posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hammer:
WMDs were only one of several reasons for the invasion of Iraq. At it's core the policy was designed to surround Iran with American power, it had much less to do with Saddam.

---

Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bogle:
There were/are WMDs in the region and its in Israel. Its obvious now that the war in Iraq was for Israel, not oil. Big Oil in the US wanted an end to sanctions so as to gain access to Iraq's oil fields; however the Zionists thought this would empower Israel's great enemy in the region. It was the Zionist neo-cons who wanted war - with Iraq, Syria and Iran - Israel's enemies. The epic failure of Iraq suspened war with the other two. The fact is America would have gained more from normalised relations with their one time ally than a costly war - over ten billion a month. Compared to this the oil revenue is not compensating America's coffers, as the Iraq government is now making deals with China.

---

Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bogle:
I'm sorry but your views of middle east politics are antiquated. See The Israel Lobby.

It is the Zionists that run America. The Iraq war was for Israel's strategic interests. No evidence Big Oil was behind it.

---

Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob_01:
Yawn, is that even a source of evidence?...
Start citing political science papers

---

Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bogle:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob_01:
Yawn, is that even a source of evidence?...
Start citing political science papers

---

Yeh you're right, cuz Mearsheimer and Walt aren't political scientists. LOL

You Israeli apologists are pathetic.

---

quote:

---

In March 2006, Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, academic dean and professor of International Relations at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, published a working paper [1] and an article[2] in the London Review of Books discussing the power of the "Israel lobby" in shaping US foreign policy. They define the Israel lobby as "a loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction." They emphasize that is it not appropriate to label it a "Jewish lobby," because not all Jews feel a strong attachment to Israel and because some of the individuals and groups who work to foster U.S. support for Israel are not Jewish; according to Mearsheimer and Walt, Christian Zionists play an important role. Finally, they emphasize that the lobby is not a cabal or a conspiracy but simply a powerful interest group like the NRA or the farm lobby.

---

Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

"Bob", you need to read the book, not a review.

Not only have Mearsheimer and Walt aptly demonstrated, with sources, how Israel and their agents in the US aggressively pushed for war on Iraq but they show how the Israel lobby exerts an inordinate amount of influence over American foreign policy, not the other way around. Sorry Bob, this aint no "ordinary" lobby group.

quote:

---

Bill Clinton said that AIPAC was "better than anyone else lobbying in this town," and Newt Gingrich, who rarely agrees with Clinton about anything, said it was "the most effective general interest group across the entire planet." Former Congressman Lee Hamilton, who served in Congress for 34 years, said "there's no group that matches it. They're in a class by themselves." Former Senator Fritz Hollings said as he left office that "you can't have an Israel policy other than what AIPAC gives you." [Talk before "Chicago Friends of Israel", University of Chicago, February 7, 2008 John Mearsheimer's Comments]

---

You "Bob" can only scream obscenities (and post a pointless excerpt that does nothing to debunk the argument that Zionist neocons pushed for Iraq war) because like all good Jewish apologists you have no argument.

You are debunked "Bob".

Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bogle:
[QB] "Bob", you need to read the book, not a review.

Not only have Mearsheimer and Walt aptly demonstrated, with sources, how Israel and their agents in the US aggressively pushed for war on Iraq but they show how the Israel lobby exerts an inordinate amount of influence over American foreign policy, not the other way around. Sorry Bob, this aint no "ordinary" lobby group.

---

quote:

---

In March 2006, Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, academic dean and professor of International Relations at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, published a working paper [1] and an article[2] in the London Review of Books discussing the power of the "Israel lobby" in shaping US foreign policy. They define the Israel lobby as "a loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction." They emphasize that is it not appropriate to label it a "Jewish lobby," because not all Jews feel a strong attachment to Israel and because some of the individuals and groups who work to foster U.S. support for Israel are not Jewish; according to Mearsheimer and Walt, Christian Zionists play an important role. Finally, they emphasize that the lobby is not a cabal or a conspiracy but simply a powerful interest group like the NRA or the farm lobby. Their core argument is that the policies that the lobby pushes are not in America's national interest, nor ultimately those of Israel. Those pieces generated extensive media coverage, and led to a wide-ranging and often polemic debate between supporters and opponents of their argument.
Link

---

quote:

---

Bill Clinton said that AIPAC was "better than anyone else lobbying in this town," and Newt Gingrich, who rarely agrees with Clinton about anything, said it was "the most effective general interest group across the entire planet." Former Congressman Lee Hamilton, who served in Congress for 34 years, said "there's no group that matches it. They're in a class by themselves." Former Senator Fritz Hollings said as he left office that "you can't have an Israel policy other than what AIPAC gives you." [Talk before "Chicago Friends of Israel", University of Chicago, February 7, 2008 John Mearsheimer's Comments]

---

quote:

---

You "Bob" can only scream obscenities (and post a pointless excerpt that does nothing to debunk the argument that Zionist neocons pushed for Iraq war) because like all good Jewish apologists you have no argument.

---

Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

You may force me to actually read the book

---

quote:

---

"The bottom line is that few, if any politicians, will say anything remotely critical of Israel, and neither will anyone who wants to be a serious player in the making of US foreign policy."

---

Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bogle:
[QB]

quote:

---

You may force me to actually read the book

---

Couldn't care less what your dumb@ss does, it was clear from the start you never read the book, you didn't even know who they were! LOL

---

quote:

---

Your deranged rants aside, the quotes I posted (and there are more) demonstrate that the Israel Lobby is no farmers lobby. [QUOTE]"The bottom line is that few, if any politicians, will say anything remotely critical of Israel, and neither will anyone who wants to be a serious player in the making of US foreign policy."

---

quote:

---

They were behind the Iraq war, "By the late 1990s, however, the neo-conservatives were arguing that dual containment was not enough and that regime change in Iraq was essential" and the only reason America is threatening Iran now is because of them. Mearsheimer and Walt go on to quote Sharon, Netanyahu and other top Israelis who wanted an all out war on Iraq, Iran and Syria. See also "Clean Break" report, 1996. All this debunks your dumb@ss and your claims that they were against Iraq war.

---

quote:

---

Other recipients get their money in quarterly installments, but Israel receives its entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year and can thus earn interest on it. Most recipients of aid given for military purposes are required to spend all of it in the US, but Israel is allowed to use roughly 25 per cent of its allocation to subsidise its own defence industry. It is the only recipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent, which makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the US opposes, such as building settlements on the West Bank. Moreover, the US has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems, and given it access to such top-drawer weaponry as Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets.Link

---

quote:

---

Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members. It blocks the efforts of Arab states to put Israel’s nuclear arsenal on the IAEA’s agenda.

---

quote:

---

Contrary to popular belief, the Zionists had larger, better equipped and better led forces during the 1947-49 War of Independence, and the Israel Defence Forces won quick and easy victories against Egypt in 1956 and against Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 1967 – all of this before large-scale US aid began flowing.

---

quote:

---

By 10 May, when the SA suffered its first combat loss, there were three flying units: an air staff, maintenance facilities and logistics support. At the outbreak of the war on 15 May the SA became the Israeli Air Force. With its fleet[100] of light planes it was no match for Arab forces during the first few weeks of the war with its T-6s, Spitfires, C-47s and Avro Ansons. The main Arab losses were the result of RAF action in response to Egyptian raids on the British air base at Ramat David[101] near Haifa on 22 May during which five Egyptian Spitfires were shot down. It was also during this time that the balance of air power began to swing in favor of the Israeli Air Force following the purchase of 25 Avia S-199s from Czechoslovakia, the first of which arrived in Israel on 20 May. Link

---

quote:

---

Some aspects of Israeli democracy are at odds with core American values. Unlike the US, where people are supposed to enjoy equal rights irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship.

---

quote:

---

Jewish Americans have set up an impressive array of organisations to influence American foreign policy, of which AIPAC is the most powerful and best known. In 1997, Fortune magazine asked members of Congress and their staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington. AIPAC was ranked second behind the American Association of Retired People, but ahead of the AFL-CIO and the National Rifle Association. A National Journal study in March 2005 reached a similar conclusion, placing AIPAC in second place (tied with AARP) in the Washington ‘muscle rankings’.

The Lobby also includes prominent Christian evangelicals like Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson, as well as Dick Armey and Tom DeLay, former majority leaders in the House of Representatives, all of whom believe Israel’s rebirth is the fulfilment of biblical prophecy and support its expansionist agenda; to do otherwise, they believe, would be contrary to God’s will. Neo-conservative gentiles such as John Bolton; Robert Bartley, the former Wall Street Journal editor; William Bennett, the former secretary of education; Jeane Kirkpatrick, the former UN ambassador; and the influential columnist George Will are also steadfast supporters.

---

quote:

---

The Power 25 is a highly eclectic--almost curious--collection. From the 33-million-member American Association of Retired Persons, which polled No. 1 (to no one's surprise), to the ever controversial International Brotherhood of Teamsters (No. 25), and from the calculatedly quiet American Israel Public Affairs Committee (a remarkable No. 2) to the newly emergent National Restaurant Association (No. 24), the Washington 25 is as diverse as the nation itself. But it is more than that. It is a crystalline reminder that Alexis de Tocqueville was right more than 150 years ago when he observed that Americans were inveterate joiners who liked to cluster themselves into quasi-political volunteer groups.

The affluence of an organization's members doesn't guarantee influence. Sometimes it has the opposite effect. In one of the most striking examples of the populist imperative, the only investor-related organization that made the Power 25 is the American Bankers Association at No. 12. The other financial services lobbies are washouts. The National Association of Securities Dealers is No. 83; the Public Securities Association, recently renamed the Bond Market Association, is No. 84; the Securities Industry Association is No. 47; and worst of all, the Investment Company Institute, the mutual fund industry trade association, languishes at No. 115. Of course these groups do more than try to affect laws and regulations; they also serve their own members. But one thing's for sure: Wall Street's stock isn't very high on K Street.
Link

---

quote:

---

In its basic operations, the Israel Lobby is no different from the farm lobby, steel or textile workers’ unions, or other ethnic lobbies. There is nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting to sway US policy: [i]the Lobby’s activities are not a conspiracy of the sort depicted in tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.[/b] For the most part, the individuals and groups that comprise it are only doing what other special interest groups do, but doing it very much better. By contrast, pro-Arab interest groups, in so far as they exist at all, are weak, which makes the Israel Lobby’s task even easier.

---

quote:

---

Chomsky: It is impossible to give a measure to the influence of the Israeli lobby, but in my opinion it is more of a swing factor than an independently decisive one. It is important to bear in mind that it is not neoconservatives, or Jewish. Friedman, for example, is a liberal in the US system. The union leadership, often strong supporters of Israeli crimes, are protypical liberals, not neocons. The self-styled "democratic socialists" who modestly call themselves "the decent left" have compiled an unusually ugly record in support of Israeli government actions ever since Israel's massive victory in 1967, which won it many friends in left-liberal circles, for a variety of reasons. The Christian right is a huge voting bloc, plainly not Jewish, and in fact to a significant extent anti-Semitic, but welcomed by the government of Israel and its supporters because they support Israel's atrocities, violence, and aggression, for their own reasons. It is a varied and large group, which happens also to constitute a substantial part of the intellectual elite, hence the media elite, so of course there is ideological influence. However, these groups rarely distance themselves far from what they know to be authentic power: state-corporate power. If US government policy would shift, they would shift along with it, maybe with some snapping at the heels of the powerful, but never daring too much. That has been fairly consistent in the past, and I think there is good reason to expect similar behavior in the future. Privilege and rewards do not come from confronting power, but by serving it, perhaps with some complaints at the margins while pouring out lies and slanders against anyone who strays a few millimeters to far from doctrinal orthodoxy, a primary function of respectable intellectuals throughout history. Particularly since its 1967 victory, state power has generally regarded Israel as a very important "strategic asset," by now virtually an offshore military base and militarized high-tech center closely linked to the US and major regional US allies, particularly Turkey. That opens the way for the ideological influence to exert itself - lined up with real power. The story is far more complex than anyone can describe in a few words, but my feeling is that the essentials are pretty much like that. That is true of domestic lobbies quite generally, in a state capitalist society with very close ties between state and corporate power, a very obedient intellectual class, and a narrow political spectrum primarily reflecting the interests of power and privilege.Link

---

Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Moron, you haven't even read the damn book!

---

quote:

---

Once again, just because a claim are made by political scientists doesn't mean its true.

---

quote:

---

I know your a white kid, who needs to create a scapegoat and that explains the poor use of sources.

---

quote:

---

What quote moron? That their efficient in lobbying. That doesn't suggest that their any different from farm groups.

---

quote:

---

What does that quote even indicate?

---

quote:

---

The lobby group couldn't prevent the Levi fighter jet program from being canceled (would've generated billions in sales) or huge, easily, multi-billion dollar, weapons sales to China. Both clashed with US interests and thus were quickly denied.

---

Well it was Israel that gave Nukes to China, contrary to US interests, and they already have a booming multi-billion dollar arms trade and a strong manufacturing sector that Arab countries simply cannot compete with. The idea that there is some attempt to sure up Arab states to "counter Israeli presence" in the ME is stupid. Israel is still the supreme power in the region and America is the key reason. The point is the lobby gets what it wants most of the time even thought their ME interests clash with US interests for the most part in post-cold war era yet US still backs it to the extent that it does shows their power and is the central point of The Israel Lobby.

The rest of your post on Levi fighter jets, the views of the Jew Chomsky (LOL) as well as the different lobby groups is worthless spam (They call this bait and switch.) since you have yet to show the farmers or AARP for that matter pushed for war in Iraq.

The Iraq war in fact was conceived in Israel - not among weapons industry, Big Oil, farmers or old people - and agressively advocated by their neocon agents in the US.

quote:

---

The suggestion that the war with Iraq is being planned at Israel's behest, or at the instigation of policymakers whose main motivation is trying to create a secure environment for Israel, is strong. Many Israeli analysts believe this. The Israeli commentator Akiva Eldar recently observed frankly in a Ha'aretz column that [Richard] Perle, [Douglas] Feith, and their fellow strategists "are walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments and Israeli interests." ...The hawks began pressing the case for overthrowing Saddam in 1998 with a letter to the Clinton administration drafted by Perle and signed by 40 neocon luminaries. [Joshua Micah Marshall, "Bomb Sadddam?: How the obsession of a few neocon hawks became the central goal of U.S. foreign policy," Washington Monthly, June 2002, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0206.marshall.html; and Kathleen and Bill Christison, "A Rose By Another Other Name: The Bush Administration's Dual Loyalties," CounterPunch, December 13, 2002, " target="_blank">http://www.counterpunch.org/christison1213.html.[/i]][/QUOTE]

---

Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bogle:

quote:

---

Moron, you haven't even read the damn book!

---

Hey "bob", I like the way you try to throw this on me after you thoroughly embarrassed yourself dismissing the book without even reading it! LOL! They call this dishonesty.

---

quote:

---

The suggestion that the war with Iraq is being planned at Israel's behest, or at the instigation of policymakers whose main motivation is trying to create a secure environment for Israel, is strong. Many Israeli analysts believe this. The Israeli commentator Akiva Eldar recently observed frankly in a Ha'aretz column that [Richard] Perle, [Douglas] Feith, and their fellow strategists "are walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments and Israeli interests." ...The hawks began pressing the case for overthrowing Saddam in 1998 with a letter to the Clinton administration drafted by Perle and signed by 40 neocon luminaries. [Joshua Micah Marshall, "Bomb Sadddam?: How the obsession of a few neocon hawks became the central goal of U.S. foreign policy," Washington Monthly, June 2002, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0206.marshall.html; and Kathleen and Bill Christison, "A Rose By Another Other Name: The Bush Administration's Dual Loyalties," CounterPunch, December 13, 2002, " target="_blank">http://www.counterpunch.org/christison1213.html.[/i]][/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] The answer to that question, convergence of interests. Big defense and oil firms have realized that after 9/11, wars could be pushed for economic gain. At that time, well in US, much of the population was on their side.

This didn't occur back in first gulf war, remember. Israel would've preferred Iraq taken down back then. It didn't occur, nor did we see a war appearing in 1998 either. Multiple conditions had to pass to make this war possible.

The Israel Lobby will always push for Israeli interests, as all sources suggest. However for it to push it, the support of significant segments in the power sector is required. Lobby groups do that by convincing that their client is the most secure bet.

Saying that I think you need to stop being foolish and realize that my position is again this:

quote:

---

It is the Zionists that run America. The Iraq war was for Israel's strategic interests. No evidence Big Oil was behind it.

---

It is white people who run America. Jews included and that has yet to be denied. Iraq isn't even that high on US's list with regards to its corporate powers interests.

Let's introduce my initial comment:

quote:

---

US's power starts with its corporation and its white population. The latter being huge are represented by managers especially in foreign politics. If ExxonMobile and Raytheon viewed Israel as a threat, the nation would be immediately isolated. The Americans backs Israel, because it maximizes their military depth in the region. One can call Israel, an American outpost.

---

Israel backed the Iraq war (it did, politically). The Europeans, on the other hand, didn't. However my suggestion is that, the war didn't secure Israeli interests, by causing instability in Kurdistan. Instead this war is enhancing perceived American depth, even though much of the non-oil/weapon corporations opposed the war. US will obviously protects its military outpost, and I would never deny that at all.

PS: I think it's clear from my past posts that 9/11 occurred, because of US's criminal activities. That includes supporting Israel, a criminal state. Our position only differs, because I've suggested that Zionists do not run the United States. However outside of that, we ultimately agree.

---

Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

BUSH ADMIN VERY PRO-ZIONIST

George W. Bush's speech was "so pro-Israel that it might have been written by [Israel prime minister] Ariel Sharon." [The Times (London), June 26, 2002.]

"By defending the freedom and prosperity and security of Israel, you're also serving the cause of America" [Bush AIPAC speech May 18, 2004]

WAR WAS FOR ISRAEL

"The [Israeli] military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq," [Haaretz, in February 2002.]

Robert Novak say Sharon was telling American political leaders that "the greatest US assistance to Israel would be to overthrow Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime." And "that view is widely shared inside the Bush administration, and is a major reason why US forces today are assembling for war." added Novak. [Robert Novak, "Sharon's War?," column of Dec. 26, 2002]

Wesley Clark admitted, "Those who favor this attack [by the US against Iraq] now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel." The Guardian (London), August 20, 2002.]

"Pressure from Israel and the [pro-Israel] Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure...[The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, Mearsheimer & Walt]

Podhoretz prominent Jewish writer and an ardent supporter of Israel claims the Iraq war was part of a long-range effort to install Israel-friendly regimes across the Middle East. [Norman Podhoretz, Commentary, Sept. 2002]

WAR NOT FOR OIL

The easing of sanctions on rogue states "pits powerful interests such as the pro-Israeli lobby and the U.S. oil industry against each other" [May 2001 Business Week article, Rose Brady; Anthony Sampson, "Oilmen don't want another Suez," Guardian Unlimited, December 22, 2002.]

Large oil companies sought a more peaceful approach to securing their interests in the Gulf region and the Arab world: "Big oil told the Cheney Task Force on Energy Policy in 2001 that they wanted the U.S. sanctions lifted on Libya and Iran so they could gain access to their oil supplies. As far back as 1990, they were even arguing that the United States should cut a deal with Saddam because he had given signals he was willing to let U.S. oil companies into Iraq." [Fareed Mohamedi of PFC Energy, a consulting firm based in Washington, D.C Roger Burbach, "Bush Ideologues Trump Big Oil Interests in Iraq," Alternatives, September 30, 2003.]

Former professor of petroleum engineering states "As a business decision...invading Iraq 'for the oil' is a loser, a big loser. Anyone who would propose, in a corporate boardroom, invading Iraq for the oil would probably find his career rather short. No, the slogan 'no war for oil' is a blatant misrepresentation propagated for political reasons." [Charles A. Kaulhaus, "War in Iraq: 'Not a War for Oil,'" In the National Interest, March 5, 2003.]

WAR NOT ADVOCATED BY MILITARY ELITE

American military experts, members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, prominent retired military figures and the Army War College. [Thomas E. Ricks, "Some Top Military Brass Favor Status Quo in Iraq," Washington Post, July 28, 2002, p. A-1; Justin Raimondo, "Attack of the Chicken-Hawks"; and Doug Thompson, "Suddenly, the hawks are doves and the doves are hawks," Capitol Hill Blue, August 1, 2002. Thomas E. Ricks, "Army War College report blasts war on terrorism," © Knight Ridder, January 12, 2004.]

---

Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bogle:
Jews are white people, they are just the more powerful of the whites.

---

Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

"Over representation in the economic elite of a visible ethnic minority of the degree found in Poland and Hungary was certain to cause trouble regardless of the identity of the group: if Belgians, Bulgarians, or Bolivians had constituted 62 per cent of the highest income-earners of Hungary, rather than Jews, that would certainly engendered resentment against them ... To us [Jews], European antisemitism appears to be a weapon of the strong against the weak, a kind of ideological sadism. To European right-wing nationalists of the post-1870 period, however, antisemitism appeared to be a weapon of the weak against the strong, an attempt (as they saw it) by a downtrodden nation to regain control over its resources from a separate, distinctive minority which appeared to dominate the economy -- an aim not unlike that of anti-colonial movements in the Third World vis-a-vis the Europeans and foreign entrepreneurial minorities (like the Chinese throughout South-East Asia). The Zionist movement understood this perfectly well, however disturbing such a perspective may seem to us viewed with post-Holocaust eyes.

Moreover, research is most likely to demonstrate a very considerable actual Jewish over-representation in many other social and political areas which figured largely in the litany of continental antisemitism of the post-1870 period, especially Jewish participation in the radical left, the liberal professions, in journalism, and in the media."

-- W. D. Rubinstein, Jewish Journal of Sociology, Vol. 42, nos. 1 and 2, 2000, p. 18-19

---

Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bogle:
Oh please "Bob", your "primary concern", your first reply to my post, was to argue that

---

quote:

---

The explanation is the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby. We use ‘the Lobby’ as shorthand for the loose coalition of individuals and organisations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. This is not meant to suggest that ‘the Lobby’ is a unified movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within it do not disagree on certain issues. Not all Jewish Americans are part of the Lobby, because Israel is not a salient issue for many of them. In a 2004 survey, for example, roughly 36 per cent of American Jews said they were either ‘not very’ or ‘not at all’ emotionally attached to Israel.

---

quote:

---

As for Jews not being more powerful than other centers of white power I just showed you when powerful interests are up against each other who comes out most of the time.

---

quote:

---

In its basic operations, the Israel Lobby is no different from the farm lobby, steel or textile workers’ unions, or other ethnic lobbies. There is nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting to sway US policy: the Lobby’s activities are not a conspiracy of the sort depicted in tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. For the most part, the individuals and groups that comprise it are only doing what other special interest groups do, but doing it very much better. By contrast, pro-Arab interest groups, in so far as they exist at all, are weak, which makes the Israel Lobby’s task even easier.

---

quote:

---

Your Fighter Jet example does nothing to disprove this.

---

quote:

---

To hide this white tribal conflict under the heading "Anglo-Saxon alliance" is misleading, American interests and Israel's interests are not the same.

---

Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Israel, economically-speaking, isn't that wealthy compared to European powers.

---

quote:

---

The lobby could never work on its own

---

quote:

---

That suggests we're dealing with a well networked lobby group.

---

quote:

---

This is money that would benefit a nation that resembles lower income European nations

---

quote:

---

Jews represent a high position in the United States, but that has a lot to do with a smaller population base.

---

quote:

---

The population of Israel are financially poorer than the European counterparts.

---

quote:

---

To suggest that Israel, on its own, could just push through corporations require better sources than that. For, one where are the controls? Can you find a situation where a clash between the lobby and corporations would result to a zero profit amongst the former. I don't see that in the Iraq war, at the moment, which is greatly benefiting American big oil firms.

---

Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

My concern is that the Jews are going to be thrown into those Illuminati-esque conspiracies.

---

quote:

---

The evidence that you provide suggest nothing but a lobby group who has strong influence.

---

quote:

---

Those excerpts that highlight preference by corporations demonstrate nothing.

---

Other than the fact that they weren't the oones pushing for war, which was your original argument.

Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bogle:
^ Hey "bob", another long @ss post with no sources just talk. A pattern is developing here.

---

quote:

---

Plus, I really don't know why you are still trying to make a case for Big Oil being the culprit in this when American oil firms would have made more from normalized relations with Iraq, that's the point of the oil experts. There was no need for war, Saddam needed to sell just as west would need to buy it. Sorry if that went over your head.

---

quote:

---

And why would that "concern"/bother you? And do you even know who Adam Weishaupt is? LOL

---

Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

How does it do it? It does it by securing support from other segments.

---

quote:

---

Those quotes are regarding elements that don't have much to lose whether a war takes place or not.

---

quote:

---

Israel isn't a source of American power.

---

quote:

---

Fool, Spain is on the LOWER range in that area.

---

quote:

---

Idiot, I said with regards to white. Their population is smaller and thus being recipients of white privilege are able to access seats that are meant for a larger population base. Smaller integrated groups tend to do much better.

---

quote:

---

Number 30 isn't necessarily wealthy.

---

quote:

---

Ok. Israel couldn't do it on their own is my point.

---

Of course they couldn't stupid, that's where the lobby comes in.

quote:

---

these firms also had nothing to lose regardless o result.

---

Not according to the experts. Your views as frustrate Jew apologist to the contrary mean sh!t. Sorry. The rest of your paragraph is the usual bullsh!t rambling without sources, as I said, this is a very one sided exchange. I dont want your views and rambling come with sources.

quote:

---

Because all white people, ordinary ones, including any potential ancestors, are part of the dominant class. This segment benefits off domestic and international oppression whether they acknowledge it or not. The state is under their control and Jews, being whites, are part of that umbrella.

Scapegoat arguments suggesting that whites aren't in control is quite misleading. US foreign policy in the Middle East is not equivalent to it controlling the entire nation. There is far greater economic significance in the Americas and Asia-Pacific than the Middle East.

---

Rambling on and on, and on...boring....

Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Yeh support from politicians (Dems and GOP) too scared of them as well as the media and the Christian right. No evidence Big Oil supported them in their push for war on Iraq. You still trying to push this Big Oil line like a stubborn child. LOL

---

quote:

---

The M-W thesis is that (B) overwhelmingly predominates. To evaluate the thesis, we have to distinguish between two quite different matters, which they tend to conflate: (1) the alleged failures of US ME policy; (2) the role of The Lobby in bringing about these consequences. Insofar as the stands of the Lobby conform to (A), the two factors are very difficult to disentagle. And there is plenty of conformity.

Let's look at (1), and ask the obvious question: for whom has policy been a failure for the past 60 years? The energy corporations? Hardly. They have made "profits beyond the dreams of avarice" (quoting John Blair, who directed the most important government inquiries into the industry, in the '70s), and still do, and the ME is their leading cash cow. Has it been a failure for US grand strategy based on control of what the State Department described 60 years ago as the "stupendous source of strategic power" of ME oil and the immense wealth from this unparalleled "material prize"? Hardly. The US has substantially maintained control -- and the significant reverses, such as the overthrow of the Shah, were not the result of the initiatives of the Lobby. And as noted, the energy corporations prospered. Furthermore, those extraordinary successes had to overcome plenty of barriers: primarily, as elsewhere in the world, what internal documents call "radical nationalism," meaning independent nationalism. As elsewhere in the world, it's been convenient to phrase these concerns in terms of "defense against the USSR," but the pretext usually collapses quickly on inquiry, in the ME as elsewhere. And in fact the claim was conceded to be false, officially, shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when Bush's National Security Strategy (1990) called for maintaining the forces aimed at the ME, where the serious "threats to our interests... could not be laid at the Kremlin's door" -- now lost as a pretext for pursuing about the same policies as before. And the same was true pretty much throughout the world.

That at once raises another question about the M-W thesis. What were "the Lobbies" that led to pursuing very similar policies throughout the world? Consider the year 1958, a very critical year in world affairs. In 1958, the Eisenhower administration identified the three leading challenges to the US as the ME, North Africa, and Indonesia -- all oil producers, all Islamic. North Africa was taken care of by Algerian (formal) independence. Indonesia and the ME were taken care of by Suharto's murderous slaughter (1965) and Israel's destruction of Arab secular nationalism (Nasser, 1967). In the ME, that established the close US-Israeli alliance and confirmed the judgment of US intelligence in 1958 that a "logical corollary" of opposition to "radical nationalism" (meaning, secular independent nationalism) is "support for Israel" as the one reliable US base in the region (along with Turkey, which entered into close relations with Israel in the same year). Suharto's coup aroused virtual euphoria, and he remained "our kind of guy" (as the Clinton administration called him) until he could no longer keep control in 1998, through a hideous record that compares well with Saddam Hussein -- who was also "our kind of guy" until he disobeyed orders in 1990. What was the Indonesia Lobby? The Saddam Lobby? And the question generalizes around the world. Unless these questions are faced, the issue (1) cannot be seriously addressed.

When we do investigate (1), we find that US policies in the ME are quite similar to those pursued elsewhere in the world, and have been a remarkable success, in the face of many difficulties: 60 years is a long time for planning success. It's true that Bush II has weakened the US position, not only in the ME, but that's an entirely separate matter.

That leads to (2). As noted, the US-Israeli alliance was firmed up precisely when Israel performed a huge service to the US-Saudis-Energy corporations by smashing secular Arab nationalism, which threatened to divert resources to domestic needs. That's also when the Lobby takes off (apart from the Christian evangelical component, by far the most numerous and arguably the most influential part, but that's mostly the 90s). And it's also when the intellectual-political class began their love affair with Israel, previously of little interest to them. They are a very influential part of the Lobby because of their role in media, scholarship, etc. From that point on it's hard to distinguish "national interest" (in the usual perverse sense of the phrase) from the effects of the Lobby. I've run through the record of Israeli services to the US, to the present, elsewhere, and won't review it again here.

M-W focus on AIPAC and the evangelicals, but they recognize that the Lobby includes most of the political-intellectual class -- at which point the thesis loses much of its content. They also have a highly selective use of evidence (and much of the evidence is assertion). Take, as one example, arms sales to China, which they bring up as undercutting US interests. But they fail to mention that when the US objected, Israel was compelled to back down: under Clinton in 2000, and again in 2005, in this case with the Washington neocon regime going out of its way to humiliate Israel. Without a peep from The Lobby, in either case, though it was a serious blow to Israel. There's a lot more like that. Take the worst crime in Israel's history, its invasion of Lebanon in 1982 with the goal of destroying the secular nationalist PLO and ending its embarrassing calls for political settlement, and imposing a client Maronite regime. The Reagan administration strongly supported the invasion through its worst atrocities, but a few months later (August), when the atrocities were becoming so severe that even NYT Beirut correspondent Thomas Friedman was complaining about them, and they were beginning to harm the US "national interest," Reagan ordered Israel to call off the invasion, then entered to complete the removal of the PLO from Lebanon, an outcome very welcome to both Israel and the US (and consistent with general US opposition to independent nationalism). The outcome was not entirely what the US-Israel wanted, but the relevant observation here is that the Reaganites supported the aggression and atrocities when that stand was conducive to the "national interest," and terminated them when it no longer was (then entering to finish the main job). That's pretty normal.

Another problem that M-W do not address is the role of the energy corporations. They are hardly marginal in US political life -- transparently in the Bush administration, but in fact always. How can they be so impotent in the face of the Lobby? As ME scholar Stephen Zunes has rightly pointed out, "there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races."

Do the energy corporations fail to understand their interests, or are they part of the Lobby too? By now, what's the distinction between (1) and (2), apart from the margins?

Also to be explained, again, is why US ME policy is so similar to its policies elsewhere -- to which, incidentally, Israel has made important contributions, e.g., in helping the executive branch to evade congressional barriers to carrying out massive terror in Central America, to evade embargoes against South Africa and Rhodesia, and much else. All of which again makes it even more difficult to separate (2) from (1) -- the latter, pretty much uniform, in essentials, throughout the world.

I won't run through the other arguments, but I don't feel that they have much force, on examination.

The thesis M-W propose does however have plenty of appeal. The reason, I think, is that it leaves the US government untouched on its high pinnacle of nobility, "Wilsonian idealism," etc., merely in the grip of an all-powerful force that it cannot escape. It's rather like attributing the crimes of the past 60 years to "exaggerated Cold War illusions," etc. Convenient, but not too convincing. In either case.
Link

---

quote:

---

By 1958, the CIA advised, I'm quoting, that "a logical corollary" of opposition to Arab nationalism "would be to support Israel as the only reliable pro-Western power left in the Middle East." According to this reasoning, Israel could become a major base for US power in the region. Now that was proposed but not yet implemented. It was implemented after 1967. In 1967, Israel performed a major service to the United States - namely, it destroyed Nasser, destroyed the virus. And also smashed up the Arab armies and left US power in the ascendance. And at this point essentially a tripartite alliance was established - Israel, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia technically was at war with Iran and Israel but that makes no difference. Saudi Arabia has the oil - Iran and Israel (and Turkey is taken for granted) were the military force; that's Iran under the Shah, remember. Pakistan was part of the system too at that time.

That was very clearly recognized-both by US intelligence specialists, who wrote about it, and also by the leading figures in planning. So for example Henry Jackson who was the Senate's major specialist on the Middle East and oil - he pointed out that Israel, Iran, and Saudi Arabia "inhibit and contain those irresponsible and radical elements in certain Arab states, who, were they free to do so, would pose a grave threat indeed to our principal sources of petroleum in the Middle East" (meaning, as he knew, primarily profit flow and a lever of world control). Saudi Arabia does it just by funding, and by holding the greatest petroleum reserves by a good measure. Iran and Israel, with the help of Turkey and Pakistan, provided regional force. They're only the local "cops on the beat," remember. So if something really goes wrong, you call in the big guys-the United States and Britain.Link

---

quote:

---

Yeah, but that's inside Saudi Arabia, and that happens to be where most of the oil is. They have been excluded by the US and Saudi leadership, but they're not going to be likely to accept that if there is a sovereign, democratic Iraq next door. It's really a Shiite-dominated Iraq. And it's already beginning to happen. Well, you know, that'll lead towards a situation in which most of the world's oil would be under the control of a relatively autonomous Shiite alliance. The US won't tolerate that for a moment. The next thing that would happen in a sovereign Iraq is that they would try to resume their very natural position as a leading state in the Arab world. They're the most educated country, the most advanced and so on. In many ways, it should be the leader in the Arab world. Actually, those are factors that go back to Biblical times. And they'll try to resume that position, which means they'll try to rearm. They will confront the regional enemy, namely Israel, which has virtually turned into a US military outpost. They may even develop weapons of mass destruction as a deterrent against Israel's overwhelming advantage, both militarily and in weapons of mass destruction. Those are very natural developments to be expected. Can you see the US accepting any of this? I mean, those are the likely consequences - not certain, but likely consequences - of a relatively sovereign, more or less democratic Iraq. It's a nightmare for the United States. It's no wonder it tried to prevent elections in any possible way, and is now trying to undermine the results. What happens is gonna be on a terrain of plenty of struggle, and we have a role in it. US public opinion can be highly influential during the outcome. We don't live in a dictatorship; we have plenty of freedom if we want to use it. It can be used to help the Iraqis regain control of their own society.
Link

---

quote:

---

What the f!ck are you talking about "seats", do you even know what youre saying? LOL Jews are an economic elite in EU and America, has nothing to do with being merely a minority.

---

quote:

---

Source? According to Eurostat Spain is in the top five in EU. Man do you know how stupid you sound arguing Spain and S.Korea aren't "necessarily wealthy" nations?? LOLOLOLOL

---

quote:

---

Not according to the experts. Your views as frustrate Jew apologist to the contrary mean 7sh!t. Sorry. The rest of your paragraph is the usual bullsh!t rambling without sources, as I said, this is a very one sided exchange. [Roll Eyes] I dont want your views and rambling come with sources.

---

quote:

---

I would also remind you that Israel's defense is $13 billion. Two billion represents a fraction of that, but it's clear that it's designed to compete with neighbors within the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia's defence budget is $30 billion, while Iran is around $7 billion despite being a nation with a significantly lower labor and manufacturing costs. The aid, which even goes to Egypt (lower, though), is designed to enhance US's depth in the region. Of course it isn't beneficial, but that's generally a common amongst states. They become too drunk with power and wound up pathological.

---

quote:

---

Umm..how about $2 billion means nothing to South Korea's $30 billion dollar defense budget? Not just that, but a nation that largely manufactures their military assets at home significantly reducing costs that are much higher when imported.

---

quote:

---

They would have more "normalized" relationships, but remember, these firms also had nothing to lose regardless of the result. These oil rich states are highly corrupt (including Iraq) and sooner-or-later are going to see a violent, indigenous, regime change. Iran wasn't the last, it was the first nation.

Saying that, US was the primary nation, along with UK, involved in operation Ajax in Iran. That coup d'etat did not involve Israel since the AIPAC wasn't even around at that time. Israel is a pest in a region, but so were the larger Western predecessors that are the main reason why the region is in shambles. The West maintains despotic regions and Israel represents a outpost for those nations.

---

Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

In a region that is clearly not US's primary region.

---

Yeh, thats why they spend billions a month on a illegal war and supporting their mad dog in the region. LOL

But again, your long winded post, this time with your favorite Jew Noam Chomsky, who has been exposed as a Zionist apologist, is nothing but more hot air. But lets entertain your Israeli apologist.

In his deductive Jew logical fallacy his argues that since oil is a fundamental concern for the United States in the Middle East, oil interests must have been a fundamental motive for the war policy and US agressive stance there. Of course Chomsky cannot prove that the oil lobby pushed for the war in fact they wanted an end to sanctions on Iraq and Iran. So of course he goes to Cold War era where Military, Big oil and other US corporate interests would converge with the Lobby's pro-Israel stance to counter Soviet advancement in that region. However, the point of Mearsheimer and Walt's thesis is that in a post Cold War era the lobby's aggressive stance has been detrimental to US interests and ME policy cannot be justified as part of the usual "corporate" agenda line. Chomsky does nothing to disprove this.

It is interesting to note however that even Cold War justification is on shaky ground as "since Britain – up until 1948 – had managed quite well to maintain complete control over Middle Eastern oil, a dominance the United States could not sustain 'despite' the 'strategic support' of Israel." [Chomsky on Oil and the Israel Lobby, Shahid Alam] And the argument that threats from Arab nationalism and militant Islamism cannot stand either since the latter is largely a response to imposition of Israel and third world nationalism and Big Oil can agree as in Angola during the Cold War and Venezuela today.

The point is not whether Big Oil makes no profits from the ME, of course they do, its an oil rich region, stupid! LOL The point is they did not want war or sanctions against regimes deemed enemies by the lobby. In this they were pitted against the Lobby and lost. You have yet to show how they pushed for war, why are you still beating this dead horse?

And of course they would find no support in Washington for "unauthorised transfers" to China. Are you stupid?! Oh wait, don't answer that. Fact is, Chomsky provides no evidence that this slap on the wrist by US for Israel's long history of espionage and treachery, was somehow "a serious blow to Israel". They still got their most favorable billion dollar aid, they still got approval on Lebanon and Gaza, and from Mr. "change" Obama on settlements. There was absolutely no "humiliation". All these green lights were due to the lobby, none of these aggressive policies serves US corporate interests. Thats the point Chomsky is clearly an apologist. To a large extent the lobby still runs the show.

And how much of a simpleton are you? Zunes quote is worthless as it does not prove Oil lobby and Military were the ones who pushed for war or support sanctions and general aggressive stance on "rogue" states (read: Israel's enemies) in that region. Again, no evidence for this, none.

quote:

---

Do you have evidence suggesting that Jews are higher income-wise than the dominant Anglo-Saxon whites?

---

quote:

---

Ignore this point, regardless. Seems rather irrelevant, to be honest.

---

quote:

---

Despite having cited Chomsky, I will post another source.

---

Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

It's true that Bush II has weakened the US position, not only in the ME, but that's an entirely separate matter.

---

quote:

---

M-W focus on AIPAC and the evangelicals, but they recognize that the Lobby includes most of the political-intellectual class -- at which point the thesis loses much of its content.

---

Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

139 Emad Mekay, “Iraq Was Invaded ‘to Protect Israel’ – US Official,” Asia Times Online,
March 31, 2004. Zelikow also served with Rice on the National Security Council when
George H. W. Bush was President, and co‐authored a book with her on German
reunification. He was also one of the principal authors of the second Bush
Administration’s 2002 National Security Strategy, which is the most comprehensive
official presentation of the so‐called Bush Doctrine.

---

quote:

---

AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says. Link[/url]

Let me deal with your excerpt suggesting that the Israel directed the war, as is. This is ludicrous, as I verified the sources, and realized that we forgot Sharon's warnings:

[QUOTE]Sharon Warned Bush
The Strategic Interest

Begin and Moshe Dayan’s secret initiative to bring Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to Jerusalem, and Rabin and Shimon Peres’s clandestine talks in Oslo with the Palestine Liberation Organization, were embraced by Washington once it became aware that Israel had successfully implemented a radically different strategy.
[...]
An obvious case in point is Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s recent assertion that Israel can’t talk to Syria because doing so would betray President Bush’s policy line. It doesn’t matter that the Democratic majority in Congress might lean toward a dialogue with Syria, or that the Iraq Study Group report recommended such a step, or that the beleaguered Bush is a lame duck with whom Israel can risk disagreeing.

Nor does Olmert appear to be influenced by the advocacy of negotiations with Syria by many in the Israeli security establishment. That he actually invoked Bush as his rationale for ignoring Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad’s offer to reopen peace negotiations portrays the Israeli prime minister as an amateur on strategic issues.

[...]When it came to Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq and to democratize the Arab Middle East from within, Ariel Sharon took a far more sophisticated position.

Publicly, Sharon played the silent ally; he neither criticized nor supported the Iraq adventure. One reason for his relative silence was Washington’s explicit request that Israel refrain from openly backing its invasion of an Arab country or in any way intervening, lest its blessing damn the United States in Arab eyes.

But sometime prior to March 2003, Sharon told Bush privately in no uncertain terms what he thought about the Iraq plan. Sharon’s words — revealed here for the first time — constituted a friendly but pointed warning to Bush. Sharon acknowledged that Saddam Hussein was an “acute threat” to the Middle East and that he believed Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Yet according to one knowledgeable source, Sharon nevertheless advised Bush not to occupy Iraq. According to another source — Danny Ayalon, who was Israel’s ambassador to the United States at the time of the Iraq invasion, and who sat in on the Bush-Sharon meetings — Sharon told Bush that Israel would not “push one way or another” regarding the Iraq scheme.

According to both sources, Sharon warned Bush that if he insisted on occupying Iraq, he should at least abandon his plan to implant democracy in this part of the world. “In terms of culture and tradition, the Arab world is not built for democratization,” Ayalon recalls Sharon advising.

Be sure, Sharon added, not to go into Iraq without a viable exit strategy.[/b And ready a counter-insurgency strategy if you expect to rule Iraq, which will eventually have to be partitioned into its component parts. Finally, Sharon told Bush, please remember that you will conquer, occupy and leave, but we have to remain in this part of the world. [b]Israel, he reminded the American president, does not wish to see its vital interests hurt by regional radicalization and the spillover of violence beyond Iraq’s borders.

But there were also many Israelis, this writer included, who spoke out openly and publicly against the American scheme.

Even Aipac officials in Washington told visiting Arab intellectuals they would rather the United States deal militarily with Iran than with Iraq. And pro-Western Arab leaders like Egypt’s Husni Mubarak and Jordan’s King Abdallah were outspoken in their criticism of Bush’s war plans, even though they could fall back on far less credit and lobbying support in Washington than in Israel.

---

Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Israel urged US to attack Iran - not Iraq

By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - Israeli officials warned the George W Bush administration that an invasion of Iraq would be destabilizing to the region and urged the United States instead to target Iran as the primary enemy, according to former Bush administration official Lawrence Wilkerson.
[..]
The warning against an invasion of Iraq was "pervasive" in Israeli communications with the US administration, Wilkerson recalled. It was conveyed to the administration by a wide range of Israeli sources, including political figures, intelligence, and private citizens.

Wilkerson noted that the main point of their communications was not that the US should immediately attack Iran, but that "it should not be distracted by Iraq and Saddam Hussein" from a focus on the threat from Iran.
[...]
As late as October 2002, however, there were still signs of continuing Israeli grumbling about the Bush administration's obsession with taking over Iraq. Both the Israel Defense Forces' chief of staff and its chief of military intelligence made public statements that month implicitly dismissing the Bush administration's position that Saddam's alleged quest for nuclear weapons made him the main threat. Both officials suggested that Israel's military advantage over Iraq had continued to increase over the decade since the Gulf War as Iraq had grown weaker.

The Israeli chief of military intelligence, Major-General Aharon Farkash, said Iraq had not deployed any missiles that could strike Israel directly and challenged the Bush administration's argument that Iraq could obtain nuclear weapons within a relatively short time. He gave an interview to Israeli television in which he said army intelligence had concluded that Iraq could not have nuclear weapons in less than four years. He insisted that Iran was as much of a nuclear threat as Iraq.
[..]
Israel was more concerned with the relative military threat posed by Iran and Iraq, whereas neo-conservatives in the Bush administration were focused on regime change in Iraq as a low-cost way of leveraging more ambitious changes in the region.
Link

---

quote:

---

Q: What are the obstacles blocking the establishment of direct talks between Iran and the U.S.? Does the Israeli lobby really have such a great influence over the U.S. corporatocracy?

A: The Israeli lobby has some influence, but it is limited. That was demonstrated in the case of Iran, once again, last summer, during the presidential campaign, the time when the influence of lobbies is at its peak. The Israeli lobby wanted Congress to pass legislation that came close to calling for a blockade of Iran, an act of war. The measure gained considerable support, but then suddenly disappeared, probably because the White House made it clear, quietly, that it was opposed.
[quote=http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20090415.htm]Link[/url]

---

Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

"By the late 1990s, however, the neo-conservatives were arguing that dual containment was not enough and that regime change in Iraq was essential" and the only reason America is threatening Iran now is because of them. Mearsheimer and Walt go on to quote Sharon, Netanyahu and other top Israelis who wanted an all out war on Iraq, Iran and Syria. See also "Clean Break" report, 1996.

---

quote:

---

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 Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam.
[...]
Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq, including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging — through influence in the U.S. business community — investment in Jordan to structurally shift Jordan’s economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.
[..]

King Hussein may have ideas for Israel in bringing its Lebanon problem under control.The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon has been tied for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which — and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows — is King Hussein.

Forging A New U.S.-Israeli Relationship

In recent years, Israel invited active U.S. intervention in Israel’s domestic and foreign policy for two reasons: to overcome domestic opposition to "land for peace" concessions the Israeli public could not digest, and to lure Arabs — through money, forgiveness of past sins, and access to U.S. weapons — to negotiate. This strategy, which required funneling American money to repressive and aggressive regimes, was risky, expensive, and very costly for both the U.S. and Israel, and placed the United States in roles is should neither have nor want.

[b]Israel can make a clean break from the past and establish a new vision for the U.S.-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity and mutuality — not one focused narrowly on territorial disputes. Israel’s new strategy — based on a shared philosophy of peace through strength — reflects continuity with Western values by stressing that Israel is self-reliant, does not need U.S. troops in any capacity to defend it, including on the Golan Heights, and can manage its own affairs. Such self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in the past.

To reinforce this point, the Prime Minister can use his forthcoming visit to announce that Israel is now mature enough to cut itself free immediately from at least U.S. economic aid and loan guarantees at least, which prevent economic reform. [Military aid is separated for the moment until adequate arrangements can be made to ensure that Israel will not encounter supply problems in the means to defend itself]. [...]
Link

---

quote:

---

Yet for all its problems in carrying out will be among the first to confront the
today’s missions, the Pentagon has done president: new legislation requires the
almost nothing to prepare for a future that incoming administration to fashion a
promises to be very different and potentially national security strategy within six months
much more dangerous. It is now commonly of assuming office, as opposed to waiting a
understood that information and other new full year, and to complete another
technologies – as well as widespread quadrennial defense review three months
technological and weapons proliferation – after that. In a larger sense, the new
are creating a dynamic that may threaten president will choose whether today’s
America’s ability to exercise its dominant “unipolar moment,” to use columnist
military power. Potential rivals such as Charles Krauthammer’s phrase for
China are anxious to exploit these trans- America’s current geopolitical preeminence,
formational technologies broadly, while will be extended along with the peace and
adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea prosperity that it provides.
are rushing to develop ballistic missiles and
nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American
intervention in regions they seek to
dominate. Yet the Defense Department and
the services have done little more than affix
a “transformation” label to programs
developed during the Cold War, while
diverting effort and attention to a process of
joint experimentation which restricts rather
than encourages innovation. Rather than
admit that rapid technological changes
makes it uncertain which new weapons
systems to develop, the armed services cling
ever more tightly to traditional program and
concepts. As Andrew Krepinevich, a
member of the National Defense Panel, put
it in a recent study of Pentagon experi-
mentation, “Unfortunately, the Defense
Department’s rhetoric asserting the need for
military transformation and its support for
joint experimentation has yet to be matched
by any great sense of urgency or any
substantial resource support....At present
the Department’s effort is poorly focused
and woefully underfunded.”
In sum, the 1990s have been a “decade
of defense neglect.” This leaves the next
president of the United States with an
enormous challenge: he must increase
military spending to preserve American
geopolitical leadership, or he must pull back
from the security commitments that are the
measure of America’s position as the
world’s sole superpower and the final
guarantee of security, democratic freedoms
and individual political rights. This choice

---

quote:

---

Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait reflected
both truths. The invasion would have been
highly unlikely, if not impossible, within the
context of the Cold War, and Iraq overran
Kuwait in a matter of hours. These two
truths revealed a third: maintaining or
restoring a favorable order in vital regions in
the world such as Europe, the Middle East
and East Asia places a unique responsibility
on U.S. armed forces. The Gulf War and
indeed the subsequent lesser wars in the
Balkans could hardly have been fought and
won without the dominant role played by
American military might.
[...]
Although the no-fly-zone air
operations over northern and southern Iraq
have continued without pause for almost a
decade, they remain an essential element in
U.S. strategy and force posture in the
Persian Gulf region. Ending these opera-
tions would hand Saddam Hussein an impor-
tant victory, something any American leader
would be loath to do.
While and tomorrow –
the unresolved will require
conflict with Iraq changes in U.S.
provides the immediate deployments and
justification, the installations
need for a overseas. substantial American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of
the regime of Saddam Hussein.
Over the long term,
Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S.
interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even
should U.S.-Iranian relations improve,
retaining forward-based forces in the region
would still be an essential element in U.S.
security strategy given the longstanding
American interests in the region.

---

quote:

---

Israel is the only recipient that does not have
to account for how the aid is spent, an exemption that makes it virtually
impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the United States
opposes, like building settlements in the West Bank.

---

Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Let me deal with your excerpt suggesting that the Israel directed the war, as is.

---

Nice try, thats your straw man. My argument is – and the evidence shows - Israel and their agents were the ones who aggressively pushed for war on Iraq. Whatever the disagreements within the lobby on how to remove the Baathists or how the post-Saddam Iraq would look like is irrelevant. And whether or not various elements in the lobby wanted to concentrate more on either of Israel's enemies – whether Syria, Iraq, Iran – is also irrelevant.

The resulting war was as a result of their lobbying not the other Washington elite elements i.e. foreign policy realists, Big Oil, top brass military experts and men. You have yet to disprove this. In fact your long @ss posts only underscore my argument: America's aggressive stance in that region is indeed the result of the lobby (why you think Iran is so vilified in media now? Big Oil? LOL) and its the major source of instability and this not good for business. See the quotes I posted above again. Obviously they all went over your head.

And your laughable reliance on the "assessment" of prominent neocon and ardent Israeli supporter William Kristol's New American Century is characteristic off your entire pathetic effort. LMAO! Their referring to Iraq and Iran as a "large" threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf is characteristic of the neocon agenda to pass off Israeli interests as America's, a very misleading but effective propaganda line. But as I have showed in the quotes above that went over your head, it was the Israel-firsters – not big oil, leading elements of the U.S. security/foreign-policy establishment, foreign-policy "realists etc - that were obsessed with these regimes as "threats" primarily to the security of Israel and only to the US as a way of getting support for their agenda in Washington. You are the dumbest f!cking poster on ES in not seeing this strategy! LOL

The American elite is not some sort of Anglo corporate monolith "bob". Even your own Chomsky undermines your argument "[elite] elements are not uniform in interests or (in the case of shared interests) in tactical judgments; and on some issues, such as this one [policy towards Israel], they have often been divided."

Tst, tst, tst...your own source undermines your childish wild eyed broad brush umbrella argument, Rihanna.

All in all, another poor effort by you "bob".

Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bogle:
[QB] Oh Jesus the longer your posts are the more shallow they get. Why do you keep embarrassing yourself this way "bob"?

---

quote:

---

Its so pathetic watching you still trying to beat the "War For Oil" drum. You drop the Jewish linguist Chomsky for another Jew Alan Greenspan. But he too can say whatever he wants to shield the influence of the Lobby but he provides no evidence that "the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil". And neitehr have you. Moving on.

---

quote:

---

]Nice try, thats your straw man. My argument is – and the evidence shows - Israel and their agents were the ones who aggressively pushed for war on Iraq.

---

quote:

---

Whatever the disagreements within the lobby on how to remove the Baathists or how the post-Saddam Iraq would look like is irrelevant. And whether or not various elements in the lobby wanted to concentrate more on either of Israel's enemies – whether Syria, Iraq, Iran – is also irrelevant.

---

Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

But as I have showed in the quotes above that went over your head, it was the Israel-firsters – not big oil, leading elements of the U.S. security/foreign-policy establishment, foreign-policy "realists etc - that were obsessed with these regimes as "threats" primarily to the security of Israel and only to the US as a way of getting support for their agenda in Washington. You are the dumbest f!cking poster on ES in not seeing this strategy! LOL

---

quote:

---

According to Philip Zelikow, a member of the
President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (2001‐2003), executive director
of the 9/11 Commission, and now Counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice, the “real threat” from Iraq was not a threat to the United States.139 The
“unstated threat” was the “threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a University of
Virginia audience in September 2002, noting further that “the American
government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a
popular sell.”

---

quote:

---

On August 16, 2002, eleven days before Vice President Cheney kicked off the
campaign for war with a hard‐line speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the
Washington Post reported that “Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a
military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.”140 By this point, according to
Sharon, strategic coordination between Israel and the U.S. had reached
“unprecedented dimensions,” and Israeli intelligence officials had given
Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq’s WMD programs. 141 As
one retired Israeli general later put it, “Israeli intelligence was a full partner to
the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s non‐
conventional capabilities.”142

---

quote:

---

Shlomo Brom, “An Intelligence Failure,” Strategic Assessment (Jaffee Center for
Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University), Vol. 6, No. 3 (November 2003), p. 9. Also see
“Intelligence Assessment: Selections from the Media, 1998‐2003,” in ibid., pp. 17‐19;
Gideon Alon, “Report Slams Assessment of Dangers Posed by Libya, Iraq,” Ha’aretz,
March 28, 2004; Dan Baron, “Israeli Report Blasts Intelligence for Exaggerating the Iraqi
Threat,” JTA, March 28, 2004; Greg Myre, “Israeli Report Faults Intelligence on Iraq,”
New York Times, March 28, 2004; James Risen, State of War: The Secret History of the CIA
and the Bush Administration (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006), pp. 72‐73.

---

quote:

---

The lawmakers said they found no evidence that Israel's intelligence services intentionally misled the country's political leaders. They also noted that Israeli assessments had not played any significant role in the decision by the United States and Britain to go to war in Iraq.

"The most serious mistake was that we were not able to form a solid system for assessing Iraq's capabilities," said Yuval Steinitz, the chairman of the subcommittee and a leading member of the rightist Likud Party, which is headed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
[...]
However, Israel's secret services defined Iran and its nuclear program as the top priority in the late 1990's and that has generated strong intelligence, he said.

---

Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

On August 16, 2002, eleven days before Vice President Cheney kicked off the
campaign for war with a hard‐line speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the
Washington Post reported that “Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a
military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.”140 By this point, according to
Sharon, strategic coordination between Israel and the U.S. had reached
“unprecedented dimensions,” and Israeli intelligence officials had given
Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq’s WMD programs. 141 As
one retired Israeli general later put it, “Israeli intelligence was a full partner to
the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s non‐
conventional capabilities.”142

---

quote:

---

Shlomo Brom, “An Intelligence Failure,” Strategic Assessment (Jaffee Center for
Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University), Vol. 6, No. 3 (November 2003), p. 9. Also see
“Intelligence Assessment: Selections from the Media, 1998‐2003,” in ibid., pp. 17‐19;
Gideon Alon, “Report Slams Assessment of Dangers Posed by Libya, Iraq,” Ha’aretz,
March 28, 2004; Dan Baron, “Israeli Report Blasts Intelligence for Exaggerating the Iraqi
Threat,” JTA, March 28, 2004; Greg Myre, “Israeli Report Faults Intelligence on Iraq,”
New York Times, March 28, 2004; James Risen, State of War: The Secret History of the CIA
and the Bush Administration (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006), pp. 72‐73.

---

quote:

---

The lawmakers said they found no evidence that Israel's intelligence services intentionally misled the country's political leaders. They also noted that Israeli assessments had not played any significant role in the decision by the United States and Britain to go to war in Iraq.

"The most serious mistake was that we were not able to form a solid system for assessing Iraq's capabilities," said Yuval Steinitz, the chairman of the subcommittee and a leading member of the rightist Likud Party, which is headed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
[...]
However, Israel's secret services defined Iran and its nuclear program as the top priority in the late 1990's and that has generated strong intelligence, he said.

---

quote:

---

The American elite is not some sort of Anglo corporate monolith "bob". Even your own Chomsky undermines your argument "[elite] elements are not uniform in interests or (in the case of shared interests) in tactical judgments; and on some issues, such as this one [policy towards Israel], they have often been divided."

---

quote:

---

All in all, another poor effort by you "bob". [/QB]

---

Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

I'd rather be a Jewish apologist

---

quote:

---

There is a reason why the paper hasn't been completely released and that is to avoid review.

---

quote:

---

Where is the evidence that Israel was involved in the planning?

---

quote:

---

Clean Start, isn't evidence.

---

quote:

---

That is WHY Israel reacted to spontaneously against the war

---

quote:

---

You bank on this, even though other officials have said the reverse

---

quote:

---

found no evidence that Israel's intelligence services intentionally misled

---

quote:

---

They also noted that Israeli assessments had not played any significant role in the decision by the United States and Britain to go to war in Iraq.

---

quote:

---

we have modern sources from Asian Times AND Forward suggesting that Israel, the state itself, did not want the war to move forward.

---

quote:

---

Israel began to agree with US after being told that Iran was next.

---

quote:

---

It's quite ironic that the lobby hasn't been able to push Iran

---

quote:

---

When the hell did I suggest that?

---

quote:

---

Let's present our pictures, white kid. We'll PM each other our emails

---

Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Again, look up top. Top Israeli officials (the PM) and their agents/defenders in the US were the ones who pushed for war.

quote:

---

Wrong. Sharon clearly stated otherwise. Look at the Asian times source.

[QUOTE][lean Start, isn't evidence.

---

Its one of the many sources of evidence. Where yours... oopps, sorry, you have none, save your /article143519.html

---

quote:

---

Do you know how dumb and apologetic you sound with this obvious BS? Thats like republicans saying Bush did not "intentionally" mislead America into war. Yeh right, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. LOL

---

quote:

---

TAnother straw Jew apologist. Whereas one can reasonably argue, and experts have, that "Israeli assessments" certainly contributed to the war drums however it was not central as others - like their neocon backers in Washington - played an even more significant role. Again see the quotes above thats got you scraping for alternative revisionist history. LOL

---

quote:

---

we have modern sources from Asian Times AND Forward suggesting that Israel, the state itself, did not want the war to move forward.

---

quote:

---

Yes, and I have Asian times suggest otherwise. Two can play the game, moron.

My excerpt is more fleshed out, explaining that there were even divisions within Israel's administration. Much of the military elite opposed the war, Ranaan Gissin, supported it, and that tells us that we're not dealing with a clear platform either.

quote:

---

Isnt your argument that it was not the Lobby, but Big oil and other US economic and military interests ("Anglo core") – who were the ones behind this war? Or are you now changing your tune since EVEN AT THIS STAGE you have yet to back up your argument.

---

My argument is the lobby isn't that powerful. It works in through a partnership with dominant state-based poles. Saying that, you still fail to cite Clean Start, as I have done earlier.

quote:

---

On the other hand the reality undermines your entire argument: Big oil wanted normalized relations or the status quo, i.e. Baathists in power.

---

And big oil was limited by the States. No one here is suggesting that corporations only rule the US. Various poles are involved.

quote:

---

So "bob", the resident simpleton, they all aren't going to agree on how to deal with Israel's enemies but there is one thing that unites them all and that's the use of America, in varying degrees, as a cover for their agenda. The Project for American Century is one such example. They even had you fooled it was an "American doctrine". LOL

---

Simpletons are those who think that a methodology is a result. I am certain you didn't read the source. Rather you invest your time in this nonsense and don't even verify the parent sources.

Tells me right there, you're white. Regardless, HOW Iraq was to be dealt suggests a clear divergence of interests. For one the Israeli elites did not view Iraq as a major threat. That is emphasized here:

quote:

---

After that meeting, the Sharon government generally remained silent on the issue of an invasion of Iraq. A notable exception, however, was a statement on August 16, 2002, by Ranaan Gissin, an aide to Sharon. Ranaan declared, "Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose. It will only give [Saddam] more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction."

As late as October 2002, however, there were still signs of continuing Israeli grumbling about the Bush administration's obsession with taking over Iraq. Both the Israel Defense Forces' chief of staff and its chief of military intelligence made public statements that month implicitly dismissing the Bush administration's position that Saddam's alleged quest for nuclear weapons made him the main threat. Both officials suggested that Israel's military advantage over Iraq had continued to increase over the decade since the Gulf War as Iraq had grown weaker.

The Israeli chief of military intelligence, Major-General Aharon Farkash, said Iraq had not deployed any missiles that could strike Israel directly and challenged the Bush administration's argument that Iraq could obtain nuclear weapons within a relatively short time. He gave an interview to Israeli television in which he said army intelligence had concluded that Iraq could not have nuclear weapons in less than four years. He insisted that Iran was as much of a nuclear threat as Iraq.

Israeli strategists generally believed that taking down the Saddam Hussein regime could further upset an Iran-Iraq power balance that had already tilted in favor of Iran after the US defeat of Saddam's army in the 1991 Gulf War. By 1996, however, neo-conservatives with ties to the Likud Party in Israel were beginning to argue for a more aggressive joint US-Israeli strategy aimed at a "rollback" of all of Israel's enemies in the region, including Iran, but beginning by taking down Saddam and putting a pro-Israeli regime in power there. Link

---

The Likud, by the way, had different interests than the state of Israel. Regardless we don't see a uniform Israel platform either. NO evidence has been provided suggesting that Likud being the mastermind behind that or any other Jewish group for that matter.

quote:

---

And if "Clean Break" is a proposal that "clearly suggests an operation independent of the US" why did they propose propping up Jordan "through influence in the U.S. business community"? You dumb@ss.

---

Umm..because US is the economic giant of the world, idiot. It clearly opposes military operations.

God, such a fool. US will be needed to push Jordan away from the Iraqi sphere since Israel is heavily dependent on US investments economically-speaking.

Look at how Turkey is emphasized. It's pretty obvious that militarily, it'll be one that involves only Middle Eastern partners. That is one that would address Turkish interests as well.

quote:

---

And as for Israel being against balkanization, that too is misleading. See The Zionist Plan for the Middle East Translated and edited by Israel Shahak.

---

Cite it. No where in that paper does the paper suggest that Iraq wants an Islamicized region. That is what is occurring today.

Let's look at the excerpt from the report:

quote:

---

An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times
is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization.15

---

There is no mentioning of US being involved in this. This will be a war that will be indigenous and result to the destruction of Israel.

It also addresses Turkish concerns by suggesting that the Kurdish component will be under the Sunni sphere. That population is being used despite Kurds being numerous in both Iran and Syria.

quote:

---

Let's present our pictures, white kid. We'll PM each other our emails

---

You little Jew faggot. LOL [/QB]

---

Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

A Journal for Judaism and
Zionism; Issue No, 14--Winter, 5742, February 1982, Editor: Yoram Beck. Editorial Committee: Eli
Eyal, Yoram Beck, Amnon Hadari, Yohanan Manor, Elieser Schweid. Published by the Department of

---

Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Wrong. Sharon clearly stated otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Cite it moron. I have above.

---

LOL I already did you little Jew queer. Do you want to forget now your own concession speech "I guess, I will concede my previous position" in response to the evidence posted that Israel did indeed support war on Iraq? And in addition you also concede that Kristol's neocon front group "The Project for New American Century", "is directly tied to the development of the Iraq war." Ouch, your own words debunk you!

quote:

---

The Bush adminstration used misled Israeli sources to back the war.

---

quote:

---

My excerpt is more fleshed out, explaining that there were even divisions within Israel's administration.

---

Another straw man, as there were divisions within the American administration too. Not even in totalitarian regimes do you find every single person agreeing. My god you are a simpleton! Again see your own Jew Chomsky on divisions within elite circles. Point is, the Zionist neocons won out, no evidence Big Oil et al. wanted war. Example Kristol's neocon front group "The Project for New American Century", as you so aptly admitted (which I am expecting you to back track from soon) "is directly tied to the development of the Iraq war." Ouch, your own words debunk you!

quote:

---

My argument is the lobby isn't that powerful.

---

quote:

---

Simpletons are those who think that a methodology is a result.

---

quote:

---

Regardless, HOW Iraq was to be dealt suggests a clear divergence of interests... The Likud, by the way, had different interests than the state of Israel. ...

---

quote:

---

NO evidence has been provided suggesting that Likud being the mastermind behind that

---

quote:

---

or any other Jewish group for that matter.

---

quote:

---

Umm..because US is the economic giant of the world, idiot.

---

quote:

---

It clearly opposes military operations.

---

But not regime change, while other sectors of the lobby were more overt, remember your own words re Kristol's neocon front group "The Project for New American Century", "is directly tied to the development of the Iraq war."?

quote:

---

wants an Islamicized region. That is what is occurring today...There is no mentioning of US being involved in this..

---

quote:

---

Another thing, the Voltaire paper doesn't really address anything.

---

quote:

---

Saying that, modern sources call for a "soft power" approach over an American occupation.

---

"Modern sources" like Kristol's neocon front group "The Project for New American Century", which in your words "is directly tied to the development of the Iraq war."?

quote:

---

In addition, we clearly see Israeli officials, including Ariel Sharon, not being optimistic about the Iraq war.

---

Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

No evidence has been provided. I don't even see Walt et al suggesting that. That's my primary concern in that thread. Jews are actually part of a Anglo-Saxon alliance.

---

Posts: 248 | Registered: Aug 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bogle:
"Bob" was just upset cause he unknowingly fingered his own people the Jews as being directly tied to the development of the Iraq war. LOL

---

quote:

---

Not only have Mearsheimer and Walt aptly demonstrated, with sources, how Israel and their agents in the US aggressively pushed for war on Iraq but they show how the Israel lobby exerts an inordinate amount of influence over American foreign policy, not the other way around. Sorry Bob, this aint no "ordinary" lobby group.

---

Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged |