If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   US-Israel Security Cooperation Act passes almost unanimously. "Try as I might, I can't think of a single thing this "ally" has ever done for me, or any other American citizen, in my 57 years"   (lewrockwell.com) divider line 379
    More: Obvious, american citizens, Israelis, Americans, military base, democracy in the Middle East, Israeli government  
•       •       •

4628 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 May 2012 at 1:33 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



379 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-15 05:13:57 PM  

intelligent comment below: Geotpf: Exactly my point. But, no, the crazy Evangelicals think the Jews have to control all of ancient Israel before the rapture can happen (or some such shiat), so here we are.


Power hungry people always hide their true intentions in rhetoric they think can trick their supporters. Using Biblical excuses is just that, an excuse to hide their true intentions. The fact is right wingers couldn't care less about Jews or Israel. Just look at how their savior Ronald Raygun reacted after the IDF bombed Saddam's nuclear plants and how they told Israel to sit around while Saddam was sending scud missile attacks during the Gulf War.


I dunno, I think that the religious right is one of the main reasons, if not the reason, we support Israel so strongly. If it wasn't for them, Israel's lobbying wouldn't be so effective. You are right that the religious (Christian) right don't really care about the Jews, except for their role in triggering the rapture.
 
2012-05-15 05:14:54 PM  

DavidVincent: Geotpf: DavidVincent: Geotpf: My personal opinion is that we should tell the Israelis (and the Palenstians, and the Saudis, and everybody else in the region) to go play in traffic, withdraw completely from the region, and write HERE THERE BE DRAGONS on all maps. The Middle East has Christian holy sites, oil, and lots of crazy people who want to kill each other (and us, by extension). The value of the first two is less than the cost of dealing with the third. Besides, it's not like we have to actually go over there to buy their oil-whoever is in power will be perfectly willing to sell it to us no matter what (or are at least willing to sell it to people who are willing to sell it to us).


I don't see every other nation in the world with military bases over there fighting wars to get their oil. Can't we just buy it like everyone else?

Exactly my point. But, no, the crazy Evangelicals think the Jews have to control all of ancient Israel before the rapture can happen (or some such shiat), so here we are.


I couldn't resist the little joke but we agree.


Well, that's true too. But that's why the Israeli government does what it does, not why the US government supports them.
 
2012-05-15 05:15:40 PM  
Saddam fired Scuds only in response to the invasion of his country. They only killed one Israeli. Sounds like a HUGE threat to me, sarcasm.

Paying benefits to suicide bombers is something every middle eastern nation does, including a US ally Saudi Arabia. Why can't you just admit you were wrong and America fights wars for Saudi Arabia who sets the price of oil by either restricting or enhancing production?

Neocons are necons, in the pockets of big business. That has nothing to do with Israel demanding America go to war, every right wing thing tank was beating the war drums. You lack the facts to back up your claims, I give you well documented history, and all you can do is get all emo and call me a fascist or a disingenuous troll while being guilty of trolling yourself.
 
2012-05-15 05:16:08 PM  

intelligent comment below: Hobodeluxe: you keep saying that but that's not what the goal was. the goal was to prop up friendly regimes that would be under the watchful eyes of permanent military bases placed in those countries. to remove Hussein and the Taliban from power. To put US (and Israel by proxy) in charge of the region. And make no mistake Iran is next on the list and you know it you disingenuous troll.


Because giving democracy to those countries will really create US and Israel "friendly" regimes. What exactly did the Taliban and Saddam do to threaten Israel? Absolutely nothing. Saddam learned his lesson not to mess with Israel on the 7th of June, 1981.

Keep with the insults and personal attacks, it shows how intelligent you really are to not address anything I've stated with anything resembling a fact. Letting emotions cloud your judgment because you can't accept you live an unsustainable lifestyle with cheap oil. Typical American.


So what country ARE you from?
I don't want to guess Israel. I guessed liamlepracahn and queeg queeg were both Jewish but I was wrong on both counts. No more guessing for me. They're both highly principled individuals but liam needs to be a little nicer.
 
2012-05-15 05:18:01 PM  

Geotpf: I dunno, I think that the religious right is one of the main reasons, if not the reason, we support Israel so strongly. If it wasn't for them, Israel's lobbying wouldn't be so effective. You are right that the religious (Christian) right don't really care about the Jews, except for their role in triggering the rapture.



America does not support Israel so strongly. The money given is only to keep peace between Egypt and Israel, and it's all just welfare for American defense contractors to pad their profits. America was not on Israel's side in any of the wars. America is on the side of paying Israel to not piss off their oil dealers.
 
2012-05-15 05:18:45 PM  

DavidVincent: So what country ARE you from?
I don't want to guess Israel. I guessed liamlepracahn and queeg queeg were both Jewish but I was wrong on both counts. No more guessing for me. They're both highly principled individuals but liam needs to be a little nicer.



What does this have to do with all your failed arguments
 
2012-05-15 05:19:00 PM  

Geotpf: intelligent comment below: Geotpf: Exactly my point. But, no, the crazy Evangelicals think the Jews have to control all of ancient Israel before the rapture can happen (or some such shiat), so here we are.


Power hungry people always hide their true intentions in rhetoric they think can trick their supporters. Using Biblical excuses is just that, an excuse to hide their true intentions. The fact is right wingers couldn't care less about Jews or Israel. Just look at how their savior Ronald Raygun reacted after the IDF bombed Saddam's nuclear plants and how they told Israel to sit around while Saddam was sending scud missile attacks during the Gulf War.

I dunno, I think that the religious right is one of the main reasons, if not the reason, we support Israel so strongly. If it wasn't for them, Israel's lobbying wouldn't be so effective. You are right that the religious (Christian) right don't really care about the Jews, except for their role in triggering the rapture.


the religious right is a huge influence but don't discount the big Wall st money or the Jewish control of a lot of media. Just look at the board of directors and owners of the biggest media conglomerates in the US. Especially the print media. They are almost all pro-Israel. Even the supposedly "liberal" NYT. How many editorials do they run supporting Israel's positions vs those that question them? How many journalists have been fired for questioning it? Or even suggesting there is a bias.
 
2012-05-15 05:21:18 PM  

Hobodeluxe: the Jewish control of a lot of media.



Yes, the right wing media beating the war drums, controlled by that Jew Rupert Murdock.
 
2012-05-15 05:22:37 PM  

HairBolus: bhcompy: Philip Francis Queeg: How does assassinating a Hamas operative directly benefit the United States?

Regarding the Hamas case, nothing directly, but Israel also farks with Iran on a regular basis, which does help us out.

How does farking with Iran help the US? Without outside farking Iran could well be on it way towards being a Western Democracy. Outside farking only empowers the local fundamentalists who actually have external devils to point to.

The Neo-Cons, the Israeli right, and Muslim fundamentalists all need clearly evil opponents and if they didn't have them they would create them. Why do you think OBL attacked the US?


Oh, I know why Bin Laden attacked the US: Petty jealousy due to him losing a military contract to the United States.

When Iraq attacked Kuwait, the Saudis feared he would attack them next. Bin Laden, fresh from kicking the Soviets out of Afghanistan with his merry men on horseback, went to the House of Saud to offer his services to protect the birthplace of Islam from Saddam. The Saudis told him to go fark himself and got the US to do the job. (Horrors! Infidels in the Holy Land! Women driving cars!) Bin Laden got his panties in a wad, stewed for 10 years, 9/11.

A side note of this is that Bin Laden and Saddam were mortal enemies, not friends, as the Bush administration tried to get people to think.
 
2012-05-15 05:22:41 PM  
And the Saudi royal family who owns such a large portion of Newscorp. Those evil Jews
 
2012-05-15 05:23:45 PM  

Geotpf: Oh, I know why Bin Laden attacked the US: Petty jealousy due to him losing a military contract to the United States.

When Iraq attacked Kuwait, the Saudis feared he would attack them next. Bin Laden, fresh from kicking the Soviets out of Afghanistan with his merry men on horseback, went to the House of Saud to offer his services to protect the birthplace of Islam from Saddam. The Saudis told him to go fark himself and got the US to do the job. (Horrors! Infidels in the Holy Land! Women driving cars!) Bin Laden got his panties in a wad, stewed for 10 years, 9/11.

A side note of this is that Bin Laden and Saddam were mortal enemies, not friends, as the Bush administration tried to get people to think.



You disingenuous troll! fascist! That's impossible! All those wars were because Israel wanted American kids to die fighting for their glory!
 
2012-05-15 05:24:43 PM  

intelligent comment below: Geotpf: I dunno, I think that the religious right is one of the main reasons, if not the reason, we support Israel so strongly. If it wasn't for them, Israel's lobbying wouldn't be so effective. You are right that the religious (Christian) right don't really care about the Jews, except for their role in triggering the rapture.


America does not support Israel so strongly. The money given is only to keep peace between Egypt and Israel, and it's all just welfare for American defense contractors to pad their profits. America was not on Israel's side in any of the wars. America is on the side of paying Israel to not piss off their oil dealers.


America is Israel's only friend on the entire planet. If it wasn't for our veto vote in the UN Security Council, an arab-led UN force would have invaded the West Bank decades ago.
 
2012-05-15 05:27:49 PM  
Israel provides the U.S. with the good intelligence in the Middle-East. The C.I.A. can't even fly a stealth RC plane over Iran without crashing it.
 
2012-05-15 05:27:58 PM  

intelligent comment below: Hobodeluxe: the Jewish control of a lot of media.


Yes, the right wing media beating the war drums, controlled by that Jew Rupert Murdock.


Do you really need a list of Jewish media owners and those in the executive position and board of directors posted?
Do you really need me to post examples of those who bucked the system who found themselves out of a job so fast they didn't have a chance to catch their breath?
Murdoch's empire is a direct result of his Father's marriage into a prominent Jewish media family.

BIOGRAPHICAL details of [Rupert] Murdoch's past are sketchy and often contradictory. One reads that his grandfather was an impoverished Presbyterian minister who migrated to Australia from England, that his father was a low-paid reporter for a British newspaper in Australia, and yet, young Rupert divided his time between his family's suburban home near Melbourne and the family's sheep ranch in the country. He was educated first at the fashionable Geelong private school, and went on to the elitist and aristocratic Oxford University in England.

"Rupert's father Sir Keith Murdoch attained his prominent position in Australian society through a fortuitous marriage to the daughter of a wealthy Jewish family, née Elisabeth Joy Greene. Through his wife's connections, Keith Murdoch was subsequently promoted from reporter to chairman of the British-owned newspaper where he worked. There was enough money to buy himself a knighthood of the British realm, two newspapers in Adelaide, South Australia, and a radio station in a faraway mining town. For some reason, Murdoch has always tried to hide the fact that his pious mother brought him up as a Jew...

And that, as I am sure you know, makes him a Jew according to the law of the Talmud, and indeed according to the present laws of Israel.
 
2012-05-15 05:28:12 PM  

intelligent comment below: Geotpf: Oh, I know why Bin Laden attacked the US: Petty jealousy due to him losing a military contract to the United States.

When Iraq attacked Kuwait, the Saudis feared he would attack them next. Bin Laden, fresh from kicking the Soviets out of Afghanistan with his merry men on horseback, went to the House of Saud to offer his services to protect the birthplace of Islam from Saddam. The Saudis told him to go fark himself and got the US to do the job. (Horrors! Infidels in the Holy Land! Women driving cars!) Bin Laden got his panties in a wad, stewed for 10 years, 9/11.

A side note of this is that Bin Laden and Saddam were mortal enemies, not friends, as the Bush administration tried to get people to think.


You disingenuous troll! fascist! That's impossible! All those wars were because Israel wanted American kids to die fighting for their glory!


I see no upside in supporting Israel, but our support for Israel was never Bin Laden's main beef with the US (he mentioned it from time to time, mainly to get Muslims on his side, but that wasn't his real cause).
 
2012-05-15 05:28:20 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Party Boy: liam76: They don't have ethnic discrimination in immigration

I just want to see you state, clearly, that this is what you actually intended to say.

When someone says race, to me, that is saying they are going to say no to all arabs (although you can make the argument that is ethnicity as well) .

My point is that they are say no to palestenians, not to all arabs.


Philip Francis Queeg: The British Mandate Policy was based no more on Race than the current Israeli policy. It set quotas for Jewish immigration and had a goal of maintaining the proportions of Jewish and Palestinian populations

It had a quota for jews but none for arabs. That sounds like it is based on race to me.

It wasn't trying to maintain "palestinian" proportion. The word you are looking fro is Arab.

"Arab" is no more a Race than "Palestinian".


You are trying real hard not to get the point.

If someone from aPAlestenian family was born in the US they would face no extra hurdle in becoming ISraeli, hence it isn't "racist" (even if you are using a loose defintiion of the term to mean against "ethnicities")

Party Boy: liam76: You seem to have some point

liam76: They don't have ethnic discrimination in immigration.

That this statement is just unconscionable in how wrong it is.

Make it right.


See above.

Nothing wrong with it.

IT would be like saying that not allowing Japanese to become US citizens during WWII was racist.
 
2012-05-15 05:28:32 PM  

Geotpf: America is Israel's only friend on the entire planet. If it wasn't for our veto vote in the UN Security Council, an arab-led UN force would have invaded the West Bank decades ago.



Again, that is only a recent development coinciding with the Oslo peace accords and the payments of billions to Israel and Egypt to keep peace. The Arabs need much more than the blue helmets to think they have a chance at winning a war. The deal is America backs Israel in the UN, and Israel doesn't do anything to piss off Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar.
 
2012-05-15 05:30:12 PM  

Hobodeluxe: And that, as I am sure you know, makes him a Jew according to the law of the Talmud, and indeed according to the present laws of Israel.


Mr. Murdock is not even close to a practicing Jew, his empire is funded by Saudi oil money, and his FATHER being a Jew is not what makes you a Jew, fyi. Go back to studying for your high school history test, I don't want to tell you again, son.
 
2012-05-15 05:30:21 PM  
They once offered us an RPG-interceptor weapon that can be mounted on tanks. That's one thing off of the top of my head.

/We turned them down, though, because "military intelligence" is an oxymoron.
 
2012-05-15 05:31:25 PM  
Wow, this thread went off the derp end.
 
2012-05-15 05:31:30 PM  
Oh come on. First of all, when someone posts a list of the extensive contribution Israel has made to world science the response is "yes, but what have they done specifically for the US?" Move your goal posts much? Secondly, there is absolutely no way of knowing what exactly Israel has done for the US. Have there been any terrorists attacks in the US lately? There's simply no way of knowing how much Israeli intel has contributed to that success; my guess is, quite a bit. If it were generally known the terrorists would be provided a greater insight into the Western anti-terrorism effort, which would be a bad thing.

As for the whole "Israel persecutes the Palestinians" thing, let me know when the Turks allow the Kurds their own country, or the Indians permit the Kashmiris to choose their allegiance, or the Spaniards and French establish a Basque republic, and I'll agree the Israelis are outside the mainstream. In the final analysis the Israelis are the only people on earth who are scorned because they refuse to leave themselves open to attack. That kind of attitude--how dare you prevent these people from murdering you?--smacks of racism. The most horrible aspect of this is for me is how the Western left has made common cause with American and European racialists and totalitarians in their attack on Israel and the Jews. Have you no shame? This is actually a brilliant piece of propaganda on the part of the Arabs, which, given their hallmark of complete and utter incompetence at everything they undertake, makes me wonder: who's doing their PR?
 
2012-05-15 05:32:02 PM  

intelligent comment below: Geotpf: America is Israel's only friend on the entire planet. If it wasn't for our veto vote in the UN Security Council, an arab-led UN force would have invaded the West Bank decades ago.


Again, that is only a recent development coinciding with the Oslo peace accords and the payments of billions to Israel and Egypt to keep peace. The Arabs need much more than the blue helmets to think they have a chance at winning a war. The deal is America backs Israel in the UN, and Israel doesn't do anything to piss off Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar.


The US heavily supported Israel long before the Oslo accords happened in 1993.
 
2012-05-15 05:32:42 PM  
Oops I read that wrong. His mother is a Jew, that's fine. He still is not a practicing Jew. His empire is funded by the Saudi Royal family, and he does what big business wants, like all the neocons of the world. This has nothing to do with Jews. Typical anti-Semitic assholes try and use heritage as proof of something.
 
2012-05-15 05:33:25 PM  

intelligent comment below: Hobodeluxe: And that, as I am sure you know, makes him a Jew according to the law of the Talmud, and indeed according to the present laws of Israel.

Mr. Murdock is not even close to a practicing Jew, his empire is funded by Saudi oil money, and his FATHER being a Jew is not what makes you a Jew, fyi. Go back to studying for your high school history test, I don't want to tell you again, son.

do you have trouble reading? His mother Elisabeth Joy Greene was a wealthy Jew.
 
2012-05-15 05:33:32 PM  

Geotpf: The US heavily supported Israel long before the Oslo accords happened in 1993.


Israel never used American made weapons in their 4 major wars including the war for Independence.
 
2012-05-15 05:34:55 PM  

clambam: Oh come on. First of all, when someone posts a list of the extensive contribution Israel has made to world science the response is "yes, but what have they done specifically for the US?" Move your goal posts much? Secondly, there is absolutely no way of knowing what exactly Israel has done for the US. Have there been any terrorists attacks in the US lately? There's simply no way of knowing how much Israeli intel has contributed to that success; my guess is, quite a bit. If it were generally known the terrorists would be provided a greater insight into the Western anti-terrorism effort, which would be a bad thing.

As for the whole "Israel persecutes the Palestinians" thing, let me know when the Turks allow the Kurds their own country, or the Indians permit the Kashmiris to choose their allegiance, or the Spaniards and French establish a Basque republic, and I'll agree the Israelis are outside the mainstream. In the final analysis the Israelis are the only people on earth who are scorned because they refuse to leave themselves open to attack. That kind of attitude--how dare you prevent these people from murdering you?--smacks of racism. The most horrible aspect of this is for me is how the Western left has made common cause with American and European racialists and totalitarians in their attack on Israel and the Jews. Have you no shame? This is actually a brilliant piece of propaganda on the part of the Arabs, which, given their hallmark of complete and utter incompetence at everything they undertake, makes me wonder: who's doing their PR?


If Israel annexed the West Bank and Gaza and made everybody in those areas citizens, then you analogy might have some merit. But they control that territory without formerly annexing it-they are having their cake and eating it too. Besides, just because Turkey et al are assholes doesn't give Israel an excuse to also be an asshole.
 
2012-05-15 05:35:10 PM  

intelligent comment below: Oops I read that wrong. His mother is a Jew, that's fine. He still is not a practicing Jew. His empire is funded by the Saudi Royal family, and he does what big business wants, like all the neocons of the world. This has nothing to do with Jews. Typical anti-Semitic assholes try and use heritage as proof of something.


He's tried really hard to keep that hidden. I guess you could call him a "secret Jew"
 
2012-05-15 05:35:53 PM  

Hobodeluxe: do you have trouble reading? His mother Elisabeth Joy Greene was a wealthy Jew.


I corrected myself above, my mistake. But can you find a picture of him attending temple or wearing a Yarmulke?

Some people say Hitler had Jewish heritage. That means nothing. Murdock's actions are always on the side of big business and big oil. 2 enemies of Israel since 1948.
 
2012-05-15 05:36:08 PM  

intelligent comment below: Neocons are necons, in the pockets of big business.


This is, quite literally, the dumbest thing you have said. Thats impressive considering your track record.
 
2012-05-15 05:37:02 PM  

Hobodeluxe: He's tried really hard to keep that hidden. I guess you could call him a "secret Jew"


Or the fact that heritage has nothing to do with his actions. Unless he meets in a secret Jew club like all of them, planning the destruction of America and drinking the blood of 18 year old American soldiers killed for their trophy cases.
 
2012-05-15 05:38:19 PM  

Party Boy: This is, quite literally, the dumbest thing you have said. Thats impressive considering your track record.



Neoconservatives are NOT mouthpieces of big business? Are you high?

And I'm surprised I have a track record. Why don't you stick to witty sarcastic paragraphs and leave the actual debating and thinking to the smart people.
 
2012-05-15 05:38:51 PM  

intelligent comment below: Oops I read that wrong. His mother is a Jew, that's fine. He still is not a practicing Jew. His empire is funded by the Saudi Royal family, and he does what big business wants, like all the neocons of the world. This has nothing to do with Jews. Typical anti-Semitic assholes try and use heritage as proof of something.


I'm not anti Semitic. I'm just pointing out that there's a huge pro Israel bias in western media. I'm not against Jews I'm against Israel's Zionist policies. You do know that there are actually Israelis who hold the same positions I do right? They can actually stand up and say so in their bodies of govt and press. But to do the same thing here would be political/career suicide.
 
2012-05-15 05:39:28 PM  

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Party Boy: liam76: They don't have ethnic discrimination in immigration

I just want to see you state, clearly, that this is what you actually intended to say.

When someone says race, to me, that is saying they are going to say no to all arabs (although you can make the argument that is ethnicity as well) .

My point is that they are say no to palestenians, not to all arabs.


Philip Francis Queeg: The British Mandate Policy was based no more on Race than the current Israeli policy. It set quotas for Jewish immigration and had a goal of maintaining the proportions of Jewish and Palestinian populations

It had a quota for jews but none for arabs. That sounds like it is based on race to me.

It wasn't trying to maintain "palestinian" proportion. The word you are looking fro is Arab.

"Arab" is no more a Race than "Palestinian".

You are trying real hard not to get the point.

If someone from aPAlestenian family was born in the US they would face no extra hurdle in becoming ISraeli, hence it isn't "racist" (even if you are using a loose defintiion of the term to mean against "ethnicities")


Ohh, I'm not defining race at all. YOU are the one that first interjected race into the discussion.
 
2012-05-15 05:40:35 PM  

intelligent comment below: Neoconservatives are NOT mouthpieces of big business? Are you high?


The neoconservative movement was working counter Big Oil's demands on Iraq.

The neoconservative movement worked counter Big Oils demands on Iran.

intelligent comment below: the smart people.


You are about to show your ass here.
 
2012-05-15 05:43:00 PM  

Hobodeluxe: I'm not anti Semitic. I'm just pointing out that there's a huge pro Israel bias in western media. I'm not against Jews I'm against Israel's Zionist policies. You do know that there are actually Israelis who hold the same positions I do right? They can actually stand up and say so in their bodies of govt and press. But to do the same thing here would be political/career suicide.



There is no huge pro Israel bias in the American media. There is a pro business bias.

The media doesn't beat the war drums to benefit Israel, it does it to benefit the military industrial complex. It does it to benefit cheap natural resources so you can live an unsustainable lifestyle of imported goods and cheap oil and gas to heat your house and run your inefficient cars.

The media was always hard on Jews, from refusing to report on the reports of Jews mass murdered by Hitler to not demanding America supply Israel with weapons in all their wars to backing the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan that destabilizes the region and causes problems for Israel.
 
2012-05-15 05:43:35 PM  

intelligent comment below: Hobodeluxe: He's tried really hard to keep that hidden. I guess you could call him a "secret Jew"

Or the fact that heritage has nothing to do with his actions. Unless he meets in a secret Jew club like all of them, planning the destruction of America and drinking the blood of 18 year old American soldiers killed for their trophy cases.


yes let's deflect to the absurd shall we? let's say that his mother and her money had nothing to do with his success or his ideology. that it's all strictly based upon his greed. or his insatiable thirst for political power. that makes him a much better person.
 
2012-05-15 05:44:45 PM  

Party Boy: The neoconservative movement was working counter Big Oil's demands on Iraq.


Citation needed. What exactly were their demands on Iraq? Just look at who won the oil field contracts and who made billions, like Halliburton.

Party Boy: The neoconservative movement worked counter Big Oils demands on Iran.


What? Big oil is Saudi Arabia demanding something be done about Iran wanting a nuke.

Party Boy: You are about to show your ass here.


How about you bring actual facts to a debate first and then you can get all cocky. Idiot.
 
2012-05-15 05:46:15 PM  

intelligent comment below: Geotpf: The US heavily supported Israel long before the Oslo accords happened in 1993.

Israel never used American made weapons in their 4 major wars including the war for Independence.


The last significant war that Israel was involved in happened in 1973 (not counting Lebanon).

I am saying that American's strong support for Israel started before 1993 and after 1973 (more specifically, during the Reagan administration).

And your statement is false, anyways. American made arms were used in the 1967 six day war, for instance:

Link
 
2012-05-15 05:47:03 PM  

Hobodeluxe: yes let's deflect to the absurd shall we? let's say that his mother and her money had nothing to do with his success or his ideology. that it's all strictly based upon his greed. or his insatiable thirst for political power. that makes him a much better person.


Having wealthy family connections works for everyone regardless of religion or race. Besides, you do realize many government agencies and businesses in America were as adamant as no Jews allowed as they were no blacks? Even today, you can claim AIPAC is powerful, but nothing compares to the business holdings of nations like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, or religious organizations like the Catholic, Protestant evangelical and Mormon churches.
 
2012-05-15 05:47:55 PM  

intelligent comment below: There is no huge pro Israel bias in the American media. There is a pro business bias.


I like this particular bit of crap.

Its interesting to see how, in the nid 40's, how people like the first US Secretary of Defense argued against the support of the jewish state over the importance making friends with resource rich Arab countries. Its a bit shameless to see this argument turned on its head.
 
2012-05-15 05:48:14 PM  

intelligent comment below: There is no huge pro Israel bias in the American media.


and Wall st banks are hiring Arab Americans in droves too aren't they?
 
2012-05-15 05:49:39 PM  

Geotpf: The last significant war that Israel was involved in happened in 1973 (not counting Lebanon).

I am saying that American's strong support for Israel started before 1993 and after 1973 (more specifically, during the Reagan administration).

And your statement is false, anyways. American made arms were used in the 1967 six day war, for instance:

Link



1973 is recent.

And sorry but a handful of second hand American made tanks is not called arming Israel. Just look at your link and notice there were no American made airplanes flying in the Israeli Air Force. Their guns were Uzis.

Again, America supporting Israel is a recent development. They pay Israel to not piss off their oil dealer Saudi Arabia who sets world prices or cause any crisis that can send prices skyrocketing.
 
2012-05-15 05:51:24 PM  

Hobodeluxe: and Wall st banks are hiring Arab Americans in droves too aren't they?


So tell me as a percentage of employees on Wall St. how many are Jewish? You don't know, of course. You are just assuming because a handful are in powerful positions (but barely any in American politics I would like to point out) they control the "world." Typical conspiracy theory nutters.
 
2012-05-15 05:52:15 PM  

intelligent comment below: 1973 is recent.


seriously dude you should stop. you're getting owned on every bad point you're trying to make.
 
2012-05-15 05:52:46 PM  

Party Boy: intelligent comment below: There is no huge pro Israel bias in the American media. There is a pro business bias.

I like this particular bit of crap.

Its interesting to see how, in the nid 40's, how people like the first US Secretary of Defense argued against the support of the jewish state over the importance making friends with resource rich Arab countries. Its a bit shameless to see this argument turned on its head.



Wow, is that the best you can do? We're going back to the 1940's, when nobody realized how much oil was really in the middle east and when America projected itself to supply itself completely with domestically produced oil?

Grow a brain cell and then lets debate. Right now you're wasting my time.
 
2012-05-15 05:54:39 PM  

Hobodeluxe: seriously dude you should stop. you're getting owned on every bad point you're trying to make.


Can you tell me how much money Israel received from America before the Oslo Peace Accords?

Saying because a handful of American made tanks that were purchased second hand by the IDF is "proof" that America always supported Israel is laughably ignorant.

But I'm getting "owned" by people with no actual education on the topic whos only source of facts is a quick google search for a wikipedia article.
 
2012-05-15 05:56:10 PM  

intelligent comment below: Hobodeluxe: and Wall st banks are hiring Arab Americans in droves too aren't they?

So tell me as a percentage of employees on Wall St. how many are Jewish? You don't know, of course. You are just assuming because a handful are in powerful positions (but barely any in American politics I would like to point out) they control the "world." Typical conspiracy theory nutters.


you don't need to be a politician when you can own them outright. as a percentage of Wall st executives how many are Jewish? as a percentage of media executives how many are Jewish? Politicians know that to break from any pro-Israel position is political suicide because the media would crucify them.
 
2012-05-15 05:58:44 PM  
Ah yes, just like the position of condemning Israel's raid on Saddam's nuclear reactor. That really killed the political career of Ronald Reagan...
 
2012-05-15 05:58:54 PM  

intelligent comment below: Hobodeluxe: seriously dude you should stop. you're getting owned on every bad point you're trying to make.

Can you tell me how much money Israel received from America before the Oslo Peace Accords?

Saying because a handful of American made tanks that were purchased second hand by the IDF is "proof" that America always supported Israel is laughably ignorant.

But I'm getting "owned" by people with no actual education on the topic whos only source of facts is a quick google search for a wikipedia article.



US assistance to Israel

US aid to Israel did not significantly increase in 1993. The big jump came after the 1973 war.
 
2012-05-15 05:59:09 PM  

intelligent comment below: Citation needed. What exactly were their demands on Iraq?


Ah yes, Citations needed.

I have about a hundred or so here.

an excerpt

----
Oil companies were fighting and lobbying to increase trade  to both Iraq and Iran. In the late 1990's, Iraq was begging to sell their oil, and countries like France, Russia, UK, and Italy [4][5], and U.S. companies like ExxonMobil (and the American Petroleum Institute) were lobbying to ease the sanctions [6][7][8*][9*].   Oil corporations were not looking to invade Iraq before the war, as the neoconservatives were: the oil companies pushed hard to reduce sanctions.  

In Iran, the U.S. oil companies ran into intense lobbying efforts in the 1990's that turned the trade relationship from U.S. oil companies as the biggest customers to severe sanctions that not only curbed U.S. companies, but imposed penalties on foreign companies trading with Iran as well[10][11].  By the mid 1990's, US oil companies were already Iran's biggest customers (a fact exposed, in part by an AIPAC research paper[12*]), despite laws forbidding the import of Iranian oil[12*][13*].  Conoco sought out to have the first production agreement with Iran to develop two large Iranian oil and gas fields.  In a move wholly unanticipated by Conoco, AIPAC, Senator D'Amato (D-NY), and wealthy activists like Charles, Edgar (Jr.), and Edgar (Sr.) Bronfman successfully lobbied Congress to terminate the deal, over objection by U.S. oil companies[12*][13*][14*][15].  The resulting Iran and Libya sanctions act[10] placed stiff penalties on domestic and foreign companies, raising the ire of some of traditional American allies[13*][16].



Dick Cheney, both the oil industrialist and a man often associated with neoconservative foreign policy, broke sharply with neoconservative goals in the 1990's on both Iraq and Iran vis-a-vis oil.  While neoconservatives were motivated by a lost opportunity for regime change in Iraq during the first Gulf war, and wrote about pre-emption in 1992[17], Cheney, broadcasting from the AEI (a neoconservative think tank), broke with this sentiment for pre-emption and famously and prophetically stated at great length how an invasion of Iraq would result in a "quagmire"[18].  Cheney vis-a-vis Iran also merges with this conflated topic of Israel.  Cheney, in contrast to AIPAC, the Bronfmans (a family with various political and philanthropic associations to Israel[19][20][21][22]) , and neoconservative authors, called the US government "sanctions happy"[23*] and urged Congress to ease sanctions against Iran and enter into diplomatic discussions with the country's leaders so the oilfield services company could legally do business there [24][25]. Furthermore, while Cheney publicly called Iraqi sanctions a good idea, he privately was conducting millions of dollars in business in Iraq (1997-2000) at roughly the same time he was railing against the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act [24][25][26]. Cheney moved in sync with these neoconservative goals for Iran and Iraq after September 11[27].  Thus Dick Cheney's positions in the 1990's ran contrary to the goals of the neoconservatives, AIPAC, and individual philanthropists associated with Israel.  


-----

Theres more.

2008-04-09 03:58:08 PM
Well, lets see If i can keep this abbreviated..

Within all those threads theres discussions of the meanings of the Carter doctrine, then theres the differences of discussion to control meaning letting oil companies in to Iraq or Bombing the crap out of Iraq and flooding the market to crush Opec to a hodgepodge of where we are now in Iraq.
Basically, this is another rehash, so Ill skip to some new material....

Clearly from the simple discussion in those threads, "control" isn't one definition. I would have a problem with how that sentence is worded simply because of this meaning. It needs clarity. Historically control didnt mean "Lets take them over with the US military" either, or Bush I and his big oil comrade

Here's a classic example.
• Probably a good time to repeat Bush I and James Baker (big time oil guys) and their aversion to the Iraq invasion[1]. Baker was against the Iraq war too - also read up on the Baker Hamilton report on Iraq and hit the google news archive to relive how it was received amongst the neocons[2].

the "control" issue here really highlights this break. Here's more.

• Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, famous for his hawkish stance amongst democrats, you know the guy who wrote this famous line from the famous Carter Doctrine
Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.


guess how he felt about the Iraq war?
Zbigniew Brzezinski Calls Iraq War a Historic, Strategic and Moral Calamity & Says Stop the Trappings of Colonial Tutelage

Nice, eh.
This is how he feels about iran, too
Brzezinski: U.S. in danger of 'stampeding' to war with Iran

The break in this policy came here[1] which morphed into "Moving the Iraqi Economy from Recovery to Sustainable Growth"

better said here
However, a Heritage Foundation paper titled, "The Road to Economic Prosperity for a Post-Saddam Iraq" most caught the attention of top Washington circles (Cohen and O'Driscoll, 2003). In essence, this study lays out an argument for the complete neoliberalization of Iraq's internal markets and trade relations, and for the privatization of its industries, including oil.

In fact, the neoliberal view appears to have won sufficient supporters in Washington for it to become the framework within which Iraq's economy will be structured over the next several years. The actual roadmap for the country's economic reforms is apparently laid out in a classified document titled "Moving the Iraqi Economy from Recovery to Sustainable Growth," (King, 2003). Created by the Treasury Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) as a blueprint for prospective contractors it outlines a series of steps the Bush Administration wants to achieve over the next year in Iraq, steps that will launch the country as a test case for exporting the neoliberal economic model to the Middle East (Lursen, 2003).
link

(Quick def on neoliberal and how it relates to US here 09:07:14 AM)

well, I'd like a similar, well thought out and cited post on your end. Thanks.
--------

The Guardian,
Tuesday August 5 2003
In a dream ending for the chapter of history being written now in Iraq, neo-conservatives fantasised before the war about a privatised, pro-American Iraqi oil industry. This would have access to the world's second largest hydrocarbon reserves and produce so much oil that Saudi Arabia, in charge of Opec, would lose its grip on petrol prices.

The world would then be swimming in inexpensive petrol - the cost of which would be dictated by the market, not by an anti-American price-fixing club run by Riyadh. Low prices would also mean falling revenues for oil-producers, which in the Middle East might precipitate the collapse of regimes hostile to the US. These hopes are now being dissipated like sand before the desert wind.

Oil is dribbling, rather than pumping, from Iraq's bomb-blasted oil industry. Sabotage and theft mean Iraq's oil production remains at a fraction of the levels achieved under Saddam. With reconstruction failing to take off, there is little sign of a post-Ba'athist dividend in the form of low oil prices. The result is that US action in Iraq has not weakened Opec, and hence Saudi Arabia, but strengthened it.
---snip---

---

Iraq's oil: A neo-con dream gone bust (2006)
But the story of Iraq's oil over the past three years has not been quite what was expected by the administration of President George W Bush and neo-conservative advocates for Saddam Hussein's removal.

The Bush administration hardly mentioned oil in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, obviously wary of the claim that the case for ousting Saddam was motivated by the desire to gain access to Iraq's oilfields for US oil companies. In fact the US oil lobby was not behind the push for regime change in Baghdad, but oil in the geostrategic sense was factored in by the Bush administration in the decision to invade.
-----
While former presidents George H W Bush and Bill Clinton preferred to contain a weakened Iraq throughout the 1990s, the push from neo-conservatives throughout that decade to remove Saddam from power found resonance with President George W Bush. A speech by Vice President Richard Cheney in August 2002 explained the Bush administration's view of Saddam Hussein's threat to the strategic balance in the Middle East.

He stated that, "armed with an arsenal of [weapons of mass destruction], and seated atop 10% of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, [and] directly threaten America's friends throughout the region".

In Saddam's place, ostensibly, would be the formation of an Iraqi government friendly to the US and the West that would first maintain a higher and more reliable flow of oil and, second, pursue policies conducive to US and other Western interests in the Middle East, a crucial region with nearly two-thirds of the world's oil reserves.

Oil as a geostrategic factor also figured in the neo-conservative mission to unseat Saddam as the first step of politically transforming the Middle East. Removal of his regime was seen as crucial to undermining the other established oil powers in the region, Saudi Arabia and Iran. These states are, respectively, the largest and second-largest oil producers in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), a group dominated by Middle East oil exporters.

A US-friendly Iraq that abandoned OPEC and pumped more oil would, some neo-conservatives argued, weaken Saudi Arabia and Iran and break the grip of OPEC on the global oil market. In this way, so the theory went, the petrodollars that strengthen the grip on power of the House of Saud and Iran's mullahs and fund terrorist networks in the Middle East would dry up. The mission to remake the Middle East could be done by flooding the market with Iraqi oil.

The oil factor in the plan for a regional transformation in the Middle East was pushed by some conservative journals and think-tanks in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. The National Review, for example, wrote in January 2002, "There are two principal sources of power for Middle Eastern states and terrorist groups hostile to the West: weapons of mass destruction and oil. Therefore, the war on terrorism should also seek to diminish the influence of - and perhaps destroy - OPEC." In November that year the National Review also claimed, "Iraqis could withdraw from OPEC [after Saddam's ouster] and begin fully pumping oil into the world market, thus reducing Saudi market power and one of the incentives for the US to appease the [Saudi] regime."

In March 2003 the Washington, DC-based Heritage Foundation released a paper on Iraq's oil that recommended privatization of its oil industry and Iraq's departure from OPEC. It wrote, "Iraq's restructuring and privatization of its oil-and-gas sector could become a model for oil-industry privatizations in other OPEC states as well, weakening the cartel's influence over global energy markets ... and depending on the dynamics of global economic growth and world oil output, Iraq's increase in oil-production capacity could bring lower oil prices in the long term." The report also claimed, "An Iraq outside of OPEC would find available from its oil trade an ample cash flow for the country's rehabilitation."

Not everyone shared in this enthusiasm. Prior to the Iraq invasion, the Council on Foreign Relations and the James A Baker Institute at Rice University released a joint paper that cautioned against rosy scenarios about the ability of Iraq's petroleum to influence oil markets quickly, as well as of the receptiveness of Iraqis toward outsiders trying to influence decision-making on the big-picture issues (such as privatization and OPEC membership).

It commented, "There has been a great deal of wishful thinking about Iraqi oil." The report cautioned against expectations of an Iraqi oil bonanza with the assessment that "Iraq's oil industry is in desperate need of repair and investment" after more than two decades of wars and sanctions. It also warned that the pace of recovery in Iraq's oil sector would depend on the post-invasion political and security environment.

Those who had a cautious assessment about the prospects for Iraq's oil were prescient. Not long after Saddam's regime fell in April 2003, Iraq's oil industry, already deteriorating from under-investment for more than 20 years, suffered from widespread looting of its infrastructure. Meanwhile oil production temporarily ground to a halt in the chaos as the apparatus of the Iraqi state collapsed. By mid-2003, Iraqi insurgents began to target the oil infrastructure - especially by attacking pipelines - in sabotage attacks that have been ongoing for the past three years.
----snip---
 
Displayed 50 of 379 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report