This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: The Enduring Middle East Strategic Framework Begins to Emerge as Iran Surges, and the US Resiles
Submitted by www.oilprice.com
The Enduring Middle East Strategic Framework Begins to Emerge as Iran Surges, and the US Resiles
The lingering impact of August 3, 2010, clash on the Israeli-Lebanese border lies in the greater context of, and wider strategic dynamics in, the Middle East. These aspects were highlighted by HizbAllah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah in his speech later that day.
See Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis, August 4, 2010: Clash on Israel-Lebanon Border Holds Potential for Strategic Escalation.
Overall, the issue dominating the overall situation in the Middle East is the reaction by the local powers to the emerging new grand strategic reality: namely, the demise of the United States as the dominant regional power. This is a dramatic reversal of a concentrated US policy of more than half a century.
Back in the Autumn of 1956, the US intentionally undermined the strategic posture of two of its closest Cold War allies, Britain and France. In the late-1960s, the US capitalized on the British unilateral withdrawal from the Persian Gulf and the active Soviet interceding in the Arab-Israeli conflict in order to consolidate the US role as the dominant Western, and later global, power in the Middle East.
This posture endured even after the US betrayed its close ally — the Shah of Iran — and permitted the rise of the Islamic Republic in the late 1970s. Consequently, however, the US has had to intensify its direct involvement in regional crises, culminating in the US active war-fighting in and against Iraq. Come August 31, 2010, the US will be abandoning it all with the disengagement from Iraqi security affairs and the beginning of a year-long withdrawal.
Led by an assertive and determined Iran, the aspirant powers of the region cannot wait to fill the void that is already emerging as the US is disengaging from military operations in Iraq and the Persian Gulf. This strategic posture is aptly demonstrated by the US Barack Obama Administration’s explicit abandonment of the twin-pillars of the US regional posture — Israel and Saudi Arabia — leaving them to cope on their own with a nuclear Iran.
Moreover, the US is exerting immense pressure on Israel not to strike Iran for fear of derailing the rapprochement with Iran which the Obama White House is seeking, and the possibility of Iranian retaliation against the remaining US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the Persian Gulf energy infrastructure.
Tehran is cognizant of the significance of these developments. Iran had already started its drive to exploit and fill in vacuums created by the US in the early 1990s. At the time, Iran exploited the widespread trauma as a result of the US undermining and shaming of both (Iraq’s) nationalist Sunni Islam and (Saudi Arabia’s) traditional-conservative Sunni Islam in the 1990-1 Gulf War in order to push its own Shi’ite-based doctrine of revolutionary-militant Islam. By 1992, Sudan’s Hassan al-Turabi adapted the Iranian jihadist tenets and adopted them into the Sunni neo-salafite doctrine, thus setting the grounds for the ascent of the jihadist trend now popularly associated with Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and their supporters.
Presently, Tehran is ready to surge and exploit the far more significant vacuum which will be created by the US de facto withdrawal from Iraq and Persian Gulf. The continued global preoccupation with Iran’s nuclear program serves Tehran’s interests for it constantly reminds friends and foes alike about Iran’s claim to regional and global preeminence. Tehran uses the nuclear crisis to project self-confidence and threaten its neighbors against counting on the US to protect them.
The Obama Administration is playing into Iran’s hands. For example, on August 1, 2010, the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, publicly acknowledged that the US had contingency plans for “the military options [which] have been on the table and remain on the table”, but quickly qualified that any military action against Iran could have “unintended consequences that are difficult to predict in what is an incredibly unstable part of the world”.
This caveat did not prevent Tehran from issuing counter-threats on August 3, 2010. “If any threat strikes against Iran, the Islamic Republic armed forces are fully prepared to counter them on the ground, sea and air,” IRGC Brig.-Gen. Ahmad-Reza Pourdastan stated. “Military threats of US officials against the Islamic Republic are nothing new, we’re certain that the US military forces are in an appalling condition. The increasing number of deaths and suicide among American forces attest to the failure of the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Just to be sure that Tehran’s message was not lost on the West Iran orchestrated on July 28, 2010, a non-lethal attack on the Japanese-owned supertanker M. Star while it traveled through the Strait of Hormuz. Apparently, the IRGC fired a few rockets/missiles with inert warheads at the supertanker, thus reminding everybody of Iran’s ability to do greater damage should Tehran choose to.
No less important was the US Fifth Fleet’s inability to prevent the attack, or identify and strike at the perpetrators. The recent claim by the Abdullah Azzam Brigades that the attack was carried out by a martyr-bomber named Ayyub Al Tayshan cannot be taken seriously because the dent in the tankers outer wall and damage to the crew’s cabin are the result of an external explosion and/or the impact of a projectile fired from sea-level; that is, a boat or a shore battery.
Concurrently, Tehran demonstrated its dominance over the key political developments in the Arab world using Damascus as the implementing proxy.
First came the Iran-sponsored mediation between various Shi’ite factions in Iraq. In late-July 2010, Tehran oversaw a series of meetings in Damascus between Iyad Allawi, Moqtada Sadr and Nouri al-Maliki in which the outline of a Shi’ite-wide coalition dominated by Tehran was formulated and agreed upon. It was in Damascus that all leading Shi’ite politicians agreed to Sadr’s demand that the US-backed Maliki would not be elected to a second term specifically because of the US endorsement.
Former transitional Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who had been unseated under US pressure for his pro-Iran policies and replaced by Maliki, has emerged as the compromise candidate. Tehran’s overt dominance over the Iraqi Shi’ite political maneuvers — albeit in Damascus rather than Tehran — are a slap in the US face.
In early August 2010, Saudi Arabia’s King ‘Abdallah bin ‘Abd al-’Aziz al Sa’ud traveled to Damascus in order to confer with Pres. Bashar al-Assad. King ‘Abdallah’s primary objective was to explore ways to prevent the eruption of violence in and from Lebanon. Riyadh is most worried about Tehran using the HizbAllah in order to provoke a regional war with Israel, a war which Iran would then be able to exploit in order to further its regional aspirations to the detriment of Riyadh’s vital interests.
Given Tehran’s penchant for exploiting US election seasons for strategic gambits, and given Washington’s indecisiveness and weakness, the King had just experienced first-hand in his visit with Obama, King ‘Abdallah’s apprehension is warranted. Bashar al-Assad made it clear he would not break his close ties with Iran which he considers to be the guarantor of his survival.
However, Bashar agreed with King ‘Abdallah that the eruption of violence in Lebanon would be counterproductive. Essentially, King ‘Abdallah and Bashar have a common short-term objective but conflicting and contradictory long-term goals. Both want to prevent in the near-term a major war which would involve Israel and Iran. In the near-term, King ‘Abdallah fears the ensuing ascent of Iran at the expense of Saudi Arabia, while Bashar fears the destruction of Syria by a vengeful Israel which might lead to his toppling by the Sunni majority.
In the long-term, however, King ‘Abdallah dreads the ascent of Shi’ite Iran while Bashar considers Shi’ite Iran and the HizbAllah as the saviors of the Allawites’ hold onto power against Syria’s Sunni majority.
Hence, King ‘Abdallah and Assad traveled together to Beirut in order to convince Prime Minister Saad Hariri not to challenge Nasrallah’s ascent, fearing that Nasrallah would react with fury to any limit on his power and thus instigate a crisis that would escalate out of control. Just to make sure there was no “misunderstanding” by Hariri, Bashar or King ‘Abdallah, on August 3, 2010, Nasrallah instigated the clash on the border with Israel in order to demonstrate that he could both provoke and flare-up a war (as he did in the Summer of 2006), and that the HizbAllah was in control of the Lebanese Armed Forces or at the least their Shi’ite units.
That evening Nasrallah delivered a major speech in which he stressed the strategy and objectives of Iran and HizbAllah.
“Today we are marking four years since the Lebanon’s victory over the strongest and most terrorist military in the region,” Nasrallah declared. He quickly tied this anniversary with the clashes on the Israeli-Lebanese border earlier that day. “I wanted to start on this topic, but what happened today on the border between Lebanon and Palestine, in which officers and soldiers from our national military fought a battle of heroism, necessitates mention of their strong stance and their sacrifice.” Nasrallah stressed that the latest clashes were an integral part of a continued Israeli aggression against Lebanon.
“Israel’s aggression against Lebanon, its land, and its sovereignty never ceased, but continues in various ways. It has manifested itself in no less than 7,000 Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignty since August 14, 2006, over which the world prefers not to open its mouth. These violations occur in the air, land, and sea, and what we saw today was just another expression of this.” HizbAllah, Nasrallah stressed, had been the primary guarantor of Lebanon and its interests throughout this period.
Nasrallah then stressed that HizbAllah intentionally stayed out of the latest clash out of respect for the wishes of the Lebanese Armed Forces. HizbAllah notified the Lebanese Army during the first moments of the clash of its willingness to help. “From the first moment, the opposition went on high alert in the region, followed all the events, and was in contact with the command headquarters. We notified the Lebanese military: We are prepared, we are with you, and we will help you with everything, if needed. Our people and our equipment stand at your disposal,” Nasrallah said. The decision on the extent of HizbAllah’s involvement was reached in direct consultations between HizbAllah and the highest ranking officials in Beirut.
“We also contacted the president, the parliament chairman, and the prime minister and updated them on this. We told them that we will not initiate any move, despite the painful images we saw. They asked for a quiet and responsible opposition. The message was clear to the Israeli enemy: Lebanon, all of Lebanon, will not leave any aggression on its occupied land unanswered and will stand by this courageously,” Nasrallah explained.
Nasrallah then addressed Israel and warned of the dire consequences of any Israeli aggression against Lebanon. “You are the ones threatening war, but Lebanon is not afraid of confronting you. All of the military alignments you dealt with are above the surface, but they are within fortified embankments. Even though we don’t have equipment on the same level, our fighters fight with courage and shocked them.” Nasrallah threatened that HizbAllah “is on alert and is ready to help the military in all the villages on the front. We are not concerned and are not hysterical like their coward settlers. The nation, the opposition, and the military have paid in blood for this act of heroism, but they did not bear fruit. Officers and soldiers in the Lebanese military are our brothers and loved ones. How could it be that the opposition will sit with its armed crossed from now on as the military is bombed? I will saw honestly: We will not sit with arms crossed, and the Israeli hand outstretched to strike the Lebanese military will be cut off by the opposition.”
Nasrallah then shifted to the original theme of his speech: the possibility that HizbAllah officials would be indicted by the International Special Tribunal investigating the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in February 2005. Originally, the Tribunal identified and was ready to indict senior Syrian intelligence officials and their accomplices in Lebanese intelligence. However, this option was put aside for political reasons and alternate low-risk approaches — such as blaming HizbAllah — were explored.
Nasrallah, however, is adamant on avoiding any accusation of the HizbAllah. After all, Syrian intelligence killed Hariri while the HizbAllah’s security command only provided look-outs and perimeter security. Therefore, Nasrallah made Bashar a veiled offer which he knew Bashar could not refuse. HizbAllah would launch a propaganda campaign shifting the blame onto Israel. Any attempt by Damascus to interfere with this campaign would result in the exposure of the Syrian role.
Nasrallah blamed Israel for exploiting the tragic demise of Hariri for its own nefarious objectives. “They [Israel] speak of a big explosion, a civil war, crisis, and more. We want to expose the truth surrounding the circumstances of al-Hariri’s death, something that from our perspective is the right of every Lebanese. We want to protect the unity of Lebanon and the well-being of its citizens.”
Nasrallah then promised to reveal in a week time the whole truth about Hariri’s assassination and the responsibility of Israel. “This coming Monday [August 9, 2010], I will hold a press conference during which I will present evidence of Israel’s involvement in the al-Hariri assassination and the goings-on in the international tribunal in The Hague. We will present significant proof that Israel, via its agents, tried to convince al-Hariri already in 1993 that HizbAllah wants to assassinate him. We blame the Israeli enemy for the assassination, and the figures I will reveal will open new horizons in the investigation that will lead to the identity of the true murderer.”
And with that promise, Tehran and HizbAllah have wrested control over the political dynamic in Beirut, Damascus, and in effect the entire Arab world. And the threat of a regional explosion keeps rising.
Source: http://oilprice.com/Geo-Politics/Middle-East/The-Enduring-Middle-East-Strategic-Framework-Begins-to-Emerge-as-Iran-Surges-and-the-US-Resiles.html
Analysis by Yossef Bodansky for Oilprice.com who offer detailed analysis on Oil, alternative Energy, Commodities, Finance and Geopolitics. They also provide free Geopolitical intelligence to help investors gain a greater understanding of world events and the impact they have on certain regions and sectors. Visit: http://www.oilprice.com
»
- 14400 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
I'm not trying to frighten anyone.
.
A note to RichardP - Obvious lies need exposing. Good luck with your banning program. Your hommie Joe Leiberman wants to do something similar with the entire internet. I'm just reporting the facts. I can understand someone as conflicted as you and he can experience discomfort when confronted with reality, but that's your issue, not mine.
Everything I have written re. laosuwan is completely appropriate. He's posing and lying and trying to pin his hate on the Thai and Lao people. Total BS.
Let me ask you this Richard - can you say 'gold' in Thai? [He now claims to be Thai.] I can.
Can you say what 'suwan' means in Laos? [Before he claimed to be a Lao woman.] I can do that too.
Maybe you are smart enough to look these things up and when you do you will see that he is 100% lying. And then what is your point? That I'm not supposed to comment on this? Give me a break.
My advise to you is be careful as you are known by the company you keep. To champion laosuwan's demonstratable lying ways is a pretty foolish cause for you to take up isn't it? How is this helping your zino-program?
You don't answer to me, but you ignore my heads-up at your own peril. You are demonstrating an extremely immature understanding of why this site exists and how it works. I'm calling you to operate on a higher level. I'm guessing you can do it.
You ignore the implausibility of such asinine suppositions at your own peril. I'm calling on you to operate on a higher level, perhaps that of a chipmunk or a developmentally disabled squirrel. I'm guessing that you don't have the nuts for it.
Another note to RichardP -
I'm calling you to operate on a higher level.
Sorry I don't understand. When your buddy laosuwan is caught out in his lies you are saying what? Don't mention the lies?
BTW, he was Laos, until I told him regarding his "uncle", that no Laos nationals were killed in the S. Thai violence. At that point he changed his story and became Thai. Are you standing up for this type of nonsense?
Do us all a favor and look up how to say 'gold' in passa Thai. Then look up 'suwan' in Laos and see if it means 'lovely girl' as your mentally challenged friend claims. Once you've done that, Please tell us how a Thai would not know how to say 'gold' in Thai. Then please tell us how a Laos would not know what 'suwan' means. Then please tell us if you believe his stor(y)(ies) have any credibility. A real answer would be appreciated.
If I get banned for speaking the truth, so be it. If that's what ZH is all about then too bad for ZH, but I think you're way over playing your hand. We will see how your banning program works out.
I have no banning program. TD does. I'm giving you a heads up to be careful. You are not going to be banned for speaking the truth. But you might be banned for the manner in which you speak the truth. (e.g., It's not what you say. It is how you say it.) Your harrassment of fellow posters is pretty much at the point where long-time posters will say enough and turn you in. It happens. Clean up your language and make points that apply to the posted article. If you don't do that, I'm guessing that you won't be around here long.
It is obvious that you don't get what I am saying. If you got it yourself, I wouldn't need to say it. For that reason, allow yourself to trust my heads-up and clean up your act. Your posts will be better received if you do that. You seem pretty bright. Put your intelligence to better use.
Look Richardp - I'm hurt that you are calling me out on content, but I'm even more hurt when in a previous post you said you did not learn anything from my posts.
So while we're on the topic of manners, let's try to change that and I'll show you some posts that you could or should be able to learn something from.
If you scroll up a bit, you will see;
zen0's post #508463, where he starts out "Maybe you are the dumb-ass. ..."
To which;
I replied [post #508496]
"zen0 - You need some context. ..." which I go on to provide. You can read it there if you haven't already.
Then zen0 replied [post #508516]
"Thank you for the context. I[t] bears the marks of truth.
Very interesting."
Then, finally I replied [post #508648]
"A tip of the hat to you too sir for the honesty of your reply."
You might not be able to understand, but laosuwan's particular lies are particularly offensive to me personally. Think about that a little bit and see if you can figure it out.
Thanks
ps. You have no comment about laosuwan's clearly made up story. Or do you think it is credible?
thanks again
Hi Richard:
Thanks for saying something; I have never had my own personal cyber bully before and its uncomfortable. For the record the second syllable of my nickname, which seems to have brought out the inner Cable Guy in this guy, by itself, is in fact the formal Thai word for gold. Normally we don’t use it in speech; only in the written form, especially for place names. For example, the first syllable of the name of our airport in Bangkok, Suwanapoom. I think the English transliteration threw him off but even if I was lying about my own nickname, is that a reason to go psyco on the board? Anyway, thanks for saying something.
http://english-thai-dictionary.com/index.php?cx=partner-pub-8648041545939821%3Albkxf2j87k5&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B8%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%A3&sa=Dictionary-search&fields%5B%5D=related&siteurl=english-thai-dictionary.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddictionary%3Bsa%3Dsearch#882
what the hell is this nonsense? are you a thread-monitor?? and you'll run to tell the teacher when someone isn't typing the way you advise????
"Clean up your language" - give me a fucking break, this on a website with explicit sexual avatars, explicit sexual references, "swear" words in the OP's - what ARE YOU ON????
I'll say this - if anyone gets banned for speaking out against Zionist inflitration of the US government or media, or for pointing anyone in the direction of more information relative to changing the hearts and minds of those who have been duped for centuries and need to wake up sharpish - anyone banned for "swearing", then I for one will exit on principle.
FIGHT CLUB BITCHES.
They are completely out of ideas, all they can do now is hedge. Same thing is happening to their leadership on the world stage.
I love Persians. I love Jews.
.........
Junk me.
No junks from me. I think that's a fine sentiment.
I agree too.
AIPAC Will Junk You For Not Junking
Rahm-tard commands it...
Or As We Gentiles Say:
Junk unto others before they junk unto you...
They both produce extraordinarily beautiful women, that's for sure! Some of the most beautiful women I've known have been Persian or Israeli.
such hostility! this must cease!
Free Lebanon from the shia death kult. I can't believe heavens did not strike down nasrallah already with hellfire yet. Yes things are not well in usa with all this looting of treasury, but, I'll be damned before I'll side with these islamic automatons.
Free Lebanon from the shia death kult.
On whose dime? If the Lebanese don't like their government let them make a change. I'll be damned before I'll let people like you bilk me out of one more dollar to pay for pointless wars and debilitating social programs.
Of my back, moocher.
Ah, the brainwashed (or fascist) masses.
Thus they junk.
Warning - very long post by someone who will cause me to be immediately junked.
But hey he does amazing research and provides links to sources:
Obama is Preparing to Bomb Iran.
by Webster G. Tarpley
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20487
The Tarp-ster is pretty sharp. He puts out a podcast every Saturday that is worth listening to:
TARPLEY.netTarpely's works are truth in an age of mass deception. Whoever junks is a farcist scumbag.
New Palestine Party. Visit of Menachen Begin and Aims of Political Movement Discussed. A letter to The New York Times. Saturday December 4, 1948 by Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, Sidney Hook, et.al.
New Palestine Party. Visit of Menachen Begin and Aims of Political Movement Discussed. A letter to The New York Times, published in the "Books" section (Page 12) of Saturday December 4, 1948
by Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, Sidney Hook, et.al.
Source: Text from original microfilm
TO THE EDITORS OF NEW YORK TIMES:
Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.
The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin's political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.
Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin's behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement.
The public avowals of Begin's party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.
Attack on Arab Village
A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants (240 men, women, and children) and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin.
The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party.
Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model.
During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.
The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots.
Discrepancies Seen
The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a "Leader State" is the goal.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin's efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin.
The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.
ISIDORE ABRAMOWITZ,
HANNAH ARENDT,
ABRAHAM BRICK,
RABBI JESSURUN CARDOZO,
ALBERT EINSTEIN,
HERMAN EISEN, M.D.,
HAYIM FINEMAN, M. GALLEN, M.D.,
H.H. HARRIS,
ZELIG S. HARRIS,
SIDNEY HOOK,
FRED KARUSH,
BRURIA KAUFMAN,
IRMA L. LINDHEIM,
NACHMAN MAISEL,
SEYMOUR MELMAN,
MYER D. MENDELSON, M.D.,
HARRY M. OSLINSKY,
SAMUEL PITLICK,
FRITZ ROHRLICH,
LOUIS P. ROCKER,
RUTH SAGIS,
ITZHAK SANKOWSKY,
I.J. SHOENBERG,
SAMUEL SHUMAN,
M. SINGER,
IRMA WOLFE,
STEFAN WOLFE.
New York, Dec. 2, 1948
http://www.archive.org/details/AlbertEinsteinLetterToTheNewYorkTimes.Dec...
These people seemed to know more than many idiots these days.
Thank you for that. Good find.
Nice post. How someone junks it is beyond me...
We junk it because it's completely one-sided tripe meant to further anti-Semitism. Of course there were massacres and outrages in Israel's War for Independence. This happens in all wars, especially wars involving religion (you think the Crusades were one happy-go-lucky bunch of Christian dudes who did a little set-piece fighting with the Arabs? Look up what happened when they conquered Jerusalem). But the key thing to remember is that outrages happened on BOTH SIDES! You won't find that little fact in that posted article, nor will you find it from the lunatic ravings of the anti-Semites on this board.
Thus we junk.
"Israel's War for Independence"...hum...let me see...
I suppose you are speaking about World War I, when Christian-Zionist Balfour sold Palestine to the Rothschilds on condition that they helped blackmail Woodrow Wilson into joining the war.
Nice deal, tough luck though that so many Americans, Europeans and Turks and Arabs had to die so that Rothschild-Israel may live. I guess bad karma runs rather deep among "the most prosecuted people on earth" as you put it.
Btw, man up and be a proud Jew, or at least a proud Shabbat-Goy.
More racist, anti-Jewish claptrap. One doesn't have to be a Jew to be anti-Nazi. Our boys in WWII we're mostly not Jewish and they fought and died to rid the Earth of scum like yourself.
Too bad some of you crawled under rocks and weren't eliminated. We have plenty of time though... and plenty of bullets left in out bandoliers.
You're a funny, funny man.
Impotent rage much?
Not impotent yet. And even when that happens (please god no!), there's always Viagra!
Wise of you to prepare lest you suffer with Portnoy's complaint.
*lulz*
You forget, Zionist terrorist supporters and their Wall St bankster allies know no shame.
Blah, blah, blah, Jew-hater. You're just a Nazi out of uniform.
Do you even care what kind of impression you make? I mean read a book and learn some facts. Nazi is shorthand for National Socialist. Sure, a majority of the folks at ZH oppose Zionist crimes but very few of them are socialists of any stripe.
YOU are the socialist. You insist that MY money must be spent in an effort to kill ME and MY friends.
Lousy Commie.
Even for the moutbreathing racists that populate these threads you are below par. Try to formulate a coherent argument. You are making the klan look bad. LOL.
What, specifically, do you believe makes me a racist?
I eat commies for breakfast. Nazis too.
I insist my money goes to protect a democracy from being eradicated by a bunch of totalitarian religous thugs. And guess what: it does. You lose, Grand Wizard.
You lose,
You can't be in the game and referee as well. But then again, you know nothing about fair play.
I see the circus is in town.
I see the circus is in town.
Quick, kill the midgets and steal their tricycles! It's their own fault, after all.
Why do you follow me through this thread posting non sequiters? Trying to get my attention? Do you have a crush on me?
I think he likes the cut of your jib.
Your attempt to imply that I am homosexual would be more convincing without the lisping seaman routine.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Why do you follow me through this thread posting non sequiters? Trying to get my attention? Do you have a crush on me?
Ah, the criminal objects to the presence of witnesses. Imagine that.
That is an impressive list. It is a wonder they survived unscathed, having witnessed first hand such horror.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/milstein-deir-yassin.htm
Who Wrote This? Richard Perle on Acid?
Fallacy #1:
"This posture endured even after the US betrayed its close ally — the Shah of Iran..."
Reality: The Shah's massive repression and torture, aided and abetted by the CIA brought the Shah down in a tidal wave of opposition... Even a Neo-con could have seen that coming...
Fallacy #2:
"Moreover, the US is exerting immense pressure on Israel not to strike Iran for fear of derailing the rapprochement with Iran which the Obama White House is seeking..."
Reality: As ZH among others reported, joint US/Israeli military forces are stepping up their deployment to encircle Iran, which I might add or aided by simultaneous occupation of Iraq on one side and Afghani-nam on the other side of Iran.
Fallacy #3:
"for fear of derailing the rapprochement with Iran which the Obama White House is seeking..."
Nice Try Invoking the "Obummer as Socialist" Meme
Reality: Obummer is the puppet of Wall Street, the finance capital oligarchy that own the US government and its apparatchiks.
The international bank-sters want nothing more than to take the Iranian government down, eliminate Islamic money structure and banning of usurious interest and install a Rothschild invested central bank and begin trading massive amounts of derivatives on the Iranian oil market.
A previous commenter stated this is not about "good" versus "evil" the usual commodity of manipulation.
Propaganda and the Just War Hypothesis
All wars are about money and wealth.
The ruling elite of faction A have to convince their schlep populace through sacred and satanic symbolism to be the cannon fodder in the attack on faction B <Amerikans wave little flags here> so the ruling elite of faction A, finance capital can loot faction B. Hence we are subjected to posts like the above.
Same Old Story, Same Old Song and Dance...
No one threatens Israel but Israel itself.
The post is fallacy ridden, manipulative and lacks any logically valid argument... The definition of propaganda.
This piece is incoherent
The world needs the oil.
Those tribes can continue their thousands year old wars against each other as long as they have children to sacrifice.
When the flow of oil is threatened, their "nations" and land will be leveled for the sake of the oil needed to grow food. U.S., China, Russia, all three - doesn't matter - if Israeli and the Islamic tribes can't pull their heads out of their asses someone else will do it for them.
"When the flow of oil is threatened, their "nations" and land will be leveled for the sake of the oil needed to grow food."
- you mean, "oil needed to grow people"... and when the oil begins to run out, Soylent Green.
Soylent Green is people! It's people!
The Israel-haters are their most callow when holding up their photos of bloody children to justify their hate.
History is a sandwich with the meat hanging out of both ends. It requires a long period of earnest preparation or it produces heartburn and little else.
The conflict did not begin with the current plight of Gaza.
In 1948 the Arab governments surrounding the proto-state Israel told the Arab inhabitants of Israel to flee. They assured them they could return after Israel was finished. They failed to destroy Israel.
That's where the refugee camps in Gaza came from. Since then the inhabitants of Gaza have chosen to allow the monomaniacal Hamas to use their children as human shields. That where those mangled children come from. Israel declines to be destroyed.
This post is in no way intended to persuade those whose opinions are not formed by reason and truth.
Israel will not withdraw into the Mediterranean The other inhabitants in the area will pay whatever price their assassin masters choose to extract.
The Israel-haters are their most callow when holding up their photos of bloody children to justify their hate.
History is a sandwich with the meat hanging out of both ends. It requires a long period of earnest preparation or it produces heartburn and little else.
The conflict did not begin with the current plight of Gaza.
In 1948 the Arab governments surrounding the proto-state Israel told the Arab inhabitants of Israel to flee. They assured them they could return after Israel was finished. They failed to destroy Israel.
That's where the refugee camps in Gaza came from. Since then the inhabitants of Gaza have chosen to allow the monomaniacal Hamas to use their children as human shields. That where those mangled children come from. Israel declines to be destroyed.
This post is in no way intended to persuade those whose opinions are not formed by reason and truth.
Israel will not withdraw into the Mediterranean The other inhabitants in the area will pay whatever price their assassin masters choose to extract.
Sure, keep on pushing the hate that will end with more dead Israelis, Palestinians, Iranians, Lebanese...
You are quite the humanitarian -- kill! kill! kill!
And what's with the multiple, successive, rambling posts. If you have a point to make can't you be more concise or at least slightly interesting? Try to use a little panache when you call for the death of all mankind.
The Arabs have no concept of limited war. That is a Western concept. Successful jihad is worth any price. Even the Germans and Japanese in WWII knew when the jig was up.
If the Arabs choose total war they have chose the wrong adversary.
The Arabs think if they wait long enough their opponent will weaken. Its a good strategy and it has worked for them before. They will allow the blood of their children to flow in the street in one futile attempt after another.
But Israel does not intend to be destroyed. The Arabs do not feel that way about their children.
The Arabs have no concept of limited war. That is a Western concept. Successful jihad is worth any price. Even the Germans and Japanese in WWII knew when the jig was up.
If the Arabs choose total war they have chose the wrong adversary.
The Arabs think if they wait long enough their opponent will weaken. Its a good strategy and it has worked for them before. They will allow the blood of their children to flow in the street in one futile attempt after another.
But Israel does not intend to be destroyed. The Arabs do not feel that way about their children.
Iranians aren't Arabs, dude, they're Persians.
How did your infallible mind (sic) miss that one?
Victory for Israel is security and peace. Victory for her adversary is the expulsion of Israel from the Middle East.
Not because all or indeed most Arabs hate Israel but rather because their society is dominated by the most radical elements among them.
Until the truly moderate Arab majority ejects their dictators and warlords will peace stand a chance in the Middle East.
AnwarSadat was an unique artifact among the clique of butchers that comprise the leadership of the Arab countries (And Iran for that matter).
Ariel Sharon was the genuine representative of a nation reluctant to release the head of the cobra but willing to risk much for peace.
Both died in the cause for peace. Can the Arabs produce another such? They will easily find a partner in Israel.
Until the truly moderate Arab majority ejects their dictators and warlords will peace stand a chance in the Middle East.
So you believe that the US should stop propping up puppet governments and fomenting radical politics in the Middle East? Me too!
Glad you realize that US support for Saddam Hussein and the Afghan "freedom fighters" (Taliban and Al Queda) was a major mistake. Let's not repeat it. US out of the Middle East!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_Project
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0413_050413_genographic.html
International HapMap Project
http://hapmap.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-perl/gbrowse/hapmap24_B36/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIKz1phnuCc&feature=related
Skippy...boys theys intrgated.....LOL....and yes we are...like it or not....be hatin color if you like...me its ology, ism, et al.
The iranian nutjob speaks again:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_iran_usa_ahmadinejad
911 was 'exaggerated', no 'zionists' died in 911, the holocaust never happened, and other truthy goodness. Watch the useful idiots fall all over themselves to proclaim him a beacon of sanity in a dangerous world. LOL.
He actually hits every talking point of the jewhaters in this thread. But is he repeating what he reads on ZH threads or are the racists copying him? The old chicken and egg conundrum.
Watch the useful idiots fall all over themselves to proclaim him a beacon of sanity in a dangerous world. LOL.
I don't really care for Imadinnerjacket. Now that he has read that on ZH he will certainly resign. Looks like we solved the crisis, Toughie, and now you can stop killing Palestinian kids for fun and profit.
What a relief!
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1898twain-jews.html
Mark Twain addresses you Jew haters and baiters out there.
It is from 1898, back when people where educated, unlike the rabble of publicly schooled morons the web is infested with today.
That's nice.
Yes, let's kill innocent Iranians because Twain defended innocent Jews. Twain would have loved that. He always said, "Someday the US should invent nuclear weapons and bomb the Iranians." It was nuggets like that that made him famous.
In reality folks, Twain was voraciously anti-Imperialist. He would scoff at the article which opens this thread.
"I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land." -- Mark Twain
hah! where instead of were. fuck me , eh.
See what I mean?
The Jews don't do well with others. Expulsion, pogroms, massacres. Now they're doing to the US what they did to Eastern Europe. Wherever they are, disorder and chaos will follow. They can't help themselves. History goes on and on.
It's not us, it's you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymLJz3N8ayI
They listen to that kinda noise in Thailand?
I find this to be much more tuneful:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f92VWkYl8CI&feature=av2e
Music to make love not war to...
Tutor boy! Yes, we are at Q bar. Come over and I will buy you a drink. On your farang tutor boy salary you probably cannot pick up the tab, ha ha. for sure you dont have anyone to make love to. No, wait! kop jai lai lai, ha ha; learning from issan bar girl (or is it bar boy) Ta ta, tutor boy.
Your intelligence impresses and intimidates me.
Crockett, your postings are another indication that there is not one, not one single solitary argument for the US to abandon Israel.
America's educational system truly has reached its nadir when you can call my hundred word postings rambling.
But I suppose irrationality is hard put to tolerate cogent argument when na na na na na na is the measure of discourse.
Please, somebody, refute my arguments without posting a link to a video.
Abandon Israel? Is that the only option? We either continue the current policy or abandon Israel? Really?
I think there are other options. George Washington warned us of the perils of foreign entanglements and suggested a course that avoided such perils. What would happen if the US had followed his advice? Failure to heed this advice has involved us in all manner of difficulties and opened us up to more hostile feelings than any other thing.
Forgive me for quoting at length:
I wonder what the world would be like if the US had followed Washington's advice. It's not too late to take his advice - in the Middle East and the rest of the world.
You will not refute my arguments because there is no refutation.
The creation of the state of Israel is the source for all the blind rage I see here, not the deaths of innocents or some effete sense of injustice.
The unconscious is in full flow among those that have renounced the original meanings of the words on which our forefathers created America.
History for those is a mirror in which they can only see their own restlessness.
Confusion reigns, hate soars, destruction beckons.
In Israel, Jews have a place where they can defend themselves from the murderous designs of Jewhating scum.
Naturally, this makes the Jewhating scum very angry, as seen on this thread.
You're really going to have to refine your arguments. Nobody is falling for the idea that those who do not want to be taxed to subsidize Israel are "jewhaters."
We work hard for our money and our kids need clothes and books and they deserve a night out at a ball game or a movie once in a while. There's no reason why WE should have to pay YOUR way in this world.
Get a job.
The Jewhate in your posts is self-evident. Your words speak for themselves.
So you're claiming that I owe you a living? That I am your slave and if I don't do what you say I'm a Nazi?
See, that's the kind of thing that's gonna put you out of business. That's why it's good that folks are finally discussing American support for Israel. When more folks hear the kinds of things you say it will all be over for you.
Am I claiming that?
Where?
I said:
You're really going to have to refine your arguments. Nobody is falling for the idea that those who do not want to be taxed to subsidize Israel are "jewhaters."
We work hard for our money and our kids need clothes and books and they deserve a night out at a ball game or a movie once in a while. There's no reason why WE should have to pay YOUR way in this world.
Get a job.
And you replied:
The Jewhate in your posts is self-evident. Your words speak for themselves.
That's non-responsive.
That's non-responsive.
No, your post is non-responsive. Everybody can easily read what we both said. Pretending otherwise doesn't make it so.
Those who can easily read what we both said will certainly discern what I actually said and the bullshit strawman version of it you alleged.
I'm completely comfortable with that.
So you are comfortable with the idea that US foreign aid to Israel should be stopped? Glad to hear it. That's the way to be a mensch.
More of your bullshit that I never said.
Really, you need to calm down and respond to what people actually say. I never said you agree with ending US aid to Israel. I simply asked whether you feel comfortable with the idea -- if you could hear the idea and then, despite disagreeing with it, discuss it rationally without resorting to knee-jerk vulgarity and name calling.
Obviously you can't.
But you did. Right here:
Your "glad to here it" is your assertion that I have answered your question in the affirmative, which is bullshit.
Well then, my mistake. I thought that your comment about being more comfortable indicated that you had calmed down and were ready to discuss this subject further in a more rational manner.
However, I stand corrected. As you say, you are not up to the task. Please feel free to exhibit whatever verbal or physical ticks which your unfortunate condition engenders. It's really not your fault and it doesn't make you a bad person. I should be more generous and give you all the support and pity your condition requires.
There, there. Those bad Americans aren't under your bed anymore, you can go nighty-night.
You will not refute my arguments because there is no refutation.
That's because your mind is made up. You want to kill Americans, Jews, Persians and Arabs and I don't. If you feel a need to pursue some kind of death wish, please feel free, but the free people of the world will not be dragged down with you.
La'heim!
Old trooper, thank you for your quotation. Sadly, it is a little simplistic for our day.
Washington wrote when we were a small new nation, one beset by behemoths eager for a chance to swallow us (much as Israel is today).Until WWI and WWII we never fought in a foreign war for a foreign cause (pace 1898). Those struggles pulled us into the world.
Should we not have embargoed Japan as she raped China? Should we have allowed England to be smashed? Would Hilter have stopped there? Should we have given Stalin Europe? Our failure in Viet-nam caused the deaths of millions in Cambodia. Those that think America did well to abandon Viet-nam never seem to mention that. How put the chick back into the egg?
Furthermore, our military knows the best way to fight an enemy is on his own soil, not our own. Do you imagine that Islamic ambitions end with Israel? That is another genie that is out of the bottle that cannot easily be put back into the bottle.
Washington understood the solemn sacred importance of alliance. Would he tell us today to abandon our alliance with Israel when missiles can knit the world together in an orgy of annihilation? I think he would tell us to hold firm to our commitments as he did at Valley Forge, as Americans did in Bataan, Bastogne and DaNang.
We are the same people. We haven't changed. The question will forever be whether we have the will to defend our principles. What might have been had we adhered to Washington's dictum is unknowable.
But we have made an alliance with Israel. What would be the thinking among our friends and enemies if we abandon her? What would history say about a great nation that betrayed her obligation and allowed a smaller nation to be overwhelmed?
I am an ardent partisan. The old Swamp Fox is definite in his views. And he has sharp teeth. But he saves them for those that deserve them. Not you, old trooper.
But we have made an alliance with Israel.
Please link to documentation outlining that alliance. Where is the treaty?
You're not allowed to see it. Neener neener neener.
Dude, you're like the running back who goes tearing down the field in the wrong direction and scores the winning touchdown for the other team.
Thank you.
If mere mockery of your paranoid fantasies scores me a touchdown, I just found my ticket to the NFL Hall of Fame.
So it's a paranoid fantasy to ask to see the joint alliance treaty between the US and Israel which the fellow above claims exists?
Just who is this fellow above who claims the existence of a joint alliance treaty?
It's the post I replied to when I asked to see the treaty!
by francismarion
on Sun, 08/08/2010 - 12:49
#509566
You can't possibly be as stupid as you appear to be. But it's definitely an interesting way to "engage" in a debate. Just keep pretending that you're deaf while adjusting your hearing aid. Not worthy of Clausewitz, but interesting none the less.
He didn't say there was any joint alliance treaty.
Confine yourself to what HE said, not what you claim he said.
He said: But we have made an alliance with Israel. What would be the thinking among our friends and enemies if we abandon her? What would history say about a great nation that betrayed her obligation and allowed a smaller nation to be overwhelmed?
When nations join in a military "alliance" or mutual defense pact which entails an "obligation" such agreements must be codified and ratified by the respective governments. Without such an agreement neither an "alliance" nor an "obligation" exists.
If either you or francismarion believe that such an alliance exists, please present the documentation.
Thank you.
You claimed he said there was a treaty. He did not.
Focus on what the other person says, not what you claim they said.
Look, a real alliance requires a treaty. Without a treaty there is no alliance. If he claims there is an alliance then there has to be a treaty to which he can refer.
Do you understand English
if
I
speak
it
very
sloooooooowly?
I'm supposed to accept your expertise in international law now?
You who recently said disdain for the constitution is a treasonable act, you're the expert?
No, don't accept my word for it. Read the Constitution and then come back with citations showing that I am incorrect.
Article 2, Section 2 The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. Section 3 He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States. Section 4 The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Article 6. All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Article 6. All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Neither the word alliance nor ally appear in the text, nor did the original poster claim a treaty had been made, despite your assertions otherwise.
Prove a negative? Jump through your absurd, evasive hoops? Kick at your moving goalposts?
LOL
The US Constitution is a document which enumerates the powers of the US government. If a particular power is not listed, then as per the tenth amendment that power resides with either the states or the citizens.
francismarion said that the United States has an "alliance" with Israel and an "obligation" to it. According to the Constitution such an alliance can only become "the law of the land" if it is codified and ratified as a treaty by the Senate.
Those are the rules. I did not make them up. They are written clearly in English. Anyone can easily read and understand them.
Now, get busy and provide the citation which shows that you are right and the US Constitution is wrong.
Quote the exact passage where you think it says that.
Look back a couple of posts to where I quoted Article 2, Section 2 and Article 6. You will find the pertinent information there. I didn't post it just because it looked so pretty on the page, you were supposed to read it.
It doesn't say what you claim. Sorry.
The Constitution (as I quoted previously) says:
He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties,
and
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
If you can find anything in the Constitution that indicates any other method of entering into an agreement with a foreign power please present it.
Where's the bit about requiring a treaty to form an alliance?
That's the matter at dispute.
A military alliance is an act of government. All governmental powers are enumerated in the Constitution. If the government has the power to enter into an alliance without ratifying a treaty then that power will be enumerated in the Constitution. All you have to do is find it.
It's included in the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief and Head of State and head of the United States government.
The specific powers of the President are enumerated in the Constitution, Article 2. Please quote the relevant portion.
Art.2.Sec.1.Cl.1, Art.2.Sec.2.Cl.1 & Art.2.Sec.3.Cl.3.
I recommend you also find yourself a good Constitutional Law textbook and do some reading.
There is no mention of presidential power to solely create "alliances" in the sections you cited. The only relevant portion is the ones I have cited, specifically:
He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties,
Insist that all alliances must be treaties all you want. It's still not true.
A little simplistic? Maybe. But then how different might the world have been in the 1930's had we not gotten involved in WWI? No one can say with any certainty, all we can do is speculate. But WWI is key, isn't it? That is when we abandoned all pretense of neutrality and started to play the game of international politics in earnest.
Would there even have been Nazis if the Germans had been able to negotiate a more favorable peace at the end of WWI? Would Japan have occupied China if the competition for resources with the US weren't already underway? What would the Middle East look like if the US would have completely withdrawn from Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War? Who knows.
What we do know is that Germany's back was to the wall at the end of WWI, Japan wanted resources and found access blocked at every turn, and the continued presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia are an iritant and provocation to some muslims.
For better or worse, US involvement has helped create the world we have today. US motives may have been pure but there were too many unintended consequences (and just maybe all US motives have not been quite so pure all of the time).
We have never known a world without a US Empire so we tend to take it for granted that it just IS. There are other options and that's why we need to think outside of the box, imo. We'd better start thinking about it, because the Empire looks to be on its last legs. Perhaps the Israelies better think about it too, because our will and good intentions won't mean much after the Empire collapses.
For the record, I don't believe there is a formal alliance between the US and Israel though I agree there are common interests and we've certainly found use for each other.
I also believe that every person has the same rights by virtue of being a person, be they Jewish, Palestinian or other. At some point these people will have to either fight to the finish -or- stop killing each other and work their problems out among themselves. Other countries getting involved, quite frankly, seems to be one of the problems, not a route to resolution, imo.
WWI is key, but the founding of the Federal Reserve in 1913 is even more important. I can't find the quote right now, but a Fed official bragged just a few years ago that WWI would not have been possible without the Fed. And that's true. Only fiat money supplied on demand can finance modern warfare. The direct taxation of a population which is experienced in the use of sound money would never work considering the massive costs involved.
Also note that Germany continued to pay repairations for WWI to the Allies throughout the course of WWII. Sounds bizarre, doesn't it? But international banking trumps EVERYTHING else.
Peace!
Federal Reserve and Income Tax were important. Money is the grease of Empires and an expeditionary force doesn't come cheap.
The big industries of the day were steel, railroads, shipping... They made out pretty good on the war trade, as did the financiers that financed the war.
War is big business - wonder if the Israelies and Palestinians will ever figure that out and change to a safer line of work. I hope so, but am not holding my breath.
The financiers make out on everything. Remember, they earn interest on every US dollar ever created. A portion of every dollar "earned" by the arms industry and everybody else goes to the bankers. It's got to be the greatest crime in history and I intend no hyperbole.
Hey! No junks on your post ... yet.
Fiat currency is a scam, no argument there.
Sorry,Crockett, I was off checking my traps.
To your importunate interrogative: We have built up a system of understandings with Israel since we recognized her independence in 1948. I believe we were the first to do so. Kind of like a god-father.
The treaty with Israel is like the one we had with France in 1941. She ceased to exist on the map and we decided to do something about it. France had become a mere diplomatic entity by that time but we embraced her nonetheless. Like when you put a dime in the parking meter for someone when you see the meter-maid about to give him a ticket.
Alliance with Israel gives us as much or more intelligence on the Mid-East as all of our intelligence gathering combined. Their ability to penetrate the neighborhood is unmatched. They have produced many innovations we use on the battlefield today. Hence the quid pro quo.
If they have failed to be perfectly square, remember we are talking about a nation, not a deity. If they have let us down remember they are playing a much more high stakes game than we are.
Israel must be saved.
Please provide a link to the treaty in question. The United States Constitution demands that such a treaty be ratified by the Senate if it is to be binding.
You got that wrong. Total war is a relatively new concept born in the western world. Every other war before were limited wars.
@An Anonymous:
The Romans plowed the soil of Carthage with salt. Caesar reduced Gaul from six millions to two millions in the course of his campaigns.
Also see Attila the Hun. When they took a city they usually left a pyramid of skulls behind.
As for those great practicioners of limited war, the Mongols, do some research as to how they treated modern-day Iran. They still have not recovered their incursions.
Total war is an ancient concept. Genocide has been the norm. The West brought the concepts of concern for civilians and prisoners into vogue, albeit failing too often to adhere to their own standards.
Israel is a Western nation. This is hard for the casual observer to understand. Yet it is so. Perhaps if one understands that our morals derive largely from theirs it is easier to comprehend.
The Arabs are dedicated to Israel's annihilation. This is a matter of unconcern to the avid Israel-hater but not to Israel.
We must not abandon Israel.
We must not abandon Israel.
How do you presume to speak for me? Get your hand off my wallet, comrade.
Quite symptomatic, I could say of what is happening in the West, cheap propaganda.
Total war is not about mass slaughter. Total war is about the means a group dedicates to war. Total war is about an entire society backing a war effort, working in the direction of sustaining the war effort.
This was not the case for millenia. The idea is relatively new and born in the west.
Concern for civilians and prisoners into vogue?
It was needed as the concept of total war started to kick in. Total war blurred the line between a non involved party and an involved party as everyone is supposed to help the war effort.
For millenia, wars were a matter of specific class in societies. Warrior classes. I hope you realize that wars in medieval times were not fought by male serfs, who were excluded from the possibility of fighting in normal instances. Popular armies did not exist in many, many places for a long time.
As to prisoners, prisoners were the business of war for millenia through slavery and hostages. In Afghanistan, they still have a huge culture of taking hostages to ransom it. It was not brought by the West. It is what was performed in many, many places in the world before the Western world developped the concept of total war and mass extermination.
Genocide has been the norm. In the past, groups managed to survive on low numbers like 500 people or less. It is absolutely possible to describe the killing of an amazonian people numbered at 200 as a genocide.
But genocide as it was performed in the West is another animal. It is about linking people through different visible features to kill them.
Finding slaughters in past times motivated on this standard is hard. Romans did not send marching orders to kill blond people when moving northwards because they had beef with one celtic society. All during the ways, they made distinctions between the various societies they met.
Yet it is what happened in let's say the US at the start when the US citizens ended to consider indians societies to see only a gender: Indians. This was pinpointed by Benjamin Franklin in one text where he claimed to go after freckled red heads next time he is hit by one, I think, written after the process materialized through the acts of the Black Boys.
You did perform a poor job at propaganda. You went against obvious points.
Wars in the past were not total. They only involved a specific segment of population who were jealous about their priviledge of warring. In that, you also threw to the rubbish part of the legacy of the US in that through equality, anyone physically able should be allowed to go to war.
I value this type of texts because the stories in them are so big you have to want to believe them to accept them. You know what you wrote is false. And big. And you screen among people to know who you are going to fish. People you fish are either with you, ready to lie as you do or against you as they do not want to relinquish facts to subscribe to your group.
@Crockett,
What faith can we put in a written treaty? The path of history is littered with their broken shredded remnants.
You don't strike me as the legalistic type. This is your weakest suit yet. The accumulation of decades of understanding and cooperation between the US and Israel is the surest guarantee of our entente.
Furthermore I hear you bemoaning your taxes going to pay for the endless American wars, presumably because you want to buy your kids more stuff, wars hurt your friends and blood for oil is wrong.
Those are reasonable sentiments but would you acknowledge that in a nation as large as ours that two sets of mutually exclusive view-points may exist at the same time?
Me neither.
What faith can we put in a written treaty? The path of history is littered with their broken shredded remnants.
This is your weakest suit yet.
Your disdain for the United States Constitution and the rule of law constitutes a treasonous act.
Keep splashing about, Clausewitz. It's very entertaining.
So you finally got around to looking up Clausewitz, eh?
Now you can look up the US Constitution and come back here and tell everybody how it's just a piece of paper that should be ignored, comrade.
Ever more of your bullshit. You should see a vet, get that checked out.
Well now you've convinced me. Iran, Israel and the United States SHOULD become engulfed in a nuclear war. It's so obvious now. What was I thinking? Thank goodness you set me straight.
Nope, never said it.
Still more of your bullshit brushed aside.
The topic of this thread is whether the US and Israel should make a pre-emptive attack on Iran. I am opposed to that. You have disagreed with me throughout the thread.
Just what are you howling about if it's not US support for Israel against Iran? Inquiring minds want to know.
Nope. Never said that.
Now, watch you move the goalposts:
This is the way your bullshit works. Here's more:
Not howling at all. Just pointing out your bullshit.
OK, I'm an asshole and I don't know shit. Please enlighten me as to whether the US and Israel should attack Iran.
I want to know what you think.
Your words, not mine.
Look, I am begging you for your own words!
PLEASE! Tell me in your own words whether the US and Israel should attack Iran?
In principle, Iran's nuclear weapons capability should be destroyed.
All the dithering and delay from Bush and Obama means it's now probably too late to accomplish the task.
If it can be done, it should be done as soon as military considerations permit.
Please provide citations detailing "Iran's nuclear weapons capability."
Any citations provided should be sourced from materials deemed to be superior to the National Intelligence Estimate and the International Atomic Energy Agency reports which confirm that Iran possess no nuclear weapons, no ability to produce nuclear weapons and no intention of producing nuclear weapons.
Thank you.
Oh that?
No, we're not allowed to show that to you. Sorry.
I mean, I would, but the Protocols have very strict rules about that kind of stuff.
So, available evidence indicates that in this matter I am correct and you are incorrect.
That's evidence available to you...
Don't you think your James Bond fantasy is just a bit juvenile?
I have no James Bond fantasy.
The Joooooocabal at the head of U.S. foreign policy doesn't reveal such things to folks like you.
Terribly sorry.
Have you given up on reasonable discourse?
Of course not.
I will note in passing how much I enjoyed the irony of your question.
Specifically, what was ironic about my question?