Hi there, !
Today Tue 05/29/2007 Mon 05/28/2007 Sun 05/27/2007 Sat 05/26/2007 Fri 05/25/2007 Thu 05/24/2007 Wed 05/23/2007 Archives
Rantburg
531695 articles and 1855968 comments are archived on Rantburg.

Today: 50 articles and 211 comments as of 13:03.
Post a news link    Post your own article   
Area: WoT Operations    WoT Background    Non-WoT    Local News       
Nangahar big turban snagged
Today's Headlines
Headline Comments [Views]
Page 4: Opinion
6 00:00 dfp [4] 
1 00:00 xbalanke [3] 
10 00:00 Deacon Blues [4] 
8 00:00 Redneck Jim [4] 
Page 1: WoT Operations
1 00:00 Baba Tutu [5]
2 00:00 Old Patriot [4]
1 00:00 Redneck Jim [3]
0 [3]
0 [3]
7 00:00 trailing wife [3]
13 00:00 anonymous [4]
4 00:00 trailing wife [3]
3 00:00 Redneck Jim [6]
0 [3]
2 00:00 Frank G [3]
7 00:00 Redneck Jim [4]
6 00:00 Old Patriot [4]
Page 2: WoT Background
6 00:00 Anonymoose [6]
2 00:00 trailing wife [3]
9 00:00 Jules [3]
10 00:00 Redneck Jim [4]
5 00:00 Andy Snoluper3315 [3]
1 00:00 Captain America [3]
1 00:00 Frank G [3]
3 00:00 3dc [3]
2 00:00 Pappy [5]
0 [3]
4 00:00 Frozen Al [3]
2 00:00 Pappy [5]
0 [3]
0 [3]
4 00:00 Jan [3]
2 00:00 newc [3]
Page 3: Non-WoT
0 [3]
1 00:00 Redneck Jim [5]
0 [3]
4 00:00 Redneck Jim [3]
4 00:00 Redneck Jim [4]
1 00:00 Redneck Jim [6]
4 00:00 Procopius2k [3]
0 [3]
13 00:00 DragonFly [5]
Page 5: Russia-Former Soviet Union
12 00:00 M. Murcek [3]
15 00:00 smn [4]
10 00:00 ryuge [3]
6 00:00 Redneck Jim [4]
12 00:00 DragonFly [4]
1 00:00 Procopius2k [3]
2 00:00 Zenster [3]
3 00:00 JohnQC [3]
Home Front: Politix
Women in the War Part Deux
Mr. Smith at the tank, the NRO military blog, has responded to my criticism of the posts yesterday about women in the war.

He appears to see my initial description of myself as an attempt to question his credentials. I did not so intend. I intended to state my credentials, as having enough background to be a valid voice in the debate.

That said, my post consisted of many links to stories of women in combat, including hand to hand combat. I was trying to demonstrate that most women can handle the situation as well as most men.

People vary in physical size and in those character and personality traits that make a soldier. Not everyone can be a Navy SEAL, and that is not a reflection on those who serve in the Navy but do not even try to become a SEAL. The same point holds true for the other elite units. Those people represent one physical and mental extreme of the men and women fighting the War on Terror.

On the other hand are the clerks, truck drivers, air defense specialists, whatever the MOS, that do not engage in hand to hand combat on a daily basis. It is no reflection on the abilities of any of these men and women to suggest that many of them, of either sex, are not capable of sustained hand to hand combat, or of lugging sixty pound packs for tens of kilometers every day.

Mr. Smith is one of many critics that single out women as incapable of combat duties. I was suggesting in my post that I could document several cases where that was untrue. Were I a cruel bastard, I could find cases where our men lost the battle during hand to hand combat. My point is that sex alone does not predict combat readiness nor ability.

Every man in the military may find someone they are unable to lift in an emergency. I am an EMT and I know just how big people can get. The biggest and best trained Marine will find someone he cannot carry. The issue is not ability as much as it is the frequency which that particular task is performed. Am I unqualified to be an EMT because I cannot lift a 350 pound patient three times a year when I can lift 120 pound patients several times a week?

Both of the men who have been awarded Medals of Honor in Iraq to this date could have been women. Nothing that they did in the actions that resulted in their deaths and the award of the MOH could not have been done by a woman. If you read through the hundreds of citations for the MOH you will discover that most of the actions described could have been performed by a woman equally courageous and self-sacrificing.

The notion that combat must be close-quarters and long marches with heavy packs is used by Smith and his side of the discussion because many military women could not do that. I continue to suggest that many men in the military also fall into that category. In Smith's own Marine Corps there are male Marines that do not meet his standard. Using this argument to point to one sex only is incorrect.

Smith did, specifically, denigrate the courage and sacrifices made by women in the military by quoting that Lt. General about women in combat:
Females simply don't have the flair for that kind of fighting.


I just do not see where having a flair for hand to hand combat is or was a part of our military. It is insulting to all the women I reported on.

Smith also supports Elaine Donnelly as she suggests that:
But deliberate exposure of women to combat violence in war is tantamount to acceptance of violence against women in general. As a nation we must consider the long-term implications of this cultural shift. On this Memorial Day, we should think about whether this is a step forward for women, or a setback for our values and civilization.


In other words, exposure of women to combat means increased acceptance of wife beating in our society. Dog poop!

As I wrote to Ms. Donnelly, the women in our military receive training that gives them a basis for resisting violence. They also learn or have reinforced their characters traits of self reliance, discipline and self confidence. Service in the military provides women with tools to resist violence that they cannot obtain in any other place in our society. I would suggest two things. First, these women are less likely to be the victim of violence after their service. And, they are less likely to tolerate the character traits that permit violence against women to occur in both the men and women that they see every day.

I thought I was reading a post by the President of NOW rather than a post by a conservative when I saw Ms. Donnelly's remarks.

So, Smith says women can't hack combat. I respond with a list of women who did and could. Smith thinks I suggested that he questioned their courage and sacrifice. I did not then, but I do now. His remarks were insulting. War is no longer the sole province of gentlemen.

Donnelly says that women's exposure to combat makes us all less sensitive to violence against women. I believe it will make society as a whole more sensitive because these women will not treat life as did their untrained mothers and aunts. This point of view also seems to imply that women who have seen combat are less feminine, less deserving of some societal shield against violence at home. We're not sending June Cleaver to war, Ms. Donnelly.
Posted by: Chuck Simmins || 05/26/2007 14:33 || Comments || Link || [4 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Go, Chuck, go! This woman agrees with you 100%.
Posted by: trailing wife || 05/26/2007 16:01 Comments || Top||

#2  I say a woman with combat (including weapons) training is a major deterrent to female beatings.

Posted by: Captain America || 05/26/2007 17:22 Comments || Top||

#3  This is a cart before the horse argument. While it is true that only a tiny fraction of people are true warriors, whose natural abilities put them so far ahead of everyone else that it would be no contest in individual battle, the reality is that no army could exist if it had to rely on such people--they are just too few. The vast majority in any military aren't that good.

Even in elite units, a large portion of the personnel are able, but are not what you could call true warriors of this kind. They just don't have, and cannot be trained to have, that warrior genius.

Now that being said, this means that the military is reliant on non-warriors to fill its ranks. And this is where the problem with females in combat lies. While the vast majority of both sexes are un-exercised blobs, the physical conditioning curve for males and females are very different.

As a rule, males can rapidly become physically fit, because their metabolism and hormones are designed for just this. However females have a design that makes them more able to have children. A physique for maximum fertility, not combat.

This is noted even in childhood, where parents are recommended to feed their boys more vegetables and fruits, and their girls more meat and potatoes, to help balance out their diets.

In addition, male recruits have a lifetime of social conditioning leading towards aggression and military training and leadership, that females are rarely raised with.

This means that their effective training cycles are radically different. Unfortunately, there is a refusal to accept that any difference exists, which either means forcing females to train to male standards, or vice versa.

On top of everything else, males are equipped with an instinctual reaction when they perceive that females are in a risk situation. In some cases this reaction is profound and even disabling.

From personal experience I have seen a highly decorated combat master sergeant pale and trembling from seeing a female at risk and afraid. His leadership effectiveness suddenly dropped to near zero, something that cannot be tolerated in combat.

So in the final analysis, it is a numbers game. There just aren't enough females out there who can eventually function in combat standards, and attempting to insert them into combat anyway will neutralize a portion of male soldiers.

This will get people, male and female, killed.

It is unfortunate for those women who are true warriors.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 05/26/2007 20:19 Comments || Top||

#4  What's the old saying? "Worse than a bag of Wildcats."
Posted by: Redneck Jim || 05/26/2007 22:36 Comments || Top||

#5  You're living in a superficial world. Particularly with counter insurgency, where the enemy can and are conceivably anywhere, you can't possible tuck the "gals" into office jobs
Posted by: Captain America || 05/26/2007 23:28 Comments || Top||

#6  Agreed wholly. As a second degree black belt in martial arts, as one who is very knowledgeable in personal defense, i know women who fight just as well as men. If anything, women typically are actually, when TRAINED PROPERLY, slightly more suited towards fighting in the types of situations occuring in iraq, the smash-and-grab violence, where it's a very fast reaction required because, WITH PROPER TRAINING, something very crucial, they can react more smoothly (that's not a pun). I know firsthand women who have fought hand-to-hand in situations, usually frantic and uncontrolled ones, and the difference is noticeable. Some women with training will win and some lose. None without ever win, not that i've known.
Posted by: dfp || 05/26/2007 23:46 Comments || Top||


Women in the War
the tank is the military blog at NRO. W. Thomas Smith Jr. is the main author. Today he was joined by Elaine Donnelly.

Donnelly's post is titled Remembering Our Women in the War. Smith's adds his perspective in a post titled RE: Remembering Our Women in the War.

And they're both wrong.

There are women currently and formerly in our military who blog. They should be listened to with some respect for having walked the walk. As a civilian, I have been covering women in the War on Terror for a very long time and I believe my posts are also illustrative in this discussion.

On January 2, 2004 I posted about Teresa Broadwell.
Guerrero credits Broadwell with saving his life. "She was up there doing what we trained her to do as a gunner," he said. "She kept their heads down."

"She was on top of it," adds Pfc. Jonathan Rape, who was driving their vehicle that night. "If she were two inches taller, it would have helped, but you couldn’t expect anything more. All I could hear was that SAW [squad automatic weapon] going off. She seemed so calm. It was three- to five-shot bursts, like she was taught. That told us she wasn’t freaking out and holding the trigger down and spraying. She covered the whole right side of our truck."


Private Broadwell was awarded the Bronze Star with V for Valor.

I followed that two days later with the stories of Spc. Maria C. Flores-Sanz and Pfc. Jessica Lynn Nicholson, both with awards for valor in combat.

Kellie McCoy was the heroine of my post on August 7, 2005. She also received a Bronze Star with V for Valor.
"The first IED [improvised explosive device] went off right in front of my vehicle," McCoy said, and a second roadside bomb hit at the rear in what she called a "daisy-chain IED."

The enemy then swarmed from both sides of the road, raking the convoy with rifle fire and rocket-propelled grenades to disable the three other vehicles, McCoy said.

She ran her Humvee up and down the road, gathering up her troops and directing well-aimed fire to repel the attack.

The roof gunner on her Humvee fired 500 rounds and McCoy fired off several clips from her carbine. "I believe I hit two [of the enemy]," McCoy said, "but I don’t know how many we killed."

McCoy somehow jammed all 11 paratroopers into her Humvee and drove to Ramadi, with three of her troops suffering minor injuries.


Maj. Andrea Jensen pilots B-52's. Chief Warrant Officer 3 Lori Hill was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. Private Michelle Norris was the first woman ever to win the Military Cross in the British Army. Senior Airman Charity Trueblood now can proudly wear the Bronze Star with V device for valor in combat.

I interviewed two sisters serving in Iraq recently. They drive trucks for the Army. Here's what Ashley and Tasha said about women in the military.
Ashley- Why can’t a woman be in combat? Cause we are supposed to be the "house wife"? The military is "so" big on Equal Opportunities, but females can’t do a portion of the jobs, because they are female. I can carry my weight and out do some males, so how is someone going to tell me that women don’t belong in combat? There are some males that definitely don’t belong here.

tash- I absolutely HATE when people think that. It is a free country and we can do whatever we want. I have seen females totally out do males. Females can be just as good or better then males. I know some males that would love to be able to do what I can or know what I know. I disagree with the fact about females aren’t allowed in the infantry. Oh well, I guess….we all have our opinions.


On May 10 Tasha survived an IED that destroyed her truck.

No post about women in the War on Terror would be complete without recalling the heroics of Leigh Ann Hester, the first woman to win the Silver Star in sixty years. Smith quotes a three star as saying:
Females simply don't have the flair for that kind of fighting.


I guess I'll settle for Sgt. Hester's courage and ignore her lack of "flair".

This Memorial Day I'll be remembering the women who are fighting the War on Terror, and those who lost their lives so that we might remain free.

Amanda Pinson was the girl next door. She went to war gladly and with dedication. Her death from a mortar bomb while standing at a bus stop on base wasn't hand to hand combat. Yet, her fellow soldiers and even the National Security Agency recognized that she made a difference in the War.

I would like to just pass on some comments about this American Hero and Soldier. She was a kind person that everyone in this organization loved. She was always there to give me that first smile at shift change, ask how things were going, and ask how I was doing. She always shared pictures of loved ones back home and was so proud of her family. I will never forget her smile, her kindness, and love for her country. She made an everlasting impression on all soldiers she worked with. This everlasting impression is Army wide which is evident by all the individual calls and emails sent to express their sympathy.
She was deeply concerned for soldiers’ safety and news of soldiers that had been injured or worse only increased her energy for her job. She was inexhaustible in her work. She was an expert and I continually called on her to take on some of the hardest work due to her abilities and love for her job. Due to this Hero’s skills and hard work, soldiers’ lives were saved. Soldiers in this Division and the ones that worked with her will benefit from her work for a long time.
I was glad to hear the soldiers from G2 at Fort Campbell were there to give SGT Pinson the respect and honor that everyone here was praying for. The family will continue to be in my thoughts and prayers. I will always remember SGT Pinson as a true friend, a superb leader, and most of all a Hero. She will never be forgotten.

CW2 David Moreland
G2/ACE


I'll be remembering Amanda this Memorial Day. And all the other women who fought, and served and who did so much more than Smith and Donnelly would ever have expected that they could do. Heroes come in all sizes and weights and you don't have to be the biggest to be a fighter and a winner.
Posted by: Chuck Simmins || 05/26/2007 00:00 || Comments || Link || [4 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Thank you, Chuck. You -- and they -- make me proud.
Posted by: trailing wife || 05/26/2007 2:17 Comments || Top||

#2  Dittos tw,

our Wimmyn Warriors are the Best!
Posted by: RD || 05/26/2007 2:37 Comments || Top||

#3  Our girls can beat up your jihadis!
Posted by: Mike || 05/26/2007 7:52 Comments || Top||

#4  "#3 Our girls can beat up your jihadis!"
Because our girls are what they fear, down in the bottom of their misogynist, twisted, religion-addled souls.
Posted by: Sgt. Mom || 05/26/2007 8:48 Comments || Top||

#5  Im sure there's a streak of misogynism there, Sgt. Mom, but it's also because of a well-deserved over-developed sense of shame, humiliation, and insecurity in most Islamist males. Punks
Posted by: Frank G || 05/26/2007 8:55 Comments || Top||

#6  While the media hypes whackos like Brittany, Paris, etc., the ones who deserve our admiration are shown in this article.
Posted by: Injun Chash5595 || 05/26/2007 9:03 Comments || Top||

#7  Nothing better for the one-eyed, one-legged Islamo droolers to know than that their ass is being handed to them on a platter by free, determined, smart, brave American WOMEN. This is your worst nightmare come true, goat f**kers of the world. Now if your stupid females just catch on, our problems are over.
Posted by: Woozle Elmeter2970 || 05/26/2007 12:55 Comments || Top||

#8  Yep definately "Worse than a bag of Wildcats"
Posted by: Redneck Jim || 05/26/2007 22:39 Comments || Top||


Home Front: WoT
Dupe entry: Andy McCarthy takes B. Hussein down on Iraq
Andy is the Prosecutor that took down Rahman, the blind sheikie for WTC1. This is an excellent take-down of Barry Hossein in particular, but of all Surrendercrats too. Nice, parsimonious, complete.
Good for Senator McCain on his sharp rebuttal to Senator Obama. May I add one point, though, that continues to make me nuts?

Senator Obama says: " It is time to end this war so that we can redeploy our forces to focus on the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and all those who plan to do us harm."

Senator Obama, are you proposing that we move U.S. troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, where you guys keep saying the "real" War on Terror is?

There is also a very good chance that bin Laden and some al Qaeda hierarchy are in Pakistan. When you say "redeploy," are you suggesting that we invade Pakistan?
Folks, let's not let these guys get away with this. By "redeploy," they don't really mean move the troops to where they say al Qaeda is. They don't want to fight al Qaeda. If they wanted to fight al Qaeda, al Qaeda is in Iraq — that is indisputable. Bin Laden has said repeatedly that Iraq is the central battle. You can argue about whether al Qaeda has been in Iraq all along or whether they are there only because we've drawn them there. Reasonable minds differ on that. But however they got there, they're there.

If you really want to fight al Qaeda, you stay in Iraq.
If you really believe al Qaeda is not in Iraq — that the real al Qaeda is only in Afghanistan and its environs — then you're on drugs.
But, sure, fine, "redeploy" our troops ... to Afghanistan. But can we please have five seconds of honesty? You guys don't have the slightest intention of doing that. You don't want to go to Afghanistan. You want to go home.

When you say redploy, you mean withdraw. You don't actually want to "focus on the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11." You are content to bring the troops home and leave "the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11" to build a safe-haven in Iraq even as they continue to make mayhem in Afghanistan.
You think Bush is incompetent and "his" war in Iraq is a terrible mistake? Fine. You think the price of that is that we should pull everyone out of Iraq even though we all know that will be a monumental victory for al Qaeda — geometrically abetting its future fundraising and recruiting for future terrorist attacks on America? Fine.

But have the good grace to say so. Don't give us this BS that you want to redeploy to fight al Qaeda, when the truth is that you want to "redeploy" to NOT fight al Qaeda.
Posted by: Ahnuld || 05/26/2007 14:13 || Comments || Link || [3 views] Top|| File under:

#1  But can we please have five seconds of honesty?

What, from politicians - especially (D) politicians? I don't think so. Not. Gonna. Happen.
Posted by: xbalanke || 05/26/2007 18:48 Comments || Top||


The end of Hillary as a war hawk
This week's vote in Congress to fund the Iraq war without timetables or withdrawal dates is being portrayed as a "defeat" for Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. No doubt it is in the short-term and partisan Beltway frame of reference, but in the larger sense it is a victory for American interests and the Framers of our Constitutional order. . . .

The vote marks the end of Mrs. Clinton's post-9/11 positioning as a national security hawk. Her 2002 speech supporting war in Iraq was among the most forceful in the Senate, and for a while she admirably stuck with that conviction. But as the antiwar furies have built in her party, she has bent with them and now says and does whatever it takes to deny Mr. Obama or John Edwards any running room to her left. Perhaps this will win her the Democratic nomination, but it will complicate her Presidency if she ever does make it to the Oval Office. The Iranians, among others, will have seen that she can be turned when the going gets tough.

Which brings us back to the current President. Whatever his mistakes as a war leader, Mr. Bush at least hasn't betrayed our allies or troops in the field for the sake of reviving his poll numbers. He was also right to defend the war powers of the Presidency against Congressional micromanagement. His obligation now is to do whatever it takes to succeed in Iraq so that the men and women fighting this war will not sacrifice in vain.
Posted by: Mike || 05/26/2007 07:53 || Comments || Link || [4 views] Top|| File under:

#1  LH - comment? She's a finger-in-the-wind opportunist with no character or shame, driven by the polls. Disgusting
Posted by: Frank G || 05/26/2007 8:56 Comments || Top||

#2  Yup, she is that and more. She never really was a hawk-or at least it was short-lived. She is now playing to mainstream donk party base (which of course is way the hell out to the left beyond moonbat).
Posted by: JohnQC || 05/26/2007 10:28 Comments || Top||

#3  She is one of three potential Commanders-in-Chief who would pull the rug out from under the defenders of freedom.
Posted by: Bobby || 05/26/2007 10:41 Comments || Top||

#4  When pro-war was popular, she appeared to be pro-war. When anti-war is popular, she appears to be anti-war.
Posted by: Jackal || 05/26/2007 11:16 Comments || Top||

#5  But she remains a bird brained Marxist.
Posted by: Ebbulet Poodle3367 || 05/26/2007 11:31 Comments || Top||

#6  Hillary folded to mollify the leftwing since they were squawking so loud on this. And, she will pivot on a dime to support polling, but I really believe she'd be a lot tougher on defense than Bill was. And, a lot tougher than any other Demo candidate. She got on defense appropriations committee to learn and I think she has been really impressed at how our military actually functions. I can think of no candidate I'd rather have squinting Putin in the eye. When Hildebeast is pissed, it's best not to directly challenge her. I think Putin and all the Arab scumbags would quickly find out that crossing her would land thier asses in a world of hurt.
Posted by: Woozle Elmeter2970 || 05/26/2007 14:42 Comments || Top||

#7  Woozle,

While she may be the most hawkish of the entire group of commie dems shw would sell out the troops and the nation for the transi crowd in a heartbeat. Don't give credit where it isn't earned.

She got on that committee to bolster her cred for this election ONLY. Otherwise she'd get involved with anything else that would get her the most money. She is a carpetbagging w*ore.
Posted by: jds || 05/26/2007 17:02 Comments || Top||

#8  And, she will pivot on a dime to support polling, but I really believe she'd be a lot tougher on defense than Bill was

We're at war with a ruthless and media-savvy enemy. Do you honestly believe that Hillary would be willing to do anything "unpopular"? That when the going got tough she wouldn't fold? Hillary as CIC would be a complete DISASTER for this country.
Posted by: DMFD || 05/26/2007 17:02 Comments || Top||

#9  I find the democrat position as humorus as a fight on a scaffold about 20 floors up. It is believed that the candidates will be chosen on Feb 5, 2008, super Tuesday or whatever. But, I think the donks will still have about 3 in the running after that. The donk food fight will continue down to the wire, while the republicans are given an unpresidented chance to build a unity with the people and sweep into 3 house victory.
There are a lot of things republicans can do, but a contract with America will be the kind of platform that will assure continued dominance.
May I suggest reduce taxes and spending as an item ?
Posted by: wxjames || 05/26/2007 19:50 Comments || Top||

#10  She told John Carry before the last election thet uis no vote on money for the troops would herar him politically and she was right, I can't figure her doing the same thing and believing the same thing won't happen to her. I believe it already has with Veterans.
Posted by: Deacon Blues || 05/26/2007 22:03 Comments || Top||



Who's in the News
50[untagged]

Bookmark
E-Mail Me

The Classics
The O Club
Rantburg Store
The Bloids
The Never-ending Story
Thugburg
Gulf War I
The Way We Were
Bio

Merry-Go-Blog











On Sale now!


A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.

Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.

Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has dominated Mexico for six years.
Click here for more information

Meet the Mods
In no particular order...
Steve White
Seafarious
tu3031
badanov
sherry
ryuge
GolfBravoUSMC
Bright Pebbles
trailing wife
Gloria
Fred
Besoeker
Glenmore
Frank G
3dc
Skidmark

Two weeks of WOT
Sat 2007-05-26
  Nangahar big turban snagged
Fri 2007-05-25
  Dems blink: House Approves War-Funding Bill
Thu 2007-05-24
  Israel seizes Hamas leaders in West Bank
Wed 2007-05-23
  PLO backs army entry into Nahr al-Bared
Tue 2007-05-22
  Hamas threatens new wave of suicide attacks
Mon 2007-05-21
  Leb army lays siege to camp as fight continues
Sun 2007-05-20
  Leb army takes on Fatah al-Islam at Paleo camp
Sat 2007-05-19
  White House rejects Democrats' offer on war spending bill
Fri 2007-05-18
  9 dead after bomb explodes at India's oldest Mosque
Thu 2007-05-17
  IDF tanks enter Gaza Strip
Wed 2007-05-16
  Chlorine boom kills 20 in Diyala
Tue 2007-05-15
  Paleo interior minister quits
Mon 2007-05-14
  Extra troops as Karachi death toll mounts
Sun 2007-05-13
  Mullah Dadullah reported deadullah
Sat 2007-05-12
  Poirot concludes his UN report about Hariri's murder

Better than the average link...



Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
54.145.183.34
Help keep the Burg running! Paypal:
WoT Operations (13)    WoT Background (16)    Non-WoT (9)    Local News (8)    (0)