Take your Sharia and stuff it!

[foreigner]

1 re smiles: your refusal to follow links & demanding spoon feeding of inter net pablum on occasion removes smiles from my keyboard.

 

you may disagree with my interpretation of the facts ..

dispute the facts .. 1 + 1 = 2

[color:red]FACT:[/color]neoconism as used in the common vernacular in 21st century america is dominated by militant zionists.

 

2. jewishness & zionism are not same same

 

3. feith's law firm represents likud & has an office in Tel Aviv

 

4. Cheney is on the board of directors of the largest pro israel organization in the new world

 

5. Wolfowitz' family is direct from holocaust.

 

anything about israel / zion MUST relate to the biblical land grant of the mythical biblical david == all INTELLIGENT discussion of Zion must include the original basis of zionism = bible

 

& Mel is right!

 

edit:

the most militant of the americans are the evangelicals the require biblical israel to be in place for their biblical prophecies.

 

religion & biblical zion are deeply woven into the mideast mess!

[elef]

Wolfowitz' GF is from Libya.

[foreigner]

who'd a thunk it.

not that she's from libya .. that wolfie has a girl friend.

 

he was somewhere he had to take off his shoes & the entire toe was gone from his sock..

 

boy does that guy f' up .. a man with no honor.

 

attached 'neocon' restriction to WB $s

 

 

[Steve]

American foreign policy since WWII has always been to support Israel. Whether it was wrong or right to do that, I'll leave each to their own opinion. Support for Israel's existance and anti communist/socialist Cuba has and always has been the foreign policy no matter who is in office. The neocons didn't invent zionism (support for an Israeli state) it was already part of ameirican foreign policy. We gave them the bomb (rumor has it) way before the term neocon was even founded to ensure against futue invasions like '67 and '73.

 

In any event, foreigner, can you answer this. What happens to the neocon power to carry out thei agenda, if as expected, the presidency and the congress is Democratic controlled? This neocon thing, in my humble opinion, had its chance, had disastrous results and I doubt seriously we'll ever consider that ideology again. I have heard that they are pointing fingers (usually at Bush) for its failure.

 

If Guiliani or McCain gain power within the Republican ranks. That will also diminish the religious fundamental wing of that party as well.

 

 

[foreigner]

Israel has problems once the neocons are a footnote.

 

Billary had some very strong pro palestinian statements pre-running for office.

 

budget issues could result in a slow down in israeli give aways .. something like 10% of their GNP comes from US welfare to the socialist zionists.

60% of the occupied territory settlers hold US passports.

in the '06 lebanon aggression israel violated american arms agreements .. granted, under direction of the neocon hawks ..

 

once the dims have a veto over riding majority or a fair minded administration is in power .. zionists will be in deep camel poo.

 

& there will be anti-semite name calling by disparate special interests..

 

the fair minded must separate government policy from ethnic stereotyping.

example:

is china trade bashing xenophobia?

or is there really a problem with prison labor competing with low skilled american factory workers?

 

& choc,

i'd believe your weren't chocolate before i'd concede you're not a closet conservative .. at minimum, an america 1st-er

I'd be embarrassed too!

[chuckwoww]

"2. jewishness & zionism are not same same"

 

Very true. It's unfair to equate jewishness with Zionism. In some ways ordinary Jews are as much victims of Zionist expansionism as Palestinians.

[Steve]

& choc,

i'd believe your weren't chocolate before i'd concede you're not a closet conservative .. at minimum, an america 1st-er

I'd be embarrassed too!

LOL..because I'm not an alarmist, conspiracy theorist like some people? From which of my posts gives you that idea. I asked in another thread exactly what do we disagree on but you ignored it.

 

And as for labels such as conservative, etc. I have a feeling you're the type that judges a person by his ideology. I met people who were very conservative, even fundamentalists who were genuinely good people. As well as bad, same with very left/socialist leaning folks I care for and some I don't. See, I take people as individuals, not their politics. And for the sake of argument lets say I am a 'closet conservative', my posts and opinions on here should be judged on its own merit, not defined as false or valid because of a person's ideology. 1+1=2 whether its said by a conservative, liberal or neutral. A lot of the things we say on here is subjective and opinion as well as speculation. I respect your opinions on things as your own, even if i disagree or think its over the top.

 

Finally, my opinion, but I think your trying to label me a conservative on a forum that is probably very opposed to it, is a way of trying to neutralize an opinion you can't defeat with reason by making the person unpopular by fiat over alleged politics instead of the merit of what they write. Seems some people have learned a thing or two from watching Karl Rove over the years.

:smirk:

[Steve]

Bush the elder tried cutting money to Israel and some say lost the election in '92 partially blamed on his angering American Jews over it. The same could be said of Gore and Florida. The Cuban-American population there was angered with Attorney General who let that little boy go back to Cuba and she was a Dem in a Dem administration and they (Cuban Amerians) threw their support to the Republicans which may have tipped the scale in the '00 electioin.

As I said in another post, support for Israel and the defeat of Fidel and continued embargo is a mainstay of both parties and mainstay of American foreign policy.

Hillary is from a state with a huge jewish american population and cutting aid to Israel is dicey. Its a strange relationship we (America) has with Israel. There is also a certain amount of anti-Americanism there.

[Steve]

.. at minimum, an america 1st-er

I'd be embarrassed too!

Wanted to address this as well. Definitely an American-firster as you say. Just like someone from Thailand and England or outer Mongolia would want the best for their country. However, I think your definition of what it is you think I am and my opinion of what I am may differ.

I want Ameirica to do well and prosper but not at the expense of others. There could well be a scenario that this can not be avoided but by and large I think it can be done.

 

What is your definition of an American 1ster? Here are some of my American-first objectives. I think its a dereliction of duty for our leadership to have this country's prosperity and lifeblood based on oil that we depend on outside of the country. I have made a post in another thread that I would love for the U.S. to work with the G8, UN or what ever international body and come up with an alternive energy source that would make all of us not dependent on oil from the middle east, it would be good for the environment and it would possibly mean that the west would remove itself politically and militarily from the Middle East.

 

As an America-firster, I would stop the idea of nation-building and trying to export our culture and ideals. Everyone can make up their own minds as to what type of country they want. However, in the case of countries that are committing genocide, etc. I think our energies should be focused on building a true internatioanl and global coalition to combat things like Darfur, etc.

 

As an America-firster, I would want take the pragmatic view that if you want end Fidel's reign in Cuba you open relations with it, trade with them, etc. Our policies with regards to them are based more on retaining votes in Florida than what is pragmatic.

 

As an America-firster, I'd extracate ourselves from the Israel/Palestinian negotions and have some international body like the UN or a panel of interested parties (combination of west and ME countries) do the negotiating. We end up angering both sides and aren't trusted by both sides for good reason. How can the Palestinians trust a negotiator who is as much as 1/5 of their opponent's budget? America is better off not being in the middle of that mess, so its in our best interest.

 

See, you're right, I do want what is best for America but it doesn't necessarily mean what's best for America has to be bad for the rest of the world.

 

[chuckwoww]

Well said CS...conservative, liberal etc..these labels are just that...labels. I am very conservative on some issues, liberal on others. For instance I think Bangkok bars were much better before the riff-raff showed up.