The newly released study on Iraq has claimed that, if matters continue as they are, “The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized.”
The report went on to observe that the Pope is Catholic and bears defecate in woodlands.
Geez, is it possible for Americans to become *more* polarized?
Much is also being made of Gates candidly stating that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq. However, I don’t think he actually said we’re *losing* it. It reminds me of Otto in “A Fish Called Wanda” declaring that we didn’t lose Vietnam, angrily claiming, “It was a tie.”
Personally, I’m thinking it’s only a matter of time before the Democratically elected head of Iraq is unDemocratically capped or subjected to a violent militia-driven overthrow. Maybe *that * will finally qualify as a civil war to Bush.
PAD
• 
Bill Mulligan wrote:
“Adding “the right of return” to issues the Israelis must negotiate also seems a non-starter. We might convince the Israelis to give their enemies a knife but I don’t expect we will persuade them to press it against their throat.”
Israel must negotiate about the right of return. Ut has to be discussed, there is no way to avoid it. But it must be clear that Israel could never agree to a complete implementation of the right of return. Some Palestinians understand that, although not all are willing to concede it prior to solving the other issues. Others do not. If the majority of Palestinians and Arabs i general do not accept it, than there will be no peace, even if all the other problems on both sides are solved, which is not very likely right now anyway.
In any case, it is less important that the US actually make peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. If we and they are not willing, nobody can do it for us. What’s important for the US — in order to gain the good will of moderates and improve the atmosphere and standing of the US, but not not in order to appease the extremists — is to have a semblance of a peace process with itself appearibng to pressure Israel to negotiate and make concessions.
Regardless of your critisism of Rice, I don’t think she would sabotage the thing.
It’s not a matter of sabotage. It’s a matter of competence.
Even Nixon went to China.
Yeah well, Nixon may have been a corrupt and paranoid SOB, but he understood foreign policy and a good foreign policy includes diplomacy. It’s a lesson no one in this administration has learned.
I agree with Bill Mulligan, one of the most important considerations is the training of Iraqi troops. Currently we have 3-4000 trainers, I believe the ISG recommended increasing that number to around twenty thousand.
I also seem to recall that several European nations initially offered to help with the training, and that Bush turned them down. If that’s true, it might be useful to find out if that offer still holds.
Insert joke about France training the Iraqi army here….
Bill Mulligan, I know you have a strong point-of-view about Carter, but he IS a skilled diplomat. He proved it when he helped broker peace between Israel and Egypt.
His latest book (Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid) indicates to me a man who is simply too far removed from reality to be of much use. Though his anti-Israel bias might buy some legitimacy among the enemies of Israel.
Jackson has been good in small time things like hostage situations but this is several orders of magnitude more complicated. Shmoozing and telling people an action will make them look good and get them on TV will not solve any of the longstanding issues of the middle east.
Carter and Jackson are more interested (IMHO) in looking good. That is useful in small things but not in world wide negotiations. They would cut and run when the negotiation hit rough patches or try to negotiate their own deals to hog the credit. They aren’t team players.
Obviously, I freely admit that my dislike for the two men may color my perception. I’m serious though that if I had a choice between Jimmy Carter or a random person picked out of the phone book to hold my chldren’s lives in his hands I would let my fingers do the walking.
Insert joke about France training the Iraqi army here….
With all the cops being injured in France during the recent Muslim riots, the Iraqis may need to train them.
Posted by: Bill mulligan at December 7, 2006 02:23 PM
I freely admit that my dislike for the two men may color my perception.
In the case of Carter, I do believe your emotions are getting the better of you. Carter failed as president in many, many respects. But I suspect that on the balance, historians will rightly regard Carter more highly than you do. The Camp David Accords alone should assure that.
I have urged perspective about George W. Bush and the relative worth (or lack thereof) he will have in the eyes of historians. With Iraq falling apart, however, it’s becoming harder and harder to imagine that he’ll end up on anything but the scrap heap of history. His greatest initiative — the Iraq War — has been a disaster for this nation. While he does have two years left to play out, it’s hard to imagine that he’ll be able to salvage this.
Carter, at least, had a success. I can’t think of a single true success W. has had. Tax cut package? Contributed to a massive deficit that has hurt our ability to wage the wars he has engaged us in. Prescription drug package? Lied to Congress about the cost and saddled us with a boondoggle. The War on Terror? W. took inconclusive intelligence, and by cherry-picking through it and silencing critics, created a fictitious basis for going to war against Iraq rather than marshalling further resources against our real enemy: Al Qaeda.
George W. Bush? Can’t think of a single thing he’s accomplished of lasting value. Carter? Yeah, he contributed something of lasting value.
Sorry, my friend. I know this is a sore spot for you, but I think it would be intellectually dishonest not to call this one like I see it. And I believe our mutual commitment to intellectual honesty is one of the foundations of our friendship.
Mr. Sasha, I just want to be sure of one thing – you really want Ðìçk Cheney to be president?
a. If W. goes down, Cheney would almost certainly have warmed the path already.
b. Even if Cheney didn’t get impeached, the amount of time he’d spend in office would be a year at most and he’d probably be the most scrutinized chief executive in history.
c. His ticker would probably give out the moment he realized he had completely inherited W.’s mess.
I’m not fan of Carter, but I have to agree with Bill Myers here. The Camp David negotiations had no shortage of rough patches, but getting Israel and Egypt to sign a peace treaty, given that many other Arab and Moslim nations to this day still don’t even recognize Israel’s existance was a major accomplishment. If opening up China to trade was the one bright spot of Nixon’s administration, than the Camp David Accords was Carter’s.
I haven’t read his new book, but I have heard that he’s getting slammed in some quarters for being too critical of Israel. But even if he is too sympathetic to the Palestinian side, that doesn’t negate his experience in diplomacy. Certainly, most of the other proposed members of this diplomatic mission are more pro-Israel, so they’d likely balance him out anyway.
I agree with Bill Mulligan, one of the most important considerations is the training of Iraqi troops. Currently we have 3-4000 trainers, I believe the ISG recommended increasing that number to around twenty thousand.
Are these trainers? Or are these trainers WHO CAN SPEAK TO IRAQUI SOLDIERS?
There are substantial differences; there are far too many reports of failures in the training of Iraquis because they could not do simple communication, let alone some of the more complex concepts needed to do security (cue standard complaint about the Army getting rid of qualified translators because they were gay).
This is another matter of nitty gritty logistics…doing the day-to-day detail stuff that has escaped this administration, who are head-in-the-clouds ideologically driven incompetents.
I think the initiation of a Peace Process is a positive step in and of itself.
Since 2001 the US has been engaged for good or ill in a “war process”. Maybe its time to remind the world just who has the diplomatic gravitas to broker a peace deal.
We ARE really good at brokering peace. With only a 230 year history we don’t have NEARLY the grudge matches that other countries have with their neighbors. Sure, our relations with Cuba are shrill, but we aren’t lobbing anything at each other but press releases.
We helped the Palestinians and Israelis.
We helped the Balkans. (In beautiful downtown Dayton Ohio no less.)
We helped the Egyptians and Israelis.
And we tried with a lot of other countries
Besides that I would pay real money to see Jesse Jackson, Richard Lugar and Jimmy Carter having lunch together in Amman Jordan bistro.
–Captain Naraht
I think the initiation of a Peace Process is a positive step in and of itself.
Think that means we’re trying to deal with the situation with ALL our tools.
Military power is a rather gross tool; it does certain things well. You need to use it WITH political prowess to be most effective, however. I think alot of the more rabid Free Republic types forget that (aren’t the type of states that rely solely on force tend to be dictatorships?).
roger tang:
Even out lighter weight vehicles are wearing out at an alarming rate. Of the SUVs that were outfitted with armor plating, many are now breaking down from the strain of all the extra weight. They weren’t designed to carry that much weight. Another sad comment on not being prepared before going in.
From http://www.cbsnews.com
Bush Spokesman On Implementing Iraq Report: “Jim Baker Can Go Back To His Day Job”…
—————
Sounds like more Stay The Course.
Even out lighter weight vehicles are wearing out at an alarming rate. Of the SUVs that were outfitted with armor plating, many are now breaking down from the strain of all the extra weight. They weren’t designed to carry that much weight. Another sad comment on not being prepared before going in
Well, apparently having the “will to win” is more important than paying attention to the everyday details and logistics for the military.
So…when did we get áhøld of some Green Lantern rings?
Courtesy of Andrew Sullivan:
“Some reports are issued and just gather dust. And truth of the matter is, a lot of reports in Washington are never read by anybody. To show you how important this one is, I read it,” – George W. Bush today.
Does he have to make Jon Stewart’s job that easy?
“Does he have to make Jon Stewart’s job that easy?”
Oh, like he can help it.
>Nice of you to make this into a partisan rant. At no point in any of my posts will you >note any indication of party policy or leanings.
You want to parrot Bush, I’ll label you a Bushie. Just like Liberman supposedly is a Democrat. NOT.
>gen x’ers or y’ers
Sorry, no letters here and off topic.
>Instead of typing all in caps (the keyboard equivalent of screaming), I have yet to see >you offer up any solutions for the quagmire Iraq has become.
How about a nursery rhyme for you. All the kings men, couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again. And your reading comprehension is severely lacking, I offered a solution in my post. Split the country into thirds and have a Kurd, Sunni and Shie ruler over their respective country.
Otherwise you find another non secular despot and put him in control. No democracy is going to survive there, period. My real solution which no one likes but is the most logical is gather up the remaining Bathests, arm them and put Saddam in control of them and let them quell the area. Oh I know most egos both lib and con can’t stomach that one.
I could really care less if he was killing his people, because that is the red herring that everyone likes to insert as an excuse. If we REALLY CARED what governments did to their people we wouldn’t be whørëš for China, we would have moved into Dafur and Rowanda would never have had a movie made about it, among dozens of other regions on the globe. We only care where we have some sort of vested interest and even then, only if we can be the bully and think we can win.
>It remains the decision was made, it’s history, there is no going back. You can be as >angry as you want to be, scream as loud as you want to the moon or to anyone who will >listen but, what is confronting our nation now Is coming up with a solution.
Solution? LOL I’ve outlined our solution, turn them into occupied territory and disband the failed government. The real solution (but one our government will never accept or most of it’s populace) lies with the men and women of Iraq and what they want. The report, the whineing, the whole mess can be summed up with one analogy. “You can lead a horse to water, you can’t make it drink.” The people of Iraq will ultimately decide their fate and right now as they have shown, they really don’t care what you want for them. So you are once again left with the solutions I have stated. A non secular dictator that will do the same things that Saddam did to quell the people or split it into 3 autonomous states and hope for the best. Or carpet bomb the population till they have no desire to fight.
>Do you honestly believe a complete pullout of all Americans in Iraq is in the best interest of anyone or are you willing to let the situation fester for another two years so it is the primary focus of the next executive to hold the office of president? Neither option seems palatable.
I have no desire to keep killing our men in a hopeless quagmire. Do you NOT learn from history? I’d suggest ancient Roman history and their control of outlying regions. This isn’t about our interests, it’s about the people of Iraq and they don’t care about our interests.
>Also, no one wants to seem to acknowledge all the other agendas in the region. Turkey’s agenda, Iran’s agenda, Syria’s agenda – everybody has a chip in the game right now – a total abdication of an American presence in the region sounds good to you?
LOL! The same attitude that got us in there in the first place. Let’s put this in a an easy anology for you to understand. 3 doors down from you the neighbors fight on a nightly basis, it’s the men vs the women. They scream throw things, the cops show up, they won’t file charges, they get hauled off for disrupting the peace and they return afterwards to pick up where they left off. They don’t listen to anybody and don’t care what people think. Now you insert yourself into the argument… What happens? The solution comes from within, they have to want to find a solution. You, the only real thing you can do is lock them up, tie them up or gag them. And they could just as easily turn around and shoot you dead. Get it? Not I didn’t think so.
>Better still, let’s raise the price of gasoline up over $6.00 a gallon, works for me. I just can’t wait to see what the heating bills on all the McMansions are. I want to see you have a choice between filling up your obese gas guzzling turd and feeding your family, or maybe a choice between heating your home and feeding your family.
I own a gas guzzling SUV? Wow I didn’t know that! Let’s see I drive a sub compact. I was hauling recyclables to the recycling plants years before it became a government dictate in most areas. When it comes to gas, I have long been a proponent of ethanol in fact I don’t believe we are going far enough we don’t need the 80/20 we have now we need the flex engines that run on 100% distilled spirits like Brazil.
>Maybe you don’t live somewhere where you drive so your attitude is such you could give a rat‘s ášš about the price of gasoline. Well, let’s just jack those fuel prices way, way up so the cost of your groceries (which are mainly trucked around the country) goes through the roof and leaves your wallet full of dust and not much else.
And you wonder why I call you a Bushie. You sure you aren’t living in the 1800’s? You sound like a whaler having a fit over the fact that whale oil is being replaced with crude. Guess what, the oil is going to run out and it’s going to happen anyways. There is nothing that propels innovation faster than need and maybe it’s just what we need to force the switch to bio fuels. I’d suggest the movie “who killed the electric car” besides reading up on all the public “think tanks” big oil employees to promote our continued addiction to oil! 6 months ago some idiot was on one of the Sunday political shows from something like the Association of Oil Producers telling everyone just how it would cost $250,000 a station to switch a pump from oil to ethanol. Even in the face of an actual station owner who called in and said he’d just converted two tanks to 80/20 for a total of $10,000 each Big Oil just kept lying and lying. The Sisters spend millions to assure that what your paranoid ranting is reality and alternative fuel sources don’t gain an upper hand. But keep it up, you’re the problem, not the solution.
Or maybe, just maybe, you’re still suckling at the teat of mommy and daddy, so paying bills isn’t high on your list of priorities (that’s the old rub about the net folks).
Yah, you’re an idiot Bushie.
>War isn’t important so much as a necessary part of how humanity goes about settling its differences.
Hey it’s ranting Rambo! You’ve watched too many John Wayne movies dude.
I think it’s unfortunate, I wish the world were a better place but all the wishing I have won’t change the reality of the world.
The reality of the world is that yahoos like you prefer to use their fists instead of their brains. War is not a natural part of humanity, it’s the easiest for weak minded people. Most ancient tribal societies didn’t go to war, they’d choose 1 warrior from each side who would meet in combat. Sometimes they fought to the death at other times they just fought till one could fight no more. War of mass slaughter is a “modern” addition to humanity’s stupidity.
>I will have to use the ‘nyah, nyah’ defense the next time I attempt to get into an balanced discussion of issues.
Yep, Bushie. Don’t forget to put your fingers in your ears!
>Also, if you can point me to one of those six figure jobbies, I’ll tell you right now I’ll take my chances. I’d drive a truck for six figures.
I doubt you have the spine. Here copy and paste: “job search iraq” into Google.
But I suspect that on the balance, historians will rightly regard Carter more highly than you do. The Camp David Accords alone should assure that.
I’d give more credit to Sadat than Carter but it’s true that he did a very good job with the accords. But without the power of the presidency he only has his moral authority, which for me is sorely lacking. With Sadat and Begin we had two men who had a goal they wanted to reach. The current situation is quite different. But if Carter has to be a member I’ll take it…distract him with some side issue that will let him get on TV and let the others do the heavy lifting.
I wish I could see a positive outcome in these negotiations…but when you have the Iranians and Palestinians convinced that the Israelis can be exterminated and the Israelis convinced that they won’t be…kind of an impasse. Israel’s enemies feel no need to compromise–they plan to win the whole enchilada. And Israel can’t exactly compromise with a death wish.
“I wish I could see a positive outcome in these negotiations…but when you have the Iranians and Palestinians convinced that the Israelis can be exterminated and the Israelis convinced that they won’t be…kind of an impasse. Israel’s enemies feel no need to compromise–they plan to win the whole enchilada. And Israel can’t exactly compromise with a death wish.”
That’s a bit of an over-simlification, although I’m also pessimistic about the outcome of negotiations at the moment. Still, if it could reduce the flames temporarily that would be nice.
On a more general note:
Don’t be pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian. Don’t be anti-Israeli or anti-Palestinians. don’t demonize either. Understand that both sides act wrongly on many occasions. Understand that sometimes their are reasons but not excuses for their (our) behavior. Understand the desires, fears and complains of both sides but don’t let them become excuses to destroy each other. Understand the complexity of the situation as much as you can. Understand that there are gradients in the attitudes on both sides. Don’t allow yourself to be cauht up by the propaganda of either side, even of some of the moderates.
I don’t know what Carter’s opinions are, but from what I’ve heard of his book he has shown poor deplomatic judgement similar to that shown by neocons in their attitude to Islam and Muslims, although of course with less dangerous consequences.
I don’t want to offend my American friends on this board, and my understanding of the situation in Iraq is very limited, so feel free to tell me I’m talking nonsense. But it seems to that part of the problem is that the US was not willing to risk its soldiers and provide the numbers necessary to defend the Iraqis from the various secterian factions slaughtering them. As a result more and more of them came to rely on their own secterian groups to protect them, thus increasing the numbers of insurgents. Even those who were happy to see Sadam fall and are pro-American are likely to loose confidence in the US and rely more on secterian armed groups if it seems that he Americans are not able or wiling to protect them from the armed forces of the other sect.
I’m not trying to absolve the Iraqi from all responsibility, after all they are the ones killing each other for nothing, but perhaps the US could have done more to protect the Iraqis from secterian violence.
Mr. Peter,
The level of your discourse reveals the level or your intellect. The fact that you can surf over to Wikipedia and cut and paste some text you found there makes you neither insightful nor intelligent. Please, by all means continue with your name calling, it only persists in lowering my opinion of you.
In the interim I’ll choose to ignore your spurious rants and focus on the more intelligent and thoughtful observations I find here (which is usually the case). In the meantime, you might want to invest in a spell checker? Maybe?
Also, anything about ethanol in this country is currently a joke and far, far away from what is happening in some countries in the southern hemisphere where they truly use bio-fuels.
Hey? You wouldn’t happen to be a fan of John Byrne, would you?
I don’t think the USA is willing to take heavy losses in any war that does not represent clear and specific dangers to people here. Even if WMDs had been found there would be very little support for the war at this point. I think any future president has to take taht into account–any use of the military has to reach whatever objectives can be reached in a matter of months.
Micha, I agree that it’s easy to oversimplify things in teh middle east and I realize that Israel is far from blameless…but very very little that I’ve seen from the Palestinian side gives me any reason to think that the Israelis have much reason to expect anything to come from negotiations. And it angers me to see so much of the rest of the world so quick to condemn anything the Israelis do when they ignore far worse things from Israel’s enemies. I know one can be anti-Israel without necessarily being anti-Jewish…but alternate explanations seem sometimes lacking.
I don’t think the USA is willing to take heavy losses in any war that does not represent clear and specific dangers to people here.
I remember a pre-war poll that pretty much nailed the point. Basically, it showed that most Americans were for the war. However, when asked if it meant significant American casualties, they were then overwhelmingly against war.
To which I have to ask, did these people truly believe their wouldn’t be significant casualties in this endevour?
What if…
What if Nixon went to China?
What if Anwar Sadat told Walter Cronkite that he was willing to meet with Menachem Begin within the week?
What if Ferdinand Marcos told Ted Coppell he would be more than happy to hold elections in the Philipines?
What if when Cheklosovakia(sp) opened its borders with the West and with East Germany and Mikail Gorbachev issued the Sinatra Doctrine? (Eastern Europian countries could do it “their way”)
What if the most intractable US President in modern history invited the major players of the Middle East to a Comprehensive Summit?
What if…
What if…
Stranger things have happened and this American has a right to dream…and hope.
–Captain Naraht
The deal Carter shuttled between Begin and Sadat — who refused to even meet with each other — survived the political fall of Carter, the fall of Begin’s party, and the assassination of Sadat, and continues to this day.
If lasting peace in the Middle East can be established by a fop like Jimmy Carter, what does that say of the stupidity of the republican administrations following him, leading us to the mess in Iraq today? Why this persistent devotion to nincompoops?
Except that WMDs are how Bush sold the invasion to the American people.
The first consideration in the Art of War is moral righteousness. Your first priority is building the resolve of your soldiers and breaking the resolve of your enemies. Our invasion would not be feeding the insurgency it’s feeding now if WMDs were found. Your lack of understanding of this basic principle is typical of republican chickenhawks.
Did it bother you enough to vote against George HW Bush once or twice for selling stinger missiles to Arab terrorists? I feel the same way about those who weigh a penny of democratic lapses the same as a dollar of republican corruption.
Stranger things have happened and this American has a right to dream…and hope.
And you’re right to do so. It makes you much better than…well, so many, as we see.
“but very very little that I’ve seen from the Palestinian side gives me any reason to think that the Israelis have much reason to expect anything to come from negotiations.”
I’m afraid that at present neither side has much hope that the other side will come to negotiations with acceptable offers or the ability to implement them.
“And it angers me to see so much of the rest of the world so quick to condemn anything the Israelis do when they ignore far worse things from Israel’s enemies.”
Many Israelis who were or would have been willing to come out and criticize many of Israel’s actions were alienated by the one sided, exagerated, out of context, phony, hypocritical, self rightuous and sometimes false criticism, myself included.
However, it is very important for me not to err in the other direction, if for no other reason than to maintain my credibility.
“I know one can be anti-Israel without necessarily being anti-Jewish…but alternate explanations seem sometimes lacking.”
I have seen cases when criticism of Israel lapsed into antisemitism. It is very unfortunate, since criticism is necessary.
In any case, why should anti-Israeli approch be acceptable? It’s like saying someone is not anti-christian, only anti-American, not anti-asian just anti-China and so on.
“Stranger things have happened and this American has a right to dream…and hope.”
Yes. But as Bush showed, dreamers who do not understand how to handle reality can be dangerous. For me Sharon’s unexpected withdrawl from Gaza was a dream come true, but unfortunatly reality came crashing down on us (from both sides) soon after.
In any case, why should anti-Israeli approch be acceptable? It’s like saying someone is not anti-christian, only anti-American, not anti-asian just anti-China and so on.
Good point. I was meaning being being critical of Israel but that’s not clear.
“And it angers me to see so much of the rest of the world so quick to condemn anything the Israelis do when they ignore far worse things from Israel’s enemies.”
Part of the reason for that, personally speaking, is the same reason I was so angry when the U.S. invaded Iraq: I believed it was wrong and I did not think the U.S. capable to doing such a thing.
Similarly, I used to believe there were certain things Israel just would not do. I’ve since, to my dismay, been proven wrong.
That’s why I hate it so much. I mean, I expect people who’ve been labeled the “bad guys” to kill civilians and things like that. So when I hear about that happening, it doesn’t surprise me. But when a nation composed of “good guys” does it, it’s surprising to me…and a very nasty surprise, too!
If Israel, and the U.S., are held to a higher standard of behaviour than the rest of the world it’s because in the past they HAVE behaved better than the rest of the world, and they have been admired for doing so. When they say “screw it, we’re gonna sink down to their level, kill civilians, torture people, etc.”, all the people who previously admired them for sticking to the moral high ground become disgusted with them for abandoning it.
There’s a lot of truth in that, Rob, but I think the world is way too quick to draw moral equivilance between the combabtants. There is, I believe, world of difference between actions that result in civilians dying as a consequence and the deliberate targeting of civilians as a means to an end.
Weird, I got called “Mr. Alfred…”
I heard on the radio the other day that the Pentagon/military has recently…just recently…intiated an intense training program that will embed American troops into Iraqi forces. These American units consist of 11 soldiers that have received intense…something like 60 days…training in Iraqi culture, traditions, and language, with the idea being that they’ll work with units of 100 Iraqi soldiers/police in an attempt to train the Iraqi unit to effectively fight the insurgency.
Which prompted me to ask…what the hëll was the plan to train the Iraqi forces in the first place? Years after we launched the Mission…whatever that is today…in Iraq, we’re just NOW providing some of our troops with any training in the local customs and language? I know it takes some time for the government to get around to doing things, but the military was preparing for actions in Iraq at least a year before setting foot on a tranport overseas.
1Posted by Bill Myers at December 7, 2006 08:12 AM
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 7, 2006 06:46 AM
Bill, taking one quote out of context and then replying with a number of statements – of variable accuracy – that do not relate to what I said, either in or out of context, is doing a lot more to validate my observation than prove whatever point you’re aiming for…
Cheers.
That isn’t inherent in US law. If you kill someone committing a robbery, the severity of your prosecution is upgraded to murder.
If there really were a world of difference between unintended fatalities and deliberate fatalities, George W Bush would have justified the invasion of Iraq to the American people as simple regime-change. Instead he had to lie about the imminent threat to the US.
You don’t let the republican administrations’ support of Arab terrorists stop you from voting for them, but when it comes to minimizing the damage our invasion of Iraq has done to us, the region, and our standing in the world, well, you just can’t be too pro-Israel, can you?
Okay, lots of things I want to touch on, so bear with me:
Roger: Military power is a rather gross tool; it does certain things well. You need to use it WITH political prowess to be most effective, however.
Absolutely, you need to use all the tools available to you and that’s the biggest problem with this administration. Military power should be the tool of last resort, to back up issues when all else has failed. The Bushite view doesn’t just view military action as the first options, in many cases, they view it as the only option. This is evident in their contemptuous view of diplomacy. The purpose of diplomatic talks is to try and induce others to give give you something you want or to alter their behavior. That means you don’t just talk to governments that are already friendly towards you. You have to negotiate with your enemies. The Bush doctrine, however, treat talks as a reward for altering one’s behavior in advance. This cart-before-the-horse approach dooms virtually all talks before (or even if) they begin. It sends the message of “give me everything I want for nothing and then we’ll talk.”
Alan:Another sad comment on not being prepared before going in.
Which reminds me of Rummy’s “you go with the army you have” retort. Another prime example of the Bush infallibility doctrine: Everything is some else’s fault.
Alan: Bush Spokesman On Implementing Iraq Report: “Jim Baker Can Go Back To His Day Job”…
Gee, what a shocker. Bush completes his usual cycle: Try to show up daddy, discover it’s hard work, create a huge mess, let daddy’s friends bail him out, and then treat them with contempt. A whole team of psychologists could spend their entire careers studying the pathology of his oedipal complex.
Bill Mulligan: And Israel can’t exactly compromise with a death wish.
Tragic, but true. I believe that the Israeli people are perfectly capable of living in peace with the Palestinians, but too many on the Palestinian side of the still view them as colonizers at best and invading infidels at worst. To the extremists, the only compromise is whether Isreal should be given time to dismantle itself before they rush in to drive their nation into the sea.
Micha: But it seems to that part of the problem is that the US was not willing to risk its soldiers and provide the numbers necessary to defend the Iraqis from the various secterian factions slaughtering them.
To a large extent, that is true. The American people have no stomach for a prolonged engagement in which the goals do not seem to be clear, the factions are constantly shifting, and our leadership does not have any plan for resolving the situation. I think the American people would be more tolerant of some casualties if there was at least the appearance of progress going on. Part of it stems from our experience in Vietnam. Our greatest fear is finding ourselves sucked into another military quagmire where our primary goal appears to be just propping up a falling government.
Bill Mulligan: Even if WMDs had been found there would be very little support for the war at this point. I think any future president has to take taht into account–any use of the military has to reach whatever objectives can be reached in a matter of months.
Blame the limited attention span of our modern society. People walk around thinking, “Ðámņ, I wish we could do something about Darfur – Hey, Brittney and K-Fed broke up!). On the other hand, we’re still doing peacekeeping operations in Bosnia, so I think if we could have shown some success in Iraq, the support would be a lot higher than it is today.
Bill Mulligan: I know one can be anti-Israel without necessarily being anti-Jewish…but alternate explanations seem sometimes lacking.
I’m pro-Israel in principle, but I can’t say that I agree with every action their government has taken. Maybe I’d feel different if I lived less than 30 miles from people who want to blow me up, but I do feel some of their actions have not be helpful to the long term goal of peace. So, I think you can be critical of the Israeli government and not be anti-Jewish.
That said, I think it’s a symptom of our identity politics that some people equate any criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. Just as any criticism of black political leaders sometimes leads to charges of racism.
Micha: Many Israelis who were or would have been willing to come out and criticize many of Israel’s actions were alienated by the one sided, exagerated, out of context, phony, hypocritical, self rightuous and sometimes false criticism, myself included.
Gee, that sounds familiar.
Part of the reason for that, personally speaking, is the same reason I was so angry when the U.S. invaded Iraq: I believed it was wrong and I did not think the U.S. capable to doing such a thing.
When I first heard about the abuses at GITMO and Abu Ghraib, I didn’t want to believe them. We’re Americans, I thought, we don’t do that sort of thing. Now I know better and it infuriates me. As democracies, we do and we should expect better behavior from ourselves, whether its the USA or Israel. And I think that’s one reason my many people are more outraged over some of Israel’s actions. We expect brutal dictatorships to behave like brutal dictatorships. It’s the old fable about the frog and the scorpion. They act according to their nature. But we expect better from democracies. We’re the good guys, right?
That said, I do believe that there are certain countries that never miss a chance to condemn Israel as another way to “stick it to the Jews”.
Bobb: These American units consist of 11 soldiers that have received intense…something like 60 days…training in Iraqi culture, traditions, and language, with the idea being that they’ll work with units of 100 Iraqi soldiers/police in an attempt to train the Iraqi unit to effectively fight the insurgency.
I guess it shouldn’t be surprising. After all, one of our major miscalculations in Vietnam was not understanding the culture or the history of the region. One would think that we’d have learned, but cultural studies is another one of those squishy things that sounds too much like diplomacy for the neocon crowd to be bothered with.
I hope that some kind resolution in Iraq can be found, but I don’t believe that this administrationis capable of finding it.
Mike. That isn’t inherent in US law. If you kill someone committing a robbery, the severity of your prosecution is upgraded to murder.
On the other hand, if you kill someone in the defense of yourself or another, you won’t be charged at all. Also, if you get into a bar fight and the other person falls and breaks his neck on the bar after you shove it, you’ll most likely only be charged with manslaughter because you did not have the criminal intent to kill. Thirdly, if you try to murder someone by shooting them, but you miss and shoot someone else, you will be charged with murder. All three hypotheticals end with the same result: a dead person, but the legal and more judgments are different. So, the intent behind your actions does make a difference in the law.
There’s an old X-Men quote that I think of often. Someone…usually Cyclops…is defending Wolverine to the Avengers or FF or one of the non-fringe hero groups. It goes something like “Wolverine may be a jerk, but he’s our jerk…”
Of course, at the time, Wolverine was a borderline psychotic killer, held in check only through his association with the X-Men. And this was also a time before such status was a bad thing. Today, it’s sort of what makes him attractive…he’s a hero that’s willing and capable of doing what the other “do-gooders” can’t or won’t do, and that’s kill when necessary. Sometimes when not. When that killer works for you, when he’s on your side, he’s a hero. When he’s fighting against you, he’s the worst sort of villian around…one that kills somewhat unpredictably. A pre-reformed Sabertooth.
Rob, I know where you’ve coming from. I myself have been diappointed with the actions of my government many times, which was why I participated in demonstrations against those policies. I do want my country to do better in that regard. I want to come as close as possible to being the good guys.
However, I have several problems with the approach you represent.
1) The truth is that there are no good guys and bad guys. In the real world things are more complicated. There is a problem with a definition of illegal acts of war that condemns any method used by western armies (or the more hypocritical, only Israel), whigiving the other side a free pass because they are the ‘bad guys.’
2) Like I said, part of the problem is not the criticism of Israel, which is justified, but the fact that it is one sided, exagerated, and out of context. The result of that is first that it encourages the other side to continue using terrorism because they know that whatever happens one side will be condemned while their side will be treated as an erring hyperactive child that needs to be placated. Secondly, it harms the credibility of the people condemning Israel, thus ending up legitimizing, in the minds of Israelis, the acts that were condemned. The Israelis tell themselves that the people condemning are not acting in good faith, since they condemn Israel and not the other side, and not themselves for using worse methods in less justified circumstances. Even Israelis who did condemn these actions feel that they have become a tool in the propaganda of cynical terrorists or cynical world governments. Furthermore, since Israel must face complex threats, and the people who condemn them seem to disarm Israel of any method to defend itself (since there are no clean methods), many Israelis conclude that the peoople condemning are basically indifferent to the safety of Israelis.
3) It is not true that either the US or Israel or France or England were good in the past and are bad now. In the good wars (WWII) and in the bad ones (Vietnam) bad things were done. Some that were avoidable. Some that were not. The US went to Iraq and Afghanistan with the best of intentions but also killed many civilians. Probably more than Israel did.
4) The truth is that there is no way to fight wars without harming civilians at all. Does my government do everything it can not to harm civilians? Hëll no. Could it do better? Yes. But so long as fighting will be necessary, and I’m afraid it is, civilians will be hurt, even if they are not targeted.
5) To the best of my knowledge Israel, unlike the terrorists, does not seek to kill civilians deliberatly. At times it has not been careful enough not to hit them. But to suggest, as many do, that Israel seeks to kill civilians is false.
It has pressured civilians in other ways, which is sometimes wrong and sometimes right, but not an unheard of method in modern warfare. The US did so in Kosovo.
6) I also have a problem with this method of putting Israel on a pedestal only to then enjoy knocking it off the pedestal. Many countries did in the recent past and do now things that are wrong. But when it comes to Israel, somehow people feel they have a right to be disappointed in a way that they are not even disapponted with their own country. Even worse, Israel is the only country whose actual existence is questioned because of actions which are less than those done by other countries not so long ago (or even now). Imagine that someone would have said that since the US killed civilians in Vietnam and Iraq, or oppressed blacks, one must conclude that it should be dismantled, and its population go back to Europe. Can you imagine how itis to live in a country whose very existence is questioned by intellectuals sitting comfortably in Europe and America?
All I’m asking is this. Realize that wars cannot be clean. Condemn Israel when deserving, and as you would the US, France, Russia, not more. But also condemn the other side, not as an afterthought but as bluntly as you do Israel. This you should do, not only because it is more fair, but because the only way to improve the situation is by being fair. At he moment what we have is people who are either justify everything Israel does and condemns the Palestinians, or justify everything they do and condemns Israel completely. This is not helpful.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 8, 2006 08:29 AM
Bill, taking one quote out of context and then replying with a number of statements – of variable accuracy – that do not relate to what I said, either in or out of context, is doing a lot more to validate my observation than prove whatever point you’re aiming for…
There was no “context” from which to remove that quote. You stated that based on working with “a number of Americans” you had been able to determine that we react with anger and violence when confronted with the fact that other nations dislike us. You offered as evidence an anecdote about an ex-CIA guy with whom you used to work, as though the actions one man, or a even a few people, are enough to judge a nation with a population of roughly 300 million.
I pointed out to you that many, many Americans today are acutely aware of our loss of stature in the international community (in other words, that a lot of other countries “don’t like us”). That very much relates to your initial post. Just saying that it’s irrelevant isn’t enough to make it so, any more than saying a circle is a square is enough to make that false statement true.
As for the increase in violent crime in the U.K. and the problem with soccer (that’s our word for what you call “football,” just wanted to avoid confusion) hooliganism in your country, those things are well-documented.
Of course, at the time, Wolverine was a borderline psychotic killer,
This has changed? Since when?
I detest the character of Wolverine. To me, he isn’t a hero, even a dark kind of one who kills when it’s necessary. He’s nothing but a homicidal maniac. Given his history of slicing up people who are supposedly his friends: Rachel Summers, The Thing, Spider-man, Northstar, etc. I can’t imagine why anyone would want to consider him to be “our jerk”.
“Tragic, but true. I believe that the Israeli people are perfectly capable of living in peace with the Palestinians, but too many on the Palestinian side of the still view them as colonizers at best and invading infidels at worst. To the extremists, the only compromise is whether Isreal should be given time to dismantle itself before they rush in to drive their nation into the sea.”
Most of the Arabs will always view Israel as illegitimate colonizers. I also believe that even the moderate among them expect that some they in the future Israel will disappear. The question we ask ourselves is whether there is a majority of Palestinians willing to tolerate the existence of Israel without using any violent methods to undermine its existence? I don’t know what the answer to this question.
I suppose that the native-Americans stil think in private of Americans as invaders. But they have come to accept the presence of America. Will, the Palestinians do it?
Among the Israelis there are those who are not willing to accept a Palestinian state next to Israel in tyhe territories captured in 67. Others who are willing on principle but fear that such a state will become a stepping stone for continued fighting agaainst Isreal. Others who support the foundation of such a state, but are unwilling withdraw from only part of the territories seized in 67 (the current prime minister speaks of 90%). Others who support full withdrawl unilateraly but don’t believe that this will satisfy the other side. Others who still hope that such a withdrawl can be offered in exchange for full peace. And then there are the Arab-Israeli parties and some Jews who want Israel to withdraw from the terrtories and also expect Israel to dismantle as a Jewish state. The position of the prime minister is the centrist — he suppports withdrawl but not full withdrawl. The center shifts back and forth betwenn the desire for peace and the fear that peace is unattainable. As a result power shifts between center-left governments who try to make peace but who offer less than 100% of the territory, and center-right governments who rely on military force defering the idea of peace until it’s safe.
Doesn’t this sounds like a crazy situation?
I belong to the left hat supports full withdrawl. I have not given up on peace but I am not willing to gamble all my money that it can be acheived. However, my side has been loosing ground for some time. One of the reasons is because it is perceived as imcapable of dealing with the threats to Israel.
I said “Of course, at the time, Wolverine was a borderline psychotic killer,”
Den said “This has changed? Since when?”
That’s more or less my point. I don’t know exactly when that exchange occurred…I want to say mid 80s…when being a homicidal maniac wasa bad thing. Wolverine hasn’t much changed…he’s pretty much still a raging homicidal maniac. He’s just managed to tame that beast in various ways. But he’s at his heart a killer, and one that has, can, and will kill in cold blood. It’s just that the audience has largely accepted this and embraced it. It seemed to make more people squeemish in the past.
It’s one of the things about X2 that struck me…Logan killed. In self defense, sure, but he didn’t have to. With an adamantium fist, one punch would KO a normal person. He’s got little need to use his claws. The film never dealt with this, just gave the audience what they’ve come to want…Wolverine literally slicing and dicing his way through his opponents, even if those opponents happen to be US troops just following orders (another fact glossed over).
I suppose that the native-Americans stil think in private of Americans as invaders.
Many aren’t the private with that thought. I think there are significant differences between the two situations: One is that native Americans have had more time to get used to the idea of hte US. Also, war and diseases which they had no immunity to have whittled their numbers down to a tiny fraction of what they once were. Finally, the Palestinians have the Authority and Hamas who have been preaching unity among their people. The Native Americans are scattered among hundreds of small tribal nations, each with its culture, language, etc. They’re not unified at all.
So, most have come to accept the reality of the situation so the odds of the US experiencing waves of Native American suicide bombers is extremely tiny. Some tribes have even managed to adapt and prosper, creating new business ventures like casinos to separate stupid white people from their money. Others, sadly, are still living in poverty.
But they have come to accept the presence of America. Will, the Palestinians do it?
I don’t know. You’re probably in better in a better position than I am to judge that. From my reading of history, you have three religions that regard that sliver of land as God’s gift to them and the Arab/Moslim world has had about 1000 years of cultural conditioning telling them that they must repel any efforts from the other two religions from establishing power there. So, I’m not too optimistic.
Mister PJ ranted:
>Please, by all means continue with your name calling, it only persists in lowering my opinion of you.
I feel so put in my place by the wannabe Borat of Peter’s blog! NOT!
Actually my opinion of your intelligence can’t be lowered any further, you hit the bottom with your limited brain power Rambo rant. To refresh your memory: “War isn’t important so much as a necessary part of how humanity goes about settling its differences.”
Necessary? Only for those like Bush and people who can’t think! Settling disagreements with your fists, thank god there are many better people in this world than you.
Then it’s off to the insult and run like a child: “In the interim I’ll choose to ignore your spurious rants … In the meantime, you might want to invest in a spell checker? Maybe?” I thought you didn’t name and insult people. But then all I have to do is remember this little masterpiece of insulting rant from you “Or maybe, just maybe, you’re still suckling at the teat of mommy and daddy, so paying bills isn’t high on your list of priorities (that’s the old rub about the net folks).” By the way you may just want to look and see where you are posting when doing the “old rub”. Trying to insult people by being one of them isn’t exactly intelligent. Oh and talk to Microsoft, Bill Gates invented my spellchecker, it’s called word.
>Also, anything about ethanol in this country is currently a joke and far, far away from what is happening in some countries in the southern hemisphere where they truly use bio-fuels.”
Yes because people like you would rather destabilize a region and keep doing it in an attempt to get your oil, than suffer a little pain of higher prices and find new ways to feed your need as evidenced by: “Better still, let’s raise the price of gasoline up over $6.00 a gallon, works for me. I just can’t wait to see what the heating bills on all the McMansions are. I want to see you have a choice between filling up your obese gas guzzling turd and feeding your family, or maybe a choice between heating your home and feeding your family.” Are you lobbying your congressmen to invest in alternative fuels. Will your next car be flex or will you just keep guzzeling that gas? Do you ask your favorite station when are they going to switch a pump to 80/20? Do you donate to the organizations that are advocating and lobbying for alternative fuels? Or do you just come on Peter’s blog like a basement pajama boy, internet addicted, mommy funded, gas guzzeler who gets off on Rambo?
>Hey? You wouldn’t happen to be a fan of John Byrne, would you?
Run into a mental wall so you now have to drag a totally unrelated name into this in an attempt to insult me? How limited of you. But out of pure curiosity to see just how limited you are: I collect both the works of Peter and John. John had a very good run on FF, X-Men and Superman and his work on Hulk led into Peter’s excellent run on the title. So yes I am a fan of John’s work.
Tragic, but true. I believe that the Israeli people are perfectly capable of living in peace with the Palestinians, but too many on the Palestinian side of the still view them as colonizers at best and invading infidels at worst. To the extremists, the only compromise is whether Isreal should be given time to dismantle itself before they rush in to drive their nation into the sea.
Today I think one of the leaders of Hamas declared they would never recognize Israel. Not that it matters; I’m always amused at how Israel is expected to give up something tangible (land) in exchange for something intangible like “recognition”—which could then be taken away. hardly seems an equitable trade.
Posted by Bill Myers at December 8, 2006 10:12 AM
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 8, 2006 08:29 AM
Bill, there is *always* context.
I write “and I will offer two very generalised observations;”, you then berate me for being too general in my observations.
I freely admit the sample group is miniscule, I’m certainly not suggesting it provides a 100% mapping of you all. It is however relevant when talking about how you are perceived if that is the perception I’ve formed from that small sample group.
For reasons best known to yourself you then drag in some ‘facts’ about UK culture and seem to feel it’s somewhat underhanded of me for not having mentioned them in my initial post. If I’d been contrasting our cultures, I might have. However, I wasn’t, so – unsurprisingly – I didn’t.
(BTW, do you really want to get into comparisons of violent crime between the US and UK? Thanks also for pointing out that soccer equates to football. FYI, over here we refer to baseball as rounders…)
You seem to be perceiving a slur on yourself and/or your countrymen which was not intended as such in my original post, and are reacting with some degree of outrage.. Or isn’t that where I came in?
Cheers.
Peter, I don’t think he reacted with what I would call “outrage” but your point about there not being any intent to contrast cultures is well taken, as was the fact that you did say it was a generalization.
That being said…what exactly IS the purpose of making such a generalization? If I say “Based on this one guy I know, Englishmen tend to be touchy.” and you reply “Hey, that’s a pretty piss-poor sample size.” and I then say “See? Touchy!”…well, I don’t see that much understanding has been advanced.
And if all it takes is one bad guy to make us all look bad there isn’t much we will ever be able to do to improve our standing.
I freely admit the sample group is miniscule
If I may jump in here, I think the offense was that your sample group wasn’t just miniscule, it consisted of just one person. The best you could say was that guy was a jerk. To extrapolate that to 300 million people would be like saying all British people were acid-tongued harpies after watching an episode of The Weakest Link.
Mr. Peter,
Hit a nerve there, did I?
Mr. Peter,
Better still – you win, you’re smarter, more witty, worldly and well rounded an individual than I can or could ever hope to be. I am in awe of your godlike perceptions and razor sharp insight.
You win. It doesn’t get better than that, does it?
You get the prize – what the prize is I’ll leave your massive intellect to figure out.
“I freely admit the sample group is miniscule
If I may jump in here, I think the offense was that your sample group wasn’t just miniscule, it consisted of just one person.”
If *I* may jump in here, the word is “minuscule.”
I don’t care that some people hold up “miniscule” as an alternate spelling. Around here, we’re going to use the right dámņëd words.
PAD
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 8, 2006 12:05 PM
I write “and I will offer two very generalised observations;”, you then berate me for being too general in my observations.
No, I criticized you for over-generalizing.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 8, 2006 12:05 PM
I freely admit the sample group is miniscule, I’m certainly not suggesting it provides a 100% mapping of you all.
Except that’s exactly what you did.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 8, 2006 12:05 PM
It is however relevant when talking about how you are perceived if that is the perception I’ve formed from that small sample group.
All that does is show me that you are prone to form judgments based on stereotypes.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 8, 2006 12:05 PM
For reasons best known to yourself you then drag in some ‘facts’ about UK culture and seem to feel it’s somewhat underhanded of me for not having mentioned them in my initial post. If I’d been contrasting our cultures, I might have. However, I wasn’t, so – unsurprisingly – I didn’t.
I made my reasons clear: I wanted to point out that all cultures have their strengths and their flaws. If you need it spelled out further: America-haters are living in glass houses and shouldn’t throw rocks.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 8, 2006 12:05 PM
(BTW, do you really want to get into comparisons of violent crime between the US and UK?)
I don’t know that I want to derail this thread any further, but as I understand it, the murder rate in the U.S. is far higher than in the U.K. On the other hand, rates for violent crimes like assault, rape, and robbery are sharply on the rise in the U.K.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 8, 2006 12:05 PM
You seem to be perceiving a slur on yourself and/or your countrymen which was not intended as such in my original post, and are reacting with some degree of outrage.. Or isn’t that where I came in?
I reacted with no “outrage.” I calmly pointed out the errors in your logic, and suggested that you should learn more about the world around you before making sweeping statements about cultures. I think that’s a fair statement and advice that all of us would do well to heed.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 8, 2006 12:05 PM
Cheers.
Cheers.