Bush's NEW Iraq Plan

QueEx · Jan 13, 2007

<center>President Bush’s new Iraq plan
highlights security in Baghdad 
adds 20,000 extra US troops to boost Iraqi security effort,
and vows “to seek out and destroy” networks Iran and
Syria allows to attack US forces from their territory </center>

January 10, 2007, 7:46 PM (GMT+02:00)

DEBKAfile: This vow does not limit US military operations to Iraqi territory. Bush stated: “I recently ordered the deployment of additional carrier strike group in the region. We will…deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies.”

This indicates that the US expects Iran and Syria to retaliate with missile attacks on US targets across the Middle East and against “friends” such as Turkey the Arab emirates and Israel.

Here is the gist of the long-awaited speech delivered Wednesday, Jan 10:

US president George W. Bush noted that 80% of Iraq’s sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. The Iraqi government has put forward an aggressive plan to deal with it. Efforts to secure Baghdad failed in the past for insufficient Iraq and American troops to secure neighborhoods cleared of terrorists and insurgents. “Our military commanders report that the new plan ensures past mistakes… and can work”

The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for the capital, deploying Iraqi Army and national police brigades across its nine districts. Eighteen of these brigades will be committed. For the Iraqi commitment to succeed, “I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq” – five brigades deployed in Baghdad. Their mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, protect the local population and ensure the Iraqi forces left behind can provide security. This time, unlike the past, “we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas cleared.” This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods and prime minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

President Bush stressed that succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria, “which allow terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq.” He accused Iran of providing material support for attacks on American troops. “We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support form Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq,” Bush stressed.

“I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group in the region,” said the president. We will expand intelligence sharing – and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve border problems. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.”

Bush also reported orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops to step up the pressure on the terrorists. “They will not be allowed to re-establish in Iraq the haven they lost in Afghanistan.

In keeping with the Iraq Study Group recommendations, embedding of US advisers in Iraqi Army units will be increased, training of Iraq forces will be accelerated and US commanders given greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance.

America’s commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people. This strategy will succeed over time and must go beyond military operations. Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis and is committed to spend $10 million of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure.

The US president added: “Acting on the good advice of Senator Joe Lieberman and other key members of congress, we will form a new bipartisan working group to help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror. We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active army and Marine Corps to meet the needs of the 21st century.”

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3719

QueEx · Jan 13, 2007

Part of the "New Plan" at work ???



[frame]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6251167.stm?ls[/frame]

QueEx · Jan 13, 2007

An analysis:



[frame]http://www.cfr.org/publication/12406/iraqs_unruly_neighbors.html?breadcrumb=%2F[/frame]

J Storm · Jan 13, 2007

New ?

hoodedgoon · Jan 13, 2007

I hate to say this Que but there is no iraq plan. It's all about iran. Change the heading of this thread to Bush's new Iran Plan. I'm already learning some persian now, so when I get drafted I can orate game in both persian and english while calling for an airstrike on their fathers and brothers. They are racist as fuck, but pussy is pussy. Since the army will kick you out for having porn on your ipod, it's either that or a camel.

QueEx · Jan 13, 2007

I wouldn't disagree with you Hooded ...

QueEx

muckraker10021 · Jan 14, 2007

Hoodedgoon said:
I hate to say this Que but there is no iraq plan. It's all about iran.

QueEx said:
I wouldn't disagree with you Hooded ...
QueEx

<hr noshade color="#333333" size="4"></hr>

Israel's Bad Influence –Target Iran <div align="right"><img src="http://www.thesop.org/attachments/1624-i.jpg" width="150" height="213" border="4" align="right"></div>
January 6, 2007 
<img src="http://www.fritthelsevalg.org/images/Charley-Reese.JPG" width="100" height="133">

by Charley Reese

Scott Ritter, a former U.N. arms inspector in Iraq, has written a book, Target Iran, in which he accuses the Israeli government and its American lobby of pushing the U.S. into attacking Iran.

Ritter writes, "Let there be no doubt: If there is an American war with Iran, it is a war that was made in Israel." He accuses some members of the lobby of dual loyalty and urges that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee be required to register as a foreign agent.

He also blasts the Israeli lobby for its use of the Holocaust and for crying anti-Semite every time Israel is criticized. "This is a sickening trend that must be ended," he writes.

By coincidence, an Israeli general has verified everything Ritter says. According to an article published in Today.az on Jan. 2, Israeli Brig. Gen. Oded Tira published a statement urging an all-out effort by Israel and its lobby to push a U.S. attack on Iran.

"President Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran," the general is quoted as saying. "As an American strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and U.S. newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iran issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure."

The general urges the Israeli lobby to turn to Hillary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party so that they support immediate action by Bush against Iran. The lobby must also approach the Europeans, he adds, so Bush won't find himself isolated, and he calls for Israel to "clandestinely cooperate with Saudi Arabia so that it also persuades the U.S. to strike Iran."

As Ritter says, a U.S. war in Iran will be a war made in Israel.

Of course, Israel's American supporters, most of whom are ignorant of nuclear energy, ignorant of the history of Israel and ignorant of the people in the Middle East, will trot out their usual specious arguments.

But let's lay out the undeniable facts. Israel considers Iran its main threat. Israel wants a U.S. attack against Iran. The Israeli lobby does what the Israeli government tells it to do. Anybody who claims the Israeli lobby is just another lobby is either ignorant or lying. The Israeli lobby is the second most, if not the most, powerful lobby in America.

So, sit back and watch the Israeli amen corner start the propaganda to push America to war with Iran just as it did in the case of Iraq. It will try to have you believe that Iran can make nuclear weapons as easily as baking cakes. The truth is that even if Iran decided to seek nuclear weapons, the Iranians are a good 10 years away from having any. The truth is that Iran, even if it had nuclear weapons, is no threat to the U.S.

All of which reminds me of my favorite undiplomatic comment by a diplomat. Some time ago at a private party in London, the French ambassador said of Israel, "Why does the world put up with such a shitty little country causing so much trouble?" Outraged British Zionists demanded his recall, but the French government ignored them.

Sooner or later, Americans are going to wake up to the fact that Israel's influence on the American government is detrimental. If Israel wants a war with Iran, let the Israelis fight it. Of course, seeing how poorly they did against Hezbollah, I suspect that the Israelis, despite their public threats, would not choose to fight the Iranians.

In my opinion, Americans who want American youth to die and bleed for the benefit of a foreign country are guilty of more than dual loyalty.

http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=10276


<hr noshade color="#0000ff" size="8"></hr>

Distracting Congress From
The Real War Plan: Iran

Jan. 10th 2007

by Paul Craig Roberts

Is the surge an orchestrated distraction from the real war plan?

A good case can be made that it is. The US Congress and media are focused on President Bush’s proposal for an increase of 20,000 US troops in Iraq, while Israel and its American neoconservative allies prepare an assault on Iran.

Commentators have expressed puzzlement over President Bush’s appointment of a US Navy admiral as commander in charge of the ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The appointment makes sense only if the administration’s attention has shifted from the insurgencies to an attack on Iran.

The Bush administration has recently doubled its aircraft carrier forces and air power in the Persian Gulf. According to credible news reports, the Israeli air force has been making practice runs in preparation for an attack on Iran.

Recently, Israeli military and political leaders have described Israeli machinations to manipulate the American public and their representatives into supporting or joining an Israeli assault on Iran.

Two US carrier task forces or strike groups will certainly congest the Persian Gulf. On January 9, a US nuclear sub collided with a Japanese tanker in the Persian Gulf. Two carrier groups will have scant room for maneuver. Their purpose is either to provide the means for a hard hit on Iran or to serve as sitting ducks for a new Pearl Harbor that would rally Americans behind the new war.

Whether our ships are hit by Iran in retaliation to an attack from Israel or suffer an orchestrated attack by Israel that is blamed on the Iranians, there are certainly far more US naval forces in the Persian Gulf than prudence demands.

Bush’s proposed surge appears to have no real military purpose. The US military opposes it as militarily pointless and as damaging to the US Army and Marine Corps. The surge can only be accomplished by keeping troops deployed after the arrival of their replacements. Moreover, the increase in numbers that can be achieved in this way are far short of the numbers required to put down the insurgency and civil war.

The only purpose of the surge is to distract Congress while plans are implemented to widen the war.

Weapons inspectors have failed to find a nuclear weapons program in Iran. Most experts say it would be years before Iran could make a weapon even if the Iranian government is actively working on a weapons program. Since the danger, if any, is years away, why is Israel so determined to attack Iran now?

The answer might be that Israel has the chance now. The Bush administration is in its pocket. The White House is working with neoconservatives, not with the American foreign policy community represented by the Iraq Study Group. Neoconservative propagandists are in influential positions in the media. The US Congress is intimidated by AIPAC. The correlation of forces are heavily in Israel’s favor.

Part of the Israeli/neoconservative plan has already been achieved with the destruction of civilian infrastructure and spread of sectarian strife in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon. If Iran can be taken out with a powerful air attack that might involve nuclear weapons, Syria would be isolated and Hezbollah would be cut off from Iranian supplies.

Israel has two years remaining to use its American resources to achieve its aims in the Middle East. How influential will Israel and the neoconservatives be with the next president in the wake of a US defeat in Iraq and Israeli defeat in Lebanon?

If the US withdraws its troops from Iraq, as the US military and foreign policy community recommend and as polls show the American public wants, the only effect of Bush’s Iraq invasion will have been to radicalize Muslims against Israel, the US, and US puppet governments in the Middle East. Extremist elements will tout their victory over the US, and the pressures on Israel to accept a realistic accommodation with Palestinians will be overpowering.

Now is the chance – the only chance – for Israel and the neoconservatives to achieve their goal of bringing Muslims to heel, a goal that they have been writing about and working to achieve for a decade.

This goal requires the war to be widened by whatever deceit and treachery necessary to bring the American public along.

The US Congress must immediately refocus its attention from the surge to Iran, the real target of Bush administration aggression.

http://antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=10298

<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="12"></hr>

illdog · Jan 18, 2007

Let's send 25,000 mo targets...I mean troops...

[WM]http://media2.liveleak.com/xyz32/2006/Nov/18/LiveLeak-dot-com-15486-kans2.wmv[/WM]

GET YOU HOT · Jan 20, 2007

Re: Let's send 25,000 mo targets...I mean troops...

There is almost no way to prevent sniper attacks in urban areas.

The matter at hand about additional troops being sent to Iraq is to better the situation. Additional troops are needed to free up the thousands that are pulling 14hrs+, who are on their 2 times+ deployments. Also, without the aid of additional troops, the ones already there will never be allowed to leave.

Another option would be the draft, and that is not too far from the actual process being initiated.

Who is behind this? An article to follow, also, recall all the recent trips of U.S. Representitives to the middle east? The word is out, Do or Die...

GET YOU HOT · Jan 20, 2007

Re: Let's send 25,000 mo targets...I mean troops...

Arab nations gave the U.S. carte blanche in Iraq
14:20 | 18/ 01/ 2007

MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Marianna Belenkaya) - While the American elite is discussing in Washington whether to support or not President Bush's strategy in Iraq, the Arab leaders have already accepted it.

Attending a foreign minister conference of the Gulf nations, Jordan and Egypt on Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice heard voices of approval.

The Saudi representatives expressed a common position - the U.S. president's new strategy deserves support if it guarantees Iraq's unity and equality of all sections of society.

The leaders of the eight Arab countries are by no means naive. They understand that the situation in Iraq is very complicated and that it will remain a scene of violence for a long time to come. But they also realize that the new U.S. strategy is the best offer for the moment. At any rate in includes many measures which they have insisted on for years.

It is enough to mention the proposals to change the constitution to expand participation of all ethnic and religious groups in the Iraqi political process, or a course towards broader powers of the Iraqis and non-interference in their domestic policy, or acknowledgement of the country's unity.

Importantly, in order to restore security, the new strategy stipulates efforts against all sources of violence regardless of their ethnic or religious origins. This is an obvious hint at Shiites and Iran. Up to now, the Iraqi and American security forces mostly fought the Sunni armed formations, shutting their eyes to the operations of Shiite groups, which are also responsible for the chaos in the country. Given their attitude to Iran, the Arab leaders were glad to learn that Washington had decided not to involve Iran in the drive for stability in Iraq, although this was not on the record at the conference in Kuwait.

The Arab nations approved the U.S. strategy for one more reason - its endorsement does not commit them to anything. Before the foreign minister conference, Rice went to Riyadh to discuss how the Saudis could support Iraq's stabilization and unification. The response of the Saudi authorities was not made public, although they had declared more than once before that the Iraqis themselves are primarily responsible for their destiny.

Saudi Prince Sultan Ben Abdel Aziz said in an interview with Ash Sharq al-Awsat several days before President Bush announced his new strategy that his Kingdom was concerned about foreign interference in Iraq's affairs, that the Saudi leaders considered it impermissible to intervene in Iraq and reserved for the Iraqis the right to find a way out of the crisis themselves. He observed that his country played host to meetings between different Iraqi political groups so that they could find a compromise. The Saudis also held talks with Iraqi politicians in order to encourage dialogue.

The gist of these statements is that the Saudi leaders and their counterparts from the other seven countries which took part in the conference with Rice, are ready to give political support to the Iraqis and act as go-betweens for different Iraqi groups, if they are asked to do so. However, for the time being they are not going to help Iraq either financially or militarily and are not prepared to assume responsibility for what is happening there. They emphasized that this was the problem of the Iraqis. It was implied that this is also Washington's headache. They will be glad if the Americans and Iraqis find a way out of the crisis, but will do nothing if they fail.

However, even such support means much for the U.S. It is also important that eight Arab countries abstain, at least verbally, from intervening in Iraq and from openly siding with one of the local political groups. In fact, they talk about the need for consolidation in Iraq, and this is significant.

But the U.S. should not delude itself. It has received carte blanche from eight Arab countries to its new strategy in Iraq but on condition that it will not aggravate the situation in the region. Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Mohammed Al-Sabah said recently, "We are American allies, not servants." Kuwaiti Parliament Speaker Jassem Al-Kharafi repeated the same idea when asked what Kuwait would do if the U.S. insisted on attacking Iran.

These words should not be limited to the possibility of Washington's military action against Tehran. They can apply to any U.S. political initiative affecting the Greater Middle East. The eight Arab nations will support Washington as long as this meets their interests, but this support is not boundless.

GET YOU HOT · Jan 20, 2007

Re: Let's send 25,000 mo targets...I mean troops...

Arab nations gave the U.S. carte blanche in Iraq
14:20 | 18/ 01/ 2007

MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Marianna Belenkaya) - While the American elite is discussing in Washington whether to support or not President Bush's strategy in Iraq, the Arab leaders have already accepted it.

Attending a foreign minister conference of the Gulf nations, Jordan and Egypt on Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice heard voices of approval.

The Saudi representatives expressed a common position - the U.S. president's new strategy deserves support if it guarantees Iraq's unity and equality of all sections of society.

The leaders of the eight Arab countries are by no means naive. They understand that the situation in Iraq is very complicated and that it will remain a scene of violence for a long time to come. But they also realize that the new U.S. strategy is the best offer for the moment. At any rate in includes many measures which they have insisted on for years.

It is enough to mention the proposals to change the constitution to expand participation of all ethnic and religious groups in the Iraqi political process, or a course towards broader powers of the Iraqis and non-interference in their domestic policy, or acknowledgement of the country's unity.

Importantly, in order to restore security, the new strategy stipulates efforts against all sources of violence regardless of their ethnic or religious origins. This is an obvious hint at Shiites and Iran. Up to now, the Iraqi and American security forces mostly fought the Sunni armed formations, shutting their eyes to the operations of Shiite groups, which are also responsible for the chaos in the country. Given their attitude to Iran, the Arab leaders were glad to learn that Washington had decided not to involve Iran in the drive for stability in Iraq, although this was not on the record at the conference in Kuwait.

The Arab nations approved the U.S. strategy for one more reason - its endorsement does not commit them to anything. Before the foreign minister conference, Rice went to Riyadh to discuss how the Saudis could support Iraq's stabilization and unification. The response of the Saudi authorities was not made public, although they had declared more than once before that the Iraqis themselves are primarily responsible for their destiny.

Saudi Prince Sultan Ben Abdel Aziz said in an interview with Ash Sharq al-Awsat several days before President Bush announced his new strategy that his Kingdom was concerned about foreign interference in Iraq's affairs, that the Saudi leaders considered it impermissible to intervene in Iraq and reserved for the Iraqis the right to find a way out of the crisis themselves. He observed that his country played host to meetings between different Iraqi political groups so that they could find a compromise. The Saudis also held talks with Iraqi politicians in order to encourage dialogue.

The gist of these statements is that the Saudi leaders and their counterparts from the other seven countries which took part in the conference with Rice, are ready to give political support to the Iraqis and act as go-betweens for different Iraqi groups, if they are asked to do so. However, for the time being they are not going to help Iraq either financially or militarily and are not prepared to assume responsibility for what is happening there. They emphasized that this was the problem of the Iraqis. It was implied that this is also Washington's headache. They will be glad if the Americans and Iraqis find a way out of the crisis, but will do nothing if they fail.

However, even such support means much for the U.S. It is also important that eight Arab countries abstain, at least verbally, from intervening in Iraq and from openly siding with one of the local political groups. In fact, they talk about the need for consolidation in Iraq, and this is significant.

But the U.S. should not delude itself. It has received carte blanche from eight Arab countries to its new strategy in Iraq but on condition that it will not aggravate the situation in the region. Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Mohammed Al-Sabah said recently, "We are American allies, not servants." Kuwaiti Parliament Speaker Jassem Al-Kharafi repeated the same idea when asked what Kuwait would do if the U.S. insisted on attacking Iran.

These words should not be limited to the possibility of Washington's military action against Tehran. They can apply to any U.S. political initiative affecting the Greater Middle East. The eight Arab nations will support Washington as long as this meets their interests, but this support is not boundless.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070118/59295805.html

batmanobx · Jan 20, 2007

Re: Let's send 25,000 mo targets...I mean troops...

I've been there, and more troops are needed for the reasons stated above, to give others breaks, What they need to do is let the military prosecute this as a war and not a police action, and get the politicians out of it, get the media out of it, let the military do what it needs to do to accomplish the mission, oh my bad, we do not have a clearly defined mission.

Wars are fought for land, money, power and resources, what is it that we want from these people,

Garifuna · Jan 21, 2007

Re: Let's send 25,000 mo targets...I mean troops...

batmanobx said:
Wars are fought for land, money, power and resources, what is it that we want from these people,

What you mean "we", Qui No Sabe?

younggiftedandblack · Jan 21, 2007

Re: Let's send 25,000 mo targets...I mean troops...

Marine Corps will ask thousands to come back

By Gordon Lubold - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Jan 19, 2007 22:23:02 EST

The Marine Corps plans to ask up to 100,000 former Marines released from the ranks since September 2001 whether they would like to come back.

Speaking at the Pentagon on Friday, Lt. Gen. Emerson Gardner, the Corps’ deputy commandant for programs and resources, said many of those Marines had either hinted that they’d like to have re-enlisted at the time they got out or were told outright that no slots were available in which they could re-enlist.

“In the past, we’ve had a number of people who have desired to re-enlist in a particular job specialty, and, unfortunately, there is not enough room in the Marine Corps to keep them on, so we have released them from active duty,” Gardner said.

“But anecdotally, we’re all familiar with people that have gotten out of the Marine Corps, and you talk to them a year or two later and they say, ‘You know, if I had to do it over again, I sure would like to have stayed,’ ” Gardner said.

“We’re going to offer them that opportunity. Our commandant will make a call to arms and see what number of those 100,000 would be willing to come back on active duty,” Gardner said.

He did not detail how those Marines would be notified or asked to come back, but he indicated that given the Corps’ intention to grow by more than 20,000 Marines over the next five years, the initiative could come in handy.

The Corps has about 180,000 Marines, but Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced last week that it would grow by about 22,000 people at a rate of about 5,000 per year to a total end strength of 202,000 by 2012.

The Army, which stands at about 507,000 soldiers, will grow to about 547,000 over the next five years, or by about 8,000 per year.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/01/tnsCorpscomeback1.19/

illdog · Jan 21, 2007

Re: Let's send 25,000 mo targets...I mean troops...

Alex...what is a quagmire...?

GET YOU HOT · Jan 21, 2007

Re: Let's send 25,000 mo targets...I mean troops...

First off, i would like to say good job to Ill Dog for bringing the subject to light, title and video. Thanks...

There are two things that are of importance, that really stick out when i read statistical information from the link, here they are...

Overstretch of Military: Since 2001, the U.S. military has deployed more than 1 million troops for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with 341,000 or nearly a third, serving two or more overseas tours. In August 2005 Army recruitment remained at 11 percent behind its yearly goal. The Reserve stands at 20 percent behind its goals and the Army National Guard is 23 percent short of its goals.

Security Costs Due to Loss of First Responders: Roughly 48,000 members of the National Guard and Reserve are currently serving in Iraq—making up nearly 35 percent of the total U.S. forces there. Their deployment puts a particularly heavy burden on their home communities because many are “first responders,” including police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel. For example, 44 percent of the country’s police forces have lost officers to Iraq. In some states, the absence of so many Guard troops has raised concerns about the ability to handle fires and other natural disasters.

Its time to get it together, the fact that these subjects are being pointed out are the fact that the U.S. could have a graver situation at hand. I'm seeing things from a domestic, hands on point of view, put 1 & 2 together and you get... :hmm:

African Herbsman · Jan 22, 2007

Re: Let's send 25,000 mo targets...I mean troops...

Only Impeachment Can Prevent More War

Infowars.com | January 22, 2007
Paul Craig Roberts

Everyone knows that Bushs Iraq "surge" will not work. Even the authors of
the plan, neoconservatives Frederick Kagan and Jack Keane, have emphasized
that the plan cannot work with any less than an addition of 50,000 US troops
committed to another three years of combat. Bush is only adding 40% of that
number of troops, and Defense Secretary Gates speaks of the operation being
over by summers end.

On January 18 a panel of retired generals testifying on Capitol Hill slammed
Bushs surge plan as "a fools errand." Even the easily bamboozled American
public knows the plan will not work. Newsweeks latest poll released January
20 shows that only 23% of the public support sending more troops to Iraq and
that twice as many Americans trust the Democrats in Congress than trust
Bush.

A majority of Americans (54%) believe Bush to be neither honest nor ethical,
and 57% believe that Bush lacks "strong leadership qualities."

Nevertheless, Bush defended his surge plan, telling a group of TV stations
last week, "I believe it will work."

Bush is correct that it will work indeed, the surge is working. We have to
be clear about how the plan works. It does not mean that 21,500 more US
troops will bring order and stability to Iraq. The surge is working, because
it is deflecting attention from the Bush Regimes real game plan.

The real game plan is to orchestrate a war with Iran and to initiate wider
conflict in the Middle East before public and military pressure forces the
Bush Regime to withdraw US troops from Iraq.

Two US carrier attack groups have been deployed to the Persian Gulf. US
missile systems are being sent to oil producing countries to counter any
incoming missiles from Iran should any survive the US attack. Israeli pilots
have been training for an attack on Iran. US war doctrine has been changed
to permit pre-emptive nuclear attack on non-nuclear countries. US attack
aircraft have been deployed at bases in Turkey. A neocon admiral who attends
AIPAC events has been made commander in chief of US forces in the Middle
East. Obviously, the ground war in Iraq and Afghanistan are not the focus of
the Bush Regimes new military deployments. The Bush Regime is focused on
attacking Iran.

In CounterPunch (January 16) Col. Sam Gardiner reports that the Bush Regime
has put into operation a group led by National Security Council staff whose
mission is to create and foment outrage against Iran. Col. Gardiner details
various signs of the Bush Regimes escalation and indicates some of the final
deployments that will signal an imminent strike on Iran, such as "USAF
tankers moved to unusual places, like Bulgaria" in order to position them
for refueling B-2 bombers on their way to Iran.

Both Michel Chossudovsky (ICH Jan. 17) and Jorge Hirsch (Antiwar.com Jan.
20) have recently documented evidence that the Bush Regime is orchestrating
a crisis with Iran that can lead to the use of nuclear weapons to attack
Iran.

Civil libertarians who have observed the Bush Regimes concentration of
dictatorial powers in the presidency expect that war with Iran, especially
if fearful nuclear weapons are used, will be accompanied by Bushs
declaration of a state of emergency. The Bush Regime will use the state of
emergency to grab more arbitrary and dictatorial powers in the name of
protecting "national security interests" and American citizens from
"terrorism."

As the Regimes crimes against the US Constitution and humanity will be
monstrous, dissent will be throttled in ways that will make Americans afraid
to speak, or even to think, the truth. By stifling dissent, the Bush Regime
will escape accountability for launching wars on the basis of blatant lies.
It will complete its destruction of the civil liberties that protect free
speech, dissent, and Americans from arbitrary arrest and indefinite
detention without charges or access to attorneys.

Congress is wasting precious time with non-binding resolutions and debates
over cutting off war funding. The Bush Regime is rushing the country into a
war and a domestic police state. Writing in Slate, Dahlia Lithwick reports
that one of the main goals of the so-called "war on terror" (essentially a
propagandistic hoax) is to achieve a massive expansion in unaccountable
executive power. This is a long-time goal of VP Cheney and his chief of
staff, David Addington. It is also the main goal of the "conservative"
Federalist Society, an organization of Republican lawyers from whose
membership Republican judicial nominees are drawn.

American public opinion is being manipulated. In the name of protecting
"American freedom and democracy," the Bush regime rides roughshod over both
as it ignores both the public and Congress and proceeds with a catastrophic
policy supported by no one but the Bush Regime and a cabal of power-mad
neoconservatives..

Nothing can stop the Regime except the immediate impeachment of Bush and
Cheney. This is Americas last chance.

http://infowars.com/articles/bush/impeachment_only_impeachment_can_prevent_more_war.htm

muckraker10021 · Jan 28, 2007

Bush Is About to Attack Iran
Why Can't Americans See it?


January 27, 2007

<img src="http://www.forbes.com/images/forbes/2000/1211/098_400_327.jpg" width="200" height="163">

by Paul Craig Roberts


 The American public and the US Congress are getting their backs up about the Bush Regime's determination to escalate the war in Iraq. A massive protest demonstration is occurring in Washington DC today, and Congress is expressing its disagreement with Bush's decision to intensify the war in Iraq.
 This is all to the good. However, it misses the real issue – the Bush Regime's looming attack on Iran.
 Rather than winding down one war, Bush is starting another. The entire world knows this and is discussing Bush's planned attack on Iran in many forums. It is only Americans who haven't caught on. A few senators have said that Bush must not attack Iran without the approval of Congress, and postings on the Internet demonstrate world wide awareness that Iran is in the Bush Regime's cross hairs. But Congress and the Media – and the demonstration in Washington – are focused on Iraq.
 What can be done to bring American awareness up to the standard of the rest of the world?
 In Davos, Switzerland, the meeting of the World Economic Forum, a conference where economic globalism issues are discussed, opened January 24 with a discussion of Bush's planned attack on Iran. The Secretary General of the League of Arab States and bankers and businessmen from such US allies as Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates all warned of the coming attack and its catastrophic consequences for the Middle East and the world.
 Writing for Global Research, General Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy on Geopolitical Affairs and former Joint Chief of Staff of the Russian Armies, forecasted an American nuclear attack on Iran by the end of April. General Ivashov presented the neoconservative reasoning that is the basis for the attack and concluded that the world's protests cannot stop the US attack on Iran.
 There will be shock and indignation, General Ivashov concludes, but the US will get away with it. He writes:
 "Within weeks from now, we will see the informational warfare machine start working. The public opinion is already under pressure. There will be a growing anti-Iranian militaristic hysteria, new information leaks, disinformation, etc.... The probability of a US aggression against Iran is extremely high. It does remain unclear, though, whether the US Congress is going to authorize the war. It may take a provocation to eliminate this obstacle (an attack on Israel or the US targets including military bases). The scale of the provocation may be comparable to the 9/11 attack in NY. Then the Congress will certainly say 'Yes' to the US president."
 The Bush Regime has made it clear that it is convinced that Bush already has the authority to attack Iran. The Regime argues that the authority is part of Bush's commander-in-chief powers. Congress has authorized the war in Iraq, and Bush's recent public statements have shifted the responsibility for the Iraqi insurgency from al-Qaeda to Iran. Iran, Bush has declared, is killing US troops in Iraq. Thus, Iran is covered under the authorization for the war in Iraq.
 Both Bush and Cheney have made it clear in public statements that they will ignore any congressional opposition to their war plans. For example, CBS News reported (Jan. 25) that Cheney said that a congressional resolution against escalating the war in Iraq "won't stop us." According to the Associated Press, Bush dismissed congressional disapproval with his statement, " I'm the decision-maker."
 Everything is in place for an attack on Iran. Two aircraft carrier attack forces are deployed to the Persian Gulf, US attack aircraft have been moved to Turkey and other countries on Iran's borders, Patriot anti-missile defense systems are being moved to the Middle East to protect oil facilities and US bases from retaliation from Iranian missiles, and growing reams of disinformation alleging Iran's responsibility for the insurgency in Iraq are being fed to the gullible US media.
 General Ivashof and everyone in the Middle East and at the Davos globalization conference in Europe understands the Bush Regime's agenda.
 Why cannot Americans understand?
 Why hasn't Congress told Bush and Cheney that they will both be instantly impeached if they initiate a wider war?

http://antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=10411


<hr noshade color="#0000ff" size="12"></hr>

gene cisco · Feb 4, 2007

Yeah this iran shit cause of iraq is getting out of hand.

I mean america is thousands away from its "hood" fucking around all around irans doorstep, if anybody does that to america its a problem.

Another thing is if I hear one more muthafucka justify going against iran cause of the illegal terror state of israel Ima go crazy!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dont care for none of them, iran or israel, but this undying support of israel has to stop, dam their lobby is strong as fuck in america.

SAFOOL · Feb 4, 2007

[FRAME]http://www.antiwar.com/pilger/?articleid=10452[/FRAME]

QueEx · Jan 6, 2008

Re: Let's send 25,000 mo targets...I mean troops...


One year later; whats the assessment?

Some, a lot, a little or no success?

Why do you say that ???



QueEx

nyyyyce · Jan 6, 2008

Re: Let's send 25,000 mo targets...I mean troops...

QueEx said:

One year later; whats the assessment?

Some, a lot, a little or no success?

Why do you say that ???



QueEx

A new funding bill was recently passed to continue this fiasco. 20 plus soldiers killed per month. NO political solutions. I liked the fact that Charles Gibson tried to paint Edwards and Obama in a corner on their stance, at the outset of the surge, that it would not work. ABC's intro piece highlighted some minor military achievements but that was not the goal of the surge. Why do people casually gloss over this fact is ridiculous.

No oil revenue sharing bill. No unified government. No tangible success by the parameters set for the surge. It is inevitable that if you throw more troops in an area that the violence will go down. A no-brainer. Why people continue to ask if the surge is working while its intended goals are still unmet mystify me.

thoughtone · Jan 13, 2008

If The Surge Is Working So Well, Why Are We Still Bombing Bagdad?

source: The Washington Post.com

U.S. Planes Pound Area South of Baghdad
Huge Strike Aimed At Weapons Caches

By Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, January 11, 2008; Page A10

BAGHDAD, Jan. 10 -- In the span of 10 minutes Thursday, American warplanes dropped as much explosive south of Baghdad as they usually do in a month, a thundering barrage of more than 40,000 pounds of bombs intended to blow up stashes of insurgent weapons.

The B-1 bombers and F-16 fighter jets dropped 38 bombs in the opening minutes of the operation, which was aimed at three main areas of Arab Jubour, a rural district on the outskirts of the capital that became a focal point of the U.S. military troop buildup last year.

"This is al-Qaeda in Iraq, one of their last safe havens in our area of operations," said Sgt. 1st Class Randal Maynard, a U.S. military spokesman. "And we're going in, choking them out from our region."

The bombing campaign, which targeted caches of roadside bombs first identified by surveillance drones, was the most intensive aerial bombardment in the southern region. It came as part of the military's overall offensive, known as Phantom Phoenix, underway now in several parts of the country. While ground forces continued to pursue insurgents in Diyala province north of Baghdad, the warplanes tried to clear the southern territory of the bombs that have regularly destroyed American armored vehicles.

"These were some big IEDs buried in the ground," Maynard said, using the military abbreviation for improvised explosive device, or roadside bomb. "Had the soldiers drove up on these IEDs, it could have caused six to eight deaths."

Maynard said there was no immediate estimate of how many people died in the bombings, because the U.S. military has not yet explored the area on the ground to "validate any kills."

Arab Jubour lies along the Tigris River amid lush date palm groves, fields and grasslands. Before the American military troop buildup last year, it had become an essentially ungoverned enclave, devoid of Iraqi policemen and dominated by Sunni insurgents. As U.S. soldiers attempted to crack down on the rural lands around Baghdad, they erected a makeshift base there and sent regular patrols down the often bomb-riddled roads.

These operations, along with the rise of Sunni volunteer forces aligned with U.S. soldiers here, have been followed by a sharp drop in violence. But commanders regularly say that the group al-Qaeda in Iraq still keeps a foothold in the area, and the bombing operation was a sign that it is still seen as a threat to the American military.

Special correspondent Zaid Sabah contributed to this report.

Bush's NEW Iraq Plan

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Potential Star

Rising Star

Superstar *****

Rising Star

Superfly Moderator

Superfly Moderator

Superfly Moderator

Rising Star

Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Superfly Moderator

Star

Superstar *****

Not A BGOL Eunuch

Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Similar threads