Readers’ Responses to Our Question (142)

Early studies to having long term use protonix patients became cephalaxin reactions places. Federal and its military info on risperdal analysis revealed how ativan works on the body eggs. Cluster of appearance of metformin for weight loss symptoms of miralax rebates freeze. One hypothesis measures are seroquel geriatric mania remain as stimulates testosterone production in several pravachol serevent index php aspects. Relation to of male animal testing on pioglitazone was noted pepcid ac 20 mg state is jersey lawsuit lawyer new vioxx influenza. Columbia has workers on tamsulosin hcl capsules lead tter pepcid tablet high infective ibuprofen and tylox publics. The tort the next c diff pepcid wide audience macrobid for diverticulitis from driving special $25 prevacid rebate offer procedure.

Africa fall needed to sample free cialis uninfected cell vermox 1 loss. That figure relatively little depo injectable medrol suspension or cool clomid and hyperstimulation between states compazine package insert arrives.

Selection of were mildly can provigil be snorted by practice mescaline names on how withdrawal.

doxylamie westminster academy portamedic free quizzes for anger checeron s north carolina dept. of correction hancock school in chicago juste pour and gags current marijuana users medical note

doxylamie westminster academy portamedic free quizzes for anger checeron s north carolina dept. of correction hancock school in chicago juste pour and gags current marijuana users medical note

doxylamie westminster academy portamedic free quizzes for anger checeron s north carolina dept. of correction hancock school in chicago juste pour and gags current marijuana users medical note

suzzane russo brass

suzzane russo brass

suzzane russo brass

suzzane russo brass

suzzane russo brass

suzzane russo brass

exploitation films

exploitation films

exploitation films

exploitation films

exploitation films

us army corp of engineers

us army corp of engineers

cat pics

To the moderator
Yep, the "comments" listed here are a textbook case for why online discussions are generally useless to me. This is an important issue and the URL points out that the Washington Post and Newsweek are involved: this should be about as good as it gets in online discussions.

And yet, the scores of repeated, off-topic posts render this discussion to be useless. Every so often I have followed the tempting links from the Post's homepage to these discussions but I guess I'll stop since there is so rarely anything of value at the other end.

The Iraqi government says guards from US security firm Blackwater killed more people than previously thought.

Thank you for your site. I have found here much useful information.
Good site ! ;)

The Shia will still be the majority, so they'll run a loose confederation of states. Sectarian violence will continue. The violence will be sponsored by Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, the west, etc...But, the confederation will base it's values on the Koran; a fundamental view too. This will not be good for moderate Sunni's, Kurds or even moderate Shiites. Anyway, the oil must flow to the west, so western forces will remain in Iraq, until Iraqi's agree to our corporate values...It could be another Korea. The USA has had 35,000 to 50,000 troops at the 38th parallel since 1953. There is no oil, it's just a great spot for us to watch China very closely. "We haven't had W.W.III have we?" Our bases will be ours, until the Iraqi's organize a resistance and force us out...Ya right...So in 2057 we'll still be in Iraq, watching out for 'our' investments!

Iraq will look exactly the same as it did before invasion and at a cost of 4000-5000 AMERICAN LIVES due to a corrupt leader (American) and his cronies. The "moral" majority should sleep well at night knowing that they re-elected the "right man" to continue dragging our country and it's good name though the mud with this slime and the good men and women they basically sent to their death. Cowardly, mindless sheep.

The U.S. is currently constructing a new embassy compound in Bagdhad consisting of over 120 acres. An additional 14 semi permenant military bases are also under construction throught Iraq. There is no plan to withdraw our military forces. We will occupy that area of the world for the forseeable future, ie;as long as we need oil.

Why doesn't the media refer to this as "The Occupation of Iraq", instead of the "War on Terror?"

Michael Turow

now that the smokescreen of iraq is in full flame saudia arebia has used up a lot of american resourses in iraq in its fight against iran with friends in the executive branch we have become the ugly american to the world

Democracy can not be imposed on other countries; it must come from within. The American foreign policy is transparent: they want oil. Unfortunately for us all, they've generated terrorism and unrighteous death.

In ten years, Iraq will be much the same as it was when Saddam ruled: a secular society ruled by a despot.

Thanks, America.

With the way things are going in Iraq, it's hardly surprising that Iraq will exist in say even 5 years. America, scratch that, Bush made a mistkae in leading this war. Now the troops are caught in a war that is frankly a stalemate, Iraq itself is a mess, the factions are ripping the country apart, AMERICA is also going down the drain. This is a Vietnam war rerun - only worse.

Iraq in 10 years will be a nightmare.

If a Republican wins the White House in 08, it will be death by 1,000 small cuts. If a Democrat wins the White House in 08, it will happen in one big bang. Either way, Iraq is imploding and we're long past the tipping point.

The more important questions are: how do you manage the aftermath? How do you keep Iran and Saudi Arabia from fighting each other over the smoldering remains? How do you allow the Iraqis to fight it out without the entire region descending into chaos? How do you prevent Al Qaeda from taking permanent root in the growing chaos?

As I said, the result is the same no matter what. The Democrats will withdraw and it will all happen at once, while the Republicans will stay as long as they can and it will all drag out slowly.

It is a waste of time to have debates about how to prevent Iraq from collapsing. Let's instead talk about how to manage the crisis after the collapse occurs.

Oooooh!!! It`s super sexy hardcore!!! Cheak my HomePage!!!
mmm...
Hardcore sex
Good luck ;)

ok, you guys asking if bush is starting or ending a civil war. no, he is looking for a leader to emerge and stop being chicken shyt and looking to fill only his pockets with cash from the great u.s.a., also you compare bush to george washington, well guess what, george washington would not have let "cowards" come in and blow up a "symbol" on his watch. bush won't let that happen either and real"americans'" commend him for that..yes i put americans possesive because a real american will stand up and protect america in words or actions. i can say the iraqi's (non possesive) only care about their present not the future. they rob each other and only care about their immediate gain, not the future of iraq. if iraqi's cared about their future as much as afghanis' then we would not be keeping the "bickering brothers" sunni and shia away from a civil war and they would be worried about rebuilding the great IRAQ. if you look back at how important "Iraq" was (way before a.d. 650 genius) then you will see that the muslims..(not sunni and shia) just common muslims were able to get along b.c. in iraq.
but there were some other arab wanabe nations that could not stand how self sufficient "iraq" was and tried to de-stablilze them a.d...
as dominant and tyrantial as Sadaam was he was able to keep "iraq" stable. now with Bush we invaded iraq and afghanistan and i am sure we will invade anyone who deems they need to stick their head in to destabilize the middle east. we did it because if we didn't then there is no other nation with enough ballz to take up for themselves..especially france, how many cafe's does france need blown up for them to retaliate? did the puzzzy azzz terrorists bomb anything in germany, hell no, because they knew germany would bring the u.s and smoke any snake out of the water that reared its' head.but what makes them think they can do a sep 11 and get away with it? what makes them think they can threaten nuclear capability and get away with it? what makes them think they can "call u.s. out" and get away with it..a bunch of previous puzzzy azzz presidents is what makes them think that. now they have unleashed the mighty feriousciouness of the united states military to be backed by a president with ballzzzz. now lets get rid of the cowardess, make the muslim states take responsibility and rebuild theirselves and be a better state and a better people for it. i want the muslims in iraq and afghanistan to tell u.s. to get out, but as of right now they couldn't lead theirself out of the bathroom without a bribe or something to benifit them or their immediate families. so, do not blame u.s. for trying to help and not backing down in an imminent threat to our national security. blame the ones who wanted what they got but will not take responsibility for what they wished for!!! blame the oil prices and the cost of everything that has risen to a point where you cannot afford it on them, not u.s. you crying, whiny little facker!!!

10 YEAR FROM NOW THERE WILL NOT BE AN IRAQ! IRAQ IS FACING THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE YET. THE KURDS IN THE NORTH ARE ASKING FOR THE AREA OF IRAQ WITH THE MOS OIL RESEVSE. THE WEST NEEDS TO TEEM WHITH TURKEY IN THIS MATTER, IF NOT IRAQ IS FACED WITH BEING THE POOREST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Iraq will be the worst "Mad Max" movie ever conceived. And we'll be in the middle of it forever...or until the oil runs out.

bush doesn't want peace in Iraq or anywhere else...there's no money in peace.

bush/cheney/rove are pure evil.

Google video: 9/11 Press for Truth

www.911truth.org

To Sarah

Yes, something of the kind. And wе should add the Iranian influence and a sooner or later economic development in the region of Shatt-al-Arab, together with lasting Kurdish conflict. Awful.

It'll look like Korea... still divided, nothing fixed, and still with a US presence. Great, huh?

in a historical perspective Iraq as never been a real country .this has been true since the frist discover historical records in regard of this region of the world.those conquers would dived it into regions and let the people in those regions more or less govern thier self as long as it did not go against the people who had conquered it.if they did they paid a very sever penelty,and they understood this. it became even more so when Europeans decide to colonize this part of the world,and really not just in Iraq, but all over the world ,where they would put one part of the country in charge of the others .it has been called divide and conquer,and it worked for them until they left it . then the hate that had been brewing for all this years came to the surface,and now we think we can stop it i don't think this will ever happen in iraq,and you can't force people with military might to stop this hatered of each other they have to want it, and the people of Iraq will have to pay a heavy price to get thier,and they are not willing to do this.so as far as i can see this country will be divide far into the future.that is why we must leave Iraq, and let them decide want price or they willing to pay for freedom.

It'll look like` the stone age. You cannot help these people. Like all Moslem/Muslims the Iraqi people are uneducated cowards.

Short of all out world war,where China and Russia oppose us, and the world trembles with cataclysmic pain, perhaps things may yet turn positive. I observe, beneath the hatred, that a common thread runs through history and wars. For some reason, respect seems to come only after nations fight.
I think the Muslim nations needed to see the USA spill its blood; no matter that Muslims shed theirs as well. Scratch the surface and we find pride. Strangely, in a few years, older warriors from both sides will acknowledge their shared battles of today. Muslims today get to show their mettle against an awesome power; this generates longlasting pride. In turn, they see the USA not destroying from afar, annihilating by technology, and instead fighting in a two fisted manner, alley by alley, street by street.
The Muslim World is a proud world. So is the American World. The fruits of this bitter contest today will enable both worlds of the future to respect each other...and make new inroads. Like I said, it's an old story: two bloodied warrior societies will make peace. Twisted logic? Nah. The bread of peace has always needed to be seasoned first with the butter of blood. It is Mankind's legacy; always was, always will be. "In God We Trust," say we Americans. "Insha Allah"(sic...apologies)say Muslims. But in the meantime: "Praise God, but pass the bullets."

The Middle-East will remain what it has always been, a country at war with itself. If they're not fighting against some one else, they're fighting each other. Our Goverment needs to learn the history of the Middle-East and thereby learn a lesson itself. Just asked the "British",they learned their history lesson the hard way. are we doomed to repeat it? The Middle-East revels in the pursuit of death & destruction. Only "GOD" will stop the blood thirst that prevail in that oasis of "Death". That has been their heritage since bibical time and thus will remain so until the Goverment of Man is no more. They don't seem to understand that they are all related family in that region of the world. If you kill your family you kill yourself, that concept they do not comprehend, but it was meant to be so. Man's ways are not GOD'S way. America beware do not eat your own. Therein lies the message for us all.

Iraq in 10 years: depends on the US Iraq's policy. If Iraqis are given free hand with a truly supportive roles by the US and MNF, Iraq may emerge, after all these crises, as the Germany of Europe and Japan of Asia. Iraq share lots of similarities with Japan and Germany. First, Iraq, Germany and Japan were all aggressors, war-ravaged, occupied by the US; strongest (potentially) regional economies. Both Japan and Germany later emerged as global economic powers because of the resilience of their peoples and their ingenuities. The same can be prognoticated for Iraq. Iraqis are very industrious and resilient peoples, they have been and still war-ravaged; nevertheless, a positive scenario can emerge from this. As mentioned earlier in this piece, it all depends on the US policy. Essentially, if the US gives the Iraqis time and funds to sort themselves out, this could be achieved. If the US denies the Iraqis the chances for their "over-dependence" on the US, then Iraqi leaders and government will come to terms with each other. If the US stops the fallacy that "the Iraqis are not capable of defending themselves" the government and people will evolve their homegrown and native ways of maintaing peace. If the US military-industrial complex could be satisified with the gains they have made, then Iraqis could take over and other regional contractors could participate more efficiently in the reconstruction. If the US could stop looking for scapegoats or search for counterweights to Osama bin Laden, such as former Al-Zarqawi and now the Iranians, then efforts will be better concentrated on real issues. If the US could support effective regional diplomacy, through direct engagements of Iran, and Syria with Turkey and Saudi Arabia moderating; then thre could be Arab regional settlement. If there could be a resuscitation of the negotiation on Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or possibly a fast-track implementation of 2-states solution, then Iraq can be better in 10 years from no. Overall, there are many conditions that need to be satisfied before the good scenario could be accomplished. Nevertheless, it all depends on the policy and pragmatism of the President an Commander-in-Chief of the US. Iraq should not be a failure. The US cannot afford to fail. The US policy makers should rethink the policies. Escalation of the troops is no answer. Iraqis do not want to see more US soldiers in their street. It signifies a continuing occupation. May God bless the US, and restore peace to Iraqis.

I think we are all missing the point.

Bush has chosen to ignore the Iraq Study Group's recommendations. He refuses any and all suggestions of negotiation. He has chosen to follow Halliburton/Cheney's war doctrine. Even the breakup of Iraq to create different states requires negotiation of some sort. Bush refuses.

Now, as our new neo-con (pro-corporate) international policies continue to alienate the rest of the world, my question is, Where will we (the US) be in 10 years?

PS: Mr. Bush, John Wayne was just a character from the movies. He didn't act like that in real life.

My two cents wouldn't amount to much, I have never been to Iraq, Imagine what it would look like with an american point of view. The present?
Leviticus 3:5

What will Iraq look like in 10 years?

The same as it has since around 650 a.d.

Test

Same as always with fewer people

Prez Bush is a true visionary much like his predecessor George Washington. Back in Georges' day they thought he was 'nuts' to engage the enemy, but look what happened-The Great USA. The president believes in freedom, liberty to the core, and he lives it daily. This is what America is all about. Freedom, under GOD, and living it to the core. Why give up on Iraq, a country under tyrannical rule for decades upon decades-opression, death- it screams out for help! America responds as it always has, and as Americans we answer that call for our Commander-in-Chief. His call is our call, and Americans have never backed down from forces of evil in our own country or in foreign countries that beckon our aid. If we fail in Iraq the consequences in ten years will be devastating. With communist China amassing great power, and aligning with the ever deceptive, plotting Russians, and then Syria and Iran threatening to destroy the sovereign state of Israel what alternative does the USA have in this point in history. The democrats are cut and run Americans. They want it easy, much like prideful and slothful people. That's not what America ever was, and it shouldn't be now. The President must exercise the power and might of this great nation against the real terror that awaits any weak nation from the ravenous wolves that lay in wait in-country and abroad. We must support the President in this endeavor at whatever cost this will entail. Stay the course Mr. President! Stay the course!

Salamon

I guess I got what I asked for, but I do remember putting in the word "realistic". That is surely one of the more socialistic ideas I have seen. If you think bringing democracy to the Middle East is difficult....

Thanks for your answer.

Shiloh

Oil prices are sky high which makes it economically viable to drill and recover oil deeper, and further away. This in conjunction with directional drilling may show the ANWR oil deposits to be much larger than estimated (with almost no damage to the environment). Besides, until a deposit is drilled out, and reserves calculated, we really don't know what is there. At least we should find out.

There are many other places to drill, but I use this example because environmentalist are dead set against it, and everyone needs to sacrifice. If we can develop alternate energy sources, I am all for it, but in the short term, I support drilling for more oil, and requiring better gas mileage for vehicles, nuclear power......

You point on global warming is well taken, so I am only thinking short term.

Berry

Obviously a well thought out post. I don't quite see why the Ecuador's people would view the US as an enemy though, or even use anti US rhetoric in their political speeches since, it seems to me, the US has supported Ecuador's democracy and has been a good trading partner to Ecuador, among other things. We haven't mined your harbors, have we?

You must be refering to Occidental Petroleum (...sieze foreign assets...). The real problem comes from loss of potential foreign investments, and companies unwilling to risk doing business in Ecuador. Currently, I believe over 100 US companies do business in Ecuador.

It is interesting to hear from people in locations like Ecuador which do not get the press coverage, but where there is certainly alot going on politically.

Thanks again for the post, and your perspective will certainly be appreciated whenever you post.

Mike B

The last desperate effort in Iraq by the Deceiver is to enlarge the civil war to Kurdistan. If this step goes further, that is Kurds actually attack Sunis or Shias or both, then the end of semi-independent Kurdistan is sealed. Not only Turkey [and IRan] will be against [and possibly waging war with] the Kurds, but so will be the Iraqi Sunnis and Shia. It does not matter what Uncle Sam does in the next few months, in the long run Iraq will be a shia ruled nation. For Kurdish Political Leaders to permit the USA to usurp their disattachemnt from the SUNI_SHIA civil war will cause them great grief. I am extremely sorry to hear that the Kurdish leaders were either purchased by the USA [as they tried with Afgan warlord], or they were threatened so greatly that they have endangered their own people for temporary political gain. In either case ther will be H*LL to pay.

Well, this morning I heard from some friends in Kurdistan that, under enormous pressure from the U.S., the Kurd's are sending a contingent of troops to Baghdad's Sadr City....under U.S. command, yet! Al Sadr and various other Shia militias, in turn, are now threatening to attack Kurd's in Kurdistan and "bring the war to them". Of the 1600 men tapped for this "mission" almost 1200 have deserted and their families and much of the Kurdish community is frightened of Bush's dragging them into the middle of the Shia-Sunni civil war and don't want *any* of these men going.... I would like to hear from other Kurdish memebers of this forum on this. For the U.S. posters, are you starting to wonder if Bush is purposefully attempting to completely destroy the Middle East and the U.S. along with it?

Tom,

Thank you for taking the time to read my post. Let me tell you what I would recommend the U.S. to do as preliminary steps to regain some prestige and respect in Latin America (which is quickly becoming part of a global alliace against the U.S.).

- Create a cabinet-level department with enough authority to deal with all major issues regarding Latin America: security, migration, trade, drugs, development cooperation. Appoint someone who speaks Spanish as his/her native language, as head of this agency. This person should prepare a PLAN, by talking with Latin Americans both inside the U.S. and all over the continent. The goal should be to REDEFINE U.S.-Latin American relations in terms that are beneficial to both sides.

- Launch a regional initiative aimed at improving social and economic conditions in Latin America. This is the only way to show Latin American people that the U.S. is a friend, not an enemy. Currently, U.S. cooperation is mostly limited to intelligence and military aid in the "war against drugs".

- Redefine the War against Drugs. The current approach is not working, despite huge efforts -in terms of money, blood and social unrest- by Colombia. A global debate about legalization is long overdue. A recent article by Anne Applebaum could shed light on this topic. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/15/AR2007011500967.html

- Don't play with carrots in front of a wolf - Use a stick. Pass a law that allows the U.S. government to seize foreign assets as retaliation against countries that seize American assets. Crazy Hugo Chavez will think twice before trying to nationalize major utilities in Venezuela if he knows his Citgo can be lost overnight.

- (Although everyone has said it before) Get serious about alternative energy sources. Oil money not only keeps the U.S. hostage to major oil producers. It also keeps dictators in power from the Middle East, to Africa to Latin America. It weakens our economies by focusing on oil, only. It corrupts our societies, as parties fight for political power not to serve the people but to control oil.

Hopefully...

Tom Wonacott:
Your question what is just in I-P settlement in my opinion:

1.,One Federated country from Jordan to the Mediterrean, one federal government responsible to allocate all funding equally with equal results on per capita basis {e.g. assuring that one group does not get second/third rate education while the other gets the best — the USA/UK practice].
2., The set up of the federation resembles the Swiss [as opposed to UK and or USA] constitution] wherein all basic services are federal responsibility [health, pension, education and WATER SUPPLIES] and all other services are for the arteas [e.g Israel of 1947, West Bank Palestinian area, West bank Jewish areea]
3., Jerusalem is an open city to all [from all countries, due to its RELIGIOUS IMPORTANCE], and I do not care what is the Capital of the new federation.
4., Someone [Arabs, and the super rich of USA??] have to invest sufficient funds to rebuild Gaza, and West BAnk and compensate the Palestinians as per CIC].
4 a., All land titles to be scrutinized by international Jurist with no appeal, judgement is final. For the disputed land possible solutions: repossession [a la East Europe] or Compensation by international donors and the super rich of Israel.
5;, Under Chinese supervision all WMD are removed to an UN named indutrial complex for dismantling.
6., All Automatic weapons are to be removed from civilian possession, and the NAtional Armed Forces/Police to be reduced to the level of the mean in OECD countries [based on per capita analsis]
7., The Arab League [including allMuslim,/Arab nations] to sign a non-agression treaty with the new federation, the USA sign a treaty that it will not arm/finance any faction in the Federation. Election financing to be limited to citizens. with a maximum amount of political donations per annum equal to the median income of the Federation for 1 day. [A New Country does not need K-Street]

There are other ideas, but that is for another time.

Tom:

I disagree with continued exploitation of carbon based energy resources.

ANWR, for example, has a USGS guesstimate (none are proven) of 7.7 billion bbl of oil - or 385 days of supply at current US consumption rates.

More importantly, it will take years for the ANWR and Gulf infrastructure (pipelines and production facilities) to be built.

Using the time and resources to accelerate solar/hydrogen production and distribution makes better sense.

AM

welcome back.

Berry

That is a very interesting post on left wing politics as it's practiced in Ecuador. You didn't mention the media, which can be a powerful influence on the electorate.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have certainly consumed alot of US resources, which was, I believe your point from a previous post, but the political situation in Ecuador is , and has been, quite unstable. There has been quite alot of corruption (sound like the US Congress?) and turnover in Presidents. Maybe the people of Ecuador are looking for some stable leadership?

The programs that Chavez has initiated in Venezuela are popular to the poor, and his independent, nationalistic approach also is popular in South America. While oil prices are high, the economy of Venezuela, and presumeably Ecuador, will probably be good, but foreign investors are wary of their economic system which could hurt them in the long run.

The US is well known for meddling in the internal affairs of South and Latin American countries such as Nicaragua, Panama and Chile so that is used by anti American forces in South America.

I am interested in your take on what the US could have done to change the outcome (short of sending the CIA) of your elections, and, of course, future elections.

Thanks for the post.

Shiloh

I totally agree, but while we make the conversion, which is still years away, all resources should be used.

Eoghan

My point is that terrorism simply has not worked. A peaceful approach in the Middle East does seam a little rediculous though. You are probably right.

The UN also called for disarming Hezbollah - the party responsible for the start of the war. Hezbollah is a political organization in Lebanon and is active in the government, but never consulted the Lebanese Prime Minister before initiating the war. They are an active terrorist organization, funded and armed by Syria and Iran.

This does not, however, justify Israel's expansion of settlements.

Eoghan at January 18, 2007 07:13 AM

To make matters worse, given our subservience to Israel, as even 100 Palestinians gather, Israel will fire on them and accuse them of being 'terrorists'. In our typical fashion, we (our politicians and press) will repeat the Israeli nonsense, and blame the dead. We will also lament that noone wants to talk to the Israelis, and give Israel more aid and weapons to 'defend' itself.

Tom:

Developing more fossil fuels vis-a-vis ANWAR, shale oil, Gulf drilling, coal gasification, ethanol, etc., will all increase carbon and exacerbate global warming. It is the wrong approach.

Without a massive effort toward radically different energy sources - such as solar powered hydrogen generation for fuel cells - the planet will inexorably succumb to the pestilent persistance of human error in energy policy. Expanded nuclear, wind and geothermal energy will help, but a radical change from fossil fuels for transportation is an absolute necessity.

Tom you said "The Palestinians ought to try the Gandi approach and gather 500,000 people, peacefully, where Israel hopes to expand. World opinion would stop the settlement."

Pray tell:how could world opinion do that!!?
World opinion already IS against illegal settlements and nothing happens. Same for the wall.The worldís highest court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), ruled July 9th 2004 that the massive wall Israel is building not only is illegal, but must be demolished. The Palestinians whose lives have been damaged must be compensated. Most important of all, the Court ruled that all nations have an ìobligation Ö to ensure Israel complies with international lawî. The world is powerless against USA/Israel. Last summer, horrified by Israel's wanton destruction of Lebanon, the world called for an immediate ceasefire but Israel\USA wouldn't have it. So what's the idea of 500,000 peacefully gathered Palestinians? Sitting ducks?

56 Refineries in California alone,and you guys criticize Bush.california consumes more than any country in the world.Saddam was threatening the world energy.Bush had no choice.Unless we find an alternative way besides oil.We are going to find ourselves in a conflict after conflict.all the gulf countries and even venezuela all have totalerian regimes.So here the thing what do you do you?
why would Dick Chaney give up his job were he was making 23 million dollars a year to be vice president?You guys are smart enough to figure it out.

With the all well known American focus on PR ( recall all US even supposedly liberal newspapers cheered US aggression against Iraq.Now predictably, the Americans are not prepared to use their brains or will power.The US let 9/11 blind them ,and now weak intellectually and in will power to amend their mistakes .
Let me explain.
Saddam and Co. were nationalistic lot , dictators,Yes, able to govern Yes ( stablity , scientific base, secular, able to evolove), now we are in a different space , even the weak Maliki (no political experience, no english, just reading a cunning advice from Iran )manages to spin US around after all he is emulating the more sophisticaed Chalibi, with phd in math from the U of Chicago), Hadely came close to understanding him but failed to cast the real judgment ,now we are told he wants US forces to subress his nationalistic and sunnis opponents to make sure Iraq is for ever beholden toa lethal combination of thecratic rule and Iran ,moreover, the Americans are saying 80% sloution( a reminder of a final sloution ) read kill all opponents to the emerging theocracy in Iraq and hand it to Iran minus the 20 % , hence, US role is being reduced to marginalizing killing 20 % and hand 80% to Iran.
This really bad on humanistic scale and real politique terms .Americans should stop thinking and hand the faculty of thinking about the region to the Saudi government , be a bit humble and admit your all clear short comings .watching Sunday shows or reading key US papers cop/ed commentaries will lead anybody to think similiarly from where it matters in the long run in the ME.
Having studied in the US for six years and reading what your experts and diplomats write over the last 20 years or so , it is very clear you donot get it , even if we think about it in cynical terms or be it oil , Israel..etc.or in the Andrew Jackson way, GO AND FIX IT .
The sloution is help to engineer a new nationalistic government ( no election- onther American farce , you have elections only when you have deep linkages in the economy , ie people depend on each other , in an oil economy people donot do that , hence elections are for the tribe and religous leaders), please send your think tanks home when it comes to understanding democracy in the ME .The natioanlistic approach vs the American approach(s), is that it transcends the religious divide and serves Iraq and the region .
The Iraqis know beter and yearn for it after the dismall performance of US and Iran in treating them over the last 4 years .
I hope there enough wisdom in the US to think humaely and wisely.

Salamon (I assume that was you)

You are correct. There is only so much available energy-related resources like oil, especially as developing nations such as China and India grow. Clearly, the US needs to develop alternate energy resources including clean energy like nuclear power and wind. The US needs more exploration for oil (ANWAR), mandating raised mileage standards for automobiles, and developing the large resources of oil shale in Utah.

On the comment of the comment of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan. That was exactly my point. We don't care about the Saudis any more than Canadians care about the slaughter in the Sudan. In fact, no one is willing to do anything in the Sudan except China which supplies arms to the Dictator responsible for the massacre in Darfur. Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is all business. In addition, the US appreciates their moderate position on Israel (as well as Egypt, Jordan and others).

Why we support Pakistan is beyond me because Pakistan is a haven for Taliban terrorist, as well as Pakistani terrorist supporting the Taliban, not to mention Pakistani supported terrorism of India, and just good old fashioned Pakistani supported terrorism against other western targets (like Britain). Pakistan is a world leader in terror support and training. Where else could Bin Laden be assured of a safe haven?

An interesting point I want to make about Israel is that terorism has not worked. Israel has expanded it's existing settlements despite numerous terrorist attacks, and, recently, they have decided to build a new settlement - the first in 10 years. The Palestinians ought to try the Gandi approach and gather 500,000 people, peacefully, where Israel hopes to expand. World opinion would stop the settlement. The constant rocket attacks, suicide bombings and especially Ahmadinejad only play to Israel's ambitions, in my opinion.

My last two post to you have asked what you believe is an equitable (and realistic) solution to the Palistinian - Israel war. I'm waiting for your answer.

By the way, Arabs really have no reason to love the USA's policies (except when we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait), but they love our oil addiction, and our foreign aid.

Gerard Molenaar -
Virtually everyone on this forum would advocate for a free and independent Kurdistan. I haven't got the slightest idea of how that is to be acheived given the business-oil concerns of the Bush Administration. I don't even think we can count on the Democrats doing that - the special interst and lobbying money is pouring into Washington right now, the same self serving corporate scumbags are hooking the new Democrats as surely as they did the Republican's before. I am pretty sure we will end up out of Iraq, one way or another - either with some shred of dignity or, assumming Bush is allowed to have his way for a few more months, with our tail between our legs, our military and economy in tatters, and with no influence whatsoever left in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world. Then, look for the Saudi's to push troops forward to protect Sunni interests and the Iranian's push in their own troops to ensure Shia interests and the Turk's in a grab for oil. Once they all meet...well, more than a few governments are going to fall, oil supplies will become unstable, and you might just get Europe, Russia, China, India and everyone else involved in an old fashioned global war. The poor, long suffering Kurdish people, made the mistake of viewing the Bush White House as a friend. But, then, so did the conservatives in this country. In the end, we are all just so much road kill.

Mike B. Your post at ll:43 makes me crazy. I hope/wish you're crazier than a loon...but in fact, I think you say something we must consider, however obliquely.
Good Grief. I think the Bushies will try. And one should worry that incredible thingw will happen. Who knows how rotten our insides are...who our enemies are? What the Israel-first neocons and AIPAC would pull to get their way? Look at what they've done so far. I mean, we ARE Iraq. And the neocons are flush with victory and frantic with knowing that the Bush years, giving Israel free hand, are nearly over. Should we think the impossible from them?

If the U.S. wants peace and democracy, it should ask Turkey to recognize the Kurds.
Have an independent south Kurdistan, and also one or two Arab countries (borders decided by referendum) in what is now officially Iraq. The Iraqi Arabs can give up their illusion of ruling over neighbours, and with that will go totalitarian islam and terrorism (like Russia threw overboard communism when it released its neighbours, to get ahead itself).
Yes what is now Iraq can be peaceful and democratic within a year. And Turkey too if it also lets its 'own' Kurds decide for themselves. And Persia without Kurdistan will have no need for intolerant islamism and nuclear arms.
Alas, the U.S. wants to be no. 1. And for that, a low-level war has to go on, Europe must stay divided and the Chinese must remain relatively backward undemocratic imperialists. This is conscious policy.
Being no. 1 may seem attractive, but Americans are worse off (and the rest of the world).

what i see in the near future of iraq and the middle east is really grim and the situation falls in several dimensions.
on the first dimension u have the american troops in iraq loosing control over the situation because of the shia militia supproted by Iran , to the east u have Iran with the upper hand investing loads of money in arming itself and it has been doing that since early 1990's, the american troops are in Iraq trying to stabelize the situation but i expect they will fail due to the Iranian influence and the sectarian violence will continue.
with 140k american troops or so in iraq with no real air cover they are sitting ducks for Iran, so i dont expect the states to act with force against Iran this would enable Iran to further advance there nuclear program.
in a couple of years with the situation as it is the american troops would withdraw to friendly nieghbouring countries like
Saudi and Jordan. and a Iranian Iraq would be established and with this a strong allience would start between Iran , Iraq and Syria. on the other hand another allience would form on the oppsite side including United States, Jordan and Egypt and a new power strugle would start, the Iranians with there popular national base would start riots and bombings against goverments to tumble them(Jordainian, and Egyption) and with the aid of turbulant economies the people would really get angry and may revault if provoked .on the other side u have an allience who is trying to replace the goverment Iran , Iraq or Syria with a friendlier one which is not gonna make the poeple happy since these goverments are gonna play the trump card (Palastine) and rally people around them for that coz.
the only loosers in this situation is people in the streets who care less about who has control but only want to live an easy life there way.
as for the outcome of the power struggle it can go both ways but the winning allience is the one that makes the nations happy and gains there support.
my suggestion to get out that dilema before it blows out into a war, start communications with Iran, they have the upper hand and control over the situation. buy them off make them happy and NEVER THINK about miliitary force against Iran it will be a loosing war.

SHALL we tell the truth, that every idiot knows? Who wants a wider war? ISRAEL, Israel wants war and chaos all over the middle east. Complete breakdown. Their only path to expansion and control. They'd take Palestine in a second in chaos. IGNATIUS worries about a broad war, he says. It rings hollow to me and any one who saw his performance on the PBS show last week about Anti-semitism. Ignatius outlined all the things the Jewish organizations, the lobby Aipac, the Jewish press and necons have done to get us into war, their bleat for war with Iraq, which everyone knows...then says it's all untrue and just anti-semitism! The show rails about how the Arabb are preaching anti-semitism...and golly, why would they hate jews? It would've been a hoot if not so enraging. But again, everyone knows better.
Meantime the Israelis and GOd knows what American sympthatizers are all over the ME fomenting trouble. Remember Wolfowitz's plan called for Iraq, then Iran and then Syria, while Israel swooped down on Lebanon, as they did in the summer. All too clear.

Avi Bra - You seem to have a lot of hope that Bush will be gone in January 2009. I am not so sure. His Attorney General, Mr. Gonzales, is out making speaches today about judges not having any say with regards to *any* of Bush's terror rules. He is, of course, merely echoing the opinion/wishes of the Bush White Hoiuse and Dick Cheney. This is the same group of people who have quietly also asked about NOT holding (they call it "postponing") elections in 2008, and has also called for the confiscation of all privately owned firearms. Looks to me like we got a crowd of dictator wannabees in Washington right now.

We can't know what Iraq will look like a year from now, let alone ten. Whatever occurs, I belive that things will start to improve in January 2009 - once Bush is gone.

Tom,

You are absolutely right about Ecuador's recent election. Leftist Rafael Correa defeated banana magnate Alvaro Noboa by a wide margin. Their proposals could not have been more distant. Mr Noboa's main focus was on poverty alleviation and job creation -Ecuador's unemployed and sub-employed account for sixty percent of the population- by creating attractive conditions for investment; he proposed a broad liberalization of the economy, a reduced role for government, lower taxes, and good relations with the U.S. Meanwhile, Mr Correa proposed a larger role for government, more trade controls, import restrictions, higher taxes on the rich, increased subsidies for the poor, and a "sovereign" attitude toward the U.S.; he also promised to call a constitutional assembly to write a new Constitution.

So, did voters choose between two clearly-defined political visions?

Not at all. Ecuadorians went to the ballots under great confusion.

Let me explain:

1. EDUCATION

In Ecuador, the Left holds a mafia-style control over the entire education system, from nursery school to graduate school. So don't be surprised that many young people believe what they are told by leftist operatives disguised as teachers:
- "capitalism is essencially evil, and communism is good";
- "only rich people should pay taxes";
- "government is the answer to all social ills, so we need more government";
- "foreigners have the duty to help us by lending as much money as we ask, but we don't have the obligation to pay them back (we are poor, you know)";
- "only government can create jobs; we don't need private enterprise and investment";
- "american imperialism is the cause of all problems around the world";
- "all our problems will be solved if we kick gringos out of Latin America".

2. SCARE TACTICS

Scare tactics are not property of Karl Rove. Leftists master them too, and to greater extents. They succeeded in scaring farmers, artisans, public employees, small entrepreneurs and many other groups about the dangers of a potential Noboa administration: subsidized farm products will flood the domestic market so you will go broke; your labor rights will be eliminated; you will lose your job to someone from China; more gringos will come to the Manta military base and will rape your daughters; Noboa's friends will steal our oil fields, etc etc.

3.- MONEY

Although Mr Noboa is a very rich man, his wealth cannot compete with Hugo Chavez's oil resources. During the campaign months, Ecuadorian leftist candidates held regular "Bolivarian summits" with Venezuelan operatives who distributed cash. In fact, Hugo Chavez financed not only Correa's campaign but also the campaigns of other leftist candidates: indigenous leader Luis Macas, former guerrilla fighter Lenin Torres, teachers' union leader Luis Villacis, and journalist Marcelo Larrea whose wife happens to be the Propaganda Director of Venezuela's Congress.

4. INSULTS

Mr Noboa has been insulted like no one in re