Comments Posted By bs jones
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 23 Comments
TERRORIST JEWS HALT THEIR BABY KILLING TO ALLOW HUMANITARIAN RELIEF OF THEIR ENEMIES
I have 2 faq type questions:
1) How can I quote another comment like Chuck Tuscon did in comment 19?
2) Why is the there a lag time between my submitting a comment and when it is actually posted?
Any help would be appreciated.
thanksTry left clicking and highlighting the section you want to quote and then copy and paste to the comment box. Highlight again and clickon "b-quote" above.
And I moderate all comments which means I look at them before posting just to make sure no one tries to slip in really bad obscenities or hate speech. There are times when I am busy and it takes several hours to get back and moderate the comments.
ed.
Comment Posted By bs jones On 8.01.2009 @ 14:16
THE REAL REASON ISRAEL IS ALLOWING HUMANITARIAN AID
Rightly or wrongly, Israel is getting much less popular support from average Americans.Some Americans believe that Israel is an aggressive terror state.
Some Americans believe the Israeli retaliation is "disproportionate".
Some Americans believe American interests are poorly served by this Israeli retaliation.Israeli leaders recognize this shift in American public opinion and it makes them nervous. Israel needs the support of its biggest and most loyal ally to survive in such a hostile neighborhood. In other words, Israel cannot afford to lose the public relations battle being waged over American popular opinion and survive. Without American support Israel would eventually have to compromise with the terrorists in the region.
To prevent the further erosion of American public opinion towards Israel they (Israeli leaders) have decided it is necessary to show their "humanitarian" side. This gesture is designed to prevent a further erosion of American public support for Israel and its current actions.
Comment Posted By bs jones On 7.01.2009 @ 19:36
PANETTA WILL HAVE OBAMA'S BACK AT CIA
obamathered,
The CIA failed to get bin Laden on Clinton's watch.
We got 9/11.The CIA failed to get bin Laden on W's watch.
When bin Laden attacks again on Obama's watch, W's CIA will bear some responsibility.The "Empty Suit in Chief" will share responsibility with W for this CIA failure.
Comment Posted By bs jones On 9.01.2009 @ 22:34
Rick,
You are right. Americans should not tolerate "the kind of nonsense that went on at the agency (CIA)..."We know Republicans in the White House have acknowledged that it was crappy intelligence that got us into Iraq. There was a massive pre-war intelligence failure. The CIA can and must do better. Therefore, WE SHOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY FROM THE INSIDE. The people on the inside are screw ups!!
Personally, I am worried about Panetta, but, I hope you are right about the Obama pick - that Panetta "is a good smart choice by Obama." We need a good choice to head this all important agency right now.
I am confused on one thing. Why are we still beating the drum over Brennan? The Democrat President makes his pick, (excluding people that his base thinks are unacceptable)and if the person nominated at the end of his deliberations is a good man everybody wins.
I think we would do (and have done) the same thing. Harriet Myers was withdrawn because she was not acceptable to the Republican base(us). This is how politics should work. Leaders should respond to their constituents demands in a democracy.
Finally, why would anyone listen to this Sheurer? Instead of complaining To the MSM, he should be out looking for Osama! In fact I believe this Scheurer should shut up, step aside, and let somebody competent go get bin Laden!
Rick, it's like you said, CIA needs reforming. I, for one, hope the Obama administration is up to the job. It is just too bad we don't have a competent Republican administration in the White House right now. One that we know could get the job done right.
Comment Posted By bs jones On 6.01.2009 @ 16:25
GLENN GREENWALD IS A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR
cdor,
Let me be clear. I think the Holocaust of 6 million European Jews is horrific. I do not want to see that Holocaust repeated in Israel. I do not believe "6 million dead Jews means we get oil."I do believe this:
America's strategic interests will not always be perfectly aligned with all of its allies all of the time.
When America's interests diverge from one of its allies, America should put its own interests ahead of its ally.
America's overwhelming strategic interest in the middle east is to ensure secure access to the oil there.
There may be a time when what's good for Israel is not what's good for America.
If that time comes, America should do what's good for America first, considering what's good for Israel second.
I do not think this "America first" position is radical or anti-semitic.
Comment Posted By Bs jones On 3.01.2009 @ 14:43
Jim Howard,
You are right and I am wrong about the attribution of the General Motors quote. After doing about a minute of online research, I found this:It was once famously said by General Motors' president Charles E. Wilson, "What's good for General Motors is good for America" -- one of the most repeated of modern quotations.
Thanks for the correction.
Comment Posted By Bs jones On 3.01.2009 @ 14:08
cdor,
I think it is great that Israel has produced so many Nobel prize winners. I am sure that Israeli Nobel prize winners have improved the knowledge and well being of mankind. I am not sure that it follows that it's in America's interests (as Kissinger defines it) to support Israel in order to ensure the 'flow' of Nobel prize winners.It may be in America's interest to use Israel to launch attacks on nations that oppose America's aims. However, many people feel using Israel directly in this way would produce enough 'blowback' to make the costs of such a stratagy to high. If I were to make a prediction, I would say President-elect Obama will be less vocal in his support/use than the current administration, but that remains to be seen.
Comment Posted By bs jones On 2.01.2009 @ 20:14
cdor,
For me, your first argument makes the most sense, but, I don't really agree that Israel's demise would bring Islamofacism one step closer to America.America has been attacked by its enemies in the past and will be attacked in the future by its enemies. I see that as a given. Yet,I don't see the threat from the Islamofacists in the context of a "domino theory". So I don't agree that Israel's defeat will bring Islamofacism one country closer to our door step.
My argument of how supporting Israel is in America's interest would be more like this:
It is in America's interests to ensure an uninterrupted supply of oil to America.
One way to achieve the flow of oil is to have a large military presence in the middle east.
The more countries in the middle east that America has a military presence in the safer the supply of oil will be.
Therefore, having a large 'proxy' military in Israel advances the American interest of keeping the supply of oil flowing to America.
The counter argument seems to be that the larger the American military presence in the middle east is, the larger the "blowback". The military presence in Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iraq, and Kuwait is actually slowing the oil supply rather than securing it.
Experience seems to indicate the counter argument to be false. So if we agree with Kissinger that America "only has interests", it may still be in our interests to support Israel.
All I am trying to say is that I can imagine a time where further support of Israel might not be in America's interests.
How would we know this? Our support of Israel would endanger the flow of oil.
Comment Posted By bs jones On 2.01.2009 @ 19:23
I just read the Greenwald piece linked in your Blog, and it left a question in my mind I can't answer. I know someone hear will clarify this for me.
Greenwald said many things. The thing that I thought was the most important, thought provoking and (to me) confusing was why does the American political class from both parties NEVER see American interests as different from Israeli interests?
I remember when Defense Secretary McNamara said, "What's good for General Motors IS good for America." Someone could argue that to be true. I do not believe it to be so true that a person does not have to lay out their evidence. Just insisting that it is self evident won't cut it.
The same should be true for "What's good for Israel IS good for America." It may sometimes be true, but is it Always true? As we discuss Israel's retaliation to Hamas, in addition to asking, "Is this good for Israel?" shouldn't we be asking,"How is this good for America and American interests?
America should always be self serving in its foreign policy. Henry Kissinger said, " America doesn't have friends, it only has interests." I agree.
Rick said, "As Israel’s biggest and best ally and virtual guarantor of their existence, of course we have an abiding interest in the conflict." I might agree with this, but how do America's interests suffer if Israel does not exist? How do American interests get furthered if Israel does exists? I do not immediately see that we have a dog in this fight.
In other words, if Palistine ceased to exist, I do not see how that would hurt American interests. Likewise if Israel ceased to exist I am do not see how that would hurt American interests.
I think American journalists and bloggers should be talking about how supporting Israel furthers American interests, NOT how supporting Israel advances Israeli interests. If we can not come up with a good argument as to how supporting Israel furthers American interests then maybe it is time to question the policy of being Israel's "biggest and best ally."
Comment Posted By bs jones On 2.01.2009 @ 16:13
<em>THE HOUSE</em> MAKES THE WEBLOG AWARD FINALS
I spent some time looking at all the blogs listed. In my mind this Blog is the best of the lot. You do a good job Rick Moran.
I was surprised by this part of your entry: "More brainpower among those gentlemen than the entire liberal side of the blogosphere. They deserve the recognition.
I hope I am not being too picky, but by attaching a slight to the 'liberal blogosphere' with the compliment to your friends at American Thinker I believe everyone involved (you and your friends) are slightly diminished. Wouldn't it have been more effective to compliment American Thinker without including the put down? Acknowledging that I am short does not make anyone taller.
Keep up the great work on this outstanding Blog.
Comment Posted By bs jones On 31.12.2008 @ 20:16
