• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

a better strategy

don

Well-known member
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/abc-news-exclusive-national-security-adviser-says-president-obama-is-having-greater-success-taking-t.html

lives and money wasted since 9/11. if this story is correct this is what should have been done long ago. the usa would have been more secure and kept its allies.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
don said:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/abc-news-exclusive-national-security-adviser-says-president-obama-is-having-greater-success-taking-t.html

lives and money wasted since 9/11. if this story is correct this is what should have been done long ago. the usa would have been more secure and kept its allies.

Incredibly, President George W. Bush told French President Jacques Chirac in early 2003 that Iraq must be invaded to thwart Gog and Magog, the Bible's satanic agents of the Apocalypse.

Honest. This isn't a joke. The president of the United States, in a top-secret phone call to a major European ally, asked for French troops to join American soldiers in attacking Iraq as a mission from God.

Now out of office, Chirac recounts that the American leader appealed to their "common faith" (Christianity) and told him:

"Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East. ... The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled. ... This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people's enemies before a New Age begins."

-------------------
The French revelation jibes with other known aspects of Bush's renowned evangelical certitude. For example, a few months after his phone call to Chirac, Bush attended a 2003 summit in Egypt. The Palestinian foreign minister later said the American president told him he was "on a mission from God" to defeat Iraq. At that time, the White House called this claim "absurd."

Recently, GQ magazine revealed that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld attached warlike Bible verses and Iraq battle photos to war reports he hand-delivered to Bush. One declared: "Put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground."

It's awkward to say openly, but now-departed President Bush is a religious crackpot, an ex-drunk of small intellect who "got saved." He never should have been entrusted with power to start wars.

Well- if you were a law enforcement or intelligence agency- or leader of a foreign country- and you got a call from a religious zealot crackpot tromping off on his "mission from God" war to battle Gog and Magog-- do you think you would blindly want to jump in--or even provide such a nutcase with sensitive information :???:
 

woranch

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
don said:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/abc-news-exclusive-national-security-adviser-says-president-obama-is-having-greater-success-taking-t.html

lives and money wasted since 9/11. if this story is correct this is what should have been done long ago. the usa would have been more secure and kept its allies.

Incredibly, President George W. Bush told French President Jacques Chirac in early 2003 that Iraq must be invaded to thwart Gog and Magog, the Bible's satanic agents of the Apocalypse.

Honest. This isn't a joke. The president of the United States, in a top-secret phone call to a major European ally, asked for French troops to join American soldiers in attacking Iraq as a mission from God.

Now out of office, Chirac recounts that the American leader appealed to their "common faith" (Christianity) and told him:

"Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East. ... The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled. ... This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people's enemies before a New Age begins."

-------------------
The French revelation jibes with other known aspects of Bush's renowned evangelical certitude. For example, a few months after his phone call to Chirac, Bush attended a 2003 summit in Egypt. The Palestinian foreign minister later said the American president told him he was "on a mission from God" to defeat Iraq. At that time, the White House called this claim "absurd."

Recently, GQ magazine revealed that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld attached warlike Bible verses and Iraq battle photos to war reports he hand-delivered to Bush. One declared: "Put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground."

It's awkward to say openly, but now-departed President Bush is a religious crackpot, an ex-drunk of small intellect who "got saved." He never should have been entrusted with power to start wars.

Well- if you were a law enforcement or intelligence agency- or leader of a foreign country- and you got a call from a religious zealot crackpot tromping off on his "mission from God" war to battle Gog and Magog-- do you think you would blindly want to jump in--or even provide such a nutcase with sensitive information :???:


Well now we know what you read .. :shock:



http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=haught_29_5
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Oh you can find 100's of articles about GW and his Gog/Magog connections...Like Reader said in her original post of this (which WHOA Ranch apparently missed :roll: )--US media hasn't picked up on it that much--but the international and overseas folks are having a hayday with what a nutcase the US had leading them...

I once chastised the French, the Canadians, the Mexicans and other countries for not backing GW in Iraq--but its easily understandable now why they wouldn't want to get involved in his "voices from God missions"-and I owe them an apology.....

And no wonder millions of peaceful Muslims around the world don't trust the US....

Bush, God, Iraq and Gog
By CLIVE HAMILTON

The revelation this month in GQ magazine that Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary embellished top-secret wartime memos with quotations from the Bible prompts a question. Why did he believe he could influence President Bush by that means?

The answer may lie in an alarming story about George Bush’s Christian millenarian beliefs that has yet to come to light.

In 2003 while lobbying leaders to put together the Coalition of the Willing, President Bush spoke to France’s President Jacques Chirac. Bush wove a story about how the Biblical creatures Gog and Magog were at work in the Middle East and how they must be defeated.

In Genesis and Ezekiel Gog and Magog are forces of the Apocalypse who are prophesied to come out of the north and destroy Israel unless stopped. The Book of Revelation took up the Old Testament prophesy:

“And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle … and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.”

Bush believed the time had now come for that battle, telling Chirac:

“This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins”.


The story of the conversation emerged only because the Elysée Palace, baffled by Bush’s words, sought advice from Thomas Römer, a professor of theology at the University of Lausanne. Four years later, Römer gave an account in the September 2007 issue of the university’s review, Allez savoir. The article apparently went unnoticed, although it was referred to in a French newspaper.

The story has now been confirmed by Chirac himself in a new book, published in France in March, by journalist Jean Claude Maurice. Chirac is said to have been stupefied and disturbed by Bush’s invocation of Biblical prophesy to justify the war in Iraq and “wondered how someone could be so superficial and fanatical in their beliefs”.


In the same year he spoke to Chirac, Bush had reportedly said to the Palestinian foreign minister that he was on “a mission from God” in launching the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and was receiving commands from the Lord.

There can be little doubt now that President Bush’s reason for launching the war in Iraq was, for him, fundamentally religious. He was driven by his belief that the attack on Saddam’s Iraq was the fulfilment of a Biblical prophesy in which he had been chosen to serve as the instrument of the Lord.

Many thousands of Americans and Iraqis have died in the campaign to defeat Gog and Magog. That the US President saw himself as the vehicle of God whose duty was to prevent the Apocalypse can only inflame suspicions across the Middle East that the United States is on a crusade against Islam.

There is a curious coda to this story. While a senior at Yale University George W. Bush was a member of the exclusive and secretive Skull & Bones society. His father, George H.W. Bush had also been a “Bonesman”, as indeed had his father. Skull & Bones’ initiates are assigned or take on nicknames. And what was George Bush Senior’s nickname? “Magog”.

Clive Hamilton is a Visiting Professor at Yale University He can be reached at: [email protected]
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
And no wonder millions of peaceful Muslims around the world don't trust the US....

And you personally know some of these people....say something negative about islam and allah and the'll show you how peaceful they are.
 

don

Well-known member
and all the righties chastise us for attacking the messenger! we're supposed to address the issues. hypo's handlers must be taking their time to come up with a response from wnd.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
don said:
and all the righties chastise us for attacking the messenger! we're supposed to address the issues. hypo's handlers must be taking their time to come up with a response from wnd.

you said all that needs to be said don.



if this story is correct this is what should have been done long ago

is it correct?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
don said:
yes. or maybe you can prove otherwise?

well there seems to be conflicting stories.

If the strategy is working, why would McChrystal be calling for a change in strategy?

I think the article you posted was more political posturing.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Many of President Barack Obama's top advisers on Afghanistan agree with military commanders that more troops are needed to reverse Taliban gains in the country's east and south, U.S. officials said on Monday.

McChrystal called for the United States and its allies to change strategy, laying the ground for a likely request for more troops later, officials said.
 

don

Well-known member
just because some military want to escalate the war doesn't mean the anti-terror strategy of covert operations to take out strategic figures isn't working better.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
don said:
just because some military want to escalate the war doesn't mean the anti-terror strategy of covert operations to take out strategic figures isn't working better.

you're right, except that the current administration has already said that they were adopting the anti-terror strategy that was beginning to work under the past administration.

Then in early Aug, they said they were adopting a new strategy, so I would think it's a little too soon to say whether the new strategy is working, don't you?

So giving credit to Obama's administration would be for political reasons, at this point in time.

Unless they have already met their objectives? How are you measuring success? What will be the long term effects?

WASHINGTON, Aug. 6 (UPI) -- President Obama's move away from centering foreign policy on anti-terrorism will be more effective than the old strategy, his counter-terrorism chief said.
 

don

Well-known member
whatever, read the article and disagree if you want. it has to be a better strategy to cut the heads off of organizations than to go out and kill civilians to get to a few foot soldiers. the usa pissed away a lot of goodwill over the past eight years and will have to find some way of regaining influence. an intelligent anti-terror strategy would be a big step.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
don said:
just because some military want to escalate the war doesn't mean the anti-terror strategy of covert operations to take out strategic figures isn't working better.

Must not really matter very much. baracko said it would be months before he made a decision. :shock:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
don said:
whatever, read the article and disagree if you want. it has to be a better strategy to cut the heads off of organizations than to go out and kill civilians to get to a few foot soldiers. the usa p****d away a lot of goodwill over the past eight years and will have to find some way of regaining influence. an intelligent anti-terror strategy would be a big step.

I'm not saying I disagree. But it's a little too early to say whether a "new" strategy is going to be effective or not.

How will you measure success?

The conundrum for Mr Obama, who is on holiday, is how to balance pressure for enough extra numbers to turn the tide of the war with a loss of US public support for continuing the fight.

Mr Obama describes the Afghanistan conflict as a "necessary war" to stop al-Qa'ida from using the war-torn country as a breeding ground for terrorists.

But public patience is being severely tested as casualty figures rise. Last month was the worst of the war after 51 Americans were killed, followed by the previous record of 45 in July.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26013706-2703,00.html
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
don said:
whatever, read the article and disagree if you want. it has to be a better strategy to cut the heads off of organizations than to go out and kill civilians to get to a few foot soldiers. the usa p****d away a lot of goodwill over the past eight years and will have to find some way of regaining influence. an intelligent anti-terror strategy would be a big step.

I'm not saying I disagree. But it's a little too early to say whether a "new" strategy is going to be effective or not.

How will you measure success?

How were you and GW going to measure success in Iraq :???:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
don said:
whatever, read the article and disagree if you want. it has to be a better strategy to cut the heads off of organizations than to go out and kill civilians to get to a few foot soldiers. the usa p****d away a lot of goodwill over the past eight years and will have to find some way of regaining influence. an intelligent anti-terror strategy would be a big step.

I'm not saying I disagree. But it's a little too early to say whether a "new" strategy is going to be effective or not.

How will you measure success?

How were you and GW going to measure success in Iraq :???:

That's my point, you can't say whether it was a failure or success, yet.

You seemed to rate the success in Iraq on financial outcomes. There is a lot more to war in my opinion. And when you politicize it, you are bound to lose with the voters.

The current/next administration will take the credit and place blame.

The article that don posted is taking credit for something that "might" happen.

Afghanistan is a totally different war than Iraq. Strategy will need to be adjusted and flexible. Tying yourself to one strategy might be a good move politically, but tactically it may/may not be effective.

These are not conventional type wars, where you will have the leader on an aircraft carrier, signing a surrender agreement.

In Iraq, strategies changed over time, because the enemy changed over time.

In Afghanistan the strategies are more likely to change over time also.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
We are changing--but before you couldn't go around building allied coalitions or count on obtaining much intelligence from friendly Arab/Muslim countries when the President was talking about his "crusades" and "missions from God holy wars in his battle against Gog and Agog"-- while he violated International Law on treatment of prisoners....

But it will take time--It will take years or generations to bring back the trust in the US that GW lost..

Rand Study: 'War on Terror' Not Working

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:59 AM

WASHINGTON — The United States should shift strategy against Al-Qaeda from the current heavy reliance on military force to more effective use of police and intelligence work, a study released Tuesday concluded.

The study by the RAND Corporation, a think tank that often does work for the US military, also urged the United States to drop the "war on terror" label.

"Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism," said Seth Jones, lead author of the study.

The US military has pressed in recent weeks for more troops to combat an intensifying Islamic insurgency in Afghanistan, but the RAND study recommends only "a light military footprint or none at all."

The study examined how terrorist groups since 1968 have ended, and found that only seven percent were defeated militarily.

Most were neutralized either through political settlements (43 percent), or through the use of police and intelligence forces (40 percent) to disrupt and capture or kill leaders.

"Military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups, and few groups within this time frame achieved victory," the report said.

"This has significant implications for dealing with Al-Qaeda and suggests fundamentally rethinking post-September 11 counterterrorism strategy," it said.

It argued that a US strategy centered primarily on the use of military force has not worked, pointing to al-Qaeda's resurgence along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border nearly seven years after the September 11 attacks.

Policing and intelligence "should be the backbone of US efforts," it said. Police and intelligence agencies were better suited for penetrating terrorist groups and tracking down terrorist leaders, it said.

"Second, military force, though not necessarily US soldiers, may be a necessary instrument when al-Qaeda is involved in an insurgency," it said.

"Local military forces frequently have more legitimacy to operate than the United States has, and they have a better understanding of the operating environment, even if they need to develop the capacity to deal with insurgent groups over the long run," it said.

While the US military can play a critical role in building up the capacity of local forces, it should "generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim societies, since its presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment," the study said.

— AFP
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/war_on_terror/2008/07/30/117517.html
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
We are changing--but before you couldn't go around building allied coalitions or count on obtaining much intelligence from friendly Arab/Muslim countries when the President was talking about his "crusades" and "missions from God holy wars in his battle against Gog and Agog"-- while he violated International Law on treatment of prisoners....

I'm sure a lot of world leaders have a lot of mistrust SINCE the election. It has nothing to do with George Bush tho. They knew they could count on him. This "pretender" we have for a president* now is scarey, not only to a majority of ameicans but to most foreign leaders. Given the choice I'm sure they would prefer Bush period !!!!
 

hopalong

Well-known member
That is something that oldtimer and the far left will never understand Texasbred, oldtimer and don cannoy see past their brown retnas becasuse it does not fit their agenda of blame Bush blame Bus. How many posts from oldtimer have you ever seen that he did not have some sort of "it is all BUSH"S fault!! NONE absolutly NONE

He is anal obsesive with his posts!
 
Top