General Petraeus: Zionism’s Military Poodle

Joe Hill · 05-07-08, 12:27 PM

Petraus is Israel's man in the ME. His policies are in basic conflict with the will of the people, including thousands in the military and non-political Generals. Fallon didn't bow to Israel's desire to manipulate the US into escalating the war, possibly to include Iran, so they found one who did. Israeli militarists don't care if the US military is ruined or even if our country is reduced to bankruptcy over Bush's fiascos. He even copies Israel's Palestinian policy by walling in an entire section of Baghdad and bombing in these ghettos, with the same massive loss of civilian life.

Quote:

General Petraeus: Zionism’s Military Poodle* : Information Clearing House - ICH

By James Petras

Very shortened version....

Petraeus’ fundamental (and false) assumptions are based on the notion that the ‘people’ and the ‘insurgents’ are two distinct and opposing groups. He assumed that his ground forces and Iraqi mercenaries could distinguish and exploit this divergence and ‘clear out’ the insurgents and ‘hold’ the people. The four-year history of the US invasion, occupation and imperial war, including his 18 months in command, provides ample evidence to the contrary. With upward of 170,000 US troops and close to 200,000 Iraqi and over 50,000 foreign mercenaries, Petraeus has failed to defeat the insurgency.

His theory of ‘securing and holding’ territory presumes a highly motivated and reliable military force capable of withstanding hostility from at least eighty percent of the colonized population. Petraeus, like Bush and the Zionist militarists ignore the fact that the morale of US soldiers in Iraq and those scheduled to be sent to Iraq is very low.

Petraeus ran a costly colonial army, which suffers endless casualties and, which is not politically sustainable. Petraeus knows that, so he chose a political route upward and out of immediate command in Iraq, shifting the burden for failure to his replacement Lieutenant General Ray Odierno. General Petraeus realized his long-term political ambitions exceeded his military abilities. Militarism is a stepping-stone to a higher post in Washington.

General Petraeus, in his advance from Commander of US and ‘allied’ forces in Iraq to head of the US Central Command overseeing current US wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and overseeing future wars with Iran, Lebanon and Syria, has left behind a bitter legacy of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths, an unreliable Iraqi ‘quisling’ army, a failed client regime and a vast US bunker under constant attack. Every military official and most experts know that he was ‘Bush’s man’ and his advances were very much a product of the White House and its pro-Israel backers in the Congress.

Conclusion

The advance of Petraeus is a victory of the Zionist Power Configuration in its quest for American military leaders willing to pursue Israel’s agenda of sanctions and war against Iran. That is why the ZPC was a factor in the ousting of Admiral William Fallon, and why the main propaganda bulletin (the Daily Alert) of the Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations worked for and hailed his promotion to military overseer of the Middle East wars. AIPAC and their bought and bonded Senators ensured Petraeus an easy time during his confirmation hearing and his unanimous endorsement.

The US has degenerated into a sorry state of affairs when its future course depends on the political calculus of a feckless General, a failed counter-insurgency ‘expert’ and ambitious politician pandering to billionaire political contributors working for a foreign colonial power.

Protesting Petraus' Wall in Sadr City:

Tashah · 05-07-08, 02:01 PM

Another propaganda piece from informationclearinghouse.

danarhea · 05-07-08, 02:06 PM

First of all, you do not understand what Zionism is about. All Zionism means is that the Jews should have a nation. Many Jews are Zionists, and many others are not. Some Jews believe that Zionism runs against the Torah, and others don't.

As for Zionism itself, things get pretty muddled.

1) Israel, in my opinion, is acting too agressively in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and elsewhere. But this is not Zionism. It is the policy of some of the leaders within the Zionist state. There are some protests against this from a few Israelis, who happen to be Zionists themselves. Zionism does not apply to what you are posting.

2) Israel has a legitimate right to defend itself. Several times, all out attempts were made to invade Israel, and end it as a nation, so I can understand a lot of the knee jerk reactions which are going on here. Doesn't necessarily make the knee jerk reactions right, in my opinion, but considering the fact that its neighbors would like to wipe Israel off the map, it is understandable. Both Zionists and non-Zionists would agree in Israel's right of self defense. The problem here is how do we negotiate a way out of this mess? That has nothing to do with Zionism. It has a lot to do with getting 2 sides together, and hammering out a workable solution, acceptable for both sides. But as long as Arabs fire rockets into Israel, bomb Israeli restaurants, and in general, commit mayhem against the Israeli people, Israel is going to strike back. I don't like the fact that a lot of innocents are dying over there at the hands of both sides, but Israel did not start this war.

Once again, Zionism is only the concept that the Jews should have their own nation. How the concept of Zionism got expanded to become a hateful image is a function of the many anti Semites who have twisted that word from its original meaning, and have run a campaign that attempts to link Zionism to Nazism. Bottom line - Equating Zionism to anything other than the notion of a Jewish homeland comes from pure, unadulterated rascism and hatred. Now I am not accusing you of being a rascist. You have probably read the propaganda, like so many others have, and are now confused as to the actual meaning of Zionism. I hope this post helps to clear that up for you.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 05-07-08, 02:07 PM

man what is with this guy.

sotrueblue · 05-07-08, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

man what is with this guy.

He is rather one tracked. But then Ive been reading alot of threads from yourself about Obama. Im correct arent I?

Joe Hill, needs to point us in the direction of proof that we went to war for Israel. I would be very surprised to hear this as Id assumed alot less effort than that went in to the planning.

But then I dont normally go for conspiracies.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 05-08-08, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotrueblue

He is rather one tracked. But then Ive been reading alot of threads from yourself about Obama. Im correct arent I?

You are free to read my McCain threads, my Gitmo thread or any of my other threads to expand your apparent ignorant opinion of my posting habits.

Obama is a current topic. I am discussing it. comparing it to this conspiracy bunk is no applicable.

sotrueblue · 05-08-08, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

You are free to read my McCain threads, my Gitmo thread or any of my other threads to expand your apparent ignorant opinion of my posting habits.

Obama is a current topic. I am discussing it. comparing it to this conspiracy bunk is no applicable.

Perhaps. Youre not putting out conspiracy theories all the time, but then neither is Joe Hill. It seems Joe Hill's posting is agenda driven, can you honestly say you are so different?

Reverend_Hellh0und · 05-08-08, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotrueblue

Perhaps. Youre not putting out conspiracy theories all the time, but then neither is Joe Hill. It seems Joe Hill's posting is agenda driven, can you honestly say you are so different?

What is my "Agenda"?

When have I EVER put out a conspiracy bunk thread?