Rudy to Paul: Don’t mess with Israel
By Ami Eden on Jan 11, 2008 in Presidential Race |
Wonder how Rudy Giuliani, a Republican, can finish second — ahead of all Democrats except Hillary — in a favorability poll of American Jews? Check out this clip from last night’s Republican debate and the transcript excerpt below. All of the candidates up on the stage except for Ron Paul have records and positions that would make any AIPAC activist smile — but in Giuliani’s case it’s more front and center. No knock on the other GOPers, but on the issue of Israeli security, he is head and shoulders above the rest in speaking to the kishkas of many American Jews. When Paul challenged the nature of the U.S.-Israel relationship, here’s how Rudy responded…
Here are the Israel snippets from the debate:
MR. GOLER: Thank you, sir.
Mayor Giuliani, President Bush is in the Middle East right now, laying the groundwork for a Palestinian state. And he thinks he can be successful this year. If so, a Giuliani administration would introduce a new era in U.S.-Mideast relations.
I wonder, sir, how you would keep a Palestinian state from becoming a breeding ground for anti-American terrorists.
MR. GIULIANI: Well, I think the most important thing is the steps that the Palestinian Authority now takes, and how realistic they are, to accomplish at least three things. First of all, to make it clear that it will accept the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.
Number two, to forgo terrorism, first as a statement of policy and then in reality — something that has to be tested. You know, Ronald Reagan had a theory of trust but verify. So we get the statement of policy that they’ve — they will forgo terrorism.
***
MR. GOLER: All right. Thank you, sir. Congressman Paul, can we go back to the Middle East? You have said the United States should not be trying to broker peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Should the president even be there today, sir?
REP. PAUL: Well, if you followed my advice, yes, we — we wouldn’t be there. Weve been doing that for a good many years and it hasn’t seemed to come to success. No, I think if we weren’t there there’d be more incentives to come to a peaceful agreement. We support both sides, you know, not only with the Palestinians but the
Lebanese and all the Arab nations. We support Israel, and we try to have this balance. But I think it’d be much better to have a balance by being out of there, and I think there would be a greater incentive for Israel and the Palestinian and all the Arab nations to come together and talk because I think we get in the way too often of these, and besides its costing us a lot of money, its costing us lives now, and its time that we come to the point where we believe the world can solve some of their problems without us.And also were out of money. We cant do it any longer. We’re going bankrupt, and the empires of the world have always ended badly through economic terms. So whether there are peace agreements over there — I mean, for instance if we would stop all aid over there we would stop three times as much aid as Israel gets to the Arab nations.
Why do we arm the Arab nations and they’re the enemies of Israel? But we continue to do that. So why don’t we trade with everybody and talk with them, and there’s a greater incentive to work these problems out.
I think if we’d have been out of there a lot sooner there may well have been a much different settlement after the Kuwait invasion because Israel was quite capable of working with moderate Arab nations. They tried to. None of the Arab nations wanted Saddam Hussein in Kuwait, and I think they could have taken care of Saddam
Hussein back then and save all the mess that we have now because I think there are so many unintended consequences and way too much blowback. (Applause.)***
HUCKABEE: But in my final seconds, I’d like to just — with all due respect to Congressman Paul, the issue of whether the president should be in the Middle East comes to something that I think we’ve got to recognize. We’ve got one true ally in the Middle East, and that’s Israel. It’s a tiny nation. I’ve been there nine times. I’ve literally traveled from Dan to Beersheba, and I understand something of that nation and the vulnerability of it. And for us to give the world the impression that we would stand by if it were under attack and simply say it’s not our problem would be recklessly irresponsible on our part. And if I were president, you can rest assured that we
would not let an ally be annihilated by those enemies which surround it, who have openly stated it is their direct intention to destroy that nation. It would not happen under my presidency. (Applause.)MR. HUME: Congressman Paul, 30 seconds.
REP. PAUL: In many ways, we treat Israel as a stepchild. We do not give them the responsibility that they deserve. We undermine their national sovereignty. We don’t let them design their own peace
treaties with their neighbors. And then we turn around and say that when you want to do that, or you want to defend your borders, they have to check it out with us.I think Israel would be a lot safer. I made the point earlier. We give three times as much money to the Arabs. Why do we arm their enemies? So if you care about Israel, you should be against all the weapons that go to the Arab nations. (Cheers, applause.)
And I just don’t see any purpose in not treating Israel in an adult fashion. I think they would be a lot better off. I think they, one time in the ’80s, took care of a nuclear reactor in Iraq. I stood up and defended Israel for this. Nobody else did at that time.
But we need to recognize: They deserve their sovereignty, just as we deserve our sovereignty. I believe if they assume more responsibility, there would be more peace there, and that there would be a lot less threat. Besides, we don’t have any money to do this.
(Cross talk, cheers, applause.)
MR. HUME: We’ll extend this quickly. 30 seconds, Mayor Giuliani, then Senator Thompson. Then we’ve got to move on.
MR. GIULIANI: I think the idea that Israel is a stepchild of the United States is totally absurd. I’ve been to Israel very often, as the governor has. The prime minister of Israel is a very close friend of mine. The former prime minister is a very close friend of mine.
The reality is that Israel is a close and strong ally of the United States.
America has only a few extremely reliable allies, special relationships. The defense of Israel is a — critical importance to the United States of America, and it goes much deeper than just tactical things.
***
MR. CAMERON: Mayor Giuliani, in recent weeks Senator McCain has suggested that your leadership in the aftermath of 9/11 doesn’t quite constitute national security credentials. Insofar as it’s generally agreed that one of the challenges of our time is the war on terrorism, what equips you, what experience and skills do you bring that would make you a better commander in chief than the senator from Arizona?
MR. GIULIANI: Well, I guess the first point I wanted to make on what they were talking about is that the kind of change that the Democrats want to bring about is to take the change out of your pocket. (Laughter.) That’s basically — that — basically change is either good or bad….
Now, on my foreign policy experience, which is what you asked me about, I’ve had foreign policy experience going back to 19 — the 1970s, when I served on a committee in the — in the Ford administration on terrorism. I negotiated agreements with governments over illegal immigration. I negotiated agreements with governments over prisoners.
When I had to make decisions about foreign policy, I made decisions. I threw Arafat out of the U.N. 50 celebration, and I made sure Castro wouldn’t come to that celebration. And when I was confronted by an Arab prince who wanted to give us $10 million for the Twin Towers fund, I said no, we’re not going to take it, because he wanted us to question American foreign policy, in particular our relationship with Israel.
As mayor of New York, I was involved in foreign policy issues all the time. And the difference between — (timer bell rings) — being an executive and being a legislator is, you’re not just one of a hundred. You have to actually make decisions, and there are consequences to your decisions. And many of them were in this area of either foreign policy or related to it.
You know what? Ron Paul is right. Why are the Americans arming the arab enemies of Israel? Do you stop to think that maybe they are simply trying to set the two up for mutual destruction? What “real” interest does the United States have in Israel? What right does America have to “support” or “condemn” Israel’s defensive actions, anyway?
And why are there clear connections between Guiliani and Al Qaeda (well, before he ‘technically’ cut off ties to his firm.) What about his ties to Saudia Arabia as a client? The millions he accepted for himself from the Saudi prince while rejecting the $10M for 9/11 victims (in a cheap political stunt.)
Are you certain your loyalties are to Israel?
James A. | Jan 11, 2008 | Reply
Ron Paul’s newsletter over the years shows that he is likely an anti-Semitic xenophobe. His ramblings about funding the Arabs being against Israel’s interest is his wacky and loony way of diverting attention from the fact that he would not mind at all if Israel were wiped off the map. He’s just trying to make himself sound reasonable and logical by presenting an “even-handed” rationale for cutting off financial support for Israel. It’s like a racist talking about how upset he is over how unfairly blacks are treated under the drug laws . . . oh, wait, that’s Ron Paul too!
Michael K. | Jan 11, 2008 | Reply
Michael,
That’s real mature.
Jackie CH | Jan 11, 2008 | Reply
No, I agree that it is ridiculous for the US to arm both sides. On top of that, when you add up aid to Israel and aid to the rest of the Middle East, the rest of the Middle East gets a lot more. That’s ridiculous.
Michael, please post some concrete examples, with links, of Ron Paul being an anti-semite.
Thank you.
Allan S.
Allan S. | Jan 11, 2008 | Reply
We have got to come to some sort of understanding as to what constitutes racism.
What I find interesting about Dr. Paul is that he treats each person as an individual and not as a sub-member of a group. This may be harder to get your hands around than one would originally think.
The standard republican position is that Israel must be defended at all costs. (at least that is how it appears to me) If that is so, why not Djubuti?, why not Luxemburg? Why not any of the other myriad small “defenseless” countries that dot the globe? Why us? And why in the name of Athena’s Birthstone are we also arming the sworn enemies of the country we have pledged to defend? <>
If someone wants to treat Israel different than any other small country, how is that not rasicm? Don’t tell me it is because they are surrounded by enemies, we friking armed and thus created them.
Iranian boats almost ran into ours? I bet if our boats weren’t there the Iranians would have had trouble almost running into them.
Biff | Jan 11, 2008 | Reply
January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:
“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person’s character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’
“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
There are a lot of Jewish people in support of Ron Paul, and those allegations have already been explained and debunked. There was a CNN interview on the matter already, and there was the following press release (also note, that if he were as bad as everyone is claiming, we would have heard it from Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson long ago):
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
David | Jan 11, 2008 | Reply
Ron Paul Tells Live 5 He’s ‘Incapable of Being a Racist’
http://www.live5news.com/home/13696102.html
David | Jan 11, 2008 | Reply
Reason magazine had a couple of great posts on their blog today, one calling BS on Paul’s claim that he had no control over the content of his newsletters, the other saying that his sudden invocation of the drug war as a means of extolling his cred with the African American community came far too late to be sincere.
In response to Biff — the idea that Israel is just some dinky little defenseless country is asinine. Beyond our economic partnerships, in the realm of defense, medicine and technology, Israel works with the US to protect its interests abroad. The US relies upon Israel for intelligence and tactical support throughout the Middle East — support which Djibouti, et al, are wholly incapable of providing the US.
In addition, the notion that it is just to treat everyone “as an individual” as Ron Paul claims is absurd considering that Blacks in this country weren’t even regarded as equal human beings until 40 years ago. That they should be given some sort of a leg up by a country that enslaved them for 400 years shouldn’t be considered an affront to individual rights, as Paul’s White Nationalist supporters would have it.
Stan Horowitz | Jan 11, 2008 | Reply
Israel is in many ways the same as many soviet bloc nations and soviet allied nations such as Cuba. While Israel can survive on it’s own, the US has funneled so much money into it that we have propped them up, placed them on a pedestal, and bred hate throughout the middle east.
It is not anti-semetic to want to stop propping up Israel. American support should have ended decades ago.
Michael | Jan 11, 2008 | Reply
James A. — do you have any sources for the following?
“And why are there clear connections between Guiliani and Al Qaeda (well, before he ‘technically’ cut off ties to his firm.) What about his ties to Saudia Arabia as a client? The millions he accepted for himself from the Saudi prince while rejecting the $10M for 9/11 victims (in a cheap political stunt.)”
Juanita | Jan 11, 2008 | Reply
Rudy Guilanni simply makes up facts as he goes if you really think he is a great security for isreal look into how he treated the fire fighters in New York City. Israel is resented by arabs because of the United States plain and simple.
harry | Jan 11, 2008 | Reply
It’s more than just “propping up Israel,” Michael. The question should be “What are we propping them up *for*?”
To some degree, whether consciously or otherwise, the answer is: To be a target. They’re our pathfinders, our scouts. We “prop them up” to draw attention; we make them the tip of our spear.
September 11th and a few other exceptions aside, they take the hits for us. Sure, we had our September 11th, but they’re the ones who live through rocket attacks, disco/nightclub/wedding/funeral suicide bombings, and the like.
To borrow a snippet of a comment from Ron Paul, “We don’t let them design their own peace.” (whether that peace involves treaties, or pursuing the enemy down to the last man should be Israel’s decision alone)
And why don’t we let them design their own peace? So some slimy politicians can score points with Jew-hating evangelicals who want to support Israel because “it’s the right/Biblical thing to do”?
I know not all Evangelicals are like that, not by a long shot, but there are a lot of “pro-Israel” anti-Semites out there.
And a lot of these are the same people (or at least same *type* of people) who give to charities for the homeless or minorities, yet clutch their purses and cross the street when approaching one on the sidewalk.
Martin | Jan 11, 2008 | Reply
Why is it that Paul’s supporters are all pedestrian political analysts who talk out of their asses? Half of them can’t even spell the name of the country they’re undermining.
Most of them seem to think that ending foreign aid to Israel will somehow magically end our conflict in the Middle East, without even recognizing that we were knee deep in the region long before the state of Israel even existed.
America is dependent on foreign oil. End of story. Eliminating America’s allies in the Middle East before eliminating America’s dependence on foreign oil is idiotic. That’d be like benching your best point guard when you’re 12 points down in the 4th quarter.
FYI Martin — if the Evangelicals were dictating Israel’s military policy vicariously through slimy politicians, Israel would be committing genocide in the West Bank and Gaza and establishing a biblical monarchy throughout the entire land of ancient Israel, including Syria and Jordan.
Right now Bush is promoting a resolution that caters far more to Palestinian interests than Israeli interests. This isn’t to score points with Jews or Evangelicals, but to score points with the Arab states whose support the US needs to prevent Iran from becoming the regional superpower.
Why should the US care if Iran is the regional superpower? Because Iran is the top oil producer in the region, following Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and is currently selling its oil to China while encouraging the entire oil market to shift the standard trading currency from the dollar to the euro.
Ie., in the age of oil scarcity (aka peak oil), Iran is supply our chief competitor with fuel while encouraging the entire oil market to abandon its holdings in American currency, thereby devaluing the dollar and destroying the US economy.
Israel and America are allied on this issue, because the both stand to gain from each other’s support in this battle. And it is a battle that has absolutely nothing to do with religion or land. Those are just the propaganda tools used to mobilize eager brainwashed troops.
Stan Horowitz | Jan 11, 2008 | Reply
Stan, you’re talking out of your ass.
“America is dependent on foreign oil. End of story.”
Bullshit. Oil is a fungible commodity. Once it enters the world market, there is no way to control where it goes. The Arabs are too tempted by greed to stop selling oil or to significantly cut back production.
Even if that oil was completely cut off immediately (highly unlikely in any circumstance), then we’d soon learn that we don’t really need the oil, just like someone thrown into a pool learns he or she can swim. In a free market, the price goes up, it becomes profitable to increase and invest in production and find new sources, conserve and find substitutes. There is plenty of energy.
You’re like the liberals who think America is nothing without cheap resources. You think we’ll collapse without Arab oil. You have an economic inferiority complex about America.
You’re a whore for Arab oil.
Bruce D. | Jan 12, 2008 | Reply
Stan, more talking out of your ass: “…encouraging the entire oil market to abandon its holdings in American currency, thereby devaluing the dollar and destroying the US economy.”
Bullshit. More economic inferiority complex. The dollar will be devalued because the U.S. own central bank, the Federal Reserve, has created too much money supply. That’s what will destroy the U.S. economy. Not anything the Arabs can do.
“And it is a battle that has absolutely nothing to do with religion or land. Those are just the propaganda tools used to mobilize eager brainwashed troops.”
That’s despicable of you. You would deceive our troops like that, use them like that, send them to die for a lie? I’ll bet you’ve never been under hostile fire you worthless piece of shit. I have in Vietnam, as a medic in infantry, 1970, 1/503rd inf, 173rd Airborne. What was your unit?
I hope you are not Israeli. Because that offends me as an American veteran. Good reason to cut off aid to Israel, if that’s the way Israelis feel, deceiving our troops.
If you’re American, join the U.S. Army or Marines. Volunteer for infantry, volunteer for Iraq. Put your money where your mouth it. Otherwise, you’re an arrogant fucking hypocrite. Coward. Fuck you.
Bruce D. | Jan 12, 2008 | Reply
“FYI Martin — if the Evangelicals were dictating Israel’s military policy vicariously through slimy politicians, Israel would be committing genocide in the West Bank and Gaza and establishing a biblical monarchy throughout the entire land of ancient Israel, including Syria and Jordan.”
Stan, that’s really a cart-before-horse supposition. The way it *actually* works is that a lot of politicians espouse a “pro-Israel” foreign policy because it’s just something that politicians do (i.e. it’s considered political suicide to do otherwise). Politicians are just pandering (if you can believe that) and telling them what they want to hear (and then eventually having to follow through on their words).
The so-called Evangelical Israeli Lobby is made up largely of two types of folks: Those who genuinely believe in and are concerned about the safety/security of Israel, and those who are just doing it because it’s the “Evangelical” thing to do. This latter group are the type of people who are looking to support politicians who support Israel (kind of like a reluctant DUI convictee looks for community service), but they certainly wouldn’t want their son/daughter marrying a Jew.
Anyway, Bush is currently promoting a resolution “that caters far more to Palestinian interests than Israeli interests” right now because he *has* to. If we weren’t presently overextended in the ME, we’d be offering the Palis much less of a sweet deal than we’re presently doing (and they’d reject it, which may end up happening to this one, as well). By the way, how much do you think the Iranians *really* care about the Palis? Call me cynical, but I don’t think coming to a two-state solution tomorrow is going to suddenly change the hearts of the Mullahs in Iran.
And it’s not *just* the proposed abandonment of the petrodollar that’s killing our currency, it’s poor/loose monetary policy (and not publishing our M3 to hide it looks even worse) combined with increased instability in the ME and increased uncertainty about the future of the petrodollar.
Martin | Jan 12, 2008 | Reply
Bruce –
Even if that oil was completely cut off immediately (highly unlikely in any circumstance), then we’d soon learn that we don’t really need the oil, just like someone thrown into a pool learns he or she can swim. In a free market, the price goes up, it becomes profitable to increase and invest in production and find new sources, conserve and find substitutes. There is plenty of energy.
Nonsense. Oil production has peaked. There are no new sources. Furthermore, “The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve [...] currently stores about 570 million barrels of oil in underground salt caverns along the Gulf of Mexico. Given that the U.S. imports about half of its oil, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve holds about a 60 day supply of oil if all imports were suddenly cut off.” Do you honestly believe would could transition off our dependence on foreign oil quickly enough to stave off total economic collapse?
You’re a whore for Arab oil.
Actually, no, I’m an advocate for renewable energy and completely ending our dependence on foreign oil. I just don’t think it’s feasible considering the stranglehold the energy companies have over our energy policy and their absolute resistance to pursuing renewable alternatives. We’re too far down the road to just pull out now. We’d have to be way farther along in bringing alternatives to market than we are now or than we’ll likely be even 20 years from now.
BTW–If both Kissinger and Greenspan are willing to admit this is a resource war, fought for oil, why aren’t you?
The dollar will be devalued because the U.S. own central bank, the Federal Reserve, has created too much money supply. That’s what will destroy the U.S. economy. Not anything the Arabs can do.
Right. So the Iranian oil bourse, which has thus far succeeded in convincing its clients to stop trading on the dollar, is a figment of my imagination? Chavez and Ahmedinejad didn’t recently attempt to convince OPEC to stop trading with “worthless pieces of paper”?
It doesn’t matter if the Fed created this problem or not. It’s a problem. It’s not going away. Even if the Fed were abolished, the time required to make a successful transition is far greater than the time we have to stave off a total economic collapse.
That’s despicable of you. You would deceive our troops like that, use them like that, send them to die for a lie?
No–I certainly wouldn’t do that. I’m not talking about what I want or what I would do. (And I think that’s a fundamental misunderstanding on your part, because I was against this war from the outset and was arrested multiple times protesting it.) I’m talking about what the current administration’s thinking is, and combatting the anti-Semitic lie that this war is being fought for Israel’s security interests.
Israel, and all it implies theologically, is a propaganda tool — a distraction from the real cause of war: OIL — and little more.
Go read Mikey Weinstein’s book about how the Pentagon has been hijacked by Evangelicals who believe themselves to be fighting a modern day Crusade, and who place a primacy on Christian eschatology and tell their troops that they’re fighting in the name of Jesus. Brainwashing, sir. Brainwashing.
No–I didn’t serve in the US military. My father did. He fought in Nam in the 173rd Airborne Brigade. Now he’s a veterans’ rights activist who spends his time fighting against an American government that asks young Americans to make the ultimate sacrifice and then casts them aside when its done exploiting them. This administration could care less about our boys in the field. If it cared, it wouldn’t be handing billions of dollars in contracts for million dollar toilet seats to Halliburton (from which Dick Cheney has personally earned over $200 million in revenue since the outset of the war), it’d be giving our troops the necessary body armor they need to stay alive.
Why would I volunteer to join the military under the Bush administration? Because the boogeyman is coming to get us? Because we’re on a fictitious crusade against Islamofascists who want to destroy our way of life? Or so that oil men like George Bush and Dick Cheney can get rich off my blood and the blood of other young Americans?
I wasn’t arguing in FAVOR of oil wars. I was arguing that there are far better reasons — far greater motives — for this administration to be in the Middle East than protecting the state of Israel. Israel’s a distraction. Oil is the name of the game. And Israel is America’s best ally in fighting that war, whether it’s a war you want to be fighting or not.
Martin–
Politicians are just pandering (if you can believe that) and telling them what they want to hear (and then eventually having to follow through on their words).
Name a politician who’s ever kept a campaign promise.
Did you ever read Tempting Faith, former White House staffer David Kuo’s book about how the Bush administration misled Christian groups to get their political support, cynically pandering to them, but when push came to shove, delivering positively nothing?
If we weren’t presently overextended in the ME, we’d be offering the Palis much less of a sweet deal than we’re presently doing (and they’d reject it, which may end up happening to this one, as well).
I agree wholeheartedly. This would be even more the case had Israel not totally blown Lebanon.
By the way, how much do you think the Iranians *really* care about the Palis? Call me cynical, but I don’t think coming to a two-state solution tomorrow is going to suddenly change the hearts of the Mullahs in Iran.
Of course not! He’s not doing it to pacify Iran, he’s doing it to pacify Saudi Arabia and Egypt, among others, so that he can create a united front of Sunni states against Iran. He needs to show that the US has a true vested interest in ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before the Arab street will even consider supporting such a move. That was the whole thing with the Lebanon war. Nasrallah became a hero throughout the Arab world, Sunni and Shia alike, because he gave Israel a black eye. America has to be willing to give Israel a black eye as well before the Arabs will feel like the US can be trusted again.
And it’s not *just* the proposed abandonment of the petrodollar that’s killing our currency, it’s poor/loose monetary policy (and not publishing our M3 to hide it looks even worse) combined with increased instability in the ME and increased uncertainty about the future of the petrodollar.
I agree. But the demise of the petrodollar is really gonna screw us good.
Stan Horowitz | Jan 12, 2008 | Reply
“No–I certainly wouldn’t do that. I’m not talking about what I want or what I would do. (And I think that’s a fundamental misunderstanding on your part, because I was against this war from the outset and was arrested multiple times protesting it.)”
OK. Then I retract all my insults to you and apologize to you for them. Instead, I’ll offer you my commendations for the risks you took.
“I’m talking about what the current administration’s thinking is, and combatting the anti-Semitic lie that this war is being fought for Israel’s security interests.”
Then we agree again. I misunderstood you. Yeah, I’m tired of the anti-Jewish, anti-Israel bullshit that the war in Iraq is about Israel.
“Israel, and all it implies theologically, is a propaganda tool — a distraction from the real cause of war: OIL — and little more.”
Agree again, 100%. I misunderstood you.
…the Pentagon has been hijacked by Evangelicals who believe themselves to be fighting a modern day Crusade, and who place a primacy on Christian eschatology and tell their troops that they’re fighting in the name of Jesus. Brainwashing, sir. Brainwashing.”
Now that I understand your position, I could believe that. Even in my day, there was a Christian bias in the military, since the troops were overwhelmingly Christian. Often I was the only Jew in the unit, except there was a larger percentage of Jewish medics and officers.
“No–I didn’t serve in the US military. My father did. He fought in Nam in the 173rd Airborne Brigade. Now he’s a veterans’ rights activist who spends his time fighting against an American government that asks young Americans to make the ultimate sacrifice and then casts them aside when its done exploiting them.”
Well, hey home! I was a medic in HHC (Headquarters Company) 3/503rd “3rd Batt” attached to C (Charlie) Company in 1971. Operated out of LZ Uplift not too far away from Bong Son, spent time in Sui Kai Valley, and mountains near Kontum (Contum?). When was he in “The Herd”, as the 173rd was called? Pass it along to yer ol’ man, kid. I only remember a few names from that time, it’s been so long. Maybe we crossed paths.
“Nonsense. Oil production has peaked. There are no new sources.”
That’s beside the point. Peak oil is way in the future, and is in dispute. Currently and in the foreseeable future, U.S. industry is powered predominantly by electricity which is produced by domestic coal, natural gas, hydro-electric and imported uranium (from Russia), with very little from oil — http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/e.....at1p1.html. The most that would happen is that the price of heating oil and gasoline would skyrocket. People would pay more, use less, walk, drive less. Cost of moving goods would go up and there would be a price rise due to that. Probably there would be a recession. But the likelihood that the U.S. economy would “collapse” is small, absent stupid action by the government. The nation certainly wouldn’t collapse.
Please keep in mind that the ME including Algeria, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates supplies only 22% of all U.S. imports. Since the U.S. imports 73% of its oil, total ME imports account for only 16% of U.S. supply. That’s nowhere near enough to cause the U.S. to “collapse”. Yeah, some hard times but not collapse. Again, remember that oil is a fungible commodity and that it would be impossible for the ME nations to cut us off without ending production altogether — which they won’t do because it would be disasterous for them, more so than for us.
(2006 figures — http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/.....mbbl_a.htm U.S production — http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/.....mbbl_a.htm Foreign Imports — http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/.....mbbl_a.htm)
‘So the Iranian oil bourse, which has thus far succeeded in convincing its clients to stop trading on the dollar, is a figment of my imagination? Chavez and Ahmedinejad didn’t recently attempt to convince OPEC to stop trading with “worthless pieces of paper”?’
“It’s clients”, but not the market in general. So long as the largest buyer of oil pays in dollars, they’ll have a tough time of it. Iran is the 4th largest producer not the first. Its production is dwarfed by Saudi Arabia and the others. We agree about the Fed. The dollar will be worthless only if the the Fed inflates.
“Even if the Fed were abolished, the time required to make a successful transition is far greater than the time we have to stave off a total economic collapse.”
That’s a good point. Its not just oil, there is so much overextended credit and misinvestment out there that a failure to inflate fast enough will lead us into recession, oil or no oil. But as far as oil is concerned, remember that oil is a fungible commodity and that it would be impossible for the ME nations to cut us off without ending production altogether — which they won’t do because it would be disasterous for them, more so than for us.
“And Israel is America’s best ally in fighting that war, whether it’s a war you want to be fighting or not.”
I don’t want to be fighting it. It would not be in America’s interest to fight a war that doesn’t have to be fought. That oil is not going to be cut off, and if in the remote case that it is, we can handle it. It’s not in Israel’s interest….
“This would be even more the case had Israel not totally blown Lebanon.”
The U.S. blew it for Israel. Israel had turned the tide and was starting to advance. If Condoleeza Rice hadn’t negotiated the truce, Israel would have taken all of South Lebanon and driven out the Hizzies. It was the Hizzies that wanted the truce, not the Israelis. Go back and read the news reports of summer of ‘06. The Hizzies were losing. That’s why they wanted a truce. They were saved by the bell, rung by Condoleeza Rice. A good reason for Israel to be independent of the U.S.
“Why is it that Paul’s supporters are all pedestrian political analysts who talk out of their asses? Half of them can’t even spell the name of the country they’re undermining.”
I hope from your exchanges here that you realize that is not true.
Bruce D | Jan 12, 2008 | Reply