Posted on 11/15/2007 3:18:48 PM PST by Esther Ruth
A few Rabbi’s are upset with our latest Peace Plans to take place in Annapolis. Saying if the process goes through, destruction will come down on us.
I recall an article similar to this was posted here on FR.
Frankly “Zionist” is the term used by people who hate Israel the most. They use it to polarize the debate. I sure hate it when folks who seem to support Israel uses that term.
I support Israel. I’ll pick who I think is best to support it and sound policies in the U.S.
If you like folk supported by Jewhaters and racists, he’s fine, as Michael Medved puts it, the neonazi candidate.
They still do. This new lot is not conservative. Never have been and their stripes are showing. From funding the 40 year old space bus (NASA) to throwing tax dollars around the world to Every Child Left Behind, their pitiful understanding of conservatism is about as strong as 1st grader's understanding of physics
Dr. Paul as usual is right on this issue as well. But instead of providing the Constitutional basis for wasting my tax dollars here and around the world, they'd rather call names
I totally agree with you. Also, as to the name-calling, they are employing tactics straight from Alinsky’s (and his disciple Hillary Clinton’s) playbook Rules for Radicals:
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/rules.html
I would expect no better from Michael Medved, who is mentioned by one of the commenters above and who attended Yale and ran in the same circles as the Clintons. He is no conservative in my opinion.
I didn’t post this here to see the Pope bashed but that was the result anyway. Idealogical leaders of conservatism...religious leaders...former highly respected military officers, and all others who see our foreign policy as flawed are pilloried at this site as traitors.
Reasoned dialog is discouraged unless it fits a particularly narrow range of ideology...And that ideology imo is not a conservative one.
Hypocrisy in the Middle East
February 26, 2007
Hundreds of thousands of American troops already occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, a number that is rising as the military surge moves forward. The justification, given endlessly since September 11th, is that both support terrorism and thus pose a risk to the United States. Yet when we step back and examine the region as a whole, it’s obvious that these two impoverished countries, neither of which has any real military, pose very little threat to American national security when compared to other Middle Eastern nations. The decision to attack them, while treating some of region’s worst regimes as allies, shows the deadly hypocrisy of our foreign policy in the Middle East.
Consider Saudi Arabia, the native home of most of the September 11th hijackers. The Saudis, unlike the Iraqis, have proven connections to al Qaeda. Saudi charities have funneled money to Islamic terrorist groups. Yet the administration insists on calling Saudi Arabia a “good partner in the war on terror.” Why? Because the U.S. has a longstanding relationship with the Saudi royal family, and a long history of commercial interests relating to Saudi oil. So successive administrations continue to treat the Saudis as something they are not: a reliable and honest friend in the Middle East.
The same is true of Pakistan, where General Musharaf seized power by force in a 1999 coup. The Clinton administration quickly accepted his new leadership as legitimate, to the dismay of India and many Muslim Pakistanis. Since 9/11, we have showered Pakistan with millions in foreign aid, ostensibly in exchange for Musharaf’s allegiance against al Qaeda. Yet has our new ally rewarded our support? Hardly. The Pakistanis almost certainly have harbored bin Laden in their remote mountains, and show little interest in pursuing him or allowing anyone else to pursue him. Pakistan has signed peace agreements with Taliban leaders, and by some accounts bin Laden is a folk hero to many Pakistanis.
Furthermore, more members of al Qaeda probably live within Pakistan than any other country today. North Korea developed its nuclear capability with technology sold to them by the Pakistanis. Yet somehow we remain friends with Pakistan, while Saddam Hussein, who had no connection to bin Laden and no friends in the Islamic fundamentalist world, was made a scapegoat.
The tired assertion that America “supports democracy” in the Middle East is increasingly transparent. It was false 50 years ago, when we supported and funded the hated Shah of Iran to prevent nationalization of Iranian oil, and it’s false today when we back an unelected military dictator in Pakistan- just to name two examples. If honest democratic elections were held throughout the Middle East tomorrow, many countries would elect religious fundamentalist leaders hostile to the United States. Cliché or not, the Arab Street really doesn’t like America, so we should stop the charade about democracy and start pursuing a coherent foreign policy that serves America’s long-term interests.
A coherent foreign policy is based on the understanding that America is best served by not interfering in the deadly conflicts that define the Middle East. Yes, we need Middle Eastern oil, but we can reduce our need by exploring domestic sources. We should rid ourselves of the notion that we are at the mercy of the oil-producing countries- as the world’s largest oil consumer, their wealth depends on our business. We should stop the endless game of playing faction against faction, and recognize that buying allies doesn’t work. We should curtail the heavy militarization of the area by ending our disastrous foreign aid payments. We should stop propping up dictators and putting band-aids on festering problems. We should understand that our political and military involvement in the region creates far more problems that it solves. All Americans will benefit, both in terms of their safety and their pocketbooks, if we pursue a coherent, neutral foreign policy of non-interventionism, free trade, and self-determination in the Middle East.
Dr.Ron Paul
Are you disputing this statement?
"Yet, while we call ourselves a strong ally of the Israeli people, we send billions in foreign aid every year to some Muslim states that many Israelis regard as enemies. From the Israeli point of view, many of the same Islamic nations we fund with our tax dollars want to destroy the Jewish state."
And if not, do you approve of funding Israel's enemies?
Dr. Paul as usual is right on this issue as well. But instead of providing the Constitutional basis for wasting my tax dollars here and around the world, they'd rather call names."
Amen, and QFT.
Thanks for the ping.
Israel can handle any nation in that region, she doesn't need to have her hands tied by pro-Islamic U.S. foreign policy.
Good old Ron Paul. He’s got the NeoCons and their Globlists friends all tied up in knots.
Buh...buh...but Ron Paul is supported by the Zionist Neo-Nazis and the Multicultural White Supremacists and besides he is certifiably insane. Some guy in the Faux News focus group said so. What are ya’, some kinda kook?
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.