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.

 

WAR: US Intel Chief: Iraq Civil War Could Spread Throughout Region

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   
In testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, National Intelligence Director John Negroponte asserted that a sectarian civil war in Iraq could turn into a much wider conflict, possibly engulfing the entire region. Negroponte's testimony followed a week of increasing civil unrest in Iraq, that started with the bombing of a Shiite holy site.

 



www.msnbc.msn.com
WASHINGTON - A civil war in Iraq could lead to a broader conflict in the Middle East, pitting the region’s rival Islamic sects against each another, National Intelligence Director John Negroponte said in an unusually frank assessment Tuesday.

“If chaos were to descend upon Iraq or the forces of democracy were to be defeated in that country ... this would have implications for the rest of the Middle East region and, indeed, the world,” Negroponte said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on global threats.

Iraqis have faced a chain of attacks and reprisals since bombs destroyed the gold dome of a revered Shiite shrine in Samarra last week. Hundreds, if not thousands, have died, including more than 65 who were killed Tuesday by suicide attackers, car bombers and insurgents firing mortars.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Personally, I feel bad for this guy. Being the Intelligence Chief with the current administration and with all the political sniping going on has got to be one of the worst jobs in the world.

Nonetheless, while Negroponte at times appeared to be attempting to paint an optimistic picture, even he acknowledged that the situation is pretty grim.

Towards the end of the story are a few more gems:



At the Senate hearing, Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, painted a similarly stark picture of Afghanistan.


Shoot. I thought we were winning in Iraq and Afghanistan. At least that's what Bush said in the State of the Union address, didn't he?



Negroponte would not provide an updated assessment of the number of nuclear weapons believed to be in North Korea’s arsenal, although a former DIA head has previously said Pyongyang has one or two.


Fantastic. At least it's not three. That would mean that we would have to get serious with them!



On Venezuela, Negroponte said U.S. intelligence expects President Hugo Chavez to deepen his relationship with Cuban President Fidel Castro and “seek closer economic, military and diplomatic ties with Iran and North Korea.”


Outstanding. The Axis of Evil is expanding. An invasion of Venezuela might be a bit easier to support logistically than Iran, though, don't you think?

[edit on 2/28/2006 by ChemicalLaser]

[edit on 2/28/2006 by ChemicalLaser]




posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   
I wonder what it was that changed Negroponte's mind?

It seems like only yesterday that he was one of the Administrations
greatest cheerleaders.

Apparently arrogance and ideology must come face to face with
reality eventually.

Pity so many have been killed while the leaders were trying to figure
out what really was the state of affairs in Iraq and the Mid east in general.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 03:18 AM
link   
wow, how half hearted can one be without actually sighing and letting out an I can't believe I am reading this script chuckle or sob?

not that I feel bad for any of these people... But still this is getting pathetic.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 04:40 AM
link   
Well there's nothing like blowing the dome off of a mosque to stir things up a bit, eh? Especially a region where there has been sectarian violence, i.e., a mild civil war, brewing for decades now.

But please try now to grin too broadly as you shout the "I told you so's", OK? We still have troops in harms way over there.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Well of course Negroponte's changed his tune to the press. All the confusion in the media over whether Iraq was getting better or worse, was because the pro-administration news outlets thought they were still supposed to be painting the rosy picture. The A-rabs watch TV too, and you know.. you can't have a really good civil war if half the people think it isn't happening.

A good civil war would be one that "could lead to a broader conflict in the Middle East, pitting the region’s rival Islamic sects against each another." Particularly if it spills into the part of the region that's planning to drop the $US oil standard at the end of this month.


A really good civil war would be one that throws the whole region into chaos, turns the islamic sects against each other in open hatred and violence, and ends with a complete restructure of power in the middle east - not to mention decimating a whole generation of Islamic males. You'd need media support for that one. Can't have them getting cheery news on one channel and missing the pictures of their bretheren being slaughtered on another.

You need the media to kick something like this off too. First you need to inflame their Islamic pride by insulting their beliefs - maybe some funny pictures of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban. Then blow up a holy site that's really important to one of the sects. Damn those Shia's. Or is it Sunni's? I forget.

Good thing John is making it clear which stories should go to press now. I can go back to watching TV news, safe in the knowledge that the Islamic Civil War will be shown in it's regularly sheduled timeslot.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 06:22 AM
link   
well bush wants american influnce to spread throughout the region and it looks like he is going to get it. too bad its not a positive influnce but then again war, muchless unprovoked wars of aggression generally spread the wrong type of influnce. Strike up another one for the boy blunder.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
You need the media to kick something like this off too. First you need to inflame their Islamic pride by insulting their beliefs - maybe some funny pictures of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban. Then blow up a holy site that's really important to one of the sects. Damn those Shia's. Or is it Sunni's? I forget.

Yeah, the damn media! They are so powerful that they can make the fanatics tapdance for a nickel. Just show them a cartoon and they'll break out the firebombs and AK-'s.


Too bad the media won't tell the fanatics to put their bombs away and play nicey-nice, eh? I mean, them having so much power and all.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   
I kinda doubt that the Shias and the Suni will go that far...
even in iraq, there are communities, where Sunis would come out to greet the Suni death squads to protect nieghbor shiites, and vise versa for the shia death squads...

it seems that people further out from the cities have maintained their sanity...



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
You know if they would just turn Israel loose on the arabs we wouldn't have to worry about the whole thing. They would slaughter all of them and then we would have an ally in control of the oil. Huh, relabel Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt as Israel. Maybe we should just give Israel more guns and bombs and let them clear up this whole middle eastern issue. Let em fight it out. Why should we stick our noses in their business?



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by arius
You know if they would just turn Israel loose on the arabs we wouldn't have to worry about the whole thing. They would slaughter all of them and then we would have an ally in control of the oil.


That is totally insane talk... and not welcome on ATS...

you really have no idea of how many muslims there are do you?
let us explore just how insane you are shall we?

Fine... blow up the whole middle east... has to be nukes... no way to "kill em all" like you said otherwise...
then the oil goes away... it is radioactive...
then you have the billions of other muslims of other non middle east countries performing martyrdom on the israelis (in retaliation for genocide) so that you have about a 20 -1 suicide bomber to israeli ratio...

Doesn't sound like a good plan for Israel now does it?



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Well last time I checked, my family and my friends were neither arabs nor Israeli's yet my family and friends have to leave home and go keep peace over there because they can't get along long enough to pump a few barrels of oil. Americans fought a civil war a little over one hundred and fifty years ago yet hmmm..... we've let it go and are now one nation. Yet the middle east can't let go of things that happened over two thousand years ago. Hmmm. who's being more civilized?

My point was simply this. The middle east is not america's concern and we shouldn't send our young men and women over there to play principal. If the world would let them fight it out to the end then one of the two sides would win and it would be over. There would be peace. My guess is that Israel would win. Heck, in a week they whipped Egypt, Syria and took over palestine. I did not mean my statements to be anti arab, simply anti iraqi war.

[edit on 1-3-2006 by arius]



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Got it... same page...

I agree with you on the iraq war.

Not to get involved, but have you really looked at why we are there?

hint* our president holds hands with a corrupt monarchy, that gives us cheap oil... while we fight there wars...

First gulf war. Iraq attacks both Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia...
second gulf war: Saddam has a full spanking courtesy the USA...

Who is happy? why its our friends the corrupt Monarchy of SA...
But are they really our friends?
they sponsor terrorist training schools, and extremist mosques all over the world...
Probably not our friends... just the lip service kind...



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Actually if we nuked the whole region, the oil would still be safe because it is thousands of feet in the depth of the Earths crust. Radioactive fallout will only contaminate the first few inches of surface, except as you get closer to the blast sites in which case the depth will increase. But still burning down a whole region and turning it into glass is just not a nice thing to do.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   


Bush denies Iraq headed for civil war -Reuters

Maybe he should switch off the cartoon network for a source of news
or stop pretending like everyone else does...



[edit on 1-3-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Lazarus I think we're on the same page. Saudi Arabia really ticks me off. Our president runs around holding hands with some middle age arabian dude in a dress and I'm not supposed to question it? He was actually on the news holding hands with the saudi arabians. I mean come on. Yeah he might impress the middle east but he really upset a lot of hard working americans.

This simple fact remains. The price of gas was a lot cheaper prior to invading Iraq. I'm not stupid. I can put two and two together.



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   


Green light for civil war: Rumsfeld says your on your own Iraq.

Rumsfeld: Civil war not US job
US Plans to Let Iraqis Deal With a Civil War
Iraqi forces would deal with civil war, says Rumsfeld

What Iraqi security forces? Iraq does not have a security force.
The Shia have a security force. The Sunnis have a security force, and the Kurds have a security force. The sectarian militias control the streets, towns and cities. If civil war breaks out, the "Iraqi security force" will dissolve into the sectarian militias, leaving the US military in the middle of the melee. source



Neocon Advocates Civil War in Iraq as "Strategic" Policy
Daniel Pipes Finds Comfort in Muslims Killing Muslims

Now the neocons are beginning to advocate for civil war in Iraq quite openly. The clearest statement of this strategy as yet comes from pre-eminent neocon and ardent Zionist Daniel Pipes. In a recent piece in the Jerusalem Post, Pipes spills the beans. He writes:


"The bombing on February 22 of the Askariya shrine in Samarra, Iraq, was a tragedy, but it was not an American or a coalition tragedy. Iraq's plight is neither a coalition responsibility nor a particular danger to the West. Fixing Iraq is neither the coalition's responsibility, nor its burden. When Sunni terrorists target Shi'ites and vice versa, non-Muslims are less likely to be hurt. Civil war in Iraq, in short, would be a humanitarian tragedy, but not a strategic one."


As ever Pipes's anti-Arab racism is simply too rabid to be hidden. If Muslims are busy killing other Muslims, then "non-Muslims" are less likely to be hurt!! What does that say about Muslim lives? And of course both Sunnis and Shia must be labeled "terrorists." Pipes is doing nothing more endorsing than the oldest of colonial strategies: Divide et impera.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.







 
2

log in

join