Will Israel Ensure That History Repeats Itself?
The lead-up to the first U.S.-Iran talks in three decades saw a replay of the same modus operandi that induced the U.S. and its allies to invade Iraq in March 2003. Then as now, the invasion of Iran is consistent with a regime change agenda for Greater Israel described in a 1996 strategy document prepared by Jewish-Americans for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
As with Iraq, the threat of weapons of mass destruction is again marketed as a causa belli. As with Iraq, the claim is disputed by weapons inspectors and intelligence analysts. The Iraqi program had been shut down a dozen years before the invasion. In Iran, there is no evidence that uranium is being enriched beyond the low levels required for energy and medical purposes.
Reports of a “secret” processing plant failed to note that Iran suspended uranium enrichment from 2003 until 2005. Seeing no change in the political climate except more sanctions and more Israeli threats to bomb its nuclear sites, Iran began building and equipping a new facility.
As with Iraq, there is no direct threat to the U.S. As with Iraq, mainstream U.S. media focused not on Israel—the only nation in the region known to have nuclear weapons—but on Iran. Enrichment is relatively easy compared to the steps required to design, build and reliably deliver a nuclear warhead. Activity around each of those steps can be readily detected.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged that even if Iran were attacked, that does nothing to alter Iran’s nuclear prospects—except provoke them to develop the very weapons that the evidence suggests are not now being produced. Is this a calculated move to exert pressure on Tehran? Or to provoke them? Or is this a move by Washington to buy time from an “ally” that threatens an attack—with disastrous effects on U.S. interests and those of its genuine allies?
To catalyze a climate of insecurity among Jews, pro-Israelis periodically claim that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proposes to “wipe Israel off the map.” A correct translation confirms that what he urged is that “this occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of time.” Akin to the widely sought demise of the oppressive Soviet regime, that proposal enjoys the support of many moderate, secular and non-Zionist Jews who have long recognized the threat that Jewish extremists pose to the broader Jewish community.
No one can explain why Iran, even if nuclear armed, would attack Israel with its vast nuclear arsenal estimated at 200-400 warheads, including several nuclear-armed submarines. In mid-July, Israeli warships deployed to the Red Sea to rehearse attacks on Iran. As in the lead-up to war with Iraq, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is again beating the war drums. This is the same adviser who, four days after 9-11, advised G.W. Bush to invade Iraq.
Citing Iran’s “covert” facility, Wolfowitz claims it is “clear that Iran’s rulers are pursuing nuclear weapons.…Time is running out.” Without a hint of irony, he argues that Iran (not Israel) “is a crucial test of whether the path to a nuclear-free world is a realistic one or simply a dangerous pipe dream.” In calling for “crippling sanctions,” Howard Berman, Jewish chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, expressed similar concerns as did Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, senior Republican on the Committee and also Jewish.
If pro-Israelis cannot induce a war with Iran, the ensuing stability will enable people to identify who fixed the intelligence that deceived the U.S. to invade Iraq. Only one nation possesses the means, motive, opportunity and stable nation state intelligence to mount a covert operation over the lengthy period required to pre-stage, staff, orchestrate and successfully cover-up such an act.
The evidence points to the same network of government insiders and media proponents now hyping Iran. Who benefitted from war with Iraq? Who benefits from war with Iran? Not the U.S. or its allies unless, despite the evidence, Israel is viewed as an ally–rather than an enemy within.
Can the U.S. Muster a Breakthrough Strategy?
Like Afghanistan, Iran does not have a military solution. Nor does Iraq. Geopolitically, the greatest casualty of war in the region was the United States – its credibility tattered, its military overextended and its finances devastated by a debt-financed war that Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz projects could reach $3,000 billion. Compare that with the speedy exit and a $50 billion outlay that Wolfowitz assured policy-makers could be recovered from sales of Iraqi oil.
Those who induced that invasion persuaded Americans to commit economic and geopolitical hari-kari. No external force could have defeated the sole remaining super power. Instead the U.S. was deceived—by a purported ally—to defeat itself by an ill-advised reaction to the provocation of a mass murder on U.S. soil.
The only sensible and sustainable solution is one that serves unmet needs in the region while also restoring the credibility of the U.S. as a proponent of informed choice and free enterprise. While making transparent the common source of the deceit that induced the U.S. to war, policy-makers can also lay the foundation to preclude such duplicity in the future. That requires consultation among the U.S., its true allies and those nations in the region most affected by this treachery.
Only a design solution can counter today’s systemic sources of conflict, including the extremism fueled by extremes in education, opportunity, wealth and income. As with the fixed intelligence that induced the U.S. to war in Iraq, those sources of conflict are obscured by a compliant and complicit media with an undisclosed pro-Israeli bias.
A transnational network of think tanks could expose in real time how facts are displaced by what “the mark” can be deceived to believe. With the media dominance of pro-Israelis in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Germany and other Western allies, that task must include the capacity to show how this deceit operates in plain sight yet, to date, with impunity. Absent such transparency, systems of governance reliant on informed consent will continue to be manipulated to their detriment by those who hide behind the very freedoms that such systems are meant to protect.
Running parallel with that transparency initiative must be an education program that deploys the best available technology to close the gaps in learning that sustain extremes in opportunity. Only a truly international effort can succeed in that essential task. Only trans-cultural education can preempt the mental manipulation that induced war in Iraq and now pursues war with Iran as proponents of The Clash of Civilizations gradually transform that concept into a reality.
What we now see emerging is yet another example of how wars are induced in the Information Age. Why would anyone expect modern warfare to be waged in any other way? As the common source of this duplicity becomes transparent, the solution will become apparent.
Lasting peace requires a Marshall Plan able to accelerate the transition to the Knowledge Society. This systemic challenge cannot be addressed absent a systemic strategy. The restoration of friendly and cooperative relations must include the practical steps required to heal this widening divide with education at the core.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
75 Comments so far
Show AllI don't know which group of reactionaries is more pathetic — the imperialist reactionaries who claim that 3 000 years ago their invisible friend gave them eternal squatting rights over the piece of land they currently occupy, or the clerical-nationalist reactionaries who claim that THEIR invisible friend thinks all humans are equal, but some (the ones with beards and dangly bits) are more equal.
I may have already mentioned it here - if so I apologize - but for an interesting theory about Iran's attitude to the nuclear arms issue read juancole.org:
http://www.juancole.com/2009/10/iran-and-nuclear-latency.html
It seems to me that this is a logical position given that it has an extremely aggressive warlike (undeclared nuclear armed) country near it that is always threatening to attack and another neighbour with nuclear arms that is unstable. Unlike many other nations it has not attacked another country for several centuries.
Iran's behavior contrasts significantly with Israel's attitude to the acquisition of nuclear arms.
Israel is the most progressive and liberal nation in the Middle-East. (In terms of free speech, woman's rights, Gays' rights, freedom of religion, democracy, treatment of minorities, green energy etc.)
I found it awkward that people who claim to be “progressive” never criticize the theocracies monarchies and dictatorships of the Middle East (Some involve if conflicts that claimed 100, 500 or even 1000 time more casualties than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.) Instead, these so called “liberals” chose to delegitimize only one state.
A fine example of pluralism and universalism, isn’t it?
As for the article’s claims of greater Israel - Israel is 0.2% of the greater Middle-East's land mass, and since 1967 it shrank in size. It's one thing to be one sided, but at least stick to facts.
"Israel is the most progressive and liberal nation in the Middle-East. (In terms of free speech, woman's rights, Gays' rights, freedom of religion, democracy, treatment of minorities, green energy etc.)"
As far as free speech goes, Israel has sunk low, lower than El Salvador and Togo even. In fact, Lebanon, Kuwait and the UAE have more freedom of press than Israel:
http://www.rsf.org/en-classement1003-2009.html
Green energy? treatment of minorities?
Are you on crack or did you just take everything that Israel isn't and flip it upside down? Are you familiar with Israel's Basic Law and the way it strips non-Jews of many rights which the Jewish majority enjoys?
As for your mantra about Israel's "progressiveness", Israel is progressive the same way Apartheid South Africa was progressive as long as one were white. That doesn't make it a democracy in the modern western sense.
"As for the article’s claims of greater Israel - Israel is 0.2% of the greater Middle-East's land mass, and since 1967 it shrank in size. It's one thing to be one sided, but at least stick to facts."
That's an outright lie and you know it.
"Free speech" in Israel DOES NOT EXIST....that is a LIE told by you....Many Orthodox Rabbis in Israel do not support "gay rights" and quite outspoken against it. As a matter of fact Orthodox Rabbis led the protest to ban a Gay Parade in Jerusalem in 2005, 2006 and 2007. The New York Times did news stories on it. Freedom of religion for Muslims in Israel? You are kidding right? Israel has prevented Catholics from going to Jerusalem on Good Friday and Bethlehem on Easter Sunday over fifty percent of the time in the past two decades.
Israel is operating as a FASCIST STATE and a De Facto Orthdox Jewish-Religious State in the Occuptied Territories. Israel regularly brutalizes pregnant Palestinian women and children and justifies it. Israel justifies and rationalizes RAPING ARAB MEN & WOMEN!!!!! That is NOT PROGRESSIVE!!!!!!!!!!!! This is CRIMINAL!!!!!!
Israel is not a "DEMOCRACY" but a police-military state which terrorizes the Palestinians and has been involved in ethnic cleansing for the past sixty years...
I criticize the Arab regimes all the time for their political and religious oppression....The radicals rise up against many of these corrupt Arab regimes which the U.S. supports as long as these corrupt Arab monarchs and dictators suppress Pan-Islamic movements, which, in turn, become radicalized even more so.
Racist apartheid regimes are not "progressive." We will not fall for your Zionist propaganda.
I advise you do a minimal research.
Free speech:
Israel has 81 human right groups. A reporter can criticize the Government and the Army without fear.
In Arab countries a reporter who criticizes the government can lose his job, his freedom or even his life. (A couple of month ago, in Gaza, the Hamas killed 23 people for stating their mind - they said the Hamas are not Islamic enough.)
Woman's rights:
In Israel women are equal according the law.
In other Middle-East countries, woman can’t have driving license, they can't walk in the street without escort, and they can choose who to marry and what career path they should pursue.
Gays' rights:
In some Middle-Eastern countries, Gay is a crime punishable by death. (Hanging). In Israel, being gay is not a crime and there is a big prosperous gay community in Tel-Aviv.
Freedom of religion:
In Many Middle-Eastern countries, someone who converts his religion from Islam will be executed. In Israel conversion from any religion to any other is not a crime. (Though not encouraged)
Democracy:
Israel is the most democratic country in the Middle East. Where all its citizens can vote and be elected...
Minorities’ rights:
I'm not saying there is no racism in Israel, there is. Yet, its level is less than in all other Middle Eastern Countries. There are more Arabs in the Israeli parliament and in government jobs than Jews in Arab parliaments / government jobs.
Green Energy
Israel is also a super power in developing green energy.
none of which has anything to do with the question at hand , the only country in the region that should be sanctioned is israel.
I have another point you can add to your plus column on Israel.
Israel has blue skies in the summer and the dirt on the grown is brownish red.
--------------------
I'm not saying there is no racism in Israel, there is. Yet, its level is less than in all other Middle Eastern Countries. There are more Arabs in the Israeli parliament and in government jobs than Jews in Arab parliaments / government jobs.
--------------------
How nice. Zionists stole the land, declared a state, and they were generous enough to offer the native Palestinians freedoms that other Arabs in the Middle East have in some cases, and in others don't.
Had the Palestinians been left to their own devices, they would have been living in a far more democratic state of their liking in Palestine had Israel not been there.
It's like robbing a bank and then throwing the bank manager $100 on the way out. When you're arrested you can declare, "Show me a bank robber in the area who would have given $100 back", "I'm generous, don't you know?"
------------------------------------
Free speech:
Israel has 81 human right groups. A reporter can criticize the Government and the Army without fear.
In Arab countries a reporter who criticizes the government can lose his job, his freedom or even his life. (A couple of month ago, in Gaza, the Hamas killed 23 people for stating their mind - they said the Hamas are not Islamic enough.)
-----------------------------------
Are those the same Human Rights groups that the Israeli government has declared
enemies of peace and security? Are those the same human rights organizations which the Israeli government pressured donor countries to stop their funding and has criminalized receiving donations from European states where most of the funding comes from anyway?
-------------------------------------
(A couple of month ago, in Gaza, the Hamas killed 23 people for stating their mind - they said the Hamas are not Islamic enough.)
------------------------------------
It's "Hamas", not "the Hamas" you tool. Anyway, what you're saying is that Israel is slightly better than a terrorist organization. That's quite the compliment.
------------------------------------
Gays' rights:
In some Middle-Eastern countries, Gay is a crime punishable by death. (Hanging). In Israel, being gay is not a crime and there is a big prosperous gay community in Tel-Aviv.
------------------------------------
That's the same Israel where a gunman drove by a gay club and sprayed the patrons with lead? Is that the same Israel where Orthodox Jewish rabbis took to the streets, throwing glass bottles and rocks and threatening a gay parade. Then later one of the chief Rabbis said that it was permissible according to the Torah to spill the blood of gays? That Israel?
---------------------------------------
Freedom of religion:
In Many Middle-Eastern countries, someone who converts his religion from Islam will be executed. In Israel conversion from any religion to any other is not a crime. (Though not encouraged)
---------------------------------------
Freedom of lying is more like it, especially in your case. A Muslim and a Jew, a Christian and a Jew cannot marry in Israel under any form of civil marriage.
Israel has also prevented worshipers from reaching the al-Aqsa for Ramadan prayer. Some freedoms eh?
-------------------------
Democracy:
Israel is the most democratic country in the Middle East. Where all its citizens can vote and be elected...
-------------------------
They also have the freedom to have their history and language erased because they are non-Jewish. The government wants to have Arabic names removed from street signs. Anyone caught commemorating the Naqba - Israel's genocide and destruction of Palestinians in 1948 - faces jail time. Nice democracy you're promoting, dolt.
Hey, Letto, have you ever been to Israel? Where were you born? Do you even know anything about the Middle East besides the propaganda junk you toss around here once in a while?
I'm getting tired of your Wikipedia links by the way. You're no scholar or even a learned person. Why don't you just reference People magazine or the Inquirer next time.
-------------------
I advise you do a minimal research.
-------------------
You and your "research" are the very definition of minimal.
I have seen monkeys cut-and-paste from Wikipedia.
Why don't you do some "minimal research" on racist apartheid regimes and genocide, rather than spamming Zionist propaganda? You'll find that Israel is #1 on the list.
Here are some links to get you started:
http://www.webgaza.net/insidegaza/war_on_gaza/victims/01-children/index.htm
http://www.slideshare.net/ahmadhassan/gaza-genocide-in-picture-presentation
Letto, on your record to date you wouldn't recognise a fact if it came up and handed you a calling card with 'FACT' on it in 12 languages. I honestly cannot imagine how you can think you're fooling anyone with these cringingly awful propaganda attempts. Are you just trolling aimlessly because you've nothing worthwhile to do?
The halachically-impure Zionists from Slavic Europe with the connivance of the deeply Jew-hating UK and US aristocracies committed a massive crime against peace and humanity that continues today. They victimised 700,000 innocent Arabs and their descendents by stealing their land and killing anyone who resisted. Every member of the Zionist leadership and several US and UK politicians including Truman should have been hanged in 1948 for their role in that crime. One day soon the butcher's bill will finally come due, and there won't be any place on Earth where the spiritual descendents of those Zionist criminals will be safe. Where will you be?
I can't convince those who are religiously committed to hating Israel (those who ignore any evidence that goes against their religious conviction).
My comments are only intended for people open minded enough to check new evidence and who are willing to change their mind if presented with sufficient proofs. I hope you’re one of those. If not, I apologize for wasting your time; please stop reading this post and please ignore all my future comments.
---
How about checking those facts yourself?
Here are some additional "facts" that you can check.
The 1948 war (A.K.A Israel's war of independence) was initiated by the Arab side.
The Palestinian leadership and the Arab league initiate the 1948 war after rejecting UN partition plan (resolution 181, which was accepted by the Jewish Yeshuv). Their goal in this war (that they initiated) was to exterminate the Jewish state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War
"Azzam Pasha, the Arab League Secretary, declared on Cairo radio: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.""
It is true that in that war (which was initiated by the Arabs,) 700,000 Palestinians became refugees. But on the same time 850,000 Jews who lived in Arab countries also became refugees, leaving behind property and land bigger than what the Palestinian left behind.
That too is a fact that you can check.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands
Thank you for being open minded enough to read till here. I hope you’ll learn something from your reading.
The 1948 war (A.K.A Israel's war of independence) was initiated by the Arab side.
------------------------
Who did Israel declare independence from?
You make it sound like they had claim to the land in the first place.
We handed you the facts, well-referenced research a few weeks ago, about that very issue, but you continue to come back with the same lies.
Countless Israeli historians, including Benny Morris, Tom Segev, Illan Pappe, Shlomo Sands, and Avi Shlaim state that in 1947, Jews owned just 7% of the land in Palestine.
Then they went to the UN and through lobby groups managed to pressure Britain and the US to carve out land in Palestine. It was "legalized" theft for a lack of a better term. The partition plan took more than 60% of Palestinian land and gave it to Zionists.
-------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands
-------------------------
The "exodus" (poor me, I'm a victim again just like I was when Moses left Egypt) did not take place until after 1948. It was in response to Israel's destruction of 460 Palestinian villages and the expulsion of 800,000 Palestinians.
Besides, many of those Jews were not forced to leave. In many cases they were lured to Israel with promises of milk and honey and other propaganda.
In Egypt, Zionist militias planted bombs in theaters where Jews used to frequent. Look up the Lavon Affair. Then Israel came out with a declaration that Egyptian Muslims and Christians were targeting Jews.
The more propaganda you type, the more you're proven to be a Scott McClellan. You're probably balding like him too, and not even remotely as good looking as Dana Perino the propagandist.
Israel is an:
1. Rogue Nation
2. Outlaw Nation
3. Criminal Nation
4. War Crimes Guilty Nation
5. Human Rights Abuse Guilty Nation
6. Terrorist State in its own right
7. Israel commits Terrorism all over the world
8. Israel is a state sponsor of Terrorism led by its associated Front Groups such as AIPAC, WZC, ADL, and the JDL.
9. Israel is a FASCIST State. Menachem Begin had direct ties to the FASCISTS in the 1930s.
10. The state of Israel was established by TERRORISTS like Begin, Ariel Sharon, Moshe Dayan, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin.
*****The United States now emulates the POLICE-FASCIST State of Israel from the Department of Homeland Security to the Unconstitutional Patriot Act which is a mirror image of the Zionist State's own police state measures.
If you don't believe me understand that the U.S. acts just like the Police-FASCIST state of Israel from its laws to propaganda to the way it brands so-called enemies with no hard evidence along with the Unilateral-Pre-Emptive Military Doctrine...
How many of those 10 listed points would not also fit the United States of America?
Brilliant question!
If one analyzes the state of Israel since its inception, a pattern quickly emerges and it's always the same. They offend, they provoke, they strike. Then, they claim to be the victim, they accuse the victim of being anti-Semitic and cry crocodile's tears in memory of the Holocaust(TM). All of that works time and time again so they repeat it...again and again and again... Why would they change their MO if it is so efficient and yields such proven results? It worked with Iraq and it will work with Iran. They reap the rewards while the Americans make, clean and pay for the mess. It's a beautiful scam and Americans are stupid enough to fall for it over and over again.
Now, the day the world turns around and says to them "F You, and F your Holocaust(TM) F your anti-Semitism" and makes them take responsibility for their actions, that will be the day when they have to look for a different strategy or succumb to their own actions.
Israel is its own worst enemy. With its paranoia yet war-criminal mentality and behavior and with its eternal victim facade, it's cries of anti-Semitism and Holocaust(TM), Israel is the world's biggest self-fulfilling prophecy.
Trailing Begonia: “If one analyzes the state of Israel since its inception, a pattern quickly emerges and it's always the same. They offend, they provoke, they strike. Then, they claim to be the victim, they accuse the victim of being anti-Semitic and cry crocodile's tears in memory of the Holocaust(TM).”
Reality shows the exact opposite picture. (Check 1948, 1967, 1973, the last war in Lebanon and in Gaza...)
If one analyzes the state of Israel since its inception, a pattern quickly emerges and it's always the same. An Arab country or a radical terrorist organization declare they plan to exterminate Israel. They strike, Israel fight back and starts to win, then the Arab aggressors who suffers higher casualties cry, pretending to be the victims (Yes, even though they themselves initiates the conflict.) Then the UN steps in and save the Arab country / terrorists’ ass. Then, some radical lefty invokes the Holocaust and falsely claims that Israel is the one invoking it.
Let’s analyse the last war in Gaza as an example:
Do you, Trailing Begonia, have a link that quotes any Israeli politician claiming that Israel fought in Gaza because of the Holocaust? – NO. They never mentioned the Holocaust as the reason. It’s only in your extra developed imagination. They continually saying that the only reason for the war was an attempt to stop the 10,000 missiles and mortar bombs fired by the Hamas and other militant organizations against Israeli civilians. (The Hamas is an organization that publically declares that their long term goal is to destroy Israel and establish an Islamic republic on its ruins – google Hamas charter if you don’t believe me.)
Letto:Wrong again - not doing too well in the facts department are we? With the exception of the 1973 war - which could well be seen as an attempt by the Arab countries to get Israel to release the territories it had illegally occupied since the 1967 War Israel has started every single war since its founding including the 1948 War - and its leaders have said so:
"I know how at least 80% of the incidents began there. In my opinion, more than 80%, but lets talk about 80%. It would happen like this: We would send a tractor to plow someplace of no value, in the demilitarized zone, knowing ahead of time that the Syrians would begin to shoot. If they did not start shooting, we would tell the tractor to keep going forward, until the Syrians in the end would get nervous and start shooting. And then we would start firing artillery, and later also the airforce and this was the way it was. I did this and Laskov and Tzur (two previous commander-in-chiefs) did it, Yitzhak Rabin did it when he was there (as commander of the northern district at the beginning of the sixties), but it seems to me that it was Dado, more than anyone else, enjoyed these games."
(Moshe Dayan, 22 November 1976)
"In mid-October [1948], in contravention of the truce, the Israelis launched an offensive against the Egyptian forces in order to take the Negev before the UN could decide that they could not have it. Substantial gains were made in the south and the Israelis resisted all the UN injunctions, mostly sponsored by Britain, to withdraw. In a second offensive at the end of the month the IDF ejected all Arab forces from the Galilee and in doing so finally defeated the [Bernadotte] plan for exchanging the Galilee for the Negev."
(Avi Shlaim, Summer 1987)
I've repeated here several times for your benefit and for your friends mikep and lever01 that the Gaza genocide was started by Israel when it broke the ceasefire on US election day by killing several Hamas leaders. Prior to that Hamas had done a remarkably good job of keeping its side of the bargain and preventing the launching of rockets from Gaza - only a few were launched by the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade - an ally of Fatah. Israel on the other hand had not kept its side of the bargain - removal of the blockade. It doesn't matter does it how many times you are told the facts you come back with lies.
And here's a very different view from yours of the Lebanese war of 2006.
http://www.counterpunch.org/lin07252006.html
Israel has consistently used war and genocide to achieve its ultimate aim to extend its borders and drive out the Palestinians from their country. Begonia is right and as usual you are wrong.
Here's some more reading for you:
http://books.google.com/books?id=h3EOJGiBBpQC&dq=who+started+the+1948+war+Israel&printsec=frontcover&s...
Oh I forgot - you don't read.
They continually saying that the only reason for the war was an attempt to stop the 10,000 missiles and mortar bombs fired by the Hamas and other militant organizations against Israeli civilians. (The Hamas is an organization that publically declares that their long term goal is to destroy Israel and establish an Islamic republic on its ruins – google Hamas charter if you don’t believe me.)
-------------------------------------
You're right. We don't believe you because as thick as you are, we have linked several newspaper articles in the past showing you that Hamas is prepared to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. But, you keep coming back with the same lies and drivel.
This bullcrap takes the cake: "Islamic republic on its ruins".
Do you write your own propaganda or are you supplied with keywords and terms for every occasion?
As for the 10,000. Weren't those 8,000? How come you keep changing those numbers every day?
How are those "Arab states and terrorists" going to "exterminate" Israel? With slingshots?
The rockets (not missiles, not ICBMs or fucking nuclear warheads) are like a souped up Roman candle. And, they came in response to the siege that has been imposed on Gaza since 2007.
IN THE LAST NINE YEARS, Israel has killed about 6,500 Palestinians.
Whereas, the Palestinians have killed a fraction of that.
I'm going to start saving these responses and just post them every time you post your incredibly delusional nonsense, because if I didn't know otherwise, I'd say you have a memory problem or a psychological condition that causes that dementia and cognitive dissonance.
Finally, STOP LYING. It's getting old.
Israeli Mossad, their version of the CIA, has as their slogan:
"By way of deception, we will make war"...
The zionists that first settled in Palestine, like Irgun & the Stern gang used terrorist tactics to drive the Arabs off the land...
Many of the early settlers were Russian Jews, converts to Judaism in the 8th century ad in Khazaria, and not Hebrew in origin...
Most European Jews are Ashkenazis, whose ancestors supposedly moved into europe during the diasporas, and intermarried with the ethnic groups there... Biblically speaking, Ashkenaz predated Abraham by several generations, so even that term isn't a literal description...
The Sephardic Jews lived in northern Africa and other parts of the middle east, and maintain the only direct unbroken lineage back to Jacob and Abraham... Unfortunately, the racist Ashkenazi Jews who settled Palestine intentionally gave radiation poisoning to many of the Sephardic Jews relocating to Israel after 1949, and were considered second class citizens by the European settlers...
Genetically speaking, the Palestinians have more Hebrew blood in them than the Ashkenazis or Khazars, as DNA tests have shown...
Linguistically, both Jews (Isaac) and Arabs (Ishmael) are decendents of Shem, one of the sons of Noah, and are related through Abram as a common father, so all are Shemites... The Zionists coined the term "anti-Semitic" to refer to Jews only as a means to shut down dialogue about any topic that would expose the machinations of the zionists and the exclusive use of the victim card...
It is horrible that six million Jews were killed during WWII... But so were millions of other ethnic groups by the Germans... During and after WWII, 20 million russians, mainly Christians, were killed by Stalin, yet that only gets a footnote in the history books... Go figure...
The Rothschilds play both sides of every war, lending money to kings and governments to have their citizens kill each other, while making obscene profits and consolidating their power... Let's keep the focus on the Banksters and war profiteers that want to manufacture a war with Iran by any means necessary, even if they need to create a false flag event to do so... It will be business as usual...
GoldenMean: “Many of the early settlers were Russian Jews, converts to Judaism in the 8th century ad in Khazaria, and not Hebrew in origin...”
Not that your racial theories are important (All humans are equal) Nevertheless, most scholars, and DNA evidence are pointing that you’re wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars
Scroll down to:
Alleged Khazar ancestry of Ashkenazim
“This theory… is supported by no evidence whatsoever. It has long since been abandoned by all serious scholars in the field, including those in Arab countries, where the Khazar theory is little used except in occasional political polemics.”
And to:
DNA Evidence
“most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level... The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora”
“The authors hypothesized that these chromosomes could reflect low-level gene flow into Ashkenazi populations from surrounding Eastern European populations or that both the Ashkenazi Jews with Eu 19, and to a greater extent all Eastern European populations in general, might have some partial Khazar ancestry”
“A 2005 study by Nebel et al., based on Y chromosome polymorphic markers, showed that Ashkenazi Jews are more closely related to other Jewish and Middle Eastern groups than to their local neighbouring populations in Europe”
Read Shlomo Sands, he's researched the genetic ancestry of Jews in Palestine.
Basically, while you, some random guy, is citing Wikipedia, a renown university professor says you're wrong.
Who are we going to believe?
Sorry to be a stickler, but Gates need to brush up on his Latin clichés. The expression is casus belli, not causa belli.
What can we say? It is time to repeal UNGA Resolution 181. The safety of humanity depends on it.
Israel wants Iran out of the way so thay can attack neighboring Arab countries without Iran interfering. Perhaps I stand alone in my thinking, but I believe Israel is holding 9/11 over our heads to the fact we blamed the wrong group. If I am correct, it is best to force Bush/Chaney to stand up and admit their war crimes, and perhaps Peace will happen.
Maddy, Israel is holding a lot more than 9/11 over 'our heads'
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6480.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20011213022226/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,40684,00.html
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/blackmail.html?q=blackmail.html
And again, there is even more. MUCH more.
Try to stomach THIS:
“Collateral Damage” by E. P Heidner, part I and II.
>>> www.scribd.com/people/documents/2169400-ep-heidner <<<
You're spot on regarding Iran and Israel's hegemony in the region.
As for the 9/11 issue, on that same day, Netanyahu said that it was VERY good for Israel.
Ever since, neoconservatives, and Israeli hawks and Zionists have been after anything related to Islam or Arabs.
Within days of 9/11, Zionist neoconservatives like Daniel Pipes, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearl and Norman Podhoretz were churning out articles, reports and websites, all aimed at anything associated with Arab or Islam; both became fair game, particularly those who dared criticize the United States' foreign policy or the United States' unwavering support of Israel.
Once all that propaganda was pumped into the airwaves and print media, Europe and many other client countries followed suit. It became vogue to hate ones neighbors if they were brown. Various political parties and organizations used the opportunity to boost their ratings and further their careers by joining the global call against Middle Easterners and Muslims. Every idiot and their uncle wrote books about terrorism, about Islam. Suddenly, everyone was an expert. A whole industry was born out of it.
So now, eight years later, all Israel has to do to get world opinion on its side in massacring the Palestinians is cite anything remotely related to the propaganda that swept the West after 9/11. Suddenly, Palestinian children became "terrorists", anyone raising money or donating books to schools in Gaza was persecuted and prosecuted for "supporting terrorism", and anyone who dared criticize Israel was immediately accused of being a terrorist sympathizer.
Before 9/11 Israel didn't have the support and sympathy that it later managed to garner within the US. After 9/11, whenever an Israeli propagandist wanted to appeal to the American public and its institutions for more aid money he or she would simply invoke 9/11, and remind US of those cold blooded Muslim terrorists. "We, Israelis and Americans have a shared destiny and a shared goal", they'd often say.
And again, there is even more. MUCH more.
Try to stomach THIS:
“Collateral Damage” by E. P Heidner, part I and II.
>>> www.scribd.com/people/documents/2169400-ep-heidner <<<
I quote Michael Moore from Commondreams.
"We invaded two nations that didn't attack us, failed to find the real terrorists and, in effect, ignited our own wave of terror. People all over the world wondered if we had gone mad".
Michael, the real terrorists are still at large.
Time for a criminal investigation.
"Guilt by Association" by Gates is a must read.
Michael Moore = FRAUD....
Michael Moore is a jackass!!!
I find it odd that health care is evaluated in terms of whether or not it's affordable, but no one mentions the cost of war. (Not that that's the only reason to oppose war...)
"I find it odd that health care is evaluated in terms of whether or not it's affordable, but no one mentions the cost of war. " –(dmgreenaz)
–Indeed. This is one of the many violent 'contradictions' that put the lie to any pretense of rationality in American politics. It cannot be repeated too often. The whole 'Health Care' brouhaha is a dismal charade, in the shadow of the death apparatus of the Pentagon budget.
This unassailable reality has the effect of a summary judgement, in that it does not require to be 'proven.'
America exists primarily, if not exclusively for war. It is disgusting to assume that any efforts to insure the health or general welfare of the larger citizenry at the expense of the continuance of permanent war are of any importance whatsoever: They are not.
But this is anything but "odd." It goes right to the heart of what America is and has been. To argue it differently is to indulge in sophistry. –(Jill Bains)
De-countrify Israel NOW.
Then de-countrify Gringolandia.
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is not exactly "Jewish" -- certainly not in the same sense as Wolfowitz & most of the other PNAC members.
Wikipedia says, for example, "Project Vote Smart lists Ros-Lehtinen as Episcopalian. Ros-Lehtinen’s maternal grandparents were Sephardic Jews from Turkey who had been active in Cuba’s Jewish community. Her mother later converted to Catholicism."
I'm willing to bet my ass that Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and her family, never dared boast about (much less try to exploit) her "jewishness" during her Castro days. Sad that she can even be remotely associated with Cuba - a disgrace and a detriment to those of us who really are!
What is your point here?
If Ros-Lehtinen identifies as a Sephardim, then she is of Jewish racial provenance and for practical purposes is a Jew.
There now seems to be racist tendency to assume that only Jews of Ashkenazi origin, such as Avigdor Lieberman, are the 'real' Jews. Correct me if I am wrong here.
Among our Jewish friends of Sephardic origin, they see themselves as fully 'Jewish' despite feelings of marked unease vis a vis those particularly Israeli Jews of Ashkenazi origin, which have spuriously assumed the dominant mantle of 'authentic' Jewishness.
Frankly all the talk about who is an authentic Jew is repugnant to me and seems a logical extension of Zionist 'separatism.' –(Jill Bains)
First of all... Wiki? Don't make me laugh. If you can find one critique of Zionism on that site that hasn't been scrubbed by "editors" I'll give you... the Nobel Peace Prize.
Second, any mincing about the exact percentage about Ros-Lehtinen's Jewishness only underscores the point the author is making. Membership in the club has its privileges, and comes with responsibilities. And Ileana has been a very loyal girl-scout.
Unless you can show that Wiki's info on Ros-Lehtinen is wrong, your objection is worthless. You're stupidly trying to discredit all of Wiki by trying to pretend that its usefulness depends entirely on its editors' stance on Zionism.
The fact is that Wiki contains much good information. It's useful & handy. It doesn't have to meet any ideological purity test about Zionism in order to be useful. If Ros-Lehtinen was really Jewish, Wiki would say so. They don't hide the fact that Wolfowitz & Kristol are Jewish, for example.
I think you're missing revo's point. Wiki can edited by almost anyone even if there is some administation going on. That puts wiki's credibility on the line. In most cases, Wiki isn't wrong but on political matters, it gets controversial when one side of the other tries to edit for their own benefit. Even on George W Bush, notice how wiki isn't being thorough about him. Wiki's great on most things but on political matters, I would compare to multiple sources first before confirming it's true or false.
I think you're also missing the point, which is simply whether or not Wiki is correct in the biographical facts it gives on Ros-Lehtinen's background. It has nothing whatever to do with Wiki's larger ideological purity (an issue I made no claims about).
I'm not saying that you made a claim on ideological purity but that Wiki's major weakness is that since their articles can be too easily edited, that leaves open the door for various ideological rifts in the form of frequent editing to take place. That adds to more confusion. I would still check with other sources against Wiki's story to play it safe when it comes to politics.
I stand corrected. RichM is right. I frequently consult Wiki, for instance, to check up on the recently deceased Soupy Sales.
Wiki is the authority on all things Jewish and Zionist - heck! They even confirm that Marilyn Monroe was a Jew at the time of her death. Had the hottie lived a little longer, she would've been legally able to buy a cleansed house in East Jerusalem with Ros-Lehtinen and start a torrid Lesbian love affair. But that's just me speculating.
Regarding Wikipedia. I am a editor at Wikipedia, the people's encyclopedia. I have "adopted" one person and I watch over her article very closely. Believe me, one person really can make a difference. I struggled for over a year attempting to clean her article up, and if I would have had just one other person to support me it would have made a world of difference.
I also keep tabs on several other articles. I don't generally edit them but occasionally make comments on the discussion page. Believe me, it really makes a difference.
It really does irritate me when people complain about the site without taking any effort to correct the information.
I'd suggest that one always check the discussion page to look for controversy before deciding that the information is accurate. I've been doing that for years, and in my experience the folks that work so hard to keep it accurate are doing a great job.
I struggled for months to bring balance to several articles, two of them political and another politicised, but eventually gave up trying. My edits were reverted within minutes of making them, over and over again. In the politicised topic, the reversions served the commercial interests as well as the ideology of one of the reverters. Because of that experience, I view the 'encyclopedia' as nothing more than a sort of online book of trivia, filled with inconsequential facts and figures, plus outdated information often taken whole from quite biased (but, because published in 1870 or 1920 or whenever, 'acceptable') sources.
I had a semi-humorous experience recently when trying to correct a non-political, purportedly factual entry obviously made by someone with an imperfect command of English and an even poorer grasp of British honorifics, but a strong commitment to his (mis)understanding! I fixed up his mistaken impressions, but my fix didn't even last a minute before being reverted. I shrugged and turned away: it's not rewarding to try to out-obsess an obsessive.
Mariead, thanks so much for your post with your experience. I'd really appreciate knowing the topics that you are speaking of. In my experience, with persistence one can actually make a good article. If this is not the case, I'd like to know about it so I can quit saying it!
The topics were 'libertarianism', 'anarchism', and 'cats'. I was so irritated that I've not visited any of those topics since then, so someone else might meanwhile have succeeded where I failed.
As far as the repeating history motif goes the more apt example may be the Balkans in 1914. A little belligerent state drags its more powerful patron state into a conflict that serves absolutely no strategic purpose whatsoever for the patron nation.
The de facto reality now is an attack by Israel is for all intents and purposes an attack by the United States.
After the Israeli attack on Iran when oil goes to - oh I don't know - $400 a barrel, one might begin wonder if perhaps the cost of the "special relationship" with that colonial apartheid state is too great.
Austria did NOT "drag" Germany into starting WW1. Rather, Germany pushed Austria as the Kaiser wanted a "race war" with the Slavs--race war being the Kaiser's words. Please educate yourself by reading Fischer's "Germany's Aims in the First World War."
If oil goes to $400 a barrel, regardless of the cause, some folks will get very rich. The last price run up gave the oil companies huge profits. Our loss, was their gain. I don't see what Israel gets out of any of this, but some people do gain and I am sure they don't want the focus or blame on them.
In war, the arms industry and oil industry wins. Bankers probably do well too. A real war might devastate Israel, but would these profiteers be sad?
"Our loss, was their gain. I don't see what Israel gets out of any of this, but some people do gain and I am sure they don't want the focus or blame on them."
------------------
If you lower your hand from you eyes, you will clearly see what Israel gains from all of this. And gain it does!
If it goes to 400 a barrel even more US dollars will be needed to buy the stuff so Bernanke can quadruple the runs of the printing presses.
This will then push oil to 800 dollars a barrel and he can quadruple the printing of US dollars again!
That's the plan...as long as oil will be traded in US dollars.
And Bernanke and his cabal couldn't care less about the dollar. It's demise is planned as well. After all, enough has been stolen and laundered into non-dollar worth.
Again, I can only highly recommend to read:
“Collateral Damage” by E. P Heidner, part I and II.
>>> www.scribd.com/people/documents/2169400-ep-heidner <<<
And maybe to watch
"THE EMPIRE OF "THE CITY"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4675077383139148549
But that is the side benefit. Look who made out like a bandit when oil hit $140. They could not care if the world comes to a halt. At $400 a barrel, they will be swimming in dough.
remember the USS Liberty.....
1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 American servicemen
The real question facing the American people is why the US Government seems more concerned with protecting Israel after they are caught playing these dirty tricks, rather than doing something to convince Israel not to kill any more Americans
And about 9/11..............The dancing Israelis
"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information." -- US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11.
~ Some people live their whole lives without ever waking up ~
Because Israel is a proxy state of the US Empire, a garrison state that serves imperial interests in the region. When we speak of Israeli policy, we are really speaking of US policy since the US provides large financial support for Israel, military aid with the latest weaponry, and political cover. Without the USA there would be no Israel.
If we need to change policy, we must focus the effort on our own government and ignore Israel.
You have it backwards -- it is the U.S. who is the subservient proxy state of Israel.
Just look at what we've done in the Middle East, look at where our money goes -- who's benefiting from this? Whose interests are being served? What has, and continues to be, ruinous for the U.S. has been a great boon for the genocidal expansionist interests of Israel, and this has been going on for decades now.
There can be little doubt which is the subservient proxy state, and it's NOT Israel.
As many of us have noted previously on this site, none of our problems can be addressed until we get the mainstream media out of the hands of a few large corporations. Until that happens, Israel will continue to be the scourge of humanity.
q
"...As many of us have noted previously on this site, none of our problems can be addressed until we get the mainstream media out of the hands of a few large corporations..."
- Gee, that certainly sounds easy! All "we" need to do is "get the media out of the hands of a few large corporations." That would be just as easy as getting control of oil & energy policy out of the hands of a few large corporations; or getting control of global markets & economic policy out of the hands of Wall St.
In fact, it would be just about as easy as overthrowing the federal government, or having "We, the People" take control of the Pentagon.
You don't apparently realize it, but by calling for "getting the media out of the hands of a few large corporations," you're essentially calling for a revolution, because under the US system of socio-political organization, there is simply no such thing as taking away the franchise of large corporations. The full power of the state would be invoked to DEFEND those large corporations. Therefore, unless you're prepared to take on the state itself, you're not going to take away the franchise of media giants.
"...you're essentially calling for a revolution..."
Too right.
Sadly it will require ashes for the phoenix to rise.
My goodness, we're in a snit about something, aren't we?
You get the mainstream media out of such hands by creating something else to substitute for and then to replace the current organs of that media.
We already have the internet but that's really just a beginning. Advances in various technologies and the reawakening of more primitive communication methods will develop alternative venues which the majority of people will eventually come to trust more than they do the evening news.
I'll use as an example the Civil Rights movement in the 1950's and '60's. Those folks had no advantages whatsoever over entrenched interests and received sympathetic coverage from none of the three main TV networks and very few major newspapers. They still managed to plan and organize and demonstrate and force their way into the public's consciousness. If you choose to call what they did a revolution then do so. You'd be wrong but go ahead.
q
"...You get the mainstream media out of such hands by creating something else to substitute for and then to replace the current organs of that media..."
- This juvenile "analysis" overlooks the core issue here: the corporate media faithfully serves the interests of corporate power in the US. The state itself also serves corporate power (state & corporate power being closely interlinked). Therefore, any attempt to "replace" the current organs of the media is going to be correctly viewed as a dangerous challenge to both state & corporate power. Therefore, both the state & the corporate oligarchy will do their utmost to ensure that a media which serves them very well is not "replaced" by a media that would in many ways become their adversary.
"...I'll use as an example the Civil Rights movement in the 1950's and '60's. Those folks had no advantages whatsoever over entrenched interests and received sympathetic coverage from none of the three main TV netwaorks and very few major newspapers..."
- In fact, the Northern-based media was quite sympathetic to the Civil Rights struggle (at least, to the faction led by ML King). All the major TV networks portrayed people like Bull Connor & the most prominent Southern politicians (Wallace, Faubus, etc) as brutal bullying bigots. Perhaps down in Georgia you never got to see that (or maybe it was before you were born).
The Wiki page on Bull Connor says, for example, "His aggressive tactics backfired when the spectacle of the brutality being broadcast on national television served as one of the catalysts for major social and legal change in the South and helped in large measure to assure the passage by the United States Congress of the Civil Rights Act of 1964..."
The police riot at Selma, the bombing of the church in Birmingham, and the murders of the three civl-rights workers all took place in the 1963-64 time frame. I was a teenager at that time and remember the press coverage well. It was those murders that actually began to turn the tide against the southern white conspiracy.
But those events were reactions - actually over-reactions - by those southern whites to the growing strength of the Civil-Rights movements whose marches and demonstrations and sit-ins had slowly but increasingly been drawing national attention - including that of President Kennedy - and evetually forced Lyndon Johnson and Hoover's FBI to respond. Johnson was a southern white and Hoover was a notorious racist who was not inclined to bring federal law enforcement to the assistance of "the negro."
Again, I lived through this period and remember the press coverage - and I did not grow up in Georgia. The protests, demonstrations, and sit-ins were obviously well planned and organized. Hundreds and even thousands of people were contacted and transported to where they would be most effective.
q
In other words, you now acknowledge that the media did actually portray the Civil Rights Movement sympathetically, which was my point.
There was also an international aspect to it. At the time, the US was in the middle of the Cold War, sometimes described as a "battle for the hearts & minds of non-aligned countries." Northern elites recognized that in this battle, the US could ill afford to be seen as a blatantly racist society. Thus the media tended to recognize the necessity of being supportive of civil rights, not so much out of love & compassion for black people, but rather because they saw it as being important to US prestige on the world stage.
Re RichM October 23rd, 2009 1:07 pm,
who despairs of our ever again getting the media to fulfil their proper Jeffersonian role:
Nobody said it would be easy, but I think there's a way. Revelations about the use of "media force multipliers" in preparing the public for invading Iraq seem to be falling on fertile ground; at the same time, we hear that similar self-serving shenanigans were perpetrated by the business beat---happy talk for months on the tube while insiders were selling short.
Certainly all this should arouse some doubt as to motive. Could a groundswell of public opinion lead to a movement to strip the networks of their licenses based on charges of conspiracy to defraud?
Just a credible threat of such action might force concessions out of these seemingly omnipotent entities. Even if not, the conversation itself could prove salutary.
"Could a groundswell of public opinion lead to a movement to strip the networks of their licenses based on charges of conspiracy to defraud?"
-(Jethro Tullamore).
Putting this out as an open ended, conditional 'question' is at best problematic and really little more than 'faith' based. It assumes here is 'hope' when there is none.
There no longer exists in America a countervailing entity called "public opinion" that can jump start even incremental change against a staus quo which will not permit it. No one knows what 'public opinion' is because it has become a fiction that has no substantive power to effect change. That option has been obdurately foreclosed. It is better to recognize that.
That would certainly be "salutary" if it had the remotest possibility of attaining a critical mass where it could actually occur: It does not.
As it is, your overly benign postulation seems little more than wishful thinking that is predicated on a Pollyannish optimism; it erroneously assumes a level of political maturity in America which does not exist. In fact, the America where something like that could happen, does not exist.
The optimism for that belief is based on a superannuated concept that there even exists a 'popular will' in an America that responds to such essentially 'intellectual' entreaties as media reform. Perhaps in a collegiate poly-sci classroom can such arguments be made, but nothing of value can now be expressed through the directives of an American 'popular' will except a dismal variant of fascism. –(Jill Bains)
Re Amfortas wound October 23rd, 2009 10:15 pm
I'm a card-carrying member of the reality-based community, not the Pollyanna you imagine. I tried in my limited way to open a line of inquiry into the problem of media control---you do agree there's a problem, right?---and to propose a solution, rather than indulging in the despair and cynicism that are so popular on this site, and in which you seem to find a perverse satisfaction.
You state: "There no longer exists in America a countervailing entity called 'public opinion'..." If there were any truth to your assertion, the media would find it unnecessary to mold "public opinion" or whatever passes for it. Journalists would not have to be "embedded," polls would not "push," and displays of protest would not have to be buried on page 34C below the horoscopes, if indeed they're reported at all. Altering the course of public opinion is a multi-billion dollar industry, in case you hadn't noticed. Surely the ones spending all that money don't believe they're wasting it, even if you do.
Feel free to throw up your hands in polysyllabic futility, if that's how you validate your existence. Believing nothing can be done absolves one of the obligation to do anything, doesn't it? Suicide is always an option for the terminally pessimistic. I'm not there yet, so I'll continue to do what I do, regardless of whether it meets your standards. You may scroll past my posts in the future, and save us both a lot of unnecessary keystrokes.
Wonderfully well-said, Jethro. Bravo!
You hit it squarely: if people were *really* the sheep-like fools so many of the liberal elite sneer at, the ruling class wouldn't need to spend untold billions on 24/7/365 lying.
[because under the US system of socio-political organization, there is simply no such thing as taking away the franchise of large corporations.]
Perhaps not, but there has been one example of breaking up large monopolies. Didn't Teddy Roosevelt (?) introduce trust busting legislation? I don't think Obama is about to emulate either Teddy or Frankie, but that doesn't mean you can't force him to break up the companies of today which are 'too big to fail'. There is an argument that 'too big to fail' should mean 'too big to exist', but we'll not read those articles in the MSM.
Yeah, TR started busting a few, well selected trusts. But it was his hand picked successor--Taft--that was the real buster of trusts, much to the dismay of TR, who railed against his former pupil, and then proposed his New Nationalism in the speech linked here, http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trnationalismspeech.html perhaps the most radical speech made by a US politician ever; an excerpt:
"Those who oppose all reform will do well to remember that ruin in its worst form is inevitable if our national life brings us nothing better than swollen fortunes for the few and the triumph in both politics and business of a sordid and selfish materialism."
The best thing this country could do would be to end the "special relationship" with Israel; as I see it, it's outmoded and is taking us down the road to ruin.
Entangling alliances will be the wreck of this country sooner or later if we don't end them.