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
• 
Posted by: Peter David at December 8, 2006 01:41 PM
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.
Our contrafibularities for having offended, sir. 🙂
Posted by Peter David at December 8, 2006 01:41 PM
“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
Here! Here! Hrmph! Hrmph!
Main Entry: min·is·cule
Pronunciation: ‘mi-n&s-“kyül
variant of MINUSCULE
usage The adjective minuscule is etymologically related to minus, but associations with mini- have produced the spelling variant miniscule. This variant dates to the end of the 19th century, and it now occurs commonly in published writing, but it continues to be widely regarded as an error.
I should have realized it was an error because of the latin.
Miniscule / Minuscule. Rats. “It’s a fair cop guv’, but society is to blame!”
Sample group sizing:
“As a Brit I’ve worked with a number of Americans over the years and I will offer two very generalised observations;”
The number in question is probably 30-40, either in the flesh or in long term telephone relationships. One individual within that group was then highlighted for further comment.
Bill:
“All that does is show me that you are prone to form judgments based on stereotypes.”
No, I form personal opinions based on personal observations. If they happen to conform to a stereotype, so be it. (How do you think stereotypes become stereotypes anyway?)
“On the other hand, rates for violent crimes like assault, rape, and robbery are sharply on the rise in the U.K. “
Sadly true. How does that relate to anyone’s perception of the US and/or its citizens?
“If you need it spelled out further: America-haters are living in glass houses and shouldn’t throw rocks.”
America-haters? Which America? AmericaN-haters? Which Americans? For the record I like most of the Americans I’ve met or dealt with. That doesn’t preclude me being aware of some behavioural traits.
“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”
Bill you’re either missing the point of what I said, or you’re being deliberately obtuse. Take a wild stabbing guess at how little interest I have in determining which is the case.
Cheers.
Posted by: Micha at December 8, 2006 02:12 PM
Main Entry: min·is·cule
Pronunciation: ‘mi-n&s-“kyül
variant of MINUSCULE
usage The adjective minuscule is etymologically related to minus, but associations with mini- have produced the spelling variant miniscule. This variant dates to the end of the 19th century, and it now occurs commonly in published writing, but it continues to be widely regarded as an error.
I should have realized it was an error because of the latin.
Here! Here! Hrmph! Hrmph!
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 8, 2006 02:13 PM
No, I form personal opinions based on personal observations.
You’ve personally observed 300 million people?
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 8, 2006 02:13 PM
If they happen to conform to a stereotype, so be it. (How do you think stereotypes become stereotypes anyway?)
Just the way you’ve described: by someone making selective observations about a small group of people and then generalizing to a larger whole.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 8, 2006 02:13 PM
Bill you’re either missing the point of what I said, or you’re being deliberately obtuse.
No, I completely get your point. I’m just saying: allowing personal observations to lead to stereotypes is an example of illogical thinking.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 8, 2006 02:13 PM
Take a wild stabbing guess at how little interest I have in determining which is the case.
Remarks like that suggest you are less interested in discussing ideas and more interested in a sniping match. I find that unfortunate — for you. The good news for me is that I can turn my attention to the numerous other people who post here. They have varying points of view but share one thing in common: a desire to discuss ideas and learn from each other.
If at any point you’d care to re-engage me in a debate about ideas, you’ll find me willing to let bygones be bygones. But if you want to make this personal… you’ll have to find another dance partner. Life’s too short.
You may have difficulty believing this, but — I bear you no ill will and I really do hope you have a pleasant day.
I should have qualified when I said that the numerous other people who post here are interested in sharing ideas and learning. MOST of you are. There are a handful of you who are more interested in exchanging insults. Take it from someone who helped force Peter to shut down a thread because I was doing the same: you’re entertaining no one but yourselves, and accomplishing zilch. Trust me, I’ve learned that from bitter experience.
Captain Naraht, I promise to respond to your post later today. 🙂
mister_pj, I always say when people haven’t a foot to stand on in a debate the fall down and insult instead. I’ll let you keep the no-prize to salve your ego.
Now why don’t you go do something constructive like writing to your congressman to fast track 80/20 or even 100% with tax breaks and such. Instead of ranting from mommy’s basement.
“Captain Naraht, I promise to respond to your post later today. :)” –Bill Myers
I will be waiting for you post as we have been… outside …. in the rain….with a wet corsage taped to our silicon hide…>snif
I think I’m catching a sniffle….CHOOO!
-Captain Naraht
P.S. Miniscule miniscule miniscule. It may be wrong but it’s fun to type it!
Posted by Brian Peter at December 8, 2006 04:53 PM
mister_pj, I always say when people haven’t a foot to stand on in a debate the fall down and insult instead. I’ll let you keep the no-prize to salve your ego.
Now why don’t you go do something constructive like writing to your congressman to fast track 80/20 or even 100% with tax breaks and such. Instead of ranting from mommy’s basement.
Ouch, oh that hurt so much, I’m smarting from that one. Oooohhh the pain.
Onto other topics… I am inclined to agree with you my dear Captain in regard to your wish for a summit.
However, while thinking it would be grand if one summit were all it would take to settle all disputes in the region, I would think the focus would need to address Iraq and Iraq only at the moment.
I’m not even sure it’s going to help but, it is a step in the right direction. There are other nations currently on the ground in Afghanistan but, it doesn’t seem to have significantly altered the situation on the ground there. There are still suicide bombings, attacks on the infrastructure and attacks on government officials in Afghanistan. The situation is as much of a puzzle as Iraq is, it just gets far, far less press.
But the situation in Afghanistan seems far more hopeful than in Iraq. Let’s face it, if “victory” is defined as the enemy never being able to do anything, there is no chance od victory. It’s a big place with lots of mountains, some malcontents will always be there to cause some trouble. But I don’t see the Taliban ever taking over the whole country again.
A much easier job than Iraq though, since the enemy seems less able to hide within the cities and (stupidly) continues to engage in battles where they get slaughtered.
Captain Naraht, way to lay on the guilt-trip! Geez!!! Frankly, there’s far more intelligent posters on this board whose opinions are worth far more than mine.
But I really, really, really want to make good on my promise because your posts have been very thoughtful and interesting. It is a pleasure to interact with people such as you.
SO, here goes…
“a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will allow the United States to move forces out responsibly; prompt action by the Iraqi government to achieve milestones, particularly reconciliation; and new diplomatic actions in Iraq and in the region”
I think this is the right answer, but I fear it may be too little too late. By failing to secure weapons depots after wresting them from Iraqi control; by failing to commit an adequate number of troops to the occupation of Iraq; and by disbanding the Iraqi army; we all but created the insurgency. The monster has grown so large and uncontrollable I don’t know if we can slay it — or even tame it — now.
That said, if there is a sliver of a ghost of a prayer of a chance of salvaging the situation, I think the statement quote above sums up what we need to do. We need to set measurable goals for the Iraqi government, determine what the Iraqi government will need from us to reach those goals, and provide it to them. We need to have a plan for a phased withdrawal, so that the Iraqis begin to realize that they can’t use us as a crutch. And we need to pull out all of the stops on the diplomacy front.
It’s painful, though, to see these recommendations being discussed only NOW. Had we thought about such things at the outset, we might’ve avoided a lot of carnage.
“Iraq’s neighbors and key states in and outside the region should form a support group” to help Iraq achieve long-term security and political reconciliation — “neither of which it can sustain on its own,”
Again, I think this may be too little, too late. But it’s the right thing to do and at this point I think we need to try before we can in all good conscience give up on Iraq.
Unlike some posters, I believe that with skillful diplomacy even Iran and Syria could be leveraged for at least a partial advantage. No, neither are trustworthy, but both of them want things we could give them… in exchange for sacrifices of their own. It’s how the game is played. No guarantee of success, but that too is part of the game.
Some “housecleaning” items…
Micha, Micha, Micha, thank you for once again providing one of the most balanced and insightful views I’ve seen regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You never fail to illuminate and enlighten.
To Micha, Bill Mulligan, Den, and anyone else who touched on our reluctance to commit enough troops to defend the Iraqis: in large part that had to do with the neocons pet thesis that wars could be run “on the cheap” with the right planning. Unfortunately, that thesis was largely untested and based on very shaky assumptions. Hence, the mess we’re in now.
I hesitate to even invoke these names for fear of stirring up more crap, but: Alan Coil, mister_pj, and Brian Peter, none of you is gaining ANYTHING from insulting the other. You all look equally bad and childish. Again, I oughtta know. I was one of the reasons Peter had to shut down a whole thread. Why not learn from my mistakes, rather than repeat them?
Mister PJ wrote: “However, while thinking it would be grand if one summit were all it would take to settle all disputes in the region, I would think the focus would need to address Iraq and Iraq only at the moment.”
Actually there is a pragmatic method to my madness. Notice the format of the Summit:
The Broad Agenda:
1. The Kurdish Opportunity
2. The Palestinian Opportunity
3. The Sunni and Shite Opportunity
only then…
4. The Future of Iraq
Please note we are first dealing with the actual religions and ethnicities of the region (Kurdish Shite, Sunni, Palestinian) and not the modern borders. (Iraq, Iran, Israel/Palistinian Authority.)
Draw the borders any which way, the issues will be less Iraq vs Iran and more Sunni vs Shite or a Palestinian State vs recognition Israel’s right to exist. Kurd vs other ethnicities (like the Turks or Russians for example).
By formating a summit in this way we can affect change over many borders. And by having Egypt and Jordan sponsor each summit, these moderate states at general peace with Israel get to showcase the results of that peace.
Besides that, Hortas really like falafel. And Ali Akbars in Amman makes the best FLTs in the region (Falafel Lettuce and Tomato).
–Captain Naraht
Bill Myers Stated: “I believe that with skillful diplomacy even Iran and Syria could be leveraged for at least a partial advantage. No, neither are trustworthy, but both of them want things we could give them… in exchange for sacrifices of their own. It’s how the game is played. No guarantee of success, but that too is part of the game.”
I think this point is your best in response to the Study Group’s report. It was worth the wait. You can make it up to me in FLTs. ;n)
Quite frankly Bill, this point you make is the “whole shooting match” if you’ll excuse the bad pun. The whole point to peace talks like that is that if people have been killing each other, NEITHER side will call the other trustworthy after or during armed conflict.
Only Pollyannas will believe trust is even an issue. The whole point to ANY peace process is there is a need to talk and it must be done in spite of everyones misgivings– not born of some foolish notion that your blood enemy just became a Boy Scout so peace talks can take place.
The other side is even worse: believing that because the other is untrustworthy there can be no talks. I’m no pacifist but at some point even in war you have to at least have peace talks. If they are unwilling to even talk, well where does the killing end then? These guys act like its a waste of breath to even invite the Players to the table. Well waste it! People are dying, and you can’t even TRY?.
To these folks I want to grab them by their collective lapels and in the immortal words of Captain Spock say “Ðámņ you sir. You will try.”
–Captain Naraht
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.
Yup, Bill, I agree. But I also believe both are wrong nevertheless if there is any other option available.
A writer, one who is not PAD and who shall remain nameless, once said that it would’ve been good to bomb Dublin to smithereens when the IRA declared war on Britain (to be fair, I have no way of knowing whether he really thought this was a good idea or was just ranting mindlessly or both). The sad thing is that Israel actually did something like that earlier this year; to get at a terrorist organization located somewhere within Lebanon, they bombed Lebanon to smithereens. Now, they DID drop flyers saying (I’m paraphrasing of course) “We’re about to destroy your neighborhood so you should leave before we start if you don’t want to be killed.” That’s better than nothing…but regardless, the civilian death toll was still far too high and all of that blood is on their hands.
Does that make them better than certain enemies they have, ones who regularly kill civilians on purpose? Yes. But those actions were still, IMO, unacceptable.
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.’
Valid point. I know it’s simplistic to put white hats on one side and black hats on the other, but I couldn’t think of another way to explain why I felt the way I did. Nobody should get a free pass if they do something wrong.
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.
Something tells me I’m gonna have a hard time responding to every response to my earlier post…
I also agree that condemning the actions of one side while ignoring what the other does is unfair.
Here’s what I see as the big problem, though. Most of the nations in that area resent Israel’s presence on that land. So Israelis are surrounded by people who, if they had their way, would drive them off or kill them. Obviously, not a good position to be in. They’re constantly being targeted, and maybe one day they get desperate and start doing things that make the rest of the world say “OMG! That’s awful! WHY are they DOING that?!” But when the rest of the world reacts that way, maybe they don’t say anything. Maybe they think “if I say anything bad about Israel, they’ll think I’m anti-Semitic. Maybe I’ll earn a reputation as an anti-Semite. Maybe I’d just better keep my mouth shut.” Individuals worry about this, world leaders worry about it too. Perhaps there’s also some guilt involved; perhaps after the way the Jews have historically been persecuted, the rest of the world is reluctant to do or say anything against Israel, or Israel’s actions. The result is that often Israel has been the one to get the free pass. I have wondered whether, say, Syria could’ve gotten away with similarly bombing a neighboring country.
The US went to Iraq and Afghanistan with the best of intentions but also killed many civilians. Probably more than Israel did.
Can we really know what the intentions were? Maybe Bush, Wolfowitz, et al had good intentions, wanted to make Iraqis’ lives better. I’m not gonna rule it out. Maybe they wanted an ally in the region as leverage against their enemies in the region, and decided to set one up. Maybe they wanted oil. Maybe Bush had a grudge against Saddam for trying to kill his father. There’s also something I read about how there was an agreement in place that said all nations had to pay for oil in U.S. dollars, thus there was a steady demand for American dollars…and that Saddam was talking about selling his oil for Euros instead, which would’ve hurt the U.S.’s economy, and Bush said “well, we can’t let THAT happen.”
In any case, intentions don’t count for much. Results are what matter.
But so long as fighting will be necessary, and I’m afraid it is, civilians will be hurt, even if they are not targeted.
Which is why you fight only when necessary. I’m not necessarily saying that Israel should’ve just ignored the rocket attacks and the kidnapping of their people, but there must be an option that’s somewhere between doing nothing and bombing Lebanon on the scale they did. What about pressuring the Lebanese government to help them against Hezbollah? If the Lebanese government was unwilling to help for whatever reason, what about asking other nations to lean on them as well? What about sending troops or commandos into Lebanon to investigate, to search for the guys with the rockets and for the kidnapped Israelis? These are just the options I can think of off the top of my head. There MUST have been another way…
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?
Actually, that kind of logic was used to justify the Iraq thing (“he gassed and oppressed his own people!”). That’s why I said in another post that it would be funny if a coalition was formed to invade the U.S. and capture Bush to try him for war crimes, since he is guilty of some of the same stuff Saddam is. When they captured him, they could tell him “hey, we’re just following your example here. You set the precedent that it was okay to invade a sovereign nation and cause limitless carnage and destruction in order to capture, imprison and try that nation’s leader. We just asked ourselves ‘what would Dubya do?’, and this is what we came up with.” I don’t seriously wish this would happen because of the aforementioned carnage and destruction it would involve, but I still bet the look on Bush’s face after they said that to him would be priceless.
Anyway, I don’t ENJOY knocking Israel off its pedestal. As for why it’s there to begin with…well, when you’re young you get told about WW2 and the Holocaust. You hear about it and you think “those poor people! That’s awful! And they didn’t do anything to deserve it! I feel so sorry for them.”
So that’s the first thing a lot of people think when they become aware of the existence of Jews: they feel sorry for them, they feel happy that the Jews finally got a country of their own, and they get told that there are bad people out there who are trying to kill the Jews. Naturally they still feel sorry for the Jews and think anybody who wants to kill them must be the “bad guys”, must be like Hitler. They think of the current conflict as just like WWII, with innocent Jews being attacked for no other reason than prejudice–except this time the Jews are able to fight back. So they hope that the Jews will be able to win against these evil, Nazi-like people who want to see Israel and all its people destroyed.
It’s only later that they learn it’s not so simple or one-sided, and that it’s more about land and grudges over prior acts of violence than it is about bigotry.
I’m afraid I’m done for now…I’ll read more and respond to more later if I can…
Maybe they think “if I say anything bad about Israel, they’ll think I’m anti-Semitic. Maybe I’ll earn a reputation as an anti-Semite. Maybe I’d just better keep my mouth shut.” Individuals worry about this, world leaders worry about it too. Perhaps there’s also some guilt involved; perhaps after the way the Jews have historically been persecuted, the rest of the world is reluctant to do or say anything against Israel, or Israel’s actions. The result is that often Israel has been the one to get the free pass. I have wondered whether, say, Syria could’ve gotten away with similarly bombing a neighboring country.
Rob, you made a good post but this is something I just can’t see. If the rest of the world is “reluctant” to do or say anything against Israel this is a definition of the word reluctant that I am unfamiliar with.
Those of you who’ve read Kurt Vonnegut’s Kennedy-era Cat’s Cradle are already familiar with Peter JP’s observation:
What Peter said was:
Peter cites a flaw commonly observed in Americans by outsiders, and an American here interprets this as a denial of imperfection in English culture:
After denying Americans respond outrageously to the notion we are disliked — by responding outrageously to Peter — Bill briefly considered the following:
But then he dismissed America’s loss of stature altogether:
If Bill can’t even see he confirmed Peter’s observation of Americans, what reason is there to hope for an American solution to Iraq when the current White House occupant can’t even exclude the denial of ever saying “stay the course” from his substantial record of stupidity?
Main Entry: min·is·cule
Pronunciation: ‘mi-n&s-“kyül
variant of MINUSCULE
usage The adjective minuscule is etymologically related to minus, but associations with mini- have produced the spelling variant miniscule. This variant dates to the end of the 19th century, and it now occurs commonly in published writing, but it continues to be widely regarded as an error.
I should have realized it was an error because of the latin.
Well, your first mistake (one made by many) was turning to those hacks at Merriam-Webster. 😉
-Rex Hondo-
Hindsight honesty compels me to admit that my dealings with American colleagues were predominantly from the mid ’80s through to the late ’90s. It’s more than possible that there have been changes since then.
(Why didn’t I mention that before? Because it didn’t occur to me at the time of originally posting that my observation was possibly outdated… Which was wrong of me, and I apologise for that omission)
Cheers.
I love to be an Israelii. Israel never gets condemned on anything because people feel guilty about the holocaust.
Being a perpetual victim like in the holocaust is very good from a PR point of view but has certain obvious disadvantage. Having your own country and your own army that, just like other countries, doesn’t always act perfect when defending you, is bad from a PR standpoint. Maybe if England would simply have surrendered to the Germans or if the Irish would have givenm up their wish for independence lives could have been saved.
About Lebanon. I was not satisfied with our army’s performance in this wr in many respects. It could have done much better, which wopuld have resulted in less civilian deaths and better consequences. But you have to be aware of the actual situation. The HIzballa was a group in civilian clothing that built bunkers and placed piles of rockets inside and under domestic houses, hospitals and mosques.
“Which is why you fight only when necessary. I’m not necessarily saying that Israel should’ve just ignored the rocket attacks and the kidnapping of their people, but there must be an option that’s somewhere between doing nothing and bombing Lebanon on the scale they did. What about pressuring the Lebanese government to help them against Hezbollah?”
Pressuring them with what? The Lebanese government did not want a conflict with the Hizbulla for obvious reasons. It was easier to allow them to wage a little war against Israel.
“If the Lebanese government was unwilling to help for whatever reason, what about asking other nations to lean on them as well?”
Why, because this worked so well in the past? Other nations don’t care. Pressure on the government would only have styrengthened the Hizballa.
“What about sending troops or commandos into Lebanon to investigate, to search for the guys with the rockets and for the kidnapped Israelis?”
If Israel had knowledge of where the soldiers were a commando operation would have been used. One reason why the leader of the Hzzbulla is grinning is because it’s impossible.
Israel did find the guys with the guns, they were under many domestic buildings in Lebanon’s towns. This is not something you can deal with by one or two commando operations.
Furthermore, as Carter found out, sending commandos into a hostile area is very risky. During the war Israel conducted many commando operations. If one of them would have resulted in a slaughter of the soldiers, Nasseralla would have even more to smile about.
You should also realize what happens when there is a gunfight between commandos (the Hizballa was trained by Iran as commandos) in a residential area. Civilians get hit. So that’s not a solution either according to the parameters you set.
“There MUST have been another way…”
Israel made similar mistakes to the US in Iraq. It was not prepared. It conducted a too long war with insufficient forces relying to much on air power. A a result the war dragged on and more civilians were killed. But even if the war was conducted correctly it would have resulted in a massive distruction of the Lebanese towns under which the HIzballa built its bunkers. And some civilians would have been killed.
“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?
Actually, that kind of logic was used to justify the Iraq thing (“he gassed and oppressed his own people!”). That’s why I said in another post that it would be funny if a coalition was formed to invade the U.S. and capture Bush to try him for war crimes, since he is guilty of some of the same stuff Saddam is. When they captured him, they could tell him “hey, we’re just following your example here. You set the precedent that it was okay to invade a sovereign nation and cause limitless carnage and destruction in order to capture, imprison and try that nation’s leader. We just asked ourselves ‘what would Dubya do?’, and this is what we came up with.” I don’t seriously wish this would happen because of the aforementioned carnage and destruction it would involve, but I still bet the look on Bush’s face after they said that to him would be priceless.”
I don’t understand the similariy to what I’ve said. Bush attacked Iraq because he thought its leadership was illegitimate. Israel is attacked and condemned because people think its existence is illegitimate.
“Today I think one of the leaders of Hamas declared they would never recognize Israel.”
Ostensibly the position held by the Fatah’s Palestinian president Abbas is to recognize Israel and make peace with it and found a Palestinian state next to Israel. There are two problems with him. one, is whether he is willing to make an acceptable deal with regard to Jerusalem and the right of return. I don’t know. Two, does he have the strength to get such a deal passed.
Some Israelis suspect that even people like Abbas who do agree to the two state solution are only using it as a cover to either prolong negotiation indefinitly while receiving concessions, or that they seek to use that state as a base for future attacks. But like the Captain said, mistrust is not surprising. I support negotiations, but you have to be aware of the problems.
Slightly to the right of Abbas are the Fatah militants, who may also support the two state solution, and who may be willing to deal over the right of return (I don’t know) but believe in continued fighting to force Israel to agree to their terms.
The Hamas is the moderate right. They are unwiling to recognize Israel. Their best offer is a temporary truce in exchange for a state in the West Bank and Gaza and tthe right of return. It should be noted that such a truce was used in the middle ages by Muslims in order to end hostilities, because from a religious point of view Muslims can’t make peace with infidels at all. So the Hamas could be said to be agreeing to peace based on their own religious terms. But it can also mean that they just want time to bulid up for another attack. In any case, Isral can’t sign a truce for terms that are unacceptable for peace.
The Islamic Jihad is the extreme right, it basically supports continued fighting until victory is acheived.
“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.”
Israelis have acted childishly in their belief in the past that land seized in 67 could be treated as belonging to Israel. I believe Jews loioked at history, in which empires were carved by conquest, and didn’t understand why they are not allowed to keep land seized in war. But they were wrong. Eventually they were wiling to withdraw from the Sinai, but still only a (large) minority supports withdrawl from the Golan.
Israel was also wrong in their belief for many years that hey could treat Gaza and the West Bank as parts of Israel without giving citizenship to the Palestinians there. Now a majority understands that we cannot, so ther’s support to withdrawl. But since so far partial withdrawls have resulted in increased violence and the rise of Hamas, it is understandable why Israelis have withdrawn into the shell of a military approach, even if this approach alone is wrong.
Bill is right about onething. Most people don’t understand that Israel is expected to take tangible security risks in exchange for only words, and that Israel is expected to pay for peace. This is why there is reluctance for peace on the Israeli side. This reluctance is wrong but is understandable.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 9, 2006 06:14 AM
Hindsight honesty compels me to admit that my dealings with American colleagues were predominantly from the mid ’80s through to the late ’90s. It’s more than possible that there have been changes since then.
Honesty compels me to admit that I was a bit more combative with you than was necessary. While I do believe you were overgeneralizing, it is true that a significant number of U.S. citizens are unaware of how we are perceived overseas. Not all of us, but a lot of us.
As the fiasco in Iraq has shown, the idea that the U.S. can “go it alone” is false. As a nation we need to be far more aware of what’s going on outside our borders, in order to better work with the international community to solve problems.
Micha, I believe in a way you and I share similar frustrations about how our respective nations are perceived. Both Israel and the U.S. have been mythologized by much of the world. Both nations are at once irrationally placed on a pedestal by some and unfairly demonized by others.
I remember a recent BBC poll asking people if the U.S. spent too much money on NASA. I was amazed to see post after post from people in the U.K. saying things like, “Yes, the U.S. should spend more money on the poor.” I remember thinking, why the hëll do people in the U.K. give a dámņ about NASA? It’s not money coming out of their pockets. I can only imagine the reaction if a U.S. news outlet like CNN conducted a poll where Americans gave their opinions about how Britain spends its national treasury.
As the world’s only remaining superpower, I guess the U.S. has to expect some of that. And some of our actions, like the invasion of Iraq, have far-reaching impact. We do have a responsibility to the world, and generally I think we haven’t been as mindful of that as we should. I think, however, there are those whose notion of our responsibility is a bit too far-reaching and intrusive.
Posted by: Rob Brown at December 8, 2006 08:33 PM
But when the rest of the world reacts that way, maybe they don’t say anything. Maybe they think “if I say anything bad about Israel, they’ll think I’m anti-Semitic. Maybe I’ll earn a reputation as an anti-Semite. Maybe I’d just better keep my mouth shut.” Individuals worry about this, world leaders worry about it too.
Rob, that is completely false. During the recent Israeli-Lebanese conflict, everyone from editorialists to world leaders to bloggers with too much time on their hands were decrying Israel’s “atrocities” while failing to condemn Hizbollah with equal furor — if at all! Kofi Annan disgraced himself and once again tarnished the U.N. by making outrageous and unprovable accusations that Israel had knowingly targeted U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon.
I don’t know where you get the idea that the world is reluctant to criticize Israel. Because it certainly isn’t.
I think Micha has it right: criticize Israel and the Palestinians when they deserve it, but neither should be demonized or put on a pedestal. Both sides need to be understood for all of their complexities.
I think people should take the same approach in discussing the U.S. and its virtues and failings.
Micha, the sarcasm with which you opened your post is very much appreciated (that was more sarcasm). I’m sorry if what I said frustrates you, but please try to be more patient. I’m not trying to insult you, I’m just being honest and there’s no way for me to know every little thing about this so I’m going to make ignorant statements sometimes. Bear with me, man.
If Israel had knowledge of where the soldiers were a commando operation would have been used. One reason why the leader of the Hzzbulla is grinning is because it’s impossible.
Israel did find the guys with the guns, they were under many domestic buildings in Lebanon’s towns. This is not something you can deal with by one or two commando operations.
Look man, I’m sorry, but if Israel had no knowledge of where the soldiers were that is a very good reason NOT to use bombs. That is a reason to send people in covertly so they can search buildings, gather intelligence, etc…because those people don’t cause collateral damage! Yes, it’s riskier to the personnel than dropping bombs from the safety of thousands of feet in the air, but it’s also a hëll of a lot more ethical.
Now as for the guns being deliberately placed in residential areas…they put them there for the same reason criminals take hostages. What Israel did was basically the same as a cop shooting hostages, human shields, dead to get at the criminals he had cornered. Or trying to shoot around the hostages, screwing up, and killing several of them by accident. You think that cop would keep his job after doing something like that?
Why, because this worked so well in the past? Other nations don’t care. Pressure on the government would only have styrengthened the Hizballa.
If the problem was that serious and you weren’t able to find anybody to help stop it then yeah, I guess you’re right that other nations don’t care. But if a bunch of other nations did offer to help and you put together a gigantic ground army, got permission from the Lebanese gov’t. to set foot on their land (after all the nations involved put diplomatic pressure on them), conducted a door to door search of every single building in the area where the guns and prisoners were until you found them, then destroyed the guns, then left…THAT is a solution I could live with because I’m guessing it would involve minimal loss of life and destruction of property.
I don’t understand the similariy to what I’ve said.
I was getting off-topic, sorry. You mentioned how some people could argue that the U.S. should be dismantled because of its previous actions and it reminded me of the hypothetical scenario I described.
*sigh* OK, look, I absolutely hate to admit this, but there are some things I see in black and white, which makes me at least partially similar to some of the people I often criticize like Bush or Bill O’Reilly or whoever. This is one of those things. Again, I apologize, but I’m of the opinion that you absolutely do not kill civilians who’ve had nothing to do with attacks against you, no matter what. On the part of the U.S., dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have ended the war a lot sooner than it would otherwise have ended, it may have meant that U.S. troops didn’t have to fight a long and bloody war of attrition before Japan was defeated, but despite that it was still, IMO, wrong.
Rob, you made a good post but this is something I just can’t see. If the rest of the world is “reluctant” to do or say anything against Israel this is a definition of the word reluctant that I am unfamiliar with.
Thanks Bill, and I’m sorry it’s that bad. Truth be told, I didn’t even start following politics or world affairs until I was shocked awake in 2003, so people all over the world–as opposed to just those in the Middle East–could’ve been condemning and criticizing Israel my entire life (that would be since 1977) and I wouldn’t have been aware of it.
I don’t know where you get the idea that the world is reluctant to criticize Israel. Because it certainly isn’t.
It’s the reason *I* used to dread opening my mouth on the subject, because a lot of people equate saying anything bad about Israel or Israel’s actions with anti-Semitism, and that is a label that you do not want slapped on you even if it’s total BS. I was guessing that there were a lot of others like myself but maybe I was presuming a lot.
Posted by: Rob Brown at December 9, 2006 08:06 AM
I was guessing that there were a lot of others like myself but maybe I was presuming a lot.
Rob, that suggests you don’t read many print or online newspapers or watch much T.V. news (newspapers being more valuable in my opinion). If true, that suggests you’re forming your opinions in a fashion much like I once did: by a scant few personal observations combined with a gut feeling and wild leaps of logic. Trust me, I have learned from bitter experience that that is no basis for forming knowledge.
Your opinions are only as good as the facts that back them up. In today’s media-rich society, there’s no reason to “guess” or “presume” what is factual. I urge you to take some time immersing yourself in the facts (just use reliable sources — something like “Ida’s Insane Blogovomit” probably doesn’t fit the bill!) and use them to guide your views.
Israel does not rule Lebanon, and it cannot go around like a police force knocking at people’s doors looking for weapons or surronding areas with black and white cars and then calilng to people to come out with their hands down.
The relationship between civilians in Lebanon and the Hizballa and is like the relationship between German civilians and German soldiers during WWII.
To suggest for Israel to join forces with the Lebanese government againstthe Hizballa is similar to a suggestion that the Democratic party join forces with Europe in a war against Republicans.
The international community only considered sending a very limited and not very effective international force after the war not before. I therefore have very limited faith in such force.
It seems to me that he only alternative tactics offered to Israel is to conquer Lebanon completely and then disarm it — a tactic similar to the one used by the US in Iraq — then you realize why I’m not that enthusiastic about it. I do believe Israel should have recruited a massive reserve force, invaded southern Lebanon with it and relied less on an air force. But make no mistake, this method would have resulted in civilian casualties.
I appologize if my sarcasm offended you. I am frustrated because I support peace and withdrawl but must also provide answers to the security of Israelis in a world in which peace is not always available or sufficient. When I tell my felow Israelis to withdraw from an area, I must also assure them that if that area becomes a military base for pro-Iranian forces intent on destroying Israel, I will have a credible military solution to assure their security, or else I can never convince them to withdraw.
At the moment I am frustrated with everybody: my friends in the Israeli peace camp that ignores complex reality; the center that offers partial and insufficient solutions, the right that doesn’t understand that military force is not enough and that occupying the Palestinians is not a solution; the Palestinians who subotage any partial step in the right direction and send the Israelis to the safety of the right; the Americans who are too pro-Israeli, and does not pressure Israel to shape up; Europians who are too pro-Palestinians and condemn Israel without offering real solutions to its security, and the cynical Russians and Chinese. I’m also frustrated with myself since I don’t kow what to do anymore. Unlike Americans and Europeans I don’t have a choice to walk away from these problems if I choose. I can’t afford to be naive, ignorant or pessimistic.
Look Rob, I know you mean well. But we live in a complicated region in a complicated world. I’m ignorant of many things, and I don’t condemn you for your lack of knowledge of every detail. All I ask, from you and from anybody else, is a little caution, a little humility, a little understanding when it comes to discussions about these issues.
Posted by: Rob Brown at December 9, 2006 08:00 AM
Micha, the sarcasm with which you opened your post is very much appreciated (that was more sarcasm). I’m sorry if what I said frustrates you, but please try to be more patient. I’m not trying to insult you, I’m just being honest and there’s no way for me to know every little thing about this so I’m going to make ignorant statements sometimes. Bear with me, man.
Rob, I don’t mean to beat up on you but as experience has taught me this is the sort of thing you must expect if you speak from ignorance. Moreover, I’ve learned that there is no reason to make ignorant assertions. These days, before I post anything I ask myself, “Do I really KNOW this or do I only THINK I know this?” If it’s the latter, I withhold comment until I can learn enough that I can say with confidence, “Yeah, I know this.”
Posted by: Rob Brown at December 9, 2006 08:00 AM
Look man, I’m sorry, but if Israel had no knowledge of where the soldiers were that is a very good reason NOT to use bombs. That is a reason to send people in covertly so they can search buildings, gather intelligence, etc…because those people don’t cause collateral damage! Yes, it’s riskier to the personnel than dropping bombs from the safety of thousands of feet in the air, but it’s also a hëll of a lot more ethical.
And completely and thoroughly impractical, because there are more houses to search than Israeli soldiers to search them. And Hizbollah can move their weapons around like a shell game (no pun intended).
Posted by: Rob Brown at December 9, 2006 08:00 AM
Now as for the guns being deliberately placed in residential areas…they put them there for the same reason criminals take hostages. What Israel did was basically the same as a cop shooting hostages, human shields, dead to get at the criminals he had cornered.
No, not even close to being the same. The cops, as you point out, generally have hostage-takers cornered and have the luxury of negotiating. That’s nothing like the situation in Lebanon, where Hizbollah was spread throughout the country and hadn’t been “cornered” in any true sense of the word.
Posted by: Rob Brown at December 9, 2006 08:00 AM
*sigh* OK, look, I absolutely hate to admit this, but there are some things I see in black and white, which makes me at least partially similar to some of the people I often criticize like Bush or Bill O’Reilly or whoever.
Then I think you need to re-examine your belief systems. Because, frankly, I think you are working things in reverse: choosing your beliefs, and then structuring your world-view to fit those beliefs. I used to do the same. I found it is much more productive, however, to learn the facts, digest them, and allow them to help you form your views.
Bill, reading up on these issues is very difficult. Everyone has an agenda. There are many facts and even more spins. I can’t claim to have done massive research about these issues myself.
Micha, that’s true. But the fact that much of the world roundly condemned Israel for its actions in Lebanon is commonly known — yet Rob Brown was unaware of even that.
Yeah, I was being simplistic — deliberately. But you have to start somewhere. Knowledge doesn’t come from within, but without. Once you get in the habit of going outside of yourself for facts, the next step is to critically evaluate sources. I’ve found that it helps to “triangulate” when it comes to media bias (and all news outlets have a bias): I try to get my news from the center (which is a bias all its own, have no doubt), the left and the right.
The reason the holocaust is often mentioned on threads is because they are clear cases of villains and victims. Most of the time it is not like that.
There are some basic principles that can be helpful:
1) the Israelis cannot rule the Palestinians.
2) Israel should always seek to talk with the other side no matter their opinions. They should be the ones to refuse.
3) There is no guarentee that peace is attainable or that negotiations will bare fruit.
4) Because of past conduct both Israelis and Palestinians have good reasons to mistrust each other.
4) Israel is entitled to defend itself but should try not to harm civilans as much as possible realistically.
5) Both the Israeils and the Palestinians must accept the right of the other to a nation-state of their own. Nobody is going to vanish or disintegrate.
6) Deliberatly targeting civilians is wrong no matter what’s your grievance.
There’s more than enough of me all over this thread, but once again I’d like to reiterate: you never fail to illuminate and enlighten, Micha. You are a remarkable person.
Bill
“Honesty compels me to admit that I was a bit more combative with you than was necessary.”
No worries. Spit happens.
As for a way forward – or even a way out – in Iraq, I honestly don’t see one that doesn’t end in a lot more tears. Same with the whole Middle Eastern Strategic Situation – the acronym says it all.
The United Nations is fundamentally corrupt and flawed, so unless that gets fixed first they can’t serve as an effective police force.
(Ideally you need Chinese or Japanese troops funding to go in with a ‘clean slate’ and start pìššìņg both (all?) sides off equally from square one)
Another option – unpleasant and unpalatable as it is – would be for us to just withdraw all our troops and then take a strict non-interference stance. Let the Iraqis find their own level then talk to the victors.
(Yeah, I’m saying ‘us’ and ‘our’. Regardless of coulda, woulda, shoulda I think the US and UK screwed this pooch as a joint operation)
One part of me still suspects that we’re tackling current problems with old solutions. Talk of attacking civilians reminds me of a plaque I saw once: “Welcome to Coventry, twinned with Dresden by the Luftwaffe and Bomber Command”
Regime change to get rid of a dictator? OK, but invade and kill x hundred thousand civilians to do that? It’s not exactly an elegant solution…
We need some smarter answers.
Cheers.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 9, 2006 10:43 AM
We need some smarter answers.
Agreed.
…
Rob Brown, I realized I had in essence told you “don’t post til you know what you’re talking about.” That was perhaps unduly harsh. While I do believe it makes sense to learn first, and then form opinions, there are many ways of learning. I have learned much from Micha by interacting with him here.
…
Captain Naraht, a final thought: I think you are on the right track with the idea of assembling a diplomatic “dream team” to come up with a way to salvage the mess in Iraq. Even though I believe the chances of success are slim at best, I think we would be fools not to make a sustained good-faith effort before giving up.
I am dubious as to our chances of success because: George W. Bush has paid a lot of lip service to the idea of listening to others finally, but we have yet to see if he’ll actually walk the walk; and the world knows that Bush is a politically weak, lame-duck president, which will limit his ability to negotiate.
So I now ask you for a response to the following: do you believe we can overcome the aforementioned obstacles, and, if so, how?
Your turn. 🙂
Hindsight honesty compels me to admit that my dealings with American colleagues were predominantly from the mid ’80s through to the late ’90s. It’s more than possible that there have been changes since then.
That’s an interesting possibility. I can remember back in the Reagan years that some folks were kind of amazed that there were marches in Europe against the USA for supplying Europe with nuclear missiles…while the dust of Chernobyl was wafting over the protestors. It might have been a little more surprising for Americans to feel hated when the alternative at the time was the Soviets.
I think it may also have something to do with the nature of Americans who live in other countries. Here you can look or even sound different from the norm and quite likely you are still an American. Only bigots treat you as a foreigner (and only idiots treat foreigners badly) but an American in France is unlikely to pass unnoticed.
One final note and this is a generalization of my own–in my experience Americans are reluctant to argue politics with foreigners and probably ill equipped to do so. My interest in French politics is limited to when some crazed neo-nazi in on the ballot or when Muslim youth riot in the streets. The average French national here would probably have a far deeper knowledge of American politics. So if they start criticizing the way things are here, an American might feel a bit cornered.
But I’m sorry if this all got too heated. Another generalization–I like Brits. Which seems to surprise some of them since they think the whole Irish thing is foremost in my mind. How can you possibly dislike a people who gave us both Hammer Horror and Monty Python?
I love to be an Israeli. Israel never gets condemned on anything because people feel guilty about the holocaust.
Bwah ha!
The Hamas is the moderate right. They are unwilling to recognize Israel. Their best offer is a temporary truce in exchange for a state in the West Bank and Gaza and tthe right of return.
That’s insane. What country would sign such a deal? What country would expect another country to do so?
As the world’s only remaining superpower, I guess the U.S. has to expect some of that.
Bill Myers (not to be confused with that idiot Bill Meyers) I’m just picking on this because it’s the only thing I disagree with. Why isn’t China a superpower? I keep hearing that we are the only one left but I don’t know. Big army. BIG army. Submarines, ships, nuclear weapons. HUGE army.
Granted, they haven’t done much lately except beat up Tibetan monks and Falun Gong protestors but I would not be in a rush to test these guys. If China invades Taiwan…I wish I could put money on the Taiwanese but…
I’m not trying to insult you, I’m just being honest and there’s no way for me to know every little thing about this so I’m going to make ignorant statements sometimes. Bear with me, man.
Rob, we tease because we love…:) A lot of folks have been here for a while and the conversations can be pretty informal.
What Israel did was basically the same as a cop shooting hostages, human shields, dead to get at the criminals he had cornered. Or trying to shoot around the hostages, screwing up, and killing several of them by accident. You think that cop would keep his job after doing something like that?
Ah, but imagine a gunman walking around with a hostage, shooting and killing people as he does and the cops do nothing because of fear of killing the hostage. At some point the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few. Or the one.
*sigh* OK, look, I absolutely hate to admit this, but there are some things I see in black and white, which makes me at least partially similar to some of the people I often criticize like Bush or Bill O’Reilly or whoever. This is one of those things. Again, I apologize, but I’m of the opinion that you absolutely do not kill civilians who’ve had nothing to do with attacks against you, no matter what. On the part of the U.S., dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have ended the war a lot sooner than it would otherwise have ended, it may have meant that U.S. troops didn’t have to fight a long and bloody war of attrition before Japan was defeated, but despite that it was still, IMO, wrong.
I disagree with that opinion but I respect it. And don’t apologize for seeing some things as matters of right or wrong.
Truth be told, I didn’t even start following politics or world affairs until I was shocked awake in 2003, so people all over the world–as opposed to just those in the Middle East–could’ve been condemning and criticizing Israel my entire life (that would be since 1977) and I wouldn’t have been aware of it.
Well there you go! Me, I’ve been consistently spouting off since 1979 or so and my batting average is probably no better than yours!
It’s the reason *I* used to dread opening my mouth on the subject, because a lot of people equate saying anything bad about Israel or Israel’s actions with anti-Semitism, and that is a label that you do not want slapped on you even if it’s total BS.
Among some that is probably true. It’s a lot less true now. I’m amazed at how anti-Israel some members of the local Universities are. And it sometimes spills into out and out anti-Semitism, of the Der Stürmer variety.
The United Nations is fundamentally corrupt and flawed, so unless that gets fixed first they can’t serve as an effective police force.
You can say that again, bro.
Bill Myers stated: “I am dubious as to our chances of success because: George W. Bush has paid a lot of lip service to the idea of listening to others finally, but we have yet to see if he’ll actually walk the walk; and the world knows that Bush is a politically weak, lame-duck president, which will limit his ability to negotiate.
So I now ask you for a response to the following: do you believe we can overcome the aforementioned obstacles, and, if so, how?”
Stangely enough, and don’t laugh: George Bush himself. I mean Nixon went to China.
The Summit, the Dream Team, the border-crossing format of the agenda, even the moderate Arab locales all hinge upon one unlikely event: What if the most intractable US President in modern history invited the major players of the Middle East to a Comprehensive Summit?
However unlikely all of this none of it goes anywhere unless GW is on board front and center. I’m also of the belief that if a peace process in and of itself is going on it injects hope into communities that feel the only response is a death wish. (Remember the pictures of babies with bombs strapped to them?)
How many Philippinos joined the Communists after Macros lost to Cori Aquino?
Remember the relative calm between the Palestinians and Israel after the 1993 signing.
What happened to the Sandanistas and Contras after the Oscar Arias peace plan?
We must give people on both sides in this region a reason to hope. That won’t happen with a Pollyanna Peace Plan. Only Nixon could go to China and I think only President Bush (as unlikely as that is) can initiate this plan.
—Captain Naraht
I’m gonna make this my last post in this blog for at least the next day or two, as I have to do some work I brought home from the office, some housework, and I have to keep a promise I made to myself. 🙂
Anyway…
The “Unofficial Award for Best Poster in This Thread (Designated as Unofficial Because It’s Peter’s Blog and I Have No Authority to Give Awards) Award” goes to: Micha and Captain Naraht. Micha gets it for doing his usual bang-up job of educating and enlightening us about his area of the world. The Captain gets it for daring to come up with a creative solution to the Iraq problem… and one that sounds as though it could work.
Peter J Poole and Rob Brown, I seem to be snapping at somebody in every thread these days. This time you took the brunt. Pay me no mind. I am an @$$hole.
Finally… has anyone besides myself noticed that Luigi Novi hasn’t done much posting lately… if any? Luigi, if you’re reading this, I miss your presence in these parts.
And Rex Hondo, only one post in this thread? You’re part of the Guy Party now, sir, and you have to represent. 😉
Oh, wait, forgot something… Bill Mulligan, don’t think I don’t know how you tried to betray me to the squirrels. Don’t think for a minute that this betrayal will go unanswered.
GODDAM HITLER-LOVING NEO-NAZI AL QAEDA SQUIRRELS!
Thanks Bill. I probably don’t deserve your compliments, but they are appreciated.
Rob, has anybody ever accused you of antisemitism for criticizing Israel?
Intelligent people should differentiate between antisemitism, anti-zionism (or anti-Israel), unfair criticism of Israel, and fair criticism. Some don’t. I try to. I’ve seen all kinds.
Bill Myers wrote: “The “Unofficial Award for Best Poster in This Thread (Designated as Unofficial Because It’s Peter’s Blog and I Have No Authority to Give Awards) Award” goes to: Micha and Captain Naraht. Micha gets it for doing his usual bang-up job of educating and enlightening us about his area of the world. The Captain gets it for daring to come up with a creative solution to the Iraq problem… and one that sounds as though it could work.”
Thanks for the Award Bill! You LIKE me! You REALLY like Me!
But I would give away a thousand awards for one viable peace process.
Come on Mr. President… I never rooted for you to get anything right before….do this thing…..
—Captain Naraht
P.S. It should be noted that while I DO endorse the inclusion of Syria and Iran, I DO NOT endorse inviting Hitler loving Al Queda squirels to the Horta Junta Comprehensive Summit on the Middle East.
THEY SHALL FEEL THE STING OF MY SQUIRRELY WRATH!!
“We must give people on both sides in this region a reason to hope. That won’t happen with a Pollyanna Peace Plan. Only Nixon could go to China and I think only President Bush (as unlikely as that is) can initiate this plan.”
Actually, I don’t know that it’s all THAT unlikely. (Here’s my brain-damaged optimism again.) Bush is, I THINK, trying to repair at least his image, if not the image of the country. I can’t imagine something that would do more for his image than that.
Great, still MORE squirrels. I think you’re all nuts.
Great, still MORE squirrels. I think you’re all nuts.
Haha. They think I’m insane. They’re the ones who are insane! Soon, there will be sqirrels the size they’ve never seen before! Who, who like human flesh! And then at just the right moment… attack!
A lot of people seem to be thinking Bush is going to just throw the Iraq Study Group’s recomendations over his shoulder. Ruchard Durbin said he didn’t know if Bush was ever going to support all the recomendations. I think maybe we should give him time to have the meetings that he’s going to have before we jump all over him. AFTER those meetings, though, if nothing looks to be changing, THEN we jump all over him.
(BTW, just watched Discovery launch. That’s STILL really cool to watch. STILL wish I could go up. Oh, well, not meant to be.)
On the part of the U.S., dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have ended the war a lot sooner than it would otherwise have ended, it may have meant that U.S. troops didn’t have to fight a long and bloody war of attrition before Japan was defeated, but despite that it was still, IMO, wrong.
A very good example of how, in real life, and especially in war, there is very often not an actual right answer. Unfortunately, we often have to simply try to find the answer that is the least wrong.
And Rex Hondo, only one post in this thread? You’re part of the Guy Party now, sir, and you have to represent. 😉
Sorry, Bill. Between my regular job, running strategic simulations and forming contingency plans for Z-Day, and doting on my daughter, I just haven’t had the time to do sufficient research to form a cogent post on matters of global politics. All part of the “not posting til you have somthing to post about” thing. 😉
Besides, I’m still wondering when we’re going to quit chattering about the war in Iraq and start talking about the really important war, the War on Christmas! 😛
-Rex Hondo
No matter what side of this debate you are on, stay or withdraw it is fairly obvious after today’s Bush radio address and now this report: “Durbin said he challenged Bush’s analogy, reminding him that Truman had the NATO alliance behind him and negotiated with his enemies at the United Nations. Durbin said that’s what the Iraq Study Group is recommending that Bush do now — work more with allies and negotiate with adversaries on Iraq.
Bush, Durbin said, “reacted very strongly. He got very animated in his response” and emphasized that he is “the commander in chief.” Nothing is going to change until Bush is either out of office or removed from office.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_12/010362.php
He is the decider, and like the captain of the Titanic nothing is going to make him change his course or slow down. What an idiot.
Brian, while I can’t argue with your reading of the situation, I do have to call you on your Titanic reference. Captain Smith didn’t want to go full bore, according to reports from the Congressional hearings. It was Ismay, the lunkhead landlubber from White Star that wanted to make a statement with the speed of the ship. Well, he did. Not the one he WANTED to, but he did. And the Ismay analogy may fit perfectly.
China hosted Nixon at the prospect of ganging up on the Soviets.
This leverage forced the Soviets to negotiate nuclear weapons limitations. But for simply hosting him in their country, China got Nixon to trash a 3 decade relationship between the US and Taiwan, and George HW Bush to lobby China’s membership into the UN, directly resulting in Taiwan’s expulsion from the UN. The Great Richard Nixon couldn’t even get China or the Soviets to cut their support of the North Vietnamese, the only communists we lost 50,000 soldiers to. China couldn’t get a better deal from Monty Hall.
Yes, George Bush disavowing Israel’s legitimacy and lobbying the international community to isolate them would certainly lay the foundation for tremendous strides in ending the disaster in Iraq. He would simply be following the republican tradition established by Ronald Reagan when he traded stinger missiles sales for hostages: give the terrorists what they want.
Rob, has anybody ever accused you of antisemitism for criticizing Israel?
Intelligent people should differentiate between antisemitism, anti-zionism (or anti-Israel), unfair criticism of Israel, and fair criticism. Some don’t. I try to. I’ve seen all kinds.
Not so far, Micha, and I’m glad I was talking to somebody as intelligent as yourself when I said these things…however, in my experience there are plenty of unintelligent and/or dìçkhëádëd people in the world who might not be able to make the disctinction, or who may not want to.
It seems I should be asking more questions and making fewer statements. Here’s my first one: what were the reasons Olmert refused to agree to a prisoner exchange?
Oops, screwed up with the tags. The quoted text from Micha included the paragraph beginning with “Intelligent people should…”