...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Politics
»
Does this mean that Obama is a war criminal?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bob_01: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Bogle: [QB] [QUOTE]You may force me to actually read the book[/QUOTE]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]Moron, you haven't even read the damn book! Post a excerpt and its primary sources. You demonstrate that you're just a fool who depends on youtube videos. Once again, just because a claim are made by political scientists doesn't mean its true. No paper has been released, so you'd need to cite that evidence. I know your a white kid, who needs to create a scapegoat and that explains the poor use of sources. Provide the links fool. [QUOTE]Your deranged rants aside, the quotes I posted (and there are more) demonstrate that the Israel Lobby is no farmers lobby. [QUOTE][i]"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 [b]foreign policy."[/b][/i][/QUOTE]What quote moron? That their efficient in lobbying. That doesn't suggest that their any different from farm groups. [QUOTE]They were behind the Iraq war, [i]"By the late 1990s, however, the neo-conservatives were arguing that dual containment was not enough and that [b]regime change in Iraq was essential"[/b][/i] 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 [i]against[/i] Iraq war. [/QUOTE]What does that quote even indicate? I clearly remember you being the one who treats methodology as a result. Please don't pretend to note be a fool. I've googled the excerpt: [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. [b]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.[/b] 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.[URL=http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby]Link[/URL][/QUOTE]Sounds padded. The F-16 and UH-60 Helos are operated in a number of nations including Colombia. In fact, the F-16E of UAE has a more powerful sensor suite than the Israeli counterpart Israel as well. On top of that, unlike Japan, Turkey, and other nations, Israel doesn't manufacture these jets at home. That doesn't sound like control especially when only 25% of the capital could be used for indigenous development. That explains why Israel's Levi jet fighter, which would've enhanced conventional strength, has been forcefully canceled by the US. By looking at past developments, its obvious that most of the input subsidizes American industry and is used to force wealthy Arab states to purchase American arms in order to counter Israeli presence. Sounds like a rather intelligent decision, one that France is doing with India and Pakistan (i.e. Agosta/Scorpene SSKs). More... [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]CIA pressured the Netherlands not to stop Dr. AQ Khan from transferring nuclear technology at Urenco to Pakistan. Does this mean that Pakistan somehow runs the US? Of course not. One needs to ask, why is this occurring and why so early? 1982 is pretty and recent prior to 70s, the vast majority of Israel's aerial arsenal was French in origin and not American. Look up the Mirage and Mystere jets used in the Six Day War. That, and much of Israel's nuclear development had a French origin and used technologies from that nation. Even more... [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]Sounds like a myth. I am quite familiar with military technologies. For once, Egypt's Mig-21 and Tu-16 badgers. That explains why Israel used a preliminary strike. During the war of '47, the Arab Legion and the Egyptian forces were more advanced than the Israeli counterpart. The nation initially didn't even have an air force and it's explained well in this wikipedia excerpt: [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. [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War#cite_ref-100]Link[/URL][/QUOTE]This guy sounds like a dolt: [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]What the ****? As if US is any different. As I argued before, both Israel and US are illegal imperialist states. A better world is one where both don't exist. [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]Let's look at the fortune ranking: [QUOTE]The Power 25 is a highly eclectic--almost curious--collection. [b]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)[/b], 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. [b]The affluence of an organization's members doesn't guarantee influence.[/b] 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. [b]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.[/b] 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. [URL=http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1997/12/08/234927/index.htm]Link[/URL][/QUOTE]Are we going to argue that those organizations, such as AARP, are more powerful than banks and other major corporations? This sector just happens to be one sphere of the political sector. One needs to look at the position of those groups, not to mention corporations, regarding Israel. I doubt most care about a region that has very little resources. In fact, defense firms and oil major love Israel since it maintains hostility in the region. That makes it easier for US interests to demand concessions from the Arab counterpart. Here's the excerpt from the two to destroy your foolish argument: [QUOTE][b]In its basic operations, the Israel Lobby is no different from the farm lobby, steel or textile workers’ unions, or other ethnic lobbies.[/b] 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. [b]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.[/b][/QUOTE]I don't disagree with the Fortune ranking at all all in that regard. Other factions will not counter the Israeli lobby group, because their interests are not in opposition to each other. On top of that, Arab lobby groups are weak, making it easier for US foreign policy vs. the Middle East to be heavily Israeli influenced. Keep in mind, that the Israel Lobby group does not intervene in the larger domestic front. Nor do they mess with the larger international market as well. 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. That being said, we're merely dealing with a faction that is part of the white umbrella. To say, Jews run it is downright ludicrous. Iraq, as I said earlier, had no teeth and thus wasn't not an Israeli threat. Of course Israel would want the nation contained, but it was clearly secondary to Iran. It seems like Israel felt that Kurdistan would remain stable. Noam Chomsky explains Israel well: [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.[URL=http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20040204.htm]Link[/URL][/QUOTE]PS: What the hell is wrong with using "Bob", white fool? It's rather appropriate since I stick to the data at hand and don't speak through my ass, like many here. You, on the other hand, sound like a white person who just needs to create a scapegoat. My position is simple, US is run by whites and that includes Jews. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3