TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Threats and economic sanctions will not stop Iran's technological progress, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned Saturday at a large parade of missiles and other weapons aimed at showing off the country's military might.

The parade outside the capital Tehran marked the 27th anniversary of the Iraqi invasion of Iran that sparked the bloody 1980-88 war. It comes as the U.S. and its European allies continue discussing a third round of U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran over its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment. It also comes days before the hard-line Iranian president is to address the U.N. General Assembly in New York.

"Those (countries) who assume that decaying methods such as psychological war, political propaganda and the so-called economic sanctions would work and prevent Iran's fast drive toward progress are mistaken," Ahmadinejad said.

Iran launched an arms development program during its war with Iraq to compensate for a U.S. weapons embargo. Since 1992, Iran has produced its own jet fighters, torpedoes, radar-avoiding missiles, tanks and armored personnel carriers. Many such weapons were on display at the parade.


Some of the trucks carrying Iranian missiles were painted at the back with popular slogans such as "Down with the U.S." and "Down with Israel." The parade also featured flights by two of Iran's new domestically manufactured fighter jets, known as the Saegheh, which means lightning in Farsi.

"Those who prevented Iran, at the height of the (Iran-Iraq) war from getting even barbed wire must see now that all the equipment on display today has been built by the mighty hands and brains of experts at Iran's armed forces," Ahmadinejad said.

Iran's Defense Minister Mostafa Mohmmad Najjar said the weapons and equipment shown in the parade were just a "small part of our capabilities."

"With the production of various equipment, sanctions have become ineffective. We don't need foreigners," state TV quoted Najjar as saying Saturday.


Ahmadinejad, who is to appear at a forum at Columbia University in New York on Monday and address the General Assembly on Tuesday, also repeated his call for foreign forces to leave the region and urged the United States to acknowledge it has failed in Iraq.

"Nations throughout the region do not need the presence of the foreigners to manage their own needs. Foreign presence is the root cause of all instability, differences and threats," he said.

The U.S. has accused Iran of sending arms and fighters to help Shiite Muslim militias in Iraq that target U.S. troops, and both British and American commanders have called the fight in parts of Iraq a "proxy war" by Iran. Tehran denies the accusations.

The U.S. also is calling for more economic sanctions against Iran after two sets were imposed by the U.N. Security Council for Iran's decision not to stop uranium enrichment.

Washington accuses Tehran of secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies the charges, saying its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, including generating electricity.

Iran has said it has managed to weather a broad U.S. embargo for 28 years, and while many Iranians acknowledge some hardships, they credit the embargo with making them more self-reliant.


"Learn lessons from your past mistakes. Don't repeat your mistakes," Ahmadinejad said in a warning to the U.S. over its push to impose more sanctions.

So Who is Gary and Why am I being Called Gary?

who is Gary

When a woman joins the military and attends the basic training of her respective branch—Air Force, Navy, Marines—every element of that training hinges on one primary principle. That principle is camaraderie. One soldier always protects another soldier’s back. Everything is about unity and uniformity. The rhythm of cadence is the rhythm of the day. Imagine the devastation, then, of being an American soldier who is assaulted or raped by one of her own, a fellow soldier. Camaraderie becomes cruel captivity.

Events such as the 1991 Tailhook Association convention, in which more than 100 officers sexually assaulted and harassed dozens of fellow female soldiers but were never convicted; the 1997 sexual assault scandal at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland; and the 2003 sexual assault scandal at the Air Force Academy have brought the issue of military sexual assault and abuse to the forefront. However, in the past the issue has faded from attention quickly, with the military pledging to police its own, plan for prevention, and clean up the mess.

Little seems to have changed though. An official Department of Defense report states that, “Thirty percent of female veterans in a recent survey reported rape or attempted rape during active duty. Thirty-seven percent of women who reported a rape or attempted rape had been raped more than once; fourteen percent of the victims reported having been gang raped” (Department of Defense, 2002). This is a disturbing reality during a time when 15 percent of our nation’s armed forces are female, with more than 204,500 American women serving in the military. The November 23, 2003, article in the Denver Post, “Protect Women in Military,” reports that, “Nearly one-third of the women in the military have reported a rape or attempted rape, compared with 18 percent in the civilian world. Yet during the past decade, twice as many accused sex offenders in the Army were given administrative punishments as were court-martialed.” Female soldiers are betrayed by the chain-of-command that is their only line to justice.


Only after the Denver Post launched a nine-month investigation into rape and sexual assault against female soldiers in the U.S. military, and then published a three-day series, entitled “Betrayal in the Ranks,” from November 16 though November 18, 2003, did Congress and the general public wake up to the terrors that many of our female soldiers face from their fellow soldiers. What the Denver Post revealed is an obvious military cover-up that has spanned decades, with reporters discovering that “…military commanders routinely fail to prosecute those accused of sexual assault and domestic violence. Nearly 5,000 alleged sex offenders, including alleged rapists, avoided prosecution in the Army the past decade when commanders handled their cases administratively instead of through their criminal courts (Herdy & Moffeit, 2003).”


Military sexual trauma (MST) occurs not only during wartime, but during peacetime as well. Compared with women in the civilian community who face the same experiences, the experiences of women in the military are most definitely unique. The military itself is a microcosm of patriarchal society, isolated from most of civilian society and community, including its justice system. For women in the military, sexual trauma usually occurs in the very setting in which the victim works and lives—a setting to which the victim must return. Depending on the circumstances, the woman might actually find herself still working with and taking orders from the man who raped her. Imagine the sense of helplessness and powerlessness, as well as the risk for more victimization. If the perpetrator is in the female soldier’s chain-of-command, she might even be dependent on him for basic necessities, such as medical or psychological care. The perpetrator might also have control over her career, deciding about evaluations and promotions. Many female soldiers who become victims of MST find themselves in a situation where they must either see the perpetrator every day or sacrifice their career to protect themselves from further trauma.


The cohesion and stigma of camaraderie within the military makes it particularly difficult for women in the military to divulge negative information regarding a fellow soldier. Powerful risk factors for women in the military include young women who enter male-dominated work groups at lower levels of authority, sexual harassment by officers, and unwanted advances while on duty and in sleeping quarters (Sadler et al., 2003). Many victims are often reluctant to report sexual trauma, or cannot find methods for reporting the experience to those with authority. When military women do report sexual trauma, they are often encouraged to keep silent, further harassed, or not believed. Reports are often ignored, or the female soldier herself is blamed. The daily situation becomes one of invalidation and constant fear. The betrayal is a devastating one for these women, soldiers committed to protect a country that most often doesn’t return the favor.


Due to the military’s mishandling of sexual assault and trauma, the Veterans Administration has had to deal with the effects, providing counseling and healthcare to victims of MST. On February 25, 2004, in her testimony before the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel, Dr. Susan Mather, Chief Public Health and Environmental Hazards Officer of the Department of Veterans Affairs, stated that, “The Veterans Health Administration has been aware of the issue for women since at least 1991 when there were reports of sexual abuse among women who served in the Gulf War. Jessica Wolfe, who was then working at VA’s Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, reported that 8 percent of the female Gulf War veterans that she surveyed reported attempted or completed sexual assault during their deployment.” A sexual victimization study conducted by the Department of Defense in 1995 among the active duty population found that, “Rates of military sexual trauma among veteran users of VA healthcare appear to be even higher than in general military populations. In one study, 23% of female users of VA healthcare reported experiencing at least one sexual assault while in the military (Street and Stafford, National Center for PTSD).” In a personal interview with Sharon Morrison, Clinical Counselor for the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Clinic in Manhattan, she stated, “I have worked with victims of MST from World War II, Vietnam, and Persian Gulf eras, as well as peace-time, and the helplessness that a victim feels when attempting to receive aid and justice within the military realm after an assault or rape becomes just one more trauma.”


The Miles Foundation, a private, non-profit organization, provides services to victims of violence associated with the military, tracking and bringing public attention to the problem of sexual harassment and assault in the military. Using statistics gathered from various government reports, the Miles Foundation reports that “75% to 84% of alleged offenders are honorably discharged (Department of Defense, 1994).” Public groups like the Miles Foundation are now pressuring the military to both protect female solders and to provide adequate care for those who fall prey to sexual abuse or harassment. This pressure has forced the Department of Defense to begin to addressing the issue, such as announcing a new confidentiality policy for sexual assault victims.

The new policy sets guidelines for restricted reporting that “…allows a sexual assault victim, on a confidential basis, to disclose the details of his/her assault to specifically identified individuals and receive medical treatment and counseling, without triggering the official investigative process (Department of Defense, March 18, 2005).” Daniel Pulliam reported that in early January 2005, Pentagon officials “delivered a new set of policies designed to improve the system of preventing and responding to sexual assaults in the armed services. Formed in the last three months as a response to legislation enacted after numerous reports of sexual misconduct involving military personnel, the policies include a military-wide definition of sexual assault, the creation of the position of sexual assault response coordinator and victim advocate, and a checklist for uniformed commanders” (Pulliam, 2005).


Despite these new policies, the question in regard to whether or not the military is even able to rehabilitate itself still remains. This question becomes a disturbing one during a war time in which combat battle lines are less defined, with many female soldiers in combat support units finding themselves vastly outnumbered by male soldiers, facing enemies on both sides. Until public pressure can force the military to both police and punish its own in sexual assault and abuse cases, anyone who has a sister, mother, wife, daughter, niece, aunt serving in the military must worry, and wonder, who’s got her back?m

http://www.offourbacks.org/WomMilBack.htm

Maybe, alot of people were watching that movie "Number 23" with Jim Carey that's only explaination i have with the numbers.

Barbie I never did say I didn't want women in the front line or not. I merely just posted an article.

Date Total In Combat

American Deaths
Since war began (3/19/03): 3791 3117
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) (the list) 3652 3009
Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03): 3330 2811
Since Handover (6/29/04): 2932 2484
Since Election (1/31/05): 2354 2221
American Wounded Official Estimated
Total Wounded: 27848 23000 - 100000
Latest Fatality Sept. 19, 2007
Page last updated 09/19/07 11:44 pm EDT
Iraqi Casualties
US Military Deaths by Month (links to Icasualties.org)

Other Coalition Troops 298
US Military Deaths - Afghanistan 441
Iraqi Body Count IBC
American Civilian Casualties


UPI reports: As many as 1 of every 10 soldiers from the war on terror evacuated to the Army's biggest hospital in Europe was sent there for mental problems.

Between 8 and 10 percent of nearly 12,000 soldiers from the war on terror, mostly from Iraq, treated at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany had "psychiatric or behavioral health issues," according to the commander of the hospital, Col. Rhonda Cornum.

That means about 1,000 soldiers were evacuated for mental problems.

The hospital has treated 11,754 soldiers from the war on terror, with 9,651 from Iraq and the rest from Afghanistan, according to data released by the hospital.

for more on the American Count

Dates and sources of Americans killed in Iraq since 5/1/03 are documented in this file. Admittedly the file is incomplete, for the Department of Defense does not maintain old records. All data was compiled from http://www.defenselink.mil. If something is amiss in the data collection, please contact Margaret Griffis.

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer Wed Sep 19, 7:07 PM ET


TEHRAN, Iran - Iran has drawn up plans to bomb Israel if the Jewish state should attack, the deputy air force commander said Wednesday, adding to tensions already heated up by an Israeli airstrike on Syria and Western calls for more U.N. sanctions against Tehran.

Other Iranian officials also underlined their country's readiness to fight if the U.S. or Israel attacks, a reflection of concerns in Tehran that demands by the U.S. and its allies for Iran to curtail its nuclear program could escalate into military action.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said Sunday that the international community should prepare for the possibility of war in the event Iran obtains atomic weapons, although he later stressed the focus is still on diplomatic pressures.

The comments come as the top U.S. military commander in the Middle East, Adm. William Fallon, is touring Persian Gulf countries seeking to form a united front of Arab allies against Iran's growing influence in the region.

Iran has periodically raised alarms over the possibility of war, particularly when the West brings up talk of sanctions over Tehran's rejection of a U.N. Security Council demand that it halt uranium enrichment.

"We have drawn up a plan to strike back at Israel with our bombers if this regime (Israel) makes a silly mistake," Iran's deputy air force commander, Gen. Mohammad Alavi, said in an interview with the semiofficial Fars news agency.

Alavi warned that Israel is within range of Iran's medium-range missiles and fighter-bombers.

The Iranian air force had no immediate comment on the Fars report. But Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammed Najjar told the official IRNA news agency that "we keep various options open to respond to threats. ... We will make use of them if required."

Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards also weighed in, saying Iran "has prepared its people for a possible confrontation against any aggression."

White House press secretary Dana Perino said Alavi's comment "is not constructive and it almost seems provocative."

"Israel doesn't seek a war with its neighbors. And we all are seeking, under the U.N. Security Council resolutions, for Iran to comply with its obligations" under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, she said.

During a stop in Jerusalem, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Washington is committed to diplomacy, but added that the U.S. hasn't taken any military "options off the table." She said that "it can't be business as usual" with Iran, a country whose president has spoken of wiping Israel off the map.

For diplomacy to work, she said, "it has to have both a way for Iran to pursue a peaceful resolution of this issue and it has to have teeth, and the U.N. Security Council and other measures are providing teeth."

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said his government took Iran's "threat very seriously and so does the international community."

"Unfortunately we are all too accustomed to this kind of bellicose, extremist and hateful language coming from Iran," he said.

Israeli warplanes in 1981 destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor being built by Saddam Hussein's regime, and many in the region fear Israel or the U.S. could mount airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities if Tehran doesn't bow to Western demands to cease uranium enrichment.

Iran, which says it isn't trying to produce material for atomic bombs but rather fuel for reactors that would generate electricity, has said in the past that Israel would be the first retaliatory target for any attack. But Alavi's comments were the first to mention specific contingency plans.

David Ochmanek, an international policy analyst with the U.S.-based RAND Corporation, said Iran has the capability to attack Israel with a limited number of ballistic missiles, but Israel could potentially inflict greater damage on Iran.

"If Israelis attacked Iran it would be with high precision weapons that could destroy military targets," he said. "They could destroy Iran's nuclear reactor and do damage to the enrichment."

"The Iranian response would be quite different," Ochmanek said. "It would be small numbers of highly innaccurate missiles and the intention would be to do this for psychological purposes rather than to destroy discrete targets. It's an asymmetrical relationship."

A top Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander warned earlier this week that U.S. bases around Iran would also be legitimate targets.

"Today, the United States is within Iran's sight and all around our country, but it doesn't mean we have been encircled. They are encircled themselves and are within our range," Gen. Mohammed Hasan Kousehchi told IRNA.

U.S. forces are in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the Persian Gulf, Kuwait hosts a major U.S. base, the U.S. 5th Fleet patrols from its base in Bahrain, and the U.S. Central Command is housed in Qatar.

Tensions have been raised by a mysterious Israeli air incursion over Syria on Sept. 6. Israel has placed a tight news blackout on the reported incident, while Syria has said little. U.S. officials said it involved an airstrike on a target.

One U.S. official said the attack hit weapons heading for the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, an ally of Syria and Iran, but there also has been speculation the Israelis hit a nascent nuclear facility or were studying routes for a possible future strike on Iran.

Former Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday he was involved "from the beginning" in the alleged airstrike, the first public mention by an Israeli leader about the incident. Netanyahu, the leader of the parliamentary opposition, did not give further details.

Edward Djerejian, founding director of Rice University's Baker Institute, said the accusation that Israel had violated Syrian airspace, and possibly launched an attack on Syrian territory, was putting new concerns on an already tense situation.

"The region is very nervous," said Djerejian, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Syria.

With Iran adding to the talk of military options, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns called Wednesday for U.N. Security Council members and U.S. allies to help push for a third round of sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.

But Russia's U.N. ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, said Moscow opposes new sanctions, adding they could hurt a recent agreement between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency aimed at resolving questions about the Iranian program.

Two U.N. resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran have failed to persuade the country to suspend uranium enrichment.

Burns said he would host a Friday meeting of the Security Council's permanent members — the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France. Talks on a new resolution are also expected next week in New York, when world leaders attend the annual ministerial session of the U.N. General Assembly.

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer Wed Sep 19, 7:07 PM ET


TEHRAN, Iran - Iran has drawn up plans to bomb Israel if the Jewish state should attack, the deputy air force commander said Wednesday, adding to tensions already heated up by an Israeli airstrike on Syria and Western calls for more U.N. sanctions against Tehran.

Other Iranian officials also underlined their country's readiness to fight if the U.S. or Israel attacks, a reflection of concerns in Tehran that demands by the U.S. and its allies for Iran to curtail its nuclear program could escalate into military action.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said Sunday that the international community should prepare for the possibility of war in the event Iran obtains atomic weapons, although he later stressed the focus is still on diplomatic pressures.

The comments come as the top U.S. military commander in the Middle East, Adm. William Fallon, is touring Persian Gulf countries seeking to form a united front of Arab allies against Iran's growing influence in the region.

Iran has periodically raised alarms over the possibility of war, particularly when the West brings up talk of sanctions over Tehran's rejection of a U.N. Security Council demand that it halt uranium enrichment.

"We have drawn up a plan to strike back at Israel with our bombers if this regime (Israel) makes a silly mistake," Iran's deputy air force commander, Gen. Mohammad Alavi, said in an interview with the semiofficial Fars news agency.

Alavi warned that Israel is within range of Iran's medium-range missiles and fighter-bombers.

The Iranian air force had no immediate comment on the Fars report. But Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammed Najjar told the official IRNA news agency that "we keep various options open to respond to threats. ... We will make use of them if required."

Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards also weighed in, saying Iran "has prepared its people for a possible confrontation against any aggression."

White House press secretary Dana Perino said Alavi's comment "is not constructive and it almost seems provocative."

"Israel doesn't seek a war with its neighbors. And we all are seeking, under the U.N. Security Council resolutions, for Iran to comply with its obligations" under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, she said.

During a stop in Jerusalem, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Washington is committed to diplomacy, but added that the U.S. hasn't taken any military "options off the table." She said that "it can't be business as usual" with Iran, a country whose president has spoken of wiping Israel off the map.

For diplomacy to work, she said, "it has to have both a way for Iran to pursue a peaceful resolution of this issue and it has to have teeth, and the U.N. Security Council and other measures are providing teeth."

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said his government took Iran's "threat very seriously and so does the international community."

"Unfortunately we are all too accustomed to this kind of bellicose, extremist and hateful language coming from Iran," he said.

Israeli warplanes in 1981 destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor being built by Saddam Hussein's regime, and many in the region fear Israel or the U.S. could mount airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities if Tehran doesn't bow to Western demands to cease uranium enrichment.

Iran, which says it isn't trying to produce material for atomic bombs but rather fuel for reactors that would generate electricity, has said in the past that Israel would be the first retaliatory target for any attack. But Alavi's comments were the first to mention specific contingency plans.

David Ochmanek, an international policy analyst with the U.S.-based RAND Corporation, said Iran has the capability to attack Israel with a limited number of ballistic missiles, but Israel could potentially inflict greater damage on Iran.

"If Israelis attacked Iran it would be with high precision weapons that could destroy military targets," he said. "They could destroy Iran's nuclear reactor and do damage to the enrichment."

"The Iranian response would be quite different," Ochmanek said. "It would be small numbers of highly innaccurate missiles and the intention would be to do this for psychological purposes rather than to destroy discrete targets. It's an asymmetrical relationship."

A top Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander warned earlier this week that U.S. bases around Iran would also be legitimate targets.

"Today, the United States is within Iran's sight and all around our country, but it doesn't mean we have been encircled. They are encircled themselves and are within our range," Gen. Mohammed Hasan Kousehchi told IRNA.

U.S. forces are in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the Persian Gulf, Kuwait hosts a major U.S. base, the U.S. 5th Fleet patrols from its base in Bahrain, and the U.S. Central Command is housed in Qatar.

Tensions have been raised by a mysterious Israeli air incursion over Syria on Sept. 6. Israel has placed a tight news blackout on the reported incident, while Syria has said little. U.S. officials said it involved an airstrike on a target.

One U.S. official said the attack hit weapons heading for the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, an ally of Syria and Iran, but there also has been speculation the Israelis hit a nascent nuclear facility or were studying routes for a possible future strike on Iran.

Former Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday he was involved "from the beginning" in the alleged airstrike, the first public mention by an Israeli leader about the incident. Netanyahu, the leader of the parliamentary opposition, did not give further details.

Edward Djerejian, founding director of Rice University's Baker Institute, said the accusation that Israel had violated Syrian airspace, and possibly launched an attack on Syrian territory, was putting new concerns on an already tense situation.

"The region is very nervous," said Djerejian, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Syria.

With Iran adding to the talk of military options, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns called Wednesday for U.N. Security Council members and U.S. allies to help push for a third round of sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.

But Russia's U.N. ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, said Moscow opposes new sanctions, adding they could hurt a recent agreement between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency aimed at resolving questions about the Iranian program.

Two U.N. resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran have failed to persuade the country to suspend uranium enrichment.

Burns said he would host a Friday meeting of the Security Council's permanent members — the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France. Talks on a new resolution are also expected next week in New York, when world leaders attend the annual ministerial session of the U.N. General Assembly.

What Terrorists?

Being deployed, I don't get to keep up to date on the news issues of the day very well. I can catch a few minutes of random cable news shows at the chow hall or word of mouth news about the Presidential campaigns but unfortunately, this is never enough. I did find in this week's Stars and Stripes newspaper (the Sept. 9th issue) an interesting news article though. Gleaned from the Washington Post the article is regarding a federal judge who ruled against the nation of Iran and awarded $2.6 billion to the families of the Marines killed in the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing. In the decision, Judge Lamberth ruled that Iran was "legally responsible" for the 1983 Hizbollah attack in Lebanon. Iran apparently didn't contest the charges.

From nearly the first day of boot camp I was taught that this attack was a terrorist act. Perhaps it was, but since it was directed against a military target the distinction is a little less clear cut. As a Marine I am considered a lawful combatant under the Geneva Conventions. This fact is stated on the back of my military ID card. As well were all the Marines who were killed in the tragic attack. The family members were compensated by the Marine's servicemember's life insurance policies but I can understand why the families want more. The commanders on the ground in Beirut did not equip the Marines with the necessary rules of engagement to properly defend themselves. However, the timing of the claim and the defendant is still worth a closer look. Iran is definitely not the only state sponsor of Hizbollah, not to mention that nearly twenty-four years after the attack makes the timing quite suspicious. Perhaps this is an innocent reaction from families still grieving or possibly another indictment to pile on Iran to justify a future war.

It's no secret that support for the global war on terror is slipping among the American people. It's always been difficult for the administration to show progress, but what they have done a good job at is to find new targets and enemies to fight. Many politicians, on both sides of the aisle, have misused the term "terrorist" to describe the individuals (or groups) that attack the US armed forces. But the fact is that when someone shoots at me (a legal combatant) or tries to use a roadside bomb (IED) against me while I'm on patrol they are not a terrorist. They become enemy combatants the moment they target other legal combatants. You can call them insurgents, anti-Iraqi forces, anti-occupation forces, freedom fighters, or Ali Baba (our most easily translated term for bad guys) but "terrorist" is not the correct term.

There is probably more than one reason why these people refer to enemy combatants as terrorists. It could be simply because they don't know better and don't understand that the word means something quite specific. Perhaps it's because it is accepted vernacular now and since we're waging a "war on terror" that would make "terrorist" the logical moniker for the enemy. Or maybe there is a more sinister reason. Could it be that the politicians and mainstream media (and occasionally military officials) knowingly misrepresent the enemy in Iraq to achieve a political aim? If I were attacked by a terrorist while in Iraq, then that must mean that terrorists are in Iraq, which means it was a perfectly wise and logical decision to invade Iraq, right? Now more than ever the neo-cons need to justify their actions and agenda to the American public. A clever bit of language manipulation, most likely not caught onto by the majority of unconcerned Americans, to achieve a political end. Don't forget that since the Sept. 11th attacks there is nothing an American hates more than a terrorist.

I won't say that I know why the term terrorist is so easily affixed to so many legal combatants but maybe we should be more careful in how we use the term. Words still mean things.

September 19, 2007

Philip Martin [send him mail] is an infantry Marine serving his second combat tour in the al Anbar Province of Iraq.

grimmythedog@netscape.net <grimmythedog@netscape.net>

the ledger or article was written by Al Martin

AL MARTIN is an independent economic-political analyst with 25 years of experience as a trader on NYMEX, CME, CBOT and CFTC. As a former contributor to the Presidential Council of Economic Advisors, Al Martin is considered to be a source of independent analysis for financially sophisticated and market savvy investors.

After working as a broker on Wall Street, Al Martin was involved in the so-called "Iran Contra" Affair as a fundraiser for the Bush Cabal from the covert side of government aka the US Shadow Government.
-----------------------------------------
The Greenspan Fed policy consistently injected a lot of cheap money into the global economy -- money that was looking for a place to go. When there’s a lot of cheap money, because of a “loose-money” policy, that is very fertile ground for the creation of speculative bubbles in many asset classes.

Greenspan is certainly largely responsible for the creation of asset bubbles, which would not have been created were it not for the Fed keeping interest rates too low for too long.

So how did Greenspan create these speculative bubbles through his policies?

In an environment of exceptionally cheap money, where people could borrow money for, let’s say, 3%, you only needed a very small rise in the value of an asset, particularly a fixed asset class like real estate, to make a profit.

What he created then was a whole new class of speculators by supplying the planet’s economy, not just the United States, with cheap money.
The United States is still the leader to the extent of setting global interest-rate policy. It’s hard for other nation-states to increase their rates without the United States doing the same.

Thus, what he did was to truncate the economic policy decisions of other countries like Japan, Great Britain, and the EU by forcing them to maintain artificially low interest rates, which only added fuel to the fire. ‘Fuel to the fire’ in this case means only added cheaper liquidity.

So what about the actual conspiracy or collusion between the Bush Regime and Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan?

When he came in, he was talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Sixty-one women in the U.S. military have been killed by hostile fire in Iraq - more than twice as many female casualties suffered since women were allowed to join the military after World War II. The number indicates that women are playing new roles in combat zones.

The new data comes from a report by the Rand Corporation examining how the Army assigns women to units in Iraq. The Pentagon released the report this month.

Department of Defense rules don't allow women in ground units whose mission is to engage in direct combat. But as Army Capt. Andrea So explains, those rules are difficult to enforce.

She says she came very close to becoming a hostile fire statistic during the summer of 2004. So was driving a truck in a convoy that was delivering a shipment to a U.S. base north of Tikrit.

"We drove in the gate," So said. "Spent about an hour and a half unloading our supplies on base. And as we were leaving to return, just as we were leaving out of the gate, an incoming convoy hit an anti-tank mine. So that was pretty frightening - because that was not there when we drove in an hour before."

The Rand report says the Army is following the Defense Department's policy by not assigning women to combat units. But the report also says the Army is technically violating its own rules.

According to Army policy, women like Capt. So may not be in proximity to the enemy. But in Iraq, there's no obvious front line; no one knows how to identify who the enemy is, or when - or where - they will pop up.

In 1948, women could only make up 2 percent of the armed forces. But towards the end of Vietnam, that restriction was lifted. As more women filled dangerous positions, some felt pressured by their male counterparts.

Capt. So explains what happened when she first joined her platoon in 2003.

"You had some guys who thought, 'Oh well, I'm going to have to bail out the women in certain occasions. If we're on a convoy I don't know how I'm going to feel if I have a female driver. Or a female gunner. Maybe I'd prefer to have a big strong man on the 50-caliber machine gun.'"

But she says those ideas didn't last very long.

"Guys saw that their female counterparts could really handle themselves, both driving huge semi trucks or handling the crew served that were keeping our convoys secure."

And commanders on the ground seem to agree. When Rand's researchers asked some of them what they thought of the language used in Pentagon and Army policies, one responded: "If the intent is to prevent women from experiencing combat. We're past that."

-------

Tuesday 18 September 2007

A military watchdog organization filed a lawsuit in federal court Tuesday against the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and a US Army major, on behalf of an Army soldier stationed in Iraq. The suit charges the Pentagon with widespread constitutional violations by allegedly trying to force the soldier to embrace evangelical Christianity and then retaliating against him when he refused.

The complaint, filed in US District Court in Kansas City, by the nonprofit Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), on behalf of Jeremy Hall, an Army specialist currently on active duty in Speicher, Iraq, alleges that Hall's First Amendment rights were violated beginning last Thanksgiving when, because of his atheist beliefs, he declined to participate in a Christian prayer ceremony commemorating the holiday.

"Immediately after plaintiff made it known he would decline to join hands and pray, he was confronted, in the presence of other military personnel, by the senior ranking ... staff sergeant who asked plaintiff why he did not want to pray, whereupon plaintiff explained because he is an atheist," says the lawsuit, a copy of which was provided to Truthout. "The staff sergeant asked plaintiff what an atheist is and plaintiff responded it meant that he (plaintiff) did not believe in God. This response caused the staff sergeant to tell plaintiff that he would have to sit elsewhere for the Thanksgiving dinner. Nonetheless, plaintiff sat at the table in silence and finished his meal."

Moreover, the complaint alleges that on August 7, when Hall received permission by an Army chaplain to organize a meeting of other soldiers who shared his atheist beliefs, his supervisor, Army Major Paul Welborne, broke up the gathering and threatened to retaliate against the soldier by charging him with violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The complaint also alleges that Welborne vowed to block Hall's reenlistment in the Army if the atheist group continued to meet - a violation of Hall's First Amendment rights under the Constitution. Welborne is named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

"During the course of the meeting, defendant Welborne confronted the attendees, disrupted the meeting and interfered with plaintiff Hall's and the other attendees' rights to discuss topics of their interests," the lawsuit alleges.

The complaint charges that Hall, who is based at Fort Riley, Kansas, has been forced to "submit to a religious test as a qualification to his post as a soldier in the United States Army," a violation of Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation said Defense Secretary Robert Gates is named as a defendant in the lawsuit because he has allowed the military to engage in "a pattern and practice of constitutionally impermissible promotions of religious beliefs within the Department of Defense and the United States military."

The lawsuit seeks an injunction against Welborne from further engaging in behavior "that has the effect of establishing compulsory religious practices" and asks that Gates prevent Welborne from interfering with Hall's free speech rights.

Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an organization that seeks to enforce the law mandating the separation between church and state in the US military, said the lawsuit would be the first of many his group intends to file against the Pentagon.

"This landmark federal litigation is just the first of a galaxy of new lawsuits that will be expeditiously filed against the Pentagon in a concentrated effort to preserve the precious religious liberties guaranteed by our beautiful United States Constitution," Weinstein said Monday. "Today, we are boldly stabbing back against an unconstitutional heart of darkness, a contagion of fundamentalist religious supremacy and triumphalism noxiously dominating the command and control of the technologically most lethal organization ever created by humankind: our honorable and noble United States armed forces."

A Pentagon spokesman said he could not comment on the lawsuit because he has not yet seen it.

Weinstein, a former White House attorney under Ronald Reagan, general counsel H. Ross Perot and an Air Force Judge Advocate (JAG), has been waging a one-man war against the Department of Defense for its blatant disregard of the Constitution. He published a book on his fight: "With God on Our Side: One Man's War Against an Evangelical Coup in America's Military." Weinstein is also an Air Force veteran and a graduate of the Air Force Academy. Three generations of his family have attended US military academies.

Since he launched his watchdog organization nearly two years ago months ago, Weinstein said he has been contacted by more than 5,000 active duty and retired soldiers, many of whom served or serve in Iraq, who told Weinstein that they were pressured by their commanding officers to convert to Christianity.

The lawsuit also includes examples of other alleged constitutional abuses by Pentagon officials.

Last month, the Pentagon's Inspector General responded to a complaint filed last year by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation alleging that Defense Department officials violated military regulations by appearing in a video promoting a fundamental Christian organization.

The Inspector General agreed and issued a 47-page report that was highly critical of senior Army and Air Force personnel for participating in the video while in uniform and on active duty.

The report recommended that Air Force Maj. Gen. Jack Catton, Army Brig. Gen. Bob Caslen, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, Maj. Gen. Peter Sutton, and a colonel and lieutenant colonel whose names were redacted in the inspector general's report, "improperly endorsed and participated with a non-Federal entity while in uniform" and the men should be disciplined for misconduct. Caslen was formerly the deputy director for political-military affairs for the war on terrorism, directorate for strategic plans and policy, joint staff. He now oversees the 4,200 cadets at the US Military Academy at West Point. Caslen told DOD investigators he agreed to appear in the video upon learning other senior Pentagon officials had been interviewed for the promotional video.

The inspector general's report recommended the "Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Army take appropriate corrective action with respect to the military officers concerned."

The Army generals who appeared in the video appeared to be speaking on behalf of the military, but they did not obtain prior permission to appear in the video. They defended their actions, according to the inspector general's report, saying the "Christian Embassy had become a 'quasi-Federal entity,' since the DOD had endorsed the organization to General Officers for over 25 years."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hi

terrorist my ass