EAT CROW, IRAQ WAR SKEPTICS
By ARTHUR HERMAN
June 9, 2008 --
AMERICA has won, or is about to win, the Iraq war.
The latest proof came last month, as the Iraqi army - just a few months ago the target of scorn and abuse from Democratic politicians and journalists - forcefully reoccupied three cities that had served as key insurgency bases (Basra, Sadr City and Mosul).
Sunnis and Shias alike applauded as their nation's army compelled insurgent militias to lay down their arms. The country's leading opposition newspaper, Azzaman, led the applause for the move into Mosul - a sign that national reconciliation in Iraq is under way and probably irreversible.
US combat deaths in May also were down to 20, the lowest monthly total since February 2004. The toll for May 2007 was 121.
In a Washington Post interview, CIA Director Michael Hayden said we're witnessing the "near strategic defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq."
The Bush administration has taken heaps of abuse for its Iraq policy, including its decision to launch the "surge" last December. Now the strategy, which our nation's "best and brightest" regularly dismissed as a failure, has cleared the way for the establishment of a secure democracy in Iraq and a lasting peace.
It would be foolish to pop open the victory champagne yet. The truce between the Shia and Sunni in Iraq remains fragile; al Qaeda may well launch one more last-ditch offensive there (a la Tet 1968), in order to discourage the US and/or Iraq publics on the eve of the elections.
Meanwhile, we're still fighting a vicious insurgency in Afghanistan, and have yet to root out the al Qaeda remnants of along the Afghan-Pakistan border. And the continued threat of home-grown terror cells keeps European governments nervous.
In wars, however, trends have their own momentum. And the trend is running away from al Qaeda and its jihadist allies - not only in Iraq but also across the Middle East.
According to Hayden, al Qaeda faces a similar strategic debacle in Saudi Arabia.
And al Qaeda's fugitive leadership is learning that its former safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border is no longer so safe. Thanks to cooperation with Pakistan's new government, unmanned US Predator drones recently killed two top al Qaeda leaders there.
Once Gen. David Petraeus is confirmed as commander of US forces in the Middle East in July, he'll be able to apply the same strategy for victory learned in the Iraq surge to the war in Afghanistan.
In short, the larger War on Terror may be reaching a tipping point similar to that of the Iraq war.
The US public and policymakers need to recognize how this happened - and draw lessons from this success.
1) We need to acknowledge that the Iraq war wasn't a "distraction" from the War on Terror, as critics still complain, but its centerpiece.
It's not mere coincidence that our success against al Qaeda globally comes along with success in Iraq. For all its setbacks and frustrations, the Iraq war drew jihadists into a battle they thought they could win, because it would be fought on their home turf - but which they're now losing disastrously.
2) The US decision to "stay the course" in the Iraq war, which was also widely mocked and criticized, served to thoroughly demoralize the jihadist movement.
From its start in spring 2003, the Iraqi insurgency has been entirely built on the premise that it could use suicide and roadside bombings, sectarian slaughter and the torture and murder of hostages to force America out of the Middle East.
If Democrats had won the White House in 2004, the jihadists might have succeeded.
Instead, America doggedly refused to give in to terror, despite 4,000 combat deaths and massive antiwar sentiment, and unwaveringly supported an Iraqi government that was at times feeble and confused - and proceeded to break the jihadist movement's back.
In that interview, the CIA's Hayden also that al Qaeda is no longer able to use the Iraq war as a way to draw in new recruits. The reason is clear: If you go to Iraq to fight the American infidel you will die, and die for nothing.
3) Finally, the Bush administration's success in Iraq, and growing success in the War on Terror, offers a powerful object lesson in how to deal with the continuing threat from Iran.
Iran remains the most lethal state sponsor of terrorism, fomenting proxy wars in Lebanon and Gaza, and in Iraq itself. Its nuclear-weapons program proceeds despite minor sanctions and endless international efforts at engagement.
Now the Bush administration has shown the way for the next president. Instead of trying to "understand" the enemy, disrupt and defeat his plans. Instead of listening to domestic critics, act in the nation's best interests. Instead of relying on multilateral support to decide what to do, go it alone if necessary.
Instead of worrying about an exit strategy, realize that there's no substitute for winning.
- Arthur Herman is the author of "Gandhi and Churchill: The Epic Rivalry That Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age," just published by Bantam.
LIARS' ROUND-UP - ON SECURITY, FACTS MATTER
June 28, 2008
THE facts about your security are being torn to shreds by activist liars. And they think that you're too stupid to know the difference. Let's lay out the worst current examples of media make-believe and election-year truth-trashing:
Whopper No. 1: America is less safe today than it was on Sept. 10, 2001. Oh, really? Where's the evidence? The Clinton years saw New York City attacked and Americans slaughtered by terrorists around the globe. Nothing was done to protect us.
And the true end of the Clinton era came on 9/11.
A record to be proud of.
Countless aspects of the Bush-Cheney administration deserve merciless criticism. But fair is fair: Since 9/11, we haven't suffered a single successful terrorist attack on our homeland. Not one.
Explain to me, please, how this shows we're less safe. What factual measurement applies, other than the absence of attacks?
God knows, the terrorists desperately wanted to strike our homeland. And they couldn't. Are we supposed to believe that was an accident?
Whopper No. 2: Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. Al Qaeda just suffered a strategic defeat in Iraq that may prove decisive. It can't launch attacks beyond its regional lairs. The cowardly Osama bin Laden can't show his face (remember his Clinton-era pep rallies?).
Yes, terrorists can still murder innocents on their home court. I personally prefer that to them killing Americans in Manhattan and Washington. Even in Iraq, al Qaeda's been beaten down to violent-fugitive status.
By what objective measurement is al Qaeda stronger today than it was when it had an entire country for its base and its tentacles reached all the way to Florida and the Midwest?
Whopper No. 3: Success in Iraq is an illusion - the surge failed. Folks, this is something only a New York Times columnist could believe.
Every single significant indicator, from Iraqi government progress through the performance of Iraqi security forces to the plummeting level of violence, has changed for the better - remarkably so.
If current trend-lines continue, it may not be long before Baghdad is safer for Iraqi citizens than the Washington-Baltimore metroplex is for US citizens. Iraq's government is working, its economy is booming - and its military has driven the concentrations of terrorists and militia from every one of Iraq's major cities.
And our troops are coming home. Where's the failure?
Whopper No. 4: Iran is stronger than ever. Tell that to the Iraqis, who've rejected Iranian meddling in their affairs, who've smashed the Iran-backed Shia militias and who didn't take long to figure out that Tehran's foreign policy was imperialist and anti-Arab.
The people of Iraq don't intend to trade Saddam for Ahmadinejad. Iran has lost in Iraq. At this point, all the Iranians can do is to kill a handful of innocent Iraqis now and then. Think that wins them friends and influence?
Whopper No. 5: The US-European relationship is a disaster. In fact, Washington and the major European capitals have built new, sturdier bridges to replace old ones that badly needed burning.
The Europeans grudgingly figured out that they need us - as we need them. The big break in 2003 cleared a lot of bad air (there was no break with Europe's young democracies). Relations today are sounder than they were in the fiddle-while-Rome-burns Clinton era.
Oh, and NATO has become a serious military alliance - fighting in Afghanistan, patrolling the high seas and conducting special operations against terrorists. The Germans announced this week that they're sending another thousand troops to Afghanistan. France is re-engaging with NATO's military side. Where's the disaster, mon ami?
Whopper No. 6: As president, Barack Obama would bring positive change to our foreign policy - and John McCain's too old to get it.
Hmm: Take a gander at Obama's senior foreign-policy advisers: Madeleine Albright (71), Warren Christopher (82), Anthony Lake (69), Lee Hamilton (77), Richard Clarke (57) . . .
If you added up their ages and fed the number into a time-machine, you'd land in Europe in the middle of the Black Death.
More important: These are the people whose watch saw the first attack on the World Trade Center, Mogadishu, Rwanda, the Srebrenica massacre, a pass for the Russians on Chechnya, the Khobar Towers bombing, the attacks on our embassies in Africa, the near-sinking of the USS Cole - oh, and the US bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.
Their legacy climaxed on 9/11.
You couldn't assemble a team in Washington with more strategic failures to its credit.
Whopper No. 7: Our troops are all coming home as psychos victimized by their participation in military atrocities.
Please note the alternative to our going into Iraq as given in the narrative below:
Had we not opened fronts in Afghanistan and Iraq against terrorists, we would have left them free to send the same jihadis against Western targets around the world, especially after their success on 9/11 and later in Bali and Madrid.
===
In case no one’s noticed, we’re winning
June 27, 2008
by Ed Morrissey
Gerard Baker wonders in his Times of London column why the West wears such long faces regarding the war on terror. On every front, we have prevailed far past the hopes we had after 9/11.
The radical Islamists have managed to marginalize themselves among even conservative Muslims, and both Iraq and Afghanistan continue to advance towards stability and moderation. The al-Qaeda network has not been able to stage a major terrorist attack in over three years. By any measure of war, the West has not just taken the initiative but has delivered a series of major defeats, especially in stripping AQ of its easy shelter in Afghanistan, from which it launched a series of attacks in the decade before 9/11.
So why does the West despair?
There ought to be no surprise here. It’s only their apologists in the Western media who really failed to see the intrinsic evil of Islamists. Those who have had to live with it have never been in much doubt about what it represents. Ask the people of Iran. Or those who fled the horrors of Afghanistan under the Taleban.
This is why we fight. Primarily, of course, to protect ourselves from the immediate threat of terrorist carnage, but also because we know that extending the embrace of a civilisation that liberates everyone makes us all safer.
Every death is an unspeakable tragedy. It’s right that each time a soldier is killed in action we ask why. Was it really worth it?
The right response to the loss of brave souls such as Corporal Sarah Bryant, the first British woman to die in Afghanistan, is not an immediate call for retreat. It is, first of all, pride; a great, deep conviction that it is on such sacrifice that our own freedoms have always rested. Then, defiance. How foolish is the enemy that it might think our grief is really some prelude to their victory? Finally, confidence. We are prevailing in this struggle. We know it. And everywhere: in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and among Muslims around the world, the enemy knows it too.
==end quote==
I believe that a couple of impulses are at play in the doom and gloom coming from Western media. First, it’s a lot easier to report on bombings than on bomb disposals, and on attacks rather than prevented attacks. That doesn’t even involve a bias as much as a structural defect of the current way the news media presents itself. Consumers get overdoses of instant reporting, but demand a lot less longer-view analysis. Decades from now, when historians write about this conflict in a complete narrativ, Baker’s point will be more clear, but at this stage, people simply don’t look at the long view.
A larger component of the defeatism could have been predicted from the start. The common wisdom after 9/11 was that invading Afghanistan would be a huge tactical mistake, and that the American military would repeat the experience of the British Army in the 19th century and the Soviets of the 1980s. On a wider basis, many voices insisted that terrorists could not be defeated militarily and that it was useless to try that strategy. Nor have these opinions disappeared. It came from the pacifist Left movement that gained strength after the failure in Vietnam, and they have a large stake in fostering an air of futility rather than acknowledge success.
Read through Baker’s recap of the war as we approach the seven-year mark. What would have been the alternative?
Had we not opened fronts in Afghanistan and Iraq against terrorists, we would have left them free to send the same jihadis against Western targets around the world, especially after their success on 9/11 and later in Bali and Madrid. Instead, they have been more or less neutered into an ideology, still dangerous but at least so far not capable of major coordinated action outside of their region.
It’s not victory, but it is initiative and momentum. Defeatism run amuck could derail both.
Iraq IED deaths down 90 percent in a year
By Tom Vanden Brook - USA Today
Jun 23, 2008
WASHINGTON — Roadside bomb attacks and fatalities in Iraq are down by almost 90 percent over the last year, according to Pentagon records and interviews with key military leaders.
Military leaders cite several factors for the drop in attacks and deaths. They include:
* New vehicles. Almost 7,000 heavily armored Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles have been rushed to Iraq in the last year. “They’ve taken hits — many, many hits that would have killed soldiers and Marines in up-armored Humvees,” Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a recent interview.
* Iraqi assistance. Ad hoc local security forces, known as the Sons of Iraq, have provided on-the-ground intelligence to U.S. forces looking for IEDs, said Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, who commanded a division in Baghdad from February 2007 until May. He said about 60 percent had been insurgents.
* Improved surveillance. Lynch said his troops used new security cameras that could see bomb builders up to five miles away. “If they’re out there planting an IED, we can go whack them before they finish,” he said.
Also, Lynch said, the 14-ton MRAPs have forced insurgents to build bigger bombs to knock out the vehicles. Those bombs take more time to build and hide, which gives U.S. forces a better chance to catching the insurgents in the act and then attacking them.
Notice in point two that 60 percent of those providing intelligence were formerly insurgents. This shows that MOST of the insurgency is not ideologically driven but driven by economic necessity. The need for support for the economy (including and particularly the RV of the Dinar) is necessary for the people not to turn to such desperate measures to get by. By not RVing, many, like this 60 percent of the people, fall to terrorism and are kept in the recruitment loop which otherwise would not be in that loop. Iran, therefore, wishes no RV so that they can continue to recruit and train people using their Quds forces and training camps within Iraq. The economic leg of the strategy is imperative to be implemented to win the war in Iraq.
I thought since I was the first to the new thread..
that I would start it out with a positive note..
and repost those good articles from the past couple of weeks..
Things are looking GOOD for Iraq!! :)
Sunni bloc says it will return to Iraq cabinet
by Salam Faraj
Jul 1, 2008
BAGHDAD (AFP) - Iraq's main Sunni Arab parliamentary bloc is set to rejoin the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki after boycotting it for nearly a year, in a boost for reconciliation efforts in the war-torn country.
Saleem Abdallah, MP and spokesman of the National Concord Front, said his group had given a list of new candidates for five of the six ministerial posts which it previously held in Maliki's cabinet.
"The prime minister has accepted the names of the candidates," Abdallah told AFP.
Last August the Sunni bloc, which has 44 MPs in the 275-member parliament, pulled its ministers from the cabinet.. The boycott by the Sunnis dealt a severe blow to Maliki's claims that he was running a unity government.
It is unclear whether the conditions put forward by the Sunnis have been met but in the past few months relations between Maliki and the Sunni Arab leaders have warmed following the prime minister's decision to launch military assaults on Shiite militiamen.
Abdallah said the list of candidates had to be approved by the parliament.
"We are waiting for the parliament to approve it," he said.
After a meeting with Maliki late on Monday, Iraqi vice president and the most senior Sunni Arab politician in the country, Tareq al-Hashemi, said there "will be good news in the next few days as a result of our talks."
Total on verge of signing Iraq oil service contract: president
Tue Jul 1, 2008
MADRID (AFP) - French oil major Total is on the verge of signing a service contract in Iraq but does not expect to make major investments in the country this year, the firm's president said Tuesday.
Christophe de Margerie told a news conference at the World Petroleum Congress in Madrid that Total was negotiating a technical service contract together with Chevron to help develop the West Qurna oil fields in Iraq, which is home to the world's third-largest oil reserves.
"We are on the verge of signing a service agreement contract," he said. "We hope to sign a contract in the days, weeks to come. There are not many details to iron out.
Margerie said he hoped the contracts could form the basis for a further involvement by Total in the Iraqi oil sector in the future.
Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani said Monday his government was still negotiating with Total, Chevron, Shell, BP and a consortium of other smaller oil companies to develop six oil blocks and two gas fields.
"We did not finalise any agreement with them because they refused to offer consultancy based on fees as they wanted a share of the oil," he told a news conference.
Exxon chief executive Rex Tillerson meanwhile told the gathering in Madrid he was optimistic of reaching a deal with the Iraqi government.
"I am very hopeful for Iraq. What role we may play today and in the future is entirely up to them," he said at a joint news conference with Margerie.
New Iraq report: 15 of 18 benchmarks satisfactory
By ANNE FLAHERTY, AP
Jul 1, 2008
WASHINGTON - The White House declared in a new assessment to Congress that Iraq's efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are "satisfactory" — almost twice of what it determined to be the case a year ago. The May 2008 report card, obtained by the Associated Press, determines that only two of the benchmarks — enacting and implementing laws to disarm militias and distribute oil revenues — are unsatisfactory.
In the past 12 months, since the White House released its first formal assessment of Iraq's military and political progress, Baghdad politicians have reached several new agreements seen as critical to easing sectarian tensions.
They have passed, for example, legislation that grants amnesty for some prisoners and allows former members of Saddam Hussein's political party to recover lost jobs or pensions. They also determined that provincial elections would be held by Oct. 1.
In the May progress report, one benchmark was deemed to have brought mixed results. The Iraqi army has made satisfactory progress on the goal of fairly enforcing the law, while the nation's police force remains plagued by sectarianism, according to the administration assessment.
Overall, militia control has declined and Baghdad's security forces have "demonstrated its willingness and effectiveness to use these authorities to pursue extremists in all provinces, regardless of population or extremist demographics," as illustrated by recent operations, the White House concludes.
"Iraq has the potential to develop into a stable, secure multiethnic, multi-sectarian democracy under the rule of law," Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq said in April when he last testified before Congress. "Whether it realizes that potential is ultimately up to the Iraqi people."
I thought it worth noting that this article states, quote:
Iraqis oppose a large American troop presence on their soil, but want a guarantee from Washington that the United States will defend the country from foreign invasion.
===
US agrees to scrap immunity for security guards in Iraq: FM
by Jay Deshmukh
Jul 1, 2008
BAGHDAD (AFP) - The Iraqi foreign minister said on Tuesday that Washington has agreed to scrap immunity for foreign security guards in Iraq, moving the two countries closer to signing a long-term security pact.
"The immunity for private security guards has been removed. The US has agreed on it," Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told AFP after briefing Iraqi MPs on the controversial US-Iraq security pact which is being negotiated.
The US embassy spokeswoman in Baghdad, Mirembe Nantongo, declined to comment. "We do not comment on the contents of ongoing negotiations," she said.
US President George W. Bush and Maliki agreed in principle last November to sign a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) in Iraq by the end of July.
The agreement aims to set down the ground rules for a continuing US troop presence after the UN mandate for foreign forces stationed in Iraq expires in December 2008.
Othman, the MP, said that the lifting of immunity for both foreign and US troops was still under discussion.
The US military's right to capture, detain and imprison Iraqis is also a sore point, Othman said.
Other concerns surround the number of military bases which Washington will maintain in Iraq.
"Zebari said that once the negotiations are crystallised the agreement would be presented to parliament," Othman told AFP. "It is up to the parliament to accept it or reject it."
Iraqis oppose a large American troop presence on their soil, but want a guarantee from Washington that the United States will defend the country from foreign invasion.
Othman said ministers also insisted at Tuesday's session that US forces carry out security operations in "accordance with Iraqi law and not freely."
Good news, coming daily from over there, however that is what we are getting, no action on the Dinar. One pip on the value each second week, at most.
Statements from all kinds of sources, on the subject of the Iraqi Dinar, in or in association with either CBI, or the Iraq Gov, have also been a bit slow lately.
It seems like we are looking at all the "around things" now, oil, security, contracts, new laws (that are soooooon to be signed) , but the actual activity of the powers that are regulating the Iraqi Dinar have been mysteriously silent for actually quiet some time.
Not even one of those ever present rumors have been floating up lately, I like those, they always gives me a date to look forward to.
We're waiting for the Dinar to move seriously, but in order for that to happen, the Iraqi economy needs to take off, something it have not done yet.
I have had big hopes that this year would be a year where all the hardships would be gone, and the Iraqis would join hands and sing Kumba Ya My Lord, and go to work.
Well the hard insurgency is over, there are some pot shots left here and there, but nothing like last year.
I think that if we are getting good news that's good, but remember the type of news we are getting.
We are not getting news that says things like -"Harbor completed", -"Iraq Oil Production up from 9 million to 11 million barrel a day", -"Iraqi work force overextended, calls for more contractors out", -"The new freeway system spanning all over Iraq in a criss cross pattern reaching all major cities, is today officially opened with a parade",
-"High end luxury import cars are now the majority of car sales in Iraq". -"Iraqi Universities are drawing professors from all over the world, promising dream like wages, western educators in crisis meeting over the shortage of teachers in Eu and US".
We are instead getting news like, -"Oil law soon to be signed, -"Dutch Shell is poised to get contract".-"Iraqi Troops are in control over Glibidi District". -"Good guys have killed another bad guy".
While the second set of good news are encouraging, it will not make any wheels spin.
We have just barely got into the "settling down" period, and barely got into the "Lets make a deal" period.
We have not even got any traction in the "Lets make a deal" period.
This and that company are reviewing the contract, this and that company are willing to start business, and this and that company are eyeing the prospect of investing.
Looking back so far, very few contracts have been actually signed. There is no stampede, so far, where big companies are running full page ads in any western media, looking for contractors for their new mega project that they are in full swing doing.
ISX and the Dinar tells the story. A flat line.
No movement yet.
Tim Bitts,
You seem to be very hopeful that China will do wonders, with it's nuclear and hydro electric grid. Making Hydrogen cars, or electric cars, and get away from the oil dependency that they are into. Lowering their population and emerge as an industrial giant.
No, it will not happen.
First the population, any over population is population that does not fit in, have food, shelter or work is from the viewpoint of the population that have shelter food and work , unnecessary people, or over population.
Would everybody in Brazil living in those big tin shed slums have work, food and participate in a buzzing economy, then they would not be looked upon like being over populated.
If by spreading "Magic Pixels" over Alberta, tomorrow, all the population there would live in tin sheds, have no work, crime was out of control, and food riots were on the agenda, the huddling masses of thousands of people in every town in Alberta, that were warming their hands, over a burn barrel at the street corners, would then be considered an effect of over population.
Of course, you can look at big industrial cities where all the wheels are turning and say that this is over population, but that is so only because you are experience stop and go traffic on the freeway, crammed buses and filled subways.
Would you wake up one day, and find a lot more freeways, with no stop and go, four times as many buses, and subway trains, you would not consider the place being over populated. This is the same city.
China's Communist party are considering themselves to know what is best for the people of China, and are tampering with the nations reproduction. As a result they are getting an imbalance where the male specie is the far dominant sex.
This is an unnatural society, and they are bringing onto themselves problems that sociologists can write long books about.
Hydro and Nuclear power to generate electricity.
The Scandinavian countries, especially then Norway, Sweden, and Finland have a very extensive development of the rivers. Almost all the rivers are developed in such a fashion that it is a long line of dams, that end in a hydro electric power plants.
Nuclear power gives the basic electric power, by many nuclear powered plants. The hydro electric power plants are then regulated to offset peaks and low demands.
This gives a very very cheap and effective way to produce electricity, and it is sold cheap, plus the need for electricity is filled to any and all that need it, it is in fact such a successful set up that electricity is one of the major export products.
France have a lot of nuclear power plants, and run almost exclusively on it.
The whole Central and northern Europe have had this set up for very long time, and have a very long track record to show.
The set up you are describing will in no way stop the Chinese from being less oil thirsty, as little as Europe have become less oil thirsty, on the exactly same set up.
Electric cars, of course we can think that the Chinese will then do electric cars, with all the electricity they have.
Well, then there must be something the Chinese knows about electricity that we don't know, because so far, the problem with electric cars is not electricity in itself, but the storage of electricity.
Electric cars have very small range, before they need to be charged again. Electric cars have so far been found at home tinkerers, golf cart applications, state or govt, programs where a fleet is tested, (don't know how may such tests they have made) , but for the general public the range is not good enough, the storage of the energy is not adequate for car use yet.
As we get more and more sophisticated batteries made of exotic metals, they may one day be good enough for something that is not just going to be a local runaround car.
Hydrogen, now that's interesting but it has a long way to go still.
For exhaust, nothing beats Hydrogen, the exhaust is pure water, noting else.
To get Hydrogen you must split water into it's components, two atoms of Hydrogen, and one atom of Oxygen.
That process will take more energy than it will take to get it back in the burning process when you run it in the car. So here is the poison, you have to invest 12 units worth of some other energy to get 10 units worth of Hydrogen.
You have two choices, you can produce the Hydrogen in you car and burn it immediately as you produce it, or you can produce it externally and store it, fill it in you tank and take off.
You need four times as big tank to go the same distance as gasoline, the tank has to be high pressure Hydrogen, about the same as a full modern high pressure SCUBA tank in pressure.
On top of it all, once you have made your gas from water by splitting it, you have to separate Hydrogen gas from Oxygen gas, compress and store the Hydrogen, ( and sell the Oxygen to your nearest medical Oxygen supply store).
You are better off, splitting the Hydrogen in the car, and use the gas immediately as it is produced, but then again, you must bring with you 12 units of any other kind of energy to get your 10 units of energy from the Hydrogen.
It for sure will solve the tank dilemma, because you will get a gas volume that is 1850 times the volume of water, once you split it (normal atmospheric pressure), but you are now getting Hydroxy ( a mixture of Hydrogen and Oxygen, in the exact right proportions to make water with a bang).
You can not compress or store Hydroxy, if you want to compress it into a tank, let me know in before hand, so I can leave your town. Hydroxy have a flame front of 10.000 feet a second, well beyond the burn speed of many solid explosives.
Some advances have been made in the gas generating field, if you induce a pulsed frequency, not too far away from ultrasound, you can make water generate gas in the water itself, and not only at the electrolytic anode and cathode plates, as in a battery.
Another advancement in Hydrogen making was when one found out that he could use radio waves, but the enthusiasm was lowered when they found out how much energy it took to do it, compared with the calories coming out of the produced gas.
BMW had made a big hoopla on a car show in Europe about their new Hydrogen car, but decided to make only 100 of them and let some selected people get the cars against a detailed driving report.
There are no other element that is smaller than a Hydrogen atom, so it leaks through any material you can find. Hydrogen saturated products will get brittle, and there are still a bit of metallurgy to master before this is a good alternative.
Cheer on oil front as Iraq opens bid for eight big fields
5:00AM Wednesday July 02, 2008
Iraq opened international bidding for eight enormous oil and gas fields yesterday, paving the way for major investments in a nation with one of the world's largest petroleum reserves.
If the contracts are approved, they could lead to the biggest foreign stake in Iraq since the industry was nationalised more than 30 years ago.
That could be good news with the price for a barrel of oil breaching US$143 ($188) for the first time yesterday. But there are concerns that a dominant role for Western firms could feed perceptions that US-led forces toppled Saddam Hussein to grab the country's natural resources.
Those concerns were heightened recently by expectations that Iraq would announce short-term no-bid contracts with five Western oil firms for technical consulting. The New York Times reported about two weeks ago that the firms included Royal Dutch Shell PLC, BP PLC, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron and Total.
But Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani said Iraq was still negotiating with the companies, which he did not identify. He said the firms were demanding a share of oil production, but Iraq insisted on paying in cash.
%3Cbody%3E%3Cdiv%20id%3D%22adDiv%22%3E%3Ch5%20align%3D%22center%22%3EAdvertisement%3C/h5%3E%3Ciframe%20src%3D%22http%3A//ad.nz.doubleclick.net/adi/N1405.herald.co.nz/B2942815.2%3Bsz%3D300x250%3Bclick%3Dhttp%3A//ads.apn.co.nz/accipiter/adclick/CID%3D00001bbffe36120700000000/aamsz%3D300X250/acc_random%3D57020676637/pageid%3D57020676637/site%3DNZH/area%3DCAT.MARKETS.STY/keyword%3Dcheer%20oil%20front%20iraq%20opens%20bid%20eight%20big%20fields%20opened%20international%20bidding%20enormous%20gas%20yesterday%20paving%20way%20major%20investments%20nation%20one%20world%20largest%20petroleum%20reserves%20if%20contracts%20approved%20could%20lead%20biggest%20foreign%20stake%20since%20industry/relocate%3D%3Bord%3D57020676637%3F%22%20width%3D300%20height%3D250%20MARGINWIDTH%3D0%20MARGINHEIGHT%3D0%20HSPACE%3D0%20VSPACE%3D0%20FRAMEBORDER%3D0%20SCROLLING%3Dno%3E%3CSCRIPT%20SRC%3D%22http%3A//ad.nz.doubleclick.net/adj/N1405.herald.co.nz/B2942815.2%3Babr%3D%21ie%3Bsz%3D300x250%3Bclick%3Dhttp%3A//ads.apn.co.nz/accipiter/adclick/CID%3D00001bbffe36120700000000/aamsz%3D300X250/acc_random%3D57020676637/pageid%3D57020676637/site%3DNZH/area%3DCAT.MARKETS.STY/keyword%3Dcheer%20oil%20front%20iraq%20opens%20bid%20eight%20big%20fields%20opened%20international%20bidding%20enormous%20gas%20yesterday%20paving%20way%20major%20investments%20nation%20one%20world%20largest%20petroleum%20reserves%20if%20contracts%20approved%20could%20lead%20biggest%20foreign%20stake%20since%20industry/relocate%3D%3Bord%3D57020676637%3F%22%3E%3C/SCRIPT%3E%3CNOSCRIPT%3E%3CA%20HREF%3D%22http%3A//ads.apn.co.nz/accipiter/adclick/CID%3D00001bbffe36120700000000/aamsz%3D300X250/acc_random%3D57020676637/pageid%3D57020676637/site%3DNZH/area%3DCAT.MARKETS.STY/keyword%3Dcheer%20oil%20front%20iraq%20opens%20bid%20eight%20big%20fields%20opened%20international%20bidding%20enormous%20gas%20yesterday%20paving%20way%20major%20investments%20nation%20one%20world%20largest%20petroleum%20reserves%20if%20contracts%20approved%20could%20lead%20biggest%20foreign%20stake%20since%20industry%22%3E%3CIMG%20SRC%3D%22http%3A//ad.nz.doubleclick.net/ad/N1405.herald.co.nz/B2942815.2%3Babr%3D%21ie4%3Babr%3D%21ie5%3Bsz%3D300x250%3B%22%20BORDER%3D0%20width%3D300%20height%3D250%20ALT%3D%22Click%20here%22%3E%3C/A%3E%3C/NOSCRIPT%3E%3C/iframe%3E%3Ch5%20align%3D%22center%22%3EAdvertisement%3C/h5%3E%3C/div%3E
Advertisement
AdvertisementThe minister said the short-term contracts were meant as a stopgap measure to boost oil production until the government awards longer-term deals next June.
But some believe they could give the Western firms a bidding advantage in that process, which al-Shahristani said Monday would include 35 foreign companies. The firms he named included seven from the US, three from Britain and others from countries like Russia and China.
Al-Shahristani said the companies would be invited to bid on the oil fields of Rumeila, Zubair, Qurna West, Maysan, Kirkuk and Bay Hassan; and the natural gas fields of Akkaz and Mansouriyah.
"These fields were chosen because their production can be raised in a short time and at a low cost," said al-Shahristani.
All of the oil fields the minister mentioned are currently producing crude, and al-Shahristani said the new contracts would raise Iraq's production by 1.5 million barrels per day. Iraq currently produces 2.5 million barrels per day and hopes to raise that to 4.5 million by 2013.
The introduction of an additional 1.5 million barrels of oil each day would likely be enough to move the price for a barrel downward. But some analysts were not convinced, given the deterioration of the Iraq's infrastructure and potential instability, that it is realistic.
"I'm pretty skeptical of that figure," said Jim Ritterbusch, president of energy consultancy Ritterbusch and Associates.
"Amount is one thing, timing is another. They still need to upgrade their infrastructure and while things have stabilized, I think you're assuming a best-case scenario on security and other issues."
Iraq has been able to boost production to its highest level since the US-led invasion in 2003 because of a cut in violence, but al-Shahristani said the country needs help from foreign firms to boost production further.
The deadline for the oil and gas bids is the end of March, and preliminary contracts will be signed next June. Every company involved in the bidding process must have an Iraqi partner and must give at least 25 percent of the value of the contract to Iraqi companies, said al-Shahristani.
The process of awarding contracts has been delayed by the inability to finalise a new a law on how to divide the country's oil resources because of squabbles between the central government and the Kurds.
(www.nzherald.co.nz)
A document reported to be an agreement between the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and Baghdad allowing the KRG to sign oil contracts with foreign companies for reserves within Iraqi Kurdistan was made public on Tuesday by a parliamentary official.
(www.noozz.com)
U.S. won't let Iran shut Gulf
Wed Jul 2, 2008 2:15pm BST Email | Print | Share| Single Page| Recommend (-) [-] Text [+]
1 of 2Full SizeRelated News
FACTBOX - How big is Iran's military? ABU DHABI (Reuters) - The United States will not allow Iran to block the Gulf, the waterway that carries crude from the world's largest oil exporting region, the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet said on Wednesday.
"Iran will not attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz and we will not allow them to close the Strait of Hormuz. I can't say it anymore clearly than that," Vice-Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, the commander of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, told a conference on Gulf naval security in Abu Dhabi.
The head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards said in remarks published last week that Tehran would impose controls on shipping in the Gulf and the strategic Strait of Hormuz waterway if it was attacked.
Washington says its warships were threatened by Iranian craft in the Strait of Hormuz in January. Tehran dismissed it as a routine contact and accused the United States of exaggerating for propaganda purposes.
Asked whether he was worried incidents between U.S. naval ships and Iranian guard boats could escalate, Cosgriff said he was concerned because he did not know whether the Iranian vessels were controlled directly by the government in Tehran or by local commanders.
The Fifth Fleet is based in Bahrain.
Iran is embroiled in a standoff over its nuclear ambitions with the West, which says Tehran wants to make atomic bombs. Iran says it has only peaceful plans to produce electricity.
(www.reuters.com)
02 July 2008 (Voices of Iraq)
Print article Send to friend
The UN Secretary General's representative in Baghdad, Steffan de Mistura, on Tuesday expected that provincial elections in Iraq will be held by the end of this year.
He appeared convinced that the elections could not be held in its specified date, on October 10, 2008.
"Today there was a meeting with political entities' representatives, due to a request presented by Sheikh Khalid al-Attiya, the parliament's speaker's first deputy, and I informed the speakership that elections cannot be held on time, as the election law has not yet been legislated," de Mistura told the press after the meeting.
He expected that the elections will be held by the end of this year if the Parliament enacts the election bill by September 2008.
(www.iraqupdates.com)
02 July 2008 (Gulf News)
Print article Send to friend
The manner with which Iraq's oil is handled and dealt with today would determine how it is to be used in the future. Any steps taken today would define by how far and to what extent the nation's natural resource is to be utilised for building the country.
The Iraqi government has recently announced that it has unrolled the process for opening up the country's oil industry to foreign investment with the goal of increasing the output to meet a rising international demand. The development of six major oil fields would enable Iraq to modernise these fields, which would increase the daily output from a total production of 2.5 million barrels per day to 2.9 million barrels per day by the end of next year. "It is not possible for Iraq, which has large oil reserves, to stay at the current level of production. Iraq should be the second or third source of oil exploitation," said Iraq's Oil Minister Hussain Al Shahristani.
But beyond these ambitious future plans, it is critical to outline the goals of why the oil fields are being developed and for what purpose. For one thing, the US-led invasion of Iraq has always been marred by speculations of America's secret quest to control a new source of oil supply rather than usher in democracy. Recent official statements also add to this suspicion.
The race for Iraqi oil should not be defined by narrow political agenda or greedy business plans. Instead, it should be dealt with as a national right of the Iraqi people to exploit and use it to their benefit - to build their country and allocate the generated wealth for future generations. The Iraqi government holds the key responsibility to ensure that this is achieved when any oil transaction or deal takes place.
(www.iraqupdates.com)
There is a lot of battery work being done. I believe cars could run on electricity, in the near future.
What about the Tesla Roadster? (now in production) It goes o to 60mph, in 3.9 seconds, has a 13,000 rpm redline, goes 256 mpg equivalent, goes 220 miles per charge, costs less than 2cents per mile to run?
Even GM is getting into electric cars. What about the GM Volt? It's supposed to go into production, in about a year. They're just waiting for some battery research and development to be completed.
And according the the GM Volt website, engineers have figured out that that 78% of drivers, drive less than 40 miles in a day. Forty miles is the battery range of the Volt, but it's supposed to have, on board, a small gas E85 gas motor, which acts as a generator, (not connected to the wheels), so that the range of the Volt will be increased to 400 miles. And GM says it will be able to be plugged in, at home, with an electric cord.
Also, at MIT, there is a lot of promising work, going on, in developing long-range batteries. And what about the Eestor battery? Technical specs haven't been released yet, but they say it has a very long range, and recharges very quickly.
I was aware of the energy problem, with hydrogen, and how you get out less energy, in hydrogen, than you put in.
What if energy was produced using Pebble-bed reactors, and Fast Breeder Reactors? As I understand it, the new generation of nuclear reactors, are much, much more efficient than the old generation, and could produce energy, pretty much indefinitely, in whatever quantity you wanted?
Why not use this electricity to produce hydrogen? Then the poor energy ratio, for production, wouldn't matter?
The Chinese are working on perfecting Pebble-Bed Reactors, and plan on building them by the dozen, standardizing the parts, for mass production, and meeting China's electricity needs this way.
Couldn't this energy also be used to produce hydrogen, in large quantities?
Development of the nuclear field was shut down 30 years ago, in the U.S., because of dumb political decisions made by Jimmy Carter, and then Bill Clinton. Other countries are forging ahead with research. This is one of the few areas of science, where America does not lead the world. Yet recently, one of the founders of that radical green organization, Greenpeace, said he's in favour of nuclear power, because the new generation is safe, and can produce all the power the world needs, without CO2 emmissions.
People are just freaked out about nuclear energy, in the US, because of 3 Mile Island. That was the old generation of nuclear, which were designed too much to be run by humans. Humans are required, in the old nuclear plants, to make a lot of management decisions, about the running of the plant. The newer designs take humans out of the equation and are much safer.
Before touting the merits of going green, you may want to wait until you are completely green before doing so. Touting its merits but driving a fossil fuel automobile is inconsistent.
Preaching the merits of being green while using electricity to power your home derived either from coal burning plants or other resources other than wind or solar is also inconsistent and can be perceived as hypocritical.
Going green takes a long time. Ed Bagley, the well-known Hollywood actor, is a green advocate, and runs his house on solar power, and drives a hybrid, and a whole bunch of other things, and he said in an interview, it took him over 10 years, before completely going green. And he's a well known actor, and probably has a lot more money, to quicken the process, than I do.
Going green is not an all or none proposition Rob. It will take individuals awhile, to change their own lives. If I'm right, and America goes green, it will be a process that will take America decades to complete. There is no magic lightswitch to press, and instantly all problems are solved, and everything is suddenly all green. The world isn't that simple, Rob.
Rob, most people, including myself, have little choice, as to where to buy their electricity, to run their homes, except usually off of coal powered plants. That's why I'm careful, not to be judgemental, about the choices people make. However, people are starting to have more choices. In Alberta we are blessed to have large wind resources, as Chinook Winds blow off the Rocky Mountains.
A local company, Enmax, has developed this wind energy. My local utility company gives me the option of buying that enviromentally friendly energy, at a slightly higher cost, and that's why I chose to buy power, from that company. And I pay that extra cost, because I want to encourage those companies to continue doing, what they are doing. That's a small thing. It won't solve all the world's problems, but I feel good, like I'm part of the solution.
I'm not being holier-than-thou in my views. I'm not claiming to be perfect. I'm not telling anyone what to do. What anyone should do, is a personal choice. Make up your own mind, what to do, or not to do.
I mean you no harm Rob. I always enjoy your posts, and rely on your input, because you seem to be the one that is the most tuned in, to the ongoing political and economic changes happening in Iraq. You help me stay informed on that. Thanks. Just lay off the sermonizing.
I think you are mistaken; I am not sermonizing. As an analogy, if I speak boldly about a certain belief but acted contrary to that belief system would you not consider that hypocritical?
That same analogy can be applied to those who spout the lefts agenda of going green. In my view, until you give up your fossil fuel burning automobile (a hybrid also burns fossil fuel) and stop using fossil fuel burning airplanes the green speak is inconsistent.
I never claimed we should all give up our cars. I never preached that. In fact, I gave you the example of Iceland, where they drive cars, all the time, but they get their energy to power their cars, from hydrogen, which is produced from energy attained from geo-thermal sources. Did you bother to read that?
It might help you, in constructing a sensible argument, if you pay attention to what is actually being said.
I never claimed we should stop flying, or driving cars. Only that we should look for alternative forms of energy, to meet our needs. And that we no longer really need fossil fuels, and we should have a long term goal of getting off them.
Someone I admire is Richard Branson. He's the Brit billionaire, who owns Virgin Airlines. He's on the same wave length as me. He doesn't want people to stop flying. He's just looking for alternative fuels, as replacement for oil. And he's putting his money where his mouth is, by devoting 10s of millions of dollars in research, to find those alternatives. Good on him.
Pay attention, Rob.
Or, if you are just jerking my chain, and are insincere, and don't even believe the silly stuff you are saying, I have better things to do.
I disagree, when you preach the gospel of going green it is all or nothing. I do not think you can be a little green. Carole put it best when it comes to being green. Being a little green is like being a little pregnant. Being a little pregnant is not possible. Either you are or you are not. Either you are green or not.
It was not my intention to communicate you must stop driving cars. To be consistent with the green speak is that you must give up cars which emit C02(i.e fossil fuels). In my view, you would be more credible by driving a hydrogen power or natural gas powered car. Purchasing a gas/electric hybrid does nothing to enhance your consistency because the car still emits C02 and uses fossil fuels to operate.
Neither did I say you had to give up flying. To be consistent you must give up flying in an airplane that emits C02 or burns fossil fuels. In my view, it is more consistent to preach going green if you are actually applying those principles you adhere to.
I think in one of your previous posts you expressed your doubt concerning Al Gore. Why? Because he preaches the "Inconvenient Truth" yet the energy consumed by his own home seems to contradict what he says in public. In my view, like Mr. Gore, your green speak does not match your actions.
You obviously look at the world differently than I do. It's obvious, I won't change your mind, on this. The way you think about the world, the way your mind works, is fine with me, although I don't agree with it. And that is obviously at the core of what is happening here: We just think differently about things.
You're more of an all-or-none, black or white, sort of guy, and I see the world in shades of grey, and complexity, and a non-judgemental approach. I can see that, and I won't change your view on reality, and I wouldn't want to bother trying. A basic view of life like this, is something a person comes to, on their own, and is central to their personality, and way of looking at the world. So we'll have to agree to disagree on this. Thanks for the converation, but this conversation is going nowhere. So I choose to stop arguing with you about it.
If I honestly thought I could change your mind, I would continue arguing. But I know perfectly well, that's not going to happen, because we have different basic assumptions about how the world works, so I won't waste my time trying.
I could argue with you till the cows come home, but it's obvious that you probably would just dig your heels in, keep repeating the same argument, and not bother listening to, what I consider to be reason. So I won't bother wasting my time. On to other things....
Lieberman: U.S. May Be Attacked In 2009 McCain Supporter Says Terrorists Have Tested New Presidents By Launching Attacks In First Year Of Term
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2008
(CBS) In describing the reasons he believes John McCain would be better prepared than Obama to lead the nation next January, Sen. Joe Lieberman said that history shows the United States would likely face a terrorist attack in 2009.
"Our enemies will test the new president early," Lieberman, I-Conn., told Face The Nation host Bob Schieffer. "Remember that the truck bombing of the World Trade Center happened in the first year of the Clinton administration. 9/11 happened in the first year of the Bush administration."
"Here's the point. We're in a war against Islamist extremists who attacked us on 9/11. They've been trying to attack us in many, many ways since then."
A former Democratic nominee for vice president, Lieberman endorsed McCain for president because, he says, the Democratic Party he joined in the early 1960s is not reflected by the party's current leadership.
He also said that he feels McCain is better prepared to be commander in chief than Barack Obama. "[McCain] knows the world," Lieberman said. "He's been tested. He's ready to protect the security of the American people."
Lieberman also assailed Obama and fellow Senators who called for a timetable of withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and opposed the "surge" of additional U.S. forces pushed forth by President Bush.
"It's now working," Lieberman told Schieffer. "If we had done what Senator Obama asked us to do for the last couple of years, today Iran and al Qaeda would be in control of Iraq. It would be a terrible defeat for us and our allies in the Middle East and throughout the world. Instead, we've got a country that's defending itself, that's growing economically, where there's been genuine political reconciliation, and where Iran and al Qaeda are on the run. And that's the way it ought to be."
Interesting how technology works, isn't it?
Or how a majority opinion can shut out free speech, perhaps?
Since Rob and timbitts disagree.. aren't you both glad you can express your opinions..
without someone shutting you down for that disagreement?
===
Google Shuts Down Anti-Obama Sites on its Blogger Platform
By Warner Todd Huston
June 29, 2008
**UPDATE** BELOW FOLD
It looks like Google has officially joined the Barack Obama campaign and decided that its contribution would be to shut down any blog on the Google owned Blogspot.com blogging system that has an anti-Obama message. Yes, it sure seems that Google has begun to go through its many thousands of blogs to lock out the owners of anti-Obama blogs so that the noObama message is effectively squelched. Boy, it must be nice for Barack Obama to have an ally powerful enough to silence his opponents like that!
It isn't just conservative sites that Google's Blogger platform is eliminating. For instance, www.comealongway.blogspot.com has been frozen and this one is a Hillary supporting site. The operator of Come a Long Way has a mirror site off the Blogspot platform and has today posted this notice, QUOTE:
I used to have a happy internet home on Blogger: www.comealongway.blogspot.com. Then on Wednesday night, June 25, I received the following e-mail:
Dear Blogger user,
This is a message from the Blogger team.
Your blog, at http://comealongway.blogspot.com/, has been identified as a potential spam blog. You will not be able to publish posts to your blog until we review your site and confirm that it is not a spam blog.
Sincerely,
The Blogger Team
===end quote===
It turns out that there is an interesting pattern where it concerns the blogs that Google's Blogspot team have summarily locked down on their service. They all belong to the Just Say No Deal coalition, a group of blogs that are standing against the Obama campaign. It seems the largest portion of these blogs are Hillary supporting blogs, too.
All I can say is, WOW! If Google is willing to abuse its power like this even against fellow leftists, what does it plan against conservatives, the folks Google hates even more!?
Here is a list of the Blogspot blogs that have been frozen by Google thus far: (see url for list)
**UPDATE**
I have been hesitant to post this update because I cannot find a link to prove the claim, but it is starting to look like this Blogspot shut down of anti-Obama sites occurred because of a concerted effort by Obama supporters.
What they did was go to the Blogspot addresses found on the site of the NoObama coalition called Just Say No Deal and constantly hit the "mark as spam" link so that Google's Blogger would be flooded with spam warnings. This caused Google/Blogger to freeze the sites marked.
Apparently, this campaign merely took advantage of Google/Blogger's flawed system of finding spam blogs. So, it looks like what we have here is an Obama dirty trick to shut down political opposition. Looks like Obmatons aren't much for that whole democracy thing, eh?
Once I find a link to an Obama site talking about this attack, I will post it.
Yes, I'm glad everyone gets to share their opinion, without anyone shutting them down. That's what freedom of speech is all about. People have a right to their opinion, whether it agrees with mine, or not.
As to Google, as a business entity, they are branching out into alternative energy. They are investing in wind energy. And Obama wants to bring in massive subsidies for wind energy. Coincidence? Hardly.
Thank you. :)
An interesting.. errr.. coincidence, isn't that?
In the interests of free speech.. I must ask you.. have you ever watched even a tiny bit of the documentary, "The Great Global Warming Swindle"??
You really MUST take a gander at it.. and let me know what you think of its premises??
The Great Global Warming Swindle - Produced by WAGTV
Do check it out soon, as the last link I posted to a youtube on it.. no longer works. :(
But it really IS worthwhile watching it.. it is only about 10 minutes of it.. this one.. but well worth seeing.
What do you think of it.. ?? Intriguing??
And IF that whet your appetite, those two clips being only about 8 minutes each..
Then here is the ENTIRE MOVIE.. The Great Global Warming Swindle.. !!
( It took a while to find, honestly.. )
Timbitts - if you want a real interesting debate item..
with LOADS of facts and science in it...
you won't go wrong watching the whole thing. :)
Very interesting videos. Are we being swindled? I don't know. I was never convinced, one way or another. So I'll keep an open mind, and am happy to read or see stuff on both sides, as it comes my way.
I believe wolves are in danger, in Alberta. So I support a wolf pack out in the Rocky Mountains. The money I donate pays for a team of biologists to track wolves, and to protect them from human threats. People who want to debunk global warming should also put their money where their mouth is, and donate to organizations that fight, on their behalf, to change the mind of the public.
I'm still convinced of what I said before: that the earth is incredibly complex, diverse, and interconnected in ways we have barely begun to grasp, and that it is very unlikely we could say, concretely, one way, or another, what the truth is, about GW. That makes me extremely cautious, when it comes to the enviroment.
So, if I'm going to make an error, it's on the side of caution.
I feel the same way about my body. I was sick once, due to medical stupidity, and it left it's mark on me, in terms of being cautious about what we do to a living thing. I recovered, but I'll never looked at life the same way, again.
I'll keep an open mind about it, but I'm not that interested in the whole GW debate, right now.
You've written in the past about medical issues, and how certain chemicals, MSG I think it was, may be destroying our bodies, making us unhealthy. I'm sure, for many years, what was going on eluded people. It's a very complex tale that is being unravelled slowly, as we speak.
That's why, my general rule is, eat only healthy and natural and unprocessed food if possible. I really believe many chemicals in our diets are unhealthy and are killing us.
So, again, in light of all this uncertainty, and potential for harm, to the planet, I say, go slow, minimize impact on nature. I'd hate to think, 300 years from now, our ancestors realized we were a bunch of ignorant chimpanzees, trying to re-program a computer, and did irrepairable damage to the ecosystems we depend on. This is not the kind of thing I want to take a chance on.
People have told me, in the past, take a stand, one way or another. Well, who says there is only 2 sides to this? Maybe both sides in this are so limited in knowledge, that both really don't know what they are talking about. That's my suspicion.
Security Accord With U.S. Almost Settled, Iraqi Official Says
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
BAGHDAD — Iraq's foreign minister said Wednesday his government and the U.S. have almost finished negotiating a new security pact that could give Iraqis a role in planning and executing joint military operations.
Gallup Daily: Obama 46%, McCain 44% Statistical tie resumes following brief Obama lead
July 2, 2008
PRINCETON, NJ -- If the presidential election were held today, 46% of registered voters say they would vote for Barack Obama and 44% for John McCain, according to the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking results.
The June 29-July 1 data show a tightening of the race with the candidates falling back into a statistical tie. Obama has been able to attain brief leads following his clinching of the nomination in early June and the Obama-Clinton joint campaign appearance. These slight Obama bumps have proven to be short-lived, and from a larger perspective there has not been a dramatic restructuring of the race in recent weeks.
For the Gallup Poll Daily tracking survey, Gallup is interviewing no fewer than 1,000 U.S. adults nationwide each day during 2008. The general-election results are based on combined data from June 29-July 1, 2008. For results based on this sample of 2,665 registered voters, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points.
Timbitts - About your saying that the price of oil may go up in the near future..
===
Iranian Minister: Attack Would Provoke Unimaginable Response
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
MADRID, Spain — With Middle East tensions building, Iran's oil minister warned Wednesday that an attack on his country would provoke an unimaginably fierce response.
Over the weekend, the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards warned that Tehran would respond to an attack by barraging Israel with missiles and could seize control of a key oil passageway in the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz.
But a senior U.S. military commander said Wednesday that Washington would not allow that to happen.
Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, commander of the 5th Fleet spoke to reporters after talks with naval commanders of Gulf countries in the United Arab Emirates capital of Abu Dhabi. The one-day meeting was to focus on the security of the region's maritime and trade routes and the threat of terrorism.
The 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain, across the Gulf from Iran. Cosgriff said that if Iran choked off the Strait of Hormuz, it would be "saying to the world that 40 percent of oil is now held hostage by a single country."
"We will not allow Iran to close it," he told reporters.
Minister Nozari addressed rising tensions outside the 19th World Petroleum Congress after a presentation on Iran's oil and gas industry to a packed audience, including representatives of European and U.S. energy companies.
Tehran is under U.N., U.S. and European sanctions because it has defied U.N. Security Council demands to suspend its uranium enrichment program. But with oil supplies tight and prices at unprecedented levels, the energy industry remains tempted by the possibilities of investing in Iran, OPEC's second largest oil producer and No. 2 in terms of the world's natural gas reserves.
President Bush has repeatedly said that a military strike on Tehran is possible as a last-resort if Iran continues to pursues uranium enrichment and fails to heed other Security Council demands.
Last month, Israel sent warplanes on a major exercise in the eastern Mediterranean that U.S. officials said was a message to Iran — a show of force as well as practice in the operations needed for a long-range strike mission.
ABC News quoted an unnamed senior Pentagon official warning of an "increasing likelihood" that Israel will strike Iran's nuclear facilities before the end of the year.
Nozari said such any attack would send oil prices further into uncharted territory.
"We don't think the wise people in the world even think about any action like that," he said. "Can you imagine ... what would be the result in the oil market?"
Oil prices hit a record high above $143 this week.
But Nozari indicated Iran would not withhold its crude from the market even if attacked.
"Iran has always been a reliable source of supply to the market, and Iran remains a (reliable) source of supply," he said.
He dismissed suggestions that the standoff over Iran's nuclear program has diminished Iran's oil and gas exports, despite U.S. sanctions that prohibit American companies from doing business with Tehran and growing pressure from Washington on other countries to follow suit.
"We have increased our production in the past two years by 250,000 barrels a day and we have added to the production of our gas," he told the AP.
Thanks, timbitts, for your reply. :)
I agree.. we don't know everything.
That is why the position of "the debate is not over" struck me as the best way to go.
I don't see Global Warming science as definitive yet.
I see a lot of the "Greenie" agenda as having good effects, as you do, long term.
I am also following the alternative fuels.. including the new nuclear research China is doing.. and nanotechnology. :)
As for the wolves being endangered.. that may be true. In the US, however, they are viewed as predators.. even you must admit they are that??
And when a group of greenies decided to raise some wolves and then release them into the "wild"... the farmers in that area were intimidated by what they would do to survive.. likely raid their land and livestock. So when the greenies released the wolves.. the farmers got out their guns.. and hunted them down and killed them all.
Now.. I know, that seems a waste.. doesn't it? But it shows that the US mentality of humans coming first is rather ingrained.. It is not that wolves are wished into extinction.. but if the two needs conflict (for the same land and resources/livestock).. then the HUMANS will have to come first.. do you see?
The American viewpoint is not to just move over and let the other predators take over the land.. be it wolves or caribou.. we have to work out a compromise we can both live with. And unilaterally allowing wolves to roam lands.. killing small animals (and endangering small humans) just is not an option. I can't speak for your wolf program there, but I sure hope no Albertan children are being endangered by it. Whatever good that program does.. should be without harming the humans.. or their livelihoods or living (livestock - chickens, etc). I hope in that you would agree..
Mankind is admitted by the evolutionists to be the top of the biological chain.. he should be allowed to have that privileged position and to protect himself and his species above all others further down the chain.. if evolution were true, I mean. Since it isn't.. the truth is, we should be allowed to manage the Creation responsibly and with deference to our own kind as those made in the image of God. Either view allows us to make the decisions for humans first.. forcefully and/or morally, above all other species on the planet. There is a limit to how far deference to the environment or other species should be allowed to go.
While I do support moving forward with new technologies.. to advance and further human advancement without harming the environment.. I do express great caution in doing experiments on the human population and our food supply without a lot of documentation to back it up. MSG is indeed one of those things.. and its affects are now being seen to be documentably not good.
(ok.. the middle part of the post will NOT post.. at all.. trying this third section... )
Also.. I am still absolutely CONVINCED that the honeybee is dying because of GM crops. Last year.. 31% of the bees died. This year.. (as of JUNE, half way through the year) we have lost 36% of the bees left.. on schedule to lose two thirds of them by the end of the year. If two out of every three cows was dying.. do you think people would pay attention? Like the soil becoming sterile, the toxins of these plants are killing the bees (and bats). It will affect us all.. eventually. Quote, "This is a crisis we cannot afford to ignore." Food prices have gone up 83 percent in three years... (see article below - end quote)
"Science" has been given far too wide an allowance in the case of our food supply.. and human health will suffer in the future for it, IMHO. We will see more starvation and loss of crops and variety.. and MUCH higher food prices.
So, I am with you.. we don't know everything. When we act like we do, we make mistakes.. ones our decendents may greatly regret us making. I prefer caution and proceeding carefully.. with MUCH debate and BOTH sides heard, and very few rushes to judgement or action where our human lives depend on the outcome.
Sara.
===
Honey Bee Shortage Might Cause Food Price Hike, Farmers Tell Congress
Friday, June 27, 2008 / AP
WASHINGTON — Food prices could rise even more unless the mysterious decline in honey bees is solved, farmers and businessmen told lawmakers Thursday.
"No bees, no crops," North Carolina grower Robert D. Edwards told a House Agriculture subcommittee. Edwards said he had to cut his cucumber acreage in half because of the lack of bees available to rent.
About three-quarters of flowering plants rely on birds, bees and other pollinators to help them reproduce. Bee pollination is responsible for $15 billion annually in crop value.
In 2006, beekeepers began reporting losing 30 percent to 90 percent of their hives, a phenomenon that has become known as Colony Collapse Disorder.
Scientists do not know how many bees have died; beekeepers have lost 36 percent of their managed colonies this year. It was 31 percent for 2007, said Edward B. Knipling, administrator of the Agriculture Department's Agricultural Research Service.
"If there are no bees, there is no way for our nation's farmers to continue to grow the high quality, nutritious foods our country relies on," said Democratic Rep. Dennis Cardoza of California, chairman of the horticulture and organic agriculture panel. "This is a crisis we cannot afford to ignore."
Food prices have gone up 83 percent in three years, according to the World Bank.
Edward R. Flanagan, who raises blueberries in Milbridge, Maine, said he could be forced to increase prices tenfold or go out of business without the beekeeping industry.
"Every one of those berries owes its existence to the crazy, neurotic dancing of a honey bee from flower to flower," he said.
Precondition Failed
The precondition on the request for the URL evaluated to false.
---
error message as above..
what does it mean?
There is no url in the three short paragraphs I was trying to submit..
just my opinion on GM food crops.
??? hmmm..
The Economist is one of the most respected news and economic magazines, around the world. In the cover issue on newsstands, they are figuring out, what readers of this blog have known for months and months: America is winning in Iraq.... Hold on to those Dinars.... Nice to see that a world class magazine finally starting to catch up to the people who keep this blog going. :)
Iraq starts to fix itself
Jun 12th 2008
From The Economist print edition
Its people are still suffering monstrously, but Iraq is doing far better than it was only a few months ago
After all the blood and blunders, people are right to be sceptical when good news is announced from Iraq. Yet it is now plain that over the past several months, while Americans have been distracted by their presidential primaries, many things in Iraq have at long last started to go right.
This improvement goes beyond the fall in killing that followed General David Petraeus's “surge”. Iraq's government has gained in stature and confidence. Thanks to soaring oil prices it is flush with money. It is standing up to Iraq's assorted militias and asserting its independence from both America and Iran. The overlapping wars—Sunni against American, Sunni against Shia and Shia against Shia—that harrowed Iraq after the invasion of 2003 have abated. The country no longer looks in imminent danger of flying apart or falling into everlasting anarchy. In September 2007 this newspaper supported the surge not because we had faith in Iraq but only in the desperate hope that the surge might stop what was already a bloodbath from becoming even worse (see article). The situation now is different: Iraq is still a mess, but something approaching a normal future for its people is beginning to look achievable.
The guns begin to fall silent
As General Petraeus himself admits, and our briefing this week argues, the change is fragile, and reversible (see article). But it is real. Only a few months ago, Iraq was in the grip not only of a fierce anti-American insurgency but also of a dense tangle of sectarian wars, which America seemed powerless to stop. Those who thought it was just making matters worse by staying on could point to the bloody facts on the ground as evidence. But now it is time to look again. Each of those overlapping conflicts has lately begun to peter out.
A few Sunnis, motivated by Islam or simple resentment of foreign military occupation, continue to attack American forces. But many Sunni tribes, repelled by the atrocities committed by their former and often foreign allies in al-Qaeda, have joined the so-called Sunni awakening, the Sahwa, and crossed over to America's side. At the same time, Sunnis and Shias have stopped killing each other in the vast numbers that followed the blowing up of a Shia shrine in early 2006. General Petraeus's surge is only one reason for this. Another reason, less flattering to the Americans, is that after last year's frenzied ethnic cleansing fewer neighbourhoods are still mixed. But it is also the case that a lot of Iraqis, having waded briefly into the horror of indiscriminate sectarian slaughter, have for the present made a conscious decision to step back.
The conflict between Shias and Shias has died down too. In the past few weeks Iraq's prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, has belied a reputation for weakness by sending the army to take control of the port city of Basra and the Baghdad slum known as Sadr City, both strongholds until then of the powerful militia run by Muqtada al-Sadr, a vehemently anti-American Shia cleric. The fact that Mr Sadr considered it wise not to resist suggests not only that the army is now strong enough to out-face private militias but also that the state has acquired far greater political legitimacy, in Shia minds at least.
Needless to say, these conflicts could resume. The Sunnis fighting on America's side today could direct their fire back towards the Americans and Shias tomorrow if not enough room is made for them in the new, Shia-dominated order. On the Shia side, it is not clear whether Mr Sadr has given up violence for good. And his is not the only political movement to have a private army. Sunnis, Shias and Kurds alike still see their respective militias as a hedge against an uncertain future.
To that extent, Iraq is still far from normality. But if the calm survives, politics will at least have a chance. Mr Maliki's next job is therefore to go ahead with the provincial elections due before the end of the year. A good showing by the Sunnis, too few of whom voted in 2005, could bring them back into the political mainstream, enabling them to wield serious power in their own provinces at least. The elections can also provide a useful alternative path to power for the Sadrists, if they really have given up violence and decide to take part.
George Bush meanwhile has a further part to play, which consists mainly of not doing things that might tempt him. He should not, for example, attack Iran. One of the impressive things about Iraq's present government is its refusal to take sides between America and its next-door neighbour. It needs good relations with both if it is to prosper. Mr Bush has also to find a way to leave to his successor the business of negotiating a new agreement on the status of American forces in Iraq. This may become a toxic issue in Iraq's elections as the existing UN mandate expires. Mr Maliki is said to want a guarantee that America will defend its borders. His opponents accuse America of seeking permanent bases in Iraq, turning it into a vassal. It would be wrong for a lame duck in Washington to tie the hands of the next administration on such matters.
honeybees pollinate everything in the ecosystem. Honeybees disapperaring is not a good sign. They're disappearing in Alberta too. A beekeeper was on the local news yesterday to say someone had stolen all his hives. Since most people don't know how to handle them, and wouldn't know what to do with them, he assumed it was a fellow beekeeper. He thought the theif was motivated by the fact that there is a big bee shortage around the world.
There's also a problem with frog and bat populations, both of which have very permeable skin, which is sensitive to minute levels of toxins, in the enviroment.
GM crops are just another example of humans thinking they know what they are doing, when it comes to biology. Somehow, I doubt it.
As to the wolves, humans come first, of course, but I think it is sensible to always set aside a certain amount of land, that's just for wolves. Humans don't need to be everywhere. When we lose true wilderness, we lose a true gift from God.
And it's only by having wilderness, and experiencing it, that a person develops a proper mentality about nature, becomes attached to God's creation, and wants to protect it. In our city-driven culture, that mentality is dying. You want to make someone passionate about protecting the enviroment? Have them spend a few summers, as a kid, in God's creation.
No, you're right Sara. Al Gore is wrong. The debate is not over. If people are as, in the dark as I think they are, about the biological complexity and fragility around us, the debate hasn't even started. I think, this century, will be the Biological Century, in science. And we will learn more, about nature, than in the previous 2000 years. We will look back, to this time, in a hundred years, and shake our head, at human ignorance.
timbitts.. I thought that a good article.
It has a few strange thoughts in the last paragraph, though.
It says President Bush should not "attack" Iran.
I don't think he wants to or is aiming to (though he must be prepared to, of course).
I think that Israel will feel they must act to protect themselves..
and will draw in the US with them.. kicking and screaming.
It is, as President Bush said.. a complete LAST RESORT and not something he wants to do for fun.
As for the comment, "Mr Bush has also to find a way to leave to his successor the business of negotiating a new agreement on the status of American forces in Iraq. This may become a toxic issue in Iraq's elections as the existing UN mandate expires. Mr Maliki is said to want a guarantee that America will defend its borders. His opponents accuse America of seeking permanent bases in Iraq, turning it into a vassal. It would be wrong for a lame duck in Washington to tie the hands of the next administration on such matters." (end quote)
That also appears to me unrealistic.
Maliki and the Iraqis want a guarantee from America that America will defend its borders.. what guarantees would they have IF it were Obama in the Whitehouse of THAT? None.. even less than none.. he would leave them in the lurch (That is.. if his first word, no second.. no first stand, no second.. means anything). So I think Maliki MUST negotiate with the only FOR SURE friendly person around who MIGHT guarantee them safety.. GW Bush. If they think they might have NO deal with Obama.. the only rational course.. is to make a "for certain" deal with President Bush.. tying the hands of Obama (in the event he gets in) so he cannot leave them to Iran's slaughter.
That is how I think Maliki must realistically view it.
It isn't so much the Bush Administration tying the hands of the next President.. but Maliki trying to get a deal to ward off the possibility of a terrible deal his people CANNOT (literally) live with.. if Obama were to get in. Logically (since they are likely not going to believe me that McCain will get in).. the Iraqis will negotiate in their best interests.. within the confines of WHOEVER gets into the Whitehouse next. That must mean a deal NOW.. not later and with a new (and possibly hostile) American President. Since Obama changes his positions as often as the wind changes direction.. they cannot rely on his word on this.. when their lives are at stake. I wouldn't.. I can't see they would.
Just recently Obama flip-flopped on a very dear issue to his leftist base:
(This) decision, one of a number made by Mr. Obama in recent weeks... has brought him into serious conflict for the first time with liberal bloggers and commentators and his young supporters. “I don’t think there has been another instance where, in meaningful numbers, his supporters have opposed him like this,” said Glenn Greenwald, a Salon.com writer who opposes Mr. Obama’s new position. “For him to suddenly turn around and endorse this proposal is really a betrayal of what so many of his supporters believed he believed in.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02fisa.html?_r=2&ref=us&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Obama's considerable flip-flopping means that Iraq cannot rely on his word.. (however secretly or openly given) and it means that the Iraqis would do better negotiating with the current Bush Administration for an agreement they can LIVE with (literally) rather than beating about the bush and not coming to any agreement - hoping to rely on the good graces of whomever inhabits the Whitehouse next for an agreement before the end of the year.
So I think it foolish of the article's authors which you posted.. to say President Bush should not make a SOFA with the Iraqis when it can be an equitable agreement which will protect American interests in Iraq.. and protect the Iraqi people from invasion and destruction in the event the American people are foolish enough to elect a man so inexperienced that if his advice had been heeded to this point, the Iraqi people today would already be under Iran and have hundreds of thousands of dead by now (aka the killing fields and slaughter akin to a million dead as happened when the US pulled out of Vietnam). I don't wish to see THAT history repeat itself.. and a proper SOFA agreement now will see to it that it does not.. - "tying" the hands of the next Administration.. is definitely in the best interests of IRAQ - as an insurance policy for their very lives.
timbitts - I agree with you on the GM crops, on what you said about the honeybee, bat, frog and even setting aside some land for wolves so they can live freely. I also agree we need to be good stewards of the environment and use it well so we give the future generations good things, not evil.
As for genetic modification and the bees.. it isn't just the bees feeding on the GM crops in the fields (though that is a part of it, for sure) - I read on bee sites that they often "winter" the bees and feed them between fields on sugar.. and CORN SYRUP.. (it is often cheaper than honey) - guess which crops they modify genetically? CORN.. is one, of course - but they think it has no effect as they have been doing it for EONS.. but the new GM CORN crops are now showing up in the corn syrup they feed the bees.. and now we see the results of it as it feeds into the diet of the bees.. as a large part of their diet is now genetically modified corn syrup. I feel this is a very BIG contributing factor, certainly a key they overlook as a non-possibility. But then, they think they are so brilliant that it couldn't possibly be human caused. They are still looking for an infestation of parasites.. not for a human cause done by their genetic engineering. Mankind is so arrogant when it comes to thinking they know better and so modifying (technologically "improving") on the delicate balance of nature.
Sara,
I agree with your assesment, of the weaknesses, of that article. I figured you'd pick up on that. The Economist is a good magazine, but they aren't always right in their analysis. Obama is a weathervane. I'm sure Maliki knows that.
GM CROPS - The Backdoor Trojan to Monopolizing our FOOD SUPPLY.. (Love of money.. the root of all evil, including this one)
I also have brought up concerns and some of the problems with Genetic Modification of food crops and what a mistake it is to allow GM food into the human food supply without due diligence. NO long term studies on humans eating GM crops have ever been done.. because these crops have never existed before in human history. I recently learned that genetically modified food organisms put into the soil toxins.. which kills all the micro-organisms present in the soil. As a result.. these GM crops need a LOT of fertilizer to live.. which the fertilizer manufacturers (who also happen to sell the GM crops) just love. Hmmm.. ?? (Think about it.. )
GM crops make the ground sterile.. by inserting toxins into the soil. GM crops thus make the soils they are in unable to sustain any growth within that soil.. which is why a group of concerned humans "backed up" the seeds on the planet into a vault.. because they are worried mankind is making a grave mistake and we will find out soon enough that seeds no longer can grow in our GM soils. The only food that will be able to grow.. (with the help of their fertilizers, which you will have to pay for) is the Genetically Modified crops!! These crops will take over the planet. That is called a monopoly on the human food supply.. lucrative to those who own the patents on the only food which can be grown (with the "help" of their fertilizers), wouldn't you agree?
I am wondering (once we figure this out and reverse course) how long it will take until new microbes can grow in sterilized soil for us to grow new crops in again.. ?? And how will our children/grandchildren survive until then? (Not that the rich food giants will care about human quality of life.. their aim is pure filthy lucre.) As the planet moves to plant more and more GM crops.. (with the food giants saying things like their recent pitch of 'our varieties are engineered to be superior and work in drought conditions - such as is happening now with "Global Warming"') - as they kill more and more soil with their microbe destroying crops.. there will come a tipping point.. where the food giants aquire monopolies on food (through modifying all our major crops in the food supply). This will mean we pay a high price as the variety and micronutrients which our bodies depend upon disappears for years to come - while the food giants get richer and richer as they monopolize our food supply with their (relatively fewer, but lucrative) genetic crops whose wastes destroy the microbes the soil needs for the unpatented varieties of plants to survive. And all in the name of progress.. and technological advancement.. and science!!
Blind leaders of the blind!
Mat 15:14 ... they are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
They are blinded by greed.. by money.. and by the incredible ability to make money on the food supply as they monopolize it. All with the support and help of government.. in the name of "technological advancement" and "science". How these modern gods are as dehumanizing and harmful to human life as the old ones who required human sacrifices and blood.
Yes I am a favour of nuclear energy, in the future when Hydrogen car technology have been mastered, nuclear power plants could very well supply all the needed Hydrogen.
As a car technology, well Hydrogen is not there just yet, the car models, are on the experimental side, but we're getting there.
I can very well envision nuclear power plants being the producer of Hydrogen in large quantity. It is doable.
Every oil scare will push forward this, and other propulsion's techniques.
The -70's oil scare layed the ground for this movement, but we slipped into a long period of cheap oil, and very little was done. The -70's experiments were mostly small private enterprises, or home tinkerers, that resulted in an article in a technical magazine somewhere, and after that you heard noting more from that project.
This time around, the big car manufacturers have got the idea though, and are actually investing in other technologies and are showing off different models, may it be hybrids, or they are using other form of energy other than gas, or just plain more fuel efficient cars. Each new car show have some new fantastic development that the car manufacturers are unveiling with camera flashes, and bikini girls.
Eventually they will come up with a working system. At least as it seems from the side line, they are almost there.
The technology is so much better compared with the -70's, and I have great hopes that they actually will make it.
The Tesla car, yes I am aware about that car, it is especially designed as a sports car, and have sacrificed size weight and space for a rocket ride, thus they have got a decent range on it, the performance is really good.
Can they get a family car, seating four, go down on the performance and instead use the energy to compensate for the bigger vehicle, they may have a fighting chance to make a vehicle that make sense for the common man.
The price tag for this car, in the six digit numbers, must, if electric cars are to be sold, come down to really affordable numbers.
The cost of Hybrids, or electric cars are still today one of the most prohibitive reasons they will not take off in the main stream. Hybrids are selling pretty good right now, but they will never be main stream, meaning, being the majority of cars on the road, until the price tag is under control.
When all this Hydrogen, Electric, or Hybrids, have a price tag that will put a teenager, into one, and you see them as being the most common car on a College campus, then you have got your break through.
With all the renewed efforts to get another way to propulse our cars, we might actually get something decent done this time around, but I do believe that king oil will be the winner for quite some time.
The technology for producing a gasoline or diesel car, is so well understood, and so refined, that they can be produced very cheap, compared with hybrids, or electric cars.
The push right now, is more fuel efficient cars, the status car , like the Suv, in the -90's is the Hybrid.
You and I and everybody and his brother knows that the guy that are riding a Hybrid have payed between 10 to 20 .000 Dollars more for this thing than similar model, as a gasoliner only.
I don't particular think that people in general are thinking on the green side when they buy a car, they for sure are aware of it, and probably wish they would be able to afford a Hybrid, ...."but for now, a smaller gasser will serve just fine.", its so much cheaper.
So you get into the catch 22 syndrome.
Just because fewer are buying it, means that that technology will be more expensive to produce, and thus the Hybrid stays expensive.
About a year or so back, the Iranians announced that they are switching to a higher efficient centrifuge.
I just want to discuss that a little bit so we know what the Iranians are doing.
First the problem they are facing and how they are solving it.
They seem to know what they are doing when it comes to enriching Uranium.
Uranium is the only (now known)existing metal ( or mineral) existing in nature that can be split in a fission process.
Uranium ore needs to have as much Uranium as possible, and be as pure as possible, in order for it to be processed into further enrichment.
The Pakistani guy that sold all the nuclear technology to N.Korea, to Iran, to Libya and so on, had made some short cuts, seems like, because the North Korean bomb didn't have either a high yield, or it did fizzle.
Any of these processes needed to process Uranium, need to have pretty much precision instruments, and ( I suspect) that the North Koreans, flunked.
The North Koreans blew a bomb, but still today there is a debate whether the bomb fizzled, or they just didn't have refinery capacity enough, to to make a bigger bomb.
If he N.Koreans bomb fizzled, that may very well have alarmed the Iranians.
A fizzled nuclear bomb, will start its chain reaction, but fail to ignite part of the fuel, that it instead just spewed out as dust in the explosion. That will be a very dirty bomb, not that the Iranians care, unless they are themselves the victims of their own fallout.
A very high probability if Iran's intended victims are either US installations in the Gulf, or Israel, and then prevailing winds will take the dust back to Iran.
So they most probably have had a thinker at that particular moment, and concluded that they must use proven technology. The centrifuges they have now is highly efficient centrifuges called Zippe, centrifuge, after the German ( of course ) inventor.
Commercial Uranium refining companies, are today mostly using these type of centrifuges. The basic principal is very well known, but the particular handling, settings and calibration of them are either state or company secrets.
There are a lot of methods to refine Uranium, all of them works, but the centrifuge method is the most widely used method, in order to process as high volume as possible.
Uranium ore have better than 99% of Uranium 238 in it, , and only a fraction of Uranium 235 in it. The trick is to get out the Uranium 235. That is the "Hot" Uranium.
Uranium 238 is not particular radioactive, pretty inert , but very heavy, heavier than lead and gold. In this part of the process, the Uranium 238 is also called "Depleted Uranium" and is used for counter weights in commercial airplanes rudders, for core filling in bullets, and other areas where a low volume, high weight is desirable.
Only some is used, but most of it is just stored away.
The Uranium is taken from high concentrated Uranium ore, where both U 238 and U 235 is present, and then the Uranium is made into gas form, where it is put into a centrifuge and rotated. The very small difference in weight will be amplified in a centrifuge in where gravity is many times higher than normal earth gravitation, and thus there will be a possibility to separate the two Isotopes from each other.
Just by the fact that they switched to a more highly efficient method, shows that they are doing everything they can to speed up the enrichment process.
The good thing is , that it is a very very slow process, an element heavier than lead, make it a gas, spin it, and then back to solid form again is very slow.
The Iranians are probably weighing different options, how reliable and clean the bomb must be, against how quick and how many they can get.
The numbers they are dealing with is the amount of weight of U235 per time unit they can process, against a bomb that at a minimum has to be 20% enriched.
A 20% enriched bomb, will go bang, but probably the North Koreans went that way, in order to show off as quick as possible, and it didn't really go bang.
For the N.Koreans it worked, because what they were more than eager to do, was to use it as another blackmail on the west, and they got it, food is now pouring into N.Korea from their enemies. (us)
The more enriched it is, the more reliably it will go into an uncontrolled chain reaction. (go bang).
Iranians have another idea about it, they are not after food rations, but they really need this thing to go bang and make as much havoc in Israel or the US, so they have to have as much refined Uranium as possible in their war heads.
Israel or the US or both, just have to take out these fascists, and do it as soon as possible.
Probably there will be a pre emptive strike either by Israel, or both Israel and the US at the same time.
Iranians will most probably respond with missiles sent back onto Israel, a move that today is less likely to have a full effect. The Patriot missiles fired as an anti missile defence in the Gulf War, in the early -90, have been refined and refined again. In that war, they did a decent job, but missed a disturbing amount of times.
Today, most probably, they can be used with the confidence that they will hit.
The techniques of finding SCUD missiles , have also come up quite a bit. In the gulf War, a lot of air power had to be diverted into finding SCUD launchers, they were pretty elusive.
Most probably the Iranians SCUDS, will do much less harm today than what the SCUDS did during the Gulf War.
That will make a really big problem for the Iranians if they happen to have a ready to go nuclear war head, at the time of the conflict.
If the Iranians have very few or only a handful of war heads, and their scuds, their main delivery system is very vulnerable, they will most probably not stuff one of those into a SCUD.
The war planners have most probably set it up in such a fashion that the initial strike will not be nuclear, if the Iranians don't answer with nuclear weapons, the reminder of the conflict will probably not go nuclear.
The problem for the war planners are most probably that the Iranians have buried their facilities so deep that only a nuclear device will be able to take it out.
So one of the options is then, to have reliable intelligence that will say whether they are ready or not with the nuclear war head.
If they are not ready, then the nuclear production facilities actually doesn't have to be nuclear bombed, conventional war fare can take place, but it must involve an invasion and a take over of the country. ( and thus also the nuclear facilities).
The dilemma is a PR dilemma for Israel or the US. To be the first to initiate a nuclear blast on the others territory is a public opinion consideration, but if the threat is high enough, Israel or the US will nuclear blast the facility, as the security of Israel, or the US will have a higher priority.
Either way, the Iranians have been spinning highly efficient centrifuges lately, and are getting their high grade Uranium by the minute, so the clock is ticking.
If the Nuclear facilities in Iran is blasted with a nuclear bomb, the over turn of the regime, may be possible without any occupation. This is only a maybe, much ground intelligence is needed on this point.
If the hopes is on the fall of the Iranian regime, without invading, but with the nuclear facilities nuclear blasted, the regime can not be left with all it's controlling needs, so a substantial bomb campaign must take place to take out as much of the regimes, controlling mechanism as possible.
Their radio and TV stations, as much as possible of the Revolutionary Guard, as much as possible of their governmental infrastructure, their military communications and so on. The bombings must have the effect of being very hard or impossible to move around, to put a light on, to make anything rotate ( take out the electric grid) to make a call, to get over to the other side of the bridge.
Basically, take out as much as possible of the regimes arm.
If that is in the plan, I don't know, but the plan could work if this was given a chance, but in case it fails, the same bombings will make it so much easier to invade, with a lesser force than it normally would have taken.
I am very very curious in how this will play out, but the end result will have to be one thing only, and that is clear for any and all that have an IQ above room temperature, the Iranian regime has to go.
So the centrifuges I talked about it earlier, have speeded up not only the enrichment process, but also the time and date for the conflict.
If the Iranians have been able to make ONE bomb only, and want to make as much harm on the US, or Israel as possilbe, they will blow it up in Tehran, during the bombing campaign, blaming the US for the deed.
The Iranian fascist , they don't care.
AlJazeera will run with it for ever, covering the Arabian TV public, no matter what proofs they are served.
Baghdad - Voices of Iraq
Thursday , 03 /07 /2008 Time 12:29:29
AMMAN, July 2 (VOI) – The Iraqi-Japanese economic forum will start in the Jordanian capital Amman on Wednesday with the participation of Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi.
The forum aims to discuss means to develop oil and chemical industries, reconstruction operations in Iraq as well as encouraging the Japanese companies to take part in rebuilding the country and to find investment opportunities in Iraq.
“Iraqi Industry Minister Fawzi al-Hariri will inaugurate the two-day forum, during which Iraqi and Japanese officials will discuss means to develop oil and chemical industries and the reconstruction operation as well as the Japanese companies’ contribution within this context,” well-known sources told Aswat al-Iraq – Voices of Iraq (VOI) correspondent.
“The Iraqi delegation led by Vice President Tare al-Hashemi will seek to talk with the Japanese businessmen on the increasing investment opportunities after the improvement of the security condition in the country,” the sources added.
Al-Hashemi, Japanese deputy minister of economy and a number of officials will deliver speeches in the opening ceremony of the forum.
Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi arrived in Amman on Tuesday afternoon leading an Iraqi delegation to take part in the Iraqi-Japanese economic forum on July 2-3.
The two-day forum will be attended by more than 200 participants, including the biggest Japanese companies and banks, to encourage the Japanese companies to enter the Iraqi market and contribute in rebuilding the country and rehabilitating oil, energy, and electricity sectors.
(www.aswataliraq.info)
More flip-flopping by Hussein on Iraq. The McCain camp must call him to task on this one.
__________________________________________________________
Obama signals flexibility on Iraq
Wed Jul 2, 2008 11:25am EDT By Steve Holland - Analysis
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama's presidential campaign is signaling more flexibility on his pledge to quickly pull U.S. troops out of Iraq if elected as part of a move toward the political center.
Obama's emerging shift of nuance on Iraq, the signature issue that helped him defeat Democrat rival Hillary Clinton to win his party's presidential nomination, comes as he prepares to make his first trip to Iraq.
The Illinois senator has repeatedly pledged to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, one brigade every month until all are out in 16 months. Last September he argued, "the best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops."
Aides say Obama is still committed to the 16-month goal but they appear to be leaving him wiggle room now that the U.S. troop surge is credited with bringing some stability there.
Susan Rice, a top Obama foreign policy adviser, told MSNBC on Tuesday that "we absolutely have to draw down and redeploy our forces from Iraq."
"But he has said over and over again we have to be as careful getting out as George Bush was careless getting in. So he will redeploy our forces responsibly, at a rate that our commanders say is safe and sustainable."
Letting commanders have a say in the pace of withdrawal is new language from the Obama campaign.
Anthony Lake, who was Democratic President Bill Clinton's national security adviser and now a senior Obama foreign policy adviser, told the Financial Times Obama would maintain a "residual force for clearly defined missions" in Iraq.
This would include military training and "preparedness to go back in if there are specific acts of genocidal violence."
Lake compared the Iraq war to the conflict in Vietnam in citing the need to leave behind a functioning Iraqi government.
"It is common sense that we could not leave Vietnam successfully unless we left behind a government in Saigon that could govern successfully," he told the newspaper, lamenting that this view was not obvious enough to many U.S. politicians at the time.
Obama recently has been shifting toward more moderate positions on several key issues -- Republicans call it politically expedient flip-flopping -- now that he has won his party's nomination and will face Republican John McCain in the November 4 election.
He abandoned a vow to reopen the North American Free Trade Agreement for renegotiations with Mexico and Canada, did not oppose a Supreme Court decision last week striking down Washington's gun ban and has said he would support expanding the government's wiretap authority.
LIBERALS TAKE NOTICE
The liberal left that helped propel Obama to the nomination is taking notice.
"I can unequivocally say: the Obama campaign is making a very serious mistake," said Ariana Huffington, writing on the liberal Huffington Post blog. "Tacking to the center is a losing strategy."
Republicans, however, are skeptical that Obama, once considered the most liberal senator in Washington, is really becoming a centrist.
"Some of these things, he's trying to look centrist," said Republican strategist John Feehery. "But the fact is, he's going to go hard left."
McCain is a strong backer of current U.S. Iraq strategy. He has repeatedly pounded Obama for never having met with the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, who is to report to Congress again this month on the effects of the troop surge ordered by President George W. Bush in early 2007.
McCain has said he believes the Iraq war can be won by 2013, leaving a functioning democracy there and allowing most U.S. troops to come home.
A Time magazine poll last week said McCain leads Obama on the Iraq issue 48 percent to 38 percent, although 56 percent said they would like to see troops brought home within the next two years.
By moderating his Iraq pledges, Obama risks angering liberals frustrated by the inability of Democrats to get U.S. troops out of Iraq since winning control of Congress in 2006.
Democratic strategist Liz Chadderdon predicted Obama would talk less and less about a timeline for withdrawal but would not change his core position that U.S. troops must leave Iraq.
"If Obama completely reversed on getting out of Iraq, I do think the base would walk away," she said. "I think he knows that and I think you'll never hear him say that."
But she said that in general, Democrats are willing to let Obama straddle some issues.
"We want to go back into the White House. And if that means we have to give him a longer leash on certain issues, we're going to give him a leash," she said.
(www.reuters.com)
Iraq no-bid oil deals could be in doubt -lawmakers
Thu Jul 3, 2008 5:02am EDT By Ahmed Rasheed
BAGHDAD, July 3 (Reuters) - Iraqi Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani has told lawmakers that short-term technical support contracts with oil majors worth around $3 billion may not get signed, two parliamentarians said.
The lawmakers, the two top officials on parliament's oil and gas committee, told Reuters late on Wednesday that Shahristani was unhappy with delays in getting the contracts agreed. One sticking point was payment terms, they said.
The six no-bid contracts are worth about $500 million each and are intended to quickly raise Iraq's oil output by a combined 500,000 barrels per day.
Iraq's proven reserves, at 115 billion barrels, are the world's largest after Saudi Arabia and Iran. But decades of war and sanctions have hobbled production.
"The oil companies are not enthusiastic about signing the contracts and there is a big possibility we will not sign them," Ali Hussain Balou, head of the committee, quoted Shahristani as telling the committee in a closed-door meeting on Wednesday.
Royal Dutch Shell (RDSa.L: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz); Shell in partnership with BHP Billiton (BHP.AX: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz); BP (BP.L: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz); Exxon Mobil (XOM.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and Chevron (CVX.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) in partnership with Total (TOTF.PA: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) are the key Western firms negotiating for the no bid contracts.
The deals are separate from long-term development contracts that dozens of foreign energy firms are expected to bid for on the country's largest producing oilfields. Shahristani unveiled those fields and outlined bidding terms on Monday.
Before he met with the oil and gas committee, Shahristani told Reuters at parliament that the short-term technical support contracts were supposed to act as bridging deals to raise production before Iraq put its giant fields out to tender.
"These technical support agreements were meant to be signed at the start of the year. We have already lost six months," Shahristani said.
Asked if Iraq was close to signing the deals, he said: "We don't know, as long as talks are continuing."
FRUSTRATION
Shahristani had already shown frustration over the delays, telling a news conference on Monday the firms were reluctant to sign because they would offer their advice from abroad and preferred to be hands on with the fields.
The short-term technical support contracts might give the majors involved a headstart in bidding for the long-term deals.
Abdul-Hadi al-Hasani, the deputy head of the oil committee and who was also in Wednesday's meeting with Shahristani, separately told Reuters that payment terms were a problem. He did not elaborate.
"Shahristani told us ... there is a possibility the technical support agreements will not be signed," he said.
Balou said Shahristani promised to send copies of any long-term contracts to the committee so they could review them. The committee must have the right to scrutinise those deals or it would try to block them, Balou said on Tuesday.
Shahristani has said he hopes the long-term deals could be signed in June 2009 to raise output by a combined 1.5 million bpd. He said Iraq aimed to raise output to 4.5 million bpd by 2013 from the current 2.5 million bpd.
The move should mark the return of the oil majors after an absence of decades.
Iraq's cabinet agreed a new draft national oil law in February last year, but it has failed to get through parliament partly because of disputes with the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) over control of reserves and contracts. The government says it can use an existing law to move ahead on deals.
(www.reuters.com)
Iraq eyes 3 mln bpd oil output by 2009: Sharistani
Tue Jul 1, 2008 1:28am EDT
FRANKFURT (Reuters) - Iraq aims to increase its crude oil production to about 3 million barrels per day (bpd) by 2009, a German newspaper on Tuesday quoted Iraqi Oil Minister Hussain al-Sharistani as saying.
"We are aiming to produce around 3 million barrels per day of oil by next year," al-Sharistani told Die Welt daily.
Recent reports in Western media that Iraq would be able to increase output to 4 million bpd were "exaggerated," al-Sharistani said. "We will not achieve that."
Iraq "urgently needs foreign investments," he said. In 2013, the country's oil output could reach 4.5 million bpd with the help of foreign oil companies, the minister said.
(Reporting by Peter Starck; Editing by Tomasz Janowski)
(www.reuters.com)
Jordan king set to visit Iraq in first by Arab leader since war
Jordan's Abdullah will visit Iraq soon in what would be the first trip by an Arab head of state since the 2003 war.
03 July 2008 (AFP)
Print article Send to friend
Jordan's King Abdullah II will visit Iraq soon, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said on Wednesday, in what would be the first trip by an Arab head of state since the 2003 war.
No date has been set for the visit, which follow's Jordan's appointment of an ambassador to Baghdad on Monday, Zebari said at a press briefing.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and German Economy Minister Michael Glos are also expected to visit Iraq.
"These visits will take place soon," Zebari said, without providing further details.
Washington has been pushing its Arab allies, notably regional heavyweight Saudi Arabia, to send ambassadors and high-level officials to Baghdad to help shore up support for the country's Shiite leadership.
Jordan had announced on Monday it had appointed an ambassador to Iraq where its embassy has been run by a charge d'affaires since it came under a deadly attack in 2003.
"Nayef Zeidan, who has served as a consul in the United Arab Emirates for two years, was sworn in today by King Abdullah II and will leave for Iraq as soon as possible," a foreign ministry spokesman said on Monday.
The move came after Baghdad agreed last month during a visit to Amman by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to to renew a 2006 deal to sell discounted oil to its neighbour, which relies on Iraq for most of its fuel needs.
Jordan has kept its embassy open in Baghdad even after the mission came under attack in August 2003, five months after the US-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.
Jordan is currently sheltering hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees.
Last month, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, both US allies, also announced plans to appoint ambassadors to Baghdad while Saudi Arabia said in April it would reopen its embassy in Iraq only when security is restored.
The Sunni-ruled Arab monarchies of the region have been reluctant to upgrade ties with Iraq, not just because of insecurity in the country but also because of its Shiite-led government's perceived tilt toward non-Arab Shiite Iran.
The United States hopes that these countries will also offer financial support to Iraq and counterbalance the influence of Iran, which US President George W. Bush has accused of negative interference in Iraqi affairs.
(www.iraqupdates.com)
03 July 2008 (Azzaman)
Print article Send to friend
The central government and the Kurdish authorities have signed a secret deal under which the Kurds are to extend their political autonomy over their oil riches, a senior member of parliament said.
Jaber Khaleefa of the parliament’s Oil and Gas Committee said the secret deal has allowed both sides to proceed ahead with contracts with foreign firms despite the lack of constitutional backing.
The parliament has failed to pass a draft and oil and gas law drawn to regularize the exploitation of the country’s oil wealth and the distribution of sales proceeds.
The draft has failed to draw the minimum majority necessary to turn it into law. Opponents hoped that no concessions or deals with foreign firms would be made as long as it was not ratified.
But the sides have been signing deals despite the lack of necessary constitutional arrangements.
The Kurds have signed 17 such deals and the government has struck 35.
The parliament is asking for an oversight but the opponents lack the two-thirds majority needed to stop the deals.
As the flurry of oil development contracts goes, the sides have ratcheted up criticism of each other’s polices, apparently to detract criticism of their secret dealings, according to the legislators, who only spoke on condition of anonymity.
Kurdish authorities have branded central government’s deals as illegal while the central government says Kurdish deals are null and void.
Oil analysts say the oil contract rush and counter accusations signal lack of confidence, transparency and the existence of central authority in the country.
Oil development conditions are “very encouraging” in a country with reserves that are among the world’s largest, said one analyst.
The situation has encouraged other regions to mull signing their oil deals with foreign firms.
The analyst said foreign firms, with their own intelligence, were sending mixed signals to Iraq.
He said there were signs that some of the firms with deals with the central government in Baghdad had approached the provincial authorities in the southern city of Basra for separate contracts.
Iraq’s most prolific oil fields are situation in the province which is also home to some of the largest, yet undeveloped, fields in the world.
(www.iraqupdates.com)
You are welcome, Roger. :)
I am very glad you watched the whole program..
and YES, it should be taught in schools.
It has been widely seen and also believed in England.
In this June 25 2008 article (url below), it says, "recent polls in England report over 60% of the British public believe global warming is total "balderdash"..."
It also makes mention of, "the 19,000 scientists (among them 9,000 PhD's) signing on to labeling Kyoto and its offspring as a hoax."
As they say, you can fool some of the people some of the time..
but you cannot fool ALL the people ALL of the time. :)
Rob N - Great articles!
I did notice the most recent flip-flop of Obama's you posted.. this one on Iraq.
(They call it "becoming centrist" - but it is nothing more than flip-flopping from his previous position -
McCain would never get such a "free ride" from the press for such flip-flopping, you can be sure.)
Since OB does whatever is expedient to him.. and the Iraqis don't know who will be in the Whitehouse..
the Iraqis would do well to get an agreement in writing BEFORE a change in Administration -
since their lives should not have the possibility of being subject to any fickleness or temptation to throw them under a bus.. for the next politically expedient thing.
I agree with you. Using nuclear energy, to produce larqe quantities of hydrogen, are possible, and quite possible, but there are still technical challenges, to over come. That was my impression, looking into it.
But the technical challenges can be met.
The underlying science, to do this all, is well known, as you point out. But money is still needed, to commit the resources, to working out the technical solutions, which are needed to make practical, the theoretical.
The real question is political leadership. If America pursues research into the next generation of nuclear plants, that requires a large scale financial committment, from the government, to fund research, for a long time. It's similar to the space program. It's not off the shelf technology, and private business will not fund the research, because it takes too long, and is too expensive, and the potential financial payout is too far in the future. That's why Uncle Sam needs to step in. It's for the good of the country.
And the only candidate, that supports nuclear energy?
John MaCain
He has said he will build 45 new plants.
The green movement made it's biggest mistake ever, going against nuclear energy. Many countries are ahead of the Americans on this, because of the political mistake 30 years ago, by the Democrats, and the enviromental movement, to turn against nuclear power. A new nuclear plant hasn't been built in America in 30 years. Very little research has been done, in 30 years, in America, on this.
The Green Movement turned on nuclear energy because the first generation of nuclear plants were inherently unsafe. Edward Teller, the father of the H-bomb, let the designers of the first nuclear plants, know exactly what they were doing, that was unsafe. They put too much emphasis on humans managing the plants, and humans make mistakes. They ignored Teller's advice, for safe design.
Hyman Rickover, (Jimmy Carter's big hero) the father of the American nuclear navy, was involved in this poor decision. The pushed a design that was unsafe, because it was cheaper and quicker to build. He ignored Teller's advice on building safe technology.
That's why 3 Mile Island happened, and the public turned against nuclear.
Nuclear energy can be safe, and eventually power the whole planet. And it can be made very safe, and it can be made in such a way, as to minimize radioactive material used in making bombs.
But all that requires a long term committment from the government.
And, once the technical difficulties are worked out, this energy can produce vast quantitities of hydrogen. And if hydrogen were produced from this virtually unlimited energy, America could run it's vehicles off this hydrogen. You can run an automobile on hydrogen, or a truck, or almost anything, once the technology is perfected.
And that means, eventually, America won't have to buy oil off the Arabs. And that means America could get richer, selling this technology to the world. And that means America could help clean up pollution, since, as Roger pointed out, the only emmissions from a hydrogen vehicle, is water.
And that means, when I visit LA, the air would be so clean, I might actually enjoy breathing it! (instead of cursing and wondering how people could live here)
I agree the Iranian regime has to go. Nuclear Bunker Buster Bombs could take out any underground nuclear facility.
Take out their army, too.
America took only 3 weeks, to completely demolish the Iraqi military. However, taking on the various factions involved in the insurgency, trying to stitch back Iraq, and get it's various ethnic and religious factions, to work together, is taking years. And may take years, yet. If America is foolish enough to invade Iran, and take over the entire country, the same thing will happen. I don't support any such foolishness.
Invade Iran? No way. Too much trouble.
That option should be taken off the table.
Take out the Iranian military, in a couple of weeks, sure. Leave the Iranian military just barely strong enough to manage their own country, sure. But try to run Iran for them? Invade and occuply Iran? That would be a critical mistake, for America.
America has it's hands full, trying to re-build Iraq. I say, destroy most of the Iranian Army, Navy and Airforce, take out their nuclear facilities, and leave the common Iranian people in the country alone, to sort out their own problems. They will take care of their leaders, themselves, in time, once Uncle Sam shows them the mess their leaders have gotten them into, by pursuing a nuclear agenda.
Bush's Iraq report ignored by U.S. media
www.chinaview.cn 2008-07-03
WASHINGTON, July 3 (Xinhua) -- There's little media reaction to a new Bush administration report touting "progress" in Iraq, U.S. Media Research Center said Thursday.
The administration had expected the report to be a big news Tuesday, which claimed that Iraq had made satisfactory progress on 15 of the 18 political benchmarks set by the United States.
But the Media Research Center said in a finding that there wasn't a word about the report on the CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, or ABC's World News Tonight.
The New York Times also ignored the story, and the Washington Post relegated its coverage of the report to page eight.
(includes running for President, healthcare, Jerusalem, and "Obama Has Been Inconsistent In His Views On Labeling Iran's Revolutionary Guard A Terrorist Organization" among others).
Obama has a list of flip-flops that would destroy most candidates. The media would be all over this if it were a Republican. However, since Obama is their golden boy they paint the picture as “re-calibrating” his thoughts, and simply "tacking to the center." Hopefully America can see through the media’s spin on the truth that Obama is just another politician. There is nothing new about his politics, except perhaps the audacity of their transparency.
With Obama doing SO MANY flip-flops.. can America trust the country's security to him?
Can Iraq trust their future security to any (possible) agreement with him, either?
Iraq can say no to negotiating with Obama now by making agreements with the Bush Administration.
We have to wait until November until we can see that the common sense of the American people has not been lost..
and that they do indeed see though the media's spin and vote by what truly matters - the issues, integrity, honesty, responsibility, experience.
Carole and board;
While I am on the topic of flip-flops of Obama..
I thought you might like to know..
Obama now supports gay marriage in California.
Also a note on how this could affect Iraq (see final comments/application):
===
Obama flips again: gay marriage
July 1, 2008
by Ed Morrissey
Barack Obama has reversed himself yet again, but this time he has done a double backflip with a half-twist to the Left. After previously saying he opposed gay marriage and that he respected the rights of states to set conditions for marriage, Obama has now said that he opposes California’s initiative to ban gay marriage — and that he would use federal law to end such efforts.
QUOTE:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who previously said the issue of gay marriage should be left up to each state, has announced his opposition to a California ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriages.
In a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club read Sunday at the group’s annual Pride Breakfast in San Francisco, the Illinois senator said he supports extending “fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law.”
“And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states,” Obama wrote.
Obama had previously said he opposes same-sex marriage but that each state should make its own decision.
===(end quote)
His letter to the Alice B. Toklas GLBT Democratic Club will effectively toss traditional marriage under the same bus as his opposition to FISA reform and his pledge for public financing. However, his allies on the Left will enjoy the reversal on this position much more than they did with his other flip-flops, even if they have to wonder how long this new position will last.
Once again, voters have to ask themselves what Obama is thinking. I’m no big fan of the gay-marriage ban, but we’re getting past the point of the issues themselves and what all of these reversals mean about the candidate. There are only three possibilities for why Barack Obama has had to change his mind on almost every policy he has mentioned in this campaign:
1) He’s a liar who says what each audience wants to hear.
2) The election debate has changed his perspective on every issue.
3) He has no clue on any of the issues.
Only the second reflects any positive quality, that of open-mindedness, but it also carries with it the underlying unreadiness of a man who has only three years of national political experience for the Presidency. Assuming the best of intentions, Obama has no firm stands on any principle or policy. That doesn’t even recommend Obama as a Senator, let alone a President. If option 2 is the case, he needs to set out this election while he makes up his mind.
The most disturbing aspect of this new reversal is Obama’s sudden abandonment of federalism. What happened to letting California decide on the public recognition of marriage? This twist reveals a little more of what we can expect from a "President Obama" — a further aggrandizing of power in Washington DC and a reduction of the scope of authority for state and local communities.
Rumor has Team Obama bolstering its outreach to evangelicals. How long before this reversal gets reversed?
Once again.. might I point out..
Why would Iraq wait and see if Obama gets in?
They want a slit throat if it becomes unpopular to be on their side..
and abandoning them to the wolves (Iran) looks like a more popular political opinion?
After all, Obama said (last post) that he was totally unsure that the Iranian revolutionary guard even is terrorist.
(See "Obama Has Been Inconsistent In His Views On Labeling Iran's Revolutionary Guard A Terrorist Organization", above.)
And since he would negotiate without precondition with Iran.. who knows where that COULD go??
What concessions would he have to give to show he had made "progress" with negotiating with Iran?
Throwing Iraqis under the bus?
It happened with Vietnam.. didn't it?
One off topic post.. which says that GM crops may harm the environment for thousands of years..
It may be scare-mongering (I hope so!).. or it could be realistic about the dangers we face to the earth's soil due to man's arrogance.
We just don't know yet. (Though the GE food giants likely say "the debate is over" - as the Global Warming people do.)
I thought it worth mentioning.. in case you care about the food supply.. the future of the human race.. your own decendants, or the environment in general.
QUOTE:
unlike natural Bt toxin... (NOTE: GM toxins are not like anything natural - including toxins now in the earth's environment, they are NEW and UNLIKE natural toxins.. how long do these new toxins remain active biologically?)
BT: DNA released from living and dead cells can persist in the environment and be transferred to other organisms. An organism may be dead, but its "naked" DNA released from decaying cells may remain biologically active for potentially thousands of years, especially in certain soils and marine sediments.
And, quote, "... the active toxin produced by Bt crops do not disappear when added to soil, but become rapidly bound to soil particles, and are not broken down by soil microbes.
They .. are not broken down by soil microbes
Hmm.. what will that mean (??) when it also says genetic modification results in, "Changes in levels, species, and DNA fingerprints of soil micro organisms"... This is modifying the DNA of soil micro organisms.. potentially for thousands of years..??
Hmmm..
But we humans arrogantly know everything about this brand new science.... of genetically modifying our food supply..
so we just should trust blindly that everyone involved is doing a stellar job and has our best interests at heart..
and will "first, do no harm" - (though below is proof of harm)..
After all, it won't affect you.. or your decendants.. or your food supply.. right?
(Golly.. look at the bees.. the bats.. the frogs.. purely coincidental.. right?)
Silly greenies.. worry about nothing real.. or harmful.. don't they?
====
2.2.6. CLAIM: GE-CROPS HAVE NO HARMFUL EFFECT ON SOIL ECOLOGY
- BT: GE crops are building up Bt toxins in the soil, damaging the soil food web and harming beneficial insects. (Gene Exchange, Union of Concerned Scientsts, Fall/Winter 1998)
- BT: New York University researchers found out that unlike natural Bt toxin, the active toxin produced by Bt crops do not disappear when added to soil, but become rapidly bound to soil particles, and are not broken down by soil microbes. The researchers contend that these GE Bt toxins can build up in the soil, killing Bt-sensitive soil organisms and increasing selection pressure for resistance to develop. In addition, a broader range of organisms is likely to be susceptible to the active, GE toxins. (See: Seedling, Mar 1999, Vol 16 No 1)
- BT: "Bound humic acid-toxin complexes were toxic to larvae of the tobacco hornwork (Manduca sexta). The lethal concentration necessary to kill 50% of the larvae (LC50) of the bound toxin was comparable with that of the free toxin, indicating that the binding of the toxin to humic acids did not affect insecticidal activity... The result of these studies indicate that the toxins from B. thuringiensis introduced in transgenic plants and microbes could persist, accumulate, and remain insecticidal in soil as a result of binding to humic acids, as well as on clays, as previously described. This persistence could pose a hazard to non-target organisms and enhance the selection of toxin-resistant target species." (See: C.Crecchio and G.Stotzky 1998. Insecticidal activity and biodegradation of the toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Kurstaki bound to humic acids from soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 30: 463-470). See also: J. Koskella and G. Stotzky, "Microbial Utilization of Free and Clay-Bound Insecticidal Activity after Incubation with Microbes," Applied and Env. Microbiology, Sep 1997: 3561-3568. See further: H. Tapp and G. Stotzky, "Persistence of the Insecticidal Toxin from Bt subsp. Kurstaki in Soil," Soil Biology and Biochemistry, Vol 30 No 4 1998: 471-476.)
- BT: DNA released from living and dead cells can persist in the environment and be transferred to other organisms. An organism may be dead, but its "naked" DNA released from decaying cells may remain biologically active for potentially thousands of years, especially in certain soils and marine sediments. (30) Naked DNA (nucleic acids) ingested by mice can be transferred to offspring and be voided and spread in animals' feces. (2) (See: "Will genetically engineered crops mean adulterated and toxic food, bodies, and ecosystems?", Michael W. Fox, Senior Scholar/ Bioethics, The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037)
- BT: Bt toxin present in crop foliage plowed under after harvest can adhere to soil colloids for up to 3 months, negatively affecting the soil invertebrate populations that break down organic matter and play other ecological roles. (See: Donnegan, K.K., C.J. Palm, V.J. Fieland, L.A. Porteous, L.M. Ganis, D.L. Scheller and R.J. Seidler (1995) Changes in levels, species, and DNA fingerprints of soil micro organisms associated with cotton expressing the Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki endotoxin. Applied Soil Ecology 2, 111-124. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA) (See also: Palm, C.J., D.L. Schaller, K.K. Donegan and R.J. Seidler (1996) Persistence in Soil of Transgenic Plant Produced Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kustaki (-endotoxin. Canadian Journal of Microbiology (in press). As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA)
- BT: The Dec. 2 issue of the scientific journal Nature describes a study which indicates that Bt toxins from GE crops are leaching into the soil through the plants' root systems, damaging or killing beneficial soil microorganisms, and disrupting the soil food web. The report also documents that Bt toxins bind with soil particles for up to 243 days and remain toxic to soil insects for long periods of time. This study comes in the aftermath of other research indicating a hazardous buildup of Bt toxins in the soil after Bt crops are plowed under. The Nature study fuels the fire of a growing movement to ban all Bt crops because of their documented damage to the environment and their threat to organic agriculture. Last February the Center for Food Safety, Greenpeace, and the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements filed a lawsuit in US Federal Court to force all Bt crops off the market. See: (Organic View, Vol. 1 No. 18, 8 Dec 1999)
- BT: Dr. Charles Benbrook (former member of the National Academy of Sciences and head of Benbrook Consulting Services): "What goes on underground in a field planted with today's Bt-corn varieties is largely a mystery. Enhance the toxin levels 100- to 1,000-fold and it becomes a mystery of some consequence and immediacy." (Organic View, Vol. 1 No. 18, 8 Dec 1999)
Very interesting. Now why would something like this GM business happen? Arrogance. And where does that arrogance, in regards to the natural world come from? Well, arrogance has always been around. But one thing I believe is that arrogance relates to the modern view of science, which is essentially godless. One of the implications of Darwinism, is the idea that man is the pinnacle of evolution. Darwinism is essentially atheistic, at it's core. It doesn't have room, for God. Well, in the absence of God, the supposed nearest thing will have to do- man, since he is supposedly the pinnacle of evolution. So, in the absence of God, man is God. Which is, essentially narcissitic idolatry.....which leads to massive human arrogance.
I'm convinced that the modern view of man, that humans can completely dominate and control and understand nature, is foolish. People should try to continue to understand the world, and will learn more and more, as time goes on. And I have read an awful lot of science, in my lifetime, and read The Voyage of the Beagle, as a teenager, so I'm not anti-science. But my guess is that there is some sort of natural limit, to human understanding of the world, and limits to even understanding exactly how even the biology of the planet is constructed.
And isn't that essentially the view of the GW crowd? That man is causing GW, which means man can and should, and does, control the world? Isn't that making humans too much, the centre of the universe? The video you sent me said the sun may be the ultimate source of global weather trends. Now, why would anyone say it is man, in the first place, that is causing global warming, as opposed to a celestial body trillions of times his size and power? Maybe they were led in that direction, by a sort of narcissistic view of reality, where humans are the lords of creation. In other words, the modern view. In other words, the liberal view.
I'm back.......wished I had some big fish stories to tell, but I don't! So. Ca. having heat wave...guess fish don't like the heat either.
Caught 3 fish, equivalent to a giant minnow, so had to throw them back! The big story, though, is that I really thought I had caught a whale yesterday! almost took me over the edge of the boat. My grandson and son-in-law had to help me reel it in,,,,and it was a huge sting-ray! About 20 inch diameter. They eventually had to net it, once they saw what it was. I was so proud and really wanted to keep it...frame it or something. But I was shamed into letting them throw it back!
Anyway, I have just read all the posts since I was gone! Wow! Much to think about, before I respond. Glad, however, to see that Rob and Tim have agreed to disagree. Lots of synapsing going on......congradts! Still loving Roger's style of " parablizing".
Once I settle in, and think about a few things, I will add my 2 cents.
Sara,
I sent you an e-mail called "this pastor has guts". I don't know how to link it to this site ( or anyother for that matter). But if you know how to do it, I think our friends here would really enjoy it.
And you call yourself a fisherman? No tall tales? No fisherman stories? I have wun for ye:
Aaaaaaaar, Avast and ahoy, matey...Why, I once caught a blue whale, with me own hands. As big as a house she was, with eyes that glowed, like charcoal in the mid-nite sun. The sea was angry that day, my friend. Angry like a landlord, that didn't receive his rent check......
Anyhow, I'm off to the rodeo.....really, the Calgary Stampede starts tomorrow. The Greatest Outdoor Show on Earth. So I'm taking a little break here. I'm in for 10 days of rodeo. 10 days of Stampede breakfasts, drinking beer, cowboy boots, watching Chuckwagon Races, and Bull Riding, and Cow Patty Toss competition, and hot dogs, and beer. Did I mention the beer?
Tim,
You truly are a colorful character! Have a great ( keep safe) holiday. And thanks for caring about America the way you do!
BTW, I'm big fan of Bullriders. Before I started taking care of my mother, used to travel all over to watch them. Now can only go once in a great while...usually when they are in Vegas.
ALL:
May all my friends here have a wonderful 4th. Please remember to teach the young ones what it took to be able to eat hot dogs, blow off fireworks, and enjoy family and friends, for this celebration to happen.
Flip flop.. on abortion this time.. while talking to a Christian magazine, of course...
==
Obama: Mental distress can't justify late abortion
Jul 3, 2008
By JIM KUHNHENN
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says "mental distress" should not qualify as a justification for late-term abortions, a key distinction not embraced by many supporters of abortion rights.
In an interview this week with "Relevant," a Christian magazine, Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain "a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother."
The 1973 landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, established a right to an abortion, and a concurrent case, Doe v. Bolton, established that medical judgments about the need for an abortion could include physical, emotional and psychological health factors.
A leading abortion opponent, however, said Obama's rhetoric does not match his voting record and his previously stated views on abortion rights.
David N. O'Steen, the executive director of National Right to Life, said Obama's remarks to the magazine "are either quite disingenuous or they reflect that Obama does not know what he is talking about."
"You cannot believe that abortion should not be allowed for mental health reasons and support Roe v Wade," O'Steen said.
In the interview with Relevant, conducted on Tuesday, Obama also defended his opposition to restrictions on induced abortions where the fetus sometimes survives for short periods. Obama voted against such a bill... "There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the 'Born Alive' bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill," Obama said Tuesday.
Carole - Glad you had fun.. that was the POINT of it, wasn't it? :)
Happy 4th!!
timbitts - I liked your fish story, and could SEE the patch over yer eye! :)
I think your post on the arrogancy of man - the philosophy of his thinking he is Something - is true and very apt.. good insight.
Thanks for posting it. :)
Have a great stampede!
Well, I am sure the planners are looking at this dilemma everyday.
I am pretty sure many are sharing your opinion that it would be foolish to occupy another country, and point to all the hardships we have gone through with the Iraq affair, but the foolishness is in the short term.
Assuming everyone, planners and the like, agree that the regime has to go, (including , as you stated, yourself)
Then we almost certainly are looking at boots on the ground.
No bombing campaign has ever been able to oust a regime, I will give it a chance, if the infrastructure is destroyed to such an extent, that the regime have very little or no control over their own country, and hope for a popular up rising that will take the chance and over throw the fascist regime.
If that would work, fine, but historically there is no track record of this working.
If the basic out set is, the given statement that -"The Iranian Regime Has To Go"
The only known method has been invasion, and overthrowing of the existing regime, and have it replaced with another regime.
So:
Saying that the Iranian regime has to go, in the same breath as saying that it is foolish to go in, is an oxymoron.
Any other workable method, yes I take it, but air power will not control the ground more than the second the airplane is above. As soon as it is gone, the control is immediately back to the old regimes people that are on the ground.
I seem to sense Tim, that you think it was foolish to do the Iraq invasion and that experience is now on the "foolish list". On that I completely disagree, but that is another topic, another day.
As so far as overthrowing a regime, they have to face tanks, and guns on the ground.
Air power have on the contrary, historically ,only strengthen the resistance on the ground.
It is a very good force to use when taking out enemy installations, but it will at the same time galvanize the population.
One of the options here, might be, to bomb the hell out of that place that they are almost back to the stone age. Bomb it extensively so there are rubble left to work with, and then leave it alone.
If it is left alone long enough, and the bombing have been extensive enough that the regime are completely crippled, the population may turn against the regime and blame it on the condition the people are in, and thus over throw it.
This is however a very long shot, and involves a long "social brewing" process in the aftermath of the bombing. Maybe months, maybe years.
In the meanwhile the enemy will be in control over all it's propaganda outlets, and will spew acid every time they open their mouth.
They are definitely in a better position to do PR and propaganda, than Americans or Israelis, in the Middle East, so that proposition is iffy at best.
If there is a condition that the Americans can be blamed for, Aljazeera will run with it forever.
If there is an extensive bombing, and then a long aftermath, the Arabian propaganda machine will win over any American view points.
I just strongly doubt that this is in the works, because if we wound the enemy, and still allow him to exist, and still be in control, he will desperately work any angle, that will make street demonstrations happen in the
West.
He is making nuclear war heads....remember.
He will kill us, or Israel.
Tim, it is more than a somber reflection of money spent on Iraqi developments, slow process of reconstruction, and possibility of insurgency, or a casual discussion whether the flat earth theory is working or not.
That Tim, is of lesser priority.
This is so simple that most people can not get the simplicity in it, but have to weave in all kinds of mumbo jumbo.
Just keep your priorities straight, this doesn't have to be complex at all.
Read the article about the Iraqi Oil Minister being a bit on the frustrated side, because he can not make the Big Oil come in and be advisers to his state owned oil company, in an interim period in, and after that, the Big Oil are suppose to get big production contracts in Iraq.
State planners have idea of their own.
1. Things can not exist in an "IS or ISN'T" condition, so there always have to be a gradient scale to follow.
2. If we want to get the Big Oil in and start investing, we just have to invent a gradient scale, and invent an interim condition.
Lets do an interim contract that doesn't make the Big Oil come in, but will increase our production in our own rusty squeaky oil industry.
-"We hereby announce on behalf of the Iraqi regime, that we award contracts to the Big Oil, that will NOT give big oil the right to produce oil, but to use their technicians in our rusted up junk yard, and try to make it work."
And, of course.. a flip-flop on Iraq.
From "hard-edged, vocal opposition" to the man of mush..
Can America trust their security and country to someone whose word and policies change with the newest direction of the wind?
==
Obama backs off Iraq pullout timetable
Fri, July 4, 2008
By JENNIFER LOVEN, AP
FARGO, N.D. -- Barack Obama opened the door yesterday to refining his plan to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq in 16 months based on what he hears from military commanders during his upcoming trip there.
"I am going to do a thorough assessment when I'm there," he told reporters on the airport tarmac here. "I'm sure I'll have more information and continue to refine my policy."
During his Democratic presidential campaign, Obama has gone from the hard-edged, vocal opposition to Iraq that defined his early candidacy to more nuanced rhetoric that calls for a phased-out drawdown of all combat brigades that, at a rate of one or two a month, could last 16 months.
He has said that if al-Qaida builds bases in Iraq, he would keep troops either in the country or the region to carry out "targeted strikes."
Republicans, who have been goading Obama to return to Iraq to see conditions for himself, pounced.
"There appears to be no issue that Barack Obama is not willing to reverse himself on for the sake of political expedience," said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the national Republican Party. "Obama's Iraq problem undermines the central premise of his candidacy and shows him to be a typical politician."
Obama's Republican rival, John McCain, has been a vocal supporter of the Iraq war and war policy has been a central disagreement between the two candidates.
Good point on the Iraqi oil contracts. Deals have to be good for BOTH parties in free business transactions. Iraq wants all the good from the deal.. with the oil giants taking all the risk and expense.. with no upside for those doing the work. Enrich us, the Iraqis say.. but the oil companies are to get nothing in return. Seems a trifle un-businesslike and ungentlemanly. They cry wolf often enough.. saying "big, bad" US is out to steal their oil. But you have to wonder if they aren't just using that for leverage to force the companies into a position of having to give them something for nothing - looking for handouts and freebies like they had under Saddam Hussein.
I am not sure the Iraqis really know what the real world looks like.. or what real business has to do turn a profit. They perhaps listen to the Communists.. thinking all American oil giants are in business for greed (Communist view of capitalism = greed). They know from dealing with Communist governments that so long as it benefits the governmental arrangements.. who cares about the people. Perhaps that is the way they are now thinking.. like Communists. Perhaps this is also why they do not revalue.. it would be good for the PEOPLE of Iraq.. but they are only interested in the good of the GOVERNMENT of Iraq (that is, their own "governmental" pockets).
If they wished to set aside their own pocketbooks (that which ONLY enriches the government) and do what is in the interests of the country and people, they would Revalue. They would do what is in the best interests of industry (free enterprise, real world business deals which are fair to both sides) and in the best interests of the people (free float of the Dinar). The fact they are not doing so.. says to me that they are far more sympathetic to the Communist ideals (governmental pork at the expense of the country and people) than those of the Free West (free people exercising free wills to bring about goods and services to other people, with the government getting a piece of the pie in taxes). With, of course, the result of the Communist mindset being that the government officials (corruptly) gain - getting rich for themselves off of the oil deals.. and the people remain poor. At least, so far... that is what it looks like.
If the LOVE of money is the root of all evil.. than your post hits it on the head. The Iraqi government appears only to want all the goodies for themselves and their governmental body (where they can siphon it off into their coffers).. and who cares about the Iraqi people making a decent living on the country's GDP. People mean nothing to them.. as far as I can see. All it is.. is government.. which is another way of saying.. Communism. Something has got to change.. but if they are as corrupt and selfish as Saddam Hussein.. in it only for themselves and their "governmental" pocketbooks.. how can it?
As for Iran and a war there with ground troops being the only way to go to take out that threat, just as was done in Iraq.. I agree with you on it not being a good idea to do the "social brewing" idea.. thinking the country is 'sealed off' for things to percolate like a coffee maker. That is because it is, in reality, an open system.. with enemies arming the factions they want to win in such a scenerio. Iranian friendly allies.. (those who rely on their oil exports) Russia, China, and terrorists of every stripe.. would all flood at least weapons if not people, into the country in that case. Just as the suicide bombers and terrorists in Iraq were not Iraqis. The vast majority of the killers were drawn from other nations who had interest in Iraq... so it would be the same if the US or Israel felt they had to take out the threat of Iran.
But that does not mean the US should walk away because it is a "another Iraq" and so to be avoided. IF the US avoids this.. avoids fighting the war against Iran.. taking the war to the enemy "over there" - then the US will see what would have happened if we had not gone into Iraq. Iran will arm itself with nukes and come to us.. blowing up US cities with their newly aquired firepower. Watch and see.. disavowing the correct strategy (as was implemented successfully in Iraq and has won the war over there) and saying that the right strategy was foolhardy.. means we will see an attack on US soil such as we have not seen under President Bush.
President Bush kept America safe by doing the right but hard and unpopular thing.. let us see now if anyone else can do as well.. if they DISavow that strategy of taking a strong offense rather than waiting on them to aquire nukes and hit your Homeland. Iran is merely a REPEAT of what happened with Saddam. We won that war.. will we win or lose this next conflict with a nuclear arming Iran.. simply because America has lost its will to win and believes the peacenik position of peace at any cost? 4,100 Americans have lost their lives securing America all these Bush years from terrorist WMD or nuclear attacks which Saddam would have launched against the US (he would have had a nuke within one year.) ONE mistake... will wipe that figure into looking very, very tiny... ask those who saw Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
Remember, and do not let the MSM make us forget, that
QUOTE:
... concerning the 36 million captured pages of documentation, when it was put on the net for public translation, it was removed after they found quote, "detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb." As The New York Times confirmed in their issue November 3, 2006, Saddam had complete plans for a nuclear weapon and was in the process of procuring parts when the US removed him. Quote: "nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away." [60]
Additionally, tapes with Saddam speaking on them also surfaced and certain sinister remarks Saddam made on the tapes were translated which showed that he threatened to use WMD on Washington, DC. In the article , "Saddam Translator: ABC Reinterpreted Tapes" dated Feb. 17th 2006, the FBI translator who supplied the 12 hours of Saddam Hussein audiotapes excerpted by ABC's "Nightline" says the network discarded his translations and went with a less threatening version of the Iraqi dictator's comments. 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]
Iran is a similar situation.. with threats toward the US abounding from a nuclear arming Iranian regime, including recently telling the Japanese minister that the world will soon be without the United States:
Report: Ahmadinejad Tells Japan to ‘Prepare for a World Without the U.S.’
Thursday, June 05, 2008 / AP
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Japan’s prime minister Thursday that the world will soon not include the United States, Iranian news agency IRNA reported.
"The U.S. domination is on the fall. Iran and Japan as two civilized and influential nations should get ready for a world minus the U.S.," Ahmadinejad told Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda on the sidelines of the U.N. food summit in Rome on Tuesday, IRNA reported.
Also on Thursday, Iran accused the U.S. of pressuring the U.N.'s nuclear agency to base its latest investigation of Tehran's nuclear activities on fake evidence suggesting that Iran had a secret weapons program.
Ahmadinejad is currently at odds with Iran's new reformist parliament due to growing social and economic unrest.
In addition, the Iranian president is under fire worldwide for his comments on the destruction of Israel, his "suspicions" of the Sept. 11 terror attacks and his belief that homosexuals deserve to be executed, tortured or both.
My thought? An experienced and true Commander-in-Chief in the Whitehouse would be a huge plus for the US in the next few years. The inexperienced puppy Obama and his flip-flopping uncertainty over the issues is an incredibly unwise choice if the US populace is into survival during these hostile years when cruel terrorist allies can - with cooperation and nuclear technology from Iran - still threaten the world.. and the USA.. with suitcase sized nuclear weapons.
A Man of Seasonal Principles
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, July 4, 2008; Page A17
You'll notice Barack Obama is now wearing a flag pin. Again. During the primary campaign, he refused to, explaining that he'd worn one after Sept. 11 but then stopped because it "became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism." So why is he back to sporting pseudo-patriotism on his chest? Need you ask? The primaries are over. While seducing the hard-core MoveOn Democrats that delivered him the caucuses -- hence, the Democratic nomination -- Obama not only disdained the pin. He disparaged it. Now that he's running in a general election against John McCain, and in dire need of the gun-and-God-clinging working-class votes he could not win against Hillary Clinton, the pin is back. His country 'tis of thee.
In last week's column, I thought I had thoroughly chronicled Obama's brazen reversals of position and abandonment of principles -- on public financing of campaigns, on NAFTA, on telecom immunity for post-Sept. 11 wiretaps, on unconditional talks with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- as he moved to the center for the general election campaign. I misjudged him. He was just getting started.
Last week, when the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, Obama immediately declared that he agreed with the decision. This is after his campaign explicitly told the Chicago Tribune last November that he believes the D.C. gun ban is constitutional.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton explains the inexplicable by calling the November -- i.e., the primary season -- statement "inartful." Which suggests a first entry in the Obamaworld dictionary -- "Inartful: clear and straightforward, lacking the artistry that allows subsequent self-refutation and denial."
Obama's seasonally adjusted principles are beginning to pile up: NAFTA, campaign finance reform, warrantless wiretaps, flag pins, gun control. What's left?
Iraq. The reversal is coming, and soon.
Two weeks ago, I predicted that by Election Day Obama will have erased all meaningful differences with McCain on withdrawal from Iraq. I underestimated Obama's cynicism. He will make the move much sooner. He will use his upcoming Iraq trip to finally acknowledge the remarkable improvements on the ground and to formally abandon his primary season commitment to a fixed 16-month timetable for removal of all combat troops.
The shift has already begun. Yesterday, he said that his "original position" on withdrawal has always been that "we've got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable." And that "when I go to Iraq . . . I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."
He hasn't even gone to Iraq and the flip is almost complete. All that's left to say is that the 16-month time frame remains his goal but that he will, of course, take into account the situation on the ground and the recommendation of his generals in deciding whether the withdrawal is to occur later or even sooner.
Done.
And with that, the Obama of the primaries, the Obama with last year's most liberal voting record in the Senate, will have disappeared into the collective memory hole.
Obama's strategy is obvious. The country is in a deep malaise and eager for change. He and his party already have the advantage on economic and domestic issues. Obama, therefore, aims to clear the deck by moving rapidly to the center in those areas where he and his party are weakest, namely national security and the broader cultural issues. With these -- and, most important, his war-losing Iraq policy -- out of the way, the election will be decided on charisma and persona. In this corner: the young sleek cool hip elegant challenger. In the other corner: the old guy. No contest.
After all, that's how he beat Hillary. She originally ran as a centrist, expecting her nomination to be a mere coronation. At the first sign of serious opposition, however, she panicked and veered left. It was a fatal error. It eliminated all significant ideological and policy differences with Obama -- her desperate attempts to magnify their minuscule disagreement on health-care universality became almost comical -- making the contest entirely one of personality. No contest.
As Obama assiduously obliterates all differences with McCain on national security and social issues, he remains confident that Bush fatigue, the lousy economy and his own charisma -- he is easily the most dazzling political personality since John Kennedy -- will carry him to the White House.
Of course, (if he were to get there) he will have to figure out what he really believes. The conventional liberal/populist stuff he campaigned on during the primaries? Or the reversals he is so artfully offering up now?
The article ends saying Obama, "will have to figure out what he really believes. The conventional liberal/populist stuff he campaigned on during the primaries? Or the reversals he is so artfully offering up now? I have no idea. Do you? Does he?"
That is EXACTLY what I was saying concerning Iraq.
How can the Iraqi leadership trust their collective lives to someone whose position can and does change with the wind...
to someone who just might sell them down the river or throw them under the bus if it suits him politically to do so tomorrow?
No one has any doubt about McCain and where he would stand.. any more than they have concerning the word of President Bush.
They are both pretty reliable, responsible and have integrity concerning deals they would make.. keeping true to their word and agreements.
But Obama.. is a wildcard. No one, not even his own supporters.. (like the lefty washington post, above) know what he really believes..
or how he would act were he to be put into office.
Sooo..
What would you do?
SOFA with President Bush..
or leave it to a later date and hope you get someone whose word MIGHT mean something?
Personally.. I would do everything I could to get good deals with the current "friendly" Administration..
and tie the next Administration's hands as much as I could so they could not sell the country of Iraq down the river.
President George W. Bush chose to remove Saddam Hussein from power because he concluded that doing so was necessary.
CAN any subsequent Administration also conclude that going to war to remove the threat of nuclear destruction at the hands of Iran or one of its proxies.. is also "necessary"?? I think not. I think that politically, that (correct, hawk) view of thinking - which has kept America safe from terrorist attack - is too demonized to hold America's halls of power to that line of thinking. As a result of this viewpoint not being held to in the halls of power.. the US WILL end up with another 9/11 attack. McCain will compromise with the left on this point (and we know Obama is actually nowhere near a hawk, no matter how much he gives a call to reversal) and so no one will defend America from the terrorists.. at least, not enough to go into Iran and remove the threat of nuclear war as President Bush did in Iraq. The only choice America has now (politically).. is who will help in the cleanup after the next attack, as Iran well knows. And that is not an inconsiderable choice - it will mean hundreds of thousands of lives. The wrong decisions then could be incredibly costly in terms of lives lost. War hawks are right in their political position and have been proven to be so all along.. but they are not popular enough to hold that view as popular in the halls of power.. with the result of death to so very many Americans under the next Administration. Removing Saddam was NECESSARY.. in order to prevent the next terrorist attack (as this article states).. so is removing the nuclear threat from Tehran. Too bad no one on this side of the earth has the political will to do it.
===
Why We Went to War in Iraq
By DOUGLAS J. FEITH
July 3, 2008; Page A11
A lot of poor commentary has framed the Iraq war as a conflict of "choice" rather than of "necessity." In fact, President George W. Bush chose to remove Saddam Hussein from power because he concluded that doing so was necessary.
President Bush inherited a worrisome Iraq problem from Bill Clinton and from his own father. Saddam had systematically undermined the measures the U.N. Security Council put in place after the Gulf War to contain his regime. In the first months of the Bush presidency, officials debated what to do next.
As a participant in the confidential, top-level administration meetings about Iraq, it was clear to me at the time that, had there been a realistic alternative to war to counter the threat from Saddam, Mr. Bush would have chosen it.
In the months before the 9/11 attack, Secretary of State Colin Powell advocated diluting the multinational economic sanctions, in the hope that a weaker set of sanctions could win stronger and more sustained international support. Central Intelligence Agency officials floated the possibility of a coup, though the 1990s showed that Saddam was far better at undoing coup plots than the CIA was at engineering them. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz asked if the U.S. might create an autonomous area in southern Iraq similar to the autonomous Kurdish region in the north, with the goal of making Saddam little more than the "mayor of Baghdad." U.S. officials also discussed whether a popular uprising in Iraq should be encouraged, and how we could best work with free Iraqi groups that opposed the Saddam regime.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld worried particularly about the U.S. and British pilots enforcing the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq. Iraqi forces were shooting at the U.S. and British aircraft virtually every day; if a plane went down, the pilot would likely be killed or captured. What then? Mr. Rumsfeld asked. Were the missions worth the risk? How might U.S. and British responses be intensified to deter Saddam from shooting at our planes? Would the intensification trigger a war? What would be the consequences of cutting back on the missions, or ending them?
On July 27, 2001, Mr. Rumsfeld sent a memo to Mr. Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney that reviewed U.S. options:
"The U.S. can roll up its tents and end the no-fly zones before someone is killed or captured. . . . We can publicly acknowledge that sanctions don't work over extended periods and stop the pretense of having a policy that is keeping Saddam 'in the box,' when we know he has crawled a good distance out of the box and is currently doing the things that will ultimately be harmful to his neighbors in the region and to U.S. interests – namely developing WMD and the means to deliver them and increasing his strength at home and in the region month-by-month. Within a few years the U.S. will undoubtedly have to confront a Saddam armed with nuclear weapons.
"A second option would be to go to our moderate Arab friends, have a reappraisal, and see whether they are willing to engage in a more robust policy. . . .
"A third possibility perhaps is to take a crack at initiating contact with Saddam Hussein. He has his own interests. It may be that, for whatever reason, at his stage in life he might prefer to not have the hostility of the United States and the West and might be willing to make some accommodation."
The Iraq policy debate remained unresolved when the September 11 attacks occurred. Like all major national security issues, Iraq policy was re-examined in light of our post-9/11 sense of vulnerability and the heightened worries about terrorism and, especially, about the danger that terrorists might obtain WMD from a nation state.
When the president ultimately decided that the Iraqi regime must be ousted by force, he was influenced by five key factors:
1) Saddam was a threat to U.S. interests before 9/11. The Iraqi dictator had started wars against Iran and Kuwait, and had fired missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel. Unrepentant about the rape of Kuwait, he remained intensely hostile to the U.S. He provided training, funds, safe haven and political support to various types of terrorists. He had developed WMD and used chemical weapons fatally against Iran and Iraqi Kurds. Iraq's official press issued statements praising the 9/11 attacks on the U.S.
2) The threat of renewed aggression by Saddam was more troubling and urgent after 9/11. Though Saddam's regime was not implicated in the 9/11 operation, it was an important state supporter of terrorism. And President Bush's strategy was not simply retaliation against the group responsible for 9/11. Rather it was to prevent the next major attack. This focused U.S. officials not just on al Qaeda, but on all the terrorist groups and state supporters of terrorism who might be inspired by 9/11 – especially on those with the potential to use weapons of mass destruction.
3) To contain the threat from Saddam, all reasonable means short of war had been tried unsuccessfully for a dozen years. The U.S. did not rush to war. Working mainly through the U.N., we tried a series of measures to contain the Iraqi threat: formal diplomatic censure, weapons inspections, economic sanctions, no-fly zones, no-drive zones and limited military strikes. A defiant Saddam, however, dismantled the containment strategy and the U.N. Security Council had no stomach to sustain its own resolutions, let alone compel Saddam's compliance.
4) While there were large risks involved in a war, the risks of leaving Saddam in power were even larger. The U.S. and British pilots patrolling the no-fly zones were routinely under enemy fire, and a larger confrontation – over Kuwait again or some other issue – appeared virtually certain to arise once Saddam succeeded in getting out from under the U.N.'s crumbling economic sanctions.
Mr. Bush decided it was unacceptable to wait while Saddam advanced his biological weapons program or possibly developed a nuclear weapon. The CIA was mistaken, we all now know, in its assessment that we would find chemical and biological weapons stockpiles in Iraq. But after the fall of the regime, intelligence officials did find chemical and biological weapons programs structured so that Iraq could produce stockpiles in three to five weeks. They also found that Saddam was intent on having a nuclear weapon. The CIA was wrong in saying just before the war that his nuclear program was active; but Iraq appears to have been in a position to make a nuclear weapon in less than a year if it purchased fissile material from a supplier such as North Korea.
5) America after 9/11 had a lower tolerance for such dangers. It was reasonable – one might say obligatory – for the president to worry about a renewed confrontation with Saddam. Like many others, he feared Saddam might then use weapons of mass destruction again, perhaps deployed against us through a proxy such as one of the many terrorist groups Iraq supported.
Thoughtful, patriotic Americans differed then and now on whether the risk of leaving Saddam in power outweighed the risk of war. But Mr. Bush concluded that it did, and that war therefore was necessary. In Congress, many Democrats as well as Republicans supported that conclusion. Debates will continue over whether the president should have balanced the risks differently. But characterizing the Iraq war as "a war of choice" sheds no light on the issue.
Mr. Feith, under secretary of defense for policy from 2001 to 2005, is author of "War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism" (HarperCollins, 2008), the author's proceeds of which are being donated to charities for veterans and their families.
This about sums it up....doesn't it? How come, even after reading this, Liberals don't understand that God
gave me my "rights" and not the Democratic Party?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Having just read your wonderful post of part of that immortal document..
I recalled that it was quoted in a recent popular link called, "Could you pass the latest citizenship test?"
I enclose the first few questions given to new prospective citizens of the United States:
1. Who wrote the Declaration of Independence?
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
John Hancock
2. When was the Constitution written?
1774
1776
1787
1865
3. What are the first words of the Constitution?
When, in the course of human events
In order to form a more perfect Union
To whom it may concern
We the People
4. What do we call the first ten amendments to the Constitution?
The Preamble
The Bill of Rights
The Statute of Liberty
Declaration of Independence
5. Which of the following is NOT a right outlined in the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence?
I always knew I was special to you....now I have proof....no one else got a bracket :)
Guess I missed the info that you were going to Iraq! And for sure Sara lost the bet. Be smart and careful! Try to keep a low profile, and pack a zipper ( for you lips!) :)
Can't wait to hear what you find there.....and yes, that you are finally home safe!
Still can't phantom why anyone would go somewhere that is 126 degrees!
Whether you like it or not, many of us will be praying to the only and one TRUE GOD for you!
The Iraqis were supposed to revalue the Dinar BEFORE you go.. but someone over there held up the Dinar Train!! :(
So sorry that it hasn't happened yet.. I wish I could get something clear about the RV date in the spirit, but there is just too much interference in that realm. I hear things from reliable people about it possibly happening.. but not in the spirit on this issue (at least, not so far as the year, lol.) I can only say that the RV of the Dinar to a real world value (it is worth less than a penny and they have AT LEAST the third largest supply of oil in the WORLD, for crying out loud) is still God's will to happen.. and that it will fall out for the good once it finally happens! :)
I wish you a good and safe trip there and back.. "y'all come back now, ya hear?" - and Carole is right.. you are now on my list of those I pray for daily.. and I am sure on other prayer lists as well. :)
We are going to miss your posts here a lot.. so do post to us from there.. if you can.
PS
Roger;
If you are unable to post publicly on a website (or it is "against policy") you can email me at saraand-at-fastmail-dot-fm Even if you just want to make a comment on something apart, your views are appreciated - certainly by me - and I hope you can keep on sharing. I doubt you are going to Iraq for the fine tasting wines, the deluxe accommodations (with air conditioning) and the lovely beachside resort with coed facilities.. so an occasional email might help pass the time while you are there. Also, I can get a hold of Carl.. Carole.. and quite a few others on the board, if you wish me to. Most everyone who has posted here has been quite friendly overall and I am sure they would like to hear that you are doing fine, even if that is all I can tell them from you. :)
Once again, my best wishes for a no-hassle and stress-free trip.. both ways :)
Assuming Roger is gone now, I missed the reason why he is going. Can you shed some light? How long is he going for?
I have 2 family members ( young new Army recruits) who will be going there in the next 3 months. They both own Dinar, so I am hoping they will be able to send back some info too.
Roger wrote (bottom of the last page, to Carl) that it is a contracting job. He said, quote:
The Iraq contracting job has been hanging, because of troop reductions, but I will be in Houston the 7th this coming month for indoctrination, (nice word for "cultural sensitivity training" I guess), extensive medical, some ABC training, and will then be shipped straight to Iraq, so I am doing some last minute wrap up around here. Its going to be a deal with a rotating 4 months on, and 10 days back in the US, and I am not sure how the communication will be from there, have got different signals that it is ok to bring your lap top, the other is that the lap top may be confiscated if I take it with me and go into certain military bases, so for now I will leave it, and find out how the scene is over there, and maybe bring it next tour, or have it Fedexed, we will see. (end quote)
So I gather it is a logistical type of contracting job which has an element of going onto military bases at times. Or, maybe the military bases are just nearby to where he will be working and he expects to visit them as he travels about doing the contracted work. He will be gone for four months, though.. (back for ten days in November), so far as I can tell.
God Bless your two new recruits going into Iraq.. our prayers go with them. :)
And with all those who are serving, too. :)
From yesterday, quite a sight!
Video: 1,215 troops re-enlist in Baghdad on Independence Day
July 4, 2008
The largest reenlistment ceremony in the history of the U.S. military took place in the rotunda of the Al Faw Palace in Baghdad, Iraq on July 4, 2008.
Petraeus: “You and your comrades here have been described as America’s new greatest generation, and, in my view, you have more than earned that description. It is the greatest of honors to soldier here with you.”
Where does Barack Hussein Obama stand on forcing Islamic prayer on schoolchildren when it comes to the US?
Anybody know?
==
Schoolboys disciplined for 'refusing to pray to Allah' Two schoolboys were allegedly disciplined after refusing to kneel down and "pray to Allah" during a religious education lesson.
By Nick Britten
05/07/2008
It was claimed that the boys, from a year seven class of 11 and 12-year-olds, were given detention after refusing to take part in a practical demonstration of how Allah is worshipped.
Yesterday parents accused the school of breaching their human rights by forcing them to take part in the exercise.
One, Sharon Luinen, said: "This isn't right, it's taking things too far. I understand that they have to learn about other religions. I can live with that but it is taking it a step too far to be punished because they wouldn't join in Muslim prayer.
"Making them pray to Allah, who isn't who they worship, is wrong and what got me is that they were told they were being disrespectful."
"The teacher had gone into the class and made them watch a short film and then said 'we are now going out to pray to Allah'.
She is said to have got prayer mats out of the cupboard and also asked children to wear Islamic headdresses.
"Then two boys got detention and all the other children missed their refreshments' break."
She added: "Not only was it forced upon them, my daughter was told off for not doing it right.
"They'd never done it before and they were supposed to do it in another language."
Her husband Keith, 44, a painter and decorator, said: "The school is wonderful but this one teacher has made a major mistake. It seems to be happening throughout society. People think they can ride roughshod over our beliefs and the way we live."
The alleged incident, at the Alsager school, one of Cheshire's top performing schools, happened on Tuesday afternoon. The teacher, Alison Phillips, the school's subject leader in RE, is understood to be staying away from the school until the furore dies down, although she has not been suspended.
I suppose since Obama flip-flops so much on what he says NOW, that it only serves to show us that what he would do if he were in the Whitehouse may be very different than the things he would SAY he would do if he were today to answer this question. After all.. he recently has flipped from being adamantly opposed to endorsing "faith based initiatives" (whose faith.. Islam? - with President Bush I knew whose faith and viewpoint was being communicated to the 80% professing Christian population of the US in these initiatives). Also, Obama's view of "faith" and his wide arms in embracing "diversity" may just allow him to say this kind of teaching is a good thing - to get us all over our "prejudice" toward radical Islamic jihadis. After all, he did say one of the very nicest and most beautiful things he remembers from his childhood is the call to Islamic prayer he heard each morning before he studied the Koran in school.
But I do wonder..
How come they took The Lord's Prayer out of the schools, the Ten Commandments.. and Bible reading and prayer.. but FORCING school children to pray to Allah in the public classroom is being taught as acceptable practice in the West? It reminds me of three young Hebrew men named Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.. who were also asked to bow down in prayer.. (Daniel Chapter 3).. but refused just such a governmental mandated order.
Small steps.. and new beginnings.. can effect great "change" - can't they, Barack Hussein Obama?
So do Trojan Horses... ask Troy.
Obama Wants More Cash For His Ministers
From Washington Post: Obama Backs Expanded Government-Funded Faith Organizations
By Jonathan Weisman
Sen. Barack Obama will travel to a swing district of eastern Ohio this morning to propose strengthening the White House program extending assistance to faith-based and community social service organization while insisting those organization not discriminate against aid recipients.
The $500-million-a-year program would also create 1 million new slots for summer jobs and education programs.
"I’m not saying that faith-based groups are an alternative to government or secular nonprofits, and I’m not saying that they’re somhow better at lifting people up," Obama’s prepared remarks say. "What I’m saying is that we all have to work together — Christian and Jew, Hindu and Muslim, believer and non-believer alike — to meet the challenges of the 21st century."
Obama aides said the current program requires faith-based organizations interested in assistance to attend conferences in Washington to learn how to apply, which has reduced participation to a few savvy groups. Instead, he would set up "community partners" to "train the trainers" to apply in a more streamlined fashion.
But Obama aides said an Obama administration would get tougher on groups that discriminate in hiring practices and assistance. The groups would have to abide by federal hiring laws which reject discrimination based on race, sex, religion and sexual orientation. And the groups could use federal funds only to assist anyone in need, not anyone from a certain background or religion.
"This is about providing equal treatment, but not special treatment," the aide said.
===end quote==
What good news for the likes of Reverends Wright, Moss, Pfleger and Meeks. And of course the Minister Farrakhan. (Not to mention the "religious diversity" crowd of Islamic jihadis wishing to recruit??)
But real religious groups will undoubtedly get short shrift under Mr. Obama’s stewardship.
QUOTE: "Obama aides said an Obama administration would get tougher on groups that discriminate in hiring practices and assistance. The groups would have to abide by federal hiring laws which reject discrimination based on race, sex, religion and sexual orientation."
In other words, this "initiative".. (will get money to) militant homosexuals, cultists and other crackpots, like his ‘minister’ friends listed above.
But our watchdog media spin it as reaching out to those (rightwinger) religious voters.
Not only would it help the militant homosexual crowd and "the likes of Reverends Wright, Moss, Pfleger and Meeks. And of course the Minister Farrakhan.. " but Obama could initiate helping schoolchildren learn the lessons he has learned in his own life concerning religious diversity by worshipping Allah like this schoolteacher did - to teach them all about other religions. Certainly it is within his viewpoint in embracing "diversity".. and with the resources of the Whitehouse at his fingertips.. why wouldn't he?
Sara.
PS Anyone know what the second of the Ten Commandments is?
About bowing down to idols?
I didn't think so..
And they were worried about ROMNEY???
Oh yeah.. remember harmless Saddam?
You know, the fellow that Obama and the left says we didn't need to remove or go to war against.. the fellow who posed no threat?
Today it was revealed that Saddam had a stockpile of 550 metric TONS of natural uranium, also known as "yellowcake" - which has just been removed in a secret US mission from Iraq. This stuff is "the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment.." and was kept secret so nobody from Iran or terrorist groups seized the trucks full of the yellowcake and took it back to Tehran... to be used in their nuclear bombs. Because.. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment.
And also, there were "four devices for controlled radiation exposure from the former nuclear complex. The lead-enclosed irradiation units... contain elements of high radioactivity that could potentially be used in a weapon..."
No worries there, right?
President Bush was just worrying unnecessarily.. right? (Warmonger.. right?)
Saddam was a pussycat and would never have even dreamed of using these against the US, right?
And it hasn't affected the Security of the US Homeland by making us all any safer or anything.. right?
Sara.
===
Report: Uranium Stockpile Removed From Iraq in Secret U.S. Mission
Saturday, July 05, 2008
The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.
The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.
What is now left is the final and complicated push to clean up the remaining radioactive debris at the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles (19 kilometers) south of Baghdad — using teams that include Iraqi experts recently trained in the Chernobyl fallout zone in Ukraine.
"Everyone is very happy to have this safely out of Iraq," said a senior U.S. official who outlined the nearly three-month operation to The Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.
While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" — a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material — it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment.
The deal culminated more than a year of intense diplomatic and military initiatives — kept hushed in fear of ambushes or attacks once the convoys were under way: first carrying 3,500 barrels by road to Baghdad, then on 37 military flights to the Indian Ocean atoll of Diego Garcia and finally aboard a U.S.-flagged ship for a 8,500-mile trip to Montreal.
Accusations that Saddam had tried to purchase more yellowcake from the African nation of Niger — and an article by a former U.S. ambassador refuting the claims — led to a wide-ranging probe into Washington leaks that reached high into the Bush administration.
U.N. inspectors documented the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.
Earlier this year, the military withdrew four devices for controlled radiation exposure from the former nuclear complex. The lead-enclosed irradiation units, used to decontaminate food and other items, contain elements of high radioactivity that could potentially be used in a weapon, according to the official. Their Ottawa-based manufacturer, MDS Nordion, took them back for free, the official said.
The yellowcake was the last major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts, but years of final cleanup is ahead for Tuwaitha and other smaller sites.
But the job ahead is enormous, complicated by digging out radioactive "hot zones" entombed in concrete during Saddam's rule, said the IAEA official. Last year, an IAEA safety expert, Dennis Reisenweaver, predicted the cleanup could take "many years."
If Roger were still on the board.. I would ask him for the half-life of natural uranium. (What I mean is.. it isn't decaying away.)
No matter how "aging" these 550 TONS of uranium were.. they were not going bad or becoming earth friendly anytime in the near future.. for sure. The barrels may decay, but the uranium would be as shiny and deadly as Egyptian gold in a mummy's tomb for eons to come. It isn't a decaying kind of thing.. it isn't OLD.. it is a METAL. Do they think we will think them less deadly because the barrels leaked or were there for ten or twenty years? That is like saying you cannot get a dime for Egyptian gold from the Pharoah's tomb.. because it is just such old gold, you know. Really.. old gold... ?? Old uranium?? Still works for the purposes they are each put to.. very well, thank you. And in the case of uranium.. that is making nuclear bombs. The stuff.. all 550 TONS of it.. is very, very dangerous. Hence.. the "secret mission" part..
Niger was a red herring.. which diverted everyone from this hidden stockpile. But let us now admit it.. Saddam had uranium, the will to enrich it and plans for a nuclear bomb. He could have had the weapon and used it within a year, detonating it on US soil. And.. Obama and company claim that it was a mistake to go to war against him? God knows better. I pray America would, too.. lest a worse thing befall the nation by following the advice of an experienced puppy instead of grown men and women whose lives depend on wise discernment. One wrong pacifist, leftist-appeasing move.. could be very, very costly.. as in Humpty Dumpty not being put back together again.. for a lot of American families and lives.
Though you are probably are already on your way I wanted to say it has been a pleasure corresponding with you on this blog. When the dinar's artifical rate is changed for the real rate and we all meet for our long awaited gathering; I look forward to meeting you face to face. Iraq is a dangerous place, be careful on your journey and we look forward to hearing from you once on the desert floor. God Speed my friend.
UAE cancels nearly $7 billion in Iraq debt
Sun Jul 6, 2008 9:41am EDT
By Lin Noueihed
DUBAI (Reuters) - The United Arab Emirates has cancelled almost $7 billion of debt including interest and arrears payments owed by Baghdad, becoming the first Gulf Arab country to forgive all of Iraq's debt.
The United States has pressed Arab governments to support Iraq's recovery by joining Western nations in forgiving their share of Iraqi foreign debts that total up to $80 billion.
Washington also wants Arab capitals to establish high-level diplomatic representation in Iraq.
In a step toward easing Baghdad's diplomatic isolation, the UAE appointed its new ambassador to Iraq on Sunday during a visit by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.
The move came a month after the UAE's Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan became the first Gulf Arab foreign minister to visit Baghdad since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.
The UAE's official news agency WAM said the principle debt owed by Iraq totaled $4 billion loaned at different times. A UAE diplomatic source told Reuters the total sum that would be forgiven was almost $7 billion including interest and arrears.
"The UAE state's decision to cancel the debts accumulated by Iraq is an expression of brotherhood and solidarity between the two countries and is to help the Iraqi government carry out its reconstruction and rehabilitation plans," WAM quoted UAE President Sheikh Khalifah bin Zayed al-Nahayan as saying.
Maliki, who is also due to visit Bahrain, welcomed the move, which he said would help his government to "restore security and stability" by lifting a major financial burden.
Over the past three years, about $66.5 billion of Iraq's overall $120.2 billion foreign debt has been forgiven. The Paris Club cancelled $42.3 billion, including Russia's $12 billion.
non-Paris Club members have cancelled a total $8.2 billion. A total $16 billion has been cancelled by commercial creditors.
Last year, Saudi Arabia pledged to cancel 80 percent of more than $15 billion in Iraqi debt but has yet to follow through. Kuwait, also owed $15 billion, has yet to write off any debts.
EASING ISOLATION
In further signs of Iraq's easing diplomatic isolation, the country is expecting visits from Jordan's King Abdullah and Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan. King Abdullah would be the first Arab head of state to visit Iraq since the invasion.
Sunni Arab governments who once funded Iraq's 1980-1988 war against Shi'ite Iran have held back from establishing top-level ties with Baghdad since the U.S.-led war toppled Saddam Hussein, citing poor security and extensive Iranian influence.
No ambassador from any Arab country has been stationed permanently in Baghdad since Egypt's envoy was kidnapped and killed shortly after arriving in 2005.
The UAE withdrew its top envoy from Iraq in May 2006 after one of its diplomats was kidnapped and held for nearly two weeks by Islamist militants.
It has maintained only low level representation since, but the appointment of Abdullah Ibrahim al-Shehhi, currently the UAE's envoy to India, marks a significant change. Saudi Arabia and Bahrain have also promised to send ambassadors to Iraq but the UAE is the only Arab country to move ahead with the process.
Shehhi's appointment has been endorsed by the Iraqi government and now awaits a final signature from the UAE president, the source said. It was not clear when he would arrive in Baghdad.
(www.reuters.com)
McGuinness urges Iraq to learn from N.Ireland peace
Sat Jul 5, 2008 2:24pm EDT
By Khalid al-Ansary
BAGHDAD, July 5 (Reuters) - Northern Ireland's Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, a former top IRA guerrilla, urged Iraqis on Saturday to learn from the experience of his homeland, which suffered decades of sectarian conflict then found peace.
McGuinness was addressing a conference on national reconciliation in Baghdad that brought together politicians from across Iraq's sectarian and ethnic divide.
The participants -- who included prominent Iraqi politicians -- issued a communique of principles at the end of the meeting that they said should be used to heal Iraq's divisions.
McGuinness is an Irish Catholic nationalist and member of Sinn Fein, the political ally of the Irish Republic Army (IRA), which fought to expel British troops from Northern Ireland.
McGuinness, who had been a former commander in the IRA in the 1970s, was one of the top Sinn Fein politicians who sought a negotiated peace through a power sharing agreement in 1998 with the pro-British Unionists.
"We learnt an awful lot. At that time (of the peace talks) the Unionists wouldn't travel in the same air plane as (us), they wouldn't eat in the same canteen, they wouldn't sleep in the same sleeping quarters," McGuinness said.
"Now here we are, 10 years on, sitting down around a government table together."
The IRA officially ended its armed campaign in 2005, after calls from Sinn Fein.
The Baghdad conference brought together Shi'ite and Sunni Arabs as well as Kurds. Delegates from South Africa, including businessman Cyril Ramaphosa, who played a role in talks to end apartheid, also attended the conference at a hotel in the heavily guarded Green Zone government compound.
It followed earlier meetings in Finland organised by the Crisis Management Initiative (CMI), a non-governmental body headed by former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari, who has been active in talks involving divided communities in Kosovo and the Indonesian province of Aceh since his presidency ended.
The communique included the need to avoid language that could inflame sectarian hatred, a commitment to peaceful negotiations that do not allow the use of weapons by armed groups and restricting guns to the hands of government forces.
STRUGGLE FOR POWER
Various power struggles are playing out in Iraq -- the most recent an intra-Shi'ite battle pitting the Shi'ite-led government against the Mehdi Army of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
The government has launched a series of military operations against the Mehdi Army and Sunni insurgent groups that have helped drive violence to a four-year low.
But many Iraqis say true reconciliation will take years to achieve, given the extent of of the sectarian conflict in 2006 and 2007 that killed tens of thousands of people and nearly tipped the country into full-scale civil war.
"The issue of reconciliation won't end in a conference. It is an ongoing issue that will take months, if not years," said Iraq's national security advisor Mowaffaq al-Rubaie.
Some members of the minority Sunni Arab community say they have wanted reconciliation but feel they are too weak to get a fair deal after being marginalised.
"Reconciliation is sacred, but the government wants reconciliation on their stronger terms, which is oppressive," said Saleh al-Mutlaq, an outspoken Sunni Arab parliamentarian.
In a positive sign, Iraq's main Sunni Arab bloc has said it was close to rejoining the government after quitting nearly a year ago. Mutlaq is not part of that bloc.
Sunni Arabs have little voice in the current Iraqi cabinet, which is dominated by Shi'ites and Kurds. (Writing by Tim Cocks, Editing by Dean Yates and Matthew Jones)
(www.reuters.com)
Baghdad, 05 July 2008 (Voices of Iraq)
Print article Send to friend
The Iraqi Premier Nouri al-Maliki's upcoming visit to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) comes to reinforce the Iraqi – Arab relations, al-Maliki's adviser said on Saturday.
He added that Iraq does not need neighboring countries' "approval" to sign the long term security agreement with the U.S.
"This visit is part of Iraq's intentions to reinforce its relations with Arab and regional countries, after the recent political and security developments in Iraq," Sadeq al-Riqabi told Aswat al-Iraq – Voices of Iraq – (VOI).
"Since the change in 2003, Iraq expressed its intention to establish relations, relying on mutual interests, with its neighboring countries and Arab depth," he said.
"Al-Maliki will head a big political – economic delegation to the UAE on a visit that has absolutely no relation with the long-term security agreement currently debated between Iraq and U.S.," he added.
"Iraq does need any neighboring or regional country's approval to sign this treaty, if Iraq finds it meets its sovereignty and independence," he noted.
"This agreement is an Iraqi issue related to Iraq's sovereignty that relies on Iraq's national interest, and the acceptance of the institutions that were elected by the people, such as the Iraq Parliament and executive authorities," he explained.
"It is bit too early to talk about the security agreement, as there are still drafts that have not yet been agreed upon," he proceeded.
"Those countries have the right that we should assure them the agreement, if it would be inked, cannot be used, under any circumstances, to threaten or to commit an aggression against any neighboring country," he asserted.
(www.iraqupdates.com)
When will Hilary realize she's been duped? When will the Democrats realize that Obama lied his way to get the nomination?
I just hope that BIG DEALS are made about this! I don't think that the left will change course and vote for Mc Cain.....but my hope would be that they become so disenchanted thqt they stay home on election day!
The US did not lose the Vietnam war militarily. In every major engagement, they won. But the Communist enemy was able to make every victory a bloody one, with many lives lost. Even as the Communists were LOSING in Vietnam, they knew that America does not have a stomach for prolonged war with mounting casualties. They banked on the electoral process and the adversarial political process to win a war they were losing disastrously on every military front. So the Communists used the left in the US (headed by such as John Kerry) to smear the brave fighting American soldiers and blur the lines of right and wrong.. saying (as Murtha did with the Haditha incident) that American soldiers were cold blooded killers and not out to help the Vietnamese but were instead raping, pillaging and mercilessly killing them.
The reason the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth were so successful is.. they were telling the truth about John Kerry. They didn't torpedo him with falsehoods.. but with TRUTH. (There has never been a rebut to what they were saying about Kerry or his service, merely a decrying the actual event of Kerry being "swiftboated" - which actually means, bringing out the truth about a candidate.) Kerry, like Murtha, lied about those in military uniform.. and the Swiftboat Vets simply stated the truth when they said that he was unworthy of the post of Commander-in-chief. Kerry aided and abetted the enemy and helped the US to lose the war. The Vietnamese honored Kerry's contribution toward their "win" of the war by dedicating a section of their war museum to him. He was a great friend and sympathizer to the Communist Vietnamese enemy - he met with the enemy without precondition - as Carter has and Obama would do. Kerry's "contribution" to the Vietnam war effort helped the American people to become weary of the war they were winning in Vietnam.. so that the electorate chose to elect a peacenik President who "ended" the war by losing it. This electoral change caused an immediate pullout of American troops which caused the US to lose the Vietnamese war - as Obama has said all along he would do in Iraq if he were elected President.
America in Vietnam had sustained a death toll of 58 THOUSAND brave and bright young Americans. The peaceniks were able to argue that this was a war having to do with ideology (Communism) and not any threat to the US homeland. They argued that if America pulled out, there would be no consequences to America.. and why were we fighting THEIR battle and war? Was it to rid the Vietnamese people from wicked, oppressive Communists who would slaughter the people of Vietnam? Is that a good enough reason to expend American lives on foreign soil? And so the peaceniks argued.. the death toll went up.. and they managed to undermine the will to win (in part - as today - by asserting that the troops were wicked and not doing any good and touting the death toll at every juncture they possibly could) and the American people gave up their will to win.. in a war they were winning on the military front.
When America pulled out of Vietnam.. over a million were unable to defend themselves from the Communists that were strengthened by the pullout into a fighting and butchering force. That over TWENTY times as many people died then as Americans died.. and it was seen as inconsequential. It was a very hollow "victory" for American peaceniks as the vets returned in disgrace to a country which had voted to disagree with their hard-fought win. The American military had not lost the war... the politicians did. And that loss cost in lives - dearly. (Not that the peaceniks cared very much about that.. but it made it that much less a "victory" for them and their pacifist views that as a result of calling for peace and "ending the war" - over a million people were slaughtered.)
We are winning in Iraq. Actually, we have WON the war in Iraq. Obama's flip-flop and backwards reversal of that flip-flop, shows that he knows this is the reality on the ground. And this time, the expense of human life, while deplorable at 4,100 American lives, is miniscule in comparison to the good America is doing over there. America is establishing freedom and democracy for the Iraqi people, shoring up an ally in the region which will help with regional peace and security, securing oil supplies from falling into terrorist hands, and protecting the American Homeland in this action. It is this last point "Protecting the American Homeland" - which makes this action far different than Vietnam. Because, unlike the action in Vietnam, if America were to CHOOSE to lose this war as they chose to lose in Vietnam - if America were to pull out by electing Obama into the Whitehouse - this time, there are consequences to the American Homeland. It will suddenly be not that safe. It will embolden the enemy to strike at what they perceive as a weak country - America. It will be costly.. to the Homeland of America this time.. as well as the allies she would leave in Iraq to slaughter. That is because we have moved from conventional warfare to an environment where nuclear war with suitcase sized bombs could happen.. we have moved from two large armies facing one another across a battlefield to gorilla warfare with terrorists who are willing to die and use suitcase-sized nuclear bombs to kill in suicide missions. These new realities were not in our mentality before 911, but they are now. Literally MILLIONS of Americans (and Canadians) could die.. if America immediately pulls out of Baghdad/Iraq as Obama has stated all along that he wishes to do. This is because, just like the withdrawl from Vietnam.. it will embolden the enemy, who are terrorists, to do what they do best, terrorize.
So do NOT give me this "nuanced" or "centrist" stand Obama is now TRYING to profess. He came to his current status of power on a tide of peacenik sentiment. He may now try to deceive the electorate that he is really not a radical leftist peacenik and will "listen" to the military commanders on the ground (because we are WINNING) - but his profession all along has been a disastrous, precipitous withdrawl.. pulling out of a FAILED action (which means LOSING the Iraq war). The Surge has been proven - it has worked and this is not a failed action. The US has (God be thanked) been given help so that the war is almost won. I say almost because it is virtually completed.. and now, Obama wants to be in front of that train and take credit for the action (or says he does). What he opposed, he now says he wishes to support.. and fortunately his peacenik base won't let him. Hence his reversal of his flip-flop on Iraq pullout. They KNOW what he has stood for.. LOSING the Iraq war, pulling out.. ENDING the war. And his peacenik supporters want nothing less than to overturn this American military victory - as they did once before with Vietnam - at the ballot box.
Obama's supporters want him to withdraw, regardless of any consideration. They will force him to stick to that policy, even if he now "centrist" and "nuances" the verbiage he is giving. Therefore, there should be this distinct line between these two candidates on this issue (and all the others, too, but this one is life and death, so more important a priority). People should know that there is a choice.. of winning the war under McCain, or choosing to pull out and lose under Obama. They should understand what that MEANS.. (including the consequences to the Homeland in emboldening the terrorists) and that it is this which has been the choice all along. The stance of Obama was never to withdraw in a sustainable way militarily. That was President Bush's position.. that he would listen to the commanders on the ground and not pull out until they said it was the correct choice militarily. That he would not bow to the pressure of the peacenik groups but would stay in Iraq until the task was won. There is no substitute for victory.
Obama said that was foolish and he would precipitously and immediately pull out of Iraq without consulting the military. Remember when he said he may go back in IF the Al-Qaida were to get a base in Iraq.. and was rebuked by GOP who pointed out that they actually HAD a base in Iraq (at that time)? Something he obviously did not realize.
Any change now toward the GOP position on Iraq.. is merely for political expediency (to try and win the Whitehouse by deceit) and has nothing to do with his professed core values - the core values of those who support him and gave him this political position (peaceniks).. or their desire for the United States to lose in this action as it lost in Vietnam. The choice is clear.. the troops coming home, as they did from Vietnam.. not in victory and as the commanders on the ground would call them to withdraw - but instead, precipitously - immediately, with their tails tucked between their legs - running from the enemy and leaving the Iraqis to fend for themselves - and to the slaughter. The US military says that the Iraqis are not yet able to stand on their own. That means.. another slaughter. No matter how you take it, that is what it means. It is sheer deception and jockeying for political expediency for Obama to go from saying that the US has FAILED in Iraq and should withdraw all the troops immediately.. to saying anything that even resembles President Bush and John McCain's stance on winning the war in Iraq and finishing the fight.. for the good of Iraq and the security of the Homeland of the USA (and a few other important goals, see above).
Withdrawing from Iraq.. by electing Obama to the Presidency.. will facilitate the deaths of millions of Americans at the hands of terrorists. The terrorists know this which is why the Hamas, Iran and Louis Farrakhan.. and a wide range of Communists, Socialists and Marxists.. all love and endorse Obama's candidacy for President. But I cannot believe that the American people are such lemmings that they will give up their lives and the lives of their families to certain death quite so easily.
Obama's camp should not be able to assure the US electorate that by electing Obama and his LOSING strategy in Iraq (which would embolden the terrorists) the Homeland will remain safe and all will be well. No matter what flipping he does.. his past strategy was very clear.. and should remain clearly drawn in opposition to the victory stance of winning the GOP have stood for all along.
Obama should never be able to position himself at the head of the GOP position and say he will act responsibly concerning the Iraq war.. when all along he has been for acting irresponsibly and foolishly in withdrawing from what he said was a "failed action." The American people should hold him to his word and allow him no room to redefine his position to being indistinquishable from the GOP position all along - the position the media have decried and which has made President Bush so unpopular - the position that we should stay in Iraq until the military says we can withdraw with honor, dignity.. and victory.
The number of military and civilian deaths from 1959 to 1975 is debated. Some reports fail to include the members of South Vietnamese forces killed in the final campaign, or the Royal Lao Armed Forces, thousands of Laotian and Thai irregulars, or Laotian civilians who all perished in the conflict. They do not include the tens of thousands of Cambodians killed during the civil war or the estimated one and one-half to two million that perished in the genocide that followed Khmer Rouge victory, or the fate of Laotian Royals and civilians after the Pathet Lao assumed complete power in Laos.
I have always wondered why a country would forgive/wipe the huge debts owed to them by a country that claims not to be poor. I can understand giving a postponement or longer period over which to pay. I personally think that favourable deals are struck in exchange. It is still good news though.
Anyway, I hope this means that we are a step closer to an RV!
Moreover, their opinions were based upon their personal experience and knowledge — none of which has been refuted by Mr. Kerry nor anyone else.
In truth, many if not most of the SBVT were lifelong Democrats, including John O’Neal.
Their personal knowledge was supplemented by research by people like yours truly, who uncovered further damning material about Mr. Kerry, after he returned from his four months in Vietnam.
Such as how Mr. Kerry lied about our soldiers, gave aid and comfort to the North Vietnamese, negotiated with representatives of the enemy, and even was present at a meeting where plans to assassinate pro-war Congressmen were discussed.
This was information a real media concerned about having an informed citizenry media should have been eager to report.
But instead our watchdog media sought to cover-up and even denigrate these facts, and those who dared to bring them to light.
And once again, this is information that has never been refuted.
But as we now know all too well, being "Swift boated" actually means having someone tell inconvenient truths about a Democrat.
Which is of course exactly why this is being trotted out at this time. We are being warned not to "swift boat" Mr. Obama.
That is to say, we are not to bring up any unpleasant facts about him.
The New York Times and their Democrat masters have spoken.
Comments:
1) RightWinger
Yet, if you ask the average moonbat , the are still thinking the Swift Boat veterans only showed up because they were paid off by the Republican party to smear Kerry before the election. They still don’t have a clue that this has been going since the 70’s when Kerry decided to become a traitor to his country and lie about what happened over in Vietnam.
2) wardmama4
Doesn’t anyone of these people even see the hypocrisy and danger of demonizing and attempting to silence those simply expressing their own perception of an event - which with the military would have been documented in triplicate - so exactly what did those documents say (both about the ‘fights’ and Kerry’s wounds) - oh yeah, we are still waiting for those documents to be released by Kerry.
I fear what will be silenced (possibly forever) by an Obamanation term as Master of the Universe.
And the masses are still buying into the lies - we really need to speak up, loudly and often - before our voices are silenced for a long, long time.
3) pagar
I don’t know about anyone else, but every time I hear the term “swift boat”, I think of the great Americans who had already risked their lives in fighting for America in Vietnam. Americans who again answered the call in 2004 to step forward and stop John Kerry (the American who did more than any other American to insure that North Vietnam was able to declare America defeated in Vietnam) from completing the efforts he made in the 1970s and since to defeat America. The term Swift Boat Vets means freedom for America. May God bless them, every one.
4) BillK
Of course no one has ever proven any of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to be incorrect in their assertions; as SG correctly noted it’s the American left that turned “Swift Boat” into a pejorative.
Once again proving the American public has apparently lost the ability to detect irony.
5) OneAmericanCitizen
The Swifties did not make his sorry service an issue Kerry did. Proven lies by Kerry included (off tte top of my head):
1: His first purple heart was from enemy fire. (It was a band aid wound from blow back - he was not experienced with a granade launcher)
2- He was in Cambodia in 1969 listening to Xmas music … where President Nixon had sent him. Nixon wasn’t president until 1/20/69.
3- Kerry was in the Navy - NO He was in the Naval Reserve - the Navy’s equivalent to the National Guard. He was called up.
4- He volunteered for a combat roll - No he volunteered for Swift boat duty. At the time he volunteered, the swift boats were being used for coastal patrol, a safe mission. He wanted to go because the boats were similar to Kennedy’s PT 109. After he volunteered, their roll changed to patrolling inland rivers - more dangerous.
5- His first purple heart was not given by his commander. His commander refused becuase it was just a splinter in his arm. Some other officer not in his unit signed the commendation.
6- His dog “VC” was not blown from one ship to another unharmed as he related in a couple of his civic speeches.
7- His second purple heart was probably from his blowing up of a VC grain storage bin.
8- His third was when he was injured doing evasive manuevers after a nearby boat hit a mine.
9- His bronze star was from pulling a ranger from out of the water. During the same mine incident, Kerry had slammed the throttle full bore and thrown him off the boat. He went a mile or so up the river, then returned to pick him up, waving off another swift boat that was about to get him.
10- He threw his medals over the fence. - he threw his replaceable ribbons over the fence along with medals bought at a pawn shop.
Kerry was a fraud on so many levels. It’s hard to believe that we can find worse. But along comes Obama.
Britishknite - I AGREE! :)
That is an interesting point.. about the forgiveness of debt..
what does the forgiving country get from it?
Hopefully, it is an indication of the RV.. :)
Carole - As for your comment, "When will Hilary realize she's been duped? When will the Democrats realize that Obama lied his way to get the nomination?"
I think Hillary knew about the lying to get the nomination all along. Obama appears to be a typical politician, as even his peacenik base now sees. I just don't think he took Hillary in along with the star-struck idealistic base he was relying on. Now that they see his flip-flopping and lies.. that base is protesting. Certainly there are some very intelligent people in Hillary's camp who may be pursuaded to vote for McCain, as his position appears to me to be closer to their deeply held beliefs than Obama... or not vote at all, as you observed and this poll from July 5th CNN seems to be indicating:
==
Poll: Some Clinton supporters still not embracing Obama
Sat July 5, 2008
From Alexander Mooney CNN
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- One week after Sen. Hillary Clinton made a public show of unity with Sen. Barack Obama, a new survey suggests supporters of the New York senator are increasingly less likely to follow her lead.
A growing number of Clinton supporters polled say they may stay home in November instead of casting their ballot for Obama, an indication the party has yet to coalesce around the Illinois senator four weeks after the most prolonged and at times divisive primary race in modern American history came to a close.
According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Friday, the number of Clinton supporters who plan to defect to Republican Sen. John McCain's camp is down from one month ago, but -- in what could be an ominous sign for Obama as he seeks to unify the party -- the number of them who say they plan to vote for Obama is also down, and a growing number say they may not vote at all.
In a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey completed in early June before the New York senator ended her White House bid, 60 percent of Clinton backers polled said they planned on voting for Obama. In the latest poll, that number has dropped to 54 percent.
In early June, 22 percent of Clinton supporters polled said they would not vote at all if Obama were the party's nominee, now close to a third say they will stay home.
In another sign the wounds of the heated primary race have yet to heal, 43 percent of registered Democrats polled still say they would prefer Clinton to be the party's presidential nominee. That number is significantly higher than it was in early June, when 35 percent of Democrats polled said they preferred Clinton to lead the party's presidential ticket.
Obama won 59 percent of support from registered Democrats polled in June; now he garners 54 percent.
Thanks, Rob N, for the articles..
I like the one, "UAE cancels nearly $7 billion in Iraq debt" which Britishknite also mentioned..
It is a good sign of positive economic progress toward a prosperous Iraqi future... and the Dinar! :)
I hope the people of Iraq will soon have reason to celebrate.
I heard that Iraq is about to be accepted into the WTO.. will try and find/post the article in a bit. :)
This is an interesting article.. but the translation is somewhat.. garbled.
It states, "Completed Iraq's membership in the World"
I think that means.. WTO?
Will have to wait to see if it shows up over here in our easier to read media.. :)
But some have said to trade INTERNATIONALLY.. as in WORLD Trade Organization.. (WTO acceptance, above??)..
that it really should mean that the Iraqis would have to have a world traded Dinar at a decent rate.. not worth less than a cent as it is currently.
So.. it could be possible indication of a soon Revalue.. maybe. :)
The media is not reporting on the MOST SPECTACULAR VICTORY OF THE IRAQ WAR!!!
Are you wondering why? Quote:
The Times of London has this right: the victory in Mosul gives the West the most spectacular victory of the war.
... Too bad the American media missed it.
So much for the American leftist media..
===
On the cusp of the “most spectacular” victory against Al-Qaeda
July 6, 2008
by Ed Morrissey
Did you know that the US and Iraq will shortly conclude “one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror”? You wouldn’t if you read American newspapers or watched American television. The Times of London reports on the approaching end of al-Qaeda in Iraq as the forces of Nouri al-Maliki and the US close the trap on 1,200 AQ terrorists in Mosul.
QUOTE:
After being forced from its strongholds in the west and centre of Iraq in the past two years, Al-Qaeda’s dwindling band of fighters has made a defiant “last stand” in the northern city of Mosul.
A huge operation to crush the 1,200 fighters who remained from a terrorist force once estimated at more than 12,000 began on May 10.
Operation Lion’s Roar, in which the Iraqi army combined forces with the Americans’ 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment, has already resulted in the death of Abu Khalaf, the Al-Qaeda leader, and the capture of more than 1,000 suspects.
==end quote==
How significant will victory in Mosul be? The American commander in the region, Gen. Mark Hertling, calls it “the irreversible point”. It will deprive AQ of an urban base and put them at the mercy of tribal leaders in the countryside. For the terrorists, that means certain death — which will likely force them to find a way out of Iraq without further incident.
Maliki has declared that the terrorist siege of Baghdad and Iraq has collapsed. He blamed unnamed foreign nations for funding the terrorist wave against his nation, and hailed the new Iraqi Army for its tenacity against the radicals of all stripes. While he kept his praise to the Iraqis, the unspoken truth is that the IA could never have survived it without the Bush administration’s shift in strategy and tactics in January 2007, and without George Bush’s tenacity in insisting that we stay and finish the job in Iraq.
And what have we won? AQ has sustained an unmitigated defeat in Iraq. They have lost tens of thousands of recruits and fighters, men that would have otherwise volunteered for other missions in which they didn’t have to face the American military. They have lost their supposedly divine endorsement; why would Allah have called them to action, just to see them destroyed by the infidels? The sheer bloodthirstiness of their actions in Iraq have exposed them as drug-driven demons, not righteous jihadists.
The Times of London has this right: the victory in Mosul gives the West the most spectacular victory of the war. Too bad the American media missed it.
Iranian Minister: Attack Would Provoke Unimaginable Response
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
MADRID, Spain — With Middle East tensions building, Iran's oil minister warned Wednesday that an attack on his country would provoke an unimaginably fierce response.
Over the weekend, the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards warned that Tehran would respond to an attack by barraging Israel with missiles and could seize control of a key oil passageway in the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz.
But a senior U.S. military commander said Wednesday that Washington would not allow that to happen. Cosgriff said that if Iran choked off the Strait of Hormuz, it would be "saying to the world that 40 percent of oil is now held hostage by a single country."
"We will not allow Iran to close it," he told reporters.
What "unimaginable response" could they mean?
Suggested recently..
‘Germ warfare’ fear over African monkeys taken to Iran
July 6, 2008
Daniel Foggo
Hundreds of endangered monkeys are being taken from the African bush and sent to a “secretive” laboratory in Iran for scientific experiments.
An undercover inquiry by The Sunday Times has revealed that wild monkeys, which are banned from experiments in Britain, are being freely supplied in large numbers to laboratories in other parts of the world. All will undergo invasive and maybe painful experiments leading ultimately to their death.
One Tanzanian dealer, Nazir Manji, who runs African Primates, an animal-supplying company based in Dar es Salaam, said that in recent years he had been selling up to 4,000 vervet monkeys a year to laboratories, charging about £60 each.
Vervets are protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites). Despite this they are being routinely caught and sold to any buyer prepared to pay.
Manji said scientists at the Razi Vaccine and Serum Research Institute in Iran had bought 215 vervet monkeys from him this year but he had become suspicious about their true motive, although he was still trading with them. They had “spent a lot of money” on getting the monkeys, even sending over scientists to check on each consignment.
“Iran is very secretive,” said Manji, who has been exporting monkeys for 22 years. “They said it [the monkeys] was for ‘our country’, for vaccine. [They said] ‘We don’t buy vaccine from anywhere; we prepare our own vaccine’.
“But I think they use it for something else. You know why? Because they don’t go on kilos. Iran wants [monkeys weighing] 1.5kg to 2.5kg, [but] 1.5kg for vaccine is not possible.”
Rubibira indicated that finding out what the Iranians wanted the monkeys for would be difficult. “They cannot say, you know. They are secretive. They wouldn’t tell the truth.”
The revelation will fuel speculation that the monkeys may be used for research involving biological weapons. Monkeys are commonly used to test vaccines for ‘biological weapon’ diseases such as anthrax and plague.
The Razi Vaccine and Serum Research Institute, which has its headquarters in Karaj, near Tehran, has been accused in the past by an Iranian opposition group of conducting biological weapons testing.
According to US intelligence, the pharmaceutical industry in Iran has long been used as a cover for developing a germ warfare capability.
In 2005 the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence said Iran “continued to seek dual-use biotechnology materials, equipment and expertise that are consistent with its growing legitimate biotechnology industry but could benefit Tehran’s assessed probable BW [biological weapons] programme”. Earlier this year it reiterated this.
A plan to get an essential agreement past the red tape?
Iraq's al-Maliki wants short-term US agreement
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA
Associated Press
July 7, 2008
ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates (AP) -- Iraq has proposed a short-term memorandum of understanding with the United States rather than trying to hammer through a formal agreement on the presence of U.S. forces, the country's prime minister said Monday.
The Iraqi government proposed the memorandum after widespread Iraqi opposition to United States demands emerged during talks on a more formal Status of Forces Agreement. Some type of agreement is needed to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires at year's end.
The proposed memorandum includes a formula for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, al-Maliki told several Arab ambassadors to the United Arab Emirates during a meeting Monday.
By transitioning to a less formal memorandum and including a withdrawal formula, al-Maliki may have an easier time getting support from Iraqi lawmakers. They had been concerned about the original negotiation's impact on Iraqi sovereignty.
Al-Maliki has promised in the past to submit a formal agreement with the U.S. to parliament for approval. But the government indicated Monday it may not do so with the memorandum.
"It is up to the Cabinet whether to approve it or sign on it, without going back to the parliament," Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told the AP.
Iraq looks to more debt waivers after UAE deal
Agencies
Published: July 07, 2008, 18:23
Abu Dhabi: Iraq seeks debt forgiveness from other Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, following the UAE's waiver of $4 billion in debts, Iraq's government spokesman said on Monday.
"I imagine that the Emirati intiatives will be a push for many countries," Ali Al Dabbagh told Reuters. "We want the others, everyone from Saudi Arabia to the others, to take a similar initiative and for those steps to be courageous."
On Sunday, the UAE named an ambassador to Iraq and cancelled billions of Iraq's debt, including interest and arrears.
Last year, Saudi Arabia pledged to cancel 80 per cent of more than $15 billion in Iraqi debt but has yet to follow through. Kuwait, also owed $15 billion, has yet to write off any debts.
Improved stability and security in Iraq should provide a more solid basis for other Arab countries to normalise relations with Iraq, Dabbagh said.
"Saudi Arabia has announced its intention to open an embassy. We are waiting for it to take the practical steps in officially appointing an ambassador," Dabbagh said.
The United States has pressed Arab governments to support Iraq's recovery by joining Western nations in forgiving their share of Iraqi foreign debts that total up to $80 billion.
(www.gulfnews.com)
Al-Malaki continues to reside in a difficult position. On one side is the U.S. and on the other is Iran. The Iraqi Prime Minister is starting to show some initiative regarding a short-term committment to th presence of U.S. troops.
The GoI is also looking at the Iraqi advantage regarding TSA's in order to boost Iraqi oil ouput. I applaud Al-Malaki and the oil ministry for staking out their respective positions and negotiating from those perspectives.
In the long term, I hope Al-Malaki continues to show this type of initiative when negotiating with Iran.
July Leader Lost in 6 of Last 9 Competitive U.S. Elections Convention period could prove crucial in determining the winner
July 7, 2008
by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ -- In 9 of the past 15 U.S. presidential elections, the candidate who was leading in Gallup polling roughly four months before the election ultimately won the popular vote for president. However, narrowing the set of races to the nine that were competitive, the early polling proved prescient in only three of those.
With Barack Obama leading John McCain by no more than six percentage points in Gallup's early July polling, the 2008 race currently fits best into the "competitive" category. Given that assumption, Gallup's election trends from a comparable point in previous presidential election years offer no strong indication of whether Obama or McCain is headed for victory in November.
Gallup also did a poll which shows that if religion (values voters??) is important to a voter, then that voter is much more likely to vote for John McCain.. But among black or hispanic voters, the religious issue is no factor.. being black or hispanic causes that person to vote for Obama.. based, most likely.. on color identification alone, regardless of religion. The url (also a video on the mainpage of this):
Thank you for the article on WTO ascension. Even with the prospect of WTO ascension this does not guarantee a change in the Dinars exchange rate. On the other hand, WTO ascension accomplishes the convertiblity of the Dinar; making the currency a liquid asset.
Making the Dinar liquid or convertible means this currency can be easily exchanged for other currencies at the exchange rate set by the Central Bank.
Baghdad (NINA)- The Iraqi Accord Front has welcomed the government's intention to sign a memorandum of understanding with the United States to withdraw US forces from Iraqi or set a withdrawal timetable.
(www.ninanews.com)
US says Iraq is "taking its place again in the region"
Politics 7/8/2008 12:40:00 AM
WASHINGTON, July 7 (KUNA) -- The United States welcomed on Monday the decision of the United Arab Emirates to open its embassy in Iraq and write off its debts.
"This event and others in the past several weeks are very encouraging for Iraq. Iraq is starting to take its place once again in the region. It is important for the Iraqi people, for Iraq, and for the region", State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack in his daily press briefing.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was recently in a visit to Abu Dhabi, and Jordans King Abdullah II is expected to visit Baghdad this month and declare opening a new embassy for his country following the footsteps of Bahrain.
"These are all very positive developments, and developments that only two years ago lot of people doubted that they would actually occur", added McCormack.
The State Department declined to comment on statements by Maliki that the security agreement with the United States might include a deadline for withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.
"I hesitate to offer a more full comment other than to say the negotiations are still underway, and that whatever we arrive at is going to be something that is in the interest of both nations, both Iraq and the United States", said McCormack. (end) jm.bs KUNA 080040 Jul 08NNNN
(www.kuna.net.kw)
Agriculture Team Helps Iraqis Improve
July 07, 2008
Army News Service|by SFC Tami Hillis
FORWARD OPERATING BASE KALSU, Iraq - A team from the Borlaug Institute of Texas A&M University Agricultural Team spent approximately one month with the Vanguard Brigade developing a list of recommendations to improve Iraqi agricultural capabilities.
The 14-member team of agricultural and veterinary scientists arrived June 2 to FOB Kalsu -- the first stop in the team's six-month trip to Iraq.
The team is comprised of members specialized in 11 different areas -- irrigation and water use; youth development; cereal, grain and row crop production; horticultural production and cold chain; aquaculture; poultry; livestock; animal health; agricultural machinery; agricultural economics; and strategic planning and agricultural policy.
During the month, members of the team traveled around the Vanguard area of operations to farms so they could observe and collect data on crop production, livestock production, food processing, transportation, labor markets and government services.
"It has been an honor and pleasure to travel with Team Borlaug in the Vanguard area of operations," said Maj. Marilyn Lazarz, Company B, 415th Civil Affair Battalion. "I learned a lot about agriculture and aquaculture in Iraq from the team."
The goal of the team when it leaves is for the Iraqi farmers to say, 'We did it ourselves' and take ownership of their future, said Edwin Price, team leader.
"Members of Team Borlaug are professionals that are devoted to their work and will accomplish their mission," Lazarz said.
The most pressing issue brought up to team members by the farmers during their visits was the lack of water and electricity.
"We were able to talk to the local citizens and do what we needed to do due to the great relationships the units had with the local citizens," said Dr. Glen Shinn, deputy team leader. "We would ask them, is today better than yesterday? And do you think tomorrow will be better than today? And 90 percent of those who responded said yes."
The team's final report to Col. Thomas James, the commander of 4th Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, emphasized five major areas of concern.
First, was a lack of water in Babil province's cropland.
Water is essential for the stabilization and agricultural recovery in the area, said Shinn. The area needs to rehabilitate and maintain their irrigation systems -- pumps, generators and canals. Babil Province has adequate water resources but limited water infrastructure for agricultural production.
Next, the team addressed a lack of youth agriculture programs. Youth are a major part of the labor force for agriculture production at the farm level. The team recommended Iraqis form youth organizations through the schools or the agriculture associations, which currently cater to men. Shinn emphasized that youth programs hold long-term hope for Iraqis.
Third, crop varieties and animal breeds have degraded over time.
"They need to use certified seeds so they are able to produce a higher quality crop," Shinn said. "They also need to import better fish, poultry and cattle genetics."
The team is also concerned that Iraqi livestock are among the world's most diseased -- it is very diverse and widespread.
"You name it, it's here," Shinn said. "A lot of the diseases in both animals and humans are due to poor water sanitation."
They also recommended an increase in the number of veterinary services in the local area to improve this situation.
The last major area of concern was the lack of assistance Babil Province farmers receive from extension agents. A recommendation to establish an extension institute jointly between the Ministry of Agriculture and the universities and institutes will allow farmers to get the support they need.
"They have been in a vacuum for the past 20 years in reference to technology," Shinn said. "The AG Association that is in place now is a very powerful tool and a step forward."
(www.military.com)
Iraq Gains Taking Hold, Mullen Says
July 07, 2008
Associated Press
BAGHDAD - Iraq appears on track to establishing sustainable security - a key step toward withdrawing U.S. troops - the top U.S. military officer said Monday after visiting the newly quiet Sadr City section of the capital.
Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters that important elements of a solution to the Iraqi war - including reduced levels of sectarian violence, political reconciliation and stronger Iraqi forces - are coming into view more than five years after the U.S. invasion.
He repeatedly stressed, however, that the improvements are fragile and could still be reversed.
Mullen's assessment was notably upbeat and comes as the last of five Army brigades that were sent to Iraq in 2007 as reinforcements amid escalating sectarian conflict and rising death tolls is heading home.
"From all I see, the security conditions are holding, the level of violence is down; we're down to a level that we haven't seen in over four years," Mullen said on his fourth visit to Iraq since becoming Joint Chiefs chairman last October. "That, then, ties into decisions to be made later this year about the level of forces. So I hope we can continue the drawdown" after a late-summer pause, he added.
There are now about 145,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down from a peak last year of nearly 170,000.
Pressed to say how much longer it might take to reach a conclusion about the permanence of the security gains, Mullen declined to be pinned down.
"I really need to spend more time with the commanders here to get their current assessment of where we are," he said. "I don't think there's going to be a clear milepost that says, `Hey, we're there.'"
Mullen said he planned to meet later this week with Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, as well as Ryan Crocker, the top U.S. diplomat. Petraeus told Congress in May that he might be able to recommend further troop reductions this fall, after he makes a fresh assessment in late summer.
He flew by helicopter to Sadr City after arriving in the capital on an overnight flight from Washington. He visited U.S. troops at a coalition observation post and strolled through a market in Sadr City.
"We saw extraordinary progress there," he said. "A few months ago no one could go into Sadr City. I was able to walk openly down a street that until recently was extremely unsafe, and I'm encouraged by that."
More broadly, Mullen said progress in Iraq has been remarkable over the past six to 12 months.
"Should that continue for another six to nine to 12 months, certainly we would be in a position to make some decisions based on that. Whether, at that point in time, it would be sustainable or irreversible is something that I think we have to try to figure out."
He cautioned, without being specific, that "there are events which could change that" brighter outlook.
(www.military.com)
Militias finished in Iraq's Basra: governor By Ian Simpson
Tue Jul 8, 7:16 AM ET
BASRA, Iraq (Reuters) - The Shi'ite Mehdi Army militia is finished as a fighting force in Iraq's oil rich Basra province and upcoming provincial elections should pass without violence, the province's governor said on Tuesday.
Mohammed al-Waeli said an Iraqi security offensive against the Mehdi Army of anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr as well as other militias had cut violence in the southern province by up to 90 percent since April.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki launched a crackdown on Shi'ite militias in late March, breaking the stranglehold gunmen had over the province and its capital, Basra city.
The Mehdi Army initially put up fierce resistance, forcing the U.S. military to step in with air and ground support.
A week into fighting, Sadr ordered his militia to lay down their arms. He has since said only a select group would confront U.S. forces, while the rest should focus on political work.
"I think the militias are over in the province of Basra. I really think the Mehdi Army is finished," Waeli, who belongs to a Shi'ite faction that has been a bitter rival at times to Sadr's political movement, told Reuters in an interview.
"Some of the elements have escaped to Iran and those that have remained in the province are not strong and are not going to be active in violence of any sort and will not have any affect on the province."
Most of Iraq's oil exports flow through Basra, the country's gateway to the Gulf. Three of Iraq's six producing oilfields that were open to foreign investors last week are also in Basra.
Officials say imports at Basra's province's main port have doubled since the offensive.
Waeli said the Mehdi Army was now more interested in politics than fighting.
"I think many in the Mehdi Army leadership have started to change their outlook and areas of interest," he said.
KEY ELECTORAL BATTLEGROUND
Waeli said he expected no violence in Basra during provincial elections, partly because of the crackdown.
The elections are scheduled for October 1 but lawmakers in Baghdad have yet to approve an electoral law, which many expect will force a postponement of the polls to later in the year.
Analysts say the elections will be the battleground for a fierce power struggle in Shi'ite southern Iraq, with Basra as the prize given its oil wealth and investment potential.
Sadr's movement, popular among poor Shi'ites, will be taking part in the local elections for the first time, although its candidates will run as independents or join forces with others.
Waeli said the small Shi'ite Islamist party Fadhila would run on its own, not part of any coalition. Fadhila has little clout apart from in Basra and quit Iraq's ruling Shi'ite Alliance early last year.
The other main Shi'ite faction in Basra is the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, a strong backer of Maliki.
A key election issue in Basra will be federalism.
The Supreme Council wants to create a large federal region with wide autonomy that would include the nine southern mainly Shi'ite provinces. Sadr opposes the idea while Fadhila favors autonomy just for Basra.
"The people of Basra, who I speak for, would like to see Basra become its own separate region. That is up to people to decide," Waeli said.
Britain once had control of Basra but transferred responsibility for security to Iraq forces last December.
(Writing by Dean Yates: Editing by Diana Abdallah)
(www.news.yahoo.com)
Thanks for your comments on my post. I skimmed through the other postings and didn't realise that mine was similar to Rob N's. Your post on AQ being driven out of Iraq was very encouraging. I know there are still bombings and attacks happening out there, but it is good to see that there are not so many happening as was the frequency a 2 years ago. (Or are they not being reported as much?)
As I type this, the G8 is featuring on the news talking about alternative energy and reversing climate change. I wonder how all this fits in with their strategies for Iraq's oil? I'm guessing that they're all lining up for it. I bet none of them will want to miss the opportunity. Will all the talk about reducing carbon emissions go out the window, or will they strike a balance between alternative cleaner sources and Iraq's oil?
If the left is victorious with their indoctrination of "going green" via the MSM I believe oil will continue to be the major source of our energy for decades to come.
In America, the infastructure is not in place to support the use of solar, wind, hydrogen, or natural gas in our automobiles and homes. Of course, it is my hope through concerted efforts to defeat the left and their going green gospel.
Thanks, Rob N, for your post on the WTO article saying it makes the Dinar liquid.
That is a good step, then. :)
EXCELLENT articles you posted today on the positive progress in Iraq,
Thanks. :)
Britishknite, the attacks are down and there is so much GOOD NEWS from Iraq..
that the leftists are not reporting it.
It doesn't fit into their agenda.
Murtha was interviewed recently and finally conceded it was going well in Iraq.
But then bashed the troops in a horrible manner.. which they took out of it.
See point four after the article:
CNN: Murtha Flip-flops on Surge
By Noel Sheppard
July 7, 2008
One of Congress's most outspoken critics of the war as well as last year's surge in troops, Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Penn.), told a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, news station on Thursday that he believes things have gotten better in Iraq.
Yet, apart from CNN, his statements appear to have gone largely unnoticed.
This of course is in stark contrast to the media frenzy that occurred in November 2005 when Murtha called for an immediate withdrawal of troops.
QUOTE:
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: After saying at one point there was no way the troop surge in Iraq would work, John Murtha is giving a nod to the operation.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TODD (voice-over): From one of the most brutal critics of the president's conduct in Iraq, a more upbeat take on how the war is going. Interviewed by Pittsburgh TV station KDKA, Democratic congressman and Vietnam veteran John Murtha is asked, did the surge in Iraq work?
REP. JOHN MURTHA, (D) PENNSYLVANIA: I think the short term it certainly reduced incidents. I'm not sure whether it's because of the Iraqis are just worn out, but certainly the way they're doing it today makes a big difference.
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: There's some disagreement among Democrats about whether the surge is working, whether it's making any difference, whether the political situation is improving or not. There's a little debate about that. But in terms of getting out of Iraq, there really is no disagreement. Democrats want out.
TODD: Bill Schneider believes one way the Republicans can score points off Murtha's comments on the surge is to point out that what many Democrats said when the surge began, that it wouldn't work. At that time John Murtha said the same thing, saying a surge in troops was unacceptable.
==end quote==
Interesting report from CNN. Makes you wonder why Google News and LexisNexis searches identified no other major media reported Murtha's statements.
Comments:
1) About three weeks ago.. by maggieqpublic
About three weeks ago I told my brother-in-law, who has an extreme case of BDS…. “Look, I always told you I HOPED I was right about the possibility of a successful Iraqi invasion, but I never felt certain about the outcome, and I still don’t. However, your continuing focus on the negative tells me that you are unwilling to admit that your assessment of the situation may have been faulty.”
He was angry, but silent.
Let’s face it folks…. if every-day civilians are having a hard time saying, “I may have been wrong about Iraq,” how can we possibly expect power-mad politicians (like Murtha) to admit a fundamental error in judgment?
2) If a liberal feels forced by ent
If a liberal feels forced to admit that things are going well in Iraq, especially an incredible ass-hat liberal like Murtha, then things must be going really, really, really well. So glad to hear it!
Good job, soldiers!
3) Most of the Democrats by Rush Fan
Most of the Democrats in Congress are an embarrassment to our brave soldiers and the United States.
Example: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s article at The Huffington Post entitled "Bringing the War to an End is my Highest Priority as Speaker". (Notice the picture of President Bush with a bone through his nose) http://www.huffingto...
Example: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at a press conference reading with approval from the nonbinding Senate resolution: "It is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the U.S. troop presence in Iraq" http://www.washingto...
Example: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in an interview with Good Morning America: "I think it is very difficult for the President to sustain a war of this magnitude without the support of the American people, and without the support of the Congress of the United States. That's why Congress will vote to oppose the President's escalation." http://www.usnews.co...
Example: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced to journalists: "I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," http://www.breitbart...
Additionally, some on the GOP side were against the surge. For example, Senator Sam Brownback, just back from Iraq, said: “…it is difficult to understand why more U.S. troops would make a difference." http://news.xinhuane...
Finally, NewsBusters has done an excellent job of documenting the MSM role in downplaying the role of the surge.
Thankfully, President Bush has been steadfast in his leadership.
Which political party is invested in our defeat in Iraq?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion - nobody is entitled to their own personal "facts."
It is or it ain't - no in-between.
4) Murtha Does It Again! by coffee260
Noel,
Your post entitled "CNN: Murtha Flip-flops on Surge" has one very
significant quote missing from it. I don't know if you know this but
when you quoted the report done by CBS affiliate KDKA they must have
edited the tape leaving out a very damning quote from Murtha.
In your post you quote from the video clip this,
I think the short term it certainly reduced incidents. I'm not sure whether it's because of the Iraqis are just worn out, but certainly the way they're doing it today makes a big difference.
When in fact, he actually said, in full, [emphasis added to omission]
I think the short term it (the Bush Surge) has
reduced incidents. I'm not sure if it's because the Iraqis are just
worn out but certainly the way they are doing it today it makes a big
difference. It used to be we broke down doors. We went in and we killed people inadvertantly. Now they're much more careful about it.
Did you get that? American troops "...broke down doors" and "...killed people inadvertantly."
No wonder they edited the tape. But thanks to Gateway Pundit we can get
the whole story here
[http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/07/murtha-surge-is-working-because.html].
I think this is so significant an omission it calls into question the whole report done by CNN.
Britishknite - As for the coverage of the news in Iraq.. Jim Pinkerton said just recently on Fox News that the NYT is so consumed by its hatred of President Bush that the paper actually wants America to lose the war in Iraq. Certainly, the coverage from the MSM looks that way and reading through this one post will explain it all very neatly for you.. including the basis in law being used to justify the present perplexity...
No matter how they try to justify it.. as Cal Thomas so aptly observed (below, in the transcript):
CAL THOMAS: The press has switched sides. We are no longer the good guys..
They may attempt to justify this.. but it is the TRUTH.. they are NOT the good guys any longer.. though they will argue til they are blue in the face.. there will be a day of Reckoning.. and in that day their justifications will be gone.. because even they know they are no longer on the good guy's side... and how will they cover that up before the seat of Almighty God's Judgement?
===
'The New York Times Wants America to Lose'
By Mark Finkelstein
July 6, 2008
Why would the New York Times divulge information that could prove harmful to the national security of the United States? Because, so consumed is it by hatred of President Bush, that the paper actually wants America to lose. Such is the considered opinion Jim Pinkerton expressed on yesterday's Fox News Watch. The case in point was an article the Times published on June 30, 2008, Amid U.S. Policy Disputes, Qaeda Grows in Pakistan, which quoted from a "highly-classified Pentagon order" describing internal disputes at the Pentagon over plans to capture Osama Bin Laden and defeat al Qaeda.
QUOTE:
JIM PINKERTON: We endanger national security when you leak sources and methods. For example, the story that Cal [Thomas] alluded to before, about the wiretaps across the world.
JANE HALL: That's a different deal.
PINKERTON: OK. I think—just a hunch—that the New York Times hates the Bush administration so much that they want us to lose, that's what I think.
View video at (url).
PATRICIA MURPHY [of Citizen Jane]: The New York Times was complicit with the Bush administration when we were going into Iraq. All of those unnamed sources—Scooter Libby—they were protecting the Bush administration.
PINKERTON: In the last four years, five years, they have, shall we say, changed their tune. Judith Miller and others are gone. And now it's nothing but people who just have such a grudge against Bush that they want to see America fail.
===
A bit later, Cal Thomas weighed in with a, shall we say, micturative metaphor.
QUOTE:
CAL THOMAS: The press has switched sides. We are no longer the good guys, as we were during World War II, when there was a censorship board, and mostly the press cooperated with the government because they knew we were on the same side.
ALISYN CAMEROTA [hosting]: But Cal, isn't it also the role of the press to be a watchdog of government, and in this case, if they're not really looking for Osama Bin Laden, shouldn't the American public know about that?
THOMAS: Well, there's a difference between being a watchdog and peeing on the fireplug, and that's what the New York Times is doing.
===end quote==
I can't help but think of Rush Limbaugh's parody ad in which the New York Times urges terrorists to subscribe to keep current with the U.S. government's plans against them.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle.
Comments:
1) FINALLY!!!! Someone by OldSailor88
FINALLY!!!!
Someone had the huevos to say it on National TV. It's been obvious for quite some time that the NYT would like nothing better than seeing America lose and GWB shamed.
Too bad someone wasn't saying this for almost the last 8 years...
Oh that's right - we have
Like some one finally saying, "Hey, there's a five ton elephant in this room!"
2) Statement of the obvious by Anchor89
Statement of the obvious...
Next, Pinkerton will shock everyone by telling them that water is wet.
The sad part is that some people are so delusional or ignorant they think it isn't.
3) It is a question of sources by BD
It is a question of sources and methods. The NYT publishes them as often as is possible due to their inherent dislike of the US Military and Intelligence coupled with a hefty dose of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome).
Add to this the hefty dose of a desire to protect HUMINT Sources and begin to se why such leaks by the NYT are SOOO damn damaging.
Why else have classified material?
4) Sources and methods by BD
Sources and methods ...
Imagine if you will that the US military has spent millions of dollars to produce a Top Secret airborne sensor platform that can geolocate bad guys whom we are searching for, but only if they fly over them while they think of ice cream. NOw imagine this system is in use by the US military in the search of a notorious terrorist organizations leadership, has been very effective at nailing several and shows promise to find the rest of them.
Now imagine that the only drawback to the system is that it canot read through an aluminum foil covering such as a hat or skull cap.
Now imagine that a CIA analyst who is jealous of the military and its new system decides to provide this information to the New York Times.
Is the New York TImes justified in releasing a story that has the headline "New secret system the US Military is using in GWOT is prone to be defeated by simple tin foil hat countermeasure or even not thinking of icecream and is waste of money."
While this Ice Cream Mind reader scenario is imagined, other systems HAVE been defeated by similar headlines.
Regarding the motivations to leak to the NYTimes, you will have to ask someone who works for the CIA, as they seem to corner the market on that.
4) Real Example.. by upcountrywater
Like.. Giving away the satelite phone ability of locating all callers,
When osama rode off in Tora Bora, he ditched his phone thankx to NYT.
5) What AQ didn't know. . . by WingletDriver
What AQ didn't know. . .until they read it in the NYT:
1) The name of the CIA agent who interrogated KSM. Why would you publish his name unless you wanted him to get killed?
2) The cooperation from EU governments in tracking AQ banking. We were actually following the money trails and nailing these guys until, for no reason whatsoever, the NYT published this method. The money trails dried up overnight.
3) That we were tracking OBL by his satellite phone. Good job NYT. OBL hasn't used it since.
4) Our interrogation techniques like waterboarding, which, btw, was only used on a couple of high value captives. Now every AQ operative and moron with a YouTube account trains for this type of duress.
But the NYT has another goal when they blow these stories--embarrass our allies. Pakistan is not very stable and Musharraf is only able to help us weakly. Printing stories about how he is allowing us a freehand to strike in his country only gives anti-US agents the opportunity to claim he's a US puppet. What purpose did the story of us using drones serve if, as you said, any terrorist could come up with it in a 15 min brainstorming session?
6) NYT and Secrets by jaywl
NYT and Secrets
The NYT publishes our national secrets because they can, and they consider themselves as a fourth branch of government. I remember when the SCOTUS gave us the decision on the Pentagon Papers. Without getting into the whole thing, just a couple of points.
The decision effectively resulted in permission for the press to publish secrets unless the government knew they were about to do so and could prove almost insurmountable reasons why they should have "prior restraint" imposed.
What made those reasons so hard to prove was the part of the decision that gave the press an almost official duty to restrain the Executive in ways our founders chose not to do. From Wikipedia:
"Justice Potter Stewart and Justice Byron R. White agreed that it is the responsibility of the Executive to ensure national security through the protection of its information. However, in areas of national defense and international affairs, the President of United States possesses great constitutional independence that is virtually unchecked by the Legislative and Judicial branch. "In absence of governmental checks and balances," per Justice Stewart, "the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in [these two areas] may lie in an enlightened citizenry - in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can here protect the values of democratic government."
So it evolves on the Times and the WaPo to decide, in areas of national security no less, what information the public needs to protect our democratic values. I found it hard to swallow then and, in light of their conduct since, even harder now. I do not understand why one of our Presidents since then has not revisited this in the courts. When men are dying on the battlefield the conditions exacted for prior restraint certainly should be lower than historical papers on the origins of a war.
7) Several polls have shown roughly 30-35% of Democrats by DaMav
Several polls have shown roughly 30-35% of Democrats want to see a US defeat in Iraq. This would not only be punishment for the hated Bush but for a country they see as being arrogant and turning into an imperialist empire. This isn't rhetoric, it's fact.
It's not much of a stretch to figure that the top decision makers at the NY Time probably fall into that group. Unfortunately to a lot of people the obvious is not so obvious so it's good to hear somebody make the point on television.
8) A good protion of that 35% by BD
A good protion of that 35% would seek the US defeat In ANY war. The American left has come to prize the notion that they are the party of peace, at any price ever since the bad old days of the 1960's.
They teach their children to run from all fights, and to negotiate at all costs. The modern day incarnation of evil to them is the Imperialist US soldier who they see as destructive even on his best day.
The New York Times might invite a terrorist such as Arafat to their editorial boardroom, but will damn sure never invite an SF Soldier or a Recon Marine.
I recognise the symptons in the NY Times as I have family members who fall into this category. Let us just say that Christmas for the past 24 years has been "interesting".
9) I say they should be put on trial for treason by wdhorning
The courts have ruled a "free press" does not have the right to outright slander or libel, to incite civil riot or to encourage criminal acts, and it cannot violate private citizens' privacy (if material is obtained illegally, such as trespassing on private property to obtain it), and a slew of other things. So how hard it is to believe a "free press" does not have the right to reveal national security secrets?
You see, while inviduals and organizations have the right to a free press, that right does not empower them to destroy the rights of others. In short, all rights have limits, especially limits that are imposed when said rights violate others' rights.
Therefore, freedom of religion does not entitle one to grab a human off of the street for the purpose of human sacrifice, since that would violate the rights of that human. Likewise, free speech does not entitle one to threaten another person's life. And free press does not entitle the press to print stories that threaten the lives of all Americans, such as revealing national security or military secrets to our sworn enemies !!!!
YES, the NYT is threatening my life when it prints stories that aid my sworn enemies by giving them facts that they may read that then may help them kill more Americans. This is because my enemy may learn from the NYT where they are geographically hunted by operatives, and then theis may help them escape and live another day to try kill me, say while on board an aircraft or whatever. This is not slander, this is not libel, this is fact.
Personally, if I were Atorney General, I would find a way to get indictments against the "SOBs" at the NYT for treason.
10) NYT hates America - No Kidding! by kevinm13
Jim Pinkerton was right on the money when he says that the NYT wants America to lose. They have gotten so wound up in their "I hate Bush" feelings that they want whatever it takes to make him look bad, including defeat to the terrorists, bad pubicity from any number of trumped up scandals like problems at Guantanamo or we are losing the war in Iraq at the same time as we are losing focus on the war on terror.
I have done all I can personally by not ever buying the paper, boycotting its advertisers and telling the truth about their agenda to all my friends and acquaintances. May they lose all their advertisers and suffer a quick and painful death for their hatred of America.
U.S. opposes arbitrary Iraq withdrawal date
Reuters - Wednesday, July 9 2008
TOYAKO, Japan (Reuters) - The United States remains opposed to setting an "arbitrary" date for withdrawing troops from Iraq, the White House said on Wednesday after Iraqi officials called for a timetable as part of a security agreement being negotiated with Washington.
"We have always been opposed and remain so to an arbitrary withdrawal date," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said to reporters traveling with President George W. Bush in Japan.
The United States believes those decisions should be "based on conditions on the ground" and Iraqi officials agree with that, she said.
The White House said the statements from Iraqi officials about a timetable for troop withdrawal partly reflected improvements in the security situation in Iraq.
"I think that is a reflection of first and foremost the positive developments that we've seen recently in Iraq, but in addition to that, the negotiations are intensifying," Perino said.
"This is about their future and they want to take on more of their own responsibility, and we want that too," she said.
Perino said she would not put a timetable on when the security agreement might be completed.
"We want to be able to try to work this out quickly and the main reason that we want this is because our troops are going to be there past the end of this year, that's a fact," she said.
This request is a reflection of first and foremost the positive developments that we've seen recently in Iraq...
you know.. the ones the MSM is not reporting on.
Those are of such a positive magnitude.. that the Iraqis believe the US CAN withdraw..
There is that much victory and optimism. :)
Note the Iraqis AGREE: The United States believes those decisions should be "based on conditions on the ground" and Iraqi officials agree with that..
so that means.. the Iraqis believe such a withdrawl IS based on conditions on the ground.
But then, the MSM thinks Obama can get into the WH and then claim HE (and not the surge and GOP strategy) won this withdrawl.
Claim all the victory without any blood, sweat or tears (show me how many Democrat's sons are serving, by the way.)..
all while saying the peacenik position has worked instead. Slick.
And.. another reason the point won't be brought out satisfactorily in any MSM reports...
is because, like the NYT.. they actually want the US to lose.
So reporting on how we are WINNING in Iraq is not on their agenda.. (unless they can use it to foist themselves into the Whitehouse)..
hence their silence on the issue.
Comments