Iran's secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq
- Thread starter ColdBlooded
- Start date
werent not leaving iraq for another thirty years. gotta protect that oil.
venezuela isnt cooperating.
also. america hates sunnis but america hates the shia more.
israel wont let america leave because iran will wipe it off the map.
the united states needs israel so it can start the war with iran.
israel will launch the first strike the middle of confusion after something drastic happens in iraq, that way the united states can "come to the rescue" and not be directly blamed when it strike iran.
thats how israel is operating right now in gaza due to the palestinian infighting.
keep an eye on fatah al islam in lebanon.
venezuela isnt cooperating.
also. america hates sunnis but america hates the shia more.
israel wont let america leave because iran will wipe it off the map.
the united states needs israel so it can start the war with iran.
israel will launch the first strike the middle of confusion after something drastic happens in iraq, that way the united states can "come to the rescue" and not be directly blamed when it strike iran.
thats how israel is operating right now in gaza due to the palestinian infighting.
keep an eye on fatah al islam in lebanon.
Like I said, that's cuz you don't know anything about me. You haven't been around long enough to see where i'm comin from on things.
A while ago I wouldn't have had any doubt. It would be a good way to keep the next administration locked into the neo-con plan. The ever weakening Bush administration now leaves some doubt in my mind. Democrat or not the War in Iraq will continue. Doesn't matter who gets elected. But most democrats will try and shy away from conflict with Iran, unless they get locked into something before they take office. There would also HAVE to be a draft to take on Iran. Not that anyone in office really cares, but that makes it harder for them to sholder, so something serious has to cause them to go to war. Like I've said previously something like a Gulf of Tonkin type action would be good enough.
Terrorism is a military tactic. It won't ever be eliminated. But if you go with the modified term for terrorism as the media uses it currently then of course the root causes can be eliminated. Economic equality would go a long way, even just closing the gap would do a lot to cut back on terrorist support. Creating options other than religon as a part of civil society for people to rely on for support would also go a long way to cut back on terrorist support. There can still be a place for religion in people's lives without it being the only thing that gets them through the day and the only reason they are still alive. You can stop giving terrorist a target by medeling in other countries own domestic situations and it is possible to balance non-intervention with an expanding world market.
the reason i'm asking you is because I don't know where you stand "I haven't been around long enough".
Again you have very good points that I agree with.
"Creating options other than religon as a part of civil society for people to rely on for support would also go a long way to cut back on terrorist support."
how is that possible? These are deep rooted over the generations, for those people to put aside their beliefs, is that possible?
Again you have very good points that I agree with.
"Creating options other than religon as a part of civil society for people to rely on for support would also go a long way to cut back on terrorist support."
how is that possible? These are deep rooted over the generations, for those people to put aside their beliefs, is that possible?
I'm just saying you wouldn't be surprised if you already knew. Your mis belief is due to the opinions of others and the impressions of a joke of an alias. Good that you're learning otherwise.
I'm not saying they need to put aside their beliefs. Islamism and the use of terror is a relatively new aspect to the Islamic religion. Definitely not deep rooted over generations.
There is room for belief, but when the mosque is your only resource for political assistance, economic assistance, education, social networking, etc that is when people are easily being led astray. Radical sects get their support because people have no other option other than what they offer. And they take the time and the effort to point out the causes of people's misery. They give them direction and a place to focus their rage and hope for something better (realistic or not).
You work to remove the people's problems (lack of sustainable economic systems, lack of educational outlets, oppressive governments, etc) and remove the U.S. as the main source or at least the main scapegoat for the problems and you'll do much to remove the roots of terrorism.
I'm not saying they need to put aside their beliefs. Islamism and the use of terror is a relatively new aspect to the Islamic religion. Definitely not deep rooted over generations.
There is room for belief, but when the mosque is your only resource for political assistance, economic assistance, education, social networking, etc that is when people are easily being led astray. Radical sects get their support because people have no other option other than what they offer. And they take the time and the effort to point out the causes of people's misery. They give them direction and a place to focus their rage and hope for something better (realistic or not).
You work to remove the people's problems (lack of sustainable economic systems, lack of educational outlets, oppressive governments, etc) and remove the U.S. as the main source or at least the main scapegoat for the problems and you'll do much to remove the roots of terrorism.
Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran
""Vice President Cheney helped to lead the side favoring a military strike," said former CIA official Riedel, "but I think they have come to the conclusion that a military strike has more downsides than upsides."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/bush_authorizes.html
like Coldblooded's first post this is getting funny how both sides are releasing "secret" information through the internet.
""Vice President Cheney helped to lead the side favoring a military strike," said former CIA official Riedel, "but I think they have come to the conclusion that a military strike has more downsides than upsides."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/bush_authorizes.html
like Coldblooded's first post this is getting funny how both sides are releasing "secret" information through the internet.
Is it really possible to rebuild infastructure and civil society, getting schools and hospitals in better condition, and developing an economy not totally reliant on oil impossible without stability? If these civil structures are to be rebuilt, especially with American or international funding, what Iraqi governmental functions can garauntee their protection?
I would contend that nearly all violence in Iraq currently has to do with the U.S. occupation. Obviously the presence of U.S. troops does nothing to quell the violence and by adding more we have only seen increases.
To go further just insuring 24/7 power to the country I bet would be enough to cut the remainder of the violence down to nearly nothing. The opposition relies on the ineffectiveness of the U.S. in creating a viable infrastructure, medical facilities, schools, etc. There isn’t really incentive for U.S. contractors to see any of that happen because they get paid anyway. The military doesn’t have the troops or the mandate to do it themselves.
Iraq for the Iraqis, built by the Iraqis.
To go further just insuring 24/7 power to the country I bet would be enough to cut the remainder of the violence down to nearly nothing. The opposition relies on the ineffectiveness of the U.S. in creating a viable infrastructure, medical facilities, schools, etc. There isn’t really incentive for U.S. contractors to see any of that happen because they get paid anyway. The military doesn’t have the troops or the mandate to do it themselves.
Iraq for the Iraqis, built by the Iraqis.
So are you implying that if the US withdrawls, nearly all violence in Iraq would cease, power, medical facilities, schools and other infastructure will be built successfully by Iraqi's and secured successfully from damage by the Iraqi government?
And also, I am guessing, the money for these facilities and improvements would come from the United States?
And also, I am guessing, the money for these facilities and improvements would come from the United States?
I don’t believe for a second that it would take the U.S. more than just a few months at most to insure 24/7 power to the entire country. The government as it stands, in the U.S., is not interested in making it happen. Corporate contractors have no incentive to see anything successful in Iraq, in fact the opposite is true, they stand to gain more from failure. If we want to see and end to all of this full immediate effort should be made by the U.S. government and military to re-build the infrastructure of Iraq.
American combat operations could end within a few months at most and a significant draw down of troops beginning at latest - 6 months.
The U.S. has an OBLIGATION to rebuild the Iraqi power grid, medical facilities, schools and greater infrastructure because it was the U.S. that destroyed it during Sadam and post Sadam.
Lack of infrastructure, viable economy, and the presence of U.S. troops are the cause of 99.99999% of the violence in Iraq. If significant improvements were made on those fronts the Iraqi people would be increasingly able to protect them selves, govern more effectively and justly, and improve their infrastructure and economy on their own.
American combat operations could end within a few months at most and a significant draw down of troops beginning at latest - 6 months.
The U.S. has an OBLIGATION to rebuild the Iraqi power grid, medical facilities, schools and greater infrastructure because it was the U.S. that destroyed it during Sadam and post Sadam.
Lack of infrastructure, viable economy, and the presence of U.S. troops are the cause of 99.99999% of the violence in Iraq. If significant improvements were made on those fronts the Iraqi people would be increasingly able to protect them selves, govern more effectively and justly, and improve their infrastructure and economy on their own.
Who’s going to hold them accountable?
The UN who’s weak and incapable of even fulfilling the basic premises of its own charter?
The congress that encouraged it, signed off on it, and cut the checks?
The American people that waved flags and kissed their sons and daughters as they sent them off to die while cursing and wishing death on the Iraqi people at the same time?
No one in the U.S. has the means or the moral position to hold the Bush administration accountable for the war in Iraq.
The UN who’s weak and incapable of even fulfilling the basic premises of its own charter?
The congress that encouraged it, signed off on it, and cut the checks?
The American people that waved flags and kissed their sons and daughters as they sent them off to die while cursing and wishing death on the Iraqi people at the same time?
No one in the U.S. has the means or the moral position to hold the Bush administration accountable for the war in Iraq.
exactly what I thought.
have you read this that just passed on may 9th 2007
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html
have you read this that just passed on may 9th 2007
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html