The War on Terror is a War for Oil in Disguise

[LuvRPgrl]

Israeli News Organization Reports ‘Anti-Semitic Graphic Content’ at Daily Kos
Posted by Noel Sheppard on April 6, 2007 - 13:57.
Arutz Sheva, an Internet based news outlet in Israel, reported on Friday the existence of anti-Semitic content at the liberal website Daily Kos (h/t Little Green Footballs, emphasis added throughout):

The Daily Kos blog, one of the most popular American political websites, is featuring anti-Semitic graphic content since Thursday. The Daily Kos reportedly receives 600,000 visits a day, and between 14 million and 24 million visits per month. It is often used by politicians – including Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama and many others – for dissemination of their materials.

The article continued:

The content is featured in a 'diary' by one of the site's contributors, a Belgian graphic artist. It shows a composite of Minister Avigdor Lieberman's face and Adolf Hitler's face holding a skull painted with a Star of David, under the caption "Zionism was and remains a racist ideology."

As Charles at LGF noted, the picture and diary are still available at DK.

How disgraceful.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11882

Apparently you do a lot of reading. THANKS for providing us with links/articles that are pertinent to the topic of the thread. Otherwise, I dont have the time to search for these and I would be un informed.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

have you forgotten about the democracy's of Afghanistan and Iraq ?
remember the purple fingers

Afghan is not in the middle east. Iraq is still under construction

 

[eots]

Afghan is not in the middle east. Iraq is still under construction

I think you mean under destruction

 

[T-Bor]

LOL !!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..OWNED !!!!!!!

I'm sorry, were you trying to respond to my post, or were you just having a convulsion that resulted in a series of unconnected words ending up on the message board?

 

[Gunny]

The following link should give you a start.

http://dotcommonsense.blog-city.com/americans_with_ties_to_bush_administration_helped_write_iraq.htm

The hydrocarbon law

Sorry I missed this. For one thing, it's a blog. I don't find it surprising that we have infrastrucural plans of a country we invaded (even at the planning to invade stage).

If the government of Iraq opens Iraq's oil to foreign development, who would this help the most? There's also a distinct difference in trying to cut deals -- you know, like Saddam had with France to vote against us in the UN? -- and just taking the oil; which, is the allegation.

Any blind fool knows the war is about ensuring a stable and secure flow of oil to the US market. Why else would we be interested in that stinking sandbox full of 7th century minds?

That STILL does not equate to stealing Iraq's natural resources.

 

[Gunny]

unless it is carpet bombing the entire muslim nation and killing every man woman and child it is a war you will never win. as soon as you put boots on the ground americain soliders will continue to die the battle will rage on, a war without end

I guess you missed the "completely unleased" part. I'm talking about total war, not this screwing around stuff we seem to be doing nowadays.

 

[Gunny]

Why am I posting in this thread? I just realized after reading on it has turned into "Tardville -- the Cut-n-Paste War."

 

[red states rule]

It truly is mind boggling to me how any American Jew can vote Dumbocrap these days.

Talk about a Jew in Hitler's army.

There are a few Democrats that get it.........


April 10, 2007
We Shouldn't Be Alone in Fighting Terrorists
By Ed Koch

I still believe there is no greater danger facing the world today than Islamic terrorism.

I also believe that -- based on the information then available and the advice to the president by the CIA and its then director, George Tenet -- our 2003 invasion and liberation of Iraq was justified.

Considering that even Saddam's own generals believed Saddam had WMD, it's easy to understand why the CIA came to an erroneous conclusion. However, if we had known then what we know now about the lack of WMD in Iraq -- we should not have invaded.

Notwithstanding our mistake, we are nevertheless facing in Iraq the heart of the fundamental enemy of Western civilization and moderate Muslim states -- Islamic terrorism. If the United States were supported by our allies with troops on the ground, which is the case in Afghanistan, we should stay in Iraq and endeavor to destroy the insurrectionists and terrorists and assist the Iraqi government to govern Iraq free from terrorism and jihadists.

Make no mistake. The terrorists and jihadists are seeking to turn Iraq into a radical Islamic state devoted to spreading terrorism, and providing sanctuary for those bent on destroying Western civilization. If they could, they would join with Iran to build what they hope would be an invincible army dominating first the Persian Gulf area starting at the Mediterranean Sea and encompassing all of central Asia. Their ultimate goal is to reestablish an Islamic Caliphate, stretching from Spain, across North Africa to the Middle East, central Asia, finally reaching Southeast Asia and Indonesia, an area that today has a population of 1 billion, 400 million Muslims, under one Islamic government and religious leader.

Not every Muslim is a terrorist, nor do all Muslims agree with this goal. But as journalist Abdel Rahman al-Rashed said, "It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims."

If the United States, on its own, could defeat the terrorists and their goals by waging the battle now ongoing in Iraq, as President Bush believes we can, I would support that effort. But I, like most Americans, have concluded that we cannot do it alone. The casualties and cost are too great. I believe that unless we are joined by a significant number of our allies, regional and NATO, who would provide combat troops and share in the costs of war, we should leave Iraq.

In pursuit of such a decision, I urge the President to issue an ultimatum to our allies, both regional -- Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, the Gulf States -- and our 25 NATO allies, that unless a significant number reply affirmatively in 30 days to our ultimatum, we will begin immediately the process of withdrawal. At the same time, we should require the Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to call a special session of the Iraqi legislature to vote on a resolution stating their request of the U.S. and others to remain in Iraq, specifying the rules of engagement and the goals being sought by the Iraqi government and its allies. If the Iraqi government fails to do so within 30 days, then irrespective of the actions taken by our allies, we should leave. Americans and most of the people of the Western world appear not to know that the United Nations Security Council has approved the U.S. waging war in support of the Iraqi government. Indeed, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, supposedly our ally, recently referred to the U.S. presence in Iraq as "an illegal foreign occupation."

I have no doubt the war will continue for generations yet to come should we leave under any of these circumstances and that we will be compelled to fight that war in our homeland as the jihadists follow us across the seas to attack us here, as they already did in first attacking the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993 and again on September 11, 2001. There have been comparable attacks on Great Britain, Spain and other nations, including moderate Muslim countries, by the Islamic terrorists.

I believe there is a good chance that a significant number of our allies will respond affirmatively to our ultimatum, recognizing that they have more to lose than we do when the Iraqi refugees seeking relief from the ongoing civil war start to leave Iraq and stream across the borders of the neighboring states by the millions, bringing with them jihadists and terrorists and their suicide bombers. I recognize there is a greater likelihood that our allies will not respond affirmatively in significant numbers. That is particularly true with respect to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), founded in 1949. Our allies in NATO have lost their will to stand and defend their values, as Great Britain found recently when it sought support from the members of the European Union for a United Nations resolution demanding that Iran immediately free the British marines taken hostage.

Great Britain found it had no support from its allies for clear, strong language. The Security Council issued instead a watered down statement simply expressing "grave concern" over Iran's actions. The will to live without fear no longer exists in Europe. The raison d'etre for NATO's existence -- an attack upon one is an attack upon all -- no longer governs that alliance. There is no surprise in that response, recognizing that the U.S. received the same response from NATO, excepting Great Britain and a few other small nations. Now, Great Britain will be leaving Iraq, as have most of our other allies, departing or reducing their forces.

For all practical purposes, NATO is dead. Its last achievement was stopping the Russian juggernaut and ultimately bringing down the Soviet Union. Europe, now believing it cannot prevent being overwhelmed by the Islamic tide, apparently prefers to accept it.

If on receiving the ultimatum, our allies recognize that they risk losing the future protection of their ally, the U.S., and its armed forces, which saved them from both German and Soviet occupation and protected them for so many years, they may have an epiphany.

No harm in trying. But there can be no bluffing on our part. Either they come in, or we get out.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/we_shouldnt_be_alone_in_fighti.html

 

[red states rule]

I think you mean under destruction

Before the election, Dems said they would not cut off funding to the troops

Then they pass non binding bills saying they would

The they passed their "Surrender At All Costs" bill

When they see it would be vetoed by Pres Bush, they say they will cut off funding

Now, some Dems say they won't

Is John Kerry running the party?



Senate Democrats say they won't halt funding for troops

By Eric Pfeiffer
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 9, 2007


Two leading Senate Democrats said their party will not cut off funding for U.S. troops in Iraq, distancing themselves from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, who now says he supports doing so.
"We're not going to vote to cut funding, period," said Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat and Armed Services Committee chairman.
Mr. Levin said he and other Democrats would continue to pressure President Bush on enforcing benchmarks for progress in Iraq, but ultimately most of his colleagues will support funding because they do not have the votes to override Mr. Bush's veto.
"What we're going to try to do, a majority, I believe, of Democrats and most of the Republicans, is to vote for a bill that funds the troops, period," he said during an appearance on ABC's "This Week." "We're going to fund the troops. We always have."
President Bush has said he will veto either the House-passed or Senate-passed supplemental war-spending bills, which both call for a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq by next year. In addition to opposing any timeline for withdrawal or redeployment, Mr. Bush and other Republicans have criticized the billions of pork-barrel spending included in both the House and Senate bills.
Mr. Reid announced his own legislation, which would cut off funding for the troops next March. Democratic Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin agreed to co-sponsor the bill, which Mr. Reid says he plans to put forward if Mr. Bush vetoes the current war supplemental-funding bill. But Mr. Levin said the majority leader spoke only for himself, not the party as a whole.
"Even Harry Reid acknowledged that that's not going to happen," Mr. Levin said in reference to cutting off funding. "He has a personal position, which he said was not the caucus position."
Meanwhile, Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, echoed Mr. Levin's comments on troop funding, telling "Fox News Sunday" that "We are not going to leave the troops high and dry, plain and simple. Senator Reid has said that. I've said that. Every leader of the Democratic Party has said that."
Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, said he would continue to oppose a Democratic supplemental bill that removed a timetable but contained specific benchmarks, calling it unfair to Iraqis.
"First of all, it's premised on the notion that the Iraqis aren't listening to us," he said. "They are cooperating with us. So that's old news that they're not cooperating. That's one of the reasons this new surge strategy is working."
Although Mr. Reid recently changed his position to favor a withdrawal timetable, some Senate moderates said they continue to oppose what Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, called "micromanaging" the president and generals.
"I'm not prepared to withdraw funding at this time. But my patience, like many others, is growing very thin," Mr. Specter told CNN's "Late Edition."
Mr. Kyl also said withholding money to send a message to Iraqis would send other messages.
"You're also sending a message to our troops and to our enemies, who know that all they have to do is wait the conflict out. This is not the way to try to micromanage a war from the U.S. Senate," he said.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent, also disagreed with timelines during an appearance on CNN.
"Putting a timeline on is always a mistake in war because it says that a bunch of political people in Washington know better than the generals in the field what's going to be happening four months, six months, a year from now," he said, "unless you are prepared to say we have lost in Iraq, we have no chance and we're prepared to accept the consequences of withdrawal, which I think would be terrible for American security."


http://washingtontimes.com/national/...2617-4964r.htm
__________________