The Neoconservatives attacked Iraq despite some very good advice from Coin Powell. He repeatedly warned GW2B that if he broke Iraq, he was going to own it, so its not like the Administration was clueless about the risks involved; because Colin Powell knew full well that secretarian violence and civil war was likely if Saddam were removed, as did leadership in the DOD, Pentagon, and Military that were advising Colin Powell.
The Plan was really simple. It involved taking Saddam out and then filling the power vacuum with a Shiite elected president who would be beholden to the US and its interest in the middle east region. Since the Shiite made up the vast majority of the Iraq population, the Administration assumed national elections would be no problem. Good plan, right? Perhaps not. Now there is a great struggle in Iraq envolving the US military, Shiite, Sunni, and Kurds, as to who will full the power vacuum left from Saddam's removal. Should the violence and contention for power spill over beyond the Iraq borders, into the greater middle east and Persians gulf region as a whole, the population numbers between Shiite and Sunni would change dramatically, so that 85% of the population will be Sunni and only 15% of the population will be Shiite. If the violence goes regional it's going to be a whole new ball game. Regards, LelandJ Bill Arnold wrote: > The programming wing of the gang who launched that war, the folks who > have editorial control over most of our "news", have made the decision a > long time ago that the word 'violence' will always be qualified with the > word 'sectarian'. The impression this is intended to cast, and no doubt > has achieved the desired effect for many, is that "everything would have > been just fine" if only religions didn't start battling each other. > > As with virtually every other important aspect of their invasion of the > ME, it's a distortion that's every bit as bad as a flat out lie. Anyone > who has studied that situation at all knows that they *hate* being > occupied, and the vast majority of Iraqi's and Afghani's want (that is, > "require") the occupier out, so there would be violence one way or the > other. By pounding the "secartian" angle into our brains, the goal is to > have us believing that our problem over stems from this one "truth". > Much closer to the "truth" is that there is more then one war going on > over there at the same time - now that the dogs are out. > > The point, if it's still not clear, is that it's "violence" due to > several reasons, and not "sectarian violence" as we've been manipulated > to believe. This is just another example of how "programmers" can take a > partial truth and puff and distort it to shape a picture other then the > truth. > > This is not surprising, because at the bottom of all this is the fact > that they are staying their course (to gain authority in the ME), and > that requires manipulating public opinion. This is how they do it. > > Now back to today's report on the "secretarian violence" from our "good > friends" at AP, who create and dispense a lot of this programming to the > other players, in this case MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17111509/ > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
