Israel, our ally.

josevolution

I don't know but i wish they would fight their own wars and we just stayed out of it ...

Byrnzie

usamamasan1 wrote:

Israel. Intellectual dominance in the region.

“Culture makes all the difference”

Romeny

Racist bullshit alive and well on the Pearl Jam message board.

Oh, and it's Romney, not Romeny.

Byrnzie

Cosmo wrote:

Question: Why does America have to suck Israel's dick?
...
Yeah, it's a valid question.

Because the U.S seeks dominance of the Middle East, and Israel is a convenient offshore military base in the region. Israel acts as an aggressive militaristic buffer zone in return for the U.S giving Israel free reign with regard to the Palestinians and the illegal occupation.

Byrnzie

Anyway, this thread is a joke. Just provocation and racism.

Probably why Whygohome felt inspired to speak his mind the other day.

RFTC

usamamasan1 wrote:

America and Israel should be prepared and decisive.


are you prepared to send your son or daughter off to war?

politicians (right or left) that throw out war threats or deliberately saber rattle to score points are scum pure n simple.

Byrnzie

RFTC wrote:

usamamasan1 wrote:

America and Israel should be prepared and decisive.


are you prepared to send your son or daughter off to war?

politicians (right or left) that throw out war threats or deliberately saber rattle to score points are scum pure n simple.

I've asked him that question before, and no, he isn't.

Newch91

This I had to post. Speaks for itself:



Expect something similar if he became President (I hope not). He would start another Iraq.


I've often wondered this: why are we so involved with Israel? What's with the fighting between Israel and Palestine? What is it with our differences with Iran? Never learned it in school (so far).

gimmesometruth27

Newch91 wrote:

I've often wondered this: why are we so involved with Israel? What's with the fighting between Israel and Palestine? What is it with our differences with Iran? Never learned it in school (so far).

there have been tons of threads on the train with hundreds of pages of discussion on them. i mean high brow non trolling discussion. i just searched for those threads and went back and read a lot of the links, and started reading on my own. you have to read newspapers from other countries because you will never hear a peep about it in the us media. byrnzie and a few others are very informed about the entire history of the conflict and they have been gracious enough to share a lot of that info with us over the years.

Byrnzie

Newch91 wrote:

This I had to post. Speaks for itself:



Expect something similar if he became President (I hope not). He would start another Iraq.


I've often wondered this: why are we so involved with Israel? What's with the fighting between Israel and Palestine? What is it with our differences with Iran? Never learned it in school (so far).

The U.S didn't give a shit about Israel until after the 1967 war. And neither did American Jews. Then Cold War politics, and the June 1967 war, saw to it that Israel became a strategic asset of the U.S. That strategic asset has remained in place since the U.S seeks dominance of the region and it's natural resources. Though Israel has been testing the limits of this relationship for a long time by acting like a reckless rogue state, and by contributing to making the U.S a target of international terrorism - see 9/11.
The Jewish vote and AIPAC in the U.S are actually pretty insignificant in the big scheme of things, especially considering that the vast majority of American Jews are democratic. And current trends show that American Jews are increasingly distancing themselves from Israel.
But of course an idiot like Mitt Romney doesn't realize this, and he thinks that all Americans hold Israel close to their hearts. They don't. Most Americans now see Israel for what it is, a dangerous racist state. And the more of a liability Israel becomes, and the more it's aggressive militarism threatens U.S interests, the more we'll see America distance itself from Israel. That is unless Americans choose to elect an equally dangerous, religious wackjob for President - Mitt Romney (though the chances of this happening are miniscule, despite what certain agitators here on the message board may try and have us believe), in which case war with Iran, and a whole new set of parameters, may fall into place.

Newch91

Byrnzie wrote:

Newch91 wrote:

This I had to post. Speaks for itself:



Expect something similar if he became President (I hope not). He would start another Iraq.


I've often wondered this: why are we so involved with Israel? What's with the fighting between Israel and Palestine? What is it with our differences with Iran? Never learned it in school (so far).

The U.S didn't give a shit about Israel until after the 1967 war. And neither did American Jews. Then Cold War politics saw to it that Israel became a strategic asset of the U.S. That strategic asset has remained in place since the U.S seeks dominance of the region and it's natural resources. Though Israel has been testing the limits of this relationship for a long time by acting like a reckless rogue state, and by contributing to making the U.S a target of international terrorism - see 9/11.
The Jewish vote and AIPAC in the U.S are actually pretty insignificant in the big scheme of things, especially considering that the vast majority of American Jews are democratic. And current trends show that American Jews are increasingly distancing themselves from Israel.
But of course an idiot like Mitt Romney doesn't realize this, and he thinks that all Americans hold Israel close to their hearts. They don't. Most Americans now see Israel for what it is, a dangerous racist state. And the more of a liability Israel becomes, and the more it's aggressive militarism threatens U.S interests, the more we'll see America distance itself from Israel. That is unless Americans choose to elect an equally dangerous, religious wackjob for President - Mitt Romney (though the chances of this happening are miniscule, despite what certain agitators here on the message board may try and have us believe), in which case war with Iran, and a whole new set of parameters may fall into place.

So from the first paragraph, it's basically because of the Soviet Union we decided to "care" for them?

Thanks for the short explanation. It's all too confusing, but eventually I'll learn about it.

He'd be a disaster on foreign policy.

Byrnzie

Newch91 wrote:

So from the first paragraph, it's basically because of the Soviet Union we decided to "care" for them?

The Soviets were a part of it, but a greater reason was U.S dominance of the region, and the aim of preventing nationalist movements from arising, who may not be wholly subservient to U.S interests.


Here:

Norman Finkelstein - 'Knowing Too Much: Why The American Jewish Romance With Israel is Coming To An End'

P.47: At the dawn of the Cold War the U.S National Security Council detected "little danger that the Soviet Union will take aggressive military action against the Middle East." The "major threats to Western interests," it continued, lay "in the growing instability within the Middle Eastern states" that sprang from "the nationalist aspirations of the Middle Eastern states - accompanied and intensified by the desire to end what they regard as unjust-exploitation," and from the "discontent of the peoples of the area with their social and economic conditions - a fact which weakens the grip on power of the ruling classes and which therefore weakens the ability of the West to maintain stability in these states by working through the ruling classes." Undeniably the Kremlin exploited and fanned these seething frustrations in the hope of strategic gain but the root of the problem was internal: if the Arab people resented the Western powers it was because these powers propped up regimes oppressing them.

...If Washington coddled Tel Aviv after the June 1967 war , it was because of the shattering blow inflicted by the Israeli military on those "nationalist aspirations" in the Arab world that had threatened the "ability of the West to maintain stability...by working through the ruling classes." The interests of Tel Aviv and Washington converged on toppling Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nassar, who galvanized the regions hopes and dreams. A June 1967 CIA assessment of Israel's objectives concluded that "it's immediate and primary...war aim is destruction of the center of power of the radical Arab Socialist movement, I.e, the Nassar regime."

A memorandum dated 4 June 1967 - one day before the war began - by Johnson's special assistant, Walt W. Rostow, points up the near-perfect strategic overlap between Washington and Tel Aviv on the eve of the Israeli attack. "The situation in the Middle East is that the radical nationalism represented by Nasser, while powerful at the moment...is waning," Rostow minuted. 'Just beneath the surface is the potentiality for a new phase in the Middle East of moderation...But all this depends on Nasser's being cut down to size."

...The mutual U.S-Israeli interest in preempting the emergence of autonomous regional powers in the Middle East such as Nasser's Egypt existed independently of the threat posed by Soviet expansionism, and the end of the Cold War has not diminished this joint interest.

Byrnzie

Prior to the June 1967 war the vast majority of American Jews didn't give a toss about Israel:


Norman Finkelstein: 'Knowing Too Much: Why The American Jewish Romance With Israel is Coming To An End'

P.38: 'In his indifference to Israel, Podhoretz was typical of his generation of American Jewish intellectuals. An April 1961 Commentary symposium "Jewishness and The Younger Intellectuals," posed a series of questions to 31 "promising Jewish intellectuals" on the meaning of their Jewish identity, the last of which was "Do you feel any special connection with the State of Israel?" Only two respondents avowed a deep (if not uncritical) attachment to Israel, while most briefly expressed a "sympathy" for Israel against the threat of it's Arab neighbours coupled with reservations about Israel's politics and ideology. Fully a third of the respondents either did not bother to answer the Israel question or expressed indifference or hostility toward Israel.
Often scathing in their criticism, these up-and-coming Jewish intellectuals variously denounced Israel for it's "nationalistic and militaristic fervour" and it's "rigid position on the Arab refugees," it's "racial bigotry, political machinations and....excess of nationalism," it's "chronic, aggressive insecurities," and it's "notion of manifest destiny." Still others proclaimed, "I no longer feel any commitment to or personal sympathy with [Israel]",; "I am anti-Zionist. Jewish chauvinism is no less despicable than other kinds of chauvinism - and more despicable than many, since it is based on racist ideology...In the dispute between Israel and the 900,000 Arab refugees it has driven from their lands, I support the Arabs"; "My landscape is not Israel. My troubles are American troubles." This last curt dismissal came from Barbara Probst Solomon, who later lent her name to Joan Peter's 1984 "pro"-Israel forgery 'From Time Immemorial'.


And today, America's love affair with Israel is on the decline:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... tion=false
The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment
June 10, 2010 - Peter Beinart

cincybearcat

I really don't understand the depth of the American-Israeli relationship. So , while most here do not change their position in the slightest, I enjoy reading the arguments. Thanks.

gimmesometruth27

here is a very good site. lots of info here.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

here is a very good site. lots of info here.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

Obviously a site with an agenda, but a good collection of information. thanks.

usamamasan1

Iran, the worlds central banker of international terrorism, is close to getting nukes. A targeted campaign on their illicit nuke sites is imminent IMO. Could be a blessing for the people of Iran. An opportunity to free itself!

http://video.foxnews.com/v/177512006300 ... an-thought

Less than a year ago, Ahmadinejad said, addressing Israel. "There is no room for you in the region."
How many times, in addition to this type of rhetoric has he said our ally needs to be wiped off the map?

Not the kind of place we can let have nukes so what to do?

Drowned Out

usamamasan1 wrote:

Iran, the worlds central banker of international terrorism, is close to getting nukes. A targeted campaign on their illicit nuke sites is imminent IMO. Could be a blessing for the people of Iran. An opportunity to free itself!

http://video.foxnews.com/v/177512006300 ... an-thought

Less than a year ago, Ahmadinejad said, addressing Israel. "There is no room for you in the region."
How many times, in addition to this type of rhetoric has he said our ally needs to be wiped off the map?

Not the kind of place we can let have nukes so what to do?

I could find probably ten examples of people here showing you the mistranslation of this statement...so unless he has started using this line like a US election catchphrase...you cannot keep repeating the lie. At what point are we allowed to call this trolling? Seriously....this conversation has been done way too many times, it's pure bait to continue to bring up that quote again and again.

Byrnzie

usamamasan1 wrote:

How many times, in addition to this type of rhetoric has he said our ally needs to be wiped off the map?

Answer: Zero.

Byrnzie

Drowned Out wrote:

At what point are we allowed to call this trolling? Seriously....this conversation has been done way too many times, it's pure bait to continue to bring up that quote again and again.

Good luck with that.

brianlux

Holy crap- I leave for a few days and come back and MITT has joined AMT? I mean, that's what the OP states right? :roll:

Either that or re-entry was into the Twilight Zone. :shock: