Zionism, A Threat to Stability in the Middle East or the Only Way to Create It

[football5680]

Hundreds of thousands of deaths? The total number of Israelis killed by Palestinian terrorism from 2000 to 2014 was 3,791. The total number of Palestinians killed by Palestinian terrorism was 2,014. (Jewish Virtual Library, Total Casualties 1860 to present)

Read what I said again. Hundreds "OR" Thousands, at a time.

 

[mark kennedy]

Read what I said again. Hundreds "OR" Thousands, at a time.

My point was the Palestinians are guilty of killing almost as many of their own people as their enemies in Israel. Terrorism is an equal opportunity killer.

 

[RDKirk]

But the fact remains that in the 1980s Saddam did possess substantial quantities of WMD and used them.

Which was irrelevant in 2003, when he did not have a stockpile of WMD...but was the specific reason given for the US invasion.

Rumsfeld specifically said on camera, "We know where they [the stockpiles] are!" while his Director of Defense Intelligence testified under oath, "We have no reliable evidence" that they even existed.

 

[mark kennedy]

Which was irrelevant in 2003, when he did not have a stockpile of WMD...but was the specific reason given for the US invasion.

Rumsfeld specifically said on camera, "We know where they [the stockpiles] are!" while his Director of Defense Intelligence testified under oath, "We have no reliable evidence" that they even existed.

Do you think there is any credible evidence that Saddam simply dumped his weapons of mass destruction when the invasion seeming imminent? Transferring things like nerve gas seems like a difficult task, possible I'm sure but to transport them with no trace seems unlikely. What do you think, is it possible that Saddam simply had is chemical and biological weapons transferred to Syria?

 

[Barney2.0]

Which was irrelevant in 2003, when he did not have a stockpile of WMD...but was the specific reason given for the US invasion.

Rumsfeld specifically said on camera, "We know where they [the stockpiles] are!" while his Director of Defense Intelligence testified under oath, "We have no reliable evidence" that they even existed.

Well the fact he was using chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people gives enough reason for invasion when you really think about it.

 

[RDKirk]

Well the fact he was using chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people gives enough reason for invasion when you really think about it.

No, it doesn't. Certainly not a decade after the fact, certainly not a decade after that capability had been eliminated. Let's not pretend it was "for the Iraqi people," when the US went in and killed more thousands of them than Saddam had killed, knowing that would be the result.

 

[RDKirk]

Do you think there is any credible evidence that Saddam simply dumped his weapons of mass destruction when the invasion seeming imminent? Transferring things like nerve gas seems like a difficult task, possible I'm sure but to transport them with no trace seems unlikely. What do you think, is it possible that Saddam simply had is chemical and biological weapons transferred to Syria?

I know there wasn't. When Powell was making his UN speech, I was standing up shouting at the television That was a bigger lie than the Tonkin Bay incident.

I don't think the president or Congress knew the truth. I think Cheney did, and I'm absolutely certain Rumsfeld knew the truth because I know the man who briefed him. Rumsfeld flat-out, bold-faced lied to the president, the Congress, and to the American people.

 

[mark kennedy]

I know there wasn't. When Powell was making his UN speech, I was standing up shouting at the television That was a bigger lie than the Tonkin Bay incident.

I don't think the president or Congress knew the truth. I think Cheney did, and I'm absolutely certain Rumsfeld knew the truth because I know the man who briefed him. Rumsfeld flat-out, bold-faced lied to the president, the Congress, and to the American people.

I don't know but I've always suspected when the WMD thing came about Powell was out of town. Then he gets back and while hearing how the drama unfolded they told him, Oh and BTW, you have to address the UN Security Council and sell them on this. My guess is at that point he said OK, but after the first term I'm gone and he was. Just a guess really, but Powell is better then that. Rumsfeld and Cheney seemed like the kingpins in the whole matter and George W. Bush simply wanted results, he had it in for Iraq and that was that.

Bigger then Tonkin Bay, nay, not really. The same thing, they lie to us dude! It's the decent people they drag into it that makes me sick.

 

[Barney2.0]

No, it doesn't. Certainly not a decade after the fact, certainly not a decade after that capability had been eliminated. Let's not pretend it was "for the Iraqi people," when the US went in and killed more thousands of them than Saddam had killed, knowing that would be the result.

Decade or not, he was using WMD that’s enough reason for invasion. No one is claiming the US is innocent of war crimes.

 

[RDKirk]

Decade or not, he was using WMD that’s enough reason for invasion. No one is claiming the US is innocent of war crimes.

Then you support an immediate full-scale US invasion of Syria to remove Assad?

 

[Barney2.0]

Then you support an immediate full-scale US invasion of Syria to remove Assad?

He should have been removed a long time ago, he’s been asked to step down, he refused. America supported the rebels and they turned out to be Islamists and that caused an even bigger problem. The US does technically have right to invade him, however it would destabilize the region so I think it would be best if they stayed out of this one, however Bashar Al Assad deserves the same fate Saddam Hussein got and he won’t stop his murder unless he is actually invaded.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't know but I've always suspected when the WMD thing came about Powell was out of town. Then he gets back and while hearing how the drama unfolded they told him, Oh and BTW, you have to address the UN Security Council and sell them on this. My guess is at that point he said OK, but after the first term I'm gone and he was. Just a guess really, but Powell is better then that. Rumsfeld and Cheney seemed like the kingpins in the whole matter and George W. Bush simply wanted results, he had it in for Iraq and that was that.

Bigger then Tonkin Bay, nay, not really. The same thing, they lie to us dude! It's the decent people they drag into it that makes me sick.

What came out later is that State Department intelligence (yes, they're part of the IC) cast doubt on that information, and that Powell had even gone back to Tenant more than once to be reassured it was reliable. Powell's error was believing George Tenet over his own people. He should have said, "when your people can convince my people, I'll go with it."

I've met Tenet--shook his and and then counted my fingers. He is the type to go with the political flow anyway, but it's also known that Cheney made several trips out to Langley to make sure the CIA's assessment was what he and Rumsfeld wanted. Vice-presidential visits is a heck of a lot of political pressure on an intelligence agency.

Meanwhile, back at the Pentagon, the DIA analysts weren't giving Rumsfeld the ammunition he wanted and were leaking an opposing argument, so Rumsfeld created an entirely separate mini-agency of non-professional analysts "...to find what the others have missed" and give him what he wanted.

What caused me so much anguish at the time is how the media and the public totally missed how much the military was dragging its feet against the Iraq invasion, even to the point of senior officers openly disputing Rumsfeld, the Army Chief of Staff even got abruptly fired because he refused to endorse Rumsfeld's claim that the war could be completely won on the cheap with only 70,000 troops. The Marine Commandant held the same position against a cheap invasion and retired instead.

All the remaining "class of Vietnam" general officers actually retired before the invasion began.

 

[RDKirk]

He should have been removed a long time ago, he’s been asked to step down, he refused. America supported the rebels and they turned out to be Islamists and that caused an even bigger problem. The US does technically have right to invade him, however it would destabilize the region so I think it would be best if they stayed out of this one, however Bashar Al Assad deserves the same fate Saddam Hussein got and he won’t stop his murder unless he is actually invaded.

"The US does technically have right to invade him?" How do you figure that?

 

[Barney2.0]

"The US does technically have right to invade him?" How do you figure that?

Chemical weapons, murder of his own people, allied with an enemy of the US, has an agenda with an enemy of the US, and so on.

 

[RDKirk]

Chemical weapons, murder of his own people, allied with an enemy of the US, has an agenda with an enemy of the US, and so on.

Then you're saying the US should invade all countries that fit that description? North Korea? China?

And I'd argue that Saudi Arabia is demonstrably a greater enemy of the US than Iran.

 

[Barney2.0]

Then you're saying the US should invade all countries that fit that description? North Korea? China?

And I'd argue that Saudi Arabia is demonstrably a greater enemy of the US than Iran.

The US should invade Saudi Arabia, your correct on that, however the US being a country that stands for its own personal interests, will never do that. China and North Korea aren't openly at war with the US like Iran is, although relations are strained they haven’t declared war on the US, Iran has and is using Syria as a military base, not to mention China and North Korea aren’t gassing and murdering their own people on a massive scale.

 

[Inkfingers]

Is the State of Israel really the fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy?

Or is it a counterfeit of such by a humanist global power that sits on many nations and people, which has created a secular "State of Israel" that accepts homosexuals (Tel Aviv is renown for such) but does not recognise Messianics as real Jews (when according to Christ they may well be the only real Jews)?

 

[mark kennedy]

What came out later is that State Department intelligence (yes, they're part of the IC) cast doubt on that information, and that Powell had even gone back to Tenant more than once to be reassured it was reliable. Powell's error was believing George Tenet over his own people. He should have said, "when your people can convince my people, I'll go with it."

I've met Tenet--shook his and and then counted my fingers. He is the type to go with the political flow anyway, but it's also known that Cheney made several trips out to Langley to make sure the CIA's assessment was what he and Rumsfeld wanted. Vice-presidential visits is a heck of a lot of political pressure on an intelligence agency.

Meanwhile, back at the Pentagon, the DIA analysts weren't giving Rumsfeld the ammunition he wanted and were leaking an opposing argument, so Rumsfeld created an entirely separate mini-agency of non-professional analysts "...to find what the others have missed" and give him what he wanted.

What caused me so much anguish at the time is how the media and the public totally missed how much the military was dragging its feet against the Iraq invasion, even to the point of senior officers openly disputing Rumsfeld, the Army Chief of Staff even got abruptly fired because he refused to endorse Rumsfeld's claim that the war could be completely won on the cheap with only 70,000 troops. The Marine Commandant held the same position against a cheap invasion and retired instead.

All the remaining "class of Vietnam" general officers actually retired before the invasion began.

Wow, your refreshingly well informed, fairly rare these days. Did you ever read Mike DeLong's, 'Inside Centcom'? One of the most disturbing things in it for me was that as soon as 911 happened they were asked if Iraq was involved. With a 110 nation coalition George H. Bush was told there was nothing stopping us from going to Baghdad. Then George W. Bush wants to invade Iraq unilaterally, something just isn't adding up here. I even remember reading an article in USA Today describing how there could be up to 35 tons of VX gas

What came out later is that State Department intelligence (yes, they're part of the IC) cast doubt on that information, and that Powell had even gone back to Tenant more than once to be reassured it was reliable. Powell's error was believing George Tenet over his own people. He should have said, "when your people can convince my people, I'll go with it."

I've met Tenet--shook his and and then counted my fingers. He is the type to go with the political flow anyway, but it's also known that Cheney made several trips out to Langley to make sure the CIA's assessment was what he and Rumsfeld wanted. Vice-presidential visits is a heck of a lot of political pressure on an intelligence agency.

Meanwhile, back at the Pentagon, the DIA analysts weren't giving Rumsfeld the ammunition he wanted and were leaking an opposing argument, so Rumsfeld created an entirely separate mini-agency of non-professional analysts "...to find what the others have missed" and give him what he wanted.

What caused me so much anguish at the time is how the media and the public totally missed how much the military was dragging its feet against the Iraq invasion, even to the point of senior officers openly disputing Rumsfeld, the Army Chief of Staff even got abruptly fired because he refused to endorse Rumsfeld's claim that the war could be completely won on the cheap with only 70,000 troops. The Marine Commandant held the same position against a cheap invasion and retired instead.

All the remaining "class of Vietnam" general officers actually retired before the invasion began.

Wow, your refreshingly well informed and insightful. Did you ever read Mike Delong's, 'Inside Centcom'? One of the most disturbing things in the book for me was as soon as 911 happened they were asked if Iraq was involved. With a 110 nation George H. Bush was told nothing was stopping them from going to Baghdad. Then George W Bush elects to invade unilaterally, something isn't adding up there. I even remember reading in USA Today how there could be like 35 tons of VX gas. I had must seen 'The Rock', I had images of people being melted to goo by the thousands.

All I can figure is George H. Bush was there for the fall of the Berlin Wall. Our government had spent the wealth of the nation developing a star wars defense as super subs. The deficits were seriously running the risk compounding at some point. When Clinton convinced the voters that George H. Bush brought no domestic agenda to the American people the focus shifted to the economy. Ross Perot forced them to both come up with a balanced budget plan, the economy recovered beautifully, the federal gov. was even running a surplus. So the fastest way to spend a lot of money is war, Madison remarked once on the old trick of government to use every contingency to accumulate power. Money and power go hand in hand in Washington and George W. Bush had surrounded himself with Texas oil men. The number 1 consumer of oil products is the DOD. What's more do note Cheney had a lucrative history with KBR, something he had in common with LIB. After the Iraq war Tillerson, then CEO of Exon brokered a deal with the Kurds.

The chant no blood for oil makes a catchy chant, but it doesn't reflect reality.

Appreciate the information, it's been a while since I've read such a well informed political discussion.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Is the State of Israel really the fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy?

Or is it a counterfeit of such by a humanist global power that sits on many nations and people, which has created a secular "State of Israel" that accepts homosexuals (Tel Aviv is renown for such) but does not recognise Messianics as real Jews (when according to Christ they may well be the only real Jews)?

That's not the point, the nation of Israel has the military capability to expand their boarders to the dimensions promised to Abraham. My question is with such densely populated areas is it a good idea?

 

[football5680]

Is the State of Israel really the fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy?

Or is it a counterfeit of such by a humanist global power that sits on many nations and people, which has created a secular "State of Israel" that accepts homosexuals (Tel Aviv is renown for such) but does not recognise Messianics as real Jews (when according to Christ they may well be the only real Jews)?

Option #2.