Trump may come out of this latest Kurd debacle smelling like a rose

Israel was closer to the Soviets and Europeans than the Americans until the 1960s. And it is nonsensical polemics and propaganda that you and other Israel partisans spew that has led America to where it is. Israel hasn't just ruined America's foreign policy, but it has corrupted (almost beyond repair) America's domestic politics as well.

That is, indeed, the right question. And if its answers are guided by the truth, not lies, America might get things right after all.

For me, America winning means America itself becoming a bastion of true enlightenment, guided by truth, reason and beauty and fighting against falsehood, dogma (of any kind) and ugliness. It needs to become that bastion at home and in its practices.

To become that bastion, America needs to stop subsidizing inefficient and corrupt practices at home, relying too much on the international Ponzi scheme built on the US dollar, and instead begin encouraging the kind of values that make for productive and enlightened citizens. (Neither Trump's protectionism nor neo-liberal Ponzi scheme fraud will challenge Americans to be great again). To test different approaches, and to make sure there is never a monopoly by any ideology or claim to any 'truths', America should go back to the vision of its founders and have a system where its federal government will truly become a government of "limited and enumerated powers". (That means some of what conservatives want, but also some of what they fight against, as New York, Idaho and Alabama don't need to be following the same scripts). The states should be given the right and responsibility to choose their own social and economic system, with only a very few areas of federal entanglement and interference, tied together mainly for the purpose of protecting the United States itself from any actual foreign threats and providing its people a common market.

In its international affairs, America -- built by immigrants from all over the world and open to the best of them regardless of race or religion or nationality who are willing to stand their turn to join in what it offers -- would need to be the opposite of an empire. It should be a state that hosts the UN but as a genuine, neutral, arbiter. A superpower with the attitude associated (rightly or wrongly) to the Swiss. (Something like what true isolationist want, but without the "pro Israel" corruption which makes for an exception that takes over the rule!).

That would be America winning in my eyes, although it will involve a lot of short term pain.

In all this, there is some truth in the conservative messages including by Trump, but ultimately the truth that exists is buried under even bigger lies.

Liars and lies are the first enemy of the US and those who perpetuate them are the biggest enemies of all. The truth should be allowed to be told without censure and regardless of whose ideology and whose beliefs are helped or hurt by the process. Except finding the 'truth' is never a purely 'democratic' exercise. You no more can trust quacks to dispense medical advise than you can trust the same dispensing advice in any field that requires expertise and knowledge. In this, America needs to also begin making sure its institutions designed to give its own version of Platonic guardians (whether the Supreme Court or its academia) and those meant to connect the voices of that academia, its government and its people (the media), aren't corrupted as they have been. In this, especially, Trump has been fighting "fake news" supposedly, when in fact he is fighting 'propaganda news' with 'fake news' himself. And he is simply following the footsteps of the lobbyists you promote.

 

That may be what you've been taught but it's nonsense.

An interesting Iranian perspective.

 

A lame response to a complex question ... If I do say so myself What is nonsense is abject denial and dismissal of reality.

Our relationship with Israel has had an impact on our foreign policy - and corrupted it in many ways.

 

Previous

 

Syria is taking care of it.
The Neocon wet dream of Syrian regime change is over

 

That's a good question. Do they want to go to war against Turkey? I can't figure out a coherent foreign policy from the establishment types. All they seem to be doing is emoting.

 

Dirty Donald and the right wing may think his **** doesn't stink,but his fart gives him away!!!

 

That and political gamesmanship. Both the Russians and the US were have been urging the Kurds to work with Damascus for some time. This is the only logical path going forward - The Islamist Jihadist proxy army has been mostly defeated ... and this the sovereign territory of Syria - which at some point they will get back.

We were not the ones that defeated this proxy army - consisting mostly of ISIS/Al Qaeda - it was Syria/Russia/Iran that did this. Oddly enough -despite the nonsense claim "we are there to defeat ISIS" the only place where ISIS/Al Qaeda have a presence left is in the area we control.

The Turks stated directly to us "we are going in" - on this day and in this place.

What are we then to do.

1) Go to war with Turkey
2) Arm the Kurds like we did the radical Islamist proxy army fighting Assad
3) Have a few hundred of our soldiers fight with the Kurds (suicide mission)

Obviously none of the above.

4) Move our troops safely away from the conflict to drink coffee and watch from the sidelines. How then do we tell our soldiers to go back among the Kurds ...after they have lost wives, daughters, sons, husbands to the Turkish army - while we watched - and in their minds .. betrayed them ? Sounds like a recipe for PTSD.

5) Pull out and have the Kurds work with Damascus - and let Russia/Syria finish off what is left of Al Qaeda/ISIS.

 

What impact are you referring to?

Which truths do you find in this post?

The US has always been an ally of Israel but never any long term ally of any midEast country. How do you feel Israel has "ruined" US foreign policy? Do you agree that Israel has "corrupted (almost beyond repair) America's domestic politics as well"? If so, how so?

I feel what was posted was nonsense, the poster was a victim of local propaganda and the post not worthy of serious response but, of course, I could be wrong. Which points do you agree with? The poster is obviously Israel focussed and I feel this has distorted his reality.

 

Agreed. Obama pulling the troops from Iraq in December 2011 was the worst foreign policy blunder in the last 100 years. Millions of lives were lost as a consequence and the entire area, plus Europe, is now in chaos.

 

It was a fulfillment of the Bush timetable and at the request of the Iraq Parliament. Would you have stayed as an "occupation force?"

 

Notice I did not say "ruined" US foreign policy ... as I think this is off base. I do agree that it has corrupted US foreign policy in many ways.

Take for example - and this is one of many - the recent Golan issue - basically supporting the annexation of the sovereign territory of Syria.

We can trot out reasons for and against but .. what matters is what the UN has to say .. as that is the body charged with making this determination.

There are rules with respect to annexation - and Israel is violating those rules. So what then .. do we just throw out the rule book ? What kind of precedent does this set for other nations ... or do we continue to engage in "do as we say - not as we do" mantra that we have so often been guilty of on behalf of Israel.

I can get into numerous other examples but this "we stand by Israel - no matter what they do policy" is blind partisan nonsense -and a corruption to US foreign policy.

 

Israel is basically a socialist-theocracy. Normally, they are an ally, but there have been periods of "tension." The Israeli-U.K.-French seizure of the Suez Canal, during the Eisenhower administration was one. Another was the Obama administration, which was largely a reaction against the pro-Israeli neocons, who supported our Iraq invasion. The Israeli government initially recognized the "occupied territories," according to international law, as territory to be returned to the surrounding nations as part of a comprehensive peace treaty. For various reasons (internal and external), they abandoned this policy under Netanyahu and his center-right political coalition.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374531501

 

Yes, absolutely. Do you prefer what has happened in the area since December, 2011? There is no reason why Obama had to follow 'the Bush timetable" as you call it. Obama was the US President at the time, not George Bush.

Obama claims he ended the war in Iraq, not George Bush. Watch this if you can.

 

Have the book and have read it. It presents a strong argument, in terms of policy and national interests. However, there is nothing that legally prevents U.S. citizens with foreign attachments from lobbying for those attachments provided such lobbying is legal. And, I believe as the book points out, the "Israeli Lobby" certainly does not include ALL American-Jews. The Israeli political scene is as fragmented and polarized as our own.

 

You and I both know that the choice was between remaining with a significant residual force under Iraqi law, thus giving up our "occupier" status, which justified the UCMJ jurisdiction, or to have left on schedule. When the Iraqi Parliament refused to allow us to stay with that status, we left (subsequently returning primarily with air support, at the Iraqi request).

 

You don't need to tell me that the "Israel Lobby" does NOT include all American Jews. In fact, in the past two decades, the positions they have taken run counter to the positions of most American Jews!

 

While you're concerned about Israeli lobbying, a quite legal activity under the Constitution, other countries around the world do the same thing. Would you disallow Israeli lobbying? Saudi lobbying? What is your complaint? https://www.opensecrets.org/fara

 

Then why did Obama say he ended the war in Iraq and not George Bush? Why didn't Obama say he was forced to leave by the Iraqi parliament rather than saying it was his decision?

The troops should never have been removed. You've seen the disastrous consequences since that short sighted political decision was made. How can you defend it, or blame anyone else but the person who made the decision?

You didn't have the heart to watch the video, right?

 

The problem with lobbying on behalf of Israel, and why it has become a source of corruption, is that attacking that subject has been made 'taboo'. The minute anyone wants to talk about the subject, charges of anti-Semetism and ridiculous parallels to forgeries like the "Elders of Zion" are brought into the equation. The power accumulated as a result has become exceptionally destructive. More so, since the pro Israel lobby has actually developed relationships with other lobbies that have made American politics a revolving door for special interest influence.

 

I find "blame" (or a lack of willingness to negotiate a permanent peace) on both sides. Netanyahu's support tends to come from the religious right, who favor territorial expansion and, ironically, "living room." To sustain a non-Arab Jewish majority, they favored the annexation of the "occupied territories." The Palestinians, on the other hand, would lose a major "reason for being" if they ever reached a permanent two-state solution, and are consequently reluctant to negotiate. They also understand they hold a long-term demographic advantage, with the growth in the population of Israeli Arabs.

 

You're complaining now and nobody cares. It's not 'taboo' at all and no one ever issues a fatwa.

 

Many remember what happened to Anwar Sadat, the last serious Middle East leader.