← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Gabrielle
Thread ID: 18464 | Posts: 37 | Started: 2005-05-31
2005-05-31 11:54 | User Profile
Blame Israel
By Charley Reese May 18, 2005
President Bush continues to avoid the only real solution to the problem of terrorism. That solution is to resolve the political problems that produce the terrorism.
The military solution ââ¬â the only thing he's tried ââ¬â is like trying to control a cholera epidemic without cleaning up the water supply. You can treat individual cases, but as long as the contaminated water supply remains in use, new cases will constantly appear.
As you can see in Iraq, the more insurgents we kill, the more there appear to be. That's because the source of the insurgency is our military occupation. Naturally, those Iraqis who are in power because we protect them want us to stay, but a majority of Iraqis want us to leave. We should set a timetable for departure and follow it. Legal sophistries aside, such as elections and sovereignty, the fact on the ground is that our military occupies Iraq.
As for the Middle East in general, our problem is our hypocrisy, which is necessitated by our one-sided support of Israel. Let's use Iran, for example. Why are we pressuring Iran not to develop nuclear power? Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and allows international inspections. That treaty allows Iran or any other country to enrich uranium. Iran, at this point, has no nuclear weapons.
But look at Israel. Israel has nuclear weapons. Israel has always refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel has always refused to allow international inspections. Have we ever criticized Israel for going nuclear? Do frogs sing arias?
Let's take the comparison even further. Has Iran attacked any of its neighbors? Does it occupy anybody's territory? No. Israel, on the other hand, has more than once attacked Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Jordan. It continues to occupy a piece of Lebanon, a larger chunk of Syria, and East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
The Israeli occupation of these lands, which the international community says it has no legal right to occupy, is a source of fire throughout the Middle East. Have we ever put any pressure on Israel to return these lands? No. We went to war with Iraq when it occupied Kuwait, but we don't even utter any verbal protests against Israeli occupation.
Everybody in the Middle East is aware of this. They don't like it ââ¬â and justly so, because it is blatantly unjust and unfair. One definition of "justice" is that the rules must apply to everyone. If it is wrong for Iraq to occupy Kuwait, it is wrong for Israel to occupy territory belonging to Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinians.
Let's look at U.N. Security Council resolutions. To the best of my knowledge, Iran is not in violation of any of them. Israel, on the other hand, is in violation of 60 to 70, none of which can be enforced because of the American veto. Once again, we employ a double standard.
Suppose you were an Iranian. You hear your country constantly being threatened and insulted. Would you not stand up and say: "Hey, Mr. American, we don't have nuclear weapons, but Israel does; we allow inspections, and Israel doesn't; time and again we have advocated a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, and who opposes it? Israel and the U.S. Is your goal peace, or is it maintaining Israel's military superiority?"
Israel is the threat to peace. Every one of the Arab countries has gone on record saying that if Israel will end its occupation of Arab territory, it will sign a peace treaty. Who says no to peace? Israel.
Israel's grip on the U.S. government is because of the powerful Jewish lobby. On the subject of Israel, all the Jewish organizations unite. Until the American people elect some representatives and senators who have more in their pants than their keys and their hands, the Middle East will remain in turmoil, and Americans will pay for it in blood and treasure.
It really is as simple as that. What the people in the Middle East want is justice, and they aren't getting it from us."
2005-05-31 16:37 | User Profile
Gabby?
How can you post this? Bush loves Israel, therefore you must love Israel, or you are in disagreement with him.
2005-05-31 17:30 | User Profile
Bush really believes he is doing good. And I still think he is a million times better than Kerry!
2005-05-31 18:38 | User Profile
Gabrielle,
When I saw this Reese column I started to worry about you. Your last post has reassured me that the earth hasn't gone off its axis.
2005-05-31 18:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Bush really believes he is doing good. And I still think he is a million times better than Kerry![/QUOTE] All politicians believe they are doing good.
It would have been better for conservatives if Kerry had been elected. The founders' intent behind the separation of governmental powers appears only to be operative when the executive and legislative branches are controlled by different parties.
2005-05-31 19:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=SteamshipTime]
It would have been better for conservatives if Kerry had been elected. The founders' intent behind the separation of governmental powers appears only to be operative when the executive and legislative branches are controlled by different parties.[/QUOTE]
Indeed. Since our elected officials are almost without exception crooks and idiots, the best that we can hope for is a "do no harm" policy. The only way "do no harm" will be the rule is to have one party control Congress and another the Presidency. In that case, one Party will veto or override the other's policies out of simple petty partisanship, even thouth ideologically they agree on almost every issue.
An overwhelmingly Democratic Congress might have blocked Bush's war in Iraq simply because he was a GOP President, just as many of Clinton's foreign policy initiatives were opposed by Republican Congress just because Clinton was a Democrat. Therefore, vote for whatever party is out of power to create an environment where nothing gets done, because when something actually is done, it is always for the worst regardless of who's doing it in Washington.
[quote=Steamship Time]All politicians believe they are doing good.
I disagree with this. Most politicians are cynical manipulators who are in the game for their own good, or else are so naive and gullible that their strings are pulled by those who are (in Bush's case, I'm not sure which of the two applies).
This makes me wonder how Gabby "knows" that Arbusto "thinks that he's doing good." Is mind-reading one of her talents, or are we supposed to take Arbusto's word for his good intentions just because he and his shills say so?
2005-05-31 19:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Bush really believes he is doing good. And I still think he is a million times better than Kerry![/QUOTE]
We should not confuse believing the right thing is being done, and doing the right thing. The problem I see with Bush is he thinks he's doing right when in fact he's hurting a lot of people.
He totally botched Iraq, now are you going to trust his judgment on Social Securty or stem cell research.
2005-05-31 19:46 | User Profile
It doesn't matter if Bush himself, or his sycophants, "thinks he's doing good". What matters is the outcome of his policies which have been far, far, far from being good......unless you're a CEO or manager with defense contractors, pharmaceutical companies, or Wal-Mart.
2005-05-31 21:51 | User Profile
XM,
Or the best of both worlds! A [U]Zionist[/U] and a [I]defense contractor[/I] like Richard Perle.
2005-06-02 19:25 | User Profile
For what it's worth, Gabrielle, the "insurgents" seem to be importing a lot of Syrians and Saudis to fight their civil war. That would be like the CSA importing Mexicans and Brits to fight under the Stars and Bars. Or, more to the regional point, like the "foreign legion" of Americans who, in 1948, headed over to fight in the Holy Land. (3,000 or more, I forget the numbers.)
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Blame Israel
By Charley Reese May 18, 2005
President Bush continues to avoid the only real solution to the problem of terrorism. That solution is to resolve the political problems that produce the terrorism.
The military solution ââ¬â the only thing he's tried ââ¬â is like trying to control a cholera epidemic without cleaning up the water supply. You can treat individual cases, but as long as the contaminated water supply remains in use, new cases will constantly appear.
As you can see in Iraq, the more insurgents we kill, the more there appear to be. That's because the source of the insurgency is our military occupation. Naturally, those Iraqis who are in power because we protect them want us to stay, but a majority of Iraqis want us to leave. We should set a timetable for departure and follow it. Legal sophistries aside, such as elections and sovereignty, the fact on the ground is that our military occupies Iraq.
As for the Middle East in general, our problem is our hypocrisy, which is necessitated by our one-sided support of Israel. Let's use Iran, for example. Why are we pressuring Iran not to develop nuclear power? Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and allows international inspections. That treaty allows Iran or any other country to enrich uranium. Iran, at this point, has no nuclear weapons.
But look at Israel. Israel has nuclear weapons. Israel has always refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel has always refused to allow international inspections. Have we ever criticized Israel for going nuclear? Do frogs sing arias?
Let's take the comparison even further. Has Iran attacked any of its neighbors? Does it occupy anybody's territory? No. Israel, on the other hand, has more than once attacked Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Jordan. It continues to occupy a piece of Lebanon, a larger chunk of Syria, and East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
The Israeli occupation of these lands, which the international community says it has no legal right to occupy, is a source of fire throughout the Middle East. Have we ever put any pressure on Israel to return these lands? No. We went to war with Iraq when it occupied Kuwait, but we don't even utter any verbal protests against Israeli occupation.
Everybody in the Middle East is aware of this. They don't like it ââ¬â and justly so, because it is blatantly unjust and unfair. One definition of "justice" is that the rules must apply to everyone. If it is wrong for Iraq to occupy Kuwait, it is wrong for Israel to occupy territory belonging to Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinians.
Let's look at U.N. Security Council resolutions. To the best of my knowledge, Iran is not in violation of any of them. Israel, on the other hand, is in violation of 60 to 70, none of which can be enforced because of the American veto. Once again, we employ a double standard.
Suppose you were an Iranian. You hear your country constantly being threatened and insulted. Would you not stand up and say: "Hey, Mr. American, we don't have nuclear weapons, but Israel does; we allow inspections, and Israel doesn't; time and again we have advocated a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, and who opposes it? Israel and the U.S. Is your goal peace, or is it maintaining Israel's military superiority?"
Israel is the threat to peace. Every one of the Arab countries has gone on record saying that if Israel will end its occupation of Arab territory, it will sign a peace treaty. Who says no to peace? Israel.
Israel's grip on the U.S. government is because of the powerful Jewish lobby. On the subject of Israel, all the Jewish organizations unite. Until the American people elect some representatives and senators who have more in their pants than their keys and their hands, the Middle East will remain in turmoil, and Americans will pay for it in blood and treasure.
It really is as simple as that. What the people in the Middle East want is justice, and they aren't getting it from us."[/QUOTE]
2005-06-02 21:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]For what it's worth, Gabrielle, the "insurgents" seem to be importing a lot of Syrians and Saudis to fight their civil war. That would be like the CSA importing Mexicans and Brits to fight under the Stars and Bars. Or, more to the regional point, like the "foreign legion" of Americans who, in 1948, headed over to fight in the Holy Land. (3,000 or more, I forget the numbers.)[/QUOTE]
So? What you dual-loyalty Jews don't realize is that it's none of our business. Do you understand?
2005-06-02 21:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Recluse]So? What you dual-loyalty Jews don't realize is that it's none of our business. Do you understand?[/QUOTE] I am as Jewish as you are. Did you have a point to make, friend?
2005-06-02 22:58 | User Profile
Private message from Angeleyes:
"The logic of Recluse, as presented to me in a recent post, is:
If someone disagrees with me, Then he must be Jewish.
That crap don't flush.
Let's try to get back on the right foot, we seem to have gotten off on the wrong one."
No, if someone uses Jew talking points, he's probably Jewish. Iraq was no threat to us so I don't give a damn about the identity of the insurgents. We have no business being over there. Get it, Hymie?
2005-06-02 23:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]XM,
Or the best of both worlds! A [U]Zionist[/U] and a [I]defense contractor[/I] like Richard Perle.[/QUOTE]
Yes indeed, Sarge. Plutocracy and the Zionist Lobby are the two dominant power blocs in 2005 America...a sallow hog like Perle would have been rendered into dogmeat in any sane, sovereign nation a generation ago.
2005-06-02 23:06 | User Profile
Recluse:
First off, you miss the point of my post, being that our invasion has created the conditions for a civil war that is still underway, and that others besides us are playing in that sandbox. Whether it is our business or not is irrelevant to the fact of what is happening on the ground. How about you understand the context of a conversation before you open your mouth?
What, do you lack the gray matter to pull off such a daring mental feat?
There are other historical examples of foreigners enlisting to aid a civil or local war, see for example the Spanish Civil war or the Flying Tigers in China, but you are too clouded by tunnel vision to think.
By the way, do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
[QUOTE=Recluse]Private message from Angeleyes:
"The logic of Recluse, as presented to me in a recent post, is:
If someone disagrees with me, Then he must be Jewish.
That crap don't flush.
Let's try to get back on the right foot, we seem to have gotten off on the wrong one."
No, if someone uses Jew talking points, he's probably Jewish. Iraq was no threat to us so I don't give a damn about the identity of the insurgents. We have no business being over there. Get it, Hymie?[/QUOTE]
2005-06-02 23:09 | User Profile
Aye, AY:
Indeed. Since our elected officials are almost without exception crooks and idiots, the best that we can hope for is a "do no harm" policy. The only way "do no harm" will be the rule is to have one party control Congress and another the Presidency. In that case, one Party will veto or override the other's policies out of simple petty partisanship, even thouth ideologically they agree on almost every issue.
Gridlock is good.
Let the two pseudo-parties bicker it out until a political force is able to again represent the ethnic interests ofEuro-Americans and the economic interests of the Middle Class.
2005-06-02 23:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Howard Campbell, Jr.]Aye, AY:
Indeed. Since our elected officials are almost without exception crooks and idiots, the best that we can hope for is a "do no harm" policy. The only way "do no harm" will be the rule is to have one party control Congress and another the Presidency. In that case, one Party will veto or override the other's policies out of simple petty partisanship, even thouth ideologically they agree on almost every issue.
Gridlock is good.
Let the two pseudo-parties bicker it out until a political force is able to again represent the ethnic interests ofEuro-Americans and the economic interests of the Middle Class.[/QUOTE] Did that White House/Congress tension in the Reagan, and Clinton, years improve or reduce the prospects for Euro Americans, in your view?
I am of mixed feelings on that. I feel that the Reagan years were generally a move away from creeping socialism.
2005-06-02 23:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]Recluse:
First off, you miss the point of my post, being that our invasion has created the conditions for a civil war that is still underway, and that others besides us are playing in that sandbox. [/QUOTE] Really!?! Gosh, no one predicted that!!! What's your ****ing point? The fact is, and pay attention here because you clearly have some learning disabilities, WE HAVE NO BUSINESS BEING OVER THERE. Got that, Hymie?
2005-06-02 23:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Recluse]Really!?! Gosh, no one predicted that!!! What's your ****ing point? The fact is, and pay attention here because you clearly have some learning disabilities, WE HAVE NO BUSINESS BEING OVER THERE. Got that, Hymie?[/QUOTE] Broken record.
What's the old saying? "Never argue with an idiot, onlookers may not see a difference?" I will now heed that advice, having failed to do so previously.
We are done. I will do you the courtesy of not replying to your insults, please do the same.
God bless you.
2005-06-03 00:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes] We are done. I will do you the courtesy of not replying to your insults, please do the same.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, that might work with these aging timid paleocons on this board but it won't work with me. Chances are when I go to get my driver's license renewed I'm going to have to carry a whole fistful of identity papers, and assholes like YOU are to blame. Don't feed me BS about the ME, you f*ck, because I'm in no gd mood to hear it.
2005-06-03 00:33 | User Profile
[U]Angeleyes says[/U] [B]" Our invasion has created the conditons for a civil war"[/B]
Remember guys that this guy is a Jew and now is is making the US Army his personal army.
2005-06-03 01:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce][u]Angeleyes says[/u] " Our invasion has created the conditons for a civil war"
Remember guys that this guy is a Jew and now is is making the US Army his personal army.[/QUOTE] Ponce, are your bones aching today? Is the pain making you all irritable?
Our = The United States of America's. I am an American. If you have a problem with that, take a long walk off a short pier. Having served under the colors about four times as long as you did, your insults hold no water. Do you understand whose Army it is supposed to be? If you had bothered to read the Constitution, it is ours, it belongs to us Americans. It is no surprise that Americans, including many thoughtful members of this board, object strenuously to how it is being used.
How can anyone deny that the we, the US, invaded, Iraq, irrespective of who was behind the decision? It's a matter of plain fact.
You hold that the Jews, the Zionists, are behind the invasion of Iraq. That is a line of inquiry worth pursuing, a position worth arguing. Plenty of good stuff is posted here pointing to support that.
I am as Jewish as Sam Houston, Ponce.
Or is your logic tree also based on the common fallacy: "X disagrees with me, therefore X must be Jewish."
2005-06-03 02:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]Ponce, are your bones aching today? Is the pain making you all irritable?
Our = The United States of America's. I am an American. If you have a problem with that, take a long walk off a short pier. Having served under the colors about four times as long as you did, your insults hold no water. Do you understand whose Army it is supposed to be? If you had bothered to read the Constitution, it is ours, it belongs to us Americans. It is no surprise that Americans, including many thoughtful members of this board, object strenuously to how it is being used.
How can anyone deny that the we, the US, invaded, Iraq, irrespective of who was behind the decision? It's a matter of plain fact.
You hold that the Jews, the Zionists, are behind the invasion of Iraq. That is a line of inquiry worth pursuing, a position worth arguing. Plenty of good stuff is posted here pointing to support that.
I am as Jewish as Sam Houston, Ponce.
Or is your logic tree also based on the common fallacy: "X disagrees with me, therefore X must be Jewish."[/QUOTE]
Well, regardless, the U.S. has no business meddling in the Middle East, or anywhere else.
America must return to an isolationist foreign policy.
2005-06-03 02:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco] America must return to an isolationist foreign policy. [/QUOTE] For purposes of enlightening me, what do you mean by isolationist? That is a term that might mean different things to different folks, and I'd like us to both be working off the same definition or understanding.
This is a serious question. We, America, are rich because of two centuries of world wide trade. We benefit from stable global trade lanes. Wherever we trade we accrue benifit from friendly or stable, neutral at least, conditions. (That does not excuse invading Iraq, there had to be other options.) We can't ignore international developments, since a lot of them impact commerce.
How far back is it that you think we should pull? Get out of NATO? Leave South Korea? Leave Japan? Throw the UN out of New York? Stop sending peacekeepers to the Sinai Desert?
Some disengagement might be healthy. I thought the bombing of Serbia was idiotic and irresponsible. Ive been a "bring the boys home from Germany guy since about '95. In any case, where we pull back, who fills in to the vacuum created?
Your thoughts?
2005-06-03 03:45 | User Profile
Angel Eyes,
While I don't like the way this thread went, I have to admit it took me a minute to figure the point you were trying to make about volunteers. That was on the cryptic side. My own position on foreign policy can be stated simply as "armed neutrality".
2005-06-03 04:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Angel Eyes,
While I don't like the way this thread went, I have to admit it took me a minute to figure the point you were trying to make about volunteers. That was on the cryptic side. My own position on foreign policy can be stated simply as "armed neutrality".[/QUOTE] Thanks for the feedback, I'll try to be clearer in future posts. Will also take more care in drawing historical examples. Why wave a red flag in a pasture? Gonna step in manure anyway, may as well manage the nuisances better. Uh, oh, would that be classed as pre emption?
Man, ya just can't win! :jester:
2005-06-03 04:47 | User Profile
Well Angeleye I was in for six years so that means that you were in for twenty four, good show Charlie Brown.
Now then, you say that you are an "American" is that an American Jew?
If you are an American Jew I have only one question fro you and it only requieres a simple YES or NO.....remember, YES or NO.
If the president of the US were to ask of you to go to the state of Israel in order to fight the Zionists would you go? YES or NO.
But of course I know that you people will write a whole book in order not to give a simple YES or NO.
2005-06-03 04:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]Well Angeleye I was in for six years so that means that you were in for twenty four, good show Charlie Brown. [QUOTE]Now then, you say that you are an "American" is that an American Jew?[/QUOTE] More American than you, by blood and ancestry, but so what? Ahnold is Governor. shrugs It's a funny place, this America.
The second does not apply to me. If you rephrase it as though you were asking me the question, I'll give you an answer.
2005-06-03 16:28 | User Profile
or purposes of enlightening me, what do you mean by isolationist?
Dunno about Franco, but for me it's summed up as, "America is a friend to Liberty everywhere, but guarantor only of her own."
Kind of simplistic, I know.
2005-06-03 16:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=MadScienceType]Dunno about Franco, but for me it's summed up as, "America is a friend to Liberty everywhere, but guarantor only of her own."
Kind of simplistic, I know.[/QUOTE] While a noble sentiment, how does one put that thought into the practical and messy world of policy? I know that is a loaded question.
Let's go from 1989 to now, using "the wall" as a convenient book mark.
1989: Panama / Noriega. Good idea or bad idea? Is this a liberty issue?
1990/91: Erased the lines Saddam redrew. (He was redrawing an old Balfour line.) Good idea or bad idea? If left alone, does Saddam become modern day John Galt? Does he go after Iran again? He gets out of debt, and can do any number of local things of his own choosing. In retrospect, is that so awful? We were able to work with him, asshole and all, in the 80's, could we not "work with him" again? Point to ponder, but too late now.
There was a six point Weinberger doctrine about "compelling national interest" being the acid test for use of American blood and treasure, however, his words may carry little weight here. It's thrust was "use with care, and rarely."
1992: Christmas deployment/gift to Somalia leads to (IMO a bad idea)
1993: Buggered mess in Somalia (a continued bad idea)
1993: Let Rwanda play out, then tried to help feed refugees.
1994: Haiti (That was sorta self preservation, what with the deluge of boat people) But has anything changed?
1995 - present: Bosnia, another Christmas deployment. (IMO bad idea for US, OK idea for Europe if Europe wants to try and settle things in Europe in the "friend of liberty" theme.)
1999 Kosovo: Yet another bad idea, or compelling friend of liberty move? I always wondered when Albanian issues vis a vis the Serbs became a compelling American interest.
2001 Afghanistan: Revenge, of a sort, and I think an eye on the Central Asian oil fields. To some eyes, setting up a "you can work with this guy" situation. Dicey, given Afghanistan's history of being peopled by "we do it our way here" kinds of people.
Were any of these a good idea in the "friend of liberty mode?"
I am sure I missed bunches of examples.
2005-06-03 18:45 | User Profile
I knew it was oversimplified. Free and fair trade (as opposed to rip-offs like GATT & NAFTA) is part of our economic lifeblood, so protecting that would fall under the "compelling national interests" or "use with care" doctrine you mention below though I suppose that doctrine, like anything else, is open to abuse.
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]While a noble sentiment, how does one put that thought into the practical and messy world of policy? I know that is a loaded question.
Let's go from 1989 to now, using "the wall" as a convenient book mark.
1989: Panama / Noriega. Good idea or bad idea? Is this a liberty issue?
Not a liberty issue at all, more like protecting a national asset like the Panama Canal from hijacking by a newly-unfriendly dictator (I know we put him in there), though of course the whole exercise is moot now that it's been given away by Clinton to the Chicoms (along with a lot of other stuff).
1990/91: Erased the lines Saddam redrew. (He was redrawing an old Balfour line.) Good idea or bad idea? If left alone, does Saddam become modern day John Galt? Does he go after Iran again? He gets out of debt, and can do any number of local things of his own choosing. In retrospect, is that so awful? We were able to work with him, asshole and all, in the 80's, could we not "work with him" again? Point to ponder, but too late now.
I think Saddam was a convenient bulwark against what was seen (and probably rightly so) as the rising tide of Islamic fundamentalism in the region with its epicenter in Iran. In 1991, I suppose we couldn't take the chance of regional instability endangering the oil supplies we depend on. The Gulf War I was done rightly, IMO, because it had limited, achievable goals and the "coalition" was brought on board for those specific goals. Probably the sole bright spot in the 20th century in terms of UN/Leauge of Nations-type military operations, but the sanctions through the '90s were whole 'nother kettle of fish. Now, he is/was a convenient whipping boy for domestic and international policy FUBARs.
There was a six point Weinberger doctrine about "compelling national interest" being the acid test for use of American blood and treasure, however, his words may carry little weight here. It's thrust was "use with care, and rarely."
Agreed. That's pretty much my feeling on the matter, insufficiently explained in the above post.
1992: Christmas deployment/gift to Somalia leads to (IMO a bad idea)
1993: Buggered mess in Somalia (a continued bad idea)
Disaster from the get-go. Trying to impose order on chaos where order's not possible or wanted and playing political nice-nice with the troops' lives (no Abrams, no Spectre gunships) was doomed from the start.
1993: Let Rwanda play out, then tried to help feed refugees.
Probably the only sane policy, in spite of all the libs whining about it.
1994: Haiti (That was sorta self preservation, what with the deluge of boat people) But has anything changed?
No change, but if we had a sane immigration/asylum policy, the boat people wouldn't have tried to come here in droves or at least get deported when they did.
1995 - present: Bosnia, another Christmas deployment. (IMO bad idea for US, OK idea for Europe if Europe wants to try and settle things in Europe in the "friend of liberty" theme.)
Agreed. The "friend of liberty" remark was more of an indication of willingness to supply material help to overseas fellow-travelers, though even that has to be done with a little finesse and maybe a little thought for the future. We didn't like it when the Russians did it to us in Vietnam, any more than they liked it in Afghanistan, the unintended consequences of which maybe haven't played out entirely. Unaccounted-for Stingers anyone?
1999 Kosovo: Yet another bad idea, or compelling friend of liberty move? I always wondered when Albanian issues vis a vis the Serbs became a compelling American interest.
It never did and yeah, a bad idea all the way around.
2001 Afghanistan: Revenge, of a sort, and I think an eye on the Central Asian oil fields. To some eyes, setting up a "you can work with this guy" situation. Dicey, given Afghanistan's history of being peopled by "we do it our way here" kinds of people.
Pretty much, given the politics in that area is pretty much a serial monogamous reltationship with differing strongmen cut from the same cloth. Which thug do we find palatable and friendly enough to work with while maintaining plausible denial on the PR-important "human rights" front?
Were any of these a good idea in the "friend of liberty mode?"
I am sure I missed bunches of examples.[/QUOTE]
As I said, the "FOL" was more an indication of material, not human, help. As Patton pointed out, it takes 18 hours to build a tank and 18 years to build a soldier. Our treasure is one thing we can absorb the ebbs and flows of, provided we're not talking Depression here, but blood spilled is gone for good. Paranthetically, I think, from a genetic standpoint, WWs I & II the West has yet to recover from, if it even can.
2005-06-03 19:12 | User Profile
Thanks Angeleyes but elsewhere you told me that you were not a Jew.
About being more American than me? you danm right, I was born in Cuba of Spanish father and American Irish mother but I do consider myself to be a Cuban.
2005-06-03 20:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]Thanks Angeleyes but elsewhere you told me that you were not a Jew.
About being more American than me? you danm right, I was born in Cuba of Spanish father and American Irish mother but I do consider myself to be a Cuban.[/QUOTE] Glad we got that sorted out, and for what it's worth:
Did you come north before or after Castro took over? My finger math from another post hits "53 years" so you came north when Batista was in charge?
2005-06-03 22:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]Glad we got that sorted out, and for what it's worth:
Did you come north before or after Castro took over? My finger math from another post hits "53 years" so you came north when Batista was in charge?[/QUOTE]
Actually I was traveling between Cuba and the USA from the age of one but came for good in 1952 at the age of twelve and then went back in 58 when I joined Castro, came back in 59 and went into the US Army.
Looks to me like you are keeping a close eye on me,,,,,,I hope is the Angeleyes part and not the Devileyes one.
2005-06-04 10:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]Actually I was traveling between Cuba and the USA from the age of one but came for good in 1952 at the age of twelve and then went back in 58 when I joined Castro, came back in 59 and went into the US Army.
Looks to me like you are keeping a close eye on me,,,,,,I hope is the Angeleyes part and not the Devileyes one.[/QUOTE]
You joined Castro?! :huh:
2005-06-04 10:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]Glad we got that sorted out, and for what it's worth:
Did you come north before or after Castro took over? My finger math from another post hits "53 years" so you came north when Batista was in charge?[/QUOTE]
Good man, Angeleyes! :)
2005-06-04 11:15 | User Profile
The Evil Fidel Castro
by Bob Wallace
There are some things I cannot comprehend. I can barely understand sky-diving, but do understand it enough so I might even do it myself someday. I'm sure I'd be screaming all the way down, though. However, I cannot understand scuba diving. There're monsters in the ocean, ones that to me are something out of an H.P. Lovecraft story. Remember "Jaws"? About as far as I've ever gone into the ocean is ankle-deep.
I know a guy who scuba dived in caves. I know of others, like writer Humberto Fontova (his site HERE) who dived off of the oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico , down 200 feet (way past the safe limit) to spearhunt fish. He didn't do it occasionally. He did it lots. He even wrote a book about it, The Helldivers' Rodeo.
Now, Humberto, who was born in Cuba and lived there until he was six, has written another book, Fidel, Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant, about the horrors of Cuba under the evil Fidel Castro.
There are some choice bits from his book:
Castro tried to get Nikita Khrushchev to nuke several southern cities in the US in the early 1960's, including New Orleans and probably Baton Rouge .
He incarcerates more people as a percentage of population than Hitler or Stalin did.
He murdered 17,000 Cubans and (several dozen U.S. citizens) with firing squads and dumped their bullet-riddled bodies in mass graves.
He has impoverished and brutalized Cuba to the point where 20 percent of its population risked their lives to flee. And prior to his glorious reign, Cuba took in more immigrants per capita than any country in the Western Hemisphere . More Americans lived in Cuba than Cubans in the U.S. , and Cuba even had to turn away European immigrants.
Castro sent his agents to torture to death American POWs in North Vietnam 's Cu Loc POW camp outside Hanoi in 1967.
The list goes on and on, as it always does with tyrants. All of whom, I'll add, always call themselves benefactors.
And this is a man cheered on by leftists everywhere, especially the nitwits in Hollywood ?
Here's some more Choice Bits.
"Filmmaker Steven Spielberg visited Cuba and met with Castro in November and dined with the dictator until the early morning hours. Spielberg announced that his dinner with Castro 'was the eight most important hours of my life.'
"Actor Jack Nicholson told Daily Variety, following his three-hour 1998 meeting in Cuba that, 'He [Castro] is a genius. We spoke about everything.'
"Model Naomi Campbell declared that Castro was 'a source of inspiration to the world.'
"'I'm so nervous and flustered because I can't believe I have met him. He said that seeing us in person was very spiritual,' Campbell recounted of her 1999 visit to Cuba with fellow model Kate Moss, according to the Toronto Star."
Norman Mailer, who probably didn't grow up until he was 80 years old, once, in the ââ¬Ë70s, compared Castro to an erect penis. More recently, the nutcase Michael Moore, writing of Elián González, said his mother didn't die trying to get him to the US to save him from an awful life in Cuba, but instead did it "to make more money."
Other celebrities who have praised Castro include Robert Redford, Spike Lee, Sidney Pollack, Oliver Stone, Woody Harrelson, Danny Glover, Ed Asner, Shirley MacLaine, Alanis Morissette, Leonardo DiCaprio, Harry Belafonte and Kevin Costner.
What's wrong with these people? Paul Hollander, in his classic Political Pilgrims: Western Intellectuals in Search of the Good Society, claims these people are anti-American utopians who blame everything on capitalism (as if they know what it really is). They seek in Communism and its variants a replacement for their loss of faith in traditional religion. They seek, he writes, "a quest for meaning, purpose, and sense of community."
These people want perfection, which doesn't exist in this world. (And obviously, they've found tons of money doesn't fill spiritual voids.) When Man gives up God, he'll seek to be God. The attempt to create a Heaven on earth will always create a Hell. The 20th Century, with its 177 million to 200 million dead at the hands of the State, is the clearest example of that.
This praising of leftist horrors has been going on for decades; people from George Bernard Shaw to Jean-Paul Sartre to Susan Sontag have been cheerleaders for every genocidal leftist delusion that ever existed. One reviewer at Amazon of Hollander's book correctly referred to these people as "Take me by the hand and let's go strolling in wonderland."
Sooner or later (soon, if we're lucky), Castro will kick the bucket. Cuba will return to what it used to be. I've had friends who've visited it, and know it has great potential, although they told me they place is so poor right now that anyone who visits should take soap, toothbrushes, perfume and other things to which we pay no attention here, because, when given to Cubans, will make them your friends for life.
Someday, I might even retire there. Let's give it another 10 to 20 years. The Great Horror will be over by then, and Castro will have gone to a place much warmer than even Cuba .
I still won't go into the ocean down there, though.
[url]http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/wallace/wallace12.html[/url]