Thursday, January 11, 2007

Bush's goy-ish strategy for Iraq

Now, here’s something for us to wonder. Why does President Bush decide against all logical thinking to deploy an extra 21,500 US troops to Iraq as his new strategy for the war torn country.

Consider this:

(1) American opinion is 61% against increasing troop levels in Iraq – instead they want US troops back home. The opinion polls show declining public confidence in Bush's conduct of the war, with the majority opposed to his proposal to send more troops to secure Baghdad.

(2) Both houses of Congress are now controlled by a (hostile to Bush) Democratic Party, which will oppose Bush’s plans, though not too vigorously to the extent the American public sees the Democrats as not caring for their troops already in Iraq. The landslide victory of the Democratic Party in the recent US Congressional election has been seen as a rejection of Bush’s Iraq policy.

(3) His military commanders don’t want to put more troops into Iraq.

(4) His extra troop insertion into will hurt the Republican Party's prospect in the next election.

(5) The Iraqis themsleves, particularly the Shiite majority, want US troops out a.s.a.p, not more coming in, because they are (quite rightfully) fearful of American treachery, in possibly striking a deal with the Sunnis by agreeing to bring them back to power. They know Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan have been whispering in the US’ ears.

(6) The bipartisan Iraq Study Group, headed by his dad’s old Republican Party friend, ‘Uncle’ James Baker, and a former Democrat congressman, Lee Hamilton recommended that the US (1) engages Iran and Syria diplomatically to help stabilise Iraq and (2) sets a goal of early 2008 for the removal of almost all US combat troops.

The President was particularly lukewarm towards talks with the two Middle States, and there’s a reason for Bush's reluctance to embrace ‘Uncle’ James' recommendations.

Bush will not engage Iran and Syria diplomatically, because Israel wants the US to be hostile to its two principal serious threats.

Bush will not yet leave Iraq because, with US troops out of Iraq, the world’s attention will shift to and focus on Palestine, a completely undesirable situation for Israel.

Israel fears that with the departure of the American presence in Iraq, consolidation of Shiite powers will bring an increasing Iranian influence into its neighbourhood.

Need I spell it out any her as to why President Bush is obdurately going against the wish of the American people (and Iraqi people, not that the latter matter), a hostile Congress, his military commanders and ‘Uncle’ James?

It’s precisely for the same reason why he sent his military to attack Iraq in the first place – it’s all for Israel. Mind you, he probably doesn't even know that, and more likely has been fed a tale of ensuring his place in US history as the brave and resolute US President. Whay a goy!


  1. "...Bush will not yet leave Iraq because, with US troops out of Iraq, the world’s attention will shift to and focus on Palestine, a completely undesirable situation for Israel."

    Dude, a bit paranoid aren't we. Explain da civil war happening in da territories. Or is that also da Jews fault.

    Keep your eyes on the ball mate. It's all about da $$$.

  2. Thank you for bring the civil war up! I wonder who has been giving money, arms and training to Fatah? Have my eyes been right spot on the ball?

  3. So by your logic the Israelis (besides controlling the USofA) are responsible for Muslims killing Muslims. Woooo Hebrew mind-control.

    Are you just a tad paranoid or just plain anti-semitic.

    Too bad. You hit the ball out of the park very often when your writing relates to Malaysia. Though that "Indians have small penises" stuff smacks of projection and is pretty rich coming from a Chinese.

    Maybe you're just trying to score brownie points with some hot Malay babe (or guy). If that's the case, it's all good ;)

  4. "Are you just ..... just plain anti-semitic"

    Yawnnn, the usual tired Israeli (or pro-zionist) tactic to intimidate people, who justifiably criticised Israelis/Jews, into embarrrassed silence.

    Well, bloody tough luck, I am a Chinese and we have our own Holocaust in WWII too, and don't feel in any way responsible or guilty, like Europeans and Americans, for the Jewish Holocaust.

    Didn't know you are so sensitive about "small Indian penis", which if you read the links in that posting, came from an Indian medical survey. Don't be panicked into assuming an inferior complex on such a small issue ;-) or believe in the Godzilla philosophy of "size does matter" ;-)

    So, from pro-Zionism to anti-Chinese-Malay-ism - hmmm, don't I know you?

  5. Yawwn is right. "we had our holocaust..." Nice one. Nanking and the like was bad bad bad. But 2 wrongs don't make a right and you "doth protest too much" at being called an anti-Semite. A simple fuck off would have been sufficient.

    Who said I was "anti-Chinese-Malay-ism" being one and married to the other.

    That's the problem with you gay folks.... waay too sensitive.

    Now don't accuse me of being homophobic, I say the same thing to my gay mates.

    For a so called uber-liberal you are pretty confused: Any holocaaust should break our hearts. Not just Chinese ones.

    And as for the penis matter, of all the millions of articles on the net you could have chosen, you chose to highlight it.

    Which speaks volumes of your state of mind. Be a man. Admit you got a "small rush" when you published it. Heh.

  6. "Any holocaaust should break our hearts. Not just Chinese ones."

    Yes, any Holocaust would break our hearts, and much as you may not believe it, I do feel deep sorrow for the victims of Nazi atrocities - several of my postings reflect this.

    But don't expect me to carry this sympathy automatically over to the Likud-Kadima government of Israel and their brutalities, atrocities and draconian policies and actions.

    BTW, have you ever heard an Israeli expressed sorrow for the victims of Japanese atrocity, or for that matter the gypsy victims of the Nazis?

    Or worse, for the native victims of the racist white supremacist government of Apatheid Afrika? Were you aware that Israel (nation of so-called children of the Holocaust) collaborated with Nazi-like Apatheid Afrikan regime?

    Are you aware of President Carter's condemnation of Israel's Apatheid policies towards the Palestinains?

    Notwithstanding their Deutronomic racist beaviour, Israelis (supported by pro-Zionists) have an unscrupulous habit of accusing anyone who criticised Israel's brutality and racism as being 'anti-Semitic' - oh, does this remind you of 'someone'?

    Actually being anti-Arab is also anti-Semitic, but trust the Israelis and Zionists to argue why that only applies to people who are against Jews.

    The Europeans & Yanks, especially the former, feel guilty over the Holocaust so the slightest accusation of 'anti-Semiticism' would send them scurrying back to cower in their little black holes of shame.

    To exploit a guilt over the Holocaust is sheer unscrupulous and offensive to the dignity of the victims, but that's Israel and some Jews.

    Read and