If the "Lobby" were so all powerful, here is how they could stop Iran's nukes program


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 25 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Sep 27, 2007 7:10:20 AM PDT
J. A Magill says:
What is the most shocking about the Iranian bomb is that it is fully within the power of the American citizenry to prevent it. Unfortunately, we have craven leaders who are unwilling to ask sacrifice of the people, and perhaps an equally craven citizenry unwilling to take the steps.

Here is how.

Iran's entire economy is based on the high-price of oil, just like a number of other problematic regimes around the world. The US needs to phase in a $1.80 gas tax, 10 cents a month, over the next 18 months. The money from the tax will be gathered and distributed equally to all American citizens in a retirement account entirely under their control, independent of the government. This will therefore create a double incentive for people to conserve fuel.

The result of this program is the world price of oil, which functions based on forward looking predictions of supply and demand, will plummet. As a result the Iranian regime, which is currently only barely economically viable, will be unable to maintain its nuclear program. Likewise, authoritarian regimes from Russia to Venezuela will have to look inward since they will no longer have the petrol crutch.

It will never happen and no American politician will even ever propose it. Thus we are left in the unique position in history of a nation supplying the cash to our enemies so that they can pay for bombs and bullets.

Selah.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2007 1:47:50 AM PDT
M. K. Adams says:
Or we could just cancel all foreign aid to Israel and stop any and all military sales.

With the money saved we can invest in America's military, anti-terrorism programs, and more fuel-saving vehicles.

Plus since we are no longer supplying Israel with weapons to murder Arabs and Muslims with, I would estimate that Arab/Islamic terrorism against the United States will drop atleast a bit.

Its win-win for America, and no money for the Apartheid Regime (Israel).

No offense Magill, but my plan is way better :)

"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense England belongs to the English, and France to the French".

- Mahatma Gandhi

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2007 7:16:19 AM PDT
J. A Magill says:
MK, Only if you are so ignorant as to believe that the US is in Iraq because of the nefarious Jews instead of the reality, which is about oil, or you refuse to take bin Laden as his word that the reason for 9/11 was the US being in Arabia, or you think its OK to abandon one of America's most stead fast allies in Chamberlin like fashion, or.... oh never mind. MK, if ignorance is bliss you must be wallowing in Nirvana.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 8, 2007 8:31:54 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 9, 2007 6:09:32 AM PDT
J.A. Magill,

You fail to understand that the $3billion Israel gets a year is the "magic" $3billion that makes all the difference.

The $300 billion a year we spend in Iraq and Afghanistan is irrelevant.

Most of these anti-Israeli posters remind me of Steven Colbert when he says "I don't have a fact based agenda"

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2007 9:12:12 AM PDT
J. A Magill says:
Well, HM, that is at the heart of the current idiocy of Greenspan dancing around his support of the gulf war. He thought we should invade, because SH was a threat to the oil supply, but at a price tag now more than trillion dollars, we could have put ourselves well on the way to being in a post-petrol economy.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2007 4:12:30 PM PDT
M. K. Adams says:
Miss Pierson you are so wrong.

The vast majority of the money that America spends on the Iraq and Afganistan campaigns goes to supporting our military and private American contractors. A relatively trivial amount is given to either Iraq or Afghanitan as direct foreign aid.

No here is the vile Zionazi country of Israel, pretending to be an advanced, industrialized nation, yet it recieves more foreign aid per capita than any other country in the world. Its kind of like someone on Welfare and Food Stamps acting like Paris Hilton.

Israel is just sick.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2007 5:26:08 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 11, 2007 5:27:14 PM PDT
Dear M. K. Adam,

You don't have to be so formal, you can just call me Dr. Pierson. Assuming I'm female is as accurate as the rest of your assumptions (which you also pass off as facts, without validating).

My point, which flew right by you, has nothing to do with the amount of foreign aid. It has to do with the fact that the $300 billion spent on Iraq and Afghanistan could be spent on the items you list.

I won't dignify the rest of your comments with a response. JAM has covered them in detail.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 14, 2007 2:51:29 AM PDT
M. K. Adams says:
I totally agree with you on the point of money spent on Iraq and Afghanistan could be better spent in other endeavors Miss Pierson.

Everyday America spends over $300 million for the two wars (about $270 million a day on Iraq, and about $54 million a day on Afghanistan).

I think the nation should redefine the War on Terror to the War on Al-Qaeda. America should not be fighting a war against terror, Jihad, Islamo-fascism.

But Israel wants America to fight a broad, and neverending war against Muslims and Arabs.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 14, 2007 9:17:17 AM PDT
MKA,

1) I already told you I'm not "Miss Pierson"

2) RE: - "But Israel wants America to fight a broad, and neverending war against Muslims and Arabs"

Give one shred of evidence of this. Are you aware for example, that in 1956, Israel, France and Britain fought together against Egypt, and the US forced them to back down?

Are you aware that during Gulf War I, Israel did not respond to Iraqi missiles because of pressure from the US?

The US has far more influence over Israel than Israel has over the US.

*************************************************************************************

"I think the nation should redefine the War on Terror to the War on Al-Qaeda. America should not be fighting a war against terror, Jihad, Islamo-fascism."

So if Al-Qaeda changes its name, the War is over? What is Al-Qaeda if you take away the name? How is it different from other "Jihadists" and "Islamo-facists" you seem to be talking about?

Do you have the SLIGHTEST idea what you are talking about?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 15, 2007 11:19:29 AM PDT
M. K. Adams says:
The United States should fight a war against Al-Qaeda only. Al-Qaeda by any other name is still Al-Qaeda, but Al-Qaeda is not Hamas, Hezbollah, or Islamic Jihad.

(Plus Hamas and Hezbollah are freedom fighters, not terrorists like Al-Qaeda).

Sorry Miss Pierson but you are wrong again.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 15, 2007 11:26:32 AM PDT
J. A Magill says:
Adams, that reminds me of a joke...

Someone from Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al-Qaeda all walk into a children's birthday party and blow themselves up murdering dozens of people including several Americans...

Wait a minute. That's not funny.

Wait a minute. I have another one.

Adam's thinks Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, whose goal is to "liberate" one piece of territory by murdering lots of folks, including Americans, often with attacks far afield from the Middle East are freedom fighters, but Al-Queda, whose goal is "liberate" another piece of territory by murdering lots of folks, including Americans, often with attacks far afield from the Middle East are terrorists.

Now that is funny.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 15, 2007 2:19:30 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 15, 2007 2:21:47 PM PDT
MKA wrote:

(Plus Hamas and Hezbollah are freedom fighters, not terrorists like Al-Qaeda).

According to MKA's list of freedom fighters and terrorists.

Which differs markedly from the EU, US, etc which regard all three as terrorist organizations.

Hezbollah was responsible for blowing up the US military barracks in Lebanon, killing almost 300 Marines. Lucky thing they're not terrorists, who knows how many Marines might have died.

"This was the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima (2,500 in one day) of World War II and the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States military since the 243 killed on 31st January 1968 - the first day of the Tet offensive in the Vietnam war. The attack remains the deadliest post-World War II attack on Americans overseas. [6]"

Keep calling me "Miss Pierson," it's exactly as accurate as everything else you write.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 17, 2007 2:05:59 AM PDT
M. K. Adams says:
Firstly Hezbollah has never claimed responsibility for the Marine Barrack bombing, and Western governments only assume that it was Hezbollah with help from Iran. The lack of concrete evidence is why Reagan (at Casper Weinberger's insistence) never took drastic retaliatory action.

Secondly US and French forces were within Lebanese terrority during the bombing. Compare this with Israeli bombing of the USS Liberty which was in international waters.

Thirdly Hezbollah is not presently at war with the United States. Even if Hezbollah was responsible for the deaths of 241 Americans, it was in 1983, the freaking past. Kind of like England, a country that has fought two wars with the United States and has killed thousands of Americans. But, just like Hezbollah England (United Kingdom) is not currently at war with America.

Miss Pierson, please do some research before you post your uninformative comments.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 17, 2007 6:20:50 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 17, 2007 6:43:44 AM PDT
L. King says:
mk adams wrote:

"Even if Hezbollah was responsible for the deaths of 241 Americans, it was in 1983, the freaking past.

Compare this with Israeli bombing of the USS Liberty which was in international waters."

The Liberty incident occurred in 1967. 1967 is 16 freaking years earlier than 1983.

Israeli forces called off the attack when it was realized that they had made a mistake and offered to assist rescue operations. Hezbollah did not.
Israel admitted it made a mistake. Hezbollah did not.
Israel apologized and paid reparations. Hezbollah did not.
Israelis don't chant "Death to America" at staged rallies. Hezbollah and its supporters do.
Israel, like England (United Kingdom), is an ally of the United States. Hezbollah is not.

In debating terms mk adams, you offered a gift. How could one refuse. However your post is a red herring. If you have nothing to add to the topic at hand please refrain from offering your little escapades in non-logic.

Nuclear proliferation is a serious problem. I am continually amazed at how we as a species have so far avoided catastrophe. Now Putin has drawn a line in the sand with his Caspian Sea treaty. I had hoped we could have convinced Russia and China to put pressure on Iran to step away from their nuclear intentions. From the viewpoint of geopolitical stability solar power makes much more sense in Iran's climate and technological infrastructure. Iran is more interested in regional power/prestige and feels that it gets that from military development of long range missiles, nuclear weapons and a power challenge to the US and Israel.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 17, 2007 2:23:15 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 17, 2007 2:24:23 PM PDT
M. K. Adams says:
Well ofcourse you hoped Iran would abandon its nuclear plans.

In your Zionazi mindset only Israel has a right to nuclear power. Only Israel has a right to nuclear weapons.

Hey better yet, maybe all Arabs and Persians should be forced to dispose of all technology; hey it will make Israel more secure if Arabs were riding around on camels and living in tents.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 18, 2007 9:52:53 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 18, 2007 10:08:43 AM PDT
MKA,

"Hezbollah is a Shiite Islamic organization in Lebanon. Scholars differ as to when Hezbollah came to be a distinct entity. Some organizations list the official formation of the group as early as 1982 [18] whereas Diaz and Newman maintain that Hezbollah remained an amalgamation of various violent Shi'a extremists until as late as 1985 [19]. Another version states that it was formed by supporters of Sheikh Ragheb Harb, a leader of the southern Shiite resistance killed by Israel in 1984.[20] REGARDLESS OF WHEN THE NAME CAME INTO OFFICIAL USE, A NUMBER OF SHIA GROUPS WERE SLOWLY ASSIMILATED INTO THE ORGANIZATION, SUCH AS ISLAMIC JIHAD, ORGANIZATION OF THE OPPRESSED ON EARTH AND THE REVOLUTIONARY JUSTICE ORGANIZATION. These designations are considered to be synonymous with Hezbollah by the US,[21] Israel[22] and Canada.[23]"

another link making the same point:

The 1983 Beirut barracks bombing was a major incident on October 23, 1983, during the Lebanese Civil War. Two truck bombs struck buildings in Beirut housing U.S. and French members of the Multinational Force in Lebanon, killing hundreds of servicemen, the majority being U.S. Marines. The blasts led to the withdrawal of the international peacekeeping force from Lebanon, where they had been stationed since the Israeli 1982 invasion of Lebanon. "Islamic Jihad" took responsibility for the bombing BUT THAT ORGANIZATION IS THOUGHT TO HAVE BEEN A NOM DE GUERRE FOR HEZBOLLAH receiving help from the Islamic Republic of Iran.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing

The reason Reagan did not take action is not because he (or Weinberger) doubted Hezbollah's involvement. They did not take action solely because

"President Reagan assembled his national security team and planned to target the Sheik Abdullah barracks in Baalbek, Lebanon, which housed Iranian Revolutionary Guards believed to be training Hezbollah fighters.[7] But Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger aborted the mission, reportedly BECAUSE OF HIS CONCERNS THAT IT WOULD HARM U.S. RELATIONS WITH OTHER ARAB NATIONS."

(SAME REFERNCE)

You might ALSO want to read up on Imad Mugniyah

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

whom the EU lists as "Senior Intelligence Officer of Hezbollah," and the mastermind behind the attack on the Marine Barracks.

He also has close ties to Al-Qaeda. So do you love him or hate him? Is he a terrorist or freedom fighter?

see also:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1978

Imad Mugniyah is the current military commander of the terrorist group Hezbollah, overseeing an international organization which some American officials have dubbed "the A-team of terrorism." Far less well known than his compatriot and sometimes-partner Osama Bin Laden, Mugniyah is arguably more dangerous. Before the 9-11 attacks, Mugniyah was the prime focus of American anti-terror efforts, not Bin Laden.

So Hezbollah are still freedom fighters, not terrorists? And what about the ties to Al-Qaeda through Imad Mugniyah and others?

Inquiring minds want to know, signed

Miss Pierson

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2007 3:54:50 AM PST
autodidact says:
MKA says: "Hey better yet, maybe all Arabs and Persians should be forced to dispose of all technology; hey it will make Israel more secure if Arabs were riding around on camels and living in tents. "

Right! This is exactly what will happen after WWIII is over and 100,000,000 people are dead. This is the only solution to the Jihad Expansionism problem: keep'em under! Any society that will denounce Jihad ideology of slavery and conquest, help them grow, invite them into a family of enlightened nations. All the others, - just bomb every idustrial installation of theirs as soon as it is built. Let the Jihadist societies sustain themselves as they did in their glorious past of which they are so proud, the past of oppression, domination and mass murder. Except of course of their beloved "ghazzawat", the pillaging raids. That they won't be able to do so easily any more.

In other words, take the sword from them, they've proved beyond any doubt they will only use it for murder, enslavement and plunder.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 1, 2008 1:39:07 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Nov 1, 2008 1:51:44 PM PDT
Ishraqi says:
That would be too sensible and it wouldn't involve putting the smack down on those "evil Iranians".

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 1, 2008 1:43:53 PM PDT
Ishraqi says:
<<The $300 billion a year we spend in Iraq and Afghanistan is irrelevant.>>

It's 300 billion we could invest in something that was... I don't know... actually worthwhile to the American people ? We might as well take that money and burn it to heat houses and at least we would be getting something more out of it then we are now squandering it in Iraq. I know you neo-cons think the US has some endless supply of money and that the 5,000 dollars a SECOND is no big deal (even though we are borrowing it from foreign countries like China!) but it actually is.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 1, 2008 1:50:10 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Nov 1, 2008 1:55:54 PM PDT
Ishraqi says:
>>Hezbollah was responsible for blowing up the US military barracks in Lebanon, killing almost 300 Marines.>>

Blowing up a military target ISN'T terrorism*. If we simply listened to the advice of the founding fathers of this nation and minded our own business rather than trying to police the world we wouldn't have had troops there and none of them would be dead. The Lebanese people had every right to expel the foreign troops by force. I don't like seeing Marines die but I don't like seeing tyranny either so I can't blame them for that.

* Were the American revolutionaries who killed British soldiers "terrorists" ?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 1, 2008 1:51:12 PM PDT
Ishraqi says:
<<Nuclear proliferation is a serious problem.>>

Exactly and Israel needs to open up it's WMD program to international inspections. ;)

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 1, 2008 9:32:30 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Nov 1, 2008 9:43:22 PM PDT
L. King says:
Simurgh - A mythical Iranian bird -omnipotent on condition that it do nothing. ...
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

The last thing Israel needs to do is open its kimono to Iranian intelligence. In all likelihood if Israel has any workable nuclear deterrent it is far less impressive than its enemies imagine due to its age.

Nuclear proliferation is a worse idea for an unstable regime such as Iran, and both the Saudis and the Egyptians have indicated that they would follow suit if the Iranians go ahead with their nuclear ambitions.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2008 4:52:20 PM PST
C. Rafifar says:
Well I have a great solution to the Israeli problem. Let's give the Palestinians their land back, rebuild their bulldozed homes, replant their olive groves, and restore some peace in the area. As for the Israelis, lets just move them to the US, since our government loves them so much. Now that is a win win situation I believe. At the same time we dilute the Mormon vote in Utah and correct an old mistake that has helped destabilize the middle east. And what the hell, while we are at we could apologize to Iran for destabilizing their government and the ousting of their Prime Minister (notice not Ayatollah or Shah) Mosadegh in the 1950s, and start some serious dialogue to correct the situation as it currently is, instead of all this rhetoric.

Ahem. The only problem I foresee with this plan is all the Israel loving bible thumpers complaining they are surrounded by all these jews. A little to close for comfort I would presume. :)
Oh, that and, Israel would never comply. But oh well. Wishful thinking.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2008 5:09:44 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 3, 2008 5:23:16 PM PST
L. King says:
Better idea Rafifar - get the Arab States who convinced their fellow Arabs to leave so that the Jews could be exterminated make restitution and grant the Palestinians citizenship instead of keeping them in camps. Its only fair.
(And while they are at it they should compensate the 850,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands.)

"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades" - General Azzam Pasha, head of the Arab League Forces, May 15, 1948

"I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!" - Haj Amin Al Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. 1948.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 20, 2008 12:00:36 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 23, 2009 10:37:35 AM PDT]
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  8
Total posts:  25
Initial post:  Sep 27, 2007
Latest post:  Dec 20, 2008

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by Stephen M. Walt (Hardcover - August 27, 2007)
4.3 out of 5 stars   (313)