Syria, and on a smaller scale, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, etc. are a microcosm of Islamic violent nature. For those who keep thinking that Israel, or Zionism, is the problem, I would gladly sell them a bridge in Brooklyn!
The Obama Administration, in this specific case led by Secretary Clinton, demonstrated a total lack of understanding of Islamic mentality by "leading from behind," at Arab Springs. Mrs. Clinton thought that it was a move towards democratization, while in reality it was a move designed to expand the span of Sharia's law.
Arab Springs would not likely have been successful without the United States led NATO support; neither would have been the removal of Mubarak. Even though the removal of dictators may have merit, there is the right time, and the right way fro such action; the United States support of recent North Africa revolts was poorly timed, and ill conceived!
As is now being proven in Syria, [Muslim] Arabs would be killing each other. Had there not been an Israel, Arabs would still be killing Arabs. There is a fundamental Sunni, Shiia problem, as well as that of that of many smaller segments of Islam. Additionally Muslims do not tolerate Christian Arabs, and of course, Jews.
In the last two years more Syrian civilians were slaughtered than Arabs killed during the nearly century old Arab/Israeli conflict...So far, there are about twice as many Syrian refugees in the region than there are Palestinians, and the likelihood of them being allowed back into Syria, is miniscule.
Similar problems are starting to rear their ugly heads in Egypt; [Muslim} Arabs inherently, kill other Arabs.
The sources of Islamic range are many; they start with the Quran. The Quran uniquely claims to be Allah's final word, it does not allow for modification, and it instructs it followers to seek world domination, at any cost.
Another reason for Islamic rage is more pragmatic. Throughout the Twentieth Century, and into the Twenty-first Century, the West often humiliated Muslins; they were ridiculed, and taken advantage of with impunity.
Al Qaeda growth in Syria, in large part by inept United States foreign policy that led the Arab Springs, while decided to standby in Syria. Unlike North Africa, Syria revolution started as a secular nationalistic movement that with support from the would have likely yielded an advanced democracy.
By standing by while Assad was supported by Russia, the Shiia Iran (with Hezbollah, and Hamas elements,) the United States and its allies allowed the rebels to weaken, and for the Sunni al Qaeda gained strength.
Due to America's complete lack of insight into Islamic mentality, United States' recent action, and inaction, in the Middle East, encouraged the likely emerging of a new rogue Islamic state in Syria.
Another proof that Judaism, even with difficulties, and unlike Islam, for example, is open to "adaptability." In spite of disagreements Jews are Jews, seculars and orthodox are brothers under the skin. In spite of some conflict Judaism in intact.
While the Quran instructs its folloers to accept it is Allah final and undisputable last word, Judaism, as was proven during the Diaspora, and since, allows for progression providing that the Torah remain the guiding light!
Never throughout history was a conqueror expected to return land it acquired in a [defensive] war; Israel, through its largess returned the oil rich Sinai to Egypt, why is everyone expect it to return more with nothing in exchange? Saying that Arab recognition is what is returned, recognizing something that is already a fact on the ground is not a great deal, it is clearly not a hardship. Secretary Kerry, and president Obama, should start to explore means for Israel to benefit from a deal with the Arab nations, not just push a deal for the sake of a deal.posted @ Tuesday, April 9, 2013 - 09:46
It is a good thing to have conservative African-Americans! The question, can, or should they be a part of the existing GOP, since that concept appears to be an oxymoron.
Today's GOP as represented by the Rush Limbaughs, Ann Coulters, and Fox News, cannot be an effective vehicle for Black conservatism.
Having black conservatives such as J. C. Watt, and Harold Ford, is a good thing; but as part of the [present] GOP?
@dahreese: Your suggesting that Israel is running over the Palestinians is totally unfounded. If not for an attempt by five Arab nations in 1948 to throw the Jews of "Palestine" into the sea, there would not be a Palestinian refugee problem today,
Before making your pronouncements why, don’t you check about the plight of Palestinians in the Arab states, you will find in comparison their treatment by Israel is not bad!
You must remember that there were never, throughout history, a sovereign Palestine, let alone, an Arab Palestine. Israel’s willingness to consider an Arab Palestine is at Israel’s largess, not based on either legal or historical rights. Arabs are relatively new comers to the area, while the Jewish people have been there for over 3000 years.
Finally. Jordan, which started life as Transjordan was carved out of a Palestine that the British managed under a League of Nations Mandate. Without legal authority, the British carved Transjordan out of Palestine, depriving Israel of a great deal of added land that it would have received under the partition.
It is not Israel, dahreese who is running all over the Palestinians, it is mostly their own Arab brethren. Get your fact straight. I Have been there, I saw it, I studied it, and perhaps you should too.
@Lazarus Laughs Last: West bank policies are just a red herring; Obama's real challange is Jerusale. Unless he is willing to live up to Congressioal mandates and formally declares, with a date-certain, that the United States Embassy is going to be moved to Jerusalem, his trip to Israel would be a total waste.
No other nation can tell another where said nation's capital is, doing so is an insult to the severeignty of such nation. It is time that the United States stops insulting Israel's national integrity and move its Embassy to Jerusalem, Israel's capita.
Regardless of anything that President Obama does during his visit to Israel, including receiving Israel's highest civilian medal, unless President Obama makes a formal declaration, one with a date certain, that the United States Embassy will be moved to Jerusalem, him visit will be a bust.
It is unheard of for others than a sovereign to declare said sovereign's capital, for America (and others) to not accept the legitimacy of that sovereign's capital, is an insult, a slap in the face.
Congress has a number of resolutions about moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, unless Obama makes that happen during his upcoming trip, the entire trip would be just another Obama Administration failure.
It is time Government classify television channels correctly. ABC and CBS could perhaps qualify as new channels. NBC, FOX News, MSNBC, CNN should be labeled as political opinion channels and be made to register as some kind of Political Action Committees.
Operatives from these channels are professional political propagandists who have a tremendous effect on public opinion, and that fact should be acknowledged.
For example, in the 2012 election, there is little or now doubt that Candy Crawley of CNN turned the tide when she jumped into the middle of the candidates’ foreign policy debate an [wrongly] corrected Mr. Romney.
It is time the charade ends and these television outlets be labeled political, not anything else.
Joe Biden is a living example of the adage: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing!"
A shotgun is a lethal weapon; it is easier to hit a target with a shogun than it is with an assault weapon. A multi-shot (pump, or whatever) could cause a great deal of damage.
Now, Vice President Biden may be speaking of a single shot weapon, which could apply to any other type weapon.
The Vice President, as are many others, is making a big deal of "semi-automatics," most available guns can be considered that, exceptions are: Single shot guns, pump, lever action, bolt-action weapons, and single action revolvers. Except for single shot weapons. All others can generate very rapid fire.
The Biden "get a shotgun" bit is a silly suggestion to solving a serious problem. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
@snarkydude: All I can do is hope that you are wrong about Kerry!
As to the Obama/Hillary Clinton foreign policy, it was indeed a disaster.
Arab Springs was a good demonstration of how the foreign policy team misread the situation. The US dealt with it as if it was a move towards democratization while in reality it was expansion of Sharia law.
You are right that so far the Obama Administration is viewed as a "toothless tiger," This is particularly dangerous with the Syrian situation. Syria has the largest chemical arsenal in the world, tons, upon tons of Uranium, and delivery systems that can reach Israel as well as 260.000 US troops on the Gulf.
My concern has to do more with Hagel than with Kerry; if the Obama team in his second term is weaker than it was in the first one; we may be facing difficult time beyond anyone's expectations.
Let us all hope that John Kerry does not follow Hillary Clinton’s example and proves that the United States is a "toothless tiger."
Under Hillary Clinton's tenure, rogue nations like Iran and North Korea seem to laugh at the United States and it warnings. The world seems to apply the saying to America:
"Sticks and stones make break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
Should John Kerry, as a Secretary of State, be allowed, and will back his words with action. This may be a good time for the United States to regain some respect that it lost when Collin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Hillary Clinton were Secretaries of State.
Having lived through "many moons," while attending five Universities (three degrees,) worked for Colleges, Government, and the private sector, I must say that based on personal observations, the $2, 4$, or $6 billion that were raised for the 2012 election, did not yield "the best of the best," for Washington.
Based on performance, and observing Washington in action, one must conclude that the billions used in the 2012 election bought the nation mediocrity, or less, definitely, not the "best of the best."
The scary thing is that elected mediocrity tends to appoint Medicare people for responsible positions. For example, suggesting the likes of Chuck Hagel to head the Defense Department is an error of a top magnitude. Not only is the man divisive, he demonstrated poor military instincts throughout his long career. "Water seeks its level," and mediocrity attracts meritocracy.
Why is the situation so dire that fortunes cannot by to talent for Government? Some of the answers start with the fact that political "investment" is designed to bring back long-term returns, its motives, as Susan Estrich states:
"But in my experience, which is overwhelmingly supported by the numbers, most of the money in politics is based on more selfish concerns.
Banks, corporations, insurers, and lawyers give money to further their business goals, or at least to ensure that those on the other side don’t get ahead. They used to bundle contributions in the tens of thousands. Now, you’ve got to be raising or giving a million to be noticed.
And that’s just what these folks spend directly on the elections. They also spend big on the lobbyists who ensure that the interests of big money are fully rewarded in legislative and executive actions.
It is a corrupt arms race, with no end in sight and no one willing to take steps to end it.
You can blame the Supreme Court for opening the door to “independent” expenditures that really aren’t. Need I add that no recent members of the court have ever run for office?
You can blame the politicians who spend more time raising money, with few or no limits on who they’ll take it from, without thinking for a moment about what will be expected of them, for whom November is the only relevant object.
Some years ago, when Republicans were consistently outraising Democrats, I asked a leader of my party why we were spending so much time competing in a losing battle that was, in more ways than I can detail in one column, costing us our collective soul. His answer was clear: Unilateral disarmament is a fool’s answer."
One may ask why the situation is as it is. Why can't the nation invest the $2, $4, or $6 billion on better things than the acquisition of Medicare representation in Washington? What can be done?
Let me offer one possible solution: TERM LIMITS!
Since the political "investors," are looking for long-term returns, what better way to stop these obscene spending than to take away the incentive?
Federal official should not be allowed to run for more than one term, regardless of the position. Having office for one term, and one term only, would allow for concentration on one’s job, without considering funds for an upcoming election. One may consider giving the President a single six year term. Leave Senators at six years and perhaps increase the term of Members of the House of Representative to a single either three or four year term.
How can a responsible people who owe as much as the United States does, allow the irrational expenditure of money on elections, spending that have proven time and time again, to be counter-productive?
Illegal immigrants should be taken care of, BUT, at what cost?
Basing human quality of cost may seem callous, but what if you don’t have the money?
In the simplest terms. Should you register all eleven million illegals, bring their pay up from about $3.00 to minimum wage, and give them "benefits," what do you have?
By simply adding $4.00 per hour to eleven million, you pay some eighty billion ($80,000,000,000) per year, where does the money come from? China?
Helping people is a good thing; no less good than motherhood and apple pie, but while between thirty and forty million Americans are either UN, or underemployed, where do you get the money, at whose expense?
The Government should deal with the illegal issue without additional delay, however, it must do so with caution and in a responsible manner, and it should keep from: "Letting the baby go down the drain with the bathwater!"
Summary: I'm not saying it's lonely to be a movie critic, but we often find ourselves seated alone in an empty theatre when we're watching new stuff. I know people who say they won't go see anything unless they have at least one other person to go with, but I've always enjoyed having the place to myself. I'm not saying it's lonely to be a movie critic, but we often find ourselves seated alone in an empty theatre when we're watching new stuff. I know people who say they won't go see anything unless they have at least one other person to go