Obama: Sanction Israel Not Iran

[quote]theuofh wrote:

I think the world is in a much better position in regards to Islamic terrorists today than 8 years ago.
[/quote]

8 years ago, we didn’t have 2000 people slaughtered in one day in Nigeria, we didn’t have a terrorist group in Somalia threatening it’s neighbors, we didn’t have terrorists in Syria and half of Iraq claiming to have created a Caliphate, (the ones in Pakistan remain largely the same but they are now killing school children,) we didn’t have a civil war in Libya, or Yemen, terrorists in Thailand, and so-called home grown terrorists attacking Canada, France and Australia, so yes, if you haven’t been following the news or world events, I’d tend to agree.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

I think the world is in a much better position in regards to Islamic terrorists today than 8 years ago.
[/quote]

8 years ago, we didn’t have 2000 people slaughtered in one day in Nigeria, we didn’t have a terrorist group in Somalia threatening it’s neighbors, we didn’t have terrorists in Syria and half of Iraq claiming to have created a Caliphate, (the ones in Pakistan remain largely the same but they are now killing school children,) we didn’t have a civil war in Libya, or Yemen, terrorists in Thailand, and so-called home grown terrorists attacking Canada, France and Australia, so yes, if you haven’t been following the news or world events, I’d tend to agree.[/quote]

Try to pay attention Gkhan, tt’s called Smart Power.

[quote]theuofh wrote:

I’m not going to defend Obama too much…

[/quote]

Proceeds to defend Obama:

This is not attritional warfare. Obama personally sparked the Arab Spring and brought the MB to power in Egypt: praised them and handed them billions of dollars. When over 30 million Egyptians took to the streets to demand the MB relinquish control, they weren’t just protesting against the Muslin Brotherhood. They were protesting against Obama. All the secular, sane Egyptians associate Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism with Obama. And who can blame them? His brother was there orchestrating the Islamic takeover and he’s now wanted in Egypt on criminal charges for fuck sake! This is just one example. Over the last couple of years I have documented at length, Obama’s disastrous foreign policy. One thing after another. People from all political directions are all flabbergasted when they see what he has done during his terms.

We didn’t “walk away”. We out pressure on the Taliban all through the late 90’s, but Clinton decided not to kill OBL when he had the chance because he didn’t want to “embarrass” UAE, the Saudis and the Qataris - when they honed in on the target he was surrounded by VIPs and royalty from the Gulf states. They were playing “falconry” in the Middle of the desert. He was in the crosshairs of a hellfire missile and could’ve been annihilated years before 9/11 happened. But of course slick Willy didn’t have the balls to do it because the left would’ve been wailing and moaning about “illegal murders” by the US government and 50 million Muslim babies being exterminated each day and so on. Indeed, within days of 9/11, while the country was in shock and preparing to go in to Afghanistan and get OBL, it was at this stage that Chomsky announced that the United States was “preparing to kill five or six million Afghanis”. He and those like him are deliberately undermining our morale and the war effort in general.

The Northern Alliance was the true successor of the Afghan Mujahideen. The Taliban were the love child of the Pakistani ISI and Gulf oil sheiks and loonies like OBL himself. It is entirely a product of radical Islamists and hostile elements of foreign nation states. The lesson to learn here is who the enemy is.

[quote]

It was a great victory for the US over enemy number #1, but also a great victory for radical Islam. That ended in 1990, about the time of Bush #1, and it started with ZBig and Carter.

People don’t realize how unstable most of those government’s are, and radical Islam is also being used as a mechanism of social control to keep even US friendly regimes in power. If they show any moderate or secular leanings, a lot of their people will revolt in an instant. Any dissent against the ruling regime’s is generally crushed, using torture, assassination, sham trials, and the whatnot.

If things were left alone, you’d eventually have a battle royale between some pyscho Sunni’s (ISIS goal) and pyscho Shiites (Iran), maybe after they teamed up on Israel. Given the energy reserves in the region, nobody (US, Russia, or China) is that anxious to let that happen.

People with military education’s have been working on this problem and will continue to be working on the problem. There is no easy or good solution. It’s literally fucked if you do, fucked if you don’t, and you don’t get to know which outcome will be worse when you have the make the decision.

The sad part is the general population is mostly unwilling to take some time and figure out why this region is this way. Instead they listen to Fox and other politically motivated “news” sources whose main function is to not educate, but to propagandize, find a scapegoat and gloat in an imagined superiority to those who are actually in the fight. [/quote]

FOX is the only mainstream news that will even acknowledge most of these problems so I don’t know why you mention them. And regarding who people are listening to; you listen to a crackpot anti-Semite and conspiracy theorist who is a favourite guest on PressTV(Iranian state channel) and RTV(Kremlin channel) and even on the Hezbollah television channel in Lebanon, and denounces America and Israel. And I don’t usually mention this but your grammar is terrible too. You don’t really give the impression of somebody who is on “our” side. You give indications regularly that you have an extremist, hard-left mindset and worldview. But instead of being honest about what you think, you play childish hide and seek games; a leftist in a poor disguise. And yes, deception like this is typical of the left. It’s not something you find moderate, sensible people doing.

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

I think the world is in a much better position in regards to Islamic terrorists today than 8 years ago.
[/quote]

8 years ago, we didn’t have 2000 people slaughtered in one day in Nigeria, we didn’t have a terrorist group in Somalia threatening it’s neighbors, we didn’t have terrorists in Syria and half of Iraq claiming to have created a Caliphate, (the ones in Pakistan remain largely the same but they are now killing school children,) we didn’t have a civil war in Libya, or Yemen, terrorists in Thailand, and so-called home grown terrorists attacking Canada, France and Australia, so yes, if you haven’t been following the news or world events, I’d tend to agree.[/quote]

Try to pay attention Gkhan, tt’s called Smart Power.[/quote]

I’m listening, but curious about this Smart Power solution that we’re not using because…?

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Proceeds to defend Obama:

[/quote]

I was simply pointing out more terrorists have been killed under Obama’s presidency than any other.

I doubt very much that Obama personally sparked the Arab spring but this information you mention about his brother is interesting.

I’ve argued that Obama’s foreign policy has been a disaster as well, however I do it with the mindset that Mitt “Russia is our greatest threat” Romney may not have done any better.

Sadly, all Presidents have blundered at times, even with a wealth of advisors from both sides of the political spectrum.

You have an obsession with Chomsky and the intellectual left. Also his estimate proved false.

I’m in agreement. Sadly the US and it’s allies have had occasion to bargain with hostile foreign nation states. It’s part of being a world leader. Pakistan and Libya both come to mind. I think this has occurred under administrations from both parties.

What does it mean to deal with an enemy and even sacrifice some of your country’s values in doing so?

[quote]

FOX is the only mainstream news that will even acknowledge most of these problems so I don’t know why you mention them. And regarding who people are listening to; you listen to a crackpot anti-Semite and conspiracy theorist who is a favourite guest on PressTV(Iranian state channel) and RTV(Kremlin channel) and even on the Hezbollah television channel in Lebanon, and denounces America and Israel. And I don’t usually mention this but your grammar is terrible too. You don’t really give the impression of somebody who is on “our” side. You give indications regularly that you have an extremist, hard-left mindset and worldview. But instead of being honest about what you think, you play childish hide and seek games; a leftist in a poor disguise. And yes, deception like this is typical of the left. It’s not something you find moderate, sensible people doing.[/quote]

Fox has no mention of Malik Obama on any of their publications. I don’t think I’ve heard Chomsky mentioned on any mainstream media outlet for the past 5 years or even interviewed, but I don’t watch it much. He’s a relic of the 70’s.

I read a variety of different material, from the establishment publications, to the paleoconservative/libertarian alternative news, to the neocon ultraconservative alternative news. The latter two are both ripe with conspiracy theories.

Israel is a foreign nation state whose may foreign policy objectives may not coincide with that of the US. It concerns me that certain individuals can are willing to willing to consider any foreign government as a trusted ally versus a party whose interests may happen to temporarily coincide.

You refer to “our” side, and I’m not exactly sure what you mean?

It’s no secret that you are about as intellectually to the right of the spectrum as it can get, even quoting individuals who have went line by line deconstructing Chomsky’s arguments. Certain sentiments obviously strike a nerve, and you are confusing me with the extremist.

By “our” side I mean America and the West. Your post history is replete with statements that reflect an anti-American worldview.

You say you don’t think Israel’s foreign policy interests and those of America coincide? Well then you don’t know anything about International Relations. The poster here by the monicker of Bismark is no friend of the state of Israel. But even he is aware of the importance of US/Israeli relations. The fact is there is no other nation more closely aligned in terms of foreign policy interests. Look at the UN voting record. A country like Israel votes with the United States and in furtherance of the United States’ foreign policy more than any other nation on earth. They vote with the United States around 99% of the time. The numbers don’t lie. Every other country in the region votes against the United States at least 80% of the time. And then there’s the military technology coming out of Israel and their intelligence capabilities, their burgeoning offshore shale energy industry, a forward operating base in the middle of the most volatile and energy rich place on earth. What’s more, you haven’t even said why you think Israeli and US foreign policy interests are not aligned. You’ve merely declared it with no explanation.

And the fact that you read Paleoconservative/radical libertarian/old right conspiracy theory material is indicative of what I’m saying about you not being on “our” side. No one of sound judgement; no sensible, thinking person would entertain the ridiculous delusions and anti-American propaganda of the loopie libertarian/paleo right. They’re cynically used by our enemies; Russia, Iran, Venezuela etc, to undermine our morale and our foreign policy interests.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
By “our” side I mean America and the West. Your post history is replete with statements that reflect an anti-American worldview.

You say you don’t think Israel’s foreign policy interests and those of America coincide? Well then you don’t know anything about International Relations. The poster here by the monicker of Bismark is no friend of the state of Israel. But even he is aware of the importance of US/Israeli relations. The fact is there is no other nation more closely aligned in terms of foreign policy interests. Look at the UN voting record. A country like Israel votes with the United States and in furtherance of the United States’ foreign policy more than any other nation on earth. They vote with the United States around 99% of the time. The numbers don’t lie. Every other country in the region votes against the United States at least 80% of the time. And then there’s the military technology coming out of Israel and their intelligence capabilities, their burgeoning offshore shale energy industry, a forward operating base in the middle of the most volatile and energy rich place on earth. What’s more, you haven’t even said why you think Israeli and US foreign policy interests are not aligned. You’ve merely declared it with no explanation.

[/quote]

It makes sense that you’re Australian now. A lot of the hard-line right wingers in the US really distrust the UN. I know of guys who distrust them so much, they like to use blue helmets for target practice.

I’m never said US/Israeli relations are not important or aligned. Certain times, political relationships with one country can be a detriment when trying to pursue a foreign policy objective with another country.

If you’re trying to win hearts and minds in Iraq, then sending the Israelis ammo to shoot Muslims in Palestine, even if they deserve it, the foreign policy objectives are conflicting. This is just an example.

You seem to hold Israeli foreign policy considerations above even those of the US, or one’s own country. The US may have to sacrifice relations with Israel to pursue another foreign policy objective and Israel may decide to unilaterally act without US approval. Both sides know the status of the relationship.

I have a great deal of respect for the Israeli’s capabilities in certain areas, but as a foreign government under constant threat of attack in a volatile region with a powerful lobbying presence in America, the relationship would best be viewed with at least a small amount of mutual mistrust.

Sadly, your Malik Obama conspiracy made it’s way over to Alex Jones as proof that the globalists are using the Muslims to take over the world.

Given that the last example of the US “liberating” a country ended up delivering it into the hands of a radical Islamic insurgency, at a great cost to the people actually fighting it, I think it would behoove certain individuals to be more sympathetic to libertarian concerns.

So what’s your solution? You think Israel bombing Palestinians piss them off? Yet you say bombing them with drones is the way to go. Don’t you think that pisses them off as well?

We have 2 choices. We can fight them and run the risk that it will piss them off and they’ll strike back using terrorist tactics against unarmed civilians cause it’s easy, and it’ll make the case for “bombing them creates more terrorists.” Or we can sit back, do nothing, let them arm to the teeth, eventually over running and conquering us, if not physically, than economically, or even politically. And if you say that’s b.s., they’re doing this on many, many fronts across the globe, & winning in some.

So, what’s your plan? How do we combat this?

And possibly, had troops stayed stationed in Iraq, there would be no ISIS today. Maliki and Assad are just as much to blame for their rise as the US “liberating” Iraq. Maliki for estranging the Sunni Awakening Movement and Assad for allowing Sunni fighters access through his country during the entire Iraq war. Little did he know these same fighters would come back to bite him.

[quote]theuofh wrote:

It makes sense that you’re Australian now. A lot of the hard-line right wingers in the US really distrust the UN.

[/quote]

So do I. And rightly so. And I’m intimately familiar with the history of the League of Nations and the UN and the statesman who brought them about and so on. The League of Nations fell apart when the Japanese began a brutal conquest of Manchuria, the Italians invaded Abyssinia and the Nazis began to run rampant in Europe. Likewise today, the UN has been hijacked by the Islamic block and third world Marxist dictatorships. It’s used essentially as a weapon against Israel.

Yep.

You said they are not aligned.

The US can’t trade munitions with a close ally because that will antagonise Iraqis? Bullshit. Why would Iraqis care about Palestinians? They only use them as a spearhead in their pan-Arab nationalist/Islamist designs. And those designs see the United States as the primary enemy of Islam. You can’t win those sort of hearts and minds. They can only be contained or annihilated.

Nonsense. I’ve never encountered an instance where US/Australian foreign policy interests were opposed. The only example you have given is selling arms to the Israelis. And that’s a nonsense argument. It would be the equivalent of saying we can’t sell arms to the Poles in the 1930’s because it will antagonise the Germans. No. The problem here is not Israel buying arms to defend themselves(from many places including China). The problem is the Muslims who are existentially threatening Israel and threatening the United States.

How so? Under what scenario would the US have to “sacrifice relations” with Israel?

We need to know the status?

The so called Israel lobby is no where near as powerful as reported. It’s the Islamic sensibilities we’re stepping over ourselves to accommodate and appeasing and sacrificing our foreign policy interests to. And they throw around a hell of a lot of money too. After 911 the Saudis hired the biggest PR firm in the country and spent millions on lobbying and propaganda. Any serious, sensible person would see the Islamic world as the place where our foreign policy interests are opposed, and an ally - any ally in the region is an asset and to divide Israel and the US would be in our enemy’s interests. Indeed, that is what they are working diligently to do with the help of elements such as the Loonie libertarian/Paleoconservative right.

It’s not a “conspiracy theory” it’s a matter of public record that Malik is involved in all sorts of “charitable organisations” that are frontgroups for the Muslim Brotherhood. Why dispute it?

I’m not advocating liberating anyone. I’ve said before I’m not an adherent of democratic peace theory. I’m a realist. And no, we do not need to be “sympathic” to crazy conspiracy theories or subversive attempts to conquer by division; undermining US-Israeli relations.

Argentine prosecutor found shot dead the day before he was set to give evidence implicating the current Prime Minister and Defence Minister in complicity in the Iranian bombing of a synagogue that killed 85 people:

Also today, second in charge of the Iranian revolutionary guard vows to step up terrorist attacks on Jews from the West Bank and extensive Iranian terror network uncovered:

He(a Persian) calls the sovereign state of Israel “our Palestine”.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

So, what’s your plan? How do we combat this?

And possibly, had troops stayed stationed in Iraq, there would be no ISIS today. Maliki and Assad are just as much to blame for their rise as the US “liberating” Iraq. Maliki for estranging the Sunni Awakening Movement and Assad for allowing Sunni fighters access through his country during the entire Iraq war. Little did he know these same fighters would come back to bite him.[/quote]

What makes you think we can combat it?

There’s really only two knobs: the carrot and the stick. The stick works better than the carrot, but it’s far from perfect.

Not only did Cheney know, but so did the rest of the world when they advised not going in. You can scapegoat up the chain, from Maliki on up to Bremmer or Bush and all the other parties with a hand in setting Maliki up.

This was an exercise with a low probability of success from the start, and ended the way most expected it would.

Iraq has nothing to do with the thread subject by the way. This thread is to keep people informed of US-Israeli relations and what’s going on in Israel. Anyway, we’ve had over a decade of Cheney bashing and it’s terribly tiresome.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[/quote]

We are sacrificing relations with Israel right now or more like they are sacrificing relations with us.

The administration is working on a deal with Iran and feel that further sanctions will threaten it. Netanyahu is actively seeking to undermine these talks and meddle in the politics of the United States.

Of course, some say this is just Obama being an appeasement pussy, but there is a debate and I’ve read a number of names who say wait and see, open a dialog and see how reasonable they can be. The stick option is still on the table.

Netanyahu wants the talks to fail and to attack Iran. As much as I don’t want Iran to have a nuclear capability, I think this is a more dangerous course of action at the moment.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
After 911 the Saudis hired the biggest PR firm in the country and spent millions on lobbying and propaganda. Any serious, sensible person would see the Islamic world as the place where our foreign policy interests are opposed, and an ally - any ally in the region is an asset and to divide Israel and the US would be in our enemy’s interests.

[quote]

Like it or not, the Saudi’s are also Iranian enemies, and another ally against Iranian nuclear development.

You’re simplifying very complicated strategic and tactical relationships aimed at a power balance in the region into some Manichean battle between the West and radical Islam.

Iran nuclear development and the problem of radical Islam are two different issues, and one is an easier problem to solve than the other.

[quote]theuofh wrote:

Iran nuclear development and the problem of radical Islam are two different issues, and one is an easier problem to solve than the other.
[/quote]

How so?

[quote]theuofh wrote:
I was simply pointing out more terrorists have been killed under Obama’s presidency than any other.
[/quote]

I love when the context of a situation gets completely over looked to prove a political point.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

Iran nuclear development and the problem of radical Islam are two different issues, and one is an easier problem to solve than the other.
[/quote]

How so? [/quote]

These are Iranians:

Not quite the picture of radical Islam. Iran is a stable country in the middle East, and although it is a theocracy with radical Islamic elements, there is still a significant opposition within the country. While they are quite vocal about hating America, the main target of their aggression is Israel through proxies in Syria and Lebanon. They have a modern military and are a regional Shiite power.

Jordan and Saudi Arabia, also have radical Islamic elements in each of their governments, but are generally sympathetic to western interests and generally don’t antagonize Israel. They are regional Sunni powers and view Iran as a threat.

The media generally leaves them alone, although certain media sources like to point out the hypocrisy of their generally anti-American values/governments while maintaining strategic alliances with the US.

Some of the “terrorists”, Al Qaeda and the offshoots are best viewed as Sunni insurgencies more concerned with capturing territory and funding sources in order to legitimize themselves as viable countries, although if they survive it will be a long time before they are officially recognized, if ever. I’m pretty sure the US is going back to war with ISIS in one way or another. There are various other forces/militias/movements each with a bone to pick with somebody at varying levels of “insanity”.

You know all this.

It’s much easier to fight a government (Iran) or an insurgency (ISIS) than a religion/ideology especially one that is millenia old and part of the culture. It’s easier to kill people than ideas. The cultures evolved over a long time and you aren’t going to change them overnight. Iran and Afghanistan were both very much pro-American at one time, and Afghanistan devolved back to the stone age while Iran was able to tow the line of modernity despite a fundamentalist theocratic regime.

So in short, we have allies in the fight against Iran, even radical Islamic ones, and turning the strategic goal of Iranian non-proliferation into a “War on Radical Islam” is destined to fail.

This is really the best you can hope for, a power balance, which keeps countries from attacking other countries and more radical elements subdued by the monarchic governments. If you make it an ideological war, you risk threatening the stability of your allies and making the whole situation even worse. I’m not sure ISIS is better than Saddam, but it was quite an investment for little to no meaningful change in the region.

The region is a lot like Europe during WWI which SM may have pointed out.

If those are the Iranians, then they need to step up and overthrow the theocracy. And unless they decide to go back to Zoroastrianism, ultimately whatever government takes over from this theoretical revolution will be equal to or even worse than what they have now. Such is the nature of Islam.

And like I said, I think it was folly to invade Iraq and assume it would end up any other way than it did.

And like I said, we need to realign alliances in the post cold war era to combat the threat of Islamic terrorism.