The War on Iraq - Conceived in Israel

Former Member

How many more wars will America fight for the Jews? Some say this is a war against terror yet the people who have been pushing this war were advocating it long before anyone ever heard of Osama bin Laden or 9/11. Some people say this is a war for oil, but where is the oil in Syria who seems to be next target of Anglo-American-Zionist aggression? How many more people have to die because bloodthirsty Zionist Jews like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle today and Morgenthau and Kissinger of yesterday, have an axe to grind with the enemies of Israel? As the bodies of American and British soldiers come home in coffins, may they rest in peace, keep in mind they died for Ariel Sharon.

http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm

Former Member

Clandestine is proud of you, I am sure...

Former Member

The war in Iraq i feel was influenced by the Isreali state however the post is anti-semitic as you are implying that the war was fought for one religious group which is racist and personally i feel that anyone who on this board who writes anything which is racist to one group or another should have a warning or be banned if there contuning pushing they views.

It was not the Jews totally that have called for the invasion of Iraq as i know jewish people that have opposed this war. It is like saying that all Muslims celebrated 9-11 which is totally unture.

Former Member

Actually marv, not all jewish people subscribe to Zionism. Zionism is a political movement. Not all Zionists, in fact, are even necessarily Jewish as is evidenced by its numerous adherents within fundamentalist Christian circles.

Former Member

Indeed Jacq, apparently he is...

Clearly he missed the opening sentence of the thread which didn't draw a link to the Zionist movement but to Jews in general.

Former Member

No, I didnt miss it. I simply do not subscribe to the lack of differentiation between Judaism (the religion) and Zionism (the political ideology) which Heydrich champions. Neverthless the title of the thread for those who do differentiate speaks to the question of the political agendas working behind the scenes of Bush's foreign policy doctrine in the ME.

Despite our long running disagreements, Id expect you to have the capacity to understand that much.

Former Member

How many more wars will America fight for the Jews?

You're right to hate America. You wouldn't fit in here. We are opposed to everything for which you stand and have fought for over 200 years against people like you.

I'm proud of that.:cool:

Former Member

The war in Iraq i feel was influenced by the Isreali state however the post is anti-semitic as you are implying that the war was fought for one religious group which is racist and personally i feel that anyone who on this board who writes anything which is racist to one group or another should have a warning or be banned if there contuning pushing they views.

The question involved here is whether influential racially conscious Jews with heavy influence upon American foreign policy - acting out of individually perceived Jewish ethnic interests - are behind the war on Iraq. That question does not involve any question of racial superiority/inferiority whatsoever. It is a sociological question. I maintain that is the case.

It was not the Jews totally that have called for the invasion of Iraq

Which is entirely irrelevent to whether or not individual Jews identify with other Jews as a group and act in what they individually perceive to be Jewish group interests.

as i know jewish people that have opposed this war.

Which is irrelevent to whether or not specific individual Jews, who are ethnically conscious, have distorted American foreign policy in order to serve what they perceive a Jewish group interest.

Not all whites are racists but that is entirely irrelevent to whether or not individual racist whites act in what they individually perceive to be in the racial interests of white europeans.

It is like saying that all Muslims celebrated 9-11 which is totally unture.

That is not my argument at all. There are few collective groups anywhere in the world that agree in every respect. That is of course, once again, irrelevent to whether or not individual Americans for example identify with Americans as a group and act in what they perceive to be "American" interests.

Former Member

You're right to hate America. You wouldn't fit in here.

You are absolutely right. I do hate America and I do not fit in with Yankees.

We are opposed to everything for which you stand and have fought for over 200 years against people like you. I'm proud of that.

Another grand display of total and complete ignorance of American history. ROFL as if slave owners like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe and James Madison all of whom believed in the inferiority of the black race and the imperative of deporting them to Africa have anything in common with a cosmopolitan Fox News charlatan like yourself. The only reason there is even a country today called "United States of America" is because people like me are historically the norm and people like you are a historical anamoly - a rogue generation who have squandered away a country built upon centuries of toil. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington would have been appalled at philo-semitic warmongering Middle East imperialists like yourself. Andrew Jackson believed in the annihilation of the Indian - something he himself thought of as progress. The only reason there is even a State of California today is because Polk was willing to annihilate the Mexicans to take it - justifying it with the theory the Mexicans were an inferior race of men. Throughout the vast majority of American history - indeed - all the way up until the 1960s, in fact people like yourself were an EXTREME minority.

Former Member

Heydrich,

You're still a nutcase.

Former Member

It is a fact that both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were slaveowners. It is a fact that both of them believed in the racial inferiority of blacks. It is a fact that both of them supported the American Colonization Society out of their desire to RID America of racial diversity. It is a fact that Andrew Jacskon supported the ethnic cleansing of the Indians, which he described as progress. It is a fact that Polk and the majority of Americans believed the white man to be superior to the Mexican and justified the Mexican Cession in the name of racial supremacy. It is a fact that Abraham Lincoln was a racist, supported the deportation of Blacks to Latin America and Africa, and on numerous occassions spoke of his belief in black racial inferiority. It is a FACT that Theodore Roosevelt despised Multiculturalism as a source of faction and division which he spoke of as the "one sure way to ruin this country." It is a fact that America sterilized thousands of "racial inferiors" such as the retarded and the insane. It is a fact that racial science and eugenics largely originated in AMERICA not Germany in the late 19th Century. It is a fact that Winston Churchill believed the annihilation of the Red man of America and the Black man of Australia was a good thing because a "higher grade race" had taken their place. You are more than welcome to dispute any of the facts I have laid out above. I maintain my argument that throughout American history people like pnjsuferpoet were a notoriously small and radical minority, that if it were NOT for racism there would be no such thing as a United States of America and that if generations of dead Americans could rise from their graves and chat with us on this forum today they would denounce people like pnjsuferpoet.

Former Member

John Quincy Adams, former President of the United States, and one of America's most revered and seasoned diplomats in all of its history articulated and affirmed a policy quite different from the sort of Zionist jihad against evil we hear daily from pnjusuferpoet. . .

http://www.thisnation.com/library/jqadams1821.html

Monsters to Destroy

And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?

Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.

She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.

She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

-- John Quincy Adams, 1821

One of my personal favourites. Theodore Roosevelt on the tartuffery of "multiculturalism" and "diversity." Roosevelt was also a racist who signed the Gentleman's Agreement with Japan.

President Theodore Roosevelt on Multiculturalism

quote:


There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts "native" before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.

The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.

Former Member

Heydrich,

You ever heard of the historian's concept of judging people and events within the concept of their time?

You're still a nutcase. And not worth the effort it would take to point out the inconsistencies in your claims (they are there, I'm just not going to waste my time).

Former Member

Heydrich, You ever heard of the historian's concept of judging people and events within the concept of their time?

Blacks, Indians, and Mexicans all existed within the context of their times just like they do today. We confront the very same problem of diversity that Theodore Roosevelt commented on - the one sure way in his opinion to ruin the United States. On all of these issues people like pnjsuferpoet and yourself are a EXTREME historical minority. The same is true of issues of foreign policy. pnjsuferpoet hardly has room to talk about what America stood for over the course of 200 years - pretty much the opposite of everything people like himself stand for today.

You're still a nutcase.

I don't believe in multiculturalism, diversity, or fighting the wars of Israel - all of which are ludicrous.

And not worth the effort it would take to point out the inconsistencies in your claims (they are there, I'm just not going to waste my time).

That's exactly what I thought.

You are more than welcome to dispute any of the facts I have laid out above.

Until then I will be waiting.

Former Member

Originally posted by Heydrich

I don't believe in multiculturalism, diversity, or fighting the wars of Israel - all of which are ludicrous.

Just a thought, if it is Israel's war, how come they weren't involved physically and were told not to interfere? Surely America would have demanded some proper help, if this war was thought exclusively for the gains of the Israelis...

Btw, your "beliefs" should definitely have their own medical description. Wouldn't amaze me if there already was something fitting you.

Former Member

Just a thought, if it is Israel's war, how come they weren't involved physically and were told not to interfere?

It is much easier to have other nations fight your wars for you than to expend your own blood and treasure in the process. Such has always been the way of Shylocks like Paul Wolfowitz - American ambassador to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee.

Surely America would have demanded some proper help, if this war was thought exclusively for the gains of the Israelis...

The overwhelming causation of the war is Israel - the elephant in the room. The Jews really have the Yankees by the balls, not the other way around. Israel cannot "help" in this war because that would be by far to destabilizing to the puppet regimes in Jordan and Egypt which are paid billions by the Yanks to keep quiet on Israel's imperialism in the Middle East. It would promote "anti-Semitism" and thus be counter productive.

Btw, your "beliefs" should definitely have their own medical description. Wouldn't amaze me if there already was something fitting you.

I do not believe in political correctness. I am willing to break the biggest taboo of them all - criticizing the Jews.

Former Member

Originally posted by Jacqueline the Ripper
Just a thought, if it is Israel's war, how come they weren't involved physically and were told not to interfere? Surely America would have demanded some proper help, if this war was thought exclusively for the gains of the Israelis...

Public relations, ever heard of them?

Zionism and Judaism are not the same thing, Clandestine, but the boundaries between them become very blurred at times. Its the same with any religious extremity, the nutcases start running Bedlam.

Many Jews are not Zionists- if they were, Bush wouldnt have stopped them voting in Florida- by most Zionists are Jews, and Zionists have a "chosen people" complex. People like Kissinger, Morgenthau, Wolfowitz and so on have a great deal of power in the US government, and they do believe in ridding the "promised land" of Arabs and other "gentiles"- it was the Zionist movement which created thsi problem after WWII, and who continue to cause problems by bombing the shit out of the Palestinians.

It is not Israel's war per se, but those interested in the continuation of Israel as a nation, and the elimination of Arabs from the area, are operating and championing this war, and Israel stand to gain from the effects of the war- more so if Syria falls too.

Please Jacq, do not follow Heydrichs lead and allow him to claim that all Jews are Zionist scum- but do not believe that because they are jewish they are right. Many of Heydrichs comments are accurate, but with an unfortunate anti-Semitic connotation. heydrich is right about Wolfowitz et al, but his racism is not.

Former Member

Kerm, I realise all of what you said, Ive said much the same myself in recent posts. Feith is also one of the men setting the agenda in Washington.

Fighting by proxy when youve got a PR powerhouse like the US to give it the legitimacy and pretext required for plausible deniability is the best it gets. A close second would be when Washington itself fights wars by proxy as it did by backing the Taliban against the Soviets and in Nicaragua and Honduras and El Salvador.

Nevertheless there is still a need to avoid generalising on the basis of religion since this isnt about religious beliefs so much as the politicisation of a set of notions born out of one strain of that religon. I have numerous Jewish colleagues who share many of my own views on how the two governments have been in close collusion for so long that honest brokering by the US is too greatly compromised. This admin can cajole, bribe or threaten but it has already demonstrated how little concern it has for America's diplomatic integrity.

Israel as a state isnt even the issue as far as Im concerned, merely the agenda according to which it is being run. If Labour had won for instance, I doubt we'd be contending with a consistent a barrage of assault of the occupied territories nor continous expansion of settlements, and might well have been at the negotiation table already with EU or UN brokers. Mere conjecture though for sake of illustrating the proper focus of my personal criticism with regard to zionists.

Former Member

Originally posted by Heydrich
I do not believe in political correctness. I am willing to break the biggest taboo of them all - criticizing the Jews.

You are not criticizing, you are downright racist. There's a difference. And you know that.

Originally posted by Kermit
it was the Zionist movement which created thsi problem after WWII, and who continue to cause problems by bombing the shit out of the Palestinians.

Don't have time to go into that right now, but you know that your above statement is a distortion.

It is not Israel's war per se, but those interested in the continuation of Israel as a nation, and the elimination of Arabs from the area, are operating and championing this war, and Israel stand to gain from the effects of the war- more so if Syria falls too.

I have not at any timed denied that this war, if it turned out as planned, would be in the interest of Israel. Just stating, that Israel have not had any direct say to this.
Had Israel really wished to, I think they' launched a war (with help of course) themselves. They are perfectly capeable to handle the military intelligence, and special units.

Originally posted by Clandestine
Israel as a state isnt even the issue as far as Im concerned, merely the agenda according to which it is being run. If Labour had won for instance

Israel hasn't had major gains from Avoda. On the other hand the longest lasting peace Israel had, and the most efficient was the one they had with Egypt, created by Begin (Likud) and Egypt's Sadaat.

Former Member

Originally posted by Clandestine
Nevertheless there is still a need to avoid generalising on the basis of religion since this isnt about religious beliefs so much as the politicisation of a set of notions born out of one strain of that religon.

Which is my point- what heydrich is saying about the Zionists is perfectly accurate, but he then generalises about an entire faith from that set of right-wing nutcases.

Jacq: You know as well as I do that the Israeli state has as much right to occupy Palestinian territory as saddam hussein did in Kuwait in 1991. It is against about 30 years' worth of UN resolutions, so there is no distortion in what I said. Israel bombs Palestinian innocents using F-16 jets- its no different to what hamas do in retaliation, its just the weaponry that changes.

Former Member

Originally posted by Kermit
Israel bombs Palestinian innocents using F-16 jets- its no different to what hamas do in retaliation, its just the weaponry that changes.

Dig up the old threads, and see the difference. Not capeable to discuss it further.

Former Member

To respond to your comment about Begin, Jacq...

First off Begin's own political position was every bit as right wing (if not more so) as Sharon's. He in fact brought Likud to power with the promise that Israel would extend its control over Eretz Israel and that in no way would it ever return to pre-1967 boundaries. His was a vision of Israeli manifest destiny that Likud has never abandoned.

His peace deal with Sadat in 1979 was only made possible because of two overriding considerations. Firstly, Sadat was a rare Arab leader who was only interested in achieving what was (as he saw it) in the best interest of Egypt, namely the return of the Sinai. Secondly, Begin acted against the overriding Likud position in handing back the Sinai only upon the proviso of Egyptian concessions in the Golan Heights and West Bank and the enhanced strategic positioning it would give them in a three pronged US-Egyptian-Israeli zone of military control in the broader region.

There was never any interest by either Sadat nor (especially) Begin in considering the Palestinian question in these negotiations and thus the matter had no bearing on the outcome of the 1979 treaty.

However, as laudable and historic as that achievement was, the context in which it was achieved does not bear on the context of the present conflict and Likud's intransigence against making any concessions in the occupied territories that would leave more than a few splintered fragments for a Palestinian state. Not even with a new PM involved will the Palestinians ever consider such a piecemeal offering to be anything but a disingenuous affront to a viable and lasting peace.

Former Member

Originally posted by Kermit
Which is my point- what heydrich is saying about the Zionists is perfectly accurate, but he then generalises about an entire faith from that set of right-wing nutcases.

Jacq: You know as well as I do that the Israeli state has as much right to occupy Palestinian territory as saddam hussein did in Kuwait in 1991. It is against about 30 years' worth of UN resolutions, so there is no distortion in what I said. Israel bombs Palestinian innocents using F-16 jets- its no different to what hamas do in retaliation, its just the weaponry that changes.

We've all just had how much authority UN resolutions have illustrated very, very clearly. NONE. Nada. Zilch. They are resolutions, not laws.

Israel has as much right to occupy the "Occupied Territories" as Britain does to Northern Ireland, to Wales, or to Gibralter. As much right as the Poles have to Prussia. Or as most Americans or Canadians (or any other nationality) have to the land they live on.

Every nation is built on land conquered. If the UN passes resolutions telling the United Kingdom to leave Northern Ireland, will you do it? How about if they tell the English to leave the British Isles?

Regarding Iraq, the UN resolutions sound nice, but the reality is that Iraq has been in a state of war with the United States since March 28, 1991....when they broke the Cease-fire they agreed to.
The UN resolutions didn't make or break the decision of the coalition to eliminate Hussein's regime. They did make it obvious that the UN is toothless.

And if you can find me any evidence of Kuwait attacking Iraq, then you will have something that resembles a manner in which to compare the Gaza strip, the Golan Heights and the West Bank to Kuwait.

Former Member

You are not criticizing, you are downright racist. There's a difference. And you know that.

Another totally preposterous argument. As if I am anyway whatsoever the biggest fan of Yankees - the vast majority of whom are of white European descent. There is no population in the entire world that is more ethnically and racially conscious than the Jews. We are talking about a people here who were dispersed across the entire world for centuries yet managed to reconstruct their homeland in Israel almost two thousand years later! Virtually any other population in the world so scattered would have been absorbed and lost into history. This was not the case of the Jews and that is precisely because of the high degree of ethnic identification Jews have with other Jews. It is this sort of group mentality - this powerful historically constructed sociological group evolutionary strategy - that is at work in the causation of the current war on Iraq. Individual Jews, whom possess a very high degree of ethnic consciousness, individual acting in what they perceive to be the interests of Jewry.

Don't have time to go into that right now, but you know that your above statement is a distortion.

The Zionist movement actually made a deal with Hitler himself in 1933 - that is how bad they wanted Palestine!

I have not at any timed denied that this war, if it turned out as planned, would be in the interest of Israel.

And that is precisely what is motivating many highly racially conscious Jews in the Bush Administration like Paul Wolfowitz and influential Jews in neoconservative think tanks who are the loudest of all the warmongers.

Just stating, that Israel have not had any direct say to this.

ROFL actually. . .

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak17.html

Coinciding with the Bush administration's tough talk about Syria, a senior Israeli official Monday exposed a smoking gun. Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told the Tel Aviv newspaper Maariv: ''We have a long list of issues we are thinking of demanding of the Syrians, and it would be best done through the Americans.''

Mofaz's Hebrew-language interview was not widely distributed in Washington, but a few members of Congress who learned of it were stunned by its audacity. With Prime Minister Ariel Sharon long having urged changing Iraq's regime by force of U.S. arms, his government now hopes to ride the emerging American imperium to regional reconstruction along Israeli lines.

Mofaz's Hebrew-language interview was not widely distributed in Washington, but a few members of Congress who learned of it were stunned by its audacity. With Prime Minister Ariel Sharon long having urged changing Iraq's regime by force of U.S. arms, his government now hopes to ride the emerging American imperium to regional reconstruction along Israeli lines.

That is the goal of prominent Pentagon civilian officials who see virtual identity between U.S. and Israeli interests. Sharon's hopes for his agenda are buoyed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's emergence. Vindicated by the spectacular success of American arms, Rumsfeld is the strongman of the Bush Cabinet who is directing the postwar transformation of the Middle East.

Gen. Mofaz, a career officer before becoming defense minister last October, is a plain-spoken paratrooper who has now revealed his country's grand design of riding American power to reach old goals. While Israel's military is the region's strongest, it has been unable to achieve Mofaz's long, unspecified wish list: removal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, ending Syrian support of anti-Israeli terrorist groups and effective Syrian disarmament. The biggest political-military failure in Israel's brief history was its Lebanese intervention.

Israel's goals conceivably can be ''done through the Americans'' in the wake of the awesome U.S. military performance. Syria's Bashar Assad is unlikely to follow Saddam Hussein's suicidal course of confrontation with Washington. Not supplied militarily by Moscow since the end of the Cold War, Syria's armed forces look weaker than Iraq's.
The problem is how to justify pressuring Syria. If it was hard to prove Iraq a clear danger to the United States, making the case for Syria is much tougher. After the fall of Baghdad, warnings to Damascus were based on unverified complaints that weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi leaders had crossed the porous Iraqi-Syrian border. ''There is no evidence,'' Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said last week, that such weapons were taken out of Iraq.

Syria for a decade or more has been building its own chemical weapons, apparently as a puny counterweight against Israel's nuclear arsenal. Actually, military experts do not consider them weapons of mass destruction. Nor does their possession violate international law since Syria has never signed the chemical weapons ban treaty.
But President Bush is not invoking international law, as he did when seeking United Nations sanction for military intervention in Iraq. ''Syria just needs to cooperate with us,'' the president said Sunday, without citing international authority.

Secretary of State Colin Powell muffled war drums a little Tuesday, telling reporters: ''There is no war plan right now to attack somewhere else.'' However, neither Bush nor Rumsfeld made any such assurance. Furthermore, the Joint Chiefs of Staff two weeks ago ordered the U.S. European Command to prepare a plan for Syria

All this has frightened Syria and the entire Arab world. That was the intent of Rumsfeld but not Powell, who wants a postwar return to diplomacy by the president. Powell's principal asset is Bush's ''road map'' for coexisting Jewish and Palestinian states, a concept not popular with the Sharon government or its friends at the Pentagon. Arabs are skeptical, perceiving a road map that leads to fruitless, endless negotiations.
Nothing has so demonstrated to Arabs their political impotence than Rumsfeld's selection of retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner as Iraq's interim military governor. Now a defense contractor, he helped develop the Arrow missile-defense system for Israel. After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Garner visited Israel as guest of the hard-line Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and signed that organization's letter praising Sharon's treatment of Palestinians.

''Out of the 270 million Americans,'' said Syrian Deputy Ambassador Imad Moustapha on NBC's ''Meet the Press'' Sunday, ''you choose a military ruler to rule Iraq who is closely related to the extremist factions in Israel.'' That is the price of losing the clash of civilizations, when you appear to be the next target.

Had Israel really wished to, I think they' launched a war (with help of course) themselves. They are perfectly capeable to handle the military intelligence, and special units.

Which would only have provoked enormous anti-semitism throughout the world, something which due to their legendary paranoia, the Jews spend an enormous amount of time and resources attacking.

Israel hasn't had major gains from Avoda. On the other hand the longest lasting peace Israel had, and the most efficient was the one they had with Egypt, created by Begin (Likud) and Egypt's Sadaat.

The reason the Jews are so hysterical now in pressuring the yanks to attack their neighbors is overwhelming due to what they call the “demographic problem.” Within 25 years the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are going to outnumber them 2 to 1. Within 50 years it will be 4 to 1. Within 80 years the Arabs in Israel proper will be a majority. Within 25 years Israel’s immediate neighbors will add 65 million people to Israel’s slowly growing Jewish population. Iran will add 30 million people and Iraq’s population will double in size. By that time the U.S. will most likely be racked with its own internal demographic problem and the Europeans will be enormously preoccupied with their own changing population. Within 25 years it is likely the Arabs one way are going to get a nuclear bomb and be able to make peace with Israel on their terms.

Former Member

Originally posted by Heydrich
As if I am anyway whatsoever the biggest fan of Yankees - the vast majority of whom are of white European descent.

Hmmm...let's see...

Yankees' roster

Acevedo, Juan
Anderson, John
Clemens, Roger
Contreras
Hammond, Chris
Hitchcock, Stirling
Mussina, Mike
Osuna
Pettitte, Andy
Weaver, Jeff
Wells, David
Flaherty
Posada, Jorge
Almonte
Giambi, Jason
Johnson
Soriano, Alfonso
Ventura, Robin
Wilson, Enrique
Zeile
Latham, Chris
Jeter, Derek
Matsui
Mondesi, Raul
Trammell, Bubba
Williams, Bernie
Rivera, Juan
Rivera, Mariano
Stanton

(sorry, couldn't remember everyone's first name)

Looks pretty diverse to me...

Former Member

Leave it to an American to confuse my statement with a baseball team. :rolleyes:

Former Member

Seems you haven't figured out that's who The Yankees are.

Former Member

Seems you haven't figured out that's who The Yankees are.

ROFL now where do you fall in there Greenhat?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_GeoRoperSurvey.html

. . . About 11 percent of young citizens of the U.S. couldn't even locate the U.S. on a map. The Pacific Ocean's location was a mystery to 29 percent; Japan, to 58 percent; France, to 65 percent; and the United Kingdom, to 69 percent. . . .

. . . Despite the threat of war in Iraq and the daily reports of suicide bombers in Israel, less than 15 percent of the young U.S. citizens could locate either country. . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html

. . . .Thirty-four percent of the young Americans knew that the island used on last season's "Survivor" show was located in the South Pacific, but only 30 percent could locate the state of New Jersey on a map. The "Survivor" show's location was the Marquesas Islands in the eastern South Pacific. . . .

. . . .When asked to find 10 specific states on a map of the United States, only California and Texas could be located by a large majority of those surveyed. Both states were correctly located by 89 percent of the participants. Only 51 percent could find New York, the nation's third most populous state. . . .

Former Member

Well, considering that I have visited 49 of 50 states, all of the non-state territory belonging to the United States, and a total of 44 countries worldwide, I just might be able to manage my way around a map.

Former Member

Well, considering that I have visited 49 of 50 states, all of the non-state territory belonging to the United States, and a total of 44 countries worldwide, I just might be able to manage my way around a map.

Drop any bombs by chance?

Former Member

Originally posted by Heydrich
Drop any bombs by chance?

Maybe you should do a little research and figure out what my Avatar and signature refer to.