Posted by Fareed Zakaria on February 14, 2007 2:24 PM
Readers’ Responses to Our Question (556)
youramericandollar.org :
Good to know that our cousins across the pond are so disloyal. Sad business, that.
It's unfortunate that Europeans are unable to appreciate the strength behind our International Imperialism. We saved their countries (England, France, Poland, and many others) from German domination, and a good portion of the success the E.U. enjoys today is due to our benevolent support. They need to turn those serpent's tongues against the REAL problems in the world: Islamic Fundamentalism, and the evils it produces.
Thanks.
When Katie asked the presidential candidates who they considered to be the most dangerous nation on the planet, I was a little surprised than none of them said the U.S.
Let’s look at the historical facts:
1. The U.S. has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.
2. The U.S. is the only country to have ever dropped nuclear weapons on civilians.
3. The U.S. is the most powerful militarily and economically of any nation in the world. It is capable of influencing other nations to its will simply by imposing economic sanctions against anyone it deems not supporting its globalization policy. It has the largest far-reaching military force of any country, with the most nuclear submarines able to strike any city in the world with thermonuclear weapons. It has the largest ICBM system capable of striking any city in the world with thermonuclear weapons. It has the largest fleet of aircraft carriers; able to enforce it’s foreign policy upon any nation in the world. Stealth cruise missiles, fighters, and bombers help make up an Air Force that is capable of attacking any nation at will.
4. Historically, the U.S. has been involved in more foreign conflicts than any other nation, and. It acquired foreign territory during the Spanish American War much of which has never been returned to its rightful owners.
5. Our CIA has helped overthrow governments and published manuals on kidnapping and torture.
6. We consume more, create more waste, and pollute more per person than any other nation, and at present pose the greatest threat to the environment. (However, China will surpass us in the near future).
If I were another country, I would look upon the U.S. as a greater threat to world peace than Iran, especially in light of the Bush administration’s policy of pre-emptive strikes, Rendition, and torture in violation of UN Charter, and the Geneva Convention.
When Katie asked the presidential candidates who they considered to be the most dangerous nation on the planet, I was a little surprised than none of them said the U.S.
Let’s look at the historical facts:
1. The U.S. has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.
2. The U.S. is the only country to have ever dropped nuclear weapons on civilians.
3. The U.S. is the most powerful militarily and economically of any nation in the world. It is capable of influencing other nations to its will simply by imposing economic sanctions against anyone it deems not supporting its globalization policy. It has the largest far-reaching military force of any country, with the most nuclear submarines able to strike any city in the world with thermonuclear weapons. It has the largest ICBM system capable of striking any city in the world with thermonuclear weapons. It has the largest fleet of aircraft carriers; able to enforce it’s foreign policy upon any nation in the world. Stealth cruise missiles, fighters, and bombers help make up an Air Force that is capable of attacking any nation at will.
4. Historically, the U.S. has been involved in more foreign conflicts than any other nation, and. It acquired foreign territory during the Spanish American War much of which has never been returned to its rightful owners.
5. Our CIA has helped overthrow governments and published manuals on kidnapping and torture.
6. We consume more, create more waste, and pollute more per person than any other nation, and at present pose the greatest threat to the environment. (However, China will surpass us in the near future).
If I were another country, I would look upon the U.S. as a greater threat to world peace than Iran, especially in light of the Bush administration’s policy of pre-emptive strikes, Rendition, and torture in violation of UN Charter, and the Geneva Convention.
When Katie asked the presidential candidates who they considered to be the most dangerous nation on the planet, I was a little surprised than none of them said the U.S.
Let’s look at the historical facts:
1. The U.S. has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.
2. The U.S. is the only country to have ever dropped nuclear weapons on civilians.
3. The U.S. is the most powerful militarily and economically of any nation in the world. It is capable of influencing other nations to its will simply by imposing economic sanctions against anyone it deems not supporting its globalization policy. It has the largest far-reaching military force of any country, with the most nuclear submarines able to strike any city in the world with thermonuclear weapons. It has the largest ICBM system capable of striking any city in the world with thermonuclear weapons. It has the largest fleet of aircraft carriers; able to enforce it’s foreign policy upon any nation in the world. Stealth cruise missiles, fighters, and bombers help make up an Air Force that is capable of attacking any nation at will.
4. Historically, the U.S. has been involved in more foreign conflicts than any other nation, and. It acquired foreign territory during the Spanish American War much of which has never been returned to its rightful owners.
5. Our CIA has helped overthrow governments and published manuals on kidnapping and torture.
6. We consume more, create more waste, and pollute more per person than any other nation, and at present pose the greatest threat to the environment. (However, China will surpass us in the near future).
If I were another country, I would look upon the U.S. as a greater threat to world peace than Iran, especially in light of the Bush administration’s policy of pre-emptive strikes, Rendition, and torture in violation of UN Charter, and the Geneva Convention.
WELL EXCUSE ME !DID ANYONE MAKE THIS PRESIDENT THE NEW PRESIDENT OF THE WORLD ?? WHERE DOES HE GET OFF DECLAREING GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR? THAT IS A STATE OF MIND NOT ANYPLACE ON EARTH NOT A COUNTRY THIS AUTHORITY HE HAS OVERSTEEPED FROM THE USA TO THE WORLD AND HONESTLY HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DO ANYTHING GLOBALY AND THE QUEEN OWNS THIS CONGLORMERATION OF GOVERNMENT SCREWBALLS MAKING A MESS OF EVERYTHING HE GETS INTO MORE CRAP THAN ROOT HOG ! JACKASS WE MAY NEED A CARROT TO DANGEL IN FRONT OF HIS FACE TO TURN HIM AROUND !
Yes. And it is an interesting initiative. Both the Israeli and Palestinian, and the US administration for that matter, are 'wounded' right now. Hopefully they will ALL (unfortunately that all must cooperate) take a risk in facor of a resolution.
But I am not too hopeful: (1) I have no confidence in the Bush administration; (2) The Israelis like to think they are dictating terms rather than negotiating and compromising; (3) The Palestinian factions are, both, both rigid and brittle.
I hope that we, and Israel, do not insist on Abbas as the 'true' representative of the Palestinians -he has no standing with them, and both we and Israel ignored him before Hammas won the election. I also hope that we and Israel realize that recognition of Israel will be a byproduct of discussions rather than an a priori condition. Lastly, I hope that the Palestinians will make the painful compromises that 'non-violence' (peace will take a while) will require.
In conclusion, I want to repewat that compromise by the weak breeds resentment and more violence; but compromise by the powerful breeds resolution.
Tom Wonnacott (3/9): Indeed, terrorism, resistance, revolution, state oppression are different sides of the same coin. Very often the choice of term reflects the opinion of the 'speaker' since the acts are actually the same.
PS: 'state oppression' is there intentionally. Whether the state is Stalin's Soviet Union, or Turkey on the Kurds now, or Israel on any of the occupied or any of its neighbors, or the Pol Pot regime.
Did you read in the New York Times (3/12) about the renewed Israeli interest in the 2002 Saudi peace initiative?
The time is right as the Bush administration would like to leave office having accomplished one thing positive in the Middle East, and, I believe, will pressure Israel to, at least, look seriously at the initiative.
The Arab league is pushing the initiative again. From two stories reported in the New York Times over the last couple of days, the the Palestinian people are living in suffocating conditions because of Israel anti terrorism tactics, and the loss of funding.
This is where I agree with you. Israel must take the initiative to seriously engage the Arabs (who took the first step by offering this package), and Iran and Syria must be brought to the table. Syria, of course, wants to recover some land, so I believe, in their interest, they will negotiate.
Here's to hoping that the process moves in the right direction.
"...(That by the way would be terrorism since we are not actively engaged against them, but what they do within Turkey and Kurdistan is not)..."
That you are a resistance organization within your own country does not mean that you are not a terrorist. Your actions are what make you a terrorist, but I admit, it is really difficult to pin down. An example:
"...Rule No. 24 forbids anyone to work as a teacher "under the current puppet regime, because this strengthens the system of the infidels." One rule later, No. 25, says teachers who ignore Taliban warnings will be killed.
Taliban militants early Saturday broke into a house in the eastern province of Kunar, killing a family of five, including two sisters who were teachers..."
That is a classic case of the use of terror on a population for political gain, even though the Taliban is a resistance organization. The KKK operated within the US and I would certainly classify them as a terrorist organization. They terrorized certain people in America and were motivated by the subjugation of those people. Terrorism is terrorism whether its politically, religiously or ethnically (etc.) motivated.
In today's world, I define terrorism as the targeting of civilians, or subjugating civilians by the use of terror, for political gain. This is, by no means, all inclusive.
I didn't realize that the West Bank sits physically above Israel, so it does provide a military vantage point. It makes sense that Israel occupies that land for military reasons, but not for building Jewish settlements! That's using a military excuse to expand the boundaries of Israel.
In my opinion, Israel should NEVER unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank. The withdrawal of Israel from Gaza and Lebanon gained them nothing. Those territories have been used to attack Israel. The main point is that terrorism cannot be perceived to have been the driving force behind the move to the internationally recognized boundary.
Only when all the countries and/or organizations involved meet and hash out an agreement should Israel agree to move back to the 1967 border (if, in fact, they intend to(?)). Lasting peace means give and take by everyone.
AM:
First, apology accepted! I do respect, even if I don't agree, with all of your opinions. You do bring up some very interesting points. And you hit it right on the nail regarding the Palestinians use of terrorism being a politcal disaster. Unfortunately, with countries like Syria, Iran and the previous Iraqi regime supporting the terrorist acts (either by rewarding the families of suicide bombers after the fact, or by directly supplying arms) it has become a business machine, rather than just a tool of protest.
It is important to point out that the Jews didn't just share the land, they actually RULED the land for approximately 765 years over two periods (see timeline). The rest of the time could certainly be considered shared.
For those readers who are unaware of the history, here is a very brief timeline (the years are approximate due to slight differences between various sources): From about 1250 BC to 1050 BC the Israelites ruled the land with judges. From 1050 BC to 922 BC kings ruled a united Israel. From 922 BC to 722 BC the kings ruled a divided Israel (northern half is Kingdom of Israel and southern half is Kingdom of Judah). Then about 722 BC the Assyrians conquered the northern Kingdom of Israel; and the 10 northern tribes are exiled to Assyria (later conquered by the Babylonians). In 586 BC the Babylonians conquered the southern Kingdom of Judah; and the people are exiled to Babylon. About 539 BC Persia conquered Babylon and some Jews begin to return to Judea. By about 450 BC, Jerusalem is rebuilt. In 332 BC Alexander the Great defeated Persia and conquered Israel (although the Jews retained their practices). From about 164 BC to 63 BC (when the Romans began their occupation) the old southern Kingdom of Judah was an autonomous Jewish state known as the Hasmonean Kingdom. This kingdom was the last independent Jewish state to exist until the modern state of Israel was created in 1947.
Now as for the "Promised Land" itself, the original boundaries as laid out in the Torah (the first 5 books of the Bible) are:
1. The western border is obviously the Mediterranean Sea.
2. The southern border is the "River of Egypt." While some scholars believe this the be the Nile River, others believe this to be the Wadi el Arish -- just west of the current Israeli-Egyptian border on the Sinai Peninsula.
3. The northern border is the Euphrates River -- extends from the northern region of Lebanon at the Mediterranean Sea, to a region just east of Damascus, Syria.
4. The eastern border is just east of Damascus to the southern end of the Sea of Galilee and follows the Jordan River ending at the Dead Sea.
As evidenced by the above timeline, God allowed others to conquer the land. I would never advocate that Israel now try to reclaim the land. If God intends for them to have it back, it will happen.
The security issue regarding the West Bank is a valid issue as long as the militant groups continue to deny Israel's right to exist. The West Bank sits above the center of Israel -- a very strong military advantage point. Obviously there are some Israelis who do not want to ever give up the West Bank. But much of Israel's leadership recognizes peace will never be achieved without giving up the land. That is the conundrum! As long as there are terrorist attacks, Israel will continue to occupy. As long as Israel continues to occupy, there will be terrorist attacks. While the solution -- to we outsiders -- may appear simple, the fact that both sides mistrust and even hate the other only exasperates the situation.
Now one final thought, you mentioned that you do not accept that God advocated genocide, does that mean that you do not accept the story of the Flood -- that God destroyed everyone and all land animals, except for Noah's family and the animals placed on the ark? Or even His destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah? Just asking!
Tom: You make valid points. however, Israel began the settlements of the occupied territories long before there was 'terrorism', with US acceptance. Our acquiescence is that there are too many here who think the the land was 'promised', therefore anything Israel does is correct. Except for the terrorism/resistance, we would have gratefully forgotten the entire problem. As I posted previously, who cares about the Kurds? Unfortunately, if they drove home the point, in other words (and I am NOT advocating that it would be good) if they blow up the Statue of Liberty, we will take a fresh look at the issue. (That by the way would be terrorism since we are not actively engaged against them, but what they do within Turkey and Kurdistan is not).
"...Oh, Tom: One last comment: We would not be aware of the Palestinian issue if they were not engaged in 'terrorist activities'..."
What Americans have learned from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (mostly from our newspapers and newscast) has DAMAGED the Palestinian cause. Most Americans equate the conflict with terrorism, and most Americans do not view the targeting of civilians as a "resistance" (although I certainly see your point). Your typical man on the street in America probably is unaware of the complexities of the Palestinian conflict, but knows full well of the terrorist targeting of civilians through the multitudes of pictures from TV.
As an indication of the failure of targeting civilians, Israel has literally settled on Palestinian land with no repercussions. If the original excuse used by Israel for occupying part of the West Bank was "security", then by building Jewish settlements on the land, Israel created MORE security problems. It is flat out, in my opinion, a land grab. How has Israel gotten away with this? The US has done nothing to stop it, and I don't believe that is strictly because Israel is a US ally. In my opinion, public opinion has remained strongly pro Israel in large part due to the targeting of Israeli civilians (while new or expanding Jewish settlements remain largely under the radar), and nothing gets prime time news coverage like a suicide bombing whether its in Israel or Iraq. Targeting civilians only reinforces American support for Israel.
If terrorism was used as a way to bring attention to the Palestinian conflict, then, at least in the US, it has been an unmitigated disaster and in the Middle East, it has been a political disaster with nothing to show for it in FORTY YEARS.
The largest support for Israel in the world is the US, and the US is probably the only country in the world that can (possibly) pressure Israel back to the '67 borders. How do you turn US public opinion against Israel (for the peace that everyone wants)? A more effective policy would highlight Israel's West Bank policy (instead of terrorism), and the plight of the Palestinians. A more peaceful resistance could (possibly) erode US support.
I'm not sure I got across what I was trying to say, but good luck figuring it out!
James Danley: I am sorry I misunderstood you. However I stand by my statement about Germany and Austria.
As to the rest: "Give us, a people without a land, a land without a people". The problem is that Palestinainas were and are people. Human beings even. I have studied history, and the read the Bible too. That the Jews SHARED the land 2,000 years ago is irrelevant as a justification. And as I stated, I do not consider God a realtor. For that matter, I do not accept that God advocated genocide, and the Old Testament is filled with it. Reason indicate that the 'pro,mised land' and the 'smite them' lines are a rationalization for a land grab. That is past.
What was done to the Palestinians was wrong. What we continue to insist on is also wrong; and it makes a mockery of our beloved ideals. I am glad you pointed out that the 20% of the Israeli population has less tha 10% of the seats in Parliament. You also did not mention that they do not enjoy full citizenship status. But I dd believe that the better solution is the ONE STATE solution: one person, one vote, without special terms and conditions, except 1: The Christians, whose lot under the Israeli occupation has become horrible, must be protected.
I have asked this before, but have never received a response: What happened to the Christian community of the Holy Lands since 1948? The fact is that it was evicted form Israel, and its lot under the 1967 occupation became worse than it was under most Muslim rule. We (the US, under our current 'Christian' President) kept wuiet when in 2001 Israeli troops opened fire on churches!
AM:
Actually you mistook my point. I was not advocating that a part of Germany should have been used to form the Jewish state. I was just saying that IF the forming of the Jewish state had been out of guilt for being inactive against Hitler, THEN it would have been reasonable. The location chosen was an obvious and natural site. May I suggest taking a closer look into the history of ancient Israel. The various captivities and exiles of the Israelites are enlightening. Even if you don't want to consider the Bible as a source (it is an excellent source), there are plenty of history books and tons of information on the Internet.
Finally, you wrote: "We would not be aware of the Palestinian issue if they were not engaged in 'terrorist activities.'" You could also say that there would not have been a Palestinian issue if the Arabs had accepted the 1947 UN Resolution. While there were some Jews that wanted a strictly Jewish state, the Jewish leaders urged the Arabs to stay and become citizens of Israel. While the overwhelming majority did leave, some did stay. Today there are over 1 million Arab-Israelis living in Israel. With 11 of the 120 members of the Knesset being Arabs.
Oh, Tom: One last comment: We would not be aware of the Palestinian issue if they were not engaged in 'terrorist activities'. Afterall, who cares that there are Serb refugees from the 90's, or Kurds from Turkey, or that Cypriots cannot return to their homes?
Obviously, terrorism/resistance is effective. If we want to drive home the point that terrorism is not productive, then we MUST emphasize, and follow through on, the JUST solution of all events that create refugees (from man-made events, let me add). The idea is that if we eliminate the symptom, we eliminate the cause (kind of the way malaria was first cured).
It is not for the 'Arabs' to solve the Palestinian problem. The 'Arabs' are not a nation, it is a concept. The solution is incumbent on those who created the problem, in the first place. (I can best illustrate the difference by example: when the Serbs were evicted from Croatia and Kossovo in the early '90's, at least there was a Serbia for them to go to. Even though more than 1 million of them are still classified as refugees, they are still among their own people. But when the Palestinians were evicted from Palestine, there was no Palestine for them to go to; that was also not helped by those who propose to turn Jordan into Palestine. If I was a Jordanian I would resent the insinuation, especially since it comes from those who evicted the Palestinians in the first place).
I do agree that the correct solution (in the 40's) would have been to take a part of Germany & Austria, and create Israel there. unfortunately we cannot make eggs out of omelette. (As an aside, I view the 'Promised Land' bit as a cop-out; it only serves to cover the anti-semitism of those who did not want 'The Jews' around; I also do not view God as a realtor).
All that said, I find myself largely in agreement with Tom's final paragraphs. And I consider that if we (the US) put support behind the 2002 proposal, we will gain considerably because the US will become a constructive participant, and that will help to alleviate much of the suspicion that this administration has created in the Muslim world.
“The Arab States do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore…and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don’t give a damn whether the refugees live or die.”
I think there is some truth to that statement, but you can also make the case that Israel avoided peace so they could annex more of the West Bank i.e., has used terrorism as an excuse to incorporate more territory.
I don't know much about the "promised land", but under international law, Israel has illegally incorporated parts of the West Bank. The best (only?) way to peace is by Israel returning to the internationally recognized boundary. Giving money and arms to the PA is no way to get to a peaceful solution, although this may help their short term strategy of keeping the PA in power. Negotiations must also include Hamas (the elected government), Hezbollah (Lebanon), Syria and Iran as part of a regional settlement, at least, in my opinion.
The Palestinians need to figure out that terrorism has not worked, and short of a nuclear bomb, Israel is there to stay. The Saudis (2002(?)) made a fair proposal to Israel. Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas need to look at this offer of regional peace and act on the behalf of the Palestinian people instead of to their detriment. This may actually involve recognizing Israel's right to exist.
This all seems so simple, but we probably won't see it in our life time.
AM:
This may be overly simplistic, but so often victims continue to consider themselves as victims and they dwell on the circumstances. That just festers resentment and anger towards the perpetrator. And then they are never able to break loose from that identity. Occasionally the situation is further complicated when it is exploited by a third person or entity for that person's or entity's gain (monetary and/or political power). This is sad enough on an individual basis. But when it involves a large population of people it is very tragic.
Over the last century, nearly 140 million refugees have been created for various reasons (i.e. war, famine, natural disasters, etc.). Yet only the Palestinians have retained their refugee status? Back in 1958, the former director of United Nations Relief and Works Agency, Ralph Garroway, explained: “The Arab States do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore…and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don’t give a damn whether the refugees live or die.” If you notice, that was long before the 1967 Six-Days War in which Israel took control of the territories.
As long as Hamas and the other militant groups continue to deny Israel's right to exist, the only show of magnanimity or compromise that Israel can extend to the Palestinians is mass suicide. So until these groups recognize Israel's right to exist, true peace -- including the two-state solution -- will never happen.
Now as for your opinion that Israel was founded "as an expression of guilt for our inactivity against Hitler," I, personally, don't agree with you. If that had been the case, I would think it would have been more reasonable to have had a patch of German land set aside for a Jewish state. But as I have written previously, the land in which Israel now exists is the Promised Land. So I believe that had everything to do with the founding of Israel, not out of any sense of guilt.
James Danley : I can accept 'collateral damage' as a one time event. A regular pattern, makes it terrorism. Call me cynical or naive, my observation is that if we support the aggressor, it is 'collateral damage'; if we do not, it is 'terrorism'. Silly me, I see the same mayhem regardless of the label we attach.
About the Palestinians, let me point out first and foremost that the 'terrorism' began in earnest after the 1967 occupation. I hate to put it this way, but that makes it resistance. 'Resistance' by the way is ALWAYS called terrorism by the occupier. The moral is very simple: End the Occupation.
Oh, another lesson from history: When the powerful show magnanimity and make compromises, we get peace. When the weak make compromises, it breeds more resistance, or terrorism if it makes you happy. In other words, the second moral is that magnanimity starts by a compromise from the powerful.
By the way, I note with interest that noone objected to the way I put the founding of Israel as an expression of guilt for our inactivity against Hitler. Let me emphasize again, that we asked someone ELSE to pay the price; and we are now upset that they have not acquiesced. What I am saying with this is that any Palestinian act in Israel proper also qualifies as resistance. However, they must be given the incentive (in the form of compensation and a viable state) to stop engaging in resistance, or terrorism if it pleases you.
AM:
"Terrorism" is an act of violence whose purpose is to terrorize, threaten, intimidate and demoralize innocent civilians -- innocent civilians are the target. On the other hand, "collateral damage," is the inadvertent loss of innocent civilian life during an operation against a specific target, where the target is not innocent civilians but rather enemy combatants.
Now as for the Palestinian issue, much of the misery in which they live is self-imposed and perpetuated by most of their Arab neighbors. An official PLO document from back in 2000 states: "In order to keep the refugee issue alive and prevent Israel from evading responsibility for their plight, Arab countries -- with the notable exception of Jordan -- have usually sought to preserve a Palestinian identity by maintaining the Palestinians’ status as refugees." (The Palestinian Refugee Factfiles, PLO, Ramallah, 2000, p.22)
Even when past agreements have been made between Israel and the Palestinian leaders, road blocks by the militant groups Hamas and al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades have always stood in the way. And now with Hamas in power there will never be a two-state solution unless, and until, Hamas recognizes Israel's right to exist. The Palestinian leaders know that renouncing their militant ways and recognizing Israel's right to exist will open the door for billions of dollars to flow their way from Europe and the United States. The Palestinians could thrive in the new world economy. But they have to choose to do this. The only thing holding them back is their hatred towards Israel.
I think that it will be the fault of this administration if any time in the future,that we are attacked with nuclear weapons..
Now more than ever,more smaller countries know that if they have nuclear weapons and the threat to use them that this administration will not invade them..
PNAC people..Google PNAC and look it up,and look at the names that are on the list as supporters..
You are right. Selection B from your response is the only way to true peace in the Middle East, in my opinion, which (I think) is similar to the Saudi proposal. I am not sure how you get there given the situation today. Terrorism (or fighting the occupation) will not get Israel to move back, though. So how do you accomplish this?
A single state solution might work in, say, 100 or 500 years, but not now.
Beshir is just a brutal dictator. If the US had the arrangement that China does today (including supplying military equipment despite an arms embargo), then most liberals would be up in arms. The US could have looked the other way, but in this case, it would seem, without looking into all the details, that the US has taken the right path (with the loss of potential oil) by supporting sanctions. Intervention (peace keeping force) by a multi national force could help the people of Darfur, but who has the will?
Interventions always make me nervous. But if we really, truly, sincerely want to intervene and show how to improve some corner of the human misery, let me suggest one where the US is traditionally very active and annually invests billions: The Palestinians. They live in misery; we authored the UN resolution that cost them their land, to make up for our guilt in not resisting Hitler; we refuse to enforce UN resolutions 242& 338; we have yet to object when Israel builds or expands settlements in occupied land; we insist that the Palestinians accept these settlements as a fact and surrender the land to the Israelis; we frankly don't give a damn that the lot of Christians, not Muslim fanatics, has worsened under Israeli occupation; we have yet to complain about the 'collateral damage' when Israel assassinates or tries to assassinate someone it does not like - by the way, what is the difference between terrorism and collateral damage? I am a bit hazy on that one. Of course we voice our objection when an act is taken against an Israeli target. Lastly, we give Israel 3 billions every year, as well as share military technology - recently apparently 'bunker busting nuclear weapons', how does one spell I-R-A-N. And Israel is not even a participant in the NPT.
So, let us lead the way and show that we do not just like to throw our weight around, on those too small to react. Only a bully does that. Let us do something constructive with our 3 billions to Israel and 2 billions to Egypt. What is your proposal?
Mine by the way is to give a choice:
A. Single state; one person one vote; no preferential treatment to either. But guarantee the rights of Christians.
B. Two state solution where:
b1. All occupied territories (starting with 1967) are returned;
b2. Viable Palestinian state - that means that Gaza communicates freely with the West Bank;
b3. Compensation to the refugees from 1948 - what was done to them was wrong;
b4. If Israel wants to build a wall, it may of course do so on the Israeli side of the border.
Tom Wonnacott: On The Sudan: I grew up in The Sudan, though I am not Sudanese by nationality. The situation is not as clear-cut as it has been presented. For example, the revolt by the South started on 2 January 1956, the day after independence from England. And frankly the leaders of the main camps were reminiscent of politicians from the US south: they were around for ever, never relinquishing their hold on power, and constantly fighting for personal issues. In Darfur, the Janjaweed (rebel movement) violated the last agreement that was reached, not the government. Of course the price is paid by the innocents. It is not paid by the combatants, nor their foreign supporters. I am always curious to know what involvement and concern there woul be if oil was not involved.
"...I think there should be a world wide effort to stop mass killing and starvation and not stand by and just watch and debate. If these depraved dictators understood that there was a military from every nation coming to rescue the people and give them back their country then maybe there wouldnt be vicious dictators..."
In the worst instances such as the Sudan, the world does need to intervene. Before Darfur, Beshir led a genocidal campaign against South Sudan which resulted in the deaths of 2,000,000 (+) people. Clinton's biggest regret was that he didn't do enough in Darfur.
The US cannot always go it alone, and European countries and other countries such as India need to get involved.
I agree with your statement, although, we might disagree on which dictators deserved military intervention versus just sanctions, for example.
I posted this in the Russian discussion, and have added a few paragraphs as well. The most important point is that similar conditions ALSO apply to Iran. Failed negotiations, ignored UN resolutions, Europe showing little resolve, Russian and China undermining sanctions, President of Iran threatening to "wipe Israel off the map".
The conditions are present for war either by the US or by Israel. You do not have to support the US invasion of Iraq to notice that similar conditions are present. What is necessary to avoid a conflict?
The conditions that led to war in Iraq:
Iraq was unwilling to conform to a UN mandate (res. 687-Saddam to disarm). Saddam played hide and seek with the inspectors, and did not take the mandate seriously. Seventeen UN resolutions were passed in all to get Saddam to conform to the ceasefire that he signed. Sanctions resulted in 1,500,000 deaths, 567,000 of which were children. That, all in itself, was a humanitarian crisis, and the fault lies entirely on the shoulders of Saddam, who, because he refused to disarm and cooperate with the inspectors, allowed the deaths of so many people. He was a power hungry, brutal mass murderer deserving to be hung (without a fair trial).
In 1998, Clinton bombed Iraq for Saddam's lack of cooperation and then, INEXPLICABLY, allowed Saddam to keep out inspectors for the last two years of his Presidency.
The humanitarian oil for food program came in to existence in 1996(?) because the world recognized that Saddam was doing fine, only the Iraqi people (mostly Shia) were suffering. The oil for food program deteriorated to the "oil for food scandal" which, in a few years time, had canceled the affect of the sanctions. So when Bush took office, there were no inspections, probably no resolve to have inspections and rampant scandals associated with the UN oil for food program.
Saddam was given the impression (rightly) that the West (especially the US under Clinton) and the UN did not have the resolve to enforce their own mandate. After 10 years, no one knew, for sure, what the state of Saddam’s weapons program was. Clinton did a good job from 1993-1998 containing Iraq, but totally screwed up his last two years. So, in effect, he passed the whole mess to President Bush to solve.
Between the UN scandal, and the West’s lack of resolve, and, thus a failure of peaceful (diplomatic) means to disarm Saddam, the conditions for a war were put in place. That is the price of diplomatic failure. Saddam would, inevitably, be a threat to his neighbors (i.e., reconstitute his WMD program), and a threat to regional stability had we allowed him to continue unwatched. He also attempted to assassinate Bush senor and had given millions to terrorist groups, so he could have been a threat to US security in the future.
After 911 occurred, everything changed, in my view. Iraq is located in the Middle East which is the world-wide leader in terrorism, recruitment of terrorist, funding of terrorist, and harboring of terrorist. Saddam funded and supported terrorist organizations and, in addition, Iraq invaded two countries. What distinguished Saddam, however, is that he sought and USED WMDs.
About 70% of the American people were behind the invasion of Iraq. Even after discovering there were no WMD's, Bush was re-elected in 2004. Most Americans believed that the installation of Democracy in the heart of the birthplace of modern terrorism, and the overthrow of a brutal, non cooperative dictator was the right course of action.
I fully believe that the decision to invade was moral and right, however, even supporters of the war have seen a strategic (regional) nightmare unfold, thus one of the main reasons, I believe, as do most sane people, that we cannot just up and leave, is the regional problems that the war could cause.
amviennava,
You are right, I didnt think you would answer,no one does when I ask it.The question can bring a lively conversation about Iraq to an errie quiet. There seems to only be two choices and you are against one of them, so the other is to live and let live. However, you are not correct about the other "obvious". I think there should be a world wide effort to stop mass killing and starvation and not stand by and just watch and debate. If these depraved dictators understood that there was a military from every nation coming to rescue the people and give them back their country then maybe there wouldnt be vicious dictators. Right now we should be sending in troops from every country to save Darfur. Yea, call me naive, I think it could work but I know I'll never live to see it.
Have you heard the term gawker? When there is a traffic accident and people slow down to gawk. I was involved in an accident and some wonderful person stopped and helped, covered my friend with a blanket,looked after us until help came, but what I couldnt get over was the number of people who actually stopped and got out of their cars to stare.
Amviennava, please dont think that I'm attacking you directly. I just dont see a third answer. Do you?
amviennava
I thought you wouldnt answer my question or maybe you did. I gather from your comments that humanity should do nothing when there is rape murder and torture going on.
You say our soldiers are making it worse. I hope not one soldier reads any of this. I know from talking to many of these young men that they believe they are and will make a difference in Iraq. The goal of freedom and democracy is a right of all humanity. I dont know why so many want this goal to fail. Yes there are people killed everyday and it saddens me every time I hear about it, but it horrified me when I read of the hundreds of thousands that were killed by one man with no hope in sight. If the US hadnt stepped in for Desert Storm, think of how many millions that would have been killed.(should we have stayed out then?) There are a large number of Iraqis in the city I live in. Many would love to go home.They wish we had stayed the last time we were in Iraq for Desert Storm. Others (believe it or not) love this country and want to stay.
It seems like so many who voice their thoughts on this subject are political. They go to great lenghts to show how well read they are on what others write and then pick and choose to put forth what defends their "football team". Maybe one day I too will take the view of live and let live. (hear that DARFUR)
Tom Wonacott: granted, many assumed that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons. Logic indicated that they were old, given the embargo on Iraq since 1991, and therefore almost inert. What has yet to be explained, is the justification for an attack.
Iraq was impotent. It could not even defend its airspace. There was absolutely no justification for a war, other than the whatever dreams bush and the rest of the neo-cons have/had. They waged war for the sake of waging war. And they have been using the same language against Iran as they did against Iraq.
Ergo, since they lied then (and Cheney still is), they represent a major threat. This is aggravated by that Bush speaks for all sides of his mouth at the same time, and the administration goes in random directions. Since Bush is the President, that makes the US the major threat.
Digdeeper: My answer is that obviously you do not make it worse. Which is exactly what we have done. So, since you like to pose such broad impressive questions, without regard to the damage they cause to actual people, what is your solution to the carnage and mayhem that we have loosened?
Your friend and mine, George Tenet, was the director of the CIA in 1998, so I doubt that Clinton was lying, only regurgitating bad intelligence (from the same source as Bush).
Clinton did absolutely nothing after he bombed Iraq, and allowed Saddam to keep the inspectors out for the remaining two years of his Presidency. In affect, he passed the problem along to President Bush. The three years that there were no inspectors in Iraq roughly correlates to the amount of time from when North Korea kicked the inspectors out of North Korea until they detonated their nuclear bomb. Three years is a long time.
Bombing Iraq in 1998 was not the problem, it was the negligence after the bombing. Why, in God's name, do you bomb someone because they are not cooperating with inspectors, and then allow them to keep inspectors out after the bombing? This along with the "oil for food" scandal showed to Saddam our lack of resolve in enforcing the conditions of the cease fire.
"...Madeline Albright is a JEW, and we know what concerns HER: ISRAEL..."
Madeline Albright is a Jew? So what. That doesn't amount to much of a rebuttal. Maybe the government can only hire Jews if they are anti-Israel(?)
"...As for her second comment, we know he HAD SPENT money on building WMD, but he destroyed them in 1991. So this comment is totally irrelevant..."
Although Saddam destroyed most of his weapons in 1991-92, he never abandoned the idea of reviving them when the opportunity arose. The Biological facilities destroyed in the mid 90's were illegal and undeclared. See below.
"...ISG judges that Iraq�s actions between 1991 and 1996 demonstrate that the state intended to preserve its BW capability and return to a steady, methodical progress toward a mature BW program when and if the opportunity arose.
* ISG assesses that in 1991, Iraq clung to the objective of gaining war-winning weapons with the strategic intention of achieving the ability to project its power over much of the Middle East and beyond. Biological weapons were part of that plan. With an eye to the future and aiming to preserve some measure of its BW capability, Baghdad in the years immediately after Desert Storm sought to save what it could of its BW infrastructure and covertly continue BW research, hide evidence of that and earlier efforts, and dispose of its existing weapons stocks.
* From 1992 to 1994, Iraq greatly expanded the capability of its Al Hakam facility. Indigenously produced 5 cubic meter fermentors were installed, electrical and water utilities were expanded, and massive new construction to house its desired 50 cubic meter fermentors were completed.
* With the economy at rock bottom in late 1995, ISG judges that Baghdad abandoned its existing BW program in the belief that it constituted a potential embarrassment, whose discovery would undercut Baghdad�s ability to reach its overarching goal of obtaining relief from UN sanctions..."
All this kind of evidence builds doubts.
Saddam must have been braindead because if he had fully cooperated, he could be in the process of reconstituting his WMD program today or committing genocide. His sons would be in a position to takeover Iraq in the event of an unfortunate accident.
As to your comments about the Democrats strategy in 2008. Are you giving us a lesson in Presidential succession? Save your patronizing breath.
An alternative strategy might be to put both Bush and Cheney behind bars, thus thoroughly discrediting this miscreant Republican regime.
You are living in a dream world if you think the Republicans stand a chance in 2008. This regime's corruptions and deceptions have already discredited the Republican Party.
As for Iraq. You apparently don't understand that we have LOST in Iraq. We have LOST the oil.
Under the just approved hydrocarbon law the profits from Iraqi oil will be distributed equitably to all factions in Iraq (as they were before the invasion). Iraq's oil WILL NOT BE PRIVATIZED. It will be run by the state, as it was before the invasion.
Bush's invasion threatens to destabilize the region, he has NOT brought peace and stability to Iraq.
Bush's invasion has succeeded in INCREASING terrorism in Iraq, and throughout the World.
Bush's invasion has increased, not diminished, the threat against Israel.
Bush's invasion has set all of the rest of the World against America, even Israel. Don't you know what's happening to the Ohlmert regime in Israel. They are all under indictment for various corruptions. They are history.
Bush has lost and lost and lost and lost.
As for the "robust" US economy. History. How do we know? Because Greenspan told us so. Remember, he of the "irrational exuberance" correctly predicting the dot com bust.
Soon Bush and Cheney will be history too. The sooner the better.
I first saw this collection of quotes at least two years ago they have been bouncing around the blogosphere probably even longer. Undoubtedly, bloggers on the Republican payroll are responsible.
Collectively, they have absolutely no bearing upon the premeditated and systematic deceptions of the Bush administration that resulted in the invasion, occupation, and destruction of Iraq, and the concomitant loss of human life.
Let's take the quote from Clinton:
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
PRESIDENT CLINTON, Feb. 17, 1998.
Wingnuts never tire of pointing out that Clinton was a proven liar, I don't dispute it. So he lied about the threat posed by Saddam's WMD. Isn't that what you would expect from a proven liar? It's HISTORY. So how does it excuse or explain Bush's lies. BUSH LIED, THOUSANDS DIED.
Clinton lied about an affair. SO WHAT! Clinton lied about the threat from Saddam, and we sent in an airstrike that blew up some buildings. SO WHAT!
You've said over and over again that Clinton was a liar. WHO CARES, HE'S NOT PRESIDENT ANYMORE AND HE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS AND IRAQIS THAT HAVE DIED AND ARE STILL DYING.
I shall deal with the other quotes one at a time:
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
MADELINE ALBRIGHT, Clinton's Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
MADELINE ALBRIGHT, Clinton's Secretary of State,
Madeline Albright is a JEW, and we know what concerns HER: ISRAEL. Clinton made a huge mistake appointing her, As for her second comment, we know he HAD SPENT money on building WMD, but he destroyed them in 1991. So this comment is totally irrelevant.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
SANDY BERGER, Clinton's National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
Sandy Berger only stated the obvious, that Saddam had used WMD in the Iran/Iraq war. He also knew that Saddam would NEVER use them against us or our allies. Saddam would have been insane to do that, because he would have been instantly annihilated. Besides, Berger wasn't trying to justify an invasion of Iraq. Only a fool or a lying madman would invade Iraq under the circumstances. You know, someone like George Bush or Adolf Hitler.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by SENS. CARL LEVIN, THOM DASCHLE, JOHN KERRY and others Oct. 9, 1998.
These comments, as I have already said, were used to justify air and missile strikes. Notice that they said NOTHING ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF WMD, but of PROGRAMS. There was no lie. Saddam did have WMD programs in the sense that the scientists and knowledge base existed in Iraq to revive WMD development. Substantiated facts to support responsible and appropriate actions. I have no problem with that. Do you?
Unlike Bush's LIES to support the greatest strategic BLUNDER in US military history. Or maybe it wasn't a blunder at all, maybe it was LIES to support the wildy successfull operation to TOTALLY DESTROY SADDAM AND IRAQ? Hmmmmmm.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
Nov. 10, 1999.
NO LIES HERE! Everyone KNEW Saddam HAD BEEN engaged in developing WMD, and that they WERE a threat. Past history. However, I do disagree with Nancy Pelosi. The UN weapons inspection program was a wild success. Saddam DID destroy all his WMD in 1991! So there were none in 2003. So why did Bush/Cheney insist there were? Maybe because they are both liars?
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by SEN BOB GRAHAM (D-FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
This quote and the folowing ones can be directly attributed to the premeditated and systematic deceptions of the illegitimate Bush regime that siezed power in this country on January 20, 2001. A DAY THAT SHALL LIVE IN INFAMY!
I am saving this response so that the next time a Bush sycophant like you tries to defend the indefensible I shall be ready and waiting.
If you are against the Iraq war than please, someone suggest what the world should do when people are being tortured, raped and murdered and buried in mass graves. I assure you that debating it to death does nothing.
Mr. Peddicord, do I understand you correctly? It was NOT A LIE for these Democrats to say Saddam Hussein has "EMBARKED ON A CRASH COURSE TO BUILD UP HIS CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE CAPABILITIES...HE IS SEEKING NUCLEAR WEAPONS" and that he "IS THE GREATEST SECURITY THREAT WE FACE" because these Democrats were only talking about supporting airstrikes against Iraq? Yet it IS A LIE when President Bush says the same thing to support sending troops into Iraq to physically remove Saddam Hussein?
And do I also understand you correctly, that the intelligence on which the Democrats based their statements PRIOR to Jan 20, 2001 (you actually said "subsequent to 2000," but I knew what you meant) was somehow just flawed? Yet when the Democrats made similar statements AFTER Jan 20, 2001 it was because President Bush misrepresented and fabricated the intelligence in a premeditated and systematic way?
Now as for the "saving grace that no one was killed," correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you meant to say no AMERICANS were killed. I wonder how many Iraqis were tortured, raped and murdered under the orders of Saddam Hussein between October 1998 and March 2003?
Mr. Peddicord, you ask why President Bush is still in office, that is really very simple. That's because, even if everything you claim is true (which I don't accept), the Democrats' don't want to have to run against a sitting president or vice president in the 2008 election. If President Bush were impeached and convicted, then Dick Cheney would become president. President Cheney would then nominate someone, subject to Senate confirmation, to replace him as vice president. The new vice president would, no doubt, immediately become the front runner to be the Republican nominee in the 2008 presidential election, as Cheney has already declared he will not run for president. 2008 will be the first time since 1952 that a sitting president or vice president has not run for president. And the Democrats feel that gives them their best chance to win back the White House.
I have seen everyone of those quotes before: All of the quotes from Clinton and his cabinet, and Democratic Congressmen were to support a precision-guided missile attack on Iraq military infrastructure, which was considered by everyone in the US at the time justified and appropriate, based upon percieved non-cooperation with UNSCOM inspectors.
We now know that even that proscribed action was unjustified. The only saving grace was that NO ONE WAS KILLED!
Clinton, quite rightly, rejected suggestions of an invasion, which he knew would involve massive loss of life and destablisation of the region.
The quotes subsequent to 2000 were made by those who w
Readers’ Responses to Our Question (556)
Good to know that our cousins across the pond are so disloyal. Sad business, that.
It's unfortunate that Europeans are unable to appreciate the strength behind our International Imperialism. We saved their countries (England, France, Poland, and many others) from German domination, and a good portion of the success the E.U. enjoys today is due to our benevolent support. They need to turn those serpent's tongues against the REAL problems in the world: Islamic Fundamentalism, and the evils it produces.
Thanks.
June 15, 2008 11:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
akufrp ndwb nurejhbk blvwi afmrezx jqsegyfn krwyj [URL]http://www.jbqe.urozgtq.com[/URL] vpdq oghxtqv
January 18, 2008 12:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
ndls zedopbuk vmrdultp qmei tpuacj mdays rfos [URL=http://www.juhewr.kpfvmw.com]cewxianv vkresjz[/URL]
January 18, 2008 12:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
ndls zedopbuk vmrdultp qmei tpuacj mdays rfos [URL=http://www.juhewr.kpfvmw.com]cewxianv vkresjz[/URL]
January 18, 2008 12:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
ndls zedopbuk vmrdultp qmei tpuacj mdays rfos [URL=http://www.juhewr.kpfvmw.com]cewxianv vkresjz[/URL]
January 18, 2008 12:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
ndls zedopbuk vmrdultp qmei tpuacj mdays rfos [URL=http://www.juhewr.kpfvmw.com]cewxianv vkresjz[/URL]
January 18, 2008 12:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
kmbuxqftj sbwhzfa korhpjwu yowrade nkhf cqta kjeypmh ymzpe krtpxvb
January 18, 2008 12:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
kmbuxqftj sbwhzfa korhpjwu yowrade nkhf cqta kjeypmh ymzpe krtpxvb
January 18, 2008 12:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
kmbuxqftj sbwhzfa korhpjwu yowrade nkhf cqta kjeypmh ymzpe krtpxvb
January 18, 2008 12:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
dxjpyluf ohdknylq azintvswq vxdaqlgjw tzhio hrgjn orgpmc http://www.ksauctnwq.zcya.com
January 18, 2008 12:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
dxjpyluf ohdknylq azintvswq vxdaqlgjw tzhio hrgjn orgpmc http://www.ksauctnwq.zcya.com
January 18, 2008 12:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
dxjpyluf ohdknylq azintvswq vxdaqlgjw tzhio hrgjn orgpmc http://www.ksauctnwq.zcya.com
January 18, 2008 12:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
dxjpyluf ohdknylq azintvswq vxdaqlgjw tzhio hrgjn orgpmc http://www.ksauctnwq.zcya.com
January 18, 2008 12:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
dwgiptsx gaiyvbl nmwdhoiaf zgjifxkbh flhan ixfyep dhktol
January 18, 2008 12:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
dwgiptsx gaiyvbl nmwdhoiaf zgjifxkbh flhan ixfyep dhktol
January 18, 2008 12:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
dwgiptsx gaiyvbl nmwdhoiaf zgjifxkbh flhan ixfyep dhktol
January 18, 2008 12:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
When Katie asked the presidential candidates who they considered to be the most dangerous nation on the planet, I was a little surprised than none of them said the U.S.
Let’s look at the historical facts:
1. The U.S. has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.
2. The U.S. is the only country to have ever dropped nuclear weapons on civilians.
3. The U.S. is the most powerful militarily and economically of any nation in the world. It is capable of influencing other nations to its will simply by imposing economic sanctions against anyone it deems not supporting its globalization policy. It has the largest far-reaching military force of any country, with the most nuclear submarines able to strike any city in the world with thermonuclear weapons. It has the largest ICBM system capable of striking any city in the world with thermonuclear weapons. It has the largest fleet of aircraft carriers; able to enforce it’s foreign policy upon any nation in the world. Stealth cruise missiles, fighters, and bombers help make up an Air Force that is capable of attacking any nation at will.
4. Historically, the U.S. has been involved in more foreign conflicts than any other nation, and. It acquired foreign territory during the Spanish American War much of which has never been returned to its rightful owners.
5. Our CIA has helped overthrow governments and published manuals on kidnapping and torture.
6. We consume more, create more waste, and pollute more per person than any other nation, and at present pose the greatest threat to the environment. (However, China will surpass us in the near future).
If I were another country, I would look upon the U.S. as a greater threat to world peace than Iran, especially in light of the Bush administration’s policy of pre-emptive strikes, Rendition, and torture in violation of UN Charter, and the Geneva Convention.
December 19, 2007 11:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
When Katie asked the presidential candidates who they considered to be the most dangerous nation on the planet, I was a little surprised than none of them said the U.S.
Let’s look at the historical facts:
1. The U.S. has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.
2. The U.S. is the only country to have ever dropped nuclear weapons on civilians.
3. The U.S. is the most powerful militarily and economically of any nation in the world. It is capable of influencing other nations to its will simply by imposing economic sanctions against anyone it deems not supporting its globalization policy. It has the largest far-reaching military force of any country, with the most nuclear submarines able to strike any city in the world with thermonuclear weapons. It has the largest ICBM system capable of striking any city in the world with thermonuclear weapons. It has the largest fleet of aircraft carriers; able to enforce it’s foreign policy upon any nation in the world. Stealth cruise missiles, fighters, and bombers help make up an Air Force that is capable of attacking any nation at will.
4. Historically, the U.S. has been involved in more foreign conflicts than any other nation, and. It acquired foreign territory during the Spanish American War much of which has never been returned to its rightful owners.
5. Our CIA has helped overthrow governments and published manuals on kidnapping and torture.
6. We consume more, create more waste, and pollute more per person than any other nation, and at present pose the greatest threat to the environment. (However, China will surpass us in the near future).
If I were another country, I would look upon the U.S. as a greater threat to world peace than Iran, especially in light of the Bush administration’s policy of pre-emptive strikes, Rendition, and torture in violation of UN Charter, and the Geneva Convention.
December 19, 2007 11:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
When Katie asked the presidential candidates who they considered to be the most dangerous nation on the planet, I was a little surprised than none of them said the U.S.
Let’s look at the historical facts:
1. The U.S. has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.
2. The U.S. is the only country to have ever dropped nuclear weapons on civilians.
3. The U.S. is the most powerful militarily and economically of any nation in the world. It is capable of influencing other nations to its will simply by imposing economic sanctions against anyone it deems not supporting its globalization policy. It has the largest far-reaching military force of any country, with the most nuclear submarines able to strike any city in the world with thermonuclear weapons. It has the largest ICBM system capable of striking any city in the world with thermonuclear weapons. It has the largest fleet of aircraft carriers; able to enforce it’s foreign policy upon any nation in the world. Stealth cruise missiles, fighters, and bombers help make up an Air Force that is capable of attacking any nation at will.
4. Historically, the U.S. has been involved in more foreign conflicts than any other nation, and. It acquired foreign territory during the Spanish American War much of which has never been returned to its rightful owners.
5. Our CIA has helped overthrow governments and published manuals on kidnapping and torture.
6. We consume more, create more waste, and pollute more per person than any other nation, and at present pose the greatest threat to the environment. (However, China will surpass us in the near future).
If I were another country, I would look upon the U.S. as a greater threat to world peace than Iran, especially in light of the Bush administration’s policy of pre-emptive strikes, Rendition, and torture in violation of UN Charter, and the Geneva Convention.
December 19, 2007 10:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
WELL EXCUSE ME !DID ANYONE MAKE THIS PRESIDENT THE NEW PRESIDENT OF THE WORLD ?? WHERE DOES HE GET OFF DECLAREING GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR? THAT IS A STATE OF MIND NOT ANYPLACE ON EARTH NOT A COUNTRY THIS AUTHORITY HE HAS OVERSTEEPED FROM THE USA TO THE WORLD AND HONESTLY HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DO ANYTHING GLOBALY AND THE QUEEN OWNS THIS CONGLORMERATION OF GOVERNMENT SCREWBALLS MAKING A MESS OF EVERYTHING HE GETS INTO MORE CRAP THAN ROOT HOG ! JACKASS WE MAY NEED A CARROT TO DANGEL IN FRONT OF HIS FACE TO TURN HIM AROUND !
April 29, 2007 8:15 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Tom Wonacott @March 13, 2007 12:24 AM:
Yes. And it is an interesting initiative. Both the Israeli and Palestinian, and the US administration for that matter, are 'wounded' right now. Hopefully they will ALL (unfortunately that all must cooperate) take a risk in facor of a resolution.
But I am not too hopeful: (1) I have no confidence in the Bush administration; (2) The Israelis like to think they are dictating terms rather than negotiating and compromising; (3) The Palestinian factions are, both, both rigid and brittle.
I hope that we, and Israel, do not insist on Abbas as the 'true' representative of the Palestinians -he has no standing with them, and both we and Israel ignored him before Hammas won the election. I also hope that we and Israel realize that recognition of Israel will be a byproduct of discussions rather than an a priori condition. Lastly, I hope that the Palestinians will make the painful compromises that 'non-violence' (peace will take a while) will require.
In conclusion, I want to repewat that compromise by the weak breeds resentment and more violence; but compromise by the powerful breeds resolution.
Peace, Shalom, Salaam
March 13, 2007 8:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Tom Wonnacott (3/9): Indeed, terrorism, resistance, revolution, state oppression are different sides of the same coin. Very often the choice of term reflects the opinion of the 'speaker' since the acts are actually the same.
PS: 'state oppression' is there intentionally. Whether the state is Stalin's Soviet Union, or Turkey on the Kurds now, or Israel on any of the occupied or any of its neighbors, or the Pol Pot regime.
March 13, 2007 8:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
AM
Did you read in the New York Times (3/12) about the renewed Israeli interest in the 2002 Saudi peace initiative?
The time is right as the Bush administration would like to leave office having accomplished one thing positive in the Middle East, and, I believe, will pressure Israel to, at least, look seriously at the initiative.
The Arab league is pushing the initiative again. From two stories reported in the New York Times over the last couple of days, the the Palestinian people are living in suffocating conditions because of Israel anti terrorism tactics, and the loss of funding.
This is where I agree with you. Israel must take the initiative to seriously engage the Arabs (who took the first step by offering this package), and Iran and Syria must be brought to the table. Syria, of course, wants to recover some land, so I believe, in their interest, they will negotiate.
Here's to hoping that the process moves in the right direction.
March 13, 2007 12:24 AM | Report Offensive Comments
AM
"...(That by the way would be terrorism since we are not actively engaged against them, but what they do within Turkey and Kurdistan is not)..."
That you are a resistance organization within your own country does not mean that you are not a terrorist. Your actions are what make you a terrorist, but I admit, it is really difficult to pin down. An example:
"...Rule No. 24 forbids anyone to work as a teacher "under the current puppet regime, because this strengthens the system of the infidels." One rule later, No. 25, says teachers who ignore Taliban warnings will be killed.
Taliban militants early Saturday broke into a house in the eastern province of Kunar, killing a family of five, including two sisters who were teachers..."
That is a classic case of the use of terror on a population for political gain, even though the Taliban is a resistance organization. The KKK operated within the US and I would certainly classify them as a terrorist organization. They terrorized certain people in America and were motivated by the subjugation of those people. Terrorism is terrorism whether its politically, religiously or ethnically (etc.) motivated.
In today's world, I define terrorism as the targeting of civilians, or subjugating civilians by the use of terror, for political gain. This is, by no means, all inclusive.
March 9, 2007 8:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
James Danley
I didn't realize that the West Bank sits physically above Israel, so it does provide a military vantage point. It makes sense that Israel occupies that land for military reasons, but not for building Jewish settlements! That's using a military excuse to expand the boundaries of Israel.
In my opinion, Israel should NEVER unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank. The withdrawal of Israel from Gaza and Lebanon gained them nothing. Those territories have been used to attack Israel. The main point is that terrorism cannot be perceived to have been the driving force behind the move to the internationally recognized boundary.
Only when all the countries and/or organizations involved meet and hash out an agreement should Israel agree to move back to the 1967 border (if, in fact, they intend to(?)). Lasting peace means give and take by everyone.
March 9, 2007 8:01 PM | Report Offensive Comments
AM:
First, apology accepted! I do respect, even if I don't agree, with all of your opinions. You do bring up some very interesting points. And you hit it right on the nail regarding the Palestinians use of terrorism being a politcal disaster. Unfortunately, with countries like Syria, Iran and the previous Iraqi regime supporting the terrorist acts (either by rewarding the families of suicide bombers after the fact, or by directly supplying arms) it has become a business machine, rather than just a tool of protest.
It is important to point out that the Jews didn't just share the land, they actually RULED the land for approximately 765 years over two periods (see timeline). The rest of the time could certainly be considered shared.
For those readers who are unaware of the history, here is a very brief timeline (the years are approximate due to slight differences between various sources): From about 1250 BC to 1050 BC the Israelites ruled the land with judges. From 1050 BC to 922 BC kings ruled a united Israel. From 922 BC to 722 BC the kings ruled a divided Israel (northern half is Kingdom of Israel and southern half is Kingdom of Judah). Then about 722 BC the Assyrians conquered the northern Kingdom of Israel; and the 10 northern tribes are exiled to Assyria (later conquered by the Babylonians). In 586 BC the Babylonians conquered the southern Kingdom of Judah; and the people are exiled to Babylon. About 539 BC Persia conquered Babylon and some Jews begin to return to Judea. By about 450 BC, Jerusalem is rebuilt. In 332 BC Alexander the Great defeated Persia and conquered Israel (although the Jews retained their practices). From about 164 BC to 63 BC (when the Romans began their occupation) the old southern Kingdom of Judah was an autonomous Jewish state known as the Hasmonean Kingdom. This kingdom was the last independent Jewish state to exist until the modern state of Israel was created in 1947.
Now as for the "Promised Land" itself, the original boundaries as laid out in the Torah (the first 5 books of the Bible) are:
1. The western border is obviously the Mediterranean Sea.
2. The southern border is the "River of Egypt." While some scholars believe this the be the Nile River, others believe this to be the Wadi el Arish -- just west of the current Israeli-Egyptian border on the Sinai Peninsula.
3. The northern border is the Euphrates River -- extends from the northern region of Lebanon at the Mediterranean Sea, to a region just east of Damascus, Syria.
4. The eastern border is just east of Damascus to the southern end of the Sea of Galilee and follows the Jordan River ending at the Dead Sea.
As evidenced by the above timeline, God allowed others to conquer the land. I would never advocate that Israel now try to reclaim the land. If God intends for them to have it back, it will happen.
The security issue regarding the West Bank is a valid issue as long as the militant groups continue to deny Israel's right to exist. The West Bank sits above the center of Israel -- a very strong military advantage point. Obviously there are some Israelis who do not want to ever give up the West Bank. But much of Israel's leadership recognizes peace will never be achieved without giving up the land. That is the conundrum! As long as there are terrorist attacks, Israel will continue to occupy. As long as Israel continues to occupy, there will be terrorist attacks. While the solution -- to we outsiders -- may appear simple, the fact that both sides mistrust and even hate the other only exasperates the situation.
Now one final thought, you mentioned that you do not accept that God advocated genocide, does that mean that you do not accept the story of the Flood -- that God destroyed everyone and all land animals, except for Noah's family and the animals placed on the ark? Or even His destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah? Just asking!
March 9, 2007 1:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Tom: You make valid points. however, Israel began the settlements of the occupied territories long before there was 'terrorism', with US acceptance. Our acquiescence is that there are too many here who think the the land was 'promised', therefore anything Israel does is correct. Except for the terrorism/resistance, we would have gratefully forgotten the entire problem. As I posted previously, who cares about the Kurds? Unfortunately, if they drove home the point, in other words (and I am NOT advocating that it would be good) if they blow up the Statue of Liberty, we will take a fresh look at the issue. (That by the way would be terrorism since we are not actively engaged against them, but what they do within Turkey and Kurdistan is not).
March 9, 2007 8:11 AM | Report Offensive Comments
AM
"...Oh, Tom: One last comment: We would not be aware of the Palestinian issue if they were not engaged in 'terrorist activities'..."
What Americans have learned from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (mostly from our newspapers and newscast) has DAMAGED the Palestinian cause. Most Americans equate the conflict with terrorism, and most Americans do not view the targeting of civilians as a "resistance" (although I certainly see your point). Your typical man on the street in America probably is unaware of the complexities of the Palestinian conflict, but knows full well of the terrorist targeting of civilians through the multitudes of pictures from TV.
As an indication of the failure of targeting civilians, Israel has literally settled on Palestinian land with no repercussions. If the original excuse used by Israel for occupying part of the West Bank was "security", then by building Jewish settlements on the land, Israel created MORE security problems. It is flat out, in my opinion, a land grab. How has Israel gotten away with this? The US has done nothing to stop it, and I don't believe that is strictly because Israel is a US ally. In my opinion, public opinion has remained strongly pro Israel in large part due to the targeting of Israeli civilians (while new or expanding Jewish settlements remain largely under the radar), and nothing gets prime time news coverage like a suicide bombing whether its in Israel or Iraq. Targeting civilians only reinforces American support for Israel.
If terrorism was used as a way to bring attention to the Palestinian conflict, then, at least in the US, it has been an unmitigated disaster and in the Middle East, it has been a political disaster with nothing to show for it in FORTY YEARS.
The largest support for Israel in the world is the US, and the US is probably the only country in the world that can (possibly) pressure Israel back to the '67 borders. How do you turn US public opinion against Israel (for the peace that everyone wants)? A more effective policy would highlight Israel's West Bank policy (instead of terrorism), and the plight of the Palestinians. A more peaceful resistance could (possibly) erode US support.
I'm not sure I got across what I was trying to say, but good luck figuring it out!
March 9, 2007 12:40 AM | Report Offensive Comments
James Danley: I am sorry I misunderstood you. However I stand by my statement about Germany and Austria.
As to the rest: "Give us, a people without a land, a land without a people". The problem is that Palestinainas were and are people. Human beings even. I have studied history, and the read the Bible too. That the Jews SHARED the land 2,000 years ago is irrelevant as a justification. And as I stated, I do not consider God a realtor. For that matter, I do not accept that God advocated genocide, and the Old Testament is filled with it. Reason indicate that the 'pro,mised land' and the 'smite them' lines are a rationalization for a land grab. That is past.
What was done to the Palestinians was wrong. What we continue to insist on is also wrong; and it makes a mockery of our beloved ideals. I am glad you pointed out that the 20% of the Israeli population has less tha 10% of the seats in Parliament. You also did not mention that they do not enjoy full citizenship status. But I dd believe that the better solution is the ONE STATE solution: one person, one vote, without special terms and conditions, except 1: The Christians, whose lot under the Israeli occupation has become horrible, must be protected.
I have asked this before, but have never received a response: What happened to the Christian community of the Holy Lands since 1948? The fact is that it was evicted form Israel, and its lot under the 1967 occupation became worse than it was under most Muslim rule. We (the US, under our current 'Christian' President) kept wuiet when in 2001 Israeli troops opened fire on churches!
March 8, 2007 8:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
AM:
Actually you mistook my point. I was not advocating that a part of Germany should have been used to form the Jewish state. I was just saying that IF the forming of the Jewish state had been out of guilt for being inactive against Hitler, THEN it would have been reasonable. The location chosen was an obvious and natural site. May I suggest taking a closer look into the history of ancient Israel. The various captivities and exiles of the Israelites are enlightening. Even if you don't want to consider the Bible as a source (it is an excellent source), there are plenty of history books and tons of information on the Internet.
Finally, you wrote: "We would not be aware of the Palestinian issue if they were not engaged in 'terrorist activities.'" You could also say that there would not have been a Palestinian issue if the Arabs had accepted the 1947 UN Resolution. While there were some Jews that wanted a strictly Jewish state, the Jewish leaders urged the Arabs to stay and become citizens of Israel. While the overwhelming majority did leave, some did stay. Today there are over 1 million Arab-Israelis living in Israel. With 11 of the 120 members of the Knesset being Arabs.
March 8, 2007 2:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Oh, Tom: One last comment: We would not be aware of the Palestinian issue if they were not engaged in 'terrorist activities'. Afterall, who cares that there are Serb refugees from the 90's, or Kurds from Turkey, or that Cypriots cannot return to their homes?
Obviously, terrorism/resistance is effective. If we want to drive home the point that terrorism is not productive, then we MUST emphasize, and follow through on, the JUST solution of all events that create refugees (from man-made events, let me add). The idea is that if we eliminate the symptom, we eliminate the cause (kind of the way malaria was first cured).
March 8, 2007 10:03 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Sorry. I am the 'anonymous'
March 8, 2007 9:48 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Tom Wonnacott & James Danley:
It is not for the 'Arabs' to solve the Palestinian problem. The 'Arabs' are not a nation, it is a concept. The solution is incumbent on those who created the problem, in the first place. (I can best illustrate the difference by example: when the Serbs were evicted from Croatia and Kossovo in the early '90's, at least there was a Serbia for them to go to. Even though more than 1 million of them are still classified as refugees, they are still among their own people. But when the Palestinians were evicted from Palestine, there was no Palestine for them to go to; that was also not helped by those who propose to turn Jordan into Palestine. If I was a Jordanian I would resent the insinuation, especially since it comes from those who evicted the Palestinians in the first place).
I do agree that the correct solution (in the 40's) would have been to take a part of Germany & Austria, and create Israel there. unfortunately we cannot make eggs out of omelette. (As an aside, I view the 'Promised Land' bit as a cop-out; it only serves to cover the anti-semitism of those who did not want 'The Jews' around; I also do not view God as a realtor).
All that said, I find myself largely in agreement with Tom's final paragraphs. And I consider that if we (the US) put support behind the 2002 proposal, we will gain considerably because the US will become a constructive participant, and that will help to alleviate much of the suspicion that this administration has created in the Muslim world.
March 8, 2007 9:47 AM | Report Offensive Comments
James Danley
“The Arab States do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore…and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don’t give a damn whether the refugees live or die.”
I think there is some truth to that statement, but you can also make the case that Israel avoided peace so they could annex more of the West Bank i.e., has used terrorism as an excuse to incorporate more territory.
I don't know much about the "promised land", but under international law, Israel has illegally incorporated parts of the West Bank. The best (only?) way to peace is by Israel returning to the internationally recognized boundary. Giving money and arms to the PA is no way to get to a peaceful solution, although this may help their short term strategy of keeping the PA in power. Negotiations must also include Hamas (the elected government), Hezbollah (Lebanon), Syria and Iran as part of a regional settlement, at least, in my opinion.
The Palestinians need to figure out that terrorism has not worked, and short of a nuclear bomb, Israel is there to stay. The Saudis (2002(?)) made a fair proposal to Israel. Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas need to look at this offer of regional peace and act on the behalf of the Palestinian people instead of to their detriment. This may actually involve recognizing Israel's right to exist.
This all seems so simple, but we probably won't see it in our life time.
March 7, 2007 10:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
AM:
This may be overly simplistic, but so often victims continue to consider themselves as victims and they dwell on the circumstances. That just festers resentment and anger towards the perpetrator. And then they are never able to break loose from that identity. Occasionally the situation is further complicated when it is exploited by a third person or entity for that person's or entity's gain (monetary and/or political power). This is sad enough on an individual basis. But when it involves a large population of people it is very tragic.
Over the last century, nearly 140 million refugees have been created for various reasons (i.e. war, famine, natural disasters, etc.). Yet only the Palestinians have retained their refugee status? Back in 1958, the former director of United Nations Relief and Works Agency, Ralph Garroway, explained: “The Arab States do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore…and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don’t give a damn whether the refugees live or die.” If you notice, that was long before the 1967 Six-Days War in which Israel took control of the territories.
As long as Hamas and the other militant groups continue to deny Israel's right to exist, the only show of magnanimity or compromise that Israel can extend to the Palestinians is mass suicide. So until these groups recognize Israel's right to exist, true peace -- including the two-state solution -- will never happen.
Now as for your opinion that Israel was founded "as an expression of guilt for our inactivity against Hitler," I, personally, don't agree with you. If that had been the case, I would think it would have been more reasonable to have had a patch of German land set aside for a Jewish state. But as I have written previously, the land in which Israel now exists is the Promised Land. So I believe that had everything to do with the founding of Israel, not out of any sense of guilt.
March 7, 2007 6:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
James Danley : I can accept 'collateral damage' as a one time event. A regular pattern, makes it terrorism. Call me cynical or naive, my observation is that if we support the aggressor, it is 'collateral damage'; if we do not, it is 'terrorism'. Silly me, I see the same mayhem regardless of the label we attach.
About the Palestinians, let me point out first and foremost that the 'terrorism' began in earnest after the 1967 occupation. I hate to put it this way, but that makes it resistance. 'Resistance' by the way is ALWAYS called terrorism by the occupier. The moral is very simple: End the Occupation.
Oh, another lesson from history: When the powerful show magnanimity and make compromises, we get peace. When the weak make compromises, it breeds more resistance, or terrorism if it makes you happy. In other words, the second moral is that magnanimity starts by a compromise from the powerful.
By the way, I note with interest that noone objected to the way I put the founding of Israel as an expression of guilt for our inactivity against Hitler. Let me emphasize again, that we asked someone ELSE to pay the price; and we are now upset that they have not acquiesced. What I am saying with this is that any Palestinian act in Israel proper also qualifies as resistance. However, they must be given the incentive (in the form of compensation and a viable state) to stop engaging in resistance, or terrorism if it pleases you.
March 7, 2007 12:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
AM:
"Terrorism" is an act of violence whose purpose is to terrorize, threaten, intimidate and demoralize innocent civilians -- innocent civilians are the target. On the other hand, "collateral damage," is the inadvertent loss of innocent civilian life during an operation against a specific target, where the target is not innocent civilians but rather enemy combatants.
Now as for the Palestinian issue, much of the misery in which they live is self-imposed and perpetuated by most of their Arab neighbors. An official PLO document from back in 2000 states: "In order to keep the refugee issue alive and prevent Israel from evading responsibility for their plight, Arab countries -- with the notable exception of Jordan -- have usually sought to preserve a Palestinian identity by maintaining the Palestinians’ status as refugees." (The Palestinian Refugee Factfiles, PLO, Ramallah, 2000, p.22)
Even when past agreements have been made between Israel and the Palestinian leaders, road blocks by the militant groups Hamas and al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades have always stood in the way. And now with Hamas in power there will never be a two-state solution unless, and until, Hamas recognizes Israel's right to exist. The Palestinian leaders know that renouncing their militant ways and recognizing Israel's right to exist will open the door for billions of dollars to flow their way from Europe and the United States. The Palestinians could thrive in the new world economy. But they have to choose to do this. The only thing holding them back is their hatred towards Israel.
March 7, 2007 11:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
I think that it will be the fault of this administration if any time in the future,that we are attacked with nuclear weapons..
Now more than ever,more smaller countries know that if they have nuclear weapons and the threat to use them that this administration will not invade them..
PNAC people..Google PNAC and look it up,and look at the names that are on the list as supporters..
One I."Scooter"Libby is....
Read...Put the pieces of the puzzle together..
March 7, 2007 9:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
AM
You are right. Selection B from your response is the only way to true peace in the Middle East, in my opinion, which (I think) is similar to the Saudi proposal. I am not sure how you get there given the situation today. Terrorism (or fighting the occupation) will not get Israel to move back, though. So how do you accomplish this?
A single state solution might work in, say, 100 or 500 years, but not now.
Beshir is just a brutal dictator. If the US had the arrangement that China does today (including supplying military equipment despite an arms embargo), then most liberals would be up in arms. The US could have looked the other way, but in this case, it would seem, without looking into all the details, that the US has taken the right path (with the loss of potential oil) by supporting sanctions. Intervention (peace keeping force) by a multi national force could help the people of Darfur, but who has the will?
March 7, 2007 9:20 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Wonnacott & Digdeeper:
Interventions always make me nervous. But if we really, truly, sincerely want to intervene and show how to improve some corner of the human misery, let me suggest one where the US is traditionally very active and annually invests billions: The Palestinians. They live in misery; we authored the UN resolution that cost them their land, to make up for our guilt in not resisting Hitler; we refuse to enforce UN resolutions 242& 338; we have yet to object when Israel builds or expands settlements in occupied land; we insist that the Palestinians accept these settlements as a fact and surrender the land to the Israelis; we frankly don't give a damn that the lot of Christians, not Muslim fanatics, has worsened under Israeli occupation; we have yet to complain about the 'collateral damage' when Israel assassinates or tries to assassinate someone it does not like - by the way, what is the difference between terrorism and collateral damage? I am a bit hazy on that one. Of course we voice our objection when an act is taken against an Israeli target. Lastly, we give Israel 3 billions every year, as well as share military technology - recently apparently 'bunker busting nuclear weapons', how does one spell I-R-A-N. And Israel is not even a participant in the NPT.
So, let us lead the way and show that we do not just like to throw our weight around, on those too small to react. Only a bully does that. Let us do something constructive with our 3 billions to Israel and 2 billions to Egypt. What is your proposal?
Mine by the way is to give a choice:
A. Single state; one person one vote; no preferential treatment to either. But guarantee the rights of Christians.
B. Two state solution where:
b1. All occupied territories (starting with 1967) are returned;
b2. Viable Palestinian state - that means that Gaza communicates freely with the West Bank;
b3. Compensation to the refugees from 1948 - what was done to them was wrong;
b4. If Israel wants to build a wall, it may of course do so on the Israeli side of the border.
March 7, 2007 7:48 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Tom Wonnacott: On The Sudan: I grew up in The Sudan, though I am not Sudanese by nationality. The situation is not as clear-cut as it has been presented. For example, the revolt by the South started on 2 January 1956, the day after independence from England. And frankly the leaders of the main camps were reminiscent of politicians from the US south: they were around for ever, never relinquishing their hold on power, and constantly fighting for personal issues. In Darfur, the Janjaweed (rebel movement) violated the last agreement that was reached, not the government. Of course the price is paid by the innocents. It is not paid by the combatants, nor their foreign supporters. I am always curious to know what involvement and concern there woul be if oil was not involved.
March 7, 2007 7:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Digdeeper
"...I think there should be a world wide effort to stop mass killing and starvation and not stand by and just watch and debate. If these depraved dictators understood that there was a military from every nation coming to rescue the people and give them back their country then maybe there wouldnt be vicious dictators..."
In the worst instances such as the Sudan, the world does need to intervene. Before Darfur, Beshir led a genocidal campaign against South Sudan which resulted in the deaths of 2,000,000 (+) people. Clinton's biggest regret was that he didn't do enough in Darfur.
The US cannot always go it alone, and European countries and other countries such as India need to get involved.
I agree with your statement, although, we might disagree on which dictators deserved military intervention versus just sanctions, for example.
March 6, 2007 9:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
AM
I posted this in the Russian discussion, and have added a few paragraphs as well. The most important point is that similar conditions ALSO apply to Iran. Failed negotiations, ignored UN resolutions, Europe showing little resolve, Russian and China undermining sanctions, President of Iran threatening to "wipe Israel off the map".
The conditions are present for war either by the US or by Israel. You do not have to support the US invasion of Iraq to notice that similar conditions are present. What is necessary to avoid a conflict?
The conditions that led to war in Iraq:
Iraq was unwilling to conform to a UN mandate (res. 687-Saddam to disarm). Saddam played hide and seek with the inspectors, and did not take the mandate seriously. Seventeen UN resolutions were passed in all to get Saddam to conform to the ceasefire that he signed. Sanctions resulted in 1,500,000 deaths, 567,000 of which were children. That, all in itself, was a humanitarian crisis, and the fault lies entirely on the shoulders of Saddam, who, because he refused to disarm and cooperate with the inspectors, allowed the deaths of so many people. He was a power hungry, brutal mass murderer deserving to be hung (without a fair trial).
In 1998, Clinton bombed Iraq for Saddam's lack of cooperation and then, INEXPLICABLY, allowed Saddam to keep out inspectors for the last two years of his Presidency.
The humanitarian oil for food program came in to existence in 1996(?) because the world recognized that Saddam was doing fine, only the Iraqi people (mostly Shia) were suffering. The oil for food program deteriorated to the "oil for food scandal" which, in a few years time, had canceled the affect of the sanctions. So when Bush took office, there were no inspections, probably no resolve to have inspections and rampant scandals associated with the UN oil for food program.
Saddam was given the impression (rightly) that the West (especially the US under Clinton) and the UN did not have the resolve to enforce their own mandate. After 10 years, no one knew, for sure, what the state of Saddam’s weapons program was. Clinton did a good job from 1993-1998 containing Iraq, but totally screwed up his last two years. So, in effect, he passed the whole mess to President Bush to solve.
Between the UN scandal, and the West’s lack of resolve, and, thus a failure of peaceful (diplomatic) means to disarm Saddam, the conditions for a war were put in place. That is the price of diplomatic failure. Saddam would, inevitably, be a threat to his neighbors (i.e., reconstitute his WMD program), and a threat to regional stability had we allowed him to continue unwatched. He also attempted to assassinate Bush senor and had given millions to terrorist groups, so he could have been a threat to US security in the future.
After 911 occurred, everything changed, in my view. Iraq is located in the Middle East which is the world-wide leader in terrorism, recruitment of terrorist, funding of terrorist, and harboring of terrorist. Saddam funded and supported terrorist organizations and, in addition, Iraq invaded two countries. What distinguished Saddam, however, is that he sought and USED WMDs.
About 70% of the American people were behind the invasion of Iraq. Even after discovering there were no WMD's, Bush was re-elected in 2004. Most Americans believed that the installation of Democracy in the heart of the birthplace of modern terrorism, and the overthrow of a brutal, non cooperative dictator was the right course of action.
I fully believe that the decision to invade was moral and right, however, even supporters of the war have seen a strategic (regional) nightmare unfold, thus one of the main reasons, I believe, as do most sane people, that we cannot just up and leave, is the regional problems that the war could cause.
March 6, 2007 9:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
amviennava,
You are right, I didnt think you would answer,no one does when I ask it.The question can bring a lively conversation about Iraq to an errie quiet. There seems to only be two choices and you are against one of them, so the other is to live and let live. However, you are not correct about the other "obvious". I think there should be a world wide effort to stop mass killing and starvation and not stand by and just watch and debate. If these depraved dictators understood that there was a military from every nation coming to rescue the people and give them back their country then maybe there wouldnt be vicious dictators. Right now we should be sending in troops from every country to save Darfur. Yea, call me naive, I think it could work but I know I'll never live to see it.
Have you heard the term gawker? When there is a traffic accident and people slow down to gawk. I was involved in an accident and some wonderful person stopped and helped, covered my friend with a blanket,looked after us until help came, but what I couldnt get over was the number of people who actually stopped and got out of their cars to stare.
Amviennava, please dont think that I'm attacking you directly. I just dont see a third answer. Do you?
March 6, 2007 2:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Digdeeper: It is obvious that you did not expect an answer. It is equally obvious that you do not have one either.
What is that line about a football team?
March 6, 2007 1:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
amviennava
I thought you wouldnt answer my question or maybe you did. I gather from your comments that humanity should do nothing when there is rape murder and torture going on.
You say our soldiers are making it worse. I hope not one soldier reads any of this. I know from talking to many of these young men that they believe they are and will make a difference in Iraq. The goal of freedom and democracy is a right of all humanity. I dont know why so many want this goal to fail. Yes there are people killed everyday and it saddens me every time I hear about it, but it horrified me when I read of the hundreds of thousands that were killed by one man with no hope in sight. If the US hadnt stepped in for Desert Storm, think of how many millions that would have been killed.(should we have stayed out then?) There are a large number of Iraqis in the city I live in. Many would love to go home.They wish we had stayed the last time we were in Iraq for Desert Storm. Others (believe it or not) love this country and want to stay.
It seems like so many who voice their thoughts on this subject are political. They go to great lenghts to show how well read they are on what others write and then pick and choose to put forth what defends their "football team". Maybe one day I too will take the view of live and let live. (hear that DARFUR)
March 6, 2007 12:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
The greatest danger facing the world today is not a country. It is islam.
March 6, 2007 10:12 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Tom Wonacott: granted, many assumed that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons. Logic indicated that they were old, given the embargo on Iraq since 1991, and therefore almost inert. What has yet to be explained, is the justification for an attack.
Iraq was impotent. It could not even defend its airspace. There was absolutely no justification for a war, other than the whatever dreams bush and the rest of the neo-cons have/had. They waged war for the sake of waging war. And they have been using the same language against Iran as they did against Iraq.
Ergo, since they lied then (and Cheney still is), they represent a major threat. This is aggravated by that Bush speaks for all sides of his mouth at the same time, and the administration goes in random directions. Since Bush is the President, that makes the US the major threat.
March 6, 2007 8:26 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Digdeeper: My answer is that obviously you do not make it worse. Which is exactly what we have done. So, since you like to pose such broad impressive questions, without regard to the damage they cause to actual people, what is your solution to the carnage and mayhem that we have loosened?
March 6, 2007 8:19 AM | Report Offensive Comments
John Peddicore
Your friend and mine, George Tenet, was the director of the CIA in 1998, so I doubt that Clinton was lying, only regurgitating bad intelligence (from the same source as Bush).
Clinton did absolutely nothing after he bombed Iraq, and allowed Saddam to keep the inspectors out for the remaining two years of his Presidency. In affect, he passed the problem along to President Bush. The three years that there were no inspectors in Iraq roughly correlates to the amount of time from when North Korea kicked the inspectors out of North Korea until they detonated their nuclear bomb. Three years is a long time.
Bombing Iraq in 1998 was not the problem, it was the negligence after the bombing. Why, in God's name, do you bomb someone because they are not cooperating with inspectors, and then allow them to keep inspectors out after the bombing? This along with the "oil for food" scandal showed to Saddam our lack of resolve in enforcing the conditions of the cease fire.
"...Madeline Albright is a JEW, and we know what concerns HER: ISRAEL..."
Madeline Albright is a Jew? So what. That doesn't amount to much of a rebuttal. Maybe the government can only hire Jews if they are anti-Israel(?)
"...As for her second comment, we know he HAD SPENT money on building WMD, but he destroyed them in 1991. So this comment is totally irrelevant..."
Although Saddam destroyed most of his weapons in 1991-92, he never abandoned the idea of reviving them when the opportunity arose. The Biological facilities destroyed in the mid 90's were illegal and undeclared. See below.
"...ISG judges that Iraq�s actions between 1991 and 1996 demonstrate that the state intended to preserve its BW capability and return to a steady, methodical progress toward a mature BW program when and if the opportunity arose.
* ISG assesses that in 1991, Iraq clung to the objective of gaining war-winning weapons with the strategic intention of achieving the ability to project its power over much of the Middle East and beyond. Biological weapons were part of that plan. With an eye to the future and aiming to preserve some measure of its BW capability, Baghdad in the years immediately after Desert Storm sought to save what it could of its BW infrastructure and covertly continue BW research, hide evidence of that and earlier efforts, and dispose of its existing weapons stocks.
* From 1992 to 1994, Iraq greatly expanded the capability of its Al Hakam facility. Indigenously produced 5 cubic meter fermentors were installed, electrical and water utilities were expanded, and massive new construction to house its desired 50 cubic meter fermentors were completed.
* With the economy at rock bottom in late 1995, ISG judges that Baghdad abandoned its existing BW program in the belief that it constituted a potential embarrassment, whose discovery would undercut Baghdad�s ability to reach its overarching goal of obtaining relief from UN sanctions..."
All this kind of evidence builds doubts.
Saddam must have been braindead because if he had fully cooperated, he could be in the process of reconstituting his WMD program today or committing genocide. His sons would be in a position to takeover Iraq in the event of an unfortunate accident.
March 6, 2007 12:51 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Mr. Danley,
As to your comments about the Democrats strategy in 2008. Are you giving us a lesson in Presidential succession? Save your patronizing breath.
An alternative strategy might be to put both Bush and Cheney behind bars, thus thoroughly discrediting this miscreant Republican regime.
You are living in a dream world if you think the Republicans stand a chance in 2008. This regime's corruptions and deceptions have already discredited the Republican Party.
As for Iraq. You apparently don't understand that we have LOST in Iraq. We have LOST the oil.
Under the just approved hydrocarbon law the profits from Iraqi oil will be distributed equitably to all factions in Iraq (as they were before the invasion). Iraq's oil WILL NOT BE PRIVATIZED. It will be run by the state, as it was before the invasion.
Bush's invasion threatens to destabilize the region, he has NOT brought peace and stability to Iraq.
Bush's invasion has succeeded in INCREASING terrorism in Iraq, and throughout the World.
Bush's invasion has increased, not diminished, the threat against Israel.
Bush's invasion has set all of the rest of the World against America, even Israel. Don't you know what's happening to the Ohlmert regime in Israel. They are all under indictment for various corruptions. They are history.
Bush has lost and lost and lost and lost.
As for the "robust" US economy. History. How do we know? Because Greenspan told us so. Remember, he of the "irrational exuberance" correctly predicting the dot com bust.
Soon Bush and Cheney will be history too. The sooner the better.
All that Bush is trying to do is save his ass.
March 5, 2007 10:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Mr. Danley,
I first saw this collection of quotes at least two years ago they have been bouncing around the blogosphere probably even longer. Undoubtedly, bloggers on the Republican payroll are responsible.
Collectively, they have absolutely no bearing upon the premeditated and systematic deceptions of the Bush administration that resulted in the invasion, occupation, and destruction of Iraq, and the concomitant loss of human life.
Let's take the quote from Clinton:
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
PRESIDENT CLINTON, Feb. 17, 1998.
Wingnuts never tire of pointing out that Clinton was a proven liar, I don't dispute it. So he lied about the threat posed by Saddam's WMD. Isn't that what you would expect from a proven liar? It's HISTORY. So how does it excuse or explain Bush's lies. BUSH LIED, THOUSANDS DIED.
Clinton lied about an affair. SO WHAT! Clinton lied about the threat from Saddam, and we sent in an airstrike that blew up some buildings. SO WHAT!
You've said over and over again that Clinton was a liar. WHO CARES, HE'S NOT PRESIDENT ANYMORE AND HE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS AND IRAQIS THAT HAVE DIED AND ARE STILL DYING.
I shall deal with the other quotes one at a time:
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
MADELINE ALBRIGHT, Clinton's Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
MADELINE ALBRIGHT, Clinton's Secretary of State,
Madeline Albright is a JEW, and we know what concerns HER: ISRAEL. Clinton made a huge mistake appointing her, As for her second comment, we know he HAD SPENT money on building WMD, but he destroyed them in 1991. So this comment is totally irrelevant.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
SANDY BERGER, Clinton's National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
Sandy Berger only stated the obvious, that Saddam had used WMD in the Iran/Iraq war. He also knew that Saddam would NEVER use them against us or our allies. Saddam would have been insane to do that, because he would have been instantly annihilated. Besides, Berger wasn't trying to justify an invasion of Iraq. Only a fool or a lying madman would invade Iraq under the circumstances. You know, someone like George Bush or Adolf Hitler.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by SENS. CARL LEVIN, THOM DASCHLE, JOHN KERRY and others Oct. 9, 1998.
These comments, as I have already said, were used to justify air and missile strikes. Notice that they said NOTHING ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF WMD, but of PROGRAMS. There was no lie. Saddam did have WMD programs in the sense that the scientists and knowledge base existed in Iraq to revive WMD development. Substantiated facts to support responsible and appropriate actions. I have no problem with that. Do you?
Unlike Bush's LIES to support the greatest strategic BLUNDER in US military history. Or maybe it wasn't a blunder at all, maybe it was LIES to support the wildy successfull operation to TOTALLY DESTROY SADDAM AND IRAQ? Hmmmmmm.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
Nov. 10, 1999.
NO LIES HERE! Everyone KNEW Saddam HAD BEEN engaged in developing WMD, and that they WERE a threat. Past history. However, I do disagree with Nancy Pelosi. The UN weapons inspection program was a wild success. Saddam DID destroy all his WMD in 1991! So there were none in 2003. So why did Bush/Cheney insist there were? Maybe because they are both liars?
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by SEN BOB GRAHAM (D-FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
This quote and the folowing ones can be directly attributed to the premeditated and systematic deceptions of the illegitimate Bush regime that siezed power in this country on January 20, 2001. A DAY THAT SHALL LIVE IN INFAMY!
I am saving this response so that the next time a Bush sycophant like you tries to defend the indefensible I shall be ready and waiting.
March 5, 2007 9:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
AMVIENNAVA,
IF YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION I WILL ANSWER YOURS
March 5, 2007 7:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Digdeeper: I agree with your sentiments.
As these horrible things are happening NOW in Iraq, with ours troops there, please do explain what YOU INTEND TO DO ABOUT IT.
March 5, 2007 12:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
If you are against the Iraq war than please, someone suggest what the world should do when people are being tortured, raped and murdered and buried in mass graves. I assure you that debating it to death does nothing.
March 5, 2007 9:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Mr. Peddicord, do I understand you correctly? It was NOT A LIE for these Democrats to say Saddam Hussein has "EMBARKED ON A CRASH COURSE TO BUILD UP HIS CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE CAPABILITIES...HE IS SEEKING NUCLEAR WEAPONS" and that he "IS THE GREATEST SECURITY THREAT WE FACE" because these Democrats were only talking about supporting airstrikes against Iraq? Yet it IS A LIE when President Bush says the same thing to support sending troops into Iraq to physically remove Saddam Hussein?
And do I also understand you correctly, that the intelligence on which the Democrats based their statements PRIOR to Jan 20, 2001 (you actually said "subsequent to 2000," but I knew what you meant) was somehow just flawed? Yet when the Democrats made similar statements AFTER Jan 20, 2001 it was because President Bush misrepresented and fabricated the intelligence in a premeditated and systematic way?
Now as for the "saving grace that no one was killed," correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you meant to say no AMERICANS were killed. I wonder how many Iraqis were tortured, raped and murdered under the orders of Saddam Hussein between October 1998 and March 2003?
March 3, 2007 8:17 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Mr. Peddicord, you ask why President Bush is still in office, that is really very simple. That's because, even if everything you claim is true (which I don't accept), the Democrats' don't want to have to run against a sitting president or vice president in the 2008 election. If President Bush were impeached and convicted, then Dick Cheney would become president. President Cheney would then nominate someone, subject to Senate confirmation, to replace him as vice president. The new vice president would, no doubt, immediately become the front runner to be the Republican nominee in the 2008 presidential election, as Cheney has already declared he will not run for president. 2008 will be the first time since 1952 that a sitting president or vice president has not run for president. And the Democrats feel that gives them their best chance to win back the White House.
March 2, 2007 10:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Mr. Danley:
I have seen everyone of those quotes before: All of the quotes from Clinton and his cabinet, and Democratic Congressmen were to support a precision-guided missile attack on Iraq military infrastructure, which was considered by everyone in the US at the time justified and appropriate, based upon percieved non-cooperation with UNSCOM inspectors.
We now know that even that proscribed action was unjustified. The only saving grace was that NO ONE WAS KILLED!
Clinton, quite rightly, rejected suggestions of an invasion, which he knew would involve massive loss of life and destablisation of the region.
The quotes subsequent to 2000 were made by those who w