The Coming of WW3!

[accuracy]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: US and Israel 'don't have the courage' to attack Iran

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has taunted the US and Israel saying his enemies 'don't have the courage' to attack Iran.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...tack-Iran.html

[pi3141]

I haven't read this thread completely yet but will do so shortly. Just wanted to say the effort you are putting into this site is considerable and some of the info is new and very interesting to me.

You seem quite adept at connecting dots.

Thank you very much.

[velma]

I read Joel Goldsmith's 'Leave Your Nets' whenever I feel despondant, his wise words are a great comfort and reassuring. As for WWIII it has already begun, with weapons which make conventional (theatrical) warfare obsolete, and the enemy is... us!

"Death comes-instantly and totally. There is no convulsion, no response. The entire nervous system is destroyed instantly. Every living cell in the body is killed instantly, including all bacteria, germs, etc."

"A body hit with this thing falls like a limp rag and lies where it falls. It doesn't decay in even 30-45 days. In a macabre fashion, it's been reduced to something like food irradiated with nuclear radiation; everything is killed, so the material is preserved for an extended period before any decay can set in."


http://www.sonoran-sunsets.com/scalar.html

[white horse]

Originally Posted by entrangermercenary

IS that right. Pray you never have to witness the horror of war. If you think this is bad have another tablet

U kidding right? There are people being torn apart as we write this in one of the planet's ever present dozen or so wars.

Read 1984 - I'd saw we were in WWIII perma-war...

Do you realise the USA has been involved in some form of armed conflict for every year it has been in existence?

We have always been at war with EastAsia...

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorence is Strength.

[accuracy]

Originally Posted by pi3141

I haven't read this thread completely yet but will do so shortly. Just wanted to say the effort you are putting into this site is considerable and some of the info is new and very interesting to me.

You seem quite adept at connecting dots.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for that!

[1776]

Great thread accuracy! Tons of useful information here Thanks



WW3, Nephilims, Aliens, Black Ops & the NWO with Steve Quayle pt.1/12

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

WW3, Nephilims, Aliens, Black Ops & the NWO with Steve Quayle pt.2/12

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

WW3, Nephilims, Aliens, Black Ops & the NWO with Steve Quayle pt.3/12

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

WW3, Nephilims, Aliens, Black Ops & the NWO with Steve Quayle pt.4/12

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

WW3, Nephilims, Aliens, Black Ops & the NWO with Steve Quayle pt.5/12

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

WW3, Nephilims, Aliens, Black Ops & the NWO with Steve Quayle pt.6/12

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

WW3, Nephilims, Aliens, Black Ops & the NWO with Steve Quayle pt.7/12

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

WW3, Nephilims, Aliens, Black Ops & the NWO with Steve Quayle pt.8/12

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

WW3, Nephilims, Aliens, Black Ops & the NWO with Steve Quayle pt.9/12

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

WW3, Nephilims, Aliens, Black Ops & the NWO with Steve Quayle pt.10/12

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

WW3, Nephilims, Aliens, Black Ops & the NWO with Steve Quayle pt.11/12

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

WW3, Nephilims, Aliens, Black Ops & the NWO with Steve Quayle pt.12/12

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[accuracy]

Russia said in mid-November that technical issues would prevent its engineers from starting up the reactor at Bushehr by the end of the year as previously planned.

Moscow, which is under Western pressure to distance itself from Tehran over its nuclear activities, stressed at the time that politics had nothing to do with the decision.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...812581,00.html


Bushehr plant. To be operated soon Photo: AP



Russian technician in Bushehr Photo: AFP

From the WRH site.

The "window" in which the Israeli military might think it could launch an attack against Iran would be before Russian engineers start up the reactor, and before Russia delivers their S-300 anti-aircraft system. As reported on Friday, 27 Nov at:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=112314&
sectionid=351020101

"Russia 'will' deliver S-300 to Iran in 2 months"

""The delivery deadline has already passed, but the Russian side has cited technical problems which it said it was working on to fix," Sajjadi added. "We feel that this question will be resolved within one to two months.

If there is going to be an attack against Iran, look for an immediate, massive build-up by corporate media here and abroad to demonize Iran in any way they think they can, starting this next week.

And if Israel attacks, you can bet one worthless US dollar that the US will be dragged into the fray somehow.

[accuracy]

Obama Never Considered Diplomacy In Afghanistan

By Sherwood Ross



Even as polls show a majority of Americans want U.S. forces out of Afghanistan and that Americans do not believe the war is worth fighting, President Obama---a former editor at the CIA front Business International Corporation in 1983-84---embraces a position in line with the long-held CIA view the U.S. must control the Middle East's energy resources.

It was the CIA that overthrew Iran in 1953 after Tehran nationalized its oil production, depriving British Petroleum of its lucrative swindle. Afghanistan is valued today for the oil and gas pipelines the U.S. wants built there, no matter what other reasons Obama gives.
http://uruknet.com/index.php?p=m60576&hd=&size=1&l=e

From the WRH site.

As reported on 24 September 2009 at

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publ...cle_5161.shtml

"WMR has obtained additional details on Business International Corporation (BIC), the CIA front company where President Obama spent a year working after graduating from Columbia University in 1983.

BIC used journalists as non-official cover (NOC) agents around the world. The firm published weekly and fortnightly newsletters for business executives, including Business International, Business Europe, Business Latin America, and Business Asia.

On February 24, 2009, WMR reported: “For one year, Obama worked as a researcher in BIC’s financial services division where he wrote for two BIC publications, Financing Foreign Operations and Business International Money Report, a weekly newsletter.

“An informed source has told WMR that Obama’s tuition debt at Columbia was paid off by BIC. "

As reported on 24 August, 2009 at:

http://www.examiner.com/x-14143-Oran...mas-mamaspooky

"The eye-opener here concerns Obama's first job out of college. In his autobiography, "Dreams from My Fathers", Barack Obama writes of taking a job after graduating from Columbia University in 1983. He describes his employer as

A consulting house to multinational corporations" in New York City, and his functions as a "research assistant" and "financial writer"

In fact he was recruited by Business International Corporation that was continuously being accused of as a CIA front company. Wikipedia, an independent source, supports this:

"The company has been identified as cover organization for the Central Intelligence Agency, e.g. see Lobster Magazine, and issue 14 in 1987. According to a lengthy article in the New York Times in 1977, the co-founder of the company told the newspaper that "Eldridge Haynes [the other founder] had provided cover for four CIA employees in various countries between 1955 and 1960"

"Oddly Obama's book doesn't mention the name of his employer. However, a New York Times story of 2007 identifies the company as Business International Corporation. In his book, he doesn't mention his employer's name nor does he say when he worked there, or why he left."

Politicians clearly understand, or deny to their personal peril, that there is an analogy between "getting in with the CIA" and the old Roach Motel commercials: once they get in, they cannot get out.

That Obama is a CIA asset is certainly not surprising, given his meteoric rise to pop-star politician status, and how any potential negatives were immediately erased from his campaign with the efficiency of a kick-ass tsunami.

But this status does not augur well for We the People. In spite of his brilliantly polished (and probably ghost-written) populist rhetoric, this man is absolutely no friend of the American working person.

His choices, in terms of carefully chosen positions he held professionally were engineered to make him appear to be a true friend and advocate, while masking the absolute and complete opposite.

From the banking industry bailouts to the alleged "healthcare reform" legislation (which will massively skyrocket profits for the insurance industry), to decisions about wars which profit the companies providing war materials and troops, President Obama, ultimately and sadly, is committed to taking as much money as humanly possible from taxpayers, and stuffing it into the coffers of the people he truly represents: the wealthiest of the wealthy, both here and abroad.

[accuracy]

9,000 Marines Heading to Afghanistan Immediately After Obama Announcement

Aims to Double Marine Presence in Helmand

by Jason Ditz, November 29, 2009

The United States is wasting no time in throwing more troops at the war in Afghanistan. Officials say as soon as President Obama makes his Tuesday announcement of the escalation of the war, 9,000 additional Marines will depart for Afghanistan.


The 9,000 Marines will head to the Helmand Province, roughly doubling the number of marines on the ground in the tense province. It will also be a significant portion of the estimated 34,000 additional troops President Obama will commit to the war.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates had said the escalation would come quickly, despite caution that it was complicated to add so many troops to a war in a landlocked, virtually infrastructure free country on the other side of the globe. Still, most assumed it would be at least January when the troops started arriving.

That the troops are all heading to Helmand will no doubt be troubling news to Pakistan, as Prime Minister Gilani cautioned only two days ago that he was worried a US escalation in Helmand could destabilize the nation’s Balochistan Province.
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/11/29/9...-announcement/

[accuracy]

U.S. military putting higher priority on training Afghan police

Sunday, November 29, 2009


A long day at an Afghan checkpoint Click for a gallery of photographs

By Jay Price | McClatchy Newspapers
KOLK, Afghanistan — With the Taliban on the offensive and gaining ground, the U.S. military has taken major steps to boost the training of the Afghan police forces, particularly since American Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal arrived in June to command the U.S. and NATO forces.

The U.S. now is using larger units attached to full brigades to train the police. Second Lt. Hans Beutel's platoon of about 25 men is tasked with mentoring the 180-man national police force in Kandahar province's Zhari district. It's part of a brigade of more than 3,000 82nd Airborne Division soldiers from Fort Bragg, N.C., that doubled the number of troops who were mentoring Afghan security forces when it arrived in late August.

Using full brigades as trainers provides more direct control over assets such as intelligence gathering and supplies than the previous system did, which had 12-man units reporting to a central command.

The military also is giving the training mission new prominence, naming Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV to lead a new NATO command.

American military leaders in Afghanistan agree that the Afghan army has improved after years of working with the U.S.-led coalition but that the police have lagged.

The police are particularly important to McChrystal's emphasis on protecting the Afghan population. Unlike Afghan soldiers, the police are usually from the areas in which they work. They understand the tribal structures, the people and the geography, making it easier to figure out who's likely to be sympathetic, who the insurgents are and what they're doing.

Col. Brian Drinkwine, the commander of the 82nd Airborne Division's 4th Brigade Combat Team, which is the first brigade to undertake a training mission, said that much of the earlier training had focused on the Afghan army.

Now his soldiers, who are spread over 34 locations across the south and west of Afghanistan, are spending perhaps 60 percent of their time working with the police.

Drinkwine cautioned against expecting rapid improvement or measuring success by increases in the size of the police force and military. The stronger emphasis on training is "an investment strategy," he said.

"It's not going to be a Jiffy Bake, and if you did see it that quick, it probably wouldn't be legitimate," he said.

The number of police officers trained is important, he said, but the real yardsticks, if the Afghans are going to stand on their own, are about improving each police district's abilities. That includes matters as simple as police units that come back from a patrol and conduct proper debriefings on their own, commanders who request supplies before they run out or police who are competent enough to train other Afghans themselves.

(Price reports for The News & Observer in Raleigh, N.C.)
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/79640.html

[accuracy]

Obama orders 30-35,000 more troops for Afghanistan, surge to begin by Christmas

By The Associated Press
Monday, November 30th, 2009 -- 7:36 pm

After months of debate, President Barack Obama will spell out a costly Afghanistan war expansion to a skeptical public Tuesday night, coupling an infusion of as many as 35,000 more troops with a vow that there will be no endless U.S. commitment. His first orders have already been made: at least one group of Marines who will be in place by Christmas.

Obama has said that he prefers "not to hand off anything to the next president" and that his strategy will "put us on a path toward ending the war." But he doesn't plan to give any more exact timetable than that Tuesday night.
...read on...
http://rawstory.com/2009/11/obama-or...rge-christmas/

From the WRH site:
I do not want to have one more of my tax dollars spent on a war for corporate profit. I do not want to see one more of our fine US soldiers get killed or maimed for life in the name of corporate profit.

The outcomesof the invasion and Afghanistan were to have been;

1. To install the pipelines to control Eurasian oil (a goal the US/NATO occupation is not anywhere near accomplishing).

2. To control the drug trade, from which so many profit so handsomely. And if you are screaming "no, this couldn't possibly be", and just about to throw your computer at the wall for such a suggestion, please, sit down, take a deep breath, and look at the facts.

Under the rule of the Taliban, the cultivation of opium poppies had nearly disappeared. After the invasion and occupation by US/NATO forces, opium production has soared.

As reported on 3 September, 2006, in

http://thetorontotimes.com/content/view/560/68/

"Helmand province has seen a 162 % increase in opium production over last year. This province has also seen significant attacks on British troops and NATO forces this past year. The narco-economy is threatening to turn the state into a Narco state with the complete collapse of the democratic reforms initiated by the western allies."

Any questions?

The people of Afghanistan pose absolutely no threat to US national security; they just happen to be cursed to live at a geographic spot that would be great for pipelines, and the ideal weather conditions for growing opium.

They simply want us out of their country, period, end of discussion.

Any new "surge" in Afghanistan will be met by an equal - or better "surge" of Taliban fighters, which will then cause the US military to ask for more troops which will....

You get my point.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/

[accuracy]

US asks France for 1,500 more troops for Afghanistan

Monday, November 30, 2009

The United States has asked France to provide another 1,500 troops for the allied mission in Afghanistan, the French newspaper Le Monde reported on Monday.

In Paris, a spokesman for the French foreign ministry refused to confirm or deny the report, which said US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made the request on Thursday in a telephone call to French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said Mrs Clinton spoke by telephone with Mr Kouchner on Thursday but gave no details other than that he was one of many allies she called about coordinating efforts in Afghanistan.


Besides Kouchner, Mr Kelly said, Mrs Clinton also spoke late last week with her counterparts from Poland, Canada, Italy, South Korea, Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, Turkey, Greece, Germany, Britain, and Norway.

"A number of these calls were specifically to talk to our partners who are involved... in the effort in Afghanistan and to... talk in general outlines about the president's strategy going forward in Afghanistan," he said.

"She talked about the need for mostly coordinating our efforts," Kelly told reporters. "But, again, I'm just not going to get into about numbers or increases or anything like that."

US President Barack Obama has asked Washington's NATO allies to increase their troop numbers in Afghanistan, and he is expected to announce at least 30,000 US reinforcements in a major speech on Afghan strategy Tuesday.

The White House said Monday that Obama had called French President Nicolas Sarkozy to update him on plans.

France already has 3,750 soldiers attached to the campaign, 3,400 of them in Afghanistan itself, but Mr Sarkozy's government has insisted that it has no plans to increase the number.

Britain, Italy and Macedonia said Monday that they would send reinforcements.

http://mytechnologyworld9.blogspot.c...roops-for.html

[accuracy]

Obama: "The first thing I will do as President is get our troops home. Take that to the bank."

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Quote: "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. " - Barack Obama Campaign Promise - October 27, 2007


(Please read on, also a youtube video to be viewed.)
http://careandwashingofthebrain.blog...ill-do-as.html

[accuracy]

US troop surge met in Afghanistan with cynicism and conspiracy theories

2 December 2009

Despite Barack Obama's face featuring prominently on the evening bulletins on the various televisions positioned around one of central Kabul's large and grimy restaurants, tonight few of the diners were taking any notice of the news that an extra 30,000 US troops would be arriving in Afghanistan soon.

"It is just a political decision taken by the Americans, it has nothing to do with us," said one customer.

Those watching were sceptical about the chances of the surge bringing peace. "Wherever the foreign forces go they are attacked and it is the civilians who always get killed," said Mohamad Ashraf, an economics graduate, as he tucked into a dinner of fried mutton.

"Nato already has thousands of troops, far more than the Taliban, but they have been unable to stop districts coming under their control," said Ashraf, arguing that such success could only be explained by some sort of clandestine US support for the insurgency.

It is not hard to find conspiracy theories amid widespread disillusionment among people who have witnessed the steady deterioration of security conditions in the country since 2001.

"In 2001 and 2002 there were no explosions or suicide attacks; it was only when the foreign troops came that the situation got worse," said Ali Khan, a cobbler in Lashkar Gah in Helmand. A businessman who imports clothes from Pakistan and is able to freely move around areas with an enormous Taliban influence, he warned that no amount of troops would help in the south. "Even if it is 90,000 they won't be able to do anything; [the Taliban's] power is too much," he said.

Despite the low esteem Nato is held in, there were few prepared to say foreign troops should leave. "They cannot leave until Afghanistan is strong enough to look after itself, otherwise we will return to the factional fighting of the 1990s," said Noorullah Khan, a policeman.

Many more agreed with Obama and General Stanley McChrystal's main idea that the country's own security forces should be massively increased.

"When [the army and police are] strengthened and administrative problems of corruption have been removed then they will be able to defend Afghanistan much better than the Americans," said Haji Agha Lalai, a former head of a peace and reconciliation committee in Kandahar. But he warned the US against rushing training in the hurry to reduce troop numbers. "Trying to do anything in 18 months certainly won't work."

Obama's call for US troops to begin to come home in a year and a half has alarmed some Afghans, fearful that they will again be abandoned as they were in the 90s after the Soviet withdrawal.

But Mohamad Ehsa, an 18-year-old minding his father's grocery shop, said he believed the Americans when they said a withdrawal would only occur when conditions had been met. "They will not leave until Afghanistan is strong and it is safe for them to go. I don't think they would want to see the country fall back into war again," he said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...istan-response

[wyndham]

This is interesting, the Khyber Pass, Khyber comes from an Armenian word for Kabar, or Hebrew...this little narrow pass was the only land route from India to Turkey, Greece, Israel etc., it is just below the Kabul river that flows into the holy Indus...it is suppussedly the route taken when the Aryans first invaded India and borught with them modern language, logic and warfare...

[accuracy]

Originally Posted by wyndham

This is interesting, the Khyber Pass, Khyber comes from an Armenian word for Kabar, or Hebrew...this little narrow pass was the only land route from India to Turkey, Greece, Israel etc., it is just below the Kabul river that flows into the holy Indus...it is suppussedly the route taken when the Aryans first invaded India and borught with them modern language, logic and warfare...

Waaaay offffffffff topic there................

[accuracy]

Neocons Get Warm and Fuzzy Over ‘War President’

Obama will have more than doubled the number of American troops in Afghanistan since he became president”

by Eli Clifton, December 05, 2009
U.S. President Barack Obama’s plan for a 30,000-troop surge and a troop withdrawal timeline beginning in 18 months has caught criticism from both Democrat and Republican lawmakers.

But a small group of hawkish foreign policy experts – who have lobbied the White House since August to escalate U.S. involvement in Afghanistan – are christening Obama the new “War President.”

The response to Obama’s Tuesday night speech at West Point has largely been less than enthusiastic, with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle finding plenty in the administration’s Afghanistan plan that fails to live up to their expectations. Republicans have hammered the White House on Obama’s decision to begin a drawdown of U.S. forces in 18 months, while Democrats largely expressed ambivalence or dismay over the administration’s willingness to commit 30,000 more soldiers to a war seen by many as unwinnable and costly at a time when the U.S. economy is barely in recovery from the global financial crisis.

The White House’s rollout of the 30,000 troop surge did little to convince an already skeptical Congress, but foreign policy hawks who have accused the president of “dithering” in making a decision on Afghanistan are praising the administration’s willingness to make the “tough” commitment to escalate the U.S. commitment in the war in Afghanistan.

Indeed, their approval of the White House’s decision to commit 30,000 troops is the culmination of a campaign led by the newly formed Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI).

FPI held its first event in March, titled “Afghanistan: Planning for Success,” and a second event in September – “Advancing and Defending Democracy” – which focused on counterinsurgency in combating the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

The newly formed group is headed up by the Weekly Standard’s editor Bill Kristol; foreign policy adviser to the McCain presidential campaign Robert Kagan; and former policy adviser in the George W. Bush administration Dan Senor.

Kagan and Kristol were also co-founders and directors of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a number of whose 1997 charter members, including the elder Cheney, former Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, and their two top aides, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby and Paul Wolfowitz, respectively, played key roles in promoting the 2003 invasion of Iraq and Bush’s other first-term policies when the hawks exercised their greatest influence.

The core leadership of FPI has waged their campaign in countless editorials and columns published in the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the Weekly Standard.

These articles have often been highly critical, at times suggesting that Obama’s unwillingness to give Gen. Stanley McChrystal the 20,000 to 40,000 troops requested in his September report to Defense Secretary Robert Gates amounted to “dithering” and projected U.S. weakness to the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and U.S. allies in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Senor described himself as “pleasantly surprised” and “quite encouraged by the president’s decision” in a Republican National Committee sponsored conference call.

“It seems to me that Obama deserves even more credit for courage than Bush did, for he has risked much more. By the time Bush decided to support the surge in Iraq in early 2007, his presidency was over and discredited, brought down in large part by his own disastrous decision not to send the right number of troops in 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2006,” wrote Kagan in the Washington Post on Wednesday.

“Obama has had to make this decision with most of his presidency still ahead of him. Bush had nothing to lose. Obama could lose everything,” Kagan concluded.

The theme of heralding Obama as a stoic decision-maker in the face of an administration and Congress that seek to “manage American decline” – as Kagan wrote – was also echoed by Bill Kristol in the Washington Post on Wednesday.

“By mid-2010, Obama will have more than doubled the number of American troops in Afghanistan since he became president; he will have empowered his general, Stanley McChrystal, to fight the war pretty much as he thinks necessary to in order to win; and he will have retroactively, as it were, acknowledged that he and his party were wrong about the Iraq surge in 2007 – after all, the rationale for this surge is identical to Bush’s, and the hope is for a similar success. He will also have embraced the use of military force as a key instrument of national power,” wrote Kristol.

The heralding of Obama as “A War President” – which was the title of Kristol’s article in the Washington Post – is a striking change of tone from some of the same pundits who were vociferously attacking the administration for every major policy initiative as recently as last week.

“Just what is Barack Obama as president making of our American destiny? The answer, increasingly obvious, is… a hash. It’s worse than most of us expected. His dithering on Afghanistan is deplorable, his appeasing of Iran disgraceful, his trying to heap new burdens on a struggling economy destructive. Add to this his sending Khalid Sheikh Mohammed for a circus-like court trial,” wrote Kristol in the Nov. 23 edition of the Weekly Standard.

“The next three years are going to be long and difficult ones for our economy, our military, and our country,” he wrote.

The hawkish Wall Street Journal editorial board – which on Sept. 10 suggested that Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize because he sees the U.S. “as weaker than it was and the rest of the planet as stronger,” and on Sept. 18 described the administration’s decision to scrap a missile defense agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic as following “Mr. Obama’s trend of courting adversaries while smacking allies” – also exhibited a noticeable change in tone in praising the White House’s decision to surge troop levels.

“We support Mr. Obama’s decision, and this national effort, notwithstanding our concerns about the determination of the president and his party to see it through. Now that he’s committed, so is the country, and one of our abiding principles is that nations should never start (much less escalate) wars they don’t intend to win,” said the Journal’s editorial board on Wednesday.

The board’s qualified endorsement of the White House’s war plan seems to reflect both the Republican concerns that Obama may use the 18-month deadline as an excuse to withdraw from Afghanistan before the Taliban and al-Qaeda are defeated and foreign policy hawks – such as those at FPI – who are pleased with the administration’s decision to commit more fully to the war in Afghanistan.

Hawks, such as Kagan and Kristol, may have to argue in 18 months for an extension of the withdrawal deadline but in similarly worded statements they both expressed confidence that this would not be a problem.

“If we and our Afghan allied partners are succeeding [by July 2011], the timing [of the withdrawal] may make sense. If we aren’t it won’t. It will not be any easier for Obama to embrace defeat in 18 months than it is today,” wrote Kagan in the Washington Post in response to concerns about the timeline for withdrawal.

“[T]he July 2011 date also buys Obama time. It enables him to push off pressure to begin withdrawing, or to rethink the basic strategy, for 18 months. We’ve come pretty far from all the talk about off ramps at three or six-month intervals in 2010 that we were hearing just a little while ago,” Kristol wrote on the Weekly Standard’s blog on Tuesday.

For hawks like Kristol, Kagan, and Senor who have been calling for a surge in U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan since August, Obama’s announcement on Tuesday night was a high-point in their campaign of op-eds, columns, and conferences, to push the Obama White House in the direction of an escalation in Afghanistan.

Kristol concluded his blog post on a confident note.

“In a way, Obama is now saying: We’re surging and fighting for the next 18 months; see you in July 2011. That’s about as good as we’re going to get.”

(Inter Press Service)

http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2009...dent%E2%80%99/

[octopusrex]

Originally Posted by accuracy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxjOeS8vhUs

I wonder if LaRouche is inviting the angloamericans (and other Europeans) to join Russia, India and China, who surely are ignorant nor stupid about the Anglo-American push.

[accuracy]

Tarpley-Obama Declares War On Pakistan

GuerrillaNewsChannel
December 05, 2009

Tarpley-Obama Declares War On Pakistan - YouTube

Tarpley-Obama Declares War On Pakistan - YouTube

[wyndham]

Originally Posted by accuracy

Waaaay offffffffff topic there................

The etymology and history of the Khyber pass is not pertinent to the War in Afghanistan?