NewsBling - Your Iraq News Source

Alan Nelson asked:


cept positions in the Mideast, such as jobs in Iraq or Afghanistan for various reasons. Some will take these jobs out of a sense of duty, or to do their part for the cause. Others for the adventure or even to fine tune jobs skills in a very dynamic environment. For others, it’s simply a quicker way to make a lot of money.

For most, salaries earned while working jobs in Iraq or Afghanistan are the most they’ve ever earned. Many pull in salaries in excess of USD$10,000.00 every two weeks, which quickly compensates for the doldrums of living in a war zone. The money builds rapidly, and without a plan many will quickly squander it. Of course that’s not always the case, and for some, their goal may be nothing more than to take care of short debt, help out family members or put it away in a savings account until they decide what to do with it. Others will just spend it.

I’ve seen many who spend hard earned money as fast as they make it. They get to comfortable with their new salaries, as if the job is never going away or they plan to spend a career in a war zone. They’ll return home on vacation, buy a new car for the spouse, add an addition to the house, etc., etc.. Before they know it, the money is gone. Now they end up staying another year to recoup the savings that they’ve just spent.

I’ve met people who’ve fallen into this trap and end up working in these locations for years to cover their own spending or that of a family member. When I was in Iraq, I worked with a guy who had a spouse in Thailand. He spent a year working in Iraq, quit his job and then spent a year unemployed living the good life in Thailand. Certainly the dollar goes much farther in Thailand although in his case he built a big beautiful house and really lived it up. After that year was over and the money was gone, he was back in Iraq.

Others however, travel to a war zone with distinct goals in mind. They know what they want to achieve and how long it will take to get there. They’ve communicated with their spouses and prepared the family for their absence. These are the people who rarely return.



Anthony

King For asked:


No matter what argument the USA government has put forward on why they had to do the Iraq war, it’s obvious that OIL is one of the reasons for the war. And because of this war in Iraq, US soldiers continue to die on a daily basis.

And no matter how much you hate and scuff at the US government for the war, they didn’t have much choice. The people of USA need the oil and the government has to get it for them at ANY cost. Even at the cost of its soldiers’ lives.

But do you know what is tragic? It’s the fact that such deaths from such wars as the Iraq war can be avoided!

They can be avoided if we can reduce our dependence on oil. And we can reduce our dependence on oil by using alternative energy to power our vehicles and other such fuel consuming machines such as generators.

As incredible as this sounds, it’s possible and even now a reality.

we can do without all that oil that we consume on a daily basis, not only in the USA but all over the world.

The oil we consume in powering our cars and other vehicles can be reduced drastically…

… by powering our vehicles with WATER!

Yes, you heard that right. We can now power our cars with water and by so doing reduce our dependence on oil.

The less we get dependent on oil, the less we would need to get involved in such wars as that in Iraq.

And the less we get involved in such wars, the less our soldiers will die!

So, yes, you too can get involved in helping to save the lives of US soldiers in Iraq by powering your car with water and helping to spread the word about it.



Katherine

Coddie Adwar asked:


Days before elections Joe Biden, the Vice-President-elect, told campaign donors: “Watch, we’re going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle [of Obama].” Did Joe Biden really have in mind al-Qaeda?

In Britain, security officials say that there is genuine concern that during the transition period al-Qaeda will attempt a “spectacular” attack. Other Security officials also are fearful of an attack. Barack Obama has been given advice by leaders of other nations.

Besides developing a certain proficiency in one-way-flights, al-Qaeda is known to have been experimenting with biological agents, particularly anthrax, which they acquire from dead animals. Now they are interested in creating a CBRN device (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear). The US has been preparing for this and has developed anti-CBRN units on constant patrol in main cities.

Why is al-Qaeda more threatened by Barack Obama than the Bush administration? Bush’s mentality and invasion of Iraq had damaged America’s image around the world and reinforced al-Qaeda’s narrative. Obama’s promise to reverse many of the policies of the Bush administration on issues such as detentions at Guantanamo, torture and the war in Iraq dramatically improved America’s image, especially in the Muslim world. Therefore, it will more difficult now for al-Qaeda to carry on their propaganda to the rest of the world that “America is still the evil crusader suppressing its own minorities”. Clearly the 2008 elections send the signal to the world that America is an open and tolerant society. Barack’s background makes him indeed a much tougher target to their propaganda attacks. These are good enough reasons to make al-Qaeda feel threatened.

Osama’s second in command (Ayman al-Zawahri) released a tape to Obama. The US officials said the message did not signal any increased threat against America. The message consisted of despicable insults against our new president along with the remark “the dogs of Afghanistan have found the flesh of your soldiers to be delicious, so send thousands after thousands to them”. Was the last remark a fearful warning or a provocation? Al-Qaeda always felt confident that they can handle a guerrilla war with us in the steep mountains of Afghanistan and defeat us as they did it the Soviets in the 1980s.

Charles Edmund Coyote writes in “W GOT HIS WAR” that before 9/11 bin Laden had sought battle with Americans, envisioning that a full sized ground invasion of Afghanistan, similar to that of the Soviets, would economically deplete the USA . “He [bin Laden] always wanted to draw the most powerful nation in the world into a guerrilla war in which his small but fanatical and experienced forces would gradually wear the great power down, bankrupting it by an unending conflict and the resultant destabilization of the Middle East and its oil resources on which America depended”. The chapter on bin Laden’s escape is FREE at “The Coyote Report”.

Bush’s attack on Iraq has cost $600 billion to date. This figure increases by millions of dollars every hour. Additionally there are future costs like long-term care for the wounded and disabled US soldiers, the replacement costs of the used up equipment, interest payments on the war debt, and the lost economic use of the resources and manpower squandered in war. Experts estimate that the already incurred out-of-pocket and future costs of Bush’s Iraq war to be $3 trillion, about the same cost as WW2. Robert Craig Roberts, the Father of Reaganomics, claims that these wars must end so that bankrupt Washington will be in a position to borrow from abroad the money it needs to bail out the US economy.

Let’s face it: we blew our opportunity to catch Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda’s leadership when the Bush Administration let them escape from Tora Bora, despite the CIA and the nearby US Marines asking for permission to surround and block their escape. The clumsy use of military forces to continue the Afghan war will likely turn it into a second Vietnam further draining the already weak American economy.

The low-cost, yet the most effective way to fight terrorism is to employ police and intelligence (CIA) with the intermittent use of military force when appropriate.

Coddie Adwar



Dennis

“Kh a a a a a n n” ! ! asked:


Can a supprter of the Iraq War get the nomination of his or her party?

And can they win the White House?

Or will this election be about the war and nothing more?

Jose

Mitra Naeimi asked:


” Bush ” Is the Worst ” Saddam “

According to “chron” (Nov. 19, 2006 ) at least 700 Iraqis die in 8 days ,

1,319 Iraqis already in November, 1,216 Iraqis in October…

But it is not new, we hear ,we watch ,we read every day ; ten Iraqis died, fifty Iraqis died ,a hundred Iraqis died … and until now, totally , a half million Iraqis have died. And even the real number is more than this ,because many deaths are not reported.

However, all of this, according to Bush’s logic, is because that bush isn’t like saddam:

I ‘m not saddam ! I ‘m bush! I sell you liberty and democracy ,and you must pay me your lives, because I like Middle East and you have to love my rules in this game too !

Manipulating the World ,Liberating Iraq

It was 48 hours before the beginning of the Iraq war that Bush said :

“[…](there is a) deep hatred of America and our friends . And it (Iraq ) has aided ,trained and harbored terrorists ,including operatives of Al Qaeda . the terrorists […] could kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country ,or any other . Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act ,this danger will be removed “.

Consider the narration : it is like a story ,an epic story. You are good .But others are your enemy ,and your enemy is evil. And because you are so sympathetic, you ‘d like to survive people ’s of enemy country .So you kill them to liberate them, to democratize them!

But Is it possible to kill people ,in order to liberate and democratize them?

How much did they succeed? Did they obliterate Al Qaeda ? Did they obliterate terrorists?what do the Iraqi people themselves request ? Do they like to become liberated?

Leave Our Home, Leave Our Ruin At Once

According to a recent poll ,by World Public Opinion (WPO), taken in September: 71% of all Iraqis now want the U.S. out of Iraq.

61% of all Iraqis support attacks on U.S. troops

Now ,most Iraqis are tired.They want their home,they want to decide themselves.

This war not only don’t solve their problem, but also aggravate the other problems.

War Brings War

” A Sunni Muslim bombers kill at least 33 Shiites … ” ,

“A suicide bomber in the predominantly Shiite city of Hillah south of Baghdad lured men to his KIA minivan with promises of a day’s work as laborers, then blew it up, killing at least 22 and wounding 44 …” .

This war escalated previous conflicts between internal groups.

Even if Iraqis become successful to exit the US and other troops , it takes too long to solve civic religious and ethnoracial conflicts.

Find the Guilty Sooner

“Fighters for Al-Qaida in Iraq and allied terror groups, who also have crossed from Syria, have killed hundreds of Americans as well as tens of thousands of Iraqis in bombings …”

“Iran is believed to be financing and arming Shiite militias in Iraq who have engaged insurgents and Sunni civilians in civil-war style conflict in Baghdad and surround cities and towns…”

Now that we are losing the war, we find the guilty! If Iraqis don’t become democratized and liberated ,it is the fault of Syria, Iran and Iraqis themselves!

Recently , Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), incoming chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee; argued that “We can’t save the Iraqis from themselves.” The problem is not the occupation; it’s the failure of Iraqis to make the US-imposed system work.There’s something wrong with Iraqis themselves.”

First Injure,Then Dress the Wounds

“Since May 2003, USAID has helped Iraqis injured by coalition forces piece their lives and livelihoods back together. Over 350,000 Iraqis have benefited directly from projects completed under the War Victims Assistance Fund. The fund covers health care, income generation, and rehabilitation of destroyed homes, schools, and clinics. It also provides sustainable income for families that lost their main breadwinner, as well as prosthetics and medical treatment for survivors. U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy said the program shows the Iraqi people “the face of a compassionate America.”

Empire is here! Building liberalism and democracy on the ruins of peoples ,ruins of children,ruins of houses…

It is exactly the sureness of bush’s speech that he expressed 48 hours before the beginning of the Iraq war, “[…] if we must begin a military campaign , it will be against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. We will deliver the food and medicine you need.”

We destroy your homes, we kill you, we wound you, we injure you, but we are not against you ! If you became wounded ,we ourselves dress it! Don’t be worried!

After “go big” and ” go long”,one day we will”go home”!

You should die more,you should need more food,more medicine,your internal conflicts should become deeper ,then we will go,but don’t believe our going ,because we are here yet ,we are in Middle East !



Alan

William Prescott asked:


After 9/11, many Americans decided to risk their lives working for companies who provided services for the U.S. war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. War zones can sometimes prove as dangerous to civilians as to military personnel.

Tragically, many of these workers became injured while overseas. Adding to their difficulties, many of these injured workers, who put themselves on the line working in support of the American mission,faced steep medial expenses and loss of income as they recovered.

Some also lost their lives, leaving their families destitute. Many others who are unable to work watch their family’s savings and assets dwindle, and their security disappear.

A law exists to ensure fair workers compensation for these people. It’s called the Defense Base Act. Unfortunately, too few people in need of its protection understand their own rights under the law. Even fewer know what to do to guarantee those rights.

Recuperation can be difficult enough without mounting bills, the threat of bankruptcy, and an inability to get proper medical care and rehabilitation. That’s to say nothing of the financial threat to the families involved.

The Defense Base Act requires that contractors working with the U.S. Military in war zones carry worker’s compensation insurance. This type of insurance is compulsory for organizations employing U.S. citizens or residents, and all employees or subcontractors hired on overseas government contracts.

However, these companies sometimes fail to inform workers of their rights. Worse, the insurance carriers often refuse claims, abandoning injured Americans who supported the American mission to face crushing expenses and debt on their own.

Fortunately, Federal law provides a genuine solution, though unfortunately few injured workers know how to apply it. The Defense Base Act is part of the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, and covers to employees of government contractors working overseas under contract to the United States Government.

Specifically, the Act covers workers employed by American contractors performing public works for the U.S. government in U.S. territories, or at U.S. military bases located outside the continental United States, in support of military aid programs within allied nations. Workers are protected under the Act, even if they are only employed to build embassies and other U.S. government buildings abroad. As with domestic workers compensation laws, the Act covers medical treatment and compensation for defense contractors employees injured in the course of employment.

For thousands of American workers injured abroad, the Defense Base Act has provided support them under devastating circumstances. Claims under the Act have been successfully filed by many individuals, including some contact workers injured in Korea, VietNam, both Iraq wars, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. All of these come under the general coverage of the Act.

The Defense Base Act mandates that any injured worker should be confident of having an attorney at his side to ensure a just outcome. Both injured workers and family member of someone who has died from job injuries overseas are covered. Compensation is also allowable for partial loss of earnings, and significant death benefits are commonly paid to spouses and family.

Fortunately, injured workers or their families are not responsible for legal fees for a DBA injury claim. The Defense Base Act requires that all attorney fees depend entirely on the amount of money the claimant receives. No outrageous legal fees are possible. The fees are awarded by the Department of Labor,and are never included in any other compensation to the claimant. The lawyer is never paid by the injured worker or their family out of the awarded compensation. Instead,compensation is awarded to the attorney by the court, and paid by the insurance company or the original employer.

American civilians working in support U.S. military and U.S. State Department objectives continue to be injured to this day.

For these injured civilians, the key to success in securing just compensation under the Defense Base Act is finding the right lawyer. This is a highly specialized area, and familiarity with standard Workman’s Compensation Law is simply inadequate. Claimants are advised to find a Defense Base Act attorney with years of experience and success with these claims.



Bradley

gangstamillion asked:


I personally believe the Iraq war is a farce and i also think us (UK) and the americans should have got out when Saddam Hussein was captured. I also believe Curry is better then steak by a long way. My favourite is chicken tikka.

Vincent

C. Read asked:


Daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly, we can see that Iran and Islam are again rattling the sabre of confrontation. It is clear that weakness begets war. As that old Anglo white warmonger capitalist-conservative Churchill stated, ‘Nations which go down fighting rise again, those who surrender tamely are finished.’ Tamely surrendering to fascist Islam, running out of Iraq and Afghanistan to placate chattering socialist morons at home and in the media, or the opportunistic cowardly and fainéant, will only embolden civilization’s enemies.

For those who are historically-challenged it might do you some good to understand that appeasement, weakness and cowardice are not intelligent options with dealing with a fascism. Perhaps the screaming socialists might want to read the history of the 1400 years of Arab-Islamic jihad against the world; the rise and fall of Nazism, Communism, or the destruction of various oriental empires to understand that fascist violence mandates military strength and preparedness. Kow-towing to Asian, Muslim or fascist sensitivity is remarkably unintelligent.

Iran wants a confrontation. Its regime of mad Mullahs needs external enemies to solidify domestic control. The big unknown in Iran is how much real support does the regime have? It is not too wise to expect that a majority or even a significant minority of Iranians desire a Western friendly regime or massive institutional change. Don’t expect that a large segment of the population wants to replace the Mullahs with something that is pro-Western or pro-reform. After all the British incorrectly surmised that most Germans wanted to be rid of Hitler. This was simply untrue.

In dealing with a state like Iran you have to implement 3 main ideas. 1. Employ international sanctions, including cutting off all financing and use diplomatic pressure to force the Iranians to stop their nuclear program and renounce violence against Israel. Make the sanctions real, and make them hurt. 2. Seal off the borders between Iran and Afghanistan and Iraq, and patrol all waters just outside the Iranian line of sovereignty. Make your military muscle obvious. 3. Prepare plans for a large scale military strike using land, sea and air forces, and a pincher movement from Afghanistan and Iraq into Teheran.

None of these is even being considered and the Iranians know it.

Europe and Russia flaunt sanctions just like they did during the 1990s in Iraq. For 10 years the UN led by the wonderful transparent democrats in Germany, France, Russia and China made billions of dollars in illegal fees and revenues in Iraq while 300.000 Iraqi’s were murdered; and the country became a nexus of money, terror, fascism and illegal weapons of all varieties and manufacture. The same debacle goes on today in Iran. The Europeans and Russians talk about sanctions but are hypocritically increasing their trade and investment. They could care less about the threat Iran poses to the region or the fact that Iran funds terror world wide.

Even more dangerous is the real possibility that the US congress might actually force a pullout from the Middle East in 2008 or 2009. The repercussions of cutting and running from the Middle East will be felt for two generations.

Running from Beirut in 1983; Iraq in 1991; and Somalia in 1994-5, only emboldened Islam. It did not deter it. Giving Iraq over to fascists and Iranian agents will herald a gigantic defeat for Western civilization. Iran sensing that the West is weak and perhaps on the brink of strategic defeat in Iraq and elsewhere, is now looking to embolden its own tactical advantage and leverage.

Perversely from the Western viewpoint we are on the cusp, for the first time in Iraq’s bloody and violent history, of attaining a semblance of a Constitutional democracy that is pro-Western. It is not sensible to withdraw from Iraq and lose forward ground bases against Iran. If Iran is truly the threat that most of the world thinks it is, what geopolitical or military logic is there in throwing away your forward base of operations in Iraq? You can’t invade and destroy the Iranian regime from Kuwait. Check a map. You need to quickly effect a pincer movement from east and west towards Teheran. This is yet another good reason why we need to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For the chattering moral relativists and socialist defeatists logic is irrelevant. The war is lost, all wars are bad, and can’t we all just get along ?

As Victor Hanson commented:

“Prewar forecasts warned a worried public that we might lose 3,000-5,000 soldiers just in removing Saddam. Three years later, we have removed him and sponsored a democracy to boot, and at far less than those feared numbers. But we react as if we had faced unexpected numbers of casualties.

Despite the fact that al Qaedists were in Kurdistan, Al Zarqawi was in Saddam’s Baghdad, terrorists like Abu Abas and Abu Nidal were sheltered by Iraqis, and recent archives disclose that hundreds of Iraqi terrorists were annually housed and schooled by the Baathists, we are nevertheless assured that there was no tie between Saddam and terrorists. Those who suggest there were lines of support are caricatured as liars and Bush propagandists.

Apparently, we are asked to believe that the al Qaedists whom Iraqis and Americans kill each day in Iraq largely joined up because we removed Saddam Hussein.”

For Iran the hyperbole is the same. Endless dialogue with mad fascists is the preferred program. If Iranians kidnap UK servicemen, well that is okay. If Iran threatens Israel with a nuclear Armageddon that is fine – those Jews are fascist Shylock’s anyways. Iran should have the bomb why not? We do.

From such simpleton logic flows the case against being resolute against Iranian Mullah inspired fascism. Like the pre-war forecasts in Iraq so the prewar forecasts for a strike on Iran would be the same - except even more exagerrated. By putting the casus belli for the Iraq war all on WMD the Bush administration ‘dumbed down’ the 23 good reasons to go to war, in the expectation of an easy, cheap and internationally sanctioned victory. By trying to take a short cut, the Bushies short-circuited any claims to the moral high ground and have destroyed their own credibility, so much so, that an attack on Iran is almost a political impossibility. This may change if the Iranians are still found killing American soldiers in Iraq in a few months time but even then, I doubt very much that the left wing US media or the political opportunists sniffing a victory in the 2008 US elections would take much notice or allow another ‘pre-emptive’ strike, even after a few hundred American boys have been murdered by the Iranian regime.

As with pulling out of Iraq in 1991, we just had to return and do a dirtier and hader job later. So it will be with Iran. We can ignore it, rationalise it, put our hands over our ears and hum madly, but at some point a war with Iranian fascism is inevitable. To win such a conflict we need to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan, that much is obvious. In the longer term breaking Iran; destroying OPEC and imposing ourselves on the Middle East is a necessity. Our economies, civilization, security and moral standards demand it.

I even have a good name for the next war, the one with a resurgent Persia, we can call it: ‘The neo-imperialist crusade to end Persian fascism and the pagan Arab empire.’ That sounds like a winner.



Earl

diblyhoo asked:


Sure the new money needed to pay for Reserves acting full time is more than normal - but the 200,000 army, marine, airforce and navy personnel assigned to Iraq and Afganistan - they get paid no matter where they are! They may get a boost for being in a war zone.

What is the true increase in costs?
Maybe the Media could do a little research once and a while rather than spouting out numbers that don’t make sense.

Bobby

James William Smith asked:


The Democratic presidential primary will be over soon. Eventually, New York Senator, Hillary Clinton, will have to concede the Democratic party nomination fight to Barrack Obama. The polls in Pennsylvania continue to show a very slight lead for the former First Lady. However, in North Carolina public opinion polls indicate a huge lead for Barack Obama. If the polls are correct then it will probably be after the North Carolina primary that the campaign of Hillary Clinton accepts its now inevitable end.

The moment Hillary Clinton withdraws from the 2008 Presidential campaign, the Iraq war will begin to dominate the general election debate between John McCain and Barack Obama. A preview of what will become the defining issue of the 2008 Presidential election campaign could be seen this week in the Senate during the questioning of General David Petraeus by both candidates. Each candidate’s questioning of General Petraeus highlighted the differences on the Iraq issue between the two men. McCain’s questions were concerned with military tactics for success while Obama was clearly looking for a strategy for a complete military withdrawal.

The truth is that the outcome of the 2008 Presidential election depends on the events of the next six months in Iraq. In fact, for the last several years, election results have tracked the public’s perceptions about the progress of the war. The Democratic success in the 2006 congressional elections correlated to a low point in the public’s opinion of the war. More recently, the resurgence of John McCain’s candidacy has followed an increased public optimism about the success of the troop surge and the decrease in U.S. fatalities in the country.

It has recently become evident that the situation in Iraq will not be resolved by the time that George W. Bush leaves office in January 2009. More than 140,000 United States troops will likely remain in the country when a new presidential administration takes office. As a result, it will be up to the next President to handle this increasingly costly war. It is clear that a McCain administration would continue the policy of the current Bush administration in Iraq. Under McCain, Iraq will not be given a timetable for U.S. withdrawal. However, Democratic candidate Barrack Obama favors a troop withdrawal timetable and what he calls a “diplomatic surge” to include Iran.

Obama favors a diplomatic surge with Iran because, according to General Petraeus, Iran is behind much of the current violence in Iraq. Last week, Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Iran has “fueled the recent violence in a particularly damaging way through its lethal support of “special groups”. These “special groups” are “funded, trained, armed, and directed by Iran’s Quds Force with help from Lebanese Hezbollah. It was these groups that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq’s seat of government (the Green Zone) … causing loss of innocent life and fear in the capital.”

Also consider General Petraeus response to Senator Joseph Lieberman’s question about the threat of Iran to American fighting men and women in Iraq. “Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?” Liberman asked. “It certainly is. … That is correct,” said General Petraeus.

It is clear that the United States backed government of Iraq is fighting a proxy war with “special groups’ backed by the government of Iran. An escalation of violence in Iraq during the next six months without any hope of immediate resolution would probably help the candidacy of Democrat Barack Obama.

However, the recent comments from General Petraeus may also be a prelude to a general escalation of a conflict between the United States and Iran, a conflict to be initiated before George W. Bush leaves office. The fact is that, in addition to contributing to the violence in Iraq, Iran continues to enrich uranium. The enrichment of uranium continues despite three United Nations Resolutions and Sanctions.

It is evident that the nations of the West (including Israel) will not accept a nuclear Iran and that the United Nations has not been effective in stopping the ongoing Iranian nuclear enrichment program. In addition, the United States cannot withdraw military forces from Iraq with the Iranian-sponsored violence in the country. As a result, the Iranian problem in Iraq could well act as a military cover for a United States bombing campaign designed to address not only the problem of the Iranian sponsored “special groups” but Iranian nuclear facilities as well.

It is a long way to the United States Presidential election in November. A lot can happen in the war in Iraq during the next seven months. However, as in the last several American elections, the status of the war in Iraq will play a major role in deciding the outcome. It probably would not help the candidacy of Republican John McCain if the recent violence in Iraq escalates or if the war expands into Iran by election day.



Maureen