Does Obama blame Britain?
The world, and America's allies, will have to wait a little longer before we all find out what the president intends to do in Afghanistan, and how many new troops he might intend to send there.
You might think that the NATO defence ministers' meeting today in Slovakia might be a good place to give America's allies a clue. But US defence secretary Robert Gates won't be giving any secrets away. On his way there, he said: "I am moving into my personal decision phase" about troop numbers. He added with a heavy dose of sarcasm:
"I will probably share with the president and my colleagues in the American government where I come out on this issue before I share it with 27 defence ministers."
Fair enough, but his words will add to the growing sense of frustration in European capitals. Europe's military and political class has never been so ready and keen for American leadership. But there is a growing sense of frustration that they are not getting it.
The longer the White House deliberations go on, the more and more difficult it is to sell to their public the commitment to a mission that isn't being defined. It is much easier to show enthusiasm for a definite plan than to sell a determination to back whatever it may be that President Obama comes up with in the end. The countries which would send more troops are jittery about what they will do if Obama doesn't show the commitment they expect.
Britain will march in lock-step with whatever America requires. The British government believes that an Afghanistan that offers no safe havens makes British streets safer. But it is much more than this, part of a broader policy that sees respect for American leadership and engagement, and loyalty to the world's only superpower, as one of the key elements of British foreign policy.
This may be a mistake. Some claim that the Obama administration deeply distrusts the British government precisely because of this loyalty. Some say Obama's advisers blame Britain for what they believe was a disastrous war in Iraq.
The argument I have heard goes like this: the one man in the entire world who could have stopped the war by withdrawing his support was former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. Although he is no longer in power, the ministers and advisers who could have stopped him are still in positions of great responsibility. So the more eagerly Britain marches in lock-step, the more the administration discounts its advice.
But as we wait for the sixth meeting of Obama's war cabinet,he is offered some relief by the vice-president. No, not Joe Biden, but Dick Cheney - who in a blistering attack on the president's foreign policy has said that Obama "seems afraid to make a decision". At least some European allies will conclude that they prefer the uncertainty produced by a few weeks' careful reflection to the decisiveness of the previous administration.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~03~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
That seems ridiculous to me. I doubt Britain was counted too much by the Bush administration, nothing was, I find it hard to believe that any one in power truly believes that. The fact that that line of thinking was even brought to the table surprises me.
Complain about this comment
Many around the world and in the UK no longer fully trust us here in the US. After the Bush administration I honestly can not blame them either. But it is a catch 22 here for us in the US. If we help or take the lead we get called bossy, or trying to be the worlds police. If we then step back so other can take a lead people blame us for inaction. As for trust we all know that trust is a thing that is earned. I would hope that people let Mr. Obama earn their trust; I certainly thing Mr. Obama is trust worthy. I don't know if Mr. Obama trusts the UK or not, but if he personally need that trust to be earned this is natural. What is the issue? The UK did have very strong ties with the Bush administration after all so is it not natural to want to know where each party stands?
Complain about this comment
I think that President Obama is waiting for the results of the presidential election in Afghanistan, in a couple of weeks. The cloud of illegitimacy over Karzai after the first election severely weakened our hands. We should be able to get better traction for our next move, whatever it will be, when and if the leadership there is resolved. If it is not, I predict our strategy will become much simpler, not more complicated.
Our goal is not to direct Afghan politics, after all, it is to seek out and trample al Quaida.
Obama is not much moved by the urgency of the press to have an answer every evening. It's about time we had leaders who did not pander to the panderers, or fear the waving grasses. (No disrespect intended to our able host.) A clear objective and plan is immeasurably preferable to a hasty, unfocused decision.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
I don't think all the blame could be put on Blair and the other spineless toads for not stopping the Shrub's war machine. France is America's first and oldest ally and her protestations to the invasion came to nought. Republicans even began a process of de-francoisation - infamously renaming french fries to freedom fries! And besides, the more I think of Blair the more I think he was a CIA stooge.
This also goes against the Shrub's diktat: You are either with us or against us!
Complain about this comment
Mark, very interesting, indeed, ironic - Britain's loyal support engenders distrust in Washington. Are people claiming this close to the White House?
"Britain will march in lock-step with whatever America requires. The British government believes that an Afghanistan that offers no safe havens makes British streets safer. But it is much more than this, part of a broader policy that sees respect for American leadership and engagement, and loyalty to the world's only superpower, as one of the key elements of British foreign policy."
My impression is that the imperative of being to loyal to the United States simply overrides all other considerations in British foreign policy. Britain seems not to really have an independent outlook anymore; it certainly didn't under Blair. I think that is also how Britain is perceived in other European capitals.
I doubt therefore, that the British government really believes that "an Afghanistan that offers no safe havens makes British streets safer," or in any case that destroying such safe havens warrants a significant military presence in Afghanistan for what seems a virtually indefinite period of time. But, perversely, the imperative of sticking close to the Americans does seem to warrant it.
Complain about this comment
Mark says:
>a broader policy that sees respect for American leadership and engagement, and loyalty to the world's only superpower, as one of the key elements of British foreign policy.
The problem is I don't think this has ever been put to the British electorate in this form by any political party. Expressed in it's Blairite form as unswerving, uncritical, unconditional support for whatever the USA chooses to do in the world it would, I think, have few supporters. Your closest friends are the only ones who can tell you when you're doing something stupid or wrong, but neither side of the Special Relationship seems to understand or value that aspect of friendship.
Complain about this comment
Mark You could have pointed out the more important part of cheney's speech. Where he pointed out that the Bsuh team had a plan worked over several months for Afghanastan which Obama requested be kept secreat. Rob Emanuel has not told the truth when he claim the Obama team was starting from scratch.
As far as Obama blaming British. since his routine is to apologize to adversaries and blame allies expect him to call out the Queen.
Complain about this comment
> Some say Obama's advisers blame Britain for what they believe was a disastrous war in Iraq.
Heresay. I don't believe this is postulated as a serious reason to distrust the British government: I don't recollect the British Poodle dragging Bush out to throw sticks in the park, Bush would have thrown the sticks even without his lap dog present.
Perhaps in the UK we misread 'irrelevance' as 'mistrust'. What ever decision Obama makes it most certainly wont be based on 'what ever Britain suggests do the opposite'.
Complain about this comment
It will not make any difference as from next year foreign polocy will be dictated by brussels all the EU will have to obide by EU foreign policy no one country will be allowed to have its own. Even the Military and the police will come under EU control and dictat. This is what the lisbon treaty was all about the UK will now have to get used to being a county in Europe and no longer an independant country
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
President Obama had a meeting last week in the White House with the head of the Spanish Government. Zapatero spent 19 hours in Washington. He stayed at Blair House overnight. Then after a meeting at Capital Hill with Nancy Pelosi he went on to the White House. He had a meeting with President Obame lasting approaching 2 hours.
As Zapatero understands more English than he speaks and Obama the same for Spanish. Both spoke in their native tongue and only called on interpretors when they did not understand each other.
Immediately after the meeting, Zapatero flew direct from Andrews Air Force Base to Damascus, Syria. He then flew on to Israel - meeting both President Sharon and the Palestinian leader, and then to Jordan and the Lebanon.
This does not appear to have been on the BBC but was fully reported in the El Pais newspaper and on Spanish Television. Strange that.
Complain about this comment
The reason President Bush sought out international support in Afghanistan and Iraq was to legitimize our decision to invade those countries by providing a semblance of consensus when popular support overseas was far from evident.
Since his inauguration, President Obama has demonstrated friendship and respect towards our allies, and the UK certainly enjoys a privileged position in that regard.
If there is one thing that can be easily discerned from our president's behavior is his pragmatism, focus and his cool and deliberate approach to problem solving. He, like all his predecessors, prefers international consensus as an integral part of his foreign policy, but he is clearly prepared to act alone regardless of public opinion at home or abroad.
It is clear to me that he has decided to wait until the political situation in Afghanistan settles down before making a decision on troop levels. No sense reinforcing our commitment when the purpose of our mission is so unclear.
Complain about this comment
Ref 11, Mike
"This does not appear to have been on the BBC but was fully reported in the El Pais newspaper and on Spanish Television. Strange that."
Quiet diplomacy is the preferred approach on issues like this. It remains to be seen whether or not our government, and media, give credit to those who are working diligently as intermediaries behind the scenes to help solve the problems that have caused so much turmoil and pain during the past several decades.
Complain about this comment
It is juvenile for the Obama advisers to think of blaming the Brits for the US involvement in Afghanistan. Obama's advisers should remember who their boss represents, and stop acting like he is an "affimative action" President.
Complain about this comment
utterly ridiculous premise on which to base an article. I thought sensationalist journalism was a tabloid prerogative.
Complain about this comment
Rav_Strom is correct. The US has always been caught in the catch 22 situation as far as World Opinion is concerned. But that's where strong leadership comes in. If we, here in the US, had a strong leader, we wouldn't be experiencing this now. Obama, during his campaign criticized Bush for his policies, which would indicate he (Obama) had a better plan. He was privileged to receive all security updates during the transition, so he had ample time to generate a adequate policy for Afghanistan.
To be "struggling" over a decision now indicates he is weighing world opinion and political fall-out before a decision is made. This is not leadership. Europe cannot be expected to follow a vacuum, nor can they be expected to take a leadership role themselves, as they have avoided those roles since WWII. They will criticize, but they will not step up to the plate and lead themselves. Until they do, they should keep their opinions to themselves and let us deal with our own lack of leadership here in the US, ourselves.
Complain about this comment
ref #11
Since Zapatero has proven to be a terrorist appeaser by widthdrawing toops immediatly from Iraq, I doubt he is taken seriously.
Complain about this comment
"Britain will march in lock-step with whatever America requires. The British government believes that an Afghanistan that offers no safe havens makes British streets safer. But it is much more than this, part of a broader policy that sees respect for American leadership and engagement, and loyalty to the world's only superpower, as one of the key elements of British foreign policy."
The UK does have a tendency to march in lock-step with whatever the USA requires, but the premise that our presence in Afghanistan make our streets safer is preposterous.
Terrorists can be found anywhere and do not need a specific area to train or plan their nefarious activities. If anything, our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq has exacerbated the problem by inflaming national passions and by serving as a recruitment tool for the organizations we are trying to destroy.
Complain about this comment
#9 johnilmalin2
That's fine as long as you do get used to it and shut up about it. It's boring' it's over get over it.
Complain about this comment
17 MagicKirin
As a supporter of a state that uses terror as an instrument of policy your commnet comes as no great surprise. I'm gladdened to see that Obama is taking his time over this. If I were him I would wait a little longer and see if the Pakistani army can achieve it's goals. Not much point Nato doing all the work in Afghanistan if all of Pakistan is up in flames. We also have to reach some sort of understanding with the Iranians, they have a very long border with Afghanistan and so far have refrained from stirring up trouble. Will that last I wonder, if we continue to put the Israelis first second and third when looking at Western Arab/Muslim relations?
I would also question Mark's use of the word Superpower, I suspect the Superpower is in straitened circumstances and the cost of all this is going to be huge.
With regard to the usual chorus of US diatribe against European so called failure to do just what the US wanted that's just tough. If Blair hadn't been so foolish as to join Bush in the Iraq debacle instead of following the French and Germans in saying NO then maybe we wouldn't be in this position. It was Bush in his arrogance who opened up the second front in Iraq before Afghanistan was cleaned up and look where we are now. It's easy to rush in, hard to get out.
Complain about this comment
4 dceilar
"And besides, the more I think of Blair the more I think he was a CIA stooge."
Then you should read Robert Harris "The Ghost" - a highly entertaining, light-hearted look forward at a Prime Minister writing his memoirs - any similarity to Blair is entirely coincidental!
On the main topic, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama was distrustful or distanced from Brown and Labour, partly for the reasons cited, but also because Brown will be gone within 9 months - he is the lamest of ducks.
Complain about this comment
The British government believes that an Afghanistan that offers no safe havens makes British streets safer.
It's a pity that it doesn't start at home. British streets have been made unsafe by British citizens - and I don't mean by drink driving. Those responsible for the 7 July (2005) London bombings were all British Muslims, as were those involved with the attack in Glasgow. The hate spewed by some Muslim clerics exacerbates the situation with seemingly little to curtail it. Rather than being in lockstep with America, wouldn't it be more prudent for Britain to clean her own house first?
Complain about this comment
It's pretty lame for Americans to blame Blair for the Iraq way, I (an American) think. It was our president and his administration that got us into it; Blair's contribution is for the people of the UK to judge.
In any case, that war is a done deal. The important question now is how and when to disengage.
Complain about this comment
As a follow up point to my post #20 I should have also added that perhaps the US president is waiting to see who becomes the next Afghan president. It's hardly a sensible decision to throw in more resources and men to back an illegitimate regime. The US did that in Viet Nam when it propped up the corrupt regime there and look how that ended up.
Complain about this comment
The events arising from the Iranian Presidential election are doubtless causing a strategic rethink in the White House, the US State Department and the Pentagon. The present government in Iran is unstable at many levels: dangerously so for both its own citizens and the international community. President Obama is obviously having to rejig his original plan's focus on an Afghan build-up to accommodate the changing realities in the region.
Complain about this comment
As for former vice president Cheney's remark, here is the official White House response, delivered by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs:
response to Cheney's "dithering" remark"
Complain about this comment
"No sense reinforcing our commitment when the purpose of our mission is so unclear." (from saintDominick at #12)
Our purpose in Afghanistan is perfectly clear: it is to disrupt al Qaeda and deny them safe haven to prepare attacks against the US and our NATO allies. Obama has stated this several times. It is how best to proceed that is not yet clear.
Complain about this comment
While we're at it, why doesn't my chocolate milk taste like lemonade?
It seemed like our previous strategy was to shoot anything that seemed threatening until there weren't any more threats to shoot.
The decision to think first and shoot later is still a decision, even if people are confused about what to do with the guns during the interim.
As for international relations regarding the war - I don't see how we can now suddenly be blaming other leadership, when Obama's platform largely
Complain about this comment
Drat - tabbed and posted while still composing...
(cont'd)
Anyway - I believe that all those involved in the troubled front must re-group in order to address the current 'situation on the ground'. And, as we seem to have gotten into the mess together, we will all need to re-evaluate a bit
-- so that we don't do silly things like posting comments that aren't fully written or edited. Oops.
Complain about this comment
Ref 17, Magic
"Since Zapatero has proven to be a terrorist appeaser by widthdrawing toops immediatly from Iraq, I doubt he is taken seriously."
Refusing to support a crusade and the transformation of an ambivalent leader into a self-prescribed war president to guarantee re-election is hardly an example of appeasing terrorists. A much more accurate example of that distinction would be President Reagan's decision to cut and run in Lebanon after the attack on our marines' barracks near the Beirut airport.
Complain about this comment
#18 saintDominick
Whilst I agree terrorists can be found anywhere and it does indeed seem to be that many of them were trained in Pakisatan not Afghanistan there is another issue vis a vis a Taliban controlled Afghanistan and that is the huge drug problem it would represent see this link:- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8319249.stm
That and of course the fact that it would be terrible to see yet another generation of Afghani women and children condemned to life under the Taliban.
Complain about this comment
#22 David_Cunard
I think you have been watching too much Fox News. While the young people involved in the bombing attempts were indeed British Nationals the majority had been trained in Pakistani Madrassas. They also all spoke of a deep seated hatred for the West because of their perception of our two faced behaviour with regard to the way we treat the Arab/muslim peoples and the Israelis.
Complain about this comment
Dick Cheney may be the worst human being on earth. Anything he would say must be understood as self-serving and in the interest of a very few. Terrorism is real and those who play politics with the lives of citizens should always be remembered and if in office, voted out. Where these wars are currently being fought, people are blown up everyday and that is not something we face. This will be a difficult decision and the great line of finger pointers, political and media are waiting. Those who have never defended their country line up to critize those with the responsibility too. Seems to me that the Bush/Cheney cabal started all this as well as facilitating the economic collapse...good people to be listening too.
Complain about this comment
I don't think it's just America's strategy in Afghanistan that is being reviewed but its entire military relationship with Europe that should and perhaps is being re-examined. Obama said it during the campaign but few on either side of the Atlantic were listening. The words were softly spoken but the message was clear, Europe must start pulling its fair share of the weight in NATO if the alliance is to survive. That it hasn't is clear. With 2 million soldiers available, Europe has made hardly a token contribution to the fighting. It doesn't want to get its hands dirty, make a sacrifice it sees only in America's interest. But while it was America that was attacked from Afghan soil, the al Qaeda terrorists who plotted and directed the attack on America with sanctuary provided by the Taleban are at least as great a threat to Europe. Of those Europeans doing the actual fighting, the British are the only ones making a significant contribution but by admission and complaint of the soldiers and their commanders themselves, they have been underequipped and insufficient in numbers. As for the rest of Europe, by comparison Estonia makes a far greater contribution in proportion to its size than Germany does. How convenient for Germans to hide behind their constitution in failing to meet their obligations in what is supposed to be a mutual defense treaty.
Americans taking a hard look at NATO will have to come to the inescapable conclusion that remaining in it is no longer in America's self interest. With the threat of the USSR gone, America no longer needs to fear Soviet hegemony over all of Europe. NATO has become an expensive, restictive, purposless ball and chain on America's foreign policy, its fair weather allies who will hold its coat while it does the heavy lifting of no benefit to America, certainly not in proportion to the cost and sacrifice America makes and has made in the past on their behalf. And when that is pointed out, we see just how ungrateful they are. Left to themselves the way they were before WWII, they will have an opportunity to test whether they are a real union or if ancient hatreds that almost boiled over in 1999 when they nearly refought WWI over Kosovo are still alive. When forced to provide for their own common defense at their own expense, we'll see just how much money they will have left for their lavish social safety nets and economic growth they chide America for not having as well.
Complain about this comment
#9 johnilmalin2
You left out the fact that after 2013 the EU insists that Britain has to change to the European Standard Road Usage Directive' and change the driving side from the left to the right.
Complain about this comment
Ref 27, GH1618
"Our purpose in Afghanistan is perfectly clear: it is to disrupt al Qaeda and deny them safe haven to prepare attacks against the US and our NATO allies. Obama has stated this several times. It is how best to proceed that is not yet clear."
Terrorists do not need a specific country or area to train and plan their activities, they can do it anywhere and whenever they want. Don't forget that one of the 9/11 "pilots" trained at Embry Riddle University in Daytona. What ought to be clear is how to proceed: get out, bring the troops home and let the Afghans choose the form of government and lifestyle they prefer.
Complain about this comment
At 4:24pm on 23 Oct 2009, GH1618 wrote:
"Our purpose in Afghanistan is perfectly clear: it is to disrupt al Qaeda and deny them safe haven to prepare attacks against the US and our NATO allies. Obama has stated this several times. It is how best to proceed that is not yet clear."
That is indeed the stated purpose. The real purpose is to maintain a military foothold in Central Asia so as to be able to project influence there in competition with Russia and China.
Which, incidentally, explains why the war drags on and on without any attempt on the part of the US to either make a decisive move to 'win' or simply get out. There is no particular urgency to do either.
Complain about this comment
I don't think the US-UK relationship has been altered by the Blair-Bush relationship and Iraq. Tony Blair is held in high regard in the US, far more than Bush. Bush and Cheney got us into this mess, with lies about wmd. Expanding our role in a conflict that has lasted longer than WW2, President Obama is weighing out spilling more blood and treasure in a war with half hearted contributions from NATO members. The US has many things on our agenda, national health, baby boomer retirements, an infrastucture that needs attention, a border that has become very porous with weapons and drugs. Britain has been and will always be a good and equal ally to the US. It was baffling to me when Blair was called a lapdog and Britain considered itself a junior partner. Most people in the US have a "mother country" feeling of the UK. Even those whose ancestors came from elsewhere seem to feel this way to Britain, probably a common language and culture. The only negative thing I have heard was when Scotland released the Lockerby bomber.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, I guess you failed to realize Obama hates all non-socialist countries. Especially white countries. He has no time for the war right now. He is to busy wreaking America. Once his done making us socialist than he will turn to you and Afghanistan. #1 on list take money from rich give to poor or hard workers to lazy bums #2 Reparations #3 shut down any news or radio station that disagrees with him. Yes its great time in America.
Complain about this comment
Unconditional, automatic support for the US is the worst foreign policy you can have: Washington takes you for granted, everyone else sees it as pointless to enagage London and deals with Washington instead, and the US' enemies see you as their enemy too. After all, it is pointless to make concessions to unconditional, unwavering supporters, and it's eminently reasonable to see unconditional supporters of your enemies as your enemies also.
Complain about this comment
saintDominick (#36) "Terrorists do not need a specific country or area to train and plan their activities, they can do it anywhere ... "
Certainly, and the US has gone after al Qaeda wherever they show up: Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, et al.
Complain about this comment
#34 MarcusAureliusII
"they will have an opportunity to test whether they are a real union or if ancient hatreds that almost boiled over in 1999 when they nearly refought WWI over Kosovo are still alive."
I must have been living on another planet. Europe or the European states nearly fought a war over Kosovo? Marcus you are on that weed again.
As far as NATO is concerned maybe the US should withdraw and then we can use NATO as the base for the EU defence network although our good friends the Canadians would need to be consulted. Whilst I do concede you were indeed attacked, have you not thought that maybe the attacks were on the US because it continually supports Israel no matter what atrocity the Israelis inflict on the poor Palestinians?
In the meantime I, for one, am glad to see an American president taking some time to formulate a policy, if that includes pulling out of NATO then so be it. You need the money to rebuild your infrastructure and provide your citizens with decent healthcare.
Complain about this comment
ref #20
T1m0thy wrote:
17 MagicKirin
As a supporter of a state that uses terror as an instrument of policy your commnet comes as no great surprise. I'm gladdened to see that Obama is taking his time over this. If I were him I would wait a little longer and see if the Pakistani army can achieve it's goals. Not much point Nato doing all the work in Afghanistan if all of Pakistan is up in flames. We also have to reach some sort of understanding with the Iranians, they have a very long border with Afghanistan and so far have refrained from stirring up trouble. Will that last I wonder, if we continue to put the Israelis first second and third when looking at Western Arab/Muslim relations?
________________________________________________-
Well I assume you are maligning the U.S or Israel as a terrorist nation, which shows that you don't accept self defense for Jews or christians.
You can be as naive El Baredi and assume you can reach an accord with intolerant fanatics, most of us know you can't
Complain about this comment
It's not surprising that Obama is taking his time - much is happening in the immediate vicinity of Afghanistan.
Firstly, the Pakistan government appears to be trying to do something about the Taliban takeover of the tribal areas but clearly has no defined objectives and the question has to be asked whether this is for internal or international consumption - and how strong is the commitment? Having allowed the tribal areas with Sharia Law in what was a moderate but fully Muslim country might be seen as a terrible political error, but can it now be corrected without serious civilian impact?
And what will India do? There are those in Delhi who would like to rattle sabres in Kashmir whilst the Pakistan authorities attempt to regain control of the North West Frontier - spurred on of course by recent outrages in India led by Pakistani militants.
Then there is Iran - developing nuclear capability and as ever an unpredictable force, although the leadership are unlikely to weakly cave in (like Pakistan) and accept Taliban control in their eastern areas.
And Iraq remains unsettled, unresolved, with the two main sects still at each other's throats.
To the north, there is complete uncertainty in the 'Stans' - none of which have stable government and with Uighur militants in their east trying to de-stabilise the Muslim areas of north-west China.
Oh no, Obama is right to be cautious. The whole area is a complete powder keg - just like south-east Asia in the 1970s. Avoiding another Vietnam and Cambodia but somehow destroying both the drug trade and the anti-Western ideologists (which it finances) will take time, clever strategy and no little courage.
Complain about this comment
# 35 T1m0thy wrote:
"#9 johnilmalin2
You left out the fact that after 2013 the EU insists that Britain has to change to the European Standard Road Usage Directive' and change the driving side from the left to the right."
There have been further developments Tim.
The UK government has negotiated a partial derogation from the Directive.
- on Monday, Wednesday and Friday you'll drive on the left
- on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday you'll drive on the right
- on Sunday it will be left to the discretion of the individual motorist. {Unless, of course, there's an 'r' in the month.]
Complain about this comment
# 42 T1m0thy wrote:
"Marcus you are on that weed again."
That's an appalling slur.
On marijuana......
Complain about this comment
#45 john-In-Dublin
Many thanks for expanding on that piece of legislation, I only read the broad outline. Seems well thought out and eminently sensible to me, and of course there is no problem about the months with an 'r' in them because one shouldn't eat oysters and drive.
Complain about this comment
#43 MagicKirin
"Well I assume you are maligning the U.S or Israel as a terrorist nation, which shows that you don't accept self defense for Jews or christians."
Magic, did you really think that I was going to let you get away with that little trick of yours where you used the word Jews and added Christians. I said Israelis Magic, not Jews don't try and play the antisemitic card it won't work. Israel uses terror as a policy, the disproportionate use of force is and has been major facet in Israeli military operations for years. Prior to the creation of the state of Israel the then Jewish terrorist organisations the Irgun Stern gang used terror as a weapon.
Complain about this comment
ref #33 ghostofsichuan wrote:
Dick Cheney may be the worst human being on earth. Anything he would say must be understood as self-serving and in the interest of a very few. Terrorism is real and those who play politics with the lives of citizens should always be remembered and if in office, voted out.
________________________________-
Cheney will never be accused of being warm and cuddly, but unlike say Jimmy Carter he cares about the safety of this country and our allies. The Obama administation has done a blame Bush/Cheney for everything, Cheney decided enough was enough.
Obama should listen respectfully to a man far more wise and whose service to this country he will never match.
Complain about this comment
39. cyberCDOG3 wrote:
"I guess you failed to realize Obama hates all non-socialist countries. Especially white countries. He has no time for the war right now. He is to busy wreaking America. Once his done making us socialist than he will turn to you and Afghanistan. #1 on list take money from rich give to poor or hard workers to lazy bums #2 Reparations #3 shut down any news or radio station that disagrees with him. Yes its great time in America."
Wow, so it's tin-foil hats all round at your local "tea party" is it?
You obviously live in a world very different to the rest of us.
When is Obama going to shut down Fox?
Complain about this comment
45 johnindublin
"on Sunday it will be left to the discretion of the individual motorist."
This of course allows the "Sunday drivers" to carry on as usual. I hadn't realised they were such a powerful lobby group in Brussels.
Complain about this comment
Ref 41, GH1618
"Certainly, and the US has gone after al Qaeda wherever they show up: Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, et al."
Perhaps we should occupy the entire world to minimize the probability of terrorist attacks, and while we are at it we should probably increase surveillance in the Midwest to make sure we keep any potential Tim McVeigh's under control.
My point is that the logic of occupying Afghanistan and Iraq to prevent further terrorist attacks is flawed. If we are truly concerned about the threat posed by international and national terrorists we should focus strictly on Al Qaeda and affiliated organizations, and make an effort to understand the root causes of the problem.
Instead of focusing on those that attacked us (Al Qaeda) we decided to implement regime change, impose freedom and democracy on countries that do not understand and reject our form of government, ideals, and way of life and we took sides in what should have been an internal struggle for power in those countries. Our position lacks popular support, which means the most we can achieve is an illusion of success that is far from reality.
Complain about this comment
35. T1m0thy wrote:
"#9 johnilmalin2
You left out the fact that after 2013 the EU insists that Britain has to change to the European Standard Road Usage Directive' and change the driving side from the left to the right."
Interestingly (or maybe not) Samoa changed from the right to the left ... just about a month ago!
Also this caught my eye (don't know if it's true though)...
Burma drove on the left until 1970, when it changed sides. It is said that the ruler of the country, Ne Win, had a dream that all traffic should keep to the right. However, virtually every vehicle is right-hand-drive, since there are still many old cars and buses driving around and almost all the modern cars are second-hand imports from Japan. You can still even see old traffic lights in downtown Rangoon on the wrong side of the road.
Could Britain end up like Burma?
Complain about this comment
To: saintDomonick 13
I agree with your comment completely. One Obama's skills is not to be secretive but to get the media to look some place else.
I expect your realized that I was flying a bit of a kite regarding relations with Gordon Brown but nobody has responded.
By the way Spain has agree to take two ex prisoners from that camp on Cuba and also to send a 40 Civil Guards to Kabul. This does not sound many but these guys have been fighting ETA terrorist for the past 40 years.
Complain about this comment
Instead of focusing on those that attacked us (Al Qaeda) we decided to implement regime change, impose freedom and democracy on countries that do not understand and reject our form of government, ideals, and way of life and we took sides in what should have been an internal struggle for power in those countries. Our position lacks popular support, which means the most we can achieve is an illusion of success that is far from reality.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democracy was used as a weapon to attack. I am sure you would reject a system which allows a person who commited fraud during elections to continue to run as the president..If this is what western democracy is, then people have the right to reject it..and they should reject it..Your way of life is to react in a knee jerk manner then blame others for your failures and continue to react in a knee jerk manner, and you should understand why people would reject your way of life. Your ideals are to rob people off their rights...
Complain about this comment
To Magic Kirin 17
Re: Zapetero .... terrorist appeaser.
I am glad you raised this. It gives me a chance to put the record straight.
When the PP Government announced that it would send combat troops to Iraq there was an immediate outcry right across Spain. Zapatero, as leader of the PSOE, the main opposition party, made a pledge that if his Party won the forth coming general election he would immediately recall any troops sent.
His party won the election and he immediately honour his election pledge.
The bombing of the trains in Madrid took place two days before the general election. The bombers proved to be disaffected Moroccans, who were of course Moslem but had no direct connection with Middle Eastern terrorists. Most, when cornered in a flat blew themselves up, the rest were soon caught.
The Spanish are not in the habit of appeasing anyone. It was the Spanish dictator General Franco who told Hitler to his face that if he was supplied with food and oil he might considered co-operation. Hitler could not spare any oil so no deal.
Complain about this comment
The bombing of the trains in Madrid took place two days before the general election. The bombers proved to be disaffected Moroccans, who were of course Moslem but had no direct connection with Middle Eastern terrorists. Most, when cornered in a flat blew themselves up, the rest were soon caught.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you should recall that the sitting prime minister tried to hide the fact that bombing was done by the Moors..he was all set to blame other sepratists..
Complain about this comment
And if the moors had held to the power just a few months longer, Coloumbus would have "discovered" america under the flag ship of the moors. Just imagine how the world would be today, all those who died in heroshima, nagasaki, ww2, the jews in spain, koreans, vietnamise, the afghans in soviet war, the algerian after french didnt allow election result where islamic party won, palestinians, iraqis, afghans in present war, pakistanis in present war, would all be alive today.
Complain about this comment
Certainly, and the US has gone after al Qaeda wherever they show up: Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, et al.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don quixote comes to mind..USA, the Don Quioxte and britian, sancho panza on the donkey encouraging the don to go after windmills.
Complain about this comment
*sigh*...Here we go again.
I'm too desperate to change some, any, negative stereotypes of America/Americans that are, and may be held by the citizens of our closest ally, so I'll give my opinions on the matter below. Although I have serious doubts as to what good, if any, they'll do, as my commentary in the past on similar such entries hasn't seemed to generate any pause for reflection, or inject even the smallest bit of objectivity and calmness into the raging debate as was, and is, my intention. Rather they just sat, idle and ignored, while the people around me continued on in their ceaseless ignorant, arrogant ways, insisting that despite the bountyful evidentiary facts to the contrary, that the US, no matter who resides in the White House, always acts in its own interests and doesn't care about anyone else's thoughts and opinions. And those that did acknowledge past respectful actions taken by the US government, nevertheless dismissed such actions as evidence of an America which views the US-UK relationship as a two way street, because massive mistakes such as the Iraq war and Bush's (as correctly noted) refusal to listen to, much less take advice from people who disagreed with him even in his own party, let alone a foreign ally, somehow secretly became the emblem of which all our foreign policy decisions were to be modeled after, especially regarding our closest allies. So I feel as though in my forthcoming commentary and display of my (not to be boastful) I believe wealth of knoledge on this subject, that I may as well be (to borrow a John McCain phrase) naling jello to a wall, but nevertheless I can't resist making one more vane attempt.
First, to respond to Mark's current entry...
Mark writes that "Europe's military and political class has never been so ready and keen for American leadership."
Really? Not even directly after 9/11? Wow! Democrats really must command more respect in the international comunity!!
"The longer the White House deliberations go on, the more and more difficult it is to sell to their public the commitment to a mission that isn't being defined."
Wholly understandable, and the urjancy must undoubtedly be felt all the more acutely when the number of people who's countries incidentally contribute the highest amount of troops to the effort, see their respective country's role on the international stage as the US's slave increases by the day.
"Britain will march in lock-step with whatever America requires. The British government believes that an Afghanistan that offers no safe havens makes British streets safer."
Which is true. Yes terrorists can plot and plan from anywhere, but it should come as no surprise to anyone that unstable, less lawful, less wealthy countries serve as better staging areas than lawful stable ones.
"But it is much more than this, part of a broader policy that sees respect for American leadership and engagement, and loyalty to the world's only superpower, as one of the key elements of British foreign policy."
Many would even say the cornarstone of British foreign policy. But what happens when we're no longer the world's "only super power?" Much has been raised (with much just cause, unfortunately) about Americaseaking Britain's help and/or advice only when it suits America's interests. But when China finishes its ascent and eclipses us...and it will, what will Britain do? Will it still choose to aline itself with us because of our many commonalities?
Or will it drop us like a bad habit and rush to be seen as the world's new super power's best friend? Alining itself with whomever is the world's most powerful nation in the hopes of gaining power and influence is certainly in any country's national interests; this is basic common sense. But time will tell whether Britain too, like America has done far too often in the past, choose to associate and aline itself with us only when it suits them; I.E. so long as we're the world's only super power.
"This may be a mistake. Some claim that the Obama administration deeply distrusts the British government precisely because of this loyalty. Some say Obama's advisers blame Britain for what they believe was a disastrous war in Iraq."
Well if they do then they're incredibly selfish and immature. As they were against the war from the beginning, who they should be blaming for it going wrong is the Republicans, who rushed in illequipt and based on lies, and not our closest ally, who displayed much bravery when deciding to literally abandon the rest of its allies in order to endorse our greedy cause.
"The argument I have heard goes like this: the one man in the entire world who could have stopped the war by withdrawing his support was former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. Although he is no longer in power, the ministers and advisers who could have stopped him are still in positions of great responsibility. So the more eagerly Britain marches in lock-step, the more the administration discounts its advice."
Understandable, but they would do well to realize just how lucky they are. And if they are that worried over whether Britain reall and truely thinks that our ideas are the right ones, and that they're not just going along with them because of tradition, or fear, or whatever, then all they need do is ask what it is Britain really wants. I've heard friends do that every once in a while.
" Dick Cheney - who in a blistering attack on the president's foreign policy has said that Obama "seems afraid to make a decision". At least some European allies will conclude that they prefer the uncertainty produced by a few weeks' careful reflection to the decisiveness of the previous administration."
And lets hope that Britain is among those European allies. Bush has tought us that decisiveness isn't always a good thing!
Now, to present my own personal view of the US-UK relationship and its role in the Iraq war:
I have no doubt that had the Tories been in power at the time of the Iraq war, that though they would have gone along with it, they certainly wouldn't have gone along with every half hearted,
half baked, hastily imposed idea drempt up by the Bush administration (as Labour did,) and that instead they would have made their feelings known, and force us to compromise on everything from troop levels to military strategy to exit strategy. And it wouldn't just stop there. They would have insisted upon being treated as equals in all the areas of colaboration that Bush tryed and succeeded in having his way on, whether it be with the extridition treaty or intelligence sharing agreements. They would have drawn a line in the sand, demonstrating to the world that while we're the best of friends, they most definitly will not allow us to push them around.
This is not to say, however, that because of the last unfortunate 8 (or 12, depending on who in the UK you speak to) years, that I view the relationship between the US and UK in even a fraction of the same way (I.E. master and slave, owner and poodle, pimp and whore...pick your annalogy) as seemingly at least half, if not more, of the British contributers to the BBC's blogs and web forems do!! The political relationship between our leaders is only part of it. But every nation has a friendly political relationship with every other friendly nation. What makes the relationship between the US and UK different and...well...special, are the commonalities of law, government, culture, history, and as is repeated so much as to the point of nausia, all built upon the foundation of common values, which are in my opinion most eloquently and succinctly expressed, all be it plagiarized from the
great English philosophers of Thomas Hobbs and John Locke, in our declaration of independence and preamble to our constitution. I think my views are much better expressed by 'Researcher 238576 in Mark's '"Not So Special?" entry, when he said that "The UK's international position in banking and insurance, as well as its continuing relationships with Commonwealth and (especially) Middle Eastern countries, its military and intelligence cooperation, and the massive inward investment the UK has in the US, stand it out amongst US allies. It does not need to be constantly reaffirmed by summits and high profile bilateral talks ... it just "is" in so many ways, quietly and efficiently, that talking about it is just idle chatter.
The citizens of the Anglosphere talk the same language; they have the same definitions of what freedom really means; they fervently believe in democracy and a liberal tolerant society; and when the chips are down, they look after each other. We don't need formal political or economic pacts or a "Constitution" secretly imposed upon us to bind us ... it's just naturally there.
The UK does not have the same relationship with continental Europeans - they are our friends and neighbours, NOT family."
So in summation, I believe that the best policy regarding our relationship is one of separate and equal, but friendly.
Complain about this comment
I think it's fair to say that Obama and his advisers are concerned with certain factions within the British government. Those who supported and enabled the Bush led invasion of Iraq for dubious reasons naturally aren't considered trustworthy partners. There are times when friends should say NO to dangerous schemes, regardless of the consequences. Obama never supported the Iraq war, so he cannot be blamed for looking askance when required to work with those who made certain it happened.
When it comes to any future plans for Afghanistan, I think European leaders needs to back up a pace and remember what life was like before the Bush administration. Once the Bushies had a brief taste of "victory" in Afghanistan, they became loud, impetuous and were rightly deemed dangerous. In almost all previous administrations America never rushed to war - and is still being blamed for not entering the Second World War soon enough by those who forget we had no mutual defense treaties with any European nation at that time. Nor any overt reason to become involved beyond Lend-Lease until Hitler declared war on the US in support of Germany's ally, Japan. In my opinion, only an attack on American soil, like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 could, or should, provoke an immediate declaration of war. It is only when we have "War Hawks" in power (The War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish American War) that the US varies from its natural course.
That said, Obama is following the path of nearly every previous administration by being extremely deliberate - and very, very quiet about what the US is going to do next. It used to be understood by the world's leaders that American presidents preferred to engage in diplomatic negotiations until there were no other options. Only when the US went silent was there cause to expect a violent reaction in response to an international incident.
That was the case in Afghanistan as well, until the Taliban gave in to their fear of al Qaeda. When they refused to turn over bin Laden it gave Bush an excuse to become the "War President" he always wanted to be and played right into bin Laden's hands. He didn't care if Afghanistan was destroyed in the process of an attempt to capture him. He only wanted the US violently engaged in a Muslim country so as to gain more support.
But I believe that Obama's plans really do hinge on the Afghan presidential election. Without that issue settled there is no clear direction forward that does not leave a great deal more to chance than I'm sure the President is willing to risk. He isn't "dithering", he's attempting to formulate a plan based on political realities. It does no good to start implementing a plan that requires the involvement of the Afghan government and the support of its people when that government is either on the way out the door, is completely ineffective beyond Kabul, or is not supported by the people.
Complain about this comment
Ref 59, colonelartist
"Don quixote comes to mind..USA, the Don Quioxte and britian, sancho panza on the donkey encouraging the don to go after windmills."
Unfortunately we need more than just a Rocinante to save Middle Eastern damsels in distress...
Complain about this comment
ref #48
T1m0thy wrote:
#43 MagicKirin
"Well I assume you are maligning the U.S or Israel as a terrorist nation, which shows that you don't accept self defense for Jews or christians."
Magic, did you really think that I was going to let you get away with that little trick of yours where you used the word Jews and added Christians. I said Israelis Magic, not Jews don't try and play the antisemitic card it won't work. Israel uses terror as a policy, the disproportionate use of force is and has been major facet in Israeli military operations for years. Prior to the creation of the state of Israel the then Jewish terrorist organisations the Irgun Stern gang used terror as a weapon
________________________________________________________
Israel does not use terror as a policy. Give me one example since 1973 where Israel has targeted a civilian group with first being attacked. As stated before if they used the amount of force they should have Beruit would be a crater. Since Lebanon was given sanctuary in violation of an agreement to Hezbollah, Israel could have targed the entire goverment
Sorry you are against Jews defending themselves you can sugarcoat it anyway you want.
Complain about this comment
I think it's fair to say that Obama and his advisers are concerned with certain factions within the British government. Those who supported and enabled the Bush led invasion of Iraq for dubious reasons naturally aren't considered trustworthy partners. There are times when friends should say NO to dangerous schemes, regardless of the consequences. Obama never supported the Iraq war, so he cannot be blamed for looking askance when required to work with those who made certain it happened.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, then obama should start looking for those people who supported bush for dubious reasons within his own party first, Starting from his sec of state Hilary clinton..His party supported the iraq invasion, his sec of state's husband created the Regime change in iraq law..
Complain about this comment
Israel does not use terror as a policy. Give me one example since 1973 where Israel has targeted a civilian group with first being attacked. As stated before if they used the amount of force they should have Beruit would be a crater. Since Lebanon was given sanctuary in violation of an agreement to Hezbollah, Israel could have targed the entire goverment
Sorry you are against Jews defending themselves you can sugarcoat it anyway you want.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would have, should have..stop creating scenaorios and discussing them as if they are reality. The jews are defending occupation. And if you and yours were so supportive of jews defending themselves, they would not have been killed in europe. First the west allowed them to die in their backyard, and now they become their champion defenders..Its like americans using the atom bombs and now they want the world to be nuclear free..
Complain about this comment
#63 MagicKirin
It doesn't matter whether you were attacked first what matters is disproportionate use of force. The Palestinians kill one Israeli, the Israelis kill 300 Palestinians, not once but time and time again. Whole towns get flattened, not to mention the outright theft of Palestinian lands and property. The whole idea that because you might have had ancestors that lived somewhere 2000 years ago you have the right to live there now is a farce.
Complain about this comment
#32. T1m0thy: "David_Cunard: I think you have been watching too much Fox News. While the young people involved in the bombing attempts were indeed British Nationals the majority had been trained in Pakistani Madrassas."
Regardless of what channel I watch for news reporting (and it isn't Fox) it is an inescapable fact that the perpetrators were British Citizens. Where they were trained is immaterial - Werner von Braun (the "father" of American rocketry) was trained in Nazi Germany, nevertheless he worked successfully in the United States. Suggesting that where someone was trained is a very poor excuse for reprehensible behaviour. I'm surprised that anyone would excuse it.
Complain about this comment
64. At 9:29pm on 23 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
Well, then obama should start looking for those people who supported bush for dubious reasons within his own party first, Starting from his sec of state Hilary clinton..His party supported the iraq invasion, his sec of state's husband created the Regime change in iraq law..
Hillary Clinton was made Secretary of State for internal political reasons and has no actual power to make foreign policy. That is the President's job. She can only report and advise. Her opinions might not be in line with his, but Obama's policies must publicly be hers. Policies that her job requires that she carry out whether she agrees with them or not.
Also, a policy voted on by lawmakers, only so as to make it official US policy, does not make it a law requiring the government to take action. Every year the US Congress votes hundreds of bills into law which make absolutely no provision for carrying them out. Many of these Acts are toothless, momentary statements of opinion that lawmakers can take back to their constituents to "prove" they are actually doing something - when in reality they are doing nothing more than expressing sympathy so as to score political points. Bill Clinton's support and desire for regime change in Iraq was never going to be backed up by overt military action. The fact that no one here ever liked Saddam very much was simply the tool Bush used to foment his illegal war. The Iraq Liberation Act had absolutely nothing to do with what happened.
Complain about this comment
Lol @ the last part of the article. It is so true- better to have Obama take his time than Cheney doing decisive damage! I am so tired of hearing Cheney and former Bush officials make comments. Come on, guys, we voted you out of office, leave us alone!
I don't think Obama or Americans blame Britain. Most of us blame the Bush Administration. We were attacked, so everyone knew we were likely to go to war and many supported the war on terror. But the way Bush and his cronies went about the invasion was wrong and costly to American lives, as well as our economy and reputation for being one of the good guys. Pretty much, the Bush Administration went about all of this wrong. Was there anything Tony Blair could have done to stop Bush? Probably not. But it didn't make him any more popular to the Brits or Americanas.
I believe that the war on terror is worthwhile and well-needed, but the mismanagement of the war on terror is what went wrong- not our soldiers, who are so loyal, brave and true, but our leader in charge, Bush and his cronies, who took advantage of our country's best. Our citizens are hurting badly from the economy and other reasons now, all due to poor mismanagement and greed by Bush and his cronies.
I do think President Obama needs to show more respect and have greater appreciation for Great Britain and our other allies, who have joined us in war. We are all in this together. I know I appreciate our allies and their soldiers and I will not forget what they have done and are doing. I am just an average American, but I respect and admire G. Britain very much. And of course, we have more British judges on reality shows and actors on tv in the USA, than any other. In my high school, we played the Beatles, the Stones, and other British bands in marching band, as well as our American artists. There's Monty Python, James Bond, and so many other popular icons that are British. Our history and culture is wrapped up in one another. So Americans and Brits are very close in many ways. I hope that Obama does not take this bond for granted. However, the average American people, like myself, do not. We appreciate our Brits and our allies, we want to be a good source in the world, and we want to do more good than harm. We have made some mistakes, but we are trying to correct ourselves. It is never too late to give up and we still are riding high on hope and inspiration. Do not get down about Obama taking his time, because he just wants to think long and hard about making the best decision. It may prove to be the beginning of the end of this war. Let's give Obama a chance to prove himself to the world.
Long live Great Britain and the Queen!
God Bless America and her allies!
Complain about this comment
ref #65 and 66
I notice you can't mention an overt as opposed to a self dfense act.
The Plaestinians have no claim to the land they lost in a war of agression. Just like Mexico lost the Southwest to the U.S
When will you accept that Israel has the same rights as other countries. The Nbaka is a joke.
Complain about this comment
colonelartist wrote:
And if the moors had held to the power just a few months longer, Coloumbus would have "discovered" america under the flag ship of the moors. Just imagine how the world would be today, all those who died in heroshima, nagasaki, ww2, the jews in spain, koreans, vietnamise, the afghans in soviet war, the algerian after french didnt allow election result where islamic party won, palestinians, iraqis, afghans in present war, pakistanis in present war, would all be alive today.
_______________________________________--
Very unlikely since for the last 150-200 years the most intolerant of the three monothesiatic religions has been Islam. From the Ottoman Turk to the Grand Mufti to the Iranains Mullahs, Palestinians and Al Quada.
You compare that to the openess of the West no contest. Give one those groups the lead in Nuclear power none of us would be here.
Complain about this comment
The land the Jews are on is not occupied. It belongs to Israel, as it has been owned by them for over fifty years. I would call that ownership, not occupation.
Besides, what are the Palestinians and the Jewish people fighting about? Is it really the land? Or is simply religion? Who cares? Let the Jewish people keep their land and live happily in their Jewish state!
Besides, as for "disproportionate" use of weapons, how is it disproportionate? Israel was attacked by rockets and they fought back. Hamas had been firing at Israel for months and they got fed up with it. I know the USA wouldn't have waited that long, if someone had fired rockets that had hit our land or close by. We would immediatly go after them. Life is not fair. But if you don't like something, move on. Israel has every right to that land. It belongs to them and no one else.
Complain about this comment
#67 David_Cunard
I'm glad to hear that Fox isn't your news provider but I note that you have 'cherry picked' my comment. These young men were trained in Pakistan and they went there because they are disallusioned with British policies which are aligned with US policies and to their eyes completely one sided and hypocritical. This process has to stop, we have to have a more balanced policy towards the Middle East or we are going to have more young men being preyed upon by unscrupulous fanatics.
Which ever way you like to look at it there are over 1.5 billion Muslims in this world and you can't blow them all up, put them all in prison, or keep ignoring their very real complaints. Ignore them and you will drive the young and impressionable into the clutches of the fanatics which is exactly what is happening.
Complain about this comment
You must understand that Mr. Obama habitually blames everyone but himself,
regardless of the subject. He is a product of the city of Chicago. An excellent
article in The Wall Street Journal of Friday, October 23, explains the concept in
succinct language. It appears on Page A19 and is entitled The Chicago Way.
Old-gorm
Complain about this comment
Whoops, I meant it is never too late and we should not give up. Just rushed typing. But that is what I meant. I did not mean to write our Brits, but rather the Brits.
Complain about this comment
#63 MagicKirin
"It doesn't matter whether you were attacked first what matters is disproportionate use of force."
What utter rubbish. Disproportionate use of force is an invention of politicians and moral theorists, it has no place in war. Would you have had Eisenhower limit the D-Day invasion forces to match the military capacity of the defenders in order to be proportionate? Of course not, the very idea is silly. What is Israel supposed to do when rocketed, make up a few innacurate homemade rockets of their own and launch them at Gaza? I suppose you think the U.S. should fight Al Qaeda by hijacking airliners and recruiting suicide bombers?
Complain about this comment
I think we are missing Justin Webb's understanding of America right now.
Mark like many BBC employees views the world in a Bush-centric, Euro-cetric way. All faults/problems are due to him - even the behavior of thier favorite Obama.
Obama is not showing leadership because there is a conflict between what his left wing wants, what his generals want, what he promised during the election.
The results of the run off election in Afganistan give him some excuss one way or the other. His hemming and hawing have everything to do with this and nothing to do with Tony Blair or anything Britain has done.
If there is a distrust of Britian it has to do with Lockerbee as opposed to anything Bush/Blair have done
Finally Obama is a classic liberal, and as such does not subscribe to the idea that old European allies are more important or significant than any other nation from South America, Asia or Africa. An opinion I disagree with.
Complain about this comment
#71 & 72
Just because you stole something doesn't make it yours. Moving half a million Russian Jews into Israel under the so called 'right to return policy' is just theft, plain and simple. You can try to dress it up anyway you like but it's theft and all will end in tears.
Israel is in breach of so many UN resolutions it's black comedy and just remember the US used Saddam's breach of one US resolution to invade Iraq. Two faced or what?
Complain about this comment
ref #73 Which ever way you like to look at it there are over 1.5 billion Muslims in this world and you can't blow them all up, put them all in prison, or keep ignoring their very real complaints. Ignore them and you will drive the young and impressionable into the clutches of the fanatics which is exactly what is happening.
___________________________________
There is a difference between ignoring and not giving into unreasonable demands.
Freedom of speech is more important than hurting moslem's feelings, Israel making all the concessions is unreasonable, showing any respect for Sharia law is stupid.
Many in the Molsems world have to join us in the modern era.
Complain about this comment
#76 Scott0962
No, what Israel is supposed to do is obey the UN resolutions, stop building settlements on land that is not Israel's and reach a just settlement. They don't want to do that because their project is to seize all that land for themselves. You only have to listen to the latest little thug that is their current foreign minister to work that one out.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Hillary Clinton was made Secretary of State for internal political reasons and has no actual power to make foreign policy. That is the President's job. She can only report and advise. Her opinions might not be in line with his, but Obama's policies must publicly be hers. Policies that her job requires that she carry out whether she agrees with them or not.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not interested in hilary's job description. My point was, which went right above your head, that obama should first look into his own party including hilary for supporting bush, and then venture out to blame the allies.Bush first had to vow his own country's leaders for the war, and only then could he go out looking for support from britian..And the democrats made bush's job very easy.Everything is stored on the net, the past is just a click away, you can watch the pre-war interviews and statements of the democrats..they voted for the war..
Complain about this comment
ref #80
T1m0thy wrote:
#76 Scott0962
No, what Israel is supposed to do is obey the UN resolutions, stop building settlements on land that is not Israel's and reach a just settlement. They don't want to do that because their project is to seize all that land for themselves. You only have to listen to the latest little thug that is their current foreign minister to work that one out.
__________________________________-
The U.N has no moral authority to obey the U.N. The U.N proven is its duplicity with their peace keepers sheild Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Palestinians in Gaza. The U.N needs to cleans it own house first.
Kofi Annan belongs in the dock in the Hauge, for his complicity in the rape of woman and children in Darfur.
Complain about this comment
#79 MagicKirin
"Israel making all the concessions is unreasonable"
Israel has never made any concessions all the Israelis have done is build more and more illegal settlements and import more and more people.
As for Sharia law I agree it's rubbish, but there again in my opinion the extreme Jewish orthodox law and it's adherents are no different.
Complain about this comment
#73. T1m0thy: "#67 David_Cunard "These young men were trained in Pakistan and they went there because they are disallusioned with British policies which are aligned with US policies and to their eyes completely one sided and hypocritical."
There are many who felt the same about about Mr Blair and his government, but they didn't all decide to blow up their fellow citizens. There are other ways to change policy - you're nothing but an apologist for the lowest form of political expression.
Complain about this comment
Very unlikely since for the last 150-200 years the most intolerant of the three monothesiatic religions has been Islam. From the Ottoman Turk to the Grand Mufti to the Iranains Mullahs, Palestinians and Al Quada.
You compare that to the openess of the West no contest. Give one those groups the lead in Nuclear power none of us would be here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Moors had hung on to spain, they would be in usa today, people would be speaking arabic and spanish, noone had developed atom bomb, and no one would be going after countries using them as an excuse..Instead of those twin towers, they would have built another Al-hambra.
The contest has already been won by usa 60 yrs ago, no one can break that record. USA will always be remembered in this history, as the only country to use that weapon..You cannot be against atom weapons without being against the country which used it..
Complain about this comment
Many in the Molsems world have to join us in the modern era.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who will join which era, time will tell..Muslims have so far managed to show how corrupt democracy is..They have managed to show you how hollow demoracy is..the system which you wanted them to adopt..You are forced to make a mockery of your own system, and in defence you have really pathetic excuse that western democracy cannot work in muslim countries...which is actually truth, because only in the west corrupt system can flourish..
Complain about this comment
There are other ways to change policy - you're nothing but an apologist for the lowest form of political expression.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there was any other way, everyone would have been using it by now.Britian went to war against afghanistan for no national reason..It could have stayed away from both iraq and afghanistan war and used those other ways to make saddam and taliban change their policies.
Complain about this comment
#34 - You might want to read the Nato treaty a bit more closely.
Artilce 5 - "[...]will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."
No member is required to use military force in helping to defend the one attacked, only such action as it deems necessary, including (but not requiring) the use of armed force. If Germany considers that policing and training is what is deemed necessary (certainly consistent with the stated goal of the USA) then they are acting within the bounds of the treaty.
It is not 'convenient' for them to 'hide' behind their constitution. Most people in the USA hold their consitution to be pretty important and something that your president swears to defend, so don't go knocking those who also hold true to their constitution.
That said I do believe that Nato should be disbanded. Not based on some Us/Eu bashing, but it is, as you say, a treaty that has passed its sell by date in terms of the geo-politics. If their is a desire to have some treaty then start from scratch again.
Article 1 is an interesting one as well.
"The Parties undertake[..]to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
mmm.
Complain about this comment
T1m0thy wrote:
#79 MagicKirin
"Israel making all the concessions is unreasonable"
Israel has never made any concessions all the Israelis have done is build more and more illegal settlements and import more and more people.
As for Sharia law I agree it's rubbish, but there again in my opinion the extreme Jewish orthodox law and it's adherents are no different
______________________________
Shows how little you know widthdrawing from Sinai and Gaza? What concession have the Saudis or the Palestininans or Lebanese made. Naztallah should have been turned over to Israel.
I am no defender of Israel orthodoxy on religous and cultural matters, but a woman can wear a bikini in Israel and talk back instead of being stoned under Sharia law.
Complain about this comment
Israel making all the concessions is unreasonable, showing any respect for Sharia law is stupid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupation is unreasonable, and goes against your law of freedom of speech..You cannot support occupation and talk about freedom of speech..No one is asking you to show respect to Sharia law, that one, the muslims know is beyond your means.. muslims are not going from state to state to impose sharia laws on to the non muslim countries..Its you who are forcing your system on to them. They in return by accepting your system has shown you how corrupt it is..
Complain about this comment
86. At 11:25pm on 23 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
USA will always be remembered in this history, as the only country to use that weapon..You cannot be against atom weapons without being against the country which used it.
And in using those weapons stopped a war that would have lasted another ten years, required an invasion of the Japanese islands and cost millions more lives, both American and Japanese. The Japanese may be upset that the bombings happened, but they also understand why the bombs were used. And most will agree they needed to be stopped before their military regime did what it intended. Which was: in the case of invasion to fight to the very last man, woman and child and leave none of their own people alive if they failed.
By the way, you have a great imagination. I ought to write an alternative history fantasy novel about how the world might be if the Moors dominated the world. I'll especially enjoy writing the part where they never managed to make it across either the Atlantic or the Pacific - because they had no interest in exploration. Ever. Kind of hard to row across the ocean when your sailors are all slaves chained to their oars and it takes more than a whip to make a man sail into the unknown. Besides, the Moors had their overland trade routes for the silk and tea trades. Columbus went searching for a way around the Moors, which they would never have needed to do - and of which they certainly would never have thought.
Complain about this comment
ref #86
The contest has already been won by usa 60 yrs ago, no one can break that record. USA will always be remembered in this history, as the only country to use that weapon..You cannot be against atom weapons without being against the country which used it..
____________________________--
Yes and that ended WW2 and a conventional war would have cost many more Japenese lives.
The U.S has nothing to apolgize for then nor for being the honest broker countering U.N corruption around the world.
Complain about this comment
And in using those weapons stopped a war that would have lasted another ten years,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So if those weapons are so good at stopping war, why be against them...everyone should have such war-stopping weapons. it must be quite humiliating for the american adminstration to listen to the "islamic terrorist" saying that he is against nuclear weapons because of the destruction they caused in heroshima and nagasaki.
Moors would not have to sail themselves, Mr columbus was enough..Instead of asking Isebella, he would have asked the Moors, and had written about el chico in his diairo..The year fernado defeated the last ruler of the moors 1492,a few months later columbus discovered america... the defeated el chico, besides doing an ultimo suspiro and being scolded by his mother, for crying like a woman when he couldnt defend his empire like a man, had asked one another thing. that fernado the christian ruler would not percecute the muslims and the jews.Yes, the world would have been a better place if El zogoybi had just hung on to power a few more months.
Complain about this comment
Yes and that ended WW2 and a conventional war would have cost many more Japenese lives.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many more japanese lives did those two atom bombs saved? And if atom bombs saves lives, you should in that case, be delighted at the thought of terrorists getting hold of it, instead of getting anxious. As they too would save lives..Why deny them the chance of saving lives?
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
El ultimo suspiro del colonelartist. is all I can do. My comment refered to the moderators was in reply to the following part of your post,G- laPoste,
By the way, you have a great imagination. I ought to write an alternative history fantasy novel about how the world might be if the Moors dominated the world. I'll especially enjoy writing the part where they never managed to make it across either the Atlantic or the Pacific - because they had no interest in exploration. Ever. Kind of hard to row across the ocean when your sailors are all slaves chained to their oars and it takes more than a whip to make a man sail into the unknown. Besides, the Moors had their overland trade routes for the silk and tea trades. Columbus went searching for a way around the Moors, which they would never have needed to do - and of which they certainly would never have thought.
Complain about this comment
ref #95How many more japanese lives did those two atom bombs saved? And if atom bombs saves lives, you should in that case, be delighted at the thought of terrorists getting hold of it, instead of getting anxious. As they too would save lives..Why deny them the chance of saving lives?
___________________-
Ah Moral equvilency. The terrorists and Iranians are not the equal of responsible countries like the U.S, U.K and Israel. The fact that you even suggest that means you really don't understand the threat of islamic terrorism.
Complain about this comment
ref #91
Untill the Palestinians prove they can be trusted, ocupation and their discomfort is necessary rather than Israel's destruction.
to be totally cold hearted Israel is more important than Palestinians who have no desire for peace.
Complain about this comment
Ah Moral equvilency. The terrorists and Iranians are not the equal of responsible countries like the U.S, U.K and Israel. The fact that you even suggest that means you really don't understand the threat of islamic terrorism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and usa, which used the weapons, is a resonsible country? Between the two evils, ones who just threat without having atom bombs, and the other who has it and has used it, I feel comfortable with choosing the lesser of the two. You can choose to support the one which saved lives by using it.
Complain about this comment
I hate to burst your balloon, but people in Britain are being horribly egocentric if they think that anyone in the US blames the Brits for being too loyal to the insanity of the Bush-Cheney regime. They did the whole thing. The only thing that Tony Blair did was to follow them off the cliff.
Complain about this comment
storeylf (#89) has selectively quoted Article 1 of the NATO treaty. Here is the entire article:
"Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
This refers to "international dispute(s)" between parties to the treaty. Have there been any disputes between NATO members which were not resolved by "peaceful means"? Have Canada and Denmark exchanged any fire over Hans Island, for example?
Another interesting article is:
"Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
..."
Complain about this comment
100. At 02:38am on 24 Oct 2009, karenykarl wrote:
The only thing that Tony Blair did was to follow them off the cliff.
He didn't just follow, he conspired, aided and abetted.
Complain about this comment
Is it only me I wonder? I find this need for haste excessive and foolish. The conflict in Afghanistan has been going on, as someone has already remarked, for longer than WW2. There are two significant events unfolding (Pakistan Taliban offensive, Afghan election rerun) while Obama and his team mull over the choices and, more importantly, the consquences. Surely after the disastrous rushed decisions of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld et al the last thing we need is yet another mad rush followed by yet another expensive (money and lives) failure.
Let's not forget that it was Bush and Cheney who decided to invade Iraq when the job was unfinished in Afghanistan and we are now living with the results. With reference to those of the 'let's bomb them to hell brigade' I would point out that it hasn't worked so far and given the terrain won't work. I would also point out that the preceeding administration left an economic and social legacy for Obama which seriously constrains his actions.
While Cheney is ranting about lack of decision let's remember where his decisiveness got us in the first place.
Complain about this comment
#91 Colonel
Occupation is unreasonable, and goes against your law of freedom of speech. You cannot support occupation and talk about freedom of speech.
Not only that but they also condemn terrorism on one side and condone State terror from the other! But what did we expect from a bunch of Europeans? Even-handedness? Good-will?
Complain about this comment
Ref 103, T1m0thy
"Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld et al the last thing we need is yet another mad rush followed by yet another expensive (money and lives) failure."
I agree with everything you said, but would add that the consequences of remaining in Afghanistan and Iraq indefinitely and escalating conflicts would exacerbate the problems we have in that part of the world as it would cause more anti-Western sentiments and would reinforce the determination of the native population to resist the occupation of their countries.
I don't buy the excuse that our presence in those countries is a vital element in fighting terrorism and that if we leave terrorist organization will once again be able to regroup and plan new attacks against us. If that is what they want to do they can do it easily in Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Indonesia and many other countries that are fertile ground for anti-Western activities.
Instead of criticizing President Obama for delaying a decision on further troop increases, after he increased them by 30,000 troops a few months ago, Mr. Cheney should explain why he and his boss neglected that theater of operation for years and why they allowed Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants to operate with impunity throughout the Persian Gulf region. Looks to me like nothing more than CYA and a bit of political opportunism mixed with intense hatred towards those who have accomplished more in 9 months than the previous pathetic adminitration did in 8 years.
Complain about this comment
#101
"Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
This refers to "international dispute(s)" between parties to the treaty.
==========
Eh? It says "any international dispute" which they may be "involved" in, and not just any dispute bewteen themselves.
NATO was a defensive treaty, Article 1 is setting up the rules to avoid NATO becoming an offensive treaty. E.g. (to use a current situation) the USA attacks Iran without UN involvement and then when Iran defends itself by attacking back the US goes and calls on its allies. Article 1 provides the 'get out' for such a situation - If you go unilateral, then you are on your own as far as the treaty is concerned.
Complain about this comment
#101
"Another interesting article is:
"Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
..."
Which I also quoted the relevant bit. It is pretty clear that no NATO member is actually obligated to use armed force, only that they come to the assistance of the others in a way deemed necessary by that member. The article allows the use of force as a possiblity not a requirement. Given the stated goal of NATO is to stabilise Afganistan, training, govt support etc then it seems reasonable that any member may deem it appropiate to engage in that activity only, rather than get into complicated political and legal issues regarding their national consitution. I have no doubt that if the USA was called upon to fulfill some treaty obligation that was both constitutionally dubious and not popular at home then they would not go trying to ignore nor change their constitution either.
Like many in the UK, I sort of supported the Afgan attack early on, though knowledge of US history and Afgan history led me to expect us to get into the position we now find ourselves. I considered the arguments put forward by some in America supporting the afgan attack as hypocrisy though. The UK had long suffered IRA terrorist attacks that were funded, supported, and in some cases trained in the USA. I don't remember us trying to invoke NATO on the basis that the USA was attacking us.
NATO no longer has a reason for being, or if it does then it needs scrapping and renegotiating to account for todays politics. I have no doubt that its members would be more than willing to fully engage against the situation it was initially conceived for. Trying to invoke it for things that were not expected or for unilateralists to call upon it in controversial circumstances simply strains relations in unnecessary ways. The USA and the EU are fundamentally friendly, but we don't see eye to eye on everything. Far better to gracefully accept what assistance you will get rather than push each other apart, you never know when you might really need help and find that you can't get it because of past pettiness. The Bush administration wasn't capable of grasping that, I hope and believe that Obama's does.
Complain about this comment
T-Mouth;
""they will have an opportunity to test whether they are a real union or if ancient hatreds that almost boiled over in 1999 when they nearly refought WWI over Kosovo are still alive."
I must have been living on another planet. Europe or the European states nearly fought a war over Kosovo? Marcus you are on that weed again."
Yes you must have been on another planet. Turkey and Greece were about to go to war over Kosovo to refight their ancient animosities that were manifested in WWI with the weapons the US thoughtfully provided them to fight the USSR in WWIII. How would this have spread to all of Europe? How did the assassination of an Archduke in the Balkins lead to Britain becoming involved in a Battle in Turkey at Gallipoli or Britain and Germany fighting an endless trench war that consumed an entire generation of their young men in the fields of France? This is typical of the Byzantine maze of European intrigues, politics and ancient hatreds President Washington warned his countrymen against getting involved in, and they heeded that warning until the fool Woodrow Wilson thought he was smarter. America has paid dearly for his stupidity ever since. The causes of WWI were never resolved, the war merely ended when all sides were too exhausted to go on fighting. 75 years later they were sufficiently recovered to take up right where they had left off in 1918. That's how it's been in Europe for over 1000 years except during the pax Americana there.
"As far as NATO is concerned maybe the US should withdraw and then we can use NATO as the base for the EU defence network although our good friends the Canadians would need to be consulted."
Yes, why don't you Europeans defend yourselves now that you are so rich? Why should Canada care about defending Europe any more than the US does? They have their own problems and they are separated from Europe by a 3000 mile wide ocean just the way the US is. Besides, Canada's security problems are of its own making by allowing anyone and everyone who claims political asylum into their country including terrorists. Lucky for them that for the most part, Canada is merely a conduit for terrorists wanting to attack the US.
"Whilst I do concede you were indeed attacked, have you not thought that maybe the attacks were on the US because it continually supports Israel no matter what atrocity the Israelis inflict on the poor Palestinians?"
First of all, that is a lie. Osama Bin Laden said himself that the reason he attacked the US was that American troops were on sacred Islamic soil in Sauid Arabia, there to protect Europe's oil supply from control of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. America's oil come from Nigeria, Venezuela, Mexico, very little from the Middle East. Any comments he made about Israel came much later. Your statement demonstrates the unabated irrational hatred of Jews Europeans have had for a thousand years and scapegoating them for every problem in the world. It culminated in the genocide whose goal was to kill every Jew in Europe. I didn't read any accounts of how other European nations were up in arms as Nazi Germany clearly headed towards this goal from 1933 to 1939 before WWII broke out. I'm sure many Europeans would not shed a tear if the Islamic world "erased Israel from the map." Personally I would not shed a tear if Europe were erased from the map. I don't see that its continued existance is of any benefit to me or that its non existance would be of any detriment to the quality of my life. It would however be a lot quieter without it.
"In the meantime I, for one, am glad to see an American president taking some time to formulate a policy, if that includes pulling out of NATO then so be it. You need the money to rebuild your infrastructure and provide your citizens with decent healthcare."
That is correct. I'd much rather see my tax dollers spent to keep Americans healthy than to continue being wasted keeping Europeans safe.
Complain about this comment
#107 storeylf
Could not agree more with your overall analysis. Nato need either scrapping or completely revamping. The interesting thing is that many of the US generals over the years have been repeating time and again that what was needed was more hearts and minds and less bombs but the Bush/Cheney axis took no notice. Thanks for the efforts in research I never have the time.
Complain about this comment
#108 MAII
"America's oil come from Nigeria, Venezuela, Mexico, very little from the Middle East."
You have made this statement twice before and on both times I have corrected you. You are wrong wrong wrong. According to your own Government's Energy Information Administration your second largest source of oil after Canada was Saudi Arabia and the last time I looked Saudi was indeed in the Middle East. Get a grip MAII and stop repeating rubbish.
Re Israel and Jews. I notice that you, like MagicKirin, are unable to differentiate between persons wwho hold to the Jewish religion and persons living and having the nationality of Israeli. My comments relate to Israel not Jews and I would add that I have several Jewish friends whose views on Israeli behaviour are a lot closer to my view than yours.
Stop trying to shoot the messenger, read the message.
Complain about this comment
ref #108 and 110
Well I have read your statement and you are simply wrong. The Israelis have not commited any atrocities against the Palestinians in fact have been too easy on their terrorism.
You have failed to acknowledge that Israel is being asked to make a sacrifice to peoiple who don't deserve it.
An undeniable fact is for the Palestinians to be given more land means that Israel has to sacrfice. Why should they? Let the current borders stand which is far more reasonable than going back to 67. Let Jordan which is the state the Palestinians were suppose to have take them in.
Complain about this comment
#111 MagicKirin
So we now finally have the truth and that is, that you 'MagicKirin' approve of theft. Israel has been in the process of stealing Palestinian land for the last thirty years importing Jews from all over the world and stealing land to build houses for them. Well at least we now know that to you theft is acceptable as long as it's carried out by Israelis.
Complain about this comment
#88. colonelartist:
There are other ways to change policy - you're nothing but an apologist for the lowest form of political expression.
"If there was any other way, everyone would have been using it by now.Britian went to war against afghanistan for no national reason."
You mean that everyone would attempt to blow each other up? Domestic terrorism doesn't achieve anything, and that's what T1m0thy was excusing. You need to read the two posts again.
#110. T1m0thy: "America's oil come from Nigeria, Venezuela, Mexico, very little from the Middle East."
"You (MAII) have made this statement twice before and on both times I have corrected you. You are wrong wrong wrong. According to your own Government's Energy Information Administration your second largest source of oil after Canada was Saudi Arabia and the last time I looked Saudi was indeed in the Middle East. Get a grip MAII and stop repeating rubbish."
Get a grip yourself! Marcus is absolutely correct - the figures show that while Saudi Arabia does supply 11.8% of the oil imported by the United States, 43.3% (almost four times as much) comes from other countries: Canada (19.3%), Mexico (10.1%), Venezuela (9.2%), Nigeria (7.7%). The veracity of this may be checked here.
It's you who is wrong, wrong, wrong: stop repeating the rubbish you write.
Complain about this comment
Well I have read your statement and you are simply wrong. The Israelis have not commited any atrocities against the Palestinians in fact have been too easy on their terrorism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupation. Thats the biggest atrocity. The so called terrorism emerged as a result of this occupation.
Complain about this comment
ref #112
T1m0thy wrote:
#111 MagicKirin
So we now finally have the truth and that is, that you 'MagicKirin' approve of theft. Israel has been in the process of stealing Palestinian land for the last thirty years importing Jews from all over the world and stealing land to build houses for them. Well at least we now know that to you theft is acceptable as long as it's carried out by Israelis.
______________________________
It was never the Palestinians, they claim land that was Israels and as I have stated and you refuse to acknooledge the loser in a war of agression does not dictate term. The Arab states lost in 67. There is no theft it was never theirs. That is a lie.
ref #114
rOccupation. Thats the biggest atrocity. The so called terrorism emerged as a result of this occupation.
__________________--
No the Arab states including the Palestinians were attack Israel since 48 get your history straight. If the Arab nations heeded Israel's and the world overtures in 67 there was a chance for peace. But the Arabs refused and still refuse to treat non Arabs in the middle East as equals.
So Palestinians look into the mirror and at your Arab brothers for your suffering.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Mardell quoted, “The argument I have heard goes like this: the one man in the entire world who could have stopped the war by withdrawing his support was former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.”
While an interesting view, I don’t think it is at all likely that either President Cheney or his puppet would have paid attention to anyone who disagreed, or who threatened not to support them. It may be true that they wanted political cover for their actions, but they did not need it. First because the U.S. possesses sufficient military power not to need any support other than that of a majority of U.S. citizens. Second because a large segment of the population was either right wing enough, deluded enough or at least willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt after 9/11.
It has been noted that Americans respect their government and officials more, are more patriotic, are more religious, and are more naïve, and less well educated than citizens of most advanced countries. The Bush regime capitalized on these “strengths” even more than on the support of a trusted ally.
I recall statements made by P.M. Blair that seemed more cautious without directly calling into question the views of the U.S. administration. There is, however, ample reason for allies to fear being “damned if they do and damned if they don’t” when dealing with a very powerful and headstrong U.S. regime.
Complain about this comment
#113 David_Cunard
Oh ho ho touchy. Since when does being the US second largest oil supplier be just immaterial. The US could ill afford to lose that.
Second point, I was not excusing terrorism, domestic or otherwise, don't put words into my mouth. I was simply pointing out that time and time again Israel and the West's two faced behaviour when dealing with that country comes up as a prime reason why young impressionable muslims take to terrorism. That is not condoning terrorism it is suggesting that maybe we should face the consequences of our own actions and modify our behaviour accordingly.
When Israel develops a nuclear bomb we do nothing, when we think the Iranians might be just possibly be capable of doing that in the next five to ten years we start screaming blue murder.
A UN commissioned highly respected judge states categorically that the Israeli military committed war crimes in Gaza and the US votes the report down in the Security Council. The Israelis build settlements all over lands that they have occupied in complete defiance of UN resolutions we wring our hands but do nothing. These are just a few of thousands of examples.
I repeat stop shooting at the messenger, read the message,
Complain about this comment
"Whilst I do concede you were indeed attacked, have you not thought that maybe the attacks were on the US because it continually supports Israel no matter what atrocity the Israelis inflict on the poor Palestinians?"
If I remember correctly the justification used by Osama bin Laden for the 9/11 attack was our military presence in Saudi Arabia. Islamic fundamentalists, particularly the Wahhabists, were determined to expel the "infidels" from the Holy Land. In fact, most Saudis were offended by their government's decision to allow US personnel near Mecca and Medina.
Interestingly, they achieved their goal when the Bush Administration decided to withdraw the 7,000 troops we had in that country in 2003, using the pretext that our "victory" in Iraq had stabilized the region and that Saudi Arabia no longer needed our assistance to repel the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
Complain about this comment
#117. T1m0thy: "David_Cunard: Oh ho ho touchy. Since when does being the US second largest oil supplier be just immaterial. The US could ill afford to lose that."
That's as may be (and I did not suggest it was "immaterial") but you categorically contradicted Marcus' statement that most imported oil into the USA comes from other than the Middle East. You are plainly wrong and he is correct. If a response was necessary, it would have been more gracious to reply "I stand corrected", but grace appears not to be one of your strong points.
"I was not excusing terrorism, domestic or otherwise"
You suggested that it was acceptable for young British Citizens to train elsewhere and then return to their native country in order to terrorize their fellow men. I made no mention of Israel; indeed, knowing of the volatility of that subject on this blog, it is not a nation I would mention.
Complain about this comment
The whole Israeli-Palestini conflict is ridiculous. This is not occupation or theft, it is ownership. Israel has owned that land for over fifty years. If it was yesterday, that would be one thing, but this land has belonged to them for long enough that they own it now, plain and simple. It's like how the USA owns Texas, taken from the Mexicans years ago. Although there are many Hispanics that live there, it belongs to us. If the UN wants Israel to give up the land to Palestine, then the UN must also ask the USA to give up Texas and parts of the Southwest and for China to give up Tibet. For that matter, the UN would also have to ask Russia to give up parts of land they fought for long ago, as well. So you see, if you ask Israel to give up land to Palestine, you must also ask USA, China and Russia to give up parts of their land. Do the Palestinians really feel like battling the world's three biggest nuclear/military powers?
Anti-Semantism is sad, as it is modern day racism. These people have only hatred in their hearts. You would think after the Holocaust, people would be more sympathetic to the Jewish people, but some people will always have racist hatred, which is what anti-Sematism is. Even Iran's leader denies the Holocaust, which discredits him from any intellectuality and integrity. Let Israel be! Give them a break for once! They are good people and we should have love in our hearts for them and all the world, not discriminate against them due to religious or racist reasons. Palestine has their land to live on and Israel has theirs. We should all leave it at that and the UN should not get involved. If the UN does ask Israel to give up their land, Israel has the right to ask the USA, China and Russia to give up parts of their land, as well. After all, that would only be "fair."
But who said life is fair, anyway?
As for Obama reaching out to the Muslim world, it's pretty sad and a joke. Most average American people are not friendly with the Muslims right now, due to so many Islamic terrorists. Yes, we know Muslims are not all terrorists and other races can be terrorists, but there have been so many cases lately of Islamic extremism that most average Americans are not feeling very friendly or trustworthy. The United States of America is not Muslim-friendly, even if our President claims we are. He is lying through his teeth on that one. The United States of America is Israel friendly, although we are against Israel using force against other countries, unless Israel is defending itself or being attacked. In the most recent case, Israel had rockets fired at them from a terrorist organization which Palestine supports for months. Therefore, Israel has every right to use force against Palestine, as long as Palestine is attacking them. If Palestine stops attacking them and firing rockets, then Israel should stop as well. But you fire rockets that hit another country's land, you better expect a war. The Palestinian people clearly asked for it, as they support terrorist organization Hamas. If you want someone to blame for the civilian deaths, it is Hamas, who puts their civilians in danger on purpose. They are the real villains. In my eyes, Israel is a hero.
Complain about this comment
107. At 2:08pm on 24 Oct 2009, storeylf wrote:
#101
“The UK had long suffered IRA terrorist attacks that were funded, supported, and in some cases trained in the USA. I don't remember us trying to invoke NATO on the basis that the USA was attacking us.”
These situations are quite different. The US government and at least the Massachusetts and local governments here did attempt to prevent weapons getting to the IRA. They found and confiscated a weapons cache across the street from my family residence in the 60’s or 70’s. Note that MA is the most Irish and Catholic of the 50 states. My [Irish-American] family was horrified and did not support what the other [Irish-American] family was up to. You could make a case that individuals or groups used the US as the Taleban used Afghanistan, but unlike the Taleban government the governments here neither promoted nor protected the IRA terrorists.
Complain about this comment
I love the Israeli people, even if they are mixed with Russians, ect. or whatnot. After all, the USA is mixed, too. We have a little bit of everything. Even our President Barack Obama is half white and half black. You don't get more mixed than that. What other country can you say that for? And we love him, some for race, some not for race, even if many of us do not agree with his "Oh, we're friendly with Muslims speech," which is totally not true. Many of us are suspicious. We do not believe in violence, but suspician is natural, considering all the Islamic terrorist circumstances. But who cares if the Israeli people are mixed or not? That is racism in itself. And you can't blame the children, they did not choose it, the parents did. So no one should pick on the Israelis if they have mixed race and no one should pick on us for President Obama being of mixed race, like that "tanned" comment, Bersulini made. So what if a person is mixed or if a person is of one color? Let them be!
Complain about this comment
T-mouth;
"My comments relate to Israel not Jews and I would add that I have several Jewish friends whose views on Israeli behaviour are a lot closer to my view than yours."
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, some of my best friends are Jews, we've heard that a million times before. Self hating Jews who feel guilty that they are even alive is nothing new. Reality, Israel has been remarkably retstrained compared to how say Russia would have reacted if it were under comparable perpetual attack for 60 years. This is why Americans for the most part are 100% behind Israel and support it wholeheartedly. But don't take my word for it, just look in BBC's archives for their Owen Bennet-Jones' interview with Sir Christopher Meyers who was the UK's Ambassador to the US for over 5 years. According to him, the US is closer to Israel than to any other country including the UK. Having to choose between them, I would as I think most of my fellow American would support Israel in preference to supporting the UK.
Complain about this comment
120. At 5:21pm on 24 Oct 2009, Illinoisan wrote:
“The whole Israeli-Palestini conflict is ridiculous. This is not occupation or theft, it is ownership. Israel has owned that land for over fifty years. If it was yesterday, that would be one thing, but this land has belonged to them for long enough that they own it now, plain and simple.”
While you have a point when considering the land purchased from Turks [who were not the residents and who owned it via military conquest] by immigrants to Palestine 50 years ago, this doesn’t justify continued expansion by force in recent years. You do know that the “protective wall” was not built on land already “owned” but on Palestinian land seized for the purpose. One presumes that you also know that the UN recognized the original land of the modern State of Israel, but has condemned subsequent seizures. You should also know that international law, since before the establishment of Israel, has stated that military occupation does not give the occupier ownership of land seized. Israel has no more right to seized land than Saddam Hussein had to Kuwait or parts of Saudi Arabia.
You sound like a “patriotic American.” Do you know what the Israelis did to the USS Liberty? Do you know that they even machine-gunned US sailors struggling in the water after their deliberate attack? The Israeli government has shown almost no respect for its “friend-ally-protector,” for international law, nor for the rights of anyone else. I stopped being a supporter of the Israeli government when these things became apparent.
I couldn’t support the Palestinian terrorist organizations, however, because they are even worse. This leaves me forced to defend the Israeli people whilst despising their government.
Complain about this comment
#122 Illinoisan
If you feel so strongly that the Jewish people should have their own state why don't you the people of the US give them some of your land? Maybe in Iliinois? After all you have plenty of space. Why should the Palestinians who did not in anyway have anything to do with the holocaust have to give up their land to assuage American and European guilt?
I agree with you, the holocaust was an almost unspeakable evil act but why should the Palestinians pay for it?
I found your argument that fifty years have past and that the Palestinians will just have to accept the situation both unpleasant and ingenuous. Unpleasant because it states that the use of violence and theft is to be rewarded, ingenuous because you actually believe that the Palestinians are going to go away and let the whole thing drop.
Complain about this comment
It's a tragedy the Blair government toadied along with the Bush regime & invaded Iraq. However, post 911 it was Bush's 'you're either with us or against us' that was the subtext. Under such a sub-text you can bet, your bottom dollar, strong-arm tactics ensued.
The 'special relationship' still existed; GB had not paid off to the US the WWII debt. Now, might we suppose there's even more of a subtext to Blair joining forces with Bush? There's, to my mind, always been a feeling of blood money involved. The question is, what was the real deal? To suppose that countries up and join forces for no thing is asinine. There's always an incentive and I doubt whether we'll ever know what was actually placed on the table. This was the illegal invasion of Iraq not Afghanistan. So now apparently we're all champing at the bit for US leadership in Afghanistan? When they should have concentrated on this in the first place? I well understand US hesitancy now... Because they're several years behind the ballgame now in Afghanistan. If Bush had focused on this what would be the effects now?
Complain about this comment
Believe me, we have lots of Jewish people living in Illinois, especially Russian-Jewish people.
But the point is, the land belongs to Israel. As I said, if you want Israel to give up part of their land, you must also ask USA, Russia and China to give up part of their land. Do you or Palestine really feel like picking a fight with USA, Russia and China? What makes Israel any better or worse than these countries, who also own land that was not originally theirs?
I am all for Palestine keeping the land they currently live on and doing what they want to do. I have no beef with them. They should be able to live their lives in accordance with how they want to. But when they support Hamas, a terrorist organization, I do not want to aid them or give them land, as I do not believe in rewarding terrorists who shoot rockets at other countries!
Complain about this comment
-120 Ill
This is not occupation or theft, it is ownership. Israel has owned that land for over fifty years.
Is this a joke or are you genuinely half-witted? The Swiss have some Nazi gold held in their banks for more than fifty years. The Swiss didn't steal it so why should they give it away?
Zionism is the new racism of the 21st century. You'll be saying, like other Zionists, that Palestinians are nomadic people and don't need a homeland next! Ironic coming from people calling themselves Jews. What we are seeing is simple old fashioned European racism and colonialism against non-Europeans. Everyone on this planet can see it except for those in the West (I don't care how 'American' some people claim they are they're still European - they have the same disease of racism and superiority complex)!
Complain about this comment
No the Arab states including the Palestinians were attack Israel since 48 get your history straight. If the Arab nations heeded Israel's and the world overtures in 67 there was a chance for peace. But the Arabs refused and still refuse to treat non Arabs in the middle East as equals.
So Palestinians look into the mirror and at your Arab brothers for your suffering.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your history is, what you are doing in the present. The fact is that if one party living in that place didnt accept this british encouraged unilateral creation of a state for the jews who came from outside that place. Europeans had just killed millions of them in europe, they were more than glad to support the rest to establish a state outside europe..Europe solved its own hundreds of years of problem and they have to support this occupation, no matter what..Its in the interest of the west, that the jews get their episenter outside of europe..and to acheive this, they are willing to support the occupation..It amazes me that europeans who are against migrants in their own countries, accept that palestinians would simply accept these jewish neo-settlers would come to the that place and claim their rights on that place..
Complain about this comment
#127. Illinoisan: "But the point is, the land belongs to Israel"
Only because of an artificial boundary with no historical reference points. What can be done can be undone, as much of Europe can attest.
Complain about this comment
The Obama administration's problem is that starting with the President down to the secretary of State no one has any foreign policy experience. Especially Obama he is nothing more than a product of a big city political machine. He has no foreign or domestic, or business experience to hang his hat on. Now the administration is fishing around trying to find easy political ways to fix the mess at home in the US and abroad. What the administration desires is for not just the British to be in lock step but the rest of the world too. Criticism and confrontation will allow the inexperience of this administration to surface. That is why rather than debate facts they chose to attack Fox news. They do not blame Britain for the Iraq war they just envy the experience and background of British leaders and fear potential tough questions.
Complain about this comment
"If there is one thing that can be easily discerned from our president's behavior is his pragmatism, focus and his cool and deliberate approach to problem solving. He, like all his predecessors, prefers international consensus as an integral part of his foreign policy, but he is clearly prepared to act alone regardless of public opinion at home or abroad." saintDominick
Yeah, right! Pres Obama is a rockstar. Avoids just about everything. Obama recently came to Boston,MA to campaign for the Governor Patrick. Seems that his lustre is fading here in the US. Obama failed to sell out this event, so as usual, they gave the tickets away. To pass the illusion it was a banner event. Obama doesn't do anything except play on public opinion. When the mob is angry Obama sides with them to move into the spotlight to show his support. Like when the AIG bonuses came out, what an act that was. So stimulus is doing little, maybe before the election?? Afghanistan and troops dieing for nation building isn't as important as Obamacare? Now lets throw in another smokescreen and attack Fox. Laughable, maybe his administration can't take people who disagree so they label them as excessively critical, even though there is a grass roots effort underway by ordinary citizens. People are tired of both of these corrupt parties ruled by the radicals. Obama in his 9 months has done little. Perhaps as the flock of Obamanism deludes itself as it was George Bush's fault, well regardless. Obama is president now, an failing to act on the problems at hand. Obama took the job, so deal with it, which he is failing at. Stop whining and blaming the other crew. When Obama is gone maybe you can blame him for the mess he is now creating. Get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. There isn't any focus with Obama just a knee jerk reaction when struck by public outrage.
Complain about this comment
dceiler, I don't 'claim' to be American, I am 100% American, as I have lived here my whole life, my ancestors have lived here and so on. I am proud of my European descent, just as other races are proud of their descents. Even if I've never been to Europe, I look to Europeans like they are cousins. We look alike, but have different accents and cultures, which are intermingled in their own crazy way. Divided we fall, but together we stand.
Anyway, to say that everything comes down to Western colonialism is a hoot! Seriously, USA and the Western world is not living in colonial times anymore. The USA and the West does not want to take over the world, we just want to make it as safe as possible for us all to live in, with each country being able to do what they want, except for terrorism. The USA gets along with every country who wants peace. It's the ones who have bad intentions that we do not get along with. That is why we have so many allies in the world, because we do want peace.
As to logibear, it is true that Obama does not have a great amount of foreign experience. However, sometimes more experience means more corruption, so maybe it's a good thing in that perhaps he is less corrupt.
Complain about this comment
David Cunard, when you say what can be done can be undone, are you suggesting that the USA, Russia and China give up land they have fought for years ago? I just don't see that happening...
Complain about this comment
Mark Mardell:
No, President Obama doesn't blame Britain....
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Anyway, to say that everything comes down to Western colonialism is a hoot! Seriously, USA and the Western world is not living in colonial times anymore. The USA and the West does not want to take over the world, we just want to make it as safe as possible for us all to live in, with each country being able to do what they want, except for terrorism. The USA gets along with every country who wants peace. It's the ones who have bad intentions that we do not get along with. That is why we have so many allies in the world, because we do want peace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America and your cousins in europe want to take over the world, its these terrorists who are not letting them..While you and your cousins talk about useless issues like increasing troops in afghanistan or their election, or obama blames britian, your leaders and your cousins are busy setting the stage against iran, Iran now is surrounding by NATO and american soldiers from all sides..There are more than 1000 marines statsioned in kahuta, pakistan.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
colonelartist and #137.
So, who will you complain about when the USA-UK-Israel do not invade Iran?
Come on, be honest, will you come back on here a year or 2 from now and admit your #137 was a pile of cr#p!?
No, I thought not: It is all the fault of the USA, isn't it? Everything! And when it doesn't happen, well, that's their fault too!
Complain about this comment
#138 REFERRED to Moderators!
Oh for goodness sake!
What are we allowed to say?
Why not just give us a few chosen phrases to knit-together!
Frankly, if thisn is really all the BBC Moderation does - - i.e. protect the 'sensitivites' of thoe nice BBC Editors then you can stick the whole thing.
I am UTTERLY FED-UP WITH THIS CENSORSHIP.
EITHER OFFER A BLOG OR TELL US WE CAN AGREE WITH THE BBC OR NOT BE PUBKLISHED.
Forget it.
I've had enough!
BBC should be ashamed, but, you just have so much money and power you couldn't give a toss what anyone thinks.
Complain about this comment
Illiniosian;
"I am proud of my European descent, just as other races are proud of their descents."
What is there to be proud of about your European descent when it was merely an accident of birth? What descent if you had it would you be ashamed of?
"Even if I've never been to Europe, I look to Europeans like they are cousins."
Go to the thread about chimpanzees. We have about as much in common with Europeans as we have with chimpanzees. Perhaps you're a monkey's uncle :-)
Complain about this comment
It's kind of cool to be of European descent, that is all I am saying. The Europeans have a lot of heart and a lot of wisdom, as well as a keen sense of humor. I love the pale skin. But I think every race and descent is beautiful and different in its own way. To each be his or her own. I don't know what its like to be of another race. But we are all the same underneath: skin and bones, ligaments and connective tissue, blood and organs. We are all human and share that common bond, no matter what.
Complain about this comment
Illinoisian, I could hardly disagree with you more. I say that exactly the opposite is true and Europeans have a history extending back thousands of years to prove it. I'm also of European descent. My grandparents fled Europe before it was a matter of life and death. It was the smartest thing they ever did. I can't tell you how lucky I feel to have been born in the USA and not there. But to satisfy my curiousity I went and lived in Europe among the "aborigines" for nearly two years. At the end I was counting the days until I went home. I told myself at the time to remember that because it is human nature to forget.
While it is true that our biology is the same, all other facets of our being are entirely different. We are not like them. We and they do not see the world or life though the same eyes. I would sooner die than trade places with them.
Complain about this comment
Sorry but it's always about the Americans. I dont think there is an american who knows anything but american. As far as obama goes he inherited the Bush stuff. But we as far as Brits goes we need to worry about ourselves and the problems we have in our own country at the moment. I dont see the americans helping with us our little immigration problem we got going on. I think we as Brits need to stop letting the Americans get in our head and country and go back to the way we use to be. Sorry big O your not wanted here.
Complain about this comment
L. Whitely;
"I dont think there is an american who knows anything but american."
Well at least it's nice to know someone does.
"I dont see the americans helping with us our little immigration problem we got going on."
Yes but at least we don't contribute to it. While Americans might go there to pay a visit, even work there for a few years, most use the return half of their round trip ticket. It's not always that way with Brits coming to America though. But we don't mind. Even Brits are "trainable".... with enough time and patience :-) Ever see a chimpanzee who was trained to brew and serve tea and scones?
Complain about this comment
#134. Illinoisan: "David Cunard, when you say what can be done can be undone, are you suggesting that the USA, Russia and China give up land they have fought for years ago?"
No, but the original boundaries which encompassed modern Israel were artificially drawn, rather like the partition of India. The United Nations could very well redefine those boundaries or, after some kind of hostilities, decide that there is no such nation as Israel. Many European nations have been redefined or obliterated from the map; I see no reason why it couldn't happen to Israel at some time in the future.
Complain about this comment
David_Cunard
Please read the post below it's from MAII
"Illinoisian, I could hardly disagree with you more. I say that exactly the opposite is true and Europeans have a history extending back thousands of years to prove it. I'm also of European descent. My grandparents fled Europe before it was a matter of life and death. It was the smartest thing they ever did. I can't tell you how lucky I feel to have been born in the USA and not there. But to satisfy my curiousity I went and lived in Europe among the "aborigines" for nearly two years. At the end I was counting the days until I went home. I told myself at the time to remember that because it is human nature to forget."
You expect me to apologise to someone who writes abusive garbage like the above? MAII is an insult to intelligent beings world wide.
Complain about this comment
#144 LWhitley
While as a Brit but no longer living there I agree with you that the UK should concentrate on the UK I think the immigration problem is the least of your worries. The first thing you need is a functioning economy that is not totally dependent on the financial services sector and hasn't got you all 'borrowed up' to the eyeballs in order that you can claim growth that's better than that of other countries. That was of course the US model and look where it's got you all.
It was a clever trick for a while, let people borrow lots of money, spend it, fuel artificial growth, sit around saying how wonderful it all is and then look surprised when it crashes.
Complain about this comment
I for one don't find these sterile discussions on 'Europeans vs. Americans' particularly interesting or relevant to the subject of the blog post. Perhaps if people stopped allowing themselves and their whole world outlook to be defined by these easy labels could we move towards a more sensible world as well as a more illuminating discussion.
Complain about this comment
@133 Illinoisan
What a load of claptrap.
The USA and the West control this planet whether those in the majority world like it or not. As for saying that the West doesn't live in 'colonial times anymore' is a hoot - just ask the Arabs, and South Americans!! Moreover, you say The USA gets along with every country who wants peace. It's the ones who have bad intentions that we do not get along with. The USA gets along with countries that are obedient and those that disobey face the consequences. The word 'peace' is used just to convince the voters in America and the West to justify its violent methods. If the US was a bastion of peace why were people like yourself criticizing the Nobel committee for its Peace Prize winner? You should get out of the West's bubble and see things for what they really are. You don't need to get on a plane any more to do this - use the internet (it helps save the planet too!).
Complain about this comment
ref #146
No, but the original boundaries which encompassed modern Israel were artificially drawn, rather like the partition of India. The United Nations could very well redefine those boundaries or, after some kind of hostilities, decide that there is no such nation as Israel. Many European nations have been redefined or obliterated from the map; I see no reason why it couldn't happen to Israel at some time in the future.
______________________________________________-
You have a lot of faith is an orginization that could not manage a lemonade stand. But your words betray you, you don't want Israel to be able to live in peace. but to suggest the U.N as an arbiter considering their human rights record in Africa and the way workers cooperated with terrorists in Lebanon and Gaza?
It would be far more pratical for the U.N to say the Palestinians have shown no desire for peace they can either join Israel which gives equal rights to Moslems or leave.
SDince the Palestinians have no moral or legal claim to the land, and have been given too many oppurtuities to make peace; and rekected it. Let the world move on.
Complain about this comment
ref #150
The USA and the West control this planet whether those in the majority world like it or not. As for saying that the West doesn't live in 'colonial times anymore' is a hoot - just ask the Arabs, and South Americans!! Moreover, you say The USA gets along with every country who wants peace. It's the ones who have bad intentions that we do not get along with. The USA gets along with countries that are obedient and those that disobey face the consequences
____________________________________-
Who are you kidding maybe you should stop reading the Daily Kos and listening to MSNBC. If the U.S was as corrupt as you say, would Obama be supporting Zeylia's reinstatement when it would be in our interest to respect the Hondures decision. Would we be so even handed in the Israeli-Palestinian issue instead of putting real pressure on the Arab states. Would we have put a U.S firendly secretary than the corrupt Kofi annan?
Complain about this comment
Ref 152, Magic
"If the U.S was as corrupt as you say, would Obama be supporting Zeylia's reinstatement when it would be in our interest to respect the Hondures decision. Would we be so even handed in the Israeli-Palestinian issue instead of putting real pressure on the Arab states. Would we have put a U.S firendly secretary than the corrupt Kofi annan?"
Careful Magic, your last sentence concedes that we do indeed impose our will on others..."we put" a U.S. friendly secretary...?
We have had a few administrations that respected the rights of other nations, including the the current administration, but for the most part our government has been intent on advancing and protecting our global interests, regardless of what other people have to say or want.
We are not the first superpower to expand its horizons and interests overseas, and I suspect we will not be the last.
Complain about this comment
Ref 151, Magic
The UN is as effective as its members want it to be, and to a great extent its actions reflect the interests and wishes of the permanent members of the Security Council. The reason the right wing in the USA despises the UN is because there have been occasions when it challenged our wishes and because of its position on the Israeli-Palestinian impasse. We need the UN to legitimize our policies and actions, and it has not always been there to support either.
The IAEA, UNESCO, ICJ, UNAIDS, UNICEF, WHO, the WTO and other UN organizations have proved to be very efficient and effective when allowed to operate freely and independently.
Complain about this comment
ref #153
Careful Magic, your last sentence concedes that we do indeed impose our will on others..."we put" a U.S. friendly secretary...?
We have had a few administrations that respected the rights of other nations, including the the current administration, but for the most part our government has been intent on advancing and protecting our global interests, regardless of what other people have to say or want.
_____________________________
Dominick those with rhetorical questions to dec who seems to think the U.S and the Wst run the world.
Complain about this comment
The UN is as effective as its members want it to be, and to a great extent its actions reflect the interests and wishes of the permanent members of the Security Council. The reason the right wing in the USA despises the UN is because there have been occasions when it challenged our wishes and because of its position on the Israeli-Palestinian impasse. We need the UN to legitimize our policies and actions, and it has not always been there to support either.
The IAEA, UNESCO, ICJ, UNAIDS, UNICEF, WHO, the WTO and other UN organizations have proved to be very efficient and effective when allowed to operate freely and independently.
_______________________________-
I think under the coddler El Baredi the IAEA has been very inefective he will dither and allow Iran to achieve nuclear weapon capability. The U.N has been at fault in peace keeping (hiding terrorist in Lebanon and Gaza) famine in Africa (they were to busy getting free sex)
The U.N has a double standards in Human Rights look at how they do nothing in Myramar or Zimbawbe or Arab nations who whip and stone woman. The U.S has the moral high ground over the U.N
Complain about this comment
Ref 155, Magic
"Dominick those with rhetorical questions to dec who seems to think the U.S and the Wst run the world."
I don't think any one country, government or individual "runs the world", but our policies and actions certainly have an impact on what takes place everywhere in the world. Even if we disregard our physical interventions in countries Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries, our trade policies, business ventures, values and way of life have had a tremendous influence on almost every country in the world. What remains to be seen is whether or not our influence will lead to peace, harmony, freedom and prosperity for all.
Ref 156
"The U.N has a double standards in Human Rights look at how they do nothing in Myramar or Zimbawbe or Arab nations who whip and stone woman. The U.S has the moral high ground over the U.N"
Since UN policies and actions reflect the decisions made by the permanent members of the Security Council, I think it is fair to say that their position on Human Rights is consistent with ours.
I think it is hypocritical to chastise Afghans for the way they treat women, while we look the other way when identical behavior is evident in countries like Saudi Arabia. I guess lucrative oil contracts come with strings attached. Most importantly, I find it a but hypocritical to accuse others of violations of human rights while we endorse the use of torture and indefinite imprisonment in Guantanamo, and support the death penalty at home.
Complain about this comment
#151 MagicKirin
"It would be far more pratical for the U.N to say the Palestinians have shown no desire for peace they can either join Israel which gives equal rights to Moslems or leave."
Sorry to burst your bubble yet again Magic but the Israelis are at this moment debating reducing the right of Arab Israelis to effectively make them second class citizens. Israel is rapidly turning into a very right wing state Ironic really when you think of the prime reason for it's foundation.
Complain about this comment
ref #158 T1m0thy wrote:
#151 MagicKirin
"It would be far more pratical for the U.N to say the Palestinians have shown no desire for peace they can either join Israel which gives equal rights to Moslems or leave."
Sorry to burst your bubble yet again Magic but the Israelis are at this moment debating reducing the right of Arab Israelis to effectively make them second class citizens. Israel is rapidly turning into a very right wing state Ironic really when you think of the prime reason for it's foundation.
_________________________-
Sorry to burst yours an extremist group in Israel which represents a minority may have the position of the loyalty oath. Compare them to the birthers or the 9/11 conspiracy buffs or that crackpot you had on the BBC a couple nights ago.
Untill the day a synogouge or a church canbe built in Mecca, Israel has the high ground in tolerance over moslem countries.
Complain about this comment
Ref 158, T1m0thy
An let's not forget who told President Bush that there would be no peace or concessions after he predicted an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within one year of the Annapolis summit.
The truth is that both sides have demonstrated intransigence and extreme cruelty for decades, but I suspect that if my family had been booted out of their home and confined to a de facto concentration camp like Gaza, I would probably tend to be more than just a little intransigent as well.
Blaming the victims for their demise is an old trick that is likely to be used as long as there is one or a few countries remain intent on imposing their interests and values on others. Sort of like the law of the jungle where only the fittest survives...
Complain about this comment
ref #158Since UN policies and actions reflect the decisions made by the permanent members of the Security Council, I think it is fair to say that their position on Human Rights is consistent with ours.
_____________________________-
Most of the farces like the Human Right council and people like Annaan, El Barerdi and Malloch Brown are the fault of the general assembly. where corrupt totalitarian nations like Myramar, Venezuela, Syria and Iran recieve cover.
Complain about this comment
So, who will you complain about when the USA-UK-Israel do not invade Iran?
Come on, be honest, will you come back on here a year or 2 from now and admit your #137 was a pile of cr#p!?
No, I thought not: It is all the fault of the USA, isn't it? Everything! And when it doesn't happen, well, that's their fault too!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just watch closely pakistan. Go back to 1st sepetember 2001 and and then follow the process unfold in that country. Thats exactly what usa, israel and uk plan to to do with iran.. Now, I am thankfully, not american, neither from uk, so I know that what happens in reality is crucial..And i will be here, if they dont ban me.
Complain about this comment
Ref 161, Magic
"Most of the farces like the Human Right council and people like Annaan, El Barerdi and Malloch Brown are the fault of the general assembly. where corrupt totalitarian nations like Myramar, Venezuela, Syria and Iran recieve cover."
The wishes of the UN General Assembly are meaningless against those of veto-wielding Security Council member nations.
I can not speak for Myanmar or Syria, since my familiarity with those countries is limited to what I read or hear in the news, but I am intimately familiar with Venezuela, a country where I spent many years and where I have relatives and friends.
I can assure you that while there are certain aspects of life in Venezuela that are very different from ours, there is no more or less political corruption there than there is here. Moreover, the wishes of leaders like President Hugo Chavez are as irrelevant as those of any other Third World leader, and if it wasn't because people like you seem determined to give him an international stature he does not deserve his rants would be nothing more than background noise.
Complain about this comment
#159 MagicKirin
That extremist group is headed up by the current Israeli Foreign Minister. Wee...eel on second thoughts that's about right then.
Complain about this comment
"Europe's military and political class has never been so ready and keen for American leadership."
Rubbish. We have seen in the last eight years Europe slowly drifting away from US hegemony, and now, more than ever, the US are looking to Europe for direction.
Complain about this comment
Untill the day a synogouge or a church canbe built in Mecca, Israel has the high ground in tolerance over moslem countries.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just let me ask you, How long do you think the jews have actually ruled that those areas which they say and the west agrees, that it was given to them by G-d? Everyone knows that if tomorrow the jews are focrced back to their homes in europe, europe will turn into what it was...
Complain about this comment
Ref 159, Magic
"Untill the day a synogouge or a church canbe built in Mecca, Israel has the high ground in tolerance over moslem countries."
There are Christian and Jewish churches and synagogues in many Muslim countries, including Iraq and Iran!
Among them:
The main "minority" churches in Iran are:
The Armenian Apostolic Church of Iran, the Assyrian Church of the East of Iran, the Chaldean Catholic Church of Iran and the Jama'at-e Rabbani.
and the Anglican Church of Iran.
Complain about this comment
A war with an intially declared and clearly defined end point with specifically defined conditions to mark the cessation of hostilities may be worth fighting. But "a mission that isn't being defined" is a waste of lives, effort, resources, energy, money, and time.
WWII had a specific goal: the unconditional surrender of each of the Axis powers. Operation Desert Storm had a specific goal: to drive the Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. When these goals were achieved, the wars were over.
Vietnam is a prime example of an undefined mission, no specific goal, no clearly defined endpoint. It was a failed and wasted effort.
It looks like the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan will be the same. So it is only a question of how much more time will pass before the western powers give up and go home.
Complain about this comment
ref #159
But is there one in Mecca?
Jerusulem is in Israel and they bend over backwards to accomodate the sensitivites of moslems. Who in turn throw rocks at visitors to the Wall.
Complain about this comment
ref #163
I can assure you that while there are certain aspects of life in Venezuela that are very different from ours, there is no more or less political corruption there than there is here. Moreover, the wishes of leaders like President Hugo Chavez are as irrelevant as those of any other Third World leader, and if it wasn't because people like you seem determined to give him an international stature he does not deserve his rants would be nothing more than background noise.
______________________________-
I will give you two clear differences:
Free unfettered elections can you imagine President Bush sending in red shirts to break up Obama rallies. That is what Hugo does because he knows he would lose a fair election.
Free Press of course if Anita Dunn had her way we would not. But even the White House attempt to block Fox News was quickly quashed. In Venbezuela Hugo would send in thugs to beat up Glen Beck.
Oh we also don't steal hotels like Hugo did to the Hilton.
Please Venezuela overthrow this tyrant.
Complain about this comment
T-Mouth
"Israel is rapidly turning into a very right wing state"
Seems to me that is what the UK is also doing. Just catching up to where other nations like Spain, France, Russia, and much of the rest of Europe have been for a long time. It seems to be a reaction to problems created by failures of the left when they were in power.
Sammy Hiccup;
"the US are looking to Europe for direction."
This American hopes that direction is going away.
Colonoscopy;
"Just watch closely pakistan. Go back to 1st sepetember 2001 and and then follow the process unfold in that country. Thats exactly what usa, israel and uk plan to to do with iran"
Wishful thinking.
Complain about this comment
Colonoscopy;
"Everyone knows that if tomorrow the jews are focrced back to their homes in europe, europe will turn into what it was..."
You mean some countries would resume the mass murder of them while the rest would stand around pretending it wasn't happening or didn't matter. Undoubtedly true.
Complain about this comment
#147. T1m0thy: "David_Cunard Please read the post below it's from MAII
"Illinoisian, I could hardly disagree with you more . . . etc"
You expect me to apologise to someone who writes abusive garbage like the above? MAII is an insult to intelligent beings world wide."
I didn't ask you to apologise, only to acknowledge that he was correct about the amount and source of oil imported by the United States. As my figures (and those of the Federal Government) demonstrated, he was right and you were wrong. Facts are facts and it's a pity you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge them.
#151. MagicKirin:
No, but the original boundaries which encompassed modern Israel were artificially drawn . . . I see no reason why it couldn't happen to Israel at some time in the future.
"You have a lot of faith is an orginization that could not manage a lemonade stand. But your words betray you, you don't want Israel to be able to live in peace. "
I have no opinion on anything involved with Israel; I was merely showing that the boundaries she enjoyed at her creation were artificially drawn and thus in the future could be redrawn or removed entirely
"the Palestinians have no moral or legal claim to the land"
Since, like the Jews from Biblical times, they have been wandering, it seems to me they have as much right to ancient lands as anyone else. After all, what is today called Israel was formerly known as Palestine. You might care to read the brief history of the creation of Israel by the US State Department which clearly indicates that the United Nations played a part in establishing the new nation. What can be done can always be undone, not today, not tomorrow, but in half-a-century or so. Look at Europe and see how many countries have risen and fallen: in years to come Israel will fare no better than those.
Complain about this comment
MA, if you did not like it, why would you stay two years? Secondly, you did not state any reasons why you did not like it, just that you didn't like it. So that doesn't make sense? But your endorsement doesn't phase me. I still plan of going to Europe one day and visit countries where my ancestors came from (and then some) and I plan on treating all Europeans with respect, because that is what they deserve. Europe just seems so entrancing and mysterious, with their castles and architecture. My parents were stationed in Germany in the 70's and they have such wonderful memories of the land, culture and people. They came back to USA, for family and friends, as well as being stationed back at home. But they have not ever forgot the memories of being in Germany and in Europe, hanging out on the beached, skiing in the Alps and how awesome it was, traveling all over and meeting new people. They see one picture of Europe and their memories come flooding back. So perhaps I have been passed on this love by my parents. I think it would be cool and interesting just to hang out with the people and see what they are interested in. I hear that NFL football is going to have two games next year in London. That would be wild to see a NFL football game played in England, for sure!
dceilar, The USA and the West are among the most peaceful countries on the planet and we are credited with others in helping to keep the peace. We like everyone, except the ones with bad intentions of harming others. Take Iran for example. The USA and our allies want Iran to give up their nuclear weapons. That is not to say we want to run their country or bother them in any way. But we simply don't want them to have nuclear weapons, as they have threatened other countries and their using nuclear weapons would start a nuclear war in the Middle East, which no one wants. Also, by stopping the spread of nuclear weapons now, that would limit them to only a few countries and these countries are dropping the level on nuclear weapons, which is better than nothing at all. We are taking steps to preventing nuclear wars. I don't think the big countries will ever fully give up their nuclear weapons, but the only time the USA used them was against Japan, we did it to stop a long war and have not used them again. Now, we are friends with Japan, who is a great innovator and very creative with technology. I have to admit I am a bit creeped out by all their robots, though. Robots do not compare to the real thing and never will. Seeing them with facial expressions and knowing it is all techonological is eerie.
When other countries hear of the USA, they think of the movie stars, the glitz and glamor. Sure, that is a big part of USA. But there is much more to our country. We all like watching movies, but in real life, we are not movie stars or celebrities. We are people, just like you all and everyone else. We have to try to get along the best that we can, having our own beliefs, but being tolerant of others.
Complain about this comment
Also, I wanted to throw in this:
Why would the United Nations want to give more land to Palestine, when Palestine supports Hamas, which is a designated terrorist organization who has shot rockets at Israel? If UN wanted to give land to Palestine, the UN would be acknowledging that they support terrorism and that they support shooting rockets at other countries.
Complain about this comment
172 Marcus
"You mean some countries would resume the mass murder of them while the rest would stand around pretending it wasn't happening or didn't matter."
I think the Germans are over that phase, but would America still stand around pretending? You seem to be unaware of the level of antisemitism in the USA pre WW2. Read this (from wiki, but that doesn't mean it's not true)
"Anti-Jewish sentiment started around the time of the American Civil War, when General Ulysses S. Grant issued an order (quickly rescinded by President Abraham Lincoln) of expulsion against Jews from the portions of Tennessee, Kentucky and Mississippi under his control. (See General Order No. 11)
In the first half of 1900s, Jews were discriminated against in some employment, not allowed into some social clubs and resort areas, given a quota on enrollment at colleges, and not allowed to buy certain properties. Antisemitism reached its peak during the interwar period. The rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s, the antisemitic works of Henry Ford, and the radio speeches of Father Coughlin in the late 1930s indicated the strength of attacks on the Jewish community.
Following the Second World War and the American Civil Rights Movement, anti-Jewish sentiment waned."
Father Coughlin sounds like a really nice guy - just google him for a scary read. And his radio show reached 40 million!
And finally I must remind you that the USA did not join WW2 (thanks for coming) in order to save the Jews.
That's all from me today, since this blog seems to be stuck in a groundhog day-like return to Isreal irrespective of the subject that Mark starts with.
Complain about this comment
ref #176
No one has to tell me there is still Anti-seitism in the U.S or aroundd the world.
The Daily Kos and other hate group would have never got away with their hatread and lies about one of the most respected Senators of the last century Joe Lieberman if he was Christian.
Jews are discriminated in the U.S and Europe (hello Annie Lenox and the British higher education establishment)
Complain about this comment
151. At 09:16am on 25 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #146: “SDince the Palestinians have no moral or legal claim to the land, and have been given too many oppurtuities to make peace; and rekected it. Let the world move on.” [sic.]
Based on receipts and deeds from the Turkish owners of [Turkish] record, which had been acquired by conquest during the previous centuries, Israel has a legal if not exactly moral [is purchasing stolen goods moral?] claim to the originally recognized land of Israel. Outright annexation by military means with no compensation to the dispossessed is neither legal nor moral.
Of course the Palestinians, AKA Philistines and Peleseti have always been there. If the Israelis were prepared to give the Biblically indicated lands of the Philistines to them in exchange for the Biblically indicated lands of Israel and Judea that might be seen as a good basis for peace. That, of course, leaves Samara to argue over or compromise on.
It takes two to make peace, and when the Israelis were ready to so the Palestinians were not, and vice versa. So long as the sons of Shem continue to commit the same crimes as Cain and Joseph’s brothers there will be no peace.
Complain about this comment
Everyone knows that if tomorrow the jews are focrced back to their homes in europe, europe will turn into what it was..."
You mean some countries would resume the mass murder of them while the rest would stand around pretending it wasn't happening or didn't matter. Undoubtedly true.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass murder is ends discrimination..Why do you think europeans would ressume something which they already have tried and then declared a crime..Everyone can recognize mass killings, however mass killings under 1000 done every yr for 10 yrs would not be noticed..Europeans could not even notice millions that were killed in their back yards..they are not likely to recognize 1000, or 2000 a year killing...More than that is happening in afghanistan..against one group and you have no problems with it..
Complain about this comment
169. At 3:28pm on 25 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #159
"But is there one in Mecca?
Jerusulem is in Israel and they bend over backwards to accomodate the sensitivites of moslems. Who in turn throw rocks at visitors to the Wall."
Having lived in both Saudi Arabia and Iran, I am forced to concur with what you say. In Iran tolerance is grudging at best, and in Saudi Arabia even non-Sunni/non-Wahabbi Moslem practices are not tolerated. I had stones thrown at me by Saudi kids who had been taught that non-Moslem and non-Western people are from Satan. This is one reason that I reluctantly support Israel while moaning about it lapses.
Complain about this comment
#174 Illinoisan
You will, of course, be most welcome and your kind words are appreciated.
With the above in mind it may be a bit on the ungrateful side for me to point out, however, that in the second paragraph you continually refer to Iran and nuclear weapons in the present tense not the future. To the best of my knowledge they haven't got any yet.
Complain about this comment
Ref 170, Magic
"Free unfettered elections can you imagine President Bush sending in red shirts to break up Obama rallies. That is what Hugo does because he knows he would lose a fair election."
Considering what happened in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004, we should try to emulate the example set by Venezuela in recents years.
"ree Press of course if Anita Dunn had her way we would not. But even the White House attempt to block Fox News was quickly quashed. In Venbezuela Hugo would send in thugs to beat up Glen Beck."
Two of my cousins live in Caracas and oppose Hugo Chavez' policies, mostly because they believe their petro-dollars should be spent at home rather than in Quixotic quests. Both admit Chavez won his election and re-election fair and square, and are not afraid to voice their opinion. According to them, what is dangerous is not Chavez or the government, but the masses that support him who often do not tolerate dissent.
"h we also don't steal hotels like Hugo did to the Hilton."
I have no idea what you are talking about.
"lease Venezuela overthrow this tyrant."
Since two thirds of the population support him unconditionally, this is not going to happen any time soon unless, of course, we follow the suggestion of some of "religious" leaders and try to assassinate him. Most Venezuelans are determined to preserve the freedom and prosperity they currently enjoy and will go to great lengths to prevent a return to the day of the right wing dictartorships that dominated their national politics until a few decades ago (I lived there when Gen Perez Jimenez was in office).
Complain about this comment
Ref 169, Magic
"But is there one in Mecca?"
No, and to the best of my knowledge there are no mosques or synagogues in the Vatican City either, and we don't seem to have a problem with that.
Why would anyone build a church or synagogue in a place where 100% of the citizens are Muslim? Who would attend services? I am not suggesting the Saudis are tolerant when it comes to religion, but trying to make a point because the only religious institutions in the Holiest Islamic site are Mosques is a bit ridiculous.
A more pertinent consideration on this subject is the pervasive influence of religious fundamentalism in the Muslim world, Israel and the USA. As long as religion remains an important element in policy and decision making there will not be peace.
I think it is ironic that two of the last remaining bastions of religious belief are determined to destroy one another, while Europe and Asia focus on industrialization, modernization, education, and business/trade expansion.
Complain about this comment
Ref 175, Illinoisan
"Why would the United Nations want to give more land to Palestine, when Palestine supports Hamas, which is a designated terrorist organization who has shot rockets at Israel?"
Firing Qassam rockets, regardless of how ineffective those rudimentary weapons may be, is wrong and detrimental to the Palestinian cause. They only serve as justification to launch retaliatory attacks against civilians using some of the most sophisticated and lethal weapons available.
According to the IDF 15 Israelis have been killed and 433 wounded since the missile attacks began in 2001 until the last barrage in 2008. Over 8,000 Palestinians, mostly civilians, were killed in retaliation for these attacks. Disproportionate retaliation is an understatement to describe this atrocity, regardless of who fired first.
Don't forget that we labeled Hamas a terrorist organization immediately after they won the election and before they fired a single rocket or shot. They "earned" that distinction when they publicly denied Israel's right to exist.
The solution is two sovereign states where people can live in peace and prosper. Israel is not going to go anywhere, and the Palestinians have as much right to have a homeland as anyone else. Hopefully, people of good will on both sides will exhibit the objectivity and moral standards required to find a solution in the near future.
Complain about this comment
176. RomeStu:
"That's all from me today, since this blog seems to be stuck in a groundhog day-like return to Isreal irrespective of the subject that Mark starts with."
I don't like where this blog has gone either, and I can't blame you for leaving, but I fail to see how the nastiness on here has anything to do with Groundhog Day. Actually, I'm surprised that you even mention Groundhog Day since I had thought it was a uniquely Pennsylvanian superstition that a groundhog coming out of its burrow in Punxsutawney on Feb. 2 and seeing its shadow could predict 6 more weeks of winter. Have you lived in PA? Regardless, I still can't see the connection.
(BTW, if you're into PA folklore, you might be interested to know that those who watch for the natural signs expect us to have an unusually cold winter this year.;)
Complain about this comment
While I supported GWB, war in Afganihstan has been a huge mistake. We had a window of opp back right after 9/11 to rid the world of the Taliban (which by the way was created by Paki Intell). But botched that chance. Now the eagle has come to roost. It is far better to move into the mountain passes and clear the caves in order to seal the borders then to chase the Taliban from fields. Taliban has shown their resilency in much the same way that they did during the USSR occupation. Use the strategy that was used by the Marines in the Pacific, or get the heck out. Our fighting men deserve a strategy that has a chance at victory. The Brits, Americans and Canadians are doing most of the fighting.
Complain about this comment
185. At 7:17pm on 25 Oct 2009, trueconservative wrote:
176. RomeStu:
"That's all from me today, since this blog seems to be stuck in a groundhog day-like return to Israel irrespective of the subject that Mark starts with."
Interesting movie, but I have to agree with this sentiment here and on other posts. No matter what the topic, it gets reoriented to the Israel/Palestine conundrum.
Could we ask Mr. Mardell and the BBC to provide an “All Israel-Palestine All the Time” forum or thread and require posters to take this very important issue there? BTW I admit that I have done my share of this, too.
Complain about this comment
#187 McJakome
That would make a lot of sense.
Complain about this comment
ref #82
saintDominick wrote:
Ref 170, Magic
"Free unfettered elections can you imagine President Bush sending in red shirts to break up Obama rallies. That is what Hugo does because he knows he would lose a fair election."
Considering what happened in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004, we should try to emulate the example set by Venezuela in recents years.
(Please don't go back to those false claims from sore losers like Maxine Waters)
"ree Press of course if Anita Dunn had her way we would not. But even the White House attempt to block Fox News was quickly quashed. In Venbezuela Hugo would send in thugs to beat up Glen Beck."
Two of my cousins live in Caracas and oppose Hugo Chavez' policies, mostly because they believe their petro-dollars should be spent at home rather than in Quixotic quests. Both admit Chavez won his election and re-election fair and square, and are not afraid to voice their opinion. According to them, what is dangerous is not Chavez or the government, but the masses that support him who often do not tolerate dissent.
(So you keep saying but news reports dispute it)
"h we also don't steal hotels like Hugo did to the Hilton."
I have no idea what you are talking about.
(Hilton built a major conference center hotel on Magarita Island (a resort destination I urge everyone to boycott) Hugo like with oil companies apropriated without fair compensation that is the situation)
"lease Venezuela overthrow this tyrant."
Since two thirds of the population support him unconditionally, this is not going to happen any time soon unless, of course, we follow the suggestion of some of "religious" leaders and try to assassinate him. Most Venezuelans are determined to preserve the freedom and prosperity they currently enjoy and will go to great lengths to prevent a return to the day of the right wing dictartorships that dominated their national politics until a few decades ago (I lived there when Gen Perez Jimenez was in office).
(so you keep saying then why he is arresting his major political opponent on trumpted up charges)
Complain about this comment
MA2
Marky,it just cannot be good for you sitting at that key board for as long as you do.
Man,its got to be painful.
Have you tried one of those rubber ring cushions?,it may take some of the pressure off,& therein lighten you up somewhat, so to speak.
It also could be used as a life preserver when the ice cap finally melts
because of you guys running about in all those V8`s.
Complain about this comment
That's all from me today, since this blog seems to be stuck in a groundhog day-like return to Israel irrespective of the subject that Mark starts with."
Interesting movie, but I have to agree with this sentiment here and on other posts. No matter what the topic, it gets reoriented to the Israel/Palestine conundrum.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever thought why the westerners turn everything into israel-palestinian issue? what you call issue, is in reality occupation..When iraq was a proper state with proper infrastrucuture, it was considered a threat to israel..now, its Iran which is a threat..I dont understand why everything, even ben laden's attack on newyork was related to israel..Ever for a minute thought, that if ben laden was against israel, he would have chosen israel to be the target, not usa..I believe the only function for which west created israel was to use it as a reason to attack or destroy muslim countries.
Complain about this comment
#190 UkWales
Talking of all those V8's and MAII's constant rumbles about US technological superiority I was looking at the GM website for Cadillac yesterday at their latest 'sports coupe' I think we would call it. 4.6 litre V8 developing 320 BHP, 26 mpg on a freeway.
I have a 1973 Triumph Stag 3.0 V8 developing 220BHP and 28Mpg on a freeway. Just to make things easy for MAII 220/3 = 73.33BHP/litre multiply that by 4.6 and you get 337BHP and that was 36 years ago. Even the supercharged Cadillacs are only just getting to 100 BHP/litre. Most European manufacturers can get that from a diesel. Superior technology Ok.
Complain about this comment
While I supported GWB, war in Afganihstan has been a huge mistake. We had a window of opp back right after 9/11 to rid the world of the Taliban (which by the way was created by Paki Intell).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No one created taliban, it created itself when america, ussr and all the countries which destablised afghanistan left it to the northern alliance and their war lords..usa created northern alliance, created karzai a leader from that alliance, is happy that he cheated in the elections, and is still supporting him. The west went to afghanistan to bring democracy, their system, what they have now shown to afghans is that democracy is just one big fraud.Atleast defend the system you believe in if you think that its better than the system taliban used..
Complain about this comment
Ref 189, Magic
"(So you keep saying but news reports dispute it)"
I definitely give more credence to what I experienced and what my friends and family tell me than whatever they say on FOX News.
"(Hilton built a major conference center hotel on Magarita Island (a resort destination I urge everyone to boycott) Hugo like with oil companies apropriated without fair compensation that is the situation)"
As I have told you on numerous occasions, I do not endorse Chavez's policies, I simply object to the use of hyperbole to make a point. His decision to appropiate industry, including oil, iron ore, and even hotels is not in the best interest of Venezuela and it is bound to backfire in the long run, but that doesn't mean he is a dictator or is abusing his people. His decisions are consistent with those of a hard line socialist leader and sooner olr later they will contribute to his demise.
"(so you keep saying then why he is arresting his major political opponent on trumpted up charges)"
I presume you are talking about Manuel Rosales, the former governor of Zulia. The reason Chávez opposes him is because Rosales signed a decree in 2002 endorsing the presidency of Pedro Carmona when Chavez was temporarily deposed and arrested during a coup d'etat. Rosales' decree also called for the dissolution of civil rights pending a forthcoming election, which never took place since the coup failed and Chavez was allowed to resume his functions as president of Venezuela.
Most of the opposition comes from the elite and wealthy businessmen and investors. He enjoys the enthusiastic support of the poor and lower middle class, which constitute about 2/3 of the population of the country.
Complain about this comment
It's kind of cool to be of European descent, that is all I am saying. The Europeans have a lot of heart and a lot of wisdom, as well as a keen sense of humor. I love the pale skin. But I think every race and descent is beautiful and different in its own way. To each be his or her own. I don't know what its like to be of another race. But we are all the same underneath: skin and bones, ligaments and connective tissue, blood and organs. We are all human and share that common bond, no matter what.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The great potmaker of fate was sitting in heaven.
This great potter of fate was making a donkey,
when the order came to make a Khan.(Pathan).
So the potter cut off its tail and sculpted its ears,
on its forehead he put a spot of temper
and in the donkeys brain he put the disease
of being ahead of everyone, being a leader, and
then he put a beautiful turban on his head and
shooed him towards the world.
These are the people who are being genocided or mass murdered right now, both in afghanistan and pakistan...And if you dont want your children to say what you are saying now, about your ancestors when they let the jews be killed in their back yards, that they didnt know, you should demand what your army and that of your ally, pakistan is doing in those war zones areas forbidden to everyone.
Complain about this comment
As I have told you on numerous occasions, I do not endorse Chavez's policies,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless you are from Chavez's country, you cannot endrose or critisize his internal policies..If you have anything against his policy towards your country or your people then its quite a different thing..After destroying so many countries over the years, one expects atleast the one who is writting this post number 196 , expects that americans should have learnt to stay away from people's internal matters.
Complain about this comment
It's kind of cool to be of European descent, that is all I am saying. The Europeans have a lot of heart and a lot of wisdom, as well as a keen sense of humor. I love the pale skin. But I think every race and descent is beautiful and different in its own way. To each be his or her own. I don't know what its like to be of another race.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Pashtun is not merely a race but, in fact, a state of mind; there is a Pashtun lying inside every man, who at times wakes up and overpowers him."
"The Pashtuns are a rain-sown wheat: they all came up on the same day; they are all the same. But the chief reason why I love a Pashtuns is that he will wash his face and oil his beard and perfume his locks and put on his best pair of clothes when he goes out to fight and die."
Complain about this comment
Ref 196, colonelartist
"Unless you are from Chavez's country, you cannot endrose or critisize his internal policies."
You certainly have some nerve to object to others voicing an opinion on the policies of other countries when you continuously criticize and demonize the policies of the USA. Obviously, my opinion is just that, an opinion with little bearing or consequence on whatever takes place.
I often voice my opinion on policies and actions pertaining to other countries, as well as my own, which I believe is consistent with the intent of this blog. In this case my commentaries are personal and based on life experiences and family relations. I lived in Venezuela 12 years, my youngest sister was born in Caracas and now lives in Spain, four cousins were born there and three of them still live there. I speak Spanish fluently, I am thoroughly familiar with the history, geography and culture of that country, and Latin America in general, to the point that when I lived there I was accepted as a native even though I was born in the USA.
If you don't like our freedom of speech, perhaps you should advocate a return to the political system that existed in your part of the world not so long ago.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
For a new subject, may I suggest The Obama Administration creating an Enemies List.
Complain about this comment
You certainly have some nerve to object to others voicing an opinion on the policies of other countries when you continuously criticize and demonize the policies of the USA. Obviously, my opinion is just that, an opinion with little bearing or consequence on whatever takes place........
If you don't like our freedom of speech, perhaps you should advocate a return to the political system that existed in your part of the world not so long ago.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Show me where I have said anything about your country or your allies, about their internal matters...I run away from such things...If your country hadnt forced itself on my country, I would not be wasting my time talking about your country at all, I have other more important things to do then to discuss the internal matters of the countries..
And your freedom of speech lecture is best answered by a true story... The day was 15th august 1947. A middle aged pathan went out for a walk after dinner, in the place where he had walked freely and without any disturbance from the time he could walk alone, that is, since he was 12 yrs or so..On that day, someone else was walking ahead of him, a strange man, who was whistiling and twirling his walking stick..not taking into consideration that there was this pathan walking behind him, the stick hit the pathan's nose, the bone of the nose above the nostrils, the spot where it hurts the most and you loose your mind. The pathan grabbed the guy from the his shirt's collars, snatched the stick broke it into two and asked the guy why he was walking and whistiling as if the footpath was his maternal grand mother's property. The guy said to the pathan if he hadnt heard that pakistan got its freedom the previous day and that he was walking in a free country..The pathan replied, and I quote, " Always remember, your freedom ends where my nose starts".
Complain about this comment
If you don't like our freedom of speech, perhaps you should advocate a return to the political system that existed in your part of the world not so long ago.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should I bother to advocate, when we have advocaters of democracy, from obama to hilary to their media experts, doing that job. Do you really think that the opponents of your lackey governemtns in iraq, egypt, afghanistan and pakistan are all free to use their free speech to say anything against them? One word against karzai and you get killed by the americans or suddenly get disppeared..In pakistan, Obama sends drones..speaking of which 24 people dead yesterday by another drone of obama..who claims this is not his war, but bush's.
Complain about this comment
US Blackwater-Xe mercenaries spreads fear in Pakistani town
Peshawar - Fear is spreading across University Town, an upmarket residential area in Pakistan's north-western city of Peshawar, due to the overt presence of the controversial US private security contractor Blackwater. Sporting the customary dark glasses and carrying assault rifles, the mercenaries zoom around the neighbourhood in their black-coloured armoured Chevy Suburbans, and shout at motorists when occasionally stranded in a traffic jam.
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/southasia/features/article_1492033.php/
Complain about this comment
My God!! I contributed my post #60 on Friday. Its now Sunday evening and not one of the subsequent posts even makes a passing reference to mine (despite the fact that almost all of them reference someone else's previous post,) but even more shocking, the majority of the subsequent posts don't even make a passing referenence the topic of this entry!
Anyway...
LWhitney #144: '"But we as far as Brits goes we need to worry about ourselves and the problems we have in our own country at the moment. I dont see the americans helping with us our little immigration problem we got going on."
From what I can decipher from this post, I wholeheartedly agree with your first point about you in Britain needing to focus on solving your own domestic problems. However your second point about us in America not offering to help you out with your immigration problem, two rebuttles. First, it has long been an unwritten rule of the international comunity that nations aought not involve themselves in other nations' domestic affairs. Political greats no less than George Washington and Winston Churchill have made very wise and cojantly expressed warnings about the dangers inharrent in a nation's decision to do so. And second, perhaps its best we don't (if we truely aren't) give you advice on your immigration problem. Aside from health care, immigration is our biggest problem which isn't even one tenth fair in how it treats illegal immigrants!! If you doubt me, watch CNN's documentary '"Latino in America." So perhaps you would be better off solving this one on your own.
Good luck!
Complain about this comment
Ref 201, colonelartist
You are preaching to the choir, I opposed our decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq from the outset. IMO, our focus should have been strictly on Al Qaeda and understanding and addressing the root causes of the hatred that so many people in the Islamic world have towards us, which should not be too difficult to determine.
Having said that, I will also tell you that as an American and a guest to this BBC blog I feel entitled to voice my opinion until my host decides to ban me from participation which is, of course, their privilege.
Since I don't know where you are from (I suspect you are from somewhere in the Balkans or perhaps from the Persian Gulf region) I can not address your grievances or the strong feelings that you demonstrate so often when you criticize our foreign policy.
President Obama has taken full responsibility for his actions, and is obviously intent on doing so in the future. That is why he is delaying what is bound to be a very difficult decision for him both from a moral perspective and because of its political implications. If he escalates the conflict, as he is likely to do, he will alienate his democratic base, and if he keeps troop levels the way they are now he will be cannon fodder for the GOP.
The reason most Americans consider our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq Bush's wars is because he started them. The challenge for the Obama administration is not winning those "wars", which is an impossible goal since there is no way to measure success in either country, but how to leave gracefully and how to minimize political damage at home.
Complain about this comment
RomeStu #176: '"And finally I must remind you that the USA did not join WW2 (thanks for coming)..."
I know I know. Two years late, only after we had been attacked so therefore not volentarily to help out a friend, etc etc etc.
At the risk of opening a pandoras box and enveloping the blog in yet another endless World War II debate, let me just say that FDR and our government did things that violated both our constitution and nutrality laws passed by congress in every which way and twice on Sunday in order to get us into the war in its first two years. We were essentially involved in it save, of course, our military. In fact, I've tryed to link to information about specific things that we've done, but it was banned by the moderaters because apparently the BBC doesn't want the people to know the truth about American involvement in the war. And I wouldn't put it past them to want to avoid any such a situation whereby demands for information from the time to be declassifyed could be made, and investigations launched. However as our actions violated our constitution were just cause for Roosevelt's impeachment, as instead of "upholding and defending" it as he swore to do in his inauguration, he tryed his best to destroy it.
If this doesn't get published I'll totally understand, however I had to try.
Complain about this comment
Ikamaskeip #140: '"I've had enough! BBC should be ashamed, but, you just have so much money and power you couldn't give a toss what anyone thinks."
No don't let them discourage you! As one of the few sane posters on here, I enjoy reading your commentary most of all! UKwales' as well. In fact, I would love to get your opinion on my post #60 if you don't mind.
Your posts are educated and based on lojic, which is hard to come by at least on this blog!
Complain about this comment
#203. PursuitOfLove: "My God!! I contributed my post #60 on Friday. Its now Sunday evening and not one of the subsequent posts even makes a passing reference to mine"
Possibly because of its inordinate length: 52 paragraphs and 1,528 words. If you can't write shorter posts, you're doomed to be ignored.
Complain about this comment
Britain influenced the States under Bush? Come on, Mardell, that's just cheap fiction make column-inches and you know it. Bush, the man who put on a bomber jacket to go see the Queen, who shot toothpaste jokes (really rather apt) at Prozac-rictus-grinning Blair, a president so deeply Republican that he was still fighting the War of Independence. And now Europe holds its breath for what? As the man said, the pathetic few underequipped British will fight, the Germans will pay, the Italians avoid and the French calculate and none of them - NONE - will be a drop in the ocean compared to the massive effort the Americans are putting in, unthanked and reviled from all sides. Obama wants to drop Europe right out of his calculations, but since France and England are such fertile ground for terrorist plots against his country, he's got to keep an eye on us: Inside the tent 'facing' out, rather than outside the tent 'facing' in, like dumb Monty after D-Day. Obama's not going to last, and he knows it. His sole ambition in the struggle against terrorism is that it doesn't happen on his watch. He will appease, wriggle, flatter, disarm, sacrifice brave men and sack the competent and those who see the threat, all in the interests of passing a murderously incompetent buck to the next unfortunate to sit in the White House, preferably a Republican who can be blamed when Iran gets the Bomb, the irhabis (that's Arabic for terrorist, better than 'jihadi' which affords resepct where none is due - Beeb take note) kill a few thousand and Britain finally stops using Afghanistan for live-firing practice and goes home to where the Yanks are financing a recrudescent IRA. That's Obama's style. Mark my words, Mark.
Complain about this comment
Are you kidding me? If tghe UK hadn't participated in the Iraq War, oh well, the US would have gone on anyways. Its not like they were NECESSARY. Important, yes. But necessary, never. Just look at the troop levels.
Complain about this comment
I personally believe that Britain and Israel have been our (The U.S's) most stalwart allies. Never backing down from a request for help. I'm almost ashamed and Obama's apparent mistrust and wavering loyalties to a country who would send their people to fight and to die alongside ours. In this day and age we need to come to respect our allies more, especially seeing the political fallout alot of them have come under simply for standing by their allies, their friends. I speak for myself as a United States service member, and plenty of others I've met, when I say thank you to all the countries willing to walk through hell with us to try and make an ungrateful world safer.
Complain about this comment
#173 David
I was merely showing that the boundaries she enjoyed at her creation were artificially drawn and thus in the future could be redrawn or removed entirely
I agree entirely and I don't know what the thinking that argues otherwise is based on. The USSR's borders didn't change for around seventy years - it didn't mean that therefore they were set in stone! And besides Israel has no borders so her boundaries are even less important. Interesting link BTW.
Complain about this comment
185 trueconservative
My reference to Groundhog Day was about the film where Bill Murray wakes up every day and relives the same day each time .... just like this blog re-runs the same tired rhetoric about Isreal irrespective of the actual original topic.
Complain about this comment
Britian has been our most trusted ally since WWII. Our countries are linked thru time due to our common lineage. Amerika at times has not acted towards our ally as an equal partner. We have differences but our common ground far out weighs our differeces. Historically we are linked and our alliance is far greater then the our current leaders. Hopefully our alliance will survive our current leaders and propser under Tory and Republician leadership.
Complain about this comment
President Obama has taken full responsibility for his actions, and is obviously intent on doing so in the future. That is why he is delaying what is bound to be a very difficult decision for him both from a moral perspective and because of its political implications. If he escalates the conflict, as he is likely to do, he will alienate his democratic base, and if he keeps troop levels the way they are now he will be cannon fodder for the GOP.
The reason most Americans consider our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq Bush's wars is because he started them. The challenge for the Obama administration is not winning those "wars", which is an impossible goal since there is no way to measure success in either country, but how to leave gracefully and how to minimize political damage at home.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He has escilated the conflict by extending into pakistan.Did you not read my post about him sending the drone which killed 24 pakistanis, none of which was the terrorist, and did you not read the post about black water's presence in pehshawar pakistan? doing what they did in iraq? Or you missed my post where I wrote that marines approximately 1000 are present just 9 kilometers from pakistani nuclear plant? The only reason he is waiting to announce his decision for troops is that he has sub-contracted the real fight to pakistani army..Once they give the green signal, obama will announce, and the green signal will come soon, because winter is just across the corner and pakistani military will in a few weeks wrap up their war in south waziristan...And when the next time you or he talk about pakistanis not keeping the border sealed , remind them that two weeks ago when the present attack on south waziristan was laucnhed by pakistani military, NATO vacated 8 important border check posts from afghan side..Ask them why they did that.Extended war into pakistan, is not a step towards a graceful exit..its destablizing pakistan, the intention which the americans always had..The democrats intended it even more so than republicans..And they have stuck to their plan.
Complain about this comment
205. PursuitOfLove wrote:
"RomeStu #176: '"And finally I must remind you that the USA did not join WW2 (thanks for coming)..."
I know I know. Two years late, only after we had been attacked so therefore not volentarily to help out a friend, etc etc etc."
I know you take umbrage at my flippant remark, but it was tongue-in-cheek and aimed purely to counteract the ill-thought out rhetoric of Marcus Aurelius II in post 172, where he implied that the European nations stood around while Jews were persecuted and then massacred, while the USA would do no such thing!
Go back and read the back story to a comment before you mount your white charger.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps it is the time for others in the alliance (NATO) to realize that the World War II is long gone and the interests of America (USA) may not be exactly the same as interests of other NATO participants. To be dragged into some foolish engagement without an end in sight may be contrary to some NATO members own long term interests. As to Gates expressed frankness, - who in the sound mind would not raise an eyebrow hearing Gates speak? He wants specific commitments from NATO members but will not divulge his country intentions? If his country commitment is to be modified only when numbers provided by other NATO members are known then it looks that other NATO participants are being used. Gates will not pressure Germany but he will pressure Albania; and so on. Good tactics, save American lives. Leadership of America maybe good but only if it has merits. The example with G.W.Bush antics should serve as a warning to others that it may not always be a case.
Complain about this comment
Ref 214, colonelartist
"The only reason he is waiting to announce his decision for troops is that he has sub-contracted the real fight to pakistani army..Once they give the green signal, obama will announce, and the green signal will come soon, because winter is just across the corner and pakistani military will in a few weeks wrap up their war in south waziristan..."
I didn't have to read your post to be aware of the damage done to the civilian populations of Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan by drones and bombings, those reprehensible events have been covered at length by our media.
I don't think the reason President Obama is delaying a decision to increase troop levels in Afghanistan is because he is waiting for the Pakistani army to finish their job in Waziristan. To be very blunt about it, the top - and often the only - priority for US Presidents are US interests and domestic support.
President Obama's Afghanistan conondrum is how to extricate ourselves from our Persian Gulf adventures without looking like an appeaser to terrorism and minimizing political risks if another terrorist attack takes place in the USA. President Bush was able to survive 9/11 by transforming himself into a war President determined to punish anyone remotely involved in that tragedy, even if their involvement was only cultural, President Obama would not be so lucky if an attack took place after deciding to pull out of the region or even keep troop levels as they are today after field commanders requested increases. He has no choice, he must increase troop levels or he risks being a one-term President. The problem is not Obama, who I suspect would rather pull out of that part of the world and focus on domestic affairs, but the "conservative" movement which, in spite of having been defeated last November, continues to call the shots and dominates the agenda abroad and at home.
Complain about this comment
If we in the USA act then we are branded the world's policeman, if we don't act then europe will complain that america has failed. Dammed if we do and dammed if we don't. Why we ever got involved with european affairs after WWII and contained the russkies? It was in our own best interests so that we did not have to fight another land based war in europe. So Gates is just repeating a long held view that NATO and US intrests are not always the same. NATO has outlived its usefullness. It needs to be replaced by a EU Security Force, so that the UK, Canada and USA can focus on their own national intrests like beating the pants off the russkies and chi coms.
Complain about this comment
I am not a fan of President Obama's leadership skills when it comes to the military. I have always believed if your going to fight a war you fight it, you don't stand there and say hey were going to shoot you if you don't settledown. Obama has said he's not going to risk more troops lives by rushing more troops to Afghanistan. What about the lives of those troops already overthere. He's risking them by dragging his feet. Pakistan has asked that Nato seal the border, how, if they don't have the troops to do it. These people think their winning and are only encouraged by this delay, which they think is a sign of weekness. It most definately is a sign of weakness, a weakness of leadership at the highest level Commander and Chief. Remember Pork Chop Hill, thats what this is Mr. President!
Complain about this comment
218 Amerika
"NATO has outlived its usefullness. It needs to be replaced by a EU Security Force, so that the UK, Canada and USA can focus on their own national intrests"
NATO may well have passed its usefulness - but if its biggest player concedes that their agendas may be different this is hardy surprising.
However if an EU Security Force were formed, the UK would be part of it and not be able to pick and choose its own national interests.
Complain about this comment
I am not a fan of President Obama's leadership skills when it comes to the military. I have always believed if your going to fight a war you fight it, you don't stand there and say hey were going to shoot you if you don't settledown. Obama has said he's not going to risk more troops lives by rushing more troops to Afghanistan. What about the lives of those troops already overthere. He's risking them by dragging his feet. Pakistan has asked that Nato seal the border, how, if they don't have the troops to do it. These people think their winning and are only encouraged by this delay, which they think is a sign of weekness. It most definately is a sign of weakness, a weakness of leadership at the highest level Commander and Chief. Remember Pork Chop Hill, thats what this is Mr. President!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For 9 yrs, NATO countries have blamed pakistani military for not sealing the border properly.And when for once, the NATO was supposed to seal the border from the other side at this crucial period when pakistani army has declared a full war in south wazirstan, NATO conviently vacated its 8 important check posts from afghan side of the border even though the pakistanis told them not to do so..The government of pakistan has definately got an answer thats why its not persuing this matter, but the people believe that the only reason americans and NATO has done it is to avoid that their troops come into direct contact with these fighting taliban..ergo, saving their own troops lives..Obama is not going to risk his troops lives, and thats why he like bush, uses other troops, be it northern alliance or pakistani troops when it comes to real ground battles..Pakistan didnt ask america or NATO for troop increase, they just asked them not to vacate those check posts..America is already engaged in a hidden war in pakistan..their troops presence, their black water presence, their open and vulgar interference in what pakistan should do in this war by imposing so many conditions on pakistan via that kerry lugar bill, and practically forcing pakistani government to accept it without discussing it in their parliment..American forces present in pakistan both civil and military enjoy more rights in pakistan, then the pakistani people..These things are not discussed in your media..All your media discusses is the fear of nuclear weapons getting into hands of taliban..Your goals are to get hold of those weapons when the situation gets out of hand..they are not interested in saving pakistan from getting destablised..its already is taken for granted by your leaders and media that it will happen..This is because they know that their stragegies for pakistan and for war on terror means that pakistan will detoriate..so they are focused on what their goal is, to get to the nuclear weapons.
Complain about this comment
I don't think the reason President Obama is delaying a decision to increase troop levels in Afghanistan is because he is waiting for the Pakistani army to finish their job in Waziristan. To be very blunt about it, the top - and often the only - priority for US Presidents are US interests and domestic support.
President Obama's Afghanistan conondrum is how to extricate ourselves from our Persian Gulf adventures without looking like an appeaser to terrorism and minimizing political risks if another terrorist attack takes place in the USA.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You dont have insight into the problem, the only reason this situation is compared to vietnam war is the fear of casualities, if usa looses its troops by the hundreds every month, only then it will be a vietnam, as long as it manages to have a low casuality rate, the one that is acceptable to the american public, the americans will support the war, but they will not opposse it the way they oppossed vietnam war..And the only way to maintain the present casuality rate, which seems to be acceptable to american public is to use others to fight the real battles..and let the NATO engage in skirmishes with the taliban. Skirmishes is the word that comes to mind everytime NATO engages with taliban..the word which has mysteriously vanished from the debate or news.And whether you like it or not, accept it or not, the fact is no one can give 100 percent gaurantee that america will never be attacked before, one thing that is gauranteed that the method used was not the best methd, and thats the only lesson that should be learnt from these 9 yrs as far as how to tackle the after math of such an attack.If usa has learnt that, and has the courage to say that, then your desire of winning the hearts of minds of people whose countries you destroy just to get hold of small groups of extremists, will be 80% completed.
Complain about this comment
220. At 2:57pm on 27 Oct 2009, RomeStu wrote:
However if an EU Security Force were formed, the UK would be part of it and not be able to pick and choose its own national interests.
That is true unless the UK under Tory leadership comes to its senses and realizes that the EU is nothing more then France trying to run Europe and goes its own way. Sure they give a few crumbs to the Brits, but the EU remains the European Common Market but in another form. Better to be free and independent then to be beholding to some one else. I have always had much faith in British Common Sense.
Complain about this comment
The US are clearly keen for there to be a unified Europe and a centralized defense policy and point of contact ("who do I call when I want to call Europe?"), which is the rest of the world's interest too (even European citizens - if not of European 'leaders'). So Gates is just being frank and letting out his frustration at all the Euro contradictory messages and little chiefs blocking any kind of action, which is so typical of the EU and EFTA.
Regarding US being the only superpower, China does have the largest standing army in the world and deserves a mention.
When will the EU stop gazing at their navels and jostling with each other and deal with the real issues in the rest of the world, such as violence and full blown war in the name of religion?
Complain about this comment
he doesn't need to MA will do it for him.
Complain about this comment
DanLondon73 (#224) "When will the EU stop gazing at their navels and jostling with each other and deal with the real issues in the rest of the world, such as violence and full blown war in the name of religion?"
This seems like unfair criticism to me. NATO is the (mostly) European defense group, and all NATO allies are contributing in the war against al Qaeda. The EU is more about economics.
Complain about this comment
RomeStu #216. . .
I know why you were writing that post. I read the whole thing. And I don't think it was flippant considering who you were responding to. Careying on a rational conversation with MAII is like trying to hold a conversation with a brick wall.
However your response mirrors a comment that has been expressed by several British commentators on here, and you know as well as I do that if Israel isn't being debated, then more often than not its World War II. So perhaps I responded a little strongly, and for that I apologize, but I was just A. frustrated that what I had attempted to say about it was rejected so many times in the past by the moderators, and B. determined to help provide some information on the US's involvement in order to help balance out the debate and give pause to people of all nationalities before making their own contributions.
Everything I said about Roosevelt was true, again I'd give more specifics but it most likely wouldn't get passed. So I encourage you, or anyone else who is intreagued by it to look it up. That is all I meant by that post.
P.S. Just curious, on the '"Why Adolescent America Needs to Grow up" entry, you said that you think 'PhillyMom would make a good 2012 VP candidate. Why is that? From her posts prior to yours, it seems to me that she's good at pointing out our faults, but not at proposing ways to fix them. Don't get me wrong! I'm no naive fool who only wants to hear false optimistic things from potencial elected officials!! I want someone who will tell it like it is. But I also want proposals on how to improve the country. So what, I ask, is so attractive to you about PhillyMom's posts that you think she would make a good VP candidate? Of course I know you don't honestly think this; I'm sure you'd want to know a little more about her than what you can gather from her posts before sincerely endorsing her, but I'm still curious. Thank you.
Complain about this comment
DanLondon73: '"The US are clearly keen for there to be a unified Europe and a centralized defense policy and point of contact ("who do I call when I want to call Europe?"
Funnily enough, this very thing was referenced on a recent blog entry by the BBC's person covering Europe; Gaven Huit, I believe it is now. He said that now we'll know who to call because Europe will have a president.
I must say, I'm a little offended. I wonder where this notion of an American president not knowing who to call in Europe came from? I should think it pretty obvious, they should call the leader or foreign secritary of whatever European country of whom they wish to speak.
Yes its true that the US, along with any other sensible person in the world I believe, wants a unifyed Europe with a common defense policy. But if I'm not mistaken, it already has that. "Centralised" could be a bit more dangerous without the proper checks and balances in place.
To be frank, I think the Lisbon treaty would work just fine just so long as all 27 member states of the European Union agree upon, and sign off on whatever it is that the new European president and European Foreign Secritary want to do before it is enacted in Europe's name. But I think it important, nay, crutial, for individual European countries to retain their individuality as well as colaborating with each other when possible!! I like what each European country has to offer. I don't think trans-atlantic relations wouldn't be the same without US officials debating whether France or Germany likes us better at a certain moment in time, or complaining about how Poland seems to be the South Carolina of Europe and lamenting about how frustrating that is. So as long as these things are minded, I think it'll work just fine; provided of course, that European leaders allow other world leaders to call either European head quarters or individual country's head quarters!!
Complain about this comment
amerika_first #223: '"That is true unless the UK under Tory leadership comes to its senses and realizes that the EU is nothing more then France trying to run Europe and goes its own way."
Well I don't know about that, but regardless, I wouldn't count on it if I were you. David Miliband is enthusiasticly endorsing and pushing for Blair to be Europe's first president. He says that with the Lisbon treaty the way it is now, that foreign policy decision making would not be taken out of the hands of London, but it is inevitable that when you give power to someone, you take it away from someone else.
Read my post #228 for my more extensive thoughts on Europe.
Complain about this comment
227 pursuitof love
"you said that you think 'PhillyMom would make a good 2012 VP candidate. Why is that? From her posts prior to yours, it seems to me that she's good at pointing out our faults, but not at proposing ways to fix them"
You are being a little more literal than I expected for that off-the-cuff remark, but the rationale would be this....Once you can recognise the faults then you can begin to fix them. One step at a time. She's got a while before the primaries to come up with some real world solutions!
Complain about this comment
RomeStue #230: '"You are being a little more literal than I expected for that off-the-cuff remark..."
Have to say, I'm a little offended. It wasn't an "off-the-cuff" remark. In fact far from it. If you read the rest of the post, you'll see that I went to great pains to explain my thought process in asking that question. Furthermore, you'll note that at the end I said that I don't seriously believe that you think she would make a good candidate based on her posts and apparent lack of electoral history as well.
I do understand, though, why you made that comment, which is the answer I was seaking in the first place. I believe that your lojic is a good one; recognize the faults and you can begin to fix them.
Complain about this comment
231 pursuitoflove
The off-the-cuff remark I referred to was my own, not your response, for which I thank you.
My best wishes in your pursuit .... hope you can run faster!
Complain about this comment
RomeStu #232: '"The off-the-cuff remark I referred to was my own, not your response, for which I thank you."
Oh OK I understand now. My apologies.
"My best wishes in your pursuit .... hope you can run faster!"
Might I just ask, What is that supposed to mean? Do you think I'm rude?
Complain about this comment
233 pursuit
"My best wishes in your pursuit .... hope you can run faster!"
Might I just ask, What is that supposed to mean? Do you think I'm rude?
If you are in pursuit of something you must run faster than it if you are ever to catch it. I was wishing you well in your pursuit of love - something I wish everyone well in.
(I know my posts are often more argumentative as responses, but sometimes I'm just nice and well-meaning)
Complain about this comment
"As for the rest of Europe, by comparison Estonia makes a far greater contribution in proportion to its size than Germany does. How convenient for Germans to hide behind their constitution in failing to meet their obligations in what is supposed to be a mutual defense treaty."
Actually our constitution forbids "Angriffskriege" and both Iraq and Afghanistan were such things. So you should be happy that there are some soldiers at all.
@ 174 Illinoisian
"I still plan of going to Europe one day and visit countries where my ancestors came from (and then some) and I plan on treating all Europeans with respect, because that is what they deserve."
It is certainly less mysterious when you live here for all your life but nevertheless feel free to enjoy a stay here. One thing though is that you should consider visiting some of the less famous castles and palaces. Places like Versailles and Neuschwanstein are really overrun by tourists. I once visited a rather small castle in Sweden with just a small group and our guide there. It was a thousand times more mysterious than being visitor Nr. 10546 on that very day in Neuschwanstein.
@ 229 PursuitOfLove:
With all due respect of course but Blair has an underdog chance (if at all) to become Europes first president. Why would we want someone who has blood on his hands from Iraq, who was opposing the Euro and who was opposing Schengen (so basically falling out of line in every way possible within the EU) want to be our first President? And as if that was not enough his block aims to send someone to become High Representative seemingly leaving the President to the conservative partys instead.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS