The glaringly obvious hole in airport security is the political correctness that requires everyone to go through the same security check. Does a 75 year old grandmother from Memphis -who flies regularly - really need to go through the same security check as a 23 year old Nigerian Muslim, who has Yemen stamped on his passport? El Al Airlines is the most secure airline in the world and their first line of defense is psychological profiling. Once someone is flagged (for whatever reason), they must go through a gauntlet of intense security questioning and inspection. The USA is too big and our resources are too limited to examine everyone using the same methods - and the result was what happened on Flight 253. We need to focus our airport security resources on those who are most likely to fit the profile of a terrorist: Individuals traveling either alone or in groups, between the age of 16-45, who may appear to be Islamic, have an Islamic name, have traveled in the past to Europe, Africa, Indonesia or the Mideast, and who appear nervous and can’t easily explain their past or where they are going . Does anyone remember the last time a 50 year old blonde haired Swede, or a 80 year old couple from Stuttgart blew up a plane?
I understand the implications of profiling to one’s civil rights, but we’re not talking about the horrible internment that happened to the Japanese during WW2. We must allow our society to protect itself from an enemy that has no boundaries, and views our civil sensibilities as a weakness to be exploited. After all, doesn't society - as a whole - have the civil right to be protected while in the air?
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Obama’s 1 year foreign policy report card grade: F
President Obama came into the office 11 months ago with virtually zero foreign policy experience, but with an expectation that he could staff his administration with smart people who specialized in the field. In a moment of supreme over-confidence, he announced in a Cairo speech that he was going to “re-engage the Muslim world in a way that would respect their culture”, while at the same time “work to solve the Israeli/Arab conflict” once and for all. This was his stated a foreign policy priority during his first term. While it’s only been 11 months, let’s take an inventory of his accomplishments so far:
1) He set a September 30th deadline for Iran to end their nuclear efforts “or else” the US would use harsh measures. We are in December and Iran is still thumbing their nose at the world and Obama still making empty threats. Obama “re-calibrated” his deadline to December 31st, and there is no expectation in either the USA or Iran that anything will happen.
2) Hillary Clinton, in an attempt to assure Israeli fears over a possible nuclear Iran, said “if Iran bombed Israel the US would retaliate” – which only served to make Israelis less secure with her inference that the US would allow Iran to have the bomb.
3) Obama, true to his campaign promise, has pulled most US troops out of harm’s way in Iraq, and the predicted massacre of the Iraqi forces that worked with our troops began immediately. This didn’t help US credibility in the eyes of any of our dwindling allies in the Middle East.
4) During the campaign President Obama described Afghanistan as “the good war” because that is where Al Quada is based. It took President Obama 3 months to respond to our US military Afghanistan commander’s request for 40,000 more troops. His response was 30,000 more troops, no logistics infrastructure, and a 12 month timetable before evaluation and possible withdrawal. This was greeted in the Muslim world with astonishment, and served to encourage the Taliban that they are winning the war and can just sit it out for the next 12 months.
5) President Obama demanded that the Israeli government to stop ALL expansion of existing Israeli cities around Jerusalem that are in the disputed territories, even though previous negotiations between previous US governments, as well as with Palestinian negotiators have always allowed for natural growth in these areas. This reversal of US policy alienated and created a sense of betrayal among the Israeli public towards the Obama administration, and also served to cause the Palestinians to backtrack on previous concessions and harden their positions regarding any further negotiations. Meanwhile, the Israeli concessions - having not been met with reciprocity by the Palestinians, are on the verge of being canceled.
6) In March, 2009 the Obama administration suggested to Russia that the US would pull its missile-defense plan in Europe in exchange for Russia more aggressively joining an international effort to stop Iran’s nuclear program and isolate Iran. In September 2009, Obama went ahead and scraped the missile plan and got nothing in return from Russia on Iran, which was interpreted by the international community as a complete US capitulation to Russian demands.
The net result of 10 months of US backtracking, back stabbing and withdrawals is that Muslim extremists all over the Middle East are emboldened and motivated like they have never been since Ayatollah Khomeini took over in Iran in 1979. Within months of our withdrawal from Afghanistan, the extremists will be focusing on taking over the government of nuclear armed Afghanistan.
I will be the first to say that the former Bush administration made some pretty big mistakes – both in foreign policy and in financial policy - but at the rate Obama’s “foreign policy experts” are “recalibrating US foreign policy” around the world, they are looking more like rank amateurs. They seem to have no concept of the possible unintended consequences of their foreign policy initiatives, and no appreciation for how difficult - if not impossible - it will be for a future US administration to fix the damage that is being done.
One thing the Democrats are not amateurs at is the ability to dress up a pile of partisan pork, slap some lipstick on top, and call it a health care bill. But that’s another story …….
1) He set a September 30th deadline for Iran to end their nuclear efforts “or else” the US would use harsh measures. We are in December and Iran is still thumbing their nose at the world and Obama still making empty threats. Obama “re-calibrated” his deadline to December 31st, and there is no expectation in either the USA or Iran that anything will happen.
2) Hillary Clinton, in an attempt to assure Israeli fears over a possible nuclear Iran, said “if Iran bombed Israel the US would retaliate” – which only served to make Israelis less secure with her inference that the US would allow Iran to have the bomb.
3) Obama, true to his campaign promise, has pulled most US troops out of harm’s way in Iraq, and the predicted massacre of the Iraqi forces that worked with our troops began immediately. This didn’t help US credibility in the eyes of any of our dwindling allies in the Middle East.
4) During the campaign President Obama described Afghanistan as “the good war” because that is where Al Quada is based. It took President Obama 3 months to respond to our US military Afghanistan commander’s request for 40,000 more troops. His response was 30,000 more troops, no logistics infrastructure, and a 12 month timetable before evaluation and possible withdrawal. This was greeted in the Muslim world with astonishment, and served to encourage the Taliban that they are winning the war and can just sit it out for the next 12 months.
5) President Obama demanded that the Israeli government to stop ALL expansion of existing Israeli cities around Jerusalem that are in the disputed territories, even though previous negotiations between previous US governments, as well as with Palestinian negotiators have always allowed for natural growth in these areas. This reversal of US policy alienated and created a sense of betrayal among the Israeli public towards the Obama administration, and also served to cause the Palestinians to backtrack on previous concessions and harden their positions regarding any further negotiations. Meanwhile, the Israeli concessions - having not been met with reciprocity by the Palestinians, are on the verge of being canceled.
6) In March, 2009 the Obama administration suggested to Russia that the US would pull its missile-defense plan in Europe in exchange for Russia more aggressively joining an international effort to stop Iran’s nuclear program and isolate Iran. In September 2009, Obama went ahead and scraped the missile plan and got nothing in return from Russia on Iran, which was interpreted by the international community as a complete US capitulation to Russian demands.
The net result of 10 months of US backtracking, back stabbing and withdrawals is that Muslim extremists all over the Middle East are emboldened and motivated like they have never been since Ayatollah Khomeini took over in Iran in 1979. Within months of our withdrawal from Afghanistan, the extremists will be focusing on taking over the government of nuclear armed Afghanistan.
I will be the first to say that the former Bush administration made some pretty big mistakes – both in foreign policy and in financial policy - but at the rate Obama’s “foreign policy experts” are “recalibrating US foreign policy” around the world, they are looking more like rank amateurs. They seem to have no concept of the possible unintended consequences of their foreign policy initiatives, and no appreciation for how difficult - if not impossible - it will be for a future US administration to fix the damage that is being done.
One thing the Democrats are not amateurs at is the ability to dress up a pile of partisan pork, slap some lipstick on top, and call it a health care bill. But that’s another story …….
Monday, December 21, 2009
Is the Memphis Commercial Appeal editorial staff anti-Israel?
Please explain to me why the CA felt the need to report on a criminal incident that perpetrated by one individual in Israel in 1990 in your snip-it entitled "Israel: Organ Harvesting in 1990's reveled" (12/21/09 A4). The "rehashing" of the 1990 incident, especially when framed in an accusatory tone against the entire state of Israel as if it happened yesterday, is nothing more than an overt attempt to demonize the Israeli people. The timing of this regurgitation - 4 days before Christmas - is especially suspect.
This incident was perpetrated by a single pathologist who was criminally indicted, but the PRESS - including the CA, have done their best - for almost 20 years - to portray this single incident as a systemic policy of the Israeli people in an attempt to keep the blood libel theories about Jews alive, and to accomplish what wars, and terrorism couldn't: Political pressure to delegitimize the Israeli people.
Had a single pathologist in the USA done the same (and they have dozens of times without prosecution), I doubt it would be reported 20 years later accusing the US of "harvesting" organs. I just wish the CA had as much righteous indignation at terrorism against Israeli civilians as they do for blatant abuses of the press to frame Israel as illegitimate.
I'm sure that the Palestinian propagandists in the Mideast will try their best to keep this story alive, and even embellish it as time goes on, but I don't understand why the CA editorial staff feels the need to be their accomplice.
This incident was perpetrated by a single pathologist who was criminally indicted, but the PRESS - including the CA, have done their best - for almost 20 years - to portray this single incident as a systemic policy of the Israeli people in an attempt to keep the blood libel theories about Jews alive, and to accomplish what wars, and terrorism couldn't: Political pressure to delegitimize the Israeli people.
Had a single pathologist in the USA done the same (and they have dozens of times without prosecution), I doubt it would be reported 20 years later accusing the US of "harvesting" organs. I just wish the CA had as much righteous indignation at terrorism against Israeli civilians as they do for blatant abuses of the press to frame Israel as illegitimate.
I'm sure that the Palestinian propagandists in the Mideast will try their best to keep this story alive, and even embellish it as time goes on, but I don't understand why the CA editorial staff feels the need to be their accomplice.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
What is love?
Max Fargotstein on on love and Marriage. Written on August 5th, 1970, at age 57 yrs.
Max Fargotstein (07/22/1913 – 07/02/989), was married to Esta (Katz) Fargotstein (October 25th, 1919 – January 2nd, 2009). Max and Esta had 6 children, Susan, Gayle, Emily, Laura, Shep and Bill (4 girls and 2 boys). This letter - Max’s vivid description on how to tell when you are in love, was to written to Emily when she was 22 years old. I believe the wisdom of Max’s point of view has stood up to the test of time, and are as valid today as they were 40 years ago.
As for my children, David , Sam and Molly Fargotstein: I am SOOOO pleased that this letter articulating my father’s (your grandfather’s) philosophy about love and marriage has survived 40 years. This is truly a gift, and I am putting it up on my internet blog and hope that thousands of people read it. The irony of this letter is that I am currently 55 years old – roughly the same age as my father when he wrote this letter.
Shep Fargotstein 12/12/2009
Aug. 5, 1970
Dear Emily,
Your mother told me a few days ago that you had asked her again how you could tell when you were in love. This is quite a question and I am sure you will get as many answers as there are different people to give them to you.
First of all, I don’t really know what love is. I think if you want to find something that you can sink your teeth into, you might call it a state of “very deep affection”.
I think one of the most horrible things that have happened to the children in the last 20 years is that they have been so romanticized and brainwashed by books and movies and a lot of double talk that their emotions and what they expect out of life is quite confused. There is no simple answer to this question and this “ state of deep affection” varies so much because everybody has a certain amount of affection that they can give or rather I should say, do give, and their reactions vary greatly.
I am going to try to approach this from a woman’s angle, if I may, because that is the one you are really interested in. I think that a woman normally is first attracted to a man by the way he looks and the way he acts and the other mannerisms which I am perhaps not too aware of. This is more or less the icing on the cake that draws the flies.
After you have a strong attraction, a woman, whether she admits it to herself or not, is whether she respects the person she is attracted to. Respect has absolutely nothing to do with attraction and when I say respect, I mean as a man in the best meaning of the word. By this, I mean, if she respects what he believes in - and he is a man of principle. I don’t mean that you are looking for an angel, but you want somebody that you know believes in what he thinks is right and I think it is almost universal - though you might not live by the same code, you can admire what he is and what he believes in.
I think one of the most important gauges of this “state of deep affection” is how you feel when you introduce him to the people you respect and admire. If you feel proud - if everything else is as it should be, then you have what I call a good start.
I think a woman has to consider, even though she may do it unconsciously, if he is the kind of person who would never under any circumstances hurt her, physically or mentally.
I think a pretty good gauge of this is to see what type of person you are interested in and then honestly ask yourself “would I like for my children to be exactly like him?”
I have seen good marriages and very poor marriages, even though some of them still stay together, where one of them married because the other party needed them. There is no such thing as a successful marriage with one of the two leaning on the partner but rather, a good marriage is like two boards tilted at an angle, and supporting each other. This business of bells ringing and lightening flashing is a lot of bull and if anything such as this did happen - it happens 30 years after the marriage.
A good marriage, and I mean this in the finest meaning of the word, has to have, I think, all of these ingredients, plus there must be enough in a financial way to make life bearable. Money is not the most important thing in the world but the absence of it can sometimes be a tragedy - if it’s about a pair of shoes, the rent or a doctor bill. It is very hard to be happy and content when the frustrations and anxieties of money matters are constantly at your throat.
I don’t think I have to tell you what a good marriage is because I think you have seen it in your own home, but this is not where they start. They are built memory by memory, consideration by consideration, by the tender touch and loving glance.
What I am trying to say to you in a very awkward way is that the more you put into a marriage, the more you get out of it and the basic ingredients must be there before a marriage has a chance of really growing and becoming the source of pleasure and contentment it can be. Don’t expect anything worthwhile to be easy and while a person might think that this is something they can never experience, I believe two decent people, if properly qualified, can build their “enchanted cottage” by putting together the best that is in them into a marriage.
You will notice that I am intertwining marriage and love because this is what it is all about. Morals may change, customs may change, but the man-woman relationship basically never changes and the ingredient that made a good marriage 100 years ago, are still valid today.
I realize I will never put Shakespeare out of business, but if you even get one thought out of this, I will be very happy.
I am mature enough to know that I have to expect disappoint in my children and it would be silly to think otherwise, but I never felt nor will I ever accept the feeling of being ashamed of any of my children. When I say ashamed, it is not for what other people may think and feel - but the way, I, myself feel inside of me about their conduct and attitude.
Love,
Daddyo
Dear Laurie,
I am enclosing a copy of this letter I wrote to Emily and I would appreciate it if you would read it, as I imagine the same question has, or will, at some time come to your mind and you might want to read this and give it some thought.
Love,
Daddyo
Max Fargotstein (07/22/1913 – 07/02/989), was married to Esta (Katz) Fargotstein (October 25th, 1919 – January 2nd, 2009). Max and Esta had 6 children, Susan, Gayle, Emily, Laura, Shep and Bill (4 girls and 2 boys). This letter - Max’s vivid description on how to tell when you are in love, was to written to Emily when she was 22 years old. I believe the wisdom of Max’s point of view has stood up to the test of time, and are as valid today as they were 40 years ago.
As for my children, David , Sam and Molly Fargotstein: I am SOOOO pleased that this letter articulating my father’s (your grandfather’s) philosophy about love and marriage has survived 40 years. This is truly a gift, and I am putting it up on my internet blog and hope that thousands of people read it. The irony of this letter is that I am currently 55 years old – roughly the same age as my father when he wrote this letter.
Shep Fargotstein 12/12/2009
Aug. 5, 1970
Dear Emily,
Your mother told me a few days ago that you had asked her again how you could tell when you were in love. This is quite a question and I am sure you will get as many answers as there are different people to give them to you.
First of all, I don’t really know what love is. I think if you want to find something that you can sink your teeth into, you might call it a state of “very deep affection”.
I think one of the most horrible things that have happened to the children in the last 20 years is that they have been so romanticized and brainwashed by books and movies and a lot of double talk that their emotions and what they expect out of life is quite confused. There is no simple answer to this question and this “ state of deep affection” varies so much because everybody has a certain amount of affection that they can give or rather I should say, do give, and their reactions vary greatly.
I am going to try to approach this from a woman’s angle, if I may, because that is the one you are really interested in. I think that a woman normally is first attracted to a man by the way he looks and the way he acts and the other mannerisms which I am perhaps not too aware of. This is more or less the icing on the cake that draws the flies.
After you have a strong attraction, a woman, whether she admits it to herself or not, is whether she respects the person she is attracted to. Respect has absolutely nothing to do with attraction and when I say respect, I mean as a man in the best meaning of the word. By this, I mean, if she respects what he believes in - and he is a man of principle. I don’t mean that you are looking for an angel, but you want somebody that you know believes in what he thinks is right and I think it is almost universal - though you might not live by the same code, you can admire what he is and what he believes in.
I think one of the most important gauges of this “state of deep affection” is how you feel when you introduce him to the people you respect and admire. If you feel proud - if everything else is as it should be, then you have what I call a good start.
I think a woman has to consider, even though she may do it unconsciously, if he is the kind of person who would never under any circumstances hurt her, physically or mentally.
I think a pretty good gauge of this is to see what type of person you are interested in and then honestly ask yourself “would I like for my children to be exactly like him?”
I have seen good marriages and very poor marriages, even though some of them still stay together, where one of them married because the other party needed them. There is no such thing as a successful marriage with one of the two leaning on the partner but rather, a good marriage is like two boards tilted at an angle, and supporting each other. This business of bells ringing and lightening flashing is a lot of bull and if anything such as this did happen - it happens 30 years after the marriage.
A good marriage, and I mean this in the finest meaning of the word, has to have, I think, all of these ingredients, plus there must be enough in a financial way to make life bearable. Money is not the most important thing in the world but the absence of it can sometimes be a tragedy - if it’s about a pair of shoes, the rent or a doctor bill. It is very hard to be happy and content when the frustrations and anxieties of money matters are constantly at your throat.
I don’t think I have to tell you what a good marriage is because I think you have seen it in your own home, but this is not where they start. They are built memory by memory, consideration by consideration, by the tender touch and loving glance.
What I am trying to say to you in a very awkward way is that the more you put into a marriage, the more you get out of it and the basic ingredients must be there before a marriage has a chance of really growing and becoming the source of pleasure and contentment it can be. Don’t expect anything worthwhile to be easy and while a person might think that this is something they can never experience, I believe two decent people, if properly qualified, can build their “enchanted cottage” by putting together the best that is in them into a marriage.
You will notice that I am intertwining marriage and love because this is what it is all about. Morals may change, customs may change, but the man-woman relationship basically never changes and the ingredient that made a good marriage 100 years ago, are still valid today.
I realize I will never put Shakespeare out of business, but if you even get one thought out of this, I will be very happy.
I am mature enough to know that I have to expect disappoint in my children and it would be silly to think otherwise, but I never felt nor will I ever accept the feeling of being ashamed of any of my children. When I say ashamed, it is not for what other people may think and feel - but the way, I, myself feel inside of me about their conduct and attitude.
Love,
Daddyo
Dear Laurie,
I am enclosing a copy of this letter I wrote to Emily and I would appreciate it if you would read it, as I imagine the same question has, or will, at some time come to your mind and you might want to read this and give it some thought.
Love,
Daddyo
Friday, November 27, 2009
Should parents be prosecuted for their kids being habitually truant?
If my memory serves me correctly, back in the 1960s there was an ordinance or other legal requirement that parents send their children to school, the only problem back them was that it was only enforced in the white areas of Memphis.
The reality is that the only way to turn the Memphis public school population around is to have all the known tools needed to get the job done in the toolbox. We can fund the schools to the maximum, keep the schools open 12 months a year, reduce classroom teacher ratios to 10:1, and even put qualified teachers in every classroom – but if the parents don’t care, and the kids don’t show up, then it all for nothing.
Parents should be prosecuted, using the same logic that allows the police to prosecute a negligent parent that would leave their child in a car in the summer. Wouldn’t a parent be arrested if a child was found to be malnourished from neglect? A child that isn’t in school and learning a peer level is malnourished intellectually, and that parent is guilty of neglect.
How else are we to motivate the parents of the children at risk other than punitive action? I find it hard to believe that any parents of school age children would have any problem with such a public policy, and I would suspect that anyone against it probably wants the status quo to remain for a reason: They don’t want to get up in the morning, fix lunch for their kid, take him to school, help them with their homework – in other words, act like a parent should act.
The reality is that the only way to turn the Memphis public school population around is to have all the known tools needed to get the job done in the toolbox. We can fund the schools to the maximum, keep the schools open 12 months a year, reduce classroom teacher ratios to 10:1, and even put qualified teachers in every classroom – but if the parents don’t care, and the kids don’t show up, then it all for nothing.
Parents should be prosecuted, using the same logic that allows the police to prosecute a negligent parent that would leave their child in a car in the summer. Wouldn’t a parent be arrested if a child was found to be malnourished from neglect? A child that isn’t in school and learning a peer level is malnourished intellectually, and that parent is guilty of neglect.
How else are we to motivate the parents of the children at risk other than punitive action? I find it hard to believe that any parents of school age children would have any problem with such a public policy, and I would suspect that anyone against it probably wants the status quo to remain for a reason: They don’t want to get up in the morning, fix lunch for their kid, take him to school, help them with their homework – in other words, act like a parent should act.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
What about Uptown Memphis?
In reference to the 11/25/09 CA article entitled “Fight awaits CCC on beer, panhandling”, I find the debate lacking a comprehensive perspective from our newly elected Memphis political leadership. Any honest debate has to discuss the inescapable issues of the homeless and the mentally ill from a political perspective. Policing is a short-term answer; public policy is a long-term attempt to deal with the issue.
I love downtown, and I appreciate the function that the Center City Commission serves in promoting the development of downtown, but who is lobbying on the behalf of my immediate neighborhood – East Memphis? In recent years, it seems that every corner on Poplar between White Station and Kirby are occupied by panhandlers or the mentally ill. It’s not a fluke that they don’t occupy the street corners in on Poplar throughout Germantown. Panhandling is not tolerated in Germantown or any other outlying suburb. I know it’s not politically correct to say it, but it does not reflect well on Memphis to have panhandlers on every corner of what is …for lack of a better description … Memphis’s “uptown” – Poplar between 240 and Kirby.
With that said, the city of Memphis has scattered the panhandlers all over Memphis with HUD Section 8 housing subsidies and the net effect is that there are no social services (mental health, job counseling, etc.) readily available to them. They are on the streets with no means to avail themselves of the services that are currently available. This is COMMUNITY issue first, a housing problem second, a health issue third.
I love downtown, and I appreciate the function that the Center City Commission serves in promoting the development of downtown, but who is lobbying on the behalf of my immediate neighborhood – East Memphis? In recent years, it seems that every corner on Poplar between White Station and Kirby are occupied by panhandlers or the mentally ill. It’s not a fluke that they don’t occupy the street corners in on Poplar throughout Germantown. Panhandling is not tolerated in Germantown or any other outlying suburb. I know it’s not politically correct to say it, but it does not reflect well on Memphis to have panhandlers on every corner of what is …for lack of a better description … Memphis’s “uptown” – Poplar between 240 and Kirby.
With that said, the city of Memphis has scattered the panhandlers all over Memphis with HUD Section 8 housing subsidies and the net effect is that there are no social services (mental health, job counseling, etc.) readily available to them. They are on the streets with no means to avail themselves of the services that are currently available. This is COMMUNITY issue first, a housing problem second, a health issue third.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Obama’s 10 month foreign policy journey
President Obama came into the office 10 months ago with virtually zero foreign policy experience, but with an expectation that he could staff his administration with smart people who specialized in the field. In a moment of supreme over-confidence, he announced in a Cairo speech that he was going to “re-engage the Muslim world in a way that would respect their “culture”, while at the same time “ work to solve the Israeli/Arab conflict” once and for all. This was his stated foreign policy priority during his first term. While it’s only been 10 months, let’s take an inventory of his accomplishments so far:
1) He set a September 30th deadline for Iran to end their nuclear efforts “or else” the US would use harsh measures. We are in November and Iran is still thumbing their nose at the world and Obama still making empty threats. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton, trying to assure Israeli’s fears, said “if Iran bombed Israel the US would retaliate” – which only served to make Israelis less secure with her inference that the US would allow Iran to have the bomb and that containment was now the goal.
2) Obama, true to his campaign promise, has pulled most US troops out of harm’s way in Iraq, and the predicted massacre of the Iraqi forces began immediately. This didn’t help US credibility in the eyes of many of our dwindling allies in the Middle East.
3) During the campaign President Obama described Afghanistan as “the good war” because that is where Al Quada is based. Eight weeks ago, our military commander in the field asked for 40,000 more troops, and Obama is still trying to decide whether to add more troops - despite the fact that this month our troops are dying there at a record pace. President Obama’s “alternative strategy” is to reduce the US forces in Afghanistan and bribe the Taliban into working with the weak Afghanistan army. Analysts on the other side of this argument suggest that the money will end up financing the Taliban war against US forces in Afghanistan because there is no evidence that you can bribe someone who is fighting for a religious ideology. Plus, what happens when you stop paying them, or someone pays them more?
4) President Obama demanded that the Israeli government stop ALL expansion of existing Israeli cities around Jerusalem that are in the disputed territories, even though previous negotiations between previous US governments, as well as with Palestinian negotiators have always allowed for natural growth in these areas. This reversal of US policy not only served to alienate and create a sense of betrayal among the Israeli public towards the US and Obama, but also served to cause the Palestinians to backtrack on previous concessions and harden their positions regarding any further negotiations. Quite predictably, the Israelis have hardened their positions in retaliation for what they see as both an American and Palestinian conspiracy to change the terms of the negotiations. Recent Israeli polls indicate that 80% of Israelis don’t trust President Obama.
5) In March, 2009 the Obama administration suggested to Russia that the US would pull its missile-defense plan in Europe in exchange for Russia more aggressively joining an international effort to stop Iran’s nuclear program and isolate Iran. In September 2009, Obama went ahead and scraped the missile plan and go nothing in return from Russia on Iran, which was interpreted by the international community as a complete US capitulation to Russian demands.
The net result of 10 months of US backtracking, backstabbing and withdrawals is that Muslim extremists all over the Middle East are emboldened and motivated like they have never been since Ayatollah Khomeini took over in Iran in 1979. All of a sudden they are now focusing on taking on the government of nuclear armed Afghanistan
I will be the first to say that the former Bush administration made some pretty big mistakes, but at the rate Obama’s “foreign policy experts” are “recalibrating US foreign policy” around the world, they are looking more like rank amateurs who have no concept of the consequences of their meddling in foreign policy.
1) He set a September 30th deadline for Iran to end their nuclear efforts “or else” the US would use harsh measures. We are in November and Iran is still thumbing their nose at the world and Obama still making empty threats. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton, trying to assure Israeli’s fears, said “if Iran bombed Israel the US would retaliate” – which only served to make Israelis less secure with her inference that the US would allow Iran to have the bomb and that containment was now the goal.
2) Obama, true to his campaign promise, has pulled most US troops out of harm’s way in Iraq, and the predicted massacre of the Iraqi forces began immediately. This didn’t help US credibility in the eyes of many of our dwindling allies in the Middle East.
3) During the campaign President Obama described Afghanistan as “the good war” because that is where Al Quada is based. Eight weeks ago, our military commander in the field asked for 40,000 more troops, and Obama is still trying to decide whether to add more troops - despite the fact that this month our troops are dying there at a record pace. President Obama’s “alternative strategy” is to reduce the US forces in Afghanistan and bribe the Taliban into working with the weak Afghanistan army. Analysts on the other side of this argument suggest that the money will end up financing the Taliban war against US forces in Afghanistan because there is no evidence that you can bribe someone who is fighting for a religious ideology. Plus, what happens when you stop paying them, or someone pays them more?
4) President Obama demanded that the Israeli government stop ALL expansion of existing Israeli cities around Jerusalem that are in the disputed territories, even though previous negotiations between previous US governments, as well as with Palestinian negotiators have always allowed for natural growth in these areas. This reversal of US policy not only served to alienate and create a sense of betrayal among the Israeli public towards the US and Obama, but also served to cause the Palestinians to backtrack on previous concessions and harden their positions regarding any further negotiations. Quite predictably, the Israelis have hardened their positions in retaliation for what they see as both an American and Palestinian conspiracy to change the terms of the negotiations. Recent Israeli polls indicate that 80% of Israelis don’t trust President Obama.
5) In March, 2009 the Obama administration suggested to Russia that the US would pull its missile-defense plan in Europe in exchange for Russia more aggressively joining an international effort to stop Iran’s nuclear program and isolate Iran. In September 2009, Obama went ahead and scraped the missile plan and go nothing in return from Russia on Iran, which was interpreted by the international community as a complete US capitulation to Russian demands.
The net result of 10 months of US backtracking, backstabbing and withdrawals is that Muslim extremists all over the Middle East are emboldened and motivated like they have never been since Ayatollah Khomeini took over in Iran in 1979. All of a sudden they are now focusing on taking on the government of nuclear armed Afghanistan
I will be the first to say that the former Bush administration made some pretty big mistakes, but at the rate Obama’s “foreign policy experts” are “recalibrating US foreign policy” around the world, they are looking more like rank amateurs who have no concept of the consequences of their meddling in foreign policy.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
200 tons of Iranian arms seized:Where is the moral outrage?
The Israeli seizer of a cargo ship 100 miles off the coast of Israel, loaded with HUNDREDS of TONS of Iranian arms bound for Israel’s enemies – Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon - has predictably produced a lack of global outrage that will only serve to further discredit those who profess to own the moral high ground in judging Israel’s defensive wars on her borders.
Among the cargo aboard the seized ship were over 3,000 Katyusha rockets, which were used to kill over 1200 Israelis citizens during the most recent Israeli/Lebanon war. The containers on the ship were tracked from the moment they left Iran until they were seized by the Israelis, and the containers were clearly marked as originating from the “Iranian Shipping Lines Group”. Iranian fingerprints are not new to the armed conflicts surrounding Israel’s borders, and this is not the first time that and Iranian arms shipment has been intercepted.
My hope is that the Israeli government, led by PM Netanyahu, will put an end to the Iranian ruse of “plausible deniability” - allowing Iranian surrogates Hamas and Hezbollah to conduct Iran’s dirty business on Israel’s borders, while claiming they have nothing to do with it.
Israel has a score to settle with the extremist Iranian regime and their revolutionary guards that is not just about their ambitions to produce nuclear weapons. It is about the past 30 years of Iranian instigated terrorism on Israel’s borders. It must be noted that the recent riots and pitched battles led by the innocent Iranian people in the streets of Iran have shown that they don’t support the Ahmadinejad government and that they are victims too. The question is whether the self-appointed global leadership of the moral high ground (and President Obama) are going to align with Israel against Iran - and capitalize on the huge opportunity presented by this seized ship, or will they continue to disregard this vagrant violation of international law?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)