...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Politics
»
Does this mean that Obama is a war criminal?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bob_01: [QB] [b]Part 3[/b] I've mentioned that the "Clean Break" source was not read and suggested the reverse policy with a limited US presence. That is, one that would involve Turkey, which is a nation that is quite troubled by the war, btw: [QUOTE]"By the late 1990s, however, the neo-conservatives were arguing that dual containment was not enough and that regime change in Iraq was essential" and the only reason America is threatening Iran now is because of them. Mearsheimer and Walt go on to quote Sharon, Netanyahu and other top Israelis who wanted an all out war on Iraq, Iran and Syria. See also "Clean Break" report, 1996. [/QUOTE]White boy, have you even read the damn report? It is understandable that you invest much of your time into being a white apologist, but with a bit of time, I can verify sources: [QUOTE] [b]This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq.[/b] This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam. [...] Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq, including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; [b]supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging — through influence in the U.S. business community — investment in Jordan to structurally shift Jordan’s economy away from dependence on Iraq;[/b] and diverting Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon. [..] King Hussein may have ideas for Israel in bringing its Lebanon problem under control.The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon has been tied for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. [b]Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which — and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows — is King Hussein. [/b] Forging A New U.S.-Israeli Relationship In recent years, Israel invited active U.S. intervention in Israel’s domestic and foreign policy for two reasons: to overcome domestic opposition to "land for peace" concessions the Israeli public could not digest, and to lure Arabs — through money, forgiveness of past sins, and access to U.S. weapons — to negotiate. [b]This strategy, which required funneling American money to repressive and aggressive regimes, was risky, expensive, and very costly for both the U.S. and Israel, and placed the United States in roles is should neither have nor want. [b]Israel can make a clean break from the past and establish a new vision for the U.S.-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity and mutuality — not one focused narrowly on territorial disputes. Israel’s new strategy — based on a shared philosophy of peace through strength — reflects continuity with Western values by stressing that Israel is self-reliant, [i]does not need U.S. troops in any capacity to defend it, including on the Golan Heights, and can manage its own affairs.[/i][/b] Such self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in the past. [b]To reinforce this point, the Prime Minister can use his forthcoming visit to announce that Israel is now mature enough to cut itself free immediately from at least U.S. economic aid and loan guarantees at least, which prevent economic reform. [/b][Military aid is separated for the moment until adequate arrangements can be made to ensure that Israel will not encounter supply problems in the means to defend itself]. [...] [URL=http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm]Link[/URL][/QUOTE]That doesn't like the Iraq war that we're seeing today This proposal clearly suggests an operation independent of the US. It is quite clear that they're talking about using overt, soft power methods. The backing of the Hashim tribe and restoring their control over Iraq. Nothing in that proposal actually calls for US to directly attack Iraq and ultimately balkanize the region. On the other hand,the report, [URL=http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf]Rebuilding American defenses[/URL] is directly tied to the development of the Iraq war: [QUOTE] Yet for all its problems in carrying out will be among the first to confront the today’s missions, the Pentagon has done president: new legislation requires the almost nothing to prepare for a future that incoming administration to fashion a promises to be very different and potentially national security strategy within six months much more dangerous. It is now commonly of assuming office, as opposed to waiting a understood that information and other new full year, and to complete another technologies – as well as widespread quadrennial defense review three months technological and weapons proliferation – after that. In a larger sense, the new are creating a dynamic that may threaten president will choose whether today’s America’s ability to exercise its dominant “unipolar moment,” to use columnist military power. [b]Potential rivals such as[/b] Charles Krauthammer’s phrase for [b]China are anxious to exploit these trans[/b]- America’s current geopolitical preeminence, [b]formational technologies broadly, while[/b] will be extended along with the peace and [b]adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea[/b] prosperity that it provides. [b]are rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they seek to dominate.[/b] Yet the Defense Department and the services have done little more than affix a “transformation” label to programs developed during the Cold War, while diverting effort and attention to a process of joint experimentation which restricts rather than encourages innovation. Rather than admit that rapid technological changes makes it uncertain which new weapons systems to develop, the armed services cling ever more tightly to traditional program and concepts. As Andrew Krepinevich, a member of the National Defense Panel, put it in a recent study of Pentagon experi- mentation, [b]“Unfortunately, the Defense Department’s rhetoric asserting the need for military transformation and its support for joint experimentation has yet to be matched by any great sense of urgency or any substantial resource support....At present the Department’s effort is poorly focused and woefully underfunded.”[/b] In sum, the 1990s have been a “decade of defense neglect.” This leaves the next president of the United States with an enormous challenge: [b]he must increase military spending to preserve American geopolitical leadership, or he must pull back from the security commitments that are the measure of America’s position as the world’s sole superpower and the final guarantee of security, democratic freedoms and individual political rights. [/b]This choice [/QUOTE]More... [QUOTE] Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait reflected both truths. The invasion would have been highly unlikely, if not impossible, within the context of the Cold War, and Iraq overran Kuwait in a matter of hours. [b]These two truths revealed a third: maintaining or restoring a favorable order in vital regions in the world such as Europe, the Middle East and East Asia places a unique responsibility on U.S. armed forces.[/b] The Gulf War and indeed the subsequent lesser wars in the Balkans could hardly have been fought and won without the dominant role played by American military might. [...] Although the no-fly-zone air operations over northern and southern Iraq have continued without pause for almost a decade, they remain an essential element in U.S. strategy and force posture in the Persian Gulf region. [b]Ending these opera- tions would hand Saddam Hussein an impor- tant victory, something any American leader would be loath to do. [/b] While and tomorrow – the unresolved will require conflict with Iraq changes in U.S. provides the immediate deployments and justification, the installations need for a overseas. substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. [b]Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region.[/b] [/QUOTE]The first excerpt does not suggest that Israel wants an even large US role, while the American doctrine, published afterwards, clearly does. We see a clear divergence of interests with US viewing Iraq as a greater threat. This isn't perceived by Israel, nor does it want to see a US enforced democracy and rather through the Hashim minority, which runs counter to the current Shia-dominant government. One more point made in the paper that I feel should be addressed: [QUOTE] Israel is the only recipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent, an exemption that makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the United States opposes, like building settlements in the West Bank. [/QUOTE]Sounds ridiculous. US doesn't give a **** about the indigenous population. After all, that's how it was founded! We're totally forgetting another US ally Morocco and Turkey who are doing similar atrocities involving ethnic cleansing. I could go on about Egypt as well, but I wouldn't be surprised if a number branded al-Ikwaan or the brotherhood as "Islamists", who hold "dangerous" views regarding self-sustainability. PS: I'd rather be a Jewish apologist than a white apologist. Both are ultimately criminals, but using the Jewish scapegoat ultimately limits the criminals involved. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3