You missed the last sentence of my post. U.S. support of Israel is not, in and of itself, a failed policy. The policies we are presently implementing to further our support are undermining our national interests. It's time to re-examine the methodology, not the support itself. Change the underlying policies, but not the overall position.
Two cars want to get to New York. One car has a broken engine, one does not. I'll choose the car with the working engine.
You missed the last sentence of my post. U.S. support of Israel is not, in and of itself, a failed policy.
Funny, that's sure what it sounded like. This is a defintion of "mutually exclusive". "Contradictory" is a good definition. This is what you said:
I am a firm believer in Israel's right to exist. I am also a firm believer in re-examining failed policies. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
The last sentence you've directed me to reads, "The two aren't mutually exclusive." This is the sentence you say that I'm supposed to have missed. So, "Israel's right to exist" and "failed policies" "aren't mutually exclusive"? That means that they are not contradictory. That means that "Israel's right to exist" and "failed policies" are equivalent. So, it's pretty reasonable for a person to glean from your statement that you think U.S. support of Israel is a failed policy.
The policies we are presently implementing to further our support are undermining our national interests. It's time to re-examine the methodology, not the support itself. Change the underlying policies, but not the overall position.
Tell us please, what methodology needs to be re-examined and which underlying policies need to be changed. What specific underlying policies are you talking about? Which underlying policies are undermining our interests? What problems do they cause that makes you want to change them? While you're at it, please explain how Israel could continue to exist if these policies were changed.
Two cars want to get to New York. One car has a broken engine, one does not. I'll choose the car with the working engine.
So, "Israel's right to exist" and "failed policies" "aren't mutually exclusive"? That means that they are not contradictory. That means that "Israel's right to exist" and "failed policies" are equivalent.
Why aren't you comprehending what I wrote? The fact that you changed the context entirely doesn't help.
Let's look at what I actually said: "re-examining failed policies"
See the important word that you left out?
I'll state it in more simple terms. Our support of Israel's right to exist does not mean that we must blindly follow policies that reduce our influence in the Middle East. We can re-examine the policies that aren't working, and modify those policies while keeping our support of Israel's right to exist. Get it? To use your words, it is not a contradiction to re-examine our policies while maintaining our support. Kapeesh?
Tell us please, what methodology needs to be re-examined and which underlying policies need to be changed. Which underlying policies are undermining our interests? What specific policies are you talking about? What problems do they cause that makes you want to change them? While you're at it, please explain how Israel could continue to exist if these policies were changed.
I didn't run for president. Frankly, I'm not so arrogant to believe that I have the answers. But Obama needs to find people that do.
While I may not be an expert, I'm also intelligent enough to pay attention to people who are. Those people have near universal agreement that our influence in the region has taken a significant hit under George Bush. I'm also intelligent enough to know that if Obama continues along that path, our influence will not improve. He's the one who needs to find the answers, not me. As flattered as I am to think that you believe I may have the answers, my humility prevents me from drinking your wine. If I did have all of the answers, I wouldn't be wasting my breath here.
So, "Israel's right to exist" and "failed policies" "aren't mutually exclusive"? That means that they are not contradictory. That means that "Israel's right to exist" and "failed policies" are equivalent.
Why aren't you comprehending what I wrote? The fact that you changed the context entirely doesn't help.
Let's look at what I actually said: "re-examiningfailed policies"
See the important word that you left out?
So, now it's "re-examining" that's the important word? I thought you said
You missed the last sentence of my post.
The word "re-examining" wasn't in the last sentence that you wanted us to read. Well then, we'll have to revise what's important about that post. I guess you mean that the U.S. has to re-examine the failed policy of supporting Israel? If that's not what you mean, then please identify these "failed policies." You say you want Obama to change these policies, but then you don't say what the policies are. I think to be fair to Obama, you should at least tell him exactly what you want chamged.
Our support of Israel's right to exist does not mean that we must blindly follow policies that reduce our influence in the Middle East. We canre-examinethe policies that aren't working, and modify those policies while keeping our support of Israel's right to exist. Get it?
What policies aren't working? What policies are reducing our influence in the Middle East? The people in the article you cited said that our support of Israel reduced our influence in the Middle East. Maybe that's why you seem to think U.S. support of Israel is a failed policy.
What policies have to be modified? It would help if you would say exactly what those policies are. You still haven't told us what you're really talking about. You seem to have a really clear idea that you object to some failed policies, but you don't seem to be clear on how those policies affect Israel. I'd like to know what those failed policies are.
While I may not be an expert, I'm also intelligent enough to pay attention to people who are. Those people have near universal agreement that our influence in the region has taken a significant hit under George Bush. I'm also intelligent enough to know that if Obama continues along that path, our influence will not improve.
Which path is that? Can you tell us that at least?
Tell us please, what methodology needs to be re-examined and which underlying policies need to be changed. Which underlying policies are undermining our interests? What specific policies are you talking about? What problems do they cause that makes you want to change them? While you're at it, please explain how Israel could continue to exist if these policies were changed.
I didn't run for president.
What was that phrase you used a few posts ago?
That's a total cop-out, and you know it.
Oh yes, it was "cop-out". See, what you've just done in trying to avoid fair questions was a "cop-out".
Is everyone overlooking the fact that Obama is NOT the acting President and that historically the incumbent makes it a point not to take over/get involved with too much during the lame duck period to ensure that only ONE president has power at any given time. What could Obama be doing right now? Do you honestly think that he is just ignoring the situation (or that Bush is for that matter). I guarantee you that they both are engaging in discussions on a daily basis (telephones exist, you know). Personally, I am tired of the US stepping in to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both sides have blood on their hands and they value religion, tradition, revenge and real estate over peace. If this were the world according to me, I would allow anyone that didn't want to fight it out leave, then wall up the holy land give each side some rocks and knives. When only one person was left, you hang them for war crimes and move on.
Is everyone overlooking the fact that Obama is NOT the acting President and that historically the incumbent makes it a point not to take over/get involved with too much during the lame duck period to ensure that only ONE president has power at any given time.
No, only Kilarney is overlooking that. That way, he can criticize Obama and say that it's sad there hasn't been sufficient change yet. I mean, Jesus, it's been a month and a half. Surely he could have changed policies that the U.S. has been pursuing in the Middle East since 1948 by now.
Do you honestly think that he is just ignoring the situation (or that Bush is for that matter). I guarantee you that they both are engaging in discussions on a daily basis (telephones exist, you know).
While on vacation, GWB was briefed on Osama Bin Laden. While on vacation (again), GWB was advised by teleconference regarding Katrina. Maybe my faith is misplaced, but I think that a President would be better able to do his job if he were at the office. Phoning it in doesn't seem to work very well. What gets me is that the one and only time that he didn't phone it in was for the Terry Schiavo matter. That's the only reason he ever interrupted a vacation. Somehow, I'd think that this little Middle East kerfluffle would be at least as important as Terry Schiavo.
Oh yes, it was "cop-out". See, what you've just done in trying to avoid fair questions was a "cop-out".
In all of my years, I don't think I've ever seen a more blatant misrepresentation to support an argument. My use of the phrase "cop-out" was in reference to your giving Obama complete immunity based on his president-elect status. It had nothing to do with your or my expertise on the matter. Come one Joe, you're an intelligent guy. Dispense with the misrepresentations and just make your points.
Here's my original post just to show how absurd your argument is:
That's a total cop-out, and you know it. Just because he isn't president does not mean that he must maintain silence. He can speak without usurping Bush's role. A simple "I hope that peace is achieved soon" would suffice. How about - "When I become president, I intend to work for peace." Is that so hard?
For the record, I'm extremely proud of the fact that I'm humble enough to admit when I don't have sufficient expertise to answer a question. Many folks on this board could learn from this example.
Let me repeat, Joe. I don't have all the answers. Let me make one other matter clear. I don't have to. I'm not about to become president. See the difference?
Let me give you an example. I don't know how to make cars. Yet I know a crappy car when I see one. If you ask me how to redesign it, I'll tell you I can't. That isn't a cop-out, it's the truth. And it doesn't mean that I can't spot a crappy car when I see one.
So insomuch as the truth is an inconvenience for you, I apologize.
No, only Kilarney is overlooking that.
Your selective memory is so frustrating. I am not holding him to the same standard as Bush. My concern is merely that he is acting ineffectively as president-elect. I don't expect him to usurp Bush's status. However, a simple statement advocating for peace in the region would have sufficed. Heck... I'd settle for any statement just so he indicates that he cares. That's not asking for much.
Let's face it. He's purposely dodging the issue. Maybe that's smart, and maybe it's not. Insomuch as he seems to be taking all of his pages from the Bush playbook, there is room for concern.
Obama has had months and months to campaign and tell us what he plans on doing differently than George Bush has done. Let me remind you of this quote from the New York Times:
In the case of Israel and the Palestinians, Mr. Obama has not suggested he has any better ideas than President Bush had to resolve the existential conflict between the Israelis and Hamas, the Palestinian group that controls Gaza.
If that doesn't concern you, then you really have drank the Kool-Aid. Innocent civilians are being killed. Maybe nobody can solve the problem. I can understand that. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be disappointment. People dying is bigger than political spin. Being saddened that Obama, over the lengthy election process, has offered no hope for improvement is being compassionate for those who are suffering. It's okay to be a compassionate human, even if you have to admit that your candidate isn't perfect. Some things in life ought to trump politics.
Quick, incredibly hypothetical question: Why should we support Israel? I contend that a US-backed theocratic state in the region is one of the root causes of all the unrest, and I also contend that there will continue to be unrest until the heat-death of the universe unless that issue is solved. Both Israel and the remnants of Palestine don't want to merge into a democratic state, and Israel is expansionist. Without changing that, we can't solve anything.
So, why should we continue to support Israel, with the knowledge that any other actions (at least those already thought up) simply lead to more carnage and bloodshed?
(BY THE WAY: This is hypothetical because, for some reason unknown to me, no politician would ever say that they don't support Israel. Is it the combination of Jewish and Fundie Christian interests? It seems so, but I'm not sure)
Let me repeat, Joe. I don't have all the answers. Let me make one other matter clear. I don't have to. I'm not about to become president. See the difference?
I didn't ask for answers. I asked you what policies you're talking about. What policies need to be changed? That's not asking for answers. That's asking for an identification of the problem. Just saying, "Oh, there are problems, big problems - I hope Mr. X will fix them" and then refusing to identify the problems belies a simple desire to criticize Mr. X, no matter what he does, because nothing he does can fix a problem you refuse to identify. You're being like the girlfriend who, when her boyfriend asks her what's wrong says, "You should know".
Our support of Israel's right to exist does not mean that wemustblindly follow policies that reduce our influence in the Middle East. We canre-examinethe policies that aren't working, and modify those policies while keeping our support of Israel's right to exist.
What policies aren't working? What policies are reducing our influence in the Middle East? The people in the article you cited said that our support of Israel reduced our influence in the Middle East. Maybe that's why you seem to think U.S. support of Israel is a failed policy.
What policies have to be modified? It would help if you would say exactly what those policies are. You still haven't told us what you're really talking about. You seem to have a really clear idea that you object to some failed policies, but you don't seem to be clear on how those policies affect Israel. I'd like to know what those failed policies are.
It's fair to ask these questions since you are the one who's been saying these policies need to be addressed and then avoiding the questions of what these policies actually are.
Let me give you an example. I don't know how to make cars. Yet I know a crappy car when I see one. If you ask me how to redesign it, I'll tell you I can't. That isn't a cop-out, it's the truth. And it doesn't mean that I can't spot a crappy car when I see one.
Kilarney at the Auto Shop:
K: Here's my car. Fix it. Mechanic: Okay, what's the problem? K: I don't have all the answers. Fix it. Mechanic: I'm not sure if I even can fix it to your satisfaction if you don't tell me what the problem is. K: I know that a new guy is gonna start working here next week. Where's the manager? I wanna complain about him. Mechanic: Why would you want to complain about him? K: Because he hasn't fixed my car yet!
I am not holding him to the same standard as Bush. My concern is merely that he is acting ineffectively as president-elect.
What, exactly, are the duties of the President-Elect? How is Obama acting ineffectively in discharging those duties?
Oh yes, it was "cop-out". See, what you've just done in trying to avoid fair questions was a "cop-out".
In all of my years, I don't think I've ever seen a more blatant misrepresentation to support an argument.
It's a common tactic from conservatives to say that they were misrepresented or somehow taken out of context. Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Hannity do it all the time. I thought you maybe were better than that and wouldn't stoop to that level of mendacity and hypocrisy. I guess you've proven me wrong.
The plain language of your posts are clear to anyone who's been reading them. I've just been quoting that plain language back to you. If that language doesn't clearly represent your views, perhaps a remedial writing course at the local community college is in order.
Identifying problems is not the same as providing an answer. No one is asking you to provide an answer, only to identify the problems you keep complaining about. If you're shit-talking or you simply don't know what you're talking about, which I'm beginning to suspect is the case, then just admit it or at least be quiet.
There is more talk from the UN for the Obama administration to investigate Bush and Rumsfeld for war crimes. Do you think this will happen, or will the AG refuse? I honestly hope they do.
Comments
Explain how Israel would continue to exist if the U.S. withdrew its support.
Two cars want to get to New York. One car has a broken engine, one does not. I'll choose the car with the working engine.
Let's look at what I actually said:
"re-examining failed policies"
See the important word that you left out?
I'll state it in more simple terms. Our support of Israel's right to exist does not mean that we must blindly follow policies that reduce our influence in the Middle East. We can re-examine the policies that aren't working, and modify those policies while keeping our support of Israel's right to exist. Get it? To use your words, it is not a contradiction to re-examine our policies while maintaining our support. Kapeesh? I didn't run for president. Frankly, I'm not so arrogant to believe that I have the answers. But Obama needs to find people that do.
While I may not be an expert, I'm also intelligent enough to pay attention to people who are. Those people have near universal agreement that our influence in the region has taken a significant hit under George Bush. I'm also intelligent enough to know that if Obama continues along that path, our influence will not improve. He's the one who needs to find the answers, not me. As flattered as I am to think that you believe I may have the answers, my humility prevents me from drinking your wine. If I did have all of the answers, I wouldn't be wasting my breath here.
What policies have to be modified? It would help if you would say exactly what those policies are. You still haven't told us what you're really talking about. You seem to have a really clear idea that you object to some failed policies, but you don't seem to be clear on how those policies affect Israel. I'd like to know what those failed policies are. Which path is that? Can you tell us that at least? What was that phrase you used a few posts ago? Oh yes, it was "cop-out". See, what you've just done in trying to avoid fair questions was a "cop-out".
Personally, I am tired of the US stepping in to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both sides have blood on their hands and they value religion, tradition, revenge and real estate over peace. If this were the world according to me, I would allow anyone that didn't want to fight it out leave, then wall up the holy land give each side some rocks and knives. When only one person was left, you hang them for war crimes and move on.
Here's my original post just to show how absurd your argument is: For the record, I'm extremely proud of the fact that I'm humble enough to admit when I don't have sufficient expertise to answer a question. Many folks on this board could learn from this example.
Let me repeat, Joe. I don't have all the answers. Let me make one other matter clear. I don't have to. I'm not about to become president. See the difference?
Let me give you an example. I don't know how to make cars. Yet I know a crappy car when I see one. If you ask me how to redesign it, I'll tell you I can't. That isn't a cop-out, it's the truth. And it doesn't mean that I can't spot a crappy car when I see one.
So insomuch as the truth is an inconvenience for you, I apologize. Your selective memory is so frustrating. I am not holding him to the same standard as Bush. My concern is merely that he is acting ineffectively as president-elect. I don't expect him to usurp Bush's status. However, a simple statement advocating for peace in the region would have sufficed. Heck... I'd settle for any statement just so he indicates that he cares. That's not asking for much.
Let's face it. He's purposely dodging the issue. Maybe that's smart, and maybe it's not. Insomuch as he seems to be taking all of his pages from the Bush playbook, there is room for concern.
Obama has had months and months to campaign and tell us what he plans on doing differently than George Bush has done. Let me remind you of this quote from the New York Times:
In the case of Israel and the Palestinians, Mr. Obama has not suggested he has any better ideas than President Bush had to resolve the existential conflict between the Israelis and Hamas, the Palestinian group that controls Gaza.
If that doesn't concern you, then you really have drank the Kool-Aid. Innocent civilians are being killed. Maybe nobody can solve the problem. I can understand that. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be disappointment. People dying is bigger than political spin. Being saddened that Obama, over the lengthy election process, has offered no hope for improvement is being compassionate for those who are suffering. It's okay to be a compassionate human, even if you have to admit that your candidate isn't perfect. Some things in life ought to trump politics.
So, why should we continue to support Israel, with the knowledge that any other actions (at least those already thought up) simply lead to more carnage and bloodshed?
(BY THE WAY: This is hypothetical because, for some reason unknown to me, no politician would ever say that they don't support Israel. Is it the combination of Jewish and Fundie Christian interests? It seems so, but I'm not sure)
What policies have to be modified? It would help if you would say exactly what those policies are. You still haven't told us what you're really talking about. You seem to have a really clear idea that you object to some failed policies, but you don't seem to be clear on how those policies affect Israel. I'd like to know what those failed policies are.
It's fair to ask these questions since you are the one who's been saying these policies need to be addressed and then avoiding the questions of what these policies actually are. Kilarney at the Auto Shop:
K: Here's my car. Fix it.
Mechanic: Okay, what's the problem?
K: I don't have all the answers. Fix it.
Mechanic: I'm not sure if I even can fix it to your satisfaction if you don't tell me what the problem is.
K: I know that a new guy is gonna start working here next week. Where's the manager? I wanna complain about him.
Mechanic: Why would you want to complain about him?
K: Because he hasn't fixed my car yet! What, exactly, are the duties of the President-Elect? How is Obama acting ineffectively in discharging those duties? It's a common tactic from conservatives to say that they were misrepresented or somehow taken out of context. Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Hannity do it all the time. I thought you maybe were better than that and wouldn't stoop to that level of mendacity and hypocrisy. I guess you've proven me wrong.
The plain language of your posts are clear to anyone who's been reading them. I've just been quoting that plain language back to you. If that language doesn't clearly represent your views, perhaps a remedial writing course at the local community college is in order.
Identifying problems is not the same as providing an answer. No one is asking you to provide an answer, only to identify the problems you keep complaining about. If you're shit-talking or you simply don't know what you're talking about, which I'm beginning to suspect is the case, then just admit it or at least be quiet.
You really should be watching 30 Rock.
That's how he's going to be remembered, that's his legacy. He was so fuckin' awful that not even food was wasted when assaulting him.