The Goat Pen

Well, if we weren't there to protect them with conventional weaponry, they'd probably would have nuked their neighbors years ago, and the Jews would then control the oil and mark up the price like a jeweler in Brooklyn.

sardis wrote:Well, if we weren't there to protect them with conventional weaponry, they'd probably would have nuked their neighbors years ago, and the Jews would then control the oil and mark up the price like a jeweler in Brooklyn.

I'm 100% in favor of Israel determining their own destiny. Its not like we haven't been paying a steep price for oil because of Israel anyways - and that isn't just reflected at the pump.

We care because we don't believe a strong, unchecked bloc of like-minded countries in that region is in our long-term interest. We have a long history of supporting the side opposite of those we perceive as a threat. We've given weapons and/or funds to groups or governments in Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Saudi, Kuwait, Jordan, Yemen, Pakistan, etc, etc...

I'm not saying I agree, necessarily, but we have done this for a long time. We'd give guns to the devil himself if we thought it checked those we view as a potential risk.

AlabamAlum wrote:We care because we don't believe a strong, unchecked bloc of like-minded countries in that region is in our long-term interest. We have a long history of supporting the side opposite of those we perceive as a threat. We've given weapons and/or funds to groups or governments in Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Saudi, Kuwait, Jordan, Yemen, Pakistan, etc, etc...

I'm not saying I agree, necessarily, but we have done this for a long time. We'd give guns to the devil himself if we thought it checked those we view as a potential risk.

define "we"

you think the average joe in heartland America is or has been a part of that "we"?

Politico this morning

The powerful pro-Israel lobby AIPAC is planning to launch a major lobbying campaign to push wayward lawmakers to back the resolution authorizing U.S. strikes against Syria, sources said Thursday.

Officials say that some 250 Jewish leaders and AIPAC activists will storm the halls on Capitol Hill beginning next week to persuade lawmakers that Congress must adopt the resolution or risk emboldening Iran’s efforts to build a nuclear weapon. They are expected to lobby virtually every member of Congress, arguing that “barbarism” by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated, and that failing to act would “send a message” to Tehran that the U.S. won’t stand up to hostile countries’ efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, according to a source with the group.



“History tells us that ambiguity [in U.S. actions] invites aggression,” said the AIPAC source who asked not to be named. The source added the group will now be engaged in a “major mobilization” over the issue.



Despite the group’s political muscle, it often doesn’t get involved in congressional fights over authorizing military action, and it had been mum about intervening in Syria as recently as last week.

But the stepped-up involvement comes at a welcome time for the White House, which is struggling to muster the votes in both chambers for a resolution that would give President Barack Obama the authority to engage in ‘limited’ military action” in Syria for 60 days, with one 30-day extension possible. The hawkish group also has ties to many Republicans, including ones who have been critical of the Obama administration’s handling of U.S.-Israeli affairs.

The top two Senate GOP leaders — Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Minority Whip John Cornyn of Texas — both have already been urged by top Jewish donors and AIPAC allies to back the Syria resolution, sources say. Unlike their House GOP counterparts who endorsed the measure, McConnell and Cornyn have withheld their support.

A Cornyn aide said Thursday that the senator currently opposes the Syria resolution, which will be debated on the Senate floor next week.

“If the vote were held today, Sen. Cornyn would vote no,” said Megan Mitchell, a spokeswoman for Cornyn. “What he is waiting to see is a credible plan from the administration that will achieve our national security objectives. Specifically, a plan to keep chemical weapons out of the hands of terrorists.”

Don Stewart, a spokesman for McConnell, said that his boss had yet to announce his position on the resolution. McConnell said earlier this week: “While we are learning more about his plans, Congress and our constituents would all benefit from knowing more about what it is he thinks needs to be done—and can be accomplished—in Syria and the region.”

Indeed, AIPAC and the White House also have their work cut out for them in the House — and among Democrats.

Leaving a classified briefing on Syria Thursday, Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.) said she was undecided on the issue.

“For me, it’s about what makes sense for this country,” Tsongas said when asked how the security of Israel was playing into her deliberations.


------------------------

let that soak in for a moment - a lobby for a foreign country is spending money to influence American congressmen to go to war with a country that has no imminent threat to American interests.

and this has been going on for a long damn time.

How would we feel if Russia and China had an RIPAC and CIPAC dumping money onto congressmen to influence America's foreign policy?

We = the United States. If you're asking if Joe Plumber gets a say in shaping this policy, the answer has always been a resounding "no" - and that's not gonna change.

AlabamAlum wrote:We = the United States. If you're asking if Joe Plumber gets a say in shaping this policy, the answer has always been a resounding "no" - and that's not gonna change.

Joe the plumber is sending a resounding no to washington on this and is pissed that they aren't listening.

It is about gold, oil, and the american dollar. Nothing else.

is pissed that they aren't listening.


Tell us something new.

GOLD!!!!!

He may be pissed, but his options at the next election will be to vote for someone who - no matter what is said or promised - will continue on in the same fashion...or not vote.

Either way, Joe ain't getting a say.

which is the crux of why I continually rant about Israel's influence on our foreign policy. Its not just me

Former President Richard Nixon is heard making anti-Semitic statements in discussions with visitors to the Oval Office and by telephone in White House tapes that were released on Thursday.

The 340 hours of tapes, which cover the period from April 9, 1973 to July 12, 1973, were released by the Nixon Presidential Library. They are the last set of tapes that will be released by the library.

In a phone discussion in mid-April with Henry Kissinger, a Jew who at the time was the national security adviser, Nixon expresses concerns that Jews would torpedo an upcoming U.S.-Soviet summit. If that happened, Nixon said, “Let me say, Henry, it’s gonna be the worst thing that happened to Jews in American history.” He added, “If they torpedo this summit — and it might go down for other reasons — I’m gonna put the blame on them, and I’m going to do it publicly at 9 o’clock at night before 80 million people.”

He continued: “They put the Jewish interest above America’s interest, and it’s about goddamn time that the Jew in America realizes he’s an American first and a Jew second.”

In a tape from May 1 that is labeled by the library as “Garment’s Jewish background,” referring to Nixon aide and lawyer Leonard Garment, Nixon is heard shouting “Goddamn his Jewish soul” after saying he wants to fire Garment for an inappropriate comment.

When asked about appointees, Nixon tells presidential counselor Anne Armstrong there should be “No Jews. We are adamant when I say no Jews. … But Mexicans are important. Italians, Eastern Europeans. That sort of thing.”

Nixon accused the Jews of holding American foreign policy “hostage to Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union,” and added that “the American people are not going to let them destroy our foreign policy — never!”

"Israel provides a non-muslim thorn square in the broad side of the middle east. Its a nice check to avoid hegemony in the region"

Why not just put them in Alabama and achieve the same purpose...

"How would we feel if Russia and China had an RIPAC and CIPAC dumping money onto congressmen to influence America's foreign policy?"

If I was a congressman, I'd feel pretty good about it...

Nixon. Heh. That turned out well.

So did you...

Of course I did. Nixon not so much though.

you can never own your property in this country

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/invest ... h-nothing/

we need a law that says if you own your property outright, you can never be evicted from it or have it sold out from under you. I don't have a problem with local/state/fed government taking it and selling it after you die I mean I understand you have an obligation to pay taxes, and I'd be for other incentives that compel you to pay taxes, but not forfeiture of property you own free and clear - however, you need to know that once you pay for that roof over you head, its never going to be taken away - not for taxes, not to pay for health care, not to cover a lawsuit - and this is coming from someone that has never known anyone to lose a house personally. I just think this idea that once you buy something you can have it taken away is just bullshit.

Property as you think of it does not exist. Or at least it does not exist in real countries. You never own your "land", you merely purchase a bundle of rights that you gain between certain boundaries.