God (with all that MUST mean). This is the incredible miracle of the baby in the manger in Bethlehem, "The Mighty God" prophecied by Isaiah to be born "unto us" humans.. so simple, yet hard to grasp. Ok, ok, back to the Dinar, I know. :)
As for your post, "Americans, common enemy of all Iraqi sects" where one person thinks his own opinion is typical of all the Iraqi people when he says, "All these are done by parties supported by the American occupation, therefore I am certain that all Iraqis hate Americans," - I doubt his assessment of everyone being like him. He is one vote, and only one.
However, I can say one thing.. and that is the reality that in general, nobody likes a cop. And the US military, just like the cops on the streets, have to choose a side to support. He says the Americans supported parties which did bad things when he says, "All these are done by parties supported by the American occupation,".. at least he acknowledges that it wasn't the Americans THEMSELVES doing it, but he speaks of the parties the US supported... well, the problem was that there wasn't anyone BETTER to support. You can only work with the people living on the streets, as cops well know. You can't work with the "better" people who would not have done anything wrong (the fictional ones this person is sure exists and the American forces "should have" allied themselves with).
Iraq was rife with corruption under Saddam. The US came in and removed him, but then couldn't do the job themselves. They just HAD to trust Iraqis. And when "All these (bad things) are done by parties supported by the American occupation" then the Americans get the fallout for the bad job these people they HAD to support do.. just like the cops when they take to the streets and make an alliance with one or a few groups and try to make it better. Maybe he needs to look a bit further than what happened and look at the raw materials the US was given in the first place.
Many have advocated allowing Saddam's Baathists back in power.. well, are they all upstanding citizens? And if you don't trust them, who do you trust? The US is walking a tightrope trusting ANY of these people who lived under corruption and may be corrupt themselves. But the US had to start somewhere.. the fact is, they probably did at least an average job of it, if not an excellent one given what they had to do and the personel they had to do it with.
The idea of the noble savage.. or the noble and pure Iraqi.. who would not do wrong (except for the evil influence of the Americans) is a myth these people have bought into. They are sinners plain and simple.. and perhaps the corruption and woes we have been able to see happen in Iraq shows us they were worse ones for living under Saddam Hussein, not better. Again, I say that the US did a good job with what they had to work with, and if there was corruption, these critics should look at who the US had to work with rather than blaming the US for the job of corrupt Iraqis.
There is some indication that our soldiers are amassing at the Iranian border. While it is not sure as of yet, it looks like America intends to attack Iran's nuclear facilities and Iranian Revoluntary Guard.
There are news stories on debka.com and crossfirewar.com that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard was involved in the Basra incidents. There is also a report that the USS Abraham Lincoln has been ordered to the persian gulf.
Some reports in news stories are saying that Secretary of State, Condi Rice is in Israel to brief them on the current status of Iran's nuclear capabilities. Also, Vice President Cheney is speaking with the Saudis.
One news story states that Iran has passed the line to go back in their nuclear program. I think, there is going to be trouble. Also, the US has a nuclear submarine in the area too.
Also, the germans are in Israel to consult too. It is reported that Germany is against the strike. Admiral Tallon is also reported in news stories to have been sacked due to his opposition to an American Nuclear attack upon Iran.
Folks, this does not look good. This is looking like an Israelis and American operation thus far. Just a heads up. I think, we all need to be looking for news on this item. It sounds like this is going to happen. Apparently, General Petraus was more than a little angry about the Basra operation with Maliki and Iran's involvement in it.
The actual article is entitled, "Exclusive: Iran, Syria, Lebanon on military alert over US Gulf Movements and Israel's home defense drill. Date is 4/6/08 and the link is:
Do you think that if Congress insists that Iraq fund their own reconstruction and parts of thier war, going forward, would cause them to HAVE TO do something about the value of the Dinar. This could be good news for us as investors AND TAXPAYERS!
This has been predicted before.. see this 2007 article predicting the bomb being ready by about now (1 year later)..
==
Iran moves closer to making a nuclear bomb
By David Blair, Diplomatic Correspondent
23/06/2007
Iran claimed today to have stockpiled 100kg of enriched uranium, enough in theory to create two nuclear bombs of the kind that destroyed Hiroshima.
The news will once again stoke fears that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime is seeking to build a nuclear weapon.
By storing such a high quantity of low-enriched uranium, President Ahmadinejad's regime is widening its options.
It could choose to enrich the stockpiled uranium to weapons-grade level in a matter of months – perhaps after formally withdrawing from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and breaking out of all international safeguards.
Iran claims that its nuclear ambitions are entirely peaceful and designed to do nothing more than generate electricity for its growing population of 70 million. But western governments disbelieve this assertion.
Iran is defying three United Nations resolutions with its nuclear programme. In spite of international pressure to halt the programme it announced in April that it had started enriching uranium on an "industrial scale".
Uranium is enriched using machines called centrifuges. These have now been installed in Iran's nuclear plant at Natanz. A snap inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency last month found that 1,312 centrifuges were operating.
Iran's official target is to bring 3,000 into action – enough to produce sufficient weapons-grade uranium for one bomb in about a year.
As you may know, Iran moved to a faster centrifuge which can do the job sooner and announced these new "type two" centrifuges were up and running recently. To me it appears possible that the US and Israel are being forced into war by Iran's ability to produce nuclear bombs and Western distrust that they are merely producing what they need for nuclear fuel.
===
Ahmadinejad Says Iran Has Tested New Advanced Centrifuges
Tuesday, April 08, 2008 June 26, 2007: This satellite image shows Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment facility, where it has begun installing 6,000 new centrifuges.
TEHRAN, Iran — President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced Tuesday that the country has started to install 6,000 new centrifuges to enrich uranium and for the first time has tested an improved centrifuge that works five times faster that the current version.
If confirmed, the announcement would be a major expansion of Iran's uranium enrichment — a process that can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor or material for a warhead.
Tehran says its nuclear program is intended only to produce energy, not develop weapons as the U.S. and many of its allies fear.
Iran already has about 3,000 centrifuges operating at its underground nuclear facility in Natanz. A total of 3,000 centrifuges is the commonly accepted figure for a nuclear enrichment program that is past the experimental stage and can be used as a platform for a full industrial-scale program that could churn out enough enriched material for dozens of nuclear weapons over time.
Ahmadinejad toured the Natanz facility in ceremonies marking the second anniversary of the day Iran first enriched uranium in 2006.
During the tour, he announced the start of work on installing the 6,000 new centrifuges. Later in a nationally televised speech, he announced the testing of the new, more effective centrifuge.
Ahmadinejad said a "new machine was put to test" that is smaller but five times more efficient than the P-1 centrifuges that are currently in operation at Natanz. He provided no further details on the new device or on how many Iran had.
He called the development a "breakthrough" and the "beginning of a speedy trend to eliminate the big powers" dominance in nuclear energy.
He lauded Iran's achieved proficiency in the cycle of nuclear fuel despite U.N. sanctions and pressures imposed by the world's big powers.
In the enrichment process, uranium gas is pumped into series of centrifuges called "cascades." The gas is spun at supersonic speeds to remove impurities. Enriching at a low level produces nuclear fuel, but at a higher level it can produce the material for a warhead.
The workhorse of Iran's enrichment program is the P-1 centrifuge, which is run in cascades of 164 machines. But Iranian officials confirmed in February that they had started using the more advanced IR-2 centrifuge, which can churn out enriched uranium at more than double the rate.
Iran says it plans to move toward large-scale uranium enrichment that ultimately will involve 54,000 centrifuges.
Again, we must look at what was said before.
Just five months ago - BEFORE Iran announced the new type 2 centrifuges - this article was published which said,
QUOTE:
Whereas in Western terms, these figures may not be too scary, for Israel, the prospect of Iran’s Mahmud Ahmadinejad having two to four nuclear bombs to play with by spring 2008 is ominous enough to blow over all its security calculations.
===
Iran Much Closer to Nuclear Bomb than West Admits
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
November 19, 2007
Independent intelligence, military and scientific circles strongly suspect that Iran is a lot closer to a nuclear bomb than officials in the US, West Europe and Israel are ready to surmise in public.
DEBKAfile’s sources report that this suspicion was strengthened by the discoveries made in Syria as a result of the Israeli attack of Sept. 6. Those discoveries led US nuclear experts to three conclusions:
1. If Syria with its relatively meager resources could aspire to a plutonium reactor, then Iran which is flush with oil revenue and has an advanced technological infrastructure must be much farther ahead in the same direction.
2. If Syria could hide its projected construction of a North Korean plutonium reactor for several years, Iran must be assumed to have an already fully-functioning reactor of this type hidden away even longer.
3. Additional data reaching the US and Israel indicate that the boast made by Iranian president Ahmadinejad - and confirmed by the IAEA - that Tehran has 3,000 working centrifuges for uranium enrichment masks the real figure, which most likely tops 5,000 or is even close to 7,000 working machines.
Therefore, even if the Iranian nuclear industry is preyed by technical setbacks, it will be left with enough functioning machines to produce enough fissile material for at least two bombs a year.
Some intelligence experts expect Iran to spring the news on the world at any time soon of a breakthrough in its program or even a nuclear test. This tactic of announcing a fait accompli was practiced by Pakistan and North Korea, from both of which Iran’s nuclear program has drawn assistance.
The knowledgeable Israeli Air Force Colonel (Res.) Shmuel Gordon informed recipients of a private publication issued last week that, according to his information, Iran may have accumulated enough fissile material for two to four nuclear bombs.
The colonel refers to the small research reactor with “hot cells” which the United States gave to the shah of Iran in 1967 and which has since then been turning out 0.6 kilos of plutonium every year – a minute amount in Western terms, but in 35 years, Gordon points out, it would have processed 21 kilos – enough for two to three bombs.
Although the reactor is under IAEA inspection, there is no reliable information on the disposition of this product.
Col. Gordon provides chapter and verse for his reading of the state of Iran’s nuclear program.
In the past, China sold Iran 1,800 tons of uranium in gaseous and solid form. In January, 2007, after Iranian scientists learned to operate a small number of centrifuges, they began to assemble 3,000 which, says the Israeli officer, can produce enough enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb every 330 days.
Fissile material alone does not constitute a bomb. The next steps in the process are technically demanding and costly. In the 1980s, the father of the Pakistan bomb, A. Q. Khan, cashed in on his experience by establishing an international nuclear black market. When the Libyan nuclear program was dismantled two years ago, evidence was found that he had sold Iran detailed instructions with diagrams on how to manufacture a nuclear device and build nuclear warheads for missiles. Some of these documents were released last week to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The Israeli colonel points out that while India, Pakistan and North Korea required 15 years of development before attaining a nuclear weapon and a missile for its delivery, Iran has been working on its program more than 15 years and its engineering, technical and technological infrastructure is superior to that of its three Asian predecessors. Iran produces airplanes, missiles and sophisticated ships and armaments. Tehran also has access to assistance from Russia, China, Pakistan and North Korea.
Two months ago, Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced the system was working. Tehran has consistently lied about its nuclear program. The truth was extracted only when there was no other choice. Only recently did the nuclear watchdog inspectors confess they had never been allowed to set foot in the underground facility at Natanz and were therefore unable to establish how many centrifuges were installed and when. At the same time, Tehran admitted that it aspires to have the round number of 50,000 centrifuges spinning the uranium gas into nuclear fuel, thereby producing a quantity for making a bomb every 20 days.
Whereas in Western terms, these figures may not be too scary, for Israel, the prospect of Iran’s Mahmud Ahmadinejad having two to four nuclear bombs to play with by spring 2008 is ominous enough to blow over all its security calculations.
If Iran already has two nukes - and likely twice as many centrifuges as they publicly admit - and if many of the centrifuges are the new type 2 and so enriching uranium at a much faster rate than projected before..
The US being forced into a confrontation over Iran's nuclear armament ambitions appears very possible.
As another site I was reading today observed, "The administration was stunned by December's National Intelligence Estimate which claimed Iran had abandoned its nuclear warhead programme. "It was the Intelligence world deliberately getting at Bush," said the general. But since then the International Atomic Energy Authority has reported that the scale of activity in Iran's nuclear plants and labs suggests a weapons programme is under way. The electoral timetable points to an attack soon. The Majlis vote in Iran has just reinforced the hardliners, and Bush knows he must strike before the presidential election gets underway in the US. The neocon advisers have never missed a beat in their warning: "Bush and Cheney won't allow Iran to go nuclear on their watch."
It would be the height of irresponsibility to allow Iran to go nuclear when they are not peaceful in intent toward the world. War is therefore possible.. and quite likely.
Our prayers for wisdom in how to wage that war so the least casualties are incurred and the most damage to Iran's plan for nuclear weaponization (the mission is accomplished) will definitely be said before the announcement of the necessity to commence any hostility.
Given these current realities, a diplomatic solution appears unlikely to continue as a viable option.. and it does appear likely that the US will be forced (regretfully) into a war it did not seek. God protect the American people and their allies.. at home, and abroad - particularly those in uniform - as they confront this threat to freedom and world peace in our world.
While I have for some time said on this site that I believe the US is likely to be forced (by Iran's nuclear armament ambitions) to go to war with Iran, the timetable for doing so has always remained elusive. The alarming article you posted a link to called, "Exclusive: Iran, Syria, Lebanon on military alert over US Gulf movements and Israel’s home defense drill" had some insights into the possible timetable by stating that BRITISH MEDIA think the US is setting up now to strike Iranian facilities. However, we cannot be certain that this will result in the US being forced into a war stance at this time.
When it says, "Official sources in London predict that Iran’s intervention against the American effort to stabilize Iraq may well prompt a US attack on the military installations in Iran which are orchestrating the interference."
This speculation and "predicting" of what "may" happen about Iran has been ongoing for some time, and while I believe the US will eventually be forced into a war stance toward Iran, there is no indication that I can see which proves it is happening now conclusively. Indeed, the article admits, "Gates insisted to correspondents aboard his plane that the US is committed to a diplomatic solution for Iran’s covert nuclear program."
Though that can change, so long as it is being said that diplomacy is still being tried, even the movement of a ship (the USS Lincoln) to the Persian Gulf cannot be taken as a certain indication of a war stance. (The US does move their ships around the world for reasons other than to wage war.) Iran's idea that the US and Israel will attack them, Syria and terrorists in Lebanon all at the same time is also not substantiated at this time. Such predictions of what "may" happen one day are still very far from certain.
While it is irresponsible to allow Iran to go nuclear and arm themselves with nuclear arms.. the timing of resolving the situation by non-peaceful means is not conclusively shown by the circumstantial evidence that is presented. I think that they could more easily peg the Dinar as an economic move to thwart Iran's ambitions in the region. I would exhaust all other possibilities before trying war.. including pegging the Dinar.
Normally, I do not agree with the Dems on much of anything. In this case, I think they make a valid point. As long as we continue to spoon feed the GoI, I am not sure they will have any incentive to move forward.
Having them pay part of their reconstruction costs is only fair. According to what I have read the Iraqi's have about $60 billion in reserves gained from oil porfits.
You ask a very important question. In my opinion, I guess it depends whether the GoI pay these expenditures in dollars or dinars. With the current exchange rate it may be more advantages for them to pay these costs in dollars instead of dinars.
If these costs are paid in dollars it may not necessitate the CBI to radically alter the exchange rate. On the other hand, if the HCL is passed and the GoI monetizes its oil (Petro-Dinars) then paying theses costs in Dinars seems more likely. If reconstruction costs are paid in Dinars then that may necessitate a change in the exchange rate whether by a revaluation or a limited free float.
Former Iraq premier hopes Japan can do more for Iraq
Former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi wants Japan to contribute further to bringing political and economic stability to his war-ravaged country.
(www.noozz.com)
Iraq/Washington, 10 April 2008 (Financial Times)
Print article Send to friend
Violence in Baghdad claimed the lives of more than 20 people on Wednesday as fighting between Iraqi troops and Shia militias threatened to undermine efforts by Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shia cleric, to contain the conflict.
The clashes occurred in Sadr city, a Baghdad slum, as the capital was placed under a vehicle curfew to mark the fifth anniversary of the fall of the regime of Saddam Hussein.
Iraqi leaders are trying to contain the fallout from a failed government offensive against militias in Basra in which members of the Madhi army, a militia loyal to Mr Sadr, outfought Iraqi forces.
General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, this week told the US Congress that the Basra offensive, which sparked the recent violence in Baghdad, was poorly planned. He said Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq’s prime minister, had ignored his military advice.
George W. Bush, US president, is on Thursday expected to endorse the recommendation by Gen Petraeus this week that the Pentagon should pause troop reductions this summer after the departure of the five combat brigades that made up the US military “surge”.
Ike Skelton, the Democratic chairman of the armed services committee, on Wednesday told Gen Petraeus at another congressional hearing that the conflict in Iraq was taking resources away from Afghanistan and other potential conflicts.
“When looking at the needs in Afghanistan, the effort in Iraq, however important, is putting at risk our ability to decisively defeat those most likely to attack us,” said Mr Skelton. “Iraq is also preventing us from effectively preparing for the next conflict.”
Meanwhile, the US military said on Wednesday that an unmanned drone had fired a Hellfire missile at gunmen attacking Iraqi forces and troops of the US-led coalition in the region of Sadr City, killing two.
Such incidents have been frequent in the week since Mr Maliki called off his “Charge of the Knights” offensive in Basra that was aimed at disarming “lawless” gunmen.
Mr Sadr initially co-operated with the government by calling his followers off the streets, but the aftermath appears to have placed him in an awkward position.
He is caught between a militant core of his movement that appears anxious to respond to what it considers government provocations and a general public which seems weary of the proliferation of armed groups.
He seems determined to transform his militia from a fairly loose coalition into a more disciplined political organisation, but appearing too conciliatory would risk losing his already strained authority over his more radical followers.
Officials in Baghdad say Mr Sadr might be outside Iraq, probably in Iran, which would make him cautious about judging trends within his movement and within Iraqi internal politics.
Whatever the cause, Mr Sadr’s statements since the end of the offensive have contained notes of both militancy and pliancy.
Mr Maliki, on the other hand, has been surprisingly confident for a leader who presided over a military operation widely viewed as a fiasco, and he has kept up the political pressure on Mr Sadr even as he called off military operations.
In a recent interview, Mr Maliki suggested that the Sadrists would be banned from taking part in elections unless the Mahdi Army was disbanded.
(www.iraqupdates.com)
10 April 2008 (Kurdish Globe)
Print article Send to friend
Kicking a "political and military goal" in the southern provinces may give Iraqi forces better security control there and "more organized preparation for the upcoming provincial elections."
U.S. President George W. Bush announced his support to the Iraqi military operations in their attempts to defeat militias belonging to the Al-Sadr Stream, and described it as an important historical stage in rebuilding Iraq and settling the most complicated problems of Iraqis. This was a clear American message for weakening and deactivating those gunmen who continue their political and military activities in favor of neighboring countries.
The contribution of American air power on the first days of the operation in southern Iraq reflected another sign of the seriousness and widening of the procedures. Al-Maliki's operation would have failed and the gunmen would have had better chances at power had American air power not contributed, and the conflict almost ended in favor of al-Maliki. This encouraged him to adopt a different stance on militias. He publicly threatened to take them down and secretly sent a delegation to Iran to negotiate with Muqtada al-Sadr, the Sadr Stream's leader, to end armed demonstrations.
Muqtada al-Sadr holds the command of Al-Mahdi Army militias; he came to the conclusion after the latest conflict that if the battles continue, they may not only lose their military power but also any achievements they have made in the political process. With his agreement with al-Maliki, al-Sadr could prevent much damage. But analyzing from al-Sadr's point of view, they could add a larger number of supporters and hide the weapons that were in the hands of their militiamen.
But the question remains, why was this operation announced so suddenly? As it is known, al-Maliki was preparing for another battle aiming to tackle al-Qaeda gunmen in Mosul in the north, but suddenly the direction changed toward the south. This change from one front to another is interpreted by political and military observers as benefitting time and delaying a battle for another, wider one. The battle in the south, if not launched by al-Maliki, would have been set off by militias. In that case, it would become much more difficult for the Iraqi prime minister to deal with putting aside all political, social, and economic problems now witnessed in the country. Deciding to launch such firm operations sounds close to American advice because, as al-Maliki says, "these militias are much more dangerous than al-Qaeda." In addition, they have access to a wide range of supporters and armed forces. Thus, if al-Qaeda needs to be considered, those militias should be given more consideration as well, especially those affiliated with al-Sadr.
Al-Maliki was able, for a specific time, to gather most Iraqi political powers, including Shiites and Sunnis, Kurds, Arabs and other ethnic groups, for support. As a result, he kicked a political and military goal over al-Sadr and won a chance for executing government projects in those areas. More importantly, Iraqi official forces will be able to have better security control in the southern province and more organized preparation for the upcoming provincial elections.
Meanwhile, after these armed conflicts, the issue of forming southern and middle federal regions can become more acceptable like never before. Also, the unity achieved among political powers after the latest operation could pave the way for agreements between al-Maliki and Kurdistan Region for resolving their outstanding issues.
Briefly, this victory of al-Maliki's does not mean the absolute uproot of the militias or the end to the problems in those places. Al-Maliki's steps are a direction in the way people in the south and in the middle feel about the government's authority and the existence of law. This means that, although political negotiation with al-Sadr calmed the conflicts, in the military aspect, there shouldn't be compromises over the militias and the armed phenomenon. They must be dealt with legally and according to law. And these steps can hardly be achieved unless the government acts according to the constitution, which was voted upon by the Iraqi people.
(www.iraqupdates.com)
I have just listened to President Bush's speech to the nation. He was very combative in his language towards Iran. He stated that if Iran does the right thing by not interferring with Iraq's internal government than Iran has a neighbor for a friend. However, if Iran makes the wrong choice than American will defend it's interest.
Maybe not a direct quote, but close enough. I am still convinced that the American's are going to attack Iran.
What better time, before the surge ends. I think Basra was the straw that broke the camel's back. Basra was directed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops and General Petraeus knows it. That is why Maliki was out gunned in Basra. USA is not going to let Iran get away with Basra... mark my words!
In one of those articles I saw, the Russians were providing intellectance that the american soldiers were massing on the Iranian border.
The democrats are wanting an answer from Bush in their speeches about what he is going to do. I think they are going to get their answer soon.
I believe that if the troops go into Iran, (and I'm not sure they will go into Iran-- maybe they are there for just protecting the borders)-- they will have some limited objectives inside of Iran to destroy. I think the war planners are going to bomb the nuclear facilities of Iran to draw the time frame of their nuclear progress back.
Once america attacks, the Iranians will make the war more direct and they will use the attacks as justification. But I believe america will attack because Basra is in the arrears of the soldiers and needed militarily for withdrawal as well as for the Iraqi oil ministry.
Certainly the concern over war between Israel and Syria recently could be greatly exaggerated. Though Syria is posturing that they would be ready for war if there were one, Israel is saying they meant nothing by their exercise and were just training for the ongoing conflict which is beseiging the country.
QUOTE:
Mekdad went on to say that the drill was meant to rehabilitate the IDF's deterrence capability - which he claimed was lost in the Second Lebanon War - restore the confidence of the Israeli public in the army and generate an atmosphere of readiness among the ranks of the military.
As one official said,
QUOTE:
"There is no reason any of Israel's neighbors should be concerned. This exercise is internal, and it is part of the lessons learned from the Second Lebanon War about better preparing our civilian populations. Israel does not seek conflict with our neighbors. We seek peace with them, including Syria."
As the article concludes:
According to the report, which quoted sources in Jerusalem, talks between the two countries have been going on over the past two years with the intention of setting down the groundwork for a peace agreement.
===
Syrian official: We're prepared for war
Apr 8, 2008 10:39 | Updated Apr 9, 2008 0:07
By JPOST.COM STAFF
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's messages of reassurance to assuage Syrian fears over Israel's nationwide drill did not succeed in curbing the rhetoric coming out of Damascus on Tuesday.
A senior Syrian official said Tuesday that Syria would be prepared for all possible scenarios as soon as the "language of understanding" with Israel over the peace process ended.
"When the language of understanding with Israel regarding the peace process comes to an end, Syria will be prepared for any possibility," Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad said in an interview with the government-controlled Al-Thawra newspaper. "The Israelis aren't aware that we know that every war has its own path? The more Israel tries to generate this centralized atmosphere in order to reap benefit from the July downfall [the Second Lebanon War], [Syria] cannot but also draw plans in advance of a conflict."
Mekdad went on to say that the drill was meant to rehabilitate the IDF's deterrence capability - which he claimed was lost in the Second Lebanon War - restore the confidence of the Israeli public in the army and generate an atmosphere of readiness among the ranks of the military.
"If Syria is the target of all of this, know that we are following the drill and are also developing our capabilities and our plans to face the Israeli maneuvers," he warned.
Olmert and his associates reiterated Tuesday that Syria should have nothing to worry about.
"We don't expect anything to happen [with Syria]," Olmert said on a tour of IDF Central Command. "We are not worried that they want something to happen. I think they know it would not be a good thing for something to develop in the North. They know what our abilities are, and that's why I think reports of tension are exaggerated."
An Olmert associate added: "There is no reason any of Israel's neighbors should be concerned. This exercise is internal, and it is part of the lessons learned from the Second Lebanon War about better preparing our civilian populations. Israel does not seek conflict with our neighbors. We seek peace with them, including Syria."
Meanwhile, the Kuwaiti daily Al-Jarida reported Tuesday that Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni was planning to visit Qatar next week, where she is expected meet senior Syrian envoys in order to "complete the covert negotiations between Israel and Syria."
According to the report, which quoted sources in Jerusalem, talks between the two countries have been going on over the past two years with the intention of setting down the groundwork for a peace agreement.
Livni's office could not confirm or deny the report.
Rob,
Thanks for your response. I seem to agree. Do you r3member about 1 year ago it was reproted that the Iraqi"s were practically confiscating "dollars". On this blog, I remember people were confused about it. WELLLLLLL, perhaps they for saw the need to access our currency in their future. Especially after the Dems won majority in Congress. Dems in power present a real threat to their future hopes of American involvement and support.
In my opinion, as long as Olmert and the Peoples party is in power in Israel, there will be little or no aggressive attacks unless Israel is attacked in a very powerful way. Sharon made it very clear that "Israel will not do the dirty work for the world..." and certainly in our present political climate here in the US we will not tAKE ANY AGGRESSIVE ACTION. So this has provided an anmazing opportunity for the evildoers to advance their strategies. Unless someone bites the bullet and moves forward to stop the Iranians and Syrians the future to middleast and world peace is pretty glim.
I agree with you on Sharon/Olmert/Israel not doing anything aggressive and the US not being willing to take any aggressive action, either. It will have to be that the US (and Israel) are FORCED into war for there to be one. But, unfortunately, that is only a matter of time because Iran will not stop having nuclear ambitions for an arsenal of weapons to use against the "evil" unbelievers of every stripe, both in the Middle East and around the rest of the world. Like Hitler, they will start off modestly, but their aim is world domination, and with that ideology, they will eventually force our hand into war. At which point, the peaceniks will go on and on about what terrible warmongers we are.. when it was only a response to attack, such as it was with 911. In history, it doesn't matter how civil you are.. only if you win, unfortunately. And the last one to engage the world in his world domination ideology (Hitler) took a lot of good young people's souls with him into the next life.. by the millions. Let us hope it can be avoided this time with strategy which makes each life given to win our freedom from tyranny precious.. and few. May there never have to be another draft of every able young person, and may it not carry on like murder mills for literally YEARS in order for us to defeat the strategems of enemies who are hell bent on destroying all our freedoms and bringing us all under their world domination ideology - this time radical Islamic fundamentalism instead of Nazism.
The Ayatolla Sistani has announced his respect for the separation of powers of church and state, showing his respect of the will of the people in selecting their leaders. This includes the authority of the duly elected government and the rule of law including the role of the government's military arm - which ensures security and peace to all of the people to live in peace and so continue in their varied ideological or religious observances.
QUOTE:
"Sistani has a clear opinion in this regard; the law is the only authority in the country,"
This viewpoint is wise as it can unite them as one people under one government (which will make them strong, prosperous and peaceful) because peaceful coexistence can happen if they will stop killing each other over their various ideological and religious viewpoints. Obviously, arming a militia to enforce a different set of laws and a viewpoint only held by 30 representative seats in the parliament (a minority) cannot be tolerated by a duly elected, representative and free government.
===
Ayatollah Sistani on the Mahdi Army: “the law is the only authority in the country”
By Bill Roggio
April 9, 2008
With the Iraqi government applying pressure to the Sadrist movement and Muqtada al Sadr to disband the Mahdi Army, Iraq’s senior Shia cleric has weighed in on the issue. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the most revered Shia cleric in Iraq, backed the government’s position that the Mahdi Army should surrender its weapons and said he never consulted with Sadr on disbanding the Mahdi Army. Instead, the decision to disband the Mahdi Army is Sadr’s to make.
Sistani spoke through Jalal el Din al Saghier, a senior leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a rival political party to the Sadrist movement. Saghier was clear that Sistani did not sanction the Mahdi Army and called for it to disarm.
"Sistani has a clear opinion in this regard; the law is the only authority in the country," Saghier told Voices of Iraq, indicating Sistani supports Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki and the government in the effort to sideline the Mahdi Army. "Sistani asked the Mahdi army to give in weapons to the government."
Sadr did not consult with Sistani on the issue of disbanding the Mahdi Army, disputing a claim from Sadrist spokesmen who intimated Iraqi’s top cleric told Sadr to maintain his militia. "The top Shiite cleric had not been consulted in establishing the Mahdi Army, so [he] could not interfere in dissolving it,” Saghier said. “Whosoever established the al-Mahdi army has to dissolve it; Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr established this army and it is only him who has to dissolve it."
On April 6, Iraq’s Political Council for National Security moved to bar the Sadrist movement from participating in upcoming provincial elections in October if it did not disband the Mahdi Army. The plan had the full backing of Sunni, Kurdish, and Shia political parties.
The move caused panic inside the Sadrist movement as their political isolation became apparent. "We, the Sadrists, are in a predicament," Hassan al Rubaie, a Sadrist member of parliament said the day the Political Council for National Security announced the plan. "Our political isolation was very clear and real during the meeting." he said, referring to the meeting of the Political Council for National Security, where the legislation was announced. "Even the blocs that had in the past supported us are now against us and we cannot stop them from taking action against us in parliament."
Alleged Al Qaeda chief dead, officials say Abu Ubaida al Masri, suspected of planning the London transportation bombings that killed 52, is believed to have died of hepatitis C.
By Sebastian Rotella, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 10, 2008
MADRID -- Abu Ubaida al Masri, a suspected mastermind of Al Qaeda plots including the London transportation bombings of 2005, has died of an infectious disease in Pakistan, Western anti-terrorism officials said Wednesday.
The Egyptian militant was in his mid-40s and is thought to have died of hepatitis C, a U.S. anti-terrorism official said. Masri was the powerful, if little-known, chief of the terrorist network's external operations who allegedly trained recruits in hide-outs in Pakistan and dispatched them to carry out attacks against the West, according to Western investigators.
As The Times reported last week, anti-terrorism officials in at least three countries had come to believe that Masri had died in recent months, but investigators did not have confirmation and noted that Al Qaeda had not paid tribute to Masri with eulogies on the Internet as it has with other fallen leaders.
Recently, however, anti-terrorism investigators detected conversations among Al Qaeda militants revealing that Masri had died of hepatitis C, the U.S. official said. Death by illness would explain the lack of eulogies, which are generally reserved for extremists who die violently as "martyrs," officials said.
Investigators say he also played a lead role in the most ambitious plot since the Sept. 11 attacks: a foiled attempt in August 2006 to blow up planes from Britain to North America using smuggled liquid explosives and bomb components. Eight suspects are now on trial in London in that case.
Although confirmation remains difficult, the latest intelligence seems conclusive, officials said.
"We consider him dead," a Western intelligence official said. "I have not seen a body, of course."
So, in the world of radical Islam, where sexual purity is highly esteemed, in contrast to the supposedly immoral Christian world, how did Abu Ubaida Al Masri, Muslim mastermind, catch a blood born disease?
From a medical site:
"How do you catch Hepatitis C?
Hep C is NOT spread by casual contact. You can NOT catch it through kissing, hugging, sharing utensils or sharing food. Having sex is considered low risk for the spread of Hep C but the risk increases with the number of partners you have. Wear a condom, practice safer sex, there are still lots of other STDs to worry about!!!
DO NOT, EVER, SHARE needles, straws for snorting, spoons, pipes or any other drug-related equipment.
DO NOT SHARE toothbrushes, nail clippers or razors. Remember Hep C is spread by blood to blood contact.
NEVER get a tattoo with home-made equipment. Make sure the needles and ink are new and not used before. The same goes for ALL piercing equipment. Tattooing and piercing businesses are not inspected by government agencies. ASK LOTS OF QUESTIONS!!"
So I wonder what it was? Do people in AL Queda shoot up heroin? Do they share needles? Have unprotected sex? Multiple sexual partners? AIDS is also a blood born disease, more common in the gay population. Is that it? Gay sex in a terrorist organization? Forget the condom? Get dirty tatoos?
Several years ago, there were news reports that one of the "macho men" of Islam, the now deceased head of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, Yassir Arafat, who died in a hospital in France, was in fact, gay, and had several homosexual relationships in a row. The report alleged that Yassir, in fact, died of AIDS, and the liberal media hushed it up.
Also:
From the LA Times:
April 3, 2002
Kandahar's Lightly Veiled Homosexual Habits
Society: Restrictions on relations with women lead to greater prevalence of liaisons between men, a professor says.
by Maura Reynolds
Kandahar, Afghanistan - In his 29 years, Mohammed Daud has seen the faces of perhaps 200 women. A few dozen were family members. The rest were glimpses stolen when he should not have been looking and the women were caught without their face-shrouding burkas.
"How can you fall in love with a girl if you can't see her face?" he asks.
Daud is unmarried and has sex only with men and boys. But he does not consider himself homosexual, at least not in the Western sense. "I like boys, but I like girls better," he says. "It's just that we can't see the women to see if they are beautiful. But we can see the boys, and so we can tell which of them is beautiful."
Daud, a motorbike repairman who asked that only his two first names and not his family name be used, has a youthful face, a jaunty black mustache and a post-Taliban cleanshaven chin. As he talks, his knee bounces up and down, an involuntary sign of his embarrassment.
"These are hard questions you are asking," he says. "We don't usually talk about such things." Though rarely acknowledged, the prevalence of sex between Afghan men is an open secret, one most observant visitors quickly surmise. Ironically, it is especially true here in Kandahar, which was the heartland of the puritanical Taliban movement.
It might seem odd to a Westerner that such a sexually repressive society is marked by heightened homosexual activity. But Justin Richardson, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, says such thinking is backward--it is precisely the extreme restrictions on sexual relations with women that lead to greater prevalence of the behavior. "In some Muslim societies where the prohibition against premarital heterosexual intercourse is extremely high--higher than that against sex between men--you will find men having sex with other males not because they find them most attractive of all but because they find them most attractive of the limited options available to them," Richardson says.
In other words, sex between men can be seen as the flip side of the segregation of women. And perhaps because the ethnic Pushtuns who dominate Kandahar are the most religiously conservative of Afghanistan's major ethnic groups, they have, by most accounts, a higher incidence of homosexual relations. Visitors might think they see the signs. For one thing, Afghan men tend to be more intimate with other men in public than is common in the West. They will kiss, hold hands and drape their arms around each other while drinking tea or talking.
Moreover, there is a strong streak of dandyism among Pushtun males. Many line their eyes with kohl, stain their fingernails with henna or walk about town in clumsy, high-heeled sandals.
The love by men for younger, beautiful males, who are called halekon, is even enshrined in Pushtun literature. A popular poem by Syed Abdul Khaliq Agha, who died last year, notes Kandahar's special reputation. "Kandahar has beautiful halekon," the poem goes. "They have black eyes and white cheeks."
But a visitor who comments on such things is likely to be told they are not signs of homosexuality. Hugging doesn't mean sex, locals insist. Men who use kohl and henna are simply "uneducated." Regardless, when asked directly, few deny that a significant percentage of men in this region have sex with men and boys. Just ask Mullah Mohammed Ibrahim, a local cleric.
"Ninety percent of men have the desire to commit this sin," the mullah says. "But most are right with God and exercise control. Only 20 to 50% of those who want to do this actually do it." Following the mullah's math, this suggests that between 18% and 45% of men here engage in homosexual sex--significantly higher than the 3% to 7% of American men who, according to studies, identify themselves as homosexual.
That is a large number to defy the strict version of Islam practiced in these parts, which denounces sex between men as taboo. Muslims seeking council from religious elders on the topic will find them unsympathetic. "Every person has a devil inside him," says Ibrahim. "If a person commits this sin, it is the work of the devil." The Koran mandates "hard punishment" for offenders, the mullah explains. By tradition there are three penalties: being burned at the stake, pushed over the edge of a cliff or crushed by a toppled wall.
During its reign in Kandahar, the Taliban implemented the latter. In February 1998, it used a tank to push a brick wall on top of three men, two accused of sodomy and the third of homosexual rape. The first two died; the third spent a week in the hospital and, under the assumption that God had spared him, was sent to prison. He served six months and fled to Pakistan.
Apparently to discourage post-Taliban visitors, the owners of a nearby house have begun rebuilding on the site. "A lot of foreigners came and started interviewing people," says Abdul Baser, a 24-year-old neighbor, who points out the trench where the men were crushed. "Since then they have rebuilt the wall."
But many accuse the Taliban of hypocrisy on the issue of homosexuality. "The Taliban had halekon, but they kept it secret," says one anti-Taliban commander, who is rumored to keep two halekon. "They hid their halekon in their madrasas," or religious schools.
It's not only religious authorities who describe homosexual sex as common among the Pushtun. Dr. Mohammed Nasem Zafar, a professor at Kandahar Medical College, estimates that about 50% of the city's male residents have sex with men or boys at some point in their lives. He says the prime age at which boys are attractive to men is from 12 to 16--before their beards grow in. The adolescents sometimes develop medical problems, which he sees in his practice, such as sexually transmitted diseases and sphincter incontinence. So far, the doctor said, AIDS does not seem to be a problem in Afghanistan, probably because the country is so isolated.
"Sometimes when the halekon grow up, the older men actually try to keep them in the family by marrying them off to their daughters," the doctor says. Zafar cites a local mullah whom he caught once using the examination table in the doctor's one-room clinic for sex with a younger man. "If this is our mullah, what can you say for the rest?" Zafar asks.
Richardson, the psychiatry professor, says it would be wrong to call Afghan men homosexual, since their decision to have sex with men is not a reflection of what Westerners call gender identity. Instead, he compares them to prison inmates: They have sex with men primarily because they find themselves in a situation where men are more available as sex partners than are women. "It is something they do," he notes, "not something they are."
Daud, the motorbike repairman, would concur that the segregation of women lies at the heart of the matter. Daud says his first sexual experience with a man occurred when he was 20, about the time he realized that he would have difficulty marrying. In Pushtun culture, the man has to pay for his wedding and for gifts and clothes for the bride and her family. For many men, the bill tops $5,000--such an exorbitant sum in this impoverished country that some men, including Daud, are dissuaded from even trying.
"I would like to get married, but the economic situation in our country makes it hard," Daud says. Daud talked about his sex life only in private and after being assured that no photos would be taken. "I have relations with different boys--some for six months, some for one month. Some are with me for six years," he says. "The problem is also money. If you want to have a relationship with a boy, you have to buy things for him. That's why it's not bad for the boy. Some relationships need a lot of money, some not so much. Sometimes I fix a motorbike and give it to him as a present."
It is not easy to conduct homosexual affairs, he admits. Home is out of the question. "If my father were to find me, he'd kick me out of the house," Daud says. "If you want to have sex, you have to find a secret place. Some go to the mountains or the desert."
Opinions differ as to whether homosexual practices in Kandahar are becoming more open or more closed since the Taliban was defeated. For instance, after anti-Taliban forces arrived in the city in early December, some Westerners reported seeing commanders going about town openly with their halekon. But that has changed in recent weeks since Kandahar's new governor, Gul Agha Shirzai, issued an order banning boys under 18 from living with troops. Officially, the ban is aimed at ending the practice of using children as soldiers.
"It is not that way," says one of the governor's top aides, Engineer Yusuf Pashtun, objecting to the insinuation that the boys may have been used for sex. The governor's order said only that "no boys should be recruited in the army before the age of 18," he adds.
Still, the anti-Taliban commander, who is close to Shirzai, acknowledged that one goal of the order was to keep halekon out of the barracks. The move simply drove the practice underground, he says.
Zafar, the doctor, says that in the community at large the Taliban frightened many men into abstinence. "Under the Taliban, no more than 10% practiced homosexual sex," he says. "But now the government isn't paying attention, so it may go back up to 50%."
But Daud thinks the opposite may happen. If coeducation returns and the dress code for women eases, men will have fewer reasons to seek solace in the beds--or fields or storage rooms--of other men.
"As for me, if I find someone and see she is beautiful, I will send my mother over to her" to ask for her hand in marriage, Daud says. "I'm just waiting to see her.
The banking system is the main artery financer of the various processes of economic and social development plans; it is the system which collects national savings, on one hand, and grants them in the form of loans and credit facilities in several areas, on the other... The banking system in Iraq is one of the vital links that have contributed to the national economy in various economic and social activities... The banking and financial sector is at the forefront of service sectors affected by the "global economy" trends in the area of IT and communication revolution due to the nature of its activities.. The technical challenges faced by this sector are due to the large number of computer systems in this sector where accelerating the development rates of the banking work internationally is connected to the availability of the foundations of knowledge in "digital economy" which is based on information technology services and digital exchange of information, as well as mobile phones and other electronic pillars.. This was reflected in the evolution of electronic trade... Actions have been made to modernize the banking sector through the provision of banking services by using the Internet and entering the field of electronic trade, as well as the modernization of the institutional frameworks that support the transition to comprehensive banking services and continue to provide innovative... International information network "Internet" became an important source of access to financial services and the mechanism recognized for the completion of financial and banking transactions in accordance with the standards that do not require consultation; banks are facing a new competition in the development of electronic distribution, and even new activities were developed called the work close to the banks, such as software companies and information network service providers, which are expected to become part of the banking work... And the most important question here is, where is the Iraqi banking sector from these developments.
(www.dinartrade.com)
Iraq closer to signing contracts with oil majors as surplus provokes anger in Washington
The Government of Iraq and French energy giant Total are close to agreeing a $500m oil service contract but the country’s bulging oil revenues have caused a storm in Washington over the billions of U.S. dollars spent on reconstruction that Iraq has so far failed to match.
(www.noozz.com)
Comments