Bush and Netanyahu turned Middle East into hell on earth

The Israeli leader of the time Ariel Sharon was opposed to invasion of Iraq and he predicted the exact consequences that resulted from the USA invasion.

Meanwhil Netanyahu was spinning lies to Bush about washing machine size mobile centrifuges and the first moron of USA believed Netanyahu.

Hell on earth was then born and Middle East is severely broken because of the actions of a madman and an idiot.

Now Netanyahu is playing his dirty tricks again and seeking to foment war against Iran.

 

I'll have to read this again.. Interesting piece.. Did the Houthis fight for the royalists in the 1960s?

 

Forward.com?

There is so much wrong with this article, I cannot be bothered to begin on a mobile. More later.

 

Excerpt:

The Siege: Buildup and Aftermath

On September 26, 1962, the Yemeni imam Muhammad al-Badr, from the Zaydi clan of Hamid al-Din, was overthrown by a group of military officers who founded what is now recognized as the modern Yemeni republic, marking the end to more than a thousand years of Zaydi religious rule in Yemen. The deposed imam fled northward and gathered a coalition of Zaydi tribes to form an armed opposition to the republic.

Over the next six years, a dozen different countries and organizations intervened in the Yemeni civil war in an attempt to influence the outcome in one direction or another. The seventy-day siege of Sana in 1968 by the imam's northern tribes marked the war's culmination.

Prior to the siege, most of the political elite had fled Sana, leaving behind a weakened central government with only a few thousand soldiers to defend the capital. Despite overwhelming odds against the republic's survival, the city was saved by a combination of timely Soviet airlifts and a series of battlefield miscalculations by the imam's generals.

The defense of Sana became the defining moment in the Yemeni republic's modern history. A generation of Yemeni politicians, including former president Ali Abdullah Saleh, claim to have been among the defenders of the capital city in 1968, counting themselves as national heroes.

After six years of fighting, tens of thousands of total casualties, and untold sums of money, the Yemeni republic emerged from the civil war as a weak state reliant on foreign support for its continued existence.

The Soviet Union had invested the most money and political capital in supporting the new republic during the 1960s by financing the construction of new naval and airports, underwriting an Egyptian army of occupation that numbered 70,000, and carrying out the risky airlifts to save the capital city in 1968. After the main hostilities had subsided, Pavel Demchenko, the senior Middle East correspondent for the Soviet newspaper Pravda, made arguably the keenest observation of the entire conflict: September 1962 was not a revolution but rather "a centuries-old method of Yemeni regime change."

The Soviets had perceived Yemen through the prism of regional Arab nationalist trends and a global conflict and had failed to comprehend the civil war's local nature.

The Houthi Political Plan: A Return to the Imamate?

In September of this year, the Houthis, following the precedent set by the last Zaydi imam, descended on the capital city with the express intention of challenging the modern Yemeni republic. Today's images of Houthi tribesmen in traditional Yemeni dress brandishing weapons and ammunition as they near the city's gates echo those from the 1968 siege. Indeed, the tradition of sieges of the city dates back as early as the fifth century, when the Sasanian Empire enacted such a siege. Also central to the tradition of targeting the capital city as a means of bringing down the state was permission granted to loyal tribesman, upon victory, to loot the city as payment for their military service. Today, discussions with Sana residents indicate fears that Houthi looting and intimidation may foretell further violence. Those who personally recall the 1968 siege say they half expect to see, as they did four decades ago, the heads of rebels or collaborators adorning the gates of the city's main marketplace.

The historic parallels between the Houthi rebellion and the former Zaydi imam's tribal forces of the 1960s go beyond mere conjecture. The Houthi family leadership claims legitimacy as members of the sayyed class, or direct descendants of the Prophet Muhammad. The select families belonging to this lineage constitute a form of limited nobility in Yemen, with many of them marrying only within the sayyed class.

The current Houthi leader, Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, belongs to a sayyed family and, despite his youthful age of thirty-two, studiously flaunts his title, following the practice of his father, grandfather, and brothers. More than an indicator of nobility, sayyed status is an essential criterion for becoming imam. Although official Houthi media and publications deny any intentions of restoring the Yemeni imamate, it is well known in Yemeni society that members of the sayyed class harbor visions of restoring a religious leadership and resuming hierarchical supremacy.

The Houthi resurgence began during the 1990s with a program of Zaydi religious education that was seen as a challenge to the secular Yemeni government and to Saudi influence on Yemeni society. This program, alongside a platform advocating equal rights for all Yemenis and an end to the state's political corruption, has generated popular support for the Houthi opposition. During the street protests of 2011, Houthi representatives sat alongside Yemeni students in Sana's Tahrir Square calling for President Saleh's resignation and extensive government reform. As the central government grew weaker and the opposition movement grew stronger, members of the Houthi leadership began advocating a more ambitious political agenda and military expansion aimed at asserting their tribal power over the current government. In the two years since Saleh's 2012 resignation, massive Houthi protests have devolved into a new phase of armed conflict with the Yemeni government, with Houthi troops advancing southward from their tribal stronghold in the north, reaching Sana by September 2014.

continued.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/...68-siege-of-sana-a-houthi-historical-parallel

 

That's how losers of debates start their monologue.

 

This has been "Revisionist History" with Denizen.

 

You are obviously deeply wounded by truth and facts.

 

George H.W. Bush, the only intelligent Bush to occupy the White House, also warned junior against invading Iraq. Instead, he listened to the neo-cons and believed the lies being fed to him by Cheney and others. Hell, even the Germans told him that "Curveball" should not be trusted, but Bush & Co. swallowed the whole package.

 

Actually you are incorrect......... You can read about the history of the Houthis at the link above.

 

...and every major Democrat leader at the time too. Forget that?

 

The idea was to sell the war on Iraq... and the Bush administration did.

 

No-----------------it was Obama and his political promises the created the power vacuum in the ME that turned it into a quagmire!!!

 

With the gang violence and turf wars Obama has turned the middle east into Chicago so what is the difference?

 

If I felt I would lose, why would I begin? I know logic isnt your thing but cmon. Your source is a socialist progressive opinion piece detached from any tether to reality or facts. I just am not ready to destroy it from a tiny keyboard while driving.

 

You mean this sell job? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSwSDvgw5Uc

Note the dates....before Bush or Cheney were in office. Weird huh?

 

I also..... rather like President Bush........ am still concerned that Iraq may have been very close to obtaining some extremely dangerous devices.

I think that President Bush preferred to be looked on as an idiot over giving Americans any real idea of how much danger that they really were in.

The former Soviet Union got ahead of America in several areas of military technology. One of these areas was softball sized dirty nuclear weapons. Iraq had so much money...… that almost any idiot could have gotten a hold of these once the Soviet Union fell.

 

You are implying as Bush did, that the UN weapons inspectors were incompetent. Facts proved that UN weapons inspectors were correct and Bush and CIA were wrong.

 

It is common knowledge that U. N. workers of just about every type seem to have a level of competence that make them better candidates for a bureaucracy than any serious private sector company!

Now imagine for a moment that you are President of Iraq in '80's and 90's.

Imagine that you are being offered the possibility of obtaining nuclear weapons.

Then read the following article …. and read between the lines………….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khidir_Hamza