Who votes for whom in modern America?

[Oliver]

SirPhilip http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2635491#post2635491) just explained a little bit about the Neocons agenda in another (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83042&page=4)Thread. Now here's my question for the ones who know a little-bit about their compatriots voting behavior concerning ethnic groups:

What Party are most of these groups voting for and what is their most favored political wing? (Are there statistics?)

* Afro-Americans
* Jewish-Americans
* White Supremacists
* Evangelicans

And who are the main social groups behind the Neocon movement/ideology?

[RandFan]

SirPhilip http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2635491#post2635491) just explained a little bit about the Neocons agenda in another (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83042&page=4)Thread. Now here's my question for the ones who know a little-bit about their compatriots voting behavior concerning ethnic groups:

What Party are most of these groups voting for and what is their most favored political wing? (Are there statistics?)

* Afro-Americans
* Jewish-Americans
* White Supremacists
* Evangelicans

And who are the main social groups behind the Neocon movement/ideology?:D

Oh for the love of Ed oliver. You are so transparent.

You left off
*Right wing fanatics.
*Right wing mass murderers
*Abortion clinic bombers.
*Soup kitchen workers
*Animal rescue volunteers.
*Social workers

I'm sure you can find a lot more positive left and negative right to complete the list. I've no dout that plenty of kool aid drinkers will take you seriously though.

[Oliver]

:D

Oh for the love of Ed oliver. You are so transparent.


Huh? Why? :confused:

ETA: I want to understand who's who in America and what their influences are.

[RandFan]

Huh? Why? :confused:

ETA: I want to understand who's who in America and what their influences are.Then use a little critical thinking and figure out the problem with your list.

[quixotecoyote]

Well adding "right-wing" anything kind of gives it away, Randfan.

Maybe:
NRA members
Corporate lobbyists
ALF terrorists
Baby-eating communists.

eta:assuming the communists don't vote communist, of course.

[Oliver]

Then use a little critical thinking and figure out the problem with your list.


There is no problem - even if some in the list cross each other. :confused:

[Oliver]

Okay, hold on here. I don't care about other groups at this point - only the ones I mentioned.

So does anyone in here know more about it?

[RandFan]

Well adding "right-wing" anything kind of gives it away, Randfan.Good point.

Maybe:
NRA members
Corporate lobbyists
ALF terrorists
Baby-eating communists.

eta:assuming the communists don't vote communist, of course. :D

[RandFan]

Okay, hold on here. I don't care about other groups at this point - only the ones I mentioned.:D Nooooo.... you don't say? Sheesh Oliver. I like you but do you think we are that dumb or... [rule 8]

Damn, ok, let me take a stab at it... hmmm....

Ok, I'm guessing the bad guys like the white supremacists and evangelicals more likely voted for republicans and the minorities more likely voted for democrats. I'm guessing that few would disagree and I'm guessing that you new that.

Hows that?

[RandFan]

Ok, here is a counter version.

*Violent environmental and animal rights activists like ALF (http://www.animalliberationfront.com/) and ELF (http://www.earthliberationfront.com/main.shtml)
*Country Western Fans

This is a great mystery. Anyone with stats to show what parties these two groups are more likely to vote for?

[Oliver]

:D Nooooo.... you don't say? Sheesh Oliver. I like you but do you think we are that dumb or... [rule 8]

Damn, ok, let me take a stab at it... hmmm....

Ok, I'm guessing the bad guys like the white supremacists and evangelicals more likely voted for republicans and the minorities more likely voted for democrats. I'm guessing that few would disagree and I'm guessing that you new that.

Hows that?


I like you, too - but you failed to grasp that I asked if someone actually knows something about it or has knowledge of/links regarding statistics/studies.

What's the name of the "Federal Statistics Agency" in the US?
ETA: United States Census Bureau website (http://www.census.gov/)

[quixotecoyote]

:D Nooooo.... you don't say? Sheesh Oliver. I like you but do you think we are that dumb or... [rule 8]

Damn, ok, let me take a stab at it... hmmm....

Ok, I'm guessing the bad guys like the white supremacists and evangelicals more likely voted for republicans and the minorities more likely voted for democrats. I'm guessing that few would disagree and I'm guessing that you new that.

Hows that?

No no, you don't understand. He clearly stated in post 3 that this thread was to help him understand American politics, he never even mentioned a political axe to grind.

Such cynicism :wackysad:

[RandFan]

No no, you don't understand. He clearly stated in post 3 that this thread was to help him understand American politics, he never even mentioned a political axe to grind.

Such cynicism :wackysad:I know, bad RandFan, bad.

[brodski]

*Country Western Fans



Wouldn't that depend on the country and western? I'm sure that Merle Haggard Fans may have one or two political disagreements with Woody Guthrie Fans. :D

[Oliver]

No no, you don't understand. He clearly stated in post 3 that this thread was to help him understand American politics, he never even mentioned a political axe to grind.

Such cynicism :wackysad:


:confused:

[Oliver]

I know, bad RandFan, bad.


Would someone explain it to me, too? :confused:

ETA: I will ask for a moderated thread if no one in here stays on topic.

[RandFan]

I like you, too - but you failed to grasp that I asked if someone actually knows something about it or has knowledge of/links regarding statistics/studies. I failed to grasp? Do you know what a rhetorical question is?

On second thought, don't answer that. Let's try this, do you know why your query is a silly excercise?

[stilicho]

Okay, hold on here. I don't care about other groups at this point - only the ones I mentioned.

So does anyone in here know more about it?
First off, I'm not an American. I'm from Canada. But I have experiences, business dealings, friends, relatives and other contacts in both places.

The people who are mocking you, Oliver, are doing so because your list has four elements to it, some of which are simply "cartoons". Just look at the first one--African-Americans. That's an ethnicity and hardly a simple voting bloc. Here in Canada or there (I presume in the UK) you wouldn't characterise Francophones or the Cornish as a voting bloc. Or would you?

African-Americans range across the economic and political spectrum, just as the French in Canada or the Cornish in the UK do. They also do not reject, as a rule, the basic tenets of American democracy, nor would they typically (as a group) reject the party system. That's what makes them, politically, typical of Americans as opposed to similar minorities in Latin America or Asia.

I would respond positively if you wanted to know what types of people in the USA would reject both the basic prinicples of its form of democracy and the party system. Among those, certainly, would be the hotheads who embrace 9/11 conspiracies and who figure some shadowy cabal "controls" American political machinery.

As a footnote, if any of their suspicions were true, you wouldn't see Kucinich and Paul in their respective leadership races. They'd be dead by now.

[RandFan]

Wouldn't that depend on the country and western? I'm sure that Merle Haggard Fans may have one or two political disagreements with Woody Guthrie Fans. :DHey Merle Haggard would have disagreements with Merle Haggard.

Remember though that the question was "more likely". That's the rub.

[Oliver]

I failed to grasp? Do you know what a rhetorical question is?

On second thought, don't answer that. Let's try this, do you know why your query is a silly excercise?


Because in America there are no statistics? :confused::confused::confused:

Do you know about estimations how many racists in america are?

Here's a statistic I found about "Profiles of General
Demographic Characteristics". But so far I found no information about political statistics.

RACE
One race. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274,595,678 97.6
White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211,460,626 75.1
Black or African American . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,658,190 12.3
American Indian and Alaska Native . . . . . . . . . . . 2,475,956 0.9
Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,242,998 3.6
Asian Indian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,678,765 0.6
Chinese. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,432,585 0.9
Filipino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,850,314 0.7
Japanese. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 796,700 0.3
Korean. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,076,872 0.4
Vietnamese. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,122,528 0.4
Other Asian 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,285,234 0.5
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. . . . 398,835 0.1
Native Hawaiian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140,652 -
Guamanian or Chamorro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58,240 -
Samoan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91,029 -
Other Pacific Islander 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108,914 -
Some other race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,359,073 5.5
Two or more races . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,826,228 2.4

[RandFan]

The people who are mocking you, Oliver, are doing so because your list has four elements to it, some of which are simply "cartoons". Just look at the first one--African-Americans. That's an ethnicity and hardly a simple voting bloc. Here in Canada or there (I presume in the UK) you wouldn't characterise Francophones or the Cornish as a voting bloc. Or would you? There are a number of problems with the list. The answers to Oliver's question won't reveal anything of significance. American politics is complex. Isolating one or two groups and figuring out who they are more likely to vote for and then comparing them to another group tells you nothing (see my list).

Would we learn anything to know that violent groups like Alf and Elf are more likley to vote Democrat and Country Western fans are more likely to vote Republican? Such a question at best would be polemic.

That said I stand by earlier assertion that minorities are more likely to vote Democrat and White Supremists (if the vote at all) and evangelicals more likel to vote Republican.

Assuming that, so what?

[RandFan]

Because in America there are no statistics? No, because your query is polemic. There is nothing to be gained from it.

[brodski]

Would someone explain it to me, too? :confused:

OK just in case you really cant see the problem with this thread. You have picked four groups to concentrate on, four groups which are in no way representative of the US population as a whole.
Two of those groups most people here have a neutral or positive attitude towards, two groups which anyone with even a modicum of understanding of US politics knows lean to the left.
You contrast these two groups with two groups which the vast majority of people here (and people in general) have a negative view of (to say the least) and who anyone with a modicum of any political understanding what so ever knows lean to the right.

I can see only two possible reasons why you have picked on these four groups,
1) You are deliberately trying to equate the right/ republicans with neo-nazis and Christian fundamentalists, whist equation the democratic party with support for the rights of minorities- dispite the fact that none of the four groups you mentioned are representative of the major support for either of the main political parties in the US or
2) Your anti right anti American biases (as evidenced by the rest of your US politics threads) has made you so blind to political reality that you can't see the massive bias in your question, and its worthlessness for understanding US politics.

people on the politics board of JREF tend to be a cynical lot, so when you denied that you were asking the question due to the motives I outlined in point one, people disbelieved you.

[stilicho]

Oliver, those are ethnic groups. What ethnicity is "White Supremacist" and "Evangelican"? And as to the latter, is that an Evangelical from the Church of England? (Which are called Episcopalians in the US).

No "Jew" in your list either. So where'd you get that one from?

[brodski]

Hey Merle Haggard would have disagreements with Merle Haggard.

Remember though that the question was "more likely". That's the rub.

Heh, I was trying to educate oliver into understanding that groups to which a label can be applied are not political homogeneous entities, through the medium of country music. :D

Hey, why not- nothing else has worked....

[RandFan]

Two of those groups most people here have a neutral or positive attitude towards, two groups which anyone with even a modicum of understanding of US politics knows lean to the left.
You contrast these two groups with two groups which the vast majority of people here (and people in general) have a negative view of (to say the least) and who anyone with a modicum of any political understanding what so ever knows lean to the right.I thought of a better counter example.

*Cubans-Americans
*Alf and Elf.

[brodski]

I thought of a better counter example.

*Cubans-Americans
*Alf and Elf.

OK Cuban-Americans I get, but who is Alf? and What have Elves got to do with this?
Are you making some joke about mythical creatures or am I missing something?

[quixotecoyote]

I thought of a better counter example.

*Cubans-Americans
*Alf and Elf.


I already beat you to Alf in post 5.

QC FTW!!!

[stilicho]

...White Supremists (if the vote at all) and evangelicals more likel to vote Republican.

Assuming that, so what?
That was part of what I hinted in my reply.

There are virtually no Americans who would typically reject its form of democracy or its political institutions. But that #3 on Oliver's list largely would. I recommend any books by Robert A Dahl to Oliver if he wishes to better understand the American political system and its components. You won't find maudlin sectioning of the American electorate into rather unconvenient pieces. You do find accurate characterisation of the history and development of both the institutions and opposition styles within the USA.

I have a few books on the "wild outsiders" but most of them are marginal in the scheme of things.

[Oliver]

OK just in case you really cant see the problem with this thread. You have picked four groups to concentrate on, four groups which are in no way representative of the US population as a whole.
Two of those groups most people here have a neutral or positive attitude towards, two groups which anyone with even a modicum of understanding of US politics knows lean to the left.
You contrast these two groups with two groups which the vast majority of people here (and people in general) have a negative view of (to say the least) and who anyone with a modicum of any political understanding what so ever knows lean to the right.

I can see only two possible reasons why you have picked on these four groups,
1) You are deliberately trying to equate the right/ republicans with neo-nazis and Christian fundamentalists, whist equation the democratic party with support for the rights of minorities- dispite the fact that none of the four groups you mentioned are representative of the major support for either of the main political parties in the US or
2) Your anti right anti American biases (as evidenced by the rest of your US politics threads) has made you so blind to political reality that you can't see the massive bias in your question, and its worthlessness for understanding US politics.

people on the politics board of JREF tend to be a cynical lot, so when you denied that you were asking the question due to the motives I outlined in point one, people disbelieved you.


I want to understand who supports the Neocons:
Which ethical/social/religious groups are supporting/sympathizing -/with them.
I must admit, my initial thought was far too complex.

But anyway: Are there such statistics (ETA: ) about who and how many (#/%)?

[RandFan]

Heh, I was trying to educate oliver into understanding that groups to which a label can be applied are not political homogeneous entities, through the medium of country music. :D

Hey, why not- nothing else has worked....You are right.

Funny thing is that political affiliations are often single issue based. AIU, 1st generation Mexican Americans are very conservative with strong antipathy to gays, abortion and other libreal views. However liberals have been their main support in America and so they are more likely to vote Democrat.

Which is another big problem with Olivers querry. Why do Souther Democrats so consistantly vote for Republicans in recent years when for decades they were solidly pro-Democrat? Yes, of course the answer is the shifting winds of politics and so there is nothing to be learned from such a simplistic excercise as Oliver's.

[RandFan]

I already beat you to Alf in post 5.

QC FTW!!!Damn! You are right. Well, I thought of it in my very first post. ;)

[Skibum]

Afro-Americans


Usually they vote Democratic


Jewish-Americans
Mostly democrat


White Supremacists
Do you mean your typical everyday racist or actual white supremacist.

There are racists in every party. Hardcore white supremacists seem to end up starting their own parties, they have various NAZI parties etc.


Evangelicans

Mainly republican, though quite a few I know vote democrat.

[Kerberos]

I thought of a better counter example.

*Cubans-Americans
*Alf and Elf.

Well everyone knows that fairies all vote Democrat.

[RandFan]

II must admit, my initial thought was far too complex.Actually it was far, far too simplistic.

But anyway: Are there such statistics? Neo-cons (new conservatives) are not a demographic per se. Neo-cons are loose organization of intelectuals. They are, to some extent, diverse in their political views but they tend to be conservative.

There is no one in America running for office as a Neo-con so I'm not sure how any records would be compiled.

[stilicho]

I want to understand who supports the Neocons:
Which ethical/social/religious groups are supporting/sympathizing -/with them.
I must admit, my initial thought was far too complex.

But anyway: Are there such statistics?
That's a very different question, Oliver. Why didn't you start out with it?

The neo-conservatives are broadly composed of latent Reaganites who remained underground during the Clinton presidency, certain pundits, right-wing Republicans, and remarkably few business people. The folks I know in my business dealings with the Americans are generally what you might call "soft" Republicans and in no way supportive of the PNAC-style vision. A lot of them are struggling to keep their enterprises afloat with the burgeoning deficit, punishing Sarbanes-Oxley regulations, and an atmosphere of suspicion and fear among investors.

Neo-conservatism is rapidly dwindling as a major force in American politics. Its darlings, like Rumsfeld, Feith, Kristol, and Wolfowitz, have lost a great deal of influence--especially in the last three years. Evangelicals are not, in their soul of souls, neo-conservatives. They tend to focus on ethical issues and have very little to do with trying to influence American foreign policy.

[Oliver]

That's a very different question, Oliver. Why didn't you start out with it?

The neo-conservatives are broadly composed of latent Reaganites who remained underground during the Clinton presidency, certain pundits, right-wing Republicans, and remarkably few business people. The folks I know in my business dealings with the Americans are generally what you might call "soft" Republicans and in no way supportive of the PNAC-style vision. A lot of them are struggling to keep their enterprises afloat with the burgeoning deficit, punishing Sarbanes-Oxley regulations, and an atmosphere of suspicion and fear among investors.

Neo-conservatism is rapidly dwindling as a major force in American politics. Its darlings, like Rumsfeld, Feith, Kristol, and Wolfowitz, have lost a great deal of influence--especially in the last three years. Evangelicals are not, in their soul of souls, neo-conservatives. They tend to focus on ethical issues and have very little to do with trying to influence American foreign policy.


I asked this way because I hoped someone knows about studies concerning the single points in my initial list.

Now I know that the NeoCons itself is a small group- but that doesn't mean that their Ideas don't have a broad support from different interests.

I can imagine that the War in Iraq also had to do with the jewish-american interests - and I can imagine that white supremacists would support the War. Maybe also religious groups.

I should have named this Thread: "Split of: So what is this war about anyway" - because I still try to look behind the curtains/understand the whole dynamics concerning social (Psychological)/political and fundamentalistic interests.

[RandFan]

I asked this way because I hoped someone knows about studies concerning the single point in my initial list.

Now I know that the NeoCons itself is a small group- but that doesn't mean that their Ideas don't have a broad support from different interests.

I can imagine that the War in Iraq also had to do with the jewish-american interests - and I can imagine that white supremacists would support the War. Maybe also religious groups.

I should have named this Thread: "Split of: So what is this war about anyway" - because I still try to look behind the curtains/understand the whole dynamics concerning social (Psychological)/political and fundamentalistic interests.White supremacists are not a significant influence in American politics. They are salacious and get air time on TV's around the world but I wouldn't believe what you see on your TV.

Jews are diverse. Many are Zionists. Many simply care about Israel. Many are liberal and are against America's invasion of Iraq and also feel that America gives too much support to Zionism.

There is no really clear picture there.

[Oliver]

White supremacists are not a significant influence in American politics. They are salacious and get air time on TV's around the world but I wouldn't believe what you see on your TV.

Jews are diverse. Many are Zionists. Many simply care about Israel. Many are liberal and are against America's invasion of Iraq and also feel that America gives too much support to Zionism.

There is no really clear picture there.


I know there is no clear picture here if I have no access to data that would help me to make a picture.

Also: I didn't find any estimation or actual numbers concerning "white extremists" - or their influence. The Christian Lobby is pretty huge in America - but I don't know their relation to foreign policies.

There are a lot of open questions to get a bigger Picture. I doubt that there is a study about the whole issue yet.

[RandFan]

Oliver, I have often come to JREF to get information about subjects I was unfamiliar with. I am almost always more succesful if I do some research first. I find that I am less likely to make a faux paus that way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Neo-conservative

Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement (http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol4no2/km-understandIII.html)

[Oliver]

Oliver, I have often come to JREF to get information about subjects I was unfamiliar with. I am almost always more succesful if I do some research first. I find that I am less likely to make a faux paus that way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Neo-conservative

Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement (http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol4no2/km-understandIII.html)


I have read the Wiki entry a while ago - but there was no entry about Neocons interests in Iraq - or what lobbies are pushing the Neocon Ideology. And of course - I don't know all the Backgrounds of Politicans.

[stilicho]

I asked this way because I hoped someone knows about studies concerning the single points in my initial list.

Now I know that the NeoCons itself is a small group- but that doesn't mean that their Ideas don't have a broad support from different interests.

I can imagine that the War in Iraq also had to do with the jewish-american interests - and I can imagine that white supremacists would support the War. Maybe also religious groups.

I should have named this Thread: "Split of: So what is this war about anyway" - because I still try to look behind the curtains/understand the whole dynamics concerning social (Psychological)/political and fundamentalistic interests.
Which war are you talking about? The one in Iraq or the one in Afghanistan? I imagine you know why the war in Afghanistan started and it had nothing at all to do with the neocons.

Read Tenet's book. Read Emerald City. Or Clinton's memoirs.

It's become very clear that, from virtually the day Bush entered the White House, the neo-cons wanted to resolve the problem of Iraq by getting rid of Saddam. It is also very clear that Saddam had been a problem both to his neighbours and his own people.

But "neo-cons" weren't the only people who knew that Saddam would continue to posture and create problems for his neighbours. I like to compare anti-American dictators around the world to Fidel Castro. Somehow, Castro has endured while scores of others have lit up and burned out. The key lies, I believe, not in the essence of his programmes but the style of his diplomacy. Castro's posturing is not backed up by his diplomacy, which tends to acknowledge greatly that the USA is far more powerful than himself and his friends are.

Saddam never did figure that out. His diplomacy was confrontational and unconvincing.

Now, you go on to imagine that somehow Jewish-Americans and White Supremacists support the war (in Iraq, I suppose). I doubt that's true. Among the former, who are not a united bloc in any sense of the word, I have never seen a published consensus, nor any attempt to poll people based on religious adherence and support for the conflict. Among the latter, however, all you have to do is visit one of their web sites to see that your assumption is entirely incorrect. White Supremacists are largely opposed to any government in Washington DC, regardless of whether it is Democrat, Republican, or otherwise. They are almost uniformly isolationist.

A complicated situation like the removal of Saddam and the occupation of Iraq is not a simple cause-and-effect one. To rank the reasons it has happened (and especially the way it has happened) is probably worthy of a Masters' thesis. Hundreds of books have already been written about it. Of those, essentially none have posited anything like "jews" or "white supremacy" as being the basis of the situation. You might just be able to locate something that cynical and sloppy from Alex Cockburn or his ilk.

Are you familiar with Cockburn? Do you approve of his methodology and his conclusions?

[Dr Adequate]

Evangelicals only split about 60-40 to the Republicans, though it goes to about 70-30 if you only look at white Evangelicals; most pollsters segregate their statistics on the religious vote by race to give a clearer picture. For exact figures, you'd have to look at specific elections --- e.g. over a third of white Evangelicals voted for Clinton in '96.

For further segmentation, consider the "Freestyle" evangelicals (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/129/story_12995_1.html). I think that "freestyle" is code for "not nuts".

[Oliver]

Which war are you talking about? The one in Iraq or the one in Afghanistan? I imagine you know why the war in Afghanistan started and it had nothing at all to do with the neocons.

Read Tenet's book. Read Emerald City. Or Clinton's memoirs.

It's become very clear that, from virtually the day Bush entered the White House, the neo-cons wanted to resolve the problem of Iraq by getting rid of Saddam. It is also very clear that Saddam had been a problem both to his neighbours and his own people.

But "neo-cons" weren't the only people who knew that Saddam would continue to posture and create problems for his neighbours. I like to compare anti-American dictators around the world to Fidel Castro. Somehow, Castro has endured while scores of others have lit up and burned out. The key lies, I believe, not in the essence of his programmes but the style of his diplomacy. Castro's posturing is not backed up by his diplomacy, which tends to acknowledge greatly that the USA is far more powerful than himself and his friends are.

Saddam never did figure that out. His diplomacy was confrontational and unconvincing.

Now, you go on to imagine that somehow Jewish-Americans and White Supremacists support the war (in Iraq, I suppose). I doubt that's true. Among the former, who are not a united bloc in any sense of the word, I have never seen a published consensus, nor any attempt to poll people based on religious adherence and support for the conflict. Among the latter, however, all you have to do is visit one of their web sites to see that your assumption is entirely incorrect. White Supremacists are largely opposed to any government in Washington DC, regardless of whether it is Democrat, Republican, or otherwise. They are almost uniformly isolationist.

A complicated situation like the removal of Saddam and the occupation of Iraq is not a simple cause-and-effect one. To rank the reasons it has happened (and especially the way it has happened) is probably worthy of a Masters' thesis. Hundreds of books have already been written about it. Of those, essentially none have posited anything like "jews" or "white supremacy" as being the basis of the situation. You might just be able to locate something that cynical and sloppy from Alex Cockburn or his ilk.

Are you familiar with Cockburn? Do you approve of his methodology and his conclusions?


No, I haven't read Cockburn. One of the main points is to understand why there was no broad opposition to the Iraq-War and how the Neocons managed to get so much influence IF NOT with help from other interest-groups involved. Of course - the American-Jewish Lobby comes to mind because the Middle-East crisis. And I guess supremacists ideologies also would support some kind of imperialism (no matter if religious/economic/political imperialism).

While I guess that white supremacist don't have much interests or influence in general, I suspect that religion could have an interest. And of course - capitalism, too.

And: The public opinion also counts to go into Iraq. And even if I didn't followed the US Media at the time before the war - in review there was a lot of patriotic "propaganda" in terms of "war-drumming" and fear-mongering in the Media (if deliberately or not).

So it is even more complex than just the neocons role in it.

What I'm getting at here: Who is pushing the Buttons - and who's blinding the public in the mean-time.

Now I guess that political experts in here probably had similar thoughts and conclusions.

[thinkingaboutit]

Oliver, I have often come to JREF to get information about subjects I was unfamiliar with. I am almost always more succesful if I do some research first. I find that I am less likely to make a faux paus that way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Neo-conservative

Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement (http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol4no2/km-understandIII.html)

I have serious issues with that third source you've posted.

[MaGZ]

SirPhilip http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2635491#post2635491) just explained a little bit about the Neocons agenda in another (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83042&page=4)Thread. Now here's my question for the ones who know a little-bit about their compatriots voting behavior concerning ethnic groups:

What Party are most of these groups voting for and what is their most favored political wing? (Are there statistics?)

* Afro-Americans
* Jewish-Americans
* White Supremacists
* Evangelicans

And who are the main social groups behind the Neocon movement/ideology?

Blacks–Democrat Party
Jews–Democrat Party
Evangelicals–Republican Party
White Nationalists–usually do not vote for either party. Neither the Republicans nor Democrats represent their interests.

The Neocons are mainly a political movement consisting of Zionist Jews and their allies.

[Oliver]

Blacks–Democrat Party
Jews–Democrat Party
Evangelicals–Republican Party
White Nationalists–usually do not vote for either party. Neither the Republicans nor Democrats represent their interests.

The Neocons are mainly a political movement consisting of Zionist Jews and their allies.


So all the famous Neocons are professing Zionists?
I don't understand why famous or powerful Christians support zionism. Are they sponsored?

And who are the "Allies" you mentioned?

[MaGZ]

I have read the Wiki entry a while ago - but there was no entry about Neocons interests in Iraq - or what lobbies are pushing the Neocon Ideology. And of course - I don't know all the Backgrounds of Politicans.

One of the main Neocon lobbies in Washington pushing for war in Iraq and Iran is the American Enterprise Institute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute

There are of course others, mainly the ones focused on Israel and the Middle-East.

[thinkingaboutit]

So all the famous Neocons are professing Zionists?
I don't understand why famous or powerful Christians support zionism. Are they sponsored?

And who are the "Allies" you mentioned?

Check this out Oliver. There are a lot of powerful Christian Zionists.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/49224/

In previous installments of an ongoing series, I've examined the beliefs of Pastor John Hagee, founder of "Christians United For Israel", an ostensibly pro-Israel lobby whose members seek to trigger a Mideast conflict they hope will spiral into a devastating world war that will cause Global mass death and the death of 2/3 of Jews in Israel. Hagee, who calls for a preemptive nuclear strike on Iran and also states that will trigger the apocalyptic war he craves


see also:

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/46262/

McCullough on Christian Embassy's Pentagon presence: "At the Pentagon, we have a flag officers group. Your stars, basically, 1-4 stars. We also have a disciple group at the Pentagon. And there's a general Bible study that meets Wednesday morning where 70 to 120 come. Most of our groups that we organize and work with are at the officer level. Flags, a good percentage. We have about 40 that come or are involved with that."

and...

http://www.alternet.org/story/46211/

The drive by the Christian right to take control of military chaplaincies, which now sees radical Christians holding roughly 50 percent of chaplaincy appointments in the armed services and service academies, is part of a much larger effort to politicize the military and law enforcement.

[quote]

[stilicho]

No, I haven't read Cockburn. One of the main points is to understand why there was no broad opposition to the Iraq-War and how the Neocons managed to get so much influence IF NOT with help from other interest-groups involved. Of course - the American-Jewish Lobby comes to mind because the Middle-East crisis. And I guess supremacists ideologies also would support some kind of imperialism (no matter if religious/economic/political imperialism).

While I guess that white supremacist don't have much interests or influence in general, I suspect that religion could have an interest. And of course - capitalism, too.

And: The public opinion also counts to go into Iraq. And even if I didn't followed the US Media at the time before the war - in review there was a lot of patriotic "propaganda" in terms of "war-drumming" and fear-mongering in the Media (if deliberately or not).

So it is even more complex than just the neocons role in it.

What I'm getting at here: Who is pushing the Buttons - and who's blinding the public in the mean-time.

Now I guess that political experts in here probably had similar thoughts and conclusions.
I'll try to address some of your questions.

#1] There actually is broad opposition in the USA to continued involvement in Iraq. There was also considerable controversy, even at the time of the coalition invasion, in the mainstream American press over the now-famous "yellow cake".

#2] You appear to be wondering how or why neo-conservatives managed to get jobs in the Bush Administration. Newly minted American presidents tend to fill their high-level posts with the smartest people they know who also tend to share their political visions. This is certainly why people such as Feith, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz got their jobs. Tenet's recent book is again instructive: His charge is that the Pentagon essentially trumped all the decision-making--at least during Bush's first term--and left both the CIA and the State Department out in the cold.

#3] You make the oft-asserted assumption that there is such a thing as the "Israel lobby" in Washington DC and that "it" exerts undue influence on American foreign policy. Apart from certain internet wags, who draw on extremely limited research, this claim has never been established as factual. Who is in this lobby group? Does every nation that recognises the state of Israel have one too? Is there one in the UK?

#4] Imperialism hardly describes American foreign policy. Since I take it you are from the UK, you ought to be more acquainted with what imperialism is and how it works than most of the rest of us. British foreign policy relative to India, for the roughly 200 years from the Battle of Plessey until the end of the Second World War, was undeniably imperialist. Perhaps you are confusing the term with "interventionist", which is probably closer to the truth. The USA has no intentions of forming the government in Iraq and its help in framing political agreements among the warring factions doesn't look that promising either.

#5] Capitalism is the favourite whipping boy of those opposed to war on the grounds that it is an exploitative system. The opposite claim would run something like this: There would be no wars without the aid of a capitalist system. This is mere foolishness. War appears to be endemic to civilisation itself. It is without prejudice regarding race, colour, religion, location and class. You sound as though you might be influenced by the likes of Greg Palast, who commonly creates ogres out of "Big Oil" and other "economic imperialists". This may or may not surprise you, but capitalists and investors are largely opposed to war since it's hard to manage a return on investment when your assets are being bombed and your labour force is being enlisted into armed camps.

#6] White supremacists are nowhere to be found among the Bush Administration. This is a trivial charge.

#7] Public opinion does not control American foreign policy. As with any country in the world, diplomats and political decision-makers do. It wasn't vaguely defined cabals that got the USA into Iraq. It was individuals, including those on Saddam's side. You can get their books and read what they did, when they did it, and even what they claim their intentions were. They didn't get midnight phone calls from "Big Oil", white supremacists, or a bunch of Jewish-Americans.

#8] You make another assumption in your penultimate paragraph. Who said the American electorate is blinded? Most voters go to the polls with a clear sense of who they are voting for and why. These reasons may be as frivolous as "patriotism" or "standing by their President in a time of war" but they are still genuine reasons. There is an inclination among my friends here in Canada to somehow imagine ourselves superior to Americans because we vote for the "right" reasons. But are we really any more or less "blinded" than American voters are?

---

All in all, Oliver, you are exhibiting what I call "Type B" anti-Americanism. ("Type A", of course, is virulent opposition to all and anything American or even remotely American). Type B is a little more complex. It involves acceptance of preconceptions about the USA and a cursory dismissal of the role of the individuals who shape policy. Then you mix in a deep suspicion of capitalism. As always, I recommend balancing this by applying exactly the same criteria to every nation in the world. When you try this mental exercise, you will probably arrive at the conclusion that there are actually no blameless parties when war breaks out. You will also tend to accept that there are problems with any political and economic system. And, lastly, if Americans as a people are "blinded" or led off somewhere by their leaders, then so is everyone else.

[Oliver]

Check this out Oliver. There are a lot of powerful Christian Zionists.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/49224/


Your link looks like a typical Conspiracy Theory site concerning the content. But what's more interesting is, that the site of these christian people actually sound pretty fanatic in a kind of "OMG! The end of the world is near!".

http://www.cufi.org/

So what's the Christians goal in Zionism or is this also some kind of "We are truth"-ripoff? I see this quite a lot in America - commercial "religions".

[MaGZ]

No, I haven't read Cockburn. One of the main points is to understand why there was no broad opposition to the Iraq-War and how the Neocons managed to get so much influence IF NOT with help from other interest-groups involved. Of course - the American-Jewish Lobby comes to mind because the Middle-East crisis. And I guess supremacists ideologies also would support some kind of imperialism (no matter if religious/economic/political imperialism).

While I guess that white supremacist don't have much interests or influence in general, I suspect that religion could have an interest. And of course - capitalism, too.

And: The public opinion also counts to go into Iraq. And even if I didn't followed the US Media at the time before the war - in review there was a lot of patriotic "propaganda" in terms of "war-drumming" and fear-mongering in the Media (if deliberately or not).

So it is even more complex than just the neocons role in it.

What I'm getting at here: Who is pushing the Buttons - and who's blinding the public in the mean-time.

Now I guess that political experts in here probably had similar thoughts and conclusions.

When it comes to American foreign policy, the Jews are the ones pushing the Buttons.

[Oliver]

When it comes to American foreign policy, the Jews are the ones pushing the Buttons.


This is a pretty huge accusation. Do you have evidence for this claim and if this would be true - why is there no opposition that would publicly protest against it?

[thinkingaboutit]

Your link looks like a typical Conspiracy Theory site concerning the content. But what's more interesting is, that the site of these christian people actually sound pretty fanatic in a kind of "OMG! The end of the world is near!".

http://www.cufi.org/

So what's the Christians goal in Zionism or is this also some kind of "We are truth"-ripoff? I see this quite a lot in America - commercial "religions".

See the other sources which I added in the post above. It's quite chilling stuff and the influence is quite real.

[webfusion]

When it comes to American foreign policy, the Jews are the ones pushing the Buttons.

Then how come American Foreign Policy is so screwed-up? That sure makes the jews look like idiots.


What they really need is the "easy button" !
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/easy_button.jpg

[MaGZ]

So all the famous Neocons are professing Zionists?
I don't understand why famous or powerful Christians support zionism. Are they sponsored?

And who are the "Allies" you mentioned?


Yes, you can not find any Neocon that does not take the Likud Party
political position.

Evangelical Christians support Israel mainly because of end time prophecies in the Bible.

Gentile allies of Neocons are mainly people like Cheney and Rumsfeld who have sold out to the Jews.

[Oliver]

I'll try to address some of your questions.

#1] There actually is broad opposition in the USA to continued involvement in Iraq. There was also considerable controversy, even at the time of the coalition invasion, in the mainstream American press over the now-famous "yellow cake".

#2] You appear to be wondering how or why neo-conservatives managed to get jobs in the Bush Administration. Newly minted American presidents tend to fill their high-level posts with the smartest people they know who also tend to share their political visions. This is certainly why people such as Feith, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz got their jobs. Tenet's recent book is again instructive: His charge is that the Pentagon essentially trumped all the decision-making--at least during Bush's first term--and left both the CIA and the State Department out in the cold.

#3] You make the oft-asserted assumption that there is such a thing as the "Israel lobby" in Washington DC and that "it" exerts undue influence on American foreign policy. Apart from certain internet wags, who draw on extremely limited research, this claim has never been established as factual. Who is in this lobby group? Does every nation that recognises the state of Israel have one too? Is there one in the UK?

#4] Imperialism hardly describes American foreign policy. Since I take it you are from the UK, you ought to be more acquainted with what imperialism is and how it works than most of the rest of us. British foreign policy relative to India, for the roughly 200 years from the Battle of Plessey until the end of the Second World War, was undeniably imperialist. Perhaps you are confusing the term with "interventionist", which is probably closer to the truth. The USA has no intentions of forming the government in Iraq and its help in framing political agreements among the warring factions doesn't look that promising either.

#5] Capitalism is the favourite whipping boy of those opposed to war on the grounds that it is an exploitative system. The opposite claim would run something like this: There would be no wars without the aid of a capitalist system. This is mere foolishness. War appears to be endemic to civilisation itself. It is without prejudice regarding race, colour, religion, location and class. You sound as though you might be influenced by the likes of Greg Palast, who commonly creates ogres out of "Big Oil" and other "economic imperialists". This may or may not surprise you, but capitalists and investors are largely opposed to war since it's hard to manage a return on investment when your assets are being bombed and your labour force is being enlisted into armed camps.

#6] White supremacists are nowhere to be found among the Bush Administration. This is a trivial charge.

#7] Public opinion does not control American foreign policy. As with any country in the world, diplomats and political decision-makers do. It wasn't vaguely defined cabals that got the USA into Iraq. It was individuals, including those on Saddam's side. You can get their books and read what they did, when they did it, and even what they claim their intentions were. They didn't get midnight phone calls from "Big Oil", white supremacists, or a bunch of Jewish-Americans.

#8] You make another assumption in your penultimate paragraph. Who said the American electorate is blinded? Most voters go to the polls with a clear sense of who they are voting for and why. These reasons may be as frivolous as "patriotism" or "standing by their President in a time of war" but they are still genuine reasons. There is an inclination among my friends here in Canada to somehow imagine ourselves superior to Americans because we vote for the "right" reasons. But are we really any more or less "blinded" than American voters are?

---

All in all, Oliver, you are exhibiting what I call "Type B" anti-Americanism. ("Type A", of course, is virulent opposition to all and anything American or even remotely American). Type B is a little more complex. It involves acceptance of preconceptions about the USA and a cursory dismissal of the role of the individuals who shape policy. Then you mix in a deep suspicion of capitalism. As always, I recommend balancing this by applying exactly the same criteria to every nation in the world. When you try this mental exercise, you will probably arrive at the conclusion that there are actually no blameless parties when war breaks out. You will also tend to accept that there are problems with any political and economic system. And, lastly, if Americans as a people are "blinded" or led off somewhere by their leaders, then so is everyone else.


While I have to apologize that I have to answer all your points later because the amount of your post, I'm type C:

A US-skeptic since Iraq and as long Mr. Bush is a resident in the White House. But I agree - it's easy to call names. And nope, I live in Germany. Oh please, I'm not Anti-Israeli either.

[MaGZ]

This is a pretty huge accusation. Do you have evidence for this claim and if this would be true - why is there no opposition that would publicly protest against it?

The Jews maintain control of American foreign policy mainly thru their lobby in congress AIPAC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC

Career State Department officials at times represent an obstacle to Zionist Jews and their agenda.The mainstream news media in America is also kept in line in maintaining a Israel-first foreign policy. If a news organization wants to present a balanced report on Israel or the Middle-east, Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) spring into action keeping the media inline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League
There is no opposition to Jewish dominance in American Foreign Policy mainly because of the smear of anti-semitism.

I would recommend you read the book "They Dare to Speak Out" by Paul Findley.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Findley

[MaGZ]

Then how come American Foreign Policy is so screwed-up? That sure makes the jews look like idiots.


What they really need is the "easy button" !
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/easy_button.jpg


The Jews thought it would be easy to overthrow Iraq and institute ‘democracy’ i.e. a regime that would be friendly to Israel. It didn’t work out like they planned, and the next war with Iran will not work out like they plan.

[President Bush]

Group Threatens to Sue Pentagon Over Military Role in Evangelical Festival


A scheduled three-day celebration of the US Air Force's 60th anniversary, sponsored in part by evangelical Christian organizations, has prompted a military watchdog group to threaten legal action against the Department of Defense.

The controversial event, sponsored by Task Force Patriot USA, an evangelical organization, and LifeWay Christian Resources, the publishing house of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), was described by the official publication of the Robins Air Force Base as "an official US Air Force 60th Anniversary event." The paper stated that the religious groups and the United States Air Force "have joined together to create a three-day celebration ..."

Slated for the Memorial Day weekend, the "Salute To The Troops, Memorial Day Celebration" will take place at Stone Mountain, an Atlanta, Georgia theme park. The event is supposed to feature hourly flyovers by Air Force planes and parachute jumps by the US Army's Silver Wings Parachute Jump Team. Scheduled speakers include former SBC President Bobby Welch and US Air Force Major Brian "Jethro" Neal, a B-2 pilot, who will speak during a worship service that was to feature a flyover by a stealth bomber. SBC officials stated that special Bibles for military personnel would be disseminated at the gathering.

Plans for the event prompted a forceful response from watchdog groups. In a letter to Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne and Acting Secretary of the Army Peter Geren, the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU), said, "There are legitimate ways to celebrate the Air Force's 60th anniversary and to pay tribute to military personnel who bravely serve the nation, but this three-day religious extravaganza is certainly not one of them." Lynn called the event "a stunning display of the federal government using vast resources to trumpet a religious celebration."


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/052507R.shtml

[The Central Scrutinizer]

SirPhilip http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2635491#post2635491) just explained a little bit about the Neocons agenda in another (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83042&page=4)Thread. Now here's my question for the ones who know a little-bit about their compatriots voting behavior concerning ethnic groups:

What Party are most of these groups voting for and what is their most favored political wing? (Are there statistics?)

* Afro-Americans
* Jewish-Americans
* White Supremacists
* Evangelicans

And who are the main social groups behind the Neocon movement/ideology?

Afro-Americans = Libertarian
Jewish-Americans = Green Party
White Supremacists = Republican
Evangelicans = Democrat

[mr rosewater]

Afro-Americans = Libertarian
Jewish-Americans = Green Party
White Supremacists = Republican
Evangelicans = Democrat

You know very well that,

White Supremacists= Republican only in Louisiana

they vote democrat in West Virginia

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You know very well that,

White Supremacists= Republican only in Louisiana

they vote democrat in West Virginia

Sorry, my bad.

[RandFan]

I have serious issues with that third source you've posted.I didn't vet it. Why do you have issues with it?

[RandFan]

The Jews maintain control of American foreign policy mainly thru their lobby in congress AIPAC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC

Career State Department officials at times represent an obstacle to Zionist Jews and their agenda.The mainstream news media in America is also kept in line in maintaining a Israel-first foreign policy. If a news organization wants to present a balanced report on Israel or the Middle-east, Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) spring into action keeping the media inline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League
There is no opposition to Jewish dominance in American Foreign Policy mainly because of the smear of anti-semitism.

I would recommend you read the book "They Dare to Speak Out" by Paul Findley.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Findley

The Jews control America CT. FTR you have not proven anything. There ae a lot of special interests that successfully lobby the United States.

[RandFan]

I have read the Wiki entry a while ago - but there was no entry about Neocons interests in Iraq - or what lobbies are pushing the Neocon Ideology. And of course - I don't know all the Backgrounds of Politicans.Then you are not making any sense to me. Neo-Cons aren't a party. Individuals who are Neo-Cons don't campaing as Neo-Cons and in fact many don't actually run for office. They are simply trying to influence public policy to their ends. Much like environmental groups or corporations. If you knew that, they why would you ask your question? It's like asking who is more likely to vote for Bill Gates. I'm not really sure you grasp the subject.

[MaGZ]

The Jews control America CT. FTR you have not proven anything. There ae a lot of special interests that successfully lobby the United States.

I don’t see how you can seriously counter my argument. Care to try?
Name another foreign policy special interest group that has the same clout as the Jews.

[RandFan]

I don’t see how you can seriously counter my argument. Care to try? You don't have an argument. You have a claim.

Name another foreign policy special interest group that has the same clout as the Jews. Let's assume for a moment that this is true. Would that prove that the Israeli government controls the US? No, it would prove that it has the most influence. Ok, so now let's look at some other premises.

Israel spies on the United States.
In 1986 Jonathan Pollard pled guilty to spying.
Israel has for some time sought the release of Pollard. If Israel controled America then Pollard would be home today.

[MaGZ]

You don't have an argument. You have a claim.

Let's assume for a moment that this is true. Would that prove that the Israeli government controls the US? No, it would prove that it has the most influence. Ok, so now let's look at some other premises.

Israel spies on the United States.
In 1986 Jonathan Pollard pled guilty to spying.
Israel has for some time sought the release of Pollard. If Israel controled America then Pollard would be home today.
Look for a Pollard pardon at the end of the Bush Administration. When that happens will you admit the Jews rule America?
Remember,in America the Jews always get what they want, they never give up.

[Pardalis]

Oliver, I would like to remind you that MaGZ thinks a missile hit the World Trade Center.


Carry on.

[RandFan]

Look for a Pollard pardon at the end of the Bush Administration. When that happens will you admit the Jews rule America?
Remember,in America the Jews always get what they want, they never give up.You are not making any sense. Pollard has been incarcerated for 2 decades. If the Jews rule America why has it taken 2 decades to let him go. Why would a release after Bush prove they rule America? No, that would be nonsensical. At most it would prove that they have influence which no one is denying. When you control something you don't have to wait 20 years to get what you want from that self same thing.

[Freddy]

This is a pretty huge accusation. Do you have evidence for this claim and if this would be true - why is there no opposition that would publicly protest against it?

I wouldn't expect MAGZ to use evidence to support his claims. He's a full blown anti-semite and a "the jooooooos did it" truther.

[RandFan]

Oliver, I would like to remind you that MaGZ thinks a missile hit the World Trade Center.


Carry on.That explains a lot.

[thinkingaboutit]

I don’t see how you can seriously counter my argument. Care to try?
Name another foreign policy special interest group that has the same clout as the Jews.

The Saudis?

[RandFan]

The Saudis?:)

Then again, perhaps America is run by a secret coalition of Jews and Muslims. Think about it.

[Pardalis]

:)

Then again, perhaps America is run by a secret coalition of Jews and Muslims. Think about it.

Everybody knows Canadians are running things in the White House...

[RandFan]

Everybody knows Canadians are running things in the White House...

The Canadian Conspiracy. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0285470/)

[Ziggurat]

The Saudis?

Oh, they may hire more former state department officials into think tanks, and fund more chairs at prestigious universities, and generally have more bought-and-paid-for influence by any normal measure. But they don't have those mind-controlling Joo-beamsTM that the Israelis have. Isn't that right, MaGZ?

[Ziggurat]

Oliver, I would like to remind you that MaGZ thinks a missile hit the World Trade Center.

Yup. A patented BushCo missile:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Americanairlines.arp.750pix.jpg/180px-Americanairlines.arp.750pix.jpg

I'd say MaGZ was just a sock puppet for Ion, but his English is too good for that.

[stilicho]

I don’t see how you can seriously counter my argument. Care to try?
Name another foreign policy special interest group that has the same clout as the Jews.

Here is one that has more clout in Washington than "the Jews": http://www.uschina.org/

Here's a good start on lobbyist spending in the USA: http://www.examiner.com/a-590075~Lobbying_spending_leaps_last_year.html. Foreign policy groups don't even make a dent in that list--let alone the arcane "Israel lobby".

The lobby groups and individuals here-- http://www.thealliancefordemocracy.org/html/eng/2261-AA.shtml --wield considerably more influence than "the Jews". There are also lobbyists from Canada and Mexico who are too numerous to list here.

I defy you to show us what "Israel lobby" does more to try to influence American policy than these mentioned above do.

[stilicho]

And nope, I live in Germany. Oh please, I'm not Anti-Israeli either.
This is vague. Are you German? Or are you a foreigner in Germany who is just living there?

[Oliver]

This is vague. Are you German? Or are you a foreigner in Germany who is just living there?


My Grandparents fled from "White-Russia" during WW2. But they were German immigrants in Russia before the war.

[slingblade]

My Grandparents fled from "White-Russia" during WW2. But they were German immigrants in Russia before the war.

So was my maternal family. Volga Germans from Norka.

http://www.volgagermans.net/norka/Norka_People.htm

Sixth photo from the top.

[Elizabeth I]

Oliver - I'm not sure if in Germany political parties are more monolithic than in the U.S., but very few Americans subscribe wholeheartedly to the entire platform of the party they vote for.

I have voted Republican most of my life, mainly because I seriously disagree with the idea that money I work for should be taken away to fund things like disability payments for drug addicts. (For the record, I also disagree with my taxes paying for butlers for generals, a private gym for Congress - in fact, all of Congress' perks - and someone to run American flags up and down over the Capital once every two minutes so that everybody who asks for it can have a "flag that flew over the Capital.") I strongly disagree with the overall Republican position on "right to life" and a disturbing trend towards fundamentalist religion. However, those last two are relatively recent developments in the Republican party (don't forget that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican), so that in general, the Republican position on most things agreed with mine.

That has changed, and in the last mid-term elections I voted for more Democrats than I ever have before, in spite of the fact that I still don't agree with their policies on taxation and expenditure. In 2000, I voted for Bush because I thought Al Gore was a liar and a crook. In 2004 I voted Libertarian for president because I thought both Bush and Kerry were idiots. Of course, the Libertarian candidate was too, but he had no chance of winning so that was safe and at least that way I had neither of the others on my conscience.

I am terrified that in 2008 the Democrats will run Hillary Clinton and the Republicans will run Rudy Giuliani or Mike Huckaby and I will have nobody to vote for. My friends keep telling me that Hillary will never get the nomination and I certainly hope they are right.

The difficulty is the primary system, which guarantees that only the most hardline candidates on either side can win their parties' nominations - because it's only the hardline voters on either side that really get all excited about the primaries and go out and vote. That means that, more and more, only the true ideologues of either major party have a chance of winning the nomination, and you have to get nominated to get elected. The often-maligned "smoke-filled room," while it did lead to abuses, also produced a much more middle-of-the-road candidate, because he had to appeal in some way to all the deal-makers. Now all a candidate has to do is to appeal to rabid right-wingers (Republicans) or left-wingers (Democrats) and to hell with the rest of the country.

Why did more people not express doubts about invading Iraq? The U.S. had undeniably been assaulted on September 11, 2001, and many did not find it hard to believe that someone like Saddam, an SOB in so many other ways, might have been involved in that as well. (BTW, as a European, you may not be able to grasp the tremendous shock that being attacked on our own ground was to many Americans, me included. Remember, the continental U.S. had not been attacked since the War of 1812. We have not had the misfortune that many European countries have, of being tracked over, back and forth, by first one army, then another.)

Additionally, a lot of Americans thought we had been wrong in not taking Saddam out during Gulf War I, when we had a legitimate reason and world support for being there, so that when a chance to "do the job right" came up, it seemed to them like a good idea to take it.

And don't forget that most Democrats in Congress agreed with the assertion that Saddam had, or would soon have, WMD. Congress did, after all, give Bush its consent to invade.

I realize this sounds sort of rambling, but that's pretty much how American politics works. It rambles. It wobbles. It swerves to one side of the road, then the other. However, you will note that when someone wins our Presidency, there is no rioting, no shooting in the streets, no arson, murder, or rapine. Democrats do not kill Republicans' babies or vice versa. They just settle down and start working on the next four years.

[slingblade]

Oliver - I'm not sure if in Germany political parties are more monolithic than in the U.S., but very few Americans subscribe wholeheartedly to the entire platform of the party they vote for.



Nominated.

[stilicho]

My Grandparents fled from "White-Russia" during WW2. But they were German immigrants in Russia before the war.
Given your geography and a bit of your family history, then, which of the following recent political actions/events would you attribute to specific lobby groups, ethnic groups or religious affiliations?


The disintegration of the Soviet Union.
The reunification of Germany.
The disintegration of Yugoslavia.
The preconditions of Turkey's acceptance as a full member of the EU.

[Darth Rotor]

:D Nooooo.... you don't say? Sheesh Oliver. I like you but do you think we are that dumb or... [rule 8]

Damn, ok, let me take a stab at it... hmmm....

Ok, I'm guessing the bad guys like the white supremacists and evangelicals more likely voted for republicans and the minorities more likely voted for democrats. I'm guessing that few would disagree and I'm guessing that you new that.

Hows that?
Nope. White Supremacists tend to vote for neither party, Dem or Rep, since the White Supremacists tend to see both parties as fronts for the Jooooze.

DR

[Oliver]

So was my maternal family. Volga Germans from Norka.

http://www.volgagermans.net/norka/Norka_People.htm

Sixth photo from the top.


Howdy, Compatriot. :D

I guess you meant the "Jacob Miller and Katie Miller Schnell family.jpg" picture, didn't you?

My Grandparents didn't tell me very much about Weißrussland itself, somehow they always shifted to the War and the Escape in their memories. The es

Why did your family migrated to America? Did they also had to flee? Parts of my Family ended up in America and Canada - and God knows where all the other people ended up.

[slingblade]

Howdy, Compatriot. :D

I guess you meant the "Jacob Miller and Katie Miller Schnell family.jpg" picture, didn't you?

No, sorry. Below that one: Heinrich Lehl. He was my great-grandfather. My mother's family. Maternally, I'm only a third-generation American. Paternally, we don't know.


Why did your family migrated to America? Did they also had to flee? Parts of my Family ended up in America and Canada - and God knows where all the other people ended up.

My sister might know, but I'm not sure.

At any rate, I'm very glad they came here.

America's a crazy place, Oliver, but it's a good country. Whether in spite of its craziness, or because of it, I can't say. ;)

[Dancing David]

I want to understand who supports the Neocons:
Which ethical/social/religious groups are supporting/sympathizing -/with them.
I must admit, my initial thought was far too complex.

But anyway: Are there such statistics (ETA: ) about who and how many (#/%)?

Well you are asking simple questions about simple issues.

1.Who supports the neo-cons is different than who votes for the neo-cons. There has always been a certain amount of fluidity that americans exercise when they vote. Regan Democrats are a good example. And there are some centrists who vote for both parties and different individuals.

2. It is hard to characterise who supports the neo-cons by looking at who votes for them.
a. Many american voters are very shallow in the way they decide to vote. they will vote besed upon charisma, dislike for the other condidtae(one of my favorites), and especialy the emaningless plaititudes espoused by politicians. Many people vote based upon appearances solely and really don't look at how the politicain will implement thier goals.

b. Many people vote for someone based upon a single issue such as gun laws and abortion laws, or social welfare and education. Either party will appeal to these people depending on the issues. This makes for the proverbial strange bed fellows.

3. What the neo-cons say is more helpful to getting elected than what they do when they get elected. i doubt many people would have voted fro GW if they knew how he was actualy going to implement policy. Style over substance is an important political player.


So when we begin to look at why someoneone of a certain mindset votes for a particular candidate it gets very complex.

[Dancing David]

Usually they vote Democratic



Mostly democrat

many people who are jewish vote mixed, they vote fro the Pubs when they feel it matters, like Ronald rambo, goty a lot of Jews I know voting for him.

The second election of RR was very depressing.

[Dancing David]

One of the main points is to understand why there was no broad opposition to the Iraq-War .

There was broad opposition to the war, it ended up not being able to stop the war.

[Dancing David]

When it comes to American foreign policy, the Jews are the ones pushing the Buttons.

That is the second time, are you a comic or a bigot? Whatever, it is an ignorant statement.

What pushes the buttons in america is Corporate Intrests, most of them are upper middle class male xians.

[Darth Rotor]

That is the second time, are you a comic or a bigot? Whatever, it is an ignorant statement.

What pushes the buttons in america is Corporate Intrests, most of them are upper middle class male xians.
Way to respond with an equally ignorant stereotype, Dave, that showed him.

MaGZ is infamous at the CT forums for his post on a missile being the agency for destruction at the WTC 1 and 2. He is, among other things, a moron.

ETA: A number of folks on the CT (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75459&page=5)forum, to include this modest offering from your humble Sith servant, (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2380597&postcount=166) have been shredding him for amusement.

DR

[Dancing David]

The Jews maintain control of American foreign policy mainly thru their lobby in congress AIPAC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC

Career State Department officials at times represent an obstacle to Zionist Jews and their agenda.The mainstream news media in America is also kept in line in maintaining a Israel-first foreign policy. If a news organization wants to present a balanced report on Israel or the Middle-east, Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) spring into action keeping the media inline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League
There is no opposition to Jewish dominance in American Foreign Policy mainly because of the smear of anti-semitism.

I would recommend you read the book "They Dare to Speak Out" by Paul Findley.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Findley

Sorry but that is kook speak.

Haliburton, GE, Citibank, Clearchannel, etc, etc, etc., they are the ones that dominate and control american politics.

It is corporate interests that dominate all american policies.

There is foolish support for the crazy stuff Israel does, but that has more to do with Fundamental Xians and pat Robertson than it does the Israelis.

[Dancing David]

The Jews thought it would be easy to overthrow Iraq and institute ‘democracy’ i.e. a regime that would be friendly to Israel. It didn’t work out like they planned, and the next war with Iran will not work out like they plan.

WOO WOO WOO WOO

Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush are Jewish, yeah right.

[Darth Rotor]

Sorry but that is kook speak.

Haliburton, GE, Citibank, Clearchannel, etc, etc, etc., they are the ones that dominate and control american politics.

It is corporate interests that dominate all american policies.

There is foolish support for the crazy stuff Israel does, but that has more to do with Fundamental Xians and pat Robertson than it does the Israelis.
Nope.

I suggest you take a peak at Meirsheimer and Walt's discussion of AIPAC, a very influential lobby in DC. You make an enormous mistake to isolate Evangelicals as the prime influence, though there is no question that some of them are right next to AIPAC in pro Israel aid and legislation.

DR

[Metullus]

The Canadian Conspiracy. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0285470/)One need only look as far as your avatar...

[Oliver]

Sorry but that is kook speak.

Haliburton, GE, Citibank, Clearchannel, etc, etc, etc., they are the ones that dominate and control american politics.

It is corporate interests that dominate all american policies.

There is foolish support for the crazy stuff Israel does, but that has more to do with Fundamental Xians and pat Robertson than it does the Israelis.


Of course the Middle-East is a huge market for many foreign Companies. This is what I meant by capitalistic imperialism. I don't understand that most people in here don't understand that concept and also refuse to see a relation between the Government and the Military Industry.

My problem is that I don't know very much about it, so I have no interest to discuss this until I have some unmistakable information. Do you know more about it?

Anyway - the geo-political Imperialism is obvious and documented in the Bush- and Wolfowitz doctrine. And Wolfowitz seems to be Pro-Zionist - at least his Father Jacob was a "a fervent Zionist".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz

[brodski]

WOO WOO WOO WOO

Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush are Jewish, yeah right.

You mean you haven't heard the "Bush is a secret Jew!" CTs?
If you have a strong stomach and a slightly twisted sense of humour take a look at some of them (google Bush "secret Jew").

[KoihimeNakamura]

Not imperalism. Hegemony, as has been stated earlier.. well, maybe not on this thread.

[gtc]

And Wolfowitz seems to be Pro-Zionist - at least his Father Jacob was a "a fervent Zionist".

Just because his Father (sic) was zionist, does not mean that he is a zionist. You can't assume a German is Nazi just because his father was a Nazi, can you?

[RandFan]

Of course the Middle-East is a huge market for many foreign Companies. This is what I meant by capitalistic imperialism. I don't understand that most people in here don't understand that concept and also refuse to see a relation between the Government and the Military Industry.

My problem is that I don't know very much about it, so I have no interest to discuss this until I have some unmistakable information. Do you know more about it?

Anyway - the geo-political Imperialism is obvious and documented in the Bush- and Wolfowitz doctrine. And Wolfowitz seems to be Pro-Zionist - at least his Father Jacob was a "a fervent Zionist".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_WolfowitzFrom your link.

"The neutrality of this article or section is disputed"

Don't give us your innocent song and dance. You are spewing propaganda and talking with confidence about things that you know little of all the while accusing others of ignorance.

Your game is getting old.

[Oliver]

From your link.

"The neutrality of this article or section is disputed"

Don't give us your innocent song and dance. You are spewing propaganda and talking with confidence about things that you know little of all the while accusing others of ignorance.

Your game is getting old.


And so is your ignorance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Wolfowitz

Strangely enough that my sources are always in English. So basically you can't blame me at all for your english-speaking fellows. :)

So you have no basic understanding of commercial interests in other countries that led to military interventions in the past? :confused:

[stilicho]

Oliver, are you going to get around to responding to me? It's not a prerequisite, but I'll take this one off my threads for reviewing if you care not to.

[The Painter]

Oliver, you source wikipedia for most of your knowledge, links, or whatever you want to call it. Wikipedia in NOT a good or reliable source. Anyone can edit on that site. I could go on the site and add “Facts” to an article, even if my “Facts” are completely wrong, they are still added to the article. You need to find another source. Hmmm, unless it’s you adding the phony facts, to back up your own arguments.

[Oliver]

Oliver, you source wikipedia for most of your knowledge, links, or whatever you want to call it. Wikipedia in NOT a good or reliable source. Anyone can edit on that site. I could go on the site and add “Facts” to an article, even if my “Facts” are completely wrong, they are still added to the article. You need to find another source. Hmmm, unless it’s you adding the phony facts, to back up your own arguments.


Well, then you might not understand the concept of Wikipedia. You can't post any BS there >because< the article will be disputed from readers - and the criticized points then will be discussed.

That's the big advantage in contrast to static articles which are unchangeable once they're published.

You may read the related discussion page, too. But if you have better sources or know Wolfowitz personally, feel free to debunk the articles claims you don't like or accept.

[Oliver]

Oliver, are you going to get around to responding to me? It's not a prerequisite, but I'll take this one off my threads for reviewing if you care not to.


No, I'm not avoiding to respond to you. What would you like to know?

[The Painter]

Well, then you might not understand the concept of Wikipedia. You can't post any BS there >because< the article will be disputed from readers - and the criticized points then will be discussed.

That's the big advantage in contrast to static articles which are unchangeable once they're published.

You may read the related discussion page, too. But if you have better sources or know Wolfowitz personally, feel free to debunk the articles claims you don't like or accept.

Then I guess you completly ignored this;

"The neutrality of this article or section is disputed"

[Oliver]

Then I guess you completly ignored this;


No, you completely missed what that means. It means there is a discussion about one or more disputed points.

1. The disputed points are usually removed until the discussion about it is over.

2. Therefore: A dispute doesn't mean the whole article is wrong. Even one wrong Date or Word can lead to a dispute.

Concerning the Wolfowitz article, the discussion about the disputed points is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Wolfowitz