The Gravest Threat to World Peace

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

There is no question that President (and retired General of the Army) Eisenhower was correct. But he was preaching about "excess" and not a "pacifist nation;" or "taxing to extinction." He was concerned that the Captains of Industry would gain too much influence over a Congress that was all too susceptible to the dollar; and lacking the ability to control the monster.

The problem is that profits have been the reason for war more than defense.

Never-ending war for never ending profit.

(COMMENT)

There is still yet other factors that create wars. Clearly, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is not at all about profitability. In comparison to what the defense industry makes, that is hardly a drop in the bucket. And what Iran makes is, most definitely, in negative numbers. This is about raw power and influence.

Humanity, especially in the Middle East/Persian Gulf Region, has not developed to the enlightened stage of peaceful coexistence with other religious and culturally different societies. War is, whether we like it or not, an integral part of the human experience.

To change the influential factors of war, you have to generate a crop of leaders that have a different moral compass; one that points the way to peace, cooperation and development. As a species, we are not there yet.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

georgephillip, et al,

There is no question that President (and retired General of the Army) Eisenhower was correct. But he was preaching about "excess" and not a "pacifist nation;" or "taxing to extinction." He was concerned that the Captains of Industry would gain too much influence over a Congress that was all too susceptible to the dollar; and lacking the ability to control the monster.

The problem is that profits have been the reason for war more than defense.

Never-ending war for never ending profit.

(COMMENT)

There is still yet other factors that create wars. Clearly, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is not at all about profitability. In comparison to what the defense industry makes, that is hardly a drop in the bucket. And what Iran makes is, most definitely, in negative numbers. This is about raw power and influence.

Humanity, especially in the Middle East/Persian Gulf Region, has not developed to the enlightened stage of peaceful coexistence with other religious and culturally different societies. War is, whether we like it or not, an integral part of the human experience.

To change the influential factors of war, you have to generate a crop of leaders that have a different moral compass; one that points the way to peace, cooperation and development. As a species, we are not there yet.

Most Respectfully,
R

They have never told us why we really invaded Iraq. Everything they told us is a pack of lies. Follow the money.

Israel was created to be a safe haven for Jews but it is the most dangerous place on earth for Jews to live. Israel's occupation is very expensive for people around the world but there are a handful of people getting very rich. Again, follow the money.

 

[irosie91]

georgephillip, et al,

There is no question that President (and retired General of the Army) Eisenhower was correct. But he was preaching about "excess" and not a "pacifist nation;" or "taxing to extinction." He was concerned that the Captains of Industry would gain too much influence over a Congress that was all too susceptible to the dollar; and lacking the ability to control the monster.

The problem is that profits have been the reason for war more than defense.

Never-ending war for never ending profit.

(COMMENT)

There is still yet other factors that create wars. Clearly, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is not
at all about profitability. In comparison to what the defense industry makes, that is hardly a drop in the bucket. And what Iran makes is, most definitely, in negative numbers. This is about raw power and influence.

Humanity, especially in the Middle East/Persian Gulf Region, has not developed to the enlightened stage of peaceful coexistence with other religious and culturally different societies. War is, whether we like it or not, an integral part of the human experience.

To change the influential factors of war, you have to generate a crop of leaders that have a different moral compass; one that points the way to peace, cooperation and development. As a species, we are not there yet.

Most Respectfully,
R

They have never told us why we really invaded Iraq. Everything they told us is a pack of lies. Follow the money.

Israel was created to be a safe haven for Jews but it is the most dangerous place on earth for Jews to live. Israel's occupation is very expensive for people around the world but there are a handful of people getting very rich. Again, follow the money.

There are a handful of people getting rich on the conflict between jews and muslims
in the middle east-----out of smuggling and theft there are actually multimillionaires
amongst those POOR STARVING GAZANS in Gaza and SUHA REALLY MADE OUT
on her marriage to the pansy ARAFART Follow the money----the entire carter family
is supported by employment in "NON PROFIT" charitable organizations funded
by SAUDI ARABIA remember little amy? both she and her "computer programer"
husband are highly paid EXECUTIVES in one of the NON-PROFIT (read that untaxed)
"charity" thingys

 

[P F Tinmore]

georgephillip, et al,

There is no question that President (and retired General of the Army) Eisenhower was correct. But he was preaching about "excess" and not a "pacifist nation;" or "taxing to extinction." He was concerned that the Captains of Industry would gain too much influence over a Congress that was all too susceptible to the dollar; and lacking the ability to control the monster.


(COMMENT)

There is still yet other factors that create wars. Clearly, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is not
at all about profitability. In comparison to what the defense industry makes, that is hardly a drop in the bucket. And what Iran makes is, most definitely, in negative numbers. This is about raw power and influence.

Humanity, especially in the Middle East/Persian Gulf Region, has not developed to the enlightened stage of peaceful coexistence with other religious and culturally different societies. War is, whether we like it or not, an integral part of the human experience.

To change the influential factors of war, you have to generate a crop of leaders that have a different moral compass; one that points the way to peace, cooperation and development. As a species, we are not there yet.

Most Respectfully,
R

They have never told us why we really invaded Iraq. Everything they told us is a pack of lies. Follow the money.

Israel was created to be a safe haven for Jews but it is the most dangerous place on earth for Jews to live. Israel's occupation is very expensive for people around the world but there are a handful of people getting very rich. Again, follow the money.

There are a handful of people getting rich on the conflict between jews and muslims
in the middle east-----out of smuggling and theft there are actually multimillionaires
amongst those POOR STARVING GAZANS in Gaza and SUHA REALLY MADE OUT
on her marriage to the pansy ARAFART Follow the money----the entire carter family
is supported by employment in "NON PROFIT" charitable organizations funded
by SAUDI ARABIA remember little amy? both she and her "computer programer"
husband are highly paid EXECUTIVES in one of the NON-PROFIT (read that untaxed)
"charity" thingys

There are a handful of people getting rich on the conflict between jews and muslims
in the middle east-----out of smuggling and theft there are actually multimillionaires
amongst those POOR STARVING GAZANS in Gaza and SUHA REALLY MADE OUT
on her marriage to the pansy ARAFART

Indeed, and all of that is related to the occupation. Without the conflict none of that would have happened.

 

[georgephillip]

The right policy when the owners of those necks are out to murder all Jews. That you cleverly and so conveniently forget that reveals your lack of integrity and willingness to deceive those you think to be uninformed.

"Palestinian farmers face the brunt of Israel’s land confiscations, demolitions and water theft. Farmers that still have access to land and water face systematically implemented restrictions and violence.

"Israeli agricultural export companies such as Mehadrin and Hadiklaim are among the primary beneficiaries of the destruction of Palestinian agriculture, operating inside and exporting produce from illegal settlements using stolen Palestinian land and water and profiting from the siege on Gaza."

What percentage of Arabs do you imagine want "to murder all Jews?"

Those who apologize for Jews stealing Arab land and water often confuse integrity with deception.

Briefing: Farming Injustice ? International trade with Israeli agricultural companies and the destruction of Palestinian farming | BDSmovement.net

How many you ask. Enough to make the threat a serious one. How many would it take if it were you being so threatened?

Personally, it would never occur to me to steal my neighbors land and water rights while using their children for target practice. You?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore; georgephillip, et al,

Wow, we could write a small encyclopedia about this, and the post-combat (Phase IV) of the second Gulf War (the invasion), and still miss things. So, I'll give you the thumbnail quantum version and you two can double team me and pick at it. I'll be happy to amplify any questions.

There is no question that President (and retired General of the Army) Eisenhower was correct. But he was preaching about "excess" and not a "pacifist nation;" or "taxing to extinction." He was concerned that the Captains of Industry would gain too much influence over a Congress that was all too susceptible to the dollar; and lacking the ability to control the monster.

The problem is that profits have been the reason for war more than defense.

Never-ending war for never ending profit.

(COMMENT)

There is still yet other factors that create wars. Clearly, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is not at all about profitability. In comparison to what the defense industry makes, that is hardly a drop in the bucket. And what Iran makes is, most definitely, in negative numbers. This is about raw power and influence.

Humanity, especially in the Middle East/Persian Gulf Region, has not developed to the enlightened stage of peaceful coexistence with other religious and culturally different societies. War is, whether we like it or not, an integral part of the human experience.

To change the influential factors of war, you have to generate a crop of leaders that have a different moral compass; one that points the way to peace, cooperation and development. As a species, we are not there yet.

Most Respectfully,
R

They have never told us why we really invaded Iraq. Everything they told us is a pack of lies. Follow the money.

Israel was created to be a safe haven for Jews but it is the most dangerous place on earth for Jews to live. Israel's occupation is very expensive for people around the world but there are a handful of people getting very rich. Again, follow the money.

(COMMENT)

Following the money usually works, but it is only a single piece to the equation. It is not a "cause." Clearly you can make some correlations, but as they say in science: Correlation does not imply Causation. (I can correlation Sun Spots to some major events. But it doesn mean the Sun Spots caused them. The same it true with money.) This is a step-by-step logic.

(THE BACKDROP)

The US is (not theory) a political-military hegemony. We operate by the carrot and stick method; but we waive the stick very hard. At one time the military component had a saying:

Persuasive in Peace, Invincible in War.
LINK ---> 2002 U.S. Army Posture Statement​

Diplomacy was based on the presentation that any US suggestion was Option "A" --- and if you didn't do it our way, then you can go to option "B;" the military hard way.

There was a "Think Tank" called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) (with a number of very influential members) that stressed US leadership into the 21st Century through brute strength.

Some of the members included (1997/8 time frame):

• Elliott Abrams, He served as deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser in the administration of President George W. Bush.
• Gary Bauer, held several jobs in the Ronald Reagan administration, rising to the directorship of the White House's Office of Policy Development.
• William J. Bennett, served as Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George H. W. Bush.
• Jeb Bush, the brother.
• Dick Cheney, VP and former SECDEF
• Paula Dobriansky, the Undersecretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs
• Aaron Friedberg, Cheney's Deputy Assistant for National-Security Affairs and Director of Policy Planning.
• Dan Quayle, former VP
• Zalmay Khalilzad, former Ambo to Afghanistan and Iraq
• I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, former CoS, Cheney
  Plus:
• Donald Rumsfeld SECDEF and Paul Wolfowitz Principle Deputy SECDEF
• R. James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence
• Richard Perle, Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy
• Richard L. Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State

In January 1998, the PNAC wrote a letter to then President Clinton, and stated in part:

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
SOURCE: Letter to President Clinton on Iraq

While POTUS did not act on this recommendation, the key to remember is that many of the PNAC members that signed or supported this recommendation were soon to come into positions of great power and influence.

Having said that, the PNAC was correct in part: "American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War."

This is the seed that blossomed.

(The FOCUS of the DAY)

The grand plan was simple. The logic was to plant a huge stick right in the middle of the Middle East and Persian Gulf Region; equal distant from every aggressor and able to put a crimp in any offensive action that might develop a threat against oil interests or Israel. And Iraq fit the strategic bill. All they had to do was figure out a way to justify a regime change, and install a US friendly government that would be grateful and allow a couple of military bases.

Then fate intervened. The US was traumatized by 911, and itching for a fight. And the threat could all be traced back to the Middle East (Game-On). Cook the books, demonize Saddam, launch a Madison Avenue style campaign, and win public and Congressional support. Saddam Hussein became the greatest threat America has ever faced since Adolf Hitler; and the President gets to become the most famous wartime President history ever recorded since Lincoln and Roosevelt.

America could create a shadow force over any of the Arab Nations threatening Israel, lifting the pressure off them and changing the paradigm that might lead to peace in Palestine. At the same time, Iran would now be now well within striking distance. The bases were sufficient to support not only conventional strike capabilities, but asymmetric operations (covert, clandestine or paramilitary) throughout the two regions and even into Yemen.

Desert Storm: 17 January 1991 – 28 February 1991(Ground) - 30 November 1995(AIR)

"WAR" is a result of diplomatic failures. As tumultuous the victory was in Gulf War I, at least part of the blame rest with the United States (my personal opinion). While it is true, that there was an oil dispute, and a $14B loan agreement, these were workable. But I think what made the invasion of Kuwait an option was the way in which Saddam Hussein interpreted the US position, as expressed by the on-scene Ambassador, April Glaspie, 25 July 1990. She essentially stated:

• "we have no opinion on Arab-Arab issues, such as your border disagreement with Kuwait."

Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptable?

Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)

... ... ... Break ... ... ...​

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.

SOURCE: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...LE5/april.html

It was eight days later that Iraq invaded Kuwait, and announced annexation.

(OPINION)

It was my opinion then, and it is my opinion now, that our ally, Saddam Hussein, thought that (in political-ese) the US was giving Iraq a "green light" for military action. And we were, just not on the scale that Saddam Hussein was contemplating. As the Ambassador said: "I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait." Clearly implying that we did expect him to take some of Kuwait; just the oil dispute areas; the al-Rumaila Oil Field 15-20 miles from the Kuwaiti border, inside Iraq.

(COMMENT)

On 3 March 1991: Iraq accepts the terms of a ceasefire Safwan Accords, and the UN Security Council Resolution 686 2 March 1991; and then the following month, the UNSC Resolution 687. It is in UNSC Resolution 687 that the first mention on WMD restrictions are made. This sets the stage for the subsequent struggle over WMD issues in Iraq.

In August of 2002, Defense Policy Board chairman and PNAC member Richard Perle heard a policy briefing from a think tank associated with the Rand Corporation. According to the Washington Post and The Nation, the final slide of this presentation described "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot, and Egypt as the prize" in a war that would purportedly be about ridding the world of Saddam Hussein's weapons. Bush has deployed massive forces into the Mideast region, while simultaneously engaging American forces in the Philippines and playing nuclear chicken with North Korea. Somewhere in all this lurks at least one of the "major theater wars" desired by the September 2000 PNAC report.

Iraq is but the beginning, a pretense for a wider conflict. Donald Kagan, a central member of PNAC, sees America establishing permanent military bases in Iraq after the war. This is purportedly a measure to defend the peace in the Middle East, and to make sure the oil flows. The nations in that region, however, will see this for what it is: a jump-off point for American forces to invade any nation in that region they choose to. The American people, anxiously awaiting some sort of exit plan after America defeats Iraq, will see too late that no exit is planned.
SOURCE: http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle1665.htm

We're not truly sure what caused al-Qaeda (Osama bin Laden) to target the US in 1992, leading the the 1993 bombing. There were a number of factors in play. None of which involved Iraq. We are fairly confident that US force using Saudi facilities was a major sticking point with al-Qaeda.

Relative to Iraq, al-Qaeda wasn't an issue. While there were a couple of known international terrorist hiding out in Iraq, they were not al-Qaeda assets. What we called al-Qaeda in Iraq, was really the JTJ under Abu Massab al-Zaqarwi, a Jordanian terrorist. He wanted credit for his operation and was always being misidentified as AQI. So, in August of '04, he pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden (ObL) and AQ.

The bulls-eye, painted on Iraq was painted long before George Bush II and the The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI), which had many of the same members as the PNAC, was instrumental in lobbying for the Legislation of the same name.

At the time, other than the naval air, there was no real regional, land base strike capability prior to Gulf War I. The Saudi bases were off-limits. The Kuwaiti base had not been established. After Gulf War I, the Kuwaiti base (Ali Al Salem Air Base) was too far south to cover tactical air all the way to the Occupied Territories, Lebanon or Syria, and still maintain any meaning time-on-target. However, there were 5 air bases west of Al Asad (in Iraq, along the Jordanian-Syrian Border), that were very capable of being made into US Tactical Stations. Right in the middle of every predictable Middle East targets.

ObL was the apprentice engineer that helped his father's company (the bin Laden Group) refurbish and renovate the Grand Mosque in Mecca. It is believed then, that ObL heard the words of Juhayman al-Oteibi and became an inspired Muslim. He later came to believe that US Forces, although no where near Mecca, defiled the Holy Ground upon which the Grand Mosque was built.

But many key intelligence officials have since come to believe that when ObL approached the King, asking for support, money and weapons to defend Saudi sovereignty against a possible invasion from Iraq, and was turned down in favor of the US and Coalition --- that triggered the Jihad against America.

Within the Intelligence Community at the time, it was a minor debate.

ObL didn't care about Iraq at all. Saddam Hussein did not care for Osama bin Laden's leadership and did not reach out for al-Qaeda; there was virtually no connection of any significants between the two.

There is a connection between Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, and the probable cause to believe in a connection between Iraq and Terrorism.

• supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
• threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
• employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so;
• Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation;
• ... .... ..... Whereas, where as, and so forth, etc...

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

References:

• http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c107T4vqdQ::
• http://www.lawfareblog.com/wiki/the-...ilitary-force/
• http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22357.pdf

Both the Rand and the PNAC are/were "Think Tanks." It is the conduit by which the influential membership of the "Think Tank" transmits ideas to the decision making level. In this case, the guys transmitting the finding, became the decision makers. That is how the ideas reach such a high level.

We didn't have forward operating bases offset Jihadists and pre-position offensive forces anywhere in the ME, in the fashion necessary we needed to maintain security. And that was a critical reason for looking at western desert bases in Iraq.

At the time of 9/11, we had not invaded Iraq. There was no "occupation" for ObL to fret over. The pre-war ratchet of sanctions meant nothing to ObL. He was a ethnic Yemeni and a devout Wahhabi Muslim, who had a thing for Islamic Holy sites. Rather than be worried about Baghdad, he was more concerned for Jerusalem, and the al-Aqsa Masjid which his great prophet revered.

If Osama bin Laden was upset about anything, it would have been the Battle of Tora Bora, the total destruction of the al-Qaeda's Main facilities in a series of mountain caves near the Pakistani border in Afghanistan; from December 12, 2001 to December 17, 2001.

Prior to the invasion, ObL issued The FATWA entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places" of 1996. He meant Mecca and Medina (Saudi Arabia).

The general call to Jihad came in 1998, two years later. It was called the "Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders," which dealt with Arab-Israeli conflict. The US became a secondary target through its interventionist Foreign Policy as ObL saw it.

References:

• "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."
  .....LINK ---> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...atwa_1996.html
• Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders: World Islamic Front Statement
  .....LINK ---> World Islamic Front Statement Urging Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders

I hope I was able to clarify my commentary in this. I tried to simplify it as best I could. I'm sure there are shoddy spots that sound clear to me, but are not to you.

Most Respectfully,
R

...................................In Remembrance:

General Norman Schwarzkopf (AKA: ""The Bear.""), US Army (Ret),
Commander, United States Central Command, Desert Storm & Coalition Forces,
22 August 1934 - 28 December, 2012​

 

[irosie91]

thanks MR. R all excellent info-----and I would like to point out --
not a single mention of nuclear weapons---but---I do believe
that the people who understood that an attack on Saddam was
necessary ----did not mind that some people are such idiots that
WMD means atom bomb to them------I do not believe that the US
government lied the US people about the danger Saddam posed.

I do not like how the iraqi war went---but have no idea what
THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE

 

[RoccoR]

ima, et al,

Wow, that is three issues.

• We went after Saddam so that Haliburton could get even richer. As Professor Tinman (sic) (Tinmore) says: follow the money. There were no WMD,
• and they sent a black man (Powell) to do their dirty work and lie to us.
• Cheney and his Bush gang should be tried at the World Court for war crimes.

(COMMENT)

The issue of defense contractors really dates back to a time well before I retired in 1989. Congress wanted to reduce the military force in size and capacity. They wanted to cut the combat support and combat service support to the bone, leaving priority fill to the combat arms.

Combat Support and Combat Service Support (CS/CSS) were:

• Supply.
• Transportation.
• Maintenance.
• Field services.
• Personnel and administration services, including strength and personnel accounting, casualty reporting, replacement operations, awards, and personnel management.
• Chaplain operations.
• Enemy prisoner of war (EPW) operations.
• Health services support includes--
• Medical treatment and evacuation of casualties.
• Preventive medicine.
• Medical supply operations.
• engineer,
• military police,
• signal,
• military intelligence and
• civil affairs.

The Combat Arms were:

• Air Defense Artillery,
• Armor, Aviation,
• Field Artillery,
• Infantry,
• Special Operations Forces, and
• Combat Engineers.

The strategy, especially after the end of 1989, and the fall of the Berlin Wall, was to minimize the CS/CSS (some abolished and some to the Guard and Reserve) and use that reduction to absorb the defense cuts that were coming. Then shift the remainder of the authorized fills to the combat arms. At the time, the defense think tank guru's did not see a need to maintain CS/CSS positions during peacetime, when the need for those functions could be contracted out for short periods of need. The Peace Dividend strategy saved money in the short-term.

However, when the first and second Gulf Wars erupted, there was a heavy impact, first - on the Guard and Reserve, and second - on the need for contractors with very specialized skill sets that were absent in the trimmer army. There were no general engineers, no water purification teams, very few military police, few counterintelligence agents (all as merely examples), and then --- there were no more truck drivers or kitchen help. All these functions had been contracted out. When the unit deployed, they didn't have what they needed to sustain operations. Hense the rise of the civilian truck convoys, the KBR Messing Facilities, civilian augmentation in civila affairs, intelligence, and security functions.

This was the plan all along. Whether it was a good plan, is another matter. But it was put in place long before Iraq ever became an issue.

As for Secretary Powell, it is what it is. Secretary (retired General) Colin Powell was as much a victim of circumstance as anybody else. The WMD issue was poorly managed. And the Western World, particularly the US, wanted to apply standards (after the fact) to the accountability process. It simply didn't work. The outcome of using intelligence of a decade old, the need to make a case, and the mental conditioning caused people to see what they wanted to see, rather than --- what is.

As for POTUS and VPOTUS, there is no war crime for being stupid. It is Congress that should have been fired. But we re-elected them by nearly 96%. The general public is at fault for being so vigilante like. We had a President that screamed Hang'em High - and the general public fell in lock step behind him with the biggest vigilante posse ever assembled. And in the end- that is exactly what they did. I was in Iraq on 30 December 2006 when they hanged Saddam. It was a lesson, not for the American or the Iraqi, but for the dictators in and around the region. A reminder of how governments change hands in the Middle East - the nature of the people.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ima]

Saddam decides to attack Kuwait for no reason, so we kick his ass.
We attack Iraq for no reason, and our leaders get off scott free. Saddam gets his ass kicked again, and then hanged.
Makes me embarrassed to be an American sometimes.

 

[Hossfly]

Saddam decides to attack Kuwait for no reason, so we kick his ass.
We attack Iraq for no reason, and our leaders get off scott free. Saddam gets his ass kicked again, and then hanged.
Makes me embarrassed to be an American sometimes.

That's OK. We're embarrased for Americans who badmouth their country.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; georgephillip, et al,

Wow, we could write a small encyclopedia about this, and the post-combat (Phase IV) of the second Gulf War (the invasion), and still miss things. So, I'll give you the thumbnail quantum version and you two can double team me and pick at it. I'll be happy to amplify any questions.

There is no question that President (and retired General of the Army) Eisenhower was correct. But he was preaching about "excess" and not a "pacifist nation;" or "taxing to extinction." He was concerned that the Captains of Industry would gain too much influence over a Congress that was all too susceptible to the dollar; and lacking the ability to control the monster.


(COMMENT)

There is still yet other factors that create wars. Clearly, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is not at all about profitability. In comparison to what the defense industry makes, that is hardly a drop in the bucket. And what Iran makes is, most definitely, in negative numbers. This is about raw power and influence.

Humanity, especially in the Middle East/Persian Gulf Region, has not developed to the enlightened stage of peaceful coexistence with other religious and culturally different societies. War is, whether we like it or not, an integral part of the human experience.

To change the influential factors of war, you have to generate a crop of leaders that have a different moral compass; one that points the way to peace, cooperation and development. As a species, we are not there yet.

Most Respectfully,
R

They have never told us why we really invaded Iraq. Everything they told us is a pack of lies. Follow the money.

Israel was created to be a safe haven for Jews but it is the most dangerous place on earth for Jews to live. Israel's occupation is very expensive for people around the world but there are a handful of people getting very rich. Again, follow the money.

(COMMENT)

Following the money usually works, but it is only a single piece to the equation. It is not a "cause." Clearly you can make some correlations, but as they say in science: Correlation does not imply Causation. (I can correlation Sun Spots to some major events. But it doesn mean the Sun Spots caused them. The same it true with money.) This is a step-by-step logic.

(THE BACKDROP)

The US is (not theory) a political-military hegemony. We operate by the carrot and stick method; but we waive the stick very hard. At one time the military component had a saying:

Persuasive in Peace, Invincible in War.
LINK ---> 2002 U.S. Army Posture Statement​

Diplomacy was based on the presentation that any US suggestion was Option "A" --- and if you didn't do it our way, then you can go to option "B;" the military hard way.

There was a "Think Tank" called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) (with a number of very influential members) that stressed US leadership into the 21st Century through brute strength.

Some of the members included (1997/8 time frame):

• Elliott Abrams, He served as deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser in the administration of President George W. Bush.
• Gary Bauer, held several jobs in the Ronald Reagan administration, rising to the directorship of the White House's Office of Policy Development.
• William J. Bennett, served as Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George H. W. Bush.
• Jeb Bush, the brother.
• Dick Cheney, VP and former SECDEF
• Paula Dobriansky, the Undersecretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs
• Aaron Friedberg, Cheney's Deputy Assistant for National-Security Affairs and Director of Policy Planning.
• Dan Quayle, former VP
• Zalmay Khalilzad, former Ambo to Afghanistan and Iraq
• I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, former CoS, Cheney
  Plus:
• Donald Rumsfeld SECDEF and Paul Wolfowitz Principle Deputy SECDEF
• R. James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence
• Richard Perle, Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy
• Richard L. Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State

In January 1998, the PNAC wrote a letter to then President Clinton, and stated in part:



While POTUS did not act on this recommendation, the key to remember is that many of the PNAC members that signed or supported this recommendation were soon to come into positions of great power and influence.

Having said that, the PNAC was correct in part: "American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War."

This is the seed that blossomed.

(The FOCUS of the DAY)

The grand plan was simple. The logic was to plant a huge stick right in the middle of the Middle East and Persian Gulf Region; equal distant from every aggressor and able to put a crimp in any offensive action that might develop a threat against oil interests or Israel. And Iraq fit the strategic bill. All they had to do was figure out a way to justify a regime change, and install a US friendly government that would be grateful and allow a couple of military bases.

Then fate intervened. The US was traumatized by 911, and itching for a fight. And the threat could all be traced back to the Middle East (Game-On). Cook the books, demonize Saddam, launch a Madison Avenue style campaign, and win public and Congressional support. Saddam Hussein became the greatest threat America has ever faced since Adolf Hitler; and the President gets to become the most famous wartime President history ever recorded since Lincoln and Roosevelt.

America could create a shadow force over any of the Arab Nations threatening Israel, lifting the pressure off them and changing the paradigm that might lead to peace in Palestine. At the same time, Iran would now be now well within striking distance. The bases were sufficient to support not only conventional strike capabilities, but asymmetric operations (covert, clandestine or paramilitary) throughout the two regions and even into Yemen.

Desert Storm: 17 January 1991 – 28 February 1991(Ground) - 30 November 1995(AIR)

"WAR" is a result of diplomatic failures. As tumultuous the victory was in Gulf War I, at least part of the blame rest with the United States (my personal opinion). While it is true, that there was an oil dispute, and a $14B loan agreement, these were workable. But I think what made the invasion of Kuwait an option was the way in which Saddam Hussein interpreted the US position, as expressed by the on-scene Ambassador, April Glaspie, 25 July 1990. She essentially stated:

• "we have no opinion on Arab-Arab issues, such as your border disagreement with Kuwait."

It was eight days later that Iraq invaded Kuwait, and announced annexation.

(OPINION)

It was my opinion then, and it is my opinion now, that our ally, Saddam Hussein, thought that (in political-ese) the US was giving Iraq a "green light" for military action. And we were, just not on the scale that Saddam Hussein was contemplating. As the Ambassador said: "I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait." Clearly implying that we did expect him to take some of Kuwait; just the oil dispute areas; the al-Rumaila Oil Field 15-20 miles from the Kuwaiti border, inside Iraq.

(COMMENT)

On 3 March 1991: Iraq accepts the terms of a ceasefire Safwan Accords, and the UN Security Council Resolution 686 2 March 1991; and then the following month, the UNSC Resolution 687. It is in UNSC Resolution 687 that the first mention on WMD restrictions are made. This sets the stage for the subsequent struggle over WMD issues in Iraq.

In August of 2002, Defense Policy Board chairman and PNAC member Richard Perle heard a policy briefing from a think tank associated with the Rand Corporation. According to the Washington Post and The Nation, the final slide of this presentation described "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot, and Egypt as the prize" in a war that would purportedly be about ridding the world of Saddam Hussein's weapons. Bush has deployed massive forces into the Mideast region, while simultaneously engaging American forces in the Philippines and playing nuclear chicken with North Korea. Somewhere in all this lurks at least one of the "major theater wars" desired by the September 2000 PNAC report.

Iraq is but the beginning, a pretense for a wider conflict. Donald Kagan, a central member of PNAC, sees America establishing permanent military bases in Iraq after the war. This is purportedly a measure to defend the peace in the Middle East, and to make sure the oil flows. The nations in that region, however, will see this for what it is: a jump-off point for American forces to invade any nation in that region they choose to. The American people, anxiously awaiting some sort of exit plan after America defeats Iraq, will see too late that no exit is planned.
SOURCE: http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle1665.htm

We're not truly sure what caused al-Qaeda (Osama bin Laden) to target the US in 1992, leading the the 1993 bombing. There were a number of factors in play. None of which involved Iraq. We are fairly confident that US force using Saudi facilities was a major sticking point with al-Qaeda.

Relative to Iraq, al-Qaeda wasn't an issue. While there were a couple of known international terrorist hiding out in Iraq, they were not al-Qaeda assets. What we called al-Qaeda in Iraq, was really the JTJ under Abu Massab al-Zaqarwi, a Jordanian terrorist. He wanted credit for his operation and was always being misidentified as AQI. So, in August of '04, he pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden (ObL) and AQ.

The bulls-eye, painted on Iraq was painted long before George Bush II and the The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI), which had many of the same members as the PNAC, was instrumental in lobbying for the Legislation of the same name.

At the time, other than the naval air, there was no real regional, land base strike capability prior to Gulf War I. The Saudi bases were off-limits. The Kuwaiti base had not been established. After Gulf War I, the Kuwaiti base (Ali Al Salem Air Base) was too far south to cover tactical air all the way to the Occupied Territories, Lebanon or Syria, and still maintain any meaning time-on-target. However, there were 5 air bases west of Al Asad (in Iraq, along the Jordanian-Syrian Border), that were very capable of being made into US Tactical Stations. Right in the middle of every predictable Middle East targets.

ObL was the apprentice engineer that helped his father's company (the bin Laden Group) refurbish and renovate the Grand Mosque in Mecca. It is believed then, that ObL heard the words of Juhayman al-Oteibi and became an inspired Muslim. He later came to believe that US Forces, although no where near Mecca, defiled the Holy Ground upon which the Grand Mosque was built.

But many key intelligence officials have since come to believe that when ObL approached the King, asking for support, money and weapons to defend Saudi sovereignty against a possible invasion from Iraq, and was turned down in favor of the US and Coalition --- that triggered the Jihad against America.

Within the Intelligence Community at the time, it was a minor debate.

ObL didn't care about Iraq at all. Saddam Hussein did not care for Osama bin Laden's leadership and did not reach out for al-Qaeda; there was virtually no connection of any significants between the two.

There is a connection between Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, and the probable cause to believe in a connection between Iraq and Terrorism.

• supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
• threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
• employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so;
• Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation;
• ... .... ..... Whereas, where as, and so forth, etc...

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

References:

• http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c107T4vqdQ::
• http://www.lawfareblog.com/wiki/the-...ilitary-force/
• http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22357.pdf

Both the Rand and the PNAC are/were "Think Tanks." It is the conduit by which the influential membership of the "Think Tank" transmits ideas to the decision making level. In this case, the guys transmitting the finding, became the decision makers. That is how the ideas reach such a high level.

We didn't have forward operating bases offset Jihadists and pre-position offensive forces anywhere in the ME, in the fashion necessary we needed to maintain security. And that was a critical reason for looking at western desert bases in Iraq.

At the time of 9/11, we had not invaded Iraq. There was no "occupation" for ObL to fret over. The pre-war ratchet of sanctions meant nothing to ObL. He was a ethnic Yemeni and a devout Wahhabi Muslim, who had a thing for Islamic Holy sites. Rather than be worried about Baghdad, he was more concerned for Jerusalem, and the al-Aqsa Masjid which his great prophet revered.

If Osama bin Laden was upset about anything, it would have been the Battle of Tora Bora, the total destruction of the al-Qaeda's Main facilities in a series of mountain caves near the Pakistani border in Afghanistan; from December 12, 2001 to December 17, 2001.

Prior to the invasion, ObL issued The FATWA entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places" of 1996. He meant Mecca and Medina (Saudi Arabia).

The general call to Jihad came in 1998, two years later. It was called the "Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders," which dealt with Arab-Israeli conflict. The US became a secondary target through its interventionist Foreign Policy as ObL saw it.

References:

• "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."
  .....LINK ---> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...atwa_1996.html
• Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders: World Islamic Front Statement
  .....LINK ---> World Islamic Front Statement Urging Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders

I hope I was able to clarify my commentary in this. I tried to simplify it as best I could. I'm sure there are shoddy spots that sound clear to me, but are not to you.

Most Respectfully,
R

...................................In Remembrance:

General Norman Schwarzkopf (AKA: ""The Bear.""), US Army (Ret),
Commander, United States Central Command, Desert Storm & Coalition Forces,
22 August 1934 - 28 December, 2012​

And Iraq fit the strategic bill. All they had to do was figure out a way to justify a regime change, and install a US friendly government that would be grateful and allow a couple of military bases.

Enter the pack of lies that I was talking about.

PNAC is the bottom of the barrel of human existence. Those people are lower than whale shit.

 

[ima]

Saddam decides to attack Kuwait for no reason, so we kick his ass.
We attack Iraq for no reason, and our leaders get off scott free. Saddam gets his ass kicked again, and then hanged.
Makes me embarrassed to be an American sometimes.

That's OK. We're embarrased for Americans who badmouth their country.

You're embarrassed at free speech? Amazing.

 

[Hossfly]

Saddam decides to attack Kuwait for no reason, so we kick his ass.
We attack Iraq for no reason, and our leaders get off scott free. Saddam gets his ass kicked again, and then hanged.
Makes me embarrassed to be an American sometimes.

That's OK. We're embarrased for Americans who badmouth their country.

You're embarrassed at free speech? Amazing.

I didn't infer anything of the kind, trashmouth.It's people like me who gave you the right to make an ass out of yourself and not have to worry about rotting in jail.

 

[georgephillip]

That's OK. We're embarrased for Americans who badmouth their country.

You're embarrassed at free speech? Amazing.

I didn't infer anything of the kind, trashmouth.It's people like me who gave you the right to make an ass out of yourself and not have to worry about rotting in jail.

People like you are slaves.
You're more "Good German" than "White Rose":

"The White Rose has been lionized by postwar Germans—one of its members, Alexander Schmorell, was made a saint by the Russian Orthodox Church last year, and squares and schools in Germany are named for the resisters—but in the BBC interview Furst-Ramdohr curtly dismissed the adulation of the group.

“'At the time, they’d have had us all executed,' she said in speaking of most Germans’ hatred of resisters during the war.

Chris Hedges: Rebels Stand Alone - Chris Hedges' Columns - Truthdig

 

[Hossfly]

You're embarrassed at free speech? Amazing.

I didn't infer anything of the kind, trashmouth.It's people like me who gave you the right to make an ass out of yourself and not have to worry about rotting in jail.

People like you are slaves.
You're more "Good German" than "White Rose":

"The White Rose has been lionized by postwar Germans—one of its members, Alexander Schmorell, was made a saint by the Russian Orthodox Church last year, and squares and schools in Germany are named for the resisters—but in the BBC interview Furst-Ramdohr curtly dismissed the adulation of the group.

“'At the time, they’d have had us all executed,' she said in speaking of most Germans’ hatred of resisters during the war.

Chris Hedges: Rebels Stand Alone - Chris Hedges' Columns - Truthdig

You can thank a veteran for giving you the rights to be in the same class as Ima.

 

[hoosier88]

There is a reason why Chomsky is a boorish ass; episodes of stupidity such as you posted.

What Chomsky conveniently chooses not to address is the dangerous mindset of the Iranian Mullocrats with regard to their the view of a cataclysmic Endtimes envisioned within the shia version of islam. The pre-fab “president” of Iran, Ahmadinijad, has a belief he is responsible for assisting shia islams mahdi in bringing forth those Endtmes.

History is replete with various Endtimers to include Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite and others. Those religious fanatics had varying interpretations of the Endtimes. The damage to humanity that they could inflict was limited. It's a very different case with islamist ideologues who have a vision of the Endtimes which implementation can be assisted by nuclear weapons.

I have no desire to see a war started (by the Iranians), as fulfillment of some lurid religious fantasy regarding the return of a mythical figure.

Iran leader's U.N. finale reveals apocalyptic view

Ahmadinejad evokes return of messianic Islamic 'madhi'

Read more: Iran leader's U.N. finale reveals apocalyptic view Iran leader’s U.N. finale reveals apocalyptic view



Ahmadinejad is on record as stating he believes he is to have a personal role in ushering in the age of the Mahdi. In a Nov. 16, 2005, speech in Tehran, he said he sees his main mission in life as to "pave the path for the glorious reappearance of Imam Mahdi, may Allah hasten his reappearance."

Please feel free to email your pal Chomsky and tell him I said he's an asshole.

Thanks.

Iran hasn't attacked another country in over 200 years.

Anyone who can't see this is the same bullshit rhetoric that was spewed leading up to the Iraq war 10 years ago, is one dumbass American.

I actually find the concept of a nation ruled by death cultists, (Iranian Mullocrats),to be dangerous as the Dark Ages islamist mindset has no business being in control of nukes. My unease in connection with Iranian Death Cultists acquiring nukes is twofold: First, Iran, basically a third world nation, is simply buying Western technology with no real conception of the dangers involved and no true understanding of the technology. Secondly, we need to understand that religious fanatics who embrace a death cult mentality having such a technological play-thing is a prescription for disaster.

Anyway, the "revelations" that came out of the Wikileaks data some time ago was an opportunity to do some research regarding the Islamist eschatology mythos. I recalled reading something in the sunnah about the destruction of the kaaba / black God-rock right around the same time as the Allahpocalypse, but I couldn't remember where. I finally found it in the hadith of Sahih Muslim—Book 41: The Book Pertaining to the Turmoil and Portents of the Last Hour (Kitab Al-Fitan wa Ashrat As-Sa`ah):

- Number 6881:

Zainab bint Jahsh reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) got up from sleep saying: There is no god but Allah; there is a destruction in store for Arabia because of turmoil which is at hand, the barrier of Gog and Magog has opened so much. And Sufyan made a sign of ten with the help of his hand (in order to indicate the width of the gap) and I said: Allah's Messenger, would we be perished in spite of the fact that there would be good people amongst us? Thereupon he said: Of course, but only when the evil predominates.

(My bold)

If only it were true - that Iran doesn't understand the tech they've bought/leased. They have banks of centrifuges running to enrich U - which they got from Pakistan's nuke salesman/developer, Dr. Khan. It is precisely because they (Iran) have the scientists, engineers, technically educated people & an economy generating sufficient income, that they might actually achieve fieldable nuclear weapons.

To say otherwise echoes the disdain heaped upon Japanese weapons, pilots, etc. prior to WWII by the Allies, or even Hitler dismissing high-energy physics as "Jewish mathematics". While Hitler managed to evade the nukes, the Japanese were not so fortunate.

 

[Wiseacre]

Guys - stay on topic and knock off the trolling. Is it that hard to discuss the issue at hand rather than descend into insults and personal attacks?

 

[georgephillip]

Who could object to banning nuclear weapons from the Middle East, the usual contingent:

"The United States will not allow measures to place Israel's nuclear facilities under international inspection. Nor will the U.S. release information on 'the nature and scope of Israeli nuclear facilities and activities.'

"The Kuwait news agency immediately reported that 'the Arab group of states and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) member states agreed to continue lobbying for a conference on establishing a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction.'

"Last month, the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution calling on Israel to join the NPT, 174-6. Voting no was the usual contingent: Israel, the United States, Canada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau.

"A few days later, the United States carried out a nuclear weapons test, again banning international inspectors from the test site in Nevada. Iran protested, as did the mayor of Hiroshima and some Japanese peace groups."

Noam Chomsky: The Gravest Threat to World Peace

More proof that the US and its client$ flout international law whenever it suits their purpo$e$.

 

[irosie91]

just in the 100 years of the 20th century----muslims murdered thru genocide------in the name of allah, isa and the rapist pig----well over 20 million people.
Israel had killed not a single person with nuclear weapons

to save lives----ban muslims from owning knives and from the
ingredients necessary to make a bomb designed to tie onto the
stinking ass of a jihadista slut.

two million armenians went down via knives and clubs

several million BIAFRANS went down----via STARVATION
SIEGE ----hundreds of thousands of babies dead in the dust

can we ban COMMERICAL PASSENGER FLIGHTS
since the genius of islam has turned them into
weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION?

 

[georgephillip]

just in the 100 years of the 20th century----muslims murdered thru genocide------in the name of allah, isa and the rapist pig----well over 20 million people.
Israel had killed not a single person with nuclear weapons

to save lives----ban muslims from owning knives and from the
ingredients necessary to make a bomb designed to tie onto the
stinking ass of a jihadista slut.

two million armenians went down via knives and clubs

several million BIAFRANS went down----via STARVATION
SIEGE ----hundreds of thousands of babies dead in the dust

can we ban COMMERICAL PASSENGER FLIGHTS
since the genius of islam has turned them into
weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION?

All of which has little or nothing to do with a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East:

"Establishment of a nuclear weapons-free zone of course requires the cooperation of the nuclear powers: In the Middle East, that would include the United States and Israel, which refuse.

"The same is true elsewhere. Such zones in Africa and the Pacific await implementation because the U.S. insists on maintaining and upgrading nuclear weapons bases on islands it controls."

So says The World's Smartest Jew

Can we ban COMMERCIAL TROLLS who can't stay on topic?