Picture of the Day - "Progress" in Iraq / Update

Okay, just posting the link as these cartoons can take a while to load depending on your connexion.

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2005/01/24/tomo/story.jpg

The very serious debate on torture. Good or not so good

Tadiran Communications' Talla-Tech Wins Contract to Supply Rugged PDAs to U.S. Armed Forces


Source: Tadiran Communications

"Over the past three years, the company has delivered several thousand RPDAs to the military and homeland defense customers. These have seen extensive combat service in the US Armed Forces in Iraq and elsewhere, providing superior situation awareness and secure and immune data communication to soldiers in the field even in extreme adverse conditions.


PETACH TIKVA, Israel --- Today, Tadiran Communications, one of the world’s leading providers of comprehensive field-proven communication solutions, announced that, Tallahassee Technologies, Inc. (Talla-Tech), a daughter company of its U.S. subsidiary TallaCom, has signed a 9 years Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract, with General Dynamics C4 Systems, to supply its Rugged Personal Digital Assistant, RPDA-88, to the U.S. Armed Forces.

This contract is a first part of the latest program, CHS-3, of the ongoing Common Hardware Software program CHS, managed by General Dynamics. Talla-Tech will be working as subcontractors for GD as it did in the previous program CHS-2, when it supplied Tactical Terminals (TACTERs) and RPDAs to a value of around $50m over 5 years.

The contract was awarded in concurrence with the first delivery order - valued at around $500,000.

Subsequent to the signing of the contract, T. Michael Coburn, President of Tallahassee Communications, Inc. said "Our organization is elated to be a part of this very important defense program. Talla-Tech will serve as the higher tier subcontractor and its parent company, Talla-Com will play a major role in the procurement and manufacturing of the RPDA products.

Amos Weitzmann, Tadiran Communication's VP of Marketing, said that the company sees this contract as a further confirmation of Tadiran's established position as a world leading technology and knowledge provider.

Tadiran Communications and its US subsidiary TallaCom, are currently finalizing further developments of the TACTER-31 military computer according to CHS-3 specifications, in order to compete in future tenders for the program.

The RPDA-88 is the world’s first battle-proven military PDA.


With navigation, tactical digital messaging, remote radio control, built-in GPS, wireless LAN and Bluetooth capabilities, the RPDA serves as a tactical solider terminal. Thanks to its modular design and unique features, the rugged unit is suitable for use in bright daylight and can be mission-tailored to conform to specific demands.

With over 40 years of experience in the development, manufacture and marketing of combat-proven military communications solutions, Tadiran Communications is a global industry leader in its fields of specialization.

The company’s secure and immune military communications systems and equipment serve the armed forces of over 50 countries worldwide. Main product families include short, medium and long-range communications, covering all frequency bands. "


Iama

Always interesting Iama, and not wanting to be a pain in the ass, but... what has it to make with "progress in Irak" ?

I considered to be relating to irak action and technology - use of PDA - not quite on topic, with progress...

Iama

Perhaps you could create some folder like "Technological Advances", or "New Military Hardware" ?

chanderngore, that cartoon u posted...IT"S AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually I also think that forcing a proven terrorist to eat his own liver is not that bad an idea. Unfortunately that can't be done too many times on each one of them, there's only a limited amount of liver per terrorist capita

Bush Administration to Request $80 Billion Supplemental


Source: US Department of Defense


"WASHINGTON --- The Bush administration intends to ask Congress for an estimated $80 billion budget supplemental, most of it to help cover the costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. and defense officials announced today.

The anticipated funding request is in addition to the $25 billion Congress approved last summer in the fiscal 2005 defense appropriations bill, and senior defense officials told military analysts today it is the last supplemental request expected this fiscal year.

In announcing the request today, President Bush said it will help the United States maintain two pledges: to provide U.S. troops "whatever they need to protect themselves and complete their mission," and to stand with the Iraqi people and against their terrorist oppressors.

"This supplemental budget request will fulfill these important pledges and again makes clear to terrorists that our resolve is firm and we will complete our mission," the president said.

Details of the supplemental request are still being worked out, but White House officials said $75 billion of the request will support ongoing operations in the global war on terror through the rest of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.

"Most of these funds will support American troops on the ground by continuing to provide them with the equipment and other supplies they need," Bush said. "The request also provides for the continued pursuit of al Qaeda and other terrorist elements in Afghanistan and elsewhere," while supporting Afghanistan's "great progress."

Like previous supplemental requests, the anticipated request will cover basic war costs such as military personnel and operational costs, a senior official told the analysts.

In addition, it will provide funds required to repair or replace war-torn military equipment, build three more modular Army brigades and continue progress in training and equipping Iraqi and Afghan security forces, the official said.

Officials said the funding will enable the Army to maintain or replace equipment that's been subject to excessive wear and tear and to replace equipment too expensive to repair. "We get about four years of war on equipment for every year it is deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan," an Army official said.

The supplemental will also enable the Army to bring the number of brigade combat teams to a total of 39 by the end of the fiscal year.

A small portion of the supplemental will cover military construction, including housing, tactical equipment shops and support needs for deployed units in Southwest Asia.

Officials said they're confident the supplemental, if approved, will cover basic operational needs associated with the war on terror, particularly in the U.S. Central Command area of operation.

"It's exactly what we need in order to maintain the force as we take this effort further in Iraq and Afghanistan," an official said.

The balance of the request — about $5 billion — will cover State Department embassy construction and operations in Iraq, support for critical partners in the war on terror, and the humanitarian crisis in Sudan's Darfur region, as well as other activities, officials said.

The administration is expected to submit the supplemental request to Congress shortly after Feb. 7, when the president delivers his fiscal 2006 budget request."



Bush Requests Another $80 Billion For Military Operations in Iraq, Afghanistan


Source: Voice of America news


"WASHINGTON --- President Bush will ask the U.S. Congress for another $80 billion to pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The money will be added to the current federal budget for 2005.

The supplemental request was expected, but the size still took some by surprise.

In a written statement, President Bush said he is fulfilling promises made to American troops and the Iraqi people. White House spokesman Scott McClellan put it this way.

“Our troops are on the front lines of the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq and we are going to do everything we can to make sure they have the resources they need to complete their mission,” he said.

White House officials say they will need another $80 billion or so to cover war costs for 2005, adding on to the $25 billion passed early by Congress. If approved by lawmakers, the latest request would push overall spending for the conflict in Iraq and the wider war on terrorism to just over $300 billion dollars since the September 11th, 2001 attacks on the United States.

Most of the $80 billion, about $75 billion, will pay for military operations. The rest will go to the State Department for a variety of uses, including embassy construction, support for reform efforts by the new Palestinian government, and aid for the victims of the violence in Sudan's Darfur province.

Detailed figures will not be released until the formal supplemental request is sent to Capitol Hill. That is expected just days after the president formally submits his budget blueprint for 2006 to Congress on February 7.

When asked why they announced the $80 billion weeks before sending it to lawmakers, officials said they wanted to demonstrate their commitment to Iraq prior to the January 30th elections. They said they believe this amount will be sufficient to cover America's war costs for the rest of the 2005 fiscal year.

Some Democrats in Congress are already questioning the supplemental request, noting it is well above the estimates put forward by the administration at the start of the conflict in Iraq. They also point to new figures showing an increasing budget deficit put out by congressional accountants and the White House's own economists.

Including the cost of the new supplemental, the White House Office of Management and Budget now predicts the deficit for 2005 will total $427 billion. But the president's spokesman told reporters the administration is still on track to meet its long-term deficit cutting goals.

“The president has a deficit reduction plan that is based on strong economic growth and spending restraint,” Mr. McClellan added. “By taking steps that we have to get our economy growing stronger and creating jobs, we are also seeing increased revenues coming in. And by working with congress to exercise responsible spending restraint we got a plan to cut the deficit in half over the next five years.”

But officials acknowledge they have no way of knowing how much extra money may be needed to fight the war on terrorism in the years ahead. They only say the costs will be determined by the events on the ground. "

Iama

well hello mister SHIN BET . i heard there might be an old lady protesting that the price of milk went up. why don't u gather up a posse and knock her teeth out for protesting against democracy?

civil disobedience is still disobedience

Ok, if there is no picture

Yesterday, record of US military killed in Iraq on a single day, since the start of the war.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01...main/index.html

It's not America, Indrid. It's a picture of what extremist liberals would want to make you believe is typical of the american public. Salon.com is a well-known self admitted liberal web site, and they've been known to twist reality in the past to prove their agenda.

During the old days of the Nazi regime, many Germans did not agree with the regime.
Some were Communists, some Socialists, some did not agree with the mass murder of the Jewish nation, some were German officers thinking and hoping how to get Germany out of WWII. In a word, they were "extremist" from the Nazi point of view.
About 2 millions Germans were arrested and killed along the existence of the Nazi regime.

By the way... Because of a German general who delayed with intention the counterattack of 3 German armored divisions in the early morning of June 6, 1944, the landing in Normandy could succeed. That German general simply wanted for the Nazi regime to lose the war, and he did his part, in that crucial moment...

However, up to the end of the war, the Germans who opposed the Nazi regime were in minority.

I wrote this introduction for reason. I sincerely hope that 50 years from now, when the American history books will be written, and American historic documentaries will be cast out, they will appreciate the Americans who opposed the Bush administration as something good belonging to the American nation. I also hope that 50 years from now, the average American will learn about the present regime in its true light.
Well, I am afraid I'll not live another 50 years, but who knows?

50 years from now? There are many Americans who appreciate critics of the Bush administration today. I have seen more than one bumper sticker in the US saying "Support our troops. Bring them home." and slogans like this.

I have been amazed at the number of retired career military officers I have spoken with who have been very critical of US moves in Iraq, before and after the invasion. These are people who do not normally take liberal political positions, and who have been quite willing to use force in support of US national interest.

Your post does raise the interesting question of how this will be viewed by history. I am no fortune-teller, but I doubt that it will be too favorable.

Despite my strenuous efforts to recollect or find any reference to the above-mentioned "german general that sabotaged the strategic armored response on D-Day" all historical evidence points to the fact that the one and only person responsible for the catastrophic decision (for the germans) was actually Adolf Schickelgruber "Hitler", the Fuhrer of the IIIrd Reich.

On-topic now: I find it absolutely mind-boggling that no later than 60 years after World War II there are vast masses of people in the so-called "civilized euro-atlantic space" that fail to recognize homicidal national-socialism when they see it in action: the gangs of terrorists that indiscriminately kill iraqi civilians are islamo-nazis, pure and simple. It could be brainwashing, it could be the effect of long-term history tendencies that find a "justifiable" excuse to resurface (i.e. the self-righteous condemnation of american "arrogance" and "imperialism"), it could be something else, or all of the above,combined, I don't know. I wonder how one could justify back in 1945 leaving Germany alone and the Nazi party terror apparatus roam at will, because hey! they're insurgents, you know. But you can always blame the Americans and the Jews (those eeevil neo-cons ya know) for the unrest in Germany/Irak.

This public opinion trend is apalling and I can only expect it to get worse and worse, and I think that most of the necessary ingredients for the rise of totalitarianism in Continental Europe are in place. All that's missing is a strategic breakthrough by a totalitarian state, in order to complete the recipe for a revival of European dictatorships.

So it's only ironic that back in 1991 Saddam Hussein, just like Adolf Hitler, rushed to war juuuust before having the proper amounts and types of armament to secure a comfortable victory. And it's so interesting that then, just like now, with substantial media support, tens if not hundreds of thousands marched in the streets of European and American capitals against the Coalition's intervention in the Gulf.

Thus, today's homework assignment is:
question A: what would be the global implications of a nuclear Iraq controlling de jure and/or de facto the Mid-East oilfields as of 1993-1994?
question B: what would be the regional implications of an American cut-loss retreat in the face of a minority of underground maniacal islamo-nazi terrorists?

This post has been edited by valachus on January 27, 2005 09:17 pm