Headline: END OF THE WORLD

The following is part of the larger point I will make in the follow up beneath, but assurances that it is fiction and you have no need to worry.

Scientists have noticed a meteor the size of the state of Delaware hurtling across space, heading for earth.

On August 23, 2003, James Crist, a scientist at the renouned Goddard Space Institute, discovered what came to be known as GHR-546, a meteor the size of Delaware, hurtling across space toward earth.

This last April, James Crist presented his discovery to NASA informing them that there was a 1 in 100,000,000 chance that the meteor would hit earth, and if it did, it would be life threatening.

Robert Oppenhopper, a spcialist on life threatening events concluded it would end life on earth and could possible destroy the earth. " It would be the end of the world," said Oppenhopper.

gibberish gibberish gibberish Hibberish Gibberish end of the world ish gibberish Hibberish Gibberish Libberish gibberish gibberish gibberish doomsday Gibberish Libberish gibberish gibberish planet ending Hibberish Gibberish ibberish

gibberish gibberish gibberish Hibberish life ending Libberish gibberish gibberish gibberish Hibberish planet ending Libberish gibberish gibberish gibberish Hibberish Gibberish Libberish

gibberish gibberish gibberish Hibberish Gibberish Libberish gibberish gibberish gibberish Hibberish Gibberish end of the world as we know it gibberish gibberish gibberish Hibberish Gibberish Libberish gibberish gibberish gibberish Hibberish Gibberish Libberish

gibberish gibberish gibberish Hibberish Gibberish Libberish gibberish gibberish gibberish Hibberish Gibberish Libberish gibberish gibberish humanity would be gone Hibberish Gibberish Libberish gibberish gibberish gibberish Hibberish ibberish

Libberish gibberish gibberish gibberish Hibberish Gibberish Libberish gibberish life reatening gibberish extinction Gibberish Libberish all dead gibberish gibberish Hibberish Gibberish Libberish

Crist put it this way regarding the threat - Godzilla and Rodan will appear before the the meteor is a serious threat to the planet.

Often the headline is very misleading and in fact, the entire article can be misleading until you get to the very last sentence. Be careful in your reading.

So I offer the following from the British paper -The Independent.



Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control

Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors

By Patrick CockburnThursday, 5 June 2008

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

[This first sentence sounds awfully sinister. The following two paragraphs are a few paragraphs down in the article.]

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.


The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.


[So it is intended to help McCain and hurt Obama. EVERYTHING is political. this will play into the obsession the left have that Bush acts only on political interest. In part, because that is how the left act and they transpose their intentions onto everyone else.

Could Bush be acting on principle - that it is time to end the campaigns, draw down the forces - AS HE HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR A YEAR NOW, and in drawing down the forces, we will leave several bases in Iraq and some troops for a long time.

Consider a paragraph taken out of order, that attempts to put the issue in perspective]


The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

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

- US troops would remain on bases in Iraq for the next X number of years.
- US troops would conduct military operations
- US troops would arrest Iraqis
- US troops would be immune from Iraqi law


THAT IS THE AGREEMENT THAT IS BEING DEBATED.


The part that is funny is - everything. Hilarious. Like the meteor hitting earth it is really a non-story. So, if it is a non-story as I suggest, why are some Iraqis so upset?

So, let's look at each component of this secret agreement Vice President Cheney is pushing (according to the article).


- US troops would remain on bases in Iraq for the next X number of years.

The Iraqis have no problem with this issue. The only Iraqis who do are loyal to Sadr and or al qaida.

How do we know that - the article: condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region.

Iranians are naturally concerned. They are afraid of Iraq becoming stable and strong - for it was a stable and strong Iraq that posed a threat to Iran in the 1980s.

Anyone who does not want to see the US succeed in Iraq will be opposed to this deal as it will thrust an Iraqi government out onto the stage to fend for itself. Which it should do, but ... when Iran and al qaida are arrayed against it, survival is more difficult.



- US troops would conduct military operations

The article mentions an interest in controlling air space under 29,000 feet.

Let's assume al qaida gets control of a plane from some far off land and flys into Iraq and toward the US embassy. Planes or weapons that are planes, perhaps even just new al qaida recruits flying in ... at 29,000 or lower.

I can assure each and every human being alive, that the US does not wish to control their airspace, rather, we would provide Iraq with an air defense system that would allow us to determine who is flying around Iraqi airspace. This would be good to know if we have 1500 troops on patrol in a western region and a strange plane heads toward them.

We really don't care about non-military planes of commercial purpose flying around. We don't care about controlling Iraq in the manner suggested. We do care about providing control of the airspace while our troops are assisting Iraqis in protecting Iraq.

US troops, further more, would not routinely go out and about and not tell anyone. many times over the last few years, Western newspapers have pointed out how secrets seem to filter through to the enemy. Leaks. To avoid sending 1500 soldiers out and about into danger, we may limit the number of people who know when and where troops go, but someone will be told.



- US troops would arrest Iraqis

I would assume that if our troops are meandering around Iraq and we find people shooting at us, we may arrest them. When we question them, if they tell us they were helped by some fellow down the street, we will arrest him also. I would suspect, though the article fails to mention this for effect, that Iraqi soldiers/ police will be the first ones at the door, followed by US soldiers.



- US troops would be immune from Iraqi law

Oohh and news with this statement is? The US has for decades refused to allow its troops to be held responsible under international laws or treaties. This is absolutely nothing new. But it plays to propaganda. An American soldier kills an Iraqi. In Iraq they want him tried and executed and not concerned about the order. US law would try him and if found guilty, sentenced to time in prison. Our courts for military personnel, take into account the issues and events at the moment, to assist in rendering a more just decision. Gunfire, explosions, suddenly the door opens and a kid stands in the door and is shot and killed. Did the soldier kill the child? Yes. Did he intend to? He pointed his weapon and pulled the trigger, so yes. But, what about circumstances. You know what those are - in this country and so many others, we are told to consider economic disadvantage and cultural issues when rendering justice. Well, explosions and bullets are also relevant to consider or more so, when it is life and death.


So, what is the BIG SECRET with this deal? I would suggest it is nothing, but an attempt to paint it as something it isn't, knowing the US administration is no longer interested in damage control and the UK government doesn't care, so these stories will proliferate like weeds, with no rational evaluation.

Truth loses.







.