Zionist inflluence within the USA

Another one of these threads. :vomit:


Alright, Zionists obviously have influence in the USA. Very simple. How do I feel about it? I wish things could be more balanced, but then again, the world is not balanced, and Palestinian activists have a lot of influence in many other countries. It is pretty simple.

Welcome to the forum!!

Other than post about the Jewish blood libel accusations proven false in the jewish q/a thread, get it deleted by brother woodrow, and posting it again, what have you done in this forum?

Are regulated for welcome duty?

Considers what you mean by "Zionist". If you mean simply Jewish influence, then yes there is alot of Jewish influence. There is a significant Jewish population within the United States. If you mean Zionism in the context of promoting Jewish settlement in Israel, I don't think that lobby is as powerful as it once was. U.S. presidents since Jimmy Carter, or before, have been more interested in finding a solution that both sides can accept.

format_quote Originally Posted by HaveQuestions

LOL are u kidding me?? Do you know what AIPAC is?

Yes, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee. It lobbies for a close relationship between the U.S. and Israel. Primarily a reflection of the goals of the Likud Party. They have alot of influence, there is no denying that, but so do many other lobbying groups in Washington D.C. The Saudi Kingdom has a very influential lobbying group. As do many others. The point is that no Israeli lobby has the amount of power many....well...non-Israeli supporters would like to believe.

Do you know what AIPAC is?

AIPAC is an oragnization that lobbies the United States Congress, similar to Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) which lobbies congress ect, similar to what AIPAC does. They just enjoy much less success, and what I have read, it is attributed to there negative campaigning and advocacy to oppose AIPAC more than support them.

Bush administration is influenced by some greedy people who want to rob oil from Iraq, and sell weapons to other countries by showing demonstrations of those weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It has nothing to do with Zionism or Jewish culture.

format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian

Bush administration is influenced by some greedy people who want to rob oil from Iraq, and sell weapons to other countries by showing demonstrations of those weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It has nothing to do with Zionism or Jewish culture.

If Bush's goal was to "rob oil" from Iraq I would think we might be seeing some of that oil by now, which we aren't. Woodrow brought this up in another thread, but processing and transporting oil from the Middle East isn't all that lucrative to begin with. As for demonstrating weapons capability, I don't think one needs a war to prove that.

format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi

If Bush's goal was to "rob oil" from Iraq I would think we might be seeing some of that oil by now, which we aren't. Woodrow brought this up in another thread, but processing and transporting oil from the Middle East isn't all that lucrative to begin with. As for demonstrating weapons capability, I don't think one needs a war to prove that.

... then, what's his goal? For sure it has nothing to do with Zionism.

i think these days there may be more christian zionists in the u.s. than jewish zionists!

format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian

... then, what's his goal? For sure it has nothing to do with Zionism.

His dad had an agenda and never liked Saddam. He probably did it for his old dad. A lot of lives lost for a dads request eh?

I believe the reality is just too simple to be believed by most of the world.

George is not much more than a simple farmer who somehow managed to get elected President. He has very poor command of the english language, is a poor debater and is very naive and gullible.

He was convinced that Saddam was a threat. He knew that the US had given Saddam WMD's to use against the Russians and he feared Saddam still had some and would use them against the US. Although Saddam had most likely already used the entire supply against the Kurds.

He was a willing scapegoat to be the fall guy for the Iraq fiasco and probably even today he still does not realise he was not in control and was a ready puppet for those who sought to bring an end to Iraq.

Who is the cause for Iraq? I do not know and can only speculate. I have my ideas, but that is only pure speculation on my part.

A question to ask is who can gain the most by the fall of Iraq? I doubt if oil plays any role in the picture. Iraq oil is expensive, even if it is gotten for free. There are many other easier oil sources in the world and it will be little noticed if another drop of oil never comes from Iraq again. It is not an easy source and the cost of moving it is not cost effective.

With that said we need to think of who can gain the most by removing Iraq from the mideast picture. what use can any body have for a piece of basicaly non-productive land, with a hostile climate that few people can or want to adapt to.

I don't know if I would agree that Bush is a "simple farmer". He spent quite a bit of time in Connecticut and graduated from Yale. This belief that George Bush is a simple "good ole boy" is a little misguided. I like to think of him more as a gullible frat boy who listened to everything his father's former advisors and friends said to him. If Dick Cheney says Iraq is a threat, then Iraq is a threat.

Hey, where's my song?