two mideast countries destroyed, how many more to go?

[donsu]

the neo cons in their quest to bring a new reality to the mideast have destroyed two countries: Iraq and Lebanon.

smirking with satisfaction they look forward to the next destruction.

whose to stop them?

[CJCRANE]

1. Well

at least the oil price is skyrocketing so Bushco oil monarchy buddies can make a fortune.

[malaise]

2. This is no different than the slaughter

in Chile 1973, Argentina later or Central America in the 1980s. Indeed the same men are slaughtering anyone who opposes their hegemonic plan.
That the world sits by and allows this murderous regime and its allies to continue this slaughter is frightening. Muslims are only a threat to the West because the West wants their resources, their land and their money. They have every right to defend their own civilization. I am fucking sick of this - sick, sick, sick.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

3. The neoconservatives didn't destroy Lebanon. n/t

[malaise]

5. Who provides them with

all these bombs raining on Lebanon. Who is allowing them to continue this slaughter. Maybe Bolton can answer these questions.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. The US was providing Israel with weaponry when the Neocons were in diapers

And historically I have had no problem with the United States arming Israel, because otherwise Israel would have been destroyed. As for allowing them to continue, I see very little that could be done to stop them. They seem completely dedicated to their insane course of action.

[Bluerthanblue]

22. that isn't true at all-

when did the US start 'providing Israel with weaponry'?- I wasn't prior to 1948-
And many neo-cons are far older than 60-


Another thing that keeps being forgotten is that irrational (and I wholeheartedly believe the hatred was without reason,0 hatred and oppression of the Jewish People began LONG before 'the Arabs'- and the worst hell ever wrought on them was done at the hands of EUROPEANS!!!- ANGLO-SAXONS!!!- and before the European Nazi's it was the Roman Catholics, and before that the followers of Martin Luther-

The 'Arabs' have 'reason' to be angry at the nation of Israel- the Nazi's DID NOT- and as for the other religious groups who harbored hatred for those of the Jewish faith because they did not accept their belief in Jesus being the 'messiah'- and those who would condemn the Jews for 'murdering Christ'- seem to forget that Jesus HIMSELF was Jewish-.... and taught that revenge was not something his followers should seek, or lust after-

We tend to be pretty short sighted when we look at history- I'm ashamed of much of the history of my ancestors- those who drove the Native Americans from their homeland, and those who have supported an America which has been involved in many immoral- illegal- covert actions against other nations (like Nicaragua, Cuba, Panama, Mexico, Iran/contra, the manipulation of Afghanistan and Vietnam to 'fight the commies') and countless other actions I was completely ignorant of, and blind to-

America is my home, and there is much I love about it- but we have MUCH to be ashamed of, and answer for- ignorance is not an excuse- our government is supposed to be representative of OUR collective 'will'-

Just as Israel needs to answer for her actions- and I can't help but feel like the Arab/Israeli friction is partly due to mis-placed rage- the desire for revenge- and the (understandable) paranoia that results from being victimized for generations.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

24. What?

wasn't prior to 1948

Yes, that would be difficult, seeing as the state of Israel did not exist until 1948.

Another thing that keeps being forgotten is that irrational (and I wholeheartedly believe the hatred was without reason,0 hatred and oppression of the Jewish People began LONG before 'the Arabs'- and the worst hell ever wrought on them was done at the hands of EUROPEANS!!!

How is that being forgotten? And how is it relevant? You know, I've tried going through your post point by point, but it's really a bunch of irrelevant gibberish. I've never suggested that Israel doesn't need to answer for its actions. My points, which I will make here again in case they were not clear the first time, are:

1) The neoconservatives are not the ones (or at least not the only ones) who are providing / have provided weapons to Israel, and that military aid to israel predates the rise of the neoconservatives in national politics by a significant amount of time. Since military support to Israel began, every administration in Washington has provided it with weapons, neoconservative or not.

2) That without said weapons Israel would long ago have ceased to exist as a state.

The only really salient point in your post is that the United States has committed atrocities far worse than Israel. I hope you aren't suggesting that this means the United States should not posses a military.

[Bluerthanblue]

25. Despite your intellectual

superiority, I appreciate your taking the time to reply to my 'gibberish'- Forgive me for my lack of eloquence- I have but a HS diploma- but I am not ignorant, nor am I lacking in intelligence.

Your statement that the 'neo-cons' were in diapers' was and IS patiently wrong- as I tried to point out-

NOW, you are saying that:

"that military aid to israel predates the rise of the neoconservatives in national politics by a significant amount of time"- and that is not true-

I offer the following:

The Costs of U.S. Aid to Israel
By Daniel Feith

The close relationship between Israel and the United States was born out of Cold War tensions projected onto the regional conflict in the Middle East. Following the 1967 war, relations between Israel and its neighbors remained tense and by 1970, Israel found itself entangled in war of attrition with its southern neighbor Egypt. The U.S., implementing its policy of containment at the time, was competing with the Soviet Union for influence in regions around the world. So when the USSR began providing Egypt with their most advanced antiaircraft system and 1,500 combat personnel,1 the U.S. responded by providing Israel with a military loan of $545 million, nearly 20 times the military aid Israel had received the previous year and twice the total military assistance Israel had received in 22 years of existence.2 The alliance between Israel and the U.S. grew stronger through the 1970s as Soviet support of Arab states continued and as regional tensions peaked during the Yom Kippur War, and that alliance remains strong today. With its $3 billion annual aid package, Israel today receives more aid on better terms than any other nation in the world.

While the PNAC may be relatively 'new' in terms of its recognition, it exists as a result of years of 'neo-con' dreaming, and scheming- beginning all the way back with the "American Institute" founded in 1943- which rents office space to the Project For a New American Century-

As well as THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION- founded in 1973-
Often called the author of the "Reagan Doctrine"-

And offer this from the Christian Science Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html

What are the roots of neoconservative beliefs?

The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world.

Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans.

What is the difference between a neoconservative and a conservative?

Liberals first applied the "neo" prefix to their comrades who broke ranks to become more conservative in the 1960s and 70s. The defectors remained more liberal on some domestic policy issues. But foreign policy stands have always defined neoconservatism. Where other conservatives favored détente and containment of the Soviet Union, neocons pushed direct confrontation, which became their raison d'etre during the 1970s and 80s.

Today, both conservatives and neocons favor a robust US military. But most conservatives express greater reservations about military intervention and so-called nation building. Neocons share no such reluctance. The post 9/11-campaigns against regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate that the neocons are not afraid to force regime change and reshape hostile states in the American image. Neocons believe the US must do to whatever it takes to end state-supported terrorism. For most, this means an aggressive push for democracy in the Middle East. Even after 9/11, many other conservatives, particularly in the isolationist wing, view this as an overzealous dream with nightmarish consequences.

The rest of my post was an attempt to express my belief that much of the rage that rightfully belonged on the backs of the Nazis was transferred to the 'Arabs'- who DID have a 'reason' to resent, and fight with the people who had caused them to be up-rooted from their ancesteral homes-
The Nazi hatred was based solely on ethnic prejudice- the Arab friction is based on actions taken AGAINST the people themselves- with no provocation-, on behalf of Israel- being invaded and evicted from their land is certainly reason to have a 'beef' with another country- is it not???-

Yes, we have supported Israel since its inception- but the military support came and grew to monstrous proportions only after 'neo-con' thinking had begun to rear its head in US policies-

I hope this is coherent enough for you-
My apologies for not being able to rise to your level of discourse-

blu

[donsu]

6. the Israeli govt. is neo con

works hand in glove with the neo con bushmilhousegang

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

9. They are not neoconservatives.

Neoconservatism is the ideology of spreading US-style democracy via projection of military force. The current Israeli government is hardly concerned with that goal. The fact that neoconservatives are generally supportive of the Israeli government does not make the Israeli government neoconservative.

[cali]

12. Don't bother

Most DUers haven't the vaguest idea what neoconservatism is or who Strauss was. Loads of ignorance. Your good explanation of neoconservatism will be soundly ignored in favor of the much more titillating conspiracy theories.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

13. I think a lot of people here...

...haven't gotten beyond the definitions "assholes" or "warmongers" or "people like Bush" for neoconservatives. This saddens me, because their actual agenda is a hell of a lot more frigtening than any of those.

[Recursion]

17. And let's not forget...

...they were called "neoconservatives" because the founding members were liberals at one point -- Goldwater, Nixon, etc. had no intention of "spreading democracy" by force or of giving hoi polloi some epic struggle shadow play to watch while they remain chained in the cave. Since Goldwater and Nixon were conservatives, and these people were no longer liberal, somebody (Connolly?) dubbed them "neo-conservative".

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

18. Heh...

So... Darth Vader is a neoconservative. Interesting... :)

[Recursion]

21. Well, the '60s and '70s template was different

The original "neocons" back in those days were pro New Deal and Great Society, but anti Detente. They believed in the nanny state and were hawks on the war. In this sense (as inflaming as this comparison is), they were like the National Socialists: progressive fiscally but militaristic and nationalistic, and they saw the progressive social policies as a way to "buy off" the population while they represented what they considered the nation's interests overseas.

This has changed somewhat; the people today called neocons aren't pro-welfare state (though they aren't terribly against it, either).

[The Stranger]

16. What did Bolton say yesterday?

I forget.

[Fozzledick]

23. Their policies led to it

Iran felt free to instigate the attacks against Israel because of the power vacuum created by the overthrow of the U.S. and Iraqi governments.

[Recursion]

4. between 12 and 20, depending on how you define "Middle East"

Expect an "interesting" next 2 years.

[donsu]

8. yeah - I didn't include Afghanistan as the neo cons are having trouble

completely destroying them

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

10. And Afghanistan isn't in the middle east.

Unless you're using an extremely incorrect definition of that term.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

11. Queries:

1) What definition gives you that 12-20 number?
2) What are those 12-20 countries?

[Recursion]

14. Good question

The definition of "middle east" is political, controversial, and eurocentric. That said, the range from 12-20 includes:

Pretty much definitely (definition being: east of the Med, south of Anatolia, West of Iran inclusive, along with Egypt):
Iraq (check)
Lebanon (check)
Syria
Jordan
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
Oman
UAE
Egypt
Israel
Palestine
Iran
Kuwait
Qatar

And possibly (adding some offshore states and the horn of Africa):
Bahrain
Sudan
Djibouti
Eritreia
Somalia

Adding the Maghreb:
Libya
Algeria
Morocco
Tunisia
Western Sahara

Adding Anatolia:
Turkey

Finally, pushing the Western boundary to the Hindu Kush:
Afghanistan
Pakistan

I've tried to present those definitions in the order I've seen them used; ie, the first definition seems the most common, then the islands and the horn are added, then the maghreb, then anatolia, and finally the 'stans.

[Recursion]

15. Self delete

Server duped this...

[bdamomma]

19. read this article from truthout.org

this may shed some light on the what is going on out there.

and the US has always been behind the scenes.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/071706A.shtml

End the Suffering in the Middle East
By Rabbi Michael Lerner
Tikkun

Sunday 16 July 2006

The people of the Middle East are suffering again as militarists on all sides, and cheerleading journalists, send forth missiles, bombs and endless words of self-justification for yet another pointless round of violence between Israel and her neighbors. For those of us who care deeply about human suffering, this most recent episode in irrationality evokes tears of sadness, incredulity at the lack of empathy on all sides, anger at how little anyone seems to have learned from the past, and moments of despair as we once again see the religious and democratic ideals subordinated to the cynical realism of militarism.

Meanwhile, the partisans on each side, content to ignore the humanity of "the Other," rush to assure their constituencies that the enemy is always to blame. Each such effort is pointless. We have a struggle that has been going on for over a hundred years. Who tosses the latest match into the tinder box matters little. What matters is how to repair the situation. The blame game only succeeds in diverting attention from that central issue.

Within the context of blame, there's enough to go around. It all depends on where you start the story. Counting on lack of historical memory, the partisans on all sides choose the place that best fits them into a narrative in which they are the "righteous victims" and the others are the evil aggressors. Palestinians like to start the story in 1948 with the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes during the war on Israel proclaimed by neighboring Arab states, and the refusal of the Israeli government to allow these people to r! eturn to once the hostilities ceased. Israelis prefer to start the story when Jews were desperately seeking to escape from the genocide they faced in Europe, and a cynical Arab leadership convinced the British military to side with local Palestinians who sought to prevent those Jewish refugees from joining their fellow Jews living in Palestine at the time. I tell the story, and how to understand both sides, in my book Healing Israel/Palestine.

[Scurrilous]

20. Half a million Lebanese become refugees

Grave reports on situation of Lebanese population, which is 'on verge of humanitarian crisis.' Government in Beirut, UN agencies point finger at Israel

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3277987,00.html



<snip>

"Fighting in Lebanon claims heavy price among civilians. About half a million Lebanese have turned into refugees, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) reported. In addition, dozens of civilians have been killed in Israel Air Force strikes.

On the seventh day of the fighting in Lebanon, and after hundreds of strikes, the UN's agency in Beirut defined the situation as "catastrophic" and reported that about half a million of Lebanon's citizens have abandoned their homes and are considered refugees.

UN Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland said on Monday that "it is already a 'protection of civilians crisis'. We hear and see a population which feels trapped as they are subject to indiscriminate attacks."

He called for an immediate cease-fire from both sides. He said there were reports of tens or hundreds of thousands of displaced people. While many were sheltering in schools, thousands more were trying to escape to neighbouring Syria but were stopped by blocked or destroyed roads."

<snip>

"Egeland said it was "heartbreaking" that Lebanon's infrastructure was being destroyed just as reconstruction work had ended after years of civil war.

"They seem to be going full speed towards the abyss. It seems political and military leaders have a mandate for more revenge," he added."