Wars and Rumors of Wars continued...

The U.S. has spent billions of dollars building military installations in remote parts of Iraq...

I read this article this morning...

REPORT: IRAQ PULLOUT
ALREADY DRAFTED
by Joe Duarte, M.D.
Joe-Duarte.com & IntelligentForecasts.com
July 11, 2007

Decision Time

One Republican strategist is telling President Bush to stay the course in Iraq, and not to look for an exit compromise in Iraq. But one external source with a knack for sensational revelations says that the pullout from Iraq is all but a done deal.

But before we get to the meat of this story, it's important to get on the same page.

A great deal of activity is under way with regard to the U.S. role in the war in Iraq. The situation in the country is deteriorating, as sectarian violence, combined with the presence of international militants threatens to plunge the country into disorder.

And making matters worse, there have been reports of 140,000 Turkish troops having been amassed on Iraq's northern border, aiming to attack a Kurdish rebel group that has threatened the Turkish government.

So what's going on? Let's get up to date.

The New York Times, over the weekend, reported that an intense battle over the U.S. and its future in Iraq was ongoing at the White House. The White House denied the reports on Monday.

Republican strategist Bill Krystol, wrote an op-ed piece in response to the Times article on Monday, encouraging the White House to stay the course, and not to back down or make any deals now.

Several key Republicans have withdrawn their support for the war.

And the Iraqi government is warning that a civil war will ensue if the U.S. pulls out.

Ready Since April

The White House says it's not making any changes to its Iraq strategy. But Debka.com reports that a U.S. plan for a withdrawal from Iraq has been on President Bush's desk since April 2007.

According to Debka: "built around the phased pull-back by early 2008 of a little more than half of the 170,000 or so troops there at present. Around 50-70,000 soldiers are to be redeployed to large strategic fortified enclaves in the south and the north as a semi-permanent US presence. They will be backed by four naval and aerial strike groups in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea and a chain of giant air bases, some expanded, others built from scratch, in Oman, Qatar and Jordan."

In fact, Debka adds that the plan is so well known in the inner circles of several key U.S. ally governments in the Middle East, that the only question left is when the U.S. will pull the trigger, and what Iran and Syria will do in response.

Debka gives further details, noting that the strategy will start to revolve around taking the battles out of the cities and into open spaces, and that the U.K.'s strategy in southern Iraq, has been used as a model. British troops have "shut themselves away in a well-fortified compound south of the oil city. It is blasted daily by mortars and other heavy weapons. From time to time, British commando patrols emerge to hit enemy assault concentrations."

More interesting are these details from Debka, citing U.S. sources:

"1. Whether to launch a military operation to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities and cripple its strategic-economic infrastructure.

"2. How to respond if Iran decides on a pre-emptive attack on US Middle East interests by fomenting local assaults against Israel by Syria, Hizballah and Hamas and a civil war in Lebanon. Some Middle East military and intelligence sources say this decision is already in the bag in Tehran. Will President Bush seek to avert these flare-ups of violence? Or use them as the starting shot for his military strike against Iran?"

"3. The timeline for beginning the US military pullout from Iraq, the third decision in abeyance, hinges heavily on the White House’s actions regarding the first two."

"4. The optional exit dates for now are September 2000 or January-March 2008. The latter is seen as the more realistic by American commanders and soldiers serving in Iraq."

A Region Under Tension

According to Debka, Iran is so certain that a U.S. attack is coming that it has begun to ration gasoline, while Syria is telling its citizens to leave Lebanon.

Meanwhile "Israel, Syria and Hizballah have prepared their armies for a war contingency entailing a possible clash on Golan and the Lebanese-Israeli frontier regions."

Conclusion

It is clear that the situation in the Middle East is coming to a boil, as Iran, Syria, the U.S. and Israel have run out of room to maneuver.

The presence of Al-Qaeda in the region has clearly complicated matters to a point where all sides are now ready to defend their own territories from real or perceived threats.

What is most interesting, and perhaps predictable, is the lack of analysis of the situation by the U.S. mainstream media, where the sensational is still the headline, rather than substance.

Nothing may come of what Debka is reporting. But it is believable. And it is should be frightening.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the story, is the conclusion: "Two months ago, military high commands in the Middle East stopped asking when the American army would leave Iraq. They took for granted that a major pull-back is in the works and not far away. The question exercising most minds these days is which of the two leading antagonists in the current regional contest will be first to assemble all the pieces of the war puzzle and gain the advantage over his rival, the Bush administration in Washington or Ali Khamenei’s mullahs in Tehran?"

end of article...

In Christ
Jeff

The problem with a nuclear Iran is exactly that -- Iran would have nuclear missiles immediately pointed at Israel. It is well within Israel's interest to safeguard their nation from Iranian nuclear capabilities. However, a preemptive strategic nuclear strike on Iran by Israel would probably send the world into economic and political turmoil.

One possible scenario would be a full scale invasion of Israel by nearly every surrounding power. A second scenario would be a "do nothing" strategy by the surrounding Muslim nations -- with diplomatic pressure used to immediately "punish" Israel.

It is certainly a frightening scenario.

As for the war in Iraq and a possible pullout date: I want to point out that the United States WON the war in Iraq. What do I mean? The US accomplished its mission of overthrowing the Hussein regime and installing a new government. The problem is not how to conduct a WAR -- but how to maintain the PEACE. The US only wants to remain as long as is necessary to prevent extremists from seizing power. As soon as Iraq can become self-sustaining, the US and UK (amongst other allies) will leave.

:-)

I'm not going to get into a heated debate about this, just going to drop in my two cents and we can agree to disagree.

And what's wrong with that? Israel has nukes pointed at everyone else. Fair's fair.

The difference is that Iran is run by a fanatical madman who is trying to bring on "the 12th Imam" and his main goal is to destroy Israel. Israel has the nukes for her own protection, not to destroy a people just for being who they are. Israel also has a great amount of restraint. Personally, if I ran Israel, the rest of the middle east would be flat and without inhabitants~forgive my fleshly passions there.

Lord, help me.

GrannieAnnie are you aware of this from threeworldwars.com

"Occult Numerology is the study of the occult meanings of numbers and their influence on human life. The study focuses on key numbers, and all names, events, dates, etc can be reduced to patterns of key numbers. The most venerated occult numbers are: 6, 11, 13, and multiples thereof, especially 22, 33, 44, 55, 66, 77 and 26, 39, etc. A triplication of numbers is also considered sacred (possibly even more sacred) to the occultist: 111, 222, 333, etc. Very often, triplicated numbers are hidden as other numbers. The best known example is 666 which is often hidden as 18, which is simply 6+6+6 or 3x6."

Corey_H...

The problem with Iranian nuclear missiles aimed at Israel is due to the unstable religious extremism within the Iranian government. Their president, Ayatollah and religious leaders regularly "preach" rhetoric that is (if believed) displays extreme mental instability and totalitarian territorial hatred.

And, no offense, I believe that your take on the Iraqi conflict is completely inaccurate. Regardless of your beliefs (political, spiritual, or social) in this issue, there is no need to publicly [u]slander[/u] the name of the US President ("President Bush," "George" -- not "Dubya"). Nor should we publicly state his motives when we have never met with him. Secondhand sources are often prejudicial and WRONG -- particularly since history will not be 20/20 until after the Administration leaves office (and members of the Administration [pro and con] write memoirs). Such rhetoric is certainly not reflective of our call as true believers. It is a fine thing to share an opposing opinion -- as long as it is done in decency, respect and without preconceived prejudice.

Ironically, I feel that the "oil conspiracy" groups (in regards to the current conflict in Iraq) don't fully understand just how little oil in Iraq ever makes it to the United States (just about NOTHING). In fact, if the massive amount of Iraqi oil was released to the United States and other Western nations, the price of oil would drop dramatically (including the profits of US oil companies).

I know that this thread was not meant to talk about the conflict in Iraq -- but the possibility of disaster in the region. I merely wanted to remind individuals that the "war" itself ended in 2004. Since then, we have been attempting to "keep the peace" (according to the United Nation's definition of "peacekeeping"). As this conflict has demonstrated, it is far more difficult "[i]keeping the peace[/i]" than "[i]winning a war[/i]."

We do need to continue praying for the region -- and to pray for the peace of Jerusalem.

:-)

Brothers and Sisters,

Why don’t we look at God’s Word.

2 Chron. 32:8
With him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the Lord our God to help us, and to fight our battles. And the people rested themselves upon the words of Hezekiah king of Judah.

Jeremiah 17:5-8
Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord. [6] For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited. [7] Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is. [8] For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit.

You are either cursed or blessed, you either trust in man or you trust in the Lord; if you trust in man and his weapons then you are cursed, if your trust is in the Lord then you are blessed. There are no in-betweens.
It is time to realize that Israel cannot protect themselves from their enemies; only the Lord can do so, which has been proved throughout history.
America is not the Savior of Israel or the world and it is about time many figured it out, for their salvation depends on it; or will you put your trust in Babylon?

Is this not perfectly clear?
“Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.”

When you trust in man and the arm of the flesh your heart departs from the Lord, what good are your nukes then? Your trust in them will send you to Hell.

Would this not be better?

“but with us is the Lord our God to help us, and to fight our battles.”

Proverbs 29:25
The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the Lord shall be safe.

In His Love
pastorfrin

Hi Corey_H...

I really think that you need to perform just a bit more research about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. My graduate research (both my completed Master's Thesis and current dissertation research) have dealt with Policy, particularly in Middle Eastern relations. The present conflict has little to do with the breakup of the failed Ottoman Empire. The central cause of turmoil is the West's support and recognition of the state of Israel.

There has [u]NEVER[/u] been a "nation" of "Palestine." Rather, there was a region known as "Palestine" under the protection of the various controlling empires (the last being the British Mandate of Palestine that encompassed present day Jordan, Israel and parts of Syria, Lebanon and Iraq). The western part of this region consisted mostly of Arab Muslims, along with quite a few Jews and some various other races/religions. Following the Balfour Declaration in 1917, Western leaders decided that a permanent Jewish homeland would be established within the original boundaries of historic, pre-diaspora Israel (which already housed a great many Jews).

Much of the propaganda about individuals being "torn from their homes" is simply untrue. The region was partitioned as both Jewish and Palestinian homelands by more than a two-thirds majority vote of the United Nations in 1947. The partition would give nearly equal land to both sides (Arab and Jew), with the Palestinians receiving most of the better lands (the bulk of the Jewish land would be in the desert south). Israel would become the "international" capital of both Israel and Palestine. While the Jews (and the rest of the world) accepted the proposed partition, the Arab nations rejected it. With the public criticism of the Arab Higher Committee, local Arabs took part in riots that burned much of the local infrastructure of the future Israeli partition. Conflicts continued between local Jews and Arabs which escalated greatly upon the official establishment of the Jewish state.

A day following the preannounced establishment of the state of Israel, EVERY BORDERING ARAB NATION declared war. Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Trans-Jordan, and several radical military groups attacked the new nation. Ironically, many Palestinian Arabs tried to escape the hostilities into Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon -- but were DENIED ENTRANCE.

As war raged on, the Israelis eventually immerged victorious. All of the invading Arab nations agreed to a truce that recognized a new partition of the region -- giving the victorious state of Israel even more land. All of the surrounding Muslim nations agreed in the truce to eliminate any partitian known as "Palestine." Following the truce, the lands that would have become "Palestine" (according to the 1947 UN partitian) were then occupied by Israel, Jordan, Egypt and Syria. When the Six Day War broke out in 1967, most of those lands were lost when Israel defeated the surrounding Muslim nations.

While I still have compassion for the Palestinians, I do believe that much of their "suffering" is self-caused. Despite much of the propaganda about "Zionist oppression," Palestinians have been treated well in Israel. In fact, 20% of the population of Israel is Arab (mostly Palestinian Arabs). They maintain all of the rights of Jewish citizens. In addition, the government of Israel does not impose any sort of restrictions on non-violent forms of religion.

Regardless of how you feel about Western support for the nation of Israel, it is clear that the nation of Israel is the best example of a working democracy in the region. It was strategically important to the United States and the West during the bipolar years of the Cold War, when the Soviet Empire was attempting to exert influence upon the Persian Gulf region. We must remember that America does not support Israel because we are "controlled by Zionists," or because we are pro-Israel (in a Biblical sense). The United States supports Israel because Israel, as a democracy, supports the United States.

My belief that your assessment concerning the Iraqi situation has nothing to do with my citizenship (American) or my state of residence (Texas). I simply disagree with the conspiracy theorists out there who try to argue (without any credible fact other than presumption and slander) that this conflict was fought over oil. The oil that [u]you[/u] use (directly or indirectly) on a daily basis comes from the Middle East. It is in the economic best interest of the United States for peace in the region. The United States does NOT own any of the oil fields in Iraq. The United States does NOT have control of Iraqi oil supply. As with nearly all oil companies in the world, petroleum companies buy or drill oil and then distribute it in their respective nations. If we are buying oil from the Iraqi fields, then it can only benefit the nation of Iraq. I hate to tell you this, Corey, but the argument that this war was waged over oil is, well, downright silly. Only the most extreme conspiracy websites try to wage such a silly argument. Even the most liberal Democrats have abandoned such rhetoric for fear of political embarrassment.

As a student of domestic and foreign policy, it is clear that less than ideal alterior motives could never truly propel this nation into war. The three "reasons" that you feel led to the war (1. Oil, 2. Revenge, and 3. Oil) just cannot hold up under the watchful eye of even liberal academics.

Why then DID the United States go to war with Iraq?

1. The CIA, Pentagon, and intelligence agencies from the international community (along with Saddam Hussein's own claims) all pointed to the Iraqi regime's desire to obtain/create/distribute WMDs.

2. Saddam Hussein continually defied (throughout the Clinton Administration) his own terms of surrender following the first Gulf War in the early 1990s. It even looked like he was hiding something -- which led to three seperate instances where President Clinton bombed Iraq during the 1990s.

3. Saddam Hussein ordered an assassination attempt on former President Bush in 1993. This itself, according to International Law, is an ACT OF WAR. It led to President Clinton's signing of the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998, a statement of US policy calling for a militarily forced regime change in Iraq.

4. Intelligence reports have proven that Saddam Hussein had arranged meetings with ranking members of Al Quaeda in 2001. While later intelligence (following the end of the ground war in 2003) revealed that there was mutual distrust between Saddam and Al Quaeda leaders, the fact that they actually met and negotiated showed that the possibility remained intact of high terrorism against the United States.

Again, I want to point out that the situation in Iraq is obviously bleak. As I stated before, the actual "war" ended just before the infamous carrier landing by President Bush in 2003. However, the difficulty has been from keeping the peace. More lives have been lost the attempt to "keep the peace" than in "winning the war." While every human life (Arab, Jew or Christian) is important, the goal of the Administration is to establish a lasting free democracy in the region. Whether or not the Iraqis want such a democracy remains to be seen.

Where is God in all of this? As believers, we realize that the pieces are being set into place. I know one thing -- I am certainly praying for the peace of Jerusalem.

:-)

BTW, I suppose that it seemed like you were using the name "Dubya" in a disrespectful manner. Many individuals on the left use the name as a pseudo-slur (as they have slurred and slandered other Administration figures like Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft and even Condi Rice). I apologize for misjudging your intentions and for not giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I'm sure of this too: We should certainly pray for the President. There is a great amount of powerful responsibility that falls upon his shoulders. Along with that responsibility comes struggles with pride and slander. President Bush claims to know our Lord. We can only pray that the President will know Him as much as we so desire!