Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Do you believe Joe Lieberman, Bob Casey, John McCain, and Lindsay Graham are owned by the State of Israel?
Yes 4 (44.4%)
No 4 (44.4%)
Unsure 1 (11.1%)
Total Votes: 9
Are you comfortable with the fact that many U.S. Senators are owned by Israel?; Liberman should register as a foreign agent in my opinion.
Topic Started: Feb 24 2012, 02:49 AM (1,224 Views)
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I hope that Barry has the balls to ignore some of the most powerful and influential members of congress, and fight this effort by these Senators to infringe on the constitutional mandate concerning presidential authority in matters of national defense.

I also believe that Joe Lieberman should resign from the senate and register as a foreign agent of the State of Israel.

Why any republican believes the republicans in this bunch are conservatives is beyond my grasp. Not only can we not afford a war with Iran, but there is serious doubt whether we could succeed in such an endeavor.

I thought a poll was in order. Are you comfortable with the fact that the State of Israel and it's lobby in Washington, for all intent and purposes, own John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Bob Casey, and Joe Lieberman? And that Joe Lieberman is for all intent and purposes a puppet, an agent for Israel? If given the opportunity, would you ever vote for one of these guys for U.S. Senate?



Senators Forcing Obama to War With Iran
Posted: 02/22/2012 3:00 pm



No one knows if President Obama intends to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, give Israel the go-ahead to do it, continue to rely on sanctions, or turn to comprehensive negotiations to resolve the escalating conflict.

The decision to go to war is the most difficult one a president can make because no one can foresee a war's outcome. Even if it is Israel that attacks rather than the United States, the consequences for us are likely to be the same. That is because the entire world knows that the United States and Israel are linked by means of strategic cooperation agreements which prevent Israel from acting without, at least, tacit U.S. approval. If Israel is "in," so are we.

It is safe to assume that Obama wants to avoid war. Having just come out of the disastrous Iraq experience which cost 4,500 American lives and severely damaged our interests in the Middle East (and beyond), the president wants to keep his options open. If he can prevent war (i.e., Americans dying and other vital U.S. interests being attacked), he will.

But while the president needs his options open, the United States Congress, under intense pressure from pro-war lobbyists, is determined to shut them down.

That is the meaning of the legislation introduced this month by senators Bob Casey (D-PA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT).

The legislation:

rejects any United States policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable Iran; and urges the President to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran with nuclear weapons-capability and oppose any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat.

The senators' intent was made clear by Lieberman: "All options must be on the table when it comes to Iran -- except for one, and that is containment." He added that "the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran cannot be 'contained' like the threat of the Soviet Union" -- or China, or North Korea, or Pakistan.

The senators are telling the president that if Iran goes nuclear, he must go to war.

Imagine if President Kennedy had been told by the Congress back in 1962 that if the Soviet Union placed missiles in Cuba, he would have no choice but to go to war. If it had, I wouldn't be here writing this column today and you wouldn't be reading it.

Presidents need latitude to make decisions affecting matters of national security (another name for matters of life and death) and, until now, all presidents have been afforded it, as provided for in the United States Constitution. But, in the case of Iran, the rules are changing.

Here is more evidence.

On Sunday, General Martin Dempsey, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told interviewer Fareed Zakaria that he does not think the U.S. should rush to war. He was speaking after a visit to Israel and long consultations with its leaders.

Dempsey said that it was not "prudent at this point to decide to attack Iran... A strike at this time would be destabilizing and wouldn't achieve their [Israel's] long-term objectives." He also said that he did not believe that the Iranian regime was insane but was rather a "rational actor" not prone to national suicide

General Dempsey's remarks outraged Prime Minister Netanyahu, whose office put out a statement saying that Dempsey, and other U.S. officials who questioned the rationale for war, were "serving Iran's interests."

Had another foreign leader implied that the head of the joint chiefs was some kind of Iranian agent, he would have been smacked down. But that is not how it works with Netanyahu.

It turns out that Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) were in Israel at the time Netanyahu attacked Dempsey. Rather than defend the American general as these uber-nationalists would do in any other similar situation, they joined the Israeli government in bashing the general -- and war hero. (The old adage about government officials not criticizing U.S. policies when in a foreign country has not applied to Israel for years).

Check out this Jerusalem Post story on McCain's reaction which the Post correctly characterized as "siding with Jerusalem in the debate" over how to deal with Iran. As for Graham, he said, "I admire General Dempsey." But, he added, "People are giving Israel a lot of advice here lately from America. I just want to tell our Israeli friends that my advice to you is never lose control of your destiny. Never allow a situation to develop that would destroy the Jewish state."

In other words, American advice to think long and hard about the consequences of war with Iran is tantamount to allowing "a situation to develop that would destroy the Jewish state."

The most appalling aspect of the senators' remarks is that their zeal to please Netanyahu and his backers in America has overridden their constitutional responsibility to put the security of the United States above all other considerations. An Israeli decision to attack Iran affects Americans, including their constituents in uniform and, perhaps, just walking down the streets of New York, Washington, or anywhere else here at home.

As noble as their professed concern for Israel is, America is supposed to come first for United States senators. McCain and Graham ought to be ashamed for standing in a foreign country and blatantly putting the interests of that government before their own. Rest assured, they aren't. They are thinking about the next election and that is what always comes first.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Pat
Feb 24 2012, 02:49 AM
I hope that Barry has the balls to ignore some of the most powerful and influential members of congress, and fight this effort by these Senators to infringe on the constitutional mandate concerning presidential authority in matters of national defense.

I also believe that Joe Lieberman should resign from the senate and register as a foreign agent of the State of Israel.

Why any republican believes the republicans in this bunch are conservatives is beyond my grasp. Not only can we not afford a war with Iran, but there is serious doubt whether we could succeed in such an endeavor.

I thought a poll was in order. Are you comfortable with the fact that the State of Israel and it's lobby in Washington, for all intent and purposes, own John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Bob Casey, and Joe Lieberman? And that Joe Lieberman is for all intent and purposes a puppet, an agent for Israel? If given the opportunity, would you ever vote for one of these guys for U.S. Senate?



Senators Forcing Obama to War With Iran
Posted: 02/22/2012 3:00 pm



No one knows if President Obama intends to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, give Israel the go-ahead to do it, continue to rely on sanctions, or turn to comprehensive negotiations to resolve the escalating conflict.

The decision to go to war is the most difficult one a president can make because no one can foresee a war's outcome. Even if it is Israel that attacks rather than the United States, the consequences for us are likely to be the same. That is because the entire world knows that the United States and Israel are linked by means of strategic cooperation agreements which prevent Israel from acting without, at least, tacit U.S. approval. If Israel is "in," so are we.

It is safe to assume that Obama wants to avoid war. Having just come out of the disastrous Iraq experience which cost 4,500 American lives and severely damaged our interests in the Middle East (and beyond), the president wants to keep his options open. If he can prevent war (i.e., Americans dying and other vital U.S. interests being attacked), he will.

But while the president needs his options open, the United States Congress, under intense pressure from pro-war lobbyists, is determined to shut them down.

That is the meaning of the legislation introduced this month by senators Bob Casey (D-PA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT).

The legislation:

rejects any United States policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable Iran; and urges the President to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran with nuclear weapons-capability and oppose any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat.

The senators' intent was made clear by Lieberman: "All options must be on the table when it comes to Iran -- except for one, and that is containment." He added that "the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran cannot be 'contained' like the threat of the Soviet Union" -- or China, or North Korea, or Pakistan.

The senators are telling the president that if Iran goes nuclear, he must go to war.

Imagine if President Kennedy had been told by the Congress back in 1962 that if the Soviet Union placed missiles in Cuba, he would have no choice but to go to war. If it had, I wouldn't be here writing this column today and you wouldn't be reading it.

Presidents need latitude to make decisions affecting matters of national security (another name for matters of life and death) and, until now, all presidents have been afforded it, as provided for in the United States Constitution. But, in the case of Iran, the rules are changing.

Here is more evidence.

On Sunday, General Martin Dempsey, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told interviewer Fareed Zakaria that he does not think the U.S. should rush to war. He was speaking after a visit to Israel and long consultations with its leaders.

Dempsey said that it was not "prudent at this point to decide to attack Iran... A strike at this time would be destabilizing and wouldn't achieve their [Israel's] long-term objectives." He also said that he did not believe that the Iranian regime was insane but was rather a "rational actor" not prone to national suicide

General Dempsey's remarks outraged Prime Minister Netanyahu, whose office put out a statement saying that Dempsey, and other U.S. officials who questioned the rationale for war, were "serving Iran's interests."

Had another foreign leader implied that the head of the joint chiefs was some kind of Iranian agent, he would have been smacked down. But that is not how it works with Netanyahu.

It turns out that Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) were in Israel at the time Netanyahu attacked Dempsey. Rather than defend the American general as these uber-nationalists would do in any other similar situation, they joined the Israeli government in bashing the general -- and war hero. (The old adage about government officials not criticizing U.S. policies when in a foreign country has not applied to Israel for years).

Check out this Jerusalem Post story on McCain's reaction which the Post correctly characterized as "siding with Jerusalem in the debate" over how to deal with Iran. As for Graham, he said, "I admire General Dempsey." But, he added, "People are giving Israel a lot of advice here lately from America. I just want to tell our Israeli friends that my advice to you is never lose control of your destiny. Never allow a situation to develop that would destroy the Jewish state."

In other words, American advice to think long and hard about the consequences of war with Iran is tantamount to allowing "a situation to develop that would destroy the Jewish state."

The most appalling aspect of the senators' remarks is that their zeal to please Netanyahu and his backers in America has overridden their constitutional responsibility to put the security of the United States above all other considerations. An Israeli decision to attack Iran affects Americans, including their constituents in uniform and, perhaps, just walking down the streets of New York, Washington, or anywhere else here at home.

As noble as their professed concern for Israel is, America is supposed to come first for United States senators. McCain and Graham ought to be ashamed for standing in a foreign country and blatantly putting the interests of that government before their own. Rest assured, they aren't. They are thinking about the next election and that is what always comes first.
Holy Cow, can it be that Pat and I agree twice in one day? I agree with everything you just posted. Lieberman is an embarrassment. Israel should negotiate its way out of the corner it has put itself in. The Zionist want to control all of that part of the world and will do whatever is necessary to accomplish that. Israel is the main reason for the unrest in the middle east and only Israel can solve it. They have to start treating the Palestinians like human beings, allow people the Israelis displaced from their homes to return, and share the natural resources of the area. I believe that if the Israelis were serious about negotiating, they could achieve peace rather quickly.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
This makes three times today Neal we agree. I agree with your assessment.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thumper
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
My career took me to Israel as my companies rep to th IAF. I learned very quickly not to trust them. I soon learned they were not our ally, only using us for our $billion handouts in terms of the latest US military hardware. The jews control every facit of our lives from the media, banking, down to the shoes we wear. Screw em, let them dangle from the rope they are weaving.
If you believe the majority of jews think anything more of gentiles than merely interlopers on "their" planet earth, you are sadly mistaken.
Edited by Thumper, Feb 24 2012, 03:38 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Thumper
Feb 24 2012, 03:33 AM
My career took me to Israel as my companies rep to th IAF. I learned very quickly not to trust them. I soon learned they were not our ally, only using us for our $billion handouts in terms of the latest US military hardware. The jews control every facit of our lives from the media, banking, down to the shoes we wear. Screw em, let them dangle from the rope they are weaving.
If you believe the majority of jews think anything more of gentiles than merely interlopers on "their" planet earth, you are sadly mistaken.
Europe came to a similar conclusion years ago Thumper. jews are for Jews and generally don't make good neighbors because of that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Upon seeing the poll question, I immediately looked, in the Opening Post, for some evidence that some congressman or congress persons were, in fact "owned" by Israel. Finding absolutely none, I conclude that the question is akin to asking a husband if he has stopped beating his wife.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
colo_crawdad
Feb 24 2012, 04:57 AM
Upon seeing the poll question, I immediately looked, in the Opening Post, for some evidence that some congressman or congress persons were, in fact "owned" by Israel. Finding absolutely none, I conclude that the question is akin to asking a husband if he has stopped beating his wife.
Surely, Colo, you aren't unaware of the influence the Jewish lobby has on our government!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Having successful lobbyists does not equate to "owning" "many senators."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
colo_crawdad
Feb 24 2012, 05:28 AM
Having successful lobbyists does not equate to "owning" "many senators."
It was a figure of speech.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Mountainrivers
Feb 24 2012, 05:29 AM
colo_crawdad
Feb 24 2012, 05:28 AM
Having successful lobbyists does not equate to "owning" "many senators."
It was a figure of speech.
Yes, used for propaganda purposes, if not simply misused.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis