SCHOOL ROUNDUP
Unfortunately we are unable to locate the page you have requested. This could be due to content on our site having expired, a broken link, an outdated bookmark, or a mistyped address. Please use the navigation provided on this page, or click here to visit our home page.
Around the Region:
Tags: cole, dawn, julie
April 6th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
It’s un-American, death to the un-American infidels! Praise be to Jeebus!
April 6th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
If you look into the history of coffee houses, they played a big part in the formation of the Insurance industry (i.e. Lloyds of London). Most deals for insurance and reinsurance would be conducted in the old coffee houses of the British empire.http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1165457Looks like the coffee houses want to get in on the IT game - good for them!
April 6th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
UNFORTUNATELY? Anything that happens to American soldiers happens to them at their own risk. They choose to be put in danger, and they choose to die for causes that escape even the most liberally - minded being with a sense of nationalism. How many deaths did the United States of America cause during the 20th century? Read about it. 2 million Filipinos by 1905. Deaths are not measured by country; they’re measured by sheer number.
April 6th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
The word “unfortunately” in the title of this submission made me think about how Americans view casualties in the war. What is the implication, that it wouldn’t be unfortunate if the Iraqis died?Where is the fucking empathy? We all know this war is a criminal occupation; are the Iraqis just supposed to submit to the same foreign invaders that threw their country into the destructive state it’s in today?If the roles were reversed and the US were invaded and occupied by some foreign army, you can bet Americans would be engaged in guerrilla warfare. In fact, I’m pretty sure something like that happened one time.(edit: oh wait, I forgot to add that the US is partially responsible for putting Hussein in power in the first place.)
April 6th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
This statement assumes zero sum gain. Wrong. Sadr won big. Iran won even bigger. Maliki, Petraeus and Cheney lost.Maliki, Petraeus, and Cheney all lost. Well you can’t really say that, since they had never won. The only victory they have been talking about has been imaginary ones. It was never a reality.Sadr didn’t win either, may be some people realized that he is much stronger than what they have imagined before, but that is not victory.At best you can say some people woke up from their day dreaming. 700+ Iraqis lost their lives, and every one is back to where they were before the conflict. That is not a victory.With same argument what did Iran win? Sure once again it is evident that this conflict resolution has to be a regional one. That is not a victory for Iran, many people in the world has been advocating that. At best you can say this could be turned into a victory for forces of reason in US political establishment.
April 6th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Sticking just with the remaining fact, then, I still don’t understand your suggestion. The Mahdi army is fighting the american-backed Shia government forces, not americans. So it is the locals fighting the local insurgency.What seems to be happening is that the Mahdi Army locals really believe in what they are doing, and the government forces do not. How do you suggest that difference be overcome?
April 6th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
It does happen. Here's an example from my neck of the woods.
April 6th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
What full blown insurgency was ever successfully fought, short of using genocide?
April 6th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
This analysis is a joke.Look, you cannot possibly understand what is going on over there unless you first bring yourself to accepting the tactics the “coalition forces” are using in Iraq, especially the false-flag attack.Educate yourself about the SAS operatives who were caught in Basra with weapons and explosives and who were dressed as Arabs. Recall that at the time Shiite and Sunni were reported to have been waging bombing attacks on each other. Consider the history of the U.S. and Israel exploiting these very same tactics, the U.S. during the coup in Iran that installed the Shah for instance, or Israel in the normal course of its “foreign policy”.Why did Bush ignore the advice of his senior military leaders who wanted much higher levels of ground forces in Iraq after the invasion? Do you seriously believe he gave the first thought about the blood that would be spent by our soldiers or the money spent by the taxpayers back home?Of course not. The goal of the invasion of Iraq was from the start very simple: set Shiite and Sunni upon each other, with the hope that such a conflagration would draw Saudi Arabia and Iran into the conflict, weakening both. To benefit Israel.So, why did Sadr cease these attacks? Very simple. He understands the game we are playing. He understands that most of these bombing attacks waged upon Shiites were not the work of Sunnis but rather of American, British and Israeli special forces.He’s happy to fight for his cause. He just understands who his enemy really is.
April 6th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Yes, they’re terrorists. We attacked them and they fought back, therefore they are terrorists.
April 6th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
An insurgency and a rebellion are different things. They made attacks in coherent units, trying to be a real army instead of the loose aggregation of men with guns that is successful in Iraq today. If you want to fight like an army, you have to have the numbers, supply chain, and command structure of an army.