The Iraq "Civil War" -

SouthAmerica,

Kudos to you on your call on Iraqi Civil war... you made the call last year and now the US generals have started acknowledging the fact. However, some members did ridicule your posting at that time.

For example a member posted, "Civil war my butt. Where is the civil war so many people hope to happen? Dozens of people get killed and a Shiia mosque gets blown up and we have a “civil war.” LOL. There are 26 million Iraqis. Do you think they are all stupid animals dying to kill each other? Do you think they are all so stupid they can’t run their own country? Do you think the Islamists and Iran have so much power and influence in Iraq they can get 25 million Iraqis to tear at each other’s throats?"

I guess the ostrich mentality is common when one is in denial. Looks like the Iraqis really want to kill each other... sad but true.

 

.

August 4, 2006

SouthAmerica: Today the front page story of The New York Times (NYT) gives you the idea that Israel is having a real hard time to make the case that Hezbollah is really hurting the people from Israel. The NYT shows on the front page a very large picture of a women walking inside her apartment or inside her house and she has two small children with her, and to give some dramatic sense to the picture there is a small spot on the floor that looks like grape juice. The article says that the picture is from an attack in Israel in 1979 and they want to imply that Hezbollah was responsible for that attack.

The only problem is that Hezbollah was formed after 1982 after Israel’s occupation in Lebanon.

I wonder how Hezbollah managed to do that - It is very interesting Hezbollah was formed after 1982 and they were able to perform tasks 3 years before its inception. That’s a nice trick.


*******


The only reason Americans are not on the streets all over the United States demanding that the US government return the American troops home from Iraq – it is because today we have an American army of volunteers - mostly made of minorities who can’t find better opportunities elsewhere that’s why they end signing up for armed forces service – many of these guys can’t find better options on the current US labor market.

If we had the draft on this country and we had middle class kids fighting in Iraq – the US population would be having major demonstrations to end the Iraq war – or at least to bring the US troops back home.


****


Today August 4, 2006, I was reading Thomas Friedman column on The New York Times “Time for Plan B” – He suggest a Bosnia like conference including the US, Russia, Europe, Japan, India, China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Syria, and Jordan – and he wants an international force to police Iraq where needed.

Friedman’s strategy is based on finding a new sucker or group of suckers to assume the mess in Iraq from the united States.

Let me help Thomas Friedman complete his letter to the UN and other governments asking them to send international troops to replace the Americans as target practice for the insurgency and to be in the middle of a cross fire in a nasty sectarian civil war.

The requirement for the sucker position is: All the international troops have to do is hold a sign saying “PATSY” and see what happen around them.

The United States can send a letter to the United Nations saying we need a bunch of fools to replace us in Iraq – the place is in a complete chaos and they have a nasty sectarian civil war spinning completely out of control.

PS: The place is hot like hell, and the weather and sand storms destroy all your equipment in no time. It is a: lose, lose preposition – we need to find a bunch of international fools ASAP.


.

 

Southamerica good call on seeing the civil war. A civil war was a logical extension to the invasion by the Zionist proxy army, divide and conquer is clearly the goal here. Now that the American oil men have their oil, the Zionists have ful filled their part of the bargain. The question now is, how far will the Zionist proxy army let the civil war get out of hand? If it festers too long the Iranian controlled Shiites will get the upper hand.

Even that seems to be a logical extension to the civil war. If Iranians control the Shiites in Iraq, then now we have the beginning of a guranteed regional conflict between the Sunni Arabs and the Shiite Persians. A total destabilization of the whole region. But whose goal would that serve? Who would benefit from a total destabilization of the middle east? 1) Oil men for sure 2) ??? ( The answer can't be that simple!! There must be a broader goal to the creation of this instability )

So then we still have to ask, what are the Zionists really after? More land? If that's so, how far back do they think they can push the arabs and think the arabs won't do anything. or is it that the Zionists plan to push as deep as they can and then create another subversion to bring in American troops instead of the weaponry they're now getting. After all they created subversions in WW1 and WW2 to get Americans to spill their blood for them. So even if they manage to push arabs back and grab more land, how do they plan on holding onto this land?

So it then leads to the next logical extension. If you have arabs pushed back and more of their land confiscated, naturally they'll fight back. This looks like the beginnings of the making of a pro longed period of global instability, eventually I suspect our western governments will all be bullied into forming some sort of "Super west alliance" under one central government to counter the created Arab threat and their allies. ( you can already hear the ramblings about the supposed "chinese threat"). I wonder who will be in control of this new "super west alliance" government?

 

I really feel sorry for the American tax payer. The majority are simple good religious people who take others at their face value. When someone says something, they expect that to be the truth. Unfortunately only a very extreme minority realize what's going on in their country. The majority are so gullible that they don't bother to do independent research on what they see or hear in their media.

Maybe 1/10 th of 1 percent realize that the US Congress and the US media are OWNED and TOTALLY CONTROLLED by the Zionists based in Israel. And sadly enough, anyone who points this out to the rest of them, they start calling that person names. They've been conditioned to stop thinking and start barking on command, it's an automatic reaction on their part.

 

.

August 7, 2006

SouthAmerica: On Friday’s The New York Times, Thomas Friedman column talked about the United States putting Plan B into action for the US to be able to leave Iraq.

I hate to say that but Friedman’s plan will not work, because you have to find a bunch of fools to replace the US forces in Iraq, and at this point what country would be foolish enough to provide troops to be stationed in the middle of a sectarian civil war?

The United States is quickly running out of options in Iraq, but the US still holding the wild card.

Here is the only option that makes sense for the United States at this point:

First, end Saddam Hussein’s trial immediately and set him and his palls free.

Then let him know that you would not stop him if he organizes his army and try to take over the government in Iraq.

Don’t forget to say sorry, that the occupational forces had to kill his two sons. And finally, mention that the United States wish him well, and good luck on his new endeavor in trying to stop the sectarian civil war and in trying to bring peace into Iraq.

That would be the last American effort already acting in damage control mode to stop the sectarian civil war and the last option available to try to contain the Iraq civil war from turning into a major conflict engulfing many countries in the Middle East.

That would be the equivalent of an American “Hail Mary” in Iraq.

Here Saddam go catch........



****


Hail Mary: An offensive play where the quarterback throws the ball up in the air without really targeting any particular receiver, hoping someone on his team catches it.

A Hail Mary is generally used on the last play of the game when a team is out of field-goal range and has just enough time for one last play.


.

 

Grrr... goddman Jews. Why won't they just leave you alone, bs?

Grrr...


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

.

October 10, 2006

SouthAmerica: Today, the United States has over 2.1 million people in prison.

Many of these 2.1 million people have a very low I.Q. and they might qualify as new recruits under the new recruiting system of the US Army.



*************



“Lower standards help Army recruit more”
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer
AP – Associated Press
October 10, 2006


WASHINGTON - The U.S. Army recruited more than 2,600 soldiers under new lower aptitude standards this year, helping the service beat its goal of 80,000 recruits in the throes of an unpopular war and mounting casualties.

The recruiting mark comes a year after the Army missed its recruitment target by the widest margin since 1979, which had triggered a boost in the number of recruiters, increased bonuses, and changes in standards.

The Army recruited 80,635 soldiers, roughly 7,000 more than last year. Of those, about 70,000 were first-time recruits who had never served before.

According to statistics obtained by The Associated Press, 3.8 percent of the first-time recruits scored below certain aptitude levels. In previous years, the Army had allowed only 2 percent of its recruits to have low aptitude scores.

That limit was increased last year to 4 percent, the maximum allowed by the Defense Department.

The Army said all the recruits with low scores had received high school diplomas. In a written statement, the Army said good test scores do not necessarily equate to quality soldiers.

Test-taking ability, the Army said, does not measure loyalty, duty, honor, integrity or courage.

Daniel Goure, vice president of the Lexington Institute, a private research group, said there is a "fine balance between the need for a certain number of recruits and the standards you set."

"Tests don't tell you the answer to the most critical question for the Army, how will you do in combat?" Goure said. But, he added, accepting too many recruits with low test scores could increase training costs and leave technical jobs unfilled.

"The absolute key for the Army is a high-school diploma," Goure said.

About 17 percent of the first-time recruits, or about 13,600, were accepted under waivers for various medical, moral or criminal problems, including misdemeanor arrests or drunk driving. That is a slight increase from last year, the Army said.

Of those accepted under waivers, more than half were for "moral" reasons, mostly misdemeanor arrests.

Thirty-eight percent were for medical reasons and 7 percent were drug and alcohol problems, including those who may have failed a drug test or acknowledged they had used drugs.

The Army said the waiver process recognizes that people can overcome past mistakes and become law abiding citizens.

Army Brig. Gen. Anthony A. Cucolo said that adding more recruiters enabled the Army to identify more recruits. "We got the right people in the field in the right places in the right numbers," said Cucolo, the chief spokesman for the Army.

About two-thirds of the recruits qualified for a bonus — an average of $11,000 each. Some in highly valued specialties, such as special operations forces, can get up to $40,000 in extra cash.

The Army National Guard and the Army Reserve both fell slightly short of their recruiting goals. The Reserves recruited 25,378 of the targeted 25,500; and the Guard recruited 69,042 of the targeted 70,000.


.

 

.



The New York Times
“Top General Urges Britain to Leave Iraq”
By ALAN COWELL
Published: October 13, 2006


ST. ANDREWS, Scotland, Friday, Oct. 13 — In a surprising challenge to the government, Britain’s most senior military officer was quoted Friday as saying the British Army should leave Iraq, where it is America’s main ally, “sometime soon.”

The remarks, in an interview with The Daily Mail, contradicted policy enunciated by Prime Minister Tony Blair that British troops should leave Iraq only when Iraqi forces can take over security duties from them.

Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt, who took over as the army commander this year, has emerged as a contentious figure, challenging various policies. The new comments were his most outspoken and seemed likely to revive not only the debate about Mr. Blair’s decision to join the United States in the Iraq invasion in 2003 but also a passionate discussion about how long British troops should stay there.

The Daily Mail quoted Sir Richard as saying that Britain should “get ourselves out sometime soon, because our presence exacerbates the security problems.”

“We are in a Muslim country, and Muslims’ views of foreigners in their country are quite clear,” he added. “As a foreigner, you can be welcomed by being invited into a country, but we weren’t invited, certainly by those in Iraq at the time. Let’s face it. The military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in.”

“I don’t say that the difficulties we are experiencing around the world are caused by our presence in Iraq, but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them,” he said, alluding to the question of whether Britain’s deployment in Iraq has made it a target for Islamic terrorism. Whatever consent British troops may have enjoyed after the invasion “has largely turned to intolerance,” he said.

Britain has about 7,000 troops based primarily around Basra in the south of Iraq. Sir Richard drew a distinction with the 5,000 British soldiers under NATO in Afghanistan.

“There is a clear distinction between our status and position in Iraq and in Afghanistan, which is why I have much more optimism that we can get it right in Afghanistan,” The Daily Mail, a right-of-center newspaper, quoted him as saying.


.

 

.


October 22, 2006

SouthAmerica: The Bush administration has been using this excuse for years – every time a foreign government tells the Bush administration to “GET LOST” as the Koreans did a number of times – the Bush administration standard excuse is: “A senior Bush administration official questioned whether the remarks had been translated correctly.”

They always blame the translation when the Arabs or Koreans say something that they don’t like it.

But everybody around the world should know by now that “Arrogance” and “Stupidity” are just 2 parts of the United States foreign policy strategy today – a strategy of “Complete Incompetence.”

We also know that the United States is completely “Clueless” regarding Iraq and the Middle East – that is not news to anyone who has any brains. But this article says that the United States is willing to throw the towel in Iraq and accept Osama Bin Ladden’s demands (Al Qaeda) to facilitate national reconciliation. The Bush administration is willing to give Osama Bin Ladden a complete victory against the United States, since Osama Bin Ladden had already been able to make the Bush administration repudiate even the “US Constitution and Bill of Rights.”

Finally, the article mentioned what I have been saying all along – the only exit strategy that makes sense in Iraq is to return Saddam Hussein and his government back in power.

Today, here is the only “Hail Mary” play available for the United States in Iraq - quoting from this article: “Fernandez spoke to the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera after a man claiming to speak for Saddam Hussein's outlawed Baath Party told the network the United States was seeking a face-saving exodus from Iraq and that insurgents were ready to negotiate but won't lay down arms.

"Abu Mohammed", a pseudonym for the man, appeared to set near impossible conditions for the start of any talks with the Americans, including the return to service of Saddam's armed forces, the annulment of every law adopted since Saddam's ouster, the recognition of insurgent groups as the sole representatives of the Iraqi people and a timetable for a gradual, unconditional withdrawal of U.S. and other foreign troops in Iraq.”

There is only one problem with the above scenario: If Saddam Hussein is supposed to be returned into power in Iraq there is one very incompatible piece on this puzzle.

If Saddam Hussein returns to power in Iraq: as the United States is leaving Iraq from the front door – Al Qaeda would be leaving Iraq from the back door, since Saddam Hussein would go after them and kill all Al Qaeda fighters who still inside Iraq. (And Saddam would know how to recognize who these people were.)




************



“Diplomat cites U.S. 'stupidity' in Iraq”
By HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press Writer
AP – Associated Press – October 22, 2006


BAGHDAD, Iraq - A senior U.S. diplomat said the United States had shown "arrogance" and "stupidity" in Iraq but was now ready to talk with any group except Al-Qaida in Iraq to facilitate national reconciliation.

In an interview with Al-Jazeera television aired late Saturday, Alberto Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department offered an unusually candid assessment of America's war in Iraq.

"We tried to do our best but I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq," he said.

"We are open to dialogue because we all know that, at the end of the day, the solution to the hell and the killings in Iraq is linked to an effective Iraqi national reconciliation," he said, speaking in Arabic from Washington. "The Iraqi government is convinced of this."

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, in Moscow with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, later said that Fernandez disputes the description of his comments.

"What he says is, that is not an accurate reflection of what he said," McCormack said. Asked whether the Bush administration believes that history will show a record of arrogance or stupidity in Iraq, McCormack replied "No."

A senior Bush administration official questioned whether the remarks had been translated correctly. "Those comments obviously don't reflect our position," said the official, who asked not to be identified because a transcript had not been available for review.

The question of negotiations between the United States and insurgency factions has repeatedly surfaced over the past two years, but details have been sketchy. One issue that was often raised in connection with such negotiations was the extent of amnesty the United States and its Iraqi allies were willing to offer to the insurgents if they disarmed and joined the political process.

Fernandez spoke to the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera after a man claiming to speak for Saddam Hussein's outlawed Baath Party told the network the United States was seeking a face-saving exodus from Iraq and that insurgents were ready to negotiate but won't lay down arms.

"Abu Mohammed", a pseudonym for the man, appeared to set near impossible conditions for the start of any talks with the Americans, including the return to service of Saddam's armed forces, the annulment of every law adopted since Saddam's ouster, the recognition of insurgent groups as the sole representatives of the Iraqi people and a timetable for a gradual, unconditional withdrawal of U.S. and other foreign troops in Iraq.

"The occupier has started to search for a face-saving way out. The resistance, with all its factions, is determined to continue fighting until the enemy is brought down to his knees and sits on the negotiating table or is dealt, with God's help, a humiliating defeat," he said. The man wore a suit and appeared to be in his 40s but his face was concealed.

"There is an element of the farcical in that statement," Fernandez said of Abu Mohammed's comments. "They are very removed from reality."

Still Fernandez warned that failure to pacify the widening sectarian strife in Iraq as well as an enduring insurgency would damage the entire Middle East.

"We are witnessing failure in Iraq and that's not the failure of the United States alone but it is a disaster for the region. Failure in Iraq will be a failure for the United States but a disaster for the region."

Although the actual identity of Abu Mohammed remains unknown, the interview adds to growing indications that Iraq's Sunni insurgents sense the tide may be turning against the United States and the Iraqi government it backs.

Fernandez's comments, on the other hand, join a series of sobering remarks by President Bush and the U.S. military in recent days.

Bush this week conceded that "right now it's tough" for U.S. forces in Iraq and on Saturday met with his top military and security advisers to study new tactics to curb the staggering violence in Iraq. Three U.S. Marines were killed Saturday, making October the deadliest month for American forces in Iraq this year.

U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell said attacks in Baghdad were up 22 percent in the first three weeks of the holy Muslim month of Ramadan despite a two-month old U.S.-Iraqi drive to crush violence in the Iraqi capital.

On Wednesday, and again on Friday, Sunni insurgents believed to belong to al-Qaida in Iraq, staged military-like parades in the heart of five towns in the vast and mainly desert province of Anbar, including the provincial capital Ramadi. Some of these parades, in which hooded gunmen paraded with their weapons, took place within striking distance of U.S. forces stationed in nearby bases.

The parades proved to be a propaganda success, with TV footage of Wednesday's parade shown in many parts of the world, a likely embarrassment for the U.S. military as well as the embattled Iraqi government.


.

 

.

November 5, 2006

SouthAmerica: Saddam Hussein’s trial – what a joke. From day one we all knew what was going to be the final outcome – and when the proceedings were not going according to plan then just change the judge to make sure the final outcome would be in the bag.

Justice the American way, by the way on Friday November 4, 2006 the program 20/20 on WABC channel 7 did show how pathetic the US judicial system has become.

Saddam Hussein’s trial is not much different than today’s US Judicial system.

If you don’t believe me just take some time and go to some courts on your area of the country and watch the US judicial system at work – in no time you would be able to realize that we are living in a “Banana Republic”.

The US judicial system it is nothing to write home about – but that is a subject for another thread.

The funny thing is that the United States did not even try to stage or give the appearance of a fair trial in Saddam Hussein’s trial in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein’s trial was a fair trial in the same way that the Iraq war is going well according to the Bush administration.

If Kim Jong-il gives up his nuclear weapons program – he can be sure that what is happening to Saddam Hussein will happen also to him.

If the US is able to overthrow Kim Jong-il from power in North Korea – you can bet the US would stage a trial with a hanging judge in charge and Kim Jong-il also would receive the death penalty.

You can bet on that - if Kim Jong-il is foolish enough to give up his nuclear weapons program.


PS: The only countries to came out immediately and supported the result of the staged trial in Iraq was the usual suspects - UK and Australia.

The rest of the world knows better than that.



.