Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can't be serious. Re-read the article and at least see what you can do to identify facts whether true or false, and/or which are true or not in your opinion. A bonus would be an explanation why as well. Meanwhile, I don't have the time to get into those specifics or examples right now. Hoping you will spare me the trouble upon my return.
These are the facts given in the article which can be considered remotely relevant to the author's point that American policy is immoral:
- "We can be fairly sure Obama's drones dropping bombs on people anywhere in the world are equipped with state-of-the-art GPS to the smallest villages in Pakistan to Syria to Libya so they can target them well. But he still manages to kill more innocent people than he does "terrorists"." He suggests that civilian casualties -- common in any war -- may be intentional or at least could be avoided by the US because we have the technology to do so. A colorable argument? Perhaps, but hardly a "fact" without something else to back it up. Palestinian missiles also kill Israeli civilians.
- "On the very same land where Obama stood and staged his eulogy for his "friend Shimon Peres", human suffering soars from Gaza to Palestinian refugee camps. To this he has been completely blind, deaf, and indifferent."
- "Just within earshot of his waxing eloquence about a war criminal, Zionist settlements are mushrooming with his full knowledge and financial support."
- "[Obama] stood there for more than 23 minutes and with barefaced vulgarity spoke of a vicious ideology of land theft, ethnic cleansing, and incremental genocide of Palestinians as a beacon of "justice and hope", regurgitating the historic Zionist lie of making "the desert bloom". He ignored which settler colony sits over 200 nuclear bombs, courtesy of his "friend Shimon Peres", and charged his brutalised victims as the Arab youth [who] are taught to hate Israel from an early age".
Ironically, while some Americans lament Obama's pro-Muslim stance, this author blasts him for supporting Zionism. His "facts" are that Obama demonstrates support for Israel, which the author apparently considers a genocidal terrorist state, and therefore Obama is corrupt. True facts: (1) Palestinians are suffering (3) Israel has nuclear weapons, and (4) Arab youth are taught to hate Israel from an early age. How does any of this belong on the US' doorstep?
I'm not a big fan of Barack Obama, and there are two sides on the matter of Palestine, but I am frankly surprised that you do not pick up on the ubiquitous Arab hate for Israel (our best ally in the ME by far) and the blatant political bias of this article. There is no question of about our official actions towards Israel, but its self-serving and intellectually lazy to reduce a complex geopolitical dispute that goes back to Biblical times to questions of American morality.
Last edited by CapnTrips; 10-14-2016 at 12:20 PM..
Isn't this the Republican platform? Just needs more anti-abortion.
To the extent that both Reps and Dems have supported places like Quatar and Saudi Arabia in the interests of big oil, neither Party's hands are cleaner than the other.
To the extent that both Reps and Dems have supported places like Quatar and Saudi Arabia in the interests of big oil, neither Party's hands are cleaner than the other.
I didn't claim otherwise. Actually nothing I said even mentioned the Middle East.
"What's in it for us" is the ONLY way we should run a foreign policy.
I respectfully disagree, I feel the our foreign policy decisions should be based on doing that which is the right thing to do. Sometimes doing the right thing is doing nothing at all.
These are the facts given in the article which can be considered remotely relevant to the author's point that American policy is immoral:
- "We can be fairly sure Obama's drones dropping bombs on people anywhere in the world are equipped with state-of-the-art GPS to the smallest villages in Pakistan to Syria to Libya so they can target them well. But he still manages to kill more innocent people than he does "terrorists"." He suggests that civilian casualties -- common in any war -- may be intentional or at least could be avoided by the US because we have the technology to do so. A colorable argument? Perhaps, but hardly a "fact" without something else to back it up. Palestinian missiles also kill Israeli civilians.
- "On the very same land where Obama stood and staged his eulogy for his "friend Shimon Peres", human suffering soars from Gaza to Palestinian refugee camps. To this he has been completely blind, deaf, and indifferent."
- "Just within earshot of his waxing eloquence about a war criminal, Zionist settlements are mushrooming with his full knowledge and financial support."
- "[Obama] stood there for more than 23 minutes and with barefaced vulgarity spoke of a vicious ideology of land theft, ethnic cleansing, and incremental genocide of Palestinians as a beacon of "justice and hope", regurgitating the historic Zionist lie of making "the desert bloom". He ignored which settler colony sits over 200 nuclear bombs, courtesy of his "friend Shimon Peres", and charged his brutalised victims as the Arab youth [who] are taught to hate Israel from an early age".
Ironically, while some Americans lament Obama's pro-Muslim stance, this author blasts him for supporting Zionism. His "facts" are that Obama demonstrates support for Israel, which the author apparently considers a genocidal terrorist state, and therefore Obama is corrupt. True facts: (1) Palestinians are suffering (3) Israel has nuclear weapons, and (4) Arab youth are taught to hate Israel from an early age. How does any of this belong on the US' doorstep?
I'm not a big fan of Barack Obama, and there are two sides on the matter of Palestine, but I am frankly surprised that you do not pick up on the ubiquitous Arab hate for Israel (our best ally in the ME by far) and the blatant political bias of this article. There is no question of about our official actions towards Israel, but its self-serving and intellectually lazy to reduce a complex geopolitical dispute that goes back to Biblical times to questions of American morality.
You seem far above average capable of reason and logic compared to most people I encounter in this forum. Pleased to "meet" you!
Let's see, from the beginning, but again with less time than I would like...
"Perhaps, but hardly a "fact" without something else to back it up. Palestinian missiles also kill Israeli civilians."
Perhaps entirely factual, and for you to determine by way of your own research, right? If interested that is...
"Between 8 July and 27 August, more than 2,100 Palestinians were killed in the Gaza Strip, along with 66 Israeli soldiers and seven civilians in Israel. The UN says the vast majority of Palestinian deaths are civilian."
Ironically, while some Americans lament Obama's pro-Muslim stance, this author blasts him for supporting Zionism. His "facts" are that Obama demonstrates support for Israel, which the author apparently considers a genocidal terrorist state, and therefore Obama is corrupt. True facts: (1) Palestinians are suffering (3) Israel has nuclear weapons, and (4) Arab youth are taught to hate Israel from an early age. How does any of this belong on the US' doorstep?
No doubt, when attempting to get at the truth regarding the right or wrong about all this, step number one is to tune out the rhetoric and focus in on the facts. I believe there is ultimately a right and/or wrong when it comes to most significant world conflicts, and all too often how people view what is right or wrong is a function of bias and self-interest, not the truth. You have made comments that make me suspect you mostly agree.
To identify what is "terrorism" and what is the fight against "terrorism" requires a serious examination of this history from the very beginning, if not before WWII. Your four facts are hardly a scratch at the surface when it comes to this history and the truth related to this conflict.
This is why I asked you to provide a bit more elaboration as to your perspective, and why I can now tell you, we all need to do a great deal more/better than this to conclude what we might as to whether the author of this one article is more right than wrong when it comes the facts of this matter.
I wish I had the time to help in that regard, but of course, that history and understanding will take far more than I can manage in the space of a comment or even an entire thread. If interested, however, you can look at threads that also address the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and see my more detailed comments in those, along with those of others who seem to see this conflict from an entirely Zionistic standpoint (there are quite a few).
No doubt, when attempting to get at the truth regarding the right or wrong about all this, step number one is to tune out the rhetoric and focus in on the facts. I believe there is ultimately a right and/or wrong when it comes to most significant world conflicts, and all too often how people view what is right or wrong is a function of bias and self-interest, not the truth. You have made comments that make me suspect you mostly agree.
To identify what is "terrorism" and what is the fight against "terrorism" requires a serious examination of this history from the very beginning, if not before WWII. Your four facts are hardly a scratch at the surface when it comes to this history and the truth related to this conflict.
This is why I asked you to provide a bit more elaboration as to your perspective, and why I can now tell you, we all need to do a great deal more/better than this to conclude what we might as to whether the author of this one article is more right than wrong when it comes the facts of this matter.
I wish I had the time to help in that regard, but of course, that history and understanding will take far more than I can manage in the space of a comment or even an entire thread. If interested, however, you can look at threads that also address the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and see my more detailed comments in those, along with those of others who seem to see this conflict from an entirely Zionistic standpoint (there are quite a few).
I guess that's where you and I differ. You say "all too often how people view what is right or wrong is a function of bias and self-interest, not the truth." I don't believe that there is usually a right or wrong side when it comes to most significant world conflicts. I believe the general rule is that there are only biased positions (in some few cases there is a clear moral position -- the fight against the Holocaust would be good example). But I don't see why the life of a Shiite is intrinsically more important than the life of a Sunni, or a Palestinian more important than a Jew. As an American, I value the lives of Americans and the American way of life above all, but that is because I am an American; no doubt I'd feel different if I were Iranian.
I had a great deal of respect for Bernie Sanders' integrity, which is lacking in both of the present candidates. When Bernie says "“All that I am saying is we cannot continue to be one-sided. There are two sides to the issue,†that is pretty much my point of view also. But I draw the line at taking a particular moral position on the Palestinian conflict, because invoking morality suggests that there is a third objective point of view that will provide an answer, when in fact the only compromise possible is the one that each side decides is in their own interest, for their own reasons. In other words, in the ME conflict there is not a good choice vs a bad choice -- there are two good choices depending on perspective, and one choice becomes bad only when it is rejected, lost, or compromised away (my interpretation of John Dewey's pragmatism, in which the outcome of an event defines its morality).
Thank you. I'm enjoying this discussion as well, and I agree that there is so much to be said on America's role in the ME that it could fill volumes (and already has). My perspective is similar to Bernie's on Palestine/Israel -- "remember that there are two sides to this, so you guys sit down and talk, try to negotiate, and try not to kill each other while you're doing so."
Isn't this the Republican platform? Just needs more anti-abortion.
Anti-abortion is part of that belief system as well. A belief system that the American left apparently believes will not pose a threat to our society if and when it becomes more a part of American life. Consistent with my other comments on this thread, I will not call Islam immoral, I will simply say the obvious, that it is not consistent with Western values.
I respectfully disagree, I feel the our foreign policy decisions should be based on doing that which is the right thing to do. Sometimes doing the right thing is doing nothing at all.
Thank you, and I might just add that our foreign and domestic policy will no doubt be a convolution of many interests born of many goals that ultimately should reflect our best principles as a people. The right or wrong of what we do is not simply a matter of anyone being entirely innocent or guilty, but I think it should be about doing better, as best we can do, for ourselves and our fellow man, to whatever extent reasonably possible. At a minimum, we should not condone wrong doing born of self-interest at the expense of others.
In all cases, we are called upon to judge accordingly, and in all cases there is the question of what is right or wrong, better or worse. We judge and hold our elected representatives accountable, or more often than not, we simply abdicate to those special interests that will have their way at the expense of others who can't be bothered with the truth generally speaking, AKA the average American.
I guess that's where you and I differ. You say "all too often how people view what is right or wrong is a function of bias and self-interest, not the truth." I don't believe that there is usually a right or wrong side when it comes to most significant world conflicts. I believe the general rule is that there are only biased positions (in some few cases there is a clear moral position -- the fight against the Holocaust would be good example). But I don't see why the life of a Shiite is intrinsically more important than the life of a Sunni, or a Palestinian more important than a Jew. As an American, I value the lives of Americans and the American way of life above all, but that is because I am an American; no doubt I'd feel different if I were Iranian.
I had a great deal of respect for Bernie Sanders' integrity, which is lacking in both of the present candidates. When Bernie says "“All that I am saying is we cannot continue to be one-sided. There are two sides to the issue,” that is pretty much my point of view also. But I draw the line at taking a particular moral position on the Palestinian conflict, because invoking morality suggests that there is a third objective point of view that will provide an answer, when in fact the only compromise possible is the one that each side decides is in their own interest, for their own reasons. In other words, in the ME conflict there is not a good choice vs a bad choice -- there are two good choices depending on perspective, and one choice becomes bad only when it is rejected, lost, or compromised away (my interpretation of John Dewey's pragmatism, in which the outcome of an event defines its morality).
Thank you. I'm enjoying this discussion as well, and I agree that there is so much to be said on America's role in the ME that it could fill volumes (and already has). My perspective is similar to Bernie's on Palestine/Israel -- "remember that there are two sides to this, so you guys sit down and talk, try to negotiate, and try not to kill each other while you're doing so."
Please..., the difference between right and wrong is not "rocket science," and to suggest that bias somehow negates or diminishes what is ultimately right or wrong is one helluva a cop out if you ask me!
I have had people suggest that "might makes right" for example. Hello? Even the Holocaust had those who argued for or against depending on their bias, but of course there is a right or wrong in all these cases! All too often as well, "two wrongs don't make a right." We grapple with this truth all the time, as we must! Or as we should anyway (given time and inclination)...
This is not to argue there are certain issues that are not simply matters of different belief systems, like say the question of abortion for example. The right or wrong about that is nothing short of contentious, but even there I think we are forced to decide what is more right or wrong all considered, and as such, the woman's right to choose emerges as the law of the land. Hopefully we decide better rather than worse, but ultimately we must judge and decide.
What Sanders explains about no longer being one-sided is just a start, and a rather strong statement about not letting our bias interfere with our judgement as to right vs wrong. A strong statement for Americans about Israel anyway, and this judgement is not necessarily about morals as much as what man slowly but surely recognizes as the rule of law and order, international law, land rights, the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," for all the reasons these laws are laid out in the first place! We certainly do not agree as to how you sum up the right or wrong of what happens in the Middle East, and just because two sides only have their own self-interests in mind does NOT mean that one side is more wrong than the other, considerably more wrong in the context of who is killing who and for what reasons.
There is simply no way anyone who knows much about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and/or history can well argue there is no right or wrong when it comes what has happened there and still happening. Doing so is something like suggesting there was no right or wrong when it came to the American Civil War. Of course there is a right and wrong when it comes to these conflicts. Even if there is plenty of both to consider, when there are people killing one another over their differences, you can sure as Hell bet there is plenty of wrong going on.
Whether the wrongs can be corrected is another matter, but identifying them is first order of business. Then good leadership driven by the want to do right, or at least better...
Last edited by LearnMe; 10-15-2016 at 02:43 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
