Middle-East Mission to Peace Talks

northstar

Electoral Member
Oct 9, 2006
560
0
16
First Published 2006-12-07, Last Updated 2006-12-07 17:34:44


Bad it is


Bush: It's bad in Iraq

Blair to launch a Middle East mission to show ‘even-handed’ US and British approach towards Israel and the Palestinians.

WASHINGTON - US President George W. Bush, under pressure from a stinging report that called the situation in Iraq "grave and deteriorating," declared Thursday that he believes "it's bad in Iraq."

Bush's comment came after talks at the White House with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, when a reporter questioned his description of the situation in the war-torn country as "unsettling."

"It's bad in Iraq," the US leader replied.
Bush acknowledged that a "new approach" was needed in the country. He described the Iraq Study Group recommendations as "worthy of serious study," but again refused to make any specific commitment.

He said he would await the result of reviews by the Defense Department, State Department and National Security Council before making any decisions.

"I told the prime minister I thought this was a very constructive report," said Bush.
Iraq withdrawal
Bush argued most US combat troops would only be able to leave Iraq by early 2008, as suggested by a high-level US commission, if conditions permit.

Bush stated that such a pullback of troops could take place "if conditions so allow."

"We want our combat troops out as quickly as possible. We want the Iraqis taking the fight," Bush said.

"We have to be flexible and realistic as we design programs," he said, adding that it was up to commanders in Iraq to decide on troop levels.

"As the report said, I don't have the exact words, but it was along the lines of depending upon conditions, I believe is what the qualifier was. I thought that made sense."

Bush's recollection differed slightly with the wording of the report, by the bipartisan commission led by former secretary of state James Baker.

"By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq," the report said.
Middle East conflict
British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he will soon launch a Middle East mission to show an "even-handed" US and British approach towards Israel and the Palestinians and the wider region.

President George W. Bush and Blair unveiled the trip after talks here, a day after a high-level US commission called for an aggressive bid to forge Israeli-Palestinian peace linked to efforts to stabilize Iraq.

"Prime Minister Blair informed me that he will be heading to the Middle East soon, to talk to both the Israelis and the Palestinians," Bush said at a press conference with the British leader.

"I support the mission, because it's important for us to advance the cause of two states living side by side in peace and helping both parties eliminate the obstacles that prevent an agreement from being reached," Bush said.

"Your strong leadership on this issue matters a lot," Bush told Blair.

Blair said that it was important that "we do everything we can in the wider Middle East to bring about peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

"This is something that I know you feel deeply and passionately about," Blair told Bush. "You are the first president who committed yourself to the two-state solution."

"I believe that by moving this forward, we send a very strong signal, not just to the region but to the whole of the world that we are even-handed and just in the application of our values."

Blair said he and Bush wanted to show they favored an "Israel confident of its security and a Palestinian people able to live in peace and justice and democracy.
Involving Iran, Syria
President Bush said that Iran and Syria must stop helping extremists and commit to help Iraq's fledgling government before any talks with the two.

One of the key recommendations of the Iraq Study Group report was to launch a diplomatic initiative, including talks with Iran and Syria -- two arch-foes of the United States.

"If people come to the table to discuss Iraq, they need to come understanding their responsibilities to not fund terrorists, to help this young democracy survive, to help with the economics of the country," he said of Iran and Syria's alleged involvement in Iraq's troubles.
"And if people are not committed, if Syria and Iran is not committed to that concept then they shouldn't bother to show up," said Bush, who also ruled out direct talks with Iran unless it verifiably freezes sensitive nuclear work.
source - http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=18666

Now we are talking!!! With Blair and Bush working together we might find some realistic resolution.

At home, the aged old senetor foggies, thrilled at being found useful by BUSH haters, tried so hard to blame it all on Bush, and were unsuccessful with little in the report to realistically approach the situation.

l saw those two aged nit-wits being asked hard questions by my favorite ANDERSON COOPER [sigh...all l want for christmas...}

and they just sat there like a bunch of squirming old men in dirty diapers...they wanted SOOO BADLY to try to make this attack by nasty baby killing terrorists to be BLAMED on Bush...

and yet they HAD TO ADMIT that the truth was that the Hezzbollah, Hamas, and the other terrorist baby killing JIHAD's where a threat to our world as we know it...

So good for Bushie working with the U.K. to get a plan for snipping off the smelly balls of those Fanatic Peophiliatic Islamic Jihad terrorists!!!!!{Jihad's Who are also women haters and child abusers...just in case you didn't get that little tid-bit from my other posts!}

the purpose of this meeting, to try to achieve what was impossible...is it possible for the middle-east to sort itself out, now that the terrorist regimes have been booted and rooted out, and a new restructuring is in place?
 
Last edited:

Sassylassie

House Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,976
7
38
I don't believe the west will ever be at peace with the Extremest in the Middle East, not only do they hate us they want us to convert to Islam and if we don't well read world news and it aint purdy.
 

northstar

Electoral Member
Oct 9, 2006
560
0
16
True, but good for us for giving them yet another chance...they blow every chance they get for a peaceful resolution, WHY? BECAUSE THEY THINK THAT THE LAND IS CONNECTED TO ALLAH, and the terrorists have vowed to fight to the death.

If you look at History, assuming there is some thread of truth in the fable of Islam, Muhammad made peace. He and his buddy Allah signed a treaty, then when it was convenient, Muhammad called a meeting, when all the non-MUlsims were gathered, and surrounded he announced that he was breaking his word, and the treaty and they could either convert, become slaves, or die. Hundreds were massacred. So it is Scripturally approved to lie and decieve, and a truce without troops to protect and maintain the rules of peace with be a blood bath. Thankfully Bush and Blair are aware of this...l wish we had a decent leader.
 

northstar

Electoral Member
Oct 9, 2006
560
0
16
oh, go run get your foil hat...

Quote:

First Published 2006-12-07, Last Updated 2006-12-07 17:34:44


Bad it is


Bush: It's bad in Iraq

Blair to launch a Middle East mission to show ‘even-handed’ US and British approach towards Israel and the Palestinians.

WASHINGTON - US President George W. Bush, under pressure from a stinging report that called the situation in Iraq "grave and deteriorating," declared Thursday that he believes "it's bad in Iraq."

Bush's comment came after talks at the White House with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, when a reporter questioned his description of the situation in the war-torn country as "unsettling."

"It's bad in Iraq," the US leader replied.
Bush acknowledged that a "new approach" was needed in the country. He described the Iraq Study Group recommendations as "worthy of serious study," but again refused to make any specific commitment.

He said he would await the result of reviews by the Defense Department, State Department and National Security Council before making any decisions.

"I told the prime minister I thought this was a very constructive report," said Bush.
Iraq withdrawal
Bush argued most US combat troops would only be able to leave Iraq by early 2008, as suggested by a high-level US commission, if conditions permit.

Bush stated that such a pullback of troops could take place "if conditions so allow."

"We want our combat troops out as quickly as possible. We want the Iraqis taking the fight," Bush said.

"We have to be flexible and realistic as we design programs," he said, adding that it was up to commanders in Iraq to decide on troop levels.

"As the report said, I don't have the exact words, but it was along the lines of depending upon conditions, I believe is what the qualifier was. I thought that made sense."

Bush's recollection differed slightly with the wording of the report, by the bipartisan commission led by former secretary of state James Baker.

"By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq," the report said.
Middle East conflict
British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he will soon launch a Middle East mission to show an "even-handed" US and British approach towards Israel and the Palestinians and the wider region.

President George W. Bush and Blair unveiled the trip after talks here, a day after a high-level US commission called for an aggressive bid to forge Israeli-Palestinian peace linked to efforts to stabilize Iraq.

"Prime Minister Blair informed me that he will be heading to the Middle East soon, to talk to both the Israelis and the Palestinians," Bush said at a press conference with the British leader.

"I support the mission, because it's important for us to advance the cause of two states living side by side in peace and helping both parties eliminate the obstacles that prevent an agreement from being reached," Bush said.

"Your strong leadership on this issue matters a lot," Bush told Blair.

Blair said that it was important that "we do everything we can in the wider Middle East to bring about peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

"This is something that I know you feel deeply and passionately about," Blair told Bush. "You are the first president who committed yourself to the two-state solution."

"I believe that by moving this forward, we send a very strong signal, not just to the region but to the whole of the world that we are even-handed and just in the application of our values."

Blair said he and Bush wanted to show they favored an "Israel confident of its security and a Palestinian people able to live in peace and justice and democracy.
Involving Iran, Syria
President Bush said that Iran and Syria must stop helping extremists and commit to help Iraq's fledgling government before any talks with the two.

One of the key recommendations of the Iraq Study Group report was to launch a diplomatic initiative, including talks with Iran and Syria -- two arch-foes of the United States.

"If people come to the table to discuss Iraq, they need to come understanding their responsibilities to not fund terrorists, to help this young democracy survive, to help with the economics of the country," he said of Iran and Syria's alleged involvement in Iraq's troubles.
"And if people are not committed, if Syria and Iran is not committed to that concept then they shouldn't bother to show up," said Bush, who also ruled out direct talks with Iran unless it verifiably freezes sensitive nuclear work.

source - http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=18666

we can only hope the terrorist who have vowed to never settle will be over-ridden by those in Lebanon that do not support baby killing Jihad Extremeists.
 

northstar

Electoral Member
Oct 9, 2006
560
0
16
well l will give them an A for effort-

it was clear that unless Iran and Syria, original members of the so-called "axis of evil", changed their ways, then dialogue was out of the question.
"Countries that participate in talks must not fund terrorism, must help the young democracy survive, must help with the economics of the country," insisted the US President. "If people are not committed, if Syria and Iran is not committed to that concept, then they shouldn't bother to show up."
The Americans want Iran to verifiably stop enriching uranium and the Syrians to stop helping terrorists in Iraq and Lebanon.
--cnn


Diplomacy to resolve the Middle East's other problems is key to a solution in Iraq, the study group said.
"We think that's critical," Simpson says. "If you can get resolved the Israeli-Palestinian issues -- at least with Palestinians who recognize Israel's right to exist -- and then draw Syria in, which Jim Baker thinks that we can get them to talk to Hamas, and all sorts of things could work unless people just want to suck their thumb and look off into the east and say, 'Well, I don't think anything will work.'"

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6591605

whew, a hard job to even get these People talking...
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Bush and Blair want peace. How nice. Too bad they didn't feel this way back in March 2003.

March 17, 2003



Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation

President Bush: My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war...

...Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

Then came war:

U.S.: Hundreds of Civilian Deaths in Iraq Were Preventable

Cluster Munitions, ‘Decapitation’ Attacks Condemned

(New York, December 12, 2003) – Hundreds of civilian deaths in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq could have been prevented by abandoning two misguided military tactics, Human Rights Watch said in a comprehensive new report released today.




America and its allies have killed more civilians than insurgents.

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Iraq ministry says coalition kills more civilians than insurgents do[/FONT] [FONT=times new roman, times, serif]By Nancy A. Youssef[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Knight Ridder Newspapers[/FONT]

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Operations by U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police are killing twice as many Iraqis — most of them civilians — as attacks by insurgents, according to statistics compiled by the Iraqi Health Ministry.
Iraqi officials said the statistics proved that U.S. airstrikes intended for insurgents also were killing large numbers of civilians. Some say these casualties are undermining popular acceptance of the American-backed interim government....
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002045903_civilians25.html

...we know from reports by the U.S.-backed government in Iraq that the U.S. has been "accidentally" killing Iraqi civilians at a prodigious rate--a rate both higher than the rate they are being killed by insurgents and higher than the rate that the U.S. forces have been killing insurgents....

[SIZE=-1]...the U.S. is probably also killing more civilians on average than the 38 percent or total deaths (76 civilians in the first two weeks of January) caused by the insurgency. For all the media focus on the viciousness of the insurgents, it would appear that they are being much more effective and selective in their attacks--killing primarily Iraqi troops, Iraqi police, and U.S. and "coalition" troops--than is the U.S. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Of course, most of the civilians killed by U.S. and "coalition" forces are killed "accidentally" only by the most strained definition of the term. The truth is that American aircraft are dropping bombs, including anti-personnel weapons and, reportedly, napalm, as well as 500 and 1000 lb. explosives once known in the trade as "block busters," on urban targets all the time. Occasionally one of these weapons will be reported as having hit the wrong target, but even when they hit the right target, it"s safe to say that the so-called "collateral damage" is widespread and horrific. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]In addition, there are the helicopter and fixed-wing gunships, which are designed to completely saturate wide areas with deadly fire, killing every living thing in those "dead zones" with projectiles that penetrate even concrete walls. When civilians die at the hands of these genuine weapons of mass destruction, their demise can hardly be termed "accidental." [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Little wonder that the Iraqi government report found that a third of U.S.-caused casualties are children under the age of 14. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Finally, U.S. ground troops themselves are popping off civilians at a scandalous rate, thanks to a "spray and pray" policy of firing off everything they've got in a 360-degree radius whenever they come under enemy fire. Little wonder that reporters in Iraq are at least as afraid of being killed "accidentally" by American forces as they are of being attacked by insurgents or of hitting an errant roadside bomb.[/SIZE]

...http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff01172005.html

For example:



[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]April 2, 2003 by the lndependent/UK [/FONT]​


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Children Killed and Maimed in Cluster Bomb Attack on Town [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]by Robert Fisk in Baghdad and Justin Huggler[/FONT]​
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]At least 11 civilians, nine of them children, were killed in Hilla in central Iraq yesterday, according to reporters in the town who said they appeared to be the victims of bombing.[/FONT]


Reporters from the Reuters news agency said they counted the bodies of 11 civilians and two Iraqi fighters in the Babylon suburb, 50 miles south of Baghdad. Nine of the dead were children, one a baby. Hospital workers said as many as 33 civilians were killed.

Terrifying film of women and children later emerged after Reuters and the Associated Press were permitted by the Iraqi authorities to take their cameras into the town. Their pictures – the first by Western news agencies from the Iraqi side of the battlefront – showed babies cut in half and children with amputation wounds, apparently caused by American shellfire and cluster bombs.
Much of the videotape was too terrible to show on television and the agencies' Baghdad editors felt able to send only a few minutes of a 21-minute tape that included a father holding out pieces of his baby and screaming "cowards, cowards'' into the camera. Two lorryloads of bodies, including women in flowered dresses, could be seen outside the Hilla hospital. Dr Nazem el-Adali, who was trained in Edinburgh, said almost all the patients were victims of cluster bombs dropped around Hella and in the neighboring village of Mazarak. One woman, Alia Mukhtaff, is seen lying wounded on a bed; she lost six of her children and her husband in the attacks. Another man is seen with an arm missing, and a second man, Majeed Djelil, whose wife and two of his children were killed, can be seen sitting next to his third and surviving child, whose foot is missing. The mortuary of the hospital, a butcher's shop of chopped up corpses, is seen briefly in the tape....

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0402-06.htm






Watch the movie for yourself:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=RAI20051108&articleId=1211

All sides in this war have their fair share of baby killers
 

northstar

Electoral Member
Oct 9, 2006
560
0
16
The difference is that one side can't help but sometimes hitting the babies that are used by the Jihad terrorists as human shields, while the Jihad Terrorists bring about the training of infants to be terrorists trained as early as possible to follow the fanatical illogical doctarines of violence and hatred.

big, big difference...the terrorists are lowly baby murderers, as it is planned in sinister fanatical ruthless fashion with their very own children.
 

Sassylassie

House Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,976
7
38
Wow where's the outcry from Earth and Gopher on the injustices of China paying for the slaughter of the Africans in Dafar and Somalia? Wanna know why? OIL, yep them damn Africans have oil and China wants it so it secretly supports the Arabs from Sudan who want the revenue from the oil that they don't own so they stage a fake "Holy War" so they can enslave the Africans in the name of Islam but it's really about China getting oil. What they don't matter because there being killed by Arabs who are funded by China? Tisk, tisk the Arab Islamic Terrorist broker so much pity from members on this forum but the females and children that are raped daily not a mention why? HINT: Ethnic Cleansing by Arabs, why? China and oil. Why no outrage at China bleeding hearts?
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
This thread is about the Middle East.

China gets 7 % of its oil from Sudan and at least 50 % from the Middle East. It also has contracts with Central Asian nations for natural gas exports.

As for the NY Times claims that China has threathened to use its veto power to avert foreign intervention, this never stopped Bush from carrying on his invasions when it suited his purposes. Russia has joined it in this threat according to that Times report from last summer but you did not object to that. Why be so selective in condemning China but not Russia or Bush for his double standards?

Moreover, Sudanese have said they do not want UN "blue helmets" to intervene. They much prefer African peace keepers:

http://www.sudan.net/news/posted/13329.html

The Organization of African Unity has addressed this matter and just a week ago came up with the following resolution:

http://www.africa-union.org/root/au.../November/PSC/Communiqu__66th__Darfur_Eng.pdf


As you can see, it endorses the idea of African initiative with UN support. It does not call for military incursion by the blue helmets as you prefer.

I do not know what the proper resolution is or should be. But Africans are in a better position to determine that for themselves. And this clearly is what they want.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
The difference is that one side can't help but sometimes hitting the babies that are used by the Jihad terrorists as human shields, while the Jihad Terrorists bring about the training of infants to be terrorists trained as early as possible to follow the fanatical illogical doctarines of violence and hatred.

big, big difference...the terrorists are lowly baby murderers, as it is planned in sinister fanatical ruthless fashion with their very own children.

All sides in this conflict have descended to become lowly baby murderers. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

Consider this recent story:

Iraqis and U.S. dispute deadly raid


By Ibon Villelabeitia

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi and U.S. officials disputed each others' accounts of an overnight raid and air strike on Friday that killed up to 20 people in a new sign of friction over allegations of American troops killing civilians.

The U.S. military said ground forces with air support killed 20 suspected al Qaeda militants, including two women, in an area where the Sunni Arab insurgency is strong.

Police and officials in Ishaqi, 90 km (50 miles) north of Baghdad, said the bodies of 17 civilians, including six women and five children, were found in the rubble of two homes.

"The Americans have done this before but they always deny it," Ishaqi Mayor Amer Alwan told Reuters by telephone. "I want the world to know what's happening here."

Complaints that unjustified killings by U.S. troops are common have soured Iraqis' sentiment towards the U.S. presence in Iraq and prompted Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki earlier this year to say he was losing patience over such reports...

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/intern...l?siteSect=143&sid=7332071&cKey=1165597695000

A typical example of what coalition forces do in Iraq.

Likely, American soldiers got a tip that a person of interest lives in a specific house. When they tried to capture the house, the occupants returned fire. The soldiers called in an airstrike and vaporized two houses and all inhabitants.

The US military had to know that innocent people also resided in those houses. All they had to do was ask the neighbors. But the US military's objective was to kill or capture insurgents while keeping American casualties to a minimum. Taking care to sort out innocent bystanders from people of interest would be risky to Amerian soldiers. The safest way to complete the mission was kill everyone in these houses, including women and children.

The children weren't so much human shields as they were innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire.

The other people in the neighborhod witnessed what happened. They knew the people who were killed and saw their bodies. How would anyone feel if foreign soldiers vaporized a house in their neighborhood killing women and children? Would that win hearts and minds?

After a while, soldiers become accustomed to killing innocent bystanders or just plain hate anyone who isn't a member of the coalition. Remember this story?

US details Haditha shoot-out

A roadside bomb that killed a US Marine in the restive town of Haditha on Saturday also killed 15 Iraqi civilians and led to intense clashes with insurgents.
The powerful bomb detonated as a US military convoy was passing through the town, which is 220 kilometres north-west of Baghdad.
The US military says immediately after the blast, gunmen opened fire on the convoy.
US and Iraqi soldiers returned fire, killing eight insurgents and wounding another in a firefight.
A cameraman working for Reuters in Haditha says bodies had been left lying in the street for hours after the attack.
He says the town has been virtually shut down for the past two days as US and Iraqi forces try to impose order.
US troops have been trying for months to quell the insurgency in Haditha and other Sunni Arab towns on the Euphrates.
It was suspected several months ago that Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was hiding out in the area.
The casualties from Saturday's blast raised the death toll from attacks across Iraq over the past three days to at least 166.
Sunni-led insurgents are stepping up their battle against US and Iraqi forces ahead of parliamentary elections in December.
- Reuters


http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1510903.htm

Doesn't sound so bad does it? Later, video evidence came out which contradicted that version of events.


In Haditha, Memories of a Massacre

Iraqi Townspeople Describe Slaying of 24 Civilians by Marines in Nov. 19 Incident


By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, May 27, 2006; Page A01


BAGHDAD, May 26 -- Witnesses to the slaying of 24 Iraqi civilians by U.S. Marines in the western town of Haditha say the Americans shot men, women and children at close range in retaliation for the death of a Marine lance corporal in a roadside bombing.
Aws Fahmi, a Haditha resident who said he watched and listened from his home as Marines went from house to house killing members of three families, recalled hearing his neighbor across the street, Younis Salim Khafif, plead in English for his life and the lives of his family members. "I heard Younis speaking to the Americans, saying: 'I am a friend. I am good,' " Fahmi said. "But they killed him, and his wife and daughters."

The 24 Iraqi civilians killed on Nov. 19 included children and the women who were trying to shield them, witnesses told a Washington Post special correspondent in Haditha this week and U.S. investigators said in Washington. The girls killed inside Khafif's house were ages 14, 10, 5, 3 and 1, according to death certificates....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/26/AR2006052602069.html

Imagine going house to house and killing all the unarmed men, women, children and babies. Does that make these soldiers babay killers?

Incidents like these are common in Iraq. I can find hunndreds more just like the above. Usually all we hear about them is what the US military says in their highly biased and unreliable press releases.

What made the Haditha massacre uncommon, wasn't massacre part but the results getting captured on video and distributed around the world.

The US military did its best to protect its soldiers and ignored calls for an investigation. Only intense international pressure and damage control forced them to make an example of these soldiers.

My point isn't that only American soldiers are baby killers. I can find hundreds of stories where militant groups have committed similar atrocities as those committed by coalition soldiers.

My point is that the American military kills innocent civilians on a daily basis. Sometimes these people are collateral damage and sometimes they aren't.

I think its fair and honest to admit that all sides in this war have their fair share of baby killers and only someone badly misinformed about this conflict could think otherwise.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Why do these threads always come down to Iraq?

It is not the only death factory in the ME. Albeit a loathsome war enacted illegally and without cause, but it is far from the only violation of peace in the sandy nether regions.
 

northstar

Electoral Member
Oct 9, 2006
560
0
16
This thread is actually about the Middle-East, including Iraq, Iran, Lebanon and Syria.
 

northstar

Electoral Member
Oct 9, 2006
560
0
16
just in-
[qoute]

Iraq 'al-Qaeda militants' killed

Local officials say those killed were civilians, not insurgents

US-led forces in Iraq say they have killed 20 al-Qaeda militants in an operation in the centre of the country.
The air strike was ordered after troops came under fire in the Thar Thar area, north of Baghdad, a statement said.
But local officials say those who died were civilians and mostly included women and children.
Elsewhere, more than 1,000 Danish and UK troops stormed homes in Basra, in a raid the UK military described as the biggest of its kind in southern Iraq.
The US military also confirmed that a US soldier died in a roadside bomb attack in Baghdad on Thursday.
Women killed
The US military said the coalition operation, in Salahuddin province, had been based on intelligence indicating that al-Qaeda-linked operatives were working there.


Ground forces were searching a cluster of buildings when they were targeted with machine gun fire, the military said in a statement.
The troops returned fire and killed two insurgents, the military said, but continued to come under fire.
The air strike was then ordered, in which another 18 people died - among them were two women. The military insists all were militants.
"We've checked with the troops who conducted this operation - there were no children found among the terrorists killed," US military spokesman Lt Col Christopher Garver told AFP news agency.
On searching the site, US troops found a weapons cache containing "machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, anti-personnel mines, explosives, blasting caps and suicide vests", the statement said.
However relatives and local officials showed journalists the bodies of children they say had died in the raid.
Amer Alwan, mayor of the Ishaqi district east of Lake Thar Thar, said US aircraft had bombed two houses, killing 19 civilians.
Police spokesman Nasser Abdul Majeed told Reuters news agency that six women and five children were among the dead.
'Rogue elements'
The joint British and Danish operation led to the arrest of five Iraqis in the Hartha district of the city of Basra.
This was the largest operation of its kind that we have conducted since the invasion



Major Charlie Burbridge


Backed up by tanks, boats and helicopters, the forces targeted several addresses north of the city at 0300 local time.
Maj Charlie Burbridge, a British spokesman for the coalition forces, said the men detained "were strongly linked with various criminal activities: kidnapping, murder and attacks on multinational forces".
He described them as "five leaders of rogue elements of militias operating in Basra".
BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood says so many troops were used because the suspects were spread across five locations and serious opposition was expected.
There were no coalition casualties and no evidence that civilians had been hurt, Maj Burbridge said. It is not yet clear whether any suspected militants were injured in the raids.
British and Danish troops stormed five houses in a pre-dawn raid


Weapons were found in the properties, including artillery shells already wired up for use as roadside bombs, he added.
He said: "This was the largest operation of its kind that we have conducted since the invasion."
Three-quarters of the troops involved were British, drawn mainly from 19 Light Brigade.
The troops came under attack from rocket-propelled grenades and small arms fire as they carried out the raid, Maj Burbridge said.
A local spokesman for radical Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr's movement warned of reprisals following the operation, AFP reported. The UK has 7,200 troops in the south of Iraq, mostly stationed in and around Basra.


E-mail this to a friend Printable version
[/qoute]


good going!!!!nasty al-queda, every one done in is one less cameldung smelling baby killer the world needs to deal with!!!!!
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
This thread is actually about the Middle-East, including Iraq, Iran, Lebanon and Syria.
Actually I was sort of directing that towords the terrorist apologists North. I know where you stand, and to some extent agree with your position.

It is the constant referrence to the Iraq war in every thread on the ME that drives me nuts. We all understand that the war is based on lies, and is going to end in abject failure with nothing, but richer oil exec's and death as the spoils of victory.
 

northstar

Electoral Member
Oct 9, 2006
560
0
16
Well being a CNDBEAR fan, l can certainly agree with you, it is like they are just focused on one issue and can't stop whinning the same old same old...naturally l could keep engaging in the stupidity but l decided it was a waste of energy, so l devoted this thread to the peace talks and still they digress and focus on the same propaganda created by terrorists and the terrorist sympathizers.
The world has exposed them as baby killers. Period. And still the sympathizer terrorist cell supporters whin on and on.

So your contribution is valued, just apply the earplugs and post what you believe is relivant...

And the peace talks are going to continue here...
 

northstar

Electoral Member
Oct 9, 2006
560
0
16
Iraq: What Iran and Syria want


Syria and Iran - two of the most vilified nations in the Bush administration's political atlas - could hold the key to saving American plans in their neighbour Iraq. Washington may need the two regional allies to help stabilise Iraq in order to pull its own troops back from an increasingly unpopular commitment there. But given its fraught relations with Tehran and Damascus, Washington is only likely to secure active Iranian and Syrian co-operation by paying a high price diplomatically from two countries known for their hard bargaining.

-qoute from bbc
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6144842.stm

The Iranina government wants it's nuclear program so far,with complete rights to fire target practice at the US, and syria wants a flock of camels and twenty virgins...dear santa, l want lots and lots of ammunitions, lots and lots of designer suicide bombing vests, and some really good nikies to run into a civilian crowd with....oh and maybe a few blackberries with the tune ... "taking care of business"....
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
All the fighting in the middle east involves the US either directly as in the case of Iraq or indirectly as in the case of Israel. Obviously the main cause of war in the middle east is US foreign policy.

Americans started the Iraq war illegally and without cause. That makes the leaders who committed these offenses war criminals and responsible for all the resulting carnage.

The Iraq war has evolved from mostly American coalition forces killing Iraqis to mostly Iraqis killing Iraqis. As Iraq descends further into chaos and anarchy, what Bush and Blair want becomes less and less relevant. That's not just true for Iraq, but the middle east in general.

Peace isn't coming anytime soon in the middle east. The orgy of atrocities in Iraq will have to play itself out. The millions of oppressed Palestinians will keep fighting until they have justice. The millions of Arabs and Muslims who have witnessed American and Israeli atrocities want justice for fellow Arabs and Muslims. The fighting in the middle east is getting worse, not better.

Iran and Syia have no incentive to help the Americans, their coalition allies or Israel. They would rather see the US and Israel, which regularly threaten their existance, bogged down in wars without end. As war wears down American and Israeli military power and resolve, Iran and Syria grow stronger. They make a killing selling arms which eventually are used against American and Israeli forces. From their viewpoint, a greater war in the middle east which doesn't involve them directly and keeps American and Israeli forces under fire is exactly what they want. All they have to do is keep producing RPGs, man portable SAMs and other modern weaponry and the fighting will continue.

Eventually Israeli and American military forces will find themselves confronted by hundreds of thousands of angry militants, not associated with any specific country, armed to the teeth with modern Iranian and Syrian weaponry, bent on their destruction and willing to die for their cause. Israel's very existance will be at stake and they won't be able to lay blame against any specific country or world leader.

As far as Canada is concerned, we can either join Israel in the US in this pointless war or stay out of it. Considering what the US and Israel has done in the middle east and their lack of mercy or compassion when they were in the driver's seat... I say these organizations made their own bed, now they can lie in it. Canada should not get involved directly.

What I am in favor of is removing innocent civilians from the battle fields. That includes innocent Israelis (Jews and non-Jews) as much as innocent Arabs and Mulsims. Canada should open its borders and welcome anyone from this region who just wants to live in peace. That should be Canada's role in this conflict.

When the fighting is over and the belligerents finally decide peace is preferred to endless killing, then I would favor Canadian troops entering the region to keep the peace. But that's not where this war is right now and it won't be for some time.
 
Last edited:

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
All the fighting in the middle east involves the US either directly as in the case of Iraq or indirectly as in the case of Israel. Obviously the main cause of war in the middle east is US foreign policy.

Americans started the Iraq war illegally and without cause. That makes the leaders who committed these offenses war criminals and responsible for all the resulting carnage.

The Iraq war has evolved from mostly American coalition forces killing Iraqis to mostly Iraqis killing Iraqis. As Iraq descends further into chaos and anarchy, what Bush and Blair want becomes less and less relevant. That's not just true for Iraq, but the middle east in general.

Peace isn't coming anytime soon in the middle east. The orgy of atrocities in Iraq will have to play itself out. The millions of oppressed Palestinians will keep fighting until they have justice. The millions of Arabs and Muslims who have witnessed American and Israeli atrocities want justice for fellow Arabs and Muslims. The fighting in the middle east is getting worse, not better.

Iran and Syia have no incentive to help the Americans, their coalition allies or Israel. They would rather see the US and Israel, which regularly threaten their existance, bogged down in wars without end. As war wears down American and Israeli military power and resolve, Iran and Syria grow stronger. They make a killing selling arms which eventually are used against American and Israeli forces. From their viewpoint, a greater war in the middle east which doesn't involve them directly and keeps American and Israeli forces under fire is exactly what they want. All they have to do is keep producing RPGs, man portable SAMs and other modern weaponry and the fighting will continue.

Eventually Israeli and American military forces will find themselves confronted by hundreds of thousands of angry militants, not associated with any specific country, armed to the teeth with modern Iranian and Syrian weaponry, bent on their destruction and willing to die for their cause. Israel's very existance will be at stake and they won't be able to lay blame against any specific country or world leader.

As far as Canada is concerned, we can either join Israel in the US in this pointless war or stay out of it. Considering what the US and Israel has done in the middle east and their lack of mercy or compassion when they were in the driver's seat... I say these organizations made their own bed, now they can lie in it. Canada should not get involved directly.

What I am in favor of is removing innocent civilians from the battle fields. That includes innocent Israelis (Jews and non-Jews) as much as innocent Arabs and Mulsims. Canada should open its borders and welcome anyone from this region who just wants to live in peace. That should be Canada's role in this conflict.

When the fighting is over and the belligerents finally decide peace is preferred to endless killing, then I would favor Canadian troops entering the region to keep the peace. But that's not where this war is right now and it won't be for some time.
earth, that was a great post. You hit the nail on the head in the first sentence and summed it up in the last words. American foriegn policy. Although I do not totally agree with your stance on Israel, you are quite right.