since I'm a bit too tired to say anything coherent at the moment, but this caught my eye:
Just like here in US we should only do what is right for us, not what is right for everyone else.
Reminds me of that famous line in Kipling:
For frantic boast and foolish word / Thy mercy on Thy people, Lord!
Kipling was writing about people who said the same thing about the British empire that you said about the US. In the short run, maybe Kipling was wrong. In the long run, Kipling was most definitely right.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
dhonig said Arafat did not accept Camp Davis Peace Plan because he was afraid to be killed? --meaning Hamas or Hezbollah?
Looks like Clinton Barak Arafat Peace was the highest point of the solution to the problem.
Why did Bush did not build from that?
Looks like now it starts again from 0.
Where does Hezbollah and Hamas gets their funding? Charity from Saudi and Iran and muslims all over the world.
Perhaps they think this will dry up if there is peace and not anymore seen as victims?
Permanent solution then should be to involve those who fund Hezbollah and Hamas.
With Ender's analogy--we should be fighting Saudi Arabia because 19 Saudi hijackers were responsible for 911 and why did Saudi Arabia not do anything to prevent the attack.
We should be also invading Pakistan because PAkistan harbors Osam Bin Laden and taliban and al queda.
So why rage on Lebanon but not Saudi Arabi and Pakistan.
You make it sound like Liberals are rooting for Hezbollah.
No, Liberals and Democrats are blaming Bush for making this issue in the backburner for 6 years instead of dealing with it form Day 1. Now we face an escalating war and if allowed to fester, there may be a point of no return.
Please give us a link to say that liberals/Democrats are rooting for Hezbollah.
Clinton/Democrats was better in National Security because he was able to keep precious peace in Middle East, N Korea because he was engaged and involved.
Where did I imply that liberals/Democrats are rooting for Hezbollah? There are some (probably many more than on my side), but they are still a tiny minority. So I was not trying to say anything like that.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
and I can think a little clearer, I want to expand on that comment a bit.
International stability - both political and economic - is in the best interest of the US. Liberal values (and by that I mean civil rights, equality, and secular government) around the world are in the best interest of the US. But these are long-run interests, and they sometimes run counter to short run interests (e.g. dictatorships in some areas are good for us, because they force monopolies on raw materials that we import, etc.)
Put simply: anything that's supposedly in the best interest of the United States but is not in the best interest of the world community is not really in the long-term best interest of the United States.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
You are treating it as if the World community is one monolithic group that is interested in one course of action. It is not. There are political and military alliances, economic interest arrangements, tenuous truce agreements, etc etc. In my view most everyone in the world is not acting in the interest of some nebulous but non-existent world community because 1. they are motivated with obvious self-interest as any normal country would be and 2. it is often impossible to act in this interest as there are competing priorities among various groups of countries.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Looks like Clinton Barak Arafat Peace was the highest point of the solution to the problem.
Why did Bush did not build from that?
You might remember that after Arafat rejected the deal intifada started in fairly short order. Palestinians degenerated the situation, not Bush.
Where does Hezbollah and Hamas gets their funding? Charity from Saudi and Iran and muslims all over the world.
Perhaps they think this will dry up if there is peace and not anymore seen as victims?
Permanent solution then should be to involve those who fund Hezbollah and Hamas.
I don't know but primarily Syria and Iran, at least with regard to Hezbollah. Hamas, I have no idea who is funding. Saudi's are not as directly involved in the current crisis (even if they do send funds to either of the groups) as Iran and Syria. If Iran and Syria actually have troops in Lebanon aiding Hezbollah then we are crossing into very dangerous territory where your suggestion might become reality.
I am only trying to address the Israeli part of this equation, and not why US is doing what we are doing. That is a different topic.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
which as I said, works fine in the short run. But it also threatens long-run stability.
Case in point: I mentioned dictatorships in third-world countries. They are in our best interests in countries that provide us with raw materials. By working with the government, we can secure exploitative contracts for raw materials that favor us hugely (with some kickbacks for the kooks in charge), no matter how exploitative. And - huge surprise - over time these regions become heavily unstable, violent, and toxic. Specific example: after watching Darwin's Nightmare, I wouldn't be surprised if, a generation from now, Tanzanian terrorists bomb a building in Russia. Short-term benefits, long-term costs.
One of the weaknesses of our own style of government (who was it that said, a "bad style, but the rest are worse"?) is that we have no long-term accountability. Not only does one not plan for the future, but one has every incentive not to, especially since long-term planning requires short-term costs.
Our interaction with the rest of the world works the same way - and it doesn't require a monolithic "other." The people we elect have no incentives for pursuing policies that work in our long-term best interests, because they make for bad politics.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Because now you are switching it to our interests. Our long-term best interests are also not necessarily the same as the long-term best interests of most other nations or groups of nations.
Peace in the Middle East for example might be great for us, at the very least economically, but is not as good for the OPEC nations.
Partisan politics in US do threaten most attempts at long-term planning. And it's not that our long-term best interests make for bad politics. It's that you have to be really involved, as a governing party, in trying sell the best course of action to the public. That is not necessarily bad because it gets you to think about all the realistic pros and cons of the action.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
because you're narrowly defining interest as 'of the ruling party.' Sure, the nutcase ruling Saudi Arabia stands to make more personal profit from unrest in the area, but for the sake of the country's sustainability, unrest does more harm than good.
As for the cons of democracy, let me present New Orleans as a case study. Every politician who's been through there has put the city's survival on the shoulders of the next, because you're not accountable once you're out of office. Don't get me wrong - I'd rather live in imperfect here than anywhere else, but you have to admit that's a pretty serious flaw
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I could point at the whole Social Security reform debate. While at first President Bush proposed private savings accounts, after democrats filibustered that idea, he did back off and suggest creating a bipartisan comission to at least investigate different ways to reform and bolster up the financial situation of that program. Did Democrats think about the long term when they destroyed that idea as well while portraying republicans as only interested in wiping out the program?
Heh, it was obvious short term gain at the price of ignoring long term problems yet again. Sure it is a serious flaw.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Did Democrats think about the long term when they destroyed that idea as well while portraying republicans as only interested in wiping out the program?
Absolutely. The only possible result of the Bush plan is an end to social security, since the short-term devestation would be impossible to counter without a huge leap in the defecit or tax raises, neither of which the administration was willing to consider. You can't argue half a plan and pretend the other half doesn't exist. Bush's plan was a table with two legs one side, and nothing on the other. He never presented an actual plan that shows how we're going to get this to work realistically.
If you remember, much of the ridicule heaped on him during the SS fiasco had to do not with privatization per se but with his consistent assurance that he would not raise taxes. This is fiscally impossible - spending more money while accumulating less.
Bring a real plan, then we can talk.
Meanwhile, SS would be just fine if we put our SS surplus back into SS. Which we're not. Which is stupid. D's and R's deserve blame for that.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I think just have leaders who are out there for money power and position. The only way to negotiate with them besides fighting them is to stop their funding--Islamic private Charities from Saudi Arabia and friendly countries need to dry up.
I dont see the motivation for Lebanon and Syria to activate a war they are not in the position to win. Perhaps Iran has a motivation--to divert focus out of Iran.
I still say Democrats are much better in national security and foreign policy. If Gore was president all this wont happen and Palestine and Israel will have peaceful coexistence.
with your thoughts on the subject. Also your elements for a successful peace initiative are incredibly unrealistic.
1. Israel should dismantle most of its West Bank settlements, withdraw to the 1967 border with a few adjustments, dismantle its nuclear arsenal and recognize a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza.
In the obvious presence of enemies dedicated to the full destruction of Israel a step to dismantle nuclear arsenal is suicidal and would be idiotic.
2. In exchange, Israel would become a full member of NATO and the European Union. Any attack on Israel, including terrorist attacks, would trigger NATO intervention. NATO troops to be permanently stationed in Israel. All of the Middle East -- from Morocco to Iran -- to be declared a nuclear-free zone. The Golan Heights would be returned to Syria as a demilitarized zone with NATO monitors.
And what is going to stop Iran from actualizing its nuclear ambitions? Tough words from NATO? Heh. I also do not see most NATO countries ever interested in defending Israel, so again impossible.
3. Arab League members to recognize Israel, normalize relations, dismantle Hezbollah, halt the spread of anti-Semitic propaganda by radical clerics and designate a small percentage of oil revenues for the development of the West Bank and Gaza.
Unthinkable. Most Arab states are full of people only interested in genocide against the jews. Especially their political leaders and all of their religious leaders. Highly unrealistic you can get countries that teach that killing jews is good in their schools to somehow change their tune. Peace with Israel is hardly an incentive.
4. Palestinian claims to land inside Israel to be abrogated. No right of return. In exchange, displaced Palestinians to be allowed to resettle in the United States, Europe or other Middle East nations such as Jordan.
Even arab countries do not want those troublemakers. Who says we'd want those people here when many of them are willing to strap on suicide bomber belts. No thank you. And I doubt any european country would ever be interested. Jordan doesn't want any more of those violence prone people.
5. Jerusalem to become a separate city-state with sovereignty controlled by the United Nations. UN to move Geneva offices to Jerusalem and maintain a police force. Access to religious sites for all believers to be guaranteed.
I am not sure why Israel should give up their exclusive right to their original historical capital. Sounds like a serious case of politically idiotic altruism. No way Israel would ever agree to that.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Will that be good for the US economy as we depend on shipping for almost all our consumer goods.
Is that a "sacrifice" you are willing to make for the imperialist notions of the Project for the New American century?
Mideast update....... Israel is trashing Lebanon the newest democracy in the region.
So far it seems like this spreading democracy thing just isn't working out too well.
Bush wants war with Iran, by provoking Syria.
China and Russia do not.
Call me a traitor if you will. I don't wish to take sides. I want a peaceful resolution ASAP.
NO ONE benefits from a never ending war in the Middle East. Again are you ready to pay $5/gal for gas? Is that a price you look forward to paying to end tyranny in the Middle East.
In the obvious presence of enemies dedicated to the full destruction of Israel a step to dismantle nuclear arsenal is suicidal and would be idiotic.
Wrong. Israel would be protected by NATO's nuclear umbrella. By giving up its own arsenal, Israel gains the protection of NATO's deterrent arsenal and gets a guarantee that its enemies will not develop nuclear weapons.
And what is going to stop Iran from actualizing its nuclear ambitions? Tough words from NATO? Heh. I also do not see most NATO countries ever interested in defending Israel, so again impossible.
Everyone would have to pay a price for peace, including NATO. This plan would be a chance for European NATO members to put up or shut up. Would Iran challenge NATO in a nuclear showdown? Fat chance.
Unthinkable. Most Arab states are full of people only interested in genocide against the jews. Especially their political leaders and all of their religious leaders. Highly unrealistic you can get countries that teach that killing jews is good in their schools to somehow change their tune. Peace with Israel is hardly an incentive.
You're completely wrong. The Saudis put forth a peace plan in 2002 and again in 2005 that offered universal Arab recognition of Israel.
Even arab countries do not want those troublemakers. Who says we'd want those people here when many of them are willing to strap on suicide bomber belts. No thank you. And I doubt any european country would ever be interested. Jordan doesn't want any more of those violence prone people.
There is already a large Palestinian-American community:
Do you think we should round them all up before they start strapping on suicide vests? And what would you do with the nearly half million Palestinian refugees scattered around the Middle East? Leave them in a stateless purgatory forever?
The rest of your comments are just sweeping generalizations.
I am not sure why Israel should give up their exclusive right to their original historical capital. Sounds like a serious case of politically idiotic altruism. No way Israel would ever agree to that.
Yes, well, I guess Israel just doesn't get everything it wants. Except in your world, of course. Israel's right to Jerusalem is no greater than the right of Muslims and Christians. Considering that at one time or another the city has been ruled by all three, your historic argument is just propaganda.
which is a long way from the fighting. The most you are personally risking is a crick in your neck from watching too much Fox News.
It's pretty easy to throw out empty rhetoric.
Both sides are contributing toward this mess. What are we going to do to help solve it? Do you believe Israel is smart to re-invade Lebanon expecting a different outcome from 20 years ago? Sounds pretty dumb to me.
Yesterday I've heard some decent analysis on what Israel could want to accomplish with the current offensive, and that is to 1. get lebanese to realize that the only reason they are in this war is because of Hezbollah's actions
2. to finally remove Hezbollah from the Northern border and have it replaced with Lebanese troops
Once the second objective is met and Hezbollah is thrown out of the Lebanese government, Israel can withdraw and it will be much safer. As for us helping anything, we shouldn't. Why should US intervene in Israel's self-defense? They are doing great on their own.
Was it smart for them to do it? It was necessary for any self-respecting nation concerned about its long term safety.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Lebanon already knew Hezbollah was an issue vis a vis Israel. But it's a weak government without the power to remove them.
What lebanese troops?? Lebanon is held together with bailing wire and twine. Expecting them to solve this problem is like expecting 130K troops to police nation of 26 million people.....
Self respect is an emotional thing. Smart people don't get so hung up on whether others might think their penis is small if they don't escalate a fight into an unwinnable mess.
I still say Democrats are much better in national security and foreign policy. If Gore was president all this wont happen and Palestine and Israel will have peaceful coexistence.
I think you are in dreamland. This has not been solved in half a century and suddenly Gore would've solved it.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Wrong. Israel would be protected by NATO's nuclear umbrella. By giving up its own arsenal, Israel gains the protection of NATO's deterrent arsenal and gets a guarantee that its enemies will not develop nuclear weapons.
And why should Israel depend on others for its own survival? Even if NATO did decide to enter into this partnership and protect Israel, things change, and in the future realities might change so much that NATO is dissolved or it might decide to back out - and Israel would have nothing else to depend on. It absolutely needs the deterrent of nuclear weapons - that is not a realistic suggestion as no one will consider it.
Everyone would have to pay a price for peace, including NATO. This plan would be a chance for European NATO members to put up or shut up. Would Iran challenge NATO in a nuclear showdown? Fat chance.
Europe is not interested in confrontation. Trust me, they will only shut up. They couldn't even handle Serbia on their own, and you are talking about Iran? Fat chance Europe will accept this deal of protecting Israel. Besides, they've consistently taken the side of Palestinians against Israel. Their populace would not let their politicians do it, or if it happens anyways it would be political suicide.
You're completely wrong. The Saudis put forth a peace plan in 2002 and again in 2005 that offered universal Arab recognition of Israel.
A government offering a plan that had no chance of being accepted does not mean that what I said about the actual views of a vast majority of the people in those countries. That same government tolerates the most extreme form of radical Islam, wahhabism, taught in their religious schools. They also tolerate (and probably encourage) various fundraisers for a whole score of terrorist organizations. Some peacemakers.
There is already a large Palestinian-American community:
Do you think we should round them all up before they start strapping on suicide vests? And what would you do with the nearly half million Palestinian refugees scattered around the Middle East? Leave them in a stateless purgatory forever?
I don't care about the palestinians already living in US. They are not the same as the radicalized degenerates running around in Israel and blowing things up. I was not generalizing about all the palestinians. As for the palestinian refugees in the middle east, that is neither US nor Israeli problem (nor do I care about them) - they have plenty of their own arab brethren with plenty of land right around them. Let arabs who love each other take them in for good. Wonder why it hasn't happened yet... heh
Yes, well, I guess Israel just doesn't get everything it wants. Except in your world, of course. Israel's right to Jerusalem is no greater than the right of Muslims and Christians. Considering that at one time or another the city has been ruled by all three, your historic argument is just propaganda.
Silly... Jerusalem was built by Israelites and was originally inhabited by them. So even if Christians and Muslims conquered it in different times, Israel has the original claim and got it back as well.
If somehow American Indians got America back through some fluke, you would be screaming in their support and how they deserved it because they originally owned it, but because it's those militant jews who just can't get on the damn train, you are proposing that they share it with the people who try to kill them. Christians mostly don't mind jews owning Jerusalem, it's only muslims who want it back.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
This post definitely underscores why the 2-state solution is sorely needed. In order for Israel to survive as a Jewish-majo their troops, settlers and settlements from Gaza, East jerusalem and West Bank...now, and allow the Palestinians to create their own, independent sovereign nation-state in those territoriees.
The two-state solution is also needed because the Palestinian Arab birthrate is much, much higher than that of the israeli Jews, who'd stand to be engulfed and outnumbered in their country if they don't pull out of the Occupied Territories...now.
The two-state solution is also needed precisely because the Palestinians are not wanted by any of the other Arab countries due to their history of troublemaking, and Israel can't absorb the Palestinians for obvious reasons, plus none of the Arab countries, including Jordan, want the Palestinians residing in their countries. Therefore, the Palestinians need their own independent sovereign nation-state.
Comments :
as we also know
Hezbollah declared open war against Israel. An unmanned drone packed with explosives slammed into an Israeli military ship causing severe damage.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Not a comment on this, per se
since I'm a bit too tired to say anything coherent at the moment, but this caught my eye:
Reminds me of that famous line in Kipling:
Kipling was writing about people who said the same thing about the British empire that you said about the US. In the short run, maybe Kipling was wrong. In the long run, Kipling was most definitely right.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
What prevented Arafat?
dhonig said Arafat did not accept Camp Davis Peace Plan because he was afraid to be killed? --meaning Hamas or Hezbollah?
Looks like Clinton Barak Arafat Peace was the highest point of the solution to the problem.
Why did Bush did not build from that?
Looks like now it starts again from 0.
Where does Hezbollah and Hamas gets their funding? Charity from Saudi and Iran and muslims all over the world.
Perhaps they think this will dry up if there is peace and not anymore seen as victims?
Permanent solution then should be to involve those who fund Hezbollah and Hamas.
With Ender's analogy--we should be fighting Saudi Arabia because 19 Saudi hijackers were responsible for 911 and why did Saudi Arabia not do anything to prevent the attack.
We should be also invading Pakistan because PAkistan harbors Osam Bin Laden and taliban and al queda.
So why rage on Lebanon but not Saudi Arabi and Pakistan.
Blame Bush
You make it sound like Liberals are rooting for Hezbollah.
No, Liberals and Democrats are blaming Bush for making this issue in the backburner for 6 years instead of dealing with it form Day 1. Now we face an escalating war and if allowed to fester, there may be a point of no return.
Please give us a link to say that liberals/Democrats are rooting for Hezbollah.
Clinton/Democrats was better in National Security because he was able to keep precious peace in Middle East, N Korea because he was engaged and involved.
come on
Where did I imply that liberals/Democrats are rooting for Hezbollah? There are some (probably many more than on my side), but they are still a tiny minority. So I was not trying to say anything like that.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Now that it's morning
and I can think a little clearer, I want to expand on that comment a bit.
International stability - both political and economic - is in the best interest of the US. Liberal values (and by that I mean civil rights, equality, and secular government) around the world are in the best interest of the US. But these are long-run interests, and they sometimes run counter to short run interests (e.g. dictatorships in some areas are good for us, because they force monopolies on raw materials that we import, etc.)
Put simply: anything that's supposedly in the best interest of the United States but is not in the best interest of the world community is not really in the long-term best interest of the United States.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
the problem is
You are treating it as if the World community is one monolithic group that is interested in one course of action. It is not. There are political and military alliances, economic interest arrangements, tenuous truce agreements, etc etc. In my view most everyone in the world is not acting in the interest of some nebulous but non-existent world community because 1. they are motivated with obvious self-interest as any normal country would be and 2. it is often impossible to act in this interest as there are competing priorities among various groups of countries.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
hmmm
You might remember that after Arafat rejected the deal intifada started in fairly short order. Palestinians degenerated the situation, not Bush.
I don't know but primarily Syria and Iran, at least with regard to Hezbollah. Hamas, I have no idea who is funding. Saudi's are not as directly involved in the current crisis (even if they do send funds to either of the groups) as Iran and Syria. If Iran and Syria actually have troops in Lebanon aiding Hezbollah then we are crossing into very dangerous territory where your suggestion might become reality.
I am only trying to address the Israeli part of this equation, and not why US is doing what we are doing. That is a different topic.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Realpolitik,
which as I said, works fine in the short run. But it also threatens long-run stability.
Case in point: I mentioned dictatorships in third-world countries. They are in our best interests in countries that provide us with raw materials. By working with the government, we can secure exploitative contracts for raw materials that favor us hugely (with some kickbacks for the kooks in charge), no matter how exploitative. And - huge surprise - over time these regions become heavily unstable, violent, and toxic. Specific example: after watching Darwin's Nightmare, I wouldn't be surprised if, a generation from now, Tanzanian terrorists bomb a building in Russia. Short-term benefits, long-term costs.
One of the weaknesses of our own style of government (who was it that said, a "bad style, but the rest are worse"?) is that we have no long-term accountability. Not only does one not plan for the future, but one has every incentive not to, especially since long-term planning requires short-term costs.
Our interaction with the rest of the world works the same way - and it doesn't require a monolithic "other." The people we elect have no incentives for pursuing policies that work in our long-term best interests, because they make for bad politics.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
that is a different issue
Because now you are switching it to our interests. Our long-term best interests are also not necessarily the same as the long-term best interests of most other nations or groups of nations.
Peace in the Middle East for example might be great for us, at the very least economically, but is not as good for the OPEC nations.
Partisan politics in US do threaten most attempts at long-term planning. And it's not that our long-term best interests make for bad politics. It's that you have to be really involved, as a governing party, in trying sell the best course of action to the public. That is not necessarily bad because it gets you to think about all the realistic pros and cons of the action.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Here's my DKos diary on this subject
Rather than post stuff from there again, here's the whole thing:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/15/112024/550
qui tacet consentire
Not different at all,
because you're narrowly defining interest as 'of the ruling party.' Sure, the nutcase ruling Saudi Arabia stands to make more personal profit from unrest in the area, but for the sake of the country's sustainability, unrest does more harm than good.
As for the cons of democracy, let me present New Orleans as a case study. Every politician who's been through there has put the city's survival on the shoulders of the next, because you're not accountable once you're out of office. Don't get me wrong - I'd rather live in imperfect here than anywhere else, but you have to admit that's a pretty serious flaw
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
as a counterpoint
I could point at the whole Social Security reform debate. While at first President Bush proposed private savings accounts, after democrats filibustered that idea, he did back off and suggest creating a bipartisan comission to at least investigate different ways to reform and bolster up the financial situation of that program. Did Democrats think about the long term when they destroyed that idea as well while portraying republicans as only interested in wiping out the program?
Heh, it was obvious short term gain at the price of ignoring long term problems yet again. Sure it is a serious flaw.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Absolutely:
Absolutely. The only possible result of the Bush plan is an end to social security, since the short-term devestation would be impossible to counter without a huge leap in the defecit or tax raises, neither of which the administration was willing to consider. You can't argue half a plan and pretend the other half doesn't exist. Bush's plan was a table with two legs one side, and nothing on the other. He never presented an actual plan that shows how we're going to get this to work realistically.
If you remember, much of the ridicule heaped on him during the SS fiasco had to do not with privatization per se but with his consistent assurance that he would not raise taxes. This is fiscally impossible - spending more money while accumulating less.
Bring a real plan, then we can talk.
Meanwhile, SS would be just fine if we put our SS surplus back into SS. Which we're not. Which is stupid. D's and R's deserve blame for that.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Hamas and Hezbollah
I think just have leaders who are out there for money power and position. The only way to negotiate with them besides fighting them is to stop their funding--Islamic private Charities from Saudi Arabia and friendly countries need to dry up.
I dont see the motivation for Lebanon and Syria to activate a war they are not in the position to win. Perhaps Iran has a motivation--to divert focus out of Iran.
I still say Democrats are much better in national security and foreign policy. If Gore was president all this wont happen and Palestine and Israel will have peaceful coexistence.
well I mostly disagree
with your thoughts on the subject. Also your elements for a successful peace initiative are incredibly unrealistic.
In the obvious presence of enemies dedicated to the full destruction of Israel a step to dismantle nuclear arsenal is suicidal and would be idiotic.
And what is going to stop Iran from actualizing its nuclear ambitions? Tough words from NATO? Heh. I also do not see most NATO countries ever interested in defending Israel, so again impossible.
Unthinkable. Most Arab states are full of people only interested in genocide against the jews. Especially their political leaders and all of their religious leaders. Highly unrealistic you can get countries that teach that killing jews is good in their schools to somehow change their tune. Peace with Israel is hardly an incentive.
Even arab countries do not want those troublemakers. Who says we'd want those people here when many of them are willing to strap on suicide bomber belts. No thank you. And I doubt any european country would ever be interested. Jordan doesn't want any more of those violence prone people.
I am not sure why Israel should give up their exclusive right to their original historical capital. Sounds like a serious case of politically idiotic altruism. No way Israel would ever agree to that.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
complicated
the bottom line...... how does $5/gal gas sound.
Will that be good for the US economy as we depend on shipping for almost all our consumer goods.
Is that a "sacrifice" you are willing to make for the imperialist notions of the Project for the New American century?
Mideast update....... Israel is trashing Lebanon the newest democracy in the region.
So far it seems like this spreading democracy thing just isn't working out too well.
Bush wants war with Iran, by provoking Syria.
China and Russia do not.
Call me a traitor if you will. I don't wish to take sides. I want a peaceful resolution ASAP.
NO ONE benefits from a never ending war in the Middle East. Again are you ready to pay $5/gal for gas? Is that a price you look forward to paying to end tyranny in the Middle East.
I'm only half stupid
Try again
Wrong. Israel would be protected by NATO's nuclear umbrella. By giving up its own arsenal, Israel gains the protection of NATO's deterrent arsenal and gets a guarantee that its enemies will not develop nuclear weapons.
Everyone would have to pay a price for peace, including NATO. This plan would be a chance for European NATO members to put up or shut up. Would Iran challenge NATO in a nuclear showdown? Fat chance.
You're completely wrong. The Saudis put forth a peace plan in 2002 and again in 2005 that offered universal Arab recognition of Israel.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1844214.stm
There is already a large Palestinian-American community:
http://www.pac-national.org/index.html
Do you think we should round them all up before they start strapping on suicide vests? And what would you do with the nearly half million Palestinian refugees scattered around the Middle East? Leave them in a stateless purgatory forever?
The rest of your comments are just sweeping generalizations.
Yes, well, I guess Israel just doesn't get everything it wants. Except in your world, of course. Israel's right to Jerusalem is no greater than the right of Muslims and Christians. Considering that at one time or another the city has been ruled by all three, your historic argument is just propaganda.
qui tacet consentire
Suspect you are standing in NYC
which is a long way from the fighting. The most you are personally risking is a crick in your neck from watching too much Fox News.
It's pretty easy to throw out empty rhetoric.
Both sides are contributing toward this mess. What are we going to do to help solve it? Do you believe Israel is smart to re-invade Lebanon expecting a different outcome from 20 years ago? Sounds pretty dumb to me.
heh I am standing in my house
Yesterday I've heard some decent analysis on what Israel could want to accomplish with the current offensive, and that is to 1. get lebanese to realize that the only reason they are in this war is because of Hezbollah's actions
2. to finally remove Hezbollah from the Northern border and have it replaced with Lebanese troops
Once the second objective is met and Hezbollah is thrown out of the Lebanese government, Israel can withdraw and it will be much safer. As for us helping anything, we shouldn't. Why should US intervene in Israel's self-defense? They are doing great on their own.
Was it smart for them to do it? It was necessary for any self-respecting nation concerned about its long term safety.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
sounds like a Bush plan
Lebanon already knew Hezbollah was an issue vis a vis Israel. But it's a weak government without the power to remove them.
What lebanese troops?? Lebanon is held together with bailing wire and twine. Expecting them to solve this problem is like expecting 130K troops to police nation of 26 million people.....
Self respect is an emotional thing. Smart people don't get so hung up on whether others might think their penis is small if they don't escalate a fight into an unwinnable mess.
heh
I think you are in dreamland. This has not been solved in half a century and suddenly Gore would've solved it.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
umm ok
And why should Israel depend on others for its own survival? Even if NATO did decide to enter into this partnership and protect Israel, things change, and in the future realities might change so much that NATO is dissolved or it might decide to back out - and Israel would have nothing else to depend on. It absolutely needs the deterrent of nuclear weapons - that is not a realistic suggestion as no one will consider it.
Europe is not interested in confrontation. Trust me, they will only shut up. They couldn't even handle Serbia on their own, and you are talking about Iran? Fat chance Europe will accept this deal of protecting Israel. Besides, they've consistently taken the side of Palestinians against Israel. Their populace would not let their politicians do it, or if it happens anyways it would be political suicide.
A government offering a plan that had no chance of being accepted does not mean that what I said about the actual views of a vast majority of the people in those countries. That same government tolerates the most extreme form of radical Islam, wahhabism, taught in their religious schools. They also tolerate (and probably encourage) various fundraisers for a whole score of terrorist organizations. Some peacemakers.
I don't care about the palestinians already living in US. They are not the same as the radicalized degenerates running around in Israel and blowing things up. I was not generalizing about all the palestinians. As for the palestinian refugees in the middle east, that is neither US nor Israeli problem (nor do I care about them) - they have plenty of their own arab brethren with plenty of land right around them. Let arabs who love each other take them in for good. Wonder why it hasn't happened yet... heh
Silly... Jerusalem was built by Israelites and was originally inhabited by them. So even if Christians and Muslims conquered it in different times, Israel has the original claim and got it back as well.
If somehow American Indians got America back through some fluke, you would be screaming in their support and how they deserved it because they originally owned it, but because it's those militant jews who just can't get on the damn train, you are proposing that they share it with the people who try to kill them. Christians mostly don't mind jews owning Jerusalem, it's only muslims who want it back.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
This post definitely underscores why the two-state solution
This post definitely underscores why the 2-state solution is sorely needed. In order for Israel to survive as a Jewish-majo their troops, settlers and settlements from Gaza, East jerusalem and West Bank...now, and allow the Palestinians to create their own, independent sovereign nation-state in those territoriees.
The two-state solution is also needed because the Palestinian Arab birthrate is much, much higher than that of the israeli Jews, who'd stand to be engulfed and outnumbered in their country if they don't pull out of the Occupied Territories...now.
The two-state solution is also needed precisely because the Palestinians arewant the Palestinians residing in their countries. Therefore, the Palestinians need their own independent sovereign nation-state.
not wanted by any of the other Arab countries due to their history of troublemaking, and Israel can't absorb the Palestinians for obvious reasons, plus none of the Arab countries, including Jordan,