Once again, Phil and some others, evidently think they'd prefer some irrational and brash reactionary bull and bluster from out of the US president's administration.
Rather than a cautious, reasoned and prudent response, Phil jumps the gun and expects he'd prefer the kind of knee-jerk irresponsible reaction similar to what we've seen from say, President Bush's administration.
I rather prefer a leader who holds back on making decisions until all the facts can be ascertained.
I rather prefer a leader who takes measured steps to insure our nation's reaction is both rational and just.
Despite Phil and some other's call for immediacy in our nation's response, it's a little early to be calling for denunciation because our response so far has been reserved and undemonstrative.
There are many ways our country and this administration has available to respond to international incidents and going off half-cocked and publicly engaging in some contest of chest thumping isn't one I'd like to see a return to.
Haven't we had enough of our leaders being arrogantly and insolently cock-sure and reactionary?
I'd rather wait and see how a more mature and sane administration such as we have now ultimately deals with this incident. Knowing the Obama administration's tendency to speak clearly and decisively concerning our relations with Israel, and their proven record in not pandering to every Israeli demand, I'll withhold condemnation of the US response until we see what transpires over a reasonable length of time.
I have no doubt that our present administration can more effectively deal with international relations than the previous administration, who, if anyone remembers, was a little too willing to shoot first and ask questions later.
I much prefer having adults in charge for a change, instead of impetuous and immature juveniles running the show.
Phil's finger pointing is getting to be a bit too easily predictable, instead of focusing on who really is responsible for some incident, Phil is likely to point his fingers in as many ways as he can surmise without much reason or conscious forethought being employed.
BP takes advantage of deregulation and the gutting of industry oversight, and Phil blames not the administration responsible for orchestrating and allowing the lack of industry oversight, but instead attempts to lay the blame on the new administration.
Israel commits an international crime and Phil is ready to throw anyone off the island if they don't immediately respond as Phil desires with incurious,headstrong and foolhardy bravado.
I see it as a good thing that people like Phil don't have any more influence than to 'blog' about their overweening, injudicious, and ill-conceived tendencies to juvenile egoism and self promotion.
I much prefer a reasoned, sane and intelligent, cautious and fact based view and response to international relations.
I would rather the juvenile reactionaries be left to their belligerence and bellicosity and keep them far away from having any influence on US policy decisions concerning international relations.
Helene Thomas: "...if any other nation had done this, we would have been up in arms..."
Good point. If Al Quaeda had assaulted those civilians as the Israeli commandos did; would the U.S. administration be "waiting for a commission" to determine the facts?
FIrst one has to assume that Helen Thomas is correct in her assertion that 'any other nation's actions' would have provoked a dis-similar response from the US.
There is no basis for that assumption to be considered to have to be true.
It's more likely that we would have a measured response to any other nation's actions, at least with the sane administration currently in power.
As to anon@ 10;17 and that ill-conceived and lame attempt at creating a moral equivalence construct, Al Queda isn't another nation.
Our response to Al Queda isn't constrained by the the need for internationally conceded acknowledgment of a formally recognized nation state.
Hence your specious and flawed attempt to create an analogy hasn't any rationale nor could it be considered to have any relevance to the issue at hand.
6 comments:
We'll get you, and your little dog too!
You tell 'em Helen...
Once again, Phil and some others, evidently think they'd prefer some irrational and brash reactionary bull and bluster from out of the US president's administration.
Rather than a cautious, reasoned and prudent response, Phil jumps the gun and expects he'd prefer the kind of knee-jerk irresponsible reaction similar to what we've seen from say, President Bush's administration.
I rather prefer a leader who holds back on making decisions until all the facts can be ascertained.
I rather prefer a leader who takes measured steps to insure our nation's reaction is both rational and just.
Despite Phil and some other's call for immediacy in our nation's response, it's a little early to be calling for denunciation because our response so far has been reserved and undemonstrative.
There are many ways our country and this administration has available to respond to international incidents and going off half-cocked and publicly engaging in some contest of chest thumping isn't one I'd like to see a return to.
Haven't we had enough of our leaders being arrogantly and insolently cock-sure and reactionary?
I'd rather wait and see how a more mature and sane administration such as we have now ultimately deals with this incident. Knowing the Obama administration's tendency to speak clearly and decisively concerning our relations with Israel, and their proven record in not pandering to every Israeli demand, I'll withhold condemnation of the US response until we see what transpires over a reasonable length of time.
I have no doubt that our present administration can more effectively deal with international relations than the previous administration, who, if anyone remembers, was a little too willing to shoot first and ask questions later.
I much prefer having adults in charge for a change, instead of impetuous and immature juveniles running the show.
Phil's finger pointing is getting to be a bit too easily predictable, instead of focusing on who really is responsible for some incident, Phil is likely to point his fingers in as many ways as he can surmise without much reason or conscious forethought being employed.
BP takes advantage of deregulation and the gutting of industry oversight, and Phil blames not the administration responsible for orchestrating and allowing the lack of industry oversight, but instead attempts to lay the blame on the new administration.
Israel commits an international crime and Phil is ready to throw anyone off the island if they don't immediately respond as Phil desires with incurious,headstrong and foolhardy bravado.
I see it as a good thing that people like Phil don't have any more influence than to 'blog' about their overweening, injudicious, and ill-conceived tendencies to juvenile egoism and self promotion.
I much prefer a reasoned, sane and intelligent, cautious and fact based view and response to international relations.
I would rather the juvenile reactionaries be left to their belligerence and bellicosity and keep them far away from having any influence on US policy decisions concerning international relations.
..
Helene Thomas: "...if any other nation had done this, we would have been up in arms..."
Good point. If Al Quaeda had assaulted those civilians as the Israeli commandos did; would the U.S. administration be "waiting for a commission" to determine the facts?
Hypocrites.
keep talking Phil
FIrst one has to assume that Helen Thomas is correct in her assertion that 'any other nation's actions' would have provoked a dis-similar response from the US.
There is no basis for that assumption to be considered to have to be true.
It's more likely that we would have a measured response to any other nation's actions, at least with the sane administration currently in power.
As to anon@ 10;17 and that ill-conceived and lame attempt at creating a moral equivalence construct, Al Queda isn't another nation.
Our response to Al Queda isn't constrained by the the need for internationally conceded acknowledgment of a formally recognized nation state.
Hence your specious and flawed attempt to create an analogy hasn't any rationale nor could it be considered to have any relevance to the issue at hand.
..
I love that Helen Thomas has the freedom to be an anti-Semite. I wonder who else she hates?
Post a Comment