ValerianSteel:
You laugh at your own peril

The Jewish state is self-sufficient and has been defending it's territories against islamic aggression from neighboring nations for decades.Israel is the Most advanced and most powerful military nation in the Middle-East.Combine the Gulf states and All Arab countries together.They would never,I repeat never be able to bring her down.

We are ahead and superior in everything,we will remain so with or without support from the United States.

Absolute balderdash and complete nonsense.. Even the Jews won't write this hogwash. They state still exist because of US support.. Iran alone is enough to to turn Israel into shreds

ValerianSteel:
Really Missy,can't believe that's new to you

An explanation will help

Appleyard:
Stop fishing in shallow waters. We know that whoever runs congress shapes American foreign policy, and the Jews do. They run congress and dictates America's foreign policy. And whomever runs America's foreign policy, also controls the MIC. Its no secret that the jews runs Homeland Security, and zionist banks are behind almost every project funding of the MIC.
Common sister: even before now, we have been furnished with a deeper insight into this MIC and the warlords behind it. They call them the Khazars of the London City.
NB: The London City Bankster bosses are elitist Ashkenazy Jews –by no means Khazars, a Tutk people existing about 900-1200 in the Caucasus. They converted to Judaism. The Ashkenazy genesare mixed male Jewish and European female genes – but their elite have mixed the supremacist Judaic Talmudic religion with Shabbataean-Frankist satanism. The phrase Khazar instead of Ashkenazy was launched by Jewish author Arthur Koestler in order not to separate Jews from Ashkenazy Jewish Rothschild crimes. Today, Khazar is used to avoid the most terrible of all invectives: “Antisemite.”

All I see here is rambling with no clear explanation.

If you think whoever runs the congress runs american foreign policy. Explain to me how a republican or jewish run congress according to you is unable to stop a deal with Iran.

Missy89:


But the Koch brothers are not even supporting Trump ( not opposing him anymore either). their support for Romney didn't work out either. The Tea party is winning seats in congress but it is hard for them to win a national election. You have to be center right or left to win the white house

back to back win is pretty hard but i think it has to do with complacency on the part of the incumbent party. Should be different this year

Yes, they're not supporting him overtly, but the fact that they sponsor the tea party shows that they're supporting him overtly. Romney never had a chance against the incumbent.

How do you mean center right or left? George Bush Sr/Jr and Ronald Reagan were far right...did that stop them from winning? Jimmy Carter was far left, did they stop him from winning? Bernie Sanders also has a chance now after winning Michigan yesterday. If he can start speaking the language most black voters can relate to, rather than keep making poverty a black thing - he has a big chance.

Err, are you watching my Chelsea?

Ogbeche77:
Absolute balderdash and complete nonsense.. Even the Jews won't write this hogwash. They state still exist because of US support.. Iran alone is enough to to turn Israel into shreds

Am Jew and I wrote that I would defend it a million times.

Missy89:


An explanation will help

It's simple.Money runs the MIC,we know who controls the majority of vast wealth in the entire USA.

ValerianSteel:
It's simple.Money runs the MIC,we know who controls the majority of vast wealth in the entire USA.

That is a big oversimplification thou.

There a too many factors to consider. Politics, simple economics among other things. The F35 is an example. It is now too big to kill because many members of congress depend on those jobs for their constituents. Same thing with most shipyards in virginia for example.

It is not only an American problem. In the last decade, most contries are expanding their MIC, is Israel controlling those too?

Big PMCs and defence contractors have a part to play too since their existence depends on a big MIC.

Money is just one part of a huge complex.

Missy89:


All I see here is rambling with no clear explanation.

If you...

Again, stop this your fishing patterns, it only invokes unnecessary discourse. And i see you have tacitly accepted the facts on the MIC, therefore, let that rest in peace!
You do know you deliberately misquoted me? Maybe not what i thought. I said ''whoever runs congress shapes America's foreign policy.'' You know how vibrant that chamber is in US law making history, and its no secret how the Isreali lobby-Hood influences the decision making process about vital international issues, on many occassions. There is no need to cite examples; the list is almost endless.

The fact that they couldn't have their way regarding Iran, does not in any way deny the strong grip they had over the law making process-vis US foreign policies. Iran was always a mission impossible. Why? Because the required ''degree of responsiveness of the populace'' was in the negetive. Let me explain!

In the US, throughout the history of America's political and economic life, as hijacked and controlled by the elites, call them diabolic, greedy banksters, Satanist, the globalist, or whatever you want: no matter how strong they are, how diabolic, or gruesome in acts and in omission, there is always one thing they fear, one that in a way keep them in check; The Fear of the People.
No government however powerful, that is more powerful than the collective will of his people. When the collective will of a people is challenged under a given situation that involves the government as the reason for the conflict, if that will became divided, with half or more than half siding with the state, the ruling class and their governmental machinery will continue having their way as long as possible, due to the acquiesence of the notable or majority divide, and it's evil ways would become more legitimate, since legitimacy is derived from the people.
But if the reverse is the case, no matter how sophisticated, how cruel and powerful that government may be, it would eventually get crushed and dethroned, though many would die before the dawn breaks. The sanctity of this doctrine is enshrined in natural law, and where it is further given credence by positive law (legislation,) it's tenacity as a brazen reality becomes the more hardened and incontrovertible. This is exactly what the American people represent (the 1st and 2nd Amendments & The Bill of Rights quickly comes to mind.)

To say that the elites-ruling class, are afraid of the people, is not an exaggeration. That's why the NSA is massively spying on its own people. That's why it has been signed as law that foreign troops can be deployed into the country in case of a 'massive unrest.' That's why they had to sensored Putin's speech so the people don't get to know what was being revealed. That's why they have to lie to the people in so much that when suspicion set in, they resort to ''false flag'' operations like 9/11, to keep them in line.

Now, 9/11 was a false reality created to pave the way for the thrust against Iraq and the Talibans. They needed it for the people to fall in. Despite some protest and lack of credible evidence, majority of Americans supported the wars, after Bush gave a resounding speech chocolated with mouth gaping lies, the Elites went to war. The degree of responsiveness of the populace was positively elicited! It was mission successful. But when d economic realities later sets in, much of the people started to view life in a different perspective. The realisation that Iraq never had any weapon of mass destruction, was the last straw that broke the carmel's back. They have had enough! Never again would they easily fall for such craps. Infact, from there on, especially when the holes in 9/11 started filtering in, the people began to see d government as ''an enemy.'' And what happened in Hammond was a symbol of this reality. The awakening is gradually developing symptoms. The goverment knew, and b4 it gets to maturity, the guns must be taken away. And here comes gun control.

All i have been trying to say is that Isreal sees Iran as a strategic threat to its existence, and thus have made it no secret to invade Iran. But they can't go it alone without the US. Here lies the problem! Most Americans don't want to hear of wars anymore, and though the Jews have a strong lobbyHood and emotional/orthodox sympathisers within the ranks of the legislative houses, the fact remains that they still have to answer to the people who are still licking their wounded memories. The positive response was never there, and d Jews couldn't have their way this time!
The ill rapport with Obama who sympathises with Islam, didnt help matters, coupled with the fact that the Iraq memories are still very fresh, Obama had his way, and he won!

There are other reasons, though, as to why they couldn't stop it. But the fact remains that Jewish interests largely dictates US Foreign policies!

Appleyard:
Again, stop this your fishing patterns, it only invokes unnecessary discourse. And i see you have tacitly accepted the facts on the MIC, therefore, let that rest in peace!
You do know you deliberately misquoted me? Maybe not what i thought. I said ''whoever runs congress shapes America's foreign policy.'' You know how vibrant that chamber is in US law making history, and its no secret how the Isreali lobby-Hood influences the decision making process about vital international issues, on many occassions. There is no need to cite examples; the list is almost endless.

The fact that they couldn't have their way regarding Iran, does not in any way deny the strong grip they had over the law making process-vis US foreign policies. Iran was always a mission impossible. Why? Because the required ''degree of responsiveness of the populace'' was in the negetive. Let me explain!

In the US, throughout the history of America's political and economic life, as hijacked and controlled by the elites, call them diabolic, greedy banksters, Satanist, the globalist, or whatever you want: no matter how strong they are, how diabolic, or gruesome in acts and in omission, there is always one thing they fear, one that in a way keep them in check; The Fear of the People.
No government however powerful, that is more powerful than the collective will of his people. When the collective will of a people is challenged under a given situation that involves the government as the reason for the conflict, if that will became divided, with half or more than half siding with the state, the ruling class and their governmental machinery will continue having their way as long as possible, due to the acquiesence of the notable or majority divide, and it's evil ways would become more legitimate, since legitimacy is derived from the people.
But if the reverse is the case, no matter how sophisticated, how cruel and powerful that government may be, it would eventually get crushed and dethroned, though many would die before the dawn breaks. The sanctity of this doctrine is enshrined in natural law, and where it is further given credence by positive law (legislation,) it's tenacity as a brazen reality becomes the more hardened and incontrovertible. This is exactly what the American people represent (the 1st and 2nd Amendments & The Bill of Rights quickly comes to mind.)

To say that the elites-ruling class, are afraid of the people, is not an exaggeration. That's why the NSA is massively spying on its own people. That's why it has been signed as law that foreign troops can be deployed into the country in case of a 'massive unrest.' That's why they had to sensored Putin's speech so the people don't get to know what was being revealed. That's why they have to lie to the people in so much that when suspicion set in, they resort to ''false flag'' operations like 9/11, to keep them in line.

Now, 9/11 was a false reality created to pave the way for the thrust against Iraq and the Talibans. They needed it for the people to fall in. Despite some protest and lack of credible evidence, majority of Americans supported the wars, after Bush gave a resounding speech chocolated with mouth gaping lies, the Elites went to war. The degree of responsiveness of the populace was positively elicited! It was mission successful. But when d economic realities later sets in, much of the people started to view life in a different perspective. The realisation that Iraq never had any weapon of mass destruction, was the last straw that broke the carmel's back. They have had enough! Never again would they easily fall for such craps. Infact, from there on, especially when the holes in 9/11 started filtering in, the people began to see d government as ''an enemy.'' And what happened in Hammond was a symbol of this reality. The awakening is gradually developing symptoms. The goverment knew, and b4 it gets to maturity, the guns must be taken away. And here comes gun control.

All i have been trying to say is that Isreal sees Iran as a strategic threat to its existence, and thus have made it no secret to invade Iran. But they can't go it alone without the US. Here lies the problem! Most Americans don't want to hear of wars anymore, and though the Jews have a strong lobbyHood and emotional/orthodox sympathisers within the ranks of the legislative houses, the fact remains that they still have to answer to the people who are still licking their wounded memories. The positive response was never there, and d Jews couldn't have their way this time!
The ill rapport with Obama who sympathises with Islam, didnt help matters, coupled with the fact that the Iraq memories are still very fresh, Obama had his way, and he won!

There are other reasons, though, as to why they couldn't stop it. But the fact remains that Jewish interests largely dictates US Foreign policies!

Are you writing a book?

You said whoever controls congress shapes US policies. And now you are saying " even if they didn't get their way with iran they still control us foreign policy"

Now my question to you is this: if they couldn't have their way with us policy regarding iran ( one of the most important issue to israel apart from palestine) are you over simplifying the situation? Or are they incompetent?

At this rate, I believe Netanyahu is hoping that Clinton - a life long, die hard Israel supporter - lands the Democratic Party nomination and then the presidency.
I feel Obama and Netanyahu personally don't like each other and I believe there was a time at a gathering of world leaders that Obama & Sarkozy were overhead talking about the distasteful nature of Netanyahu. I will search for that.
Netanyahu is just sulking over the Iran nuclear deal and you can be rest assured that AIPAC & the Israeli lobby is hard at work to make sure Clinton wins

Appleyard:
Again, stop this your fishing patterns, it only invokes unnecessary discourse. And i see you have tacitly accepted the facts on the MIC, therefore, let that rest in peace!
You do know you deliberately misquoted me? Maybe not what i thought. I said ''whoever runs congress shapes America's foreign policy.'' You know how vibrant that chamber is in US law making history, and its no secret how the Isreali lobby-Hood influences the decision making process about vital international issues, on many occassions. There is no need to cite examples; the list is almost endless.

The fact that they couldn't have their way regarding Iran, does not in any way deny the strong grip they had over the law making process-vis US foreign policies. Iran was always a mission impossible. Why? Because the required ''degree of responsiveness of the populace'' was in the negetive. Let me explain!

In the US, throughout the history of America's political and economic life, as hijacked and controlled by the elites, call them diabolic, greedy banksters, Satanist, the globalist, or whatever you want: no matter how strong they are, how diabolic, or gruesome in acts and in omission, there is always one thing they fear, one that in a way keep them in check; The Fear of the People.
No government however powerful, that is more powerful than the collective will of his people. When the collective will of a people is challenged under a given situation that involves the government as the reason for the conflict, if that will became divided, with half or more than half siding with the state, the ruling class and their governmental machinery will continue having their way as long as possible, due to the acquiesence of the notable or majority divide, and it's evil ways would become more legitimate, since legitimacy is derived from the people.
But if the reverse is the case, no matter how sophisticated, how cruel and powerful that government may be, it would eventually get crushed and dethroned, though many would die before the dawn breaks. The sanctity of this doctrine is enshrined in natural law, and where it is further given credence by positive law (legislation,) it's tenacity as a brazen reality becomes the more hardened and incontrovertible. This is exactly what the American people represent (the 1st and 2nd Amendments & The Bill of Rights quickly comes to mind.)

To say that the elites-ruling class, are afraid of the people, is not an exaggeration. That's why the NSA is massively spying on its own people. That's why it has been signed as law that foreign troops can be deployed into the country in case of a 'massive unrest.' That's why they had to sensored Putin's speech so the people don't get to know what was being revealed. That's why they have to lie to the people in so much that when suspicion set in, they resort to ''false flag'' operations like 9/11, to keep them in line.

Now, 9/11 was a false reality created to pave the way for the thrust against Iraq and the Talibans. They needed it for the people to fall in. Despite some protest and lack of credible evidence, majority of Americans supported the wars, after Bush gave a resounding speech chocolated with mouth gaping lies, the Elites went to war. The degree of responsiveness of the populace was positively elicited! It was mission successful. But when d economic realities later sets in, much of the people started to view life in a different perspective. The realisation that Iraq never had any weapon of mass destruction, was the last straw that broke the carmel's back. They have had enough! Never again would they easily fall for such craps. Infact, from there on, especially when the holes in 9/11 started filtering in, the people began to see d government as ''an enemy.'' And what happened in Hammond was a symbol of this reality. The awakening is gradually developing symptoms. The goverment knew, and b4 it gets to maturity, the guns must be taken away. And here comes gun control.

All i have been trying to say is that Isreal sees Iran as a strategic threat to its existence, and thus have made it no secret to invade Iran. But they can't go it alone without the US. Here lies the problem! Most Americans don't want to hear of wars anymore, and though the Jews have a strong lobbyHood and emotional/orthodox sympathisers within the ranks of the legislative houses, the fact remains that they still have to answer to the people who are still licking their wounded memories. The positive response was never there, and d Jews couldn't have their way this time!
The ill rapport with Obama who sympathises with Islam, didnt help matters, coupled with the fact that the Iraq memories are still very fresh, Obama had his way, and he won!

There are other reasons, though, as to why they couldn't stop it. But the fact remains that Jewish interests largely dictates US Foreign policies!

Give @Appleyard a slice of Ukraine & Missy89.

NairaMinted:
At this rate, I believe Netanyahu is hoping that Clinton - a life long, die hard Israel supporter - lands the Democratic Party nomination and then the presidency.
I feel Obama and Netanyahu personally don't like each other and I believe there was a time at a gathering of world leaders that Obama & Sarkozy were overhead talking about the distasteful nature of Netanyahu. I will search for that.
Netanyahu is just sulking over the Iran nuclear deal and you can be rest assured that AIPAC & the Israeli lobby is hard at work to make sure Clinton wins

Not entirely true

If israel want anyone to tear up the Iran deal, they will have to look for a candidate in the GOP. Hilary already gave a tacit support and won't want to ruin obama's legacy since it might split the party or even ruin her chance of winning in november

The jewish lobby is not even a monolith and the liberal side already support the deal. Aipac already lost the fight since they have been unable to get a two third majority in the senate to block it.

So if aipac supports hilary like you think, it won't change anything at all.

NairaMinted:
At this rate, I believe Netanyahu is hoping that Clinton - a life long, die hard Israel supporter - lands the Democratic Party nomination and then the presidency.
I feel Obama and Netanyahu personally don't like each other and I believe there was a time at a gathering of world leaders that Obama & Sarkozy were overhead talking about the distasteful nature of Netanyahu. I will search for that.
Netanyahu is just sulking over the Iran nuclear deal and you can be rest assured that AIPAC & the Israeli lobby is hard at work to make sure Clinton wins

Yea. I think I remember the incident. happened in 2012, if I'm not mistaken.
Sarkozy was overheard on hidden speakers telling Obama that he can't stand Netanyahu, that his lies are too much.
Obama was like:
Oh, just that? It so happens that I have to deal with his lies everyday!


**Back to topic*
I'm not surprised that this is happening.
As someone remarked, it is clear that both men share a mutual hatred for each other.

Let the lobbying (for an Israeli-friendly candidate) begin!
seems like the Republicans are gonna get AIPAC's support.

Missy89:


Not entirely true

If israel want anyone to tear up the Iran deal, they will have to look for a candidate in the GOP. Hilary already gave a tacit support and won't want to ruin obama's legacy since it might split the party or even ruin her chance of winning in november

I am afraid you do not know who Clinton really is. She's gonna overturn everything Obama worked for:

https://www.facebook.com/philip.e.taylor.75/videos/10205741040146734/

Missy89:


The system is already stacked up against Trump. The proportional delegate count in early primary race is designed to prevent ochlocracy in the first place. Angry voters and far right/left electorates have always existed in both parties but there is no doubt that the two party/ presidential system means most American electorates are moderates.

If there were few candidates in the first place, Trump wont even be news anymore. His base within the party is still 30-40% (not enough to win nationally). I dont see him winning for now anyway.

Trump's support is growing even so that Democrats are moving over to the GOP just to ensure he gets to the White House. This 30-40% support base, you should know by now no longer holds true.

Like I have always said, I do not care any bit for who Americans elect as president as the puppeteers remain the same as the puppets themselves get changed every 4 years. But in the perhaps misguided hope for change, I support Sanders and should be fail to get nominated, Trump is my next choice.

NairaMinted:


Trump's support is growing even so that Democrats are moving over to the GOP just to ensure he gets to the White House. This 30-40% support base, you should know by now no longer holds true.

Like I have always said, I do not care any bit for who Americans elect as president as the puppeteers remain the same as the puppets themselves get changed every 4 years. But in the perhaps misguided hope for change, I support Sanders and should be fail to get nominated, Trump is my next choice.

Trump has won 15 states so far. His biggest percentage win was in Massachusetts (49% and a blue state) That is not even half. so tell me how the 30-40% base isnt true.

8 of the primaries have been open as well. So if democrats and independents are voting for him like you claim, it is not showing in the final results

Missy89:


Trump has won 15 states so far. His biggest percentage win was in Massachusetts (49% and a blue state) That is not even half. so tell me how the 30-40% base isnt true.

8 of the primaries have been open as well. So if democrats and independents are voting for him like you claim, it is not showing in the final results

Relax. Shebi it's delegates going the voting now abi?

NairaMinted:


Relax. Shebi it's delegates going the voting now abi?

Gibberish

Missy89:



That is a big oversimplification thou.

There a too many factors to consider. Politics, simple economics among other things. The F35 is an example. It is now too big to kill because many members of congress depend on those jobs for their constituents. Same thing with most shipyards in virginia for example.

It is not only an American problem. In the last decade, most contries are expanding their MIC, is Israel controlling those too?

Big PMCs and defence contractors have a part to play too since their existence depends on a big MIC.

Money is just one part of a huge complex.

I concur but the Jewish conspiracy is so thick it's hard to dispel.

Missy89:


Are you writing a book?

You said whoever controls congress shapes US policies. And now you are saying " even if they didn't get their way with iran they still control us foreign policy"

Now my question to you is this: if they couldn't have their way with us policy regarding iran ( one of the most important issue to israel apart from palestine) are you over simplifying the situation? Or are they incompetent?

Again , you are making much ado about nothing.

Call it a book or even ecyclopaedia, what i did was just explain at lenght a major reason why the Israeli lobbyHood and all of it's sympathisers in the US legislative arm, couldn't get their way on Iran. One thing i have found in you is that you like living in denial, and perhaps, this is the only blemish on your golden robe of critical analysis.

Tying down Isreal's inability to invade Iran Using the US, or failure to stop the nuclear deal with Iran, as the yardstick in determining the degree of Isreal's needs infuencing US FP, is a very weak argument to begin with.
Even the most dumbest US citizen knows that the political and strategic life of Israel is one of the major pinnacle that informs the basics and direction of US foreign Policy. This much was even made clear by Ted Cruz in a speech during a recent campaign, in which he stated that '' the needs of Israel must continue to form an integral part of US foreign policy, and that the US must continue to defend Israel.'' Guess what happened after that... He received a standing ovation, followed by complimentary comments from thousands upon thousands of Americans both present and from around the States. Why? Because he just stated and reiterated a well entrenched conservative doctrine governing US F.P.

But that's where the
problem lies.

That's why he will Never win, and that's why Trump may coast to victory! Most Americans are tired of war and rumours of war. Tired of the ''death trap'' that's the MidEast. Tired of the MIC and US military ops outside the country. And this is exactly what the likes of Ted Cruz and the Criminal Hitlary Clinton represents.

You need to see the huge wave of support that swung Trump's way after making his Moslem ban speech, and his vow to stay neutral on the Isreali Palestine issue, as well as meddling ties with the likes of Russia. I can still recall his speech: ''what a hell do we need war with Russia for?''
This is why the man will coast to victory, cos Americans are fed up with all the bullshits (No wonder they are calling for his assasination.) These are facts, and not over simplifying!

Am even surprised that you are actually arguing this. Pls read the work of John J. Mearsheimer on ''The Israeli Lobby and US foreign policy.''

The fact that they could not get their way with Iran, does not in any way implies incompetency on their part. In fact, it was also due to the powerful arm of this notorious Israeli lobby that influences America's decision, inter alia, to impose sanctions on Iran, at the first place. Iran was NEVER A SECURITYTHREAT to Pentagon, at any time. Even the poorest American sergent know that to be true. I can't help but laugh when i hear people classifying Iran as a security risk to the US. Everything was virtually for Israel's interest.

The odds was always against Isreal on Iran. Militarily, they would have invaded if Tehran was sharing borders with the city of David, but unfortunately, Iran is miles away from Israel's full ground might, and the Jews doesn't possess much of the required conventional tenacity/will to fight a prolong war for which Iran is known for. Nor does it possess the sheer size and complete conventional might, like the US, to invade Iran for a quick victory. It was never going to be easy, since Iran is no Somalia or Idi Amin's Uganda. Without the US, it is a Herculian task for the sons of Abraham.

The IDF job is to prepare itself for the possibility of an attack against Iran's nuclear facilities. But regarding such a scenario also revolves around operative questions like: will the Americans provide Israel with an airspace corridor over Iran? How many fuel jets will be required? Etc.
The important question is how willing the U.S. is to protect or aid Israel in the event of a counter attack or war with Iran. The message Israel is getting from Obama's administration at this time is that it is out of the question - and thus the likelihood of an Israeli attack on Iran diminishes drastically. The US under Obama was never ready for war, (which is one of the reasons he got elected,) and he made that clear right from day one on his campaign, and his stance on Afghan further reiterated that position. Plus the fact that he has over time demonstrated conciliatory tendency towards islam; all of these formed the bases why the Jews could not get their way on Iran.

It was never out of incompetence!

The truth is bitter, but we must live it!

NairaMinted:
At this rate, I believe Netanyahu is hoping that Clinton - a life long, die hard Israel supporter - lands the Democratic Party nomination and then the presidency.
I feel Obama and Netanyahu personally don't like each other and I believe there was a time at a gathering of world leaders that Obama & Sarkozy were overhead talking about the distasteful nature of Netanyahu. I will search for that.
Netanyahu is just sulking over the Iran nuclear deal and you can be rest assured that AIPAC & the Israeli lobby is hard at work to make sure Clinton wins

You are correct. Obama told French Man that Netanyaho is a liar. That he can't stand it any longer. But i think it was the current French prime minister.

Appleyard:


Again , you are making much ado about nothing.


Tying down Isreal's inability to invade Iran Using the US, or failure to stop the nuclear deal with Iran, as the yardstick in determining the degree of Isreal's needs infuencing US FP, is a very weak argument to begin with.
Even the most dumbest US citizen knows that the political and strategic life of Israel is one of the major pinnacle that informs the basics and direction of US foreign Policy. This much was even made clear by Ted Cruz in a speech during a recent campaign, in which he stated that '' the needs of Israel must continue to form an integral part of US foreign policy, and that the US must continue to defend Israel.'' Guess what happened after that... He received a standing ovation, followed by complimentary comments from thousands upon thousands of Americans both present and from around the States. Why? Because he just stated and reiterated a well entrenched conservative doctrine governing US F.P.

You called the failure to stop the Iran nuclear deal a weak argument but you turn around and cite Ted Cruz speech ( A senator that hold no authority to set policy) to support your narrative and even cited people standing up to clap to buttress your ridiculous argument. So we should disregard real time policy for a political rhetoric and a round of applause ?

The fact that they could not get their way with Iran, does not in any way implies incompetency on their part. In fact, it was also due to the powerful arm of this notorious Israeli lobby that influences America's decision, inter alia, to impose sanctions on Iran, at the first place. Iran was NEVER A SECURITYTHREAT to Pentagon, at any time. Even the poorest American sergent know that to be true. I can't help but laugh when i hear people classifying Iran as a security risk to the US. Everything was virtually for Israel's interest.

This does not make any sense. You said whoever control the US congress shapes US policy. I asked why the republican control congress is unable to shape Obama's Iran policy. You went on a rant that doesn't make any sense. you said

The fact that they couldn't get their way does not imply incompetency, it was due to the powerful arm on the notorious Israel lobby that influence Americas decision . blah blah

In other words you are saying since Israel lobby controls US policy, If the US deescalate and have a deal, it is still being influenced by the same group of people that lobbied for the sanctions in the first place. Even thou they have voiced their opposition, they are still somehow pulling the strings behind closed doors. Ludicrous logic

The rest of the post doesn't need a response. But i will give you credit. At least you try to mask your crankery with superfluous rhetoric unlike your buddies

Appleyard:
You are correct. Obama told French Man that Netanyaho is a liar. That he can't stand it any longer. But i think it was the current French prime minister.

It was Sarkozy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM7npiGd0IU

For the possibility of a detente with Russia (as suggested by Trump himself) though, I'm sorta flirting with the idea of a Trump presidency. The fracas in Chicago last night if for anything will only garner him more support.

An argument why Trump may very well be the lesser of two evils.

Wall Street and Corporate America, interventionist and failed foreign policies, Iran/Russia rhetoric and stance, Benghazi and the email scandal, etc

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/03/11/the-electoral-choice-from-hell/

[size=18pt]The Electoral Choice from Hell[/size]
March 11, 2016


The prospect of a Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump general election is nightmarish for Americans who see Clinton as a warmonger and Trump as a demagogue, but William Blum sees Trump as the lesser danger.

By William Blum

If the American presidential election winds up with Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump, and my passport is confiscated, and I’m somehow FORCED to choose one or the other, or I’m PAID to do so, paid well … I would vote for Trump.

My main concern is foreign policy. American foreign policy is the greatest threat to world peace, prosperity, and the environment. And when it comes to foreign policy, Hillary Clinton is an unholy disaster. From Iraq and Syria to Libya and Honduras the world is a much worse place because of her; so much so that I’d call her a war criminal who should be prosecuted.


Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
And not much better can be expected on domestic issues from this woman who was paid $675,000 by Goldman Sachs – one of the most reactionary, anti-social corporations in this sad world – for three speeches and even more than that in political donations in recent years. Add to that Hillary’s willingness to serve for six years on the board of Walmart while her husband was governor of Arkansas. Can we expect to change corporate behavior by taking their money?

The Los Angeles Times ran an editorial the day after the multiple primary elections of March 1 which began: “Donald Trump is not fit to be president of the United States,” and then declared: “The reality is that Trump has no experience whatsoever in government.”

When I need to have my car fixed I look for a mechanic with experience with my type of auto. When I have a medical problem I prefer a doctor who specializes in the part of my body that’s ill. But when it comes to politicians, experience means nothing. The only thing that counts is the person’s ideology.

Who would you sooner vote for, a person with 30 years in Congress who doesn’t share your political and social views at all, is even hostile to them, or someone who has never held public office before but is an ideological comrade on every important issue? Clinton’s 12 years in high government positions carries no weight with me.

The Times continued about Trump: “He has shamefully little knowledge of the issues facing the country and the world.”

Again, knowledge is trumped (no pun intended) by ideology. As Secretary of State (January 2009-February 2013), with great access to knowledge, Clinton played a key role in the 2011 destruction of Libya’s modern and secular welfare state, sending it crashing in utter chaos into a failed state, leading to the widespread dispersal throughout North African and Middle East hotspots of the gigantic arsenal of weaponry that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi had accumulated. Libya is now a haven for terrorists, from al Qaeda to ISIS, whereas Gaddafi had been a leading foe of terrorists.

What good did Secretary of State Clinton’s knowledge do? It was enough for her to know that Gaddafi’s Libya, for several reasons, would never be a properly obedient client state of Washington. Thus it was that the United States, along with NATO, bombed the people of Libya almost daily for more than six months, giving as an excuse that Gaddafi was about to invade Benghazi, the Libyan center of his opponents, and so the United States was thus saving the people of that city from a massacre.

The American people and the American media of course swallowed this story, though no convincing evidence of the alleged impending massacre has ever been presented. (The nearest thing to an official U.S. government account of the matter – a Congressional Research Service report on events in Libya for the period – makes no mention at all of the threatened massacre.) [“Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy”, updated March 4, 2016]

The Western intervention in Libya was one that the New York Times said Clinton had “championed”, convincing Obama in “what was arguably her moment of greatest influence as secretary of state.”

All the knowledge she was privy to did not keep her from this disastrous mistake in Libya. And the same can be said about her support of placing regime change in Syria ahead of supporting the Syrian government in its struggle against ISIS and other terrorist groups. Even more disastrous was the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq which she as a senator supported. Both policies were of course clear violations of international law and the UN Charter.

Another foreign-policy “success” of Mrs. Clinton, which her swooning followers will ignore, the few that even know about it, is the coup ousting the moderately progressive Manuel Zelaya of Honduras in June, 2009. A tale told many times in Latin America.

The downtrodden masses finally put into power a leader committed to reversing the status quo, determined to try to put an end to up to two centuries of oppression … and before long the military overthrows the democratically-elected government, while the United States – if not the mastermind behind the coup – does nothing to prevent it or to punish the coup regime, as only the United States can punish; meanwhile Washington officials pretend to be very upset over this “affront to democracy”. (See Mark Weisbrot’s “[url=Top Ten Ways You Can Tell Which Side The United States Government is On With Regard to the Military Coup in Honduras[/url]”.)

In her 2014 memoir, Hard Choices, Clinton reveals just how unconcerned she was about restoring Zelaya to his rightful office: “In the subsequent days [after the coup] I spoke with my counterparts around the hemisphere … We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot.”

The question of Zelaya was anything but moot. Latin American leaders, the United Nations General Assembly, and other international bodies vehemently demanded his immediate return to office. Washington, however, quickly resumed normal diplomatic relations with the new right-wing police state, and Honduras has since become a major impetus for the child migrants currently pouring into the United States.

The headline from Time magazine’s report on Honduras at the close of that year (December 3, 2009) summed it up as follows: “Obama’s Latin America Policy Looks Like Bush’s”.

And Hillary Clinton looks like a conservative. And has for many years; going back to at least the 1980s, while the wife of the Arkansas governor, when she strongly supported the death-squad torturers known as the Contras, who were the empire’s proxy army in Nicaragua. [See Roger Morris, former member of the National Security Council, Partners in Power (1996), p.415. For a comprehensive look at Hillary Clinton, see the new book by Diane Johnstone, Queen of Chaos.]

Then, during the 2007 presidential primary, America’s venerable conservative magazine, William Buckley’s National Review, ran an editorial by Bruce Bartlett. Bartlett was a policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan, a treasury official under President George H.W. Bush, and a fellow at two of the leading conservative think-tanks, the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute – You get the picture?

Bartlett tells his readers that it’s almost certain that the Democrats will win the White House in 2008. So what to do? Support the most conservative Democrat. He writes: “To right-wingers willing to look beneath what probably sounds to them like the same identical views of the Democratic candidates, it is pretty clear that Hillary Clinton is the most conservative.”

During the same primary we also heard from America’s leading magazine for the corporate wealthy, Fortune, with a cover featuring a picture of Mrs. Clinton and the headline: “Business Loves Hillary”.

And what do we have in 2016? Fully 116 members of the Republican Party’s national security community, many of them veterans of Bush administrations, have signed an open letter threatening that, if Trump is nominated, they will all desert, and some will defect – to Hillary Clinton!

“Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin,” says Eliot Cohen of the Bush II State Department. Cohen helped line up neocons to sign the “Dump-Trump” manifesto. Another signer, foreign-policy ultra-conservative author Robert Kagan, declared: “The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton.”

The only choice? What’s wrong with Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate? … Oh, I see, not conservative enough.

And Mr. Trump? Much more a critic of U.S. foreign policy than Hillary or Bernie. He speaks of Russia and Vladimir Putin as positive forces and allies, and would be much less likely to go to war against Moscow than Clinton would. He declares that he would be “evenhanded” when it comes to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (as opposed to Clinton’s boundless support of Israel). He’s opposed to calling Senator John McCain a “hero”, because he was captured. (What other politician would dare say a thing like that?)

He calls Iraq “a complete disaster”, condemning not only George W. Bush but the neocons who surrounded him. “They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.” He even questions the idea that “Bush kept us safe”, and adds that “Whether you like Saddam or not, he used to kill terrorists.”

Yes, he’s personally obnoxious. I’d have a very hard time being his friend. Who cares?

William Blum is an author, historian, and renowned critic of U.S. foreign policy. He is the author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II and Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower, among others. [This article originally appeared at the Anti-Empire Report, http://williamblum.org/ .]

Missy89:


You called the failure to stop the Iran nuclear deal a weak argument but you turn around and cite Ted Cruz speech ( A senator that hold no authority to set policy) to support your narrative and even cited people standing up to clap to buttress your ridiculous argument. So we should disregard real time policy for a political rhetoric and a round of applause?:

Ted Cruz simply reiterated what has always been a major part of US Foreign Policy. Needless to say he is an influential personality.

This does not make any sense. You said whoever control the US congress shapes US policy. I asked why the republican control congress is unable to shape Obama's Iran policy. You went on a rant that doesn't make any sense. you said

The fact that they couldn't get their way does not imply incompetency, it was due to the powerful arm on the notorious Israel lobby that influence Americas decision . blah blah

In other words you are saying since Israel lobby controls US policy, If the US deescalate and have a deal, it is still being influenced by the same group of people that lobbied for the sanctions in the first place. Even thou they have voiced their opposition, they are still somehow pulling the strings behind closed doors. Ludicrous logic.

Now i know why you mostly get on the wrong side of Sir Shymmex I gave you the simple reasons why the jews couldn't stop the Nuclear deal or have their way with Iran, and you didn't even provide any form of counter argument, other than dancing on the wavelenghts of repeatition - asking the same question over and over again. Na wa for you o, Missy.

The rest of the post doesn't need a response. But i will give you credit. At least you try to mask your crankery with superfluous rhetoric unlike your buddies

Take it or leave it, my lady. The needs of Israel as a nation shapes American Foreign Policy. If you don't believe it, do a simple online survey and see the numbers of Americans who knows the Jews infuences US Foreign Policy, ditto the MidEast.



Lest i forget: i hope you know Trump is winning? So get ready because people like you would get kicked out alongside Obama. ;-) I will personally recommend you, my dear Missy89. You know i need you to take care of the kitchen and tend to my Siberian projects at Igbudu Market in Warri. :-P Hope you won't get mad at me? ;-)