Goodbye Barry - Welcome Home AMERICA!

Friday, June 5, 2009

Obama Continues To Pander To Muslims, Desires Unsustainable World Conditions

In a much-touted speech delivered from Cairo, Barak Hussein Obama (NMP) outlined what he sees as the first and second greatest sources of tension between the Muslim world and the United States. Al-Qaeda topped his list, but Israel came in as the second greatest source of tension. The president said, “Israel has been depriving the Palestinians of their homeland for sixty years.”

The president made another point in his speech: “And any nation– including Iran –should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.” Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu does not believe that a state which is the center of gravity for world terrorism has the right to have any nuclear power, period.

My question is this: Is Obama's understanding of the history of the middle East that weak, or does he just choose to ignore that history it in favor of his Muslim brethren? It annoys me when people ignore - or worse, pervert - historical data to justify their own position. Everybody seems to overlook the fact that the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah were taken from the Jews by the Romans as retribution for the "Great Revolt" in 66AD. Jewish lands were seized and partitioned. The Jewish Kingdoms of Israel and Judah had existed for about 1,000 years before the Roman Emperor, Hadrian, partitioned it around 135AD and renamed the land that was Israel and Judea "Syria Palaestina". THERE WAS NO "PALESTINE" PRIOR TO THAT! True, the nation of Israel is built upon stolen land, but the Jews are not the thieves. That small plot of land called Israel was originally about thirty- five times larger than it is today, or roughly encompassing 85% of what we refer to today as the "middle East". Israel is recovered land!

His second point - in a display of absolute ignorance - supports Iran's continued nuclear development, which begs another question... why does a major oil-producing country need "nuclear power"? That is what Iranian President Mahmoud I'manutjob claims is their goal. This claim from a country whose entire national culture seems to be built around the total destruction of tiny Israel! The frothing-at-the-mouth, mad-dog leadership of Iran has frequently called for Israel to "be wiped from the face of the Earth". Not only does it show Obama's ignorance, this international kow-towing will be seen by the "Muslim world" as yet another sign of American lack of resolve and weakness.

The evolution of international relationships is based on a popular rule of triadic interaction: "the friend of my friend is my friend, the friend of my enemy is my enemy, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the enemy of my friend is my enemy". The rule is shown to lead to the formation and preservation of unipolar and bipolar configurations of nations, with the strengths of relationships, both friendly and conflictual, intensifying through time. International alliances are also conditions of convenience for each member of the alliance. When, at some point in time, the risks of such an alliance are seen to outweigh the benefits, one or more of the parties involved will "jump ship" out of a sense of self-preservation. This may be more than just an abandonment of the alliance... your old ally may defect to the "other side", becoming the friend of your enemy.

I submit that, based upon human behavioral patterns, there is a quaternary interdiction - "the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend". International "befriending" is based upon which of the available competing nations is best liked ... or, for those of you of the "cup is half empty" persuasion, that nation which is the least despised. Those are conditions which are subject to change at any given point in time.

As I have said before, in any negotiation, personal or international, he who negotiates from a position of strength will always walk away from the negotiating table with "the lion's share". One cannot successfully negotiate from a position of weakness (in the animal kingdom the weak are referred to as "food").

I could be absolutely wrong about this... show me.

No comments: