Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: AIPAC and the Iran Deal

Posted 6 years ago on Aug. 14, 2015, 8:37 a.m. EST by turbocharger (1756)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

According to Jill Stein's camp, when congress was released and was basically going to go home and speak to their constituents, around 60 of them so far have went to Israel.

How's that for representation?! What a racket. In all honesty this is why I dont think they will ever put Bernie into the top spot. The system is running fine, no need to put a spotlight on that aspect of it.




Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by lugano (1221) 6 years ago

''Since 9/11, the United States has flailed away and attacked or invaded at least seven Muslim countries. (I say "at least" because, in contravention of the U.S. Constitution, American presidents now run secret overseas conflicts, including the latest drone wars, without public knowledge or the consent of their representatives in Congress.) Since U.S. (non-Muslim) military presence or intervention in Muslim countries was the original motivator for the 9/11 attacks, doubling down on a failed policy seemed a poor bet among many expert analysts, even during the period of hysteria after the attacks on the Pentagon and Twin Towers.

''Of course, the U.S. government has never wanted to focus public attention on its own irresponsible conduct before 9/11, so politicians and government bureaucrats have always told the public that the terrorists attack us because of our "freedom" or because they are poor and jobless--neither of which stands up to objective analysis. Yet the American public, content to only cursorily examine the problem, is content to see it as an "us" versus "them" or "good" versus "bad" phenomenon, never wanting to believe that their government had been part of the original problem. In a democracy, that would then implicate public negligence in correcting the root of the disease: allowing the American governmental elite to conduct profligate and unneeded U.S. meddling into the affairs of Islamic countries.

''So because we can't tread on this sensitive ground, how about just looking at the counterproductive results since 9/11 of escalated U.S. interventionism--more of the same that motivated the anti-U.S. Islamist terrorist attacks in the first place. The obvious place to start is Afghanistan. Instead of just blasting the central al Qaeda group, the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, in Afghanistan and Pakistan and calling it a day, the United States decided it was going to pacify (and democratize) Afghanistan with a nation-building occupation. Never mind that the British failed to do this three times and the Soviets once very recently and that the last successful occupation of untamed and xenophobic Afghanistan was accomplished centuries before Christ by Cyrus the Great of Persia. But somehow, American politicians thought, the U.S. experience would be different. Not really.''

From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ivan-eland/scorecard-on-us-intervent_b_7965962.html and fyi and furthermore, you may wish to also consider: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42658.htm

Finally, consider ~ Max Blumenthal and Thom Hartmann -

P1/2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGbHS58rfzQ &

P2/2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnMzz0bQQqQ in a seldom heard but essential conversation.

=========================================: that needs to happen, for the sake of history.

[-] 2 points by lugano (1221) 6 years ago

Hmmmm. I think that you may need to read this too http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/netanyahu-and-his-marione_b_7958146.html Strange Days and Strange Times!

Furthermore, you may want to reflect upon the implications of this - http://mondoweiss.net/2015/08/freshmen-congresspeople-sabotage

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

I am serious when I post #NSA

that is the public flag to report posts that suggest violence or harassment that may be interfering with ones first amendment right to post publicly