Source: Jerusalem Post

In a sign of growing concern in Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's government over US President Barack Obama's Middle East policies, Minister-without-Portfolio Yossi Peled proposed Israeli sanctions on the US in a letter to cabinet ministers on Sunday.

In the 11-page letter, obtained by The Jerusalem Post from a minister on Monday, Peled recommends steps Israel can take to compensate for the shift in American policy, which he believes has become hostile to Israel.

"Obama's ascendance represents a turning point in America's approach to the region, especially to Israel," he wrote in the letter. "The new administration believes that in order to fight terror, guarantee stability and withdraw from Iraq, a new diplomatic slant is needed involving drastic steps to pacify the Muslim world and the adoption of a more balanced approach to Israel, including intensive pressure to stop building in settlements, remove outposts and advance the formation of a Palestinian state."

Peled added that faced with an American government with an activist agenda that does not mesh with Israel's, traditional reactions are no longer relevant. He said he expected that Obama would eventually realize that appeasement and dialogue with countries that support terror would not have positive results.

In what may be his most controversial suggestion, Peled recommends intervening in American congressional races to weaken Obama and asking American Jewish donors not to contribute to Democratic congressional candidates. He predicted that this would result in Democratic candidates pressuring Obama to become more pro-Israel.

Peled called for the formation of a new body intended to influence American public opinion. The groups he suggests courting include Hispanic Americans and Labor unions in industries that benefit from Israeli military acquisitions.

A former OC Northern Command, Peled is considered part of the left flank of the Likud that includes ministers Dan Meridor and Michael Eitan. Unlike Environment Minister Gilad Erdan, he does not have a history of openly criticizing American policies and unlike Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz, he does not have personal ties to the Republican Party.

Peled told the Post on Monday that he still hoped common ground could be found with the Obama administration, but just in case that did not happen, Israel must be ready.

"We must make every effort to maintain our relationship with the US and I respect Obama, but Israel has its own interests and we have to know what our alternatives are," Peled said. "I don't think what I suggest is vengeful. I just think that even a superpower must behave like a partner."

In what may be his most controversial suggestion, Peled recommends intervening in American congressional races to weaken Obama and asking American Jewish donors not to contribute to Democratic congressional candidates. He predicted that this would result in Democratic candidates pressuring Obama to become more pro-Israel.

Peled called for the formation of a new body intended to influence American public opinion. The groups he suggests courting include Hispanic Americans and Labor unions in industries that benefit from Israeli military acquisitions.

A former OC Northern Command, Peled is considered part of the left flank of the Likud that includes ministers Dan Meridor and Michael Eitan. Unlike Environment Minister Gilad Erdan, he does not have a history of openly criticizing American policies and unlike Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz, he does not have personal ties to the Republican Party.

Peled told the Post on Monday that he still hoped common ground could be found with the Obama administration, but just in case that did not happen, Israel must be ready.

"We must make every effort to maintain our relationship with the US and I respect Obama, but Israel has its own interests and we have to know what our alternatives are," Peled said. "I don't think what I suggest is vengeful. I just think that even a superpower must behave like a partner."

But in the interim, the minister suggests reconsidering military and civilian purchases from the US, selling sensitive equipment that the Washington opposes distributing internationally, and allowing other countries that compete with the US to get involved with the peace process and be given a foothold for their military forces and intelligence agencies.

Read more: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=124437104656...

fudge israel. i hope they do it. without US support, that disgusting babykilling operation masquerading as a nation will starve in a fortnight, and good riddance, too. i've thoroughly had it with israel. they're a genocidal stain on the planet, and if there's an ounce of justice in the world -- which i doubt -- the citizens of israel will suffer many, many torments for the disgusting, subhuman treatment to which they've subjected the gazans, and just about all nonbelievers near them.

i invite israel to fade into the dustbin of history. just like the nazis before them, whom they imitate today, israel has no reason to exist and nothing whatever to offer the rest of the world except misery and death.

fudge israel. i hope they do it. without US support, that disgusting babykilling operation masquerading as a nation will starve in a fortnight, and good riddance, too. i've thoroughly had it with israel. they're a genocidal stain on the planet, and if there's an ounce of justice in the world -- which i doubt -- the citizens of israel will suffer many, many torments for the disgusting, subhuman treatment to which they've subjected the gazans, and just about all nonbelievers near them.

i invite israel to fade into the dustbin of history. just like the nazis before them, whom they imitate today, israel has no reason to exist and nothing whatever to offer the rest of the world except misery and death.


Everything he said, except about the Arab World.

How diametrically opposed can two people be? Let's find out!

That would really be interesting if Israel imposed sanctions against the U.S. For one thing, what does Israel have that we can't get somewhere else? Also, by doing that, it would basically be suicide for Israel. The U.S. is basically their only ally and if they alienate the U.S., they are in VERY DEEP dodo!



Cat

That would really be interesting if Israel imposed sanctions against the U.S. For one thing, what does Israel have that we can't get somewhere else? Also, by doing that, it would basically be suicide for Israel. The U.S. is basically their only ally and if they alienate the U.S., they are in VERY DEEP dodo!



Cat
i was thinking that too. sanctions? wtf? since when has israel made anything other than filled bodybags?

i was thinking that too. sanctions? wtf? since when has israel made anything other than filled bodybags?


They've made the Middle East more peaceful by taking out their fair share of future terrorists.

They've made the Middle East more peaceful by taking out their fair share of future terrorists.


The best thing about this post is that you wrote it with a straight face :)

I'm hoping this results in more distance between us and Israel.  The more distance, the better....

I got a sense of deja-vu reading the OP.  :D


i was thinking that too. sanctions? wtf? since when has israel made anything other than filled bodybags?


I recently bought a toolbox made in Israel. Dead body not included.

Ant

I recently bought a toolbox made in Israel. Dead body not included.

Ant



Do you feel gypped?



Cat

The best thing about this post is that you wrote it with a straight face :)


Hate is a powerful force my friend.

Do you feel gypped?



Cat


More like Jew'd out of my money.

(that was bad, but I couldn't resist).

Antisemetic

(that one either).

Israeli a good toolbox.

(better stop here...).

Obama didn't even say anything against Israel; in fact, what he said affirmed America's allegiance to Israel.  He did say the state of Israel needed to crack down on the illegal settlements, which they're supposed to be doing anyway.  The U.S. would be well within its rights to impose sanctions on Israel for that state's dishonest dealings.  Peled should go for beers with Newt Gingrich.  Same kind of semi-psychotic arrogance.
::)

Everything he said, except about the Arab World.

How diametrically opposed can two people be? Let's find out!


In all honesty, I don't know how either of you support either side.

When looking at it historically, both Israel and the Arabs have done a lot of bad things to each other.

This is why I support neither group.  America would be best off letting them kill each other.

More like Jew'd out of my money.

Eh? Jew'd?
Don't make it bad..

Eh? Jew'd?
Don't make it bad..


**groans**

::)

In all honesty, I don't know how either of you support either side.

When looking at it historically, both Israel and the Arabs have done a lot of bad things to each other.

This is why I support neither group.  America would be best off letting them kill each other.
i guess the distinction is that my government supports one side, so i feel more obligated to make my objections known. i dont know of anyone who supports suicide bombings, and i'd feel a little silly pointing out that they're wrong. but israel's and the US's conduct is veiled in such hypocrisy.

i guess the distinction is that my government supports one side, so i feel more obligated to make my objections known. i dont know of anyone who supports suicide bombings, and i'd feel a little silly pointing out that they're wrong. but israel's and the US's conduct is veiled in such hypocrisy.


True...  but a lot of other countries support the Palestinians, or more specifically, extremists among the Palestinians.

Apparently, a lot of the Islamic World's idea of helping involves funneling funds and arms to groups like Hezbollah.

True...  but a lot of other countries support the Palestinians, or more specifically, extremists among the Palestinians.

Apparently, a lot of the Islamic World's idea of helping involves funneling funds and arms to groups like Hezbollah.

That's one of the things that makes it so sad: if people were actually supporting the Palestinian people, they (the Palestinian,s that is) would not be in the state they're in.. instead, they're supporting the people who force them to stay in the state they're in.  If you see what I mean.

That's one of the things that makes it so sad: if people were actually supporting the Palestinian people, they (the Palestinian,s that is) would not be in the state they're in.. instead, they're supporting the people who force them to stay in the state they're in.  If you see what I mean.




Pretty much.

Basically, Israel is our proxy, and the Palestinians are the proxy for countries like Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon.

Israel is the the Occident's most important strategic ally in the region, and has probably saved the US's ass countless times through intelligence collection and sharing. I ask myself how many potential 9/11's Mossad has helped the US to avert. The world will probably never know.

If your hearts bleed for the casualties (of one side) of an ethnic struggle half-way across the world, so be it. But to say that Israel is a babykilling operation masquerading as a nation... well, if that's not the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is.

I remember some years ago, I used to buy these cheap plastic razors that were made in Israel which I thought were pretty good value for money.

Israel is the the Occident's most important strategic ally in the region, and has probably saved the US's ass countless times through intelligence collection and sharing. I ask myself how many potential 9/11's Mossad has helped the US to avert. The world will probably never know.

If your hearts bleed for the casualties (of one side) of an ethnic struggle half-way across the world, so be it. But to say that Israel is a babykilling operation masquerading as a nation... well, if that's not the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is.

i definitely wouldnt put an ounce of daylight between israel and the US govt where the babykilling is concerned. they are of one mind when it comes to judging arabs as second-class human beings. if that's what you mean by the pot-and-kettle thing, i certainly wouldnt associate myself with my country's foreign policy just because i have the misfortune to live in america at a time when the nation has completely lost its way.

and statistically speaking, the casualties ARE essentially all on one side. so i feel pretty comfortable only heartbleeding for the one side of the conflict.

i definitely wouldnt put an ounce of daylight between israel and the US govt where the babykilling is concerned. they are of one mind when it comes to judging arabs as second-class human beings. if that's what you mean by the pot-and-kettle thing, i certainly wouldnt associate myself with my country's foreign policy just because i have the misfortune to live in america at a time when the nation has completely lost its way.

and statistically speaking, the casualties ARE essentially all on one side. so i feel pretty comfortable only heartbleeding for the one side of the conflict.


Barry Dunsmore, a former U.S. diplomat in the region and occasional writer in our local paper, wrote today of a conversation he once had with an Israeli diplomat who compared their West Bank strategy to our own.  We told people to go west, and when Indians attacked them we sent the army to kill Indians.  That's how "the west was won".  Dunsmore added "He could have concluded the thought with "And that's how the West Bank will be won"".

That would really be interesting if Israel imposed sanctions against the U.S. For one thing, what does Israel have that we can't get somewhere else? Also, by doing that, it would basically be suicide for Israel. The U.S. is basically their only ally and if they alienate the U.S., they are in VERY DEEP dodo!



Cat


A-men...

Far as I am concerned the US should tell Israel to go take a flying leap.  Our unconditional support for Israel has been the root of much of the hatred that exists in the world today against the USA (not all of it mind you, but a major factor).

As President I would for starters cut off all diplomatic relations until we received an apology and reparations for the USS Liberty incident, as well as an official apology for the Jonathan Pollard spying incident.  Next the expanded settlements in the territories would be ceased... not slowed... STOPPED.

Then I might consider diplomatic relations with those wankers.

i definitely wouldnt put an ounce of daylight between israel and the US govt where the babykilling is concerned. they are of one mind when it comes to judging arabs as second-class human beings. if that's what you mean by the pot-and-kettle thing, i certainly wouldnt associate myself with my country's foreign policy just because i have the misfortune to live in america at a time when the nation has completely lost its way.

and statistically speaking, the casualties ARE essentially all on one side. so i feel pretty comfortable only heartbleeding for the one side of the conflict.


Well, it looks like North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan might be on our list, so Arabs aren't our targets at the moment now.  I can't say I'd feel bad if we "took care" of any of those 3 though.

Well, it looks like North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan might be on our list,
any idea how we're gonna pay to go bombing three more countries, when iraq has bankrupted us already?

any idea how we're gonna pay to go bombing three more countries, when iraq has bankrupted us already?


Given the current economic situation, it is apparent that war was not the cause of our current financial problems but rather the deregulation of banking and the deregulation of Fannie Mae.

Given the current economic situation, it is apparent that war was not the cause of our current financial problems but rather the deregulation of banking and the deregulation of Fannie Mae.
ever hear of the term "overdetermination"? the deregulation of the banks in combination with pissing away a trillion dollars on a useless war together caused our current economic problem. things dont necessarily have only one cause.

ever hear of the term "overdetermination"? the deregulation of the banks in combination with pissing away a trillion dollars on a useless war together caused our current economic problem. things dont necessarily have only one cause.


So far, there is little evidence for that.  Most of the financial damage to our economy began long before the second Iraq war and had little to do with war in general or even military spending.  While it is true that we probably spend more than we should on the military, other institutions cost far more to our system and financial stability.  These institutions being things like Social Security and Medicare.

The second Iraq war was one of the most expensive wars we've fought in recent times, but the bailouts dwarf war costs and military spending.

Had we properly regulated banking and Fannie Mae, we wouldn't be in our current situation, because the war debts were large but manageable.

What isn't manageable is having an economy with flimsy banking institutions and an ailing currency due to long held debts.

Now, admittedly, not having invaded Iraq would've certainly helped things, but it was not the straw that broke the camel's back.  The irresponsible actions of the private sector did that, which were partially inspired by the CRA and the Gramm-Leach-Billey Act.

Now, admittedly, not having invaded Iraq would've certainly helped things, but it was not the straw that broke the camel's back.  The irresponsible actions of the private sector did that, which were partially inspired by the CRA and the Gramm-Leach-Billey Act.

right. the economy didn't collapse because of a trillion-dollar war. it collapsed because of a bill that got passed in 1977.  ;D yeah, i've heard that one too.

the same thing happened after vietnam, the economy went into the complete tank and stayed there throughout the 70s and into the early 80s because of the massive resources we wasted in southeast asia. and iraq caused the same thing again. long, debilitating wars break economies. one of these days we'll learn, war isn't nearly as fun and profitable as we seem to think.

right. the economy didn't collapse because of a trillion-dollar war. it collapsed because of a bill that got passed in 1977.  ;D yeah, i've heard that one too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

It was passed in 1999.  It opened the door for much more risky behavior on the part of banks involving investments and leveraging.

By the way, the most recent figures on the occupation of Iraq stand at about $678 billion.  That's still quite a bit less than a trillion.  It's also a lot less than the total of the bailouts.

the same thing happened after vietnam, the economy went into the complete tank and stayed there throughout the 70s and into the early 80s because of the massive resources we wasted in southeast asia. and iraq caused the same thing again. long, debilitating wars break economies. one of these days we'll learn, war isn't nearly as fun and profitable as we seem to think.


The Vietnam War was certainly not a fiscally wise decision, but to use that one war as an argument against war itself is very fallacious in its logic.  WW2 helped pull us out of the Great Depression, for example.

It depends on how a war is funded and fought as to how it affects the economy.  The main reasons the second Iraq war did not benefit our economy were because it was not a large enough scale war and the cost-plus contracts for third party reconstruction companies were abused.  Had the war been larger and the contracts better managed, our economy would have grown as a result of the war.

By the way, the most recent figures on the occupation of Iraq stand at about $678 billion.  
that figure doesn't include a lot of veteran care, lost wages, etc. and the bailouts are largely notional exchanges and lines of credit. the cost of the iraq war consists of actual labor and resources being poured into making actual war machinery that, if we're lucky, goes unused and becomes obsolete and, if we're unlucky, is bent to the task of making the US more enemies. it's a complete waste of tangible assets.

i'm not really arguing against "war" per se, but the perpetual, virtually orwellian way the US (and, by extension, the US client state of israel, to get back on topic) wages it is highly destructive not only to our victims, but also to our own country. WWII is obviously a vastly different example than either vietnam or iraq, the latter two wars being wars of an overextended empire in its death rattle. if we were gonna compare the US war in iraq to WWII, for instance, we'd probably be more like the axis than the allies -- bankrupting ourselves in ill-advised and ill-fated invasions and conquests that are more done out of perceived psychological or cultural need than any real quest for ultimate peace or stability.

but yeah, i mean, in WWII in the US labor and industry were actually mobilized and stood up in the interest of the war effort. (and by that i mean the entire national productive sector was expanded -- we instituted a draft, contracted and expanded domestic infrastructure and retooled it for war, etc.) for iraq we just kept shopping, borrowed money from the chinese to foot the tab, and expected to wage the war with our existing volunteer military. (in vietnam there was a draft, of course, but other than that there was scarcely any domestic civilian economic mobilization, either. which is a big part of the reason why that war also bankrupted the nation.

so yeah, totally different situations.

and yes, the GLB act. i was talking about the other one. the one folks use when they try to blame the mortgage crisis on poor blacks. it was passed in '77.

It depends on how a war is funded and fought as to how it affects the economy.  The main reasons the second Iraq war did not benefit our economy were because it was not a large enough scale war and the cost-plus contracts for third party reconstruction companies were abused.  Had the war been larger and the contracts better managed, our economy would have grown as a result of the war.

i agree with this, mostly. although if it hadn't been for the cost-plus contracts and the corruption in the funding the war probably wouldn't have been waged. the contracting process was where all the payola came from for the defense arms contractors and without it, why wage the war? to stop saddam's juggernaut of westward military expansion? sunni, please.  ;D the war racket was similar to the mortgage racket; it made a small number of people very rich at the expense of the rest of us, and in fact that was largely the reason for it.

that figure doesn't include a lot of veteran care, lost wages, etc. and the bailouts are largely notional exchanges and lines of credit. the cost of the iraq war consists of actual labor and resources being poured into making actual war machinery that, if we're lucky, goes unused and becomes obsolete and, if we're unlucky, is bent to the task of making the US more enemies. it's a complete waste of tangible assets.

I disagree.  Most of our intervention is done for strategic purposes.  Some enemies are made, but so are allies.  While it is true that neocons and others try to dress up war in moral terms, the truth is that it's done to extend our trade and military influence.

Considering that we're not the only power that does this sort of thing, I'd rather we extend our influence than have China or Russia move where we won't.

In addition to this, the figure I presented was a high estimate given by http://costofwar.com/

Other more official figures list the cost as lower than theirs, so as far as I can tell, they are including all of the auxiliary expenses you listed.

i'm not really arguing against "war" per se, but the perpetual, virtually orwellian way the US (and, by extension, the US client state of israel, to get back on topic) wages it is highly destructive not only to our victims, but also to our own country. WWII is obviously a vastly different example than either vietnam or iraq, the latter two wars being wars of an overextended empire in its death rattle. if we were gonna compare the US war in iraq to WWII, for instance, we'd probably be more like the axis than the allies -- bankrupting ourselves in ill-advised and ill-fated invasions and conquests that are more done out of perceived psychological or cultural need than any real quest for ultimate peace or stability.

Again, most war is fought to support trade interests or to strategically keep competing powers at a distance.  As long as Russia and China exist, we will always be in competition for resources and influence.

Being isolationist is a nice pipe dream, but it's not realistic.  I'm not exactly a hawk, but I'm not a pacifist either.  Some conflicts we've entered were unnecessary (like Vietnam), but many others were necessary (like Bosnia).

but yeah, i mean, in WWII in the US labor and industry were actually mobilized and stood up in the interest of the war effort. (and by that i mean the entire national productive sector was expanded -- we instituted a draft, contracted and expanded domestic infrastructure and retooled it for war, etc.) for iraq we just kept shopping, borrowed money from the chinese to foot the tab, and expected to wage the war with our existing volunteer military. (in vietnam there was a draft, of course, but other than that there was scarcely any domestic civilian economic mobilization, either. which is a big part of the reason why that war also bankrupted the nation.

But the Iraq War didn't bankrupt us.  Our economy was doing alright until the mortgage crisis hit.  The majority of the blame for our recession can be put on speculative markets.

And again, with WW2, it was a large enough war that it stimulated the economy.  One thing we might actually agree on is that war should be privatized as little as possible, because the more that public funds handle, the more that jobs are created while costs are kept lower.

and yes, the GLB act. i was talking about the other one. the one folks use when they try to blame the mortgage crisis on poor blacks. it was passed in '77.


The initial CRA was not a bad thing; however, the revisions that were made to the bill from 1992 onward became increasingly risky and caused banks to act in reckless ways.

In short, you don't want to set up a situation where banks are encouraged to loan to people who can't afford to pay back their loans.  This helps neither the poor nor the banks.

People should live according to their means.  I'd love to own a house myself, but I realize my monthly expenses don't currently allow it.  That's why I haven't taken out a home loan.

Now, admittedly, ARMs screwed things up too, which is why I mentioned the irresponsible actions of the private sector.  If banks had spent less time trying to screw over the poor and working class with crazy interest rates, then we wouldn't probably be in this situation.

well, looks like we cleared out another thread.  :P

i dunno, i wonder about the strategic influence thing. i mean, yes, obviously iraq and afghanistan are both big squares on the brzezinskian grand chessboard, but it's hard to imagine a benefit to the nation of occupying those countries that outweighs their extraordinary cost. is the US really going to enjoy a one-trillion-dollar (or 800-billion, if you prefer) strategic dividend from occupying iraq? i doubt it. i really get the impression that the military contracts ARE the point of war, at least in terms of the two big ones bush and the republicans started. like i said once, i worked for a couple of defense contractors here in northern virginia a few years ago and iraq/afghanistan was a contracting bonanza for them. lots of fancy cars in the driveway, lots of designer watches and name-brand suits. the wars are more about transferring public wealth to private hands, and viewed in that light, they're kinda part and parcel with the bank bailouts. the two phenomena seem quite different but they have that in common: taxpayer money funneled wholesale into private hands.

course on street level the perception of why we went into iraq is quite different. there was a lot of dog-whistle politics going on, i think; the cliche is that people were mistaken or misinformed and thought that iraq was behind 911, but i'm not so sure about that either. i think a lot of people actually didn't care. they wanted payback for 911, and since the guilty parties were mostly killed in the attacks themselves the only way to get revenge was to kill muslim arabs, whether they were explicitly connected to 911 or not, that part didn't really matter. arabs wacked the trade towers, so the US wacked the arabs. for a lot of people with yellow ribbons and such on their SUVs, it was a thinly veiled racist reprisal killing spree. hooray for freedom!

and the racist thing i think has a lot to do with the support for israel and the anti-palestinian bias too. people automatically assume israel is in the right because they sorta look white and are pretty wealthy. the palestinians are dark and poor. therefore they are also like the 911 terrorists and deserve everything that happens to them. it's the only way i've been able to find to understand how so many israeli apologists can shrug off israel's hand in a conflict with a 100-1 casualty ratio. poorer people with darker skin just have less right to live. you see it here in the US all the time, that attitude, and it's not something to ignore or sweep under the rug just because it's so unpleasant to contemplate. it drives a lot of this stuff, i think, on the populist level.

and the racist thing i think has a lot to do with the support for israel and the anti-palestinian bias too. people automatically assume israel is in the right because they sorta look white and are pretty wealthy. the palestinians are dark and poor. therefore they are also like the 911 terrorists and deserve everything that happens to them. it's the only way i've been able to find to understand how so many israeli apologists can shrug off israel's hand in a conflict with a 100-1 casualty ratio. poorer people with darker skin just have less right to live. you see it here in the US all the time, that attitude, and it's not something to ignore or sweep under the rug just because it's so unpleasant to contemplate. it drives a lot of this stuff, i think, on the populist level.
I'm having a bit of an argument over on another forum about someone like this: someone who seems to think that because Israel won the 6-day war they have the right to grab what land they want and anything the Palestinians do afterwards is just inviting a legitimate reprisal against whoever - the whole concept of justice and people having an equal right to existence just doesn't seem to register at all.  Sigh.

the war racket was similar to the mortgage racket; it made a small number of people very rich at the expense of the rest of us, and in fact that was largely the reason for it.


No argument here.  This is why I was against the war.

well, looks like we cleared out another thread.  :P

i dunno, i wonder about the strategic influence thing. i mean, yes, obviously iraq and afghanistan are both big squares on the brzezinskian grand chessboard, but it's hard to imagine a benefit to the nation of occupying those countries that outweighs their extraordinary cost. is the US really going to enjoy a one-trillion-dollar (or 800-billion, if you prefer) strategic dividend from occupying iraq? i doubt it. i really get the impression that the military contracts ARE the point of war, at least in terms of the two big ones bush and the republicans started. like i said once, i worked for a couple of defense contractors here in northern virginia a few years ago and iraq/afghanistan was a contracting bonanza for them. lots of fancy cars in the driveway, lots of designer watches and name-brand suits. the wars are more about transferring public wealth to private hands, and viewed in that light, they're kinda part and parcel with the bank bailouts. the two phenomena seem quite different but they have that in common: taxpayer money funneled wholesale into private hands.

I won't dispute that plenty of money is made by contractors and that they lobby hard for war.  This is why I suggest we return to a less privatized arrangement where the military does more of the support work like they used to.  This is also why I'm less interventionist than neocons.

Still, the 3 countries I mentioned earlier are prime targets that we should watch closely.  Hopefully, no war will be needed, but diplomacy (and insurgency in the case of Iran) is necessary.

course on street level the perception of why we went into iraq is quite different. there was a lot of dog-whistle politics going on, i think; the cliche is that people were mistaken or misinformed and thought that iraq was behind 911, but i'm not so sure about that either. i think a lot of people actually didn't care. they wanted payback for 911, and since the guilty parties were mostly killed in the attacks themselves the only way to get revenge was to kill muslim arabs, whether they were explicitly connected to 911 or not, that part didn't really matter. arabs wacked the trade towers, so the US wacked the arabs. for a lot of people with yellow ribbons and such on their SUVs, it was a thinly veiled racist reprisal killing spree. hooray for freedom!

No argument here either.  This is why I generally don't heed what the public has to say about war, because most of the public is either ill-informed or prejudiced.

and the racist thing i think has a lot to do with the support for israel and the anti-palestinian bias too. people automatically assume israel is in the right because they sorta look white and are pretty wealthy. the palestinians are dark and poor. therefore they are also like the 911 terrorists and deserve everything that happens to them. it's the only way i've been able to find to understand how so many israeli apologists can shrug off israel's hand in a conflict with a 100-1 casualty ratio. poorer people with darker skin just have less right to live. you see it here in the US all the time, that attitude, and it's not something to ignore or sweep under the rug just because it's so unpleasant to contemplate. it drives a lot of this stuff, i think, on the populist level.


I disagree.  Our support for Israel is 3-fold.

1) Jews have a lot of power in our system (and no, I'm not anti-semitic).  They are one of the only overrepresented minorities in Congress.

2) Christian Zionists have a lot of power as well and see the state of Israel as being necessary for the Rapture.

3) Israel is a strategic ally in the region in terms of interests.  They essentially do our dirty work for us.  The problem is that they do a lot of additional dirty work that isn't necessary, which is why the Islamic World hates them so much.

#3 is probably more significant than the other 2 reasons.