By: melissa

melissa — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:18:00 +0000

This collective punishment is justified by Israel as a heroic undertaking by a small country that is surrounded by a sea of hostile Arabs. But let us not forget that this small country of Israel has approximately 300 nuclear bombs and a well equipped conventional army paid for by U.S. tax dollars. Let us also not forget that the chief objective of Israel is to rid the land of the Arab inhabitants. Israel may bore us with their old refrain that the Arabs want to push them into the sea. But those of us who have followed the history of Israel remember their original self description of”a land with no people for a people with no land.” Perhaps they didn’t notice that a thriving population known as Palestinians did in fact live there. Or perhaps the Irgun and the Stern gang were merely describing the land they envisioned when the Palestinians were exterminated. Please help me to understand just how the U.S. can ever achieve a balanced approach to resolving this conflict when Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff is a dual citizen of both the U.S. and Israel. Doesn’t this pose a conflict of interest? Wasn’t there a time when patriotism meant alligence to the interests of this country alone? Or was the love fest during the presidential debates over just who loved Israel the most be a prelude to establishing the national objective as considering the interests of Israel as being the primary objective of U.S. foreign policy? I fail to see how the elimination of the Palestinian people and pissing off one billion Muslim people as being in the U.S.’s best interest.

By: Christine McMahon

Christine McMahon — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 23:21:00 +0000

Thank you Jessica for your rational critique of an unbalanced Presidency presented as mere folly by Oliver Stone’s depiction in “W.” I had the opportunity to view the film while working so I did not pay for the disappointment of watching in a very crowded theatre George W. Bush reduced and repackaged as a “looser” who had the right motives however askew they appeared in the film. There were few comic moments with limited vocalizations of laughter throughout the audience. When the movie ended there was no fanfare, but few commented on blatant omissions and their own disappointments paralleling Bush senior’s demeanor towards his reckless “Jr.” which changed dramatically with the onset of the Shock and Awe campaign.
I agree it may take another lifetime to grasp the ramifications of the damage inflicted from the last four Presidencies.

Comments on: Oliver Stone’s “W”, which I haven’t seen

By: melissa

By: Christine McMahon