Posts Tagged ‘Iraq’

h1

Michigan: Magnet for Iraqi Refugees

November 24, 2009

MY COMMENTS IN GREEN.  Don

Michigan remains a magnet for Iraqi refugees

Having family here trumps lack of jobs

BY JEFF KAROUB
ASSOCIATED PRESS

The U.S. government resettled Mazen Alsaqa in Massachusetts in February. Within a month, the Iraqi refugee moved to Michigan.

It wasn’t that Alsaqa disliked Worcester, Mass. But he never thought twice about staying. Although the U.S. government tried to keep him away from metro Detroit and its soaring unemployment, this was the only place Alsaqa wanted to live. [It will be just weeks before our efforts will be criticized]

Family ties and cultural support from the region’s large Middle Eastern community appear no match for the U.S. effort, which tries to place refugees in cities where they stand a better chance of financial success.

“What the government gives you as a support is not a great deal. [Muslims are rarely satisfied, rarely appreciate what is given] … If you’d like to live decently, you should have a live connection — that’s your family here in Michigan,” said Alsaqa, 34, who lives in Birmingham with family.

Southeast Michigan has one of the country’s largest Middle Eastern populations — about 300,000 can trace their roots back to the region.

But as the auto industry crumbled, the State Department decided in June 2008 to send Michigan only Iraqi refugees with a close family member already here.

The policy came as the U.S. government began increasing the overall number of Iraqis it granted refugee status. From July 2008 to September, the United States resettled only 3,400 Iraqis in the Detroit area — about 13% of the total number of Iraqi refugees who came to the United States.

3,400 + 460 = 3,860 Jul-Sep = 1,286/mo, 43/day and we know that this isn’t accurate.  The number is understated

But that hasn’t stopped Iraqis from coming to Michigan.

At least 460 Iraqi refugees have come on their own since July 2008 after first being told to resettle somewhere else, according to Lutheran Social Services of Michigan, one of the state’s primary refugee agencies and the only one that collects data on what is known as secondary migration.

If they came to assimilate into our culture we could handle the inflow – but they come to change our foundational culture and take America for Islam and push for Sharia Law.

That was the case with Alsaqa. A relative in the Detroit area helped him land jobs teaching nursing students and tutoring.

“Without these connections, I couldn’t figure out how I could do it,” said Alsaqa, who is studying to get his medical doctor rectification.

The same was true for Rawaa Bahoo in July 2008. Bahoo, 29, said she stayed just a few days in Atlanta before heading to Michigan, where relatives could help her.

The State Department said its policy has relieved pressure on community and social services groups in Michigan. But Al Horn, Michigan’s director of refugee services, said while it initially cut back on the number of Iraqis coming to the state, many eventually made their way to the Detroit area.


// // // <![CDATA[

(function(){
var
_CFG= GEL.namespace("config.bus"),
_provider,
_pri
;
(function(){
if(GEL.config.bus.properties.pageName)return;
GEL.config.bus.properties.pageName= (function(){
var
_p='',_t,
_PI= GEL.thepage.pageinfo,
_cat= _PI.categoryname
;
if(typeof _PI.pluckpage !='undefined' && _PI.pluckpage==1){
if (typeof galleryTitle != 'undefined' && galleryTitle != "")
_t = galleryTitle;
else{
var _pt = document.getElementById("plckTitleTag"),
_t = _pt ? _pt.innerText || _pt.textContent : "unknown";
}
if (_t != "")
_p = _cat + "-" + _t;
else
_p = _cat + "-unknown";
}else{
var _sections = {
frontpage: 'Umbrella Page',
article: 'Michigan remains a magnet for Iraqi refugees(200911230300)',
section: _cat + ' Index',
classifieds: 'Classifieds: '+_cat+' listings',
search: 'Publicus search results: ',
gallery: (function() {
if(_PI.title && _PI.date)
return 'Gallery Title: '+_PI.title+' ('+_PI.date+')';
else
return 'Gallery Title: Null';
})(),
tngallery: (function() {
if(_PI.title && _PI.date)
return 'tnGallery Title: '+_PI.title+' ('+_PI.date+')';
else
return 'tnGallery Title: Null';
})()
};
if(_PI.type in _sections)
_p = _p + _sections[_PI.type];
else
_p = _p + location.href;
}
return _p;
})();
})();
if(!_CFG.providers) return;
for(_provider in _CFG.providers) {
_pri= _CFG.providers[_provider];
GEL.thepage.initializer.addInitRoutine({
name: _provider,
namespace: ["analytics", "util.Cookie", "remoting"],
callback: (function(_p) {
return function(){
load(_p);
}
})(_provider),
priority: _pri
});
}
function load(provider){
var _vt= GEL.thepage.viewTracker ||
(function(){
var _o= GEL.thepage.viewTracker=
new GEL.bus.PageTrack();
return _o;
})();
/* WARNING: DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME
*
* This is done on the individual provider ONLY for initialization
* so that we can support initializing different provider
* at different times.
*
*/
var _provs= _vt.init(provider);
for(var i=0;i

h1

Cartoon: Fork in the Road | War

October 9, 2009

h1

NEWSPAPER: Iraqis Celebrate

July 14, 2009

IBD: 14 July 2009

IraqCelebrate

h1

BREAKING NEWS FLASH!!! Disgruntled Iraqis

June 10, 2009

BREAKING NEWS FLASH!!!

On this weeks show we have an Iraqi Combat Veteran who breaks news on what is happening in Iraq on the ground.  Sgt. R and Mustang Captain Steve Klein(Ret) report that Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria via Al-Qaedaare paying Iraqi citizens to kill our soldiersThe blood money is on a sliding scale based on rank from $100’s of dollars up to tens of thousands of dollars. We learn the new term “Disgruntled Iraqis” who fire on our troops but are not being held when captured because of rules sent down by flag grade officers far from the field of battle.  In other words,  a Disgruntled Iraqi can kill our soldiers in the field of battle and then are let go because they are not technically with Al-Qaeda.  Those DI’s (Disgruntled Iraqi) who are killed,  their families are well compensated (with) Saudi, Iran, and Syria money. These rules of engagement are not meant to win the war but result in getting our soldiers wounded and killed.

Go to www.RadioJihad.org and listen now.

Email the news agencies below and demand they report this story.  All facts have been cross checked for accuracy.

h1

Bush’s Big Victory

March 17, 2009

Bush’s Big Victory

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | 17 March 2009

Mideast: In most ways, the news from Iraq couldn’t be better. People there feel more secure, and are more committed to democracy, than ever. Is it possible that President Bush was right after all?


Read More: Iraq


A poll of average Iraqis conducted by ABC News, the BBC and Japan’s NHK shows significant progress on virtually all fronts. Yet, we’ve heard nary a peep about it from anyone.

Some 85% of respondents said their neighborhood security was “good,” vs. 62% a year ago and just 43% in August of 2007. And 52% said security had gotten better in the last year — during the Bush-Petraeus “surge,” which was widely ridiculed at the time as an unnecessary escalation of the Iraq War.

Support for democracy jumped to 64%, a 21-percentage-point gain since 2007, according to a report on CNSNews.com. As for how Iraqis felt about the general state of affairs in Iraq, 58% called it “very good” or “quite good,” up significantly from 43% last year and 22% in 2007.

When asked what their concerns are today, Iraqis sound a lot like Americans: Jobs and prices are at the top of their list — not war, not security, not terrorism.

In short, it sounds like we not only won the war, but the peace as well. And for those who cast a skeptical eye on the idea that any Islamic country could ever be democratized, it turns out the former President Bush is winning that debate too.

With President Obama in the middle of withdrawing troops from Iraq on a schedule that looks suspiciously identical to the one that Bush had in place, it’s safe to say that Obama increasingly sees the wisdom of what his predecessor tried to do in Iraq.

Maybe the rest of us should as well.

It’s become de rigueur to deride Bush’s “failed” policies in Iraq. No one speaks well of them — except, maybe, Iraqis.

But here are the facts, stark as they are: During his vicious 20-year reign, Saddam Hussein — remember him? — killed an estimated 5% of Iraq’s population. That works out to about 5,000 people a month slaughtered by the regime.

You might disagree that Bush was right to depose this murderous thug. But in doing so, you would then have to defend the deaths of thousands of innocents.

For those who say Bush went to war in Iraq under false pretenses — you know, “Bush lied, people died” — there’s this: He made a lengthy, nuanced defense of his decision to get rid of Saddam. It was reflected in Congress’ own resolution in late 2002, which cited 23 reasons for removing Saddam from power.

The ideas that it was all about oil or that Congress was bamboozled on WMD are both false.

Bush, Congress and our foreign allies all saw the same intelligence, and all came to the same conclusion: Saddam had a nuclear weapons program, and intended to build one as soon as he was able. That was, and remained, true.

After being bashed relentlessly in the media and on the campaign trail, President Bush left the White House with his approval ratings low and little, except his dignity, intact.

If he is to have a Truman-like reprieve in the public eye, it will surely come as we all start to realize that on Iraq, contrary to popular and elite opinion, Bush got it right. Mission accomplished.

h1

In Search Of Moderate Islamofascists

March 10, 2009

In Search Of Moderate Islamofascists

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, March 09, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Afghanistan: President Obama says negotiation is the key to success in the land that gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden. How would that have sounded to American ears in the weeks right after 9/11?

In an interview published in Sunday’s New York Times, the president said, “Part of the success in Iraq involved reaching out to people that we would consider to be Islamic fundamentalists but who were willing to work with us because they had been completely alienated by the tactics of al-Qaida in Iraq.”

From that, he construed: “There may be some comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and the Pakistani region.”

Jon Boone, Kabul correspondent for Britain’s left-leaning Guardian newspaper, noted in a story on Monday skeptical of the president’s overture, that “until recently U.S. officials worried that the American public would not stomach such overtures.”

Have Americans forgotten the images of September 11? Have we forgotten the non-negotiable demands we made of the Taliban just nine days after the al-Qaida terrorist attacks on our soil?

Recall that former President Bush, before a special joint session of Congress, said:

“Tonight the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities all of the leaders of Al-Qaida who hide in your land” and “close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. And hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to appropriate authorities. Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.”

He added that “the Taliban must act and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate.”

Now, however, as Boone was told by Haroun Mir, former adviser to Mujahideen commander Ahmad Shah Massoud, things are all going the Taliban’s way. They are at the edge of Kabul” and have no incentive to switch sides in the present situation.

Indeed, Taliban spokesman Qari Yusuf Ahmadi reacted to President Obama’s suggestion by calling it a sign that Americans, after so many years fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan are now “tired and worried.”

Taliban forces right now seem to be uniting and strengthening themselves. Three rival strands of the Pakistani Taliban — those of warlords Gul Bahadur, Baitullah Mehsud, suspected of being behind the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, and Maulvi Nazir — have joined together as the Council of United Holy Warriors in anticipation of the coming arrival of 17,000 new armored troops and Marines this year.

Afghan Taliban head Mullah Omar recently urged the Pakistani Taliban to refocus their jihad on U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, and is in no mood for deals with the Great Satan or its friends in the current Afghan government.

Omar is notorious for his inflexibility. Speaking to Reuters, Pakistani analyst Rahimullah Yousufzai noted: “The Taliban are very rigid in their demands. They actually don’t want to talk unless there is some guarantee that Western forces will leave.”

Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai knows this, having failed to engage Taliban moderates despite years of trying.

President Obama is demonstrating a misunderstanding of why the Bush surge turned things around in Iraq. In September 2007, as he questioned Gen. David Petraeus and then-Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker during Senate Foreign Relations Committee testimony, then-Sen. Obama remarked: “It is not clear to me that the primary success that you’ve shown in Anbar has anything to do with the surge.”

In fact, the “Anbar Awakening,” in which U.S. military successfully persuaded local Iraqi leaders to rebel against the terrorists in an al-Qaida-dominated region written off as beyond hope, would never have succeeded without an assertive U.S. military presence, which was then enhanced by the surge.

Whomever the Obama administration is considering “reaching out to” will likely be the Taliban equivalent of a Goebbels or a Goering. Imagine dealing with them after committing ourselves to a total defeat of Hitler.

After the uncompromising demands we made of the Taliban in September 2001, such a change only would be viewed by Islamofascists worldwide as more proof of the infidels’ lack of nerve.

h1

Shoe-Fly Liberty

December 17, 2008

Shoe-Fly Liberty

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | 16 December 2008

Middle East: President Bush’s thanks for ousting Saddam Hussein is to have abush-shoe pair of shoes thrown at him. If Arabs are so ungrateful for our sacrifices in ridding them of tyranny, should we even bother?



There has apparently been a groundswell of support among Arabs after Muntazer al-Zaidi, a 29-year-old Iraqi TV journalist for the Cairo-based satellite channel Al-Baghdadia, threw his shoes at President Bush on Sunday during the press conference for his trip to Iraq.

Yelling that it was the “farewell kiss” of Iraqis, and calling the president a dog, al-Zaidi committed an act considered to be the supreme insult in Arab culture.

Al-Zaidi reportedly got a good roughing up for his deed from Iraqi police and remains in custody, facing up to seven years if convicted of attacking a foreign leader.

But while the Iraqi government called on his employers to apologize for the act, apparently planned for months, the Al-Baghdadia news agency responded with a statement demanding al-Zaidi’s release “in line with the democracy and freedom of expression that the American authorities promised the Iraqi people.”

It added: “Any measures against Muntazer will be considered the acts of a dictatorial regime.”

What an indication of how little Arabs understand the connection between freedom and the rule of law. Jailing someone for an act of physical violence against a visiting head of state makes the Baghdad government a dictatorship?

In Libya, Muammar Qaddafi’s daughter announced an “order of courage” award for al-Zaidi. But would he have had the courage to throw his shoes at Saddam Hussein? The brutal tyrant President Bush removed from power would have had one shoe shoved down al-Zaida’s throat, and the other shoved . . . well, you get the idea.

Speaking of Saddam, the dictator’s former lawyer, Khalil al-Dulaimi, is heading al-Zaidi’s legal defense. Meantime, al-Zaidi has been catapulted to celebrity status across the Mideast. In Sammara, Sadr City and elsewhere in Iraq, anti-American demonstrations were held in support of his act; viewers of Al-Baghdadia and the state TV station in Syria were phoning-in lauding him.

This is how America is thanked for sacrificing thousands of its sons and daughters to give an Arab country the chance for freedom. Were we wrong? Not if, as the president declared in his Second Inaugural, “the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands.”

In that address on the steps of the Capitol, the newly reelected commander in chief called freedom “the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul” and “an ancient hope that is meant to be fulfilled.” He said, “America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world, and to all the inhabitants thereof.”

The question is, however: What about the inhabitants of those darkest places on our globe, where jihadists recruit and plot, who are ungrateful to their liberators — and who won’t accept the responsibilities of their newfound freedom?