The Iraq thread 4

[ralphwiggum 6]

Let's hope they are equally incompetent now in their 'intelligence' estimates as they were before the war. Problem is that then they gave TBA what it wanted to hear - it might be so now again - and that the situation is actually even worse.

ROFLMAO!

Quote[/b] ]ps. Funny thing, no American media seems to be taking notice of Kofi Annan's remarks.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/16/iraq.main/index.html

Quote[/b] ]BAGHDAD (CNN) -- Two Americans and a Briton were seized by kidnappers from their home in central Baghdad early Thursday, an Iraqi Ministry of Interior representative told CNN.

The three were at their home, which also serves as the offices of al-Khaleej Services Company, in the upscale al-Mansur district of central Baghdad, spokesman Col. Adnan Abdul Rahman said..

The U.S. Embassy and the British Embassy confirmed the abductions.

A statement from the U.S. Embassy said, "Two American citizens, Jack Hensley and Eugene 'Jack' Armstrong, were kidnapped this morning from their residence in the Mansour district by unknown gunmen along with a British subject."

The facility did not have a guard posted at the time, a neighbor said, adding that the abduction appeared to be carefully planned. She said there is usually one day guard at the residence and one night guard.

No shots were fired in the kidnapping.

The neighbor said a night guard who is usually on duty did not show up Wednesday night.

She said when one of the occupants of the house came out to turn on the electric generator, something he did at the same time every day, the abductors moved in.

An Iraqi police official said 11 kidnappers, dressed in civilian clothing, drove up to the residence in a minibus and a sedan.

Six of the abductors in the minivan entered the offices and seized the Westerners, the police official said.

After the kidnapping, the abductors stole a Nissan parked outside the house.

[DarkLight 0]

Quote[/b] ]Iraq war illegal

Sheesh tell me something i DONT know...

[ralphwiggum 6]

and the backlash

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661736.stm

Quote[/b] ]Key states who joined the US-led invasion of Iraq have rejected claims by the United Nations secretary general that the war was illegal.

Kofi Annan told the BBC the decision to take action in Iraq contravened the UN charter and should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.

But Australian Prime Minister John Howard said it was entirely valid.

And a former Bush administration aide, Randy Scheunemann, branded Mr Annan's comments "outrageous".

The UK and Japanese governments also responded sharply.

'Political interference'

Mr Howard, fighting a cliffhanger re-election battle, insisted the invasion was legal.

Labelling the international body "paralysed", he said it was incapable of dealing with international crises.

"The legal advice we had - and I tabled it at the time - was that the action was entirely valid in international law terms," he said.

Randy Scheunemann, a former advisor to US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, accused Mr Annan of trying to influence the outcome of the forthcoming US presidential election.

"I think it is outrageous for the secretary general, who ultimately works for the member states, to try and supplant his judgement for the judgement of the member states," he told the BBC.

"To do this 51 days before an American election reeks of political interference," Randy Scheunemann said.

He said the UN's failure to act in Sudan, and in other areas around the world, was proving that effective multilateralism may be a contradiction in terms.

'Painful lessons'

The British government - which has argued that UN resolutions provided a legal basis for intervening to topple Saddam Hussein - said the 2003 invasion was "not only lawful but necessary".

"We spelt out at the time our reasons for believing the conflict in Iraq was indeed lawful and why we believed it was necessary to uphold those UN resolutions," Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt told the BBC.

Japan's top government spokesperson told a news conference that he would be seeking clarification about the exact significance of Mr Annan's words.

"We wish to verify the real meaning by making various inquiries," Hiroyuki Hosoda was quoted as saying by AFP news agency.

Mr Annan said in an interview with the BBC World Service that "painful lessons" had been learnt since the war in Iraq.

"Lessons for the US, the UN and other member states. I think in the end everybody's concluded it's best to work together with our allies and through the UN," he said.

Elections loom

Mr Annan told the BBC: "I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community."

He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections.

And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added.

When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

Mr Annan also warned security in Iraq must considerably improve if credible elections are to be held in January.

The BBC's Susannah Price at UN headquarters in New York says Mr Annan has made similar comments before.

He has always said the invasion did not conform with the UN charter - phrasing that was seen as a diplomatic way of saying the war was illegal.

Our correspondent says Mr Annan's relationship with the US might be made a little uncomfortable for a while following his comments, but both sides are likely to want to play it down.

US President George W Bush is due to speak at the UN General Assembly next week.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]Iraq war illegal

Sheesh tell me something i DONT know...

Apparently Mr Annan just found that out , maybe hes a bit slow or ....

But then how many wars in this world have been legal anyway .

[DarkLight 0]

Quote[/b] ]Iraq war illegal

Sheesh tell me something i DONT know...

Apparently Mr Annan just found that out , maybe hes a bit slow or ....

But then how many wars in this world have been legal anyway .

True true

[denoir 0]

Iraq: It's Worse Than You Think [MSNBC/Newsweek]

Quote[/b] ]

As Americans Debate Vietnam, the U.S. Death Toll Tops 1,000 in Iraq. And the Insurgents are Still Getting Stronger

by Scott Johnson and Babak Dehghanpisheh

Newsweek | September 14, 2004

BAGHDAD - Iraqis don't shock easily these days, but eyewitnesses could only blink in disbelief as they recounted last Tuesday's broad-daylight kidnappings in central Baghdad. At about 5 in the afternoon, on a quiet side street outside the Ibn Haitham hospital, a gang armed with pistols, AK-47s and pump-action shotguns raided a small house used by three Italian aid groups.

The gunmen, none of them wearing masks, took orders from a smooth-shaven man in a gray suit; they called him "sir." When they drove off, the gunmen had four hostages: two local NGO employees—one of them a woman who was dragged out of the house by her headscarf—and two 29-year-old Italians, Simona Pari and Simona Torretta, both members of the antiwar group A Bridge to Baghdad. The whole job took less than 10 minutes. Not a shot was fired.

About 15 minutes afterward, an American Humvee convoy passed hardly a block away—headed in the opposite direction.

Sixteen months after the war's supposed end, Iraq's insurgency is spreading. Each successful demand by kidnappers has spawned more hostage-takings—to make Philippine troops go home, to stop Turkish truckers from hauling supplies into Iraq, to extort fat ransom payments from Kuwaitis.

The few relief groups that remain in Iraq are talking seriously about leaving. U.S. forces have effectively ceded entire cities to the insurgents, and much of the country elsewhere is a battleground. Last week the total number of U.S. war dead in Iraq passed the 1,000 mark, reaching 1,007 by the end of Saturday. U.S. forces are working frantically to train Iraqis for the thankless job of maintaining public order.

The aim is to boost Iraqi security forces from 95,000 to 200,000 by sometime next year. Then, using a mixture of force and diplomacy, the Americans plan to retake cities and install credible local forces. That's the hope, anyway.

But the quality of new recruits is debatable. During recent street demonstrations in Najaf, police opened fire on crowds, killing and injuring dozens. The insurgents, meanwhile, are recruiting, too. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once referred to America's foes in Iraq as "dead-enders," then the Pentagon maintained they probably numbered 5,000, and now senior military officials talk about "dozens of regional cells" that could call upon as many as 20,000 fighters.

Yet U.S. officials publicly insist that Iraq will somehow hold national elections before the end of January. The appointed council currently acting as Iraq's government under interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is to be replaced by an elected constitutional assembly—if the vote takes place. "I presume the election will be delayed," says the Iraqi Interior Ministry's chief spokesman, Sabah Kadhim. A senior Iraqi official sees no chance of January elections: "I'm convinced that it's not going to happen. It's just not realistic. How is it going to happen?" Some Iraqis worry that America will stick to its schedule despite all obstacles. "The Americans have created a series of fictional dates and events in order to delude themselves," says Ghassan Atiyya, director of the independent Iraq Foundation for Development and Democracy, who recently met with Allawi and American representatives to discuss the January agenda. "Badly prepared elections, rather than healing wounds, will open them."

America has its own Election Day to worry about. For U.S. troops in Iraq, one especially sore point is the stateside public's obsession with the candidates' decades-old military service. "Stop talking about Vietnam," says one U.S. official who has spent time in the Sunni Triangle. "People should be debating this war, not that one." His point was not that America ought to walk away from Iraq. Hardly any U.S. personnel would call that a sane suggestion. But there's widespread agreement that Washington needs to rethink its objectives, and quickly. "We're dealing with a population that hovers between bare tolerance and outright hostility," says a senior U.S. diplomat in Baghdad. "This idea of a functioning democracy here is crazy. We thought that there would be a reprieve after sovereignty, but all hell is breaking loose."

It's not only that U.S. casualty figures keep climbing. American counterinsurgency experts are noticing some disturbing trends in those statistics. The Defense Department counted 87 attacks per day on U.S. forces in August—the worst monthly average since Bush's flight-suited visit to the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003. Preliminary analysis of the July and August numbers also suggests that U.S. troops are being attacked across a wider area of Iraq than ever before. And the number of gunshot casualties apparently took a huge jump in August. Until then, explosive devices and shrapnel were the primary cause of combat injuries, typical of a "phase two" insurgency, where sudden ambushes are the rule. (Phase one is the recruitment phase, with most actions confined to sabotage. That's how things started in Iraq.) Bullet wounds would mean the insurgents are standing and fighting—a step up to phase three.

Another ominous sign is the growing number of towns that U.S. troops simply avoid. A senior Defense official objects to calling them "no-go areas." "We could go into them any time we wanted," he argues. The preferred term is "insurgent enclaves." They're spreading. Counterinsurgency experts call it the "inkblot strategy": take control of several towns or villages and expand outward until the areas merge. The first city lost to the insurgents was Fallujah, in April. Now the list includes the Sunni Triangle cities of Ar Ramadi, Baqubah and Samarra, where power shifted back and forth between the insurgents and American-backed leaders last week. "There is no security force there [in Fallujah], no local government," says a senior U.S. military official in Baghdad. "We would get attacked constantly. Forget about it."

U.S. military planners only wish they could. "What we see is a classic progression," says Andrew Krepinevich, author of the highly respected study "The Army and Vietnam." "What we also see is that the U.S. military is not trained or organized to fight insurgencies. That was the deliberate choice after Vietnam. Now we look to be paying the price." Americans aren't safe even on the outskirts of a city like Fallujah. Early last week a suicide bomber rammed his vehicle into two U.S. Humvees nine miles north of town on the four-lane concrete bypass called Highway 10. Seven Americans died. It was one of the deadliest blows against U.S. forces since June, when Iraqis formally resumed control of their government.

As much as ordinary Iraqis may hate the insurgents, they blame the Americans for creating the whole mess. Three months ago Iraqi troops and U.S.-dominated "multinational forces" pulled out of Samarra, and insurgents took over the place immediately. "The day the MNF left, people celebrated in the streets," says Kadhim, the Interior spokesman. "But that same day, vans arrived in town and started shooting. They came from Fallujah and other places and they started blowing up houses." Local elders begged Allawi's government to send help. "The leaders of the tribes come to see us and they say, 'Really, we are scared, we don't like these people'," Kadhim continues. "But we just don't have the forces at the moment to help them." Last week negotiators reached a tentative peace deal, but it's not likely to survive long. The Iraqi National Guard is the only homegrown security force that people respect, and all available ING personnel are deployed elsewhere.

Will Iraq's troubles get even worse? "The insurgency can certainly sustain what it's doing for a while," says a senior U.S. military official. Many educated Iraqis aren't waiting to find out. Applicants mobbed the courtyard of the Baghdad passport office last week, desperate for a chance to escape. Police fired shots in the air, trying to control the crowd. "Every day there is shooting, gunfire, people killed, headaches for lack of sleep," said Huda Hussein, 34, a Ph.D. in computer science who has spent the past year and a half looking for work. "I want to go to a calm place for a while." It's too bad for Iraq—and for America—that the insurgents don't share that wish.

© Newsweek 2004

[BoweryBaker 0]

Why the war with Iraq was:

I originally supported the war and it all seemed right to me when Bush said he'd go after the terrorists and those that harbor them. Thats why we invaded Iraq. That and Saddam probably won't aid us hunting down Bin Laden, meaning it will become a refuge for Bin Laden meaning they'll be our enemy maybe. So Bush took Saddam out of power based on alot of maybes.

It could have happened more like:

He could have just waited to see if Saddam would co operate to please the U.N. while secretly authorizing black ops under everyones noses. Spies all throughout the country searching for Bin Laden. Then when you find him authorize a take down and immediate evacuation for the assassin. Condy Rice would probably say "well that all sounds easy but" and id say "guerillas can use car bombs on us and we never know who killed the soldier, how about we use their techniques against them. Fight like terrorists yet within the bounds of the geneva convention. Hidden bombs, stuff like that. No civillian casualties." He probably had that idea on the table and had some general saying "but remember black hawk down? you can't use special forces in small numbers. You gotta go in there with a full army." I'd say "The only problem with black hawk down was that they were going in there to capture the bastards. That and they looked so obviously like soldiers who fight against countries, not covert soldiers." If I were our president, on the surface id make it all seem nicey nicey but id have black ops running all throughout his country with no attention to their actions. That seems like a cunning plan and its very possible. They do it to us. If we can't even chase terrorists into Iraq that makes it a refuge for terrorists, something we can't have but at the same time we can't afford to engage a full scale war with its heavy costs over one man, that would just bolster his esteem of himself. I understand it all.

In a nutshell:

I just disagree with the method in which Bush chose to deal with the situation. I'd give authority to the CIA to engage in black ops instead. No sense in announcing war when you're using covert special forces. Especially to hunt down something that could be moved if they know you're coming. That is too uncautious. Not very smart or cunning.

What Bush needs to do now:

In support of the president while he's still in office I will now state what i think he must do. He must remind everyone of the original reason of why we went in and not be all simple texan about it. Everytime he's asked he wraps it up in one sentence: "To get Saddam and find Bin Laden. WMD's" etc. It's like he don't even remember what he told us on the tv that day before the war all started.

A parallel:

If Jesus came to your door and you were smoking weed and he said "It's me, Jesus." You'd hide the weed, right?

If your friend talks crap about you do you beat him up or ignore it?

[Acecombat 0]

Hahah man getting Bush to confess is like the same as Laden probably or some other religious fanatic prick.

These people have egos the size of a whole bloody universe , they'd rather die then admit they were wrong.

[Ofcourse Bush might not he doesnt seem the all to brave type , under a bit of *ahem* threatening i think he could yield]

[red oct 2]

[Ofcourse Bush might not he doesnt seem the all to brave type , under a bit of *ahem* threatening i think he could yield]

he certianly isn't brave. he can't even be a real president and take critism in public. just this morning on the radio, i was listening to how a few people who were at the democratic convention were denied entry in the republican convention because they were red flaged and considered a "threat to security". all those people you see at those Bush/Cheny rallies are there by invite only. they won't let a single person in w/out a invitation who might heckle Bush in front of the camra's and make him look stupid, though to his credit, he does that very well on his own. Kerry at least has the backbone to go out in public and take it on like a real president should. w/ time i think people will look back and see him as a man who thought of himself as the next Churchill but in reality, he would be little Napolean of the 20th centuary who was a terrible speaker. (which btw he doesn't come close to even filling his shoes, Napolean at least conquered several nations before facing his humilating loss)

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]he certianly isn't brave. he can't even be a real president and take critism in public. just this morning on the radio, i was listening to how a few people who were at the democratic convention were denied entry in the republican convention because they were red flaged and considered a "threat to security". all those people you see at those Bush/Cheny rallies are there by invite only. they won't let a single person in w/out a invitation who might heckle Bush in front of the camra's and make him look stupid, though to his credit, he does that very well on his own. Kerry at least has the backbone to go out in public and take it on like a real president should.

That is bullshit. The Kerry people do kick people out their rallies if they heckle Kerry. Furthermore, some Bush supporters are assualted by Kerry supporters outside of Kerry rallies. I forgot Kerry gets a free pass...

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]he certianly isn't brave. he can't even be a real president and take critism in public. just this morning on the radio, i was listening to how a few people who were at the democratic convention were denied entry in the republican convention because they were red flaged and considered a "threat to security". all those people you see at those Bush/Cheny rallies are there by invite only. they won't let a single person in w/out a invitation who might heckle Bush in front of the camra's and make him look stupid, though to his credit, he does that very well on his own. Kerry at least has the backbone to go out in public and take it on like a real president should.

The Kerry people do kick people out their rallies if they heckle Kerry. Furthermore, some Bush supporters are assualted by Kerry supporters outside of Kerry rallies. I forgot Kerry gets a free pass...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040916/480/wvrs10309162250

Three-year-old Sophia Parlock cries while seated on the

shoulders of her father, Phil Parlock, after having their Bush-

Cheney sign torn up by Kerry-Edwards supporters on

Thursday, Sept. 16, 2004, at the Tri-State Airport in

Huntington, W.Va. Democratic vice presidential candidate

John Edwards made a brief stop at the

airport as he concluded his two-day bus tour to locations in

West Virginia and Ohio. (AP Photo/Randy Snyder)

[Apollo 0]

it is true though that Bush will never answer an question of a certain reporter again if that reporter dare's to ask a question that could hurt Bush politicly though ,and the reporters that now are still allowed to ask him questions are as thus to scared to ask critical questions as loosing their stance with Bush could b very bad for their career.

And much of the US media is polliticly polirized towards GW Bush ,Cnn has basicly become a propaganda outlet for Bush.

The actions of a few supporters of a certain president btw isn't nessecarily supported by that candidate.And i would doubt that there hasn't been any agression of Bush supporters at Kerry supporters.

Also ,such thing's are easy to stage actually for propaganda means ,given the dirty and smutyness of this campaign i wouldn't be surprized of such vertical campaigning.

[Acecombat 0]

So much for bloody democracy

Why cant a reporter ask a simple question? Its the US not Iraq its Bush not saddam , but then is it ...

[ralphwiggum 6]

oh the timing....maybe it's liberal bias at work?

[denoir 0]

More remarkable is that those were Bush's comments on an intelligence report that said things were going to hell in Iraq and that the country was on the brink of a civil war. Talk about living in denial.

[Akira 0]

Three-year-old Sophia Parlock cries while seated on the

shoulders of her father, Phil Parlock, after having their Bush-

Cheney sign torn up by Kerry-Edwards supporters on

Thursday, Sept. 16, 2004, at the Tri-State Airport in

Huntington, W.Va. Democratic vice presidential candidate

John Edwards made a brief stop at the

airport as he concluded his two-day bus tour to locations in

West Virginia and Ohio. (AP Photo/Randy Snyder)

Spare me...

Man Has History Of "Attacks"

[theavonlady 2]

Three-year-old Sophia Parlock cries while seated on the

shoulders of her father, Phil Parlock, after having their Bush-

Cheney sign torn up by Kerry-Edwards supporters on

Thursday, Sept. 16, 2004, at the Tri-State Airport in

Huntington, W.Va. Democratic vice presidential candidate

John Edwards made a brief stop at the

airport as he concluded his two-day bus tour to locations in

West Virginia and Ohio. (AP Photo/Randy Snyder)

Spare me...

Man Has History Of "Attacks"

I won't spare you but thank you for showing your true colors.

Even the Kerry campaigners and the IUPAT union (whose shirt the accoster was wearing apologized, even though they're not responsible - though Kerry's spokeswoman, as quoted below, is quite pathetic in giving half-excuses for such behavior.

And what's interesting is the "history" of attacks has always been the same "there's no free speech for you", coming from democratic constituents.

Quote[/b] ]Sign Fracas at Edwards Rally Spurs Sniping

Fri Sep 17,10:21 PM ET

By BRIAN FARKAS, Associated Press Writer

CHARLESTON, W.Va. - Phil Parlock says he's a peaceful guy who doesn't mind carrying a Republican sign to a Democratic rally. Others say he has a history since 1996 of attending Democratic rallies in West Virginia for the sole purpose of provoking the anger of the party faithful.

On Thursday, the Huntington real estate agent said, he hid nine Bush-Cheney signs under his pant leg and took 3-year-old daughter Sophia and 11-year-old son Alex to a rally for Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards (news - web sites). An older son manned the van outside the rally with a larger Bush sign.

When it came time for Edwards to leave Tri-State Airport, Parlock said, he gave his children signs to proclaim their support for Bush. Just as quickly, the signs were ripped out of their hands and torn apart, he said. Two more signs were thrust into their hands. Again, Edwards supporters tore them away, he said.

"It was like a feeding frenzy," the father of 10 said Friday. "I didn't want to have Sophia being defeated and I told her to hold up the sign, but they kept going after the last shred."

Sophia broke into tears, and the image of the child resting on her father's shoulders with a torn Bush sign in her hands was caught in Associated Press photographs.

That image became the subject of intensely partisan Internet chatter on Friday, with some Democratic supporters suggesting the incident was staged and that the sign had been grabbed by one of Parlock's other children. Other messages pointed out that Parlock was involved in similar incidents twice before.

In 2000, Parlock and one of his sons smuggled in 12 Bush-Cheney signs to a campaign rally for Al Gore (news - web sites) at the state Capitol. Police ejected them after Gore supporters tried to tear the signs away from them.

During a 1996 campaign stop in Huntington by then-President Clinton (news - web sites), Parlock held up a sign outside the rally with the words "Vince Foster," referring to Clinton's former deputy counsel who was found dead in a Virginia park on July 20, 1993. The sign was taken by steel workers attending the rally.

"We're not part of an organization. We're not part of the political machine here," Parlock said. "It's not bad to show children that you can go and express an alternative viewpoint and stand fast for that viewpoint no matter what people say."

West Virginia is viewed as a battleground state in this year's presidential election. Although voter registration is 2-to-1 Democrat, Bush won the state in 2000 by 6 percentage points.

Amy Shuler Goodwin, a spokeswoman for the John Kerry (news - web sites) campaign in West Virginia, said their goal is to "include everyone in our events. But when your main goal is to disrupt and be the center of focus of the event, that's not what anybody wants."

Parlock said he doesn't fault the Kerry campaign.

"Two of the Kerry people apologized even though it was not their fault," he said. "It was their constituency's fault."

The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades issued a statement Friday apologizing for the distress of the family. The photos showed a man wearing an IUPAT shirt and holding a piece of a sign.

"We extend our apologies to the Parlock family, especially Sophia, for the distress one of our overzealous members caused them," president James A. Williams said in the statement. A call seeking comment from the union after business hours was not immediately returned Friday night.

[EiZei 0]

Maybe they should have took the girl down and kick the shit out of her republican style?

But seriously, what the hell is this irrevelant debate doing in the iraq thread?

[theavonlady 2]

Maybe they should have took the girl down and kick the shit out of her republican style?

No wonder it says "Monster" on the back of his green shirt!

[denoir 0]

Iraq thread?

[Balschoiw 0]

Iraq dead.

Car bomb kills 23 in Kirkuk

Quote[/b] ]KIRKUK: At least 40 people were killed across Iraq on Saturday. A suicide car bomb attack outside the regional headquarters of the Iraqi National Guard in the northern city of Kirkuk killed 23 men, most of whom were waiting to join the force, doctors said.

In the latest attack, a suicide bomber smashed through the security barriers outside the Iraqi National Guard headquarters, in what was the second major strike in the fractured northern oil city in two weeks, police said. The vehicle passed through three barriers before it reached the outer gate of the building and exploded, sending shrapnel flying into a crowd of national guard recruits lined up outside.

The attack also wounded another 63, some of whom were in critical condition, the doctors at Kirkuk hospital said. The bomber detonated his car at the rear entrance of the National Guard headquarters in a residential area of the city. Body parts, shoes and debris littered the dirt road outside the headquarters. Fire fighters doused flames from a mangled car, and ambulances ferried the wounded to hospital.

Two US soldiers were killed in a car bomb attack in Baghdad, the US military said. Also an Iraqi was killed and three US soldiers wounded in a car bomb attack on a US convoy on Baghdad’s main airport road, medical and military sources said. "Three Task Force Baghdad Soldiers were wounded when a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device detonated at about 3:30 pm on the road leading to Baghdad International Airport from central Baghdad," a US military statement said.

Elsewhere, British troops killed three militiamen in clashes before coalition forces withdrew from the office of Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr in Basra, the military said. The insurgents were killed as soldiers beat back Mehdi Army elements who opened fire on British soldiers, who had commandeered Sadr’s office in an overnight raid, a military spokesman said.

Hospital officials had said eight civilians were wounded in overnight clashes in the area after British soldiers seized a weapons cache following an ambush of a patrol late on Friday. In the early afternoon, an AFP correspondent said British troops left the building in control of local security and political officials.

In further violence, five bodyguards for Mohammed Ahmed Zebari, a senior oil ministry official in Mosul, died in a hail of gun and rocket-propelled grenade fire in the northern city, said police. Zebari emerged unscathed from his car.

In Samarra, a woman and two children were killed in a mortar attack, while a child died when a bomb exploded near his home in the Shia Muslim city of Hilla, south of Baghdad, medical sources said.

Again in the Kirkuk area, gunmen shot dead a Shia Arab tribal leader. Sheikh Khadem al-Hani was killed and two of his bodguards wounded when gunmen ambushed them north of the city, said police.

In Ramadi, the body of the deputy governor of Al-Anbar province was found in a field, a police officer said. Bassem Mohammed had been kidnapped on September 8 by gunmen who stopped his car and wounded his son in the attack. The murder was the latest in a string of setbacks in Al-Anbar, where the city of Fallujah has become a no-go zone for US troops.

US forces clashed with gunmen in the same city after launching an offensive to destroy a suspected militant cell, the US military and witnesses said. There was no immediate word on casualties.

Nine people were wounded when a mortar shell struck a crowd of students and parents awaiting exam results in front of a school in Baquba, north of Baghdad, police and hospital sources said. "A mortar shell exploded near the secretary’s office, wounding several people," said local police chief General Walid Khaled Abdelsalam.

Situation is more than out of control. Coalition failed.

On a daily base. Thank you very much.

Blair again enters the eject seat as more and more details on the "best planned and performed military operation in this century" surface.

Blair advisers warned of Iraq chaos

Quote[/b] ]LONDON—Top British officials warned before the Iraq war that U.S. President George W. Bush's "grudge match" against Saddam Hussein could result in post-war chaos, secret British government documents reveal.

Prime Minister Tony Blair received the warnings in documents written by his top foreign policy advisers, including Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, a year before British troops took part in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Extracts from the documents, published by The Daily Telegraph newspaper yesterday, reveal that Blair's officials did not accept the Bush administration's main arguments for war.

They did not consider Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction to be an imminent threat, and insisted there was "no credible evidence" to link Iraq to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network.

"For Iraq, `regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge match between Bush and Saddam," wrote Peter Ricketts, the foreign office policy director, in March, 2002.

Bush was bent on launching the war, the documents said, because he wanted to complete the "unfinished business" of his father, who stopped short of ousting Saddam in the 1991 Gulf War.

Critics will see the documents as further evidence that Blair acted as Bush's "poodle" in going along with the war despite the reservations of his top foreign policy advisers.

The documents will also fuel the widespread perception in Britain of a prime minister who eventually dragged a reluctant country to war on the basis of faulty "intelligence" about Iraq's weapons.

A draft report circulating in Washington from the U.S.-appointed Iraq Survey Group concludes that no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction have been found after a comprehensive 15-month search.

The Telegraph did not say how it received the leaked documents. But some are personal letters to the prime minister and their circulation would have been strictly limited.

Their release indicates the level of opposition to Blair within his own Labour party, largely sparked by the Iraq war. Some Labour members are pushing to present a resolution at the party's annual conference next week demanding the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq.

The documents were leaked as violence in Iraq rose sharply during the past week, and concern has grown over the fate of one British and two American hostages kidnapped by insurgents Thursday.

A group linked to Al Qaeda threatened in a videotape yesterday to behead Briton Kenneth Bigley and Americans Jack Hensley and Eugene Armstrong within two days, the Associated Press reported.

The Tawhid and Jihad group, led by Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, claimed responsibility for the abduction and demanded the release of Iraqi women detained in two American prisons.

In the documents, top officials express concern that the Bush administration had given little thought to running a post-war Iraq.

After returning from talks in Washington in mid-March, 2002, Blair's foreign policy adviser warned that Bush "still has to find answers to the big questions," including, "what happens on the morning after?"

"I think there is a real risk that the administration underestimates the difficulties," wrote Sir David Manning, in a letter marked "Secret — strictly personal."

"They may agree that failure isn't an option, but this does not mean they will necessarily avoid it," he warned.

In a letter marked "secret and personal," Straw also warned Blair the U.S. was neglecting post-war planning.

"But none has answered how that regime change is to be secured, and how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be any better. Iraq has no history of democracy so no one has this habit," Straw wrote.

At a news conference, Blair insisted post-war plans were finely tuned before the invasion was launched. "The idea that we did not have a plan for afterwards is simply not correct," he said.

"We did and indeed we have unfolded that plan but there are people in Iraq, outsiders as well as former regime elements, who are determined to stop us. That's why it is all the more important that we carry on until we win it and we will."

The opposition Conservatives — which backed Blair over the war but later said their support was based on bogus intelligence information from his security services — accused the government of misleading the public about post-war plans.

"The assurances given to us by both the prime minister and Jack Straw that such a plan was in hand were clearly misleading," said their Conservatives' foreign affairs spokesman Michael Ancram.

Thank you Toni ! Thank you George ! You´re the most incompetent liar team on this planet right now.

While Iran is going to get friend with Iraq again. I´m curious how this relation will look like in longterm. I´m still not sure that Iran and Iraq will have the same names in a few years...

Tehran, Baghdad restore full ties

Quote[/b] ]TEHRAN: An Iraqi ambassador took up his post in the Iranian capital yesterday, restoring full ties 24 years after the two countries went to war, the state news agency IRNA reported.

As Iran and Iraq raised diplomatic ties to the level of ambassadors, Mohammad Majid Al Sheikh presented his credentials to Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi, it said.

Al Sheikh is a member of the Supreme Assembly for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a Shiite group that was based in Tehran during the rule of president Saddam Hussein, whose country waged a 1980-1988 war against Iran.

In his meeting with Kharazi, Sheikh underlined the “political, historical and cultural commonalities of the two countries and stressed the need for making use of them to put the two neighbours’ bitter past behind themâ€, according to IRNA.

It is unclear when Iran will name its ambassador to Baghdad, upgrading relations from the level of charge d’affaires.

Relations between the two neighbours have improved dramatically since the April 2003 fall of Saddam, but a full normalisation has been complicated by the US occupation of Iraq that is fiercely opposed by Tehran.

Iran, which has yet to sign a formal peace treaty with Iraq, gave only a cool recognition of the interim Iraqi government formed in June, saying it was at the command of Washington, whose ties with Tehran were severed in 1980. – AFP

Happy times in Iraq. All over.

[Akira 0]

I won't spare you but thank you for showing your true colors.

Even the Kerry campaigners and the IUPAT union (whose shirt the accoster was wearing apologized, even though they're not responsible - though Kerry's spokeswoman, as quoted below, is quite pathetic in giving half-excuses for such behavior.

And what's interesting is the "history" of attacks has always been the same "there's no free speech for you", coming from democratic constituents.

And thank you for showing your true colors in supporting and backing a man who uses his children as political pawns.

[theavonlady 2]

I won't spare you but thank you for showing your true colors.

Even the Kerry campaigners and the IUPAT union (whose shirt the accoster was wearing apologized, even though they're not responsible - though Kerry's spokeswoman, as quoted below, is quite pathetic in giving half-excuses for such behavior.

And what's interesting is the "history" of attacks has always been the same "there's no free speech for you", coming from democratic constituents.

And thank you for showing your true colors in supporting and backing a man who uses his children as political pawns.

A 3 year old holding a Bush sign is a political "pawn"?

Whatever.

[Acecombat 0]

How about both you avon and akira stop bickering over this stupid argument over whos more radical and violent.

Both sides have got frustrated and ignorant people in their ranks of supporters to some extent , so accusing one isnt gonna help and neither does someones elses behaviour reflect the candidates character.

[theavonlady 2]

How about both you avon and akira stop bickering over this stupid argument over whos more radical and violent.

Both sides have got frustrated and ignorant people in their ranks of supporters to some extent , so accusing one isnt gonna help and neither does someones elses behaviour reflect the candidates character.

See my last post on the US Pres. Election thread. Outta here!