George Bush...burned in effigy in Iraq! "Troops out now" cry protestors!

An effigy of George Bush - attired in a snappy business attire with briefcase in hand - twisted in the wind for hours before being dragged from its perch and set afire - as Iraq army snipers squatted atop rooftops on-the-ready to tackle any outbreaks of violence in the streets.

As far as the eye could see, thousands of Iraq citizens knelt in prayer, as clerics openly denounced a Status of Forces Agreement that parliament was preparing to vote on next week.

Although the terms of the agreement stipulated a withdrawal of U.S. forces by the end of next June (2009) and set a deadline for December 31 (2011) the anxious crowd was skeptical.

Some accused the government of not setting any withdrawal deadlines, while others quite blatantly expressed their opinion that even if the terms were specific, both the U.S. government and Iraqi officials could not be trusted to follow through on any signed agreement.

When asked when they'd like to see the U.S. troops take leave, a few vocal protestors were quite adamant in their responses.

"We want them to leave today."

On the practical side, hard-line loyalists assert that there would be less violence in the streets if the U.S. troops were to go home.

Some also pointed out that when the initial occupation began, Iraqi citizens did not anticipate (too naive, maybe?) that six years later there would be intermittent electricity, tainted sewage spilling into the city streets, and military checkpoints stalling thoroughfares and sparking sporadic bombings here and there about the city.

Although some allege they are not familiar with the terms mapped out in the pact, events in recent days signal that perhaps they'd prefer not to know.

After all, when Prime Minister Nouri attempted to read the pact on the Parliament floor, legislators loyal to the opposition were inclined to disrupt the proceedings which led to an open brawl in the chamber.

Maybe that was a calculated maneuver to stall the proceedings?

If a vote is not held early next week before a scheduled holiday, parliament may have trouble meeting the Dec. 31st deadline when the United Nations mandate governing the presence of the U.S. troops expires.

In essence, if the agreement isn't passed by then, American forces will have no legal basis for being in Iraq.

Political analysts are doubtful that the opposition can rustle up sufficient support to prevent the pact from eventually passing.

However, if it slides through with a slim margin, some argue that it could give the Mahdi Army militia an excuse for resuming attacks on the U.S. and Iraqi security forces.

From the sidelines, Iraqi citizens view the whole process with disdain.

"This is a normal consequence, more fighting," one student lamented.

Will the turmoil ever end?

All eyes are turned towards president-elect Barack Obama for the answer, in the final analysis.

Saddam Hussein...60 Minutes interview. A public relations ploy by FBI?

George W. says good-bye to Saddam Hussein...

Saddam Hussein in happier days...






George Piro (FBI Agent)






In his last days, he tended a small garden he nurtured with his own hands, and penned prose.

The man in question? Saddam Hussein.

In fact, an FBI agent - George Piro - made some of these startling revelations about the deposed tyrant in an intriguing interview with 60 Minutes on CBS a few weeks ago.

According to Piro, he was assigned the task of interrogating the former Iraq leader, while he was under the custody of the U.S. Government.

The articulate likeable man was chosen because he was Lebanese and fluent in Arabic.

Ultimately, the brass at the intelligence agency, were betting on Hussein warming up to such an individual - at which point - they hoped the deposed leader's thoughts may become unloosed.

The aim was to secure all-important information previously undisclosed.

Allegedly, Saddam never knew his interrogator was an FBI Agent. In fact, Hussein thought Piro was answerable directly to George W. Bush.

From the offset, it was apparent that one of America's top law enforcement agencies, was playing a number of subtle mind games on a multitude of levels during the course of the interrogation process.

For instance, the agent noted that part of the strategy was to place Saddam in a seated position with his back to one wall, while the agent sat with his back against the only door to the cell where he was being housed.

"It was psychological," Piro proudly noted.

In sum, the scheme was hatched to impress upon Saddam that Piro was the one who stood between him and the outside world - in fact - held the keys to his freedom.

The FBI also devised a scheme to literally control Saddam's awareness of "time". For instance, none of the guards with access to Saddam were permitted to wear a timepiece.

In contrast, Piro wore the largest wristwatch they could find.

The scheme was devised to get the idea across to Saddam that his keeper controlled that, too.

A well-thought-out plan - and it worked - according to the agent.

In fact, over time, Saddam let slip a few of his innermost thoughts.

For example, during the course of the "relationship", Saddam showed no remorse about the loss of his sons. But more astounding, was the response he gave when questioned about one of the two who was accused of raping women.

"You can't pick your kids. You get what you get," he is alleged to have sighed.

During the course of the interviews, Saddam admitted that there were "no" weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Apparently, they had been destroyed earlier on, before the U.S. attack.

He noted that he concealed the fact to give the country a sense of security.

At this juncture, Hussein admitted part of the reason he engaged in the deception, was due to the fact he was "afraid of Iran".

Saddam's admission about the lack of weapons of mass destruction appears to support the allegation that Bush's administration clearly "lied" about the existence of said weapons.

When the interviewer asked why Saddam didn't fess up to prevent the U.S. onslaught, Piro alleged that Saddam confessed he didn't think Bush would invade Iraq.

Wrong!

By the way - he didn't like George Jr. - or his father!

He was unapologetic about using chemical warfare on the Kurds, too.

"Necessary," he asserted.

And the reason he invaded Kuwait?

"He was angered by comments a Kuwait Official made about turning Iraq women into ten-dollar prostitutes," said Piro.

Interestingly, Hussein said he wouldn't want to be in the same room with hunted fugitive - Osama Bin Laden - nor did he support the terrorist's actions.

His reason? "You can't trust fanatics."

The former dictator also noted that he found the American political system odd.

For instance, Hussein thought a four-year term in office was not long enough for a politician to get the lay of the land, so-to-speak.

"You're breaking in a new president every four years," he apparently joked.

Of course, this from the man who obtained all his information about the American democratic system, from Hollywood movies he viewed in a private screening room at one of his opulent Palaces.

Did he ever show anger in the presence of his captors?

"Just once, when he was shown footage of his statue being torn down from its pedestal".

On that occassion, Piro noted that Hussein's faced flushed and his eyes filled with hate.

On a humorous note, Piro noted that because Saddam's birthday was not being celebrated by anyone that year (the occasion used to be a National Holiday) he brought Hussein cookies baked by his mother!

When his Ma found out later who ravenously devoured 'em, she smartly slapped her son on the back of the head.

Well, that's the way the cookie crumbles, eh?

Interestingly, when Piro was asked if Saddam was ever tortured, he was quick and to the point.

"The FBI does not torture people".

In view of the recent news reports about the CIA, and allegations of illegal torture on the far reaches of foreign soil, that claim stretches one's credulity.

In fact, shortly after that steadfast pronouncement, Piro's superior at the FBI Headquarters noted on-camera that the Agency was celebrating their 100th Anniversary in 2008.

Ah, suddenly it hit me like a lightning bolt.

Now it all made sense: the pat answers, the rapid-fire responses without hesitation, the lack of footage to support Piro's claims.

I betcha the FBI was simply packaging up a neat and tidy account of things in a deceitful attempt to tie up all the loose ends to their advantage.

In the final analysis, their express aim appears to have been to dispel any doubts about Saddam Hussein.

Was the 60 minutes interview just a clever public relations ploy by the FBI - on the eve of their 100th anniversary - to enhance their image to Americans across the Nation?

I wonder.

http://www.julianayrs.com

Casualties of War...withdrawal from Iraq now!

As I thumbed through the Los Angeles Times today, the handsome young face of Staff Sgt Jason L. Paton of Poway (CA), stared up at me from the obituary section of the newspaper.

Paton, 25, was among 14 soldiers killed on August 22nd when a Black Hawk helicopter crashed in Multaka, Iraq, North of Baghdad.

At the end of his tour of duty, the army ranger planned to marry his pretty fiancee Nikki Palmer, then move to Georgia to serve as a training officer in the military.

Instead, he was cut down in the prime of life, never to experience the bliss of matrimony, the joy of a young child in his arms, peace in our time.

I count my blessings.

The draft was not compulsory when I was of military age in Canada.

Nor was I packed up and shipped off to some foreign shore to fight for God and Country, oil, or democracy plain upon its face.

North of the border, our inclination is to remain neutral in world conflicts.

After all, it is our sincere belief that cooler heads will prevail, given the chance.

In spite of our pacifist approach to human conflicts, on the other hand, Canucks don't idly sit by when threatened at home, either.


For instance, when the FLQ crisis erupted in Quebec a few decades ago and a couple of politicians were kidnapped by the extremist political organization, Prime Minister Trudeau took a stance which was swift and severe.

"The Government", he assured the Canadian people, "would not negotiate with terrorists".

Within a few short hours, Trudeau ordered Martial Law, and the streets were filled with troops to secure the status quo.

To protect one's borders - or to eliminate the enemy within - is obviously a battle worth fighting for.

But in the instance of Iraq - where the issues have been murky - shouldn't there be a sincere effort to disarm, and likewise, send the troops home?

After all, a number of mistakes were made from the offset which warrant action.

For instance, the conflict started on the premise that Iraq posed a nuclear threat.

In spite of the fact the allegations were later proven to be untrue, the U.S. maintained its military stance against Iraq.

In retrospect, many theorize the charges were just a clever ruse to attack, with the ultimate aim of ousting Saddam Hussein and his corrupt evil regime.

Even so, in spite of the fact Saddam was captured and prosecuted and punished for his war crimes, the U.S. continued with its surge willy-nilly.

Instead, Mr. Bush should have set a time-line for the occupation, stabilized the region within the confines of a specific game-plan, then ordered an exit.

However, the U.S. presence remained long after the first assault, in spite of protestations that the unwarranted attack on Iraq was about "oil" and the second-largest reserves in the region.

Thereafter, the Government wrung its hands about the endless unstoppable uprisings.

And, cast a blind eye to the senseless killing of young American boys on hostile foreign soil, for no rhyme or reason.

Why, oh why, must the U.S. continue to strive to be the Supercop of all Nations?

Frankly, in my estimation, it's time to withdraw from Iraq.

If the Government falters in the middle-eastern region, then a League of Nations should organize a multi-national army to stabilize the area, until Iraq is capable of handling the stewardship of its own independence.


Like Gandhi before me, I'm a peace-nik.

From his hallowed grave, I hear his voice:

"Aggression, armed conflict and violence are not the answer."



The Global community cries out for an effective peaceful means for the resolution of world conflicts among Nations.

The U.S. military presence in Iraq continues to hinder those efforts on the planet.

Imperialist military occupation of foreign countries must cease and desist.

Mr. Bush, given the opportunity, the United Nations will fulfill their mandate.

In part:

"To reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of Nations large and small."

"To establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained."

"To practice tolerance and to live together in peace with one another as good neighbours."

"To unite our strength to maintain international peace and security and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples."

And to these ends:
 "To save succeeding generations from the scourge of World War, which at least twice in our lifetime, has brought untold sorrow to mankind."

http://www.julianayrs.com