Readers’ Responses to Our Question (48)

it was a typo rick- the nov.2 was changed to a 12
and there it popped up

Try this link, now there is one comment there.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/2007/11/israel_lobby_too_powerful/comments.html#comments

Thanks Victoria,

I don't know how we missed that one.

hello all

this question was posted on november 2nd-
its seems to have gone unnoticed, but maybe because no panelists dared respond

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/2007/11/israel_lobby_too_powerful/

Vic Van Meter

As the saying goes “ I felt your pain”. We have advertised! democracy to be the ultimate in the science of governance to such an extend that our “brightest!” have called for “the end of history”. Yet, you can find enough fault with it in a few short paragraphs that’ll ought to send everybody looking for a replacement. The frequent defense for democratic governance is that although it is not perfect, it’s the best we’ve got. And I believe it to be true with one small twist. “We” are the best we’ve got. People are not pure and perfect mathematical equations and they are easily persuaded to selfish behavior by greed and want. With all the materialistic persuasions around our daily lives, expecting the perfect behavior from us is not realistic. But it is this greed and want that is the engine of our scientific development. So because of our nature we often stumble and fall but we still go forward. To me, this is what matters most. To keep our leaders in-check, we must make the system as transparent as we can. Information is the best weapon we’ve got against political corruption. Let’s use Internet to distribute it. Continue posting your opinions. It won’t be long before the establishment figures out how to counter it.

Vic Van Meter

“…I wish parties didn't have principles anymore. American morality has turned into nothing but a spectator sport to see who gets to impose whose set of values upon whom. Whatever happened to doing what's right?…”

Exactly my point. Just on the issue of torture alone, the Dumocrats politicized the issue to death, but when it comes time to vote on their PRINCIPALS i.e., torture, they completely cave in (as the New York Times correctly points out) by confirming Michael Mukase.

“…He was simply asked if, as a general matter, waterboarding is illegal.
It was not a difficult question. Waterboarding is specifically banned by the Army Field Manual, and it is plainly illegal under the federal Anti-Torture Act, federal assault statutes, the Detainee Treatment Act, the Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions. It is hard to see how any nominee worthy of the position of attorney general could fail to answer “yes.”…”

The same can be said for the war in Iraq (especially, where Democratic presidential candidates NOW say US troops will be in Iraq at least until 2013...), the Patriot Act, National Surveillance, renduring and Guantanamo Bay. How much time on the floor of the House and Senate have the Democrats wasted (politicizing these issues) when they could have been doing something constructive, thus they’ve attained the unattainable - worst ratings than Bush.

From an interview with “Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the architect of the Democratic victory in November's congressional elections” ("An Opening for the Democrats", By David Ignatius Friday, January 12, 2007; Page A19).

“…Emanuel plans to use Bush's Iraq speech to pose what amounts to a vote of "no confidence" in Bush's leadership -- framing the new strategy as a congressional motion and voting it up or down. Emanuel is certain that Bush's strategy will be voted down and that a sizable number of Republicans will join the Democrats in rejecting the military escalation. Rather than try to restrict funds for the troops (which he sees as a political blunder that would delight Republicans), Emanuel instead favors a proposal by Rep. John Murtha to set strict standards for readiness -- which would make it hard to finance the troop surge in Iraq without beefing up the military as a whole. The idea is to position the Democrats as friends of the military, even as they denounce Bush's Iraq policy…The country is angry, and it will only get more so as the problems in Iraq deepen. Don't look to Emanuel's Democrats for solutions on Iraq. It's Bush's war, and as it splinters the structure of GOP power, the Democrats are waiting to pick up the pieces…”

This sentence bears repeating "Don't look to Emanuel's Democrats for solutions on Iraq...".

Isn’t it great that we live in a country where politicizing a war is nothing more than a strategy to assume power? Partisanship has REPLACED principals in Washington, and while that's OK on some issues, it seems to be a bad idea when your country is at war.

You may be leaning toward voting Democratic in 2008, but I wouldn’t vote for a Democrat under any circumstance.

Topm,

To assume your opposition is without direction, agenda or ethical standard is a typical republican shortcoming. By all appearances it seems that the only way die hard republicans can cope with the world is to say you either agree with us or you just don't know what you're talking about. Kind of egotistical when you consider only around 30 percent of Americans are agreeing with them today and a far lower percentage of of international people. I know, who cares what other people think when you're absolutely convinced you are right. Ugh, that's awful logic.

Anyway, the confirmation of the new attorney general in fact had little to do with what will transpire after Bush/Cheney "The waterboarding duo" leave office. The attorney general has no power to make laws or give this torturous duo a free pass for what they've done. The democrats didn't like the new attorney general, but they were willing to take anyone after Gonzo to at least attempt to get the justice department functional again. Hence, don't read too much into this confirmation. It's short lived at best.

One short year from now there will be a new president elect. If it is a democrat, and I assum it will be, I don't envision any democrat being benevolent to GW & Thumper. That duo has basically told the democrats to stick it in their ear for the last 7 years. No, my friend, be prepared for a little pay back. GW has earned it all by himself. A sweeping democrat victory in 2008 stands a very good chance of landing GW and Chiney in jail. Frankly, I believe they belong there. Not because of how incompetent they are. There is no law against being stupid. They belong there because they are barbaric and have acted like barbarians. They don't get a free pass for ordering torture. God needs to have mercy on their souls as the democrats won't. In the unlikely event a republican should win the white house in 2008 Bush/Cheney will get a free legal pass. In which case it will be up to the history books to document their war crimes and try and explain why they got away with it.

Back on topic from today’s WP:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/10/AR2007111001308.html

“The General Must Go

Pervez Musharraf has become an obstacle to U.S. interests in Pakistan -- and to Pakistan's interests as well.

Sunday, November 11, 2007; B06

UNDER PRESSURE from President Bush, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf announced Thursday that he would hold elections for Parliament by Feb. 15. His government has said it will end a state of emergency within a month. But the general's security forces continue to detain thousands of activists from the country's secular political parties, judiciary and human rights groups, while violently breaking up protests and keeping independent television stations off the air...

After his first coup, in 1999, the general also promised elections: The result was a blatantly rigged ballot that excluded Ms. Bhutto and other centrist leaders and boosted militant Islamic parties. It is likely that the election he now promises would be similarly manipulated...

Pakistan's crisis unquestionably poses serious risks to U.S. national security. But the Bush administration's practice of clinging to Mr. Musharraf is increasing rather than lessening the danger. Pakistan can defeat Muslim extremism only through the empowerment of its moderate secular civil society with the full support of the army and the United States. Mr. Musharraf's actions in the past week have destroyed any chance that he could play a leading role in that process.”

So yes, leave Pakistan to the Pakistanis and withdraw U.S. support from Musharraf.

BobL-Va:

“Of course we should get out. We obviously know little to nothing about Muslim cultures and how they think. Contrary to the 31% of the American public that still believes George "the torturer" Bush" all we've been able to do is take a bad situation and make it a horrendous situation.”

Amen Brother!

From today’s NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/opinion/12cohen.html?hp

“Bring the Real World Home

By ROGER COHEN

In the gym at the NATO base in Kabul, U.S. soldiers hit the treadmills every morning and gaze at TV screens broadcasting Al Jazeera’s English news channel. When Osama bin Laden makes news, as he did recently with a statement about Iraq, America’s finest work out beneath the solemn gaze of their most wanted enemy.

This sounds like a scene from Donald Rumsfeld’s private hell. The former secretary of defense dismissed Al Jazeera as a “mouthpiece of Al Qaeda.” He once called the network, which is based in and owned by Qatar, “vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable.”

In an indication of what the Bush administration thinks of Al Jazeera journalism (and habeas corpus), it has locked up one of the network’s cameramen, Sami al-Hajj, in Guantánamo Bay for more than five years without charging him...

The first change that must be grasped is America’s diminished ability to influence people. Global access to information now amounts to an immense à la carte menu...

The second essential change is the erosion of American power. Samantha Power, the author and Harvard professor, calls this “the core fact of recent years.”

America’s hard power — its military — is compromised by intractable counterinsurgency wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its economy is strained; witness the ever feebler dollar. Its soft power — the resonance of the American idea — has been hurt by a loss of legitimacy (Hajj languishing) and by incompetence (Iraq).

The third essential change is the solidification of anti-Americanism as a political idea. Jihadist Islamism is the most violent expression of this, but its agents benefit from swimming in a sea of less murderous resentments...

These political winds hurt America. Counterinsurgency has been called armed social science. To win, you must understand the world you’re in.

Comparative courses in how Al Jazeera, CNN, the BBC and U.S. networks portray the Iraq war and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be taught in all U.S. high schools and colleges. Al Jazeera English should be widely available.”

Tom,

From today’s NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/opinion/12rubin.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

“Over There — and Gone Forever
By RICHARD RUBIN

BY any conceivable measure, Frank Buckles has led an extraordinary life. Born on a farm in Missouri in February 1901, he saw his first automobile in his hometown in 1905, and his first airplane at the Illinois State Fair in 1907...

But even more significant than the remarkable details of Mr. Buckles’s life is what he represents: Of the two million soldiers the United States sent to France in World War I, he is the only one left...”

I thought you and others may enjoy this article on Veterans’ Day, since we have had so much fun debating the disastrous Middle East legacy of WWI.

Vic Van Meter,

“You can't pick and choose your issues, you either vote for...tax-and-spend purgatory or you can vote for...borrow-and-spend Hell.”

Good one, I like it; but how do you explain the Bill Clinton phenomenon, where the budget was finally balanced after about 7 years in office of an 8 year term (with projected surpluses as far as the eye could see), and will Hillary be able to repeat this amazing feat?

Time to close down the fraud shop called Pakistan. It has been a failure since inception.

Time to close down the fraud shop called Pakistan. It has been a failure since inception.

Time to close down the fraud shop called Pakistan. It has been a failure since inception.

Tom,

What do you mean Democrats (or for that matter, Republicans) don't have principles? Every party has a set of principles. It's called the party's 'agenda'. Think of it as a toeing line. You can't pick and choose your issues, you either vote for abortion rights, religious repression, and tax-and-spend purgatory or you can vote for the death penalty, quasi-theocracy, and borrow-and-spend Hell. Independents aren't really independent, they just don't toe the party line on every issue.

You can't count on either party to do everything sensibly, you can only vote for one or the other. I'm leaning Democrat these days just because I have developed a very deep-seated hatred and disgust for our administration and only a grudging dislike and embarassment at our legislature. I'm not pleased with anybody in our government, really, just because when you come to any forum where people actually get together and talk, regular people can at least come to some kind of consensus. But since our political parties have principles (again, agendas) and there are only two of them, you're screwed into voting one or the other.

In reality, neither party has a principle. They have a point of contention. It pays dividends to keep people polarized on issues that can be solved through consensus if you're a politician in a power state, and those people run the parties. Think about how long abortion has been an issue because you're trying to decide whether to ban abortion even when the mother is dying or allow thirteen year old girls to sign anonymously for the procedure without informing the legal guardians. Sure, we've got a lot of problems in the country, but none get solved when we set two heavy rocks against each other and wait to see which one moves.

In American domestic politics, there are no more solutions because we're watching senators siding with the 'enemy' and keeping a freaking tally. We've become so rabidly fetishistic in our fandom that we've turned legislative process into a football game and we're waiting to see who wins. Which gives us a lot to watch, but doesn't fix anything.

I wish parties didn't have principles anymore. American morality has turned into nothing but a spectator sport to see who gets to impose whose set of values upon whom. Whatever happened to doing what's right?

Seriously, I want every American's opinion on four questions. Is waterboarding torture? Should it always be illegal? Should anyone be prosecuted criminally for it? And should Mukasey's confirmation be halted based on his refusal to answer the above questions up front?

BobL

"...I will advocate that a full open investigation of their actions as it pretains to torture be initiated...However...I'll be shocked if a democrat controlled congress will give these guys a free pass. This issue alone gives me hope"

Plan on some shock therapy, Bob. The confirmation of Attorney General Michael Mukasey by a 53-40 vote in the Senate should indicate to you that on most issues that require some principle, they fall way short, however, when it comes to playing politics with an issue of principle, Democrats are a world class organization (see New York Times, 11/11/07, editorial, "Abdicate and Capitulate"). No wonder you are an independent.

The Democrats are a party without direction or principle (at least at this point in time).

Tom,

I don’t give the Israeli Lobby credit for total control of our government either. They are just a strong influence that happens to reinforce another powerful influence: our dependence on Middle East oil. In my opinion we need to rid ourselves of both negative influences as soon as possible.

Regards

Rick

My only post is the one with my name on it (not "historical facts").

I believe "The Israel lobby" will be interesting, partly because I am very skeptical about it's power. Don't get me wrong, I believe the Jewish lobby is strong (as are many interest such as the oil lobby), but I am just skeptical that it is strong enough to control our foreign policy. I plan on reading it in the near future.

Thanks for the post.

Tom

“…From Gilbert Achcar (Chomski and Achcar, 2007, Perilous Power):

The Main factor behind US foreign policy is definitely not the pro-Israeli lobby...To believe that Israel is conducting US foreign policy is to believe that the tail wags the dog..."

O.K., I’m sure that I can find plenty of references that take the other view. I believe that the tail does wag the dog in this case, and that is the whole problem. I will look for them and get back to you. For the moment, we will continue to disagree on that one.

“…Congress and the President voted to go to war backed by approximately 60-70% of the American people…”

Yes, we were all fooled weren’t we, including the president (and me) and most of the rest of the western nations? Unfortunately, our President Bush was the only one foolish enough to launch an unnecessary preemptive war based on poor intelligence.

Actually, congress did not vote to go to war. It voted to authorize war if all else failed. Clearly President Bush was too eager for war to allow the U.N. weapons inspectors finish their job.

“…I assume you mean that the US should FOOT THE BILL to transfer the 4-5 million Israeli Jews to Texas…”

Yes, that would be a bargain at twice the price compared to the hundreds of billions foreign aid we have given and must continue to give to Israel primarily to support their unjust occupation of Palestine. Not to mention our loss of national prestige and standing in the world because of our unjust foreign policies.

“…Isn’t “free ourselves…lobby?” an oxymoron? Don’t you mean “free ourselves” from ALL lobbies, since if we freed ourselves from just the Jewish lobby wouldn’t that be bigoted…”

Yes, thanks for the catch. This particular discussion is focused on the Israeli Lobby because of our discussion of the Palestinian issue. Actually all K Street lobbyists are out of control and have way too much influence on our government.

…Wouldn’t freeing ourselves from all lobbies really be just oppressing ourselves by limiting free speech?”…

A certain amount of lobbying is a good thing, but our present system is badly in need of reform.

“…Of course, if the Arab lobby influenced our foreign policy to eliminate foreign aid to Israel, then that would be ok, right?...”

No, I want our foreign policy to be conducted based on what is right, not based on who can be bribed. In my humble opinion, our position on the Palestinian issue is unjust, and foreign aid to Israel should be terminated based on the merits of the case.

“…There is a new, controversial book out by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (“The Israeli Lobby“) which should be interesting reading…

Yes, I have posted on that reference on other sites:

Why do Americans irrationally support Israel unconditionally against our own best interests?

See this link for answers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy[1] (a condensed version used the title The Israel Lobby[2]) is the title of a work by John Mearsheimer, the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt, The Robert and Rene Belfer Professor of International Relations at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, that has gone through several versions from 2002 to 2007. The most recent version is The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, a New York Times Best Seller, published in September 2007 by Farrah, Strauss, and Giroux.

The work claims that "the United States has been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state [Israel]", and further that U.S. Middle East policy is driven primarily by the "Israel Lobby," defined as a "loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction."[2]

The authors state that the "core of the Lobby" is "American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel's interests." They note that "not all Jewish-Americans are part of the Lobby," and that "Jewish-Americans also differ on specific Israeli policies."

The paper was originally commissioned in 2002 by The Atlantic Monthly, which then rejected it.[3] It became available as a working paper at the Kennedy School's website in 2006. The paper was finally published in March 2006 by the London Review of Books. Philip Weiss discusses some of the background to the creation of the paper in an article in The Nation.[4] A third, revised version addressing some of the criticism was published in the Fall 2006 issue of Middle East Policy. The authors state that "In terms of its core claims, however, this revised version does not depart from the original Working Paper."[5] In late August 2007 an enlarged version was published as a book.[6][7]

Hello Tom,

I thought that was you. Yes, the questions were factual, but so what? In my humble opinion, they do not lead to the conclusion that you were drawing.

http://www.mideastweb.org/us_supportforstate.htm

Speaking of “the buck stops here,” from the above link, it is clear that Truman was opposed to the U.N. Partition and the State of Israel, because he new this would be an intolerable load on our defense budget to provide security to the new state forever. He was forced to instruct his ambassador to the U.N. to vote for the partition because of political pressure. It was an election year, and Dewey was tearing him up in the polls. Truman wanted to allow 100,000 of the 250,000 Jewish war refugees to immigrate into the U.S., but this was strongly opposed by the American people (and Dewey).

So much for “the buck stops here”! To bad that he did not have the courage of his convictions in this particular instance.

“…On May 25, 1939, following the British White Paper of 1939 that limited Jewish immigration, Truman inserted a remark in the Congressional Record condemning the White paper as a repudiation of British obligations…

…Truman wrote in his memoirs, "The question of Palestine as a Jewish homeland goes back to the solemn promise that had been made to them [the Jews] by the British in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 - a promise which had stirred the hopes and the dreams of these oppressed people. This promise, I felt, should be kept, just as all promises made by responsible, civilized governments should be kept."…

…About 250,000 Jewish displaced persons, refugees who had survived Nazi concentration camps, exile in Siberia and partisan battles, were now living in miserable camps in Europe, awaiting clearance for immigration and final settlement. The US, at Truman's instigation, began pressuring the British to modify their Palestine policy and admit displaced persons to Palestine. At the same time, Truman tried to gain support for admission of Jewish displaced persons to the United States. However, domestic opposition to enlarging immigration for Jews was fierce and adamant…

…Truman was still averse to the idea of a Jewish state despite his support for immigration, mostly out of concern that it would require excessive US resources to defend it…

…What I am trying to do is to make the whole world safe for the Jews. Therefore, I don't feel like going to war for Palestine."…

…He wrote to Eleanor Roosevelt on August 23, 1947, apparently in the wake of one or another Jewish terrorist atrocity:

"I fear very much that the Jews are like all underdogs. When they get on top they are just as intolerant and cruel as the people were to them when they were underneath. I regret this situation very much because my sympathy has always been on their side."...

“…The policy was undoubtedly influenced by electoral considerations. Loy Henderson admitted, "Many of the leaders of the Republican Party, including Dewey...were almost constantly criticizing Truman for failure to give full support to the Zionists. If Truman had taken positions that would have resulted in a failure to establish the Jewish State, he would almost certainly have been defeated in the November [1948] elections since the Zionists had almost the full support of the Congress, the United States media, and most of the American people. The new Republican Administration would then have gone along with the Zionists."…”

Rick

Good morning

“…In a like manner it was the lobbying influence of the powerful American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) that mislead us into the moronic and disastrous preemptive invasion and occupation of Iraq…”

From Gilbert Achcar (Chomski and Achcar, 2007, Perilous Power):

"...The Main factor behind US foreign policy is definitely not the pro-Israeli lobby...To believe that Israel is conducting US foreign policy is to believe that the tail wags the dog..."

Congress and the President voted to go to war backed by approximately 60-70% of the American people.

“…Until we develop a fair and balanced policy with respect to Palestine…”

I assume you mean that the US should FOOT THE BILL to transfer the 4-5 million Israeli Jews to Texas.

“…and free ourselves from the influence of the Jewish lobby…”

Isn’t “free ourselves…lobby?” an oxymoron? Don’t you mean “free ourselves” from ALL lobbies, since if we freed ourselves from just the Jewish lobby, wouldn’t that be bigoted? Wouldn’t freeing ourselves from all lobbies really be just oppressing ourselves by limiting free speech?

Every group has a right to lobby for their cause. The Turks may regard the Armenians as too influential because Congress threatened a vote to recognize the genocide, but the Armenians may consider the Turks too influential because the vote was suppressed.

If you believe that the so called Jewish lobby has too much influence (money, I assume), then who decides what is too much influence? Of course, if the Arab lobby influenced our foreign policy to eliminate foreign aid to Israel, then that would be ok, right? I don’t believe the Arabs suffer from a lack of money to try to change our policies, however. Thankfully, they don’t have as much influence - at least from my perspective.

For your information, the 110th US Congress has 43 Jewish members, and in 1991, they were approximately evenly split (21-20) on voting AGAINST the Gulf War. In 2002, “a majority of Jewish members of Congress did authorize the use of force, though proportionately less so than did non-Jewish members.” The Jewish lobby needs to, at least, do a better job of lobbying the Jewish members of Congress.

There is a new, controversial book out by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (“The Israeli Lobby“) which should be interesting reading.

Rick

You did not say if the questions were not facts, but preferred to give your personal opinions to the questions, which seem to be a little biased. However, as it is your privilege to answer the questions as you did, it is my privilege to decide to stop the 'buck' here.

Historical Delusion:

You say:

“If you really believe what you write then answer the following questions:

1 - When was Palestine ever an Arab state?”

Palestine was never an Arab state and was most recently a part of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years prior to WWI. It was a quiet country backwater sparsely populated with predominately Muslims and a few other minorities, who had been content to tend their flocks and orchards and farm the land for millennia.

But so what? What’s your point? It certainly was not a Jewish state.

“2 - Did you know the British cut the largest part of Palestine to create Jordan?”

The British mandate of Palestine following WWI included the current “State of Israel”, plus the West Bank and Gaza; all land west of the Jordan River. The land east of the Jordan River was referred to as Transjordan, and corresponds to the present nation of Jordan. Palestine and Transjordan were incorporated (under different legal and administrative arrangements) into the Mandate for Palestine, issued by the League of Nations to Great Britain on 29 September, 1923.

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/cf02d057b04d356385256ddb006dc02f/aeac80e740c782e4852561150071fdb0!OpenDocument

But so what? What’s your point? Do you want to give the Jews Jordan as well?

“3 – When the partition was accepted by Israel who declared war and tried to wipe it off the map in 1948?”

Just about everybody with an ounce of integrity, as they should have.

But so what? What’s your point?

“4 - Did you know that the 1948 war created 700.000 Palestinians refugees but simultaneously 850.000 Jews were expelled or forced to leave the Arab countries, and resettled and integrated in Israel or other countries, without U.N. and international financial help, contrary to the Palestinians who have been kept in refugee camps until today in spite of the billions of dollars received in aid since 1948 and whose leaders never really used to help them regain their dignity and rebuild a constructive life?”

But so what? What’s your point? The 700,000 Palestinians were unjustly thrown out of their land for no reason. They were just trying to defend what was rightfully theirs. The 850,000 Jews were also unjustly thrown out of their land in response to the Zionist land grab in Palestine. The root cause was the Zionist land grab in Palestine.

“5 - During the period between 1948 and 1967 Gaza and the West Bank were under Egyptian and Jordan control, why did they not decide to create a state for the Palestinians?

There are no justifications, in the 21st century, for the way the radical Islamists use violence and killings in order justify any claims against the non-Muslim democratic free countries of the world.”

For the Arab World to accept the U.N. Partition would be to roll over and allow the West to get away with the crime of the 20th century. This will never happen, nor should it.

Some argue that the “State of Israel” is legal because of the Balfour Declaration and its inclusion by the League of Nations in the British Mandate following WWI. However, the Balfour Declaration was the British response to the lobbying influence of the powerful Jews Baron Rothschild and Baron Hirsch.

So as a spoil of war after WWI, and as a result of the lobbying influence of wealthy Jews on the British government, Palestine was taken away from its rightful owners, the Palestinian people who had tended their flocks and orchards and farmed this land for millennia, and given instead to the Jews.

In a like manner it was the lobbying influence of the powerful American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) that mislead us into the moronic and disastrous preemptive invasion and occupation of Iraq. The dual motives for this disaster were our greed to control the world’s second largest oil field combined with the Israelis’ fear and loathing of Saddam Hussein. These same motives are at work in pushing us to bomb Iran’s suspected nuclear facilities.

Until we develop a fair and balanced policy with respect to Palestine, develop energy independence, and free ourselves from the influence of the Jewish lobby, the likelihood of starting WWIII will only increase.

I am agree with your comment.But who will tell this to all old and neo imperialist countries?This is not valid in pakistan only but throughout muslim world.See what happening to American allies who went to iraq and Afghanistan to change these countries.What they got in return?.American led old and new imperialist countires will never allow the people of any country who are anti-west in any form.What you are saying is ,that is true spirit of democracy and on can solve this problem between west and islam.Let the people of islamic countries to solve their own problem through democartic process and ask west to assist.It is not in interest of west to install dictattor and Army in islamic countries to stop coming of the people choice goverment.once this lesson will understand by the west,a new relation will developm,that will be better for the west,islam and world peace.

warsame ali

If you really believe what you write then answer the following questions :
1 - when was Palestine ever an Arab state?
2 - did you know the British cut the largest part of Palestine to create Jordan?
3 - when the partition was accepted by Israel who declared war and tried to wipe it off the map in 1948?
4 - did you know that the 1948 war created 700.000 Palestinians refugees but simultaneously 850.000 jews were expelled or forced to leave the Arab countries, and resettled and integrated in Israel or other countries, without U.N. and international finacial help,contrary to the Palestinians who have been kept in refugee camps until today in spite of the billions of dollars received in aid since 1948 and whose leaders never really used to help them regain their dignity and rebuild a constructive life?
5 - during the period between 1948 and 1967 Gaza and the West Bank were under Egyptian and Jordan control, why did they not decide to create a statea for the Palestinians?
There are no justifications, in the 21st century, for the way the radical islamists use violence and killings in order justify any claims against the non-muslim democratic free countries of the world.

The world's politicians are so self centered that to look at realities to make the right decisions seems a very difficult task.
Today, Pakistan faces two risks :
1 - the hope that there are no foreign interferences and accept Pres. Musharraf's dclarations, promising new election in February 2008 and the cancellation of the martial law
2 - to have Pres. Musharraf forced out of power and have 'democratic' elections immediately and take the risk of the radical islamists gaining power and the control of the atomic bomb.
To declare that the U.S. and the Israel/Palestine situations are the cause of the muslim jihadist actions around the world is to close the eyes to the truth.
The radical islamists want Islam to dominate the world, using any means, including the detestable suicide bombers, to obtain control of the country and atomic bomb.
The second risk will allow the Taliban back in Afghanistan and the complete failure of a hoped democratic Iraq.
The free non-islamic countries are so entangled with their 'democratic' and tolerant approach that they do not understand that they have to strongly unite and make unanimous decisions to address the problem. If each country wishes to make individual decisions based on nationalistic and materialistic interests, the world will be facing the most catastrophic issues.
What is very strange to note is that the moderate majorities of the muslim countries, and muslim communities in non-muslim countries are very quiet and seem frightened not to intervene openly against the radical islamists brutal violence, thus giving more strength to the latters.
Whilst the first risk may allow a possible control of the country's radical islamists.
Of course, it would be desirable that democracy be instituted in every country of the world, but this wishful thinking considering the population and condition of each country.
What is right may sometime create wrongs, if it has to be imposed.

contrary to what Mr.Zakaria and several american experts say, I think we are seeing the beginning of the end of the american empire. The attacks of 9/11 was inexcusable, but one must be quite self-centered to not understand its underlying causes. American foreign policy on the muslim world has had a single goal: Extortion and domination of land, resources, culture and religion. The Israel-palestine conflict has proven to the muslim world, that America does not care. Rejecting eight different resolution is a damning testimony.

Added to the growing influence of new emerging powers. The Euro is replacing the dollar as the world currency - fast. On the domestic scene the growing descrepency between american people, most notably on the economic side, but also on other aspects of life. This will cause more internal unrest in the future as people get more frustrated. No longer will the brightest heads automatically go to America, but rather look to Europe and Asia.

The U.S. will still be a major player in the global scene, but its status as an empire is coming to an end.

Will my comment get banned if I bring up the old American saying that "We're damned if we do, and we're damned if we don't?" Because we all know exactly what will happen in any scenario. It's why Bush has been slow to act on it. He's such a terrible 'decider' that all the easy decisions he's bungled don't in ANY way compare to the monumental political problem he's dealing with now.

Let's go over motions. What happens if America does nothing? Musharraf controls the military. If he wants to keep power and the military wants to back him up, nothing is every going to move him from power or force him to give over his country. Things cannot remain as they are. This situation is far too diabolical to allow it to continue. We cannot back this dictator in power with our silence.

Then again, what happens if we shut down the aid? A few things might happen. Musharraf may turn to another supplier. Maybe China, Russia, or even the militants in his own country. If he makes peace with any of these, it's going to seriously roast opinions of America (not that they're good anyway, but they could be a LOT worse). The other scenario in that situation would be that Musharraf doesn't find another supplier and is toppled by an Islamic extremist government, one that is not going to be so kind as to watch the border against terrorist activities in Afgahnistan.

What happens if we are more forceful and back a rival into power? Our political backing is more nuclear in the Middle East than Bush's presence is to a Republican presidential hopeful. The last thing Pakistanis really want to see is a repeat of Musharraf. It doesn't matter how great of a politician they are, if the new leader of Pakistan is seen in any way of even taking a neutral or opportunistic stance with America, he's going to earn the ire of his countrymen.

The Pakistanis probably don't have the clout or will to fight off the military, we would be counterproductive in trying, and the only winner in this situation will be either Musharraf or his Talibanic rivals. Bush has played too much money into a bum hand and now Musharraf is calling him on it. Bush's team's ignorance or incompetance has lost America this hand. Now we'll see who's got the bigger deck in Pakistan to rise up on top.

And is America going to be able to do anything? Probably not. Anything we do is going to be against the rules and largely unpopular. Ingatius is picking just one scenario for our loss. But if America somehow comes out of this ahead, it's going to be a very, VERY lucky day for America. Their chances in this game in Pakistan are slim to nil.

William said it right:

“I have a belief that a great deal that happens in the Middle East (inc Pakistan) relates to: [1] Israel-Palestine and [2] Iran's Khomeini revolution.”

Our illegal and immoral preemptive invasion and occupation of Iraq, coupled with our unconditional support for Israel’s illegal and immoral occupation of Palestine, has enraged the Muslim world.

Musharraf has worn out his welcome in Pakistan. He says he will hold elections soon, but we know better. Those who argue for democratic elections as the solution in Pakistan are right of course, but it will not produce the result that they expect.

Pakistan is the sixth most populous country in the world and is the second most populous country with a Muslim majority. Over 98% of 166 million people of Pakistan are Muslims, and Islam is the State religion of Pakistan. The majority of Muslims in Pakistan are Sunnis, and the Shi'a Muslim population is the second largest in the world after Iran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Pakistan

Free elections in Pakistan will produce the same result as they did in Gaza. David is right; the best approach for the U.S. in Pakistan is to butt out and let the Pakistanis solve their own problems.

PG

Since WWII, the US has been the most “meddling” country in the world, however, Iran and Pakistan are completely different situations that require (required) different solutions.

IRAN

The Shah underestimated the rise of radical Islam.

1. The Shah was the only Islamic country to internationally recognize and maintain good relations (including business) with Israel which enraged the Islamic fundamentalist (regardless of US support).

2. The Shah precipitated much resentment from Islamist for the westernization of Iran and his support of women‘s rights (again, regardless of US support). He ignored Islamic culture.

3. The Camp David Accords were signed in 1978. The peace agreement between Israel and Egypt (brokered by the US) broke Arab unity against the “existence” of Israel and inflamed the Arab world. This event probably had a great impact on the rise of radical Islam and must have impacted the Islamic revolution in Iran as well.

The Shah created the conditions for the Islamic revolution in Iran. The US (and Britain), effectively, removed the elected Premier from office because he planned to nationalize the oil business. That coupled with the US support of a corrupt, autocratic ruler became the rally cry for the Islamic coup.

PAKISTAN

Although American interference in Iran is a good example of a failed US policy which MAY have lead to a fundamentalist Islamic coupe (helped along by President Carter and the Shah‘s miscalculation regarding Islam), the situation in Pakistan is not comparable.

During the US support of the Shah, the US was not involved in a conflict in the Middle East in which part of the population of Iran was conducting a war against the US. Iran, during the reign of the Shah, was not harboring the world’s most wanted criminal, and allowing their country to be used as a training ground for world-wide terrorism. The war in Afghanistan and our policy in Pakistan are inseparable because the same (Pakistani) government that empowered the leaders in northern Pakistan (NWFP) to support the rise of the Talaban in Afghanistan must now confront the tribal leaders in the NWFP who, today, protect, supply and support the Talaban in their fight to regain power. The emboldened tribal leaders have now begun a war against Pakistan as well. Pakistan has created a monster and the monster threatens to devour the rest of Pakistan. Al-Qaeda and their terrorist training camps, the war in Afghanistan and nuclear weapons are at stake.

American meddling in Pakistan’s affairs is not optional, it’s MANDATORY. The US currently has leverage over President Musharraf (in the form of military aid) and the US must prod Musharraf (carefully) for several reasons (from the excellent article by Roger Cohen in the New York times a couple of days ago):

“…Given the nuclear-charged risks, the U.S. must stick with him and maintain aid for now, but with the insistence he move rapidly toward promised elections, restore an independent judiciary, work with Bhutto and get real about quashing the Taliban…”

The US is the only country in the world that can positively influence Pakistan to return to elected rule. The alternative is not pretty. If the US quits interfering in Pakistan’s affairs, or if Musharraf is removed from office, eventually, a large scale, successful terrorist attack planned on Pakistani soil by al-Qaeda could result. This could lead to a military confrontation with a nuclear power - something no one wants to see happen. Thus we need Musharraf, at this point, as much as he needs us.

It seems to be:

There is no way that we can find and see a muslim country which has a right or proper or reasonable way of living for the its own people to live as normal citizens as can be found only in any civilized society! These muslim folks unfortunately always pay more attention to point their asses into the sky to pray their allah instead of looking after their proper lives and their own wellfare as commonly be found on civilized citiens i civilized nations! But in reality and sadly, there is no allah in this world can be found! or even at any corners of the the entire universe! Therefore, I can bet who can prove to the world and especially the muslims folks that muslim allah does exist??? and if it is true then where is allah? and what allah can do to help muslim folks? For experimenting purpose as that allah doesnot exist as by letting some muslims who keep praying their allah and start to offer them to jump off the cliff in the hope of their allah will save their lives! as by letting their allah to bring them down to the earth surface safely as all these muslims who wish to happen with miracle! the answer and the result is NO WAY muslim babies you will all go to hell and crash like pieces of dumb rocks due to allah doesnot exist to save your lives at all if his does exist then you must be all safe to come home with your families and continue to point your asses into the sky as usual! In other words, this kind of hopeless and irrelevant belief is just purely a "man-made illusion"! or a "man-made joke"? or both or self-deceiving manner! Therefore, never allow dumb mind to seek shelter in a man-made illusion or crazy belief or irrelevant culture or unrealistic and crazy religion! due to you the crazy muslim folks will always make yourself dumb like mindless sheeps jumping of the chiff as following the first crazy jumped sheep! and you are only the so-called self-cheating or self-deceiving with yourselves!
Who is believing in his/her/their allah then please feel free to go to directly to heaven and live with the muslim allah right now! and leave the whole world alone! and this manner will be very welcomed! and for this result that can let this world alone in a more civilized fashion and more rational way of living without being tainted by muslim illusion!
The muslim world has unfortunately always faked, brainwashed their own society with meaningless religious irrelevance and full with hatred and angers or surely as intendely to deceive themselves in their irrelevant and idiotic way of living and dying! and behaving very wrongly to other cultures! as unfortunately these irrational folks have always done to themselves in great joy of irrelevance!

Sadly, this kind of joke is a no fun to all civilized world citizens and no one are wish to see and being encounted in the civilized world and cultures!

This world is full of dumbs and jokers and bad folks! and what can we say?

It is too late for the US to retract. It has to shoulder responsibilities for the current chaos in Pakistan and "help" the country to get back to "normalcy" and "democracy".

It all sounds so funny because since its creation, Pakistan has never seen "normalcy" and "democracy" in the true sense of the words. And, America is to be blamed for all faults and failures of Pakistan (like it has to be blamed for most of the political chaos in the world along with its erstwhile competitor in the geopolitical arena: the USSR).

The situation is still not out of hands in Pakistan. The US needs to pressurize Gen. Musharraf into immediate revoking of Emergency and early holding of "free and fair" elections to ensure return of democracy. Then post democratic government formation, the US, however, should stay out of Pakistan's politics in order to "help" that state sustain it. ... A utopian thought?

It seems to be:

There is no way we can find and see a muslim country which has a right or proper or reasonable way of living for the its own people to live as normal citizens as can be found only in any civilized society! These muslim folks unfortunately always pay more attention to point their asses into the sky to pray their allah instead of look after their proper lives and their own wellfare! But sadly in reality, there is no allah in this world can be found! or even at any corners of the universe! I can bet who can prove to the world and esspecially these muslims folks that muslim allah do exist??? and if it is true then where is allah? For experimenting that allah doesnot exist as letting some muslims keep praying their allah and offer them to jump off the cliff in the hope their allah will save their lives! as by letting their allah to bring them down to the earth surface safely as these muslims wish to happen! the answer and the result is NO WAY muslim babies you will all go to hell and crash like pieces of dumb rocks due to allah doesnot exist to save your lives at all if his does exist then you must be all safe to come home with your families and continue to point your asses into the sky as usual! In other words, this kind of hopeless and irrelevant belief is just purely a "man-made illusion"! or a "man-made joke"? or both or self-deceiving manner! Therefore, never allow dumb mind to seek shelter in a man-made illusion or crazy belief or irrelevant culture or unrealistic and crazy religion! due to you the crazy muslim folks will always make yourself dumb like mindless sheeps jumping of the chiff as following the first crazy jumped sheep! and you are only the so-called self-cheating or self-deceiving with yourselves!
Who is believing in his/her/their allah then please feel free to go to directly to heaven and live with the muslim allah right now! and leave the whole world alone! and this manner will be very welcomed! and for this result that can let this world alone in a more civilized fashion and more rational way of living without being tainted by muslim illusion!
The muslim world has unfortunately always faked, brainwashed their own society with meaningless religious irrelevance and full with hatred and angers or surely as intendely to deceive themselves in their irrelevant and idiotic way of living and dying! and behaving very wrongly to other cultures! as unfortunately these irrational folks have always done to themselves in great joy of irrelevance!

Sadly, this kind of joke is a no fun to all civilized world citizens and no one are wish to see and being encounted in the civilized world and cultures!

This world is full of dumbs and jokers and bad folks! and what can we say?

conscience-to-the-world :

You need to study Islam, then meet some Muslims. You will have more realistic views then.

Right now your rants are incongruent.

Daniel:

Pakistan's nuclear weapons are their guarantor from external aggression. This includes aggression from the West.

The question I suppose a layman would ask is if there is some sort of under the table system by which all the nuclear powers agree to act to prevent a nuclear problem should one of them become dangerously politically unstable. It seems to me the nuclear weaponry should be removed from Pakistan and that would be a decent act of goodwill by Musharraf and that Pakistan would get in return an agreement by major powers to be secured from any other sort of external meddling. But if Pakistan becomes increasingly unstable with nuclear weapons, how can major powers keep from meddling--perhaps in the most decisive of ways? I hope there is some sort of under the table agreement because if Iran must be prevented from nuclear weapons Pakistan must have all such weaponry removed. Furthermore, take Pakistan at present as why Iran must not have nuclear weapons. I think if those in power in Pakistan now are truly pro-Western they will under the table give up the nuclear weaponry for security guarantees--for if they insist on holding on to the weaponry and Pakistan continues to deteriorate the results could be disastrous for Pakistan. All hinges really on what really is occuring behind the scenes as to preventing the detonation of a nuclear weapon. As long as we can be assured that Pakistan's weapons are secured then we should not meddle with the country.

increasingly questionable conscience-

let us know when you find some idiot to partake in your experiment to jump off a cliff and see if the god saves them-

youre an idiot dude

It seems to be:

There is no way we can find and see a muslim country which has a right or proper or reasonable way of living for the its own people to live as normal citizens as can be found in any civilized society! These folks unfortunately always pay more attention to point their asses into the sky to pray their allah instead of look after their proper lives! But sadly, there is no allah in this world or at any corners of the universe! I can bet who can prove to the world that muslim allah do exist? as some muslim can jump off the cliff and his allah can bring him down the the earth safely? the answer is NO WAY! In other words, or this kind of hopeless belief is just purely a "man-made illusion"! or a "man-made joke"? or both?
Who is believing in his/her allah can freely go to directly to heaven right now with his/her/their allah and the whole world will welcome them to do so! and can live this world alone in a more civilized and rational way of living without being tainted by muslim illusion?
The muslim world has unfortunately faked their own society or intendely being deceived themselves! in their irrelevant way of living and dying! and behaving to other cultures! as unfortunately these irrational folks have always done to themselves in great joy of irrelevance!

Sadly, this kind of joke is a no fun to all civilized world and no one are wish to see in the civilized world and cultures!

This world is full of dumbs and jokers! and what can we say?

It seems to be:

There is no way we can see a muslim country has a right way of living in a civilized society! These folks pay more attention to point their asses into the sky to pray their allah! but there is no allah in this world! who can prove to the world that muslim allah can exist? or just a man-made illusion or a man-made joke?
Who believe in allah can go to heeaven right now with their allah and live this world alone in more civilized way without muslim illusion?
The muslim world has faked ot deceived themselves!
as always do!

This kind of joke is a no fun to all civilized world!

I have a belief that a great deal that happens in the Middle East (inc Pakistan) relates to: [1] Israel-Palestine and [2] Iran's Khomeini revolution.

[1] It has been 50 years since the 1948 war. In that time, we have really done nothing to resolve the Israel-Palestine issue. Perhaps the earliest time something might have been accomplished was in the Carter and then Clinton administrations (assuming Reagan would do nothing and the issue was not crisis-stage before Carter). Both those men tried but achieved little, or nothing. It's a bit like we are dead men in a coffin who are required to break out of our coffin.

[2] I often wonder where we'd be today if in 1981-83, Reagan and we had gone to the Ayatullah and said, "We have turned the page, the Shah is gone (dead), we are prepared to recognize, and work with, your new Iran as it stands today (1983)."

Ah, come on David. Nothing is going to change while Bush/Cheney are in office. They have made it crystal clear they have an agenda and they are going to stick to it.

Of course we should get out. We obviously know little to nothing about Muslim cultures and how they think. Contrary to the 31% of the American public that still believes George "the torturer" Bush" all we've been able to do is take a bad situation and make it a horrendous situtation.

I never have advocated impeaching Bush/Cheney for their gross negligence and incompetence. I have hoped they would resign for the good of the nation, but I always thought my hope had very little to no chance of happening either. However, once these less then honorable men are out of government I will advocate that a full open investigation of their actions as it pretains to torture be initiated. If it shows they committed war crimes I want to see them spend the rest of their natural days rotting behind bars. They should have pushed through legislation absolving themselves of what by all appearances seems to be the initiating and ordering barbaric types of torture while they still had a republican congress. However, they didn't and I'll be shocked if a democrat controlled congress will give these guys a free pass. This issue alone gives me hope.

That Wednesday column is most amusing.

Here is why.

To write that "The shah was America's friend, just like Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf" is of course funny but meaningless, and rather out of place in the Washington Post. In actual fact, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was America's creature and dictator in Iran, following a CIA orchestrated coup d'état against democratic Iran. Similarly, Pervese Musharraf is America's (willing? unwilling?) servant and dictator, following a coup d'état supported by the USA against democratic Pakistan, and renewed recently, with minimal condemnation and incentive for Perverse Musharraf to repent and democratize, ever coming from official representatives of the Empire.

Given those facts, it is disingenuous, to say the least, for the author of the Wednesday column to ask: "What Iran policy would have made sense, in hindsight...?" and to claim that "even now, almost 30 years later, it's hard to know what we should have done." Allowances can of course be made (even after 30 years) for the slow-witted, yet it seems clear, at the very least, that in those two instances, "democratic" America should have been unequivocally on the side of democracy, rather than on that of dictatorship, however "friendly" that dictatorship may have been or have become, in each case considered by the author of the Wednesday column.

That being admitted, it is literally revolting that a well educated American have the audacity to suggest that, the US having undoubtedly brought chaos to Iran and to Pakistan, it should now leave it to Iranians and to Pakistanis to clean that very truly American mess, just as both Iraqis and Afghans should presumably do, needless to say, in their respective country.

I believe the US will never deserve and earn the respect of the international community, unless it plays a leading role in the democratization of each and every country of the world. Is it necessary to spell out that to pay lip service to democratization the way the US has been doing (and is still doing) in Iraq and in Afghanistan (as well as in Palestine and in Lebanon, etc...), is by no means convincing? Neither is it convincing for the United States of America to cut and run after literally destroying the democratic institutions of any country.

It is indeed the duty and responsibility of the US (as it would be of any country that would dare behave internationally the way the US does) to clean its own (thoroughly American) mess it would rather leave behind, wherever it has apparently enjoyed so much playing its power game, exclusively in its own interests. That means: the US ought at least play a leading role ensuring the international community (through the UN) helps fully to bring political stability for all, as well as democracy and sustainable economic growth back to every country the US interfered disastrously in.

Is it too much to ask that the US pay, as well, all the costs involved in cleaning its very own mess, in every instance? Need one insist the reconstruction of a country destroyed by the USA ("shock and awe"!...) does not come free of charge. Does the appropriate expression say that "there is no free lunch", or does it rather make it clear that "there is no free banquet"?

conscience-to-the-world:

No Pakistani has asked you to come to their country either, which is a pity as you know next to nothing about Pakistan.

But since you are a nobody that's ok.

For once Mr. Ignatius is right - the USA should keep its nose out of Pakistan.

Now what we need for Mr. Ignatius is that he expand on this view, and admit that the USA should keep its nose out of any sovereign natoin's internal politics, as long as said nation does not attack the USA homeland.

So I look forward to Mr. Ignatisu's strong arguments to bring the troops home from all the 140+ military bases, the Sovereign nations of Iraq and Afganistan and devote the manpower of the DOD and the Military industrial copmplex to rebuild the USA ifrastructure, to engeneer and bring to completion the requisite CO2 emission regarding Global Warming, the re-engeneering of USA suburbia and exurbia to make ENERGY efficient daily commute possible, and many other worthwhile services FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOLE, without restrictiohn to the moneyed clkasses / K street denizsens and their destructive corruption etc.

I am not holdoing my breath.

It seems to be:

Pakistan a nation with too much troubles for any nations to be involved with!
This a big muslim mess! only Bin Laden can enjoy hinmself with this chaos Pakistan!
Maybe this muslim nation absorb all crazinesses of Muslim weird culture and religion?
In the first place Pakistan race was originated as all Indian (black Indian, not red Indian) and these muslimized Indians become Pakistanis today! with different ways of thinking as before!

In essence, who wants to do business with pakistan will bring home with great pain! including China, USA, Russia, EU, etc., (and maybe even al Quaeda as well?)

Pakistan = Chaos (true or false?)

Myself, I wish never visit this chaos Pakistan in my life!

Sorry, this one is too bad to let pass! we didn't got "cut" we got "caught".

So, America spent more than America produced for decades and our politicians thought we can cheat the world by redirecting the money back to the country in the form of petrodollars. It worked for a while but like all cheaters eventually we got cut. Iraq decided to sell its oil for Euro, we attacked her. Iran announced opening of its Oil bourse based on Euro, we planed to bomb her. If it wasn’t for Pakistan’s melt down, and Putin’s resistance we would have probably done it by now. Meanwhile the whole cheating strategy is unveiling. China is talking about turning away from dollar accepting huge loses due to devaluation of dollar which is escalading by even the talk of China’s action. And more and more we are basing our foreign policy on trying to prevent the inevitable, hence losing a stature in the world that America's greatest generation achieved through sweat and blood.

The question is not that if we should meddle in Pakistan’s affairs or not. A helping hand is always appreciated by people receiving it. The question is when are we going to stop meddling in other countries’ affairs trying to pass on our past mistakes to them. The answer is when we can not do it any more and that is definitely too late.

I agree. the actual administration in USA is making more problems for the future generations and probably starting the decadence of USA as a global superpower

I have a question: Have you pundits and "experts" ever solved anything or contributed to a solution or do you just talk talk talk all day?