| Author | Message | ||
     Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider  Post Number: 14908 Registered: 1-2003  |
factvsfiction, I've enjoyed your posts, but I think you're really grasping this time. You're attributing stuff that people aren't saying, and you're painting us with a broad brush. No wonder you're seeing group think. And you suggest that there can be a person who will deem people reasonable. I don't buy into that notion. Everyone would deem a different list of people reasonable. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 901 Registered: 4-2006 |
Tom Reingold- Tom I find you extremely reasonable and noted your comment about Sheehan's statement as being wrong. I am referring to other people who have posted on this thread. They wish to evade and ignore what she wrote, her other comments, and associations. Paul Surovell- Paul, please read my posts to recouncile your question. You are attempting to inaccurately re-work the issue as simple opposition to Israeli policies. Also the evacuation of the vast majority of the Israelis removed from Gaza was largely peaceable. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14911 Registered: 1-2003 |
Thank you, factvsfiction. But I'm sorry. I haven't discerned a cohesive argument from you in this thread. Opposing Israeli policy is not necessarily anti-semitism. Some Israeli policies are reasonable, and some are not. Stating which ones a person opposes doesn't make the person anti-semitic. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 907 Registered: 4-2006 |
Tom Reingold- Please consider that Sheehan apparently wrote we, the United States, entered a war for Israel ( The Jews ). And that by logical extension that we placed the interests of Israel (the Jews) over that of the American people ( Sheehan has stated the war is wrong). So Tom, how exactly is THAT simple, objective opposition to the policies of the Israeli government to say in essence we are at war for the Jews? Isn't it dangerous demagoguery to then take the comments to the next logical step, that american soldiers are dying in Iraq for the Jews? It seems pretty chilling to me. And the other posters on MOL should be speaking to it, not around it. Are they so desperate to get rid of Bush and out of Iraq that the messenger doesn't matter? If a republican said it they would be outraged, crapping all over that person, and doing everything short of physically lynching them. Where is the renounciation and denounciation? Lost in the hopes mentioned above? Considering that Sheehan's other comments and her association with the Crawford Peace House add more to the mix, you have a legitimate question in need of answers. And they should be demanding it of Sheehan. To me if you talk the talk of ethics and morality you walk the walk. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14913 Registered: 1-2003 |
I consider Sheehan to be on the fringe, so I don't feel the need to hold her accountable. Reasonable people are not affected by her spewage, so it's not a big concern. To me, this renders your whole premise for this thread moot. If powerful people were making these statements about Iraq, Israel, and American policy, I'd be worried. But that's not the case. So what's to worry about? Sheehan has less power than the likes of Coulter and Limbaugh. Just let her blow her hot air. She doesn't speak for any significant slice of America, and not many believe she does, either. | ||
| Twokitties Citizen Username: Twokitties Post Number: 452 Registered: 8-2004 |
Great post Tom. The right pays a heck of a lot more attention to Sheehan than anybody on the left. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 560 Registered: 3-2005 |
I'd say this thread has turned comic if the subject of Iraq and the loss of American life there weren't so serious. It's fundamentally irrelevant whether Cindy Sheehan was misquoted or is listened to. Plenty of OTHER people have said and are saying that the US went to war in Iraq to protect Israel. Moreover, many people supported the war because they thought it would protect Israel. I disagree with both those analyses but the way to put them to rest is not to scream "anti-Semitism!!!!" but to explain to people the real reason why the US went to war in Iraq. (Fill in blank: "The US went to war in Iraq because ______________.") The other silliness of this thread is to suggest that it is horrible to say that the US would go to war to protect Israel. Would there be something wrong for the US to go to war to protect Israel? We went to war to protect Kuwait! Anyway, would anyone here care to provide the answer to anyone confused about why the US went to war in Iraq? Paul Wolfowitz has long been on public record saying that the "WMD" argument was just a pretext -- and seeing how we now all know there was no WMD, that certainly adds weight to his analysis. So what was the real reason? Tom? Fiction? Paul? Hoops? Anybody? | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14918 Registered: 1-2003 |
Both of your posts are very well put, Kathleen. Thank you for weighing in. I'm sure there are lots of reasons we went into Iraq in 2003. And of course, emotions and political motivations aren't necessarily clear to those who take action. In other words, I think Bush is ruled by his feelings and then hunts for facts to justify his feelings. And he's unaware of this. To be fair, everyone else does this, too, but it's serious when a person puts tens of thousands of people's lives in danger. Reasons: - To avenge Saddam's attempt on the president's father's life. - To assure stable oil prices. Out of loyalty to the Saudis. - To build a legacy of Bush's presidency. - To respond to the terrorist threat, because many probably felt that a response of any type is better than no response. - Because many expected the conquest and surrender of Iraq would be a cakewalk. - And many others. Do you have any favorites, Kathleen? | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4440 Registered: 12-2001  |
I believe that the Bush camp viewed Saddam Hussein as a general impediment to progress in the Middle East and I think they actually believe(d) the silliness about spreading peace through democracy. This combined with the illusion that the Iraq operation would be fairly easy is what brought us to the current state of affairs. 9/11 was the pretext they needed to launch the invasion. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1605 Registered: 10-2004  |
kathleen, your posts are cogent and timely. The true reasons for the war in Iraq have not been spelled out to the public, nor the congress, but have been around since the PNAC (project for a new amerioan century) wrote them up pre 2000. These reasons have been posted many times. Saddam Hussein was a dictator bottled up in a box by our sanctions, military enforced no fly zones and our weapons inspectors and as such was no imminent threat. 9/11 was indeed the Pearl Harbor like pretext needed to carry out the PNACs plans. PNAC advocates permanent military bases around the world and a build up of our military establishment. Whether Bush did this of his own accord or if he was manipulated into it - the PNAC thrives in this administration. The PNAC membership reads like a bad spy novel. It would be funny if it werent true. Name Department Title Remarks Elliott Abrams National Security Council Representative for Middle Eastern Affairs President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center Richard Armitage Department of State (2001-2005) Deputy Secretary of State John R. Bolton Department of State U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Previously served as Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs in the first administration of GWB. Richard Cheney Bush Administration Vice President PNAC Founder Seth Cropsey Voice of America Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau Paula Dobriansky Department of State Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs Francis Fukuyama President's Council on Bioethics Council Member Professor of International Political Economy at Johns Hopkins University Bruce Jackson U.S. Committee on NATO President Zalmay Khalilzad U.S. Embassy Baghdad, Iraq U.S.Ambassador to Iraq Previously served as U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan from November 2003 to June 2005 I. Lewis Libby Bush Administration Chief of Staff for the Vice President Indicted by Grand Jury on charges of Obstruction of Justice, False Statements and Perjury and resigned October 28, 2005. Peter W. Rodman Department of Defense Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Donald Rumsfeld Department of Defense Secretary of Defense PNAC founder and previously Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences Developer of Tamiflu Randy Scheunemann U.S. Committee on NATO, Project on Transitional Democracies, International Republican Institute Member Founded the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Paul Wolfowitz World Bank President Deputy Secretary of Defense, 2001-2005 Dov S. Zakheim Department of Defense Comptroller Former V.P. of System Planning Corp. Robert B. Zoellick Department of State Deputy Secretary of State Office of the United States Trade Representative (2001-2005); [edit] Other members Gary Bauer, former presidential candidate, president of American Values William J. Bennett, former Secretary of Education and Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, co-founder of Empower America, author of the Book of Virtues Ellen Bork, deputy director of PNAC, and wife of failed Reagan Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork Rudy Boschwitz, former US Senator from Minnesota Jeb Bush, governor of Florida Eliot A. Cohen, professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University Thomas Donnelly, director of communications, Lockheed Martin Steve Forbes, multi-billionaire publisher of Forbes Magazine, former presidential candidate Aaron Friedberg, director of the Center of International Studies Frank Gaffney, columnist, founder of Center for Security Policy Reuel Marc Gerecht, director of the Middle East Initiative Fred Ikle, Center for Strategic and International Studies Donald Kagan, Yale University professor, conservative columnist with various State Department ties Jeane Kirkpatrick, former U.S. ambassador Charles Krauthammer, conservative columnist William Kristol, a PNAC founder and chairman, editor of the Weekly Standard Christopher Maletz Daniel McKivergan Richard Perle, a PNAC founder, formerly of the Defense Policy Board Norman Podhoretz, Hudson Institute Dan Quayle, former vice-president Stephen Rosen, Beton Michael Kaneb Professor of National Security and Military Affairs, Harvard University Henry Rowen, former president of Rand Corporation Gary Schmitt George Weigel, political commentator R. James Woolsey, former director of the CIA for Bill Clinton, vice-president at Booz Allen & Hamilton Vin Weber, Minnesota congressman PNAC Information | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 909 Registered: 4-2006 |
Again, I think the issue is being avoided. To Tom Reingold Sheehan is a fringe figure, but others here apparently think she is the voice of truth, reason, and courage given how they dismiss her statement, other comments, and associations. Bravo for your intellectual honesty Tom, wish I could say the same for others here. Kathleen- I believe I " outed" you as a Pro-Palestinian poster in the thread on Gaza, given the articles you posted and the "experts" you cited. Rather than speculating on why the war was started perhaps we can state un-categorically that the war in Iraq is not for or due to the Jews? You can start... Hoops- How about addressing the issue and not conspiracy theories? You would be screaming about the right wing variant if it was posted here. Trilateral Commission, CFR, etc have all been raised by loonies, why not the PNAC? I am less worried about the religious loonies than the extreme left loonies, because the religious ones at least are reigned in by their gospels or scriptures to some extent when it comes to ethics and morality. In the case of the extreme left loonies, it is a free range, self-decided form of ethics, they don't have to worry about getting into heaven. So day can be night, and night can be day, as long as it advances the cause. That is why some of the posts here truly concern me. | ||
| ae35unit Citizen Username: Ae35unit Post Number: 145 Registered: 2-2006  |
OK Factvsfiction, I for one have had enough. There has been a sober and responsible answer by many (not by me so much) to the subject at hand. I avoided saying things more to the point of the thread because they were generally said well by others. I came into this post to make the point, and make it simply, that I think you're barking mad. If I could rewind back to the beginning of this thread I would have said, and almost did, that The Project For The New American Century and The American Enterprise Institute have had a lot of common players and are heavily involved with the administration that sent Americans to a senseless war in their name. A reasonable person could assume that there was some influence, however incidental, from these groups. This point has been made politely and intelligently by the posters on this thread and you keep coming back with a line of crap. I'm willing to listen to an informed point of view, but it's about right and wrong not right and left. You say: "Again, I think the issue is being avoided." Avoided? Very thoughtful people have created a uniquely sober and informed discussion (not by me so much). Avoided... Right. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 657 Registered: 1-2006 |
Please understand that the CIA gave the Pres. the information upon which he relied. It may have fit what admin hawks wanted to read, but it came from the CIA. The Agency needs a new broom, got one recently, and he was since tossed out - Porter Goss. The CIA rules, immune, and leaks what it wants, when it wants, to destroy those it wants to destroy. jd | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4441 Registered: 12-2001 |
Israel is a Western colony in the Middle East. I use the word colony to describe the case where a non-native population establishes itself in a new environment and muscles aside the indigenous populations. Unfortunately, we are talking about one group of people pushing aside another group of people as opposed to coyotes crowding out wolves or something like that. The indigenous population (also known as the Palestinians) is reacting to the colonizing population is a fairly brutal way, not unlike the reaction of the Sioux or Comanche or Apaches to encroaching white settlers. I suspect that if I did some research, I could find justications for the treatment of Native Americans that would sound eerily similar to the justifications for some Israeli actions. I am hard pressed to think of any colonial undertakings that did not ultimately fail except in those cases (e.g. Europeans in America and Australia) where the indigenous populations were numerically overwhelmed by the colonizing population. That is why India is Indian today instead of British and China is Chinese instead of various European colonies and so on. Demographics do not favor the State of Israel. Israel has survived because the Arabs are in a persistent state of disorder. If Egypt, Syria and Jordan had enjoyed, say, 2-3% economic growth per year since 1948, then Israel would probably no longer exist. Regardless of the quality of the IDF, superior economic weight almost always prevails in conflicts. Some people seem to believe that if only the Arab countries were nice democracies, everything would be okay. I don't subscribe to this view. The Arab resentment of Israel is heartfelt on the street. While the resentment may be magnified and exploited by Arab governments, it is not something that was invented to distract the masses. In a democratic country, that resentment will still be there. In any case, I don't remember that a nice democratic United States had any hesitation about annihilating Native Americans or relieving Mexico of Tejas, California and the Gadsen "Purchase". I think the best that can be said of democracies is that they are less likely to initiate really ruinous wars like those started by the Germans and Japanese. As far as U.S. support for Israel is concerned, it certainly seems that presidential politics has always been a major factor. The pro-Israel lobby, like the anti-Castro lobby is very effective. Since 1948, I suppose that largely because of the monstrous behavior of certain Palestinian and Islamic groups, support for Israel has grown in the United States. Speaking personally, much as I think the establishment of the State of Israel was a error that will lead to mushroom clouds, I am not inclined to allow the Arabs to push the Israelis into the sea. So far, the trend in the Middle East has been towards escalating chaos and violence. I see no end in sight at this point. Maybe if the Arab world had been treated with respect from the Treaty of Versailles until the present, things would be different, but that didn't happen and we are where we are. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4442 Registered: 12-2001 |
Joel, You can't hang the decision to invade Iraq on poor information from the CIA. In the months prior to the invasion, the presence of a growing invasion force encouraged Hussein to be more cooperative with arms inspectors and still no weapons were found. The Bush Administration acted very much like a prosecutor who focuses only on incriminating evidence and complete ignores and disparages any exculpatory evidence. The decision to invade Iraq was part of some larger plan. The attacks of 9/11 and the subsequent concern of weapons of mass destruction simply provided the pretext for an invasion that was already on the drawing board for other reasons. Bush and Bush alone is responsible for the decision to invade. In the future, he will be remembered either as a brave visionary or as the worst President to date in the history of the United States. Unfortunately, failure doesn't seem to be an option in Iraq at this point. If Iraq disintegrates into unrestricted civil war, then the situation will truly be worse than would be the case if we did not invade. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 915 Registered: 4-2006 |
ae35unit- Please read my post #907. I don't see it addressed, intelligently or politely by you or others. Quite the contrary. Tom has said the written usenet statement is wrong and that Sheehan is a fringe figure. I accept that one rational and reasoned response. Others have not uncategorically said the usenet statement was wrong, renounced it, or denounced it. They have called me as a right-winger, did their best imitations of a defense lawyer, changed the subject, or attacked me personally as you have. You seem to be adding insult to injury by appearing to suggest PNAC and AEI are organizationally Jewish in order to explain or provide credence to Sheehan's apparent usenet message. Are they like, the new B'nai Brith? What % of Jews are there in those organizations? More importantly, HOW does THAT matter? It seems to me that for people like you the ends justify the means. Or perhaps in this case, the messenger? A written statement of that nature with the implications and consequences for creating hate should be condemned by all right thinking people, especially those who value peace and oppose war. Now run along and go back to self-satisying attacks on Bush and the republicans on the other mindless threads where you belong. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2217 Registered: 8-2003  |
this is tiresome. you want people to condemn Cindy Sheehan as an anti-Semite for statements that she says she didn't make, criticizing the policies of Israel. and as others have pointed out, criticizing the state of Israel does not necessarily make one an anti-Semite. how about this? I promise you that if Cindy Sheehan makes a statement in which she denigrates Jewish people, I will start a thread on this board condemning her as an anti-Semite, a bigot, and a generally all-around bad person. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 916 Registered: 4-2006 |
Tjohn- You need history lessons. There never was a Palestinian nation in the region. The concept of a "Palestinian" is in fact a fairly recent construct. A good number of the people now termed "Palestinian" arrived only at the beginning of the twentieth century from other parts of the Ottoman Empire. A seizable number of them, ironically, came in response to the economic and other opportunities stimulated by the re-settlement of the Jews in the country in the 1st and 2nd aliyahs in the early 20th century. There was a Jewish presence in the country throughout the time the Jews were in exile, so Jews had never totally left the land. There is no comparable length of history of the Palestinians to Jews in the land. Given your assessment of what is a "colonizer" I look forward to you dropping off the keys to your house in SOMA, so I can give them back to the Lena Lenapi Indians. Have you booked a flight " home" to Europe yet? | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 917 Registered: 4-2006 |
O'Boogie- Have you read any of my posts carefully? There is an apparent usenet statement AND a pamphlet. Did Sheehan deny the usenet statement on Anderson Cooper or what SHE wrote in the pamphlet? It appears she was refering to the pamphlet quote which is telling, but far less serious. If she denied on Anderson Cooper what was apparently WRITTEN in the pamphlet, who wrote it then? Can you agree that the apparent content of the usenet posting should be denounced? That in essense we are in a war for Israel (Jews)? I appreciate many posters would never denounce Sheehan even if it might be appropriate, because she is too important to their ends. If it is too tiresome for you need not respond. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2218 Registered: 8-2003 |
you're using the word "apparent" a lot. why should anyone get so upset over something another person "apparently" wrote? if she herself disowns those words, isn't that enough? and I don't know too many people who consider Cindy Sheehan very important to achieving any end. Russ Feingold or Al Gore, or Dennis Kucinich carry a lot more weight than she when they criticize the president. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5234 Registered: 5-2001 |
Perhaps the notion that one must hate all [name your group] people because one voices criticism of their acts comes too easily to conservatives. Rememer how, when the French government refused to back the Iraq invasion, we had "freedom fries?" All of a sudden conservatives everywhere hated, not the French policy, but the French. | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 288 Registered: 1-2006 |
Has Cindy Sheehan commented on the Mearsheimer/Walt paper on The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. and would approval of it make her an anti-Semite? http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011 Summarized here: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html Cheers | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4443 Registered: 12-2001 |
Did Ben Gurion really say this: This was well understood by Israel’s early leaders. David Ben-Gurion told Nahum Goldmann, the president of the World Jewish Congress: If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country . . . We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2534 Registered: 3-2003 |
3ring, thanks for posting the Mearsheimer-Walt piece and its summary. I hadn't gotten around to looking it up, but had been curious about it. The British press had patted itself excitedly on the back for LRB's publication of that piece, claiming censorship in the (sotto voce: Jew-controlled) US. I think it's more a matter that the LRB will print all kinds of third-tier dreck that the NYRB et al. are too serious for. Which is why I cancelled my LRB subscription years ago. I must say, although I expected something a bit more sophisticated, a read through the first few paragraphs of M&W's summary was enough to start me laughing out loud. Anyone with a reasonable grasp of history could take it apart quite easily, so it will be interesting to read the Harvard responses. Not to discount the considerable influence of AIPAC (a.k.a. M&W's conspiracy-freighted "Israel lobby"), but it's no wonder this schlock has been assailed as propaganda. Don't know whether it's antisemitic per se, but wherever there's negative propaganda about the Jewish state and its supporters, there certainly can be, and often is, anti-Jewish sentiment. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2535 Registered: 3-2003 |
"Did Ben Gurion really say this" Probably. You can find that quote cited all over the internet as a putative admission of villainy. Which seems odd to me. Is anyone really under the impression that the early Zionist leaders, despite their objectives, could not identify with the Arabs as human beings, or that if they did they were more wicked than if they considered them, oh, "pigs and apes" worthy only of being exterminated or driven into the sea? | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 922 Registered: 4-2006 |
Tjohn- reference source on Ben Gurion " quote" please? 3ring- The M&W report has been mercilessly attacked as an opinion piece masquerading as a serious academic tome. If you do some basic research you will see some pretty withering critiques of the academics and expertise of the writers. That being said does it make me one of the pro-Zionist lobby?  Also are you defending Sheehan's comment? | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 290 Registered: 1-2006 |
Factvsfiction, I'm sure the M&W report is an opinion piece, but a quick glance at their footnotes shows a reliance on pretty main-stream sources not normally suspected of anti-Semitism. Could they select and arrange their sources to cast a favorable light on their conclusions? Sure they could, but who doesn't have an axe to grind? I'll take a look at the rebuttal by Alan "Thumbscrews" Dershowitz, but he may have his own credibility issues to deal with. Cindy Sheehan lost her son in a unnecessary and unjust war. I sympathize with her, but she has also associated with some people on the left end of the spectrum that make me wonder if her grief has clouded her judgment. But no matter, as someone said in an earlier post, only people like Sean Hannity take her seriously. My opinion on Israel hasn't changed since before I heard of Cindy Sheehan. I support a non-interventionist approach to foreign policy, and am opposed to entangling alliances and economic and military aid to all countries. You can disagree and call me an isolationist, but I think it is a coherent, consistent and defensible position. I only wish that I was able to offer a more eloquent statement of the case, but I recognize my limitations. Cheers | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14924 Registered: 1-2003 |
tjohn and factvsfiction, you are illustrating the Palestinian-Israeli argument well. "We were here first" but it depends on what you mean by first. The Israelis recount how they were there thousands of years ago and never fully left. The Arabs are pointing out that it was pretty much their place a hundred years ago. They're both right. God didn't make ethnic differences. If people saw past ethnic differences, it wouldn't be our land versus your land. We would all be "us" but people tend to dwell on man-made differences. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1612 Registered: 10-2004 |
like religion. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12065 Registered: 5-2001 |
I will give Professor D of Harvard Law credit for resisting bringing up The Protocols of the Elders of Zion until at least the second page. I think that most Americans, and not just Jewish Americans, have been brought up with an image of brave, little Israel fighting off the blood thirsty Arabs with their bare hands. This isn't exactly the case. The Israelis may not have invented the term, but they are the leading proponent of the old Jesuit phrase of the ends justifying the means and, you know what, I really don't blame them. However, to continue myths about Israel, their independence, the war that followed and their policies to the present day doesn't really serve any purpose. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 561 Registered: 3-2005 |
Fiction, Do you even undestand what I've posted? I wrote that I disagree with anyone who has said that the US invaded Iraq to benefit Israel, whether they supported the war or opposed the war. And contrary to your nonsense that you previously "outed" me as a "pro-Palestinian" poster in another thread, anyone who cares to look at that thread would see that the only things I posted were two articles written by much-lauded if controversial authors/activists in the Jewish community and I did it precisely to illustrate that there is a diversity of opinion among Jews, not a monolithic view. If your problem with Cindy Sheehan is that you believe she sees conspiracies where none exist, be aware: that's what you're doing. to all, I think everyone has given plausible guesses as to why the Bush Administration invaded Iraq, but as far as I know, none of you has lost a child in that war. I have read the interviews with many people who have lost a child there, and many of them say that their son or daughter signed up for the military after 9/11 because they wanted to defend the US and their fellow Americans. These same kids were shipped overseas believing that their own government was telling them the truth when they said Iraq was responsible for 9/11 and plotting terrorism against the US. Since then, these parents have discovered that Iraq was not a threat to the United States. And now their children are dead. I'm with Hoops in saying that the reasons why the Bush Administration went to war in Iraq have never been fully explained to the American public -- not even to the parents whose children have died in that war. I was not in the country when Cindy Sheehan sat outside Crawford Ranch. I have very little knowledge of what she said, but I got the impression she was demanding a meeting with President Bush to have him look her in the eye and tell her for what reason her son had died. I'm a moral relatavist. I judge people differently regarding their behavior depending on their circumstances. I cannot imagine what it is like to lose a child in a war and to not know for what cause he died. Cindy Sheehan, in her extreme grief, went up against people who are literally the most powerful people on the face of the earth and exposed them as the worst conceivable kind of liars. Of course they want to rip her from limb to limb. I'm sitting that one out. But if I did feel like moralizing, the first moral judgment I'd pass is this: God damn George Bush for lying to Cindy Sheehan's son and to every kid who has lost a life, or eyesight, or brain function or legs and arms in Iraq. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7482 Registered: 10-2001 |
holy stupidity | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4444 Registered: 12-2001 |
J. Crohn, I suspect the initial progression of Zionism was similar in some respects to the turnover of a neigborhood. As wealthy people or people of a new ethnic group move in to a neighborhood, I am sure they are thinking more in terms of their new home and not that the existing residents are somehow inferior. However, as the turnover of the neighborhood progesses and the lives of the existing people are increasing disrupted, tensions can and do arise. The more thoughtful of the Zionists were undoubtedly aware of this. All things considered, I am sure the thinking was that the benefits of a Jewish homeland outweighed the problems arising from the alienation of the Arabs. Of course, the situation in Palestina has evolved way beyond the simple analogy of the turnover of a neighborhood. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 926 Registered: 4-2006 |
3ring- Thanks for the reasoned reply. The best article online on the M&W "study" can be found in the Washington Post on April 5. 2006, page a23 by Elliot Cohen. All you need to know about the weight given the study as a validly researched academic tome is the fact that the Kennedy School removed their logo from it, and stuck an "opinion" disclaimer on it. I believe one of the writers at Ha'aretz also addressed the use of quotes from their writers in it. Tom R- Let's get the Israelis and Palestinians in a circle and get them to sing "kumbayah". Seriously Tom has the world ever worked that way? I believe the problem with peace in the region is less the Israeli willingness to negotiate and more the religious fundamentalism and violence that has griped the Palestinian society. Bob K- Frankly Bob, I like your posts on real estate much better. Are you saying that Israel is an exception or part of the rule as to the nations in the world? Jefferson and the founders of the American republic weren't against using what was necessary in order to create a nation state? This Jesuit reference throws me. Do you still have ruler marks? Just joking Bob K. Kathleen- I didn't exactly read that you said that we didn't attack Iraq for Israel (the Jews) but if you believe we didn't, it sounds about right. Maybe we attacked Iraq for Saudi Arabia? What do you think? The two guys you cited previously are not viewed as important figures in Jewish circles and are not only viewed as controversial, but without great gravitas as objective pundits and pontificators. Personally I think Iran is a bigger threat than Iraq was, and I didn't see,perhaps in my own naivety and lack of knowledge, why the US had to go into Iraq when it did. That being said, I think it is about terrorism and a very sophisticated but flawed construct to try and change the region for the better. Which should have been laid out to the American people. Tjohn- Your posts, well, what can one say? From the last one I understand the Israelis are gentrifiors who mistook the holy land for Park Slope, Williamsburg, etc? And that the whole crisis could have been avoided if they had seen " Rent" first?  | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14931 Registered: 1-2003 |
I don't think the strife in the middle east is about religion. It's about power and money. Sometimes I think the neo-cons are right, in that if we could somehow spread prosperity, people wouldn't find problems and enemies under every rock. But alas, they want to spread democracy, not prosperity (and certainly not stability), and they think they can deliver it through the barrel of a gun. One day, the war won't even be about land or money, it will be about water. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 928 Registered: 4-2006 |
Tom R- Very true, the next issue or sources of war in the Middle East will be water. Scarce resources will become the area ripe for the most conflict in the world. I think we are going to have conflict with a rising China over oil allocation and consumption. If the key issue was money the Palestinians could have already developed their economy with the massive amounts of EU, US, and other aid they have received. They have applied it instead to waging a terror war against Israel. I remember reading a book about the end of history and the end of the concept of the nation state. But given world situations we seem to have gone back to the 19th century in that regard. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 639 Registered: 2-2003 |
FactvsFiction: In response to my question as to whether the verbal abuse and physical attacks against the Israeli Government and Israeli soldiers by Gaza settlers last summer constituted anti-semitism by the settlers, you responded: You deny that you accused Cindy Sheehan of anti-semitism because of her criticism of the Israeli Government, but you specifically cited her opposition to the Israeli Government policy of occupation as part of your argument. Furthermore, you responded to my question about whether the extreme criticism by Gaza settlers of the Israeli Government and Israeli soldiers constituted anti-semitism by saying that most were "largely peaceable." But of course Cindy was entirely peaceable in her criticism of the Israeli Government (occupation). I would be happy to conclude this exchange if you would agree that people should not be called anti-semitic when they criticize Israeli Government policies. Do you agree? | ||
| Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 2688 Registered: 5-2001 |
Paul, I'm sure Facts can and will speak for him/herself and lord knows we probably don't agree on much but I'm taking a stab at answering your question. I wouldn't mind anyone who "criticize[s] Israeli Government policies" as long as somewhere in their paragraphs of THAT criticism they also unequivocally condemn the Palestinian terrorists and the Palestinian acts of terrorism. When I don't hear that within the lengthy barrage of criticism aimed solely at Israel, I do think there is anti-Semitism in that criticism. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 670 Registered: 1-2006 |
Maybe it is jealousy. For, they know that if they were facing daily murderous attacks on schools, buses, restaurants, shopping centers, etc., they would encourage our government to kill everyone involved, until the war was won. So, they must hold Israelis to a higher standard because they believe the Israelis are possessed of some quality that makes them better able to suffer deaths than anyone else. jd | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7494 Registered: 10-2001 |
agreed with Wendy 100% |
