hmmmmm

hey, I found this article randomly, and thought it was an interesting read.... check it out....

August 29, 2005
Does Anyone Know What We Are Doing in Iraq?
by Paul Craig Roberts
President Bush is out of touch with the American people, the U.S. military, and international political reality.
With every poll showing smaller and smaller minorities approving of Bush and his war in Iraq, with top U.S. generals sending signals that they want to reduce U.S. troops in Iraq, and with the world at large viewing Bush as a fanatic who cannot acknowledge his blunders and mistakes, Bush announced in his weekly radio address that "our efforts in Iraq and the broader Middle East will require more time, more sacrifice, and continued resolve."
Does Bush think he is a dictator?
The polls show that it is the American people's resolve that Bush bring his Iraq venture to an end, an orderly end if possible, but to an end. Every explanation Bush has given for his invasion of Iraq has proved to be false. Yet Bush still speaks of "our noble cause," while taking great care to avoid Cindy Sheehan and her question, "What is the noble cause?"
Perhaps Bush supplied the answer in his reference in his weekly radio address to "our efforts in … the broader Middle East."
What are our efforts "in the broader Middle East"?
The only American efforts "in the broader Middle East" that have been defined are in the policy writings of Bush's neoconservative advisers who cooked up the invasion of Iraq. For the neocons, our efforts are in behalf of Israel's security.
The neocons' belief that Israel is made more secure by U.S. military aggression in the Middle East is delusional. How is Israel made secure by an invasion that turns the Muslim world against America as all polls show and Iraq into a training ground for al-Qaeda, as the CIA says has happened?
The U.S. has been defeated in Iraq, both militarily by a limited insurgency drawn from only 20 percent of the population and politically by Iraqi divisions as the "constitutional process" demonstrates.
As Knight Ridder reported on Aug. 25: "Insurgents in Anbar province, the center of guerrilla resistance in Iraq, have fought the U.S. military to a stalemate. After repeated major combat offensives in Fallujah and Ramadi, and after losing hundreds of soldiers and Marines in Anbar during the past two years – including 75 since June 1 – many American officers and enlisted men assigned to Anbar have stopped talking about winning a military victory in Iraq's Sunni heartland."
"'I don't think of this in terms of winning,' said Col. Stephen Davis, who commands a task force of about 5,000 Marines. … 'The frustrating part for the [home] audience, if you will, is they want finality. They want a fight for the town and in the end the guy with the white hat wins.'"
That's unlikely in Anbar, Col. Davis said.
Frustrated by a determined insurgency, Bush administration officials predict that improvements will follow the Iraq constitution. However, the constitution may be leading to civil war.
Sunnis say they will reject the constitution because it leaves them out of the oil wealth, which goes to the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ites in the south, and because it is punitive toward the old ruling party, that is, toward Sunnis.
Perhaps it is the neocon plan for Shi'ites and Kurds to join the U.S. military in a war to the death against Sunnis.
But what comes next? How would Turkey regard a largely autonomous oil rich Kurdistan on the border of its own Kurdish province?
And how would a war in Iraq between Shi'ites and Sunnis play out in the Middle East divided along those lines? Does the U.S. want to wed itself to Iranian Shi'ites against Saudi Sunnis?
It sounds like a lot of long term instability. Perhaps the old Islamic divisions are what the U.S. government is relying on to enable it to continue to rule the Middle East. Muslims might consume themselves in their internal hatreds while the U.S. builds its bases to control the oil.
That's been the tried and true practice of Western colonialists since the fall of the Turkish empire after World War I.
Can it work this time? U.S. ambitions are too much of a threat to other countries that are well positioned to cause us grief. Will the world be able to resist the opportunities to undermine an overextended and self-righteous United States?
Sooner or later, too, Shi'ite and Sunni leaders will realize that they are pawns in American hands bleeding themselves in behalf of American power. Sooner or later, Muslim humiliation at the hands of the U.S. and Israel will permit an Osama bin Laden to reunify the Muslim world.
These are, of course, speculations. But history has few events without unintended and unrecognized consequences.

Obama again....

Its interesting, he is a black person, and the next president of the U.S.A. but there are so many bad rumors about him... why/how did they start? There must have been some background to all the rumors people are talking about....

Obama

Obama sucks. we were going to be screwed over by whoever was going to become president, but I was seriously hoping that they both would die before elections.

Fallujah

I really hate our government..... I found this on the web on some random site... see what you think of it....


A rain of fire fell on the city, the people struck by this multi-coloured substance started to burn, we found people dead with strange wounds, the bodies burned but the clothes intact – Mohamad Tareq, a Fallujah resident
Although reported by a handful media outlets at the time, the mainstream media took the official US denials at face value — that there had been no use of the illegal white phosphorus weapons on the inhabitants of Fallujah in December 2004. However the newly released movie (35 mb) from Italy’s RAI News 24 television programme blows the lie out of the water. Will we now see the mainstream media report the horrific crimes committed on the inhabitants of Fallujah?
Don’t hold your breath, so far, I have come across only two mainstream media stories in the UK on the subject, one by the Independent’s Peter Popham, ‘US forces 'used chemical weapons' during assault on city of Fallujah’ (8/11/05).
A search of the BBC’s Website revealed one article, essentially a defence of the US denial. As of writing it is titled “US 'uses incendiary arms' in Iraq”, though as you will see below, this might change. The article reiterates the US position that it only used phosphorus “for illumination purposes”, one clearly refuted by eyewitness accounts (the original story was headlined “US uses ‘chemical weapons’ in Iraq”). The BBC story tells us
“Rai says this amounts to the illegal use of chemical arms, though the bombs are considered incendiary devices.”
For an illuminating exposé of the Machiavellian workings of the BBC’s alleged news coverage, I recommend reading Gabriele Zamparini’s documentation of his exchange of emails with the BBC to be found at BBC NEWS: "White Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon" BUT THEY ARE WONG!!! where Zamparini reveals the twists and turns the BBC went through in reporting the RAI documentary which in one version says “The Rai report may have at its heart an important truth, but it is factually inaccurate and misleading,” a charge it has now dropped from what seems to be the third or possibly even the fourth rewriting of the story!
Not surprisingly there exists an astounding double standard at work in the Western media on the war crimes being committed by the US and the UK occupation forces in Iraq. Where, for example is Blair’s ‘human rights’ representative in Iraq, Kate Houey MP, who has been at the forefront of campaigning about Saddam’s human rights abuses? The silence is deafening.
White phosphorus, outlawed in 1980 and called ‘Willy Pete’ by US occupation forces in Iraq, literally melts the skin off people, leaving the clothes intact. A US soldier, Jeff Englehart, interviewed in the RAI documentary tells us
[I]t melts the flesh all the way down to the bone ... I saw the burned bodies of women and children. Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud. Anyone within a radius of 150 metres is done for."
Over 27,000 buildings were destroyed by the US assault on Fallujah. Anyone, man, woman or child, caught on the streets of the city was a target for US troops. There is no official count of the death toll, the media were stopped from entering the city following its destruction, except that is, for the ‘embedded’ ones.
Zamparini’s exchange with the BBC reveals just how sensitive the state-run media outlet is to criticism of its coverage of events in Iraq, eventually crying off further exchanges with Zamparini, telling him that
I will not be responding to every email commenting on a minute detail of our coverage.Yours faithfully,Tarik Kafala
Minute detail? Like accusing the RAI documentary of “being factually inaccurate and misleading” and changing the title from “chemical weapons” to “incendiary arms”? As Zamparini points out, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) says that “any chemical that is used against humans or animals that causes harm... [is] considered chemical weapons... [and] prohibited behavior”, a charge that the BBC has as yet not responded to, no doubt because it considers such a charge to be a mere “detail”, although tellingly, it has at least dropped the accusation from the latest ‘Kremlinised’ version.
I suggest you bombard the BBC Website with letters concerning the craven submission to the official line by the BBC on the war crimes being committed by the US and the UK in Iraq, they really can’t be allowed to get away with such outrageous coverage.