| Author | Message | | Guest | | Posted: Sat Dec 28, 2002 7:13 am Post subject: Sharon's War? |
| http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/printrn20021226.shtml
Robert Novak
December 26, 2002
Sharon's war?
WASHINGTON -- Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, having just returned from a week-long fact-finding trip to the Middle East, addressed the Chicago Council of Foreign Relations Dec. 16 and said out loud what is whispered on Capitol Hill: "The road to Arab-Israeli peace will not likely go through Baghdad, as some may claim." The "some" are led by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. In private conversation with Hagel and many other members of Congress, the former general leaves no doubt that the greatest U.S. assistance to Israel would be to overthrow Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime. That view is widely shared inside the Bush administration, and is a major reason why U.S. forces today are assembling for war. "Military force alone," Hagel told his Chicago audience, "will neither assure a democratic transition in Iraq, bring peace to Israelis and Palestinians, nor assure stability in the Middle East." Indeed, the senator returned from the Mideast more concerned than his prepared speech indicates. As the U.S. gets ready for war, its standing in Islam -- even among longtime allies -- stands low. Yet, the Bush administration has tied itself firmly to Gen. Sharon and his policies. Gen. Amran Mitzna, the new Labor Party leader challenging the heavily favored Sharon in the Jan. 28 election, is denied access to senior U.S. officials. In private conversation, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has insisted that Hezbollah -- not al Qaeda -- is the world's most dangerous terrorist organization. How could that be, considering al Qaeda's global record of mass carnage? In truth, Hezbollah is the world's most dangerous terrorist organization from Israel's standpoint. While viciously anti-American in rhetoric, the Lebanon-based Hezbollah is focused on the destruction of Israel. "Outside this fight (against Israel), we have done nothing," Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the organization's secretary general, said in a recent New York Times interview. Thus, Rice's comments suggest that the U.S. war against terrorism, accused of being Iraq-centric, actually is Israel-centric. That ties George W. Bush to Arik Sharon. The prime minister says astonishing things to U.S. visitors. He once rejected hope for negotiations, contending that Arabs and Jews will kill each other for a hundred years. More recently, he promised to put a Jewish settlement on top of any high ground. What is widely perceived as an indissoluble Bush-Sharon bond creates tension throughout Islam -- including Turkey, long a faithful U.S. ally and even longer a secularized state. A poll of Turks by Pew Global Attitudes released Dec. 4 shows 83 percent opposition to permission for U.S. use of bases in their country. Furthermore, a 53 percent Turkish majority asserted that the U.S. wants to oust Saddam Hussein as part of an anti-Muslim crusade rather than because he is a threat to peace. Turkish cooperation in the war must be approved by Turkey's newly elected parliament, consisting of about 90 percent new members with an Islamic party in a heavy majority. The parliament's mood did not improve when the European Union on Dec. 12 rebuffed both the Turkish and the U.S. governments by rejecting Turkey's application for membership. Abdullah Gul, the new prime minister, accused European leaders of "discrimination" and "prejudice" -- reflecting Islam's current view of the West. That is the background for an attack on Iraq by a coalition of English-speaking countries. "We should refrain from a rush to declare a 'material breach' because of the gaps in Iraq's 12,000-page document," Hagel advised in Chicago, calling on the U.S. to "marshal our own evidence." Nevertheless, Hagel's close associate, Secretary of State Colin Powell, declared a material breach three days after the senator's advice. Powell's uncharacteristic bellicosity may have been necessary for him to stay in the complicated game played within the Bush administration. Without Powell, President Bush may not have gone to Congress and the United Nations or delivered his masterful speech to the U.N. General Assembly. Day to day, only the secretary of state stands up to the forceful Vice President Dick Cheney. On balance, war with Iraq may not be inevitable but is highly probable. That it looks like Sharon's war disturbs Americans such as Chuck Hagel, who have no use for Saddam Hussein but worry about the background of an attack against him. | |  | | Guest | | Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2002 6:28 pm Post subject: cold-blooded Israelis deserve the world reputation they get |
| The vast BILLIONS of US taxpayer dollars which flow to Israel via a pro-Israel lobby-corrupted and Zionist-occupied US government facilitate the following which contributes to the Arab/Moslem world's hatred of the USA (which contributed to the World Trade Center attack):
cold-blooded Israelis deserve the world reputation they get:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/021203/170/2sqor.html
Palestinian children look from their family home at Israeli soldiers distributing orders to leave houses because they will be demolished soon, in the old town of the West Bank city of Hebron December 3, 2002. Israel plans to demolish 15 Palestinian houses in Hebron to create a secure passage for Jewish worshippers going to pray at a biblical shrine in the divided West Bank city, an official said. The Hebrew slogan at the door reads 'Arabs out. Death to the Arabs.' REUTERS/Nayef Hashlamoun
Israeli treachery against Americans:
http://www.ussliberty.org | | | | *Mutt American | | Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2002 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|  | | | | Guest | | Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2002 9:12 pm Post subject: America's Fifth Column |
| AIPAC (Jewish lobbying group composed of American Zionist Jews who for for pro-Israeli US policies) is the forth most influential lobby in the US, yet the ones above it are irrelevent as far as foreign policy goes:
http://www.fortune.com/lists/power25/index.html
Let us see AIPAC's work:
http://www.wrmea.com/html/aipac.htm
Let us look at the resultant support the US gives to Israel:
http://www.sustaincampaign.org/aidchart.html
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html
http://www.sustaincampaign.org/FASchart.html
http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/010201/0101015.html
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/israel050602.html
Of course this is the premise accepted by many Muslims and open-minded people:
http://www.ummah.com/waragainstislam/question.htm
So after all this, see the results in an article by Richard Curtiss as to the cost of Israel to the American people:
http://www.ummah.com/waragainstislam/cost.htm
The real fifth column who brought this mess upon the US are all the organisations under AIPAC and it's supporters who follow it's ideology, you should be blaming them, not Arabs/Muslims who acted as a natural conduit for the naturally expected retaliation which followed, i.e. 9-11 (if Muslims did it).
When you look at those pictures of the collapsing towers, and the people jumping out before they collapsed, think first about the US' biased support for this most unjust of states which was created violating the rights of the natives and which stole the people's lands. Then think about exactly who drives the US to gives it's support for this, as shown above. You shall see that they are amongst you, not the much demonised Arabs or Muslims but the Zionists who work against your national interests.
http://www.ummah.com/waragainstislam/reap.htm
Question: Before the US support of the Jewish state which started in 1947 when the US arm-twisted nations like Greece to support the creation of Israel, was the USA hated by Arabs and Muslims?
This is why the USA did what it did when it supported Israel in 1947 when it's President was Truman:
"I am sorry gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.” - President Harry Truman, quoted in “Anti-Zionism”
Think about those Jewish-Zionist organisations all around the USA conspiring to help support and maintain US foreign policy which invites terrorism on the US civilians. | | | | *Mutt American | | Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2002 9:16 pm Post subject: |
| US taxpayers/voters aren't getting Israeli money. Or AIPAC money. One person, one vote. They just reaffirmed administration policy last month in the election.
Tough luck. Try again. | | | | Guest | | | | *Mutt American | | Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 2:25 pm Post subject: |
| | American taxpayers/voters don't get AIPAC money. They get one vote per person. And they just voted last month in support of the Bush administration and the Republicans. | | | | Guest | | | | *Mutt American | | Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 4:10 pm Post subject: |
| Do you actually ever read what you link to? Do you think that by stringing together enough unproven accusations with weasel-wording somebody has actually supporting something? The following came from your linked article.
"...he affirmed that Bush did nothing..." Affirmed. NOT Confirmed.
"He was in a position to have direct knowledge..." NOT proved he had direct knowledge.
"His daddy had Saddam and he needed Osama. His presidency was going nowhere." NOT evidence. Just political disagreement.
"His military assignment brought him into contact with..." NOT his contact proved anything.
"...Newsweek reported: "U.S. military sources have given the FBI information that suggests..." NOT first-hand information proving anything.
"...citing "a high-ranking Pentagon official"...." NOT a quote from any named person.
"...have the same names as..." NOT have been proven to be the same people.
"...cited Air Force sources ..." NOT any named people.
"...indicating that..." NOT any clear proof of anything.
"...The Lieutenant Colonel may well know ..."
Nowhere in the article does the author actually prove anything. Nor does he actually disprove anything said by Pentagon or administration officials. | | | | Guest | | Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 5:15 pm Post subject: |
| | Quote: | Nowhere in the article does the author actually prove anything. Nor does he actually disprove anything said by Pentagon or administration officials.
|
Very much the same as the dossier that Bush and Blair produced as 'proof' that Iraq has wmd and is a 'threat' to the world. Strange how you like to see proof on one thing but not on another... | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
