Sub-Husker Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Where is the Palestinians' PAC? http://mantiqaltayr....it-even-better/ “You’re gonna feel so good when you see that six months from now you see the three major talking points evolve to three points of legislation for the US government. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 9, 2012 Author Share Posted February 9, 2012 We should all be "concerned when a small group has a disproportionate power" In 1992, AIPAC president David Steiner was forced to resign after he was recorded boasting about his political influence in obtaining aid for Israel. Steiner also claimed that he had met with (then Bush U.S. Secretary of State) Jim Baker and I cut a deal with him. I got, besides the $3 billion, you know they're looking for the Jewish votes, and I'll tell him whatever he wants to hear ... Besides the $10 billion in loan guarantees which was a fabulous thing, $3 billion in foreign, in military aid, and I got almost a billion dollars in other goodies that people don't even know about.[36] Steiner also claimed to be "negotiating" with the incoming Clinton administration over who Clinton would appoint as Secretary of State and Secretary of the National Security Agency. Steiner stated that AIPAC had "a dozen people in [the Clinton] campaign, in the headquarters... in Little Rock, and they're all going to get big jobs."[36] NY real estate developer Haim Katz told The Washington Times that he taped the conversation because "as someone Jewish, I am concerned when a small group has a disproportionate power. I think that hurts everyone, including Jews. If David Steiner wants to talk about the incredible, disproportionate clout AIPAC has, the public should know about it."[37] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 9, 2012 Author Share Posted February 9, 2012 From the book I was talking about earlier. Among the best-known critical works about AIPAC is The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer and Harvard University Kennedy School of Government professor Stephen Walt. In the working paper and resulting book they accuse AIPAC of being "the most powerful and best known" component of a larger pro-Israel lobby that distorts American foreign policy. They write:[53] AIPAC's success is due to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it. ... AIPAC makes sure that its friends get strong financial support from the myriad pro-Israel PACs. Those seen as hostile to Israel, on the other hand, can be sure that AIPAC will direct campaign contributions to their political opponents. ... The bottom line is that AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress. Open debate about U.S. policy towards Israel does not occur there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world. and Democratic Congressman Jim Moran from Northern Virginia has been a vocal critic of AIPAC, causing national controversy in 2007 and drawing criticism from some Jewish groups after he told California Jewish magazine Tikkun that AIPAC had been "pushing the [iraq War] from the beginning", and that "I don't think they represent the mainstream of American Jewish thinking at all, but because they are so well organized, and their members are extraordinarily powerful - most of them are quite wealthy - they have been able to exert power."[57][58] This Iraq war thing is talked about quite abit in the Israel Lobby book too. Both snips are from the same link as my last post. Link to comment
husker_99 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 how is Israel illegally occupying land given to them? If I give you the Brooklyn Bridge, that does not mean that it is yours. Except it was the Allies to give since they defeated the Central powers. Ottoman Empire blew up and is now Turkey. When you win a war everything your enemy had is now yours. I don't agree with that logic and it is pretty outdated but the real problem is that Israel is occupying and taking over land that was never given to them. Israel seems content to continue to illegally expand by building on Palestinian land, occupy their land, and kill off Palestinians until they take over all of Palestine. Then i guess you would agree that the US should give back all our land? Here's the problem. They want the Jews gone permanently. Multiple times through talks they would have been given much of the land and Israel would've given it up but they didn't want that. They just want the Jews dead period. When they won't even take a good deal that they have been given i don't care if Israel is occupying land that wasn't given to them cause that isn't the root of the problem. Link to comment
husker_99 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 how is Israel illegally occupying land given to them? They were given their own state in 1948. They are occupying additional land outside of those borders. illegally occupying land isn't the problem. If Israel gave it back it wouldn't solve one damn problem in the Middle East. Link to comment
walksalone Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Man this place has turned into a cesspool... Funny how that happened after your previous cesspool was shut down. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Man this place has turned into a cesspool... Funny how that happened after your previous cesspool was shut down. It is good to have people here with diverse opinions, who can lay out a position and defend it without Romneying when the audience changes or it gets uncomfortable. While the dig on HuskerPedia was funny, it died because of a fight over advertising revenue, and had not become a cesspool until its final days when participants from the new owner's board showed up en masse to trash the place. Cactusboy was the only moderator who stayed around during that time and tried to maintain order. The work he did as a moderator during that time was exemplorary. While your comment was humorous and well timed, it also happens to be very inaccurate. Look, if a statement is incorrect and you repeat it along with a silly video or image, you are contributing nothing but trash to the thread. Knapplc believes that you can contribute here, but I haven't seen it yet or believe it to be possible. I would be pleasantly surprised if you proved me wrong. Thanks, Sub Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 9, 2012 Author Share Posted February 9, 2012 how is Israel illegally occupying land given to them? If I give you the Brooklyn Bridge, that does not mean that it is yours. Except it was the Allies to give since they defeated the Central powers. Ottoman Empire blew up and is now Turkey. When you win a war everything your enemy had is now yours. I don't agree with that logic and it is pretty outdated but the real problem is that Israel is occupying and taking over land that was never given to them. Israel seems content to continue to illegally expand by building on Palestinian land, occupy their land, and kill off Palestinians until they take over all of Palestine. Then i guess you would agree that the US should give back all our land? Here's the problem. They want the Jews gone permanently. Multiple times through talks they would have been given much of the land and Israel would've given it up but they didn't want that. They just want the Jews dead period. When they won't even take a good deal that they have been given i don't care if Israel is occupying land that wasn't given to them cause that isn't the root of the problem. "given much of the land"? Yes, all divided up and w/ many conditions...like no water rights. Hamas, Iran, and the mid east countries have stated they are ok w/ a 2 state solution. Google "arab plan". Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 9, 2012 Author Share Posted February 9, 2012 From the start of the ceasefire at 6 AM on June 19 till the incident on November 4th cited by CNN, the following attacks were launched against Israel from Gaza in direct violation of the agreement: 18 mortars were fired at Israel in this period, beginning on the night of June 23. 20 rockets were fired, beginning on June 24, when 3 rockets hit the Israeli town of Sderot. On July 6 farmers working in the fields of Nahal Oz were attacked by light arms fire from Gaza. On the night of August 15 Palestinians fired across the border at Israeli soldiers near the Karni crossing. On October 31 an IDF patrol spotted Palestinians planting an explosive device near the security fence in the area of the Sufa crossing. As the patrol approached the fence the Palestinians fired two anti-tank missiles. There were two Palestinian attempts to infiltrate from Gaza into Israel apparently to abduct Israelis. Both were major violations of the ceasefire. LINK Here's some more timely information on who broke the 2008 ceasefire and when. And the anti-Semitism guess was better than wilfull ignorance, which was my other choice. I've seen people with their head in the sand before, but this tack is beyond that. Hard to say what the deal is. Regardless, I'll not be apologizing for what was a simple guess of a reason for this nonsense. I notice, Sub, that you didn't ask Cactus to apologize for any of his shots across the bow. Double-standard much? AGAIN...you are moving the gold posts. Israel broke the ceasefire hours after it started. If we have a staring contest and I blink first...I don't then point out that you blinked 5 seconds later. NOW...if a cease fire it broken..and then the other side hits back, there can be a sort of restart of the ceasefire. But it's still on record who broke it first. Willful ignorance is BIG TIME on your side. You're using all sorts of desparte debating tactics in this thread. No need to appologize for your guess about me. It has zero substance and you can't deny this fact. I also think you need to look up the offical def of the term you throw around. Dude, just head to Israel, join Shayetet 13, so you can euthanizing the heathen muslims so you can live with a clearer conscience.... I'm detecting a little bit of prejudice in that statement... Cactusboy seems to be very insightful on the situation and based on conversations I've had with people well informed of the situation and the little research I have done he has accurately depicted it. I suggest those challenging him do some in-depth research before proceeding to do so. Link to comment
husker_99 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Of course Iran are now ok with it because then they could just supply the Palestinians with weapons. they have much in common. 2 state solution. You mean the one Bush proposed and still got shot down? Look they simply don't want to share the land period. 1 Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 9, 2012 Author Share Posted February 9, 2012 Of course Iran are now ok with it because then they could just supply the Palestinians with weapons. they have much in common. 2 state solution. You mean the one Bush proposed and still got shot down? Look they simply don't want to share the land period. Are you talking about the Road Map to a 2 state solution that Bush proposed and Israel immediately rejected? Israel's immediate rejection of major Road Map obligation On May 12, 2003 it was reported that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had rejected Israel's main road map requirement, a settlement freeze, as "impossible" due to the need for settlers to build new houses and start families. Ariel Sharon asked then US Secretary of State Colin Powell "What do you want, for a pregnant woman to have an abortion just because she is a settler?".[2] On May 25, 2003 the Israeli government announced fourteen conditions to the plan.[3] These included: The total dismantling of all militant Palestinian sub-groups, collection of all illegal weapons and their destruction Cessation of violence and incitement against Israel, but the Roadmap will not state that Israel must cease violence and incitement against the Palestinians Palestine as a demilitarized state, and Israeli control of the entry and exit of all persons and cargo, plus its airspace and electromagnetic spectrum (Radio, television, radar, etc.) Declaration of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, as well as the waiver of any right of return of refugees to Israel Issues pertaining to the final settlement such as Israeli settlement in "Judaea, Samaria" (West Bank) and Gaza (excluding a settlement freeze and illegal outposts), the status of the Palestinian Authority and its institutions in Jerusalem, and all other matters pertaining to the final settlement will not be discussed prior to the final settlement talks. No reference other than the key provisions of U.N. Resolution 242 and 338. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_map_for_peace#Israel.27s_immediate_rejection_of_major_Road_Map_obligation Link to comment
walksalone Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Look, if a statement is incorrect and you repeat it along with a silly video or image, you are contributing nothing but trash to the thread. Knapplc believes that you can contribute here, but I haven't seen it yet or believe it to be possible. I would be pleasantly surprised if you proved me wrong. Thanks, Sub I found it amusing, and anyways, attempting to contribute anything to this clusterf*ck of a thread that you two have turned it into would be as pointless as Mark Mangino on weight watchers Link to comment
Excel Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I don't feel like reading through 350+ posts so someone brief me real quick...who believes what and why... Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 Everyone should follow inter I don't feel like reading through 350+ posts so someone brief me real quick...who believes what and why... Everyone should follow international rules and the US lead UN should see to it that they do. Although the US has vetoed a resolution in the past that said countries must obey international law....so we'll probably have to pull our head out of our ass first. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I don't feel like reading through 350+ posts so someone brief me real quick...who believes what and why... It all started when the Iranians, who used to be called Dan Persa and his teammates, tried to defend Evanston Illinois against 300 Spartans this past November. The Persa-ans were defeated 31-17, so there is no need for another war in Iran. Link to comment
Recommended Posts