Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   No comments
OpEdNews Op Eds

W picked Iraq to attack, because it was the easiest ---

By       Message winston     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 3 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags Group(s): , Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

even though it was not an "imminent threat" to the US.



Why?



His personal PNAC advisor, Cheney, possessed the hidden agenda of going after Iran after the permanent bases were established in Iraq.


Big bro 43 also has chosen to shaft his allies in the region, and last but not least, the people who he has befriended are not working to further the interests of the US. Now he has the unmitigated audacity to accuse Democrats of being weak on terrorism. He screwed up his beloved GWOT so badly-particularly the Iraq theatre of it, that anyone who agrees with his plans-and as of now better than 90% of GOP are voting against Democratic bills that would require a phased redeployment from Iraq, are insane as he is!


How has he shafted his allies? The article "The Secret War Against Iran" at http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html shows that "A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News. The group, called Jundullah, is made up of members of the Baluchi tribe and operates out of the Baluchistan province in Pakistan, just across the border from Iran....


U.S. officials say the U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or "finding" as well as congressional oversight....

The leader, Regi, claims to have personally executed some of the Iranians. "He used to fight with the Taliban. He's part drug smuggler, part Taliban, part Sunni activist," said Alexis Debat, a senior fellow on counterterrorism at the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant who recently met with Pakistani officials and tribal members."

We went to this war allegedly to bring democracy to Iraq. To do this we implemented "regime change" wresting power from Hussein and his Sunni Baathists. Rumsfeld said the insurgency was just these very same Sunni Baathist dead-enders. Now we are funding Sunni activists to deal with the Iranians. How can that make sense?

W's major ally in the region is the Sunni Saudi Arabia. They realize their interests are not being supported by W so they are bound to lash out at the US. Their King Abdullah has branded the U.S. as being an illegitimate foreign occupation in Iraq.

The article "Have We Switched Sides on the War on Terror?" at http://www.smirkingchimp.com/node/6557/print asks the question "Are we with the terrorists now?.. You know who else is known as Sunni activists? Al Qaeda." It gets confusing. W's insane idea of jumping into war in a region that hasn't known peace since the Ottoman Empire was bound to be messy. The article continues "There is a secret war going on behind the scenes between the Shiites and Sunnis in the Middle East....

And guess whose side we're on? If you guessed Shiites, try again. No, it appears we're with the "Sunni activists." Now, if you're thinking, wait a minute, "We're fighting the Sunnis in Iraq and Al Qaeda is Sunni." You're quite right. But here's what you didn't figure, "Saudi Arabia is Sunni and Iran is Shiite." So, who cares about Al Qaeda, let's go get those Iranians!"

Who do you think was behind this? The article continues "In case you were wondering, the ABC story explains that Jundullah was on Dick Cheney's agenda when he went to visit Pakistan... There is also the matter of the kidnapped Iranian diplomat that the New York Times uncovers. And the two other senior Iranian officials we intended to snatch in Kurdish territory. And the Mujahedeen-e Khalq, another terrorist group we might be sending over the border to attack Iran. Gee, I wonder why the Iranians might respond by capturing some Western troops."

CNN's Michael Ware recently has been getting pounded by the US MSM for speaking the truth about Iraq. He was asked about the constantly evolving strange set of allies in Iraq and he said "And whilst the surge is having an impact on certain types of violence and needs to be supported, nonetheless, the underlying dynamics behind this war, undercutting this war, are not being addressed, which is why we are now seeing America cutting deals with the Baathists while we are seeing the prime minister cutting deals with Muqtada al-Sadr, the militia leader.

On the same show Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations was asked about the King of Saudi Arabia's occupation remark and said "The Saudis know full well that they want us there, and they have been one of those who have been cheerleading against Congress and others who have been seen to somehow have been pulling out the rug and leading the United States to a hasty withdrawal. The Saudis know full well that could lead to not only a more intense civil war, but possibly a regional war which they would be, in some ways, in the thick of. They don't want us to leave. They want the United States to essentially try to leave Iraq in a somewhat more stable way. So clearly, the king and others are playing to the domestic and regional galleries. But it's unfortunate because it makes it that much more difficult for the United States to retain the domestic and international support that it wants."

Saudi Arabia contributed 15 of the 19 terrorists involved in 9/11 and it is still funding madrasahs which are ideological and political training grounds for hatred against the West. You can't believe what they say. They, as all of the countries in the region, are looking out for themselves, the US be damned.

Ware to the same topic responded "Yes, well, essentially Saudi Arabia, like many of America's important Arab allies, feel that they've been completely sold short and left in the lurch by Washington as a result of the invasion of Iraq and, more importantly, the construction of the particular type of state that we see. Here are America's friends in the region sitting back, watching America bring this new system into one of its neighbors, and they see this new system called democracy deliver power into the hands of those America's allies see as the greatest threat to the region: Iran and Iran's friends and allies and proxies in Iraq. They see America emboldening everybody's enemy and they've been scratching their heads about it. They screamed about it before the invasion. They've been screaming about it ever since, so there is support for the Sunnis here. At the moment, it's covert. At some point, it's going to have to step up."

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon



Go To Commenting
/* The Petition Site */
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Bush planned the economic crisis for partisan GOP gain.

Why did we all hate Palin?

Why is Obama protecting 43?

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

What happens to US credibility if Spain finds them guilty and we don't?

Bush, with criminal intent, planned the economic crisis for partisan GOP gain.