I don't know what the Democrats are doing anymore. I really don't.
The Democrats have always been pro-Israel. This is not a new position. The change that MAY be occurring is that Trump is getting to the left of Hillary on this issue, vs. most GOP which are more pro-Likud. Although I wouldn't count on it yet, we have to see Trump's speech on it. All he has said thus far is that he would be 'neutral'.
I don't know what the Democrats are doing anymore. I really don't.
The Democrats have always been pro-Israel. This is not a new position. The change that MAY be occurring is that Trump is getting to the left of Hillary on this issue, vs. most GOP which are more pro-Likud. Although I wouldn't count on it yet, we have to see Trump's speech on it. All he has said thus far is that he would be 'neutral'.
I understand the Democrats have always been pro-Israel, but I've never thought of them as being the party of Israel. That was always reserved for the GOP. Now I expect Trump to hedge in his speech. So Hillary Clinton will have succeeded in pulling the Republican frontrunner to the right on Israel. That is not an accomplishment to be celebrated.
I flipped by FOX News yesterday to see how crazy the Obama in Cuba coverage was. (SPOILER: It was just as crazy as you would expect.) The thing that stuck out was one talking head screaming, "THIS PRESIDENT WOULD VISIT TEHRAN BEFORE HE WOULD TEL AVIV!" Putting the ridiculousness of that statement aside for a second, it does make for quite the juxtaposition with Hillary pulling Trump to the right on Israel.
Anyway, like I said...I don't know what the Democrats are doing anymore.
^ I don't quite understand your point though. The Dems are positioning themselves precisely where they've always positioned themselves on the issue. Hillary has always supported a two state solution. If that changes, it would be very disappointing. It wouldn't be enough for me to turn to Trump, but I would disagree with it vehemently. Bernie's view on it is meaningless to me. He isn't winning the nomination and I live in VA. We already had our primary.
My point is that Hillary is firmly planted where Clinton and Obama were planted on Israel. It's Trump that is the wild card here. And just because he gets to the left (maybe) of Hillary, doesn't mean she should move further left. That wouldn't make any sense at all.
I don't know what the Democrats are doing anymore. I really don't.
The Democrats have always been pro-Israel. This is not a new position. The change that MAY be occurring is that Trump is getting to the left of Hillary on this issue, vs. most GOP which are more pro-Likud. Although I wouldn't count on it yet, we have to see Trump's speech on it. All he has said thus far is that he would be 'neutral'.
I understand the Democrats have always been pro-Israel, but I've never thought of them as being the party of Israel. That was always reserved for the GOP. Now I expect Trump to hedge in his speech. So Hillary Clinton will have succeeded in pulling the Republican frontrunner to the right on Israel. That is not an accomplishment to be celebrated.
I flipped by FOX News yesterday to see how crazy the Obama in Cuba coverage was. (SPOILER: It was just as crazy as you would expect.) The thing that stuck out was one talking head screaming, "THIS PRESIDENT WOULD VISIT TEHRAN BEFORE HE WOULD TEL AVIV!" Putting the ridiculousness of that statement aside for a second, it does make for quite the juxtaposition with Hillary pulling Trump to the right on Israel.
Anyway, like I said...I don't know what the Democrats are doing anymore.
RE: Cuba... I guess that talking head forgot that Nixon went to China and met Mao
She opens up the ass kissing spectacle that is the AIPAC convention in about 5 mins. SELL OUTS! Say hello Lloyd Blankfein, the entire Federal Reserve and soon to be 4 of 5 Supreme Court justices. For a 3% population, that aint to shabby. Laugh or you might wanna cry.
She opens up the ass kissing spectacle that is the AIPAC convention in about 5 mins. SELL OUTS! Say hello Lloyd Blankfein, the entire Federal Reserve and soon to be 4 of 5 Supreme Court justices. For a 3% population, that aint to shabby. Laugh or you might wanna cry.
Lloyd Blankfein, the entire Federal Reserve and soon to be 4 of 5 Supreme Court justices. For a 3% population, that aint to shabby. Laugh or you might wanna cry.
My intent was to spin the coup in precisely the opposite way that the previous poster did, to point out how easy it is to paint something one way or the other, using incendiary language. The truth is probably somewhere in between. But here are some things that are interesting to me:
1. If Zelaya was simply a benevolent reformer, why didn't he leave those altruistic projects to his successor? He could not have implemented those reforms by the time he left office and if he didn't want to stay (his argument), why float the referendum? If those projects are what the people wanted, wouldn't a successor have been elected to continue the reforms?
2. Clinton Derangement Syndrome...again. Was Obama a lackey? A rube? A neophyte that was under the spell of the power wielding Clinton? Did I miss the change in the Constitution where the Sec'y of State calls all the shots? Where there are no Joint Chiefs, DOD, Cabinet Meetings.. no POTUS? Clinton bashers tend to lay all the decisions of the OBAMA administration at the feet Clinton, as if she wasn't implemented the policy of the POTUS. I find it interesting that we lay Iraq at the feet of W (not Powell) but everything from 2008-12 is Clinton's call. And Kerry continues the same policies.
And yes, it is Realpolitik. It's precisely that unless you start from the position that the Obama administration orchestrated the coup, which I've never seen from any credible source.
1. I may be wrong, but that is exactly how I read that it would have happened....the referendum was part of the election, so his successor would have continued the reforms. Which leads me to believe he floated them for the betterment of the country, because he felt it was the right thing to do. I'm not exactly well-versed in the situation there, but there are definitely two sides to this story and the story most common outside the US is not in alignment with the story presented within it. 2. It's not Hilary derangement, it's system derangement. The fact that the dem's chose to put her face on the mess in Honduras does not mean it was all her fault, nor that Obama was not involved. It means she is complicit and more than willing to continue empire building. Zelaya was working for a minimum wage increase - Honduras along with Haiti are the standard bearers for slave labour wages in the west...wage increases would have had a domino affect thru all of our client states down there. That would be unacceptable to our business interests. Land reforms would have affected the bottom line of the palm oil biz and hurt the handful of ruling families in that country. Unacceptable. I'm going to go out on a limb (without researching) and say that the massive infrastructure projects now underway were based on IMF austerity/privatization based loans that will cripple Honduras for decades and benefit no one but the upper class, as per usual....and Zelaya was fighting these deals. Unacceptable. If these reforms worked, and the socialist agenda kept gaining momentum along with their continued alignment with our leftist rivals, there would likely have been a movement to remove the US military from their country....unacceptable. It seems you're arguing both sides of the coin here - ' we didn't organize the coup, we only supported it afterwards...but if we did organize it, it's because of zelaya's ambitions'. Do you really need 'a credible source' to see the never-ending pattern of SA governments being overthrown by the aristocracy, working hand in glove with the US establishment? Hits in the mob world may not involve the godfather or his henchmen....but you can bet damn sure the family pulling the trigger asked the godfather for permission, knowing their actions need to be cleared or they risk his wrath. Knowing the coup government have been advised by US lobbyists with personal ties to the US establishment (the clintons), it would appear they at the very least, had a green light. If continuing aid for a coup government makes the dem's work there truly altruistic, then I guess you're right - realpolitik.
I don't think informed people lay Iraq at the feet of W....they lay it at the feet of a system that encourages economic growth over human rights. A system that Hillary is as entrenched in as any politician on the planet. Which takes me back to my original point: the world awaits a candidate that will remove the view of the US as a major threat to peace. Is it unrealistic to expect a candidate to rock the boat that floats them? of course. Does that mean I should support her as the lesser of two evils? Fuck no. Same goes with the Dem's ongoing support of the apartheid regime in Israel. We can wish there was a true partner for peace in power there, but the fact remains that there is not, and will not be anytime soon, given the recent polls showing the population's increasingly hostile attitude toward arabs, and the cabinet postings given to MK's from the extremist right Jewish Home party. Yet there is no wavering in support for their government, nor any financial consequence to these developments - Clinton proves this with her AIPAC speech. This further demonstrates that Clinton is just another foreign policy hawk working toward the same over-arching imperialist goals as the GOP. Generally speaking, the Dems may save american lives by focusing more on subversion and regime change by propping up opposition leaders/encouraging coups, no-fly zones, and drone kill lists to maintain hegemony, instead of the GOP/neo con tactic of air strikes and occasional boots on the groud. BOTH parties push a neo-liberal agenda for their financial backers and advisors. This doesn't make a whole lot of difference to the people of the country being fucked with. Ask a Syrian or a Libyan or a Ukrainian et al whether they'd prefer foreign involvement to come in the form of aircraft carriers and F18's, or drones and corrupted locals. *getting on high horse* I get pretty disillusioned when I see people acknowledge the systemic problems with western imperialism, yet they feel the lesser of two evils argument puts them in a position that they need to defend their less-evil side. If people want to compromise their morality in order to keep the other side's monster out of office, have at it (I personally can't live with a vote for anyone who doesn't at least somewhat reflect my beliefs). But we all need to be honest with ourselves at how much we are willing to defend the lesser evil side. We should all be criticizing both sides of the aisle until we're comfortable with what they are presenting to us.
^ There's too much in here to argue point by point. I agree with some of what you say, but disagree vehemently with some other things that I believe are conjecture or conclusions based on the most negative possible analysis.
But most importantly, I'm not arguing both sides of the coin. I'm saying the Obama administration handled the situation in the past way they could. Considering I don't believe they orchestrated a coup, what were they to do? Invade militarily in order to reinstall Zelaya? Of course not. That's even more aggressive power, wielding it from the left. So you manage the situation you have, not the one you want.
As far as our hawkish stance across the world, I'm in agreement. I'm a conservative when it comes to foreign affairs (note, as opposed to neo-liberal). It pains me when I see all the aid to Israel. Moreover, I'm Ukrainian (my real last name is Rosul, not the Americanized Russell). So I would have loved to have the US help my country fight off the Beast in the East. But one thing I have learned is to be a pragmatist. A person can withhold their vote or go third party. They are welcome to do that. But the last time that happened in force was in 2000. And Ralph Nader earned 97k votes in FL. That gave us a Bush Presidency. GOPers will say the same thing about 92 and Perot. So I respect that option, but no thanks for me. I may have to take a lesser bad option considering I'm again living in a swing state (VA).
It seems that nobody is happy with the options before them.
This article is delusional on so many levels:.
1. Has the author not heard of 'executive orders'? A fair amount of Trump's policies could move through EO's and then they fight it for months or years up to the SCOTUS 2. I would encourage the author to look up the definition of fascist. He apparently thinks it has something to do with international policy. It doesn't. 3. He's going to write a letter to the DNC imploring them to examine her? That seems useful. 4. Bill Kristol would rather see Hillary than Trump, ergo she is going to have neocons in her admin. Nice critical analysis there. 5. Talking to Kissinger makes you a war criminal. Well wtf... If I interviewed McNamara and had deep conversations, does that make me a war criminal? 6. Four years of Trump will give us eight years of Dems...Okay, who would that be? Sanders at 77? Elizabeth Warren who doesn't have a clue about international politics?
did "OUR" candidates where their kippahs when they sold out today?
Maybe you should answer my question from above before asking any more of your own. ...
What was point of this.... Lloyd Blankfein, the entire Federal Reserve and soon to be 4 of 5 Supreme Court justices. For a 3% population, that aint to shabby. Laugh or you might wanna cry.<\b>
did "OUR" candidates where their kippahs when they sold out today?
Maybe you should answer my question from above before asking any more of your own. ...
What was point of this.... Lloyd Blankfein, the entire Federal Reserve and soon to be 4 of 5 Supreme Court justices. For a 3% population, that aint to shabby. Laugh or you might wanna cry.<\b>
I didn't know we only had five justices. This is even bigger news than what you're after..
It seems that nobody is happy with the options before them.
This article is delusional on so many levels:.
1. Has the author not heard of 'executive orders'? A fair amount of Trump's policies could move through EO's and then they fight it for months or years up to the SCOTUS 2. I would encourage the author to look up the definition of fascist. He apparently thinks it has something to do with international policy. It doesn't. 3. He's going to write a letter to the DNC imploring them to examine her? That seems useful. 4. Bill Kristol would rather see Hillary than Trump, ergo she is going to have neocons in her admin. Nice critical analysis there. 5. Talking to Kissinger makes you a war criminal. Well wtf... If I interviewed McNamara and had deep conversations, does that make me a war criminal? 6. Four years of Trump will give us eight years of Dems...Okay, who would that be? Sanders at 77? Elizabeth Warren who doesn't have a clue about international politics?
my bad, 46% (4 of 9). Representative Gov, lmao. Why does Bloomberg, Schumer, MSNBC and the whole lot want to strip Americans of their 2nd amendment right? Nothing to see her kids, keep it movin.
At least Bernie was a no show for the asskissin party goin on in DC.
my bad, 46% (4 of 9). Representative Gov, lmao. Why does Bloomberg, Schumer, MSNBC and the whole lot want to strip Americans of their 2nd amendment right? Nothing to see her kids, keep it movin.
At least Bernie was a no show for the asskissin party goin on in DC.
Bernie asked to do his speech via video rather than in person. It was declined as they don't allow that typically.
Are you saying that 4/9 is not representative of the tribal makeup of this country, or that the SCOTUS in general is not representative considering a co-equal branch of government has only 9 people.
It seems that nobody is happy with the options before them.
The options before us this November: the US has taken a nasty wet hangover shit Option 1: wipe ass with left BARE hand Option 2: wipe ass with right BARE hand
my bad, 46% (4 of 9). Representative Gov, lmao. Why does Bloomberg, Schumer, MSNBC and the whole lot want to strip Americans of their 2nd amendment right? Nothing to see her kids, keep it movin.
At least Bernie was a no show for the asskissin party goin on in DC.
Bernie asked to do his speech via video rather than in person. It was declined as they don't allow that typically.
Are you saying that 4/9 is not representative of the tribal makeup of this country, or that the SCOTUS in general is not representative considering a co-equal branch of government has only 9 people.
my bad, 46% (4 of 9). Representative Gov, lmao. Why does Bloomberg, Schumer, MSNBC and the whole lot want to strip Americans of their 2nd amendment right? Nothing to see her kids, keep it movin.
At least Bernie was a no show for the asskissin party goin on in DC.
Bernie asked to do his speech via video rather than in person. It was declined as they don't allow that typically.
Are you saying that 4/9 is not representative of the tribal makeup of this country, or that the SCOTUS in general is not representative considering a co-equal branch of government has only 9 people.
They don't allow it? Or they do allow it?
According to what I read, AIPAC requires you to be there if you want to address the body. Can't do it remotely in any way.
Critics Aghast at 'Disgusting Speech' Clinton Just Gave to AIPAC
Democratic presidential candidate speech praises "everything that is bad about Israeli policy and U.S. imperialism"
Hillary Clinton told the powerful AIPAC lobby on Monday that if elected president one of her first actions would be to invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House.
Palestinian and human rights advocates were aghast over remarks made by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) convention on Monday, saying the her speech represented "everything that is bad" with U.S. imperialism and policy in the Middle East.
During the address, Clinton vowed to take the U.S.-Israel relationship to "the next level"—a level which seemingly includes more war and imperialism, few, if any, rights for Palestinians, and definitely no economic boycotts of Israel.
"Has even one single Clinton supporter denounced the disgusting speech she gave today?" —Glenn GreenwaldStriking a hawkish tone, Clinton warned the powerful lobby group against rival candidates who want to "outsource Middle East security to dictators" and "cede the mantle of leadership for global peace and security," and instead vowed even more "security and intelligence cooperation."
"As president, I will make a firm commitment to ensure Israel maintains its qualitative military edge," she said. "The United States should provide Israel with the most sophisticated defense technology so it can deter and stop any threats. That includes bolstering Israeli missile defenses with new systems like the Arrow Three and David’s Sling. And we should work together to develop better tunnel detection, technology to prevent armed smuggling, kidnapping and terrorist attacks."
As observers noted, as she ran down the list of "evolving threats," the former U.S. secretary of state resorted to common neoconservative talking points, declaring:
As we gather here, three evolving threats — Iran’s continued aggression, a rising tide of extremism across a wide arc of instability, and the growing effort to de-legitimize Israel on the world stage — are converging to make the U.S.-Israel alliance more indispensable than ever.
We have to combat all these trends with even more intense security and diplomatic cooperation. The United States and Israel must be closer than ever, stronger than ever and more determined than ever to prevail against our common adversaries and to advance our shared values.
Touting her "deep, personal commitment" to the "Jewish state," Clinton then said that "one of the first things I’ll do in office is invite Israeli Prime Minister [Benjamin Netanyahu] to visit the White House."
The speech proved that, on matters of Israel, Clinton is "running to the right" of GOP front-runner Donald Trump, as noted by Mondoweiss' Philip Weiss, who wrote that the remarks were "filled with red meat for Israel supporters" and "contained scant reference to the peace process."
Later, Clinton doubled down on her previous pledge to dismantle the growing international Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, linking the campaign against Palestinian apartheid to anti-Semitism, saying "we must repudiate all efforts to malign, isolate and undermine Israel and the Jewish people."
"I’ve been sounding the alarm for a while now," Clinton continued. "As I wrote last year in a letter to the heads of major American Jewish organizations, we have to be united in fighting back against BDS."
Clinton then specifically called on young people "on the front lines" to resist efforts to boycott Israel, saying: "I hope you stay strong. Keep speaking out. Don’t let anyone silence you, bully you or try to shut down debate" —to which Naomi Dann, media correspondent for Jewish Voice for Peace, responded:
Critics Aghast at 'Disgusting Speech' Clinton Just Gave to AIPAC
Democratic presidential candidate speech praises "everything that is bad about Israeli policy and U.S. imperialism"
Hillary Clinton told the powerful AIPAC lobby on Monday that if elected president one of her first actions would be to invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House.
Palestinian and human rights advocates were aghast over remarks made by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) convention on Monday, saying the her speech represented "everything that is bad" with U.S. imperialism and policy in the Middle East.
During the address, Clinton vowed to take the U.S.-Israel relationship to "the next level"—a level which seemingly includes more war and imperialism, few, if any, rights for Palestinians, and definitely no economic boycotts of Israel.
"Has even one single Clinton supporter denounced the disgusting speech she gave today?" —Glenn GreenwaldStriking a hawkish tone, Clinton warned the powerful lobby group against rival candidates who want to "outsource Middle East security to dictators" and "cede the mantle of leadership for global peace and security," and instead vowed even more "security and intelligence cooperation."
"As president, I will make a firm commitment to ensure Israel maintains its qualitative military edge," she said. "The United States should provide Israel with the most sophisticated defense technology so it can deter and stop any threats. That includes bolstering Israeli missile defenses with new systems like the Arrow Three and David’s Sling. And we should work together to develop better tunnel detection, technology to prevent armed smuggling, kidnapping and terrorist attacks."
As observers noted, as she ran down the list of "evolving threats," the former U.S. secretary of state resorted to common neoconservative talking points, declaring:
As we gather here, three evolving threats — Iran’s continued aggression, a rising tide of extremism across a wide arc of instability, and the growing effort to de-legitimize Israel on the world stage — are converging to make the U.S.-Israel alliance more indispensable than ever.
We have to combat all these trends with even more intense security and diplomatic cooperation. The United States and Israel must be closer than ever, stronger than ever and more determined than ever to prevail against our common adversaries and to advance our shared values.
Touting her "deep, personal commitment" to the "Jewish state," Clinton then said that "one of the first things I’ll do in office is invite Israeli Prime Minister [Benjamin Netanyahu] to visit the White House."
The speech proved that, on matters of Israel, Clinton is "running to the right" of GOP front-runner Donald Trump, as noted by Mondoweiss' Philip Weiss, who wrote that the remarks were "filled with red meat for Israel supporters" and "contained scant reference to the peace process."
Later, Clinton doubled down on her previous pledge to dismantle the growing international Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, linking the campaign against Palestinian apartheid to anti-Semitism, saying "we must repudiate all efforts to malign, isolate and undermine Israel and the Jewish people."
"I’ve been sounding the alarm for a while now," Clinton continued. "As I wrote last year in a letter to the heads of major American Jewish organizations, we have to be united in fighting back against BDS."
Clinton then specifically called on young people "on the front lines" to resist efforts to boycott Israel, saying: "I hope you stay strong. Keep speaking out. Don’t let anyone silence you, bully you or try to shut down debate" —to which Naomi Dann, media correspondent for Jewish Voice for Peace, responded:
More at link.
I've done you the favor of putting in bold the hyperbole in the paragraph, so you can easily distinguish fact from opinion. When you remove that, can you tell me the parts where you are 'aghast'?
Critics Aghast at 'Disgusting Speech' Clinton Just Gave to AIPAC
Democratic presidential candidate speech praises "everything that is bad about Israeli policy and U.S. imperialism"
Hillary Clinton told the powerful AIPAC lobby on Monday that if elected president one of her first actions would be to invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House.
Palestinian and human rights advocates were aghast over remarks made by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) convention on Monday, saying the her speech represented "everything that is bad" with U.S. imperialism and policy in the Middle East.
During the address, Clinton vowed to take the U.S.-Israel relationship to "the next level"—a level which seemingly includes more war and imperialism, few, if any, rights for Palestinians, and definitely no economic boycotts of Israel.
"Has even one single Clinton supporter denounced the disgusting speech she gave today?" —Glenn GreenwaldStriking a hawkish tone, Clinton warned the powerful lobby group against rival candidates who want to "outsource Middle East security to dictators" and "cede the mantle of leadership for global peace and security," and instead vowed even more "security and intelligence cooperation."
"As president, I will make a firm commitment to ensure Israel maintains its qualitative military edge," she said. "The United States should provide Israel with the most sophisticated defense technology so it can deter and stop any threats. That includes bolstering Israeli missile defenses with new systems like the Arrow Three and David’s Sling. And we should work together to develop better tunnel detection, technology to prevent armed smuggling, kidnapping and terrorist attacks."
As observers noted, as she ran down the list of "evolving threats," the former U.S. secretary of state resorted to common neoconservative talking points, declaring:
As we gather here, three evolving threats — Iran’s continued aggression, a rising tide of extremism across a wide arc of instability, and the growing effort to de-legitimize Israel on the world stage — are converging to make the U.S.-Israel alliance more indispensable than ever.
We have to combat all these trends with even more intense security and diplomatic cooperation. The United States and Israel must be closer than ever, stronger than ever and more determined than ever to prevail against our common adversaries and to advance our shared values.
Touting her "deep, personal commitment" to the "Jewish state," Clinton then said that "one of the first things I’ll do in office is invite Israeli Prime Minister [Benjamin Netanyahu] to visit the White House."
The speech proved that, on matters of Israel, Clinton is "running to the right" of GOP front-runner Donald Trump, as noted by Mondoweiss' Philip Weiss, who wrote that the remarks were "filled with red meat for Israel supporters" and "contained scant reference to the peace process."
Later, Clinton doubled down on her previous pledge to dismantle the growing international Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, linking the campaign against Palestinian apartheid to anti-Semitism, saying "we must repudiate all efforts to malign, isolate and undermine Israel and the Jewish people."
"I’ve been sounding the alarm for a while now," Clinton continued. "As I wrote last year in a letter to the heads of major American Jewish organizations, we have to be united in fighting back against BDS."
Clinton then specifically called on young people "on the front lines" to resist efforts to boycott Israel, saying: "I hope you stay strong. Keep speaking out. Don’t let anyone silence you, bully you or try to shut down debate" —to which Naomi Dann, media correspondent for Jewish Voice for Peace, responded:
More at link.
I've done you the favor of putting in bold the hyperbole in the paragraph, so you can easily distinguish fact from opinion. When you remove that, can you tell me the parts where you are 'aghast'?
Might as well just link the whole speech so people can hear it for themselves
^and rightfully so. BDS has a strong anti-Semitic strain throughout and she is right about Europe and other parts of the globe. Anti-Semitsm is on the rise, which is common during times of economic crisis, particularly in Europe. I'm no friend of neo-cons and you and I have gone at it here, but I support a Jewish state and a Palestinian state and I would oppose any attempt to de-legitimize either group.
Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall; Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.
What options are there when a county ignores the UN, ignores international law, ignores conditions of signed treaties or refuses to sign treaties and can't get along with any of its neighbors?
What options are there when a county ignores the UN, ignores international law, ignores conditions of signed treaties or refuses to sign treaties and can't get along with any of its neighbors?
I'm no Israel apologist, but you are ignoring the massive security issues, the Six Day War and everything that had happened since 1946. No country should be obligated to make its security subservient to a UN Resolution. We in the States would not.
Comments
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I flipped by FOX News yesterday to see how crazy the Obama in Cuba coverage was. (SPOILER: It was just as crazy as you would expect.) The thing that stuck out was one talking head screaming, "THIS PRESIDENT WOULD VISIT TEHRAN BEFORE HE WOULD TEL AVIV!" Putting the ridiculousness of that statement aside for a second, it does make for quite the juxtaposition with Hillary pulling Trump to the right on Israel.
Anyway, like I said...I don't know what the Democrats are doing anymore.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
My point is that Hillary is firmly planted where Clinton and Obama were planted on Israel. It's Trump that is the wild card here. And just because he gets to the left (maybe) of Hillary, doesn't mean she should move further left. That wouldn't make any sense at all.
STOP AIPAC!
What was point of this....
2. It's not Hilary derangement, it's system derangement. The fact that the dem's chose to put her face on the mess in Honduras does not mean it was all her fault, nor that Obama was not involved. It means she is complicit and more than willing to continue empire building. Zelaya was working for a minimum wage increase - Honduras along with Haiti are the standard bearers for slave labour wages in the west...wage increases would have had a domino affect thru all of our client states down there. That would be unacceptable to our business interests. Land reforms would have affected the bottom line of the palm oil biz and hurt the handful of ruling families in that country. Unacceptable. I'm going to go out on a limb (without researching) and say that the massive infrastructure projects now underway were based on IMF austerity/privatization based loans that will cripple Honduras for decades and benefit no one but the upper class, as per usual....and Zelaya was fighting these deals. Unacceptable. If these reforms worked, and the socialist agenda kept gaining momentum along with their continued alignment with our leftist rivals, there would likely have been a movement to remove the US military from their country....unacceptable. It seems you're arguing both sides of the coin here - ' we didn't organize the coup, we only supported it afterwards...but if we did organize it, it's because of zelaya's ambitions'. Do you really need 'a credible source' to see the never-ending pattern of SA governments being overthrown by the aristocracy, working hand in glove with the US establishment? Hits in the mob world may not involve the godfather or his henchmen....but you can bet damn sure the family pulling the trigger asked the godfather for permission, knowing their actions need to be cleared or they risk his wrath. Knowing the coup government have been advised by US lobbyists with personal ties to the US establishment (the clintons), it would appear they at the very least, had a green light. If continuing aid for a coup government makes the dem's work there truly altruistic, then I guess you're right - realpolitik.
I don't think informed people lay Iraq at the feet of W....they lay it at the feet of a system that encourages economic growth over human rights. A system that Hillary is as entrenched in as any politician on the planet. Which takes me back to my original point: the world awaits a candidate that will remove the view of the US as a major threat to peace. Is it unrealistic to expect a candidate to rock the boat that floats them? of course. Does that mean I should support her as the lesser of two evils? Fuck no. Same goes with the Dem's ongoing support of the apartheid regime in Israel. We can wish there was a true partner for peace in power there, but the fact remains that there is not, and will not be anytime soon, given the recent polls showing the population's increasingly hostile attitude toward arabs, and the cabinet postings given to MK's from the extremist right Jewish Home party. Yet there is no wavering in support for their government, nor any financial consequence to these developments - Clinton proves this with her AIPAC speech. This further demonstrates that Clinton is just another foreign policy hawk working toward the same over-arching imperialist goals as the GOP. Generally speaking, the Dems may save american lives by focusing more on subversion and regime change by propping up opposition leaders/encouraging coups, no-fly zones, and drone kill lists to maintain hegemony, instead of the GOP/neo con tactic of air strikes and occasional boots on the groud. BOTH parties push a neo-liberal agenda for their financial backers and advisors. This doesn't make a whole lot of difference to the people of the country being fucked with. Ask a Syrian or a Libyan or a Ukrainian et al whether they'd prefer foreign involvement to come in the form of aircraft carriers and F18's, or drones and corrupted locals.
*getting on high horse*
I get pretty disillusioned when I see people acknowledge the systemic problems with western imperialism, yet they feel the lesser of two evils argument puts them in a position that they need to defend their less-evil side. If people want to compromise their morality in order to keep the other side's monster out of office, have at it (I personally can't live with a vote for anyone who doesn't at least somewhat reflect my beliefs). But we all need to be honest with ourselves at how much we are willing to defend the lesser evil side. We should all be criticizing both sides of the aisle until we're comfortable with what they are presenting to us.
But most importantly, I'm not arguing both sides of the coin. I'm saying the Obama administration handled the situation in the past way they could. Considering I don't believe they orchestrated a coup, what were they to do? Invade militarily in order to reinstall Zelaya? Of course not. That's even more aggressive power, wielding it from the left. So you manage the situation you have, not the one you want.
As far as our hawkish stance across the world, I'm in agreement. I'm a conservative when it comes to foreign affairs (note, as opposed to neo-liberal). It pains me when I see all the aid to Israel. Moreover, I'm Ukrainian (my real last name is Rosul, not the Americanized Russell). So I would have loved to have the US help my country fight off the Beast in the East. But one thing I have learned is to be a pragmatist. A person can withhold their vote or go third party. They are welcome to do that. But the last time that happened in force was in 2000. And Ralph Nader earned 97k votes in FL. That gave us a Bush Presidency. GOPers will say the same thing about 92 and Perot. So I respect that option, but no thanks for me. I may have to take a lesser bad option considering I'm again living in a swing state (VA).
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/21/democrats_you_cant_vote_for_hillary_the_case_for_writing_in_bernie_sanders_if_hillary_clinton_is_the_nominee/
It seems that nobody is happy with the options before them.
1. Has the author not heard of 'executive orders'? A fair amount of Trump's policies could move through EO's and then they fight it for months or years up to the SCOTUS
2. I would encourage the author to look up the definition of fascist. He apparently thinks it has something to do with international policy. It doesn't.
3. He's going to write a letter to the DNC imploring them to examine her? That seems useful.
4. Bill Kristol would rather see Hillary than Trump, ergo she is going to have neocons in her admin. Nice critical analysis there.
5. Talking to Kissinger makes you a war criminal. Well wtf... If I interviewed McNamara and had deep conversations, does that make me a war criminal?
6. Four years of Trump will give us eight years of Dems...Okay, who would that be? Sanders at 77? Elizabeth Warren who doesn't have a clue about international politics?
What was point of this....
Lloyd Blankfein, the entire Federal Reserve and soon to be 4 of 5 Supreme Court justices. For a 3% population, that aint to shabby. Laugh or you might wanna cry.<\b>
Why does Bloomberg, Schumer, MSNBC and the whole lot want to strip Americans of their 2nd amendment right?
Nothing to see her kids, keep it movin.
At least Bernie was a no show for the asskissin party goin on in DC.
Are you saying that 4/9 is not representative of the tribal makeup of this country, or that the SCOTUS in general is not representative considering a co-equal branch of government has only 9 people.
Option 1: wipe ass with left BARE hand
Option 2: wipe ass with right BARE hand
Democratic presidential candidate speech praises "everything that is bad about Israeli policy and U.S. imperialism" More at link.
I've done you the favor of putting in bold the hyperbole in the paragraph, so you can easily distinguish fact from opinion. When you remove that, can you tell me the parts where you are 'aghast'?
Might as well just link the whole speech so people can hear it for themselves
The BDS part is from about 8:30 - 10:20
Pretty hard hitting.
Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.
What options are there when a county ignores the UN, ignores international law, ignores conditions of signed treaties or refuses to sign treaties and can't get along with any of its neighbors?
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/195302
YAH FOR CENSORSHIP
I guess he musta had DerSHOWitz as his Con Law professor, or else he took Canadian Con Law 101. lol