First, and probably most importantly, most all Nations, especially
those
States in the "Middle East/South-West Asia/Northern Africa" are
swayed
heavily, and are dependent upon the United States foreign policy.
This
has been so for over a hundred years. It is not colonialism, it is
because of who we are,; that image of integrity and fairness.
Overtly
and subliminally, the United States' foreign policy in the region
directly affects what these Nations do internally and with their own
domestic and foreign policies.
---
that's their problem
When the United States is not clear on what direction it is taking, or
sends mixed signals, as it has done under the Obama Administration,
thjis
causes nothing but confusion and upheaval.
---
there's no mixed signals ... US politicians are governed by pro-israel
zionists.
There is no consensus to attack Iran, period. The American people do
not
have the stomach for any more nation building, and a Romney
Administration
in my humble opinion, would dare not attempt such operations.
---
opinion noted
Finally, I am confused by our foreign policy to acknowledge
Jerusalem as
Israel's capital. Israel was created by the United Nations, which
also
created a separate Palestinian Nation-State, which Israel now refuses
to
acknowledge or allow. *See* UN Resolution 242. Jerusalem is and was
to
be an "Open City"; because of it's religious significance to
Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
---
let the UN, israel and the pals work it out as it's not an American
decision to make.
It would seem to me that the United States' foreign policy should be
an
uncompromising demand for the Jews to remove their illicit,
expansionist encampments in East Jerusalem and the West Bank and for
Israel
to allow for and acknowledge a separate Palestine. That alll Arab
Nation-States must acknowledge Israel's sovereignty and right to
exist. It
goes without saying that Israel has a right to defend itself.
---
on these things we agree
On Sep 7, 1:56 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Guten Abend from Köln Everyone!
>
> Simplified, a couple of thoughts, as well as observation.....
>
> First, and probably most importantly, most all Nations, especially those
> States in the "Middle East/South-West Asia/Northern Africa" are swayed
> heavily, and are dependent upon the United States foreign policy. This
> has been so for over a hundred years. It is not colonialism, it is
> because of who we are,; that image of integrity and fairness. Overtly
> and subliminally, the United States' foreign policy in the region
> directly affects what these Nations do internally and with their own
> domestic and foreign policies.
>
> When the United States is not clear on what direction it is taking, or
> sends mixed signals, as it has done under the Obama Administration, thjis
> causes nothing but confusion and upheaval.
>
> There is no consensus to attack Iran, period. The American people do not
> have the stomach for any more nation building, and a Romney Administration
> in my humble opinion, would dare not attempt such operations.
>
> Finally, I am confused by our foreign policy to acknowledge Jerusalem as
> Israel's capital. Israel was created by the United Nations, which also
> created a separate Palestinian Nation-State, which Israel now refuses to
> acknowledge or allow. *See* UN Resolution 242. Jerusalem is and was to
> be an "Open City"; because of it's religious significance to
> Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
>
> It would seem to me that the United States' foreign policy should be an
> uncompromising demand for the Jews to remove their illicit,
> expansionist encampments in East Jerusalem and the West Bank and for Israel
> to allow for and acknowledge a separate Palestine. That alll Arab
> Nation-States must acknowledge Israel's sovereignty and right to exist. It
> goes without saying that Israel has a right to defend itself.
>
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 6:41 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > a US attack on iran is not in the best interest of Americans
>
> > On Sep 7, 10:38 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/intelligence...
> > > ****
> > > Intelligence Committee Chair Describes Explosive Confrontation Between
> > > Netanyahu and American Ambassador****
>
> > > *Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. Ambassador to Israel
> > > Dan Shapiro allegedly argued over the Obama's administration's Iran
> > policy.*
> > > ****
>
> > > Rep. Mike Rogers, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House
> > Intelligence
> > > Committee, says that his much-discussed meeting with Israeli Prime
> > Minister
> > > Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem late last month did, in fact, devolve
> > into
> > > an sharp confrontation between Netanyahu and the American ambassador to
> > > Israel, the former National Security Council official (and former Obama
> > > campaign Jewish liaison), Dan Shapiro.
>
> > > Rogers told a Michigan radio interviewer earlier this week that he had
> > not
> > > previously witnessed such a high-level confrontation, and he described
> > > Israeli leaders as being at "wits' end" over what they see as President
> > > Obama's unwillingness to provide them with his "red lines" in the effort
> > to
> > > stop Iran's nuclear program. He also said that neither the Israelis nor
> > the
> > > Iranians believe that Obama would use force to stop the nuclear program.
> > (*
> > > UPDATE*: Rogers said as well he believes the Israelis will "probably"
> > bomb
> > > Iran if they don't get clearer red lines from the U.S.)
>
> > > Rogers description of the meeting directly contradicts repeated
> > > Administration assertions that there is "no daylight" on the Iran issue
> > > with the Israeli government. Shortly after the meeting took place,
> > Israeli
> > > press reports appeared suggesting that Netanyahu and Shapiro had engaged
> > > in an argument, but Shapiro soon dismissed those reports, calling them
> > > "silly" and saying, "The published account of that meeting did not
> > reflect
> > > what actually occurred in the meeting. The conversations were entirely
> > > friendly and professional."
>
> > > Rogers, speaking to WJR radio host Frank
> > > Beckmann<http://www.wjr.com/sectional.asp?id=38702>,
> > > painted a very different picture. He said the meeting, originally
> > scheduled
> > > to be a discussion of intelligence and technical issues between himself
> > and
> > > the prime minister, spun out of control when Netanyahu began lambasting
> > > Shapiro over the Administration's Iran policy. When Beckmann asked Rogers
> > > to describe the tenor of the meeting, he said: "Very tense. Some very
> > > sharp... exchanges and it was very, very clear the Israelis had lost
> > their
> > > patience with the (Obama) Administration." He went on, "There was no
> > doubt.
> > > You could not walk out of that meeting and think that they had not lost
> > > their patience with this Administration."
>
> > > Rogers said Israeli frustration grows from what they see -- and he sees
> > --
> > > as a refusal by the Obama Administration to outline an endgame: "(I)t was
> > > very clear the overarching policy has been frustrating mainly because I
> > > think it's not very clear. What we walked out of that meeting knowing is
> > > that the Administration was trying to defend itself." By the end, he
> > said,
> > > there was a "sharp exchange between the Administration's representative
> > > there, our ambassador there, and Mr. Netanyahu, which was unusual to say
> > > the least, but I thought at the end of the day maybe productive."
>
> > > Beckmann then asked: "Is it inaccurate to say it was a shouting match?"
> > > Rogers answered: "can say that there were elevated concerns on behalf of
> > > the Israelis." When asked if he had "ever seen that sort of thing
> > before,"
> > > Rogers answered: "No not that directly. We've had sharp exchanges with
> > > other heads of state and in intelligence services and other things, but
> > > nothing at that level that I've seen in all my time where people were
> > > clearly that agitated, clearly that worked up about a particular issue
> > > where there was a very sharp exchange."
>
> > > Rogers went on to describe what he understands to be the Israeli
> > > frustration, and, apparently, his frustration, with the impact of
> > > sanctions: "Here's the problem. "...I support the sanctions. But if
> > you're
> > > going to have a hammer you have to have an anvil. You have to have at
> > least
> > > a credible threat of a military option. So it's having an effect, yes,
> > > it's having an effect on the Iranian economy. It is not impacting their
> > > race on enrichment and other things, and that's very very clear." He went
> > > on, "I think the Israeli position is, 'Hey, listen, you've got to tell us
> > > -- I mean, if you want us to wait' -- and that's what this
> > > Administration's been saying, you've gotta wait, you've gotta wait,
> > you've
> > > gotta wai -- got that -- 'but then you've gotta tell us when is the red
> > > line so we can make our own decisions about should we or shouldn't we
> > stop
> > > this particular program."
>
> > > And Rogers had harsh words for the Administration, which he says has made
> > > it very clear to the Israelis what they shouldn't do, but hasn't
> > delivered
> > > a message to the Iranians with the same clarity: "There's a lot of pieces
> > > in play on this. But I think again, their frustration is that the
> > > Administration hasn't made it very clea -- they've made it very clear to
> > > Israel in a public way that they shouldn't do it, but haven't made it
> > very
> > > clear to Iran in a public way that there will be tougher action, which
> > > could include -- and I argue peace through strength, so you just need to
> > > let them understand that that's an option so we can deter them from their
> > > program. And right now the Israelis don't' believe that the
> > Administration
> > > is serious when they say that all options are on the table, and more
> > > importantly neither do the Iranians. That's why the program is
> > progressing."
>
> > > I'll post more of this interview as it is transcribed, in a few minutes,
> > in
> > > this space.
>
> > > *PART II:* When asked by Beckmann at what he believes the Israelis will
> > say
> > > "enough is enough," Rogers answered: "Certainly when you walk out of that
> > > meeting you get the feeling that they are finally at wits' end, and
> > that's
> > > what concerned me about the meeting."
>
> > > He went on, "I will say that as a part of their decision point or data
> > > point when they go through the process of should we or shouldn't we, it
> > was
> > > clear that our American elections have worked its way into one of those
> > > data points. I thought, well, maybe that hedges their response until
> > maybe
> > > after the election. But what I got out of that, walking out of that, wa,s
> > > yeah they're considering it, but at this point they're very frustrated
> > > because they don't' know what happens after the election, and their
> > window
> > > for impacting the program they believe is starting to close."
>
> > > Rogers also said that what he calls Obama's uncertainty has caused
> > problems
> > > for the U.S. across the Middle East. "You know, it's a very interesting
> > > argument when you're in the room and talking about options.The meeting
> > was
> > > designed, it was supposed to be between Netanyahu and myself on some
> > > intelligence cooperation matters and other matters, when it came to Iran
> > > and Syria and other things, and kind of devolved into this meeting where
> > > the ambassador was confronted directly... what was very apparent to me
> > was
> > > a lot of frustration with the lack of clarity and the uncertainty about
> > > what their position is on the Iranian nuclear program. And that's what I
> > > think I saw across the Middle East. The uncertainty about where the
> > United
> > > States' position is on those questions has created lots of problems and
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment