With Friends Like Us . . .

I'll bet the Israelis are sleeping well tonight, knowing they can count on President Obama.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...145266,00.html

Oh, well. I'm anti-war anyway.

"the journalist are subjected to precise rules of conduct".

This is a joke, right.

What it really means is the media will only report that which is in line with their agenda. I suspect that if this would have been George W Bush making such a gaffe, their "precise rules of conduct" would have been thrown right out the window.

Of course, Our President will now have to deal with Isreal Leaders who know he is not their friend. They know that a person's true character is revealed by their actions when they do not think anybody is watching.

Oh, by the way. Just think "Florida" and all of it's electorial votes in 2012. Wouldn't it be something if the entire Presidential Election of 2012 came down to a off the cuff gaffe made "when he didn't think anybody was listening".

Nations do not have 'friends', they have allies and that changes depending on Realpolitik.

You two sound like a couple of liberals that worry about feelings. Who gives a fuc what another nation's head thinks of us. It always comes down to Realpolitik.


Examples of US Realpolitik
The policy of Realpolitik was formally introduced to the Richard Nixon White House by Henry Kissinger.[3] In this context, the policy meant dealing with other powerful nations in a practical manner rather than on the basis of political doctrine or ethics—for instance, Nixon's diplomacy with the People's Republic of China, despite the U.S.'s opposition to communism and the previous doctrine of containment. Another example is Kissinger's use of shuttle diplomacy after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, where he persuaded the Israelis to withdraw partially from the Sinai in deference to the political realities created by the oil crisis.
Realpolitik is distinct from ideological politics in that it is not dictated by a fixed set of rules, but instead tends to be goal-oriented, limited only by practical exigencies. Since realpolitik is ordered toward the most practical means of securing national interests, it can often entail compromising on ideological principles. For example, During the Cold War, the U.S. often supported authoritarian regimes that were human rights violators, in order to theoretically secure the greater national interest of regional stability. Detractors would characterize this attitude as amoral, while supporters would contend that they are merely operating within limits defined by practical reality.[citation needed]
Most recently, former ambassador Dennis Ross advocated this approach to foreign policy in his 2007 book Statecraft: And how to Restore America's Standing in the World.
For the purposes of contrast, and speaking in ideal types, political ideologues would tend to favor principle over other considerations. Such individuals or groups can reject compromises which they see as the abandonment of their ideals, and so may sacrifice political gain in favor of adhering to principles they believe to be constitutive of long term goals.

Nations do not have 'friends', they have allies and that changes depending on Realpolitik.

You two sound like a couple of liberals that worry about feelings. Who gives a fuc what another nation's head thinks of us. It always comes down to Realpolitik.


Examples of US Realpolitik
The policy of Realpolitik was formally introduced to the Richard Nixon White House by Henry Kissinger.[3] In this context, the policy meant dealing with other powerful nations in a practical manner rather than on the basis of political doctrine or ethics—for instance, Nixon's diplomacy with the People's Republic of China, despite the U.S.'s opposition to communism and the previous doctrine of containment. Another example is Kissinger's use of shuttle diplomacy after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, where he persuaded the Israelis to withdraw partially from the Sinai in deference to the political realities created by the oil crisis.
Realpolitik is distinct from ideological politics in that it is not dictated by a fixed set of rules, but instead tends to be goal-oriented, limited only by practical exigencies. Since realpolitik is ordered toward the most practical means of securing national interests, it can often entail compromising on ideological principles. For example, During the Cold War, the U.S. often supported authoritarian regimes that were human rights violators, in order to theoretically secure the greater national interest of regional stability. Detractors would characterize this attitude as amoral, while supporters would contend that they are merely operating within limits defined by practical reality.[citation needed]
Most recently, former ambassador Dennis Ross advocated this approach to foreign policy in his 2007 book Statecraft: And how to Restore America's Standing in the World.
For the purposes of contrast, and speaking in ideal types, political ideologues would tend to favor principle over other considerations. Such individuals or groups can reject compromises which they see as the abandonment of their ideals, and so may sacrifice political gain in favor of adhering to principles they believe to be constitutive of long term goals. Originally Posted by WTF

Realpolitik? I've heard that used before . . . glad you like it though, it does explain much in international politics; after all, "Paris is worth a Mass."

Jackass realpolitik is why everyone
hates us. We have no principles at State
other than we are unprincipled.

IF Israel had been allowed to crush
Egypt- they were 48 hrs from taking Cairo-
and decisively defeat the arab coalition
we wouldn't have a tenth of the problems
in the region we have now.
No desert storm, no gulf war, very likely
the Twin Towers would still stand.
So we have kissinger to credit for this.

If you truly are antiwar
THOSE WHO LONG FOR PEACE
MUST PREPARE FOR WAR

"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

Lord Palmerston

Realpolitik? I've heard that used before . . . glad you like it though, it does explain much in international politics; after all, "Paris is worth a Mass." Originally Posted by I B Hankering

At least a Mass or three!

I have always believed in Realpolitik my friend. It is but another word for Darwinism ...