ampage
Tube Amps / Music Electronics
For current discussions, please visit Music Electronics Forum. New: view Recent Searches.
New: visit Schematic Hell!
The sunn still shines online!

 
Listen to great tunes streaming live right now!

ampage archive

Vintage threads from the first ten years

Search for:  Mode:  

Cindy Sheehan Was Right: Her Son Died for Israel!


 
11/13/2005 11:16 AM
zippy Cindy Sheehan Was Right: Her Son Died for Israel!
Remember Cindy Sheehan -- The woman who camped outside of Bush's ranch in an effort to protest the Iraqi War.  
 
She had her 15 minutes of fame when she stated that her son died because the US was fighting the Iraqi war for Israel. She was subsequently demonized by the press as a nutcase because of her statments.  
 
Well, here's clear proof that Sheehans claim is true:  
 
http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2005/Nov/02-49451.html?chanlid=democracy  
 
I stand with Cindy in believing that we should never fight a war for a foriegn power. I believe this is morally wrong. Instead we need to put Americans first. Too bad GW Bush doesn't think the same way and eagerly puts the interests of foriegn governments before the interests of America even if it means that American soilders will die to benefit a foriegn power.  
 
Let Israel fight their own war. It's time to bring the troops home.
 
11/13/2005 12:49 PM
Pierre Debs
I am glad you posted this and not me.  
 
duck, here come the arrows of anti-semitism.
 
11/14/2005 10:28 AM
jaysg
To me there's an interesting point in all of this. My son and his friends are looking at the world and beginning have all the same stupid ideas I had when I was his age. One of those painful notions was attached to the realization that my government danced with dictators. Marcos, S. Hussein, the guys in Panama, Nicaragua, et al. Eventually, I realized that it was about stability, consistency, and the ongoing flow of various natural resources, though I still don't know what we ever got from the Phillipines beyond pushy nurses.  
 
Now we've got a President who says he believes in promoting democracy in undemocratic lands...and everyone agrees that he's nuts. Whither thou, childish idealism?  
 
I know that the thread is about the place of Israel in U.S. foreign policy, but how many are going to argue that really? The U.S. never really puts pressure on Israel, just heavy rhetoric.
 
11/14/2005 4:49 PM
zippy
Yeah, I know. Unfortunately some people will ocasionally use the race-card inappropriately. That will happen but not always. Depends on how level headed people are. I'm not here to start an arrow throwing match.  
 
My posting clearly did not address a racial issue of any kind. It only discussed the the occurance of war between nations and one alleged reason for the war in Iraq. If we keep it at that level then maybe this issue can be discussed without stupid name calling.
 
11/14/2005 5:42 PM
jaysg
quote:
"My posting clearly did not address a racial issue of any kind."
Just a quibble...Semites are not a race. There is a "Semitic language family," but Jews are Caucasians, as are most Arabs and Persians for that matter.
 
11/14/2005 12:54 PM
Mark Hammer
1) I don't think the US is "fighting a war for Israel". Virtually ALL Israeli citizens are required to put in several years of military service, and remain essentially on call. No such requirement is placed on Americans. Any assumptions about the US fighting "their war" for them are misplaced.  
 
2) As a place that has been constantly under attack since the days when Arab nations were effectively Soviet pawns in the cold war against the US, Israel has ended up, for better or for worse, being the test ground for new military technology; something of continuing interest to the DOD. Myself, I think that 40 years of encouragement for military options, as opposed to diplomatic ones, was a poor fork in the road to choose, but I can't change history. Israel of the 1960's and 70's was probably as much a pawn for the US in the Middle East as Egypt and Syria were for the USSR, and much of the tradition of aiding Israel in some unique manner was established then because it was esentially the only choice available. It was perceived as sort of the last outpost of democracy and western influence in a region that stretched from Libya to Afghanistan, and was largely under Soviet control or influence. Even though the cold war is long since over, the priority line was established at that time because of who was on "our side" and "their side", and the relationship that links the US and Israel has roots that are as deep as those which divide the US and Cuba (which also stem back to USSR-Cuba ties during the cold war). Don't blame Israel or Bush. Blame Kruschev, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Stalin, Nasser, et al. Of course, if the US "cared" as much about what Israel needs as they do about what they need from Israel, things would have turned out very different long ago.  
 
3) Somewhere in there, I suppose, are good intentions for the foreign countries involved, but I think it is impossible to underestimate the perceived importance of secure access to fuel in the region to the American economy. I stress *perceived*, because as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita demonstrated, domestic refining capacity is every bit as critical to the economy as crude production capacity or secure sources of crude.  
 
4) I don't doubt Cindy Sheehan's pain or sincerity, but she's no political analyst, and treating her ravings as some sort of brilliant insight makes about as much sense as listening to what Madonna or Susan Sarandon or Pat Boone or Louis Farrakhan have to say.  
 
5) The linked to documents represent the typical sycophant activities of state departments. They describe each other publically as the number one interest, and then promptly forget them the moment the photographers leave the room. As much as we get used to hearing "Death to Israel" crap from Iran, their Arab league buddies have likely said things similar to the State Department at gala dinners. I mean, even Moammar Khaddafi has toned down the rhetoric, and Hosni Mubarak is likely smiling, and shaking hands for the press while he hugs Iaraeli diplomats. I wouldn't read too much into such press releases, other than a reaffirnmation of the constant need for governments to flatter other governments they think might be useful to them in the future.
 
11/28/2005 6:18 PM
anonymous-the-rhinocerous Another Stupid Character Assasination
You Said:  
 
"I don't doubt Cindy Sheehan's pain or sincerity, but she's no political analyst, and treating her ravings as some sort of brilliant insight makes about as much sense as listening to what Madonna or Susan Sarandon or Pat Boone or Louis Farrakhan have to say."  
 
Ah Yes. You can never trust the opinions of the average man or women. They are almost always wrong. After all, we all know that commoners never have any common sense. And I've heard that many commoners are just drunkards who lack any semblence of cognitive reasoning.  
 
No you are right. This women is an idiot. We must only put our faith in the Intellegencia and let government make all of our decisions for us. And to be sure, the world would be a better place if we outlawed free discourse and free speech for those people who the intellectuals of the world disagree with.  
 
Yes, you seem to make lots of sense with what you say about that fuzzy headed female who probably couldn't find Israel on a map if her life depended on it.  
 
And besides, Cindy is only a European American and therefore doesn't have a clue when it comes to matters involving the State of Israel. Yeah, she is really just a dumb stupid twat faced freako who doesn't deserve a second of anyone's time who wants to give her a listen.  
 
Darn that Cindy. She's just too honest and sincere. Maybe if we just keep telling everybody what a moron she is then maybe everybody will start believing our spin on these issues. Nothing like a good old fashioned character assasination to win an argument.
 
   Page 1 of 3 Next> Last Page>>