"UGLY"-dangerous US policy(s)

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory80.html


well stated item. How often have "we" heard the bushites/aka/ warmongers dismiss the death and destruction in Iraq with a toss of the phrase: "People die in wars." -(as if "life" is disposable ) ......while not addressing the fact that "they" are the ones that START wars .

there is something very pathological about this mindset......as it shows where their priorities lie.
 

Jo Canadian

Council Member
Mar 15, 2005
2,488
1
38
PEI...for now
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Report: Rumsfeld considers striking Hizbullah to provoke Syria
DOUGLAS DAVIS, Jerusalem Post


June 22, 2005 - US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is considering provoking a military confrontation with Syria by attacking Hizbullah bases near the Syrian border in Lebanon, according to the authoritative London-based Jane's Intelligence Digest.

In an article to be published on Friday, the journal said multi-faceted US attacks, which would be conducted within the framework of the global war on terrorism, are likely to focus on Hizbullah bases in the Bekaa Valley of eastern Lebanon.

It noted that the deployment of US special forces in the Bekaa Valley, where most of Syria's occupation forces in Lebanon are based, would be highly inflammatory and would "almost certainly involve a confrontation with Syrian troops."

Such a conflict might well prove to be the objective of the US, said the journal, which described Washington's strategic benefits from a confrontation with Syria. These include:

* Pressuring Damascus into ending its support for anti-Israel Palestinian groups;

* Persuading Syria to abandon its weapons of mass destruction and to withdraw its troops from Lebanon;

* Stimulating a situation where Syrian leader Bashir Assad can be ousted;

* Crushing Hizbullah and ending its presumed connections with al-Qaida.

"The political consequences of a US attack against Lebanon. . . could result in the destabilization of a country that is still rebuilding its infrastructure a decade after a ruinous 15-year civil war," noted the journal.

"It would also fuel Muslim and Arab hostility toward the US at a time when US-led occupation forces are fighting the ongoing insurgency in Iraq.

"In these circumstances, taking on Hizbullah in the Bekaa Valley is likely to prove a highly risky undertaking.

"However," it continued, "given the Bush administration's doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, it remains entirely possible that Washington will soon launch military strikes against Lebanon, regardless of the consequences for wider regional stability."

The journal noted that the US administration has long considered Damascus "a prime candidate for regime-change," along with Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and, possibly, Saudi Arabia.

"Syria, once a powerhouse of Arab radicalism that could not be ignored, has been seriously weakened, both militarily and politically. Washington may feel that the time is coming to oust Assad and the ruling generals.

"Targeting Syria via Lebanon, the only concrete political influence Damascus has to show following decades of radical diplomacy, could prove to be a means to that end."

The journal also noted that, "there is reason to believe that Iran and the US are moving toward some form of tactical understanding as a consequence of covert diplomacy." As a result, it said, Teheran has been steadily reducing its support for the regime in Damascus.

The journal added that Bashir Assad lacks both the ruthlessness and political acumen of his father, Hafez, whom he succeeded in June 2000, and he is constrained by members of his father's old guard who are continuing to block his tentative efforts at reform.

"These factors make Damascus vulnerable to pressure from both the US and Israel, particularly since US forces are deployed in Iraq, Syria's eastern neighbor."

During the past six months, it added, Washington has increased the US military presence along the Syrian border with Iraq "and, on several occasions, has sent special forces into Syrian territory or penetrated Syrian air space.

"In one incident, US troops pursued suspected Iraqi militants into Syria and fought a running battle that left dozens of people, including some Syrians, dead.

"Israel's air-strike in southern Lebanon earlier this week," it added, "is very unlikely to be the last time Israeli forces cross the border to strike at targets alleged to be militant bases and training camps."

given that Rumsey is a "war criminal" by definition.......this would be no surprise. Both Iran and Syria had better watch their backs now.
 

no1important

Time Out
Jan 9, 2003
4,125
0
36
57
Vancouver
members.shaw.ca
RE: "UGLY"-dangerous US

Well I think they have for a while, but it looks like things may heat up. I think they have been preparing.

I hope the American people understand if Rumsfeld's plan comes to fruition it will not be a cake walk like Iraq and the American service people will suffer far greater casualties.

But then they would need to reinstate draft as there would be hardly anyone signing up.
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
69
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
Syria is a clown conduit.

Alot of clowns go through Syria to join the insurgents in Iraq.

Rumsfeld is rattling the saber, just to see what shakes on that porous border.

Syria's "Let's send in the Clowns" meets up with "Let's kill the Clowns."

The world doesn't seem to mind the clowns much.

They kinda like it.

Serves the Americans right.

Nevermind what those clowns are doing to the soft target Iraqi citizens.

That's tangential.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Re: RE: "UGLY"-dangerous US

no1important said:
Well I think they have for a while, but it looks like things may heat up. I think they have been preparing.

I hope the American people understand if Rumsfeld's plan comes to fruition it will not be a cake walk like Iraq and the American service people will suffer far greater casualties.

But then they would need to reinstate draft as there would be hardly anyone signing up.


as long as the bush cabal is in the whitehouse.....don't think "we" will be hearing much about peace.--or striving for peaceful resolutions to issues. Iraq is not exactly a "cake walk" as it is. at some point the American population must ask itself : How much death (Afgans, Iraqis,......and who ever else they want to invade, along with their own, they are willing to tolerate. It is not just the US deaths that matter. The loss of life is increasing daily. Afganistan is not a done "project" or "Mission" yet.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Re: RE: "UGLY"-dangerous US policy(s)

jimmoyer said:
Syria is a clown conduit.

Alot of clowns go through Syria to join the insurgents in Iraq.

Rumsfeld is rattling the saber, just to see what shakes on that porous border.

Syria's "Let's send in the Clowns" meets up with "Let's kill the Clowns."

The world doesn't seem to mind the clowns much.

They kinda like it.

Serves the Americans right.

Nevermind what those clowns are doing to the soft target Iraqi citizens.

That's tangential.


seems they target anyone they can. Their main objective might be to keep the situation unstable. Meanwhile the Iraqis are caught in the X hairs .
 

no1important

Time Out
Jan 9, 2003
4,125
0
36
57
Vancouver
members.shaw.ca
RE: "UGLY"-dangerous US

I know its not really a cake walk (figure of speech :wink:)as Americans can't fight a ground war, just like when they were in Vietnam. So called only super power and can't fight a few "freedom fighters?" geeesh.

Iran has a real army, Iraq did not. Syria has a better army than Iraq.

Bush is a warmonger and wants to control the world, especially the middle east. Why? Because of OIL. To Bush civilian casualities are just a part of doing business. It shows what an evil person "W" really is.

I just hope the American public is prepared for a huge death toll if they invade.

The word "Peace" is not in "W's" vocabulary. He has the blood of so many innocents on his hands and more, unfortunatly to come. :mad:
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Re: RE: "UGLY"-dangerous US

no1important said:
I know its not really a cake walk (figure of speech :wink:)as Americans can't fight a ground war, just like when they were in Vietnam. So called only super power and can't fight a few "freedom fighters?" geeesh.

Iran has a real army, Iraq did not. Syria has a better army than Iraq.

Bush is a warmonger and wants to control the world, especially the middle east. Why? Because of OIL. To Bush civilian casualities are just a part of doing business. It shows what an evil person "W" really is.

I just hope the American public is prepared for a huge death toll if they invade.

The word "Peace" is not in "W's" vocabulary. He has the blood of so many innocents on his hands and more, unfortunatly to come. :mad:


concur ! absolutely. It is more than about the oil resources (IMO).......it is about POWER. Bush cabal wants to control area, resources and hold strategic positions on this planet. Once he gets his pins in place.......he can influence surrounding areas with a nudge, threat, or the mere presence. Massive military bases in strategic areas is part of the game plan. And yes, he is a dangerous megalomaniac. History has seen this type before....but sadly humanity has learned nothing from it.

Blood on his hands??? Massive quanitities. None of this bothers him in the least. (no matter the simplistic platitudes he utters in unintelligable language)

Anyone that supports this insanity has blood on their hands too.
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
69
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
And in between all that you miss a far larger truth.

As in every span of history one evil begets another, one over-reaction begets another, even more blind over-reaction.

Elites know that the citizens of the world often adopt standard habits of response. This is why no elite leadership anywhere else in the world will risk losing an election by helping the Iraqis.

Not one citizen in the world will vote to send in troops even if America leaves.

The world is more in love with its hate than it is making central the rebuilding of Iraq.

Proof is, not one voter will allow its own blood shed just to help the Iraqis.

Let's get real.

Once the Americans leave, the clowns will continue their bully act and continue to make sure the Iraqi population remains too scared, and not one troop from another country will dare take over that job.

History will not the American blunder but it will also note that the World used noble reasons not to lift a finger to help Iraq have a new chance.

They like watching the clowns mess up the Americans.

But that's what they think.

The real target is the Iraqi. The clowns want to kill them.

And they're doing it.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
I just hope the American public is prepared for a huge death toll if they invade.


one is beginning to think that these deaths do not matter all that much to Americans. Even their own troops. Those that die in these catastrophes........are made into heros in their minds. This is how they rationalize it. Hero worship is a big factor with US-ers.



(something quite primative in this kind of ideology)
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Re: RE: "UGLY"-dangerous US policy(s)

jimmoyer said:
And in between all that you miss a far larger truth.

As in every span of history one evil begets another, one over-reaction begets another, even more blind over-reaction.

Elites know that the citizens of the world often adopt standard habits of response. This is why no elite leadership anywhere else in the world will risk losing an election by helping the Iraqis.

Not one citizen in the world will vote to send in troops even if America leaves.

The world is more in love with its hate than it is making central the rebuilding of Iraq.

Proof is, not one voter will allow its own blood shed just to help the Iraqis.

Let's get real.

Once the Americans leave, the clowns will continue their bully act and continue to make sure the Iraqi population remains too scared, and not one troop from another country will dare take over that job.

History will not the American blunder but it will also note that the World used noble reasons not to lift a finger to help Iraq have a new chance.

They like watching the clowns mess up the Americans.

But that's what they think.

The real target is the Iraqi. The clowns want to kill them.

And they're doing it.


jim........just not convinced that this is their objective. (targeting the Iraqis) What do they have against the Iraqis as a people??? If anything and what do they (the so called clowns) have against the US presence in Iraq??
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Re: RE: "UGLY"-dangerous US policy(s)

jimmoyer said:
Don't lift a finger.
Be comfortable.

The clowns like that.


the question this "hypothesis " raises is:

Who in their right minds would want to get in the middle of this now??? Face the facts. US ......and US alone was the initiator of this. The US is one nasty oversized bully on the planet now. ........ok .....maybe not the US persae....but the bush goons were the catalyst for this. So Yes, the Iraqis will suffer.....and the bush regime is fully to blame .......from the time they hatched this plan in some shady back room.


even when things begin to settle down some (soon , one can hope) .......the country will take a very long time to restore itself, structurally, emotionally, physically etc. Post such intrusive "surgery" , it will take years to heal.....
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
69
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
Who in their right minds would want to get in the middle of this now??? ---- Ocean Breeze.

Exactly, so moralize all you want. America has it coming.

But the world's sin will be to act moral but have no guts, no substance to its morality, because it would rather pontificate about American sin than it would do anything to help Iraq get a new start.

Two sins.

Ironic.

And hypocritical

to the core.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Re: RE: "UGLY"-dangerous US policy(s)

jimmoyer said:
Who in their right minds would want to get in the middle of this now??? ---- Ocean Breeze.

Exactly, so moralize all you want. America has it coming.

But the world's sin will be to act moral but have no guts, no substance to its morality, because it would rather pontificate about American sin than it would do anything to help Iraq get a new start.

Two sins.

Ironic.

And hypocritical

to the core.


Let's do a what if. what if some nations said to the US that they wanted to assist the Iraqis......in whatever way was best for the IRAQIS..........what do you think the US would do??? Would the USG work in cooperation with said nations.......or would the USG want to retain control as to how this would be managed??? Would the US then begin to recede from Iraq????

Or would the USG interpret this offer as assisting the US???

************but on a positive note:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/3237362

The UN has appealed for assistance for the Iraqis. This puts a totally different focus on it.-----so yes, the international community is responding.

( what the international community does not want to "respond " to is the bush regime.----as the International community is well aware that bush does not have the Iraqis best interest at heart.......and by colluding with him, they set themelves up for more trouble. He will turn on a friend. in a blink of an eye.
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
69
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
The short answer to your questions, is we both know it won't work.

We saw that when Clinton bombed Serbia for 80 nights to stop the ethnic cleansing, the massacres, the program of genocide. The Europeans are a bickering committee, second guessing themselves and others. Quixotic in every decision while prancing their intellects all sorts of mistakes are covered over.

Europe also did not want to leave its comfortable couch to stop the bloodshed in their own backyard, something they promised would never happen on their continent again after World War II.

They decided to do something about their own backyard once America took the heat, the frontline of battle there.

Ashame.

But let me ask you?

Would any voter on the European continent or in Canada vote to send any troops to Iraq if America disappeared out of there? That would remove any problem you might have with America. You guys take over.

Would you do it?

Because those clowns will be waiting for you.

While they continue to kill Iraqis, blow up mosques, movie theatres, etcetera.

Hell, Canada with all of its moralizing couldn't even get more than 200 troops to stop the Dafur massacres in Sudan.

Do we let these people kill each other?

Of course.

All the Western Democracies are more concerned about fighting for and keeping their benefits.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Would any voter on the European continent or in Canada vote to send any troops to Iraq if America disappeared out of there?

It depends on what you mean by "America disappearing " from Iraq.

realistically, the US troops cannot leave ......yet. Maybe the question is this: Would the US troops redefine their role and be willing to work with the UN.??? If the UN was actively engaged in overseeing this now......with the bush factor out of the equation, it might change the entire tone of things. it is very possible that troops from other nations would be sent to assist the Iraqis and the UN ......if the USG did not control things as much as they do.

Don't think the animosity is against Americans persae.......it is about the bush cabal.

the UN may have its issues......but it is still the only international body this planet has. It cannot work to improve itself.....as long as people like bush bash the crap out of it. No one is saying that it is ideal.......but idealism is not the issue. Realism is.

Until the bush cabal learns to cooperate a tad......the situation is not likely to change all that much. But it is determined to have it all on its terms.---and it's terms only.