Hello George Orwell?

[ad rian]

>It's not that I and others don't want to discuss this with

>you, it's that you only want to discuss it on your terms. You

>want to have a discussion about the crimes of Israel. I would

>rather talk about solutions to the problems of the region.

>Those are two completely different discussions. I don't see

>much point in the first one, I do see a point in the second

>one.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but are we not about to bomb Iraq, not Israel? My contention is that we should bomb neither or we should bomb both because having regard to: (1) breached UN Resolutions; (2) irresponsible use of WMD; and (3) governments that systematically violate human rights. The solutions are clear, and I have stated them often: (1) an end to Israel occupation; (2) a rejection of Bantustans; (3) an end to collective punishment and torture and other instruments of enforcing the occupation; and (4) an end to Zionism and Islamic fundamentalism so that a secular democracy can take root. Their really is no path to peace that takes as a given the maintenance of the Israeli militaristic theocracy which predates the existence of Hamas, Hezbollah and every Islamic republic in the region.

[ad rian]

>Like I said, I see no point in listing a bunch of crimes of

>Israel. Whether they are true or not the 5 million Israelis

>are not going to go away or give up control of their country

>to someone else, so what is the point of going on and on about

>it? It doesn't lead to anything practical or helpful.

 

But do you really think that 5.5 millin Palestinans (whose birth rate is expanding) is just going to step aside and make way for the boys from Brooklyn and St. Petersbug? Believing that doesn't lead to anything practical or helpful, but it does necessitate the sacrifice of our precious freedoms here at home.

[ad rian]

>You say you want people to join you in opposing militaristic

>theocracies. While I grant that Israel does have some

>elements of a militaristic theocracy, there are some other

>countries, including some Muslim ones, that have as many or

>more of those elements. Why is it I never see you condemning

>any of them? If the only militaristic theocracy you ever talk

>about is Israel and you ignore the rest, I can see why people

>think you have a problem with Jews.

 

I put that down to the fog of war, but I note for the record that neither the UN nor Amnesty International have abandoned the claims that war crimes were committed having regard to the treatment of civilian polpulations, collective punishment, and the denial of access to medical treatment which they rather pointedly noted had ocurred in no prior conflict in the world. Sometime if it seems that people make an exception of Israel, it is because its conduct is exceptional. In that regard, I point youagain to the link I provided to the Israeli sale of WMD to apartheid South Africa.

[phage]

RE: ad rian's quiz

 

This is fascinating to me and points out a problem in ad rian’s “blame it on the Israelis and Jews worldwide” theory. You have trilingual who is obviously brighter and better informed than myself taking a much more peaceful and conciliatory stance than me.

 

He is Jewish and has a vested interest in the area. I am not Jewish, and other than a certain attraction to Israeli men, have no vested interest in the area. However, it’s me who supports torture, collective punishment and the withholding of medical aid.

 

I have never been a hawk, but ever since September 11th I have become more and more militant, less tolerant, and less willing to seek compromise. I have done an about-face in just one year, so I find it amazing that there are Jews anywhere in the world who still seek peaceful resolution and compromise.

 

It’s not the Jews that ad rian should be concerned about. It’s those millions of Americans like myself with only average intelligence and an average grasp of the complexities of the situation. We are probably a sleeping dog that your buddies in the area will wish that had not awoken.

[ad rian]

RE: ad rian's quiz

 

>This is fascinating to me and points out a problem in ad

>rian’s “blame it on the Israelis and Jews worldwide” theory.

 

Actually, I don't blame it on the Jews worldwide, just a vocal plurality of American Jews. It is remarkable how reasonable many Jews in Israel, Europe, Canada, South America and South Africa are when it comes to Israel. The sociology for that dichotomy is food for another thread, but I am off to top a sweet young Teutonic treat from Campus!:9

[Guest newawlens]

>If the only militaristic theocracy you ever

>talk

>>about is Israel and you ignore the rest, I can see why

>people

>>think you have a problem with Jews.

>

>I put that down to the fog of war,

 

Sorry, but the "fog of war" doesn't explain why Israel is the only "militaristic theocracy" you ever criticize here. Iran is militaristic, is a theocracy and is also the leading srate sponsor of terrorism in the world. Instead of just contributing money the way the Saudis do, Iranian intelligence has been proactively involved in planning and organizing terrorist incidents like the Khobar Towers bombing. I wonder why we never see you condemning them.

 

 

but I note for the record

>that neither the UN nor Amnesty International have abandoned

>the claims that war crimes were committed having regard to the

>treatment of civilian polpulations, collective punishment, and

>the denial of access to medical treatment which they rather

>pointedly noted had ocurred in no prior conflict in the world.

>Sometime if it seems that people make an exception of Israel,

>it is because its conduct is exceptional. In that regard, I

>point youagain to the link I provided to the Israeli sale of

>WMD to apartheid South Africa.

 

This is the third time I have asked you about the false claims of a massacre in Jenin, and you still don't want to give a straight answer. You just keep sidestepping the issue, which is that Palestinian leaders and the European press accused Israel of a massacre that never happened. Why do you keep trying to avoid that? Do you hate Israel so much you can't admit that sometimes they are right and their critics are wrong? Sure looks that way.

[Guest newawlens]

>Correct me if I am wrong, but are we not about to bomb Iraq,

>not Israel? My contention is that we should bomb neither or

>we should bomb both because having regard to: (1) breached UN

>Resolutions; (2) irresponsible use of WMD; and (3) governments

>that systematically violate human rights.

 

You left out kind of an important fact, which is that Iraq threatens both its neighbors and the West while Israel doesn't. Israel hasn't fought a war with another country since 1973 when it was attacked by Egypt.

 

 

>The solutions are

>clear, and I have stated them often:

 

But your "solutions" involve imposing on the people of the region terms that neither the Israelis nor the Muslims would accept or even consider, so they are really just empty rhetoric. I said we should focus on solutions that the people who live in the area would actually consider, and you aren't doing that. You keep saying you want these countries to be democratic but you also want them to adopt policies that their people don't agree with, so that doesn't make any sense. You can't have it both ways.

[Guest newawlens]

>But do you really think that 5.5 millin Palestinans (whose

>birth rate is expanding) is just going to step aside and make

>way for the boys from Brooklyn and St. Petersbug?

 

 

They already did step aside. Most Palestinians don't live in Palestine any longer. They live in other Arab countries and have lived there for most or even all their lives. And those countries keep saying how concerned they are about the plight of Palestinians but refuse to give them the opportunity to become full citizens even if they want to. So you can understand why I'm skeptical when I hear other Arabs talk about how much they care about Palestinians.

 

 

Believing

>that doesn't lead to anything practical or helpful, but it

>does necessitate the sacrifice of our precious freedoms here

>at home.

 

I think it's foolish to pretend that all the problems we have with Muslim countries are because of Israel. For a long time now the Muslim governments have been using Israel as a scapegoat so their people can get angry at something else and not focus on the governments' failure to provide a better life for them. I really don't see why you want to help them get away with that but I don't.

[ad rian]

>You left out kind of an important fact, which is that Iraq

>threatens both its neighbors and the West while Israel

>doesn't. Israel hasn't fought a war with another country

>since 1973 when it was attacked by Egypt.

 

As far as I can see Isael is the only so called ally that says that it is afraid of Iraq. I guess the peacefulness of Israel might look different if you are in Ramallah or in other occupied territory.

 

>I said we should focus on solutions that the people

>who live in the area would actually consider, and you aren't

>doing that. You keep saying you want these countries to be

>democratic but you also want them to adopt policies that their

>people don't agree with, so that doesn't make any sense. You

>can't have it both ways.

 

That's where we disagree. I think the Palestinians are ready for what I propose, and apparently so too is the Arab League. See the Saudi Peace Plan. The issue now is whether Israel wants land or peace. I also think that a more consistent morally mature response from the American Jewish community might engender more realistic Isaraeli views on the occupation and the theocratic aspects of the state itself. Do you have a better plan?

[ad rian]

>They already did step aside. Most Palestinians don't live in

>Palestine any longer.

 

That's just not true. Half the problem here is that Israel has succeeded in a Big Lie tactic with respect to Demograhics. If you don't count refugees in Lebanon and Jordan, the population difference is any where from 500,000-1 million which most observers -including Israelis - believe will no longer exist in 30 years if present trends continue. If you consider the refugees in Lebanon and Jordan than the gap does not even xist now. Of course, Arab states have not ratified the anexation of land by Israel. I suppose you would have argued that Blacks in South Afroca should have moved to neigboring states rather than seek freedom in their own land?

 

>I think it's foolish to pretend that all the problems we have

>with Muslim countries are because of Israel.

 

I think it is silly to pretend that Israel is not at the core of the dispute. I would again repeat that that is a view shared by no other country, not even Tony Blair's Cool Britania.

[ad rian]

>Sorry, but the "fog of war" doesn't explain why Israel is the

>only "militaristic theocracy" you ever criticize here.

 

I never said that it did. If you read what I have written, rather than respond to straw men, you will not find me defending any Arab state. I have pointedly said that what makes Palestinian nationalism so appealing is its secular character, and what makes the current Israeli strategy so counter-productive if it wants peace is the readicalization of Hamas.

 

 

>This is the third time I have asked you about the false

>claims of a massacre in Jenin, and you still don't want to

>give a straight answer.

 

I have answered it. I said it was the fog of war, and pointed out that you are wrong to imply that either the UN or Amnesty International have retracted claims about Israeli crimes against humanity, specificaly for refusing medical and humanitarian assistance to civilian populations even as they have said that there was no evidence of a masacre per se. I have answered your question directly, but you disagree. That is your right.

[Guest newawlens]

>>You left out kind of an important fact, which is that Iraq

>>threatens both its neighbors and the West while Israel

>>doesn't. Israel hasn't fought a war with another country

>>since 1973 when it was attacked by Egypt.

>

>As far as I can see Isael is the only so called ally that

>says that it is afraid of Iraq.

 

That Iraq threatens its neighbors and the West is our perception and our president has made it clear that we will act to deal with that threat whether anyone else agrees with us or not.

 

 

>I guess the peacefulness of

>Israel might look different if you are in Ramallah or in other

>occupied territory.

 

Doesn't change the fact that Israel has had no hostilities with neighboring countries for more than 25 years. Iraq has started two wars with its neighbors in that time.

 

 

>That's where we disagree. I think the Palestinians are ready

>for what I propose, and apparently so too is the Arab League.

>See the Saudi Peace Plan. The issue now is whether Israel

>wants land or peace.

 

The last time Israel gave up control of land it didn't get peace in return, so I don't see why anyone would expect them to believe next time will be any different. Some Palestinians may be ready for a change but obviously not the ones who are doing the suicide bombings and who keep saying they want all Jews out of all of Palestine. Any plan that doesn't take them into account is just a waste of time.

 

Your plan includes giving up the idea of a Jewish state and Israelis are not going to go along with that, so you still haven't come up with anything that both sides would actually consider. At this point the only thing both sides would consider is total separation.

[Guest newawlens]

>>They already did step aside. Most Palestinians don't live

>in

>>Palestine any longer.

>

>That's just not true.

 

Yes, it is true.

 

>Of course, Arab states have not ratified

>the anexation of land by Israel.

 

Nobody asked them to. If they really care about the welfare of Palestinians they should at least give them the right to full citizenship in their countries until something better comes along, but they refuse to do that.

 

>I suppose you would have

>argued that Blacks in South Afroca should have moved to

>neigboring states rather than seek freedom in their own

>land?

 

It wasn't my idea for so many Palestinians to leave, but it is a reality and pretending it isn't accomplishes nothing. There is not going to be any right of return, the Israelis are not going to give up control of their own situation just because you want them to, and you just need to get used to that.

 

 

>I think it is silly to pretend that Israel is not at the core

>of the dispute. I would again repeat that that is a view

>shared by no other country, not even Tony Blair's Cool

>Britania.

 

Other countries are prepared to let Muslim governments use Israel as a scapegoat for their problems because that's easier than facing reality. Looks like you are too.

[Guest newawlens]

>>Sorry, but the "fog of war" doesn't explain why Israel is

>the

>>only "militaristic theocracy" you ever criticize here.

>

>I never said that it did. If you read what I have written,

>rather than respond to straw men, you will not find me

>defending any Arab state.

 

You keep sidestepping the issue. It takes a lot of patience and repetition to make you address it. I never asked you about defending anything. I asked you, and this is the third time so far, why Israel is the only militaristic theocracy you ever criticize here. I never see you start threads or posts criticizing any of the others. Why would that be? Third time I've asked this.

 

>>This is the third time I have asked you about the false

>>claims of a massacre in Jenin, and you still don't want to

>>give a straight answer.

>

>I have answered it. I said it was the fog of war,

 

 

You still won't address the issue that a lot of people made false claims about an Israeli massacre and to this day they refuse to come right out and admit it. Why won't you admit that this happened and that those who made these accusations need to admit that? Fourth time I've asked this.

 

 

>you are wrong to imply that either the UN or

>Amnesty International have retracted claims about Israeli

>crimes against humanity,

 

You can't find any post by me saying any such thing. Try it.

[ad rian]

>>As far as I can see Isael is the only so called ally that

>>says that it is afraid of Iraq.

>

>That Iraq threatens its neighbors and the West is our

>perception and our president has made it clear that we will

>act to deal with that threat whether anyone else agrees with

>us or not.

 

That's a different question. Israel remains the only neigbor that publicly says it is threatened. Instead of Orwellian rhetoric, why not just say Iraq threatens Israel. Then we can be clear what this war is about.

 

>>I guess the peacefulness of

>>Israel might look different if you are in Ramallah or in

>other

>>occupied territory.

>

>Doesn't change the fact that Israel has had no hostilities

>with neighboring countries for more than 25 years. Iraq has

>started two wars with its neighbors in that time.

 

Unless of course, Palestine is a neighbor. Also, have you forgot Lebanon?

 

>The last time Israel gave up control of land it didn't get

>peace in return, so I don't see why anyone would expect them

>to believe next time will be any different.

 

Sure it did. Israel has been at peace with Egypt since Camp David. The same will be true when it makes peace with Palestine. That is, if it wants peace rather than land.

 

>Your plan includes giving up the idea of a Jewish state and

>Israelis are not going to go along with that, so you still

>haven't come up with anything that both sides would actually

>consider. At this point the only thing both sides would

>consider is total separation.

 

Well, I continue to hope that the post- war disporic Jewish community that has flourished in secular democracies will abandon support for a militaristic theocracy whose existence is antithetical to their values and interests.

[ad rian]

>>Of course, Arab states have not ratified

>>the anexation of land by Israel.

>

>Nobody asked them to. If they really care about the welfare

>of Palestinians they should at least give them the right to

>full citizenship in their countries until something better

>comes along, but they refuse to do that.

 

Because the moment they did so, Israel would say exactly what yu and others have tried to do here say that Jews are a majority between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River which they are not. Look, denying the demographic and democratic realities is not going to make them go away.

 

>It wasn't my idea for so many Palestinians to leave, but it

>is a reality and pretending it isn't accomplishes nothing.

 

Well I refer you to the Israeli historian Benny Morris who has documented that the expulsion of Palestinian was part of a concerted Israeli policy and was not a voluntary movement.

 

>Other countries are prepared to let Muslim governments use

>Israel as a scapegoat for their problems because that's easier

>than facing reality. Looks like you are too.

 

No, I think those who once occupied that rgion of the world - the French and the British - have a more profound understanding of the cause of the problem and the solutions that are workable.

[ad rian]

>You keep sidestepping the issue. It takes a lot of patience

>and repetition to make you address it. I never asked you

>about defending anything. I asked you, and this is the third

>time so far, why Israel is the only militaristic theocracy you

>ever criticize here. I never see you start threads or posts

>criticizing any of the others. Why would that be? Third time

>I've asked this.

 

And this is the third time I have answered it directly. First, I have expressed no support for other militaristic theocracies in the region. Second, I have indeed specifically criticized other militaristic theologies in the reason. Third, I have reminded you that we are about to bomb Iraq not Israel, and I have advocated bombing both or neither, so it seems to me I am the only one here arguing for a consistent approach to such similar regimes.

 

>You still won't address the issue that a lot of people made

>false claims about an Israeli massacre and to this day they

>refuse to come right out and admit it. Why won't you admit

>that this happened and that those who made these accusations

>need to admit that? Fourth time I've asked this.

 

I have answered it. I don't think they were purposely false. I think it was the fog of war, and I have reminded you that the UN and Amnesty International have not withdrawn the charge of war crimes, even as they have said that they found no evidence of a massacre.

 

>>you are wrong to imply that either the UN or

>>Amnesty International have retracted claims about Israeli

>>crimes against humanity,

>

>You can't find any post by me saying any such thing. Try it.

 

Ok, I agree with that, but I do interpret your attempt to return to the massacre debate as an attempt to shift attention from the other serious charges of war crimes. If that is not your intent, I accept your explanation.

[Guest newawlens]

>That's a different question. Israel remains the only neigbor

>that publicly says it is threatened. Instead of Orwellian

>rhetoric, why not just say Iraq threatens Israel. Then we can

>be clear what this war is about.

 

The war is about the fact that Iraq threatens us, not Israel. Israel didn't create Saddam Hussein, Israel didn't make him attack Iran or Kuwait, and Israel didn't stop him from complying with the many UN resolutions he's flouted. I have never heard the president say that our concern is the threat to Israel, and from the opinions of Israeli leaders I have read it is clear they feel a lot more threatened by Iran than by Iraq.

 

>Unless of course, Palestine is a neighbor.

 

Palestine isn't a country. I thought that was what Palestinians are so upset about.

 

> Also, have you

>forgot Lebanon?

 

I haven't forgotten that Israel invaded Lebanon after that country's government had collapsed and the PLO took advantage of the situtation to set up bases from which they were attacking Israel.

 

>Sure it did. Israel has been at peace with Egypt since Camp

>David. The same will be true when it makes peace with

>Palestine. That is, if it wants peace rather than land.

 

 

The last time Israel gave up land for peace was when it allowed Arafat and his bunch to take control of much of the West Bank and form their own armed forces and administrative structure. The only reason Arafat is in Ramallah today instead of stiil in Tunisia is because the Israelis let him return. What they got for that was a bunch of suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks.

 

>Well, I continue to hope that the post- war disporic Jewish

>community that has flourished in secular democracies will

>abandon support for a militaristic theocracy whose existence

>is antithetical to their values and interests.

 

I guess I have to keep reminding you that you can't ignore the wishes of the Israelis and still say you support democracy. You sound just like Bush saying that he wants the Palestinians to be a democracy but he wants them to pick different leaders. You can't have it both ways.

[ad rian]

>The war is about the fact that Iraq threatens us, not Israel.

> Israel didn't create Saddam Hussein, Israel didn't make him

>attack Iran or Kuwait, and Israel didn't stop him from

>complying with the many UN resolutions he's flouted. I have

>never heard the president say that our concern is the threat

>to Israel, and from the opinions of Israeli leaders I have

>read it is clear they feel a lot more threatened by Iran than

>by Iraq.

 

Well, the operative phrase - used by you here too - is that Iraq represents a threat to "us and our allies in the region." My point is that Israel is the only other regional ally that publicly says it is threatened by Iraq. Why not have the courage of your convictions and say this is a war for Israel. Actually, the President is much clearer about all this. The obfuscation tends to come from Wolfowitz, Perle etc. On the rest,we are going in circles but I have repeated pointed to: (1) Israel's breach of UN Resolutions; (2) Israel's threat to our regional allies; (3) Israel's sale of WMD to apartheid South Africa; and (4) Israel's offense to our fundamental values and interests of a secular democracy. So I repeat bomb Baghdad if we must, but bomb Tel Aviv at the same time. This is a time for moral clarity!

[Guest newawlens]

>Well, the operative phrase - used by you here too - is that

>Iraq represents a threat to "us and our allies in the region."

> My point is that Israel is the only other regional ally that

>publicly says it is threatened by Iraq. Why not have the

>courage of your convictions and say this is a war for Israel.

 

I don't say that because it is just something you made up so you can slam Israel some more. It's our judgment that Iraq threatens allies like Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states, and the fact that they don't want to admit it for political reasons doesn't change anything.

 

 

>Actually, the President is much clearer about all this. The

>obfuscation tends to come from Wolfowitz, Perle etc.

 

What a strange coincidence that the only advisors you pick to mention just happen to be Jews.

 

 

On the

>rest,we are going in circles

 

We are going in circles because you keep repeating the facts that favor your position and ignoring the many others that don't. Nothing you say can change the fact that Arab governments are using Israel as a scapegoat for their own failures and problems, and there is no reason for us to help them do that instead of facing reality. Israel didn't make Syria choose the son of Assad to replace him instead of having elections or make Syria occupy Lebanon. Israel didn't cause per capita income in Saudi Arabia to go down instead of up for the past ten years. Israel didn't cause the fundamentalist uprising in Egypt or make their privatization program a failure. Israel isn't responsible for the mismanagement of Iran's economy by the mullahs. And Israel didn't tell Arafat and his cronies to steal a lot of the aid money the PA gets so they can have seaside mansions in Gaza. The longer the region's Muslims put off dealing with their real problems the harder it will be to do it in the end. Blaming Israel for everything the way they do and you do sure won't accomplish anything.

[Guest newawlens]

>And this is the third time I have answered it directly.

>First, I have expressed no support for other militaristic

>theocracies in the region.

 

I never said you did.

 

> Second, I have indeed specifically

>criticized other militaristic theologies in the reason.

 

Really? I just can't find those threads where you have fifty or sixty different posts all saying how terrible Iran or Saudi Arabia is. You mind telling me where I can find those threads?

 

 

>Third, I have reminded you that we are about to bomb Iraq not

>Israel, and I have advocated bombing both or neither, so it

>seems to me I am the only one here arguing for a consistent

>approach to such similar regimes.

 

 

Similar? LOL! Israel is having elections in January. When are the next elections in Iraq?

 

 

>I have answered it. I don't think they were purposely false.

 

 

I didn't say they were purposely false, just false. I keep asking you when the people who made those false charges are going to come forward and say they were wrong and that Israel didn't do it. Fifth time I've asked this.

 

>You can't find any post by me saying any such thing. Try

>it.

>

>Ok, I agree with that,

 

You don't really have any choice. You made up something, you claimed I said it, and now you can't back it up.

 

but I do interpret your attempt to

>return to the massacre debate as an attempt to shift attention

>from the other serious charges of war crimes. If that is not

>your intent, I accept your explanation.

 

The only person on the board paying attention to your charges against Israel is you, so I don't really need to shift anybody's attention. I'm just pointing out that you spend a lot of time saying negative things about Israel but you just ignore or gloss over the other things that need to be said, and this fake massacre that the Palestinians got the world so upset about for a week or two is a good example of that.

[ad rian]

>Really? I just can't find those threads where you have fifty

>or sixty different posts all saying how terrible Iran or Saudi

>Arabia is. You mind telling me where I can find those

>threads?

 

Seek and you shall find, but you have to atually read what I write, not what you would like me to have written. You can find it on other threads, and you can find it here too. I have even adopted the Andrew Sullivan formulation for them in a few, but my focus on Israel is to add balance to the otherwise one-sided attack on Iraq. I remind you we are about to drop bombs on Baghdad not Tel Aviv. If the situation were reversed, I would call for a balanced consistent approach also. Again I would treat all militaristic theocracies and WMD rogue states the same way. You disagree. That is your right so to do.

 

>Similar? LOL! Israel is having elections in January. When

>are the next elections in Iraq?

 

This would be yet another election between two Generals? Impressive!

 

>I didn't say they were purposely false, just false. I keep

>asking you when the people who made those false charges are

>going to come forward and say they were wrong and that Israel

>didn't do it. Fifth time I've asked this.

 

And the fifth time that I have answered it. Ok, you don't like the answer. That's your choice. The UN and Amnesty have withdrawn the accusation of the mascare but not the war crimes. Why you feel more comfortable by that is beyond me. It speaks volumes for the defenders of that militaristic theocracy that a charge of war crimes warms your heart and fills you with pride.

 

>The only person on the board paying attention to your charges

>against Israel is you, so I don't really need to shift

>anybody's attention.

 

You seem to be paying attention, or are you responding in an unconscious trance?

[ad rian]

>It's our judgment that Iraq

>threatens allies like Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states,

>and the fact that they don't want to admit it for political

>reasons doesn't change anything.

 

I guess you are the Holy Roman Emperror, but seriously at least you are coming to admit that the only ally that publicly shares your view is Israel. The next step is to ask why you would ask your non-Jewish countrymen to sacrifice their civil liberties for the protection of a foreign power.

 

>>Actually, the President is much clearer about all this.

>The

>>obfuscation tends to come from Wolfowitz, Perle etc.

>

>What a strange coincidence that the only advisors you pick to

>mention just happen to be Jews.

 

No coincidence. They, like you, are the ones who lack the courage of their convictions and who engage systematically in that Orwellian obfuscation.

>

>Blaming Israel for

>everything the way they do and you do sure won't accomplish

>anything.

 

And the longer you deny that the occupation of a minority of Jews in a militaristic theocracy in Palestine is a criical cause of the problems, the longer we will have to send good non-Jewish kids over there to defend that state that repudiates all of our American cosmopolitan secular democratic values. I repeat again that no other country in the world agrees with you. I am sure that would give pause to most democrats.

[Guest newawlens]

>>It's our judgment that Iraq

>>threatens allies like Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf

>states,

>>and the fact that they don't want to admit it for

>political

>>reasons doesn't change anything.

>

>I guess you are the Holy Roman Emperror,

 

 

That's a stupid thing to say, but you've said plenty of stupid things in this thread, so what's one more? There are plenty of foreign policy mavens who say the same thing I said above. One of the most prominent is James Woolsey. He isn't Jewish or a Bush appointee or a politician and has no reason to say it other than that he believes it.

 

 

but seriously at

>least you are coming to admit that the only ally that publicly

>shares your view is Israel.

 

You just can't get out of this habit of making shit up and pretending other people said it. I've never heard any Israeli or American leader say that we need to attack Iraq because it would help Israel. The only person I've ever heard say that is you.

 

 

The next step is to ask why you

>would ask your non-Jewish countrymen to sacrifice their civil

>liberties for the protection of a foreign power.

 

I think the time to ask that was when we went to war in 1991 to protect Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We've never gone to war with anybody to protect Israel.

 

>No coincidence. They, like you, are the ones who lack the

>courage of their convictions and who engage systematically in

>that Orwellian obfuscation.

 

I don't think your dozens of posts on this subject have persuaded anybody that Israel is to blame for 9/11 and its aftermath, but the way you keep resorting to insults like the above has persuaded me and a few others that you're a jerk. I won't answer any more of your posts until I see some evidence that you've grown up.

 

>I repeat again that no other country in the world

>agrees with you. I am sure that would give pause to most

>democrats.

 

No country agrees? I guess nobody told you that all 15 members of the Security Council voted for the resolution we wanted on Iraq. I took a look at that resolution and I didn't see anything in there about having to resolve the Israel-Palestinian problem before dealing with Iraq, so it kind of looks like plenty of countries agree with us.

[ad rian]

>You just can't get out of this habit of making shit up and

>pretending other people said it. I've never heard any Israeli

>or American leader say that we need to attack Iraq because it

>would help Israel. The only person I've ever heard say that

>is you.

 

Well, name me one other ally in the Middle East who supports your position publicly? Who are these allies, you keep referring to?

 

>I think the time to ask that was when we went to war in 1991

>to protect Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We've never gone to war

>with anybody to protect Israel.

 

I suggest you read Kissinger's Memoirs about the Yom Kippur War, and the U.S. moving to nuclear alert when Israel was about to be battered back into the Old Testament.

 

>I don't think your dozens of posts on this subject have

>persuaded anybody that Israel is to blame for 9/11 and its

>aftermath, but the way you keep resorting to insults like the

>above has persuaded me and a few others that you're a jerk. I

>won't answer any more of your posts until I see some evidence

>that you've grown up.

 

Where is the insult? Are yu thin-skinned? Is asking you to list one other Middle East ally who supports yoiur position an insult. Stop responding if you want. That's much easier than name-calling or responding with facts or logic. We are used to that from the supporters of the Israeli mlitaristic theocracy.

 

>No country agrees? I guess nobody told you that all 15

>members of the Security Council voted for the resolution we

>wanted on Iraq. I took a look at that resolution and I didn't

>see anything in there about having to resolve the

>Israel-Palestinian problem before dealing with Iraq, so it

>kind of looks like plenty of countries agree with us.

 

Why don't you read the statements before the Security Council of Syria, UK, France, Russia and China immediately after the vote was taken, and while you are at it read todays Fnancial Times where Tony Blair and his Foreign Secretary reiterate their view. Name me one other Permanent Security Council Member that did not link their support to progress on Israeli-Palestinian peace? The facts are hard for your side to hear, but I will force you to correct all your lies. There some of us left who will not sacrifice our civiul liberties for your racist Zionist state.