Give War A Chance's topics - tribe.net

Just giving war some more of a chance!

DVDBurner — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:38:21 GMT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHQ7Prwh7Gc

Oh wait a minute, if the war was a right thing to do, Bush would not have to pardon himself of war crimes eh?

What a bunch of suckers most of yall are.

posted in Give War A Chance - 0 replies

Bush Inflated Threat From Iraq's Banned Weapons

DVDBurner — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 13:47:33 GMT

Bush Inflated Threat From Iraq's Banned Weapons, Report Says

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060501523.html?hpid=moreheadlines

By Joby Warrick and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 6, 2008; Page A03

President Bush and top administration officials repeatedly exaggerated what they knew about Iraq's weapons and its ties to terrorist groups as the White House pressed its case for war against Iraq, the Senate intelligence committee said yesterday in a long-awaited report.

While most of the administration's prewar claims about Iraq reflected now-discredited U.S. intelligence reports, the White House crossed a line by conveying certainty about the threat that Saddam Hussein posed to the United States, according to the report, approved over the objections of most of the committee's Republican members.

"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), the committee chairman, said at a news conference. "As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed."

The report, the last and most contentious of a series of Senate reviews of prewar intelligence, sought to compare the administration's public claims about Iraq with the intelligence reports available to them at the time. While many of the White House's statements -- such as Bush's warnings about a secret Iraqi nuclear program -- were amply supported by intelligence files at the time, the report said, others were not.
ad_icon

Bush and other administration officials strayed far from official intelligence reports when it came to describing alleged ties between al-Qaeda and Hussein, the report said. It cited repeated statements by Bush, including his Oct. 7, 2002, Cincinnati speech in which he alleged that Iraq had "trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making" and had maintained "high-level contacts that go back a decade."

The report said that "statements and indications by the president and secretary of state suggesting that Iraq and al-Qaeda had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qaeda with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence."

Approved by eight Democrats and two Republicans on the 15-member committee, the report also highlights an October 2002 claim by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that Iraq had concealed its stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in underground bunkers too deep to be destroyed by air power alone. Rumsfeld, in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, had told senators that U.S. officials did "know where a fraction" of Hussein's banned weapons were, adding that a "good many are underground and deeply buried," suggesting that ground forces were required to destroy them. His statement contradicted intelligence at the time that no such facilities were known to exist, the report states.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a committee member, called for a separate investigation of Rumsfeld's statements, which he said appeared intended to drive support for an invasion. "This is stunning: The secretary of defense, testifying before Congress about whether or not ground forces would be strategically necessary in a war against Iraq, said the executive branch 'knew' something that it did not know," he said.

The report's conclusions were sharply criticized by several Republican members, who accused the Democratic majority of rehashing old material for political advantage.

Committee Vice Chairman Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) called the new report a "waste of time" and said the allegations about administration officials were deliberately misleading. "It is ironic that the Democrats would knowingly distort and misrepresent the Committee's findings and the intelligence in an effort to prove that the Administration distorted and mischaracterized the intelligence," he said.

Bond also noted that key Democrats -- including several who ran for their party's presidential nomination this year -- also made public statements during the same period portraying Iraq's weapons as a threat to the United States. Those statements were omitted from the report over Republican objections, resulting in a flagrantly partisan document that is "flawed, incomplete and irrelevant," he said.

The committee's final report also focused on efforts by Bush appointees at the Pentagon and White House to collect intelligence on Iran. The effort included a series of meetings in Rome and Paris that featured Manucher Ghorbanifar, an Iranian exile the CIA had labeled as a fabricator based on his role in the Iran-contra affair.

The group kept the CIA in the dark about Manucher's involvement, the report said, and as a result the agency never learned about "potentially useful and actionable intelligence" gained in a December 2001 meeting in Rome with two Iranian intelligence officers. The CIA also was prevented from learning of Ghorbanifar's attempts to obtain Pentagon funds for covert activities in Iran and otherwise influence U.S. government activities, committee members found.

The new report is the last in a series of Senate reports on the intelligence failures in the run-up to the Iraq war. The first such report, released in July 2004, focused on flaws in intelligence-gathering and analysis by the U.S. intelligence agencies but put off the politically explosive question of whether Bush administration officials deliberately distorted or misused the information they were given. The final report was delayed as committee members clashed over what the report should say and whether such a report was still necessary.

The earlier Senate report, released when Republicans controlled the chamber, concluded unanimously that U.S. intelligence agencies had botched the task of assessing Iraq's capabilities regarding weapons of mass destruction. It said key intelligence reports made unwarranted assumptions and overstated what was then known about Hussein's weapons programs. The report faulted the CIA and other agencies for failing to cultivate reliable informants and for basing key assessments on extrapolation and inference

posted in Give War A Chance - 1 reply

Somebody from their own club is calling them out as criminals for the way they got us into this war.

DVDBurner — Fri, 30 May 2008 10:36:25 GMT

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/05/30/2008-05-30_bush_mob_is_like_west_wing_sopranos.html

Bush mob is like West Wing 'Sopranos'

Friday, May 30th 2008, 4:00 AM

You are inclined to say that Scott McClellan is like the first one out of The Bada Bing Club, scurrying into the light and looking for redemption, except that it has become clear by now that even the hoods from "The Sopranos" would be out of their weight class with George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.

The shame of McClellan and this new book of his isn't that it took him this long to develop a conscience or actual convictions about what he says he saw and heard in Bush's White House, especially in the runup to the war in Iraq.

The shame of this particular White House, the rock from under which McClellan reappears, is that no one is surprised for one minute about the story he tells, no one is shocked, no one is outraged. No matter how fast the book is selling.

One of the ironies of the hysterical reaction, mostly from the media, is that even a watered-down version of the truth about Bush and his lieutenants could sell this big.

For now the real outrage on McClellan comes from inside the White House, not outside. What McClellan does here is make work for them on their way out the door, because for the first time they will be forced to Swift Boat one of their own.

To save what is left of his sniveling reputation, Rove - noted analyst for Fox News - will have to take down one of his own. They all will, now that somebody from their own club is calling them out as criminals for the way they got us into this war.

You can call McClellan any kind of bum and weasel, a mouse who grew up to be a rat. Nobody will stop you. But when you look at the shameful cost of the war in Iraq, the cost of it in all ways, starting with the dead and the wounded, you tell me whether the real bum here is the one writing the book or the ones he is writing about?

"I would not personally participate in a process in which we are misleading the American people," former White House counselor Dan Bartlett said on the "Today" show yesterday morning, during McClellan's appearance there.

To the end Bartlett defends an administration as weak and lousy as we have ever had, Nixon's without the indictments, at least so far. But then Bartlett comes out of a culture where little Scooter Libby, given a get-out-of-jail card by the President, is treated like some kind of an American hero.

It is different with McClellan. They will get him good.

You were unpatriotic if you tried to go against them in the months before the war. You are some kind of traitor if you cross them on it now the way McClellan does.

McClellan, who helped sell this war the way ad companies used to sell cigarettes and now feels real bad about that, knew something long before he wrote a book: You can only sell war the way these people did if you have a willing and eager buyer.

posted in Give War A Chance - 5 replies

Pentagon institute calls Iraq war 'a major debacle'

DVDBurner — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 01:49:09 GMT

Pentagon institute calls Iraq war 'a major debacle' with outcome 'in doubt'

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/34101.html

By Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott | McClatchy Newspapers

* Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2008

WASHINGTON — The war in Iraq has become "a major debacle" and the outcome "is in doubt" despite improvements in security from the buildup in U.S. forces, according to a highly critical study published Thursday by the Pentagon's premier military educational institute.

The report released by the National Defense University raises fresh doubts about President Bush's projections of a U.S. victory in Iraq just a week after Bush announced that he was suspending U.S. troop reductions.

The report carries considerable weight because it was written by Joseph Collins, a former senior Pentagon official, and was based in part on interviews with other former senior defense and intelligence officials who played roles in prewar preparations.

It was published by the university's National Institute for Strategic Studies, a Defense Department research center.

"Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle," says the report's opening line.

At the time the report was written last fall, more than 4,000 U.S. and foreign troops, more than 7,500 Iraqi security forces and as many as 82,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed and tens of thousands of others wounded, while the cost of the war since March 2003 was estimated at $450 billion.

"No one as yet has calculated the costs of long-term veterans' benefits or the total impact on service personnel and materiel," wrote Collins, who was involved in planning post-invasion humanitarian operations.

The report said that the United States has suffered serious political costs, with its standing in the world seriously diminished. Moreover, operations in Iraq have diverted "manpower, materiel and the attention of decision-makers" from "all other efforts in the war on terror" and severely strained the U.S. armed forces.

"Compounding all of these problems, our efforts there (in Iraq) were designed to enhance U.S. national security, but they have become, at least temporarily, an incubator for terrorism and have emboldened Iran to expand its influence throughout the Middle East," the report continued.

The addition of 30,000 U.S. troops to Iraq last year to halt the country's descent into all-out civil war has improved security, but not enough to ensure that the country emerges as a stable democracy at peace with its neighbors, the report said.

"Despite impressive progress in security, the outcome of the war is in doubt," said the report. "Strong majorities of both Iraqis and Americans favor some sort of U.S. withdrawal. Intelligence analysts, however, remind us that the only thing worse than an Iraq with an American army may be an Iraq after a rapid withdrawal of that army."

"For many analysts (including this one), Iraq remains a 'must win,' but for many others, despite obvious progress under General David Petraeus and the surge, it now looks like a 'can't win.'"

The report lays much of the blame for what went wrong in Iraq after the initial U.S. victory at the feet of then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. It says that in November 2001, before the war in Afghanistan was over, President Bush asked Rumsfeld "to begin planning in secret for potential military operations against Iraq."

Rumsfeld, who was closely allied with Vice President Dick Cheney, bypassed the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the report says, and became "the direct supervisor of the combatant commanders."

" ... the aggressive, hands-on Rumsfeld," it continues, "cajoled and pushed his way toward a small force and a lightning fast operation." Later, he shut down the military's computerized deployment system, "questioning, delaying or deleting units on the numerous deployment orders that came across his desk."

In part because "long, costly, manpower-intensive post-combat operations were anathema to Rumsfeld," the report says, the U.S. was unprepared to fight what Collins calls "War B," the battle against insurgents and sectarian violence that began in mid-2003, shortly after "War A," the fight against Saddam Hussein's forces, ended.

Compounding the problem was a series of faulty assumptions made by Bush's top aides, among them an expectation fed by Iraqi exiles that Iraqis would be grateful to America for liberating them from Saddam's dictatorship. The administration also expected that "Iraq without Saddam could manage and fund its own reconstruction."

The report also singles out the Bush administration's national security apparatus and implicitly President Bush and both of his national security advisers, Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley, saying that "senior national security officials exhibited in many instances an imperious attitude, exerting power and pressure where diplomacy and bargaining might have had a better effect."

Collins ends his report by quoting Winston Churchill, who said: "Let us learn our lessons. Never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. ... Always remember, however sure you are that you can easily win, that there would not be a war if the other man did not think that he also had a chance."

posted in Give War A Chance - 18 replies

End to 'Major Combat' in Iraq 5th AnniversaryToday

DVDBurner — Fri, 02 May 2008 01:22:42 GMT

End to 'Major Combat' in Iraq Passes 5th AnniversaryToday, 6:01 PM
Bush Speech Declaring End to 'Major Combat' in Iraq Passes 5th Anniversary
By Al Pessin
Pentagon
01 May 2008

voanews.com/english/2008-05-01-voa68.cfm

This week marked the fifth anniversary of the speech President Bush gave on a U.S. aircraft carrier, in which he declared the end of major combat in Iraq. The anniversary came at the end of a difficult month for U.S. forces in Iraq, and caused some renewed debate about the course of the war. VOA's Al Pessin reports from the Pentagon.

It was a happy moment for the president. A year and a half after the September 11 attacks he was able to visit a U.S. aircraft carrier on its way home from the Persian Gulf, and speak to the crew under a banner that read "Mission Accomplished

BUSH: "Officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

In the speech, the president warned of more work to do to restore order to Iraq and to defeat global terrorism, but he told the crew that day that America had "seen the turning of the tide."

As violence spiraled upward during the following years, the president took a lot of criticism for that speech, and for the "Mission Accomplished" banner, as his press secretary Dana Perino acknowledged this week.

"President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said, 'Mission Accomplished for These Sailors on Who Are on This Ship on Their Mission.' And we have certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner," she noted.

As the speech anniversary passed on May 1, casualty figures indicated 52 American troops died in Iraq in April, making it the deadliest month since the height of the U.S. surge of operations last September. The operations director for the senior U.S. military staff, Lieutenant General Carter Ham, notes that American commanders have warned that even with the success they claim for reduced violence in recent months, there will be setbacks.

"While it is sad to see an increase in casualties, I don't think it is necessarily indicative of a major change in the operating environment," he said.

General Ham said Iraq's government has proved in recent weeks its willingness and ability to take on insurgents, including Shi'ite militias. And he does not believe most Americans will see the April casualty figure as an indication the situation in Iraq is deteriorating again.

Retired Lieutenant General Robert Gard, who has criticized the Iraq war effort, says that is not good enough.

"To say that violence is merely where it was in mid-2005, when it was unacceptable, that doesn't give you a political outcome," he noted.

But in a conference call with reporters marking the speech anniversary, General Gard acknowledged that ending the war quickly will be difficult, even if one of the Democratic Party presidential candidates is elected in November.

"I would guess, of course, which is all I can do, that they would begin to reduce the number of troops in Iraq very shortly after taking office," he added. "Now, where they would go from there would depend to a considerable extent on whether we have done the necessary work ahead of time in a diplomatic offensive."

On Thursday, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was asked about continuing opposition to the Iraq war among many Americans.

"The question is at this point not whether or not we should be in Iraq," he said. "We are there. The question is, what's the end game?"

The secretary says U.S. policy must remain focused on ending the U.S. combat role in Iraq, while also leaving a representative government in Baghdad that is an ally in the war on terrorism.

"We are where we are, and we have to manage properly how we get from here to where Americans would like us to be, and that is basically out of Iraq in any sense of a major combat role," he added. "But I think despite our impatience as we enter the sixth year of the war, we still have to handle the end of the war and the end of our participation in major combat, in a sensible and thoughtful way."

Referring to continuing 'major combat' hearkens back to President Bush's speech five years ago, reporting the end of "major combat." Officials acknowledge now that will likely not happen until sometime after the president leaves office next January, perhaps a considerable time after.

posted in Give War A Chance - 0 replies

So is sally full of it or..........

DVDBurner — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:23:25 GMT

Is he really gonna go to IRAQ?

SOON Perhaps?

I truly hope so.

Go and make me proud to be an American!

posted in Give War A Chance - 2 replies

Another few months and the war is getting better!

DVDBurner — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:07:41 GMT

And that green zone is really safe these days.

Did sally go to Iraq yet?

posted in Give War A Chance - 0 replies

Thanks for having such a great tribe DVD Burner

asperalways — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 21:50:07 GMT

I just wanted to say you are doing a great job here and want to encourage you to keep up the good work. It will be a great bounty indeed when your goals for world domination are fulfilled.

posted in Give War A Chance - 0 replies

LOGIC AND REALITY!

DVDBurner — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 09:26:21 GMT

join at your peril.

it's not for the meek.

http://tribes.tribe.net/politicsreligionothers?_click_path=Application%5Btribe%5D.Tribe%5Bc78a34cc-d229-4c3d-92ce-a5fd807a8d79%5D

It's just the way the world is.

can you handle it?

posted in Give War A Chance - 0 replies

A VOTE TO CHANGE THE MODERATOR!

DVDBurner — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 09:14:31 GMT

What say you all?

It can be done.

Shall it be done?

posted in Give War A Chance - 1 reply

This Tribe is boring!

DVDBurner — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 09:10:15 GMT

No one here has the balls to give a hoot about giving war a chance.

What a bunch of wussies!

Iraq and Afghanistan are doing really well eh?

Seems all that want to give war a chance are full of shit huh?

are you folks gonna vote for Hilliary or Obama?

Secretly now.........what say yall?

LMFAO!

posted in Give War A Chance - 0 replies

Some facts for the ignorant!

DVDBurner — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 01:19:23 GMT

Garbage in, garbage out

Published: January 27, 2008 04:39AM

http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=55620&sid=5&fid=1

A study documenting that President Bush and his top aides made 935 false statements about the security risk posed by Iraq in the run-up to the 2003 U.S. invasion has to rank as one of the least-surprising revelations to enter the public domain since President Clinton admitted to the American people that he had “a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate.”

By now, most of the “Bush Lied, People Died” bumper stickers are going on five years old, and the ones adorning Lane County cars have long since been soaked into illegibility.

Still, it’s helpful to remind everyone who continues to uncritically accept Bush’s explanations for why the United States must not end his trillion-dollar misadventure in Iraq that on this subject, his credibility leaves something to be desired.

The truth squad role in the latest study was played by the nonprofit Center for Public Integrity and its affiliate, the Fund for Independence in Journalism. After compiling and analyzing a database of administration statements about Iraq in the two years following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the researchers concluded that “President George W. Bush and seven of his administration’s top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements … about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.”

The report said the statements “were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.”

The two main sources of untruths are familiar to anyone who has paid any attention to the divisive war debate: allegations that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and claims that Iraq had clear links to al-Qaeda.

Bush counters all charges that he deliberately misled Congress and the American public with the argument that at the time he and other officials made the untrue statements, the intelligence services of the United States and several other nations, including Britain, believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It’s a fair rebuttal, and if it’s appropriate to forgive members of Congress and the American public for supporting Bush’s decision to go to war because they were acting on bad information, then Bush and his advisers are entitled to the same benefit of the doubt.

Sadly, that still leaves us in a morally indefensible position: The United States invaded another sovereign nation, unprovoked by any aggressive act, and directly caused the deaths of more than 150,000 innocent Iraqi civilians while the conflict systematically destroyed the economy and infrastructure of Iraq.

In the process, the lives of 3,931 American sons and daughters have been sacrificed, and another 29,000 U.S. troops have been wounded, thousands so seriously they will require intensive care for the rest of their lives. Heaven knows how many more will carry the psychological scars of this horrendous, unnecessary war with them to their graves.

Meanwhile, as the nation stands on the precipice of recession, the Iraq war continues to drain $275 million a day from the U.S. treasury.

All because of bad information.

The takeaway point here is agonizingly clear in hindsight: The decision to go to war — the most consequential decision any nation can make — was undertaken hastily and on the basis of both insufficient and inaccurate information.

The American people, manipulated by leaders who played on their fears, failed to demand that every reasonable alternative to war be exhausted. Why? Because they had bad information.

Congress abdicated its constitutional role to act as a check on the actions of the executive branch. Their excuse: Bad information.

Some clamor for retribution through impeachment for the misrepresentations Bush used to stampede the nation into war. But that sidesteps the collective responsibility all Americans share for the actions of their government.

What’s needed is a far more fundamental national soul-searching about the justification for ordering American troops into combat. It is incumbent on the American people to demand more of themselves and their leaders than they have since Sept. 11. The United States can ill afford to ever again unleash the dogs of war based on bad information

posted in Give War A Chance - 2 replies

How is the war going?

DVDBurner — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:36:45 GMT

I figure I'd give war a few more months before asking in this tribe again.

so is america winning any wars lately these days?

someone in this tribe should be able to give me a yes answer of some kind right?

posted in Give War A Chance - 97 replies

haven't been watching T.V. as of late.......

DVDBurner — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 02:50:33 GMT

and haven't been America.

can anyone tell me how the wars in Iraq and els wheres America is battling is going?

Is America wining yet?

inquiring minds want to know cause we are still giving war a chance.

posted in Give War A Chance - 0 replies

Knee jerk "Peace" activists

princevlad — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 19:35:33 GMT

Anyone notice that in a tribe dedicated to a pro war position we've allowed it to be effectively shut down by the incoherant ramblings of one terrorist sympathizer? I mean I understand not directly engaging his rants, after all it is impossible to reason with one who is out of touch with reality. No one else is posting though either. We let this nut job come in here and post, post after post, even replying to himself when no one else will pay him any attention. Again I understand not justifying the rantings of a deranged mind with a response but isn't it about time the rest of us used this tribe for what it was designed for? Or are we going to just yield the space to the lunatic fringe just because dealing with him is kinda like talking to the homeless guy on the corner talking about the martians who put his underware out side of his pants?

Undenyable facts of life:

1) We live in a world ruled by the use of force or the threat of its use

2) Peace requires two sides willing to live in peace and our current enemies have no interest in peace as they still think they can achieve victory

3) There are willing accomplices of our enemies who live inside of the United States and who use propaganda to make those rational enough to understand the realities of life feel isolated.

So what do we do about it?

I for one will not reply to the lunatic, but I will no longer be silent as long as someone wishes to talk with me about the war or the current situation. Until the Islamic Militants desire peace enough to make it a possiblity we must not just seek war but rather Victory. Unfortunately we've been waging a war instead of relentlessly killing the enemy. I think the surge program with its focus on going after the enemy rather than trying to just police the area and maintain peace is a step in the right direction though it certainly could be done better and more forcefully.

So unless the lunatic has converted you all to his message of surender, sound off, and let your opinion be known. If he replys to one of your post, ignore it. There is no requirement to reason with the unreasonable, but to allow his childish antics to silence you is even worse.

posted in Give War A Chance - 9 replies

NEW TRIBE...WARTIME

The Passenger — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 22:19:17 GMT

This is a tribe to explore the Worlds Wars, Battles, and Conflicts
We hope that history does not repeat itself
http://tribes.tribe.net/542c9b86-93b1-4b12-bc96-a754f89c5e8e?_click_path=Application%5Btribe%5D.Tribe%5B542c9b86-93b1-4b12-bc96-a754f89c5e8e%5D

FOLKLORE AND MYTHOLOGY
http://tribes.tribe.net/b9b544af-89e5-4aa7-8dec-c917f83c3bd7?_click_path=Application%5Btribe%5D.Tribe%5Bb9b544af-89e5-4aa7-8dec-c917f83c3bd7%5D

Religious and Spiritual Art (Apparitions

http://tribes.tribe.net/eb5f7908-cda1-40f9-9648-e8b00b84292f?_click_path=Application%5Btribe%5D.Tribe%5Beb5f7908-cda1-40f9-9648-e8b00b84292f%5D

Famous Quotes and Short Stories tribe
http://tribes.tribe.net/8644c865-e362-4b4d-917e-a8ca42c4fd9d?_click_path=Application%5Btribe%5D.Tribe%5B8644c865-e362-4b4d-917e-a8ca42c4fd9d%5D

BIRDMAN - tribe.net:

http://tribes.tribe.net/25a1f4a7-b777-4adf-8c62-1f418aaf0d64?current=tribeallposts&set=y#tabs

Subliminal Messages and Propaganda - tribe.net:
http://tribes.tribe.net/e388baea-51eb-417f-9390-06fe37f92e41

PROPHETS and VISSIONARIES... WE ARE... - tribe.net:
http://tribes.tribe.net/bac54dd7-c43a-45c5-a716-6d241843a31f

SongWriters
http://tribes.tribe.net/963b1f92-281c-4bcf-b395-325a809d1b54?_click_path=Application%5Btribe%5D.Tribe%5B963b1f92-281c-4bcf-b395-325a809d1b54%5D

AMAZING ART

http://tribes.tribe.net/29104d87-26ac-4a27-a01c-ac24e71ecf8a?_click_path=Application%5Btribe%5D.Tribe%5B29104d87-26ac-4a27-a01c-ac24e71ecf8a%5D

Folk Art and Pop Art ( Folk- N- POP )

http://tribes.tribe.net/95d03c97-1166-4b76-88ea-d1b3ae450e28

The Prophecy of Magog - tribe.net:
http://tribes.tribe.net/d64e82b0-72ef-4c72-b5e7-299383c1d4e0

WARTIME
http://tribes.tribe.net/542c9b86-93b1-4b12-bc96-a754f89c5e8e?_click_path=Application%5Btribe%5D.Tribe%5B542c9b86-93b1-4b12-bc96-a754f89c5e8e%5D

posted in Give War A Chance - 0 replies

I feel a draft!

DVDBurner — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:43:12 GMT

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=359&objectid=10457333

Army Chief calls for return of draft to ease fatigue
5:00AM Monday August 13, 2007
By Paul Harris

The US "war tsar" has called for the nation's political leaders to consider bringing back the draft to help a military exhausted by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In a radio interview, Lieutenant General Douglas Lute said the option had always been open to boost the all-volunteer army by drafting in young men as happened in the Vietnam war.

"It makes sense to consider it."

Lute was appointed "war tsar" this year after President George W. Bush decided a single figure was needed to oversee military efforts abroad.

Rumours of a return to the draft have long circulated as the pressure from fighting two large conflicts builds on US forces. Politically it would be extremely difficult to achieve, especially for any leader hoping to be elected in 2008. Bush has previously ruled out the suggestion as unnecessary.

Lute, however, said the war was causing stress to families and affected levels of re-enlistment.

"This kind of stress plays out across dinner tables and in living-room conversations within these families. And ultimately the health of the all-volunteer force is going to rest on those sorts of personal family decisions."
A draft would revive bad memories of the 1960s and early 1970s when tens of thousands of young men were drafted to fight and die in Vietnam. Few policies proved as divisive.

- Observer

posted in Give War A Chance - 4 replies

Not for the meek. Please join this tribe!

DVDBurner — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:37:31 GMT

http://tribes.tribe.net/politicsreligionothers

posted in Give War A Chance - 0 replies

So Uuummmmm, are you still giving war a chance?

DVDBurner — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:51:08 GMT

LMFAO!

posted in Give War A Chance - 7 replies

New message for you "give war a chance" Tribers.

DVDBurner — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 22:21:24 GMT

best part about yall giving war a chance is watching arrogant dumb fucks like yourselves and Bush, Cheney and the military gettin their asses kicked in Iraq and otherwise and there aint nothin to undo the Pandora's box the arrogant sons of a bitches opened.

The war on terror aint workin. You know why?

Cause arrogant dumb fucks dont have it like that.

should have never gone into Iraq, and the CIA and the British should have never fucked with people in that part of the world the past 50-150 years.

And I am more American than any American thinks they are American. I just have common sense, something most that wanted to give war a chance in this tribe lack.

Keep enjoying that losing feeling.

LMFAO!

posted in Give War A Chance - 2 replies

Hilarious! Even the moderator has jumped ship.

DVDBurner — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:59:05 GMT

I guess this, "give war a chance" stratagie just didn't go too well huh?

posted in Give War A Chance - 0 replies

Star Ship Troopers!

DVDBurner — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 08:38:34 GMT

Oh yeah!

Actually........HELL YEAH!

http://www.tnt.tv/title/?oid=328903

I love this movie.

There are so many similarities.

similarities to what you say?

Life.

posted in Give War A Chance - 1 reply

Why This war is a Problem.

DVDBurner — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 08:09:05 GMT

http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html

HISTORY of Israel & "Palestine":
www.masada2000.org/historical.html

(this horrid litlle hate/extreme zionist propaganda site was shut down for about 6 months for defamation, and now it's back on.)

some historical account there. :)

HISTORY of Israel & "Palestine"

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

history, israel, zionism, Israel, Palestine, jerusalem, British Mandate, manditory, Jewish, Palestinian, Middle East, middle east peace, peace process, oslo accords, maps, history israel, history palestine, history, geography, refugees, palestinian refugees, ehud barak, barak, Rabin, Yitzhak Rabin, Dayan, Moshe Dayan, Peace Now, Middle East Conflict

Israel + Jordan = "Pal estine" Before 1923

Take a close look at this PRESENT DAY MAP of the Middle East in which you can see that 22 Arab and/or Muslim [Iran is not considered Arab] nations completely engulf Israel. If someone can explain to me how "expansionist Israel" has "taken over" the Middle East, please email me! The Arab countries occupy 640 times the land mass as does Israel and outnumber the Jews of Israel by nearly fifty to one. So much for Arab propaganda!

Now notice the TOTAL area of Israel and Jordan. This was referred to as "Palestine" and mandated under British administration following World War I (see next map below). How convenient that today's Arab propagandists forget that land east of the Jordan River was also part of "Palestine" and is, in fact, the Arab-Palestinian State!

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

From 1517-1917 Turkey's Ottoman Empire controlled a vast Arab empire, a portion of which is today Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. During World War I (1914-1918), Turkey supported Germany. When Germany was defeated, so were the Turks. In 1916 control of the southern portion of their Ottoman Empire was "mandated" to France and Britain under the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Arab region into zones of influence. Lebanon and Syria were assigned (mandated) to France... and "Palestine" (today's Jordan, Israel and "West Bank") was mandated to Great Britain.

Because no other peoples had ever established a national homeland in "Palestine" since the Jews had done it 2,000 years before, the British "looked favorably" upon the creation of a Jewish National Homeland throughout ALL of Palestine. The Jews had already begun mass immigration into Palestine in the 1880's in an effort to rid the land of swamps and malaria and prepare for the rebirth of Israel. This Jewish effort to revitalize the land attracted an equally large immigration of Arabs from neighboring areas who were drawn by employment opportunities and healthier living conditions. There was never any attempt to "rid" the area of what few Arabs there or those Arab masses that immigrated into this area along with the Jews!

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

In 1923, the British divided the "Palestine" portion of the Ottoman Empire into two administrative districts. Jews would be permitted only west of the Jordan river. In effect, the British had "chopped off" 75% of the originally proposed Jewish Palestinian homeland to form an Arab Palestinian nation called Trans-Jordan (meaning "across the Jordan River"). This territory east of the Jordan River was given to Emir Abdullah (from Hejaz, now Saudi Arabia) who was not even an Arab-"Palestinian!" This portion of Palestine was renamed Trans-Jordan. Trans-Jordan and would again be renamed "Jordan" in 1946. In other words, the eastern 3/4 of Palestine would be renamed TWICE, in effect, erasing all connection to the name "Palestine!" However, the bottom line is that the Palestinian Arabs had THEIR "Arab Palestinian" homeland. The remaining 25% of Palestine (now WEST of the Jordan River) was to be the Jewish Palestinian homeland. However, sharing was not part of the Arab psychological makeup then nor now.

Encouraged and incited by growing Arab nationalism throughout the Middle East, the Arabs of that small remaining Palestinian territory west of the Jordan River launched never-ending murderous attacks upon the Jewish Palestinians in an effort to drive them out. Most terrifying were the Hebron massacres of 1929 and later during the 1936-39 "Arab Revolt." The British at first tried to maintain order but soon (due to the large oil deposits being discovered throughout the Arab Middle East) turned a blind eye. It became painfully clear to the Palestinian Jews that they must fight the Arabs AND drive out the British.

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

The Palestinian Jews were forced to form an organized defense against the Arabs Palestinians.... thus was formed the Hagana, the beginnings of the Israeli Defense Forces [IDF]. There was also a Jewish underground called the Irgun led by Menachem Begin (who later became Prime Minister of Israel). Besides fighting the Arabs, the Irgun was instrumental in driving out the pro-Arab British. Finally in 1947 the British had enough and turned the Palestine matter over to the United Nations.
The 1947 U.N. Resolution 181 partition plan was to divide the remaining 25% of Palestine into a Jewish Palestinian State and a SECOND Arab Palestinian State (Trans-Jordan being the first) based upon population concentrations. The Jewish Palestinians accepted... the Arab Palestinians rejected. The Arabs still wanted ALL of Palestine... both east AND west of the Jordan River.

Our Palestinian Cousins started the '48 war, and in so doing released the warlike appetites of a nation of survivors, a people with no place to run, who had repressed their rage for millennia, and had now earned full title to it!

On May 14, 1948 the "Palestinian" Jews finally declared their own State of Israel and became "Israelis." On the next day, seven neighboring Arab armies... Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen... invaded Israel. Most of the Arabs living within the boundaries of the newly declared "ISRAEL" were encouraged to leave by the invading Arab armies to facilitate the slaughter of the Jews and were promised to be given all Jewish property after the victorious Arab armies won the war. The truth is that 70% of the Arab Palestinians who left in 1948 – perhaps 300,000 to 400,000 of them – never saw an Israeli soldier! They did not flee because they feared Jewish thugs, but because of a rational and reasonable calculus: the Jews will be exterminated; we will get out of the way while that messy and dangerous business goes forward, and we will return afterwards to reclaim our homes, and to inherit those nice Jewish properties as well. They guessed wrong; and the Arab Palestinians are still tortured by the residual shame of their flight. Their shame is so great because in their eyes running from Jews was like running from women. So much for the blatant lie about Jews throwing out all the [Palestinian] Arabs!

The remaining 30% either (1) saw for themselves that these Jews would fight and die for their new nation and decided to pack up and leave or (2) were driven off the land as a normal consequence of war.

When the 19 month war ended, Israel survived despite a 1% loss of its entire population! Those Arabs who did not flee became today's Israeli-Arab citizens. Those who fled became the seeds of the first wave of "Palestinian Arab refugees."

The Arab propagandists and apologists almost never mentioned that in 1948, Arab armies launched a war against a one-day-old Israel. Instead he focused on the main consequence of that war: the creation of Arab refugees, stating that Israel "short of genocide" expelled 800,000 of them. This not only disagrees with UN estimates of a bit over 400,000 refugees but also ignores the fact that most of the Arabs/Palestinians were encouraged to leave by the Arab World itself!

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

The end result of the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence was the creation of a Jewish State slightly larger than that which was proposed by the 1947 United Nations Resolution 181. What remained of that almost-created second Arab Palestinian State was gobbled up by (1) Egypt (occupying the Gaza Strip) and by (2) Trans-Jordan (occupying Judea-Samaria (a.k.a. the "West Bank" of the Jordan River) and Jerusalem. In the next year (1950) Trans-Jordan formally merged this West Bank territory into itself and granted all those "Palestinian" Arabs living there Jordanian citizenship. Since Trans-Jordan was then no longer confined to one side of the Jordan River, it renamed itself simply "Jordan." In the final analysis, the Arabs of Palestine ended up with nearly 85% of the original territory of Palestine... called Jordan but in reality their ARAB "Palestinian state! But that was still not 100% and thus the conflict between Arab and Jew for "Palestine" would continue through four more wars and continuous Arab terrorist attacks upon the Israeli citizenry. It continues to this very day.

From 1949-67 when all of Judea-Samaria [West Bank & Jerusalem] and Gaza ... were 100% under Arab [Jordanian & Egyptian] control, no effort was EVER made to create a second Palestinian State for the Arabs living there. Surely you do not expect Israel to now provide these same Arabs with their own country when their fellow Arabs failed to do so! And isn't it curious how Arafat and his PLO (formed in 1964) discovered their "ancient" identity and a need for "self-determination" and "human dignity" on this very same West Bank ONLY AFTER Israel regained this territory (three years later in 1967) following Jordan's attempt attempt to destroy Israel! Why was no request ever made upon King Hussein of Jordan by the Arabs living on the West Bank when he occupied it? Is it logical that the PLO was formed in 1964 to regain the lands they would lose three years later in 1967? This sort of logic makes sense only to those who who have not learned that the PLO was formed to DESTROY Israel. And that is STILL their goal! A cosmetic name change from PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) to PA (Palestinian Authority) does not change the stripes on THIS tiger!

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

Throughout much of May 1967, the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian armies mobilized along Israel's narrow and seemingly indefensible borders in preparation for a massive invasion to eliminate the State of Israel. The battle cry heard throughout the Arab world was then, as it continues to be... "Slaughter the Jews" and "Throw the Jews into the Sea!" But the Jews of Israel, remembering 2,000 years of being butchered, gassed, burned and skinned (eg. The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, the Arab rampages of early Palestine and particularly the Holocaust), planned and executed a perfect pre-emptive strike against Egypt. Within two hours the Egyptian Air Force did not exist... most of its planes destroyed while still on the runways! Unaware that the Egyptians had no more air force, King Hussein of Jordan, launched his attack from the his West Bank into Israel's belly while Syrian troops prepared to descend down the Golan Heights high ground into northern Israel.

Now for some facts about "occupation." Firstly, the Egyptians, Jordanians and Syrians lost Gaza, the West Bank and Golan Heights (respectively) by participating in a failed attempt at genocide against the Children of Israel. Had Israel lost this 1967 defensive war, the Arab-Palestinians and their Arab allies would have raped, butchered or driven out every Israeli they could get their hands on and gobbled up all of Israel. Now, 35+ years later and despite the fact that Israel won a war BROUGHT UPON THEM, the Israelis are still willing to allow the Arab-Palestinians to have a state on much of the West Bank and Gaza if only they will stop sending their suicide/homicide bombers into the heart of Israel! (Talk about misplaced compassion!)

From 1948 to 1967, Egypt ruled Gaza, Syria ruled the Golan Heights, while Jordan ruled the West Bank. They could have set up independent Arab-Palestinian states in any or all of those territories, but they didn't even consider it. Instead, in 1967 they used the Golan Heights, Gaza and the West bank to launch a war that was unambiguously aimed at destroying Israel, which is how Israel came into possession of those territories in the first place.

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

After ONLY six days of air, sea and hand-to-hand ground warfare, Israel defeated all three Arab armies along three separate fronts, taking control of the entire Sinai Desert from Egypt, the 37mile x 12mile Golan Heights from Syria and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem and its Old City) from Jordan. The God of Israel was surely watching over His children! Most importantly was the return to Israel of its holy 3,000 year old capital city of Jerusalem along the western edge of the West Bank... the same Jerusalem from which all Jews had been denied access for the 19 years (1948-1967) following Jordan's seizure and control over it following the first Arab-Israeli War of 1948-9.

Unfortunately, the world saw things differently and considered Israel an "occupier" of this disputed "West Bank" and the Gaza Strip along with the 850,000 Palestinian Arabs living there. These Arabs would refer to themselves as "refugees" and joined the masses of refugees from the first Arab-Israeli war of 1948-9. Once again Israel was forced to fight a battle for survival and, sadly, once again Palestinian [in reality, Jordanian and Egyptian] Arabs becoming refugees by their own actions, the actions of their leaders and from the actions of fellow Arabs from neighboring states!

ISRAEL SCREWS UP TOO!

Israel was responsible for bringing about some of its own problems. The Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were packed and ready to leave following their 1967 defeat. Suddenly the victorious one-eyed IDF General Moshe Dayan persuaded them to stay. This singular act stunned no one more than the Arab enemy himself who could not believe such an incredible manifestation of Jewish madness! After all, the Arabs knew what THEY would have done to the Jews if they had won! Dayan's plan was to educate them, offer them modern medical treatment, provide them with employment both in the West Bank, Gaza AND inside Israel Proper itself ... living amongst each other in hopes of building bridges to the Arab world. Israel is now paying dearly for this typically naive "Leftist" gesture. That "bridge" led to two Intifadas and world-wide Arab-Palestinian terrorism. From a frightened and defeated enemy, these "Palestinian" Arabs under Israel's jurisdiction turned into a confident, hateful and dangerous enemy now on their way toward forming a terrorist state determined to destroy Israel!

Note: When people say Jordan (first called Trans-Jordan) is an Arab-"Palestinian" State, they are correct! Jordan accounts for 3/4 of Palestine's original land mass. Though they may call themselves "Jordanians," they are culturally, ethnically, historically and religiously no different than the Arab-"Palestinians" on the "West Bank." Even the flag of Jordan and the flag of the proposed 2nd Arab-Palestinian state on the West Bank / Gaza look almost identical. So, if the Arab-Palestinians and Jordanians think of themselves as one and the same, why should WE fall for the lie that the Arab Palestinians west of the Jordan River are any different from the Jordanian Arabs on its eastern shore?

Jordanian Flag
Proposed Palestinian Flag

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

Usually when one side starts a war and loses both the war AND some territory, no one on the planet would expect the winner to give back anything! This not only sounds preposterous, it IS preposterous! But the Jews (I hate to admit) had such an insane obsession of wanting the world to love them that they were willing to give back the entire Sinai Desert (oil fields, air bases and endless miles of security buffer) to Egypt for a piece of paper. Thus, in 1982 Egypt regained their Sinai and Israel lost a massive buffer against any future Egyptian aggression! Thus far, Egypt has not aggressed against Israel militarily; however, the basest, anti-Semitic vile to come out of Egypt is not unlike the worse of Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda! This 1982 Camp David Peace Accord has to be the coldest peace deal in history!

Israel still occupies Syria's Golan Heights which, prior to the 1967 war, had been by Syria used solely for terrorist incursions into and artillery bombardment upon Israel's northeastern settlements. The Golan should never be given back to Israel's most vicious enemy! And of course, Israel still "occupies" the West Bank with its ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND and Gaza with its EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND "Palestinian" Arabs. Had Israel done to these Arabs what the Arabs would have done to the Jews had THEY won, she would have expelled these hostile Arabs and made it officially part of a Greater Israel! But by remaining an "occupier," Israel set herself up for a campaign of vicious propaganda, the scope and intensity of which the world has never before seen!
..

More on "Palestinian" Nationalism and the Real War Against Israel...

The Middle East war is not now and never was a conflict between Israelis/Jews on the one hand and Palestinians on the other. In fact, the Arab-"Palestinians", while currently the perpetrators of most of the anti-Jewish atrocities, were never a very important part of the conflict. In fact, before about 1970, virtually no one in the world considered the Middle East conflict to be one between Israelis and Palestinians.

The term "Palestinian" itself had referred to Israeli Jews back in the 1940s, and had been slowly deconstructed and redefined to refer to the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza. The Middle East Conflict was always a war by Arabs against Jews, not a conflict between Israelis and "Palestinians." The war was repackaged as a conflict between Jews and Palestinians as a public relations gimmick by the Arab fascist regimes. These regimes had never had any interest in "Palestinians," in creating a "Palestinian" state, or in "Palestinian nationalism" before 1967. That is because Palestinian nationalism did not and DOES NOT exist. The Palestinians were a regional group of Arabs having virtually no cultural nor national distinctive traits separating them from Syrians, Lebanese, and Jordanians. They are all basically Arabs!.

The bulk of what are called "Palestinian Arabs" are members of families who migrated into the Land of Israel beginning in the late 19th century. Palestinian nationalism is a mislabeling of Arab nationalism. Arab nationalism exists, although it is closely bound up with Islamic nationalism and even Islamism. Palestinian nationalism, however, is a phantom. It is nothing more than genocidal hatred of Jews!

The Arab assaults and aggressions against Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1968, and 1973 had nothing to do with Palestinians. The Palestinian terror campaign would itself be easy to suppress today and eradicate if the Middle East conflict were really a Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Israel would simply obliterate the terrorists and expel their supporters to Syria and Lebanon. The Middle East war continues because it is really an Arab-Israeli war, not an Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is also in large part a war between barbarism and civilization. In many ways an Islamic religious jihad against the Jews.

posted in Give War A Chance - 2 replies

HELLO!

DVDBurner — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:09:47 GMT

how things going?

.

Not too good huh?

posted in Give War A Chance - 0 replies

Anyone here convinced yet that Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz.......

DVDBurner — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 06:13:28 GMT

and the bunch are out and out liars?

what say you?

posted in Give War A Chance - 1 reply

Uuuuummmmm..............

DVDBurner — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:09:38 GMT

BOO!

These wars and this current American administration is doing great, wouldn't you say?

posted in Give War A Chance - 1 reply

JOIN THIS TRIBE!

DVDBurner — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 08:00:27 GMT

http://tribes.tribe.net/politicsreligionothers

Just want a beyond heated intelligent political and otherwise debate.

this tribe is not for the meek.
So if you know you are not going to be able to handle it, DONT JOIN!

Ok folks, thanks and let the games begin.

posted in Give War A Chance - 0 replies

WORLD WARS GOING GREAT! LET'S GIVE WAR A CHANCE.

DVDBurner — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 11:10:02 GMT

LMFAO!

What a great tribe.

posted in Give War A Chance - 77 replies

Go to war in Iran and........

DVDBurner — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:39:55 GMT

Americans will be hit on American soil and be wiped out in the middle east foever.

including Israel: (And Anglo American wanna bees.)

Leadership in Conflict With Hezbollah Faulted

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/16/AR2007011601663.html

By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, January 17, 2007; Page A10

JERUSALEM, Jan. 17 -- Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, head of the Israel Defense Forces, resigned abruptly Tuesday after one of his predecessors presented findings of an internal review that sharply criticized the military's leadership during the war with Hezbollah last summer.

Since the end of the 33-day war, Halutz has come under heavy pressure from senior reserve officers to step down. The war failed to achieve the stated goals of freeing two Israeli soldiers captured by the Lebanese Shiite militia in July and stopping Hezbollah rocket attacks on Israeli cities.

Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz had been pressed to resign since end of war. (Eric Sultan - AP)

But Halutz insisted as recently as two weeks ago that he would remain in his post unless called on to resign by the Winograd Commission, an inquiry panel established by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to examine the performance of the military and political leadership during the war.

The commission's interim report was due in coming weeks. Olmert, who has also been severely criticized for his management of the war, reportedly expressed regret over Halutz's decision to resign after trying to persuade him to change his mind.

"It is the nature of people not to be overjoyed serving in a system that is not appreciated and not protected by those it represents," Halutz wrote in his letter of resignation, according to a translation published online by the newspaper Haaretz.

"We must promise never to reach a situation in which people of quality would hesitate to tie their fate and future with" the Israel Defense Forces, he wrote. "Neither good education nor a strong economy would help us then, and there is a danger that the threats the state of Israel faces will become more substantial."

Halutz was appointed the first air force officer to lead Israel's military in July 2005 by then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Among his first duties was to oversee the withdrawal of Israeli settlements and military installations from the Gaza Strip, an operation praised for its speed and precision. But it won him few supporters among hawkish lawmakers and reserve officers, some of whom opposed the withdrawal on strategic and ideological grounds.

Sharon's decision to appoint Halutz reflected the shifting priorities within the military from infantry to air power. Most Israelis serve in the military because of mandatory service requirements, making the chief of staff position one of the most highly esteemed and scrutinized in the country.

Born in 1948 in the Israeli town of Hagor to a Jewish family of Iranian descent, Halutz joined the air force in 1966. He flew F-4 Phantoms during the war of attrition in the Sinai between the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli wars and was credited with shooting down three combat aircraft in the 1973 Arab-Israeli conflict, known in Israel as the Yom Kippur War.

The sharp public criticism of his leadership during the most recent Lebanon war, much of it from senior reserve officers, has focused on Halutz's heavy reliance on air power against an entrenched guerrilla force often fighting from residential areas.

Hezbollah fired about 4,000 short- and medium-range rockets into Israel, including more than 100 on the last day of fighting. The Israeli military said 117 soldiers died in combat during the fighting. In addition, 41 Israeli civilians were killed, most of them by rocket fire.

Halutz also came under public pressure when it was revealed that in the first hours of the war he took the time to phone his stockbroker with instructions to sell portions of his portfolio, fearing a decline in value because of the conflict.

Earlier Tuesday, Dan Shomron, a retired lieutenant general who led Israel's military from 1987 to 1991, told the Israeli parliament's defense and foreign affairs committee that the summer war in Lebanon was "run without any goal."

"The prime minister instructed the army to halt the rocket fire on Israel, but the army failed to translate it into a military objective," Shomron told the committee, although he did not call on Halutz to step down.

Halutz is the third general to resign as a result of the war against Hezbollah, whose performance against Israel's modern military has strengthened its position within Lebanon's fractious political system and drawn praise across the Arab world.

Maj. Gen. Udi Adam, head of the Northern Command, resigned in September. Halutz accepted the resignation two months later of Brig. Gen. Gal Hirsch, an esteemed younger officer who led the Galilee Division, the unit responsible for the Israel-Lebanon border. Hirsch called on Halutz to resign at the same time.

In his resignation letter, Halutz expressed "great pride" in his career and said he had "fulfilled my obligations."

Maj. Gen. Moshe Kaplinsky, the deputy chief of staff, will at least temporarily replace Halutz.

posted in Give War A Chance - 1 reply

Israeli Head Of Military Quits After War Critique

DVDBurner — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:31:02 GMT

To confront me virtually about how Isreal did not get ambushed and won the war of Lebanon?

Leadership in Conflict With Hezbollah Faulted

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/16/AR2007011601663.html

By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, January 17, 2007; Page A10

JERUSALEM, Jan. 17 -- Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, head of the Israel Defense Forces, resigned abruptly Tuesday after one of his predecessors presented findings of an internal review that sharply criticized the military's leadership during the war with Hezbollah last summer.

Since the end of the 33-day war, Halutz has come under heavy pressure from senior reserve officers to step down. The war failed to achieve the stated goals of freeing two Israeli soldiers captured by the Lebanese Shiite militia in July and stopping Hezbollah rocket attacks on Israeli cities.

Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz had been pressed to resign since end of war. (Eric Sultan - AP)

But Halutz insisted as recently as two weeks ago that he would remain in his post unless called on to resign by the Winograd Commission, an inquiry panel established by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to examine the performance of the military and political leadership during the war.

The commission's interim report was due in coming weeks. Olmert, who has also been severely criticized for his management of the war, reportedly expressed regret over Halutz's decision to resign after trying to persuade him to change his mind.

"It is the nature of people not to be overjoyed serving in a system that is not appreciated and not protected by those it represents," Halutz wrote in his letter of resignation, according to a translation published online by the newspaper Haaretz.

"We must promise never to reach a situation in which people of quality would hesitate to tie their fate and future with" the Israel Defense Forces, he wrote. "Neither good education nor a strong economy would help us then, and there is a danger that the threats the state of Israel faces will become more substantial."

Halutz was appointed the first air force officer to lead Israel's military in July 2005 by then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Among his first duties was to oversee the withdrawal of Israeli settlements and military installations from the Gaza Strip, an operation praised for its speed and precision. But it won him few supporters among hawkish lawmakers and reserve officers, some of whom opposed the withdrawal on strategic and ideological grounds.

Sharon's decision to appoint Halutz reflected the shifting priorities within the military from infantry to air power. Most Israelis serve in the military because of mandatory service requirements, making the chief of staff position one of the most highly esteemed and scrutinized in the country.

Born in 1948 in the Israeli town of Hagor to a Jewish family of Iranian descent, Halutz joined the air force in 1966. He flew F-4 Phantoms during the war of attrition in the Sinai between the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli wars and was credited with shooting down three combat aircraft in the 1973 Arab-Israeli conflict, known in Israel as the Yom Kippur War.

The sharp public criticism of his leadership during the most recent Lebanon war, much of it from senior reserve officers, has focused on Halutz's heavy reliance on air power against an entrenched guerrilla force often fighting from residential areas.

Hezbollah fired about 4,000 short- and medium-range rockets into Israel, including more than 100 on the last day of fighting. The Israeli military said 117 soldiers died in combat during the fighting. In addition, 41 Israeli civilians were killed, most of them by rocket fire.

Halutz also came under public pressure when it was revealed that in the first hours of the war he took the time to phone his stockbroker with instructions to sell portions of his portfolio, fearing a decline in value because of the conflict.

Earlier Tuesday, Dan Shomron, a retired lieutenant general who led Israel's military from 1987 to 1991, told the Israeli parliament's defense and foreign affairs committee that the summer war in Lebanon was "run without any goal."

"The prime minister instructed the army to halt the rocket fire on Israel, but the army failed to translate it into a military objective," Shomron told the committee, although he did not call on Halutz to step down.

Halutz is the third general to resign as a result of the war against Hezbollah, whose performance against Israel's modern military has strengthened its position within Lebanon's fractious political system and drawn praise across the Arab world.

Maj. Gen. Udi Adam, head of the Northern Command, resigned in September. Halutz accepted the resignation two months later of Brig. Gen. Gal Hirsch, an esteemed younger officer who led the Galilee Division, the unit responsible for the Israel-Lebanon border. Hirsch called on Halutz to resign at the same time.

In his resignation letter, Halutz expressed "great pride" in his career and said he had "fulfilled my obligations."

Maj. Gen. Moshe Kaplinsky, the deputy chief of staff, will at least temporarily replace Halutz.

posted in Give War A Chance - 0 replies

Ok, and you know who you are, Who has the guts?????????

DVDBurner — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:29:50 GMT

posted in Give War A Chance - 0 replies

Hey, are you still liking this war?

DVDBurner — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 08:41:19 GMT

Check the date this was published and who signed on at the bottom. Then tell me how many here got hoodwinked.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

posted in Give War A Chance - 268 replies

Kissinger: Victory in Iraq no longer possible

DVDBurner — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 02:18:13 GMT

Kissinger: Victory in Iraq no longer possible
POSTED: 7:40 p.m. EST, November 19, 2006

www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/m...er/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A U.S. victory in Iraq is no longer possible under the conditions the Bush administration hopes to achieve, but a quick withdrawal of American troops would have "disastrous consequences," former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said Sunday.

President Bush has said the United States will remain in Iraq until the country's government "can sustain itself and defend itself," and a top Iraqi official disputed Kissinger's assessment of the three-year-old war in an interview with CNN.

But in a BBC interview Sunday morning, Kissinger said the U.S. course needs to be redefined -- and the breakup of Iraq could be the eventual outcome.

Kissinger served as national security adviser and secretary of state in the Nixon and Ford administrations and has advised the Bush administration on Iraq. In August 2005, he wrote in The Washington Post that "victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy."

But on Sunday he said a military victory in Iraq was no longer in the cards.

"If you mean by clear military victory an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible," he said.

His comments come as a commission led by another former top diplomat, James Baker, prepares to offer its recommendations for a change of strategy in the war. The conflict has become increasingly unpopular in the United States as the American death toll nears 2,900, while waves of sectarian violence over the past nine months have left thousands of Iraqis dead.

However, a premature withdrawal of all 140,000 American troops now in the country risks bringing about a "dramatic collapse" of Iraq and eventually require U.S. forces to return to the region, Kissinger said.

Iraqi ambassador disputes Kissinger's conclusions
Instead, he recommended an international conference with Iraq's neighbors, the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and countries he said have a "major interest" in the outcome -- such as south Asian nuclear rivals India and Pakistan -- to craft a settlement.

"I think we need to separate ourselves from the civil war, and we have to move at some early point to some international definition of what a legitimate outcome is," Kissinger told the BBC. "By legitimate, I mean something that can be supported by the surrounding states and by ourselves and our allies."

The partition of Iraq on ethnic lines "might be an outcome," he acknowledged, "but it might be better not to organize it that way on a formal basis."

Samir al-Sumaidie, Iraq's ambassador to the United States, disputed Kissinger's conclusions. He said his government still could prevail over the chaos of a largely Sunni Arab insurgency, sectarian militias and Islamic fighters who swear loyalty to the al Qaeda terrorist network.

"I think a lot of people in Iraq, the members of the government and the members of the policy council for national security all believe that the situation is retrievable," he told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

"It's doable, but we need to have support of the right kind," al-Sumaidie said. "Now we have a lot of pressure on us, not only from our regional neighbors who are interfering, but pressures from our own friends."

Voters' dismay over Iraq contributed to the Democratic takeover of Congress in the November 7 midterm elections. The incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin, has called for a "phased redeployment" of U.S. troops as a way of pressuring Iraq's government to make the political compromises needed to end the violence.

"You want to make the point to the Iraqis that, folks, you've got to take responsibility for your own country," said Levin, a Michigan Democrat. "We cannot do it for you."

But Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, repeated his argument Sunday that more U.S. troops, not fewer, are needed in Iraq. He told ABC's "This Week" that such an increase would put "a terrible strain" on the Army and Marines. "But there's only one thing worse, and that is defeat," he said.

McCain is expected to be the ranking Republican on Levin's committee in the new Congress and took the first step toward a possible presidential bid in 2008 last week. He said the United States has been losing the war in Iraq and that American troops have been "fighting and dying for a failed policy."

"There's no good options," he said. "But the consequences of failure are severe, and I believe that we must do what's necessary to prevail. And I understand how terrible this is. The young men and women who are in the military today, and God bless them, they'll respond if called upon to."

posted in Give War A Chance - 0 replies

Why do people feel the need to protest at a Veterans Day Parade

Mon, 13 Nov 2006 04:53:28 GMT

I was in the Parade in Houston and we had some ass holes protesting. Wrong place, wrong time, wrong enviroment!!!!!!!!!!!

posted in Give War A Chance - 7 replies

<CRICKTETS>

DVDBurner — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 10:21:38 GMT

Chirp......Chirp.

posted in Give War A Chance - 0 replies

Kerry's Comments Yesterday About Troops

Wed, 01 Nov 2006 21:17:24 GMT

I think he was totally out of line and needs to apologize. He is an idiot!

posted in Give War A Chance - 23 replies

Weapons missing in Iraq, says Report

DVDBurner — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:38:27 GMT

http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?aid=332585&sid=WOR

Washington, Oct 31: Terming as "disturbing" a report that speaks of thousands of weapons intended for Iraqi forces going missing, the special Inspector General for Iraq reconstruction today said has been asked to office to perform an audit regarding logistics support to the security forces.

Besides the missing weapons, the report also talked of large gaps in the fashion in which the transition is taking place in Iraq not only on the weapons accountability front but also on the training of security forces.

Special Inspector General Stuart Bowen said that his office had been asked to perform an audit regarding logistics support to the Iraqi security forces by the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John Warner, a Republican. And in the course of this his office looked at weapons accountability.

"We looked at about 370,000 weapons that were purchased with Iraq relief and reconstruction funds. Of that, less than four per cent were not accounted for. By that, I mean not issued nor warehoused. So over 96 per cent were accounted for," Bowen said adding that his "greater concern" was the lack of tracking of serial numbers-- an issue that has now been taken up by the multi-national security transition command-Iraq.

"They're tracking them moving forward. But the issue, really, that you pointed to in your opening about missing weapons needs to be put in perspective. Of the 12 categories of weapons that we looked at, three showed some lack of accountability. The total amount of weapons that either were not issued or were not warehoused was 14,000, about 3.8 per cent," Bowen said on a television channel.

Bureau Report

posted in Give War A Chance - 0 replies

Active-Duty Troops Launch Campaign to Press Congress to End U.S. Occupation of Iraq

DVDBurner — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:45:22 GMT

This is the solution. FINALLY! This is the RIGHT thing to do.
The faster this gets done the faster the world can get to buissness:

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

Active-Duty Troops Launch Campaign to Press Congress to End U.S. Occupation of Iraq

65 Members to Send "Appeals for Redress" Under the Military Whistle-blower Protection Act

10/23/2006 9:58:00 AM

To: Assignment Desk, Daybook Editor

Contact: Trevor Fitzgibbon, 202-246-5303, or Alex Howe, or Laura Gross, 202-822-5200, for Fenton Communications

News Advisory:

For the first time since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, active- duty members of the military are asking Members of Congress to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq and bring American soldiers home.

Sixty-five active-duty members have sent Appeals for Redress to Members of Congress. Three of these people (including two who served in Iraq) and their attorney will speak about this on Wednesday, Oct. 25 at 11 a.m. EDT.

Under the Military Whistle-Blower Protection Act (DOD directive 7050.6), active-duty military, National Guard and Reservists can file and send a protected communication to a Member of Congress regarding any subject without reprisal.

What: Three active-duty members of the military and their lawyer, a retired U.S. Marine Corps JAG, make comments and take questions from the media.

When: Wednesday, Oct. 25, 11 a.m. EDT

Conference Call Details: 800-362-0574, Conference ID: "Active Duty"

www.usnewswire.com/

releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp

posted in Give War A Chance - 1 reply

Stop followin a Nut Job.

DVDBurner — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 20:12:15 GMT

Top US general says Rumsfeld is inspired by God
Thu Oct 19, 3:35 PM ET
news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2006...61019193550

MIAMI (AFP) - The top US general defended the leadership of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, saying it is inspired by God.

"He leads in a way that the good Lord tells him is best for our country," said Marine General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Rumsfeld is "a man whose patriotism focus, energy, drive, is exceeded by no one else I know ... quite simply, he works harder than anybody else in our building," Pace said at a ceremony at the Southern Command (Southcom) in Miami.

Rumsfeld has faced a storm of criticism and calls for his resignation, largely over his handling of the Iraq war.

But he got a strong show of support from the military establishment at Thursday's ceremony, where Navy Admiral James Stavridis took over Southcom's command from General Bantz Craddock.

"He comes to work everyday with a single-minded focus to make this country safe," said Stavridis who was a senior aide to Rumsfeld before taking on the Southcom job.

"We're lucky as a nation that he continues to serve with such passion and such integrity and such determination and such brilliance," said Stavridis, 51.

As head of Southcom, Stavridis will be responsible for military cooperation with Latin American countries, and will be in charge of the Guantanamo US military base in Cuba where more than 400 "war on terror" detainees are being held.

Craddock, who was named supreme commander of allied forces in Europe, hailed the role Southcom has played.

"Today I believe that we can say we were successful in our efforts and contributed to ensuring our nation's security through support on the global war on terror, and encouraged regional cooperation to enhance the security and stability in the region," he said.

posted in Give War A Chance - 1 reply

Pat Tillman's brother speaks out

DVDBurner — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:10:15 GMT

After Pat’s Birthday

Posted on Oct 19, 2006
Pat and Kevin Tillman
Courtesy the Tillman Family

By Kevin Tillman

www.truthdig.com/report/it..._birthday/

(Editor’s note: Kevin Tillman joined the Army with his brother Pat in 2002, and they served together in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pat was killed in Afghanistan on April 22, 2004. Kevin, who was discharged in 2005, has written a powerful, must-read document.)

It is Pat’s birthday on November 6, and elections are the day after. It gets me thinking about a conversation I had with Pat before we joined the military. He spoke about the risks with signing the papers. How once we committed, we were at the mercy of the American leadership and the American people. How we could be thrown in a direction not of our volition. How fighting as a soldier would leave us without a voice… until we get out.

Much has happened since we handed over our voice:

Somehow we were sent to invade a nation because it was a direct threat to the American people, or to the world, or harbored terrorists, or was involved in the September 11 attacks, or received weapons-grade uranium from Niger, or had mobile weapons labs, or WMD, or had a need to be liberated, or we needed to establish a democracy, or stop an insurgency, or stop a civil war we created that can’t be called a civil war even though it is. Something like that.

Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.

Somehow our elected leaders were subverting international law and humanity by setting up secret prisons around the world, secretly kidnapping people, secretly holding them indefinitely, secretly not charging them with anything, secretly torturing them. Somehow that overt policy of torture became the fault of a few “bad apples” in the military.

Somehow back at home, support for the soldiers meant having a five-year-old kindergartener scribble a picture with crayons and send it overseas, or slapping stickers on cars, or lobbying Congress for an extra pad in a helmet. It’s interesting that a soldier on his third or fourth tour should care about a drawing from a five-year-old; or a faded sticker on a car as his friends die around him; or an extra pad in a helmet, as if it will protect him when an IED throws his vehicle 50 feet into the air as his body comes apart and his skin melts to the seat.

Somehow the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes.

Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the ground.

Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an illegal invasion they started.

Somehow faking character, virtue and strength is tolerated.

Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is tolerated.

Somehow the death of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people is tolerated.

Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated.

Somehow suspension of Habeas Corpus is supposed to keep this country safe.

Somehow torture is tolerated.

Somehow lying is tolerated.

Somehow reason is being discarded for faith, dogma, and nonsense.

Somehow American leadership managed to create a more dangerous world.

Somehow a narrative is more important than reality.

Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.

Somehow the most reasonable, trusted and respected country in the world has become one of the most irrational, belligerent, feared, and distrusted countries in the world.

Somehow being politically informed, diligent, and skeptical has been replaced by apathy through active ignorance.

Somehow the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country.

Somehow this is tolerated.

Somehow nobody is accountable for this.

In a democracy, the policy of the leaders is the policy of the people. So don’t be shocked when our grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation, to the world and to humanity. Most likely, they will come to know that “somehow” was nurtured by fear, insecurity and indifference, leaving the country vulnerable to unchecked, unchallenged parasites.

Luckily this country is still a democracy. People still have a voice. People still can take action. It can start after Pat’s birthday.

Brother and Friend of Pat Tillman,

Kevin Tillman

posted in Give War A Chance - 3 replies

Bush accepts Iraq, Vietnam comparison

DVDBurner — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:10:21 GMT

Bush accepts Iraq, Vietnam comparison

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1768808.htm

By North America correspondent Michael Rowland
US President George W Bush has conceded there could be similarities between the war in Iraq and the Vietnam war.

Mr Bush has been asked whether he agrees with a newspaper columnist that the recent surge in violence in Iraq is similar to the Tet offensive in early 1968, widely acknowledged as a turning point in the Vietnam war.

"He could be right. There's certainly a stepped up level of violence," Mr Bush said.

But Mr Bush has once again vowed that America will stay the course in Iraq.

The President says he is saddened by the big jump in US deaths this month, but says this is a cost of victory.

Nearly 2,800 US troops have now died in Iraq.

Handover

Meanwhile, an Iraqi Government Minister visiting Canberra says foreign troops should be able to hand over control of the country by late next year or 2008.

Iraq's Oil Minister Dr Hussain al-Shahristani has held meetings with Australian ministers this morning.

He says the foreign troops will have to stay until the Iraqi army is able to take over, but progress is being made.

"We are not talking in terms of years, as you know we have already taken over responsibility for the security ... and almost half of the country now is under the control of Iraqi forces."

posted in Give War A Chance - 7 replies

Is America winning the war in Iraq yet?

DVDBurner — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:22:02 GMT

Still giving war a chance Yo!

posted in Give War A Chance - 0 replies

U.S. troops "unlawfully killed" Terry Lloyd

DVDBurner — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:54:51 GMT

Fri Oct 13, 2006 11:04 AM BST
By Eleanor Wason

OXFORD (Reuters) - One of Britain's most experienced television correspondents was unlawfully killed by U.S. soldiers in Iraq, an inquest into his death ruled on Friday.

Veteran war correspondent Terry Lloyd, 50, who worked for ITN, was killed in March 2003 in southern Iraq as he reported from the front line during the first few days of the U.S.-led invasion.

The ITN News crew, which unlike most journalists covering the war was unattached to any U.S. or British unit, had come under fire at Iman Anas, near Basra, while driving towards the port city in two vehicles marked "Press".

Lloyd, who had reported from Iraq, Cambodia, Bosnia and Kosovo during his award-winning career, and translator Hussein Othman, were killed.

Their colleague, French cameraman Fred Nerac, is still missing believed dead while another cameraman Daniel Demoustier was able to escape.

An inquest in Oxford heard that Lloyd, a father-of-two, had been hit by an Iraqi bullet but then died when he was struck in the head by an American bullet.

A British soldier, referred to only as Soldier B, said he saw a U.S. tank fire on three vehicles, one carrying Lloyd and cameraman Demoustier, another with Nerac and Othman inside, and a third Iraqi truck with a machine gun on the back.

"I had to duck down straight away -- windows were exploding inside the car," Demoustier said a few days after the incident

posted in Give War A Chance - 1 reply

Give War A Chance's topics - tribe.net

Just giving war some more of a chance!

Bush Inflated Threat From Iraq's Banned Weapons

Somebody from their own club is calling them out as criminals for the way they got us into this war.

Pentagon institute calls Iraq war 'a major debacle'

End to 'Major Combat' in Iraq 5th AnniversaryToday

So is sally full of it or..........

Another few months and the war is getting better!

Thanks for having such a great tribe DVD Burner

LOGIC AND REALITY!

A VOTE TO CHANGE THE MODERATOR!

This Tribe is boring!

Some facts for the ignorant!

How is the war going?

haven't been watching T.V. as of late.......

Knee jerk "Peace" activists

NEW TRIBE...WARTIME

I feel a draft!

Not for the meek. Please join this tribe!

So Uuummmmm, are you still giving war a chance?

New message for you "give war a chance" Tribers.

Hilarious! Even the moderator has jumped ship.

Star Ship Troopers!

Why This war is a Problem.

HELLO!

Anyone here convinced yet that Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz.......

Uuuuummmmm..............

JOIN THIS TRIBE!

WORLD WARS GOING GREAT! LET'S GIVE WAR A CHANCE.

Go to war in Iran and........

Israeli Head Of Military Quits After War Critique

Ok, and you know who you are, Who has the guts?????????

Hey, are you still liking this war?

Kissinger: Victory in Iraq no longer possible

Why do people feel the need to protest at a Veterans Day Parade

&lt;CRICKTETS>

Kerry's Comments Yesterday About Troops

Weapons missing in Iraq, says Report

Active-Duty Troops Launch Campaign to Press Congress to End U.S. Occupation of Iraq

Stop followin a Nut Job.

Pat Tillman's brother speaks out

Bush accepts Iraq, Vietnam comparison

Is America winning the war in Iraq yet?

U.S. troops "unlawfully killed" Terry Lloyd

<CRICKTETS>