Since: Jan 13
#10982 Jan 29, 2013
If it wasn't for Manchin III be one for Obama I would go with Manchin...but unfortunate that he votes for such decay.....
#10983 Jan 29, 2013
I Did not VOTE for JOE
#10984 Jan 30, 2013
…The coal industry was finally privatised in December 1994 to create a firm named "R.J.B. Mining", now known as UK Coal. Between the end of the strike and privatisation, pit closures continued with a particularly intense group of closures in the early 1990s.…
In 1983, Britain had 174 working mines; by 2009, this number had decreased to six.
During the strike, Scargill had constantly claimed that the government had a long-term plan to reduce the industry in this way. The miners' will to resist deteriorated rapidly and there was a very apathetic response to the intensive period of closures in the early 1990s, despite evidence that there was much more sympathy for the miners then than in 1984.
Nottinghamshire miners had hoped that their pits were safe, but they too were mostly closed in the 1985-1994 period. This was widely resented as a betrayal of the promises that had been made to working miners in the strike; they had been told that their jobs were safe and their industry had a future.
The subsequent behaviour of the Conservative government was seen by most on the left, and in the "heavy" industries, to confirm fears about how they had been used to divide the miners' union...
IF we'd get a couple of very rare and destructive weather events could the public push for less coal? Miners might want to save some money, think about learning other trades and be prepared to move where the work is?
Almost Heaven politicians need to try harder for more industry and jobs not related to coal. Just off the top of my head - could we pay for starting more industry by taxing Large timber and mineral holders. They would be captives - who cares IF they sold off and left the state - whoever they sold it to would owe the taxes.
#10985 Jan 30, 2013
I LOVE those links! Thanks for making them youtube, I never fear clicking on youtube links. And the others you also posted were kewl too !!!
#10986 Jan 30, 2013
#10987 Jan 31, 2013
shhhhh I think this is suppose to be a secret.
Ya gotta stand for something or you'll fall for anything.
#10989 Jan 31, 2013
#10990 Jan 31, 2013
Since: Dec 12
#10991 Jan 31, 2013
Israel doesnt give a crap about some worthless UN declaration. There is no such thing as "Palestine" and Israel is not going to cede land to a bunch of terrorist scumbags. They just struck a weapons convoy inside Syria, you think they are worried about some UN report? They arent. Long live Israel!!!
#10992 Jan 31, 2013
This is very long - I'll just give you a snip. They tried to publish this in US but had to go to England ...
THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
John J. Mearsheimer
University of Chicago
Stephen M. Walt
An edited and reworked version of this paper was published in the London Review
Books Vol. 28, No. 6 (March 23, 2006), and is available online at www.lrb.co.uk
THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
The U.S. national interest should be the primary object of American foreign
policy. For the past several decades, however, and especially since the Six Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy has been its relationship
with Israel. The combination of unwavering U.S. support for Israel and the
related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and
Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security.
This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the United
States been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the intere
sts of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries is
based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives. As we
show below, however, neither of those explanations can account for the
remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States
provides to Israel.
Instead, the overall thrust of U.S. policy in the region is due almost entirely
to U.S. domestic politics, and especially to the activities of the “Israel Lobby.”
Other special interest groups have managed to skew U.S. foreign policy in directions
they favored, but no lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from
what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while
simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are
In the pages that follow, we describe how the Lobby has accomplished this feat,
and how its activities have shaped America’s actions in this critical region.
Given the strategic importance of the Middle East and its potential impact on
others, both Americans and non‐Americans need to understand and address the
Lobby’s influence on U.S. policy.
Some readers will find this analysis disturbing, but the facts recounted here are not in serious dispute among scholars. Indeed, our account relies heavily on the
work of Israeli scholars and journalists, who deserve great credit for shedding
light on these issues.
THE GREAT BENEFACTOR
Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of
support dwarfing the amounts provided to any other state. It has been the
largest annual recipient of direct U.S. economic and military assistance since 1976
and the largest total recipient since World War II. Total direct U.S. aid to Israel
amounts to well over $140 billion in 2003 dollars.2 Israel receives about $3 billion
in direct foreign assistance each year, which is roughly one‐fifth of America’s
foreign aid budget. In per capita terms, the United States gives each Israeli a
direct subsidy worth about $500 per year.
3 This largesse is especially striking
when one realizes that Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita
income roughly equal to South Korea or Spain.4 ....
This extraordinary generosity might be understandable if Israel were a vital
strategic asset or if there were a compelling moral case for sustained U.S.
backing. But neither rationale is convincing.
A STRATEGIC LIABILITY ..... MUCH MORE ...
#10993 Jan 31, 2013
Since: Dec 12
#10994 Jan 31, 2013
I think I will leave our security to our military leaders who know Israels strategic importance to our country. We have many "armchair generals" who think they know what is best, yet they have no inside knowledge and usually no military experience. That so called "study" is anti-Semite "wanna be general" nonsense.
#10995 Jan 31, 2013
how do you like Manchin now that he's crawled up next to Obama and become his best buddy? All gun owners and coal miners are screwed now.
#10996 Jan 31, 2013
These authors are a little too cerebral for many of the folks here. The fact tht they couldn't get the article published in the U.S. should tell us something.
And for information, the article was later expanded into a book, also available in audio format.
#10997 Jan 31, 2013
Yes it is lucky for us the politicians make policy and not the Generals you WANT to leave policy up to. And soon after this study the policy HAS changed. I LOVE proof. Quote me some "anti-semite" paragraph or even sentence from that study? Just a little quote to see you have a clue?
#10998 Jan 31, 2013
There IS a "compelling moral case for sustained US backing" of Israel.
#10999 Jan 31, 2013
GREAT another guy with proof. So maybe -- pick apart that article. Even just a paragraph. I know you can beat that Harvard dude I got faith LOL.
#11000 Jan 31, 2013
lol i love the terms "spreading democracy" and "compelling moral imperatives" how sick.
thanks for this post, it's riveting (no sarcasm)
#11001 Jan 31, 2013
you're stupid! ahaha! you don't know anything, especially about US foreign policy/military.
antisemitism means hating on people(jews) based on their ethnicity or religious beliefs. Israel is not a person or group of people. it is a nation state and can be hated without antisemitic notions.
#11002 Jan 31, 2013
Yep - the article was on loving America !!!!
You know since the 1960 just about the only terrorism I can find (Arafat - plane hijackings, Lebanon Barracks, 911 etc etc etc) against the USA has often been as a protest against Palestine treatment (in part). We didn't have the IRA, the Red Brigade -- how many TRILLIONS have we spent on JUST THE USAs' security for terrorism. Frankly my money could be put to better things?
Add your comments below
|Info on Danny Saye needed||14 min||Eddie||26|
|Black Gold (Jan '13)||25 min||always faithful||172|
|Really||38 min||ME ME ME||9|
|annexation of oak hill and minden||48 min||KnowIt||126|
|Vote "NO" For Boy Scouts Free Ride Forever||1 hr||another mess||7|
|Concert Lively Theater||4 hr||betty||1|
|last post wins! (Jan '11)||9 hr||notBeavis||1,007|
Find what you want!
Search Oak Hill Forum Now