Civil War Looms in Iraq

Good Evening, LadyEagle:

By any chance, have you ever seen the documentary The Fog of War?

Wishing God's Best to you and yours,
BiR (actually in Atlanta)

 

Liberals can now be proud of the fact that they have so ably abedded the outside terrorists working to destablize Iraq by undermining our efforts and policies at every turn.

Congratulations.

 

Let's get it over with!

 

The Associated Press is reporting that civil war looms in Iraq as bombings tear across the country. Is this disaster really a result of a failed foreign policy or is it a deliberate plan to initiate a policy of ethnic cleansing that will finally allow the Globalists to capture and dominate Iraq as they never could before?

The agenda to maintain division and ethnic tension in Iraq can be seen as long term plan and the only way to finally capture and enslave a country that has historically thrown out its occupiers on every occasion.

In 1982, Oded Yinon an official from the Israeli Foreign Affairs office, wrote: "To dissolve Iraq is even more important for us than dissolving Syria. In the short term, it's Iraqi power that constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. The Iran-Iraq war tore Iraq apart and provoked its downfall. All manner of inter-Arab conflict help us and accelerate our goal of breaking up Iraq into small, diverse pieces."

Ethnic cleansing, maimed children and thousands of dead American soldiers are a small price to pay because for the Globalists the end always justifies the means and untold bloodshed and misery and bloodshed won't stand in their way.

Such a strategy, aimed at marginalizing the Sunni resistance, the group that always spearheads opposition to occupation in Iraq, has also been triumphed by such luminaries at Council on Foreign Relations member and New York Times editor Leslie Gelb.

So if the plan is to keep the different sects at each others' throats then who benefits from the chaos created by the endless bombings? It is a myth that Sunni and Shia factions in Iraq violently despise each other's very existence. Most co-exist peacefully and only fringe elements are interested in stoking tension, this according to Dahr Jamail agrees that it is inconceivable that Sunni or Shia factions would even consider attacking religious shrines like Samarra's Golden Mosque. Iran has blamed the US and Israel for the attack and former CIA analyst and presidential advisor Ray McGovern concurs that they would have had the motive. Previous examples shed light on the plausible identity of the perpetrators.

In September 2005, British SAS were caught attempting to stage a terror attack by disguising themselves as Arabs and attacking Iraqi police. The soldiers were arrested and taken to a nearby jail where they were confronted and interrogated by an Iraqi judge.

The initial demand from the puppet authorities that the soldiers be released was rejected by the Basra government. At that point tanks were sent in to 'rescue' the terrorists and the 'liberated' Iraqis started to riot, firebombing and pelting stones at the vehicles injuring British troops.

The only news outlet to ask any serious questions was Australian TV news which according to one viewer gave, "credibility to the 'conspiracy theorists' who have long claimed many terrorist acts in Iraq are, in fact, being initiated and carried out by US, British and Israeli forces."

The consequences of this strategy of tension are obviously hideous for Iraqis and their future generations but they also come home to roost for Westerners. As a result of the disaster in Iraq, the sullied reputation of the United States has collapsed and its government is increasingly seen as out of control and illegitimate. While on the surface this is true it is also by design because it opens the door for a Globalist form of world dictatorship to step in and 'rescue' the American people from its tyrannical government.

The end game is the complete destruction of US sovereignty.

Meet the new boss, worse than the old boss


SOURCE

 

White House Warned of Civil War in Iraq in 2003

NEW YORK In an article distributed by Knight Ridder’s Washington bureau late Tuesday, Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay report that U.S. intelligence agencies repeatedly warned the White House, starting in 2003, “that the insurgency in Iraq had deep local roots, was likely to worsen and could lead to civil war, according to former senior intelligence officials who helped craft the reports.”

Among the warnings was a National Intelligence Estimate completed in October 2003 that concluded the insurgency was fueled by local conditions - not foreign terrorists- and drew strength from deep grievances, including the presence of U.S. troops. Its existence had not been previously disclosed to a wide public audience.

“The reports received a cool reception from Bush administration policymakers at the White House and the office of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, according to the former officials, who discussed them publicly for the first time,” Landay and Strobel relate.

“President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld and others continued to describe the insurgency as a containable threat, posed mainly by former supporters of Saddam Hussein, criminals and non-Iraqi terrorists - even as the U.S. intelligence community was warning otherwise.”

Robert Hutchings, the chairman of the National Intelligence Council from 2003 to 2005, told the reporters that the October 2003 study was part of a "steady stream" of dozens of intelligence reports warning Bush and his top lieutenants that the insurgency was intensifying and expanding.

"Frankly, senior officials simply weren't ready to pay attention to analysis that didn't conform to their own optimistic scenarios," Hutchings said in a telephone interview.

 

That's just what Rush Limbaugh says.

Regards,
BiR

 

Rush, I hear, is frequently right. It drives liberals insane.

More insanity is provoked by the size of his audience. It may even include more liberals than conservatives. Maybe liberals are learning it's one of the few places they can get the truth.

NAAH...that couldn't be it. Most liberals aren't interested in the truth.

 

Apparently neither are neocons.

 

There is no truth except "globalism" is the number one enemy of mankind. Right , Ponch?

 

While our intelligence people were telling Bush that there was an impending civil war in Iraq, what was he telling us?

You got it.

Is it any surprise he's the least popular and least effective president since Carter?

 

There is no truth except "globalism" is the number one enemy of mankind. Right , Ponch? </font>[/QUOTE]I gotta go with the facts.

 

If he is "frequently right," then why does MediaMatters have such an extensive collection of articles about him?

Yeah, that's it............

Although you will undoubtedly not comply, please provide evidence for your assertion. That is quite an indictment, please show us how you have drawn that conclusion.

Regards anyway,
BiR

 

American casualties were down by 25% for 2005 compared to 2004.

That's good news, but...

We don't hear much about that, though.

 

And you mister, can be proud of the fact that you have never and will never lift one finger of sacrifice for this country. You people that sit on your couches, wave your flags, and watch TV as others march off to war and die or get wounded, make me sick as you make any veteran sick

Congratulations

 

war looms???

I think civil war was in the fabric from the beginning a lot of kindling and gas was cast on the flame.

THE LOOM SITS EMPTY

 

In 2004, 848 American troops were killed.
In 2005, only 846 died.
http://icasualties.org/oif/

Declined by about one-quarter of one percent.

The number of wounded declined by slightly more than 25%. Which is better than before, but thousands more than would have been wounded or killed if Dubya hadn't lied to us.

People are being killed pretty much as before.

For what?

Average monthly casualties is a bit less than 60.

 

Haven't been on in awhile. Same ol' Galatian.