Sweeping Hamas Victory in Palestinian Election

[WSUCougar]

I must say that at first glance this does not bode well for peace in the Middle East. It's got all the ear-marks of a bloody end game. Any other thoughts on this?

And please, let's keep the discussion civil and respectful of others' opinions.

[Anthony]

there's nothing you can do about it. it's what the people want. democracy at it's finest.

[Klinglerware]

Well, it does seem that the Palestinian Authority can't be accused of vote rigging (or at least they didn't try hard enough).

That's democracy for you...

[ISiddiqui]

Yep... kind of makes this whole 'push for democracy' in the ME kind of stupid. I mean if the Administration hadn't been pushing for this, Abbas may have been able to make decent strides (assuming that Kadima was still in power). Now? Who knows. If we decide to 'punish' Palestine for the choice, the situation basically will return to late 90s level as Hamas decides to get aid and support from elsewhere.

Seeing as how we are trying to make Iraq decent, this was not needed. Maybe we should rethink the whole every ME country should be a democracy bit, eh? Maybe we should wait a a few years or decades before that? Hmmm?

The sad part is that we knew this would probably happen. Fatah was insanely corrupt and Hamas was the only group working for building schools and trying to bring some order to the country. The foriegn policy didn't even matter for most Palestinians... duh!

[Ben E Lou]

I must say that at first glance this does not bode well for peace in the Middle East. It's got all the ear-marks of a bloody end game. Any other thoughts on this?

And please, let's keep the discussion civil and respectful of others' opinions.This will probably speed up peace over there, if you ask me, although getting there will likely be terrible.

[WSUCougar]

This will probably speed up peace over there, if you ask me, although getting there will likely be terrible.
Can you elaborate?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Not particularly surprising to me, about what I expected really except for the majority being a little bigger than I would have guessed. It is what it is, they're going to do whatever they were going to do win or lose anyway, and in the long run it may be as much a good thing as a bad thing.

[flere-imsaho]

I don't think it's a coincidence that since our invasion of Iraq all democratic elections in the Middle East have gone in favor of extremists (Hamas, Iran, the fundamentalists' parties in Egypt, etc...).

After the relatively straightforward international politics of the 20th century (stalemate, U.S. vs. USSR) what this new century needs is a new, more subtle, approach to foreign policy. It's a shame no one in the Bush Administration can spell the word.

[Ben E Lou]

Can you elaborate?Sure. All of the initiatives in the past 30 or so years, including recent ones, were destined to lead to nothing but more rhetoric and wheel-spinning. Now, the day is sped up when either Israel becomes the undisputed dominant military power in the area, or ceases to exist.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It's a shame no one in the Bush Administration can spell the word.

Not nearly as big a shame as the reality that the Bush Adminstration's detractors can't figure out how to properly interpret events at home or abroad.

[flere-imsaho]

Not nearly as big a shame as the reality that the Bush Adminstration's detractors can't figure out how to properly interpret events at home or abroad.

Oh that's right, the fundamentalists are winning elections and the terrorists are getting no end of recruits because they just hate our freedom. It's all clear now.

[Havok]

Not nearly as big a shame as the reality that the Bush Adminstration's detractors can't figure out how to properly interpret events at home or abroad.


now that was nice :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Oh that's right, the fundamentalists are winning elections and the terrorists are getting no end of recruits because they just hate our freedom. It's all clear now.

Thanks for proving my point :)

Here's a hint for you, just to see if it might help (I know, I know, the chances are remote but I figure it won't cost anything to try).

1)Fish are fish.
2)Birds are birds.
3)Fish swim.
4)Birds fly.

[flere-imsaho]

Thanks for proving my point :)

Likewise. :)

[jeff061]

Now we can back <st1><st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region></st1> in wiping out the Palestinians without looking quite as much like the aggressor. Diplomacy and concessions be damned. I wouldn't be surprised if <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>Israel</st1> </st1:country-region>wanted this.

/cynical

[Senator]

As long as earth is here, this will not go away.

[RendeR]

Not nearly as big a shame as the reality that the Bush Adminstration's detractors can't figure out how to properly interpret events at home or abroad.
This statement can't be supported, like most times jon, you spout rhetoric without substance. Interpretation is an individual process, there is no "right" or "wrong" interpretation of anything, simply a point of view created based on said interpretation.

Your snide remark fails the bullshit test.

As for the quality of this administration, based on its record thus far it should go down in history as the single most flawed and failed administration this nation has ever seen.

[Anthony]

As for the quality of this administration, based on its record thus far it should go down in history as the single most flawed and failed administration this nation has ever seen.

i agree. which previous administration had the honor of that distinction?

[Klinglerware]

Now we can back <st1><st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region></st1> in wiping out the Palestinians without looking quite as much like the aggressor. Diplomacy and concessions be damned. I wouldn't be surprised if <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>Israel</st1> </st1:country-region>wanted this.

/cynical

I'd disagree here. If Hamas took power by force, then maybe there might be some justification (and even then, it would be pretty shaky). But in this instance, we actually would look hyper-aggressive and hypocritical, since Hamas assumed power via a democratic election...

[jeff061]

I'd disagree here. If Hamas took power by force, then maybe there might be some justification (and even then, it would be pretty shaky). But in this instance, we actually would look hyper-aggressive and hypocritical, since Hamas assumed power via a democratic election...I mean after Hamas acts like Hamas, not right now. If Hamas stays at the table, then no, that won't happen.

[Mustang]

i agree. which previous administration had the honor of that distinction?

Well I know it wasn't William Henry Harrison... he only had 30 days. Not alot you can screw up in that timeframe...

[Wolfpack]

I don't think it's a coincidence that since our invasion of Iraq all democratic elections in the Middle East have gone in favor of extremists (Hamas, Iran, the fundamentalists' parties in Egypt, etc...).

You think the elections in these other nations were democratic? How many thousand candidates were thrown off the Iranian ballot again? It may have been an election in Iran, for instance, but it was much closer to the Soviet one-party model rather than anything in the Western world.

[Ben E Lou]

after Hamas acts like HamasBingo. Hence my take on it. The natural conclusion of this seems to be full-fledged war over there--whether we're directly involved or not, by the way. What are the odds that Israel accepts a Hamas-led government?

[Anthony]

Bingo. Hence my take on it. The natural conclusion of this seems to be full-fledged war over there--whether we're directly involved or not, by the way. What are the odds that Israel accepts a Hamas-led government?

i can see Israel accepting a Hamas-led government. what i can also see is Hamas remembering their charter and making the first strike for war. i think this is what Israel wants in the end - a reason. retribution, at that point, would come swiftly and decisively.

[Ben E Lou]

i can see Israel accepting a Hamas-led government. what i can also see is Hamas remembering their charter and making the first strike for war. i think this is what Israel wants in the end - a reason. retribution, at that point, would come swiftly and decisively.You may be right, but I guess my overall point is that the situation just got a *LOT* more volatile, and the odds of the two co-existing are pretty low--regardless of which side strikes first.

[WSUCougar]

Now, the day is sped up when either Israel becomes the undisputed dominant military power in the area, or ceases to exist.
Couple comments on this:

1. Depending upon how you define this, Israel already is the dominant military power in the area. :cool:

2. Undisputed? By the Muslim arabs? As long as Jerusalem is part of Israel, the state of Israel's very existence will be disputed. Military power or not.

3. Israel's existence is virtually guaranteed unless the U.S. makes a very radical shift in its foreign policy. Conventional warfare would be the only means for "removing' the Israelis and still retaining Jerusalem intact, and that would be suicidal on the part of any Middle Eastern nations or a coalition of them.

[flere-imsaho]

I forsee an escalation in gas prices. ;)

[PSUColonel]

I agree with SkyDog, this may be the beginings of the next World War,a war in wich we would need to back Israel. I am not a warmonger, but I say if it comes, it comes, and America and t's alies will once again hae to rise to the challenge to defeat the Islamic facists of the the Middle East once and for all.

[flere-imsaho]

I agree with SkyDog, this may be the beginings of the next World War,a war in wich we would need to back Israel. I am not a warmonger, but I say if it comes, it comes, and America and t's alies will once again hae to rise to the challenge to defeat the Islamic facists of the the Middle East once and for all.

Wait, I thought this was why we were in Iraq?

[PSUColonel]

I agree with SkyDog, this may be the beginings of the next World War,a war in wich we would need to back Israel. I am not a warmonger, but I say if it comes, it comes, and America and t's alies will once again hae to rise to the challenge to defeat the Islamic facists of the the Middle East once and for all.


Excuse me for the poor typo spelling, I'm going quickly and my key board sucks.

[cartman]

i agree. which previous administration had the honor of that distinction?

Close running between Warren G. Harding's administration or the Nixon administration. Which is interesting, since many of the power players in the current admin were members of the Nixon admin.

[ISiddiqui]

You think the elections in these other nations were democratic? How many thousand candidates were thrown off the Iranian ballot again? It may have been an election in Iran, for instance, but it was much closer to the Soviet one-party model rather than anything in the Western world.
That's a bit of a hyperbole because the Iranians did have a very definite choice between a hardliner and moderates in guise of Khatami, as well as pragmatic moderates in the middle of those sides. They chose the hardliner, but had every oppertunity to continue Khatami's path (in the guise of Mostafa Moeen, who finished 5th in the first round) was available to them.

[PSUColonel]

Iraq is only the first of many conflcts we will have in the middle east i the coming years. Step one was getting rid of Saddam, and hopefully disarming him, unfortnately his weapons seem to have been taken elsewhere. Any weapons such as these in the hands of either Saddam, or another Islamic fundamentalist or facist is a very dangerous thing for western civilization. The rougue states are also a problem. We simply can not allow these typesof nationsto posess WMD or nuclear capabilities.

[ISiddiqui]

unfortnately his weapons seem to have been taken elsewhere
Or... weren't there to begin with :D.

And I thought Step One was Afghanistan, or have we already forgotten about that country, as the Bush Administration seems to have done?

[WSUCougar]

or facist
You keep saying that word. I do not think you know what that word means.

[Ben E Lou]

Couple comments on this:

1. Depending upon how you define this, Israel already is the dominant military power in the area. :cool:

2. Undisputed? By the Muslim arabs? As long as Jerusalem is part of Israel, the state of Israel's very existence will be disputed. Military power or not.

3. Israel's existence is virtually guaranteed unless the U.S. makes a very radical shift in its foreign policy. Conventional warfare would be the only means for "removing' the Israelis and still retaining Jerusalem intact, and that would be suicidal on the part of any Middle Eastern nations or a coalition of them.That's three comments, by the way....

Let me be clear by what I meant by "dominant:"

Things escalate to the point where either Israel makes a whole lot of glass in the desert, or an eventual Hamas-led coalition causes Israel to cease to exist.

[jeff061]

Step one was getting rid of Saddam, and hopefully disarming him, unfortnately his weapons seem to have been taken elsewhere.Sarcasm?

[PSUColonel]

I know what the word means, very well thank you, as for Afghanistan, we are still there, but just in another capacity. It is a much morelow key special ops type operation than what we are doing in Iraq. The taiban lives in caves and in the mountains...they are much more difficult to find.

[Wolfpack]

That's a bit of a hyperbole because the Iranians did have a very definite choice between a hardliner and moderates in guise of Khatami, as well as pragmatic moderates in the middle of those sides. They chose the hardliner, but had every oppertunity to continue Khatami's path (in the guise of Mostafa Moeen, who finished 5th in the first round) was available to them.

Maybe, but the choice was akin to choosing between Coke and Diet Coke. Coke Zero, Cherry Coke, Diet Coke with Lime, Pepsi, Mountain Dew, and all other choices were excluded because the people overseeing things didn't want those other flavors in the mix.

Here, you meet the filing fee and the laws set by the state for eligibility, you can be a candidate for office, any office. There, you meet not only the law, but must pass the muster of the mullahs. I wouldn't be surprised that the hardliners won because a number of people stayed home and didn't vote out of protest of a lack of a fair choice.

[Crapshoot]

Bingo. Hence my take on it. The natural conclusion of this seems to be full-fledged war over there--whether we're directly involved or not, by the way. What are the odds that Israel accepts a Hamas-led government?

You greatly overstate the case. Hamas as a governing entity will have to moderate its goals (see Sinn Fien) - it maintained its ceasefires with Israel, and has had prisoner exchanges with it before. What many don't get is that Hamas didnt win because of the infatida - it won because it provided better hospital services, better education, and a better standard of life in the areas where it governed - Fatah was corrupt to the core. The Palestinians were voting based on the government's ability to fulfill its basic obligations - something Fatah had failed to do. Ignore that at your own peril.

[Solecismic]

2. Undisputed? By the Muslim arabs? As long as Jerusalem is part of Israel, the state of Israel's very existence will be disputed. Military power or not.

3. Israel's existence is virtually guaranteed unless the U.S. makes a very radical shift in its foreign policy. Conventional warfare would be the only means for "removing' the Israelis and still retaining Jerusalem intact, and that would be suicidal on the part of any Middle Eastern nations or a coalition of them.

No, the Arab extremist groups, including Hamas, call for the murder of every Jewish man, woman and child in all of Palestine. It's in their charter.

Israel is a tiny country, a little smaller than the state of New Jersey. It wouldn't take a lot of warfare to do tremendous damage. I am sure these groups would gladly sacrifice Jerusalem if it meant destroying Israel.

I don't think America could or would act quickly enough to prevent this. Israel knows its fate is in its own hands.

Hamas won because Fatah was seen as ineffective and corrupt. Palestinians, by and large, would like to see Israel destroyed, because they've been told from birth that Jews have caused all their problems. But this election didn't have much to do with that. Palestinians just wanted the old, corrupt, Arafatless government gone. I'm surprised Fatah even scored in the 40s.

I don't see this as good news. Palestine receives a lot of foreign aid, and while America might stop chipping in, other countries won't. That's money in Hamas' pocket.

I don't see much changing in the near future, though. Hamas is aware that a lot of eyes are on them, and Israel has won some points internationally for leaving Gaza. If the level of violence is increased, the world won't be kind.

[Crapshoot]

Btw- Money sent to Hamas has a hell of a better chance reaching the aid targets than money send under Fatah's rule ever will. Jim and I disagree strongly on the middle east, but too many people are ignoring the domestic implications of why Hamas won, in favor of percieved foreign policy ones.

[flere-imsaho]

I know what the word means, very well thank you, as for Afghanistan, we are still there, but just in another capacity. It is a much morelow key special ops type operation than what we are doing in Iraq. The taiban lives in caves and in the mountains...they are much more difficult to find.

You've got to be shitting me. Have you even spoken to anyone serving in Afghanistan? Roadside bombs, ambushes, mortar attacks, etc.... It's just not making the news like it is in Iraq (and isn't quite as prevalent as in Iraq), but it still happens.


No end in sight to Afghanistan's years of violence
26 Jan 2006 05:25:11 GMT

Source: Reuters (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ISL175965.htm)

By Mirwais Afghan

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan, Jan 26 (Reuters) - The violence that has blighted Afghanistan for so many long years has shattered baker Abdul Sallam's life.

Sallam's 33-year-old son was killed in a suicide bomb attack in the southern city of Kandahar last week.

"He was the only one working at the bakery to support the family but now he's dead. I don't know what to do," the old man said while visiting his son's grave.

Sallam's son was standing outside his bakery when a suicide bomber attacked a Canadian military convoy on Jan 15.

He and another bystander were killed. A senior Canadian diplomat was also killed and three Canadian soldiers were seriously wounded. Suicide bombers killed 26 people in two attacks the next day.

Afghanistan has not seen the extremes violence that Iraq has had to endure but parts of the south and east are still plagued by bloodshed, more than four years after U.S. forces invaded to drive the Taliban from power.

Security will be a central issue at an international conference on Afghanistan in London on Jan 31-Feb. 1.

Afghanistan is seeking a firm commitment of international military help until its fledgling security forces can do the job.

Spreading fear and anger, the Taliban and their militant allies have begun copying the tactics of insurgents in Iraq, unleashing a wave of suicide bombings -- 13 since November.

"When we go to the market our families worry about us. We don't know if we'll get home alive," said Kandahar resident Gulali.

Attacks by militants surged last Spring, along with major clashes with U.S. and Afghan government forces.

About 1,500 people were killed in violence last year, most of them insurgents but including about 60 U.S. troops. But the violence, largely confined to the south and east, did not disrupt landmark legislative elections in September.

Unable to defeat the security forces, the militants are increasingly turning to bomb attacks on military and civilian targets, the U.S. military says.

"VERY DISTURBING"

"When you have teachers being beheaded and schools being closed in parts of the country, when you have suicide bombers killing Afghan civilians and Canadian diplomats, that is a very disturbing trend," said Richard Norland, deputy chief of the U.S. embassy in Kabul.

"What we need to do collectively is work towards some solutions to try to contain these tactics," he said.

Many angry Afghans, including the governor of Kandahar province, have accused Pakistan of involvement in the bombings. Pakistan, which is battling militants on its side of the border, denies the accusations.

The latest wave of violence comes as the United States hopes to cut its troop numbers to 16,000, from more than 18,000, with NATO due to fill the gap by increasing its peacekeeping force to 15,000 from 9,000.

British, Dutch and Canadian NATO troops are due to lead an expansion into the south but the plan has been thrown into question by Dutch doubts about sending 1,200 soldiers to a region far more dangerous than the areas NATO now operates in.

The stubborn insurgency, which President Hamid Karzai says is fuelled by drug money, is disastrous for efforts to attract investment. It also disrupts development work. About 30 aid workers, most of them Afghans, were killed last year.

"There are no areas where no NGOs are going but there are vast areas where very few NGOs are going," Anja de Beer, director of an agency coordinating non-governmental organisations (NGOs), said of the south.

Some Afghans say the violence will continue as long as foreign forces remain but most say only international troops can secure peace.

"We need coalition forces because we don't have a strong, self-sufficient army and police," said Kandahar resident Saifullah.

[Solecismic]

Btw- Money sent to Hamas has a hell of a better chance reaching the aid targets than money send under Fatah's rule ever will. Jim and I disagree strongly on the middle east, but too many people are ignoring the domestic implications of why Hamas won, in favor of percieved foreign policy ones.

Where do we disagree? Do you agree with the Hamas charter? Do you see Israel as the aggressor in 1948, 1967 or 1975? Do you think Israel has a right to exist? Do you think it has a right to go after those who attack, like we are with Al Qaeda?

[WSUCougar]

Israel is a tiny country, a little smaller than the state of New Jersey. It wouldn't take a lot of warfare to do tremendous damage. I am sure these groups would gladly sacrifice Jerusalem if it meant destroying Israel.

I don't think America could or would act quickly enough to prevent this. Israel knows its fate is in its own hands.
Are you saying that Hamas (or whomever) would nuke Jerusalem to annihilate Israel? And if you're not, could you please elaborate on what you are suggesting in terms of "destroying" Israel.

[flere-imsaho]

Maybe, but the choice was akin to choosing between Coke and Diet Coke. Coke Zero, Cherry Coke, Diet Coke with Lime, Pepsi, Mountain Dew, and all other choices were excluded because the people overseeing things didn't want those other flavors in the mix.

Iranians sent a very clear message when they elected Ahmadinejad over Khatami. There's a pretty real difference between the two.

[rexallllsc]

i can see Israel accepting a Hamas-led government. what i can also see is Hamas remembering their charter and making the first strike for war. i think this is what Israel wants in the end - a reason. retribution, at that point, would come swiftly and decisively.

As long as we don't feel the need to but in, I'm not really concerned.

[Solecismic]

Are you saying that Hamas (or whomever) would nuke Jerusalem to annihilate Israel? And if you're not, could you please elaborate on what you are suggesting in terms of "destroying" Israel.

Of course they would. Read their charter if you have any doubt.

[ISiddiqui]

Like Jim, I don't think there will be much change in the near future. Though if Israel catagorically refuses to speak with Palestine because Hamas is the majority in Parliament, things could get very violent, very quickly.

[cartman]

I know what the word means, very well thank you

Kinda funny, since "facist" isn't a word.

[Anthony]

if Israel is so tiny, how come it's the dominant military power in that part of the world? in terms of sheer numbers, obviously they have a tiny population, and then not everyone who lives in Israel is in the military. so where does the might come from? the odds surely look not in Israel's favor, but like the litle engine that could they seem to persevere. just wondering how.

[ISiddiqui]

Of course they would. Read their charter if you have any doubt.
Ok, this I strongly disagree with. Hamas won't nuke Jerusalem. Destroying the 3rd holiest city in Islam, where Muhammed was supposed to have ascended to heaven would quite clearly outweigh kicking the Jews out. Hell, if they did that, I would imagine Iran would put Fatwas on the entire Hamas leadership!

[ISiddiqui]

if Israel is so tiny, how come it's the dominant military power in that part of the world? in terms of sheer numbers, obviously they have a tiny population, and then not everyone who lives in Israel is in the military. so where does the might come from? the odds surely look not in Israel's favor, but like the litle engine that could they seem to persevere. just wondering how.
There have been smaller countries in the past that have been dominent, but they usually have conquered their enemy (ie, Alexander's Greece beating Persia).

[Crapshoot]

Where do we disagree? Do you agree with the Hamas charter? Do you see Israel as the aggressor in 1948, 1967 or 1975? Do you think Israel has a right to exist? Do you think it has a right to go after those who attack, like we are with Al Qaeda?

Actually, no - I disagree with Israel being selected where it was by the Western powers after the second world war, as a means to assuage their own guilt. I think Israel was clearly not the aggressor in 1948 - on the other hand, why do you choose to ignore 1956 ? As for 1967 - who lauched the pre-emptive attack Jim ? Or 1982 - who invaded Lebanon ?

That being said, my point was more about current policy - no one seriously doubts Israel's right to exist today, even the people in Hamas who recognize that a 50 year old mistake is likely to be erased. Public posturing is not to be confused with actual policy.

[cartman]

if Israel is so tiny, how come it's the dominant military power in that part of the world? in terms of sheer numbers, obviously they have a tiny population, and then not everyone who lives in Israel is in the military. so where does the might come from? the odds surely look not in Israel's favor, but like the litle engine that could they seem to persevere. just wondering how.

Actually, just about every citizen is in the military. Everyone has to join at age 18, so everyone has military training. So while every person is not active duty, pretty much the entire population can be called up in time of war.

They also benefit from access to US technology and training. So while they might be small, they are well trained and have a ton of advanced weaponry.

[Klinglerware]

Public posturing is not to be confused with actual policy.

Exactly. This reminds me of the organizational saying "where you stand depends on where you sit". Now that Hamas is in the position of having to govern (or now that it has its lips on the lucrative teat of foreign aid, depending on how cynical you are), I would not be surprised in the least if Hamas would act more pragmatically to assure its continuing hold on power, now that it has more to lose.

[Klinglerware]

if Israel is so tiny, how come it's the dominant military power in that part of the world?

Second strike nuclear capability.

[Solecismic]

Actually, no - I disagree with Israel being selected where it was by the Western powers after the second world war, as a means to assuage their own guilt. I think Israel was clearly not the aggressor in 1948 - on the other hand, why do you choose to ignore 1956 ? As for 1967 - who lauched the pre-emptive attack Jim ? Or 1982 - who invaded Lebanon ?

That being said, my point was more about current policy - no one seriously doubts Israel's right to exist today, even the people in Hamas who recognize that a 50 year old mistake is likely to be erased. Public posturing is not to be confused with actual policy.

I suggest you read up a little about what happened in 1967. With troops from several nations on their borders, blockades on their shipping and extraordinary rhetoric coming from several Arab leaders, Israel had to do something in response. Or do you disagree with that?

In 1982, Israeli forces responded to the PLO, which was launching attacks on Israel from its camps in Lebanon. There would have been no need to go into Lebanon if the Lebanese government had ousted the PLO on its own. It's exactly the same situation as our going into Afghanistan to go after Al Qaeda. Or do you disagree with that?

As for Israel's creation, nothing about it was ideal, but at least they had some connection to the land. Just a tiny piece of land, smaller than New Jersey. Sure, I wish it were elsewhere, too. But it's not their fault.

Hamas does want to get rid of Israel. That has not changed and won't change. They pledged just months ago to build up their supplies of Qassam rockets and, at a certain time in the future, will start sending them into Israeli cities. Including and specifically mentioning Jerusalem.

Qassam rockets are very crude and have no guidance system and limited range. But if sent randomly into Jerusalem, as Hamas has pledged to do, they could just as easily destroy an historic location as kill someone.

Hamas is not warm and fuzzy by any means. It exists for one purpose only.

[Abe Sargent]

I suggest you read up a little about what happened in 1967. With troops from several nations on their borders, blockades on their shipping and extraordinary rhetoric coming from several Arab leaders, Israel had to do something in response. Or do you disagree with that?

In 1982, Israeli forces responded to the PLO, which was launching attacks on Israel from its camps in Lebanon. There would have been no need to go into Lebanon if the Lebanese government had ousted the PLO on its own. It's exactly the same situation as our going into Afghanistan to go after Al Qaeda. Or do you disagree with that?

As for Israel's creation, nothing about it was ideal, but at least they had some connection to the land. Just a tiny piece of land, smaller than New Jersey. Sure, I wish it were elsewhere, too. But it's not their fault.

Hamas does want to get rid of Israel. That has not changed and won't change. They pledged just months ago to build up their supplies of Qassam rockets and, at a certain time in the future, will start sending them into Israeli cities. Including and specifically mentioning Jerusalem.

Qassam rockets are very crude and have no guidance system and limited range. But if sent randomly into Jerusalem, as Hamas has pledged to do, they could just as easily destroy an historic location as kill someone.

Hamas is not warm and fuzzy by any means. It exists for one purpose only.


By no means was Israel innocent in 1967. To be fair, they bombed the Egyptian airstrip and removed their aerial capability, which is a legitimate military target.

Of course, then they destroyed a US ship in the Med Sea so we wouldn't know what was going on, and we let them because public opinion was on their side.


-Anxiety

[Crapshoot]

I suggest you read up a little about what happened in 1967. With troops from several nations on their borders, blockades on their shipping and extraordinary rhetoric coming from several Arab leaders, Israel had to do something in response. Or do you disagree with that?

In 1982, Israeli forces responded to the PLO, which was launching attacks on Israel from its camps in Lebanon. There would have been no need to go into Lebanon if the Lebanese government had ousted the PLO on its own. It's exactly the same situation as our going into Afghanistan to go after Al Qaeda. Or do you disagree with that?

As for Israel's creation, nothing about it was ideal, but at least they had some connection to the land. Just a tiny piece of land, smaller than New Jersey. Sure, I wish it were elsewhere, too. But it's not their fault.

Hamas does want to get rid of Israel. That has not changed and won't change. They pledged just months ago to build up their supplies of Qassam rockets and, at a certain time in the future, will start sending them into Israeli cities. Including and specifically mentioning Jerusalem.

Qassam rockets are very crude and have no guidance system and limited range. But if sent randomly into Jerusalem, as Hamas has pledged to do, they could just as easily destroy an historic location as kill someone.

Hamas is not warm and fuzzy by any means. It exists for one purpose only.

Firstly, I'll continue to note your selective ignorance of 1956- I'll take that as a concession.

Secondly, Hamas is warm and fuzzy ? where on earth have I ever made that ridiculous stance ? That's a strawman -nothing more.

In 1967, Egypt closed the Straits and Suez Canal to Israeli shipping - as is their right, since that was Egyptian territory. Do you dispute that part ?

Lets talk about Israel's human rights record Jim - the killing of Egyptian POW's in that war - or the massacres in Lebanon. I'm clear that no one here has clean hands - and to pretend otherwise is willfully ignorant. To its credit, Israel has done a far better job of accomodating its minorities than the Arab world - but its role as an usurper in the first place is the root of much of the conflict.

[Solecismic]

By no means was Israel innocent in 1967. To be fair, they bombed the Egyptian airstrip and removed their aerial capability, which is a legitimate military target.

Of course, then they destroyed a US ship in the Med Sea so we wouldn't know what was going on, and we let them because public opinion was on their side.


-Anxiety

Wow. A U.S.S. Liberty conspiracy theorist. Even though that angle has been thoroughly investigated and debunked.

Meanwhile, Egypt ordered the UN peacekeeping troops off of the Israeli/Egyptian border and said the following:

"As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is a total war which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."

So, what in the high holy fuck was Israel supposed to do in response? Sit around and wait for the Egyptian troops to come in their homes and massacre them?

[Crapshoot]

By no means was Israel innocent in 1967. To be fair, they bombed the Egyptian airstrip and removed their aerial capability, which is a legitimate military target.

Of course, then they destroyed a US ship in the Med Sea so we wouldn't know what was going on, and we let them because public opinion was on their side.


-Anxiety

aha yes- the USS Liberty, a fact that too many people are unaware of. American seamen died because the Israeli's did not want the US knowing what was going on there.

[Crapshoot]

Wow. A U.S.S. Liberty conspiracy theorist. Even though that angle has been thoroughly investigated and debunked.

Meanwhile, Egypt ordered the UN peacekeeping troops off of the Israeli/Egyptian border and said the following:

"As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is a total war which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."

So, what in the high holy fuck was Israel supposed to do in response? Sit around and wait for the Egyptian troops to come in their homes and massacre them?

Debunked ? The damn NSA records suggest that Israel was directly responsible for attacking the Liberty, a ship that was flying the American flag rather prominently. There is no doubt that the Israeli's sunk the ship - the only debate has always been about whether they knew it was an American ship.

[Solecismic]

Firstly, I'll continue to note your selective ignorance of 1956- I'll take that as a concession.

Secondly, Hamas is warm and fuzzy ? where on earth have I ever made that ridiculous stance ? That's a strawman -nothing more.

In 1967, Egypt closed the Straits and Suez Canal to Israeli shipping - as is their right, since that was Egyptian territory. Do you dispute that part ?

Lets talk about Israel's human rights record Jim - the killing of Egyptian POW's in that war - or the massacres in Lebanon. I'm clear that no one here has clean hands - and to pretend otherwise is willfully ignorant. To its credit, Israel has done a far better job of accomodating its minorities than the Arab world - but its role as an usurper in the first place is the root of much of the conflict.

No, it is not their right to blockade Israeli ships, as they did in both 1956 and 1967. That's part of a declaration of war.

In 1956, Nasser blockaded ships and sent fighters to attack the Israeli border. He pledged there would never be peace with Israel. Israel, with the backing of France and England, took the Sinai in response.

I didn't mention it because it isn't on the top three in the Arab hit parade. Israel did go too far in response, they did not show enough restraint once the war was won. But it's far cry from the repeated pledges from the Arab countries to kill every Israeli man, woman and child.

[Solecismic]

Debunked ? The damn NSA records suggest that Israel was directly responsible for attacking the Liberty, a ship that was flying the American flag rather prominently. There is no doubt that the Israeli's sunk the ship - the only debate has always been about whether they knew it was an American ship.

There's no doubt Israel attacked the Liberty and that people were killed. There's also no doubt that the attack ceased when the Israelis realized it was an American ship and they did make restitution.

Why would they care if Americans knew about the air strikes on Egypt? The whole world knew pretty much immediately and the Americans certainly wouldn't have warned anyone in time or stepped in to prevent the air strikes.

[ISiddiqui]

I wouldn't say the fact that the USS Liberty being attacked deliberately was debunked when people like then CIA Director Richard Helms, then SecState Dean Rusk, and former Head of the JCS Admiral Thomas Moorer think it was deliberate.

This an article written by Admiral Mooner on the issue:

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_ID=10&article_ID=2749&categ_id=15

[Solecismic]

I wouldn't say the fact that the USS Liberty being attacked deliberately was debunked when people like then CIA Director Richard Helms, then SecState Dean Rusk, and former Head of the JCS Admiral Thomas Moorer think it was deliberate.

This an article written by Admiral Mooner on the issue:

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_ID=10&article_ID=2749&categ_id=15

Some, even in high places, believe in conspiracy theories.

Why did Moorer's office approve the CIA report that the Liberty did resemble a known Egyptian fighter - this after the US had reported to Israel it had no warships in the region?

Rusk, by his own admission, never studied what was written about the attack. Not sure about Helms.

The fact remains that there was no sane reason for attacking the Liberty and it was an active combat zone.

[WSUCougar]

For further information, here's a link to a June 2003 article on the Liberty incident and follow-up in the USNI Proceedings magazine:

Proceedings article (http://www.usni.org/proceedings/Articles03/PROwalsh06.htm)

[-Mojo Jojo-]

So the usual bickering aside, I'm thinking this is a step forward for peace in the Middle East. It's been clear since Oslo that Hamas has the power to veto any peace agreement they didn't agree with. It's a power Israel gave them by running away from the negotiating table every time a bomb went off. Meanwhile Israel refused to negotiate with Hamas, even when Hamas was interested in talking. Israel gave Hamas the power to cancel negotiations but barred them from the negotiating table. Consequently no peace negotiation since then has had any chance of success. Now they'll have no alternative. There is no one there to talk to but Hamas. If a settlement is negotiated with Hamas, it has a chance of sticking, something that was never true of negotiations with Fatah. And Jim's ranting aside, it seems pretty clear that Hamas is open to peace negotiations. This situation has been stuck in a deadlock for more than a decade, but today the particular political alignment causing the deadlock has been flipped. If Israel and the U.S. don't overreact, something worthwhile could come out of this...

[WSUCougar]

Mojo,

Given your statement above, what's your feeling on how Hamas will approach negotiations with Israel, if they occur? What will be their stated goals to the Palestinian people? To Israel?

[Crapshoot]

So the usual bickering aside, I'm thinking this is a step forward for peace in the Middle East. It's been clear since Oslo that Hamas has the power to veto any peace agreement they didn't agree with. It's a power Israel gave them by running away from the negotiating table every time a bomb went off. Meanwhile Israel refused to negotiate with Hamas, even when Hamas was interested in talking. Israel gave Hamas the power to cancel negotiations but barred them from the negotiating table. Consequently no peace negotiation since then has had any chance of success. Now they'll have no alternative. There is no one there to talk to but Hamas. If a settlement is negotiated with Hamas, it has a chance of sticking, something that was never true of negotiations with Fatah. And Jim's ranting aside, it seems pretty clear that Hamas is open to peace negotiations. This situation has been stuck in a deadlock for more than a decade, but today the particular political alignment causing the deadlock has been flipped. If Israel and the U.S. don't overreact, something worthwhile could come out of this...

Yup. The Economist has been arguing the same thing -at some level, much like Sharon was the guy who the Israeli's will take seriously on peace talks - Hamas holds a similar position for the Palestinans.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Sit around and wait for the Egyptian troops to come in their homes and massacre them?

Actually, they're supposed to sit there with their hands folded quietly so as not to disturb those poor oppressed Arabs who would never harm a fly & certainly have no intention of disturbing Israel (no matter how evil those damned Israeli's are).

Or, in other words, yes Jim, that's exactly what a lot of people think they're supposed to do.

Those who think they should are damned fools ... but that really doesn't stop them from thinking so.

[Solecismic]

So the usual bickering aside, I'm thinking this is a step forward for peace in the Middle East. It's been clear since Oslo that Hamas has the power to veto any peace agreement they didn't agree with. It's a power Israel gave them by running away from the negotiating table every time a bomb went off. Meanwhile Israel refused to negotiate with Hamas, even when Hamas was interested in talking. Israel gave Hamas the power to cancel negotiations but barred them from the negotiating table. Consequently no peace negotiation since then has had any chance of success. Now they'll have no alternative. There is no one there to talk to but Hamas. If a settlement is negotiated with Hamas, it has a chance of sticking, something that was never true of negotiations with Fatah. And Jim's ranting aside, it seems pretty clear that Hamas is open to peace negotiations. This situation has been stuck in a deadlock for more than a decade, but today the particular political alignment causing the deadlock has been flipped. If Israel and the U.S. don't overreact, something worthwhile could come out of this...


Mojo's ignorance aside, here's a link to the Hamas charter:

http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

That is who these people are. They have no interest in peaceful coexistence.

Just read the damned document. Then read any of a number of recent statements Hamas has made about its pursuit of the destruction of Israel.

Hamas negotiating peace. That's a good one.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Mojo,

Given your statement above, what's your feeling on how Hamas will approach negotiations with Israel, if they occur? What will be their stated goals to the Palestinian people? To Israel?

I honestly have no idea. Nor do I mean to suggest for an instant that it will be easy for the two sides to reach an agreement. I'm sure Hamas will be a difficult negotiating partner. But I think it can be done. And I think it is the ONLY way there will be peace between Israel and Palestine.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Mojo's ignorance aside, here's a link to the Hamas charter:

http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

That is who these people are. They have no interest in peaceful coexistence.

Just read the damned document. Then read any of a number of recent statements Hamas has made about its pursuit of the destruction of Israel.

Hamas negotiating peace. That's a good one.

Charter charter charter charter charter

charter charter

Yeah, ok. Thanks. That must be the end of the story.

[Klinglerware]

Mojo's ignorance aside, here's a link to the Hamas charter:

http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

That is who these people are. They have no interest in peaceful coexistence.

Just read the damned document. Then read any of a number of recent statements Hamas has made about its pursuit of the destruction of Israel.

Hamas negotiating peace. That's a good one.

Since when did anything written on a piece of paper matter in international politics? Governments, including our own, disregard rule of law and even their own rhetoric when it suits them.

While Hamas is certainly not a group to be trusted, historical evidence does seem to point to the idea that outsiders do tend to act more pragmatically realative to their prior rhetoric, once they rise to power. For some outsider groups, once they become insiders the preservation of power becomes more of a motivating force than the ideals they once stood for. Again, those in power have more to lose than those without...

[MrBigglesworth]

Mojo's ignorance aside, here's a link to the Hamas charter:

http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

That is who these people are. They have no interest in peaceful coexistence.

Just read the damned document. Then read any of a number of recent statements Hamas has made about its pursuit of the destruction of Israel.

Hamas negotiating peace. That's a good one.
One critical piece of information now though is that Hamas will be depending on the EU and the US for large amounts of aid. They came to power due to their ability to aid the people of Palestine domestically, and now they will have to choose between terrorism and aid, a choice that they have not faced before.

[gstelmack]

Since when did anything written on a piece of paper matter in international politics? Governments, including our own, disregard rule of law and even their own rhetoric when it suits them.

While Hamas is certainly not a group to be trusted, historical evidence does seem to point to the idea that outsiders do tend to act more pragmatically realative to their prior rhetoric, once they rise to power. For some outsider groups, once they become insiders the preservation of power becomes more of a motivating force than the ideals they once stood for. Again, those in power have more to lose than those without...
Well, now that they are in power let's see how quickly they correct their "misguided" charter...

[Solecismic]

Charter charter charter charter charter

charter charter

Yeah, ok. Thanks. That must be the end of the story.

It isn't. But it's certainly a major piece. It cannot be ignored.

Look how they've continued to attack Israel, and how they've promised to continue to try and drive Israel into the sea.

What if our Constitution demanded that we, by God's wrath, were required to drive all Muslims from the face of the earth? Should we then still get any benefit of the doubt when dealing with Al Qaeda? Or with any Muslim nation? Would we, as citizens of a supposedly free country, stand for this in our Constitution?

Hamas refuses to accept Israel's right to exist. Again, they are not fuzzy little adorable creatures manning a resistence. They live to hate. They would, and have, given their lives to the elimination of Israel. They feel it's their duty, under their god, to do so.

[flere-imsaho]

Charter: I'd just like to point out that one should take a look at Sinn Fein's charter, for example, and see how an organization can change over time. I'm not saying that this will happen with Hamas, but I wouldn't place it outside the realm of possibility. Never say never and all that.

[clintl]

The PLO had the destruction of Israel in their charter, too, and they changed, although not enough. Every Arab country had the destruction of Israel as an official policy goal at one time. Some of them have since made peace treaties.

Over on the other side, Ariel Sharon at one time stated that Jordan should be the Palestinian homeland. That's not all that different from the other side as the Hamas stand. Sharon changed.

The first peace agreement between Israel and an Arab country was signed by two former terrorists, Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat.

To say that there's no possibility of Hamas changing is a pretty big denial of something that we've seen happen in others just as militant in their day in that region. Maybe Hamas won't change. But nearly every other extremest group on both sides in this conflict that has come to power has moderated itself once in power.

[biological warrior]

Actually, just about every citizen is in the military. Everyone has to join at age 18, so everyone has military training. So while every person is not active duty, pretty much the entire population can be called up in time of war.

They also benefit from access to US technology and training. So while they might be small, they are well trained and have a ton of advanced weaponry. The Yom Kippur War of 1973 proved that Israel can and will mobilize reservists quickly. I assume it will be the same when the next attack comes.

[biological warrior]

Dola: Doesn't democratic elections usually represent the collective view of the people? Thus in the case of Palestine electing a majority of Hamas then it basically means that the people (Palestinian voters and citizens) agree in principle to Hamas' political ideologies and, charters of all kinds.

[ISiddiqui]

Yup. The Economist has been arguing the same thing -at some level, much like Sharon was the guy who the Israeli's will take seriously on peace talks - Hamas holds a similar position for the Palestinans.Kind of like how only Nixon could go to China? I can buy that. Hamas is probably the only people that can make peace with Israel and not look like pansies. Similar to Sharon's actions as PM of Isreal.

[ISiddiqui]

Dola: Doesn't democratic elections usually represent the collective view of the people? Thus in the case of Palestine electing a majority of Hamas then it basically means that the people (Palestinian voters and citizens) agree in principle to Hamas' political ideologies and, charters of all kinds.Do you agree with everything your representative believes in? I don't think anyone does. There is more than ample evidence that Hamas benefited from Fatah being extremely corrupt and stealing aid money for their own purposes.

[Senator]

I lean in agreement with Jim, though my area of expertise is North Korea and not the Middle East, but I do know the history. I think Hamas is capable of anything, and if they even get an inkling that they should be wiping someone out for their religious beliefs, they will not hesitate to do it. Fanaticism will not care about sanctions.

And I have never believed in one conspiracy theory that is out there, to my knowledge.

[cuervo72]

Fanaticism will not care about sanctions.

I had been thinking that they might even welcome that, in making it more of an us vs. them, Islam vs. non-Islam fight. A reason to further incite, if you will.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

[QUOTE=biological warrior]Dola: Doesn't democratic elections usually represent the collective view of the people? Thus in the case of Palestine electing a majority of Hamas then it basically means that the people (Palestinian voters and citizens) agree in principle to Hamas' political ideologies and, charters of all kinds.[/QUOTE

It's more like Palestinians saw Hamas setting up schools and health centers while the leaders of the PLO drove around in BMW's. The domestic angle is one a lot of people are ignoring so they can continue to say, "damned Arabs. Bomb 'em all to glass."

[Grammaticus]

I've noticed that many of you speak of Palestine as if it is a country. Who in this thread thinks Palestine is an actual country recognized by the United Nations? Does anyone posting in this thread think Palestine is a country or is it just a term you are using? If you believe it is an actual country, can you reference any documentation that supports that claim?

I'm curious, because I believe it is a term used to identify a geographic area and not a nation. If I am wrong, I would like to clarify that.

[MrBigglesworth]

I've noticed that many of you speak of Palestine as if it is a country. Who in this thread thinks Palestine is an actual country recognized by the United Nations? Does anyone posting in this thread think Palestine is a country or is it just a term you are using? If you believe it is an actual country, can you reference any documentation that supports that claim?

I'm curious, because I believe it is a term used to identify a geographic area and not a nation. If I am wrong, I would like to clarify that.
It's a de facto country. They have elections, they get aid, they send out diplomatic missions, etc.

[Warhammer]

Iranians sent a very clear message when they elected Ahmadinejad over Khatami. There's a pretty real difference between the two.

You do realize what is going on over there, don't you? Ahmadinejad was perceived as an outsider. So the masses elected him over Khatami. The power brokers there want to oust Ahmadinehad, so he is spouting off all this rhetoric. The power brokers are banking that the masses who look favorably on the West, will stop supporteing Ahmadinejad, so he can be thrown out of power. The election of Ahmadinejad was a slap in the face of the powers that be in Iran, but what happened after the election, I don't think anyone fore saw.

[Warhammer]

I lean in agreement with Jim, though my area of expertise is North Korea and not the Middle East, but I do know the history. I think Hamas is capable of anything, and if they even get an inkling that they should be wiping someone out for their religious beliefs, they will not hesitate to do it. Fanaticism will not care about sanctions.

And I have never believed in one conspiracy theory that is out there, to my knowledge.

I agree with both Senator and Jim, and I will throw this out. If Hamas does moderate its views to consolidate their power, those that choose to abide by the charter of Hamas will split off and start causing trouble over there.

I also suggest that people, rather than study Islam, study Muhammad and how he actually ruled and led. Additionally, look at the history of the Caliphates in the area as well.

[Solecismic]

The PLO had the destruction of Israel in their charter, too, and they changed, although not enough. Every Arab country had the destruction of Israel as an official policy goal at one time. Some of them have since made peace treaties.

Over on the other side, Ariel Sharon at one time stated that Jordan should be the Palestinian homeland. That's not all that different from the other side as the Hamas stand. Sharon changed.

The first peace agreement between Israel and an Arab country was signed by two former terrorists, Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat.

To say that there's no possibility of Hamas changing is a pretty big denial of something that we've seen happen in others just as militant in their day in that region. Maybe Hamas won't change. But nearly every other extremest group on both sides in this conflict that has come to power has moderated itself once in power.


Okay, so what you're saying is advocating the destruction of a race of people is "not all that different" from saying they have a right to exist, but that Jordan (which has agreements in place with Israel) should take over the West Bank. Huh?

Sharon was trying to propose a solution there. Jordan wants no part of the West Bank since the war of 1970, so it didn't fly and it won't fly. He certainly wasn't advocating the massacre of Palestinians.

I know it's upsetting to some, but I strongly urge you and others to read the Hamas charter, then come back to this item. Someone compared Hamas to Sinn Fein, which is the political wing of the terrorist IRA. The IRA is a terrible organization, and I lived in London during a period of active bombing. But not in terms of religious fervor and desire to wipe out an entire race of people. Sinn Fein never started with that kind of speech. Just read the Hamas charter.

Hamas has to undergo complete reform here, but all they'll say is that they have their missiles ready and they're honoring the cease fire for now. They still refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, and they still claim their capital is East Jerusalem, which isn't going to happen. You can't negotiate from that stance.

[Ben E Lou]

Well, now that they are in power let's see how quickly they correct their "misguided" charter...I think that's a key. From cnn.com: The Cabinet released a statement afterward saying, "The state of Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian administration if its members include an armed terrorist organization that calls for the destruction of the state of Israel; in any case, Israel will continue to fight terrorism with a heavy hand, everywhere." The Cabinet also called on Abbas and the Palestinian Authority to "disarm Hamas and the other terrorist organizations and dismantle their other abilities to perpetrate acts of terrorism."Israel would be completely justified by issuing an ultimatum: no negotiations with Hamas-led government until Hamas renounces its charter. Period.

[ISiddiqui]

You do realize what is going on over there, don't you? Ahmadinejad was perceived as an outsider. So the masses elected him over Khatami. The power brokers there want to oust Ahmadinehad, so he is spouting off all this rhetoric. The power brokers are banking that the masses who look favorably on the West, will stop supporteing Ahmadinejad, so he can be thrown out of power. The election of Ahmadinejad was a slap in the face of the powers that be in Iran, but what happened after the election, I don't think anyone fore saw.
Wha? Ahmadinejad was backed by the guys in charge. You know, the Ayatollah's guys? Khatami's successor (Moeen) didn't get far, but it is hard to say that Rafsanjani was a Khatami clone. He was/is a fairly pragmatic guy who did say that perhaps there should be reproachment between Iran and the US.

[Warhammer]

Wha? Ahmadinejad was backed by the guys in charge. You know, the Ayatollah's guys? Khatami's successor (Moeen) didn't get far, but it is hard to say that Rafsanjani was a Khatami clone. He was/is a fairly pragmatic guy who did say that perhaps there should be reproachment between Iran and the US.

No, he was an outsider. Actually, the big guys are trying to figure out how to get him out, but are afraid of what the people would do. I think all the saber rattling is because it would galvanize the people and the power brokers if the US invaded, at least it is what the people in power hope would happen if we did. I think the people would rise in support of us, if we did.

[vtbub]

Dola: Doesn't democratic elections usually represent the collective view of the people? Thus in the case of Palestine electing a majority of Hamas then it basically means that the people (Palestinian voters and citizens) agree in principle to Hamas' political ideologies and, charters of all kinds.
All politics is local. Hamas ran on a clean up the corruption campaign, and that carried the day. The biggest surprise I had was that this was a surprise. They will have to do as they promised in the campaign, clean things up, or they will fall along the wayside.

[Mr. Wednesday]

I think the people [of Iran] would rise in support of us, if we did [invade].You're nuts. We already tried that with Iraq and it failed miserably (referring to the failure of the people rising in support of us, not the operation as a whole). And in Iraq, we weren't taking on a Muslim government.

[ISiddiqui]

No, he was an outsider. Actually, the big guys are trying to figure out how to get him out, but are afraid of what the people would do. I think all the saber rattling is because it would galvanize the people and the power brokers if the US invaded, at least it is what the people in power hope would happen if we did. I think the people would rise in support of us, if we did.
I think you've bought into the propaganda. Ahmedinejad, while running as a populist, was very much a favorite of the hardliner crowd. He was one of two conservatives on the slate in the last Presidential election (Ali Larijani wasn't expected to win, however). It seems kind of strange to claim how much of an outsider he was when he was the one backed by the extreme faction of Iran (and in fact Rafsanjani and Karroubi accuse the Iranian state of vote manipulation to help Ahmedinejad win).

I see no evidence that the Ayatollah Khameni or the Guardian Council are trying to get Ahmedinejad out.

And if you think that the people would rise in support of the US if we invaded Iran, you HAVE to be smoking something!

[flere-imsaho]

No, he was an outsider.

What's an outsider. Given that the Ayatollahs vet all candidates for the Presidential election, can any of them be an outsider? Plus, his previous role was Mayor of Tehran, a job to which he was appointed.

Actually, the big guys are trying to figure out how to get him out, but are afraid of what the people would do.

I'm sure there are parts of the Iranian power structure that are unhappy that he's in place. But this quote only serves to prove my point - Ahmadinejad still won the election, and beat the "moderate" to do it. Given his campaign rhetoric and given what his grass-roots supporters have said as to why they voted for him, he was voted in as an anti-American vote.

Again, our overt and prolonged presence in the Middle East, especially Iraq, does little but serve as a galvanizing factor for Muslim radicals. And you can see this in the election results in places such as Iran and Egypt, and it certainly hasn't hurt recruiting for organizations like Hamas and Al-Qaeda.

[Solecismic]

The Irani people would welcome a U.S. invasion about as much as Kerry supporters would welcome a French invasion in our streets. When push comes to shove, nationalism rises.

[Anthony]

I think the people would rise in support of us, if we did.

did Donald Rumsfeld tell you that? :confused:

[MrBigglesworth]

I think the people would rise in support of us, if we did.
There's a saying in Tennessee...it's in Texas, I think it's in Tennesse...Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me...fool me twice...... We can't get fooled again!

[Warhammer]

did Donald Rumsfeld tell you that? :confused:

College buddy stationed over there that has been approached several times by Iranians asking when we're going to "free them".

[John Galt]

College buddy stationed over there that has been approached several times by Iranians asking when we're going to "free them".

Well that's all the evidence I need. Let's get us some Iranians!

[st.cronin]

I think it's pretty funny that people are arguing that now that Hamas has a position of authority, they're suddenly going to change their mind about jews.

[Anthony]

if we go into Iran without UN support i'm moving out of America, cuz we's gonna get nuked.

[Qwikshot]

I'm gonna sit in the lawn chair, with my white Russian, sunglasses, and lie back and bask in the glowy glow of the nuclear bloom.

Frankly, this isn't surprising, none of it...what other parties were there? Hamas funds a lot in Palestine.

Let it run its course; of course, I wouldn't be surprised is Hamas blames Israel for any shortcomings during it's run, should be able to get them support for years to come.

[Qwikshot]

There's a saying in Tennessee...it's in Texas, I think it's in Tennesse...Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me...fool me twice...... We can't get fooled again!

This reminds me of the dialogue in Anchorman between Ron Burgundy and Brian Fantana

"...60% of the time; it works ALLLLLL the time!"

[Warhammer]

Well that's all the evidence I need. Let's get us some Iranians!

It's a hell of a lot more than what other people have to go on here. "Oh, they live in the Middle East, they must hate us."

I'm not saying that everyone there would welcome us, but put two and two together, and it makes sense to me.

[MrBigglesworth]

College buddy stationed over there that has been approached several times by Iranians asking when we're going to "free them".
Stationed with what organization?

[Qwikshot]

You're nuts. We already tried that with Iraq and it failed miserably (referring to the failure of the people rising in support of us, not the operation as a whole). And in Iraq, we weren't taking on a Muslim government.

Didn't they rise up before during George the 1st reign, but we decided not to pursue the ousting of Saddam causing hundreds of thousands to be slaughtered and brutilized under Saddam's restrengthened regime?

[John Galt]

It's a hell of a lot more than what other people have to go on here. "Oh, they live in the Middle East, they must hate us."

I'm not saying that everyone there would welcome us, but put two and two together, and it makes sense to me.

It is crazy the number of people in this thread who have said, "Oh, they live in the Middle East, they must hate us."

As for what makes sense to you . . . You have once again shown that anecdotal evidence that fits your pre-defined worldview is all you need to be convinced.

[Warhammer]

Stationed with what organization?

US Army, this was back when we first went in.

[MrBigglesworth]

I thought this sounded spot on from a guy that knows a lot about the Middle East:
Democracy depends not just on elections but on a rule of law, on stable institutions, on basic economic security for the population, and on checks and balances that forestall a tyranny of the majority. Elections in the absence of this key societal context can produce authoritarian regimes and abuses as easily as they can produce genuine people power. Bush is on the whole unwilling to invest sufficiently in these key institutions and practices abroad. And by either creating or failing to deal with hated foreign occupations, he has sown the seeds for militant Islamist movements that gain popularity because of their nationalist credentials.
I think it is hard for the adminstration to install these qualities in other countries because they don't believe in them for this country. We've long known that they have had disdain for international law, but now we know they have been actively breaking FISA for 4 years and vow to continue doing it. Economic policy has been tax cuts and a disasterous Medicare bill, with attemps to destroy the security of SS and health insurance. And the checks and balances part is obvious.

[flere-imsaho]

College buddy stationed over there that has been approached several times by Iranians asking when we're going to "free them".

I know several Iranians personally and they all agree that if we were to invade, it would make Vietnam look like a picnic.

There, my anecdotal evidence beats yours. :p

[Warhammer]

It is crazy the number of people in this thread who have said, "Oh, they live in the Middle East, they must hate us."

As for what makes sense to you . . . You have once again shown that anecdotal evidence that fits your pre-defined worldview is all you need to be convinced.

Pot....meet kettle.

At least I have some evidence and realize what it is, rather than just go based upon sheer emotion. My quote was just that many people are assuming that because the Iranian government is at odds with us, that the people hate us, that is just not the case.

I'm not saying they love us either. There are people on both sides, and I think if we went into Iran we might have an easier time of it than we have had in Iraq. But, I think going into Iran is going to be a mess from a military perspective. All things considered, we have had a pretty easy go of it in Iraq.

[MrBigglesworth]

US Army, this was back when we first went in.
When did the US Army go into Iran?

[Warhammer]

When did the US Army go into Iran?

Back when we first went into Iraq, after we finished things up with their military and started rebuilding, tons of Iranians poured over the border to go to the Shi'a holy places in Iraq. My buddy was approached several times by Iranians wondering when we were going to go into Iran and "free them".

[John Galt]

Pot....meet kettle.

At least I have some evidence and realize what it is, rather than just go based upon sheer emotion. My quote was just that many people are assuming that because the Iranian government is at odds with us, that the people hate us, that is just not the case.

I'm not saying they love us either. There are people on both sides, and I think if we went into Iran we might have an easier time of it than we have had in Iraq. But, I think going into Iran is going to be a mess from a military perspective. All things considered, we have had a pretty easy go of it in Iraq.

I do not base my opinon on "sheer emotion." I base it on the numerous reports about Iran in scholarly literature. I base it on the history of countries being invaded. I base it in part on what has happened in Iraq (nationalism and external influence create a massive insurgency). I base it on the fact that I grew up with someone who is half-Iranian and still has a lot of family in Iran. I base it on the fact that I haven't seen a single person with any objective qualification support your view. But if you want to call that "sheer emotion" and your view "some evidence," by all means, go ahead.

If you think Iran would be easier than Iraq then you really are on crack or wholly unaware of the history, demographics, geography, and politics of Iran. Or both.

[rexallllsc]

If you think Iran would easier than Iraq then you really are on crack or wholly unaware of the history, demographics, geography, and politics of Iran. Or both.

Whattya mean?

hxxp://images.airliners.net/photos/photos/6/7/6/593676.jpg

There's Tehran. Have at it boys.

[Solecismic]

It's a hell of a lot more than what other people have to go on here. "Oh, they live in the Middle East, they must hate us."

I'm not saying that everyone there would welcome us, but put two and two together, and it makes sense to me.

Many Iraqis felt the same way, but when they actually saw the troops in the streets, it made them a little sick to their stomachs.

I know Iran has a thriving university population that just hates what's happened with the government over the last few years, but that's why I made the analogy to the anti-Bush crowd.

As much as people here hate Bush and feel he's running the country into the ground, you'd be hard-pressed to find support for a foreign invasion of America. Nationalism always trumps everything else in people's hearts.

[Qwikshot]

I have this theory on why the U.S. is rapidly losing favor abroad:

And it's not just because of Bush, I think that is accelerating the process.

But I really think it has to do with the Cold War, which evidently "we" won. Europe was always the chess board upon which Russia and the U.S. battled, but as oil and other resources were needed, this fueled the need to strengthen "democracy" to other regions like South American, Southeast Asia, and Africa.

While Europe was always a stalemate, most Europeans I would assume thought it in the best interests of preservation to support U.S. interests because of the Bloc Nations.

Once Russia fell, the need for U.S. assurance was minimal. There was no threat that Russia would invade Western Europe. The U.S. however, failed to understand that this was no longer their neighborhood that needed protection (the lesser of two evils) and now these countries want to demonstrate their own assertiveness. The U.S. had been marginalized, but still was trying to assert its influence.

This trickled to the Middle East; always a key player in oil consumption, we constantly ignored human rights issues for the sake of capitalism (much like our consumption of Chinese products). I think that when we went it alone in Iraq that there was a misconception that if we lead, they will follow, and it has been mistaken.

U.S. foreign policy needs to adjust to the new views of emerging powers; we need to work with the system rather than force action. I think that with more effective diplomacy we could project a better image for the U.S., but for now, we invite scorn and ridicule, and I doubt that most nations will offer sympathy should a new wave of terrorist attacks occur on American soil. ("You reap what you sow" type attitudes).

I'm not in favor of isolationism, I'm in favor of understanding other nations, and finding a means of cooperation and support to bring forth a united view of governance, regardless, of government instituion is presiding, that is capable of being beneficial and just to its peoples.

[Warhammer]

I do not base my opinon on "sheer emotion." I base it on the numerous reports about Iran in scholarly literature. I base it on the history of countries being invaded. I base it in part on what has happened in Iraq (nationalism and external influence create a massive insurgency). I base it on the fact that I grew up with someone who is half-Iranian and still has a lot of family in Iran. I base it on the fact that I haven't seen a single person with any objective qualification support your view. But if you want to call that "sheer emotion" and your view "some evidence," by all means, go ahead.

If you think Iran would be easier than Iraq then you really are on crack or wholly unaware of the history, demographics, geography, and politics of Iran. Or both.

That's good to know. I base my belief on the history of the region, geography, and politics of Iran. The demographics I am more sketchy on because I do not know tons about the current economic conditions there. The initial military campaign would be brutal, because the geography is like it is, but I think the follow up to the campaign would be easier because Iran is a more homogenous society than Iraq is, where you have three major populations that do not like each other.

I also agree with what Jim says, Nationalism is a powerful idea, and that could override any feelings of discontent with the current government.

[Warhammer]

Once Russia fell, the need for U.S. assurance was minimal. There was no threat that Russia would invade Western Europe. The U.S. however, failed to understand that this was no longer their neighborhood that needed protection (the lesser of two evils) and now these countries want to demonstrate their own assertiveness. The U.S. had been marginalized, but still was trying to assert its influence.

Excellent observation. They want to demonstrate their own assertiveness, and in the case of France and Germany, they were making a fortune in Iraq while US companies were not allowed to do business there. Economically, France, Germany, and Russia all had reasons for not wanting us there!

This trickled to the Middle East; always a key player in oil consumption, we constantly ignored human rights issues for the sake of capitalism (much like our consumption of Chinese products). I think that when we went it alone in Iraq that there was a misconception that if we lead, they will follow, and it has been mistaken.

I don't think this is what happened. I think it was more an idea that if we don't do anything, it's going to be the same old, same old. How many times did Iraq need to thumb their noses at the UN before we finally got tough with them? I think much of the disagreement abroad stems from two things:

1) Some countries had a lot to lose economically.

2) Many countries stood a lot to gain by not allying themselves with us.

U.S. foreign policy needs to adjust to the new views of emerging powers; we need to work with the system rather than force action. I think that with more effective diplomacy we could project a better image for the U.S., but for now, we invite scorn and ridicule, and I doubt that most nations will offer sympathy should a new wave of terrorist attacks occur on American soil. ("You reap what you sow" type attitudes).

US foreign policy needs to focus on doing what is best for the US. Working with the system is fine, if it furthers our goals. However, I question what "working with the system" actually is doing. If that is going to the UN, I think that is flawed as the UN has repeatedly shown that it does not produce results, plus, the only nation that can truly enforce the UN decisions is the US.

During the 80s, Western Europe disagreed with how President Reagan dealt with the Soviets. History has shown that he dealt with the Soviets in the correct way. Since that time, I think we have screwed up in how we deal with Russia, but that was under Bush I and Clinton's watch.

What is happening now is that Western Europe is trying to figure out how they fit into world now that their is only the US as a world power. How do they keep from being dominated by the US on the world stage? I think that is the big question. However, given our common cultural heritage, I think we will continue to be close allies with Canada, England, and Australia. Much of NW Europe will be close to us. France, I have no clue how our relations with them will progress.

[MrBigglesworth]

I think much of the disagreement abroad stems from two things:

1) Some countries had a lot to lose economically.

2) Many countries stood a lot to gain by not allying themselves with us.
I think the fact that we were completely wrong about WMD and everyone but us knew it, and also everyone but us knew how terrible the occupation would be, was also a major factor.

[rexallllsc]

That's good to know. I base my belief on the history of the region, geography, and politics of Iran. The demographics I am more sketchy on because I do not know tons about the current economic conditions there. The initial military campaign would be brutal, because the geography is like it is, but I think the follow up to the campaign would be easier because Iran is a more homogenous society than Iraq is, where you have three major populations that do not like each other.


Orrrrr we could just let them overthrow the government if that's what they really want to do. If not, they can continue to live under that government. How about that?

I know that's a really simplistic answer, but I think it fits.

[miked]

I can't believe people actually think it's ok that Hamas won and that they will drastically change. I think a similar situation would be if Al Queda ran a party in Iraq and won the elections there. Would we expect them to be peaceful and change their ways?

Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar, speaking outside a mosque Friday, said, "Israel has nothing to give for the Palestinian people."

He said it was a waste of time for the Palestinian Authority to speak with Israel and if Israel "has something to fulfill the basic demands of the Palestinian people concerning the occupied territories, concerning the detainees, concerning the question of Jerusalem and other national interests, we are going to re-evaluate these arguments."


I'll bet they'll be changing their views and charter very soon :rolleyes:

[rexallllsc]

I can't believe people actually think it's ok that Hamas won and that they will drastically change. I think a similar situation would be if Al Queda ran a party in Iraq and won the elections there. Would we expect them to be peaceful and change their ways?

I'm guessing that they would respond by saying that their actions are a direct reaction to the injustices* they have suffered. Saying, "would we expect them to be peaceful and change their ways?" is probably also thought by Hamas in regards to Israel, and Al Qaeda in regards to the US and our foreign policy.

Just wanted to throw that out there.

*Obviously, what is perceived as injustice by some is not perceived as injustive to others.

[Brillig]

Some interesting developments http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/27/MNGBEGUHCF1.DTL

Particularly Fatah refusing Hamas' offer to form a coalition government, and President Abbas' hinting that he and the PLO might continue to negotiate with Israel leaving Hamas holding power only over domestic policy.

[Ben E Lou]

Some interesting developments http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/27/MNGBEGUHCF1.DTL

Particularly Fatah refusing Hamas' offer to form a coalition government, and President Abbas' hinting that he and the PLO might continue to negotiate with Israel leaving Hamas holding power only over domestic policy.Hmmmm....massive power struggle forthcoming?

[SFL Cat]

I think the fact that we were completely wrong about WMD and everyone but us knew it, and also everyone but us knew how terrible the occupation would be, was also a major factor.

:rolleyes:

[SFL Cat]

dola -- it is my personal opinion that any WMDs Iraq (and it is a fact that Iraq had biological weapons since he used against Iran during the 1980s war and also used them on segments of his own population after the Gulf War) had were ferreted out of that country into Syria. The administration is letting the "Iraq had no WMDs" prevail because they don't want it known that the weapons they were going after may already have been distributed to various terriorist organizations.

[SFL Cat]

Hmmmm....massive power struggle forthcoming?

double dola -- Palestinians blowing up....Palestinians? :eek:

[Ben E Lou]

double dola -- Palestinians blowing up....Palestinians? :eek:Sounds like it won't be long....


Furious election losers demand party boss quit (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/27/palestinian.election/index.html)


DEVELOPING STORY
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/WORLD/meast/01/27/palestinian.election/t1.elex.10.ap.jpg (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/27/palestinian.election/index.html)
A young Palestinian throws something on a burning car.
Angry Fatah supporters took to the streets of Gaza City today, blaming Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for their party's trouncing by the militant group Hamas in this week's parliamentary elections. Clashes between Fatah and Hamas wounded four people Friday evening, Palestinian security sources said.

[MrBigglesworth]

:rolleyes:
Sooner or later you have to face the fact that everyone was right and we were wrong.

[SFL Cat]

At the time, everyone else (Europeans) thought Iraq had WMDs too, they just didn't want us toppling Saddam's government because they were getting some nice $$$ from him on the sly.

[rexallllsc]

At the time, everyone else (Europeans) thought Iraq had WMDs too, they just didn't want us toppling Saddam's government because they were getting some nice $$$ from him on the sly.

Here comes the pure and noble US to save the day, right?

Don't be so naive.

[duckman]

Sooner or later you have to face the fact that everyone was right and we were wrong.
WTF? You are quickly losing any validity in your statements. Not everyone thinks the Iraq war was a bad idea. Quick making broad generalizations you can't possibly back up. :eek:

[flere-imsaho]

dola -- it is my personal opinion that any WMDs Iraq (and it is a fact that Iraq had biological weapons since he used against Iran during the 1980s war and also used them on segments of his own population after the Gulf War) had were ferreted out of that country into Syria. The administration is letting the "Iraq had no WMDs" prevail because they don't want it known that the weapons they were going after may already have been distributed to various terriorist organizations.

And this is supposed to make us feel good?

Besides, if this is true, then it makes the Bush Administration look even more incompetent. Rumsfeld, et. al., told the world that we knew exactly where the weapons were. Powell went to the United Nations and showed them satellite photos!

So what you're saying is that although we knew where the WMDs were, and had troops on the ground and exceptional resources, every last WMD was spirited out of the country into Syria?

[flere-imsaho]

At the time, everyone else (Europeans) thought Iraq had WMDs too, they just didn't want us toppling Saddam's government because they were getting some nice $$$ from him on the sly.

Not just the Europeans: (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1485546,00.html)

The United States administration turned a blind eye to extensive sanctions-busting in the prewar sale of Iraqi oil, according to a new Senate investigation.
A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them.

The scale of the shipments involved dwarfs those previously alleged by the Senate committee against UN staff and European politicians like the British MP, George Galloway, and the former French minister, Charles Pasqua.

In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

I love the Idea the Iranians will rise up if we invade. If we couldn't get people on our side after deposing a monster like Saddam, what chance do you think we have of winning hearts and minds in Iran?

Sure, the kids in Iran are pissed off at the way the old Mullahs won't let 'em rock and roll, but the idea that they'll support an American invasion because they're bored is totally insane. It's like imagining that the kids in Footloose would've backed a Soviet invasion of Nebraska because John Lithgow wouldn't let them hold school dances.

The argument between Mullahs and kids in Iran is a classic family fight. And you know what happens when some intruder crashes in on the middle of one of those: the whole family unites in about a millisecond and tears him apart.

The Iranians already hate us. They have since 1953, when the CIA staged a coup to get rid of a popular Lefty Prime Minister, Mossadeq. Way back in the 70s, when most of the world still kinda liked us, crowds in Tehran chanted "Marg bar Amrika," "Death to America." Sort of tells us the whole story there.

[MrBigglesworth]

At the time, everyone else (Europeans) thought Iraq had WMDs too, they just didn't want us toppling Saddam's government because they were getting some nice $$$ from him on the sly.
That's just a flat out lie. It's GOP propoganda.

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/usallieswmd.html
The debate on Iraqi WMD continues. For example, Russia was not convinced by either the September 24, 2002 British dossier or the October 4, 2002 CIA report. Lacking sufficient evidence, Russia dismissed the claims as a part of a "propaganda furor."2 Specifically targeting the CIA report, Putin said, "Fears are one thing, hard facts are another." He goes on to say, "Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress."3 However, Putin was apprehensive about the possibility that Iraq may have WMDs and he therefore supported inspections. The Russian ambassador to London thought that the dossier was a document of concern. "It is impressive, but not always…convincing."4

French intelligence services did not come up with the same alarming assessment of Iraq and WMD as did the Britain and the United States. "According to secret agents at the DGSE, Saddam's Iraq does not represent any kind of nuclear threat at this time…It [the French assessment] contradicts the CIA's analysis…"5 French spies said that the Iraqi nuclear threat claimed by the United States was a "phony threat."6
It lists sources too, news articles before the war, not spin after the fact. You are simply wrong.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

I can't believe people actually think it's ok that Hamas won and that they will drastically change. I think a similar situation would be if Al Queda ran a party in Iraq and won the elections there. Would we expect them to be peaceful and change their ways?


Wait and see... we're still in the posturing phase. It make take 3-6 months before reality sets in for the Hamas leadership. It's a lot harder to run a country than to snipe from the sidelines. There's no way they maintain their ideological purity.

From an International Crisis Group report on Hamas (http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3886&l=1) released a week ago:

The record of the last several months, as Hamas rubbed elbows with issues of local governance and campaigned for national office, offers a preliminary, mixed picture of how political integration might affect its outlook and conduct. In its pragmatism, and even willingness to deal with Israel on day-to-day operational affairs, Hamas rule at the local level has been almost boringly similar to its predecessor. Local politicians emphasise themes of good governance, economic development, and personal and social security, leaving specifically religious issues and the conflict with Israel to the background. With only scant exceptions, they have yet to try to impose their vision of an Islamist society.

Nationally, too, signs of pragmatism can be detected. Far more than Fatah, Hamas has proved a disciplined adherent to the ceasefire, and Israeli military officers readily credit this for the sharp decline in violence. In recent statements, Hamas leaders have not ruled out changing their movement’s charter, negotiating with Israel, or accepting a long-term truce on the basis of an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines. Today, their electoral platform is in these respects closer to Fatah’s outlook than to Hamas’s founding principles.

[JonInMiddleGA]

My reading time has been a bit scarce lately, so could anybody supply some insight on exactly WTH this little blurb actually means? (I have a tough time envisioning a coalition of Palestinian Stephen Hawkings running a government)

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060127/D8FDA2800.html

Ghazi Hamad, one of Hamas' top ideologues, said the group would consider forming a government of technocrats with no connection to Hamas. Such a government might relieve some of the international pressure on the group.

"We want a government for the Palestinian people, and if we couldn't do that then there are lots of options, one of which is a technocrat government," he said.

[Dutch]

This won't end well. That's not a put down of Democracy at all, but when they go to war, I don't wish for anybody to intervene. Let them duke it out and let the victors write history.

[flere-imsaho]

My reading time has been a bit scarce lately, so could anybody supply some insight on exactly WTH this little blurb actually means? (I have a tough time envisioning a coalition of Palestinian Stephen Hawkings running a government)

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060127/D8FDA2800.html

Ghazi Hamad, one of Hamas' top ideologues, said the group would consider forming a government of technocrats with no connection to Hamas. Such a government might relieve some of the international pressure on the group.

"We want a government for the Palestinian people, and if we couldn't do that then there are lots of options, one of which is a technocrat government," he said.

I'm guessing this is something more along the lines of the difference between the IRA & Sinn Fein, not a government of Stephen Hawkings. "Technocrat" could simply be a less-than-perfect translation for "political operator".

So, you'd have a group at the table who represented the terrorists, but technically weren't the terrorists.

I'm not going to make a judgement on that, just speculating what JiMGA's article might have meant.

[flere-imsaho]

This won't end well. That's not a put down of Democracy at all, but when they go to war, I don't wish for anybody to intervene. Let them duke it out and let the victors write history.

The problem with that is that if it's just the Palestinians vs. the Israelis, the Israelis will win going away, and the situation won't be much different from the one we have now, except perhaps the neighboring Arab states will be even more hostile towards the Israelis.

[Dutch]

The problem with that is that if it's just the Palestinians vs. the Israelis, the Israelis will win going away, and the situation won't be much different from the one we have now, except perhaps the neighboring Arab states will be even more hostile towards the Israelis.

I don't see how the violence can end to be honest.

I would like to see the Palestinian state be stood up AND Jerusalem turned into a free city-state that is off-limits to sovereign armies.

If for no other reason than to prove it won't work. (I think it would)

[flere-imsaho]

I don't see how the violence can end to be honest.

Well, I'm with you there. As I believe someone else has stated, I think the crux of the problem is that you have two populations of people who have been brought up to hate each other. Several generations worth, now. I'm not sure how you get these people to agree to anything, to be honest.

Then again, they've managed some semblance of progress in Northern Ireland... (not exactly an analog, I know, but...).

I would like to see the Palestinian state be stood up AND Jerusalem turned into a free city-state that is off-limits to sovereign armies.

If for no other reason than to prove it won't work. (I think it would)

At this point, any crazy idea (even yours :p ) shouldn't be off the table.

[CamEdwards]

you know, reading this discussion you can't help but marvel at the fact that we were able to come back as one nation after the civil war. I wonder if the civil war happened today if we would be able to do so.

[Buccaneer]

you know, reading this discussion you can't help but marvel at the fact that we were able to come back as one nation after the civil war. I wonder if the civil war happened today if we would be able to do so.
Esp. when you think that the media in those days were far more partisan, more shrill and more extremist.

That's why I talk about perspective when thinking about current lat 5-10-25 years) in context of our nation's history. This whole partisan crap and red/blue state myth that goes on today are nothing compared to many periods in our history when such divisions, not only resulted in a civil war, but could have serious undermined the power of the Constitution. Can you imagine if we had a Hamilton today? Or an Andrew Jackson? Or that we have in Congress, a Webster, or a Calhoun or a Thaddeus Stevens? Today's media would go ballistic but a majority of citizens (just like back then) wouldn't buy into it, though.

[clintl]

Okay, so what you're saying is advocating the destruction of a race of people is "not all that different" from saying they have a right to exist, but that Jordan (which has agreements in place with Israel) should take over the West Bank. Huh?


1) The Arabs' goal is the political destruction of the nation of Israel, not the elimination of the Jewish race. If the Jews relocated somewhere else, the Arabs would not care one way or the other what happened to them. You do know that there are Jews living right now in Muslim nations, including Iran, right?

2) Sharon's position (and this was something like 20-25 years ago) was NOT that Jordan would take over the West Bank, but that Israel should drive the Palestinians out of the West Bank into Jordan, so that Israel could take the West Bank for itself. And yes, I do regard that as a position very much comparable to Hamas' goal of destroying the Israeli state. The whole Likud policy of settling the West Bank (of which Sharon was one of the chief architects) was designed to impose permanent Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I wonder if the civil war happened today if we would be able to do so.

I still wonder how much we ever did.

[Solecismic]

1) The Arabs' goal is the political destruction of the nation of Israel, not the elimination of the Jewish race. If the Jews relocated somewhere else, the Arabs would not care one way or the other what happened to them. You do know that there are Jews living right now in Muslim nations, including Iran, right?

2) Sharon's position (and this was something like 20-25 years ago) was NOT that Jordan would take over the West Bank, but that Israel should drive the Palestinians out of the West Bank into Jordan, so that Israel could take the West Bank for itself. And yes, I do regard that as a position very much comparable to Hamas' goal of destroying the Israeli state. The whole Likud policy of settling the West Bank (of which Sharon was one of the chief architects) was designed to impose permanent Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank.

The few Jews who still live in Iran are subject to extensive state-mandated discrimination and are not even allowed to leave the country. Their schools have been shut down and they are under constant threat. It's not a great life.

There have been many proposals over the years, including expansion of Israel to all of the original British Mandate. Obviously, that's not feasible. No one today is advocating this plan. Different plans come out of deperation for peace - the Arabs have started so many wars over the last 60 years.

Again, I ask you to read the Hamas charter, and look at what these people want to do to the Jews. I cannot understand how a reasonable person would equate these different plans with an unchanging policy of wanting to kill every man, woman and child in Israel. Make no mistake about it, that's what Hamas and the other terrorist groups want. That's why they continue to fire rockets into Israel even during what's supposed to be a cease fire.

Just read the charter. And then, please, defend it here. I'm fascinated by those of you on this forum who seem to think Hamas is just misunderstood or is justified in its behavior.

Does anyone here actually believe the problem with violence in the Middle East wouldn't end in a second if these Arab nations just agreed that Israel had a right to exist and stopped attacking civilians?

[MrBigglesworth]

This whole partisan crap and red/blue state myth that goes on today are nothing compared to many periods in our history when such divisions, not only resulted in a civil war, but could have serious undermined the power of the Constitution.

http://www.radicalruss.net/stuff/images/2004election/usa2004_sm.gif
http://teachpol.tcnj.edu/amer_pol_hist/ti/000000e5.jpg

We really aren't all that different from 124 years ago.

[MrBigglesworth]

My reading time has been a bit scarce lately, so could anybody supply some insight on exactly WTH this little blurb actually means? (I have a tough time envisioning a coalition of Palestinian Stephen Hawkings running a government)

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060127/D8FDA2800.html

Ghazi Hamad, one of Hamas' top ideologues, said the group would consider forming a government of technocrats with no connection to Hamas. Such a government might relieve some of the international pressure on the group.

"We want a government for the Palestinian people, and if we couldn't do that then there are lots of options, one of which is a technocrat government," he said.
My interpretation is that they are going to get actual policy people in government positions instead of idealogues. If that is the case, that's a fantastic idea, because we've had first hand experience in the dangers of ideologues and cronyism.

[ISiddiqui]

That's why they continue to fire rockets into Israel even during what's supposed to be a cease fire.Um... that was Fatah. Hamas has kept to their cease fires (the latest being a UNILATERAL cease fire), which even Isreali officials acknowledge. It was mentioned in the link from the International Crisis Group (not exactly some pro terrorism group) by Mojo. You may have missed it.

[Solecismic]

Um... that was Fatah. Hamas has kept to their cease fires (the latest being a UNILATERAL cease fire), which even Isreali officials acknowledge. It was mentioned in the link from the International Crisis Group (not exactly some pro terrorism group) by Mojo. You may have missed it.

The problem is that firing occasional rockets into Israel apparently doesn't count as breaking the cease fire. No one disputes that the level of violence has decreased in the last year, especially the use of suicide bombers. But Hamas was shelling as Israel left Gaza and hasn't stopped. They were shelling Sderot and Ashkelon earlier this month.

Also, Hamas has pledged to resume its attacks in full. The pattern is definitely established. Build up weapons, then start attacks in earnest. When the response from Israel takes out enough weaponry, declare a ceasefire and build up again. Hamas admits that, and pledges to resume attacks just as soon as Israel moves out of the West Bank, and Jerusalem and Tel Aviv are in range.

[Grammaticus]

you know, reading this discussion you can't help but marvel at the fact that we were able to come back as one nation after the civil war. I wonder if the civil war happened today if we would be able to do so.
If it happened today, we would somewhat peacfully split into 2 nations.

[Buccaneer]

How do you split a nation into urban and rural?

[Dutch]

How do you split a nation into urban and rural?

Thank you.

[Solecismic]

How do you split a nation into urban and rural?

Ask the Texas Republicans. I believe it's called gerrymandering.

Also, it would greatly hurt some of our poorest rural states. For example, Mississippi receives almost $2 from the government for every $1 of tax income it brings in. A split would work only as long as the two nations remained fairly equal.

[Buccaneer]

And that was my point, demographics and socio-economics play more of a role in such division as oppose to geography. One can argue, historically, that it have been that way in many civil wars (including ours) but I suppose there are those thinking we could "divide" this country into coastal states vs non-coastal states, or east vs west, or something equally ludicrous. Even if there were any credence to the red/blue myth, one has to account for the largest red cities (San Diego/So Orange Co) being in the largest blue state.

[Dutch]

Ask the Texas Republicans. I believe it's called gerrymandering.

The Democrats had nothing to do with it?

[Ben E Lou]

Even if there were any credence to the red/blue myth, one has to account for the largest red cities (San Diego/So Orange Co) being in the largest blue state...and for that decidedly blue area right in the supposed heart of the Deep South: Atlanta. Of course, then there's that big ol' decidedly-blue that covers a decent bit of heavily-rural southwest Georgia. Try explaining THAT one in urban/rural or South/north terms. ;)

[Buccaneer]

If I were to make a map using my geographical analysis skills, I would make the criteria for a red/blue county to have at a 2/3 (there's that number again) majority. A 52-48 or even a 60-40 split do not conclude it to be red or blue, imo.

[Ben E Lou]

If I were to make a map using my geographical analysis skills, I would make the criteria for a red/blue county to have at a 2/3 (there's that number again) majority. A 52-48 or even a 60-40 split do not conclude it to be red or blue, imo.I'll have to double-check, but I'm guessing that the counties I just mentioned would come close to 2/3 blue in 2004.

[Buccaneer]

I'll have to double-check, but I'm guessing that the counties I just mentioned would come close to 2/3 blue in 2004.
Have they explained that anamoly or is it easy to know why?

[cartman]

The Democrats had nothing to do with it?

In this latest round, the Democrats had no input whatsoever in regards to the gerrymandering . Remember, they were the ones that went to Oklahoma and New Mexico to deny quorum on the vote. And the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case to see if the mid-census redistricting was constitutional or not.

[Ben E Lou]

Have they explained that anamoly or is it easy to know why?Easy to know why. There are several counties in Georgia that are very rural, but are majority black. Your statement about urban vs. rural bought into the common myth that virtually all rural areas are hugely white. That's probably true outside of the South, but many black families have never left the area where they were slaves 150 years ago. I played ball for a private high school in Georgia's smallest classification. All but two of the teams in our region were from *really* rural areas. (The two that weren't were the two private schools in Columbus.) When I say really rural, I'm talking the only high school in an entire county having less than 300 kids. At any rate, the point of all of that is that most of those communities weren't exactly bastions of Republican support, shall we say. ;)

Here's the most extreme case in Georgia.


<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr><td colspan="2">President: Hancock County (GA)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3" valign="top"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td>Updated 11/3/04 5:01 AM ET
100% Precincts Reporting </td><td align="right" valign="bottom">Incumbent* http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/election2003/images/red_check.gif declared winner </td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr><tr bgcolor="#404066"><td height="22" width="420"> Candidates</td><td align="right" height="22" width="95">Votes </td><td align="right" height="22" width="68">% </td></tr><tr><td height="4"><spacer type="block" height="4"></td></tr><tr id="candidateRow" bgcolor="#ffffff"><td id="nameCell" height="22" width="420"> http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/globalnav/images/spacer.gif John F. Kerry (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/elections/2004/johnkerry/) (D)</td><td id="voteCell" align="right" height="22" width="95">2,412 </td><td id="pctCell" align="right" height="22" width="68">77% </td></tr><tr id="candidateRow" bgcolor="#cccfd3"><td id="nameCell" height="22" width="420"> http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/globalnav/images/spacer.gif George W. Bush (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/elections/2004/georgewbush/) * (R)</td><td id="voteCell" align="right" height="22" width="95">708 </td><td id="pctCell" align="right" height="22" width="68">23% </td></tr><tr id="candidateRow" bgcolor="#ffffff"><td id="nameCell" height="22" width="420"> http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/globalnav/images/spacer.gif Michael Badnarik (http://%3Cfont%20face=%22arial,verdana%22%3E%3Cfont%20size=%222%22%3E%3Cfont%20color=%22#000000%22%3EMichael%20Badnarik%3C/font%3E%3C/font%3E%3C/font%3E) (Lib.)</td><td id="voteCell" align="right" height="22" width="95">10 </td><td id="pctCell" align="right" height="22" width="68">0%</td></tr></tbody> </table>

EDIT: but Kerry had several counties in Georgia that were in the 55-65% range for him. I would say that 2/3 is probably too high, considering no candidate has won that much of a majority. I'd say that anything above 55% is remarkable, considering that you have to go all the way back to Reagan to find a President who totaled more than around 53-54% of the popular vote.

[Crapshoot]

you know, reading this discussion you can't help but marvel at the fact that we were able to come back as one nation after the civil war. I wonder if the civil war happened today if we would be able to do so.

Heck, the South (or most of it anyway) ought to be grateful that it did end up the way it did. :D

[Ben E Lou]

Dola:

And in case anyone thought I was exaggerating when I said that I live in one of the most liberal places around:

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr><td colspan="2">President: DeKalb County (GA)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3" valign="top"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td>Updated 11/3/04 5:01 AM ET
100% Precincts Reporting </td><td align="right" valign="bottom">Incumbent* http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/election2003/images/red_check.gif declared winner </td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr><tr bgcolor="#404066"><td height="22" width="420"> Candidates</td><td align="right" height="22" width="95">Votes </td><td align="right" height="22" width="68">% </td></tr><tr><td height="4"><spacer type="block" height="4"></td></tr><tr id="candidateRow" bgcolor="#ffffff"><td id="nameCell" height="22" width="420"> http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/globalnav/images/spacer.gif John F. Kerry (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/elections/2004/johnkerry/) (D)</td><td id="voteCell" align="right" height="22" width="95">160,758 </td><td id="pctCell" align="right" height="22" width="68">73% </td></tr><tr id="candidateRow" bgcolor="#cccfd3"><td id="nameCell" height="22" width="420"> http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/globalnav/images/spacer.gif George W. Bush (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/elections/2004/georgewbush/) * (R)</td><td id="voteCell" align="right" height="22" width="95">57,133 </td><td id="pctCell" align="right" height="22" width="68">26% </td></tr><tr id="candidateRow" bgcolor="#ffffff"><td id="nameCell" height="22" width="420"> http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/globalnav/images/spacer.gif Michael Badnarik ("") (Lib.)</td><td id="voteCell" align="right" height="22" width="95">1,550 </td><td id="pctCell" align="right" height="22" width="68">1%</td></tr></tbody> </table>

[st.cronin]

..and for that decidedly blue area right in the supposed heart of the Deep South: Atlanta. Of course, then there's that big ol' decidedly-blue that covers a decent bit of heavily-rural southwest Georgia. Try explaining THAT one in urban/rural or South/north terms. ;)

I recently read a fairly well-researched article showing a very positive correlation between Bush support and population of feral hogs in a given area.

[Dutch]

In this latest round, the Democrats had no input whatsoever in regards to the gerrymandering . Remember, they were the ones that went to Oklahoma and New Mexico to deny quorum on the vote. And the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case to see if the mid-census redistricting was constitutional or not.

Then perhaps the Democrats should do some gerrymandering on their own if nobody can oppose it.

[flere-imsaho]

Then perhaps the Democrats should do some gerrymandering on their own if nobody can oppose it.

That's what Chicago's for. ;)

[Buccaneer]

SkyDog, in looking at demographic maps, there are other rural black Southern counties that (outside of Georgia) did not go blue as much as SW GA. Maybe they did a better job of getting out the vote?

That's probably true outside of the South
Understatement of the year. In rural New England, Midwest and the Inter-Mountain West, you can count the total number of black folks on one hand plus a few toes. :)

[Klinglerware]

My reading time has been a bit scarce lately, so could anybody supply some insight on exactly WTH this little blurb actually means? (I have a tough time envisioning a coalition of Palestinian Stephen Hawkings running a government)

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060127/D8FDA2800.html

Ghazi Hamad, one of Hamas' top ideologues, said the group would consider forming a government of technocrats with no connection to Hamas. Such a government might relieve some of the international pressure on the group.

"We want a government for the Palestinian people, and if we couldn't do that then there are lots of options, one of which is a technocrat government," he said.

Technocrat is another term for a policy-wonk employed in government service. Basically a bunch of people who went to Harvard or Georgetown etc and got their Masters or PhD's in Public Policy or a related social-scientific field...

[Ben E Lou]

SkyDog, in looking at demographic maps, there are other rural black Southern counties that (outside of Georgia) did not go blue as much as SW GA. Maybe they did a better job of getting out the vote?Two words: Sanford Bishop.

[cartman]

Then perhaps the Democrats should do some gerrymandering on their own if nobody can oppose it.

What does that have to do with the example that Jim brought up on the latest gerrymandering in Texas? You asked a question directly about that example, and I gave some info back on it.

[Dutch]

What does that have to do with the example that Jim brought up on the latest gerrymandering in Texas?

The example Jim sited was related to a much larger question asked previously by Buccaneer. His example showed a method of how the nation is split between urban and rural districts. There are cases where democrats redistrict to secure they win the proper elections as well. I don't agree with it, but it looks like the Republicans do not have a copyright on the issue. But regardless, if they can get away with it, I suspect any politician would do it.

You asked a question directly about that example, and I gave some info back on it.

I didn't disagree with your answer. I was just taking that information to further my understanding of the rural/urban issue.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Actually, in Ohio at least, the Ohio DNC backed a proposal on the ballot that would've left redistricting to a bipartisan panel of judges. It was defeated by the usual smear machine that 'activist judges' would somehow gerrymander districts against Jesus or something. Don't ask me to explain it, after all, it is Ohio.

As a side note pointing to Skydog's neighborhood, it's a perfect example of how minorities have been packed into minority-majority districts.

Sadly, we let the South become
resegregated -- in the drawing
of Congressional districts.

Republican legislators were glad
to help create minority districts --
thereby putting most black voters
into ghetto districts. And of course,
that put most the loyal Democrats
into the ghettos, leaving the other
seats ripe for Republican taking.

See how that can play out. Make
one district in a state 80% black --
you create a 'safe' minority seat.
If instead two districts were each
'only' 40% black, they would not
be 'safe' minority seats. But when
Democrats -- black or white -- ran
in those two 40% black districts,
they would need ONLY one fourth
of the white vote to win. Let the other
three fourths of the whites vote for
the Rethugs, Strom Trent Bush, Jr.,
and Jeb Allen Gingrich. The Dems
would win BOTH seats.

Simple math:
40% of voters are black,
90% go Democratic
= 36% of total vote,
plus
60% of voters are white,
25% go Democratic
= 15% of total vote,
combined black and white
Democratic vote 36+15 =
51%.
Sweet victory.

Put it another way.
The Republicans put as many
black voters in as few districts as
they can. Then black Democrats
are elected from these handful
of ghetto districts, of course.
So far, it sounds good.

But in the many remaining districts,
the most reliable Democratic voters
( the blacks ) have been drained off
to create the new, few ghetto districts.

Thus the remaining districts become
overwhelmingly Dixie white, and alas,
overwhelmingly Republican.

In the end, the racial redistricting
actually REDUCES the opportunities
for blacks to get elected and gain
real political power. After all, they
have been segregated into the ghetto
again. And no Democrat, neither black
nor white, can win in districts that are
90% Dixie white.

[Ben E Lou]

As a side note pointing to Skydog's neighborhood, it's a perfect example of how minorities have been packed into minority-majority districts. As usual, you couldn't be more wrong.

1. I live in a majority-white neighborhood.
2. The county in which I live was majority-white as recently as 5 or 6 years ago, last I checked, it was only around 54% black.
3. A *large* amount of the black population of DeKalb County is middle class or better. I heard a stat recently that Stephenson High School, which is basically the "flagship" school of the southern part of the county right how, boasts the highest per-capita income of any majority-black school in the country. Also last I checked, DeKalb overall was the second-wealthiest majority-black county in the nation.

"Ghetto district," my black butt. :rolleyes:

[Wolfpack]

Republican legislators were glad
to help create minority districts --

Sure, the Republicans took advantage of that fact, but let's not forget that the Democrats have also done it to heavy degrees as well. Districts in North Carolina, Louisiana, and Texas were drawn up by majority-Democrat legislatures that featured some outrageous borders in the 1990s to satisfy the requirements of the Civil Rights Act. I know the I-85 district in North Carolina was challenged and struck down due to its absurdity and they had to re-draw that one a couple of times at least.

So, you paint with too narrow a brush, if anything. :)

[Jesse_Ewiak]

I meant the Congressional district you're in, not the specific town or city. I mean, you're Congresswoman is Cynthia McKinney if I'm not completely off. Not exactly a moderate by any means. Plus Atlanta's so spread out, it's sort of weird anyway.

Wolfpack, the Democrats made the orgiinal borders. Then in the 2000's the districts were further gerrymandered beyond the requirements of the Civil Rights Act to create more segregated districts.

[Wolfpack]

Wolfpack, the Democrats made the orgiinal borders. Then in the 2000's the districts were further gerrymandered beyond the requirements of the Civil Rights Act to create more segregated districts.

So, just asking for an opinion (not looking to spring a trap on you or anything), would you prefer to return to the 1990-style boundaries (or as close as legally practical) given they were drawn by Democrats, or would a dropping of the legal requirement for minority-majority districts (or altering it and "loosening" it, if you will) be a better way to strengthen black representation in Congress?

Truthfully, I despise such gerrymandering, whatever the reason and sincerely prefer balanced districts drawn up by impartial committees. It means a fair argument of ideas and districts won't be dominated by extremists of either party. If the Ohio GOP (who generally have been louts from what I understand) stood in the way of that sort of reform, shame on them.

[Senator]

Then perhaps the Democrats should do some gerrymandering on their own if nobody can oppose it.


This I know very much about. Both sides have done it, and pre-1994 or so, the Democrats did it blatantly for 100 years. Check out Eddie Bernice Johnson and Martin Frost pre-redraw.

Not to say that the Republicans had any right to gerrymander, but any righteous indignation along party lines in this case is a weak argument at best.

[SFL Cat]

That's just a flat out lie. It's GOP propoganda.



Apparently not...


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I b elieve that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.


It looks like the other side was quite willing to play the WMD card if it was in their political interest.

[Ben E Lou]

I meant the Congressional district you're in, not the specific town or city. I mean, you're Congresswoman is Cynthia McKinney if I'm not completely off. Not exactly a moderate by any means. Plus Atlanta's so spread out, it's sort of weird anyway.No, you said that my "neighborhood" was a "perfect example," and now you're admitting that metro Atlanta's sort of weird. Actually, I'd contend that it is *very* unusual, particularly DeKalb County, and should pretty much never, ever be used to back up any sweeping generalizations of anything politically. The large and growing black middle-to-upper-middle class, the high gay-lesbian population, the high number of wealthy white liberals. It all makes for an unusual combination. By the figures you used in your post, it would be expected that DeKalb would go around 60% Kerry, but it obviously went much higher than that. The Cutest Little Communist In Congress got elected several times when her district was still majority white, too. Actually, given that part of Gwinnett is still in her district, it STILL might be slightly majority-white, but I'm not sure.

[Ben E Lou]

It looks like the other side was quite willing to play the WMD card if it was in their political interest.It's not an "other side" issue by any means, though. It just seems that many have conveniently "forgotten" that the presence of WMD was a universally-accepted fact on both sides of the aisle (and in the global community as well) up until the time one side decided to do something about it. It then became a rallying cry for the other side. It also is interesting that it seems to have been "forgotten" that the burden of proof was on Saddam, according to the UN resolution passed. If he could not show proof that the WMD had been destroyed, then he was supposed to face the consequences. The same thing would have happened in reverse had a Democrat chosen to send troops in only to discover that Saddam had gotten rid of (or cleverly hidden) his WMD.

[Solecismic]

No, you said that my "neighborhood" was a "perfect example," and now you're admitting that metro Atlanta's sort of weird. Actually, I'd contend that it is *very* unusual, particularly DeKalb County, and should pretty much never, ever be used to back up any sweeping generalizations of anything politically. The large and growing black middle-to-upper-middle class, the high gay-lesbian population, the high number of wealthy white liberals. It all makes for an unusual combination. By the figures you used in your post, it would be expected that DeKalb would go around 60% Kerry, but it obviously went much higher than that. The Cutest Little Communist In Congress got elected several times when her district was still majority white, too. Actually, given that part of Gwinnett is still in her district, it STILL might be slightly majority-white, but I'm not sure.

McKinney won DeKalb, 64/36, with 240,400 people voting, and lost Gwinnett, 62/38, with only 6,500 people voting. So the Gwinnett portion just isn't signficant.

There were 23,700 voters in other districts from DeKalb, and 193,000 voters in other districts from Gwinnett.

DeKalb county is 54% black and 36% white with a median household income of $49,100 and is probably the richest majority-black county in the country. Gwinnett county is 13% black and 73% white with a median household income of $60,500.

It's difficult to tell for sure, because there were so many unopposed races and these are by far the biggest and most diverse counties in the state. But I'd venture to say that McKinney did unusually poorly compared to other local Democrats. This is not a race where the Republican has much chance. At least not in today's political climate.

[ISiddiqui]

Dola:

And in case anyone thought I was exaggerating when I said that I live in one of the most liberal places around:

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr><td colspan="2">President: DeKalb County (GA)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3" valign="top"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td>Updated 11/3/04 5:01 AM ET
100% Precincts Reporting </td><td align="right" valign="bottom">Incumbent* http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/election2003/images/red_check.gif declared winner </td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr><tr bgcolor="#404066"><td height="22" width="420"> Candidates</td><td align="right" height="22" width="95">Votes </td><td align="right" height="22" width="68">% </td></tr><tr><td height="4"><spacer type="block" height="4"></td></tr><tr id="candidateRow" bgcolor="#ffffff"><td id="nameCell" height="22" width="420"> http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/globalnav/images/spacer.gif John F. Kerry (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/elections/2004/johnkerry/) (D)</td><td id="voteCell" align="right" height="22" width="95">160,758 </td><td id="pctCell" align="right" height="22" width="68">73% </td></tr><tr id="candidateRow" bgcolor="#cccfd3"><td id="nameCell" height="22" width="420"> http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/globalnav/images/spacer.gif George W. Bush (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/elections/2004/georgewbush/) * (R)</td><td id="voteCell" align="right" height="22" width="95">57,133 </td><td id="pctCell" align="right" height="22" width="68">26% </td></tr><tr id="candidateRow" bgcolor="#ffffff"><td id="nameCell" height="22" width="420"> http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/globalnav/images/spacer.gif Michael Badnarik (http://%3Cfont%20face=%22arial,verdana%22%3E%3Cfont%20size=%222%22%3E%3Cfont%20color=%22#000000%22%3EMichael%20Badnarik%3C/font%3E%3C/font%3E%3C/font%3E) (Lib.)</td><td id="voteCell" align="right" height="22" width="95">1,550 </td><td id="pctCell" align="right" height="22" width="68">1%</td></tr></tbody> </table>Hey Skydog, just for curiousity sake, what was my county's split (Fulton). It's an interesting county, with a lot of liberal minorities in the South of the county (similar to Dekalb around that area) and a lot of conservative white guys in the North of the county.

I used to live in Decatur and now I'm in Roswell and it's interesting to see the change in bumper stickers ;).

[Ben E Lou]

McKinney won DeKalb, 64/36, with 240,400 people voting, and lost Gwinnett, 62/38, with only 6,500 people voting. So the Gwinnett portion just isn't signficant.Ah, then it is smaller than I thought.

But I'd venture to say that McKinney did unusually poorly compared to other local Democrats.Yes. Keep in mind that middle-class blacks tend to be fairly socially conservative on many issues, and ol' Cynthia is probably one of the four or five most liberal members of Congress. I'd be quite curious to see her black/white voting numbers. My guess would be that she gets more white votes than most black liberal Democrats, due to the presence of many vote-against-any-Republican whites in this area, but that she also gets less black votes due to the black middle class beginning to get fed up with her. She likes to whine that she lost the primary in 2000 because of white Republicans voting in the Democratic primary (which is perfectly legal in Georgia), but the fact is that it wouldn't have worked had she had the kind of unshakable black support that most other black Democratic candidates have.

[Ben E Lou]

Hey Skydog, just for curiousity sake, what was my county's split (Fulton). It's an interesting county, with a lot of liberal minorities in the South of the county (similar to Dekalb around that area) and a lot of conservative white guys in the North of the county.

I used to live in Decatur and now I'm in Roswell and it's interesting to see the change in bumper stickers ;).Are there ANY conservatives in Decatur??? :p

I'll have to find that data again. Fulton was less of a victory for Kerry than I would have guessed. North Fulton is more populated than I realized, maybe?

What do you call a black man in Alpharetta???






















an Atlanta Falcon.

[Ben E Lou]

I used to live in Decatur and now I'm in Roswell and it's interesting to see the change in bumper stickers ;).Here ya, ya sell-out! :D

<table class="dataTable" border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="710"> <tbody><tr class="topRow" align="center"><td class="dataTableRace" rowspan="3" align="left" valign="top">Fulton
Updated: 5:35 p.m. ET
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/images/senate/icon.lg.map.gif (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/GA/P/00/map.html)
</td><td> </td> <td align="left"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1"> <tbody><tr><td>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.1/election/all.icons/icon.dem.gif</td><td>Kerry (javascript:CNN_openPopup('/ELECTION/2004/pages/pre/US/P/00/298/frameset.exclude.html','620x430','toolbar=no,location=no,directories=no,status=no,menubar=no,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,width=620,height=430'))</td></tr></tbody></table></td><td>199,436</td> <td>59%</td><td rowspan="3">100% of precincts reporting</td></tr><tr align="center"><td>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/images/senate/icon.lg.pro.winner.gif</td> <td align="left"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1"> <tbody><tr><td>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.1/election/all.icons/icon.rep.gif</td><td>Bush (javascript:CNN_openPopup('/ELECTION/2004/pages/pre/US/P/00/20004/frameset.exclude.html','620x430','toolbar=no,location=no,directories=no,status=no,menubar=no,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,width=620,height=430'))
(Incumbent)</td></tr></tbody></table></td><td>134,372</td> <td>40%</td></tr><tr align="center"><td> </td> <td align="left"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1"> <tbody><tr><td>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.1/election/all.icons/icon.lib.gif</td><td>Badnarik (javascript:CNN_openPopup('/ELECTION/2004/pages/pre/US/P/00/141687/frameset.exclude.html','620x430','toolbar=no,location=no,directories=no,status=no,menubar=no,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,width=620,height=430'))</td></tr></tbody></table></td><td>2,216</td> <td>1%</td></tr> </tbody> </table>

[ISiddiqui]

LOL @ the Alpharetta/Falcon joke.

59% ain't bad, there has been a lot of construction up in Roswell, Alpharetta, and Sandy Springs (which I believe was influential in having them get incorporated) and you know the type moving in. ;)

[MrBigglesworth]

Apparently not...



It looks like the other side was quite willing to play the WMD card if it was in their political interest.
I counted exactly zero of those quotes as coming from Europeans. Zero. Which means you were caught in a lie and are trying to weasel your way out of it by deflecting criticism onto the Democratic party. You know what? A lot of the Democratic party was played for a fool. They believed the info from the Bush administration, and they were fearful of a reprisal of the first Gulf War vote (that they turned out to be on the wrong side of both issues just shows how bad their political instincts are). France, Germany, and Russia did not. France, Germany, and Russia turned out to be right. You have to face that fact.

[Ben E Lou]

...And for those wondering, basically Tucker sits right on the imaginery dividing line between majority black and majority white neighborhoods in DeKalb County. As I mentioned, my neighborhood, which sits just north of the center of Tucker is majority white (probably 60-70%, and I'm less than a half a mile from THS and Main Street in Tucker), but head to the first neighborhoods south of the high school (just on the other side of Caliente (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=44549&highlight=caliente), actually), and the neighborhoods change to 60-70% black. Go farther north, and they get much whiter (Well, after passing through a small, heavily Hispanic area), further south, they get much blacker.

[MrBigglesworth]

It's not an "other side" issue by any means, though. It just seems that many have conveniently "forgotten" that the presence of WMD was a universally-accepted fact on both sides of the aisle (and in the global community as well)
I posted something a couple of posts up that you must have missed, primary source material indicating what the French and Russians believed about our UN presentation, otherwise I know you wouldn't have written such an outlandish lie about it being a universally-accepted fact in the global community.

[Ben E Lou]

there has been a lot of construction up in Roswell, Alpharetta, and Sandy SpringsI guess I should have known. We've been going to church at North Point, and that area seems to be growing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Basically a bunch of people who went to Harvard or Georgetown etc and got their Masters or PhD's in Public Policy or a related social-scientific field...

Thanks K'ware, and that sort of leads me to my question (no, I'm not being sarcastic or whatever with this either, I'm serious) -- are there really enough qualified Palestinians who meet that approximate criteria who would be a)willing to serve & b) capable enough to actually run a coherent government?

[KWhit]

I guess I should have known. We've been going to church at North Point, and that area seems to be growing.
Is that the huge church on Royal Drive in Alpharetta? If so, I work literally next door in the office park on Royal Dr.

[Ben E Lou]

Is that the huge church on Royal Drive in Alpharetta? If so, I work literally next door in the office park on Royal Dr.Yes, it is. And once again, knowing where you live: http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/smilies/eek.gif

[JonInMiddleGA]

Are there ANY conservatives in Decatur??? :p


Only those who are passing through headed for other places ;)

What do you call a black man in Alpharetta???an Atlanta Falcon.

Good one.

[WVUFAN]

That's just a flat out lie. It's GOP propoganda.

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/usallieswmd.html

It lists sources too, news articles before the war, not spin after the fact. You are simply wrong.
I give no credence to ISIS, which is a well-known liberal, anti-Bush organization. Spin works both ways.

[MrBigglesworth]

I give no credence to ISIS, which is a well-known liberal, anti-Bush organization. Spin works both ways.
The article lists primary source material, news accounts from the time period backing up its claims, which is why I linked to it. AP, CNN, etc.

[ISiddiqui]

Yes, it is. And once again, knowing where you live: http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/smilies/eek.gifHeh, and I live 5 miles away from Royal Drive ;).

[WVUFAN]

The article lists primary source material, news accounts from the time period backing up its claims, which is why I linked to it. AP, CNN, etc.The "resource" material that was linked to are ALSO known liberal-leaning agencies -- the Guardian and CNN. The two articles that consist of basis of the ISIS post are from the Guardian. AP is not listed as a link to the article. Again, the article is infactual because of its sources.

[MrBigglesworth]

The "resource" material that was linked to are ALSO known liberal-leaning agencies -- the Guardian and CNN. The two articles that consist of basis of the ISIS post are from the Guardian. AP is not listed as a link to the article. Again, the article is infactual because of its sources.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80586,00.html
France, Russia and China — who all have veto power — rejected the ultimatum, put forward by Britain after chief weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohammed ElBaradei gave largely upbeat assessments of Iraq's cooperation with the inspectors...The declaration urged the reinforcement of weapons inspections in Iraq as an alternative to war...France has led opposition to a rush to war, saying inspections are working, albeit slowly, and weapons experts need more time to do their job. De Villepin told the Security Council at the meeting in New York that France would not accept the compliance deadline, and he repeated implicit threats to veto the U.S.-British plan. "We cannot accept an ultimatum as long as the inspectors are reporting cooperation," de Villepin said.
Happy now?

[WVUFAN]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80586,00.html

Happy now?
What, that Germany, France and Russia, all of which were doing regular business with Iraq would oppose an invasion? Not surprising. Just because those countries said there were no WMD's in Iraq doesn't mean there wasn't.

[MrBigglesworth]

What, that Germany, France and Russia, all of which were doing regular business with Iraq would oppose an invasion? Not surprising. Just because those countries said there were no WMD's in Iraq doesn't mean there wasn't.
You better hope cognitive dissonance doesn't cause cancer.

[Dutch]

You better hope cognitive dissonance doesn't cause cancer.

Is MrBigglesworth a pseudonym for Dennis Miller by chance?

[Chubby]

What, that Germany, France and Russia, all of which were doing regular business with Iraq would oppose an invasion? Not surprising. Just because those countries said there were no WMD's in Iraq doesn't mean there wasn't.
Repeating over and over that there were WMDs in Iraq with nothing to back it up sure as hell doesn't mean there were any there.

[flere-imsaho]

What, that Germany, France and Russia, all of which were doing regular business with Iraq would oppose an invasion?

Uh-huh.... (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1485546,00.html)

The United States administration turned a blind eye to extensive sanctions-busting in the prewar sale of Iraqi oil, according to a new Senate investigation.

A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them.

The scale of the shipments involved dwarfs those previously alleged by the Senate committee against UN staff and European politicians like the British MP, George Galloway, and the former French minister, Charles Pasqua.

In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.

"The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said. "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales.

Yesterday's report makes two principal allegations against the Bush administration. Firstly, it found the US treasury failed to take action against a Texas oil company, Bayoil, which facilitated payment of "at least $37m in illegal surcharges to the Hussein regime".

The surcharges were a violation of the UN Oil For Food programme, by which Iraq was allowed to sell heavily discounted oil to raise money for food and humanitarian supplies. However, Saddam was allowed to choose which companies were given the highly lucrative oil contracts. Between September 2000 and September 2002 (when the practice was stopped) the regime demanded kickbacks of 10 to 30 US cents a barrel in return for oil allocations.

In its second main finding, the report said the US military and the state department gave a tacit green light for shipments of nearly 8m barrels of oil bought by Jordan, a vital American ally, entirely outside the UN-monitored Oil For Food system. Jordan was permitted to buy some oil directly under strict conditions but these purchases appeared to be under the counter.

It should be noted that soon after this report was released, and British MP George Galloway appeared before the committee, that said committee basically dropped the further investigation.

[Barkeep49]

The "resource" material that was linked to are ALSO known liberal-leaning agencies -- the Guardian and CNN. The two articles that consist of basis of the ISIS post are from the Guardian. AP is not listed as a link to the article. Again, the article is infactual because of its sources.
Darn I was hoping to see something interesting about the tragedy of the Hamas victory and instead I see claptrap about CNN being a liberal media source.

[Senator]

Darn I was hoping to see something interesting about the tragedy of the Hamas victory and instead I see claptrap about CNN being a liberal media source.

Yes, if nothing else, we are an unfocused lot.

[KWhit]

Yes, it is. And once again, knowing where you live: http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/smilies/eek.gif
Yeah, audiobooks are my friend. And we'll be moving before too long.

[KWhit]

Heh, and I live 5 miles away from Royal Drive ;).Really? Where do you live? We're looking to move up into that area within a few months and I might want to pick your brain about the different neighborhoods. Everything seems very expensive up there compared to Conyers.

[Klinglerware]

Thanks K'ware, and that sort of leads me to my question (no, I'm not being sarcastic or whatever with this either, I'm serious) -- are there really enough qualified Palestinians who meet that approximate criteria who would be a)willing to serve & b) capable enough to actually run a coherent government?

Fair question and I'm not sure of the answer. Depending on how difficult it was for young Palestinians to secure student visas during the occupation period, the critical mass of highly educated Palestinians enough to fully staff a technocratic civil-service may not be there.

It also depends on whether a Palestinian upper class exists. From my own experiences in college and grad school, the intelligensia from developing countries who came to the US or Europe to study typically came from rather well-off backgrounds. For better or worse, those students who went back to serve their own countries were already part of the upper-middle and upper classes of their societies, so they had comfortable lives waiting for them back home. Those who weren't so well off were more likely to try to stay here.

So, it is possible that a lot of talented Palestinians just ended up staying abroad, since there may not have been much to come back to. Perhaps the slight changes in Palestine's status has persuaded some of them to go back, but I just don't know enough about the issue to be sure...

[ISiddiqui]

Really? Where do you live? We're looking to move up into that area within a few months and I might want to pick your brain about the different neighborhoods. Everything seems very expensive up there compared to Conyers.I live in Roswell, between Holcomb Bridge and Mansell Road on the "left side" of 400 (if you are driving North on 400). I guess it probably is a bit more expensive than Conyers... but less expensive than Decatur, which is where I came from ;).

I'm not sure about housing prices up in Roswell and Sandy Springs (which I assume would be cheaper than those in Alpharetta), because I rent.

[Vegas Vic]

The only thing that is surprising about the Hamas victory is the naivety of the administration. For almost a decade, America and Europe never stopped reminding the Palestinians that they should take their grievances to the ballot box, not to the bullet. And that is what 1.3 million registered Palestinian voters did on January 26.

The Hamas victory is in line with the trend of Islamist parties emerging as strong political players through regional elections, the most recent examples being the so-called Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the United Iraqi Alliance in Iraq.

The administration had better wake up and smell the coffee. The average lower-class Middle East citizens (which form the bulk of the population) don’t share the US’s support of the interim puppet politicians and royal families.

[JW]

Repeating over and over that there were WMDs in Iraq with nothing to back it up sure as hell doesn't mean there were any there.

Actually it is a fact that there were WMDs in Iraq. Ask the Kurds. Ask the Iranians. The mystery is what happened to them. They were either destroyed before the US invasion or they were hidden or they were taken elsewhere. There has been no definitive explanation given concerning what happened to them, and apparently no coherent attempt to pin that down, though the most widely accepted view is that they were destroyed before the invasion. It does remain possible that at least some were taken to Syria, which does have its own WMD capability.

[Klinglerware]

It should be noted that soon after this report was released, and British MP George Galloway appeared before the committee, that said committee basically dropped the further investigation.

I'm not sure why this angle of the oil-for-food scandal hasn't been more widely reported. The scale of the smuggling was so great that it could not have been done without the tacit approval of the United States. The interdiction of smugglers in the Persian Gulf was the responsibility of the US Navy as part of the overall sanctions enforcement. I'm not too knowledgeable about naval blockade tactics, but for those who are: how difficult would it to run a blockade based on the resources we had in the Gulf at the time?

[flere-imsaho]

Actually it is a fact that there were WMDs in Iraq.

A fact as of when? The 1980s? Absolutely. The 1990s? Sure. After 2000? Not so clear.

Ask the Kurds. Ask the Iranians.

Ah, so you do mean the 1980s.

The mystery is what happened to them.

Unless you have any evidence to the contrary, I think we have to assume that the U.N. Inspection Regime actually worked.

[Ben E Lou]

Unless you have any evidence to the contrary, I think we have to assume that the U.N. Inspection Regime actually worked.Flere, you're going on the "innocent until proven guilty" track, it would appear. That wasn't the case here. They'd been proven guilty, and the way the resolution was written, it was "guilty until proven innocent." In other words, it is immaterial whether or not they were there when we invaded. It was up to Saddam to PROVE that he'd gotten rid of them, and he didn't do it.

[Wolfpack]

Of course, he could have screamed to the rooftops he didn't have them (and I'm sure that on a few occasions, he probably did), but we wouldn't have believed him. It was pretty much a no-win situation, really. Given how much his regime did to obstruct inspections, he either thought he could get away with hiding weapons indefinitely or that eventually the inspectors would give up and go home, or he did, in fact, get rid of them and therefore was mad as a hatter to be as obstructionist as he was to make it look like he had something to hide.

It's one of those wonderful no-win situations. I suppose if he didn't have them, inspectors could have verified, left the country, and the sanctions would have been lifted. We'd probably find ourselves watching them annihilate Kuwait/Saudi/Israel or something like that with chem weapons in retribution for the Gulf War in 10 years or so, but, hey, they didn't have the weapons for a while. Instead, we invaded on bad intel (or procrastinated way too long to invade, if you like the Syria theory) and now find ourselves on a bit of a sword point with daily terror attacks in Iraq and Iran threatening to go nuclear.

Am I glad the Berlin Wall fell and Communism collapsed? Oh, yeah. But I don't think we were ever really prepared for becoming the sole superpower dealing with fanatical Lilliputians everywhere once the bipolar world went away.

[Ben E Lou]

But I don't think we were ever really prepared for becoming the sole superpower dealing with fanatical Lilliputians everywhere once the bipolar world went away.Yup.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

You guys realize the U.S. government spent a lot of time, money, and effort to research the question of what happened to Iraq's WMD's, right? Remember David Kay? Charles Duelfer? He made a report about it. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html) He found that Saddam did not hide his weapons or send them to Syria or give them to Al Qaeda. In fact, his weapons programs had "progressively decayed" since the first Gulf War. He secretly destroyed his own biological weapons in the early '90s. Some of the advertised missing chemical weapons were tracked to bad accounting and never existed. There is no conspiracy theory here. This was the administration's own guy. The WMD's didn't mysteriously go someplace before the invasion, they weren't there in the first place.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Wow. I had no idea anyone still actually believed that whole WMD thing. I didn't think the administration was still selling that one. I thought they had pretty much blamed faulty intelligence on that one. People are strange sometimes...

[flere-imsaho]

Flere, you're going on the "innocent until proven guilty" track, it would appear. That wasn't the case here. They'd been proven guilty, and the way the resolution was written, it was "guilty until proven innocent." In other words, it is immaterial whether or not they were there when we invaded. It was up to Saddam to PROVE that he'd gotten rid of them, and he didn't do it.

Reports from Blix & El-Baradei in 2002 and 2003 to the U.N. Security Council repeatedly say that inspectors continued to find no evidence of WMD capabilities in Iraq. Blix & El-Baradei were, however, prevented by the U.S. from completing their inspections, but later inspections by U.S. military personnel on the ground confirmed their initial conclusions.

Despite Bush Admin rhetoric from the time, both Blix & El-Baradei repeatedly make mention of Iraqi cooperation in determining what, if anything, had happened to programs listed as "defunct" when inspections ended in 1998.

Furthermore, organizations such as the State Department's Intelligence & Research arm, at around the same time, concluded that not only had no evidence surfaced, it was unlikely that Iraq had had the means to reconstitute any WMD programs.

The simple fact is that the reason no WMDs have been found was because Iraq had, in fact, fulfilled its burden of proof to Blix & El-Baradei in the 2002-2003 period. Ironically, it is the Bush Administration "we know exactly where they are" who have been proven unable to fulfill their burden of proof.

As the Kay Report stated, with corroborating evidence and plenty of detail, the reason the U.N. could find no WMD in Iraq pre-war, and the U.S. couldn't find any WMD in Iraq post-invasion is the simplest answer: there weren't any. Furthermore, Kay concluded that after about 1994 there weren't any, either.

[Solecismic]

It was a very odd decision on Bush's part, maybe bordering on criminal. I certainly would agree with those who say he deserved to lose his job over it. But, then again, why put John Kerry up if you want to win the presidency?

The reason why it was so odd was that the inspections were sort-of working. Saddam would jerk the inspectors around just enough to convince everyone he was hiding something. He had gassed the Kurds in the past, so most people figured he did have something to hide. He was like a naughty two-year-old who just can't resist acting up even though he knows he won't like the punishment.

Put yourself in France's position for a minute. You're benefitting from clandestine sales of oil, yet at the same time you're being protected from an overt attack because Iraq is being so closely monitored. And if Saddam acts up at all, there's an air force ready to bomb the anti-aircraft installations. Of course you're not going to support an invasion.

It wasn't an ideal situation, but there was ten years of relatively tame history behind it.

I think it's obvious Bush was looking for any excuse to expand the anti-terrorism war. Maybe some good has come from this, but the price was far too high - both in money and in lost respect around the world. The reasons he gave for the attack were specious at best.

[ISiddiqui]

And it isn't over either, Jim. Who knows if Iraq (OR Afghanistan) will develop into something we'll be proud of in 10 years time. There is a definite chance that Iraq will develop into something worse (mini-Iran) and Afghanistan will backslide to Taliban control again (which is already starting to happen).

Not good.

[MrBigglesworth]

Flere, you're going on the "innocent until proven guilty" track, it would appear. That wasn't the case here. They'd been proven guilty, and the way the resolution was written, it was "guilty until proven innocent." In other words, it is immaterial whether or not they were there when we invaded. It was up to Saddam to PROVE that he'd gotten rid of them, and he didn't do it.
Prove it how? Like letting inspectors in from the UN?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2980332.stm
According to Mr Blix, as the US build-up for an invasion of Iraq intensified, US administration officials had leaned on his weapons inspectors to use more damning language in their reports on Iraq...The UN inspectors searched more than 200 sites over three-and-a-half months but failed to find any weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Blix was not finding any WMD's, undermining the reason for war, so the inspectors were pulled out and the troops were sent in, striking while the iron was still hot.

[Ben E Lou]

Prove it how? Like letting inspectors in from the UN?No. Documentation of how they were destroyed.

[MrBigglesworth]

But, then again, why put John Kerry up if you want to win the presidency?
Kerry was leading until he was Swift-boated. He beat Bush in the debates, Bush is now using Kerry's strategy in regards to Iran and North Korea, his criticisms of Medicare Part D have proved prophetic, etc. He wasn't a terrible candidate on substance.

[Solecismic]

Kerry was leading until he was Swift-boated. He beat Bush in the debates, Bush is now using Kerry's strategy in regards to Iran and North Korea, his criticisms of Medicare Part D have proved prophetic, etc. He wasn't a terrible candidate on substance.

I've been living in New Hampshire for more than five years now, and I've learned how seriously we take the primaries. Not that we have some sort of exclusive on the primaries, but literally for about 18 months prior to the primary season, the candidates are stumping throughout the state, and we're hearing their message just about every day in one form or another.

I live in a town of around 10,000, and we had just about every major candidate hang out at our 4th of July celebration in 2002. I really felt like I knew these people long before it came time to vote.

New Hampshire is a fairly diverse state politically. It's the only state that went from red to blue from 2000 to 2004. It's got the heavily Republican rural areas to the north, two major college towns that are heavily Democratic, a significant blue area in the southwest, union and military towns to the east, a mid-sized industrial town (Manchester) and the heavily Republican suburbs around Nashua. You have to be on message, you have to win on a lot of diverse issues and you have to have charisma to run well here.

That said, Kerry turned me off from day one. His platforms were wishy-washy. We were never clear on whether he was a true anti-war candidate (throwing away the medals) or not - I guess he kept the medals, but not the ribbons, and he did have that weird film thing going in Vietnam). He always made sense, but it was for the moment. His positions changed, nothing seemed to have much conviction.

Ultimately, I felt he would do or say anything to get elected. He wasn't as shallow or as pandering as Edwards, nor was he as strident or as hip as Dean (who I liked as a person until he realized he was ahead in the polls). He wasn't as overwhelmed as Clark, nor was he as solid a study on the issues as Lieberman or as passionate as Kucinich.

In short, I have no idea who Kerry was. He wasn't anything. Just a name. Just another rich guy who liked the idea of being president. And there was something very disingenuous about him.

Yes, on issues, Kerry won the debates. But he made a very crucial mistake toward the end of, I believe, the second debate. He made a very awkward joke about he, Bush and the moderator being the only three people in the room who would be affected by a rollback of the Bush tax cuts. It showed a lack of compassion - like he'd sell himself out for votes. And he was wrong - you could see it from the reaction. It made him look like a very uncomfortable populist.

Edwards can get away with it, even though he's filthy rich himself, because he's so slick and self-righteous. Kerry couldn't. You could almost hear the Bush people whooping it up after that gaffe because it was so totally out of the Dukakis playbook - make yourself look like an out-of-touch liberal professor-type. I gave Bush the second debate on that comment alone.

I honestly feel Kerry lost an unloseable election.

[MrBigglesworth]

I've been living in New Hampshire for more than five years now...
Obviously your experience with the candidates is different from the average person. I live in one of the biggest swing counties (Montgomery) in one of the biggest swing states in the country, and there wasn't a single Presidential speech here. Here is the thing though: Bush COULD have been portrayed the exact same way. Wishy washy? Flip flopper? Think of candidate Bush in 2000, and think of candidate Bush in 2004, and then think of Bush c. Jan 2006. They are completely different people. While we can't be sure with Kerry (because he didn't win), we can be sure that Bush would say anything to get elected, because it happened twice. So why is it that Kerry is seen as the wishy washy flip flopper, and Bush is seen as the stubborn resolute leader?

[flere-imsaho]

No. Documentation of how they were destroyed.

So we went to war over missing paperwork?! :eek:

[flere-imsaho]

I honestly feel Kerry lost an unloseable election.

That was my feeling as well. But you're making it out as if All Democrats picked Kerry to be their candidate. That simply isn't true. The fact is that the power brokers of the Democratic Party put their weight behind a Kerry primary victory, and it's those power brokers who didn't realize/know/care that he wasn't a viable general election candidate.

I'm certain most Democrats would have preferred another candidate.

[gstelmack]

So we went to war over missing paperwork?! :eek:Pretty much, if you want to think of it that way. Please stop making this out to be a Democrat vs. Republican thing: remember that Clinton's administration felt the same way about WMDs in Iraq. Hussein did his best to counter, block, and manipulate the weapons inspections. Had he simply cooperated from day 1, including allowing the inspectors to watch him destroy, eliminate, and get rid of his WMDs, sanctions would have been lifted a long time ago and he'd still be in power.

Instead he did everything possible to defy the UN and make it appear that he still had WMDs and was this still a "player" in the area. He didn't want to admit weakness, and after 9/11 we could no longer afford to play around. He didn't start cooperating until right before we went to war when he finally saw the writing on the wall, and by then it was just too late. Much like how when you threaten your kid that if they won't pick up their toys you'll take them away, and they hem and haw and don't start picking them up until you start taking them away. Too bad, the kid is still losing the toys (so that maybe they'll pick them up next time), and Hussein lost what little trust the US had in him and lost his privilege of being a world leader.

Remember that it only takes one loose WMD to kill an awful lot of people. This is not an area to fool around with. Hussein chose to play games with a very serious topic, and he lost.

[Ben E Lou]

Pretty much, if you want to think of it that way. Please stop making this out to be a Democrat vs. Republican thing: remember that Clinton's administration felt the same way about WMDs in Iraq. Hussein did his best to counter, block, and manipulate the weapons inspections. Had he simply cooperated from day 1, including allowing the inspectors to watch him destroy, eliminate, and get rid of his WMDs, sanctions would have been lifted a long time ago and he'd still be in power.

Instead he did everything possible to defy the UN and make it appear that he still had WMDs and was this still a "player" in the area. He didn't want to admit weakness, and after 9/11 we could no longer afford to play around. He didn't start cooperating until right before we went to war when he finally saw the writing on the wall, and by then it was just too late. Much like how when you threaten your kid that if they won't pick up their toys you'll take them away, and they hem and haw and don't start picking them up until you start taking them away. Too bad, the kid is still losing the toys (so that maybe they'll pick them up next time), and Hussein lost what little trust the US had in him and lost his privilege of being a world leader.

Remember that it only takes one loose WMD to kill an awful lot of people. This is not an area to fool around with. Hussein chose to play games with a very serious topic, and he lost.Well said.

[st.cronin]

I'm certain most Democrats would have preferred another candidate.

I think of the choices they had, the Democratic party picked the worst possible candidate. What's wrong with Dick Gephardt, anyway?

[flere-imsaho]

Please stop making this out to be a Democrat vs. Republican thing: remember that Clinton's administration felt the same way about WMDs in Iraq.

If they did, surely they would have invaded Iraq as the Bush Administration did? Perhaps it is better to say: "Don't make this out to be a Democrat vs. Republican thing as 1998 and 2002 were different years."

He didn't want to admit weakness, and after 9/11 we could no longer afford to play around.

Ah, the 9/11 argument again. Even though every U.N. report suggested that Iraq's WMD capability had been neutered in the 1990s, we're still worried he's going to give a nuke to Al-Qaeda, right?

If so, why do well sell F-16s to Pakistan, when it's clear that Pakistan's scientists have been selling nuclear secrets on the black market? Why have we done nothing to North Korea?

Remember that it only takes one loose WMD to kill an awful lot of people.

How many coalition soldiers have died? How many Iraqi citizens have died? If Iraq dissolves into a civil war, how many people will die? If Iraq becomes a fundamentalist theocracy, how many people will die?

All this for the chance Hussein, under immense international scrutiny and sanctions, might be able to reconstitute a WMD program and sell thoses WMD to terrorist organizations?

That's a hell of a price to pay, especially when it wasn't the only option.

[flere-imsaho]

I think of the choices they had, the Democratic party picked the worst possible candidate.

I don't disagree, though little of the Democratic bench in 2004 was all that appealling, to be honest.

[Solecismic]

The Democratic race in 2004 was exactly what Terry McAuliffe and his friends deserved.

They decided right off the bat they wanted a candidate who had gravitas, which eliminated much of the crowd. They decided they wanted someone just a tad left of the Democratic center, which eliminated Lieberman. The worked to undermine Dean and Lieberman right from the start.

They decided they knew more than the voters.

They used the primary not to vet the candidates, but to force them to fit into the mold they devised. Lieberman was told to get out of the race before the first primary, even. As a voter, I was insulted.

Every day, the Democratic leadership was interviewed and every day, they spun against their own. They were doing the Republicans' jobs for them.

Meanwhile, as the candidates dropped out, long before the bulk of the primaries, they continued to invite Sharpton to participate, and no one would dare say a word against him. He became like a 20-ton albatross, embarrassing the party not by making outlandish statements, but by smiling and being a welcome part of some pretty boring debates. Why couldn't McAuliffe just say "Tawana Brawley, Crown Heights" a few times to the media while he was busy getting rid of Dean?

These debates are supposed to make the chosen one look like a star. Instead, it was like watching a coffee klatch.

Kerry won by default, because he had the gravitas and he had what people perceived as decent anti-war credentials. A definite miscalculation, because "I'm not Bush" would have won over the anti-war crowd. They needed someone to focus solely on domestic issues, and then, maybe once in a while, say, "oh, by the way, you started a war."

[KWhit]

I think of the choices they had, the Democratic party picked the worst possible candidate.
The Rupublican Party did the same thing in 2000.

[flere-imsaho]

Jim's assessment is 100% correct, in my opinion.

[gstelmack]

If they did, surely they would have invaded Iraq as the Bush Administration did? Perhaps it is better to say: "Don't make this out to be a Democrat vs. Republican thing as 1998 and 2002 were different years."Actually, Clinton almost did, and he bombed Iraq a couple of times as well.

Ah, the 9/11 argument again. Even though every U.N. report suggested that Iraq's WMD capability had been neutered in the 1990s, we're still worried he's going to give a nuke to Al-Qaeda, right?If you don't think the world changed on 9/11, you need to think more or harder. The fact remains that we can no longer dilly-dally with an individual or group we think might be dangerous, because one such group killed THREE THOUSAND AMERICANS in one swoop. And then the government was blasted for not knowing about it ahead of time.

If so, why do well sell F-16s to Pakistan, when it's clear that Pakistan's scientists have been selling nuclear secrets on the black market? Why have we done nothing to North Korea?F-16s aren't WMDs, and we're working very closely with Pakistan's government to help fix their problems. And North Korea has not shown itself to be a threat outside its borders, unlike, say, Iraq.

How many coalition soldiers have died? How many Iraqi citizens have died? If Iraq dissolves into a civil war, how many people will die? If Iraq becomes a fundamentalist theocracy, how many people will die?Would you rather there be fighting in Iraq/Afghanistan or here in the U.S.? Because on 9/11, it was right here. After 9/11, it's over there.

All this for the chance Hussein, under immense international scrutiny and sanctions, might be able to reconstitute a WMD program and sell thoses WMD to terrorist organizations?Hindsight is 20/20. As said above, he did everything in his power to make it look like he had WMDs in an effort to exert influence in the area.

That's a hell of a price to pay, especially when it wasn't the only option.And I'd say 3000 Americans in the World Trade Center was a hell of a price to pay to get this country to wake up to the threat that was out there.

[flere-imsaho]

Actually, Clinton almost did, and he bombed Iraq a couple of times as well.

Almost. But he didn't. My point stands.

If you don't think the world changed on 9/11, you need to think more or harder. The fact remains that we can no longer dilly-dally with an individual or group we think might be dangerous, because one such group killed THREE THOUSAND AMERICANS in one swoop. And then the government was blasted for not knowing about it ahead of time.

This would be a more compelling argument if the Bush Administration was making more of an effort to bring to justice the men responsible for killing THREE THOUSAND AMERICANS, as you say.

F-16s aren't WMDs, and we're working very closely with Pakistan's government to help fix their problems. And North Korea has not shown itself to be a threat outside its borders, unlike, say, Iraq.

Huh? First of all, I never said F-16s are WMDs. I said we're rewarding a state governed by an unelected general who lets nuclear secrets slip his borders and practices nuclear brinksmanship with his neighbor. And you're saying this is consistent with a policy that also says to invade Iraq?

Also, North Korea has demonstrated long-range missile capability and has a very large military force. I'd say they present as much a threat to their neighbors as Hussein did.

Would you rather there be fighting in Iraq/Afghanistan or here in the U.S.? Because on 9/11, it was right here. After 9/11, it's over there.

Don't be naive. If you think we're any safer now than we were before 9/11 you're out of your mind. Besides, I'd like to hear you say that to people in Madrid & London.

Worldwide attacks attributed to Al-Qaeda in the 30 months before 9/11: 1 (Fatalities: 17)
Worldwide attacks attributed to Al-Qaeda in the 30 months after 9/11: 10 (Fatalities: 510)

Source (http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_911_panel_crs_rep_april_6_let_rep.pdf)

Also: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html)


The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week.

Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides who were briefed on statistics covering incidents including the bloody school seizure in Russia and violence related to the disputed Indian territory of Kashmir.

[gstelmack]

Almost. But he didn't. My point stands.He did actually bomb Iraq a couple of times. Hussein was considered a serious threat under Clinton, so my point stands.

This would be a more compelling argument if the Bush Administration was making more of an effort to bring to justice the men responsible for killing THREE THOUSAND AMERICANS, as you say.So invading Afghanistan and working hard with the Pakistani government isn't making much of an effort to bring those guys to justice? Besides, the goal here is not to bring them to justice, the goal is to stop them from hitting us again.

Huh? First of all, I never said F-16s are WMDs. I said we're rewarding a state governed by an unelected general who lets nuclear secrets slip his borders and practices nuclear brinksmanship with his neighbor. And you're saying this is consistent with a policy that also says to invade Iraq?Yup, I do. Hussein wouldn't work with us, while the Pakistani government is (at much risk to themselves). Hussein did his best to alienate himself from the rest of the world, while Pakistan wants to join in and is helping us hunt down their violent element.

Also, North Korea has demonstrated long-range missile capability and has a very large military force. I'd say they present as much a threat to their neighbors as Hussein did.North Korea has not actually used any of that on their neighbors. Iraq had.

Don't be naive. If you think we're any safer now than we were before 9/11 you're out of your mind. Besides, I'd like to hear you say that to people in Madrid & London.

Worldwide attacks attributed to Al-Qaeda in the 30 months before 9/11: 1 (Fatalities: 17)
Worldwide attacks attributed to Al-Qaeda in the 30 months after 9/11: 10 (Fatalities: 510)

Source (http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_911_panel_crs_rep_april_6_let_rep.pdf)

Also: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html)Not any safer? How many attacks on US soil since then? And your quoted report doesn't include the Kobar Towers bombing, which was pre-9/11. How many of your recent stats include attacks taking place inside Iraq as part of an insurgency?

I feel much safer knowing we're fighting on their soil instead of ours. They've been limited to two "significant" attacks (Madrid / London) since 9/11, both close to their homebases, and neither on the scale of 9/11.

Terrorists need a safe home base to operate from, and right now they don't have much of one. Iraq is the closest they've got, and they're having to fight for it.

So yes, I feel much safer than I would had we simply gone into Afghanistan after 9/11 and left it at that. Because the pre-9/11 escalation of Al-Qaeda attacks tells me that we'd have been hit again, and pretty hard again, were they not so busy trying to kick us back out of the Middle East.

Naive to me is thinking that by sitting back and making all nice-nice with everyone (an impossibility, by the way) this would be one happy world with everyone loving us. There are evil people out there who use hatred of us as a weapon to build their power base and rally supporters and who need regular victories to continue to build that power base, and those people aren't going to be persuaded to just drop everything and leave us alone. An awful lot of people felt that way in 1938 and 1939 and look where that got us.

I mean, what exactly was Clinton doing during the '90s that so ticked these people off? You hold the Democrats up as these greate paragons of foreign policy virtue, yet Al-Qaeda grew and prospered under a Democratic foreign policy. I'm glad we've got a President with the guts to go after these guys on their home turf rather than sitting back and attempting the impossible task of keeping them out of our borders. That policy worked great for Clinton after all http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif