Carter blames Israel for Mideast conflict

High Seas wrote:

Good heavens! Gone all this time, but not forgotten by my friends - tks for the good words, Blatham.

The only online friend who'll understand my avatar is also here, I see, and suspected of being some sort of leftist sympathizer?! Truly this is too funny, but I shall oblige the suspicious poster by adding a link to one of the "Communist friends of Ahmedinejad"-type sites I habitually frequent, where a speech by a fellow traitor can be heard in its entirety:

http://www.newamerica.net/events/2006/dealing_with_tehran

I have a lot of trouble with this passage from the article:

Quote:

If the author means Iran, when he states "Islamic Republic", he needs to be specific. The author would then be making the statement that the United States should be willing to construct a "grand bargain" between the United States and the Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's regime of Iran. That is simply never going to happen. Bush has made it clear that the United States does not negotiate with terrorist nations. Ahmedinejad has signalled that he is more interested in weaponizing Iran with nukes and obliterating Israel than he is about negotiating. In any estimate, the Ahmedinejad regime is playing the nuclear card with the United States. Iran is purposely manipulating the war in Iraq, using that war to manipulate U.S. elections and U.S. policy, and is playing with us to deplete our military resources fighting their Shiite terrorists they sent to Iraq.

Any negotiations with Iran now would be inopportune for us and vastly beneficial to Iran because they would be the nation negotiating from strength. We would be the nation negotiating from a position of weakness.

Furthermore, the author ties Ahmedinejad to Iran and Islam. In a country where school students burn his pictures and yell "Death to the Dictator". Clearly there is a bonafide disconnect between the people of Iran and this nut who advocates for the destruction and obliteration of the Jewish state.
Let's not forget that Ahmidenad won with only 10% of the people voting, the rest staying home in protest. For an ambitious think tank such as the New America states in its mission statement, this is a disappointing and manipulative article.

Casting foreign policy within the framework of the U.S. and the Islamic Republic, straight out of context and without the qualifier "of Iran" has much more deleterious connotations. What has kept the U.S. in check and not allowed a nutcase like Osama Bin Laden to unite the entire 2 billion Muslims is providence incarnate. Bush, whom a great many here denigrate as being smallminded, actually gets it by not framing our campaigns as U.S. vs. the "Islam Republic".

We are not bargaining, in a grand or minor manner, with "Islam". We are waging war with enemy combatants, and specific rogue regimes that commit acts of terrorism and represent a threat, direct or indirect. The policies of Ahmidenijad should be met with bombs on his nuclear facilities and elsewhere to be sure that we neutralize Iran's capability to block off the Hormuz Strait. We could do it or Israel could do it, but someone should do it. That makes more sense than thi's author's point of view that we should fall to Iran's extortion tactics with oil and nukes, and pay them blackmail.

IMO, N.A.'s viewpoint is not helpful, not productive. In my opinion, this guy who wrote the article feeds straight into the Al Jezeera propoganda machine and signals that since we probably never will negotiate with a terrorist screwball like Ahmidenijad, we don't want to get along with "the Islamic Republic." That is really bad copy, coming from an American outlet.

0 Replies

High Seas wrote:

Good heavens! Gone all this time, but not forgotten by my friends - tks for the good words, Blatham.

The only online friend who'll understand my avatar is also here, I see, and suspected of being some sort of leftist sympathizer?! Truly this is too funny, but I shall oblige the suspicious poster by adding a link to one of the "Communist friends of Ahmedinejad"-type sites I habitually frequent, where a speech by a fellow traitor can be heard in its entirety:

http://www.newamerica.net/events/2006/dealing_with_tehran

Backtracking through from more recent posts to here, I had you by the second post. Normally, I don't like people who are smarter or better looking than me. For you, I make a rare exception.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

High Seas wrote:
Good heavens! Gone all this time, but not forgotten by my friends - tks for the good words, Blatham.

The only online friend who'll understand my avatar is also here, I see, and suspected of being some sort of leftist sympathizer?! Truly this is too funny, but I shall oblige the suspicious poster by adding a link to one of the "Communist friends of Ahmedinejad"-type sites I habitually frequent, where a speech by a fellow traitor can be heard in its entirety:

http://www.newamerica.net/events/2006/dealing_with_tehran

Backtracking through from more recent posts to here, I had you by the second post. Normally, I don't like people who are smarter or better looking than me. For you, I make a rare exception.

Ted Halstead is a fruitcake. Enough said.

0 Replies

BBB
This is a long article, but a must read if you want to see the future if we are not wise:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=88836&highlight=

BBB

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

It is true that good fences make good neighbors. That is why the USA will build one on its southern border.

Right, on its border, not in Mexico. What Israel is doing is building a "border" fence that essentially creates a new border for itself, unilaterally, that is other than the internationally recognized border of Israel. When Arafat threatened to declare a Palestinian state, the US and Israel strongly urged him not to because it would be a unilateral determination of something they had promised to negotiate. No such urging came for Sharon when he declared his plan to build the "fence".

0 Replies

Quote:

Should the Jews meet the Muslim intolerance and killings with understanding and tolerance?

That's what Jesus would tell you to do.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Should the Jews meet the Muslim intolerance and killings with understanding and tolerance?

That's what Jesus would tell you to do.

Cycloptichorn

You know the Jews don't follow Jesus, right?

0 Replies

Re: BBB

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

This is a long article, but a must read if you want to see the future if we are not wise:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=88836&highlight=

BBB

Yes, thanks for finding and posting, BBB. I truly hope Ritter has it wrong. Crises, domestic and foreign, that could erupt from a US attack on Iran are more than I can bear thinking about.

0 Replies

Did you know that all Jews once believed in Jesus as the Messiah?

0 Replies

The two sides have extremists in control and the scenario maybe irreversible in that they may inevitably lead to a larger conflict. Iran is not Arabic but Aryan so they are more distant genetically but being Islamic sympathise with the Palestinians.

Remember that Jews lived in peace in Islamic countries from the time of the Spanish expulsion to the creation of modern day Israel in 1948. It is amazing that this Islamic world that showed such compassion to Jews now is so opposed to Israel.

It is an old lawyer situation. Where a situation was created without agreement will not reach an agreeable solution without going back to square one. Britain, US and British with American and British Jews created Israel with no Arab input. There are so many clever Jewish lawyers who can attest that a large player left out of a game will be a source of great trouble. Will the Arab player included? What are his demands? Those are the questions should be asked not vilifying each other.

0 Replies

talk, Good analysis; no input from the antagonists is bound to fail. Diplomacy is the only solution - not bombs and killings, and certainly not fences. Humans never learn that simple lesson.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

talk, Good analysis; no input from the antagonists is bound to fail. Diplomacy is the only solution - not bombs and killings, and certainly not fences. Humans never learn that simple lesson.

Actually, bombs and war often do the job nicely and talk accomplishes little or nothing. Using WWII, two things happened when we dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A war ended and we won. There has never been anyone better than the example of Jimmy Carter to illustrate exactly how useless diplomacy with enemy nations is. Carter "talked" to Kim Jung-Il, even received a Nobel Peace Prize for that striking piece of diplomacy. Now we have Carter to thank for a nuclearized North Korea and a lot of threatening bluster from them.

Many presidents tried talking to the Soviets, but whenever they saw an opportunity, they escalated the cold war to higher stakes. During Carter's administration, the Soviets invaded and occupied Afghanistan. Only when Reagan rebuilt the military and started talking about Strategic Defensive Initiative, did the Soviets call it quits. This was talk, but talk with action. This was playing poker with the Soviets and holding an ace.

Mideasterners do not understand conversation. They understand strength. Only by demonstrating to them that their continued aggression could be potentially lethal to them, and that they are outnumbered, outgunned, and outsmarted when they challenge the United States, will they be willing to listen to anything we want to say to them. Saddam Hussein did not allow inspectors into Iraq until 250,000 troops were stationed around Iraq, ready to invade if he did not allow inspections. There was plenty of "talk" before then, all to no avail. No strength equals no results. It is as simple as that.

Talk has its place when it is backed up with action. A little bit of Teddy Roosevelt's philosophy to talk softly and carry a big stick is what the U.S. needs. Unless aggressor nations "get it" when we deal terms and understand that there are consequences for certain actions, no good ends can be achieved. When other nations understand that the United States is both prepared and willing to mete out the discipline if bottom-line violations occur, only then will talking mean anything.

The opposite is happening now. Iran sees a tired U.S. paper tiger. The U.S. didn't get any sanctions against Iran when they set a deadline, no sanctions against N. Korea when they set conditions. Iran sees that many Americans are against the Iraq war. Iran sees the New York Times freely blasting the Bush administration and sees old drunks like Kennedy and Murtha blasting the administration and blasting the military at will, and not being censured for it. They sees a**holes like Kerry and Nelson singlehandedly traveling to enemy nations to undermine their CIC and negotiate on their own.

I don't see how "talk" is going to help the United States at this point.

0 Replies

MC, I thought we were talking about the Middle East.

I'm very familiar with WWII, the Korean and Vietnam wars too.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

MC, I thought we were talking about the Middle East.

I'm very familiar with WWII, the Korean and Vietnam wars too.

If we are discussing the U.S. and how well talk works, why not have a look at how well it worked or didn't work in as many situations as possible?

The progression of U.S. foreign policy in tough situations is usually talks and diplomacy first, followed by sanctions, followed by ultimatums, followed by military action. Iran and Syria are feeding the insurgency.

0 Replies

MonteCargo wrote:

Only when Reagan rebuilt the military and started talking about Strategic Defensive Initiative, did the Soviets call it quits.

Reagan publicly stated that he was going to give the Star Wars technology to the Soviets. I saw it on TV. We were going to spend all that money on Star Wars, then give it away.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

MonteCargo wrote:
Only when Reagan rebuilt the military and started talking about Strategic Defensive Initiative, did the Soviets call it quits.

Reagan publicly stated that he was going to give the Star Wars technology to the Soviets. I saw it on TV. We were going to spend all that money on Star Wars, then give it away.

And note that without spending a dime on the actual SDI Initiative project or firing a single shot, Reagan singlehandedly brought the escalation of the cold war to an end. The idea that technology would become available (at least in the mind of the Soviets) that would foil a nuclear strike was the game of thermonuclear poker that Reagan played. We could back up the plan if it came to it, but U.S. military strength and leadership prevailed.

So how much diplomatic damage did this "war mongering jingoistic cowboy president cause? Mikhail Gorbachev, the Russian Secretary General in power at the time of collapse of the USSR, flew here from Russia to pay his last respects to Ronald Reagan at Reagan's funeral.

If we only had Reagan here now to deal with this mideast situation, Osama Bin Laden would have been vaporized and Ahmadinejad would be running for cover.

0 Replies

MC, You really don't know what you are talking about. I worked with nukes when I was in the US Air Force back in the fifties. We had strategic locations all around Russia with nukes if they ever struck us. They would have been wiped off from the face of this planet - and they knew that.

They tried to station a nuke base in Cuba, but Kennedy successfully took care of that.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

High Seas wrote:
Good heavens! Gone all this time, but not forgotten by my friends - tks for the good words, Blatham.

[...]

http://www.newamerica.net/events/2006/dealing_with_tehran

Backtracking through from more recent posts to here, I had you by the second post. Normally, I don't like people who are smarter or better looking than me. For you, I make a rare exception.

Thanks Bernie - but not even the best couturier makes anything remotely comparable to a Royal Canadian Mounted Police uniform, and you know it! Merry Christmas.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

MC, You really don't know what you are talking about. I worked with nukes when I was in the US Air Force back in the fifties. We had strategic locations all around Russia with nukes if they ever struck us. They would have been wiped off from the face of this planet - and they knew that.

They tried to station a nuke base in Cuba, but Kennedy successfully took care of that.

Cicerone - there's no need to point out what is evident to anyone familiar with the details of the targeting decision on the nuclear weapons dropped on Japan; the person you're addressing is obviously ignorant of Stimson's decision to spare the old capital, Kyoto, against the express recommendation of Groves and wavering on the part of Marshall, and ignore the Oppenheimer recommendations in favor of a demonstration test. I doubt that he/she can even correctly identify these individuals.

Combined with the subsequent statements concerning "not a cent spent on SDI" (try $100 billion) and related absurdities it's obvious that nuclear subjects are beyond that poster's capabilities and that further argument will only confuse him/her.

Wishing you and family all the best in 2007.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

[..............]

Our unilateral aid to Israel has sadly done them little good. [.....]

This support is hardly in our strategic interest and the votes of Israel in the UN General Assembly are hardly compensation for all the trouble this has caused us. High Seas has outlined an essential part of our strategic interest that is seriously jeapordized by our uncritical support of Israeli policies that are neither in their long-term interest or ours. We have become dupes for the most retrograde and exploitive elements in Israeli politics and silencers of wiser voices both there and here.

[...........]

Precisely. I would even go further, in observing that those who, like "Monte Cargo", advocate a nuclear attack on Iran (knowing nothing of either nukes or of Iran, as amply demonstrated above), are in effect promoting a "suicide option" for the state of Israel. It would be best if they spelled it out, so that any Israeli residents who disagree with that plan might do some regime change in their next election before it's too late.

0 Replies

Carter blames Israel for Mideast conflict

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know