Chuck Hagel is the new Secretary of Defense

[Meengla]

This is indeed a great news for Pakistan, especially when considering the idiot Panetta will be leaving. That old crook will be remembered in history as the architect of the US-Pak split: Shortly after the OBL raid, while Obama acknowledged Pakistan's cooperation, Panetta decided to play Rambo in front of American media and started dissing Pakistan--something, mind you, not done by Hillary or even Rumsfeld (who actually defended Pakistan).

Mr. Hagel's nomination is not only better (in relative term, of course) for Pakistan but also for the world because he is one of the least likely persons to attack Iran.

In this case: Patriotic Americans =1. AIPAC = 0.

 

[liontk]

Obama ploy to the worlds Muslims community is finally answered, hire an anti-Semitic............

God the next four years,,,,,,,,,,

How is he anti-semite, please show sources as I have seen alot of commentators throw that around online yet I cannot find a conclusive source that highlights that and if it is true, that could look very bad on white house for this nomination, do reply though.

 

[jeypore]

How is he anti-semite, please show sources as I have seen alot of commentators throw that around online yet I cannot find a conclusive source that highlights that and if it is true, that could look very bad on white house for this nomination, do reply though.

Most of the debate over the Hagel nomination has focused on his views regarding Israel, and understandably so. The United States has a long history of strong support for the Jewish state. That policy has expressed itself in material aid to Israel, close partnership with the Israelis on defense and intelligence, public support for Israel’s basic strategy in dealing with the Palestinians, a clear if unspoken guarantee of Israel’s continued existence as a Jewish state, and consistent action to protect it from further international isolation and to lower the level of risk that it faces in the region.

To be sure, the policy has not been without its ups and downs. In particular, America has tried to keep enough distance from Israel so that the United States can be an honest broker in settling the details of a peace agreement based on the two-state framework, should such an agreement ever really become possible. But the basic direction of America’s approach to Israel has been clear, and clearly understood by the world, since the Reagan administration at least, and it was affirmed numerous times by both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

Senator Hagel over the years has made comments that may have been intended to, and at any rate did, signal that his views on Israel are not in the mainstream.


Chuck Hagel, Israel, and American Power - Jim Talent - National Review Online

Keep in mind that he is a politician after all, and to be this far, he would not jeopardize on exactly what he would say. There are always hints.......................

Thanks

 

[jeypore]

This is indeed a great news for Pakistan, especially when considering the idiot Panetta will be leaving.

The only reason Panetta is leaving because his real job is done. Killing OSAMA!!!!!!!!!

Now there is a peace keeper in place!!!!!!!!!

 

[liontk]

Most of the debate over the Hagel nomination has focused on his views regarding Israel, and understandably so. The United States has a long history of strong support for the Jewish state. That policy has expressed itself in material aid to Israel, close partnership with the Israelis on defense and intelligence, public support for Israel’s basic strategy in dealing with the Palestinians, a clear if unspoken guarantee of Israel’s continued existence as a Jewish state, and consistent action to protect it from further international isolation and to lower the level of risk that it faces in the region.

To be sure, the policy has not been without its ups and downs. In particular, America has tried to keep enough distance from Israel so that the United States can be an honest broker in settling the details of a peace agreement based on the two-state framework, should such an agreement ever really become possible. But the basic direction of America’s approach to Israel has been clear, and clearly understood by the world, since the Reagan administration at least, and it was affirmed numerous times by both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

Senator Hagel over the years has made comments that may have been intended to, and at any rate did, signal that his views on Israel are not in the mainstream.


Chuck Hagel, Israel, and American Power - Jim Talent - National Review Online

Keep in mind that he is a politician after all, and to be this far, he would not jeopardize on exactly what he would say. There are always hints.......................

Thanks

I think you answered the question, he himself is not an anti-semite by the news source you posted but rather has an unorthodox view towards the US role in middle east, however whether he wants to change the policy or not, its business as usual in white house, which isn't necessarily bad with respect to Israel right to exist and that is very important. On the other hand, it does ruin Usa Role as honest arbitrator, correct me if i am wrong after the oslo accord the whole issue has been stagnant.

I personally want to know from an indienne perspective, does the two state solution seem reasonable to you because I think that is only solution to the middle east debacle and I do not think anything else can work though i could very well be naive.

 

[fallstuff]

He is the Secretary of Defense of USA, not Israel.

 

[TakeNoBS]

I don't believe Hagel is anti-Israel. I believe that America should continue to support Israel. Except

We must also be fair to Palestinians
Stop giving aides to anyone in middle east when America is bankrupt.

 

[jeypore]

does the two state solution seem reasonable to you

Yes, and only my personal opinion to this. Look at this way also, if Israel did not exist then there would be equal or internal battles between Islam, Just like you see today in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakitsan etc..............

So, the Problem lies solely on who is worthy of occupation of the land......

Thanks..

 

[liontk]

Yes, and only my personal opinion to this. Look at this way also, if Israel did not exist then there would be equal or internal battles between Islam, Just like you see today in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakitsan etc..............

So, the Problem lies solely on who is worthy of occupation of the land......

Thanks..

I am sorry if I comprehend this but israel right is legitimate by all UN accounts so I am not sure about your inference to occupation. As far as bring religion into this, iraq(going through post americanne invasion), syria(civil war), afghanistan(mission afghani freedom,hopefully sucessful), pakistan(insurgency). However the assumption that one side is more worthy than other and generalizing the state of some islamic majority faith countries to prove your point appears to be abit weak though I could be very well be wrong. I am personally tired of the mess down there and personally find that israel appeasers and Palestinian apologists are both just delaying the solution and possibly just want to drag it out for their benefits.

What is your opinion of hamas and orthodox settlers, I am curious as per discussion sake from an indo-americanne perspective mon ami

 

[jeypore]

I am personally tired of the mess down there and personally find that israel appeasers and Palestinian apologists are both just delaying the solution and possibly just want to drag it out for their benefits.

I personally do not understand Whom is dragging out Whom. All I see is a personal religious battle of control of land..... Each one is placing there flag of who is worthy and making there worthy cause to the world.....

[/QUOTE]
What is your opinion of hamas and orthodox settlers, I am curious as per discussion sake from an indo-americanne perspective mon ami [/QUOTE]

When you have arrows to fight with bullets then alternative ways have to be sought. Killing civilians enrages more animosity and creates vigor to destroy the throwback thinking....

This not the thread to discuss this......

Thanks...

 

[liontk]

I personally do not understand Whom is dragging out Whom. All I see is a personal religious battle of control of land..... Each one is placing there flag of who is worthy and making there worthy cause to the world.....

What is your opinion of hamas and orthodox settlers, I am curious as per discussion sake from an indo-americanne perspective mon ami [/QUOTE]

When you have arrows to fight with bullets then alternative ways have to be sought. Killing civilians enrages more animosity and creates vigor to destroy the throwback thinking....

This not the thread to discuss this......

Thanks...[/QUOTE]

Thanks for reminding , though i do agree with your assertion that there is definitely a religious element involved from both sides though for the sake of discussion, i should stop asking questions lol .