Comments on: Cheney Must Be Very Angry

By: christian submissions

christian submissions — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:59:43 +0000

christian submissions…

This is similar to comment spam but avoids some of the safeguards designed to stop the latter practice.A Trackback is one of three…

By: Andy

Andy — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 04:08:38 +0000

You didn’t answer my question. What did the USA do in Chechnya to the Russians? Nothing. What did the USA do in Tibet to the Chinese? Nothing. Because unlike Serbia with Kosovo, these countries have large armies and nuclear weapons and are quite capable of defending themselves against any American agression. The USA is the classic schoolyard bully – attack the weak.

By: richard vajs

richard vajs — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 02:11:02 +0000

Tim R,
Because there is usually a three hour delay between my submissions and their postings, I am correcting blindly what I may have skimped on in my previous answer. In 1956 Nasser (not Nassar) nationalized the Suez Canal because the US reneged on its promise to help build the Aswan Dam (USSR filled in). The British were upset because they used to control Egypt and the Suez Canal; they were adamant upon at least controlling the Canal (the cheek of the bloody wogs!). France was upset because they were losing their African colonies to Nasser imitators. Israel, always on the lookout for land to conquer set their sights upon the Sinai. The two colonial powers and Israel concocted a scheme whereby Israel would attack the Sinai and the other two would “rush in to protect the Canal” and of course, never leave. The USSR and the USA
stopped the deal. However, later the French helped Israel get nuclear weapons as a protracted part of the bargain.
In the 1967 War as you said, Nasser ordered the UN peacekeepers from Egypt’s side of the Israeli/Egyptian border. The UN asked Israel to let the peacekeepers move to the Israeli side, which was refused. The USA thru the USSR got Nasser to forget attacking Israel. The Egyptians had basically stood down when the Israelis went ahead and attacked. The blockade of the Straits of Tiran was instituted by Egypt which believed that it was totally in Egyptian waters and that Israel had no port which depended upon passage through them. It was a complicated legal problem and not the simplistic act that you try to present.
The foundation of Israel has been nothing but a curse to the Mid East. The Israelis are like birds that think they make a home in the river just by driving all of the fish out.

By: lear k

lear k — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:24:08 +0000

Ilan Pappe on How Israel was Founded on Ethnic Cleansing:

“Zionism arrived in Palestine in the late 19th as a colonialist movement motivated by national impulses.

The colonisation of Palestine fitted well the interests and policies of the British Empire on the eve of the First World War.

With the backing of Britain, the colonisation project expanded, and became a solid presence on the land after the war and with the establishment of the British mandate in Palestine (which lasted between 1918 and 1948).”

http://ilanpappe.com/?p=35

By: Claus-Erik Hamle

Claus-Erik Hamle — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:10:50 +0000

Everybody please Email Senators and Congressmen/women asking them to vote No to SR 580 and HR 362 because they are a Declaration of War as Congressman Ron Paul pointed out. Probably they haven´t even read HR 362 and SR 580. HR 362 has 252 endorsements and SR 580 has 41 endorsements for now so it´s really the last chance !

By: richard vajs

richard vajs — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:23:00 +0000

Tim R,
If we are to argue the history of the 1967 War, we have to go take things into context. Nassar had good reasons to be wary of hostile to Israel. Go back a few years and you will see that after Nassar nationalized a lot of foreign holdings in Egypt, Israel concocted a scheme with France to seize the Suez Canal. Luckily, at that time, we had a President who didn’t have his schnoz up Israel’s tushie, and America backed the Arabs (i.e. the Suez Crisis). Israel was royally pi–ed at Eisenhower’s gall. After that Israel decided to develop nuclear weapons so that they wouldn’t be dependent upon the US. President Kennedy tried to stop Israel in this goal, but Kennedy got shot instead (Note: I am not saying Israel was responsible for THAT, although others do). Anyway, Mr. Nassar, who had serious ambitions for the whole Arab world saw that Israel was treacherous, hated all Arabs, and was seriously about acquiring nuclear weapons, so he named Israel as “an existential threat to peace in the Mid East”, in so many words. You may be proud, Tim, that Israel sucker punched him first, if that makes you happy. You mention Jordan and Saudi Arabia as if they ever were serious military powers.
Tim, we can continue this, if you insist – but I get real weary dealing with your shopworn, nickle-dime Zionist talking points. You keep dragging them out of your little bag of tricks and they are just bs. And I don’t think you fool too many on this site.

By: James

James — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:55:35 +0000

Bush is desperate to achieve some kind of legacy — hence the movement on North Korea, the Palestinian question, Iran, etc. Pragmatists like Rice are in the ascendancy, while Cheney, Bolton and the rest of the neo-cons look for some incident, real or created, to force Bush to pull the trigger on Iran.

Bush is an empty suit, and the most venal President since Grant.

By: Tim R.

Tim R. — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:44:37 +0000

Stevieb,

You contend that the Marine barracks were bombed only after Israel killed 20,000 civilians. Do you have a reputable source for that claim?

By: Eugene Costa

Eugene Costa — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:46:02 +0000

One will have you know that one has jogged with baboons in the noon day sun (all the cooks laughing) and you are flattering both the US and the rest of humanity by comparing them to so noble and rational a creature as the baboon.

By: Eugene Costa

Eugene Costa — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:34:47 +0000

One remembers this as well, though one would have to review for many lost details.

The singular image that remains, and is perhaps not common, is reports of the Druze in the mountains being shelled, and considering it an honor that their power and status in Lebanon was being recognized.

In the Levant and the Near East, and especially Mesopotamia, Americans, even Marines–perhaps especially Marines–often seem to come off as naive children, stumbling aimlessly about with hi-tech toys and capable of great, blunderbuss destruction but not much else.

More recently the American press has made much of the typos and supposed grammatical mistakes of the Iranian two page reply to the recent conference in which Ms. Rice accused them of “stalling” and wasting time wanting to talk about “cultural issues”.

One has no inside knowledge of what the Iranians were up to in this case, but it occurred to me that they responded so sloppily as intentional repartee, and as a way of telling Rice and the Americans that what they had to offer and the terms of the discussion they were demanding, were not worth even the effort of a proofreader.

Another devilish possible cryptotype, again without any inside knowledge, but based on the suspicion that the Iranians (one has known some) still have a sense of humor–to wit, in wanting to talk of “culture”, one message to Rice might have been, “You have none.”

Nor, if that is a message, is it far off the mark.

Other items are noticed in their absence, as Lester Ness might appreciate especially, and anyone familiar with the American withdrawal from Vietnam–id est: no one, it seems, in the mainstream press, or elsewhere is yet talking of “face” and its saving–that I have seen anyway.

What to make of it, if anything, is another story.

By: Bill K.

Bill K. — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:13:05 +0000

What you think he is crazy? What if an Iranian missile slams into Carrier while he standing next to a pile of JDAM bombs and fuel tanks filled with aviation fuel? No he is the kind of guy that prefers “others” did the fighting for him.

By: andy

andy — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:08:09 +0000

The marines should never have been there in the first place. No marines in Lebanon, no dead marines in Lebanon. Simple logic. Reagan withdrew the troops shortly afterwards,,,and,, the ‘terrorists’ did NOT “FOLLOW US HOME”. Insiders have said that Reagan later recognized his Lebanon misadventure as his greatest mistake in his presidency. At least he learned from his mistakes unlike Bush.