Archive for the 'Iraq' Category

Joint Chiefs don’t care Bradley Manning don’t care villages Afghanistan

March 14, 2011

If the joint chiefs don’t care of non-coms and warrant officers mistreat Bradley Manning and Quantico, how can they be trusted when a predator drone destroys a village in Afghanistan or Pakistan? If they don’t care what the lower ranks do in Quantico to the prisoner, how can they be believed that they care about destroying a village in Afghanistan or Pakistan by mistake?

Why should we keep the military in Afghanistan to just give them the Bradley Manning treatment with predator drones? What good does that do?

The joint chiefs have caring fatigue. That means it is time to leave Afghanistan. They can’t help the people there if the joint chiefs are fatigued from caring about what happens to the powerless.

Let those people kill themselves because they have the power to stop it. They don’t have the power to stop predator drones controlled in Utah. They can’t learn from the mistakes of noncoms in Utah like they can from their own mistakes in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is why it is time to leave.

The joint chiefs need to learn to care about the prisoners at Quantico. Until they prove that, they have lost the right to be trusted to destroy villages in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Bring the troops home. Their mission is finished because the joint chiefs have compassion fatigue syndrome.

In Manning’s complaint, he says one of the noncoms told Manning that he was God. Well it looks like the joint chiefs let God decide it was time to end the war in Afghanistan and bring our troops and predator drones home. If the Afghans and Pakistanis want to fight each other, they can decide that. But they can also decide to stop that.

It may also teach Colonel Choike and the joint chiefs to think twice about who they put in the position of God, here and there. When the colones and joint chiefs decide to let noncoms be God, then they do give up control.


Bradley Manning and Military’s Careerist Conformist Corrupt System

March 14, 2011

The Bradley Manning case is discrediting the military. The Marine Corp colonel at Quantic, Daniel J. Choike is allowing corporals and sergeants and warrant officers to abuse a prisoner repeatedly in the face of the nation. This is either his policy or he doesn’t care. The same applies to the chain of command up to the joint chiefs, the civilian secretaries and the president.

They are all careerist checkoff artists. They blow smoke in every situation. They say the positive thing that is expected. They hammer the person who speaks up with the negative truth. That person is fired as happened to the State Department spokesman, normally an arch smoke blower. Philip J. Crowley bio:

The JAG and the JAG judges are also doing nothing. They just pile on more charges and hope the kid breaks from the treatment by the non-coms at the brig.

There needs to be a reform. JAG should be held accountable for the treatment of all prisoners. That should be written into their mandate. There may need to be civilian review of treatment of prisoners and possibly remove it from the military. However, the civilian system tends to have much harsher punishments.

The promotion system of the military weeds out the independent and the outspoken. This needs drastic reform. The joint chiefs are a product of this system, as is Colonel Choike, as are the JAG officers and as are the JAG judges.

The treatment of prisoners also should not be left to warrant officers to decide. This should be subject to review by officers at a minimum. JAG should definitely be involved in reviewing this treatment.

Military taking its frustration with wars on Manning

March 12, 2011

The military is showing its frustration with the last 10 years in its treatment of Bradley Manning. They can take it out on this innocent looking White kid with impunity.

They are frustrated with the lies. The wars were based on lies. It is a lie that they helped protect us. We are not securer for these wars. Muslims are not our allies. Islam is not peaceful. We are not safer with Muslims here. Muslims should not be in the military. Our civilization is headed towards collapse by allowing outsiders to pour in. They are never Americans or members of our civilization. The leadership tell the diversity lie constantly and it is the death of us.

The military are taking out all this frustration on Manning. It shows they don’t believe in the surges or any of the policy of appeasement of Islam. America and the West are committing suicide. The military are part of the suicide not the solution. Enemies are allowed in and put in charge. They are frustrated with that. They can’t response against real enemies, the Muslims in are midst, but have to take it out on Manning, the White kid they are allowed to abuse as long as they do it under PC regulations. Whites have no civil rights as Obama Holder said. That is the end of our civilization. The military join in because it is the only way they are allowed to manifest their frustration, on a fellow White. The same as Libs do on Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann.

Everything said about surges, Pakistan being an ally, etc. is a lie. The soldiers know this. Their leaders lie to please the civilians who know it is a lie. The whole thing is a lie. Beware the diversity lie complex.

West’s Rational and Irrational Choices on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan

August 23, 2007

We present a set of rational and irrational choices the West has for its policy in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Pakistan, and the Persian Gulf.

Scenario 1: Bleed in Afghanistan.

US forces in Afghanistan, out of Iraq. Iran and Pakistan both nuclear and both supporting insurgency in Afghanistan to keep US monthly casualty rate high. Iran,Iraq, and Pakistan bases of international terrorism.

Score: Bad for US.
Evaluation: Stupid policymakers.
Advocates: This is supported by some Democratic candidates for president and some other leading Democrats. There is also some Republican support for this. This is also favored by the MSM as inevitable, and therefore righteous, since its bad for us.

Scenario 2: Bleed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

US forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Iran and Pakistan both nuclear and both supporting insurgency in Afghanistan and Iraq to keep US casualty rate high. Iran and Pakistan bases of international terrorism.

Score: Bad for US.
Evaluation: Stupid policymakers.
Advocates: This is close to a second choice supported by some Democratic and Republican candidates for president and some other leading Democrats and Republicans. This is also somewhat favored by the MSM as inevitable, and therefore righteous, since its bad for us.

Scenario 3: Admit defeat and bring the war home.

US out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Persian Gulf. Iran and Pakistan nuclear. Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq bases of international terrorism. US allows immigration and travel from Islamic lands to West.

Score: Bad for US.
Evaluation: Appeasing policymakers.
Advocates: Some in MSM, Some Democrats.

Variant of 1, 2 and 3: An ineffective missile and air attack on Iran leading to the Persian Gulf being closed to shipping and the isolation of US forces in Iraq, if any, and Kuwait from supply and naval support. This variant is somewhat unstable and leads either to war with Iran, or withdrawal from Iraq, Kuwait and the Gulf because of lack of supply.

Scenario 4a: Invade Iran, Surround and Blockade Pakistan, Stay in Iraq.

US invades Iran, surrounds Pakistan and blockades it with India to give up nukes. US stays in Iraq and Afghanistan. Travel from Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq to West is not allowed. Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq are not effective bases for terrorism against West. Stop travel from Islamic countries to West.

Score: Improving for US.
Evaluation: Policy is trying to match means to ends.
Advocates: Almost no one.

Scenario 4b: Invade Iran, Surround and Blockade Pakistan, leave Iraq.

US invades Iran, surrounds Pakistan and blockades it with India to give up nukes. US leaves Iraq but stays in Afghanistan. Pakistan and Iran are not effective bases for terrorism against West. Iraq is a weak base of terrorism against West. Stop travel from Islamic countries to West.

Score: Improving for US.
Evaluation: Policy is trying to match means to ends.
Advocates: Almost no one.

Scenario 4a and 4b are logical and in our interest. Therefore they are scored as bigoted and racist and not possible by the MSM and Left.

Diagnosis: West is at war with Islam and won’t admit it. West is at war, demographically, with third world and won’t admit it. The mistakes in the Middle East are just more of the same as the last 50 years of 3rd world immigration. This demographic conflict is, in part, the West’s own making by its own expansion of the third world population bubble.

Senator John Warner has advocated changing Maliki and starting some withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. This is because Bush focuses on Iraq and won’t think about the rest. We have no rational policy. That leaves us in the Iraq irrationality that comes from Bush’s brain.

The following comment was posted at Raw Story and they pulled the entire thread.

August 23rd, 2007 at 11:08:09 From: Fallaci Admirer
Ground invasion
If we pull our ships out of the Persian Gulf before a missile/air strike, because of Iran’s antiship missiles, when can we go back in? If we can’t go back in, how can we supply Kuwait and Iraq? A single carrier going down is over 5000 lives. The battle phase deaths in Iraq were 200. A ground invasion of Iran at that rate would equal 2 months staying in Iraq. The time to fight wars is when its cheap.

If we do a missile strike on Iran, we have to pull our ships out of the Persian Gulf because of their antiship missiles. But then they can never go back in. We then can’t supply Iraq or even Kuwait. So we have to withdrawal completely from the Persian Gulf and abandon Kuwait and the Iraqi, Kuwaiti, and Saudi oil fields to Iran. This is actually worse than Saddam’s plan to take them.

The US is in paralysis because its in reality denial. We are in a war with Islam and the Middle East. They are at war with us. We are losing that war, primarily by immigration. We are going extinct from third world immigration as a mathematical theorem. We are unable to admit reality and so we can’t act on it.

We have allowed Pakistan to effectively extort money from us by the terrorism they have permitted since 1998 after they did their nuclear test. Pakistan had 38 billion in foreign debt on 9-11, with its interest greater than gross exports as its central banker wrote in a book. We let them extort money from us and they still are. We have to prevent Iran from getting nukes and denuke Pakistan.

Pakistan treats us with contempt because we have troops in Afghanistan but no ground supply route. The only way to get one is to invade Iran and position our forces on the border of Pakistan. Then we can, with India, surround and blockade Pakistan.

Instead, we are allowing pipeline deals through Pakistan to India that will further undermine our bargaining power. We allow arranged marriages from Pakistan and Afghanistan to people in the US as family reunification. We allow free movement to some terrorists from the Middle East to the West. We allow them on planes. We did so half-knowingly, in part, before 9-11.

We are fools. We deny reality. We deny our own biology. We think we can conquer death and the physical world by machines and know-how. Our entire lives have become a denial of reality. That is why our policies make no sense.


Senator Barack Obama advocates, in effect, our having a monthly casualty rate in Afghanistan pumped up by a nuclear Iran and nuclear Pakistan. This is now the consensus choice of the MSM and US establishment. They support continued appeasement and tribute to Pakistan. They support continued free access to the West by the Muslim world. They support our demographic suicide by immigration, and that’s a mathematical theorem, published in genetics journals.

See the Population Genetics, Wright Island Model, One Way Migration, and the Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem.

== Senator Hillary Clinton

Senator Clinton advocates something close to what Barack Obama advocates. She, like Obama, voted for the Bush Kennedy, McCain amnesty.

Senator John McCain is almost out of the race, because he advocated the same irrational mix Bush did, immigration and war. Obama and Clinton advocate that irrational mix as well. Almost every candidate does, except Tom Tancredo and a few others. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are antiwar, so they don’t advocate the full mix. Duncan Hunter is close to Tom Tancredo.

All major candidates, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, Rudi Giuliani, Fred Thompson advocate war with at least one Muslim land, appeasement of the others, and allowing the Muslim lands to colonize us by immigration and for their young men here to kill us here.

Reality catches up with presidents, as Bush’s presidency shows. Advocating the irrational makes no sense. Now its in the open that both parties and all major candidates and the MSM are advocating inconsistent irrational policies guaranteed to fail.

The job is for the people to point this out in detail, in writing, on talk radio, in letters, faxes, phone calls, town meetings and other contacts with Congress, the executive, the MSM, etc.

We as voters have to know the facts, numbers, history, theory, etc. better than those we vote for, and then explain to them that their wrong statements are wrong and they aren’t good enough. We have to explain that to the MSM. It takes a village to teach our politicians, MSM, profs, etc. common sense, and rational decision making under uncertainty and under biology. These are things the MSM and elites would rather have us die from than be forced to admit they don’t know how to do it or are too lazy to.

We have to learn the numbers, history, facts, theory, etc. We have to put it together on the internet and elsewhere. We then have to force it down the throat of the MSM, Congress, President, and other elites including Wall Street.

==Iran and Pakistan are our Front line enemies.

We are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan in insurgencies funded and supported by Iran and Pakistan. Al Qaeda doesn’t come from the sky. They are supplied out of Pakistan and other insurgents are supported out of Iran or Saudi Arabia.

We can’t win insurgencies in the back countries of Iraq and Afghanistan while the frontline countries of Iran and Pakistan supply the insurgents and block us from effective action. We need to do a ground invasion now of Iran while its non-nuclear. Then we isolate Pakistan by surrounding it and blockading it.

Pakistan is not strong economically or financially. Pakistan without foreign aid or assistance or trade is not viable as the political entity it is. It will have to negotiate or face break up. We have to insist on our own removal and our own inspections of nuclear weapons.

As a surrounded and isolated country, Pakistan will not be able to maintain or develop its nuclear arsenal. Nuclear weapons decay, so will Pakistan’s. They will wilt, if we have the will to surround them and isolate them physically. That would also mean no arranged marriages from Pakistan to the West as part of family reunification.

August 23rd, 2007 at 11:08:09 From: Fallaci Admirer

Ground invasion
If we pull our ships out of the Persian Gulf before a missile/air strike, because of Iran’s antiship missiles, when can we go back in? If we can’t go back in, how can we supply Kuwait and Iraq? A single carrier going down is over 5000 lives. The battle phase deaths in Iraq were 200. A ground invasion of Iran at that rate would equal 2 months staying in Iraq. The time to fight wars is when its cheap.

Thread now gone:

This was about John Bolton’s call for attacking Iran.

Middle East Myopic Retreat Will Have Higher Losses

January 31, 2007

In the 20th century, the US had a myopic reactive strategy in the first 50 years that lost 500,000 killed. In the second 50 years it switched to an active control strategy that reduced the deaths to 100,000 killed despite nuclear weapons and more advanced conventional technology of death. In rate terms, the first 50 years was 10,000 killed per year, and the second 50 years was 2,000 killed per year.
We currently lose under 1000 killed per year in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is half the rate in the second half of the 20th century. This doesn’t mean we should stay in Iraq, but it means the cost is reasonable if we get a benefit.

If you are going to fight wars in the Middle East, you want to start from Iraq. Its the central land location. It lets us attack Iran, our most likely enemy combatant in a war in the next 5 years. So if we are going to stay in the Middle East, we should stay in Iraq.

So if we are not going to retreat from the Middle East as a whole, we need to stay in Iraq. Invading Iraq in the first place made sense if you wanted the capability to fight Iran or to fight ground wars in the Middle East.

A Nimitz class carrier carries 5700 people or more. One Iranian deployed Russian made Sunburn anti-ship missile could potentially cost almost 6000 lives. This makes a sea invasion of Iran substantially more risky than a ground invasion from Iraq.

In Afghanistan, we depend on supply through others. This makes it less suitable for invading Iran than Iraq. If we had invaded Iran, we would have secure supply under our control to Iraq. That would give us leverage over Pakistan which knows we don’t have reliable supply to our troops in Afghanistan and thus makes those troops hostages to Pakistan. That lets Pakistan support insurgents, which costs us higher losses per month.

Combat phase losses in Iraq were under 200 for US and UK combined. A ground invasion from Iraq into Iran will cost us far fewer deaths than coming by sea and having our ships destroyed by anti-ship missiles with troops on board.

So our best strategy is to hold Iraq. That costs us 70+ deaths per month. Invading Iran may lessen that number killed, and also will lessen killed in Afghanistan as Pakistan loses its hostages in Afghanistan, our troops.

Strategically the way forward for the US in the Middle East is to hold Iraq and then invade Iran if they don’t agree to a deal on our terms. That would be one that showed a drop in our troop losses in Iraq and a complete abandonment by them of their nuclear program and showing us their secret sites and giving us the ability to roam freely to check for secret sites.

==When they attack we lose more than we attack 1st

At the Marine Barracks in Lebanon we lost 241 killed. On 9-11 we lost about 3000 killed.  When we invaded Iraq we had ground phase combat deaths of under 200. That includes the UK losses.

So when we let them pick the time and place of their attac, we lose more.  If we had in Pearl Harbor we get another example.

When we pick the time and place of the attack, and defat them totally as in Iraq, we can do it during the combat phase with low losses.

Now we are faced with Iran.  We can let them feed the insurgency and we lose 70 or 80 or more killed per month.  That comes to 840 or more per year.  We can do a missile strike, and let them retaliate.  We can do a ground invasion.

It seems the low cost choice is a ground invasion.  We should pull our ships out of the Gulf and go in on the ground and clear out their anti-ship missiles.  If we do a bombing raid, we will have to face the risk of their retaliation at a time and place of their choosing.  That may include on civilian targets in the US by organizations with no known return address and with state support to use advanced weapons on US civilian targets like aircraft, nuclear plants, etc.

The targets they pick may be different than al Qaeda. They may pick trains with chemicals that pass through DC near the Capitol and might release enough toxic gas to kill many more than we would lose invading Iran and finishing them off.


“Need more precise language than mess, winning, etc”

Currently 70 Americans or so are killed per month. Some numbers of Iraqis.

So many Iraqis can go to work each day. So many women don’t leave the house for fear.

We need to have a set of such metrics, and do surveys or other means, even internet ones with data analysis to recalibrate them, to get a set of metrics (state data) on the situation in Iraq.

Then we need to determine whether we can change those variables on a short run, intermediate or long run basis. These are really probability estimates, i.e. probabilities on a set of scenarios of the set of state data.

Then we need to estimate the ability of us to change them and then the cost of that. This is also probabilistic.

Then we compare that to alternative uses.

As Newt Gingrich pointed out in an earlier Front Page article, if Iraq was a problem of Iraq only, we would leave. Its only because its part of a wider regional conflict that we might decide to stay, and might then supply a certain level of activities.

Between complete withdrawal and say the current surge, we might find there are lower costs activities, in lives, dollars, troop commitments, etc. that we prefer out of this analysis.

70 lives lost per month is 840 per year. We may decide that this is acceptable in a larger war or mission. In 100 years, losing 840 per year comes to 84,000 lost.


“Myopic Strategy has jumps and higher losses”

In the 20th century our military casualties in war were about 600,000. That comes to 6,000 per year.

A mission of losing 840 per year is thus not unreasonable.

We used force in the 20th century to control powerful forces that we feared might come here. We could have chosen to instead not intervened and seen what happened. In the case of WWI that might have been better, or it might not have been.

We should think of a century control strategy and expenditure. In the 19th century, we also lost 600,000 people in the Civil War. Other countries lost more in the 20th century.

We should combine the losses of Britain and the US in the 20th century and use that as our reference. That takes it will over 1 million. Note Britain had a low population in WWI compared to the US today.

At 1 million deaths per century, we get 10,000 per year. Thus at 840 per year we are below the US UK rate for the 20th century.

We have, however, a higher population. Thus there is no need to panic in Iraq.

Need more precise language than mess, winning, etc – Old Atlantic 1/31/2007 8:20:32 AM

Myopic Strategy has jumps and higher losses – Old Atlantic 1/31/2007 8:30:56 AM

In the 20th century we used a myopic strategy for the first 45 years or so. We would react to large events, WWI and WWII and get huge spikes in deaths. The UK had even bigger spikes as did others.

After WWII we transitioned into a managed strategy. This involved two wars of 50,000 deaths each.

The first 50 years of the 20th century we lost 500,000 killed. The last 50 years we lost 100,000 killed. We also averted a nuclear war.

By switching to active control as opposed to a passive reactive policy, we lowered our deaths from 500,000 for the first 50 years to 100,000 for the second 50 years.

The latter comes to a rate of 200,000 per century or 2,000 per year. We are now losing under 1,000 per year in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Again, the combined US and UK deaths or even France added may be more appropriate as benchmarks.

The myopic reactive strategy the Senate Democrats want was proven in WWII to result in higher deaths. The actiev control methodology, which was bipartisan at the start, as Gingrich points out, then deteriorated into a 70/30 type commitment. Republicans are 70 percent of it, Democrats 30 percent.

Democrats have used their periods of power to undermine the strategy, e.g. Vietnam withdrawal. That also weakened us to respond to Khomeini in Iran.

We need to recognize that an active control strategy has been shown by history to result in lower deaths and to avoid huge spikes that make up a large part of deaths in 20th century wars.

The current Bush strategy is better than withdrawal from Iraq. We need to increase the size of our military and strengthen our country by stopping immigration and know-how transfer. Our current effort, like Vietnam, is a superior strategy to the Democrat proposal which is myopic and reactive.

==Comments were in response to:
The Real War
By Newt Gingrich | January 31, 2007

Newt Gingrich gave the following testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 23, 2007. — The Editors.
Comments at Front Page Magazine

== Criticisms and Responses

1. Iraq didn’t attack us on 9-11, it was a war of choice. Now its a failure. Neocons, PNAC, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, Richard Perle, etc. are responsible for this.


Iraq lets us invade Iran by land instead of by sea. Iran has Russian supplied anti-ship missiles. We could lose 5700 dead from one Nimitz class carrier going down. Iraq gives us position to strike at Iran or Syria.

2. You don’t have the moral right to invade Iraq.

Answer: Iraq had committed numerous acts of war against the US including violations of agreements in the first Iraq war.

3. Iraq was better as it was.

Answer: Saddam was an ongoing threat. The UN wanted to end sanctions and then he would have gotten nukes.

4. You don’t have the right to invade Iran.

Answer: Iran attacked the US in 1979 and has never made peace. Iran has threatened Israel.

5. This is all about Israel.

Answer: The US was attacked by al Qaeda on 9-11. Al Qaeda has had the support of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for years. Islam attacked the West in 633 AD. In the 20th century Turkey genocided Christians under the Young Turks who were supposed to be secular.

6. But we don’t have the right —

Answer to protect ourselves from an onslaught that has been taking place since 633 AD in every century. In no century have the Muslim nations not attacked the West or cleansed Christians. We do have the right to act at a time of our choosing, after they have attacked us many times. Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have over decades supported terrorism aimed at us. This is their national and religious policy. We do have a right to respond to it in a way to reduce our deaths.

7. This is colonialism.

Answer: Answer colonialism was a policy of peace. It created peace in lands that had never known them. European colonialism is what ended the Islamic slave economy of Africa. Until European ground troops arrived, slavery didn’t end in Africa. Africa took over 1 million Europeans slave from before the discovery of America until North Africa was occupied by European ground troops in the 19th century.

8. Zbigniew Brzezinski, this is a colonialist policy in a non-colonialist age.

Answer: They attacked us in the United States in the non-colonial era. They attacked in Madrid, London and every day in Paris, Malmo Sweden, Germany, Norway and Denmark, etc. So the non-colonialist age means free strike on the advanced world. The World Bank, IMF, Gates Buffet have funded an increase in 3rd world population that is unsustainable and has resulted in a condition where it results in violence. The cost of the war in Iraq is imposed on us by the universities, by Buffet Gates, etc. by their irresponsible war on equilibrium in the less developed world. They have attacked every means by which these lands deal with choices and consequences, so as to produce an unsustainable population bubble that has no soft landing.

9. But we hate America and Europe and want to see them suffer and be destroyed.

Answer: This is the attitude of the universities, lobbyists, business schools, etc. However, the American people don’t have to help it.

Hanoi Jane Fonda AA gun v. Jill Carroll Captive Photo

January 28, 2007

Jane Fonda Video v. Jill Carroll Video
Fonda video from North Vietnam compared to video released by terrorist group. Look at both. Leftists, Still think this is Vietnam?

We are in a war with radical Islam aka Islam. This is winner take all for planet earth. Jane Fonda knows that, that’s why she stayed in DC on the Mall with Americans, not with the Islamists who took Jill Carroll captive.

Jill Carroll Video selection

Jill Carroll Video Youtube

She has to say Americans will lose.

Jane Fonda video in Berkeley on Vietnam

Jane Fonda photo on NVA AA gun

Another Jane Fonda photo on NVA AA gun

Notice the difference between the Jill Carroll video and Jane Fonda in Hanoi. In Hanoi, Fonda speaks her own thoughts. Jill Carroll does not.

Jane Fonda DC Rally video selections

DC Peace Rally video Youtube Jane Fonda

Wonder why Jill Carroll wasn’t there? What would Jill Carroll say different than in the Video?

JC had to say America would lose in Iraq. JF chose to say it. Listen to JF at DC peace rally and Jill Carroll when she was “released” to Iraqis to make her video “of her own free will”, with Islamic headcovering.

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 28, 2007 04:19 PM

Jane Fonda doesn’t have to wear headscarf
at DC Peace Rally. Why is that? Is it because we haven’t had enough Muslim immigration? Why didn’t Jane Fonda speak up for more of that? Why wasn’t Jane Fonda wearing prescribed clothing under Sharia for women?

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 28, 2007 04:31 PM

Repeat a bit from above:

“How do we get the percentage of Christians in the US down to zero, or less?

By thrh | Jan 27, 2007 12:46:47 PM” from WaPo

Comments Page 1 at WaPo Thousands Protest Bush Policy

Christian Cleansing Chart at Timesonline

Christian Cleansing Chart data: Percentage of Christians: Turkey 1923 15 percent, Now 1 percent Syria 1920 33 percent, Now 10 percent Iraq 1970 5.8 percent, Now 2.65 percent Jerusalem 1922 53 percent, Now 2 percent Bethlehem 1948 85 percent, Now 12 percent.

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 28, 2007 04:37 PM

“Jill Carroll” Iraqi interpreter killed

Funny, Jane Fonda’s interpreter didn’t seem to have that problem in Hanoi.

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 28, 2007 04:44 PM

Jill Carroll Timeline

Saturday, Jan. 7

• Jill Carroll kidnapped in Baghdad. Interpreter Allan Enwiya is killed.

• The Christian Science Monitor requests a media blackout while recovery gets under way.

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 28, 2007 04:50 PM

Discover the Networks page on Jane Fonda Vietnam

First Air Cavalry page on Jane Fonda

Written excerpts of Fonda on Radio Hanoi and
Congressional Hearings

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 28, 2007 04:59 PM

Text of a Jane Fonda Radio Hanoi broadcast


One thing that I have learned beyond a shadow of a doubt since I’ve been in this country is that Nixon will never be able to break the spirit of these people; he’ll never be able to turn Vietnam, north and south, into a neo-colony of the United States by bombing, by invading, by attacking in any way. One has only to go into the countryside and listen to the peasants describe the lives they led before the revolution to understand why every bomb that is dropped only strengthens their determination to resist.

end quote.

Jill Carroll had to say almost the same things on her video.

Jane Fonda antiwar timeline

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 28, 2007 05:03 PM

Jane Fonda on AA gun, better photo

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 28, 2007 05:06 PM

Jane Fonda apology in 1988 analysis at Front Page

Note when Jane Fonda was on AA gun she was wearing a helmet and smiling while goofing around. Jill Carroll was wearing an Islamic headscarf, never smiled, and was not goofing around.

16 years after her AA gun pose, Fonda apologized, but only for that pose, not for which side she chose. Can we let a billion Muslims have 16 years before she apologizes for what they do?

From 1972 to 1988, North Vietnam did not invade or infiltrate the United States, England, France, etc. There were no bombings in London, Madrid and New York. North Vietnam wasn’t even building a nuclear weapon, or submarines or missiles.

In 16 years, there may not be a West for Jane Fonda to apologize in, and she may be wearing an Islamic headscarf in accordance with Sharia law.

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 28, 2007 05:14 PM

Jill Carroll Photo as captive from AP Jan 30 at Newsday

This photo is quite different from the Jane Fonda photo. It shows her fearful and on the verge of tears. Why didn’t people carry copies of this photo at the DC Rally?

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 28, 2007 05:21 PM

Why didn’t rally protesters have a placard with Jill Carroll captive photo on one side and Jane Fonda AA gun on the other side? Why?

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 28, 2007 05:27 PM

Why can’t we give a billion Muslims 16 years, because we already have. Pakistan has nukes, subs and missiles and is combining them. Iran is on the way.

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 28, 2007 05:30 PM


Comments at WaPo on anti-Bush Iraq Rally at Mall

quote He also said there are so many Iraq children, mothers, young babies killed—why—they did nothing to us. This madman in the white house has got to be held responsible for all this!!! By jrgeyer | Jan 28, 2007 10:58:23 AM end quote.

Its al Qaeda, Sunni and Shiite insurgents, and Islam that are responsible. Bush’s mistakes are the religion of peace speech, and not taking the war to three main enemy homelands, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in 2002.

We should have mobilized after 9-11 and conquered all main enemy homelands within 18 months. That is what Bush should do now. Add 2 million to military and finish the job in 18 months.

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 28, 2007 11:16 AM

Rawstory Comments on anti-Bush Iraq Surge rally at Mall

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 28, 2007 11:18 AM

Comments Page 1 at WaPo Thousands Protest Bush Policy

Christian Cleansing Chart at Timesonline

Christian Cleansing Chart data: Percentage of Christians: Turkey 1923 15 percent, Now 1 percent Syria 1920 33 percent, Now 10 percent Iraq 1970 5.8 percent, Now 2.65 percent Jerusalem 1922 53 percent, Now 2 percent Bethlehem 1948 85 percent, Now 12 percent.

Data posted at comment line produced following response:

“How do we get the percentage of Christians in the US down to zero, or less?

By thrh | Jan 27, 2007 12:46:47 PM”

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 28, 2007 11:22 AM


Oringally posted at Jihad Watch.


Bush warns failure in Iraq could widen conflict




Iraqi Soldiers Clash With Insurgents


Napoleon in the White House

December 20, 2006

“Iraq is Bush’s Waterloo – will it be America’s, too?” by Justin Raimondo. “When our president looks in the mirror, whom does he see? Lincoln? FDR? Churchill? Napoleon is more like it. Our expedition to Iraq bears a striking resemblance to the Little Corporal’s march on Russia – or, perhaps, Hitler’s version of the same mistake.”


Raimondo rates Bush a corporal in military strategy. Iraq is not just Bush’s Vietnam, its his Russia campaign. But is that correct? Napoleon’s army died. It died from starvation, cold, partisans and a majorb battle, Borodino outside Smolensk in 1812 on the road to Moscow.

Moscow was burned by the Russians. Napoleon decided there wasn’t enough food there, so he left and his army walked back to Poland in winter. The Russian army pursued it. It died on the way.

Now its true that Bush has built an Iraqi army composed of Muslim fighters who sympathize with Sadr’s militia more than Bush on occaision, but it is still not denying our troops basic supplies. Bush has made building the army of a hostile people his goal. This ranks as one of the great follies of history. But it is still not Bush’s Russia.

Raimondo says give up our bases in Iraq, instead of using them to invade Iran. As Reagen would say, these are my bases Mr. Raimondo, I paid for them with the lives of 3,000 Americans and British and coalition soldiers. We should not let that sacrifice be in vain. We can use those bases to invade Iran and save lives in that invasion.

Fight Iran we must. That is already decided by Iran and their view of Islam. We can either fight them from bases on 3 sides, or we can give up those bases and fight for position again. There is no better base to defeat Iran than the base we have built in Iraq.

Battle phase deaths in Iraq were under 200. Occupation phase deaths are 70 per month. For 3 months death we can invade Iran, if those numbers applied. Even at 1000, we are talking 14 months of Iraq occupation.

In World War II we would pay more for one island. We need to swap islands. Iraq is worthless. We need to remove the nuclear, sub, and missile capability of Iran. Then we need to move our army to the Pakistan border, blockade them by sea, and make them give up their nukes, subs and missiles.

Pakistan is putting minature nuclear warheads on missiles on subs as its next step. Those subs will be sold to Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc. Why? Because Pakistan can’t afford to maintain a nuclear, missile and sub program without selling what it makes. It is over 30 billion dollars in debt. Its interest payments exceeds its gross exports. It has to sell what it makes. That is why it sold what A Q Khan made.

The time to fight wars is when battle phase deaths are 200. We save lives by a ground invasion. This is because we use our bases in Iraq and we avoid their retaliation with missiles against our ships. We could lose over 200 lives from one ship going down. That is why a ground invasion is safer than letting them get revenge on our ships with missiles.

== Info on Napoleon’s Invasion of Russia in 1812

From Wiki

On June 24, 1812, the Grande Armée of 691,501 men, the largest army assembled up to that point in European history, crossed the river Neman and headed towards Moscow.

Military losses amounted to 300,000 French, 70,000 Poles, 50,000 Italians, 80,000 Germans and perhaps 450,000 Russians. As well as the loss of human life the French also lost some 200,000 horses and over 1,000 artillery pieces.

As far as is known, Bush hasn’t lost any horses. Military losses for the French side were 500,000, summing the above numbers out of the initial 691,501. Note the Russians lost 450,000 killed, and they are considered to have won.

Coalition losses from March 2003 through Dec 19, 2006 are 3199. See

Current Time in Baghdad: 4:42:24 PM
Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days

The time to fight wars is when these are the casualties, not the 500,000 killed Napoleon lost. How could they kill 500,000 of us? With nuclear weapons. We should invade Iran and then surround Pakistan and denuke it. We must do that before they have nukes on missiles on subs off our coasts. We must act now.

We have bases on 3 sides of Iran. This is staring victory in the face. This is the opposite of Napoleon in Russia in 1812. We have victory in our grasp, instead we choose to let our enemy get nuclear weapons. This is self hate and folly.

This article is speculation, hypotheses or opinion. All other disclaimers apply.

read more | digg story

Baker Hamilton Munich Study Group Conclusion

December 6, 2006

Baker Hamilton Iraq Study Group conclusions are in:
Iran and Syria to take over Iraq

Syria gets Golan Heights

Hezbollah gets Christian Lebanon

Turkey to take over Europe

Hamas gets Israel

Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya get piracy.

Mexico and China to take over US

North Korea to take over South Korea and Japan

Whatever floats along gets Australia and New Zealand

Canada, sells itself out, sorry

Russia is just supposed to kill people sporadically until Muslims control its nukes. Sushi bars are open season for FSB.

And, oh yeah, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia never had anything to do with 9-11 or terrorism before or after 9-11.

Baker Botts gets pipeline deals everywhere.

Nuclear warheads on missiles on subs for all of them. India, Pacific, Atlantic oceans will be full of Jizyah sub flotillas demanding payment. So will the seven seas.

This is called realism.

Working Group members

“The Iraq Study Group is a bipartisan group of prominent Americans supported by four premier institutions. It is led by co-chairs James A. Baker, III, the nation’s 61st Secretary of State and Honorary Chairman of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, and Lee H. Hamilton, former Congressman and Director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

The other members of the study group include: Lawrence S. Eagleburger, Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Edwin Meese III , Sandra Day O’Connor, Leon E. Panetta, William J. Perry, Charles S. Robb, and Alan K. Simpson.”

The “four premier institutions” correspond to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse:

Mass extinction of species from 3rd world population bubble funded by Gates Buffet Bono Sachs World Bank etc.



Betrayal of the Middle Class by know-how transfer.

This article represents hypotheses, speculation, opinion and the real realism about our “leaders” aka occupiers.

Baker Hamilton Munich Study Group

November 30, 2006

The Baker Hamilton Iraq Study Group is going to recommend that we give up our bases in Iraq that we paid 3000 lives for without using them to invade Iran. This is a blunder of not understanding what the fight is. Gingrich makes this point in the article linked to below.

James A. Baker III and Lee Hamilton understand process not substance. This is a good definition of “realist”. Realists give themselves credit for the fall of the USSR. But it was the lack of a price system and profit accounting that did it in.

It was the realists who let the USSR get the bomb. The realists allowed Hitler to rise to power. The realists undid the positives in the League of Nation. The realists wanted to live with fascism, communism, and now radical Islam. Its the realists who make us put the radical in front of Islam and make us say that Islam is the religion of peace. If Islam is what Saudi judges say it is, then what we have to call radical Islam is their version of Islam.

What they are proposing is the 1938 Munich Pact with the devil updated to the modern equivalents. They are selling us out. If you are realistic, you know, that’s what realists do.

It was the realists who arranged the 1975 helicopter airlift out of Saigon. Now they are proposing it for Baghdad. In 1975, they gave South Vietnam to North Vietnamese Hard Core Communists.

Now they give Iraq to Iran. These are hard core Islamofascists. They are also letting Iran develop nuclear weapons. They are letting Pakistan keep its.

The 27 pages linking Saudi Arabia to 9-11 were kept from the public by the realists. Saudi Arabia shows its gratitude to the Baker Botts law firm, Carlyle Group, Cohen Group perhaps, and others.

LA Times summary of the redacted 27 pages :

Saudi Government Provided Aid to 9/11 Hijackers, Sources Say
By Josh Meyer
The Los Angeles Times

Saturday 02 August 2003″

The 28 pages including the 27 blank pages are here. Hamilton and Kean said they couldn’t find any links of financing 9-11 to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Evidently they read the blank pages public version instead of the actual report. For the Pakistan links they needed to read Christina Lamb columns in the London Times.

Bush’s first Munich Pact was with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan after 9-11. His others include further ones with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, as well as China, India Nuclear Deal, and now with Iran.

11 Key Tests for the Baker-Hamilton Report
By Newt Gingrich
Weekly Standard | November 29, 2006

Following Comment:

Date: 11/29/2006 8:59:48 AM
Name: Old Atlantic
Subject: Re 27 Pages on Saudi Arabia and 9-11, etc.
Comment: Congress did a report in 2003 with 27 pages that couldn’t be made public. The LA Times published a summary. Search on Saudi Arabia 9-11 and go to

After 9-11, Bush needed to tell the truth of Saudi and Pakistan links to terrorists to the American people. When America is attacked, the president has to level with the American people and tell them the truth.

Instead, Bush protected his Saudi friends and did a torture pact with Prince Bandar. At that point, he and we had lost the war.

In Nov 2001, Bush let Pakistan evacuate its generals from Kunduz in Afghanistan where they were advising the Taliban against us.

Because Bush did these things, he didn’t go after Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Those are the two main enemy homelands against us, along with Iran.

In WWII we island hopped to the Japanese mainland. We didn’t stop to nation build the islands. Nor did we nation build North Africa in 1942 after we invaded there. We went to Germany and Japan the two main enemy homelands. Unfortunately, we didn’t finish off the USSR then. That really is the source of many of our problems today.

Now we need to do a ground invasion of Iran and surround Pakistan and blockade it. We must make them give up their nukes, abolish religious law, courts, police, retire the judges, and end the call to prayers.The same must be done in Iran.

If Saudi Arabia does this on its own, it can avoid occupation.

We must strike North Korea now and destroy what we can of their nuclear facilities, missiles, sub yards, etc. South Korea has failed to support us even in minimal acts. We have an obligation to Japan, ourselves, and the region.

We must stop Chinese grad students coming here and displacing Americans in physics Ph.D. programs and inspect containers until the ships back up to China. We must end know-how transfer to China. Until we do that, China thinks it has bought our leaders, and its right.

==Background on Munich 1938


====Munich Pact Text

Agreement concluded at Munich, September 29, 1938, between Germany, Great Britain, France and Italy

GERMANY, the United Kingdom, France and Italy, taking into consideration the agreement, which has been already reached in principle for the cession to Germany of the Sudeten German territory, have agreed on the following terms and conditions governing the said cession and the measures consequent thereon, and by this agreement they each hold themselves responsible for the steps necessary to secure its fulfilment:

(1) The evacuation will begin on 1st October.

(2) The United Kingdom, France and Italy agree that the evacuation of the territory shall be completed by the 10th October, without any existing installations having been destroyed, and that the Czechoslovak Government will be held responsible for carrying out the evacuation without damage to the said installations.

(3) The conditions governing the evacuation will be laid down in detail by an international commission composed of representatives of Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Czechoslovakia.

(4) The occupation by stages of the predominantly German territory by German troops will begin on 1st October. The four territories marked on the attached map will be occupied by German troops in the following order:

The territory marked No. I on the 1st and 2nd of October; the territory marked No. II on the 2nd and 3rd of October; the territory marked No. III on the 3rd, 4th and 5th of October; the territory marked No. IV on the 6th and 7th of October. The remaining territory of preponderantly German character will be ascertained by the aforesaid international commission forthwith and be occupied by German troops by the 10th of October.

(5) The international commission referred to in paragraph 3 will determine the territories in which a plebiscite is to be held. These territories will be occupied by international bodies until the plebiscite has been completed. The same commission will fix the conditions in which the plebiscite is to be held, taking as a basis the conditions of the Saar plebiscite. The commission will also fix a date, not later than the end of November, on which the plebiscite will be held.

(6) The final determination of the frontiers will be carried out by the international commission. The commission will also be entitled to recommend to the four Powers, Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Italy, in certain exceptional cases, minor modifications in the strictly ethnographical determination of the zones which are to be transferred without plebiscite.

(7) There will be a right of option into and out of the transferred territories, the option to be exercised within six months from the date of this agreement. A German-Czechoslovak commission shall determine the details of the option, consider ways of facilitating the transfer of population and settle questions of principle arising out of the said transfer.

(8) The Czechoslovak Government will within a period of four weeks from the date of this agreement release from their military and police forces any Sudeten Germans who may wish to be released, and the Czechoslovak Government will within the same period release Sudeten German prisoners who are serving terms of imprisonment for political offences.

Munich, September 29, 1938.

from Avalon Project


The British Parliamentary Debate on the Munich Agreement

From Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol.339 (1938), cols 30, 31-34, 39, 40, 47-52, 54, 56-58, 62-63, 150-154, 162, 360-369, 373, 548-553.


“I besought my colleagues not to see this problem always in terms of Czechoslovakia, not to review it always from the difficult strategic position of that small country, but rather to say to themselves, “A moment may come when, owing to the invasion of Czechoslovakia, a European war will begin, and when that moment comes we must take part in that war, we cannot keep out of it, and there is no doubt upon which side we shall fight. Let the world know that and it will give those who are prepared to disturb the peace reason to hold their hand.”

We must not see this as a war about Iraq. As Gingrich wrote, and many others, its a wider war. In fact, the moment of fighting the wider war began no later than Sep 11, 2001.

It seems these things happen in September. Munich Pact, invasion of Poland 1939, etc.

” It was, however, a guarded statement. It was a statement to the effect that if there were such a war it would be unwise for anybody to count upon the possibility of our staying out.

That is not the language which the dictators understand. Together with new methods and a new morality they have introduced also a new vocabulary into Europe. They have discarded the old diplomatic methods of correspondence….”

So have the Islamic Republics and Kingdoms. They don’t understand the “old diplomatic methods of correspondence”.


“In my view the strongest force of all, one which grew and took fresh shapes and forms every day was the force not of any one individual, but was that unmistakable sense of unanimity among the peoples of the world that war somehow must be averted. The peoples of the British Empire were at one with those of Germany, of France and of Italy, and their anxiety, their intense desire for peace, pervaded the whole atmosphere of the conference, and I believe that that, and not threats, made possible the Concessions that were made….

We were already at war on September 11, 2001. We were at war with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the others who view the world as they do, a fight to the death between Islamic Republics and Kingdoms and the West.

“I believe there are many who will feel with me that such a declaration, signed by the German Chancellor and myself, is something more than a pious expression of opinion. ”

This is a false view with Islamic Republics and Kingdoms. There is no peace as we understand it with them.

“It is to such tasks–the winning back of confidence, the gradual removal of hostility between nations until they feel that they can safely discard their weapons, one by one, that I would wish to devote what energy and time may be left to me before I hand over my office to younger men.”

Then as now, younger men must fight and die in the millions because we can’t act now. The time to fight is now. They are at war with us, and have been for decades. In fact, since 622 AD.


“We all feel relief that war has not come this time.”You were at war then, and we already are at war now.

“We have seen today a gallant, civilised and democratic people betrayed and handed over to a ruthless despotism. We have seen something more. We have seen the cause of democracy, which is, in our view, the cause of civilisation and humanity, receive a terrible defeat.”

Old Atlantic: Saigon 1975. The Iraq and Afghan Constitutions making them Islamic Republics. After 9-11, letting Saudi Arabia and Pakistan get away with it.

“The events of these last few days constitute one of the greatest diplomatic defeats that this country and France have ever sustained. There can be no doubt that it is a tremendous victory for Herr Hitler. Without firing a shot, by the mere display of military force, he has achieved a dominating position in Europe which Germany failed to win after four years of war. He has overturned the balance of power in Europe. He has destroyed the last fortress of democracy in Eastern Europe which stood in the way of his ambition. He has opened his way to the food, the oil and the resources which he requires in order to consolidate his military power, and he has successfully defeated and reduced to impotence the forces that might have stood against the rule of violence.”

Old Atlantic: This is exactly what we are doing in the Middle East, for decades. We were doing this in the 1980’s in Pakistan. We let Pakistan do its nuclear test in 1998. We are letting Pakistan put nukes on missiles on subs. There will be a flotilla of them off our coasts. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran, North Korea, etc. will have them.

“I want to turn now to the cause of the crisis which we have undergone. The cause was not the existence of minorities in Czechoslovakia; it was not that the position of the Sudeten Germans had become intolerable. It was not the wonderful principle of self-determination. It was because Herr Hitler had decided that the time was ripe for another step forward in his design to dominate Europe. ”

Old Atlantic: That is what is at stake in Iraq and Afghanistan. And why we have to go for the main enemy homelands, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

” It was quite a minor matter, and I fear that the Prime Minister is deceived if he thinks that the cause of this trouble has been the woes of the Sudeten Germans. I say that the question of the Sudeten Germans has been used as a counter in the game of politics, and in other conditions Herr Hitler might just as well have used the people of Memel, the people of South Denmark, the people in the Trentino or the Germans in South Tyrol….”

“the people of South Denmark” “aye there’s the rub”.

“The history of the last seven years is the background of this crisis, and the first point I must make to the Government is this. This crisis did not come unexpectedly. It was obvious to any intelligent student of foreign affairs that this attack would Come.”

Verily I say unto you.”

He doesn’t advocate following but gives it as example of defeatism:

“You had better now make the best terms you can with Germany, enter her political orbit and give her anything to escape before the wrath comes upon you.” Realists then and now. Realists: The Art of the Defeat and Surrender.

“I heard a suggestion from the benches opposite. “What about the U.S.S.R.?” Busy with assassinations then and now. Now they do them in London with nuclear materials.

“When the National Government overthrew the whole policy of collective security and abandoned it and the League, we told this House over and over again that we were entering on a very dangerous course. We realised that we were back in 1914 with all its dangers, and we knew that sooner or later a challenge would come to this country; and that is what has happened. The real pith of it is that, having decided to leave the League system which we practised and in which we believed, and to embark on a policy of alliances and power politics, instead of strengthening the people whose natural interests were with ours, we have had nothing but constant flirtations with this and that dictator. The Prime Minister has been the dupe of the dictators, and I say that to-day we are in a dangerous position.”

Old Atlantic: Seems like then they said they were back in 1914. Now we say we are back in 1938. The more things change, the more our appeasing leaders stay the same.


“….A week ago we were on the verge of a terrible abyss. The Hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), who has just sat down, seemed to have forgotten the position in which we were then placed. The speech that he has just made seemed to take little account of the fact that a few days ago we were within a hair’s breadth of the greatest catastrophe that the world has ever seen. Did we shrink from it in fear, or did we feel that there was some hope still of finding a path round it to more solid ground? I am fully aware that there are some hon. Members, and some people in the Country, who believe that no peace is possible in Europe as long as the dictatorships exist, who hold, quite sincerely, the view–I think the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down does–that as long as the dictatorships exist, war is inevitable, and that it may be better to have war now, when we have an issue that may be supposed to appeal to the whole world, rather than to put it off to some future date when our position may be more difficult and dangerous. …

The conclusion of such a view is to me so appalling that I could not accept it if I thought there was still some glimmer of hope that the catastrophe might yet be averted.”

Old Atlantic: A seat for him at the Hamilton Kean 9-11 Commission, Baker Hamilton Iraq Study Group, giving nukes to Russia, China, Pakistan, India, etc. This man is obviously a realist.

“The Prime Minister acted not alone as the head of the Government of which I am a member. He acted rather as the spokesman of the millions of men and women from one end of the world to the other who were determined that we should still try to keep a controlling hand upon the course of events and avoid an appalling calamity that would undoubtedly have ended in the extinction of civilisation as we have known it. . .”

How the realists use the fear of war to lead us into greater war and greater defeat.

“extinction of civilisation as we have known it.”

Old Atlantic: That is the self proclaimed goal of Islam from 622 AD to the present. That is the real Islam.

“. I go further, and I say that if we had made an ultimatum in the days immediately before the Nuremberg speech Europe would to-day have been plunged into a world war….”

Old Atlantic: We already are in a world war with the Islamic world.

“The Soviet Ambassador was received again, quite recently, at the Foreign Office, after his return to London. So much for the hon. Member’s question about our attitude towards the Soviet Republic.”

Old Atlantic: Let them sell them nukes. Let them sell them missiles. Let them undermine our negotiations with NoKo and Iran. Let them sell them night vision.

“I say with all deliberation that, when once Germany rearmed and became powerful, and when once the Anschluss took place, the strategic frontier of the republic was turned.”

Old Atlantic: Pakistan nuclear test 1998. North Korea nuclear test 2006. Iran will complete its nuclear cycle development in 2007. It will have 60,000 centrifuges. We are told it won’t be 100,000. We are told it won’t have nukes for 5 years. We are told its too late to do anything about North Korea and Pakistan’s nukes, that we should have done something 5 years ago.

“The Sudeten Germans looked to reunion with the Reich. ”

Old Atlantic: All Muslims in all lands look to be reunited in the Ummah. Muslim lands are the House of Peace. Non-Muslim lands are the House of War.

When the time comes for the verdict to be given upon the Prime Minister’s conduct,

Old Atlantic: That verdict is in. He is guilty of appeasement. Why can’t Bush, Hamilton Kean 9-11 Commission, Baker Hamilton Iraq Study Group see that?
let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that none of us here fears that verdict. I believe that the criticisms to which we have listened in the House to-day very little represent the great body of feeling. I believe the great body of our fellow-citizens not only in this country but in the Dominions and in the whole Empire, are grateful to the Prime Minister for the efforts that he has made. They are grateful to the Prime Minister for having persistently sustained the policy of peace and mediation. They do not take the view that war is inevitable. They believe that under his wise guidance we may succeed in creating a new Europe in which men and women can go about their business in peace and security.”
Old Atlantic: We already are at war. We already are being subjected to defeat by immigration. We are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of island hopping to the main enemy homelands, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. We are letting them have nukes. They will be on missiles on subs off our coasts. They are going to use them on us, because they believe in Unilateral Assured Jihad, not Mutual Assured Destruction. The only destruction they assure is ours.


“Having thus fortified myself by the example of others, I will proceed to emulate them. I will, therefore, begin by saying the most unpopular and most unwelcome thing. I will begin by saying what everybody would like to ignore or forget but which must nevertheless be stated, namely, that we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat, and that France has suffered even more than we have.


MR. CHURCHILL: When the Noble Lady cries “Nonsense,” she could not have heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer [Sir John Simon] admit in his illuminating and comprehensive speech just now that Herr Hitler had gained in this particular leap forward in substance all he set out to gain. The utmost my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been able to secure by all his immense exertions, by all the great efforts and mobilisation which took place in this country, and by all the anguish and strain through which we have passed in this country, the utmost he has been able to gain–[HON. MEMBERS: “Is peace.”]. I thought I might be allowed to make that point in its due place, and I propose to deal with it. The utmost he has been able to gain for Czechoslovakia and in the matters which were in dispute has been that the German dictator, instead of snatching his victuals from the table, has been content to have them served to him course by course.”

Old Atlantic: “Course by Course”. That is the fallacy of thinking of Iraq and Afghanistan as separate wars. Just like thinking ofCzechoslovakia by itself was a fallacy in 1938.

“We really must not waste time, after all this long Debate, upon the difference between the positions reached at Berchtesgaden, at Godesberg and at Munich. They can be very simply epitomised, if the House will permit me to vary the metaphor. £1 was demanded at the pistol’s point. When it was given, £2 were demanded at the pistol’s point. Finally, the dictator consented to take £1 17s. 6d. and the rest in promises of good will for the future.”

Old Atlantic: This is what realists always say, they got the best deal that could be had. The best deal that can be had is a nuclear North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, UAE, etc. with subs off our coasts.

“There never can be any absolute certainty that there will be a fight if one side is determined that it will give way completely.”

Old Atlantic: Hamilton Kean after 9-11 attack by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan support, Baker Hamilton in the face of Iran’s nuclear program. They want to give up our bases in Iraq that we need for a ground invasion of Iran. Our soldiers must fight for the same ground twice, but under worse conditions.

“All is over. Silent, mournful, abandoned, broken, Czechoslovakia recedes into the darkness. . . . No one has a right to say that the plebiscite which is to be taken in areas under Saar conditions, and the clean-cut of the 50 per cent. areas-that those two operations together amount in the slightest degree to a verdict of self-determination. It is a fraud and a farce to invoke that name….”

We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude which has befallen Great Britain and France. Do not let us blind ourselves to that. It must now be accepted that all the countries of Central and Eastern Europe will make the best terms they can with the triumphant Nazi Power. The system of alliances in Central Europe upon which France has relied for her safety has been swept away, and I can see no means by which it can be reconstituted. The road down the Danube Valley to the Black Sea, the resources of corn and oil, the road which leads as far as Turkey, has been opened. In fact, if not in form, it seems to me that all those countries of Middle Europe, all those Danubian countries, will, one after another, be drawn into this vast system of power politics–not only power military politics but power economic politics–radiating from Berlin, and I believe this can be achieved quite smoothly and swiftly and will not necessarily entail the firing of a single shot. If you wish to survey the havoc of the foreign policy of Britain and France, look at what is happening and is recorded each day in the columns of the “Times…

We are talking about countries which are a long way off and of which, as the Prime Minister might say, we know nothing. [Interruption.] The noble Lady says that that very harmless allusion is–


MR. CHURCHILL: She must very recently have been receiving her finishing course in manners. What will be the position, I want to know, of France and England this year and the year afterwards? What will be the position of that Western front of which we are in full authority the guarantors? The German army at the present time is more numerous than that of France, though not nearly so matured or perfected. Next year it will grow much larger, and its maturity will be more complete.

(Old Atlantic: Russia and China arm Iran and Syria. North Korea and Iran develop nukes. Pakistan has a new nuclear reactor under way to build hundreds of smaller nukes that will fit on missiles on subs. They have a subyard the French built for them.)

Relieved from all anxiety in the East, and having secured resources which will greatly diminish, if not entirely remove, the deterrent of a naval blockade, the rulers of Nazi Germany will have a free choice open to them in what direction they will turn their eyes. If the Nazi dictator should choose to look westward, as he may, bitterly will France and England regret the loss of that fine army of ancient Bohemia which Was estimated last week to require not fewer than 30 German divisions for its destruction.

Can we blind ourselves to the great change which has taken place in the military situation, and to the dangers we have to meet?.

(Old Atlantic: Yes then, Yes now. There are always realists for that job.)
This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.”


As regards future policy, it seems to me that there are really only two possible alternatives. One of them is to base yourself upon the view that any sort of friendly relation, or possible relations, shall I say, with totalitarian States are impossible, that the assurances which have been given to me personally are worthless, that they have sinister designs and that they are bent upon the domination of Europe and the gradual destruction of democracies. Of course, on that hypothesis, war has got to come, and that is the view–a perfectly intelligible view–of a certain number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this House….

If that is hon. Members’ conviction, there is no future hope for civilisation or for any of the things that make life worth living. Does the experience of the Great War and of the years that followed it give us reasonable hope that if some new war started that would end war any more than the last one did? No. I do not believe that war is inevitable. Someone put into my hand a remark made by the great Pitt about 1787, when he said:

    • To suppose that any nation can be unalterably the enemy of another is weak and childish and has its foundations neither in the experience of nations not in the history of man.

(Old Atlantic: The war with Buonaparte lasted until 1815 and he crowned himself Emperor along the way. Ahmadinejad is close to crowing himself the 12th Imam or perhaps the Mahdi.)

It seems to me that the strongest argument against the inevitability of war is to be found in something that everyone has recognized in every part of the House. That is the universal aversion from war of the people, their hatred of the notion of starting to kill one another again…. (Old Atlantic: Iran and Saudi Arabia use suicide bombers. Intifada is a method of war for them. 9-11 was a method of war.)

What is the alternative to this bleak and barren policy of the inevitability of war? In my view it is that we should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analysing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a programme would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with dictators, and of talks man to man on the basis that each, while maintaining his own ideas of the internal government of his country, is willing to allow that other systems may suit better other peoples. The party opposite surely have the same idea in mind even if they put it in a different way.

(Old Atlantic: They want our destruction. They wanted it then and now. So does China.)

They want a world conference. Well, I have had some experiences of conferences, and one thing I do feel certain of is that it better to have no conference at all than a conference which is a failure.

(A surrender is a failure. Duping yourself is a failure.)

The corollary to that is that before you enter a conference you must have laid out very clearly the lines on which you are going to proceed, if you are at least to have in front of you’re a reasonable prospect that you may obtain success. I am not saying that a conference would not have its place in due course. But I say it is no use to call a conference of the world, including these totalitarian Powers, until you are sure they are going to attend, and not only that they are going to attend, but that they are going to attend with the intention of aiding you in the policy on which you have set your heart.

(Old Atlantic: Iran has made that clear: our destruction. Saudi Arabia made that clear in financing terror: our destruction. Pakistan has made that clear: building the Muslim atomic bomb, a term they invented for it.)

I am told that the policy which I have tried to describe is inconsistent with the continuance, and much more inconsistent with the acceleration of our present programme of arms.

(Old Atlantic: Clinton reduced the military from 1991 levels. In 1988 Bush Sr. made his no new taxes pledge but broke it and lost the 1992 election. He had to break it, we were at war. But Clinton reduced the military, realizing that Bush Sr had lost in 1992 because he kept the funds we needed for defense. Bush Jr. after 9-11 didn’t rebuild the military to 1991 levels and beyond. Instead he was mindful of his father’s defeat in 1992 and his own tax cut pledge and didn’t rebuild the military after 9-11. We have had over 14 years of betrayal this time. )

I am asked how I can reconcile an appeal to the country to support the continuance of this programme with the words which I used when I came back from Munich the other day and spoke of my belief that we might have peace in our time. I hope hon. Members will not be disposed to read into words used in a moment of some emotion, after a long and exhausting day, after I had driven through miles of excited, enthusiastic, cheering people–I hope they will not read into those words more than they were intended to convey.

(Old Atlantic: What were they intended to convey, except what he really thought?)

I do indeed believe that we may yet secure peace for our time, but I never meant to suggest that we should do that by disarmament, until we can induce others to disarm too.

(Old Atlantic: We don’t let Iran and North Korea get nukes while we talk peace.)

Our past experience has shown us only too clearly that weakness in armed strength means weakness in diplomacy,

(We didn’t rearm after 9-11, so Iran and North Korea and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia ignore us now.)

and if we want to secure a lasting peace, I realise that diplomacy cannot be effective unless the Consciousness exists, not here alone, but elsewhere, that behind the diplomacy is the strength to give effect ……..

I cannot help feeling that if, after all, war had come upon us, the people of this Country would have lost their spiritual faith altogether.

(Old Atlantic: This is what the Hamilton Kean 9-11 Commission felt. They lied about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan’s links to 9-11. This is what the Baker Hamilton Commission think. The reason they think this is because at bottom they despise us.)

As it turned out the other way, I think we have all seen something like a new spiritual revival,

(Old Atlantic: Actually they were already at war with the totalitarians, they just couldn’t admit it. They duped themselves.)

and I know that everywhere there is a strong desire among the people to record their readiness to serve their Country, where-ever or however their services could be most useful. I would like to take advantage of that strong feeling if it is possible, and although I must frankly say that at this moment I do not myself clearly see my way to any particular scheme, yet I want also to say that I am ready to consider any suggestion that may be made to me, in a very sympathetic spirit.

(Ground invasion of Iran. Abolish religious courts, law, police, dress, and call to prayers. Retire the judges. Surround Pakistan and make them denuke, desub, demissile, deLaden and do the same. Abolish the Islamic Republics of Afghanistan and Iraq and fight for our values. If Saudi Arabia does the same, they can avoid occupation. Strike at North Korea now and hit their missiles, naval yards, nuclear plants, airpower, etc. Stop Chinese and Indian grad students in physics coming here and getting our stealth and night vision tech and selling it to the insurgents. Start inspecting containers from China until the ships stack up across the Pacific. Be loyal to the American people. Stop immigration, all of it. You don’t teach others our technology in time of war, you teach our own young people. You don’t give them our high tech to use against our troops. That isn’t supporting our troops, its betraying them. Even Chamberlin didn’t do that in 1938.)

Finally, I would like to repeat what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday in his great speech. Our policy of appeasement

(Old Atlantic: After 9-11, we had a policy of appeasement of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. We hoped they would stop supporting the terrorism that attacked us. In fact, Pakistan says admit the Taliban have won. In fact, Saudi Arabia is funding the insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, Iran is building nukes with support from Russia and China. In fact, we gave our nuclear technology to India, which immediately sold it to China.)

does not mean that we are going to seek new friends at the expense of old ones, or, in-deed, at the expense of any other nations at all. I do not think that at any time there has been a more complete identity of views between the French Government and ourselves than there is at the present time. Their objective is the same as ours–to obtain the collaboration of all nations, not excluding the totalitarian States, in building up a lasting peace for Europe. That seems to me to be a policy which would answer my hon. Friends’ appeal, a policy which should command the support of all who believe in the power of human will to control human destiny. If we cannot here this afternoon emulate the patriotic unanimity of the French Chamber, this House can by a decisive majority show its approval of the Government’s determination to pursue it.

[The vote which followed supported the government 369 to 150.]

Source: Munich: Blunder, Plot, or Tragic Necessity? edited with and introduction by Dwight E. Lee (Lexington, MA; D.C. Heath and Company, 1970), pp. 1-12 This article represents hypotheses, speculation or opinion. All other disclaimers apply.

Debunking CSIS Obaid Myth Saudi Foreign Fighters in Iraq

November 16, 2006

Nawaf Obaid is a Saudi national security and intelligence consultant based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia“. In September 2005 he coauthored a CSIS reporting saying that only 12 percent of foreign fighters in Iraq were Saudi. The CSIS source is a report by Obaid from what seems to be a Saudi entity. Obaid’s job as a consultant to Saudi intelligence is to write reports that say Saudi Arabia is not linked to terrorism?
Lisa Myers at NBC on June 20, 2005 and Susan B. Glasser Washington Post on May 15, 2005 reported that over 50 percent of the foreign fighters in Iraq were Saudi. See bottom for more on this. This Obaid CSIS “study” is disinformation to try to get the MSM to drop its own careful reporting.

Nawaf Obaid Adjunct Fellow, Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy “Nawaf Obaid is a Saudi national security and intelligence consultant based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. He is currently the managing director of the Saudi National Security Assessment Project.”

The Obaid CSIS report is titled:

Saudi Militants in Iraq: Assessment and Kingdom’s Response
Saudi Militants in Iraq: Assessment and Kingdom’s Response -pdf
It cites the “Saudi National Security Assessment Project” as its source. Obaid is the managing director of the Saudi National Security Assessment Project.
Nawaf Obaid is a Saudi national security and intelligence consultant based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. He is currently the managing director of the Saudi National Security Assessment Project.”

The title of the CSIS report sounds like a Saudi employee or consultant of the Saudi government wrote it.

It seems likely that Obaid’s job for Saudi intelligence as a consultant is to convince the West that Saudi Arabia is not linked to terrorism. So he writes a CSIS report under CSIS, which is linked to Carlyle group, and he cites his own Saudi National Security Assessment Project as the source of the analysis.

It in turn analyzed data from Saudi intelligence according to page 5 of the above report. It appears Obaid is the one who was paid by Saudi intelligence to do this data analysis of Saudi intelligence non-public data. The result according to Obaid is that only 12 percent of foreign fighters in Iraq are Saudi.

Saudi National Security Assessment Project

CSIS Publications 2005.

posted September 23, 2005 at 10:30 a.m.

search Saudi foreign fighters Iraq

search myth Saudi foreign fighters Iraq

The ‘myth’ of Iraq’s foreign fighters
Report by US think tank says only ‘4 to 10’ percent of insurgents are foreigners.
By Tom Regan |

Report attacks ‘myth’ of foreign fighters

Brian Whitaker and Ewen MacAskill
Friday September 23, 2005
The Guardian

Frank Carlucci

“Mr. Carlucci has been a managing director of the Carlyle Group since 1989, chairman since 1993, and chairman emeritus since 2003.” “Mr. Carlucci graduated from Princeton University and attended Harvard Business School.”

Saudi intelligence reports sent through Saudi entities to the CSIS are like “salted peanuts” to the Washington establishment. The 9-11 Commission of Kean Hamilton that ignored the 2003 Congressional report finding links between the Saudis and the 9-11 hijacker was one big jar of “salted peanuts”.

Boston Globe article including Obaid research before Sep 2005 report.

“However, interrogations of nearly 300 Saudis captured while trying to sneak into Iraq and case studies of more than three dozen others who blew themselves up in suicide attacks show that most were heeding the calls from clerics and activists to drive infidels out of Arab land, according to a study by Saudi investigator Nawaf Obaid, a US-trained analyst who was commissioned by the Saudi government and given access to Saudi officials and intelligence.”

== News Reports that foreign fighters are Saudi
“NBC 55 percent Foreign Fighers Saudi in Iraq”
“By Lisa Myers & the NBC Investigative Unit Updated: 8:39 p.m. ET June 20, 2005 Who are the foreign fighters in Iraq? An NBC News analysis finds 55 percent hail from Saudi Arabia Lisa Myers Senior investigative correspondent

• Profile An NBC News analysis of hundreds of foreign fighters who died in Iraq over the last two years reveals that a majority came from the same country as most of the 9/11 hijackers — Saudi Arabia.””

“By far the nationality that comes up over and over again is Saudi Arabia,” says Evan Kohlmann, an NBC News terrorism expert.

The NBC News analysis of Web site postings found that 55 percent of foreign insurgents came from Saudi Arabia, 13 percent from Syria, 9 percent from North Africa and 3 percent from Europe.

The U.S. military also says Saudi Arabia and Syria are the leading sources of insurgents. An Army official provided a list of the top 10 countries to NBC News but would not release the numbers of foreign fighters from each. The top 10, alphabetically, are: Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen.”

If the army had evidence that Saudis were 12 percent, they would publish it. That they don’t is consistent with “Saudi” Arabia heading the list.

Commentary on Lisa Myers NBC Report

“‘Martyrs’ In Iraq Mostly Saudis
Web Sites Track Suicide Bombings

By Susan B. Glasser
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 15, 2005; Page A01

“In a paper published in March, Reuven Paz, an Israeli expert on terrorism, analyzed the lists of jihadi dead. He found 154 Arabs killed over the previous six months in Iraq, 61 percent of them from Saudi Arabia, with Syrians, Iraqis and Kuwaitis together accounting for another 25 percent. He also found that 70 percent of the suicide bombers named by the Web sites were Saudi.”

The apparent predominance of Saudi fighters on the Internet lists has caused an alarmed reaction by Saudi officials, who fear a backlash from the Americans at the same time they are trying to convince the United States that they are working as allies against terrorism. While Saudi officials do not deny that Saudi citizens have taken up arms against the United States in Iraq, they argue that the long lists of Saudi dead could be a disinformation tactic or simply a recruiting tool used to lure Arab youth to Iraq by convincing them of how many others have already won a place in Paradise.

“Are there Saudis in Iraq? Yes, we know that. Absolutely. But are there the numbers being bandied about? We really don’t believe so,” said a Saudi official who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the subject.

“The Internet sites try to recruit people — it’s the best recruitment tool,” said Saudi security analyst Nawaf Obaid. Obaid, who has worked closely with the government, said he found 47 cases of Saudis who were dead or injured reported in the kingdom’s newspapers, far lower than Internet totals, and had concluded the overall number of Saudi jihadis in Iraq was in the hundreds. “But young guys, they read [on the Internet] we have thousands of Saudis there and think, ‘I have to go, too.’ ”

Evan F. Kohlmann, a researcher who monitors Islamic extremist Web sites, has compiled a list of more than 235 names of Iraqi dead gleaned from the Internet since last summer, with more than 50 percent on his tally from Saudi Arabia as well. In some cases, he found photos or videos of dead foreign fighters posted online. One Kuwaiti policeman who died was featured in a Zarqawi propaganda video called “Winds of Change,” while the bloodied corpse of a Turkish al Qaeda disciple, Habib Aktas, was shown on another video celebrating his “martyrdom.””

Saudis one of top 5 captured by coalition forces.

This article is hypotheses, speculation, or opinion. All other disclaimers apply.

%d bloggers like this: