Conquer Club

Why do I get the feeling the only "friend" of whom Romney speaks of in the Middle East is Israel?

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney delivered a major speech on foreign policy on Monday, where he painted President Obama as a weak leader. All Things Considered host Robert Siegel talks about the speech with Susan Glasser, editor-in-chief of Foreign Policy magazine.

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/08/162524317 ... ast-policy

PLAYER57832 wrote:Why do I get the feeling the only "friend" of whom Romney speaks of in the Middle East is Israel?

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney delivered a major speech on foreign policy on Monday, where he painted President Obama as a weak leader. All Things Considered host Robert Siegel talks about the speech with Susan Glasser, editor-in-chief of Foreign Policy magazine.

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/08/162524317 ... ast-policy

for your OP

PLAYER57832 wrote:Why do I get the feeling the only "friend" of whom Romney speaks of in the Middle East is Israel?

Because there aren't any others?

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Why do I get the feeling the only "friend" of whom Romney speaks of in the Middle East is Israel?

Because there aren't any others?

... Or maybe because everybody else in the area wants us dead?

...

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Why do I get the feeling the only "friend" of whom Romney speaks of in the Middle East is Israel?

Because there aren't any others?

Probably not when Obama is done with it...

UAE? Qatar?

Both have supported us in the recent wars. Both are customers that I work with in support of the United States Air Force.

Bones2484 wrote:UAE? Qatar?

Both have supported us in the recent wars. Both are customers that I work with in support of the United States Air Force.

... Neither of which borders Israel.

... Kuwait falls in your same category.

Nobunaga wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:UAE? Qatar?

Both have supported us in the recent wars. Both are customers that I work with in support of the United States Air Force.

... Neither of which borders Israel.

... Kuwait falls in your same category.

What's your point? The discussion at hand was "friends in the Middle East", in which NS said we have none other than Israel. Bordering Israel is not a requirement to be in the Middle East.

Bones2484 wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:UAE? Qatar?

Both have supported us in the recent wars. Both are customers that I work with in support of the United States Air Force.

... Neither of which borders Israel.

... Kuwait falls in your same category.

What's your point? The discussion at hand was "friends in the Middle East", in which NS said we have none other than Israel. Bordering Israel is not a requirement to be in the Middle East.

... Forgive me. I thought you were talking to me. My point was we have only one true friend in the immediate area, and that one friend is surrounded by nations that would praise their god to see us nothing but rotting corpses.

....

Bones2484 wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:UAE? Qatar?

Both have supported us in the recent wars. Both are customers that I work with in support of the United States Air Force.

... Neither of which borders Israel.

... Kuwait falls in your same category.

What's your point? The discussion at hand was "friends in the Middle East", in which NS said we have none other than Israel. Bordering Israel is not a requirement to be in the Middle East.

I think the "point" is that he (and the other 2 posting much the same) all went to the same school of international politics that Romney did.

In other words, they didn't.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:UAE? Qatar?

Both have supported us in the recent wars. Both are customers that I work with in support of the United States Air Force.

... Neither of which borders Israel.

... Kuwait falls in your same category.

What's your point? The discussion at hand was "friends in the Middle East", in which NS said we have none other than Israel. Bordering Israel is not a requirement to be in the Middle East.

I think the "point" is that he (and the other 2 posting much the same) all went to the same school of international politics that Romney did.

In other words, they didn't.

... I am always fascinated by your inability to argue without inserting personal attacks. Really, it's very telling to watch.

... The Al Qaeda flag now flies over the US consulate in Benghazi (sp?), and over the US embassy in Tunisia. Perhaps an exaggeration to say we have no friends other than Israel in the region, though, I admit. Israel is, however, the one friend we must absolutely retain - the only friend in the region with a population not indifferent to our destruction.

...

Nobunaga wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:UAE? Qatar?

Both have supported us in the recent wars. Both are customers that I work with in support of the United States Air Force.

... Neither of which borders Israel.

... Kuwait falls in your same category.

What's your point? The discussion at hand was "friends in the Middle East", in which NS said we have none other than Israel. Bordering Israel is not a requirement to be in the Middle East.

I think the "point" is that he (and the other 2 posting much the same) all went to the same school of international politics that Romney did.

In other words, they didn't.

... I am always fascinated by your inability to argue without inserting personal attacks. Really, it's very telling to watch.

... The Al Qaeda flag now flies over the US consulate in Benghazi (sp?), and over the US embassy in Tunisia. Perhaps an exaggeration to say we have no friends other than Israel in the region, though, I admit. Israel is, however, the one friend we must absolutely retain - the only friend in the region with a population not indifferent to our destruction.

...

Maybe you ought to ask yourself why...
and realize that despite the answers to that question, many very much still do side with the US, when they have the choice.

There is so much wrong with what you said Nobunaga.

1. The Al Qaeda flag that now flies over the US consulate is the same flag of the leaders of so-called "popular" revolution that we supported.

2. The US' lack of allies in the region is due to its support in Israel, not the other way around. It's easy to say that had the US opposed the creation of a Jewish state with the same strength it has supported it from the first place it would have 20-30 strong allies today. Of course, these days even the slightest questioning of Israel's settlement policy, let alone existence, is taboo or even called anti-Semitism in American politics thanks to AIPAC.

And now we hear that Romney wants American military intervention in Syria as well as Iran.

GreecePwns wrote: 2. The US' lack of allies in the region is due to its support in Israel .

Not to mention this whole idea that Islam = automatic terrorism.

I mean, the main argument of the extremists is "they want to do away with us" so our "proper" response is to say " as long as you are Muslim, we will consider you terrorists worthy of attack?"

I thought we were supposed to have learned something from the FIRST set of Crusades/Inquisition.

Seriously guys, if the US didn't take such an interventionist stance in any of these countries and didn't support the absolute stain on humanity that Israel is, would there still be Islamic terrorism on the scale we see today? Of course not.

America has an undeniable streak in supporting some of humanity's worst people in order to achieve their goals. What is going on in Gaza, the world's largest prison, is much worse even than apartheid South Africa, another regime supported by the US (and Israel, and really no one else). And that's by South African accounts.

Israel is an unnecessary nation, one whose existence relies on religious fanaticism and violent racism. It is a stain on humanity. A secular state should take its place. The only Israeli objection to this is that it poses a "demographic threat" - that Palestinians will overcome Jewish majorities and the idea is therefore bad. Racism at its finest.

Zionism has literally no legs to stand on.

A few centuries ago you'd be blaming the Native Americans for fighting back and labeling them terrorists for defending themselves from genocide as well. Just remember that.

You could also consider a few other examples.. Castro in Cuba, M. Noriega in Nicaragua being just 2 of the dictators we installed in the Americas.

We have a bad habit of backing exactly the wrong people becuase they "benefit our needs".

Its a VERY good reason to be more cautious in whom we support, not less.

Israel is a secular state , the majority of its citizens want peace above all else , the settlers do not represent the average Israeli any more than suicide bombers represent the average Palestinian. There are sadly an increasing number of fundamentalist lunatics on both sides who weald disproportionate power and are the main stumbling block to a lasting settlement , backing either of these groups unconditionaly is not the way forward.

GreecePwns wrote:There is so much wrong with what you said Nobunaga.

1. The Al Qaeda flag that now flies over the US consulate is the same flag of the leaders of so-called "popular" revolution that we supported.

2. The US' lack of allies in the region is due to its support in Israel, not the other way around. It's easy to say that had the US opposed the creation of a Jewish state with the same strength it has supported it from the first place it would have 20-30 strong allies today. Of course, these days even the slightest questioning of Israel's settlement policy, let alone existence, is taboo or even called anti-Semitism in American politics thanks to AIPAC.

And now we hear that Romney wants American military intervention in Syria as well as Iran.

... See, Player, that's how it's done - a cogent argument without the slightest insult.

... GreecePwns, you make a valid point and I cannot much disagree. But the complete, or at least near complete silence of the peoples of these other nations while radicals slay innocents in the name of their same religion does not make them appear friendly to anyone but themselves. And killing not only Americans and Jews, but French, Spaniards, Japanese, what have you.

... If radical Catholics were bombing mosques, I suspect the average catholic would be up in arms.

... But then again I'm not Catholic, so who's to say?

...

PLAYER57832 wrote:

GreecePwns wrote: 2. The US' lack of allies in the region is due to its support in Israel .

Not to mention this whole idea that American = automatic infidel.

I mean, the main argument of the extremists is "they want to worship some other gods" so our "proper" response is to say " as long as you are not Muslim, we will consider you infidels worthy of death?"

I thought we were supposed to have learned something from the FIRST set of Crusades/Inquisition.

... Yeah, what can you do with extremists? Besides kill them, I mean.

...

I WANT TO MAKE A TEA PARTY JOKE SO BAD

Juan_Bottom wrote:I WANT TO MAKE A TEA PARTY JOKE SO BAD

... Go for it, Juan. I could use a good laugh.

...

GreecePwns wrote:Seriously guys, if the US didn't take such an interventionist stance in any of these countries and didn't support the absolute stain on humanity that Israel is, would there still be Islamic terrorism on the scale we see today? Of course not.

America has an undeniable streak in supporting some of humanity's worst people in order to achieve their goals. What is going on in Gaza, the world's largest prison, is much worse even than apartheid South Africa, another regime supported by the US (and Israel, and really no one else). And that's by South African accounts.

Israel is an unnecessary nation, one whose existence relies on religious fanaticism and violent racism. It is a stain on humanity. A secular state should take its place. The only Israeli objection to this is that it poses a "demographic threat" - that Palestinians will overcome Jewish majorities and the idea is therefore bad. Racism at its finest.

Jews are a stain to humanity? Wow.

And if you want Israel to be a secular nation, why aren't you demanding Iran, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia and others all become secular nations? Those nations are much more dangerous than Israel.

We must not ignore that MIddle Eastern nations have always, always had a hatred of intervention in their affairs. We have seen it even as far back as the Cold War and I'm sure people can come up with even earlier examples.

To them, groups like Al Qaeda are legitimate defenders against foreign intervention, and they'd rather back that than an American or Soviet or British installed government. Nothing, especially bombing, assassination of dictators, killing Osama, so-called "nation building," absolutely nothing will ever change that. The exception being when Middle Eastern countries or militant organizations come to the aid of other nations in defense of their national sovereignty. Support for terrorism and anti-American sentiment will continue to exist where there is a foreign intervention, and it will cease to exist when the US stops fucking around there.

-------------

Comicboy, you contend that Israelis want peace above all else. But how do the Israeli's propose this peace happen? And do they really support peace above all else, or is their version of peace "we have your land, now shut up and accept it?" I contend it's the latter.

For one, we have their voting record: all but 4 seats in the Knesset are held by Zionist parties. The vast majority believes that Israel has a right to exist on Palestinian land. On top of that there is overwhelming support of the parties that have for a very long time pushed for more settlements in the West Bank, more tortuous practices in the concentration camp called Gaza (even killing an American citizen, no less), and more intransigence toward the PLO and Hamas. This has not changed and likely will not change in the foreseeable future. Without Zionism there is no Israel.

On the other hand is peace, which cannot be achieved without justice. Justice calls for any coercive force to be undone. That means it calls for the return of all stolen land to Palestinian authority and all stolen property to their original owners or their descendants. Those who legally purchased their land would be allowed to stay; those who arrived with the assistance of the Israeli government would have to re-purchase their land legally in order to stay.

Israelis don't want peace in this way. They want Palestinians to negotiate their way out of the open-air prison they live in today because of some irrational fear of being a religious minority.

For the most part, I suspect people in these countries dislike the United States precisely because we intervene with their affairs. If we left them alone, perhaps they would also leave us alone. This is another example that I find fascinating about conservatives who indicate they uphold the values of our founders. Entangling alliances and foreign interventionism are not things our founders wanted for the country. I'm not saying we shouldn't get involved, but we should be honest about and prepared for the consequences of our intervention.