American Force IS NOW Beginning Withdrawal,
Twixt 2010 and 2015 Iraq will fight for Survival,
And Obama’s Administration Will Go Into Denial!
A lasting democracy cannot stand Islamist Trials,
Syrian and Iranian Terrorists Will Both pour Vials,
Democracy ends and Islamic Jihad becomes Style,
Iran-Iraq-Syria-Turkey-Lebanon Stretch FOR Miles,
In iron 5 toed crescent planning a Thing Quite Vile!
Morocco-Algeria-Tunisia-Libya-Sudan WEST OF Nile,
Complete 10’s of Daniel 2 & 7 from beast most Wild!
At Armageddon Second Advent bodies will lie in Piles
Troop withdrawal opens door for a Jihad after Awhile
Giving Democracy seekers in Iraq No Reason to Smile!
January 31, 2008
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
From the beginning, I was in favor of going into Iraq, destroying Saddam’s regime, killing or capturing him, and then getting the heck out of the country ASAP. Why the ASAP statement? Because to stay there was only to postpone the inevitable, the internal battle for control of the country between Kurds, Sunni, and Shiites, and to believe the “lasting” democracy could be maintained very long AFTER we left was sheer madness. So I considered it far better not to stay sacrificing American lives for what was inevitable AFTER we left, as well as the shattering effect it would have on our economy.
The longer we stayed the more lives we would lose, and the further down the drain our economy would plunge.
The great publicity being given to the election of a democratic government this week as a great achievement I applaud but, as a realist, knowing what I do about Middle East Arab and Persian history, I want to assure you that at some point in time between 2010 and 2015 the new Iraqi democratic government will be overthrown, and a strong man will emerge to govern the country as an Islamic Republic.
I believe what I wrote in Special Prophecy Update 170B almost five years ago, which immediately follows.
SPECIAL PROPHECY UPDATE NUMBER 170B
May 5, 2004
A Democratic Government Cannot Stand in Iraq!
I was 100 percent in favor of invading Iraq and ending the reign of Saddam the Butcher, and 100 percent in the corner of those who wanted to see the Baath Party out of power, but I have consistently been 100 percent in favor of NOT trying to establish a democratic type of government like ours, because such a government would only stand for a few months, and the cost of American lives would not be worth the price.
IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT IN IRAQ THAT WILL LAST – IT WOULD ONLY LAST AS LONG AS A LARGE AMERICAN ARMY WAS IN PLACE TO ENFORCE IT, AND AMERICANS WILL CONTINUE TO DIE IN HIT-AND-RUN-ATTACKS WHILE THEY REMAIN TO MAINTAIN SUCH A GOVERNMENT.
I could have gotten out of fighting in Vietnam, but I chose to go. I did not go because I believed we could win the war and establish a non-corrupt regime in the southern half of the country. I went because I believed it was essential to stopping the spread of communism to other countries in the Far East.
The support the Soviet Union poured into Vietnam and Afghanistan broke the financial back of the communist monster, which led to the breakup of the Soviet Union, and its demise as one of two great world powers. I believe it was absolutely essential that we go into Afghanistan. Its unbelievable mountainous terrain and deep sheltered valleys made it the perfect terrain for a Taliban government to be the breadbasket of terror led by Osama bin Laden. And we simply could not eliminate the numerous terror camp training facilities and headquarters with missiles and air strikes, no matter how sophisticated the state of our technical expertise was at that time. And, for that reason, I am still in favor for troops to be maintained there in order to prevent a re-occurrence of the same scenario. Iraq is a flat land compared to Afghanistan, and, once we had deposed Saddam and crushed his regime, I knew we had the advantage of destroying any threat that arose against our interests in the region with missiles and air strikes following our withdrawal. I am 100 percent in favor of the worldwide war on terrorism, but 100 percent in opposition to attempting to form a democratic form of government in Iraq like ours in this generation. Sure, I wish it were possible, it is an idealistic, noble daydream, but we are fighting Islamic windmills with toothpicks, and the price in blood we are paying for it cannot be justified by a final result that will be marked by failure to see it fulfilled.
The real problem in Iraq began in 1932, the year I was born.
Iraq was also born that year as the first of the League of Nations mandate states. So, after 1932, Iraq was formally independent.
There was still, of course, a large measure of British influence and power there, but it was certainly independent earlier than any of the other Arab states. The British were largely responsible for the impossible attempt to merge together four major contentious groups into one state, the Shiite, the Sunni, the Kurds, and the Assyrians. It would have been far better to have four countries with separate borders than to attempt to put four wildcats into a sack and call the sack a state. And there are many other smaller groups of ethnic wildcats that also were placed in the sack. It was inevitable that a government would eventually come into existence that would be held together by absolute force of a dictator. It is most unfortunate that the dictator who finally grabbed power was Saddam. Most dictators are happy to rule their own country with an iron hand, but Saddam had illusions of grandeur to be the great Islamic messiah who would even exceed the greatness of Saladin the Kurd and, in the end, be ruler over all of the Arab world. The only real solution to the problem, generated in 1932, is to establish governmental borders that separate the four major ethnic groups, and let each group internally fight it out as to the kind of government they want. After the dust has settled you may only have two or three states continuing to fight each other for dominance, but they will be fighting each other rather than the United States and Israel.
The continuous argument I have heard echo across the world’s political scenario from before Operation Desert Storm through Operation Iraqi Freedom is this – DO NOT DISTURB THE STABILITY OF
THE REGION! And everyone seems to agree on how important it is to NOT disturb it! I totally disagree! I was hoping we would go in, get rid of Saddam, his henchmen, and his Baath Party, then pull out as quickly as possible, and let all hell break loose between the Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, and many other ethnic groups that make up Iraq. They would not be able to concentrate on how much they hate us and Israel, because they would be too busy hating each other.
Then, after the smoke and killing ended in a truce, Iraq would probably be splintered into three separate countries, Kurdistan dominated by Turkey, Sunnistan dominated by Syria, and Shiitestan as a part of Iran. As far as I am concerned, the more instability, political turmoil, and confusion we see among all of the nations of Islam, the better off the United States (the big Satan as we are called) and Israel (the little Satan) will be in the world’s fickle climate. If I thought there was any possibility of installing a lasting democratic type of government in Iraq, then I would say it would be worth the price we are paying in American blood to do so, but it is a futile pipe dream, no matter how noble it may seem to those who favor it. I have been a supporter of both father and son Bush in their presidencies. I do continue to admire them both, and will vote for the son in November. However, I do not agree with the idea of attempting to establish a democracy in the midst of Islam because it is impossible – admirable, but beyond the scope of possibility in this generation. We need to get out and let them slug it out among themselves. In any case, whatever happens, Iraq will be one of the tens associated with Daniel 2 & 7, and Revelation 13
and 17. The Lamb King of the soon coming Kingdom foretold in Revelation 17:14 is the King of the Kingdom found in Daniel 2:44 and 7:27, and he is the only one who can bring lasting peace and stability to the Middle East under a theocracy. The Old Roman Empire had a large southern flank that, at one time, included all of what we know as the Islamic nations stretching from Morocco to Iran, which number more than the ten required to choose from as being the toes or horns in Daniel and Revelation.
Daniel 2:42,44 – And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. [44] And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
Daniel 7:24-27 – And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
[25] And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. [26] But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. [27] And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.
Revelation 13:1 – And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
Revelation 17:12-14 – And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. [13] These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. [14] These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
End Archive Prophecy Update 170B, 2004
Begin Excerpt from UK Independent
Iraq embraces the election that will shape its future
Crucial test for Prime Minister Maliki and democracy as American forces begin withdrawal
By Patrick Cockburn
Saturday, 31 January 2009
Campaign posters are pasted over the concrete blast walls across Iraq as parties urge followers to vote in today’s provincial elections. They will determine the political landscape of Iraq as American troops withdraw.
The last provincial polls four years ago helped ignite the civil war between Sunni and Shia, because the once-dominant Sunni community felt marginalised. Today’s ballot, followed by a parliamentary election later this year, will determine which parties will hold power in the Sunni and Shia communities.
Unlike the 2005 election, when many Iraqis argued that real power stayed in the hands of the Americans, the vote on 31 January will take place as the 142,000 US troops in Iraq begin to depart. In keeping with the federal constitution, the new councils will exercise greatly enhanced powers such as the right to appoint and dismiss governors as well as preparing their own budget.
The election will be a crucial test for the Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has had a spectacularly successful year during which he faced down, at different times, the US, the Kurds and his Shia rivals. He has been strengthening his own small Dawa party by using state funds and patronage to buy the support of tribal leaders.
The political elite in Iraq has an unsavoury reputation among voters as a kleptocracy interested only in plundering oil wealth and incapable of providing electricity, water supply and sewage disposal.
The election will take place against a background of improved security but also disillusionment with post-Saddam leaders. “If things do not improve I fear there will be a neo-Baathist takeover in a few years,” said one former government minister.
The election of 2005 led to more violence because Sunni Arabs and many of the Shia poor did not accept them as valid and did not vote. This time round all parties accept the rules of the game.
A poll reflecting the real allegiances of voters will determine who holds power in important parts of Iraq. Nineveh, the capital of which is Mosul, has a Sunni Arab majority but has largely been ruled by Kurds in alliance with the US since a 2004 Sunni uprising. The Kurds have 31 out of 41 seats in the local council because the Sunni mostly did not vote in the last election.
Anbar, the giant province where almost all are Sunni Arabs, and once the heart of the rebellion against the US occupation, is seeing a battle for the allegiance of the Sunni community. This is between the Iraqi Islamic Party, which won by default last time round, and the Awakening Councils, tribally-based anti-al-Qa’ida militias backed by the US military which have strong popular support.
The Shia parties are also split. Four years ago they joined the all-powerful United Iraqi Alliance backed by the immensely influential Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. This coalition’s aim was to enable the Shia, 60 per cent of Iraqis, to win elections and take over as Iraq’s dominant community. They largely succeeded, but the coalition is no more.
The Grand Ayatollah is staying neutral this time around. The most powerful party, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), is at odds with Mr Maliki’s state-backed Dawa party. Followers of Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Mehdi Army militia once controlled much of Shia Iraq, still have support among the poor and will back independent candidates.
The venom with which party rivalry is conducted is because state patronage is the main source of job in Iraq where half of the population is unemployed.
Everybody, from a policem
an to a teacher, needs a letter from a political party to get a job. ISCI, which currently controls Baghdad council and most of the Shia provinces, has a powerful political machine but is widely unpopular because of its corruption.
Mr Maliki’s Dawa party currently only rules one province, Kerbala, but is organising tribal councils with government funds. The Prime Minister burnished his nationalist and non-sectarian credentials last year by attacking the Sadrists in Basra, Amara and Sadr City. The Iraqi army only won with US military help, but Mr Maliki refused to sign a status of forces agreement with the US until it agreed to pull troops out of urban areas by this summer and from Iraq by the end of 2011. He also attracted popular Arab support by moving against Kurdish control of Nineveh province and other territories disputed by Arabs and Kurds. This made him a lot of enemies among Kurds and other Shia political leaders. He needs to do well in the elections if he is going to continue to centralise power and increase his authority.
The election in numbers
*More than 14,400 candidates are vying for a seat in today’s poll. Around 3,900 are women.
*
There are 440 seats up for grabs, across 14 of Iraq’ s 18 province
s.
*300,000 observers – local and international – will monitor the poll.
*Salah al-Rekhayis, who calls himself the “Iraqi Obama”, is running in Basra and hopes to be the 1st black Iraqi to win an election.
*When there were last elections in Iraq – in January 2005 – there were 92 attacks each day. On Wednesday when some early voting took place, there was just 1 according to a US military spokesman.
*6 candidates have been killed prior to the elections – 3 on Thursday.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.