It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by BlackThought
What have they done for us as a nation?
Let them Fend for themselves.
They have broken many many resolutions and still move into occupied territory.
Building an illegal wall.
They do assinations of a virgining countries leaders.
Liability all around we should drop them like last weeks seafood. Show me why we should keep them because they kill brown skinned people?
I would like to hear why we choose to help Israel through thick and thin.
Originally posted by BlackThought
How can you support a country you know so little about?
The internation courts say it is illegal the UN says it is ilegal.
The definition of the land is Occupited land by UN standards.
What do we owe them? really i think We owe France a lot more dealing with the Foundation of this country than we owe Israel.
You know they killed a US general to form Israel after WWII
You know they tried to sink an american ship during the 70's.
Why support the lets do them like we did Somolia, or Iraq when the kurds wanted self determination.
Originally posted by BlackThought
Israel is not America get it!! I do not want to support them. You mean lose a warhead like fitting nato planes to carry nuclear arms even though they signed the treaty also.
The UN General Assembly has backed a resolution asking the International Court of Justice whether Israel is obliged to tear down its controversial wall.
The United States has vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israel's controversial West Bank barrier.
On 9 July, 2004, 14 of the 15 justices in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered an "advisory opinion" on Israel's apartheid barrier that accurately reflects the world's growing moral outrage against Israel's determination to push the Palestinians to the wall and beyond
Neither the DG nor the inspectors have used the term "non -compliance" regarding the implementation of safeguards in Iran. Therefore the use of the term" non-compliance" in the Beard resolution is a clear deviation from the objactivities and has no legal basis.
Anti-war Stance Is Right, Not Left
by Gary Benoit
February 6, 2006
Email this article
Printer friendly page
According to the wisdom of the day, the left is against the war in Iraq while the right supports the war. So why do The John Birch Society and its affiliated magazine THE NEW AMERICAN support the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq? Isn’t that the position of the hard left? (Click here for an online letter to Congress, "Bring Our Soldiers Home From Iraq -- Now!")
In actuality, there are fundamental differences between the left and us regarding the question of war.
Unlike the left, we do not believe any one man should ever be entrusted with the awesome power of deciding when to go to war. It makes no difference if the president is a Republican or a Democrat, a conservative or a liberal. The Constitution assigns to Congress, not the president, the power “to declare war.” If America needs to go to war, Congress should declare it.
www.thenewamerican.com...
Originally posted by BlackThought
Jews are me I am jew You got it wrong.
They do not need our money we need our money. Self interest baby! When Israel is off the table how important is it?
Originally posted by BigEasy
Let's get real. The first step toward peace in the mideast is to say to Israel: lay down your nukes in exchange for a guarantee by the US and/or EU to support you in the dark hour, should it happen.
At least then, Iran would not have any leverage on any kind of arms race crap. I say this not trusting Iran's leadership one iota.
If Israel is not ammenable to our terms, we scale back on the foreign aid. Money talks and BS walks.
Bush's Dilemma: Iran vs. Israel
by Patrick J. Buchanan
In the test of wills between the West and Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shows no sign of backing down.
www.antiwar.com...
'Bring It On': Why Dr. Ahmadinejad Is Not Worrying
The Iranians are contemplating two developments. First, to create a new oil exchange in March 2006, which will sell Iranian oil for euros. Second, to develop the nation's nuclear technology capabilities, possibly for producing nuclear weapons, but officially for the generation of electricity.
Officially, the Bush Administration is deeply concerned about the second development. I have no doubt that it is deeply concerned in a surrogate sort of way, because politicians in the State of Israel are deeply concerned. They resent the fact that an Islamic country that is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (1970) is taking steps that might conceivably lead to a deliberate violation of that treaty – a treaty that the State of Israel never signed, so as not to interfere with the production of hundreds of nuclear weapons.
www.lewrockwell.com...