| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"=?utf-8?B?LsK3OirCqMKoKjrCty7CtzoqwqjCqCo6wrcuICDimaUgV29ybGQgV2FyIElJSSAyMDA3IC0tVGhlIExhc3QgMjAwMCBEYXlzIC7CtzoqwqjCqCo6wrcuIOKZpcKpwq7ihKI=?=" |
| Date: |
27 Nov 2006 08:53:01 PM |
| Object: |
WILL THE JEW ATTACK IRAN |
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=3D17227
Will Israel Attack Iran?
Greg Reeson
November 27, 2006
As Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert prepared to leave the Middle East
for a meeting with President George W. Bush in Washington, he warned
that Israel had =E2=80=9Cvarious=E2=80=9D options for dealing with Iran, op=
tions
that he was not prepared to discuss. Of course, the use of such
diplomatic language immediately creates the perception that Israel is
considering a military strike in response to the Islamic Republic=E2=80=99s
continued defiance over its nuclear program. But what would prompt
Israel to strike first?
For starters, the Israelis have been directly threatened by Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has repeatedly called the Jewish
state a parasite that needs to be wiped from the face of the planet. He
has openly called for Israel=E2=80=99s destruction and wants desperately to
rid the Middle East of its =E2=80=9CZionist occupiers.=E2=80=9D Former Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, quoted on Haaretz.com, put the threat in
context by comparing Iran with Nazi Germany: =E2=80=9CIt=E2=80=99s 1938 and=
Iran is
Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs.=E2=80=9D
Referencing Ahmadinejad=E2=80=99s assertions that Iran will never give up i=
ts
nuclear quest, Netanyahu said, =E2=80=9CBelieve him and stop him=E2=80=A6.h=
e is
preparing another Holocaust for the Jewish state.=E2=80=9D
The statements from Ahmadinejad give Israelis good reason to worry. The
Iranian President has made his wishes known, and he is daring the
global community to stop him. And, the Israelis rightly believe they
cannot rely on the world=E2=80=99s powers to protect their state. The United
Nations has been =E2=80=9Cnegotiating=E2=80=9D the Iranian nuclear issue fo=
r the
better part of a year now, with no tangible results. The Security
Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran cease its enrichment of
uranium, and then stood idly by as the deadline for compliance slipped
away while France, Russia, and China sought more negotiations and
downplayed the possibility of economic sanctions.
The reality for Israel is that the United Nations, based on historical
performance, will probably not be able to accomplish anything
meaningful in the confrontation with Iran. At least not until it gets
its act together. Member nations must work together on this issue, and
not independently based on what economic interests they may have with
Iran. Unless that happens, further deliberations in the Security
Council are a wasted effort.
Another problem for Israel is that the Olmert government is weak. The
recent war with Hezbollah undermined the Israeli government=E2=80=99s
credibility with its population after the militant group fought the IDF
to a stalemate, thousands of rockets were fired causing multiple
civilian and military casualties, and Israel failed to achieve any
strategic or tactical gains. Olmert is hanging on, but he is
vulnerable. Throw in a Democratic sweep in the U.S. midterm elections,
followed by the firing of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and
Olmert becomes increasingly isolated as his most ardent supporters in
Washington fall to the wayside.
Israel has had a relatively free hand to act in the past. But, given
the current state of affairs in the Middle East, any preemptive Israeli
military action against Iran would presumably have to have prior U.S.
approval. The consequences of a military strike are just too severe for
it to be otherwise. It is doubtful that the United States would grant
such approval, for to do so would be to unleash instability and
conflict throughout the region at a time when American forces are
heavily engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Pressure is building and Prime Minister Olmert may feel compelled to
act, to save his government and to save his country. Israel cannot
tolerate a nuclear armed Iran. To do so would be to invite destruction
at the hands of a madman intent on the Jewish state=E2=80=99s destruction.
So, what will happen next is anyone=E2=80=99s guess.
Olmert may decide that he has no choice but to act without the American
approval that President Bush would no doubt insist upon. If he does,
the result will be a massive explosion of violence in the Middle East
as neighboring Arabs join the Persians in a fight against Israel and
the west. The United States would have no choice but come to the
defense of its only real ally in the region. This is a situation nobody
in their right mind wants to see come to fruition. The threat from Iran
must be taken seriously, now more than ever. If the United Nations is
not up to the task, the Israeli Prime Minister may have no choice but
to handle the problem on his own. And then there truly will be hell to
pay.
Greg Reeson is a Featured Author for The Land of the Free and a regular
contributor to The New Media Journal. His columns are regularly
featured in several publications.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
.
|
|
| User: "=?utf-8?B?2KfYtNmH2K8g2KfZhiDZhdit2YXYr9in2YYg2LHYs9mI2YQg2KfZhNin77eyIC3ilaDbnuKVo8eZ4oiRwqfDouKCrEnDkF9TQlJfwq1YfHx8PQ==?=" |
|
| Title: Re: WILL THE JEW ATTACK IRAN |
28 Nov 2006 12:28:42 PM |
|
|
Isarel is the LAST RACIST APARTHIED Regime in the WORLD. It MUST AND
SHALL BE WIPED OFF THE MAP. Just like the APARTHIED IN SOUTH AFRICA!
Jews will NEVER EVER HAVE THE BALLS TO ATTACK IRAN.
Just a bunch of PARANOID RACIST SAVAGES barking like MAD DOGS!
DEATH TO ISRAEL
DEATH TO AMERICA!
allAho akbar:-)
..=C2=B7:*=C2=A8=C2=A8*:=C2=B7.=C2=B7:*=C2=A8=C2=A8*:=C2=B7. =E2=99=A5 Worl=
d War III 2007 --The Last 2000
Days .=C2=B7:*=C2=A8=C2=A8*:=C2=B7. =E2=99=A5=C2=A9=C2=AE=E2=84=A2 wrote:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=3D172=
27
Will Israel Attack Iran?
Greg Reeson
November 27, 2006
As Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert prepared to leave the Middle East
for a meeting with President George W. Bush in Washington, he warned
that Israel had =E2=80=9Cvarious=E2=80=9D options for dealing with Iran, =
options
that he was not prepared to discuss. Of course, the use of such
diplomatic language immediately creates the perception that Israel is
considering a military strike in response to the Islamic Republic=E2=80=
=99s
continued defiance over its nuclear program. But what would prompt
Israel to strike first?
For starters, the Israelis have been directly threatened by Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has repeatedly called the Jewish
state a parasite that needs to be wiped from the face of the planet. He
has openly called for Israel=E2=80=99s destruction and wants desperately =
to
rid the Middle East of its =E2=80=9CZionist occupiers.=E2=80=9D Former Pr=
ime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, quoted on Haaretz.com, put the threat in
context by comparing Iran with Nazi Germany: =E2=80=9CIt=E2=80=99s 1938 a=
nd Iran is
Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs.=E2=80=9D
Referencing Ahmadinejad=E2=80=99s assertions that Iran will never give up=
its
nuclear quest, Netanyahu said, =E2=80=9CBelieve him and stop him=E2=80=A6=
..he is
preparing another Holocaust for the Jewish state.=E2=80=9D
The statements from Ahmadinejad give Israelis good reason to worry. The
Iranian President has made his wishes known, and he is daring the
global community to stop him. And, the Israelis rightly believe they
cannot rely on the world=E2=80=99s powers to protect their state. The Uni=
ted
Nations has been =E2=80=9Cnegotiating=E2=80=9D the Iranian nuclear issue =
for the
better part of a year now, with no tangible results. The Security
Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran cease its enrichment of
uranium, and then stood idly by as the deadline for compliance slipped
away while France, Russia, and China sought more negotiations and
downplayed the possibility of economic sanctions.
The reality for Israel is that the United Nations, based on historical
performance, will probably not be able to accomplish anything
meaningful in the confrontation with Iran. At least not until it gets
its act together. Member nations must work together on this issue, and
not independently based on what economic interests they may have with
Iran. Unless that happens, further deliberations in the Security
Council are a wasted effort.
Another problem for Israel is that the Olmert government is weak. The
recent war with Hezbollah undermined the Israeli government=E2=80=99s
credibility with its population after the militant group fought the IDF
to a stalemate, thousands of rockets were fired causing multiple
civilian and military casualties, and Israel failed to achieve any
strategic or tactical gains. Olmert is hanging on, but he is
vulnerable. Throw in a Democratic sweep in the U.S. midterm elections,
followed by the firing of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and
Olmert becomes increasingly isolated as his most ardent supporters in
Washington fall to the wayside.
Israel has had a relatively free hand to act in the past. But, given
the current state of affairs in the Middle East, any preemptive Israeli
military action against Iran would presumably have to have prior U.S.
approval. The consequences of a military strike are just too severe for
it to be otherwise. It is doubtful that the United States would grant
such approval, for to do so would be to unleash instability and
conflict throughout the region at a time when American forces are
heavily engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Pressure is building and Prime Minister Olmert may feel compelled to
act, to save his government and to save his country. Israel cannot
tolerate a nuclear armed Iran. To do so would be to invite destruction
at the hands of a madman intent on the Jewish state=E2=80=99s destruction.
So, what will happen next is anyone=E2=80=99s guess.
Olmert may decide that he has no choice but to act without the American
approval that President Bush would no doubt insist upon. If he does,
the result will be a massive explosion of violence in the Middle East
as neighboring Arabs join the Persians in a fight against Israel and
the west. The United States would have no choice but come to the
defense of its only real ally in the region. This is a situation nobody
in their right mind wants to see come to fruition. The threat from Iran
must be taken seriously, now more than ever. If the United Nations is
not up to the task, the Israeli Prime Minister may have no choice but
to handle the problem on his own. And then there truly will be hell to
pay.
Greg Reeson is a Featured Author for The Land of the Free and a regular
contributor to The New Media Journal. His columns are regularly
featured in several publications.
=20
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ed and Donna" |
|
| Title: Re: WILL THE JEW ATTACK IRAN |
28 Nov 2006 12:02:08 PM |
|
|
You betcha!
G-d 's army will not lose.
".·:*¨¨*:·.·:*¨¨*:·. ? World War III 2007 --The Last 2000 Days .·:*¨¨*:·.
?©®T" <stargatedecember2012@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1164682381.293648.207340@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=17227
Will Israel Attack Iran?
Greg Reeson
November 27, 2006
As Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert prepared to leave the Middle East
for a meeting with President George W. Bush in Washington, he warned
that Israel had "various" options for dealing with Iran, options
that he was not prepared to discuss. Of course, the use of such
diplomatic language immediately creates the perception that Israel is
considering a military strike in response to the Islamic Republic's
continued defiance over its nuclear program. But what would prompt
Israel to strike first?
For starters, the Israelis have been directly threatened by Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has repeatedly called the Jewish
state a parasite that needs to be wiped from the face of the planet. He
has openly called for Israel's destruction and wants desperately to
rid the Middle East of its "Zionist occupiers." Former Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, quoted on Haaretz.com, put the threat in
context by comparing Iran with Nazi Germany: "It's 1938 and Iran is
Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs."
Referencing Ahmadinejad's assertions that Iran will never give up its
nuclear quest, Netanyahu said, "Believe him and stop him..he is
preparing another Holocaust for the Jewish state."
The statements from Ahmadinejad give Israelis good reason to worry. The
Iranian President has made his wishes known, and he is daring the
global community to stop him. And, the Israelis rightly believe they
cannot rely on the world's powers to protect their state. The United
Nations has been "negotiating" the Iranian nuclear issue for the
better part of a year now, with no tangible results. The Security
Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran cease its enrichment of
uranium, and then stood idly by as the deadline for compliance slipped
away while France, Russia, and China sought more negotiations and
downplayed the possibility of economic sanctions.
The reality for Israel is that the United Nations, based on historical
performance, will probably not be able to accomplish anything
meaningful in the confrontation with Iran. At least not until it gets
its act together. Member nations must work together on this issue, and
not independently based on what economic interests they may have with
Iran. Unless that happens, further deliberations in the Security
Council are a wasted effort.
Another problem for Israel is that the Olmert government is weak. The
recent war with Hezbollah undermined the Israeli government's
credibility with its population after the militant group fought the IDF
to a stalemate, thousands of rockets were fired causing multiple
civilian and military casualties, and Israel failed to achieve any
strategic or tactical gains. Olmert is hanging on, but he is
vulnerable. Throw in a Democratic sweep in the U.S. midterm elections,
followed by the firing of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and
Olmert becomes increasingly isolated as his most ardent supporters in
Washington fall to the wayside.
Israel has had a relatively free hand to act in the past. But, given
the current state of affairs in the Middle East, any preemptive Israeli
military action against Iran would presumably have to have prior U.S.
approval. The consequences of a military strike are just too severe for
it to be otherwise. It is doubtful that the United States would grant
such approval, for to do so would be to unleash instability and
conflict throughout the region at a time when American forces are
heavily engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Pressure is building and Prime Minister Olmert may feel compelled to
act, to save his government and to save his country. Israel cannot
tolerate a nuclear armed Iran. To do so would be to invite destruction
at the hands of a madman intent on the Jewish state's destruction.
So, what will happen next is anyone's guess.
Olmert may decide that he has no choice but to act without the American
approval that President Bush would no doubt insist upon. If he does,
the result will be a massive explosion of violence in the Middle East
as neighboring Arabs join the Persians in a fight against Israel and
the west. The United States would have no choice but come to the
defense of its only real ally in the region. This is a situation nobody
in their right mind wants to see come to fruition. The threat from Iran
must be taken seriously, now more than ever. If the United Nations is
not up to the task, the Israeli Prime Minister may have no choice but
to handle the problem on his own. And then there truly will be hell to
pay.
Greg Reeson is a Featured Author for The Land of the Free and a regular
contributor to The New Media Journal. His columns are regularly
featured in several publications.
=================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vin Dobona" |
|
| Title: Re: WILL THE JEW ATTACK IRAN |
28 Nov 2006 10:29:45 PM |
|
|
"Ed and Donna" <EdandDonna@ourhome.com> wrote in message
news:AQ_ah.16548$9v5.15570@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
You betcha!
G-d 's army will not lose.
Do you have a speech impediment or do you not know how to spell?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WILL THE JEW ATTACK IRAN |
29 Nov 2006 12:28:37 AM |
|
|
Vin Dobona wrote:
"Ed and Donna" <EdandDonna@ourhome.com> wrote in message
news:AQ_ah.16548$9v5.15570@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
You betcha!
G-d 's army will not lose.
Do you have a speech impediment or do you not know how to spell?
I believe the above is the variety of Christian that believes the word
"God" is God's name.
We do capitalize it after all. And the person is trying to avoid
"taking God's name in vain" even though a. it isn't a name, and b. it
certainly isn't the tetragrammaton or four-fold ineffible and
unpronouncable name of God to which the commandment refers.
The name the commandment refers to is YHVH or in the Hebrew Yod Heh Vau
Heh.
It has immense mystical significance and was not meant for profane
(read common) usage.
To use it even in ordinary conversation would have meant invoking that
sacred presence in vain--for no purpose and would diminish the power of
that name for use in meditation for that individual. Some things
should remain sacred.
The Hebrews of Jesus's time pronounced the name Jehovah. Some pronounce
it Yaweh (eeeaaaooouuuuoooaaaeeeee). But it really isn't even
supposed to be pronounced. Other terms to refer to God, such as Adonai
(Lord)
and Elohim (Gods) and....well....GOD...arent names at all but titles or
descriptions
and certainly are not part of the commandment.
However, refering to the divine source of the Universe in ways that are
inappropriate, while not carrying any immediate negative consequence
and while not holding the invocative and meditative qualities of the
tetragrammaton, is still probably....not the wisest of choices.
S~
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?utf-8?B?LsK3OirCqMKoKjrCty7CtzoqwqjCqCo6wrcuICDimaUgV29ybGQgV2FyIElJSSAyMDA3IC0tVGhlIExhc3QgMjAwMCBEYXlzIC7CtzoqwqjCqCo6wrcuIOKZpcKpwq7ihKI=?=" |
|
| Title: Re: WILL THE JEW ATTACK IRAN |
29 Nov 2006 09:25:30 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Vin Dobona wrote:
"Ed and Donna" <EdandDonna@ourhome.com> wrote in message
news:AQ_ah.16548$9v5.15570@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
You betcha!
G-d 's army will not lose.
Do you have a speech impediment or do you not know how to spell?
I believe the above is the variety of Christian that believes the word
"God" is God's name.
We do capitalize it after all. And the person is trying to avoid
"taking God's name in vain" even though a. it isn't a name, and b. it
certainly isn't the tetragrammaton or four-fold ineffible and
unpronouncable name of God to which the commandment refers.
The name the commandment refers to is YHVH or in the Hebrew Yod Heh Vau
Heh.
It has immense mystical significance and was not meant for profane
(read common) usage.
To use it even in ordinary conversation would have meant invoking that
sacred presence in vain--for no purpose and would diminish the power of
that name for use in meditation for that individual. Some things
should remain sacred.
The Hebrews of Jesus's time pronounced the name Jehovah. Some pronounce
it Yaweh (eeeaaaooouuuuoooaaaeeeee). But it really isn't even
supposed to be pronounced. Other terms to refer to God, such as Adonai
(Lord)
and Elohim (Gods) and....well....GOD...arent names at all but titles or
descriptions
and certainly are not part of the commandment.
However, refering to the divine source of the Universe in ways that are
inappropriate, while not carrying any immediate negative consequence
and while not holding the invocative and meditative qualities of the
tetragrammaton, is still probably....not the wisest of choices.
S~
When the jew says "Jump!"
Americans ask: "How high?"
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=3D9314
HOOROO
UNCLE WALLY
----0----
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=3D9314
Will We Go to War for Israel?
Israel says "Jump!"
Americans ask: "How high?"
by Justin Raimondo
Listening to Newt Gingrich bloviate on Meet the Press, advocating U.S.
intervention on Israel's behalf against Syria and Iran =E2=80=93 and the
pathetic Joe "Me Too" Biden effectively agreeing with him =E2=80=93 one can
only wonder how or why anybody listens to these crazies. As Newt, the
megalomaniacal has-been, gleefully declares that "World War III" is in
progress, and weaves a conspiracy theory linking Iran, Syria, North
Korea, Hezbollah, and =E2=80=93 believe it or not! =E2=80=93 Venezuela, old=
Joe
just sits there nodding out. Given a chance to reply, his only
objection to Gingrich's vision of war on all fronts is that, yes, we
need to go to war, but we have to do it with the support of our allies.
"Fighting Joe" Biden is no weenie: his voice hardens as he avers we
should tell the North Koreans that we have the capacity to "annihilate"
them. Gingrich smiles.
He has good reason to smile. Aside from his fondness for the concept of
annihilation, he knows that the War Party's "liberal" Democratic wing
is falling into line. The Israeli invasion of Lebanon =E2=80=93 which many
predict will include the de facto annexation of a southern "buffer
zone" =E2=80=93 has the fulsome support of both parties. When the Israelis
tell the Americans to jump, the only question Biden and the Democratic
party leadership have is: How high?
What Israel wants is what they have always wanted: to use American
power, American tax dollars, and American lives to advance their own
expansionist agenda. Twenty-five thousand Americans are in Lebanon at
the present moment, all of them at risk from Israeli bombs =E2=80=93 but th=
at
didn't factor into Tel Aviv's calculations, any more than Lebanese or
Palestinian lives matter one whit to them. The Israelis put Israel
first =E2=80=93 and so does Washington. If all 25,000 American tourists and
others have to perish in the flames of Israeli air strikes, then so be
it. No sacrifice is too great =E2=80=93 just as long as our Israel-centric
foreign policy remains firmly in place.
Unleashed by the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the presence of a
substantial American force in the midst of Mesopotamia, the Israelis
are the tip of an American spear aimed at Syria and Iran. And Israel's
amen corner in Washington and the media are doggedly pushing the
talking point that these two spokes on the "axis of evil" are churning
the Lebanese waters. MSNBC assures us that Iran "created" Hezbollah:
knowledgeable analysts can only laugh at this agitprop =E2=80=93 but then
they aren't cited in this piece. Only a former Israeli general is.
Hezbollah, of course, was "created," not by Iran, but by the Israeli
invasion of 1982. The group gained prestige and adherents as it drove
the invading Israelis back over the border and set up an elaborate
network of social service organizations, standing candidates for office
and entering the Lebanese Parliament. The mere sight of an Arab entity
successfully defying Israel, and not only living to tell the tale but
also prospering, is impermissible: Russian President Vladimir Putin was
not alone in saying that there was more to the Israeli agenda than
merely getting back their captured =E2=80=93 um, I mean "kidnapped" =E2=80=
=93
soldiers.
Another war, a silent war, is going on in the corridors of power, and
the fighting in the Middle East, in an important sense, is merely a
reflection of a long, bitter internecine struggle in Washington. Those
Republican "realists" we hear so much about =E2=80=93 holdovers from the Bu=
sh
I regime, "realist" policy wonks, and those Republicans who look at the
polls =E2=80=93 have their champion (or best hope, at any rate) in
Condoleezza Rice. Her personal relationship with the president and her
elevation to head of the State Department have led several commentators
to equate this as a victory for the "realists."
The neoconservative ideologues, who have been the radical vanguard of
the War Party all along, certainly believe this, which is why Richard
Perle recently took her on in the Washington Post. The Condi faction
temporarily gained the upper hand when they came out with a policy on
Iran that had been worked on in secret and took the road of negotiation
rather than outright military confrontation and "regime change."
The Israeli answer: invade Lebanon, force the issue, and go for the
throat. With the Israel lobby going full-bore and the propaganda mills
churning, the invasion undermines the Rice faction and puts the issue
of regime-change back on the administration's agenda. While that change
of regime will, initially, be limited to southern Lebanon, where
Hezbollah operates a de facto independent state, it will eventually =E2=80=
=93
the neocons hope =E2=80=93 extend to the whole of the country, topple Bashar
al-Assad in Syria =E2=80=93 and, eventually, spill over into Iran.
Dan Rather said on Chris Matthews' Sunday show that the road is
littered with the corpses of those who underestimated ***** Cheney, and
the reassertion of the neoconservative voice within this administration
=E2=80=93 a voice that many thought had been nearly stilled by the grotesque
failure of our Iraqi disaster =E2=80=93 is a testament to the validity of h=
is
thesis.
The neocons' comeback is made possible by the Democrats' complete
prostration before the Israeli offensive. Biden's babbling that our
lack of allies has crippled our ability to mediate the Middle East
conflict is completely wrong =E2=80=93 and beside the point, in any case. To
begin with, all the Arab killer regimes =E2=80=93 the Saudis, the Egyptians,
the Jordanians, the dictators, the kings, the petty tyrants and emirs
=E2=80=93 are taking the line that Hezbollah, and not Israel, is to blame.
The Lebanese, they say, have brought this on themselves and now have to
bear the consequences of Hassan Nasrallah's actions.
Yet a state of war still exists between Israel and Lebanon =E2=80=93 no pea=
ce
treaty was ever signed. And the border is closely watched by both
parties: it's hard to imagine the Israelis failed to realize that
sending in a few unguarded troops so close to Hezbollah positions would
likely result in their capture. Hezbollah took the bait, and the trap
snapped shut.
The question boils down to this: can the Israelis win a war with
Hezbollah without American intervention? The answer, clearly, is no:
look what happened last time. The Americans, lured into Beirut,
suffered 241 casualties =E2=80=93 after bombing Beirut's suburbs =E2=80=93 =
and
Reagan wisely withdrew. Israel, in the end, was driven out. The neocons
are determined that, this time, the Americans will not only stay =E2=80=93
they'll go for Damascus.
The call for American military intervention is bound to come up, rather
shortly, and get louder as the long "precision" bombing of the Lebanese
continues. The Israelis will pound Lebanon in a display of U.S.-backed
military power, and the only debate in Washington will be over to what
extent we ought to intervene, rather than whether we ought to get
involved at all.
In the end, some combination of UN-NATO-American military intervention
will do for the Israelis what they could never accomplish on their own:
neutralize all opposition to their conquest of Palestine coming from
the Levant. The "debate" in Washington is only over how to achieve that
goal: the Democrats say we have to do it "multilaterally," and the
Republicans, with Jacksonian disdain, say we don't have to answer to
anybody (except the Israelis, of course).
There is no "solution" to the Middle East's many conflicts, and
American attempts to formulate one are doomed to failure. Some problems
are just not solvable by human efforts, and this is one of them. Our
intervention only serves to exacerbate the situation and spread the
conflict =E2=80=93 with blowback that can and did have deadly consequences =
as
far as our own interests are concerned.
American interests play little or no role in the formulation of U.S.
foreign policy in the Middle East, and we all know why. What scholars
John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt said in their now famous study
[=2Epdf] of "the Lobby," as they call it, is being confirmed in spades by
this latest episode:
"For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in
1967, the centerpiece of U.S. Middle Eastern policy has been its
relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for
Israel and the related effort to spread 'democracy' throughout the
region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized not only
U=2ES. security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation
has no equal in American political history. Why has the U.S. been
willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in
order to advance the interests of another state?"
Their answer: "The unmatched power of the Israel Lobby."
That Lobby is now furiously demanding =E2=80=93 and getting =E2=80=93 uncon=
ditional
support for the violation of Lebanon's sovereignty not only from the
president, but from the leaders of both political parties and the major
mandarins of the commentariat. The Mearsheimer-Walt thesis has now been
confirmed. The question is: what do we do about it?
America's real interests in the Middle East are in securing two primary
goals: (1) Making sure that war and political factors don't obstruct
the free flow of commerce =E2=80=93 and oil =E2=80=93 to American markets, =
and (2)
neutralizing the Osama bin Ladens of the Middle East ideologically, not
necessarily in that order. Regarding the first goal, I merely refer you
to current oil prices. On the second matter, our unconditional support
for Israel's brazen invasion is now the chief recruiting tool for bin
Laden and his gang.
While the War Party runs roughshod over authentic American interests,
the U.S. political landscape, at this point, lacks anything remotely
resembling a Peace Party. Don't look to the Democrats, as a party, to
come to our rescue. They won't. "The Lobby" works both sides of the
partisan fence, and, as we all know, "politics ends at the water's
edge" =E2=80=93 which is how we've been dragged into every war of modern
times, despite popular opposition.
Perhaps, some day, an administration and a Congress that puts America
first will regain control of Washington. That prospect, however,
appears dim at the moment. As Americans wake up to World War IV on the
horizon, however, it is not completely out of the question. War teases
out new trends and creates new patterns in the politics of a nation,
and it does so rather rapidly. In any case, we have to hope =E2=80=93 becau=
se
the alternative is so unappealing.
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
I apologize for sounding a note of weariness, and even despair, in the
above paragraph. It is provoked, I fear, by the sheer repetition
involved in writing a column such as this. In pointing out the dangers
inherent in our foreign policy, and underscoring the probable
consequences of our reckless arrogance, I sometimes think I am writing
the same column, over and over again, and that the real trick is in
introducing some variation of language. So, rather than simply saying
"I told you so!", I have compiled a few quotes from previous columns on
the subject of Israel, Lebanon, and the prospect of a gathering
regional war.
Note: I have left the original links in, in spite of the maddening
practice of many news organizations in deleting or moving their online
content.
May 7, 2003
"Will this same gang of warmongers entrap us in a war with Syria, and
drag us back into Lebanon, where we are sure to confront the ghosts of
our past errors? The battle-cry has already been sounded: Stay tuned as
we hear news of Syria's 'weapons of mass destruction" and the
inevitable question: 'Is Saddam in Syria?'
"As Yogi Berra once said: 'This is like deja-vu all over again!'"
Feb. 16, 2005
"Wars don't respect national borders, and it's only a matter of time
before the Americans' ongoing battle against the Iraqi insurgency
spills over into Syria. As I predicted in September 2003, 'We are a
border incident away from taking the war into Syria, and beyond,' and
that analysis seems borne out by events.
"All the elements of a regional conflagration are now in place, and the
assassination of Hariri has set the fuse to burning. How long before
the troops move out is anyone's guess, but make no mistake about it:
Syria is next on the War Party's agenda.
"As I have said from the very beginning, the war in Iraq was and is
just a means to the ends of finally securing Israel's 'security' =E2=80=93 =
by
making it the dominant power in the region. This is now being confirmed
as the U.S. takes aim at Syria and moves against Hizbollah."
Dec. 12, 2005
"Syria is now girding for the imposition of economic sanctions and
trying to head off the campaign to destabilize the country on two
fronts: by restarting talks with Israel, and by cooperating with the
request to permit Syrian officials to be questioned in the Hariri
investigation. I have the funny feeling, however, that this is not
going to do them a lot of good, as far as their enemies in the West are
concerned. As we have seen in the case of Iraq, when the U.S. wants to
manufacture a case for war, it can be done pretty easily: Congress is
not likely to ask inconvenient questions until it's too late, and the
American people can hardly be expected to keep up with arcane doings in
faraway Lebanon, the scene of the intrigue and obscure religious-ethnic
rivalries that could spark another Mideast war. Acting pretty much
without either congressional or public scrutiny, this administration
thinks it can get away with anything when it comes to Syria =E2=80=93 and in
that, they are probably right."
March 2, 2005
"Two years after the invasion and conquest of Iraq, and what have we
gained? An Islamic state in Iraq, a looming confrontation with Syria,
and the increasingly likely prospect of Lebanon reverting to a state of
civil war."
Feb. 23, 2005
"We are in for a long buildup to direct intervention in Lebanon, and
Syria. =E2=80=A6 It's all so predictable, and boring, that I can't even wri=
te
about it for another minute, except to say: They've only just begun=E2=80=
=A6"
Jan. 2, 2006 =E2=80=93 New Year's column
"The escalation of the war against the Iraqi insurgencies =E2=80=93 yes, I
mean that to be a plural =E2=80=93 into a regional conflict is a possibility
that will increasingly present itself in 2006. The New Year had barely
dawned when reports of U.S. planning for a military strike on Iran were
coming from UPI and the Jerusalem Post. It is Syria, however, that
represents a real opportunity for the War Party to effect some 'regime
change' in the region: the process of setting up Bashar al-Assad as the
latest edition of Ba'athist Evil in the Middle East is already well
underway. Contrary to most of the evidence, including the most basic
considerations of common sense, Syria has been tagged as the murderer
of Lebanese entrepreneur-politician Rafik Hariri, who was killed in a
Beirut car blast last year, and the UN 'investigation' is taking on all
the appearances of a propaganda campaign directed at Damascus.
"Hillary has already signed on to the campaign to provoke a conflict
with Syria, and she won't hear any argument from McCain on this matter.
When the alleged Democratic 'dove' Nancy Pelosi touts her support of
sanctions against Syria =E2=80=93 in spite of the very valuable cooperation
proffered by Damascus in tracking down Islamist terrorist cells =E2=80=93 t=
he
chances of avoiding a military conflict with Damascus appear dim."
Oct. 24, 2005
"The U.S. is ratcheting up its campaign against Syria, even as the
principal proponents of confronting Damascus =E2=80=93 Libby, Hadley, Hanna=
h,
Wurmser, et al. =E2=80=93 find themselves in Fitzgerald's sights. In effect,
the prosecutor is running a race with the War Party: can they provoke a
war with Syria before he brings charges? For the sake of the country, I
dearly hope Fitzgerald's staff has writer's cramp by now from furiously
tapping out indictments."
March 29, 2006
"The battle will not be joined all at once, however: don't expect a
full-scale frontal assault on Iran any time soon. The struggle will
break out between Iranian proxies =E2=80=93 the Shi'ite party militias,
Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iranian-backed factions based in Syria =E2=80=93
and the U.S. and its allies in the region, including not only the
Israelis but also the Kurds and the Christian Lebanese factions."
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "00:00:00Hg" |
|
| Title: Re: WILL THE JEW ATTACK IRAN |
28 Nov 2006 12:08:02 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:02:08 +0000, Ed and Donna wrote:
You betcha!
G-d 's army will not lose.
What about His Navy?
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "EMD" |
|
| Title: Re: WILL THE JEW ATTACK IRAN |
30 Nov 2006 10:25:54 PM |
|
|
So what about the USA.....is it chopped liver??????? or maybe
CHUMPS?????????
Israel attacks and USA will get attacked whether we do anything or not......
Israel must look out for its own interests..........AND SO SHOULD THE
USA!!!!!!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WILL THE JEW ATTACK IRAN |
01 Dec 2006 11:15:08 PM |
|
|
EMD wrote:
So what about the USA.....is it chopped liver??????? or maybe
CHUMPS?????????
Israel attacks and USA will get attacked whether we do anything or not......
Israel must look out for its own interests..........AND SO SHOULD THE
USA!!!!!!!!
If the U.S. started to look out only for its own interests, Israel
would cease to exist
in a matter of days.
S~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
