I recently had an e-mail discussion with someone who is a contributor to americanthinker.com, which is almost as bad as townhall in its shrillness. I do not have permission to reprint the correspondance so I will just say that she/he indicated that the media, once again, was ignoring the "good news" from Iraq.
She indicated that she supports the troops but is against a draft, that the establishment of Israel was a "consolation gift" for the Holocaust and that the problem today is due to the simple fact that other Arab nations are somehow responsible for taking in the displaced Palestinians.
Among my responses:
I am not sure that my young nephew, who is a U.S. Marine, would have learned in school that the U.S. was once a supporter of Sadaam Hussein as well as other dictators and even terrorists, when it suited us. He certainly is not old enough to have done anything to contribute to the situation and I find it appalling that the people who did, will not acknowledge it.
Of course, I have no problem with my loved ones - I am also to be married to a Missouri National Guardsman who has served in Iraq - fulfilling their duty. I find the Republicans fervent opposition to a draft to be no different than the war protesters, both past and present, except that the war protesters don't want anyone to go while you people just don't want you to go.
Meanwhile, the Iraq war has diverted much attention and resources from the war in Afghanistan which you acknowledge has gotten worse and with the situation in Pakistan is more dire than ever. I fully supported that war but I am also aware of the continuing problem with women's rights as well as incidents like the recent death sentence for blasphemy of a reporter. "A young journalist in the north of Afghanistan faces the death penalty in what observers say is a well-orchestrated campaign of intimidation against the media."
The expectation of an American-style democracy in both Iraq and Afghanistan may not be entirely realistic. The mission should have been kept to hunting down Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.
As for my knowledge of history, I am not a scholar, but I have spent much time studying my religon and I have a special interest in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict because, to me, I just find it incredible that anyone could read the Bible and not wonder about all of that outright slaughter. Do you honestly consider a Palestinian life to be as valuable as an American life? An Iraqi?
Honestly, I have found William Dalrymple's comment about simple-minded bigots to be quite appropriate when considering the remarks made on right-wing blogs. I do not judge your comments to be honest or convincing.
----------------
Whatever. You go ahead and believe that you "support the troops." My local paper has reported - War? What war? - that the number of high-quality recruits has continually dropped since the Iraq war started.
The Bush administration is sending "strong signals" that the troop reductions will slow or stop altogether this summer (multiple tours - even longer than 15 months?) because the recent security improvements are "tenuous," and top U.S. commanders predict that the battle for Mosul will be a "grinding campaign" that will require more firepower from both the Pentagon and Iraqi allies.
That's OK, there is no limit to what you will ask of the troops.
--------------
Also, this from TIME:
(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. military isn't ready for a catastrophic attack on the country, and National Guard forces don't have the equipment or training they need for the job, according to a report.
Even fewer Army National Guard units are combat-ready today than were nearly a year ago when the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves determined that 88 percent of the units were not prepared for the fight, the panel says in a new report released Thursday.
The independent commission is charged by Congress to recommend changes in law and policy concerning the Guard and Reserves.
The commission's 400-page report concludes that the nation "does not have sufficient trained, ready forces available" to respond to a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons incident, "an appalling gap that places the nation and its citizens at greater risk."
"Right now we don't have the forces we need, we don't have them trained, we don't have the equipment," commission Chairman Arnold Punaro said in an interview with The Associated Press. "Even though there is a lot going on in this area, we need to do a lot more. ... There's a lot of things in the pipeline, but in the world we live in — you're either ready or you're not."
Showing posts with label Israeli/Palestinian Conflict. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israeli/Palestinian Conflict. Show all posts
Friday, February 1, 2008
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Palestinian Crisis Best Understood Under International Law
John B. Quigley, Presidents' Club Professor of Law
Quigley, John B., "International Law and the Palestinian Refugees," Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 2005
Steeped in emotion, history and religion, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is often thought of in the context of geopolitics and international negotiation. But in a recent symposium article, an Ohio State University Law professor argues that the conflict is best understood – and poses the greatest chance of ultimate resolution – in the context of international law.
Prof. John B. Quigley argues in a recent edition of the Hastings International and Comparative Law Review that under the established norms of international law, the Palestinian people have been unlawfully displaced and have a right to repatriation that is not able to be negotiated away through the international political process...
...“The displaced Palestinians should not have to lobby for their right of return vis-à-vis Israel or vis-à-vis the Palestinian leadership,” Quigley writes. “The right is guaranteed by human rights norms. Just as a state that tortures is obliged to desist without being cajoled and without negotiation, so a state that refuses to repatriate is obliged to desist, namely, by repatriating.”
Quigley, John B., "International Law and the Palestinian Refugees," Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 2005
Steeped in emotion, history and religion, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is often thought of in the context of geopolitics and international negotiation. But in a recent symposium article, an Ohio State University Law professor argues that the conflict is best understood – and poses the greatest chance of ultimate resolution – in the context of international law.
Prof. John B. Quigley argues in a recent edition of the Hastings International and Comparative Law Review that under the established norms of international law, the Palestinian people have been unlawfully displaced and have a right to repatriation that is not able to be negotiated away through the international political process...
...“The displaced Palestinians should not have to lobby for their right of return vis-à-vis Israel or vis-à-vis the Palestinian leadership,” Quigley writes. “The right is guaranteed by human rights norms. Just as a state that tortures is obliged to desist without being cajoled and without negotiation, so a state that refuses to repatriate is obliged to desist, namely, by repatriating.”
Re-Examine Foreign Policy - John B. Quigley
John B. Quigley, Presidents' Club Professor of Law
Quigley, John B., "Identifying the Origins of Anti-American Terrorism," Florida Law Review, 2006 (56 Fla. L. Rev. 1003)
The current “War on Terrorism” will fail unless the United States changes its policies in the Middle East, an Ohio State University Law Professor argues in the Florida Law Review.
“If terrorism is to be addressed rationally, its origins must be determined,” writes Prof. John Quigley of the Michael E. Moritz College of Law at the Ohio State University, an international human rights activist and an expert in international law. “Just as a physician cannot treat the patient without making a diagnosis, so with negative social phenomena, one must determine their origin before prescribing remedies or identifying appropriate actors to administer the remedies.” The cause of international terrorism, Quigley writes, is the history of heavy handed and self interested Western and, in particular, U.S. intervention in Middle Eastern affairs. The remedy is for the United States to change its policies in the Middle East and toward the Muslim world.
“To turn this situation around, the United States must promote serious negotiations over the Israeli-Palestinian question based on universally recognized principles,” Quigley writes. “More broadly, the United States must cease trying to micro-manage the Middle East to its political and economic advantage. It must promote a collaborative relationship that can be seen to reflect respect for the people of the area...”
"...“But in the Middle East, a perception developed that the United States was out to promote its own interests.” These anti-U.S. perceptions were further solidified by the continued one-sided U.S. backing of Israel and Cold War decisions to support causes like the Islamist revolutionary Mujahideen in Afghanistan, Quigley writes..."
Quigley, John B., "Identifying the Origins of Anti-American Terrorism," Florida Law Review, 2006 (56 Fla. L. Rev. 1003)
The current “War on Terrorism” will fail unless the United States changes its policies in the Middle East, an Ohio State University Law Professor argues in the Florida Law Review.
“If terrorism is to be addressed rationally, its origins must be determined,” writes Prof. John Quigley of the Michael E. Moritz College of Law at the Ohio State University, an international human rights activist and an expert in international law. “Just as a physician cannot treat the patient without making a diagnosis, so with negative social phenomena, one must determine their origin before prescribing remedies or identifying appropriate actors to administer the remedies.” The cause of international terrorism, Quigley writes, is the history of heavy handed and self interested Western and, in particular, U.S. intervention in Middle Eastern affairs. The remedy is for the United States to change its policies in the Middle East and toward the Muslim world.
“To turn this situation around, the United States must promote serious negotiations over the Israeli-Palestinian question based on universally recognized principles,” Quigley writes. “More broadly, the United States must cease trying to micro-manage the Middle East to its political and economic advantage. It must promote a collaborative relationship that can be seen to reflect respect for the people of the area...”
"...“But in the Middle East, a perception developed that the United States was out to promote its own interests.” These anti-U.S. perceptions were further solidified by the continued one-sided U.S. backing of Israel and Cold War decisions to support causes like the Islamist revolutionary Mujahideen in Afghanistan, Quigley writes..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
