Comments on The other obvious by Rex Caruthers

Parson Logic T ReFog wrote:
@ Rex Caruthers:
Nah, Rex, that’s pretty much silly.

I agree,but I'm a silly person.

NARC,
If some thriller writer had written a novel which featured America's First Black President who was confronted with a major Economic Crisis,a major enviromental Crisis,War in Afghanistan,and a very hot situation with Iran and Israel,we would have had serious doubts about that writer's sense of reality.

False Witnesser/

Let's deal with Israel's 200 Nukes before we worry about Iran' non-existant Nukes.

False Witnesser wrote:
@ Rex Caruthers:
India wasn’t our ally when it developed nukes.

Did we try to stop them,did we attack them like so many want to do with Iran? Or were we perfectly happy to have a friendly Nuke power in that part of the world?

narciso wrote:
Well seeing how Pakistan’s nuclear program has made the world safer

India*(our ally)goes Nuke forcing Pakistan+ to go Nuke.

Israel*(Our ally) goes Nuke forcing Iran+ to go Nuke.

What's the difference?,when will we start learning?

Spare me/*Good Guys get Nukes-+Bad Guys Don't.

MacLeod wrote:
Rex Caruthers wrote:

The problem is,as far as Israel is concerned,all this wonderful logic leads to the non-existence of Israel.

In the LONG RUN we’re all dead. That applies to nations as well as to individuals. If Israelis adopted your view, they would rightly be accused of hypochondria.

However, in combination with George’s commentary above, it has put me in mind of a modest proposal that I’m 100% convinced will solve this whole problem – the whole thing! – allowing us all to move on to other things. I’ll present it later.

Looking forward to moving on,BTW,my context for Israel is SHORT TERM,within the next 20 years.

David Horowitz & Jacob Laksin are authoring a very long multi-part analysis on the Obama Administration and Israel. Part 2,Conclusion:

"During the year and a half Obama has been in office, he has indeed brought change to America and to the world. He has transformed a nation that had been the world’s bulwark of democracy and freedom into an enabler of the very forces that are intent on destroying them. He has helped to isolate America’s only ally in the Middle East, its sole democracy and most vulnerable people. And he has brought the impending war of annihilation against the “crusaders” and the Jews, which the jihadists have promised, measurably closer to its nightmare fruition."
— David Horowitz is the founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Jacob Laksin is managing editor of Frontpage Magazine. He is co-author, with Horowitz, of One-Party Classroom: How Radical Professors at America’s Top Colleges Indoctrinate Students and Undermine Our Democracy.

There a lot to discuss there,I'm going to mention their core Assumption that the US is responsible for Israel's sustainibility WITHOUT LIMIT,which means the authors believe that we have an existential obligation to insure Israel's survival. Existential to mean that we owe Israel its existence even if that obligation threatens our existence. I would disagree,but I am very interested as to how such a radical committment evolved. As you regulars know,I have often compared our committment to Israel to our past committment to Taiwan to show how time,circumstances,and opportunity,erode committments that were thought intransient and immutable. I'm sure that somone like Zoltan would denounce our failure to existentially honor out committment to Taiwan,it must be painful for him to contemplate the Heraclitian flux.

narciso.

your arguments about Israel are logical,as are the various Contentionsistas and others:I would include Bolton,Leeden,JPOD/NPOP,JRUB,Totten,Boot,Abrams,Etc Etc Etc. The problem is,as far as Israel is concerned,all this wonderful logic leads to the non-existence of Israel. It doesn't matter if Israel uses Nukes or Conventional weapons,if they Pre-Empt Iran or Attack defensivly,if the USA preempts Iran,Nukes Iran,defends Israel after an attack etc etc etc,Israel is unsustainable as a nation in its current location under current conditions,unless there's a change of heart,somewhere in this coldass world,which would change the conditions that I define as unsustainability.
So despite our various disputes here,those with the smarts and the means will be leaving the Homeland,and those who believe that the Homeland needs to be defended to the last man,woman,child,will remain,and that will become Holocaust 2.

George,I am very interested in your opinion on this interview,maybe you'd even write a Post on it.

Talking to Rabbi Jeremy Milgram
An Israel Beyond Zionism?
By LUDWIG WATZAL
http://www.counterpunch.org/watzal06222010.html

I'm sharing the following opinion for two reasons:(1)If correct,it demonstrates how historical events orchestrate their own weird version of justice,(2)This sort of Opinion cross-fertilizes the standard Neo-Con offerings.

Iran, BP and the CIA
By LAWRENCE S. WITTNER

"The offshore oil drilling catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico brought to us by BP has overshadowed its central role over the past century in fostering some other disastrous events.
BP originated in 1908 as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company—a British corporation whose name was changed to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company two decades later. With exclusive rights to extract, refine, export, and sell Iran's rich oil resources, the company reaped enormous profits. Meanwhile, it shared only a tiny fraction of the proceeds with the Iranian government. Similarly, although the company's British personnel lived in great luxury, its Iranian laborers endured lives of squalor and privation.
In 1947, as Iranian resentment grew at the giant oil company's practices, the Iranian parliament called upon the Shah, Iran's feudal potentate, to renegotiate the agreement with Anglo-Iranian. Four years later, Mohammed Mossadeq, riding a tide of nationalism, became the nation's prime minister. As an enthusiastic advocate of taking control of Iran's oil resources and using the profits from them to develop his deeply impoverished nation, Mossadeq signed legislation, passed unanimously by the country's parliament, to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
The British government was horrified. Eager to assist the embattled corporation, it imposed an economic embargo on Iran and required its technicians to leave the country, thus effectively blocking the Iranian government from exporting its oil. When this failed to bring the Iranians to heel, the British government sought to arrange for the overthrow of Mossadeq—first through its own efforts and, later (when Britain's diplomatic mission was expelled from Iran for its subversive activities), through the efforts of the U.S. government. But President Truman refused to commit the CIA to this venture.
To the delight of Anglo-Iranian, it received a much friendlier reception from the new Eisenhower administration. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles had worked much of his life as a lawyer for multinational corporations, and viewed the Iranian challenge to corporate holdings as a very dangerous example to the world. Consequently, the CIA was placed in charge of an operation, including fomenting riots and other destabilizing activities, to overthrow Mossadeq and advance oil company interests in Iran.
Organized by CIA operative Kermit Roosevelt in the summer of 1953, the coup was quite successful. Mossadeq was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life, the power of the pro-Western shah was dramatically enhanced, and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was once again granted access to Iran's vast oil resources. To be sure, thanks to the key role played in the coup by the U.S. government, the British oil company—renamed British Petroleum—henceforth had to share the lucrative oil extraction business in Iran with U.S. corporations. Even so, in the following decades, with the Iranian public kept in line by the Shah's dictatorship and by his dreaded secret police, the SAVAK, it was a very profitable arrangement—although not for most Iranians.
But, of course, actions can have unforeseen consequences. In Iran, public anger grew at the Shah's increasingly autocratic rule, culminating in the 1979 revolution and the establishment of a regime led by Islamic fanatics. Not surprisingly, the new rulers—and much of the population—blamed the United States for the coup against Mossadeq and its coziness with the Shah. This, in turn, led to the ensuing hostage crisis and to the onset of a very hostile relationship between the Iranian and U.S. governments.
And there was worse to come. Terrified by the rise of Islamic fundamentalism on their southern border, Soviet leaders became obsessed with fundamentalist revolt in Afghanistan and began pouring troops into that strife-torn land. This was the signal for the U.S. government to back an anti-Soviet, fundamentalist jihad in Afghanistan, thus facilitating the growth of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, who eventually turned their weapons on the United States.
Furthermore, as part of its anti-Iran strategy, the U.S. government grew increasingly chummy with Iran's arch foe, Iraq. As Saddam Hussein seemed a particularly useful ally, Washington provided him with military intelligence and the helicopters that he used to spray poison gas on Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq War. Might not such a friendship, cemented with a handshake by Donald Rumsfeld, have emboldened Saddam Hussein to act more freely in the region in subsequent years? It certainly didn't improve U.S. relations with Iran, which today is headed by a deplorable government that—consumed by fear and loathing of the United States—might be developing nuclear weapons.
At this point, we might well wonder if it was such a good idea to overthrow a democratic, secular nationalist like Mossadeq to preserve the profits of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now renamed BP). Indeed, given the sordid record of BP and other giant oil companies, we might wonder why we tolerate them at all."

Dr. Lawrence S. Wittner is Professor of History at the State University of New York/Albany. His latest book is Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement (Stanford University Press).

Lotus Feet wrote:
@ Rex Caruthers:
Yup, and what did those Founding Bozos think they wuz talking about when they had the audacity to say “we hold these truts to be SELF EVIDENT”, Rex?

I Respect their opinion and their Wisdom,I don't believe,however,that their feelings are facts. The words Self Evident might be saying "Don't over examine these "Truths",they might not be as solid as we are hoping."

"Maybe Jew hatred is a very fine and helpful passion. Maybe them Ayrabs got a good point."

Hate is very bad news. Are the Ayrabs the only haters in the 21st Century? I've noticed something akin to Hate in many discussions concerning our current President.

(1)If this was 145 years ago and Lincoln just gave The Gettysberg Address, I bet some very deep and learned fellow could guffaw and say, ” so effing what, the opposite could just as well be true!” , right? And that Pericles guy, who the eff did he think he was saying those fallen Athenians were somehow noble and worthy of being remembered, right? And what about that Jesus guy, and that so called Sermon on the Mount, who the hell was he for Christ’s sake?
So, I hate to differ with you again, and maybe there really are lots of organized Moslems who are indeed moderate except when you ask them to come out and publicly condemn honor killings and beheading Jewish journalists, but on this one thing, my frem, I gotta say,
STEELE ROCKS!

What Office are you running for?

(2)It isn’t necessarily true in a world in which everything is relative and in which words have no definite meanings and in which there is no difference between right and wrong, between good and evil. It is not necessarily true in a world in which hypocrisy is not necessarily a bad thing (maybe perhaps we could construct some abstract place in which hypocrisy is actually a valuable tool for successful interaction?).
(3)I can, however, see the reason why some would reject even the best thought out argument. It saves you the trouble of judging right from wrong and the inconvenient consequences of taking sides. All things being equal, all things are equal

(2&3)You seem to be saying that you are infallible in terms of judging right and wrong,truth and falsehood. I recommend you express your revealed Truths in The Book Of Zoltan,but I want to remind you that ZC is a forum of OPINION,and none of us have Transcended the plane of Opinion,to become the Zone of Wisdom except for you and your Ilk. Please have patience with us lesser beings.

relatively minimal direct role

Lawyer language,I was referring to Bio,chemico WMDs,and we knew they had them because whatever our role was,we knew what they had.

Rex, your moral evenhandedness is exactly the moral blindness that Steele criticizes. Is having nukes the crime, or is the problem attacking neighboring countries, as Iran attacked Iraq and has sponsored Syria in taking over Lebanon? Why can’t we call a country like Iran evil? Both its foreign and its domestic policy entirely warrant the judgment. And oddly, it has no problem calling the US and Israel evil and working for their and our destruction.

There is no logical position that can determine that one country is allowed Nukes,and another is denied them. There are no universal standards. There is no standard of denial. How did Pakistan get their nukes,how did India,China? Russia,for that matter? Remember both Iran and Iraq were part of the Axis of Evil. America worked both sides of that street,but mainly the Iraq side. We provided Iraq with WMDs,that's how we knew they had them,certainly,we can call them evil,they can call us evil,and who decides?

Is having nukes the crime? No,but it's the problem. It's no crime for anybody to have Nukes anymore? What if Iraq wants them next year to defend themselves against Iran? What would be the argument to deny them?

Nobody knows. Nobody cares. Hate Israel. Hate! Hate! Hate!

George listen up,if Israel didn't have Nukes,I would support an attack on Iran to prevent them from Nuking up. Israel's Nukes undercuts an effort to help them. You just can't tell a country like Iran,"Israel is a moral country and therfore is allowed to Nuke up. You are bad,so you can't. The USA is good, butRussia and China are bad,and they are not allowed to arm you,oh evil Iran." Maybe This sounds stupid,but try explaining why Israel has 200 Nukes,but you IRAN can't have any. BECAUSE YOU"RE EVIL"

By the way, STeele’s main point as I understood his article is that the west is paralyzed from protecing Israel because our moral sight is dimmed by guilt over our own past crimes

The West is facing the "Realist" position that its self interest is more related to Arabia/Persia(OIL)than Israel. The same process happened with Taiwan as the West's interests became centered on PROC.

Quote of the Day/My Opinion/ from Real Contentions

Drafting Diplomatic Alternatives for Israel
Evelyn Gordon
"Israel’s biggest international-relations problem is its inability to articulate what it actually wants. Any Palestinian Authority official can recite his goals: a Palestinian state, the 1967 borders, East Jerusalem. But “if someone asks an Israeli politician they say, ‘It’s complicated’ or ‘We want peace,’ or ‘a secure peace.’ The Palestinians have clear targets and we have only indistinct goals.”
What Gold didn’t mention, but is equally true, is that the same problem plagues Israel’s internal discourse. Virtually the only Israeli who ever articulated a clear diplomatic vision is the left-wing Yossi Beilin. And this remains the left’s best argument against the center-right. Whenever someone points out the Beilinite vision’s dangers, leftist politicians retort: “So what’s your solution?” And since center-right politicians have no real answer, they wind up adopting Beilinesque solutions once in office.
Granted, a “solution” shouldn’t be necessary. In real life, not all problems have instant solutions, and Israeli politicians should be capable of saying so — just as successive American presidents acknowledged that there was no instant solution to the Soviet problem, so the free world simply had to hold the line against Communist expansion until a solution became possible. This has the great advantage of being true: until the Arabs accept Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, no diplomatic solution will be possible.
But Israeli politicians have never succeeded in making this argument. Thus Gold and his colleagues, who represent a broad center-right spectrum, are wise to seek to craft an alternative vision."
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/evelyn-gordon/317391