US Needs to Send Ground Troops to Fight ISIS, NOW.

[Gary Anderson]

This is true that Bush is at fault, but the neocons are directly at fault. Read What Israel Shahak said way back in 1982: 1. The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze'ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha'aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the "best" that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: "The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi'ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part" (Ha'aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old.
2. The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in the USA is very prominent, especially in the author's notes. But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the "defense of the West" from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present Israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial Israel into a world power. In other words, the aim of Sharon is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest.

New Covenant Theology A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties by Oded Yinon Adopted by the Neocons for World Domination

 

[Gary Anderson]

What I read is an interviewer drawing Bush into saying not until after the U.S. invaded. Bt it wasn't Bush who said it. It was the interviewer. In any case, if anyone has any doubts about jihadists' will to attack western society, all they need do is look at the Explanatory Memorandum of the Muslim Brotherhood, and 1400 years of Muslim mass genocide (the US ain't that old)

"BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take -

"RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

"BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand."

Bush not only said it, he said it and then he said "so what?"
I guess that's easy when no one in his family bothers to fight in the wars he and his cowardly ilk constantly sponsor.

When the richest 1% of the population become the first to risk their lives in wars of choice, wars of choice will vanish from the page of time.

ISIS George W. Bush built that

George W, Bush spoke out against leaving Iraq. If US troops had not left, as Bush advised them to stay, there would be no ISIS.

At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush. The job NOW, is to fight and defeat ISIS, and all it's offspring in the USA, and wherever they are.

George W. Bush bears direct responsibility for the civil wars in Syria and Iraq today since it was his illegal invasion/occupation of Iraq 11 years ago that caused the current chaos.

Personal responsibility, remember?

One first step in defeating IS would require cutting off all US arms sales to the ME.

Would you agree?

1. I would agree with what i said. "At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush."

2. First step in defeating ISIS, is to heavily arm the Kurds. Second step is to send 50,000 US troops to annihilate ISIS, and then keep at least half of them there indefinitely.

The first step in defeating IS is to cut off their arms and funding, and the second step is to prosecute the criminals who launched the latest US war of aggression:
"The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war 'essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
War of aggression - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Well, wars of aggression, Iraq, Afghanistan, are certainly war crimes by the USA even though Yinon Zionism was at the root of the decision by US neocons: New Covenant Theology A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties by Oded Yinon Adopted by the Neocons for World Domination

 

[Gary Anderson]

"President Bush couldn't agree more.

"After all, in his December 2008 interview with Martha Raddatz of ABC News he acknowledged (around the 2:00 minute mark above) that it was the American presence that drew Al Qaeda fighters to Iraq, and not the reverse:

"BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take -

"RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand.

Bush had to take a $tand.
Can you read that?


ISIS George W. Bush built that

What I read is an interviewer drawing Bush into saying not until after the U.S. invaded. Bt it wasn't Bush who said it. It was the interviewer. In any case, if anyone has any doubts about jihadists' will to attack western society, all they need do is look at the Explanatory Memorandum of the Muslim Brotherhood, and 1400 years of Muslim mass genocide (the US ain't that old)

"BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take -

"RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

"BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand."

Bush not only said it, he said it and then he said "so what?"
I guess that's easy when no one in his family bothers to fight in the wars he and his cowardly ilk constantly sponsor.

When the richest 1% of the population become the first to risk their lives in wars of choice, wars of choice will vanish from the page of time.

ISIS George W. Bush built that

George W, Bush spoke out against leaving Iraq. If US troops had not left, as Bush advised them to stay, there would be no ISIS.

At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush. The job NOW, is to fight and defeat ISIS, and all it's offspring in the USA, and wherever they are.

George W. Bush bears direct responsibility for the civil wars in Syria and Iraq today since it was his illegal invasion/occupation of Iraq 11 years ago that caused the current chaos.

Personal responsibility, remember?

One first step in defeating IS would require cutting off all US arms sales to the ME.

Would you agree?

1. I would agree with what i said. "At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush."

2. First step in defeating ISIS, is to heavily arm the Kurds. Second step is to send 50,000 US troops to annihilate ISIS, and then keep at least half of them there indefinitely.

How do you know that Israel wants the ISIS defeated? Israel wants Arabs to fight each other and it is what Yinon Zionism is all about. Again, from Israel Shahak who translated Yinon: 1. The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze'ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha'aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the "best" that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: "The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi'ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part" (Ha'aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old.
2. The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in the USA is very prominent, especially in the author's notes. But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the "defense of the West" from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present Israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial Israel into a world power. In other words, the aim of Sharon is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest.

New Covenant Theology A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties by Oded Yinon Adopted by the Neocons for World Domination

 

[georgephillip]

"BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take -

"RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

"BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand."

Bush not only said it, he said it and then he said "so what?"
I guess that's easy when no one in his family bothers to fight in the wars he and his cowardly ilk constantly sponsor.

When the richest 1% of the population become the first to risk their lives in wars of choice, wars of choice will vanish from the page of time.

ISIS George W. Bush built that

George W, Bush spoke out against leaving Iraq. If US troops had not left, as Bush advised them to stay, there would be no ISIS.

At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush. The job NOW, is to fight and defeat ISIS, and all it's offspring in the USA, and wherever they are.

George W. Bush bears direct responsibility for the civil wars in Syria and Iraq today since it was his illegal invasion/occupation of Iraq 11 years ago that caused the current chaos.

Personal responsibility, remember?

One first step in defeating IS would require cutting off all US arms sales to the ME.

Would you agree?

1. I would agree with what i said. "At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush."

2. First step in defeating ISIS, is to heavily arm the Kurds. Second step is to send 50,000 US troops to annihilate ISIS, and then keep at least half of them there indefinitely.

The first step in defeating IS is to cut off their arms and funding, and the second step is to prosecute the criminals who launched the latest US war of aggression:
"The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war 'essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
War of aggression - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Well, wars of aggression, Iraq, Afghanistan, are certainly war crimes by the USA even though Yinon Zionism was at the root of the decision by US neocons: New Covenant Theology A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties by Oded Yinon Adopted by the Neocons for World Domination

From your excellent link:
"Gary here: In 1985, the President of Israel, Chaim Herzog, a Labor Party leader, echoed the sentiments of Sharon and Shamir emphasized by Oded Yinon:

"'We are certainly not willing to make partners of the Palestinians in any way in a land that was holy to our people for thousands of years. There can be no partner with the Jews of this land.'

"As with Camp David, even a Bantustan on parts of the West Bank and Gaza would be but a prelude to the next 'dispersal.'

"Forcing 2.5 million Palestinians into Jordan is, another interim measure, for Israeli 'lebensraum' [Hitler's infamous phrase meaning 'living space'] will not be confined by the Jordan River."
Most Americans have never heard of "creeping annexation", but for many who have, the recent devastation of Gaza is just another example.
New Covenant Theology A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties by Oded Yinon Adopted by the Neocons for World Domination

 

[Flopper]

This is true that Bush is at fault, but the neocons are directly at fault. Read What Israel Shahak said way back in 1982: 1. The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze'ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha'aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the "best" that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: "The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi'ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part" (Ha'aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old.
2. The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in the USA is very prominent, especially in the author's notes. But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the "defense of the West" from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present Israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial Israel into a world power. In other words, the aim of Sharon is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest.

New Covenant Theology A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties by Oded Yinon Adopted by the Neocons for World Domination

The root cause of today's mess in Middle East dates back over 60 years. More than 3.8 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants displaced in 1948 are registered for humanitarian assistance with the United Nations. Another 1.5 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants, also displaced in 1948, are not registered with the UN.

Just as reconstruction after the civil war gave birth to the Jim Crow laws in the South and the treatment of Germany after WWI brought on WWII, the displacement of 5 million Palestinians is the beginning of a long train of events that has led us to the sorry mess we face today. At this point there are no good solutions. US Middle Eastern decisions are always the choice between the lesser of several bad options.

 

[Gary Anderson]

Well said, Flopper. As word gets out, this translation by Shahak happened in 1982, so the neocons who had not yet fused with big oil, Cheney, etc, had already adopted Yinon Zionism.

 

[georgephillip]

This is true that Bush is at fault, but the neocons are directly at fault. Read What Israel Shahak said way back in 1982: 1. The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze'ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha'aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the "best" that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: "The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi'ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part" (Ha'aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old.
2. The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in the USA is very prominent, especially in the author's notes. But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the "defense of the West" from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present Israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial Israel into a world power. In other words, the aim of Sharon is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest.

New Covenant Theology A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties by Oded Yinon Adopted by the Neocons for World Domination

The root cause of today's mess in Middle East dates back over 60 years. More than 3.8 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants displaced in 1948 are registered for humanitarian assistance with the United Nations. Another 1.5 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants, also displaced in 1948, are not registered with the UN.

Just as reconstruction after the civil war gave birth to the Jim Crow laws in the South and the treatment of Germany after WWI brought on WWII, the displacement of 5 million Palestinians is the beginning of a long train of events that has led us to the sorry mess we face today. At this point there are no good solutions. US Middle Eastern decisions are always the choice between the lesser of several bad options.

Roughly a century ago when political Zionism began in Europe there were ten times as many Arabs as Jews living in Palestine; by the end of 1948 to ratio had decreased to 2:1. Currently there are nearly equal numbers of Jews and Arabs living between the River and the sea. Many Jews have made it clear they will not tolerate an Arab demographic of more than 20% of the total population living there. Hence, during the latest episode of "mowing the lawn in Gaza" a trial balloon was floated to open tent city in Sinai and allow all Gazans who wished to leave the opportunity to do so. Some polls showed 80% of Arabs would have taken advantage of that option. Maybe the next time (November 2016?) we'll find out?

 

[Flopper]

This is true that Bush is at fault, but the neocons are directly at fault. Read What Israel Shahak said way back in 1982: 1. The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze'ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha'aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the "best" that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: "The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi'ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part" (Ha'aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old.
2. The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in the USA is very prominent, especially in the author's notes. But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the "defense of the West" from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present Israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial Israel into a world power. In other words, the aim of Sharon is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest.

New Covenant Theology A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties by Oded Yinon Adopted by the Neocons for World Domination

The root cause of today's mess in Middle East dates back over 60 years. More than 3.8 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants displaced in 1948 are registered for humanitarian assistance with the United Nations. Another 1.5 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants, also displaced in 1948, are not registered with the UN.

Just as reconstruction after the civil war gave birth to the Jim Crow laws in the South and the treatment of Germany after WWI brought on WWII, the displacement of 5 million Palestinians is the beginning of a long train of events that has led us to the sorry mess we face today. At this point there are no good solutions. US Middle Eastern decisions are always the choice between the lesser of several bad options.

Roughly a century ago when political Zionism began in Europe there were ten times as many Arabs as Jews living in Palestine; by the end of 1948 to ratio had decreased to 2:1. Currently there are nearly equal numbers of Jews and Arabs living between the River and the sea. Many Jews have made it clear they will not tolerate an Arab demographic of more than 20% of the total population living there. Hence, during the latest episode of "mowing the lawn in Gaza" a trial balloon was floated to open tent city in Sinai and allow all Gazans who wished to leave the opportunity to do so. Some polls showed 80% of Arabs would have taken advantage of that option. Maybe the next time (November 2016?) we'll find out?

The western nations really screwed up with the formation of the Jewish state. Did they really think 5 million Palestinians would just wander off into the desert, not to be heard from again. Really, really dumb!!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is true that Bush is at fault, but the neocons are directly at fault. Read What Israel Shahak said way back in 1982: 1. The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze'ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha'aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the "best" that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: "The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi'ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part" (Ha'aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old.
2. The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in the USA is very prominent, especially in the author's notes. But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the "defense of the West" from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present Israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial Israel into a world power. In other words, the aim of Sharon is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest.

New Covenant Theology A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties by Oded Yinon Adopted by the Neocons for World Domination

The root cause of today's mess in Middle East dates back over 60 years. More than 3.8 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants displaced in 1948 are registered for humanitarian assistance with the United Nations. Another 1.5 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants, also displaced in 1948, are not registered with the UN.

Just as reconstruction after the civil war gave birth to the Jim Crow laws in the South and the treatment of Germany after WWI brought on WWII, the displacement of 5 million Palestinians is the beginning of a long train of events that has led us to the sorry mess we face today. At this point there are no good solutions. US Middle Eastern decisions are always the choice between the lesser of several bad options.

Roughly a century ago when political Zionism began in Europe there were ten times as many Arabs as Jews living in Palestine; by the end of 1948 to ratio had decreased to 2:1. Currently there are nearly equal numbers of Jews and Arabs living between the River and the sea. Many Jews have made it clear they will not tolerate an Arab demographic of more than 20% of the total population living there. Hence, during the latest episode of "mowing the lawn in Gaza" a trial balloon was floated to open tent city in Sinai and allow all Gazans who wished to leave the opportunity to do so. Some polls showed 80% of Arabs would have taken advantage of that option. Maybe the next time (November 2016?) we'll find out?

The western nations really screwed up with the formation of the Jewish state. Did they really think 5 million Palestinians would just wander off into the desert, not to be heard from again. Really, really dumb!!

It was typical of the ignorance of the time, the incorrect belief that 'all Arabs are the same,' and that the Palestinian people would simply go to Syria, Jordan, or Egypt and live with the 'other Arabs.'

 

[protectionist]

This is true that Bush is at fault, but the neocons are directly at fault. Read What Israel Shahak said way back in 1982: 1. The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze'ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha'aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the "best" that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: "The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi'ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part" (Ha'aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old.
2. The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in the USA is very prominent, especially in the author's notes. But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the "defense of the West" from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present Israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial Israel into a world power. In other words, the aim of Sharon is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest.

New Covenant Theology A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties by Oded Yinon Adopted by the Neocons for World Domination

The root cause of today's mess in Middle East dates back over 60 years. More than 3.8 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants displaced in 1948 are registered for humanitarian assistance with the United Nations. Another 1.5 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants, also displaced in 1948, are not registered with the UN.

Just as reconstruction after the civil war gave birth to the Jim Crow laws in the South and the treatment of Germany after WWI brought on WWII, the displacement of 5 million Palestinians is the beginning of a long train of events that has led us to the sorry mess we face today. At this point there are no good solutions. US Middle Eastern decisions are always the choice between the lesser of several bad options.

What I read is an interviewer drawing Bush into saying not until after the U.S. invaded. Bt it wasn't Bush who said it. It was the interviewer. In any case, if anyone has any doubts about jihadists' will to attack western society, all they need do is look at the Explanatory Memorandum of the Muslim Brotherhood, and 1400 years of Muslim mass genocide (the US ain't that old)

"BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take -

"RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

"BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand."

Bush not only said it, he said it and then he said "so what?"
I guess that's easy when no one in his family bothers to fight in the wars he and his cowardly ilk constantly sponsor.

When the richest 1% of the population become the first to risk their lives in wars of choice, wars of choice will vanish from the page of time.

ISIS George W. Bush built that

George W, Bush spoke out against leaving Iraq. If US troops had not left, as Bush advised them to stay, there would be no ISIS.

At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush. The job NOW, is to fight and defeat ISIS, and all it's offspring in the USA, and wherever they are.

Three out of four Iraqis wanted all US troops out of their country when Bush left office. Democracy, remember?

Citizens of the US would be well served to defeat the war whores in the US Congress and the greedy bankers on Wall Street if they have the slightest interest in world peace.

1. And now 99 out of 100 Iraqis want the US back IN their country. Democracy.

2. World peace is unattainable when you have a thug army like ISIS who has declared war upon you. The only way you can now get world peace, is by annihilating them.

According to the polling data I've found from CNN/ORC 9/25-9/28, 38% of Iraqis are in favor of US boots on their ground to combat IS and 60% are opposed.

World peace is unattainable when the greatest purveyor of violence in the world continues killing innocent human beings for money and market share.

Iraq

Maybe Iraqis have been taking stupid pills. And when US ground troops do go to Iraq, it won't be for anything related to money.

 

[protectionist]

What I read is an interviewer drawing Bush into saying not until after the U.S. invaded. Bt it wasn't Bush who said it. It was the interviewer. In any case, if anyone has any doubts about jihadists' will to attack western society, all they need do is look at the Explanatory Memorandum of the Muslim Brotherhood, and 1400 years of Muslim mass genocide (the US ain't that old)

"BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take -

"RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

"BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand."

Bush not only said it, he said it and then he said "so what?"
I guess that's easy when no one in his family bothers to fight in the wars he and his cowardly ilk constantly sponsor.

When the richest 1% of the population become the first to risk their lives in wars of choice, wars of choice will vanish from the page of time.

ISIS George W. Bush built that

George W, Bush spoke out against leaving Iraq. If US troops had not left, as Bush advised them to stay, there would be no ISIS.

At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush. The job NOW, is to fight and defeat ISIS, and all it's offspring in the USA, and wherever they are.

George W. Bush bears direct responsibility for the civil wars in Syria and Iraq today since it was his illegal invasion/occupation of Iraq 11 years ago that caused the current chaos.

Personal responsibility, remember?

One first step in defeating IS would require cutting off all US arms sales to the ME.

Would you agree?

1. I would agree with what i said. "At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush."

2. First step in defeating ISIS, is to heavily arm the Kurds. Second step is to send 50,000 US troops to annihilate ISIS, and then keep at least half of them there indefinitely.

The first step in defeating IS is to cut off their arms and funding, and the second step is to prosecute the criminals who launched the latest US war of aggression:
"The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war 'essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
War of aggression - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The US is fighting a DEFENSIVE war against ISIS. ISIS has attacked/killed US citizens, and threatens to attack the US mainland (it's possible they have already)

 

[protectionist]

"BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take -

"RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

"BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand."

Bush not only said it, he said it and then he said "so what?"
I guess that's easy when no one in his family bothers to fight in the wars he and his cowardly ilk constantly sponsor.

When the richest 1% of the population become the first to risk their lives in wars of choice, wars of choice will vanish from the page of time.

ISIS George W. Bush built that

George W, Bush spoke out against leaving Iraq. If US troops had not left, as Bush advised them to stay, there would be no ISIS.

At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush. The job NOW, is to fight and defeat ISIS, and all it's offspring in the USA, and wherever they are.

George W. Bush bears direct responsibility for the civil wars in Syria and Iraq today since it was his illegal invasion/occupation of Iraq 11 years ago that caused the current chaos.

Personal responsibility, remember?

One first step in defeating IS would require cutting off all US arms sales to the ME.

Would you agree?

1. I would agree with what i said. "At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush."

2. First step in defeating ISIS, is to heavily arm the Kurds. Second step is to send 50,000 US troops to annihilate ISIS, and then keep at least half of them there indefinitely.

The first step in defeating IS is to cut off their arms and funding, and the second step is to prosecute the criminals who launched the latest US war of aggression:
"The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war 'essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
War of aggression - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Well, wars of aggression, Iraq, Afghanistan, are certainly war crimes by the USA even though Yinon Zionism was at the root of the decision by US neocons: New Covenant Theology A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties by Oded Yinon Adopted by the Neocons for World Domination

That is ridiculous. It's apparent you are clueless as to why US troops are in Afghanistan.

 

[protectionist]

What I read is an interviewer drawing Bush into saying not until after the U.S. invaded. Bt it wasn't Bush who said it. It was the interviewer. In any case, if anyone has any doubts about jihadists' will to attack western society, all they need do is look at the Explanatory Memorandum of the Muslim Brotherhood, and 1400 years of Muslim mass genocide (the US ain't that old)

"BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take -

"RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

"BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand."

Bush not only said it, he said it and then he said "so what?"
I guess that's easy when no one in his family bothers to fight in the wars he and his cowardly ilk constantly sponsor.

When the richest 1% of the population become the first to risk their lives in wars of choice, wars of choice will vanish from the page of time.

ISIS George W. Bush built that

George W, Bush spoke out against leaving Iraq. If US troops had not left, as Bush advised them to stay, there would be no ISIS.

At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush. The job NOW, is to fight and defeat ISIS, and all it's offspring in the USA, and wherever they are.

George W. Bush bears direct responsibility for the civil wars in Syria and Iraq today since it was his illegal invasion/occupation of Iraq 11 years ago that caused the current chaos.

Personal responsibility, remember?

One first step in defeating IS would require cutting off all US arms sales to the ME.

Would you agree?

1. I would agree with what i said. "At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush."

2. First step in defeating ISIS, is to heavily arm the Kurds. Second step is to send 50,000 US troops to annihilate ISIS, and then keep at least half of them there indefinitely.

How do you know that Israel wants the ISIS defeated? Israel wants Arabs to fight each other and it is what Yinon Zionism is all about. Again, from Israel Shahak who translated Yinon: 1. The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze'ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha'aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the "best" that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: "The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi'ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part" (Ha'aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old.
2. The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in the USA is very prominent, especially in the author's notes. But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the "defense of the West" from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present Israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial Israel into a world power. In other words, the aim of Sharon is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest.

New Covenant Theology A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties by Oded Yinon Adopted by the Neocons for World Domination

Where the heck did I say anything about Israel and ISIS ?

 

[MDiver]

The US, Russia and China need to meet secretly and put any divisive issues aside temporarily, recognize that Islam is inherently dangerous to each of the nations, and unify militaryily against all terrorist organizations, while making it clear that any Islamic government supplying arms to such groups will become a military target.

 

[georgephillip]

This is true that Bush is at fault, but the neocons are directly at fault. Read What Israel Shahak said way back in 1982: 1. The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze'ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha'aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the "best" that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: "The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi'ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part" (Ha'aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old.
2. The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in the USA is very prominent, especially in the author's notes. But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the "defense of the West" from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present Israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial Israel into a world power. In other words, the aim of Sharon is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest.

New Covenant Theology A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties by Oded Yinon Adopted by the Neocons for World Domination

The root cause of today's mess in Middle East dates back over 60 years. More than 3.8 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants displaced in 1948 are registered for humanitarian assistance with the United Nations. Another 1.5 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants, also displaced in 1948, are not registered with the UN.

Just as reconstruction after the civil war gave birth to the Jim Crow laws in the South and the treatment of Germany after WWI brought on WWII, the displacement of 5 million Palestinians is the beginning of a long train of events that has led us to the sorry mess we face today. At this point there are no good solutions. US Middle Eastern decisions are always the choice between the lesser of several bad options.

"BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take -

"RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

"BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand."

Bush not only said it, he said it and then he said "so what?"
I guess that's easy when no one in his family bothers to fight in the wars he and his cowardly ilk constantly sponsor.

When the richest 1% of the population become the first to risk their lives in wars of choice, wars of choice will vanish from the page of time.

ISIS George W. Bush built that

George W, Bush spoke out against leaving Iraq. If US troops had not left, as Bush advised them to stay, there would be no ISIS.

At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush. The job NOW, is to fight and defeat ISIS, and all it's offspring in the USA, and wherever they are.

Three out of four Iraqis wanted all US troops out of their country when Bush left office. Democracy, remember?

Citizens of the US would be well served to defeat the war whores in the US Congress and the greedy bankers on Wall Street if they have the slightest interest in world peace.

1. And now 99 out of 100 Iraqis want the US back IN their country. Democracy.

2. World peace is unattainable when you have a thug army like ISIS who has declared war upon you. The only way you can now get world peace, is by annihilating them.

According to the polling data I've found from CNN/ORC 9/25-9/28, 38% of Iraqis are in favor of US boots on their ground to combat IS and 60% are opposed.

World peace is unattainable when the greatest purveyor of violence in the world continues killing innocent human beings for money and market share.

Iraq

Maybe Iraqis have been taking stupid pills. And when US ground troops do go to Iraq, it won't be for anything related to money.

If US troops return to Iraq without money being involved, that would reveal a whole new meaning to the phrase "volunteer military."

How many more Iraqi children have to die before your stupid belief in American Exceptionalism blows up in your face?

 

[georgephillip]

"BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take -

"RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

"BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand."

Bush not only said it, he said it and then he said "so what?"
I guess that's easy when no one in his family bothers to fight in the wars he and his cowardly ilk constantly sponsor.

When the richest 1% of the population become the first to risk their lives in wars of choice, wars of choice will vanish from the page of time.

ISIS George W. Bush built that

George W, Bush spoke out against leaving Iraq. If US troops had not left, as Bush advised them to stay, there would be no ISIS.

At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush. The job NOW, is to fight and defeat ISIS, and all it's offspring in the USA, and wherever they are.

George W. Bush bears direct responsibility for the civil wars in Syria and Iraq today since it was his illegal invasion/occupation of Iraq 11 years ago that caused the current chaos.

Personal responsibility, remember?

One first step in defeating IS would require cutting off all US arms sales to the ME.

Would you agree?

1. I would agree with what i said. "At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush."

2. First step in defeating ISIS, is to heavily arm the Kurds. Second step is to send 50,000 US troops to annihilate ISIS, and then keep at least half of them there indefinitely.

The first step in defeating IS is to cut off their arms and funding, and the second step is to prosecute the criminals who launched the latest US war of aggression:
"The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war 'essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
War of aggression - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The US is fighting a DEFENSIVE war against ISIS. ISIS has attacked/killed US citizens, and threatens to attack the US mainland (it's possible they have already)

There's no doubt about the US and its illegal attack on Iraq, is there? Millions of civilians have been maimed, murdered, and displaced because stupid Americans believe killing children makes them free, IS arose because of that illegal war of aggression, and when they bring the car bombs to this country, you will have no one to blame but yourself.

 

[georgephillip]

The US, Russia and China need to meet secretly and put any divisive issues aside temporarily, recognize that Islam is inherently dangerous to each of the nations, and unify militaryily against all terrorist organizations, while making it clear that any Islamic government supplying arms to such groups will become a military target.

Or the US, Russia, and China could simply stop selling weapons in the Middle East?

No secrecy required...

 

[georgephillip]

George W, Bush spoke out against leaving Iraq. If US troops had not left, as Bush advised them to stay, there would be no ISIS.

At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush. The job NOW, is to fight and defeat ISIS, and all it's offspring in the USA, and wherever they are.

George W. Bush bears direct responsibility for the civil wars in Syria and Iraq today since it was his illegal invasion/occupation of Iraq 11 years ago that caused the current chaos.

Personal responsibility, remember?

One first step in defeating IS would require cutting off all US arms sales to the ME.

Would you agree?

1. I would agree with what i said. "At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush."

2. First step in defeating ISIS, is to heavily arm the Kurds. Second step is to send 50,000 US troops to annihilate ISIS, and then keep at least half of them there indefinitely.

The first step in defeating IS is to cut off their arms and funding, and the second step is to prosecute the criminals who launched the latest US war of aggression:
"The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war 'essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
War of aggression - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Well, wars of aggression, Iraq, Afghanistan, are certainly war crimes by the USA even though Yinon Zionism was at the root of the decision by US neocons: New Covenant Theology A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties by Oded Yinon Adopted by the Neocons for World Domination

That is ridiculous. It's apparent you are clueless as to why US troops are in Afghanistan.

Here's the reason US troops are in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Jordan today:

And Iran tomorrow.

 

[Flopper]

The US, Russia and China need to meet secretly and put any divisive issues aside temporarily, recognize that Islam is inherently dangerous to each of the nations, and unify militaryily against all terrorist organizations, while making it clear that any Islamic government supplying arms to such groups will become a military target.

That is not the way nations deal with the Mideast. They seek short term solutions that lead to long term problems. It's been that way for over 60 years and that's not likely to change.

International arms sales are a 40 to 50 billion dollar a year market. The US is the leading supplier with 44% of the market, Russia is 17%, and the remainder comes from a dozen other countries. The US sells arms to about 40 nations directly. Other countries do likewise Small nations in turn sell to even smaller countries, contractors, etc. A very small percent of these arms end up the hands of terrorists. Cutting off the supply of arms to terrorists is almost impossible. Cutting off the supply of funds to buy those arms is much more practical.

 

[protectionist]

George W, Bush spoke out against leaving Iraq. If US troops had not left, as Bush advised them to stay, there would be no ISIS.

At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush. The job NOW, is to fight and defeat ISIS, and all it's offspring in the USA, and wherever they are.

George W. Bush bears direct responsibility for the civil wars in Syria and Iraq today since it was his illegal invasion/occupation of Iraq 11 years ago that caused the current chaos.

Personal responsibility, remember?

One first step in defeating IS would require cutting off all US arms sales to the ME.

Would you agree?

1. I would agree with what i said. "At this point, it's stupid to talk about Bush."

2. First step in defeating ISIS, is to heavily arm the Kurds. Second step is to send 50,000 US troops to annihilate ISIS, and then keep at least half of them there indefinitely.

The first step in defeating IS is to cut off their arms and funding, and the second step is to prosecute the criminals who launched the latest US war of aggression:
"The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war 'essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
War of aggression - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The US is fighting a DEFENSIVE war against ISIS. ISIS has attacked/killed US citizens, and threatens to attack the US mainland (it's possible they have already)

There's no doubt about the US and its illegal attack on Iraq, is there? Millions of civilians have been maimed, murdered, and displaced because stupid Americans believe killing children makes them free, IS arose because of that illegal war of aggression, and when they bring the car bombs to this country, you will have no one to blame but yourself.

I have no idea what you're talking about. None of it makes any sense,