Bilderberg.org

[Dubya]

Some here suggest simple naval manovers...two carrier groups and a bunch of additional US warships, not to mention all the other satellite nations involved. We`ve had zero media reports of any movement between the US and Iran. I `don`t think its a simple show of force...more like baiting Iran and this could lead to an event which would allow the US to act out its NWO agenda!

[marek]

Many thanks Dubva, for your comment.Here are the last infos received from Debka file ( i give information where i read them).For my part it would be a big mistake to operate from nevy carriers as i previously told.But anyway:

"US-Led Military Thrust Focuses Heavily on Broad Naval Deployment
DEBKAfile Exclusive Military Report
Hundreds of US and allied war ships foregathered in the strategic seas of
the Middle East and India in the last days of October 2006 for two primary
missions: To prepare for a US-led military strike against Iran which has stepped
up its uranium enrichment program with a second centrifuge project -
undeterred by the prospect of UN sanctions; and measures to fend off palpable al
Qaeda threats to oil targets.
DEBKAfile’s military sources provide details of the massive deployments:
1. A large-scale US-Indian sea exercise called Malabar 06 is in progress off
the Indian coast of Goa, ending Nov. 5. The American vessels taking part are
the USS Boxer carrier, the USS Bunker Hill guided missile battle cruiser,
the guided missile destroyer USS Howard and the USS Benfold , as well as the
Los Angeles-class nuclear attack submarine Providence and the Canadian guided
missile frigate HMCS Ottawa .
Indian maritime might is displayed with its warships like INS Beas , INS
Mysore , INS Shakti , INS Ganga , tanking ship INS Gharial , submarine INS
Shankush and Coast Guard ship CGS Samar
Malabar also involves the landing of large number of soldiers ashore, ahead
of the Indian acquisition of the massive amphibious USS Trenton transport
dock which can carry six helicopters and about a 1000 soldiers.
Our Tehran sources report that last Thursday, Oct. 26, Iranian officials
were seriously rattled by a rumor that an Iranian spy plane had located the USS
Boxer heading for the Persian Gulf. It prompted fears of an imminent American
military assault to lift Republican prospects in the coming US midterm
elections of Nov. 7. In any case, the Iranians suspect that at the end of the
joint US-Indian exercise in the Arabian Sea, Boxer will veer west and head into
the Persian Gulf. There would then be four US air carriers with task forces
parked opposite Iranian shores, including the USS Enterprise Strike Group, the
USS Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group and the USS Eisenhower Carrier Strike
Group, which are already in place.
According to the intelligence reaching Iran, the Boxer and its escorts carry
850 Marines who have just spent months in special training for operations on
offshore oil rigs and platforms.
2. American, Italy, France, Britain, Australia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United
Arab Emirates and Kuwait are taking part in an exercise practicing the
interception of ships carrying nuclear materials or components for use in advanced
weapons. The exercise opposite Bahrain is the first to be held in the Persian
Gulf under the three-year old proliferation security initiative. It
applications could be translated equally into the enforcement of sanctions against
North Korea, which conducted its first nuclear test on Oct. 9, or Iran.
On Oct. 27, Robert Joseph, the US undersecretary of state for arms control
remarked: “From Iranian news reports we know the exercise got the attention of
Iran.” But rather than climbing down, Tehran referred two days later to the
war games as “adventurous” and placed its armed forces on a high alert which
encompassed the joint naval units of the military and Revolutionary Guards
in the Persian Gulf, while the Revolutionary Guards, the Iranian army, navy
and air force were placed on “yellow” alert, one level short of full war.
Also Oct. 29, , supreme ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei replaced Iran’s air
force chief, Karim Qavami with Brig Gen Capt Ahmad Miqani, on the recommendation
of the Revolutionary Guards commander.
DEBKAfile’s Iran sources report that Khamenei did not approve of Qavami’s
admiration for America’s military capabilities – especially the US air force’
s advanced aircraft and equipment. Qavami was wont to speak out at general
staff meetings in favor of procuring a new air fleet the better to stand up to
a possible US attack. His successor follows the supreme ruler unquestioningly
and has complete faith in the ability
3. Saudi Arabia did not join the multinational Bahrain exercise, but instead
mustered its entire navy and all its special forces for deployment in dense
defensive array around the biggest oil terminal in the world, at Ras Tanura.
Riyadh acted in response to tangible intelligence that al Qaeda is preparing
to attack its oil installations.
Warnings have intensified in recent days of impending al Qaeda attacks on
the oil fields, oil ports, oil tankers and oil fields of Saudi Arabia and the
Arabian oil emirates. One threat specifically targets the Bahraini offices and
staff of the Benin Republic’s Societe Togolaise de Gaz and Societe Bengaz
S.A.
It is not clear exactly why al Qaeda is targeting this African-owned oil
company in particular. In addition, the US embassy in Riyadh has warned
Americans operating in the Gulf region to stay clear of all oil installations,
especially in Saudi Arabia. Another pointed alert covers Western residential
compounds in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries, specifying American expatriates
as al Qaeda targets. Saudi security forces are standing guard at these
compounds which were fatally attacked in November exactly three years ago.
4. The fourth major naval concentration is deployed in the Red Sea along
Saudi Arabia’s west coast. The oil kingdom has placed its military and fleet at
their highest level of preparedness for Al Qaeda-instigated terrorist attacks
along this coast, particularly at the ports of Jeddah and Yanbu.
DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources report: That the Saudis have by and large
switched their defenses against al Qaeda to coastal targets indicates the rec
eipt of intelligence input of a new local sea base established by al Qaeda,
which enables the jihadist group to stretch its capabilities for assaulting
oil and Western shore targets from the sea. This base might be located on the
shore of a Gulf nation, somewhere in the Arabian Sea or in the Horn of
Africa. "

End of quotation. Notice that they are mixing anti quaeda exercise with anti proliferation exercises.
Marek

[marektysis]

Due to eventual confusion i am now working under the name 'marektysis'.All other messages coming from 'marek' are not from me, except in moderation and for a while.


Marek Tysis

[marektysis]

LAST NEWS

Iran says new missile launch is a call for the U.S. to cease military maneuvers in the Gulf –

US CODE COPYRIGHT ART7 SS 107
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Pravda.Ru 4 November 2006
The successful launch of three new models of sea missiles is
the Gulf should send a strong message to the U.S. to cease
military maneuvers in the region, an Iranian navy chief said
Friday.
"Our enemies should keep their hostility off the Persian
Gulf," said Adm. Sardar Fadavi, the deputy navy chief of the
elite Revolutionary Guard, hours after his troops tested the
new missiles in Gulf."They should not initiate any move that would make the region tense," he said of the US, reports AP.
The military chief was answering a question on Iran's
state-run radio about whether the new Iranian maneuvers were a
response to a US-led military exercise in the zone earlier
this week.

Marek Tysis

[TonyGosling]

OI! LORD GOLDSMITH, YOU'RE NICKED: PERVERSION OF THE COURSE OF JUSTICE IF YOU SO MUCH AS LIFT A FINGER
if Lord Goldsmith in any way attempts to influence the crown prosecution service or police in this highly political case he will be guilty of an even greater crime: perversion of the course of justice!
Lord Goldsmith attempts to clear himself, Levy and Blair in Cash for Honours scandal
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1638972006

MURDOCK BESTIAL PRESS BAYS FOR BLOOD OF SADDAM
Murdock ignores US and UK support for Saddam in 1980's and early 1990's and wants 'banana republic style' show trial to end in murder. Forgetting of course Bush, Blair and Ohlmert's murder of 655,000 Iraqi civilians:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2438014,00.html



Sun 5 Nov 2006
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1638972006
Lord urged to back out of probe
BRIAN BRADY WESTMINSTER EDITOR

THE Scottish MP who sparked the 'cash for honours' inquiry into Tony Blair's administration last night urged the government's top law officer to distance himself from the investigation.

After it emerged that Lord Goldsmith, an ally of Blair's, might make the final decision on whether the inquiry results in criminal charges against politicians and officials, SNP MP Angus MacNeil said "his impartiality could be reasonably questioned".

MacNeil, who prompted the inquiry when he complained about allegations Labour party donors were being 'rewarded' with peerages, continued: "There is such an obvious conflict of interest. He must instead publicly declare he will maintain a healthy distance, as would befit anybody with a political relationship with the Prime Minister."

A spokeswoman for Goldsmith - who was appointed by Blair and attends Cabinet - yesterday confirmed his consent was required to launch prosecutions in a "small" range of offences, including "corruption".

It was "too early" to say, however, whether that would apply in this case, but the Attorney General would be "consulted" if Scotland Yard handed a file to the CPS.

Last month, it emerged that former Conservative leader Michael Howard had been interviewed by police investigating the cash-for-honours affair - leading to speculation that the Prime Minister faces being quizzed soon.

Three people - including Labour's unofficial fundraising chief, Lord Levy - have been arrested since April in connection with the inquiry. However there have been no charges.




The butcher of Baghdad awaits his death sentence
Marie Colvin, Baghdad
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2438014,00.html
Baghdad weblog: Saddam trial verdict

IN 24 years of tyrannical rule, Saddam Hussein brought death to millions in three wars, torture to the countless pitiful souls incarcerated in his dungeons and isolation from much of the world to the once-proud country that he cowed.

Today Iraqis expect to see the leader who terrorised them condemned to face a hangman’s noose for just one of his many crimes — the execution of 148 Shi’ite men from the village of Dujail, 40 miles north of Baghdad, in retaliation for an attempt on his life there in 1982, when he had been in power for only three years.

The country is braced for the verdict amid fears that the dictator’s Sunni supporters will mount revenge attacks on Shi’ite areas.

In a clear echo of the mood of most Iraqis, Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, said yesterday that he hoped Saddam would be given “what he deserves” when the verdict is handed down.

If, as expected, Saddam is convicted of crimes against humanity and stands in the dock to hear his sentence, I will watch with that particular attention that comes from fascination and disgust. I have reported on the misery that he has inflicted on his countrymen for more than 20 years, from the ill-judged invasion of Iran that left more than a million dead, to his equally disastrous foray into Kuwait, which left his nation in ruins.

He has cast a dark shadow of evil over every moment I have spent in Iraq — a man who had personally tortured some of his victims and even walked his young sons through his prisons to witness the barbarity.

Today’s case dates back 24 years to an ambush in which 10 gunmen fired at his convoy. In revenge, the surviving villagers testified, Saddam had hundreds of them arrested and tortured. As well as the 148 executed, a further 399 men, women and children were consigned to a desert camp.

The survivors say they relish the prospect of Saddam suffering the same punishment that he meted out to so many others. He ordered myriad death sentences for crimes as petty as insulting him or his sons, Qusay and Uday, sometimes in remarks conveyed to the authorities by teachers overhearing their pupils’ accounts of conversations at home. Nowhere was safe in Saddam’s Iraq.

The chief judge is due to read out a 200-page verdict on Saddam and seven co-defendants. Also facing possible death sentences will be Barzan al-Tikriti, his half-brother and intelligence chief, and Taha Yassin Ramadan, the former vice-president.

It will be the culmination of a bitterly divisive case that began in October last year in a crowded and chaotic courtroom where Saddam and the others heard shocking testimony from their seats in a heavily guarded “cage”.

A Dujail woman who was 16 in 1982 testified that she had been hung by her wrists, then by her ankles. She was tortured with electric shocks, beaten with cables and forced to watch her family being killed, she said. The court was told that by the time the hangman received a list of 148 men to be executed, 46 had already died under torture.

Saddam’s cold disregard was emphasised when he intimated that he had no reason to recall Dujail’s destruction or the deaths of men, women and children. “It’s not as if Saddam Hussein did not have (other) work to do,” he told the judge.

His contempt for the villagers reflected his attitude to far bloodier campaigns against the Kurds in the north and Shi’ites in the south. In his 1988 campaign against the Kurds, he unleashed his army on northern Iraq and killed 100,000, including 5,000 in the village of Halabja, where chemical weapons rained down death.

In 1991, after the Americans drove Saddam out of Kuwait, he killed a similar number of Shi’ites in the south, mowing them down with helicopter gunships when they dared to rise up against him.

Saddam and his cousin, Ali Hassan al Majeed, known as Chemical Ali for his role in the poison gas attack, both face the charge of genocide for the Kurdish campaign in a separate trial.

The dictator’s complete lack of remorse is striking. He seemed genuinely puzzled when confronted by testimony of torture and killing. “Where’s the crime?” he asked the judge, arguing that such reprisals were only to be expected against traitors.

The 55-week trial was meant to mark the start of Iraq’s Nuremberg — the exposure of an evil regime. Instead, dogged by delays and interruptions, it has veered between tragedy and farce.

Saddam harangued the judges, insisted that he was still the president of Iraq and told the court to “go to hell”. Two judges were changed: one resigned and a second was forced to step down after saying that Saddam had never been a dictator. Three defence lawyers were murdered.

Amnesty International has been among the strongest critics of the trial, arguing that it was “a deeply flawed process”. American officials in Baghdad were relieved that it had not collapsed. “A verdict on Saddam is what we wanted and at last that’s what we’re getting,” said one.

Saddam’s case will automatically go for review to an appellate chamber, Iraq’s highest court. If it upholds the outcome, he will face the gallows 30 days later.

Saddam’s death could go a long way towards curbing the insurgency that is tearing Iraq apart. Most of the Sunni militants are former members of his Ba’ath party, fighting to win back the power they have lost. They still harbour the faint hope that he will lead them again.

The crime he will never answer for is the ruination of the lives of millions of Iraqis who survived the wars and repression, but are still condemned to lives of chaos and despair.

[Dubya]

Rumsfeld has been replaced by Robert Gates; will this make an attack on Iran more likely?

Gates is old friend of Bush senior and has spent over 25 years with the CIA/NSA!

Was Rumsfeld removed because the US military wouldn`t /couldn`t be trusted to carryout orders to strike Iran....was Israel behind Rumsfeld`s removal?

Bush seemed very happy to have cameras recording him ushering Rummy out of the Oval office!

[marektysis]

http://www.jihadunspun.com/intheatre_internal.php?article=107144&list=/home.php&

Second US Aircraft Carrier Group Deployed To Gulf Confirming Buildup
Jan 04, 2007
By Kristin Roberts, Reuters

The Pentagon will send a second aircraft carrier and its escort ships
to the Gulf, defense officials said on Wednesday, as a warning to
Syria and Iran and to give commanders more flexibility in the region.

Officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Bremerton,
Washington-based USS John C. Stennis strike group would deploy this
month. It will put 5,000 more U.S. sailors in the region, bringing the
total to 16,000.

The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier group entered the Gulf
in December.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman declined to comment, saying the
Defense Department would not discuss future deployments or ship
movements. But military analysts said the move was intended to
demonstrate U.S. resolve in the face of acts by Iran and Syria that it
sees as provocative, such as Tehran's pursuit of its nuclear program.

The Stennis had been scheduled to deploy to the Pacific region. But
the Pentagon agreed instead to send the carrier group to the Gulf
after a request from U.S. Central Command, the military command
responsible for Middle East operations.

Senior defense officials have said that request was aimed at
increasing Central Command's flexibility in a variety of operations
and providing deterrence in the region.

Increased US Presence

Washington has locked horns with Tehran over the Iranian nuclear
program. American defense officials also regularly charge Iran and
Syria with fanning sectarian violence in Iraq and contributing to the
deteriorating situation there by providing arms and technologies.

The second carrier, while adding relatively few service members to the
region, is valuable as a symbol of America's increased presence in the
Gulf, military analysts said.

Longer term, however, the Bush administration must decide if it will
keep two carrier groups in the Gulf indefinitely.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates previously said the increased American
presence in the Gulf was a message to the region as a whole and not a
response to any specific action by Iran.

"I think the message that we are sending to everyone, not just Iran,
is that the United States is an enduring presence in this part of the
world," Gates told reporters on a December visit to Baghdad. "We will
be here for a long time and everybody needs to remember that — both
our friends and those who might consider themselves our adversaries."
+++++++++++
Marek

[CJ]

Marek

You should know these MSM declarations on timings are misleading. These carrier groups have been there some time. Todays Telegraph and Times states that Israel is planning nuclear strikes against Iran...this stated as if its new news.

Israel reorganised its airforce nearly two years ago with the intention that its best would train for Israel`s most daring millitary strike. This strike would have taken place in March 2006, but it was decided that conventional weapons would fail. Dick Cheney signed off nuclear strike plans on Iran well over two years ago. This factoid being reported in the "American Conservative".

One should not believe any timings put out by the MSM!

I sould also like to mention that I`ve faced some major problems accessing the internet. As if I`m being blocked and several long posts have just vanished before I could post on this form.

I live in South London, about 1.2 miles from MI6 at Vauxhall Cross. Yesterday we had no phone line all day and only came back on today just after 8am. I later discovered that a huge area of South London was without a phone....even local shops lost their lottery connection. Was this a genuine fault, or was it for some other planned works, maybe of a security based nature. There has been no mention of this on the news. All ideas on this welcome.

I will take this opportunity while I have internet access, to remine you of something previously posted by me. A strike on Iran is expected to provoke an Iranian strike on Israel....I`ve stated before that Iran has ""two"" nukes and will use them. Just as the Holocaust was used on Germany, so a nuclear strike on Israel will be used on the Muslim world by the NWO!

US forces in Iraq are confined to base....so why is Bush going to boost the numbers in Iraq??

[marektysis]

Dear Cj,
I hope your internet problems are now solved. I did not post this MJM move without having some documentation behind. As you heard today, the Sunday Times posted anything about an operation on Iran. This was followed by a dementi from TelAviv. The Egyptian government has announced Israel that in case Tehran get his atomic bombs, the egyptian government will follow to have one. Prince Sultan gave yesterday night an interview in which he announced that the saoudian government will not admit a preeminence of shia in Irak ( the border is contiguous). So America is before a wall: hard choices have to be made. Five additionnal brigades are added on the battlefield in Irak ( three are still in Koweit) and will provide help for the irakian government to chase shia Al Sadr and other sunnites rebes from baghdad. The new american commander in place will be an ADMIRAL with experience . This is to be coupled with the MJM.

I do not know with the pakistanese warheads that Tehran would have got, but i know that the presence of an admiral on the ground may give credit to an operation from airfields on the ground.

All reprisals are possible,naturally. Scott Ritter is betting that America will do it. For my part, this is well possible.From 6.000 feet high, a minimum loss for America ( as in Serbia) will give the american commander in chief the most credit. What occurs after is another song, but Sunnis will certainly help the US....

Marek

[marektysis]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244884,00.html?sPage=fnc.world/mideast
Paper: Jordan's King Abdullah II Wants Nuclear Program
Friday, January 19, 2007
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As Marek previously said, informations included show a trend towards a general conflict narrowing. Exlusive not yet revealed elements are showing that deliberaltly, America has taken the choice of confronting Iran in a near Future, although propositions made by Syria under the 'Juffa' plan in Israel which should make a peace possible in the Midden East. THis is extremely GRAVE for the future of the world. Events of a grave nature would have taken place on january 7 ,2007, that could have drawn the world in a war process.I am saying no more at the moment.Marek
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

JERUSALEM — Jordan's King Abdullah II told an Israeli newspaper
Friday that his country wants its own nuclear program.

In an interview with the daily Haaretz, Abdullah said his desert
kingdom, which borders Israel and has a peace agreement with it,
wanted nuclear power "for peaceful purposes" and was already
discussing its plans with Western countries.

"The rules governing the nuclear issue have changed in the entire
region," the Jordanian leader told Haaretz, noting that Egypt and
several Gulf states have declared their desire for a nuclear program.
Though Jordan would rather see a Middle East free of nuclear weapons,
he said, "every desire we had on this issue has changed."

It was the first time Abdullah spoke openly about desires for a
Jordanian nuclear program for peaceful purposes.

"The Egyptians are looking for a nuclear program. The GCC (Gulf
Cooperation Council) are looking at one, and we are actually looking
at nuclear power for peaceful and energy purposes," he told Haaretz.

Abdullah said any country acquiring nuclear facilities should adhere
to international regulations and submit to inspection.

"What's expected from us should be a standard across the board. We
want to make sure this is used for energy. What we don't want is an
arms race to come out of this," he added.

Miri Eisin, a spokeswoman for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert,
would not comment.

Shlomo Brom, a researcher at the Institute for National Strategic
Studies and former head of strategic planning for the Israeli
military, said Abdullah was likely not serious about developing a
nuclear program. "The Jordanians don't have the resources," Brom said.

Click here to go to FOXNews.com's Mideast Center.

Brom said the Jordanian king was probably trying to make the point
that if Iran, which is moving ahead with its nuclear program despite
international protests and U.N.-imposed sanctions, is allowed to
become a nuclear power, then a regional nuclear race will be unavoidable.

"Abdullah might be saying that if the Iranians aren't prevented from
getting a nuclear program, Jordan and everyone else will want one of
their own," Brom said.

Israel fears that Iran's nuclear program, which the Iranian government
says is for civilian purposes, is actually intended to produce nuclear
weapons that could be used against Israel. Iran's president, Mahmoud
Ahmedinejad, has said Israel should be "wiped off the map."

Israel is widely believed to have nuclear weapons of its own, but has
never officially confirmed that it does.

In the Haaretz interview, Abdullah said Iran, through its support for
the radical Islamic Palestinian group Hamas, had established a role
for itself in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, despite its
geographical and cultural distance.

"Through Hamas, Iran has been able to buy itself a seat on the table
in talking about the Palestinian issue," he said. "As a result,
through Hamas it does play a role in the issue of the Palestinians, as
strange as that should sound."

Abdullah said that peace between Israel and the Palestinians was key
to broader Middle East stability and should take precedence over the
unresolved dispute between Israel and Syria.

"Solving the Israeli-Palestinian problem allows us to tackle the other
issues around us. All of us are looking at Iraq with concern, we don't
know what's going to happen in Lebanon, although we hope that they're
moving in the right direction," he said. "Whether people like it or
not, the linchpin is always the Israeli-Palestinian problem."

Abdullah said the Palestinian issue could help make other issues easier.

"Syria seems to be of tremendous interest in the Israeli public
opinion, but I think that the priority, if you want to get the
guarantees that Israel wants for a stable future, the core issue takes
the priority. We have to launch the Palestinian process and then hope
that things will go easier with the other players."
__._,_.___

*** FAIR USE NOTICE: This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.Marek Tysis is making it available without profit to Bilderberg study organization members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We always mention the author and link the original site and page of every article. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml


__,_._,___

[marektysis]

FAIR USE NOTICE- IRAN & DEMOCRATS
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



http://ap.oakridger.com/stories/politics/20070119/139683845.shtml
Democratic Leaders in Congress Warn President Bush Against Attacking Iran
LAURIE KELLMAN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON — Democratic leaders in Congress lobbed a warning shot
Friday at the White House not to launch an attack against Iran without
first seeking approval from lawmakers.

"The president does not have the authority to launch military action
in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization," Senate
Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told the National Press Club.

The administration has accused Iran of meddling in Iraqi affairs and
contributing technology and bomb-making materials for insurgents to
use against U.S. and Iraqi security forces.

President Bush said last week the U.S. will "seek out and destroy"
networks providing that support. While top administration officials
have said they have no plans to attack Iran itself, they have declined
to rule it out.

This week, the administration sent another aircraft carrier to the
Persian Gulf — the second to deploy in the region. Defense Secretary
Robert Gates said the buildup was intended to impress on Iran that the
four-year war in Iraq has not made America vulnerable. The U.S. is
also deploying anti-missile Patriot missiles in the region.

The U.S. has accused Tehran of trying to develop nuclear weapons.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday that Iran would
not back down over its nuclear program, which Tehran says is being
developed only to produce energy.

Reid made the comments as he and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.,
spoke to the National Press Club on Democrats' view of the state of
the union four days before Bush addresses Congress and the nation. His
remarks were the latest Democratic display of concern about the
possibility of military action in Iran and Bush's power to launch it.

Last week, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden,
D-Del., challenged the president's ability to make such a move. In a
letter to Bush, Biden asked the president to explain whether the
administration believes it could attack Iran or Syria "without the
authorization of Congress, which does not now exist."

Meanwhile, Lee Hamilton, the Democratic co-chair of the Iraq Study
Group, told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Friday that the
U.S. must try to engage Iran and Syria in a constructive dialogue on
Iraq because of the countries' influence in the conflict.

The Bush administration, and several members of Congress, say they
oppose talks with Iran and Syria because of their terrorist
connections. Bringing the two countries into regional talks aimed at
reducing violence in Iraq was one of the study group's recommendations.

"Do we have so little confidence in the diplomats of the United States
that we're not willing to let them talk with somebody we disagree
with?" Hamilton asked.





Mrek tysis
US code copyright art7 ss 107

[Harpo_Marx]

Gents,

Want to add a few words to the comments made earlier, namely on the subject of another world war on the horizon.

My job brings me to several refineries across Europe, and it struck as odd that nearly every single one of them are making enormous amounts of the special grade called Marine Fuel.

A grade which is used to fuel war ships!

When the last Dessert War was about to beginnig, I knew about it for months.
America was buying GO HOB & KERO from every country in Europe, especially from TRA Antwerp Belgium.

Be warned!


Regards,

Harpo_Mar

[TonyGosling]

The new Iraq strategy
BY HENRY A KISSINGER

19 January 2007
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/opinion/2007/January/opinion_January62.xml&section=opinion&col=

PRESIDENT George W Bush’s bold decision to order a “surge” of some 20,000 American troops for Iraq has brought the debate over the war to a defining stage. There will not be opportunity for another reassessment.

The Baker-Hamilton commission has powerfully described the impasse on the ground. It is the result of cumulative choices — some of them enumerated by the president — in which worthy objectives and fundamental American values clashed with regional and cultural realities.

The important goal of modernising US armed forces led to inadequate troop levels for the military occupation of Iraq. The reliance on early elections as the key to political evolution, in a country lacking a sense of national identity, caused the newly enfranchised to vote almost exclusively for sectarian parties, deepening historic divisions into chasms. The understandable — but, in retrospect, premature — strategy of replacing American with indigenous forces deflected US forces from a military mission; nor could it deal with the most flagrant shortcoming of Iraqi forces, which is to define what the Iraqi forces are supposed to fight for and under what banner.

These circumstances have merged into an almost perfect storm of mutually reinforcing crises: Within Iraq, the sectarian militias are engaged in civil war or so close to it as to make little practical difference. The conflict between Shias and Sunnis goes back 1,400 years. In most Middle Eastern countries, Shia minorities coexist precariously with Sunni majorities. The civil war in Iraq threatens to usher in a cycle of domestic upheavals and a war between Shia and Sunni states, with a high potential of drawing in countries from outside the region. In addition, the Kurds of Iraq seek full autonomy from both Sunnis and Shias; their independence would raise the prospect of intervention from Turkey and possibly Iran.

The war in Iraq is part of another war that cuts across the Shia-Sunni issue: the assault on the international order conducted by radical groups in both Islamic sects. Functioning as states within the states and by brutal demonstrations of the inability of established governments to protect their populations, such organisations as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Mahdi army in Iraq and the Al Qaeda groups all over the Middle East seek to reassert an Islamic identity submerged, in their view, by Western secular institutions and values. Any enhancement of radical Islamist self-confidence therefore threatens all the traditional states of the region, as well as others with significant Islamic populations, from Indonesia through India to Western Europe. The most important target is the United States, as the most powerful country of the West and the indispensable component of any attempt to build a new world order.

The disenchantment of the American public with the burdens it has borne alone for nearly four years has generated growing demands for some form of unilateral withdrawal, usually expressed in the form of benchmarks to be put to the Baghdad government which, if not fulfilled in specific time periods, would trigger American disengagement.

But under present conditions, withdrawal is not an option. American forces are indispensable. They are in Iraq not as a favour to its government or as a reward for its conduct. They are there as an expression of the American national interest to prevent the Iranian combination of imperialism and fundamentalist ideology from dominating a region on which the energy supplies of the industrial democracies depend.

An abrupt American departure will greatly complicate efforts to help stem the terrorist tide far beyond Iraq; fragile governments from Lebanon to the Gulf will be tempted into pre-emptive concessions. It might drive the sectarian conflict within Iraq to genocidal dimensions beyond levels that impelled American intervention in the Balkans. Graduated withdrawal would not ease these dangers until a different strategy is in place and shows some progress. For now, it would be treated both within Iraq and in the region as the forerunner of a total withdrawal, and all parties would make their dispositions on that basis.

President Bush’s decision should therefore not be debated in terms of the “stay the course” strategy he has repeatedly disavowed in recent days. Rather it should be seen as the first step towards a new grand strategy relating power to diplomacy for the entire region, ideally on a nonpartisan basis.

The purpose of the new strategy should be to demonstrate that the US is determined to remain relevant to the outcome in the region; to adjust American military deployments and numbers to emerging realities; and to provide the maneuvering room for a major diplomatic effort to stabilise the region.

Of the current security threats in Iraq — the intervention of outside countries, the presence of Al Qaeda fighters, an extraordinarily large criminal element, the sectarian conflict — the United States has a national interest in defeating the first two; it must not involve itself in the sectarian conflict for any extended period, much less let itself be used by one side for its own sectarian goals.

The sectarian conflict confines the Iraqi government’s unchallenged writ to the sector of Baghdad defined as the Green Zone protected by American forces. In many areas the militias exceed the strength of the Iraqi national army. Appeals to the Iraqi government to undertake reconciliation and economic reforms are not implemented, partly because the will to do so is absent but essentially because it lacks the power to put such policies in place, even if the will to do so could suddenly be mobilised. If the influence of the militias can be eliminated — or greatly reduced — the Baghdad government would have a better opportunity to pursue a national policy.

The new strategy has begun with attempts to clear the insurrectional Sunni parts of Baghdad. But it must not turn into ethnic cleansing or the emergence of another tyrannical state, only with a different sectarian allegiance. Side by side with disarming the Sunni militias and death squads, the Baghdad government must show comparable willingness to disarm Shia militias and death squads. American policy should not deviate from the goal of a civil state, whose political process is available to all citizens.

As the comprehensive strategy evolves, a repositioning of American forces from the cities into enclaves should be undertaken so that they can separate themselves from the civil war and concentrate on the threats described above. The principal mission would be to protect the borders against infiltration, to prevent the establishment of terrorist training areas or Taleban-type control over significant regions. At that point, too, significant reductions of American forces should be possible. Such a strategy would make withdrawals depend on conditions on the ground instead of the other way around. It could also provide the time to elaborate a cooperative diplomacy for rebuilding the region, including progress towards a settlement of the Palestine issue.

For such a strategy, it is not possible to jettison the military instrument and rely, as some argue, on purely political means. A free-standing diplomacy is an ancient American illusion. History offers few examples of it. The attempt to separate diplomacy and power results in power lacking direction and diplomacy being deprived of incentives.

Diplomacy is the attempt to persuade another party to pursue a course compatible with a society’s strategic interests. Obviously this involves the ability to create a calculus that impels or rewards the desired direction. The outcome, by definition, is rarely the ability to impose one’s will but a compromise that gives each party a stake in maintaining it.

Few diplomatic challenges are as complex as that surrounding Iraq. Diplomacy must mediate between Iraqi sects which, though in many respects mortal enemies, are assembled in a common governmental structure. It needs to relate that process to an international concept involving both Iraq’s neighbours and countries further away that have a significant interest in the outcome.

Two levels of diplomatic effort are necessary:

(1) The creation of a contact group, assembling neighbouring countries whose interests are directly affected and which rely on American support. This group should include Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. Its function should be to advise on ending the internal conflict and to create a united front against outside domination.

(2) Parallel negotiations should be conducted with Syria and Iran, which now appear as adversaries, to give them an opportunity to participate in a peaceful regional order. Both categories of consultations should lead to an international conference including all countries that will have to play a stabilising role in the eventual outcome, specifically the permanent members of the UN Security Council as well as such countries as Indonesia, India and Pakistan.

Too much of the current discussion focuses on the procedural aspect of starting a dialogue with adversaries. In fact, a balance of risks and opportunities needs to be created so that Iran is obliged to choose between a significant but not dominant role or riding the crest of Shia fundamentalism. In the latter case, it must pay a serious, not a rhetorical, price for choosing the militant option. An outcome in which Iran is approaching nuclear status, because of hesitant and timid non-proliferation policies in the UN Security Council, coupled with a political vacuum in front of it in the region must lead to catastrophic consequences.

Similar principles apply to the prospects for settlement in Palestine. Moderates in both the Arab countries neighbouring Israel and in Israel are evolving compromises unimaginable a decade ago. But if the necessary outcomes are perceived as the result of panic by moderates and an exit from the region by the United States, radicals could raise unfulfillable demands and turn the peace process against the moderates.

In all this, the United States cannot indefinitely bear alone the burden for both the military outcome and the political structure. At some point, Iraq has to be restored to the international community, and other countries must be prepared to share responsibilities for regional peace. Some of America’s allies and other affected countries seek to escape the upheavals all around them by disassociating from the United States. But just as it is impossible for America to deal with these trends unilaterally, sooner or later a common effort to rebuild the international order will be imposed on all the potential targets. The time has come for an effort to define the shoals within which diplomacy is obliged to navigate and to anchor any outcome in some broader understanding that accommodates the interests of the affected parties.

Henry A Kissinger, a former US secretary of state, is considered the architect of US foreign policy during the Cold War

[CJ]

"The important goal of modernising US armed forces"....led to low troop levels. The US military is the most modern in the world, so why is this pathetic excuse used by the NWO? The US military requested 200,000 for Iraq....they believed these numbers were available...but the neocons gave them 130,000....chaos by NWO design!!!

"Threaten all traditional states of the region"....by "traditional", I`ll assume Kissinger means non democratic....weren`t we told the wider NWO objective was democracy across the Middle East....the only threat was NWO imperialism!LOL

"To prevent the Iranian combination of imperialism and fundamentalist ideology from dominating the region on which the energy supplies of the industrial democracies depend"....what does Kissinger mean by "democracy"...does he mean a sad excuse for the minions of the West to go out and vote for one or other NWO controlled political lacky?? Kissinger is a strange guy. Here he come out with this twaddle after how many years....could it be this statement is a reflection the current state of play is exactly as the NWO planned it!! Bush tells us that this is it, 20,000 more men...the risks are great...it could go either way, yet, Kissinger sticks his neck out, his reputation on the line, as if it were some great risk. As I`ve said before, Iraq chaos is going exactly to plan. Forget the media distractions that Iraq is a mess. You must understand, when one builds a dream home, there is rubble, there is a skip out front and the dust is everywhere....Iraq is just one stage in the NWO consturction project for global domination. There is a master plan and Kissnger knows the next stage!

"Iraq has to be restored to the international community"....again, I really like Kissinger choice of word; "RESTORED"!LOL Iraq as a nation, forget it. Iraq is a corporation. The Iraqi`s will slave. Today the numbers look huge, that is US investment....but in 50 years time, this investment will seem like chicken feed....GET IT, the moment the NWO invaded Iraq, the Western economy grew and quite a bit. Iraq has lost its nation status. People are drip fed water, electricity and petrol....the CIA is running the civil war. Remember, someone is supplying the weapons, ammo, explosives and intelligence to avoid regular US military units, when allowed out of camp.

We are lectured about the terrorist threat spreading out of Iraq.....well that is very strange.....so where did all those Saudi terrorists go? After 13 years of US occupation, 13,000 US forces were pulled out of Saudi Arabia, and just as US forces walked into Baghadad Then all these terrorists appeared....and then they vanished. No doubt catching some sun in Miami!LOL


This pitch by Kissinger is an almighty blunder. Kissinger has everything to lose, yet he nothing to lose, because he`s in the loop!LOL

Tony, I`d be interested in why you latched onto this, because Kissinger`s mantra is classic NWO/neocon perspective. Its timing is the most imprtant aspect.

YOU just need to read between the lines!

Kissingers last visit to the UK (speeking at the Royal Albert Hall) was met by questioning from the Met. Police on alligations of war crimes....Kissinger escaped, next time he might not be so lucky.

[CJ]

The internet is awash with chatter....the US will attack Iran soon....Israeli fighters armed with nukes turned back twice by US fighters over Iraq. More NWO disinformation. Ramblings from neocons....ramblings from Israel and ramblings from the Russian military. Articles from the UK press (SunTele/SunTim) suggest a nuclear attack on Iran....

....we are being wound to fever-pitch. Even if this is propaganda, there are clues which give away NWO timings....Blair has only months left....much is made of his legacy, but Blair has no legacy, he is a combatant Prime Minister.....Bliar must leave power in a blaze of red blood, stepping down just after the next stage of NWO plans are swung into action and thus leaving his follower in an difficult predicament.

The best time to blood a new NWO puppet (Gordon Brown), will be in the heat of battle. The British press claim a departure after the May elections.......this is a distraction....Blair will leave just after, either a NWO sanctions attack on the US military, a US ship, or a major terror attack. So May looks a bit late....so we have Febuary, March and April....its coming!!

Now, just get your head around this....I`m assuming you live in the West and you think all this ---- is happening, way away. PREPARE, PREPARE and PREPARE....expect things like H5N1 to kick-off, expect martial law (especially in the US), expect draconian travel restrictions. Bush could become dictator....we could all be expected to carry our PAPERS...ID!! You should be prepared for everything....major weather problems, food rationing, fuel shortages and martial law!!

Remenber those PATHETIC tanks parked outside terminal 3 at London Heathrow? These tanks were parked between terminal 3 and its car park...the tanks had at most 100 metres to fire their corks...this is an example of over-kill, used to brainwash the public. I`m speculating that this will be on a much grander scale...

...and please forgive my "speculations". I really do hope that non of this comes to pass. I really do hope my speculations will put the NWO out of step....delay their plans, or simply give up.