Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A Clean Break - Invading Iraq and Syria planned since 1996

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 02:29 PM
Original message
A Clean Break - Invading Iraq and Syria planned since 1996
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right as a means of foiling Syrias regional ambitions.


A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm


Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy.

http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm


Here's another item for the DSM evidence pile. This is where it all started with Richard Perle and Douglas Feith among others. Does anyone know if Conyers has seen this document? This one needs to get out there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. "The Realm"?!?!
:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. "Securing the Realm"
These guys are bonkers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. "Securing the Realm" -- Every neoconster's fantasy made explicit.
Edited on Wed Jun-15-05 02:35 PM by understandinglife
Recommended and bookmarked.

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - We have all the evidence of mendacity and illegal war-making we need to indict and prosecute Bush, Blair and every other neoconster scum-bag on the planet having any involvement in the Bush's illegal war on Iraq and all the torture and other atrocities that have been committed since August 2002.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LightningFlash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
4. I'm not surprised...
But its still frightening, wow, amazing to see this. :wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
5. Jordan
Looks like Jordan had a role in this too. They too saw Syria as a real threat to the area...do we hate Jordan now too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LightningFlash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Jordan is an enabler it looks like.
Edited on Wed Jun-15-05 03:05 PM by LightningFlash
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. the new king's just rollin' and slobberin' all over George
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Jordan, Sir
Since its foundation has been hostile to Syria....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colorado Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. The people of Jordan are justifiably concerned about the
Ba'ath Party dictatorship in Syria and they were also concerned about Iraq.

They are moderates, who are trying to live in peace. The King is a descendant of Mohammed - hardly a latter-day slobberer.

PROGRESSIVES should be more sensitive, more aware of the history of the region and more respectful of peaceful, moderate Arab states.

Jordan is the one country of all the 22 Arab states, who has offered no-strings citizenship to the Palestinians, and who, along with Egypt, is actively working with Israel and the Palestinians to create enterprise zones, water and power projects, and a lasting solution to their problems.

She has also suffered from terrorism - including an attempt by the PLO on King Hussein's life, that resulted in thousands of deaths, and the expulsion of the PLO, who subsequently went to Lebanon where they started attacking both Christians and the Israelis.

Jordan has ample reason to desire peace and stability for her people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #14
33. Do you work for the Jordanian Chamber of Commerce?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colorado Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #33
43. LOL! That's truly funny.
Seriously, I'll take the job :)

Abdullah's great uncle, the Emir Faisal, is one of my heroes. If you've seen the movie "Lawrence of Arabia", he was the great Arab leader played by Alec Guinness.

Faisal was a wise, educated, forward-looking individual.

When the British and French carved up the Ottoman Empire (Sykes/Picot Agreement), they created Iraq and made Faisal the King. Subsequently, the Palestine Mandate was cut in half and the eastern portion became Jordan, and that became a Hashemite kingdom as well.

The links lead to some history about Jordan and Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emir_Faisal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #6
48. Jordan is a non-entity.
Not even a player.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #5
23. I don't see any Jordanian names
among the list of people who created this document?

I wonder if Jordon even got a copy?

What I do see are a lot of people who ended up in the Bush administration.



Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute, Study Group Leader

James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Johns Hopkins University/SAIS
Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates
Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Jordanian role
The Jordanian government, since inception, has long wanted Syria under control. They also wanted to get rid of Saddam because he was a "wild card." I guess we could always contact the Jordanian embassy and ask. I mean, this information is over 10 years old, perhaps they wouldn't care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. That is not the issue
the issue is that American citizens, some of whom had been members of previous administrations and who become members of the current administration where writing Israel's foreign policies.

Funny many of them are the very same people who help write the REBUILDING AMERICAS DEFENSES, Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century also known has the PNAC.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDef...

The issue is that we have double agents working within both governments. Last time I checked this sort of thing was considered treason.

Besides didn't Netanyhu have people in his own government that should have been crafting Israel's policies? I'm sure there are many Israeli's who would be unhappy to know how much control the US has over their government.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LightningFlash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Cheney reveals his true colors...
He's no american, he's a double agent half breed!!!! :mad: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #28
37. Why not?
It clearly states that Israel should work with Turkey and Jordan to contain Syria. We know Jordan played a part in trying to oust Saddam and Syria was trying to keep him to embarrass Jordan. So how is this not an issue?

Incidentally, it doesn't seem they were writing policy but coming up with strategy to create a safe "realm." Realm meaning area of living. Why do you take it to mean something else? I think the point about reducing aid dependency would resonate with this group (on DU). This actually was implemented by Netenyahu, and Israel voluntarily reduced aid in the years prior to 9/11 and the Intifada. With the increased expenditures due to the Intifada, more aid was received in the form of Loan Guarantees (note: that is with 0 expense to the US taxpayer).

This is a pre-roadmap peace initiative for the ME. "Israel proud, wealthy, solid, and strong would be the basis of a truly new and peaceful Middle East. "

Nice sentiments. Why should anyone object? The inclusion of reducing US aid to Israel is also there, as aid is seen as a weakness for the future of the economy.

"I'm sure there are many Israeli's who would be unhappy to know how much control the US has over their government." Now I am confused. Isn't the "meme" that Israel has too much control over Washington, D.C.? Perhaps, both governments exchange ideas, one with the other, with neither country actually trying to control the other?

Finally, why is that anyone who doesn't believe that the US is fighting proxy wars for Israel or that Israel is ALWAYS wrong, a "bushbot" or some other "rightist?" I am very much a liberal and a progressive, but I just don't think that Israel has all that much control over our government, as opposed to say...OIL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #37
49. Go back and read the names or the contributors/authors on the document,
and point out for us how many are or were part of the current Administration, or outside advisers to members of the current Administration.

The fact that it mentions other countries in the "realm" does not indicate that those countries had anything to do with what the document proposes. In fact, to propose this is absurd. The people who drafted this document are there on the document for everyone to see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
9. It' sall about Israel
If you haven't check out http://www.informationclearinghouse.info and the documentary on there called "The War Party." It's about the neocons and they talk about how all of them are very pro-Israel and very pro-military. Definitley find a way to get this to Conyers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kerry-is-my-prez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
10. How are we any better than the old Soviet Union?(invading other countries)
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
11. If Israel and the US Rule the Middle East we would be safer?
:eyes: Well, I guess like the Brits made India safer and the French made Algeria safer, and Hitler made Europe safer....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LightningFlash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. And then from there war with Russia....Hooray..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colorado Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
13. Oh, give it a rest.
First place, in 1996, none of these subsequent events could have been predicted: the offer of Palestinian statehood, put together by Clinton and the Israelis, offered to and refused by Arafat; the subsequent resurrection of Ariel Sharon's career, the 2nd intifada with its great loss of life - both Arab and Israeli.

And, Arafat died and the withdrawal from the Occupied Territories is well underway. The Saudis attacked, although the Clinton Administration had desperately tried to warn the Bush Administration about the dangers posed by al Qaeda.

And certainly, Al Gore's loss of the 2000 election may have been hoped for by the Republicans but it was certainly not predictable in 1996.

This is now 2005. Events have moved far beyond any such musings.

In any case, strategic planning is a part of government and academia as well as major industry - especially the oil industry.

The US runs war colleges for general staff, whose curricula would blow you away. They deal with threat analyses of all kinds, including major attacks by and with WMD's - including nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. They strategize and maneouvre and run variations through computers, play war games involving real people.

Given the geostrategic importance of the Middle East, its oil reserves which we desperately need, the fact that in its current incarnation, it was carved up out of the old Ottoman Empire by French and British fiat, it is not surprising that people would be interested in it and would speculate on possibilities.

The instability of the region is of GLOBAL concern. This impacts everybody here in the states. The price of oil has skyrocketed and this is impacting every aspect of the global economy. To the extent that friction with Israel has been a focal point for terrorism, it is in OUR interest that solutions to the conflict be discussed.

Meanwhile, Syria isn't going anyplace. However, interested PROGRESSIVES should be interested in the Ba'ath dictatorship and its impact on the people of Syria and its neighbors, including Lebanon, JOrdan, Turkey and Iraq, as well as Israel.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Speculating on possibilities is not the same
has advocating and planning illegal wars and invasions of sovereign nations.


Second the document was produced by Americans working for the Israeli government who later became the architects for the invasion of Iraq. The closeness and overlap of personnel should concern all of us.

Sorry, I will not give it a break.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burythehatchet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. everybody deserves an apologist, I suppose
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. even terrorists? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burythehatchet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. Please define "terrorist."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. defined
People who blow up things like discos, train stations, or ram planes into buildings...those would be terrorists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burythehatchet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. so is the guy flying a F-15 that launches a missle that
Edited on Wed Jun-15-05 07:14 PM by burythehatchet
blows up a disco, a train station, and a building a terrorist?

on edit: please consider your response before delivering it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. Bingo...nice response! In my reading of history, I find it interesting..
...that the British considered the American Colonists to be insurgents until they decided to surrender at Yorktown.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #26
36. Was that his target?
Was it a military outpost? Or was it simply a target because of the civilians who occupy it? Generally, during wars, civilian areas will be hit, but the objective is to hit military and resistance areas. In times of no-war, blowing up civilian targets is terrorism, pure and simple.

So, you consider your response before trying to spin all military actions as terrorist acts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #38
63. Here, have a box of candy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #36
44. It was the target...
It was not a military target, but one apartment in a building housing many innocent children. The fact that there were innocent civilians who would definately die when the building was hit didn't stop the bombing from being carried out. I know that the rules of engagement for Australian pilots in Iraq had one refusing to carry out a mission in Baghdad because the pilot was concerned that there would be civilian casualties, so possibly Israel is pretty slapdash with its rules of engagement concerning civilians?

Terrorism happens during wartime. Likewise, terrorism can be carried out by states. Terrorism as a term gets abused and claimed by anyone who wants to make someone else look bad. It's kind of a pointless term nowadays as far as I'm concerned. As far as I'm concerned anyone who attacks knowing that the end result will be civilian casualties, and either intends to or doesn't give a stuff who they hurt is scum as far as I'm concerned. And the label of scum doesn't miraculously vanish the second whichever Team I'm supposed to be supporting does something that causes civilian casulties. It applies across the board...

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #24
50. Then you must have a definition for people who ethnically cleanse an area
of its native population, including murdering, torturing, maiming and bombing homes, houses, villages and refugee camps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colorado Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #15
42. If you want overlapping personnel look at the Reagan Admin.
The idea that the Israeli government is somehow running Washington is patently absurd. It's actually more like the other way around. The fact that Washington doesn't always get its way is cause for great friction and the two states don't always see eye to eye at all. Nevertheless Israel is much like the United States, a Western oriented democracy in one of the most geostrategically important regions of the world, and as such an important ally. But American interests in the region far supercede those of Israel.

George HW Bush actually armed Iraq with chemical weapons in order to get even with Israel for some transgression. That's in Unger's book, "House of Bush, House of Saud" - upon which Michael Moore based his movie Farenheit 9/11. And during Gulf War I the Israelis were forced to sit passively and get hit with SCUD missiles - which they feared were armed with WMD's provided by America - without daring to retaliate or defend themselves.

And, before THAT, Bush turned around and used the Israelis to arm IRAN. Iran has threatened several times to blow Israel off the map and continues to arm and fund terror groups, similarly disposed to destroy her and murder her citizens. In other words, the Israelis are on the hot seat and the US has helped put them there.

The Iran/Iraq war killed over 1,000,000 people. The war in Afghanistan, in which the US armed Arab resistance fighters including Osama Bin Ladin, was aimed at harming the Soviet Union - which it did. It also killed around 1,000,000 people and practically destroyed Afghanistan, leaving a power vacuum that allowed the Taliban to sieze power. And it left al Qaeda armed to the teeth. Saudi Arabian money was used as well. Unger says they also helped the Reagan Administration with funds for action in Latin America.

Israel is a pawn of the US, not the other way around. If you're looking for influence, follow the money - SAUDI money.

Moreover, this plan of which you speak actually involves cutting aid to Israel, plans to establish better relations between her and her neighbors through economic and cultural spheres, a program of "peace for peace" as opposed to "land for peace", which didn't work anyway, and aims to reduce Israeli dependence upon the US. I cannot see how that should trouble you.

Finally, I suggest a bit of reading on the REAGAN Administration, in which George Herbert Walker Bush was the Vice President, and during which he was surrounded by the same group of individuals who are now calling the shots in THIS administration. Also, Bush was the head of CIA before he entered elective politics.

These people are far more powerful than Israel, population 6 million, area smaller than New Jersey.

They represent the oil industry, which is, in fact, running this government. And with good reason: the global economy, unfortunately, can't run without it. And, the associated industries: petrochemicals, paints, medicines, plastics, synthetic fabrics, cars, planes, defense - they're absolutely enormous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_industry

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. Excellent Points, Ma'am
One of the odder things about this line of agitation to me is the idea that seems to lay at its bottom that imperial expansion requires some cabal of intellectuals to set it in motion. That is far from the case; imperialist expansion is the natural endeavor of government. All governments expand their authority to the practical limits of their capability to do, and this is observeably true throughout human history. That the United States, after the collapse of the Soviet Union removed one set of practical limitations, would expand to find others, was as predictable as the sunrise. Such expansion is generally aimed where possible at augmenting the resources available to the government in question for sustaining its power, and so that such expansion would be directed into the Near East, where there is an exceptionably vital resource, also is only what would be expected.

Intellectual cabals play about the same roll in the process as the upholstery of an automobile does in its movement from one place to another....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Intellectual Cabals..........always at the hearts of things.
Then the "pratical realities" of the situation intervene. And the "people" come in and have their say...revolution comes and we start all over again in a few decades or so.

The exclusionary factor is always ignored by the "Intellectual Cabals" which leaves them vulnerable to those whose exclusion mean a great deal to the whole dialog that the "Cabal" was trying to move forward. It's never seen in time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gasping4Truth Donating Member (199 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Expansion
That the United States, after the collapse of the Soviet Union removed one set of practical limitations, would expand to find others, was as predictable as the sunrise.

The sad thing is, it chose to expand in space, not in time. With the peace dividend, America could have put its financial resources and its brightest minds to work to develop technology for a post-fossil fuel world. Instead, the * government went for a quick grab for whatever there is left of oil reserves in the Middle East. The expanding stain of violence endangers even the short-term oil supply. This way, the government is acting against America's self-interests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. You got it
Edited on Wed Jun-15-05 06:03 PM by DoYouEverWonder
Welcome to DU :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #18
27. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Hey, thanks for the help
This thread is really drawing the Bushbots and I could use all the help I can get.

BTW: Welcome to DU :hi: Hope you stick around.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #27
34. If, Mr. Murkin, You Wish A Serious Discussion
Edited on Wed Jun-15-05 10:00 PM by The Magistrate
It would be wise to refrain from likening me to Mr. Brooks, or attempting in any other way to paint me as some rightist or reactionary.

Speculation concerning President Gore is, of course, just that. It interests me that you seem to have no particular liking for that prospect, describing the policies you expect he would have pursued as "boneheaded and sleazy." There is no doubt whatever he would have continued the national policy of support for Israel, and considered its security a proper end of U.S. policy. Whether the attacks executed several years ago by al'Queda could have, or might have, been prevented, is of course un-knowable; it seems possible to me also that President Gore might have launched some pre-emptive attack against that movement's base in Afghanistan, as was certainly being proposed by some in President Clinton's administration. Though Republicans, and doubtless some on the left as well, would certainly have squawked over, it would have been a sound action.

That expansion of U.S. power has occured since the collapse of the Soviet Union is undeniable; this could be readily observed during President Clinton's administration. Expansion, even imperial expansion, need not always take military form: indeed, this is often the least effective means by which expansion of power can be attempted. Economic dominance, and cultural imprint, are much more certain and durable, particularly where the object to be controlled cannot provide any military check of its own. The oil states of the Near East are more dependent economically on the West, or at least their ruling elites are, than the West is on them. Expansion of power and influence on these lines is every bit as much an expression of the natural tendency of governments to expand as is the use of military force, and is preferable on several counts that ought to be sufficiently obvious to render it unecessary to spell them out.

It must be obvious that it seems to me quite un-necessary to invoke the things seemingly so dear to you to explain the policy of the current administration in the Near East. That policy is pretty much what one would expect from a group of grasping and un-reflecting men overly concerned as individuals with seeming "hard" to any onlookers. It is a policy that has been "in the air" in rightist circles for some years. There is no doubt in my mind the current regime took power with the idea, among other things, of launching some military venture against Iraq. Failure to overthrow Hussein has long been pointed to, and with good cause, as the reason the elder Bush failed of re-election, and the natural allure of unfinished business joined in this instance the personal motivation of a scape-grace son to show up the father by succeeding where he failed.

The idea this was owing solely, or even mainly, to the activities of a few intellectuals of some particular ethnic and religious persuasion that you seem to find very signifigant, is an idea quite divorced from the realities of power and national policy. Intellectuals are the racing stripe painted on a fast car, not the motor that moves it at high speed: they provide rationalizations for the more primal urges of aggrandizement and fear that move events, and do so long after the real motion is already well underway.

"There can be but one sun in the sky: there can be but one ruler of all men."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #34
41. Dear Magistrate: The Thrust of Your Argument is Undeniable
Democratic administrations have pursued imperialistic policies as well as Republican ones. The question seems to be primarily one of degree.

As far as its inevitability goes, however, why is the US the only country that seems to display this pattern nowdays?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 03:30 AM
Response to Reply #41
64. Thank You, Sir
Edited on Fri Jun-17-05 03:35 AM by The Magistrate
To my mind, matters of degree are most important, and worth a good fight in many instances. It seems to me that people who attempt to argue that because both parties will pursue policies that are basically imperialist, they ought to be considered identical, make a serious error, though an understandable one. The overthrow of a system so deeply engrained does not strike me as a practical proposition, and so it seems to me we are constrained to act within its fixtures, and do what can be done to check its excesses, and mitigate its injustices.

As to your question, Sir, it does not seem to me to be the case the United States is the only country acting in such a wise today: it is merely doing it on a larger scale. In Africa, for instance, several neighbors of the un-happy Congo are attempting to expand their power into that place, and finding the limits of their capacity to do so in the activities of rival neighbors, the chaos of the place, and their own lack of resources. In Asia, to take another example, China seeks to expand its power to include Taiwan, and Trans-Baikal Siberia, and soon enough will seek to expand it into Indo-China and beyond to Indonesia: that it is doing so more by economic pressure than military means does not alter that it is doing this. The influence of Japanese companies in the Southwest Pacific rivals the dreamt of Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere the Imperial militarists embarked on in the thirties of the last century, and in a much more profitable and durable manner.

Why the current regime of the United States is doing so by military means seems to be a seperate question, and one reason is simply because it has those means available, to a degree no other country today does. This is largely an artifact of the Cold War, in which the United States, being at the start of that both the most prosperous and the least traumatized by war of the Western powers, was naturally the locus of military efforts against the expansion of the Soviet Union. In this, the country was as much the agent of the European nations as the principal mover, and bore costs that many who benefited by the expenditures accordingly did not need to inflict on themselves. This has, in the present day, hampered the country somewhat in certain ways relative to those beneficiaries of the security it provided. European countries were able to devote treasure and political capital to the social welfare of their citizenry, in part because the United States assumed the military burdens of the time. To some degree, this relation persists even in the present day. Nations in Europe benefited more, for instance, by the action of the U.S. military in scotching the troubles in the former Yugoslavia than did the United States. While it is true that the invasion and occupation of Iraq may be unsettling the status quo in that region in damaging ways, certainly prior to that, and to a great degree even still amidst all the various troubles, U.S. miltary power in the Persian Gulf provides a great many benefits to countries that depend, every bit as much as the United States does, on the flow of oil from the region.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colorado Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #18
47. Thank you, sir, and thank you for your remarks as well. The
analogy between the car and the upholstery is particularly apt.

Imperialistic expansion should come as no surprise to those who acknowledge that major industries, whose power lies behind much of what our government involves itself with, are actually multinationals.

Although they may fly the American flag, their interests are in fact, global and international in scope. This is particularly true of the oil industry, by its nature doing business all over the planet and in partnership with many other nations.

I'd like to note also, that fear of intellectuals is a hallmark of totalitarian societies.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #13
31. You sound like you're DEFENDING the invasion of Iraq, as well as....
...the rest of the NeoCon policies in the Middle East.

"Interested progressives" are MUCH more interested in getting the US out of an illegal occupation of Iraq than they are with the "impact" of a very small third-world country on its surrounding neighbors.

Maybe you should give it a rest and think about what you want to say next.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. Well, let's be glad * went ahead with his wagging instead of Clinton!
Edited on Wed Jun-15-05 10:09 PM by HypnoToad
Clinton and Albright were making the same hype about Sadist Hussie back in 1998. It's documented.

So either both he and * were telling the truth. Or lying.

As Clinton has supported the neocon agenda in the past (DOMA, DMCA, NAFTA, and more...!) along with being a little too kind to poppy even though poppy, in every pic I've seen, is either shoving Clinton around or showing a big scowl on his face when he and Clinton are in the same pic... Clinton needs to drop the centrist shit. No good deed goes unpunished and his use by the neocons has been over since 2000.

It's a funny ol' world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colorado Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #31
40. Sigh. I'm not defending jack. Let alone the Bush Admin.
But neither do I like to see stupid theories advanced as gospel. I especially think it's important to keep our eye on the ball, which is the abuse of the environment AND the global economy AND smaller nations by the oil industry - which in effect is running this government.

I would combine this unfortunate state of affairs with a growing intolerance for diversity here at home. The Rove spin machine has very skillfully managed to slice and dice until this country is sounding like a bunch of idiots.

Worse, people are actually discussing creationism in schools, evangelizing at Federal institutions like the Air Force Academy, and creating MORE intolerance instead of building for the future on the grand tradition of American respect for minorities, individual rights and freedom of thought and religion. Also being lost: the ability for incisive and careful thinking.

Part of being a progressive is learning something about history and also something about keeping perspective.

The most important challenge facing this species, in the years to come, will be the development of alternative fuel sources. This is absolutely vital if we are to save our environment, while continuing to support our growing populations and the demands of the global economy. The alternatives are dire. People will die as shortages in food, water, fuel - the very basics of life - set us at each others' throats.

But right alongside that will be the crucial challenge we face as human beings: will we grow to be more tolerant and loving of one another? Or will we play into the hands of those who would divide and conquer?

I submit, they're already winning the latter battle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Must_B_Free Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #13
45. Not predictable
<And certainly, Al Gore's loss of the 2000 election may have been hoped for by the Republicans but it was certainly not predictable in 1996.>
Don't forget these people demanded that CLinton attack Iraq in 1998; when he refused, the Monica Lewensky thing broke out.

One has to wonder if they tried to blackmail Clinton with Monica.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colorado Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #45
51. Here's what I think.
Bill Clinton was set up from Day 1. He and Hillary tried to upset too many apple carts - #1 being universal health care. This was flying right at one of America's most powerful industries: the insurance business. Also, there are still latent fears of COMMUNISM in certain quarters and, although we are practically the only industrialized nation in the world not to have universal health care, the fear of Creeping Socialism is still influential on the Right AND among large numbers of ordinary Americans.

Remember "White Water" and "Travelgate"? The Republicans were working to ensure the Clinton's couldn't accomplish their goals right from the outset. And they started digging up dirt on Clinton's lady friends long before Monica came along.

It appears that the Bush family is working on a dynasty. They've been powerful and wealthy for a long time. Now they have politically attractive people to front for the wealthy and powerful people they represent. Bush I has suggested that Jeb run in 2008.

The Right has been moving more and more to the FAR Right for a few decades now. Goldwater was considered really radical when I was 14; he'd be pretty moderate today. The religious aspect, the Christian fundamentalism, has also been a growing force. Dubya was able to tap into that, and also into Muslim perception that his administration wouldn't be so friendly to Israel as Gore, and that particular voting group was his margin of victory in Florida (Craig Unger, "House of Bush, House of Saud".)

Clinton got in the middle of their thing. The fact that he's a supremely gifted politician didn't help matters - AND - he left the door wide open by being really stupid. But there's no doubt in my mind that the whole witch-hunt was beyond ridiculous and it was most certainly an attempt to keep the Democrats from accomplishing anything. And it started during the FIRST term.

I think the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld camp had decided to take down Iraq all along. Many people felt they should have done so in Gulf War I. Saddam was actually armed and empowered by us as a bulwark against the Iranian mullahs, but he turned out, after we'd armed him to the teeth against Iran, to be impossible to control - as evidenced by the fact that he invaded Kuwait. The invasion of Kuwait was scary because it directly threatened the far more important oil fields of Saudi Arabia.

However, Saddam was pretty toothless by the time Dubya came along. The UN inspectors and the constant flyovers had rendered him pretty impotent. That's why we should have kept up diplomatic pressure, had his dangerousness - to us, to the region or to Israel - been the primary issue. And in terms of terrorism, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran were the more natural targets. Mossad said at the time that Saddam had moved his WMD's to Syria.

That's why I think oil was the primary goal all along.

As far as the Israelis go, 9/11 and the War in Iraq have caused grave harm to them and to the Jewish community around the world. I'm sure they could foresee that this would be the case, though no doubt they're glad Saddam is gone.

It isn't hard to see that Islam would blame the Israelis as well as the Jewish community worldwide. Sadly, many here in the US do as well. Antisemitic attacks have been soaring around the world. So the idea that the Israelis OR some cabal of Jews drove the US to war in Iraq is doubly ridiculous.

US interests have to do with Iraq's enormous oil reserves. It is thought that the Saudis actually have less than they've been advertising. With Saddam in power, it seems doubtful that they could have been fully exploited, especially given the sanctions then in place.

Also, there's a manifest problem with the Sauds: they're the #1 backers of al Qaeda and their religious and social order is extremely unAmerican and anti-Western in outlook, although many individual Sauds don't feel that way and have been educated in the West. As allies they're not necessarily reliable. Indeed, they're on the hot seat between the Great Satan, the Wahabi sect of Islam and the jihadists whom they fund.

And, the situation in Saudi Arabia is potentially unstable politically. They've already suffered internal problems with terrorism. An upset or civil war in Saudi Arabia could be disastrous for the U.S., given our dependence upon Saudi oil.

When you look at it that way, Iraq makes a lot more sense, though I still believe we should have found another way to go about doing business!

One should also note the huge pipeline projects underway in Central, South and West Asia. Stability in the region is vital to the success of those multinational projects, which aim primarily to exploit the vast reserves of landlocked Turkmenistan, as well as the Caspian region and Iraq.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tsiyu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 02:36 AM
Response to Original message
46. Kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
52. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DixieDem Donating Member (239 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #52
53. Thanks for this post. ITA.

It's a shame that we have to walk on eggshells when mentioning these issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colorado Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. Not antisemitic? OK, please read this, actually written by
an ARAB historian, Anwar Chemseddine:

The Nazis disastrous scheme of The Final Solution of the Jewish Question, which aimed at nothing less than wiping the Jews from the face of the earth, did not originate from their hatred for the Jews as deicides or as well-poisoning, money-grubbing criminals...

Instead,the Nazis singled out the Jews as a parasitic race responsible for all the evils of the modern world. This idea was by no means the invention of the Nazis; it had been in circulation since at least the first decades of the 19th century, and was shared by conservatives, liberals and even revolutionaries.

The main charge against the Jews was that they were in essence cosmopolitan (Bodenloss). In the context of a Europe exalted by rising nationhood, this was the crime above all crimes, the sad illustration of which is the Dreyfus Affair.

Anti-semitism is a modern European phenomenon in which Jews, assimilated or unassimilated, secular or religious, liberal or radical, are made the political, cultural, ideological and social scapegoats of modernity. It is bitterly ironic that the Jews modernity is held against them in the name of modernity...

***

It is precisely this charge of "double agency", of being cosmopolitan, modern, of being able to see beyond borders, which is being levelled here at Jewish people, and being employed to accuse them of "treason" and "subversion" and "conspiracy". These are ancient canards, along with that of "undue influence" - whatever that is - and all have been used in centuries past as an excuse to persecute Jews.

Better liberals should worry about why the all-powerful AIPAC members were the target of a sting in the first place, and why the JEWISH signatories to the notorious PNAC documents are the ones being singled out here, and why the JEWISH members of the Pentagon are taking the blame for the Bush Administration's foreign policy, and why Jewish participation in government is considered to be "undue influence" in and of itself, and why Jews are being accused of double agency en masse, and why people are actually implying that a poor nation of 6 million is running the most powerful imperial nation in the history of the world.

In my day, liberals would be OUTRAGED at the implications presented here. Maybe I'm getting old. I sure as hell am getting tired.

***

Finally, about the oil:

As of May 2005, Iraqi production (net of reinjection) had reached perhaps 1.9 million bbl/d, with "gross" production (including reinjection, water cut, and "unaccounted for" oil) of around 2.1 million bbl/d. Most analysts believe that there will be no major additions to Iraqi production capacity for 2-3 years, but that 4.0 million bbl/d is possible by the end of the decade.

According to Tariq Shafiq, a founding Vice President of the Iraq National Oil Company (INOC), Iraq's oil development and production costs are among the lowest in the world, ranging from as low as $750 million for each additional million bbl/d day in Kirkuk, to $1.6 billion per million bbl/d near Rumaila, and as high as $3 billion per million bbl/d for smaller fields in the northwestern part of the country. In contrast, Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) estimates an average cost for Iraqi oil development of $3.5 billion per million bbl/d for the country as a whole, which is higher than Tariq Shafiq's estimates, but still relatively low by world standards. Either way, Iraq is considered a highly attractive oil prospect, with only 17 of 80 discovered fields having been developed, and few deep wells compared to its neighbors. Overall, only about 2,300 wells reportedly have been drilled in Iraq (of which about 1,600 are actually producing oil).

With oil around $55/barrel and destined to go much higher in the future - don't kid yourselves. This is a rich, rich prize.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. Contact a moderator
PM a moderator and reference the thread. They may not tell you why because you were not the author. The post was deleted because it didn't fit community standards. I doubt their are any supporters of PNAC here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DixieDem Donating Member (239 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. Okay, thanks.
>> I doubt their are any supporters of PNAC here.

I think you'd be wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colorado Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #55
59. OK, I'll explain.
We're not supporting the policies of Bush. We're stating that stereotyping and scapegoating are elements of RACISM.

They're bigotry, period.

Blaming the Jewish people for the crimes of the Bush Administration, or the global expansion of this enormous entity called the United States and its multinational interests, is RACISM.

THAT IS WHAT WE'RE SAYING.

And if you think that makes us rightwingers, or supportive of Bushco, then heaven help us.

That article sounded like something out of 1930's Germany. It was just another page from that hideous forgery, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", which blames the Jews for every disaster that's every happened on the face of this planet.

THAT is why is was deleted.

And, it's illogical and irrational. Please think about the size and power of the US, the way its economy is structured. Please think about the Bush family and their long-time connections to big (I mean BIG) business. Then, tell me that a nation smaller than New Jersey is telling them what to do.

It would be more fruitful to look at our long-term partnership with Great Britain and its imperial economic interests. It would be more fruitful to look at Saudi Arabia, and their relationship both to our economy and to the Bush family.

Incidentally, PNAC was composed primarily of non-Jews. So are most Neocons, the really powerful ones like Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld. Are THOSE guys Jewish? No. Was the Reagan/Bush Administration, which started this mess in Iraq, Jewish? No. Are the big oil company executives Jewish? No. Are the producers, like Saudi Arabia, Jewish? NO.

And in fact, if you'll think about it logically, and study the modern Middle East, you see that the Jewish people there, before and after the formation of Israel, have been used as pawns and actually betrayed, several times, by the imperial interests of Britain, first, then subsequently used by the US, during the Reagan/Bush Administration, to arm IRAN - one of Israel's key enemies.

The US also armed Iraq, who attacked Israel, as well as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. In other words, this mighty entity, Israel, is surrounded on all sides by enemies who've been armed by the United States.

A real dominant force, huh.

And, the very fact that it is JEWISH PNAC members, members of the government, lobbyists, so forth, who are being singled out in this way, that is appalling. That a tiny minority, traditional scapegoats, are being blamed for the policies of the Bush Administration, is truly frightening.

This strikes at the very roots of what makes us Americans.

Scapegoating like this is bigoted.

So - are we supporting PNAC? HELL NO. We're supporting AMERICA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DixieDem Donating Member (239 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. Thanks CB!

I really do appreciate your input and I agree with you for the most part. (I DID learn a few things too.)

My beef is that I am getting very annoyed when I hear the word anti-semite thrown out at everyone and anyone that speaks out against Israel. I do not believe that Israel is above criticism. Do you?

Israel has many supporters here in the US. Many of the PNAC supporters also support Israel. I don't believe that those individuals are above criticism either. Do you?

I would have to disagree that the poster of the deleted post was an anti-semite. He posted a real interview with an AIPAC official! I won't repost the link here because then MY post will be deleted too. Now THAT'S spooky! Why can't we just discuss it?

Why can't we discuss all of the issues concerning Israel out in the open? Why are the posts that are critical of Israel deleted? Where CAN we go to openly about these things? Whether we agree or disagree, I think we can only learn from each others opinions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colorado Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. Hi DixieDem.
I don't think there's anything wrong with thoughtful criticism of Israeli policy. If you want to see ferocious criticism, go to the Israeli papers!

Here's a link to Ha'aretz:

http://www.haaretz.com /

This is the liberal, leftist paper. They have unmoderated, on-line forums where people from all over the world let it all hang out. This includes Palestinians.

Israel is a democratic state, one of the most open and self-critical in the world. It also exists in a war zone, so its position is difficult. Right now, the withdrawal from the OT is underway and it's rough. There's a "hudna" in place, Arabic for "pause" in the violence, though it's ongoing. The militias haven't disarmed and the Palestinian Covenant still calls for the destruction of Israel. So it's a scary thing. The country is so small there's no room for error.

I'm attaching a wikipedia map and articles below. And, the withdrawal isn't popular with about 35% of the population - for religious, historical and security reasons. Because Israel is a democracy, a noisy one, there are demonstrations and counter-demonstrations going on about this. However, the majority thinks it's the right thing for peace, for the Palestinians, and they're even willing to talk to Hamas - who has vowed to destroy them.

I think, people don't really understand what Israel is about at all.

Plus, there's a lot of stress with the Bush Administration right now. Sharon has refused to hold a press conference with Rice, the administration is pissed because Israel had the temerity to sell some stuff to China, they're trying to force the "roadmap" along with no evidence that the Palestinian Authority can control the violence, and so forth.

All of this is open and visible.

So criticism of Israel is fine. Everybody does it :)

HOWEVER, when blame for the crimes of the Bush Administration is laid at Israel's feet, even though they go back to Reagan/Bush in the '80's; or the influence of Jewish members of the government or of academia is overstated to the extent that we are taking the load for Bush, that's wrong.

And that's what the deleted article was saying. It really read like something out of old Europe, it was scary.

I was afraid of this right from the start, when Rove gets Wolfie and Perle - The Prince of Darkness yet - to Explain The War.

I thought, oh shit. WHEN (not IF) it goes wrong, guess who's gonna take the heat. A Jew called The Prince of Darkness - and, by implication, all of us. HELP!!! Rove did it again. Haliburton, Big Oil, big construction, defense contractors - they all get rich, and the Jews get the blame. It SUCKS.

And in fact, antisemitic crime has soared all over the world since 9/11, the death toll in Israel went WAY up - 2002 was the worst year for terrorism EVER - and of course retaliations and attempts to prevent more terror cost the lives of even more Palestinians.

So worldwide Jewry, only 13 million of us in total to begin with, has been taking a direct hit because of Bush's war.

That isn't right. We didn't cause it, they didn't do it FOR us, yet here we are, right back in the position we've enjoyed for 2,000 years: traditional scapegoat.

Frankly, I am frightened. Heaven only knows where this will end.

Washington's partners include Saudi Arabia, and of course the British. Israel is just a pawn, and so were the Jewish PNAC members. They'll pick the brains of academics, who have no real power whatsoever, use their ideas if it suits them, then blame them if things go wrong. Powerful people have been doing this for centuries, and it sucks.

Does this make sense?

As far as AIPAC is concerned, Jews have an absolute right to lobby the government. Concern for Israel is as natural to Jews as concern for Greece is to Greek Americans. We shouldn't be singled out or demonized for exercising our democratic rights, nor should we be accused of disloyalty to America. Even the big spy flap, to the best of my knowledge, boils down to a couple of guys trying to save the lives of some Israelis in Iraq, who were working there on behalf of America.

What they did was wrong. But it should hardly serve to portray all 5 million American Jews as double agents, or AIPAC as a whole as disloyal or overly influential, whatever that means; or damage our ability to lobby congress, serve in government, and so forth.

And again, let me reiterate: our influence is MINISCULE, compared to that of the REALLY wealthy and powerful. That really needs to be borne in mind. But that deleted article made it sound as though we are Running The Government. And that's not only bigoted, it's nuts. It's bigoted BECAUSE it's nuts. Does this make sense?

We must also never forget, this culture - the Christian culture - has been naturally, innately, antisemitic for 2,000 years. It's part of the religion - The Jews Killed Christ. Even if people aren't consciously aware of it they're steeped in that dogma, and steeped in old legends, myths and a history of Jewish Conspiracy Theories and images of Jews as sneaky, all-powerful criminals.

Those things are rearing their ugly head again. Although, to be honest, they never really go away. When I was young, we were accused of Zionist Communist World Domination plots. Now, it's NEOCON plots. In other words, Jews are good for PLOTS, and fit into whatever demonic political or economic power rules the day.

I have to admit, it's nice to be so flexible :) One day a Communist, next day a Neocon, what could be bad? You'll notice, we have a sense of gallows humor :)

Seriously, we were accused of causing the Bolshevik Revolution, and that led capitalists and imperialists to really hate us - even more than usual, I mean.

Henry Ford distributed a copy of the "Protocols" in the glovebox of every car he sold.

The Holocaust followed just a couple of decades later.

Does this help? I've listed some articles about Jews and Israel below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eretz_Israel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Israeli_conflict



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DixieDem Donating Member (239 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. WOW! Thank you so much! r/o

>>> I think, people don't really understand what Israel is about at all.

Yep, I'll admit that I'm in that catagory. I'm neither arab, israeli, jewish, muslim, or christian... so I have no dog in this race. But, I believe that the I/P issue is at the heart of many, many of our current problems. I'm trying to understand it.

In my own research of the ME problem, it seems that everything written is very biased towards one side or the other. Every time I've tried to ask questions on forums (either side), I've been attacked. That just makes me more suspicious of the attacker's agenda. You are probably the first person that has tried to answer some of my questions honestly. You are also the first person who has not called me an anti-semite for admitting that I have criticism of Israel. Thank You.

You've given me much to research and think about.

Thanks again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colorado Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #62
65. DixieDem, it is a pleasure to meet you.
You are one of the few people I've met who is honestly interested in this topic, and if I can help please let me know.

I agree, also, that bias about the ME is common. US foreign policy has been colored by ignorance. A stunning example: the firing of Arabic speakers, because they were gay AND/OR Jewish. And how many Americans have any clue about the Middle Eastern culture, music, or history?

Having said that, we Americans can't take all the blame for the mess. When the British Empire took down the Ottoman Empire after WWI, the British and the French carved it up willy-nilly. The modern nation-states haven't got much to do with tribal, ethnic or religious sensitivities. Iraq, for example, is an attempt to force Sunni, Shi'a and Kurds to live together. Traditionally, these groups have been enemies from time to time. Perhaps, each should have a home, a state like we have states? It's obvious, none feels safe. In Iran, they've been going through an election process, in which the candidates have been presenting moderate platforms, but the violence has been stunning, terrible.

Also, throughout the Middle East there are many other minorities who get little or no representation at all: Turkmen, Jews outside of Israel - only about 8,000 now, plus Christians, Druze, nomadic people, Ba'hai, Assyrians, Armenians, Zoroastrians - most of these represent very ancient cultures.

And, up until recently, the Soviet Union was playing a greater role in causing trouble there than most people realize. The people in the Middle East have been stuck in proxy wars fought by the Great Powers, and they're ALL victims.

The transition from medieval to modern culture has been rough, fast and brutal. Going from horseback to 747 has been a shock for all of us - we only started flying in 1903! People forget that, the changes during the 20th century were incredible and unprecedented.

We do have a chance now to make things better. I hope, I pray this can happen. I think it will be, one person talking to one person, a day at a time, like weaving a rug.

I am praying for the day when people will reach out to one another, and the sun will fall on green fields.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
58. McGovern just brought up the Israeli connection at the Conyers hearing!
OIL - Oil, Israel, Logistics(?)

Said that the last time he brought this up, he was attacked has anti-Semitic by some other official. That's the same thing that happens here every single time someone dares touch this issue.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 26th 2014, 06:59 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC