Saudi Arabia threatens to shoot down Iran-bound Israeli planes

Now, we all see why Saudi Arabia is horrible at war. They told the entire world their intentions. That's why the Saudis rely on the US for military help.

Saudis will open their airspace to Israel and other countries for an attack on Iran as soon as US-CIA-NED-NATO will allow them, for another criminal unjustified war with preventive Humanised bombs to empty another country and see its population become refugees in a nearby country, only Jordan left.

This may shock readers, but there are two things you can gather as a truthful threat from the Iranian leaders: What they say, and what they do.

The leaders of Saudi Arabia are not fools.

The United States had security agreements with Saudi Arabia since Roosevelt. That's why Reagan sold AWACs (flight control and warfare aircraft) to the Saudis in the early eighties. That was AFTER Israel blew up Saddam's nuclear reactor at Tuwaitha.

The Saudis are no more capable of shooting down Israeli jetfighters than I'm capable of shooting down the moon.

Behind the scenes the Saudis are saying each other: THANK YOU ISRAEL!

SEE THIS reasoned argument in opposition to the naysayers for war with Iran. Logic trumps belief systems and myths.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rXXxZ6S-_A


Israel is at the technological forefront of military, computer and every other technology known to man. Israel designs and builds many of the warfare systems used by the US military and that is one reason, among many others I cannot list here, that Israel is a central and vital component of US security to maintain peace across the globe.

Israel is vital to the survival of the United States. And Britain, France and the West.

As is America, Israel is the greatest force for good across the world, producing technology, science ad medicine the entire world depends on, including the Saudis.

Read START-UP NATION to get the whole picture.

And do read these essays that prove what I had written above.

http://www.american.com/archive/2009/july/capitalism-jewish-achievement-and-the-israel-test

and

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/opinion/12brooks.html?_r=1

Thanks for posting the propaganda agb 100. I don't care. But since Israel is so capable, then the USA should stop sending the $3.3 Billion/year they get from the debt incurred by US taxpayers. Yes folks, we borrow cash from potentially hostile nations to send free stuff to Israel. Of course that is the tip of the iceberg.

The USA has engaged in needless and futile wars that have benefited Israel and cost Americans an estimated $3 trillion.

This may shock you agb 100. An increasing number of Americans are on to the scam, If Israel is a true friend to the USA, it will stop using lobby's like AIPAC to effect US foreign policy. Israel should immediately cease the use of laundered "Foreign Aid" money to effect our elections.

Israel gets only military aid. Egypt gets military aid. Saudi Arabia gets military aid. Pakistan gets military aid. Taiwan gets military aid. Japan gets military aid. Germany gets military aid.

The United States supports those who make peacemaking efforts and contribute to global peace.

The Palestinians for example are the most supported pseudo-refugees in history, getting money from UNWRA, the EU, the United States, the Arab world, and many more private sources. Each so-called Palestinian gets more aid per capita than anyone in man's history.

To be clear about it, one needs to start at the beginning of this story to get to the beginning. Zionism.

Zionism is the SECULAR (not religious) national movement of the Jewish People to resettle their ancient homeland. And in their ancient homeland to live in peace and autonomy - self determination. Meaning like every other state, to self-determine who lives or does not live there: immigration policy.

In other words, to enjoy the very same human rights and human dignity others enjoy. For example, the French, Italians, Irish, Russians, Spanish and Americans.

There is just one exception to the Jews. Jerusalem was a working capital of the Jews 3000 years exactly before there was a Paris, a Moscow, a Dublin, a New York or a Berlin. When Europeans were scrawling marks on the walls of caves, there was a functioning civilization with running water and sewers in Jerusalem. This is just a minor exception of course, I haven't gotten to the major ones.

Anti-Zionism is the opposite of Zionism: it denies ONLY the Jewish People human rights and dignity the antizionist will champion for all others. Especially for his own.

Anti-Zionism is therefore RACISM, because it is exclusionary.

It EXCLUDES only the Jewish People from the enjoyment of human rights and dignity recognized around the world as a universal national right.

The clear crock that America has ever fought any war, even partially for Israel, can be proved by documentation going back to the Kissinger era when the US refused to resupply Israel, and Israel almost lost the war against Egypt, a Russian ally at the time being heavily supplied by the Soviets.

It's an interesting tactic to turn history upside down and inside out, but the truth reappears. Unwelcome, true, but it is like a bus. It will come back in time to the same bus station. History is Time Travel. History means one event follows another, not the other way 'round.

I would be far more concerned with America spending trillions on welfare and social programs for which its leaders have absolutely no authority to spend, than for wars for which government has the authority. The US Constitution has no provision for forcing America's citizens into the role of charity - taking from one to give to another.

It has the authority to prepare for war and defense - and foreign aid is part and parcel of that policy and authority.

If you believe there is an authority to steal from the earnings of one who is productive and transfer his wealth to another who hasn't earned it and doesn't deserve it, please provide the section of the US Constitution where I can find it.

The War in Iraq was started by Bill Clinton when he signed the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 - affirmed unanimously by the US Senate, the People in other words - which in Section 3, the conclusion, called for REGIME CHANGE in Iraq and the imposition of DEMOCRACY.

The policies of one administration are usually continued by another, otherwise treaties we sign would become null and void every four years.

Mission has been accomplished. The war in Iraq was won. Not by Clinton, but by Bush who certainly did not lie.

United States wins war:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/v/victory-ignored.htm

A narrative is a story...often a Fairy Tale like the Palestinian Narrative. The narrative regarding the War in Iraq goes like this:

The United States went into an unjust war based on false intelligence and murdered tens of thousands of people. There was no Saddam-era WMD yellowcake (the name of the uranium precursor) that Bush supposedly LIED about at his State of the Union message in 2003, so the entire venture was a lie. And so was the war. The futile war - your words - that is.

I say everything is so unless it isn't.

http://www.resourceinvestor.com/2008/07/06/cameco-scoops-550t-of-yellowcake-in-secret-deal

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/u/uraniumyellowcake.htm


As I said, everything is so unless it isn't.

One can stay uninformed and blind to the facts of history if one chooses to be.

The Palestinian Narrative is another one.

See here: copy and paste the links above and below into your browser's address bar and get the facts:

http://tinyurl.com/83sfvvm

Israel gets only military aid. Egypt gets military aid. Saudi Arabia gets military aid. Pakistan gets military aid. Taiwan gets military aid. Japan gets military aid. Germany gets military aid.

The United States supports those who make peacemaking efforts and contribute to global peace.

The Palestinians for example are the most supported pseudo-refugees in history, getting money from UNWRA, the EU, the United States, the Arab world, and many more private sources. Each so-called Palestinian gets more aid per capita than anyone in man's history.

To be clear about it, one needs to start at the beginning of this story to get to the beginning. Zionism.

Zionism is the SECULAR (not religious) national movement of the Jewish People to resettle their ancient homeland. And in their ancient homeland to live in peace and autonomy - self determination. Meaning like every other state, to self-determine who lives or does not live there: immigration policy.

In other words, to enjoy the very same human rights and human dignity others enjoy. For example, the French, Italians, Irish, Russians, Spanish and Americans.

There is just one exception to the Jews. Jerusalem was a working capital of the Jews 3000 years exactly before there was a Paris, a Moscow, a Dublin, a New York or a Berlin. When Europeans were scrawling marks on the walls of caves, there was a functioning civilization with running water and sewers in Jerusalem. This is just a minor exception of course, I haven't gotten to the major ones.

Anti-Zionism is the opposite of Zionism: it denies ONLY the Jewish People human rights and dignity the antizionist will champion for all others. Especially for his own.

Anti-Zionism is therefore RACISM, because it is exclusionary.

It EXCLUDES only the Jewish People from the enjoyment of human rights and dignity recognized around the world as a universal national right.

The clear crock that America has ever fought any war, even partially for Israel, can be proved by documentation going back to the Kissinger era when the US refused to resupply Israel, and Israel almost lost the war against Egypt, a Russian ally at the time being heavily supplied by the Soviets.

It's an interesting tactic to turn history upside down and inside out, but the truth reappears. Unwelcome, true, but it is like a bus. It will come back in time to the same bus station. History is Time Travel. History means one event follows another, not the other way 'round.

I would be far more concerned with America spending trillions on welfare and social programs for which its leaders have absolutely no authority to spend, than for wars for which government has the authority. The US Constitution has no provision for forcing America's citizens into the role of charity - taking from one to give to another.

It has the authority to prepare for war and defense - and foreign aid is part and parcel of that policy and authority.

If you believe there is an authority to steal from the earnings of one who is productive and transfer his wealth to another who hasn't earned it and doesn't deserve it, please provide the section of the US Constitution where I can find it.

The War in Iraq was started by Bill Clinton when he signed the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 - affirmed unanimously by the US Senate, the People in other words - which in Section 3, the conclusion, called for REGIME CHANGE in Iraq and the imposition of DEMOCRACY.

The policies of one administration are usually continued by another, otherwise treaties we sign would become null and void every four years.

Mission has been accomplished. The war in Iraq was won. Not by Clinton, but by Bush who certainly did not lie.

United States wins war:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/v/victory-ignored.htm

A narrative is a story...often a Fairy Tale like the Palestinian Narrative. The narrative regarding the War in Iraq goes like this:

The United States went into an unjust war based on false intelligence and murdered tens of thousands of people. There was no Saddam-era WMD yellowcake (the name of the uranium precursor) that Bush supposedly LIED about at his State of the Union message in 2003, so the entire venture was a lie. And so was the war. The futile war - your words - that is.

I say everything is so unless it isn't.

http://www.resourceinvestor.com/2008/07/06/cameco-scoops-550t-of-yellowcake-in-secret-deal

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/u/uraniumyellowcake.htm


As I said, everything is so unless it isn't.

One can stay uninformed and blind to the facts of history if one chooses to be.

The Palestinian Narrative is another one.

See here: copy and paste the links above and below into your browser's address bar and get the facts:

http://tinyurl.com/83sfvvm

Stop blowing smoke. Japan helps pay the USA for it's defense. So does S Korea. Germany gets no aid from the USA, Saudi Arabia does not get US aid either. Not that I think the USA should be policing the world. We are increasingly broke and all I hear from many of our Israeli "friends" is we must send them more. We must have more wars for Israel.

"Israel is our closest ally". Nope. Israel has never fought along side the US in any war. This is a one way friendship. The propaganda is as thick as molasses on a cold winter day in Alaska.

Israel gets more aid from the USA than any country on earth. That aid pays for 40% of the Israeli military.

As you say: "Zionism is the SECULAR (not religious) national movement of the Jewish People to resettle their ancient homeland." ....Yes. The Jewish State. Take your pick then; it's either religious or racial/ethnic. And now nationalist. And what happens if Jews are not the majority?

Won the Iraq war? Iraq is now a Shi'a dominated State that the USA sends more aid too. Their government is more alined with Iran the the USA. You have a strange concept of "won".

But your Neo-Conservative ideology comes out clearly. There were no WMD. Israel knew that; as members of the Israeli Parliament later came forth to state. But the Israeli government pushed for the war. They lobbied for it. 4,804 American soldiers died. More than a hundred thousand Iraqi's died with the Sunni/Shi'a ethnic cleansing.

BTW, the yellow cake Uranium was known to the UN and was under the UN supervision after the first Gulf war. It wasn't transferred because if offered no threat. It takes years and hard to hide technology to refine this material. UN inspectors confirmed it was all exactly where it had been in the same exact quantities when UN inspectors re entered Iraq in 2002 months before the US invasion. This is all part of the intelligence reports that are public, including the Iraq Study Group where experts testified that this material offered no threat.

Your blowing smoke agb100. Propaganda. Disinformation. Easily disproved. You are a warmonger. You are no friend to the USA or it's people.

This may shock readers, but there are two things you can gather as a truthful threat from the Iranian leaders: What they say, and what they do.

The leaders of Saudi Arabia are not fools.

The United States had security agreements with Saudi Arabia since Roosevelt. That's why Reagan sold AWACs (flight control and warfare aircraft) to the Saudis in the early eighties. That was AFTER Israel blew up Saddam's nuclear reactor at Tuwaitha.

The Saudis are no more capable of shooting down Israeli jetfighters than I'm capable of shooting down the moon.

Behind the scenes the Saudis are saying each other: THANK YOU ISRAEL!

SEE THIS reasoned argument in opposition to the naysayers for war with Iran. Logic trumps belief systems and myths.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rXXxZ6S-_A


Israel is at the technological forefront of military, computer and every other technology known to man. Israel designs and builds many of the warfare systems used by the US military and that is one reason, among many others I cannot list here, that Israel is a central and vital component of US security to maintain peace across the globe.

Israel is vital to the survival of the United States. And Britain, France and the West.

As is America, Israel is the greatest force for good across the world, producing technology, science ad medicine the entire world depends on, including the Saudis.

Read START-UP NATION to get the whole picture.

And do read these essays that prove what I had written above.

http://www.american.com/archive/2009/july/capitalism-jewish-achievement-and-the-israel-test

and

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/opinion/12brooks.html?_r=1

From Arlene Kushner, an independent journalist in Jerusalem:



Responding to these news reports, Barak then denied that Israel has received any such message from the US. Speaking on Israel Radio, he said:

"We should not react or respond to these reports. The issue of attacking Iran is too important to let a report like this decide in which direction it goes.
"Saudi Arabia is a sovereign state that is permitted to act based on its own understanding."

A whole lot of ambiguity in this statement. "Saudi Arabia is a sovereign state..." Meaning, perhaps that they do not have to proceed according to the will of the US? That the US should give up on trying to manipulate the situation? There's a great deal we don't know here.

Barak's insistence on proceeding is as it should be. He indicated, in fact, that the latest intelligence makes it all the more important that Iran be confronted.

~~~~~~~~~~

And then there's the response of Bahrain to an article that Israel's Ambassador to the US Michael Oren wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal, in which he said that sanctions are not working and time is running out.

I wrote about this earlier this week. Oren's article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443687504577567051040668984.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Bahraini Foreign Minister Khalid bin Ahmed bin Mohammed Al Khalifa tweeted a link to this, which is fairly remarkable. A strong indication of where the Gulf States stand with regard to Iran, this suggests that the Saudis would indeed not want to take down Israeli planes.

Springton has a nice narrative to revise history.

Israel provides plenty of quid pro quo to cover the military aid given it by the United States in technology R&D, the military testing new weapons systems using Israeli soldiers so American soldiers don't die, and providing for Naval bases for the United States - as we have no other in that part of the Med. The return on investment in security and defense capabilities are incalculable.

Springton shows his ignorance saying ""Israel is our closest ally". Nope. Israel has never fought along side the US in any war." Hmmm, Japan, Ukraine, Estonia, Poland and Hungary never fought alongside the US either until Iraq, are they not allies?

In fact, Israel was on the other side from the United States at the Suez Crisis - the United States tried to, by military force, reverse Israel's gains. In fact, the US, during the Cold War, joined the Soviets to do just that! So I ask, were the Soviets America's allies during the Cold War? To put this into greater perspective, the United States military was aligned against France and Great Britain during the same campaign. Does that make France and the UK America's enemies? You only need to read the first paragraph here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis

Springton's arguments get more and more specious as he does his out-of-context intellectual cattervaulting: Israel gets more aid BECAUSE Israel returns more aid to the US in intelligence, technology, computer warfare and other activities I cannot mention here but all reading this understand me clearly.

The issue is not what happens when the Jews are not the majority in the single Jewish State on earth. The question should be what happens to Jews and Christians where the Muslims ARE the majority in dozens of Islamic states ruled by Sharia that makes any non-Muslim, by law and practice, a second class citizen.

Of course the UN "knew" about the stockpiles of yellowcake. That is why, among other things, the UN endorsed the invasion. That is why the war resolution in Congress passed. However, after the invasion the so-called "loyal opposition" changed their story and narratives to suggest that there was no yellowcake and we are chasing our tails... The fact is, the 550 metric tons of yellowcake was capable of being refined into 50 atomic bombs according to the American Thinker. Whatever, that is not the issue. The issue is the moving of goalposts AFTER the invasion and the historical revisionism of which Springton liberally partakes. And of course, the tactic of the scoundrel calling people he disagreed with names like "neo-con."

The fact is, Scott Ritter the UN inspector was lying when he denied there was yellowcake in Iraq AFTER he admitted there was BEFORE the invasion. David Kay, his boss, clarified it. If this were OLD yellowcake (the left's disingenuous description of it AFTER the news of its being taken to Canada in a SECRET operation surfaced), then why did the left deny it's existence all along until July of 2008 when it actually did surface?

The reason is, they didn't know about its existence up to that date because they believed their own hype, denials and lies about this matter.

The fact is, the transport of 550 metric tons of yellowcake came as a eyeopening surprise to the left, and the most to Springton and his mates, not those of us who knew the invasion was began to get it....because Saddam REFUSED to part with it.

That was the Saddam-era yellowcake that Bush spoke about and the Brits and Russians verified to be contained at Tuwaitha...or "old" yellowcake because Saddam would have had to get new yellowcake AFTER he was caught and hanged. That last would have been a remarkable achievement, eh?

Just as fish get caught through their mouths, Springton's true sentiments are expressed in this statement:

"As you say: "Zionism is the SECULAR (not religious) national movement of the Jewish People to resettle their ancient homeland." ....Yes. The Jewish State. Take your pick then; it's either religious or racial/ethnic. And now nationalist. And what happens if Jews are not the majority?"

Of course Zionism is meant to re-establish the Jewish National Homeland - those are the exact wording of the Zionist Congress at the time. What happens if the Jews are not the majority? I wouldn't guess because they are. Reality is what is. I don't deal in speculation. You do Springton.

If the French settled Normandy, would Springton have a problem with it's Frenchness, national, ethnic, religious or other? I doubt it. The French are mostly Catholic. Is that a problem? And for whom?

On the other hand Springton has a problem with a single state's "Jewishness," as in seeing Jews in racial undertones, or religious ones only. It has never occurred to racists that the Jewish State was formed as a secular state just like the United States was, and its racial profile is Caucasian, west Asian, Negroid, Oriental and whatever is left - just like the United States. Israel is a multicultural and multiracial society, unlike most of the Muslim lands with which Springton has no issues. There is no Jewish race but there is a Persian and Arabic race -- or more accurately, ethnicity.

Springton, as I pointed out, has a problem with the words Jew and Jewish and a state for Jews and people of the Jewish faith; and the fact that he, as I had described earlier, would deny only the Jews and Zion (Israel as in Zionist) the human rights and dignity he would not deny his own.

That sentiment and the political side he eschews is clearly, racism. It is clearly exclusionary, for Sprinton excludes only the Jews (as in his issue with a Jewish State and no issue with 55 Muslim states) from enjoying basic human rights he would not deny others.

And one more thing I'll add, for fairness's sake. Saleh's report is very professionally executed.

Right agb100. Having problem reading again? You said. "Hmmm, Japan, Ukraine, Estonia, Poland and Hungary never fought alongside the US either until Iraq, are they not allies?" Read: "closest ally". Words have meaning.

BTW, Polish, Hungarian, Estonian forces have fought along side the USA. Both in WW2 and in Afghanistan. Japan is bared under their constitution from having forces outside of Japan. You are showing your lack of knowledge again.

Quid pro quo on $3.3 Billion in aid? Nope. The US buys some military equipment from Israel. We pay cash for it. There is no "quid pro quo". A fantasy.

Re GB and France.... " the United States military was aligned against France and Great Britain during the same campaign. Does that make France and the UK America's enemies?" Note that I didn't claim Israel was an enemy no did I? I said I didn't want to give Israel foreign aid. I guess you think the the USA should borrow money to give aid to allies? But then you thought the USA was doing that didn't you?

I think allies and friendly nations should be that way without the US giving money to them. Friends may borrow, but friends don't ask others to support them. Dependency is a bad thing. I oppose foreign aid to any nation. BTW, it isn't in the US Constitution as an enumerated power to give foreign aid to any other nation.

And really? The US invaded to "get the yellow cake uranium"? You mean the yellow cake uranium that was in the same exact place as it had been since the first Gulf War?.....

The yellow cake Uranium you site: "had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991."

"The yellowcake removed from Iraq in 2008 was material that had long since been identified, documented, and stored in sealed containers under the supervision of U.N. inspectors. It was not a "secret" cache that was recently "discovered" by the U.S, and the yellowcake had not been purchased by Iraq in the years immediately preceding the 2003 invasion. The uranium was the remnants of decades-old nuclear reactor projects that had put out of commission many years earlier: One reactor at Al Tuwaitha was bombed by Israel in 1981, and another was bombed and disabled during Operation Desert Storm in 1991."... Source of above: Associated Press 7/5/2008 6:57:12 PM ET

So, as I said, the yellow cake Uranium was known by the UN and by the weapons inspectors after the first Gulf War. Long before the US invasion of Iraq. It didn't offer a threat. Anyone with a basic knowledge of nuclear physics knows the difficulty time and effort in refining it to weapons grade. This was brought out in detail in the Iraq Study Group. You're blowing more smoke, spouting more propaganda and showing your complete lack of knowledge.

You claim that you don't "engage in speculation" But you imply I'm a racist? Anti Jewish? .... You claim: "On the other hand Springton has a problem with a single state's "Jewishness,"" Nope. The comment on Jewish majority in Israel came from J Street. A Jewish organization. So I guess Jewish organizations are, well, anti Jewish?

And I have "no issues" with "Muslim lands"??? Wrong, again. I have a lot of problems with Muslim countries. I don't like their suppression of human rights. It doesn't mean that I agree it is a good idea to overthrow their regimes. Those regimes are fragile and overthrowing them leads to chaos. For little or no gain. Iraq for example is a mess with increasing violence. Not in the interests of the USA at all.

Also your speculation that I am from the left is really amusing. You see, to me "Neo Conservative" is a leftist ideology. That's you, not me. Trotsky, Leo Strauss, advocates of the New Deal and the Great Society. That is at the root of Neo-Conservative ideology.

Nope, I am from a Paleo Conservative. Old Right. With Libertarian leanings.

Guessing you don't know what any of that really is.

Wrong again Springer, on almost every count and that is why I don't have the time nor the inclination to continue this idiocy. That is why this is the LAST reply I make on this matter.

There's a handshake in US policy between nations that work with us, Israel for example, and nations that do not. So we support both, in the hope of getting those who do not work with us to. For example, an ally votes with us at the UN on a regular and DEPENDABLE basis. Israel does more than likely any other nation, perhaps with the exception of England, whom, btw, we gave aid to for many years, including military aid before WWII that exceeds in 2012 US dollars ALL the aid we gave Israel throughout its existence which is relatively and in actual terms, minor - but a big craw in the jaws of Judeophobics.

We had also aided the French and other resistance in the war effort, as France fired not a single shot against the Nazi regime. So far you're misfiring on all barrels Springton.

Estonia joined the Germans during WWII against the Russians as their response to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and other issues - for example, they hated the Russians and hate them to this day.

Hungary joined the Germans way BEFORE the war in a historic alliance going back more than a hundred years as part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and continued to be a German ally throughout the war. Poland was invaded early in the war and it's resistance was not national but individual. Many Poles were actually German with German sympathies throughout the war. Thousands of Poles joined the Germans and worked with Germany for German interests throughout the war. So far you had scored three out of three misses in this area, not counting the earlier, not even a near miss.

In history one event follows another, not the other way 'round. History Lesson 101.

Israel can survive without US aid. That is NOT the point and never was. The trade with Israel and the benefits from that trade - and the fact that Israel is second in the world next to the US in innovation and way ahead in innovation per capita, returns of which on that aid that benefits mankind as a whole covers the expense to the US a hundredfold... is the point.

The point is that US aid to Israel provides returns on many levels, almost too many to list aside it's importance to US security interests, and returns on aid to Egypt and the Palestinians or the Pakistanis provides, as the Jews would say "bubkis," nothing.

The bottom line is that WE ARE GETTING SOMETHING FOR THE AID TO ISRAEL that is significant, concrete, substantial, necessary, even vital to US security interests, global peace, and technological innovation that were described above in the article from the American Enterprise Institute, far more detailed than this conversation.

The agreement on US policy vis-a-vis Israel has broad support across party lines and among the American People because most of us whose hearts have not been poisoned by the kind of leftwingnut propaganda Springer spews understand the vital role Israel has been playing in OUR national security, defense, and the quality of our lives.

In other words, US policy regarding Israel is not made for Israel, for Israel's interests no matter what, but for ours.

Insofar as Iraqi yellowcale, your citings are phalse, phake, and phony as they come from the SAME people who have continued the narrative that the left cites to this day: That the US went into THE WRONG WAR IN THE WRONG PLACE AT THE WRONG TIME; that Bush Lied, the Plame Game, etc....


YOURS called the uranium precursor old, and some of it was. We do not know to this day how much MORE of it Saddam acquired up to the time of the invasion. The FACT is that we DID NOT KNOW of the Tuwaitha stockpile until AFTER we had invaded.

The US and the UN knew of the EXISTENCE of Saddam's stockpile, his efforts to find more in Africa, that Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame lied to the congressional committees, one on Iraq, the other regarding how Wilson was hired by the CIA. In the first case the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence stated in their final report that, the exact wording:..." (Wilson) was less than thruthful." In the second while Valerie Plame claimed to have had no role in recommending her husband for the job in Niger, it took for a Senator to hold up Plame's memo to PROVE that Plame HERSELF has recommended Joe for the job. So much for your sources on the War in Iraq.

You are also way off on when we knew what we knew regarding the yellowcake stockpiles. The reason we had invaded is to get it BECAUSE we, the UK, France and Russia knew Saddam had it - among other thing - and to get our hands on Saddam's WMD program in nuclear and OTHER areas that, once we did get our hands on them, proved to have been far more advanced and sophisticated than we thought. The point I made and you're deaf to in your typical self-serving way, is that the political left that VOTED to go to war and under Clinton pressed the build up to war. (As the plans to invade Iraq were made under the Clinton administration, as well as the bill to effect REGIME CHANGE in Iraq REF: Iraqi Liberation Act of October 1998, passed in the Senate unanimously by the way, it being the WILL of the American People. The Pentagon's buildup plans to invade, as well as much of the actual physical buildup infrastructure was put in place while George W. Bush was the governor of Texas.)

In fact, it goes further than that: On December 16, 1998 Clinton told Saddam and the world that it is now Saddam's LAST CHANCE to surrender his nuclear stockpiles and let the inspectors operate freely or else.

REF - Clinton's speech on national TV:

The fact is that until it was disclosed (and rather most of the left refused to acknowledge it even AFTER the transfer of the uranium IN A SECRET OPERATION. And Springer, you are full of crap on your history and facts as shown above and can be found on WIKI about Estonia, Hungary and Poland.

And even more so on the Iraqi yellowcake.


You say: "So, as I said, the yellow cake Uranium was known by the UN and by the weapons inspectors after the first Gulf War. Long before the US invasion of Iraq. It didn't offer a threat." The last is YOUR opinion because you know so much that is not so. The facts.


Here is the United States Defense Department Memo that proves that WE HAD DISCOVERED THE LOCATION of the YELLOWCAKE AFTER THE INVASION, and not before as you claimed; to be precise we went into Iraq BECAUSE the weapons inspectors failed to find the yellowcake!:

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=50430

You are dead wrong on this matter, on all counts, and the memo above PROVES it.

In fact, we didn't go into Iraq to protect Israel as you'd like to tell the people reading this. We went into Iraq to protect Saudi Arabia and the emirates! We have had security treaties with the Saudis since Roosevelt. We were supplying the Saudi military and in the eighties we sold AWACs to the kingdom PRECISELY because of the threat from Iraq. Just before that, the US asked Israel to take out Iraq's nuclear reactor at Tuwaitha and Israel complied.

In other words, Israel was fighting OUR wars!

Iraq invaded Kuwait just a few short years earlier before Gulf War II, that land being on the Saudi's borders. And Iraq had wars with Iran. Iraq was a hostile power that was murdering its own citizens en masse. We went into Iraq for the same reason regarding the last as the reason we went into Bosnia - not for Israel as you'd or Ron Paul would like to think. There is, a reason why the PAULestinians lost two times in a row and lost big time.

Your citing AP for your yellowcake info, written by who knows whom in the generally leftwing media (I'm sure even you'd agree with the description) was a mistake. I go to the source, not the editorial page for news. The world did not know where the yellowcake was, new or old yellowcake, until AFTER the invasion. And we found it soon after the invasion, guarded it in secret, and secretly transported it out of Iraq under Iraqi auspices but US military supervision. With an agreement with the Iraqi government.

Citing J-Street, a hostile to Israel organization is like citing Goebbels about German-Jewish relations. Well done Springer! Readers can look up what the real agenda of J-Street is. In fact, Obama invited only J-Street to the White House to use these Useful Idiots in his campaign to destabilize Netenyahu's government - to which the left, and Obama, is clearly hostile. J-Street in actuality is a pro-Palestinian organization. Which is fine, each to his own, but to suggest that J-Street, and not AIPAC, Anti-Defamation League and the World Jewish Congress represent Jews is Rather, Dan, far-fetched. J-Street is insignificant, a pimple on the face of the Jewish World. Pus?

And yes, there are anti-Jewish Jewish Organizations. Not exactly news to Jews.

You are correct however that Neo-Conservatives wer Classical Liberals. However you are entirely WRONG about their roots and what neo-conservatism is. Classical Liberalism and neo-conservatism are one and the same! At one time liberatarianism shared many values with it. That is until Ayn Rand completely separated herself from the libertarians, exposing their evil side.


I quote WIKI's ORIGINAL post clarifying Classical Liberalism - in VIOLENT opposition to today's leftwing liberalism:

Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1]
, laissez-faire
liberalism[2]
, and market liberalism
[3]
or, outside the United States and Britain, sometimes simply liberalism) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government
. This includes the exportation of liberation, the American ideal to the world, and the importance of human rationality, individual property rights
, natural rights
, the protection of civil liberties
, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law
, constitutional limitation of government, and free markets
, to place fiscal constraints on government[4]
as exemplified in the writings of John Locke
, Adam Smith
, David Hume
, David Ricardo
, Voltaire
, Montesquieu
and others. As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism
with political liberalism
of the late 18th and 19th centuries.[2]
The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order
or invisible hand
that benefits the society,[5]
though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods
with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited.[6]
The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as socialism and social liberalism
[7]
Classical liberals are suspicious of all but the most minimal government[8]
and object to the welfare state
[9]
.


I trust the above will suffice to explain that neo-conservatism, an offshoot of Classical Liberalism, is one and the same and neither are Marxists by any means - just the opposite. The neo-cons were Cold Warriors like JFK from the get go and interventionists. The paleo-cons are, along with Pat Buchanan, Justin Raimondo and Ron Paul, relegated to the 17th century into the dustbins of history.

On that note, the following may be useful for historians:

THE POLITICS OF BAD FAITH

Ever since the French Revolution, radical “equality” and conservative “liberty” have opposed each other as the defining agendas of Left and Right. For radicals, freedom is the power to redefine human destiny and has invariably meant, the surrender of individual autonomy to the radical project, to collective truth and the “progressive” idea. For conservatives, in contrast, liberty is relief for the individual from collective power. It is secured by “negative rights,” by limits to government. Liberty is made possible by the civilizing bonds of social order, and restraints on the coercive power of civil authority.The conservative goal is democratic, but it is also circumspect and modest (and so, deeply unsatisfying to the radical soul). Better to live with some injustices than, by seeking perfect justice, create a world with none. This is the political caution that has been etched in blood on the historical ledger of the last 200 years. It is the lesson the Left, and lately Libertarians, refuse to learn. It is this refusal that makes these radicals the dangerous reactionaries of the post-modern world.

This very denial of history however, also creates the political mask that allows leftists and libertarians to appear as social reformers and "patriots." Refusing to acknowledge any connection to the destructive consequences of their radical faith, these two ideologies have been able to hijack the vocabulary of political discourse, to appropriate the terms “democratic” and “progressive,” and now even “liberal” and “market” ("conservative" for the libertarians), and to frame its agendas in the misleading imagery of “social justice” and "patriotism" for libertarians. The Left and Libertarian fly under permanently false colors. They are neither liberal nor progressive, not patriots nor Republicans, and the justice they all promise is achievable only through political coercion infiltration of people of faith, naive isolation of the United States, and totalitarian terror.

Despite the Left’s surface adjustment to historical realities in the post-Communist era, the character of its project remains stubbornly the same. This project (and of the Libertarians, the DARK SIDE of whom Ayn Rand warned against!), as before, is antithetic to the American paradigm and the stoic realism in which its liberties are grounded. The opposition is so fundamental that even those left-wing revisionists who have accepted a part of the democratic achievement, and call themselves “democratic socialists” and those of the "Libertarian" faith, reveal a profound and dedicated hostility to the American founding and its political truths.

– DH, The Politics of Bad Faith


THIS IS MY LAST POST ON THIS ISSUE.



In other words, Springton, history happens in sequence, one event follows another, not the other way 'round as you'd have it.

Right agb100. Having problem reading again? You said. "Hmmm, Japan, Ukraine, Estonia, Poland and Hungary never fought alongside the US either until Iraq, are they not allies?" Read: "closest ally". Words have meaning.

BTW, Polish, Hungarian, Estonian forces have fought along side the USA. Both in WW2 and in Afghanistan. Japan is bared under their constitution from having forces outside of Japan. You are showing your lack of knowledge again.

Quid pro quo on $3.3 Billion in aid? Nope. The US buys some military equipment from Israel. We pay cash for it. There is no "quid pro quo". A fantasy.

Re GB and France.... " the United States military was aligned against France and Great Britain during the same campaign. Does that make France and the UK America's enemies?" Note that I didn't claim Israel was an enemy no did I? I said I didn't want to give Israel foreign aid. I guess you think the the USA should borrow money to give aid to allies? But then you thought the USA was doing that didn't you?

I think allies and friendly nations should be that way without the US giving money to them. Friends may borrow, but friends don't ask others to support them. Dependency is a bad thing. I oppose foreign aid to any nation. BTW, it isn't in the US Constitution as an enumerated power to give foreign aid to any other nation.

And really? The US invaded to "get the yellow cake uranium"? You mean the yellow cake uranium that was in the same exact place as it had been since the first Gulf War?.....

The yellow cake Uranium you site: "had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991."

"The yellowcake removed from Iraq in 2008 was material that had long since been identified, documented, and stored in sealed containers under the supervision of U.N. inspectors. It was not a "secret" cache that was recently "discovered" by the U.S, and the yellowcake had not been purchased by Iraq in the years immediately preceding the 2003 invasion. The uranium was the remnants of decades-old nuclear reactor projects that had put out of commission many years earlier: One reactor at Al Tuwaitha was bombed by Israel in 1981, and another was bombed and disabled during Operation Desert Storm in 1991."... Source of above: Associated Press 7/5/2008 6:57:12 PM ET

So, as I said, the yellow cake Uranium was known by the UN and by the weapons inspectors after the first Gulf War. Long before the US invasion of Iraq. It didn't offer a threat. Anyone with a basic knowledge of nuclear physics knows the difficulty time and effort in refining it to weapons grade. This was brought out in detail in the Iraq Study Group. You're blowing more smoke, spouting more propaganda and showing your complete lack of knowledge.

You claim that you don't "engage in speculation" But you imply I'm a racist? Anti Jewish? .... You claim: "On the other hand Springton has a problem with a single state's "Jewishness,"" Nope. The comment on Jewish majority in Israel came from J Street. A Jewish organization. So I guess Jewish organizations are, well, anti Jewish?

And I have "no issues" with "Muslim lands"??? Wrong, again. I have a lot of problems with Muslim countries. I don't like their suppression of human rights. It doesn't mean that I agree it is a good idea to overthrow their regimes. Those regimes are fragile and overthrowing them leads to chaos. For little or no gain. Iraq for example is a mess with increasing violence. Not in the interests of the USA at all.

Also your speculation that I am from the left is really amusing. You see, to me "Neo Conservative" is a leftist ideology. That's you, not me. Trotsky, Leo Strauss, advocates of the New Deal and the Great Society. That is at the root of Neo-Conservative ideology.

Nope, I am from a Paleo Conservative. Old Right. With Libertarian leanings.

Guessing you don't know what any of that really is.

Wrong again Springer, on almost every count and that is why I don't have the time nor the inclination to continue this idiocy. That is why this is the LAST reply I make on this matter.

There's a handshake in US policy between nations that work with us, Israel for example, and nations that do not. So we support both, in the hope of getting those who do not work with us to. For example, an ally votes with us at the UN on a regular and DEPENDABLE basis. Israel does more than likely any other nation, perhaps with the exception of England, whom, btw, we gave aid to for many years, including military aid before WWII that exceeds in 2012 US dollars ALL the aid we gave Israel throughout its existence which is relatively and in actual terms, minor - but a big craw in the jaws of Judeophobics.

We had also aided the French and other resistance in the war effort, as France fired not a single shot against the Nazi regime. So far you're misfiring on all barrels Springton.

Estonia joined the Germans during WWII against the Russians as their response to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and other issues - for example, they hated the Russians and hate them to this day.

Hungary joined the Germans way BEFORE the war in a historic alliance going back more than a hundred years as part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and continued to be a German ally throughout the war. Poland was invaded early in the war and it's resistance was not national but individual. Many Poles were actually German with German sympathies throughout the war. Thousands of Poles joined the Germans and worked with Germany for German interests throughout the war. So far you had scored three out of three misses in this area, not counting the earlier, not even a near miss.

In history one event follows another, not the other way 'round. History Lesson 101.

Israel can survive without US aid. That is NOT the point and never was. The trade with Israel and the benefits from that trade - and the fact that Israel is second in the world next to the US in innovation and way ahead in innovation per capita - returns on which benefit mankind as a whole. It easily covers the expense to the US a hundredfold... and that, is the point.

The point is that US aid to Israel provides returns on many levels beyond defense, almost too many to list aside it's importance to US security interests. Conversely, returns on aid to Egypt and the Palestinians or the Pakistanis provides, as the Jews would say "bubkis," nothing.

The bottom line is that WE ARE GETTING SOMETHING FOR THE AID TO ISRAEL that is significant, concrete, substantial, necessary, even vital to US security interests, global peace, and technological innovation that were described above in the article from the American Enterprise Institute, far more detailed than this conversation. That is why Ron Paul is dead wrong on this issue - and of course, many others too. For example, the US Constitution, but why haggle over it?

The agreement on US policy vis-a-vis Israel has broad support across party lines and among the American People because most of us whose hearts have not been poisoned by the kind of leftwingnut/Paulestinian propaganda Springer spews understand the vital role Israel has been playing in OUR national security, defense, and the quality of our lives.

For example inside every computer, broadband, wifi, internet security, cell phone, is a Jewish or Israeli brain with which we can spew antiJewish and antiIsrael hate. Isn't life just dandy?

In other words, US policy regarding Israel is not made for Israel, or for Israel's interests. The United States makes these decisions strictly for ours. In a sense, even if we can make the case for a clear moral obligation to Israel, the United States puts moral considerations aside with respect to appropriations for foreign aid.

Insofar as Iraqi yellowcale, your citing is phalse, phake, and phony as they come from the SAME people who have continued the narrative that the left and the PAULestinians cite to this day: That the US went into THE WRONG WAR IN THE WRONG PLACE AT THE WRONG TIME; that Bush Lied, the Plame Game, etc....

In order to maintain that phraudulent narrative and the candidacy of Phalse Phrophets in the background, the Fairy Tales need to be kept alive and stirring the pot.

The far left and the far right represented by Ron Paul are two sides of the very same coin, with essentially similar agendas in many ares. That's why Paul is "OUR Republican" said Bill Maher. And he was, serious!


YOURS called the uranium precursor old, and some of it was. We do not know to this day how much MORE of it Saddam acquired up to the time of the invasion AFTER Gulf War I - we have no way of knowing. The FACT is that we DID NOT KNOW of the stockpile located at Tuwaitha until AFTER we had invaded and found it - and the DOD memo below I link to proves it.

The US and the UN knew of the "alleged" EXISTENCE of Saddam's stockpiles, his efforts to find more in Africa, that Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame lied to the congressional committees about, the first on Iraq, the second regarding how Wilson was hired by the CIA. In the first case the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence stated in their final report that, the exact wording here:..." (Wilson) was less than thruthful." In the second while Valerie Plame claimed to have had no role in recommending her husband for the job in Niger, it took for a Senator to hold up Plame's own handwritten memo to PROVE that Plame HERSELF had recommended Joe for the job. So much for your sources on the War in Iraq.

You are also way off on when we knew what we knew regarding the yellowcake stockpiles. The reason we had invaded is to find it and seize it BECAUSE we, the UK, France and Russia knew Saddam had it - among other things - and to get our hands on Saddam's WMD program in nuclear and OTHER areas that, once we did get our hands on them, proved to have been far more advanced and sophisticated than we had first thought.

The point I made and you're deaf to in your typical self-serving way, is that the political left VOTED to go to war and under Clinton pressed the build up to war. (As the plans to invade Iraq were made under the Clinton administration, as well as the bill to effect REGIME CHANGE in Iraq REF: Iraqi Liberation Act of October 1998, passed in the Senate unanimously by the way, it being the WILL of the American People. The Pentagon's buildup plans to invade, as well as much of the actual physical buildup infrastructure was put in place while George W. Bush was the governor of Texas.)

In fact, it goes further than that: On December 16, 1998 Clinton told Saddam and the world that it is now Saddam's LAST CHANCE to surrender his nuclear stockpiles and let the inspectors operate freely or else.

REF - Clinton's speech on national TV:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

The fact is that until it was disclosed the left refused to acknowledge it even AFTER the transfer of the uranium IN A SECRET OPERATION. And Springer, you are full of crap on your history and facts as shown above and can be found on WIKI about Estonia, Hungary and Poland.

And even more so on the Iraqi yellowcake.


You say: "So, as I said, the yellow cake Uranium was known by the UN and by the weapons inspectors after the first Gulf War. Long before the US invasion of Iraq. It didn't offer a threat." The last is YOUR opinion because you know so much that is not so. The facts.


Below linked is the United States Defense Department Memo that proves that WE HAD DISCOVERED THE LOCATION of the YELLOWCAKE AFTER THE INVASION, and not before as you had claimed; to be precise we went into Iraq BECAUSE the weapons inspectors failed to find the yellowcake!:

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=50430


In fact, we didn't go into Iraq to protect Israel as you'd like to believe. We went into Iraq to protect Saudi Arabia and the Emirates and access to the gulf! We have had security treaties with the Saudis since Roosevelt. We were supplying the Saudi military and in the eighties we sold AWACs to the kingdom PRECISELY because of the threat from Iraq. Just before that, the US asked Israel to take out Iraq's nuclear reactor at Tuwaitha and Israel complied.

In other words, Israel was fighting OUR wars!

Iraq invaded Kuwait just a few short years earlier before Gulf War II, that land being on the Saudi's borders. And Iraq had wars with Iran. Iraq was a hostile power that was murdering its own citizens en masse. We went into Iraq for the same reason regarding the last as the reason we went into Bosnia - not for Israel as you'd or Ron Paul would like to think. There is, a reason why the PAULestinians lost two times in a row and lost big time.

Your citing AP for your yellowcake info, written by who knows whom in the generally leftwing media (I'm sure even you'd agree with the description) was a mistake. I go to the source, not the editorial page for news. The world did not know where the yellowcake was, new or old yellowcake, until AFTER the invasion. And we found it soon after the invasion, guarded it in secret, and secretly transported it out of Iraq under Iraqi auspices but US military supervision. With an agreement with the Iraqi government.

Citing J-Street, a hostile to Israel organization is like citing Goebbels about German-Jewish relations. Well done Springer! Readers can look up what the real agenda of J-Street is. In fact, Obama invited only J-Street to the White House to use these Useful Idiots in his campaign to destabilize Netenyahu's government - to which the left, and Obama, is clearly hostile. J-Street in actuality is a pro-Palestinian organization. Which is fine, each to his own, but to suggest that J-Street, and not AIPAC, Anti-Defamation League and the World Jewish Congress represent Jews is Rather, Dan, far-fetched. J-Street is insignificant, a pimple on the face of the Jewish World. Pus?

And yes, there are anti-Jewish Jewish Organizations. Not exactly news to Jews.

You are correct however that Neo-Conservatives wer Classical Liberals. However you are entirely WRONG about their roots and what neo-conservatism is. Classical Liberalism and neo-conservatism are one and the same! At one time liberatarianism shared many values with it. That is until Ayn Rand completely separated herself from the libertarians, exposing their evil side.


I quote WIKI's ORIGINAL post clarifying Classical Liberalism - in VIOLENT opposition to today's leftwing liberalism:

Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1]
, laissez-faire
liberalism[2]
, and market liberalism
[3]
or, outside the United States and Britain, sometimes simply liberalism) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government
. This includes the exportation of liberation, the American ideal to the world, and the importance of human rationality, individual property rights
, natural rights
, the protection of civil liberties
, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law
, constitutional limitation of government, and free markets
, to place fiscal constraints on government[4]
as exemplified in the writings of John Locke
, Adam Smith
, David Hume
, David Ricardo
, Voltaire
, Montesquieu
and others. As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism
with political liberalism
of the late 18th and 19th centuries.[2]
The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order
or invisible hand
that benefits the society,[5]
though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods
with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited.[6]
The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as socialism and social liberalism
[7]
Classical liberals are suspicious of all but the most minimal government[8]
and object to the welfare state
[9]
.


I trust the above will suffice to explain that neo-conservatism, an offshoot of Classical Liberalism, is one and the same and neither are Marxists by any means - just the opposite. The neo-cons were Cold Warriors like JFK from the get go and interventionists. The paleo-cons are, along with Pat Buchanan, Justin Raimondo and Ron Paul, relegated to the 17th century into the dustbins of history.

On that note, the following may be useful for historians:

THE POLITICS OF BAD FAITH

Ever since the French Revolution, radical “equality” and conservative “liberty” have opposed each other as the defining agendas of Left and Right. For radicals, freedom is the power to redefine human destiny and has invariably meant, the surrender of individual autonomy to the radical project, to collective truth and the “progressive” idea. For conservatives, in contrast, liberty is relief for the individual from collective power. It is secured by “negative rights,” by limits to government. Liberty is made possible by the civilizing bonds of social order, and restraints on the coercive power of civil authority.The conservative goal is democratic, but it is also circumspect and modest (and so, deeply unsatisfying to the radical soul). Better to live with some injustices than, by seeking perfect justice, create a world with none. This is the political caution that has been etched in blood on the historical ledger of the last 200 years. It is the lesson the Left, and lately Libertarians, refuse to learn. It is this refusal that makes these radicals the dangerous reactionaries of the post-modern world.

This very denial of history however, also creates the political mask that allows leftists and libertarians to appear as social reformers and "patriots." Refusing to acknowledge any connection to the destructive consequences of their radical faith, these two ideologies have been able to hijack the vocabulary of political discourse, to appropriate the terms “democratic” and “progressive,” and now even “liberal” and “market” ("conservative" for the libertarians), and to frame its agendas in the misleading imagery of “social justice” and "patriotism" for libertarians. The Left and Libertarian fly under permanently false colors. They are neither liberal nor progressive, not patriots nor Republicans, and the justice they all promise is achievable only through political coercion infiltration of people of faith, naive isolation of the United States, and totalitarian terror.

Despite the Left’s surface adjustment to historical realities in the post-Communist era, the character of its project remains stubbornly the same. This project (and of the Libertarians, the DARK SIDE of whom Ayn Rand warned against!), as before, is antithetic to the American paradigm and the stoic realism in which its liberties are grounded. The opposition is so fundamental that even those left-wing revisionists who have accepted a part of the democratic achievement, and call themselves “democratic socialists” and those of the "Libertarian" faith, reveal a profound and dedicated hostility to the American founding and its political truths.

– DH, The Politics of Bad Faith


Your last comment Springton: "Guessing you don't know what any of that really is."

You really ought to stop guessing Springton. For a change try dealing with facts?

Uh huh. abg100 Read "Polish, Hungarian, Estonian forces" fought along side of the side of the allies. They were the freedom fighters, the legitimate and recognized government of those countries by the allies. Your version is that only the Fascist governments represented the those nations. And you also missed that those countries had forces in Afghanistan. Your grasp of history and current events is quite limited. Subject to the propaganda you continue to spew.

Repeat: I don't agree that the USA should give away money to other countries. You keep on unsuccessfully trying to claim that somehow Israel being a ally entitles them to cash from the USA. I don't care how they vote in the UN either. Despite your claims, the majority of Americans oppose foreign aid. Many are deluded by the compromised media.

Your words also display your collectivist mentality. Further proof that you are actually a leftist. Like all Neo-Conservatives. But, if you want to send your own cash to Israel, go ahead. that's your business. That's non-collectivist, individual choice and I support that.

And no. Again there is nothing in the report you listed that shows the yellow cake was not known after the first Gulf War. And note that the report DID say: “It is a commodity that is traded routinely in the global nuclear energy sector,” he said.

You're back to blowing smoke. The USA did not invade Iraq to get the low grade uranium ore. That's ridiculous. The material was in leaking drums in the former Iraq facility of Al Tuwaitha. Did you think that the the uranium from the reactor bombed in the early 80's and again in 1991 evaporated? It was, in fact, in a toxic waste dump. Known. Worthless. Dangerous only in it's toxicity. Which it was WHY it was removed. The removal was done to decontaminate that dump. Details in "Iraq Nuclear Facility Dismantlement and Disposal Project" Pdf

There was no revised effort to refine that material after 1991. A fact confirmed by the GW Bush administration that dismissed the claims of a renewed Iraqi WMD program in 2006. By both GW Bush and SOD Rumsfeld. They admitted that they were wrong. No WMD. Other than a handful of old shells left over from the Iran Iraq war that had been buried and forgotten. The shells were inoperable and the gas was degraded to near harmless.

"Neo-Conservatives were Classical Liberals" What???? Not even close. Neo-Conservatives were followers of Trotsky, other leftist communists and Leon Strauss. That's about as far from "Classical Liberals" as you can get. Classical Liberals were not advocates of the State like Neo-Conservatives. Do a little research before you state silly things. Try looking up Irving Kristol for example.... Or look up the definition of "Classical Liberal". That term has little in common with today's perception of Liberal.

Neo-Conservative:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The neoconservatives are often depicted as former Trotskyites who have morphed into a new, closely related life form. It is pointed out that many early neocons -- including The Public Interest founder Irving Kristol and coeditor Nathan Glazer, Sidney Hook, and Albert Wohlstetter -- belonged to the anti-Stalinist far left in the late 1930s and early 1940s, and that their successors, including Joshua Muravchik, and Carl Gershman, came to neoconservatism through the Socialist Party at a time when it was Trotskyite in outlook and politics. As early as 1963 Richard Hofstadter commented on the progression of many ex-Communists from the paranoid left to the paranoid right, clinging all the while to the fundamentally Manichean psychology that underlies both. Four decades later the dominant strain of neoconservatism is declared to be a mixture of geopolitical militarism and "inverted socialist internationalism."

"Blanket depictions of neoconservatives as redesigned Trotskyites need to be corrected in favor of a more nuanced analysis. In several important respects the neoconservative world outlook has diverged from the Trotskyite one and acquired some striking similarities with Stalinism and German National Socialism. Today's neoconservatives share with Stalin and Hitler an ideology of nationalist socialism and internationalist imperialism. The similarities deserve closer scrutiny and may contribute to a better understanding of the most influential group in the U.S. foreign policy-making community."

"Certain important differences remain, notably the neoconservatives' hostility not only to Nazi race-theory but even to the most benign understanding of national or ethnic coherence. On the surface, there are also glaring differences in economics. However, the neoconservative glorification of the free market is more rhetoric, designed to placate the businessmen who fund them, than reality. In fact, the neoconservatives favor not free enterprise but a kind of state capitalism -- within the context of the global apparatus of the World Bank and the IMF -- that Hitler would have appreciated."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>All of the above is consistent with Neo-Conservative past and present.

For all those that are interested in the history of the Neo-Conservatives:

"Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America: A Critical Appraisal" (Cambridge University Press, 2012)by Paul Gottfried

And especially: "Reclaiming the American Right; The Lost Legacy
of the Conservative Movement" by Justin Raimondo

Excerpt of a review by Pat Buchanan:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Theirs, declares Raimondo, is the lost legacy. And the failures of conservatism are traceable to the Right's abandonment of that legacy. Beginning in the mid-fifties, the Right was captured and co-opted by the undocumented aliens from the Left, carrying with them the viruses of statism and globalism."

"First in from the cold, Raimondo writes, came the Communists, refugees from Stalin's purges, from the Hitler-Stalin, and Moscow's attack on the Baltic republics and Finland. First among these was James Burnham, ex-Trotskyist of whom Orwell wrote that he worshiped power. Burnham went o the masthead of National Review from its founding in 1955, to become grand strategist of the cold war. He would be awarded the Medal of Freedom by Ronald Reagan himself . . . but, Raimondo argues, Burnham was never a true conservative; indeed, was barely tolerant of conservatives. A Machiavellian after renouncing Marxism, Burnham preached "American Empire" as the necessary means to combat Communist empire and was first to call for the creation of a "democratic world order."

"A second wave of migrants was the neoconservatives. Though Trotskyist, socialists or Social Democrat in their youth, by the mid-sixties they were JFK-LBJ Democrats orphaned by a party dedicated to the proposition that Vietnam was a dirty, immoral war. In 1972, they signed ads for Richard Nixon, a man not widely cherished among their number in his Alger Hiss and Helen Gahagan Douglas days."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Note that "Politics of Bad Faith" contains no names, no details, no history and no real references to Conservative thinkers such as Edmund Burke or American Russel Kirk (author of "The Conservative Mind").

Notice also that the rambling rant in "Politics of Bad Faith" makes a claim that libertarians "reveal a profound and dedicated hostility to the American founding and its political truths." The opposite is true.

Libertarians champion limited government. Founders? Yes. Neo-Conservatives? No.

Then of course there is intervention:

"There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard."

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements."

Hmmmmm.... Not very Neo-Conservative.

Foreign Aid and sanctions: "Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard." ~George Washington (farewell address).

Gee. That's not Neo-Conservative either is it.? But, it is completely consistent with Libertarian. AND Paleo-Conservative.

I guess the author of "The Politics of Bad Faith" didn't read Washington's farewell address......or pretty much else that the founders wrote. That's why there were no references. More smoke from the fake right: big government advocates, statists and Neo-Conservatives.

Notice that Neo-Conservatives are always at the head of the line to take constitutional rights away from the American people.


"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."

"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

And especially: "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." ~ Ben Franklin

Libertarians and paleo conservatives agree with these statements: Neo-Conservatives? No.

Franklin and Jefferson were not founders either I guess?

And your "source" claims Libertarians revise history?

Fact is both libertarians and paleo conservatives are directly derived from the ideals that the USA was founded on. Neo-Conservatives? No way.

Your "facts" come from email chain letters claims and are designed to find useful idiots. Others come from rants from people that have nothing to back up their claims.

Nice try Springton to get me to comment. OK I'll give you a taste since you insist:

1. The Founding Fathers clearly had intent on exporting freedom across the globe, their principles outlined in the Classical Liberalism quote from WIKI above; and later the same men in 1805 waged war against the Muslims of the Barbary Coast. I speak of Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. The paleo cons had AND HAVE exactly the opposite world view, an isolationist America divorced from freedom advocacy and the understanding of the fact that free states involved in trade and the exchange of commerce and culture do not wage war on each other or against America.

America WAS isolationist before WWII and we know what happened. The paleo-cons first led by Buchanan and his right hand man, Justin Raimondo were defeated handily when Buchanan ran for president, along the same percentages Ron Paul was defeated twice by, about 2% of the voting public were interested in these two clueless Americans.

Radicals all who use the Constitution behind which are deceptive messages and revisionist history. Springton is well versed in his revisionism as are many of the PAULestinians, but so am I, and that is why I had appended the Department of Defense memo which counters Springton's assertions about Iraqi WMD entirely. In other words, the DOD memo is a superior source of information in contrast to Springton's self-serving choices from the leftwing media still trying to peddle and outdated and historically incorrect narrative. As in history one event follow another in sequence, not the other way 'round.

2. Springton's sources for his neo-con hatefest are from guess whom? Pelo-cons! And leftwingers. W would never have guessed. Did the reader think otherwise?

The paleo-cons are laying in the dustbin of history and only the extremist haters in America have an interest in reviving an historical ally of Adolph Hitler and Hitler's secretive followers. Americans are a loving and sacrificing people who spend their treasure and lives spreading good - all according to the principles laid down by the Founding Fathers and Framers of the US Constitution, many of whom were pious Christians who read the Hebrew texts IN HEBREW! People who fully understood tyranny and living under the boot of tyrants. People who understood that a Jewish financier, Haym Solomon, financed the American Revolution, creating the American Experiment that had benefited mankind immensely - the same experiment that freed billions of people with American sacrifice in spirit, treasure, and blood. The Paulestinians won't shed their blood for anyone. The Founding Fathers had.

Americans went into Bosnia to save Bosnian Muslims not because of Israel, but because of Bosnian Muslims who were nowhere near Israel. America went to war in Iraq, Gulf War I and II to save Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait and the Emirates, not to save Israel, but to save Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait and the Emirates who were clearly threatened by Saddam.

Israel bombed Saddam's nuclear plant at Tuwaitha at the behest of the DOD, not to save Israel, but to save access to the Gulf for the United States and the West.

In other words, Israel was fighting our wars, not we theirs.



The الكيان الصهيوني

MICROSOFT of the الكيان الصهيوني REVEALS THE TERRIBLE EVIL TRUTH ABOUT THE الكيان الصهيوني and the evil people of the الكيان الصهيوني



Remember to ENLARGE the player to FULL SCREEN with the small square RIGHT bottom!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_JwjtMM52co#!


الكيان الصهيوني

Working at it for 4000 years, they are a culture bent on destroying civilization

الكيان الصهيوني = THE ZIONIST ENTITY


Rather, this is the REAL truth about الكيان الصهيوني

TIKUN OLAM - REPAIRING THE WORLD!

"تيكون أولام"

NOW YOU KNOW THE UGLY TRUTH....


More of the UGLINESS revealed: As of 2010...

الكيان الصهيوني obtained 16,805 patents. Arabs have 836

الكيان الصهيوني will spend on scientific research twice as much as the entire Muslim world of 1.2 billion people. The total amount spent in الكيان الصهيوني on non-military scientific research is about 11 billion dollars. A large portion of the proceeds of that research comes back into the United States in commercial activity, investment at the NASDAQ of which Israeli business and affiliations is almost a third, exceeding US military aid to Israel tenfold or more UP FRONT ($3.5 billion), and untold billions over the years to follow.

الكيان الصهيوني is spending 5.2% of its national output on research, and this represents the highest proportion of spending in the world, while Arab countries are spending 0.2% of their national income on research and the Arab States in Asia spend only 0.1% of their GDP on scientific research.

As for patents, the statistics are even more lopsided between the Arabs and الكيان الصهيوني .

الكيان الصهيوني has recorded 16805 patents, while the Arabs as a whole have about 836 patents total, only 5% of the number of patents registered in الكيان الصهيوني.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

2ed Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." US Constitution.

Neo-Conservative Charles Krauthammer: "Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain…" Washington Post, April 5, 1996

Neo-Conservatives have a problem with the US Constitution, not just in this, but pretty much across the board.

1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." US Constitution

Irving Kristal: "And lest there be any misunderstanding as to what I am saying, I will put it as bluntly as possible: If you care for the quality of life in our American democracy, then you have to be for censorship."

Typical.

"In other words, the man is a fan of the Aryan "Race," as if such a thing existed. This is perfect for the reader to gain a perspective of the ugly side of American politics." Nope. That is not what is stated. But like many on the left, Neo-Conservatives play the race card whenever they can.

"1. The Founding Fathers clearly had intent on exporting freedom across the globe, their principles outlined in the Classical Liberalism quote from WIKI above; and later the same men in 1805 waged war against the Muslims of the Barbary Coast. I speak of Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. The paleo cons had AND HAVE exactly the opposite world view, an isolationist America divorced from freedom advocacy and the understanding of the fact that free states involved in trade and the exchange of commerce and culture do not wage war on each other -- or against America."

Really? By force of arms no less. At the point of a gun. Fake democracy. Puppet governments. Bribes. Who knew that the founders wanted that? I notice no quotes from the founders. But, I guess Washington didn't know what he was writing. And Jefferson. See above for the quotes.

But here is the truth: "In the affairs of nations, the American conservative feels that his country ought to set an example to the world, but ought not to try to remake the world in its image. It is a law of politics, as well as of biology, that every living thing loves above all else—even above its own life—its distinct identity, which sets it off from all other things. The conservative does not aspire to domination of the world, nor does he relish the prospect of a world reduced to a single pattern of government and civilization." Russell Kirk, known widely as the father of modern American Conservatism.

Notice "example"? That's exactly what the founders advocated for spreading the concepts of liberty. Many references. None that claim the the US should do this by force.

But let's take a look at Neo-Conservative foreign policy in Iraq:

June 2012: "In total, 132 Iraqis -- 90 civilians, 20 policemen and 22 soldiers -- died in attacks nationwide, figures compiled by the ministries of health, interior and defence showed.

A total of 248 people were wounded in violence in May, including 115 civilians, 80 policemen and 53 soldiers. The figures also showed that 20 insurgents were killed and 105 arrested.

The worst violence took place on May 31, when a spate of bombings across Baghdad killed 17 people, while shootings in the north of the country left three others dead."

"Radicals all who use the Constitution behind which are deceptive messages and revisionist history."

Really? Gee, You used innuendo. I used quotes from the founders. and text from the Constitution.

"...still trying to peddle an outdated and historically incorrect narrative." "Outdated" Interesting. So previous history has become "outdated"? Really? That's called revisionism.

I quoted directly from the DOD document you cited. Again there was no conflict in what I said, but the quote clearly states that the yellow cake was not a threat. You are disproved by your own source.

"PAULestinians" I see you continued on that theme. By the way, the Barbary "Muslims" were pirates backed by a government and Jefferson got Congressional approval. But I notice you used "Muslims" insteadof "pirates". Exposing yourself.

"Israel bombed Saddam's nuclear plant at Tuwaitha at the behest of the DOD"

Really? Who knew? Iraq was considered to be a ally at that time. A counter to Iran. Almost the entire US Congress voted to condemn the act. (Note that Dr Paul was one of the few Republicans who stood up and said Israel should not have to answer to America for how she defends herself.)

An inconvenient truth. And once again you are exposed for revisionist history and outright fabrication.

Remember, this was the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan that had condemned Israel, a coalition that included the most hawkish anti-Communists and the most fervent Christian conservatives.

Republicans condemned Israel’s actions in 1981 for two reasons: 1. The Reagan administration was making an ally of Saddam Hussein. 2. The Republican Party had not yet conflated Israel’s and America’s interests as identical.

Here's a bit more on this. "International response at the United Nations took two paths. The United Nations Security Council issued a unanimous and almost immediate response on 19 June 1981, following eight meetings and statements from Iraq and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Security Council Resolution 487[14] strongly condemned the attack as a "clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct" and called on Israel to refrain from such attacks in the future; the Council recognized the right of Iraq to "establish programmes of technological and nuclear development" and called for Israel to join Iraq within the "IAEA safeguards regime" of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.[60] The Council also stated its consideration that Iraq was "entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered." The United States voted for the resolution and suspended the delivery of four F-16 aircraft to Israel, but blocked punitive action by the UN."

Ouch. Obviously the DOD of Reagan didn't ask the Israelis to attack Iraq. Caught again agb100.

Thank God you don't "revise history". LOL

Another tidbit: All of the below must be Neo-Con or Israel haters, of course.

Many documented claims that Israel provided military equipment to Iran. In other words, US military aid went to Iran.

"According to Ronen Bergman, Israel sold Iran US$75 million worth of arms from stocks of Israel Military Industries, Israel Aircraft Industries and Israel Defense Force stockpiles, in their Operation Seashell in 1981.[1] Materiel included 150 M-40 antitank guns with 24,000 shells for each gun, spare parts for tank and aircraft engines, 106 mm, 130 mm, 203 mm and 175 mm shells and TOW missiles. This materiel was transported first by air by Argentine airline Transporte Aéreo Rioplatense and then by ship. (1)

According Trita Parsi, Israeli support for Iran consisted of several elements:[2]

Arms sales to Iran that totaled an estimated $500 million from 1981 to 1983 according to the Jafe Institute for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University. Most of it was paid for by Iranian oil delivered to Israel. [3] "According to Ahmad Haidari, "an Iranian arms dealer working for the Khomeini regime, roughly 80% of the weaponry bought by Tehran" immediately after the onset of the war originated in Israel. [4]
Arms shipments from the U.S. to Iran in the Iran-Contra Affair facilitated by Israel.
Israel's June 7, 1981 attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor which set back Iraq's nuclear program. In fact, Iran bombed them first, back in 1980, but they only damaged secondary buildings. [5] The reactor was thought to be still producing material for nuclear bomb which Iraq was likely to first use against Iran.
Israel is also reported to have supplied instructors and non-armaments help to Iran for the war effort.


Israeli arms dealer Ya'acov Nimrodi apparently signed a deal with Iran's Ministry of National Defense to sell $135,842,000 worth of arms, including Lance missiles, Copperhead shells and Hawk missiles. In March 1982, the New York Times cited documents indicating that Israel had supplied half or more of all arms reaching Tehran in the previous 18 months, amounting to at least $100 million in sales. The Milan weekly Panorama reported that Israel had sold the Khomeini regime 45,000 Uzi submachine guns, antitank missile launchers, missiles, howitzers and aircraft replacement parts. "A large part of the booty from the PLO during the 1982 Lebanon campaign wound up in Tehran," the magazine claimed."

And: "According to Bergman, Israel's goals were to reestablish some influence in Iran which was lost when the Shah was defeated in 1979, intensify the Iran-Iraq War and weaken both Iran and Iraq, both of whom opposed the existence of Israel, prevent Iraq from conquering Iran as they feared a victorious Saddam Hussein, and create business for the Israeli weapons industry[12]

Trita Parsi writes that Israel supplied Iran with arms and ammunition because it viewed Iraq as a danger to the peace process in the Middle East. Ariel Sharon believed it was important to "leave a small window open" to the possibility of good relations with Iran in the future.[2] According to David Menashri of Tel Aviv University, a leading expert on Iran, "Throughout the 1980s, no one in Israel said anything about an Iranian threat - the word wasn't even uttered." [13]

"Another source argues that Israel saw the Gulf War as an opportunity to ensure the safety of a Jewish community which it believed was at risk. At the time of the revolution in Iran, there were 80,000 Jews in the country. They were a recognized minority along with Christians and Zoroastrians, which in general had suffered no persecution and had been able to continue its affairs undisturbed. The fundamentalism of Khomeini put all that at risk. Clandestine support of Iran ensured the safety of the Jewish community and allowed thousands to emigrate; it also contributed substantially to Iran's successful defense of its borders.[14]"

"According to John Bulloch and Harvey Morris, the Israelis devised and manufactured the huge, lightweight polystyrene blocks which the Iranian assault forces carried with them to build instant makeshift causeways across the shallow Iraqi water defences in front of Basra; Israel kept Iranian planes flying in spite of a lack of spares; and Israeli instructors taught Iranian commanders how to handle troops.

Despite all the speeches of Iranian leaders and the denunciation of Israel at Friday prayers, there were never less than about a 100 Israeli advisers and technicians in Iran at any time throughout the war, living in a carefully guarded and secluded camp just north of Tehran; they remained there even after the ceasefire.[10]

In August 1982 Aerospace Daily reported that Israel's support was "crucial" to keeping Iran's air force flying against Iraq. Israeli sales also included spare parts for U.S.-made F-4 Phantom jets.

***>>>>>>> Newsweek also reported that after an Iranian defector landed his F-4 Phantom jet in Saudi Arabia in 1984, intelligence experts determined that many of its parts had originally been sold to Israel, and had then been re-exported to Tehran in violation of U.S. Iaw.[11]"

Note the last. The parts were stamped with identification numbers. How did US parts sent to Israel end up on an Iranian jet fighter?

Sources from the above. Article is via Wikipedia

1. Ronen Bergman, The Secret War with Iran, Free Press, 2008, p.40-48

2. a b Parsi, Trita Treacherous Alliance: The secret dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States, by Trita Parsi, Yale University Press, 2007

3. Parsi, Trita Treacherous Alliance (2007), p.107

4..Parsi, Trita Treacherous Alliance (2007), p.106

5. Jones, Nate. "Document Friday: When Iran Bombed Iraq’s Nuclear Reactor". NSA Archive. Retrieved 4 May 2012.

6.. Phythian, Mark. Arming Iraq : How the U.S. and Britain Secretly Built Saddam's War Machine, p.20

7. Scott, Peter Dale, The Iran-Contra Connection: Secret Teams and Covert Operations in Reagan Era, 1987, p. 173-174

8. Nicholas Kristof, ‘‘The Osirak Option,’’ New York Times, Nov. 15, 2002, p. A31.

9. VIEWPOINT: PREVENTIVE ATTACKS AGAINST NUCLEAR PROGRAMS AND THE ‘‘SUCCESS’’ AT OSIRAQ by Dan Reiter

10 Bulloch, John, The Gulf War : Its Origins, History and Consequences by John Bulloch and Harvey Morris, London : Methuen London, 1989, p.17

11. Scott, Peter Dale, The Iran-Contra Connection: Secret Teams and Covert Operations in Reagan Era, 1987, p. 173-174

12. Bergman, Secret War, 2008, p.43-44

13. Parsi, Trita Treacherous Alliance (2007), p.104

14. Bulloch, John, The Gulf War, (1989), p.17

Sources from the above. Article is via Wikipedia. Titled: "Israeli support for Iran during the Iran–Iraq war"

I have nothing against Israel. By an large, the people of Israel are an industrious people that have a lot to offer the world. The cabal that runs that nation is a problem IMO. People I know in that nation have expressed distaste for many of their governments policies. They are also held captive by the foreign aid the US sends. That money is used to manipulate the Israeli political system, their media and more. I agree that Israel has the right of self defense. But when that countries government and rulers manipulate this nations political system, especially using US foreign aid money or it's derivatives, the line has been crossed.

I do have a problem with Neo-Conservatives because they are weakening my country and manipulating the government. I have the same problem with the other statists: Communists, and socialists, and others. These groups are all from the Left. The idea that libertarians and paleo-conservatives, constitutionalists and those that want smaller, limited government are from the left is absurd. More centralized control, larger and more intrusive government have always been the hallmarks of the left.