reasons for war

[kristinachilds]

i'm curious to hear some theories (both serious and ludicrous) on why this war was rallied to begin with.

p.s. french diplomats are now calling the hedges outside their buildings "big babies."
god, that's great.

[186k\sec]

the war on Iraq was the idea of Paul Wolfowitz , he was the first to assume Iraq was tied to AlQueda after 911.. no such inuendo was ever made prior - so he was a key component in the Iraq / US threat fabrication...

as far as the french.. , I am dismally disapointed at the american trend to bash them for standing for what they believe in, its pathetic. & very unpatriotic to attack our long-standing allies.......I thought the war was against terrorism? - how the french became the enemy only shows how fucking confused the american public is about our objective, & how quick they are to jump on a trendy partisan bandwagon.. Its nausiating to think our government is perpetuating this campaign of hate.. against a proven ally & freind of the US. No wonder we are seen as UGLY Ameicans.. because we act like it every chance we get..

[Effendi]

Originally posted by 186k\sec
the war on Iraq was the idea of Paul Wolfowitz , he was the first to assume Iraq was tied to AlQueda after 911.. no such inuendo was ever made prior - so he was a key component in the Iraq / US threat fabrication...


Yes, and we are familiar with Mr. Wolfowitz....


WASHINGTON, March 13 (Reuters) - With an invasion of Iraq looming, some critics of the war have revived allegations the U.S. campaign is the brainchild of Jewish neoconservatives who promoted the idea in the 1990s and assumed positions of power when the Bush administration took office in 2001.
Rep. James Moran, a Virginia Democrat, brought down a torrent of opprobrium on his head this month when he said the United States would not be planning an invasion of Iraq "if it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community."
"The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should," a newspaper quoted him as saying.
The White House condemned his remark as "shocking," as did congressional leaders of both parties. Moran later apologized.
Rep. Jim Kolbe, an Arizona Republican, asked Secretary of State Colin Powell directly on Thursday whether there was any truth to the claim that supporters of Israel or any other group were conspiring to influence U.S. policy.
"It (policy on Iraq) is not driven by any small cabal that is buried away somewhere that is telling President Bush ... what our policies should be," Powell replied, speaking to a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee.
The Washington Post, which has been mostly supportive of the Bush administration on Iraq, took up the attack on Moran on Wednesday, saying it was "demonstrably wrong" that Bush's Iraq policy is motivated primarily by the desire to protect Israel.

"The argument moves from merely wrong to patently offensive when it attributes to Jews or 'the Jewish community' a single view and a nefarious influence," it added.

AIRING IN EDITORIAL PAGES

The two big East Coast newspapers, the Post and The New York Times, have given the conspiracy theory some airing on their op-ed pages, if only to try to quash it.
"How the Bush administration has arrived at the brink of war with (Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein, and to what extent Israeli influence has brought it there, is a legitimate question about which there is ample room for disagreement," Lawrence Kaplan wrote in the Post.
Bill Keller, in The New York Times on Sunday, said the theory deserved some attention because the idea that the war was about Israel was "more widely held than you may think" and because it has "sprouted from a seed of truth."
The alleged seed of truth is that several key second-tier officials in the Bush administration are Jewish neoconservatives who have advocated overthrowing Saddam Hussein to enhance the security of Israel.
The group is said to include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith, Pentagon adviser Richard Perle, National Security Council Middle East official Elliot Abrams and Lewis Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.
Some of their allies are former members or advisers to the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a Washington organization which argues that the security of the United States and Israel is inextricably intertwined, or to the like-minded Center for Security Policy.
That group includes Cheney, Feith, Perle and Under Secretaries of State John Bolton and Paula Dobriansky.
Feith put the case in public last month when he told a Senate committee that democracy in Iraq could help bring to power the kind of Palestinians Israel wants to talk to.
The most prominent U.S. politician accusing them of foisting the war on Bush for Israel's sake is former Reform Party presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan, an isolationist opposed to foreign adventures by the United States.
Buchanan, writing in the American Conservative this week, said: "The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for.
"Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our neoconservative friends are ... claiming the status of a persecuted minority group."
Keller said the element of truth was that the interests of Israel and the United States coincide in the case of Iraq.
"(That) does not mean that a Zionist fifth column has hijacked the president's brain. ... Making the world safer for us -- defusing terrorism and beginning to reform a region that is a source of toxic hostility to what we stand for -- happens to make the world safer for Israel as well," he said.
The public debate so far has been mainly over whether it is anti-Semitic even to suggest that the neoconservatives may have a dual loyalty to Israel and to the United States, not so much over whether the allegation might be true.
Kaplan said that, although the debate was legitimate, the accusation of impaired loyalty was beyond the pale.
"Invoking the specter of dual loyalty ... amounts to more than the everyday pollution of public discourse. It is the nullification of public discourse, for how can one refute accusations grounded in ethnicity?" he wrote.
Buchanan, who said before the 1991 Gulf War that the only groups beating the drums for war in the Middle East were "the Israeli defense ministry and its 'amen corner' in the United States," is undeterred.
"Those hurling these charges (of anti-Semitism) harbor a 'passionate attachment' to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what's good for Israel is good for America," he wrote.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/mediaairs.html

Scott!!

[bungle bliss]

Paul Wolfowitz also signed PNAC. www.newamericancentury.org

God it feels good to be informed. :D

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by 186k\sec
the war on Iraq was the idea of Paul Wolfowitz , he was the first to assume Iraq was tied to AlQueda after 911.. no such inuendo was ever made prior - so he was a key component in the Iraq / US threat fabrication...

as far as the french.. , I am dismally disapointed at the american trend to bash them for standing for what they believe in, its pathetic. & very unpatriotic to attack our long-standing allies.......I thought the war was against terrorism? - how the french became the enemy only shows how fucking confused the american public is about our objective, & how quick they are to jump on a trendy partisan bandwagon.. Its nausiating to think our government is perpetuating this campaign of hate.. against a proven ally & freind of the US. No wonder we are seen as UGLY Ameicans.. because we act like it every chance we get..

On the brink of war and you still don't get it?

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by bungle bliss
Paul Wolfowitz also signed PNAC. www.newamericncentury.org

God it feels good to be informed. :D

?

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Effendi
Rep. James Moran, a Virginia Democrat, brought down a torrent of opprobrium on his head this month when he said the United States would not be planning an invasion of Iraq "if it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community."
"The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should," a newspaper quoted him as saying.


Perfect Propaganda for Saddam to use and radicals in the Middle East.

[Justin]

If we invaded (or even cared about) all the countries ruled by a cruel leader that routinely defy UN resolutions and are developing weapons of mass destruction, we'd be talking about at least a dozen countries. The fact that Iraq and only Iraq gets talked about shows that, yes, there are some underlying motivations.

My theory: a base for future operations in the middle east, possibly a platform for destablizing nearby countries, and a base for war against Iran. All of which will, naturally, increase the liklihood of terrorism, but if you believe that stopping terrorism is the point to this whole thing I got a bridge to sell you.

[Boyd Main]

Well, the reasons are probably too complex to ever fully pull them apart and analyse them separately. I will say that the publically professed reasons are largely smoke- screen, or at best secondary. The fact that the timing of the administration bringing this issue into the public eye coincided with last November's elections, does point at significant domestic political motivation.

[186k\sec]

On the brink of war and you still don't get it?


dont get it?!?! - I get it very well, ........just because I didnt wake up republican all the sudden and giving the invasion a smiley thumbs up...., somehow means I dont get it...?!? - did Wolfowitz not develop the iraq attack plan? hhhmmmmm?

I really expected that you would be more understanding in the nature of our countries deep divisions on this issue, especially after hashing out how many war/iraq/bush threads here??...

geeeez

[bungle bliss]

Originally posted by Boyd Main
Well, the reasons are probably too complex to ever fully pull them apart and analyse them separately. I will say that the publically professed reasons are largely smoke- screen, or at best secondary. The fact that the timing of the administration bringing this issue into the public eye coincided with last November's elections, does point at significant domestic political motivation.

More like they packed dung-wads into the eyes and ears of American citizens...it isn't hard...lots of other countries did it on the brink of activities that later on will be looked at as the beginning of their demise. Patriotism and nationalism make as much sense as racism IMO.

Shit-for-brains American reporters...they make me sick...If people want reality, read overseas newspapers.

[Boyd Main]

Originally posted by kristinachilds
i'm curious to hear some theories (both serious and ludicrous) on why this war was rallied to begin with.

Okay then, here's some ludicrous reasons:

This is about making life safe for Americans
This is about disarmament*
This is about human rights*
This is part of the war on terror
This is about stabilizing the Middle East
This is motivated by morality
This is the only course open

*edited to say, actually these two aren't all that ludicrous, however I'm sceptical that they are the real driving force

[186k\sec]

continuation of Boyds list:

the Middle East wants a long term occupation by the US
US occupation will make it safer
the US has no oil interests to control.
North Korea is not as much of a threat, ("a regional problem")
the UN & world support is irrelevant.
its good for the economy.

[kristinachilds]

Originally posted by Doc Mahem
if you believe that stopping terrorism is the point to this whole thing I got a bridge to sell you. the bridge has been sold already. nearly all of middle america are claiming rights to it, "You asshole! I've got the Deed right here! Get yer yella belly off My Bridge!"

i still have doubts that governmental hands weren't dipped in 9-11... but maybe "void of" would be a better statement. not enough proof to claim, but enough coincidence to doubt.

[kristinachilds]

Originally posted by bungle bliss
If people want reality, read overseas newspapers. well, all countries have their own propaganda... but i agree. not enough people read foreign news.

which reminds me, did anyone read david frum's "the right man?"

[gletscher]

fox news would never stoop this low (http://www.msnbc.com/news/886806.asp?0cv=CB10)

[kristinachilds]

Originally posted by bungle bliss
www.newamericancentury.org"The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership."

current american leadership is not good for america, much less the rest of the world. how fucking cocky are WE?

...THIS should be in a "why do they hate us" special.

10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5... okay, i'm feeling a little better.

"It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world."

see, the problem is that america already had heavy international involvement.
whoah-HO! yes, of course, we'll have the support of the world. everyone will want to follow us. WE are the TRUE leaders. long live america.

[Effendi]

.
War is not in U.S. interest
By Justin Raimondo

President Bush hasn't done a good job of selling this war because he has tried to sell us a pig in a poke. But when the truth comes out, as it will, Americans are going to start asking the following questions:

Where does it end? Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has laid out the road map, with Iran, Libya and Syria next on the list: "These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons mass destruction," he told visiting U.S. congressmen, "and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve."
Undersecretary of State John Bolton agrees. Last month, he said in meetings with Israeli officials that "it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterward."

Sharon told the congressmen that "the American action is of vital importance" — which begs the question, vital to whom?

How does this war serve America's vital interests? The president says Iraq "threatens its neighbors," but only one of those neighbors wants war. As Patrick Buchanan succinctly put it: "For whose benefit are these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam? Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud."
Our troops will be fighting a proxy war in Iraq, and beyond, not to protect U.S. citizens from terrorist attacks, but to make the world safe for Israel. When the dead are buried, let the following be inscribed on their tombstones: They died for Ariel Sharon.

When does it end? President Bush has said that American troops will stay in Iraq "as long as necessary and not a day longer" — a statement that obfuscates but doesn't elucidate. The American public thinks we are going to go in, get Saddam and come marching triumphantly home. The truth is that, as Army chief of staff Gen. Eric Shinseki has testified, we are entering into an open-ended commitment that will involve stationing "several hundred thousand" troops in Iraq indefinitely.
What are the costs? After White House economic adviser Larry Lindsey gave an estimate of up to $200 billion, he was fired. Initial costs are estimated by Pentagon officials at $60 billion to $95 billion, but that's just a warm-up. The Congressional Budget Office says the first month of combat will cost $10 billion, and $8 billion for each month thereafter. Having alienated our longtime allies, the U.S. is going bear these costs alone. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld disdains estimates as "not a useful exercise." He's right, because it is likely that war will spread throughout the Middle East.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-03-17-oppose_x.htm

[Effendi]

.
War in Iraq a crime, says Vatican
From correspondents in Vatican City
March 18, 2003

MILITARY intervention against Iraq would be a crime against peace demanding vengeance before God, the head of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace has said.

"War is a crime against peace which cries for vengeance before God," said Archbishop Renato Raffaele Martino, speaking on Vatican Radio.

He stressed the deeply unjust and immoral nature of war, saying it was condemned by God because civilians were the worst sufferers.

Martino, formerly Vatican permanent representative to the United Nations, strongly denounced the determination of the United States and its allies to disarm Iraq by force.

"Do not reply with a stone to the child who asks for bread," he said.

"They are preparing to reply with thousands of bombs to a people that has been asking for bread for the last 12 years."

Stressing the Roman Catholic church would continue to insist on the need and the urgency of peace, he said: "As always, it will be the Good Samaritan who will bind the wounds of a wounded and weakened people."

Pope John Paul II, one of the most prominent opponents of war on Iraq, urged UN Security Council members yesterday to continue negotiations on the disarmament of Iraq and avert a looming military conflict.

"I want to remind UN members and particularly those who make up the Security Council that the use of force is the last resort after having exhausted all peaceful solutions, as stipulated by the UN charter," the Pope told tens of thousands of worshippers gathered in St Peter's Square.

"I lived through World War II and I survived the Second World War. For this reason, I have the duty to say 'Never again war'.

"We know that it is impossible to say peace at any price, but we all know how important our responsibility is."


http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6145925%255E401,00.html

[kristinachilds]

Originally posted by Effendi
Last month, he said in meetings with Israeli officials that "it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterward." maybe i'm just ignorant, but what threat does syria hold? as far as i know they are grossly underdeveloped compared to the rest of the arab world.

i swear to god, you wear a turban and you're a threat.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by kristinachilds
maybe i'm just ignorant, but what threat does syria hold? as far as i know they are grossly underdeveloped compared to the rest of the arab world.

i swear to god, you wear a turban and you're a threat.

Problem is you are still looking at threat through a pre 911 take on reality. You don't need to be developed to be a threat.

Syria is a major terrorist enabler. Money, weapons, training, logistics and a safe haven if one needs to hide.
See the Palestinian people are going to put Arafat out to pasture here soon.
As well as his entire generation of cronies and elect a prime minister. When they do we, and the British, are going to present a peace plan that includes a Palestinian state with an elected government, an independent judicial.. the whole ball of wax.
And Israel is going to play ball as long as there are no more terrorist attacks.

The Syrians wont want to let that happen. So we will deal with Syria.


Its not that if you wear a turban you are a threat but there are people out there on the fringe that are going to play it that way to anger people like you for their own political purposes.

MS

[Keith]

Originally posted by Mike S

we, and the British, are going to present a peace plan that includes a Palestinian state with an elected government, an independent judicial.. the whole ball of wax.
And Israel is going to play ball as long as there are no more terrorist attacks.
MS

Mike If I really believed that for one second, I would change my thinking alot.
There are two catch 22's there that make such a scenario unfeasible. And they are both in your last statement.

#1, israel has never, and will never "play ball" with us, we play ball with them. And they have no intention of ever allowing the Palestinians Statehood under ANY circumstances.

#2, Even if the "Palestinians" completely stopped their "bombings" (which is impossible since they are being killed daily) there are way to many Arabs like Hezbollah and Hamas that are not even Palestinian that would still support attacks on the IDF. And even if ALL the Arabs stopped (yea right) we come back around to #1, there is NO way the israelis are going to give them a Palestinian state.

Scott!!


ps, just out of curiosity, what would WE do if WE came up with such a plan and all of a sudden Americans realized who runs who as far as the US and israel is concerned? I mean they blew up the USS Liberty and we still support them after Killing many Americans. Our Allies remember.

[kristinachilds]

Originally posted by Mike S
[quote]Syria is a major terrorist enabler. Money, weapons, training, logistics and a safe haven if one needs to hide.syria doesn't have any money to give. i'll agree with you that they give political and logistical support (to hizballah) and perhaps a place to hide (though most of the action takes place in lebenon to keep their hands clean for the US) but the money and weapons only come thru syria from iran.
The Syrians wont want to let that happen. So we will deal with Syria.it's not as cut and dry as that. if israel continues to bully palestinians and won't comply with the US peace plan, you're right. syria's ba'ath party will continue to aid hizballah in effort to liberate palestine. however, if israel pulls back to it's '67 borders, syria still won't want to acknowledge isreal as a state, but they won't be so huffy. it's terrorism is focused nearly all on israel, so without israel on it's mind syria will most likely halt terrorist aid and concentrate on building it's economy. why? because israel is the only reason hizballah exists, and as far as we know, hizballah is the only terrorist organization syria supports.

this is all circumstantial, of course, depending on the peace guidelines that bush will announce. the plan (that works) will have to draw back israel's borders. palestine current territory is unacceptable, and the arab world will never agree to it, arafat or no arafat. syria signed the arab league peace proposal in the past, and they'll do it again if israel will cooperate. if bush's peace plan in just another stall tactic aimed at arab anti-americanism, we'll still be at square one.

with the israeli-palestinian conflict out of the way (assuming the new plan works,) and syrian terrorist aid non-existent, the few sanctions imposed on syria will be lifted. tehre are rumors about the strength of the ba'ath party currently ruling syria, and depending on what happens in iraq, the government may undergo a change (still just rumors, mindyou.) regardless, Bashar al-Assad has already begun allowing privitization, and it's only a matter of time before syria's varied economy begins to take shape, invariably leading to better international relations.

...then again, perhaps i'm just too hopeful.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Keith


Mike If I really believed that for one second, I would change my thinking alot.
There are two catch 22's there that make such a scenario unfeasible. And they are both in your last statement.

#1, israel has never, and will never "play ball" with us, we play ball with them. And they have no intention of ever allowing the Palestinians Statehood under ANY circumstances.

#2, Even if the "Palestinians" completely stopped their "bombings" (which is impossible since they are being killed daily) there are way to many Arabs like Hezbollah and Hamas that are not even Palestinian that would still support attacks on the IDF. And even if ALL the Arabs stopped (yea right) we come back around to #1, there is NO way the israelis are going to give them a Palestinian state.

Scott!!


ps, just out of curiosity, what would WE do if WE came up with such a plan and all of a sudden Americans realized who runs who as far as the US and israel is concerned? I mean they blew up the USS Liberty and we still support them after Killing many Americans. Our Allies remember.

Well Scott from what I know that is the plan. Iraq has to be taken care of first then its the Israel/Palestinian issue. They have a peace plan drawn up that requires an end to settlements, the dismantlement of some of em. a Palestinian state, complete with elected representatives and a judicial branch. We & the EU will funnel shit loads of aid to em to build infrastructure and all that.

Key is that Arafat is not part of it.


And Scott what are you going to do when the plan gets implemented and you realize you've been living a lie? That your paranoid hate for Jews has really twisted your take on reality? I'm curious because how you react is, IMHO, indicative of how a lot of the Palestinian people & people in the middle east who beleive the same as you will react. If you cant deal with it and insist on continuing on with your same hateful ways then imagine what the reaction of the person over there will be.. If that is the case then why bother with a peace plan. Continue on with expulsion and partition.

MS

[Mike S]

Originally posted by kristinachilds
syria doesn't have any money to give. i'll agree with you that they give political and logistical support (to hizballah) and perhaps a place to hide (though most of the action takes place in lebenon to keep their hands clean for the US) but the money and weapons only come thru syria from iran.
it's not as cut and dry as that. if israel continues to bully palestinians and won't comply with the US peace plan, you're right. syria's ba'ath party will continue to aid hizballah in effort to liberate palestine. however, if israel pulls back to it's '67 borders, syria still won't want to acknowledge isreal as a state, but they won't be so huffy. it's terrorism is focused nearly all on israel, so without israel on it's mind syria will most likely halt terrorist aid and concentrate on building it's economy. why? because israel is the only reason hizballah exists, and as far as we know, hizballah is the only terrorist organization syria supports.

this is all circumstantial, of course, depending on the peace guidelines that bush will announce. the plan (that works) will have to draw back israel's borders. palestine current territory is unacceptable, and the arab world will never agree to it, arafat or no arafat. syria signed the arab league peace proposal in the past, and they'll do it again if israel will cooperate. if bush's peace plan in just another stall tactic aimed at arab anti-americanism, we'll still be at square one.

with the israeli-palestinian conflict out of the way (assuming the new plan works,) and syrian terrorist aid non-existent, the few sanctions imposed on syria will be lifted. tehre are rumors about the strength of the ba'ath party currently ruling syria, and depending on what happens in iraq, the government may undergo a change (still just rumors, mindyou.) regardless, Bashar al-Assad has already begun allowing privitization, and it's only a matter of time before syria's varied economy begins to take shape, invariably leading to better international relations.

...then again, perhaps i'm just too hopeful.


don't know about pulling back to the 67 borders. I wouldn't make em. Those borders got that way when Israel's neighbors invaded and got their asses handed to em. Personally I don't think Israel's neighbors deserve to get any of that territory back.
From what I read that wasn't part of the deal.

Anyway.. As to the Arab's not going for it. If Israel and the Palestinians want it. It'll happen.

Anyway as to Syria and money.. the money being funneled to terrorists isn't just Syrias..it comes from all over, goes through Syria & down to the terrorists.

MS

[Boyd Main]

Originally posted by Mike S
If Israel and the Palestinians want it. It'll happen.


Big "If" there, Mike. It's hard to speak for the Palestinians, but i think at the last elections the Israeli populace spoke pretty clearly with their election of hardliners, and more specifically not voting for moderates who had voiced concilliatory platforms. Thats the crazy thing about democracy - the democractic government speaks for the people, even if the people are wrong.

[ThrobbingBass]

I saw a guy speak from an Arab think tank yesterday. He had some interesting points to make.
He said that the majority of middle-class citizens of the middle east don't understand why the U.S. is moving forward without U.N. support, and many see it as a very simple issue, that the U.S. is attempting "colonization, or a very sophisticated burgulary".
Let's be honest here. The country is thousands of miles away, the U.S. is far and away the largest consumer of energy on the planet, and Iraq has by the estimates of many the largest undeveloped oil reserves on the planet.

I'm not saying that there aren't valid reasons for war, but doing your best to make those reasons clear to the rest of the region is why "diplomacy" is a word.

I mean, we're invading with a "coalition" of countries whose loyalty we've purchased, and have already planning a post-war military occupation to protect and facilitate the development of the oil fields by major U.S. and British energy mnc's, who got burned years ago when Hussein nationalized the oil fields and booted out foreign interests. American fruit, anybody? Let's be honest. North Korea poses a much greater immediate threat to national security, but they don't have jack shit for natural resources, so diplomacy and negotiation are the only solutions available.

[kristinachilds]

Originally posted by Mike S
don't know about pulling back to the 67 borders. I wouldn't make em. Those borders got that way when Israel's neighbors invaded and got their asses handed to em. Personally I don't think Israel's neighbors deserve to get any of that territory back.you seem to be forgetting that they invaded isreal in an attempt to end the occupation. britian and france were holding the jewish population to their bosom while holding arabs underfoot. the british mandates on palistine essentially took the home away from it's people and gave it to someone else with the full intention of giving jews ultimate control of the area. i'd be pissed, too, and so would you.

as far as pulling back to the '67 borders, that's what would need to happen to end the israeli-pointed terrorism. palestinians have never been the only ones who need to be happy with the outcome, just as palestinians are not the only ones terrorizing israel. if israel and palestine want it to happen, it will happen, sure, but that doesn't mean it's going to work. our government isn't so naive.
From what I read that wasn't part of the deal.we don't know what the deal is, yet, this is all just speculation. as to why syria would be/not be a threat.

i believe that israel and (from the looks of current US action) the US want to keep the arab population just riled up enough to justify taking over whatever we deem useful to us. without terrorism, military action isn't justified, and without justification we have to settle with our own resources and business associates. peace in the middle east would be easy... if there weren't so many imperialistic rulers at work.

[Effendi]

.
These chickenhawks don't like that, expect to be attacked on a personal level from them.

They start by calling you Anti-Semetic and force you into a corner where the truth comes from and then do all they can to dis-credit you.

They will constantly call you a "Jew-Hater" despite the fact that you have Never said that nor believe it.

They can't handle the troof.

Scott!!

ps. but it's sure nice to hear someone else pointing out the obvious, just be careful, they are ruthless. Lies breed hatred.

[kristinachilds]

starting??

;)