Over 16,538,226 people are on fubar.
What are you waiting for?
Labor Day...to many people, it simply means the end of summer, a day off from work, great sales at the stores and a reason to have a family get-together. The early observances of Labor Day were not about family or fun, though, according to Oyster Bay Town Councilman Anthony D. Macagnone; they were about improving the quality of life for America’s working men and women. The Councilman and Town Supervisor John Venditto urge residents to remember the true meaning of Labor Day, September 6.
"Unfortunately, the true meaning of Labor Day has been all but lost, pushed out by its celebration as the last official day of summer and a day off from work," Supervisor Venditto said. "Councilman Macagnone and I remind residents that what labor has achieved in this country, and for this country, deserves all the celebrating it can get because we would not be enjoying the outstanding quality of life we have today were it not for the hard work and sacrifices of the American worker."
The first Labor Day parade was held in New York City in September 1882. Councilman Macagnone pointed out that there are two views regarding who first proposed the holiday. "Some records show that it was the brainchild of carpenter Peter McGuire, general secretary of the United Federation of Carpenters and Joiners and co-founder of the American Federation of Labor, while there are also records that support machinist Matthew Maguire, secretary of the Central Labor Union in New York, as the originator," the Councilman said. "Regardless of who first had the idea, it caught on. By 1894, 31 states had created the holiday by legislative enactment, and on June 28, 1894, Congress made it a legal holiday in the District of Columbia and the territories. The establishment of a special day to honor labor made a statement to the world about how America reveres working men and women and their roles in society."
"Collectively, the men and women of our labor force is one of the hardest working and highest producing groups to be found anywhere," Supervisor Venditto said. "Their products and services are an essential part of our everyday lives. In the Town of Oyster Bay, we have always recognized the importance of our labor force. I have often stated publicly that Oyster Bay Town government has a workforce that is second to none. From office personnel to sanitation, parks and highway crews, the level of competence and dedication is outstanding."
Councilman Macagnone pointed out that the Town of Oyster Bay has shown its concern for workers on many levels. "I am proud to say that Oyster Bay was the first Town on Long Island to adopt the Living Wage Law and the first Town in Nassau County to require contractors and subcontractors doing business with the Town to have apprenticeship agreements, as well as the first Town in Nassau County to require applicants for building permits for commercial buildings 100,000 square feet or larger apprenticeship programs to provide apprenticeship programs. The Town also has a comprehensive program to help displaced workers through the Town’s Department of Intergovernmental Affairs, Employment and Training Division."
The Councilman noted that Oyster Bay serves as the administrative agency for the federal Workforce Investment Act (WIA) program in the Towns of Oyster Bay and North Hempstead and the City of Glen Cove. Displaced or unemployed workers who meet certain eligibility guidelines can receive everything from help preparing resumes and honing job seeking skills to on-the-job or classroom training. There is no charge for participants. For further information, contact the Employment and Training Division at 797-4560.
"Without the hardworking men and women of our labor force, our nation would not have achieved what it has," Supervisor Venditto stated. "It is most appropriate that a special day be set aside to pay tribute to the dynamic and vital force of American labor, which has contributed tremendously to the highest standard of living and the greatest production of quality goods and services the world has ever known. On Labor Day, I urge everyone to take a few moments on Labor Day to reflect on the contributions of the dedicated working men and women who helped, and those who are continuing to help, make our nation a safer, stronger and better place for everyone."
"And, let’s show our support for labor by using products and services produced in America by American workers," added Councilman Macagnone
MARINADE:
HAM STUFFING:
TO PREPARE:
The day before serving, combine marinade ingredients and pour over chicken. Cover and marinade overnight in refrigerator. Drain chicken, reserving marinade. Combine all stuffing ingredients and reserved marinade, blending well. Place 1/2 cup stuffing between two breast halves. Wrap in aluminum foil, sealing well. Bake in a preheated 350 degree oven for 2 hours.
SERVINGS: 6
In the early 1800's the basic policy of the United States government regarding native Americans was to remove the Indian population from areas, or potential areas, of white settlement. The most thoroughly documented instance of this policy and its consequences is the removal of the Cherokee Indians from their homelands in the southeastern states of Tennessee, Alabama, North Carolina, and Georgia.
President Thomas Jefferson suggested in 1803, shortly after the purchase of the Louisiana Territory, that treaty arrangements be reached with the Cherokee and the other tribes of the southeast that would provide for removal of the Indians to new lands west of the Mississippi. Unexplored and deemed unsuitable for white settlement, these lands seemed perfectly suited for ridding the new nation of its Indian problem. Two such treaties were eventually negotiated and approximately one-third of the Cherokee population made the migration west by 1820. However, during the administrations of James Monroe and John Quincy Adams, the federal government adopted a more sympathetic policy towards the native tribes of the southeast, encouraging missionary efforts to "civilize" them, and recognizing more extensive rights of Indians over tribal lands. Missionary efforts among the Cherokee were particularly significant. Missions from a variety of Protestant denominations were established. Tribal schools were started as was a tribal newspaper written in both English and Cherokee. Some Cherokee children were brought north to be educated in private schools. And there were several marriages between Cherokee men and the daughters of church leaders. The ties thus established proved a powerful, albeit inadequate, source of political and moral leverage when the national debate over Indian removal reached a climax in the early 1830s.
Substantial conflict with the state government of Georgia developed as the federal government took the Cherokee side against encroachment by white settlers on Indian land. The discovery of gold in northern Georgia in 1828 and pressure for the availability of more land to settle the growing white population contributed to more local agitation for Indian removal. The governor and Georgia congressional delegation actively pressed the case for Indian removal and western expansion. State laws were enacted that effectively destroyed Cherokee self-government. And with the election of Andrew Jackson as President in 1828 the expansionists gained a sympathetic and powerful ear in Washington. Jacksonian Democrats prevailed by a single vote in Congress in 1830 with the passage of the Indian Removal Act and again when President Jackson ignored the Supreme Court decision written by Chief Justice Marshall in the case of Worchester vs. the State of Georgia that declared void Georgia's legal rights over the Cherokee. In 1835 the Treaty of New Echota was signed by a small party of Cherokee leaders forcing the tribe to cede their lands and remove to the West. Though there were several delays, the removal of the Cherokee from Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Alabama along what has come to be known as the Trail of Tears was completed by 1839.
US moves into final military phase in Iraq
Sep 1, 11:00 AM (ET)
BAGHDAD (AP) - The U.S. on Wednesday moved into the final phase of its military involvement in Iraq, with administration officials saying the war was ending even as the new commander of the remaining 50,000 troops warned of the ongoing threat from "hostile elements."
The transfer of authority came a day after President Barack Obama announced the shift from combat operations to preparing Iraqi forces to assume responsibility for their own security. Obama made clear in Tuesday's speech that this was no victory celebration.
A six-month stalemate over forming a new Iraqi government has raised concerns about the country's stability and questions over whether the leadership can cope with a diminished but still dangerous insurgency.
Newly promoted Army Gen. Lloyd Austin also maintained a somber tone as he took the reins of the some 50,000 American troops who remain in Iraq, with a deadline for a full withdrawal by the end of next year.
He noted "hostile enemies" continue to threaten Iraq and pledged that "our national commitment to Iraq will not change."
"Although challenges remain, we will face these challenges together," Austin said during the ceremony at the opulent al-Faw palace of ousted dictator Saddam Hussein.
Austin, who most recently served in Iraq as commander of troop operations from 2008-09, replaces Gen. Ray Odierno, who is heading to Virginia to take over the Joint Forces Command after about five years in Iraq.
"This period in Iraq's history will probably be remembered for sacrifice, resilience and change," Odierno said. "However, I remember it as a time in which the Iraqi people stood up against tyranny, terrorism and extremism, and decided to determine their own destiny as a people and as a democratic state."
Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen presided over the ceremony, which was held at the main U.S. military headquarters on the southwestern outskirts of Baghdad.
Gates, visiting American troops in the Iraqi city of Ramadi Wednesday, said history will judge whether the fight was worth it for the United States.
"The problem with this war, I think, for many Americans, is that the premise on which we justified going to war turned out not to be valid," he said. "Even if the outcome is a good one from the standpoint of the United States, it'll always be clouded by how it began."
Claiming that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, then-President George W. Bush ordered the invasion with approval of a Congress still reeling from the 9/11 attacks. Bush's claims were based on faulty intelligence, and the weapons were never found.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said his country is grateful for what the Americans have done, but it is now time for Iraqis to secure their own future.
"We appreciate the sacrifices the U.S. military and the American people made while standing with us in these very, very difficult times," Zebari told The Associated Press in a phone interview. "The war for Iraq's future is ongoing and it should be fought and won by the Iraqi people and their leaders," Zebari said.
Obama acknowledged the ambiguous nature of the war in which American forces quickly ousted Saddam but were never able to fully control the Sunni Muslim insurgency against the Shiite-dominated establishment that even now threatens to re-ignite.
Still, he said the time had come to close this divisive chapter in U.S. history.
"We have met our responsibility," Obama said. "Now it is time to turn the page."
Avoiding any hint of claiming victory in a war he once called a major mistake, the president recognized the sacrifices of America's military. More than 4,400 American troops and an estimated 100,000 Iraqis were killed at a cost of billions of dollars.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, said Tuesday the end of U.S. combat operations was a return to sovereignty for the battered country and he reassured his people that their own security forces could defend them.
Iraqi forces on Wednesday appeared to be on heightened alert, spread out at checkpoints across the city intended to reassure the populace and ward off insurgent attacks.
Just under 50,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq - down from a peak of about 170,000 at the height in 2007. Those forces will not be able to go on combat missions unless requested and accompanied by Iraqi forces.
But drawing a line between what is and is not combat may not be easy. All American forces carry weapons and they still come under attack from insurgents near daily. Earlier this month, for example, Sgt. Brandon E. Maggart, 24, of Kirksville, Mo. was killed near the southern city of Basra on Aug. 22 - a few days after the last combat brigade rolled across the border into Kuwait.
Iraq is also far from the stable democracy once depicted by the Bush administration and hoped for by Obama when he laid out his timeline for withdrawing American troops shortly after he took office in 2009.
Half a year has passed since Iraq's March 7 elections and the country's political leaders have so far failed to form a new government.
While Iraqis are generally happy to see the U.S. military pulling back, they are also apprehensive the withdrawal may be premature as militants hammer local security forces. Iraqis also say they fear their country may still revert to a dictatorship or split along religious and ethnic fault lines.
"For if the blood of bulls and of goats and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh" - Paul argued in his letter to the Hebrews "how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God." (Heb. 9:13-14)
No more of this turtle-dove business, no more offering the blood of bullocks and heifers to cleanse from sin.
The atoning blood of Jesus Christ - that is the thing about which all else centers. I believe that more logical, illogical, idiotic, religious and irreligious arguments have been fought over this than all others. Now and then when a man gets a new idea of it, he goes out and starts a new denomination. He has a perfect right to do this under the thirteenth amendment, but he doesn't stop here. He makes war on all of the other denominations that do not interpret as he does. Our denominations have multiplied by this method until it would give one brain fever to try to count them all.
The atoning blood! And as I think it over I am reminded of a man who goes to England and advertises that he will throw pictures on the screen of the Atlantic coast of America. So he gets a crowd and throws pictures on the screen of high bluffs and rocky coasts and waves dashing against them, until a man comes out of the audience and brands him a liar and says that he is obtaining money under false pretense, as he has seen America and the Atlantic coast and what the other man is showing is not America at all. The men almost come to blows and then the other man says that, if the people will come tomorrow, he will show them real pictures of the coast. So the audience comes back to see what he will show, and he flashes on the screen pictures of a low coast line, with palmetto trees and banana trees and tropical foliage and he apologizes to the audience, but says these are the pictures of America. The first man calls him a liar and the people don't know which to believe. What was the matter with them?
They were both right and they were both wrong, paradoxical as it may seem. They were both right as far as they went, but neither went far enough. The first showed the coast line from New England to Cape Hatteras, while the second showed the coast line from Hatteras to Yucatan. They neither could show it all in one panoramic view, for it is so varied it could not be taken in one picture.
God never intended to give you a picture of the world in one panoramic view. From the time of Adam and Eve down to the time Jesus Christ hung on the cross he was unfolding his views. When I see Moses leading the people out of bondage where they for years had bared their backs to the taskmaster's lash; when I see the lowing herds and the high priest standing before the altar severing the jugular vein of the rams and the bullocks; on until Christ cried out from the cross, "It is finished," (John 19:30) God was preparing the picture for the consummation of it in the atoning blood of Jesus Christ.
A sinner has no standing with God. He forfeits his standing when he commits sin and the only way he can get back is to repent and accept the atoning blood of Jesus Christ.
I have sometimes thought that Adam and Eve didn't understand as fully as we do when the Lord said; "Eat and you shall surely die." (Gen. 2:17) They had never seen any one die. They might have thought it simply meant a separation from God. But no sooner had they eaten and seen their nakedness than they sought to cover themselves, and it is the same today. When man sees himself in his sins, uncovered, he tries to cover himself in philosophy or some fake. But God looked through the fig leaves and the foliage and God walked out in the field and slew the beasts and took their skins and wrapped them around Adam and Eve, and from that day to this when a man has been a sinner and has covered himself, it has been by and through faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Every Jew covered his sins and received pardon through the blood of the rams and bullocks and the doves.
An old infidel said to me once, "But I don't believe in atonement by blood. It doesn't come up to my ideas of what is right."
I said, "To perdition with your ideas of what is right. Do you think God is coming down here to consult you with your great intellect and wonderful brain, and find out what you think is right before he does it? " My, but you make me sick. You think that because you don't believe it that it isn't true.
I have read a great deal - not everything, mind you, for a man would go crazy if he tried to read everything - but I have read a great deal that has been written against the atonement from the infidel standpoint - Voltaire, Huxley, Spencer, Diderot, Bradlaugh, Paine, on down to Bob Ingersoll - and I have never found an argument that would stand the test of common sense and common reasoning. And if anyone tells me he has tossed on the scrap heap the plan of atonement by blood, I say, "What have you to offer that is better?" and until he can show me something that is better I'll nail my hopes to the cross.
Suffering for the Guilty
You say you don't believe in the innocent suffering for the guilty. Then I say to you, you haven't seen life as I have seen it up and down the country. The innocent suffer with the guilty, by the guilty and for the guilty. Look at that old mother waiting with trembling heart for the son she has brought into the world. And see him come staggering in and reeling and staggering to bed while his mother prays and weeps and soaks the pillow with her tears over her godless boy. Who suffers most? The mother or that godless, maudlin [drunk] bum? You have only to be the mother of a boy like that to know who suffers most. Then you won't say anything about the plan of redemption and of Jesus Christ suffering for the guilty.
Look at that young wife, waiting for the man whose name she bears, and whose face is woven in the fiber of her heart, the man she loves. She waits for him in fright and when he comes, reeking from the stench of the breaking of his marriage vows, from the arms of infamy, who suffers most? That poor, dirty, triple extract of vice and sin? You have only to be the wife of a husband like that to know whether the innocent suffers for the guilty or not. I have the sympathy of those who know right now.
This happened in Chicago in a police court. A letter was introduced as evidence for a criminal there for vagrancy. It read, "I hope you won't have to hunt long to find work. Tom is sick and baby is sick. Lucy has no shoes and we have no money for the doctor or to buy any clothes. I manage to make a little taking in washing, but we are living in one room in a basement. I hope you won't have to look long for work," and so on, just the kind of a letter a wife would write to her husband. And before it was finished men cried and policemen with hearts of adamant were crying and fled from the room. The judge wiped the tears from his eyes and said: "You see, no man lives to himself alone. If he sins others suffer. I have no alternative. I sympathize with them, as does every one of you, but I have no alternative. I must send this man to Bridewell [house of correction]." Who suffers most, that woman manicuring her nails over a washboard to keep the little brood together or that drunken bum in Bridewell getting his just deserts from his acts? You have only to be the wife of a man like that to know whether or not the innocent suffer with the guilty.
So when you don't like the plan of redemption because the innocent suffer with the guilty, I say you don't know what is going on. It's the plan of life everywhere.
From the fall of Adam and Eve till now it has always been the rule that the innocent suffer with the guilty. It's the plan of all and unless you are an idiot, an imbecile and a jackass, and gross flatterer at that, you'll see it.
Jesus' Atoning Blood
Jesus gave his life on the cross for any who will believe. We're not redeemed by silver or gold. Jesus paid for it with his blood (1 Peter 1:18). When some one tells you that your religion is a bloody religion and the Bible is a bloody book, tell them yes, Christianity is a bloody religion; the gospel is a bloody gospel; the Bible is a bloody book; the plan of redemption is bloody. It is. You take the blood of Jesus Christ out of Christianity and that book isn't worth the paper it is written on. It would be worth no more than your body with the blood taken out. Take the blood of Jesus Christ out and it would be a meaningless jargon and jumble of words.
If it weren't for the atoning blood you might as well rip the roofs off the churches and burn them down. They aren't worth anything. But as long as the blood is on the mercy seat (Lev. 16:14), the sinner can return, and by no other way. There is nothing else. It stands for the redemption. You are not redeemed by silver or gold, but by the blood of Jesus Christ. Though a man says to read good books, do good deeds, live a good life and you'll be saved, you'll be damned. That's what you will. All the books in the world won't keep you out of hell without the atoning blood of Jesus Christ. It's Jesus Christ or nothing for every sinner on God's earth.
Without it not a sinner will ever be saved. Jesus has paid for your sins with his blood. The doctrine of universal salvation is a lie. I wish every one would be saved, but they won't. You will never be saved if you reject the blood.
I remember when I was in the Y.M.C.A. in Chicago I was going down Madison Street and had just crossed Dearborn Street when I saw a newsboy with a young sparrow in his hand. I said: "Let that little bird go."
He said, "Aw, g'wan with you, you big mutt."
I said, "I'll give you a penny for it," and he answered, "Not on your tintype."
"I'll give you a nickel for it," and he answered, "Boss, I'm from Missouri; come across with the dough."
I offered it to him, but he said, "Give it to that guy there," and I gave it to the boy he indicated and took the sparrow.
I held it for a moment and then it fluttered and struggled and finally reached the window ledge in a second story across the street. And other birds fluttered around over my head and seemed to say in bird language, "Thank you, Bill."
The kid looked at me in wonder and said: "Say, boss, why didn't you chuck that nickel in the sewer?"
I told him that he was just like that bird. He was in the grip of the devil, and the devil was too strong for him just as he was too strong for the sparrow, and just as I could do with the sparrow what I wanted to, after I had paid for it, because it was mine. God paid a price for him far greater than I had for the sparrow, for he had paid it with the blood of his Son, and he wanted to set him free.
No Argument Against Sin
So, my friend, if I had paid for some property from you with a price, I could command you, and if you wouldn't give it to me I could go into court and make you yield. Why do you want to be a sinner and refuse to yield? You are withholding from God what he paid for on the cross. When you refuse you are not giving God a square deal.
I'll tell you another. It stands for God's hatred of sin. Sin is something you can't deny. You can't argue against sin. A skilful man can frame an argument against the validity of religion, but he can't frame an argument against sin. I'll tell you something that may surprise you. If I hadn't had four years of instruction in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, before I saw Bob Ingersoll's book, and I don't want to take any credit from that big intelligent brain of his, I would be preaching infidelity instead of Christianity. Thank the Lord I saw the Bible first. I have taken his lectures and placed them by the side of the Bible, and said, "You didn't say it from your knowledge of the Bible." And I have never considered him honest, for he could not have been so wise in other things and such a fool about the plan of redemption. So I say I don't think he was entirely honest.
But you can't argue against the existence of sin, simply because it is an open fact, the word of God. You can argue against Jesus being the Son of God. You can argue about there being a heaven and a hell, but you can't argue against sin. It is in the world and men and women are blighted and mildewed by it.
Some years ago I turned a corner in Chicago and stood in front of a police station. As I stood there a patrol dashed up and three women were taken from some drunken debauch, and they were dirty and blear-eyed, and as they were taken out they started a flood of profanity that seemed to turn the very air blue. I said, "There is sin." And as I stood there up dashed another patrol and out of it they took four men, drunken and ragged and bloated, and I said, "There is sin." You can't argue against the fact of sin. It is in the world and blights men and women. But Jesus came to the world to save all who accept him.
"How Long, O God?"
It was out in the Y.M.C.A. in Chicago. "What is your name and what do you want?" I asked.
"I'm from Cork, Ireland," said he, "and my name is James O'Toole." Here is a letter of introduction." I read it and it said he was a good Christian young man and an energetic young fellow.
I said, "Well, Jim, my name is Mr. Sunday. I'll tell you where there are some good Christian boarding houses and you let me know which one you pick out." He told me afterwards that he had one on the North Side. I sent him an invitation to a meeting to be held at the Y.M.C.A., and he had it when he and some companions went bathing in Lake Michigan. He dived from the pier just as the water receded unexpectedly and he struck the bottom and broke his neck. He was taken to the morgue and the police found my letter in his clothes, and told me to come and claim it or it would be sent to a medical college. I went and they had the body on a slab, but I told them I would send a cablegram to his folks and asked them to hold it. They put it in a glass case and turned on the cold air, by which they freeze bodies by chemical processes, as they freeze ice, and said they would save it for two months, and if I wanted it longer they would stretch the rules a little and keep it three.
I was just thinking of what sorrow that cablegram would cause his old mother in Cork when they brought in the body of a woman. She would have been a fit model of Phidias [ancient Greek sculptor], she had such symmetry of form. Her fingers were manicured. She was dressed in the height of fashion and her hands were covered with jewels and as I looked at her, the water trickling down her face, I saw the mute evidence of illicit affection. I did not say lust, I did not say passion, I did not say brute instincts. I said, "Sin." Sin had caused her to throw herself from that bridge and seek repose in a suicide's grave. And as I looked, from the saloon, the fantan rooms, the gambling hells, the opium dens, the red lights, there arose one endless cry of "How long, O God, how long shall hell prevail?" (Psa. 74:10)
You can't argue against sin. It's here. Then listen to me as I try to help you.
When the Standard Oil Company was trying to refine petroleum there was a substance that they couldn't dispose of. It was a dark, black, sticky substance and they couldn't bury it, couldn't burn it because it made such a stench; they couldn't run it in the river because it killed the fish, so they offered a big reward to any chemist who would solve the problem. Chemists took it and worked long over the problem, and one day there walked into the office of John D. Rockefeller, a chemist and laid down a pure white substance which we since know as paraffine [paraffin wax].
You can be as black as that substance and yet Jesus Christ can make you white as snow. "Though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow." (Isa. 1:18)
Afghan militants in US uniforms storm 2 NATO bases
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - U.S. and Afghan troops repelled attackers wearing American uniforms and suicide vests in a pair of simultaneous assaults before dawn Saturday on NATO bases near the Pakistani border, including one where seven CIA employees died in a suicide attack last year.
The raids appear part of an insurgent strategy to step up attacks in widely scattered parts of the country as the U.S. focuses its resources on the battle around the Taliban's southern birthplace of Kandahar.
Also Saturday, three more American service members were killed - two in a bombing in the south and the third in fighting in eastern Afghanistan, the U.S. command said. That brought to 38 the number of U.S. troops killed this month - well below last month's figure of 66.
The militant assault in the border province of Khost began about 4 a.m. when dozens of insurgents stormed Forward Operating Base Salerno and nearby Camp Chapman with mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons, according to NATO and Afghan police.
Two attackers managed to breach the wire protecting Salerno but were killed before they could advance far onto the base, NATO said. Twenty-one attackers were killed - 15 at Salerno and six at Chapman - and five were captured, it said.
Three more insurgents, including a commander, were killed in an airstrike as they fled the area, NATO said.
The Afghan Defense Ministry said two Afghan soldiers were killed and three wounded in the fighting. Four U.S. troops were wounded, NATO officials said.
U.S. and Afghan officials blamed the attack on the Haqqani network, a Pakistan-based faction of the Taliban with close ties to al-Qaida. Camp Chapman was the scene of the Dec. 30 suicide attack that killed the seven CIA employees.
Afghan police said about 50 insurgents took part in the twin assaults. After being driven away from the bases, the insurgents approached the nearby offices of the governor and provincial police headquarters but were also scattered, said Khost provincial police Chief Abdul Hakim Ishaqzai.
"Given the size of the enemy's force, this could have been a major catastrophe for Khost. Luckily we prevented it," he said.
Small-arms fire continued through the morning, while NATO helicopters patrolled overhead. The dead were wearing U.S. Army uniforms, which can be easily purchased in shops in Kabul and other cities, possibly pilfered from military warehouses.
The twin attacks appeared to be part of a growing pattern of insurgent assaults far from the southern battlefields of Kandahar and Helmand provinces, which have been the main focus of the U.S. military campaign. Last December, President Barack Obama ordered 30,000 reinforcements to Afghanistan, most to the Kandahar area where the Islamist movement was organized in the mid-1990s.
On Saturday, a candidate running for a seat in parliament from Herat province in northwestern Afghanistan was shot and killed on his way to a mosque, said Lal Mohammad Omarzai, deputy governor of Shindand district. He said two men on a motorbike opened fire on Abdul Manan, a candidate in the September balloting. He later died of his wounds.
Late Friday, insurgents stormed a police checkpoint in Takhar province near the northern border with Tajikistan. The Interior Ministry said nine insurgents were killed and 12 wounded with no losses on the government side. The day before, Taliban fighters killed eight Afghan policemen in a raid on a checkpoint outside the northern city of Kunduz.
And on Wednesday, an Afghan police driver with family links to the Taliban killed three Spaniards - two police trainers and their interpreter - at a training center in the northern province of Badghis.
A joint NATO-Afghan investigative team found the shooter, whose brother-in-law is a Taliban commander, had been arrested and disarmed a year ago for links to insurgents but was reinstated after two local elders vouched for him, NATO said in a statement Saturday.
Although the Afghan capital is relatively secure, incidents apparently directed at female students have raised concern about Taliban intimidation within the city.
The Health Ministry said 48 pupils and teachers at the Zabihullah Esmati High School were rushed to hospitals Saturday after falling ill with breathing problems and nausea. All but nine were treated and released after blood samples were taken to try to determine the cause.
On Wednesday, dozens of students and teachers at another Kabul girls' school became sick when an unknown gas spread through classrooms, education officials said. The cause of that incident has not been determined, but officials fear the apparent poisonings could be part of an insurgent campaign to frighten girls from attending school.
Also Saturday, the government criticized U.S. media reports that alleged numerous Afghan officials had received payments from the CIA. A presidential office statement did not address or deny any specific allegations, but called the reports an insult to the government and an attempt to defame people within it.
The New York Times reported Thursday that the CIA had been paying Mohammed Zia Salehi, the chief of administration for Afghanistan's National Security Council, who was arrested last month as part of an investigation into corruption. The Washington Post reported the next day the agency was making payments to a large number of officials in President Hamid Karzai's administration.
"Afghanistan believes that making such allegations will not strengthen the alliance against terrorism and will not strengthen an Afghanistan based on the law and rules, but will have negative effects in those areas," the statement by Karzai's office said, without commenting on the substance of the reports.
"We strongly condemn such irresponsible allegations which just create doubt and defame responsible people of this country," it said.
Meanwhile, NATO issued a statement saying coalition helicopter pilots were not responsible for the deaths of three Afghan policemen killed Aug. 20 in what had been considered a friendly fire incident in Jowzjan province's Darzab district.
It said the helicopters showed up hours after fighting began and it was possible the three had been killed earlier.
All Afghan forces had also been ordered to remain inside compounds at the time the two helicopters fired a missile and 80 30-millimeter rounds at an insurgent firing position, NATO
WASHINGTON -- When the U.S. overthrew Saddam Hussein seven years ago, the Bush administration envisioned a liberated Iraq that was rich, stable, democratic and a shining example to the rest of the Arab world.
Now, with the end of U.S.-led combat operations in Iraq, the Obama administration is predicting more or less the same thing.
Both U.S. presidents pinned their hopes on Iraq's vast but underdeveloped oil resources, calculating that petroleum-fueled prosperity fed by a wave of foreign investment would give Iraqis the tools and motivation to build a modern, Western-oriented state.
But that goal remains a speck on the horizon.
Today, Iraq pumps less oil than it did under Saddam. Iraqis are stalemated in forming a new government nearly six months after national elections. And the country's political divisions, aggravated by the struggle for control of Iraq's oil potential, have led to fears that it could erupt in civil war, revert to a dictatorship or split along religious and ethnic fault lines.
President Barack Obama, whose opposition to the war was a hallmark of his presidential campaign in 2008, is scheduled to give an Iraq speech from the Oval Office on Tuesday, marking the transition of the U.S. military mission from combat to advising the Iraqi armed forces. All U.S. troops are to leave Iraq by the end of 2011.
When the Bush administration launched the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, it was counting on Iraq's oil wealth to bankroll the country's reconstruction. Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense at the time, told a House committee just days after the war began that Iraq's oil wealth would relieve U.S. taxpayers of the rebuilding burden.
"We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon," he said on March 27, 2003.
It didn't work out that way, in part because a fierce and resilient insurgency intruded.
The war's outcome remains in doubt, yet oil is gaining prominence in the Obama administration's public rationale for staying by the Iraqis' side even after the military campaign concludes.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates says Iraq in 10 years could rank among the world's biggest oil producers, making it fabulously rich and - by implication - a potential success story.
"It will change the entire equation in the Middle East," Gates said, assuming Iraqi leaders are able to sustain their shaky democracy. In remarks Aug. 12 in San Francisco, Gates was quick to add: "That's the optimistic scenario. There are all kinds of more pessimistic scenarios."
One of those less-rosy outlooks is pretty obvious: the departure of U.S. forces in 2011 leads to increased violence and a return to civil war, paralyzing the government and creating chaos. The question in that case would be whether the U.S. would intervene with combat troops.
Another unpleasant possibility: Iraq's strongest and most developed institution - the military - gets fed up with a lack of political progress in Baghdad and overthrows the civilian government.
Oil will play an important role in Iraq's future, though not necessarily a positive one.
Nations with huge oil and resource wealth - such as Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela - often fail to develop democratic political systems. It's not clear why this would be so, but some believe that vast oil resources encourages centralized state control by dictators or oligarchs.
Iraq sits atop an estimated 115 billion barrels of crude, the world's third-largest proven reserves. Iraq's oil production, however, has stagnated since the U.S. invasion, hampered by technical problems, looting and insurgent violence.
Production averaged about 2.5 million barrels a day from the late 1990s to the early 2000s before the fall of Saddam, and since then has ranged between 2.1 million and 2.4 million barrels a day, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Iraq's oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani said last month that the country hopes to boost output to 12 million barrels a day in about six years. Some analysts are skeptical, but U.S. officials seem encouraged.
Meghan O'Sullivan, a former top Iraq adviser to Bush who helped lead the president's war strategy review in 2006, sees Iraq's oil potential as a mixed blessing.
"It's an enormous opportunity and it's something that gives Iraq the potential to regain its status as a regional superpower, but it also brings all kinds of dangers, and there are many hurdles that need to be surmounted before Iraq can realize that potential," she said in an interview.
O'Sullivan, now a professor of international affairs at Harvard, says Iraq remains in conflict over how to share power and resources among its major sectarian and ethnic groups, and oil is the biggest resource prize in that competition.
Most of the known oil and gas reserves in Iraq form a belt that runs along the eastern edge of the country, centered in the Shiite areas of the south and the Kurdish north. Iraqi politicians have been locked in a bitter dispute over how much control the central government in Baghdad should have over regional oil operations, and how revenues would be shared.
Efforts to pass a national hydrocarbons law that would set a legal framework for oil investment are stalled, although the government has worked out some oil revenue-sharing issues.
When he announced the U.S. invasion on March 19, 2003, President George W. Bush said in nationally television address that his goal was to make Iraq "united, stable and free." Among critics, some charged that the U.S. was making a grab for Iraq's oil.
Almost six years later, in a speech announcing his plan for winding down the war, Obama said his objective was an Iraq that is "sovereign, stable and self-reliant." He mentioned oil just once, noting that declining oil revenues were straining the Iraqi government, which relies on oil sales for more than 90 percent of state revenues.
More recently, the administration has highlighted Iraq's oil potential, perhaps to help explain why it intends to continue financial, political and diplomatic support to stabilize the country.
The administration has committed itself to nurturing a democracy in Iraq.
"I don't see any other model for Iraq," said Christopher Hill, who just completed 16 months as U.S. ambassador in Baghdad.
Gates said Iraq's future is "open." He likened it to post-Soviet Russia in 1991.
"No one was sure what would come later, but for the first time in their history the Russian people had a choice and the future was open to them," Gates said. "I think the same thing is true in Iraq today."
Kabul, Afghanistan – There is, perhaps, no place in the world that has seen more conflict than Afghanistan. Dating from at least the sixth century B.C.E. conquerors have attempted to hold onto the wild lands that make up the country and all have 
ultimately failed. Even great military leaders such as Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan found themselves challenged by Afghan geography and people. In the modern era, the country has seen invasions by two of the most powerful nations to ever exist, helping to damn one into history and tying the other one up for almost a decade.
Because of the nature of the country and its long history of thwarting invaders Afghanistan is often viewed as a wild land, barren in the modern sensibility, and a appearance of unmitigated hostility, the country has long been one the least desirable of vacation spots. Now with the report of the deaths of 11 soldiers and three DEA agents any growing good will directed towards the country has dissipated, causing many in the Obama administration to rethink their policy of sending soldiers into war zones.
“There were two incidents two report. In one, a helicopter went down in the west of the country after leaving the scene of a firefight, killing 10 Americans—seven troops and three Drug Enforcement Administration agents,” said Marine spokesman Maj. Bill Pelletier. “In a separate incident, two U.S. Marine helicopters—one UH-1 and an AH-1 Cobra—collided in flight before sunrise over the southern province of Helmand, killing four American troops and wounding two more. During the operation, insurgent forces engaged the joint force and more than a dozen enemy fighters were killed in the ensuing firefight.”
The deaths come on the eve of a major conference for the Obama administration on the state of the situation in Afghanistan. The conflict there has been ongoing since the terrorist attacks on 9/11 but it has been four years since the last major report of American deaths. It’s not yet clear what position the administration will take on the situation in the country now that so many soldiers have been killed.
“There is the idea that soldiers are designed to be killed. It’s a tragedy no doubt, but they are a part of the military and they are there to fight and die for their country. That is brought into clear focus, at least that question, when you have incidents like these. Unfortunately that’s a question the Obama administration is going to have to answer,” said Scrape TV International Conflict analyst Mario Martinez. “The truth is soldiers are going to die as long as they are placed in harm’s way and the President and the military leadership are going to have to decide whether or not its worth that risk, or sacrifice, in order to win the war.”
Throughout the history of conflict between differing human societies, soldiers have often been killed. Generally, the side with the most deaths loses the war, which has been the case thus far in Afghanistan, the victory excepted.
“The unfortunate reality is as long as the military puts guns in the hands of soldiers and places them in areas where enemy soldiers can shoot at them there is a very good chance that they will be killed or at the very least injured. That is something that they are going to have to come to terms with,” continued Martinez. “This isn’t just an American thing though. The same rules apply to soldiers in every conflict around the world. Unless they are able to dodge bullets there’s a very good chance they will be hit by one.”
In related news, stubbed toes and bunions amongst American troops has shown a marked decline since the introduction of new padded insoles.
Carter lands in North Korea to bring home American
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Koreans welcomed Jimmy Carter back to Pyongyang with smiles, salutes and hearty handshakes Wednesday as the former American president arrived on a mission to bring home a Boston man jailed in the communist country since January.
U.S. officials have billed Carter's trip as a private humanitarian visit to try to negotiate the release of Aijalon Gomes, sentenced to eight years of hard labor in a North Korean prison for entering the country illegally from China.
However, visits like Carter's - and the journey ex-President Bill Clinton made a year ago to secure the release of two American journalists - serve as more than just rescue missions. They also offer an opportunity for unofficial diplomacy between the U.S. and North Korea, analysts say.
Communist North Korea and the capitalist U.S. fought on opposite sides of the Korean War. Three years of warfare ended in 1953 with a cease-fire but not a peace treaty, and the two Koreas remain divided by one of the world's most fiercely fortified borders.
To this day, the U.S. stations 28,500 troops in South Korea to guard the longtime ally, a presence that chafes at Pyongyang, which cites the forces as a main reason behind its need for nuclear weapons.
For more than a year, relations have been particularly tense, with North Korea testing a nuclear weapon and long-range missile technology, and the U.S. leading the charge to punish Pyongyang for its defiance.
The March sinking of a South Korean warship, which killed 46 sailors, has provided fresh fodder for tensions. Seoul and Washington accuse Pyongyang of torpedoing the vessel; North Korea denies involvement and has threatened harsh retaliation if punished.
With all sides digging in, six-nation nuclear disarmament talks have remain stalled. North Korea wants a peace treaty; South Korea and the U.S. want an apology for the sinking of the warship.
Last year, it took Clinton's visit to get the U.S. and North Korea talking again. Some five months after journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee were seized near the Chinese border, Clinton - the last president to have had warm relations with North Korea - turned up in Pyongyang on a private jet.
Clinton was cordial but serious as he met with leader Kim Jong Il, who appeared giddy at being photographed next to the former president. North Korean state media paid little attention to the two journalists he had gone to retrieve, focusing instead on Clinton.
With relations again at a standstill, Carter's mission to bring Gomes home could again provide another face-saving opening for contact, analysts said.
Paik Hak-soon, a North Korea analyst at the private Sejong Institute think tank near Seoul, predicted Carter would meet with Kim, and that Kim would ask him to relay a positive message to Washington on the resumption of nuclear disarmament talks.
He said the trip has a "positive" aspect, given Carter's popularity and symbolic role in defusing the first nuclear crisis in 1994.
Carter made his first trip to Pyongyang when Clinton was president - a visit that resulted in a warm meeting with late President Kim Il Sung and led to a landmark nuclear disarmament deal.
"It was obvious to me when I was in North Korea that there is deep resentment of the past and genuine fear of pre-emptive military attacks in the future," Carter said in a speech in Seoul in March. He said sanctions were unproductive and urged "unrestrained direct talks" with North Korea.
Having Carter in North Korea "could certainly contribute to U.S.-North Korean relations, as well as the nuclear talks," said Kim Yong-hyun, an expert on North Korean affairs at Seoul's Dongguk University. However, any diplomatic overtures would be small and unlikely to bring about drastic changes in position, he said.
Senior U.S. officials in Washington stressed that Carter was not representing the government but was on a private mission. U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner told reporters in Washington that he could not give details of Carter's mission.
"It's a mission to secure the release of Mr. Gomes. But we don't want to jeopardize the prospects for Mr. Gomes to be returned home by discussing any of the details," Toner said. "So I'm not going to get into anymore details."
North Korea agreed to release Gomes to Carter if the ex-president paid Pyongyang a visit, one U.S. official told The Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation.
Carter landed in an unmarked plane Wednesday. A North Korean girl, a red scarf tied around her neck, handed him a bouquet of flowers, and Carter blew her a kiss before getting into a black Mercedes-Benz, video from TV news agency APTN showed.
He later sat down for talks with the No. 2 official, Kim Yong Nam, APTN said. The discussions were "cordial," the state-run Korean Central News Agency said. Top North Korean nuclear envoy Kim Kye Gwan and his deputy, Ri Gun, were among those on hand to welcome Carter with handshakes, APTN said.
Carter was expected to return to the U.S. on Thursday with Gomes, the senior U.S. official in Washington said.
Gomes, who taught English in South Korea, was described by acquaintances as a devout Christian who may have followed a friend, Robert Park, into North Korea. Park has said he crossed into the country deliberately in January to call attention to North Korea's human rights record; he was expelled about 40 days later.
Last month, KCNA said Gomes, 31, attempted suicide, "driven by his strong guilty conscience, disappointment and despair at the U.S. government that has not taken any measure for his freedom."
U.S. officials have pressed for his release on humanitarian grounds, but State Department officials who made a quiet trip to North Korea earlier this month failed to secure his release. In the past, it has taken a high-profile envoy like Clinton or New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who took on diplomatic missions in the 1990s as a congressman and later became U.N. ambassador under Clinton.
Gomes' family is hoping North Korea will grant him amnesty, family spokeswoman Thaleia Schlesinger said.
"They certainly continue to be grateful to the government of North Korea for the care he was given the last couple of months since his suicide attempt," she said.
If an American citizen passes away while in Afghanistan, the Embassy can provide crucial assistance to the employer and family members during this difficult time. For estate, insurance and other purposes, surviving family members need to receive a Report of Death Abroad for relatives who have passed away while outside the United States. In order to issue a Report of Death, the Consular Section will need the following documents:
Upon receipt of these documents, a consular officer will issue the Report of Death Abroad and cancel the U.S. passport. If your American friend or relative has died while you are traveling in Afghanistan, please contact the U.S. Embassy at ÷(0)700-10-8001/8002 or ÷(0)700-20-1908.
The Embassy regrets that it does not have funds available to help with the return of remains or other costs associated with the funeral arrangements. The Embassy will assist in arranging documentation for those remains shipped to the U.S., and oversee the required preparations, but all costs are the responsibility of the family.
Cremation and local burial are both simple and available options for consideration, while shipment via commercial airlines is possible, it is very expensive and takes some time.
