US is planning buildup in Gulf after Iraq exit

reply to post by St Udio


I beleive you are correct sir. Eithopia will be the next card to fall in the ME. However the' vile person' referred to is the King of the South, Iran or its leader. All the cards falling in North Africa are coming under the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, controlled and directed by Iran. The Iranians must be laughing themselves silly over the infidels handing them this major strategic prize.

When the Iranians have control of Libya, Egypt and Eithopia, they have total control of the extremely important and strategic Suez Canal. They can and will hold the west to ransom for almost any oil that moves out of the ME.

Semantics, semantics. This isnt a build up but rather a redistribution of resources. The US did the SAME thing between both gulf wars.

Originally posted by randomname
with the current generation of wimps and spoiled lazy kids america is producing at break neck speeds, they'll lose any war against battle hardened men from russia, china and iran.

its sad but true. i picture kids in uniform downloading apple apps, while a wave of merciless chinese and fanatical iranian revolutionary guards are charging down their necks, with the aim of relieving their heads from their bodies.

While I was in the military I didn't see wimps and lazy kids, all I saw was the most advanced and disciplined military force on Earth.

The civilian population might be full of cheeseburger eating idiots, but in the United States military there are only warriors, tacticians and their logistical supporters.

reply to post by theghoster


I don't know what kind of tactical sense it makes for the US to be so involved in middle eastern affairs, unless its just obviously oil, but I do think some of these guys who came from the military and ended up in politics have either lost their way or have been babied through the military and into their positions. The United States has just begun to tap some of its oil reserves so the reason for a presence in the middle east is just greed, tap everyone elses resources before you begin to tap and sell yours at its most valuable point. This makes sense because the military is removing itself from some areas while remaining in others, transforming between controlling foreign oil and producing American oil. North Dakota is changing right now because of the oil industry moving in.

As there is still a valuable resource in the gulf, our pushers and movers don't seem to want to leave it alone. This makes better sense militarily and economically, though the American public now largely would rather have their kin at home.

Originally posted by theghoster
So, let me get this straight.

In 2005 we invaded Iraq in order to depose a Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, Bathist tyrant, in order to "liberate" it's various religiously, culturally, ideologically, and ethically fractious citizens. This was, in a very ill conceived attempt, to install a democracy in said country. What followed (predictably) was a bloody, medium-grade civil war, which inflamed secretarial hatred between Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, and Christians alike. A contention that still continues on (though at a lower intensity), even today. Furthermore, in installing a "democracy", in reality a loose coalition of the previously mentioned groups, whose sole aim is to prevent the other contending groups from having political and economic power (via oil export revenue to America and various allies and, contradictory enough, enemies, ) we have given the Shiite majority in Iraq huge political leverage. An issue most Americans would not care about, had it not been for the fact that Iran ( a majorly Shiite country), a supposed enemy of the United States, is using this Shiite majority in Iraq as a potential tool in a possible asymmetric war in the near future. An Sunni-Shia, asymmetric war that not only encompasses the nation of Iraq, but regional nations such as Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Oman, Yemen, Bahrain and a host of other Middle East states. Most importantly it includes American oil allies (who are themselves Sunni tyrants, of the monarchist kind, hypocritically enough) who have been using their own military and the American military as a shield against rising Shia influence in the region as well is within their own borders.

Meanwhile in early 2011 a grassroots revolution, known as the "Arab Spring", swept through the Middle East, deposing various tyrants, some friends (Mubarak, in Egypt) and others enemies (Qaddafi, in Libya) of America. This authentic and homegrown movement undermined the argument that military intervention by the United States was necessary for political change in the Middle East. Of course, Libya can be considered an exclusion to this fact, but is still up for debate. Even more contradictory, various revolutions calling for liberty and fair elections (Syria, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt) were supported by tyrannical dictatorships, such as Saudi Arabia, while other revolutions (see Bahrain), which called for same rights, were brutally suppressed by, again, Saudi Arabia. A double-standard overlooked by the United States, because of it's close economic (see oil exports) ties with the Saudi Royal Monarchy.

And now, at the closing of 2011, we find ourselves supposedly withdrawing troops from Iraq at the requests (excuse me---barely heard pleas) of the United States citizen, only to see these same troops be re-stationed, in potentially larger numbers, in the previously mentioned countries monarchist tyrannies of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. This is in preparation for another potential conflict in the same region, only with Iran, instead of Iraq. And just as a historical side note, to heighten the idiocy that is this Middle East Absurdist/Surrealist drama, the United States gave weapons/money to Saddam Hussein (remember him?) in order to neutralize Iranian influence in the 80's. Furthermore, many of the revolutions, including the ones forced by the American military, (Iraq) have already (Tunisia), or are leading to (Egypt) governments whose Islamist tendencies (see Muslim Brotherhood) are antithetical to democratic ideals the United States foreign policy gurus had hoped would emerge.

So with all these realities in play, can someone please explain to me how U.S. foreign policy in the last 2 to 3 decades has made any rational sense? I would call this a conspiracy, but there is so little competence in how we have handled the events over in the Middle East, even that seems unlikely. Did I get any of this wrong? Heck, just to be nice, I've excluded the mess in Afganistan/Pakistan/India and Israel/Palestine/Lebanon. Please, tell me if I'm getting this wrong?

That, my friend is one of the best posts i've ever read on ATS. I'd applaud you if I could.

I know kind of the point of this place is mass overaction and crazy ideas but does it not just get a bit old after awhile? Common sense tells you that if the US is pulling large scale forces out of Iraq they are going to set up enough forces in the area to lay the ground work in case of a crisis. These are not going to be large scale combat forces and they will be mostly support type forces that set up and maintain what is needed for combat forces to follow on quickly if they are called for. You see this everywhere in the world and you used to see it in SWA before Iraq sucked all that up into that war.

reply to post by MrSpad


You're absolutely, right. But the problem is that is reoccurring pattern of invade, leave, but leave a few men behind is becoming a little unsustainable, both economically and strategically. Is it not? I don't know, I'm not a foreign policy expert, but this American Empire "Lite" role is getting a bit old, in and of itself. At some point, were going to have to cut back militarily, somewhere. I think were doing that in the pacific, no? Or am I wrong?

reply to post by mr-lizard


Thanks. But don't applaud me; applaud the facts.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

 

And it's not just troops on the ground..

In addition to negotiations over maintaining a ground combat presence in Kuwait, the United States is considering sending more naval warships through international waters in the region.

Looks like they intend to surround them..

Weve been surrounding them for years. That was the reason for afghanistan, iraq, lybia, were almost done surrounding them indeed

VERY idiotic statement. Saying that about US troops is like saying the Iranian people are like their regime. Dont get the two confused.

US troops are NOT lazy, spoiled etc. AND they are battle tested. What battles have Russian, Chinese, Iranian troops etc fought lately?

Kinda tough to send your guys out to fight when they have never fought before eh? Freaking idiots on this board i swear.

Originally posted by randomname
with the current generation of wimps and spoiled lazy kids america is producing at break neck speeds, they'll lose any war against battle hardened men from russia, china and iran.

its sad but true. i picture kids in uniform downloading apple apps, while a wave of merciless chinese and fanatical iranian revolutionary guards are charging down their necks, with the aim of relieving their heads from their bodies.

"deny ignorance"? Hard to "deny" in this particular thread...


Just for info:


the2011 withdrawal date was part of a"status of forces" agreement signed by none other than GW Bush(years ago!). Mr Nobel peace prize (Obama) is just following Bushs agreement with the Iraqi govt.!

“Because, again, this president has — from the very beginning when he ran for office, he made clear what he wanted to do in Iraq, which was end this war responsibly in a way that was in the best interests of the United States. He made clear from the beginning that he would keep the commitment made by the Bush administration with the sovereign Iraqi government to withdraw all U.S. forces by the end of 2011,” he said.

Lest anyone miss the connection, Carney later went back to the Bush administration a third time, wondering what the Republicans wanted.

“Are they suggesting that we violate an agreement that’s signed by the Bush administration with the sovereign government of Iraq? That we keep troops there without the consent and agreement of the Iraqi government?” Carney said.

Full story at:
articles.latimes.com...

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by backinblack

 

Indeed it is. I think clinton is either the antichrist or one of its minions. Remember how she was lauging when gadhaffi was murdered. Karma, what goes around comes around. This shifting troops around has me nervous. Looks like they are setting the board and then waiting for the moment that some hotdog vendor from Iran says that he was working on a nuke project and use it as an excuse to go in.

Look at her eyes. When she smiles, that smile is plastered onto her face and it doesnt reach her eyes. When i see her i feel dead inside. Looking into her eyes is like looking into a snake, or maybe Lucifer. Cold, calculating, manipulative. Bet your bottom dollar she is an anti-christ, maybe not the anti-christ but she is one of them because Jesus said that the anti-christ was working even in his day and that "he who opposes me is anti-christ". Not trying to derail the thread just replying to your comment. She pretends to be a christian but her works speak boldly as to her true identity. Would Jesus laugh about anyone being murdered? No he wouldn't, so you see who she belongs to.

Hilary Clinton (in reference to Ghaddafi): "we can, we saw, he died". She is Jezebel.

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Originally posted by theghoster
So, let me get this straight.

That, my friend is one of the best posts i've ever read on ATS. I'd applaud you if I could.

I'd have to agree 100% with you there, just a straight up incredible post! Bravo!

It takes a fairly complex and far reaching issue and compresses it down into a straightforward, well organized post that touches on pretty much all the major aspects of what's going on. I'm happy at the inclusion of the sunni vs. shiite issue that many, who view the middle east as one unified gang of America hating muslims, either forget to mention, or just don't know about.

If anyone has been living under a rock for the last decade (many Americans would fall into this category sadly) that post would make an excellent intro for "what the heck is doing on in the middle east"

It's posts like that which remind me why I love ATS, they seem to be few and far between these days, but when they pop up, my respect for ATS (and quality posters like the one above) is renewed.

Out of curiosity - If WWIII is about to kick off then why would the US withdraw all troops from Iraq while trying to negotiate a force to remain in Kuwait or one of the other 5 countries listed? Wouldnt it make more sense to just refuse to leave Iraq and go from there, especially if we are going to attack countries? To draw down and negotiate doesnt really fit with the WWIII scenario especially If the "end" is that near. edit on 30-10-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)Text

If you believe the US will "really" leave Iraq, you do not know history...and certainly don't know the US.

So with all these realities in play, can someone please explain to me how U.S. foreign policy in the last 2 to 3 decades has made any rational sense? I would call this a conspiracy, but there is so little competence in how we have handled the events over in the Middle East, even that seems unlikely. Did I get any of this wrong? Heck, just to be nice, I've excluded the mess in Afganistan/Pakistan/India and Israel/Palestine/Lebanon. Please, tell me if I'm getting this wrong?

It makes no sense to those of us who don't know the goal. I certainly do not know what moves will be made next, but Empires always do the same things eventually.

They're not "leaving" anything... the US is simply repositioning the pawns on the chessboard.

Another words, these boys aren't coming home.

*sigh*
Broken promises...

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Out of curiosity - If WWIII is about to kick off then why would the US withdraw all troops from Iraq while trying to negotiate a force to remain in Kuwait or one of the other 5 countries listed? Wouldnt it make more sense to just refuse to leave Iraq and go from there, especially if we are going to attack countries?

Because it's all a cover. US still maintains a significant presence in Iraq through their established "embassy" zone(s) and mercinary forces deployed there. If the US needed to quickly redeploy in Iraq, they would have the capability to retake airfields and bases by diplomatic means alone (probably by proclaiming Iran to be a hostile enemy to Iraq so they would feel it necessary to protect Iraq by deploying assault forces there).

reply to post by James1982


I'll add a third voice; It was extremely well written and just chock fulla facts.

In respect to shifting alliances such as was the case with Saddam, political realities shift with the facts on the ground. After the Iranian hostage crisis, I think Reagan would have made a deal with the Devil himself to keep Iran in check. They had already held us hostage once - 444 days - and Ol' Ronnie wasn't about to let it happen on his watch.

At the time, Islamic fundamentalism was a relatively new phenomenon. Of course there were terror attacks by Muslims prior to the Iranian Revolution, but they were nearly all secular in nature. This was probably due to the fact that in the Middle East, from time immemorial, they have been ruled by a series of strongmen - Chiefs, Caliphs, Kings, and Emperors - who were not likely to tolerate dissent, even on religious grounds.

Ironically, one could accurately argue that democracy in the Middle East gave birth to Islamic fundamentalism. After the revolution, Iranians were allowed to vote for their leaders (except for the Grand Ayatollah, the Supreme Leader, who gets the last word on just about everything anyway.) The Palestinians voted in Hamas, the Lebanese government has a large number of Hezbollah in its ranks, the Muslim Brotherhood has taken over in Egypt, Tunisia just had their first election, and I'll be damned if they didn't vote in an Islamist government run by Sharia Law. Strange how that works isn't it?

And let's not forget about Libya. We've (NATO) spent over a Billion dollars on deposing his regime; and while he's decomposing, al-Qaeda and the CIA have taken over the country. You know I thought - whether it was right or wrong is a topic for another thread - that the CIA staged coup that overthrew the Shah was pretty ballsy; but it seems the CIA has not only managed to pull it off again, but this time they have installed two of their operatives as leaders in the NTC.

Gadaffi's jails were filled with al-Qaeda terrorists, including these two men: Abdul Hakeem Belhaj and Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, who now sit at the right hand of power in Libya. Al-Hasidi was captured near Peshawar Pakistan, where he was fighting coalition forces. After his capture he was turned over to the US where he spent time as a guest of the CIA before being turned over to the Libyans to rot in their jails for a while.

Belhaj is a Old School jihadist, a real OG. He fought alongside Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri along with scores of other fighters from the LIFG during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; that’s how far back his ties to al-Qaeda go. He was also captured and held for a time in a secret prison – a special CIA prison - in Malaysia, before being sent to Libya to languish in prison there.

Belhaj and al-Hasidi were freed earlier this year along with 240 other Islamic militants – at the exact same time that foreign intelligence operatives were landing in Eastern Libya – by Moammar Gadaffi’s son Saif, in attempt at reconciliation. Hindsight huh?

Now CIA backed and trained a-Qaeda terrorist have their very own country (they even raised their flag,) with access to 144 tons of gold, and 20,000 shoulder-fired Stinger-type missiles, some of which have already found their way into Gaza courtesy of the Muslim Brotherhood Trucking Company.

So now the drums of war are beating for Syria and Iran. Will the next False Flag be a score of airliners taken out the same day by the missing missiles, or will it be more like this:



I'd say that if you wanted to blame Iran for a nuclear attack on L.A. for example, that the cargo ship container idea makes a hell of a lot of sense.

reply to post by Cosmic4life


Invasion of Syria by Turkey will most likely lead to a nuclear/chemical genocide of Turkey in the hands of Russia/Syria .Turkey will be wiped off the map by Russia.Russia has a naval base in Syria And an attack on Syria is tantamount to an attack on Russia and its military interests.

reply to post by OldCorp

I'd say that if you wanted to blame Iran for a nuclear attack on L.A. for example, that the cargo ship container idea makes a hell of a lot of sense.

Good post but I'd say it would be pretty reasonable to blame the US (CIA) for an attack,if it happened..

Wouldn't you agree??

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by OldCorp

 

I'd say that if you wanted to blame Iran for a nuclear attack on L.A. for example, that the cargo ship container idea makes a hell of a lot of sense.

Good post but I'd say it would be pretty reasonable to blame the US (CIA) for an attack,if it happened..

Wouldn't you agree??

I don't have any idea. To be honest, I have a hard time wrapping my head around what they've already done. If it were to be shown that anyone - alphabet agencies, Bush, Obama, etc. - was complicit in an attack on the American homeland, then they deserve a traitor's death - after a trial of course.