NewsBling - Your Iraq News Source

Time4Tivo asked:


Can anyone really imagine what is going through the minds of these children who’s parent’s are directly affected by the Iraq war and having to be away from family?
How will this affect these children as they grow up?

Willie

binny asked:


I am having a debate tomorrow on the Iraq war and the progresses made. When it comes to the war, i am very clueless, i don’t usually pay attenetion to these things, considering that i am only 14.So please try not to use any big words.

Allan

Josh Greenberger asked:


(September 17, 2007) It’s probably safe to say that all Americans, regardless of whether they were for or against the Iraq war, would like to see our troops come home. The problem is, to pull out we need to leave a stable country behind. An immediate withdrawal would leave Iraq with a vulnerable military force, sectarian infighting and a power vacuum that would immediately be filled by terrorist factions.

Calling for an immediate withdrawal, as some are doing, ignores the many lessons learned from middle east politics and turmoil.

After the 2005 Lebanese elections, Hezbollah won 14 seats in the 128-member Lebanese Parliament, and now also has 2 ministers in the government. Hezbollah has since launched thousands of rockets into Israel. On July 12th, 2006, Hezbollah captured 2 Israeli soldiers, sparking a 34-day military conflict with Israel. By August 13, 2006, Hezbollah had fired close to 4,000 rockets into Israel.

In August of 2005, Israel pulled out of Gaza. That territory has been racked with violence ever since. As late as June 2007, British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett lamented, “Once again, extremists carrying guns have prevented progress against the wishes of the majority … “

With terrorists already in Iraq, why does anyone believe things would be different there? Will terrorists just get up and leave if we do? Hardly likely. In fact, Iraq would be a far bigger prize to terrorist than anything they’ve ever acquired before.

Lebanon has a population of around 4 million, covers around 10 thousand sq km, and has no oil. Iraq, on the other hand, has a population of almost 30 million, covers an area of over 400 thousand sq km., and possesses one of the world’s largest proven oil reserves. With such vast resources at its disposal, a terrorists organization could grow exponentially.

We either finish the job today or fight again tomorrow. The difference is, today, as organized and as powerful as terrorists have become, we’re still fighting rag-tag cells. Tomorrow we could be fighting a major power.

by Josh Greenberger

from shopndrop.com



Lynn

Bobby W Miller asked:


The Iraq war was one of the most disastrous foreign policy decisions of the last few decades, and citizens across America and the world have looked on with horror as politicians and power got out of hand.  Some of the primary arguments around the real motivations for war surround the rebuilding effort, and the benefits this would bring to US-based contractors and business owners.  However, there are a number of reasons why this argument, in particular, is flawed and the Iraq war has actively punished the US economy—in addition the punishment dealt to innocent Iraqis and young Americans in the armed forces.

The US invaded Iraq on the grounds of weapons of mass destruction, claiming the Saddam Hussein regime was an imminent threat to world security and were sponsoring and supporting terrorism.  Of course this turned out to be false, but at least there was the access to Iraqi oil reserves and the significant rebuilding contracts that would go to American contractors, correct?  Actually, this didn’t happen either, and the Iraq war fiasco has led to nothing but bloodshed, with no economic advantages arising from invasion.

After the needless destruction of Iraq was completed, the rebuilding effort was to provide employment to American workers and the US economy.  But that wasn’t to happen.  The projects were outsourced to cheap labour economies to save money, and thanks to NAFTA, any jobs that would’ve been available for American workers were diverted elsewhere.  Thus a further betrayal by the current government and another lie to fuel the flames of the Iraqi war effort.

While the cost in human lives can never compare, the US government have spent billions of dollars on the war machine for no reason.  Despite the financial gains they may have sought, the US economy is still struggling and the reconstruction contracts have gone to lower labour economies as a result of cost restrictions and international treaty arrangements.  For the US people, this represents yet another lie in the Iraq saga, and further undermines the credibility of the current Presidential regime.

Controversial war author and speaker Bob Miller believes the current regime has been a disaster, from the initial decision to go into Iraq through to the diversion of war contracts and jobs through to the way they conduct their internal affairs. 

“It is a fact that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are the purest examples of the ideologies and trustworthiness of this ungodly and un-American group of empire builders calling themselves Republicans. Young Americans, don’t be a Big Oil rent-a-cop, don’t die for a lie.”

Whether the Iraq war was the right or wrong decision, and regardless of whether the Bush regime has purposefully allowed rebuilding contracts to slide, Bob Miller’s criticisms remain unwavering.  What’s for sure is that regardless of the ideology behind the Iraq war effort, the number of human lives sacrificed needlessly, particularly of younger Americans and innocent Iraqi citizens, make the position in the Middle East a modern day diplomatic and human crisis.



Greg

Todd A. Smith asked:


During the 2004 presidential campaign, the Iraq War was the hot-button issue separating John Kerry supporters and George W. Bush supporters. The insurgency was raging, and people on the left and the right were adamant about their candidate’s position on the issue.

Fast forward to 2008, and the Iraq War has taken a back seat because of the success of the troop surge, which has quelled the sectarian violence. Nevertheless, the war is still a crucial element of this campaign because the next president will likely determine how long American troops will remain in the Middle East. Regal Magazine looks at Barack Obama and John McCain’s stance on the war and how it will affect the security of Americans abroad and at home.

“Here is the truth: fighting a war without end will not force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future,” Obama said. “And fighting in a war without end will not make the American people safer. So when I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on day one: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden-as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security, and it will ultimately make us safer.”

According to Obama’s official website, more than 1,000 American troops have died since the surge began, despite the increased security, and the Iraqi government has not stepped forward to assume responsibility of leading their country. The website goes on to say that more than 1.75 million soldiers have served in the Iraq War or in Afghanistan, and of those troops, more than 620,000 have completed multiple deployments. Furthermore, military equipment is wearing out at nine times the normal rate as a result of wear and tear in the harsh environment of Iraq.

Senator Obama believes the decision to invade Iraq prevented Americans from going after Osama bin Laden and others involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The Iraq War has lasted longer than World War I, World War II and the Civil War with more than 4,000 Americans killed and more than 60,000 wounded.

Obama’s campaign says the removal of American troops will be responsible and phased with the consultation of military commanders and the Iraqi government. His website states that military commanders believe combat brigades can be safely redeployed at a pace of one to two brigades per month, meaning all would be removed within 16 months of him taking office.

However, Senator McCain believes a speedy withdrawal of American troops would only lead to instability in the Middle East, making it less safe for Americans at home.

“I do not want to keep troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary to secure our interests there,” McCain said. “Our goal is an Iraq that can stand on its own as a democratic ally and a responsible force for peace in its neighborhood. Our goal is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops. And I believe we can achieve that goal, perhaps sooner than many imagine. But I do not believe that anyone should make promises as a candidate for President that they cannot keep if elected. To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility.”

McCain has been a leading advocate of the troop surge since day one. According to his official website, sectarian violence has been reduced by 90 percent from June 2007 to March 2008. Deaths of civilians and coalition forces have also been reduced by 70 percent.

McCain believes it is imperative that the Iraqi government be able to support themselves before the end of the Iraq War and he believes that is possible through an improved Iraqi economy. He believes that if there are more jobs for Iraqis, fewer citizens will be interested in joining insurgent groups. Until that occurs, he is against ending the War in Iraq.



Ruben

Michael Payne asked:


Expect this fall’s election to be flooded with political rhetoric and populist calls for a deliciously swift exit from Iraq. Digest the hypocrisy and move on. It’s the past. It’s done.

In an election that’s largely to the advantage of the Democrats, the American people will see through fragile liberal intentions and move on. The concern of the people now should not be why we entered Iraq, but why we must stay. Listen to me now: swallow your infectious desire to enlist in the zeitgeist and embrace the need to protect your nation from an evolving threat.

The Democratic approach to this threat is a rapid withdrawal of troops. They believe the growing number of fatalities and financial burden outweigh the need to end the hostility and political turmoil in the Middle East. While reconciliation for the tragic loss of life can never be achieved, those brave Americans will not die in vain. We will not compromise their efforts. We will finish the job.

Those who speak out against the Iraqi occupation lean on the unjust reasons for war as rationale for a withdrawal of troops. I repeat: It’s the past. It’s done. The drastic consequences of such actions would ensure the maturation of terrorism in Iraq. What Democrats view as a cessation to the loss of life and bleeding financial burden is a biased perspective from across the Atlantic.

In the case of a Democratic presidency, troops will be withdrawn within a short period of time. The morale of the world’s greatest military will plummet. What is to become of a military that retreats in the face of boorish Middle Eastern tactics? For one, al-Qaeda will undoubtedly claim victory in Iraq and sound their trumpets across the continent. While that may be a petty price to pay for the reassurances of a withdrawal, consider the breadth of that call. It will not go unanswered. Extremists across the globe will thirstily join the ranks of the organization that sank the US. al-Qaeda will thrive.

Feeding off the hype of a withdrawal, al-Qaeda decides to again attack the US. Suppose that attack rivals 9-11. What do we do? What CAN we do? We just shipped world’s reigning military superpower back across the Atlantic under the pretense of defeat. Not only would the mobilization of such an army be financially exhausting, but who would be willing to do it? Would a Democratic president embrace a hypocritical attack message or cower behind “peace negotiations”?

Now suppose we withdraw and there is no such attack. Does the president expect insurgency to decline? No, the Democratic president would most likely take a laissez-faire approach to the violence and let the region go to hell. Expect a dramatic increase in violence and a full scale civil war to erupt. While such a situation may not directly affect us, consider the oil-rich Persian Gulf. Violence would seize the vicinity and oil would cease to flow out of the area. Timid politicians abashed by the great “R” word would step out of the closet to announce the global depression that is to come.

But there is a way. Ironically, the answer is a gradual withdrawal of troops. The surge was a first step in sustaining minimal levels of violence. Now General Petraeus needs to gradually withdraw troops and with each withdrawal assess the situation. If, after the assessment, violence remains at a minimal level, withdrawals may continue. Once the minimum level of troops is reached to maintain levels of violence, begin deploying Iraqi forces to respond to insurgency.

While our presence is needed, many Iraqis are hostile to it. We must allow Iraq to maintain its sovereignty by forcing them to use their security forces against al-Qaeda. The problem is that we do not yet know how well an Iraqi force would respond to such threats. Should the violence reach a point beyond containment, many Iraqis will feel pressured to take sides – Sunni, Shia, etc. – and civil war will break out. We are there for support, but our presence is not indefinite.

Should a rapid withdrawal of troops occur, expect anarchy to downpour on Iraq. Nobody wants war. Sometimes it’s necessary.

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse . . .” - John Stuart Mill



Ashley

Mr. Smartypants™ asked:


Shawn Hannity, Ann Coulter, Mike Regan, Ollie North and all of the other fake conservatives going to have more “Freedom Festivals” to celebrate the 5th Anniversary of the Iraq war?

Tonya

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.

Elmer

ashleigh2501 asked:


I was looking on the World news this evening and heard President Bush yet again trying to gain support for the Iraq War. Now hes saying we should fight the war in Iraq like that of World War 2 or the Veitnam war. Hes saying that the war in Iraq is just important. If Im not mistaken, World War 2 was just that-a world war to stop world threats. Iraq is not a world threat. The terrorist are. Sounds like hes not only trying gain support, but hes trying to create a sort of legacy for himself. As if to say he is a President like President Roosevelt, whos leading America through a neccessary war. Like hes a hero or something and he should be remembered as such. ( And as he said he is a war president.) But Anybody can almost gurantee he wont make the history books as somebody special.

Franklin

Nancy Sheerin asked:


The proverbial icing on the cake, however, came with an invitation from DirectBuy of Boston South to visit their Rockland showroom to select the kitchen cabinetry, bathroom vanity and flooring for their new home—at no charge, courtesy of DirectBuy.

“I used to work construction with my father so I have a pretty good idea of how much these kind of things cost,” said Fountaine. “The generosity of DirectBuy of Boston South and all the other contractors and vendors involved in building of the house, not to mention Homes for Our Troops, has been completely overwhelming.”

Homes for Our Troops, a non-profit organization based in Taunton, Massachusetts, builds and remodels specially adapted homes for severely wounded veterans. Fountaine, a double amputee after being injured during his second tour of duty in Iraq, was approached by Homes for Our Troops this fall about building the veteran a home in Plymouth.

With the help of dozens of contractors and volunteers, construction of the home began over Veteran’s Day weekend. Once the frame of the house was in place and contractors began work on the electrical, plumbing and other necessaries, it was time to design the interior. That’s when DirectBuy of Boston South stepped in.

“We wanted to help Brian because I believe we owe our returning troops, particularly wounded soldiers, more than a debt of gratitude. DirectBuy of Boston South contributing the kitchen cabinetry, bathroom vanity and flooring doesn’t bring back soldiers we have lost or minimize anybody’s injuries, but it more appropriately says ‘thank you’ not just to Brian, but to all the Iraq War vets for their sacrifices,” said John Massaria, owner of DirectBuy of Boston South.

Construction on Sgt. Fountaine’s house is expected to conclude in December with a projected move-in date around the holidays. For Brian and Mary, who plan to be married on June 8, 2008, it’s a dream come true.

“How many 25- or 26-year olds can move into a brand new house without a mortgage payment and with a kitchen and a bathroom like something you’d see on ‘Extreme Makeover’? It’s just mind-boggling,” said Fountaine. “We can’t thank Homes for Our Troops, DirectBuy of Boston South and all the other vendors, and all the other vets and volunteers who helped build our home for their kindness and support,” said Fountaine.

About Homes for Our Troops

Founded on February 4, 2004, Homes for Our Troops (www.homesforourtroops.org) is a Massachusetts-based 501(c)(3) non-partisan, non-profit organization building specially adapted homes for disabled veterans of war. The organization is strongly committed to assisting disabled and seriously injured veterans and their immediate families by raising donations of money, building materials and enlisting the help of professional contractors to volunteer on the homes built for our American Heroes who have given up so much to defend America.

Since 2004, Homes for Our Troops has helped many wounded veterans by providing handicap-accessible homes at no cost to the veterans or their families. Currently, there are 35 home projects completed or underway across the country.

For more information, please visit the website at www.homesforourtroops.org or call (866) 7TROOPS (787-6677).

About DirectBuy

Since 1971, DirectBuy has helped hundreds of thousands of families enjoy a better quality of life, allowing them to buy directly from over 700 manufacturers and their authorized suppliers. Buying direct allows members to make their hard-earned money go much further, while having the selection and choice not available at any retail store. DirectBuy of Boston South has been serving the South Shore since 1986 and prides itself in providing excellent member service. Access to confidential prices, local suppliers and unparalleled selection helps make members’ dream projects a reality. It’s a comfortable, country-club setting, where you finally have the financial control of buying direct. DirectBuy of Boston South is one of the largest DirectBuy showrooms in New England, and part of 145 franchise locations throughout North America.

Consumers interested in becoming members may obtain a Visitor’s Pass to attend an Open House by contacting DirectBuy at 1-800-DIRECTBUY or directbuy@usa.com. To learn more about the superior value and benefits of a DirectBuy membership, visit www.DirectBuy.com or www.DirectBuyCares.com.



Virginia