- This topic has 63 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
You call the arms that have been sold to Saudi over the years "low tech"?
Not in absolute terms – the standard of stuff put into the Middle East by the US has gone up all round.
But relative to what goes to Israel, and when, and what the arms can do without further input by the seller, then yes.
As for that Oslo stuff..whats that all about?
you know as well as i do and as well as clinton did and most impartial observers acknowledge, that the Palestinians were granted a huge proportion of their demands at Oslo (some clacualtions nailed it at 98%). who gets every last cent of anything in negotiations? That was their chance and they blew it. And we know why
What that Oslo stuff is all about is an impartial Norwegian historian looking at the Oslo accords some years after the event from a Norwegian angle, and concluding that they were fated to fail, “Norway acting as Israel’s helpful errand boy.”
Impartial observers in fact acknowledge that the Palestinians actually received next-to-nothing from Oslo, being constantly being cut back “through the back channel”, the process for which all the written records have mysteriously gone missing (Israeli politicians quote them but won’t release them back to the Norwegians).
The reason Arafat signed Oslo seems to have been to do with his personal situation – he had already lost a lot of his constituency and he was gambling to get it back.
There is a good summary here of what Oslo actually gave to each side (please don’t write it off just because the author’s address is Islamabad):
http://www.issi.org.pk/journal/2001_fil … cle/2a.htm
Ron Paul
http//ww.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html
Now that really is drivel – nothing that’s said by him at all. Just some “look at me” on a hatchet job.
Ron Paul is for small government with a small budget in accordance with the constitution, including the US not sticking its nose into the affairs of other countries as specified by the founders.
His comments about all aspects of the US in the Middle East are from that basis. Israel is part of that as a destination of US funds, but he’s not any more interested in it than any other destination for non-constitutional funds.
Judge him by his own words:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
including:
“we have no constitutional authority to police the world or involve ourselves in nation building, in making the world safe for our style of democracy. Our founders advised against it and the early presidents followed that advice. If we believe strongly in our ideals, the best way to spread them is to set a good example so that others will voluntarily emulate us. Force will not work. Besides, we do not have the money. “
and
“The tired assertion that America "supports democracy" in the Middle East is increasingly transparent. It was false 50 years ago, when we supported and funded the hated Shah of Iran to prevent nationalization of Iranian oil, and it’s false today when we back an unelected military dictator in Pakistan – just to name two examples. IF HONEST DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS WERE HELD THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST TOMORROW, MANY COUNTRIES WOULD ELECT RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALIST LEADERS HOSTILE TO THE UNITED STATES. Cliché or not, the Arab Street really doesn’t like America, so we should stop the charade about democracy and start pursuing a coherent foreign policy that serves America’s long-term interests. “
and
“It really doesn’t matter whether I’m right or wrong: the
war is going to end because we’re gonna have such a political and financial havoc here with the devaluation of our dollar, because we just can’t keep affording it. This is usually how empires end, by spending too much money maintaining their empire.
We’re in 130 countries, we have 700 bases around the world, and it’s going to come to an end. I want it to come to an end more gracefully and peacefully, follow the constitution, and follow a more sensible foreign policy.”
Ron Paul, top man.
So it doesnt bother you that ron Paul has a strong following amongst neo nazis and accepts donations and actual campaign help from the same? T
And you dont think that that might explain his interest in conspiracy theories that blame Israel for 9/11
and that it might explain why he supports the holocaust denying Iranian regime and their desire to arm themselves (and their terrorist proxies no doubt) with nuclear arms?
I would suggest that rather than drawing whatever conclusions from some boring story on missing papers at oslo, you take in the wider picture at oslo
More rubbish from Ron Paul
Which middle eastern countries would elect "fundamentalist regimes tomorrow" then?
I would suggest that in Egypt (where the Muslim Brotherhood are trying to modify their model), Syria, Lebanon, jordan, dubai and yes, iraq…the tradition and development is too far removed from the austere Wahibism for this to take route. They would be looking to Turkey not Taleban Afganistan
Pakistan (not middle east anyway). Suprisingly perhaps the fundamentalists can never appear to grab more than 10% of the vote. And this is a country with a closer tradition and more extensive network of extremism than most
Saudi? Well its almost that type of regime anyway isnt it? But as recent book Kingdon in the Sand indicated, the desire for reform is growing
Where else? Iraq? No. Too divided between sects for that to happen
Iran? No as we have seen. Only the Guardian writers believed the results of their elections
Wheres left then?
Very small states like Yemen maybe.
Israel?
More rubbish from Ron Paul
Which middle eastern countries would elect "fundamentalist regimes tomorrow" then?…
My guess is that his definition of a fundamentalist regime would be one that, where the two conflict, would regard the terms of a religious text as overriding the terms of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
By that measure:
==============
We are deeply concerned with the changes to the Universal Declara tion of Human Rights by a coalition of Islamic states within the United Nations that wishes to prohibit any criticism of religion and would thus protect Islam’s limited view of human rights.In view of the conditions inside the Islamic Republic of Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Syria, Bangladesh, Iraq, and Afghanistan, we should expect that at the top of their human rights agenda would be to rectify the legal inequality of women, the suppression of political dissent, the curtailment of free expression, the persecution of ethnic minorities and religious dissenters—in short, protecting their citizens from egregious human rights violations. Instead, they are worrying about protecting Islam.
==================http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.ph … rtz_29_2_4
very different assessment to yours – you seem to be saying the only fundamentalists are Wahhabis.
i’ll go with Ron’s definition over yours.
the real point he’s making though is that the US, UK etc all say they want democracy, but the truth is they don’t accept democratic outcomes they don’t like.
so really they just want to dictate – and not just in the Middle East.
by the way, didn’t Hamas win a democratic election ?
A thought provoking article on Iran from
"The Australian
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/tehran-on-a-path-to-our-destruction/story-e6frg76f-1225831541818
So it doesnt bother you that ron Paul has a strong following amongst neo nazis and accepts donations and actual campaign help from the same? T
And you dont think that that might explain his interest in conspiracy theories that blame Israel for 9/11
and that it might explain why he supports the holocaust denying Iranian regime and their desire to arm themselves (and their terrorist proxies no doubt) with nuclear arms?
I would suggest that rather than drawing whatever conclusions from some boring story on missing papers at oslo, you take in the wider picture at oslo
Medved is a talk-show host that stands in for Limbaugh. Also founder and longtime president of the Pacific Jewish Center. Also a baal teshuva. Professional motormouth jealously protecting ongoing huge funding by the US of Israel, and mudslinger at anyone who might threaten that.
You can’t police everyone who supports you – long as they don’t influence your policies, who cares ? Big deal about 500 bucks supposedly from some nut with a website.
==================
"During the fourth quarter of 2007, Paul was the most successful Republican fundraiser, bringing in approximately 20 million dollars.He also received the most money from the armed services of any candidate in the fourth quarter and, out of all the Republican candidates, he had the most support from black Americans.
Ron Paul’s campaign set two fund raising records: the largest single day donation total among Republican candidates and twice receiving the most money received via the Internet in a single day by any presidential candidate in American history.
Paul receives most of his contributions from individuals, at ninety-seven percent; compare that to other candidates."
=======================
the guy is respected across the political spectrum in the US – you’re seriously off-piste trying to portray him as a Nick Griffin figure. get a grip, man.
as for 9/11 – where do you stand on the "new Pearl Harbor" point and the Project for the New American Century ?
he certainly doesn’t support Iran in the way that say you on this thread have supported Israel – he’s pointing out that the situation in Iran is longtime of the US’s making, from Mossadeq onwards, and the US shouldn’t be spending money interfering with other nations.
its actually the US who has the history of supporting Iran – the Shah, Iran-Contra, even today yer man Maliki (the PM of Iraq) famously recently called Iran “a good friend and brother”.
the problem is it keeps blowing hot and cold – saddam good, saddam bad; bin laden good, bin laden bad, etc.
don’t blame Ron Paul for that.
on Oslo, the devil is in the detail – boring but important, that’s where you go to find out what happened.
A thought provoking article on Iran from
"The Australian
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/tehran-on-a-path-to-our-destruction/story-e6frg76f-1225831541818
ah yes, Greg Sheridan (sorry, but those with this kind of viewpoint do seem to have "form"):
"Sheridan was the recipient of the (2007) annual Jerusalem Prize by the State Zionist Council of NSW. Sheridan tried to justify accepting the award by stating that Israel’s democracy emerged as the prime reason for his unquestioning support, not because it is perfect, but because being anti-Israel is "fundamentally irrational and evidence of psychological and ideological dysfunction rather than genuine analysis."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti … _of_Israel
– or in other words, "you’re mad if you disagree with me". there’s a man with a top argument.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6871.shtml
the reader comments on his piece are thought-provoking though.
Thanks for the links Wit. I’ve no knowledge of the authors "for", so will havew a gander at the links you provide. Cheers
Electronic Intifada is an interesting link but one might say that they have as much of an entrenched view of things as Sheridan does. Nonetheless, always worth reading both sides of the argument and trying (not always successfully) not to be too entrenched myself.
yes, electronic intifada obviously have an axe to grind but they do at least declare their allegiances up front in a way that doesn’t happen with Mr Sheridan.
i put them in more for the background info, which is verifiable from other sources by googling.
but the other link, sourcewatch, is a wiki-type operation, with whatever that implies for even-handedness:
we know full well what he means by a "fundamentalist" regime. Its not by some Un definition. He is talking Taleban or Wahabbi or whatever. I would suggest that most arab populations would not want to see this form of government.
Hamas won in a vacuum caused by the obvious difficulties in that area and the incompetence of Fatah. The circumstances would not automatically be replicated elsewhere. the nearest equivalent was algeria but it is an unfounded assumption that democratic elections in Syrai say would lead to a religous oppresive regime. If it couldnt happen in Pakistan i doubt it would happen there
cant be bothered with ron Paul anymore. hes a libertarian fundamentalist which is for me, strictly for the swivel eyed. He clearly got himself in a mess with some support and clearly didnt counter quick enough. Quick look through web would show that hes the favoured candidate by extreme groups, whether he welcomes it or not. His comments after Katrina were enough on there own to disqualify him from running the country IMO
And of course, he would have been completely against any US involvement in europe during ww2 or any protection of western europe in the cold war. A prat in other words
Ok we will kill off "top man" Ron Paul once and for all
Ellsberg Explains Reality of US Foreign Policy to Kristol p1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIUSMLOmtQ8
Daniel Ellsberg spent three years in the U.S. Marine Corps, serving as rifle platoon leader, operations officer, and rifle company commander.
He worked as a strategic analyst at the RAND Corporation and consultant to the Defense Department and the White House.
"His recent essay, "The Next War", featured in the October 2006 issue of Harpers magazine, urges government officials to reveal truths about government secrecy and nuclear planning—with documents—to avert a possible attack on Iran.""A hidden crisis is under way. Many government insiders are aware of serious plans for war with Iran, but Congress and the public remain largely in the dark."
http://harpers.org/archive/2006/10/0081208Ok we will kill off "top man" Ron Paul once and for all
Great link – but it praises Ron Paul rather than buries him.
Not in the intro piece of course (which I suspect is what you’re looking at) – but in the reader replies that follow it, including the reproduction of Ron Paul’s speech on that Haiti vote:
========
Statement in Opposition to H Res 1021, Condolences to Haiti January 21, 2010I rise in reluctant opposition to this resolution.
Certainly I am moved by the horrific destruction in Haiti and would without hesitation express condolences to those who have suffered and continue to suffer. As a medical doctor, I have through my career worked to alleviate the pain and suffering of others.
Unfortunately, however, this resolution does not simply express our condolences, but rather it commits the US government “to begin the reconstruction of Haiti” and affirms that “the recovery and long-term needs of Haiti will require a sustained commitment by the United States….”
I do not believe that a resolution expressing our deep regret and sorrow over this tragedy should be used to commit the United States to a “long-term” occupation of Haiti during which time the US government will provide for the reconstruction of that country.
I am concerned over the possibility of an open-ended US military occupation of Haiti and this legislation does nothing to alleviate my concerns. On the contrary, when this resolution refers to the need for a long term US plan for Haiti, I see a return to the failed attempts by the Clinton and Bush Administrations to establish Haiti as an American protectorate. Already we are seeing many argue that this kind of humanitarian mission is a perfect fit for the US military. I do not agree.
Certainly I would support and encourage the efforts of the American people to help the people of Haiti at this tragic time. I believe that the American people are very generous on their own and fear that a US government commitment to reconstruct Haiti may actually discourage private contributions. Mr. Speaker, already we see private US citizens and corporations raising millions of dollars for relief and reconstruction of Haiti. I do not believe the US government should get in the way of these laudable efforts. I do express my condolences but I unfortunately must urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution committing the United States government to rebuild Haiti.
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/tx14_paul/Haiti.
=======ever wondered why so very very long to get things moving in Haiti once the US military "took charge" in a way that prevented all private help getting through, or being distributed even once it had got through?
exactly the same as happened with Katrina, private efforts similarly turned away by the military who there also did nothing for a long time and let folk suffer a few hundred yards away from huge supply dumps ?
here’s Ron on Katrina:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul275.html
here on the difference between non-interventionism and isolationism:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst121806.htm
and here on when he would go to war:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl … n_war.html
Ron is a rare example of a man who thinks for himself and is not a "repeater" of "conventional wisdom", whether of the establishment left or the establishment right.
He is saying that he is against any US goverment help for Haiti in the same way that he was against help for New Orleans
His "condolences" mean zero when he is saying that if he was in charge not one US airforce aid flight would take off and not one US navy ship would deliver aid
The idea that the US would stand by and do zero when a impoverished country suffers such a fate on their doorstep is revolting
You have to practically be mentally ill to state on the one hand you "feel for the victims" and then refuse to do anything within your enormous power when you have the ability to do so
Oh for gods sake, you are seriously thinking that New orleans would have been better off without goverment help? Thats a hopeless example. you seriously think that the situation would have been better left to "private individuals" and charities …or whatever?
do you actually understand the difference between federal and local government in the US?
============
…many police, fire and EMS organizations from outside the affected areas were reportedly stymied by federal government in their efforts to send help and assistance to the area. …A report by the Appleseed Foundation, a public policy network, found that local entities (nonprofit and local government agencies) were far more flexible and responsive than the federal government or national organizations.
In many instances, federal staff and national organizations did not seem to have the flexibility, training, and resources to meet demands on the ground."
======================
You tell the people of New Orleans your opinion that they should be grateful to the Feds, and see what response you get. They’re with Ron.
Haiti – read it all again above. Understand that the US government isn’t about aid, its about getting itself set up for long-term occupation. Until that happens it releases nothing and nobody else is allowed to do so.
Also read about WW II again above. Ron isn’t saying he wouldn’t have intervened. He says he would have done exactly what the US did – respond to a direct attack on it. You think the US joined in before Pearl Harbor ?
Read what he’s said, rather than make things up, attribute your fabrications to him, and then attack him for what you’ve made up.
Thats garbage about "the people of new orleans". it was the lack of response that was continually and rightly thrown at Bush by all parties across the US. Private individuals and local goverment can supply heavy lift helicopters can they? they have the miltary organisation to deliver structured emergency aid? come off it… You seriously telling me that the "people of new orleans" would rather that the military hadnt been involved?
It is obvious that those quotes are critising elements of the intervention rather tahn saying it simply shouldnt have happened or was "unconsitutional"
hes not critising how the aid was delivered. Hes against the fact that it was in the first (belated) place
By that criteria he would be against military aid if an earthquake hit San Fran and left god knows how many destitute. he would be against military aid, on principle, if the other agencies couldnt deliver
hes a nut
haiti is about AID. So what if troops are there for security (or whatever paranoid reasons the far left and right seem to have concocted) the US military saved lives and could deliver with heavy lift planes and ships that private charities clearly wouldnt be able to. Thats obvious
You really think that Obama wants to "occupy" Haiti. For what? Theres fck all there
As for WW2, yes, like scum like Joe Kennedy and others, he WOULDNT have intervened without Pearl Harbour. Thats ok is it?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.