Tuesday, April 23, 2013

An Apology That Costs $10 Billion.

By Sodium

In the essay entitled " Netanyahu 's Apology to Turkey ", published on March 26,2013, on this website, I asked the following question:

Knowing the arrogance of Netanyahu and fellow hard core Zionists, would he has apologized before extracting a high price from Obama ?

Well, lately, the mainstream media says that the U.S. government/Congress have approved TEN BILLION dollars worth of weapons to Israel. You have just read it correctly, and I repeat, that is $10 Billion, not Million.

The expectation that implicitly embodied in the above question had hit the target splendidly. And of course, the American taxpayers have to shoulder the financial burden, as usual. The question that should be raised now is:

How long the American taxpayers can endlessly put up with such kind of schemes, while Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas keeps reminding us that we are financially broke ? Just a question !

If the idea behind such a largeness is to send a message to Iran, concerning its nuclear activities, it is an extremely expensive message that could have been conveyed to Iran, either by face to face open discussions, or through other reliable channels Iran has a degree of confidence in. The problem is in the fact that Iran has no confidence in the West as a whole, especially no confidence in the USA. It believes that the USA does the dirty work in the Middle East, as Israel and its warmongering supporters inside the United States want. The destruction of Iraq and ignoring what Israel has been doing to the Palestinian people, their lands and their East Jerusalem, for the last 46 years, attest to the Iranian of no confidence.

Finally, I must say that such an apology must have been the most expensive apology in the entire history of the human race. UNREAL !



  1. It is well known about Netanyahu that he is a liar. The Lord knows how many fabricated lies he told Obama to get from Obama what he wanted.

    Ten billion dollar is a lot of money to waste on a pile of lies. Lies were fabricated for the war with Iraq in 2003,and now lies are being fabricated for war with Iran.

    "UNREAL" ? You bet it has been for a long time,since Vie Nam.t

  2. Anonymous,

    Please let us refrain from calling those you and I disagree with their behaviors or policies names, such as liars. I wish to keep this website free from name calling, such as liars. To succeed, I need your cooperation and the cooperation of everyone who cares to leave comments here. It is acceptable to describe position or policy you disagree with, as based on a bunch of lies-no personal attack in such a comment, but you attack position or policy that might have been formulated by others unknown to you..

  3. Sodium: Since you have called him arrogant, in your essays, I wonder why do you object to my calling him a liar? As you keep saying "just a question", whenever you raise a question.

  4. Anonymous,

    There is a difference between calling him " arrogant " and calling him " liar ". The former has to do with attitudes toward others, while the latter involves dishonesty which is very serious allegation and must be proven.

  5. Sodium: I am not the first one who called him a "liar". In case you are unaware of the fact that two Heads of State in Europe, ( I cannot remember their names ), had called him so as the microphone of the hall they held a conference in was left on. The whole mainstream media talked about this incident for a while. This fact may be considered the proof you have insist on having before I can call him a liar. Well, Sodium, those two Heads of two sovereign States had met with him several times and reached a conclusion about him as a liar. Did not such as an incident justify calling him what I had already called him ?
    "Just a question", as you keep saying !

  6. Anonymous,

    The two Heads of State you could not remember their names were:

    * Current Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany.
    * Former President Nicolas Sarkozy of France.

    Yes, I am quite familiar of the microphone incident you referred to, as your proof. Well, Anonymous, you may use it as a proof, but I personally consider their private conversation about him as expression of their personal opinion, respectively.

    To label someone a liar/dishonest simply requires much harder evidence.