View Full Version : An Israel/Zionism thread
jester214
04-11-2008, 10:28 PM
Aren't those blue helmets referred to as...Peace keeping forces?:)
Yes, but those hats often mean very different things...
In Kosovo they meant, "come on Serbia, you fuck with Kosovo you fuck with the West"
In Rwanda they meant, "Well, I guess we should atleast pretend to care"
In Israel it means "Ok let's avoid full scale border-crossing war"
The U.N. is nothing, without U.S. support it would be underfunded and lacking enforcement capabilities.
Paul in Saudi
04-12-2008, 12:04 AM
I have to disagree. At the turn of the last century 2 peoples thought they had a right to the "holy lands." War was inevitable.
Sure, but most people at some point decide that war does no real good. Don't forget in my father's lifetime Germans were fighting the French. Europe has lots of very deep conflicts. At some point they decided to hell with it.
At some point everyone in this region will have to decide to live with everyone else.
(Have you noticed how both sides in this conflict think that have some sort of superhuman ability to withstand suffering? That can't be good.)
Melonie
04-12-2008, 12:11 PM
Sure, but most people at some point decide that war does no real good.
That depends on your definition of 'some people'. Granted the 'activists' or 'fanatics' behind any movement are usually a small minority. However it does make a difference when that minority is well funded, is well armed, and is able to wield 'official' power.
Paul in Saudi
04-12-2008, 09:19 PM
We have a situation where everyone has a veto on peace. If the vast majority of Palestinians and Israelis decided to stop shooting next Tuesday, the bottom-dwellers on both sides would take steps to re-ignite the fighting. Further these people are beyond control. No matter what the two governments agree to, the nut cases will continue to fight.
You know how you get killed in the Middle East? Be a moderate. Then people shoot at you from both sides.
Melonie
04-12-2008, 09:47 PM
^^^ sad but true.
I would also interject that even if by some miracle the Palestinians and Israelis decided to stop shooting next Tuesday, there are other 'players' in the middle east power game that would continue shooting while seeing to it that the Palestinians or Israelis are blamed for it !
missjzone
05-30-2008, 11:52 PM
. As you are probably aware, we don't have true "freedom of speech" here in Canada. We consider the fomenting of hatred against an identifiable group as reprehensible and we sanction it...seriously. Why? Because unchecked, it inevitably leads to some awful shit.
.
I strongly disagree with this. any healthy society requires full freedom of speech for all citizens at all times. rational individuals can decide for themselves. Im disappointed with Canada for enacting this law.
I would just like to say one thing...
When the Arabs living in Palestine (a name from the period of the Ottoman Empire for the geographical area also known as Israel) were kicked out of/left their homes in Israel they fled, as refugees, to the surrounding Arab countries.
NONE of these Arab countries (Except for Jordan - But that is another long story) excepted all these refugees. Why? some say that it was their agenda all along - if they refused to accept refugees and grant them citizenship then the world will have mercy on these poor homeless souls and send them back to Palestine/Israel.
Some would call that cold-heartedness (not accepting refugees).
I personally am studying this matter in depth, but I do not wish to bring any personal opinion into this topic - it is bound to be misunderstood, because nor I nor a lot of others know enough correct information about this issue to talk about it in a meaningful manner.
Melonie
05-31-2008, 07:08 AM
speaking of the 'devil' ...
(snip)"Washington asks nuclear watchdog to search for two more Syrian nuclear sites – report
May 29, 2008, 11:15 AM (GMT+02:00)
According to the Washington Post, US officials have identified at least three suspected nuclear sites in Syria, two more than the Al Kibar reactor Israel bombed last year, and passed the information to the International Atomic Energy Agency. This confirms the Oct. 25, 2007, disclosure by DEBKAfile military sources that the Israeli raid of Sept. 6 had destroyed at least two nuclear sites in Syria.
Washington released its request to the IAEA now - both to point up its disapproval of the Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert’s peace talks with Damascus and to continue the pressure on Syrian president Bashar Assad. More such disclosures are therefore expected.
CIA Director Michael V. Hayden told the WP that the intelligence community’s insight into Syria’s nuclear ambitions had deepened since the Israeli raid. “Do not assume that Al Kibra exhausted our knowledge of Syrian efforts with regard to nuclear weapons.”
Our military sources add: The fact that Syria was building three interconnected nuclear sites, a North Korean reactor and facilities for supplying nuclear fuel rods and fuel processing for extracting plutonium, proves Damascus was close to completing a weaponization program fueled by plutonium rather than enriched uranium. Both American and Israeli sources reported that the reactor was only weeks or months away from being ready for production.
Our sources add that if Syria was that close, how much closer must Iran, the senior partner in the alliance, be to its goal of a homemade nuclear weapon?
Syria has not responded to any IAEA requests for a date to conduct inspections."(snip)
from
Melonie
05-31-2008, 07:35 AM
and speaking of the 'devil's cousin ...
(snip)"Iran on Saturday reiterated that it will not discuss halting uranium enrichment ahead of the arrival of a top international envoy expected to propose new incentives aimed at encouraging Iran to do so.
"The issue of suspension cannot be discussed any more, we have passed this point and it is not relevant. Iran's position is clear on this point," government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham told reporters.
"The government view is that the issue is over," he added in reaction to a new report by UN nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The IAEA on Monday expressed "serious concern" that Tehran was still hiding information about alleged studies into making nuclear warheads, as well as defying UN demands to suspend uranium enrichment.
Washington and its European allies fear Iran wants to use the sensitive process of uranium enrichment to make an atomic weapon, but Tehran insists its drive is entirely peaceful and has refused to freeze such efforts.
Elham was speaking two days after Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said he expected European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana to visit Tehran "soon."
He said precise details of Solana's trip to Tehran have not yet been finalised.
A US official said last week that six major world powers have completed a "refreshed" offer they intend to present to Iran in a bid to end the long-running nuclear standoff.
The six are the five permanent members of the UN Security Council -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany.
The United States has pursued a two-track policy of UN and other sanctions against Iran for its failure to halt uranium enrichment, while also holding out offers of economic and other incentives if it stops such work.
The enrichment process is used for power generation but at highly refined levels can also be used to build the core of a nuclear weapon. "(snip)
from
the 'clock' is ticking faster and faster ...
missjzone
05-31-2008, 08:53 AM
I would just like to say one thing...
When the Arabs living in Palestine (a name from the period of the Ottoman Empire for the geographical area also known as Israel) were kicked out of/left their homes in Israel they fled, as refugees, to the surrounding Arab countries.
NONE of these Arab countries (Except for Jordan - But that is another long story) excepted all these refugees. Why? some say that it was their agenda all along - if they refused to accept refugees and grant them citizenship then the world will have mercy on these poor homeless souls and send them back to Palestine/Israel.
Some would call that cold-heartedness (not accepting refugees).
thats not the whole picture unfortunately. When the Palestinians were forced out of their homes, they fled to anywhere the could find shelter. Many of the neighboring countries were concerned that having such a huge number of refugees in their midst could be an unsettling factor. Not an unreasonable thought especially considering the situation at the time.
Also keep in mind that a great number of the Palestinians being pushed out of Israel at that were Christian-not Muslim. This was not a religious conflict solely but a racial and ideological one as well. And note that many of these Palestinians were forced out made their way to Latin America. There are over 300K Palestinians in Chile alone.
missjzone
05-31-2008, 08:55 AM
and speaking of the 'devil's cousin ...
(snip)"Iran on Saturday reiterated that it will not discuss halting uranium enrichment ahead of the arrival of a top international envoy expected to propose new incentives aimed at encouraging Iran to do so.
"The issue of suspension cannot be discussed any more, we have passed this point and it is not relevant. Iran's position is clear on this point," government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham told reporters.
"The government view is that the issue is over," he added in reaction to a new report by UN nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The IAEA on Monday expressed "serious concern" that Tehran was still hiding information about alleged studies into making nuclear warheads, as well as defying UN demands to suspend uranium enrichment.
Washington and its European allies fear Iran wants to use the sensitive process of uranium enrichment to make an atomic weapon, but Tehran insists its drive is entirely peaceful and has refused to freeze such efforts.
Elham was speaking two days after Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said he expected European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana to visit Tehran "soon."
He said precise details of Solana's trip to Tehran have not yet been finalised.
A US official said last week that six major world powers have completed a "refreshed" offer they intend to present to Iran in a bid to end the long-running nuclear standoff.
The six are the five permanent members of the UN Security Council -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany.
The United States has pursued a two-track policy of UN and other sanctions against Iran for its failure to halt uranium enrichment, while also holding out offers of economic and other incentives if it stops such work.
The enrichment process is used for power generation but at highly refined levels can also be used to build the core of a nuclear weapon. "(snip)
from http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080531111249.liicshdp&show_article=1
the 'clock' is ticking faster and faster ...
sorry Melonie who is the Devil's cousin in this case
Melonie
05-31-2008, 09:17 AM
^^^ Tehran is the capital of Iran. When you combine Syria's fledgeling nuclear enrichment program with Iran's now well developed nuclear enrichment program and the fact that both were supplied nuclear technology by North Korea, you wind up with a family of cousins that GWB once referred to as the 'axis of evil'. Then throw in the low profile but highly important involvement of a Russian 'uncle' ...
(snip)"One report reveals the Russians had offered similar proposals to the Iranians and in so doing were blatantly breaching one-by-one weapons agreements and understandings achieved with Israel over the past five years.
The new weapons deal with Syria underscores fears Russia has been aligning itself with regimes working to destabilize American interests in the Middle East, particularly Iran, which intelligence indicates is the primary state sponsor of the Iraq insurgency.
Russia has been the main provider to Iran of nuclear technology and facilities. Moscow claims its nuclear cooperation with Tehran is confined exclusively to civilian nuclear plant construction, such as a previous deal for the construction and supply of Iran's Beshehr reactor.
But sources say Russia has embarked on a government-sponsored nuclear and missile technology transfer program that could provide Iran with the ability to produce nuclear bombs in one to three years. They say Russia still is contemplating providing Tehran with rods that are able to enrich uranium, a deal that was first reported last September.
Earlier this month, Russia reportedly installed a mobile radar system to protect the Bushehr nuclear reactor, and similar systems allegedly are in the works for other Iranian nuclear facilities, with a site in central Iran being fitted for the system. The portable units are designed to detect low, medium and high altitude incoming missiles, and would complicate any attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Sources told WND operators of the Beshehr plant arrived earlier this month at a nuclear training center in Novovoronezh, Russia, where they have been receiving instruction on facility operation.
Iran has been directly connected to violence in Iraq. An agent of Iran's elite Jerusalem Force was arrested this week in Iraq's Diyala province carrying money and planning attacks against U.S.
The Iranian agent reportedly revealed during interrogation the location of a group of other Iranian agents working with them and admitted to having smuggled the group and their weapons through the Iran-Iraq border, avoiding security controls.
The arrest followed the confession last week of Col. Muayed Al-Nasseri, an insurgent leader and former head of Saddam Hussein's "Army of Muhammad," who told U.S. interrogators Iran was the principle financier of the insurgency in Iraq.
The U.S. has been attempting to formulate an appropriate policy to temper Russia's alliances with Iran and Syria. According to officials familiar with the talks, the U.S. has offered Russia different possible compensations in return for severing nuclear dealings with Iran including financial packages, agreeing to the Russian import of nuclear waste from Taiwan, South Korea or Japan, and even having NASA contract certain services from the Russians. But the offers were not effective.
One source said Bush is being pressured into warning Russia in a summit next month with Putin that relations with the U.S. are dependent on its cutting ties with Iran and Syria.
"Russia is trying to gain a foothold in the Middle East by lining itself up with Syria and Iraq," said the source. "This is part of a new global order being oriented after September 11 and with America staking out its position in the war on terror. U.S. policy on Russia needs to be updated to reflect this."(snip)
... the more things change, the more they stay the same !!!
in case you're a bit behind on international background material, the NY Times summs it up rather concisely at
(snip)"WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 — Israel’s air attack on Syria last month was directed against a site that Israeli and American intelligence analysts judged was a partly constructed nuclear reactor, apparently modeled on one North Korea has used to create its stockpile of nuclear weapons fuel, according to American and foreign officials with access to the intelligence reports.
The description of the target addresses one of the central mysteries surrounding the Sept. 6 attack, and suggests that Israel carried out the raid to demonstrate its determination to snuff out even a nascent nuclear project in a neighboring state. The Bush administration was divided at the time about the wisdom of Israel’s strike, American officials said, and some senior policy makers still regard the attack as premature.
The attack on the reactor project has echoes of an Israeli raid more than a quarter century ago, in 1981, when Israel destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq shortly before it was to have begun operating. That attack was officially condemned by the Reagan administration, though Israelis consider it among their military’s finest moments. In the weeks before the Iraq war, Bush administration officials said they believed that the attack set back Iraq’s nuclear ambitions by many years.
By contrast, the facility that the Israelis struck in Syria appears to have been much further from completion, the American and foreign officials said. They said it would have been years before the Syrians could have used the reactor to produce the spent nuclear fuel that could, through a series of additional steps, be reprocessed into bomb-grade plutonium.
Many details remain unclear, most notably how much progress the Syrians had made in construction before the Israelis struck, the role of any assistance provided by North Korea, and whether the Syrians could make a plausible case that the reactor was intended to produce electricity. In Washington and Israel, information about the raid has been wrapped in extraordinary secrecy and restricted to just a handful of officials, while the Israeli press has been prohibited from publishing information about the attack.
The New York Times reported this week that a debate had begun within the Bush administration about whether the information secretly cited by Israel to justify its attack should be interpreted by the United States as reason to toughen its approach to Syria and North Korea. In later interviews, officials made clear that the disagreements within the administration began this summer, as a debate about whether an Israeli attack on the incomplete reactor was warranted then."(snip)
missjzone
05-31-2008, 09:34 AM
thanks for the clarification Melonie. I know Tehran is the capital of Iran and Damascus is the capital of Syria. I was merely wondering why Iran is considered the Devils cousin. Last I checked Iran had never caused conflict with us.
btw , I wouldnt take anything written at worldnetdaily as being objective
Yekhefah
05-31-2008, 10:11 AM
Last I checked Iran had never caused conflict with us.
Um... Contra scandal? Attack on our embassy, holding our citizens hostage and murdering them? You really never heard about all that?
dlabtot
05-31-2008, 12:27 PM
How about Operation Ajax (http://www.google.com/search?q=Operation+Ajax)? Have you heard of that?
Melonie
05-31-2008, 04:40 PM
(snip)"Edwin Black, author of Banking on Baghdad (about the Nazi-Arab alliance) has written an important article, “Denial of Holocaust nothing new in Iran” (San Francisco Chronicle, 1/8/06). The new president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was simply picking up an old Iranian theme when he denied the Holocaust, Iran had welcomed Nazi Gestapo agents, allowing them to use it as a base for operations in the area. In 1935 Reza Shah Pahlavi, a great admirer of the Nazis, changed the name of the country from Persia to Iran (land of the Aryans). Shortly after World War II broke out, the pro-Nazi mufti of Jerusalem moved to Tehran. He attempted to cut off oil supplies to the British and the Allies. He then relocated permanently to Berlin. Iran became a center of Holocaust denial. It welcomed Jrgen Graf, who had been sentenced to jail in Switzerland for Holocaust falsification. It also granted asylum to Holocaust denier Wolfgang Froehlich, who argued that no Jews were killed by Zyklon B gassing. French Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy was received as a hero in Tehran ...(snip)
and more to the point re near future possibilities ...
(snip)"Netanyahu: It's 1938 and Iran is Germany; Ahmadinejad is preparing another Holocaust
By Peter Hirschberg, Haaretz Correspondent
LOS ANGELES - Drawing a direct analogy between Iran and Nazi Germany, Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu asserted Monday that the Iranian nuclear program posed a threat not only to Israel, but to the entire western world. There was "still time," however, to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons, he said.
"It's 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs," Netanyahu told delegates to the annual United Jewish Communities General Assembly, repeating the line several times, like a chorus, during his address. "Believe him and stop him," the opposition leader said of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "This is what we must do. Everything else pales before this."
While the Iranian president "denies the Holocaust," Netanyahu said, "he is preparing another Holocaust for the Jewish state."
Speaking on Army Radio on Tuesday, Netanyahu hinted that Israel possesses the military capabilities necessary for curbing by itself the Iranian nuclear threat, declining to specify what these entail.
The Likud chairman said "I don't want to analyze the capability required to eliminate [the Iranian] threat, but this capability exists," when told by host Razi Barkai that Israel lacks the ability to eliminate Tehran's nuclear program by military means.
"This capability is eroded over time, and if we wait years then obviously this capability would not exist anymore ... but right now I disagree with the claim that nothing can be done against Iran," he added.
When asked if Bush could afford embarking on another "military adventure" after Iraq, Netanyahu said acting on the Iranian nuclear program would not be adventurous but necessary.
"... Israel would certainly be the first stop on Iran's tour of destruction, but at the planned production rate of 25 nuclear bombs a year ... [the arsenal] will be directed against 'the big Satan,' the U.S., and the 'moderate Satan,' Europe," Netanyahu said.
"Iran is developing ballistic missiles that would reach America, and now they prepare missiles with an adequate range to cover the whole of Europe," he added.
"No one cared"
Criticizing the international community in his GA speech for not acting more forcefully in trying to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power - "No one cared then and no one seems to care now," he said, again drawing on the Nazi parallel - Netanyahu warned that Tehran's nuclear and missile program "goes way beyond the destruction of Israel - it is directed to achieve world-wide range. It's a global program in the service of a mad ideology."
Large sections of the international community, he said, also misunderstood the nature of radical Islam and its role in the Mideast conflict. "What happens in Iran affects what happens in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not the other way round," he said.
Netanyahu said he believed that Iran could still be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons. "There is still time. All ways must be considered. We can't let this thing happen," he said, but did not outline specific measures he thought should be taken.
Referring to Israel's preemptive strike in the 1967 War, he did say that stopping Iran required "preemptive leadership. Preemption requires will and vision." (snip)
How about Operation Ajax? Have you heard of that?
As to Operation Ajax, one should keep in mind that the intended 'target' Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh was 'democratically elected' in about the same way that Josef Stalin was !!! One of Mossadegh's first acts as iranian president (after ousting the Shah), was to pass something called the Oil Nationalization Bill ... which would have seized all British owned Oil assets in Iran and would have potentially cut off iranian oil exports to the UK and America in favor of an extremely cozy relationship with Josef Stalin and the communist Soviet Union !!!
(snip)"History of the Tudeh Party of Iran
December 1945, Azarbaijan Crisis
In Azarbaijan during the period 1944-1946 under occupation of Soviet Union the Democratic Party of Azarbaijan was formed.
In September 1944, while American companies were negotiating for oil concessions in Iran, the Soviets requested an oil concession in the five northern provinces. In December, however, the Majlis passed a law forbidding the government to discuss oil concessions before the end of the war. This led to fierce Soviet propaganda attacks on the government and agitation by the Tudeh in favor of a Soviet oil concession.
The Azarbaijan People's Congress held on 20th November 1945 declared itself the founding parliament in Tabriz (capital of Azarbaijan) and took the decision to found the Azarbaijan Autonomous Republic. One party election was held and the Azarbaijan Parliament was opened on 21st December1946. This parliament assigned Jafar Pishevari, the leader of the DPA, to form a government. Under military support of Soviet Union, the central government's army chiefs in Azarbaijan were disarmed and the powers of the central government were eradicated.
Soviet pressure on Iran continued as British and American troops evacuated in keeping with their treaty undertakings. Soviet troops remained in the country. Prime Minister Ahmad Qavam had to persuade Stalin to withdraw his troops by agreeing to submit a Soviet oil concession to the Majlis and to negotiate a peaceful settlement to the Azarbaijan crisis with the Pishevari government. In April the government signed an oil agreement with the Soviet Union; in May, partly as a result of United States, British, and UN pressure, Soviet troops withdrew from Iranian territory. Qavam took three Tudeh members into his cabinet. However, Qavam was able to reclaim his concessions to the Soviet Union. A tribal revolt in the south, partly to protest communist influence, provided an opportunity to dismiss the Tudeh cabinet officers. In December, ostensibly in preparation for new Majlis elections, he sent the Iranian army into Azarbaijan. Without Soviet backing, the Pishevari government collapsed, and Pishevari himself fled to the Soviet Union.
In the new Majlis, a strong bloc of deputies organized in the National Front and led by Mohammad Mossaddeq, helped defeat the Soviet oil concession agreement by 102 votes to 2. The Majlis also passed a bill forbidding any further foreign oil concessions and requiring the government to exploit oil resources directly.
Soviet influence diminished further in 1947, when Iran and the United States signed an agreement providing for military aid and for a United States military advisory mission to help train the Iranian army. In February 1949, the Tudeh was blamed for an abortive attempt on the shah's life, and its leaders fled abroad or were arrested. The party was banned.
The 1953 Coup (August 1953)
The 1953 coup, which was staged with the direct intervention of US and British governments, imposed a regime which reversed the democratic. The coup aimed to suppress the national liberation movement, eliminate the TPI, abandon the nationalisation of oil, reinstate the domination of multi-national monopolies over oil resources and to recruit Iran to a western pact against the Soviet Union in the strategically important Persian Gulf.
In a report send by the British ambassador to the British government of the time, the dangers to the interests of the British Oil companies, which had suffered as the result of the nationalisation programme of the nationalist government of Dr. Mosaddeq and the growing influence of the Tudeh party of Iran, are clearly stated. The report urges the British government and the Americans to take immediate action in overthrowing the elected government of Dr. Mosaddag. The 1953 coup was undoubtedly a great blow to the mass movement of Iran. This was caused by the large scale abandoning of the movement by the closest friends of Dr. Mosaddeg and the treachery of Ayatollah Kashani the leader of the religious movement, and by taking a wrong tactical decision of the Tudeh Party of Iran which put party against nationalist government of Dr, Mosaddeq.
In spite of pro-shah coup the TPI continued its work until 1955, when the Party's underground organisation among the military personnel was uncovered and a large number of officers were arrested and later executed. In the difficult conditions, internal differences within the Party and among the leadership surfaced. They were exacerbated as a result of the treachery of a number of the Party leaders. The Party organisations were therefore unable to resist blows the regime which came to power after the coup, and the regime succeeded in consolidating its position, and the popular movement of country went into a period of stagnation.
The Tudeh Party leadership of the time was heavily influenced by the warming of relations between the Soviet Union and the American administration and hence failed to take decisive measures to combat the regime of Shah.
Shah's Reforms (White Revolution)
The Shah's regime implemented a set of reforms from above under the name of the white Revolution, a major part of which was on land reform. In addition, an important aim of the reforms was to uproot the obsolete feudal system and transform Iranian society to a modern society. The Tudeh opposed these reforms in an article in its central organ dated 20 February 1963.
One of the most important characteristics of this period was the re-appearance of the religious movement against the Shah's regime. The religious movement which had lost all credibility and influence after Ayatollah Kashani's betrayal of the popular government of Dr. Mosaddeq in favour of Shah in the coup of 1953, surfaced once again, this time in opposition to the Shah. The religious leaders entered the arena of anti-Shah struggle because they feared losing their social base as a result of the reforms made by the Shah which threatened the feudal system and "Westernised" Iranian society. The clergy using the religious sentiments of the people and their network organised large demonstrations in Tehran and Qom on 6 June 1961. The demonstrations were suppressed by the army. A large number of demonstrators were killed. "(snip)
dlabtot
05-31-2008, 10:42 PM
As to Operation Ajax, one should keep in mind that the intended 'target' Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh was 'democratically elected' in about the same way that Josef Stalin was !
An hyperbolic and false assertion that finds no basis in the text you subsequently quote.
Melonie
06-01-2008, 08:13 AM
some things really never change ...
(snip)"When Britain and Russia forced Reza Shah from power in favour of his son, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi, in 1941, [because the old Shah was siding with the Nazis and had attempted to cut off Iranian oil to Britain / Russia / America - sic] Dr. Mosaddeq became a member of Parliament. He was hailed as a hero for his fiery speeches on the evils of British control of Iran's oil industry. In 1951, when Parliament voted for Oil Nationalization, the young shah, recognizing the nationalists' popularity, appointed Dr. Mosaddeq prime minister.
He amassed power. When the shah refused his demand for control of the armed forces in 1952, Dr. Mosaddeq resigned, only to be reinstated in the face of popular riots.
He then displayed a streak of authoritarianism, bypassing Parliament by conducting a national referendum to win approval for its dissolution. Meanwhile, the United States became alarmed at the strength of Iran's Communist Party, which supported Dr. Mosaddeq.
In August 1953, a dismissal attempt by the shah sent Dr. Mosaddeq's followers into the streets. The shah fled, amid fears in the new Eisenhower administration that Iran might move too close to Moscow. "(snip)
... in other words, the only 'election' won by Dr. Mossadeq was an illegal 'referendum' staged by Dr. Mossadeq to illegally dissolve the legally elected Iranian Parliament that refused to hand him control of the country and its armed forces over the Shah. This amounts to 'mob rule' not democracy !!!
Yekhefah
06-01-2008, 11:19 AM
How about ? Have you heard of that?
Yup. Your point?
Paul in Saudi
06-02-2008, 03:23 AM
How about Operation Ajax (http://www.google.com/search?q=Operation+Ajax)? Have you heard of that?
Yeah, it's mentioned in my book.
Gosh I love saying that.
missjzone
06-04-2008, 02:55 PM
Um... Contra scandal? Attack on our embassy, holding our citizens hostage and murdering them? You really never heard about all that?
Ive heard of all of that and have had extensive research into the US's foreign policy since WW1. While abhor what happened with the embassy hostages, I do put it in context.
The US has been the aggressor in the Iran-USA relationship. We manipulate and push around the Iranians. We have for over 40 years. The Persians have been very clear about what they desire from us.
1) To not interfere in domestic Iranian matters ( and they wont interfere in ours)
2) To allow the Iranians the ability to sell their goods on the global marketplace unencumbered and use western banks as transitory vehicles.
3) To have frank and respectful communication
quite simple isn't it?
Now please tell me how the Reuters family made it's all its money? and what impact this has in the greater scheme of Iranian-Anglo-US relations. For you to understand it one needs to know how the Reuters family factors in.
missjzone
06-04-2008, 03:04 PM
unfortunately, this doesn't have much relevance into our wider Iran-US conversation. Whether or not we agree with Mosaddeq's actions or not is irrelevant.. What was occurring took place internally inside of Iran. They never threatened US.
Before we start interfering into other country's affairs and planning a covert coup to overthrow a foreign leader, we should ensure that we have no skeletons back home. I did not see the Iranians plan a coup inside of our nation for the transgressions of our leaders or for the abuse of our fellow countrymen.
and ps. quoting Benjamin Nentanyu on Iran is like quoting my gay neighbor on why he doesn't like vagina's.
some things really never change ...
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/mmosaddeq/mohammad_mosaddeq.php
(snip)"When Britain and Russia forced Reza Shah from power in favour of his son, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi, in 1941, [because the old Shah was siding with the Nazis and had attempted to cut off Iranian oil to Britain / Russia / America - sic] Dr. Mosaddeq became a member of Parliament. He was hailed as a hero for his fiery speeches on the evils of British control of Iran's oil industry. In 1951, when Parliament voted for Oil Nationalization, the young shah, recognizing the nationalists' popularity, appointed Dr. Mosaddeq prime minister.
He amassed power. When the shah refused his demand for control of the armed forces in 1952, Dr. Mosaddeq resigned, only to be reinstated in the face of popular riots.
He then displayed a streak of authoritarianism, bypassing Parliament by conducting a national referendum to win approval for its dissolution. Meanwhile, the United States became alarmed at the strength of Iran's Communist Party, which supported Dr. Mosaddeq.
In August 1953, a dismissal attempt by the shah sent Dr. Mosaddeq's followers into the streets. The shah fled, amid fears in the new Eisenhower administration that Iran might move too close to Moscow. "(snip)
... in other words, the only 'election' won by Dr. Mossadeq was an illegal 'referendum' staged by Dr. Mossadeq to illegally dissolve the legally elected Iranian Parliament that refused to hand him control of the country and its armed forces over the Shah. This amounts to 'mob rule' not democracy !!!
missjzone
06-04-2008, 03:05 PM
Yeah, it's mentioned in my book.
Gosh I love saying that.
you have a book?
Melonie
06-04-2008, 04:48 PM
Before we start interfering into other country's affairs and planning a covert coup to overthrow a foreign leader, we should ensure that we have no skeletons back home. I did not see the Iranians plan a coup inside of our nation for the transgressions of our leaders or for the abuse of our fellow countrymen.
well, to hear the 'other side of the story' at the time, failure to execute a 'regime change' of both the 'old' shah and Dr. Mossadeq would have had a vast negative impact on Allied war efforts ... Handing the Nazis unlimited fuel supplies during WW2 in the first case, and handing the Russians another oil rich cold war client state in the second case. The idea that America can function as an isolated 'region' uninvolved with the rest of the world started to die with Teddy Roosevelt and William Randolph Hearst, and had a stake driven through its heart by Charles Lindbergh and Neville Chamberlain.
Tauries
06-04-2008, 11:28 PM
Maybe it is all getting lost in translation??
http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=19115&stc=1&d=1212647155
Paul in Saudi
06-05-2008, 04:42 AM
Quoth Melonie, "Handing the Nazis unlimited fuel supplies during WW2 in the first case, ..."
I think this is factually incorrect. Oil was discovered here in 1930-something, but in Iranian waters later (I think). In any case, a route to Iranian oil fields would have been little help to the Nazis. No pipelines and no way to build one during the war. Further, getting to Iran would imply having already taken Soviet fields en route.
Melonie
06-05-2008, 05:45 PM
actually Iran's huge oil field was discovered in 1909, and Iran was exporting a whole lot of oil by the late 1930's ... see The company responsible for pumping, refining, and exporting this Iranian oil throughout this period is today called British Petroleum ! The 'old' (Reza) Shah of Iran was pissed off at the British petroleum interests, and had also entered into secret negotiations with the Nazis in the late 1930's.
The strategic interest in Iran during the WW2 years centered around two things, Iranian oil, and the recent completion of an Iranian railroad which connected Iran's persian gulf port (and oil refineries) to eastern europe (or Russia). Ultimately Britain and Russia invaded Iran and deposed the 'old' shah to deny the Nazis access to Iranian oil via this railroad, and alternately to provide a relatively unthreatened route by which Allied weapons could be shipped from Iran's persian gulf port into Russia via this railroad.
missjzone
06-06-2008, 07:04 AM
Melonie this is before WW1 or WW2.. The example of the Reuters family dealings in Iran exemplifies why we have the challenges with Iran that we have today....
actually Iran's huge oil field was discovered in 1909, and Iran was exporting a whole lot of oil by the late 1930's ... see http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/oil_iran_between_world_wars.php The company responsible for pumping, refining, and exporting this Iranian oil throughout this period is today called British Petroleum ! The 'old' (Reza) Shah of Iran was pissed off at the British petroleum interests, and had also entered into secret negotiations with the Nazis in the late 1930's.
The strategic interest in Iran during the WW2 years centered around two things, Iranian oil, and the recent completion of an Iranian railroad which connected Iran's persian gulf port (and oil refineries) to eastern europe (or Russia). Ultimately Britain and Russia invaded Iran and deposed the 'old' shah to deny the Nazis access to Iranian oil via this railroad, and alternately to provide a relatively unthreatened route by which Allied weapons could be shipped from Iran's persian gulf port into Russia via this railroad.
Melonie
06-06-2008, 04:12 PM
bottom line still comes back to ...
(snip)"An Israeli deputy prime minister on Friday warned that Iran would face attack if it pursues what he said was its nuclear weapons programme.
"If Iran continues its nuclear weapons programme, we will attack it," said Shaul Mofaz, who is also transportation minister.
"Other options are disappearing. The sanctions are not effective. There will be no alternative but to attack Iran in order to stop the Iranian nuclear programme," Mofaz told the Yediot Aharonot daily.
He stressed such an operation could only be conducted with US support.
A former defence minister and armed forces chief of staff, Mofaz hopes to replace embattled Ehud Olmert as prime minister and at the helm of the Kadima party."(snip)
and ...
(snip)"In his first foreign policy speech after clinching the Democratic nomination for president, Sen. Barack Obama vowed that as president he would deepen American defense cooperation with Israel. “Those who threaten Israel, threaten us. I will bring an unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security and guarantee Israel’s military strength so that it can defend itself from any threat – from Gaza to Tehran. Obama said he would sign a memo of understanding promising Israel $30 bn over 10 years. He was addressing the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) annual conference, June 4.
Obama spelled out his position on talks with Iran. He said: “I will do everything in my power – everything, everything - to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” Iran has grown stronger and increased its support for terror since this administration went to war in Iraq “and I refuse to support a policy that has made the US and Israel less secure.”
Proposing getting US troops out of Iraq “carefully”, Obama urged broaching Iran first with “aggressive principles and diplomacy. We have no time to waste. I would keep the military option on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel,” he stressed.” But, he said, diplomacy can be tough if backed by real leverage with no illusions. “We must give Iran a clear choice: Abandon nuclear weapons, support for terror and hatred for Israel or else we will ratchet up the pressure. Al Qods is rightly labeled a terrorist organization.
“If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed at home and abroad if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts.
Some lay all the Middle East problems at the door of Israel and its conflict with the Palestinians, he said. “It is not, never has been and never will be.”
He endorsed the Bush vision of a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians, saying there was no room at the negotiating table for [the Hamas] terrorists. While stressing that Israel’s identity must be preserved as “a Jewish state with secure, recongized and defensible borders and Jerusalem its undivided capital,” Obama also stated that the Palestinians need a state “that is contiguous.” He advised Israel to take steps consistent with its security to ease conditions on the West Bank and refrain from building new settlements.
Obama declared repeatedly that as president he would never compromise on his commitment to Israel’s security – “not while there are still voices that deny the Holocaust, not when there are terrorists who threaten Israel’s existence and there are rockets raining down from Gaza.” (snip)
from
missjzone
06-08-2008, 07:26 AM
whats the bottom line Melonie? that Israel and Iran are engaging in sabre rattling? whats that have to do with us?
and because of situations of Oppression towards the Persians like the Reuters family there is strong distrust from Iran towards Anglo-America.
Melonie
06-08-2008, 09:07 AM
whats the bottom line Melonie? that Israel and Iran are engaging in sabre rattling? whats that have to do with us?
what this has to do with us is that America is a de-facto ally of Israel ... something that GWB, Barack Obama and John McCain all agree on ... thus any regional war which might result from sabre rattling or unilateral military action will force America to participate on the side of Israel ... thus America's tenuous relationships in Saudi / Iraq / Egypt / Jordan etc. would be severely strained ... thus America's oil imports would be jeopardized ... as well as the probability of renewed Islamic terrorist attacks against American 'targets' both within the US and worldwide would increase exponentially.
missjzone
06-09-2008, 06:40 AM
Good points. However where I think we have gone off the right path is that we are a de facto ally of Israel regardless of Israel's actions or whether or not it is in our (America's) best interest. Last time I checked Israel is not a American state and should not be treated as such... We should treat Israel like any other nation and align with it when it serves our best interests. Same as we do with France, Mexico or what ever other nation. We psend more time, money and effort on Israel than we do on Puerto Rico which is an AMerican territory!
In recent times because all politicians are afraid to speak critically of Israel we have severely damaged our global reputation and caused great economic burden to the burden to the American people..Any see the price of gas recently? We need to start being more objective towards the Middle East and stop having domestic religious groups shape our foreign policy.
Melonie
06-09-2008, 03:06 PM
^^^ understanding the reason that Israel is treated 'specially' by American policitians was summed up very well in the recent movie 'Charlie Wilson's War' ... to the effect that 'it wasn't texas voters that got me elected ... it was six Jews in a back room".
see - which documents the extraordinarily generous political campaign contributions which have historically been made to certain US politicians by prominent Jewish individuals and organizations, as well as the extraordinarily well correlated 'pro-Israel' votes cast by those US politicians !
missjzone
06-11-2008, 06:09 PM
therein lies the problem. if 6 jews in a back room can elect a politician from Texas then we have to questions the ethics of many of elected representatives. This is the problem we have. Many senators have been "bought" and do not act according to ethics or morals but, in the interest of those that control the purse strings..
The best example of this is Ron Paul. The one politician we have had in my lifetime that didn't answer to the powerful interest groups and the system FROZE him out. What does that tell us?
We all know that our policy towards the middle east is inherently flawed, its just that special interest groups will not allow us to overhaul it.
^^^ understanding the reason that Israel is treated 'specially' by American policitians was summed up very well in the recent movie 'Charlie Wilson's War' ... to the effect that 'it wasn't texas voters that got me elected ... it was six Jews in a back room".
see http://books.google.com/books?id=DAjhp_1XlZwC&pg=PA266&lpg=PA266&dq=Jewish+campaign+contributions&source=web&ots=cn7AwBDECc&sig=qykJAJfQmgRwhmxiMUE7ONHtrng&hl=en#PPA266,M1 - which documents the extraordinarily generous political campaign contributions which have historically been made to certain US politicians by prominent Jewish individuals and organizations, as well as the extraordinarily well correlated 'pro-Israel' votes cast by those US politicians !
Melonie
06-12-2008, 01:09 AM
therein lies the problem. if 6 jews in a back room can elect a politician from Texas then we have to questions the ethics of many of elected representatives. This is the problem we have. Many senators have been "bought" and do not act according to ethics or morals but, in the interest of those that control the purse strings..
The reference to '6 jews in a back room' relates to the candidate's need for BIG MONEY during election campaigns ... primarily to buy media time if favorable 'free' press coverage isn't being made available. Arguably the '6 jews in a back room' are in a position to not only determine levels of certain out-of-state political contribution money that flows to a particular candidate versus flowing to his opponent, but are also in a position to either provide favorable 'free' press coverage via media outlets they own / control or to create unfavorable 'free' press coverage that the would-be candidate must then refute via purchased media time. Increasingly, this means that unless the would-be candidate can afford to spend millions and millions of dollars of their own money for purchased campaign air time, they are dependent on receiving favorable or at least neutral 'free' press coverage - from media outlets owned / controlled by the '6 jews in a back room'.
As to the actual degree of media outlets under control of the '6 jews in a back room', the evidence is anecdotal but overwhelming ...
As to Dr. Ron Paul, arguably it was the media who froze him out ... by denying him 'free' news coverage and by not including him in nationally televised debates. Arguably Ron Paul's position in regard to electibility in the 2007 primaries was no different from that of, say, Rev. Al Sharpton in the 2003 primaries. However, Rev. Al was given a microphone while, for the most part, Ron Paul was not. As a result of these policy decisions by mainstream media, while neither candidate had a serious chance at receiving the nomination, the entire USA knows who Rev. Al is and what his policies are - while Ron Paul remains an obscure 'stranger' to the general public if they recognize his name at all.
LadyLuck
06-12-2008, 01:45 PM
Good points. However where I think we have gone off the right path is that we are a de facto ally of Israel regardless of Israel's actions or whether or not it is in our (America's) best interest..
I agree. I certainly wish no harm on Israel or any other Nation for that matter but what positive results do we as Americans gain from defending them NO MATTER what their actions?
Maybe I am just unaware but do we import anything DIRECTLY from Israel that the USA can not survive without?
It seems to me that our support for Israel is based upon their location on the planet and not much else.
They are smack dab in the middle from where we get mass quantities of oil. I feel that our Gov't defends them unconditionally not because some kind of moral obligation ( if that were the case we would be doing much more in places like the Sudan for example) but because our Gov’t wants to be able to use their land to better wage current and potential future military actions against and occupation of oil rich lands.
missjzone
06-12-2008, 03:05 PM
You know Melonie, the comparison of Sharpton to Ron Paul is a good one as the media tried to make Ron Paul look like a quack in a similar way to how Sharpton is seen.
Whats interesting is Ron Paul is perhaps the smartest most ethical candidate we've had a in a looooong while. And I believe its debatable as to what type of chance he had to be a serious contender. If as you say he was given a microphone I think many many Americans would find his campaign quite compelling. Even with him being froze out, he still has made a huge impact on this election. However this impact will be felt more so in the years to come.
The reference to '6 jews in a back room' relates to the candidate's need for BIG MONEY during election campaigns ... primarily to buy media time if favorable 'free' press coverage isn't being made available. Arguably the '6 jews in a back room' are in a position to not only determine levels of certain out-of-state political contribution money that flows to a particular candidate versus flowing to his opponent, but are also in a position to either provide favorable 'free' press coverage via media outlets they own / control or to create unfavorable 'free' press coverage that the would-be candidate must then refute via purchased media time. Increasingly, this means that unless the would-be candidate can afford to spend millions and millions of dollars of their own money for purchased campaign air time, they are dependent on receiving favorable or at least neutral 'free' press coverage - from media outlets owned / controlled by the '6 jews in a back room'.
As to the actual degree of media outlets under control of the '6 jews in a back room', the evidence is anecdotal but overwhelming ...
http://www.libreopinion.com/members/standarteslc/jewishquestion03.html
As to Dr. Ron Paul, arguably it was the media who froze him out ... by denying him 'free' news coverage and by not including him in nationally televised debates. Arguably Ron Paul's position in regard to electibility in the 2007 primaries was no different from that of, say, Rev. Al Sharpton in the 2003 primaries. However, Rev. Al was given a microphone while, for the most part, Ron Paul was not. As a result of these policy decisions by mainstream media, while neither candidate had a serious chance at receiving the nomination, the entire USA knows who Rev. Al is and what his policies are - while Ron Paul remains an obscure 'stranger' to the general public if they recognize his name at all.
missjzone
06-12-2008, 03:12 PM
The US supports Israel unquestioningly because our politicians are waayyy too afraid to go against the zionist lobby.
When I lived in Puerto Rico, I remember someone saying to me "with all the money, time, and resources the US spends on Israel why don't you just move the White House to Jerusalem and get it over with already". It took me a while to understand that comment and what our foreign policy is doing to our reputation globally.
I agree. I certainly wish no harm on Israel or any other Nation for that matter but what positive results do we as Americans gain from defending them NO MATTER what their actions?
Maybe I am just unaware but do we import anything DIRECTLY from Israel that the USA can not survive without?
It seems to me that our support for Israel is based upon their location on the planet and not much else.
They are smack dab in the middle from where we get mass quantities of oil. I feel that our Gov't defends them unconditionally not because some kind of moral obligation ( if that were the case we would be doing much more in places like the Sudan for example) but because our Gov’t wants to be able to use their land to better wage current and potential future military actions against and occupation of oil rich lands.
Melonie
06-12-2008, 03:49 PM
Maybe I am just unaware but do we import anything DIRECTLY from Israel that the USA can not survive without?
A - investment capital by the billion
B - favorable US media news coverage
the point of contention of course is that a significant percentage of American Jews see themselves as citizens of Israel first and citizens of the USA second.
LadyLuck
06-12-2008, 04:13 PM
A - investment capital by the billion
B - favorable US media news coverage
Good points. I do believe though that we could as a nation certainly survive with letter B.
As for letter A, I have to wonder if that investment capital would 100% disappear if we stopped supporting them regardless of their actions? What if we supported them in some areas but just not in such an unconditional manner as we do now?
And even if some of it did disappear would it not be replaced by others who are not so beholden to Zionist beliefs?
LadyLuck
06-12-2008, 04:31 PM
The US supports Israel unquestioningly because our politicians are waayyy too afraid to go against the zionist lobby.
Sad but true indeed. I guess I just don't understand why if it's not about the location of Israel, then why are they are so afraid ? :shrug:
Yekhefah
06-13-2008, 01:22 AM
Thanks, I needed this thread. I was thinking about getting a tattoo in Hebrew, but I've realized it's probably better I stay incognito for when you guys come to kill the Jews again.
Melonie
06-13-2008, 03:45 AM
^^^ probably a wise move, Yek LOL ! Especially given yesterday's Supreme Court ruling and its implied consequences re future US military entanglements i.e. the foreign deployment of US forces in the absence of an official 'declaration of war' making US military leaders (and potentially every US soldier) accountable for their battlefield actions in a future US civil court case. This is probably not a good time to consider a move to Israel either !
And even if some of it did disappear would it not be replaced by others who are not so beholden to Zionist beliefs?
early indications are that you are correct on this count ... i.e. Citibank is now secure in terms of capital but 12% owned by arab oil shieks (or thereabouts). while Lehman Brothers may actually be allowed to go bankrupt if they can't raise capital via the 'open market'.
Yekhefah
06-13-2008, 11:15 AM
I just don't get it, I guess. It sounds like 1930's Germany in this thread. I'm really disappointed in a lot of people here... I guess it's true what they say, we'll never be fully accepted anywhere no matter how well we play along. Makes me even more committed to Zionism, though; at least we can have our own damn country to flee to next time.
Melonie
06-13-2008, 01:17 PM
^^^ maybe ... provided that an Iranian nuke doesn't render 1/2 of Israel uninhabitable for the next 100 years ! Of course, the Israeli 'border' areas adjoining Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt will be spared, as will Jerusalem - for obvious reasons.
In regard to your 1930's Hitler reference, the 'tin foil hat' crowd will tell you that this is exactly the same sort of mindset that the Supreme Court decision re the legal rights of enemy combatants and the legal liabilities of the US military in 'UNdeclared war' situations encourages. Of course, AFTER Tel Aviv is a glowing crater, THEN the US congress will likely be agreeable to voting for a 'declaration of war' against Iran such that US troops can be deployed to fight beside what's left of our 'ally' Israel and the IDF. But then again, maybe not, if the provocation doesn't involve a 'Pearl Harbor' or World Trade Center like attack against US citizens on US soil. After all, under the 1930's mindset, Germany was able to invade and occupy supposed US allies in Scandinavia and Western Europe without the USA taking any meaningful supporting action besides selling war materiel and armaments (to both sides it turns out !!!). As with Charles Lindbergh and Neville Chamberlain in the 1930's, there will undoubtedly be high profile future advocates of the position that, as long as no direct attack on US soil has been made, America should avoid military involvement in a conflict that is essentially 'none of our business' (despite the fact that it severely affects one or more of our allies).
~
missjzone
06-13-2008, 01:43 PM
Thanks, I needed this thread. I was thinking about getting a tattoo in Hebrew, but I've realized it's probably better I stay incognito for when you guys come to kill the Jews again.
cry me a river.. next you'll throw out a nazi comment. ::)
missjzone
06-13-2008, 01:49 PM
A - investment capital by the billion
B - favorable US media news coverage
the point of contention of course is that a significant percentage of American Jews see themselves as citizens of Israel first and citizens of the USA second.
Melonie we get minimal investment capital from Israel.
In fact it goes the other way. 1)Israel get's huge money from the USA in foreign aid 2) also received huge money from the USA in corporate investment into Israel.
Number 2 I have no problem with. Corporations should be able to place their investment $$ wherever they choose, whether it be Canada, India or Israel.
Number 1 I have a significant problem with. The amount of money we send Israel (and not to mention Egypt and Saudi Arabia) in the form of pure monetary grants is quite disturbing in light of the economic burden most American families are undergoing presently.
Yekhefah
06-13-2008, 01:51 PM
cry me a river.. next you'll throw out a nazi comment. ::)
If it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
The Nazis didn't start out the way they became. There was a lot of this exact same talk years before it grew into mass murder and loading us on trains for death camps. The deja vu here is overwhelming.
missjzone
06-13-2008, 01:52 PM
Melonie how would Tel Aviv become a glowing crater when Iran is SUSPECTED of building ONE nuclear bomb and Israel is KNOWN to have over 200 nuclear bombs? w\Wouldn't it be Tehran that should be worried it could become a glowing crater?
^^^ maybe ... provided that an Iranian nuke doesn't render 1/2 of Israel uninhabitable for the next 100 years ! Of course, the Israeli 'border' areas adjoining Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt will be spared, as will Jerusalem - for obvious reasons.
In regard to your 1930's Hitler reference, the 'tin foil hat' crowd will tell you that this is exactly the same sort of mindset that the Supreme Court decision re the legal rights of enemy combatants and the legal liabilities of the US military in 'UNdeclared war' situations encourages. Of course, AFTER Tel Aviv is a glowing crater, THEN the US congress will likely be agreeable to voting for a 'declaration of war' against Iran such that US troops can be deployed to fight beside what's left of our 'ally' Israel and the IDF. But then again, maybe not, if the provocation doesn't involve a 'Pearl Harbor' or World Trade Center like attack against US citizens on US soil. After all, under the 1930's mindset, Germany was able to invade and occupy supposed US allies in Scandinavia and Western Europe without the USA taking any meaningful supporting action besides selling war materiel and armaments (to both sides it turns out !!!). As with Charles Lindbergh and Neville Chamberlain in the 1930's, there will undoubtedly be high profile future advocates of the position that, as long as no direct attack on US soil has been made, America should avoid military involvement in a conflict that is essentially 'none of our business' (despite the fact that it severely affects one or more of our allies).
~
LadyLuck
06-13-2008, 02:04 PM
Thanks, I needed this thread. I was thinking about getting a tattoo in Hebrew, but I've realized it's probably better I stay incognito for when you guys come to kill the Jews again.
Huh? Where are you getting tha I want to kill Jews? I am happily married to a man of Jewish decent. Why would I want to kill my husband? Just because someone doesn't agree with Zionism or US policy towards Israel doesn't make them some kind of Nazi type.
In fact, know quite a few full blooded Jewish people who don't support Zionism and take issue with US policy towards Israel as well. Does that mean they want to off themselves? Obviously not.
I know and respect that you feel extreemly strong about this subject matter but please be more reasonable than the above quoted post.