Ibn Ladin's death, Obama's speech, and the notion of Justice.
- Thread starter Kaze Araki
- Start date
- Status
[quote name='Kaze Araki']Evidence please?[/QUOTE]
For what? That IR theories are not mutually exclusive? They are theories, that means they look at something from a certain point of view. That view is however, not all encompassing, leaving room for multiple theories to be there at the same time. All that you can debate about is which theory is more important at a certain moment. Or as it is said on wikipedia "Ole Holsti describes international relations theories act as a pair of coloured sunglasses, allowing the wearer to see only the salient events relevant to the theory." Sure, for someone who calls himself a realist and believes realism is the only way, then yes, it is mutually exclusive. If you look at it from a more distant view, you will see that a country can be both realist and liberal at the same time. Thats what I meant.
But sure, for example, the US has a history of wanting to set up certain international organizations like the UN, which would, I believe, fall under the idealist IR theory. At the same time the US set up the UN, the cold war had already started, and the US pursued a rather realist approach towards the Soviet block. NATO can be seen from both Idealism/liberalism and realism.
For what? That IR theories are not mutually exclusive? They are theories, that means they look at something from a certain point of view. That view is however, not all encompassing, leaving room for multiple theories to be there at the same time. All that you can debate about is which theory is more important at a certain moment. Or as it is said on wikipedia "Ole Holsti describes international relations theories act as a pair of coloured sunglasses, allowing the wearer to see only the salient events relevant to the theory." Sure, for someone who calls himself a realist and believes realism is the only way, then yes, it is mutually exclusive. If you look at it from a more distant view, you will see that a country can be both realist and liberal at the same time. Thats what I meant.
But sure, for example, the US has a history of wanting to set up certain international organizations like the UN, which would, I believe, fall under the idealist IR theory. At the same time the US set up the UN, the cold war had already started, and the US pursued a rather realist approach towards the Soviet block. NATO can be seen from both Idealism/liberalism and realism.
[quote name='Kaze Araki']I'm asking for your "mostly" evidences.[/QUOTE]
Well, the budget the US spends on its military, their attempt of the installation of a rocket shield in Europe, its support of dictators in the Middle East as long as they 'help' the US in achieving some of its foreign policy goals are just some examples of their rather realist approach. And historically speaking, the US fought to cold war in pretty realist ways. MAD, detente, etc are realist policies.
Though technically not as important within realist theories, the fact that for example, the US has no problem doing business with China, and given them the 'most favored nation' status, despite the US objecting against China's human right violations.
And look at the way the US is handling the democratization wave in the Middle East. They are far from happy, because they fear instability. They werent even willing at first to help in Libya because technically, that was against some foreign policy goal and it might give hope and motivation to other revolutionaries in other Middle Eastern countries who would then go against US supported dictators.
Well, the budget the US spends on its military, their attempt of the installation of a rocket shield in Europe, its support of dictators in the Middle East as long as they 'help' the US in achieving some of its foreign policy goals are just some examples of their rather realist approach. And historically speaking, the US fought to cold war in pretty realist ways. MAD, detente, etc are realist policies.
Though technically not as important within realist theories, the fact that for example, the US has no problem doing business with China, and given them the 'most favored nation' status, despite the US objecting against China's human right violations.
And look at the way the US is handling the democratization wave in the Middle East. They are far from happy, because they fear instability. They werent even willing at first to help in Libya because technically, that was against some foreign policy goal and it might give hope and motivation to other revolutionaries in other Middle Eastern countries who would then go against US supported dictators.
[quote name='Bloodrazor']D: troll attempt not even looked at?[/QUOTE]
I'll made one for Blood Chan tomorrow.
http://s3.postimage.org/7pfucksiq/Aker_Chan.gif
I'll made one for Blood Chan tomorrow.
http://s3.postimage.org/7pfucksiq/Aker_Chan.gif
[quote name='Kaze Araki']I'm not asking for an opinion.[/QUOTE]
Thats not an opinion.The things I just said are things realists would focus on. Realists for example, focus on the defensive/military assets a state has. America has one of the biggest armies in the world. They wouldnt have the biggest army in the world if they didnt think the army was so important. So, it points to realist thinking. Thats not an opinion.
Realist also focus on making deals/treaties, with other countries as long as it serves your needs. Dont believe me, take a good look at what Bismarck did, and hes generally regarded to be a realist to the core. America does this, as they will be allies with anyone that supports them, even if these people are not democratically elected. Thats not an opinion, thats common knowledge for anyone who reads the paper.
MAD and detente are both policies aiming at preserving the Balance of Power. Another thing realists just love. Everything always was about the Balance of Power, and America is constantly busy with trying to maintain the Balance of Power. Again, not an opinion, but common knowledge for everyone who reads the paper.
Thats not an opinion.The things I just said are things realists would focus on. Realists for example, focus on the defensive/military assets a state has. America has one of the biggest armies in the world. They wouldnt have the biggest army in the world if they didnt think the army was so important. So, it points to realist thinking. Thats not an opinion.
Realist also focus on making deals/treaties, with other countries as long as it serves your needs. Dont believe me, take a good look at what Bismarck did, and hes generally regarded to be a realist to the core. America does this, as they will be allies with anyone that supports them, even if these people are not democratically elected. Thats not an opinion, thats common knowledge for anyone who reads the paper.
MAD and detente are both policies aiming at preserving the Balance of Power. Another thing realists just love. Everything always was about the Balance of Power, and America is constantly busy with trying to maintain the Balance of Power. Again, not an opinion, but common knowledge for everyone who reads the paper.
Michael F. Scheuer
Former CIA intelligence officer.
Adjunct professor at Georgetown University's Center for Peace and Security Studies.
Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (1996-1999).
Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004.
If possible, America's relationship with Israel must be restructured to not only maintain America's ties to an associate of long-standing, but also to emphasize that the United States is the great power, that Israel is a minor power, and that America has neither scrapped its dedication to evenhandedness nor placed its national security in the hands of a minor power. For America's security and its own, Israel should help foment this debate. It is in neither nation's interest to delay debate until Americans have begun to evaluate their relationship with Israel through a lens ever more heavily smeared with the blood of their sons and daughters.
Toward a Sensible Israel Policy
Source: http://antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=5281
Former CIA intelligence officer.
Adjunct professor at Georgetown University's Center for Peace and Security Studies.
Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (1996-1999).
Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004.
If possible, America's relationship with Israel must be restructured to not only maintain America's ties to an associate of long-standing, but also to emphasize that the United States is the great power, that Israel is a minor power, and that America has neither scrapped its dedication to evenhandedness nor placed its national security in the hands of a minor power. For America's security and its own, Israel should help foment this debate. It is in neither nation's interest to delay debate until Americans have begun to evaluate their relationship with Israel through a lens ever more heavily smeared with the blood of their sons and daughters.
Toward a Sensible Israel Policy
Source: http://antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=5281
[quote name='Kaze Araki']Michael F. Scheuer
Former CIA intelligence officer.
Adjunct professor at Georgetown University's Center for Peace and Security Studies.
Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (1996-1999).
Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004.
If possible, America's relationship with Israel must be restructured to not only maintain America's ties to an associate of long-standing, but also to emphasize that the United States is the great power, that Israel is a minor power, and that America has neither scrapped its dedication to evenhandedness nor placed its national security in the hands of a minor power. For America's security and its own, Israel should help foment this debate. It is in neither nation's interest to delay debate until Americans have begun to evaluate their relationship with Israel through a lens ever more heavily smeared with the blood of their sons and daughters.
Toward a Sensible Israel Policy
Source: http://antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=5281[/QUOTE]
Which says absolutely nothing about general American foreign policy, or the idea that its in general based on a realistic approach to International Relations. It only says that in regards to Israel, their approach is not realistic.
In fact, due to the emphasis that source places on national security, you can say that what he is suggesting is also realistic.
Former CIA intelligence officer.
Adjunct professor at Georgetown University's Center for Peace and Security Studies.
Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (1996-1999).
Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004.
If possible, America's relationship with Israel must be restructured to not only maintain America's ties to an associate of long-standing, but also to emphasize that the United States is the great power, that Israel is a minor power, and that America has neither scrapped its dedication to evenhandedness nor placed its national security in the hands of a minor power. For America's security and its own, Israel should help foment this debate. It is in neither nation's interest to delay debate until Americans have begun to evaluate their relationship with Israel through a lens ever more heavily smeared with the blood of their sons and daughters.
Toward a Sensible Israel Policy
Source: http://antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=5281[/QUOTE]
Which says absolutely nothing about general American foreign policy, or the idea that its in general based on a realistic approach to International Relations. It only says that in regards to Israel, their approach is not realistic.
In fact, due to the emphasis that source places on national security, you can say that what he is suggesting is also realistic.
I was responding to this incorrect claim;
...its support of dictators in the Middle East as long as they 'help' the US in achieving some of its foreign policy goals are just some examples of their rather realist approach...
Truth to be told, American foreign policy in the Middle East is fully dictated by Israel and I can cite many evidences for this (Mearsheirmer and Walt being one of them). But I concede though, the academic sources that I cited are by no means equal to your "common knowledge for everyone who reads the paper" sources (whatever they suppose to mean).
...its support of dictators in the Middle East as long as they 'help' the US in achieving some of its foreign policy goals are just some examples of their rather realist approach...
Truth to be told, American foreign policy in the Middle East is fully dictated by Israel and I can cite many evidences for this (Mearsheirmer and Walt being one of them). But I concede though, the academic sources that I cited are by no means equal to your "common knowledge for everyone who reads the paper" sources (whatever they suppose to mean).
[quote name='Kaze Araki']I was responding to this incorrect claim;
...its support of dictators in the Middle East as long as they 'help' the US in achieving some of its foreign policy goals are just some examples of their rather realist approach...
Truth to be told, American foreign policy in the Middle East is fully dictated by Israel and I can cite many evidences for this (Mearsheirmer and Walt being one of them). But I concede though, the academic sources that I cited are by no means equal to your "common knowledge for everyone who reads the paper" sources (whatever they suppose to mean).[/QUOTE]
Oh, are you then saying that America does not in fact support a whole bunch of Arab dictators? I suppose all the papers in the world were wrong when they said that America was not pleased at all with the Egyptian revolution as Mubarak was an ally of America. And I also suppose that America never supported the Shah and Saddam Hussein back in the days, and never provided them with weapons. And I suppose the papers were also wrong when they said that America was worried about the situation in Jemen as the current government there is also an ally in the war against terror.
Face it, America has a track record of allying the worst scum if it suits their needs, back in the cold war all you had to be was anti communist to get America's support, these days you have to root out Muslim extremists to get it. That is common knowledge.
Oh btw, if you do want sources, read Joris Luyendijk book Hello Everybody, One journalists search for truth in the Middle East.
Or this one
http://jeffreyfields.net/pols/Democracy doesn't flow from the barrel of a gun.pdf
First alinea
...its support of dictators in the Middle East as long as they 'help' the US in achieving some of its foreign policy goals are just some examples of their rather realist approach...
Truth to be told, American foreign policy in the Middle East is fully dictated by Israel and I can cite many evidences for this (Mearsheirmer and Walt being one of them). But I concede though, the academic sources that I cited are by no means equal to your "common knowledge for everyone who reads the paper" sources (whatever they suppose to mean).[/QUOTE]
Oh, are you then saying that America does not in fact support a whole bunch of Arab dictators? I suppose all the papers in the world were wrong when they said that America was not pleased at all with the Egyptian revolution as Mubarak was an ally of America. And I also suppose that America never supported the Shah and Saddam Hussein back in the days, and never provided them with weapons. And I suppose the papers were also wrong when they said that America was worried about the situation in Jemen as the current government there is also an ally in the war against terror.
Face it, America has a track record of allying the worst scum if it suits their needs, back in the cold war all you had to be was anti communist to get America's support, these days you have to root out Muslim extremists to get it. That is common knowledge.
Oh btw, if you do want sources, read Joris Luyendijk book Hello Everybody, One journalists search for truth in the Middle East.
Or this one
http://jeffreyfields.net/pols/Democracy doesn't flow from the barrel of a gun.pdf
First alinea
Please do cite that papers you alleged.
Furthermore, you're confusing things yet again, American support for the Middle East dictators are indeed beneficial for both Israel and the U.S, but notice - such policy must not be detrimental to Israel before America can pursue them. The argument made by people left and right, from Noam Chomsky to Ron Paul is that American Middle East policy prioritize Israel first and America second.
Furthermore, you're confusing things yet again, American support for the Middle East dictators are indeed beneficial for both Israel and the U.S, but notice - such policy must not be detrimental to Israel before America can pursue them. The argument made by people left and right, from Noam Chomsky to Ron Paul is that American Middle East policy prioritize Israel first and America second.
[quote name='Kaze Araki']Please do cite that papers you alleged.
Furthermore, you're confusing things yet again, American support for the Middle East dictators are indeed beneficial for both Israel and the U.S, but notice - such policy must not be detrimental to Israel before America can pursue them. The argument made by people left and right, from Noam Chomsky to Ron Paul is that American Middle East policy prioritize Israel first and America second.[/QUOTE]
That doesnt make it any less realist. Stupid, yes, however, still realist.
And even then, Israel and the middle east is just one part of the American foreign policy.
And Id cite you the news papers but A) I doubt you can read Dutch and B) I dont keep them around. And to get access to them online requires me to pay money.
Oh, more papers: http://criticalglobalisation.com/Issue4/127_137_EGYPT_REALISM_JCGS4.pdf
Furthermore, you're confusing things yet again, American support for the Middle East dictators are indeed beneficial for both Israel and the U.S, but notice - such policy must not be detrimental to Israel before America can pursue them. The argument made by people left and right, from Noam Chomsky to Ron Paul is that American Middle East policy prioritize Israel first and America second.[/QUOTE]
That doesnt make it any less realist. Stupid, yes, however, still realist.
And even then, Israel and the middle east is just one part of the American foreign policy.
And Id cite you the news papers but A) I doubt you can read Dutch and B) I dont keep them around. And to get access to them online requires me to pay money.
Oh, more papers: http://criticalglobalisation.com/Issue4/127_137_EGYPT_REALISM_JCGS4.pdf
[quote name=''[lexus'];90493']That doesnt make it any less realist. Stupid, yes, however, still realist.[/QUOTE]
Again, the evidences are overwhelming.
For example; despite the fact that Israel is first world nation, the U.S. annual monetary support for Israel makes her monetary support for Egypt looks like a peanut. This is despite the fact that whenever a Middle East crisis happens that involved the U.S., Israel cannot really help her either. Israel cannot enter the battle in Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya without offending other U.S. allies.
[quote name=''[lexus'];90493']And even then, Israel and the middle east is just one part of the American foreign policy.[/QUOTE]
With monetary support roughly around $3 billion - $3 trillion annually (incomparable to anything ever recorded in history), it is safe to say that Israel's interest is America's major policy in the Middle East.
[quote name=''[lexus'];90493']And Id cite you the news papers but A) I doubt you can read Dutch and B) I dont keep them around. And to get access to them online requires me to pay money.[/QUOTE]
How this source support your claim is beyond me. Furthermore, one need only to look back at the people who drummed the Iraq war in order to find out the real culprits.
Again, the evidences are overwhelming.
For example; despite the fact that Israel is first world nation, the U.S. annual monetary support for Israel makes her monetary support for Egypt looks like a peanut. This is despite the fact that whenever a Middle East crisis happens that involved the U.S., Israel cannot really help her either. Israel cannot enter the battle in Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya without offending other U.S. allies.
[quote name=''[lexus'];90493']And even then, Israel and the middle east is just one part of the American foreign policy.[/QUOTE]
With monetary support roughly around $3 billion - $3 trillion annually (incomparable to anything ever recorded in history), it is safe to say that Israel's interest is America's major policy in the Middle East.
[quote name=''[lexus'];90493']And Id cite you the news papers but A) I doubt you can read Dutch and B) I dont keep them around. And to get access to them online requires me to pay money.[/QUOTE]
How this source support your claim is beyond me. Furthermore, one need only to look back at the people who drummed the Iraq war in order to find out the real culprits.
[quote name='Kaze Araki']Again, the evidences are overwhelming.
For example; despite the fact that Israel is first world nation, the U.S. annual monetary support for Israel makes her monetary support for Egypt looks like a peanut. This is despite the fact that whenever a Middle East crisis happens that involved the U.S., Israel cannot really help her either. Israel cannot enter the battle in Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya without offending other U.S. allies.
With monetary support roughly around $3 billion - $3 trillion annually (incomparable to anything ever recorded in history), it is safe to say that Israel's interest is America's major policy in the Middle East.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but the world does not consist of just the Middle East and America. The Israel policy might be based on some other IR theory, it says nothing about all the other foreign policies America has. Like I said, a foreign policy is almost never exclusively realist or something these days. Yes, its an important policy, but far from the only.
And America doesnt only support those dictators because Isreal tells them too. Those dictators generally embody certain American interests as well.
For example; despite the fact that Israel is first world nation, the U.S. annual monetary support for Israel makes her monetary support for Egypt looks like a peanut. This is despite the fact that whenever a Middle East crisis happens that involved the U.S., Israel cannot really help her either. Israel cannot enter the battle in Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya without offending other U.S. allies.
With monetary support roughly around $3 billion - $3 trillion annually (incomparable to anything ever recorded in history), it is safe to say that Israel's interest is America's major policy in the Middle East.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but the world does not consist of just the Middle East and America. The Israel policy might be based on some other IR theory, it says nothing about all the other foreign policies America has. Like I said, a foreign policy is almost never exclusively realist or something these days. Yes, its an important policy, but far from the only.
And America doesnt only support those dictators because Isreal tells them too. Those dictators generally embody certain American interests as well.
You're confusing things for the X times.
1. I was refuting your specific claim;
...its support of dictators in the Middle East as long as they 'help' the US in achieving some of its foreign policy goals are just some examples of their rather realist approach...
by pointing out that American's policy in the Middle East is Israel first, America second. Not only that it is stupid, it is also unrealistic.
2. Just because the policy is Israel first - America second, it doesn't imply that America doesn't get any benefit from such policy. The crux of the matter however, remain the same; American's policy in the Middle East is unrealistic. And this notion are supported by overwhelming evidences (put forth by Realist scholars such as Mearsheimer, Walt and Scheuer).
3. I'm not refuting any of your other vague opinions because it is hard to pin them down into the specifics. However, within your "mostly realist" claim, your opinion are clearly false when you included American's Middle East policy within it.
1. I was refuting your specific claim;
...its support of dictators in the Middle East as long as they 'help' the US in achieving some of its foreign policy goals are just some examples of their rather realist approach...
by pointing out that American's policy in the Middle East is Israel first, America second. Not only that it is stupid, it is also unrealistic.
2. Just because the policy is Israel first - America second, it doesn't imply that America doesn't get any benefit from such policy. The crux of the matter however, remain the same; American's policy in the Middle East is unrealistic. And this notion are supported by overwhelming evidences (put forth by Realist scholars such as Mearsheimer, Walt and Scheuer).
3. I'm not refuting any of your other vague opinions because it is hard to pin them down into the specifics. However, within your "mostly realist" claim, your opinion are clearly false when you included American's Middle East policy within it.
The word justice is a term that carries with it a certain subjectivity. This subjectivity can either apply to the group/nation that is defining justice or the person that is defining it. For example, a country ruled by Sharia law ultimately has a very different definition of the word justice than the developed world.
In addition, justice can be very subjective among individuals. To some, the death penalty may seem like a good way to deal with heinous criminals. To others, the death penalty is the very epitome of barbarism.
That being said, there is a general essence of justice that can be defined as ensuring that those who commit "evil" actions are punished in an orderly and fair fashion.
In addition, justice can be very subjective among individuals. To some, the death penalty may seem like a good way to deal with heinous criminals. To others, the death penalty is the very epitome of barbarism.
That being said, there is a general essence of justice that can be defined as ensuring that those who commit "evil" actions are punished in an orderly and fair fashion.
[quote name='Kaze Araki']You're confusing things for the X times.
1. I was refuting your specific claim;
...its support of dictators in the Middle East as long as they 'help' the US in achieving some of its foreign policy goals are just some examples of their rather realist approach...
by pointing out that American's policy in the Middle East is Israel first, America second. Not only that it is stupid, it is also unrealistic.
2. Just because the policy is Israel first - America second, it doesn't imply that America doesn't get any benefit from such policy. The crux of the matter however, remain the same; American's policy in the Middle East is unrealistic. And this notion are supported by overwhelming evidences (put forth by Realist scholars such as Mearsheimer, Walt and Scheuer).
3. I'm not refuting any of your other vague opinions because it is hard to pin them down into the specifics. However, within your "mostly realist" claim, your opinion are clearly false when you included American's Middle East policy within it.[/QUOTE]
What the hell is unrealistic? If something isnt Realist, then it has to be something else, like Liberal or Neo Realist or Neo Liberal or Neo Conservative or some other IR theory. A specific policy cant just be 'nothing'.
And your Mearsheimer book seemed to have attracted a lot of criticism from both scholars to government officials, on both the original paper as well as the book saying they have been misquoting, vastly overestimating the Israel lobby, leaving out contradicting evidence, and a whole bunch of other criticism that make me doubt the value of this book. The fact that one of the people endorsing it is Osama Bin Laden doesnt exactly help either.
As for your CIA source, well, he never stated that the Israel lobby dictates the entire US policy in the Middle East. He just said that America's one sided approach to Israel is a grievance that promotes extremism and terrorism in the Middle East.
To be clear though, Im not saying that the Israel lobby isnt powerful and that the Israel policy isnt negatively impacting US interests in the Middle East, Im just saying that it A) doesnt dictate all or most of the US policy in the Middle East and B) the Israel lobby is powerful, but not that powerful, and most certainly not the only relevant or powerful lobby group with interests in the Middle East. Big Oil companies, the Saudi's, etc also have big interests there and Im quite sure they also dictate a great part of the US foreign policy in regards to the Middle East.
Source: Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy
On a separate note, maybe this topic about Isreal and American foreign policy and all the IR theories deserve their own threads, instead of that we continue to keep derailing this one.
1. I was refuting your specific claim;
...its support of dictators in the Middle East as long as they 'help' the US in achieving some of its foreign policy goals are just some examples of their rather realist approach...
by pointing out that American's policy in the Middle East is Israel first, America second. Not only that it is stupid, it is also unrealistic.
2. Just because the policy is Israel first - America second, it doesn't imply that America doesn't get any benefit from such policy. The crux of the matter however, remain the same; American's policy in the Middle East is unrealistic. And this notion are supported by overwhelming evidences (put forth by Realist scholars such as Mearsheimer, Walt and Scheuer).
3. I'm not refuting any of your other vague opinions because it is hard to pin them down into the specifics. However, within your "mostly realist" claim, your opinion are clearly false when you included American's Middle East policy within it.[/QUOTE]
What the hell is unrealistic? If something isnt Realist, then it has to be something else, like Liberal or Neo Realist or Neo Liberal or Neo Conservative or some other IR theory. A specific policy cant just be 'nothing'.
And your Mearsheimer book seemed to have attracted a lot of criticism from both scholars to government officials, on both the original paper as well as the book saying they have been misquoting, vastly overestimating the Israel lobby, leaving out contradicting evidence, and a whole bunch of other criticism that make me doubt the value of this book. The fact that one of the people endorsing it is Osama Bin Laden doesnt exactly help either.
As for your CIA source, well, he never stated that the Israel lobby dictates the entire US policy in the Middle East. He just said that America's one sided approach to Israel is a grievance that promotes extremism and terrorism in the Middle East.
To be clear though, Im not saying that the Israel lobby isnt powerful and that the Israel policy isnt negatively impacting US interests in the Middle East, Im just saying that it A) doesnt dictate all or most of the US policy in the Middle East and B) the Israel lobby is powerful, but not that powerful, and most certainly not the only relevant or powerful lobby group with interests in the Middle East. Big Oil companies, the Saudi's, etc also have big interests there and Im quite sure they also dictate a great part of the US foreign policy in regards to the Middle East.
Source: Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy
On a separate note, maybe this topic about Isreal and American foreign policy and all the IR theories deserve their own threads, instead of that we continue to keep derailing this one.
And how does our former anti-Soviet bulwark help us in the post-Cold War era? Reportedly it sells the technology we supply to Russia, China, and other of America's great "friends." It suborns U.S. citizens to commit espionage against their country on Israel's behalf. It corrupts U.S. domestic politics and elections via AIPAC and other organizations. It deliberately alienates and provokes the growing American Muslim community by inviting prominent Jewish-Americans -- including the mayor of New York -- to come to Israel and cheer on its invasion of Gaza and the Muslim casualties it has produced. And how does America reward this sterling ally-like behavior? The president-elect makes his chief-of- staff a U.S. citizen who abandoned the United States during the 1991 Iraq war to serve with the IDF. Seems to me that if America had a few more allies like Israel we would be well and truly sunk.
Parenthetically, I am delighted that I will not be the CIA officer who has to brief soon-to-be-president Obama every morning with an IDF veteran listening to America's most important secret data. After such an experience, how would you ever pass the polygraph
By Michael F. Scheuer
Adjunct Professor of Security Studies, Georgetown University
Source: http://security.nationaljournal.com/2009/01/is-israel-a-strategic-liability-for-the-us.php#1215145
[quote name=''[lexus'];91259']Source: Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy[/QUOTE]
I admit defeat, all my scholarly sources fails in comparison to your Wikipedia.
Parenthetically, I am delighted that I will not be the CIA officer who has to brief soon-to-be-president Obama every morning with an IDF veteran listening to America's most important secret data. After such an experience, how would you ever pass the polygraph
By Michael F. Scheuer
Adjunct Professor of Security Studies, Georgetown University
Source: http://security.nationaljournal.com/2009/01/is-israel-a-strategic-liability-for-the-us.php#1215145
[quote name=''[lexus'];91259']Source: Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy[/QUOTE]
I admit defeat, all my scholarly sources fails in comparison to your Wikipedia.
- Status