The Obama "To Make Important Middle East Speech" MEGATHREAD

[Siege]

We should've had battlewagons forward deployed to the UK in 1939.

Ewww, I don't know about that. Let the Europeans bash themselves for a while before we get involved.

Fuck that.  Any time is good Nazi killing time.

Let 'em overrun the frogs first. They deserve it.

Why do they deserve it?

I was attempting a troll. I set out some hamburger with glass in it for the Euros.

Nothing more retarded than calling out your own trolls.
I don't think even Jaron do this.

[dps]

What made the US pick socialist Israel was Nassers trying to play the superpowers against each other and eventually going for Soviet funding of the Aswan dam.

Thing is, the US was the first country to recognized Israel.  So it goes back further then that.

Yeah.  The US was trying to strongarm the UK into giving Palestine to the Jews during the war.

Yeah, but that didn't have anything to do with the Jews or Palestine exclusively.  The US basically was anti-colonial, and wanted the British and French to divest themeselves of their colonies.  For example, the US was the only country to have an official observer present when Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnam an independent state.  To bad we didn't go ahead an officially recognize them;, too;  it would have saved us a lot of trouble.

[mongers]

What made the US pick socialist Israel was Nassers trying to play the superpowers against each other and eventually going for Soviet funding of the Aswan dam.

Thing is, the US was the first country to recognized Israel.  So it goes back further then that.

Yeah.  The US was trying to strongarm the UK into giving Palestine to the Jews during the war.

Yeah, but that didn't have anything to do with the Jews or Palestine exclusively.  The US basically was anti-colonial, and wanted the British and French to divest themeselves of their colonies.  For example, the US was the only country to have an official observer present when Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnam an independent state.  To bad we didn't go ahead an officially recognize them;, too;  it would have saved us a lot of trouble.

I thought that was just an OSS team that got a bit sidetracked ?

[dps]

What made the US pick socialist Israel was Nassers trying to play the superpowers against each other and eventually going for Soviet funding of the Aswan dam.

Thing is, the US was the first country to recognized Israel.  So it goes back further then that.

Yeah.  The US was trying to strongarm the UK into giving Palestine to the Jews during the war.

Yeah, but that didn't have anything to do with the Jews or Palestine exclusively.  The US basically was anti-colonial, and wanted the British and French to divest themeselves of their colonies.  For example, the US was the only country to have an official observer present when Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnam an independent state.  To bad we didn't go ahead an officially recognize them;, too;  it would have saved us a lot of trouble.

I thought that was just an OSS team that got a bit sidetracked ?

It was an OSS team, but I'm not sure what you mean by "sidetracked".  They were our liason with the VC, co-ordinating actions against the Japanese.

[Valmy]

Less of the rhetoric, more of the historic please. Why stand by them no matter what, compared to Zambia, Laos or Tadjikistan?

Cold War allies.  We remember our friends and besides that inertia is strong.

All three of those countries you listed were a bunch of dirty Soviet allies.  Though Tajikistan didn't have much choice in the matter.

[garbon]

Yes yes, you like the jews and we butcher them every chance we get, I know the drill. I was looking more for historical reasons and whatnot. You seem to be saying there's an emotional attachment because of the substantial role jews have played in US history, yes?

An emotional attachment? That's like saying we have an emotional attachment with Europe.  They're who we are.

They're who you are too, but it's just more fun sticking them in ovens and watching their yarmulkes pop when they're done.

Less of the rhetoric, more of the historic please. Why stand by them no matter what, compared to Zambia, Laos or Tadjikistan?

Well if you follow Seedy's logic, it'd be because Zambia, Laos and Tadjikistan aren't really "us". One couldn't really say that "they're who we are."

[Neil]

Yeah, but that didn't have anything to do with the Jews or Palestine exclusively.  The US basically was anti-colonial, and wanted the British and French to divest themeselves of their colonies.  For example, the US was the only country to have an official observer present when Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnam an independent state.  To bad we didn't go ahead an officially recognize them;, too;  it would have saved us a lot of trouble.

Creating a colony of Jews on Arab land has nothing at all to do with anti-colonialism, or principles of any kind.  The votes of American Jews, now those were reasons to act.

[grumbler]

Less of the rhetoric, more of the historic please. Why stand by them no matter what, compared to Zambia, Laos or Tadjikistan?

  Good one.

[mongers]

What made the US pick socialist Israel was Nassers trying to play the superpowers against each other and eventually going for Soviet funding of the Aswan dam.

Thing is, the US was the first country to recognized Israel.  So it goes back further then that.

Yeah.  The US was trying to strongarm the UK into giving Palestine to the Jews during the war.

Yeah, but that didn't have anything to do with the Jews or Palestine exclusively.  The US basically was anti-colonial, and wanted the British and French to divest themeselves of their colonies.  For example, the US was the only country to have an official observer present when Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnam an independent state.  To bad we didn't go ahead an officially recognize them;, too;  it would have saved us a lot of trouble.

I thought that was just an OSS team that got a bit sidetracked ?

It was an OSS team, but I'm not sure what you mean by "sidetracked".  They were our liason with the VC, co-ordinating actions against the Japanese.

I was hinting at them supposedly saving H.C.M.'s life with medicine.
Given they were intelligence agents, I don't think you could class that as being offical observers ?

[Ed Anger]

We should've had battlewagons forward deployed to the UK in 1939.

Ewww, I don't know about that. Let the Europeans bash themselves for a while before we get involved.

Fuck that.  Any time is good Nazi killing time.

Let 'em overrun the frogs first. They deserve it.

Why do they deserve it?

I was attempting a troll. I set out some hamburger with glass in it for the Euros.

Nothing more retarded than calling out your own trolls.
I don't think even Jaron do this.

Don't you have an IED to trip over?

[CountDeMoney]

Here's a bone tossed to all our Jew-hating Pro-Palestinian friends, courtesy of you know what--

Government Official Who Makes Perfectly Valid, Well-Reasoned Point Against Israel Forced To Resign

May 20, 2011 | ISSUE 47•20

WASHINGTON—State Department diplomat Nelson Milstrand, who appeared on CNN last week and offered an informed, thoughtful analysis implying that Israel could perhaps exercise more restraint toward Palestinian moderates in disputed territories, was asked to resign Tuesday. "The United States deeply regrets any harm Mr. Milstrand's careful, even-tempered, and factually accurate remarks may have caused our democratic partner in the Middle East," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an unequivocal condemnation of the veteran foreign-service officer's perfectly reasonable statements. "U.S. policy toward Israel continues to be one of unconditional support and fawning sycophancy." Milstrand, 63, will reportedly appear at an AIPAC conference to offer a full apology as soon as his trial concludes and his divorce is finalized,

[Pat]

International law is a standing international arrangement, stemming from the principle of pacta sunt servanda, indeed no different from two businessmen entering into contract, or those contracts arising from concludent action (i.e. from acting as though there is a contract, not sure it's the correct term in English).

It's a poor model for analyzing international law from both a descriptive and prescriptive point of view.  Descriptively, it doesn't at all capture how international law arises, who the actors are, and how it operates in practice.  Prescriptively, it doesn't do the work that proponents of a more vigorous international law regime would want it to do, but at the same time does more than what opponents would want it to do.

Perhaps this is due my relative inexperience but I must say I don't quite see the problem in it being in between two antithetical positions, and if not by pacta sunt servanda, then how does it arise?

[The Minsky Moment]

Pacta sunt servanda is a principle of private law as between individuals, with the presumption that there is a sovereign in the background.  But the subjects of international law (primarily nation-states) are not individuals or akin to individuals, and there is no background supernational sovereign.  It's a poor analogy and IMO a dangerous one because it elides over precisely the critical distinctions that make public international law different from private law.

Positively, international law arises from the conduct of international actors.  That is states act in certain ways and over time to the extent that conduct becomes regularized or routinized (which may be through written treaties or conventions but may be otherwise), expectations can arise that assume a law-like character.  International law is just a loose set of doctrine that attempts to characterize and categorize those expectations and apparent precedents.

The second source of international law is international lawyers themselves - academics, treatise writers, legal entrepeneurs, business advocates and politicians -- who have an interest in representing a particular form of international legal order.  By putting forth claims about the substantive content of international law and its status as law, the international lawyers are attempting to create a new legal order in effect ex nihilo.  This is a project that is essentially rhetorical at present but could eventually develop into something firmer if international institutions arise in response to effectuate the project.  So far, the process is embryonic at best and has encountered resistance. 

[Malthus]

The term I've heard for that process is "compliance pull".

[Admiral Yi]

I think a more accurate description is "making shit up."