Right-Wing Jewish Leaders Attack Hillary Clinton For Tackling Middle East Conflict
Right-Wing Jewish Leaders Attack Hillary Clinton For Tackling Middle East Conflict
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will make her first visit to Israel next week. “The centerpiece of the secretary of state’s tour, announced Thursday by the State Department, will be a March 2 fund-raising conference for the Palestinians in Egypt.” The United States is expected to pledge $900 million to rebuild the Gaza Strip after the recent devastation to the area caused by Israeli aerial attacks.
The Obama administration is pushing hard to convince Israel to allow more humanitarian aid trucks through the Gaza crossings. Haaretz reports, “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has relayed messages to Israel in the past week expressing anger at obstacles Israel is placing to the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip.” Senior U.S. officials told Israeli counterparts last week that “Israel is not making enough effort to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza,” a sentiment likely to be echoed by Middle East Envoy George Mitchell ahead of Clinton’s visit.
Right-wing Jewish leaders are reacting with outrage here in the United States. CBS News reports that Mort Zuckerman, who was a prominent cheerleader for the Iraq war, is leading the charge against Clinton:
“I am very surprised, frankly, at this statement from the United States government and from the secretary of state,” said Mortimer Zuckerman, publisher of the New York Daily News and member of the NYC Jewish Community Relations Council. … “I don’t believe that we should be in a position at this point to do anything to strengthen Hamas,” Zuckerman said. “We surely know what Hamas stands for as I say they are the forward battalions of Iran.”
New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind, who opposed Israel’s disengagement from Gaza, added, “I liked her a lot more as a senator from New York. … Now, I wonder as I used to wonder who the real Hillary Clinton is.”
The reality in Israel and Palestine is that economic damages are piling up on both sides of the border as goods have been unable to pass through. As former congressman Lee Hamilton told Middle East Progress recently, “The immediate challenge of course with regards to the Palestinians requires a massive aid effort.” The Obama administration is stepping up to meet the challenge, and the fact that right-wing is so opposed to it surely indicates we are finally correcting course in the Middle East.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Why do we even bother electing a government? When we can just turn the running of our country to the Israelis. I am sure they have our best interests at heart. Whoops are those settlements springing up on the banks of the Potomac
February 27th, 2009 at 10:57 amRight-Wing Jewish Leaders Attack Hillary Clinton For Tackling Middle East Conflict
– - The settlers in Gaza have to be evicted if there’s any chance for a bargain in the region. And Israel does not have a strong enough government to do it.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:00 amConservatives are the same all over the world! Bloodlust, war, greed, destruction. ” Forget about PEACE!!” That is not profitable enough!
February 27th, 2009 at 11:00 amBASTARDS!
This is hooey.
The State Department on Tuesday reaffirmed its support for Israel, telling Haaretz that the U.S. viewed its relations with Jerusalem as “special” and lasting.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1066592.html
Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu met Thursday with US President Barack Obama’s special Middle East envoy George Mitchell. Following the meeting Netanyahu said that it was held “in a very friendly and practical atmosphere.”
Sources close to the Likud leader said that Netanyahu was under the impression that Mitchell does not intend to pressure Israel on the issue of illegal outposts.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3678227,00.html
February 27th, 2009 at 11:01 amAh, yes… because, as a nation, we are so indebted to Israel for… ummm. well…… I’m sure someone on the right can clarify this?….. why, exactly, should we be acting as Israel’s supportive colony? I’m sure that there is a good reason that we should do everything that Israel wants us to do…
February 27th, 2009 at 11:01 amThe Arab League Peace plan has been on the table since 2002. Israel doesn’t want peace with its neighbors. It has land to grab and arms to sell.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:02 amWhen you hear the rhetoic at the CPAC meeting, their major theme is to go after Iran. Things never change do they?
February 27th, 2009 at 11:04 amWe already know what happens when people compromise with those who are bent on nothing less than genocide. These wingnuts really need to be called out as genocidal murderers whenever they raise their heads. Seriously, we should stop using polite terminology about this.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:04 amI’m glad that our country is finally adopting (or trying to adopt) a position of general fairness and viewing the situation realistically in the Middle East. For too long, our policy has been “Israel is always right and anyone not a friend of Israel is always wrong.” — which has been about as effective as the promotion of abstinence-only sex ed in our schools.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:05 amWhy again are we paying $900 million to clean up Israel’s mess? That’s in addition to the proposed $2.77 billion in security aid President Obama wants to give our 51st state.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1235410727744&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
AIPAC applauded.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:08 am‘double your pleasure, double your fun’… two, two, two hits in one…
right wing jewish hillary bashers? whodduthunkit…
February 27th, 2009 at 11:08 amthis new piece makes me very sad. to claim on the one hand that you are is “defending yourself” while using ghastly experimental weapons technology and to then DENY humanitarian aid to those whom you have BOMBED THE SHIT OUT OF is just so incredibly unconscionable that it makes my brain burn… it truly hurts my soul.
at least these warmongers are publicly outing themselves as the brazen monsters they truly are.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:09 ammisshusseinmolly Says:
For too long, our policy has been “Israel is always right and anyone not a friend of Israel is always wrong.”
Isn’t this thinking the product of the belief that Israel MUST exist as a state becausethe Omnpiotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent Gawd’s Plan requires it to exist as a state, and that, somehow, some humans are actually capable of interfering with the Omnipotent Gawd’s Plan, so we must protect that Plan at all costs?
Becasue Gawd isn’t strong enough to see His plan through without the aid of humans?
February 27th, 2009 at 11:10 amA cognitive exercise for the always “pro-Israel” crowd: imagine that Israel was not a Jewish state, but a Muslim one, with everything else, including its history the same. Would the US policy be the same as it is?
Our relationship with Israel should not be contemplated as a choice between “pro” and “against”. That false dichotomy way of dividing up issues is what gets into problems more quickly than anything else. Fairness, common good, equality = these should be the bases of our policy.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:10 amA memo to Right Wing Jewish leaders:
Hillary Clinton is Secretary of United States..
February 27th, 2009 at 11:11 amand not Secretary of state of Israel.
CageyCretin Says:
I’m sure that there is a good reason that we should do everything that Israel wants us to do…
_____________
This is a sentiment oft expressed at TP.
Look at a map of the ME. What do you see?
Everything for miles and miles and miles is Moslem turf… EXCEPT for Israel.
One could go so far as to say, w/out Israel dead-center in the MIDDLE of that expanse, the world might end up someday w/ a pan-Islamic empire that runs from the NW coast of Africa right up to the Indian border, and one that incidentally controls, what 2/3rds, mebbe even 3/4ths of the world’s available oil reserves?
Picture getting any clearer now?
This all goes back, IMHO, to Lawrence of Arabia and the collapse of the Turkish Empire. The British Navy, once the keystone of the Empire, was the first fleet, I think, to go from coal to oil. This allowed them to make bigger ships w/ more armor and bigger guns, that could sail faster, which is why the BE was so powerful for so long.
The Brits KNEW a long time ago they didn’t have the oil reserves to power this fleet, BUT, the ME did. They’re the ones who gerrymandered the map in the ME after WW I to suit their own purposes. The Brits have been meddling in ME politics ever since then.
I don’t think it’s an accident that a poor, impoverished struggling nation like Israel was able to produce a nuke so quickly. I suspect they got help…
from certain countries who saw it in their best interests to stop the formation of a pan-Islamic empire that stretches all the way from the NE coast of Africa to the Indian border and just happens to control 2/3rds of the world’s readily available oil…
That’s just a hunch on my part.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:13 amP.D. Says: “When you hear the rhetoic at the CPAC meeting, their major theme is to go after Iran.”
A bully needs a support group of people who are afraid of him, that he can use to do his bidding. He has to create an adversary, someone or something he can use to instill fear in his followers, that they will fear almost as much as the bully himself.
Remembering that at the heart of it all, the bully himself is afraid.
The bully is the corporate-militarist neo-cons, CPAC is it’s support group, and Iran is their boogeyman.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:16 am“I don’t believe that we should be in a position at this point to do anything to strengthen Hamas,” Zuckerman said…
you mean, anymore than we already have????
February 27th, 2009 at 11:16 amWill the normal Jewish people suffer because of the outrageous antics of Israel’s wingnuts? The crazy Rightwing moneymongers are still spreading vile lies and distortions in Israel and America. It can only hurt the Jewish cause..count on it.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:17 amJewish leaders do not want peace, only piece(of Palestine) on their own terms only.
The US should use the threat of withholding the massive economic and military aid to Israel until they become more willing to negotiate with the Palestinians in good faith.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:20 amI wonder who that $900 Million will actually go to to rebuild Gaza? If it went to Israeli concrete companies, for example, wouldn’t it just encourage Israel to bomb the crap out of Gaza again? A kind of economic stimulus plan for Israel?
I guess we’ll be seeing some more really balanced and unbiased editorials in the NY Daily News…
February 27th, 2009 at 11:23 amWhen did it become wrong to allow aid to human beings? Everyone in Gaza is not a part of Hamas – the citizens need help! This is outrageous! These rightwingnuts are GODLESS!
February 27th, 2009 at 11:24 amTRos:
Interesting. However, it seems that you assume that the potential “pan-Islamic empire” is automatically bad … presumably because of the religion? And that they would control 2/3 or more of the oil supply? Well — for one, we shold have long ago weaned ourselves from oil. But, do you imply that this control of the oil would mean that they would hoard it and not sell it? I think that is too much to accept: they’d sell it (it is their primary revenue, for goodness sakes). And the assumption that there would be an “empire” seems a bit off to me: why is there not an empire with connected states already? You can say because of Israel, but that doesn’t hold water. Why haven’t the Islamic states in the ME who DO adjoin each other coalesced into an empire? Even that would be enough to create a “Pan-Islamic nation” capable of crushing Israel.
Shorter: if all the Muslim countries in the ME wanted to destroy Israel AND form a great Islamic nation spanning the ME, then they certainly COULD do it NOW, even with Israel smack in the middle (actuually, Israel’s position would be its downfall in such a scenerio).
I can see the basic concept you present, but I do not agree that it is sufficient cause to defend israel at any cost 9or even at all — I’m more of a “hands-off” thinker with foreign policy — we have WAY WAY WAY too many problems right here at home, in our backyard, to worry about “saving” soverign foreign nations).
My 2 cents. Have to go for now, will check in in a little while. :)
Peace.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:24 am“The reality in Israel and Palestine is that economic damages are piling up on both sides of the border”
Which border?
February 27th, 2009 at 11:25 amPoor Mort Zuckerman. And I do mean poor Mort “Bernie Madoff with my money!” Zuckerman. Still delusional after all these years.
Imagine the temerity of the Obama administration, believing that regional peace could actually help stabilize and strengthen Israel without wars, and that talking and listening might further that cause! How naive…
PEACE
February 27th, 2009 at 11:26 amI’d also like to know what exactly Israel did to deserve a 10% increase in their annual aid? ($2.5B to $2.77B)
Is that so they can replenish their stock of U.S. made weapons?
February 27th, 2009 at 11:26 amAnd, once again..the actions and words of a few bring disgrace on the ethnicity. No true Jew could support the kind of jingoistic rhetoric that these people espouse.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:27 amHow come everybody gives Iran so much grief for developing nuclear power (WITHIN their rights as a signatory member of the NNTP), and yet the US breaks its own rules to help India’s nuclear power development, and also lets Israel (who hasn’t signed the NNTP) keep their 200 nuclear weapons?
We have a saying here in Mexico, “GOD, let thy will be done, but only upon my neighbor’s land”, which kinda translates as “Rules are OK as long as they apply to everybody else but me”.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:27 amcck Says: “I don’t believe that we should be in a position at this point to do anything to strengthen Hamas,” Zuckerman said…”
“…you mean, anymore than we already have????”
You mean, like, selling Israel cluster bombs, bunker busters,and white phosphorus artillery shells?
February 27th, 2009 at 11:27 amThat kind of support for Hamas?
I think we should just sell Israel on eBay. Might get enough to compensate Bernie Madoff’s victims.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:31 amthanks for your two cents, cagey. i agree whole heartedly.
i feel terrible for those who have been duped into supporting these wars of aggression.
there has been a massive propaganda campaign waged against the peoples of the world to support this nonsense. it’s been going on for decades.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:31 amLuis M Says:
How come everybody gives Iran so much grief for developing nuclear power (WITHIN their rights as a signatory member of the NNTP), and yet the US breaks its own rules to help India’s nuclear power development, and also lets Israel (who hasn’t signed the NNTP) keep their 200 nuclear weapons?
__________
Ummmm… because India is the border to one end of that potential pan-Islamic empire I mentioned above, that could end up running all the way to Indonesia too?
February 27th, 2009 at 11:33 amNot to mention the Chinese…
February 27th, 2009 at 11:33 amdinglebe Says: I think we should just sell Israel on eBay.
Good idea.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:35 amEverybody who adheres to the three Abrahamic religions wants a piece of Jerusalem. Why not just cut the Dome of the Rock up into little pieces and let everybody have one to put on their nightstand… or use as a paper weight…
The Israelis, given their history, would not want to be treated the way the Palestinians are.
For GODS sake, stop the cycle of violence and start acting like good neighbors.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:35 amCageyCretin Says:
TRos:
Interesting. However, it seems that you assume that the potential “pan-Islamic empire” is automatically bad … presumably because of the religion?
__________
I made no such assumption, nor did I defend the actions of the govts who might be interested in stopping such thing from happening, Cagey.
ALL I did was lay out what might be a rational for, amongst other things, why this country continues to support Israel, no matter what.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:35 amXisithrus Says:
The Israelis, given their history, would not want to be treated the way the Palestinians are.
___________
One would think that…
February 27th, 2009 at 11:37 amThe Republic of Stupidity Says:
I made no such assumption, nor did I defend the actions of the govts who might be interested in stopping such thing from happening, Cagey.
ALL I did was lay out what might be a rational for, amongst other things, why this country continues to support Israel, no matter what.
I agree… and actually you make a good Devil’s Advocate.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:37 amCageyCretin Says:
TRos:
Interesting. However, it seems that you assume that the potential “pan-Islamic empire” is automatically bad … presumably because of the religion?
____________
I personally think it would have more to do w/ POWER and politics, than strictly religion, but can you truly separate the two at this point?
_______________
And that they would control 2/3 or more of the oil supply? Well — for one, we shold have long ago weaned ourselves from oil.
_______________
Yeaaaaaaah… and we haven’t even started.
_______________
But, do you imply that this control of the oil would mean that they would hoard it and not sell it? I think that is too much to accept: they’d sell it (it is their primary revenue, for goodness sakes).
_______________
Sure, they want to sell it… at how much a barrel? Want to go back to $150/bb oil? $200/bb? How much?
_______________
And the assumption that there would be an “empire” seems a bit off to me: why is there not an empire with connected states already?
_______________
Ummmm… what was/is one of OBL’s goals? To reestablish the caliphate?
_______________
You can say because of Israel, but that doesn’t hold water. Why haven’t the Islamic states in the ME who DO adjoin each other coalesced into an empire? Even that would be enough to create a “Pan-Islamic nation” capable of crushing Israel.
Shorter: if all the Muslim countries in the ME wanted to destroy Israel AND form a great Islamic nation spanning the ME, then they certainly COULD do it NOW, even with Israel smack in the middle (actuually, Israel’s position would be its downfall in such a scenerio).
_______________
Can you say “Last Resort – dropping a nuke on Mecca”???
February 27th, 2009 at 11:42 amTRoS @ 16
The Brits KNEW a long time ago they didn’t have the oil reserves to power this fleet, BUT, the ME did.
at the time that the brits were converting their fleet to oil the leading supplier of oil in the world was Azerbaijan (a former soviet union state) and the United States was not far behind. the middle east was not considered a major player in oil for a few decades after this as they did not develop as quickly as the united states and the soviet union.
also, a pan islamic nation is a silly idea that discounts the differences in culture, ethnicity and beliefs that exist in the islamic world.
one has to merely look at the divisions between sunni and shi’a to see that a “pan-islamic state spanning from africa to india” is pretty much laughable.
no offense is meant, but you’re ideas on this matter are somewhat off base.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:42 amHamas moderates need to be encouraged. This 1/31/09 article covers this subject very well:
Hamas is a Mideast reality
The group has evolved dramatically as a movement that can’t be wished away by the U.S. and Israel.
So far, the strategy of isolating and militarily confronting Hamas pursued by Israel and the Bush administration has not appeared to weaken the organization dramatically; if anything, it has strengthened hard-liners within and reinforced the culture of extremism and martyrdom.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:44 amtRoS
ALL I did was lay out what might be a rational for, amongst other things, why this country continues to support Israel, no matter what.
this would not be a rational position because someone who believes in the possibility of such a pan-islamic state would not be particularly rational in regards to the middle east.
nationalism is a powerful force, this is like saying all the christian nations of south america might form a pan-christian state in south america, it simply would not happen because of differences in culture and nationalistic ideals.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:48 amLuis M Says:
I agree… and actually you make a good Devil’s Advocate.
____________
I certainly don’t condone the actions of the US, GB, or the Israelis in the ME. It’s painful, for me, to try and understand what has happened there over the last 80 to 100 yrs.
British Petroleum was the group in Iran that controlled their (Iran’s) oil fields until the people elected a Socialist in the 50’s and he tried to nationalize the oil. I think. BP wouldn’t let the locals see the books. Always a bad sign. Our CIA, amongst others, helped bring down this popularly elected Pres and install the Shah in his place… Operation Ajax, anyone?
I don’t think it’s a stretch to say the US got so involved in ME politics trying to bail out the Brits of their bad behavior. Same w/ the French in Vietnam.
Trying to help our “friends” salvage something from the collapse of their colonial empires.
Wonderful…
February 27th, 2009 at 11:49 amwe helped the french in veitnam because we were afraid the french would go communist if their former colonial powers could not regain political support. we broke our own mandates in vietnam and then provided more than 80% of the funding of the french war in vietnam
then when the vienamese won we split the country in 2 and said there would be an election in 1954. we supported a violent dicatator over Ho Chi Minh who was backed by communists (although he approached the united states for support first before we threw him under the bus for fear of a communist france)
when it was clear that Ho Chim Minh would win the 1954 elections in a land slide we cancelled the election and left the country split while promoting the myth that north vietnam was invading south vietnam, while ignoring that south vietnam only existed because we wanted it to and the vietnamese were fighting for the reunification and independence of their country.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:53 amcalavzma Says:
this would not be a rational position because someone who believes in the possibility of such a pan-islamic state would not be particularly rational in regards to the middle east.
___________
You gotta be kidding me, right? Who ever said humans behaved rationally?
___________
nationalism is a powerful force, this is like saying all the christian nations of south america might form a pan-christian state in south america, it simply would not happen because of differences in culture and nationalistic ideals.
___________
http://hnn.us/articles/7378.html
Osama bin Laden’s Scary Vision of a Grand Muslim Super State
By Juan Cole
Mr. Cole is Professor of Modern Middle Eastern and South Asian History at the University of Michigan. His website is http://www.juancole.com/.
In order to evaluate the aftermath of September 11, we first must understand that event. What did al-Qaeda intend to achieve? Only if we understand that can we gauge their success or failure.
From the point of view of al-Qaeda, the Muslim world can and should be united into a single country. They believe that it once had this political unity, under the early caliphs
Excuse me, but is Juan Cole NOT an acknowledged expert on the ME?
If you follow the link, take a good look at the little MAP THINGY in the article.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:53 amcalavzma Says:
at the time that the brits were converting their fleet to oil the leading supplier of oil in the world was Azerbaijan (a former soviet union state) and the United States was not far behind. the middle east was not considered a major player in oil for a few decades after this as they did not develop as quickly as the united states and the soviet union.
___________
Riiiiiiiiight… that’s the reason the Brits went into the ME as fast as possible after WW I and set up protectorates. Also the reason BP was there as fast as they could get their too. Saaaay, bright guy… how much political say has GB ever had in Azerbaijan? ooops… NONE. It was part of the USSR at the time.
___________
also, a pan islamic nation is a silly idea that discounts the differences in culture, ethnicity and beliefs that exist in the islamic world.
one has to merely look at the divisions between sunni and shi’a to see that a “pan-islamic state spanning from africa to india” is pretty much laughable.
___________
Again, go read the JUAN COLE article I linked to.
___________
no offense is meant, but you’re ideas on this matter are somewhat off base.
___________
Then I guess you won’t take offense when I suggest yer full of hot air, huh?
February 27th, 2009 at 11:58 amYou gotta be kidding me, right? Who ever said humans behaved rationally?
you’re the one who said these beliefs were rational.
the map excludes divisions in islam. also i think its safe to say that he’s talking about osama bin laden’s view of an islamic state.
osama bin laden is not a rational person, this ambition is not realistic… it is true that this is the vision of a lunatic, but it is just that.
sunnis and shi’as have fundamental differences and to believe that they would be able to let all these beliefs simply fall by the way side is silly.
there are many so called “experts” on the middle east who have a clear agenda of casting islam as dangerous. I am not making this statement of professor Cole, but i’m just saying the term “expert” on the middle east can mean many things in our country.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:03 pmThe Republic of Stupidity Says
Osama bin Laden’s Scary Vision of a Grand Muslim Super State
By Juan Cole
From the point of view of al-Qaeda, the Muslim world can and should be united into a single country. They believe that it once had this political unity, under the early caliphs
Begging to differ, but this is al-Qaeda’s opinion. Might as well be asking Freepers about what they think of the Middle East.
Undoubtedly Al-Qaeda would love nothing more than to turn the whole world into Muslimworld with themselves ruling over it. But the rest of the Muslim population, the 99% which aren’t genocidal maniac extremists, would probably prefer to let the countries stand as they are right now.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:05 pmSaaaay, bright guy… how much political say has GB ever had in Azerbaijan? ooops… NONE. It was part of the USSR at the time.
where do you think they were purchasing their oil from before the middle east was developed?
were they shipping it across the atlantic ocean from the united states? or via pipeline and the medditeranean from azerbaijan.
it wasn’t coming from the united states.
you should read the prize by daniel yergin, its a very good history of oil
February 27th, 2009 at 12:06 pmSorry calavazma, I think you wrote your note whilst I was writing mine!
February 27th, 2009 at 12:06 pmcheers luis… no need to be sorry, its a friendly dialogue….
at least we were both able to quickly recognize cole was relaying the opinions of osama bin laden.
he also says later in the article that osama’s vision “may well be impossible”
February 27th, 2009 at 12:11 pmWHITE PHOSPHORUS……
Israel can never defend the slaughter of hundreds and hundreds of innocent men, women and children.
It takes a lady with balls to stand up to this war machine known as “our special friend”. They are only our friend because they purchase mass quanities of our WHITE PHOSPHORUS
February 27th, 2009 at 12:12 pmThis Jew does NOT recognize Mort Zuckerman in any kind of leadership capacity.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:27 pmcalavzma Says:
he also says later in the article that osama’s vision “may well be impossible”
____________
And so were Hitler’s, but it didn’t stop him from trying, and managing to kill multiple millions, did it?
All I did was float a hypothesis, and one that wasn’t that far fetched.
The Brits have been all over the ME for decades. It was partially about oil, partially about Suez, and partially about stopping the Russians from getting a warm water port.
Has it ever been a rational desire to “take over the world”?
Want to go back and count all the countries, and individuals who have tried?
SHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEESH… get a clue.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:29 pmThe Republic of Stupidity Says:
CageyCretin Says:
TRos:
Interesting. However, it seems that you assume that the potential “pan-Islamic empire” is automatically bad … presumably because of the religion?
__________
I made no such assumption, nor did I defend the actions of the govts who might be interested in stopping such thing from happening, Cagey.
ALL I did was lay out what might be a rational for, amongst other things, why this country continues to support Israel, no matter what.
TRoS, with all respect, I beg to differ as to the implication that came across in your post. Certainly I do not know what you think, so all I have are your words:
One could go so far as to say, w/out Israel dead-center in the MIDDLE of that expanse, the world might end up someday w/ a pan-Islamic empire that runs from the NW coast of Africa right up to the Indian border, and one that incidentally controls, what 2/3rds, mebbe even 3/4ths of the world’s available oil reserves?
What is implied is that there are two bad things that would happen if Israel were not there (which I have NOT commented on — my issue is with US support of Israel to the extremes that the US goes to). Those two points are:
1) there would be a “Pan-Islamic Empire”
2) Said “pan-Islamic Empire” would control 2/3 or more of the world’s oil reserves.
Without further qualification, these are presented as an (maybe not “your“) argument as to why Israel should be supported in the extremes that the US has done. Neither argument goes far enough to substantiate anything, and assumptions must be made as to the validity and intent of said arguments.
I have little more to add, as others who have engaged this discussion have made points that I would simply be repeating.
We may (will?) choose to disagree here on this matter.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:29 pmcalavzma Says:
where do you think they were purchasing their oil from before the middle east was developed?
____________
And why do you think they wanted to DEVELOP other sources of that oil?
You should THINK a little more before inserting yourself into the dialogue.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:30 pmcalavzma Says:
You gotta be kidding me, right? Who ever said humans behaved rationally?
you’re the one who said these beliefs were rational.
Actually, I believe TRoS committed a spelling error that has sowed confusion. He meant “rationale” when he was laying out reasons why a number of people believe it’s necessary to support Israel to the bitter end.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:30 pmThe Republic of Stupidity Says:
——————————————————————————–
calavzma Says:
he also says later in the article that osama’s vision “may well be impossible”
____________
And so were Hitler’s, but it didn’t stop him from trying, and managing to kill multiple millions, did it?
And if OBL were caught and tried, as promised, by the reichwing savior and ubber-protectorate Bush (messiah of conservativism) that would not be much of a threat. I don’t think OBL has the capacity to rise to power like Hitler, and he CERTAINLY cannot unite all the followers of Islam under his version of the religion (no matter how much it is his wish). OBL has made too many enemies in the world to accomplish anything beyond his hit-and-hide terrorists (and the ONLY reason AQ is the size it is today is directly because of Bush’s foreign policy and “war on terror” — NOT because Islam chose to rally behind OBL because they decided to believe his version of Islam).
February 27th, 2009 at 12:35 pmO.k., TRoS… here’s a wiffle bat… I’ll get mine…. now let’s just go at it…….
February 27th, 2009 at 12:36 pmCageyCretin Says:
TRoS, with all respect, I beg to differ as to the implication that came across in your post. Certainly I do not know what you think, so all I have are your words:
One could go so far as to say, w/out Israel dead-center in the MIDDLE of that expanse, the world might end up someday w/ a pan-Islamic empire that runs from the NW coast of Africa right up to the Indian border, and one that incidentally controls, what 2/3rds, mebbe even 3/4ths of the world’s available oil reserves?
What is implied is that there are two bad things that would happen if Israel were not there (which I have NOT commented on — my issue is with US support of Israel to the extremes that the US goes to). Those two points are:
1) there would be a “Pan-Islamic Empire”
2) Said “pan-Islamic Empire” would control 2/3 or more of the world’s oil reserves.
Without further qualification, these are presented as an (maybe not “your“) argument as to why Israel should be supported in the extremes that the US has done. Neither argument goes far enough to substantiate anything, and assumptions must be made as to the validity and intent of said arguments.
I have little more to add, as others who have engaged this discussion have made points that I would simply be repeating.
We may (will?) choose to disagree here on this matter.
_____________
I’m a little surprised at how much this is yanking your chain here.
Haven’t we all learned about “implied” and “assumed” by now?
I DIDN’T imply ANYTHING. I merely stated what I think is a plausible rationale for the US’s continuing support for Israel, and also a fairly cogent view of ME politics over the last 100 years.
THAT’S ALL I did. I don’t condone US or Israeli behavior. Nor do I condone a lot of Muslim behavior. I feel I’m on pretty solid ground when I say “Human beings have been fighting for control of the planet, nonstop, as long as recorded history has existed, WHETHER OR NOT THEY COULD OBTAIN THEIR GOALS.
If ya’ll feel entitled and/or obligated to tell me what I “implied” or whether or not it was “rational” that’s your business. I KNOW what I meant.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:37 pmCageyCretin Says:
I don’t think OBL has the capacity to rise to power like Hitler, and he CERTAINLY cannot unite all the followers of Islam under his version of the religion (no matter how much it is his wish).
____________
And that certainly NEVER STOPPED any other would be world dictator from trying, did it? Did Hitler not start out in a Munich beer hall w/ a half dozen drunken fools supporting him?
February 27th, 2009 at 12:40 pmTRoS
it is far-fetched. look at osama bin laden’s approval ratings in the middle east before you say it isn’t that far fetched.
the average person in the middle east is smart enough to know that osama bin laden does bad things for them in the global arena.
are we now to talk about thinking before posting?
you’re the one talking about “british oil reserves”
they had NONE all they had was coal, thats why the decision to convert their fleet was a tough one because they would have to depend on the soviets for the supply.
i’m not denying that the british had huge interests in the middle east, i’m just saying your time line is a little shaky.
and most of my problem is with your idea of a pan islamic state, an idea which the only support you have comes from osama bin laden.
i’m not sitting here calling you an idiot, you call me naive but apparently you live in a bizzaro world in which osama bin laden having the power to unite a divided arab world is “not that far fetched”
who’s kidding themselves here… perhaps you need to do a bit more thinking about the middle east, one that acknowledges that there are many different cultures, view points, and strong national histories and identities.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:44 pm2. Badmoodman – there are no Jewish settlements in Gaza anymore.
6. stateofthedivision – the Arab League’s Beirut intiative would be much more useful if it actually intiated something. No one expects the entire Arab League to recognize their fellow UN General Assembly member nation overnight; just perhaps exchange diplomats between Israel and the Arab League member nations and formally lift the economic and cultural boycott of Israel. Or even simply allow Israeli tennis players to compete in the opens hosted in Dubai. Then maybe the Israeli electorate could feel less isolated and the Jewish people can seriously and fully reintegrate back into the region.
Two Peoples, Two States
Bring the West Bank settlers back home to Israel
February 27th, 2009 at 12:44 pmRationalRadioJett Says:
WHITE PHOSPHORUS……
Israel can never defend the slaughter of hundreds and hundreds of innocent men, women and children.
It takes a lady with balls to stand up to this war machine known as “our special friend”. They are only our friend because they purchase mass quanities of our WHITE PHOSPHORUS
Not to mention Israels use of so called flechettes during the Gaza attack. Thousands of metal darts, 2 inches each goes in one tank shell. After firing, the darts are released and disperse in a cone 300m wide 100m long.
They are the exact opposite of a precision weapon only meant to be used against military soft targets in dense vegetation covering large areas. And yet the Israeli army used them in one of the most densely populated places on Earth
February 27th, 2009 at 12:48 pmand TRoS
bin laden IS trying, he’s trying now with pathetic success levels.
the man will be dead very soon if he is not dead already (he was on dialysis)
where we disagree is not that its unreasonable to think that someone crazy might try to create a pan islamic state
we differ on thinking about the likely hood of success, you seem to think its a perfectly reasonable thing to believe that this has a shot.
i think that a pan-islamic state only works if you have a very narrow view of islam.
and also, why are you so insulting to people who are merely engaging you in a dialogue about an idea proposed by osama bin laden and how rational that may be.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:49 pmWhoa, TRoS…. I’m just talking. I understand that you offered a rationale for continued support of Israel. I am debating the rationale proposed, NOT trying to put words in your mouth — really.
The proposed rationale presented (and I do NOT say that it is not one that many may support), THE RATIONALE ITSELF implies a judgement on the points it uses. The question, “Why should Israel be defended at all costs?” and the answer is the two points you shared — and I can see where many would like that argument — but those two points MUST be negative to BE rationales for the continued unconditional support of Israel. That’s all I’m trying to say about those.
“Why unconditional support?”
“Because without Israel there could be an Islamic empire, and said empire would control most of the world’s oil.”
To BE justification for “unconditional support” that rationale MUST imply those things to be negative things.
If the argument is that “there would then be an Islamic Empire, and all would be well in the world” then it is not much of an argument.
I am not commenting on rights to exist, or who makes a better empire, or the quality of religion (wait… o.k. … ALL organized religion is evil. Religion is and should remain personal. As soon as it is organized to any degree, it becomes political, and loses its spirituality).
Look… let’s just take the wiffle bats out back and have at… it will be much more enjoyable…..
February 27th, 2009 at 12:54 pmone last bit… and this is what i think is the fundamental problem with your view on the middle east TRoS
I don’t condone US or Israeli behavior. Nor do I condone a lot of Muslim behavior.
the fact that you lump all muslims together demonstrates your neglect of the differences in beliefs and cultures. Muslims in Indonesia are very different from Muslims in Saudi Arabia.
to lump the entire muslim world together as one and to be critical of “muslim actions” is the exact kind of ignorance that is a problem with how many view the middle east.
NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE ACTIONS
you seem to think the entire muslim world thinks like osama bin laden even though the polls and numbers demonstrate quite the opposite.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:55 pmThe Republic of Stupidity Says:
——————————————————————————–
CageyCretin Says:
I don’t think OBL has the capacity to rise to power like Hitler, and he CERTAINLY cannot unite all the followers of Islam under his version of the religion (no matter how much it is his wish).
____________
And that certainly NEVER STOPPED any other would be world dictator from trying, did it? Did Hitler not start out in a Munich beer hall w/ a half dozen drunken fools supporting him?
No, it did not. It has not stopped OBL all this time. But do you really think, that TODAY OBL could become such a figure before SOMEONE from SOME NATION (not necessarily the US) took the matters into a sniper’s hands? The goon has to hide as it is.
I’m not sure of Hitler’s VERY beginnings in politics, but it wasn’t half a dozen drunks who propelled him — it was an already existing political party. Without that party (”the Labor Party”, I think…?) Hitler would never have gone anywhere in politics.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:58 pmCageyCretin Says:
And that certainly NEVER STOPPED any other would be world dictator from trying, did it? Did Hitler not start out in a Munich beer hall w/ a half dozen drunken fools supporting him?
No, it did not. It has not stopped OBL all this time. But do you really think, that TODAY OBL could become such a figure before SOMEONE from SOME NATION (not necessarily the US) took the matters into a sniper’s hands? The goon has to hide as it is.
_______________
And THAT’S not what I said.
_______________
I’m not sure of Hitler’s VERY beginnings in politics, but it wasn’t half a dozen drunks who propelled him — it was an already existing political party. Without that party (”the Labor Party”, I think…?) Hitler would never have gone anywhere in politics.
________________
Hitler most certainly did start out w/ a half-dozen drunken supporters in a Munich beer hall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler’s_rise_to_power
Hitler attended this meeting, held at the Alte Rosenbad beer-house[20], and initially concluded that the party was too muddled and disorganized –it had neither membership numbers nor membership cards, and had a treasury of about seven Reichsmarks– to merit further attention. However, on further reflection Hitler realized that because the party was neither well established nor particularly organized, he could exercise a greater influence on its direction. After two days in thought, Hitler decided to join the DAP; he was the party’s seventh member.[21] [22]
________________
Lemme see… seven minus one is SIX.
He started out w/ SIX followers, whom he met in a beer hall.
Normally, yer pretty cool Cagey. I’m not quite sure what set everyone off here.
It was just an hypothesis. I’m not for or against it, or either side. Rationality has never stopped people from trying to do what they want to do…
Peace… here… take at hit…
***Pssssssssssssst… pssssssssssssssst…***
***Cough… cough…***
(Exhaling thru clenched teeth…)
Now… what were we discussing???
February 27th, 2009 at 1:13 pmcalavzma Says:
the fact that you lump all muslims together demonstrates your neglect of the differences in beliefs and cultures. Muslims in Indonesia are very different from Muslims in Saudi Arabia.
_________
Oh, get off your high horse, you pompous twit.
Cagey… do NOT pass the joint to this self-important nitwit.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:15 pmi see you’ve taken to the trollish tactic of not addressing me with any sort of substance but nearly calling names
classy, very classy
maybe smoke less weed (can’t believe i said that) and study the history of the middle east, not just the colonial history of the middle east. its not quite as homogeneous as you seem to think.
i’ve generally thought you to be fairly interesting on most issues, i’m just surprised by your point of view on this.
are you still maintaining that a pan-islamic nation is a reasonable idea for the future? do you think this actually could happen?
cuz if you do, you’re saying that:
the saudi royal family will give up their exclusive rights to their oil, kuwaities will give up their exclusive rights to their oil, nations like the UAE will have to share their enormous wealth with impoverished nations of the region, that the very secular turkish state would concede its secular gov’t for a pan islamic state.
don’t hold your breath for those things to happen
thats just silly
i’ll stoop to being insulting towards you (i had been trying to be respectful because on most issues i agree with you) and say you’re living up to your name if you believe that these are realistic possibilities that would have to occur for the creation of a pan-islamic state spanning from africa to india.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:23 pmweed? panislamic? is it any good?
February 27th, 2009 at 1:33 pmThe fact that this is news is testament to that lobby’s powerful influence.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:37 pmcalavzma Says:
i see you’ve taken to the trollish tactic of not addressing me with any sort of substance but nearly calling names
classy, very classy
________
Up yours, you snotty prig.
________
maybe smoke less weed (can’t believe i said that) and study the history of the middle east, not just the colonial history of the middle east. its not quite as homogeneous as you seem to think.
________
I NEVER SAID it was homogeneous. You’re just so determined to read something into ONE brief comment for your own self-serving purposes.
Just dying to show off your education?
__________
are you still maintaining that a pan-islamic nation is a reasonable idea for the future? do you think this actually could happen?
__________
Did I SAY this could happen? No.
BASIC rhetorical structure seems to baffle you. I merely floated it as a brief theory of WHY the US has supported Israel since its inception.
I think it’s valid. Paranoid? Yes. Irrational? Yes. Have either of those factors ever stopped someone like, oh say, G Bush from doing what he wanted to? NO.
Both you and Cagey have been determined to read things into my comment and tell me what I really meant to say since I posted it.
Has OBL NOT stated a pan-Islamic superstate is his ultimate goal? Wasn’t that why Saddam invaded Kuwait – to control more of the world’s oil supply?
Do either of these people make sense, as we like to pretend we do, when they come up w/ their plans and actions? Hell… No…
And yet they still try… just like Hitler, and Tojo, and Stalin, and Mao…
As far as not understanding the differences between the countries…
It is my understanding the British, both in Africa and the ME, set the national boundaries of countries like Iraq and Kenya, simply to use those regional differences as a way of controlling the locals.
Gee… what were the Brits worried about? WHY did they feel a need to play the locals off against each other?
My Gawd… you can be rather pedantic. STOP trying to tell me what I meant or implied, or assumed. I KOW WHAT I MEANT TO SAY, and I think it’s valid.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:38 pmthis is why globalism fails. this is also why the ruling elite have to flex so much muscle to get their way.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:39 pmThe Republic of Stupidity Says:
CageyCretin Says:
And that certainly NEVER STOPPED any other would be world dictator from trying, did it? Did Hitler not start out in a Munich beer hall w/ a half dozen drunken fools supporting him?
No, it did not. It has not stopped OBL all this time. But do you really think, that TODAY OBL could become such a figure before SOMEONE from SOME NATION (not necessarily the US) took the matters into a sniper’s hands? The goon has to hide as it is.
_______________
And THAT’S not what I said.
O.k. Calm down. I did not mean to put words in your mouth there: I agreed with you, then posed a (actually rhetorical) question. Rhetorical because from what I’ve seen of you, I would expect that you agree. I was just ADDING a comment of MINE there. Sorry bout the confusion.
Hitler most certainly did start out w/ a half-dozen drunken supporters in a Munich beer hall….. etc
Fair enough. “I” never said that he didn’t (back atcha ;) ). WWII history is NOT a topic of knowledge on my part.
Lemme see… seven minus one is SIX.
Little harsh to be so condescendingly patronizing, dontcha’ think big fella (… ummmm.. petite lady…. I don’t know which?….)?
He started out w/ SIX followers, whom he met in a beer hall.
Didn’t know that. I thought that the Labor Party (or c.) was involved, and that it was a party of more than 6, but, as I said, WWII history is not my forte’.
Normally, yer pretty cool Cagey. I’m not quite sure what set everyone off here.
Well, thanks. Normally you’re pretty cool, too (ooohhh… not nice of me…. ;) ).
REALLY, I am not “set off”. I am in a perfectly temperate and equitable mood over this. My only real point of dicussion was the necessity of qualifying the two rationales as being “negatives” in order to BE rationale’s. I also am CERTAIN that what “set everyone off here” was that you responded closest to a troll-like statement and since we are so staved for trolls (reasonable or otherwise) that you became a target. i think regulars should take turns daily being “resident troll”, unless a gagle of ‘em show up.
It was just an hypothesis. I’m not for or against it, or either side. Rationality has never stopped people from trying to do what they want to do…
Yep, sure, fair enough.
Peace… here… take at hit…
***Pssssssssssssst… pssssssssssssssst…***
***Cough… cough…***
(Exhaling thru clenched teeth…)
Now… what were we discussing???
Peace. …. here try some of this… Roman Red…… got some E-Z Widers?…….
….ummm… we were… ahhhh….. discussing….. wiffle ball bats!!!!!!! (Ah. ha, ha, ha, ha … as Cagey pulls his wiffle bat from behind the sofa nad begins to chase TRoS around the house, laughing maniacally…. occasionally drooling…….).
February 27th, 2009 at 1:40 pmdon’t knock the coffee table over, man….
February 27th, 2009 at 1:42 pmcalavzma Says:
a pan islamic nation is a silly idea
one has to merely look at the divisions between sunni and shi’a to see that a “pan-islamic state spanning from africa to india” is pretty much laughable.
no offense is meant, but you’re ideas on this matter are somewhat off base
________________
it is far-fetched.
the average person in the middle east is smart enough to know that osama bin laden does bad things for them in the global arena.
are we now to talk about thinking before posting?
who’s kidding themselves here… perhaps you need to do a bit more thinking about the middle east, one that acknowledges that there are many different cultures, view points, and strong national histories and identities.
___________
But.. not determined to come across as high-handed and insulting…
Cry me a river… on yer own time.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:46 pmThe Republic of Stupidity Says:
Both you and Cagey have been determined to read things into my comment and tell me what I really meant to say since I posted it.
Hey, whoa, no! I did not presume so.
At @ 23: Interesting. However, it seems that you assume that the potential “pan-Islamic empire” is automatically bad … presumably because of the religion? And that they would control 2/3 or more of the oil supply? Well — for one, we shold have long ago weaned ourselves from oil. But, do you imply that this control of the oil would mean that they would hoard it and not sell it?
and @56:
Without further qualification, these are presented as an (maybe not “your“) argument as to why Israel should be supported in the extremes that the US has done.
I tried to discuss the argument, but at some point had to bridge certian thoughts in order to make an argument. Never meant to put words in your mouth, and TRIED to qualify myself away from that.
Be cool, man… let the coolness get into your vertebae…..
February 27th, 2009 at 1:48 pmHas OBL NOT stated a pan-Islamic superstate is his ultimate goal? Wasn’t that why Saddam invaded Kuwait – to control more of the world’s oil supply?
nope…. saddam invaded kuwait because they were drilling across the border and stealing iraqi oil
he actually asked our permission first.
his goal was not to control the world’s oil or to create a pan islamic state.
so am i to understand that you don’t think any of what you said is rational but merely a potential justification for US foreign policy towards the middle east?
it would seem that you’re implying a lot here too with very little substance. considering you’re using an idea of osama bin laden to justify 100 years of US foreign policy… most of which happened before said idea was propagated.
my issue with what you’ve said here is that you’ve appeared to have been adamantly defending an idea that seems like its only support comes from osama bin laden and people who promote his ideas as a fear tactic.
but it would appear that maybe you’re saying that you merely think other people believed this…
perhaps the problem is that you might have been able to express yourself a bit more clearly then?
i’m just trying to understand, you’re the one who’s gone all reich-wing on me hahaha
February 27th, 2009 at 1:51 pmI was pleasantly surprised to see this. It is mostly because of support for Israel that I can’t wholeheartedly support Clinton and Obama. But this is a good thing, and though it may not look like much to us, it’s probably huge to Israel.
Cagey, there is a reason that the billionaire Bin Laden, et al, were in caves in Afghanistan. The majority in the Mideast ran them out of town. The Islamic Brotherhood was run out of Egypt. There were huge demonstrations—the streets were filled with people chanting “No to fundamentalism!” If it were not for war and grueling poverty, fundamentalism would probably be fading fast in the Mideast. The majority certainly disagree with terrorist attacks on civilians.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:52 pmSorry about the coffee table, nevar. I’ll get you a new drink….
February 27th, 2009 at 1:52 pmBut.. not determined to come across as high-handed and insulting…
Cry me a river… on yer own time.
says the kid whining about being misunderstood hahaha
i’m not crying, i’m just trying to understand what the hell your point is at this point hahaha.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:54 pmNot right now, I’m picking the stuff out of the carpet….
February 27th, 2009 at 1:55 pmWell, I find this very encouraging. It is an indication that this Administration isn’t going to be following the path of “Israel right, Palestinian’s wrong”.
I am hoping that this administration will tell Israel that as long as they act like terrorists towards Gaza and the Palestinaians, that we will no longer give them any kind of aid.
“I don’t believe that we should be in a position at this point to do anything to strengthen Hamas,” Zuckerman said. “We surely know what Hamas stands for as I say they are the forward battalions of Iran.”
This quote really pissed me off. How is getting humanitarian aid and helping Gaza rebuild doing something to “strengthen Hamas”. I guess their idea of not strengthening Hamas would be to allow all those people to die. When did Israel and it’s rabid supporters become such bloodthirsty terrorists?
February 27th, 2009 at 1:55 pmwiley Says:
I hear ya’.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:56 pmNevar Says:
Not right now, I’m picking the stuff out of the carpet….
Here…. I’ve got the dust buster (Whhhiiirrrrrrrr………..)
February 27th, 2009 at 1:57 pmNevar Says:
….
…what?…..
Why are you glaring at me?…. I got the dust buster…
oh.
Here (pulls some out of pocket)…
February 27th, 2009 at 2:01 pmO.k. I have gone too silly here. Must go for the day.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:02 pmPeace, all.
I do agree, and smile ear-to-ear whenever the suggestion of upsetting any Right winger, because it does mean that whatever we are doing is working, for the better!
February 27th, 2009 at 2:05 pmMort and his criminal Jewish brothers have gotten millions from the US to help attacak Palestine and with hopes of attacking Iran under the Bush/Israel Policy. Mort is even madder at his Jewish brother Madoff who stolen millions from Mort. God knows that to hurt a Jewish person it’s always money that causes the most pain. Most of the Jewish people in Israel want to live in peace with the Palestine people. It’s the Leaders who are causing the chaos and stealing money along the way. Olmert is changed with corruption as he stole from his own people. Before the Jewish Holocaust the people in Gaza lived together in peace both Israel/Palestine. After countries could not longer take Jewish victims, in 1948 the UN approved that Jews could setting on some of the Palestine land. It’s been down hill from there from using God to changing the bible. If Jewish Leaders had it their way they would take over the World and say God said they could have it. Even God knew and loved the Jews as they disobeyed Him so many times he sent them out for 40 years in hopes of removing the evil. It didn’t work.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:19 pm“Every time we do something you tell me America 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.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:20 pmWe keep hearing the following on the news and reading about it on the internet. Right now, I cannot seem to say if this is good or bad. The only objection I can see at this time is the $ 20,000,000.00 when the USA is in financial crises.
“President Barack Obama has signed an executive order presidential determination allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to resettle in the United States. Sure, what can go wrong when we allow hundreds of thousands of people who have been, as Mark Steyn memorably described, “marinated” in a “sick death cult,” who voted for Hamas, and 55% of whom support suicide bombings live here and at the American taxpayers’ expense:
February 27th, 2009 at 8:00 pmBy executive order, President Barack Obama has ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in migration assistance to the Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza.
The “presidential determination” which allows hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States was signed on January 27 and appeared in the Federal Register on February 4.
President Obama’s decision, according to the Register, was necessitated by “the urgent refugee and migration needs” of the “victims.”
Few on Capitol Hill took note that the order provides a free ticket replete with housing and food allowances to individuals who have displayed their overwhelming support of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the parliamentary election of January 2006.”
What are they going to do when in 10 to 15 years they are outnumbered by Muslims? Will they all be Hammas too? It’s a damn shame that Israel won’t talk,just bomb and kill! God, if there is one, loves EVERYONE! We need to back the Hell out of there. Stop sending weapons,and start sending people willing to talk. Hey, just my opinion,PEACE!
February 27th, 2009 at 8:07 pmcalavzma Says:
Has OBL NOT stated a pan-Islamic superstate is his ultimate goal? Wasn’t that why Saddam invaded Kuwait – to control more of the world’s oil supply?
nope…. saddam invaded kuwait because they were drilling across the border and stealing iraqi oil
_______________
http://www.studyworld.com/biography/historical_figures/saddam_hussein.htm
All of this was attractive and irritating to Saddam who would and did use a fraction of his army to attack and invade Kuwait in which it only took the Iraqi army 6 hours to reach the capital city. They had after their invasion about 19% of the world’s known oil reserves.
Historically Iraq had claimed that it had a right to Kuwait. “They were jealous that Kuwait was in control of the two islands needed for a deep water shipping port:the Bubiyan and Warbah islands.”4 These islands along with some parts of Kuwait were a part of Mesopotamia which the Ottoman Turks conquered. “The Ottoman Empire was defeated during World War I and the British made their “own lines in the sand”, dividing up the land according to their own strategic needs and in the process recklessly dividing up ancient communities and boundaries that had been recognized for decades.”1 Most of Mesopotamia became Iraq and some other parts to Kuwait. In 1961, Kuwait became independent and the Iraqis threatened to invade except that British troops kept the peace. This was to be the first of many border skirmishes which include Iraqi missiles fired at Kuwaiti oil installations and the reflagging of Kuwaiti oil tankers during the Iran-Iraq War in which U.S. ships patrolled the Persian Gulf and Kuwaiti tankers were reflagged with U.S. flags.
_______________
so am i to understand that you don’t think any of what you said is rational but merely a potential justification for US foreign policy towards the middle east?
_______________
Boy… do you ever specialize in “snide”. perhaps you’d care to explain what the hell you even mean w/ this comment.
_______________
it would seem that you’re implying a lot here too with very little substance. considering you’re using an idea of osama bin laden to justify 100 years of US foreign policy… most of which happened before said idea was propagated.
________________
I DIDN’T use an idea of OBL to justify 100 years of US foreign policy. You SAID I did. You’re a little unclear on who said what here, aren’t you?
________________
On the other hand, the Brits HAVE been diddling around in the ME for 100 years now…
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/0425byzantine.htm
Dogged British Determination
Among the foreign powers the British, seeing Iraq as a gateway to their Indian colony and oil as lifeblood for their Imperial Navy, were most aggressive in their pursuits in Mesopotamia, aspiring to gain physical control of the oil region. Winston Churchill, soon after he became First Lord of the Admiralty in 1911, declared oil to be of paramount importance for the supremacy of the Imperial Navy. Churchill was educated about the virtues of oil by none other than Marcus Samuel, the founder of Shell.
Dang… look at that. EXACTLY I what I said… dont’cha just HATE it when the facts back you up?
_________________
my issue with what you’ve said here is that you’ve appeared to have been adamantly defending an idea that seems like its only support comes from osama bin laden and people who promote his ideas as a fear tactic.
__________________
Go read both articles I linked to… if you’re adult enough to accept how wrong you were.
I went all reichwing on YOU?
Up yours… :-D!!!!
February 27th, 2009 at 10:23 pmZuckerman and other crackpot Zionists like Dov Hikind are the main threat to peace in the world today. Israel is an outlaw racist nation seeling domination over the world.
If Zuckerman, et al, have taken the Pledge of Allegiance, then they are traitors. These clowns should move to Israel where they will not be betraying their country.
February 28th, 2009 at 12:21 amI have been a supporter of Israel all of my adult life, more than half a century, but Israel today is not worthy of admiration. I am very tired of the U.S. having to support it no matter what. It was the wild child to bush’s indulgent father and it will take longer to reach accord in the ME because of the far right turn it has taken.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:07 pmRight-wing Jewish leaders would despise Bush.
George W. Bush committed hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism (indicated in my blog).
George W. Bush did in fact commit innumerable hate crimes.
Bush was absolute evil.
Bush is now like a fugitive from justice.
Bush is a psychological prisoner.
Bush has a lot to worry about.
Bush can technically be prosecuted for hate crimes at any time.
In any case, Bush will go down in history in infamy.
Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
“GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY” BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG
March 1st, 2009 at 2:36 amDoesn’t that fat, porcine-faced Rush Limbaugh remind one of Ernst Rohm, the head of Nazi Germany’s SA? Look at him! And listen to the hate and subliminal racism that he vomits. Yup, Rush would be a high-ranking official in the conservative’s “New World Order”.
March 1st, 2009 at 12:53 pm