Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Paul Craig Roberts, Nutbar

Back with another paranoid article, this time about how the Democrats might become part of the problem, because they aren't going to be tough enough on Bush.

Indeed, the prime cause of Muslim terrorism is the US interference in the internal affairs of Muslim countries and America's one-sided stance in favor of Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When Jimmy Carter was president, his even-handed approach made the US respected throughout the Muslim world. 9/11, if it was actually an act of Muslim terrorism, was the direct consequence of US one-sided meddling in Middle Eastern affairs.

When, and only when, the Democrats have erased the Bush administration's police state legislation from the books, thus restoring the Constitution, they should clear the air on two other issues of major importance. The Democrats must convene a commission of independent experts to investigate 9/11. The 9/11 Commission Report has too many problems and shortcomings to be believable.

Recent polls show that 36 percent of the American people do not believe the report. Such a deficient report is unacceptable. 9/11 became the excuse for the neoconservative Bush regime to launch illegal wars of aggression in the Middle East. The 9/11 Commission Report is nothing but a public relations justification for the "war on terror," which in truth is a war on American liberty. As long as politicians with a police state mentality can cling to the cover of the 9/11 Commission Report, the Bill of Rights will remain endangered.


Yep, that's right, a former Reagan Administration staffer praising Jimmy Carter's foreign policy. And apparently that respect we were getting from the Muslim world wasn't enough to prevent them from taking over our embassy in Tehran.

31 Comments:

At 15 November, 2006 16:04, Blogger shawn said...

Indeed, the prime cause of Muslim terrorism is the US interference in the internal affairs of Muslim countries and America's one-sided stance in favor of Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

How does he explain the Barbary pirates (the original Islamic terrorists)?

Back in those days, Jefferson knew how to kick some ass.

Imagine someone saying "the Axis parties are so antagonistic towards America because of our one-sided stance with Britain in the British-Nazi conflict".

Sorry, pal, we side with liberal democracies - not terrorist regimes.

 
At 15 November, 2006 16:21, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Nice of him to blame America, as a whole, and its attitude toward the middle east, as the cause of 9/11.

idiot.

TAM

 
At 15 November, 2006 18:27, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Well, I'm no fan of Paul Craig Roberts. Although he doesn't explicitly endorse the conspiracy theories here, I believe he has elsewhere. However, even nutjobs occasionally utter accurate statements and he is right that the U.S. tilts toward Israel. It didn't justify 9/11 but it does feed the Arab rage at America.

 
At 15 November, 2006 18:36, Blogger shawn said...

but it does feed the Arab rage at America.

Quite true, but that should be blamed on the Arabs and not America.

 
At 15 November, 2006 18:37, Blogger SFC B said...

Choosing to side with Israel over the bulk of the Arab world is like choosing to side with the guy who shoots someone invading his house over a psychopath with an AK who randomly firing into crowds.

Sure, they're both doing something that's bad, but one of the was provoked and threatened and probably won't go out seeking to do it again unless provoked, and the other is an effin psycho.

That he mentioned the words "Carter" and "successful foreign policy" in the same breath means someone should probably take his car keys.

 
At 15 November, 2006 19:00, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Well, with all due respect to the posters who followed me, there isn't any particular reason for Israel to put settlements on the West Bank. I have no illusions about the extremists on the Palestinian side, but putting the settlements in the WB virtually guarantees continued conflict.

 
At 15 November, 2006 19:01, Blogger James B. said...

Paul Craig Roberts is one of those far right libertarian types (like Morgan Reynolds and Alex Jones) who have gone completely off the reservation. They have taken a few legitimate concerns about the stresses of globalization and turned it into paranoid New World Order rants.

 
At 15 November, 2006 19:04, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Carter had some notable foreign policy accomplishments. The Panama Canal Treaties and Camp David Accords stand out. I'll admit things ended on the sour note (Iran) but he may come off looking better then W given the fiasco in Iraq.

 
At 15 November, 2006 19:05, Blogger ConsDemo said...

James, PCR is no libertarian. He is a uber trade protectionist and anti-immigration zealot (bordering on racist), no true libertarian would hold such views.

 
At 15 November, 2006 19:22, Blogger shawn said...

there isn't any particular reason for Israel to put settlements on the West Bank.

I do think they should withdraw, but they did the same in Gaza and they got a suicide bombing (the day after the finished forcing their own people out) and continued terrorism for their trouble. And that's ignoring that they did gain the territory in a war against forces trying to destroy them.

I'll admit things ended on the sour note (Iran) but he may come off looking better then W given the fiasco in Iraq.

Doubt it, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism can be linked to his pussyfooting about the Iranian revolution.

 
At 15 November, 2006 21:37, Blogger James B. said...

Well libertarian is perhaps the wrong word. There is a strong ultra right wing isolationist, protectionist. federalist/states rights, xenophobic sect. Pat Buchanan is one example, although not as extreme. I am not sure what the best term for them would be.

 
At 16 November, 2006 06:16, Blogger Manny said...

I am not sure what the best term for them would be.

Retard?

 
At 16 November, 2006 08:07, Blogger Alex said...

there isn't any particular reason for Israel to put settlements on the West Bank.

Thing is, there isn't any reason for them NOT to either.

When Israel gave the Sinai back to Egypt, they got peace. That was a worthwhile deal. On the other hand, when they try returning the West Bank or Gaza, they get MORE attacks rather than less. Right now those territories serve as a buffer zone to protect the majority of Israel. As long as Palestine can't promise peace, it's in Israels interest to maintain that buffer.

 
At 16 November, 2006 09:19, Blogger Jujigatami said...

Also, in the peace agreements with both Egypt and Jordan, Israel tried to give the territory back to the countries that it took it from.

Both refused.

 
At 16 November, 2006 10:41, Blogger Alex said...

Actually, to be fair, the Golan Heights were supposed to go to Syria, and the Sinai to Egypt. They didn't refuse, they just never got the offer. US diplomats were supposed to carry the message to Syria and Egypt, but weren't actually told to go do it. As a result, neither country ever got the offer. This was back in '67, before the Yom Kippur war.

As for the West Bank and Jordan, the deal was never finalized because Yitzhak Shamir wasn't happy with the terms, and Egypt eventually gave up on it.

So it's not quite accurate to say that the Arab states turned it down. But it is also important to note that neither the Gaza Strip nor the West Bank actually belonged to "Palestine" before they were captured by Israel. The West Bank belonged to Jordan, and the Gaza Strip to Egypt, yet for some strange reason nobody considered them to be "occupied Palestinian territory" until after Israel had captured them.

 
At 16 November, 2006 11:18, Blogger Jujigatami said...

Alex,

Your dates are a little wrong.

Sinai and the Golan weren't even captured UNTIL 67. The Yom Kippur war was in 73.

But yes, Moshe Dayan (and Levi Ashkol IIRC) offered Sinai and Golan. Whether the US ever carried the message is a subject of debate, but the offer was well known within Israel, so I personally find it quite hard to believe that Egypt and Syria didn't know about it.

But I was talking about Sadat and Begin (The Carter peace deal). Begin wanted to include the Gaza strip with the Sinai withdrawal (they were giving Sinai back to Egypt anyway). Egypt wouldn't take Gaza, even though it was formerly Egyptian territory.

As for Jordan, as I understand it, Shamir (I think) offered most all of the west bank back to Jordan (80% or so IIRC), but not the full 67 borders, and not Jerusalem. Jordan refused an offer that would have returned most all of the Palestinian towns and settlements.

Neither Egypt or Jordan wanted the headache.

 
At 16 November, 2006 12:10, Blogger Alex said...

Hrm I think you misread. I didn't mean to suggest that Yom Kippur was in '67, only that Israel attempted to give the land back in '67, pretty much as soon as they had captured it. Yom Kippur happened in '73 mainly (if I remember correctly) due to Jordan wanting to capture ALL of the west bank.

Thanks for the corrections otherwise though. It's good to meet someone who's actually bothered studying the history of the area, instead of just spouting off about "Israeli Apartheid".

 
At 16 November, 2006 12:20, Blogger Jujigatami said...

Yeah, I misread you.

I'm actually Israeli (well, my dad is from Israel, my mom is from Newark NJ.). I have an Israeli passport and all. Boy, I'm gonna get hell for posting that I'll bet.

The only thing that gets me hotter than 9/11 and holocaust deniers is Israel bashers.

Whenever I get in to an arguement with one (and that is a lot) I ask this simple question: "What country built the refugee camps in the West Bank or Gaza?

So far, not one has ever gotten it right.

 
At 16 November, 2006 12:44, Blogger Manny said...

I'm actually Israeli (well, my dad is from Israel, my mom is from Newark NJ.). I have an Israeli passport and all. Boy, I'm gonna get hell for posting that I'll bet.

But probably less than if you had posted that you were a New Jerseyite. ;)

 
At 16 November, 2006 13:08, Blogger Alex said...

Ah, so that was YOU dancing on that van....

I've never been to Israel and I'm definitely not Jewish, but seeing the psychotic rhetoric (at age 15) of some of the "free Palestine" crowd got me interested in it. Basically my thought process went something like this: "Either Israel is the next Nazi Germany, or these people are SERIOUSLY brainwashed". So I started studying it when I was still a teen...and after seeing the way that the world constantly discriminated against Israel I decided to learn as much as I could about it in order to try and defeat some of that ignorance. I suppose it's much the same as my motivation for arguing with Twoofers, although I actually find the anti-Israeli crowd even more distasteful.

I must say, though, that I also couldn't answer the question you've just posed. I've never come across the answer in the books or articles. I would assume that the answer is either "Israel" or "the UN", since I couldn't see any of the other nations in the area being very interested in building refugee camps. But since you specified that it was a nation, I'm guessing Israel? I tried researching it just now, but haven't had any luck.

 
At 16 November, 2006 13:39, Blogger Jujigatami said...

Alex,

Interesting post. Nice to hear.

The answer is actually easier than you would think.

Jordan built the refugee camps on the West Bank and Egypt on Gaza. They built them in 48.

Its a long story, but basically, in 48 when the UN gave Israel its mandate, the Arab countries attacked. But before they did (and during) they notified all arab residents of Israel to leave, and come to their countries so they could drive the jews in to the sea. Once the jews were driven in to the sea, they said, the arabs would return to their homes in Israel which would then be called Palestine.

So there was a mass exodus of "refugees" to the arab neighbors. Camps were built in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and I think a couple of others (I don't have the time to google it right now).

There was only one little problem with their plan. Israel won the war. They basically told the refugees that since they fled Israel, and sided with Israel's enemies, they were not welcome back. Arabs that stayed in Israel, and remained neutral or fought with the jews against the arab countries were and are considered full citizens of Israel, though they are a relatively powerless minority.

There is not one refugee camp that was built by Israel. Now thats not saying Israel is blameless in the refugee issue. Arab villages in Israel that were strongholds for anti Israel arabs were leveled by the Israeli army (I don't think it was called the IDF yet). And tensions between Arab and Jew were high. It was a tough time. My dad tells lots of stories about it that I found extremely boring when I was a kid, but now can't get enough of.

I was in Jordan in 99, and we drove by a refugee camp outside of Amman. This place looked like the absolute worst jail you could imagine. the people in there have been there since 1948! There are children born in the camps whose parents and grandparents were born on Jordanian soil! But they aren't given Jordanian citizenship, or even allowed to leave the camp.

There are camps just like that in the other arab countries too. If they wanted, they could give citizenship to those who were born on their soil, but that would end the Palestinian "refugee" problem.
Now yes, in theory, Israel could just give citizenship to residents in the West Bank and Gaza, but Israel never officially annexed those territories like they did with the Golan and Jerusalem (and arabs in Jerusalem are Israeli citizens), so officially Gaza and the West Bank aren't actually part of Israel. But remember the last post, Egypt and Jordan don't want them back.

 
At 16 November, 2006 13:40, Blogger Jujigatami said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 16 November, 2006 18:20, Blogger ConsDemo said...

James: "Pat Buchanan is one example, although not as extreme. I am not sure what the best term for them would be."

CD: Yeah, Buchanan is a fair analogy although Pat is not a Denier. A more global description might be "populist fringe". Populism is dishonest ideology that caters to multiple viewpoints. These same people that rail against "the government" and claim it killed its own citizens also expect it to EVERYTHING for them.

Shawn:"the rise of Islamic fundamentalism can be linked to his pussyfooting about the Iranian revolution."

CD: Yes, I've heard this claim before. Carter's big mistake was not closing the embassy when he admitted the Shah to the U.S. once the hostages were taken, his options were pretty limited (a rescue mission, which was tried) or some action that would have ended with them killed. Bush doesn't seem to be having better luck with Iran today.

 
At 16 November, 2006 18:27, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Alex, Israel didn't pull out of Gaza to placate the Palestinians (although they might have hoped it would). They were expending enormous resources to protect very few settlers.

The WB settlements are scattered all over and many don't provide any sort of a buffer. I don't see how they enhance Israel's security. Mos of them are there for religious reasons, as Menachem Begin once said, "we will never give up Judea and Samaria".

Ultimately, they need to pull out and have some international buffer zone in between for a period of time. Lebanon may be test case for this type of solution.

Finally, while I am happy to debate the Israel-Palestinian issue, my original point was our alliance with Israel makes its enemies ours and thus we shouldn't be surprised if we are targetted by Islamic militants.

This is what is so damn annoying about the fruitcakes, their ludicrous conspiracy theories crowd out the legitimate issues around U.S. policy in the region.

 
At 16 November, 2006 22:15, Blogger Alex said...

Thanks for the info Juji, some good stuff there. I was aware that the Arabs states advised Israels Arab population to leave while they destroyed the Jews - after all, the Israeli declaration of independence includes an appeal to those same Arabs to stay and build a free nation together. I was not, however, aware that refugee camps were build for those who left. In retrospect it seems only logical, but I hadn't thought about it until now.

Alex, Israel didn't pull out of Gaza to placate the Palestinians (although they might have hoped it would). They were expending enormous resources to protect very few settlers.

And they knew (or should have known) that they'd just end up having to return anyway. I don't see them being dumb enough to pull out just because it was getting expensive.

Ultimately, they need to pull out and have some international buffer zone in between for a period of time.

Yeah, that doesn't seem to be working out so good in Lebanon...

In fact, it rarely does anything these days, and would be particularly useless in the case of Palestine.

Finally, while I am happy to debate the Israel-Palestinian issue, my original point was our alliance with Israel makes its enemies ours and thus we shouldn't be surprised if we are targetted by Islamic militants.

Which is absolutely correct. Would you have bothered pointing out in, say, the early 1940's, that our alliance with england made us a target of the Germans and the Japanese?

 
At 18 November, 2006 05:56, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Alex, I think if you read the discussions among Israelis prior the Gaza pullout they did it for precisely that reason. It was beyond "expensive" they were having to deploy many troops to defend few settlers.

The WWII analogy doesn't hold. Japan didn't bomb Pearl Harbor because we were allied with the British and the British weren't setting up colonies in Japan.

 
At 18 November, 2006 09:30, Blogger Alex said...

No, you're right, the Japanese attacked because the US decided to stop selling them oil, and they were afraid that the US would try to stop them from invading the East Indies. In other words, the US opposed what the Japs were doing, and wanted to protect the nations that they planned to invade.

Just like these days the US opposes what the Islamists are doing, and wants to protect the countries they plan to invade/destroy.

Sure, there are differences, but your basic premise is irrelevant. Whether being allied with Israel creates enemies for the US or not should not even be a topic of discussion. What's important is the US motivation for that alliance. If the motives are valid, then the increased threat doesn't matter. You mentioning it is just a dirty trick to try and give your argument more legitimacy than it really has. Without it, your argument basically breaks down to "the US should not ally with Israel because Israel is evil". And one need only look at Israels neighbours to get some perspective on that.

 
At 18 November, 2006 16:36, Blogger ConsDemo said...

"Without it, your argument basically breaks down to "the US should not ally with Israel because Israel is evil"."

Alex, I have never made such a claim. Israel is simply another country, like countless others. I question America's slavish devotion to it which I think encourages its intrasigence on issues that help prolong the conflict. I do not claim that Israel is solely responsible for the conflict.

Our "alliance" with Israel is pretty much a one way street. I see what Israel, or more precisely, the Likudniks in Israel, get out of it. What America gets is much less clear.

 
At 19 November, 2006 12:38, Blogger Alex said...

Ah.

Well, when I was in highschool, I used to protect my friends little brother from bullies all the time.

What he got out of it was pretty clear. What I got out of it, not so much.

 
At 19 November, 2006 14:10, Blogger ConsDemo said...

You are free to believe Israel is always right. However, the fundamental equation has changed in the Middle East. As Israel's recent attempt to subdue Hezbollah and the U.S. fiasco in Iraq suggest, conventional military superiority is no longer a sure fire way to achieve victory. Also,Iran will soon have the bomb. Israel is going to have to try to reach some sort of accomodation that doesn't involve them dictating the terms of the agreement. It doesn't mean they will get it, the Palestinian nihilists may ultimately hold sway and make an agreement impossible, but they will be better off trying.

 
At 20 November, 2006 18:23, Blogger Alex said...

LOL

You're the perfect example of why liberals should never be put in charge of anything military.

The reason "military might" persevered in the past is because we were willing to keep going as long as necessary, and do whatever was necessary, to ensure we won. There is no "fiasco" in Iraq. Any WW2 general would be utterly amazed at what the US forces in Iraq have accomplished, and would slap you and call you a liar if you told him they only lost 3,000 soldiers doing it. Unfortunately, people like you expect victory overnight. Well, we could give you that too, but it would take the deaths of about 1-2 million innocent Iraqis. As long as we're not willing to inflict those kinds of casualties, we're going to have to do things slowly. You can have a quick victory, with lots of death, or a slow victory with less death. The American people don't seem to be happy with either option - what you really want is defeat. Sorry, but we don't do that.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home