Yep Blessed are Americans to have it's govt subservient to Israel

What a gift and a blessing for our troops to die for Israel


New Senate Push to Pledge Unconditional Support for Israeli Preventive War on Iran

October 11, 2012

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is planning to press the Senate next month to pledge U.S. troops, money, and political support to Israel should Bibi Netanyahu launch a preventive war on Iran.

Graham claims his effort would merely make explicit that the U.S. has Israel’s back. But when your friend is drunk, you don’t hand them the keys. If Graham has his way, he will hand Bibi the keys and lend him our car, while the rest of us ride shotgun.

Graham’s planned measure would outsource the decision about whether the U.S. goes to war to the Israeli prime minister, pledging that if Bibi decides to act — regardless of the consequences and our own calculations — the U.S. will provide money, troops, and political leverage (presumably at the UN and IAEA where there will be a push to shred the sanctions and the Non-Proliferation Treaty).

Those who support the measure will likely claim that a “credible threat” of war must be issued in order to prevent an actual war. But U.S. military leaders understand the difference between a credible threat, which is already very much on the table given the U.S. presence in the Persian Gulf, and outsourcing the decision of whether the U.S. goes to war to Bibi Netanyahu.

As chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey pointedly said just weeks ago about potential Israeli strikes on Iran, “I don’t want to be complicit if they decide to do it.” Graham’s resolution is about as clear a signal of complicity as you can get.

Graham’s mendacity on Iran policy should by now be notorious. His most recent victory was to convince Congress to endorse Netanayhu’s redline for war with Iran instead of the redline laid out by the president. The trick was that, in pushing that measure, Graham disingenuously claimed that Obama’s redline was nuclear weapons “capability.” And Congress bought it. In reality, the president very clearly rejected that redline and said the U.S redline was to prevent Iran from actually getting the bomb, not getting an amorphous “capability.”

But Graham (and Bibi) won the battle on the Hill. Both the House and the Senate voted to endorse Netanyahu’s redline, not Obama’s. To be fair, many in the House and Senate who supported the resolution still have no idea that there is a difference. They read the talking points circulated by Graham and AIPAC (the measure’s chief advocates), and to this day think they were simply voting to endorse what Obama had already said.

Now, Graham is herding his willfully ignorant colleagues to support another incremental step towards war with Iran, under the guise of being “pro-Israel” and supporting the president. His new resolution would twist Obama’s words that the U.S. “has Israel’s back” to mean the U.S. is on call to jump into war with Iran if and when Netanyahu decides it’s go time.

According to CQ, Graham said having Israel’s back means, “if you get into a fight, I’m coming to help you.” He continued:

“There are two different clocks here, the Washington clock and the Tel Aviv clock,” he said. “The Israelis are not going to let the window close on their ability to slow down this program. They’re going to act… They’re going to control their own destiny.”

Graham’s resolution would make it clear that the United States would provide assistance to Israel “if they have to go because they’ve decided they are not going to turn their window over to us or anybody else.”

Sorry, but there is a difference between not getting in Israel’s way and actively supporting a disastrous decision with American servicemembers, money, and international political leverage. Graham is hoping that, yet again, no one notices the difference.

Having Israel’s back does not mean supporting preventive war that the entire national security establishment says would be a disaster for everyone involved and could guarantee an Iranian nuclear weapon. Having Israel’s back does not mean goading them into making stupid decisions and pledging to bail them out unconditionally.

The Senate should not be handing out promises to enable foreign leaders to decide whether and when the U.S. goes to war. This would not be a mutual defense pact — it would be a suicide pact.

http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.c...ort-for-israeli-preventive-war-on-iran/23423/

 

I agree for completely different reasons. Israel has a very strong lobby in the United States because it has a core constituency of both Jews and fundamentalist Christians wh o believe Israel has to exist in order for Biblical preconditions for the Rapture to occur. This means that support for Israel has to be read with both those constituencies in mind.

If Muslims really want to modify this support, they need to generate an equally strong lobby and weaken that of Israels (need massive media exposure so they need to control a major network and several key newspapers). Whining about AIPAC doesn't change the facts and supporting Islamist terrorism (or even failing to condemn it) only makes the Israeli lobby stronger. Mario can whine about theory all he wants, but that won't change a thing.

 

Uummm dude I think you are deliberately omitting the fact that the Zionists (the Rothschilds) own the US Federal reserve and they print all that monopoly money called the US dollar to control everything in the USA including all the Media, Banks, Politicians etc! Do ya think you can start being a bit more honest by not omitting really obvious truths?

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

 

Do you think can you can be a bit more honest by proving that the Rothchild's "own the US Fed". That would make a great change.

 

OK instead of me and you going on yes they do (and posting stacks of articles) and you: no they don't (with every silly excuse in the book) Tell us then Liebe, DOES THE US GOVERNMENT OWN THE FEDERAL RESERVE?

 

Congress has the power to control it and audit it if they so wish, except they chose to have the bank run more quasi publicly controlled because of this. It's technically an independent entity but it's within the congressional powers, it is also to be accountable for it's bad dealings. You could make a case that it should be under more auditing or national control but that's why more people should vote.

 

Thanks Skeptical for that answer which is correct and basically says that it is not owned by the US Government but congress has the power to control and audit it....but they totally refuse to do so...so then the question has to be asked WHO OWNS IT? AND WHY WILL CONGRESS NEVER ALLOW A FULL AUDIT OF THE FED....OR FOR THAT MATTER FORT KNOX?

Man we are watching the Zionazi's in plain site with their hands in the cookie jar and all we do is just watch them and never do anything about it....have we become this retarded?

 

Anyone have a clue how many troops are stationed at Fort Knox to protect the Gold that was stolen from there 3 decades ago?

Gee the only place that gives Tungsten any value is the amount of US tax payer dollars spent to protect that useless metal at Fort Knox!

 

Must be a zionist conspiracy.

 

Hell Uri finally you have said something that makes sense....well done I knew you could do it eventually. Now here ya go learn some more!

Timeline of the Rothschild Family

http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Rothschild.htm

 

Must be a jewish conspiracy.

 

What silliness. Rothchilds dont own the Federal Reserve. Federal Reserve banks are owned by other banks that operate within their district.

 

Heh Heh I'm silly??????? Maybe you should do some research before big mouthing.... Yeh right man the Rothschilds don't want anything to do with the Federal Reserve...now that is funny! So what other banks own the Fed according to you and on a more serious note why are private banks printing Federal Currency like freakin monopoly money?

 

Im quite familiar with our federal reserve system. Did you have a point or just stupid questions.

 

Oh did you miss the part of the question that I asked you ?-- So what other banks own the Fed according to you?...I hope you didn't miss it this time...I highlighted it to help you this time around!

 

For instance, the NY federal reseve was 63% owned by Citibank, Chase Manhatten, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Chemical Bank, Manufacturers Hanover Trust, Bankers Trust Company, National Bank of North America, and the Bank of New York. Did you have a point? Or just stupid questions?

 

Deleted

 

And who the hell do you think controls those banks for God's sake? Chase and Morgan are both Rockefeller banks who work for the Rothschilds, Hanover Bank where the Rothscum began. Listen mate get a freakin clue will ya...here is another question...do you have any inking at all what the BIS is and who controls it?....oh wait I better highlite it so you don't miss it this time.....do you have any inking at all what the BIS is and who controls it?

 

More stupid questions. If you can ever locate your nads and actually make a point, let me know.

 

Prove these ownerships or shut up.

You present 0 facts. Ever.

 

Mario,
These arrogant ones over here are charging headlong into finalizing their time on this good Earth. I say, let them have at it. Anyone who is not tired of the mischief they have caused since 1789 and even before that time is either one of them or is not mentally balanced. Since its inception, this country has done nothing more than cause and encourage the widespread shedding of blood, either domestically or foreign-wise and it is time for it to end.

 

Just to clarify, you are calling for the destruction of the United States, yes?

 

Yeah, for instance. "Hanover Bank where the Rothscum began.". Hanover is a city in germany where Amschel Rothschild worked in the 1700s at A BANK within the city of Hanover. Has absolutely nothing to do with Manufacturers Hanover Trust, a bank founded in New York

 

All the conspiracy BS aside, Israel does have far too much influence on American politics and foreign policy. AIPAC should be required to register as a foreign agent since that is what it is. Anyone in the US gov pledging unconditional support for Israel is breaking their oath at least, if not committing treason, AFAIC. But they do that stuff all the time anyway...

 

It is clear what its agenda is - as is the case in all lobbying groups.

What point does registering as a "foreign agent" have?

All government officials have to the right to have an opinion and if they are pro-Israel and have been democratically voted in, perhaps their constitutents are also of this view. There can be no talk of treason unless they sell secrets to another government.