Wednesday, May 31, 2006

 

CHOMSKY ON IRAQ -US SUPPORT OF SADDAM

YouTube Logo

Video Description

Noam Chomsky was on Book TV this past weekend speaking at the West Point Military Academy. In this video clip he gives the West Point students an important history lesson in US-Iraq relations and Saddam's human rights record.

Personal Message

Chomsky on Iraq

To accept my friend request, click here: http://www.youtube.com/signup_login?ci=17CCFE198DB7D02D


 

IT'S COMING: THE DRAFT

I KNEW IT WOULD. BUSH NEEDS MORE WARM BODIES FOR CANNON FODDER.

THE DRAFT. ALL CITIZENS AND RESIDENT IN THE US BETWEEN 18-42 YEARS OF AGE, MALE AND FEMALE, FOR MILITARY OR CIVILIAN DUTIES.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4752.IH

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

 

AMBUSH IN BAGHDAD

Ambush in Baghdad - brief video clip

Click on the link to IFILM.com below:

Ambush in Baghdad Video/Main Info

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2669647



IFILM.com
Because You Like To Watch



"Email to a Friend" is a service provided by IFILM.com to its users.
 

Suicide Car Bomb Outside Abu Ghraib

The following page from the "IAVA - Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America" website has been sent to you

You can access it at the following url:
http://www.iava.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=352&Itemid=134


Monday, May 29, 2006

 

WHATREALLYHAPPENED.COM

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com Good blog; good posts

Sunday, May 28, 2006

 

MEMORIAL DAY - 2006

NO MORE! NO MORE!! NO MORE!!! NO MORE!!!

NO MORE WOUNDED! NO MORE KIA!! NO MORE!!
TOO MANY! TOO MANY! TOO MANY!!
REMEMBER THEM. HONOR THEM. REMEMBER THEM.
THANK THEM. HONOR THEM. REMEMBER THEM.
DO NOT FORGET. NEVER FORGET. NEVER FORGET.
 

A MEMORIAL DAY TRIBUTE TO WWII VETERANS

OUR WWII VETERANS ARE DYING AT A RATE OF AROUND 2,000 A DAY. SOON THEY WILL ALL BE GONE. ALL TOO OFTEN THEY ARE FORGOTTEN UNTIL TROTTED OUT FOR A PARADE OR SPEECHIFYING.

THESE OLD MEN WERE YOUNG ONCE. THEY LINED UP FOR BLOCKS OUTSIDE RECRUITERS' OFFICES AFTER PEARL HARBOR. THEY OFFERED UP THEIR LIVES TO DEFEND AMERICA AGAINST TWO IMPERIALISTIC POWERS WHO WOULD CONQUER THE WORLD.

THE DEBT OF GRATITUDE OWED THEM AND THEIR FALLEN COMRADES CAN NEVER BE PAID. IF NOT FOR THEM, MANY OF US WOULD HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE GAS CHAMBERS AND NO PROGENY WOULD BE ALIVE TODAY. THOSE WHO WERE ALLOWED TO LIVE IN SLAVERY WOULD BE SPEAKING GERMAN OR JAPANESE.

BEFORE YOU GO:
http://www.managedmusic.com/B4UGo.htm click on play to start music video.
The pictures are quite large so you may have to scroll up and down a little to see the entire picture as the song progresses.

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

 

SFGate: LEAH GARCHIK : Small Green Soldiers


Little Green Soldiers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The original article can be found on SFGate.com here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/05/22/DDGKAIHDN91.DTL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, May 22, 2006 (SF Chronicle)
LEAH GARCHIK
Leah Garchik

The blogosphere carries word of the May 26 deployment of Kvatch's
Kommandos, small plastic army men attached to anti-Iraq war messages, to
be left in public places all around the country. "Let's make this a
movement that will get noticed," says one organizer. The online
conversation that follows includes regrets from one would-be participant:
"I wanted to do it but my little plastic soldiers are being sent to the
border to guard our country from being invaded by brown people."

***********************************

Public eavesdropping
"Should I ask him? I speak bird a little."

Small girl to her father, upon encountering a mourning dove settled in a
driveway, overheard in Belmont by Shelley Frost.

*****************************************************

Open for business at (415) 777-8426 or e-mail lgarchik@sfchronicle.com . ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2006 SF Chronicle


 

The Most Dangerous Place

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1196401,00.html



Tuesday, May 23, 2006

 

PERILOUS FLIGHTS - CHEATING DEATH

A pilot describes the perils of missions in Iraq

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/reportingforduty



 

AMBUSH! --VIDEO



Ambushed in Iraq
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2006/05/12/VI2006051201280.html?referrer=emaillink

� 2004 The Washington Post Company


 

MOTHER AT WAR



When Mom Is Over There

By Anne Hull

For one week a Post reporter is pulled into the war effort, helping her brother juggle single parenthood while his wife is serving in Iraq.

To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/07/AR2006010700475.html?referrer=emailarticle


Would you like to send this article to a friend? Go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/emailafriend?contentId=AR2006010700475&sent=no&referrer=emailarticle

� 2002 - 2006 The Washington Post Company


 

WOMEN AT WAR



Personal Message:
Also click on women-loss in war.

Women at War
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/04/18/GR2006041800094.html?referrer=emaillink

� 2004 The Washington Post Company


 

WOMEN LOSE LIMBS IN WAR



Limbs Lost to Enemy Fire, Women Forge a New Reality

By Donna St. George

Her body had been maimed by war. Dawn Halfaker lay unconscious at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, her parents at her bedside and her future suddenly unsure. A rocket-propelled grenade had exploded in her Humvee, ravaging her arm and shoulder. The Iraq war is the first in which so many women......

To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/17/AR2006041701618.html?referrer=emailarticle


Would you like to send this article to a friend? Go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/emailafriend?contentId=AR2006041701618&sent=no&referrer=emailarticle

� 2002 - 2006 The Washington Post Company


 

Awarding of Purple Hearts to troops injured by IEDs



Sacrifice Honored In Hallowed Place

By Carol Morello

A journey of pain and loss, beginning with roadside bombs in Iraq and pausing at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, brought seven soldiers to Mount Vernon yesterday in a Purple Heart ceremony filled with reminders of war's sacrifice.

To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/20/AR2006042002054.html?referrer=emailarticle

� 2002 - 2006 The Washington Post Company


 

CNN.com Specials

Iraq reports by journalists. Click to read.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/otsc/index.html

__________________________________________________


Monday, May 22, 2006

 

Withdrawal Symptoms

Withdrawal Symptoms

Quitting Iraq won't undo the real damage of the war.

by James K. Galbraith

March/April 2006 Issue


IN NOVEMBER 2004, Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez came to a luncheon at my professional home, the LBJ School of Public Affairs. I attended and asked some inconvenient questions. It was an inconsequential exchange, but two weeks later I received a surprising invitation: Would I fly to Germany in February and speak to the leadership of the Army V Corps about the operational conditions of Iraq? I have no military experience, and have never been to Iraq, while many in my audience�mostly generals and colonels�had spent over a year there. But of course I went. My unstated assignment was to say some inconvenient things, which may have otherwise gone unsaid.
Inconvenience has since gone public, big time. Back in November, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) gave a breakthrough speech, describing the troops as �stretched thin�: �Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing.� Choices will have to be made.� At the same time, Murtha added, success in Iraq is very remote. �Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by the security situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce.� And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year.� Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American casualties have doubled.�
For this, Cheney blasted him, but then it emerged that Murtha�s crime was tipping the administration�s own hand. It appears we are beginning a long, slow, painful retreat from Iraq.
But are we drawing the full and correct lessons from this disaster? Some former liberal hawks now take refuge in what Sam Rosenfeld and Matthew Yglesias call �the incompetence dodge�: that things would have turned out okay if only the neocon cabal were not in charge. Such libhawks would withdraw U.S. forces only to use them again, in another (but, of course, more justified and better planned) war. And that would mean a bigger war, with a bigger force on the ground, and a much bigger budget to support it.
But the reality is that the Iraq war could not be won by a force of any size or by an expenditure of any amount. Against determined opposition, occupations in the modern world cannot prevail. They haven�t for more than 60 years. The reason is that the basic economics of warfare have changed. Here are six reasons I gave to the officers in Germany�a pure exercise in stating what they already knew.
Sixty years ago the then-colonial world was mostly rural; today it consists of enormous cities. These urban jungles of concrete provide vast advantages�concealment, fortification, communication, intelligence�to the defender. In cities, troops on patrol are isolated and exposed; their location is always known, while that of the enemy is not. More patrols mean more targets. The superior firepower of the occupiers just means that a lot more innocent people get hurt.
So does the �crude� weaponry of insurgents. Car bombs, booby traps, and suicide belts are cheap and effective. Detonated by radio or wire from within a nearby building, roadside bombs equalize the insurgent and the invader. Detonated by fanatics, suicide bombs are extremely difficult to stop. Shaped explosives, which have started to appear in Iraq, are able to burn right through armor plate. To prevent these attacks means emphasizing force protection; this gets in the way of everything else.
The violence in Iraq is horrific, but it�s the media that makes it intolerable. Indeed, the violence is horrific only by modern standards. To truly cow a colonial population (as in British India in 1857, or on the American plains in the late 19th century) requires mass murder on a far larger scale. The presence of the media makes this most inconvenient. As we demonstrated at Fallujah, the sure way to subdue a hostile city is to destroy it. But that�s no way to win a political war back home�or hearts and minds in Iraq.
Jet travel is a military mixed blessing. Today�s army works on rotations; soldiers are deployed for about a year and then (in principle at least) they come home. When that happens, local liaisons and intelligence relationships must be rebuilt. On the other hand, if soldiers are denied the right to rotate home, their morale is going to suffer far more than in the old days when there was no such expectation. Email and blogs make sure that morale problems get home fast when the soldiers do not.
As if that were not enough, war today cannot escape the free market. When we invaded Iraq, the borders collapsed and import restrictions were eliminated. Imports surged, notably of electrical appliances like air conditioners and refrigerators. By the time the electricity supply was rebuilt, demand had skyrocketed, and the power could run for only a few hours a day. Without control over electrical demand, the reconstruction effort was crippled, and the Americans couldn�t win the Iraqi people�s respect and support. They were expecting miracles, after all, and they didn�t get them.
Finally, there has been a fundamental change of expectations: call it the presumption of independence. The British may have believed that their empire would always be the �dread and envy of them all,� but today no one believes the American presence in Iraq can endure over the long term. So unless you are in a safe zone (like Kurdistan) or part of an exiled elite with a posh flat in London, it does not pay to cuddle up to the occupying power. The retribution could be most unpleasant.
These are now the fundamental facts of wars of occupation. They tell us that foreign military power cannot long prevail over the territory of a people�in this case, the Sunnis of central Iraq�who are prepared to resist it to the death. This does not necessarily mean that the new Iraq will collapse when we leave. But if we cannot defeat the insurgency, then the insurgents will have to be accommodated, somehow, politically. Or else we leave the country to fight it out even more brutally in our absence.
We should have known we�d face this situation. In tiny East Timor, a ragtag band of resisters harried the Indonesian army for more than 25 years; that band (splendid people, by the way) now runs the world�s newest independent state. In Afghanistan, U.S.-assisted guerrillas drove out the Red army; their successors now make most of the country ungovernable. In Chechnya, the country has been destroyed but the rebellion hasn�t been subdued. And then there was Vietnam.
During the Cold War, we ringed the world with bases�but always in alliance with existing governments that were legitimate, at least up to a point. One may disapprove of the regimes we supported, but this model for the projection of military power works. It is called �containment.� It works as long as the host regimes remain viable and as long as the military power it projects isn�t tested in actual combat. When these conditions failed�in Iran, in the Philippines, in Vietnam�so did the strategy.
The successful use of military power�as Mao Zedong understood when he called America a �paper tiger��entails a large element of bluff. Vietnam deflated the image that American power could never be challenged. To some extent, the Gulf War of 1991 restored that image, but the restoration was achieved by the limited aims and quick termination of that war. The Clinton successes in the Balkans came in part because all sides bought this lesson of the Gulf War. (With Serbia, the bluff came close to being called again; the Kosovo bombing campaign took 80 days and Russian diplomacy rescued us in the end.)
But now Iraq has once again exposed what military power cannot achieve, short of nuclear weapons. Iran and North Korea have taken notice. Meanwhile, our friends, the Europeans and the Japanese, must be asking themselves: Exactly what sort of security does the American alliance buy, and at what price?
Bush and Cheney have done more than merely bungle a war and damage the Army. They have destroyed the foundation of the post-Cold War world security system, which was the accepted authority of American military power. That reputation is now gone. It cannot be restored simply by retreating from Iraq. This does not mean that every ongoing alliance will now collapse. But they are all more vulnerable than they were before, and once we leave central Iraq, they will be weaker still. As these paper tigers start to blow in the wind, so too will America�s economic security erode.
From this point of view, the fuss over whether we were misled into war�Is the sky blue? Is the grass green?�stands in the way of a deeper debate that should start quite soon and ask this question: Now that Bush and Cheney have screwed up the only successful known model for world security under our leadership, what the devil do we do?

James K. Galbraith teaches economics at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas-Austin. He previously served in several positions on the staff of the U.S. Congress, including executive director of the Joint Economic Committee.


@2006 The Foundation for National Progress

Read the article online:

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2006/03/withdrawal_symptoms.html



 

Policymakers on Torture Take NoteRemember Pinochet

Watch out, torturers!

Policymakers on Torture Take Note�Remember Pinochet

Addington, Yoo, Gonzales, and others should think carefully about their travel plans.

by Philippe Sands

November 15, 2005

Before embarking on international travels, David Addington and others who are said to be closely associated with the crafting of the Bush administration's policy on the interrogation of detainees would do well to reflect on the fate of Augusto Pinochet.
The Chilean senator and former head of state was unexpectedly arrested during a visit to London on Oct. 16, 1998, at the request of a Spanish judge who sought his extradition on various charges of international criminality, including torture.
The House of Lords�Britain's upper house�ruled that the 1984 convention prohibiting torture removed any right he might have to claim immunity from the English courts and gave a green light to the continuation of extradition proceedings.
As counsel for Human Rights Watch, I participated in that case. This allowed me to witness the case firsthand. It also gave me the opportunity to chat with Pinochet's advisers, and one conversation in particular has remained vividly at the forefront of my mind.
"It never occurred to us that the torture convention would be used to detain the senator," remarked the human rights adviser who had been involved in the decision by Pinochet and Chile to ratify the Convention Against Torture in 1988.
Pinochet spent more than a year in custody before being returned to Chile on medical grounds.
The adviser's words came back to me recently, during a debate with Professor John Yoo at the World Affairs Council of San Francisco.
Yoo, a UC Berkeley law professor, is the author of legal advice that rode roughshod over the torture convention, and contributed to at least one opinion that ignored the well-established international definition of torture.
These opinions are plainly inconsistent with the requirements of international law. They may have opened a door into the forbidden world of torture, and were perhaps offered as part of a policy on the part of the U.S. administration to allow more aggressive interrogation techniques in the "war on terror."
Yoo was well aware of the torture convention. However, when I raised the Pinochet precedent in our debate, he seemed slightly taken aback.
It seems he may not have turned his mind to the possibility that a legal adviser associated with a policy that permits torture contrary to international legal obligations could be subject to international investigation.
How might this happen?
The United States has led the world in promoting international human rights laws. It played a leading role in negotiating a global convention that would outlaw the use of torture in any circumstances.
The convention sets up an elaborate enforcement mechanism. The United States and the 140- plus other countries that have joined the convention agree to take certain actions if any person who has committed torture is found on their territory.

Such a person is to be investigated, and if the facts warrant, must either be prosecuted for the crime of torture or extradited to another country that will prosecute.
The convention intends to avoid impunity for this most serious of international crimes by removing the possibility that the torturer will be able to find any safe haven. This was the basis for Pinochet's arrest in Britain.
The potential problem for Yoo, vice presidential chief of staff David Addington and others who may have been associated with torture, is to be found in Article 4 of the convention. This section criminalizes not only the act of torture itself but also other acts, including "an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture."
Can the mere drafting of legal advice that authorizes a policy of torture amount to complicity in torture?
Any case will turn on its particular facts. A prosecutor would have to establish that there was a direct causal connection between the legal advice and the carrying out of particular acts of torture, or perhaps a clear relationship between the legal advice and a governmental policy that permitted torture (or turned a blind eye to it).
That evidence is not yet established, and it would be inappropriate to prejudge the outcome of any investigations that may be carried out in the future.
Nevertheless, those associated with the legal opinions and their surrounding policies should be aware that there is case law from Nuremberg that suggests that lawyers and policymakers can be criminally liable for the advice they have given and the decisions they have taken.
In the case of United States vs. Josef Altstotter, some of the accused were lawyers who had been involved in enacting and enforcing Nazi laws and Hitler decrees that permitted crimes against humanity. None of the defendants was charged with murder or the abuse of a particular person. They were charged with participating in a governmentally organized system of cruelty. As the tribunal put it: "The dagger of the assassin was concealed beneath the robe of the jurist." Eight of the 14 were convicted in December 1947 for "complicity in international crime."
It is not just lawyers who should beware. Some media reports have suggested that a chief architect of the policy that gave rise to the legal advice was Addington, who has recently been appointed as the vice president's chief of staff, after Lewis Libby's indictment and resignation.
If Addington did play such a role, and if further evidence emerges that acts of torture resulted from the existence of any such policy, then he too may wish to reflect carefully before embarking on foreign travels.
Responsibility may go even higher in the administration's hierarchy.
These are early days in understanding the precise relationship between the administration's policy on detainee interrogations, the legal advice and the allegations of abuse at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.
There is a need for a full and independent investigation. There is an urgent need to bring into law Sen. John McCain's sensible and welcome proposal to explicitly ban abusive treatment and give effect to the United States' obligations under the torture convention.
In the meantime, the Pinochet and Altstotter cases and the torture convention should serve as a salutary reminder of the growing reach of international criminal law.
The possibility cannot be excluded that the Pinochet precedent will come back to haunt Addington, Yoo and others in the Bush administration. International law is not just for other people in other countries. Ignoring it will not be cost-free, including worries about foreign travel, as former Peruvian president Alberto Fujimori learned last week when he was taken into custody in Chile.

This article first appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle (www.sfgate.com).

Philippe Sands is professor of law at University College London and a practicing barrister. He is the author of Lawless World: America and the Making and Breaking Global Rules, published by Viking.


@2005 The Foundation for National Progress

Read the article online:

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2005/11/torture.html

Check out the latest from Mother Jones at:

http://www.motherjones.com


 

No Troop Reductions After All?

Rumsfield: no troop withdrawal

No Troop Reductions After All?
05/19/06 09:49 AM

Yesterday Donald Rumsfeld told the Senate that maybe the United States won't withdraw large numbers of troops from Iraq this year after all. Um, okay� but are there actually enough soldiers to keep around in Iraq indefinitely? Last June, retired General Barry McCaffrey said we can expect a "meltdown of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve in the coming 36 months" unless the military draws down from Iraq. At some point one would think we're not going to have enough soldiers to conduct an endless occupation. But it's okay: Rumsfeld says Iraq has entered a "hopeful new phase." Once again.

- Bradford Plumer

Read the MoJo Blog online for more:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog

@2006 The Foundation for National Progress


 

Excerpts from State of the Union Address; Revealing

YouTube Logo

I want to share the following video with you:

Video Description

Bush's January 31, 2006 "Scare the shit out of the Union" speech, edited down to just the scare words. All clips are shown in the exact sequence they aired and only once each. Man, he does lay the fear on pretty thick, doesn't he?

Personal Message

Video: Jan.2006 State of the Union Address; great excerpting showing the psychological manipulation of the audience by the repetition of buss words.
BUT - it sounds like he is speaking of the United States as he relates the crimes against humanity, doesn't it?


Sunday, May 21, 2006

 

FALLUJAH -- VIDEO

YouTube Logo

I want to share the following video with you:

Video Description

This is a very disturbing video. Check out the last scene. Soldier in helicopter with night scope randomly shoots at civillians with some type of missle. All 4 of them. Even when one is already injured rolling on the ground SEVERE pain, main officer says to FINISH HIM and then destroy the truck right next to the wounded person.

Very disturbing. Also show clips of man with severe drill holes in his body. "A technique used by U.S. to extract information". Very nice.

YES! THEY ARE BETTER OFF WITHOUT EVIL SADDAM.

The way they treat Iraqi's make Hitler look like Santa.

Personal Message

Video expose of U.S. war crimes in Iraq, especially in Fallujah. Use of white phosphorus and deliberate slaughter of civilians. Horrific deaths. Question: were the enemy combatants the "enemy", or desperate Iraqis defending their homeland from an aggressive and brutal invader?


Thursday, May 18, 2006

 

20,000 US Casualties | AfterDowningStreet.org

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/10815

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

 

CNN.com Specials: Vids and slide shows

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/video/index.html

CLICK ON TITLES OF SLIDE SHOWS. CLICK ON PULL DOWN INDEX OF GALLERIES, AND CLICK ON TITLE OF SLIDE SHOW DESIRED.

MULTIPLE SLIDE SHOWS ON THIS PAGE.




 

CNN.com - Special Reports; Those Sacrificed for Global Empire


Click on url below for updated casualty lists. Does it make you want to scream IMPEACH the killer?

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties



 

CNN.com - More veterans may need extra help for post-combat stress - May 12, 2006

CNN.com
Powered by
Click the following to access the sent link:
CNN.com - More veterans�may need extra help for post-combat stress - May 12, 2006* CNN.com will expire this article on 06/11/2006.CNN.com will expire this article on 06/11/2006.
SAVE THIS linkFORWARD THIS link
Get your EMAIL THIS Browser Button and use it to email information from any Web site.

*This article can also be accessed if you copy and paste the entire address below into your web browser.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/05/12/soldier.stress.ap/index.html


 

CNN.com - Perry: Doctors in Iraq weather emotional toll - May 10, 2006

CNN.com
Powered by
Click the following to access the sent link:
CNN.com - Perry: Doctors in Iraq weather emotional toll - May 10, 2006*
SAVE THIS linkFORWARD THIS link
Get your EMAIL THIS Browser Button and use it to email information from any Web site.

*This article can also be accessed if you copy and paste the entire address below into your web browser.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/10/perry.phillips/index.html


 

CNN.com - 'Life and death every day' for Iraq medics - May 10, 2006

CNN.com
Powered by
Iraq Medics

Click the following to access the sent link:
CNN.com - 'Life and death every day' for Iraq medics - May 10, 2006*
SAVE THIS linkFORWARD THIS link
Get your EMAIL THIS Browser Button and use it to email information from any Web site.

*This article can also be accessed if you copy and paste the entire address below into your web browser.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/10/iraq.medics/index.html


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]