← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Texas Dissident
Thread ID: 7488 | Posts: 49 | Started: 2003-06-19
2003-06-19 23:41 | User Profile
[url=http://www.originaldissent.com/shpak061903.html]The Neocons and their Lies[/url]
by Max Shpak
It should come as little surprise that weeks after a war that was sold to the public on the grounds that proponents of the war "knew" that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD's), they are nowhere to be found. Because the self-styled Mideast warriors at various neoconservative propaganda rags assured the public that there was indeed hard evidence of these WMD's existence, common sense implies that they, or at least their sources, knew where they were and would surely be able to find them well over a month after the invasion. The fact that nobody is able to do so now proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the neocons were then as throughout their shady careers feeding lies to the American public.
When it comes to the countless overblown claims made by the neocons to propagandize their war against Iraq, it should come as no surprise that the Emperor has no clothes. The neoconservative litany of lies and distortions over the past few years contains enough material to fill several encyclopedic volumes (perhaps one day such a set of volumes will be published as a "how-to" guide for the self-styled Ilya Ehrenburgs of the future). Elsewhere I have discussed some of the past hypocrisy, rhetorical sleights-of-hand, half-truths, and outright lies that have surrounded other neoconservative crusades, from the first Gulf War to Kosovo to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I have also discussed the fact that the public, and for that matter much of the self-congratulatory "watchdog" media, are utterly numb to the fact that neoconservatives habitually lie. Indeed, the mass media organs and their eager viewers still seem ever ready to swallow the newest batch of swill produced by the Kristols and Frums of the world without the slightest hindsight or concern about their past deceptions.
Where the neoconservative program of deceit has taken a new and interesting angle this time around is the way in which they are handling the (minimal) extent of discussion and revelation surrounding their nonexistent "evidence" for Hussein's WMD's. Knowing perfectly well that they were the agent provocateurs behind these claims, the neocons have quickly moved to cover their flank by effectively pinning whatever blame there might be on those they swindled. It's a strategy all shysters use: find a willing dupe and junior partner for your scam, and then when the effort fails, pin all of the blame on unwitting assistant.
In his effort to nip any criticism of WMD lies at the bud, William Kristol began his self-exculpatory memo with the claim,
"We shouldn't deny, those of us who were hawks, that there could have been misstatements made, I think in good faith," Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol told Fox News Sunday. Asked, by whom, the leading Iraq war backer explained, "By the president and the secretary of state, [statements] that will turn out to be erroneous."
Ignoring for the moment that Kristol, true to form, uses the euphemism "misstatement" for what most normal people refer to as a "lie," and the fact that he assures us that his lies (oh pardon, misstatements) are in "good faith," there is nothing new or surprising about the first part of the statement. This is the same tactic Kristol and all of his chattering disciples have been using for decades. The second (bold) portion of the statement is the more interesting and unprecedented part.
In a less than subtle manner, Kristol fingers the blame for the "misstatements" on Bush and Powell, when in fact Bush and Powell were simply reading from scripts created for them by individuals such as Kristol himself and his cabal of White House insiders such as Paul Wolfowitz. Along the same line, Kristol also informs us,
"People like me, who were hawks, said the war was both just, prudent and urgent," he said. "I think just and prudent - fine. But it is fair to say that if we don't find serious weapons of mass destruction capabilities, the case for urgency, which Bush and Blair certainly articulated, is going to be undercut to some degree."
Now just a moment, Billy. Do you mean to tell us that it was only Bush and Blair who "articulated" claims about Hussein's WMD capacities, or rather, made "misstatements" about it to project a sense of "urgency" when there was simply no foundation for any of it? Are you implying that these "misstatements" made in the name of "urgency" originated de novo in the minds of Blair, Bush, and Powell? Surely they didn't. In fact, all examination of the neoconservative propaganda mill in the months preceding Bush or Powell's call to war tells us that these claims found their beginnings in the scribblings of neoconservative pundits and the babbling of neocon talking heads on major network television. If Bush or Colin Powell (the second of which was mercilessly chastised by neocon warmongers for not playing along with their agenda in the beginning) began to talk about WMD's and "urgency," they were simply echoing the disinformation neoconservative think tanks had fed them, or, as is likely in the case of Bush, simply mouthing words written for them or drummed into their heads by neocon handlers.
The fact that shameless liars like Kristol can without reservation use even the President of the United States to cover their own flanks is testament to just how pronounced neocon hubris has become. And why shouldn't it, after all, there is hardly a major figure in politics or in the media to take them to task for their long careers of swindling and dishonesty. We certainly don't see anybody from the White House shouting with indignation about Kristol's memo, now do we?
Ideally, statements such as those made by Kristol would be a perfect opportunity to drive a wedge between the White House (and the GOP establishment) and the neoconservative cabal that has invaded it in precisely the same way that cowbirds and cuckoos invade the nests of more productive birds. In the first few decades of what Samuel Francis aptly named the "neocon invasion," that would indeed have been possible, because there would have been a Republican establishment in place to act as a counterweight. As late as the Reagan administration, there were individuals like Eagleburger, Meese, and Buchanan to counter the agitprop of Abrams, Wolfowitz and Perle (indeed, many of these individuals spoke out recently against the latest neocon crusade in the Middle East), and even the first Bush administration had James Baker, known for his skepticism towards neocon warmongering on behalf of Israel.
Today, such voices are nowhere to be found. They have been relegated to fringe publications, to attending conferences and joining think tanks which never reach the ears of the power elite in either the public or private sectors, or, worse still, they have sold their souls and jumped aboard the neoconservative bandwagon. Strangely enough, the only voice of foreign policy reason in the current Bush White House during the months following 9/11 was the social liberal Colin Powell. But given his lukewarm stance on domestic issues, it comes as little surprise that he chose to go with the current and let the neocons hijack the White House without the least resistance.
That leaves the American public, at least those who have the sense to remain skeptical of what they are fed by the mass media, to hold congenital liars like Kristol and his associates accountable for their actions. Though the neocons have acquired enough power to use Presidents as "fall guys" whenever their last propaganda house of cards collapses under even the most superficial scrutiny, that is all the more reason for the skeptical reader or listener to be skeptical, or rather, outright hostile, to the neoconservatives and their sinister agenda.
*June 19, 2003
Contact the author. [burbot65@hotmail.com]*
2003-09-01 11:46 | User Profile
Forsightful piece...but are the Neo-Con lies now transmuted--through Regime prestige--into becomig American "truths"?
2003-09-03 08:57 | User Profile
I love the title!
2003-09-27 11:03 | User Profile
Now they are saying there are traces of WMD along the borders, proving WMD were moved into neighboring countries. Interesting how these traces are no where to be found except near the border. Otherwise, they should be able to backtrack to where the WMD originated. If material were deposited, one would think it wouldn't just start at the border. But, when people lie, they leave holes in the story.
LOL, I remember when Bush used to say he was just faking out the enemy by making it look like he was giving in to them, and voters just didn't understand how it was done in DC. "I think you can stop faking now, Mr. President? Hello? You can stop pretending to be a neocon now. You're scaring me. Hello?"
2004-02-08 04:56 | User Profile
I had been to Original Dissent before - It had a LewRockwell.com-type front page format. I hadn't been back here for awhile, though, and I just came to this site about 15 minutes ago. I think that there was a discussion forum here in the past, but perhaps this is a new forum... The site has definitely been re-designed. The new format and site design here is excellent - Good job for whoever put it together.
I see that you have a blog-type format at this site now. I have been maintaining [URL=http://uis.blogspot.com]my blog[/URL] since the fall of 2002, and it has become somewhat-known in the Blogosphere for being a source of opposition to the Iraq war and the neoconservative agenda - and from a conservative collegiate and Republican perspective.
Anyway, I am glad that I am registered here now, and I hope to be participating here more in the future. It is great that this site is up and running nicely... We need more places on the web where traditionalist conservative values are promoted and discussed. Thanks, and keep up the good work.
2004-02-13 16:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=U of IL Conservative]I had been to Original Dissent before - It had a LewRockwell.com-type front page format. I hadn't been back here for awhile, though, and I just came to this site about 15 minutes ago. I think that there was a discussion forum here in the past, but perhaps this is a new forum... The site has definitely been re-designed. The new format and site design here is excellent - Good job for whoever put it together.
I see that you have a blog-type format at this site now. I have been maintaining [URL=http://uis.blogspot.com]my blog[/URL] since the fall of 2002, and it has become somewhat-known in the Blogosphere for being a source of opposition to the Iraq war and the neoconservative agenda - and from a conservative collegiate and Republican perspective.
Anyway, I am glad that I am registered here now, and I hope to be participating here more in the future. It is great that this site is up and running nicely... We need more places on the web where traditionalist conservative values are promoted and discussed. Thanks, and keep up the good work.[/QUOTE] Welcome back. Most of us here don't share the pro-war stance. I welcome discussing this issue with you.
2004-02-24 22:46 | User Profile
He playin Messiah and Global-Pig. Clamin to be liberatin the certain arab/muslim/middle-east countries. Jusy give em a DVD player with Blonde-gals suckin and they will be happy.
Peace to your momma!
WesleyWes :pimp:
2004-02-25 17:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=WesleyWes]He playin Messiah and Global-Pig. Clamin to be liberatin the certain arab/muslim/middle-east countries. Jusy give em a DVD player with Blonde-gals suckin and they will be happy.[/QUOTE]
What the hell! The Frankfort School program has turned Euro males into a bunch of wankers happy with their own subordination, might as well try it on the Muslims!
2004-03-24 01:42 | User Profile
They should be hard time cons as in convicts
" Clinton was right to "crush Serb skulls," as the editor of the Weekly Standard put it in one of his more memorable editorials. And Bush is right to crush Arab skulls. Crush! Kill! Conquer! "
from [url]http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2157[/url] concerning Bill Kristol.. of all the neocons, I abhor him the most. He has no shred of humanity. Every time I see him on Fox News I hear a chorus of demonic violins and see his eyes turn into a hellfire red . I was listening to the Michael Savage and Sean Hannitys of this American media today screaming for more blood. Savage wants us to fire bomb the Palestinians like we did Dresden when WWII was already over. These people are EVIL. Sharon murdered a 74 year old parpalegic in cold blood and his son and 7 bodyguards and crippled 15 innocent bystanders.. WITH AN AMERICAN PLANE. Made In the USA is starting to have a more nefarious connotation.
2004-03-24 19:46 | User Profile
I personally don't hate Kristol. He seems to have the temperment of his father, who is hardly one of their hatchet men. (They leave that to the Foxman's of the world.) I have to say Kristol is smooth and light on his feet, though of course the only opposition he has is from Juan "the token" Williams.
What really galls me, friends, is those of our own ancestry who grovel and bow before the Tribe. Fred "Israel is always right" Barnes and Brit Hume, especially. Just born a**-kissers, especially when Krauthammer is on stage.
2004-03-25 09:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]What really galls me, friends, is those of our own ancestry who grovel and bow before the Tribe. Fred "Israel is always right" Barnes and Brit Hume, especially. Just born a**-kissers, especially when Krauthammer is on stage.[/QUOTE]
I'd like to push Krauthammer's wheelchair in front of a speeding train....
2004-12-16 17:20 | User Profile
Back up as the flag-ship article on the front index page, for what it's worth.
2004-12-16 18:22 | User Profile
Tex, Max Shpak's "Iraq Versus The New World Order" is one the best articles, nay, the BEST article on America's War on Iraq that I've read. Obviously, this guy was 1000% correct. Is he still around??
2004-12-16 18:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Is he still around??[/QUOTE]
Hey X,
As far as I know he may be in and around, but the jury is still out on that question.
2004-12-16 18:59 | User Profile
Question: Why are they called "Neocons" instead of Jews or Pro-Jews?
Is the word "Neocons" supposed to be a more civilize way of giving those people a name without offending them? like a lizard changing color? it is and yet is not?
2004-12-16 19:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]Question: Why are they called "Neocons" instead of Jews or Pro-Jews?
Is the word "Neocons" supposed to be a more civilize way of giving those people a name without offending them? like a lizard changing color? it is and yet is not?[/QUOTE]
Hello Ponce,
I would answer that neo-conservatism, as an ideological movement, is definitely a jewish phenomenon. Let there be no mistake about that. The problem now is that what began amongst a handful of ex-trotskyite jewish ideologues has now infected the entire 'conservative' movement, so much so that what passes for mainstream conservatism today can rightly be better labeled as 'neo-conservatism'.
In summary, what began as jewish is now more widespread. Or in other words, not all neo-cons are jews though they continue to be the leading lights of the ideological persuasion, so to speak.
2004-12-17 07:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I would answer that neo-conservatism, as an ideological movement, is definitely a jewish phenomenon. [/QUOTE]
Yes. It is another Jewish bicycle.
Jews invent and ride different bicycles. When one breaks down and is no longer useful, they invent another one and ride that one for awhile, and so on.
Simple, itz.
2005-01-18 14:13 | User Profile
[COLOR=Indigo]Hello,[/color]
[color=indigo]I heard that its a Jewish thang before. I have heard that Neo-Cons are ex-Trotskyites. Or ex-Democrats from the 60's. Their not alliliated with all that allthough may have played a part durings its conception. These definitions fail. Theyre definately authoratarian, for Empire, have interesting border policys and are loved by 'Evengelicals'.[/color]
[color=indigo]Thankyou, WesleyWes[/color]
:thumbsup:
2005-02-11 13:38 | User Profile
Franco...More like a Jew Steam-Roller!
Oops! I just noticed the date on your post. :oh:
Oh well, better late than never.
'Wer kennt den Jude kennt den Teufel'
2005-02-11 17:47 | User Profile
Did you now that a pearl is a cancer? A pearl is born when a grain of sand gets trapped between the shell halves and the shell tries to disloge it and then it creates a "gook" around it in order to protect itself and there you have a pearl.
A rummor works the same way by being nothing but a grain of sand that people use to build something around it that will be true or will be done some day.
The fact that someday we will all have and will have to carry a permanent National ID Card is now a fact to me and is only a matter of time before this will be done for.........the good of the people.
There is nothing more that the state of Israel wants than for the US to attack Iran and if the US dosen't do it then the Zionists themselves will do it in order to jump start the coming war.
China and Russia are now joinet at the hip with Iran and this will not go very well with them and I don't believe (and hope) that they will not take it sitting down.
I find it interesting that now the US will give to the familys of those killed at war $250.000 dollars and thats ok with the world but when a palestinian family receives $25,000 dollars when a freedom fighter dies for his land then that's an outrage.
I don't know people, I have been in the US now for 52 years and the now is not like the then, it is a new world that I don't like at all and like I always say "If you don't like something then do something about it".
I am living now in paradise and very happy with myself but if they come out with this so called National ID Card then it will be time to move on to a new country.
I know that you guys will suffer without my presence hahahahahah or my English but we all must make a sacrifice.
2005-05-19 05:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce] I find it interesting that now the US will give to the familys of those killed at war $250.000 dollars and thats ok with the world but when a palestinian family receives $25,000 dollars when a freedom fighter dies for his land then that's an outrage. I find it interesting, nearly offensive, that you equate the service members' paid premium on the term life insurance policy (SGLI) that maxes out at 250,000, to the bounty offered to self immolate in a crowded public place. You got any friends who serve under the colors? The gov't does not "give" that money, it's an insurance policy. (There are other benifits, a death gratuity, Social security, back pay, etc.)
Oh wait, are the military considered dupes of the Zionists here? Clue me in, I am a newbie.
Calling a suicide bomber a freedom fighter is a fascinating point of view. The sickos are those who recruit them and send them into crowded venues.
Or do you Blame bush for them? Arabs have only been doing that suicide bomber thing since the early 80's, and last I checked, the neocons were hardly in charge when Beirut Marine Barracks went down, nor Khobar Towers.
Some stuff is the neocons' fault, some isn't. Might want to distinguish which is which.
EDIT: Sorry, thanks for the insight on the pearl, learn something new every day! :smoke:
2005-05-19 15:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Oh wait, are the military considered dupes of the Zionists here? Clue me in, I am a newbie. [/QUOTE]
Well, I can't speak for everyone on this forum, but I don't think the U.S. military was created to fight wars for the Jews.
2005-05-19 15:33 | User Profile
A.E.,
I believe there are a few who consider the military dupes of the Zionists on this board. I don't, I consider them to be victims of so-called "leaders" who are not worthy of leading them. For those who enlisted out of the idea that a citizen owes his nation military service I regard our present rulers as low lifes who abuse the noble sentiment of patriotism for nefarious purposes.
Ponce,
Does the number "2506" mean anything to you?
2005-05-19 16:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Well, I can't speak for everyone on this forum, but I don't think the U.S. military was created to fight wars for the Jews.
----------[/QUOTE]
Angel Eyes, I already know that you are a pro-Israeli therefore go ahead and make my day, the Palestinian are fighting in their land in order to kick out the Kazard Europeans Zionists that call themselves "Jews" that have invaded their land.
While I would not place a "bounty" on dead Jews I would help those so called "terrorists" that made the ultimate sacrifice of giving their lives for their homeland and family.
To me more merit has he who give his life to kill the enemy than he who only has to press a button in order to lauch a missile.
The Jews (Zionists) are like a cancer spreading through out the world and the US is the first nation to succumb to them.
Franco? you are right "the U.S. military was not created to fight wars for the Jews" but as those people did in Russia and Germany that's what's happening in the US.
They almost succeded in Russia and fail in Germany thanks to the insight of Her Hitler and if Herr Hitler made it to the top it was only thanks to the Jews because they were shoking the German people and the same needed a real leader to guide them away from the Jews, the Jews are now shoking the US and we need a real leader to do the same.
And yes I also served in the US Army for six years but spent most of the time TDY with a civilian outfit, at the time I was not a dupe of the military but was serving the country.
2005-05-20 00:02 | User Profile
Ponce;
[QUOTE]To me more merit has he who give his life to kill the enemy than he who only has to press a button in order to lauch a missile. [/QUOTE] Tell that to the Marines, amigo. Would you please be a bit more specific about your allusion? That line is a Bill Maher throw away, but somehow I don't see you as a Bill Maher apologist.
[QUOTE=Ponce]Angel Eyes, I already know that you are a pro-Israeli therefore go ahead and make my day, the Palestinian are fighting in their land in order to kick out the Kazard Europeans Zionists that call themselves "Jews" that have invaded their land.
Me, Pro Israeli? My comment: "They are on their own side." You oversimplify based on the limited info I have presented to date. fair enough. What I am for sure, is anti-Muslim. For ever. The Black Muslims of the 60's were the first real hate mongers I ever ran into personally. What tipped the scales was the general hate of America from Islam from Munich 1972 to Embargo 1973 to Teheran 1979, not to mention an American Sailor murdered on an airplane. The enemy of my enemy can be my friend, or he may merely by my useful ally. See US + USSR in WW II. Useful ally meets the good enough test.
Did you miss my "Remember The Liberty" comment? What happened to the USS Liberty in 1967? Work with me here, amigo.
Oh, and did you note the [u]muslim[/u] who fragged his own company in 2003?
[QUOTE] While I would not place a "bounty" on dead Jews I would help those so called "terrorists" that made the ultimate sacrifice of giving their lives for their homeland and family. [/QUOTE]
Saps. Led by a criminal, until his recent demise. Thrown out by their "own kind," hah, used for four decades as a foil for political ends by the real power brokers in the Arab world. Willing dupes for Saudis, Syrians, Iraqis, Arabs and Muslims, to include a few Iranians, who use them for whatever political end they seek. Expendable fodder against the West, Israel, or anyone who gets in the way.
Was it right to set up Israel in 1948? OUtstanding question, ask Balfour and Truman. Oops, they are dead. IN any case, the white protestant people did it, the US and the BRITS leading the way, so I would think many folk of this board might approve. My assumptions hoist me by my own petard! :jester:
[QUOTE] The Jews (Zionists) are like a cancer spreading through out the world and the US is the first nation to succumb to them. [/QUOTE]
Where you sit determines what you see. I feel that there is an entire class of internatinal socialists and bleeding heart dipsticks, not all of whom are Jews, many of whom are not. What they are is against individual sovereignty.
[QUOTE] Franco? you are right "the U.S. military was not created to fight wars for the Jews" but as those people did in Russia and Germany that's what's happening in the US. They almost succeded in Russia and fail in Germany thanks to the insight of Her Hitler and if Herr Hitler made it to the top it was only thanks to the Jews because they were shoking the German people and the same needed a real leader to guide them away from the Jews, the Jews are now shoking the US and we need a real leader to do the same. [/QUOTE]
Hitler fan boys are not ideologically impressive, even if various Jewish and Israeli agendas stir up more trouble than they are worth. Of those Jews who pose threats to America, at the least those spying little f***s working for the Mossad against Israel's biggest sugar daddy, US, outsmarting them will probably work. Beyond that, Americans who sell secrets to Mossad should be shot.
And yes I also served in the US Army for six years but spent most of the time TDY with a civilian outfit, at the time I was not a dupe of the military but was serving the country.[/QUOTE] Understand the implication. I did not ask a question of you being a dupe of the military, but do you hold that the US Military is a dupe of the Zionists? The answer need not be yes or no, it is a loaded question. Elaborate if need be.
There are 1.3 billion Muslims in this world, some of whom are Arabs. There are how many Jews? There are over a billion Chinese. I know who concerns me most.
Angeleyes
2005-05-20 00:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]A.E., I believe there are a few who consider the military dupes of the Zionists on this board. I don't, I consider them to be victims of so-called "leaders" who are not worthy of leading them. For those who enlisted out of the idea that a citizen owes his nation military service I regard our present rulers as low lifes who abuse the noble sentiment of patriotism for nefarious purposes. [/QUOTE] Well said, sir, I salute you.
Leaders who have betrayed the US Military include . . . WJ Clinton, JE Carter, LB Johnson. And so on.
GW Bush and friends are spending the military coin on a gamble that one can implement democracy at the point of a bayonet, and that one "out dick measure" most of the Arab world. High steaks poker indeed. I am not in the least bit surprised to see so many Americans angry with that kind of use of their blood and treaasure. The libs just dont know the right reasons to be angry, as their heads are up their rectums.
FWIW, I spent six month last year in a hot, dusty, nasty place, but lucky me to be a REMF that time around. My wife appreciated that. My job satisfaction came from helping set up the kills on Arabs and Muslims who were trying to kill Americans.
Angeleyes
2005-05-20 16:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]Well said, sir, I salute you.
Leaders who have betrayed the US Military include . . . WJ Clinton, JE Carter, LB Johnson. And so on.
GW Bush and friends are spending the military coin on a gamble that one can implement democracy at the point of a bayonet, and that one "out dick measure" most of the Arab world. High steaks poker indeed. I am not in the least bit surprised to see so many Americans angry with that kind of use of their blood and treaasure. The libs just dont know the right reasons to be angry, as their heads are up their rectums.
FWIW, I spent six month last year in a hot, dusty, nasty place, but lucky me to be a REMF that time around. My wife appreciated that. My job satisfaction came from helping set up the kills on Arabs and Muslims who were trying to kill Americans.
Angeleyes[/QUOTE]
Well said yourself!
As far as LBJ goes, if things are ever set right in this land, I want to be on one of the bulldozer crews that levels his precious "ranch" to turn it into a memorial park for all those who fell during his glorious, micromanaged adventure over in SE Asia. Ditto for W's little spread up in Crawford, for the dead and maimed in his "let's play: build your own democracy!" game.
2005-05-20 17:16 | User Profile
MST,
Let's turn both "ranches" into armadillo ranches!
:tongue:
2005-05-20 17:28 | User Profile
Well Angel, no one has ever told me as to why we have declared war on the Arabs but I have seen plenty of reasons why we should declare war on the Zionist state of Israel.
You talk about the size of the state of Israel and how "few" of them there are, well your people with their 400 nuclear weapons are a danger not only to the Middle East but also to the whole world and because of them we are now at the portal of WWIII.
If you were to read about what the Jews had to do with the wars that we have had to date you would see that they have had their fingers in every single major event worldwide.
Why do you think your people have been kicked out from over 67 countrys? and some of them doing it twice or more?
I still would like to know what kind of hold (or blackmail) the Jews have over America, as far as I am concern it is their nuclear weapons, but of course you have a few senators that have been cought with their pants down and the Zionists are blackmailing them with the same.
I am glad that the Jews have sent you here Angeleyes, you are very eloquent (a hell of a lot better than me) and this will be fun.
2005-05-20 17:50 | User Profile
AE,
I salute you in turn. [QUOTE]FWIW, I spent six month last year in a hot, dusty, nasty place, but lucky me to be a REMF that time around. My wife appreciated that. My job satisfaction came from helping set up the kills on Arabs and Muslims who were trying to kill Americans.[/QUOTE] As far as I am concerned a person that engages in training soldiers has done more than all the Neocons put together. For that matter someone who drives a deuce and half or serves chow is accomplishing more. The Neocons are just a collection of (dangerous to everyone else) chatterboxes.
2005-05-20 22:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]Well said, sir, I salute you.
Leaders who have betrayed the US Military include . . . WJ Clinton, JE Carter, LB Johnson. And so on.
GW Bush and friends are spending the military coin on a gamble that one can implement democracy at the point of a bayonet, and that one "out dick measure" most of the Arab world. High steaks poker indeed. I am not in the least bit surprised to see so many Americans angry with that kind of use of their blood and treaasure. The libs just dont know the right reasons to be angry, as their heads are up their rectums.
FWIW, I spent six month last year in a hot, dusty, nasty place, but lucky me to be a REMF that time around. My wife appreciated that. My job satisfaction came from helping set up the kills on Arabs and Muslims who were trying to kill Americans.
Angeleyes[/QUOTE]
There were no bad feelings between Americans and Arabs until the state of Israel appeared in 1948 - with America's blessing, and now, massive aid.
If anyone is wrong, it is NOT the Arabs/Palestinians. It is the Jews.
Do you think that the Jews had the "right" to reclaim Palestine in 1948 - i.e. thousands of years later? If so, why??
Are you pro-Israel, or not?
2005-05-21 01:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]There were no bad feelings between Americans and Arabs until the state of Israel appeared in 1948 - with America's blessing, and now, massive aid.
If anyone is wrong, it is NOT the Arabs/Palestinians. It is the Jews.
Do you think that the Jews had the "right" to reclaim Palestine in 1948 - i.e. thousands of years later? If so, why??
Are you pro-Israel, or not?
--------[/QUOTE]
Franco? I already named Angeleyes a Jew and no one can change my mind (or the little that I have left) hahahahahaha.
And you are right the Zionists that went from Europe to Palestine are the trouble makers and the reason as to why we are where we are today.
2005-05-21 16:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]There were no bad feelings between Americans and Arabs until the state of Israel appeared in 1948 - with America's blessing, and now, massive aid.
If anyone is wrong, it is NOT the Arabs/Palestinians. It is the Jews.
Do you think that the Jews had the "right" to reclaim Palestine in 1948 - i.e. thousands of years later? If so, why?
Are you pro-Israel, or not? --------[/QUOTE]Franco, you present a paper towel tube look at history, but the moral question is well asked. Recall that Arabs and Americans had a serious dust up in 1801-1805 over white slavery, or does one conventiently forget that? OK, to be fair, different context.
Am I pro or con Israel? You ask a hard question. No simple answer. No, Ponce, I am not Jewish. I am trying to fathom why a Jew would post on these boards. ponders Nope, can't come up with a reason. :smartass:
Franco: Your question is "for me or against me" a thing folks get mad at GWB for. I don't accept that framework for my response. It is not that simple.
Short Answer: Israel exists because, given a chance, it was made to exist by the immigrants shedding their blood to do so, using all tools at their disposal, to include political and financial. Sound familiar? It should, if you are American. Take the structure of "moral right" in the creation of America on even a remotely similar basis, and you render the foundational premise of this board irrelevant. But there is not cookie cutter, each nation's context differs.
Pro or con, and a lot of what they do pisses me off, Israel [u]IS[/u].
A useful client state vis a vis the Soviet ambitions in Mid East, the only non "third world" state in the world's gas station. Since the Wall came down, not as useful to the US geopolitical stance, and a strategic political liability. Having been there, and seen what those folks did to make the desert bloom, grudging respect is due. (Port calls to Haifa in the 80's. USN) I have met both Arabs and Israeli Jews (mostly Eastern European stock) in their own lands. I know who I prefer: Texans. :yes:
Longer answer
Point against Israel. By what right? Answer: British Might. The Zionists of the 1800's and Protestant legends of Joseph of Aramathea in Ancient England: emotional back story to justifying creation of Israel as the Empire's client state. (Tuchmann, Bible and Sword, treats well.) As I see it, Arabs owe Brits big for getting Johnny Turk off their backs. Brits do Balfour. Brits fail to mediate. Brits pass the buck. UN, which the US invented, makes Irsrael a matter of fact. Pro or con, the WW II victorious white people drew the lines on the map. In the past two generations, the Third World stops accepting lines on the map. Do I hear you say Hurrah, for Mugabe, Hurrah for Mandella? Is that how you stand? Probably not. I note the political attacks on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848). Enemies from within.
General rule: Might makes right with lines on map, unless one can redraw by other means. Morally, Right to exist is under the Might Makes Right. Not surprised that many argue that morally, Israel should not exist. That moral question does not exist in a vacuum. It exists alongside other moral choices.
Why support Israel after WW II? I guess guilt trip and an effective Zionist lobby. Result: "We," America, said so. But that could have changed fast had Arabs not been worthless as fighters in modern warfare. Good guerillas, shit regular troops. Arabs. In a nutshell. Still true to this day.
Last point, against Israel. That Wall is not a good thing. I lived in West Berlin as a kid, when the Wall was up. The West Bank wall is everything that is wrong with Israel.
Points for Israel: Every line on the map, with a few exceptions, is drawn in blood. Israelis shed their blood to draw their lines. Arabs do their thing in 1948. Lose because they are lame. 1956, likewise. 1967 likewise. In 1973, we damned near go at it with the Russians over this mess.
Why? Moral and political choices. Consider if Israeli territory is Arab from 1948 on. How does that help USSR in Cold War? Massively.
Full confession time.
"Hi, I am Angeleyes, I am an anti-Communist."
Atheist Communist Russians bring into their sphere of influence Arabs. Use UN as a tool against us. The Great Game. Until '67, French and Brits are players, they support Israel. Since 67, it's our problem. I remember vividly the gas lines of 1973.
So, by positing moral over practical, you counsel that America walks away?
Consider the blow to our stature if we cut and run. We cut and run, Bay of Pigs. South Viet Nam. No glory there, and the image of beaten coward. Not my country, thanks. (Yeah, the current title of "bully" aint' pretty either, but it is not a position of WEAKNESS. See General Rule: Might makes right. That is the history of man. Or, might lets you choose what is right.)
So, pro or con, Israel [u]is.[/u] Cutting the umbilical will take some artful statecraft, not the Bush administration's strong suit. Clinton tried it from a position of weakness, and failed. Carter resorted to bribes as a first step.
You want to argue what Should be? A lot of things Should be. History and time move forward. I'd rather spend mental energy getting to a better future state, rather than wringing hands over decisions of the past.
Israel: useful ally for a while, now a political liability. Love to see that millstone taken from our political neck. Funny, not the only country we have been in that position with. See France and Indochina. Or is that the Jews' fault too? McNamara was not a Jew. Nor was Kennedy. Yes, different context.
Afterthought.
Point against Israel: The 2 billion+ per year I'd like to see spent on restoring our rail and highway systems. Different topic.
Point against Israel: paying off Egypt is part of the Israel bill.
Should we pay 2-5 billion a year to keep the client state? We do in NATO. Is the money better spent bribing other client states? The Egyptians in '79 took the money to stop fighting.)
Good questions. If I had all the answers, I'd write a book and go on tour, and rake in the dough. :)
Should, is interesting. But it needs to be seen with something other than tunnel vision.
Angeleyes
2005-05-21 17:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]Well Angel, no one has ever told me as to why we have declared war on the Arabs but I have seen plenty of reasons why we should declare war on the Zionist state of Israel.
You talk about the size of the state of Israel and how "few" of them there are, well your people with their 400 nuclear weapons are a danger not only to the Middle East but also to the whole world and because of them we are now at the portal of WWIII.
If you were to read about what the Jews had to do with the wars that we have had to date you would see that they have had their fingers in every single major event worldwide.
Why do you think your people have been kicked out from over 67 countrys? and some of them doing it twice or more?
I still would like to know what kind of hold (or blackmail) the Jews have over America, as far as I am concern it is their nuclear weapons, but of course you have a few senators that have been cought with their pants down and the Zionists are blackmailing them with the same.
I am glad that the Jews have sent you here Angeleyes, you are very eloquent (a hell of a lot better than me) and this will be fun.[/QUOTE] Ponce.
I am an American, amigo, and can trace my blood to John Carver of Plymouth Rock. "My people" have somewhat more than 400 nuclear warheads. Heck, we have that many on a few subs.
If the Israeli's let go their nukes, I think it would be a huge political move in their favor. I am surprised they don't. I will guess that their paranoia in re their neighbors overwhelms the value of strike a huge political blow for themselves in the international context. They probably argue the deterrent thing we've been arguing vis a vis the Russians for so long.
If a "liberal" cabinet gets voted in, they might do it in a few years. Under the current set up, I don't see it.
Cheers
Angeleyes
2005-05-21 22:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Am I pro or con Israel? You ask a hard question. No simple answer. [/QUOTE]
Actually, my question was simple: do you support the Jewish state of Israel, or don't you? After all, how can anyone be neutral about Israel - a race-based, apartheid state funded by millions of non-Jewish tax dollars per year; a state that has caused the entire Arab world to hate America; a state whose representatives [i.e. the Jews as an international race] dominate America's culture; a state that stole lots of Arab land in 1967 yet won't give that land back; a state that caused most of the wars in the Middle East since 1948; how can anyone be neutral about Israel??
2005-05-22 02:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Actually, my question was simple: do you support the Jewish state of Israel, or don't you? After all, how can anyone be neutral about Israel - a race-based, apartheid state funded by millions of non-Jewish tax dollars per year; a state that has caused the entire Arab world to hate America; a state whose representatives [i.e. the Jews as an international race] dominate America's culture; a state that stole lots of Arab land in 1967 yet won't give that land back; a state that caused most of the wars in the Middle East since 1948; how can anyone be neutral about Israel??
------------[/QUOTE] The fact that you can't be neutral about Israel says alot more about you than me. Israel was already around before I was born. It is part of the setting. Do you think you can turn back the clock and change history? I am not that arrogant.
You and I can agree that Israel is a political liability to the US, has been since the Wall in Berlin went down. If you cannot see the utility of them as an ally for the first 40 years of the Cold War, fine. I do. I grew up an anti-Communist, not an anti-Semite. Sue me. Sue my parents. Whatever.
Yes, the billions per year could be better spent at home, in my opinion. I alluded to that in my reply. We agree on that as well.
I do not feel bound by your personal limitation of "yes or no." That is a false premise.
2005-07-02 21:47 | User Profile
Angeleyes, for you to say that you are "neutral" in regards to the Israelis situation is like a girl saying that she is only half-pregnant, eithre you are or you are not.
But just in case, as far as I am concern (because you cannot make up your own mind) to me you are a Jew.
By the way, I am still traying to find once again the map that shows the oil pipes lines that your people has going from Iraq to the state of Israel in order to steal their oil.
If any member here knows what I am talking about I would appreciated if you could post it for me, if not then I'll hope to find it once again....is funny the way that stuff that is not in favor of Angeleyes people have a tendency to be bi-gone.
2005-07-04 22:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]
You and I can agree that Israel is a political liability to the US, has been since the Wall in Berlin went down. If you cannot see the utility of them as an ally for the first 40 years of the Cold War, fine. I do[/QUOTE] Angel:
I have to respectfully disagree here. Israel has had the uncanny ability to cause the US no small amount of grief. I remember well the attack on the USS LIBERTY--in which Israel's government claimed mistaken Identity of the ship herself. Anyone that has served in any military or Naval force know that to be , if not an outright lie, to be a severe shading of the truth. What made matters worse was when the ship's comapny of LIBERTY tred to explain what had happened, the IDF and the Israeli Goverment called them Anti-Semites--and worse. These men were on a ship that suffered over 1,000 rocket hits, a torpedo (leaving a 50 foot hole) in their side and napalm that essentially incinerated the ship's upper works. The story that she was mis-identified doesn't wash considering she was being watched by the IDF for at least 24 hours previously in international waters LIBERTY had every right to be where she was--when she was.
34 men died and 171 were wounded that day (8 June 1967).
Compounding that was the selling of US-based technology to China---some thing that sticks on the craw of quite a few in my line of work. A very recent sale was just barely stopped. Add to that the Pollard spy scandal, where some in the Israeli Goverment asked that Pollard be released to return to Israel. The outrage from the Joint Chiefs of Staff--and others in the DOD-- made it clear that if THAT were to happen, all hell would break loose at the Pentagon.
The US has paid more than a "political" price for unceasing support of Israel. Indeed, this support has made it very unwise, if not outright dangerous, for Americans to travel in many parts of the world.
One last: Whan I was living in NYC, you could see all the politicians (not all of them Jews, BTW) claiming what a "Friend" of Israel they were. These same politicians would never calim to be a friend of the fighting men and women in this country. Where are their loyalties--or are they outright panderers>
2005-07-04 23:43 | User Profile
~~ for you to say that you are "neutral" in regards to the Israelis situation is like a girl saying that she is only half-pregnant...
LOL
2005-07-13 08:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Marxist]~~ for you to say that you are "neutral" in regards to the Israelis situation is like a girl saying that she is only half-pregnant...
LOL[/QUOTE] So what's your take on it, commietacos?
2005-07-13 15:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]Angeleyes, for you to say that you are "neutral" in regards to the Israelis situation is like a girl saying that she is only half-pregnant, eithre you are or you are not.
But just in case, as far as I am concern (because you cannot make up your own mind) to me you are a Jew.
By the way, I am still traying to find once again the map that shows the oil pipes lines that your people has going from Iraq to the state of Israel in order to steal their oil.
If any member here knows what I am talking about I would appreciated if you could post it for me, if not then I'll hope to find it once again....is funny the way that stuff that is not in favor of Angeleyes people have a tendency to be bi-gone.[/QUOTE] Thank you, Imam Ponce. When will you meet your 72 virgins?
2005-07-13 15:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]Thank you, Imam Ponce. When will you meet your 72 virgins?[/QUOTE]
Exactly, AE. Some of the sympathies for islam/muslims I've seen on this board as of late is quite disturbing (and nauseating). :yucky:
2005-07-13 15:31 | User Profile
FormerFreeper: Hail!
[QUOTE] I have to respectfully disagree here. Israel has had the uncanny ability to cause the US no small amount of grief. [/QUOTE]That would be included in the concept of "strategic liability" wouldn't it? :) [QUOTE] I remember well the attack on the USS LIBERTY--in which Israel's government claimed mistaken Identity of the ship herself. Anyone that has served in any military or Naval force know that to be , if not an outright lie, to be a severe shading of the truth. What made matters worse was when the ship's comapny of LIBERTY tred to explain what had happened, the IDF and the Israeli Goverment called them Anti-Semites--and worse. [/QUOTE] I read the book written by the Liberty's comm officer, about '90. What I don't have is a copy. I also have Bucher's book in re USS Pueblo. Intelligence ships as expendable pawns: what a crappy policy. I am more than passignly familiar with the facts of the USS Liberty. I am also familiar with the USS Stark incident. (Which included some damned foolish command decisions about when to prepare for an engineering plant board inspection . . .)
Saddam and company were politically useful in 1987 for other matters regarding Iran and the Persian Gulf, so a retaliation was not mounted. He was forgiven his pilots' errors. Was Liberty an error? I doubt it, not based on what the Comm Officer wrote. He also pointed to DC level guidance being conflicting with Sixth Fleet Guidance, so part of his message was that an order to back away from proximity to Israel/Egypt was either lost or not correctly transmitted. That means someone in DC knew that Isreal was going to start a war, doesn't it? :oh:
In the Cold War, any number of irritating things the Israelis did was forgiven since their utility (perceived or real) as a client state in the Cold War seemed more important. The critical issue Since The Wall Came Down is why their continued political liability, since about 1990, is given a free pass, rather than inducing cuts in the massive aid packages?
That question is well asked. I have to thank some of the sharp members of this board for the insights and points contra Israel (Zoraster's loan and aid breakdown is an excellent tabulation) for updating my understanding. The public has most definitely not been given a satisfactory answer, but instead is fed the tired old "you are an anti Semite" knee jerk response as you point out.
Same problem with criticizing an idiot like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson: "you must be a racist if you don't like a particular black politician." Crap. An idiot is an idiot. [QUOTE]Compounding that was the selling of US-based technology to China---some thing that sticks on the craw of quite a few in my line of work. A very recent sale was just barely stopped. Add to that the Pollard spy scandal, where some in the Israeli Goverment asked that Pollard be released to return to Israel. The outrage from the Joint Chiefs of Staff--and others in the DOD-- made it clear that if THAT were to happen, all hell would break loose at the Pentagon.[/QUOTE]Do you remember about 1987ish the USAF Junior Officer who sold satellite secrets to the Russians? That compromised billions in confidential programs. Remember the Toshiba tech transfer scandal, milling machines for Soviet submarine props? Rendered useless billions in ASW architecture. Secrets sold to China? Likewise. Pisses me off. Why we dont' use a James Bond or Jackal sort of assassin to pay off assholes like that remains a source of dissatisfaction with me.
Also, didn't Israel play in Iran-Contra, what with selling F-4 parts and other stuff to Iran under the table? Memory cloudy on that one. [QUOTE]The US has paid more than a "political" price for unceasing support of Israel. Indeed, this support has made it very unwise, if not outright dangerous, for Americans to travel in many parts of the world. [/QUOTE]Right. Zoraster's accounting post spells that out nicely.
Bottom line for the past 15 years: [u]Strategic and political liability[/u], as a debt, greater than income since at least 1989. For those who want to say since about 1979 . . . some good points can be made pro for that position. [QUOTE]One last: Whan I was living in NYC, you could see all the politicians (not all of them Jews, BTW) claiming what a "Friend" of Israel they were. These same politicians would never calim to be a friend of the fighting men and women in this country. Where are their loyalties--or are they outright panderers>[/QUOTE]These seem to be the sort of East Coast bourgeoise jackoffs who thought it was cool to call policemen pigs, who thought spitting on American soldiers returning from Viet Nam appropriate, and who contend that America is at fault for all of the world's wrongs. Whose line is it anyway? :whstl:
I'd suggest the program to put a critical mass of certain sorts of people into academia has paid off for the Zionist cause, wouldn't you?
2005-07-14 19:44 | User Profile
Justin? I am from Cuba and when you say "cometaco" you are thinking of Mesico.
Angel? Hell man at my age I'll be glad with one here and now.
Tex? Please don't mix "simpaty" with "justice".....we provoked the Muslims and Arabs by supporting the Jews in killing Arabs and Palestinians and by going into the land in order to make war, kill their people and steal their oil.
By the way, they suspect that Titan (a moon of Saturn) may have oil therefore it wont be long before America goes to Titan in order to liberate it from Martians.
I wonder if that's why the US is at this time trainning space soldiers?
2005-07-15 03:05 | User Profile
No...I didn't mean it like that. I'm well aware of the differences between "Mesicans"...BTW I like the way you said that, lol, and Cubans and Puerto Ricans and Agentinians, etc...
And actually, now that I look at what you were replying to...I see that wasn't even in reference to you, senor. I was addressing "Marxist". I call all communists/marxists/socialist/liberals "CommieTacos"...because that little name amuses me.
You said "Mesicans"...LOL...so you're OK with me.
Mesicans...lol...
[QUOTE=Ponce]Justin? I am from Cuba and when you say "cometaco" you are thinking of Mesico.[/QUOTE]
2005-07-15 15:59 | User Profile
Justin? you are going to hate me now because I intended to write Mexico, that was a typo hahahaahahah but I do feel like you guys about the illegals and the gangs that we now have in the US.
AngelEyes? for being a "neutral" about the Zionists Israelis you sure like to defend them.....I guess that you are pregnant after all.
By the way that crap of mixing Semites Jews with Zionists Israelis won't work here, we know who the players are at this game.
2005-08-08 18:13 | User Profile
[url]http://www.jewishworldreview.com/[/url]
First time I visited the above site and as usual is nothing more than "kill all Muslims" Oi Vey, Oi Vey poor me, poor me.
2005-08-17 03:07 | User Profile
[B]I DON'T BELIEVE THIS ONE, DO YOU? OI VEY, OI VEY.[/B]
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Being ââ¬ÅGuardedââ¬Â by Israel Submitted by a reader...
[B] U.S. Nuclear Weapons Being ââ¬ÅGuardedââ¬Â by Israel [/B]
American supporters of Israel were delighted to learn that an Israeli company, Magal Security Systemsââ¬âowned in part by the government of Israelââ¬âis in charge of security for the most sensitive nuclear power and weapons storage facilities in the United States.
The largest perimeter security company in the world, Magal started out as a division of Israeli Aircraft Industries (IAI)ââ¬âwhich was owned in part by the government of Israel. In recent years, however, Magal evolved into a publicly-traded company, although IAI (and thus the government of Israel) still holds a substantial share in the highly successful firm.
What all of this means is that the government of Israel will actually have control over the security of Americaââ¬â¢s nuclear weapons.
Supporters of Israel say that this is a splendid idea, since Israel is said to be perhaps Americaââ¬â¢s closest ally on the face of the planet. However, there are some critics who question the propriety of Americaââ¬â¢s super-sensitive nuclear security being in the hands of any foreign nation, particularly Israel which, even today, officially denies that it is engaged in the production of nuclear arms.
Be that as it may, however, Magalââ¬â¢s global interests are quite broad-ranging. Having secured 90 percent of Israelââ¬â¢s borders through a wide-ranging array of super-modern ââ¬Åspace ageââ¬Â technology, Magal has now branched out internationally. Not only does Magal provide security for American nuclear facilities, but it also does likewise for most major nuclear facilities in Western Europe and Asia.
In addition, the Israeli firm also provides security for Chicagoââ¬â¢s Oââ¬â¢Hare Airport and, for the last fifteen years, has kept watch on the Queen of Englandââ¬â¢s famed Buckingham Palace in London. Whatââ¬â¢s more, Magal provides security for 90% of the American prisons that utilize electronic systems.
Magal brags that its other clients around the globe include: borders, airports, industrial sites, communication centers, military installations, correctional facilities, government agencies, VIP estates and residences, commercial buildings and storage yards. There is hardly a major country or major enterprise that does not have Magalââ¬â¢s security specialists keeping a close watch on their activities.
Clearly, Magal is no small enterprise. While 27% of its total sales are in the Israeli market, its largest market is in North America, which currently accounts for 35% of its sales.
However, Magalââ¬â¢s American outreach is expected to increase substantially, especially now that firm has set up a Washington, D.C. office which will promote its products to federal agencies and to the members of Congress who provide funding for federally-supervised security projects across the country at all levels: local, state and national.
And with current U.S. Homeland Security Chief, Michael Chertoff, not only a strong supporter of Israel but also the son of a woman who has strong Israeli tiesââ¬âeven including service with El Al, the national airline of Israelââ¬âMagal, owned in party by Israeli Aircraft Industriesââ¬âwill be a clear-cut favorite in the eyes of the power brokers in official Washington who have the power to grant lucrative security contracts.
At the moment, Magal has four U.S.-based subsidiaries: two in California, Stellar Security Products, Inc. and Perimeter Products Inc., as well as the New York-based Smart Interactive Systems, Inc., and the Virginia-based Dominion Wireless, Inc.
All told, the Israeli company holds a 40% share in the worldwide market in perimeter intrusion detection systems and is working to expand its business in the protection of oil pipelines.
Magal is also said to be quite interested in guarding water lines around the globe, particularly in the United States. In fact, Magal may have an inside shot at getting a monopoly in guarding Americaââ¬â¢s water supplies. On July 19, the Bush administrationââ¬â¢s Environmental Protection Agency announced a ââ¬Åpartnershipââ¬Â with the Israeli Ministry of National Infrastructures to improve what they called ââ¬Åwater supply system security in the United States and Israel.ââ¬Â Since Magal is so highly respected in Israel, itââ¬â¢s an even bet that Magal will soon be guarding the U.S. water supply.
From the Maga web-page at: [url]http://www.magal-ssl.com/pages/clients.asp[/url]
"Nuclear Facilities and Other Utility Installations
The Magal Group is a leading contractor in securing nuclear power generating plants, nuclear research facilities, chemical processing plants and weapon storage sites. Our extensive product range together with the experience of our key technical staff has enabled the Magal Group to successfully respond to the unique requirements of these high-risk installations as mandated by the International Atomic Energy Agency. More than 80 percent of such facilities in the United States, as well as the majority in Western Europe and Asia have been supplied with our perimeter security systems."
2005-08-18 00:34 | User Profile
Amazing, Ponce.