War against Iraq is based on lies, lies and more lies

i'm getting tired of that constant refering to Hitler and his gang.

The jews are running out of credit concerning the Shoah. They refered too much to it in the past and now people are used to it. Ok, the Shoah was inhuman, a disgrace for mankind,.... But how much longer long do they want to 'profit' from it?

Norman Finkelstein, a jew ,says the Holocaust has been exploited to extort cash, that most 'survivors' are bogus and that too much money is spent commemorating the Nazi genocide.

We live now. What about Armenian holocaust? What about Cambodja, Congo, Ruanda? Millions of people died there too.

frolic
Attacking people who attack you is justice and defense. Civilians killed by Israeli's is a result of collateral damage. Civilians killed by Palestinians are targeted. There is a vast difference. Apparently you can't see it or don't care to. As for the intifada I believe you should remember who the instigators were. You friendly peace loving Palestinians. That after they turned down the Camp David offer.
As to whether you can voice your opinion, Of course you may. However, just noted that all your posts are tinged with Anti- American venom

Neither Finkelstein's book nor I want in any way excuse the actions of the Nazis, who were eventually responsible for one of the greatest horrors ever to afflict Europe (the Second World War, as a consequence of which sixty million people died, including twenty million Russians). Awareness of the depravity exhibited by those who ran the Nazi state and the Nazi extermination campaigns should be part of any person's education, and should never be forgotten (although this should not be used as an excuse to ignore other campaigns of genocide against non-Jewish peoples ?- equally deserving of the term "holocaust").

But Finkelstein makes in his book "The Holocaust Industry" clear that the Holocaust Industry is not about making sure that Nazi depravity is not forgotten. It is about extorting huge sums of money from Switzerland, Germany and any other country which can be tarred with the Nazi brush.

Today Germany has already paid for the sins of the Nazi era, both morally and financially. Many times since the war (and even today) Germany's leaders have expressed their profound regret at the actions of the Nazis, and have accepted collective responsibility for what happened. It has paid out to date some $60bn.

Anti- American? Me? I love America! its a pity that such a moron leads it.

OK, let us not refer to Hitler, let us refer to Leon Degrelle, the SS general, commander of the "Wallonia" Waffen SS division in the WWII. He escaped to the Francist Spain, and Russian justice would be happy to acquaint him with the rope and loop (I know that he is already in the hell). Not only for Jews: more than half of the 27 million Soviet casualties in the WWII were civilians, and SS contributed to majority of these.

Majority of the Holocaust survivors are already dead of age and diseases. So, the financial burden on Germany will disappear very soon. Germany, by the way, all the time since the end of WWII was the most consistent country in the whole Europe in its policies against racism and anti-Semitism.
Switzerland was not demanded to pay reparations. Swiss authorities and army were not involved in massacres. Swiss banks have unjustfully appropriated the property of the Holocaust victims, they merely stole their assets, and now Swiss banks (and not Switzerland as a country) are being sued by successors of this property. They stole money, and they have to return it, whoever owned it, Jews or Zulus.

Degrelle died in 1994. His Rex-party got about 10% of the votes in 1936 elections. So, he wasn't THE MAN for the average Belgian. BTW, he was a walloon and thus unacceptable for the Flemish.

Many East front fighters were encouraged by the church to fight against the Godless Bolsjeviks. Therefore, IMO Religion is the root of all evil in the world. Bush and his Bible Belt, Bin Laden and his Jihad, The Jews and their promised land, the vatican and its role in the spreading of AIDS and position during WWII.

OK, I never claimed that all the Belgians were Nazi collaborators, just as not all the Germans were devout Nazis in 1933-45, I strongly believe that absolute majority were not. By the way, are not Wallons citizens of Belgium?
The same referes to the people involved in the reparation request procedures: some of them are frauds, but absolute majority is not.

About religion in application to the Israeli policies: majority of the Israeli conservatives are non-religious, including such people as PM Sharon, Finance Secretary Netaniahu, Defense Secretary Lt.-Gen. Mofaz, and many other. From the enemy's side the most prominent leaders (Arafat, Abu Mazen, Abu Alla, Dahlan, etc.) are absolutely secular as well. By the way, Mr. Sharon was the first PM in Israel to build a governmental coalition without the ultra-Orthodox parties (National Religious Party is moderate, and its leaders support the principle of freedom of conscience).
Middle east conflict is not religious in its essense. Israel is being rejected by Arabs because it is an outpost of the Western world in the Middle East. The conflict would be inevitable even if the religious part of Israelis were Muslims. Israel was planned as a Western type country from the very beginning: at first the European Socialism was considered a proper model, later ?- the liberal society based on free market economy. Both these models are alien for the Arabs, and their leaders are afraid that such a neighborhood may be detrimental to their obsolete societies. Islamic slogans are being used for PR purposes: majority of population of Palestine is not well-educated, and they will not understand slogans that have no connection with their immediate cultural background.
By the way, Hitler was not less godless than Stalin: he seriously planned to replace Christianity in the Reich by the ancient pagan cults, he was concerned with the Jewish roots of Christianity (well, in fact, such a thing exists).

Foggy Bottom is not impressed with PNAC:

Democracy Domino Theory 'Not Credible'
A State Department report disputes Bush's claim that ousting Hussein will spur reforms in the Mideast, intelligence officials say

Los Angeles Times

A classified State Department report expresses doubt that installing a new regime in Iraq will foster the spread of democracy in the Middle East, a claim President Bush has made in trying to build support for a war, according to intelligence officials familiar with the document.

The report exposes significant divisions within the Bush administration over the so-called democracy domino theory, one of the arguments that underpins the case for invading Iraq.

The report, which has been distributed to a small group of top government officials but not publicly disclosed, says that daunting economic and social problems are likely to undermine basic stability in the region for years, let alone prospects for democratic reform.

Even if some version of democracy took root ?- an event the report casts as unlikely ?- anti-American sentiment is so pervasive that elections in the short term could lead to the rise of Islamic-controlled governments hostile to the United States. (Emphasis mine.)


Now here's an aspect of this that I have not heard discussed: should we invade and if we were to establish a democracy in Iraq, how would we react if the first people to win election under this new system were 2nd-cousins to Osama bin Laden? How could we prevent this without undermining the very democratic principles that we were allegedly trying to inspire?

And don't think that it won't happen. Even if the Islamic extremists make up a very small portion of the Iraqi population, they, like their extremist kinfolk around the world, make up in fervor what they are lacking in numbers (why do you think the GOP can rely so completely on the extremists in our own country to always come out and vote for their candidate?)

This demonstrates, once again, the problem with "imposing" democracy on another country.

Why did the jews move to Palestine and not Australia, Argentine,...?

Because of the Bible, (and the bible is a great storybook. Especially the old testament. Much more action.) But when you start believing the bible is the word from God and you claim land, based on the bible and because you think you are the chosen people. Thats when the problems start.

Your getting tired of referring to Hitler and his gang. I wonder how tired the people who where gassed and incinerated felt? It should be noted that Hitler and his gang which included a good part of the German and other European nationals were not the originators of the concept. Throughout history the favorite European sport was the scapegoating and massacre of Jews. That in my opinion still remains in the minds of many Europeans. It very easy for you as a member of the oppressor class to denigrate the feelings of the oppressed.

There is no need to install democracy in Western understanding of this word in Iraq. Semi-democratic pro-Western regime of Jordanian type will do; I even would like to see the Jordanian prince Hassan el-Hashimi a future king of Iraq (by the way, Hashimite dynasty ruled in Iraq in 1921-58). The main objective of war, IMO, is intimidation of the rogue regimes throughout the world, proving them futility of any efforts to argue the Western (and not only American, by the way) domination.

Jews are present in Australia and Argentine as well. The only place the Jews could claim on grounds of having there an independent country twice in history was the Canaan area (Palestine, by the way, is a term introduced by the Roman occupants, the indigenous name of the land is neither Israel and nor Palestine, but Canaan). And the necessary proofs, familiar to any European appeared in the Bible.
There were pragmatic motives as well. UK, the most influential superpower in the late 19th-early20th century, agreed to support the Jewish claims for the Ottomanic Palestine, but not for any other place.
Majority of the early Zionists were not only secular, they were actively antireligious and shared Leftist approaches. The oldest political party the founding fathers of Israel belonged to, the Labor Party, is a member in the Socialist International (in the past it had different names, but it is the same party).

me, a member of the oppressor?
You are really funny.

You know i had this sticker on my bike(had, because my bike was stolen a few years ago)

OK, no one said that you were a neo-Nazi. But your approach to the Middle Eastern conflict is too much unilateral. By asking why did not the Jews settle in Australia, Argentina (or, maybe in Antarctics, this is still no man's land) you imposed doubt on legitimacy of the very existence of Israel, even in its 1967 borders.
I want to remind that Arabs are not indigenous population of this area either, they came here as conquerors as well.
Palestine by side of Israel (under condition of complete security for Israel) is what majoity of Israelis agree with; Palestine instead of Israel ?- that is what PA leaders want, and such a thing will not work.

The Israeli are there, so we have to take that in account ofcourse.

Two countries, Israel and Palestina, with one common capital, Jerusalem is my dream too. I'm not against the state Israel. But i'm afraid that the current Israel Govt is not interested in peace. Sharon seized power because of the violence and stayed in power last elections(despite the fraud scandal) because of the violence. He has built his political career on violence. BTW, if u look at the parties he formed coalition with you know he isn't looking for peace.

COMMENT:

By now, it has to be evident that there will NEVER be anything resembling true peace in the Middle East so long as a state of Israel exists.

Everyone in that area seems to hate everyone else -- and they are among the most hard-headed group of supposedly intelligent animals ever assembled in one place.

Solomon had the cure.

Not two states -- but no state.

Run by outsiders -- under outsider's rules.

Anyone who cannot get along has a choice of finding living accomodations somewhere else -- or the are confined in some kind of mass prison area.

No Israel. No Palestine. No nothing until everyone learns to play well with others. 'Til then -- its "up to your room."

Ok, i'm gonna put this thread back on track.

What case do the US have against Iraq to justify a war?

self-defence after 9/11? NO

WMD that threaten the US? NO

anyone else with a strong case?

First of all, there was no fraud scandal. Mr. Sharon's son (not Omri, that is the member of parliament, but Gilead, that is a businessman) borrowed money from the South African businessman that has no business interests in Israel. The anti-Likud media made a great fuss about it, but prosecutor's office did not find any illegal actions in such a loan. The creditor did not have any political or economical preconditions on loaning money, except its being returned, of course. Money was used for covering debts of the Sharon family, resulting from the electoral campaign, that is the only political link that is available. But anyone is free to do with the borrowed money anything he considers being necessary, except illegal activities (drugs trading, for example).
Mr. Sharon is not a stubborn hawk that is not ready for any concessions. But he has a precondition that is supported by majority of Israelis: if Palestinians want any progress in achieving their independence, they should stop their violence first. The opposition leader, Maj.-Gen. (ret.) Mitzna supported continuation of the Oslo process regardless of the Palestinian terror, but such an approach does not work in the Middle East ?- it gives terrorists prize for terror thus encouraging them to continue.
There are certain red lines that Israel is not ready to cross, and Palestinian refugees return into Israel (in 1967 borders) is the one. Granted, reproduction rate of Arabs is several times higher than this of the Jews, this may make Jews an ethnic minority in their own country, and lead to a civil war as a result. But future leaders of the Palestinian state can accept anyone that wants to return to their country. And this will be implementation of the principle of two countries for two folks.
About Jerusalem. In its certain area the religious sites of the three main religions are situated virtually in the same place. IMO, the ancient Jerusalem should be made exterritorial, the Western should be used as a capital of Israel, and the Eastern (except the ancient quarter) as a capital of the Arab Palestine. I would also like to exchange population: to trade settlers for Israeli Arabs by returning settlers to Israel and transferring the Israeli Arabs to Palestine, but I am afraid, the Israeli Arabs will not agree: their living standards in Israel and social guarantees provided by the welfare state do not exist in PA, and it is dubious that the future independent Palestinian leadership will provide something of the kind to its subjects.