Xymphora picks a bone with Rigorous Intuition

by **anon** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:23 am

This is easy, Rumsfeld really is actually a pro-Israeli, pro-Zionist Neocon. It's not a secret. He's a member of the PNAC. Anybody can sign a piece of paper. Doesn't mean anything. My unsubstantiated opinion is that Rummy is an old school goosestepper. The reason they went in under strenghth and lost almost 400 tons of explosives was to provide an excuse for permanent occupation. Is that why Bush is set to withdraw 60,000 troops next year ? <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1887806,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...06,00.html</a> Bases in the desert where no one can see them, yes. Permanent occupation, no. The Repubs won't allow it.

by **starroute** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:44 am

"Nice" isn't the operative word, but in attempting to be sarcastic you may have almost gotten hold of something. The fundamental Jewish motivation is insecurity -- the sense that no matter how good things may get at one moment or another, it's always going to be snatched away again. In fact, the better things are, the more vulnerable they become. That insecurity can lead Jews to do some very unscrupulous things in the name of self-protection. But I think if you took a poll, most Jews -- even the Neocons, even the Israelis -- would agree that ultimately self-protection is not enough. That Jews will only be safe in a world where even Jews are accepted, which is to say, a world from which hatred and prejudice of every kind have been eliminated. That was the original motivation for the founding of Israel -- to be just one nation among others, rather than a bunch of eternal outsiders. However, it goes further. Jews, by and large, tend to avoid raw power, hierarchical status, and extraordinary wealth, because those things are great inspirers of envy. Perhaps as a result, they're less likely to get all twisted up inside. You look at photos of the Neocons and most of them look amazingly similar to normal human beings, unlike, say, a Poppy Bush or a Dick Cheney. Typical Jewish faults are to get greedy in the name of personal security, or belligerent in the name of self-protection, or intolerant of actual human nature in the name of making a better world. But the sort of power-mad, conspiratorial corruptors and destroyers who appear in standard anti-semitic screeds have very little to do with these actual Jewish flaws. They are far more a reflection of the schemes and cronyism of the familiar power elite, in all its arrogance and casual disdain for those weaker than itself.

by ir » Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:41 am

Starrout, I like your description of the fine distinctions and find it totally acceptable. The "jewish world plot" meme is a mirror image of the monarchies' inner plans. I find that to be true especially in the times leading and culminating in the Nazi regime. It is not trivial, and therefore worth repeating and exploring. I thought, for instance that DE's reference to the Rainbow Swasztika was an important reminder of the origins (such as Theosophy/Hermetism among Brittish and other Imperial gentry, and how it was reversed/projected by Hitler's gang againt the Jews, in a very clever and twisted way. It was also mighty clever for the gentry to assign the dirty job to such people as Hitler, and germany altogether). However, from a selfish "limitted" Israeli-Jewish point of view, this makes me even more upset with my leadership. if you know it, and I know it, those at the top of the Jewish leadership should have known it too. namely, that they are being led, by their hubris and fears, into an old and tested trap. Even if the mess is going to be contained this time, there is no excuse for such recklessness on behalf of those half cocked jewish neocons. posing as "intellectuals" makes it even worse, cause that makes sure they are not ignorant of basic history. the Israeli government is en par with the culpability. I said once or twice earlier that while Non jewish americans (or none americans) who are concerned with freedom and democracy, should attend to the exposure and limitation of the real tyrants in their society, my concern is with my people's leadership. You can say, hell this is not our business go talk in your websites in Israel or Jewish groups. It might have been so, but those who led the people to a wrong way, are defending their position as hard as possible. Plus, the world has changed and is less compartmentalized. I can also see how the "domestic" debate can be interpreted as feeding the wrong "spin" in the larger context. However, since this is a board of finer distinctions, I think most people can understand and go past this threshhold, or "gate". I think, if there is any "role" to the Jewish people, it should be to fight against the pharaos of the world, not fall into their scams and feed them (at the expense of the nation, of course, and for short lived fame and power). Those neocons didn't invent the pharaoes, but they failed, in the test of real life, to stand against them. On the contrary, they stood as their front. -- This is not only foolish, but reckless and evil although, as any human failing, understanble. insecurity, over belligerence in the wrong places, etc, etc., however, we have had the holocaust only 50 years ago, to be advised and wiser than fall into the hands of the hitlers and their handlers from the monarchies of power. the road to hell is paved with good intentions... And let's face it, even if the Feith-Libby crowds with their Llikkud thugs, are not the real big menace to the world, in and of themselves they are corrupt, arrogant and stupid, which requires some response as well, from their own folks, if not the others as well. So, it should't be the first goal, but in terms of intra-Jewish/Israeli politics, this cannot be ignored.

by **anon** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 6:10 am

This is not only foolish, but reckless and evil although, as any human failing, understanble. insecurity, over belligerence in the wrong places, etc, etc., however, we have had the holocaust only 50 years ago, to be advised and wiser than fall into the hands of the hitlers and their handlers from the monarchies of power. --- Please let me know if you are aware of the following information or if it assists in any further understanding: <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner05252005.html">www.counterpunch.org/bren...52005.html</a> <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner1223.htm">www.counterpunch.org/brenner1223.htm</a>

by **anon** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 6:54 am

2nd link again: <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner1223.html">www.counterpunch.org/brenner1223.html</a>

by **scollon** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 7:36 am

"And let's face it, even if the Feith-Libby crowds with their Llikkud thugs, are not the real big menace to the world, in and of themselves they are corrupt, arrogant and stupid, which requires some response as well, from their own folks, if not the others as well. " Sorry according to Haaretz they are the people who started the war against Iraq, the prime movers along with Israeli Jewish politicians. Anyone who was watching knows that's true. You can deny it as much as you like but lies always come back in the end. Listen to Ralph Schoenman, he has the bitter truth about these people. "This is not only foolish, but reckless and evil although, as any human failing, understanble. insecurity, over belligerence in the wrong places, etc, etc., however, we have had the holocaust only 50 years ago, to be advised and wiser than fall into the hands of the hitlers and their handlers from the monarchies of power" You can be 100% certain that these guys won't fall into anyone's hands. It's my understanding that the World Jewish Congress (in the USA of course) first declared a trade embargo against Germany then actual war even though they knew millions of German Jews were in very dire danger indeed and their ultimate fate came from a reaction to those acts. These are the precursors to the neocons. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=scollon>scollon</A> at: 12/20/05 4:49 am

by **scollon** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 7:45 am

"That Jews will only be safe in a world where even Jews are accepted, which is to say, a world from which hatred and prejudice of every kind have been eliminated. That was the original motivation for the founding of Israel -- to be just one nation among others, rather than a bunch of eternal outsiders" Breathtakingly silly message implying Jews are in every way morally superior to gentiles. Jews will only be safe in the middle east when there are no more weapons and that's the aim of the Zionist New World Order - a disarmed global fascist state. The original motivation for the founding of Israel was to steal from, murder, exile and imprison innocent Palestineans in concentration camps. Eerily reminiscent of the recent events in Europe. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=scollon>scollon</A> at: 12/20/05 4:47 am

by **dragon feathers Jack** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 9:03 am

How do you know they're not bi? is it because of this - <img src="http://www.shotdeadinthehead.com/images/designs/HM0120.jpg" style="border:0;"/> ?

by **Dreams End** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 1:38 pm

Scollon said this: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> I'm sorry, painting the neocons as actually wanting nice things (like democracy) to happen comes from a parallel universe....<hr></blockquote> Yes..and that's exactly what the article you posted did. I said, quite clearly, in my post that such thinking about how policy is made at that level is naive. But I was taking the article at face value to see where it lead. It leads nowhwere. And this: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>It's my understanding that the World Jewish Congress (in the USA of course) first declared a trade embargo against Germany then actual war even though they knew millions of German Jews were in very dire danger indeed and their ultimate fate came from a reaction to those acts. These are the precursors to the neocons.<hr></blockquote> Funny you bring that up. I actually spent some time learning about that very issue. And it's a fascinating one. This is a summary of the first few chapters of the book The Transfer Agreement by Edwin Black. I confess I've only read the chapters available online here: <a href="http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/b/black-edwin/t-index.html">www.nizkor.org/hweb/peopl...index.html</a> and have not read the entire book yet. Hitler came to power and was virulently anti-Semitic from the start. Mein Kempf, the first edition of which was dedicated to his ideological predecessor and hero - American Fascist Henry Ford, was quite clear about the role of Jews in the world -- how they controlled all the machinery of power that led to World War 1 and the Versailles treaty and Communism and the economic and moral destruction of Germany. The American Jewish Congress which you mentioned was actually formed in response to the pro-German and anti-Eastern European attitudes of the American Jewish Committee's leadership. The leadership of the committee was drawn exclusively from the upper classes, primarily from German immigrants. It is clear that class interests divide within the Jewish people, just as it divides all others. In fact, another organization, B'Nai Brith, a benevolent society, was founded in 1843 specifically out of concern that the "backward" and "uncultured" Jewish immigrants from Eastern European countries, who were also usually rather poor, would provoke anti-Semitic feelings in the US. It was this attitude toward their "lesser cousins" that provoked the feeling that led to the American Jewish Congress, formed primarily from more middle and working class Jews and representing a far broader base of support than the Committee. The Committee and Congress were split on how to represent Jewish interests after World War 1 when the entire map of Europe was being re-examined in light of ethnic, linguistic and religious identities. It was the Congress that triumphed with the Balfour agreement and the promises of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. There had always been a small community of Jews there since the Diaspora, and the numbers had grown in the late nineteenth century due to waves of European anti-Semitism. Now pay attention to this interesting note: the COMMITTEE was AGAINST a Jewish homeland, feeling it would allow anti-Semitic governments an easier path to ridding their countries of Jews. This is important, because the leadership of this Committee, as I mentioned, was drawn from Jewish upper classes, with familiar names such as Warburg and Schiff. While the tautological reasoning of the average anti-Semite on this board will simply find this as proof that Jews cleverly created "fake" divisions in order to fool the world, sane people will see that Jewish leadership was very divided on the issue of Palestine and it's the names most often associated with the "conspiracy" who were AGAINST the establishment of a Jewish homeland. It was the Congress, and it's far broader membership base, that pushed for this issue. In general, the Committee (as well as Bnai Brith) was still attached to Germany and many still had family and business interests there. Their entire approach was conservative...hoping to stir the pot as little as possible in a futile attempt to keep the Jews of German off the radar screen. It was a failed approach and one that would be overruled by the masses of Jews represented by the Congress. So Hitler came to power with his copies of Ford's "The International Jew" clutched to his bosom. Hitler and his thugs did not play games. From the outset, the anti-Jewish violence began. Word got out and Jews around the world were horrified. The question was: how to respond? The Congress, Committee and B'nai Brith met to plan a strategy and the decision was made merely to "watch developments" in a wait-and-see strategy that would hopefully protect German Jews (as well as the many lodges of the B'nai Brith within Germany.) The Congress, however, did not intend to go along with this plan and chose the path of protest. And while scollon's reference to the Jewish "declaration of war", that tired chestnut of the fascist right, greatly mischaracterizes the Jewish Congress's approach (they had no actual military, of course), a more confrontational stance was adopted. There had been some history of success of such stances, particularly of boycotts. Henry Ford faced a Jewish boycott of his cars, for example, and while it is not clear exactly what role the boycott played in the downturn of Ford's fortunes (Chrysler came on line about then and other economic factors surely contributed), Ford PERCEIVED the boycott as hurting him and issued a PUBLIC WRITTEN APOLOGY for his anti-Semitic views. Hitler, crestfallen at the capitulation of his hero, removed Ford's name from Mein Kempf. A vice president of the Congress, Joseph Tenenbaum put it this way in 1933. This is, I believe, the famous "declaration of war": <blockquote>Quote:<hr>"Germany is not a speck on Mars. It is a civilized country, located in the heart of Europe, relying on friendly cooperation and commercial intercourse with the nations of the world.... A bellum judaicum-war against the Jews-means boycott, ruin, disaster, the end of German resources, and the end of all hope for the rehabilitation of Germany, whose friends we have not ceased to be." Measuring his final words carefully, Tenenbaum spoke sternly, "May God save Germany from such a national calamity."<hr></blockquote> (All quotes are taken from the Transfer Agreement, linked above...footnotes and references are available on that site.) As mentioned, because of Ford's experience, Hitler took the threat of a Jewish boycott seriously. And, given the rhetoric and violence against the Jews, can we find fault with this approach? The Committee did, for they worried that such an approach would confirm anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and further stoke the flames of anti-Semitism in Germany. Do you see the dilemma here? If Jews do nothing, Hitler's agenda goes unchallenged. If they act with broad unity in an economic and political struggle to defeat Nazism, they are considered part of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. While I have far less sympathy with the conservative Committee's approach, you can see why they might have this reluctance. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The committee's reluctance was based upon urgent communications from prominent Jewish families to kill any anti-German protest or boycott. German Jewish leaders were convinced that the German public would abandon the Nazis once the economy improved. And even if Hitler remained in power, German Jewish leaders felt some compromise would be struck to provide Jewish cooperation for economic convalescence. Hitler might then quietly modify, or set aside, his anti-Semitic campaign.<hr></blockquote> It was the lesson of Hitler to all the world that such hopes are often unfounded. Ultimately, it was not even the Congress which initiated the protests and boycott, but the Jewish War Veterans: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Shouts for and against a boycott bounced back and forth as the delegates debated how far the protest against Hitler should actually go. Speeches, interruptions, calls to order, and sporadic applause stretched the meeting well past midnight with no decision. Unable to make their deadlines, the press went home. Finally, to break the deadlock, Benjamin Sperling of Brooklyn, formally moved that the Jewish War Veterans organize a vigorous national boycott of all German goods, services, and shipping lines. The yells in favor were abundant, but the presiding officer insisted on a formal vote, and with a flurry of excitement the boycott was unanimously adopted.(1<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> It was done so in accordance with the JWV's charter: "To combat the sources of bigotry and darkness; wherever originating and whatever their target; to uphold the fair name of the Jew and fight his battle wherever unjustly assailed." <hr></blockquote> This split was evident all over. European Jewish organizations counseled patience. Zionist organizations tried to tone down anti-Nazi rhetoric so as not to inflame anti-Semitic feelings. When the Swastika was first unfurled in the German Consulates in Jerusalem and Jaffa, angry Jews threatened to storm the buildings. Zionist leaders, concerned about fundraising and organizing for their cause in Germany, sought to pacify the angry protesters. Meanwhile, the debate continued in America: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>In Berlin, the Hitler regime was clearly worried. Atrocity reports covered the front pages of newspapers on both sides of the Atlantic. Der Forverts correspondent Jacob Leschinsky's report from Berlin was typical: "One can find no words to describe the fear and despair, the tragedy that envelops the German Jews. They are being beaten, terrorized, murdered and...compelled to keep quiet. The Hitler regime flames up with anger because it has been forced through fear of foreign public opinion to forego a mass slaughter.... It threatens, however, to execute big pogroms if Jews in other countries make too much fuss about the pogroms it has hitherto indulged in." The dispatch was carried by The New York Times and many other newspapers. Leschinsky, immediately after the dispatch, was arrested and expelled.(22) Atrocity scandals were complicating almost every attempt at the German economic and diplomatic recovery Hitler desperately needed to stay in power. The Jews of New York would have to be stopped. Within a few days, the reconvened Reichstag was scheduled to approve sweeping dictatorial powers enabling Hitler to circumvent the legislature and rule by decree. But this talk of an international Jewish-led boycott was frightening Germany's legislators. Such a boycott could disable German export industries, affecting every German family. Goebbels expressed the Nazi fear in his diary: "The horrors propaganda abroad gives us much trouble. The many Jews who have left Germany have set all foreign countries against us.... We are defenselessly exposed to the attacks of our adversaries." But as Nazi newspapers castigated German Jewry for the protests of their landsmen overseas, German Jews themselves responded with letters, transatlantic calls, and cables to stifle American Jewish objections to Hitler. When the Congress' emergency protest planning conference convened on March 19 at New York's Astor Hotel, Committee representatives arrived with a prepared statement. It read: "It is only natural for decent and liberal-minded men and women to feel outraged at these occurrences and...to give public expression to their indignation and abhorrence, (but) the American Jewish Committee and the B'nai B'rith are convinced that the wisest and the most effective policy for the Jews of America to pursue is to exercise the same fine patience, fortitude and exemplary conduct that have already overwrought feelings, but to act wisely, judiciously and deliberately.(24) <hr></blockquote> Ultimately, protest was adopted over Committee objections, but boycott was not an official part of it. As mentioned, it was the Jewish War Veterans who actually started that movement. They were soon joined by Polish Jews who sought to frame the boycott not just in terms of protesting anti-Semitism, but out of nationalist and security concerns over Hitler's desire to take the "Polish corridor." An international Jewish movement against Nazism had begun. Too bad the feelings were not echoed in Washington: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Roosevelt himself had shown little official concern for the plight of Germany's Jews. Shortly before the inauguration in the first week of March, one of Wise's friends, Lewis Strauss, tried to convince outgoing President Hoover and President-elect Roosevelt to send a joint message of alarm to the German government. Although Hoover sent word of his concern through the American ambassador in Berlin, FDR refused to get involved.(34) <hr></blockquote> The Committee and B'Nai Brith continued to lobby Washington to counter the efforts of Rabbi Stephen Wise of the Congress. Perceived in Washington as leaders of the Jewish community, Washington was eager to embrace their more staid approach, as the US government itself simply did not want to get involved: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Shortly after the Committee-B'nai B'rith mission left Washington, Hull dispatched a cable to George A. Gordon, America's charge d'afffaires in Germany: "Public opinion in this country continues alarmed at the persistent press reports of mistreatment of Jews in Germany.... I am of the opinion that outside intercession has rarely produced the results desired and has frequently aggravated the situation. Nevertheless, if you perceive any way in which this government could usefully be of assistance, I should appreciate your frank and confidential advice. On Monday next [March 27] there is to be held in New York a monster mass meeting. If prior to that date an amelioration in the situation has taken place, which you could report [for]... release to the press, together with public assurances by Hitler and other leaders, it would have a calming effect.(4<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> In essence, Hull was asking for an encouraging report-justified or not-to soothe angry Jewish groups. Thus, he could cooperate with the Committee request as well. Within twenty-four hours, Gordon composed a response to Hull: "I entirely agree with your view...[of] the present situation of outside intercession.... There is...one suggestion I venture to make in case you have already not thought of it.... [T]he general tenor of communications between foreigners and the government here has necessarily been one of complaint and protest, and it is possible that if confidence [were expressed] in Hitler's determination to restore peaceful and normal conditions, emphasizing what a great place he will achieve in the estimation of the world if he is able to bring it about, it might have a helpful effect.... Hitler now represents the element of moderation in the Nazi Party and I believe that if in any way you can strengthen his hand, even indirectly, he would welcome it."(49) <hr></blockquote> A big march against Nazism took place on March 27, 1933. It was a great success: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Many thousands of cheering sympathetic watchers encouraged the thousands of Jewish and non-Jewish vets as the parade moved through the East Side to City Hall where Mayor O'Brien was waiting on the reviewing stand. With much fanfare and applause, resolutions were presented demanding diplomatic measures and an economic protest against the Reich. Dovetailing with the JWV protest parade was a variety of sympathetic conferences, petitions, and resolutions by interfaith and nonsectarian groups, including the American Federation of Labor, which pledged its 3 million members to fighting Nazism here and in Germany.(5) March 23 was a success for the Jewish War Veterans. Their boycott kickoff generated maximum publicity. One radio station covered the day with updates every fifteen minutes. Extensive support was offered by those in prominence and power-as well as by the anonymous faces in the crowd, outraged and merely waiting for a raised hand to lead the protest against Adolf Hitler. <hr></blockquote> As mentioned, Hitler felt he had reason to fear an international protest movement and boycott. He used the economic suffering of the Germans as a rhetorical tool against the Jews: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Hitler's own words expressed the scapegoat rationale. Preaching to frantic, impoverished Germans, the Nazi leader cried: "Not so long ago, Germany was prosperous, strong, and respected by all. It is not your fault Germany was defeated in the war and has suffered so much since. You were betrayed in 1918 by Marxists, international Jewish bankers, and corrupt politicians.<hr></blockquote> Familiar words around here. However, Hitler had an economy to manage...an economy based in large part on exports. Boycotts were not going to help. But even this type of "warfare" as Scollon wants to call it, did not begin with the Jews: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Nazi preoccupation with the anti-German boycott was not merely fear of Jewish power. The Nazis dogmatically believed in the power of boycotts in general. Boycott had long been a prime tactic of the German anti-Semitic movement. When in 1873 an economic depression followed a stock market fall, the German Conservative party falsely blamed Jewish speculators and organized anti-Semitic campaigns, including boycotts. A few year later, the Catholic party joined the movement, coining the motto "Don't buy from Jews." By 1880, Berlin women's organizations had formed housewife boycott committees.(1<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> During the years prior to 1933, Hitler, Goebbels, Goering, and other Nazi leaders regularly struggled to attract public support by advocating the anti-Jewish boycott. Brownshirt pickets around a store with signs reading DON'T BUY FROM JEWS served to remind Germans of the Jew's secure economic status and warn Jews of what was in store should National Socialism come to power. The Nazis were convinced that an official countrywide boycott would totally destroy the commercial viability of the Jews in Germany<hr></blockquote> Needless to say, Europe and America were soon embroiled in a world war and, as I think is clear, Hitler's treatment of the Jews was not the primary concern of the Allies. It is interesting to wonder what might have happened had Europe and America taken a harder stance against Hitler from the beginning. As we know, American industrialists in the US actively financed Hitler and openly considered whether fascism might not be the best form of government for the US as well. But the point of this story, in the context of this thread is that this oversimplification of history, especially regarding Jews and Zionists, merely propagates tired, anti-Semitic cliches, such as scollon's statement about Jews "declaring war" on Germany. Scollon's position would suggest that Jews should have done nothing as brown-shirts assaulted Jews and destroyed Jewish businesses. Should they decide to act, as they did, this adds fuel to the fire of anti-Semite conspiracy theory. The great irony, as I mentioned, is that the leaders and primary constituency of the Committee...conservative German immigrants from wealthy (including banking) families with business ties to Germany, with names such as Schiff and Warburg, were actually ANTI-Zionist. They supported charitable relief efforts in Palestine for the Jewish community there, but ultimately were turned off by the "lumpen" nature of the movement and the "Bolshevik" ideology of the kibbutzim. Felix Warburg was central to the Zionist/anti-Zionist dialogue and was always concerned that the Jews in Palestine not make waves. He even went so far in 1929 to defend the Arabs in the wake of anti-Jewish riots. (For a long look at the role of Felix Warburg's role in the issues involving Zionism and Palestine, see: "Felix Warburg and the Palestinian Arabs: A Re-Assessment" available as an HTML file <a href="http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:AHwtPX7suVEJ:www.americanjewisharchives.org/aja/journal/PDF/Article54v1-Medoff.pdf+%22felix+warburg%22+reassessment&hl=en&client=firefox">here</a>.) Or maybe I should have just said: scollon...are you REALLY trying to blame Hitler's actions against Jews on the Jews themselves? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dreamsend@rigorousintuition>Dreams End</A> at: 12/20/05 10:42 am

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:11 pm

I don't know whether xymphora missed my point or intentionally blew right past it. The neocons certainly didn't get "exactly what they intended to get." They expected the war to pay for itself and to be greeted as liberators. I don't believe they were being deceitful about these expectations, which were preconditions for the radical makeover of the Middle East and America's 21st Century hegemon. True neocons are ideologues rendered naive by their entrancement to the purity of theory. They have been played as change agents by globalists with no allegiance to nation-states beyond flags of convenience. At least that's how I see it.

by **scollon** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:52 pm

"Yes..and that's exactly what the article you posted did. I said, quite clearly, in my post that such thinking about how policy is made at that level is naive. But I was taking the article at face value to see where it lead. It leads nowhwere. " Oh yes, that makes a lot of sense. The problem is that if you're a retard you will fly off and play in your own little sandpit and invent games of your own. I said goodbye before QUTB.

by **Dreams End** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:08 pm

I said goodbye before, Zundel.

by **Dreams End** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:49 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>True neocons are ideologues rendered naive by their entrancement to the purity of theory.<hr></blockquote> I think I'm just too cynical to believe that anyone at that level is "naive" about these things. If we can figure it out from "down here" I think those with security clearance can as well. I don't even think that they believed that this war was in the best interest for the security of Israel. rdr posted an article from a former Israeli defense official who said it would likely endanger Israel, which is surely the case as Saddam was certainly no threat. And the case made by Powell at the UN and all the bogus intelligence...it was just too obvious, in my view. And certainly a weakened Iraq creates a strengthened Iran, which is surely more of a threat to Israel (at least is made to appear so.) The hand of the Shiites was strengthened in Iraq and what other result could have been expected. Removal of Sunnis = opportunities for Shia... and thereby, strengthened relations with Iran. It's possible, I suppose, that the neo-con goal was simply to dismantle Iraq into smaller states...Kurd/Sunni/Shiite and render it powerless that way. There was some discussion of that, but Turkey would not hear of an independent Kurdistan in the region...seems they have their own Kurdish population who kinda resents the repression they've suffered. (note to any Kurd activists reading this site....PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop trusting the CIA when they say they are on your side. They will sell you out every time as they have already. REJECT U.S. offers...) So, whatever games they neocons were playing, I don't think they literally believed all their own propaganda about democratizing, etc. Just window dressing. But that's different from Xymphora's point that the neo cons committed a hostile takeover of the government. I haven't noticed much of a change, really, so it's a funny sort of takeover. Didn't need them for Vietnam, a worse disaster. So the idea that some righteous government has been coopted by a cabal of jewish neocons is silly. Neocons aren't the good guys, but they are simply the latest version of the same ole thing. What's interesting is, within the disparaging remarks about "having to resort to conspiracy" Xymphora embraces a huge one. For, how else could you explain the takeover of our sovereign government, guardians of truth and justice, by a hostile power OTHER than a vast conspiracy? It's a far more difficult feat than simply having a longrunning conspiracy constantly at the heart of our government. And since many on this site also believe that there is a longrunning conspiracy at the heart of our government, then exactly from whom did the neocons hijack it? From ANOTHER FACTION of the Illuminati? Please. No logic in any of that. How about the idea that neo-LIBERALISM is the enemy here, the doctrine of making the world safe for corporate control and domination (I mean free markets and freedom from burdensome government regulations, of course.) This is the greater evil , and it is for that ideal that the US has been marching off to war for the last two centuries. See Smedley Butler's famous speech for a condensed version: War is a Racket. By focusing on a small group of supposed interlopers, we miss the larger picture. The U.S. government represents ALL of the owning classes, Jews, Gentiles, and everything else. Open markets and open access to cheap labor and resources are the goals. It's been a little trickier to justify since the end of the Soviet Union, but they've managed (Granada (!), Panama, Gulf War 1). Are there secret conspiracies within those classes? There surely must be. They can't do this stuff out in the open. Though I do imagine it's far more chaotic with so many variables. I imagine that there are truly independend factions: overt fascists vs. peaceful globalists for example. I think this merely reflects tactical differences, however. So I don't agree that these neo-cons are as naive as all that, no matter how blinding their ideology. It's possible, I suppose, as many of the fervent rightwing anti-communists seemed to believe what they were saying, despite the fact that anti-communism was primarily a tool for stifling dissent at home and justifying intervention abroad. Oh, and lining the pockets of military contractors. But I think that at that level, such naivete is not likely. So the neocons don't get a pass from me on that level. But who benefits? Not Israel...I don't see any longterm security benefits here. Shiites are stronger and there is less of a check on Iran. Terrorism, real or fake, is still common in Israel and the hatred from the Arab world has only intensified. The contractors benefit, for sure. Cheney's Halliburton, etc. And since the administration has ties to Halliburton, there's one likely place to look for culprits. And oil companies as well. While I don't buy peak oil, that would certainly be an explanation, but even without peak oil, control of the most viable sources of oil would be a prize for any oil company...say, those that met with Cheney in secret some years ago? And the amount spent on weapons and supplies...plenty of yachts being bought on the proceeds of this war. And the idea of permanent war is helpful too. Keep the populace in line. Let's see if the New York transit strike gets called a "security risk." But ultimately, Xymphora has shown his/her hand. While disparaging conspiracy theories, he or she trots out the oldest one on the planet. It was the Jews what done it.

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:59 pm

That's interesting, DE. Neo-liberalism is often regarded as the economics of neo-imperialism, with neo-conservativism its militarist/foreign policy expression. That suggests a complimentarity. Now, I don't think that's necessarily so. They can be at odds when the interests of nation and empire conflict with stateless finance.

by **Iroquois** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:59 pm

The neo-libs plans pretty much fell apart along with the neo-cons, though their specific needs were different. The neo-liberals don't care about the form of government, that's the neo-con agenda, they just wanted what they were promised, to be able to buy all the factories and utilies in Iraq at dirt cheap prices. (Control of the oil was important too, but that likely went well beyond just neo-liberal interests.) When things really went South, not only did those purchases become increasingly unfeasible, assets formerly promised to be put up for sale were auctioned back to wealthy Iraqis. Even getting the oil out at a rate hoped for by the oil interests was not going to happen. The Iraq War was a big, complex enterprise. Many different corporate and political interests were brought together to make it happen. It was also a very fragile operation. Despite a massive expenditure of effort by conventional forces and NGO's to pull off the neo-con agenda (and the corresponding hopes of the neo-liberal/oil industry corporate interests), it would not have taken much to sabotage the situation. The question is, who benefited from the resulting chaos? I think there have been some clever words spoken by Jeff and others on this subject already. For one, chaos is fluid. As long as there is violence and lack of unity among the Iraqis, there are more options in what outcomes to pursue and how to pursue them. It may just be a means of maintaining a the current status quo. On the other hand, it is extremely costly to the US, both politically and militarily. I seriously consider the possibility that the agenda being pursued by the sabateours is just that, the degragation of US political and military power.

Xymphora picks a bone with Rigorous Intuition

Look at the post-Invasion facts on the ground

Re: the neocons may be evil, but they got played too

got played out

re: got played out

re: got played out

Re: got played out

Re: the neocons may be evil, but they got played too

Re: the neocons may be evil, but they got played too

Re: the neocons may be evil, but they got played too

Re: Xymphora picks a bone with Rigorous Intuition

Re: the neocons may be evil, but they got played too

Re: the neocons may be evil, but they got played too

Re: the neocons may be evil, but they got played too

neo-liberalism

Re: neo-liberalism

Who is online