Title:
SUDDENLY, A HUGE BUILDUP OF 350,000 AMERICAN SOLDIERS TO THE MIDDLE EAST
IS ANNOUNCED! Title:
SUDDENLY, A HUGE BUILDUP OF 350,000 AMERICAN SOLDIERS TO THE MIDDLE EAST
IS ANNOUNCED!
| Resources to aid your Understanding |
|
|
Learn how to protect yourself, your loved ones!
Stand by for insights so startling you will never look at the news the same way again.
YOU ARE NOW ON
THE CUTTING EDGE
NEWS BRIEF: "Bigger Buildup: U.S. May Call for More Military Buildup in Gulf Than Expected", ABCNEWS.com, January 14, 2003.
"W A S H I N G T O N, Jan. 13 — The Bush administration may need more troops than it thought to fight and occupy Iraq, sources told ABCNEWS. While U.S. troops were honing their combat skills in Kuwait today, in North Carolina, Marines were shipping out, and in Texas, more reservists received their orders. These snapshots of a military buildup may be just the start of what could end up involving more than 350,000 troops for a war and subsequent occupation of Iraq, ABCNEWS has learned. That is a far higher number than envisioned during preliminary planning. Sources said the National Guard and reserve callup — 56,000 troops have already been mobilized — could also grow well beyond the 263,000 used in the Persian Gulf War more than a decade ago."
While we used 263,000 National Guard and Reserves in 1991, the total of Allied men exceeded 500,000. After being told for many, many months that the U.S. was assembling an impressively wide international force that would invade Iraq, thus making it possible for us to use no more of our troops and maybe a lot less, than we used in 1991 during Gulf War I, it now seems that we will be using 350,000 total American soldiers. Let us review what we were told just a few days ago about the international support we were supposed to gain from our "allies" in the region.
NEWS BRIEF: "Troop buildup in Gulf enables Bush to order attack", by Rowan Scarborough, The Washington Times, January 7, 2003.
"The United States is deploying troops fast enough to allow President Bush to order an invasion of Iraq next month, U.S. officials and military analysts say ... The Bush administration is trying to persuade Turkey, which allowed combat aircraft to use its bases in the 1991 Desert Storm operation, this time to also play host to ground troops who would create a northern front inside Iraq ... About 20,000 British troops may join the fight, and a Pentagon official said the French also will provide units."
Thus, just one week ago, we were being told that Great Britain, France, and Turkey were going to provide significant numbers of troops, air force units, and/or naval units to this battle. We felt like the world was behind us in attacking Iraq, ostensibly to disarm him so he could not use his Weapons of Mass Destruction against anyone in the world.
Turkey was especially important, as they had promised up to 70,000 elite troops; in fact, a great number were already in Northern Iraq, fighting Iraqi units since October, 2002. These Turkish forces were operating under U.S. Special Forces direction. DEBKAfile Intelligence has stated that this Turkish force has already captured about 15% of Iraq and is in position to threaten key oil fields and cities at the onset of hostilities.
Just one week ago, Turkey seemed most anxious to jump completely on Bush's bandwagon to attack Iraq. Listen:
NEWS BRIEF: "Turkey Doubles Soldiers in Northern Iraq", By Fox News, January 7, 2003.
"ANKARA, Turkey — Turkey has doubled its military strength in northern Iraq ... a senior intelligence source said Tuesday, a sign Ankara wants to protect its interests if there is a war. Meanwhile, a Turkish general urged parliament late Monday to quickly decide whether to allow the United States to use Turkish bases for an attack on Iraq, saying a delay is fraying relations with the country's closest ally. 'We have come to a critical point. From now on, we have to take a political decision. We have to do military planning,' the newspaper Hurriyet quoted Maj. Gen. Bekir Kalyoncu as telling lawmakers. Turkey is under intense pressure from the United States to allow U.S. troops to use Turkish bases ..."
You can see the enthusiasm with which the Turkish high army command viewed the coming war on Iraq. This general seemed downright gung-ho!
More information on the use of Turkish troops:
NEWS BRIEF: "Turkish Troops Set to Advance on N. Iraqi oil cities – Ahead of US Attack", DEBKAfile, December 25, 2003.
"A. The Kurdish autonomous government of northern Iraq will grant 70,000 Turkish troops of the 2nd and 3rd Corps free passage through its territory for the Turkish push towards the big northern Iraqi oil cities of Kirkuk and Mosul.
B. While transiting this enclave, Turkish troops will show every respect for Kurdish autonomy, thereby also conferring tacit recognition on the part of Ankara.
C. The Turkish contingents will seize control the two oil cities with the support of Iraqi ethnic Turkoman units, who will be said to have risen up against Saddam Hussein’s domination of their region. For the moment, the Kurds will not press claims to Iraqi oilfields.
D. Turkey will then proceed to create an autonomous Turkoman entity stretching from northern to central Iraq up to the approaches to Baghdad.
E. The United States and Turkey will foster political, defensive and economic cooperation between the Kurdish and Turkoman self-governing provinces and guarantee their security. This clause indicates that a portion of North Iraq’s oil revenues will be channeled to the Kurdish province.
"... the Turkish army was placed Tuesday, December 24, on a high state of preparedness and the 2nd and 3d corps deployed along the Iraqi border in battle array."
Thus, on December 25, 2002, Turkish troops were ordered to a high state of war preparedness, here called, "battle array". Fully 70,000 elite Turkish troops were massed and ready to roll to Baghdad! Yet, since then, the new Islamic Fundamentalist Prime Minister has been gradually pulling Turkey out of this pro-American and pro-Israeli orbit, and has now fully informed the Bush Administration that these troops cannot be used to augment an American strike against Saddam. In fact, DEBKAfile recently worried that these 70,000 elite troops might attack northward against the Kurds as soon as we initiate hostilities against Baghdad. No one in the region likes the Kurds and no one is willing that they control Iraq after Saddam is gone. [Read NEWS1733 which discusses prophetic implications of this new radical Islamic regime]
BRITAIN'S MONKEY WRENCH
As we detailed in NEWS1760, Great Britain suddenly pulled the diplomatic rug right out from President Bush! They recalled most of their far-flung ambassadors stationed throughout the world, for a conference January 6-7; this conference was apparently called with only one major issue to discuss: Iraq. Abruptly, even as British naval, air, and army units were moving out toward the Middle East, the rhetoric changed dramatically. Suddenly, instead of being 100% behind President Bush, Prime Minister Blair was speaking of the need to pursue a more "even-handed" policy toward the Arabs in the region.
Without warning, Blair joined the chorus of countries urging the U.S. to not attack without U.N. approval. Blair then proceeded to argue that we should give the impotent U.N. Arms Inspectors 6 additional months, or more, to scour Iraq for Weapons of Mass Destruction. These policies are nothing more than an excuse to not attack, to let Saddam off the hook. Most intelligence sources are reporting that Saddam has long trucked his weapons facilities out of country, to Iran and possibly Libya. Thus, the U.N. Inspectors will find nothing!
We may be facing the situation where forces higher and more powerful than the prime minister are suddenly yanking the policy out of his hands, demanding a quite different approach. As of this moment, President Bush has to contend with the possibility -- if not probability -- that Great Britain would not support this war in the final analysis.
BUSH'S DECISION -- FULLY IN OR FULLY OUT
Any thinking person would have to realize that President Bush has only two options at this point.
1. He listens to the advice of those urging him to take his case to the United Nations and abide by their decision. If he takes this route, he might as well order our forces back to base and back to port. The United Nations seems collectively bent on not allowing an attack on Iraq.
2. He decides the intelligence that the U.S. possesses is sufficient to attack Iraq unilaterally, no matter what anyone else has to say. On 14 January, Prime Minister Blair took an opposite tack than he expressed to his ambassadors on January 6-7, saying now that Great Britain and the United States already possessed "Smoking Gun" evidence that Saddam is guilty as charged. Listen:
NEWS BRIEF: "Saddam is guilty without a doubt, says PM", The Scotsman, 14 January 2003.
"TONY Blair yesterday launched a staunch defence of his hardline position on Iraq, suggesting he already has the 'smoking gun' evidence needed to prove the case for war with Iraq. The Prime Minister said he is 'quite sure' Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction even though Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspector, has so far found no hard evidence ... Mr Blair suggested far harder evidence could soon arrive. 'I am quite sure that he has these weapons," he said. "The people and the documents exist to show that.' He would not go into further detail ..."
Then, to utterly confuse anyone who pays attention to the news on a daily basis, Blair reiterated the Bush hardline position that he would not be bound by any action or inaction on the part of the Security Council. Listen:
"The Prime Minister confirmed he would not be bound by a decision of the Security Council, whose five veto-wielding members include Russia and France, which have trade links with Iraq." [Ibid.]
To understand how officials like Blair could make such contradictory statements as he has in the past week, you only have to understand a key corollary to the Hegelian Doctrine. While the major tenant is: "Conflict brings about change and controlled conflict brings about controlled change", an important corollary to this doctrine exists. This corollary deals with how a person gets from Point A to Point Z as they pursue the Controlled Conflict.
If a leader proceeds directly in line from Point A to B to C, etc., that is a dangerous course, because observant people would see the direction in which they are being led. They would then be able to see the ultimate goal and, when they realized how terrible that goal was, they would strive to alert the citizenry to the dangers of the policy.
Therefore, a smart Hegelian leader will not go directly from Point
A to B to C. Rather, he will zig-zag tremendously. He will take two steps forward
and one step backward. During the step backward phase, he can even claim he
has decided against the original goal, and is taking steps to reverse course.
With great patience, acting over a long period of time, and depending upon a
citizenry to be not alert, a smart, skilled Hegelian leader can safely move
to Point Z without his subjects becoming too alarmed until the goal has been
achieved and it is too late to stop.
Now, let us return to President Bush. He now has two options: Fully go forward
or fully retreat. In the days following the "even-handed" speech given
by Blair, I watched to see if American units that were under way were turned
back, deployments delayed, or the numbers of troops scaled back. What I saw
the very next day shocked me greatly.
American rhetoric abruptly escalated, including the announcement that the number of troops being deployed was being dramatically increased, up to 350,000 men, nearly 100,000 more than we deployed in Gulf War I, and fully 200,000 more than the size we originally had planned. This size of increase makes some sense when you realize that we may be replacing the Turkish, French, British, and Australian forces with our own. However, as we detail in the next major section, we believe the target is much larger than just Iraq.
Further, reports yesterday [January 14] seemed to indicate that two naval carrier groups that had been planned for stateside deployment are now going to turn around quickly and be sent back to the Middle East.
Thus, President Bush seems to be pursuing the policy of "Fully In"; he seems to have made the decision to dramatically increase the numbers of American troops -- from 150,000 originally to 350,000 now -- to compensate for the loss of Turkish, and maybe, British forces.
But, we believe there is more, much more to this scenario than just meets the eye.
Consider the unprecedented disparity between Iraq and U.S. forces:
I. "Iraq's active-duty military of about 400,000 troops is less than half its 1991 strength. Most problematic for the coalition are six Republican Guard divisions and four brigades of Special Republican Guards dedicated to Saddam's security. Iraq maintains these units to the highest standards possible. But they pale in comparison to the American military." [1/7/03 ABCNEWS article, Ibid.]
II. "In 1991, the Iraqis had one of the best air-defense systems in the world — much better than what we had in NATO at that time,' said retired Air Force Col. John Warden, who played a major role in planning the Desert Storm air campaign. 'It had taken years to build and massive participation by the French, who supplied the technology for it. I believe it impossible for the Iraqis to have done much more than cob together some old stuff and maybe buy a handful of new missiles or something. The idea that they could impose more damage on us today than in 1991 just does not seem credible." [Ibid.]
III. A Washington Times report a month ago stated that, while Iraq's present military strength is about 33% of her 1991 level, American military forces are up to "10 times" more powerful. Since this is the case, why are we gearing up to such high force levels.? Does anyone else find this strange scenario troubling? If we are facing an enemy that is now 30 times (300%) less powerful than we, we should need no more than 33% of the 500,000 men of 1991, or a force of 165,000 men! But, we are gearing up to twice that level, to 350,000 men.
Therefore, why are we planning for this dramatic increase in force levels? We believe there is only one logical reason for this dramatic mathematical increase in our force levels: we might be planning to attack nations other than Iraq! If this is a novel idea to you, maybe you just have not been paying really close attention to the news carried in our Daily News Updates! Other Arab nations are also feeling threatened by this dramatic American military buildup.
IRAN
NEWS BRIEF: "US 'regime change' will not stop in Baghdad: Iranian Foreign Minister", Iran Mania Current Affairs, January 5, 2003 http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=13713&NewsKind=CurrentAffairs
"TEHRAN, Jan 5 (AFP) - The United States' aim of carrying out 'regime change' will not stop in Baghdad, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said, accusing Washington of seeking to assure Israel's regional dominance ... 'United States policy is not limited to Iraq, as the Americans want to change a number of regimes in the region so that Israel will be dominant,' the foreign minister said, without saying which governments were next on Washington's list ... The US is trying to strike blows against us "
Did you get that pertinent phrase? "Americans want to change a number of regimes in the region".
In our NEWS1750, we noted that President Bush had copied the Israeli model of targeted assassinations by issuing an Executive Order mandating that U.S. Special Forces go on to the territory of the "Axis of Evil" nations in order to destroy targets of terror. These "Axis of Evil" nations were: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Thus, it is no secret that Iran should feel threatened, for she has already been diplomatically singled out and called out as a target with whom Washington is concerned.
A quick check on a Middle East map shows that, after American forces seize Iraq, they will be in perfect position to attack Iran! As you can see from this map, once we seize Iraq, we are in perfect position to attack Iran from the East; further, we have troops in Afghanistan who could conceivably open a front on the West, particularly if some of our 350,000 troops are sent there to amass an invasion force on the border with Iran. Thus, Iran would be squeezed from the East and the West by vastly superior forces.
If Turkey could be persuaded to join our war, they could pour troops in across their border with Iran.
Many, many intelligence networks have repeatedly stated that Iran is more of a sponsor of radical Islamic terrorism than Iraq ever has been. Further, Iraq is reported to have trucked entire systems of weapons production facilities, as well as large supplies of Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Iran. You can see from this map how easily this transfer could occur. President Bush could thus charge Iran with cooperating with Saddam in hiding his WMD facilities and stockpiles.
Finally, take a close look at the Persian Gulf. Since we are reputed to have between 3-5 aircraft carrier naval groups stationed in the Persian Gulf in order to provide massive air support against Iraq, these units would be perfectly positioned to begin massive airstrikes on Iranian targets! Truly, our aircraft carriers would provide a "double-edged" sword, symbolically using one side against Iraq and the other side against Iran.
SAUDI ARABIA
A glance again at our map, above, also demonstrates the geographical reality of striking Saudi Arabia. Our same aircraft carrier groups that are threatening Iran and Iraq from the Persian Gulf can be used against Saudia Arabian targets! Much press has been devoted to the subject of the key role Saudi Arabia has been playing in global terrorism these past two decades. Fully 15 of the 19 Muslims who supposedly highjacked the planes that rammed into the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11 were Saudia Arabian citizens! [DEBKAfile, 11/23/02]
Further, Saudi Arabia has recently chosen a more militant diplomatic line against American policies, even denying us the use of her bases in the event of war with Iraq. She especially angered Washington by her sudden refusal, mid-year, 2002, to not allow American forces the use of the modern airbase we had just built called the Prince Sultan Airbase, located 50 miles from Riyadh! Prince Sultan was designed as the ultimate Command-and-Control center that would coordinate all facets of our air, sea, and land attack against Iraq.
Now, look at Kuwait. We are building up massive numbers of troops in Kuwait, ostensibly for the attack on Iraq. Similarly, we are deploying significant numbers of Marines and their amphibious landing craft aboard naval vessels in the Persian Gulf. It is conceivable that part of the troops now being deployed in Kuwait could simultaneously move out against Saudia Arabia at the same time other units are moving against Iraq. News stories have been posted recently that we are going to deploy Marine amphibious units against Iraq; however, this map demonstrates the geographical reality that the amount of Iraqi soil on the Persian Gulf is very tiny, and therefore, easily defended. It makes a whole lot more sense to believe that the Marine amphibious units might be used to attack Iran and Saudi Arabia simultaneously.
Now, consider pertinent news stories that cast more light on the role of Saudi Arabia in the war on terror and the Middle East generally.
NEWS BRIEF: "Bin Laden Is Back in Saudi Arabia - Is Working Closely with Baghdad", DEBKAfile, October 19, 2002, in Daily News Updates.
"DEBKAfile reveals that the long-lost al Qaeda leader, Saudi-born Osama bin Laden, is alive and in Saudi Arabia. He is believed to have landed secretly at the end of September ... Bin Laden has brought with him his closest companions - his Number Two and chief of operations, the Egyptian Ayman Zuwahri, the hard core of the Islamic terror group’s command, his close family and his bodyguard. The size of this party indicates the al Qaeda leadership’s belief they have found a safe hideout ..."
NEWS BRIEF: "Saudi 'payoffs' to bin Laden documented", by WorldNetDaily, November 7, 2002, carried in Daily News Updates.
"Authorities in Saudi Arabia paid cash to terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in the late 1990s, according to intelligence sources. The money was traced from a bank in the kingdom to accounts run by Osama outside of Saudi Arabia."
NEWS BRIEF: "Saudi Interior Minister’s fund enriches al Qaeda’s war chest", DEBKAfile, November 23, 2002
"... devastating reports have been published about the failure
of the Bush administration to stem the flow of Saudi moneys to al Qaeda ..."
Therefore, Saudi Arabia evidently stands complicit in the Osama bin Laden terrorist
campaign. The hateful, extremist Muslim Wahabi sect is Saudi Arabia’s state
religion, and contains some of Bin Laden’s most fervent followers! If we
really are going after global terrorism, we have a huge target in Saudi Arabia
that needs to be dealt with!
NEWS BRIEF: "Iraq opens border with Saudi", BBC News, October 31, 2002, carried in Daily News Updates.
"Iraq has reopened its border crossing with Saudi Arabia for the first time since it was shut after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The move is the latest sign of improving relations between Saudi Arabia and Iraq since the Gulf War in 1991 ... they have been doing increasing amounts of trade and, with the threat of another American led war, Iraq is keen to improve its relations with Saudi Arabia ... Iraq and Saudi Arabia began a process of reconciliation at a summit of Arab leaders in March."
Thus, we can see that Iraq and Saudi Arabia have been cozying up to each other for the past year! Why would these erstwhile enemies be reconciling? Could it be that they feel the same threat breathing down their necks -- the United States?
Now, let us examine a most interesting NewsMax article in which the author argues we need to neutralize the state religion in Saudi Arabia! This call seems nothing more, nor less, than a call to attack Saudi Arabia.
NEWS BRIEF: "Declare War on Wahhabism", by Ray Pierce, NewsMax, December 5, 2002, carried in Daily News Updates.
"The salient aspect of a successful war strategy is correct threat analysis. A leader who correctly interprets the threat enables the institutions of society to form a zeitgeist, which allows the common man to understand the rationale and goals of the war ... It was not by accident that 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 murders were Wahhabi from Saudi Arabia. Or that the Taliban was the ideal form of Wahhabite government. Or that bin Laden himself is a Wahhabite Saudi. Wahhabism, masquerading as a religion, has a network of Mosques and schools worldwide which are poisoning the young and sowing hatred ...
"But if Wahhabism is considered a religion, we will be defeated in this war, as we will be powerless to stop its spread. The reason we are losing our war is that our government lacks veracity in its actions ... How can a country which does not allow Christian worship or even Christian burial on its scared soil be our ally? A greater incongruity occurs when we learn about Saudi funding of terrorism ... The correct and honest course is to declare war on all Wahhabite states and peoples. By doing this, our goal would be concentric to the facts as they exist in reality."
"By declaring war on Wahhabism, all of the world's peoples and religions currently under threat will benefit, and our war will become an honest fight against evil."
Thus, NewsMax makes a strong case to attack Saudi Arabia. Her Wahhabi religion is infesting countries all throughout the Middle East, from Iran to Turkey, to Pakistan.
Now, we turn our attention to another surprising story at the time it broke. A Pentagon "Think Tank" suddenly advocated that the U.S. seize Saudi oilfields and their "assets". Since a Pentagon Think Tank works for the Pentagon, this report may be seen as an indirect U.S. threat to attack and seize Saudi Arabia.
NEWS BRIEF: "Briefing Depicted Saudis as Enemies", by
Thomas Ricks, Washington Post.com, August 6, 2002, carried by Daily News
Updates.
"WASHINGTON — The long-standing strategic alliance between the United States and Saudi Arabia is under considerable stress since the Sept. 11 attacks, and some Washington policy analysts are calling for a complete reassessment of the relationship. In a Defense Policy Board briefing on July 10, analysts from the Rand Corporation, a highly-respected Washington think tank, told intellectuals and former administration officials who consult the Pentagon that Saudi Arabia "supports our enemies and attacks our allies."
"The Washington Post reported Tuesday that the analysts concluded, 'The Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader' ... According to The Washington Post, those analysts recommend U.S. officials tell the Saudis to stop supporting terrorism or face seizure of oil fields and financial assets currently in the United States."
Of course, Bush Administration officials were quick to refute these recommendations, stating they did not represent official U.S. policy; however, the recommendation was made, Saudi officials were put on notice of deeply held American opinions, and knowledgeable people all across the world knew that America was at least considering attacking Saudia Arabia!
NEWS BRIEF: "Saudi Arabia: The Sarajevo of the 21st Century", The Wilderness Publications, August 21, 2002, carried by Daily News Updates.
"On Aug. 1, The World Tribune reported that Saudi Arabia, which has been acquiring long range ballistic missiles had also been, according to reports confirmed by U.S. officials, attempting to acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan which has been well-documented to have heavy concentrations of Al Qaeda supporters within all parts of its government."
You can safely ignore the words, "attempting to acquire" nuclear weapons. In matter of fact, Saudi Arabia apparently signed a deal with China in 1991, as U.S. forces were protecting the desert kingdom, for theater ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. China began delivering the ballistic missiles in late, 1996. Shortly thereafter, Saudi Arabia took delivery of nuclear warheads from Pakistan.
Consider this confirming article:
NEWS BRIEF: "Do Saudis
have long-range missiles? Report says Riyadh can hit Israel with payloads thanks
to China", by WorldNetDaily, August 12, 2002, carried by Daily News
Updates.
"A report in the Israeli Hebrew daily Yediot Ahronot provides extensive
details of Saudi Arabia’s acquisition from China over the last decade of
120 long-range missiles capable of hitting targets up to 3,500 kilometers away
with large conventional, nuclear, chemical or biological payloads. The CSS-2,
or Dong-Peng 3, missiles are based, the report says, in the El-Solayil desert
oasis about 500 kilometers from Riyadh, with a smaller quantity at Al-Jofar,
about 100 kilometers from the city ... the Saudis have 12 missile launchers
and have built approach roads, command centers, a huge residential area, a mosque
for engineers and a large area of bunkers with a storage capacity of over 60,000
cubic meters. Just east of the missile base positioned in narrow, hidden ravines
is a Saudi air force base with two squadrons of Tornado jet fighters.
"According to the report, both U.S. and Israeli intelligence have been aware of the Saudi missiles for years ... King Fahd reportedly promised the U.S that the Saudis would not place chemical or nuclear warheads on the missiles and would never use them in a first strike. He also reportedly promised Saudi Arabia would not take part in the development of nuclear warheads, but it has bankrolled Pakistan’s 'Islamic bomb' project.
The report claims the Saudis have refused to allow U.S. inspectors in to see the Al-Solayil site."
Saudi Arabia is the only legitimate nuclear power in the entire Middle East! Only the most naive person on earth would not be able to connect the dots in this situation, and realize that Saudi Arabia had nuclear capability and the means to deliver them! Saudi Arabia is the true threat to both Israel and United States' interests in the Middle East.
As you can see from this map, these missiles are located just north of Saudi's border with Yemen; therefore, let us discuss Yemen now.
YEMEN
NEWS BRIEF: "Yemen confirms it bought Scuds from North Korea", By Nasser Arrabyee, Gulf News, August 25, 2002, carried by Daily News Updates.
"Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh yesterday confirmed that his country possessed Scud missiles bought from North Korea. Addressing more than 60,000 members of his People's General Congress (PGC) at its annual meeting, President Saleh said: 'We have bought those missiles and this is a legitimate right of Yemen' ... Saleh criticized the U.S. campaign against Saudi Arabia as unjustified. "We declare our solidarity with Saudi Arabia," he said. He expressed his country's rejection of the U.S. threats against Iraq ..."
We see from this August, 2002, news report that Yemen has armed herself with North Korean Scud missiles. These are later generation Scud missiles and much more accurate than the Iraqi Scuds in the 1991 Desert Storm War. A quick examination of the Middle East Map illustrates the threat Scud missiles might pose to U.S. naval forces in the Persian Gulf and offshore in the Arabian Sea, Gulf of Aden, and Red Sea. We do not know how many Scud missiles Yemen possesses, but she has been buying them for years.
NEWS BRIEF: "Yemen Unloads North Korean Missiles From Intercepted Ship", Fox News, December 14, 2002.
"AL-HUDAYDAH, Yemen — Yemen began unloading Saturday the shipment of North Korean missiles that was seized by Spanish and U.S. warships in the Arabian Sea, a port authority official said ... Senior military officers were present as the ship arrived. Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh arrived at al-Hudaydah earlier Saturday ... Yemen has promised not buy any more missiles from North Korea, which America regards as a nuclear proliferator."
This entire affair was an embarrassment to both Yemen and the United States. A Spanish naval vessel, acting upon an intelligence tip from the U.S., intercepted a freighter bound for Yemen; hidden well underneath in the hold, were these Scud missiles from North Korea. A hue and cry went up throughout the world that it was so terrible that Yemen would be buying these missiles from North Korea; but suddenly, inexplicably, the U.S. ordered the ship released with its hidden missiles. The ship proceeded immediately to Yemen.
Later stories appeared that Yemen had transferred these missiles to Iraq, stories which were well accepted as fact. However, I have my doubts, given the geographical reality revealed by this map. Yemen may very well be bristling with Scud missiles designed to protect her coastline on the Arabian Sea and to serve as a military buffer for any force attempting to physically marching on the Saudi missile base just north of the Yemeni - Saudi border.
DJBOUTI -- Horn of Africa
NEWS BRIEF: "U.S. Eyes Terror Threat in Horn of Africa", Washington.post.com, January 10, 2003.
"WASHINGTON –– A U.S. military task force hunting terrorists in the Horn of Africa is focusing on Somalia and coastal areas as potential hot spots, the task force's commander said Friday. Marine Maj. Gen. John Sattler said the task force is busy gathering information about possible terrorist bases and movements in the region, identified as a potential center of activity for the al-Qaida network and other terrorist groups. 'The borders with Somalia is a place we're looking hard at, as well as the coastline of the Gulf of Aden,' Sattler told reporters via telephone from the USS Mount Whitney. The command ship is off the coast of the tiny African nation of Djbouti."
Later in this above Washington Post article, we read that 900 Marines had set up camp on the ground in Djbouti, while another 400 remained on naval vessels offshore! Take a look at our Middle Eastern map, above, and you will see the strategic importance of Djbouti!! This tiny nation sits right at the mouth of the Gulf of Aden, so military forces located there would be able to protect friendly vessels passing through on the one hand while threatening enemy vessels on the other.
Additionally, the U.S. undoubtedly wanted to ensure that this strategic, small nation did not fall under the control of enemy forces. If Yemeni or Saudi Arabian special forces were to grab control of this strategically located piece of territory, they would make it far more difficult for us to invade on the Arabian Peninsula. But, with us controlling Djbouti, our Eastern flank is protected. Further, these 900 Marines might be setting up a staging area that would accomodate many thousands due to arrive very soon. From Djbouti, a Marine invasion force could easily jump off to invade Yemen.
The very fact that U.S. Marines are occupying little Djbouti speaks volumes about our plans to attack nations other than just Iraq.
MULTI-FRONT WAR
America is assembling a force far, far greater than we need to take out an Iraq that is 33% weaker than it was in 1991. The reality of the firepower we are amassing suggests that we have a plan of attack that is far wider than just Iraq. And, as we have reviewed in these articles, some of whom are many months old, President Bush has plenty of targets from which to choose.
* Bush listed Iran as part of his "Axis of Evil". The Iranian Foreign Minister is quoted as saying that Bush plans to change a number of regimes in the Middle East!
* Saudi Arabia is probably the only true Arab nuclear power in the Middle East. She is the true sponsor of the radical Islamic terrorism that is said to have been the force behind the 9/11 attacks. And, a Pentagon Think Tank floated the concept that we should attack the desert kingdom, seize it fields and its assets.
* Yemen is critically located in the Middle East, serving as a buffer against an invasion directed at the Saudi nuclear missile base. Therefore, she has built up a supply of Scud missiles that may prove rather formidable.
Since all these facts are true, and since the real aim of President Bush may be much wider than Iraq, this entire scripted scenario of U.N. investigators scouring Iraq seems totally inane, does it not? If we plan to attack Iran and Saudi Arabia also, and maybe Yemen, then the war will occur no matter what Saddam Hussein does, or does not do. The war will begin no matter what decision the United Nations' Security Council decides about Iraq.
This war is not just about Iraq, is it? Like the good magician, who hides the rock under another shell after he gets you looking at the wrong shell, so the Bush Administration may be as sleight of hand as a good magician; after trumpeting our demands on Iraq for so very long, we have gotten the peoples of the world focussing on Iraq, while our armed forces may be assembling to simultaneously take out Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen!
And, the entire Arab leadership of all the countries of the Middle
East know this; their military can see the buildup. Their intelligence services
are not blind and deaf. They can see the buildup far in excess of what is needed
to just conquer Iraq; but, they can also see that this buildup is just perfect
to take on Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen somewhat simultaneously -- we
may begin with Iraq, and then take on the other nations as our forces arrive
in ever-greater numbers.
This knowledge of what America is really planning to do, and the
apparent close timing of the initial attack, may be what prompted the sudden
flurry of diplomatic contact between Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, and Russia
just days ago, as reported by The Jerusalem Post last week. Every Arab leader
wants to ensure that they are fully in sync with each other, because they know
Washington's plans to take them all on forces them into a common league of defense,
whether or not they originally wanted to be in that position.
The only trump card -- the only hope the Arabs have -- against our formidable force is to strike asymmetrically with terrorism, to immediately use their Weapons of Mass Destruction before they are destroyed, and to open new fronts with which Washington will have to contend.
* Terrorism unleashed against cities has been part of the plan of this Third World War for at least three decades now. If news stories are to be believed, Muslim terrorists are in place, armed, and ready to strike.
* Pakistan might attack India to open another front. If Pakistan attacked initially with nuclear weapons, she would cause the U.S. and Israel great consternation, since we are allied with India. We might be distracted by this attack. News reports recently have indicated saber rattling between Pakistan and India.
* Syria, Hizbollah, the Palestinians, and even the Egyptians might attack Israel in a combined assault, in order to open yet another front.
* North Korea attacking South Korea is a major new front, particularly if China rushes to North Korea's aid threatening nuclear war if the U.S. rushes forces to the Korean Peninsula. In this regard, I found it very interesting that, suddenly, as America is rushing to war in the Middle East, North Korea suddenly "admits" they have been developing nuclear weapons for much of the past decade.
Suddenly, tensions rise astronomically between the United States and North Korea. While the U.S. has tried to smooth matters over, North Korea has threatened us with a "sea of fire" should we intervene in their internal affairs. Since the New World Order Plan envisions a nuclear confrontation on the Korean Peninsula, "toward the end of the period", we look upon the timing of this new confrontation with extreme skepticism.
In the past two weeks, we have seen several articles detailing the unusual working relationship between North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. Consider this news story:
NEWS BRIEF: "N. Korea marketing improved Scuds to Mideast", World Tribune.com, January 14, 2003, carried by Daily News Updates.
"LONDON — North Korea is marketing upgraded Scud-class missile to Middle East clients ... Western industry sources said Pyongyang has been offering such countries as Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen a more accurate version of the Scud B missile."
Therefore, North Korea ties tightly into the countries under discussion here as being possible nearly-simultaneous targets with Iraq -- Iran, Yemen. Saudi Arabia does not need Scud missiles from North Korea, for she has already taken possession of Chinese missiles.
* China Factor -- since a nuclear confrontation on the Korean Peninsula cannot occur unless China intervenes on the behalf of North Korea against the United States, threatening us with nuclear attack should we dare counterattack once North Korean forces are pouring across the DMZ. We are bound by treaty to South Korea to rush 690,000 troops to help the counterattack against the North.
If China took this diplomatic road, the peoples of the world might be led into panic, for everyone knows just how much high technology Clinton sold and/or allowed to be stolen by the Chinese.
* Chinese invasion of Taiwan is the final part of the planned World War III. Once American forces are stretched to the absolute limit, China will invade Taiwan. This is the plan. Thus, just as the North Korean portion of the script suspiciously erupted just as American forces were moving inexorably to the Middle East, so I find it suspicious that China would suddenly announce large new military exercises.
NEWS BRIEF: "China launches massive war games", CNN.com, January 14, 2003, carried by Daily News Updates.
"Official media on Tuesday reported maneuvers involving infantry, air and naval forces had taken place in the first week of the calendar New Year in undisclosed locations in northern, southern and coastal China."
Taiwan is located in the southern part of China and off the coast of Fuchou Province. Therefore, these "massive war games" are likely to be at least partly aimed at Taiwan.
Thus, all three major elements of the planned World War III are making headlines at the same time: Middle East, Korean Peninsula, China.
Finally, did reporter Robert Fisk know all about this plan, way back in May, 2002? Listen to this news story and you decide.
NEWS BRIEF: "Robert Fisk: There is a firestorm coming, and it is being provoked by Mr Bush", Independent.co.uk, 25 May 2002.
"Each morning now, I awake beside the Mediterranean in Beirut with a feeling of great foreboding. There is a firestorm coming. And we are blissfully ignoring its arrival; indeed, we are provoking it."
ONE FINAL THOUGHT: How does President Bush make the transition between attacking only Iraq to attacking a combination of Arab countries? After all, his propaganda machine has made much of the conflict between Iraq and the U.S., so how does the President justify attacking more countries?
Do we need another staged "Pearl Harbor", or an Operation
Northwoods [NEWS1595], or a bogus Gulf of Tonkin incident
that will give us the excuse to start attacking nations other than Iraq? We
shall just have to wait to see, as our mighty forces assemble in the region.
PLANNED SINCE 9/11?
On September 13, 2001, just two days after the terrible attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, I read a statement by CFR member, Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz that shocked me to my core; however, IF we are planning to attack multiple nations at once, we will fulfill Wolfowitz's shocking words of intent. Listen:
NEWS BRIEF: "Stage Set For Attack", by Susanne M. Schafer, Associated Press, The Sun Chronicle, Friday, September 14, 2001.
"WASHINGTON -- "In the most explicit descriptions yet of the Bush administration's intentions, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said Thursday the retaliation would be continued until the roots of terrorism are destroyed. 'These people try to hide. They won't be able to hide forever ... They think their harbors are safe, but they won't be safe forever ... it's not simply a matter of capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, ending states who sponsor terrorism." [Page 2]
"Ending states" is a most somber and terrifying term, for it strongly implies that the Bush Administration has every intention of destroying entire nation states, with unconventional weapons if we have to. Every one of the nations we have talked about in this article have been major supporters of terrorism throughout the world. Maybe this attack is the one envisioned by Wolfowitz and his boss, President Bush, all the way back to September 13, 2001.
CONCLUSION
If Arab leaders in the region simply sit back and allow Washington
to dictate the type of battle, the location of the battle, and the sequence
of battle, they will surely lose, and lose big. Their only hope is to expand
the conflict, and hit Washington in ways she is not supposed to expect. If we
truly are planning to strike at nations other than Iraq, the entire Middle East
might blow up in a fiery conflagration the likes of which the world has never
seen.
But Jesus told us that the birth of Antichrist would occur in just this way, did He not? He told us what the birth pangs would be:
"... ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled ... For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places." Matt 24:6-7 (KJV)
Jesus also told us to be aware of prophecy coming true in our Daily News.
"So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors." Matt 24:33 (KJV)
The events of the day seem to strongly indicate that the appearance of Antichrist is very, very close. We seem to be poised at the beginning of the final birth pangs ("sorrows") that will give "birth" to Antichrist. Are you spiritually ready? Is your family? Are you adequately protecting your loved ones? This is the reason for this ministry, to enable you to first understand the peril facing you, and then help you develop strategies to warn and protect your loved ones. Once you have been thoroughly trained, you can also use your knowledge as a means to open the door of discussion with an unsaved person. I have been able to use it many times, and have seen people come to Jesus Christ as a result. These perilous times are also a time when we can reach many souls for Jesus Christ, making an eternal difference.
If you have accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, but have been very lukewarm in your spiritual walk with Him, you need to immediately ask Him for forgiveness and for renewal. He will instantly forgive you, and fill your heart with the joy of the Holy Spirit. Then, you need to begin a daily walk of prayer and personal Bible Study.
If you have never accepted Jesus Christ as Savior, but have come to realize His reality and the approaching End of the Age, and want to accept His FREE Gift of Eternal Life, you can also do so now, in the privacy of your home. Once you accept Him as Savior, you are spiritually Born Again, and are as assured of Heaven as if you were already there. Then, you can rest assured that the Kingdom of Antichrist will not touch you spiritually.
If you would like to become Born Again, turn to our Salvation Page now.
We hope you have been blessed by this ministry, which seeks to educate and warn people, so that they can see the coming New World Order -- Kingdom of Antichrist -- in their daily news.
Finally, we would love to hear from you.
You can contact us by mail or email.
God bless you.
