Discussion in 'Politics' started by Pressed_Rat, Jun 4, 2007.
And then you wonder why they hate the US?
A lot of this also applies to the US as well, like when it comes to the legalization of torture, jailing people without trial, etc... So when they say Israel is the only country in some instances, it's not exactly the case because it happens in the US as well.
Yeah, and now Lieberman is trying to lead us in to expanding our theatre of war.
I love this YouTube piece that shows that the attacks on Lebanon, were just more ethnic cleansing on the part of Isreal. When the Israeli Newscaster states that they put up film of the Hezbollah rockets....well their film proved to be Photoshopped crap. And now Lieberman wants us to target Iran based on a threat to Israel. Sorry but I am not buying it.
We've funded the surge that GW wanted, we have our carriers off Iran. Do we really want or need to expand the theatre of war? For whose benefit...the oil companies and Israel?
Why should I be listening to Lieberman ?.
How is his commentary more relevant than anybody elses ?
I always hate looking at one side of the coin - but atleast it is something to look into.
How accurate it all is is a matter of opinion imho. The situation ''over there'' is so complex it is difficult to be none judgemental. At the end of the day it is just propaganda.
Thanks for postingt it though PR.
Lieberman was relected against odds, when his own party chose someone else for his slot in the election. Now he's seen as the great bi-party candidate.
I watched and followed the attack on Lebanon, it was just another piece in the agenda of the Project for a New American Century. Now those people have gone underground, but they are still trying to force their agenda on the world, through people that no longer espouse or sign on to their project openly.
But it's still as active and influential as ever. And I for one will not sit back and allow them to become more powerful and rich through manipulation.
Sorry but that does not tell me why I should be listening to him or why his voice is important.
Well I dunno if you read my other response requesting some info on the so called defunct PNAC. I'd like to read about what ''they'' are doing now to continue the ''agenda'' - maybe a response in the ''conspiracy'' forum might stop this thread going off topic.
I don't find Lieberman that important myself, but he was on all the major news reports this morning, winning the American public over to an expanded war.
If you really wish to know abut the PNAC here's a link. But you really need to spend some time there, read through their older letters and documents, those way before 2001. Funny how they knew what was going to happen before it did. Especially those that concern the Middle East.
By labeling this as a conspiracy you only facilitate their agenda, and that was probably part of their marketing. Sorry, won't take it to the conspiracy board. It's not, it's actually an active political strategy. It belongs here in the open air.
Oh I see a ''controversial'' opinion getting a lot of airtime.
It is difficult to gauge how dominant and how persuasive he is with out it dominating my news. From what I CAN see : ''Lieberman said he was not calling for a full-scale invasion of Iran. The U.S. military should target the training camp inside Iran, something that might be done using air power alone, he said. '' -
I suspect a less hawkish news story would not get as much airplay.
A bit like a multi car pile up rather than some grannies cat being rescued from a tree.
I know a bit about there past and what they have had to say in the past.
It is just another ''think tank'' the ''warnings'' were everywhere.
Fair enough - i can't move it now.
No it's not just another think tank, the PNAC was the guiding force and probably still is in the GW administration.
Lieberman may be saying only air strikes are needed, but isn't that what we were told about Iraq in the beginning also. And how many are going to be killed and for what?
Without being a moderator I don't think you could ever move it without my agreement.
Did you know that in one of the early writings they talked about what to do if Israel attacked Lebanon. I watched as Condi Rice sat back and watched as the infrastructure and innocent people were bombed into oblivion. But she was operating on a written PNAC directive. The US and world was reacting as they had outlined. It didn't matter what was actually happening, they had outlined that Israel should be allowed to bomb and do what they wished. It was supposed to benefit the western world. Sorry, I don't feel it benefitted my interests. I was appalled then, and I will be further appalled if we allow military force to be used against Iran.
Well ok that is a fair comment - it is not just another think tank - I only say that because i've read similar sentiments in a lot of places - plus a lot of what has been said within the PNAC website is not ''hawkish'' and it is fairly accurate assertions and opinions. It is not rocket science to suggest a ''new pearl harbour'' is required to increase military funding. Those fiscal realities have been know for EVER. That does not mean PNAC or the Bush admin' orchestrated 9/11.
Go find me a source where the Bush admin' say something like ''only air strikes will be needed''.
More than likely by other commentators - ofcourse ANY opinion can be found to support your assertion. I do not doubt somebody stated ''only air strikes will be needed''. Was it from the admin' - at this point I can confidently say NO - I do not mind being proven wrong.
Post the ''early writings'' i'd be fascinated to read it.
I meant the other thread being moved out of the other forum - i don't think it needs your permision some how
I never said anything about the PNAC orchestrating 09/11. Never had, probably never will unless some hard facts surface. That would just be playing into their hand, and they could discredit and dispute any resistance against their agenda in that case.
Bush and Cheney didn't say only air strikes would be needed, but the American public remembered the first Gulf offensive, and no one ever needed to hit the ground. Lieberman is saying only airstrikes would be needed, and I think he underestimates the Iranians. I think you start bombing them and they are going to come out fighting, and their airspace and army haven't been limited through years of UN sanctions.
I'll try and locate some of the links to the PNAC's earlier writings, they've buried some of their early stuff pretty deep, but I am sure it's still there, just harder to get to for the average visitor.
That seems to be the most quoted part of PNAC - I did not wish to put words into your mouth - sorry.
Do you mean it is a [or your] belief nobody needed to ''hit the ground'' in the ''First'' Iraq war ?.
Are you suggesting that was what was said in the ''First'' Iraq war ?.
You might need to expand upon that one for me.
Well one of their cheif diplomats has said [I paraphrase] ''Hit us we hit you back''.
To be honest I hate rhetoric - especially when it is not atributable to those in position of decision making.
I try and stick with the true realities and what IS actually said by those that make the decisions. We could get lost in other peoples opinions - however influential you/we may think they are.
I've seen a few with ''out there'' titles ''hidden'' in PDF files - but yeah sure post something that makes your point - thanks.
Soldiers certainly hit the ground and returned home to be left high and dry by the Veteran's Administration, but the majority of the American public found it was a quick clean war that didn't affect them. And people like Lieberman are asking them to risk their children again, for a cause that is questionable.
There was no one on one combat in Desert Storm, our forces were deployed in Kuwait to secure the smoking oil fields etc.. And when they returned home with diseases that weren't directly related to combat type injuries they were denied benefits. No one bothered to look into the effects of the smoke or chemicals our own defense department was using.
Separate names with a comma.