Will inaction on Iran swing the Jewish vote?

[Hayabusa Rider]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not much of a reasoned defense or answer, in MHO, Hayabusa.

After all, your initial premise is badly flawed. If you assert Afghanistan was or will become a irrelevant country as far a terrorism is concerned, why did the USA and Nato go into Afghanistan after 911?

And there after choose the wrong target. The Taliban did target the USA in the 911, and instead it was Al-Quida that did, and without the knowledge or consent of the Taliban leadership. Nor was Afghanistan central to the 911 attack that was planned else where, was financed by Al-Quida operatives in England, and most of those carrying out the attacks were Egyptian nationals trained in the USA.

Or we can examine the wisdom or lack of it in terms of going into Afghanistan, inflicting maximum damage to the Taliban, and then getting out. Which, is exactly what the USA and Nato are still trying to do, and it still ever more counter productive each and every year.

But maybe you are right Hayabusa, when the USA and Nato pulls another Nixon, declares then won Peace with honor while sailing home defeated, maybe Afghanistan will become more irrelevant. After all, Al-Quida now has so many other countries to call home, like Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, the Tribal areas of Pakistan, and so many more.

In short Hayabusa, you and JOS, failed to learn what every major military in then world already knew from centuries of experience in a military occupation. You either go big with 620,000 troops in the case of Afghanistan, set up a civilian friendly government able to improve the lot of the people, quickly end the anarchy every military occupation tows in its wake, and failing that, you are better off staying at home.

Its astounding how consistently bad you are at understanding. We're stuck in Afghanistan because we're trying to rescue what I said we never should have done, nation building. Try keeping up.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't think that the current situation wrt Iran will sway American Jewish voters much at all, largely because Obama has gone to great lengths to satisfy anti-Iran sentiment, even if it may actually be counterproductive-

http://www.businessinsider.com/actually-there-is-no-hyperinflation-in-iran-2012-10

It takes some thinking to digest that, something the usual ravers eschew, anyway.

 

[Lemon law]

Its astounding how consistently bad you are at understanding. We're stuck in Afghanistan because we're trying to rescue what I said we never should have done, nation building. Try keeping up.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is astonishing to me, Hayabusa, is how, Romney like you are. In being on all sides of every issue.

As on this thread, you on one hand defend JOS and his ilk who claim punishing innocent Afghan civilians is the way, to win in Afghanistan, and at the same time you claim we should have never tried to nation build in Afghanistan. And thus have never aided or abetted JOS and his ilk to make the bad Afghan situation even worse.

Then Hayabusa, you totally distort my position, in asking, what we in the USA are tying to do? Are we trying to nation build in Afghanistan and managing to badly lose simply because of the policies of JOS and his ilk, or radically change our policies and try better policies, at this late date, that stand a chance of winning, 0r just get out immediately, and publicly admit our initial JOS type punishment policy was flawed from the start.

Sorry Hayabusa, if I regard you as a total hypocrite.

Please man up Hayabusa, take one consistent position and stick with it.

Because Hayabusa blundering around on both sides of every issue will never result in a viable or consistent US foreign policy.

Which also brings up the opinions issue, as I may have one opinion, JOS may have another, and you Hayabusa may have another. As all three of us may have differing opinions about what is best for the USA and England. And may be keyboard warriors legends in our own minds.

But what is ignored is the fact, that the USA plus England constitutes less than 4% of the total world, and when 96% of the total world hold quite different opinions, and when US foreign policy goes over like a lead balloon, with that far larger group, we in the USA and the Western block should be questioning how wise that is.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

As on this thread, you on one hand defend JOS and his ilk who claim punishing innocent Afghan civilians is the way, to win in Afghanistan, and at the same time you claim we should have never tried to nation build in Afghanistan. And thus have never aided or abetted JOS and his ilk to make the bad Afghan situation even worse.

You definitely are being obtuse. In case you don't know how this "command thingy" works, those who fight don't get to set the terms. You act like he and others wanted to spend years there. Instead of doing what would have been more rational the military has to comply with whatever the civilian leaders (read Bush) got them stuck in.

Then Hayabusa, you totally distort my position, in asking, what we in the USA are tying to do? Are we trying to nation build in Afghanistan and managing to badly lose simply because of the policies of JOS and his ilk, or radically change our policies and try better policies, at this late date, that stand a chance of winning, 0r just get out immediately, and publicly admit our initial JOS type punishment policy was flawed from the start.

There were no "winning" policies which would or will transform Afghanistan. Would you point to where he or anyone else who was there in a combat situation felt that the actual policies that Bush implemented? Who wanted nation building? Who wanted a decade plus war? It isn't "their" or my policy, nor for that matter Obamas which got us stuck there. If I were in Obama's place I'd speed up the time table for exiting. In thinking there is a way to win you are channeling Bush, which wouldn't be the best one might do.

Sorry Hayabusa, if I regard you as a total hypocrite.

Cool. I regard you as completely unable to understand the most basic elements of the principles involved here. I'm not sure if you understand the proper use of words. If JOS had embraced Bush's policies of nation building, taking troops from Afghanistan and moving them to Iraq and I said that I agree with him then talk negatively about them elsewhere then I would be a hypocrite. Find where he said that. Good luck.

Please man up Hayabusa, take one consistent position and stick with it.

I have. You aren't smart enough to get it.

Because Hayabusa blundering around on both sides of every issue will never result in a viable or consistent US foreign policy.

Well stop doing that.

Which also brings up the opinions issue, as I may have one opinion, JOS may have another, and you Hayabusa may have another.

He and I have differing opinions about some things I'm sure, but considering the cluster that the two wars became, no. You? I'm not sure anyone understands what you are trying to say.

As all three of us may have differing opinions about what is best for the USA and England.

That goes without saying.

And may be keyboard warriors legends in our own minds.

That makes one of you.

But what is ignored is the fact, that the USA plus England constitutes less than 4% of the total world, and when 96% of the total world hold quite different opinions

Which is why the West is pissed at Iran and not us.

and when US foreign policy goes over like a lead balloon, with that far larger group, we in the USA and the Western block should be questioning how wise that is.

Bush is out of office if you haven't noticed. Since then we haven't been getting grief. Well I stand corrected. People who are like minded with NK and Iranian leaders would consider our policies lead balloon like. I don't feel compelled to appease you or them.

You are out of your depth again.

 

[Lemon law]

One of the main objections I have to your position, Hayabusa, may be wholly contained in your statement that, "There were no "winning" policies which would or will transform Afghanistan"

Which is somewhat absurd on the face of it. As Bush the scrub and later Obama choose the worst possible policies guaranteed to lose.

As we in the USA, can look back to the two military occupations we won, immediately after WW2. In Japan and Germany. As wiser Presidents and military officials implemented policies that transformed former enemies into current US allies. Compare and contrast our policies in Japan and Germany and what we did in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq and tell me our policies don't matter. At least if the criteria is success or failure.

Or to translate your position to the personal level, you are somewhat asserting it does not matter what you do. The people in your own nation may not automatically love you,
but if you therefore punch everyone around you in the nose, it won't matter either when everyone around you suddenly has a very valid reason to hate you.

Hayabusa, you may be a legend in your own mind, but if you don't understand people and human nature, you understand nothing.

 

[EagleKeeper]

One of the main objections I have to your position, Hayabusa, may be wholly contained in your statement that, "There were no "winning" policies which would or will transform Afghanistan"

Which is somewhat absurd on the face of it. As Bush the scrub and later Obama choose the worst possible policies guaranteed to lose.

As we in the USA, can look back to the two military occupations we won, immediately after WW2. In Japan and Germany. As wiser Presidents and military officials implemented policies that transformed former enemies into current US allies. Compare and contrast our policies in Japan and Germany and what we did in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq and tell me our policies don't matter. At least if the criteria is success or failure.

Or to translate your position to the personal level, you are somewhat asserting it does not matter what you do. The people in your own nation may not automatically love you,
but if you therefore punch everyone around you in the nose, it won't matter either when everyone around you suddenly has a very valid reason to hate you.

Hayabusa, you may be a legend in your own mind, but if you don't understand people and human nature, you understand nothing.

One also has to contrast the culture of the country.

Germany and Japan came from an organized governmental society.

Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan do not.

The mistakes have been trying to put a Western style of organization/government on a tribal fiefdom; they have no loyalty outside their village and religion.

 

[nextJin]

One also has to contrast the culture of the country.

Germany and Japan cam from an organized governmental society.

Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan do not.

The mistakes have been trying to put a Western style of organization/government on a tribal fiefdom; they have no loyalty outside their village and religion.

Imagine that I agree with Eagle,

The US will never be able to transform Arabic based societies into working Republics or Democracies. After my first tour in Iraq (and later Afghanistan) I quickly came to the conclusion that it didn't matter if we left tomorrow or 100 years from now (McCain) the same outcome would happen.

The population has neither the education nor beliefs to form such governments.

In my own opinion which is an enlisted man with line experience and no higher echelon or higher planning experience, we should have sent a million troops to Afghanistan within a year of 911. Used operators until regular army and marine units could get in country and force the fight on the Taliban and those responsible for the attacks. Built allies of Iran, Pakistan and other neighbors in the region to handle border security and share information and resources within their countries.

 

[Lemon law]

There is nothing incompatible with Islam and democracy, Turkey is a democracy, Iran is a democracy, Pakistan is a democracy, Lebanon is a democracy, and Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Iraq are moving in that direction.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There is nothing incompatible with Islam and democracy, Turkey is a democracy, Iran is a democracy, Pakistan is a democracy, Lebanon is a democracy, and Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Iraq are moving in that direction.

It's not Islam it's tribal society which does not recognize central authority as being illegitimate. Most of this know about that.

 

[Lemon law]

It's not Islam it's tribal society which does not recognize central authority as being illegitimate. Most of this know about that.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again Hayabusas, don't be ridiculous, Muslim nations like Egypt, Iran, Libya, and many others that were ruled by a central authority, that in many cases were nothing by military dictators, are being replaced by democratically elected governments.

Maybe the western block of nations may not be happy to see a Mubarak replaced by a Morsi, the Shah of Iran being replaced by a more popular Iranian government, or a Gaddafi replaced by a revolution. Or in the case of Turkey, a populist leader finally ending the tradition of military takeovers of the Turkish Government. But in every case I cited here, we are talking about one strong central government being replaced with another.

As we can also ask, if the glass half full or half empty. Of course in an almost 100% Islamic country, the leadership is almost certain to be Islamic. But the primitive and tribal rural areas of both Libya and Egypt are mainly represented by ultra right Salift type political parties, while the majority winners in both the Egypt and Libya elections are far far more moderate central government types, as both Egypt and Libya selected Western trained technocrats to head their governments.

 

[Anarchist420]

I meant to ask earlier... does it really matter how Jews vote either as individuals or collectively? I'm asking because the collectivist concept of the "Jewish vote" (or even the concept of the "Jewish community") is as irrational as the neo-feminists who act like it matters if their "right to vote" is taken away by Romney.
On the other hand, I guess I've made far dumber threads but that does not excuse the OP... it doesn't excuse the OP in my mind because I understand the state better than the OP does thanks to Dr. Paul.

That said, more Centralization of collectivism can't protect States' rights and it can't protect individual liberty. The Declaration of Independence by T Jefferson told us to abolish the govts and that we could replace them with small, free, and independent microstates.

 

[Anarchist420]

As on this thread, you on one hand defend JOS and his ilk

Do you know what the word "ilk" implies? JohnOfSheffield is his own man and he has no "ilk".

 

[zsdersw]

If I was Jewish I'd give a big ol' "Meh!" to any purported differences between Obama and Romney with regards to Iran and Israel.

They're both meshugganah.

 

[1prophet]

There is nothing incompatible with Islam and democracy, Turkey is a democracy, Iran is a democracy, Pakistan is a democracy, Lebanon is a democracy, and Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Iraq are moving in that direction.

Separation of religion from state is required for a democracy to succeed long term,

as long as you have a civil code that gives respect to one religion over another or a theocratic ruler that can override the peoples will you do not have a real democracy just the illusion of one.

 

[Lemon law]

Separation of religion from state is required for a democracy to succeed long term,

as long as you have a civil code that gives respect to one religion over another or a theocratic ruler that can override the peoples will you do not have a real democracy just the illusion of one.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe 1 prophet is right, as Israel certainly is not a democracy. While the Russians and the Chinese better qualify.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again Hayabusas, don't be ridiculous, Muslim nations like Egypt, Iran, Libya, and many others that were ruled by a central authority, that in many cases were nothing by military dictators, are being replaced by democratically elected governments.

Maybe the western block of nations may not be happy to see a Mubarak replaced by a Morsi, the Shah of Iran being replaced by a more popular Iranian government, or a Gaddafi replaced by a revolution. Or in the case of Turkey, a populist leader finally ending the tradition of military takeovers of the Turkish Government. But in every case I cited here, we are talking about one strong central government being replaced with another.

As we can also ask, if the glass half full or half empty. Of course in an almost 100% Islamic country, the leadership is almost certain to be Islamic. But the primitive and tribal rural areas of both Libya and Egypt are mainly represented by ultra right Salift type political parties, while the majority winners in both the Egypt and Libya elections are far far more moderate central government types, as both Egypt and Libya selected Western trained technocrats to head their governments.

It's as if I were to have said "Fish don't ride bicycles" and you reply "don't be ridiculous. Chalabi and the shah could ride bicycles". They have nothing to do with it. Likewise you bring up examples of non tribal societies which are centralized. To those outside of Kabul and a few other places the very concept of Karzi or anyone else being above their tribal leaders is incomprehensible. The don't want it, Mr. Bush.

 

[amyklai]

There is nothing incompatible with Islam and democracy, Turkey is a democracy, Iran is a democracy, Pakistan is a democracy, Lebanon is a democracy, and Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Iraq are moving in that direction.

Ugh. Of the countries mentioned, the only one that can be compared to a western democracy is Turkey .
And even Turkey is not exactly your standard western democracy. Until very recently, the military dominated politics and religious freedom for example isn't quite at the level of standard western democracies. There are other points regarding freedom of speech, like for example Article 301 of their penal code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_301_(Turkish_Penal_Code).

And the other countries are far, far, far from being where Turkey is right now. Pakistan? Really? Egypt? You don't seem to grasp that just because there's some kind of election, that doesn't mean that it's a democratic society by our (western) standards at all.


One of the bigger mistakes in US foreign policy in the last 20 years or so was to think that they could replicate the post WWII-developments in Germany and Japan anywhere in the world.

But that's just not possible, especially with countries that are nothing like Germany and Japan at the time (both developed & industrialized) and the situations were nothing alike - especially considering that it was far more easy to extinguish the ideology behind those regimes than it seems to be to get rid of radical Islam. And as long as the ideology is alive and kicking, you'll never see countries going from hostile to peaceful in a matter of days like it happened in Japan and Germany in 1945.

Even Germany went through a period of about 30 years between the time when Kaiser Wilhelm II. was forced to resign and the country was forced to become a democracy in 1918 and the start of the first actually successful democracy in Germany in 1948. Directly after 1918, there was some sort of small scale civil war and later the remaining anti democratic forces in German society played a major role in Hitler's rise to power.

Now, the difference between pre-WW I-Germany and England or the US for example was much, much smaller than the difference between the US and Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan or Egypt right now. It's ridiculous to expect to be able to change those societies at will.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I would say that the thing that hurts Obummer is admitting to be muslim. That will kill the jewish vote. He did admitt it and tried to cover it up as misspeak. That won't work with truely intelligent people and the Jews are not fools like so many here.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's as if I were to have said "Fish don't ride bicycles" and you reply "don't be ridiculous. Chalabi and the shah could ride bicycles". They have nothing to do with it. Likewise you bring up examples of non tribal societies which are centralized. To those outside of Kabul and a few other places the very concept of Karzi or anyone else being above their tribal leaders is incomprehensible. The don't want it, Mr. Bush.

You misrepresent our own historical influence in Afghanistan in a very fundamental way. We helped to factionalize the country during the Soviet occupation in no small way. Even as their society had been moving towards stronger central authority & modernity in the years preceding, we amplified & exploited divisions to serve our own purposes, to provide the Soviets with their own Vietnam. We fostered the Islamic radicalism of the Mujahedin in no small way, encouraged & aided others, like the Saudis, to do the same. They became the Taliban.

It's not like Afghanistan was anything more than a political springboard to Iraq for the Bushistas, anyway. The number of troops stationed there early on & their staying in their bases puts the lie to the whole notion of nation building, and the Karzai faction was chosen for leadership on the basis of their corruptibility, anyway.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You misrepresent our own historical influence in Afghanistan in a very fundamental way. We helped to factionalize the country during the Soviet occupation in no small way. Even as their society had been moving towards stronger central authority & modernity in the years preceding, we amplified & exploited divisions to serve our own purposes, to provide the Soviets with their own Vietnam. We fostered the Islamic radicalism of the Mujahedin in no small way, encouraged & aided others, like the Saudis, to do the same. They became the Taliban.

It's not like Afghanistan was anything more than a political springboard to Iraq for the Bushistas, anyway. The number of troops stationed there early on & their staying in their bases puts the lie to the whole notion of nation building, and the Karzai faction was chosen for leadership on the basis of their corruptibility, anyway.

Kabul was moving towards centralized government, but it was not with approval of the majority. As far as the US and USSR goes we're merely recent players in the Grand Game.

here

 

[Jhhnn]

Kabul was moving towards centralized government, but it was not with approval of the majority. As far as the US and USSR goes we're merely recent players in the Grand Game.

here

Mere deflection & obfuscation on your part. If the US invasion & occupation were part of the Great Game, then the Bushistas were clearly playing to lose in Afghanistan.

 

[Lemon law]

I agree with Jhhnn and not with Haybasusa here, as IMHO, as supporting the Karzai government has been the greatest NATO blunder that has resulted in the certainty of Nato losing the peace in Afghanistan.

We can maybe say Karzai himself has a few clueless virtues, but the entire government ended up setting up, is as corrupt as they come. As the Karzai government is made up of corrupt drug dealers, war lords, and even the Afghan army we support and try to train, are headed by thugs and thieves who want to exploit the Afghan people for their personal profit.

In short we are duplicating the same conditions of total anarchy that caused the rise of the Taliban post 1995. I think its fair and correct to say the bulk of the Afghan people do not like the nutty religious fundamentalism of the Taliban, but its people with small minds like Hayabasus who can't quite grasp THE FACT, that given NATO and Karzai government policy, 99% of the Afghan people trust the Taliban more than Nato and its puppet Karzai government that offers no prospect of ever ending corruption or anarchy.

Which goes back to why I call Hayabusa a small mind, as Hayabusa may perfectly understand what his USA based goals are, but when Hayabusa has exactly no ability to walk in the shoes of the Afghan people, and understand what they need and want from their own governments, Hayabusa will continue to have no understanding of other people and why we can't impose our demands on them. As the USA bumbles and blunders from one expensive losing quagmire to another. Simply because the USA always fails to offer better opportunities to the people we try to totally dominate.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I agree with Jhhnn and not with Haybasusa here, as IMHO, as supporting the Karzai government has been the greatest NATO blunder that has resulted in the certainty of Nato losing the peace in Afghanistan.

We can maybe say Karzai himself has a few clueless virtues, but the entire government ended up setting up, is as corrupt as they come. As the Karzai government is made up of corrupt drug dealers, war lords, and even the Afghan army we support and try to train, are headed by thugs and thieves who want to exploit the Afghan people for their personal profit.

In short we are duplicating the same conditions of total anarchy that caused the rise of the Taliban post 1995. I think its fair and correct to say the bulk of the Afghan people do not like the nutty religious fundamentalism of the Taliban, but its people with small minds like Hayabasus who can't quite grasp THE FACT, that given NATO and Karzai government policy, 99% of the Afghan people trust the Taliban more than Nato and its puppet Karzai government that offers no prospect of ever ending corruption or anarchy.

Which goes back to why I call Hayabusa a small mind, as Hayabusa may perfectly understand what his USA based goals are, but when Hayabusa has exactly no ability to walk in the shoes of the Afghan people, and understand what they need and want from their own governments, Hayabusa will continue to have no understanding of other people and why we can't impose our demands on them. As the USA bumbles and blunders from one expensive losing quagmire to another. Simply because the USA always fails to offer better opportunities to the people we try to totally dominate.

Sometimes I do pity you, but not enough to keep me from shining some light on your convoluted thinking. I'll pick your points apart yet again after dinner for other people. I once thought you were deliberately this way, but maybe there's some organic issue or your lifelong hate is responsible. That I cannot help.

 

[Lemon law]

Sometimes I do pity you, but not enough to keep me from shining some light on your convoluted thinking. I'll pick your points apart yet again after dinner for other people. I once thought you were deliberately this way, but maybe there's some organic issue or your lifelong hate is responsible. That I cannot help.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Somewhat exactly the response I expected of you Hayabusa.

But you Hayabusa still have a have a very big problem in trying to assert you are 100% right and I am somehow a self hating psychotic. Because when I am correctly predicting the results of our flawed foreign policy, AND YOU HAYABUSA ARE QUITE FRANKLY ARE NOT, IT NEVER SEEMS TO OCCUR TO YOU, TO QUESTION YOUR OWN ASSUMPTIONS. OR BETTER YET, BE OPEN TO NEW UNDERSTANDINGS OF WHY WE ARE LOSING, AND ALTER POLICIES TO ALLOW US TO START WINNING INSTEAD OF LOSING.

Hayabusa, the USA is my country too, and I am sick and tired of seeing my tax payer dollars and future wasted counter productively because idiots like you invariably and stupidly try the wrong policies guaranteed to lose.

And then Hayabusa, when your advocated policies invariably fail, your standard reply is to always blame it on the people who rejected our stupid policies and say they were not ready to be enlightened by our repulsive behavior yet.

What a wonderful world it would be Hayabusa, if everyone thought exactly like you, but when the fact is, that when few people in other countries think like you, you redouble your efforts as you maintain you will catch more flies with vinegar than honey.

As I can only wonder about you Hayabusa, as a poster child of totally clueless.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Somewhat exactly the response I expected of you Hayabusa.

But you Hayabusa still have a have a very big problem in trying to assert you are 100% right and I am somehow a self hating psychotic. Because when I am correctly predicting the results of our flawed foreign policy, AND YOU HAYABUSA ARE QUITE FRANKLY ARE NOT, IT NEVER SEEMS TO OCCUR TO YOU, TO QUESTION YOUR OWN ASSUMPTIONS. OR BETTER YET, BE OPEN TO NEW UNDERSTANDINGS OF WHY WE ARE LOSING, AND ALTER POLICIES TO ALLOW US TO START WINNING INSTEAD OF LOSING.

Hayabusa, the USA is my country too, and I am sick and tired of seeing my tax payer dollars and future wasted counter productively because idiots like you invariably and stupidly try the wrong policies guaranteed to lose.

And then Hayabusa, when your advocated policies invariably fail, your standard reply is to always blame it on the people who rejected our stupid policies and say they were not ready to be enlightened by our repulsive behavior yet.

What a wonderful world it would be Hayabusa, if everyone thought exactly like you, but when the fact is, that when few people in other countries think like you, you redouble your efforts as you maintain you will catch more flies with vinegar than honey.

As I can only wonder about you Hayabusa, as a poster child of totally clueless.

In concise and specific terms, what are my policies regarding Afghanistan? Note specific. What actions by the US do I support and what do I not?