Searching For Mister Doright
Last week I posted about the 140,000 Turkish troops massing on the Kurdestan, Iraq border and suggested that this is where the Mid-East war will truly break out. Now the Turks claim to have boosted that to 200,000 troops, a claim that the White House says is inflated. Perhaps not…
Yesterday, Iran and Turkey attacked Kurdestan simultaneously, as both attacked several border towns with artillery fire over the weekend. Various report indicate that Iran has also amassed troops and tanks along its border with Kurdistan. (Kurdish Iraq)
The Turkish army is pressuring the government to immediately attack PKK (Kurdish Socialist rebel) headquarters in Kurdistan. It is expected, however, that the military operation will only begin – once approved – after the Turkish parliamentary elections scheduled for July 22. Rumors have been flying in the Middle East since last May that major conflicts would erupt as soon as late July.
Gen. Peter Pace, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says that the Joint Chiefs may consider increasing the current level of U.S. forces in Iraq in September. Surge II. I can foresee consequences to that beyond internal U.S. political repercussions. It isn’t just Iran that we’re fighting in Iraq, the majority of those coming in over the Iraq border are Saudis, as I reported in my last post. A second “surge” will escalate this war ever higher as more Wahhabists and Al Qaeda types pour in and Iran pumps in more weaponry. This in turn will give the excuse to attack Iran, plus Iran is now attacking over the border into Northern Iraq, battling with the Kurdish rebels. We’ve already been sending warnings to Turkey to stay on their own side, to no avail.
The Saudis do not want us to be successful in Iraq, as that means we’d have new, huge and yet untapped oil fields to exploit. This would greatly weaken the stranglehold the Mid-East cartel, OPEC, has on Western energy needs. The Saudis won’t give up fighting us over this and neither will Iran. Ultimately this war either escalates until we’re bombing Iran, or until we leave Iraq, and we’re not leaving Iraq unless Bush/Cheney gets impeached, something that won’t happen either.
On the other hand, the Saudis could give Bush a victory in Iraq by stopping the flow of inbound Saudi “insurgents” if Bush, Blair and the Aussies would agree to the Saudis, or at least OPEC, having final control over the oil. So far this obviously hasn’t happened.
It’s well-known that the Bush and Saudi royal families have very close ties. I believe this is entirely the result of the Saudis having utterly duped the Bushes, as well as previous administrations. Deception is their stock in trade, they’ve been practicing it for hundreds of generations and they do it well. Because of it they’ve been able to spread Wahhabism across America. A 2005 Freedom House Report examined over 200 books and other publications distributed in 15 prominent Saudi-funded American mosques. One such publication, bearing the imprint of the Saudi embassy and distributed by the King Fahd Mosque in Los Angeles, contained the following injunctions for Muslims living in America:
Be dissociated from the infidels, hate them for their religion, leave them, never rely on them for support, do not admire them, and always oppose them in every way according to Islamic law.
If war happens between the Israelis and any other Islamic Mid-East country and the Saudis get into it, the Israelis won’t do as we’ve been doing in Iraq, they’ll take the fight to the enemy and if Israel and Saudi are fighting we will have no choice but to side with Israel. The Saudis know this, which is why, so far, they’ve left Israel alone. They want no interference with their campaign to infiltrate and dominate the West.
It’s all about oil and money. The Saudis play the role of Primary Power Broker in the Mid-East. It was them that created OPEC, that got the oil producing Arab countries to stop fighting each other long enough to create a cartel to drive up prices. As long as they’re able to maintain this position among their peers, we will continue to treat them as an ally to assure the continued flow of oil.
Maintaining good relations with the Saudis is vital to the Bush family financial interests. The Saudis have seen to that and so Bush overlooks all those Saudi “insurgents” in Iraq and all the Wahhabist incursions into America.
If we expect to have a President who will stand up for America instead of Money and Oil, we need look beyond the speeches, examine their personal relationships and financial connections, and demand answers for some really tough questions.
July 17th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
THE CARLYLE GROUP
Put your head-phones on, there’s audio too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlyle_Group
http://www.carlyle.com/eng/index.html
http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3995.htm
http://www.carlylegroup.net/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/industry/carlyle.htm
July 17th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Gee, I’m being moderated again!
It’s those links!
July 17th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
From one of the above links.
“Sensitivity is one lesson Carlyle has learned the hard way. Last September, less than three weeks after the attacks on the twin towers and the Pentagon, the Wall Street Journal disclosed that the bin Laden family of Saudi Arabia had committed at least $2 million to one of Carlyle’s funds. Carlyle quickly returned the money. Conway, in the bank’s first public comments on the incident, said the decision to part ways with the bin Ladens was made at the senior partnership level. “Anything that had the word bin Laden in it, you just didn’t want to be associated with it,” he said. “Its not that the people we were dealing with had done anything wrong.” But in the end, “we said, ‘Gee whiz, we’ll buy you out at fair market value and get on with our life.’”
So, the bin laden family is/was in bed with the Carlyle group!!!
I suppose it would be obvious.
Would like to know the latest state of play though. Probably still are in bed with them, but under an “off-shore” arrangement, perhaps.
July 17th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Gee, this gets better.
I’ll just copy this bit, then I’ll be silent in amazement at the implications!
So many things become clearer!
The Carlyle Group is owned by forty-nine managing partners, who hold 94.5 percent of Carlyle’s private stock. (They include Baker and Major, whose Carlyle holdings are worth at least $200 million if the stock is equally divided.) The remaining 5.5 percent is held by the California Public Employees Retirement System [see "CalPERS and Carlyle," page 15]. The investors in Carlyle’s various funds include US investment banks Goldman Sachs and Salomon Smith Barney; investment authorities in Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Brunei; giant insurers like American International Group and the labor-oriented Union Labor Life; public pension funds in Ohio, Florida, Michigan and New York; and the corporate pension funds of American Airlines, Boeing, BP Amoco, GM and the World Bank.
Carlucci, the mastermind of the bank’s defense investments, came on board in 1989 after serving in the Reagan Administration. Carlyle says that Carlucci has never lobbied the government. He does, however, get invited to government events of great use to Carlyle simply because he is Frank Carlucci. According to recently declassified documents from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Carlucci met with Rumsfeld twice last year–not as a representative of Carlyle but as a former Defense Secretary and National Security Adviser. The meetings, on February 9 and October 19, were organized by Rumsfeld to discuss defense issues and the war on terrorism, and included other luminaries from the national security establishment, including Kissinger and Caspar Weinberger (Shalikashvili was there too).
Rumsfeld’s correspondence and Carlucci’s subsequent comments underscore the utility of such meetings to Carlyle. After the February event, Carlucci and Rumsfeld agreed to follow up with discussions on how “to cut the cost of defense infrastructure and reinvest the savings in modernization and other priority programs”–key issues for United Defense. Ten days after the October 19 session, which included Wolfowitz, Carlucci offered an assessment of the situation in Afghanistan that exactly reflects the Bush Administration’s endless-war scenario. “We as Americans have to recognize that [terrorism] is more or less a permanent position,” Carlucci told a New York audience of business executives and labor leaders that included AFL-CIO president John Sweeney. “We’re going to have to live with this kind of phenomenon for the rest of our lives.”
July 17th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
This is the link with astounding goodies.
Read’em!
http://www.carlylegroup.net/
July 17th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/members/102506_possible_names.shtml
July 17th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
This coffee seems to be working very well.
Maybe I’m hallucinating, but some of the things……………………………..?
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/members/092506_pakistani_payoffs.php
July 17th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Jordon, you do come up with interesting reading.
That there’s massive corruption and collusion should be obvious to even the most obtuse by now. There have been indications that Bush may have had advance warning of the 9/11 attack, but that’s still a difficult one to buy into.
When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor there were similar indications of early knowledge as well as similar allegations. It is true that the American public was pretty set against getting involved in the war, and if the Japanese attack hadn’t taken place, we wouldn’t have. However, our allies were under attack and getting desparate and Roosevelt wanted us in the war. So did Roosevelt know the attack was coming? Maybe.
Likewise, Bush had a mission to gain control of Iraqs oil and used the excuse of 9/11 to go after it. Did he know the attack was coming? Considering what a corrupt bastard he is, yes, he probably did.
July 18th, 2007 at 7:42 am
Rasta, thanks.
My first post, which gave a list of links related to the Carlyle Group has been moderated into post heaven.
It was the first post on this subject.
Could you take a look please?
Many thanks.
PS.
I can repost, if its gone, I have the links bookmarked.
J
July 18th, 2007 at 7:49 am
Well, slap my thigh.
My original post has re-appeared, but unmoderated.
I need some coffee. My eyes are failing. (smile)
July 18th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
The problem when we start blaming Wahhabism is that it can lull folk into putting hope in the moderate muslims, the problem with Islam is their prophet, the solution to our politics is MUSLIMS OUT!
After the most recent terrorist farces here in Britain remember, Red Kens speech took the line of Wahhabists where to blame and along with this he supported moderate muslims, afraid this rouse has already been adopted by the lefties rasta, what you need is a combination of a SOIE movement for the US like the one in Europe that are protesting Brussels on 9/11 this year and cross that with some grass roots support of the American way of life by supporting a nationalist party like we Brits are slowly moving towards.
http://www.muslimsout.org/links.htm
If push comes to shove its your last line of defence
July 18th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Here we go, stop the Islamification of the World a good post from the MrSmith blog http://www.mrsmithsrefusal.blogspot.com/2007/07/day-approaches.html
July 18th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Rastaman, old buddy.
You remember I first came to this site disagreeing with you and hellpig.
I said that there were WMD in Iraq, contrary to the crap being issued by the left
Well, I was poking around today, and found these links.
http://www.2la.org/syria/wmd/al-safir-base-map_s.jpg
http://www.2la.org/syria/wmd/WMD-location-map.jpg
http://www.2la.org/syria/wmd.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F01%2F25%2Fwirq25.xml
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1052337/posts
Now, as to motives for the Iraq bash, I think there are several.
1)Land grab for oil reserves, as you rightly say, but not mentioned in the justifications.
2)Regime change for various reasons
a)Can’t get land grab with no regime change.
b)Saddam perceived as a butcher, therefor regime change OK
c)Finish dads unfinished business.
3)Spread democracy
4)Eliminate WMD
and now it seems
5)Enhance personal/family/business donors etc, through Carlyle.
With hindsight, the planning was crap, as was the PR, allowing the “left” on both sides of the puddle to take centre stage, and push their strange ideologies. They have similarly obfusticated and lied about the Israeli/Lebanon/hamas/hezbullah situation, to the extent that joey beercan doesn’t know what to think.
The motives of the left have been different on each side of the puddle, but calculated to achieve the same objective. Bash Bush and the neocons.
1)In eurabia the eurinals have stuck to their agreements with the arab league and later entities concerning the eurinalisation of europe with islamic immigration raging unchecked. It became part of EU policy/law/social engineering initiatives. No integration needed, multiculturalism pushed down the throats of unwilling indigenes. Laws altered, culture shredded, active thought police.
Atrocities in Iraq are labeled as the work of the “insurgents”, implying Iraqies, and therefor blaming the US. This is patently untrue. Iraq nationals are not/do not want to be, involved. This is the three sided battle for oil freehold, the US, Saudi, Iran (backed by Russia), presented in a way by the left eurinals press to hammer bush, neocons, and capitalism.
2)On your side of the puddle, you are best qualified to judge, but from my position it seems that Bush and the neocons are being bashed, and the left press are similarly distorting most everything.
Lets face it, your president, and your commander in chief, by invading Iraq, changing regime, and attempting a land grab for oil, whatever the subsidiary motives, could be argued to have been acting in the best interests of the American nation in particular, and the western civilisation in general.
It’s just that the implementation of those objectives never planned for ongoing resistance aka terrorism from minorities/saud/iran, and most every other nut-job able to walk. Certainly Russian support was not factored in. Maybe the US went in with significantly too few men and machines. Libya fell for it, and capitulated, but sunni, iran, syria, saud, learned the lessons of the previous Iraq bash.
The asymmetrical nature of this warfare, and doubtless of future conflagrations, make the projection of power over long distances, increasingly prohibitively expensive. The US is developing partial answers to these costs, hypersonic attack craft, rail-guns, drones, etc. But these are no answer to an ignorant population that can be convinced to die for 72 virgins.
The US/West, fights by conventions, nut-jobs don’t. Collateral/civilian damage figures in calculations by the west, – it is glorified in nut-job calculations, and used by western media.
The eurinal answer of appeasement is certainly no answer either, it is seen as weakness, and further attack is the nut-job programmed response.
So where do we go?
The west is loosing the first land grab, the ideological battle, but this is at a level. It would seem that where wealth/income is more than adequate for ongoing living costs, the western and ME wealthy have found a way to profit from war and the deaths of cannon fodder. Win, or lose, the wealthy profit. What price culture, loyalty, honesty, nationhood, etc, the rich from whatever culture are remarkably similar. Are these outdated principles, suited only for fools?
In the UAE, various states have built stupendous real estate playgrounds and pleasure palaces to attract the monied west. Freeholds (such as there can be in Islamic states) have been sold by management companies who generate revenue streams. These management companies have been turned into PLCs, shares issued, and IPOd on the London exchange. Western investors have bought shares, and the UAE companies are now using this money to buy stakes (shares) in western institutions.
Similarly in the west, investments in the ME and Far East have been made. China is set to use its considerable foreign currency reserves to invest, via venture capitalists, in the west.
The strings of finance and globalisation pass in extremely convoluted form all around the world.
Perhaps we should call Dubyas moves to grab oil real estate totally ham-fisted, and also ask, surely there was/is, a more subtly way, – perhaps involving share holdings, proxies, etc that would have achieved the same ends, control, without all the fighting. Putins business moves, on behalf of mostly himself, and incidentally the Russian state, could well be an object lesson. Chinese moves in Africa could similarly be learned from. Formal standards for human-rights may well go out the window in certain areas, on a temporary basis, until such time as currency re-evaluations globally, harmonise purchasing power parity, reducing economic advantages accruing from such employment abuses.
So where do we go.
US/Russian/Chinese/UAE capitalism, with all its warts? And sod-off to all state religions.
Or
Eurinal servitude to a stone-age feudal mindset, that values life less than capitalism values life, and still moving and dying to the whim of international capitalism ebb and flows?
The joey beer can of either camp will be just that.
It’s up to us all individually to climb above that.
The Chinese understand that. Putin and a few Russian exiles in the west understand. Wealth anywhere on the globe understands it.
Lefty eurinals/politicos/religious, don’t.
There are two types in the world, the doers and the done.
Harsh, yes, true, yes.
So who are the new leaders for this direction?
What skill-sets are needed?
Are there leaders who can embrace globalism?
Can everyone partake of the golden chalice, or must there always be the poor?
July 18th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Rasta, I sent a big one about an hour ago, but its gone to post heaven.
have a look for me please.
Many thanks.
July 18th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Well, slap my thigh, the same thing has happened again. Its appeared.
Whats with this software, gremlins, trolls, or whatever?
Thanks Rasta, if its you.
July 18th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
You’re welcome.
As to that long post, sure, there were WMDs in Iraq, that’s what Saddam was gassing Iranians and Kurds with. The thing is, they were nearly all destroyed before we ever invaded. I don’t believe Bush was fully aware of this or he’d never have set himself up for all the humiliation when the lack of WMDs was revealed. He should have paid more attention to Intelligence reports.
Yes, the entire operation was ham-handed. Rumsfeld threw the entire Iraqi army out of work, instantly creating the resistance we now face, instead of keeping them on the payroll and with food in their mouths. Likewise the Baath party politicos.
When we took over Germany at wars end, we put the Nazis to work running hospitals and train stations and all the infrastructure and repair jobs that needed doing, and kept them and their families from starving. Thus they gave their loyalty to us. Rumfeld was just too stupid to do this and too arrogant to listen to anyone but himself. That’s called the Peter Principle. By being made Sec. of Defense, he reached his level of incompetency.
Where we go from here is anyones guess. All the worlds leaders think they have the answer and all their answers conflict with each other. None of them really know anymore than you or I. My guess is that there will be a major war, the Mid-East will become radioactive and Islamic terrorist aggression will subside as the survivors become too occupied with fighting amongst themselves once again. Just a guess and I may be totally wrong.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:27 am
I heard about the anticipated request for MORE surge troops. You know that will go over like a lead balloon in Washington. I agree with you on the Saudis, but you know Bush isn’t going to do squat.