I wish all of the super delegates would have stayed quiet till after the Primaries were over.
Why on earth are the parties wasting all that money just to party, if the candidates are chosen in June?
They should donate all the money to clean up New Orleans, especially since most of Bushes cronies are just making money on the clean up.
I just saw most of Senator Obama's response to President Bush's stupid statements delivered yesterday in Israel. I found his argument to be exceptionally effective.
(Let me interrupt my own comment for a moment by saying that our "glorious" leader doesn't even know what "appeasement" is. Negotiation, which Kennedy and Reagan excelled in, is not appeasement; selling the farm is. I know President Bush has a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office, but if Churchill were alive he would slap the president around for equating the Bush policy regarding the Middle East with the Battle of Britain. President Bush has famously stated "I don't do nuance." Boy, is that ever for sure.)
Anyway, back to my original point: if Senator Obama stays on the offensive like he did today--his remarks were as clear, concise, and conviction-based as he's ever been--he'll win big in November. If not, he'll probably lose. It'll come down to that, ultimately.
Say, Noni?
Is there an issue, anywhere, that some moonbat can't, or won't try to link somehow to GWB?
This morning traffic was terrible.
I was on the lookout for George, but he must have done his dirty work and sped off to cause mischeif elsewhere... probably beating up a grandma in Idaho.
Many similarities between the battle for Britan and The situation Israel facecs today. Both were faced with with enemies bent on their total destruction. The fire bombing of London and the thousands of missles fired at Israel which still continue are similar as Israelis huddle in their safe rooms and shelters tp Londoners like my Father who trembled in fear as a young teen as the merciless death merchants flew over head with annihalation on their mind. I wonder what Churchil would have thought if a former US Presindent sat with to appease the SS in the midst of their rampage.
Even Neville Chamberlain got the clue eventually.
Hey Noni,
Better a moonbat then a conehead--take it as a compliment.
As for Bush insinuating Obama is Nazi, who is the one shredding the constitution?
Who is responsible for picking people up off the streets and putting them in cages without representation?
History will be the judge and it won't be sweet for Little Bush!
Doc,
There is then enormous similarity between England and EVERY OTHER nation that has ever been attacked. We could say there is similarity between Poland and Israel, or Russia and Isreal, or Chian and Isreal.
This concept of 'appeasement' is so over used it's ludicrous now. It's becoming so over used that it's rendering the use comical, and therefore meaningless.
The over-arching concept is that if you 'give an extremist a foot, they'll take a mile' you can't trust them. We ALL agree on that, but that's just WAY to simple to stop at that point. Bush TALKED to Quddafi, Bush TALKED to Kim Jong Il. However, the primary analogy is simply this. Syria isn't Germany, it is VASTLY less militarily capable than Germany was, vasly less a threat. They aren't the bullies here, or certainly they aren't the ONLY bullies.
Constatnly equating every situation we find convenient to Chamberlain makes us look like fools. Most disagreements between nations have soem level of justification on both sides, and represent disputes between military peers. in this case, it is Isreal which is vastly more powerful than Syria, and which has it's soveriegnty guaranteed by the US. Talking to Assad is no more akin to talking to Hitler than was talking to Gorbachev. Was Reagan an imbecile in talking to Gorbachev and ending the cold war?
We do not benefit by pushing this discussion into simplistic pidgeon holes, and we are fools to squelch off discussion with cliche' and pablum.
"Constantly equating every situation with Chamberlain makes us look like fools."
I agree.
And let's also remember that the land on which Israel was founded is still considered disputed territory by much of the world in that many groups could make a claim it (including, of course, the Jews). During World War II, England was England...that was not in dispute.
Personally, I support fully Israel's right to exist, and I greatly dislike the present Iranian regime, but to equate that far more complicated scenario with the far more clear-cut Battle of Britain is smug, self-satisfied nonsense.
(Here's a little Churchill history--in the 1950s, after he regained the Premiership of Britain, Churchill openly urged President Eisenhower to open negotiations with the Soviet Union. Yes, that Churchill.... It would be several years before such a negotiating scenario existed, of course, but in later years Ronald Reagan often negotiated with the Soviets. Those negotiations sometimes produced quantifiable results, and sometimes they did not. That was not "appeasement"; it was tough negotiating.)
"make a claim it"--I meant "many groups could make a claim to it."
Explosives strapped to a terrorists chest are just as clear cut as those that get dropped out of a plane to the people that deal with the result.
Hitler's crew favored piano wire while al Queda prefers a dull butcher knife...you think the victim would quibble as to which is more clear cut?
The fact is that you are parsing history to justify an untenable position...a clear cut Democrat tactic.
And Pro-life Bush invaded a country that wasn't threatening us, threw out the geneva convention and sanctioned the kidnapping of innocent Iraqi citizens, some as young as 12 and 14 years old, to be tortured to their deaths . . . But that's way better than Hitler, because hardly any of the innocent Iraqi civilians have been experimented on, nobody has been gassed to death, that we know of, and the Iraqi death toll hasn't reached 6 million yet. . . .that we know of . . .
Once again, the discussion dissolves into comparisons to Hitler...
Anyways, I have got a question regarding President Bush's speech in Israel, and the Democrats' response. Immediately, the assumption was made the that the speech was a political jab at Sen. Obama. Perhaps it was, I can grant that. But...what if, just what if it was simply a statement of American foreign policy, and not political at all. President Bush still is the President. And, his audience was a nation under siege, that perhaps needs to know that the U.S. still stands with them. Now, we can debate whether or not we agree with the U.S. foreign policy, that is a fair debate. Should we support Israel?
But, why is it "B.S.", in the words of Sen. Biden. Why was it "beneath the dignity of the office", in the words of Speaker Pelosi. Is it possible that they are trying to make the statement political, when it wasn't?
If Speaker Pelosi or Senator Biden disagreed, wouldn't they have been better to respectfully disagree? Why react as they did? Is it about the the message or the politics?
I will concede that I don't know if the speech was political. I suspect that it was not a direct reference to Sen. Obama, but I have no special insight into the President's intentions. But why read it so cynically?
Convince me... without equating Pres. Bush to Hitler...
Well, I suppose someone could say that your viewpoints, Swiftee, often confirm a lot of unfortunate stereotypes of Americans held by large percentages of folks in Europe and elsewhere: you are smart but incredibly binary in your thinking, and your world view is clever but also extraordinarly insular, as well as a product of received cultural opinion.
Not that I'd say such a thing....
C'mon, folks, I think we're very capable of being a bit more sophisticated than that. Oh, wait, I forgot--that would make us "elitist," so....
The fact is that you are parsing history to justify an untenable position...a clear cut Democrat tactic. - Swift.
Bull. Tom, that comment is so venal it defies response (nearly). You are equating something to WWII either out of ignorance or out of a persistant desire to refuse to see the truth. Al Qaeda had NO NATION STATE, even if it did, such a state wouldn't reflect Al Qaeda in it's entirety. Further, NO ONE offered to 'negotiate' with Al Qaeda. This is just more shifting sand from you, Tom, nothing else. Al Qaeda, PLUS all of the muslim nations of the world COMBINED, of which precisely ONE might be willing to help Al Qaeda with military armaments (Saudi Arabia NOT Iran) - all of them combined don't come close to Germany's military or economic productive capacity of 1938.
Further, Iran isn't, in a million years, going to help Al Qaeda.
Once again, we were talking about TALKING to Iran, or Syria, but you've changed the goal posts. Do you seriously think that ALL Muslims are working together, that 1500 years of genocide between Shiaa and Sunni has just evaporated simply to allow Bin Laden to attack the US? If so, check out Iraq.
"But...what if, just what if it was simply a statement of American foreign policy"
Your naivety astounds me Pat.
Bush was just mouthing Karl Rove words
he knew exactly what he was saying.
Left out..The difference between the Israeli situation compared to other disputes and 'attacks' where you can negotiate is the primary objective of geonicide which hamas leaders and Hitler share. It is not just an issue of disputed land but a supported culture and goal of final solution.
To compare this to soviet negotiations or orther 'conflict' resolution attempts is naive. Did ya happen to here the latest from Bin Laden? And yet we have people like Jimmy Carter wanting to ass kiss these butchers. Did ya also see who Hamas leaders want to win the Presidency? I guess they don't understand the definition of appeasement either.
They must think they will get to hop right over that step to most favored nation status when their liberal friends are elected.
"You don't have to agree, but if you're not talking to all sides, you're going to be Chalabied every time."
--Daniel Levy, negotiator for the Israeli government
(Ahmad Chalabi misled the U.S. government by inflating Saddam's WMD potential)
What is increasingly "untenable" (that seems to be the hip new catch-phrase everyone and their brother is presently using in order to sound authoritative) is to make excuses for not opening talks with the opposition.
We don't have to agree with, say, the Iranian government. We can stand firmly opposed to many elements of the other side's argument. But we do have to learn exactly what "conditions on the ground" are in the opposing camps, so as to better argue our side of the case. (Right now, we often think we know what's going on, but a lot of it is postulation; we have a tendency to counter their uninformed hyperbole with some of our own.)
If we're truly "informed" about the situation, our mindset would be to work to become even more so. We would then be in a position to defend our position in a thorough manner that convinces the rest of the world that we're not what many of them think we are: the 200-pound five-year-old sitting on the other kids in the playground and giggling about it.
They're not entirely accurate about us. It's arrogance to believe that we're entirely accurate about the rest of the world. Admitting that and then doing something about it is the first step in our transitioning to a more modern form of international leadership: firm but informed; tough but team-oriented.
It's really about maturing as a country before we lose more of our international clout. If we indicate that we're a bit more sophisticated about the world--but also not pushovers--others may change their opinion about us, and we'd be in a position of greater moral and geopolitical strength.
Gigi,
I asked "what if"... You don't want to discuss it? Instead, you prefer to belittle me? I conceded that it may have been a political jab. I am asking why assume it was.
You are illustrating a point. Instead of discussing my porposed premise, you decided to offer a knee-jerk reaction. What does that prove?
I am not belittling your opinion. I may even agree with you (to SOME extent).
It's not naivety, it's was a genuine attempt to understand the cynical view.
Just an addendum: Let's remember that in contrast to Soviet socialism or, prior to that, fascism in the 1930s, no society outside of pockets in the Islamic world looks with admiration on the fundamentalist Islamist model.
In the 1930s, a surprisingly high number of people worldwide felt that fascism was a legitimate (or preferred) alternative to democracy (which was often viewed as "chaotic" and not hierarchical enough to be self-sustaining). Hence, World War II was fought in large part to preserve democracy itself, at least as a major world force.
During the Cold War, many countries felt the same way about communism when compared to democracy. Thankfully, our (democratic) finances outlasted theirs.
By comparison, fundamentalist Islamism, which is indeed a problem, cannot compete in a worldwide manner with the democratic model.
The trick, then, is to fight it via force of arms where that course of action is required (against al Qaeda central in Afghanistan), and expose places like Iran, et al, to our western influences in increasing manners, the first step of which is to open frank (and tough) negotiations.
The Mullahs cannot compete unless we rattle sabres with them, and they know it. So they love it when our president rattles sabres in such simplistic terms; it gives them fuel to sustain anti-American sentiment in a country where the people don't exactly like us, but they often don't like their government, either.
As Americans, we're pragmatists. Let's be pragmatic about the Middle East.
Ok Hasslington I will be pragmatic with you. It is estimated that in a few short years the russian army will be made up of about 70 percent Islamic. So what will it look like in a decade or so after that as far as the demographics of power and influence. (this tends to be a concurring event worldwide.) What that sets the stage for who knows. There are good muslims and bad it just seems the wicked tend to control and create havoc. You are right intelligence (good) is key and being engaged makes sense but we must stand firm, not 'appease' or enable, lead by principal nor appear week or divided. Otherwise we are better off leaving them in the stone age.
It is estimated that in a few short years the russian army will be made up of about 70 percent Islamic. -
Doc, estimated by whom?
That figure not only defies logic, it defies reality. The VAST majority of Russians are Orthodox Christian, and the 'Stans' spun off into their own countries, which are almost universally militarily impotent. Only Turkmenistan could be said to be dangerous - and at that, only to it's neighbors, unless one or the other kept nuclear weapons which have subsequently been accounted for and turned over to Russia or destroyed.
Your other comment about it "becoming a recurring event worldwide" - again, where? Beyond that, since when did Sunni Islam equate to radical Wahabism? Indonesia, the largest muslim nation in the world abhores the radicals, and the Tsunami (and subsequent relief) showed the wahabist outlaws to be impotent and incapbable of helping with mass privation. In Europe, while the Muslim population has grown, it is still a TINY fraction of the population of ANY European military power.
You want to dissuade radical Islam, do what always works, give them jobs.
Also,
Doc, again, NO ONE talked about negotiating with Bin Laden. Carter, anyone, certianly all liberals, who are FAR more likely to take assertive and responsible military action than Bush. Besmirching Carter, who brokered the Camp David accord, only makes you, and everyone else who would do so, look very foolish. Carter took far riskier actions than Bush ever has. He took a very risky attempt to recover the hostages, something much more gutsy to do than invading a punk nation like Iraq.
The point is, Doc, that the Soviets were, by any estimation, sponsoring Terrorism on a far greater scale than is Bin Laden, were far more dangerous to the US, were far more economically powerful THAN the US. With all due respect, you're inventing boogeymen, while complaining we don't see the danger. My counter to that is YOU don't see the danger of antagonizing a world which, but for our adventurism, and more importantly our calous arrogance, wouldn't have ISSUE ONE with us killing off a few Bin Ladens. Past that, we make a mockery of our attempts by molly-coddling the Saudis. Bush doesn't have the balls to go after Pakistan, and doesn't have the first interest in making Saudi Arabia STOP funding madrasas. You see danger in an expanding Islam, I see danger in turning Islam of Indonesia into the Islam of Yemen. We are not militarily powerful enough to kill 1.3 Billion Muslims, even if we were, we sure as Christ should not do so.
Doc, I've got no overt problem with your thoughts regarding pragmatism.
But I agree with many international geopolitical observers (including mainstream Americans) who suggest that radical Islam needs to be taken in historical context (Indian-American Fareed Zakaria, in particular, articulates this notion well).
Radical Islam is indeed a pressing concern, but it is also gradually being replaced by a more Western style of pragmatism just about everywhere around those areas that are still radical in nature. What we see with al Qaeda and the Mullahs, etc., is indeed dangerous, but it is a desperate attempt to stop the wave before it crashes over the sea wall, so to speak, more than anything else. Modernity is everywhere around them, and the radicals are in a panic.
Now, as far as I'm concerned, that does not mean that the Middle East is going to be any less "fraught" over the next few years. It will probably be transfixed with danger, and we need to meet that danger and defeat it. But in doing so we need to understand that those who promote violence in the Middle East in an outward manner will also become increasingly isolated from the rest of the world first and, more slowly, from within.
(Right now, polls taken in the Muslim world show that levels of support for suicide bombings are less than half as high as they were in 2002; people are seeing economic development in Dubai, etc., and marveling at it...and thinking about the manner of thinking that has gone into it, versus the manner of thinking radicals utilize...).
I continue to assert that World War II was a far more dangerous era, because the worldwide influence of democracy was being challenged, strongly, by fascism...in the developed world and elsewhere. Given the principle players, the world could have tipped in the wrong direction, but thankfully did not. The Cold War was also far more dangerous than now because Soviet Communism was similarly challenging democratic values; much of the world was attracted by both sides.
Radical Islam is simply not as strong. If this is 1938, given its GDP and military spending, Iran is Romania, not Germany. It still presents a problem, but not to the extent that Germany or the U.S.S.R. did.
The biggest potential problem (as you suggest) is the Russian Bear (but not for the reasons you suggest). Its bullying of Europe of late has been quite worrying indeed.
Leftover
To coin an over used liberal line it is "simple math" While it may be longer than a "few short years, a decade or two ( but since we are talking as WWII is relatively current) will certainly see this change in the Russia demographics. The "stans" are already there. Muslim Birth rates are 5 to 7 times higher than "Russian" women. And account for an increasingly higher draft age young men.
Here is a link to help you understand the concept.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/
ful...752C0A966958260
To answer your question where?, Asia, Africa with Europe starting to kick into gear.
If we are going to think long term we need to understand some of these fundamental issues facing us with these changes.
To be sure WWII posed more of a threat to WORLD than radical Islam RIGHT NOW. But just as the Nazis grew from a small minority party to world dominating terrorists so does the dangers of Radical Islam we face in the future.
I also agree with Hasslington "By comparison, fundamentalist Islamism, which is indeed a problem, cannot compete in a worldwide manner with the democratic model" and there in lays the long term danger if he meant ultimately it becomes an either or proposition.
And statements like "You want to dissuade radical Islam, do what always works, give them jobs" is naive. Sure it benefits the "Good" Muslim but the radicals are on a mission from god, they are persuasive, controlling, dominating and death worshiping. There are a lot of educated (good jobs) radical Islamist that have been tools and leaders of this movement. The silence from the Mullahs on obvious horrific acts should give you a clue these people in their big picture thinking feel ANYTHING can be justified to meet their end goal.
And Hasslington We all are marveling at the economic success of Dubais amazing what an oil rich repressive society can do with the spoils of oil.
Also let me get this straight Leftover, you want Bush "to go after Pakistan" a developing democracy (with nuclear weapons) who is somewhat our friend? what does that mean? Maybe you should be thinking in terms of your own advice...hey did we just have a role reversal here? LOL
"because hardly any of the innocent Iraqi civilians have been experimented on, nobody has been gassed to death, that we know of"
Thanks Linda.
I'll add this to Charley's "US Sturmtroopen" quote in my all time favorites file. Comes in handy whenever I need to explain why I refuse to hold "discussions" with moonbats lefty's.
Gigi, a round for the house, on me.
Doc,
Musharaf has played the US for fools since 9/11. He plays internal politics between the Army, the Pakistani Secret Police, and the fundamentalists, labeling us 'satan' with routine. He tolerates madrasas which provided 11 or so of the overall 9/11 terrorists (as I recall - not meaning 11 were pakistanis, but that 11 attended pakistani madrasas).
Go after, in this sense, if Pakistan wants our weapons technology, our foriegn support, then they HAVE to give us access to get after the Punjab/Kashmiri regions to go after the fundamentalist strongholds. He hasn't generally allowed this. In addition, Pakistan offers both a hotbed for fundamentalism, and a hotbed for progressivism. Musharaf cultivates the former more than the latter, for his own political purpose.
As for jobs, jobs have ALWAYS been the great salve against insurrection/insurgency. Our great mistake in Iraq was disenfranchising and unemploying so many. We perhaps could have avoided this mess in great degree by not creating a 75% unemployment rate.
You seem to think that we (liberals) are unaware of the commentary of the islamic radicals. Such paternalistic condescension is both insulting, and grossly wrong. We fully grasp the influence of islam, and radical islam, at least as well as the average conservative (that I know). Most conservatives I know regurgitate idiocy like that the Quran promotes violent conversion (it doesn't). Their extraordinarily simplistic view of islam lets them believe Iran and Saudi Arabia share a united view - an absurdity beyond words. You think we 'just don't get' the big picture, which is totally, horribly wrong. We see the even larger picture.
Conversely, most liberals actually think that you conservatives are missing that bigger picture, specifically that arrogant disregard for the death of innocent civilians, for promoting an attitude that permitted Abu Ghraib, that allows for Gitmo, creates just as our own NEI said, a 'cause d' celeb' out of Iraq. It creates MANIFESTLY more recruits for Al Qaeda. In short, your approach for Iraq is exactly the WRONG medicine, doing precisely incorrectly what you need to be doing. Rather than convincing the world of our rationality and sanity - it convinces the world, the moderate muslims for example - that we are irresponsible, and Bin Laden's actions (to them) are in part justifiable. The Qu'ran allows for lesser Jihad in the 114th Sura, to offset/fight the persecution of Islam. Our support of Isreal (to Bin Laden) constitutes it, but to the rest of the world, it doesn't constitute persecution. However, our cavalier behavior toward the Iraqis DOES constitute persecution and creates many, many new recruits.
This isn't to say radical islam doesn't, by itself, foment extremism - in Turkey, Egypt, France, India. It does, but historical fact simply supports that in France, or India, it's chances of 'taking over' are ludicrously remote, and only made larger by our aggre
by our aggression, not less. Bear in mind, I am in no way blaming the US for Bin Laden, he's a freak who decided some action (whatever it was) justified killing innocents. Most muslims profoundly disagree with him.
The riots in France were about jobs, the disaffection in Iraq had jobs as its genesis, and we know Iraqis have been motivated by payments to carry out suicide attacks. Economic stability is the surest cure to insurgency - my point about Bush is that he's disingenuious, he doesn't MEAN to affect this problem sincerely. If he did, Iraq would NEVER have been his target. Doug Feith has said as much.. this was (to Bush) about denuding Iraq vis a vis Isreal, NOT 9/11. And he's failed.
I cant disagree with what you said about Pakistan.
One of our biggest mistakes in Iraq was the dissolution of the Army and aggressive de bathification policy which left a security void which led to an exodus of Iraqis with money means and which led to high unemployment, some of which has been rebounding granted latter and slower than anyone would like.
while unemployment rates contribute to social unrest and at times violence, why is it then that other European countries which have higher rates of unemployment have not had rioting in the street? Spain,Poland, slovakia are all higher with Belgium, Germany, Portugal, Hungary all relatively the same as France.
I am no expert on France nor do I want to be but my understanding is they have for some time fostered an environment of centralized muslim community and control (appeasement) with a fair degree of autonomy rather than the blending of a culture into a nation. It boiled up if I recall because French leaders realized their error and in an attempt to re steer the ship decided to ban head scarves of of muslim girls in school.
They have real problems over there ( and many many places around the world) and it will continue to worsen but not because of unemployment , it is mainly driven by a religious culture that fosters dominance and control over there own people, (women especially) and seeks to recreate the world according to their vision. I wont debate the provisions of the Koran with you as twisted minds can pervert anything for their own ends.
Sure when we make mistakes it creates opportunities for them to use them as rally cries, but we cannot let fear of mistakes disuade us from making firm sound judgements of long term policy and pretend by being "nice" it will detour them of their long term goals of "death to the infidels"
Back on track... I don't think that Hamas (and Fatah) prefer Obama because they think he will be nicer and "talk" I think it is because they feel they can ultimately get closer to their end goals.
By the way here is what they believe in their souls and is written into their charter "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad," Bin Ladin is a Jonny come lately to these experienced butchers......
Don't forget even with a mistake here a mistake there.... WE ARE THE GOOD GUYS and that includes Bush......
Doc,
As far as the last point goes, agreed, we certainly are the 'good guys'. Our troops, in the VAST VAST majority of cases are absolutly set on behaving ethically, on treating the Iraqis with compassion, and more than not, respect.
I cannot include Bush in that overall statement. Is he better than Bin Laden or Hussien, oh god, clearly - but that's not an acceptable bar. He absolutely provided blurry, and caged, evidence to promote an unnecessary invasion. That's really really bad on the scale of good and bad. A few hundred thousand people are dead who probably would not have been, had he not done so. Is it HIS fault, no, not directly - but he created a resistance movement, an insurgency, by the invasion which would not have otherwise existed - and which wasn't needed. Hussien was 'declawed', and all of the best intelligence TOLD him prior to the invasion that Hussien wasn't going to provide any WMD to any terrorists, of which there was great doubt about the veracity of details of him even having any.
As for France, the riots we saw in France were about economic disenfranchisement. France faces some unique pressures because of labor gaurantees it has provided to its own citizenry, but not necessarily extended to imigrants - a problem of its own making to be sure, but is also why it's not the same as Poland or Czech Republic etc.. Those young emigres felt like they had no jobs and no place in the society. They weren't protesting for muslim conversion or radicalization, but for economic survival and inclusion - and like all youth, did so in a disorganized and barely recognizable way.
That isn't to say radical islam in Europe isn't a threat or concern. It is, there are certainly terrorist cells in Europe, but no more or less so than there were in 1975. Kerry wasn't wrong to say this is primarily a policing problem. There was NO success in applying the armed forces to the problem in Europe, and the arrests and prevention successes have been completed by law enforcement, not the military. In short, because islam is FAR from a mainstream, majority movement in Europe, and is unlikely within the next 50 years or more to become so, the best success path in Europe is jobs and policing.
As you said, in Iraq it was, and still is, giving people hope for a job and future, not killing and then killing some more. Some of the would-be terrorists are only would-be terrorists because they have little hope of feeding their family. Iraq is a secular nation which has little tolerance (in the past) for wahabi extremism. Now that we've stopped pissing all over the locals -- thanks to Patreaus change in approach - they are kicking AQI out of Iraq neighborhood by neighborhood. Unfortunately, that doesn't deal with the underlying Shiaa/Sunni divide. We probably can't fix that at this point.
Regardless, we have to determine what our role and approach in helping Isreal deal with the Palestinian problem will be. Hamas CA
Hamas CAN be molded - by our influence over moderate muslim states - I believe. Lebanon CAN be wrested from Syrian dominance (and Hezzbolah dominance) again by our economic support and development in Lebanon. One thing is certain, militarism by Isreal backfired. Military aggression is a net loser on the world stage. Bush may not be 'evil', but he certainly is stunted in his foriegn policy approach - his goals seem to be putting a permanent military presence in the Gulf with which to threaten any 'non-compliant' states on behalf of Isreal, but he's unwilling to use that threat against the largest sponsors of Wahabism, namely Saudi Arabia and Egypt - and he'd be a fool to use it against Iran. Beyond that, while we CAN engage in militarism - the impact in 20 or 30 years of our DIRECT presence will still be felt. We were far wiser to remain outside the actual stage, and to sponsor Isreal and Jordan (and Egypt) as our proxies - our presence constitutes a jihad justification - a non-muslim state controlling key holy sites - no matter what the reality is with Isreal. No doubt Bin Laden voices comments that Isreal's presence is justification for Jihad, but our task isn't to brace for war, it's to marginalize Bin Laden, to destroy his appeal - that's the advice of nearly every expert on terrorism - destroy the base and hiding place, by destroying the acceptability of the message. Jews have been in Palestine for 5000 years or more - saying they are infidels is bogus to most muslims. Most simply want economic fairness for the displaced Palestinians and the end of oppression by Isreal - accomplish that, and Bin Laden will starve in his cave until we drop in a very large bomb to ease his transition to paradise.
Commenting by HaloScan
