• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

War on terror = War for Israel

White

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What do you think ?

That´s my opinion and i´m going to bring some articles to back up it.

TEL AVIV – In an exclusive interview with Israel’s daily Yediot Aharonot recently, National Security Adviser Dr. Condoleezza Rice said that the “security of Israel is the key to security of the world.” Rice added that she feels “a deep bond to Israel.
http://www.jewishpress.com/news_article.asp?article=2380

"EVERY TIME WE DO SOMETHING, YOU TELL ME AMERICANS WILL DO THIS AND WILL DO THAT. I WANT TO TELL YOU SOMETHING VERY CLEAR: DON'T WORRY ABOUT AMERICAN PRESSURE ON ISRAEL;

WE, THE JEWISH PEOPLE, CONTROL AMERICA. AND THE AMERICANS KNOW IT."

-- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
October 3, 2001
(IAP News)

http://www.rense.com/general45/sharonsinfamouscomment.htm

Does our government and the United Nations have knowledge of this? He replied: "The United Nations is nothing but a trap-door to the Red World's immense concentration camp. We pretty much control the U.N."

Harold Wallace Rosenthal

http://www.rense.com/general66/rosen.htm

"It's all run by Jews, even Disney. That's funny, because Walt Disney was a terrible reactionary. If he found out that Jeffrey Katzenberg were running his company, he'd be spinning in his grave. That's a wonderful bit of poetic justice."

Rob Reiner, Film Director, on Hollywood in 1992:

http://www.blacksandjews.com/Quotes_and_Facts.html

http://ifamericansonlyknew.com/

http://nowarforisrael.com/

http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_oilwar.htm

http://www.davidduke.com/

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion ...chai Vanunu Interviewed By Hesham Tillawi.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4743987.stm

http://www.rense.com/general53/rev.htm

http://www.rense.com/general67/vanu.htm

http://www.rense.com/general66/whos.htm

http://rense.com/general61/warforis.htm

http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html


PS. Is there enough material for a conversation now ?
 

Blake Johnson

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
Re: War on terror = War on Israel

I dont see any war on Israel in the Bush admins "war On Terror".

In fact Israel seem to do very well out of such wars. They have already seen their pesky neighbour Saddam removed by their US lap dogs. Iran could be the next to go.


So im sorry, I fail to see how your thread title is correct.
 

White

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: War on terror = War on Israel

Could someone fix the headline, war FOR Israel....

:doh
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,226
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Re: War on terror = War on Israel

White said:
Could someone fix the headline, war FOR Israel
Lol... Not a very auspicious DP start for you White.



 

White

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: War on terror = War on Israel

Tashah said:
Lol... Not a very auspicious DP start for you White.



Could you fix the headline ?
 

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: War on terror = War on Israel

White said:
"EVERY TIME WE DO SOMETHING, YOU TELL ME AMERICANS WILL DO THIS AND WILL DO THAT. I WANT TO TELL YOU SOMETHING VERY CLEAR: DON'T WORRY ABOUT AMERICAN PRESSURE ON ISRAEL;

WE, THE JEWISH PEOPLE, CONTROL AMERICA. AND THE AMERICANS KNOW IT."

-- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
October 3, 2001
(IAP News)

http://www.rense.com/general45/sharonsinfamouscomment.htm
I don't know if I believe Mr. Sharon said that.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
This thread reeks of anti semitism
All the same, even ADL's Abraham Foxman noted that it's legitimate to question our leaders' relationship with Israel.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'd've approcahed the issue a little more like this:

What the Heck Is a Neocon?
Max Boot
...support for Israel -- a key tenet of neoconservatism...

The National Security Strategy that he released in September -- which calls for "encouraging free and open societies on every continent" -- sounds as if it could have come straight from the pages of Commentary magazine, the neocon bible. [the monthly of the American Jewish Committee]

One group of conservatives believes that we should use armed force only to defend our vital national interests... The idea of bringing democracy to the Middle East they denounce as a mad, hubristic dream likely to backfire with tragic consequences. This view...[called] "realism," is championed by foreign-policy mandarins like Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and James Baker III.

...[Neocons] think..."realism" presents far too crabbed a view of American power and responsibility. ...[suggesting] we need to promote our values...[because] liberal democracies rarely fight one another, sponsor terrorism, or use weapons of mass destruction. If we are to avoid another 9/11, they argue, we need to liberalize the Middle East...
...[Neocons] embrace Woodrow Wilson's championing of American ideals but reject his reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish our objectives.​
Here's an interesting article that covers quite a bit of ground on this issue. Granted, it doesn't cover the ground thoroughly, but it is a nice survey.

Quote:
Israel's Role: The 'Elephant' They're Talking About
FEBRUARY 28, 2003
By AMI EDEN
FORWARD STAFF

...the Israeli-Jewish elephant has been on...respected media outlets... Washington Post, The New York Times, the American Prospect, the Washington Times, the Economist, the New York Review of Books, CNN and MSNBC. ...the proverbial pachyderm...in the middle of "Meet the Press,"...

Tim Russert read from...the Washington Times, Arnaud de Borchgrave...that the "strategic objective"...was to secure Israel's borders by launching a crusade to democratize the Arab world.
[Then asked Richard Perle:]
"Can you assure American viewers across our country that we're in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests?" Russert asked.

"And what would be the link in terms of Israel?"

...a startling question, especially when directed at Perle... If Russert is asking...on national television, then...The question...is now a legitimate query to be floated in polite company.

...Washington Post...[an] attempt to demonstrate an unprecedented political partnership between Sharon and Bush...Robert Kaiser..."Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical On Mideast Policy." ...[including] a paragraph outlining a supposed rightward shift among American Jewish organizations.

"Over the past dozen years or more, supporters of Sharon's Likud Party have moved into leadership roles in most of the American Jewish organizations that provide financial and political support for Israel" [Kaiser]

...January 25... the Economist published a lead editorial urging Bush to ignore "so-called friends of Israel who will accuse Mr. Bush of 'appeasement' the moment he pushes hard for territorial compromise." [available by subscription only]

Several Jewish commentators have...[warned] that subtle and not-so-subtle antisemitic undertones permeate the new wave of anti-war criticism. ...critics have charged these writers with unfairly playing the antisemitic card [to silence] opposition...

[Anti-Defamation League national director Abraham Foxman:]
...accept as legitimate questions concerning the pro-Israel leanings of administration officials...
...it is...legitimate to question where the Sharon government or American Jewish groups stand on the war, the...line is... [portraying] these entities as a...Jewish conspiracy...[controlling]American foreign policy.
...American Jews are sometimes too quick to assume that antisemitism is at play...
"It is an old canard that Jews control America and American foreign policy. During both world wars, antisemites said that Jews manipulated America into war. So when you begin to hear it again, there is good reason for us to be aware of it and sensitive to it."​
Choice excerpts from the hard to find MtP transcript:
'Meet the Press' -- February 23, 2003

Quote:
TR: Richard Perle, there's been discussion about the role of Israel and the formulation of American foreign policy regarding Iraq. Let me show you an article from The Washington Times, written by [Arnaud de Borchgrave]:
Quote:

"The strategic objective is the antithesis of Middle Eastern stability. The de-stabilization of 'despotic regimes' comes next.

<snip>

"The roots of the overall strategy can be traced to a paper published in 1996 by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, an Israeli think tank. The document was titled 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm'.

"Israel...would 'shape its strategic environment', beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein.

"Prominent American opinion-makers who are now senior members of the Bush administration participated in the discussions and the drafting that led to this 1996 blueprint."​
Can you assure American viewers across our country that we're in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?

RP: Well, first of all, the answer is absolutely yes. Those of us who believe that we should take this action if Saddam doesn't disarm- and I doubt that he's going to - believe it's in the best interests of the United States. I don't see what would be wrong with surrounding Israel with democracies; indeed, if the whole world were democratic, we'd live in a much safer international security system because democracies do not wage aggressive wars.
Choice excerpts from the Arnaud de Borchgrave article:

Quote:

A Bush-Sharon Doctrine?
Arnaud de Borchgrave
Monday, Feb. 17, 2003

...strategic objectives of the U.S. and Israel...have...merged into a...Bush-Sharon Doctrine.

...Washington's "Likudniks" — Ariel Sharon's powerful backers in the Bush administration — have been in charge of U.S. policy in the Middle East since President Bush was sworn into office.

In alliance with Evangelical Christians, these policy-makers include some of the most powerful players in the Bush administration.

Mr. Sharon...[convinced] Mr. Bush that the war on Palestinian terrorism was identical to the global war on terror. Next came a campaign to convince U.S. public opinion that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were allies...

...senior members* of the Bush administration participated in the discussions and the drafting that led to this 1996 blueprint.
Prime Minister Sharon has flown to Washington...more frequently than any other head of state or government [in those two years].

*[ Richard Perle,Study Group Leader, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, Meyrav Wurmser ]​
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Choice excerpts from the WaPo's Bob Kaiser article:
Quote:

Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical On Mideast Policy
By Robert G. Kaiser
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 9, 2003; Page A01

"This is the best administration for Israel since Harry Truman [who first recognized an independent Israel]," said Thomas Neumann, executive director of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs [JINSA], a think tank that promotes strategic cooperation with Israel as vital to U.S. security interests.

"Every president since at least Nixon has seen the Arab-Israeli conflict as the central strategic issue in the Middle East," "But this administration sees Iraq as the central challenge, and . . . has disengaged from any serious effort to confront the Arab-Israeli problem." [Sandy Berger]

The turning point...[was] when Bush embraced Sharon's view...[that] Yasser Arafat's removal as leader of the Palestinian Authority [was] a condition of future diplomacy. That was "a clear shift in policy," Kenneth R. Weinstein...of the Hudson Institute, a conservative supporter of Israel and Likud.

...Bush appointed..[a] critic of the traditional peace process, Elliott Abrams, director of Mideast affairs for the National Security Council.

"The Likudniks are really in charge now," said a senior government official... Neumann agreed that Abrams's appointment was symbolically important, not least because Abrams's views were shared by...Condoleezza Rice, ...Cheney and...Rumsfeld. "It's a strong lineup," he said.

Abrams is a former assistant secretary of state...[under] Reagan...convicted on two counts of lying to Congress in the Iran-contra scandal...

...Meyrav Wurmser of the Hudson Institute...: "Elliott's appointment is a signal that the hard-liners in the administration are playing a more central role in shaping policy."

...David Wurmser, [is] ...a special assistant to Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton and Douglas J. Feith,...undersecretary of defense for policy...​
JINSA members have included such NeoCon notables as, The Hon. Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Hon. R. James Woolsey, Jr., Dr. Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, and Hon. John Bolton.

Richard N. Perle, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser are also members of the Hudson Institute's Board of Trustees.

And, of course, the esteemed AEI and PNAC share members with a number of the aforementioned folks. But, that goes almost w/o saying.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The line is portraying these entities as a Jewish conspiracy controlling American foreign policy.

It doesn't mean that just because someone is an Israeli and/or Jewish that they are somehow beyond reproach in polite company. Obviously human nature remains human nature despite whoever our relatives may be.

Nor do the actions a some folks who belong to a group mean that every member of that group is "in on it."

As I understand it, Israel has a fairly tumultuous democratic process w/ numerous profound disagreements within in it. It'd be silly to think that all Israelis, or even all Isreali politicians are involved in whatever cahoots are going on w/ the current set of scoundrels in DC these days. As silly as that is, it's trebly silly to broaden the involvement to Jews in general.

Also note that as far as conspiracy theory of what's going on is concerned, a central hub is in Italy's outlawed Propagand Due Masonic lodge. This lodge hosts folks of a wide variety of ethnic and religious backgrounds. While I think some folks who place a priority on what they see as Israel's interests (views which not many Israelis do not share) are involved in the shenanigans in DC, I don't think it's a Jewish conspiracy nor are those involved limited by their heritage.
 

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There's a movie on this "protocols of zion" it's still out on theatres I think.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Che said:
There's a movie on this "protocols of zion" it's still out on theatres I think.
I knew it was a long-discredited piece of anti-semitic propaganda, but i didn't know there was a movie of the same name.
 

Vader

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
8,260
Reaction score
1,064
Location
Whitewater, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Re: War on terror = War on Israel

Gandhi>Bush said:
I don't know if I believe Mr. Sharon said that.
I agree. I do not think Ariel Sharon would be blazen enough to make a statement of that veracity.
 

White

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: War on terror = War on Israel

Vader said:
I agree. I do not think Ariel Sharon would be blazen enough to make a statement of that veracity.
Yeah right, don´t believe. :doh

"Israel controls the U.S. Senate. The Senate is subservient, much too much; we should be more concerned about U.S. interests rather than doing the bidding of Israel. The great majority of the Senate of the U.S. - somewhere around 80% - is completely in support of Israel; anything Israel wants; Israel gets. This has been demonstrated time and again, and this has made [foreign policy] difficult for our government."


J. William Fulbright told CBS Face the Nation on April 15, 1973
 

Tashah

w&#668;&#618;&#1090;e &#1103;uss&#618;a&#1080;
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,226
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Re: War on terror = War on Israel

White said:
"Israel controls the U.S. Senate. The Senate is subservient, much too much; we should be more concerned about U.S. interests rather than doing the bidding of Israel. The great majority of the Senate of the U.S. - somewhere around 80% - is completely in support of Israel; anything Israel wants; Israel gets. This has been demonstrated time and again, and this has made [foreign policy] difficult for our government."
J. William Fulbright told CBS Face the Nation on April 15, 1973
1973? White... we're on the cusp of 2006. Instead of borrowing quotes that are over 30 years old (older than me), why not put forth in your own words why a War on terror = War for Israel?

Simon is correct. It is perfectly legitimate, and in fact a responsibility of every government to analyze and question its foreign portfolio. Could you be kind (or proficient) enough to provide us with your assessment of US policy vis-a-vis Israel?

One more nagging minor item White. If Israel gets anything that it wants from the US, why are there still no US stealth aircraft in the IDF?



 
Last edited:

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: War on terror = War on Israel

Tashah said:
1973? White... we're on the cusp of 2006. Instead of borrowing quotes that are over 30 years old (older than me), why not put forth in your own words why a War on terror = War for Israel?

Simon is correct. It is perfectly legitimate, and in fact a responsibility of every government to analyze and question its foreign portfolio. Could you be kind (or proficient) enough to provide us with your assessment of US policy vis-a-vis Israel?

One more nagging minor item White. If Israel gets anything that it wants from the US, why are there still no US stealth aircraft in the IDF?



This is not an anti-semitic statement when I say this. I think that Israel really did attack a US destroyer back in the 1970s and their was a cover up during the investigation to prevent the true facts from being known. What is your take on it Tashah? I think this really did happen, the willful and intentional attack and the following coverup. Some of the US sailors spoke about it who survived the attack on the ship. I personally don't think that Israel or "the Jews" "control" the US government, rather I think it is a possibility that the US government is using Israel.
 

Tashah

w&#668;&#618;&#1090;e &#1103;uss&#618;a&#1080;
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,226
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Re: War on terror = War on Israel

TimmyBoy said:
This is not an anti-semitic statement when I say this. I think that Israel really did attack a US destroyer back in the 1970s and their was a cover up during the investigation to prevent the true facts from being known. What is your take on it Tashah? I think this really did happen, the willful and intentional attack and the following coverup. Some of the US sailors spoke about it who survived the attack on the ship. I personally don't think that Israel or "the Jews" "control" the US government, rather I think it is a possibility that the US government is using Israel.
You are referring to the USS Liberty incident. The Liberty is a US warship (a frigate I believe) that harvests electronic information, and it was indeed attacked by Israeli aircraft while in a hot war zone.

About six months ago, someone else here asked me about that incident so I looked into the subject. There were five subsequent investigations about the Liberty incident... three Israeli investigations (Knesset and IDF) and two US Congressional inquiries. The three Israeli investigations absolved the IDF of wrongful attack. The two Congressional investigations determined that for reasons unknown (faulty communications?), the USS Liberty did not respond to explicit orders to withdraw an additional 20 miles which would have placed it outside the theater of engagement. The Liberty also did not respond to an identity request by the IDF aircraft. Recorded in-flight conversations of the IDF pilots also indicated that the Liberty was not flagged. The US Navy later reprimanded the Liberty captain, and removed him from active sea command.

The relations between the US and Israel is an intricate dance, and they both certainly 'use' each other to an extent. It is perhaps safe to say that the US Christian Evangelical community (pro-Israel) has far greater influence in Congress than the US Jewish lobby.



 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: War on terror = War on Israel

Tashah said:
You are referring to the USS Liberty incident. The Liberty is a US warship (a frigate I believe) that harvests electronic information, and it was indeed attacked by Israeli aircraft while in a hot war zone.

About six months ago, someone else here asked me about that incident so I looked into the subject. There were five subsequent investigations about the Liberty incident... three Israeli investigations (Knesset and IDF) and two US Congressional inquiries. The three Israeli investigations absolved the IDF of wrongful attack. The two Congressional investigations determined that for reasons unknown (faulty communications?), the USS Liberty did not respond to explicit orders to withdraw an additional 20 miles which would have placed it outside the theater of engagement. The Liberty also did not respond to an identity request by the IDF aircraft. Recorded in-flight conversations of the IDF pilots also indicated that the Liberty was not flagged. The US Navy later reprimanded the Liberty captain, and removed him from active sea command.

The relations between the US and Israel is an intricate dance, and they both certainly 'use' each other to an extent. It is perhaps safe to say that the US Christian Evangelical community (pro-Israel) has far greater influence in Congress than the US Jewish lobby.



I wasn't on the USS Liberty on the day the attack took place. Their are some US sailors demanding a Congressional inquiry into the matter who survived the attack. Some of these sailors believe it was intentional and their was a cover up. A US Admiral a few years ago came on the news and said the investigations into incident was nothing but a cover up and that indeed the Israeli attack was intentional and they knew they were attacking a US ship. I can't say for sure myself. What I can say, is that while in Bosnia, I know for 100% sure that the US government was covering up the massive genocide in Bosnia in order to prevent political pressure from being raised on Clinton to intervene to stop the genocide. On top of that, I saw where the US government rewarded and accomadated criminals who committed genocide. With these personal experiences in mind, I can't rule out a cover up and the US government could be lying since I know they did lie in Bosnia. The US government surrendered it's integrity in Bosnia so therefore I can never be sure if what the US government is saying or claiming is actually true. Investigations and governments do tell outright lies to the people and many people believe these lies. However, i can't say for sure what really happenned.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Before we stray too far afield, remember we're talking about the GWoT.
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In my opinion, I believe there is a basis for a conclusion that the pro-Isreal lobby had influence on why our country attacked Iraq.

A major argument in favor of the war is the concept that Hussein supported terrorists. The most credible point supporting this argument that I have seen is that Hussein contributed $25k to family members survining Palestinians who died fighting Isreal. I have seen no credible evidence that Hussein supported Al-Queda, terrorists against America, or was ever implicated in a terrorist attack against the US. The terrorist threat represented by Hussein, if any, was clearly (IMO) directed towards Isreal, not against the US. Hussein, in general, represented a much greater threat against Isreal than the US. Coupled with the neocon pro-Isreal influence, I believe this aspect was a factor promoting war against Iraq. Upon that basis, I think the war was misguided. It may have been in Isreal's interest, but that is not a basis for the US to invade and occupy Iraq.

I personally do not believe that was a motivating factor for Bush, although the political implications cannot be completely discounted. My personal feeling is that his motivation against Iraq probably had more to do with his dad, and the political beneifits of acting tough after our country was attacked on 9/11, than a desire to go to war on Isreal's behalf.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I whole-heartedly agree that a lobby who thinks of themselves as pro-Israel had a hand in selling the war inside the beltway. I just can't see how it was the only hand.
I think with all thiings of this magnitude everyone who thinks they've got something to gain threw their weight behind it. I also think that allowing PACs to lobby legislatures, write bills and contribute ot election campaigns and political parties is the Achilles heel of all representative forms of govt that allow artificial persons the all of the same rights as real persons.
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Simon W. Moon said:
I whole-heartedly agree that a lobby who thinks of themselves as pro-Israel had a hand in selling the war inside the beltway. I just can't see how it was the only hand.
I think with all thiings of this magnitude everyone who thinks they've got something to gain threw their weight behind it. I also think that allowing PACs to lobby legislatures, write bills and contribute ot election campaigns and political parties is the Achilles heel of all representative forms of govt that allow artificial persons the all of the same rights as real persons.
Good points.
 

White

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: War on terror = War on Israel

Tashah said:
1973? White... we're on the cusp of 2006. Instead of borrowing quotes that are over 30 years old (older than me), why not put forth in your own words why a War on terror = War for Israel?

Simon is correct. It is perfectly legitimate, and in fact a responsibility of every government to analyze and question its foreign portfolio. Could you be kind (or proficient) enough to provide us with your assessment of US policy vis-a-vis Israel?

One more nagging minor item White. If Israel gets anything that it wants from the US, why are there still no US stealth aircraft in the IDF?



Hey hey, look my first post. This one just proofs how long people have been aware about this thing.

Ps. English isn´t my first language.
 
Top Bottom