BAGHDAD - The United States and Iraq will soon begin negotiating a power shift for U.S. forces, nearly five years after they invaded Iraq and installed a new government, Iraqi and U.S. officials told NBC News on Thursday.
Iraq wants us to essentially be comfined to bases with limited freedom of movement.
Iraq appears to be concerned with the continued violent confrontations eith Al-Qaida and other radical Muslim militias on the part of the US.
Who can blame them? We have been over there five years devastating their country.
Source
Showing posts with label al-Qaida in Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label al-Qaida in Iraq. Show all posts
Jan 24, 2008
Iraq Wants US Out
Jan 17, 2008
Sound Familiar?
Bush Budget Request Raises Fears Of Iran Strike, Increases Funding For ‘Massive’ ‘Bunker Buster’
In light of the administration’s increasingly threatening rhetoric on Iran, CQ reports that members of Congress are worried by Bush’s recent budget proposal. In particular, they cite his request to equip B-2 “stealth” bombers with a new 30,000-pound bunker buster as a “sign of plans for an attack on Iran“:
Buried in the $196.4 billion supplemental war spending proposal that Bush submitted to Congress on Oct. 22 is a request for $88 million to modify B-2 bombers so they can drop a Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, a conventional bomb still in development that is the most powerful weapon designed to destroy targets deep underground.
A White House summary accompanying the supplemental spending proposal said the request for money to modify B-2s to carry the bombs came in response to “an urgent operational need from theater commanders.”
Previous statements by the Defense Department and the program’s contractors, along with interviews with military experts, suggest the weapon is meant for the kind of hardened targets found chiefly in Iran.
Sign the Open Letter
Tell the networks not to follow FOX down the road to war
Sphere: Related ContentAug 15, 2007
Jul 18, 2007
Intelligence Estimate Says al-Qaida Intends to Attack U.S.
National Intelligence Estimate says that Al-Qaida intends to attack the United States. Does this mean that they have intentions, but not capabilities?
If you go through the NIE report, you'll notice that the word 'intent' is thrown around a lot, but the word 'capabilities' never pops up.
What's that mean?
In my View of It, we ought to know what the actual capabilities of our enemies are and not just use some crystal ball to try to figure out what their intentions are,
Democrats and Republicans both seized on the intelligence estimate to bolster their respective arguments over Iraq war policy. Republicans said the report highlights the continued need to confront al-Qaida in Iraq. Democrats say it underscores how the war in Iraq created new terrorists there while allowing al-Qaida to re-group in Pakistan.
Jul 16, 2007
Misreading Iraq - Again!
George W. Bush and his neoconservative supporters are hailing some signs of cooperation between Iraqi Sunni tribal leaders and U.S. forces in rooting out al-Qaeda extremists in Anbar Province as proof that Bush’s military occupation of Iraq is finally working and should not be ended by Congress. See: Misreading Iraq, Again
By Robert Parry
In pursuit of that goal, Atiyah also saw the importance of keeping the U.S. forces bogged down in Iraq. “Prolonging the war is in our interest,” Atiyah wrote in a letter that was discovered by U.S. forces after Zarqawi’s death in June 2006. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Al-Qaeda’s Fragile Foothold.”]
The reality is that Al-Qaeda wants us to be in Iraq See: Al Qaeda Strategic Vision: Engage the U.S. Overseas, Not at Home
Download: The Management of Savagery a Translation of Major al-Qaeda Book that Outlines Its Plan for Defeating U.S. and Its Allies.
"Muslims do not 'hate our freedoms', but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing support, for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states.
"Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self- serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that 'freedom is the future of the Middle East' is seen as patronising ? in the eyes of Muslims, the American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering.
Comments:
Beaman said...
True, Iraq and Afghanistan are far from being successful democratic and peaceful nations. However is that really the sole fault of the coalition? I personally place most of the blame on the Iraqis, Afghans and those who seek Jihad in those nations from abroad (Iran, Syria, Pakistan and Saudi etc). These people had every chance to create a better country but didn't have the insight to see it. Was that on purpose or not? I don't know.
July 16, 2007 5:14 PM
Carol said...
Special Briefing: Jihad: Who's joining, and why?http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0803/p04s01-wogi.htmlWhat is Jihad? The purpose of jihad, in other words, is not directly to spread the Islamic faith but to extend sovereign Muslim power (faith, of course, often follows the flag). Jihad is thus unabashedly offensive in nature, with the eventual goal of achieving Muslim dominion over the entire globe.Hi Beaman,You said "These people had every chance to create a better country but didn't have the insight to see it." A better Country by our values? I don't think that we have the right to impose our beliefs on others, do you?Thanks for the visit and for taking the time to comment. I appreciate that.Peace.Carol
July 16, 2007 7:18 PM
Beaman said...
Beliefs no, but freedom from tyranny and the chance at democracy (which is the best form of government known to man), yes. I want Iraqis and Afghans to have all the freedoms, chances and peace we enjoy in the West. I believe our political values should be spread across the world, indeed.I enjoy your blog, even though I disagree here and there. :)Best Wishes.
July 17, 2007 5:10 AM
Carol said...
It's ok to disagree with me I welcome the chance to hear other points of view. I understand what you are saying but I think that the Middle East is so fundamentally and culturally different from us that they may not even want a Democracy. I think that we should really be spending our energies here at home fixing what is wrong and broken in this Country. If other Countries want and ask for our help, well then that would be another matter.Peace.Carol
July 17, 2007 10:39 AM
May 14, 2007
Apparently It's An Eye For An Eye
BAGHDAD -
An al-Qaida front group that claims it has captured American soldiers warned the United States on Monday to stop searching for them and suggested it attacked the U.S. convoy as revenge for the rape and murder of a local teenager last year.
“You should remember what you have done to our sister Abeer in the same area,” the statement said, referring to five American soldiers who were charged in the rape and killing of 14-year-old Abeer Qassim al-Janabi and the killings of her parents and her younger sister last year.
Three soldiers have pleaded guilty in the case — one of the most shocking atrocities committed by U.S. troops in the Iraq war.
Apparently it is an eye for an eye in this case, however tragic this may be.
“What you are doing in searching for your soldiers will lead to nothing but exhaustion and headaches. Your soldiers are in our hands. If you want their safety, do not look for them,” the Islamic State of Iraq said on a militant Web site.
Instead of listening, watching and waiting, we have some 4,000 Troops searching for these three missing soldiers which all but guarantees they will be killed.
Read the Full Story
May 2, 2007
Bush speaks, Democrats capitulate. Now what?
Twelve weeks ago, I asked the Congress to pass an emergency war-spending bill that would provide our brave men and women in uniform with the funds and flexibility they need. Instead, members of the House and the Senate passed a bill that substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgment of our military commanders. So a few minutes ago, I vetoed the bill.
Here's why the bill Congress passed is unacceptable. First, the bill would mandate a rigid and artificial deadline for American troops to begin withdrawing from
It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of
Second, the bill would impose impossible conditions on our commanders in combat. After forcing most of our troops to withdraw, the bill would dictate the terms under which the remaining commanders and troops could engage the enemy. That means
Third, the bill is loaded with billions of dollars in non-emergency spending that has nothing to do with fighting the war on terror. Congress should debate these spending measures on their own merits and not as a part of an emergency-funding bill for our troops.
The Democratic leaders know that many in Congress disagree with their approach and that there are not enough votes to override the veto. I recognize that many Democrats saw this bill as an opportunity to make a political statement about their opposition to the war. They sent their message, and now it is time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need.
Our troops are carrying out a new strategy with a new commander, General David Petraeus. In January, General Petraeus was confirmed by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate. In February, we began sending the first of the reinforcements he requested. Not all these reinforcements have arrived in
In the months since our military has been implementing this plan, we've begun to see some important results.
For example, Iraqi and coalition forces have closed down an al Qaeda car-bomb network, they've captured a Shia militia leader implicated in the kidnapping and killing of American soldiers, they've broken up a death squad that had terrorized hundreds of residents in a
Last week, General Petraeus was in
Even as sectarian attacks have declined, we continue to see spectacular suicide attacks that have caused great suffering. These attacks are largely the work of al Qaeda the enemy that everyone agrees we should be fighting. The objective of these al Qaeda attacks is to subvert our efforts by reigniting the sectarian violence in
We saw the death and destruction al Qaeda inflicted on our people when they were permitted a safe haven in
We need to give our troops all the equipment and the training and protection they need to prevail. That means that Congress needs to pass an emergency war-spending bill quickly. I've invited leaders of both parties to come to the White House tomorrow and to discuss how we can get these vital funds to our troops. I'm confident that with good will on both sides, we can agree on a bill that gets our troops the money and flexibility they need as soon as possible.
Here in
Feb 12, 2007
Australian Leader: Al-Qaida Wants Obama
Obama said Saturday at his campaign kickoff in Springfield, Ill., that one of the country's first priorities should be ending the war in Iraq. He has also introduced a bill in the Senate to prevent President Bush from increasing American troop levels in Iraq and to remove U.S. combat forces from the country by March 31, 2008.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard, a staunch Bush ally who has sent troops to Iraq and faces his own re-election bid later this year, said Obama's proposals would spell disaster for the Middle East."If I were running al-Qaida in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats."
This from a Country with about 1400 Troops in mostly non-combative positions in Iraq? Send more of your Troops then so some of ours can come home! We have already sacrificed something like 3000 of people with God knows how many more to come. In My View of It we knew going in that there would be no way out of this..we shouldn't have started this in the first place! So Prime Minister Howard, either put up or shut up!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
