It's not only that the US is charging Iran with providing weapons in Iran that kills US soldiers, but they are also fighting against cholera.
From today's news:
Iraq now has a total of 1,652 confirmed cases of cholera after three new cases were confirmed in Salahuddin province, according to an update on the World Health Organization's Web site on Sunday. Earlier, cholera was confirmed in the provinces of Sulaimaniyah, Tamim and Irbil, as well as a case each in Baghdad and in Basra.
"As the weather cools and becomes more favorable for transmission, the organism is expected to spread to other provinces," the WHO's country office in Iraq said on its Web site.
Cholera is endemic to Iraq, with about 30 cases registered each year. The last major outbreak was in 1999, when 20 cases were discovered in one day.
George Wright and agencies
Thursday May 8, 2003
Guardian Unlimited
A severe shortage of clean drinking water has left southern Iraq facing a mass cholera outbreak, the World Health Organisation warned today.
Seventeen cases of the potentially fatal disease have already been identified in Basra, which is controlled by the British military. WHO experts believe that there are already at least 10 times that number of victims.
Iraqis unable to access clean water have been drinking filthy supplies contaminated with the bug. Poor security means that some victims have been unable to get to hospitals, with health workers unable to get out to treat them, WHO spokesman Ian Simpson said.
Despite allied forces having had control of the area for around a month, there is still a shortage of vital drugs and intravenous fluids to treat victims.
BBC NEWS
Iran leader plays down 'US war'
The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has said that Iran is not heading for armed conflict with the United States.
In an American television interview, he said Iran was not on a path of war with the US and that Iran had no need of nuclear weapons.
He is due to address the UN General Assembly in New York on Tuesday.
The US is leading moves to impose further sanctions on Iran because of its nuclear development programme.
Read this. I was going to try and cut and paste some portions; but its well worth reading the entire article.
What is the best way for us to fight terrorism?
What are the consequences of leaving Iraq before we succeed?
What are the consequences of staying in Iraq until we succeed?
What is the best way for us to defend ourselves at home?
What is the best way for us to defend ourselves in Iraq?
What constitutes a practical war footing for America?
ican711nm wrote:What is the best way for us to fight terrorism?
By convincing members of societies around the world who are prone to terrorism, that our way of doing things is superior to that offered by the terrorists - and the use of force is the terrorists' way.
Quote:
What are the consequences of leaving Iraq before we succeed?
For Iraq? Regional warfare.
For US? Increased resources to spend on defense at home and offense in places that matter, IE, attacking Al Qaeda instead of playing around in Iraq.
Quote:What are the consequences of staying in Iraq until we succeed?
We strengthen our enemies position, waste huge amounts of money, lose national prestige around the world, and weaken our own armed forces greatly. And please be honest and admit that you're talking about 20-30 years of fighting.
Quote:What is the best way for us to defend ourselves at home?
Increased use of technology and old methods (fences) to close the borders. Increased screening of shipping containers coming into America. Education of the populace. A stark and objective examination of our foreign policies around the world.
Quote:What is the best way for us to defend ourselves in Iraq?
To leave the country and attack AQ - probably in Pakistan.
Cycloptichorn
Nuke Pakistan's border where bin Laden is thought to be.
If you have cancer, you don't give it a chance to grow.
Pentagon Can't Find Major Named in Suit
Pentagon Can't Find Major Named in Suit
By John Milburn
The Associated Press
Saturday 22 September 2007
Topeka, Kan. - Military officials are investigating an Army specialist's allegations that he was harassed for being an atheist but said Saturday they have found no trace of the officer listed as a defendant in the soldier's lawsuit.
Spc. Jeremy Hall and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation filed a lawsuit this past week against a Maj. Paul Welborne and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
The suit, in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Kan., alleges that Welborne threatened to file military charges against Hall and to block his reenlistment for trying to hold a meeting of atheists and non-Christians in Iraq. Hall is in Iraq with the 97th Military Police Battalion out of Fort Riley. He has been in Iraq since 2006, on his second tour.
The suit also alleges Gates permits a military culture in which officers are encouraged to pressure soldiers to adopt and espouse fundamentalist Christian beliefs.
In a series of e-mails to Mikey Weinstein, the foundation's founder and president, Hall said he feared for his safety after being "hallchecked" - being shoved against a wall in a hallway - by fellow soldiers who objected to his lawsuit. Bloggers have also referred to "fragging" Hall, or killing him by friendly fire.
"I hope I am not the victim of a hate crime while I sleep tonight. I do not want to die for my country this way," wrote Hall, saying a noncommissioned officer was threatening to beat him. "I'm doing my best right now. But I am still afraid that I might be harmed or worse."
The Army is investigating Hall's allegations, said Lt. Col. James Hutton, a spokesman for multinational forces in Iraq, in a statement Saturday.
However, Hutton added: "Several media reports list a person named Maj. Paul Welborne as having been involved in this situation. To date, we have not located any soldier by that name."
Weinstein said the incidents alleged in the lawsuit happened in July and August and Welborne may have left Iraq since then. Instead of finding the major, Weinstein said the military must find the soldiers who threatened Hall after he filed the lawsuit and prosecute them under military law.
"We're talking about stuff that happened 36 hours ago. If they can't find the people who have been harassing Jeremy, we will," said Weinstein, who released Hall's e-mails to The Associated Press on Friday. "This isn't that hard to do."
In naming Gates as a defendant, the lawsuit alleges he permits a culture that sanctions activities by Christian organizations, including providing personnel and equipment. It also says the military permits proselytizing by soldiers, tolerates anti-Semitism and the placing of religious symbols on military equipment, and allows the use of military e-mail accounts to send religious rhetoric.
A Pentagon spokesman said the military values and respects religious freedoms, but that accommodating religious practices should not interfere with unit cohesion, readiness, standards or discipline.
cicerone imposter wrote:
CLUE: I don't make those decisions.
Why not decide what you would
like decided by the people making those decisions?
ican711nm wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:
CLUE: I don't make those decisions.
Why not decide what you would
like decided by the people making those decisions?
I live in the real world and know what I want or wish has no bearing on our politicans in Washington.
Cyclo, Thank you for those answers. I'll respond to them later when I have more time.
Here's the rest of my questions.
What constitutes a practical war footing for America?
How do we know whether al-Qaeda means what it says and says what it means?
How is al-Qaeda doing what it said it was going to try to do?
How can al-Qaeda succeed in accomplishing what it says it wants to accomplish?
What damage can al-Qaeda do to us here at home?
What can we do at home to minimize that damage?
What can al-Qaeda do in America, even while failing to achieve its main objectives?
What do we want the next administration to do about Iraq?
What do we want the next administration to do about Afghanistan?
What do we want the next administration to do about terrorism?
cicerone imposter wrote:ican711nm wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:
CLUE: I don't make those decisions.
Why not decide what you would
like decided by the people making those decisions?
I live in the real world and know what I want or wish has no bearing on our politicans in Washington.
Does your complaining about what those politicians in Washington decide have any bearing on what our politicians in Washington decide?
Of course not!
Does your complaining about the consequences of what those politicians' decide have any bearing on what those politicians decide?
Of Course not!
How do you decide who to vote for without deciding what it is you want to be done and deciding on the probable consequences of same?
