TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Ahmadinejad to speak at the Columbia University
Pages (8): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 »

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Souce: TimesOnline

damn it Z, I really wanted to hear your POV on this..... even though I clown your ass, you know I respect you.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran

It's about time!

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles And yet, I'm already working on a Masters. As I've stated in another post, my first degree was from a university in FL, and as most ppl on this forum know my political leanings tilt more on the left.

Are you kidding me? You are a flaming right ring conservative.

You support the Iraq war, support Bush, pro-Israel, and pro-emptive warfare doctrine.

Do you believe in the drug war? If yes, you ain't a leftie..

So no one on the left supports Bush at least on some issues? That's news to me.
No one on the left is pro-Israeli? You might want to let Bill Clinton know that. Hell, last time I checked most Jews in America tend to vote Democrat.

The situation with Iran is bipartisan. You're just as likely to see war being waged on Iran from a president from the Democratic party as you are with a president from the right.

As for the war in Iraq, it's definitely not one of the Bush adminstration's finest moments, that's for sure. It was poorly assessed, and done half assed. Doesn't mean a Democrat president wouldn't have gone into Iraq post 9/11 either though, now does it? Based on the intel the US gathered prior to going into Iraq there was a good chance the US was going to do something about it regardless of whose in charge.

It's just so easy for the opposing party, in this case the Democrat party, to critize the failures of this war, just as some Republicans openly critize it.

Right wing conservatives are all about cutting down on taxes as much as possible, tend to be fairly religious, and thhink the US is better then everyone else. I'm none of those things.
As for the war on drugs, I don't do any drugs so I could care less. I'd prolly give a damn about it though if I had kids, which is why I suspect it's an issue with BOTH parties.

I hate it when the news reports on "secret plans"

It's obviously not a secret.

I thought it was great for Columbia University to invite him. As much as I think he is a nut case, it shows how great of a country we are. We do not let other peoples opinions hurt our feelings. I also thought it was rude for the president of Columbia U to introduce the A man that way he did. Perhaps a closing statement would of been better stating on how the American people feel about what he is doing.

Anyone have a link of the whole video?

I think a closing statement would have been worse. I think if he had to say anything at all, he should have phrased it, "some people think..."

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles So no one on the left supports Bush at least on some issues? That's news to me.

Then it's news.

quote:

No one on the left is pro-Israeli? You might want to let Bill Clinton know that. Hell, last time I checked most Jews in America tend to vote Democrat.

Indeed they do, and the majority tend to split from the faction in Israel that pushes for wars with its neighbors including Iran.

Does that necessarily entail that if someone isn't as pro-Israel as Bush and his AIPAC buddies to the point where they support incessant warfare with Israel's neighbors, to the point that they steadfastly believe that Israel's problems are the U.S.'s problems by proxy, would that entail that someone is "anti-Israel" or worse, "anti-Semite"?

Or do they perhaps have a different view on how we should be handling problems and having Israel handle it's own problems than this current Administration and the neocons who control it?

quote:

The situation with Iran is bipartisan. You're just as likely to see war being waged on Iran from a president from the Democratic party as you are with a president from the right.

Care to support that statement with evidence? With the exception of Bush-lite Lieberman (who's actually not a Democrat anymore), what Democratic candidate or what Democratic leader of any sort can you demonstrate has a fervent support of going to war with Iran?

As for bipartisan support, haven't seen too many polls to break that down by party, but these polls tend to contradict your implied assertion about who supports going after Iran:

quote:

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 4-8, 2007. N=1,035 adults nationwide. MoE � 3. "Which comes closer to your opinion? Iran is a threat to the United States that requires military action now. Iran is a threat that can be contained with diplomacy now. OR, Iran is not a threat to the United States at this time." 9/4-8/07 Military Action Now - 9% Diplomacy Now - 59% Not a threat - 24% Unsure - 8% (notice how those numbers are trending over time, contradicting the supposed "threat" that is posed by Iran's silly little dictator) ------------------------------- CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 4-6, 2007. N=1,028 adults nationwide. MoE � 3. "If the U.S. government decides to take military action in Iran, would you favor or oppose it?" 5/4-6/07 Favor - 33% Oppose - 63% Unsure - 4% http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm

quote:

As for the war in Iraq, it's definitely not one of the Bush adminstration's finest moments, that's for sure. It was poorly assessed, and done half assed. Doesn't mean a Democrat president wouldn't have gone into Iraq post 9/11 either though, now does it?

That would indeed be a very sad turn of events for a Democratic president to ignore the bastard that attacked us in Tora Bora, handing that hunt to corrupt warlords, and deciding to go after a hapless dictator instead that had nothing to do with 9/11 based on faulty intelligence by Operation Curveball and the lying neocon fuck Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi Exile Group when the CIA and other intelligence analysts directly stated not to listen to these guys with questionable motives and backgrounds, let alone tie al Qaeda to Saddam when they knew in advance that such a connection was dubious at best, in the same manner as this Administration certainly did.

quote:

Based on the intel the US gathered prior to going into Iraq there was a good chance the US was going to do something about it regardless of whose in charge.

Given the fact where the intelligence was coming from and who stovepiped it through, that word "intelligence" is really a contradiction in terms......

quote:

It's just so easy for the opposing party, in this case the Democrat party, to critize the failures of this war, just as some Republicans openly critize it.

Or perhaps they rightfully criticize it because it was a screwed up idea from the beginning based on dubious intelligence and led by Rummy and crew who willfully denied creating any viable post-war plan, let alone understand the hornet's nest they were walking into with two opposing Islamic factions who've hated each others guts long before we stuck our noses into their business.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer wow so now you are comparing him to the KKK?whats next?

Though this is a silly connection, let's not forget that their entire culture is immersed in a different mindset than ours.

That is to say, they are still in the dark ages, and looking at their traditions and laws, it's easy for us to point out how ridiculous and evil they are... even though we ourselves practice many ridiculous and evil customs that, hopefully in the future, will be viewed for the craziness which they encapsulate.

By letting this man speak, and perhaps for a few hearing him and being in his shoes however uncomfortable, we showed the very best of what we are.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1

Amen. Thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson It's about time!

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran

fuck. they had better not. id support ANY action against israel if they did this.

Well Israel won't be suffering from much world condemnation if it (finally) does something about the Iranian threat. In the next 6-10 months there's a growing chance either the US or Israel will put a stop to Iran's nuclear program.
Bush in his speech at the UN today called the UN a hypocrite organization for spending too much time and focus on Israel's so called wrongs instead of criticizing the governments of Syria, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, and for the UN not doing enough with the situation in Darfur. France's leader also had some harsh words to say about Iran, and strongly supports toughening sanctions against Iran.

Meanwhile congress back in the States is widening American sanctions against Iran.
Hillary Clinton has been a long time supporter of the US stepping up to the plate to ensure Iran won't get to go nuclear:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6011903220.html

With America's army based right nearby in Iraq, there's little Iran's backwards-ass supreme leader could try to do in response without getting the shit kicked out of him once and for all.

As I've previously said, Iran shoud be divided up into several countries. Persia should naturally be one of them since half of Iran's population is persian. Maybe then it could go back to being the cultural jewel it once was.

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles Well Israel won't be suffering from much world condemnation if it (finally) does something about the Iranian threat. In the next 6-10 months there's a growing chance either the US or Israel will put a stop to Iran's nuclear program. Bush in his speech at the UN today called the UN a hypocrite organization for spending too much time and focus on Israel's so called wrongs instead of criticizing the governments of Syria, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, and for the UN not doing enough with the situation in Darfur. France's leader also had some harsh words to say about Iran, and strongly supports toughening sanctions against Iran. Meanwhile congress back in the States is widening American sanctions against Iran. Hillary Clinton has been a long time supporter of the US stepping up to the plate to ensure Iran won't get to go nuclear: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6011903220.html With America's army based right nearby in Iraq, there's little Iran's backwards-ass supreme leader could try to do in response without getting the shit kicked out of him once and for all. As I've previously said, Iran shoud be divided up into several countries. Persia should naturally be one of them since half of Iran's population is persian. Maybe then it could go back to being the cultural jewel it once was.

none of that ^^ is even remotely compelling argument/evidence for the use of nuclear fucking weapons you crazy fool. any country that again resorts to nukes deserve the wrath of the entire world. no, i dont give a fuck about "tactical".

even mossad's assessment said 2 years. listen to yourself, you sound just like the bush administration in 2003 there is still so much time for diplomacy.

fucking hell

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles Well Israel won't be suffering from much world condemnation if it (finally) does something about the Iranian threat. In the next 6-10 months there's a growing chance either the US or Israel will put a stop to Iran's nuclear program. Bush in his speech at the UN today called the UN a hypocrite organization for spending too much time and focus on Israel's so called wrongs instead of criticizing the governments of Syria, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, and for the UN not doing enough with the situation in Darfur. France's leader also had some harsh words to say about Iran, and strongly supports toughening sanctions against Iran. Meanwhile congress back in the States is widening American sanctions against Iran. Hillary Clinton has been a long time supporter of the US stepping up to the plate to ensure Iran won't get to go nuclear: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6011903220.html With America's army based right nearby in Iraq, there's little Iran's backwards-ass supreme leader could try to do in response without getting the shit kicked out of him once and for all. As I've previously said, Iran shoud be divided up into several countries. Persia should naturally be one of them since half of Iran's population is persian. Maybe then it could go back to being the cultural jewel it once was.

I would add to pkcRAISTLIN's comment (to which I agree that nukes are ridiculously over the top for our response at this point) that I cannot find anyone, Democrat or otherwise who does not support sanctions against Iran. So I guess if there's a moment to agree with Bush on, there it is. The problem is our current cowboy in charge has absolutely no skills in diplomacy, and Condi right now has pretty much been pushed out of the picture in terms of her effectiveness.

Whether or not one agrees with that is one thing, but this Administration is known for it's sincere lack of diplomacy skills throughout it's 2 terms across the world, and personally I'd prefer to have a little bit of that vital skill over an undying desire to continually blow shit up.

As for Iran being divided up, I believe there's growing signs of civil discontent with that country's fundamentalist wing which currently has majority control of the government (lost the article I had on this, I'll find it later). It would appear that the country is heading towards a positive direction all without our Divine intervention and pressure. Why not let that process continue before considering on blowing the fucking heads and limbs off of tens of hundreds of thousands of yet even more innocent civilians in yet another country?

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles Well Israel won't be suffering from much world condemnation if it (finally) does something about the Iranian threat. In the next 6-10 months there's a growing chance either the US or Israel will put a stop to Iran's nuclear program.

Let it be Israel then. Let them deal with their own problems and not have us call their problems ours. They want to strike Iran and get in another mess like they did with Syria, then that's on their fucking dime, not ours.

quote:

Bush in his speech at the UN today called the UN a hypocrite organization for spending too much time and focus on Israel's so called wrongs instead of criticizing the governments of Syria, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, and for the UN not doing enough with the situation in Darfur. France's leader also had some harsh words to say about Iran, and strongly supports toughening sanctions against Iran.

To which I hope you're not shocked that the UN and some human rights groups found such hyperbole to be rank hypocrisy:

quote:

Bush astounds activists, supports human rights William Douglas | McClatchy Newspapers last updated: September 25, 2007 05:52:59 PM UNITED NATIONS � President Bush implored the United Nations on Tuesday to recommit itself to restoring human decency by liberating oppressed people and ending famine and disease. Speaking before the United Nations General Assembly, the president called for renewed efforts to enforce the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a striking point of emphasis for a leader who's widely accused of violating human rights in waging war against terrorism. Bush didn't mention the U.S. prisons in Afghanistan or at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. practice of holding detainees for years without legal charges or access to lawyers, or the CIA's "rendition" kidnappings of suspects abroad, all issues of concern to human rights activists around the world. "At first read, it's little more than an exercise in hypocrisy. His words about human rights ring hollow because his credibility is nonexistent," said Curt Goering, the deputy executive director of Amnesty International USA. "The gap between the rhetoric and the actual record is stunning. I can't help but believe many people in the audience were thinking, 'What was this man thinking?' " Still, some groups, such as the bipartisan One: The Campaign to Make Poverty History, praised Bush for calling for a recommitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. .....He took the United Nations to task, saying it needs to be overhauled in order to be credible. He accused the Security Council of ignoring human rights violations by Venezuela, North Korea and Iran while constantly criticizing Israel.

I'm sure there were more than a few chuckles from the audience hearing this guy speak about ignoring human rights. The guy has no credibility and not a leg to stand on while trying to point his finger at others for the same violations he has allowed.

quote:

Some human rights activists credited Bush for taking action against Myanmar's military government, but gave him low marks overall when it comes to standing up for human rights. "I believe the president should be championing human rights at the U.N., but he's lost his authority and credibility as a world leader because of his policies on rendition and Guantanamo," said Tom Malinowski, the advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "His remarks would be more effective if the U.S. was practicing what it's preaching." Linda Jamison, who analyzes the U.N. for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a center-right research center in Washington, said Bush's speech offered little in terms of outreach or specifics. "He gave us U.N. 101 if it were a college course," Jamison said. "We need U.S.-U.N. 201. He skimmed it." http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/v-print/story/19964.html

Its disgusts me to hear all these ignorant comments by the far left.

Back on topic... There was no point in having this troubled man speak at Columbia. He didn't answer the questions, we went around them, he just only reaffirm the fact that he got an education on another planet. How can you possibly compare the holocaust to the study of physics? How can you deny that your country does not have homosexual?

Getting a bit off topic here... Israel is a nation that has been subject to terrorism and disruptive to its peace. Like any other nation, they have the right to defend themselves. Like the US they combat terrorism and are an ally of the US when combating terrorism and extremist groups. Ofcourse as an ally is our duty to support them they are the example of a democratic nation in the Middle East. As an ally, it is our duty to assist them when facing axis of evils. How in the world do you expect us not to support Israel, when specific axis of evils have called upon the destruction on the holy land?

I think I'll let Maureen Dowd do the talking for me from now on. She's spot on.

quote:

'Fruitbat� at Bat We just can�t stop being nice to Iran. First, we break Iraq and hand it over to the Shiites, putting in a puppet who leans toward Iran and is aligned with the Shiite militias bankrolled by Iran. Then, as Peter Galbraith writes in The New York Review of Books, President Bush facilitates �the takeover of a large part of the country by an Iranian-backed militia,� with the ironic twist that �there is now substantially more personal freedom in Iran than in Southern Iraq.� And on top of all that, we help build up the self-serving doofus Iranian president, a frontman with a Ph.D. in traffic management, into the sort of larger-than-life demon that the real powers in Iran � the mullahs � can love. New York�s hot blast of nastiness, jingoism and xenophobia toward its guest, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, only served to pump him up for his domestic audience. Iranians felt that their president had tied everyone in knots, including the �Zionist Jews,� as Iranian state television said. The Times reports that Mohsen Rezai, a former head of the Revolutionary Guards, was on TV criticizing the rude treatment his president received: �It is shocking that a country that claims to be civilized treats him that way.� (It also raised his profile on the evening news here. Katie Couric dryly has told people that she remembers how to pronounce his name with the mnemonic �I�m a dinner jacket.�) After the Bay of Pigs, J.F.K. and his advisers worried that American foreign policy would no longer seem intelligent. W. doesn�t even try for an intelligent foreign policy. He wallows in a willfully ignorant foreign policy. And this week, his irrational ways were contagious. The Daily News headline, �The Evil Has Landed,� was one of the milder imprecations. Consider this reasoned analysis from Greg Gutfeld of Fox News: �So the foul-smelling fruitbat Ahmadinejad spoke at that crack house known as Columbia University today.� The heavy-handed, small-minded reaction that played into the hands of the slippery �I�m a dinner jacket� is not excused by Iran wishing the U.S. and Israel gone. The Soviet Union�s stated policy for 70 years was the total eradication of American capitalism and democracy � backed up during the cold war with actual nuclear weapons. But while challenging the policies and ideology of the Evil Empire, Ronald Reagan understood he had to engage Mikhail Gorbachev, not ignore or insult him. Reagan was able to help the Soviet Union � and world communism � to fall apart. All W. has managed to do is destroy the country he wanted to turn into a democracy and make Iran more powerful than it was before. In a sad testimony to how bollixed up things are in Iraq, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki told the Council on Foreign Relations Monday that civil war has been averted in Iraq � not! � and that Iranian intervention has �ceased to exist.� Gen. David Petraeus recently said that Iran was providing �lethal� support to Iraqi militias. The president�s irrelevant U.N. speech was a bad combo with the schoolyard name-calling of Lee Bollinger. Even some in the anti-Ahmadinejad audience gasped a bit as Columbia�s president gave the meanest introduction in the history of introductions � one that only managed to elevate the creep sitting on stage with his thugs. Once you�ve made the decision to invite a tyrannical leader, you can�t undo it by belittling him in public. Universities are supposed to be places where you can debate and hear dissenting voices; it would have been far better just to hand the mike to the students and let it rip. Given the repressive and confused stance of some of our Middle East allies on women and gays, isn�t it insane to get into a war of ideas on homosexuality in the Muslim world? President Bush is the one who hardened the Iranian resolve to get a nuclear weapon with his policy of negotiating with countries like North Korea that have nukes and invading countries that don�t, like Iraq. W. and his advisers always act shocked that Iran is meddling in Iraq. Why wouldn�t Iran inflate itself at the expense of its former foe and current enemy? Even after the Iranian hostage crisis, America never really tried to comprehend the tribal politics in Iran � or Iraq � or bolster the Arab speakers in the intelligence community. As Mr. Galbraith wrote, Iran�s nuclear program is about prestige. Iranians want to be seen �as a populous, powerful, and responsible country that is heir to a great empire and home to a 2,500-year-old civilization. In Iranian eyes, the U.S. has behaved in a way that continually diminishes their country� � from U.S. involvement in the 1953 coup that reinstated the Shah to W.�s branding them as part of the �axis of evil.� Wouldn�t sticks and carrots � cultural fluency, smart psychology and Reaganesque dialogue � be a better way to bring the Iranians around than sticks and stones?

link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/opinion/26dowd.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin


The most frightening part of this argument: 'The Times reports that Mohsen Rezai, a former head of the Revolutionary Guards, was on TV criticizing the rude treatment his president received: �It is shocking that a country that claims to be civilized treats him that way.�'

God, this woman is intelligent.

What the US or Israel plan to do is attack the sites where Iran is trying to develop its nuclear program, similar to the way Israel (successfully) attacked Iraq in 1981.
Hell, there's a good chance Israel targetted some Syrian sites just the other week, if we are to believe reports from the media in the UK and the US.

Now then, if Iran chooses to engage in battle with the west after said bombing, like I said, the US current administration will only be happy to tell the army to target Iran's supreme leader. Maybe he can join Bin Laden in the same cave in Pakistan...

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles What the US or Israel plan to do is attack the sites where Iran is trying to develop its nuclear program, similar to the way Israel (successfully) attacked Iraq in 1981. Hell, there's a good chance Israel targetted some Syrian sites just the other week, if we are to believe reports from the media in the UK and the US. Now then, if Iran chooses to engage in battle with the west after said bombing, like I said, the US current administration will only be happy to tell the army to target Iran's supreme leader. Maybe he can join Bin Laden in the same cave in Pakistan...

Just a note: 1. Ahmadinejad is not Iran's supreme leader.

2. Israel is supposedly talking about using tactical nuclear weapons against a sovereign nation. That's hard to justify even if it is retaliatory, and in this case, it most certainly cannot be described as such.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 To which I hope you're not shocked that the UN and some human rights groups found such hyperbole to be rank hypocrisy:

You mean the same UN where Iran is on an anti racism committee?

Rest assured that when the president of the US spoke a lot of countries listened, and all of the developed/western countries were present and taking notes. His words will have an effect on the direction the UN will take.

Now then, back to our "friend" the president of Iran. This guy constantly talks about certain countries exhibiting opporession, yet millions of people in his country are oppressed by him and the revolutionary guards. Furthermore, he wants a referendum to be made in Israel??? How about a referendum in Iran where only 50 percent of the country are Persians.
In Israel on the other hand the West Bank is an autonomous region, which will likely become a true palestinian state pretty soon. Gaza? Not so much, not so long as Hamas doesnt even recogniza Israel, and not so long as Hamas is backed by Iran. Hamas is so desperate they even sent out a memo to the Saudis not to attend the upcoming peace summit b/c Hamas is afraid of Saudi Arabia having peace with Israel.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Just a note: 1. Ahmadinejad is not Iran's supreme leader.

That is correct. Khomeini is...

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles That is correct. Khomeini is...

Khomeini has been dead since 1989. Khamenei is the Supreme Leader now.

My bad, thx for the correction.

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover Its disgusts me to hear all these ignorant comments by the far left.

Just as it disgusts me how there are ignorant comments by the "far" right. Your point, or were you just making some sweeping generalizations?

quote:

Back on topic... There was no point in having this troubled man speak at Columbia. He didn't answer the questions, we went around them, he just only reaffirm the fact that he got an education on another planet. How can you possibly compare the holocaust to the study of physics? How can you deny that your country does not have homosexual?

Agreed, but wouldn't you rather want the idiot to talk and be ridiculed, or would you want to silence his voice in a place where free speech is considered one of our highest values in this country? Personally I got more out of listening to him make a fool of himself as well as dodge the rightful criticism rather than attempt to silence him outright.

quote:

Getting a bit off topic here... Israel is a nation that has been subject to terrorism and disruptive to its peace. Like any other nation, they have the right to defend themselves. Like the US they combat terrorism and are an ally of the US when combating terrorism and extremist groups.

Straw man. No one is arguing this.

quote:

Ofcourse as an ally is our duty to support them

Depends on what kind of support you are referring to. Don't you think that billions of dollars a year as well as pressuring the UN to look the other way on Israel's nukular capability is good enough? Not to mention the pressure we put upon the UN and other nations when they try to condemn Israel for various human rights issues (not that I don't disagree with that pressure - more often than not I do). Or do we need to jump into every fight that Israel's ultraright wing faction wants to fight with their neighbors?

quote:

they are the example of a democratic nation in the Middle East. As an ally, it is our duty to assist them when facing axis of evils. How in the world do you expect us not to support Israel, when specific axis of evils have called upon the destruction on the holy land?

It appears to me (and most everyone else) that Israel has more than aptly demonstrated its capability to handle itself against its neighbors. Jumping at everything they consider "threatening", which is pretty much at all 4 corners surrounding them, AND THEN EXPECTING US to jump at those threats in the exact same identical manner as if they are on our borders AS IF TO DIRECTLY IMPLY THAT IT THREATENS OUR COUNTRIES' INTERESTS is asking a wee bit much. Israel has been involved and will continue to be involved in an endless series of wars with its neighbors over issues that bear little resemblance to our countries' most pressing issues. We cannot jump every time they want us to jump, especially when it's patently clear that they are more than capable to handle themselves (i.e. fucking armed to the teeth).

If you honestly expect us to be at an endless war with all of Israel's enemies, then you are expecting for us to be at war with Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran AT ALL TIMES STARTING YESTERDAY. Perhaps you might ask yourself why these actions haven't been taking place just yet, let alone perhaps why the Jewish culture here in our country wouldn't even support by majority an American strike against Iran (and the numbers supporting an attack are falling over time):

quote:

Support among Jews for an American military strike against Iran has declined during the past year, according to an annual survey of American Jewish opinion released Monday. The survey, commissioned by the American Jewish Committee, found that only 38% of American Jews support American military action, down from 49% last year. http://www.forward.com/articles/pol...t-iran-by-isra/

Another example you'll be hardpressed to sell is the American people, who clearly wanted the U.S. to stay out of matters with the Israel-Hezbollah war last year:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...poll_080606.htm

And these are also telling from last year:

quote:

"Do you think the U.S. has a responsibility to try to resolve the conflict between Israel and other countries in the Middle East, or is that not the U.S.' business?" Has responsibility - 39% Not the U.S.' business - 56% Not sure - 5% --------------- In the current conflict, do you think the United States should take Israel's side, take the side of Hezbollah, or not take either side? Israel's - 31% Hezbollah's - 0% Neither - 65% http://www.pollingreport.com/israel.htm

So when you're referring to fringe ideas here, one has to wonder which fringe one is referring to when discussing matters of U.S. involvement with Israel's affairs. One has to wonder who's truly pressing such matters, while other groups like the "fringe" left (i.e. majority of U.S. citizens and Jewish American culture) tends to believe those matters should be left up to Israel.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.