| Author | Post |
|---|
bbd
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 736 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27th, 2007 02:14 pm |
|
The Dems. are grasping at straws
We want to surrender but We won't say when. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032602034_pf.html
Last edited on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 02:14 pm by bbd
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27th, 2007 01:26 pm |
|
| While I don't disagree with most of what your write, the "Israel Lobby" that people refer to are the various groups and entities that push FOR funding and support for your country. I don't deny them the right to do so, and generally support what they say...but you can't deny that they exist - and the have been pretty successful over the decades in getting support for Israel, certainly more successful then other groups.
|
Halvah
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | Haifa, Israel |
| Posts: | 326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27th, 2007 01:22 pm |
|
There is some controversy surrounding the relationship between Israel and the United States, just as there is with any other country that America has relationships with. I find that in this particular forum that there are, thankfully, a very few who feel that Israel may be a burden on the US and indeed, to world peace. The United States is without question Israel’s most important ally. Also, without question, Israel is the staunchest and most reliable friend of the United States. But there are some who believe and vigorously advocate that Israel is a burden to the United States and that were it not for Israel, peace would prevail in the Middle East.
There is the so-called “Israel lobby.” It is a patriotic-named foundation which attempts to influence Congress to withhold support for Israel. They do this via full-page ads in national newspapers (very expensive — who pays for it?). There are also some professors from prestigious universities who write essays in which they aver that the United States is in thrall to the “Israel lobby.” This lobby is said to pull the strings of American policy. This has been cited in these forums. These supposed main promoters are AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and the so-called “neo-cons,” some of whom are indeed Jewish. They are said to exert an almost magical spell over policy makers, including the leaders of Congress and the President. Some even say that the Iraq war was promoted by this omnipotent “Israel lobby,” that the President was flummoxed into declaring war on Saddam Hussein, not in order to defend the United States or to promote its interests, but in order to further the interests of Israel. These are foolish assertions and promoted either by foolish or gullible people or those who harbor a real resentment towards the Jewish people. In either case, the effect is to denigrate Israel whether it is an unintended consequence or not.
Please be advised that the AIPC is in reality an anti-Israeli organization and is promoting propaganda for use by those who desire to appear credible in espousing their “opinions” about Israel. They should not be quoted as a reputable source or considered as spokespersons for Israel.
Israel is indeed a major recipient of U.S. aid. Israel receives yearly $1.8 billion in military aid and $1.2 billion in economic aid, a substantial portion of our yearly aid budget. Almost all of the military aid is spent in the United States, making Israel one of the major customers of the U.S. defense industry. Virtually all of the economic assistance goes for repayment of debt to the United States, incurred from military purchases dating back many years. A good case can be made that aid to Israel, certainly the military portion, should be part of the United States defense budget, rather than of the aid budget because Israel is, next only perhaps to Britain, by far the most important ally of the United States. Virtually without exception, Israel’s government and its people agree with and support the foreign policy objectives of the United States. In the United Nations, Israel’s votes coincide with those of the United States over 90% of the time. The Arabs and other Moslem countries, virtually all of them recipients of American largess, almost reflexively vote against the United States in most instances. The United Nations has been anti-American practically since it’s inception, many of the founders being Communists.
Israel is the major strategic asset of the United States in an area of the world that is the cradle of Islamo-fascism, which is dominated by tyrants and permeated by religious obscurantism and shows almost total disregard for human rights. During the decades-long Cold War, Israel was America’s indispensable rampart against the inroads of the Soviet Union. It is now the bulwark against the aggressive intentions of Iran. During Desert Storm, Israel provided invaluable intelligence, an umbrella of air cover for military cargo, and had personnel planted in the Iraqi deserts to pick up downed American pilots.
Gen. George Keagan, former head of U.S. Air Force Intelligence, stated publicly that “Israel is worth five CIAs,” with regard to intelligence passed to our country. He also stated that the yearly $1.8 billion that Israel received in military assistance was worth $50 to $60 billion in intelligence, R&D savings, and Soviet weapons systems captured and transferred to the Pentagon. In contrast to our commitments in Korea, Japan, Germany, and other parts, not a single American serviceperson needs to be stationed in Israel. Considering that the cost of one serviceperson per year — including backup and infrastructure — is estimated to be about $200,000, and assuming a minimum contingent of 25,000 troops, the cost savings to the United States on that score alone is on the order of $5 billion a year.
Israel effectively secures NATO’s southeastern flank. Our superb harbor, its outstanding military installations, the air and sea lift capabilities, and the trained manpower to maintain sophisticated equipment are readily at hand in Israel. It is the only country that makes itself available to the United States in any contingency. Yes, Israel is not a burden, but a tremendous asset to the United States. Israel is indeed America’s unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Middle East and the indispensable defender of America’s interests in that area of the world. The people of the United States, individually and through their Congressional representatives, overwhelmingly support Israel in its seemingly unending fight against Arab aggression and Moslem terror. But that support is not based on the great strategic value that Israel represents to the United States. It is and always has been based on shared values of liberty, democracy, and human rights. America and Israel are aligned by their shared love of peace and democracy. Israel and the United States stand together in their fight against Islamo-fascist terrorism. These shared values, these common ideals, will bind Israel and the United States forever.
|
Vindicator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 463 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27th, 2007 01:12 pm |
|
| Eddy, you can run but you can't hide. You can't hide your true colors. Why don't you take Rosie O'Donnell to Oregon and join the rest of your crowd who burns flags and our soldiers in effigy. You too can make the news denouncing Bush, your country, the troops, and Israel. You all spout the same things. What else can anyone think?
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27th, 2007 12:31 am |
|
Boo wrote:
You truly are an idiot useful only to the Islamists and neo Nazi Jew haters. George Lincoln Rockwell would be proud of you. Maybe Bin Laden will send you a check. You carry their propaganda well. Your source of information leaves a lot to be desired.
JAIPAC? NeoNazi Jew haters?
Are you really that big of an idiot?
|
Boo
Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 19th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 481 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27th, 2007 12:20 am |
|
| You truly are an idiot useful only to the Islamists and neo Nazi Jew haters. George Lincoln Rockwell would be proud of you. Maybe Bin Laden will send you a check. You carry their propaganda well. Your source of information leaves a lot to be desired.
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26th, 2007 10:21 pm |
|
No. But neither do I think that bellicosity to incite a war is wise.
If you care about the future of Israel, I'd suggest you consider the long term consequences of the war you and the rest of the foaming mouth Neocons are itching for.
I'll repost this for your comment:
Is "Pro Israel" an Oxymoron? Seduction into a Catastrophic War
What if, by attempting to prevent a second Holocaust, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert--in collusion with AIPAC, the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee known as "America's Israel Lobby"-- encourages the Bush administration to launch a catastrophic war against Iran? And how is it that many well-meaning, mostly war-opposing American Jews are being convinced that a war with Iran might be necessary for Israel's survival?
Preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons was the number one agenda item for AIPAC's 2007 Annual Policy Convention in Washington last week. Ironically, a Congress mandated to end the war in Iraq is being pressured by the lobby identified with the American religious group most opposed to that war to support actions likely to produce yet another war--predicted to provoke cataclysmic consequences, including the use of nuclear weapons--all for the purpose of preventing the development of nuclear weapons.
The highly choreographed dance between the Bush administration, the unpopular Prime Minister Olmert, AIPAC, and Congress is paving the way for a war that, in the name of Israel's security, would unwittingly pose grave threats to Israel's survival--physically, spiritually and morally. Prime Minister Olmert was awakened at 4 AM Israel time to address AIPAC's Gala Banquet audience of 6,000, including 48 U.S. Senators and 245 U.S. House members via satellite. He said, "At the end of the day, we must recognize that President George W. Bush is the only leader, and the United States is the only country, that can be enormously influential on what Iran will do. I am sure you will not hamper or restrain that strong leadership unnecessarily." Then, after a massive lobbying day on March 13, Congress voted to allow Bush to go to war without asking for authorization.
This is understandable, though horrifying just the same. It seems the fear is that Iran will threaten Israel with nukes and that the U.S. Congress will restrain President Bush from "protecting" Israel. That is how mostly well-meaning, war-opposing American Jews convince a mostly well-meaning, war-opposing Congress to walk into a trap that opens the door to producing the catastrophe they are trying to prevent. At the annual Herzliya Conference earlier this year, Olmert said, "The Jewish people, with the scars of the Holocaust fresh on its body, cannot afford to let itself face the threat of annihilation once again.... We will stand up against nuclear threats and even prevent them." Failing to learn from history (even as recent as the Iraq and Lebanon wars), observation, or social science, and gripped by existential fear, decision-makers are driven by emotions, concrete black-and-white short-term thinking, and overconfidence. Higher level thought processes go out the window, with little awareness of the psychology of the Other, of predictable long-term disastrous consequences, or creative, strategies for nonviolent conflict transformation.
Understanding the psychological imprint of the Holocaust and fear-based belief systems, and recognizing the grip of AIPAC on Congress and the intimidation of being labeled as anti-Semitic for anyone challenging the "military option," a new group of Jewish professionals has emerged to try to rescue this dangerously flawed debate. Members of this group called JAIPAC, Jewish Analysts Investigating Peace and Conflict, are professionals who work in areas of political science, international relations, conflict analysis and resolution, psychology, history, Middle East studies, and other relevant fields devoted to developing strategies for reducing tension, preventing violence, and transforming conflict. This group is committed to the security and survival of Israel, and the elimination of anti-Semitism around the world, and nonviolent resolution of conflicts with Israel's neighbors.
JAIPAC has written "A Respectful Open Letter to President Bush, Prime Minister Olmert, the US Congress, AIPAC, and Others on the Dangers of War with Iran." They fear that military action against Iran taken for Israel's security would unleash a cascade of catastrophic consequences greatly endangering Israel and the U.S., and escalating anti-Semitism and global terrorism, in addition to innocent Iranians. Based on their collective expertise and interdisciplinary consensus, members of JAIPAC unanimously predict that military action against Iran is likely to produce unintended consequences that would serve to:
* escalate instability and cycles of violence
* increase the popularity of those attacked
* undermine popular movements for peace, democracy, and acceptance of Israel in the Muslim world
* increase incentives for nuclear weapons development
* increase trauma, fear, humiliation, despair, and rage
* provoke desires for revenge, and the motivation and rationales for increased recruitment and terrorist actions
* alienate Israel from its neighbors and make it more dependent upon the U.S.
* cause irreversible environmental catastrophe and health crises from radiation and oil fires
* desensitize people to the taking of human life on all sides
JAIPAC predicts that an assault on Iran would produce immediate retaliation against U.S. and British troops in the region, attacks on shipping in the Straits of Hormuz, sharp increases in the worldwide prices of oil and gas, and an explosion of violence against Israel, Jews, and United States interests around the globe. Israel could be subject to missile attacks by Iran or Hezbollah, and the war could become regional, spiraling out of control. The continuing toll of innocent life will play into extremists' hands, creating another generation of anti-American, anti-Israel terrorists, motivating attacks here and abroad.
In addition to this, JAIPAC claims the need for a paradigm shift, and offers insights from their collective professional experiences in the little known field of conflict studies regarding underlying principles for a tension-reducing paradigm, and practical strategies for reducing enmity, violence, terrorism, and transforming conflict. JAIPAC is post-partisan, and the approach in their letter, which can be found on http://www.consciouspolitics.org, is neither hostile nor confrontational.
They reframe the meaning of "unwavering support for Israel," which to date has been equated with military support. Such "support" in the Lebanon war has rendered Israel far more vulnerable, as they bombed their adversaries into popularity and escalation. The military approach precludes the awareness and use of more effective, nonviolent strategies that have been demonstrated to produce greater stability and enduring security. Avoiding the trap of criticizing the oxymoronic "pro Israel" position, JAIPAC reframes it as "New Pro Israel" in their commitment to supporting Israel in ways that include non- zero-sum, win-win approaches necessary for Israel to live safely, cooperatively, and productively as part of an East Mediterranean community. In light of post 9/11, 21st century security realities, JAIPAC introduces a policy of Mutually Assured Survival as necessary to reverse cycles of violence to protect Israel, the region, and the U.S. from escalating threats.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-perlman/is-pro-israel-an-oxymor_b_43817.html
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1620 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26th, 2007 09:52 pm |
|
| OK. So would you think it better for this nation to abandon the only democracy in the region and our only true ally there in favor of one or more of the Islamic regimes? Your vehoment objections to Israel seems to say so?
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26th, 2007 09:49 pm |
|
YOu bet I think differently. I think America should do what is right for America. If that coincides with what is good for our allies, fine. But I don't place the foreign policy objectives of any ally over the well being of this nation.
You do.
That's a pretty profound difference, I agree.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1620 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26th, 2007 09:23 pm |
|
Taos Eddy wrote: No, Bix. I'm just giving some balance against your fanatically rabid Zionism. Balance? Not quite. How often has the UN condemned the US? Plenty of times. If you place your faith in the UN, then your loyaltis are a bit skewed. Rabid Zionism? I just know who I prefer to have (and we do have) as a friend and an ally and that is Israel. I do not support any Arab or more specifically, any Muslim nation and if there be one or two that I may lean to, it would certainly not be over Israel. It is evident that you think differently.
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26th, 2007 09:15 pm |
|
| No, Bix. I'm just giving some balance against your fanatically rabid Zionism.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1620 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26th, 2007 09:13 pm |
|
| Of course the resident jihadist TE would come up with his anti-Israel condemnations by the most honorable UN. This clearly shows his intent and that is to support the Islamic jihad against the West.
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26th, 2007 09:08 pm |
|
Bixby wrote:
The UN ban on arms exports may be of limited but painful effect. But for sure that it will not affect Iranian weapons smuggled illicitly to the Lebanese Hizballah and Shiite militias in Iraq. However, the Palestinian Hamas and Jihad Islami terror groups must think twice before taking Iranian weapons deliveries in Gaza – no longer just in violation of accords with Israel but a UN embargo as well.
UN resolutions Israel has not complied with: 1955-1992
1. Resolution 106: "... 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid"
2. Resolution 111: "...'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people"
3. Resolution 127: "...'recommends' Israel suspend its 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem"
4. Resolution 162: "...'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions"
5. Resolution 171: "...determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria"
6. Resolution 228: "...'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control"
7. Resolution 237: "...'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees"
8. Resolution 248: "...'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan"
9. Resolution 250: "... 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in
Jerusalem"
10. Resolution 251: "... 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250"
11. Resolution 252: "...'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital"
12. Resolution 256: "... 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation"
13. Resolution 259: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation"
14. Resolution 262: "...'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport"
15. Resolution 265: "... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan"
16. Resolution 267: "...'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem"
17. Resolution 270: "...'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern
Lebanon"
18. Resolution 271: "...'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on
Jerusalem"
19. Resolution 279: "...'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon"
20. Resolution 280: "....'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon"
21. Resolution 285: "...'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon"
22. Resolution 298: "...'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem"
23. Resolution 313: "...'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon"
24. Resolution 316: "...'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon"
25. Resolution 317: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in
Lebanon"
26. Resolution 332: "...'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon"
27. Resolution 337: "...'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty"
28. Resolution 347: "...'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon"
29. Resolution 425: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
30. Resolution 427: "...'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon'
31. Resolution 444: "...'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces"
32. Resolution 446: "...'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
33. Resolution 450: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon"
34. Resolution 452: "...'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories"
35. Resolution 465: "...'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program"
36. Resolution 467: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon"
37. Resolution 468: "...'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return"
38. Resolution 469: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians" 39. Resolution 471: "... 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
40. Resolution 476: "... 'reiterates' that Israel's claims to Jerusalem are 'null and void'
41. Resolution 478: "...'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'
42. Resolution 484: "...'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors"
43. Resolution 487: "...'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility"
44. Resolution 497: "...'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescind its decision forthwith"
45. Resolution 498: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon"
46. Resolution 501: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops"
47. Resolution 509: "...'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and
unconditionally from Lebanon"
48. Resolution 515: "...'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in"
49. Resolution 517: "...'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and
demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
50. Resolution 518: "...'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in
Lebanon"
51. Resolution 520: "...'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut"
52. Resolution 573: "...'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters
53. Resolution 587: "...'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw"
54. Resolution 592: "...'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops" 55. Resolution 605: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians
56. Resolution 607: "...'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
57. Resolution 608: "...'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians"
58. Resolution 636: "...'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians
59. Resolution 641: "...'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians
60. Resolution 672: "...'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount
61. Resolution 673: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
Nations
62. Resolution 681: "...'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
Palestinians
63. Resolution 694: "...'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return
64. Resolution 726: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians
65. Resolution 799: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1620 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26th, 2007 08:48 pm |
|
The UN ban on arms exports may be of limited but painful effect. But for sure that it will not affect Iranian weapons smuggled illicitly to the Lebanese Hizballah and Shiite militias in Iraq. However, the Palestinian Hamas and Jihad Islami terror groups must think twice before taking Iranian weapons deliveries in Gaza – no longer just in violation of accords with Israel but a UN embargo as well.
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 546 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 19th, 2007 11:18 pm |
|
Bixby wrote: Fred wrote: It should not surprise anyone that this happened. Iraq IS the place that terrorists go to get their street cred....they go there, return home for rest and recruiting duty, and then return to the battlefield, with what they hope is more numbers.
Fred. Is this a new revelation or has this occurred while you were there? I am surprised at Israeli Arabs who, for some the most part of whom are prosperous in Israel. But I do know that among the poorer classes in Israel, the Arabs constitute a greater portiuon than do poor Israelis. This reminds me of a report I read that in Bethlehem, once a thriving Christian majority city, there are fewer and fewer of them due to Arab intimidation. I'll try to dig it up. It is surprising since the Israeli Arabs do share in government. There are a few Arab political parties and there are several members in the Israeli congress or senate or whatever they have. Halvah's friends own shops and other business there but I guess some would NOT be happy living in a Jewish state.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1620 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 19th, 2007 01:25 pm |
|
Fred wrote: It should not surprise anyone that this happened. Iraq IS the place that terrorists go to get their street cred....they go there, return home for rest and recruiting duty, and then return to the battlefield, with what they hope is more numbers.
Fred. Is this a new revelation or has this occurred while you were there? I am surprised at Israeli Arabs who, for some the most part of whom are prosperous in Israel. But I do know that among the poorer classes in Israel, the Arabs constitute a greater portiuon than do poor Israelis. This reminds me of a report I read that in Bethlehem, once a thriving Christian majority city, there are fewer and fewer of them due to Arab intimidation. I'll try to dig it up.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 19th, 2007 02:14 am |
|
| It should not surprise anyone that this happened. Iraq IS the place that terrorists go to get their street cred....they go there, return home for rest and recruiting duty, and then return to the battlefield, with what they hope is more numbers.
|
Halvah
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | Haifa, Israel |
| Posts: | 326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 19th, 2007 01:01 am |
|
Captured in Baghdad Saturday, March 17, were two - some sources say three - Israeli Arabs, who told their American interrogators they came from the northern Israeli village of Majd al Krum near Carmiel, northeast of Haifa. They were taken prisoner fighting in the central Baghdad district of Bab al Moadham, near the notorious insurgent stronghold of Haifa Street, together with Abu Qetada al Falastini, deputy al Qaeda commander in Iraq. Israeli counter-terror sources report that al Falastini’s real name is Mahmoud al Madi and he hails from the West Bank town of Nablus. The Israeli Arabs captured with him formed his inner personal command. Ahead of the new US-led security crackdown in Baghdad ordered by President George W. Bush, al Qaeda pulled its top local commanders out of the city and out of range. It is not clear why the Palestinian group did not join them. Western intelligence services and agencies engaged in the war on al Qaeda were taken aback by the discovery of Israel Arabs in al Qaeda’s Iraqi ranks, although they had long ago spotted the veteran Abu Qetada who joined the jihadist movement in 1992. After years spent at training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan, he came to Iraq in 2004 to fight alongside Abu Musab al Zarqawi. After he was killed by the Americans, the Palestinian was appointed his successor’s deputy. The Israeli Arabs told their captors that two or three years ago they went to study at fundamentalist Muslim medressas in Pakistan and Afghanistan, where they were recruited by al Qaeda. They are believed to have reached Iraq last year with orders from Pakistan to find Abu Qetada and fight the Americans under his command. But today, Sunday, March 18, al Qaeda in Iraq issued a communiqué denying that any of its chiefs had been detained in Baghdad, without mentioning any names.
Debka
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 18th, 2007 02:44 pm |
|
We did have an international force that went into Afghanistan. We had all sorts of countries, and a lot actually sent fighting forces, instead of support troops.
Now, whether we should have stayed focused there and completed that job before we considered going elsewhere is a legitimate question.
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17th, 2007 06:59 pm |
|
Tank wrote:
Taos Eddy wrote: What does footage of AlQ in Afghanistan have to do with Iraq?
Perhaps directly it means nothing except the mujahadeen who fight there may be some of the same guys who fight in Iraq. Or maybe the attitude or mindset may be the same. Nonetheless the information is interesting and enlightening to some of us but surely, not all of us.
Maybe Halvah, you meant this to be in another topic. It's ok by me, old soldier.
I thought perhaps he meant we should have concentrated on assembling a real international coalition to secure Afghanistan instead of playing into Al Qaeda's hands by going into Iraq.
|
Tank
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 309 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17th, 2007 03:39 pm |
|
Taos Eddy wrote: What does footage of AlQ in Afghanistan have to do with Iraq?
Perhaps directly it means nothing except the mujahadeen who fight there may be some of the same guys who fight in Iraq. Or maybe the attitude or mindset may be the same. Nonetheless the information is interesting and enlightening to some of us but surely, not all of us.
Maybe Halvah, you meant this to be in another topic. It's ok by me, old soldier.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17th, 2007 03:17 am |
|
While I agree with most of the assessment, their is a glimmer of hope in the plan. Although we may push the terrorists into other areas, Baghdad is the center of gravity in that country, probably even more so then Kabul. If you can control Baghdad, you may be able to control the country.
I personally think we are too far gone for that, but it is the best chance we have left. It is probably the second to last card we have left to play...with partioning being the final card in the deck.
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17th, 2007 02:18 am |
|
This is from one of my preferred sources. This is a group that has been right on target from the beginning.
Denouement on Iraq: First Stop the Bleeding
Memorandum for: Speaker of the House Senate Majority Leader
by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
March 14, 2007
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Speaker of the House
Senate Majority Leader
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Denouement on Iraq: First Stop the Bleeding
<snip>
...Key Judgments:
-The vast majority of the violence in Iraq is sectarian in nature and involves a multifaceted civil war mostly pitting Sunnis against Shias. However, the violence also entails secular Sunnis fighting Sunni extremists linked to Al Qaeda and secular Shias battling Shia extremists. The civil war aspect includes (as the Jan. NIE put it) “the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements”—in other words, a rabid dog fight with our troops in between. The only thing the various factions share is unflinching opposition to US occupation. But the notion that there is a monolithic group of “insurgents” or “enemy” falls far wide of the mark.
-U.S. strategy in Iraq is based on the false assumptions that the “people” and the “insurgents” in Iraq are two distinct and opposing groups, and that US and Iraqi forces will be able to “clear” the insurgents and “hold” the people. In fact, the resistance will be suppressed in one area, only to re-emerge somewhere else (the attempt to suppress is appropriately called “Operation Whack-a-Mole”). It goes against virtually all historical precedent to suppose that an unwelcome invader with 150,000 troops—and Iraqi security forces that the NIE judged to be “persistently weak”—can occupy and subdue a large country with a population of 26 million and long porous borders.
The United States does not have enough military forces on the ground in Iraq to provide effective control of the cities and key regions to prevent violence and destroy insurgent infrastructure. Moreover, the U.S. lacks sufficient soldiers and marines in its current globally deployed force to provide sustained reinforcements. And absent is the political will to bring back the draft to obtain the number of troops required to get better control of the situation on the ground in Iraq. Even with a draft, the United States would require two years at a minimum to train and organize the new units for any mission in Iraq. Given these facts, there is no military solution to the situation in Iraq.
-A surge in US troops in specific areas, specifically Baghdad, may bring more than a momentary lessening in the violence, but it will not end the fighting. In fact, this concentrated surge will enable insurgent forces in other areas of the country to expand their operations and control. A de facto partitioning of Iraq is under way. Since the surge started we have already seen an increase in violence in the Kurdish controlled north.
-At current casualty rates, twelve more months will mean at least 1,000 additional US troops killed and 18 more months will bring at least 1,500—not to mention Iraqis killed, and thousands upon thousands seriously wounded. The various Iraqi insurgent groups will probably fade into the woodwork for a while, but at a time and place of their choosing they will surely be back, in force. In the end, aside from the deaths, nothing lasting will have been achieved.
-Senior US civilian and military officials still don’t get it. “They can’t beat us in a stand-up fight,” bragged our vice president just two months ago, echoing recent words of a US Army colonel in Iraq. This completely misses the point, and calls to mind the sad month of April 1975, when Col. Harry Summers was sent to negotiate with a North Vietnamese colonel the terms of American withdrawal from Vietnam. Summers reported the following exchange: “’You know, you never beat us on the battlefield,’ I said to Colonel Tu, my North Vietnamese counterpart. ‘That may be so,’ he said, ‘but it is also irrelevant.’”
-The critical parts of Iraq—Baghdad and southern Iraq—will be under the control of the Shia. Iran in turn will try to expand its aid and influence among both the Shia populace and the secular Sunnis.
-The US occupation continues to be a windfall for terrorist recruiters. An NIE of April 2006 on terrorism noted that the war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists whose numbers, it said, may be increasing faster than the US can reduce the threat. There is wide consensus among experienced observers that the war in Iraq makes it immensely more difficult to deal with the real threat of international terrorism.
-Violence in Iraq, at least for the mid-term, will continue regardless of the U.S. presence. Once a U.S. departure is under way there is an increased likelihood that the Sunnis and Shias will move toward a political accommodation of some sort since at that point neither can count on the United States to fight on their side. The only thing in doubt is the timing of the US departure, and whether it can be accomplished without the massacres the British experienced trying to extricate themselves from earlier expeditions into Iraq. The lack of a substantial U.S. military presence in Iraq will have the counterintuitive effect of increasing the likelihood that neighboring countries will be more willing to take steps to help reduce the violence in Iraq.
<snip>
Full briefing here:
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0315-28.htmLast edited on Sat Mar 17th, 2007 02:20 am by
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16th, 2007 10:44 pm |
|
| What does footage of AlQ in Afghanistan have to do with Iraq?
|
Halvah
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | Haifa, Israel |
| Posts: | 326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16th, 2007 10:04 pm |
|
Following are excerpts from a video showing footage of training and “martyrdom” of Al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan. The video was posted on http://www.mohajroon.com on February 12, 2007.
Titles: The Holiday Battle, October 24, 2006.
The mujahideen prepare their weapons for the ambush they are setting for the aircrafts.
The voice of Osama Bin Laden
The mujahideen prepare their weapons for the ambush they are setting for the aircrafts.
Abu Gharib - Al-Zubeir the Sudanese, Allah’s mercy upon him
The American airforce arrives after being tempted by the mujahideen.
Al-Zubeir the Sudanese and Al-Zubeir the Libyan, moments before their martyrdom
Al-Zubeir the Sudanese and Al-Zubeir the Libyan, moments before their martyrdom
The confrontation between the aircrafts and the mujahideen begins.
Abu Gharib - Al-Zubeir the Sudanese, Allah’s mercy upon him
Intensive American bombardment of the mujahideen
[…]
Al-Zubeir the Libyan (Ahmad Al-‘Okali): Oh where are the days, how did we spend them?
They’ve gone in the twinkling of an eye.
How sweet is their memory.
Oh where are the days, how did we spend them?
They’ve gone in the twinkling of an eye.
How sweet is their memory.
Allah is our destination and our goal.
Our sheik, Abu Al-Ldith, has announced the goal.
Allah is our destination and our goal.
Our sheik, Abu Al-Ldith, has announced the goal.
Our sheik, Abu Al-Ldith, has announced the goal.
Our Emir, Mullah [‘Omar], did not renounce his religion.
All the soldiers have sold their souls to Allah.
All the soldiers have sold their souls to Allah.
Our leader is Bin Laden, who terrorizes America.
Our strength is our faith, and our weapon is the PK.
Our leader is Bin Laden, who terrorizes America.
Our strength is our faith, and our weapon is the PK.
Our strength is our faith, and our weapon is the PK.
If they call me a “terrorist,” I say that this is an honor.
Our terrorism is blessed, a divine da’wa.
If they call me a “terrorist,” I say that this is an honor.
Our terrorism is blessed, a divine da’wa.
Our terrorism is blessed, a divine da’wa.
We destroyed America with a civilian airplane.
The WTC was turned into a pile of rubble.
The WTC was turned into a pile of rubble.
Oh where are the days, how did we spend them?
They’ve gone in the twinkling of an eye.
How sweet is their memory.
Oh where are the days, how did we spend them?
They’ve gone in the twinkling of an eye.
How sweet is their memory.
END
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16th, 2007 04:59 am |
|
I've been belligerent, as you say, only when confronted with people who are obviously not concerned with the truth. Other than that I've offered civil discussion.
For obvious reasons you are obviously very distressed with my position on people lying. I can live with that.
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16th, 2007 04:47 am |
|
| Smart ass is the guy who can sit on an ice cream cone and tell you the flavor. If you would offer a non beligerant intelligent topic, you might get a non beligerant intelligent answer Eddy
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16th, 2007 04:39 am |
|
LCR wrote:
I actually enjoy sound reasoning......I have yet to hear it from you Eddie
Taos Eddy wrote:
Sound reasoning just drives you up a wall, doesn't it Jasper.
Is it really amazing that you've made 1800 posts and never once said a thing worth reading, just bile, BS and personal attacks. I guess that's all you've got, though, isn't it?
Then that must mean you not only see the flaws in my reasoning, but you are capable of sharing with everyone what those flaws are and defending your assertions, right?
Then I suggest you go for it. Let's see if you are anything more than a one line smarta$$
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16th, 2007 04:36 am |
|
"Dude"???????.......... You are an immature butthole. I would call you an asshole but it wouldn't be polite. I was raised better than that. When you grow up and can carry on a discussion, come back with the rest of us.
Taos Eddy wrote:
Dude, no one beyond the 3rd grade playground is impressed with your nonsense.
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16th, 2007 04:24 am |
|
| Dude, no one beyond the 3rd grade playground is impressed with your nonsense.
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16th, 2007 04:22 am |
|
Then I suggest you go for it. Let's see if you are anything more than a one line smarta$$.
I might suggest the same little man........
Sound reasoning just drives you up a wall, doesn't it Jasper.
Taos Eddy wrote:
LCR wrote:
I actually enjoy sound reasoning......I have yet to hear it from you Eddie
Taos Eddy wrote:
Sound reasoning just drives you up a wall, doesn't it Jasper.
Is it really amazing that you've made 1800 posts and never once said a thing worth reading, just bile, BS and personal attacks. I guess that's all you've got, though, isn't it?
Then that must mean you not only see the flaws in my reasoning, but you are capable of sharing with everyone what those flaws are and defending your assertions, right?
Then I suggest you go for it. Let's see if you are anything more than a one line smarta$$.
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16th, 2007 04:18 am |
|
LCR wrote:
I actually enjoy sound reasoning......I have yet to hear it from you Eddie
Taos Eddy wrote:
Sound reasoning just drives you up a wall, doesn't it Jasper.
Is it really amazing that you've made 1800 posts and never once said a thing worth reading, just bile, BS and personal attacks. I guess that's all you've got, though, isn't it?
Then that must mean you not only see the flaws in my reasoning, but you are capable of sharing with everyone what those flaws are and defending your assertions, right?
Then I suggest you go for it. Let's see if you are anything more than a one line smarta$$.
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16th, 2007 04:14 am |
|
Duncan Idaho wrote:
Cobra, I agree and am also confused. Who knows more? The Stratfor guys or Taos Eddy? Maybe he can explain the dichotomy.
I think I did in the prior post.
So the big, brave Senate voted not to cut funding altogether for the troops in Iraq, but said that we have a deadline of January 2008? That's a dangerous move, and it's not just Republicans who think so. Two years ago, Senator Hillary Clinton said, "I don't think we should be setting a deadline ... that just gives a green light to the insurgents and the terrorists, that if they just wait us out they can basically have the country." Just two months ago, she reaffirmed her position: "I'm not going to support a specific deadline." Last week, Democrat Senator Evan Bayh said "I, for example, am not in support of circling a date on a calendar and saying, 'No matter what, we're out on that date.'" Democrat Senator Jim Webb agrees: "Anyone who tells you we can set a timetable for withdrawal doesn't understand war."
Why not just invite the insurgents to sit in on these Senate debates and give them some input? Most of the military experts also say that setting a deadline is a recipe for failure. Wouldn’t you think so?
Answer this question DI: WHAT IS VICTORY?
You say a deadline is "a recipe for failure" but not you nor any other swinging d&%k out there from the president on down has EVER provided a concrete definition of SUCCESS or VICTORY.
Until you can do that you are asking those kids to die for NOTHING except your party's IMAGE.
I defer to our military men, Fred, JP, and of course Tank. Someone here referred to the NIE. Wasn’t that Taos Eddy? I’m not sure and too lazy to go through the back posts but in any event, the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq concluded that "If Coalition forces were withdrawn ... we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq." These intelligence experts also said, "If such a rapid withdrawal were to take place, we judge that the ISF [Iraqi Security Forces] would be unlikely to survive."
That's right. The ISF is unlikely to survive no matter HOW LONG we stay. That is because we are trying to deny the Iraqi Shi'ite the thing they are determined to have - a country governed under Islamic law where the Shi'ite are predominate.
Let me put it to you like this: Imagine if the Protestant Christians - especially evangelicals - in the US had been subjected to the oppression of Saddam for half a century. Many of the Protestant religious leaders had to flee the country, and lived a dream of returning someday to a land where their religion was the guiding light of their society.
Now here is the question: If events were to put those Protestants into the catbird seat, do you think they would allow that position to slip from their grasp?
Why do you think the Shi'ite are going to react any differently?
I’m not genius but that would send the signal to the terrorists in Iraq that all they have to do is wait us out, and then sweep in when we retreat.
Who is the enemy, DI? Who are these "terrorists" in Iraq? We are in the middle of a sectarian civil war and no matter who wins, we lose. So who exactly is going to "wait us out" and then take action, the Sunni? Or will it be the Shi'ite?
WHO >EXACTLY< IS WAITING TO "SWEEP IN"???
Wouldn’t you is you were ali-bin-Freddy? It would also send a signal to our enemies worldwide that we are not serious about the War on Terror.
Bull. Every day we are IN Iraq as "imperialistic infidel occupiers of a Moslem country because of their oil" is a VICTORY for the terrorists because:
It gives a massive boost to their recruiting.
It spends our treasure on a pointless and goal-less strategy.
It degrades all aspects of our military readiness.
AND most Importantly, it WASTES and RUINS the LIVES of our fine troops and their families.
And it would suggest to our troops that their efforts don't mean diddly-squat.
Their efforts don't have a larger meaning and, because they are being spent on calamitously bad strategy the sacrifice of their lives is actually HARMING the nation the have placed their lives on the line to PROTECT.
The CINC is a fool and an EVIL man. He is doing BAD THiNGS To THIS COUNTRY.
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16th, 2007 03:48 am |
|
I actually enjoy sound reasoning......I have yet to hear it from you Eddie
Taos Eddy wrote:
Sound reasoning just drives you up a wall, doesn't it Jasper.
Is it really amazing that you've made 1800 posts and never once said a thing worth reading, just bile, BS and personal attacks. I guess that's all you've got, though, isn't it?
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16th, 2007 03:39 am |
|
Sound reasoning just drives you up a wall, doesn't it Jasper.
Is it really amazing that you've made 1800 posts and never once said a thing worth reading, just bile, BS and personal attacks. I guess that's all you've got, though, isn't it?
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16th, 2007 03:29 am |
|
Laos Eddie you just can't stop spewing. Try some Ritalin before you type
Taos Eddy wrote:
Cobra wrote:
Taos Eddy wrote: There is no threat of a meaningful Al Qaeda presence in Iraq.
Halvah wrote: However, the US currently faces not only the threat of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, but terrorism orchestrated by Al Qaeda, which might seek to portray itself as defender of Iraqi Moslems by mounting attacks on US interests around the world. Iran has now assumed the role of “protector” of all Moslems and as “defenders of the faith.” Small and large-scale attacks in various parts of the world are likely. There have been reports in recent months of suspicious activities around military facilities, ports, and other facilities such as bridges and power plants that have economic as well as symbolic significance. (Stratfor) I don't know for myself, but Stratfor is some pretty heavy intel dudes. The subscription is real expensive, hundreds of bucks from what I've been told. They are a pro intel analysis outfit. If you will, Taos Eddy. How do you reconsile that with the info Halvah posted? Is there some other info that counters this?
Where do you see a contradiction between what I posted and the generalized 'duhs' that comprise the quoted Stratfor passage?
For example:
"...the US currently faces not only the threat of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, but terrorism orchestrated by Al Qaeda, which might seek to portray itself as defender of Iraqi Moslems by mounting attacks on US interests around the world..."
Duh.
"... Iran has now assumed the role of “protector” of all Moslems and as “defenders of the faith.”..."
Duh.
"...Small and large-scale attacks in various parts of the world are likely..."
Duh.
"...There have been reports in recent months of suspicious activities around military facilities, ports, and other facilities such as bridges and power plants that have economic as well as symbolic significance. ..."
OK, not duh. But, the occasional pat on the back we hear the administration give itself about their track record of catching terrorists here and around the world has proven extremely undeserved. So far, their record of successful prosecutions for terrorism is abysmal, so I'm not convinced the idea of 'suspicious activity around ports' has much meaning to whether or not AlQ is a significant presence in Iraq after we leave.
Did I miss something?
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16th, 2007 02:04 am |
|
Cobra wrote:
Taos Eddy wrote: There is no threat of a meaningful Al Qaeda presence in Iraq.
Halvah wrote: However, the US currently faces not only the threat of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, but terrorism orchestrated by Al Qaeda, which might seek to portray itself as defender of Iraqi Moslems by mounting attacks on US interests around the world. Iran has now assumed the role of “protector” of all Moslems and as “defenders of the faith.” Small and large-scale attacks in various parts of the world are likely. There have been reports in recent months of suspicious activities around military facilities, ports, and other facilities such as bridges and power plants that have economic as well as symbolic significance. (Stratfor) I don't know for myself, but Stratfor is some pretty heavy intel dudes. The subscription is real expensive, hundreds of bucks from what I've been told. They are a pro intel analysis outfit. If you will, Taos Eddy. How do you reconsile that with the info Halvah posted? Is there some other info that counters this?
Where do you see a contradiction between what I posted and the generalized 'duhs' that comprise the quoted Stratfor passage?
For example:
"...the US currently faces not only the threat of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, but terrorism orchestrated by Al Qaeda, which might seek to portray itself as defender of Iraqi Moslems by mounting attacks on US interests around the world..."
Duh.
"... Iran has now assumed the role of “protector” of all Moslems and as “defenders of the faith.”..."
Duh.
"...Small and large-scale attacks in various parts of the world are likely..."
Duh.
"...There have been reports in recent months of suspicious activities around military facilities, ports, and other facilities such as bridges and power plants that have economic as well as symbolic significance. ..."
OK, not duh. But, the occasional pat on the back we hear the administration give itself about their track record of catching terrorists here and around the world has proven extremely undeserved. So far, their record of successful prosecutions for terrorism is abysmal, so I'm not convinced the idea of 'suspicious activity around ports' has much meaning to whether or not AlQ is a significant presence in Iraq after we leave.
Did I miss something?
BTW Free intel reports from Stratfor can be had by registering:
https://www.stratfor.com/subscriptions/free-weekly-intelligence-reports.php
Last edited on Fri Mar 16th, 2007 03:44 am by
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16th, 2007 01:50 am |
|
Fred wrote:
I'm all for looking at the options in Iraq, but Al Quaida IS in Iraq....you want to make the argument they weren't there before we dumped Saddam....hey, I am with you. I'd even argue that most of the violence over there is sectarian, not Al Quaida...but they are over there now, and they are a significant threat to us, and to the Sunnis...they are attacking us and doing a good job of contributing to the sectarian violence.
Iraq has to solve the problem of Iraq....we can help, we can provide support, but they must bear the brunt of it.
Yes Al Qaeda is in Iraq - during a period of chaos. That the Iraqi insurgents tolerate their presence is another of the coalitions I was speaking of when I wrote of US presence unifying groups that would not otherwise work together.
The simple answer to whether they will remain in Iraq after we withdraw is based on the same resentment evident at our presence. You don't think for a minute the ascendent Shi'ite are going to allow ANY outside group to gain power, do you? Especially one, that is a profoundly Sunni group?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 15th, 2007 11:18 pm |
|
I'm all for looking at the options in Iraq, but Al Quaida IS in Iraq....you want to make the argument they weren't there before we dumped Saddam....hey, I am with you. I'd even argue that most of the violence over there is sectarian, not Al Quaida...but they are over there now, and they are a significant threat to us, and to the Sunnis...they are attacking us and doing a good job of contributing to the sectarian violence.
Iraq has to solve the problem of Iraq....we can help, we can provide support, but they must bear the brunt of it.
|
Duncan Idaho
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 13th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 15th, 2007 11:02 pm |
|
Cobra, I agree and am also confused. Who knows more? The Stratfor guys or Taos Eddy? Maybe he can explain the dichotomy.
So the big, brave Senate voted not to cut funding altogether for the troops in Iraq, but said that we have a deadline of January 2008? That's a dangerous move, and it's not just Republicans who think so. Two years ago, Senator Hillary Clinton said, "I don't think we should be setting a deadline ... that just gives a green light to the insurgents and the terrorists, that if they just wait us out they can basically have the country." Just two months ago, she reaffirmed her position: "I'm not going to support a specific deadline." Last week, Democrat Senator Evan Bayh said "I, for example, am not in support of circling a date on a calendar and saying, 'No matter what, we're out on that date.'" Democrat Senator Jim Webb agrees: "Anyone who tells you we can set a timetable for withdrawal doesn't understand war."
Why not just invite the insurgents to sit in on these Senate debates and give them some input? Most of the military experts also say that setting a deadline is a recipe for failure. Wouldn’t you think so? I defer to our military men, Fred, JP, and of course Tank. Someone here referred to the NIE. Wasn’t that Taos Eddy? I’m not sure and too lazy to go through the back posts but in any event, the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq concluded that "If Coalition forces were withdrawn ... we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq." These intelligence experts also said, "If such a rapid withdrawal were to take place, we judge that the ISF [Iraqi Security Forces] would be unlikely to survive."
I’m not genius but that would send the signal to the terrorists in Iraq that all they have to do is wait us out, and then sweep in when we retreat. Wouldn’t you is you were ali-bin-Freddy? It would also send a signal to our enemies worldwide that we are not serious about the War on Terror. And it would suggest to our troops that their efforts don't mean diddly-squat | | |