| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:17 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| But I find it hard to believe that the whole country went along with this war if they really didn't think there was actually something in it for them too. |
One media, one voice with one message. Americans believe what they're told. |
Unfortunately, you are right about this. But I don't think the American elite went into Iraq without considering their own interests. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
Just reading more of the article mises posted.
| Quote: |
However, according to the Jewish-American columnist, the present war has a further importance. If Iraq does become pro-Western and if it becomes the focus of American influence, that will be of immense geopolitical importance. An American presence in Iraq will project power across the region. It will suffuse the rebels in Iran with courage and strength, and it will deter and restrain Syria. It will accelerate the processes of change that the Middle East must undergo.
|
This would have been as much in America's own interests as in Israel's. |
Who could possibly have believed this?
The Israelis wanted a destroyed Iraq that would turn Sunni against Shia. Neo-cons have a nice history of running interference with other groups for perceived ethnic safety. They'll do the same in Iran. Weaken the state and encourage social conflict. Takes attention off of them. |
I agree that Israel gets a disproportionate say in how the US runs things. But I've never been convinced that the 'tail wags the dog' as even some of my Israeli friends have boasted. I really don't think the US would let itself be used entirely in another nation's interests, unless they thought there was much to be had for the US too. |
The foreign policy is entirely Israel approved. Big Bird, do you know who Obama surrounds himself with? You should look into it. He is, as he said (in an indirect way) a Jewish accomplishment.
Now, I don't care about the Jews. But I am anti-war and anti America being broke and as such I stand exactly opposite of the organized Jewish community in the United States, UK and Canada. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
The Israelis wanted a destroyed Iraq that would turn Sunni against Shia. Neo-cons have a nice history of running interference with other groups for perceived ethnic safety. They'll do the same in Iran. Weaken the state and encourage social conflict. Takes attention off of them. |
This is exactly why the US encouraged the war between Iraq and Iran in the 80s. Israel supported it, but again, the US was looking out for her own interests.
| Quote: |
| It of course raised the price of oil, as it was supposed to. When oil, which is priced in dollars, appreciates in dollars, the aggregate demand for dollars around the world increases. This means the Fed can funnel more cash into the economy via the primary dealers, who are the organizations that actually profit from the increased inflation. Shall we talk about the Wall Street/neo con intersection now? Where do you think all these tax free political organizations get their money? From Terry the accountant? |
Yes, but this is just demonstrating that there were other factors involved in deciding to go to war - quite rational reasons for the invasion. You were suggesting before that there was nothing rational about it. Now I am confused about where you are going with this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Many major leaders have been killed. These are direct results of the war. This makes them much weaker organizationally. |
Leaders get replaced. Every Hamas leader that Israel assassinates for example, usually seems to result in an even more extreme successor. |
It is disruptive. Not to mention that the leaders are the ones with the most cachet in recruiting, or the most organizational and operative skills. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
The foreign policy is entirely Israel approved. Big Bird, do you know who Obama surrounds himself with? You should look into it. He is, as he said (in an indirect way) a Jewish accomplishment.
Now, I don't care about the Jews. But I am anti-war and anti America being broke and as such I stand exactly opposite of the organized Jewish community in the United States, UK and Canada. |
I am well aware that Israel has a disproportionate influence on the US, and that there is a very active and powerful Jewish lobby. But again I will state that I am not convinced of the 'tail wagging the dog' theory.
The US allowed itself to be coupled to Israel because it felt it was in its own interests. I believe this is slowly changing, and the US is slowly coming to view Israel as something of a liability. I think public opinion is slowly shifting in the US. For one thing, I think Israel's shocking assault on Gaza was a milestone in helping turn around public opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Many major leaders have been killed. These are direct results of the war. This makes them much weaker organizationally. |
Leaders get replaced. Every Hamas leader that Israel assassinates for example, usually seems to result in an even more extreme successor. |
It is disruptive. Not to mention that the leaders are the ones with the most cachet in recruiting, or the most organizational and operative skills. |
But this seems a very small compensation for such a war. A little bit of disruption here and there is not going to end terrorism. And that war no longer affects the terrorist cells that are not based in Afghanistan. The small benefit does not outway the enormous cost. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Many major leaders have been killed. These are direct results of the war. This makes them much weaker organizationally. |
Leaders get replaced. Every Hamas leader that Israel assassinates for example, usually seems to result in an even more extreme successor. |
It is disruptive. Not to mention that the leaders are the ones with the most cachet in recruiting, or the most organizational and operative skills. |
But this seems a very small compensation for such a war. A little bit of disruption here and there is not going to end terrorism. And that war no longer affects the terrorist cells that are not based in Afghanistan. The small benefit does not outway the enormous cost. |
It was more than just a "little" disruption. Also it set a clear precedent about what happens if a state harbors terrorists. You do not seem to understand how terrorism works. It's like an international corporation whose headquarters are in Afghanistan and Pakistan. What happens there affects it everywhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Many major leaders have been killed. These are direct results of the war. This makes them much weaker organizationally. |
Leaders get replaced. Every Hamas leader that Israel assassinates for example, usually seems to result in an even more extreme successor. |
It is disruptive. Not to mention that the leaders are the ones with the most cachet in recruiting, or the most organizational and operative skills. |
But this seems a very small compensation for such a war. A little bit of disruption here and there is not going to end terrorism. And that war no longer affects the terrorist cells that are not based in Afghanistan. The small benefit does not outway the enormous cost. |
It was more than just a "little" disruption. Also it set a clear precedent about what happens if a state harbors terrorists. You do not seem to understand how terrorism works. It's like an international corporation whose headquarters are in Afghanistan and Pakistan. What happens there affects it everywhere. |
No, you do not seem to understand how terrorism works in the 21st century. You don't need to be based in any one country any more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Many major leaders have been killed. These are direct results of the war. This makes them much weaker organizationally. |
Leaders get replaced. Every Hamas leader that Israel assassinates for example, usually seems to result in an even more extreme successor. |
It is disruptive. Not to mention that the leaders are the ones with the most cachet in recruiting, or the most organizational and operative skills. |
But this seems a very small compensation for such a war. A little bit of disruption here and there is not going to end terrorism. And that war no longer affects the terrorist cells that are not based in Afghanistan. The small benefit does not outway the enormous cost. |
It was more than just a "little" disruption. Also it set a clear precedent about what happens if a state harbors terrorists. You do not seem to understand how terrorism works. It's like an international corporation whose headquarters are in Afghanistan and Pakistan. What happens there affects it everywhere. |
No, you do not seem to understand how terrorism works in the 21st century. You don't need to be based in any one country any more. |
It doesn't need to be, but it is. Al Qaeda provides logistics, training, and branding. It runs other terrorist groups like they are franchises. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I am well aware that Israel has a disproportionate influence on the US, and that there is a very active and powerful Jewish lobby. But again I will state that I am not convinced of the 'tail wagging the dog' theory. |
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/07/obamas-philosemitism-reflects-the-new-establishment.html
| Quote: |
| David Axelrod (2009- ) Senior Advisor to the President; Jared Bernstein (2009- ) Chief Economist and Economic Policy Advisor to the Vice President; Rahm Emanuel (2009- ) Chief of Staff; Lee Feinstein (2009- ) Foreign Policy Advisor; Gary Gensler (2009- ) Chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; Elena Kagan (2009- ) Solicitor General of the United States; Ronald Klain (2009- ) Chief of Staff to the Vice President; Jack Lew (2009- ) Deputy Secretary of State; Eric Lynn (2009- ) Middle East Policy Advisor; Peter Orszag (2009- ) Director of the Office of Management and Budget; Dennis Ross (2009- ) Special Advisor for the Gulf and Southwest Asia to the Secretary of State; Mara Rudman (2009- ) Foreign Policy Advisor; Mary Schapiro (2009- ) Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission; Dan Shapiro (2009- ) Head of Middle East desk at the National Security Council; James B. Steinberg (2009- ) Deputy Secretary of State; Lawrence Summers (2009- ) Director National Economic Council; Mona Sutphen (2009- ) Deputy White House Chief of Staff |
| Quote: |
| The US allowed itself to be coupled to Israel because it felt it was in its own interests. |
This is untrue. 60% of funds to the Democrats are from Jews. 40% for Republicans. That's why.
More:
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/mar/24/00007/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Louis VI
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
Location: In my Kingdom
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Money down whose drain? The military�industrial complex. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I am well aware that Israel has a disproportionate influence on the US, and that there is a very active and powerful Jewish lobby. But again I will state that I am not convinced of the 'tail wagging the dog' theory. |
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/07/obamas-philosemitism-reflects-the-new-establishment.html
| Quote: |
| David Axelrod (2009- ) Senior Advisor to the President; Jared Bernstein (2009- ) Chief Economist and Economic Policy Advisor to the Vice President; Rahm Emanuel (2009- ) Chief of Staff; Lee Feinstein (2009- ) Foreign Policy Advisor; Gary Gensler (2009- ) Chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; Elena Kagan (2009- ) Solicitor General of the United States; Ronald Klain (2009- ) Chief of Staff to the Vice President; Jack Lew (2009- ) Deputy Secretary of State; Eric Lynn (2009- ) Middle East Policy Advisor; Peter Orszag (2009- ) Director of the Office of Management and Budget; Dennis Ross (2009- ) Special Advisor for the Gulf and Southwest Asia to the Secretary of State; Mara Rudman (2009- ) Foreign Policy Advisor; Mary Schapiro (2009- ) Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission; Dan Shapiro (2009- ) Head of Middle East desk at the National Security Council; James B. Steinberg (2009- ) Deputy Secretary of State; Lawrence Summers (2009- ) Director National Economic Council; Mona Sutphen (2009- ) Deputy White House Chief of Staff |
| Quote: |
| The US allowed itself to be coupled to Israel because it felt it was in its own interests. |
This is untrue. 60% of funds to the Democrats are from Jews. 40% for Republicans. That's why.
More:
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/mar/24/00007/ |
I didn't realise that funding from Jewish parties was so high, although I was aware that it was a serious issue. But I don't believe that the US partnered with Israel solely for Israel's benefit. I recognise that it is going to be a tricky partnership to wriggle out of, though. Politicians are terrified of saying anything at all that could be construed as anti-Israel. It sounds their political demise. But do you really believe that the Israeli lobby has such a grip on the US that the US can only act at Israel's directive, even against her own interests? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just thought I'd post a snippet of post Murdoch's (im)famous interview.
| Quote: |
Mr Murdoch was unequivocal about war with Iraq. "We can't back down now. I think Bush is acting very morally, very correctly, and I think he is going to go on with it."
He said the price of oil would be one of the war's main benefits. "The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy, if you could put it that way, would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country."
Mr Murdoch's comments come just a week after he told Fortune magazine in the US that war could fuel an economic boom.
"Who knows what the future holds? I have a pretty optimistic medium and long-term view but things are going to be pretty sticky until we get Iraq behind us. But once it's behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else," he told Fortune.
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/feb/12/uk.iraqandthemedia |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, I am aware that when Americans become the victims of Israel's actions it is regularly played down. Rachel Corrie and the USS Liberty come to mind immediately. Not so long ago an American citizen was injured by the IDF and lost her eye - didn't cause even a ripple. But this isn't necessarily proof that Israel has the US by the balls. If the US considered the partnership to be very important, it would be natural to downplay these events in the interests of the bigger picture.
I haven't got time to check out your podcast today. I'll do it later when I'm free. There's one that's long been doing the rounds regarding AIPEC. Perhaps it's the same one? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
