Israel: The Dead Roach in America's Salad

[fastpat]

Charlie Reese, a real conservative who looks out for America.

Israel: The Dead Roach in America's Salad
by Charley Reese

The Israeli lobby and the neoconservatives are beating the drums for war with Iran. I hope the president is not that dangerously stupid. The betting on whether he is that stupid is about even.

The neocons - who, being self-centered, seemingly have no concept of human nature - are advancing the premise that a military attack on Iran will cause the people to lose faith in their government and result in regime change.

A military attack on Iran will have the opposite effect. The people will rally to their government, and any hope of regime change will be dead. That people will rally around their existing leaders in the face of an attack by a foreign power is as certain as sunrise. Neither Israel nor the U.S. could do a greater favor for the ruling mullahs and Iran's president than to launch an attack. It would cement their hold on power.

The neocons' fallacious premise has already been disproved. In the first Gulf War, the first Bush administration confidently incited the Shi'ites and the Kurds to rebel after Saddam Hussein's forces were expelled from Kuwait. The administration thought that Saddam, embarrassed by a crushing military defeat, would fall from power in Iraq easily. Instead, he rallied his forces and crushed both the Shi'ites in the south and the Kurds in the north. Oops.

In the first place, it is not embarrassing for a Third World country with obsolete equipment to be defeated by the world's No. 1 military superpower. In the second place, the Sunnis, however much they might have disliked Saddam, disliked even more the thought of being ruled by Kurds or Shi'ites. In the third place, by President George H.W. Bush's decision to not go to Baghdad, Saddam could say he duked it out with the world's superpower and was still standing after the fight. That, in most eyes, could be counted as a victory.

Some months ago, an Iranian human-rights advocate pleaded with the current Bush administration to cease its rhetorical attacks on the Iranian government. She said, quite accurately, that such attacks make life impossible for Iranian reformers. Needless to say, the blockheads in Washington ignored her.

What did we do when the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked? We rallied behind George W. Bush � Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. That's the natural reaction of normal human beings, and the Iranians are normal human beings. Attack their country and they will rally round the flag.

The Iranians still insist they are not seeking nuclear weapons, and there's not a scrap of evidence to contradict that claim. They still adhere to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. They have often called for a nuclear-free Middle East.

Once again, the dead roach in America's salad is Israel. The U.S. hypocritically opposes a nuclear-free Middle East because Israel has nuclear weapons. We hypocritically claim the Iranians are in violation of international law when, in fact, it is Israel that refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refuses international inspections. Given our craven obedience to Israel, we have exactly zero credibility in the Arab and Muslim world.

As I have said before, I don't care if the Iranians do develop nuclear weapons. My whole adult life was lived with 30,000 Soviet nuclear weapons aimed at me. I can certainly live with the six or seven Iran might be able to scrape together in the next five to 10 years. In the meantime, the U.S. government should kick the Israeli lobby out of the country and support Iran and the Arab League in pushing for a nuclear-free Middle East.

The Israeli lobby pushing America to fight yet another war for Israel reminds me of what the French ambassador to Great Britain said at a party: "Why does the world allow this (expletive deleted) little country to cause so much trouble?"

Why indeed? You should ask your politicians that question.

[Howard Agency]

Pretty easy answer. It's 1938 in Israel, and Israel is like Britain in 1938. Has been that way for the past 50+ years. War may be about to break out.

We put billions (back when a billion was real money) into the UK at that time to support our 'Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier". There was a good chance that without our support Hitler would have beaten Britain, and without Britain, there was a good chance we could not have invaded Europe until much later.

If the big one does break out, we need a base in the ME. Anyone else there you want to count on?

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Israel could pretty much wipe the ME clean of Islam if they so desired. Most of the ME knows it! Not sure why they would "beat the drums for war with Iran."

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Howard Agency
Pretty easy answer. It's 1938 in Israel, and Israel is like Britain in 1938. Has been that way for the past 50+ years. War may be about to break out.

That's wildly not true. You're not even on the street to the parking lot of the ballpark on that one.

We put billions (back when a billion was real money) into the UK at that time to support our 'Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier". There was a good chance that without our support Hitler would have beaten Britain,

Germany had absolutely no chance to beat Britain. The Royal Navy beat the German Navy silly in short order, Germany didn't have the capability to land on British unimproved shorlines, and the British could have and would have denied any port facilities to them. The Germans weren't even close.

and without Britain, there was a good chance we could not have invaded Europe until much later.

Since there was no reason, at all, for America to enter the european portion of World War II, I'll have to say; so what!

If the big one does break out, we need a base in the ME. Anyone else there you want to count on?

"The Big One" is a figment of your imagination. We have no reason to be in the middle east at all.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by BlueSkyJaunte
Israel could pretty much wipe the ME clean of Islam if they so desired. Most of the ME knows it! Not sure why they would "beat the drums for war with Iran."

They want the US to do it for them.

[Howard Agency]

Originally posted by fastpat
That's wildly not true. You're not even on the street to the parking lot of the ballpark on that one.

Germany had absolutely no chance to beat Britain. The Royal Navy beat the German Navy silly in short order, Germany didn't have the capability to land on British unimproved shorlines, and the British could have and would have denied any port facilities to them. The Germans weren't even close.

Since there was no reason, at all, for America to enter the european portion of World War II, I'll have to say; so what!

Germany declared war on the US a few days after Pearl Harbor and began unrestricted attacks on American shipping. We could have remained isolationist and not responded to that or Pearl Harbor, but IMHO we did the proper thing.

You don't? Really?

[1967 R50/2]

Originally posted by fastpat
Since there was no reason, at all, for America to enter the european portion of World War II, I'll have to say; so what!

Hitler DECLARED WAR ON THE US on Dec 11th 1941 and U-boats immediately began targeting US shipping. The declaration of war was not required under the Tripartite pact with Japan and Italy. By all reports he did it on a whim and consulted no-one.

Saying that we shouldn't have gotten involved while US sailors go down to visit Davy Jones is a revolting notion. 20/20 hindsight would beg the question of why we didn't get involved SOONER. The fascist enemy was always there in plain sight and our isolationism only emboldened them.

...and, indeed, there was a good chance Hitler could have strangled Britain with U-boats without ever setting foot on the Island.

But on the main topic, I see little evidence that the US or Israel is truly considering military action against Iran. More likely they will be held at arms length and isolated like North Korea.

Another Op/Ed piece about nothing.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Howard Agency
Germany declared war on the US a few days after Pearl Harbor and began unrestricted attacks on American shipping. We could have remained isolationist and not responded to that or Pearl Harbor, but IMHO we did the proper thing.

You don't? Really?

Without getting into Roosevelt's act of war against Germany in September, 1940; the German Declaration of war was of low intensity.

The proper response to Germany, which did declare war against the US, was to defend America against German attacks. There was no reason, at all, to Concentrate 85% of the war effort against Germany, while the country that actually attacked a part of America was dealt with by 15%. That's not to mention the tens of thousands of US soldiers in Japanese POW camps that could have been liberated not just months earlier, but years earlier if the concentration of military men and material were accurately focused.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

15% towards Japan? Oppenheimer might disagree.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by BlueSkyJaunte
15% towards Japan? Oppenheimer might disagree.

The atomic bomb wasn't readied for Japan, and is a separate issue. I don't think you want to get into Truman's war crime, do you?

15% of the war effort, men and materiel was expended defeating Japan.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by 1967 R50/2
Hitler DECLARED WAR ON THE US on Dec 11th 1941 and U-boats immediately began targeting US shipping. The declaration of war was not required under the Tripartite pact with Japan and Italy. By all reports he did it on a whim and consulted no-one.

While that could be true, Hitler was known to do that sort of thing, there are other reasons that could also be just as likely.

Saying that we shouldn't have gotten involved while US sailors go down to visit Davy Jones is a revolting notion. 20/20 hindsight would beg the question of why we didn't get involved SOONER. The fascist enemy was always there in plain sight and our isolationism only emboldened them.

No, your notions of the war are inaccurate. Without the Decaration of war against the US, there was absolutely no reason for America to get involved in World War II. Roosevelt wanted to join that war for political reasons, nothing more. He wanted to make europe safe for communism, which succeeded by the way. Yes, Roosevelt's actions were responsible for the deaths of nearly a half million Americans, the permanently maiming of millions more, for no good reason at all.

...and, indeed, there was a good chance Hitler could have strangled Britain with U-boats without ever setting foot on the Island.

No, that's not true either. The U-Boat threat was already diminishing well before US involvement, by 1944 75% of all U-boat crews were dead or captured. The almost complete control of european waters by the British was never a question. If it had been, their far eastern fleet would have been called home to defend Britain, and we know that didn't happen.

But on the main topic, I see little evidence that the US or Israel is truly considering military action against Iran. More likely they will be held at arms length and isolated like North Korea.

Another Op/Ed piece about nothing.

I hope you are correct.

[Howard Agency]

Originally posted by fastpat
No, your notions of the war are inaccurate. Without the Decaration of war against the US, there was absolutely no reason for America to get involved in World War II. Roosevelt wanted to join that war for political reasons, nothing more. He wanted to make europe safe for communism, which succeeded by the way. Yes, Roosevelt's actions were responsible for the deaths of nearly a half million Americans, the permanently maiming of millions more, for no good reason at all.

Pat, pretty hard to argue with that logic

[1967 R50/2]

Originally posted by fastpat

No, your notions of the war are inaccurate. Without the Decaration of war against the US, there was absolutely no reason for America to get involved in World War II. .

No, that's not true either. The U-Boat threat was already diminishing well before US involvement, by 1944 75% of all U-boat crews were dead or captured. The almost complete control of european waters by the British was never a question. If it had been, their far eastern fleet would have been called home to defend Britain, and we know that didn't happen.

No. My notions of the war are extremely well-accepted. Yours are strictly your own opinion and extremely revisionist. But at least you concur that the declaration of war by Hitler was reason enough for the US to get involved.

BTW: 500,000 Americans did not die in the war, so I suggest you check your numbers. It was only 300K for both theaters combined.

You site figures from 1944...when the war wasalmost concluded and US radar, seapower and airpower were at the pre-eminence over the Atlantic.Without that involvement there is serious doubt as to whether the British would have lasted that long.

Call what Far Eastern Fleet home? Task Force Z was sunk by the Japanese during the opening moves of the war and Singapore was occupied. The only thing keeping the sea lanes open with Australia was the small task force at Ceylon.

[Moneyguy1]

Actual WW II figures:


Deaths (verified)

Merchan MArine 9512

Marines 19733

Army 234,874

Navy 36958

Coast Guard 574

Total killed 295,790

Wounded 670,846

(I would rather see the numbers rounded; numbers this specific are, to me, questionable.)


As for the U-boat war, I addressed this in another thread. True, by mid 1944, the effect on shipping was greatly diminished because aircraft were then available to patrol the area of the Atlantic between North America and Europe that previously had received no air cover. From 1939 through 1943 the German sub-mariners called those years "The Happy Times"

And WHAT far Eastern fleet? Most was either sunk or disabled in late 1941-early 1942. Kinda like Hitler depending on his imaginary regiments in early 1945....

Would the Royal Navy actually been a factor in an invasion by the Germans had the RAF been destroyed rather that changing dirction and going after cities instead? Could the Royal Navy been effective against an air invasion by paratroopers? Landing craft? Once captured, the Royal Navy would have had limited options. Surrender, sink themselves like the Germans did after WW I (or the French after they were defeated in 1940), or run to a friendly port and either sit out the remainder of the war or fight as part of one of the other allied navies.

pat...Don't let your desire to win ever argument cloud your sense of history. The world is not stark black and white; it is all shades in between.

[dhoward]

in 1941, during the first 6 months of the German U-boat offensive out of the US east coast some 397 ships totalling over 2 million tons were sunk, costing roughly 5000 lives. In the process only 7 U-boats (U-85, U-352, U-157, U-158, U-701, U-153 and U-576) were lost. There were only survivors from U-352 (33) and U-701 (7), the rest went down with all hands. 302 Germans were lost on these 7 boats.
I have made dives on some of these boats, and will be part of a History Channel program on U-701 out of Moorehead City.
The U-boat threat, commencing with Operation Drumbeat, was more significant than many people know...

[tobster1911]

Oh come on guys, stop all your lies. The Almighty PAT, knower of everything, teacher to all, defender of all known truth, keeper of the "true" history, divinely appointed policy expert, has spoken.

As PAT has spoken, so let it be written, so let it be....

I am so glad that PAT is in the world. Without him we would all be doomed.

P.S. I must admit, for an arrogant, egotistical a$$, he is good entertainment. Cracks me up every post.

[stuartj]

Its true to say that after the RN lost the (brand new) battleship Prince of Wales and the battlecruiser Repulse to Japanese aircraft during the fall of Singapore in late 1941, there was was not much of a RN Far East fleet.

Its also farily well established that the UK desperately wanted the US to enter the war. To that extent, its known Churchill knew of the imminnet attack at Pearl Harbour. THere are some theories that suggest Roosevelt did to.

Dhoward- is it not true that the German U-Boat service was THE most fatal branch of any military in WW2? I recall reading this somewhere, and that 75% of men who were served were killed. Do you know?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by dhoward
in 1941, during the first 6 months of the German U-boat offensive out of the US east coast some 397 ships totalling over 2 million tons were sunk, costing roughly 5000 lives. In the process only 7 U-boats (U-85, U-352, U-157, U-158, U-701, U-153 and U-576) were lost. There were only survivors from U-352 (33) and U-701 (7), the rest went down with all hands. 302 Germans were lost on these 7 boats.
I have made dives on some of these boats, and will be part of a History Channel program on U-701 out of Moorehead City.
The U-boat threat, commencing with Operation Drumbeat, was more significant than many people know...

An interesting subject, how many US navy ships were guarding convoy's to Britain and allowing German subs to target American ships running north-south in ordinary commerce? Keeping in mind that Roosevelt's handing over 50 warships to Britain in September of 1940 was an act of war against Germany and violated US law.

[tabs]

Starting in October or Setember 1941 US warships were guarding the convoys to England halfway....we actually had a US Destroyer Sunk in this period. So hostilities had allready begun between Germany and US before Pearl Harbor.

Hitler declared war on the US hoping that Japan would declare war on Russia in return, but the Nips were smarter than that.

John Toland who wrote many books on WW2 felt that FDR knew about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor before the attack. But from what I gather FDR really didn't know. The Jap cable were there to be decoded, but like all things bureaucratic hadn't been deciphered yet.

FDR and Churchill chose to make Germanys defeat the primary objective simply because Germany had so much more industrial capacity. Japan literally had NO CHANCH in WW2. Both Germany and Japan combined could not out produce the US in military Goods.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by tabs
Starting in October or Setember 1941 US warships were guarding the convoys to England halfway....we actually had a US Destroyer Sunk in this period. So hostilities had allready begun between Germany and US before Pearl Harbor.

A clear violation of the Neutrality Act, which is US law.

Hitler declared war on the US hoping that Japan would declare war on Russia in return, but the Nips were smarter than that.

Try Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor. It's well researched and makes it as clear as it can be made that FDR knew well in advance of the pending attack.

John Toland who wrote many books on WW2 felt that FDR knew about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor before the attack. But from what I gather FDR really didn't know. The Jap cable were there to be decoded, but like all things bureaucratic hadn't been deciphered yet.

FDR and Churchill chose to make Germanys defeat the primary objective simply because Germany had so much more industrial capacity. Japan literally had NO CHANCH in WW2. Both Germany and Japan combined could not out produce the US in military Goods.

America would have roled up Japan in two years or less, without doubt. If FDR hadn't continually carried acts of war against Germany for for well over a year, I don't think there would have been a war declaration by them after Pearl Harbor. Britain wanted America in the War in order to invade and conquer Germany.

As I've said many times, the start of it all was World War One, and our entry into it for Britain and France; big, costly mistake.