i did answer ... and my position is clear ... America should never accept their extortion.
let'em fight without our weapons and support. On Mar 18, 9:59 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > Don't know how I missed this, I see that you did "address" my questions, > (which is a far cry from answering them!) > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:13 PM, plainolamerican > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > Is it in the United States' interests, to ensure that the Suez Canal > > remain > > open and viable for international shipping? > > What about the Straights of Hormuz? In our national interests? > > If it costs say....$10,000.00 annually to maintain a Turkish soldier, > > but > > approximately $100,000.00 to keep and maintain an American soldier, is > > it > > in our National interests to supplant and support the Turkish Army, > > when > > the Turks are enforcing a number of borders that would be deemed in > > our > > national interests? > > --- > > we can keep them both open without allowing the animals in the middle > > to extort our wealth and protection. > > we don't owe either of them and helping them to kill each other is not > > in our best interests. > > > commerce with all ... entangling alliances with none. > > > On Mar 15, 2:39 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hey Plain Ol'? A question (or two or three) for you: > > > > Is it in the United States' interests, to ensure that the Suez Canal > > remain > > > open and viable for international shipping? > > > > What about the Straights of Hormuz? In our national interests? > > > > If it costs say....$10,000.00 annually to maintain a Turkish soldier, > > but > > > approximately $100,000.00 to keep and maintain an American soldier, is it > > > in our National interests to supplant and support the Turkish Army, when > > > the Turks are enforcing a number of borders that would be deemed in our > > > national interests? > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 9:45 AM, plainolamerican > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > The Secret Document That Set Obama's Middle East Policy > > > > --- > > > > AIPAC sets US middle east policy. > > > > > On Mar 14, 8:06 pm, Travis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > *The Secret Document That Set Obama’s Middle East Policy* > > > > > > Posted By *Barry Rubin* On March 14, 2013 **** > > > > > > “We have to confront violent extremism in all of its forms.… America > > is > > > > not > > > > > — and never will be — at war with Islam. We will, however, > > relentlessly > > > > > confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security — > > > > > because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: > > the > > > > > killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first > > duty as > > > > > president to protect the American people.” –President Barack Obama, > > > > Cairo, > > > > > June 2009**** > > > > > > “The United States is now experiencing the beginning of its end, and > > is > > > > > heading towards its demise….Resistance is the only solution. [Today > > the > > > > > United States] is withdrawing from Iraq, defeated and wounded, and > > it is > > > > > also on the verge of withdrawing from Afghanistan. [All] its > > warplanes, > > > > > missiles and modern military technology were defeated by the will of > > the > > > > > peoples, as long as [these peoples] insisted on resistance.” –Muslim > > > > > Brotherhood leader Muhammad al-Badi, Cairo, September 2010**** > > > > > > What did the president know and when did he know it? That’s a > > question > > > > made > > > > > classical by the Watergate scandal. Now it is possible to trace > > precisely > > > > > what Obama knew and when he knew it. And it proves that the > > installment > > > > of > > > > > the Muslim Brotherhood in power was a conscious and deliberate > > strategy > > > > of > > > > > the Obama Administration developed before the “Arab Spring” > > began.**** > > > > > > In February 2011 the *New York Times* ran an extremely complimentary > > > > > article on President Obama by Mark > > > > > Landler< > > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/world/middleeast/17diplomacy.html>, > > > > > who some observers say is the biggest apologist for Obama on the > > > > newspaper. > > > > > That’s quite an achievement. Landler praised Obama for having > > tremendous > > > > > foresight, in effect, predicting the “Arab Spring.” According to > > > > Landler, ** > > > > > ** > > > > > > “President Obama ordered his advisers last August [2010] to produce a > > > > > secret report on unrest in the Arab world, which concluded that > > without > > > > > sweeping political changes, countries from Bahrain to Yemen were > > ripe for > > > > > popular revolt, administration officials said Wednesday.” **** > > > > > > Which advisors? The then counter-terrorism advisor and now > > designated CIA > > > > > chief, John Brennan? National Security Council senior staffer > > Samantha > > > > > Power? If it was done by Obama’s own staff, rather than State and > > > > Defense, > > > > > it’s likely that these people or at least one of them was the key > > > > author. ** > > > > > ** > > > > > > So should U.S. policy help allies avoid such sweeping change by > > standing > > > > > firm or by helping them make adjustments? No, explained the report, > > it > > > > > should get on the side of history and wield a broom to do the > > sweeping. > > > > The > > > > > article continued:**** > > > > > > “Mr. Obama’s order, known as a Presidential Study Directive, > > identified > > > > > likely flashpoints, most notably Egypt, and solicited proposals for > > *how > > > > > the administration could push for political change in countries with > > > > > autocratic rulers who are also valuable allies of the United States*, > > > > > [emphasis added] these officials said.**** > > > > > > “The 18-page classified report, they said, grapples with a problem > > that > > > > has > > > > > bedeviled the White House’s approach toward Egypt and other > > countries in > > > > > recent days: how to balance American strategic interests and the > > desire > > > > to > > > > > avert broader instability against the democratic demands of the > > > > protesters.” > > > > > **** > > > > > > As I noted, the article was quite explicitly complimentary (and > > that’s an > > > > > understatement) about how Obama knew what was likely to happen and > > was > > > > well > > > > > prepared for it.**** > > > > > > But that’s precisely the problem. It wasn’t trying to deal with > > change > > > > but > > > > > was pushing for it; it wasn’t asserting U.S. interests but balancing > > them > > > > > off against other factors. In the process, U.S. interests were > > > > forgotten.*** > > > > > * > > > > > > If Landler was right then Obama did have a sense of what was going to > > > > > happen and prepared for it. It cannot be said that he was caught > > > > unawares. > > > > > This view would suggest, then, that he thought American strategic > > > > interests > > > > > could be protected and broader instability avoided by overthrowing > > U.S. > > > > > allies as fast as possible and by showing the oppositions that he > > was on > > > > > their side. Presumably the paper pointed out the strength of Islamist > > > > > forces and the Muslim Brotherhood factor and then discounted any > > dangers > > > > > from this quarter. One could have imagined how other U.S. governments > > > > would > > > > > have dealt with this situation. Here is my *imagined* passage from a > > > > > high-level government document:**** > > > > > > *In light of the likelihood of sweeping political changes, with > > countries > > > > > from Bahrain to Yemen ripe for popular revolt, U.S. policy should > > either > > > > > help friendly governments retain control or encourage them to make > > > > reforms > > > > > that would increase the scope of freedom in a way that would satisfy > > > > > popular desires without endangering U.S. interests and long-term > > > > stability. > > > > > In the event that the fall of any given regime seemed likely, U.S. > > policy > > > > > should work both publicly and behind the scenes to try to ensure the > > > > > triumph of moderate, pro-democratic forces that would be able to > > prevent > > > > > the formation of radical Islamist dictatorships inimical to U.S. > > > > interests, > > > > > regional peace, and the well-being of the local population.* [Note: > > that > > > > is > > > > > my reconstruction and NOT a quote from the document]**** > > > > > > Such an approach would have been easy and in line with historic U.S. > > > > > policy. We have every reason to believe that the State Department > > and the > > > > > Defense Department favored such an approach.**** > > > > > > But let’s look at precisely how the White House described the U.S. > > policy > > > > > it wanted:**** > > > > > > “…how the administration could push for political change in countries > > > > with > > > > > autocratic rulers who are also valuable allies of the United > > States,”**** > > > > > > In other words, a popular revolt was going to happen (I’ve seen the > > > > cables > > > > > from the U.S. embassy in Tunisia that accurately predicted an > > upheaval) > > > > but > > > > > would it succeed or fail? The Obama Administration concluded that the > > > > > revolt should succeed and set out to help make sure that it did so. > > As > > > > for > > > > > who won, it favored not just moderate Islamic forces–which hardly > > existed > > > > > as such–but moderate Islamist forces, which didn’t exist at all.**** > > > > > > Anyone who says that the United States did not have a lot of > > influence in > > > > > these crises doesn’t know what they are talking about. Of course, the > > > > U.S. > > > > > government didn’t control the outcome, its leverage was limited. But > > > > > there’s a big difference between telling the Egyptian army to stay in > > > > > control, dump Mubarak, and make a mild transition—and we, the United > > > > > States, will back you—or telling them that Washington wanted the > > generals > > > > > to stand aside, let Mubarak be overthrown, and have a thoroughgoing > > ... > > read more » -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
