The propaganda war was lost the minute W put troops into Iraq-- as far as the Muslims were concerned. The only part of the opinions that hadn't been trampled was hope. They hoped Americans would be wiser, more competent and more
congnizant of the culture they were moving into to.
It's questionable now whether even Joseph Goebbels could rescue *American* public opinion about Bush, let alone Muslim public opinion about America.
-- Modified on 10/12/2005 9:13:26 PM
Be patient.. This takes a while to load but is well worth it.
We have.
And they're even worse than mine!
your views, instead of adopting the terrorist hit & run tactics.
Meanwhile, you're just making a laughingstock out of people who would support your POV.
You whip in here like some CyberTerrorist, drop some crazy-assed pearl of wisdom, and then bolt. You sound a lot like the homeless guy who sits on his haunches up the block, and he may be crazy or just drunk or both, can't tell.
Once upon a time there were Republicans like Dwight Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt. Now we have Dubya, and you.
The real Goebbels would only use propaganda to promote war and never as counter-propaganda to war propaganda.
Let the Pentagon/Rightblog/TalkRadio people come up with some answer to this. Something that may be worth people's time even to watch even if there weren't a war-- as this is.
The letter then switches to the court of public opinion.
"More than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media," he wrote. "We are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our umma," or community of Muslims, he wrote.
to rat out their cousin who planted an IED and blew up a truck, when Cuz may be either (a) a fundie jihadist, or (b) just looking for revenge for HIS cuz who got killed by a stray round, or (c) some combination of the 2?
What odds are we gonna put, what will we risk, that we are gonna get a fair hearing among people who didn't ask us to come, don't speak the language, and don't trust people who send their women to war?
Oh, I suppose it doesn't matter as long as there's no big $$ Republican kids in the front lines. Tell them it's for God & Country, and tell them to go fuck themselves if they ask questions about exactly who is gonna get what spoils of war.
If the local Arabs, Persians, Turks, Israelis aren't involved in the solution, there will not be one. All we have done is stick our fist in a bottle of scorpions, and the solution is (a) pull our fist out and forget it, or (b) kill every - EVERY - freaking last one of them.
I think the very stark alternatives you have mentioned capture a great deal of truth. BUT at the risk of banishment from this Board for violation of the Troll Ban, as well as seeming like a single-minded fanatic, and angering anew a few fellow posters who consider me an "anti-Semite and a Jew hater" [that's you DoctorGonzo] I must point out that the Israelis [yes, them] will never be part of the solution as [1] they are THE MAJOR PART of the problem and [2] THE PROBLEM, which few Americans seem to realize or at least wish to discuss openly is that it is absolutely in the interests of the Israelis to see the US engaged in open-ened and seemingly perpetual war with Arab countries and their Islamic fundamentalist cohorts.
No one in this thread even came close to mentioning this idea. Remember a basic rule of politics and existence generally is Who Benefits?
The majority of the posters seem to think it's Cheney and the Republican fatcats and the multination corporations and the ever perfidious Haliburton. If only it was that simple.
Ari? Bibi? Sharansky? Who 'dey? They're the guys who have nick-named Americans "collateral damage" and "cannon fodder."
It's nice to know our friends think so highly of us.
You may not want to die for Dick Cheney. Bbut is it preferable to die for Bibi Natanyahu?
Peace and good health to all.
I'm not sure it's significantly different from having to deal with local politics anyplace we want to go - eg, where there might be oil or any other strategic reason.
Apart from the religious issues and ties to the USA, there are a couple other concerns - it's generally smart to align oneself with the winning faction, and stepping back even farther, if we have to choose between a more or less democratic and more or less westernized ally, we should pick the more.
The IDF has consistently shown themselves to be able (yes, without our help) to take on all comers in almost any circumstances. I'll tell you why - it's the difference of westernized vs. 3rd world warfare. In a tank or air battle, a kid who grew up with video games and motor scooters will outclass the kid who grew up with goats every time. Just as significantly, the command and control structures in a democracy are incredibly more effective than those in an ideologically driven nation, because the officers think differently.
So if we're gonna be there, I suspect we have to deal with it. Yeah, it's not pretty, and it gets us in some damned nasty difficulties, but you gotta go with the odds, and that would not generally include betting on Arabs in a conflict with Hebrews.
There's also the fact that the Israels seem to be able to deal with issues on a secular basis far more consistently than the Arab states.
Yeah, I do think it's time we reduced dependence on foreign oil, and that means a lot of things. It's also time to get nations together and knock out the violent wannabees who aren't accepting responsibility for populations and territories, eg terrorists. If we don't make it a common goal, then the terrorists will just become proxies in guerrilla actions, and we'll have more (un) patriot acts, less habeas corpus, more idiots spending more time inspecting you than you spend flying, etc.
Thus endeth the lesson.
"Well, that's an issue,but.."?
Jack0116533 are you vying for the title of King Of Understatement on this Board?
Please show me any other area where access to a scarce resource or the need to establish a stategic presence for geopolitical reasons entraps this country in such difficulties. I'm a patient man and I'll wait.
But it's a rhetorical question. There is no response because the question is miscast. The problems the US faces in the Near East is not primarily because of our large and alien presence necessary to extract petroleum. It's because of our policy of supporting Israel.
You write that it's generally smart to align with the winning side in a political dispute. Generally true, but not universally so. Your logic managed somehow to escape Churchill in 1940-41, to take a monstrous counterexample [yes, I know this is an atypical case, but it makes the point].
You also write that it's smart to align with the more democratic side over the less democratic side, and the more westernized over the less westernized side. Again, both are generally true and I generally agreed, but again it's not universally true.
In 1939-41 Nazi Germany was definitely the more modernized [westernized] side than either Poland or the USSR or most of it's other victims. But you're not arguing that we ought to have supported them on that basis? Likewise, from 1931 onward Japan was far more modernized/westernized than any of its hapless victims, China and Korea especially. You're not arguing that the smart move was to support Japan's predatory depredations and aggressions? Do you see where this can lead you? W/O a doubt Israel is more westernized/modernized than the Arab world, and DEFINITELY more democratic, but alas, that's not the crucial factor here.
A country's internal politcal arrangements do not necessarily tell us much about the policies it follows, sometimes is almost compelled to follow, in its relations with the outside world. These are ideals which may be neithe smart nor practical nor safe to follow in one's relation with the external political world. Because a state is organized internally along liberal-democratic political lines does not necessarily mean its foreign policy will be equally temperate or benign. Forgetting for a moment Our Most Reliable Ally In The Middle East, you certainly are familar with US foreign policy since 1945? Certainly US actions, while like everyone else's was cast in terms of the loftiest ideals, often was something quite different in reality. Or what about Britian in the 19th century? No great pursuit of liberal-democratic ideals there [an obvous exception - its work to end the international slave trade]. They're ideals, often crushed and ground up under the pressure of realities like politically hostile neighbors, a precarious security situation, no allies, and the like. And again, i'm not necessarily faulting the Israelis because they cannot live up to their own self-professed ideals - though I do find it fun to point out the many failings and the hysterical reactions this automatically elicits. No, the Israelis can do what they gotta do. I simply part company here - the US OUGHT NOT to suppor the Israelis in these acts, however necessary, unless extraordinary circumstances intervene. It's as simple as that. The world will always deliver a truckload of complicated problems to our dorstep and it's sheer idiocy to go out and look for more.
Similarly, now that the Neo-Cons have banboozled POTUS and regime change in unfriendly states and the active promotion of liberal-democratic ideals is [allegedly] the order of the day, are we any less free of problems? No, we're not, as our mess in Iraq shows. Gratuitous speculative aside - I would LOVE to see someone advocate regeime change in Israel and argue the case for US humanitarian intervention on behalf of the Palestinians. Now that would be interesting. Well, Xmas is coming and maybe if I write to Santa...
[more will follow ina separte post if you can stand it]
1st, let's settle on the statement of the issue. Is it fair to say, the "issue" is the collateral costs of US alignment with Israel? Bearing in mind that "alignment" - as in every other aspect of foreign policy - is not complete, or even predictable.
Next, your 1st question - is there an area we are in more trouble than the mideast? "Trouble" is of course a relative measure, but I don't see the relevance of the question. There will always be problems, if nothing more than by definition. That said, I'm inclined to agree that for now, the mideast is our biggest problem, but I don't know how much of that I would allocate to Iraq, Israel/Palestine, and how much to other issues.
OK, now you're stating that our problems in the mideast originate in supporting Israel, not in needing oil. I'd point out that entirely apart from those 2 issues, the mideast has historically been a crossroads of the world, and we might be drawn in to some degree without those issues.
So let's assume for a minute that we DIDN'T support Israel. Do you think that we would be able to avoid the regional competition for oil, eg the Persians vs the rural Arabs vs the urban Arabs vs all the other scorpions, eg the Lebanese and Kurds? I'm inclined to suspect that if the Israelis were eliminated from the equation, the oil troubles would remain.
Next, your point that Churchill didn't align with the Germans. Churchill didn't because the German conflict with the Poles was perceived as a fight with the UK, whose interest required a stable balance. IOW, his perception was that the Germans were coming after the British, which is the obvious exception.
The 2nd aspect is that I'm talking less about who is on top today, but rather, who has the potential to dominate the situation. The Arab nations in the mideast have an incredible array of problems, many tied directly to the things they want most to preserve, ie., a 3rd world culture. I don't think that it's up to us to change them or not; but we certainly have to deal with them.
I agree that the neo-cons TEND to be influenced by a new POV, ie, (a) that a rigid ideology & military force can solve anything (because they have limited patience, and intelligence, affected directly by the fact that they believe they have the God-given right to avoid military service that might very well teach them patience and the need for intelligence), and (b) that many of their constituents tend to see mideast conflict in Biblical terms.
But while I think we have to maintain some interest in the mideast, I am very disinclined to get sucked into local details which would bleed us. There are many places in the world where we have to stand aside and let nature take its course. Hell, we have to do that in the USA to a large extent.
-- Modified on 10/23/2005 1:44:47 PM
PART II
I see you, like pretty much every other American, has bought the party line re Israel's superhuman military competence. Well, with so much propaganda having been spewed in this country re the capability of the IDF, this comes as no surprise and I would expect little else. But have you stopped to consider how lucky the Israelis are that they face a opponent who is always mlitary weak, politically divided, internally unstable, never in agreemnt on any goals except opposition to Israel, and chronically unable to cooperate in any alliance or collective security arrangements? Despite the inconvenience of guerrilla/terrorist/fedayeen [spelling?] attacks, the Israelis have been able to sit back and pick off these pathetic bozos one at a time. [It's as much of a mismatch as US versus Grenada]. The one time the Arabs were able to [temporarily, for all of about 10 days] overcome these problems the Israelis were sent reeling headlong into ignominious retreat [or has everyone forgotten that?] in the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Smaller in scale but no less tragic and dramatic that the US retreat from the Chinese Communist armies in Korea in the winter of 1950-51. They were ultimately saved ONLY because of [big sigh] the massive infusions of US $$$$$, weapons, diplomatic intervention from Nixon and Kissinger, incredible rhetorical excesses within the US [natch] and a nuclear alert meant to deter Soviet intervention on behalf of the Arabs once the tide had turned in favor of the Israelis, and ONLY by virtue of US assisance and generosity, let it never be forgotten, as much as the Israelis and their advocates would like to.
No doubt about it that Israel's command and control procedures, their decision-making structures and capabilities and the like are far superior to that of the Arab states. It's cultural/historical but that's another post. And the best of the IDF officer corps and noncom cadres are as good as the best anywhere. But it's totally irrelevant to the question of support for Israel's policies on the part of the US.
Go with the odds? And the odds favor the Hebrews? Sure, why not, why shouldn't the odds favor the Israelis? It's a totally rigged game, and it's rigged in favor of the Israelis. The Arabs understand this, and this explains their anger at and hatred of the US. The US owns the house, sets the rules, bankrolls the big winner, and changes the rules whenever the big winner - Israel - seems in danger of even the smallest and most temporary loss. It never ceases to amuse the bejeesus out of me when people ask "...why do they hate us so?" Ain't it obvious? And can you really blame them? They'd be moronic idiots not to feel this way. So, I suggest, this being the case, we immediately cease and desist from figuratively painting targets on ourselves because we cannot bear to see the Israelis ever inconvenienced in any manner whatsoever.
Yes, no disagreement that the Israelis deal with problems on a secular basis more effectively than any of the Arab states. But again, so what? How does this help or hurt the pursuit of US goals? That's the question to be answered. To the extent that it does, it's all good, as the say in the 'hood. To the extent that it doesn't, we must wave bye-bye and 86 Ari and company.
I'm in total agreement that we must end our dependence on imported oil, particularly from the Near East/Middle East. But this is not going to be the panacea so many assume it will be. That's because, again, the cause of these problem we face there is NOT because of our need and our presence to extract oil. It's because of our support for Israel. Here's a litle intellectual exercise. Imagine we have arrived at that happy state where we do not import a single drop of oil from the Near East. Do you think the political violence will lessen, let alone disappear? No, it's not going to disappear. This absurd fixation and overemphasis on the oil factor is like a matador's caoe - it keeps us [and the bull] confused, off-balance, and constantly lunging in the wrong direction. But it does serve the interests of Israel's partisans - as long as we wrongly fixate on oil we do not address the political problems involved in US support of Israel. And that's exactly how the Neo-Cons and AIPAC and the massively self-deluded fundamentalist Christian zionists and the rest of them want it. Once we realize this, and if we adjust our policies acordingly, watch how quickly these problems lessen. Not disappear, lessen, as some of the intraArab violence is generated by their internal failures to cope with modernity and to creature political structures of a nature capable to cope with he challenges of 2005. But little of this would necesaarily involve the US.
Finally, if the US did manage to end it's dependence on Near Eastern oil, we could at last wash our hands of that troubled and tortured area and 86 Israel, the Palestinians, the Arabs and the Islamic/Moslem world generally. Israel might finally be unceremoniously booted off the US gravy train upon which it has feasted so comfortably and so contentedly for lo all these many decades. That's worth the price of energy independece in itself. And with no more unlimited access to the deep pockets of Uncle Sam, the Israelis would finally have to come to terms politically with the Palestinans [good] or treat them in a manner even more draconian and merciless than they do at present, and once and for all give the lie to their self-interested proaganda claims of being "...a light unto the naions." [I think this is from David Ben-Gurion].
Thus endeth the counterlesson.
Awaiting you reaction [but not too quickly].
Peace and good health to you.
(a) Wait a minute about the superhuman military thingie: your next statement is that the Arabs are incompetent. I think, given the history, you have to admit that there is an incredible mismatch here - that over many wars, there is this David and Goliath battle, and David always wins.
Why? We are both agreed - because Goliath is a spastic. How does that change the relative results, or our conclusion?
We're separating justice from reality. I'll leave it to others to argue justice. The reality is that the Arabs have never been able to conduct a winning campaign, despite having numbers, equipment and often surprise on their side. IMHO, this is more of a military lesson than a political one. Yes, to a layman, it looks like the IDF are supermen. OTOH, I've heard stories and seen records from participants, and realize they are largely reservists - yes, often veterans, but still as screwed up as many reserve units?
So why do they always win? Because the Arabs are many times more screwed up. That, as every veteran knows, is the way combat goes.
The real question is, is it likely to change? My bet would be, not in our lifetime.
So then the next question (as I see it) is, well of course the Palestinians and by extension Arabs and muslims hate us when we support the Israelis.
[shrug] So (1) are we not entitled to hate them for opposing us? How is this different from any other dispute? Do we rearrange alignments because somebody (2) So what if they hate us? We're talking about, uh, camel jockeys. Which is shorthand for incompetent states and cultures. Eg, look at Somalia. What the HELL were we doing there? Why couldn't we just let them kill each other off? If we want to be humanitarian, why don't start in, say, New Orleans?
All life is a rigged game; it's rigged in favor of the people whose ancestors did their homework, and eg didn't run Einstein and Fermi out of their country on account of their big noses.
Now, let me point out another issue. One of the things that ties us strongly to other countries is that we have large communities and family ties. That was originally the NW europeans, eg, Churchill's mother was a USC. But it also means that today, Latin families send more money to their relatives than out foreign aid does. And yes, there are Jewish communities, and Persians, and when our troops come back from Iraq, they will bring many more Arabs with them, just as they brough Koreans and Filipinos. So? It's something we deal with.
My communication skills must be slipping from their appallingly low levels. Yes, the Arabs are mostly incompetent militarily, so by comparison the IDF seems Prussian-like in its prowess. I thought it would be clear from the context that [1] I was being sarcastic and, [2] I don't believe the hype re the IDF. But apparently not.
Like you I absolutely do not expect this to change anytime soon, and as long a the US is the Israeli "sixth man" well...
If we're entitled to hate the Palestinians/Arabs/Moslems it's only fair that they be allowed to hare us back. Don't try to get out of this by saying "they engaged in hatred first." Man, that's my main point. What has driven them to hate us? Our support of Israel. Was/is that support in any way necessary for the survival or well-being of the US? I think you know my answer by now.
But this also shows us a possible way out if we are wise enough and brave enough to try it. Since support of Israel is not a necessity but a "luxury" we can forego this luxury, change our policies re this mess, and slowly recover from the decades of self-inflicted wounds. At least in theory. I fear that by now the Arabs hate us even more than they hate the Israelis. And this by no means implies some sort of treacherous abandondment of the Israelis. It's as simple as [1] when their actions conflict with US interest we each and every time say so and withhold support for those actions ; [2] lessens the obsenely promiscous way in which we arm them; [3] decreas the $$$$ we provide to them.
Please show me another policy where supporting one side over another has had such catastophic effects. I'm waiting. South Korea over North Korea? South Vietnam over North Vietnam? Nationalist China over Communist China? West Germany over East Germany? Iraq over Iran? Batista over Fidel? Contras over Sandanistas? Kurds over Wheys? [alright, couldn't resist]. You simply can't because there simply ain't one.
The camel jockey comment ain't all that appropriate. The fact that they're collectively so alien and bloody unsympathetic ought not to sway us into prematurely and erroneously[?] buying into the Israeli side. And how would that comment differ conceptually if my argument was that the Israelis are goddamn Jews and Christ-killlers and not worthy of our support on that basis? This whole thing is ugly enough w/o us adding to it. Hmm, maybe i'm gaining newfound sympathy and appreciation for the Moderator's imposition of the Troll Ban.
Your response to my rigged game analogy is incredibly weak. It's no better or useful than when {Carter?] observed that life is unfair. And let me point out that neither Einstein or Fermi was run out by any Arab country. I understand what you're trying do do with this point but I'm afraid you seem to be failing miserably and ignominiously here.
The relevance of your last point totally escapes me. Can you make this clearer for me? And how does it relate to the topic? Thanx. But here's a thought re it - as more people of Arab descent emmigrate and settle in America and become citizens and have kids, is it not possible that they will retain a residual ethnic/racial sympathy for their kinsmen in the mother country? And might this sympathy possibly be organized politicaly on behalf of the Arabs and against the policies of support of Israel? Was this what you were trying to allude to in that last paragraph?
Peace and good health to you.
I think that the situation has been going on long enough, a couple generations, that hatred and fairness are really beside the point; and we need to deal with the facts on the ground.
Frankly, I don't expect anybody to love us, so that's just not a consideration to me.
Yeah, I think it's pretty clear that we made worse decisions in Korea and Vietnam. Eg, Truman's JCS told him to stay off the Asian mainland, and if he could have taken that advice, we'd have stopped them at the water, which is our element, and we wouldn't have tied up the US Army there for 50 odd years.
Maybe you haven't worked with camel jockeys, ie., officers who typically have a feudal sense of entitlement, and then have childish fits when they can't make things don't work, because they don't have a western mindset, and have to be walked thru western concepts one step at a time, and even then are not really emotionally ready for it. These are nations that have to figure out things for themselves, and frankly, I don't see waiting around for them - it costs us too much.
It's not about perjoratives, it's about recognizing when a state or culture cannot keep up.
So the point here is, so what if they do hate us? What are they gonna do about it?
No, Osama doesn't care about Israel, he cares about infidels on his godforsaken desert. Actually, he just gets off tweaking us based on his ideology, and sooner or later, he's gonna get his comeuppance - he's already been run out of the civilized world, and if we had anybody but a lush frat boy running the show, we likely would have him already. If we had an administration that paid attention to the system, there likely would not have been a 9/11.
No, the Arabs didn't run Einstein out. My point is that if your ancestors pursue stupid policies, you may be cursed - as the Germans were. One of the triggers of the Somali civil war had to do with clan prejudices against those whose ancestors were supposed to have eaten non-kosher during a famine a thousand years ago. I mean, how stupid can you get? Yes, I suppose you could be a Scientologist or Pentecostal, and give your money to some idiot like Jimmy Swaggart. And that's my point - if you do this sort of thing, then your genes are meant to be cleansed from the pool.
Now the last issue is the usual one, that we only help the Israelis because of the Jewish lobby. And I don't need to deal with that, because you know we only help the Salvadorans because of the Salvadoran lobby, and the Irish, and Italians, etc. And the Filipinos and Koreans, and the Iraqis will be next.
Actually, this subject is not one that I have any interest in digging back through history over. It's enough that it's been a scorpion's nest for god knows all recorded history, and now we're deeper than ever in Iraq, which will probably overshadow Israel, and we have other concerns there.
Yes, the poor palestinians, and the poor refugees from god knows how many other places. Life is just unfair. No, it ain't easy when you live next to crazies. So move already, and stop crying about people on the other side of the world who really do not give the smallest rabbit's pellet.
-- Modified on 10/24/2005 7:33:04 PM
Not sure how to respond to your post, there's lot's of stuff, interesting in different waze, some stuff I can't believe i'm actually reading, some of it even relevant to the points I raise, but let me give it the old high school drop out try.
1. Your facts on the ground seem to start with a strong disdain for the Arabs. Fair enough. You seem to have had experiences with Arab military establishments in some capacity, so the impressions you formed are from first hand experience, which I gather was pretty awful and frustrating.
2. 1000 years ago it was Western civilization that could not keep up with the Near Eastern and East Asian civilizations. Things ahave changed since then, and they will change again. Not in our puny lifetimes, however. You counterpart in the Arab world existed 100 years ago. Wonder what he was like?
3. They hate us enough to go to extreme lenghts to punish and to hurt us. Gee, i sure think that's something. And I sure think they're trying to tell us something. I'm listning, but are you?
4. Osama DOES care about Israel. Why do you think his ultimate insult is to refer to the "Crusader Zionist state." Hmm, Crusades ended around 1300 AD with the final expulsion of the small Latin Kingdoms established in the Holy Land around 1100 AD. So, that's certainly not relevant. Now, Zionists, i think they're pretty comtemporary. You've heard of them, haven't you? And you think he JUST HAPPENED to pick this political term out of thin air to abuse us with rhetorically? I mean, imperialist, colonialist, aggressor, hegemon, they're like so-last century. I can just imagine the light bulb going on in Bin-Laden's head when, praise be to Allah in the heavens, he chanced upon Zionist as a term of abuse. And of course, it's totaly mistaken and irrelevant.
5. Cliche time - Osama is like the hydra. Cut off his head and several more grow back to replace it. Yes, we are that hated in the Arab world. And hey, remember when Hassan al Turabi of the Sudan was THE terrorist instigator of all time? I mean, i'm only asking you to think and try to remember all the way back to the dim historical mists of 1994. And when something even worse appears to supplant Bin-Laden, I mean Bin who? See what I mean?
6. Osama care about Israel, that's his bottom line no matter what else you want to believe. Americans on Saudi soil? They're there to prosecute the war against Saddam and the international sanctions afterward - a war of immense benefit to Israel as the US destroyed the largest Arab military machine in existence, one which had worried the Israelis for many years. You like just about everyone else seems unwilling or unable to connect these dots. So be it. Be a dupe of Ari and Bibi. It's only potentially your life and the welfare of this country that's at stake. Wouldn't want to reconsider your antipathy for the Arabs even for those stakes, eould you? Wouldn't want to reconsider your unreasoning hero worship of the Israelis, would you?
7. No knowledge about the Somali civil war and what triggered it. I wonder where you got that info from, and was it from a person or organization interested in beating the drums on behalf of Israel? I must point out that the Somalis are not Arabs and some even are not even Moslem. But it's a weak point on my part, as weak as it is on yours.
8. If you would deny the malignant influence of AIPAC and American for a Safe Israel and Facts and Logic About the Middle East and the rest of those war-mongering propaganda-meisters, I really have to worry about you. It's as plain as water in the ocean. I pity you if you actually believe the verbal swill those groups spread with such recklessness and incredible success. You seem to think they serve well the intersts of our country. i do not. You would like us to believe that US support for Israel is based upon some amazing calculation of the US national interest and lo and behold Israel is THE ANSWER. I only wonder what it will take to wake you up and to face reality.
The Arabs are no prizes, to be sure. But neither are the Israelis.
And news flash - we're in Iraq because of Israel and for no other reason. Can't you connect these dots either? Never heard of the Neo-cons? You write as if these were acts of God or some sort of natural disaster. I feel like i'm handing out pamphlets extolling the virture of temperance outside of the headquarters of the House of Seagram's.
But supporting the Israelis in the absence of any necessity to do so is criminally reckless and stupid. Well, we get what we pay for. But I'm keeping my hands in my pockets and not offering to pick up any checks or leave any tips.
Peace and good health to you.
we have some of these guys ourselves, and of course there's lots of them elsewhere.
The ones we have to deal with in connection with Palestine are (a) the Palestinian fundies, and (b) the non-Palestinian muslim fundies. There's different issues - what thrills Osama will not necessarily do it for the Palestinians, or the Iranians, etc.
IMHO, there is little sense in trying to bring these guys into the western world, or negotiate with them. Eg, the only interest I would have in capturing Osama would be to dig up his buddies and confirm we have him - apart from that, I'd be perfectly happy to drop a couple hundred megatons down his cave.
These fundies (yeah, so are ours, but that's another story) are just people set on making trouble. So they had bad childhoods, who gives a damn. Most of us adapt, they didn't, and I'd rather shoot them than psycho-analyze them, because it's cheaper in every way. Basically, the fundamentalist refuses to negotiate because of his concept of God. If you take him seriously, you have to neutralize him, because religion is really non-negotiable.
Now there are Jewish fundies, but with a couple of exceptions, they don't go killing Palestinians. Yeah, I know the Israeli army gets in one-sided shooting matches, but what do you want a soldier to do, tie one hand behind his back? To the American mind (and I'm American) there is a big difference between willy-nilly blowing up a shopping mall for the sake of terrorizing a population (it's called a war crime) and the concept of damage collateral to a legitimate attack. Sure and there are degrees, just as in anything. But there's a MAJOR difference between wandering into a retail store to blow up random shoppers, as a policy, and killing some terrorist's friends who came over to watch the Sunday game, and walked into a helicopter attack instead.
AFAIK, no Arab state is particularly interested in helping the Palestinians resettle, so it looks to me like what we're talking about is a territorial war dating back to 1948 (or maybe 1914) that the Arabs cannot figure out that they have lost and should settle.
I dunno, it seems to me that if a nation hasn't figured out that they've lost, maybe the thing to do is beat them up some more. I could certainly understand that POV.
None of which directly addresses the issue of how much we should get involved in this particular mideastern fight.
Well, is it a matter of letting a contractor make money on weapons systems? Or trying to avoid the Saudis getting offended because they're sitting on our oil? Or trying to phrase our policy in terms acceptable to our political principles? Or crying over the underdogs who get their butts kicked fairly regularly? What?
No, I really don't think Israel is more trouble to us than Vietnam was, than Korea has been, and we have more at stake in Europe or the Caribbean (at least until we jumped into Iraq, now it ain't so clear).
If you want to get real immediate, Osama's stated rationale for terror was US presence in Saudi. The US support of Israel, or conflict with Iran didn't set him off. And the US was in Saudi because of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Yes, oil was at issue, but there's also a principle at issue that would have justified kicking Saddam's ass in any case, ie, you don't go inavding other countries, even if you don't like them.
So Osama's real complaint is that he disagreed with the Saudi monarchy, and was offended that they wouldn't let him run the show. Jeez, I can't imagine why a state wouldn't just do whatever some malcontent wanted. After all, not everybody is Democratic, some of them can figure it out. And not everybody is Republican, so some understand that the Marines may be able to KILL anybody, but that doesn't solve every problem.
You want my policy? Set all the fundies on each other, in a closed environment. Then I'll come around later on, finish off the wounded, and plow them all under.
You doubt the Muslims would kill each other? What was Saddam doing with the Iranians and the Kuwaitis? What were the Somalis doing? What were the Afghans doing? The only bad thing is, they're really 3rd world about it, and there are far too many survivors.
and more by my analysis of combat records, and personal contact with participants.
They are mostly serious people, just as the Brits and Americans and Germans are - and no, many 3rd worlders are not serious officers, yes, I've seen it - and they know how to use their weapons systems, which is not always true of the Arab armies. No, they're not supermen; but they don't take regiments out on exercise and get drunk almost to a man to stay warm, as happened in the Warsaw Pact more than once.
No argument whatsover on this point.
I'm just not convinced that this in any way helps us to decide which side to support.
Good for the Israelis here. The Arabs ain't friendly to them [for good reasons] and the Israelis need to be on top of their military game at all times.
But again, as an American concerned about Ameican interests and seeing American interests being mauled and beaten senseless every single bloody day simply by virtue of the fact of our support of Israel, this has no relevance. We can admire military prowess and efficiency and the like, but again how does that help us figure things out?
And as long as the Israelis have the finest weapons the long-suffering US taxpayer can provide while the hapless Arabs have castoff Warsaw Pact weapons for which they probably overpaid good hard cold cash I'm personally not going to get misty eyed over the IDF. As I've written previously, it's a mismatch and a rigged game and the preordainted winner is in cosmicly tight with the referee. So...
when the Arab equipment was the best the Warsaw Pact could offer; and the reason it's castoff now is, well, the Warsaw Pact has been gone for 15 years, and the IDF has sorta beaten the equipment up, you know?
As for "who we support" - it's never that simple. It's always a question of how we support, and when - just like in any other foreign policy or any other policy. You don't even always support your WIFE unconditionally, like when she, well, you know.
Let's get it down to a couple of specific acts, eg, the Israelis like to squat on the west bank. That's a trespass problem. The Palestinians, OTOH, like to go down to the mall and blow people up. That's a murder problem.
Can you see the relative PR problem here? Murder for trespass. Let's assume you had a couple neighbors, one trespasser and one murderer. Who would you regard as more dangerous?
Yes, it's very oversimplified. But the analogy is just about as close as anybody is gonna get.
So what should we do? Let 'em all loose on each other, and see who's left standing after a year or so?
Seriously, we're gonna take it from day to day, if for no other reason than if we published our plans, somebody would try to pimp us. And of course Iraq complicates everything, and perhaps will overwhelm any consideration of Palestine for a long damn time.
Actully, i think it'sa heck of an analogy, simplicity itself in the best sense of the phrase.
When you put it that way supporting the non-Israeli side seems impossible. But I'll salvage something here.
But to call the West Bank a "trespass problem" is simplicity itself in the worse sense of the phrase.
More detailed response[s] to follow.
For now, let me comment that it's the how we support Israel as much as the fact we support Israel that's killing us. Face facts - US support for Israel is probably as close to unconditional, uncritical , and self-sacrificing as any other country has even come in the annals of int'l politics. And it just ain't doing us any good at all.
Gotta take a few daze off from the Near East,my neighbor is back from Thailand and well... but I'll compose my thoughts and respond by the end of the week.
Peace and good health to you.
-- Modified on 10/24/2005 6:19:16 PM
wherein the adverse parties try to kill each other, and get tired of it for a while, then go back to it, eh?
Sure, trespass is simplifying it, as murder does too. And yeah, they could have taken the land, but didn't for whatever reason, so now we have illegal presence, eh? Well, I can't imagine any other possible solution than to go kill a 3rd party, especially if they're kids.
I think a lot of the problem is what can a party reasonably expect, like, will they stop invading, shooting or whatever?
You're absolutely right about reasonable expectations.
The Palestinains have a reasonable expectation that the Israelis will one day regain their senses and their humanity and stop invading Arab countries, shooting Arab civilians and assorted whatnots and whatevers.
After all Israel is the self-professed "...light unto the nations" ain't it?
Cold war, cold peace I'm still waiting for you to tell me how one side here is more deserving of support than the other. And please, try to bag the camel jockey references. I'm sure it's beneath you and not a part of the better angels of your nature [to crib from Honest Abe].
I just went and tried to post a long-ass answer to your other screed, only to watch it disappear to some error. Too bad I don't care enough to reproduce it.
The fact of conflict, and the fact of Arab inability to resolve conflict to their benefit, has long since outweighed the origins of the conflict.
None of us is interested in listening to how put upon anybody else is, or why anybody should back away from what they have acheived.
Let's assume for a minute that the Israelis are a buncha bloodthirsty pirates - just for the sake of discussion. Well, that doesn't seem to be a disqualification for much of anything, given eg how the European settlers pretty thoroghly whacked out the indigenous American tribes, just as has been throughout world history. The Arabs had their time, as did the Romans, the Mongols, etc.
Look, it's Nature's way. Ma Nature does not have time to save everybody, and in fact, has no desire. Naure is a vast experiment in, "who survives?" with none of those cheesy reality TV game show rules.
So, when you take on a tank regiment with a camel corps - or even take on an Abrams with a T-72 - you better know exactly what you're doing. It's not impossible, but it is against the odds.
What's less obvious is that the weapons are products of cultures, and the people who built the weapon are almost always going to use it most effectively. You cannot just buy a weapon and expect it's going to solve the problem, because the operator is AT LEAST half the system.
Regardless of how we got here, or where we are going, this is where we are now. Responsible leaders, Arabs or other, would be working with today's facts, not yesterday's or tomorrow's.
That same thing has happened to me several times, which is why I have often, when posting on this topic, bust my up my response into several parts.
The inability of the Aabs to resolve the conflict has outweighed the origins of the conflict? You sound like a guy writing a treatment for an epic novel. It sounds good but...that's about it.
Not interested in listening to how put upon anyone is? What else in God's name do the Israelis do whenever any one of the political leadersrs opens his or her mouth? The Holocaust. Anti-Semitism. The Arabs. Arabs anti-Semitism. Global anti-Semitism. Soviet anti-SEmitism [oops!, sorry, no longer relevant]. Terrorism. The UN. Arab oil influence. Arab petrodollars. Gaza. Arab terrorism. Saddam. The Iraqi. The Iranians. The ranian nuclear capability. The West Bank. Hamas. Hixbollan. Islamic Jihad. Islamic fundamentalism. The list goes on. And on. And on and on and on. You must not, conveniently, be listening. Or they do all their bitching in Hebrew so it's uncomprwhensible and unintelligible to you? Come on, please be serious.
Man taking from his fellow man is natural? No doubt about it. But so is the reaction and the instinct to defend what one has and to try to redress wrongs done to oneself. The Arabs had their time... somehow, I suspect were the Arabs miraculosly able to get their act together tomorrow and defeat the Israelis and forcibly dissolve the state of Israel I'd find you singing a very, very different tune.
It's Nature's Way? Again, please come on. It's nature's way to rain and to snow and the like. but you don't passively stay out in crummy weather, you take shelter, do you not? Conflict is inevitable between individuals and collectivties, but that's a given. I've asked this before, and it's not penetrating, but why become enmeshed in a conflict not crucial to our national well-being? Because you don't like the Arabs? I'm looking for a better answer than this, but this one seems to be the thought upon which you constasntly fall back upon and which seems to undergird whatever you write. Ah, those camel jockeys. I mean, do you feel this way about the Arabs becuase the Arabs are associated with camels and you dislike animals and sneer at PETA? Yours is an interesting, to be charitable and to employ euphemism, position to say the least. So are two-heades goats, three-legged apes and other freaks of nature. But there's a reason these aberrations occur so rarely and do not survive very long. Not for nothing, and I hope no personal offense, but your defense of your position on this issues reminds me of just these things.
You're close to driving me back to the PSE and transexual boards. At least the nonsense there is amusing. And not dangerous to the welfare of this country.
Peace and good health to you.
the last 500 years of western history.
The Jews have been invading countries ever since they got their asses kicked out of Egypt by the Pharoah, I fergit which one.
And let's kill every predatory animal down to the microscopic level because they're unfair, and plants ripping off sunshine is predatory too, so let's do something about that, too.
Look, the fact is that the Arab societies aren't coping. It's true of many others, but they're the subject here. And they aren't coping because, inter alia, they're rather put money into blowing up teenagers than sinking the same money into education.
Yes, I know every average Joe, Arab, Mick, Wop, Spick or Hebe would rather (a) run a deli or (b) patronize a deli, then go home on the weekend to play with the baby's momma. But collectively, we often (usually) let the assholes among us have their way, so this is what the leadership does - subsidize bombers, start wars, sorta like Pat Robertson, you know?
No, the Arab societies aren't coping. When the fates of history drop massive amounts of oil on them, they hire people to do their work instead of learning to do it themselves. They buy Porsches and abandon them when they run out of gas. That's the reason they lose wars to Jake the Jerusalem Tailor, fer chrisssakes.
The Palestinian issue is incredibly more complex than the decision of what to do with Iraq - eg, I dare you to set a pullout date. Can't be done.
But that's life, and you can deal with it, or kvetch. A certain amount of thought is necessary, but it's critical to understand when you are going in circles, ie reached the point of diminishing returns.
I have to know 1 thing: do you talk about the palestinians with your dates?
Only the gentile ones. And only if they're interested in politics. I wonder why you ask?
I'm half-ANTICIPATING and half-dreading whatever you've set-up for me in the next post. Still, like the frightened kid watching a horror movie, I've covered my eyes but i still peek out between my fingers. You've got me at the point where I anticiapte your posts in spite of what you write in them.
Don't take this personally, but you write as if you have a great deal of anger. Anger which probably impedes your reason? Each successive post seems to get further away from the point at issue - is support for Israel a good policy for the US? I say no. You say, implicitly, yes, but you drag in all kinds of [to me] irrelevancies like the native Americans, the existential unworthiness of the Arabs, and all sorts of other humdingers I ought to go back and look up but i'm too tired and too disgusted at this point. But that mood definitely will pass. Do you support Israel because by doing so you believe you're spiting the Arabs?
Your basic premise in the majority of your posts - that Arab societies and Arab governments are a failure - is essentially true and I don't dispute it. From there you make the leap that we ought to [and this is usually made implicitly] support the Israelis on that basis. Sorry, i can't make that leap with you.
No, I can't set a pullout date from Iraq. But I was smart enough never to have supported the invasion. Can you say the same?
You want to make the Palestinian issue complex, but it's not - the Israelis have been able to dispossess the Palestinians by virtue of the ability to mobilize, organize and deliver superior force compares to the Palestinians and their erstwhile allies. Ari and Bibi and company will continue to enjoy the petty fruits of their aggression until the Palestinians in turn are able to organize, mobilize and deliver superior force against the Israelis. See how simple that is? And you want to make it seem difficult by trying to come off as a cut-rate Spengler or Toynbee or Gibbon making obscure observations about the sweep of history which sound good but in reality are just hollow noise [hmm, physician heal thyself?] which I'm afraid you probably cribbed out of a "World History At A glance" study guide.
And still, you can't address directly and openly the quetion i pose - is support for Israel good for the US? Instead you like to throw around lots of comments about camel jockeys and ragheads.
That's your privledge, of course. It just makes me wonder. Are you representative of srael's defenders in this country?
Likewise, do YOU use those terms with your dates. Idon't mind if you do, it's your choice.
Still, in spite of everything, peace and good health to you.
(1) Anger, my ass. It's OVERWHELMING IMPATIENCE with those who think we're gonna time travel to undo every damn injustice since the dawn of time, or even last week.
I come by this impatience legitimately. I'd almost say your posts entitle me to it, but I'm really thinking more along the lines of >30 years experience that would needlessly ID me.
Actually, the armchair and pro social worker/shrink types who talk about "anger" as a way to justify their particular POV just piss me off more, because they are jacking their jaws and in no way contributing to a solution. As soon as I hear "your anger", I know that somebody is pitching the concept of their moral superiority because they are not going to be cleaning up the mess. IMHO, those who do not clean up the mess are morally INFERIOR.
(2) No, I don't support Israel. You just bring out the contrarian in me, and I only take their part because you're so anxious to defend the Palestinians.
Yeah, I know that the Israelis bulldoze people who lie down in front of bulldozers. Let me ask you this, why don't you protest the PATRIOT act by trying to take a camera into the Federal bldg? See where THAT gets you - and I will have one hell of a lot more sympathy. The Israelis have a lot more justification for regarding themselves as being in a war zone, and the essence of civil disobedience is willingness to accept the consequences. Stand in a crossfire, get shot. Don't come bitching to me.
(3) Nevertheless, if I had to choose sides in a fight, I would more likely go with a bulldozer than a bomber. It's that >30 years again. And these particular bulldozers do seem to have a track record. You gotta be pretty good to beat a bomber with a bulldozer, I think.
(4) Specifying an Iraq pullout date has little to do with supporting the initial war - it has more to do with salvaging the present situation. Once again, I am not a time traveler. If I were President tomorrow, I would not withdraw the troops the day after. I would be doing my damnedest to salvage the situation, and that would start by listening and learning as much as I could, as fast as I could, and trying to coerce some sort of working consensus.
(5) So if the situation is simple and the Israelis are bloodthirsty aggressors, then YOU go displace them. See if you don't get a bigger fight than the Arabs put up.
(6) Your direct question was answered in my intial post: support is NEVER general, unconditional or unequivocal. We don't SUPPORT anybody - what we do is much more specific, like deliver certain items in a certain time and way - or not. Yes, I am enough of a cutrate Toynbee to know that (a) you don't commit yourself generally, and (b) everything depends on the facts.
What you are pissed about is that I won't make a generalized committment in the absence of specific facts, and also point out some general weaknesses in your particular position - the Palestinians have problems.
I'm a WalMart Spengler who knows not to commit himself until needed, and never suggest that changed facts won't change policy. Yeah, I learned that pretty early in those >30 years.
BTW, I'm not singling out Arabs. I am an equal opportunity bigot - I have at least one perjorative for everybody. All I need is your name, date of birth and $5, thank you. In fact, $5 will be enough.
Well, let's give it another go, because , to paraphrase The Gipper "there you go again."
Hey, not for nothing jack...crack but you REALLY DO sound like an angry guy. Not psychobabble in-touch-with-your feelings anger but pick up a crowbar and smash in the brains of the first malignant asshole unlucky enough to set you off anger. I'm betting i'm not the first guy to notice this. How can you be so self-unaware not to realize this? But as this gives offense, for the wrong reasons i suspect, let me beg your pardon and i'll from here on in call you righteously and outrageously indignant. Sound better? Feel better?
Hey, if the low quality and nonexistent logic of my posts anger you, sorry I meant to say makes you feel outrageously and righteoully indignant, go with it. Don't hold it in, it's not good for you and I don't wish to be a cause of physical harm to you. Emotinal and intellectual harm, perhaps; but definitely not physical harm. Re your 30 years of experience which you allude to constantly but yet are so vague about, can it be that, aw I'll ask it another time as it doesn't really fit in here well and it would be a grammatical abomination at this point.
Of coursse, if you really thought this was such a waste of time you ought to...but that's too obvious and commonsensical.
You don't support Israel? You couldda nad certainly did fool me. Let me point out that the opinions you voice are opinions often associated with those who cast their political lot, for whatever reasons, with the Zionist Entity. Are you trying to pull the wool over my eyes? Or perhaps worse, over your own?
You take the part of the Israelis because i'm anxious to defend the Palestinians. now that's amazing. I don't know whether to be flattered, appalled or just plain out amused. My 5 year old nephew is more sensible.
No need for me to protest the Patriot Act, it's just another symptom of the virulent and malignamt disease called US support for Israel. Another misguided and ill-conceived and hastily-enacted law which stems from one single overarching and unalterable premise - the total wrongness of US support of Istrael. To protest the Patriot Act while doing nothing to change the destructivr uber-policy of supporting Israel is like, pardon the cliche, putting a bandaid on cancer.
Rather go with the bulldozer than the bombers? Comforting thought for the family of Rachel Corrie, US peace activist/Saddam dupe murdered by th Isrelis on the West Bank by running her over with a bulldozer. And have you stopped to think of this - the Israelis can use bulldozers because they have already been so fabulously successful using bombs? Nah, this wouldn't occur to you I bet. And you don't even consider yourself a supporter of Israel! Reminds me of a poster i once saw in Manhattan during the 200 election [apropos of what i know know]. It said, roughtly - Palestinians throw rocks because they're not allowed to have guns.
Want to improve the US position in Iraq? Simple, bag the neo-cons, turn a deaf ear to Ari and Bibi and their lickspittles and bootlickers in this country. Then think about what's best for the US, and how to achieve it without advantaging the Israelis in the process.
No, if you think you've ever answered my question, i suggest getting a friend to edit your work. You talked aroun the subject alot, made lots of comments irrelevant, interesting and amusing [intentionally or otherwise I know not], changed the subject numerous times, but you've never come close to answering any question I posed. And it's still the basic one - do you think that US support for Israel is good or bad for this country? You know where I stand. And if you really think that US support for Isral has been restrained, nuanced, contingent, finely calibrted or conceived with any notion of the US national interest in mind or anything at all
even remotely intelligent or sensible, I don't know what to make of you.
I'm not taling about supporting Country X in the abstract, and you know it. Is you refusal to talk straight and plain on this topic because of...?
I've never denied that the Palestinians have problems. Nor have i ever disagreed with your endless mantra-like, seemingly Pavlovian invocation of "failed societies', "failed civilization", "failed culture" and the like. I've conceeded that at every turn. I've disputed you in your implicit contention that this is a sufficient basis upon which to base US support of Israel, or in your case, upon which to base opposition tho the Palestinians and the Arab/Islamic world more generally. {Actually, framing the question that narrowly, the answer easily could be "Yes"]. I'm sure Benard Lewis, Faoud Adjami, and the late Elie Khadouri would be flattered to have such a devoted student, but disappointed to have one who has learned his lessons so incompletely and superficially. and tries to apply them so indiscriminantly.
If you are so big into the failed society/failed culture/failed civilization idea, may i be impertinent enuf to mention Jared Diamond, "Collapse." [Its got a real catchy subtitle like "how cultures and civilizations choose to succed and prosper OR fail and decline." It's a hefty work, appx 500 pages of very small type. Not read it myself but i read his previous work "Guns, Germs & Culture" and on that basis i'd say take a look.
I'll meet you on the humor board and we'll swap ethnic jokes at the appropriate time and place.
As ever, peace and good health to you. I mean it, don't be fooled by my sarcastic tone. It's all part of the game.
dying myself from near-total lack of interest. You're gonna have to buttonhole somebody else, EOM
AMEN.
and LOL!
God you are fast though.
Take a look at my latest one.
agian, peace and good health to you jack...crack.
that the Arabs have been unable to resolve the conflict in a way that is favorable to them.
IOW, if things keep going as they have, the Arabs are gonna eat this one.
Now. I realize this is unjust. So is everything else in life. Every time a child dies (or fails a test), a lion chomps an herbivore, is another instance where God demonstrates her brutality and callousness.
So we have several choices here, which may be combined. We can do nothing. We can wring our hands. We can change some part of the world: we can go back to the start of creation, and unwind every injustice - WAIT! We have to perfect time travel before we can do that. We can hold a court of inquiry to inquire into the fundamental injustices of life, and decide who is going to be liable to and/or enjoined from who else.
Or we can deal with it.
No decision of fault or liability is going to change the fact that the Palestinian community cannot compete with the Israelis. Yes, we could handicap the Israelis, and subsidize the Palestinians. Unfortunately, the history of that sort of reaction is generally that it's counterproductive. Effective communities don't need help, and if you try to handicap them, you're likely to find you've picked a big (and possibly needless) fight. OTOH, subsidizing ineffective communities generally just prolongs ineffective behavior. They have to decide for themselves what they are going to do.
Now, your thesis seems to be that one thing they are doing is bombing Americans. Perhaps we deserve this, sort of like we deserved Pearl Harbor, but most of us really don't like it. Ambushing a person or community is not a good way to communicate. It's a good way to pick a fight, and that seems to be something some Arabs are pretty good at these days.
The result often is that when some perfectly innocent Arab is driving down the street with his not-so-innocent cousin, then some airplane appears out of nowhere and kills both of them - pretty much like happened at the WTC, except that the guilty people there were guilty of being Americans. (No, I'm not Catholic, and I'm not into that.) Well, there's also the fact that a lot of them were NOT Americans, but of course they're guilty of being nearby the infidels.
Look, when you start a fight, ya gotta be ready to finish it. If you're better at frothing about the Mother of All Battles than fighting said Mother, then you need to be sure people don't take you seriously.
My advice to the Palestinians would be to get with the program, and apply for welfare or something. If other Arabs don't want them, I can hardly blame the Israelis for not wanting them.
OR - God forbid - some Arab leaders might start rejecting violence as a solution, seeing as how they're not real good at it, you know? Start ratting out the terrorists instead of paying them off.
Hmm, some of your phrasing and your themes makes me wonder if you're not really that Liberterian guy with the TIA newsletter on the internet working under another name. Naw, i'm just too suspicious.
Is it your point that because many injustices have occurred in the past we ought never do anything about injustices in the present? Sure sounds like it to me.
You odd point both in content and relative to the Palestinians about subsidizing ineffective communities is well, odd, and seems to belong more in a discussion of economics than it does in politics. I get it now - the Palestianinas are ineffective and feckless becuase they have the misfortune to be victimized by the Israelis and to live and suffer under draconian occupation on a daily basis. What a pack of losers. They deserve whatever they get - as well as your seemingly bottomless contempt.
Correction - the paletinians CANNOT compete with Israel and the US. It's not known whether the Palestinians can compete with the Israelis, as the Israelis have never tried to go it alone. Did you miss that part? And after all the reminders i've given you?
Yep, the Palestinians are bombing Americans, and that seems to be the only thing they're capable of at the moment. Too bad as it's guaranteed to keep us bound to the Israelis and lots of innocents who care nothing about Israel wind up killed and mained for Bibi Netanyahu, which guarantees to keep the US even more tightly bound to Israel which guarantees that even more innocent Americans will be kiled and mained for Bibi which guarantees that... But this seems OK with you as you can come up with some blustery historical psuedo-observation to set evrything all right.
And I'm appalled, but not surprised by now, that you seek to make a comparison between the attack on Pearl Harbor and what the Palestinians do. But no matter trivializing the grave assault upon your own country - you've got to defend the Israelis and run down the Palestinians. And it's a wonder that as you observed most American don't like being targeted by the Palestinians. Yeah, why should we, this ain't our fight. It's been made our fight against the better judgement and intuitive commn sense of most of us.
The Arabs are pretty dumb in one respect - they get into fights they casnnot finish and cannot win. silly them - they must figure since right is on their side...
Would you feel differently if by some miracle the Arabs totally eschewed violence, converted to Ghandian non-violence and civil disobedience on a mass scale as a way to pursue the political struggle against Israel. Nah, I suspect you'd be ready eith yet another intemperate post...
But keep them coming regardless.
Always peace and good health to you.
Xiaoming,sorry but you seem to have a blind spot about Israel. Let me repeat from a previous post: Do you think we're in iraq to help Ari, Bibi and Sharansky or to protect mideast oil from arab nationalism? after all saddam was a nationalist in the nasser mold who aimed to unify the arab world.Israel, in this picture, is just a co-lateral beneficiary.Our problem can be solved only when our dependence on mideast oil ends!
Riem, don't be sorry; if you disagree with me, you disagree with me. I COULD be wrong, but it's not likely. So let me try this again:
1. Arab Nationalism does not represent a threat to cut off oil to the West and never has. Instead,they've always been interested in getting the most out of the one thing they possess which is crucial to the modern world [exporting dates, figs, camels, carpets and the like just ain't gonna be enough]. This involves raising the price of oil through more favorable terms of trade between the oil producers and the oil consumers, cutting out the multinational oil companies [many of which are US-based] as middlemen to the greatest extent possible, cartel-like multilateral cooperation between oil producers in OPEC, and YES some temporary and limited cuts in production to boost flagging oil prices.
2. Please don't forget that Arab nationalists have always talked a good game about modernizing [well, most of them have] and internal development. How do you expect them to pull this off without the revenues oil production provides to them? Loans from the World Bank? US foreign aid [sorry, that's reserved for Israel, Egypt and sometimes Jordan]? multilateral development assistance from the UN? It's not in their interest to do anything except to keep the flow of oil coming while trying to get as much as possible out of it. This applied to Mosadegh [spelling?] in Iran 1951-1953, to the Shah of Iran from 1970 to his abdication/overthrow in 1979, even to Colonel Khadaffi of Libya from 1969 onward.
3. The ONE TIME the Arab states did embargo oil to the US was in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War TO PUNISH THE US FOR IT'S EXTRAVAGENT SUPPORT OF ISRAEL. Did you forget or were you not ever aware? The embargo lasted approximately 6 months and was a failure as the US was able to convince non-Arab producers to increase their production levels during the period. There was also an adroit bit of multilateral diplomacy by Kissinger during this period where the western oil comsuming countries agreed to assist each other in making up shortfalls, but i've forgotten the exact details.
4. The US can and did live with Saddam for quite a while, much to the consternation of Israel. His Arab nationalism however, was no more serious than his devotion to Islam or to the cause of the Palestinians or any other thing he could latch onto rhetorically to support whatever course of action he was pursuing at the moment. In that way, I feel, he was the perfect mirror image of Ari Sharon. But I seem to be in the distinct minority with that view. Also, Nasser never advocated curtailment of oil production. He was sincere, or at leasr more so than Saddam, in his professions of pan-Arabism.
4. Israel is the intended beneficiary of US foreign policy in the Near East; the oil issue is just like a matador's cape - it keeps us distracted and off-balance and charging in the wrong direction. The US props up the Saudis and the rest of that ilk because, whatever their faults they still better than the most lkely alternative, a fundamentalist Taliban-like government which would put it's $$$$ where it's mouth is and pursue the struggle against Israel by whatever terrible means it can find at hand. Don't kid yerself - US policy is clearly designed to protect Israel and very little else. I think we are the collateral beneficiary of our own policy. Our well-being in the Near East seems to be derivative of the policies we espouse and support to pursue the questionable goal of protect Israel and allowing Ari, Bibi, Sharansky and the rest to enjoy the fruits of their tedious little aggressions in peace. Sure seems to me like we've got it backwards. But hey, again, I could be wrong.
5. The end of US dependence of imported oil from the Near East would be a welcome development for many reasons and really ought to be pursued as if it were the Manattan Project. But guess what? I bet no one's ever thought of this. Even if we did not import one single drop of oil from the Near East, do you imagime for a nanosecond that there would be anyappreciable abtement in the levels of interstate and intrastate violence? I sure don't, which tells me that the oil explanation is a total wrong direction and dead-end as an explanation of US problems in this region. Also, consider that if this were to come to pass, we could afford finally to wash our hands of the Israelis AND the Arabs AND the Palestinians. This would mean, I hope and pray, that Israel would be unceremoniously booted off the US gravy train at last and finally be made to fend for itself in the world on its own. So either they would come to terms with the Palestinians [good] or finally drop all pretense of being "a light unto the nations" and deal with the Palestinians with even more draconian measures than they employ at present.
See how easy it was to figure out and follow?
Yes, I do have a blind spot about Israel, just as The Gipper had a blind spot about the Evil Empire and communism. And look how THAT turned out? Who woulda thunk it back in 1981?
Peace and good health to you.
The propaganda war was lost the minute W put troops into Iraq-- as far as the Muslims were concerned. The only part of the opinions that hadn't been trampled was hope. They hoped Americans would be wiser, more competent and more
congnizant of the culture they were moving into to.
It's questionable now whether even Joseph Goebbels could rescue *American* public opinion about Bush, let alone Muslim public opinion about America.
-- Modified on 10/12/2005 9:13:26 PM
Iwo Jima. Fortunately, our wars get progressively wimpier - maybe one day they will go away altogether.
I don't think it's as easy as calling the information described as "lies", or claiming that the entire Congress was lied to. Congressmen have a duty to make independent inquiry, and not be too wussy to stand up and be counted. The previous administration thought Hussein had WMD, and he sure had a long history of making trouble thoughout a critical region - the IDF had knocked out reactors in Iraq in air raids years before.
IMHO the problem is the GOP strategy of excluding most Americans from the policy debate, and owing far too much to people who see conflict in Biblical terms, instead of having any direct experience. IOW, It doesn't look like they know what they are doing.
Although there are substantial differences between Iraq and Vietnam, it looks to me as if the critical issue is the same: you simply cannot point bayonets at a bunch of foreigners and thereby make them admire you enough to adopt your political system, or get along with you generally. The connections between military force, political influence and civil authority are much more subtle, and requires a LONG term committment, while we remain exposed and bleeding - well, Republicans aren't, so I suppose it's not so important, eh?
So when we go into our green zones, you KNOW what the talk is in the street - it's those goddamned murricans, just like everybody in Texas blames the Feddle gummint for everything, EXCEPT THAT here, there IS no common language, culture or religion, so the hatred is multiplied many times over; and if only 1 in 100 decides to take up arms against us, the other 99 won't rat him out.
Yeah, it's pretty much like Vietnam, and the question the GOP needs to answer is, what do we expect to acheive and how, that is worth the cost?
Well, power becomes its own rationalization, especially in a tough situation. So when you get a crew of marginally competent people together, who get in over their heads, then you find that answers are limited to Cheney's, "go fuck yourself". And the fact is that they have the votes to force it, as long as they can sustain a war fever, and convince people to ignore the holes in their position.
There are plenty of Americans who seem to think we can and should take on the entire muslim world. As a single symbol, some idiot in AZ murdered a guy wearing a turban on 9/12. Turns out he was Sikh - iceberg, goldberg, close enough, you know?
Well, when the going gets tough is the time it's most important to keep your head, and I don't see that happening. I think the administration doesn't know or care what the hell it's doing.
Oh Yeah, we can't do that, that would be politcizing the dead...
Hypocrites!!!
BTW, if you can't see the link between Iraq and Terrorism, then you have no clue as to what terrorism is.
A lot of people named Mohammed? That we've created a lightning rod for jihad?
Want to explain exactly what connection Saddam had with 9/11? Take your time.
9/11 ignoted the WAR ON TERROR.
This was NOT a limited "let's just get those groups responsible for 9/11". It was an OVERALL war against ALL terrorists groups and any governments that supported terrorism.
Saddam paid 10K to the families of suicide bombers. Gee, sounds like support to me...
Any questions???
getting them on your side. It would take the RNC to blow a wet dream.
That is a silly argument.
but if the entire world either believes (a) they risk being collateral damage, or (b) they can get some sort of advantage over us because we're distracted or vulnerable (eg our army is committed) they're going to come after us.
There are plenty of muslim nations who are likely to regard themselves as in our cross-hairs if we don't show the ability to discriminate between muslims and terrorists. That's called making enemies where you don't need to.
More significantly, you have to understand that the international community is a bunch of hyenas, and they WILL turn on any weak member. If we allow ourself to be weakened by indiscriminate or stupid wars, we are going to be the next piece of dead meat.
Generally speaking, the primary participants do not usually win a war. The usual winner is #3, who becomes #1 after the 2 fighters have beaten each other up.
What's more, wars are not limited to military ordnance, BUT ALSO the economic cost of that. As Eisenhower noted, any dollar that goes downrange is a dollar that is not spent on welth-building infrastructure.
This is the reason it's important to suck other people into our wars, and not go it alone. This is the reason it's important to think before you shoot.
You should not think for a second that democratic values or cultural sympathy would keep any country from turning on us if it was to their advantage.
preventing or avenging dead people is a legitimate political issue.
But you might want to look at Ch 8 of the 9/11 commission report, that "The System Was Blinking Red" throughout August 2001 - IOW, it wasn't the system that screwed up, it was the people at the top who ignored the signals, and that makes them either incredibly stupid (do you ignore the oil warning light in your car?) or criminal conspirators.
But nobody ever argued Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Not even Dubya. The argument was that he had WMDs. Well, so does Korea. But Korea is not a place we can go without dealing with the Chinese, and Korea has no oil.
Anyway, turned out Saddam had no WMDs. Well, I guess anybody can make a mistake.
But it's turning out there wasn't a whole lot of thought put into what we were gonna do with Iraq once we had it, so it's becoming an albatross around our neck.
Was there a better idea? Could there be a worse one? How about if we auctioned the place off to the highest bidder BEFORE we went in there, BEFORE it was a flaming liability? Parcel it out, give a province away here or there. Maybe the Israelis would be interested, eh? Sell Baghdad to the French, and Falluja to the Poles. I'm sure the Iranians would want some. Anyway, get the hell away from there and let them fight their own wars. Surely the Republicans know all about letting other people fight their wars.
The problem is as Dwight Eisenhower noted, that every $ spent on a bullet is a $ taken from some other use, like maybe improving the Nawlins dikes, or at least not cutting that budget, like they did in the face of the DHS-FEMA report that a hurrican in Nawlins was one of the 3 worst disasters the US could experience. (Having ignored terrorism causing an attack in NY, stripped money from Nawlins dikes exposing it to Katrina, one has to wonder if the administration will somehow arrange an earthquake in SF.)
Well, there's all sorts of arguments pro and con for and against any war we get into. But the issue is, are we more secure now than we were in 2001?
Well? Do you think we are? Does it make you feel safe to know that these clueless people are in charge of Homeland Security? That Dubya sat out Rita "studying government cooperation" in TEXAS??!!
how many UN resolutions have we had against North Korea? How many US military aircraft have they fired on? Are you suggesting that we attack North Korea without trying diploamcy first?? I can nat share your view on that!!
BTW. money was allocated to the dikes (more than under clinton), but the Dem controlled state decided to use the money elsewhere.
BTW, are we more secure?? You tell me, how many terrorist attacks have there been on US soil since 9/11?? Check-Mate!!
somehow miss EVERY point, and declare yourself a winner!!
You've learned well, my little REpublican grasshopper.
about Katrina - no, hurricanes are not anybody's fault, and the city of Nawlins and state of Louisiana are responsible for their building and zoning codes, etc. And I'm not even worried that FEMA was headed by one of Dubya's hapless syncophants.
Here's the problem I have: The dikes are the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engrs. The Federal govt takes one hell of a lot of money from us all, and promises it's going to do many things with that money, inter alia, run the Army Corps of Engrs and Mississippi river dikes, and secure the Homeland generally. Are you with me so far?
So Dubya runs off and knocks over the evil madman Saddam (he is, but he's also not the only one) and needs to take some money from the Nawlins dikes and troops from the Natl Guard, AGAIN IGNORING the hazard FEMA warned about, hurricanes in Nawlins.
Now that looks like some imprudent choices, if you ask me. Yes, the Federal govt does owe us something, and that is our money's worth of our taxes, and I don't see that happening here.
So GaGambler thinks it's about the oil, and that's not entirely unreasonable. OTOH, it sure looks like we've got some incompetents running the show, because gas has gone up >fifty cents a gallon in my town in the last 2 months.
What I think it's about is padding a few Republican pockets by convincing the faithful that Armageddon is on us. I have no problem with letting the bottom 10 or even 20% fall behind, but the Republicans run the risk that the faithful 40% are gonna figure out that they're being sold pipe-dreams and BS. If you want to run a scam successfully, you can't be too greedy - you have to be much more generous about who you cut in.
BTW, what IS the connection between Iraq and terrorism?