Oh no not again....

[BigVrunga]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12225188/

****ing craziness...

 

[Rico1578]

Was going to happen eventualy

 

[Matthew D]

OMG.. we can't actually thinking about this when we are taxing the Armed Forces to the limit right now.. How unstable do we want the the Middle East in the next decade or longer. why in the hell does this seem to feel like the present administation is try to make sure that the "end times" are now...

 

[BigVrunga]

Well, our leader is a fundamentalist zealot - perhaps he is trying to make the book of revalation a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Did you see in that article they're discussing the use of tactical nukes? This is really disturbing. Iran's government may be composed of Islamic fundamentalists, but a lot of the younger people over there are very open-minded and even pro-american.

Bombing their country probably isnt the best idea, a lot of innocent people will die.

BV

 

[BigVrunga]

Color me ignorant, I am on this, Why are the Iranians spoiling for a fight? Why do they believe it's in their interest to guarantee that a
miltary far more powerful than they are will be after them if they continue on this path?

The Iranians did a poor job against the Iraqis in their war, are they insane enough to think they can seriously challenge the US if they really, really anger us?

Like I said, I'm ignorant, WTF is going on here?

Maybe they've got an ace up their sleeve...

 

[BUCKNUTS]

I remember when Sadam was trying to develop nukes and the Israeli air force bombed the hell out Iraq's nuclear facilities because they felt it threatened their national security how much more threatened would they feel if radical anti-jew Iran were developing nukes, if they attacked Iran the backlash from the arab/muslim world would be crazy the international community better step up efforts to difuse this situation or it has the potential to get real ugly imo

 

[BigVrunga]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I remember when Sadam was trying to develop nukes and the Israeli air force bombed the hell out Iraq's nuclear facilities because they felt it threatened their national security how much more threatened would they feel if radical anti-jew Iran were developing nukes, if they attacked Iran the backlash from the arab/muslim world would be crazy the international community better step up efforts to difuse this situation or it has the potential to get real ugly imo

Yeah, REAL ugly.

 

[Mrs. Gimpy!]

interesting.....

i heard from my dad that he read that the U.S was offering Iran aide for their earthquake or something just recently..... and now we are thinking about nukes....interesting...

 

[BigVrunga]

I assume the Iranians think they can weather our limited miltary strikes, might slow them down but not stop them, resolve in Washington will fade faster than in Tehran, and maybe they can galvanize the Middle East to fight the Great Satan together.

I will hope that we have told, or will tell them that, if any of their nukes are ever used by anyone, we'll respond in kind decisively, the entirety of Persia will be charred earth

That's what would need to happen. What pisses me off is, even now, in 2006 the human ****ing race cant get their **** together and stop killing eachother. What the hell? Are there really THAT many as*holes on this planet that they can't see the proverbial forest because the trees are in the ****ing way? Is it really THAT hard for everyone to get along, or at least leave eachother the **** alone? I swear, you zoom out a bit and take a look at the big picture of current world events, and our whole species is just a bunch of ****ing dumb ass monkeys.

BV

 

[EEmain]

That's what would need to happen. What pisses me off is, even now, in 2006 the human ****ing race cant get their **** together and stop killing eachother. What the hell? Are there really THAT many as*holes on this planet that they can't see the proverbial forest because the trees are in the ****ing way? Is it really THAT hard for everyone to get along, or at least leave eachother the **** alone? I swear, you zoom out a bit and take a look at the big picture of current world events, and our whole species is just a bunch of ****ing dumb ass monkeys.

BV

Doesn`t have to be that many *******s. Just the ones in charge!

OT: I was looking for something and found this http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/geo/courses/geo200/HomePage.html
When you start putting these maps together by Pol-Rel-Econ-Edu ect... you see just how we have become what we are as a nation.

 

[not_big_enuf]

Ridiculous. Bush is a complete idiot and anybody in his administration that supports him is a complete retard. This isn't a competition of who has a bigger chest.

I'm moving out of this country... all respect is gone for our government.

 

[BUCKNUTS]

That's what would need to happen. What pisses me off is, even now, in 2006 the human ****ing race cant get their **** together and stop killing eachother. What the hell? Are there really THAT many as*holes on this planet that they can't see the proverbial forest because the trees are in the ****ing way? Is it really THAT hard for everyone to get along, or at least leave eachother the **** alone? I swear, you zoom out a bit and take a look at the big picture of current world events, and our whole species is just a bunch of ****ing dumb ass monkeys.

BV

I'm with you we should have long ago arrived at a place where we could resolve our disputes with diplomacy instead of with guns, tanks and bombs how it is that people still think you can shoot your way to peace is beyond my ability to comprehend

 

[not_big_enuf]

Well, for the MOST part we ARE at that place right now. Most countries solve their problems with their brains.

For a second, everybody, let's just forget about what country many of us live in. What kind of country, that preaches tolerance and acceptance, bombs others and starts wars with others' when they don't agree with them? If Bush was the president of most any other country, we'd be invaded or at war by now, period. If we would have started a fight with a country or region that was more united, we'd be in a HUGE war.

I say again, set aside your beliefs that democracy and christianity is ultimately correct and try in any way to defend George Bush and his administration. If you can, you're blind following a man into war because he flat out thinks his way is the best, period, without any other thought.

 

[BUCKNUTS]

Well, for the MOST part we ARE at that place right now. Most countries solve their problems with their brains.

For a second, everybody, let's just forget about what country many of us live in. What kind of country, that preaches tolerance and acceptance, bombs others and starts wars with others' when they don't agree with them? If Bush was the president of most any other country, we'd be invaded or at war by now, period. If we would have started a fight with a country or region that was more united, we'd be in a HUGE war.

I say again, set aside your beliefs that democracy and christianity is ultimately correct and try in any way to defend George Bush and his administration. If you can, you're blind following a man into war because he flat out thinks his way is the best, period, without any other thought.

I couldn't even begin to defend Bush he's made a mess that we will be cleaning up for a long time to come. I can't agree with you that most countries use diplomacy to resolve differences there are way to many conflicts all over the globe for that to be true. America is just so egocentric that we can't believe other countries wouldn't want our brand of freedom/govt for themselves and in the middle east none of them do and again you just can't shoot people into seeing things your way makes no sense whatsoever

 

[not_big_enuf]

I can agree with most everything you said. I'd like to think most countries do travel a very far path until they get to war as an option though... something Georgie boy seems not to do. There are certainly countries out there that look at war as a first option, but it surprises me that a supposed super-power is, as you say, this egocentric about it's approach.

It's truly sad... and I have to say it again, I see very few other countries, if any, pulling this kind of sh*t without being in the middle of a huge war with too may enemies to count. Glad were in a democratic power and democracy is the "in" thing right now....

I couldn't even begin to defend Bush he's made a mess that we will be cleaning up for a long time to come. I can't agree with you that most countries use diplomacy to resolve differences there are way to many conflicts all over the globe for that to be true. America is just so egocentric that we can't believe other countries wouldn't want our brand of freedom/govt for themselves and in the middle east none of them do and again you just can't shoot people into seeing things your way makes no sense whatsoever

 

[BUCKNUTS]

I can agree with most everything you said. I'd like to think most countries do travel a very far path until they get to war as an option though... something Georgie boy seems not to do. There are certainly countries out there that look at war as a first option, but it surprises me that a supposed super-power is, as you say, this egocentric about it's approach.

It's truly sad... and I have to say it again, I see very few other countries, if any, pulling this kind of sh*t without being in the middle of a huge war with too may enemies to count. Glad were in a democratic power and democracy is the "in" thing right now....

I agree completely with your frustration over our current regimes shoot first find out the facts later mentality over 2000 young americans have already died with more to come before it's over, even 1 would have been to many I have a teenage son and so I feel awful for the families of the deceased soldiers I can't even imagine how it would feel to lose my only son over there

 

[BigVrunga]

Not forget to mention the over 15,000 wounded and maimed. Its horrible. And all the Iraqi dead - there's one number that no one wants to talk about.

Doesn`t have to be that many *******s. Just the ones in charge!

I agree - but how many *******s does it take to elect them?? At times I feel uneasy being an American. A warmonger leader, insane laws that destroy innocent lives and create enourmous crime issues, more bull**** everytime I read the news...forget about the terrorists we've got enough to worry about with our own government.

 

[EEmain]

I agree - but how many *******s does it take to elect them??

51% :icon_lol:

 

[BigVrunga]

:rofl:

 

[BUCKNUTS]

Not forget to mention the over 15,000 wounded and maimed. Its horrible. And all the Iraqi dead - there's one number that no one wants to talk about.

I have a friend who is a card carrying member of the republican party who says for every American soldier who is killed 150 Iraqi/insurgents is killed I have no idea where he gets this info from I never asked but he uses it as a "proof" that things are going great over there and the media is blowing things out of proportion, same guy also told me more allied soldiers died during d-day during ww2 than in all the war in Iraq I told him he was an idiot to make such an apples to oranges comparison but he was too proud of himself to hear it.

 

[bioman]

Militarily, I think we could take down the bulk of Iran's infrastructure and military hardware in a few weeks with our technologies. The real problem would be that we cannot occupy and clean out the current govt's vangaurd and Iran obviously knows this. Not to mention, it's just a terrible idea that would definitely ignite warfare throughout the ME against all western and US interests. Kiss the oil flow goodbye. THAT is what I think Iran's leader wants..martyrdom and unifying the ME against the west and Israel.

With the money in the ME they could start to build quite the military and you could bet that North Korea and China would be happy to sell them arms which would force our hand even farther.

Amazing how a bunch goat herders can affect worldwide change.



Most credible reports I have seen show that Iran needs close to 10 years to get it's nuclear program to the point where they can make ICBM type nukes. If that's true I think we and the rest of the world can plan out something surgical to destroy their ambitions.

 

[Mass_69]

None of this is new news at all. For a long, long time now, the Pentagon has drawn up war plans against any country that poses a threat... It's just a matter of whether or not we (USA) use them.

Ridiculous. Bush is a complete idiot and anybody in his administration that supports him is a complete retard. This isn't a competition of who has a bigger chest.

I'm moving out of this country... all respect is gone for our government.

Bye...:wave:

 

[BigVrunga]

Militarily, I think we could take down the bulk of Iran's infrastructure and military hardware in a few weeks with our technologies. The real problem would be that we cannot occupy and clean out the current govt's vangaurd and Iran obviously knows this. Not to mention, it's just a terrible idea that would definitely ignite warfare throughout the ME against all western and US interests. Kiss the oil flow goodbye. THAT is what I think Iran's leader wants..martyrdom and unifying the ME against the west and Israel.

With the money in the ME they could start to build quite the military and you could bet that North Korea and China would be happy to sell them arms which would force our hand even farther.

Amazing how a bunch goat herders can affect worldwide change.



Most credible reports I have seen show that Iran needs close to 10 years to get it's nuclear program to the point where they can make ICBM type nukes. If that's true I think we and the rest of the world can plan out something surgical to destroy their ambitions.

And to think, all of this could have been avoided if we just would have put a national effort into getting off the mideast's oil spewing tit back in the 70's.

 

[jmh80]

BigV - I don't think this only has to do with Iran's oil contributions. If they've been thinking/plotting/whatever to drop nukes on the Isrealies, that will be reason alone for the US to go after Iran.

I don't think going after alternative fuel technologies in the '70's would stop all this radical Religious extremism.
I mean, come on now??

 

[BigVrunga]

BigV - I don't think this only has to do with Iran's oil contributions. If they've been thinking/plotting/whatever to drop nukes on the Isrealies, that will be reason alone for the US to go after Iran.

I don't think going after alternative fuel technologies in the '70's would stop all this radical Religious extremism.
I mean, come on now??

Oh no I didnt mean that...but they'd have far less money to do what they're doing. The religious extreemism wouldnt be so frightening if they didnt have the funds to set up global terrorist cells, nuclear weapons programs, etc. If they did attack Israel with nukes, I can imagine most of the mideast would be a glass-bottomed swimming pool shortly thereafter.

The whole situation is crazy, and it just keeps on escalating. I can't imagine it ending without serious destruction.

BV

 

[Grunt76]

It is written and it will happen: mankind WILL learn an indelible lesson one day.

After that, evolution will truly commence.

 

[BigVrunga]

It is written and it will happen: mankind WILL learn an indelible lesson one day.

After that, evolution will truly commence

Unfortunately, I have to agree.

 

[The Experiment]

Bush's intentions are so obvious.

All he's doing is to try to push and push and push Iran. So when they respond, Bush will run around saying "Yeah, I was right. They are the enemy!" He's trying to bully Iran to attack and then try to claim the US as the wronged victim.

Its a good way to bring up poll numbers. Even at Fox News, he's at 36%. The GOP who wants to get re-elected are distancing themselves and a slowly growing move to censure Bush...its easy to see why Bush is turning to military action for Iran.

 

[jmh80]

Or...it could be that Iran really is moving towards dropping nukes on Israel.

Naw, the Bush conspiracies must be right.

 

[heater]

Well, some interesting comments here....I agree that some of the mess we are in will take years to fix.

For those of you that want to move out of the country, then go. You might find a country that has been in civil war for years. There are many countries out there that use the gun as option #1. Do I think America should be one of those, absolutely not, however; I don't think running down OUR country helps anyone.

I agree that it would be unbearable to lose a child in war. With that in mind, remember that the military is optional. It is not just a GI bill. Alot of bad things happen to alot of good people who feel that way.

I don't have to agree with all of the decisions the suits in Washington make, but I still love my country very much!

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Or...it could be that Iran really is moving towards dropping nukes on Israel.

Naw, the Bush conspiracies must be right.

No way, they would never do that if they had the chance.

And lets not forget the fact that our good friends China will practically sell them everything they need. China has been known to sell just about anything....in case most of you didn't know

Remember the IAEA predictions about what they could do is based on what they could naturally develop on their own, not what they could be sold to them to increase that timeframe by 10.

 

[BigVrunga]

Well, some interesting comments here....I agree that some of the mess we are in will take years to fix.

For those of you that want to move out of the country, then go. You might find a country that has been in civil war for years. There are many countries out there that use the gun as option #1. Do I think America should be one of those, absolutely not, however; I don't think running down OUR country helps anyone.

I agree that it would be unbearable to lose a child in war. With that in mind, remember that the military is optional. It is not just a GI bill. Alot of bad things happen to alot of good people who feel that way.

I don't have to agree with all of the decisions the suits in Washington make, but I still love my country very much!

Yeah, me too. That's its so upsetting to see things going the way they are. Foreign affairs are bad enough, and by spending billions and billions trying to be the world's (often uninvited) police squad there a many things domestically that are dramitcially underfunded and falling into disarray.

BV

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Bush's intentions are so obvious.

All he's doing is to try to push and push and push Iran. So when they respond, Bush will run around saying "Yeah, I was right. They are the enemy!" He's trying to bully Iran to attack and then try to claim the US as the wronged victim.

Its a good way to bring up poll numbers. Even at Fox News, he's at 36%. The GOP who wants to get re-elected are distancing themselves and a slowly growing move to censure Bush...its easy to see why Bush is turning to military action for Iran.

You have got to kidding me. The last thing that will help his numbers is another war. It will make it worse.

Yeah he's really trying to push and push.....You do know that he majority of the effort in the last 2 years to get Iran to comply has been from the UN. Guess what they have done...they ignored them and stated they will not comply.


If you want to look deeper into this Iran is playing it smart. They KNOW nobody else in this world will do what we did in Iraq and they think there is no way the US will risk another PR disaster of another war (consdiering the current administration is out in 2008) so they are beating their chest stating they will not comply because they know the next administration will be more worried about how they look to the public, not about solving the problem. What will happen? The UN will fold like usual, no military action will happen and Israel will be forced to respond with probably more brutality and force than we would which will promt an all out jihad against Israel.

Iran senses weakness due to public pressure on the current administration and they are taking full advantage of it because they know nobody else has the balls to do anything to stop them. Europe will once again create a monster due to inaction. We will get hit hard again and the same people *****ing about the action we are taking now will ***** about the inaction that will happen.

 

[heater]

Yeah, me too. That's its so upsetting to see things going the way they are. Foreign affairs are bad enough, and by spending billions and billions trying to be the world's (often uninvited) police squad there a many things domestically that are dramitcially underfunded and falling into disarray.

BV

I agree that we cannot be the world's police squad. I do think it's sad that we spend as much (more) on war than we spend taking care of our own. However, for the men and women who are fighting over seas we should give them the best training and equipment we can, but it cost money. I wish I had the answer, if I did then maybe I would run for office:blink:

I don't agree with alot that has happened, but I want the best for our young folk who are on the front lines.

 

[BigVrunga]

I agree that we cannot be the world's police squad. I do think it's sad that we spend as much (more) on war than we spend taking care of our own. However, for the men and women who are fighting over seas we should give them the best training and equipment we can, but it cost money. I wish I had the answer, if I did then maybe I would run for office

I don't agree with alot that has happened, but I want the best for our young folk who are on the front lines.

Yeah, same here. I dont support this war that's going on, but I wholeheartedly support the troops over there fighting. I would rather see the government spare no expense ensuring minimal casualties and maximum success. Sadly, when a lot of these wounded GI's come home they are forgotten about. At least, from what Ive read that seems to be the case. I have a couple friends that have spent time in Iraq, and they have said that the morale is pretty dismal. You'll hear different from other sources go...its hard to judge with 3rd hand info and just reading the news.

BV

 

[heater]

Yeah, same here. I dont support this war that's going on, but I wholeheartedly support the troops over there fighting. I would rather see the government spare no expense ensuring minimal casualties and maximum success. Sadly, when a lot of these wounded GI's come home they are forgotten about. At least, from what Ive read that seems to be the case. I have a couple friends that have spent time in Iraq, and they have said that the morale is pretty dismal. You'll hear different from other sources go...its hard to judge with 3rd hand info and just reading the news.

BV

I am sure the morale is not very good. When you don't definitivly know what your fighting for, morale goes way down.

You are right about the wounded coming back. I don't think the government is doing enough to make sure these fine troops are being cared for. I know of one in my community who came back with a broken back (paralized from an IED). He said he has to fight for every penny he gets. Thats a shame. I don't think we need anymore war, especially sense we can't figure out how to take care of ones coming back from war.

With all being said, "God Bless America"

 

[heater]

You have got to kidding me. The last thing that will help his numbers is another war. It will make it worse.

Yeah he's really trying to push and push.....You do know that he majority of the effort in the last 2 years to get Iran to comply has been from the UN. Guess what they have done...they ignored them and stated they will not comply.


If you want to look deeper into this Iran is playing it smart. They KNOW nobody else in this world will do what we did in Iraq and they think there is no way the US will risk another PR disaster of another war (consdiering the current administration is out in 2008) so they are beating their chest stating they will not comply because they know the next administration will be more worried about how they look to the public, not about solving the problem. What will happen? The UN will fold like usual, no military action will happen and Israel will be forced to respond with probably more brutality and force than we would which will promt an all out jihad against Israel.

Iran senses weakness due to public pressure on the current administration and they are taking full advantage of it because they know nobody else has the balls to do anything to stop them. Europe will once again create a monster due to inaction. We will get hit hard again and the same people *****ing about the action we are taking now will ***** about the inaction that will happen.

I agree I dont think another war would help GB's rating's a bit. I also have to agree that Israel will respond with much more brutal force than we ever would.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I have a couple friends that have spent time in Iraq, and they have said that the morale is pretty dismal. You'll hear different from other sources go...its hard to judge with 3rd hand info and just reading the news.

BV

A family member and 3 friends of mine will tell you otherwise with 3 of them returning in the last 3 months. The news takes comments such as "i wish i was home" and makes it sond like they are all depressed and hating life. What they don't report is the comments made after such as "but I believe in what we are doing and I dont want to leave until the job is done".

But you won't here that on the majority of news channels and papers because that wouldn't sell. Conflict sells.


Anyone seen a civil war around here? I tohugh I saw it about a month ago but I think I lost it. It must be buried under that Bush leak story or immigration reform. Let me see if I can dig it up

 

[yeahright]

U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord

Anyone seen a civil war around here? I tohugh I saw it about a month ago but I think I lost it. It must be buried under that Bush leak story or immigration reform. Let me see if I can dig it up

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/world/middleeast/09report.html
April 9, 2006
U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
By ERIC SCHMITT
and EDWARD WONG

WASHINGTON, April 8 — An internal staff report by the United States Embassy and the military command in Baghdad provides a sobering province-by-province snapshot of Iraq's political, economic and security situation, rating the overall stability of 6 of the 18 provinces "serious" and one "critical." The report is a counterpoint to some recent upbeat public statements by top American politicians and military officials.

The report, 10 pages of briefing points titled "Provincial Stability Assessment," underscores the shift in the nature of the Iraq war three years after the toppling of Saddam Hussein. Warnings of sectarian and ethnic frictions are raised in many regions, even in those provinces generally described as nonviolent by American officials.

There are alerts about the growing power of Iranian-backed religious Shiite parties, several of which the United States helped put into power, and rival militias in the south. The authors also point to the Arab-Kurdish fault line in the north as a major concern, with the two ethnicities vying for power in Mosul, where violence is rampant, and Kirkuk, whose oil fields are critical for jump-starting economic growth in Iraq.

The patterns of discord mapped by the report confirm that ethnic and religious schisms have become entrenched across much of the country, even as monthly American fatalities have fallen. Those indications, taken with recent reports of mass migrations from mixed Sunni-Shiite areas, show that Iraq is undergoing a de facto partitioning along ethnic and sectarian lines, with clashes — sometimes political, sometimes violent — taking place in those mixed areas where different groups meet.

The report, the first of its kind, was written over a six-week period by a joint civilian and military group in Baghdad that wanted to provide a baseline assessment for conditions that new reconstruction teams would face as they were deployed to the provinces, said Daniel Speckhard, an American ambassador in Baghdad who oversees reconstruction efforts.

The writers included officials from the American Embassy's political branch, reconstruction agencies and the American military command in Baghdad, Mr. Speckhard said. The authors also received information from State Department officers in the provinces, he said.

The report was part of a periodic briefing on Iraq that the State Department provides to Congress, and has been shown to officials on Capitol Hill, including those involved in budgeting for the reconstruction teams. It is not clear how many top American officials have seen it; the report has not circulated widely at the Defense Department or the National Security Council, spokesmen there said.

A copy of the report, which is not classified, was provided to The New York Times by a government official in Washington who said the confidential assessment provided a more realistic gauge of stability in Iraq than the recent portrayals by senior military officers. It is dated Jan. 31, 2006, three weeks before the bombing of a revered Shiite shrine in Samarra, which set off reprisals that killed hundreds of Iraqis. Recent updates to the report are minor and leave its conclusions virtually unchanged, Mr. Speckhard said.

The general tenor of the Bush administration's comments on Iraq has been optimistic. On Thursday, President Bush argued in a speech that his strategy was working despite rising violence in Iraq.

Vice President **** Cheney, on the CBS News program "Face the Nation," suggested last month that the administration's positive views were a better reflection of the conditions in Iraq than news media reports.

"I think it has less to do with the statements we've made, which I think were basically accurate and reflect reality," Mr. Cheney said, "than it does with the fact that there's a constant sort of perception, if you will, that's created because what's newsworthy is the car bomb in Baghdad."

In their public comments, the White House and the Pentagon have used daily attack statistics as a measure of stability in the provinces. Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, a senior military spokesman in Baghdad, told reporters recently that 12 of 18 provinces experienced "less than two attacks a day."

Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on the NBC News program "Meet the Press" on March 5 that the war in Iraq was "going very, very well," although a few days later, he acknowledged serious difficulties.

In recent interviews and speeches, some administration officials have begun to lay out the deep-rooted problems plaguing the American enterprise here. At the forefront has been Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador, who has said the invasion opened a "Pandora's box" and, on Friday, warned that a civil war here could engulf the entire Middle East.

On Saturday, Mr. Khalilzad and Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the senior military commander in Iraq, issued a statement praising some of the political and security goals achieved in the last three years, but also cautioning that "despite much progress, much work remains."

Mr. Speckhard, the ambassador overseeing reconstruction, said the report was not as dire as its assessments might suggest. "Really, this shows there's one province that continues to be a major challenge," he said. "There are a number of others that have significant work to do in them. And there are other parts of the country that are doing much better."

But the report's capsule summaries of each province offer some surprisingly gloomy news. The report's formula for rating stability takes into account governing, security and economic issues. The oil-rich Basra Province, where British troops have patrolled in relative calm for most of the last three years, is now rated as "serious."

The report defines "serious" as having "a government that is not fully formed or cannot serve the needs of its residents; economic development that is stagnant with high unemployment, and a security situation marked by routine violence, assassinations and extremism."

British fatalities have been on the rise in Basra in recent months, with attacks attributed to Shiite insurgents. There is a "high level of militia activity including infiltration of local security forces," the report says. "Smuggling and criminal activity continues unabated. Intimidation attacks and assassination are common."

The report states that economic development in the region, long one of the poorest in Iraq, is "hindered by weak government."

The city of Basra has widely been reported as devolving into a mini-theocracy, with government and security officials beholden to Shiite religious leaders, enforcing bans on alcohol and mandating head scarves for women. Police cars and checkpoints are often decorated with posters or stickers of Moktada al-Sadr, the rebellious cleric, or Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, a cleric whose party is very close to Iran. Both men have formidable militias.

Mr. Hakim's party controls the provincial councils of eight of the nine southern provinces, as well as the council in Baghdad.

In a color-coded map included in the report, the province of Anbar, the wide swath of western desert that is the heart of the Sunni Arab insurgency, is depicted in red, for "critical." The six provinces categorized as "serious" — Basra, Baghdad, Diyala and three others to the north — are orange. Eight provinces deemed "moderate" are in yellow, and the three Kurdish provinces are depicted in green, for "stable."

The "critical" security designation, the report says, means a province has "a government that is not functioning" or that is only "represented by a single strong leader"; "an economy that does have the infrastructure or government leadership to develop and is a significant contributor to instability"; and "a security situation marked by high levels of AIF [anti-Iraq forces] activity, assassinations and extremism."

The most surprising assessments are perhaps those of the nine southern provinces, none of which are rated "stable." The Bush administration often highlights the relative lack of violence in those regions.

For example, the report rates as "moderate" the two provinces at the heart of Shiite religious power, Najaf and Karbala, and points to the growing Iranian political presence there. In Najaf, "Iranian influence on provincial government of concern," the report says. Both the governor and former governor of Najaf are officials in Mr. Hakim's religious party, founded in Iran in the early 1980's. The report also notes that "there is growing tension between Mahdi Militia and Badr Corps that could escalate" — referring to the private armies of Mr. Sadr and Mr. Hakim, which have clashed before.

The report does highlight two bright spots for Najaf. The provincial government is able to maintain stability for the province and provide for the people's needs, it says, and religious tourism offers potential for economic growth.

But insurgents still manage to occasionally penetrate the tight ring of security. A car bomb exploded Thursday near the golden-domed Imam Ali Shrine, killing at least 10 people and wounding dozens.

Immediately to the north, Babil Province, an important strategic area abutting Baghdad, also has "strong Iranian influence apparent within council," the report says. There is "ethnic conflict in north Babil," and "crime is a major factor within the province." In addition, "unemployment remains high."

Throughout the war, American commanders have repeatedly tried to pacify northern Babil, a farming area with a virulent Sunni Arab insurgency, but they have had little success. In southern Babil, the new threat is Shiite militiamen who are pushing up from Shiite strongholds like Najaf and Karbala and beginning to develop rivalries among themselves.

Gen. Qais Hamza al-Maamony, the commander of Babil's 8,000-member police force, said his officers were not ready yet to intervene between warring militias, should it come to that, as many fear. "They would be too frightened to get into the middle," he said in an interview.

If the American troops left Babil, he said, "the next day would be civil war."

Eric Schmitt reported from Washington for this article, and Edward Wong from Baghdad. Jeffrey Gettleman contributed reporting from Hilla, Iraq, and Abdul Razzaq al-Saiedi from Baghdad.

 

[heater]

A family member and 3 friends of mine will tell you otherwise with 3 of them returning in the last 3 months. The news takes comments such as "i wish i was home" and makes it sond like they are all depressed and hating life. What they don't report is the comments made after such as "but I believe in what we are doing and I dont want to leave until the job is done".

But you won't here that on the majority of news channels and papers because that wouldn't sell. Conflict sells.


Anyone seen a civil war around here? I tohugh I saw it about a month ago but I think I lost it. It must be buried under that Bush leak story or immigration reform. Let me see if I can dig it up

Okay maybe that's true for the people you know. Do they know when the job will be DONE. What is the mission......are we trying to establish a new government or just be the police. I am not saying we shouldn't be there because right now, we have to be.

Morale, I believe, is somewhat in the hands of the commanders. If they don't have a positive outlook and can't tell the troops what end goal is, the moral will be sh****.

The media has always played a big part in what we all believe and think. Unfortunately (first hand experience) the media portrays things in a way different light that what is truth.

 

[DAdams91982]

A family member and 3 friends of mine will tell you otherwise with 3 of them returning in the last 3 months. The news takes comments such as "i wish i was home" and makes it sond like they are all depressed and hating life. What they don't report is the comments made after such as "but I believe in what we are doing and I dont want to leave until the job is done".

But you won't here that on the majority of news channels and papers because that wouldn't sell. Conflict sells.


Anyone seen a civil war around here? I tohugh I saw it about a month ago but I think I lost it. It must be buried under that Bush leak story or immigration reform. Let me see if I can dig it up

That is so very true. I believe the exact same thing.. what we are doing over there is right... I've done 2 tours so far.. volunteering for a 3rd.

Adams

 

[DAdams91982]

Okay maybe that's true for the people you know. Do they know when the job will be DONE. What is the mission......are we trying to establish a new government or just be the police. I am not saying we shouldn't be there because right now, we have to be.

Morale, I believe, is somewhat in the hands of the commanders. If they don't have a positive outlook and can't tell the troops what end goal is, the moral will be sh****.

The media has always played a big part in what we all believe and think. Unfortunately (first hand experience) the media portrays things in a way different light that what is truth.

Morale is NOT in the hands of the commanders AT ALL. It isnt your commander working along side you... making the best out of situations.. it is your Battle Buddy, or whatever you want to call it. It is the person having that laugh with you when **** really hits the fan.

Adams

 

[yeahright]

It's a war, says Iraq minister

Anyone seen a civil war around here? I tohugh I saw it about a month ago but I think I lost it. It must be buried under that Bush leak story or immigration reform. Let me see if I can dig it up

It's a war, says Iraq minister

10apr06

A SENIOR official in the Iraqi Government has for the first time admitted the country is in a state of civil war.

Deputy interior minister Hussein Ali Kamal told the BBC's Arabic service: "Actually, Iraq has been in an undeclared civil war for the past 12 months.

"On a daily basis, Shi'ites, Sunnis, Kurds and Christians are being killed and the only undeclared thing is that a civil war has not been officially announced by the parties involved.

"Civil war is happening, but not on a wide scale."




Wave of sectarian violence in Iraq; 85 bodies found
http://www.hindu.com/2006/03/15/stories/2006031507671600.htm

Police on Tuesday found the bodies of 15 strangled men, their hands and feet bound and showing signs of torture, abandoned in a vehicle in Western Baghdad. Officials discovered the bodies at night in the Khudra area, near where the bodies of 18 men reportedly killed in a similar way were found in a minivan a week ago.
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Terrorism&loid=8.0.275302211&par=

BAGHDAD, Iraq — The bodies of four men who had been shot in the head were found hanging Monday in a Shiite area of eastern Baghdad, near a note scrawled on a piece of cloth that read: "Those are the traitors."
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/special_packages/iraq/14091694.htm


'Women bombers' kill at least 79 at mosque
http://www.itv.com/news/305665.html

Police found 30 more victims of the sectarian slaughter -- most of them beheaded -- dumped on a village road north of Baghdad.
http://www.local6.com/news/8274852/detail.html

 

[yeahright]

Morale

Third Retired General calls for resignation of Rumsfeld
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1181629,00.html


Young Officers Leaving Army at a High Rate
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/washington/10army.html?hp&ex=1144728000&en=7997627fd7acb6ee&ei=5094&partner=homepage
April 10, 2006
By THOM SHANKER
WASHINGTON, April 9 — Young Army officers, including growing numbers of captains who leave as soon as their initial commitment is fulfilled, are bailing out of active-duty service at rates that have alarmed senior officers. Last year, more than a third of the West Point class of 2000 left active duty at the earliest possible moment, after completing their five-year obligation.

It was the second year in a row of worsening retention numbers, apparently marking the end of a burst of patriotic fervor during which junior officers chose continued military service at unusually high rates.

Mirroring the problem among West Pointers, graduates of reserve officer training programs at universities are also increasingly leaving the service at the end of the four-year stint in uniform that follows their commissioning.

To entice more to stay, the Army is offering new incentives this year, including a promise of graduate school on Army time and at government expense to newly commissioned officers who agree to stay in uniform for three extra years. Other enticements include the choice of an Army job or a pick of a desirable location for a home post.

The incentives resulted in additional three-year commitments from about one-third of all new officers entering active duty in 2006, a number so large that it surprised even the senior officers in charge of the program. But the service's difficulty in retaining current captains has generals worriedly discussing among themselves whether the Army will have the widest choice possible for its next generation of leaders.

The program was begun this year to counter pressures on junior officers to leave active duty, including the draw of high-paying jobs in the private sector; the desires of a spouse for a calmer civilian quality of life at a time when the officers can be expected to be starting their families; and, for the past two years, the concerns over repeated tours in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Army has had a far more difficult time in its recruiting than the other services because the ground forces are carrying the heaviest burden of deployments — and injuries and deaths — in the war.

One member of the West Point class of 2000 who left active duty last year is Stephen Kuo, who took a job with a medical equipment company in Florida. Mr. Kuo said his decision was based on "quality of life." He is now recruiting classmates for his company.

"With the rotation of one year overseas, then another year or so back at home, then another overseas rotation — it does take a toll on you," said Mr. Kuo, who served a year in combat in northern Iraq. "Plus, I was not enjoying the staff jobs — desk jobs — I was looking at for the next 8 to 10 years. Furthermore, the private sector had many lucrative offers."

But the chance at a free master's degree persuaded Brandon J. Archuleta, a West Point senior, to sign up for an extra three years in uniform.

"Education is extremely important to me, and I know I want a master's degree at the very least," Cadet Archuleta said. "The Army has a wonderful relationship with some of the top-tier graduate schools, especially in the Ivy League. I want to attend a school of that caliber."

In 2001, but before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, 9.3 percent of the Army's young officers left active duty at their first opportunity. By 2002, the number of those junior officers leaving at their first opportunity dropped to 7.1 percent, and in 2003, only 6.3 percent opted out. But the number grew to 8.3 percent in 2004 and 8.6 percent in 2005.

The statistics are even more striking among West Point graduates, who receive an Ivy League-quality education at taxpayer expense — and, in the view of many senior officers and West Point alumni, owe the nation and the Army a debt of loyalty beyond the initial five years of active duty.

The retention rate at the five-year mark for the West Point class of 1999 was 71.9 percent in 2004, down from 78.1 percent for the previous year's class. And for the class of 2000, the retention rate fell to 65.8 percent, meaning that last year the Army lost more than a third — 34. 2 percent — of that group of officers as they reached the end of their initial five-year commitment.

That is the highest rate of loss over the past 16 years among West Point officers reaching the five-year mark. For young officers receiving their commissions in 2006, the Army will guarantee slots in the most sought-after branches of the service — aviation, armor or intelligence, for example — in exchange for an extra three years in uniform.

Similarly, if a young officer wants an initial posting to a desired location or an opportunity to earn a master's degree, the Army will guarantee either choice in exchange for three more years of active duty.

The West Point graduating class of 2006 responded at levels even higher than anticipated by senior officers at the military academy, with 352 of the 875 seniors — 40.2 percent — signing on to the program as they approached the date in late May when they would be commissioned as second lieutenants.

"It is an amazing response," said Lt. Gen. William J. Lennox Jr., the West Point superintendent. "It has exceeded how I thought the class would respond."

Across the entire Army this spring, 3,420 newly commissioned junior officers are expected to enter active duty, according to the Army's personnel office. Of those, 1,124 — about one-third — have agreed to serve an extra three years in uniform under the new program.

According to Army statistics, 718 signed up to choose their career track, 289 contracted for the graduate school opportunity — 257 of them from West Point — and 117 wanted to pick the location where they, and their families, would be based.

The graduate school program was carefully structured to keep officers in uniform even beyond the extra three-year commitment.

After completing a master's degree program, an officer also has to repay the Army with three months of service for every month back in the classroom. This could push some officers beyond an automatic 8 years of service, toward 12 years — at which point, goes the thinking of the senior officers who devised the program, they may decide to stay in for a full 20.

"Today's officers make a career decision to come or go at the three- or four-year mark, while a decade ago they made it closer to the seven- or eight-year mark," said Lt. Gen. Franklin L. Hagenbeck, the Army's senior personnel officer.

"One of the salient issues in this information age is that if they are going to be competitive when they leave the Army — whether at the 4-year mark, the 10-year mark or after 20 — they have to maintain critical skills," General Hagenbeck said. "They want to have graduate schooling."

The cost of the program will depend on how many young officers enter graduate school in a given year, but Army personnel managers say that whatever the individual annual tuition fees, they are far less than the cost of training and preparing a new officer. The Army will cap individual tuition at $13,000 per year, although the service has already negotiated with a number of schools to waive the difference in fees.

At the five-year mark in their career, Army captains usually are in command of a company, a junior leadership position putting them at the center of the day-to-day fight. The Army needs even more company-level officers today, as it expands the number of its deployable brigade combat teams.

 

[heater]

That is so very true. I believe the exact same thing.. what we are doing over there is right... I've done 2 tours so far.. volunteering for a 3rd.

Adams

Hey, what a champion. You must have a good unit your with......

I wish you the best of luck if you do go back.

 

[DAdams91982]

Hey, what a champion. You must have a good unit your with......

I wish you the best of luck if you do go back.

So far its been two different individual taskers.. so not with my unit... assigned to different forces each time. Thanks.

Adams

 

[heater]

Morale is NOT in the hands of the commanders AT ALL. It isnt your commander working along side you... making the best out of situations.. it is your Battle Buddy, or whatever you want to call it. It is the person having that laugh with you when **** really hits the fan.

Adams

I spent 12 years in a combat arms unit and guess what, the leadership dictates alot of how the unit functions. If the leadership is positive and gives you a clear mission you respond accordingly. Yeah the commander might not be right there with you, but he sets the tone for the entire unit (more so the first shirt).

I agree your battle buddy is who you rest your life with. Thats who you spend all of your time with. You and your battle buddy feed off of the information given and make the best or worst of it. It's pretty clear, through history, from commander thru top enlisted, they can change the total attitude of a unit.

You obviously have never had a lousy commander or you would know what I am talking about.

 

[DAdams91982]

I spent 12 years in a combat arms unit and guess what, the leadership dictates alot of how the unit functions. If the leadership is positive and gives you a clear mission you respond accordingly. Yeah the commander might not be right there with you, but he sets the tone for the entire unit (more so the first shirt).

I agree your battle buddy is who you rest your life with. Thats who you spend all of your time with. You and your battle buddy feed off of the information given and make the best or worst of it. It's pretty clear, through history, from commander thru top enlisted, they can change the total attitude of a unit.

You obviously have never had a lousy commander or you would know what I am talking about.

I've had plenty of lousy commanders.. and yes, they can cause problems. But I have never seen one commander drag down the morale as a whole... Its always you and your comrades making the best out of it.

Adams

 

[heater]

I've had plenty of lousy commanders.. and yes, they can cause problems. But I have never seen one commander drag down the morale as a whole... Its always you and your comrades making the best out of it.

Adams

Thats good. I had a commander that almost destroyed my unit. I hope you keep the positive attitude.

If the top hat has a good attitude, the rest of the boys and girls will also.

 

[The Experiment]

Are you sure that his ratings wouldn't go up Bobo? I mean most Americans still think Saddam had a hand in September 11. All Bush has to do is say something and the uneducated masses will take it as fact. By claiming to be an Iranian freedom fighter, his ratings will climb up, ensuring a Republican will be elected in 2008.

I have two friends doing a second tour and three more doing their first. They like what they're doing but they never really believed it was going to be as bad as it was. I can't wait until I enlist, which is probably around when I graduate from college, about a couple years from now.

I hate Bush and the war but at the same time, standing and whining about it here in the US isn't going to do a bit of good. People are still dying over there. So I guess you could say that me going to the war to help out as best I can is my way of protesting.