It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iraq, a master stroke of military strategy

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   
In my last post I told of how US planning at home is
continuing along a course that is designed to stop
any Rogue state from developing nuclear capability
that is deemed to be a threat to the US. The theme
of this post is just how and why this present course
was determined to be necessary.

If you think back to shortly after we went to
war in Afghanistan and you also have a good memory
you may remember that Nuclear weapons and terrorists
made the news heavily for a few weeks and was a great
fear at the time. There was much talk in the news (TV,
magazines etc) about Al Qaeda having obtained suit case
bombs from Russia. In addition to this Stratfor received
much in the way of intel and this was often reported on
by analyst George Friedman, and much of this intel
found it's way into George's book, "America's Secret
War". According to these sources and also other
sources I have recounted some of the activity in the
following summary of events of those many sources.
For those wanting to find these in the most complete
single source, I recommend Friedman's book. Although
I have a small part of it summarized here, its possible
that I have misunderstood things at time and on top of
that George's account is much better and in greater
detail than I have given here.

In addition to US sources telling of rumors that Al
Qaeda had obtained nuclear weapons, in November 2001 it was
reported in the Pakistan press that Al Qaeda had
nuclear weapons. After Tora Bora it was reported that
some Al Qaeda people showed up in Iran. This inspired a
fear that Iran might possibly give Al Qaeda nuclear
weapons. Similarly, it was feared that Pakistan might
give Al Qaeda a nuclear bomb, since the Pakistani
military had many Taliban supporters and Al Qaeda
sympathizers. In late October of 2001 the CIA received
reports from a Russian source that Al Qaeda may have
obtained two 10 kiloton suitcase bombs. In this backdrop
the scene at the time was very concerned about nuclear
weapons. This actually was that major point in the war
that shaped the focus of the US to go beyond just Al Qaeda.
Nuclear weapons had become a very major concern.

Friedman, noted for example that, in December of 2001
General Hameed Gul of the Pakistani ISI (military
intelligence) gave in a newspaper interview the following
quote, "No one can tell us how to run our nuclear
facilities and nuclear programs. The Taliban will always
remain in Afghanistan, and Pakistan will always support
them."

If you read this above and extract the full meaning,
Pakistan appeared to be saying that they were going to
give nuclear weapons to the Taliban, Al Qaeda's model
government of Afghanistan. This had to be taken seriously
because Pakistan actually had the bomb.

This put a whole new complexion on the war against
Al Qaeda. This situation suddenly made priority
number one for the US to lock down nuclear weapons.
Remember, at this time, the US had done no more
than go after Al Qaeda for their attack on the US.
They had only put a handful of military personnel into
Afghanistan and had relied on the Northern Alliance
for the most part in order to get these Al Qaeda people
who were attacking us. Even in this subdued response
Al Qaeda and its supporters (Pakistan) were talking of
nuclear attacks on the US.

So much for using restraint, if they wanted to play
hard ball they had picked on the wrong country. According
to Friedman, a top US intelligence officer went to Pakistan
in December to confront Musharraf with evidence that Gul
and nuclear scientists were collaborating with Al Qaeda.
The Pakistanis upon interview convinced the US that they
were not cooperating with Al Qaeda, but they said that
Al Qaeda was believed to have Russian suit case bombs and
even provided the serial numbers of them and the date of
manufacture, October 1988. The serial numbers did not
check out with Russian sources, and also no good story was
given as to why the Pakistanis had not confiscated the
weapons if in fact they had access close enough to get the
information. I speculate that the story was probably born
out of an effort to give cause to the Americans to hesitate
or hold back on its anti Al Qaeda efforts. This intensifying
nightmare was being born at about the same time that
Tora Bora fighting ended. A number of advanced radiation
detectors were deployed around key spots in the US. These
are state of the art machines, more advanced than just
Geiger counters. On December 20, 2001 Bush made the following
comments at a press conference.

"Today I'm announcing two more strikes against
the financing of terror. We know that Al Qaeda would like
to obtain nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and
we know that often times they do not act alone. Al Qaeda
has international supporters,..............Last year
a former official of the Pakistani atomic energy commission
set up an organization known as UTN. UTN claims to serve
the hungry and needy of Afghanistan, but it was UTN that
provided information about nuclear weapons to Al Qaeda."

Bush went directly after Gul and the nuclear scientists
allied with him. Also during this time a crisis had surfaced
between India and Pakistan. I recall this from the news
but Friedman gives details of how this was important also.
If you recall some Pakistanis had made an attack on Indian
Parliament. Because of this India was threatening invasion
and nuclear war. Now Musharraf was being squeezed on two
sides. The US was ready to eat his lunch and so was India.
The US told Musharraf that they could intervene and help
to smooth things over with the Indians but the price would
be the arrest of the terrorists that bombed Indian parliament
and to go after ISI's Islamist faction. Musharraf being between
a rock and a hard place followed the advice.

As time went on documents were obtained in a raid on
Mullah Omar's compound in Kandahar and carefully analyzed.
They showed links and hints of nuclear collaboration
between Al Qaeda and ISI. Things were not going well. You
had the Pakistani situation. Reports of Al Qaeda visiting Iran
after Tora Bora, gave concern that Iran may be switching positions.
Iran had sided with the US in Afghanistan, by lending it the
Shiite Army in western Afghanistan which helped along with the
Northern Alliance Army from the north.

It was at this point that the US expanded its war on terror
to include a complete non tolerance for existence of nuclear
weapons that could fall into terrorist hands.

Among the various countries that had potential for possibly
supplying nukes, you had these suspects, Iran, North
Korea, and Iraq. This was the so called axis of evil. Plans
were also started for locating and attacking any nuclear
locations that were determined to be in the category of being
under a nation that the US believed to be possible suppliers.
At this point the Bush team made public that in an extreme
case the US was prepared to make preemptive nuclear strike
on any unsecured nuclear site if that was the only way to
destroy it and if it was determined to be a threat to the US.
The US started plans for destroying sites in various places
like Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Pakistan. Pakistan was thought
to be a key country because it was believed to have the most
advanced capability and also close ties to Al Qaeda. Others
for various reasons that I won't go into were put on the
back burner for now. The US planning was done by mid December
and a declassified version was released January 10 which contained
no mention of the new first-use doctrine, but it did contain
a request for funding in preparation for "future underground
nuclear bomb tests" if needed. This weapon was also referred
to in my last post which contained some Senate wrangling concerning
this program and it's funding. The development of a new
underground detonating nuke was not an especially big deal.
The big deal was that the US was telling countries like
Pakistan as early as December 2001 that it would not tolerate
any existence of a nuclear facility that was not under
clear control. What the US was insisting on was placing US
observers on site to carry out constant inventory of nukes
and any nuclear material present. The alternative to Pakistan
accepting this was the attack and destruction of their nuclear
facilities. Bush was serious. In March US personnel
deployed along with scientists from NEST (nuclear types)
into Pakistan's nuclear reactors to keep up this intel
effort. The Pakistani nukes were locked down as phase one
of the Bush program to take out any rogue state nuclear
capabilities.

Phase 2 would come to be Iraq and this happened when Saddam
refused UN weapons inspector Hans Blix interview of his nuclear
scientists. Since no sites were known as to possible Iraqi
nuclear development sites, the answer was removal of the man
who had for 10 years managed to evade an inspection into what
Iraq's nuclear program was. At this point, Saddam found that
Bush was totally serious.

Phase 3 and 4 could possibly be Iran and North Korea, and
North Korea, in fact may have been taken care of already,
if the news from about Oct 2 that North Korea has given
up its nuclear program is true.

Iran at some point, I presume will become the focus of
intense attention. At present the US has a full plate
with trying to stabilize Iraq, and unlike Al Qaeda, the
US would rather not open more battles at one time if they
can be avoided or postponed until more opportune. The present
intel on Iran, probably indicates that this is not something
that has to be handled immediately. Also it is quite likely
that Iran will cooperate at some point, when faced with
the decision, cooperate or lose you nuclear facilities
entirely. If they truly want just peaceful nuclear power
there will be no reason to not allow inspectors observation
of the site. The refusal of inspectors will indicate
that Iran is wanting to manufacture much more enriched
uranium than what is needed for nuclear power.
The fact that they are using Russian technology
also suggest they want secrecy instead of the best
peace time nuclear technology. Russian nuclear programs
of littered with nuclear accidents and catastrophes as
demonstrated in Chernobyl and the many nuclear accidents
they had with their submarine program. The US on the
other hand has developed the safest nuclear technology
in the world, even being able to design nuclear reactors
for power generation that do not require cooling water.


[edit on 15-11-2005 by MajorCee]




posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 10:31 AM
link   
*crunch crunch crunch. pause*

Oh, sorry, didn't mean to interrupt.

By all means, continue.


I can't wait 'till you get to the part where Condoleezza Rice becomes the first woman and African American to be president.


"My turn Georgie!" *Smiles and bumps to the right after next election.*

She understands international relations. She's straight-forward, can take responsibility for her administration's actions (9/11 commission hearing), and she's got my vote.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
She understands international relations. She's straight-forward, can take responsibility for her administration's actions (9/11 commission hearing), and she's got my vote.


God help us. This is the woman who lied to the world when she said:



I don't think anybody could have predicted that... they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by uknumpty
God help us. This is the woman who lied to the world when she said:



I don't think anybody could have predicted that... they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile


Maybe I'm not as politically educated as I thought. Well, in fact MajorCee has proven this point already. Anyhow, help me out here. That seems like an accurate statement, what part isn't true? The more background the better.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   
That scenario was the premise of a 1994 Tom Clancy bestseller and featured in an episode of the X-Files spin off "The Lone Gunman". In fact the latter which screened nationally in the US had a shadow government conspiracy using remote controlled airplanes flying into the WTC towers!

The idea was to blame it on a foreign body and initiate a war, thus kickstarting the flagging arms race which had declined since the demise of the cold war.

The danger of "hijacked aircraft as missiles" had also been alluded to in several separate U.S. intelligence and national security reports, which Rice read or should have read.

Finally in late October 2000 (more than ten months prior to 9/11), a military exercise was conducted which consisted in establishing the scenario of a simulated passenger plane crashing into the Pentagon.

The Defense Protective Services Police and the Pentagon's Command Emergency Response Team coordinated the exercise. According to a detailed report by Dennis Ryan of Fort Myer Military Community's Pentagram, "the Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise, as the crash was called, was just one of several scenarios that emergency response teams were exposed to on Oct. 24-26 [2000]"

So to suggest nobody had an idea this was possible is an outright lie.

A summary of this and other knowledge (like Project Bojinka) can be found at:
www.prisonplanet.com...

[edit on 15-11-2005 by uknumpty]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   
The military runs many, many scenarios (the article you linked says they were training for an accident, not an attack by hijackers). Many of which seem implausible to keep service personnel adapting, thinking, etc. To say, "see? We exercised this scenario in our hundreds of exercises and this one happened!" isn't really a fair assessment. In an airfoce auxilary, I can say that there were all kinds of "crazy" exercises we'd run. If any one of them actually happened, we'd be surprised, but a little more prepared than if we hadn't. To my knowledge, this is the first time there was a hijacking for the purpose of smashing the plane into a building. The method of operations usually was to land the plane in hostile territory and demand money. The U.S. stopped playing this game a decade and a half ago, which seems to be the reason for more drastic measures. I'm not a military strategist, white house analyst, or involved in government in any way, so please take this as a layperson's perspective who watches and listens to world events.

Also, as Ms. Rice testified to, the White House receives many, many threats of attack. It takes time to figure out which ones are serious and which ones have merit and what action needs to be taken. The report you'd linked confirmed there just was not enough time for that. What's also interested is all the unquotable sources on the page, like the person who said those buildings wouldn't be there in a week.

Asking anyone to be the "Miss Cleo" of world events is not only impractical, it's also absurd as we all recall what happend to her.:


I'm not convinced Condoleezza reads Tom Clancy novels. I'm less convinced that if she did, that she'd consider it a world fact-book or a strategy guide for terrorist activities. I play World of Warcraft, does that mean I should start training in 2 handed axes in case an army of orcish horde tries to invade my homeland?



If you wanted to make the case that the terrorists read the book and got the idea from it, I think you'd be on to something. Until then, I've yet to hear substantial evidence that Condoleezza or anyone had foresight to prevent this event from occurring. If they had, do you not think the 9/11 commission would have found someone guilty or negligent?
We're a country that demands blood whether it's anyone's fault or not.


[edit on 15-11-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by uknumpty
That scenario was the premise of a 1994 Tom Clancy bestseller and featured in an episode of the X-Files spin off "The Lone Gunman". In fact the latter which screened nationally in the US had a shadow government conspiracy using remote controlled airplanes flying into the WTC towers!


Don't forget Oplan Bojinka.


The term can refer to the "airline bombing plot" alone, or that combined with the "Pope assassination plot" and the "CIA plane crash plot". The first refers to a plot to destroy 11 airliners on January 21 and 22, 1995, the second refers to a plan to kill Pope John Paul II on January 15, 1995, and the third refers a plan to crash a plane into the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia and other buildings. Operation Bojinka was prevented on January 6 and 7, 1995, but some lessons learned were apparently used by the planners of the September 11 attacks. This article will cover all three plans.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   
I have read your post with great interest. Perhaps if I hadnt lived through the outset of the war I would believe all of the conclusions as indeed many of them are valid.

But your reveiw is written from hindsight and not foresight. The premise for us going to Iraq was the elimination of Weapons of mass destruction. Have we not forgotten about the nuclear papers debacle as well as the UN inspectors initially saying that there were no weapons?

Have we not forgotten Bushes quote about Hussein having a hit out on his father?

You see, much history can be rewritten after the fact talking about what a brilliant stroke of genius the actions were, but truth be told, it was a lie that took us there.

Now before you or anyone else decide to flame me, think about this. I indeed knew that Hussein needed to go. Thats it. He needed to go. Not build US bases in Iraq. Not put US businesses in Iraq. We should not be about taking over countries and installing new governments.

America has shame on her over the prison there as well as Gitmo. And as an American, I do not feel that that war warrants those actions. I do however feel that necessary caution needs to be taken in terms of protecting citizens. Gitmo is not part of that. Torture....Please. How non noble.

America, like Russia, is attempting to rewrite history. We are rewrting a lie with a lie. While the result of a free Iraq and the progressive deterioration of terrorism on a whole may be on a down turn, I doubt that Iraq had anything to do with that as terrorism reared its head in Britain, as well as Asia. Thats an oversimplification of terrorism on whole as the cells operate independently. There is no master controller. Thats why they are so difficult to locate.

It has been a WORLD effort, not GWs work. Dont fix a lie, with a hindsight analysis of a false premise. That to me is laughable.

What GW did do is take the heat for a hard choice, reason valid or not, for an action that was difficult for America to swallow. Myself included. His efforts in the midde east with Israel and Palestine are valiant and have yielded a long sought after result. But please....lets not live a lie.

America would have taken this much better had the truth been told.

Peace

[edit on 15-11-2005 by HIFIGUY]

[edit on 15-11-2005 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
Don't forget Oplan Bojinka.


Do you have any other sources besides an editable encyclopedia? I've been thinking of going into there and correcting some of the history myself, but who has the time?

HIFIGUY! Great to see ya! Send me U2U sometime friend


[edit on 15-11-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Do you have any other sources besides an editable encyclopedia? I've been thinking of going into there and correcting some of the history myself, but who has the time?


There is a cool thing called Google.
You type in a word, and a bunch of results come back relating to what you typed in. But for my news, I prefer FOXNEWS. It's fair, balanced, and sticks up for the little guy!



Mohammed said he had worked in 1994 and 1995 in the Philippines with Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad and Wali Khan Amin Shah on the foiled Bojinka plot to blow up 12 Western airliners simultaneously in Asia.

After Yousef and Murad were captured, Mohammed began to devise a new plot that focused on hijackings on U.S. soil.
FOXNEWS



An Islamic terrorist conspiracy was uncovered in 1996 in the Philippines to hijack a dozen airplanes and fly them into CIA headquarters and other buildings. Among the discoveries was a plot for a "bojinka" – a big bang. The information was discovered on a computer and noted in the 1997 trial of Ramzi Yousef, one of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers.
FOXNEWS




Mohammed worked with Ramzi Yousef, now in prison for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and two others in the Philippines on a number of plots, collectively termed "Project Bojinka." One plan including crashing a hijacked airplane into CIA headquarters outside of Washington. Of the four participants in Project Bojinka, only Mohammed remains free.
FOXNEWS



EDIT:


Originally posted by saint4God
If they had, do you not think the 9/11 commission would have found someone guilty or negligent?
We're a country that demands blood whether it's anyone's fault or not.


[edit on 15-11-2005 by saint4God]


I feel ya, dog! You'd hope that government officials would do what's best for the country, and not each other, but sadly I'm discovering that it's not always the case.

[edit on 15-11-2005 by curme]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
There is a cool thing called Google.
You type in a word, and a bunch of results come back relating to what you typed in. But for my news, I prefer FOXNEWS. It's fair, balanced, and sticks up for the little guy!


Sorry, I didn't mean to be a punk about it, but want to see what you see in order to make a determination. If I did my own search, it would be with "my bias" or so it would be claimed. I think FOX News is much more credible than Wiki, thanks.


Originally posted by curme
Mohammed said he had worked in 1994 and 1995 in the Philippines with Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad and Wali Khan Amin Shah on the foiled Bojinka plot to blow up 12 Western airliners simultaneously in Asia.


1994 & 1995...Asia. Plot, planning and so forth. Yeah, it's realy hard to take any action (especially when it was 6+ year old info) without any specifics whatsoever. If I told someone I was a superhero, I would hope they would ask "how exactly are you a superhero?" before even being considered a credible source.


Originally posted by curme
I feel ya, dog! You'd hope that government officials would do what's best for the country, and not each other, but sadly I'm discovering that it's not always the case.


I know of many, many democrats who would take any foothold if there were one.

Now this is epic...

According to FOX News:

Indeed, Fox News has reported many examples of "missed leads" that the Bush administration was given prior to Sept. 11.

Among those examples:

– The Italian government shared "general" information of possible attacks in March 2001 based on bugs in apartments in Milan.


March...which is not to say September, yes? I'm sure those talking bugs told beekeepers to free their hostages or else.


Originally posted by curme
– An Iranian in custody in New York City told local police last May of a plot to attack the World Trade Center.


May. Which is not to say September. My challenge is to count the number of people here on ATS who say the world is going to end by a specific date and see how many are correct.


Originally posted by curme
– German intelligence alerted the Central Intelligence Agency, Britain's MI-6 intelligence service, Israel's Mossad in June 2001 that Middle Eastern terrorists were training for hijackings and targeting American and Israeli interests.


A group in the middle-east is planning a terrorist activity? You don't say. June, which is not to say September. Hijacking what? And then doing what?

How obvious it was that hijackers were going to take two planes and run them into the World Trade Center on September 11th! How did we possibly miss it given this information?! FOX News is my hero. We should elect them president
. If "Fox News has reported many examples of "missed leads" that the Bush administration was given prior to Sept. 11" THEN WHY DIDN'T THEY SAY SOMETHING! 9/11 is therefore all FOX's fault.




[edit on 15-11-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Saint4God,

Rice says no one ever envisaged using airplanes as missiles. The fact that many people including disaster emergency planners at the Pentagon did means she is either a liar or too imcompetent to warrant further "service".

Don't forget that on the morning of 9/11 the Joint Chiefs of Staff were overseeing Operation Vigilant Warrior. From wikipedia:


However it is known that another war game being conducted at the same time of the attacks was entitled Amalgam/Vigilant[47] Warrior,[48] which as of 1996, is an exercise held once every fall, that deals with tracking unknown aircraft which have incorrectly filed their flight plans or wandered off course, and then escalates to terrorist aircraft attacks and large-scale bomber strike missions. It is a CINCNORAD-sponsored, CJCS- approved and -funded, large-scale live-fly exercise, performed in real-time, and normally involving two or more NORAD regions.[49] Over 40 minutes after the WTC had been hit and over an hour after the first plane was confirmed hijacked, when asked about fighter response, acting CJCS Richard Myers replied: "Not a pretty picture…We're in the middle of Vigilant Warrior, a NORAD exercise, but … Otis has launched two birds towards New York."[50] The first jets to defend New York City on September 11th -- the 158th Fighter Wing of the Vermont Air National Guard, also known as the Green Mountain Boys -- were a regular participant in the Amalgam/Vigilant Warrior exercise, and a group that -- under regular circumstances -- was kept on alert 24 hours a day and was required to have its aircraft airborne within five minutes after receiving the call to scramble.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by uknumpty
Saint4God,

Rice says no one ever envisaged using airplanes as missiles. The fact that many people including disaster emergency planners at the Pentagon did means she is either a liar or too imcompetent to warrant further "service".


Then what is she still doing in there? It makes one conclude that the reports are either liars (actually, probably just not evident, relevant, etc.) or the 9/11 commission is too incompetent to warrant further "service".


Originally posted by uknumpty
Don't forget that on the morning of 9/11 the Joint Chiefs of Staff were overseeing Operation Vigilant Warrior. From wikipedia:


Already discussed problems with Wiki, see above. Also there's an entire thread as to why it should never be used as a viable source of information.

If you deny ignorance...then don't Wiki

[edit on 15-11-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:24 AM
link   
Rice is still there because the corrupt and criminal Bush adminstration is still there!
They won't get rid of one of their own. Christ, Bush even described the indicted Scooty Libby as a good public servant!

As for wikipedia, it was the easiest source of the information I wanted to post. If you want to continue to deny its existence go ahead but here's another look at Operation Vigilant Warrior from the much respected www.fromthewilderness.com:


We know multiple Air Force war games were running on the morning of 9/11, as documented extensively in the mainstream press. What Crossing the Rubicon has documented conclusively is that there was a live-fly drill taking place on 9/11 titled Vigilant Warrior. Richard Clarke disclosed the name of this drill on page 4 of his book, but it was Major Don Arias of NORAD who confirmed the definition of the title "Warrior" to Mike Ruppert via email.

Warrior = JCS/HQ NORAD sponsored FTX, or field training exercise (live-fly).

That means that the Vigilant Warrior drill conducted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff involved at least one real commercial aircraft in the skies, intended to simulate exactly the kind of airliner hijack emergency presented on 9/11.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   
The Bush administration has done an outstanding job
on this war, as demonstrated by all the information
presented. On the other hand opposition for this
excellent strategy was championed by John Kerry in
his presidential bid during the campaign. One of
Kerry's main points was that Bush should have sent
a large army into Afghanistan instead of the strategy
that was used which was actually Tommy Frank's plan.
Kerry's charge that blamed Bush for this plan also
stole credit from Franks for his excellent plan
both in Afghanistan and Iraq. Frank's plan was
terrific as all the facts have shown. Kerry's "plan"
was nothing more than Monday morning quarterbacking.
Actual military experience proved Kerry's plan was
total complete BS, because the US could not field a
large force in the time span that "Kerry's plan"
called for.

Kerry also made the charge that "Bush attacked
Iraq for no reason". This is another Kerry charge
that was totally destroyed with back up information
on this thread. Kerry's charge was given large
coverage on Al Jazeera television even though it
was shown to be at least incorrect if not an outright
lie. This propaganda of a leading Presidential
candidate telling the Islamic world that the US
had attacked Iraq for no reason was very effective
propaganda for recruiting jihadists to go to Iraq
and kill Americans.

This thread is about the strategy in Iraq. If you
want to talk about the crimes and corruptness of
the Bush administration, why not start up another
thread, instead of doing your best to hijack this
one. Some factors of politics necessarily enter
into this subject. One of those factors is how
Kerry has been a source for aid and comfort to
the jihadists, because of his lies that get
broadcast on Al Jazeera TV. His corruptness
that put his political gain on a higher priority
than the success of the US effort in Iraq is a
perfect example of how a complete jerk can work
against American efforts and even get our troops
killed by people who have joined the effort against
the US because of encouragemnent given by this total
idiot of a politician, John Kerry.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by uknumpty
Rice is still there because the corrupt and criminal Bush adminstration is still there!
They won't get rid of one of their own. Christ, Bush even described the indicted Scooty Libby as a good public servant!


Are you saying the 9/11 commission was composed completely of Bush-supporting Republicans?


Originally posted by uknumpty
As for wikipedia, it was the easiest source of the information I wanted to post. If you want to continue to deny its existence go ahead but here's another look at Operation Vigilant Warrior from the much respected www.fromthewilderness.com:


Thank you for this source. At least this one is legible...though what's up with all the book sales and reviews? Ah, it's a store. They MUST be an unbiased source.


We know multiple Air Force war games were running on the morning of 9/11, as documented extensively in the mainstream press. What Crossing the Rubicon has documented conclusively is that there was a live-fly drill taking place on 9/11 titled Vigilant Warrior. Richard Clarke disclosed the name of this drill on page 4 of his book, but it was Major Don Arias of NORAD who confirmed the definition of the title "Warrior" to Mike Ruppert via email.

Warrior = JCS/HQ NORAD sponsored FTX, or field training exercise (live-fly).

That means that the Vigilant Warrior drill conducted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff involved at least one real commercial aircraft in the skies, intended to simulate exactly the kind of airliner hijack emergency presented on 9/11.


Who do I trust, an author trying to turn a buck? Where was he during the 9/11 hearings? Oh yeah, writing a book



[edit on 16-11-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorCee


This thread is about the strategy in Iraq.
.....



i really don't think the voters are aware of the strategies involving Iraq

they know what some of the Administration policies are
in waging an armed conflict there in Iraq...but the underlying reasons
& strategies are alien to the population.

here is a strategy which won't have 'legs' or get amped into the pop-culture mainstream of topics to get aroused about.


StUdio; "fresh from todays news-> Paramilitaries in Iraq=CIA 'assets'" from this source:
news.independent.co.uk...

StUdio; "it seems that clandestine groups of former Republican-Guards or Baath Party higher ups, have been assembled, as ParaMilitary Units...outside the oversight of the Iraqi interim? gov't. .... ....
by US special Ops 'sponsers' "


?what strategy is behind this ? maybe it's the real goal of the US presence.
to actually 'Balkanize' the former Iraq...into 3 seperate & manageable states or -stans.

refer to "The Bernard Lewis plan of the Middle East"
either google or link to: www.rense.com...
for the overview.

Another Administration PolicyObjective which came out of the Iraq Combat campaign is the
Doctrine of pre-emptive strike which was a secret ploy thru which it would be possible introduce the use of tactical nukes against terrorists as part of the overarching strategy planned for Iraq, Arabian Peninsula, Middle & Near East, southern Asia & onward.

//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/11/AR2005091100166.html
this exists in the archives; "Plan Envisions Using Nukes on Terrorists"


the larger strategy is to have a Generation presence in the M.E.,
to manage & orchestrate these newly created factions/states, to also control & mastermind the division of energy resources, to confront & contain the 'clash of cultures' between the Christian-Zionists & Islam
(i.e. East v West)

thanks for your eyes



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   
MajorCee, I appreciate your continued responses while I've been away; they've made for some interesting reading. I'll try to keep my reply brief, although that's not one of my strong suits, since we've already covered this material to a certain extent.

1. Force Levels:
The US has gone through several plans.
OPLAN 1003 was never in any danger of being followed. It was a decade-old deployment plan to be executed upon unambiguous warning of an Iraqi attack on Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. It called for a defensive deployment of 500,000 then a counter-offensive by 200,000 troops. Kenneth Pollack, who was the NSCs Director for Gulf Affairs in 1999-2001 voiced the opinion that more like 300,000 would be needed to secure the oil fields and WMD, then transition to occupation.
www.globalsecurity.org...

In sharp contrast to the Desert-Shield like scenario set forward by OPLAN 1003, the Downing Plan, called for a small US offensive in the South and special forces assistance as well as air support to the Kurds. Operations in Afghanistan served as a proof of concept for this, although the situations were not perfectly analogous and Afghanistan didn't work out as well as it could have.

www.globalsecurity.org...

In December 2001 Chalabi's revised plan, modified by a Pentagon planning group authorized by Paul Wolfowitz, was presented to the Joint Chiefs of Staff for evaluation. Anthony Zinni, the retired general who had served as head of Central Command responsible for US forces in the Middle East, had dismissed the plan as the "Bay of Goats."


Then yet another idea came up, called Rapid Decisive Operations, loosely based on the straight to Baghdad plan that Cheney and Rumsfeld and drawn up in 1991 as an alternative to the original plan for Desert Storm (before the "Hail Mary" was decided upon). That plan had called for bypassing Iraqi lines and going straight to Baghdad. The derived plan called for 50-75k troops on the ground.
www.globalsecurity.org...

It was from this plan that "Shock and Awe" (aka Rapid Dominance) was derived, with a few additional troops and a lot more deployment time.

It worked great for toppling Saddam, I have no complaint there. We obviously didn't think over the occupation very well though.

It also has to be remembered that Franks resigned and Powell was replaced too; is it a coincidence that the two men who were said to have fought for a larger deployment didn't last long after we went in with scarcely more than 100,000 troops?

2. Casualties: It's not statistically honest to compare peacetime casualty rates from a smaller unit to the casualty rate of a larger force, especially when that number is inflated by including deployed troops who are not taking part in combat operations. Also this only includes fatalities; it fails to account for the wounded and psychologically disturbed, especially those who are either unable or unwilling to continue their service afterward.

3. The Guerilla War: The single greatest measure of a military effort is of course mission accomplishment. What mission have we accomplished in all of this time and for all of this cost? We didn't get the weapons. There is not yet any indication that Iraq is anymore on its way to becoming a pillar of freedom and democracy than South Vietnam was. Iran is well on its way to getting the bomb as our leaders happily reassure us that we're winning the war on terror and protecting ourselves from a nuclear 9/11.

The Guerilla War by contrast is serving a valuable purpose for those who wage it. It has created enormous division in America, it is exhausting American manpower (mainly in terms of recruiting and retention, especially for the reserves), and it is costing us a lot of money. It is doing to America what the Reagan Administration did to the USSR.


More to follow.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 03:53 AM
link   
Time to talk nukes. I've elected to omit a lot of minor points that I wished to bring up, since this has been the focus of the two most recent and compelling posts from MajorCee.

We've been presented with a pretty stout case for the development of the bunker-buster nuke. I have no problem with that. I consider myself a Reagan man in many respects (the effects of telephone deregulation in California not withstanding), and I agree with his statement that "I can't think of any war that America got into by being too strong".

I'm all in favor of surgical and covert preemptive action against nations who pose a threat. Frankly if I'd been in office in the late 90s when it was generally accepted that N.K had a a couple of nukes but not many, I would have pulled US troops out of harms way, nuked the snot out of the North, and promised them more if they so much as LOOKED at the 38th parallel in retaliation.

So good to go on our moves for dealing with Pakistan's nuclear program, although I maintain that since that has left the question of denying terrorist organizations the ability to operate a defacto state of their own in lawless territories such as Western Pakistan and Afghanistan that a ground presence would still have been a good idea in some respects.

The million dollar question is why we departed from such a sound way of doing business when it came to Iraq. It turns out that we couldn't locate the facilities because their weren't any. If there had been any we would have seen them and could have addressed them with precision, just as we had threatened to do to Pakistan.

Pakistan seems to be a lone success story though. We were too smart for our own good with Iraq. Korea is telling us for the umpteenth time that they're going to stop building nukes, but I'll bet both of the nickels in my bank account that they don't disarm, and we're certainly not going to start a war, much less a possible nuclear war, over some of the most useless and strategically irrelevant terrain on the face of the earth.

If we mean business with Iran we've sure got a funny way of showing it, considering that we haven't done squat about their cooperation with North Korea on long range missiles that would enable them to threaten Europe. I expect this to be demonstrated once and for all when we sit on our thumbs while the IAEA and UNSC decide not to take any meaningful action on their nuclear program.
We ought to have already taken out Iran's facilities- period.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 04:30 AM
link   
oops, wrong place.

[edit on 20/11/2005 by SwearBear]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join