Monday, December 19, 2011

Fort Hood soldiers glad to be home from Iraq (AP)

FORT HOOD, Texas ? After having no contact with her soldier husband for a week, Jeannette Juroff was relieved to hear his voice when the phone rang at 3 a.m. Sunday.

She could hear a bit of celebrating in the background since he was part of the last convoy of U.S. troops to leave Iraq as the nearly nine-year war came to an end.

"I had been worried, but then he called and said, `Hi honey. I'm here and I'm safe," Juroff said Sunday afternoon.

Sgt. 1st Class Nate Juroff, based at Fort Hood, was among the very last U.S. combat soldiers to roll out of Iraq across the border into neighboring Kuwait at daybreak Sunday. The 500 soldiers left in a convoy of heavily armored personnel carriers, slipping out under cover of darkness and strict secrecy to prevent any final attacks.

Jeannette Juroff, who's an Army staff sergeant based at the Red River Army Depot near Texarkana, said she is relieved that her husband is out of Iraq and won't face daily mortar attacks and other dangers. This was his second deployment to Iraq.

"We should have done this a long time ago," she said, referring to the troop withdrawal. "We had no business going over there at all and losing soldiers like that."

All U.S. troops are to be out of Iraq by Dec. 31, and hundreds of soldiers have been arriving at military installations in recent weeks because of the troop withdrawal.

Staff Sgt. Elama Palemene held his two young daughters and kissed his wife early Sunday after returning to Fort Hood with about 300 other soldiers. They arrived about 3 a.m. to a cheering, flag-waving crowd of teary wives and bundled-up youngsters on a field at the Texas Army post with temperatures in the high 40s.

"My husband wanted to have (our children) stay behind, but it was a must to have them here," said his wife, Annaden Palemene, who held a large homemade sign that read "Sgt. Palemene, Your Tour Stops Here."

The soldiers from the 2nd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division said they were glad to be home before the holidays ? and relieved to be out of Iraq.

"This was my fourth deployment to Iraq ... so it feels great to be home," said Staff Sgt. James Cantrell, who had just hugged his wife, Brenda, and 7-year-old daughter Janelle.

Several soldiers said they were happy upon hearing the news that the last U.S. combat troops left Iraq at daybreak Sunday. That convoy's exit marked the end of a bitterly divisive war that raged for nearly nine years and left Iraq shattered, with troubling questions lingering over whether the Arab nation will remain a steadfast U.S. ally.

"I think it's good we're out of Iraq. I think they're ready ? the government and the military," said Spc. Keenan McCoy, holding his 13-month-old daughter Kyrie close to him and hugging his wife Rachel.

Fort Hood officials later said reporters were banned from asking questions about how soldiers feel about leaving Iraq or the war.

Staff Sgt. Palemene said he hopes the country remembers that U.S. troops are still fighting elsewhere in the world.

"It feels good to be home safe and sound, but we should remember that there are still soldiers in Afghanistan," he said.

The war in Iraq cost nearly 4,500 American and well more than 100,000 Iraqi lives and $800 billion from the U.S. Treasury. The quiet weekend withdrawal was a stark contrast to the start of the war, which began with a pre-dawn airstrike in Baghdad on March 20, 2003, before U.S. and allied ground forces then stormed from Kuwait across the deserts of southern Iraq toward that capital.

In late 2003, soldiers from the 4th Infantry Division, then based at Fort Hood, captured Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and he was executed in 2006. That division and its headquarters moved to Fort Carson, Colo., in 2009.

Fort Hood has about 46,500 active-duty soldiers. Since 2003, about a third of Fort Hood's soldiers have been deployed, and more than 565 were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to officials at the Army post.

Source: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20111218/ap_on_re_us/us_iraq_returning_home

libya bay area news lettuce recall lettuce recall zanesville ohio zanesville ohio light field camera

Saturday, December 17, 2011

A touch of mob-business, anyone?

This idea just came to me. It's nothing particularly new, but eh, whatever. It involves a character of mine that I dearly love and have been meaning to bring back into play.

My character, Tristan, had something of a strange upbringing. Not bad, in his eyes, just...different than American culture. As he got older, his luck turned a bit and he found himself wanting to get away from his home nation, Reidan (an extremely small country that few people but those who are particularly interested in geography have really heard of) and decided to try his luck in the states. He had nothing, so he quickly found himself desperate. The man was picked up by some sort of crime group (mob, cartel, whatever) and they learned he had some military background. They discovered he was a good shot and hired him on as an assassin. Tristan started to get used to his new job, began to shield himself from others and never get attached to anyone, but soon he found he couldn't take the pressures and strains of his job. He hated it. But the mob won't let him go--why let such a smooth operator slip away? Tristan believes he's forever caught in their web until he meets someone (of a non specific gender--doesn't matter, nor does it matter who they are (perhaps they're a citizen, or maybe they're involved too?)) and, almost on accident, befriends them. He starts to trust them and finally reveals what he does for a living. The friend recognizes Tristan's desire to get out and encourages him to break free. The mob won't have it.

You must be an advanced writer for this roleplay. Straight up. Know your grammar, own your character and make it real. Give them some depth and contribute to the plot. And give me some substance in your writing. One paragraph just doesn't cut it.

I don't care what gender you play. I'm thinking this will be either a 1x1 or a three way thread (only if someone feels like they want to play the mob boss or something, otherwise let's keep it to just a 1x1).

Post often please, but I don't expect a post every day. I know I'm busy with school come January and can't always post every day. Once or twice a week is perfectly acceptable.

I'm open to any ideas and suggestions as well. Let me know if you're interested.

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/RolePlayGateway/~3/ALhurGAC_GM/viewtopic.php

regis philbin last show regis philbin last show ray lewis crystal cathedral sarah vowell fire in reno plane crash

Domino's top boss is CNBC's best CEO of 2011

Sorry, Readability was unable to parse this page for content.

Source: http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/15/9474895-dominos-top-boss-is-cbncs-best-ceo-of-2011

nfl power rankings week 12 nfl power rankings week 12 brine turkey brine turkey uc davis sweet potato casserole super committee

Friday, December 16, 2011

'William And Kate': Royal Couple, Wedding Profiled In NBC Documentary

Prince William and Kate Middleton's wedding was one of the most highly-anticipated nuptials of the year -- with an estimated 24.5 million viewers tuning in to witness the couple tie the knot on television.

But although the pair have been in the spotlight since their Big Day in April, they've managed to keep their private life surprisingly private.

That is set to change--sort of. A new documentary, "William And Kate: Inside The Royal Wedding," promises to take an intimate look inside the couple's nuptials while documenting the first six months of their lives together. The film, created by royal documentarian Matt Drury and Getty photographer Chris Jackson, also includes interviews with some of the couple's closest friends.

In this preview clip, we get an in-depth look at Kate Middleton's life and how she transformed from an ordinary girl to the Duchess of Cambridge.

"William And Kate: Inside The Royal Marriage" airs on NBC tonight at 8 PM EST.

'; var coords = [-5, -72]; // display fb-bubble FloatingPrompt.embed(this, html, undefined, 'top', {fp_intersects:1, timeout_remove:2000,ignore_arrow: true, width:236, add_xy:coords, class_name: 'clear-overlay'}); });

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/13/william-and-kate-goes-ins_n_1147192.html

zack greinke zack greinke siri san diego news ford evos ford evos ides of march

Future Riot Shields Will Suffocate Protestors with Low Frequency Speakers [Police]

It's not the first crowd control tool to use sound waves, but Raytheon's patent for a new type of riot shield that produces low frequency sound waves to disrupt the respiratory tract and hinder breathing, sounds a little scary. More »


Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/SpTRwUO24lM/future-riot-shields-will-suffocate-protestors-with-low-frequency-speakers

rule 5 draft lindsay lohan playboy cover lindsay lohan playboy cover shooting at virginia tech shooting at virginia tech blagojevich rod blagojevich

When Did Gingrich Stop Supporting a Health Insurance Mandate ...

During Saturday's Republican presidential debate, Newt Gingrich claimed (not for the first time) that he advocated requiring every American to obtain medical coverage as part of a strategy to defeat President Clinton's health care plan:

In 1993, in fighting HillaryCare, virtually every conservative saw the mandate as a less-dangerous future than what Hillary was trying to do. The Heritage Foundation was a major advocate of it. After HillaryCare disappeared, it became more and more obvious that mandates have all sorts of problems built into them. People gradually tried to find other techniques. I frankly was floundering, trying to find a way to make sure that people who could afford it were paying their hospital bills while still leaving an out [for] libertarians to not buy insurance. And that's what we're wrestling with. It's now clear that the mandate, I think, is clearly unconstitutional. But it started as a conservative effort to stop HillaryCare in the 1990s.

Although this account does not reflect well on Gingrich's principles (or the Heritage Foundation's), it seems?plausible. But it does not explain why Gingrich continued to support an individual health insurance mandate for nearly two decades?much longer than Barack Obama, who rejected the idea during the 2008 presidential campaign, only to change his mind after taking office. In a 2005 interview with NPR, notes Josh Hicks in The Washington Post, Gingrich had this to say about a requirement he now calls "clearly unconstitutional":

Our goal has to be for 100 percent of the country to be in the insurance system. So that means finding ways through tax credits and through vouchers so that every American can buy insurance, including, I think, a requirement that if you're above a certain level of income, you have to either have insurance or post a bond.

Here he is on the same subject in his 2009 book Real Change: The Fight for America's Future:

We should insist that everyone above a certain [income] level buy [medical] coverage (or, if they are opposed to insurance, post a bond).

On Meet the Press?last May, Gingrich conceded that he still supported "a variation on" ObamaCare's insurance requirement:

I've said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have?health insurance?or you post a bond.

Two weeks ago Gingrich told ABC's Jake Tapper "a mandate per se is clearly unconstitutional because it means the Congress can require you to do anything with your own money under any circumstances." When Tapper asked him whether he still supported a modified mandate (with a bond as an alternative), Gingrich suggested he preferred an approach suggested by John ?Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis:

He essentially would give you a tax credit if you want to buy insurance, and if you didn?t want to buy insurance your share of the tax credit would go into a pool for the uninsured and if something happened to you, you?d be taken care of by the pool of the uninsured. And so you'd be in a different league in terms of how you were handled and what happened to you.

That proposal seeks to avoid the question of whether requiring health insurance counts as regulating interstate commerce by recasting the mandate as a tax incentive. The upshot is similar: Either way, the government penalizes noncompliant taxpayers by taking away money they would otherwise have (which under Goodman's proposal could be their own money or, if the credit is refundable, a transfer from other taxpayers). Still, the Supreme Court might see the difference as crucial, since Congress has been using the tax code for social engineering since it was created but has never before tried to mandate a purchase under the Commerce Clause.

In any case, as far as I can tell, Gingrich still has not explicitly renounced the insurance-or-bond approach, which is puzzling given his newfound constitutional objections to the mandate imposed by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Putting up a bond big enough to cover one's future medical expenses presumably would cost more than buying insurance, meaning that the penalty for not obtaining coverage would be much bigger than it is under ObamaCare. I do not see how this policy avoids the constitutional problem or paternalistic precedent of using the Commerce Clause to compel purchases.

Last month Peter Suderman cited Gingrich's "tangled" position on mandating health insurance as an example of his muddled thinking.

Source: http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/13/when-did-gingrich-stop-supporting-a-heal

battlefield 3 review real housewives of new jersey coraline coraline wedding crashers jacqueline laurita mcfadden