Posted on 12/10/2001 6:58:49 AM PST by Pokey78
All individuals who are citizens of Israel live in a democratic state.
The other allies have more to offer us than non-existent “intelligence” which you claim is the benefit of associating with Israel.
False.
In Logic 1A, you will learn that “All jihadists are Islamic” doesn’t equate to “All Islamics are jihadists” however you define that.
All Isalmicists are Jihadists. This is by definition. Not all Muslims are Jihadists but some are and many potentially are.
The “Open Door Notes” refer only to one country, China. America didn’t become a world power because it had free trade with China.
False. The immediate effect of the Open Door Policy as the implementation of the Open Door Notes concerned U.S. foreign policy with respect to the Philippines and Cuba.
“Open-Door Policy” is a universally-accepted synonym for free immigration. You equivocate on the definition of “Open Door Policy.”
It has a specific historical meaning in the context and as a corollary policy to the Open Door Notes. You are speaking ahistorically now. This was a foreign policy debate which occurred around 1898-1901 concerning the course of American foreign policy and pitting guys like William Jennings Bryan and Grover Cleveland (so-called "anti-imperialists") against the likes of Teddy Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge. If you deal with this ahistorically you will have missed this seminal American foreign policy decision.
Markets “protected by force” are tyranny, not “free trade.”
Markets must be protected by force from time to time. That's why I said as of necessity.
Those other 114 countries, along with their inhabitants.
Circular discusion.
Realpolitik says to dump Israel. But that’s a little too harsh, so the next-best thing is to either make them conform to Western norms in every respect, or declare them a rogue state and take appropriate political, economic and ***other*** actions as necessary.
It's the other way around as this Administration is correctly asserting. The Pals and Arab Islamics must stop the violence, terrorism, Jihad and Intifada. Act civilized instead of like a bunch of medieval Jihadists. When the Arabs can conform themselves to social norms then there will be peace.
This might be a cogent observation in a static world.
Unfortunately it's not. I happen to know that the UN that created Israel is not the UN that exists today.
Today's UN is a joke, and the UN of 1948 would blanche at the behavior and thrust of the present members.
Novel descriptions of allies you have there...
If we don't "need" a country we have no conceiveable reason to aid and assist it?
What a peculiarly Muslim-sounding concept! 100% self interest.
"You people?"
LOL
Your pointy hat is showing.
With you and Islam, which are you? I would guess the "w" word. The Arab countries make the perfect pimps.
I am astonished that you would ask that.
Because every time a Muslim moves her lips she lies.
Is that a good enough reason?
Of course all 600 000 of these items vanished without a trace!
Actually, only 60 000 of these were culled and accepted as genuine 300 years after muhammed's death.
Then aliens arrived in flying saucers and took every bone, rock, parchment bark and papyrus.
Oh yes, those 45 scribes were such a pain when muhammed was running to save his butt, including dressing as a woman to avoid being caught and killed.
Is that because they no longer support Israel's acts of agression in an occupied land? Like I said, as long as they're pulling Israel's wagon, they're the good guys. Kind of like having a tiger by the tail, aren't they?
Your pointy hat is showing.
In my case its just the hat.
To Beecharmer: Because every time a Muslim moves her lips she lies.
You mean I've been wrong about that for all these years? I didn't know all the lawyers were Muslims ?
And lets see, Moses wrote on 'tablets', right? Were those tablets those legal tablets you can buy at Office Max?
All Communist Party nomenklatura had greater privileges than the average Westerner. That doesn’t mean communism was a better system for those who weren’t.
False.
We import almost nothing, and we subsidize what we export with our own funds. A net loss on both sides of the ledger. The only “military cooperation” that happens is against its own enemies, not ours. Add the “intangibles,” the worldwide negative reaction against our single-minded obsession with that one country, and you have a huge minus.
Not all Muslims are Jihadists but some are and many potentially are
They “some” and “potentially” have increased exponentially since 1948. Before then, jihad was a concept from history books and a suicide bomber, unthinkable except perhaps the story of Sampson.
False. The immediate effect of the Open Door Policy as the implementation of the Open Door Notes concerned U.S. foreign policy with respect to the Philippines and Cuba
False yourself. As early as 1868, “Open Door Policy” referred to free immigration, and particularly free Chinese immigration. In 1899, it referred to free trade with China. In neither case was there any explicit backing up of free immigration or free trade with “force if necessary.”
OPEN-DOOR POLICY FOR CHINESE IMMIGRATION – 1868
1880 President Benjamin Hayes signs the Chinese Exclusion Treaty, which reverses the open-door policy set in 1868 and places strict limits both on the number of Chinese immigrants allowed to enter the United States and on the number allowed to become naturalized citizens.It has a specific historical meaning in the context and as a corollary policy to the Open Door Notes…If you deal with this ahistorically you will have missed this seminal American foreign policy decision
”Earth to Lent - You are speaking ahistorically now”
I repeat, “Open Door Policy” began as a term in the 1860's for immigration, especially Chinese immigration, and ended up as a term for Chinese trade, and neither instance was “protected by force if necessary.”
Markets must be protected by force from time to time.
What the hell are you advocating? So jihadists are wrong to try to impose their religion, but industrialized and well-armed countries can impose their markets? Rubbish.
There is no single-minded obsession with respect to Israel. The only obsession I've seen which has caused the U.S. to impart its sons and daughters in a full-scale war was to defend the Arab Islamic regimes of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Now the U.S. maintains a $50 billion investment in keeping the area safe from Hussein.
They “some” and “potentially” have increased exponentially since 1948. Before then, jihad was a concept from history books and a suicide bomber, unthinkable except perhaps the story of Sampson.
The Jihad has been a consistent and intrinsic Islamic notion ever since Mohammed and perfected under the Ottoman Empire.
Your discussion on the Open Door is misplaced. You are not in the correct historical time period nor are you dealing with the issue I have stated. Why is that? Why is it a fact that you have miscontrued the historical issue and presumed that what you have been referring to is the issue? It is not. The only thing I can do is to encourage you to go to the library and find out about the Open Door Notes and the discussion and direction of American foreign policy at the END of the 19th century. Until then you are not dealing with the issue as I've stated it.
What the hell are you advocating? So jihadists are wrong to try to impose their religion, but industrialized and well-armed countries can impose their markets? Rubbish.
Why is it so hard to understand that countries must defend and advance the free flow of goods and services to keep the international economic wheels turning? To interfere with this process is an invitation to attack. You might consider the U.S.' acquisition of the Philippine Islands and the Treaty of Paris of no account but I see that process as the beginning of the extention of U.S. power internationally and the concurrent economic benefits accrued from these Pacific interests increasing the economic power domestically as well. That the U.S.' commitment in the far Pacific would also bring it into conflict later with the Japanese only indicates to me that if it wasn't the U.S. then the imperialist Japanese would have been our masters in their economic expansionism. I'm glad the U.S. won.
He related "Open Door" to immigration issues in the middle of the nineteenth century. I too am going from memory but I think I'm clear about this issue. Maybe I'll have to check. But the Open Door Notes which I am speaking about leading eventually to the framing of American economic expansionism, principally being the notion of free competition with respect to trade and certain guarantees with respect to the territorial integrity of the trading nation - in this case it began as China. The Notes created the policy framework for economic expansionism. This was a late 19th century process as I noted above.
That religious books contain contradictions and untruths, that their texts have changed over centuries of copying, that political authorities use and manipulate religion to secure their own ends: there's nothing new or shocking in any of this. Islam will survive such revelations as Christianity and Judaism did. But the study of the relations among the various religions in the first millennium is valuable and promising.
The only obsession is the West's oil supply, or as you so delicately put it "the free flow of goods and services to keep the international economic wheels turning." The only regime which gets US aid gratis is the Israeli one, which is not lost on the hundreds of millions of non-Jews of the region and the world.
The Jihad has been a consistent and intrinsic Islamic notion ever since Mohammed and perfected under the Ottoman Empire
I'm sure that's why the Ottomans invited the persecuted Jews who sruvived the Inquisition from Spain. Thanks for explaining that bringing Jews back to Palestine falls under "jihad."
Your discussion on the Open Door is misplaced. You are not in the correct historical time period nor are you dealing with the issue I have stated.
You have categorically stated an "Open Door Policy" was the vehicle of American expansionism. This is untrue. In fact "Open Door Policy" is generally acknowledged to (A)Pertain to free immigration, and/or (B) Pertain to free trade with China only. I have not seen any reference at all to "Open Door" pertaining to the Philippines and Cuba. And if you think it through, because Philippines and Cuba became American protectorates, there was no need for an "Open Door" because the US owned them lock, stock, and barrel and could and did exclude all other countries.
It is helpful in any discussion to use words in their commonly accepted contexts.
Why is it so hard to understand that countries must defend and advance the free flow of goods and services to keep the international economic wheels turning?
According to that pesky Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted among men "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." "The governed" clearly does not include foreign powers wishing to help themselves to a region's resources. And "everybody does it" is not an excuse.
America only belongs in countries where we have the strong support of the local population, and can make life better for them as they perceive "better," not as we do.
Again, what this is leading up to is you're hinting that it's perfectly OK for industrialized countries to help themselves to the resources and the lands occupied by Islamics. This in turn presupposes a need for some kind of Islamic bogeyman to justify continuous pre-emptive occupations and attacks in these strategic and resource-rich areas. Which means it's not even about Islam, ultimately, it's about neo-colonialism of the Western world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.