your isolationist views. --- hogwash My question however is simple: Are the aformentioned issues, issues that are as a whole, important to our national security? --- yes they are important, but not to the point of excepting the extortion used by the arabs, jews, muzzies, or turks. We can keep these int'l ports open without taking sides in their wars.
On Mar 18, 10:38 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > The question "is/was": "Is it in the United States' interest"; > > 1. To insure that the Suez Canal remain open; > > 2. To insure that the Straights of Hormuz remain open? And; > > 3. To insure that the Turkish Army, (strictly from an economic > standpoint) remain viable in their missions of protecting their borders? > > I know and understand your isolationist views. My question however is > simple: Are the aformentioned issues, issues that are as a whole, > important to our national security? > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:21 AM, plainolamerican <[email protected] > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > 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]**** > > ... > > 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.
