Ever wonder why U.S. foreign policy is following Israel's "Clean Break" strategy to a tee?
"If You Think Bush Is Evil Now, Wait Until He Nukes Iran" By Paul Craig Roberts
The war in Iraq is lost. This fact is widely recognized by American military officers and has been recently expressed forcefully by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of US forces in Iraq during the first year of the attempted occupation. Winning is no longer an option. Our best hope, Gen. Sanchez says, is "to stave off defeat," and that requires more intelligence and leadership than Gen. Sanchez sees in the entirety of our national political leadership: "I am absolutely convinced that America has a crisis in leadership at this time."[ US can forget about winning in Iraq: top retired general, AFP, Sunday June 3, 2007]
More evidence that the war is lost arrived June 4 with headlines reporting: "U.S.-led soldiers control only about a third of Baghdad, the military said on Monday." After five years of war the US controls one-third of one city and nothing else.
A host of US commanding generals have said that the Iraq war is destroying the US military. A year ago Colin Powell said that the US Army is "about broken." Lt. Gen. Clyde Vaughn says Bush has "piecemealed our force to death." Gen. Barry McCaffrey testified to the US Senate that "the Army will unravel."
Col. Andy Bacevich, America’s foremost writer on military affairs, documents in the current issue of The American Conservative that Bush’s insane war has depleted and exhausted the US Army and Marine Corps:
"Only a third of the regular Army’s brigades qualify as combat-ready. In the reserve components, none meet that standard. When the last of the units reaches Baghdad as part of the president’s strategy of escalation, the US will be left without a ready-to-deploy land force reserve."
"The stress of repeated combat tours is sapping the Army’s lifeblood. Especially worrying is the accelerating exodus of experienced leaders. The service is currently short 3,000 commissioned officers. By next year, the number is projected to grow to 3,500. The Guard and reserves are in even worse shape. There the shortage amounts to 7,500 officers. Young West Pointers are bailing out of the Army at a rate not seen in three decades. In an effort to staunch the losses, that service has begun offering a $20,000 bonus to newly promoted captains who agree to stay on for an additional three years. Meanwhile, as more and more officers want out, fewer and fewer want in: ROTC scholarships go unfilled for a lack of qualified applicants."[ Bushed Army, June 4, 2007]
Bush has taken every desperate measure. Enlistment ages have been pushed up from 35 to 42. The percentage of high school dropouts and the number of recruits scoring at the bottom end of tests have spiked. The US military is forced to recruit among drug users and convicted criminals. Bacevich reports that waivers " issued to convicted felons jumped by 30 percent." Combat tours have been extended from 12 to 15 months, and the same troops are being deployed again and again.
There is no equipment for training. Bacevich reports that "some $212 billion worth has been destroyed, damaged, or just plain worn out." What remains is in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Under these circumstances, "staying the course" means total defeat.
Even the neoconservative warmongers, who deceived Americans with the promise of a "cakewalk war" that would be over in six weeks, believe that the war is lost. But they have not given up. They have a last desperate plan: Bomb Iran. Vice President Dick Cheney is spear- heading the neocon plan, and Norman Podhoretz is the plan’s leading propagandist with his numerous pleas published in the Wall Street Journal and Commentary to bomb Iran. Podhoretz, like every neoconservative, is a total Islamophobe. Podhoretz has written that Islam must be deracinated and the religion destroyed, a genocide for the Muslim people.
The neocons think that by bombing Iran the US will provoke Iran to arm the Shiite militias in Iraq with armor-piercing rocket propelled grenades and with surface to air missiles and unleash the militias against US troops. These weapons would neutralize US tanks and helicopter gunships and destroy the US military edge, leaving divided and isolated US forces subject to being cut off from supplies and retreat routes. With America on the verge of losing most of its troops in Iraq, the cry would go up to "save the troops" by nuking Iran.
Five years of unsuccessful war in Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel’s recent military defeat in Lebanon have convinced the neocons that America and Israel cannot establish hegemony over the Middle East with conventional forces alone. The neocons have changed US war doctrine, which now permits the US to preemptively strike with nuclear weapons a non-nuclear power. Neocons are forever heard saying, "what’s the use of having nuclear weapons if you can’t use them."
Neocons have convinced themselves that nuking Iran will show the Muslim world that Muslims have no alternative to submitting to the will of the US government. Insurgency and terrorism cannot prevail against nuclear weapons.
Many US military officers are horrified at what they think would be the worst ever orchestrated war crime. There are reports of threatened resignations. But Dick Cheney is resolute. He tells Bush that the plan will save him from the ignominy of losing the war and restore his popularity as the president who saved Americans from Iranian nuclear weapons. With the captive American media providing propaganda cover, the neoconservatives believe that their plan can pull their chestnuts out of the fire and rescue them from the failure that their delusion has wrought.
The American electorate decided last November that they must do something about the failed war and gave the Democrats control of both houses of Congress. However, the Democrats have decided that it is easier to be complicit in war crimes than to represent the wishes of the electorate and hold a rogue president accountable. If Cheney again prevails, America will supplant the Third Reich as the most reviled country in recorded history.
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
At least the Democrats won't nuke Iran (or anyone else), right?WRONG!
"Nuclear Weapons Comment Puts Obama on the Defensive" by MICHAEL LUO
Senator Barack Obama found himself on the defensive again yesterday about his views on foreign policy, this time over a comment he made about the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
During an interview with The Associated Press, Mr. Obama, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, initially ruled out using nuclear weapons in the region as part of the effort to defeat terrorism and root out Osama bin Laden.
“I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,” he said, pausing before he added, “involving civilians.”
[Question, Barak: HOW the HELL can "civilians" NOT BE INVOLVED in ANY nuclear explosion?
You seem like a nice guy, Barak, but it is obvious that you know who the power center is in Washington D.C.: AIPAC!
When you speak from the heart, and as a human -- I'll talk to our "enemies," I'll not use nukes -- you are good, but when you serve Israel -- as you must -- you look and sound bad.
Expect another drop in the polls, as any candidate who doesn't bow before Israel drops.
Edwards said the war on terror is phony, he's now mired in third in the "polls."
You've been slipping, Barak, and Hil has been widening her lead.
And Rudy Jew-liani, despite all the antithetical Republican positions, still leads the Republicans because of the tough talk on terror.
And Ron Paul, who would win a free and fair election?
The MSM doesn't even bring up his name.]
But then he quickly said: “Let me scratch that. There’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That’s not on the table.”
Later in an interview on Capitol Hill, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, sought to clarify the remark about nuclear weapons, saying he was asked whether he would “use nuclear weapons to pursue Al Qaeda.”
“I said no one is talking about nuclear weapons,” Mr. Obama said. “I found it was a little bit of an off-the-wall question.”
His remarks about removing nuclear weapons as an option in the region drew fresh attacks from Democratic rivals who had already questioned his foreign policy experience.
American officials have generally been deliberately ambiguous about their nuclear strike policies.
Speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who is also seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, declined to say whether she agreed with Mr. Obama’s initial statement.
“I’m not going to answer hypotheticals,” Mrs. Clinton said.
She added: “I think that presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons. Presidents, since the Cold War, have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don’t believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.”
Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, another Democratic contender, said in a statement: “Over the past several days, Senator Obama’s assertions about foreign and military affairs have been, frankly, confusing and confused. He has made threats he should not make and made unwise categorical statements about military options.”
Mr. Obama, who is seeking to buttress his credibility on foreign policy, delivered a hawkish address this week in which he said he would dispatch American troops to destroy terrorist camps in Pakistan if the country failed to act.
The speech came after a weeklong back and forth with Mrs. Clinton over whether they would agree to meet with the leaders of rogue nations without preconditions. Mr. Obama said he would, while Mrs. Clinton said she would not, causing ivals to question his readiness to become commander in chief.
Mr. Obama, however, has sought to use the difference as part of his efforts to re-emphasize diplomacy and bring change in Washington.
The Obama campaign later issued a statement that expressed confidence that “conventional means” would be sufficient to take down Al Qaeda targets and surprise that “others would disagree.”
Yup, NUCLEAR WARFARE IS AN OPTION for all U.S. presidents and wanna-bes, and to rule these MONSTROUS WEAPONS off the table KILLS not only the "candidate's" chances, it will MURDER MILLIONS of INNOCENTS!
Upon the dropping of the bomb, the United States will hence be known as the WORST MASS-MURDERING REGIME in HISTORY!!!
Yessir, even worse than Stalin, Hitler, and Mao!
So DO IT, George, and TAKE YOUR PLACE in HISTORY, you Anti-Christ bastard!
