U.N. Extends Iraq Mandate

Security Council Authorizes 160,000-Member Multinational Force To Stay Another Year

(CBS/AP)  The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Tuesday to extend the mandate of the 160,000-member multinational force in Iraq.

The council acted quickly in response to a request from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who said a top government priority is to assume full responsibility for security and stability in the country — but that it needs more time.

The resolution, drafted by the United States, extends the mandate of the multinational force for one year starting on Dec. 31 and authorizes a review at the request of the Iraqi government or by June 15.

The resolution contains the same provision as past resolutions — a commitment that the council "will terminate this mandate earlier if requested by the government of Iraq."

Al-Maliki's request for the one-year extension with a termination clause came as the Bush administration stepped up diplomatic efforts to stabilize the country.

In other developments:

U.S. troops fought with suspected insurgents in Ramadi on Tuesday, and the battle left six Iraqis dead, including five girls ranging in age from an infant to teenagers, the U.S. military said. The fighting began after a coalition patrol discovered a roadside bomb in the Hamaniyah section of Ramadi, and two men fled to a house, where they took up positions on the roof, the military said. As coalition forces removed the bomb, the suspected insurgents opened fire on the U.S. troops, who fought back with machine guns and tanks, the statement said. One of the gunmen may have been wounded and removed from the scene by other militants, the statement said, adding that there were no coalition casualties.

Iraq's Shiite militia has received training from the Iranian-sponsored group Hezbollah, a senior U.S. intelligence official told The New York Times. Between 1,000 and 2,000 members of the Mahdi army, composed of Iraqi Shiites led by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, were trained by Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon, the official said. Iran, along with Syria, has fostered the link between Iraqi Shiites and Hezbollah, the official said. The U.S. official's claim bolsters an observation made by a mid-level Mahdi commander, who said his militia sent 300 fighters to Lebanon. "They are the best-trained fighters in the Mahdi army," he told the Times this summer. Both the U.S. official and the Mahdi commander spoke on condition of anonymity.

Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accused the United States of destabilizing Iraq through hired terrorists and former members of Saddam Hussein's regime. In a meeting with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Khamenei pledged that Iran would do all it can to use its influence among Iraq's Muslim Shiites to quell the violence in the country, according to a state television report. "The main reason for the current situation in Iraq is America's policies," the television quoted Khamenei as telling Talabani, who is on the final day of a two-day visit to Iran. Both Iran and Iraq are Shiite majority countries.

President Bush said Tuesday that sectarian violence rocking Iraq is not civil war but part of an al Qaeda plot using violence to goad Iraqi factions into attacking each other. "No question it's tough, no question about it," Mr. Bush said. "There's a lot of sectarian violence taking place, fomented in my opinion because of the attacks by al Qaeda causing people to seek reprisal."

The Washington Post reports that the U.S. military is no longer able to defeat insurgents in western Iraq or match al Qaeda's rising popularity, according to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report about the military's mission in Anbar province.

Iraq's Parliament voted unanimously Tuesday to extend Iraq's state of emergency for 30 more days, and suspected Sunni insurgents set off bombs that killed eight people and wounded 40 across the country. Lawmakers decided to continue the state of emergency that allows for a nighttime curfew and gives the government extra powers to make arrests without warrants and launch police and military operations. The measures have been renewed every month since they were first authorized in November 2004.

Two car bombs exploded Tuesday near a hospital morgue in Baghdad, killing three civilians and one policeman and wounding 19 civilians, a police officer said on condition of anonymity to protect his security. Insurgents kill many of the Iraqi security forces working with the U.S.-led coalition.


©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Share:

• Share
• Yahoo! Buzz
• Twitter
• Mixx

More From Iraq After Saddam

• Chief Pentagon Auditor Forced from Post
• AP: Military Contractor Oversight Too Lax
• Top Saddam Aide Gets Second Conviction
• Bombs Claim 50 in Iraq
• Biden Meets with Key U.S. Leaders in Iraq
• Senate Investigates Blackwater Subsidiary
• Celebration, Carnage Mark Handover in Iraq

• 

  PhotosExplosions Rock Baghdad

• 

  PhotosIraq Photos:July 13?July 19

Add a Comment

• 1
• 2
• 3
• next

See all 48 Comments

by bushrocks1 November 29, 2006 4:17 PM EST

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

Reply to this comment

by diverinnl November 29, 2006 2:26 PM EST

Sunshine_2, only time will tell if he is an effective leader. Currently, he is in a political posturing game, trying to find a middle ground between the west and the middle east. I'm not trying to take his side on this but I can understand that his is a difficult position to be in. The militias from either side are not going to settle down until they feel empowered in some way. I too would live for it to happen overnight but I don't expect anyone over there to hold hands and sing "Kum Ba Ya" for some time yet. Perhaps years.

Reply to this comment

by sunshine_2 November 29, 2006 12:51 PM EST

diverinnl ...
"I can't say that I blame him and UN presence does add a sense of legitimacy to the war. By talking with Iran, he showed a cold shoulder to Bush that probably went a long way for him politically. "

As The Leader Of His Country what has he "Done" to protect the citizens who elected him? How many more innocent civilians will die, while he debates when or if the Militias will lay down their arms and discuss a Peaceful Solution?
With recent news that England, Poland and Canada planning to Remove their troops next year, Does This Elected Leader think he has till next Christmas to think about it? Maybe he does, since Bush does not believe in setting any dead lines or time tables.

Reply to this comment

by getcentered November 28, 2006 11:23 PM EST

"bushrocks1" and "janem4" is as out of touch as the complete idiots that put us in the war in Iraq.

"An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East"
Bushrocks1, what is Israel? It is in the Middle East, is it not a democracy?

"They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one."

First of all the Bush Administration new plenty about what was going to happen if we went to war with Iraq, and with that knowledge what did they do? They sent way to few troops to begin with. When the majority of US war planners said it would take 300,000 to 400,000 troops, we sent only 140,000. Also, when it was time for diplomacy to get support from the world, our President and the most cursory and secretive administration in history took a bullies stance and ignored the opinions of many of our allies.

See, the fools wanting this war in Iraq needed it to begin quickly for POLITICAL REASONS ONLY. If we did not rush into going to war then the dissent in America (which is about half of us, "traitors") would have actually had a voice, and the war in Iraq might have never come to pass.

I WANT FAMILY OF MINE TO COME HOME ALIVE FROM IRAQ. I NEVER WANT CURSORY LEADERS PUTTING MY FAMILIY IN HARMS WAY, WHEN I DON'T KNOW WHY OR FOR DISPUTED REASONS.

Shame on Republicans for their lack of imagination, their poor performance as leaders and their willful ignorance when adapting policies that effect the lives of every American.

Reply to this comment

by diverinnl November 28, 2006 9:20 PM EST

It's hard to predict how much direct influence Iran will have, specifically because of the war you mentioned (an awesome point by the way). I'm sure there are still strong feelings between the veterans, many of whom hold political positions in both Governments now. If Iraq ties to closely with Iran, they could be held up in the west as supporting terrorism. If they stand too far back, their Government looks like western puppets. It will be interesting to watch it unfold.

Reply to this comment

by pakaal November 28, 2006 8:52 PM EST

Interesting thoughts, diverinnl. Granted the Iraqi govt. is not in a position to defend themselves against neighboring countries without us being involved at this point. I wonder how much involvement Iran could have in Iraqi politics right now though - they have a lot in common, but they also fought a bitter war only a couple decades ago.

Reply to this comment

by diverinnl November 28, 2006 8:26 PM EST

Correction:

This, in my opinion, is due to al-Maliki directly with Iran.

Should read - This, in my opinion, is due to al-Maliki talking directly with Iran.

Reply to this comment

by diverinnl November 28, 2006 8:24 PM EST

al-Maliki does need the US presence at this point. Without us, the pressure from the Shiite majority governments in Syria and Iran would undoubtedly force an extreme secular government takeover in Iraq, just like in Iran. He does need to buck US policy from time to time to keep face however.
I'm going to make a prediction. Over the next 5 -7 days, you will see a substantial decrease in the amount of Shiite violence in Iraq. If you do see an increase, it will be by Sunni extremists. This, in my opinion, is due to al-Maliki directly with Iran.

Reply to this comment

by pakaal November 28, 2006 8:18 PM EST

diverinnl, if that's true, you're saying al-Maliki thinks Iraq needs the US presence. I really wonder if we're helping over there, and a lot of Iraqis think we aren't. Not to say majority rules or anything, but it seems like his people would know best, since they have to deal with the problems on the ground daily.

I do think he's done well by looking for dialogue with Iran and Syria, though. Bush should have seen this coming. Push a few people into a corner, of course they're going to get together.

Reply to this comment

by pakaal November 28, 2006 8:13 PM EST

If you're tired of seeing the same comment for the past ten days from bushrocks1 (and now under an alias VEMECEGR), please do what I do and click on "report this comment" under the message and report him. After the first day, it isn't commenting any more, it's spamming....

Reply to this comment

by diverinnl November 28, 2006 8:11 PM EST

Pakaal, I really think al-Maliki is doing everything he can NOT to toe the Bush line. He is trying everything he can to be seen as legitimate by his peers in the region. I can't say that I blame him and UN presence does add a sense of legitimacy to the war. By talking with Iran, he showed a cold shoulder to Bush that probably went a long way for him politically.

Reply to this comment

by bushrocks1 November 28, 2006 8:07 PM EST

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

Reply to this comment

by pakaal November 28, 2006 8:05 PM EST

Wow, I'll bet this is the first time in the Bush Administration's history that they've been glad to work with the UN.

With this "stamp of legitimacy" the US can now say 'See, even the UN agrees we have to stay!' Good politicking. My only question is whether al-Maliki is toeing the Bush line, or does he actually think another year of US troop presence will help, when even his own people - the Iraqi populace - think is making the situation worse.

Reply to this comment

by diverinnl November 28, 2006 7:41 PM EST

Patriotic9, I'm with you on taking issue with the religious right touting the war in Iraq is somehow Gods work. In no way do I believe that it is. Mans war against man, especially in the name of God goes against every Christian principle that I was ever taught. If I understand the Koran correctly, and I do not profess to be an expert, the principles of peace and love are very much the same. The Christian Bible even warns us about men preaching war and hate in the name of God as being "false prophets".

Reply to this comment

by patriotic9 November 28, 2006 7:03 PM EST

diverinnl
I really apreciate your comments.We need people like you to tell the warmonger BIBLE BASHING people like PET ROBERSTON and JOHN HAGEE who had supported Iraq invasion because they were thinking that invasion in IRAQ will help the 2nd coming of CHRIST.Also,if we look at all the sufferings of the people of UNITED STATES and 9/11 attack,the main cause seems to be the UNITED STATES support to those EUROPEANS who were brought into PALESTINE after WWII to occupy the land of PALESTINIAN people by force.All those who want to support the concept of HUMAN BEINGS being GOD-CHOSEN or GOD-NEGLECTED and that's why to be treated differently on the basis of their GOD-CHOSEN or GOD-NEGLECTED RACES,always refer from BIBLE.Religions have always been used by some people to rule and fool rest of the population.Whenever two groups fight on the name of religion ,there is always a third person who takes the financial advantage of the situation.I don't care who follows what religion or who worship whatever god in whatever way.I just don't want to see people fighting against each other and killing each other.I can't explain how sad I feel to hear the news of anybody to get killed on the name of GOD and GOD(even if he really exist,I don't know that)can't come infront of the people and say that this guy is wrong,I never said to kill some body on my name or to occupy somebody's land on my name or to bulldozed somebody's house with women,elderly and children inside on my name.

Reply to this comment

by diverinnl November 28, 2006 6:40 PM EST

Patriotic9, you seem to have read a different Bible than I did. You are so far and away from what is in the Bible that debating Christian philosophy with you is probably pointless. Where I will digress is that there have been many wars, such as the Crusades, fought on the context of spreading Christianity. Just as Jihad is the destruction of all infidels. Those examples though are caused by mans selfish interpretation of scripture rather than literal meaning. The Bible you refer to, at least in the New Testament, does not call for wars of man against man in any way.

Reply to this comment

by patriotic9 November 28, 2006 5:55 PM EST

diverinnl
You don't understand Agnim's point because you don't want to.If you do accepts his points to be valid,you will have to denounce BIBLE and BIBLICAL PROPHECIES which have resulted in the lost of so many lives for giving favors to one very small group of people in the world by considering them GOD-CHOSEN and discriminating rest of entire humanity by considering them GOD-NEGLECTED.Can you explain one simple thing not to me but to your own self.Why the entire humanity has not been promised a SINGLE PENNY from GOD and why the EUROPEAN INVADERS IN PALESTINE have been promised a LAND IN THE MIDDLE EAST?Why this discrimination against the entire HUMANITY is LEGITIMATE and JUSTIFIED.If BIBLE is really a book of GOD then why BIBLE has been proven FLAT WRONG?BIBLE says GOD BLESS THOSE WHO BLESS ISRAEL.GOD CURSE THOSE WHO CURSE ISRAEL.Why my fellow Americans whose tax money had BLESSED the SO-CALLED ISRAELIS were jumping from 100th level of WORLD TRADE CENTER on 9/11.Was that a blessing?Why those SAUDIs who teach their kids that JEWS are PIGS and APES are getting richer every day.Why the IRAQ INVASION didn't bring JESUS back in the world which was the main goal and why Iraqi invasion has made MUSLIM TERRORISTS so strong and powerful like they were never before?

Reply to this comment

by diverinnl November 28, 2006 5:27 PM EST

Agnim, I have read your posts 4 times trying to capture a valid point but I just don't see it. I am so completely dumbfounded by your obvious misunderstanding of world history that I just don't know how to respond.

Reply to this comment

by agnim November 28, 2006 4:31 PM EST

"People like you use others to fight there wars"

FARTKNOCKER2 at 12:54 PM : Nov 28, 2006

Agnim has no wars to fight, guy. LOL

Considering that we only have a few short decades on this Earth, I find the killing of fellow humans to be not to my liking, and a total waste of my valuable time/energy/resources.

Reply to this comment

by agnim November 28, 2006 4:26 PM EST

And yes, Driver, the maniac muslims also are getting their comeuppance for their destructiveness in spreading their islamic insanity. Get it?

The Big Picture is quite simple, really.
No one escapes the fruits of past 'seeds sown'. LOL

The US can help put an end to the millennial-old cycles of Middle East vengeance and violence by helping ALL the Semites to find common ground; since they are ALL indigenous to the area.

Reply to this comment

• 1
• 2
• 3
• next

See all 48 Comments

Add a comment

Comment SUBMIT

Click here to add another comment.

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

Comment reply

Submit Cancel

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

Report offensive content:

If you believe this comment is offensive or violates the CBSNews.com Terms of Use, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the comment). Once reported, our staff will be notified and the comment will be reviewed.

Select type of offense:

Offensive: Sexually explicit or offensive language

Spam: Advertisements, commercial links, or repetitive posts

Disruptive posting: Flaming or offending other users

Illegal activities: Promote cracked software, or other illegal content

Off-topic: Commentary unrelated to the storyline

Comments (optional):

Report Cancel

E-mail this comment to a friend.

E-mail this to: (Separate multiple e-mail addresses with commas. Limited to 10 addresses.)

Your e-mail address:

Send me a copy of this message

Note: Your e-mail address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the e-mail and in case of transmission error. Neither your address nor the recipients's address will be used for any other purpose.

Add your own personal message: (Optional)

Hi, I found this user's comment on CBSNews.com and thought you might be interested in reading it. Send e-mail Cancel

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

[diverinnl]

Sunshine_2, only time will tell if he is an effective leader. Currently, he is in a political posturing game, trying to find a middle ground between the west and the middle east. I'm not trying to take his side on this but I can understand that his is a difficult position to be in. The militias from either side are not going to settle down until they feel empowered in some way. I too would live for it to happen overnight but I don't expect anyone over there to hold hands and sing "Kum Ba Ya" for some time yet. Perhaps years.

[sunshine_2]

diverinnl ...
"I can't say that I blame him and UN presence does add a sense of legitimacy to the war. By talking with Iran, he showed a cold shoulder to Bush that probably went a long way for him politically. "

As The Leader Of His Country what has he "Done" to protect the citizens who elected him? How many more innocent civilians will die, while he debates when or if the Militias will lay down their arms and discuss a Peaceful Solution?
With recent news that England, Poland and Canada planning to Remove their troops next year, Does This Elected Leader think he has till next Christmas to think about it? Maybe he does, since Bush does not believe in setting any dead lines or time tables.

[getcentered]

"bushrocks1" and "janem4" is as out of touch as the complete idiots that put us in the war in Iraq.

"An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East"
Bushrocks1, what is Israel? It is in the Middle East, is it not a democracy?

"They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one."

First of all the Bush Administration new plenty about what was going to happen if we went to war with Iraq, and with that knowledge what did they do? They sent way to few troops to begin with. When the majority of US war planners said it would take 300,000 to 400,000 troops, we sent only 140,000. Also, when it was time for diplomacy to get support from the world, our President and the most cursory and secretive administration in history took a bullies stance and ignored the opinions of many of our allies.

See, the fools wanting this war in Iraq needed it to begin quickly for POLITICAL REASONS ONLY. If we did not rush into going to war then the dissent in America (which is about half of us, "traitors") would have actually had a voice, and the war in Iraq might have never come to pass.

I WANT FAMILY OF MINE TO COME HOME ALIVE FROM IRAQ. I NEVER WANT CURSORY LEADERS PUTTING MY FAMILIY IN HARMS WAY, WHEN I DON'T KNOW WHY OR FOR DISPUTED REASONS.

Shame on Republicans for their lack of imagination, their poor performance as leaders and their willful ignorance when adapting policies that effect the lives of every American.

[diverinnl]

It's hard to predict how much direct influence Iran will have, specifically because of the war you mentioned (an awesome point by the way). I'm sure there are still strong feelings between the veterans, many of whom hold political positions in both Governments now. If Iraq ties to closely with Iran, they could be held up in the west as supporting terrorism. If they stand too far back, their Government looks like western puppets. It will be interesting to watch it unfold.

[pakaal]

Interesting thoughts, diverinnl. Granted the Iraqi govt. is not in a position to defend themselves against neighboring countries without us being involved at this point. I wonder how much involvement Iran could have in Iraqi politics right now though - they have a lot in common, but they also fought a bitter war only a couple decades ago.

[diverinnl]

Correction:

This, in my opinion, is due to al-Maliki directly with Iran.

Should read - This, in my opinion, is due to al-Maliki talking directly with Iran.

[diverinnl]

al-Maliki does need the US presence at this point. Without us, the pressure from the Shiite majority governments in Syria and Iran would undoubtedly force an extreme secular government takeover in Iraq, just like in Iran. He does need to buck US policy from time to time to keep face however.
I'm going to make a prediction. Over the next 5 -7 days, you will see a substantial decrease in the amount of Shiite violence in Iraq. If you do see an increase, it will be by Sunni extremists. This, in my opinion, is due to al-Maliki directly with Iran.

[pakaal]

diverinnl, if that's true, you're saying al-Maliki thinks Iraq needs the US presence. I really wonder if we're helping over there, and a lot of Iraqis think we aren't. Not to say majority rules or anything, but it seems like his people would know best, since they have to deal with the problems on the ground daily.

I do think he's done well by looking for dialogue with Iran and Syria, though. Bush should have seen this coming. Push a few people into a corner, of course they're going to get together.

[pakaal]

If you're tired of seeing the same comment for the past ten days from bushrocks1 (and now under an alias VEMECEGR), please do what I do and click on "report this comment" under the message and report him. After the first day, it isn't commenting any more, it's spamming....

[diverinnl]

Pakaal, I really think al-Maliki is doing everything he can NOT to toe the Bush line. He is trying everything he can to be seen as legitimate by his peers in the region. I can't say that I blame him and UN presence does add a sense of legitimacy to the war. By talking with Iran, he showed a cold shoulder to Bush that probably went a long way for him politically.

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

[pakaal]

Wow, I'll bet this is the first time in the Bush Administration's history that they've been glad to work with the UN.

With this "stamp of legitimacy" the US can now say 'See, even the UN agrees we have to stay!' Good politicking. My only question is whether al-Maliki is toeing the Bush line, or does he actually think another year of US troop presence will help, when even his own people - the Iraqi populace - think is making the situation worse.

[diverinnl]

Patriotic9, I'm with you on taking issue with the religious right touting the war in Iraq is somehow Gods work. In no way do I believe that it is. Mans war against man, especially in the name of God goes against every Christian principle that I was ever taught. If I understand the Koran correctly, and I do not profess to be an expert, the principles of peace and love are very much the same. The Christian Bible even warns us about men preaching war and hate in the name of God as being "false prophets".

[patriotic9]

diverinnl
I really apreciate your comments.We need people like you to tell the warmonger BIBLE BASHING people like PET ROBERSTON and JOHN HAGEE who had supported Iraq invasion because they were thinking that invasion in IRAQ will help the 2nd coming of CHRIST.Also,if we look at all the sufferings of the people of UNITED STATES and 9/11 attack,the main cause seems to be the UNITED STATES support to those EUROPEANS who were brought into PALESTINE after WWII to occupy the land of PALESTINIAN people by force.All those who want to support the concept of HUMAN BEINGS being GOD-CHOSEN or GOD-NEGLECTED and that's why to be treated differently on the basis of their GOD-CHOSEN or GOD-NEGLECTED RACES,always refer from BIBLE.Religions have always been used by some people to rule and fool rest of the population.Whenever two groups fight on the name of religion ,there is always a third person who takes the financial advantage of the situation.I don't care who follows what religion or who worship whatever god in whatever way.I just don't want to see people fighting against each other and killing each other.I can't explain how sad I feel to hear the news of anybody to get killed on the name of GOD and GOD(even if he really exist,I don't know that)can't come infront of the people and say that this guy is wrong,I never said to kill some body on my name or to occupy somebody's land on my name or to bulldozed somebody's house with women,elderly and children inside on my name.

[diverinnl]

Patriotic9, you seem to have read a different Bible than I did. You are so far and away from what is in the Bible that debating Christian philosophy with you is probably pointless. Where I will digress is that there have been many wars, such as the Crusades, fought on the context of spreading Christianity. Just as Jihad is the destruction of all infidels. Those examples though are caused by mans selfish interpretation of scripture rather than literal meaning. The Bible you refer to, at least in the New Testament, does not call for wars of man against man in any way.

[patriotic9]

diverinnl
You don't understand Agnim's point because you don't want to.If you do accepts his points to be valid,you will have to denounce BIBLE and BIBLICAL PROPHECIES which have resulted in the lost of so many lives for giving favors to one very small group of people in the world by considering them GOD-CHOSEN and discriminating rest of entire humanity by considering them GOD-NEGLECTED.Can you explain one simple thing not to me but to your own self.Why the entire humanity has not been promised a SINGLE PENNY from GOD and why the EUROPEAN INVADERS IN PALESTINE have been promised a LAND IN THE MIDDLE EAST?Why this discrimination against the entire HUMANITY is LEGITIMATE and JUSTIFIED.If BIBLE is really a book of GOD then why BIBLE has been proven FLAT WRONG?BIBLE says GOD BLESS THOSE WHO BLESS ISRAEL.GOD CURSE THOSE WHO CURSE ISRAEL.Why my fellow Americans whose tax money had BLESSED the SO-CALLED ISRAELIS were jumping from 100th level of WORLD TRADE CENTER on 9/11.Was that a blessing?Why those SAUDIs who teach their kids that JEWS are PIGS and APES are getting richer every day.Why the IRAQ INVASION didn't bring JESUS back in the world which was the main goal and why Iraqi invasion has made MUSLIM TERRORISTS so strong and powerful like they were never before?

[diverinnl]

Agnim, I have read your posts 4 times trying to capture a valid point but I just don't see it. I am so completely dumbfounded by your obvious misunderstanding of world history that I just don't know how to respond.

[agnim]

"People like you use others to fight there wars"

FARTKNOCKER2 at 12:54 PM : Nov 28, 2006

Agnim has no wars to fight, guy. LOL

Considering that we only have a few short decades on this Earth, I find the killing of fellow humans to be not to my liking, and a total waste of my valuable time/energy/resources.

[agnim]

And yes, Driver, the maniac muslims also are getting their comeuppance for their destructiveness in spreading their islamic insanity. Get it?

The Big Picture is quite simple, really.
No one escapes the fruits of past 'seeds sown'. LOL

The US can help put an end to the millennial-old cycles of Middle East vengeance and violence by helping ALL the Semites to find common ground; since they are ALL indigenous to the area.