Your definition of neo-conservative, like phatcat's, is awfully simplistic. There a lot of neo-cons who aren't Jewish and who now share very little in common with "traditional left-wing views on social policy." They are often liberals who were mugged by reality, and not just on foreign policy issues, but on domesitc social issues as well. A neo-con, for example, would have supported NAFTA and the Welfare Reform Act Clinton signed into law in 1996. As for their foreign policy motives on Israel, answer me this: how does protecting and being allied with Israel incur any negative costs to America? And before you say, "Well, it makes the Islamic world very angry and provokes terror against us," I would say that the fact that we are who we are (non-Muslim, yet technologically and culturally superior to them in every conceivable way) makes them very angry and provokes terror against us. Some people would follow the appeasement doctrine of Neville Chamberlain and just give the Arab world Israel on a platter, but not me. Appeasement is the act of giving meat to a crocodile, hoping he will eat you last. Israel is not the end; merely the front line against the expansion and brutality of radical Islam, and if they fall, they will come for us, sooner or later. I'd rather Israel and U.S. troops in Iraq fight the battle over there, drawing every jihad freak to their death like mosquitoes to a bug-zapper, then have them come over here after they've run out of infidels to kill in their own backyard. Besides, I look at it as an oppurtunity for peace; pretty soon the Arab Muslims are gonna get the message that Israel isn't going anywhere, that we are not gonna ever let them "finish what Hitler started," and sooner or later, they are just gonna have to stop hatin' and learn to get along peacefully with Israel. They don't like Jews; not my problem. They want to slaughter Jews like cattle; I don't think so. They will play nice. If they don't want to play nice, they can just deal with it. Because of this, Israel and the U.S. seem to be allied out of simililarities and mutual interests (the enemy of my enemy is my friend, at the very least). Both Western democracies, grounded in Judeo-Christian ethics and heritage, facing a common enemy (radical, violent, fundamentalist Islam) and building toward a shared dream (world peace, and a place where Jews can go to be safe). You may see that as "protection of Israel at any and all cost to America." But to me, the cost of not supporting Israel is far, far greater than the cost of supporting Israel. The jihad freaks can never be allowed a single victory, anywhere in the world. To allow so would mean death for us all, or at the very least, unnecessarily drawing out the conflict.
I'm definitely not for appeasing the Arabs. If anything, I'd take an economic strong-arm tactic with them. I'd tell them, you need to ship your black gold to us as bad if not more than we need your black gold. Therefore, a barrel of oil costs $30 per OPEC? Well, without our armed forces, you wouldn't be able to ship that oil a 100 yards without your countrymen like Osama sinking one of your ships. Therefore, we're charging you $20 a barrel to provide protection for the shipment of that oil. That's our cost to protect your and our economic interests. Sorry to change the subject, but back to Israel. I feel absolutely no alliance with the state of Israel. None. I do not trust Israel, I do not feel that we benefit from the protection of Israel. And I certainly don't share a dream, one way or the other, in regards to the well-being of Israelis. Our interest in the Middle East is simple. Oil. And we should get tough with the oil producing countries or tell them they can drink the oil if they don't want to abide by our terms.
Now we are getting somewhere... To begin with, I quoted Buchanan not because I agree with his political views, but to point out how far from mainstream conservatism the neocons who are running the Bush administration's foreign policy have strayed, yet they still cloak themselves in the conservative mantle. Their policy goals are more imperialist than conservative, with war and military invasion seen by them as perfectly acceptable diplomatic tools. If in fact the Bush administration is setting a foreign policy course that is in the best interests of a country other than the U.S. ( and that is ANY country other than the U.S. ) then how is this administration the best choice for America? We are fighting in what is most probably an illegally declared war where American lives are being lost on a daily basis for the benefit of a foreign power to the obvious detriment of this country. Anti semitic? Call me whatever you want, but this is bullsh*t. I would feel no different if these foreign agents setting the present imperialist U.S. policy goals were Russian, German, Japanese, French, or any other foreign controlled agent for that matter. I am of the belief that my country is better than this. The situation in which we find ourselves where agents from a foreign power are so intricately involved in running the affairs of this country at the highest levels for the benefit of that country and not America IMO is nothing short of a recipe for disaster. When did America become a pitt bull to be sicked on any other country's enemies because it is in THEIR perceived best interest. Is Bush so blinded by his obsession with the family business and short term profits that he is willing to sell the rank and file American citizen down the river in this manner? It is my opinion that this question should be at the root of the debate about who we as Americans elect as our next president. Call me old fashioned, but I want my president and his administration to be more concerned about this county's long term best interests than that of any other single country. The perpetual state of war against the rest of the world that the neocons envision as our best case scenario with Americans citizens and the rest of the world forced into line by use of lies, fear, and intimidation is personally repugnant to me as I am sure it is to all liberty loving people everywhere.
Candidate Kerry was in Florida yesterday. He had an excellent opportunity to take an even-handed position on the Middle East. Come to think of it, the last candidate of either party who made such a comment was Howard Dean. Hope he's enjoying Vermont these days! As I said earlier, you have to be very careful on this subject because regardless of party, regardless of politician, on this issue the criteria has been set, you are either pro-Israel or you are anti-semitic. But as a liberal, you should be used to such tactics. You are either pro-affirmative action or you are anti-black. You are either pro-choice or you are anti-Woman. You are either pro-gay agenda or you are a pro-bigotry. You know well how the game is played. On the neo-con issue, yes they are obsessed with the protection of Israel, but that obsession exceeds neo-anything and crosses both party lines. You should know that. If you think a President Kerry or the President Clinton was any different on this issue than Bush or the neo-cons, your naive'. The different between the neo-cons and the Democratic Party is the neo-cons feign disinterest in a far-left social agenda while the Democrat elites, certainly not all Democrats, champion the far-left social agenda. On Israel, the sentiment is the exact same.
Actually, the GOP is the neocons' Bitch Actually, Clinton said no to the Israelis on a few occasions during his term in office. Two that come immediately to mind are: 1) In 2000, Israel's highly militarized high-tech economy was counting heavily on a huge sale of Phalcon air war technology to China. The US didn't like it. Barak said Israel would never back down. Clinton told them quietly, 'Sorry, no.' End of story. The Chinese never got their Phalcons. 2) Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Armitage and other PNAC, (the NeoConservative think tank that took over the Bush White House) members sent a letter to Clinton, urging Clinton to remove Saddam from power for the sake of Israel. "We urge you to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power," says the letter sent to Clinton. "This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/2003/Feb03/Leopold.htm Clinton rebuffed the advice saying his administration was "focusing on the worldwide threat posed by the terrorist group al-Qaeeda and it's leader Osama Bin Laden," who according to the Bush administration was responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attack and who they should have been focusing on instead of Saddam Hussein. The 1998 letters to Clinton seem to back up the revelations made by O'Neil in the book "The Price of Loyalty" that the Iraq war was, in fact, planned in the days after Bush was sworn into office-possibly even earlier, if you consider that between 1998 and late 1999, when Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, the chief architects of the Iraq war, they spent nearly two years lobbying Congress and the Clinton White House to no avail to use military force to overthrow Saddam Hussein from power. It was not until Immediately after Bush took office that the neocons began to get traction with their agenda. The conservative right wing are just as mortified over the Bush neocon policy of military agression as are the Democrats, as evidenced in the following: "Whatever Iraqi general the US puts in power in Baghdad will, like all his predecessors, battle the rebellious Kurds, yearn to annex Kuwait, and inevitably seek nuclear weapons to counter Israel's nuclear arsenal and Iran's advantage in manpower. Iraq will be Iraq, no matter who rules. The best way to end the Mideast's WMD arms race is to impose regional disarmament. This includes Israel, which continues to refuse nuclear arms inspection." "However brutal and aggressive, Saddam Hussein has also been Iraq's most effective ruler since 1957. It was Saddam who transformed Iraq into a modern, industrialized nation with one of the Arab world's highest standards of education and income. Washington could yet rue the day it failed to keep this Arab Stalin in power." "America may seize and exploit Iraq's oil in the short term, as neo-imperialists in Washington are urging, but in the long run, the cost of protecting oil installations and a puppet regime in Baghdad will exceed profits gained from pumping stolen oil. Bush is wrong if he thinks Iraq can be turned into another docile American protectorate, like Kuwait or Bahrain." "There is simply no political benefit for the United States in invading Iraq." "On the contrary, such an act of brazen aggression would summon up a host of unforeseen dangers and unimagined consequences that could destabilize the Mideast and Turkey, create a world economic crisis, and, perhaps, cause the aggressive Bush Administration to commit an act of imperial overreach that permanently injures AmericaÕs geopolitical interests and, let us not forget, IT'S MORAL INTEGRITY." Eric S. Margolis in The American Conservative ( caps mine ) http://www.amconmag.com/10_7/the_road_to_folly.html
Again, do we have any hard evidence that these dreaded neo-cons ever went with the side of Israel in a case where U.S. and Israeli interests clashed? Have U.S. and Israeli interests EVER clashed in this time period? It appears to me that the two nations have mutual foreign policy concerns and common enemies. That's an awful big incentive to work together on issues of confronting terror and pacifying, democratizing, and liberalizing the Middle East. I submit again that the folks you credit your sources and quotations to concerning opposition to the Iraq war are not seeing the big picture. An end to the "Arab Stalin" Hussein and his regime does have political benefits for the U.S., by ensuring greater stability in the Middle East, for the simple reason that, for the first time, a full withdrawal of U.S. military forces from the region is actually foreseeable. As long as Hussein was in power and his extra-territorial ambitions were unknown but a factor nonetheless, we were always going to have to keep troops stationed in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. If Iraq is a successful representative democracy that becomes a strong U.S. ally, propping up the Saudis will no longer be necessary, and Iraq will also act as a wedge between Iran and the radical Islamic/Ba'athist elements in Syria and Lebanon and the Palestinian territories to the West. Long term, this was good for Iraq, good for the Middle East, and good for the world. And good for America. I can actually see over the hill to a time when the Middle East might be a calm, stable place full of prospering democracies and free markets, if the new Iraqi govt. is successful. That vision was a pipe dream just two years ago. Ya'll have got to stop falling into this trap of expecting all our foreign policy actions to have immediate, noticeable, high-yield impact/return benefit and start looking at five, ten, twenty, fifty years down the road to see how our actions today make tomorrow better. And also ditch the "What's in it for us" attitude in tunnel vision as well. What's in it for you, and your children? How about a future where Islam is as pacified and laidback a religion as mainline Protestant Christianity and constitutes no threat to anyone? How about a world with no dictatorships? How about a world where Arab Muslims and Israeli Jews get along swell and terrorism and Middle East conflicts occupy chapters in history books instead of the front pages of newspapers? Where your children never ever have to see something like what they saw on TV on Sept. 11th, 2001 or worry about which crazy nutball in control of a country or a terror group has a nuclear missile pointed at an American city? The only people being forced into line by fear, lies, and intimidation are the people of the world being sold this crap about Bush being an evil aggressor who will destroy every country he doesn't like by our enemies (North Korea, Iran, radical Islam the world over) and our so called "friends" (France, Germany, et. al.) who stand to gain and profit immensely in money and power, if only Gulliver (the U.S.) can ever be successfully tied down by the Lilliputians (the hundreds of arrogant little despots around the world who think they can foment Ameri-hate and plot against us without any consequences). The fact is, there is no plan for perpetual war and there never has been. Only a determination by this administration to not stand idly by while threats gather and enemies slowly build their strength, or continue to twiddle our thumbs and pretend everything's all wonderful while the world goes straight to Hell in a handbasket. Are the wars over? Probably not. Sooner or later, things are probably gonna get hot with one of the emerging nuclear powers (Iran or North Korea) and some serious crap will go down. It won't be pretty. War may become unavoidable, because the Bush Administration feels, and I concur, that a nuclear armed North Korea or nuclear armed Iran is absolutely unacceptable if regional security or world peace is to be preserved. But if the unthinkable happens, I am not one bit deterred in my belief that this administration is prepared to handle it. The signing of the new Iraqi constitution, the gradual decrease in violence and the increasing appearance of desperation by the insurgents, the new almost daily revelations of the horror of the Hussein regime and the inner workings of his "government," the daily baby steps toward freedom and stability in that nation, and the increasing nervousness, paranoia, and fear of the worst enemies of freedom in the world, all wondering if they are next on "the Hit List," convinces me that we did the right thing in eliminating Hussein. The elimination of North Korea and Iran as threats, whether it comes through the "zero-compromise on American and American allies security" negotiation tactics we are now displaying in international diplomacy, through de-stabilizing those regimes through covert intelligence, or, if necessary, through military force, will also be the right move, when the time comes. But for now, I'm content to work on the situations that need resolving now, like Iraq, Haiti, Afghanistan, and the continued prosecution of the War on Terror.
That's all good. I'm certainly not for being blackmailed by the oil kingdoms. I'm for letting the free market decide how much crude oil is worth. So we shouldn't let OPEC dictate price terms. But we also shouldn't lowball them on the price of oil and force them to take or leave our offer at the point of a bayonet. That's not fair either. In fact, where I come from, that's armed robbery. They rob us, then we rob them eventually becomes a vicious cycle. But more on that later. Why not? I ask because, to put it bluntly, the vast majority of Americans disagree with you on this, for a variety of reasons. There is of course, the religious viewpoint; both Jewish Americans and Christian Americans see Israel's re-emergence as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy (for radically different reasons of course) and as key to the endtimes. Some see the U.S. as a defender of democracy, and support Israel because it is a fellow Western democracy with common values, or because we are defenders of the oppressed and the weak against tyranny, oppression, and destruction, and it has been stated that there has been no group of people in the world or in history more viciously persecuted and hated than the Jews. But Israel isn't special in this regard; we defend South Korea, Taiwan, defended Kuwait from Hussein-led Iraq, and defended Western Europe from the Soviets all during the Cold War for pretty much the same reasons, although each conflict had it's own cultural and strategic uniqueness. Some support Israel because they see our two nations as having a common enemy; radical, violent, extreme, fundamentalist Islam and the terrorists who champion it's ideology. Some support Israel out of a sense of sympathy or guilt for the Holocaust and the plight of the Jewish people. Me? I support Israel for ALL of the reasons stated above, and I believe it is, quite simply, the right thing to do. What are your trust issues with Israel? Or do you mistrust all foreign nations in the same way? True, our overriding strategic interest in the Middle East is oil. But it is also global peace and stability. The Middle East has always been a region of great turmoil and instability throughout the ages, and conflicts that originate there have a nasty tendency of spreading to other places. In this global age, what happens there becomes even more relevant to the rest of the world and to the U.S. Now, you can say all you want, "I want nothing to do with any of that," but the fact is, since we buy the oil, and since we have put troops on the ground and gone to war to keep the oil flowing, we now are involved, at least for the foreseeable future. They also came to us and attacked us in our own front yard two-and-a-half years ago. We're involved. Period. I am of the belief that the oil flow to America is least threatened and most easily facilitated if the Middle East is a region of calm, peaceful, stable, and friendly democracies with open markets, who all get along with each other, with Israel, and with the U.S. We could also solve a lot of the world's problems if that were the case and open up new markets for American products instead of trade just going one way (oil for cash). I guess I'm a little too idealistic for my own good, but I'm of the opinion that happy, free people make happy, free sellers of petroleum and happy, free consumers of American products, and that's all good for all concerned. Again, BIG PICTURE FOLKS!!! We're already starting to see that in Iraq. The Iraqi people are developing quite a taste for cell phones, satellite receivers, high-tech computers with Internet access, and other cool stuff that was inaccessible under the Hussein regime. And the fact that we locked down 15% of the planet's petroleum reserves in the deal doesn't hurt us either.
If war is so great, join Mr. Bush's army, Chickenhawk. How old are you, Jetstream? My guess would be 13 or younger. Do you get all of your assinine simple minded let's kick their ass bullshit rhetoric from comic books or talk radio? I listened to exactly that same simplistic dumbassed line of crap during the early years of the Vietnam War. "I submit again that the folks you credit your sources and quotations to concerning opposition to the Iraq war are not seeing the big picture. An end to the "Arab Stalin" Hussein and his regime does have political benefits for the U.S., by ensuring greater stability in the Middle East, for the simple reason that, for the first time, a full withdrawal of U.S. military forces from the region is actually foreseeable." Mark my word that America will have substantial numbers of troops stationed in the middle east for decades to come. The middle eastern oil fields are just too tantilizing a prize for an oilman like Bush to walk away from. Due to unacceptable casualty numbers, the decision has recently been made to withdraw troops from the interior of Bagdad and in the forseeable future we will only have troops stationed around the outskirts of the city. Does this sound like "the gradual decrease in violence and the increasing appearance of desperation by the insurgents?" Just like we did in southeast asia, we have begun to cede territory to the insurgents, and this will allow them to gain rather than decrease in strength. How about a future where Islam is as pacified and laidback a religion as mainline Protestant Christianity and constitutes no threat to anyone? How about a world with no dictatorships? How about a world where Arab Muslims and Israeli Jews get along swell and terrorism and Middle East conflicts occupy chapters in history books instead of the front pages of newspapers? Where your children never ever have to see something like what they saw on TV on Sept. 11th, 2001 or worry about which crazy nutball in control of a country or a terror group has a nuclear missile pointed at an American city? Haven't you heard? The Israelis have given up on "getting along swell" with their Arab brothers and have chosen instead to impose their will upon the simple minded son of GHW Bush and have him wipe out their enemies on their behalf. Of course once you kill large numbers of muslims, they historically lay down like puppies and beg to have their collective bellies rubbed. Can you say Jihad? Nothing like getting rid of the terrorist problem by creating fresh reasons for a gigantic terrorist recruiting drive. George W Bush, that compassionate conservative, has yet to attend a single funeral for an American serviceman. My guess is that he doesn't want to establish a pattern wherein he'll soon be spending all his time attending such funerals. First as Governor of Texas he strove to set new records for approvals of capital executions. It seems as president he has a similar macabre fascination for sending America's finest off to a similar fate. Now that he has reduced servicemen's pay and benefits, blood for oil is getting cheaper all the time.
Boy, that didn't take long. Resorting to name calling and insults so quickly. Are you anti-war guys capable of civilized, rational debate at all? First of all, you low-balled my age bigtime. Secondly, I don't like war anymore than you do, but unlike some, I do see that it is necessary sometimes for the greater good, and that sometimes you have to go to war to achieve real peace. Thirdly, I'm seriously considering joining the military after college, but even if I don't join, where in the big book of life's rules does it say only those who have served or are serving can agree with going to war? I can legitimately argue the case for war in Iraq, or anytime we are facing an armed conflict, regardless of my military/civilian status. If that bothers you, that's just too bad. Your problem, not mine. Also, one does not have to be in the military to contribute to America's strength and security. You don't know that any more than I know otherwise. We will just have to see. But at least now we have multiple strategic options, rather than a standoff with the Hussein regime, a regime possibly still interested in developing WMD's and definitely with extra-territorial ambitions and troops in Saudi Arabia provoking Islamic rage till doomsday. Furthermore... Which is it? Will we firmly entrench ourselves in the Middle East till the oil runs out (possibly as early as 2050) or will we cede territory constantly until driven out completely? Iraq is not Vietnam, I know you really, really want it to be but it's not. It's classic offensive terrain (flat desert as opposed to mountainous jungle) and a civilian population overwhelmingly against the insurgents as opposed to a large fifth column presence. The casualty rates for coalition forces have gone down every month since November, the worst month since regular combat operations ended where we suffered 110 casualties. In February, coalition forces suffered 23 casualties. If March trends continue, we will suffer 16 casualties in the month of March. If monthly decrease trends hold,we will suffer between 9 and 12 casualties for April and fewer after that. In other words, DECREASE. To date, we have lost 553 dead and 3,174 wounded, 378 and 2,698 to hostile fire, respectively. Each one is a tragedy and unfortunate, but Vietnam style numbers they are not, and never will be, since the country is indeed settling into democracy despite the best efforts of jihad nuts to do anything they can to derail the process. As for an American pullback from the center of the city, we are not abandoning Baghdad, we are transferring more responsibility to the Iraqis and empowering them by lowering our profile while at the same time remaining close by to have a presence in case we are needed. Casualties are not going up to unacceptable levels, they are decreasing. And the recent attacks in Baghdad do smell of desperation; unable to dent the resolve of American troops, the insurgents are now trying their best to intimidate Iraqi civilians and leaders from working with the Americans or turn Iraqi factions against each other. So far, they have failed to provoke any sectarian violence or delay the course toward Iraqi democracy. The implication that the situation on the ground in Iraq is out of control and that the U.S. and the IRC is losing the battle is preposterous. Show me any evidence, any links, that Baghdad today is as lawless and chaotic as Los Angeles was at the height of the 1992 LA riots, and I'll seriously consider what you have to say (no name-calling or condescension would help in that dept. as well). That's right phatcat, we should go out of our way to avoid hurting the Arab people's feelings. Maybe if we do give them Israel on a platter, withdraw from Iraq completely and just let the Fedayeen/Islamist thugs destroy the country, they will like us. Are you living in reality man? They hated us long before current events and they will never stop hating us until we give them a reason to like us. No, not letting them annihilate the Jews. Making their lives better is what I had in mind, while of course, killing those who are too fargone in the jihad brainwashing to save, in Iraq, instead of here. Again, any evidence at all we are Israel's puppet? Didn't think so. I don't see the 10th Mountain being unleashed in the West Bank. Do you? Israel also has no interest in wiping out their enemies, though I can't say the same for the other way around. They have bent over backwards to try to achieve real peace in the region since 1992, only to be stabbed in the back repeatedly by the Arabs. I guess visits to Walter Reed and Naval hospitals don't count to you? Perhaps he would like the funerals of servicemen to be private, non-political affairs to remember the young serviceman or woman without his presence distracting from that? I don't know that for sure, but it is a possibility. Then again, I don't suppose you ever contribute any positive motivations to the President, instead choosing to be consumed by negativity and mistrust, apparently for no good reason except that you fail to see what so many others can see plain as day. The constant "Blood for oil" rant almost makes me wish we had really traded blood for oil and just cut a deal with Hussein to end sanctions and keep him in power in exchange for all the Iraqi oil we could ever want or need. Almost.
as long as palestininas and jews believe some land is "theirs" because it is "holy", there will be problems. that kind of thinking is the stuff you cant convince people not to believe. the best solution is to let the jews and palestinians kill each other until either one side wins or they both realize they could live perfectly happily somewhere else, all the while reminding everyone that any aggression towards the US will result in destruction of the people responsible. if i was either palestinian or jewish, i could solve the problem immediately for myself. i would say "keep your holy lands, i am moving somewhere peaceful". but they do not do that, and that is why they kill each other. there is nothing you can do to stop people who believe in magic. stupid stone-age tribalist mentality will get you killed. it is not my job as an american to break it up. i am not tribalist. i do not care about their conflicts. taking sides is a huge mistake, because that makes enemies. and we do not need enemies, because the less people we have to kill to have peace, the better off we are. taking sides in holy wars is always a bad idea.
