Obama's Hamas and Iran policies define Incoherent
By wiseprince Posted in Archived — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
CrossPosted @ Voices in the Wilderness
Barack Obama seems to be a little confused in regards to his foreign policy vise a vie talking to "terrorist". He laid out, over the past few months, what amounts to the most inconsistent and incoherent policy as it relates to Iran. He has been, in recent weeks, condemning Hamas while constantly putting forward the idea of direct negotiations with Iran. That doesn't seem problematic until you add his other beliefs into the equation. He said in a recent speech condemning comments made by George Bush during a celebration of Israel's 60th anniversary of statehood that Iran was financially backing Hamas, and by proxy, its attacks against Israeli civilians.
Read on…
It must seem like a stretch to even the most hopeful of candidates that the financial backers of a terrorist group are not themselves terrorist.
Allow me to lay out the hypocrisy in plain view:
Obama said he would not negotiate with Hamas because they are a terrorist organization. He then suggests that negotiating with Iran is ok which of course begs to question, who has defined Hamas as a terrorist organization and Iran ok.
The reality is that it has been multiple American and Israeli administrations who have labeled Hamas a terrorist organization. The problem for Barack is: they have also labeled Iran a terrorist state.
So, if Barack is to keep his pledge to not negotiate with terrorist he will have to remove Iran from the terrorist state list (as well as removing the Iranian National Guard from the list of terror groups). Fair enough, but this again begs the question, if you can remove one group from the list in order to allow talks then why not remove both groups from the list?
The policy essentially consists of a few ideologically held positions that have all been joined together through various speeches and packaged as a policy. There does not appear to be any overall purpose to the policy. For example, the question of how Iran will use its new position in the world, as a fair broker (a position that will be granted to it from many anti American nations after the Iranian President has photo ops with the American President), to help Hamas in its cause is, of course, never addressed in Obama’s rhetoric.
It is clear that Barack Obama will bring change to the White House if he is elected. He will bring color where there was no color, he will bring more liberal policies and he will carry a liberal ideology. What won't change is the ineffectiveness of American foreign policy as it relates to Iran. If you had any doubt Obama's recent attempts at a coherent policy should have put those doubts to rest.
I have, for 8 years, been certain that the next President could not possibly be worst the George Bush but if Barack Obama’s promises become his policies (more than just his foreign policy promises) he may edge out Bush.
...to use you as an example: can anybody, ever, provide evidence to go with these KnownFacts™ about Israel as a "murderous, brutal, terrorist regime"? I provide evidence regarding the terrorism perpetrated against it every day.
Guess there's no need for the other side to meet the same standard; after all, they know the Truth
I suppose the state-sponsorship of terrorism and the 4-1 ratio of Palestinians to Israeli deaths doesn't constitute evidence? Perhaps you would like to discuss the 1967 bombing of the USS Liberty by Israel? The "Butcher" Sharon, Lebanon, 1982? The random slaughter of 50 Palestinians, to kill 3 "militant Islamics" (courtesy "MSM")? The US is hated and targeted because of our support for the Israeli terrorists, and because we must feed our oil addiction by invading foreign nations for geo-political reasons.
Hi jmk### good to see you again. Jeff will take care of you shortly.
Now also found at The Minority Report
...those Palestinian deaths are largely the result of their own actions -- including strapping bombs to themselves and pushing the button -- and their lack of infrastructure, like the dearth of water pipes in the Gaza strip, comes from the fact that the Palestinians there tear their own water pipes up to make rockets, which they fire into civilian Israeli towns.
Which country teaches hate on state TV, including teaching on children's programming that being a martyr that kills Jews is the highest place a person can attain? Which fires unguided rockets into civilian areas? Which has, after an "election," the winner (hamas) throw the loser (Fatah) off of the 10-story skyscrapers in the downtown Strip?
Which kidnaps civilians and soldiers? Which detonates bombs, strapped to people and filled with ball bearings to maim the maximum number of people, at bus stops, in discotheques, and in Sbarro restaurants?
One more: Where do Arabs and "palestinians" have a higher standard of living -- in Israel (where thousands still live and work) or in their own land?
Self-explanatory, my friend. I've got a whole lot more where that came from.
To paraphrase Jack Nicholson: You [messed] with the wrong Middle East expert, boy.
Just had some spare moments. I enjoy seeing you frothing Fascists get irate. I'll be sure to log back in after Obama wins in November and laugh at you. Have a wonderful night!
partly with anger, mostly with dementia. Us? We're just going about our daily lives like usual, which will be unchanged in the slightest by our contact with you.
In fact, we'll have forgotten you by the time this post scrolls off the page.
What? You wanted more? My, amazingly self-important, aren't we? At least somebody thinks you're worth it -- even if that somebody is you.
What would really be honest is if a US politician would get out of the bed with AIPAC, and have the courage to call out Israel for what it is: a murderous, brutal, terrorist regime, that the US supports, no less.