the MYTH of the two party system

[rtwngAvngr]

It centralizes a focus and creates a balance of power. The threat of their nuclear weapons often keeps nations in check where they otherwise might be more directly attacking Israel. By focusing on Israel, much of our influence elsewhere is less effectively followed...

I can list more, but there are benefits to the US for Israel to be there as it is. If you notice we have never truly offered an effective peace plan to those nations, it isn't because we couldn't, it's because the status quo "benefits" us more according to those making those decisions.

Oh, so it's a "wag the dog" scenario. Why didn't you just say so?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Centralizing a focus... hmmmm... let me think about that one

 

[no1tovote4]

Centralizing a focus... hmmmm... let me think about that one

In other words, I think those people throw Israel under the bus and use them to direct attention and spread the power of the terrorists away from us. It is easily done so long as they are saying, "Look how bad they are!" they are sending much of those they would use to attack us for being on their extra holy land to attack them.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

In other words, I think those people throw Israel under the bus and use them to direct attention and spread the power of the terrorists away from us. It is easily done so long as they are saying, "Look how bad they are!" they are sending much of those they would use to attack us for being on their extra holy land to attack them.

I'm suprised jews would allow themselves to be used so blatantly.

Perhaps the tension our "decoy" creates is part of the problem? A self fulfilling prophecy?

 

[no1tovote4]

I'm suprised jews would allow themselves to be used so blatantly.

Perhaps the tension our "decoy" creates is part of the problem? A self fulfilling prophecy?

Clearly it is, but some unstability is better than direct enmity. We need the oil, plain and simple, to keep ourselves going. There is little the US won't do to keep that engine running.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Clearly it is, but some unstability is better than direct enmity. We need the oil, plain and simple, to keep ourselves going. There is little the US won't do to keep that engine running.

I don't know, we've justified our own foothold there in iraq. There's no oil in israel.

 

[no1tovote4]

I don't know, we've justified our own foothold there in iraq. There's no oil in israel.

A more direct approach by the current Administration causes those that use Israel this way to "influence" the Administration not to admonish Israel over their excessive force.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Little can be said that could convince people that the US State Department hasn't worked towards "stability" in the region even to the detriment of the inhabitants. Including almost "unconditional" support of Israel which can be shown to actually destabilize the region. Why would they do that? It isn't because they are run by Jews, it is because "stability" keeps the oil coming.

This more direct approach was preached against by the State Department. They would still prefer we get out and let them handle things instead of actually work to build a real stability in the region. The idea that such "support" of Israel might actually create more attacks there can also be clearly shown by cause and effect.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

A more direct approach by the current Administration causes those that use Israel this way to "influence" the Administration not to admonish Israel over their excessive force.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Little can be said that could convince people that the US State Department hasn't worked towards "stability" in the region even to the detriment of the inhabitants. Including almost "unconditional" support of Israel which can be shown to actually destabilize the region. Why would they do that? It isn't because they are run by Jews, it is because "stability" keeps the oil coming.

This more direct approach was preached against by the State Department. They would still prefer we get out and let them handle things instead of actually work to build a real stability in the region. The idea that such "support" of Israel might actually create more attacks there can also be clearly shown by cause and effect.

Im not clear what you're saying. Did you say supporting israel actually destabilizes the region, but stability keeps the oil flowing? It seems like you're saying opposite things. Or else you're purposefully undercutting your own argument.

 

[no1tovote4]

Im not clear what you're saying. Did you say supporting israel actually destabilizes the region, but stability keeps the oil flowing? It seems like you're saying opposite things. Or else you're purposefully undercutting your own argument.

I am saying that a smaller amount of expected instability is better than total instability. By "controlling" the amount of such instability they are better able to keep secular governments more willing to trade with the US. Otherwise, with absolute instability the likely result would not be favorable. Thus keeping the status quo or keeping it "stable" is the goal, not actual peace in the region. At least that is what, by result, appears to be the goal to myself.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I am saying that a smaller amount of expected instability is better than total instability. By "controlling" the amount of such instability they are better able to keep secular governments more willing to trade with the US. Otherwise, with absolute instability the likely result would not be favorable. Thus keeping the status quo or keeping it "stable" is the goal, not actual peace in the region. At least that is what, by result, appears to be the goal to myself.

Hmm. So you're saying we should design war and conflict into the system focusing perhaps already inherent desires into specific directions to suit our own purposes? Wow. You are a mason. :tongue1:

 

[no1tovote4]

Hmm. So you're saying we should design war and conflict into the system focusing perhaps already inherent desires into specific directions to suit our own purposes? Wow. You are a mason. :tongue1:

No, I am saying that is what they are doing. I prefer the more direct approach that they preach against...

 

[no1tovote4]

You keep attempting to make this somehow directly about me. All I am describing is the actual results in region as I see them.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No, I am saying that is what they are doing. I prefer the more direct approach that they preach against...

And plus the "they" you speak of, capable of doing whatever they want, still refuse to close the border, or do anything of note to protect any american industry whatsoever. I was with the planners until I realized their plan for america.

 

[no1tovote4]

And plus the "they" you speak of, capable of doing whatever they want, still refuse to close the border, or do anything of note to protect any american industry whatsoever. I was with the planners until I realized their plan for america.

The State Department is the "they" that I speak of. Those long-term employees who see each new Administration as an obstacle to their longer-term plans.

I too am upset about the border and the ports being unprotected and ignored. I am also very clear on the fact that I don't believe Israel controls US policy, and why I believe that.

I am very much a results person, I look at the results and see what caused them rather than attempting to find reason to accuse I look for the actual root cause.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The State Department is the "they" that I speak of. Those long-term employees who see each new Administration as an obstacle to their longer-term plans.

I too am upset about the border and the ports being unprotected and ignored. I am also very clear on the fact that I don't believe Israel controls US policy, and why I believe that.

I am very much a results person, I look at the results and see what caused them rather than attempting to find reason to accuse I look for the actual root cause.

But there are certain branches in the tree of reality which you refuse to follow to find causation because mere discussions of such topics have been rendered off limits through politicization and indoctrination. Can you admit any zionist influence in the israel situation? Does it have anything at all to do with jews, jewish nationalism, their religious prophecy of a homeland in that precise spot, their undeniable influence in our society, and their overt admissions to that effect? You claim to be so logical, but really you're in a lot of denial. It could be to attributable to your "noahide torture ritual" at the Masonic Temple. You probably don't remember it consciously, yet it's effecting your every utterance. The real you is locked inside, yearning for jesus.

 

[no1tovote4]

But there are certain branches in the tree of reality which you refuse to follow to find causation because mere discussions of such topics have been rendered off limits through politicization and indoctrination. Can you admit any zionist influence in the israel situation? Does it have anything at all to do with jews, jewish nationalism, their religious prophecy of a homeland in that precise spot, their undeniable influence in our society, and their overt admissions to that effect? You claim to be so logical, but really you're in a lot of denial. It could be to attributable to your "noahide torture ritual" at the Masonic Temple. You probably don't remember it consciously, yet it's effecting your every utterance. The real you is locked inside, yearning for jesus.

Not necessarily. Zionists exist and fully have influence in Israel, however they are not as strong in our government as people seem to think. It is a far more logical conclusion that I have come to based on the results than the idea that somehow they are magically controlling our government through 12 people in the Majic circle of "Baphomet" or whomever you attribute to myself.

Paranoia is often fun, but it is rarely accurate.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Not necessarily. Zionists exist and fully have influence in Israel, however they are not as strong in our government as people seem to think. It is a far more logical conclusion that I have come to based on the results than the idea that somehow they are magically controlling our government through 12 people in the Majic circle of "Baphomet" or whomever you attribute to myself.

Paranoia is often fun, but it is rarely accurate.

Actually I think the bulk of evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates disproportionate and inappropriate control. It's not paranoia, it's a well documented fact. And our policies reflect that reality, though you claim we're in control.

 

[no1tovote4]

Actually I think the bulk of evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates disproportionate and inappropriate control. It's not paranoia, it's a well documented fact. And our policies reflect that reality, though you claim we're in control.

I believe the actual results reflect quite the opposite. I believe that those who want to find "evidence" can when the conclusion is reached before it is ever gathered. It is easy to ignore evidence that may not fit in with the conclusion, such as actual result of action, when you work toward the desired conclusion rather than simply collect information and come to an unbiased conclusion. It is fun to find a scapegoat and then acquire "evidence" against them, but it is a form of that very inaccurate paranoia I presented earlier.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I believe the actual results reflect quite the opposite. I believe that those who want to find "evidence" can when the conclusion is reached before it is ever gathered. It is easy to ignore evidence that may not fit in with the conclusion, such as actual result of action, when you work toward the desired conclusion rather than simply collect information and come to an unbiased conclusion. It is fun to find a scapegoat and then acquire "evidence" against them, but it is a form of that very inaccurate paranoia I presented earlier.

But in the case at hand, you're the one concocting all sorts of theories of inverse wartime focus decoy scenario, when simpler explainations may suffice. Have you heard of occams's razor? You should go with the simplest explanation.

Is evil to say jews have influence in our society? No. In fact, they themselves are often torn between denying it a bragging about it. Did you read all the quotes I posted above? Are those all filthy lies?

You are in denial.

 

[theHawk]

It centralizes a focus and creates a balance of power. The threat of their nuclear weapons often keeps nations in check where they otherwise might be more directly attacking Israel. By focusing on Israel, much of our influence elsewhere is less effectively followed...

I can list more, but there are benefits to the US for Israel to be there as it is. If you notice we have never truly offered an effective peace plan to those nations, it isn't because we couldn't, it's because the status quo "benefits" us more according to those making those decisions.

I fail to see how the US could possibly offer any kind of peaceful solution. You're saying that there is a plan that would work but we aren't using it because we benefit from the current situation, is there some super secret plan that you know about that the rest of the world is in the dark about?

The Arab nations who fear Israel because of the US power behind them centralize their forces there, rather than spreading them. They spend more money on home security rather than "donating" to terrorist causes because they believe they need to protect themselves.

Arab nations hate Israel because its a country founded by taking land from Arabs, coupled with a massive influx of Jewish settlers from around the world.
I don't really know what you are referring to about their spending money on security vs terrorist causes. There seems to be plenty of donating to terrorist causes.

All of this is done without wasting one US life, at the cost of some terrorism in the ME, which these people clearly are willing to "allow" when an end is actually pretty clear and could be easily done with the amount of control the US actually has over Israel.

I'm rather appalled at this statement. PLENTY of American lives have been lost because of the U.S.'s support of Israel. I couldn't disagree more about the amount of control we have over Israel. Currently all we do is tell them exactly what they want to hear - they are a model for democracy in the ME, they have a right to exist, the Palestinians are wrong for fighting back, that apartheid against non-Jews is A-OK. Do you honestly believe that if we directed them to do anything differently or if we changed our toon about Israel they wouldn't react negatively to us? Just imagine what would happen if a mainstream Republican or Democrat politician spoke out against Israel. I think you vastly overestimate our "control" over Israel.