As I said on my Mark 1:11 blog last evening I wanted to digest President' Obama's speech before commenting on it. Well, it's 0523 hours in my time zone, I am somewhat awake, the coffee is brewing and I have just completed reading his speech compliments of The Huffington Post. Yes, I said the Huffington Post. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. First off let me tell you I absolutely despise teleprompters. What ever happened to some notes and speaking from your heart? Everything is so scripted these days and nothing is real.
Next he goes into the costs involved in the war in Iraq. In a time of war the cost of a war is not germane. It is not the cost of lives, equipment, political liabilities or any other thing. The focus must be on winning. If winning is not the objective don't undertake the initiative. It will only produce wasted time, money, wasted resources and personnel. This was unnecessary in the light of his administration's spend, spend, spend attitude of American taxpayer's $$$$$.
Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. .....Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people - and our troops - no less.
I am not sure of what the first line of the above statement is all about. I presume it is a political defensive move as to why he has waited so long to make a decision regarding "his" General's request. The last line I agree with. He owes the troops 110% of his time regarding decisions that place them in harms way.
The President goes on to announce the number of troops. This number is only 75% of those requested by his own, hand picked General. He then goes on to infer additional troops will be coming from NATO allies. This while it had all ready been reported that some European countries were not going to send an additional troops. Clik here. This type of smoke and mirrors I find disturbing. The lack of a complete truth on something as serious as this, indicates to me a lack of confidence in ones own decision. I have never, and never, will be a defender of giving a date of exiting. To me that's like telling a boxer you don't have to win by a knockout. Just stay on your feet till the end of the 10th round and YOU WIN! I can dance around the ring for quite a while with those conditions.
The President went on to infer this was not the same as Vietnam. He made some valid points. It isn't another Vietnam on his points. Where it is another Vietnam is that it is being run by politicians and not Generals. Therein lies the problem. President Obama last night referred to himself several times, an rightly so, as Commander in Chief. The Constitution gives him that title. Unlike becoming a Marine, it was a title given, not earned! It does not make him a military genius. It certainly does not make him competent to make military decisions. His second in command, Vice President Biden has only 5 student deferrals to show for his military expertise. So why would you not listen to your hand picked Generals and send 40,000 of our finest fighting soldiers? This is suspect to me.
I am not the greatest scholar, many of you will agree with that. I am not a scholar at all. However, doesn't the President's ending remarks sound like something I have heard from someone else before? Perhaps I am wrong but....... Correct me if I am wrong.
....we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer,....
Oh, by the way, where was the word "win" in this speech?
Pops
37 comments:
"... Where it is another Vietnam is that it is being run by politicians and not Generals...."
Amen. Another Viet Nam indeed.
We've the best, most disciplined and most humane military in the world. Period.
Yet give our present leadership and their liberal loon allies half a chance and you'd think our troops were rejects from Ghengis Khan's army. Rejected for being too brutal.
The troops fight for all intents & purposes with their hands tied behind their backs as they adhere to nonsensical "rules of engagement". Rules that include not taking out a mosque doing double duty as a weapons depot, or not bombing the snot out of a "funeral" comprised of enemy leaders meetng in a cemetary.
I'll just mention in passing the absurdity of things like the Haditha "massacre" and the ludicrous level of outrage over the idiocy at Abu Gharib.
Despite this, our men and women in uniform are winnning in Iraq and would do the same in Afghanistan if they were allowed to do their jobs.
Yet they'll be sacrificed on the altar of politcal expedience, treated as nothing more than pieces in some politico's game.
And those who survive will return to be vilified and stereotyped as drug crazed psychotics.
Americal is at the mall while her military is at war.
And the beat goes on.
Don't faint but...I agree with you Gary! It was absolutely wrong for Obama to give a date for withdrawal, and for him to say 18 months is puzzling. My first thought was, maybe he is just saying that to get Karzai to get serious. But if that were the reason, he should not have said anything publicly but said something to Karzai privately. 18 months does not sound realistic to me.
As for Clinton--his mistake was abandoning and ignoring Afghanistan because the Soviets had left. Bush's mistake was listening to Rumsfeld and thinking that dropping a few bombs and getting rid of the Taliban government was going to solve the problem. BOTH of those presidents were looking for short-term popularity instead of long-term results. As for Obama, I think he is afraid of criticism. He doesn't want to be criticized as weak and I think he is (rightly) afraid of another attack on the US. At the same time, he is afraid of making the wrong decision and investing a lot of money and lives into an effort that doesn't pay off. What is missing from Obama's plan is not the 10,000 troops (which the military probably doesn't have right now anyway) but a plan to solve the underlying conflicts that have fueled Islamic extremism. Where is the plan to reduce tensions between India and Pakistan? Where is the plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Making a speech in Egypt is not going to get Muslims around the world to like the US. And where is the plan to undercut the Saudi-funded madrassas in Pakistan that are churning out the extremists? Why haven't we heard anything about that? Why give Pakistan more money for their military, many members of which are corrupt and supporting the Taliban? We need to hear about a plan to reach the Pakistani people; Pakistan's government is corrupt and the Pakistani people know it. They need real schools and not more money for their military.
Faint, Faint! What was it Red Foxx use to say, "Lizabeth, I coming to me to meet you. Seriously though I think you may have hit on something. Is President Obama afraid of being criticized? I have never thought of that and I bet few people have.
I really don't find it unusual that we agree on the 18 month withdrawal date. I do firmly believe we all have so common ground and common sense. I agree with you on the short-term popularity theory of President Bush and Clinton. We need to win the minds and hearts of the young people and show them America is a great nation with great opportunities.
Just as an added note on strange things. I heard Mark Furman on Hannity tonight say President Obama's exit plan was exactly the same as the Soviet Union's plan when they left. He cited some dates and times and sounded fairly sure of himself. He does have a history of an investigator.
Thank you for your comment.
Rev. G, I am sorry to hear you are from Lebanon because it is an awful place. I know many people from Lebanon. It is riven with ethnic sectarianism; the Christians hate the Shia who hate the Sunnis etc. Apparently you are one of those Christians. I am an American and believe different kinds of people can live together but peace is won through justice, not through denigrating other people's religions.
Elizabeth,
Why would you apologize to MRG for being from Lebanon? To be quite honest to me, only to me, that sounds a little condescending. One has no say in ones heritage. I believe the good MRG is an
American just like you and me. Furthermore although I would consider the standard of living in Turkey horrible, I would be the first to stand up and saw there are many good people there. One must look past one's own prejudice to see the beauty in all mankind.
Gary, from your mouth to Rev. G's ears. "beauty in all mankind" indeed. Rev. G just called one billion of the earth's citizens liars. What I meant is that Lebanon is a divided country in which ethnic sectarianism caused a hideous civil war. The American slogan "E Pluribus Unum" is something the Lebanese are just starting to believe might be the best way to go. A diverse society works when people respect each other and denigrating other people's religions, which is what Rev. G did, is not respect. Rather it is the type of bigotry that leads to civil wars.
Actually I am now much more clear on where Rev. G is coming from. Many Lebanese hate the Palestinians because they blame the PLO for causing chaos in their country. Lebanon in fact keeps Palestinian Muslims (but not Christians)in squalid refugee camps and denies them citizenship. Yes there are nice people in Lebanon including the families of several friends of mine. But my comment was about the political culture of the country. The notion that all people are created equal hasn't totally caught on in Lebanon and Rev. G's bigotry against Muslims is an example of that.
I came, I read, I commented....I'm staying out of this mess.
MM,
LOL,
I know you have an opinion!
Pop
For a firsthand account of life in Lebanon as it transited from a peaceful Christian nation to what it currently is, read Brigette Gabriele's "Because They Hate".
Significant that as an Arab she was raised to hate Jews despite her Christian background.
Seems the followers of the Pedophile Prophet are fairly adept at drumming up sympathy in all corners of the world.
"Lebanon was a beautiful country and Beirut was a beautiful city until the Palestinians and Syria messed it up."
Well, if the zionists hadn't expelled the Palestinians from their land, none of what you describe would have happened.
"Well, if the zionists hadn't expelled the Palestinians from their land, none of what you describe would have happened."
What you suggest is that violence against a nation entirely innocent of wrongdoing to a displaced people is justified when they render aid to that group. Using that line of reasoning I'm entitled to be mugged by the next homeless man I give a few bucks to.
Wasn't it Sylvia Plath who first said that no good deed goes unpunished?
"Well, if the zionists hadn't expelled the Palestinians from their land, none of what you describe would have happened."
Gee whiz Elizabeth, is there no problem on God’s green earth that can’t be blamed on the Jews – oh excuse me - I mean Zionists? After accusing others of bigotry, you spew your poisonous anti Jewish – darn - I mean anti Zionist bigotry all over this site. You talk about people respecting each other but you denigrate Israeli Jews and those of us who support their right to live in peace in their own country without interference from people like you who buy into the current Islamic inspired anti Jewish blood libels (and I do mean anti Jewish).
The “notion that all people are created equal” hasn’t caught up with you when you can blame the PLO’s destabilization of Lebanon on “the Zionists expelling Palestinians from their land.” The only way you can make that statement with a straight face is to keep yourself in willful ignorance of the Middle East’s and Israel’s history. Do some reading. I recommend either Paul Johnson’s History of the Jews or Wanderings by Chaim Potok. Go down to the library (there are one or two in NYC, aren’t there?) and peruse some old NY Times from the time Israel became a nation anew. Read about the invasion the Jews had to fight off from surrounding Arab/Muslim nations the day after they declared their independence. You know, that war forced on the Zionists by their Jew hating neighbors that caused the uprooting of Arabs who are now trained to call themselves “Palestinians” and pretend they have an ancient history, one that you also have claimed, but have never given any concrete evidence of.
Elizabeth,
Continued,
While you’re at it, can you also explain how 800,000 Jews were expelled by Islamic nations simply because they were Jewish? And how they emigrated to that tiny strip of Zionist land and helped create a prosperous nation? And why you care nothing for their suffering? They too, were not forced to fester in refugee camps as the “Palestinians” have been forced to do by their Islamic brethren with support from you and other enablers of Jew hatred. At its root, this condemnation of Israel has nothing to do with anti Zionism. That is their politically correct term to encourage dupes like you to support their vile hate filled cause.
And then there were the thousands of Russian Jews who came to Israel as refugees. How is it they were also allowed to use their talents to help build the geographically insignificant nation of Jews into an economic and technological powerhouse? Or should we refer to these refugees from Russia as “Zionists” and blame them too for the destruction of Lebanon? And then there was the rescue of the Ethiopian Jews (or do I mean Ethiopian Zionists?) by the Israeli government. They are now Israeli citizens, not refugees. And why is it that Sudanese Muslims fleeing the genocide there, try to escape to Israel, or as the dysfunctional societies that you champion refer to it, the Zionist Entity? Are these refugees also to be dehumanized and condemned as mere “Zionists?” And why do they choose Israel as their destination and not one of the surrounding and presumably friendly Islamic nations? Do they know something that you are loath to admit?
Throughout history, Jews have been persecuted. The honest persecutors have admitted their Jew hatred. The dishonest ones have relabeled Jews as “money lenders”, “capitalists”, “kulaks,” “international bankers”, and of course, today’s popular label: “Zionist.” And yes, not all Jews are Zionists, but anti Zionism at its core is still anti Judaism, especially when it is still claimed by some that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is the truth and that Zionists are out to rule the world. If you took the time and effort to peer out of your mental ghetto and learn some real history, you might begin to understand that and work your way out of your bigotry and hypocrisy.
If I recall correctly, you are a mental health professional. Do you see patients? If so, do you try and help them by insisting that all of their problems are being caused by Zionists, like you do when it comes to “Palestinians?”
One more thing (sorry, I'm on a roll). Check out the website for humanitarian organization nestled in the bosom of the "Zionist oppressor," Save a Child's Heart. http://www.saveachildsheart.org/
According to their mission statement: Save a Child’s Heart (SACH) is an Israeli-based international humanitarian project, whose mission is to improve the quality of pediatric cardiac care for children from developing countries who suffer from heart disease and to create centers of competence in these countries. SACH is totally dedicated to the idea that every child deserves the best medical treatment available, regardless of the child's nationality, religion, color, gender or financial situation.
SACH is motivated by the age-old Jewish tradition of Tikkun Olam – repairing the world. By mending the hearts of children, regardless of their origin, SACH is contributing to a better and more peaceful future for all of our children.
The SACH mission is achieved through:
Providing life-saving cardiac surgery and other life saving procedures for children from developing countries at the Wolfson Medical Center in Holon, Israel;
Providing a full outreach training program for the medical personnel from these countries in Israel;
Leading surgical and teaching missions to partner countries in the developing world;
Holding pre-operative and follow-up cardiology clinics in Israel and abroad.
Watch the video at: http://www.saveachildsheart.org/307-2546-en/Sach.aspx
It's the story of the 1,000th PALESTINIAN child saved by Save a Child's Heart.
Now, go ahead and call me a racist bigot, but can anyone tell me of a comparable organization in the entire Islamic world?
Elizabeth,
Please define your statement about the expulsion by the Zionists. Who exactly are you referring to as Zionist? I'm a seasoned citizen and getting a little confused on this. Thanks for helping me out.
Pops
Yep, Harry, I would pretty much say you're on a roll!
Pops
Harry, yet again you put words in my mouth that I didn't say (e.g. I don't care about the Jews) you make unsubstantiated accusations against me (e.g. that I hate Jews) if you mattered, I would be suing you for libel. (Actually Gary since you printed Harry technically I should be suing you for libel, but I'll give you a pass ;)) Harry you drag all kinds of red herrings into this discussion like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion--I never mentioned that fabricated document, you did. You are trying to assassinate my character by making innuendoes. As for why Jews were kicked out of Arab countries, in was in retaliation for the creation of Israel and the expulsion of the Palestinians. I am absolutely sure that you know this. We have already gone over this a half dozen times. There are numerous reputable histories that detail the expulsion of the Palestinians including one by the Israeli Jewish historian Benny Morris. I realize his book is way too long for you to read and perhaps above your reading level, but I also think you are disingenous; I think you know that I am citing facts and you are trying to distract people with your character assassination of me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Morris
This wikipedia article summarizes Morris's various writings and the criticisms of them and mentions a variety of other historians who are worth reading.
Gary: Zionism is the ideology developed in the 19th century by Jews living in Europe and Russia that held that Jews should have their own country. Early zionists debated where that country should be and Palestine was only one option. Zionists migrated to Palestine in the late 19th and early 20th centuries but a big wave of migration came after WWII for obvious reasons. After the UN partition plan failed to resolve disputes between the native Arab Palestinians and the recent Jewish immigrants, Jews in Palestine declared a zionist state and a Jewish/Arab conflict ensued during which approx. 800,000 Arab Palestinians were forced out by zionist militias, or fled in fear as rumors of expulsions and atrocities spread. They did not leave from "orders from Arab countries" this is so absurd I'm amazed anyone believes it. People flee from their homes because they are afraid. Most expected they could return when the fighting was over, but the new Israeli state refused to let them return because they wanted to preserve a Jewish majority. Hence, many Palestinians ended up in refugee camps where many of them remain today.
All right folks, let's take a deep breath, This is a discussion blog, not a personal attack blog. Facts on "humble opinions' only. We all must respect each other's opinions, we DON'T have to accept them. This is "freedom of expression, ie: "freedom of speech"..
Thank you kindly,
Pops
Eliabeth,
Correct me if I am wrong. Wasn't Israel created and blessed by the UNITED NATIONS in 1948? As the "world" governing authority aren't all countries expected (required) to follow the UN recommendations?
Pops
Sorry Pops, I’ll be good.
Elizabeth,
We’ve gone over lots of things lots of times. Part of the trouble is that you are very selective in what you respond to, so some things have to be repeated.
It’s interesting though, that you see Arabs losing their homes in 1948 due to a genocidal war begun by their Arab brethren (which I have to keep repeating since you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge it) as a tragedy, a crime, a black spot on the soul of Israel, etc. But you excuse Arab nations forcibly removing (ethnically cleansing?) 800,000 Jews from their countries as retaliation. These people were innocent of any crime. They had nothing to do with the founding of modern Israel. And yet, it’s OK that they were punished by being kicked out of their homes, which along with any possessions they couldn’t carry on their way out were confiscated by the governments. You don’t see your position on that as a bigoted double standard?
Or is it just that fact that suffering of the descendents of these Jews is not comparable to the suffering of people forced by immoral Islamic governments to fester in refugee camps and to be used as pawns in their war against Israel? As I’ve pointed out before, Israel took the moral path and allowed these Jews (as they allow citizens of all religions) to live as free people and help create a thriving modern nation that, like it or not, makes positive contributions to the world.
As for Benny Morris, here is another of his quotes: Benny Morris, the historian who documented instances where Palestinians were expelled, also found that Arab leaders encouraged their brethren to leave. Starting in December 1947, he said, “Arab officers ordered the complete evacuation of specific villages in certain areas, lest their inhabitants ‘treacherously’ acquiesce in Israeli rule or hamper Arab military deployments.” He concluded, “There can be no exaggerating the importance of these early Arab-initiated evacuations in the demoralization, and eventual exodus, of the remaining rural and urban populations” (Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 590.)
And then there is The Economist: The Economist, a frequent critic of the Zionists, reported on October 2, 1948: “Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit... It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades.”
And TIME Magazine: Time’s report of the battle for Haifa (May 3, 1948) was similar: “The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by orders of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city... By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa.”
And this former Syrian prime minister: In his memoirs, Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948-49, also admitted the Arab role in persuading the refugees to leave:
“Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return” (The Memoirs of Haled al Azm, Beirut, 1973, Part 1, pp. 386-387).
There are these quotes and more at: http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=121275
It’s interesting that the passive voice, which creates inaccuracies, is used in the (I assume) Wikipedia article you quote. To be more accurate, the UN plan failed because the Arabs wouldn’t accept it. The Jews did. A Jewish/Arab conflict did not “ensue”. Arabs invaded. The Jews were and still are ready and willing to live in peace.
Harry, why should the Arabs have accepted a plan that was unfair? And Gary, if we implemented all the resolutions passed by the UN, they would in fact result in Israel immediately evacuating all 400,000 of their illegal settlers. The UN is often ignored but let's be consistent when we criticize the UN.
Harry, I'm not going to respond to your continued ridiculous and baseless accusations. I never said I approved of the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries. Again, you try to put words in my mouth.
Elizabeth,
I wasn't criticizing the UN, I was really asking a question. Poorly formed perhaps but, a question no less. The other thought I have is "fair" in who's opinion? Apparently somebody thought it was "fair". I think you hit the nail on the head with the word "illegal" Shouldn't all citizens be "legally" in the country they live in?
Pops
Absolutely. The Jewish settlers in the West Bank are there illegally and should be removed.
here's an interesting article about how the Israelis treat the Palestinians:
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3817765,00.html
What would you call the US government if it made it a felony for someone to move from Ohio to California without a permit from the federal government? I think most people would call it a police state or totalitarianism. And what would you call it if most such request for permits were denied? It would lead to a complete halt of the economy. Which is what has happened to Palestine.
"What would you call the US government if it made it a felony for someone to move from Ohio to California without a permit from the federal government?"
If some Ohio residents had a tendency to blow up school buses in suicide attacks I'd call it common sense. Especially if the remainder of Ohioans were rather lukewarm to the idea of ferreting out such psychos for the authorities.
But maybe thats just me.
Elizabeth,
And the plan was unfair because? Oh yeah, after the surrounding Arab nations failed in their genocide attempt, they didn’t get to declare a “do over” with the victorious Jewish state retreating back to what the UN originally allowed them. Israel insisting that the Arabs take responsibility for the consequences of their actions certainly is unfair. Oh, the injustice of it all!
I never said you approved of the expulsion of the Jews from Muslim countries. I said you excused it. In fact, my exact words were, “But you excuse Arab nations forcibly removing (ethnically cleansing?) 800,000 Jews from their countries as retaliation.” It’s OK by you. That’s not approval. You don’t care.
Elizabeth (again),
A Palestinian gets to take a case up to the Israelis Supreme Court and it’s an injustice because she lost? So justice is only served when Palestinians are free from any responsibility? What kind of hearing would a Jew get from the Palestinians? Gilad Shalit is still a prisoner somewhere in Gaza. And his crime was? Oh yeah, he erred by allowing himself to be kidnapped by Hamas terrorists. That’s how Palestinians treat Israelis, but as always, due to your bigoted double standard, it doesn’t matter, just as you ignored the Israeli medical charity, Save a Child’s Heart when it comes to how Israelis treat Palestinians. Check out some other decisions. Israel’s Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Palestinians at times.
For your amusement, and to examine who treats whom poorly, here are some photos showing how Palestinians treat Palestinians: http://middleeastfacts.com/Gallery/thumbnails.php?album=11
Here’s an article on how women are treated: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/30/mideast.honor.killings/
And a website showing how Palestinians treat Palestinian children: http://www.take-a-pen.org/english/Articles/Children.htm
But I suppose it’s all the fault of the Zionists. Right?
Subvet, your comment makes no sense, because the terrorist acts you reference weren't committed in Gaza or the West Bank, so the Israeli government is not forbidding travel between the two to prevent terrorism.
Harry, the plan was unfair because Arabs were the majority but they weren't given the majority of the land...I never excused...oh why do I bother talking to you? It's just one irrelevancy, tangent and character-assassinating innuendo after another from you...
Elizabeth,
Actually they were given Transjordan, now known as Jordan which left only the land west of the Jordan river to divide. So, you're right. It wasn't fair. But your mother must have told you at some point, as my mother told me, life isn't fair.
You're projecting again. I looked over what I wrote; hyperbole - probably, exaggeration - maybe, sarcasm - you bet! The rest? Projection. And a refusal on your part to answer most of my arguments.
But Harry you don't make arguments.
Jordan isn't Palestine.
here's an interesting article for Subvet:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/opinion/17iht-edbarghouthi.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y
Another interesting article cited in a friend's blog:
http://lespolitiques.blogspot.com/
Elizabeth,
You're right. I point out where you're wrong and then I correct you on it.
Jordan isn't Palestine. It was part of the British Mandate however and was given to the Arabs.
All Arabs are not alike, just like all Europeans are not alike. I don't think the Swedes would appreciate being relocated to Norway.
I just came across this HILARIOUS story about gullible right-wingers:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/world/144393/defense_contractor_makes_up_wild_islamic_terrorism_fantasy%3B_right-wingers_act_like_it's_9_11_all_over_again/
Post a Comment