Earth to Cheney: You're Part of the Problem, Dude

Former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami, one of my personal heroes, is for negotiating with Hamas.
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/gharib.php?articleid=12528

The U.S. state department is also considering the idea.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/washington/19diplo.html?ref=world

Maybe Russia was right all along?

Posted March 24, 2008 11:21 AM

Russia is providing them with massive financial support, and going even further with Syria -- providing dangerous weapons systems that threaten to alter the military balance.

If you wan't to talk about altering military balance, look at the U.S.'s and U.K.'s arms deals with Saudi Arabia and France's arms deal with the U.A.E.

Just those 3 deals are valued at close to $100 billion and equal Russia's total arms deals (to all countries put together) for 20 years.

Who are Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. going to fight? Why do they need so many weapons?

If I were Israel, I would continue to raise these questions with the U.S., U.K., and France. What are they really up to?

Posted March 24, 2008 11:31 AM

BEAR:

There are also plenty of people who think Vladimir Putin was right to order a hit on Anna Politkovskaya, and that Neville Chamberlain was right to negotiate with Hitler. This doesn't mean those were in fact correct, much less moral, decisions.

You don't seem to notice the odd contradiction in your remarks. You appear to think Cheney was right on Russia, yet is wrong on Hamas. You're also ignoring the fundamental contradiction in Cheney's own stance, and hence the whole point of this post. You need to think a little more before writing.

In addition, do you really think that it's a convincing argument to say that your own "personal hero" thinks you are right? Getting just a bit carried away, aren't you? Don't you have any other reason for believing this fellow is right?

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the Arabs substantially outnumber the Israelis. But for U.S. military assistance, Israel would have been swept into the sea long ago. The fact that you equate U.S. support for Israel (one democratic country supporting another) with Russian support for Syria (one malignant, abusive dictatorship supporting another) in my view disqualifies you from any serious consideration.

Posted March 24, 2008 11:59 AM

If you wan't to make a Neville Chamberlain analogy, how about this one:

- Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler
- The U.S. is appeasing Saudi Arabia and "selling" them $20 billion in weapons, which is still less than the $80 billion of weapons that the U.K. is "selling" them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Yamamah

We cannot forget that the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis and that all fanaticism grows out from that particular oil-rich nation.

Saudi Arabia is all about the destruction of Israel, something perhaps some people in our government might also be for, apparently. It would be ironic if in the end Israel and Russia and maybe even Syria team-up to stop Saudi aggression against Israel. Given how fanatical Saudi Arabia is becoming, their mammouth arms build-up, and their demographics, this might be sooner rather than later.

A few months ago I think you suggested that we invade some Saudi oil fields if they don't yield to our demands to increase their supply of oil.

I agree with the assence of invading Saudi oil fields, but not to punish them for holding back on oil, but instead to preemptively stop their agression against Israel and the world at large, which is inevitable.

I understand that you are the "russophobe" and being anti-Russian is your gimmick, but as a patriotic American, you cannot stand idly while we are arming the biggest threat to our survival. Maybe, just for once, you can team-up with Russian on this one.

:)

Posted March 24, 2008 12:13 PM

Kim,

What do you have to say about US support for Saudi Arabia?

Posted March 24, 2008 12:14 PM

"Apparently he has yet to realize that even as he spoke, the Russians were meeting with Hamas and supporting them, attacking Israel's Gaza blockade and West Bank settlements"

Kim, I have it on good authority (no name dropping) that he very much does realize. But unlike you or yours truly who can say it with (relative) impunity, he cannot, lest the lunatic fringe media, defeatist Congress, Nagin-loving intellectuals, Afro-centrist fascists, university agitators, and other assorted maggots and vermin not specifically enumerated here call him a warmongering race-bating Haliburton capitalist. So he shuts up. Call it self-preservation

Posted March 24, 2008 2:02 PM

vova:

Since when has being called names ever bothered Cheney? Not only has he never appeared to care *what* anyone says about him, but Vice President Go-F-Yourself's major rhetorical skill seems to be name-calling.

As is yours.

Posted March 24, 2008 2:38 PM

Vova: What is it about hate-filled folks like you and Cheney that makes you think adding a few lines of meaningless invective to an argument somehow enhances your position.

Chill dude. All of us Americans just want to figure out the best solution for getting people to stop killing each other. Calling those who happen to think throwing gas on a fire isn't a good way to put it out an assortment of unrelated and off-topic names (Nagin-loving???) just gives your side a bad name.

Posted March 24, 2008 3:06 PM

"the best solution for getting people to stop killing each other"

Why stop? We didn't stop killing the krauts and the japs until they surrendered unconditionally. And we should keep killing dogs until they do--or there's no dogs left to kill.

You like Nagin? A race hustler and buffoon? Then you probably like Wright, Sharpton, and Barry Hussein Obama.

Posted March 25, 2008 5:19 AM