babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Are Likudnicks Shaping US Foreign Policy?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Are Likudnicks Shaping US Foreign Policy?
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 March 2003 11:15 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The elephant in the room:

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.02.28/news4.html


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 March 2003 11:19 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Or is the elephant really self-delusion?:

http://tinyurl.com/6u12


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
CyberNomad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2926

posted 04 March 2003 11:55 AM      Profile for CyberNomad     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From the second link (G&M - Jeffrey Simpson):
quote:
By pursuing "regime change," starting with a U.S. general running Iraq for two years or more, the U.S. will turn even more people against them and provide the best recruiting ground yet for militant fundamentalism.

What if, at the end of the two years, Iraqis will be out on the street chanting "Two More Years"?
(Everyone's a prophet!)

From: St. Catharines ON | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 March 2003 12:18 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Has anyone else noticed a change in Jeffrey Simpson lately?

Not that I'm complaining, but he seems to have done a reverse-Wente.

josh, although I guess we've seen a bit of this discussion in Canada in the Ruby/Rose/Berger essay, the way it's described in your first link seems to me much more specific to the war debate as Americans are having it -- would you agree? And has it suddenly become a major issue?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 March 2003 01:24 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not a "major" issue. It remains the elephant, Tim Russert's Meet The Press question notwithstanding.

And I agree regarding Simpson. He's written two or three columns on the Bush crowd and Iraq that I consider to be some of the best writings on the topic.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 13 March 2003 01:52 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Alright. A broken clock can be right twice a day. And Pat Buchanan may not be so far off in his analysis:

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
LionKeeper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3728

posted 14 March 2003 01:14 PM      Profile for LionKeeper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Any one who doubts that there is a significant influence on the United States from pro-Israeli lobbyist and/or the Likudniks are really out to lunch. I mean common when is everyone going to wake up?


They must be drooling right now! Good article


From: The Lion's Den | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
bienvenue
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1597

posted 14 March 2003 04:13 PM      Profile for bienvenue   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is impossible to know to what extent ANY lobby group influences American foreign policy. In '91 the majority of American Jews were against the war with Iraq, a fact that casts doubt on any "zionist" connection. This time round it may well be the same case. Certainly American Jews have some influence on foreign policy, just as Polish Americans or Italian Americans or Chinese Americans do. What disturbs me most about this issue, is the fact that it can so easily turn into a hate-fest against Jews. I believe that this danger is very real.
From: Québec | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 14 March 2003 04:34 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't disagree. But there's another danger that is more likely to happen, and in fact has happened. That being that any criticism about the Likud influence over US foreign policy will be tarred as anti-semitism. Here's a piece on one such organization:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2080027/


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
CyberNomad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2926

posted 14 March 2003 04:34 PM      Profile for CyberNomad     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When josh uses a right-wing nut's arguments to bolster his stand, it becomes obvious that something is wrong with his line of reasoning.

Pat Buchanan is not only a first-class nutbar, he is also a devout anti-semite (in denial, of course).

The title of this topic implies that Americans-of-the-Jewish-faith should be barred from participating in the democratic process.

I find this thread offensive.


From: St. Catharines ON | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
LionKeeper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3728

posted 14 March 2003 04:36 PM      Profile for LionKeeper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wrong! What I posted is based on statistical facts… It is known who the main contributors who support the American administration. This can easily found on the internet. I did not suggest in my post that ‘Jews” as you put it, are for the war. Nor do I appreciate that fact that you suggest that I am suggesting a hate-fest against Jews. I am all for Jews in the Middle-East but not based on a Ideology/Nationalism (Zionism) that is dangerous and could put the world at the brink of WWIII.

My post suggests that it does benefit the Zionist movement and its objectives. And if you are suggesting that Polish, Italians, or Chinese are as influential as pro-Zionist or pro-Israel groups I suggest you do some research and prove me wrong.

quote:
"I believe that this danger is very real."

The real danger lies in the unknown intentions of the powerful Zionist movement not whether we post articles that suggest that there is a definite link between Likudnicks, the Bush Administration and what is now manifesting in the Middle-East!


From: The Lion's Den | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
LionKeeper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3728

posted 14 March 2003 04:52 PM      Profile for LionKeeper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Give me a break, in no way does this post or the subject suggests that American Jews should not participate in the American political system.

What you are saying in other words that if a Christian group like the KKK for example had significant influence on the U.S. government, and we as people of the free world opposed it than we would be anti-Christian? That is how strong your argument is CyberNomad, I guess you, I, and Josh for that matter are an anti-Christian because Hitler practiced that faith. The problem here is that when someone states a fact, those who are weak in their position run and accuse other of being anti-Jew or anti-Semitism. Just because some oppose the policies of the Israeli government which many do it does not suggest that they oppose the Jewish faith.

I guess the Israeli government should round up all the Ultra-Orthodox Jews that don’t recognize Israel the state because it is in conflict with their religious beliefs (meaning they believe the Messiah will come to earth and lead them to biblical Judea). Those Jews must be anti-Jews because they disagree in principle with the State of Israel?


From: The Lion's Den | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 14 March 2003 04:57 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
CN, Buchanan may be a right-wing nut. He may also be an anti-semite. But that doesn't mean his argument in this instance is invalid. As I said, a broken clock can be right twice a day. As for your knee-jerk claim of anti-semitism, to avoid addressing the question, I suggest you consult Kinsley's Slate piece.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 March 2003 05:05 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The title of this topic implies that Americans-of-the-Jewish-faith should be barred from participating in the democratic process.

I find this thread offensive.


No it's not. It's implying that people who support Likud are shaping US foreign policy. I don't see how you go from that to Jewish Americans being barred from the democratic process (especially since the thread was posted by - wait for it - a Jewish American).


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CyberNomad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2926

posted 14 March 2003 05:10 PM      Profile for CyberNomad     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
josh, Buchanan's argument is as valid as his view expressed in this quote (from his article):
quote:
Yet, Hezbollah had nothing to do with 9/11. What had Hezbollah done? Hezbollah had humiliated Israel by driving its army out of Lebanon.

It's a joke!

From: St. Catharines ON | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 14 March 2003 05:19 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I didn't say I agreed with everything in it. But he presents a strong case for his basic thesis, that being, that the Likudnicks have undue influence over current US foreign policy, and that those who raise this point should not be shouted down with cries of anti-semitism.

And I should add that one does not have to be Jewish to be a Likudnick. Witness Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Bill Bennett.

[ 14 March 2003: Message edited by: josh ]


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
CyberNomad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2926

posted 14 March 2003 08:16 PM      Profile for CyberNomad     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, josh ... Buchanan does not present a strong case for his basic thesis. He is driven by his bigotry.
Of course, Buchanan is not alone. Take a look at this CNN article.

From: St. Catharines ON | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 16 March 2003 05:23 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Great way of avoiding the issue CN. Name call and don't address the particulars.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 16 March 2003 09:36 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On the topic of zionisim I was wondering if people knew that "shalom achsav" (Peace Now)consider themsevles zionist.

So point inforation is zionisim is the longing of Jews for a state in their homeland. This does not under any cercimstance contradict the creation of palistinian state. To state for 2 people. Everyone has a right to there own identity. Other wise the canadians might as well join the americans. The Isralie don't wan't 6-8 million palistinians telling them how to run their country. The Israelies don't want to have to police the palistinians forever. Thats why over 70% want to have a palistinian state is that to much or to little to ask for.

and I wonder if 30 million canadians would like 300 million americans telling them what to do?

I believe everyone has a right to there idenitity the includes the right to peice of land to call thier own. The canadians Israeli's and palistinians have this right.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
CyberNomad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2926

posted 16 March 2003 11:16 PM      Profile for CyberNomad     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
josh, I am not avoiding the issue, because there is NO issue.

Let me repeat my name-calling ... Buchanan is in the same league as the Zundels of this world. Presenting Buchanan as an authority whose word/thesis is to be considered, is, to me, an insult.

His rant is a modern version of the great Jewish consipiracy. He is as credible as the authors of the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Sorry, old boy. You need to do better.


From: St. Catharines ON | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 17 March 2003 03:07 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, CN, there is an issue, as I indicated in the last post. If you don't want to address, so be it. That's your problem. If you don't believe me, or want to consider what Buchanan has to say, read the Michael Kinsley piece I posted. Kinsley's Jewish, after all.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
CyberNomad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2926

posted 18 March 2003 09:03 AM      Profile for CyberNomad     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
josh, you don't get it, conveniently so.

I don't care about Buchanan's writings. I refuse to acknowledge him. Actually, I don't need to acknowledge him. I know what he'll write. I'm sure he, to use a 19th century American political expression, "he'll waive the bloody shirt" of the Jewish Conspiracy, and make unsubstantiated claims of Jewish ties to power. Fear is the weapon of the Buchananites and the Zundelites. Truth is immaterial. And, unfortunately, a majority of Americans, including josh, will be taken in.

[josh, if that sounds familiar, it should. I substituted Buchanan for Bush.]

[edited for typo]

[ 18 March 2003: Message edited by: CyberNomad ]


From: St. Catharines ON | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 18 March 2003 09:29 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Again, avoiding the issue CN. And, again, if you don't want to read Buchanan, read Kinsley. Or my original post from The Forward. Or read Mickey Kaus on Slate. Or just open your eyes. It is a fact of American politics, the Likudnicks, whether they be in the administration or in AIPAC, have a disproportionate impact on US foreign policy. If you choose not to see that fact, that's your problem.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
CyberNomad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2926

posted 18 March 2003 10:31 AM      Profile for CyberNomad     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
josh, it's obvious that you are sold on Buchanan's thesis. That's your luck.

I don't have time to read him and her, but I did read Kinsley. His message seems to echo babblers: Don't feed the trolls.

Have a good day, josh.


From: St. Catharines ON | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 April 2003 04:46 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
More on the topic, and the reluctance to speak about it:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030421&s=alterman


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca