Four More Years :(
Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Actually pal i dont have a problem with jews. I have a problem with the so called land of Israel. The illegally occupied land of Palestine.
I'll post only extracts of the article...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FE21Ak03.html
The first proposition about political dishonesty can be applied to the current in-group in Washington to an exceptional degree, in large part because it is made up mostly of a minority within a minority - they are Jewish. A good deal of controversy surrounds this observation already and I have no space or allowance to repeat such here, so I simply point to the fact with another fact in mind. Facts presented here and elsewhere have also raised the issue of "dual loyalty" between Israel and the US by Jewish neo-conservatives, with former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle's affiliations to the Jerusalem Post, the crafting of Israel's regional strategy ("A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm") and the revolving door between the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and US administrators being but a few more notable manifestations. Again, I take it as a simple matter of fact (having much to do with assessing group solidarity among Jews in crisis) that Jews in the US are, in general, committed to Israel. From here one should turn to Israel itself.
Israel in danger
Israel is in dire straits: despite its nuclear, chemical and biological arsenal and conventional arms; despite its per capita gross domestic product; despite its linkages to the last superpower. Israel is in the grips of an environmental, demographic, social and, potentially, an economic disaster and no amount of crafty diplomacy or even economic investment can salvage the huge historical mistake of creating Israel in the first place. One need only look at the problem of water in this sliver of land, couched within an enormously water-stressed region overall.
Israel's coastal aquifers are depleted. At least 60 percent of its fresh water comes from the West Bank and the Golan Heights, both areas where it must either maintain control or become subject to collaborative management arrangements - not realistic in the current climate, and getting worse all the time. In its last attempt to seize control of the Litani River in Lebanon it was routed by Hezbollah, but left only with the incentive of a big compensation package from the US. Now it buys water from Turkey.
With population growth across the region surrounding Israel averaging around 2.5 percent per annum, and even greater growth in the West Bank and Gaza, Israel must concentrate its development and growth within an increasingly stressed and crowded atmosphere or it must continue to expand. Socially, Israel is as contentious and divided as any country on earth, as well as being riddled with crime, corruption and near caste divisions within its populace. In all, both within Israel and in its regional context, something has to give in order for it to carry on.
[...]
As an outsider with no immediate stake in the welfare of the Israeli state, I assume that I am less sensitive to these dilemmas than Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, Perle, National Security Council Middle East Affairs head Eliot Abrams or Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, so I adopt the easy position that they understand as much about Israel's vulnerabilities and needs as I do. If one goes back to the point of view of Vladimir Jabotinsky, father of the Likud, it becomes also clear that my stream of thought was shrewdly projected even before Israel's foundation: Israel must exist at the expense of Arabs in the region, and the current Israeli historian Benny Morris agrees. In simple terms, Israel is at the edge of its viability as a state unless it either redefines its identity or conquers new territory, beginning with the Golan and the West Bank, but extending necessarily by proxy into at least Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and, because of its specifics, Iraq. Conquering in this sense, with regard to established nations, is tantamount to imposing one's will, and to be effective for practical purposes the will of Israel resides in the US.
Why Iraq?
In a recent interview on public broadcasting in the US with a trio of the typical, dreary pundits one has come to expect, Lieutenant-General William Odom (retired) called for the hasty withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, fully admitting the probability that the country will descend into civil war as a consequence: the subject of discussion was simply whether or not the war could be won. Odom presented three reasons the US went to war - weapons of mass destruction, overthrowing the Saddam Hussein regime, and establishing a constitutional democracy "friendly" to the US. In that order, he declared the first irrelevant (didn't exist), the second accomplished, and the third not possible to achieve, at least for several decades. Ergo, let's get the hell out and deal with whoever comes out on top.
I imagine President George W Bush, his deputy **** Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pearl and Wolfowitz sitting in a room listening to this drivel and reacting, with Bush fuming about god and freedom until he goes for a jog with the secret service - the others listen on and nod. After the president leaves, the party in power gets out the cognac and heaves a collective sigh: "Why do they put such people on TV in the first place?" any one of them might ask rhetorically. Odom is either intellectually conditioned or obedient enough to keep the discussion about the causes for the war within the narrow lines the establishment wants, but for whatever reason he draws the wrong conclusion. The Bush cabal didn't go to Iraq for any of Odum's reasons as Odom understands them, and so they are all irrelevant to the decision on whether or not to get out.
[...]
Combinations of factors have brought about the shift in policy in the Middle East.
1.) The collapse of the Soviet Union - opening the floodgates for neo-liberal aggression and leading immediately to a huge wave of privatizations of national assets throughout the world. But with oil being the most strategic, coveted, controversial and thus best protected of such assets, the privatization of oil has been delayed. The circumstances for artificial elites in control of the major reserves of oil in less-developed nations, from Saudi Arabia and Iraq to Nigeria, from Indonesia or Angola to Venezuela, have changed: the near universal adoption of capitalism by national elites has radicalized the arena in which negotiation, leverage, alliance or self-determination occur.
2.) Human critical mass and globalization - as indicated above, too many people in highly unequal conditions demanding too much from a finite, over-attended pie. The old claim that a rising tide lifts all boats is horribly mismatched across the seven seas. India's population, for example, is scheduled to peg out at above 1.6 billion by 2050, and the 150 million there currently feasting at the consumer's table will not assure a place for the 700 million literally without a pot to **** in. The Philippines is another excellent example, as the country approaches biological collapse. Nigeria, at 130+ million, is about to go bonkers. This bears on democratization across the Middle East not only because it is basically in the same boat as these other nations, but also because oil is increasingly assuming the character of a global asset, and with fully half of it in and around the Persian Gulf, the relevant resource rich but weak nations' efforts to defend the concept of their sovereignty will be pitted against a general atmosphere of desperation, a philosophy of macroeconomic functionalism, and a belief that all resources must be integrated into a global economy without either prejudice or undue advantage. Democracy/free trade is the mantra for this process, to be dictated by the industrialized world.
3.) The Judaization of the American elite - Jews are the most prosperous subset of the elite in the US, the biggest political campaign contributors, the principle managers of US media, and have dominated the last two presidential administrations. For better or for worse, informed observers must concede that Jews in the US have reached a pinnacle of wealth and influence fantastically beyond their numbers. Nevertheless, Jewish influence on US Middle East policy has historically been offset by broader American strategic interests in Persian Gulf oil, much to the frustration of the rising Jewish elite. This helps to explain much of what appears lumpen and confused about US policy in the region. After the Jewish invasion into the Levant, Israel's initially defensive wars and its chronic abuse of the local Arab population, as well as its encroachments on its hostile neighbors, have in fact been constrained - first by its essential weakness, and increasingly (as it has accrued real power after 1973) by US national interests in managing Middle East oil. But with the global strategic scenario being radically altered by the collapse of the Soviet Union, population growth in the region and underdevelopment with its discontents have been linked with an overall increase in competition for resources to emerge - in the hands of realists among the Jewish intelligentsia involved in geopolitical strategizing - to become more credible indicators of an entrenched regional instability that threatens America's access to and control over the same oil. Muslim militants conducting terrorist operations against US interests in the region are understood as simply the vanguard of a more general uprising to come.
I'll post only extracts of the article...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FE21Ak03.html
The first proposition about political dishonesty can be applied to the current in-group in Washington to an exceptional degree, in large part because it is made up mostly of a minority within a minority - they are Jewish. A good deal of controversy surrounds this observation already and I have no space or allowance to repeat such here, so I simply point to the fact with another fact in mind. Facts presented here and elsewhere have also raised the issue of "dual loyalty" between Israel and the US by Jewish neo-conservatives, with former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle's affiliations to the Jerusalem Post, the crafting of Israel's regional strategy ("A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm") and the revolving door between the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and US administrators being but a few more notable manifestations. Again, I take it as a simple matter of fact (having much to do with assessing group solidarity among Jews in crisis) that Jews in the US are, in general, committed to Israel. From here one should turn to Israel itself.
Israel in danger
Israel is in dire straits: despite its nuclear, chemical and biological arsenal and conventional arms; despite its per capita gross domestic product; despite its linkages to the last superpower. Israel is in the grips of an environmental, demographic, social and, potentially, an economic disaster and no amount of crafty diplomacy or even economic investment can salvage the huge historical mistake of creating Israel in the first place. One need only look at the problem of water in this sliver of land, couched within an enormously water-stressed region overall.
Israel's coastal aquifers are depleted. At least 60 percent of its fresh water comes from the West Bank and the Golan Heights, both areas where it must either maintain control or become subject to collaborative management arrangements - not realistic in the current climate, and getting worse all the time. In its last attempt to seize control of the Litani River in Lebanon it was routed by Hezbollah, but left only with the incentive of a big compensation package from the US. Now it buys water from Turkey.
With population growth across the region surrounding Israel averaging around 2.5 percent per annum, and even greater growth in the West Bank and Gaza, Israel must concentrate its development and growth within an increasingly stressed and crowded atmosphere or it must continue to expand. Socially, Israel is as contentious and divided as any country on earth, as well as being riddled with crime, corruption and near caste divisions within its populace. In all, both within Israel and in its regional context, something has to give in order for it to carry on.
[...]
As an outsider with no immediate stake in the welfare of the Israeli state, I assume that I am less sensitive to these dilemmas than Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, Perle, National Security Council Middle East Affairs head Eliot Abrams or Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, so I adopt the easy position that they understand as much about Israel's vulnerabilities and needs as I do. If one goes back to the point of view of Vladimir Jabotinsky, father of the Likud, it becomes also clear that my stream of thought was shrewdly projected even before Israel's foundation: Israel must exist at the expense of Arabs in the region, and the current Israeli historian Benny Morris agrees. In simple terms, Israel is at the edge of its viability as a state unless it either redefines its identity or conquers new territory, beginning with the Golan and the West Bank, but extending necessarily by proxy into at least Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and, because of its specifics, Iraq. Conquering in this sense, with regard to established nations, is tantamount to imposing one's will, and to be effective for practical purposes the will of Israel resides in the US.
Why Iraq?
In a recent interview on public broadcasting in the US with a trio of the typical, dreary pundits one has come to expect, Lieutenant-General William Odom (retired) called for the hasty withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, fully admitting the probability that the country will descend into civil war as a consequence: the subject of discussion was simply whether or not the war could be won. Odom presented three reasons the US went to war - weapons of mass destruction, overthrowing the Saddam Hussein regime, and establishing a constitutional democracy "friendly" to the US. In that order, he declared the first irrelevant (didn't exist), the second accomplished, and the third not possible to achieve, at least for several decades. Ergo, let's get the hell out and deal with whoever comes out on top.
I imagine President George W Bush, his deputy **** Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pearl and Wolfowitz sitting in a room listening to this drivel and reacting, with Bush fuming about god and freedom until he goes for a jog with the secret service - the others listen on and nod. After the president leaves, the party in power gets out the cognac and heaves a collective sigh: "Why do they put such people on TV in the first place?" any one of them might ask rhetorically. Odom is either intellectually conditioned or obedient enough to keep the discussion about the causes for the war within the narrow lines the establishment wants, but for whatever reason he draws the wrong conclusion. The Bush cabal didn't go to Iraq for any of Odum's reasons as Odom understands them, and so they are all irrelevant to the decision on whether or not to get out.
[...]
Combinations of factors have brought about the shift in policy in the Middle East.
1.) The collapse of the Soviet Union - opening the floodgates for neo-liberal aggression and leading immediately to a huge wave of privatizations of national assets throughout the world. But with oil being the most strategic, coveted, controversial and thus best protected of such assets, the privatization of oil has been delayed. The circumstances for artificial elites in control of the major reserves of oil in less-developed nations, from Saudi Arabia and Iraq to Nigeria, from Indonesia or Angola to Venezuela, have changed: the near universal adoption of capitalism by national elites has radicalized the arena in which negotiation, leverage, alliance or self-determination occur.
2.) Human critical mass and globalization - as indicated above, too many people in highly unequal conditions demanding too much from a finite, over-attended pie. The old claim that a rising tide lifts all boats is horribly mismatched across the seven seas. India's population, for example, is scheduled to peg out at above 1.6 billion by 2050, and the 150 million there currently feasting at the consumer's table will not assure a place for the 700 million literally without a pot to **** in. The Philippines is another excellent example, as the country approaches biological collapse. Nigeria, at 130+ million, is about to go bonkers. This bears on democratization across the Middle East not only because it is basically in the same boat as these other nations, but also because oil is increasingly assuming the character of a global asset, and with fully half of it in and around the Persian Gulf, the relevant resource rich but weak nations' efforts to defend the concept of their sovereignty will be pitted against a general atmosphere of desperation, a philosophy of macroeconomic functionalism, and a belief that all resources must be integrated into a global economy without either prejudice or undue advantage. Democracy/free trade is the mantra for this process, to be dictated by the industrialized world.
3.) The Judaization of the American elite - Jews are the most prosperous subset of the elite in the US, the biggest political campaign contributors, the principle managers of US media, and have dominated the last two presidential administrations. For better or for worse, informed observers must concede that Jews in the US have reached a pinnacle of wealth and influence fantastically beyond their numbers. Nevertheless, Jewish influence on US Middle East policy has historically been offset by broader American strategic interests in Persian Gulf oil, much to the frustration of the rising Jewish elite. This helps to explain much of what appears lumpen and confused about US policy in the region. After the Jewish invasion into the Levant, Israel's initially defensive wars and its chronic abuse of the local Arab population, as well as its encroachments on its hostile neighbors, have in fact been constrained - first by its essential weakness, and increasingly (as it has accrued real power after 1973) by US national interests in managing Middle East oil. But with the global strategic scenario being radically altered by the collapse of the Soviet Union, population growth in the region and underdevelopment with its discontents have been linked with an overall increase in competition for resources to emerge - in the hands of realists among the Jewish intelligentsia involved in geopolitical strategizing - to become more credible indicators of an entrenched regional instability that threatens America's access to and control over the same oil. Muslim militants conducting terrorist operations against US interests in the region are understood as simply the vanguard of a more general uprising to come.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
From: Rochester NY
Ah yes, the old standby... "America is run by the Jews". Give me a break. 
You think for a minute that there wouldn't be a bloodbath if the Israelis couldn't defend themselves? I'm sure you would like to see that wouldn't you? See your righteous little Palestinians cronies get their just revenge and slaughter all the Jews, not just blow a few up here and there with bombs. Quick question, do you even have anything to talk about besides how much you hate the American government and the Israelis, perhaps something truck related?
You think for a minute that there wouldn't be a bloodbath if the Israelis couldn't defend themselves? I'm sure you would like to see that wouldn't you? See your righteous little Palestinians cronies get their just revenge and slaughter all the Jews, not just blow a few up here and there with bombs. Quick question, do you even have anything to talk about besides how much you hate the American government and the Israelis, perhaps something truck related?
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 705
Likes: 42
I always feel better if I can summarize and see all the combined thoughts in a few concise sentences. You know, simple is as simple does!!!!
I gather from this recent collection of posts that if we take any one of the major players (ie Jews, Arabs, Americans, Europeans, etc) out of the equation the world would automatically be a better place. So, what some of you are debating is whether or not we need an ethnic cleansing correct? I mean it's obvious we can't change the temperment of any of the above protagonists, so you must be advocating a cleansing of sorts.
On another note: nam69, you do occasionally speak with the same accent as Loutist, could you be related?
I gather from this recent collection of posts that if we take any one of the major players (ie Jews, Arabs, Americans, Europeans, etc) out of the equation the world would automatically be a better place. So, what some of you are debating is whether or not we need an ethnic cleansing correct? I mean it's obvious we can't change the temperment of any of the above protagonists, so you must be advocating a cleansing of sorts.
On another note: nam69, you do occasionally speak with the same accent as Loutist, could you be related?
Last edited by serotta; Nov 8, 2004 at 07:49 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
From: Rochester NY
Actually I've come to the conclusion that this argument is not worth my time. I like to think that I learned a lesson after arguing like this with loudist, but you get under my skin too. I usually like the British people I meet and I'm just sick and tired of this back and forth. I don't want to color my opinion of the rest by arguing back and forth with you. I guess I'll have to say that we'll have to agree to disagree. If it makes you feel better just think of me as ignorant American ******* that thinks Bush is god and is being manipulated by the Zionist conspiracy.
If you want to talk about trucks, or at least something a little less politically charged, I'll be happy too, maybe we could even find some common ground. Anyway, cheers.
If you want to talk about trucks, or at least something a little less politically charged, I'll be happy too, maybe we could even find some common ground. Anyway, cheers.
Last edited by fatman66; Nov 8, 2004 at 07:51 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
Europe continues to amaze me, back in the 40’s they didn’t mind seeing Jews get slaughtered and here in the 2000’s they wouldn’t mind seeing a repeat of Jews getting slaughtered…
An Europe claims that America has no values, go figure…
An Europe claims that America has no values, go figure…
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
Originally posted by nam69
So back in the 40's europe didnt mind seeing the jews slaughtered? Please explain.
So back in the 40's europe didnt mind seeing the jews slaughtered? Please explain.
Any of that ring a bell?
