[Big Mac]

"Israel's Arab Cheerleaders" by Caroline Glick

It is a strange situation when Egypt and Jordan feel it necessary to defend Israel against American criticism. But this is the situation in which we find ourselves today. Last Friday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee that Arab support for Israel's bid to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is contingent on its agreeing to support the rapid establishment of a Palestinian state. In her words, "For Israel to get the kind of strong support it's looking for vis-a-vis Iran, it can't stay on the sidelines with respect to the Palestinians and the peace efforts." As far as Clinton is concerned, the two, "go hand-in-hand."

But just around the time that Clinton was making this statement, Jordan's King Abdullah II was telling The Washington Post that he is satisfied with the Netanyahu government's position on the Palestinians. In his words, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has "sent a message that he's committed to peace with the Arabs. All the words I heard were the right words."

Caroline Glick provides an excellent commentary on the current political trends regarding America, Israel, Iran and the Arab street. It is indeed ironic yet not completely unexpected that the more moderate voices in the Arab world are rhetorically more supportive of Israel's position against Iran than the Obama Administration is. Obama and Clinton are calling for essentially a complete Israeli capitulation to its Arabs, holding the Iranian nuclear threat as leverage against the country. We knew who we were getting with this administration - the follower of the unrepentant racist Wright, and we also have Hillary "Fock the Jews" Clinton. I've often wondered what compelled Clinton to give up her coveted Senate seat for the much lesser Secretary of State position, but this evening my brother mentioned that perhaps it was so that she could put the knife in Israel's back herself.

[kobi]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Caroline Glick provides an excellent commentary on the current political trends regarding America, Israel, Iran and the Arab street. It is indeed ironic yet not completely unexpected that the more moderate voices in the Arab world are rhetorically more supportive of Israel's position against Iran than the Obama Administration is. Obama and Clinton are calling for essentially a complete Israeli capitulation to its Arabs, holding the Iranian nuclear threat as leverage against the country. We knew who we were getting with this administration - the follower of the unrepentant racist Wright, and we also have Hillary "Fock the Jews" Clinton. I've often wondered what compelled Clinton to give up her coveted Senate seat for the much lesser Secretary of State position, but this evening my brother mentioned that perhaps it was so that she could put the knife in Israel's back herself.

Sorry, but with all the sensationalism and far right rhetoric it's hard to take your post seriously.

So you'd rather hold the Israel "nuclear threat" as leverage against Iran? Smart.

Sorry but you guys lost, stop crying over spilt milk and man up.

Now our foreign policy consists of more than, making up intelligence and crossing our fingers as the bombs fall, hoping they won't fall back on us.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by kobi 

Sorry, but with all the sensationalism and far right rhetoric it's hard to take your post seriously.

Thank you so much for the compliment.

So you'd rather hold the Israel "nuclear threat" as leverage against Iran? Smart.

Israel isn't the one declaring repeatedly that it is determined to wipe Iran off the map, is it?

Sorry but you guys lost, stop crying over spilt milk and man up.

Yeah, the bigger evil won out in November. Aside from the radicals, the whole world loses.

Now our foreign policy consists of more than, making up intelligence and crossing our fingers as the bombs fall, hoping they won't fall back on us.

Now our foreign policy consists of embracing all of the world's dictators, appeasing or ignoring the ambitions of bloodthirsty tyrannies, apologizing for America, defecating on our reliable allies and throwing Israel to the slaughter, giving the terrorists our interrogation playbook to pander to false moralists and the ACLU. . . Did I miss anything?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

and we also have Hillary "Fock the Jews" Clinton.

That's Hillary "you ****ing Jew bastard" Clinton.

You might be thinking of Jim "**** the Jews, they didn't vote for us" Baker.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

. . . Did I miss anything?

Your afternoon nap?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's Hillary "you ****ing Jew bastard" Clinton.

You might be thinking of Jim "**** the Jews, they didn't vote for us" Baker.

Yeah, I conflated the two. Thank you.

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Your afternoon nap?

I could use some sleep, in truth.

[kobi]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Now our foreign policy consists of embracing all of the world's dictators, appeasing or ignoring the ambitions of bloodthirsty tyrannies, apologizing for America, defecating on our reliable allies and throwing Israel to the slaughter, giving the terrorists our interrogation playbook to pander to false moralists and the ACLU. . . Did I miss anything?

So your one of those guys huh? The Rabid Right. Scary.

Look, people with your views are in the way minority; hell the GOP as a whole is only polling at 21%. Much less the 1-2% of people outside of this board who hold your same views.

Conservatism has failed, (well it never did prosper actually) you guys are holding onto ideas that have never worked, and are quickly becoming the dinosaurs of political parties.

[mattyb]

What people tend to forget is that NOBODY wants the Palestinians. Read some history people.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Now our foreign policy consists of embracing all of the world's dictators

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

appeasing or ignoring the ambitions of bloodthirsty tyrannies

If the "bloodthirsty tyrannies" are not directly threatening the United States--and I don't know of any that are other than North Korea--then it is NOT the problem of the United States.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

apologizing for America

Good.
We should apologise for our previous administration's declaration that those who did not agree with the US would be seen as enemies to the US ("either you are with us or against us" ring a bell?).
We should apologise for our previous administration's decision to wage unilitareral, pre-emptive war on Iraq because they might be a threat to us.
We should apologise for our previous administration's decision to use extreme rendition, torture, and military prisons as non-official POW camps in the War on Terror.
We should apologise for this administration's willingness to continue bailing out the US financial sector instead of forcing into bankruptcy those financial institutions that played fast and loose with other people's money.
We should apologise for this administration's willingness to continue the practice of using our national intelligence agencies for domestic surveillance and (presumably) continued international economic espionage.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

defecating on our reliable allies and throwing Israel to the slaughter

In deciding how best to determine/establish the foreign policy needs of the United States the needs of Israel (or any other country, for that matter) should NEVER be a more important factor than the needs of the United States. What's good for the United States might not necessarily be good for Israel and that's just too bad for the Israelis; They need to be able to take care of themselves without resorting to having the United States fight their battles for them. They have to realise that US foreign policy is changing and will not always center around our relationship to Israel.
(And before you say this makes the United States an unreliable ally to Israel, remember that many other countries already think the United States is an unreliable ally exactly because we have allowed our political devotion to supporting Israel interfere with our international relationship to other nations. So, having one other country [Israel] think the United States is an unreliable ally is not that big a deal to me.)

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

giving the terrorists our interrogation playbook to pander to false moralists and the ACLU

Trust me, the terrorists we are fighting do not need instruction in how to perform "enhanced Interrogations". Besides, the only "false moralists" in this regard are those who claimed we did not torture while they knew we were conducting torture on prisoners.

[Hawkeye_a]

*wrong thread*

[besson3c]

What does Reverand Wright have to do with this?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What does Reverand Wright have to do with this?

I don't know, but I bet we can think of a way!

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

What people tend to forget is that NOBODY wants the Palestinians. Read some history people.

QFT.

-t

[besson3c]

Is it just me, or does it seem like the Republican/right version of diplomacy is always tough and unapologetic, while the Democrat/left version is always softer and less aggressive? Why is this a left/right sort of thing? Wouldn't it more conservative by definition to be less aggressive?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Is it just me, or does it seem like the Republican/right version of diplomacy is always tough and unapologetic, while the Democrat/left version is always softer and less aggressive? Why is this a left/right sort of thing? Wouldn't it more conservative by definition to be less aggressive?

Because conservatives have a spine ?

-t

[besson3c]

When has a lack of a spine ever been a problem for America? Is it possible to have too much of a spine?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Because conservatives have a spine ?

-t

I hear it leads to a forked tail.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

When has a lack of a spine ever been a problem for America?

We are witnessing this. History in the making

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Is it possible to have too much of a spine?

Not for a Democrat.

-t

[besson3c]

So again, why is this strictly a Democrat/Republican thing turtle? Do Republicans have some sort of genetic code that says "kick ass and take names 24/7, 365 days of the year"?

Resist the witty little one-liner comeback, this is actually a serious question!

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So again, why is this strictly a Democrat/Republican thing turtle? Do Republicans have some sort of genetic code that says "kick ass and take names 24/7, 365 days of the year"?

Sure.
They.
Do.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Resist the witty little one-liner comeback, this is actually a serious question!

You're welcome.

On a serious note: are you serious about the genetic code ? I can not speak to that, as it seems to be a rather silly suggestion, leading into a serious question.

-t

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I hear it leads to a forked tail.

as opposed to the Liberal forked tongue?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

An excellent theory on paper, but can this be shown an effective foreign policy?

Good.
We should apologise for our previous administration's declaration that those who did not agree with the US would be seen as enemies to the US ("either you are with us or against us" ring a bell?).

Yet how many of our "friends" have not contributed to the war on terror?

We should apologise for our previous administration's decision to wage unilitareral, pre-emptive war on Iraq because they might be a threat to us.

The action drew the contributions of some 40 nations. It was a unilateral action only to those with a chip on their shoulder against the Bush Administration. The global community overwhelmingly believed Saddam Hussein was a threat. They voted through 13 UN Resolutions, 12 years of Economic Sanctions, and an eventual Resolution threatening "serious consequences" for continued non-compliance. The disagreement was how exactly to address the threat. If there was ever the notion of "regime change" it was Clinton's doctrine. A doctrine I supported.

We should apologise for our previous administration's decision to use extreme rendition, torture, and military prisons as non-official POW camps in the War on Terror.

Torture lacks definition. Torture occurs as the result of human nature placed in deplorable conditions with the weight of the safety of his entire country on his shoulders. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that every single last member of this forum would readily allow "torture" for the safety of their own child, let alone their city or State. It should be kept safe and rare. There's absolutely no reason at all we should apologize for holding onto some 240 people caught firing on us in the battle field. Especially with the knowledge that 70+% of them will return to the field upon release.

We should apologise for this administration's willingness to continue bailing out the US financial sector instead of forcing into bankruptcy those financial institutions that played fast and loose with other people's money.

Agreed. This apology starts at home.

We should apologise for this administration's willingness to continue the practice of using our national intelligence agencies for domestic surveillance and (presumably) continued international economic espionage.

Again, this apology would start at home.

In deciding how best to determine/establish the foreign policy needs of the United States the needs of Israel (or any other country, for that matter) should NEVER be a more important factor than the needs of the United States. What's good for the United States might not necessarily be good for Israel and that's just too bad for the Israelis; They need to be able to take care of themselves without resorting to having the United States fight their battles for them. They have to realise that US foreign policy is changing and will not always center around our relationship to Israel.

I'm not seeing much unwillingness for Israelis to fight on their own behalf. The pressure against them is an international pressure that would view them as tyrannical for opposing the daily lobbing of missiles into their midst. Protecting Israel is mutually beneficial as an economic and strategic ally in arguably the most volatile region on the globe.

(And before you say this makes the United States an unreliable ally to Israel, remember that many other countries already think the United States is an unreliable ally exactly because we have allowed our political devotion to supporting Israel interfere with our international relationship to other nations. So, having one other country [Israel] think the United States is an unreliable ally is not that big a deal to me.)

Name the countries and their reasoning and I'll show you a country with little reason other than their own self-interests and involvement with our "non-allies".

Trust me, the terrorists we are fighting do not need instruction in how to perform "enhanced Interrogations". Besides, the only "false moralists" in this regard are those who claimed we did not torture while they knew we were conducting torture on prisoners.

No, rather the terrorists we are fighting need motivation and more numbers. Both of which are bolstered by the self-loathing of airing your dirty laundry to communities hungry for resolve against you. It is hard to keep your enemies close when you show them naked and mocked. These are merely deplorable acts of human nature exposed to deplorable conditions with the weight of their country on them. Giving it air play on Al Jazeera does not help our delivery of justice.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

These are merely deplorable acts of human nature exposed to deplorable conditions with the weight of their country on them.

No, it was Administration policy.

[Chuckit]

This thread needs more pictures of Arab cheerleaders.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So again, why is this strictly a Democrat/Republican thing turtle? Do Republicans have some sort of genetic code that says "kick ass and take names 24/7, 365 days of the year"?

Resist the witty little one-liner comeback, this is actually a serious question!

It's part of their chickenhawk code of "honor".

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

It's part of their chickenhawk code of "honor".

Oh Mike

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

No, it was Administration policy.

I said deplorable, I never said illegal or unnecessary. I appreciate the link though, I didn't know the process enjoyed this much oversight and documentation. I guess it makes sense knowing there was also a doctor involved.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I said deplorable, I never said illegal or unnecessary. I appreciate the link though, I didn't know the process enjoyed this much oversight and documentation. I guess it makes sense knowing there was also a doctor involved.

I took your post to mean that you were defending those who carried out the acts on the basis of their psychological status on the front lines and their need to make decisions "with the weight of their country on them" (as in the "ticking time bomb" scenario, or what many people said about the soldiers at Abu Ghraib at the time). I just wanted to point out that these acts were part of official policy, and were not "merely" the spontaneous actions of soldiers under stressful conditions. The enjoyment of official status doesn't necessarily make it more justified, though.