Pots on the Burner
In hurried fashion as if it had to be done by the end of the year,
Saddam Hussein was hanged at daybreak before New Years Eve.
2006 Went Out with a Hang. The year 2007 opens with news of U.S. president George W. Bush gearing up for additional war in Iraq and possibly Iran.
Israel is
reportedly ready to attack Iran with low-yield nuclear weapons, although they deny it.
As they build their nuclear weapons systems, Teheran says:
Israel will regret any attack.
President Bush is ready to set target dates for the Iraqi government to get a handle on terror attacks happening inside the country against warring factions so he can get our troops out soon, or so he says. But at the same time he is calling for 20-30,000 additional troops and has sent four battle groups into the region, partly to scare Iran, but also as a show of force in support of Israel.
Democrats are ready to fight any troop surge and demand they come home, which would have devastating consequences for America, both at home and in Iraq, not to mention around the world when civil war breaks out in Iraq after the troops leave. Iran would own Iraq lock, stock and barrel.
The world will be finding out exactly what steps Bush will task America with next week. Look for him to either go full bore for victory or for Iraq's stablization while warning Iran and Syria to keep their insurgents and weapons out or else face brutal consequences.
While the year is young, pots on the burner are starting to sizzle.
Labels: Bush, Iran, Iraq War, Israel, Lebannon, nuclear weapons, Russia, Syria, troop surge
Who will vanish?
In the middle east it is becoming crystal clear that a much larger-wider war is on the horizon. Everyday now we learn more about the threats Iran wants to impose on the world and who wants to stop them.
Iran has suddenly declared itself a nuclear power. In a clear rejection of all diplomatic attempts to prevent Iran from going nuclear, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad added in his speech that "the Iranian nation will continue in its nuclear path powerfully and will celebrate a nuclear victory soon."
The announcement of Iran as a "nuclear power" is bound to significantly escalate tensions between the West and Iran, and marks a dramatic stage in the Islamic Republic's nuclear campaign.Ahmadinejad: Israel, US will vanishIn his speech, Ahmadinejad said:
"The aggressive forces will vanish, while the Iranian people will survive – since all who chose God will survive and those who distance themselves from God vanish like Pharaoh."
He added,
"The US, Britain, and the Zionist regime will vanish since they have distanced themselves from God. This is a divine promise."
Ahmadinejad also referred to the international motion towards imposing sanctions on Iran for refusing to put an end to it's nuclear program, explaining,
"They threaten us with punishments. But they must know that nuclear energy is the Iranian people's right, and they will insist on that right."
In an article,
The world according to Blair Mr. Blair has some words that need to be heard by everyone in the world.
"We must support and empower moderate and modernising Governments and people everywhere in this region. We must recognise the strategic threat the Government of Iran poses."
Tony Blair left an audience of Arab female university students lost for words as he called for a 'global culture' based on common values of openness, tolerance, equality and fairness.
"They seek to pin us back in Lebanon, in Iraq in Palestine. Our response should be to expose what they are doing, build the alliances to prevent it and pin them back across the whole of the region.
"To do this we need the open and clear backing of the countries in this region who know better than me what is happening and why."
President Bush opened a question-and-answer session on Wednesday by conceding the obvious that things haven't gone well in Iraq, where the United States has lost more than 2,900 troops in almost four years of war, without quelling the insurgency.
On Iraq, President Bush said:
"We need to reset our military," said Bush, whose administration had opposed increasing force levels as recently as this summer. Gates, who was sworn in Monday,
arrived in Baghdad this morning for several days of meetings with U.S. military commanders and Iraqi officials.
But Bush yesterday had changed his mind.
"I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops -- the Army, the Marines, and I talked about this to Secretary Gates, and he is going to spend some time talking to the folks in the building, come back with a recommendation to me about how to proceed forward on this idea."
"The enemies of liberty ... carried out a deliberate strategy to foment sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shia. And over the course of the year they had success."
"Their success hurt our efforts to help the Iraqis rebuild their country. They set back reconciliation and kept Iraq's unity government and our coalition from establishing security and stability throughout the country."
Who's behind all this?The persons who need to be watched have been working on a plan to form an ALLIANCE OF CIVILIZATIONS.
According to this
article excerpt, which I highly recommend everyone read in full at the link,
The newest and most powerful front in this war I have seen to date is the Kofi Annan convened, Javier Solana 2003 originated “Alliance of Civilizations.” Officially proposed, no doubt at the request of Dr. Solana, by prime ministers of Turkey (Erdogan) and Spain (Zapatero), it is a powerful convergence of politics and religion blending into frightening and fast-growing “global governance.” Right on schedule, its “High Level Group of Eminent Personalities,” (amazingly similar to long disappeared former Lucis Trust administrator, Donald Keys’, and his then 1981 proposed “World Council of Wise Persons”) issued its final recommendations on November 13, 2006. You may read it for yourself by clicking here.(Emphasis mine.)
Biblical prophecies signal separate events that will lead in apocalyptic end times—Isaiah 17:1 says, “Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.” Another is Ezekiel 38 where it is said that Gog, Magog, Persia, Ethiopia and Libya will come against Israel and be defeated.
It is widely believed these nations are to be Russia, Iran, Northern Africa and the former Persian Empire. The alliance of these nations is occurring stronger each day and the end result will lead them to come against Israel soon.
These are the main players in the world now who are creating a one world order and will impose a one world religion to control the global populace.
We are now in a world headed to conclusion not in our control.
Labels: Blair, Bush, End times, Global Culture, God, Iran, Iraq War, Magog, New World Order, Persia., Russia
War Plans for the New Year
Major trouble is once again brewing in the Gaza strip as civil war begins to break out between Hamas and Fatah. A desperate Mahmoud Abbas has called for early elections in an attempt to stop a coup against his government.
Reports have surfaced saying that Russia is defying the West by willingly supplying nuclear fuel to Iran, they say for peaceful purposes. Russia will also supply Syria with anti-tank and anti-air rockets with the Tor-M1 anti-missile system.
This is another sign that things are not well between the two major world powers as Russia chooses sides with the terrorist state, that is currently wreaking havoc for the Iraqi government with insurgents being brought into the country from Iran and its proxy Syria, who uses Hezbollah and Hamas to keep Israel busy while nuclear weapons are being made.
Clearly Russia sees Iran as a being better and closer partner as a balance to western power.
Al Qaeda has reorganized, making new advances with the insurgency in Iraq, where it has grown stronger in the last few years to continue waging Jihad against coalition troops.
Iraq is full of sectarian violence that will have to work itself out one way or another before any government can take real shape, which is doubtful under the divisions of historic religious ideologies more complex than can be dealt with in a realistic manner.
Warnings from Israel
Israeli Mossad chief Meir Dagan said Monday that Israel should not take the Syrian peace overture seriously because Damascus is "more prepared than ever before" to take military action against Israel,.
"Israel's military deterrence was damaged in the second Lebanon war," Dagan told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. "[Syrian President Bashar] Assad's self-confidence grew. They are prepared to take more risks than in the past."
"Any misstep" could trigger an armed conflict with Syria, stressed Dagan. If Israel were to send a warning signal to Assad - as it did in June when IAF jets buzzed his summer palace while the Syrian leader was in residence - it would be reason enough for Syria to wage war, he said.
"Iran is approaching nuclear ability. The Iranian president wants 3000 centrifugal processors in bunkers by March 2007," said Dagan. He added that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was not capable of meeting the deadline, noting that the Mossad believed that such numbers would take Ahmadinejad until the end of 2007.
Dagan explained that if there were "no sanctions on Iran and no technological holdups," Iran would have 25 kilograms of enriched uranium by 2008 and nuclear warheads by 2009-2010.
Energy supplies scarce?
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has told a Kuwaiti envoy that Iran is ready to transfer nuclear technology to neighbouring countries. This is also in defiance of the United Nations and the IAEA. As the year closes, dramatic events are taking shape on the world stage, setting up for what could become intense battles in the Middle East as energy dominance becomes the prize to be had.
The West has its doubts about Iran's true intentions of their nuclear program, believing they're making bombs, while Russia moves to strengthen Iran's hand and China helps to block us from stopping them.
U.S. scholar Marshall Goldman says energy wealth and control over export pipelines have made Russia more powerful than at any time in its history.
Professor Goldman told the Jamestown Foundation that Russia’s post-cold war power is built on its oil and gas resources. He said both eastern and western Europe have become dependent on Russia for oil and gas and that alternative supplies are not available. The recent boom in oil and gas prices, said Professor Goldman, has greatly boosted Russia’s economic and political clout.
Goldman says Russia has a long history of using oil and gas as a foreign policy tool.
“In the Soviet era they cut off the flow of oil to Yugoslavia under Tito, to Israel after Sinai, to China after Mao broke away, to Cuba, to Finland, and more recently to Lithuania because there is a dispute over who is going to control the refinery there that Yukos is trying to sell,” he explained.
Saudi Arabia is concerned about Iran using oil as a weapon, especially if they achieve nuclear status, which means an inevitable rise in prices, that alone could trigger war.
The recent Iraq Study Group report says America should hold direct talks with the Iranian regime, the same regime that has threatened to wipe Israel and the U.S. off the map. This is the same thinking that went into dealing with Adolf Hitler and Germany before WWII. There really is no need to talk to Iran as there position is crystal clear for all the world to hear, if only they will hear it.
Iran believes that it will only take one bomb to end Israel's existence, which is likely true. But they either fail to realize or are willing to sacrifice massive retaliation. With Russia and Syria being allies to Iran, any retaliation is questionable at best.
As America and her allies try to change the Arab world, they are trying to change us as well, which could eventually lead to a stalemate and even some kind of peace in the region for a time, until it explodes again. In this topsy-turvy world, inflamed by Islamic radicalization, anything can spark war in Middle East, even old cartoons.
The tension grows more intense every hour as if we're all watching an international chess game being played between teams, the diplomatic talks are near failure as the Iranian regime desires to bring about chaos in hopes of reviving the Messianic 12th Imam that their Koran says will bring about Islamic global control. This is in similar manner as stated in prophecies of the Bible, only with Jesus bringing about peace for the world after the Armageddon war.
As the chaos builds and tensions rise throughout the world, there is likely to be a final attempt at stopping it all, the same way America ended WWII. If Damascus is obliterated, we will know the end is imminent, but it will be far different.
Happy New Year!
Which is shaping-up like the old, as the saying goes, "the more things change...
Labels: Abbas, Ahmadinejad, Al Qaeda, Armageddon, Assad, Bush, Fatah, Hamas, Iran, Iraq War, Islam, Israel, Power, Putin, Russia, Syria
Has Gates Given Up Already?
The incoming Defense Secretary believes America is losing the war in Iraq. He also believes that the president does not have the authority to declare war on our enemies.
Leftist Sen.
Ted Kennedy, who previously sided with Russia against president
Reagan winning the cold war, asked where Gates' loyalty laid. Gates said "I'll be independent. … But," he emphasized, "there is still only one president of the United States, and he will make the final decision." Gates sounds as if he wants more than one president or perhaps a partnership of some sort.
To the great delight of Iran and Syria, Mr. Gates has admitted America has little choice but to accept Iran's nuclear status, thus giving those vowing Israel's defeat the upper hand against our ally.
Senator Robert Byrd went right to the heart of the muddle in the Middle East in this exchange...Senator Byrd: Do you support, I hear all these rumors about the potential for an attack on Iran due to its nuclear weapons program, or on Syria due to its support of terrorism. Do you support an attack on Iran?
Mr. Gates: Senator Byrd I think that military action against Iran would be an absolute last resort, that any problems that we have with Iran, our first options should be diplomacy and working with our allies to try and deal with the problems that iran is posing to us. I think that we have seen in Iraq that once war is unleashed it becomes unpredictable, and I think that the consequences of a conflict, a military conflict with Iran, could be quite dramatic and therefore I would counsel against military action except as a last resort and if we felt that our vital interests were threatened.
Senator Byrd: Do you support an attack on Syria?
Mr. Gates: No sir I do not.
Senator Byrd: Do you believe that the president has the authority under either the 9/11 war resolution or the Iraq war resolution to attack Iran or to attack Syria?
Mr. Gates: To the best of my knowledge, both of those authorizations, I don't believe so.
Senator Byrd: Would you briefly describe your view of the likely consequences of a US attack on Iran?
Mr. Gates: It is always awkward to talk about hypotheticals in this case, but I think that while Iran cannot attack us directly militarily, I think that their capacity to potentially close off the Persian Gulf to all exports of oil, their potential to unleash a significant wave of terror both in , ah, in the Middle East and in Europe, and even here in this country is very real. They are certainly not being helpful in Iraq, and are doing us, doing damage to our interests there, but I think that they could do a lot more to hurt our effort in Iraq. I think that they could provide certain kinds of weapons of mass destruction, particularly chemical and biological weapons to terrorist groups. Their ability to get Hezbolah to further destabilize Lebanon is very real. So I think while their ability to retaliate in a conventional military way is quite limited, they have the capacity to do all of things and perhaps more that I just described.
Senator Byrd: What about an attack on Syria? Would you briefly describe your view of the likely consequences of a US attack on Syria?
Mr. Gates: I think the Syrian capacity to do harm to us is far more limited than that of Iran, but I believe that a military attack by US on Syria would have dramatic consequences for us throughout the middle east in terms of our relationships with a wide range of countries in that area. I think that it would give rise to significantly greater anti-Americanism than we have seen to date. I think that it would immensely complicate our relationships with virtually every country in the region.
Senator Byrd: Would you say that an attack on either Iran or Syria would worsen the violence in iraq and lead to greater American casualties?
Mr. Gates: Yes sir. I think that is very likely.
Senator Byrd: Your answer is yes on both questions?
Mr. Gates: Yes sir, very likely.
While Gates seems to recognize the threats against us by Iran and Syria, he provides little confidence of our ability to deal with those threats on a military level if needed.
Either Gates is wishy-washy, has no core values when it comes to defending this nation, or he is baiting the congress with powers they do not possess.
Gates replied to the Senate committee’s at his confirmation hear Tuesday:
“If Iran obtains nuclear weapons no one can promise it would not use them against Israel.”
DEBKAfile’s military sources note: This assertion presupposes that Iran will not be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons. Furthermore, Gates spoke in the plural about nuclear weapons. In all, he addressed three messages to Jerusalem:
1. There are no assurances that we will be able to prevent an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel.
2. Iran’s nuclear arsenal will contain different types of weapons.
3. On the nuclear issue, you are on your own; don’t count on us for a response.
This confirmation hearing leaves us with more questions than answers. For instance, could this be some kinda ploy to give our enemies false hope? Or is Gates serious about giving in to Damascus and Tehran? Does he see diplomacy as the only alternative? Will he be able to conduct the Department of Defense if the president decides we must come to the aide of our allies and/or attack Iran's facilities? Will he insist on getting approval from Congress before making decisions concerning our military strength and deployment?
Gates has given himself and the country one to two years to fix the current situation of terrorism being orchestrated by Iran and likely Russia in Iraq for weakening American and Iraqi resolve.
"What we are now doing is not satisfactory," Gates said at his confirmation hearing. "In my view, all options are on the table, in terms of how we address this problem in Iraq.
Gates seems to be an appeaser who may not defend the national security and Constitution of the United States against our sworn enemies who have declared war on us.
"I suspect in hindsight some of the folks in the administration would not make the same decisions they made," including the number of troops in Iraq to establish control after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime, Gates said.
"It seems to me that the United States is going to have to have some kind of presence in Iraq for a long time ... but it could be with a dramatically smaller number of U.S. forces than are there today," he later said.
No kidding, we still have small numbers of troops all over the world since WWII.
President Bush said on Monday that "Mr. Gates understands that we're in an ideological struggle and that the United States must succeed in helping this young democracy govern, sustain and defend itself." But he added that it's illogical and impractical to leave Iraq prematurely.
"Al Qaeda has made it clear that they want to team up with extremists inside of Iraq to drive us out of Iraq and the Middle East; we'd be disgraced; our allies would no longer support us. And when you throw in the mix Iran, which is very aggressive in the Middle East, you've got the ingredients for a very dangerous situation."
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed Tuesday to stick by the nuclear program and issued a new threat to downgrade relations with the 25-nation EU if European negotiators opted for tough U.N. sanctions. He gave no details on how ties might be downgraded. The EU is Iran's biggest trading partner.
The Security Council has been at odds over how to deal with Iran's defiance of an Aug. 31 U.N. deadline to halt uranium enrichment. Western powers accuse Iran of seeking nuclear bombs, while Tehran insists it only wants nuclear energy.
The Europeans and Americans want tough sanctions; Russia and China have pushed for dialogue, despite the failure of an EU effort to bring the Iranians to the negotiating table.
As Iran plays the world for more time, their plans to take it over are being fulfilled. Decisions will have to made soon if the major nations are to stop Iran from completing their mission, but Mr. Gates may be in favor of doing nothing, in essence, giving up.
Labels: Al Qaeda, Bush, EU, Gates, Iran, Iraq War, Israel, nuclear weapons
