You need prozac Betool. Everyone else seems to be excited about Iraq turning the corner,but you guys are on the 21st step to self-immolation. Just light the damn match and put us out of your misery.

"Still, the Iraqi government signed the agreement!"

Did the Sawa report say the GoI signed the agreement knowing about the discrepancy in the Turkish translation, or that they agreed with it?

Well, the source was an Iraqi deputy minister of foreign affairs, which means he is the government.

Plus, how could a govenrment sign an agreement with another without reading it?
Remember, the two sides have to sign the two copies of the document.

*sigh*

If I were Turkey I would think twice before sending troops across the border into Iraq. You just never know when you'll get them back.

Nice to see you again, Omar. I assume you are busy with school "stuff" since the start of the new year. :)

And why did not we want Saddam Hussein and we are not doing anything to get rid of Maliki?

Well I don't know, Omar. Have you started an opposition political party yet? Started gathering support for any other existing potential candidates for the next election? You can never start too early, you know. That is, according to our politicians. :)

"Remember, the two sides have to sign the two copies of the document."

That's a really important discrepancy between the two versions! Please post updates if you here anything more about this.

I hope that Turkey will not invade Iraq, but I can understand the frustration that the Turkish government must feel. The Kurdish rebels are being very stupid. They already essentially have their own country in northern Iraq. Now, why do they want to screw that up by committing terrorist actions in Turkey? Maybe the Iraqi Kurdish leaders would be wise to capture the rebels themselves for the protection of their own people from a Turkish invasion!

I did not know that Iraqi children were traveling to Sweden unaccompanied by their parents or relatives. I am sad for these children and the trauma they must feel at being separated from their families.

That's a good post, 24.

My own opinion is close to yours, on the "government" of Maliki. It really is powerless, and dependent on the goodwill of foreign powers to stay intact.

[24] "As the Turks are preparing to invade Iraq [why not if everyone has an army can, and if there is no Iraqi government and military forces to defend the country] they have been sending messages to the American administration saying that no one can stop them if they wanted to go ahead and kill hundreds more of civilian Iraqis in their pursue of Turkish rebellions in northern Iraq."

That's a good point. Why IS Iraq's army so useless?

Well, I've been reading my archives of articles, and have come across some interesting newsclips that shed light on the matter:

2005: "Al-Hakim also accused the United States of blocking Iraq’s purchase of undisclosed “heavy weaponry.”

http://www.kurd.org/newsletters/20050531123440.html


then


2006: Iraq's prime minister, given only qualified backing by Bush in comments this week aimed at reassuring Americans over his project in Iraq, criticised Washington for failing to bring security. Nuri al-Maliki said his Shi'ite-led government could do so in six months if U.S. forces gave them more weapons and responsibility.

Maliki told Reuters his police were having to share rifles but, with better American help, could bring respite from dozens of daily killings in half the 12-18 months the U.S. commander in Iraq says is needed before Iraqis can take control.

"If, as we are asking, the rebuilding of our forces was in our own hands, then it would take not 12-18 months but six might be enough," he said. "If anyone is responsible for the poor security situation in Iraq it is the (U.S.-led) Coalition.

"I cannot move a single company without Coalition approval ... I have to be careful fighting some militias and terrorists ... because they are better armed than the army and police."

http://in.news.yahoo.com/061026/137/68sa6.html


then


2007: ""Exclusively reported on Al-Hayat today, a list of Iraq purchased weapons for the year 2007, Al-Hayat accuses the Americans of preventing the Iraqi army from accessing heavy arms.
[…]
An anonymous source from the Iraq Ministry of Defense told the newspaper that the Americans are preventing the armament of the Iraqi army. Purchasing the weapons is done by an American agency called FMC Corp., the job of the Iraqi representatives is to make a list of their needs, this list must be approved by the Americans, do not allow the purchase of heavy weapons such as: artilleries and air-defense systems."

http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2007/10/12/al-hayat-the-us-prevents-iraq-from-purchasing-heavy-arms/"

Clearly, the Americans are blocking the so-called Iraqi "government" from rebuilding its army in any effective manner, and have been doing so for quite some time. The reason to me, is twofold:

1: The Us does not trust the same government that they have pledged to defend. (No surprises, neither do I. But then, I never promised to defend it.)
2: The US wants to keep Iraq weak and dependent on American muscle for defending itself against its neighbours, thus creating a permanent state of occupation.

The sick joke is, I simply cannot see the US standing in the path of its friend Turkey as it slaughters the Iraqi Kurds. I guess the Iraqis are allowed to be killed only by "approved" forces ... ?

"Clearly, the Americans are blocking the so-called Iraqi "government" from rebuilding its army in any effective manner, and have been doing so for quite some time..."

Clearly, the Americans are waiting for trustworthy leadership committed to reconciliation and peace emerge in Iraq before arming entities that may be hostile to America.

"The US wants to keep Iraq weak and dependent on American muscle for defending itself against its neighbours, thus creating a permanent state of occupation."

Yes, even though there is no motivation, reason, or precedent for this, the US wants Iraq in a "permanent state of occupation."...LOL.

Stop the lies!

What do you mean stop the lies, Kryptonite?

We always occupy countries and take their stuff!

Look at Kuwait! We occupied them and now we govern them and we took all their oil.

Look at Saudi Arabia! Our troops went in and they never went out. Running the whole place now and all the oil controlled by Bush.

Look at Grenada and Panama. We are still there and do they get to choose their own governments? No!

Turkey is in NATO. We didn't occupy them but we force them to do whatever we want. See how they let us invade Iraq from their territory like good puppets?

We made the Philippines a colony and it's still one today.

We "liberated" France from the Germans and when de Gaulle asked us to leave, did we do it? Hell, no! We run the place down to the present moment. It's no accident they supported the war effort in Iraq from the beginning.

And all the other places we run from behind the scenes by pulling strings and making the Jewish conspiracy do our bidding. Or else, we do the Jewish conspiracy's bidding. One of the other. Or both! Both! Yes, that's it...

And Iraq is the latest notch on our stick. Why should we give it up? Whoever "we" are....

"We always occupy countries and take their stuff!"

You have an extremely broad definition of "occupy countries and take their stuff..."

By your characterization, what country doesn't "occupy countries and take their stuff"? Get out of your box, moron - the world is a big place, and if you travel a bit, you might realize that America does not "own" or "control" other countries, except in your delusional mind.

kryptonite, I think jeff was being sarcastic...

Man! I LOVE Kryptonite. He always manages to come up with something entertaining. Let's check this last exchange:

[bruno] "Clearly, the Americans are blocking the so-called Iraqi "government" from rebuilding its army in any effective manner, and have been doing so for quite some time..."

[kryptonite] Clearly, the Americans are waiting for trustworthy leadership committed to reconciliation and peace emerge in Iraq before arming entities that may be hostile to America.

EXACTLY. Thank you Kryp, that is precisely my point. Sovereignty is an illusion and a sham.

[bruno] "The US wants to keep Iraq weak and dependent on American muscle for defending itself against its neighbours, thus creating a permanent state of occupation."

[krypt] Yes, even though there is no motivation, reason, or precedent for this, the US wants Iraq in a "permanent state of occupation."

Precedent? Look no further than JAPAN, if you want to see this principle in action. Like in Iraq, the Americans wrote the Japanese constitution to keep that state weak and helpless and dependent on US muscle until it had been properly absorbed into the US framework.

[kryp] "Stop the lies!"

And yet ... I note that Iraq is STILL occupied, and that even more occupying troops than in 2003 are trampling over Iraqi sovereignty every day.



[rhus] "kryptonite, I think jeff was being sarcastic..."

No, no, don't listen to Rhus!

He's an INSURGENT APOLOGIST, just like Jeff.

He EVEN had an "I love Insurgents" TAG on him several times!

YOU NEED TO TAKE THESE TWO ON, Kryp!

They surely pose a bigger danger than ol Bruno!

:lol:

Nice intellectual level you have amongst the warmongers, Rhus ... :)

I love seeing Bruno's face get all red with frustration and anger at having his arguments twisted up in a matter of a few short sentences.

"Look no further than JAPAN, if you want to see this principle in action."

Japan, the second largest economy in the world? THAT Japan? Yep, that whole "American occupation" thing sure ruined them. God, you're a moron.

"EXACTLY. Thank you Kryp, that is precisely my point. Sovereignty is an illusion and a sham..."

LOL. Therefore, you must send suicide bombers to blow up markets and religious pilgramages. If Iraq isn't a completely "independent" from the US like, I don't know, France, you must make sure its people suffer until the US has cut all ties to Iraq. Only AFTER Iran and Al Qaeda are sufficiently "in power" -- THEN Iraq will be "sovereign"...

Now run along, Bruno. You hateful little creature.

"[rhus] "kryptonite, I think jeff was being sarcastic..."

No, no, don't listen to Rhus!

He's an INSURGENT APOLOGIST, just like Jeff."

LOL. I don't know Jeff. Generally, once I start seeing the signs of a moronic anti-America radical, I assume its a Bruno or Annie type. Jeff seems to have the mouth foaming and lack of reason down.

Apologies to Jeff for responding with such haste.

President Vladimir Putin suggests US campaign against Iraq is 'pointless' and for oil wealth
Associated Press



October 18, 2007

MOSCOW -- President Vladimir Putin, in his latest jab at Washington, suggested Thursday that the U.S. military campaign in Iraq was a "pointless" battle against the Iraqi people, aimed in part at seizing the country's oil reserves.

Putin was responding to one of dozens of questions from the public in an annual televised Q&A session -- his sixth since taking office in 2000.

The event broadcast live on state-controlled TV channels and radio stations consisted largely of people from around the country quizzing Putin mainly on bread-and-butter issues, like pensions, public workers' salaries and school funding.

But a mechanic from the Siberian city of Novosibirsk asked Putin about comments he said were made some years ago by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who suggested that Siberia had too many natural resources to belong to one country.

"I know that some politicians play with such ideas in their heads. This, in my view, is the sort of political erotica that might satisfy a person but hardly leads to a positive result," Putin said.

"The best example of that are the events in Iraq -- a small country that can hardly defend itself and which possesses huge oil reserves. And we see what's going on there. They've learned to shoot there, but they are not managing to bring order," he said.

"One can wipe off a political map some tyrannical regime ... but it's absolutely pointless to fight with a people," he said. "Russia, thank God, isn't Iraq. It has enough strength and power to defend itself and its interests, both on its territory and in other parts of the world."

Putin said that the U.S. campaign was aimed at seizing control of Iraq's oil wealth, and said a concrete date must be set for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

"I believe one of the goals is to establish control of the country's oil reserves," he said.

Unless a date for pulling out is set, Putin said, "the Iraqi leadership, feeling (safe) under the reliable American umbrella, will not hurry to develop its own armed and law enforcement forces."

In recent months, Putin has increasingly confronted U.S. foreign policy, deepening the chill between Washington and Moscow. Among other things, he has questioned U.S. plans for missile defense in Europe and the U.S. push for sanctions against Iran for its nuclear programs.

On Thursday Putin discussed his recent trip to Iran, which is under increasing Western pressure and scrutiny over its nuclear program.

Threats against Iran, he said, are "harmful for international relations because dialogue with states ... is always more promising."

The Russian leader opened the session with a deft display of arcane statistics, reeling off a string of numbers to show the improvement in Russia's economy during his seven years in office. Much of the economic growth has been due to high world oil prices. He also said the country's birth rate was the highest it has been in 16 years and the death rate the lowest since 1999.

A sampling of questions listed on a Web site set up by the broadcasters before the Q&A session ranged from concerns about salaries for public sector workers to the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi to environmental worries.

Putin, who is widely popular among Russians for the stability and relative prosperity during his regime, has sought to use phone-ins along with tightly choreographed, lavish television coverage to project the image of a leader responding directly to voters' concerns.

He said Thursday that Russia will have a different president next year, reaffirming his plans to step aside but leaving unclear what exact role he might have.

With just two months remaining before crucial parliamentary elections -- and five before presidential elections -- speculation has mounted about Putin's plans once his second, consecutive term ends in March.

"In 2008, in the Kremlin there will be a different person," Putin said. He also said he expected no radical policy changes from his successor, adding that the next president should "keep the stable course of our nation and continuity in realizing the plans that have been devised in recent years."

(Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

"President Vladimir Putin suggests US campaign against Iraq is 'pointless' and for oil wealth..."

So, America's rivals want people to believe that America is just in Iraq for the oil? What a shock! Particularly considering that kickbacks Russia gave to Saddam for providing them with oil on the cheap...

So, America's rivals want people to believe that America is just in Iraq for the oil? What a shock!


So, America's apologists want people to believe that America is not in Iraq for the oil? What a shock!

RE: CreepTonite, 12:51 PM.

[Creep] "kickbacks Russia gave to Saddam for providing them with oil on the cheap".

This Monkey CreepTonite confirms himself as the most idiotic, ignorant beast here.
As everybody knows, Russia is a BIG producer of oil ... it never had ANY need to get Iraqi oil "on the cheap" !!!

LOL !

****Still, the Iraqi government signed the agreement!

What is a stronger evidence that Iraq is a failed state that this? If we have a government that doesn’t read the agreements it signs,****

Interesting post 24!

I not a fan of the Iraqi government but here I have to say that they are not alone on these issues.

I went through a lot of signed weapon agreements between Sweden and other countries last year. I found for example in the deal between Sweden and Saudi Arabia a huge translation difference. In the Swedish part is said “promote international peace” and in the English and Arabic version it said “promote internal peace”. So which is it I asked not a single answer jet.

No matter what the answer is; for me just the fact that a democracy is strengthening a dictatorship, once again, military is wrong. A dictatorship regime should not be strengthened to suppress its people and it should not be strengthened to have the ability to attack other countries either. But since Sweden can earn billions of dollars out of it and a couple of thousands Swedish people get to keep their jobs we once again see how a democratic government is willing to put aside its belief in democratic values. When will this change?

why is Maliki still in power? And why do we blame Saddam Hussein for staying in power although people did not want him? And why did not we want Saddam Hussein and we are not doing anything to get rid of Maliki?

this is the issue isn't it. why is bush still in power? he has broken every rule? do the people of a country really have any power to make choices against those in control in these times?

about turkey..once again lets take a look at the airforce journal's map of the new middle east.

i presume this is a goal. mistranslations are a way of achieving goals, or people's perceptions of goals. they are used all the time.

for example (i read this story first in the london telegraph, then AP, there are other sources listed at the bottom of the link, tho we won't hear much about this in the msm here)

A United Nations press release discussing the General Assembly’s Disarmament Committee meeting mistranslated comments ascribed to an unnamed Syrian diplomat as saying that Israel had on various occasions “taken action against nuclear facilities, including the 6 July attack in Syria.”

The UN has since gone through the tape recordings of the meeting and found that there was no mention of the word “nuclear” at all. According to the UN, the error was one of translation, involving several interpreters translating the same meeting.

now what is achieved by this mistranslation? the mistranslation regarding turkey? can we assume someone was aware of the different versions at their inception? or do we always just chalk these things up as 'mistakes'?

excuse me for assuming intention. but why?

let us ask ourselves how the goal of a 'free kurdistan' (did anyone else notice the illuminating name on the new map?) that includes segments of both turkey and iran will come about. perhaps the charitable neighbors of the region will voluntarily offer the new country some of their region to make a larger state. out of the goodness of their hearts that is.

ya think? me neither. more likely this will be accomplished w/much bloodshed. now i know it may be a stretch of the imagination but sometimes when a country wants war, rather than just invading and looking like a big bad bully they might consider provoking their intended 'enemy' to invade them first. in this way they can be seen as defending themselves against hostile action. the invading country can be seen as an aggressor and when they loose (and turkey will not just be going up against kurds)..having to pay reparations in the form of a land grab.

i know, another hair brained idea. sometimes these moves can be accomplished by simple little 'mistakes' such as misunderstandings. just like israel's claims syria is working w/north koreas to build nuclear plants.israel says it, then the us says it and heard from israel, then a story just skips the part about the US hearing from israel (or places it in the second to last paragraph of a longish story (as wapo did recently) and who reads that far anyway, and before you know it, people start thinking US has intellegence syria has a nuke project..

or something.

back to turkey.


What is a stronger evidence that Iraq is a failed state that this?

don't be so sure some iraqi politicians aren't just taking a page out of the US/IS handbook for 'how to get your way while making it appear you are a victim'.

as for iraqi civilians? they will find out what the plan for them is after the fact. if they are still alive that is.

from NRO's neocon michael rubin circa )'04.

The difficulty with fighting the PKK
As war in Iraq approached, Turkish diplomats and generals both raised concern about the presence of the PKK. They have continued to do so since. American officials respond that Washington takes seriously Turkey's concerns. But, a gap remains between U.S. rhetoric and actions, severely straining Washington's credibility. "You guys simply don't understand how seriously we take this," a long-time Turkish diplomatic acquaintance told me at an Ankara teahouse last month.

According to both Turkish and U.S. sources, CENTCOM has promised to share with Turkey plans which address the PKK, but consistently fails to deliver. There may be legitimate reasons for planning delays, but CENTCOM leaves the impression that it is filibustering. "I can understand their concerns," said a Turkish general, acknowledging that rooting PKK out of inhospitable terrain is difficult, "But I can't understand why they won't be honest with us."

CENTCOM also suffers a credibility gap at home. Even as I was stopped by PKK fighters, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Joint Staff continued to claim ignorance of the PKK's exact location. This was dishonest or disingenuous. As we continued on from the de facto PKK checkpoint, we could see from the roadside a well-tended PKK graveyard and also a permanent PKK compound under camouflage, mesh netting. Twice rounding bends beneath high bluffs, we saw automatic weapon-toting PKK fighters over looking the road.

The Joint Staff's claims are more troubling given rumors that, last autumn, apparently without interagency authorization, some members of the 101st Airborne met with PKK representatives in Mosul, thereby legitimizing the terrorist group in direct contravention to the policy of the commander-in-chief.

why hasn't the maliki government or the US taken on the 'terrorist' PKK?


fyi

Beirut, 19 October - The US Ambassador to Lebanon Jeffry Feltman,was seen on Lebanese TV screens countrywide lashing out at the Al-Safir daily for an article published yesterday. In the article Al-Safir called on the government to deny any "involvement in an unbalanced relation with the enemy's (Israel) top ally, which would be suicidal". As-Safir had written about the US intentions to build a military base in Lebanon and reshape the military doctrine of the Lebanese armed forces in the direction of safeguarding Western interests against the influence of Syria and Russia, which would include dropping the concept of Israel as an enemy and of Hezbollah as a resistance force.

Visibly angered, Feltman described the Al-Safir article as fabricated, wrong and baseless and denounced the implicit warning spelled out to the Lebanese armed forces, lest they fall into the trap, as insulting. It has however been widely reported by Western news sources that since the failed attempts of Israel to wipe out Hezbollah in its summer offensive 2006, the US administration has repeatedly mulled the idea of upgrading and outfitting the Lebanese army in its own and NATO's interest, last not least to appease Israel's security interests. Following Feltman's declarations, US Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman was interviewed by the private LBC. Edelman said the information given by Al-Safir yesterday was essentially correct and that the US were indeed seeking ways to achieve a strategic and permanent partnership with the Lebanese armed forces.

Hezbollah commented the facts declaring that Edelman's revelations "dealt a severe blow to Feltman's efforts to contain the political storm which the reports about the US base have created", adding that Edelman's statements explain why Western powers are so adamant in sustaining the March-14 bloc, in whom they see their partner for the project of transforming Lebanon into another Iraq. Hezbollah expressed confidence that the doctrine of the Lebanese army would not be shacked by such US projects.

the people will always be the last to know. why can't we make changes? becasue we are largely kept in the dark and have no idea what the agenda is.

Kryptonite: "kickbacks Russia gave to Saddam for providing them with oil on the cheap".

An Italian: "As everybody knows, Russia is a BIG producer of oil ... it never had ANY need to get Iraqi oil "on the cheap" !!!"

You may want to re-check your facts, An Italian. First, it does appear Russia imports a decent amount of oil- about 100k bpd in 2005.

Second, Kryptonite is talking about Russia's involvement in Oil-for-Food, which you may want to review.

Oil-for-Food Benefited Russians, Report Says
Iraq Sought to Influence U.N. Through Moscow

ex: "Top Kremlin operatives and a flamboyant Russian politician reaped millions of dollars in profits under the U.N. oil-for-food program by selling oil that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein allowed them to buy at a deep discount, a Senate investigation has concluded.

The allegations -- which also include descriptions of kickbacks paid to Hussein"... etc.

Maybe they didn't need the oil, but wanted the $$? They certainly had a lot of company, if so.

@ RhusLancia, 8:15 PM.

Now, dear Rhussie, I don't know why them Russkies imported some (actually) irrelevant quantity of oil, being amongst the biggest producers.

As for them 'Oil for Food' kickbacks, sure they had plenty of company !!!
Such as your pal FORMIGONI, the bastard from some Catholic sect who runs the region of Lombardy !!!

LOL !

Turkish threat lays open Baghdad-Kurd divide

BAGHDAD - Mixed Iraqi reactions to the threat of an incursion by Turkey have revealed the conflicting agendas of the central government in Baghdad and the autonomous Kurdish administration in the north......

recommended reading w/regards to pkk.

Assad: If Iraq Splits Up, The Region Will Explode

SABAH- Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is uncomfortable about a possible military operation by Turkey into Iraq. Of course, this doesn’t mean that he supports the terrorist PKK. He’s afraid that such an operation could irreversibly upset the regional balances. In his own words, he doesn’t believe that Turkey has designs on Iraq. But he would prefer that the problem be solved through political, not military, means. So when he was told about Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari urging the terrorist PKK to leave Iraq, he smiled and called this an important step.

Assad believes that the US is planning to establish an independent Kurdish state in the region. Calling the possible disintegration of Iraq a bomb which would blow up the Middle East, he urged all countries to support Iraq’s unity. He denied that in past years Syria served to headquarter the PKK. Stating that they were ready to discuss this issue, Assad tried to put a clear distance between himself and terrorism. He says that convicted PKK head Abdullah Ocalan was in Syria back in the ‘90s but that his country didn’t support him with money or weapons, unlike the actions of others today. Assad summed up his attitude by saying that when Turkey expressed its discomfort about the PKK being on Syrian soil, Damascus asked itself if this matter was important enough to lose Turkey’s friendship, and so chose this friendship.



con't...

now i know it may be a stretch of the imagination but sometimes when a country wants war, rather than just invading and looking like a big bad bully they might consider provoking their intended 'enemy' to invade them first.

12 Turkish Soldiers Killed in Rebel Attack

Sunday’s attack was one of the worst in recent memory, and the government, which has been skeptical of an offensive in the past, will be under intense pressure to act.

“With this incident, the arrow left the bow, and no room is left for the government to hesitate, postpone or fail to launch a cross border operation,” said Armagan Kuloglu, a retired Turkish major general, in a telephone interview. “If the government resists ordering a military operation, such a step would endanger its existence and credibility.”

In Ankara, Turkey’s capital, Mr. Erdogan called an emergency security meeting among Turkey’s top political and military officials for 8 p.m.

(that is tonight i presume, given the time difference, a few hrs ago)

“Our anger is great,” Mr. Erdogan said on national television in Istanbul, where he was casting his vote in a national referendum.

Are you trying to make a statement with regard to Turkey's potential invasion of Iraq?

Frankly, I think it would be a very good thing if Turkey gets involved. They should have been there from the beginning.

Are you trying to make a statement with regard to Turkey's potential invasion of Iraq

huh? isn't that the topic? "As the Turks are preparing to invade Iraq...". of course i am making a statement in regards to this.


Frankly, I think it would be a very good thing if Turkey gets involved. They should have been there from the beginning.

gee, how shocking..not. 'gets involved'? is that what you call a potential invasion? i consider anything you say straight from the horse's mouth since you agree w/all neocon intentions.

so you think this 'gets involved'.. ie.. invasion is a 'good thing'? well, i suppose anyone who wants a 'faster please' approach to rearranging the middle east map would be cheering on an invasion. it is not as if turkey isgoing to just hand over a chunk of land and say 'have at it'.

obviously this could be avoided if the funding and support for the PKK was not there. if the US was concerned for its allies (turkey) and truly interested in ending terrorist activity they would put the breaks on the PKK. do they? no, obviously we hear nothing of the US raiding kurdistan in the middle of the night and plummeting their neighborhoods w/airpower.

wonder why? me neither. how transparent do things need to be anyway?

"if the US was concerned for its allies (turkey) and truly interested in ending terrorist activity they would put the breaks on the PKK. do they? no, obviously we hear nothing of the US raiding kurdistan in the middle of the night and plummeting their neighborhoods w/airpower..."

LOL - so when the US does conduct these alleged "raids" they are criticize, and when they don't they are also criticized...

hmmm...you wouldn't be contradicting yourself again, would you?

so, what is your point regarding turkey's potential "invasion" of northern iraq? why are you cutting and pasting news articles that we have all read in the AP?

You should take a look at the Wounded Warriors Project. It raises awareness for severely wounded combat U.S. combat veterans in Iraq and Afghanistan. It really puts a face on the cost of this war. Here's a link:

http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/aarwebshow

Jeff

WASHINGTON - President Bush publicly honored a fallen Navy SEAL Monday by presenting his grieving parents with the Medal of Honor — and privately honored their sacrifice by wearing a dogtag they'd given him moments before.

An emotional White House ceremony awarded posthumously the nation's highest military honor for valor to Lt. Michael Murphy, of Patchogue, N.Y. — the first given for combat in Afghanistan.

Before the emotional ceremony, Murphy's parents Dan and Maureen Murphy met with President Bush and gave him a gold dog tag in tribute to their son.

"What we were most touched by was that the president immediately put that on underneath his shirt, and when he made the presentation of the Medal of Honor, he wore that against his chest," said the father.

After the ceremony, Dan Murphy said, Bush told the family: "I was inspired by having Michael next to my chest."

The father, who fought back tears during the ceremony, said they were "deeply moved" by Bush's gesture.

"It was very emotional on everybody's part," said Maureen Murphy

so when the US does conduct these alleged "raids" they are criticize, and when they don't they are also criticized...

ahh i love the way you editorialize. lets review what i said.

obviously we hear nothing of the US raiding kurdistan in the middle of the night and plummeting their neighborhoods w/airpower.

i mention this activity not because i support it, but because it is the way the US shows its displeasure w/entities it considers 'hostile' or 'terrorist'. in other words if it were serious about the threat it would respond in kind. it wouldn't merely pay lip service w/toothless, worthless 'diplomacy' that serves no purpose other than creating an illusion of making some effort (and of course making money for the team members)


Gen. Joe Ralston: Lies and Lockheed Behind Bush PKK Turkey Crisis

one of the links was already scrubbed from the site but i found the quoted section here

Why would Bush keep the PKK around?

...Washington has its own considerations in northern Iraq, where it has indirect links with Iranian Kurdish dissidents in the mountainous Iraq-Iran border area through the PKK. It would like to use the Iranian Kurds against the Tehran regime at the right time, and a Turkish operation in northern Iraq would seriously dent the alliance...

always keeping their eye on the neocon prize? (tehran)

Smoke and mirrors from Bushco. Ralston did, however, did secure an additional deal for Lockheed-Martin before walking away from the Bush mess.

We know Ralston wasn't the only unhappy military man working for Bush in Iraq. But the Ralston scandal is at the very center of the crisis with Turkey and some folks wish Ralston would just go away.

i recommend tpm cafe, an offshoot of tpm blog. josh marshall edits and is well respected.

"i mention this activity not because i support it, but because it is the way the US shows its displeasure w/entities it considers 'hostile' or 'terrorist'."

Not really, there are thousands of tactics used by the US military to establish law and order in Iraq...to simplify things for you, sometimes its a carrot, and sometimes its a stick, and sometimes its a combination.

Its really not that hard to "get."

why are you cutting and pasting news articles that we have all read in the AP?

that we have all read? when i posted that yesterday it had just come out. in fact i thought it was quite a coincidence the day before yesterday i had posted about provocating violence to engage ones enemies in warfare and then bingo, the next day we hear of 12 deaths. it was on topic. how do you know 'everyone has read it?' by now maybe, but i posted it 24 hrs ago.

besides, now when you go to the link it is different. they like to update and change the titles when some rogue editor slips up and posts a headline not in sync w/the propaganda image that works best for you know who.

what is your point regarding turkey's potential "invasion" of northern iraq?

my point? if you read my words my point should be very clear. Omar expresses frustration w/the ineptness of 2 versions of a document. i gave evidence 'mistranslations' or 'mistakes' are often caused by design to enhance actions to further one's goals.

then i posted the goals in the form of a map. if you are too dense to connect the dots, so be it.

the first given for combat in Afghanistan.

i thought tillman got a medal of honor in afghanistan in 03. or did they take it away when they discovered he had actually been shot in the head at close range by 'friendly fire' and then the evidence burned by his fellow soldiers and the incidence covered up so he could be used for propaganda fodder? wasn't tillmans family initially fighting back tears during the ceremony, said they were "deeply moved" by Bush's gesture?


it wouldn't merely pay lip service w/toothless, worthless 'diplomacy' that serves no purpose other than creating an illusion of making some effort (and of course making money for the team members)


ps, this in no way reflects any opinion of mine that robust diplomacy isn't an excellent source of bringing peace. the worthless toothless reference was in regards to bush/ralston/and the pkk, as demonstrated if you followed the links in my last post.

there are thousands of tactics used by the US military to establish law and order in Iraq...to simplify things for you, sometimes its a carrot, and sometimes its a stick, and sometimes its a combination.

who said anything about establishing law and order? i said 'shows its displeasure'. the US doesn't take action to show displeasure w/the pkk. in fact, i have sited examples that show the opposite. the US only diproves of 'terror' tactics when it doesn't further their goals.

if the US were intending to 'establish law and order ' in iraq, they wouldn't use idf tactics in sadr city. 60 years of this kind of abuse hasn't brought law and order to palestine, only more anger and hatred.

let's not forget, we aren't only referring to the military here. they only represent 1/2 our troops, the other 1/2 is represented by private militias who aren't accountable to any law and order.

"who said anything about establishing law and order? i said 'shows its displeasure'."

It doesn't matter what you choose to call it. The fact of the matter is that there are NUMEROUS milatary carrot and stick "tactics" used to encourage or discourage certain actions by the insurgents and terrorists including the PKK, which work to thwart US efforts to stabilize Iraq.

As a layperson, you are completely ignorant to the measures being taken by the US military to build up, or undermine, the PKK. You have NO IDEA, so don't LIE and act like you do.

As a layperson, you are completely ignorant to the measures being taken by the US military to build up, or undermine, the PKK. You have NO IDEA, so don't LIE and act like you do.

earth to idiot. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to ascertain the 'measures taken' to the pkk do not include night raids that pull in 49 'insurgent/terrorist ' deaths.

it doesn't take a rocket scientist to ascertain we hear next to nada hear about the terrorist pkk, as compared to AQ, sunni militia,sadr..

it doesn't take a rocket scientist to ascertain when the US offer a stick to certain groups it is made of steel

others straw.


It doesn't matter what you choose to call it.

of course it does. i am your audience. i represent the common man. what i choose to call it is all that matters.

Nice comments and good points, Annie. ;) Some people are gluttons for punishment ...

Analysis by Juan Cole:

"Although the US says it cannot control the PKK because it has few troops in the north of Iraq, this excuse neglects another reason that the US is essentially coddling a terrorist group that is killing fellow NATO troops. The fact is that the PKK is being coddled by Massoud Barzani and his Peshmerga, who could stop them hitting Turkey if they so desired. The other fact is that the US only has one really reliable ally in Iraq, which is the Kurds, and their paramilitary or the Peshmerga is the only element in the new Iraqi army that fights with any spunk or initiative. The US cannot afford to alienate Barzani or the Peshmerga; hence it is forced to try to wheedle Turkey into inaction in the face of a rather dramatic set of provocations."

http://www.juancole.com/2007/10/us-pressures-turkey-not-to-attack-mahdi.html

"it doesn't take a rocket scientist to ascertain the 'measures taken' to the pkk do not include night raids that pull in 49 'insurgent/terrorist ' deaths."

Rocket scientist - no. Intelligence operative - yes. You are the furthest thing from either.

Now, I'm not sure whether you are trying to argue that the US military is NOT conducting "night raids" against the PKK, and that this is a "bad" thing, or not. Obviously, based on our arrangements with the Kurdish areas of Iraq, and the relative stability of those areas, the US military is not as focused on establishing stability in those areas. The "hot spots" of Iraq take priority.

"of course it does. i am your audience. i represent the common man. what i choose to call it is all that matters."

You are my audience, so I should take into account your peculiar semantics? Sorry, but you seem to define complex military and political concepts with the cognitive skills of a two year old...and my audience is not two year olds...my audience includes the moderate people who happen to come across this blog who are not as well informed as I might be, and who may fall victim to your mouth foaming propaganda.

excuse me?? my semantics? i'm not talking semantics. i am telling you i was making a totally different point! there is a humongous difference between 'showing one's displeasure' and 'creating law and order'! it is you who are claiming they are synonymous for the purpose of argument, your argument, not mine.

you think by arguing your point, you can somehow overcome the argument i am making.

I'm not sure whether you are trying to argue that the US military is NOT conducting "night raids" against the PKK, and that this is a "bad" thing, or not.

no thickhead, i am not trying to argue to good or bad of it, just the fact of it and the fairly easy to discern conclusion that it means he US doesn't consider the threat of pkk tactics w/the same lens it does w/terrorism that doesn't further the US cause.

it can't come out and admit it supports the pkk, but obviously on some level, it does. the US military is not as focused on establishing stability in those areas. The "hot spots" of Iraq take priority.

exactly, hot spots being entities that reject US occupation (sadr not badr etc) and goals (don't divide iraq!). these entities get the steel stick. 'terrorists' that further US goals.. (those we show 'pleasure towards') we don't worry about their disruption of 'law and order' so much, now do we.

complex military and political concepts

lol, yeah right. the neocons are so interested in complex military and political concepts they have purged all our middle east experts like in this esquire link so they could carry out their nefarious plans.

how long did ralston remain? long enough to sell turkey lockheed's arms. we specialize in selling arms to opposing sides of conflicts. US stabiltiy 101. peace thru war while the elite get rich and the people pay. ch ching.

"it can't come out and admit it supports the pkk, but obviously on some level, it does."

Obviously? Obviously, you're more of an idiot than I thought you were.

So, the US "supports" PKK terrorismn because it doesn't conduct "night time raids" in PKK areas?

By your account, the US then supports the IRA, ETA, Shining Path, KKK and any other "terrorist group" that it does not target in its "night raids."

There are WAY too many fires in Iraq, and the US military cannot put out ALL of them at the same time. Priorities likely demand that the US military focus on stopping the groups that are 1) killing US soldiers; 2) directly threatening America; 3) working to destabalize the Iraqi government and spread terror in Baghdad. The "war" if you want to call it that, is not taking place in Kurdish areas. There's few US military there and its not a priority for the military to fight PKK terrorists who are trying to establish a free Kurdistan in Turkish territory, and who are not killing Americans or Iraqis, as are the Al Qaedas and the Sadrists.

"i am telling you i was making a totally different point! there is a humongous difference between 'showing one's displeasure' and 'creating law and order'!"

Please provide us with a dictionary in Annie speak so that we may all decipher what, exactly, you are trying to argue. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. Don't back track and lie and pretend to say things you didn't or vice versa.

You are a joke. Go read some books on rhetoric and come back to me.

titled U.S. air strikes on PKK weighed.

hmmm.

Another option would be to persuade the Kurdistan Regional Government, which runs that part of Iraq, to order its pesh merga forces to form a cordon preventing the movement of the PKK beyond its mountain camps, said U.S. officials and experts. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke with Kurdistan Regional Government Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani on Sunday to request his cooperation in dealing with the PKK.

lol.

"In the past, there has been reluctance to engage in direct U.S. military action against the PKK, either through air strikes or some kind of Special Forces action,"

gee, ya think?

Rice called Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Sunday in an appeal for patience, and administration officials said Erdogan granted a 72-hour reprieve on any cross-border attack by the Turkish military.

so much tip toeing. clearly if this was anbar or sadr city we'd just go in w/guns blazing.


Analysts say the PKK, fighting for Kurdish self-rule since 1984, would like to incite Turkey to attack its bases inside Iraq to help fuel its movement,

...


The Kurdistan Regional Government warned that any air strikes by the U.S. or the Turks could inflame nationalist sentiments among the millions of Kurds who live inside Turkey.


"If the U.S. starts bombing PKK camps in the north, Turkey will be ablaze tomorrow," said Qubad Talabany, spokesman for the Kurdistan Regional Government in Washington.


hmmm. i keep thinking of that map.

its not a priority for the military to fight PKK terrorists who are trying to establish a free Kurdistan

gee, ya think? you mean it isn't a priority to fight an entity w/the exact same goals as the US? no sheet shurlock!

so that we may all decipher what, exactly, you are trying to argue.

you know exactly what i am arguing.

Don't back track and lie

back that up w/quotes. the only reason we keep going back is you refuse to argue the topic (the pleasure or displeasure of the US). you would rather argue 'law and order'. well, we all no the hypocritical stance of the US w/regard to law and order when the goals of the US are supported by terrorist action.

So, the US "supports" PKK terrorismn because it doesn't conduct "night time raids" in PKK areas?

more likely the US supports the PKK for reasons juan cole mentions and the fact that the goals of the pkk serve the US. we don't perform the nightime raids because evidence suggests they are aligned w/some of our allies in the kurdish region.

"you know exactly what i am arguing."

No...Actually, you are so illogical and contradictory that it is impossible to know what you are arguing, other than that the US is involved with some secret alliance with the PKK to establish a free kurdistan. it's ridiculous.

"you mean it isn't a priority to fight an entity w/the exact same goals as the US?"

What goals? Carving out a Kurdish state in Turkey?

Or do you simply mean not killing Americans or blowing up baghdad markets. If this is what you mean by "sharing goals" then, yea, I would agree with you.

There's no need for a direct conflict with the PKK at this point and spreading the war to the Kurdish north. You're quick judgments on why or why not the US military does not conduct "night raids" suggests your further desires to expand the war to Turkey.

"the only reason we keep going back is you refuse to argue the topic (the pleasure or displeasure of the US)."

Is this the topic? Because you declared it to be so? "Pleasure" is not exactly quantifiable.

I don't have a topic, other than pionting out your lies and contradictions.

here's wapo on the pkk

Iraqi and U.S. soldiers do not regularly patrol the steep slopes and narrow rocky paths that make much of the border region nearly impassable. The de facto authorities here are the Kurdish guerrilla groups -- considered terrorist organizations by the Turkish and Iranian governments -- whose grenade-strapped fighters stand lonely sentry on the mountain switchbacks.

The young men and women who hail from the Kurdish diaspora in Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria fight for greater Kurdish influence in those countries. The most prominent among the guerrilla groups is the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, which focuses its efforts against Turkey. Its affiliate organization of Iranian Kurds is called the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan, or PJAK.

"They are targeting the area under the pretext that the PKK and PJAK are there, but they're not hitting the positions," said one PKK official on condition of anonymity. "Iran's actual goals, which they will not announce, is to strike the U.S. and destabilize Iraq."

now please don't tell me if we considered the pkk our enemies wapo would be trumping this.

A U.S. Defense Department spokesman, Lt. Col. Jonathan Withington, said in an e-mail: "I am not aware of any support being provided to the PJAK."

lol

big secret


Washington has its own considerations in northern Iraq, where it has indirect links with Iranian Kurdish dissidents in the mountainous Iraq-Iran border area through the PKK. It would like to use the Iranian Kurds against the Tehran regime at the right time, and a Turkish operation in northern Iraq would seriously dent the alliance.

another absurdity?

suggests your further desires to expand the war to Turkey.


jesus you are delusional

Is this the topic? Because you declared it to be so? "Pleasure" is not exactly quantifiable.

i made a point. it became a topic when you challenged it. but you didn't actually challenge my point. you altered it (law and order) and argued that because it was the only way your point made sense.

that is called a strawman and i'm not getting sucked into it so i keep calling you out. you deal w/it claiming i am lying. ha!

go law and order your self into a corner. what law and order? iraqi law? ha! our combatants are immune. order? neocon order that is.

what bs you represent.

"go law and order your self into a corner. what law and order? iraqi law? ha! our combatants are immune. order? neocon order that is."

No idea what you are talking about.

You claim the US supports PKK terrorism. You back up this claim by saying that the US does not conduct "night raids" in PKK areas.

I will repeat myself. Your "analysis" is totally and completely superficial. Suggesting that the US government "supports" something because it does not perform "night raids" to stop it is, well, stupid.

Let me simplify for you using your own strange language "displeasure." You suggest that "night raids" are used specifically by the US to show "displeasure" in something (nope, has nothing to do with establishing law and order), and that because the US is not conducting "night raids" to show their "displeasure", then they must support PKK terrorism.

This is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard in my life. The US is not bombing Iran right now, therefore it must support its tyrannical government. The US is not at war with the Sudanese government, therefore it must support the genocide. The US is not bombing Burma right now, therefore it MUST support its military government. The US is not at invading Turkey right now, therefore it MUST support Turkey's treatment of Kurds.

The US is not conducting "night raids" in PKK areas, therefore the US MUST support PKK terrorism.

You claim the US supports PKK terrorism. You back up this claim by saying that the US does not conduct "night raids" in PKK areas.

no, i backed it up w/reference from links pointing to and reasoning behind our iranian intentions.

not making night raids is not evidence of support. it is evidence they are not on the US 'displeasure' list.

i realize this is much easier for you to argue, strawman etc. however, i have never given this as the reasoning. if you can find this quote that differs, copy paste. here is what i said, again

easy to discern conclusion that it means he US doesn't consider the threat of pkk tactics w/the same lens it does w/terrorism that doesn't further the US cause.

different points. get it. doesn't consider threat is not the same as support. here's the reason for the support

more likely the US supports the PKK for reasons juan cole mentions and the fact that the goals of the pkk serve the US.

i can't keep repeating myself ad nauseum .

once again, i do not believe a lack of night raids proves we support the pkk. i think it only proves we condone terror when it works in our favor and we don't use similiar sticks under these circumstances.

The US is not bombing Iran right now, therefore it must support its tyrannical government.

you get off on arguing these strawmen huh? makes you feel like a real powerful guy? lol

"it can't come out and admit it supports the pkk, but obviously on some level, it does."

Scroll up. This is EXACTLY what you said.

Keep lying. It serves me well.

"once again, i do not believe a lack of night raids proves we support the pkk. i think it only proves we condone terror when it works in our favor and we don't use similiar sticks under these circumstances."

Yes, you did say the US supports PKK terrorism because it doesn't conduct "night raids", as I clarified in the last post. Now, you suggest that it is not supporting, but "condoning" PKK terrorism because it does not conduct night raids.

Again, with the strange differentiation between words like "support" and "condone" which mean the same thing. What other synonyms for support can we come up with so you can try to change your stupid argument again. Hmmm...how about "back up"...

You are a non-thinking manipulated sheep brained propagandist.

Yes, you did say the US supports PKK terrorism because it doesn't conduct "night raids",

lol, then why don't you use copy paste. there is a reason people copy paste you know.

"support" and "condone" which mean the same thing.

actually they don't. one can condone someones smoking habit w/out supporting it. condoning is often referred to something one puts up with.

"one can condone someones smoking habit w/out supporting it. condoning is often referred to something one puts up with."

What? According to...you? Please turn over the Annie dictionary so I can decipher your nonsensical writings. Nevertheless, let's assume there is something significant about your using "condone" versus "support" - please clarify which you believe the US is doing (in light of the fact that the only evidence you provide is the lack of night raids)? Are they "supporting" PKK "terrorism", or "condoning" it by not conducting "night raids"?

"lol, then why don't you use copy paste. there is a reason people copy paste you know."

what? I did, moron. That was a direct quote from your previous post. Here it is AGAIN:

"it can't come out and admit it supports the pkk, but obviously on some level, it does."

Now, are you going to continue to deny that you said the US "supports the PKK" because it doesn't (according to you) conduct night raids in PKK areas? Are you really so stupid as to think people can't scroll up and read your posts from earlier?

tarik ramadan is a iraqi interpreter who has been locked away for three years without trial please visit our site and pledge your support. www.freetarik.org.uk

you did say the US supports PKK terrorism because it doesn't conduct "night raids"

and your proof "it can't come out and admit it supports the pkk, but obviously on some level, it does."

i'm afraid your 'proof' says nothing about night raids.

condone

This means to overlook or forgive bad behaviour, or to treat it as unimportant; a woman is said to condone her husband's adultery if she continues to live with him as his wife although she knows what is going on. It can be used to mean 'agree to' (perhaps reluctantly), or 'acquiesce'.

yawn. get it? "one can condone someones smoking habit w/out supporting it. condoning is often referred to something one puts up with."

sounds very similiar to me. in this sense the US has condoned the pkk tactics.

support

2. To hold in position so as to keep from falling, sinking, or slipping.

example

Hersh: US, Israel support PKK's Iran wing


Ankara, which has been pressing the United States for action to eliminate the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Iraq, responded with caution to a fresh report by leading U.S. investigative journalist Seymour Hersh that Washington was backing the group's Iranian wing to destabilize the Islamic republic.


“This requires a cautious approach,” said a Turkish diplomat requesting anonymity of the report that appeared on the New Yorker magazine's latest issue. He warned against possible “speculative elements” in the report and questioned the potential effectiveness of a policy of supporting a terrorist organization operating only in border areas as a serious means to destabilize Iran or deter the country from pursuing its contentious nuclear program."

see the difference. we condone their terror because we support some of their goals towards an indepedent kurdish region including parts of iran and turkey.

So which is it - condone or support? You are, once again, trying to avoid your own contradictions because you know how stupid it makes you sound, but I'll happily continue to bring it up if you want to keep beating a dead horse.

You said, again: "it can't come out and admit it supports the pkk, but obviously on some level, it does."

You didn't use the word "condone." Thus, I'm assuming that you are now trying to backtrack and suggest that you meant "condone", which by YOUR OWN definition suggests something less active than "support" -- this, in spite of the fact that you clearly used the term "support" as I've quoted now THREE times.

Not sure why you continuously subject yourself to ridicule like this.

In your last paragraph, you try to cover up all of your babbling by suggesting that you meant BOTH condone AND support. Which is EXACTLY what I've been saying YOU said...

Now, to address the actual issue (which you've been trying to avoid), you have YET to provide ANY evidence of the US condoning OR supporting PKK "terror" tactics (which require their own definition, of course) other than that the US does not perform "night raids." As I've explained, this is not evidence, as there are plenty of groups that the US does not "condone" or "support" and which are not the US also does not targeted by US "night raids."

Thus, whether you use "condone" OR "support" you still need to supply evidence, which you are awkwardly trying to avoid.

Perhaps because YOU HAVE NONE.

And NO, suggesting a rationalization (Juan Cole's article) as to WHY the US SHOULD support/condone/like (whatever word YOU choose) the PKK (for instance, common enemy in Iran) is not evidence the US supports/condones PKK "terrorism" (where its actions do, in fact, constitute terrorism).

by suggesting that you meant BOTH condone AND support. Which is EXACTLY what I've been saying YOU said...

really? could have fooled me. tell you what, you provide me w/a quote of mine (copy and paste)confirming your claim below and i will respond to the rest of your blathering.

you did say the US supports PKK terrorism because it doesn't conduct "night raids"

go for it blatherking. prove it.

LOL. Okay. Here's one thing you said: "obviously this could be avoided if the funding and support for the PKK was not there. if the US was concerned for its allies (turkey) and truly interested in ending terrorist activity they would put the breaks on the PKK. do they? no, obviously we hear nothing of the US raiding kurdistan in the middle of the night and plummeting their neighborhoods w/airpower."

Again, this is EXACTLY what you said. I can keep cutting and pasting it if you want to keep denying that you said this. It just further proves my point about your contradictory logic.

But really, you can keep arguing that you did not say the US supports the PKK, or you can try to back up your own quote with actual evidence.

Or, since you obviously have no evidence, you can ask me to find "quotes" in your writing for something that you want to deny that you argued.

The fact of the matter is that the US does not support/condone the PKK any more than it supports or condones the ETA, for example. By your definitions of support/condone, the US is supporting/condoning the Iranian government, the Burmese Government, the Sudanese government because it is not doing anything to stop them (not conducting night raids, for example).

Go ahead, continue to argue about what you said or didn't say in a feeble effort to distract readers from your intentionally false facts about "night raids."

you can keep arguing that you did not say the US supports the PKK

lol. you can't support that w/a copy paste. i have never claimed i did not say the US supported the pkk. i said the opposite. they have the same goals.

your intentionally false facts about "night raids."

??? what false facts. have the US been conducting night raids against the pkk? no, i didn't think so.

btw, you quoted me yes, but nothing in the quote says the support is 'proof' by the lack of night raids. it is only evidence we are not putting the breaks on the pkk. we are condoning their terror. ralston the envoy to deal w/this effort made some headway.. he sold arms to turkey! ha!

I wouldn't say that the US supports the PKK. I would say that it has been forced to tolerate PKK activities. Its a case of realpolitik in action. The Kurds are the only real ally the US has in Iraq, and the same Kurds are sympathetic to the PKK. The US is thus caught on the tightrope between the Kurds and the Turks, who are the targets of the PKK, but who also are (nominally) big US allies. Of course, this situation was pointed out to the rabid warmongers before the war, they moronically discounted it as a minor irritant. Well, we'll see how minor the irritant is gonna be when the US is forced to act against the Kurds.

"btw, you quoted me yes, but nothing in the quote says the support is 'proof' by the lack of night raids. it is only evidence we are not putting the breaks on the pkk. we are condoning their terror. ralston the envoy to deal w/this effort made some headway.. he sold arms to turkey! ha!"

LOL. No, you did not use the word "proof." Otherwise, I will consider this last statement an admission that you believe the lack of "night raids" is evidence that the US is "not putting the breaks on" the PKK and, therefore, "condoning" terror. Now, do you have any other evidence of this support/condoning/"not putting the breaks on" that you care to share, or are the lack of "night raids" all you have?

"Well, we'll see how minor the irritant is gonna be when the US is forced to act against the Kurds."

But they won't because according to Annie the US supports/condones/doesn't put the breaks on the PKK. How DARE you disagree with your beloved Annie!!!

me it is only evidence we are not putting the breaks on the pkk.

krypt I will consider this last statement an admission that you believe the lack of "night raids" is evidence that the US is "not putting the breaks on" the PKK and, therefore, "condoning" terror.

you want to call my assertions admissions? what dictionary do you use? an admission is a concession? of course it is evidence the US is condoning the terror, that is what i have asserted all along.

Now, do you have any other evidence of this support/condoning/"not putting the breaks on" that you care to share, or are the lack of "night raids" all you have?

i have already posted numerous links, here is another..


Iran looms over Turkey crisis diplomacy

The PKK enigma
It is at once obvious that the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) is not acting on its own. The PKK cadres are extremely well equipped and far better trained than at any time in their 25-year campaign of violence. Equally, it is common knowledge that the president of the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq, Massoud Barzani, is playing hide and seek (which comes naturally to a wily Kurd reared in the tough mountains of his homeland) - publicly dissociating from the PKK; pleading inability to curb PKK activities from bases located in territory under his control; but reserving the right to oppose any Turkish cross-border operations in pursuit of the PKK.

There is also much evidence that weapons given by the US to Barzani, ostensibly for fighting al-Qaeda, are finding their way into the PKK's hands. How this can happen no one cares to explain. Barzani is a staunch ally of the US - and of Israel. The US pleads its forces are overstretched in Iraq and cannot do anything much by way of curbing PKK activities.

Yet nothing much can happen in that region without US acquiescence. It is a region where the US Special Forces have been active in kidnapping visiting Iranian functionaries. They are pretty much clued in on what goes on there. The Kurdish region is a crucial theater of US strategy in Iraq. The US is using northern Iraqi Kurdistan as a launching pad for undertaking covert activities within Iran.

The same is the case with Israel. Israeli businessmen are having a whale of a time in northern Iraq. They are there for the long haul. They have bought up much real estate in and around Suleymaniah. They are traveling in a gravy train with corrupt Kurdish local officials. They have grandiose business plans riveted around the evacuation of northern Iraq's oil and gas via Turkish pipelines. They are thick with Barzani too.

Northern Iraq is a region where Israel has established a very strong intelligence presence over the past four years.

...


No way to treat an ally
Erdogan told the Sunday Times, "We have told President Bush numerous times how sensitive we are about this [PKK] issue but up till now we have not had a single positive result. America is our strategic partner. But in northern Iraq we feel that both the terrorist organization and the administration there are sheltering behind America . It makes us sad to see American weapons being found in the possession of the terrorist organization acting against Turkey."

The allegation is very serious. Thus, we have a curious situation in which PKK terrorists, equipped and trained by hidden forces, launch operations inside Turkey and retreat to their safe havens in northern Iraq. But the US opposes any retaliation by Turkey that might affect the stability and tranquillity of northern Iraq.


clearly, my consideration of the US position towards the pkk as 'support' is not isolated.

w/regard to our middle eastern ally.
PM Erdoğan to press Olmert to give up supporting Iraqi Kurds

Although Olmert's spokesperson said in Paris that talks between the Israeli and Turkish leaders would focus on Iran's nuclear ambitions and Israeli-Palestinian peace moves, a senior Turkish governmental official, speaking with Today's Zaman on Monday on condition of anonymity, said Erdoğan was carrying Turkish intelligence reports concerning Israeli activity in northern Iraq -- where Israeli experts have been training Iraqi Kurdish military forces -- to London. He will urge Olmert to put an end to these activities, at a time when Turkey intends to launch a military operation into northern Iraq to tackle the presence of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) there.

In November 2006, Pulitzer Prize-winning, leading American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh wrote that the PKK's Iranian offshoot, the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK), which has been behind a string of deadly attacks on security forces in northwestern Iran in recent months, received support from the US as well as Israel, which fears Iran's nuclear ambitions.

i urge you to read both links in full.

btw, i made my contention of support clear earlier in the 11:01 comment..

krytYou claim the US supports PKK terrorism. You back up this claim by saying that the US does not conduct "night raids" in PKK areas.

me: no, i backed it up w/reference from links pointing to and reasoning behind our iranian intentions.

i can understand how this might ne difficult for you to comprehend, given you can't tell the difference between condoning and supporting.


"Well, we'll see how minor the irritant is gonna be when the US is forced to act against the Kurds."

But they won't because according to Annie the US supports/condones/doesn't put the breaks on the PKK.

close, but no cigar. the US hasn't (have not, as opposed to does not, which remains to be seen) put the breaks on pkk. they may be forced to. if you read first link in my last post..

But the buck ultimately stops in Washington. The key meeting will be on November 5 when Erdogan sits down with Bush. Erdogan will want to hear from Bush that Washington is determined to rein in Barzani and the PKK so that a new Iraq war can be avoided. The pashas in Ankara, cautious by temperament, will await the outcome of the meeting. By beating the war drums in the meantime, Turkey has called attention to its demand that PKK leaders based in northern Iraq must be handed over.

the US can't have it both ways. it either needs to rein in the pkk (via Barzani i presume), or strain relations w/ a key ally during a tumultuous time. it remains to be seen what the US does in the future.

Your "evidence" is a collection of opinion pieces? Editorials?

Let's put it this way. What has the US done, specifically, to "support/condone/not put the breaks on" (whatever word you want to use) terrorist acts by the PKK? In other words, name the terrorist act, and the tell us how the US supported/condoned it.

It's very simple and you should be able to provide numerous examples since you are so confident that the US supports/condones PKK terrorism.

numerous examples? opinion pieces? Editorials?

i would say direct quotes from Erdogan, evidence of a planned meeting of Erdogan and bush, Erdogan trip to london.. the todayszaman piece was neither an opinion piece or an editorial. finding assertions of bazanin's links to the pkk is easy. finding references of US funds channeled to pkk weapons are available easily on google.

you ask me if i had 'any other evidence' or was lack of night raids 'all i had'. what i provided qualified as that. and it wasn't from some far fetched blog.

you want specific incidences as proof? why don't you provided specific incidences of proof the US has done something about the pkk, anything besides the ralston fiasco which amounted to nothing but arming turkey while alleging to represent our kurdish problem.

googling barzani/pkk from global terroism analysis/jamestown


Massoud Barzani Conducting Dangerous Games in Northern Iraq


Accusations have been made asserting that both Barzani and the U.S. military are currently supplying arms to the PKK. Three PKK deserters claimed last month that U.S. armored vehicles were supplying the PKK base at Mount Qandil with M-16 rifles and munitions (Milliyet, July 2). Last week, Turkish Ambassador to the United States Nabi Sensoy suggested that Barzani had supplied U.S.-made arms and explosives to the PKK, adding that Turkey held the United States responsible for the PKK presence in northern Iraq (Today's Zaman, July 12).

....

Much of the tension between the Turks and Barzani's Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) arises from the disputed status of the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk and its surrounding oil fields. The city has a sizable Arab population (largely settled there by Saddam Hussein) and is a traditional center for Iraq's Turkoman population (ethnically related to the Turks, who act as their patrons). A recent influx of Kurds has created favorable conditions for a proposed referendum to attach Kirkuk to Kurdistan, virtually guaranteeing the success of an independent and newly oil-rich Kurdistan. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is accused by both Sunni and Shiite Iraqis of conniving to transfer Kirkuk to a Kurdish administration in return for Kurdish support for his failing government (New Anatolian, June 16). Such a development is viewed as undesirable in Ankara, where it is feared that such a state would only encourage further Kurdish separatist and terrorist activities in Turkey. Turkey has its own economic interests in Kirkuk; Turkey's state-owned Turkish Petroleum Corporation (TPAO) reached an agreement in April with the Anglo-Dutch Shell corporation to develop a pipeline running from Kirkuk to the Turkish port of Ceyhan (The Times, April 13). At the same time, Barzani stated bluntly that "Turkey is not allowed to intervene in the Kirkuk issue and if it does, we will interfere in Diyarbakır's issues and other cities in Turkey" (Today's Zaman, June 19).

Barzani's bold threats of intervention in Turkey resulted in Turkey's chief of staff, General Yasar Buyukanit, designating Barzani as an additional target of any Turkish operation against PKK bases in northern Iraq (Hurriyet, June 6). In a July 3 television interview, Barzani declared his preference for dialogue with the Turkish government, but warned that "a Turkish operation in Iraq will result in a catastrophe for the whole region, for Turkey, Iraq and everybody else involved. It will ignite a devastating war in the region" (EuroNews, July 3). Ankara is convinced that Barzani's aggressive attitude is the result of U.S. indulgence.

"i would say direct quotes from Erdogan, evidence of a planned meeting of Erdogan and bush, Erdogan trip to london..."

God, this is hilarious. So Bush and Erdogan meeting is evidence that the US "supports" PKK terrorism? You are a joke.

I wonder how many other meetings between world leaders occur evidencing this or that country's support of terrorism.

This is just getting a little too ridiculous for even me, and I tolerate a lot of your propaganda.

But, go on - i'd love to hear more of your googled evidence that the US supports/condones PKK terrorism.

I'm assuming, now, you are just referring to PKK "terrorism" in Turkey - not Iraq. You still haven't shown anything that would suggest the PKK is launching suicide bombers into Baghdad markets.

"you want specific incidences as proof? why don't you provided specific incidences of proof the US has done something about the pkk..."

You are asking me to prove a negative? Let's see - you made the assertion, you are obligated to prove your assertion. Otherwise, we will just assume that you are lying as usual.

Would you also like me to prove that the world is not flat? Sorry, i actually have a life and i'm not interested in "proving" obvious truths to morons.

You are asking me to prove a negative?

lol? asking you to show the US has shown committment to fighting terror when it involves the pkk is proving a negative? lol. i could care less whether you do or not. it is you who started this whole 'prove it ' lingo, yet you get all sheepish when i turn it on you. ha! i am noting that to you, specific words and allegations of none other than the prime minister of turkey amounts to propaganda. listen, you can't make it go away. this is what many many people think. you can try to disqualify it all you want. it is what i think, it is what many people think, i provided some sources.. you choose to debunk it based on what? your desire to have it not be so? whatever. you look like a fool.

it is not my job to 'prove' assertions that are very public, coming from many sources, causing much stress. the proof is in the pudding.

'nuf said, go wallow in your self promoted 'victory', i could care less.

Ah...so we've gone from the US supports PKK terrorism to the US condones PKK terrorism to the US not putting "the breaks on" PKK terrorism to the US not showing "commitment" to stopping PKK terrorism.

Care to cede any more of your "US supports PKK terrorism" argument? LOL.

Again, what "terrorism" are we talking about? What incident(s) are you referring to? I'm not exactly privy to PKK terrorist operations in Turkey, though I am well aware that Turkey perceives anyone who threatens its territorial integrity as "terrorist."

Since you are SO sincere in your arguments that Iraqis should be independent and "sovereign" - why don't you apply this same passion to the Kurds in Turkey who have REALLY been colonized/oppressed as a people - and not just for a few years, but for hundreds.

Another double standard? I thought so.

I am well aware that Turkey perceives anyone who threatens its territorial integrity as "terrorist."

i'm well aware that people who want to demonize call their enemies 'terrorists'. this is why i frequently, usually use quotes around the word.

why don't you apply this same passion to the Kurds in Turkey who have REALLY been colonized/oppressed as a people - and not just for a few years, but for hundreds.

you seem to confuse my pointing out the hypocricy of the US position regarding who is and is not a 'terrorist' or what violence the US labels 'terrorist', or the hypocritical treatment dished out to one iraqi vs the other for the same action, w/my own sentiments on the issue regarding who i think is a good or bad guy.

you have no idea what i think of the pkk, because i have not expressed any personal opinion in this regard. nor do i intend to because it is irrelevant to my argument.

Ah...so we've gone from the US supports PKK terrorism to the US condones PKK terrorism to the US not putting "the breaks on" PKK terrorism to the US not showing "commitment" to stopping PKK terrorism.

no, we have not 'gone' from one to the other. they all operate simulationly as i have expressed in numerous posts. i know it is hard to juggle these complex concepts together in one thought. i tried to explain the nuances upthread w/the dictionary links after you claimed they were identical concepts. they aren't. they are separate concepts that al apply. one doesn't need to abandon one concept to move on to another.

but, i just read a report bush claimed he may bomb pkk targets, so one never knows. their may be enough pressure to get some action. although i certainly don't expect them to have to suffer the airpower assaults in the middle of the night that kill women and children. more like they have advanced knowledge of the areas in question so they can abandon them before the firing takes place. but it should be a good show. something the nyt can make a big deal of. w/teeth?? something tells me ..nada. it will have to come to a head for this the prize.

"you seem to confuse my pointing out the hypocricy of the US position regarding who is and is not a 'terrorist' or what violence the US labels 'terrorist'..."

No, I am well aware you seek to characterize US actions as "hypocritical" without actually analyzing any issues or citing evidence that the US is, in fact, being hypocritical.

You argue, erroneously, that it is and your evidence of this was "night raids" in Al Qaeda areas and no "night raids" in PKK areas. I pointed out how stupid of an argument that is, and started foaming and asking me to prove that the US is not supporting PKK terrorism.

What is TRULY hypocritical is for you to, on the one hand, defend the rights of Iraqis to be "sovereign" while suggesting that Kurds should be slaves to the Turks or Iranians.

You've backed yourself into a fool's corner again and there is no way you will get out. The more you try, the dumber you look...but keep trying.

"they are separate concepts that al apply."

Of course they all apply to your argument, but they are incorrect. You have yet to provide any evidence, but you cling to this dream that by using different words to describe the US relationship with the PKK you will find one that appropriately characterizes the relationship. It's a mechanism you are trying to use to squirm your way out of the actual issue...

Me: So, you're saying the US supports PKK terrorism...

You: No, they condone it...

ME: Ok, so the US condones PKK terrorism

You: No, they just won't stop it like they're supposed to...

Repeat ad nauseum...

Again, you can use any word you want to describe it, but you still need to show the evidence that it exists. Otherwise, you are LYING...AGAIN.

know wonder you don't cut and paste.

at least you didn't try using italics to pretend i said that which i never said. wouldn't it be a loverly world if you could just make up what you would like to argue.

strawmen, that is all you are good for. now you resort to pretend dialog.

loser.

why don't you just say the prime minister of turkey is lying? lol. blame the messenger. we are only supposed to believe what the neocons tell us. the WH story w/the compliant press.

at least we won't have to bomb al jazeera anymore, now that qatar (after pressure from US) has replace the management w/the pro US ambassador to washington.

maybe we can just start bombing the turkish press. lol.

"why don't you just say the prime minister of turkey is lying? lol. blame the messenger. we are only supposed to believe what the neocons terll us. the WH story w/the compliant press."

Yes, so we should only believe what the prime minister of Turkey says? After all, only American politicians lie, and act in self interest - right? Only Turkey's noble press is non-compliant and independent? Only the former Al Jazeera had a truly independent perspective on Mid East politics?...

I will assume this is further acknowledgement that you have NO evidence that the US is supporting/condoning/not stopping PKK "terrorism".

Don't worry - you can try to deflect attention away from your lame arguments all you want - I will continue to point out your lies and contradictions. You have no proof, you have no logic, and you are definitely much more of a hypocrite than any American politician.

while i am laughing at you i thought i would spread some al queda fear mongering. did you hear the latest from fox?

Questionable 4-year-old FBI memo presented as new to stoke terror fears

Did al Qaeda start the California wildfires?

As more than a million people escaped the flames, Fox News anchors couldn't help speculating about a terrorism link to the blazes ravaging southern California.

lol

acknowledgement that you have NO evidence

you're a nut job dude. do i have a physical smoking gun? no. did i present evidence, yes. you don't have to believe it, but i do. there has been lots of reports over the years starting w/israelis training kurds.

oh right, i forgot, if israel does it it isn't terror? lol. face it, it's logical. the US is not going to come down on any kurds the way they have on sunnis or shia. just won't happen. we need them as allies. we have similiar goals.

people are allowed to share their opinions on these threads. this is my opinion and i shared the kind of information i relied on to form that opinion. you want to scream liar? big deal, so what else is new. you have no problem spending post after post saying basically nothing regarding the topic of any relevance whatsoever. this is natural for you because that is the job of the troll, and you play it to perfection. notice how the conversation has not evolved 1 iota? you ad nothing of relevance, again. what a bore.

i don't need to deflect anything. there just happens to only be so many ways to say exactly the same thing over and over. anyone can read the thread to understand there are no contradictions in my assertions. you come from the same team that defended the cpa til kingdom come. you come from the same team that defends the empire no matter what it does. you are good for only one thing, as a bellweather for administration views. the krypt doth protest to much! this is how i can tell what i say has truth, you won't let go! loverly. you know what i liked best about your comments?....this..

why don't you apply this same passion to the Kurds in Turkey who have REALLY been colonized/oppressed as a people - and not just for a few years, but for hundreds.

tell me more. please, i am interested. and this

we should only believe what the prime minister of Turkey says? After all, only American politicians lie, and act in self interest - right?

my, aren't you a wealth of information. so.. you think the prime minister of turkey is acting primarily in self interest?

hmm, maybe you should tell bush that. i think he is trying to placate him. in fact, i believe the official US position is that the pkk are 'terrorists' and that turkey is right to call them such.. but the question remains... why hasn't the US treated them like they have the other 'terrorists' in iraq? why do we continue to provide weapons that end up landing in the hands of the pkk?

i mean we are not only interested in iraq, we are interested in the entire region because this is a global war on terror, is it not? hmm. so many questions , so little time.

You spread ymisinformation and innuendo as fact on this forumn. Then, when challenged, you say:

"people are allowed to share their opinions on these threads."

You never cease to amaze me with your lack of intelligence, and your ability to contradict yourself. I'm glad that you finally have acknowledged that its just your opinion, and not fact.

So, let's review. You have no evidence that the US supports/condones/"doesn't stop" PKK "terrorism" other than the fact that YOU believe the US military 1) doesn't perform night raids on PKK; 2) Israel trains kurds. Even IF these things are true, they do NOT establish any kind of evidence that the US supports/condones/deosn't stop PKK "terrorism." You are MISSING MANY pieces of the puzzle, YET you are still eager to disparage the United States and undermine the good intentions of people all over the world (Iraqis, Americans, Turks, Iranians) sacrificing their lives to help make Iraq a peaceful, stable country.

Your opinion has no value because you do not value objectivity, truth or anything else that would render you credible. Your objectives are to disparage, stir up dissent and, in effect, perpetuate war and violence in Iraq. More than a loser, you are simply lost in your own egomaniacal illusions.

Come back to me when you have real facts to back up your assertions. Until then, I will keep pointing out, for all to see, your lies.

ah...I almost missed another chance to respond to the lunatic:

"why hasn't the US treated them like they have the other 'terrorists' in iraq?"

I don't know, why doesn't the US treat Al Qaeda like other terrorists in Iraq, or Sadrists like other terrorists in iraq, or Badrists like other terrorists in Iraq? They are different political entities with different agendas and different resources and are, therefore, treated differently.

"why do we continue to provide weapons that end up landing in the hands of the pkk?"

I don't know - why do our weapons end up in the hands of Iranians, or Chinese, or Sudanese rebels, or the Sudanese government? Its called a black market, dumbass. And while its fair to argue that the US should be doing all it can to prevent weapons from getting into the wrong hands, its another thing to suggest that the US is purposely arming groups that are, at the same time, hostile to it. Really, are you completely ignorant about how the world works?

More deflection, more avoidance, more cowardly shirking of responsibility on the part of Annie, the most persistent, and yet gullible, propagandist that ever lived.

smile, i must have really hit a nerve. i consider it a compliment when you go off your rocker like you do. lol.

the most persistent, and yet gullible, propagandist that ever lived.

how orwellian of you.

Yes, LIARS always hit a nerve with me...

What's funny is how quickly you give up and start trying to deflect from the issue.

give up? as i said earlier just happens to only be so many ways to say exactly the same thing over and over..

it is worthless posting links that support my argument as i have done earlier because nobody discusses them. that is ok w/me, they speak for themselves. as i said earlier, i am not posting for you. if anyone wants to discuss any of these topics that is another story. you just scream from the sidelines. lol. you expect to be taken seriously by me? get real.

here's some fancy footwork

The U.S. ambassador here sent American diplomats to Ankara on Thursday to join an Iraqi government delegation for talks aimed at preventing a Turkish military invasion against Kurdish guerrillas who shelter in northern Iraq.
Ambassador Ryan Crocker said it was imperative that Iraqi military forces do all they can to stop the
resupply of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, insurgents who hide out in the mountainous terrain of Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region.

okayyy, do all they can??

At the same time, he said he was not recommending Iraqi military action against the PKK.

sooo do all they can except it shouldn't include 'military action'. isn't that what a military does. why address the military if they have their hands tied.

A senior Turkish diplomat, who asked to remain anonymous, told Reuters Ankara was waiting for the United States to come up with a response to its request for action against the PKK.

"The real deadline is the Bush-Erdogan meeting. There will be no major military action before that," the diplomat said.

here, for anyone who wants to answer yahoo..

How much longer until tacit US support of PKK rebels comes back to bite the Bush administration in the rear?

here, you get to vote on CNN poll!

Do USA and EU Countries support PKK terrorism ?. i'm afraid 'yes' is at 71% krypt. seems i'm not the only loonie. lol.

uh oh, somebody should tell this major australian publication they are teetering on the edge of insanity.

However, the Iraqi Kurds have been able to consolidate an autonomous entity under the protection of the US since the 1991 Gulf War, and more specifically since the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. This entity operates almost as a state within a state, enabling PKK guerillas, who have been fighting Turkey since 1984, to secure sanctuaries and receive valuable logistic support.

Although Turkey had in the past managed to suppress the PKK through military expeditions into northern Iraq, since the US-led invasion it has been hamstrung...... Turkey has grown very unhappy about US protection and Israeli support for Iraq's Kurds.

Washington has condemned the PKK's attacks, but asked Ankara to exercise restraint, with a promise to do everything possible to curb the PKK's activities from Iraq.

If Washington fails to deliver on its promise soon, a full-scale Turkish attack will not only result in a bloody conflict in northern Iraq, which has so far been relatively stable and peaceful, but also put more clouds over the US-Turkey and Israel-Turkey alliances. This would please the Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis as well as Iran and Syria, which have shared Turkey's concerns about the degree to which American and Israeli backing of the Iraqi Kurds have created an unacceptable strategic entity in their midst. It is astonishing that Washington could not see such a development coming. Its support of Iraqi Kurds has now created new strategic dilemmas for it.

If it continues its protection of the Iraqi Kurds, which can indirectly help the PKK, it is set to destroy its relations with an important NATO ally. If it lets Turkey operate in northern Iraq, it would have failed in its commitment to the Iraqi Kurds. In either case, the main beneficiaries would be Iraq's insurgents as well as Iran and Syria, which would like to see the US and its allies humiliated further in Iraq and the region.


Amin Saikal is Professor of Political Science and director of the Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies (the Middle East and Central Asia) at the Australian National University. (a bastion of leftist propaganda no doubt.)

"it is worthless posting links that support my argument as i have done earlier because nobody discusses them."

Your links are either opinion pieces or "polls." They do not support your argument. They merely replicate your argument also without substantiating any of the claims made. By the way, your "CNN" poll was just a topix poll that someone had labeled "CNN." This is the kind of bullshit that renders any of your arguments meaningless and uncredible. STOP LYING!!!!

Until you have actual proof that the US supports/condones PKK terrorist acts, I will continue to deem you a worthless moron with no cognitive ability. You STILL have not provided ANY evidence to back up your assertions, other than to claim that others have made the same assertions that you have. Your "opinions" are therefore, worthless.

did i hear a little insignificant bird chirp?

cbs

Turks have grown skeptical of repeated pledges from the U.S. and Iraq to tackle the rebel Kurdistan Workers' Party, the PKK, so Erdogan went to London and his Cabinet ministers spread across the Middle East seeking to turn up the heat on the Americans and Iraqis to act.


Sending their well-armed Peshmerga soldiers to battle either group could lead the region into the same kind of violence that has crippled the rest of Iraq.

Barzani seems to think diplomacy is the only way. is anybody shocked the US just might agree? even tho they prefer heavy handed tactics for their enemies. just maybe they have a soft spot for the pkk :)

Yes, we know you'd like to see kurdish iraq in the same mess that the rest of iraq is in. Fortunately, American influence and support of the region will make that unlikely.

And I notice you have yet to provide ANY evidence of American "support" for PKK terrorist acts.

Come on - I know you can do it - just one little "false flag" article about America finacing PKK suicide bombers...come on.

Yes, we know you'd like to see kurdish iraq in the same mess that the rest of iraq is in.

actually, i would have liked the rest of iraq to have turned out much differently.

Fortunately, American influence and support of the region will make that unlikely.

unfortunately, because america did not apply equivalent and adequate efforts of influence in diplomacy to the rest of iraq the other regions have turned out much differently.

The fact of the matter is that there are NUMEROUS milatary carrot and stick "tactics" used to encourage or discourage certain actions by the insurgents and terrorists including the PKK, which work to thwart US efforts to stabilize Iraq.

maybe if the US treated the other 'terrorists' w/the same considerations as he does w/the pkk, the rest of iraq would not be in the same mess . but then again, the rest of iraq is not so pro US. face it, if you are for federalism, you get a different stick. no air raids, 'collateral damage', civilian death, etc.

hearts and minds and all that.

I notice you have yet to provide ANY evidence of American "support" for PKK terrorist acts.

earth to krypt. according to US standards, one doesn't need to prove support for terrorists acts. one only has to prove a link to financial or tactical support. or haven't you heard. actually, one doesn't have to even prove this in america anymore. thanks to the new laws, the president doesn't have to provide any evidence to lock you away and throw away the key.

As a layperson, you are completely ignorant to the measures being taken by the US military to build up, or undermine, the PKK. You have NO IDEA,

i doubt it is anything like this..

At his headquarters in a Nairobi mosque, Alamin pointed on the lists to Fazul's children - Luqmaan, 15, Asma, 13, and Sumaiya, 4 - and his wife Halima. "It is believed that she might lead them to him and the detention of the children might smoke him out from wherever he is. It's a ridiculous way of doing things. These kids are hostages pure and simple."

Alamin's Forum was in contact with the families of those arrested. They included Kenyan citizens that the Kenyan government had now sent back to Somalia, and it was clear that most if not all the prisoners had been sent on from Somalia to Ethiopia in a coordinated rendition operation. These prisoners were being transferred to Addis Ababa for interrogation, led by a team of Americans.

Alamin later told me that one of the women transferred to Ethiopia had just been released and sent back to her family's home in Tanzania. So I travelled with him to the town of Moshi by Mount Kilimanjaro, to hear her story. Fatma Chande, aged 25, revealed that she had been questioned by US agents once they had touched down in Ethiopia. Most prisoners were told that the Americans had orchestrated the arrest and rendition operation. "The Kenyans told me originally that it is the Americans who wanted my husband, it's the Americans who were interested in us. The police tried to force me to admit my husband was a member of al-Qaida. I told them he was a businessman. He was nothing to do with al-Qaida. They kept banging on the table. They threatened to strangle me if I didn't tell them the truth."

Fatma said the children suffered worst. "When we arrived at the airport, we were handcuffed and our headscarves were pulled down over our eyes. The men were hooded. The children were crying all the time saying `we want to go home, we want to go home'."

In Ethiopia, FBI agents took her fingerprints and a DNA sample. Other women were interrogated more than she was. "They told me that they were being quizzed about their husbands - the Americans wanted to know what their husbands did, and their connections to al-Qaida". Fatma said that not only were children held in jail but that at least one woman had gone into labour inside the prison and then "she was brought back to the cells with the baby". The baby was called Twalha. By now Ethiopia was acknowledging it was holding 41 "suspected international terrorists" in detention, leaving about 40 of those transported to Somalia unaccounted for, including the children. It denied prisoners were being held in secret detention but admitted that neither the Red Cross nor lawyers were being allowed to see the prisoners.

what about checkpoints? you know, the kind where they just blow families away if they don't stop on time? nah, we don't treat people like that when the pkk is concerned. why? because of the NUMEROUS milatary carrot and stick "tactics" used to encourage or discourage certain actions
we don't treat all people equally. do we?

U.S. cannot account for billion-dollar Iraq contract

WASHINGTON, Oct 23 (Reuters) - The State Department does not know specifically what it received for a billion-dollar contract with security firm DynCorp International to provide training services for Iraqi police, a U.S. watchdog agency said on Tuesday.

The Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) said it was forced to suspend its audit of the DynCorp contract after administration officials told investigators they had no confidence in their own accounting records.

....


"As a result, INL does not know specifically what it received for most of the $1.2 billion in expenditures under its DynCorp contract for the Iraqi Police Training Program. INL's prior lack of controls created an environment vulnerable to waste and fraud," SIGIR said in an interim review.

sounds alot like Col. Ted Westhusing's complaint before he was 'discovered' by contractors allegedly suicided. wasn't betrayus in charge of training iraqi soldiers?

a billion? wow.

"one only has to prove a link to financial or tactical support. or haven't you heard..."

Well, this is a lie, but if it were true, you STILL did not provide a "link to financial or tactical support..."

Also, please cite the federal or state criminal codes that use your "standard" for proving terrorism... Can't? Another LIE? I thought so...

ok, i was wrong. i don't think by american standards anybody has to prove you have a link to terrorism to have you locked up. the president can just decide on his own.

MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT

In the final hours before adjourning last year, Congress passed and the president signed the Military Commissions Act (MCA). In doing so, they cast aside the Constitution and the principle of habeas corpus, which protects against unlawful and indefinite imprisonment. They also gave the president absolute power to designate enemy combatants, and to set his own definitions for torture.

Habeas corpus isn't a fancy legal term. It's the freedom from being thrown in prison illegally, with no help and no end in sight. No president should ever be given the power to call someone an enemy, wave his hand, and lock them away indefinitely. The Founders made the president subject to the rule of law. They rejected dungeons and chose due process.

We all know the difference between fairness and persecution. If we do not act immediately to fix the Military Commissions Act and restore our constitutional rights, basic protections like habeas corpus could be lost forever, and our country would become unrecognizable.
What's wrong with the Military Commissions Act:

* UNDERMINES THE CONSTITUTION AND
THE RULE OF LAW
* MAKES THE PRESIDENT BOTH JUDGE AND JURY
* REJECTS CORE AMERICAN VALUES

The MCA eliminates the constitutional due process right of habeas corpus for detainees at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere. It allows our government to continue to hold hundreds of prisoners for more than five years without charges.

It also gives any president the power to declare — on his or her own — who is an enemy combatant, decide who should be held indefinitely without being charged with a crime and define what is — and what is not — torture and abuse.



there is also another law more recent, that criminalizes any of you friends and families who help support you or any person who hires you if the president decides you are persona non grata. i'll find it soon enough.

its all part of the new Zionofascist america.

maybe you should do a little research on diego garcia.

Once again, you are citing a SECONDARY SOURCE, moron. Please show me the ACTUAL LAW.

Further, I know you are trying to change the subject again, but I will remind readers that you have YET to establish ANY evidence that there is any support for PKK "terrorist" acts by the US government. Keep lying.

lol, do your own friggin homework. you want the actual law, go to thomas/library of congress, look it up. there is an abundance that has been written about it. here's an old wapo.

John D. Hutson, the Navy's top uniformed lawyer from 1997 to 2000, said the rules would evidently allow the government to tell a prisoner: "We know you're guilty. We can't tell you why, but there's a guy, we can't tell you who, who told us something. We can't tell you what, but you're guilty."

Bruce Fein, an associate deputy attorney general during the Reagan administration, said after reviewing the leaked draft that "the theme of the government seems to be 'They are guilty anyway, and therefore due process can be slighted.' " With these procedures, Fein said, "there is a real danger of getting a wrong verdict" that would let a lower-echelon detainee "rot for 30 years" at Guantanamo Bay because of evidence contrived by personal enemies.

i'm living in the mainstream dude. you represent the end of america

go listen to the blueprint. do you recognize yourself?

words of the holocaust survivor :"they did it in germany, they did it in germany"

she should know, so should you.

"the very early legal pressures on a democracy by people intent on shutting down that democracy"

listen to the blueprint for shutting down a democracy.

you don't scar me y'know. all your stupid capitol letters and accusations. squeak squeak. little blathering chirp.

"do your own friggin homework. you want the actual law, go to thomas/library of congress, look it up."

God, this is hilarious. You make a wild assertion, I challenge it, and you want ME to find information backing up YOUR crazy assertion?

Do you have ANY brain cells?

Further how does ANY of this excuse you from lying about the US supporting/conding PKK "terrorist" acts?

More lame diversionary tactics?

from The United States and the Kurds: A Brief History

Following the October 21 cross-border raid by PKK guerrillas, resulting in the deaths of 12 Turkish soldiers and the kidnapping of eight others, the United States condemned the attack but also called on Turkey to show restraint. However, given the strong bipartisan support given to Israel for its massive military onslaught against Lebanon following a cross-border raid by Hezbollah guerrillas which resulted in the deaths of three Israeli soldiers and the kidnapping of two others, Turkey may have little reason to take Washington's pleas seriously. Any pressure on the Turkish government, which is dependent on the United States for much of its arms imports and foreign military training, to refrain from attacking neighboring countries must therefore be part of a broader critical re-evaluation of U.S. support for comparable actions by Israel and other allies.

The United States should also pressure Turkey to more carefully calibrate its counter-insurgency operations inside their country (and anywhere else) so to minimize civilian casualties. Indeed, such "collateral damage" has proven to be one of greatest recruitment tools for insurgencies. The United States should also encourage the Turkish government to offer amnesty to Kurdish nationalists willing to put down their arms, more fully recognize Kurdish civil and cultural rights, and allow the country's Kurdish minority to advance their concerns nonviolently without fear of repression. Given the widespread civilian casualties resulting from U.S. counter-insurgency operations in Iraq and U.S. rejections of amnesty and other political compromises with Iraqi insurgents, the Turks may again have reason to reject such advice. As a result, these needed efforts to alter Turkish policies must be concomitant with a critical re-evaluation of U.S. counter-insurgency policy in Iraq and elsewhere.

in other words, out carrot and stick approach is hypocritical.

In short, though the struggle by the Kurdish people and the governments which seek to control them pre-dates large-scale U.S. intervention in the region, it is American policy which has brought the situation to its current critical juncture and makes prospects for a just and peaceful solution so challenging. Perhaps, though, the current crisis will force the United States to re-think not just its disastrous policies in Iraq, but to also consider more seriously the need to more fully respect national sovereignty, support the right of self-determination and consider non-military alternatives to conflict.

many juicy tidbits in the analysis..

As a result of U.S. pressure, the Iraqi constitution requires super-majorities for key pieces of legislation, giving the Kurdish nationalists effective veto power against legislation deemed harmful to U.S. interests.

i'm shocked.

In terms of regional security, the most dangerous policy of the U.S.-backed Kurdish Regional Government has been its decision to allow its territory to become a base for separatist guerrillas to launch attacks against neighboring countries.

Iraqi Kurdistan has become the base of an Iranian Kurdish group known as PEJAK, which has launched frequent cross-border raids into Iran, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Iranians. Unlike the more conciliatory line taken by the traditional Iranian Kurdish opposition groups, PEJAK has been inspired by the quasi-independent status provided their brethren in Iraq to take a much harder line toward the Teheran government. There have been numerous reports that the U.S. government has provided equipment, training, and targeting information for PEJAK guerrillas. In retaliation, Iran has shelled and launched small-scale incursions into Iraqi territory against suspected guerrillas, actions strongly condemned by the United States.

hypocricy?

Wow, so I guess by your analysis, it was a good thing that saddam used his wmd against the kurds.

Still, i fail to see the link between "terrorist" acts and US support. Where are the suicide bombers blowing up children in markets?

i fail to see the link between "terrorist" acts and US support.

by bush's standards nobody needs to see the link, except him.

(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

all you have to do is assist someone who does anything to undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq

but then again, different people have different standards. because of the hypocricy standard.

i mean we can moan and groan til kingdom come about iranian arms ending up in iraq, but the pkk ending up w/US arms? ha! no biggie.

US steering clear of Kurdish fight. that's one way of putting it!

The U.S. military commander in northern Iraq said Friday he plans to do "absolutely nothing" to counter Kurdish rebels who are staging deadly cross-border attacks into neighboring Turkey.

It was the most blunt assertion yet by an American official in the last few weeks that U.S. forces should not be involved in the fight. The Bush administration has said repeatedly that the border crisis should be resolved through diplomacy.

isn't that just peachy. too bad he doesn't have that standard for all iraqis.

Asked what the U.S. military was planning to do, Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon said: "Absolutely nothing."

....

During a Friday briefing, Mixon said the rebel activity is not his responsibility, that he's sent no additional U.S. troops to the border area and he's not tracking hiding places or logistics activities of rebels from the Kurdistan Workers' Party, known by its Kurdish acronym PKK.

He also has not seen Kurdish Iraqi authorities move against the rebels either, Mixon told Pentagon reporters by videoconference from a U.S. base near Tikrit in northern Iraq.

"I have not seen any overt action ... But those are the types of activities that are managed and coordinated at higher levels than my own," he said.

Top Defense Department and State Department officials this week said that Iraq's Kurdish regional government should cut rebel supplies and disrupt rebel movement over the border, adding that Washington is increasingly frustrated by Kurdish inaction.

why so blaaaaazee? i guess 'terrorism' is only relevant when it is against the US, not it's allies. except israel, which is considered one of our states, if not our most important state. also, i don't think we use our military to counteract our covert action (not to be confused w/missionary work).

I guess by your analysis, it was a good thing that saddam used his wmd against the kurds.

by my standard? didn't you read the link??? i think to say by the US standard would be more appropriate.

For example, in the mid-1970s, in conjunction with the dictatorial Shah of Iran, the United States goaded Iraqi Kurds into launching an armed uprising against the then left-leaning Iraqi government with the promise of continued military support. However, the United States abandoned them precipitously as part of an agreement with the Baghdad regime for a territorial compromise favorable to Iran regarding the Shatt al-Arab waterway. Suddenly without supply lines to obtain the necessary equipment to defend themselves, the Iraqi army marched into Kurdish areas and thousands were slaughtered. Then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger dismissed concerns about the humanitarian consequences of this betrayal by saying that "Covert action should not be confused with missionary work."

....

In the latter part of the decade, in what became known as the Anfal campaign, as many as 4,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed, more than 100,000 Kurdish civilians were killed and more than one million Iraqi Kurds--nearly one-quarter of the Iraqi Kurdish population--were displaced.

Despite this, the United States increased its support for Saddam Hussein's regime during this period, providing agricultural subsidies and other economic aid as well as limited military assistance. American officials looked the other way as much of these funds were laundered by purchasing military equipment despite widespread knowledge that it was being deployed as part of Baghdad's genocidal war against the Kurds.

The March 1988 Iraqi attacks on the Kurdish town of Halabja--where Iraq government forces massacred upwards to 5,000 civilians by gassing them with chemical weapons--was downplayed by the Reagan administration, even to the point of leaking phony intelligence claiming that Iran, then the preferred American enemy, was actually responsible. The Halabja tragedy was not an isolated incident, as U.S. officials were well aware at the time. UN reports in 1986 and 1987 documented Iraq's use of chemical weapons, which were confirmed both by investigations from the CIA and from U.S. embassy staff who visited Iraqi Kurdish refugees in Turkey. However, not only was the United States not particularly concerned about the ongoing repression and the use of chemical weapons, the United States actually was supporting the Iraqi government's procurement efforts of materials necessary for the development of such an arsenal.

When a 1988 Senate Foreign Relations committee staff report brought to light Saddam Hussein's policy of widespread killings of Kurdish civilians in northern Iraq, Senator Claiborne Pell introduced "The Prevention of Genocide Act" to put pressure on the Iraqi government. However, the Reagan administration--insisting on being able to continue its military and economic support of Saddam Hussein's regime--successfully moved to have the measure killed.

This history of appeasement raises serious questions regarding the sincerity of both the strategic and moral concerns subsequently raised by U.S. officials about both the nature of the Iraqi regime and the treatment of the Kurdish population.

that is under the section 'the 1980's' from my last post. shall i go on? or can you read about the '91 uprising all on your own.

Guantanamo military lawyer breaks ranks to condemn 'unconscionable' detention

An American military lawyer and veteran of dozens of secret Guantanamo tribunals has made a devastating attack on the legal process for determining whether Guantanamo prisoners are "enemy combatants".

The whistleblower, an army major inside the military court system which the United States has established at Guantanamo Bay, has described the detention of one prisoner, a hospital administrator from Sudan, as "unconscionable".

The whistleblower's testimony is the most serious attack to date on the military panels, which were meant to give a fig- leaf of legitimacy to the interrogation and detention policies at Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. The major has taken part in 49 status review panels.

"It's a kangaroo court system and completely corrupt," said Michael Ratner, the president of the Centre for Constitutional Rights, which is co-ordinating investigations and appeals lawsuits against the government by some 1,000 lawyers. "Stalin had show trials, but at Guantanamo they are not even show trials because it all takes place in secret."

Combatant Status Review Tribunals were held for 558 detainees at the Guantanamo in 2004 and 2005. All but 38 detainees were determined to be "enemy combatants" who could be held indefinitely without charges. Detainees were not represented by a lawyer and had no access to evidence. The only witnesses they could call were other so-called "enemy combatants".

The army major has said that in the rare circumstances in which it was decided that the detainees were no longer enemy combatants, senior commanders ordered another panel to reverse the decision. The major also described "acrimony" during a "heated conference" call from Admiral McGarragh, who reports to the Secretary of the US Navy, when a the panel refused to describe several Uighur detainees as enemy combatants.

Senior military commanders wanted to know why some panels considering the same evidence would come to different findings on the Uighurs, members of a Muslim minority in China.

When the whistleblower suggested over the phone that inconsistent results were "good for the system ... and would show that the system was working correctly", Admiral McGarragh, he said, had no response. The latest criticism emerged when lawyers investigating the case of a Sudanese hospital administrator, Adel Hamad, who has been held for five years, came across a "stunning" sworn statement from a member of the military panel. The officer they interviewed was so frightened of retaliation from the military that they would not allow their name to be used in the statement, nor to reveal whether the person was a man or woman.

Two other military lawyers have also gone public. In June, Army Lt-Col Stephen Abraham, a 26-year veteran in US military intelligence, became the first insider to publicly fault the proceedings. In May last year, Lt-Com Matthew Diaz was sentenced to six months in prison and dismissed from the military after he sent the names of all 551 men at the prison to a human rights group.

William Teesdale, a British-born lawyer investigating Mr Hadad's case, said he was certain of his client's innocence, having tracked down doctors who worked with him at an Afghan hospital. "Mr Hamad is an innocent man, and he is not the only one in Guantanamo."

your america krypt. you represent the destruction of my country and the freedom my forefathers gave their lives for. you represent the desecration of everything i hold dear. all for what? the new zionist america? the new zionist ME.

zionofascism is the most dangerous global threat.

You can moan about "zionofascism" all you want.

It doesn't mean you have a lower bar when it comes to the TRUTH.

More lies in your most recent post:

Care to actually cite the whole law? You also left out a whole subsection "a"? Care to identify which US statute this language comes from?

"all you have to do is assist someone who does anything to undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq"

I like how you italicized to make it appear as though this language came from some US law, rather than from your own delusional mind.

Nobody's asking about "Bush's standards." You've asserted that the US supports/condones PKK "terrorist" acts. What are the acts, and what did the US do to support/condone them?

Your answer appears to, again, be that the US hasn't done enough to stop these supposed terrorist acts that you have yet to even identify.

By your definition, any "rebel" group in any country that the US "doesn't do enough to stop" suggests that the US supports that group. Not only is this pure idiocy, but it exposes you as a wayward hypocrite.

I like how you italicized to make it appear as though this language came from some US law, rather than from your own delusional mind.

actually, the part that was in italics was from the white house link (which i provided). nice try dipsheet.

go ahead, print out the military commissions act of 06. are you implying it doesn't exist?

can't you access the library of congress yourself. thomas ect?

Nobody's asking about "Bush's standards."

lol, i can understand why!

btw, i cannot get thomas to link to past posts. it always comes up Search results are only retained for a limited amount of time.Your search results have either been deleted, or the file has been updated with new information. i also don't know how to post pdf files but the law

Public Law No: 109-366, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, signed into law October 17, 2006.

also known as S.3930
Military Commissions Act of 2006 (i guess this is the senate)

is available on google from wapo here. also, if you go to thomas you have to click in 109 congress or else you will just automatically get the results of the 110th congress w/all the propoposed legislation (much as one can imagine) to repeal it.


SEC. 2. CONSTRUCTION OF PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

The authority to establish military commissions under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code, as added by section 3(a), may not be construed to alter or limit the authority of the President under the Constitution of the United States and laws of the United States to establish military commissions for areas declared to be under martial law or in occupied territories should circumstances so require.

did you get that? the president has now set aside authority to use the states national guard as he sees fit w/out permission from the state. (this is another new law). all he has to do is declare martial law and there goes trial by jury of your peers..

fyi the law i quoted from above is not the same as the military commisions act and i am not going to keep printing out this stuff for you because you can go to the white house website i linked to, get the name of the legislation and look at it yourself.

wrt the military commission acts, which starts out sounding like it is pertaining solely to enemy combatants it starts down a slippery slope later on in the bill, about 2/3 the way down. for example, regarding who the bill can be applied for justice w/military tribunal that have the authority to condemn one to death w/out trial by jury check out `SUBCHAPTER VII--PUNITIVE MATTERS

the check out `950q. Principals.

(that means who it applies to)

`Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who--
`(1) commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission;

`(2) causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him would be punishable by this chapter

get it. they quit referring to only enemy combatants and the ANY PERSON lingo clicks in. that includes you and me.


`Sec. 950r. Accessory after the fact

`Any person subject to this chapter who, knowing that an offense punishable by this chapter has been committed, receives, comforts, or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial, or punishment shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.

did you get that?

`Sec. 950t. Attempts

`(a) In General- Any person subject to this chapter who attempts to commit any offense punishable by this chapter shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.

`(b) Scope of Offense- An act, done with specific intent to commit an offense under this chapter, amounting to more than mere preparation and tending, even though failing, to effect its commission, is an attempt to commit that offense.

`(c) Effect of Consummation- Any person subject to this chapter may be convicted of an attempt to commit an offense although it appears on the trial that the offense was consummated.

`Sec. 950u. Solicitation

`Any person subject to this chapter who solicits or advises another or others to commit one or more substantive offenses triable by military commission under this chapter shall, if the offense solicited or advised is attempted or committed, be punished with the punishment provided for the commission of the offense, but, if the offense solicited or advised is not committed or attempted, he shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.

this is suspension of habeaus corpus. an act does not have to be committed. you don't have to recieve a jury trial to prove you solicited or advised. this can be determined by the president.

it goes on and on and on.

`(24) TERRORISM- Any person subject to this chapter who intentionally kills or inflicts great bodily harm on one or more protected persons, or intentionally engages in an act that evinces a wanton disregard for human life, in a manner calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government or civilian population by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct, shall be punished, if death results to one or more of the victims, by death or such other punishment as a military commission under this chapter may direct, and, if death does not result to any of the victims, by such punishment, other than death, as a military commission under this chapter may direct.

`(25) PROVIDING MATERIAL SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM-

`(A) OFFENSE- Any person subject to this chapter who provides material support or resources, knowing or intending that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, an act of terrorism (as set forth in paragraph (24)), or who intentionally provides material support or resources to an international terrorist organization engaged in hostilities against the United States, knowing that such organization has engaged or engages in terrorism (as so set forth), shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.

`(B) MATERIAL SUPPORT OR RESOURCES DEFINED- In this paragraph, the term `material support or resources' has the meaning given that term in section 2339A(b) of title 18.

`(26) WRONGFULLY AIDING THE ENEMY- Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.

`(27) SPYING- Any person subject to this chapter who with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign power, collects or attempts to collect information by clandestine means or while acting under false pretenses, for the purpose of conveying such information to an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a military commission under this chapter may direct.

not only that we are expanding the use of the term terrorist wrt domestic terrorism, or haven't you heard? US House Passed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act labeling activists as “terrorists”. if the civil disobedience causes disruption and loss of profits to an 'animal enterprise' or it can be proven these losses were intended... you are then a domestic terrorist.

This is from the ACLU's website:

ACLU Letter to Congress Urging Opposition to the Animal Enterprise Act, S. 1926 and H.R. 4239 (3/6/2006)

Re: Animal Enterprise Act, S. 1926 and H.R. 4239

Dear Member of Congress:

On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, a non-partisan organization with hundreds of thousands of activists and members and 53 affiliates nation-wide, we write today to explain our opposition to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, S. 1926 and H.R. 4239 (AETA), a bill that amends the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA), now 18 U.S.C. § 43. The AETA criminalizes First Amendment activities such as demonstrations, leafleting, undercover investigations, and boycotts. The bill is overly broad, vague, and unnecessary because federal criminal laws already provide a wide range of punishments for unlawful activities targeting animal enterprises.

It’s important to let the reader know what conduct is criminal under current law, too. What are the elements of the crime? Setting them forth now is useful to make your point that the bill criminalizes speech. The AEPA, which passed in 1992, created a penalty of $10,000 or 10 years to life imprisonment for any physical disruption that leads to $10,000 in damages to an animal enterprise. AETA expands the class of criminal behavior in 18 U.S.C. § 43, by changing the term used to described activity “for the purpose of causing physical disruption” to activity “for the purpose of damaging or disrupting” an animal enterprise. The overbroad class of “disruptive” activities apply to any and all activities that result in “losses and increased costs” in excess of $10,000.

Lawful and peaceful protests that, for example, urge a consumer boycott of a company that does not use humane procedures, could be the target of this provision because they “disrupt” the company’s business. This overbroad provision might also apply to a whistleblower whose intentions are to stop harmful or illegal activities by the animal enterprise. The bill will effectively chill and deter Americans from exercising their First Amendment rights to advocate for reforms in the treatment of animals.

we are going down a slippery slope passing legislation that encompasses far reaching protection of corporations. what is an 'animal enterprise'??

this is becoming draconian. i am not an animal rights activist at all. frankly i find defending animals in this environment w/all the foreign affairs issues/problems highly irrelevant. but i ask you why?? why now this expansion of defining domestic terrorists??

Amendments to AEPA are unnecessary. The Department of Justice has successfully used the existing Animal Enterprise Terrorism Protection Act to obtain indictments of members of animal rights organizations alleged to have engaged in violent behavior. The ACLU urges you to oppose the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, S. 1926 and H.R. 4239.

what's happening to my country?

You say this is from the white house link?: "all you have to do is assist someone who does anything to undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq"

Are you really this much of an idiot, or do you find it entertaining to just act stupid?

Again, I will ask WHAT "terrorist act" by th PKK did the US support/condone and how did they support/condone it?

At this point, its pretty obvious that you wallowing in your own miserable idiocy and have no idea wa tthe answer to the question is...Don't worry, i don't expect an answer, but i will keep asking...

This post has been removed by the author.

You say this is from the white house link?: "all you have to do is assist someone who does anything to undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq"

no, i said the part i placed in italics was from the white house link.

if you review my original post @ 5:01 it looks like this..


"all you have to do is assist someone who does anything to undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq"

i also provided the WH link. here is is again

why don't you read it? it includes the part of the text i put in italics..

(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or

(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;

(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act .....

get it???? it goes on to say or acts of violence but it is not limited to acts of violence. to continue..

(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

do you understand that? even indirectly, if you assist anyone who has been charged under this order (which gives the government the right to confiscate ones property) a person can suffer the same consequence as the original offender. this includes simply feeding the person.

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

it effective blacklists a person, prohibits anyone from hiring the person or taking care of the person.

Sec. 4. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.

but it doesn't stop there.. you get no warning or notice..

Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.

in other words, the president has expanded his authority to confiscate everything you have, and everything anyone who helps you, them too.

if you read section 6 it explains how the president has delegated other government agencies to crry out these orders on his behalf.

wonder why he is called king george?

it is signed btw

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

July 17, 2007.



don't you feel safe now?

btw, it is titled

Office of the Press Secretary
July 17, 2007

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

back to my point, apparently in this country undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq amounts to support and can get you in deep doo doo. but when the US military's guns end up in the hands of the pkk (remember the 'indirectly' above?) or when they support politicians that do not "promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq" (because the kurdish region is not 'iraq' and in fact supporting oil deals that do not run thru the central government of iraq works against the best interest of the iraq government, according to them) it is not called 'support'?

maybe you should look up the definition of support. or you can read about it at the white house link.

(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of

directly or indirectly. you get it?

btw significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence

could be construed, in a draconian government (and these kinds of laws are draconian), of protesting the governments actions in iraq.

how many times have you and others like you said people such as myself are promoting the terrorists? rightwingers use this lingo all the time, the gop uses it all the time, rove and his minions use these talking pts all the time. what is the definition of a violent act. if one participates in a protest the government construes as threatening the peace and stability of Iraq (their version of peace or 'liberation') and they determine it has a 'significant risk' of turning violent...gee, i guess you are up sheetcreek. or what if you are protesting halliburton? can this be deemed to be 'undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction'? what if halliburtons security is blackwater and you protest them? is that determined to be 'undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction', if they think there is a risk the protest could turn violent?

and what of government violence provocoters which we all know exist as documented on video at the last WTO.

we are coming awfully close to a police state, if we aren't already there. when the president refused to send in fema until the louisiana governor agree to give the power of martial law in her state over to the president it became all too clear what we are up against. it didn't take long after that for the excecutive branch to push thru laws determining bush could control the national guard of any state, and if need be use it against another.

this stuff is draconian, and anyone can watch it unfold. this is the fascism.

They're comin' ta git ya annie! ha ha ha

You must be shaking in your jackboots!

ha! if they are comin' to get me they are in desperado mode. i just got back from and indie media conference on censored news. 100's of journalists and film makers. believe me.. if they are worried about me they have 100,000's of thousands, if not millions committed to reversing this horrid mutilation of our constitution. we aren't stupid, we are americans. we know what freedom is.

They're not worried about you. You're worried about them.

I bet that conference was... interesting. How are the new fall Che-Chic fashions?

worried about them? i am worried about the state of affairs, as are many people the world over.

to be clear, no, i am not shaking in my boots and no, i don't worry about my personal safety. i know if i am (or by the time i am)in danger i will be in very good company.

if for any reason some fear swept over me about my own freedom i would simply do what i do everyday.. think about all the people in the world in much more threatened, dangerous and painful situations.

the conference was exceptional. the americans, as usual were completely unfashionable. however some of the foreigners looked smashing. there was a gentleman from haiti in a crisp new suit. an afghani woman (pregnant no less) in a beautiful blackish gold lame dress suit that was very sharp, and a woman from mexico (filmaker) dressed to the T.

Jeremy Scahill, the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army (very casual, jeans or something equal..who's looking at his clothes, he's so cool) got up to accept an award. he was very brief. he accepted the award for who he considers the 'real hero's of this war, the iraqi journalists, many of them who have given their life to bring us reports'.

i thought of Khalid's smile. Omar and BT too. anyway, that is all he said and it was the only time during the ceremony the entire audience rose from their chairs and clapped for a long time, many teary eyed.. it was an unexpected acceptance speech..

it may interest you to know rhus.. his girlfriend (or wife) was also dressed casually. both of them looked very young ,attractive and completely unpretentious.

would you like to know what i was wearing?

would you like to know what i was wearing?


No need. It was obviously one of these, topped off with one of these of course!

what ever happening to your sidekick krypt. he shut up awfully fast. all that moaning, groaning, screaming about what the white house published? that could have all been avoided had he simply followed the link in the first place. and the challenge over MCAct. jeeze, do people really imagine we are all clueless as to the weird anti constitution/anti bill of rights administration?

anyway, it isn't surprising you have come to do fill in w/stupid links to che clothing. honestly rhus, you are scrapping the barrel. first w/your illusions re me quaking in my boots and now stupid references to fashion. how trollish can you get.

obviously it doesn't bother you in the least our rights are being thrashed. you are the kind of coward that would gladly hand over our liberties for the excuse of presumably more temporary safety which everyone knows is just leads to totalitarianism.

"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

they are trying to rob us blind. well, many of us can see very clearly what is happening in our name.

this new AG bush is proposing, i'm sure you think he is dandy. another torture bush above the law dog/pony.

what a waste.

Sidekick krypt is still here.

Its just that you continue to lie and fail to provide any evidence to back up your assertions that the US has supported/condoned terrorist acts by PKK terrorists.

You continuously try to diverge away from the actual issue, suggesting that Bush's executive order used to curtail terrorism in Iraq is somehow draconian within any context. Of course, we could argue that conspiracy laws are "draconian" or aiding and abetting laws are draconian, but these legal concepts have been around forever. Suddenly, when its bush using them to prevent terrorism in iraq, they are "draconian."

Still no proof from you and its gotten bored. Don't wait too long for my responses, as I have better things to do than repeat my requests for evidence over and over.

Bush's executive order used to curtail terrorism in Iraq is somehow draconian within any context. Of course, we could argue that conspiracy laws are "draconian" or aiding and abetting laws are draconian, but these legal concepts have been around forever.

hey, if you don't want to acknowledge the suspension of habaeus corpus is draconian i am not going to argue w/you about it. that just says what you think about the pro=inciples this country was founded apon.

fail to provide any evidence to back up your assertions that the US has supported/condoned terrorist acts by PKK terrorists.

according to Omar, in the forwarding comment section

Peshmerga are technically protecting the PKK.

this isn't rocket science. by our laws, as demonstrated in the text of both the WH link, and the MCA, if you protect someone who is protecting a terrorist, you are liable. protection is support. we work with and are aligned w/the peshmerga.

you cannot see any hypocricy w/the US standards regarding how we treat certain 'terrorists' and others, with whom we reserve retribution to partake in the advancement of our goals, which they share.

it doesn't work just to scream 'editorial' everytime i link to a report regarding the US role of supporting the arm of the kurdish rebels we don't call terrorists. even cole say "Bush's special greatness is that his coddling of Kurdish separatism and terrorism

it is common knowledge. if these 2 groups share the same leaders i am sure they support eachother. it is widely reported the pkk use or weapons.

go ahead and live in denial, you look the fool. if they were sunni they would be aiding terrorism or accused of protecting AQ and fair game to airbomb. same w/sadr.

i am not saying this because i think we should go bomb anyone. i am saying it becasue i think it demonstrates how, when the US wants to, it can move towards its goals without killing scores of civilians, just like in kurdistan. maybe we wouldn't be so hated if we treated all iraqis equally.

Until the PKK "terrorists" start sending suicide bombers into baghdad, or cutting off the heads of their rival and dumping them in the streets, I would say they are in a different category. You have yet to show that they do any of these things. Logic suggests that the primary disruptors in Iraq are the al qaeda affiliates and the mehdi affiliates. If you want to ignore this and want to believe the PKK is somehow much worse than the real terrorists, I don't really care, but it continues to make you look like an idiot. By your definition of "supporting terrorism" EVERY country is guilty of this. Don't be an idiot. Your paranoia about the suspension of habeous corpus is just that. You can cry wolf all you want, but until I see some actual dictatorship-like factors come into play (bush declaring presidency for life, bush killing off all the democrats...etc.), its going to be difficult for anyone with a brain to take you seriously. During war, rights are curtailed in certain circumstances...I personally believe it is necessary to protect Americans from the hatred and hostility of people like you, or anyone seeking to do harm to the US. Don't threaten us and expect peace and love in return.

during war?? well , now that we have informally declared war on a tactic, no longer need to follow geneva because tactics cannot have legitimate actors, only enemy combatants and a whole other slew of crap we are supposed to believe.. get real. this zionist propaganda you are pushing here.

dead people are dead people. don't give me this 'one cuts off heads and the other doesn't'. or, the terror guys i like aren't as bad as the terror guys you like.

you are steeped in hypocrisy and you know it.

Until the PKK "terrorists" start sending suicide bombers into baghdad

ha! what about ankara? wasn't the hudson neocon institute just doing a little practice run on how americans would be perceived if 'terrorists' threatened turkey?

really, this whole little game of certain US factors manipulations behind the scene is becoming all to familiar to people who understand elliot abrams. why should the US lose its image of 'moderate' when it can supply arms for certain parties to carry out the dirtywork?

zionists avoid using their own soldiers (sabra/chatila), they pick scabbs and sell arms and support their different allies into conflict. this is the zionofascist way.

If you want to ignore this and want to believe the PKK is somehow much worse than the real terrorists,

the real terrorists? are you breaking w/the US position and claiming the pkk are not terrorists? i have never once said the pkk were much worse than anyone else. so don't start arguing another strawman.

are we fighting a war on terror?? what , do we reserve punishments in this country for those who feed those who are alleged to have contributed to terror, yet in the middle east we don't even call some terrorists 'real', even when our officials do?

Your paranoia about the suspension of habeous corpus is just that.

ha! first you moan and groan and challenge me to prove this w/the bill, them when i do you call me paranoid. so, i take it you don't think having a president be able to declar someone a terrorist, keep that person from a trial by jury, hold him w/out charges, keep him from providing evidence to prove his innocence, keep him from free council, all this you think setting a precedence for it, even against the warnings of our supreme court, is meaningless. go ahead, gut the integrity of what has always been the cornerstone of a free society going back to the magna carta and dismiss me as if i am 'paranoid'.

you are a disgrace.

until I see some actual dictatorship-like factors come into play (bush declaring presidency for life, bush killing off all the democrats...etc.), its going to be difficult for anyone with a brain to take you seriously.

so in other words, if you can't see dictator like events, it is irrelevant what our laws are.

In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

you should be ashamed

and you call yourself american

how disgusting

First They Came For The Terrorists...

First they came for the terrorists,
and I said "there are no terrorists, unless you are talking about us. Then there are terrorists because we are terrorists who do terroristy things."

Then they came for the insurgents,
and I said "there are no insurgents just patriots fighting for the karmic honor of defeating my terrorist countrymen by blowing up their own infrastructure, denying services to my fellow human beings, stealing from them, intimidating them, and killing them."

Then they passed a law challenging my God given right to support the enemies of our country,
and I said "this is an outrageous challenge to my personal liberty, but I am not worried about it"

Then I said,
"Look at my Che beret. Isn't it dandy? I'm a revolutionary too. My enemy is my country."

"so in other words, if you can't see dictator like events, it is irrelevant what our laws are..."

So bush is killing communists and jews now? Come on, idiot. You're a paranoid schizophrenic nutcase. The PKK terrorists are not targeting US troops or US targets or Iraqis. That doesn't make them objectively better, it just makes them better as far as US and Iraqi interests are concerned. Likewise, Turkey doesn't care about terrorists hitting the US, or Iraq, just like they also don't care about terrorists in, say, the Phillipines. Maybe they will care more about US security, since they know its related to their own security. Countries act in their own self interest. It is the nature of international politics. As an American, I'm more concerned about Americans and America than I am about, say, Russia, which has its own terrorist problems. Since we "do nothing" to stop terrorism in Russia - are we supporting it? I'd say that by helping finance nuclear power in Iran, Russia is doing much more to "support/condone" terrorism than the US ever has...

Since we "do nothing" to stop terrorism in Russia - are we supporting it?

we aren't occupying russia you numbscull, nor is russia an ally of ours. if a rogue bunch of iraqis were trying to carry out 'terrorist acts' in kuwait, do really think we'd do 'absolutely nothing'?

if you can't see dictator like events, it is irrelevant what our laws are..."..
So bush is killing communists and jews now?

wow, that's quite the strawman you got goin'. care to rephrase that excuse for acquiescing laws thrashing of our liberties.

try try again. why don't you just say ou constitution doesn't matter since you think our 'safety' is being protected. btw, you do know the presidents job (and oath)is to protect the constitution don't you.

you certainly have selective priorities. must be nice to go thru life w/so little integrity.. not.

Maybe they will care more about US security, since they know its related to their own security.

since when doesn't turkey care about american security? you angry they wouldn't let us stage our criminal fiasco from their borders? i think turkey has been pretty straight up w/us. no? nobody in the friggin world thought iraq posed a threat to the US except the neonuts. is it payback time for turkey? go ahead, spit it out. how does our little agent of the empire view turkey?

hey, while we are playing
'who's our friend' how do you think the US would react if some iraqis attacked israel?

helping finance nuclear power in Iran, Russia is doing much more to "support/condone" terrorism than the US ever has...

excuse me???? just because our little zionist sidekick says it, doesn't make it so. i will rely on american intelligence thank you very much! here's our totally stupid wh press blatherer

"This is a country that is enriching and reprocessing uranium and the reason that one does that is to lead towards a nuclear weapon"

lol! prove it *itch! first of all reprocessing uranium separates any usable elements (e.g., uranium and plutonium) from fission products and other materials in spent nuclear reactor fuels.

iran never had a running uranium based reactor. It therefore does NOT have any spent nuclear reactor fuels. It thereby can not reprocess uranium.

the purpose of enriching uranium is to gain fuel for nuclear reactors to generate electricity.

The following countries are known to operate enrichment facilities, including R&D facilities: Argentina, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Japan, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Israel and North Korea are also suspected of having enrichment programs. Belgium, Italy and Spain hold an investment interest in the French Eurodif enrichment plant. Countries that had enrichment programs in the past include Australia, Libya and South Africa, but of those only South Africa actually operated an enrichment facility.

take your scar tactics and peddle them elsewhere.

IAEA boss El Baradei , 2 days ago. [H]ave we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No.

this is like the stupid claims about syria that get thrown around by a bunch of journalist but when push comes to shove all the 'evidence' adds up to nothing, and comes from israel.....boring.

you think i am paranoid schizophrenic nutcase? your problem is i am NOT the version of paranoid schizophrenic nutcase you want. you would like me to be hiding under my bed worried about iran blowing up israel any day, no? there are a million dead in iraq because of our gross miscalculations(at best), tell their relatives its all in their head.

it is us that empowered iran to have the kind of influence in iraq the 8 year war never got, it was us who coddled along hideous death campaigns by IG against sunni 'enemies', and now it is us that is going to attack iran because they are having too much influence in iraq? wow, i'm just so flabberghasted at this impecable AEI/big Z neonut logic.

after the big bang who pray tell is goinjg to be carrying out the ground missions? would it be our friendly kurdish terrorists? or our favorite sunni terrorists? we know how much they all love iran.

set up all the kindling just how you want it and watch it burn baby burn. the neocon wet dream. faster please.

rhus, if you want to try to paraphrase me you can't keep saying things i would never say. putting quotes around them won't make them real. you are strawmaning yourself into total irrelvance.

there are way to many of them in your feeble attempt.i won't bother even retorting any of it, it is too stupid.

why don't you just say it, you think the terrorists are so bad they are worth throwing away the morals our country was based apon?

i bet when bin laden wanted to ruin america he had no idea he would have to much help from the criminals ruling us, and their supporters.

small wars journal has an interesting article up, as they sometimes do.

We, as a nation, are having a crisis of honor.

try calling him a terrorist lover why don't you.

hey come to think of it, don't they wear berets like che?

"we aren't occupying russia you numbscull, nor is russia an ally of ours. if a rogue bunch of iraqis were trying to carry out 'terrorist acts' in kuwait, do really think we'd do 'absolutely nothing'?"

Still refusing to provide any evidence of Kurdish PKK terrorist attacks supported by the US?

"The following countries are known to operate enrichment facilities, including R&D facilities..."

Yes, and which of those countries have demonstrated extreme hostility towards the US and/or its ally Israel? As far as your list is concerned, the only one is Iran. The nucler power they claim to seek for peaceful purposes can easily be used to make a bomb which they will use to destroy Israel. By every measure, iran needs to be stopped before they "wipe israel off the map." Then again, I know you hate Israel and their destructon would be your wet dream.

We aren't "occupying" Turkey either, "numbskull." Doesn't that mean, according to your brilliant theories, that the US should just not care? Maybe when Turkey starts to be a little more concerned with the terrorism in Iraq, then the US should care a little more about "terrorism" in Turkey, which of course, is not terrorism but a real politicl entity that has been oppressed for centuries and is seeking an independent state.

annie, it's not a paraphrase, it's a parody.

which of those countries have demonstrated extreme hostility towards the US

what extreme hostility has iran directed at the US lately.

"wipe israel off the map."

don't get all aipac on me. everyone knows that is not the literal translation of what the president (who has no militay power in iran)said. he said the something to the effect of 'the regime being swept away by the winds of time.' frankly, i hope they are, and they take their cronies in our regime with them when they disappear. faster please.

Then again, I know you hate Israel and their destructon would be your wet dream.

you know? as in some psychic way i suppose? i do not hate israel nor do i seek its destruction. i would however like its neocon politicians replaced. i would also like for them to destroy all their settlements on land stolen from palestinians. and if they want to build a fence, do it inside their borders. there are many wonderful brilliant people in israel. i read haaretz all the time.

The importance of a failed summit

Do not belittle the Annapolis summit. Despite all the prophecies of failure, justified as they are, this summit could still make an important contribution to the history of Israeli-Arab negotiations: For the first time, it will become crystal-clear who aspires toward peace and, more important, who flees from it as if from fire.

Israel is going to Annapolis as if by force. The prime minister's hands are tied. If he were to dare to raise the core issues, which are the only thing to be discussed there, then his political fate would be sealed. Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu have already announced that in such an event, they will bring down his government. One can assume that Ehud Olmert, the survivor, is aware of this danger. Despite the lofty agreements that he will achieve - or not, it will seem as if his biweekly talks with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas never took place. Eli Yishai won't permit it, Avigdor Lieberman is making threats and even Ehud Barak is making sour faces. An Israel that refuses to discuss the core issues is an Israel that does not want peace. There's no other way to put it.

All this is made even more serious by the context in which the summit is being held: Israel never had as few excuses for evading progress toward peace, the ambient climate was never more conducive to progress. The terror card cannot be played again, because the terror has abated. Qassams landing on Sderot and a childish assassination attempt are not a reason to evade the peace process. This low level of terror will, unfortunately, continue to accompany Israeli-Palestinian relations for years to come. We must learn to live with it, and above all recognize that it will not stop in the absence of an agreement that will put an end to the occupation.
Advertisement
There is more. The security issue is much greater today on the Palestinian side. Israel can no longer continue to mouth slogans about security, after seven years in which it killed 4,267 Palestinians, 861 of them children and teens, in comparison to 467 Israelis who were killed, according to data from B'Tselem.

Another excuse that no longer washes is the "no partner" one. Israel has never had an easier peace partner than Mahmoud Abbas. True, he represents barely half the Palestinian people - Olmert represents an even smaller proportion - and true, it would be preferable if the Palestinian team going to Annapolis were to include Hamas, but that is no reason not to try. We destroyed Yasser Arafat as a partner - and the time has come to regret it - but we can no longer use the weakness of his successor as an excuse: Israel did all it could to create that situation. The Arab world, too, is more open to Israel and to peace than ever. Israel is methodically destroying the Arab League's resolution and the Saudi peace plan, but they are still on the table and sending out an unprecedented message of hope to Israel.

The real role of the United States will also be exposed at the summit: No other agent is as capable of making as great a contribution to advancing peace in the region as is Washington, but in the absence of any pressure on Israel, the sad impression is that even the Americans will not go out of their way to achieve peace. Annapolis is shaping up as no more than a perfunctory gesture from America. We tried, the Americans will say. But, of course, it is not a genuine attempt.

All the cards will be shown at Annapolis, and that is no small thing. The world will see and judge, Israelis will see and decide: Do we genuinely want peace?

no msm can say things like this about israel in the US! they have vibrant open debate there and many brilliant minds.

la di da. when i don't supply you with the hate you crave, you just make it up and attribute it to me, how very aipac of you.

"terrorism" in Turkey, which of course, is not terrorism but a real politicl entity that has been oppressed for centuries and is seeking an independent state.

oh. so the pkk aren't terrorists? a real political entity? i am smelling some double standards here. thanks so much for your illuminating response.


Still refusing to provide any evidence of Kurdish PKK terrorist attacks supported by the US?

i have refused no such thing. i have provided ample evidence, repeatedly.

are you implying turkey is not an american ally?

"don't get all aipac on me. everyone knows that is not the literal translation of what the president (who has no militay power in iran)said."

LOL. Oh really?

"he said the something to the effect of 'the regime being swept away by the winds of time.'"

That is SOOO much better than saying "wipe off the map..."

"frankly, i hope they are, and they take their cronies in our regime with them when they disappear. faster please."

Well, now, so you want Israel destroyed also? What a surprise...

"i do not hate israel nor do i seek its destruction."

No, you just want it swept away...

"oh. so the pkk aren't terrorists? a real political entity? i am smelling some double standards here. thanks so much for your illuminating response."

The PKK terrorist groups are designated "terrorist" to placate turkey, but they are not directing any of their "hostility" towards the US. They are, therefore, less of an interest as far as US security is concerned. Its like saying the ETA are terrorists.

Their issue is with turkey, not america.

No, you just want it swept away...

i placed the word 'regime' in quotes so you could clearly distinguish my meaning. i would also like the rightwing regime in this country swept away, as i made clear. there is a difference between the people of a country and those who currently lead them.

it is ever so much easier for you to continually argue strawmen. you would 'like' for me to think as you say so you can attribute your words to me and demonize me. this is transparent. however, i will not ever let a comment like that pass.

so, we designate groups who aren't terrorists 'terrorists' to pacify our allies? or isn't turkey an ally of ours. i noticed you didn't respond to that question, or as you would put it you 'refused' to respond.

interesting nontheless. thanks for the clarification.

you could probably relate to wanting saddam's regime vanished from the pages of time? no?

or to you, would that mean you want iraq wiped off the map?

cole vs hitchens (who, btw does not speak farsi)

He also points out the MEMRI's translation is close to my own.

So, I have a suggestion for my readers. Every time you see a newspaper article that alleges that Ahmadinejad said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map, please write the editor. Say that this idiom does not exist in Persian, and that what Ahmadinejad actually said was, "This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." And you can cite me.

If enough people do this often enough, the press will get tired of the propaganda line they are carrying, which is intended to whip up a manufactured war, and drop it. And that would be the most fitting response to Hitchens and his Neocon puppeteers.(like krypt)

this is why i say don't get all aipac on me. . this strawman tactic has become a staple of zionist/neocon arguing.


The neocons had been successfully making the "wiped" quote accepted by the mainstream media as undisputed fact. ...

And despite Hitchens' argument that if the "wiped" translation was wrong, "Ahmadinejad would have denied it," Iranian officials have on at least two occasions (Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh on CNN and Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki during a Feb. news conference) challenged the translation.

Now, if we can attract more attention to the substantive dispute of the Cole-Hitchens fight, we will also call attention to the fact that translations are tricky business. And those with political agendas can selectively choose translations to obscure the big picture and manipulate the media.



you know what it makes clear? that you don't have enough ammunition from facts, you need to rely on lies to make your point.


That is SOOO much better than saying "wipe off the map..."

well, i suppose if you can't see the difference between wanting saddam's regime to vanish, and wanting iraq to be wiped off the map......

but then again, many people do believe the neocons would like to.. make a desert and call it peace.

LOL. I see - so Iran just wants a change in policy by Israel, right? Is that why they finance Hamas and Hezbollah?

Sorry, Annie - anyone with a brain knows the extent of Iran's push to destroy Israel since the revolution. You have to be pretty stupid to ignore the hostility directed towards Israel from Iran.

Now, I'm sure there are lots of different ways to translate what Ahmadinejad was saying...Nevertheless, the intent of the statement is clear even from your interpretation - Iran seeks the end of Israel as a country.

"so, we designate groups who aren't terrorists 'terrorists' to pacify our allies?"

No, that's not what I said. Please re-read.

" or isn't turkey an ally of ours." An ally in the war on terrorism? Not really. what have they done to help us? I would say the Kurds are more of an ally in Iraq than is Turkey.

I would say the Kurds are more of an ally in Iraq than is Turkey.

hmm. what about the region, the ME, the globe?

this is very sad to me. very sad indeed. think of who will be paying the price. the US finds an interesting time to step back and do nothing. if we wanted to further peace in the region we could further diplomacy.

You have to be pretty stupid to ignore the hostility directed towards Israel from Iran.

You have to be pretty stupid to ignore the hostility directed towards Iran from Israel.

Iran seeks the end of Israel as a country.


palestinians.. iraq.. now iran. when will they stop.
blood on their hands. lots of blood.

"hmm. what about the region, the ME, the globe?"

Yes - what about it? You are defending a country that killed 1 million Armenians 100 years ago and which will not acknowledge it. What makes you think Turkey is such an innocent victim? I just find it funny that any country at odds with the US over whatever issue is somehow the victim of American oppresion.

"this is very sad to me. very sad indeed. think of who will be paying the price."

Paying the price for what? For Turkish aggression in Northern Iraq? The kurds will, obviously.

"palestinians.. iraq.. now iran. when will they stop.
blood on their hands. lots of blood."

Are you denying that Iran wants to destroy Israel?

"palestinians.. iraq.. now iran. when will they stop.
blood on their hands. lots of blood."

yes, they do have blood on THEIR hands. When will THEY stop.

think of who will be paying the price."

Paying the price for what? For Turkish aggression in Northern Iraq? The kurds will, obviously.

it wasn't a question. of course kurds will be who suffers. however i don't see how you can chalk this up solely to Turkish aggression .

furthermore I just find it funny that any country at odds with the US over whatever issue is somehow the victim of American oppresion.

for one thing... (from the link further down in this post)In November 2001, General Wesley Clark, who had recently retired from his post as head of the US Southern Command, learned from a general he knew in the Pentagon that a memo had just come down from the office of the secretary of defense outlining the objective of the "take down" of seven Middle Eastern regimes over five years.

as far as this current situation..i don't think the main event here is turkey being 'at odds' w/the US. nor do i see turkey's primary role as a 'victim'. i think turkey is 'at odds' w/the pkk, which the US has designated as a terrorist (yet numerous source attribute support to its sister org pjak). if we are true to this (and our support for pjak is solely for our advancements against iran) and turkey is our ally, why can't we be allies of both the kurds, and turkey?

i guess what i am at odds w/the most is this idea of dishing allies. bruno says in the forwarding post..

Turkey has been the biggest US ally in the ME (other than Israel) and the US depends greatly on routing its logistics through Turkey. What on earth would it gain by siccing its only two allies, the Kurds and Turks, on each other?

well, i really hope this is correct. although i can't ignore the common kurd/US goal (the new map, the single kurdish state) it seems a complete waste to ignore legitimate grievances of our allies.

You are defending a country that killed 1 million Armenians 100 years ago

100 years ago is a long time. i know next to nothing about turkey, but i am not going to condemn them now for actions a century old wrt current events. i think all genocide should be acknowledged however. i am no better 'friends' w/turkey than i am kurds.

ultimately i think this is a problem that should be dealt w/by iraqis and turkey. but i cannot see the advantage of making a motion of support for kurds wrt the current pkk incursions into turkey. (which appears to be your position) why? this should be denounced. does it not escalate tension? i'm not clear how one can blame turkey for cross border instigations initiated by the pkk?

Iran seeks the end of Israel as a country.

this is ugly rhetoric perpetuated continually by aipac. israel (w/all her nukes) as victim victim victim coupled w/specific continual threat of invasion/regime change.

In an appearance on the Don Imus radio talk show on January 21, 2005, Cheney said the Israelis might attack Iran's nuclear sites if they became convinced the Iranians had a "significant nuclear capability".

well, what do you know, israel is now claiming just that, counter to expert opinion. really, are we not ratcheting up the fear factor?

can we collect allies instead of drastic alienation?

I just find it funny that any country at odds with the US over whatever issue is somehow the victim of American oppresion.

why? because when the US is at odds w/a country they prefer sticks over carrots. because we have people in power who act like irrational madmen. because we have serious problems w/'lost' weapons. phony 'investigations' that lead no where. a military caught in the crossroads of conflicting tasks who's leaders are ruled by a chain of command w/a madman at the helm (cheney), because neocons have a history of false accusations to justify invasion, screaming victim while perpetuating violent transformation that include border and regime change.

this is NOT the america we were in the past. i don't consider myself a 'friend' of iran. but i don't see how demonizing anyone is going to lead to non violent transformation.

we need solutions that exclude more violence. what we don't need is rogue elements aligned w/our allies making things worse while we state very publicly our position is to do 'nothing'. nor do we need to state very publicly we will solve problems w/threats of violence. we should be engaged in peaceful resolutions and sending a message we will not abandon our allies, we will work w/them to reconcile.

"this is NOT the america we were in the past."

Yes, the America of the past was more racist and isolationist.

"i don't consider myself a 'friend' of iran. but i don't see how demonizing anyone is going to lead to non violent transformation."

LOL. Unless, of course, the "demonizing" is directed towards the US.

when the US is at odds w/a country they prefer sticks over carrots. because we have people in power who act like irrational madmen. because we have serious problems w/'lost' weapons. phony 'investigations' that lead no where. a military caught in the crossroads of conflicting tasks who's leaders are ruled by a chain of command w/a madman at the helm (cheney), because neocons have a history of false accusations to justify invasion, screaming victim while perpetuating violent transformation that include border and regime change.

we are less racist and less isolationist? lol, wow.


Unless, of course, the "demonizing" is directed towards the US.

get a clue

WAPO the Japanese are beginning to have a serious debate among themselves about the best way they can contribute to stability in the world. Recent events in Turkey and Pakistan show just how fragile alliances can be when they are forged by leaders without wide political support from their own constituents. American leaders need to help foreign leaders build consensus through healthy debate rather than reflexively branding any policy disagreement by a foreign leader as "anti-American."

gee, ya think?

A Washington Post editorial said Ozawa was "exploiting anti-U.S. sentiment -- for short-term partisan political advantage," and warned of "lasting damage to American and international perceptions of Japan's reliability."

maybe he's not exploiting anything. maybe the current US policy is unhealthy for stability. maybe that isn't anti american, just anti american foriegn policy which maybe some people may interpret as very racist indeed.

"we are less racist and less isolationist? lol, wow"

LOL. I don't think people would prefer the days of segregation, Jim Crowe or slavery over today. Maybe you would, not most people.

"American leaders need to help foreign leaders build consensus through healthy debate sdrather than reflexively branding any policy disagreement by a foreign leader as "anti-American."

This is a joke. Diplomacy requires dialogue, but it also require threat of force. If a country's interests involve fighting against America, for whatever reason, then they should do that. However, to expect the US to go along with some policy that hurts us ...well, that would be naive.

I don't think people would prefer the days of segregation, Jim Crowe or slavery over today.

how does this pertain to my comment, about foreign policy?

"American leaders need to help foreign leaders build consensus through healthy debate sdrather than reflexively branding any policy disagreement by a foreign leader as "anti-American."

This is a joke.

a joke?

abizaid

"I would characterize what we're doing now as 80 percent military, 20 percent diplomatic, economic, political, educational, informational, intelligence, etc.," Abizaid said. "You've got to take that equation and change it. Make it 80 percent those other things."

to expect the US to go along with some policy that hurts us ...well, that would be naive.

don't you mean potentially may hurt us? don't countries, including us, make preparation for their own protection? is it anti american to do that? the point of the idea of looking for solutions beyond professing sentiments as anti american is a good one. if you read the source article from that paragraph, it explains how the politician won, most likely because his positions matched those of his constituents. to brand this sentiment as anti american (a main staple of gop slander for any deviation from full support of US policy) it effectively closes the door diplomatic solutions. as the article explains, our ambassador, after 2 years in japan, had never even met this politician.

your response diplomacy requires dialogue, but it also require threat of force.

what else might in involve? compromise? solutions? what might be the outcome of dialog beyond getting your way, and a threat of force.

if a country does not acquiesce to americas wishes it gets the stick? what kind of diplomacy is that? why even bother talking? in iraq, cheney didn't want to wait until the WMD inspectors had even finished. it never would have made any difference what he did becasue the ptb wanted invasion.

the resistance wanted a timetable to the occupation. the US never intended, still doesn't ever intend to leave, so what's the point of the dialog. we have many completely inflexible positions. do any country who doesn't climb on board become automatically anti american. because if that is your standard, which seems to be the rigidity we are seeing from the zionofascists, certainly that lack of support for american policy will turn further into anti americanism around the globe.

do you even care?

does it ever occur to you some of the mistakes we have made could have been predicted, were predicted, could have been avoided?

sometimes you may just be wrong. this stance, of others ideas as being 'a joke'. how's that working for you? america?

this is off topic. but it is so absurd i had to post it

NBC Security firm under investigation for allegedly sidestepping export controls

While silencers are rare in America because their possession is highly restricted, they are common props in movies and television programs, used by actors playing hit men or members of the special forces. The military uses them for covert action and nighttime tactical assaults where stealth and surprise are required, but experts say it is not clear why Blackwater guards would need them for missions such as personal protection of diplomats.

they're mercenaries. everyone knows they are mercenaries. mercenaries assassinate people. they do jobs that are against the morals of ordinary soldiers, against the geneva convention. they're hit men, of course they use silencers!

"if a country does not acquiesce to americas wishes it gets the stick?"

There are plenty of countries that don't "acquiesce" and don't get "the stick." It just so happens, however, that America's "stick" is usually just what's good for the prosperity and development of that country anyway.

"what kind of diplomacy is that? why even bother talking? in iraq, cheney didn't want to wait until the WMD inspectors had even finished."

The WMD inspectors had been there for 12 years. Saddam was playing his stupid little games, the US called his bluff, and he was willing to let his country get destroyed for his ego.

"it never would have made any difference what he did becasue the ptb wanted invasion."

yea, yea - we've heard the stupid conspiracy theories a million times over and they always get dismantled in about 2 seconds. If the US really wanted oil so bad, it simply would have cut a deal with saddam and kept him in power.

You seem to have a very ignorant outlook on world affairs, attributing nobility and purity to any country that "stands up" to the US. Most of the time, as history has shown, these are the same countries that are the most corrupt and oppressive...

It just so happens, however, that America's "stick" is usually just what's good for the prosperity and development of that country anyway.

oh really. according to who? you?


The WMD inspectors had been there for 12 years. Saddam was playing his stupid little games, the US called his bluff, and he was willing to let his country get destroyed for his ego.

you are so full of crap.

they always get dismantled in about 2 seconds.

BS

attributing nobility and purity to any country that "stands up" to the US. Most of the time, as history has shown, these are the same countries that are the most corrupt and oppressive...

as opposed to the US? which isn't laden w/corruption?

speaking of standing up to the US, i am very pleased to hear the US has abandon it's "absolutely nothing' approach to the pkk. not that i wish to demonize the pkk, but it does seem that keeping an alliance w/turkey is quite valuable, for the US and iraq.

by whatever means they choose (and i am rather certain it won't include airbombing), lets observe what kind of influence can subdue terror when it includes carrots instead of sticks.

attributing nobility and purity to any country that "stands up"

naturally you have no supporting evidence of this. who's pure? no one.
there is such a thing as respect and compromise. yes, i respect a country that doesn't bend over and take it up the ass.

btw

The fact is that it is still one of the most violent places on earth and the decline in fighting comes in part in Baghdad because the city has gone from being 50/50 Sunni and Shiite to being 75% Shiite, with much of this change having come in 2007 under the nose of the surge troops from the US.

i'm so shocked

Another retired US diplomat sent me this:


' I am also a retired Foreign Service Officer, and strongly second the view of the anonymous FSO (retired) whom you cited in your column today. The issue really is not the commitment to world-wide service undertaken by FSOs. The decision by the Bush Administration to not only keep an embassy open in a war zone, but INCREASE its size to make it one of the largest in the world, is simply testimony to the madness of the entire Iraq “adventure,” and the fraudulent nature of the expressed rationale for our being there. Most of the staff in this “embassy” do not speak the language and cannot act effectively as diplomats, even if that were the purpose in sending them there. But that is not the purpose....

The willingness of Secretary Rice, or Dr. Ferragamo as she is known on one satirical website, to continue supporting this war of occupation through this “embassy” and more broadly through her declaration of a new order known as “transformational diplomacy” simply confirms that she is not a “moderate” voice for diplomacy against the likes of Dick Cheney. Diplomats do not “transform” other countries. They represent the interests of the US to the governments and citizens of other, independent, countries. '

"yes, i respect a country that doesn't bend over and take it up the ass."

Really? which countries are you referring to?

"as opposed to the US? which isn't laden w/corruption?"

Well, no. At least not in comparison with, say, Iraq or China or Russia or France for that matter. Try doing business in those countries, and see how far you get without paying someone off. Of course, corruption exists in America, and no one said it doesn't, so this is another attempt on your part to divert attention away from the problem. If all countries had the same commitment to stopping corruption as the US, the world would be a much safer, more peaceful place.

Have you ever done business in the ME?

If all countries had the same commitment to stopping corruption as the US, the world would be a much safer, more peaceful place.

you are delusional. right now the WH is refusing to turn over 100's of documents relating to abramoff. the senator from the appropriations (defense) committee now sitting in jail for handing out billions worth in privaitzed war contracts to his buddies, his name//cunnigham..stories of tons of cash disappearing in a war zone..get real.

while the gop scream about 'welfare queens' they have pulled off white collar theft of billions. all w/compliances from those in power.

you complain about corruption in iraq? who greased those wheels?

which countries are you referring to?

the list keeps growing. it seems many countries are experiencing a group rethink wrt their requirements of alliance. the ones i have reference in this thread are japan, and turkey.

there also seem to be a few iraqis who aren't following orders. or haven't you noticed.

If all countries had the same commitment to stopping corruption as the US, the world would be a much safer, more peaceful place.

the hypocrisy of this statement is astounding. the US population hasn't even had an attorney general who represnts them since the beginning of this administration. they have been lackeys who only represent the prez. who timing and again have refused to hold the powers accountable.

when the US can't seem to find an AG who agrees waterboarding is torture, we are in deep doodoo.

where's the moral compass? our justice department is completely politicized. our elections are a sham, and the media pushed paris and brittney.

i'm not diverting attention, i'm asking you to look at your own reflection, or has it blinded you?

ps.. i noticed one of my earlier links has been (again) mysteriously wiped. is was about 'mistranslations'@10:52.

A United Nations press release discussing the General Assembly’s Disarmament Committee meeting mistranslated comments ascribed to an unnamed Syrian diplomat as saying that Israel had on various occasions “taken action against nuclear facilities, including the 6 July attack in Syria.”

The UN has since gone through the tape recordings of the meeting and found that there was no mention of the word “nuclear” at all. According to the UN, the error was one of translation, involving several interpreters translating the same meeting.

just for the record, i will publish another link


When incredulous journalists asked whether Syria was confirming Western reports that Israel may have hit a partially built atomic reactor, U.N. officials retrieved a tape recording of the meeting and said the diplomat had said no such thing.

They issued a transcript of the comments according to which the diplomat said Israel "violates the airspace of sovereign states and carries out military aggression against them, like what happened on the 6th of September 2007 against my country."

US intelligence does not show Syrian nuclear weapons program, officials say

it is israeli intelligence, there is a difference, lest we forget.

good news

Turkish soldiers freed after diplomatic push

"when the US can't seem to find an AG who agrees waterboarding is torture, we are in deep doodoo."

Well, waterboarding isn't torture. It causes no physical injury, assuming its done correctly.

"where's the moral compass? our justice department is completely politicized. our elections are a sham, and the media pushed paris and brittney."

Yes, you are trying to divert away from the point. I never said the US is categorically not corrupt. I said that it is LESS corrupt than any other major country. It's one of the few places on this planet where person can be born with nothing and actually become a billionaire. Go see how often that happens in one of your more class structured societies in Europe.

The fact is you have NO idea the level of corruption that exists in many parts of the world. If you did, you would not be protesting the relatively benign bush cronyism with the kinds of things that happen in China, for example.

From the WAshington Post:

"TEHRAN, Iran -- Thousands of Iranians nationwide demonstrated Sunday to celebrate the 28th anniversary of the takeover of the U.S. Embassy by militant students, state television reported.

Demonstrators in the capital, Tehran, including elementary school students, gathered outside the former U.S. Embassy, chanting anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli slogans. They burned the two countries' flags and warned Washington to learn from the hostile incident."

The Rule of Law is fundamental to our existence as a civilized nation. The Rule of Law is not a goal which we merely aspire to achieve; it is the floor below which we must not sink. For the Rule of Law to function effectively, however, it must provide actual rules that can be followed. In this instance, the relevant rule - the law - as long been clear: Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise - or even to give credence to such a suggestion - represents both an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation.

We respectfully urge you to consider these principles in connection with the nomination of Judge Mukasey.

Sincerely,

Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02

Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000

Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93

Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.)
Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88

nance

There is No Debate Except for Torture Apologists

1. Waterboarding is a torture technique. Period. There is no way to gloss over it or sugarcoat it. It has no justification outside of its limited role as a training demonstrator. Our service members have to learn that the will to survive requires them accept and understand that they may be subjected to torture, but that America is better than its enemies and it is one’s duty to trust in your nation and God, endure the hardships and return home with honor.

2. Waterboarding is not a simulation. Unless you have been strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing feeling of the water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning of the word.

Waterboarding is a controlled drowning that, in the American model, occurs under the watch of a doctor, a psychologist, an interrogator and a trained strap-in/strap-out team. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning. How much the victim is to drown depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim’s face) and the obstinacy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral.

Waterboarding is slow motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of black out and expiration –usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch and if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right it is controlled death. Its lack of physical scarring allows the victim to recover and be threaten with its use again and again.

Call it “Chinese Water Torture,” “the Barrel,” or “the Waterfall,” it is all the same. Whether the victim is allowed to comply or not is usually left up to the interrogator. Many waterboard team members, even in training, enjoy the sadistic power of making the victim suffer and often ask questions as an after thought. These people are dangerous and predictable and when left unshackled, unsupervised or undetected they bring us the murderous abuses seen at Abu Ghraieb, Baghram and Guantanamo. No doubt, to avoid human factors like fear and guilt someone has created a one-button version that probably looks like an MRI machine with high intensity waterjets.

3. If you support the use of waterboarding on enemy captives, you support the use of that torture on any future American captives. The Small Wars Council had a spirited discussion about this earlier in the year, especially when former Marine Generals Krulak and Hoar rejected all arguments for torture.

Evan Wallach wrote a brilliant history of the use of waterboarding as a war crime and the open acceptance of it by the administration in an article for Columbia Journal for Transnational Law. In it he describes how the ideological Justice Department lawyer, John Yoo validated the current dilemma we find ourselves in by asserting that the President had powers above and beyond the Constitution and the Congress:

“Congress doesn’t have the power to tie the President’s hands in regard to torture as an interrogation technique....It’s the core of the Commander-in-Chief function. They can’t prevent the President from ordering torture.”

That is an astounding assertion. It reflects a basic disregard for the law of the United States, the Constitution and basic moral decency.

Another MSNBC commentator defended the administration and stated that waterboarding is "not a new phenomenon" and that it had "been pinned on President Bush … but this has been part of interrogation for years and years and years." He is correct, but only partially. The Washington Post reported in 2006 that it was mainly America’s enemies that used it as a principal interrogation method. After World War 2, Japanese waterboard team members were tried for war crimes. In Vietnam, service members were placed under investigation when a photo of a field-expedient waterboarding became publicly known.

Torture in captivity simulation training reveals there are ways an enemy can inflict punishment which will render the subject wholly helpless and which will generally overcome his willpower. The torturer will trigger within the subject a survival instinct, in this case the ability to breathe, which makes the victim instantly pliable and ready to comply. It is purely and simply a tool by which to deprive a human being of his ability to resist through physical humiliation. The very concept of an American Torturer is an anathema to our values.

divert from what point?

I said that it is LESS corrupt than any other major country.

by your standards? the standards of a person w/no moral compass!

It's one of the few places on this planet where person can be born with nothing and actually become a billionaire.

what on earth does this have to do w/whether their is corruption or not? it is completely irrelvant to the conversation.

"by your standards? the standards of a person w/no moral compass!"

Then please tell us which country YOU believe is not corrupt...Iran? Pakistan? China? Russia? France?

Which one(s)?

lol, nothing like changing the goal posts. who ever said anything about a country free of corruption.

If all countries had the same commitment to stopping corruption as the US, the world would be a much safer, more peaceful place.

the US is not stopping corruption. the US feeds corruption.$196 billion?? for what?

The faltering efforts to restore integrity to the Iraqi government suffered a major blow when the chief anticorruption official, Judge Radhi Hamza Radhi, was driven out of Iraq in August and replaced by a Maliki crony. In graphic testimony, Radhi told the oversight committee that 31 of his investigators were assassinated after implicating Iraqi officials in the theft and diversion of $18 billion. The father of one investigator was found hanging from a meat hook. Radhi's own family was targeted in two rocket attacks.

Radhi showed the committee secret orders signed by Maliki's chief of staff that prohibited probes into misdeeds by top Iraqi officials, including the prime minister. He described evidence implicating the ministers of defense, electricity and labor in schemes to steal hundreds of millions of dollars. The oil ministry, he said, is now "effectively funding terrorism." He also reported that Maliki personally blocked an investigation of his cousin, the transportation minister.

this is the government that YOU have blindly supported for the last few years. the government the US coddled. why? because we want them to sign the contracts, let the occupation stay.

Unfortunately, the U.S. State Department, which should be leading the battle against corruption, is missing in action. Its Office of Accountability and Transparency, which is supposed to support Iraqi anticorruption efforts, has been led by four different directors in the last 10 months. (Incredibly, the most recent acting director previously worked as a paralegal.) The only permanent director of the office, Judge Arthur Brennan, told the committee that there is no "coordinated U.S. strategy to fight corruption in Iraq."

The director of the State Department's Anticorruption Working Group provided a similar assessment, stating: "I would like to be able to say that we've done quite a bit in this area, but unfortunately, we have not. ... [T]o be completely, embarrassingly honest with you, there's not a lot of conversation going on."

Independent audits by Bowen and the Government Accountability Office also have reached disheartening conclusions, finding that the State Department's efforts suffer from poor coordination, lack of overall direction and duplication.

The secretary of State seemed completely unaware of the extent to which her own department's anticorruption efforts are in disarray when she testified before the oversight committee on Oct. 25. Rice acknowledged that there is "a very bad problem of corruption in Iraq. It is a problem in ministries, it is the problem in government, it is a problem with officials." Yet she endorsed Maliki's performance, asserting that "Prime Minister Maliki has made the fighting of corruption one of the most important elements of his program." She promised to cooperate with the committee's investigations, but then insisted that discussions of corruption take place in closed session, which would defeat the purpose of oversight.

The Maliki government is our ally in Iraq, so I understand why she and President Bush find the mounting evidence of fraud and graft inconvenient.

ha! this is the oversight the bush administration says is holding up progress.

you fail to see the tactic of chaos as a means to an end. who supports this corruption? who aims to benefit from this chaos? this has split iraq into fractions? by design i ask?

where are all the iraqis that could be building a free iraq? why aren't they rushing back home?

we have spent billions and billions of taxpayer money on what? a death trap.

and you ask me who isn't corrupt? i ask you who is a bigger funder of corruption? who?

aside from$$$, who now, on the globe has sanctioned terror? sanctioned war crimes? sanctioned torture? who has the power, the authority to pick up possibly innocent people fly them around the globe to secret prisons and torture them? children sometimes?

who hides the designers of these policies from any responsibility whatsoever while limiting reprecussions to 'a few bad apples'? who has the power to garner wages from the people of the most wealthy nation in human history for unlimitted funds to wage their folly? who?

and yo ask me is who's free of corruption? i ask you who wages terror in the name of peace?

what nation shields itself from the international courts? who won't sign onto global justice? who sits on the throne of corruption?

you got nerve, i'll tell you that.

"and you ask me who isn't corrupt? i ask you who is a bigger funder of corruption? who? "

Given the fact that most other countries have no mechanism in place to enforce any kind of corruption laws, I would say you haven't supported your claim. Do anything of these countries have a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act?

"and you ask me who isn't corrupt? i ask you who is a bigger funder of corruption? who?

Given the fact that most other countries have no mechanism in place to enforce any kind of corruption laws, I would say you haven't supported your claim

lol, what claim might you be referring?


the US is not stopping corruption. the US feeds corruption.

what laws other countries have in place is irrelevant, no matter how many times you sling around terms like 'the fact'. the fact is china executed officials involved in frauding the public(not that i agree w/this), so on its face your claims are absurd. obviously, there are mechanisms in place. you can write all the bills you want, if their is no enforcement, it is worthless. i notice how you keep changing the goal posts. what's clear is you are unable or unwilling to be critical of any policies coming from this administration, no matter how much of a failure they are.

my claim, that you have
no moral compass is not a claim i need to support. you have done it for us by your admissions wrt torture and your willingness to ignore the laws of the land and our historical treatment of waterboarding to serve your interest in promoting fascist executive power hiding behind the guise of protecting us from 'terror' when everyone knows the pledge the president takes is to protect the constitution.

i notice you evade answering my questions to divert attention onto other countries.


what nation shields itself from the international courts? who won't sign onto global justice? who sits on the throne of corruption?

what a joke, we write 'mechanisms' for anti corruption wrt international companies, yet restrict ourselves from punishment from international courts! ha!

i am cheering for france for bringing charges against rummy. that criminal.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

ha ha ha ha ha !!! lol!! this is like the clean air act, that decriminalizes polluting!!! or no child left behind that gears us up for the dismantling of the public school system!!! everybody knows giving something a name, a mechanism' says nothing and the gop practices policies that would make orwell look like a pussyfoot.


The director of the State Department's Anticorruption Working Group provided a similar assessment, stating: "I would like to be able to say that we've done quite a bit in this area, but unfortunately, we have not. ... [T]o be completely, embarrassingly honest with you, there's not a lot of conversation going on."

oh! i'm shocked! maybe becaus the people charged w/looking at the charges can't seem to drag their head of a bible, or have NO EXPERIENCE in the field. just maybe the pentagon and state department have been stripped of qualified people and replaced w/political cronies.

get a life w/you stupid bills that lead to nothing but cover ups.

You issue is not whether or not corruption exists in the US. The issue is what is the level of corruption in the US compared to other countries. You have yet to cite any articles that would suggest the US is more corrupt than, say, France, Russia, or China (or pick another country, for all I care). You are suggesting that the US is MORE corrupt than these countries, but you are not proving it. My assertion is that, because the US has a precedent of penalizing companies that engage in corruption (whereas France, China, Russia do not). On the other hand, if you have some information suggesting that China, for example, is less corrupt than the US, I will happy to hear it. Until that point, I will consider you a liar, as usual.

the level of corruption in the US compared to other countries.

well, let's see. what other country has used their military industrial complex to engage in an illegal war lately that has left a million dead and millions misplaced???.. hmm. let us wonder.

You are suggesting that the US is MORE corrupt than these countries


actually, if you review the thread, this is the direction YOU chose to take this thread. not me.

Of course, corruption exists in America, and no one said it doesn't, so this is another attempt on your part to divert attention away from the problem.

you see, this is YOUR idea of 'the problem'. your idea of looking at our corruption is a 'diversion'. YOUR goal is to divert attention away from our own corruption to compare it, lessen the grievances. the subject began when i posted an article referring to japan and the advisors suggestion america may get a ltttle further diplomatically by not turning every disagreement into 'anti american'.

America's "stick" is usually just what's good for the prosperity and development of that country anyway.

it is you who diverted this thread, you who wish to look anywhere, anywhere at all except your own backyard. your refusal based on my inability to prove another is better???????? until i prove this, any and all grievances i have, or anyone has is a moot point.

ha! you call me diverting, i'd say you have done an excellent job of ignoring plenty.

wapo has a report today on americas ideas on how we are doing. 23% think we are going in the right direction. i'd say your little propaganda campaign is failing next to the reality people are seeing. americans are seeing. this isn't just the rest of the world that considers america a big bully. the meanest cruelest kid in the schoolyard, with its little sidekick israel. i'd say americans are getting pretty fed up in what is going on.

you talk to ME about diversion. ha!

the US called his bluff, and he was willing to let his country get destroyed for his ego.


i'm afraid this has been debunked. the info got leaked there were negotiations and saddam offered to be exiled to eygyp w/a couple billion. the ?US refused. what was that? a few trillion ago? a million dead? the US wanted more than exiting saddam, obviously. we wanted a new playground to launch our missles and play bully. how's that workin for ya?

here's another chance for the WH to flip the bird at our 'mechanism' to thwart justice

White House says 'futile' contempt filing 'won't go anywhere'

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) filed a report today holding that two White House officials are in contempt of Congress for their continued refusal to honor subpoenas in connection with the controversial firing of US attorneys last year -- but he's offering one last chance to make a deal.

In a Monday letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding, Conyers wrote that he would be officially filing submitting the contempt report, a move which would allow the full House to later vote on the measure, but would stop the contempt process there if the White House would agree to a final compromise offer.

futile. this is what the WH says about contempt of court. they do what they want, when they want, fill the justice department w/stooges who carry out illegal practices, and thwart oversite by refusing to make available documentation that is agaist the law to not have a record of. they forget they are OUR SERVANTS. they break the law by not documenting their activities by using gop email, they do whatever they want.

we don't have a democracy, we have this abomination of justice.

but they sure do have their talking pts don't they

waste time again on another diversion,"

diversion? from finding out how they tried replacing DA's who wouldn't go on gop fishing expiditions prior to elections to railroad innocent people for the sake of making a spectacle out of our election process????????

diversion? they specialize in diversion. diversion from finding out the truth.

LOL. Still no evidence of a country with a better track record re: "corruption"?

This kind of like your assertions re: US support for PKK terrorists. Any evidence of this yet?

"the info got leaked there were negotiations and saddam offered to be exiled to eygyp w/a couple billion."

Yea, I know. Saddam was willing to leave Iraq and change his corrupt dictatorship. That's why he stayed in Iraq until he was caught.

"the ?US refused." Ok...how did the US "refuse" to let saddam leave Iraq. You make no sense.

"what was that? a few trillion ago? a million dead? the US wanted more than exiting saddam, obviously. we wanted a new playground to launch our missles and play bully." Well, that's what you think, in light of all the evidence that suggests that Saddam was a brutal dictator who threatened the US and its ME interests.

it was part of the news that came out last month near the senate vote to partition iraq. also, in the meeting, bush states wish for federalization contrary to the talking point he is against this.

my memory did not serve me so well, about bush 'refusing'. the transcript quotes him saying it was a possibility, or assassination, but either way, we are entering baghdad.

it was covered thoroughly in the european press. the msm here didn't think we would be interested (unlike all the syria nuke BS which they can't seem to stop speculating about!)

Saddam asked Bush for $1bn to go into exile

Saddam Hussein offered to step down and go into exile one month before the invasion of Iraq, it was claimed last night.

Fearing defeat, Saddam was prepared to go peacefully in return for £500million ($1billion).

The extraordinary offer was revealed yesterday in a transcript of talks in February 2003 between George Bush and the then Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar at the President's Texas ranch.

The White House refused to comment on the report last night.

.....

according to the tapes, one month before he launched the invasion Mr Bush appeared convinced that Saddam was serious about going into exile.

"The Eqyptians are speaking to Saddam Hussein," said Mr Bush.

"It seems he's indicated he would be prepared to go into exile if he's allowed to take $1billion and all the information he wants about weapons of mass destruction."

Asked by the Spanish premier whether Saddam - who was executed in December last year - could really leave, the President replied: "Yes, that possibility exists. Or he might even be assassinated."

But he added that whatever happened: "We'll be in Baghdad by the end of March."....

The transcript - which was published yesterday in the Spanish newspaper El Pais - was said to have been recorded by a diplomat at the meeting in Crawford, Texas, on February 22, 2003.

Mr Bush was dismissive of the then French President Jacques Chirac, saying he "thinks he's Mr Arab".





Scoop for Spanish Daily: Transcript of Private 2003 Bush Talk Promising Iraq Invasion


Published: September 26, 2007 8:00 AM ET

NEW YORK El Pais, the highest-circulation daily in Spain, today published what it said was the transcript of a private talk between President George W. Bush and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar on February 22, 2003, concerning the coming U.S. invasion of Iraq. It took place at the ranch in Crawford, Texas.

The conversation took place on the President's ranch in Crawford, Texas. The confidential transcript was prepared by Spain's ambassador to the United States, Javier Ruperez, the paper said.

Bush purportedly said he planned to invade Iraq in March "if there was a United Nations Security Council resolution or not....We have to get rid of Saddam. We will be in Baghdad at the end of March."

He said the U.S. takeover would happen without widespread destruction. He observed that he was willing to play bad cop to British Prime Minister Tony Blair's good cop.

Aznar pleaded for patience and replied that it was vital to get a U.N. resolution, noting that public opinion in Spain was strongly against the war.

El Pais, based in Madrid, has a reported circulation of just over 2 million, and is considered on the left. The transcript tops its front page today, but the headline focuses on Aznar's claim that he was trying to change 200 years of politics in Spain.

Agence France Presse translates part of the chat with Bush stating: "I am optimistic because I believe I am right. I am at peace with myself."

While awaiting a full translation, here are excerpts from the rough translation provided by Google.
*

BUSH: Saddam Husein will not change and will continue playing. The moment has arrived for undoing of him. It is thus. I, as for me, will from now on try to use the possible subtlest rhetoric, while we looked for the approval of the resolution....Saddam Hussein is not being disarmed. We must take to him right now. We have shown an incredible degree of patience until now. They are left two weeks. In two weeks we will be militarily ready. I believe that we will obtain the second resolution.... We will be in Bagdad at the end of March. A 15% of possibilities that exist then Saddam Hussein is dead or has gone away...

We would like to act with the mandate of the United Nations. If we acted militarily we will do it with high accuracy and focusing much our objectives. We will decimate the loyal troops and the regular army quickly will know which it is.... We are developing a package of humanitarian aid very hard. We can win without destruction. We are raising Iraq already post Sadam, and I believe that there are good bases for a future better. Iraq relatively hard has a good bureaucracy and a civil society. It would be possible to be organized in a federation. Meanwhile we are doing all the possible one to take care of the necessities political of our friends and allies.

AZNAR: It is very important to count on a resolution. ... The next Wednesday [16 of February] I see myself with Chirac. The resolution already will have begun to circulate.

BUSH: It seems to me very well. Chirac knows the reality perfectly. Their intelligence services have explained it. The Arabs are transmitting him to Chirac a very clear message: Sadam Hussein must go away. The problem is that Chirac is created Mister Arab and in fact the life is making them impossible. But I do not want to have no rivalry with Chirac....

This is as the Chinese torture of the water. We must end it.

AZNAR: I agree, but it would be good for counting on the maximum number of possible people. Then a little patience.

BUSH: My patience is exhausted. I do not think to go beyond half of March.

[Saddam] is a thief, a terrorist, a criminal military. Compared with Saddam, Milosevic would be a Mother Teresa. When we enter we are going to discover many more crimes and we will take to the Court the International to him of Justice of Is It. Saddam Hussein thinks that already it has escaped. Think that France and Germany have stopped the process of their responsibilities....

AZNAR: In fact the greater success would be to gain the game without shooting a single shot and entering Bagdad.

BUSH: For me it would be the perfect solution. I do not want the war. I know what they are, the wars. I know the destruction and the death that bring with himself. I am the one that she has to console to the mothers and the widows of deads. By all means, for us that would be the best solution...

AZNAR: We needed that you help us with our public opinion....

BUSH: When within years History judges us I do not want that people ask themselves so that Bush, or Aznar, or Blair did not face their responsibilities. In the end, which people wants is to enjoy freedom. ..

AZNAR: The only thing which it worries to me about you is your optimism.

BUSH: I am optimistic because I believe that I am in the certain thing. I am peacefully with me same.

here you can see how yahoo has scrubbed it

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070926/ts_nm/iraq_bush_spain_dc


In it, Bush spoke openly about pressuring countries who were members of the United Nations Security Council at the time to support a resolution authorizing force, but that, whatever happened: "We'll be in Baghdad by the end of March."

"(Former Chilean President Ricardo) Lagos should know that the Free Trade Agreement with Chile still has to be approved by the Senate, and that a negative attitude on this could endanger its approval," he said, adding aid to Angola also depended on U.N. support.

"And (Russian President Vladimir) Putin should know that his attitude is endangering Russia's relations with the United States," he was quoted as saying.

here's the cleveland leader

Tuesday evening it was revealed that Saddam Hussein had offered to go peacefully into exile just one month before the invasion of Iraq for a staggering $1 billion. The offer was revealed in a transcript of talks from February 2003 between George Bush and the then Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Azna at the President's ranch in Texas.

If the transcripts are legitimate, the President appeared to have been convinced that Hussein was serious about going into exile. The transcripts of the conversation were published this week in the Spanish newspaper, El Pais.

"The Eqyptians are speaking to Saddam Hussein. It seems he's indicated he would be prepared to go into exile if he's allowed to take $1 billion and all the information he wants about weapons of mass destruction," said President Bush.

And then, when Prime Minister Azna asked him if he could really leave, Bush said: "Yes that possibility exists. Or he might even be assassinated." However, he added that whatever happened, "We'll be in Baghdad by the end of March."

The White House has thus far refused to comment on the revelations, however, if it can be verified, it will most certainly raise questions of whether the pricey four-year war could have been prevented. Afterall, $1 billion is small potatoes in comparison to the entire cost of the war, and it was only just yesterday that the Bush administration asked Congress for another $200 billion to fund the war in Iraq and conflicts in Afghanistan.

this story, along w/the link to the spanish report was all over the progressive blogs. msm /rightwing blogs didn't report it. naturally the WH wouldn't comment, but they didn't refute it either.

Ok...so what's your point? that saddam may have tried to bribe the US, agreeing to leave ONLY if the US gave him a billion dollars? What about his crimes?

The veracity of the "transcript" is highly suspect and looks doctored, but I'm not surprised that such a "negotiation" may have taken place on some level. Nevertheless, Bush had no direct contact with Saddam, and numerous offers had been made and withdrawn in the years up to and following the first gulf war that it was impossible to actually trust anything Saddam said he was going to do.

IF, it was a true offer, which is highly unlikely, it would be very stupid for the US to take it and set such a precedent for future dictators.

what's your point? that saddam may have tried to bribe the US, agreeing to leave ONLY if the US gave him a billion dollars?

no. in fact i think it mentioned the idea was from dubai. from people trying to stave off war.

What about his crimes?

well, presumably he wouldn't be able to carry out any more crimes if he was not in power. i know he was the first great excuse to invade, before wmd's, before democracy..but we all know bush was going in anyway.

had the transcript been a lie it would have been refuted buy either party, it wasn't. it was recorded and i think speaks for itself.

i no it is hard for you to believe but some people think hanging saddam is not worth a million deaths and all the suffering that has ensued.

the neonuts however think the war is worth it, and continues to be worth it, because they have nade an economic fortune and tey continue to occupy and continue to have great plans for their permanent presence by way of all the new permanent bases.

it theft and its corrupt. more corrupt than anything out country has ever participated in.

"no. in fact i think it mentioned the idea was from dubai. from people trying to stave off war."

So, then what's that worth? Without any unambiguous gestures by Saddam to demonstrate a commitment to change, how would the US know one way or another, after being lied to so many other times? Sounds like another naive attempt to "avert" war that the US ignored like so many of the other "plans" that were nothing more than stall tactics. Saddam knew EXACTLY what needed to be done. He had 12 years to do it, and he decided to build more palaces.

"well, presumably he wouldn't be able to carry out any more crimes if he was not in power."

What? And who would stop him from "committing more crimes" - undoubtedly, it would be the US as NO ONE ELSE WAS WILLING TO DO ANYTHING.

" i know he was the first great excuse to invade, before wmd's, before democracy..but we all know bush was going in anyway."

Yea, you're right - we waited 12 years to "invade" and steal Iraq's oil, when it would have been much easier to do it back in 1991.

we never should have invaded. we didn't do it then for obvious reasons (remember cheney's interview from 94 w/explanation)

this has the potential to instigate a world war. you must know that. this is a crime against humanity, starting w/iraqis. who knows when it will end. led by homicidal maniacs, unleashing crzy wacjo homicidal maniacs.

some wear suits, some wear turbans, their all friggin wack jobs (including you) as far as i'm concerned.

Actually, you are wrong. This is preventing world war. Had Saddam been allowed back on the path of building up his military, he would have taken over the ME and hijacked the world, much like Iran would like to do. Thes countries (Iraq and Iran) must be stopped before they destroy us.

Saddam's crimes, Iran's crimes, the crimes of the Taleban, are all exponentially more damaging to humanity than Abu Ghraib, or whatever else you characterize as a "crime" committed by the US in Iraq. Fortunately, we have people in our government brave enough to acknowledge this and do something about it before its too late.

I'm very proud of my country for standing up to Saddam, the Taleban, and Iran. If more countries were willing to sacrifice to stand up to these bullies, the world would be a much safer, more peaceful place.

Nevertheless, it saddens me that so many people are unwilling to acknowledge the dangers of theseregimes and the potential they have to do great harm to the US. They have powerful propaganda techniques, that many people, like Annie, fall victim to.

hijacked the world?

yawn.

speaking of standing up to bullies.

Skepticism, distrust greet America's new military command in Africa

Just a few years ago, the U.S. military was all but absent from the oil-rich waters of West Africa's Gulf of Guinea.

This year, it plans to be there every day.

Africa's strategic importance is on the rise, as the U.S. acknowledged last month with the creation of a new unified U.S. military command for the continent called Africom. Monday brings the first military mission to Africa since Africom's founding, a U.S. Navy cruiser on a half-year training exercise through the Gulf of Guinea that stops first in Senegal's capital, Dakar.

For American commanders, Africom means consolidating responsibility for a continent previously split among three other regional commands, each of which saw Africa as a secondary interest.

However, Africom's creation has provoked so much skepticism on the continent that one of the most basic questions — where it will be located — remains unresolved.
Today in Africa & Middle East
Turkish-bred prosperity makes war less likely in Iraqi Kurdistan
2007 is deadliest year in Iraq for U.S. military
Muslim scholars decry 'fatwa chaos'

Africans are concerned the new command is an American attempt to project military might, unnecessarily bringing the global war on terror to their own backyard. They also wonder whether it is a ruse to protect America's competitive stake in African oil and other resources increasingly sought by rising powers like China and India.

"Africans have a feeling Africom represents something more than what is being sold to them," said Wafula Okumu, an analyst at South Africa's Institute for Security Studies.

...

"Africom is being pitched as a kind of non-kinetic military command," Shillinger said, "and that seems to be an oxymoron."

....

Moeller, Africom's military operations deputy, emphasized Africom's relationship with Africa and other U.S. government agencies would be "collaborative." Africom, he said, would "not be taking the lead" in humanitarian operations or U.S. foreign policy. Rather, it would support them by making available a massive military infrastructure that could help both.

....

"Having a presence on the continent in some form is certainly a goal," Moeller said. But "ultimately it has to be agreed to by the Africans."

this has been going on for awhile. seems the africans aren't so keen on hosting americas militarized 'humanitarian' projects.

Africa — including Algeria and Libya in the north — supplies the U.S. with more than 24 percent of its oil, surpassing the Persian Gulf at 20 percent, according to statistics from the U.S. government's Energy Information Administration. Of that amount, 17 percent comes from the Gulf of Guinea and Chad, which runs a pipeline to the Atlantic Ocean through Cameroon.

Moeller said increasing security in the Gulf of Guinea was partly an issue of open markets. The U.S., he said, would work with "African partners to make sure the resources that emanate from the continent are available to the global community."

or not.

seems someone didn't like the report. it got 'adjusted'. check out the scrub job starting w/the words, 'distrust' and 'military' from the title.

oh my.. what's this here.. it seems we have some more beret wearing lefties to contend with. what are we going to do with them.. so... anti american!!!!!




US focus on 'terror war' sinks image to all-time low: report
AFP
Published: Tuesday November 6, 2007

The United States needs to shift from muscle-flexing to alliance-building when it seeks to wield power in the world if it wants to patch up its battered global image, said a report on Tuesday.

"America's reputation, standing and influence are at all-time lows, and possibly sinking further," the report by a 20-member think-tank commissioned by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) said, citing half a dozen opinion polls from around the world.

"The terrorist attacks on 9/11 caused America to become a frightened and angry nation," it said.

"We reacted in ways that alarmed people the world over ... we relied excessively on hard military power to fight the war against terrorists and violent extremists.

"Ultimately this is a battle that will be won by ideas, not bullets. Just like the Cold War, we will prevail when the world chooses the opportunities we defend over the despair offered by our enemies."

The report, which was more than a year in the making, said the United States has focused too much on the war on terror and relied too heavily on military might in its foreign policy.

"The Pentagon is the best trained and best resourced arm of the federal government ... it tends to fill every void.

"The United States must become a smarter power by investing once again in the global good -- providing things that people and governments in all quarters of the world want but cannot attain in the absence of American leadership."

It called on the next US president to chart a new course towards a "smarter" foreign policy that balances hard power -- "wielding carrots and sticks to get what you want" -- and soft power -- "the ability to attract people to our side without coercion."

By shifting its foreign policy focus from the war on terror to championing the global good, the United States will not only defeat terrorism but will also restore its greatness, the report said.

The commission included former military commander in Iraq Anthony Zinni; ex-US ambassador to the United Nations, Russia and Israel Thomas Pickering; former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor; members of congress; business leaders and the heads of non-profit organizations.

Before the United States seeks to redress its global image, it has to tidy up its own back garden, the report said.

"One of the terrible lasting impressions of Hurricane Katrina is that the US government is both unfair and inept in the face of real challenges that impact people's lives.

"Implementing a smart power strategy depends on the government's ability to organize for success. Many Americans, though, have lost faith in government's ability to adapt and work effectively in today's world.

"This perception of an uncaring, ineffective US government is even more pronounced abroad among non-US citizens."

Among recommendations the commission gave to help restore the good image of the United States were a renewed commitment to international treaties and institutions, and reinvigorated alliances.

The United States must also not have double standards in terms of international legal norms, the report said.

"The images of prisoner abuse from Abu Ghraib ... seemed emblematic of this double standard."

The commission urged more commitment to global development, more equitable global trade talks, a revitalized public diplomacy effort under which "every US citizen serves as a diplomat", and greater investment in education to ensure the United States does not fall back from the cutting edge of science and technology.

It urged more openness to foreigners -- in particular to students -- and concrete steps to enhance energy security.

"America has the capacity to be a smart power," the report concluded.

"It is the most important mandate for our next president."

another beret wearing freakazoid

JERUSALEM -- Efraim Halevy, the former head of the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad, titled his memoirs "Man in the Shadows." But now that he's out in the sunlight, the 72-year-old retired spy chief has some surprisingly contrarian things to say about Iran and Syria. The gist of his message is that rather than constantly ratcheting up the rhetoric of confrontation, the United States and Israel should be looking for ways to establish a creative dialogue with these adversaries.



those communists are everywhere! some of the statements in this wapo piece are astounding!!!