New Iraqi Strategy

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Yes. From your little link: “The report says “no American government ? Democrat or Republican ? will abandon Israel,” despite Syria’s and Iran’s wishes to see the Jewish nation wiped from existence.” There never will be peace in the middle east until nations give up the ridiculous demand that other nations be entirely wiped out of existence. [/quote]

Iran’s president never said they wanted “Israel wiped off the map”.

Israel was practically founded on terrorism - they even had a former prime minister, Menachem Begin who was a leader of a terrorist organization.

Israel has illegally occupied Palestinian territory since 1967 and has built a PERMANENT giant wall on occupied land. The Arab anger comes from what Israel is doing to those Palestinians in the occupied territory.

Israel was established as a state in the first place by expelling Palestinians in order to create a Jewish only state.

That’s a misconception, Iraq was NEVER about BAD intelligence or mismanagement. They just lied.

But you can hear it FIRSTHAND from Ret Lt Col Karen Kwiatkowski - she worked in the neocon wing of the Pentagon when the intelligence was being "fixed "around the the policy - even made out of “whole cloth” as she puts it.
http://video.csupomona.edu/HotTalk/KarenKwiatkowski-245.asx

Very eye opening interview.

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Israel has illegally occupied Palestinian territory since 1967 and has built a PERMANENT giant wall on occupied land. The Arab anger comes from what Israel is doing to those Palestinians in the occupied territory.
[/quote]

Most (95%) of the Security Barrier (a.k.a.“PERMANENT giant wall”) is planned to be Multi-layered Fence system , not Stone Wall pictured in all the photos.

Given the dislike many Arabs have for Palestinians, I doubt their anger comes mostly from what Israel is doing to Palestinians.

And what exactly would you have JTF? The BRITISH expelled the Palestinians and chose to give the land to the Israelis. It WAS a mistake. There were much better ways they could’ve handled things. What are the Israelis supposed to do now?

They’ve been there for 50+ years. Where would you have them live? In past failed peace efforts, they’ve offered to give up 90% of the legitimately disputed lands. America is pro-Israel for a good reason. Whatever inequities were done in the past, Palestinians now make unreasonable demands. America recognizes this.

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
That’s a misconception, Iraq was NEVER about BAD intelligence or mismanagement. They just lied.

But you can hear it FIRSTHAND from Ret Lt Col Karen Kwiatkowski - she worked in the neocon wing of the Pentagon when the intelligence was being "fixed "around the the policy - even made out of “whole cloth” as she puts it.
http://video.csupomona.edu/HotTalk/KarenKwiatkowski-245.asx

Very eye opening interview.
[/quote]

If this is true, I’m not surprised at all.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
They’ve been there for 50+ years. Where would you have them live? In past failed peace efforts, they’ve offered to give up 90% of the legitimately disputed lands. America is pro-Israel for a good reason. Whatever inequities were done in the past, Palestinians now make unreasonable demands. America recognizes this. [/quote]

Yes, because America is such a “humanitarian nation” on the world stage.

The government wants to “help” other struggling nations.

I call bullshit.

What about other happenings? Like the constant fighting in Congo? With the kid soldiers?

Or what about the North Korean dictatorship starving its own citizens? Why didn’t they do anything about that?

There has to be a Strategic reason for supporting Israel… Perhaps because it gives America a reason to move into the Middle East?

Cost to U.S. Taxpayers of U.S.
Aid to Israel (since 1949)

Grand Total
$84,854,827,200

Interest Costs Borne by U.S.
$49,936,680,000

Total Cost to U.S. Taxpayers
$134,791,507,200

Total Taxpayer Cost per Israeli
$23,240

This was the total in '97. I wonder how much higher it is now.

Hedo,

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070123/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_us

Uh, oh.

JeffR

storey,

I’d appreciate a pm with some evidence. Otherwise, I’m sorry, I don’t believe you.

Oh, I’m a hawk about Iraq. However, in all modesty, I’m not a chicken.

JeffR

LOL! Good one with the Iran story.

Its ironic how the US is suddenly so worried about what the UN thinks and is willing to “enforce” it.

[quote]brucevangeorge wrote:
LOL! Good one with the Iran story.

Its ironic how the US is suddenly so worried about what the UN thinks and is willing to “enforce” it.[/quote]

Ironic?

Seems to happen quite often: See 2003 in Iraq.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Hedo,

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070123/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_us

Uh, oh.

JeffR[/quote]

It’s going to happen sooner or later.

[quote]hedo wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Hedo,

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070123/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_us

Uh, oh.

JeffR

It’s going to happen sooner or later.
[/quote]

Hedo:

Do you think there will be any dems on this site who will publically thank the Iraqi soldier who is helping in the iranian invasion? Think they’ll be grateful to have bases inside Iraq from which to launch a lightning strike?

I’ll bet they won’t.

JeffR

Update: From cNN.

www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/24/Iraq.main/index.html

Closing streets, taking the battle to the enemy, and capturing insurgents.

JeffR

P.S. Aren’t you dems proud of me for linking one of your mouthpieces?

More recent news:

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070124/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_clashes

30 militants killed.

Sounds like they are hitting the pockets much harder.

JeffR

[quote]hedo wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Hedo,

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070123/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_us

Uh, oh.

JeffR

It’s going to happen sooner or later.
[/quote]

You know this whole Middle east takeover thing has a strange DejaVu feeling to it.

Kind of like I’ve seen it in a book somwhere…

Nazi Germany attempting to take over Europe anyone?

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
And what exactly would you have JTF? The BRITISH expelled the Palestinians and chose to give the land to the Israelis. It WAS a mistake. There were much better ways they could’ve handled things. What are the Israelis supposed to do now?

They’ve been there for 50+ years. Where would you have them live? In past failed peace efforts, they’ve offered to give up 90% of the legitimately disputed lands. America is pro-Israel for a good reason. Whatever inequities were done in the past, Palestinians now make unreasonable demands. America recognizes this. [/quote]

Being that the entire premise for the establishment of Israel is that God promised the land to the Jews - it would be pretty hard to come up with any “reality” based solution.

For people so “concerned” about the survival of the Jewish race, I personally couldn’t think of a more stupid solution than to gather them all up into one small, convenient spot, surrounded by a few billion of their mortal enemies.

But I digress to a great passage from “Tom Sawyer Abroad” by Mark Twain:

[i]“Huck Finn, do you mean to tell me you don’t know what a crusade is?”

“No,” says I, "I don’t.

“A crusade is a war to recover the Holy Land from the paynim.”

“Which Holy Land?”

“Why, THE Holy Land – there ain’t but one.”

“What do we want of it?”

“Why, can’t you understand? It’s in the hands of the paynim, and it’s our duty to take it away from them.”

“How did we come to let them git hold of it?”

“We didn’t come to let them git hold of it. They always had it.”

“Why, Tom, then it must belong to them, don’t it?”

“Why of course it does. Who said it didn’t?”

I studied over it, but couldn’t seem to git at the right of it, no way. I says: “It’s too many for me, Tom Sawyer. If I had a farm and it was mine, and another person wanted it, would it be right for him to --”

“Oh, shucks! you don’t know enough to come in when it rains, Huck Finn. It ain’t a farm, it’s entirely different. You see, it’s like this. They own the land, just the mere land, and that’s all they DO own; but it was our folks, our Jews and Christians, that made it holy, and so they haven’t any business to be there defiling it. It’s a shame, and we ought not to stand it a minute. We ought to march against them and take it away from them.”

“Why, it does seem to me it’s the most mixed-up thing I ever see! Now, if I had a farm and another person --”

“Don’t I tell you it hasn’t got anything to do with farming? Farming is business, just common low-down business: that’s all it is, it’s all you can say for it; but this is higher, this is religious, and totally different.”

“Religious to go and take the land away from people that owns it?”

“Certainly; it’s always been considered so.” [/i]

This is another change in strategy that needed to happen.

Sound like we are starting to name and confront all the enemies in Iraq.

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070126/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iran

This is another HUGE change that I think is necessary.

JeffR

While not part of the increase in troops in Baghdad, I think today’s developments deserve recognition.

www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/28/iraq.main/index.html

Notice the Iraqi’s and the U.S. working together.

Also notice the slime of humanity targeting girls taking midterms.

Does anyone wonder when I smile after hearing that more terrorists are killed?

JeffR

I wanted to expand on yesterday’s post.

Here is an update from a different source. I’m going to highlight some of the more important aspects.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070129/D8MUVL8G0.html

Note the Iraqi’s doing most of the fighting. Note the Shiite leader speaking against retaliation. Note the foreign fighters killed. Note mortar shells made in iran.

Finally, note how the shiite leader was calling the Sunni’s our “brothers.”

JeffR

Breaking: Double the Troops in “Surge”
Defense Tech

President Bush and his new military chiefs have been saying for nearly a month that they would “surge” an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq, in a last, grand push to quell the violence in Baghdad and in Anbar Province. But a new study by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says the real troop increase could be as high as 48,000 – more than double the number the President initially said.

That’s because the combat units that President Bush wants to send into hostile areas need to be backed up by support troops, “including personnel to staff headquarters, serve as military police, and provide communications, contracting, engineering, intelligence, medical, and other services,” the CBO notes…

According to the study, the costs for the “surge” would also be dramatically different than the President has said. The White House estimated a troop escalation would require about $5.6 billion in additional funding for the rest of fiscal year 2007. Of that, about $3.2 billion was supposed to go to the Army and Marines for their escalated activity.

But that figure appears to have been grossly underestimated. The CBO now believes “that costs would range from $9 billion to $13 billion for a four-month deployment and from $20 billion to $27 billion for a 12-month deployment.” There’s a more detailed analysis of the numbers on pages 3 and 4 of the study, which was sent to House Budget Chairman John Spratt today…
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003239.html

muqtada al-sadr FLEES IRAQ!!!

He’s in iran!!!

Huge news. Sounds like Maliki is keeping his word.

Sorry,dems/Anti-Americans.

With him being given refuge there, along with weapons from iran being found daily, this is heating up.

JeffR