8-Sep-13 World View -- Would America not defend Israel after all?
John Kerry: 'This is our Munich Moment'
** 8-Sep-13 World View -- Would America not defend Israel after all?
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e130908
Contents:
John Kerry: 'This is our Munich Moment'
Forces gathering momentum in the Mideast
Would America not defend Israel after all?
Keys:
Generational Dynamics, John Kerry, Neville Chamberlain,
Adolf Hitler, Munich, Jeremiah Wright,
Russia, Vladimir Putin
8-Sep-13 World View -- Would America not defend Israel?
-
NoOneImportant
Re: 8-Sep-13 World View -- Would America not defend Israel?
Alas, where to start.
First let me state that the article's analysis of Obama, and Kerry is precise, and effective. What we are seeing is two symbolically schizophrenic men who are going through puberty late in life. For all of their adult and political lives these men have deprecated, denigrated, and attempted, in any manner open to them, to undermine the strength, both moral, and military of all that was good in America. Late in life they find, to their surprise I might add, that the world is indeed and in fact a dangerous place - they are forced to grow up, 'cause late in life they have discovered, to their dismay, that there are indeed real monsters out there. These are men who for all of their adult lives have done everything within their power to undermine, and weaken the goodness that has been America; to weaken the strength that was created by millions of American youth gained though voluntary military service; additionally Obama, and Kerry over a lifetime have sought to weaken a national resolve to confront and triumph over evil where ever it was to be found. A resolve that they now seek to use.
Over the last five years they have been largely successful in conveying an attitude of concerted weakness. Kerry is the messenger of the barbarism that he purported America to be to the world. For an entire Senate career he was the messenger that there was no evil greater than the American soldier, as evidenced in his Vietnam testimony before Congress. His voting record in the Senate paralleled that attitude. He is on record as having voted against every major military weapons system, and military enhancement since arriving in the Senate - weapon systems that he now seeks to use against Syria.
Regarding Obama: from the never ending apologies begun in Cairo, to bowing to cheap thug dictators, to the absence of any response in Benghazi. The message has been, and continues to be, one of impotence and ineptitude. One must question what Obama believed he was saying to Putin when he quipped to Medvedev: "... This is my last election...after my election I have more flexibility..." regarding missile defense. Who did he believe he was talking to, and what message did be believe he was conveying? A message of strength? Did he not realize that he was speaking to the leader of a nation whose recent history included the murder of 20 million of it's own citizens, actions for which no one was ever been held accountable. What message did he believe he was sending when he killed the Polish anti-missle agreement. What message did he believe he was conveying when he recently expressed his desire to reduce the nuclear arsenal from 1550 weapons to 1000 weapons? Is this not the same candidate who glibly assured all who would listen that he would hold direct talks with anyone with whom we had difficulties... why is he not headed for Damascus... perhaps he is in need of directions? But then again he has little difficulty in finding his way to his oh so many fundraisers.
Unfortunately for us these are men who ARE Chamberlain, they have indeed made those who are evil - globally - believe in the impotence of America. Now that the consequences of that impotence are apparent, as did Chamberlain, Obama and Kerry now wish to convey, with bluster, and bravado how truly strong America is. Too late, that message is falling upon the ears of the willfully deaf. Who is notable by their silence in all of this are the China, with their avarice in the South China Sea, and the Japanese with their recent very large increase in defense appropriations. The one waiting to see if America is indeed a paper tiger, the other in fear that America is in fact that paper tiger - see how wonderful the world is with a weak America. We certainly have gotten change, just not all that much hope. I fear that we are at the end of one of the longest periods of sustained global peace in the last 1000 years - neither Vietnam, nor Korea being existential conflicts. It was a peace that was painfully bought and paid for with American will, blood, tears, and treasure. It was a peace bought of strength; and a peace that we have watched frittered away before our very eyes over the last five years by the inept, and experientially/intellectually bankrupt.
Both Kerry, and Obama, belatedly, have realized the necessity to grow-up, yet the schizophrenia remains: Kerry assure us that we shall not succumb to "our Munich moment" by assuring all that we shall respond with all the limited force we can muster. Just what, exactly, does that mean? Just what is the message to be conveyed? "...Oh, sure we'll fight, so long as we don't have to fight too much, or for too long..." Once the shooting starts who decides the course of future events? Obama, and Kerry? or perhaps they'll go for the really big gun - Hillary, that wonderful person who give us Benghazi. We have been placed figuratively in the position of an anxious bystander standing across the street witnessing a rapist in the act, we realize the enormity of the crime, and our anxious response is to threaten to throw rocks at him in response, if he does it again, just not too many rocks... don't want to make him angry do we? What a mess.
And what of Iran? They are close to having nuclear weapons, how close, and how do we know? What message is being sent to them? "...oh, sure we'll defend Israel, so long as we don't have to defend too much,or too long, and I don't know about boots on the ground...."
Several pertinent questions have not yet been broached: do you really, in your heart, believe that Assad's stooges, of their own volition, took controlled munitions and shelled Damascus? Or again, do you believe that Assad, after two years of war, without notifying the Russians decided: "...say, we have all of those old Saddam chemical weapons, why don't we just use a few of them to see how they work out...." Do you really believe that Assad used those weapons without consulting Putin? And what was Putin thinking... perhaps, "...yeah, go ahead, let's see what they do...." What a mess.
We are stuck with two men who have made their life's work the deprecation, and the destruction of America. These are men who expect that we will now believe in them, and trust them. That they will use the strength of that "evil" nation that they so often reviled, that nation they spent a lifetime decrying, to a good and faithful, if somewhat abbreviated, end - whatever that might mean. That we will believe that any action initiated in Syria will be brief. And what, experientially speaking, in their background would lead anyone to believe such a contention from either of them? Can you say wishful thinking boys and girls. Once the shooting starts, if they truly believe that they can control events it is a testament to the magnitude of their arrogance, and ineptitude; while, if they don't believe that they can control events after the shooting starts, and are just lying, then we are in even deeper trouble, as there is no dept to which they will not stoop to deceive to obtain what they desire.
Should we do nothing, what do the Iranians, the Chinese, and North Koreans do? Though there are only losers in the Syrian conflict, America, as the article has noted, has little choice at this point but to become engaged. It needs be noted that a timid declared limited engagement is perspectively, more detrimental than no action at all. And all of this because the same dolt who publicly identified Seal Team Six as the Bin Laden operators, and got 22 of them killed 90 days after the Bin Laden operation, said in an off the cuff remark, regarding chemical weapons usage in Syria: "...that's a game changer....", instead of keeping his mouth shut and doing what is necessary.
First let me state that the article's analysis of Obama, and Kerry is precise, and effective. What we are seeing is two symbolically schizophrenic men who are going through puberty late in life. For all of their adult and political lives these men have deprecated, denigrated, and attempted, in any manner open to them, to undermine the strength, both moral, and military of all that was good in America. Late in life they find, to their surprise I might add, that the world is indeed and in fact a dangerous place - they are forced to grow up, 'cause late in life they have discovered, to their dismay, that there are indeed real monsters out there. These are men who for all of their adult lives have done everything within their power to undermine, and weaken the goodness that has been America; to weaken the strength that was created by millions of American youth gained though voluntary military service; additionally Obama, and Kerry over a lifetime have sought to weaken a national resolve to confront and triumph over evil where ever it was to be found. A resolve that they now seek to use.
Over the last five years they have been largely successful in conveying an attitude of concerted weakness. Kerry is the messenger of the barbarism that he purported America to be to the world. For an entire Senate career he was the messenger that there was no evil greater than the American soldier, as evidenced in his Vietnam testimony before Congress. His voting record in the Senate paralleled that attitude. He is on record as having voted against every major military weapons system, and military enhancement since arriving in the Senate - weapon systems that he now seeks to use against Syria.
Regarding Obama: from the never ending apologies begun in Cairo, to bowing to cheap thug dictators, to the absence of any response in Benghazi. The message has been, and continues to be, one of impotence and ineptitude. One must question what Obama believed he was saying to Putin when he quipped to Medvedev: "... This is my last election...after my election I have more flexibility..." regarding missile defense. Who did he believe he was talking to, and what message did be believe he was conveying? A message of strength? Did he not realize that he was speaking to the leader of a nation whose recent history included the murder of 20 million of it's own citizens, actions for which no one was ever been held accountable. What message did he believe he was sending when he killed the Polish anti-missle agreement. What message did he believe he was conveying when he recently expressed his desire to reduce the nuclear arsenal from 1550 weapons to 1000 weapons? Is this not the same candidate who glibly assured all who would listen that he would hold direct talks with anyone with whom we had difficulties... why is he not headed for Damascus... perhaps he is in need of directions? But then again he has little difficulty in finding his way to his oh so many fundraisers.
Unfortunately for us these are men who ARE Chamberlain, they have indeed made those who are evil - globally - believe in the impotence of America. Now that the consequences of that impotence are apparent, as did Chamberlain, Obama and Kerry now wish to convey, with bluster, and bravado how truly strong America is. Too late, that message is falling upon the ears of the willfully deaf. Who is notable by their silence in all of this are the China, with their avarice in the South China Sea, and the Japanese with their recent very large increase in defense appropriations. The one waiting to see if America is indeed a paper tiger, the other in fear that America is in fact that paper tiger - see how wonderful the world is with a weak America. We certainly have gotten change, just not all that much hope. I fear that we are at the end of one of the longest periods of sustained global peace in the last 1000 years - neither Vietnam, nor Korea being existential conflicts. It was a peace that was painfully bought and paid for with American will, blood, tears, and treasure. It was a peace bought of strength; and a peace that we have watched frittered away before our very eyes over the last five years by the inept, and experientially/intellectually bankrupt.
Both Kerry, and Obama, belatedly, have realized the necessity to grow-up, yet the schizophrenia remains: Kerry assure us that we shall not succumb to "our Munich moment" by assuring all that we shall respond with all the limited force we can muster. Just what, exactly, does that mean? Just what is the message to be conveyed? "...Oh, sure we'll fight, so long as we don't have to fight too much, or for too long..." Once the shooting starts who decides the course of future events? Obama, and Kerry? or perhaps they'll go for the really big gun - Hillary, that wonderful person who give us Benghazi. We have been placed figuratively in the position of an anxious bystander standing across the street witnessing a rapist in the act, we realize the enormity of the crime, and our anxious response is to threaten to throw rocks at him in response, if he does it again, just not too many rocks... don't want to make him angry do we? What a mess.
And what of Iran? They are close to having nuclear weapons, how close, and how do we know? What message is being sent to them? "...oh, sure we'll defend Israel, so long as we don't have to defend too much,or too long, and I don't know about boots on the ground...."
Several pertinent questions have not yet been broached: do you really, in your heart, believe that Assad's stooges, of their own volition, took controlled munitions and shelled Damascus? Or again, do you believe that Assad, after two years of war, without notifying the Russians decided: "...say, we have all of those old Saddam chemical weapons, why don't we just use a few of them to see how they work out...." Do you really believe that Assad used those weapons without consulting Putin? And what was Putin thinking... perhaps, "...yeah, go ahead, let's see what they do...." What a mess.
We are stuck with two men who have made their life's work the deprecation, and the destruction of America. These are men who expect that we will now believe in them, and trust them. That they will use the strength of that "evil" nation that they so often reviled, that nation they spent a lifetime decrying, to a good and faithful, if somewhat abbreviated, end - whatever that might mean. That we will believe that any action initiated in Syria will be brief. And what, experientially speaking, in their background would lead anyone to believe such a contention from either of them? Can you say wishful thinking boys and girls. Once the shooting starts, if they truly believe that they can control events it is a testament to the magnitude of their arrogance, and ineptitude; while, if they don't believe that they can control events after the shooting starts, and are just lying, then we are in even deeper trouble, as there is no dept to which they will not stoop to deceive to obtain what they desire.
Should we do nothing, what do the Iranians, the Chinese, and North Koreans do? Though there are only losers in the Syrian conflict, America, as the article has noted, has little choice at this point but to become engaged. It needs be noted that a timid declared limited engagement is perspectively, more detrimental than no action at all. And all of this because the same dolt who publicly identified Seal Team Six as the Bin Laden operators, and got 22 of them killed 90 days after the Bin Laden operation, said in an off the cuff remark, regarding chemical weapons usage in Syria: "...that's a game changer....", instead of keeping his mouth shut and doing what is necessary.
Re: 8-Sep-13 World View -- Would America not defend Israel?
Yes, America will defend Israel. We have in the past and will again. Plans are in place and operational.
http://www.idfblog.com/2012/11/14/concl ... llenge-12/
http://www.eucom.mil/key-activities/exe ... lenge-2012
This is one small part of American and Israeli partnership. It also involves other countries too.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/201 ... 369726380/
http://www.idfblog.com/2012/11/14/concl ... llenge-12/
http://www.eucom.mil/key-activities/exe ... lenge-2012
This is one small part of American and Israeli partnership. It also involves other countries too.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/201 ... 369726380/
-
Volunteer State
Re: 8-Sep-13 World View -- Would America not defend Israel?
So much hate for two politicians. You would actually be correct with the one realization that ALL politicians are narsisitic, wealthy morons that do not serve you. As for the US in the role of policeman, please consider the alternative. Either China or Russia would love to play the role. Do you want either as your guard? I don't.
-
NoOneImportant
Re: 8-Sep-13 World View -- Would America not defend Israel?
Hate? Possibly, I prefer to call it unvarnished history. Re-read John's Cassandra article. http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e130901
Perhaps your correct that there are few if any politicians who actually serve. But to watch those who destroy everything they touch, and have them tell me, with at straight face, that they can control the events of an as yet to be started shooting conflict insults the intelligence of all. If you want to shoot, then shoot, but don't tell me that those you are going to be shooting at aren't going to shoot back - that's how all wars begin.
Perhaps your correct that there are few if any politicians who actually serve. But to watch those who destroy everything they touch, and have them tell me, with at straight face, that they can control the events of an as yet to be started shooting conflict insults the intelligence of all. If you want to shoot, then shoot, but don't tell me that those you are going to be shooting at aren't going to shoot back - that's how all wars begin.
Re: 8-Sep-13 World View -- Would America not defend Israel?
hmmmmm----------
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-0 ... ld-turn-us
Who Is Going To Buy The US Debt If This War Causes China, Russia And The Rest Of The World To Turn On Us?
What happens if they sell our bonds?
---------------------------------------
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-0 ... ian-regime
We Have Officially Jumped The Shark: Al-Arabiya Reports Another "Gas Attack" By Syrian Regime
Who benefits from this attack? The rebels maybe?
---------------------------------------
Putin: "Chemical Attack In Syria Was 'Provocation' By Rebels"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-0 ... ion-rebels
-------------------------------------------
In testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Secretary of State John Kerry said that the Arab states have also offered to underwrite the full costs of a U.S.-led military operation against Syria.
http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/post ... tervention
So we are to be mercenaries for Saudi power and will be doing and the bidding of the Wahhabi. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... abism.html
We are being played as fools because we do not want to be politically UNcorrect { politically correct, def.-conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated} ---- We can not bring ourselves to calling a spade a spade. Thanks to our educational system and the media. {To "call a spade a spade" is a figure of speech which explicitly calls out something as it is; by its right name. The implication is to not lie about what something is and to instead speak honestly and directly about a topic, specifically topics that others may avoid speaking about due to their sensitivity, unpleasant or embarrassing nature.}
Question. How can one make intelligent decisions based on suppressed information, half truths and lies?
And for this we go to war? ----- Who comes out ahead?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-0 ... ld-turn-us
Who Is Going To Buy The US Debt If This War Causes China, Russia And The Rest Of The World To Turn On Us?
What happens if they sell our bonds?
---------------------------------------
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-0 ... ian-regime
We Have Officially Jumped The Shark: Al-Arabiya Reports Another "Gas Attack" By Syrian Regime
Who benefits from this attack? The rebels maybe?
---------------------------------------
Putin: "Chemical Attack In Syria Was 'Provocation' By Rebels"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-0 ... ion-rebels
-------------------------------------------
In testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Secretary of State John Kerry said that the Arab states have also offered to underwrite the full costs of a U.S.-led military operation against Syria.
http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/post ... tervention
So we are to be mercenaries for Saudi power and will be doing and the bidding of the Wahhabi. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... abism.html
We are being played as fools because we do not want to be politically UNcorrect { politically correct, def.-conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated} ---- We can not bring ourselves to calling a spade a spade. Thanks to our educational system and the media. {To "call a spade a spade" is a figure of speech which explicitly calls out something as it is; by its right name. The implication is to not lie about what something is and to instead speak honestly and directly about a topic, specifically topics that others may avoid speaking about due to their sensitivity, unpleasant or embarrassing nature.}
Question. How can one make intelligent decisions based on suppressed information, half truths and lies?
And for this we go to war? ----- Who comes out ahead?
Re: 8-Sep-13 World View -- Would America not defend Israel?
The US defaults and hits the reset button?gerald wrote:hmmmmm----------
What happens if they sell our bonds?
---------------------------------------
Who benefits from this attack? The rebels maybe?
---------------------------------------
So we are to be mercenaries for Saudi power and will be doing and the bidding of the Wahhabi.
We are being played as fools because we do not want to be politically UNcorrect
Question. How can one make intelligent decisions based on suppressed information, half truths and lies?
And for this we go to war? ----- Who comes out ahead?
The rebels benefit from anything we do. and our enemies win. We should be helping Assad win this war not fight him. End it for stability sake.
We have been the pawns of the house of Saud for decades.
Governments do not make intelligent decisions, they react.
Terrorists and radical extremists com out ahead.
John will keep making comparisons to appeasement but I continue to say the analogy is merely superficial. We need to contain Syria not appease. It is in the escalation that there is the greatest danger and if Assad falls there WILL be escalation. Russia will not stand by and let Syria be taken over by terrorists who would have access to all of Syria's and potentially all of Iraq's WMD's that disappeared before our ground war began.
When you try to give comfort and aid to rabid feral dogs you will get ravaged by them. Assad is killing his own people? Who are "his" people? I see a civil war with civilians being caught in the crossfire. Unfortunate without question and I would not trade places with any of them. I would not go myself to try to help them, nor would I send my or anyone else's sons to be killed to attempt to help at this time. This will run it's course no matter what now. The fuse cannot be unlit.
We do not have a mutual defense pact with Syria. If we did we would be helping Assad win this war against him. We assassinated MQ in Libya and noone lost any sleep even though we supposedly swore off political assassinations a bit ago.
Syria is a distraction. The left hand drawing away from the right hand and the guy sneaking up behind you.
DUCK!
cheers and happy early winter from New England. So much for the global warming promise. I want a REFUND!
sy
Re: 8-Sep-13 World View -- Would America not defend Israel?
This shows that we've made preparations to defend Israel, but itutahbob wrote: > Yes, America will defend Israel. We have in the past and will
> again. Plans are in place and operational.
> http://www.idfblog.com/2012/11/14/concl ... llenge-12/
> http://www.eucom.mil/key-activities/exe ... lenge-2012
> This is one small part of American and Israeli partnership. It
> also involves other countries too.
> http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/201 ... 369726380/
doesn't show that we would, in fact, defend Israel (or Japan or the
Philippines or Britain or Europe or Taiwan).
If the attack were such that the President felt that he could go to
war immediately, without asking Congress, then we would defend Israel,
.... But if the circumstances of the attack were such that the
President felt obligated to ask Congress, then it's arguable that we
would NOT defend Israel, despite any treaties or preparations.
Re: 8-Sep-13 World View -- Would America not defend Israel?
You seem to be pretty certain what will happen if the U.S. takesat99sy wrote: > John will keep making comparisons to appeasement but I continue to
> say the analogy is merely superficial. We need to contain Syria
> not appease. It is in the escalation that there is the greatest
> danger and if Assad falls there WILL be escalation. Russia will
> not stand by and let Syria be taken over by terrorists who would
> have access to all of Syria's and potentially all of Iraq's WMD's
> that disappeared before our ground war began.
> When you try to give comfort and aid to rabid feral dogs you will
> get ravaged by them. Assad is killing his own people? Who are
> "his" people? I see a civil war with civilians being caught in the
> crossfire. Unfortunate without question and I would not trade
> places with any of them. I would not go myself to try to help
> them, nor would I send my or anyone else's sons to be killed to
> attempt to help at this time. This will run it's course no matter
> what now. The fuse cannot be unlit.
military action in Syria.
What do you think will happen if the U.S. does NOT take military
action in Syria?
Re: 8-Sep-13 World View -- Would America not defend Israel?
John,
There is no good or bad but, We appear to be backing the greater of evils.
Many times a forest fire has to be fought with fire and not water. To know when is the issue.
There is no good or bad but, We appear to be backing the greater of evils.
Many times a forest fire has to be fought with fire and not water. To know when is the issue.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 26 guests