| Author | Message | ||
     Mohideen Ibramsha |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070413/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq === Security officials at parliament, speaking on condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing, said they believed the cafeteria bomber was a bodyguard of a Sunni lawmaker who was not among the casualties. ... It would be the second time in less than a month that a bodyguard wearing a suicide vest attacked a Sunni official. On March 23 a member of Deputy Prime Minister Salam al-Zubaie's security detail exploded his suicide vest and seriously wounded al-Zubaie, the highest-ranking Sunni in the Iraqi government. === What are we to do if a person to protect an individual becomes the attacker? Could we detain every member of the Iraqi Parliament until his / her security guards are thouroughly searched? Could the Iraqi Parliament meet in three buildings: one for Shias, one for the Kurds, and the third for the Sunnis? All three buildings could be very well connected electronically. Could the building to be the source of the common secure broadcast be selected by the Speaker of Parliament? Each group would have a leader to coordinate the proceedings within the respective groups. Could such electronic law making work? We propose this in the hope that the security details of one Parliament Member does not carry out such attacks in future to hurt and kill members belonging to other groups. | ||
| Ivan |
Saudi Columnist on 'The Right to Return' http://memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD154007 Article, Middle East Media Research Institute, April 12, 2007 The refugee problem: "Clearly, the refugee problem is mainly the result of cumulative mistakes made by the countries where [the refugees] live... such as Syria and Lebanon, which have isolated the refugees in poor and shabby camps lacking the most basic conditions for a dignified human existence. Instead of helping them to become fully integrated in their new society, they let them become victims of isolation and suffering... Later, the worst of all happened when Arab intelligence agencies used the Palestinian organizations as a tool for settling scores in internal Arab conflicts that probably have nothing to do with the Palestinians... By contrast: "The Israelis, on the other hand, were civilized and humane in their treatment of the thousands of Jewish refugees who had lost their property, homes and businesses in the Arab countries, and who were forced to emigrate to Israel after the 1948 war. The Israeli government received them, helped them, and provided them with all the conditions [they needed] to become integrated in their new society... The Iraqi problem pales by comparison: "In reality, there is no 'bridge [of return]'... except for the bridge that we now must pass... called the peace process and normalization of relations between the Arabs and Israel. Undoubtedly, the Arabs cannot continue to avoid the implementation [of the peace process], which brooks no further delay. [Any delay] will have a heavy price for the Arab societies in the present and in the future, considering the sharp strategic changes [occurring] in the Middle East. [These changes] demand an immediate and final solution to the Arab-Israeli conflicts, and [require] the two sides to direct their joint energies and efforts towards confronting the Iranian nuclear threat which imperils us all." To perpetuate the Arab propaganda without alleviating the inequities the Palestinian Arabs must live under in their host countries, so unlike any other immigrant group in any other part of the world, is the pain caused by the Arab world on their own. Iraqi misery is but one more on that pile of suffering coming out of the Arab Suni-Shia world. In fact, it is a quagmire of suffering not of our doing, but of theirs. Ivan | ||
| Naive |
I agree Ivan. They cannot see the deficiencies of their conflicting ideology, and thus place blame else where (due to propaganda and internal coercion from their leadership). On the other hand, we have chosen to send our young men and women into that maelstrom. We need to leave and let resolution come. Why don't we? Because our government fears the public outcry that will take place when things go back to status quo in Iraq. So instead "we" drag out the occupation process until the Iraqi government has the look "we" want it to have. Truly the situation is pathetic from all points of view. The common people need to rise up and make changes, here (U.S.) and there (middle East). I bet the common Iraqi or Iranian is as peace-loving, friendly, and open-minded as any American. Propaganda from all governments pushes the hate agenda. Its just too bad that so many are so easily fooled. Naive | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
I bet the common Iraqi or Iranian is as peace-loving, friendly, and open-minded as any American. Posted on Friday, April 13, 2007 - 11:59 pm: Naive I agree. How do we energize the common people? | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/01/pdf/text.pdf === A key question in assessing the risks to the outlook is whether the global economy would be able to “decouple” from the United States were the latter to slow down more sharply than projected. To date, the cooling of U.S. activity since early 2006 has had a limited impact abroad beyond its immediate neighbors, Canada and Mexico. === How would the 'Iraqi quagmire' affect the global economy? Would 'troop surge' and a determination to carry the fight to its end help the economy or hurt the economy? | ||
| Ivan |
Iraq is quite a 'quagmire' in deed.
It really is not up to 'us' to give the Iraqi government the template by which it will rule its people. Nor is it up to us to dictate what template the people must observe to structure its government. Where the failure starts, one of many it seems, is that we thought the Iraqis would 'naturally' gravitate to the kind of democratic constitutional government we would prefer for ourselves. Why should they? The Iraqi culture has precious little resemblance to ours. First of all, they do not believe in a separation of church and state, rather they want a combination of 'Sharia and state', as dictated by their religious authorities. Second, the sense of human equality we believe in, for both men and women, is an alien concept there. Most damning of all, is there are religiously inspired criminal elements that make the normal functionings of society virtually impossible. The viciousness of their inter-social violence, suicide bombings, beheadings, torture and kidnappings, mass executions, makes the worst of our inner city violent gangs look like a bunch of pussycats. The Iraqi jihad insurgency has reached levels of excellence in its horror that makes old fashioned social horrors, like the Nazis or midnight arrests by KGB and Gulags, look like child's play. These criminals are really good at their monstrous craft. So how does Iraq live up to democratic ideals, when burdened with, what to us, is not only unreasonable for free men and women, but outright monstrously horrific? Can they even remotely follow our template of democratic constitutional governance? The will to democracy has to be in the people, and freedom has to be in their hearts. If they do not possess these in large measure, then their chance of success in bringing about the kind of government and free society we of the West enjoy becomes highly unlikely. Combine that with the fear the traditional Sunni Salafist, or Iran sponsored Shiites play for power, and that likelihood drops further. In fact, it is these sectarian traditionalists who fear the freedoms and democracy most of all, and it is they who will sponsor their destabilization with all the (West's oil money) wealth they can muster, to make sure Iraqi democracy does not work. Oh yes, it can appear to work for a time, while their hands are out for American dollars and weaponry, but that is 'taqiyya' in action. They want from us all of what they can get, and then when we can't give any more, kick us in the rear as we go out the door. I do not see the Iraqi government in its present form as a friend. So, what is our responsibility to the Iraqi people, those who truly support freedom and democracy, and a well being for their children and generations to come? Will they fight for their right to freedom? Will they join forces against the jihadists who hate their freedoms? That is the big question. My guess? We will pull out, their society spin down into Somalia like anarchy, jihadists will institute Sharia law with full punitive oppressions (unacceptable by world human rights standards), and Iraq will regress by centuries. Then, and only then, when the people have suffered immensely at the hands of their evil religious leaders, will they rise up once again to try to regain the freedoms enjoyed by the rest of the planet's humanity. Until then, they will live the cursed life as dictated by their mullahs, and from that kind of spiritual and material poverty, there is no escape, as it is dictated by their god. In the end, the people will have to rise up against them. (Meanwhile, we will be busy fighting jihadi anti-freedom fighters on many other fronts, since Iraq failed, like concentrating in Iran, for the 'Long War'.) Perhaps then, and this may be decades or centuries from now, when they en masse rise up against this religious oppression, then we can help them establish a credible governance based upon the templates of freedom we ourselves enjoy. All free nations had to fight against oppression to gain their freedom. Iraq will too. Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Meanwhile, we will be busy fighting jihadi anti-freedom fighters on many other fronts, since Iraq failed, like concentrating in Iran ... Posted on Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 12:18 pm: Ivan The following article claims that Iran is a red-herring and that the real action would be in Pakistan. It is also claimed that the fighting would be done by the Pakistani Army. Read in http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=2636&cid=1&sid=27 | ||
| Ivan |
Iraq in the Balance Meanwhile Fouad Ajami writes that it is the Mahdi army the Shia dominated government must put under control: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009926&mod=RSS_Opinion_Journal&ojrss= frontpage Speculations aside, the real power struggle in Iraq is an Arab struggle. The 'gift of liberty' from the Americans may come at a high price, but the final account must be settled by the Arab world, without Iran. Personally, I think Pakistan is a side show, the real battle will be Iran, as it had been for thousaands of years, with the aspirations of the Persian empire. Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Meanwhile Fouad Ajami writes … There is a growing Shia unease with the Mahdi Army … Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 09:23 am: Ivan Let us hope that the information given to Prof. Fouad is not part of a dissimulation. The Iraqis he met know that he is working in USA and that the US authorities are unhappy with the Mahdi Army. The issue of whether Iraq would side with Saudi Arabia or with Iran in the event of a confrontation between the US and Iran needs to be considered. Iran is buffeted by Iraq and Pakistan. Iraq has a majority Shia while Pakistan has a Shia minority. The numbers are given below. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html === Iran population: 65,397,521 Shi’a 89% Sunni 9% === The number of Shias in Iran is 58,203,793. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html === Iraq population: 27,499,638 Shia 60 – 65% Sunni 32 – 37% Christian or other: 3% === The number of Shias in Iraq is a minimum of 16,499,782 and a maximum of 17,874,764. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/pk.html === Pakistan population: 164,741,924 Shia 20% Sunni 77% Hindi, Christian and other 3% === The number of Shias in Pakistan is 32,948,384. By race each of the above groups are different. The Iranian Shias are Persian; the Iraqi Shias are Arab; and the Pakistani Shias are Urdu-speaking Muslims called Muhajirs. However by faith they are the same. Thousand four hundred years back – in the absence of nation states – primary loyalty was to the tribe. Still Islam overcame that tribal loyalty. I would expect the same even today. Unless the theologians on the Sunni – Shia divide bridge the gap, I expect the Shia ruled Iraq to support Shia ruled Iran notwithstanding Nouri’s first trip to Saudi Arabia. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/24/AR2007042400216. html === WASHINGTON -- As Democrats head toward a showdown with President Bush on Iraq, a leading Republican warned that they are making an all-too-familiar mistake: not listening to seasoned commanders. Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., said catastrophe always follows when civilians turn a deaf ear to their military officers. === The kettle calls the pot black! http://www.aina.org/news/2007040694930.htm === PK: I can't pass up the chance to ask you about the situation in Iraq, which you know as well, if not better, than anyone. Are we losing? Ralph Peters: We're not losing, but we're not winning, either. The situation is dire, but not yet hopeless. To me, the real tragedy is that the situation in Iraq did not have to come to this pass--the amateurish mistakes the administration insisted on making in 2003 and early 2004 did much to create the atmosphere of violence, lawlessness and unleashed hatreds we see today. I supported, and still support, the removal of Saddam Hussein. I only wish the administration had been less arrogant, had listened to the military, and had done it competently. === What did General Petraeus say? http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,455199,00.html === December 18, 2006 In an interview with SPIEGEL, General David Petraeus, a former commander in Iraq who is now responsible for training United States Army troops, discusses the lessons of Baghdad, the reasons a war can't be won using weapons alone and why America's future warriors need a post-graduate education. SPIEGEL: You propagate the idea that young officers should go to graduate school. Why does a soldier need a master's degree? Petraeus: We're talking about how to react to unforeseeable, non-standard tasks, we're talking about environments that are very different to those we're used to. You have to work in a foreign language, you have to negotiate with people who come from another religious background or who don't even share what we would call the same core values. Now here you have a setting quite similar to graduate school, which takes you out of your intellectual comfort zone -- and that really is something a young officer should experience. You know, we in the Army, we have to admit, that we're living sometimes a sort of a grindstone cloister existence. We work very hard; indeed, we have our noses to the proverbial grindstone. And we tend to live a somewhat cloistered existence much of our lives. So we have to try to raise, as one of my colleagues once put it, our sights beyond the maximum effective range of a M-16-rifle. Graduate school and other experiences that get us out of our intellectual comfort zone help us do just that. === How many of our boys and girls have gone to ‘graduate school?’ Most of them are serving there for more than one year already. They all went even before General Petraeus observed in December 2006 that our boys and girls need to be graduates to handle wars in the Middle East. We continue with the December 2006 interview below. http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,455199-2,00.html === SPIEGEL: There is a tough discussion going on in the US about how and when to withdraw the troops from Iraq. Can you take any stand there? Petraeus: No, I can't. You know, I truly think that the Army is best served when its leaders adopt a professional approach that includes, of course, the principle of civilian control of the military. This is a hugely important principle. Our elected officials determine the objectives, and soldiers figure out the resources required and the risks involved. They have to say then whether that is reasonable or not and then maybe we have to discuss the objectives. That is nothing I have to decide. That concerns people who really are above us, and I support that principle fully, though military officers have an obvious obligation to provide their best military advice as part of the process. === Any call to listen to the military to formulate policy is wrong. We place an unjust and undue burden on General Petraeus by twisting his statements to mean that he supports continuation of the military misadventure started by Bush without caring for the military advice then that the suggested troop strength was insufficient to the task. He simply obeys his Commander-in-Chief. The Congress and the Senate have decided that it is time to end the misadventure. When they say that the troop withdrawal starts on October 1, 2007 and is completed in six months time, they are deciding policy. Given that policy, General Petraeus would surely evolve strategies to get our boys and girls out of the unwanted and unnecessary crossfire between the Sunnis and the Shias. We hope that the Republican Representatives and the Senators would join their Democratic counterparts in resending the same bill with a ‘veto overriding majority’ if Bush indeed vetoes the current bill. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
http://www.bw.lehigh.edu/story.asp?ID=20649 === 4/4/2007 Iraqi police and military forces will likely be able to take full responsibility for the country’s security by the beginning of next year, said the permanent representative of Iraq to the United Nations H.E. Hamid Al Bayati on Tuesday. Students enrolled in Political Economy of Iraq, an economics course created by Frank Gunter, professor of economics, had a private meeting with Al Bayati. === Please notice that the above statement is made to students in private. Since the UN Ambassador of Iraq claims that Iraq would be capable of maintaining security by the beginning of 2008, the Congress and the Senate could pursue the current bill seeking the withdrawal from October 2007 to April 2008 or so without in any way helping the insurgents. After all when Iraq is ready to assume the security why should our boys and girls suffer unnecessarily? | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-04/26/content_6032664.htm === The poll, released here on Thursday, shows that 56 percent of those interviewed say they agree with the Democrats who want to set a deadline for troop withdrawal, versus the 37 percent who say they agree with President George W. Bush that there should not be any deadline. Also, 55 percent believe that victory in Iraq isn't possible and 49 percent say the situation in Iraq has gotten worse in the last three months since Bush announced his so-called troop surge. Only one in eight think the war has improved in the three months since the "surge." === The above poll clearly indicates that the people are not in favor of continuing in Iraq. Under the circumstances, the decision by Senator Mc Cain to absent from voting on the bill is puzzling. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070426-0814-mccain-2008.html === McCain, who was campaigning in this early voting state and didn't plan to vote on the bill containing the withdrawal timetable ... === Mc Cain is not ready to decide on a crucial issue for the people. He should either support the President and vote against the bill or support the people and vote for the bill. May be he does not desire to reveal whether 'he is with the people or against the people.' Won't the public consider this as a weakness that Senator Mc Cain would vascillate when faced with difficult choices? Would such an image help him in his quest for the presidency? | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/washington/27intel.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=al l&oref=slogin === Mr. Tenet admits that he made his famous “slam dunk” remark about the evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But he argues that the quote was taken out of context and that it had little impact on President Bush’s decision to go to war. ... He also expresses skepticism about whether the increase in troops in Iraq will prove successful. “It may have worked more than three years ago,” he wrote. “My fear is that sectarian violence in Iraq has taken on a life of its own and that U.S. forces are becoming more and more irrelevant to the management of that violence.” Mr. Tenet says he decided to write the memoir in part because the infamous “slam dunk” episode had come to define his tenure at C.I.A. He gives a detailed account of the episode, which occurred during an Oval Office meeting in December 2002 when the administration was preparing to make public its case for war against Iraq. During the meeting, the deputy C.I.A. director, John McLaughlin, unveiled a draft of a proposed public presentation that left the group unimpressed. Mr. Tenet recalls that Mr. Bush suggested that they could “add punch” by bringing in lawyers trained to argue cases before a jury. “I told the president that strengthening the public presentation was a ‘slam dunk,’ a phrase that was later taken completely out of context,” Mr. Tenet writes. “If I had simply said, ‘I’m sure we can do better,’ I wouldn’t be writing this chapter — or maybe even this book.” === I would like to comment on two aspects. 1. The Ex-CIA Director feels that the troop surge is too late. More important our troops presence in Iraq is irrelevant and thus the earlier our boys and girls come home the better. 2. War mongers used the 'slam dunk' comment out of context and initiated the Iraq War. Using words of other people out of context could land us in trouble. I refer to some criticizing the Holy Quran by taking some Verses out of context and claiming that the Holy Quran incites violence. Context is important. | ||
| Ivan |
Iraq criticises US pull-out vote http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6598457.stm
Too late. The Iraqi government had not contained the sectarian violence, though given ample time. After four years in Iraq, the US forces had done all they can for now. I agree with Congress, time to schedule returning our troops home. We can regroup, rethink strategy, and focus on the real problems of extremist Jihad threats against our societies. There will be other wars to be fought, next time with better thought out strategy to focus on the real problem of who is financing and enflaming the rage against our freedoms. Let the drums of war be stilled in Iraq, it is their problem, but not to be put away. Our forces deposed an evil dictator, now it is up to the Iraqi people to win their liberty from violence and their religious fanatics's jihadic tyrannies. The new war is one of ideology, of freedom loving nations against those who spread fear and violence. This war will not be finished here. For now, we should declare 'victory' and pull out. There will be other wars, and we will be better prepared, both with force and strength of our superior ideology, against their monstrous suicidal missions of hate. Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6598457.stm === "We see it as a loss of four years of sacrifices," he said. === What sacrifice? But for the self-interested agenda of some of the expat Iraqis we would not have even entered Iraq. The sacrifices are made by our boys and girls, not those who are enjoying security inside the 'Green Zone.' | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6598457.stm === Republicans dismissed the bill as a futile stunt, since although the Democrats control both houses of Congress, they do not have enough votes to overrule a presidential veto. === Every Republican Congressman/ woman and Senator has to satisfy his / her constituency as well. The Republican Party might get wiped out if the elected members persist in ignoring the public. It is generally assumed that the elected representatives to the Congress and Senate listen to their constituents. May we hope that the constituents flood the elected Republicans with email, telegrams, and snail mail urging them to return the bill overriding the veto, if President Bush indeed vetoes the bill? | ||
| Ivan |
Julius Caesar in his Gallic Wars pursued his military strategies with "divide and conquer". Is this how Iraq will be won? This is from the BBC News today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6610873.stm In the article it says Masri was not killed by government or US Alliance forces, but by sectarian "internal battle" between militants. "Divide and conquer" was used throughout history as a strategy, where it is easier to defeat two armies of 50,000 than one army of 100,000. It was used by the British in India, by the Allies in WW II, as well as in Caesar's campaigns. A definition can be: "Divide and conquer refers to the common strategy of seeking to cultivate neutrality or support from those considered 'moderates' as a way of undermining and marginilising those deemed the 'radicals'." This is the strategy they should pursue in Iraq, neutralize the radicals, especially al-Sadr's Mahdi Army radicals on one side, and al-Qaeda radicals on the other. If the Iraqi people's new government can do this, they can secure peace and prosperity. Good luck to Iraqi Freedom. Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6610873.stm The above is the link given by Ivan. I connect the announcement to the fourth anniversary of 'mission accomplished.' This could as well be a media diversion from the fact the the Congress and the Senate responded to the public and sent a law with a timetable to the Commander-in-Chief. Instead of giving a news emanating from the US intelligence, it is possible that the Iraqi intelligence is used. From that link we find: === One official said he was "100% sure" Masri was dead, but another urged caution as they do not have the body. An Iraqi insurgent umbrella group denied Masri had been killed, in a statement posted on the internet. The self-styled Islamic State in Iraq said Masri, also known as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, was alive and safe. "The Islamic State of Iraq reassures the Ummah [Muslim nation] on the safety of Sheikh Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, may God protect him, and that he is still fighting the enemies of God," the group said in a statement on a website commonly used by insurgents. The Islamic State in Iraq, formed in 2006 by a number of Sunni militant groups including al-Qaeda in Iraq, said it had published the denial "to reassure the hearts of Muslims". === In all honesty we must say that the denial could be a media deception as well. So we keep our fingers crossed. With respect to 'divide and conquer' as an Indian I venture to say that it does not work oner a long period. After all the great British Empire on which the sun never set is a pittance of a state today. Unite with love might be a better strategy. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/28/AR2007042801167. html === Some of those making the argument say they already are beginning to see the outlines of an "Iraq syndrome" that will replace the "Vietnam syndrome" that haunted U.S. foreign policy for decades. "I think the hangover from this war will be at least as bad as Vietnam and wouldn't be surprised by a growing movement toward retrenchment and isolationism," said Erin M. Simpson, a counterinsurgency expert at Harvard University. She also is worried by a "stab-in-the-back narrative" emerging about who lost Iraq that could poison discourse between the military and political leaders for years to come. "We have seen how subsequent generations looked at the world and the exercise of American power through Vietnam-colored lenses," agreed Thomas Donnelly, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who was a leading advocate of invading Iraq. "I would be surprised if future generations didn't begin to see things, distortedly, through an Iraq-colored prism." === The issue we need to consider is: Which is secure for the nation - losing Iraq politically or militarily? If we continue with the 'never change' attitude of President Bush as things look - the Army is already overstretched - if we do lose militarily, the enemies would naturally like to destroy the USA. However if we lose the war politically, the Army is intact, the war industry is not defeated, and the public would always reunite if it involves the security of itself, the enemies would possibly destroy the stooges appointed as leaders of Iraq but would not dare attack us on our soil. I believe - if loss is destined - it is better to lose politically than militarily. Incidentally, didn't the Vietnam War syndrome help us in winning the 'Cold War?' So if the so called 'Iraq War Syndrome' would help us in winning over the militant Islam by love and dialogue, why not? | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-04-28-failure-generalship_N.htm The above article is a very important read for everyone. We cannot evolve a new strategy with anticipatory wars while our boys and girls are shedding blood elsewhere. We need a pause if not peace. We need to give Ed and visionaries like him the support and time to evolve a new strategy. I want to take back Islam from the war-mongers. In that respect, I could also join in evolving the strategy to win the future wars, if wars are to be fought. | ||
| Ivan |
That is a valid point, Mohideen, that Vietnam taught us some lessons, to better focus on the Cold War. Of course it is better to unite, or at least neutralize, the warring factions, in the long run. But how to do that? Sunni-Shia secterian violence has religious roots going back many centuries, almost to the beginnings of Islam. Power when fanatical is an irrational thing. So how do we bring the light of reason to irrational killings, especially suicidal killings, to unite? In the Cold War we won economically, when the Soviet system's very bad economy collapsed. Can the same be applied to the religious fanatic wars? It appears we have entered an historic era where this will be an important question, throughout the world. Strategists for a future peace, whether conquered peace or bartered peace, will have to find solutions. But any bartered peace with religious fanatics, we know, will be temporary. Better they be vanquished, so they cannot rise up again to fight another day. War is always a risk, but Caesar's strategy paid off, where Gaul did not rise up for another two centuries, and even then the old warring factions were not the same, but the nation had morphed into what today is France and Begium. The task ahead, to break the cycle of Sunni-Shia violence, will be fraught with risk for a long time to come. Can this divide be toppled intellectually, and economically, rather than with force? And if so, will they be a more dangerous enemy united rather than divided? It appears the 'divide and conquer' is the better gamble here, until they are both vanquished at every level, from economic and military to ideological. History will tell. Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
The task ahead, to break the cycle of Sunni-Shia violence, will be fraught with risk for a long time to come. Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 09:53 am: Ivan Education is the key. Islam as instituted by Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, had neither Sunni nor Shia. Islam demanded that the Muslims be economically strong and whatever they do for the religion be a charity. Unfortunately the power-mongers and the war-mongers have created the priestly class in Islam and have fixed wages for them. So the effort is to catch them young - teach the right Islam to children so that after about 15 years - God willing - the control would pass to the right new generation. That was the approach adopted by Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. More than the conversion of the entrenched adults, the religion was nurtured by the young in Islam then. We hope to follow the same technique. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=39c042d9-3e31-4e85-a54 b-8afcd6da4885&ParentID=26664a3f-e9e7-4486-a7c3-efe948a1074f&&Headline=US+politi cs+playing+with+Iraqi+blood === Saturday, May 05, 2007 US politics playing with Iraqi blood Nicola Nasser Birzeit (West Bank), April 07, 2007 Bracing for the 2008 presidential election, US Democrats in opposition and the ruling Republicans have embroiled the American public in a political crisis between the executive and legislative powers over deadlines for combat operations in Iraq that could develop into a constitutional showdown, but for Arabs and Iraqis in particular it is merely playing electoral politics with Iraqi blood for oil because the Democratic alternative for President George W Bush's strategy, when scrutinised, promises them no fundamental change to the bloody status quo. ... A successful conclusion of Bush's new strategy in Iraq war before the 2008 elections can be a political disaster for Democrats; his failure can doom Republican electoral prospects. Many American analysts expect the civil war in Iraq to seriously shape the US presidential election next year. Both Democratic and the Republican approaches simply seek to leave it to the Iraqis to fight it out among themselves, which will inevitably exacerbate "that" civil war: For Americans it is the usual political power struggle. For Arabs it is playing American politics with Iraqi blood for oil. Arab journalist Nicola Nasser is based in Birzeit, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories and has dedicated readership in Kuwait, Jordan, UAE and Palestine. === Is that so? We think it is the Iraqi politicians who are playing politics with the American blood. The current leaders are possibly convinced that the moment our boys and girls withdraw the protection offered to the Iraqi government they would be chased away, are indulging in delaying tactics. http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070504/NEWS/705040352 /-1/State === Baghdad | Iraqi lawmakers said Thursday they might consider shortening - or even canceling - their planned two-month summer break to continue working. But they insisted that pressure from Washington is not behind the possible holiday-on-hold. And besides, they say, the U.S. Congress is not thinking of calling off its own recess because of wartime debate. ... "If they go off on vacation for two months while our troops fight - that would be the outrage of outrages," said Rep. Chris Shays, a Connecticut Republican. ... "That is not acceptable," said Sen. John Warner, R-Va. "An action of that consequence would send a very bad signal to the world that they don't have the resolve that matches the resolve of the brave troops that are fighting in the battle today." ... "When the Iraqi parliament decides to have a vacation, it is intended to help its members work and have contact with citizens, to hold meetings and know their problems," said lawmaker Hameed Mousa from the Iraqi Communist Party. "The Iraqi parliament has the right to decide this vacation while the others have no right to interfere in this internal affair." Even when parliament is in session, many Iraqi lawmakers are often nowhere to be seen. With many often in Jordan or Syria or honoring sporadic boycotts, the parliament often fails to garner the quorum of lawmakers it needs to do business. Some legislators said Thursday they would consider canceling the two-month holiday if they have not passed the crucial legislation by the summer. === The stand that they would decide about their two month vacation at the end of summer is indeed delaying tactics. What if in the most crucial last meeting of the Iraqi Parliament to decide regarding the cancellation of the currently agreed on two month vacation there is no quorum? The Iraqi Parliament would adjourn for two months as already decided. We must have contingency plans to withdraw our boys and girls starting July 1, 2007 in case the Iraqi Parliament takes the vacation from that day. Aren't our boys and girls deserving of vacation in USA when the Iraqi Parliamentarians take vacation often outside Iraq? | ||
| Anon Anon |
The Elephant in the Room George W. Bush has the lowest presidential approval rating in a generation, and the leading Dems beat every major ’08 Republican. Coincidence? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18505030/site/newsweek/ The people of the United States have spoken their opinion in many voices. Across racial, ethnic and gender lines they have unified against the President and his cadre of spin artists. God bless and keep safe the Alliance of Patriots, founding families and the men and women that sacrificed all in order to bring down Bush's minority government that was not of or by the people. Undoing Jeb Bush in Florida http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1617539,00.html?xid=site-cnn-pa rtner As the mood of the nation shifts, the works of the Bushes are being undone across the land. From Florida to California Republicans are reaching out to Democrats in order to appease the anger of the people. The people looked, listened and then spoke on Iraq. The President did not listen. Then the World bank looked upon Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz critics point to his lack of ethics Critics say as U.S. ambassador he didn’t speak out about corruption http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18492916/ One man among many spoke the truth and like many others sacrificed nearly all to help bring down this president. Using nothing but his skill at all source analysis he predicted disasters, while disclosing the truth about a corrupt vile administration, as he also lead a decentralized network bound by the most advanced information technolgy on the planet in a information and pyschological war against the government. Against all odds this network shattered the Republican hold on power. Such agents of change are rare. May God bless and keep the Alliance of Patriots, Founding Families of the United States and martyrs to the cause of peace, justice and freedom from harm Of this we ask the supreme being whose nature is love. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Of this we ask the supreme being whose nature is love. Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 11:00 pm: Anon Anon We join you in the above prayer. Aamen! | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/features/article_1302605.php/Eye_o n_Iraq_Why_Cheney_failed === U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney said Wednesday he was encouraged by the greater sense of urgency he found in his talks with the prime minister of Iraq. What else could he say? But the bottom line was that Cheney left Baghdad without being able to force any tangible progress towards the revenue and power-sharing deals with Sunnis and Kurds that the U.S. government regards as essential to creating an effective government over the whole of Iraq and cutting support for the remorseless Sunni guerrilla insurgents in the country. === -6620566%2C00.html,http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6620566,00.ht ml === WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush would veto any bill drafted by House Democratic leaders that would fund the Iraq war only into the summer months, his spokesman said Wednesday. === http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/10/news/congress.php === Participants in the meeting Tuesday among Bush, senior administration officials and 11 members of a moderate bloc of House Republicans said the lawmakers were unusually candid with the president, telling him that public support for the war was crumbling in their swing districts. === The 11 moderates referred to above is possible the initial trickle. We expect it to become a torrent soon. The public needs to lobby their Representatives and Senators so that the blood of our sons and daughters is not shed anymore. Now that even Cheney has failed to get the assurances from the Iraqis there is no point in giving more time for a failed policy to work! The earlier we bring our children home the better. | ||
| Ivan |
Yes, send the troops home to regroup, to rethink strategy, and prepare for the next war against the jihadists from Europe to the Phillipines. Iran will look large in the target, as will the AQ sympathizers worldwide. We have given the Iraqis four years of our blood and money. Enough. We go home, but the war is not over. Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
We go home, but the war is not over. Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 09:30 am: Ivan True. The withdrawal from Iraq is just a pause. The war shall continue until Islam is taken back from the war-mongers. | ||
| Ivan |
When Islam stops fueling suicide bombings, genocides, and killings of all kinds, from apostates to rape of women to innocent children taught to hate, then we will have won the war. I agree! | ||
| Ivan |
Dubai ruler in vast charity gift http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6672923.stm Education, that is the first step. I don't know about Sheikh Mohammed's personal characteristics, whether or not his horse racing passion is significant or not, but any such large donation if used constructively to improve real education, not just parroting religious text, can only help raise Arab consciousness in the world. Will this help lift the region from its intellectual and socio-economic backwardness? That will depend upon what is taught and what is learned. Arab society has resisted this in the past, almost as if they are psychologically en masse not ready for modern progress. Perhaps this $10 billion will finally break that inertia. Let us hope such learning will not meet with religious dogma resistance, but rather is embraced in the spirit of inquiry into the reality of truth, to the benefit of the whole Middle East and Iraqi freedom. Ivan | ||
| Ivan |
Iran's nuclear enrichment program is a separate issue from Iraqi security. Iran links Iraq and nuclear issue http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6703585.stm They keep trying to bring these issues together, but there is no need, and rather more fruitful for dialogue to keep them separate. What Iran is designing to do with its nuclear program has no bearing on the self inflicted wounds it has supported in Iraq's sectarian violence... unless it already has the bomb. Otherwise, they are two unrelated and separate issues, and should be discussed as such. Iran's design to bring them together is obfuscating the issue, muddies the waters, and serves no reasonable purpose. Keep them apart. Ivan |