"Historians and political scientists will have much to say, after its collapse, about contemporary liberalism’s propensity to be at once tough on American citizens and soft on Iranian mullahs. Today’s liberals are pleased to use the power of the state to nudge—not to say bully—their fellow Americans, while shunning the exercise of power abroad, preferring to accommodate—not to say appease—the nation’s enemies. It would seem to be a paradox."No, it can't be a paradox; in the Leftist world there is no truth and no falseness so there are no paradoxes either. That will be in the next law they pass.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
IRAN, If you Like Your Nukes, You Can Keep Your Nukes: Obama
From The Weekly Standard:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Wonder when he will have to apologize to the Iranians?
I watched his "apology" for lying about obamaCare yesterday. It was 3% accepting responsibility as President, and 97% self-justification. But not any acceptance of personal responsibility for lying. He never lies; he either "mis-speaks", or "is not clear enough".
I think it was a mistake for the government to meddle in the affairs of middle-eastern countries. Let them deal with their own problems; we've got more than enough of our own.
This is a tough spot for libertarians. The idea of 'live and let live' works only if the rest of the world is willing to do the same. But the issue of nuclear bombs in the hands of a state which is dedicated to your own destruction renders isolationism to be a suicide wish, especially with the existence of the American Left who will open the door for them to enter.
Whatever. It's no secret that Israel already has nukes, so Iran is well aware that if they were to attack Israel would retaliate by vaporizing their country. That's more than enough of a deterrent.
Besides that, what position are we in to bully other countries around? "You can do this," "You can't do this." By whose authority? The same logic applies equally to the American people when the government thinks it's in a position to pick and choose who can or cannot exercise their Constitutional rights.
Is there no moral authority to defend another nation from aggression, such as when Kuwait was invaded by Iraq? Or when a government uses gas warfare on its own civilians, as was done in both Iraq and Syria?
The US cannot live in isolation; we now depend on imports for almost everthing. Our own interests are in a free and honorable world. But first we should return honor to our own nation.
Hold up Stan. Who exactly was it that gave Hussein the gas he used on the Kurds? That's right, the US government did.
I agree that we cannot live in isolation and that we have a partial responsibiliy to upkeep peach in the world, but unilaterally attacking other countries isn't the way to go. Are we subservient to Israel, their attack dog to unleash upon anyone they have a dispute with? China routinely boasts about how they can nuke us while pushing around neighoring countries, yet how does our government respond to their thinly-veiled threats? Outsource more and more of our jobs to them, helping to build their economy? What genius came up with that idea?
Hmm. According to Wiki, Germany sent most of the chemical precursors and germ warfare precursors to Iraq for warfare purposes. Also bunkered facilities which posed as a pesticide plant.
The USA sent biological agents to Iraq who claimed to need them for medical research, and some help for nuclear plants.
Your assessment of Israel, and "any country they have a dispute with" is interesting, especially since several middle east countries have vowed to annihilate Israel; Israel has committed two offenses. (1) It exists, which is an affront to Islam; (2) It defends itself when it is attacked.
Palestine (Gaza/West Bank), for example, has refused the international offers of statehood, specifically because it demands to own Israel first. Because Israel has refused to be owned by Palestinians - whose charter declares death to Jews - Israel is declared the oppressor of Palestinians. So it goes in the middle East. The only thing that Israel could do right would be to commit suicide and cede everthing to the Islamists.
Israel is right to defend itself from ALL of its neighbors, just as it had to do when it was given statehood by the UN.
It is despised largely because of Islamists and Islamic hatered of western states; Israel is a western state embedded in a 5th century region.
There's more than enough blame to go around for both fanatical Islamists and Zionists. About the only difference is that Israel employs underhanded tactics, such as using false-flag attacks (e.g. USS Liberty), in order to goad us into fighting their wars for them.
As far as Israel's right to self-defense goes, other countries have every bit as much a right to self-preservation. A week or two ago, it came out that Israel unilaterally violated Syria's airspace and bombed them, which of course they had no right to do. Syria did nothing to provoke the attack.
Palestine may as well be one huge Warsaw Ghetto. They are walled in, monitored by Israeli military which enforces curfews, and since Israel controls the water supply, Palestinians have just one hour a day to access it. Meanwhile, Israel brazenly occupies land within Palestine (which they have the audacity to call "settlements"), robbing the latter of both property and harvests. Militarily it isn't even a comparison -- Israel is like a lion and Palestine is, by comparison, a bug. Yet why is it that in all peace negotiations that Palestinians are always the ones expected to make the most concessions? How deliberately one-sided.
About the only difference is that Israel employs underhanded tactics, such as using false-flag attacks (e.g. USS Liberty), in order to goad us into fInteresting. You do not give the details, leading one to think that Israel, without provocation, bombed Syria as a random act of "unprovoked" aggression on the Syrian people. Absolutely not so, and prejudicially stated.
In fact, Syria has long been a conduit of arms to Hezbollah and Hamas (Palestinians), who re-arm during their phony hudna respites. What Israel did was to bomb the conduit of arms to be used in offensive attacks on Israel, destroying missiles at a military installation which were intended for Hezbollah. Israel has every right to do so as self-defense, and a preemptive strike is much preferable to a defensive battle against the weapons when they are deployed against the citizens of Israel.
Palestine is walled in by Egypt as well as by Israel. The Palestinians are dedicated to murdering Jews and non-Jewish Israelis alike, via practices such as bus-bombs targeting civilians, a practice which was very common before the sequestration of Palestinians behind a secure border, and which has been virtually eliminated by the security of that border. The Palestinians brought the border fencing into being by creating the necessity for it, themselves.
” About the only difference is that Israel employs underhanded tactics, such as using false-flag attacks (e.g. USS Liberty), in order to goad us into fighting their wars for them.”
The USS Liberty was far from a false-flag attack; read the history. Don’t make up stuff. The USS Liberty failed to be recalled out of the zone of danger during the 6 days war. There were multiple communications between Israelis and Americans, and confusion reigned. There was one point where the Israelis suspected that the USS Liberty might be under a false flag, itself; the Israelis were never under a false flag during this incident.
The Israelis have been accused of false flags, but these appear to be conspiracy theories without factual back up. Deception techniques are an accepted fact of warfare and Israel is subject to a perpetual state of warfare from its neighbors. However it is just as possible that false flag attacks on Shias might be mounted by Sunnis, and vice versa, blaming Israel. For example, Saudis (Sunni) might attack Syria (Shia), and blame Israel, who would not deny it because that would defeat their non-denial of other attacks.
At any rate, suicide bombers of civilians are deceptions, too. So your one-sided accusation is not applicable in reality.
” Meanwhile, Israel brazenly occupies land within Palestine (which they have the audacity to call "settlements"), robbing the latter of both property and harvests.”
The territories which Israel now owns were captured as a result of the wars of aggression on Israel, which Israel won. If there had been no attack on Israel, the original borders would still be in place. The property and harvests were not “robbed” from the Palestinians, the Palestinians lost them by virtue of their own ill-fated war of aggression on Israel.
The Palestinian people do not lack food, housing, medical care, access to western perquisites such as electronics, appliances, clothing, literature and so on. Their stores have full shelves. Their imports are allowed although inspected by Israelis for armaments which would be used against Israel. That would stop if the Palestinians opted for an official, internationally sanctioned statehood, but they do not: they choose to perpetuate their situation purely in their hatred of their neighbor, whose land they demand for themselves.
” Militarily it isn't even a comparison -- Israel is like a lion and Palestine is, by comparison, a bug. Yet why is it that in all peace negotiations that Palestinians are always the ones expected to make the most concessions? How deliberately one-sided.”
Yes, Israel is a western nation, and has been forced to become a disciplined military resistance to the constant threats from every neighbor on every side. Good for them.
Every peace negotiation with the Palestinians has indeed required them to promise not to attack Israel; what an unfair concession, you say? How one-sided? On the contrary, the Palestinians refuse and reject civilized behavior as would be required of a responsible recognized nation, and they must be sequestered because of that. The populace has consistently elected Hamas, a bloodthirsty terrorist organization, as their political leadership.
Because they refuse to recognize the right of Israel to even exist, and because they demand to own all of Israel themselves, and because they are enamored of their victimhood status, they reject all attempts to reconcile them to the civilized world. And because of that, there will never be a safe existence within Israel, so Israel is right to defend itself preemptively if it is possible. Otherwise the terrorists will destroy Israeli citizens, Arabs, Jews, internationals of all stripes, without compunction. They have been doing that for decades; they will not stop unless stopped.
It is interesting that you defend that aggressive propensity in an uncivilized people, and attack Israel for defending itself.
Bear in mind that you just equated self-defense with preemptive attacks. What if our own government used the same justification in their war on crime, drugs, illegal guns, terrorism, bullying, or any other 'ism' you can think of? Using this logic, they'd be justified on the premise that they're "keeping us safe." This would set a rather dangerous precedent.
I'll respond more in-depth later.
Re: Syria providing Hezbollah with arms, all I've heard are empty accusations by Israel in that regard. Can they prove without a shadow of a doubt that the Syrian government is aiding and abetting Hamas with weapons?
I take it that you're aware that most of the rebel forces in Syria came from Saudi Arabia, that they're comprised by-and-large of Al Qaeda who went around slaughtering Christians and that the US, Israel and Saudi governments supported their efforts in toppling Assad. Furthermore, you must be aware that aiding and abetting an enemy we're (supposedly) at war with, Al Qaeda, is considered an act of treason. Both Christians and Muslims have been living side-by-side in Syria peacefully for some time now, up until the insurgency, so why did the US government want to help the rebels oust Assad and why does the MSM try to paint him as a brutal dictator? The fact of the matter is that if he were ousted and the insurgents attained power, all of the remaining Christians would be slaughtered.
And I'm not making stuff up about the USS Liberty. Israel knew that it was us and attacked with unmarked planes and boats. According to a statement by one of the survivors of the attack, John Hrankowski, "We had been surveilled all morning and part of the afternoon by Israeli forces. They knew who we were. We heard them reporting over radio who we were and how we were sailing and where we were sailing. They saw the flag and everything else. We were in international waters." Now, that's eye-witness testimony from someone who was actually aboard the USS Liberty. The attack lasted for about an hour and 25 minutes -- more than enough time for them to have made a positive identification. Heck, there were US flags flying!
I didn't say anything about a ceasefire between Israel and Palestine being an unfair compromise. At every instance you've portrayed Israelis as the innocent victim and Palestinians as the hostile enemy. The vast majority of Palestinians are forced to live in abject poverty while they sit and watch as Israel seizes their land and goods. Yet you put the onus for peace on the Palestinians? That's simply incredible. There certainly are forces hostile towards Israel, such as Hamas, but Israel is anything but a saint in this ongoing conflict.
Palestine and poverty, from Gatestone Institute:
"Generally, in the real world, investment flows organically to places that have an educated population, security, and rule of law that protects intellectual property and the repatriation of profits. It flows, for example, to Israel. Countries or areas with corrupt financial practices, a dictatorial, bifurcated government, multiple security services and an education system that is heavy on ideology and the veneration of violence get less.
Palestinian poverty is not a plague or an earthquake; it is intimately related to Palestinian government policy. Palestinian leadership is at war with the country best able to employ its people – Israel. And Israel does, in fact, periodically employ a great many of them. Kerry promised that his plan would be "bigger, bolder and more ambitious" than anything since the Oslo Accords, so a quick review of post-Oslo Palestinian economics shows that open warfare against Israel is the best predictor of Palestinian economic difficulty. The Oslo timeline, from an article I published in 2012, includes:
1992: 115,600 Palestinian workers entered Israel every day.
1996: A devastating series of bus bombings, including a particularly gruesome nail bomb in the center of Tel Aviv killed more than 100 Israelis. Palestinian workers in Israel were temporarily reduced to 63,000.
September 1995-September 2002: Despite the interruption in 1996, Palestinians unemployment decreased from 18.2% to 11%. In mid-2000, 136,000 were working inside Israel -- 40% of all employed Palestinians. Another 5,000 worked in the joint Israeli/Arab run Erez Industrial Zone in the Gaza Strip. Thousands more worked in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in Israeli-owned businesses.
September 30, 2000: Arafat launched the so-called "second intifada." Begun at the peak of Palestinian economic integration with Israel, the terrorist war killed more than 1,000 Israelis and wounded more than 5,600 (comparable U.S. figures would be 40,000 and 224,000). The number of Palestinians working in Israel was reduced within six months to 55,000. The Erez Industrial Zone was closed after 11 Israelis were killed there.
"2005: There was no impediment to independent Palestinian economic activity at the time Israel removed its presence from the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian news agency Ma'an waxed ecstatic about economic opportunities, particularly the acquisition of greenhouses and agricultural equipment the Israelis were leaving behind in a $14-million deal brokered by then-World Bank President James Wolfenson.
2006: Palestinian looters destroyed the greenhouses almost immediately, and by early 2006, the greenhouses and the $100 million in annual exports to Europe they had produced were gone.
2007: Hamas took control of Gaza after a brief and brutal war with Fatah and then escalated the rocket war that had begun in 2001. After more than 9,000 increasingly long-range and accurate rockets and missiles, Israel launched Operation Cast Lead in 2008/09."
"2009: Israel and Egypt instituted the security blockade of Gaza, which the UN has acknowledged to be a legitimate security measure.
Given its history, there is no reason for Mr. Kerry to believe Palestinian leadership is suddenly more interested in economic advancement for its people than in continued warfare against Israel. The Palestinian Authority itself announced Sunday that it will not be "bribed" into recognition of Israel as a legitimate, permanent part of the region. "The Palestinian leadership will not offer political concessions in exchange for economic benefits," Mohammad Mustafa, president of the Palestine Investment Fund economic adviser to Mahmud Abbas wrote in a statement.
If Secretary Kerry thinks that economic dislocation and threats beyond its borders will make Israel cede territory and security to a Palestinian Authority that adamantly places warfare above a settlement and the economic growth that such a settlement could produce, he misunderstands both Israel and the Palestinians."
Assad didn't use gas on his own citizens; more like the rebel forces who smuggled gas in across the borders did it and blamed it on him in order to provoke a US strike. It was reported that some rebels were caught and apprehended in Lebanon and elsewhere attempting to smuggle sarin gas across the border into Syria. When John Kerry was pressed to provide conclusive evidence that Assad gassed his own people, he could not do so.
It goes without saying that innocents don't deserve to be mistreated in any way, shape or form.
Yes, Israel knew that it was our ship yet attacked it anyway with unmarked planes and boats, because they wanted to frame Egypt and thus provoke US intervention.
Some Palestinians want to reclaim Israel, not all, just as not all Jews are in favor of occupied territories within Palestine. This isn't such a simple, straightforward situation with clearly designated perspectives.
About Hamas: imagine if Native American Indians were walled inside their reservations with limited access to water/food, checkpoints, watchtowers, a curfew, and a strong military presence. I wonder if after being treated like dirt for decades they'd ever feel the urge to form a resistance and fight back.
The border is there to wall-in the Palestinians like caged animals. About 90% of them live in abject poverty because practically all supplies and humanitarian relief bound for there is filtered by Israel. The only way for a Palestinian to find work in Israel is to pass through a military checkpoint; it's actually easier for Palestinians to work in Israeli occupations than it is to find work in Israel. Either way, the pay is meager and Israelis are still robbing them of their farm land and other produce. It's an ethnic cleasing in all but name.
”The border is there to wall-in the Palestinians like caged animals. About 90% of them live in abject poverty because practically all supplies and humanitarian relief bound for there is filtered by Israel. The only way for a Palestinian to find work in Israel is to pass through a military checkpoint; it's actually easier for Palestinians to work in Israeli occupations than it is to find work in Israel. Either way, the pay is meager and Israelis are still robbing them of their farm land and other produce. It's an ethnic cleasing in all but name.”
Your inflammatory rhetoric is not reflective of the facts. Prior to the suicide bombings in Israel, one fifth of the Palestinian workforce crossed into Israel every day to work. The borders were not closed by Israel, they were kept open with increased security (just like US airports, flying from LAX to SFO). The Israeli/Palestinian borders are STILL OPEN, with security to eliminate Palestinian suicide bus bombers. The Palestinians are NOT like caged animals. They can and do travel abroad.
And yes, their imports are inspected for arms; everything else is allowed through.
The Israelis actually had a “mini-Marshall Plan” which they implemented after they were attacked and they defeated their attackers, and they gave economic and other aid to the Palestinians. There is no gratitude emanating from Palestine’s terrorist government. Despite that, in 2012 the trade between Palestine and Israel was over $20 billion, more than the Palestinian GDP.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=824
The poverty rate in Palestine is 25.8 % and dropping (Wiki, below), not your inflammatory and false number of 90%. By comparison, the US poverty rate is 15.0% and rising, with an estimated 40% of elderly living below the poverty line; American blacks at 27%, American Hispanics at 26%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_gaza
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-12/record-u-dot-s-dot-poverty-rate-holds-as-inequality-grows
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/14census.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
” It's an ethnic cleasing in all but name”
That’s absurd. It is an insult to those who have been massacred in ethnic cleansings.
I should add this: You make inflammatory statements without any references to sources; you do not back away when given actual contrary source data. That renders it probable that your statements are unsubstantiated opinions which are emotionally based rather than factually based. If you have sources for your charges, then kindly give them.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/05/us-palestine-economy-idUSBRE88411M20120905
I concede my error; roughly half of them are in poverty, living on about two dollars a day. That's still atrocious by any measure.
Post a Comment