Though Hussein was a scumbag, a good argument could be made against the invasion. One could argue that Iraq didn't attack the US, was no threat to the US, and was not involved in 9/11. (By the way, moveon.org went one better and even opposed the invasion of afghanistan because, in its warped anti-neo-imperialst worldview--typically chomskyite--, any group that hates or attacks the US is motivated by American domination of the world through global capitalism. This argument is funny since it really amounts to a new form of anti-semitsm. The most important agents and champions of globalism are American Jews, most of them liberals. Of course, neocons are also for globalism, but they've been much at odd with Paleocons who tend not to be Jewish and prefer national capitalism over globalist capitalism. Anyway, if US economic 'domination' is imperialist, the villains are mostly American Jews. It's not the dimwit Southern white baptists, negroes, Hispanic lettuce pickers, or South Dakotans who manage and reap huge rewards from the global economy. Sure, there is Walmart but much of its business operations are run and managed by liberal Jews. And, look at Hollywood and US media with worldwide influence and control. They are mostly Jewish-owned. Even Fox is an hononary Jewish company because Murdoch is a neocon pro-Zionist and has hired mostly super liberal Jews to run the entertainment departments. It's not Mormons, hicks, or Midwestern Swedes who own and run Hollywood. So, if globalism dominated by the US is indeed imperialist, neo-imperialism is controlled by Jews since Jews control the US. So, anti-Americanism has become the new anti-semitism, which explains why Godard's anti-American sentiments cannot be disassociated with his anti-Jewish sentiments. Many leftists feel betrayed because the holocaust was supposed to have taught the Jews a lesson once and for all; Jews were supposed to be noble saints and lovable victims for all time, but most Jews turned out to be 'greedy' capitalists or imperialists--over the Palestinians. So, it's awful frustrating to people like Godard. He's sorry that cinema didn't stop the Holocaust--come to think of it, it didn't stop the Great Famine in Ukraine, the Great Leap Forward in China, and the Killing Fields in Cambodia either, but I guess they matter less. He dutifully obsesses over the horror of the Holocaust. But, the very people he wants to embrace and sympathize with are now the richest and the most powerful people on Earth. Jews run Hollywood and have commited 'cultural genocide' the world over. Jews have manipulated US political and military power to make trouble in the middle east. Jews, with the help of the US, has crushed Palestinians and gotten away with murder.)
Since Iraq didn't attack the US, what right did the US to invade Iraq? Every one of the pro-war arguments could be dismissed as bogus. One was that Iraq had WMD. It turned out that Iraq didn't, but even if it did, was the invasion justified? After all, China is a non-democratic nation with WMD. Russia too. And, whole bunch of other nations. So, why pick on Iraq? There was the argument that the middle east was important because of oil, and a man like hussein shouldn't control all that wealth--which he may use to cause trouble, as when he invaded Kuwait. Okay, but US pushed Iraq out of Kuwait. Weren't there ways to check Hussein's power without actually invading the country? And, a whole host of other arguments could be made against the invasion, all legitimate--though legitimate reasons could be made for the war too.
But, let's suppose the invasion of Iraq was wrong, violated international laws, was unprecedented(for the US in relatively recent times anyway), and didn't serve the interests of the US. And, it must be said that opposition to the war came from the right as well from the left. Paleocons and libertarians generally denounced the war as the doing of ex-trotskyite neocon jews. Many on the right denounced the invasion as radical democratic fundamentalism and/or zionism controlling US foreign policy. The left has denounced the war as neo-imperialism. (I must say I'm a bit confused by this. Again, the world economy is pretty much run by Jews, most of whom are liberal. The most powerful leftists are also Jews. So, are Leftist Jews attacking Liberal Jews for global neo-imperialism? Perhaps, but it's never stated this way. Leftist Jews blame ALL of America for global capitalism when most ethnic groups in the US are not the masters of the world economy. Take Alaskans like the Palins. They are national capitalists who fish and drill for oil for fellow Americans. Or, take them bible thumping hick farmers down sooooouth. They never been travelin' around the world and makin' deals. Their entire world is their smalltown community. The masters of the global economy are mostly the Jews in the US. So, you'd think leftist Jews would attack liberal capitalist Jews by name--like the Wall Street Jews who took bad loans and sold them all over the world and has sunk the economy of places like Iceland. But no, leftist Jews blame ALL of AMERICA as though all Americans are equally to blame. The fact is that though Jews make up only 2% of US population, they own more than 40% of the wealth. 35% of donations to the Republican campaign came from Jews. 70% of donations to the Democrats came from Jews. This is JewSa. So, why do leftist Jews blame ALL of America for neo-imperialism when the masters of this world order are the liberal and neocon Jews? Also, even your average Marxist-leaning Leftist Jew is significantly richer than your average conservative 'greedy' goy. Lawyers, professors, academics, and even rich businessmen are leftwing Jews. Just look at Hollywood with its many billionaire left-leaning Jews. They sell cultural sewage all over the world, buy huge mansions, bang shikse bimbos left and right, and then put on airs as progressive saints who care about humanity. Is it any wonder why anti-semitism has been a worldwide phenomenon? Not only are Jews pretty gross, they are awful hypocritical.)
Anyway, to get back to the original point. why so many liberal and leftist goyim--who got their worldview from reading the books of more intelligent leftwing Jews--support Israel while attacking the invasion of Iraq? Wasn't the creation of Israel worse than the invasion of Iraq? Iraq wasn't invaded for keeps. US sought only to remove Hussein, put in a better regime, and then pull out. But, when Western imperialists allowed Jews to settle in Israel, it was for keeps. The people who'd lived on that land--the Pallies--would be dispossessed forever. Suppose US had invaded Iraq with the intention of dispossessing Iraqis, pushing most of them out of the territory and then settling non-Arabs to create a new nation. Wouldn't that have been far worse than merely invading a nation to bring about regime change? That is what happened in Palestine which was turned into Israel. Western imperialists allowed European Jews to arrive in ever larger numbers, push out the original inhabitants, and set up a new nation. Today, Palestinians are living in utter squalor. They are hungry, diseased, poor, and dehumanized by the Jewish controlled media in the US--worse than how Jews were dehumanized by Nazi propaganda. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not romantic about the Pallies. They are a bunch of sand negroes as far as I'm concerned. But, they are people too(and still better than actual negroes, not to mention them rascally Jews.)
What I wanna know is why American progressives who bitch and whine about the American invasion of Iraq are okay with the fact that Israel was created and continues to crush the Pallies? Why are they far more offended by the Iraq invasion than the Jewish invasion of Palestine under the cover of Western Imperialism? I've heard the arguments before. Jews got burned in the holocaust and so deserved a land of their own. Then, why not give Jews a piece of land in Europe since Europeans killed the Jews? Some argue Palestinians had colluded with the Nazis and therefore deserved to be punished. But, Italy and Japan were closer to Nazi Germany. So, why not give a chunk of Japan or Italy to the Jews instead? Besides, so what if some Palestinians had been chummy with Nazi Germany. They were merely playing power politics since the Middle East was dominated by British and French imperialists. And, didn't US and UK side with mass murderer Stalin? Some have argued that Palestine was the homeland of the ancient Jews, but if we wanna send everyone back to their ancestral homelands going back centuries or millennia ago, expect there to be WWIII, IV, V, etc.
So, I want all your progressive jerkoffs to explain why you oppose the invasion of Iraq but agree that "Israel has the right to exist"? Don't you see that Israel's right to exist negates the right of Palestine to exist? You will say, 'give West Bank and Gaza to the Pallies and call that Palestine'. But, does that make sense? Suppose the chinese invade US, create New China and drive Americans to California and Florida. Suppose the chinese demand the 'right of new china to exist' and are willing to compromise by allowing california and florida to be america. So, does that mean America too can exist alongside New China? What American would swallow his pride and fall for this shit? When a little island was attacked in 1941, US totally bombed Japan and killed millions. Yet, this nation--created by killing and taking land from the red man--is now lecturing, at the behest of Jews, to Palestinians about peace. You'd think Palestinians are the aggressors because they cannot accept the idea of 'right of israel to exist'. But, Palestinians have nothing against the idea of a Jewish homeland. They just don't want it on top of their own homeland. Similarly, Americans have no problems with chinese having their China. Americans just don't want New China on American Soil. It's bad enough that US is turning into JewSA at the top and negroland on the bottom and spreading wider and wider.
So, why are progressives okay with Israel? Allow me to venture to guess. It's because Jews taught us history where they've always been saintly victims and noble folks all throughout history. And, we've been taught that ONLY Jews--and negroes--suffered and know pain. We've all been drummed day in and day out in schools, tv, hollywood, etc, etc about the holocaust--though we know next to nothing about 100 million killed by communism(much of it dominated by Jews. Chomsky and other leftist intellectuals in the US did everything to help khmer rouge come to power in cambodia, but he hasn't been hounded out of the academia like James Watts who only spoke the truth about race.)
Also, I believe there is a natural worship or admiration of all things Jewish since so many of our intellectuals, artists, writers, etc, are Jewish. I think it happens like this. Suppose you dig Dylan or Norman Mailer. You look up to them, admire them, and wanna be liked by them. Even though they don' t now you and you don't know them personally, a part of you is like Rupert Pupkin in "King of Comedy". You want to win the approval of those Great Guys--if only in fantasy. I think the rise of acceptance of gayness also has to do with the fact that so many gays are in culture, arts, and entertainment. Why, it's so unhip, uncool, and un-smart not to bend over for the gay agenda(Clay Aikin and Ellen Degenerate)!
Suppose Arab-Americans were a lot smarter than Jews. Suppose most of our intellectuals, artists, writers, and movie makers were Arabs for a free Palestine and opposed to Zionism. I'll bet most of the progressives in this country would be anti-Zionist. So, a kind of cult-of-personality operates here. Perhaps, one could call it a cult-of-nationality. Jews are not only seen as the saint victims of history but as the ultimate cool, intellectual, smart, talented, creative, and brilliant people. So, sucking up to Jews is prerequisite for being cool, progressive, and etc since Jewish artists and intellectual determine and define what is 'intelligent', 'cutting edge', 'brilliant', and 'genius'.
This may also be true with blacks as well. If blacks weren't so good at pop music, dance, and sports, there may be less sympathy for them. But, because of the power of cult-of-nationality, even when blacks riot and go crazy, progressives go out of their way to make excuses for the 'cool' negroes.
This must be true. We need only consider the case of Edward Said. Recall that prior to Said, most of the compassion and sympathy were with the brilliant, smart, and original Jews. But, Said in the 1970s wrote a book called "Orientalism" which has come to be considered one of the most brilliant books ever written. Said became admired, revered, worshipped, and dick-sucked by many. He was said to be the most insightful, radical, daring, and blah blah thinker ever. (I read the book. It sucks.) Said's celebrity had a huge impact on the Israeli-Palestinian equation, at least in the academic setting(which is signficant because academic trends eventually ripple outwards.) Those who came to admire Said's brilliance also came to agree with his positions. So, admiration of brilliance leads to adherence to commitment(of the brilliant personage). There is a conceit in the intellectual community that something brilliantly argued must be truer than something dumbly argued--even if the dumbly argued position is true or true. This is the conceit of brilliantism and accounts for the appeal of Marxism. Had Marx not been so brilliant, his positions wouldn't have amounted to much. But, people who came to admire his Moses-like aura and intelligence couldn't help but think that a man so intelligent must be true. Same goes for the sheep of Ayn Rand. Rand, though a nut, brilliantly argued her case and suckers fell for it. Jews, because of their high intelligence, have a way of making even falsehoods sound true. Take a show like Seinfeld or Curb Your Enthusiasm. It's about nothing and annoying as hell; but they are addictive to many people because they are brilliant. Jews can even make nothing look valuable. If women(and men) have fallen for Woody Allen for his wit, this is all very understandable!
Anyway, my point is Jews will control much of our intellectual culture because many people look upon them as the smartest, most talented, most creative, and most original. So, we feel this emotional need to be in good graces with such Great People; so, our admiration of their artistic and intellectual talent leads us to sympathy with their political and social positions as well. But, notice how a single brilliant Palestinian challenged the equation significantly. Said wrote one brilliant book, influenced a whole generation of academics, and there is now a good amount of anti-zionism on campuses. There had long been anti-zionism among Pallies before, but it was Said who made it intellectually respectable. The most powerful weapon is the pen, not the sword. If Pallies produce more Saids, Jews will really be in trouble.
In a way, Jews too had been blinded by brilliantism in the 19th and 20th centuries. Many Jews loved and even worshipped French and German culture. Though many of the great artists were anti-semitic, Jews were blinded by brilliantism. Consider the fact that the Jew Mahler wept and wailed out in the streets when Wagner died. He screamed, 'the master is dead, the master is dead'. And, this is why so many Jews never woke up from their doldrums when the political landscape was changing fast in the 20th century. Many French Jews, so deeply in love with French culture, shared the French prejudice against Eastern European Jews. And, many German Jews refused to believe that something terrible would happen in a land that had created Bach, Beethoven, Goethe, and Rilke. Today, many honkeys refuse to believe in the dangers of negroes because they are so enamoured of jazz and blues and etc. And, consider the film "Last Samurai". It's so fascinated and amazed by Japanese aesthetic and culture that it fails to see the dark side of the samurai order.
This applies to our sympathy for victims too. For all their professed egalitarianism and brotherhood-of-man-ism, even leftists have their favorite victims. Jews are favored because we feel that a Jew is more capable of greatness than a goy. When we hear of 10 million Ukraianians killed by Stalin( and his Jewish henchmen), we have this picture of a whole bunch of dirty, illiterate, dimwitted peasants dying. But, when we hear of a single murdered Jew, we wonder, 'could it have been another Einstein, another Dylan, another Mailer, another Don Rickles'?
In our imagination, some nationalities have a face, a voice, a mind--a personality. Even if we don't actually know them intimately or directly, we feel a certain kinship or admiration or reverence through the personality of the nationality. Perception-through-personality shapes nationality. Consider the effectiveness of Aung Sung Suchi and Dalai Lama. Without them, stories of Tibetans and Burmese would merely be faceless sad stories--dime-a-dozen on BBC. But, because we know their faces and heard their voices, we feel greater sadness when we hear of oppression in Tibet or Burma; we visualize the saddened or anguished faces of Dalai Lama or Aung Sung Suchi, individual personalities we've come to regard as 'friends' or 'teachers' or 'gurus' or 'heroes'. Anne Frank did much the same for the Jews. She added a face to the 6 million dead.
In today's public perception, Jews have a lot more faces and personalities than Palestinians. This may be why Hollywood is eager to suppress the rise of Arab or Muslim actors or film folks. When an Arab or Muslim American seeks a role in Hollywood, the Jews only offer roles of evil terrorists. Jews in Hollywood know that if Arab and Muslim Americans become more famous and liked, their possibly anti-Zionist causes too will be more popular and acceptable. Of course, none of this is rational, but humans are like this. Ever since we've had more gay celebs, more and more Americans are for 'gay marriage'. Ingmar Bergman was right. The Face is the key.