PeterDavid.net

Yeah, it's pretty much as I said it would be months before the invasion -- once President Trifecta pulled the trigger, a lot of people on all sides would die who wouldn't have otherwise, and a lot of previously neutral Muslims, if not moderate, would take offense and hook up with the Bad Guys.

Wildcat

Ok, here I go, once again into the lion's den... :)

1)My understanding is that Iraq was used as a terrorist haven; a place for the bad guys to go and get patched up. As well as training grounds.

2)Any incompetent yutz can stick a bomb up their butt and blow people up. Zarqawi seemed to know how to use a sword to decapitate innocents. Just because he couldn't operate a semi-auto weapon doesn't mean he wasn't a mean ol' cuss that could strike fear into people by his actions.

The video of a Zarqawi that can't operate a gun? That's about embarrasing the idiot. Degrading his character in front of his followers. Propaganda.

We say propaganda, it's about a video of a dimwitted Zarqawi. al-Qaeda says propaganda, it's about cutting off people's heads and generally anything that gets the US media machine to report bad things about Iraq. (Which is about all the MSM does anyway.)

RLR

1) The other side of the argument would be that if we hadn't gone in, those people may have been killed by Saddam at some point. Of course, I don't agree with this argument, so I'm really just playing devil's advocate...

2) He may not have had any formal military training, but he at least knew how to rally fanatics to his cause, so that alone made him a significant threat, I think.

It has been reported that one of the people killed in the bomb blast that took out Zarqawi was a pregnant woman. But that's okay because we are the good guys and when we kill innocents in our just cause we are liberators not terrorist.

The question here is if we knew where he was and had eyes on the ground, why not go in and capture him. Did we need to use two 500 lb bombs?

I have no remorse that he is dead. But we did cause "collatoral" deaths.

Tell the families of all the people that have been killed by this guy and his people that he's incompetent. I'm sure that will make them feel a lot better.

The thing I can't quite figure out is the US military basically had these people isolated in some safe house, but instead of surrounding the place and maybe dropping a bunch of flash grenades in there, they had to target the house for an air attack, dropping not one 500-pound bomb that probably cost a couple of million bucks, but TWO! And they still almost didn't kill him! I'm just wondering if sending in a couple of brigade's worth of troops to surreound the place would have done the same job and cost the American tax payers a lot less. And if these guys decided to blow themselves up rather than be captured, it saves our people the time and money.

And has anybody noticed that Fox News coverage is peppered with their people referring to an 'Un-safe House?' As if that little quip wasn't funny enough, they decided to pop it into their rotation so we got to hear that little bit of cleverness over and over, like a ten-year old who's just discovered a dirty word and keeps repeating it t get a reaction from the grown-ups.

1I'll not snead any tears for this man. But since violence didn't drop off yesterday in Iraq, I doubt his death will really mater too much and he'll be just another ralling point. All and all, he will serve Bin Laudin more in death than in life.

1)Where's Osama?

2)Good idea, plaster pictures of Dead Bad Guy all over the media, but also let the trained hyenas at FoxNews gloat over it. It's not like any al Qaida supporters will see it, right? It's a strategy that was a winner after Uday and Qusay Hussein got capped. Look how peaceful Iraq is now.

3)Where's Osama (remember him?)

4)Alternate solutions to a pair of 500lb. bombs, if the military did in fact actually have Al cornered in a "safe house": Navy SEALS, Delta Force, borrow SAS from the Brits. Hell, tear gas.

5)Where's Osama? (Al Z's boss and mentor)

6)I guess W et.al. are only pro life when the mother and child are Americans.

7)Where's Osama? (He still sends videos. How thoughtful!)

1) Considering Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq before we invaded it, aren't the chances pretty good that all of his victims would still be alive if we hadn't attacked?

If it were only that simple.

All things considered, some of these poor souls probably would've still ended up victims to some other madman, whether Saddam, other terrorists, or our own soldiers, who have quite the happy trigger fingers lately.

"I'm just wondering if sending in a couple of brigade's worth of troops to surreound the place would have done the same job and cost the American tax payers a lot less."

-Lookouts on the ground could have givven ol Al a chance to escape.
-ZERO U.S. troops wounded or killed.
-Only the safe house destroyed, not the entire neighborhood.
-People in the house with Al were obviously working with him, so instead of calling their deaths collateral damage, maybe we should call it saving time.
-The next person that decides to become the "leader" in the insurgent movement will have to think about the footage of 2 500 pound bombs dropping down from above. That will probably be a deciding factor before applying for the job.

1) Zarqawi was setting up cells in Iraq in 2002 -- a year before we invaded. He went there after getting wounded in Afghanistan.

2) As Jeff pointed out, capturing Zarqawi would have put our forces in danger. He'd repeatedly said he wouldn't be taken alive, talking about wearing a suicide vest that he would set off to take his would-be capturers with him.

3) Two 500-lb. bombs overkill? Considering that he reportedly survived the bombing (albeit briefly), I'd have to say not.

4) The pregnant woman? Under the Geneva convention, combatants are obligated to keep themselves away from non-combatants. If they don't, then they are responsible for any harm that befalls those civilians. If we are supposed to follow the rules of the Geneva Convention, then the other side should be held responsible for following it, too.

J.

> -The next person that decides to become the "leader" in the insurgent movement will have to think about the footage of 2 500 pound bombs dropping down from above. That will probably be a deciding factor before applying for the job.

You'd think it worked for Israel the way you're going on...

I loved how all the Faux News pundits went on about falling gas prices now this happened. Don't know about the U.S. but in Toronto, they're up at the highest we've seen in a bit.

As well, is no one else concerned that one or two of the inactive terrorist cells living in North America might decide to act, given the news?

If we are supposed to follow the rules of the Geneva Convention, then the other side should be held responsible for following it, too.

Key words being "supposed to follow." W. made it clear he could give a shit about the Geneva Convention, or any other international law or treaty (we won't even mention domestic laws...) long ago.

When I heard the news that Al Zarqawi had been taken out, my first cynical thought was, "How long before this bit of good news is pounced on by the left as either bad news or non-news?"

To quote from "The American President": "There's never an egg timer around when you need one."

When it comes to that video...perhaps the Arab world is getting just as much amusement out of the pictures of Bush falling off a Segway, stumbling (apparently drunkenly) as he gets on Air Force One, or walking awkwardly in that flight suit with the sock-stuffed crotch.

Either way, it doesn't matter. Both men are responsible for death and destruction, and I won't try to compare or rank them, but showing their stumblebum moments doesn't matter.

Come to think of it, if you watch The All-Hitler Channel on cable, you'll see documentary footage of Hitler greeting little girls holding edelweiss and smiling kindly. That "humanized" Der Fuhrer for his people. Does anyone think anyone else, especially the Allied troops crawling across Europe and dying all the way, would take any amusement at such films, or think that their enemies were incompetent fighters?

The problem as i see it is- most muslims are disgusted by the brutal carnage this man has inflicted, but those who believe in his cause will use his death to martyr him and all the press coverage will encourage more to join the cause.
I was unfortunate enough to view the beheading of Ken Bigley on the internet (by accident) and have been haunted by those images ever since. this was not a noble man executing an enemy of Islam but a butcher killing a defenceless old man who was only there to help innocent iraqis.
in my opinion the west f**ked up 15 years ago after the first invasion when they left saddam running the show and all it took was 911 to give bush jnr and his lapdog blair the excuse to reinvade. dont fool yourselves people, this isnt about establishing democracy in iraq its about destablising the whole middle east. syria or iran is next in this modern day crusade.
dont get me wrong saddam had to be removed but the way it happened was unjust and illegal. thats right ILLEGAL. the whole justification for the invasion was nothing more than a fabrication to appease a paranoid warmonger who wants to leave his mark in history (and get his grubby hands on the oil revenues)
i could go on about this all day but i can feel my anger bubbling so my last point is - in my opinion bush and blair should and must be held accountable and tried for war crimes. i just wonder if the average iraqi was asked would they rather have saddam in power or this shambles of a democracy being shoved down their throats
Bill

1) Considering Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq before we invaded it, aren't the chances pretty good that all of his victims would still be alive if we hadn't attacked?

Well, strictly speaking, Al Qaeda never was in Iraq.

Zarqawi was never a part of Al Qaeda proper and entered Iraq only after Operation Iraqi Freedom. In 2004, he adopted the "brand name" of Al Qaeda to give his group more prestige among jihadii (which worked great for Bin Laden because now there was an "Al Qaeda" presence in Iraq fighting the infidels instead of only in Afganistan).

2) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I could swear the Pentagon just got done explaining why outtakes from his recruitment video showed that, militarily, the guy didn't know his ass from his elbow. So should we be worried that, if an incompetent yutz was able to give us this much trouble, whoever replaces him might be even worse?

Zarqawi became a "household name" due to US efforts to pin the insurgency on solely him (as opposed to a popular uprising). The outtake video is essentially the result of too good advertising.

Unfortunately, Zarqawi's death will make him a matyr to jihadii and will probably rally more like-minded individuals to the cause. I've read some experts say that there is a good chance that another group will appear and name itself after not-very-dearly departed Zarqawi. Iraq is proving itself to be the place to kill infidels, become a matyr, and go to paradise.

When I heard the news that Al Zarqawi had been taken out, my first cynical thought was, "How long before this bit of good news is pounced on by the left as either bad news or non-news?"

To quote from "The American President": "There's never an egg timer around when you need one."

I've yet to see anyone on the left "pounce" on it as bad or non-news. Universally, I've seen people and pundits on the left say that Zarqawi's death as a positive thing. (Which, in the grand scheme of things, is a depressing thing to have to say -- that the death of someone is a good thing.) However, I do notice that they also offer the caveat that this is not the magic bullet that will cure the turmoil in Iraq. And they're right.

It is a much-needed morale booster, however, and I hope it'll last.

The insurgency is very fractured. Bush and the media liked to portray him as the big Lex Luthor style mastermind because he was the only 'important' guy whose name they could pronounce.

"If we are supposed to follow the rules of the Geneva Convention, then the other side should be held responsible for following it, too."

To the extent of a)treatment of civilians and b)treatment of prisoners, the US absolutely must be transparent and follow the Geneva Convention inletter and spirit. Why, you may ask?

Because the US is supposed to be the good guys. Abu Graib, Haditha, Gitmo must all be able to survive the most intense scrutiny, investigation and be above reproach. The removal of Saddam was supposed to put an end to torture and indefinite detention on vague charges.

If you say you work for angels, you cannot use the devil's tools. The tragic events of 9/11 in no way excuse Abu Graib or shipping prisoners off to governments that consider torture SOP just so Sureshot Cheney can say America does not torture.

If memory serves, Bin Laden's goal in causing 9/11 was to cause a rift between the West and the Islamic world, demonstrating how evil the West was and gaining more followers to his cause. After we went into Afghanistan (which was supported by virtually all of the world), we invaded Iraq, instituting regime change in a sovereign nation that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. And there are now far more terrorists and supporters of terrorists than there were before we invaded Iraq.

I guess when Bush said "Mission accomplished" he meant Bin Laden's mission, not ours.

If the Soviet Union had not fallen, Bosnia would have been spared the horror of ethnic cleansing. I'm not Bush's biggest supporter. I think he's done more harm than good for the Country. However, getting rid of this butcher is nothing but possitive, and I'm not going to let my politics blind me to the the fantastic news that this murderer is no longer breathing.

When I heard the news that Al Zarqawi had been taken out, my first cynical thought was, "How long before this bit of good news is pounced on by the left as either bad news or non-news?"

I'll bite. It's a bad thing because enemies in the middle east are a lot more powerful dead than alive. We just made Zarqawi a matyr and this is only going to cause more and more people to flock to his cause. Of course, having all the major news networks plaster his dead picture everywhere is not helping matters. The other side can read this as gloating amoung other things.

Also, the way we killed him works against us. Killing a number of innocents along side him may technically be legel according to the rules of war, but it is immoral and it is only going to aid the enemy in rallying more people to their cause. In the right hands, that is an incredibly powerful recruitment tool.

"If the Soviet Union had not fallen, Bosnia would have been spared the horror of ethnic cleansing."

Orlando, ethnic cleansing would have happened with or without the Soviet Union collapsing. Take out Milosevic and his cadre, and about 1000 years of history, it might have been prevented.

Al-Z is now a martyr to radicals. I give it less than three months for the "Al-Zarqawi Martyr's Brigade" to strike.

This whole "Operation Iraqi Freedom" has been one screw up after another, coupled with official duplicity, propoganda and incompetence. Miscalculation, corporate and political coronyism, and a complete unwillingness on the part of W and Co. to do their homework has created the very terrorist breeding ground they claimed they were out to destroy.

BTW, where's Osama?

"Also, the way we killed him works against us. Killing a number of innocents along side him may technically be legel according to the rules of war, but it is immoral and it is only going to aid the enemy in rallying more people to their cause."

Jon Stewart made a brilliant observation about this the other day, wondering why it was that in the war in Iraq, innocent civilians being killed is an acknowledged inevitability, termed "collateral damage," and that's accepted by the government. But when it comes to stem cell research, the fetus is sacrosanct, even though the research involved could aid millions of suffering people. I have to wonder if the term "scientific research" was replaced with "war on nerve damage" whether that might suddenly garner White House support.

PAD

I'm no supporter of the war in Iraq, but let's be honest; in EVERY war, innocent casualties are an acknowledged inevitability.

Even the dimwitted can cause massive damage. Look at what George the Lesser has done.

So, we shouldn't go after the leaders in a war because (a) it will inflame their followers or (b) when they choose to hide behind "civilians", they are in a time-out zone?

Um...no. Getting Al Z is a positive thing all around. His followers aren't going to decide to all of a sudden bomb US troops and soft civilian targets because of this. They have been doing it all along! And once those followers realize that it was the Iraqi people that turned Al Z in, then they might start rethinking their chosen life path and choose something where the path is a little longer.

The people in the house with him weren't innocents. They were providing a safe-house for the most wanted terrorist in the country. Does anyone really think that if ground troops were sent in these people wouldn't be taking up arms and firing at the forces?

I will admit that I am glad he didn't die in the initial bombing though. Depending on reports, the last thing he saw were either US troops looking down on him, or Iraqi troops that have been fighting against him. I'm not sure which would be a better image for him to take to his afterlife for eternity.

The question here is if we knew where he was and had eyes on the ground, why not go in and capture him. Did we need to use two 500 lb bombs?

I'm just wondering if sending in a couple of brigade's worth of troops to surreound the place would have done the same job and cost the American tax payers a lot less.

Only if by "a lot less" you value the cost of the bombs over the lives of the troopps who would have been likely killed in the attempt. I'm not picking on you--I think you haven't thought this through. It isn't easy to take out a house full of heavily armed people who are fully willing to die. It would have been very possible that the place was also wired to detonate in the event of an attack, killing Zarquawi and any troops sent in the get him. The bombs were manifestly the right choice, in my opinion.

You'd think it worked for Israel the way you're going on...

Well, Israel still exists, which is something of a miracle considering the position they are in. If I had to put money on Israel or Hamas I know which one would get my bet for future survival.

One thing I don't get--some of the same people who are saying that the now dead Zarqawi will now be even more powerful as a martyr are the very same ones who ask "why haven't we killed Osama?" But won't that turn HIM into a martyr, making him even more yadda yadda yadda...? So which is it, or do you just want to reserve the right to complain no matter WHAT happens?

You can argue that every time we kill a terrorist we create 5 more. You could also argue that every time an American soldier is killed, support for the war goes up. Both are wrong, in my opionion. They don't make sense. I don't know that history shows much support for it.

All Osama has to do is spend his time with women and children-civilians. Then, according to many, he is untouchable. Or if we do get him, and those get killed, we are as bad as Osama Bin Laden. With that kind of philosphy we couldn't have even thought about WWII. What we should have done, then, is not supplied the British pre-Pearl Harbor. Then when Pearl Harbor happened, perhaps Hitler wouldn't have declared war. Or even if he did, we should have compromised then-Hitler takes Europe, Japan gets Asia, we get the Americas. We'll negotiate later about Africa. Then we would have killed no civilians, and perhaps WWII would have ended quicker and less would have died. AFter all, Hitler's death just made him a martyr to the Neo-Nazis of today. Either that or sent in some commandos after Hitler. Then only the core Nazis would have died. No dout Europe would have given up fascism anyway. he probably was already dead anyway for years, or he's still alive. Hitler wouldn't have taken his own life. Harry Truman just needed to get his poll numbers up after all. Damn Truman and his 30% approval rating-histories worst president. and war criminal to boot, along with FDR. imagine dropping all those bombs on civilian cities and then the atomic bombs. Whooo. and you just know if you had cameras then, there would have been all sorts of Mai Lai/Haditha(sp) type incidents that went unrecorded and covered up by the propaganda of the government and Hollywood. FDR was just going through all his power fantasies since he was crippled. I refuse to celebrate V-E and V-J day since it might help Truman's poll numbers.

In all seriousness, a viscious killer is dead, and that's a good thing. There are thousands of others in variuous countries who also deserve and need to be killed. While it most likely won't have a tremendous effect in IRaq, and temporarily there may be even some extra backlash, justice has been served. I wish he had lived a bit though so he could have been interrogated-whether he would have given up anything useful, I don't know. But I won't mourn his death. I hope it was quite painful, I hope it flashed through his mind that he wasted his life, and I hope there is a hell for him to burn in for all time. and I hope many more join him there-but not Osama. I wouldn't want the inevitable martyrdom and Osama memory brigade retaliations sure to come. Besides, Bush is just as evil as Osama. In fact, so are 51%(?) of the American people, they voted for him. I hope they all die those evil fools. There all just as bad as Osama for that. Oh, I forgot I said in all seriousness....

I hope we do get Osama soon. I can't wait for all the "Yeah, but Bush is evil too, Osama isn't really in control of anything anymore, well it took 5 years, why couldn't we have sent in some commandos, it won't make a difference because Al Quaeda is decentralized, it will make him a martyr, there will be retaliations, blah blah blah." I can't wait.

Somehow I am reminded of Debbie Downer
"Happy Birthday!"
"Just one more day closer to death."

"I liked the movie, but now I will tell you the 63 things I disliked about it, rather than the good things about it."

Killing Al-Zarqawi was necessary. I'm not happy about the civilian deaths, but sometimes they do happen in war, no matter how careful they are.

This is a serious blow against the insurgency, but I don't think anyone is under any illusions that this is the end of it. We have a bit of a lull as an internal power struggle for leadership shakes out, but the insurgents were never one guy, symbol or no.

As for how much of Al Qaida was in Iraq before the invasion and how much of it was actively supported by Saddam's regime, we can debate that for weeks. Since much of their pre-invasion operations were in the Kurdish region that he had little direct control over, I suspect he wasn't giving them a lot of direct aid.

What you have to realize, though, is that "Al Qaida" has never been a strongly centralized organization and they've become even more decentralized since 9/11. In some ways, that's good, because they're less likely to be able to pull off a major operation like 9/11. On the other hand, in some ways, it makes them more dangerous. For one, it makes the individual cells more likely to go into criminal enterprises (drugs, bank robbery) for financing. For another, it means that with little communication between the celss, taking out one cell won't yield much useful information about any of the others.

Newsweek states that (1) they didn;t consider a raid to capture him because they felt it was too dangerous for the troops and (2) the bombings killed less civilian casualties than would have been the case normally because this is one of the times he was around much fewer people.

Civilian casualties suck-the problem is, if you put them at the top of the to be avoided list, all one has to do is always travel with civilians or go to civilian areas and no one can ever take you out.

I'm sure the fact he had at least 3 close calls before and got away led in part to them choosing to dispatch him.

I wonder if the bombs will have destroyed the computer discs and papers they've found? Apparently they can get at least some information out of them.

Yeah, okay, you're all kind of missing the point. It was the irony/hypocrisy of "Killing innocents in the name of war=grudgingly acceptable," "Fetal stem cells in the name of science=completely unacceptable."

PAD

I guess it really depends on what you think is worth it and the chance of success (lets assume you think the fetal cells are human life). Where does destruction/experimentation fall into acceptable areas, and where is it equivalent to the Nazis?

In theory, depending on your views, even say kidnapping live subjects to do terrible experiments on could be justified on the same theories if those experiments will lead to discoveries that benefit all (similar to animal testing but on humans-sacrifice the one for the many sort of thing). Most of us would say no to that, yet accept a certain amount of "collateral damage" in war. Which you have to accept if you will engage in war. Say even a war like WWII without much debate on its overall morality. To win,many relatively innocent people would have to die.

Would it be acceptable, then, to force 100,000 full grown people to be experimented on (say randomly chosen) for the sake of discoerving the effects of drugs, search for cures, etc? It would be more effective than animal testing and computer models I am sure in many circumstances, and then many millions could be helped.

Isn't that somewhat the same thing? Why is that wrong, stem cells wrong (for sake of argument) but collateral damage right? Does it matter what the net benfit in life would be? or who would be saved? Or are there some things so terrible that we wouldn't do no matter what? Say these 10,000 people will suffer terribly, but we will cure cancer-we know it for sure. Is it acceptable then? Does it become less acceptable as the percentage for a cure decreases?

I don't know. I have to accept collateral damage because there are times I believe war is necessary, justified or right.

Yet, I would not allow people to be experimented on with or without their consent to the point of "torture" or death even if I knew a cure would result.

Yet I might allow the torture of some people in war if I knew for sure important info would come out of it-maybe

Stem cells? It really depends for me on what procedures are used, and the way the stem cells are gathered.

I will note Bush didn't provide federal funds, but he did not ban the use of stem cells. and while that has had a huge impact, OI think it still is an important fact for this discussion purposes. At that time, in fact, I believe his postiiton was pretty moderate-both sides were angry at him. Obviously, as time went on, it became apparent that his mind wasn't going to change on the issue.

The death of Zarqawi is not going to make him and his cause more popular, or cause an increase in violence. The bad news is that this is partly because the war is in such a bad shape, and the image of the US is in such a low that Zarqawi's death is not going to make it worse. The good news is that Zarqawi was not that popular even in the Arab and Muslim world, so not many tears are shed for him, nor was he local Iraqi so he had no strong roots among the people. The better news is that the Iraqi army's and population's moral may improve, and maybe the local Sunnis can distance themselves from him and become more moderate. So all in all the good outweighs the bad in this case.

Bill, the targeted kililng of terrorists (as we call them here in Israel), have there pros and there cons. It is not always easy to tell when to consequences will be bad and when good. If you've reached a point when you're considering using it it is probably because you did something stupid before. In this case it seems to have been the right tool. I don't know enough about the collateral damage to say whether there was a way to avoid it, but the proper state of mind should be to try to avoid it and feel bad when it happens. The bad news is that no matter how much you tried to avoid it, and how sorry you are, as far as many Arabs/Muslims are concerned you killed the civilians deliberatly because you are a bloody murderer. Osmam Bin Lin Laden and Zarqawi on the other hand are freedom fighters.

Spiderbob. Comparisons to WWII are not recommended. There is tendancy to compare everything to WWII, and it just obfuscated the real issues. It is reasonable to assume that had that war happened today some of the things that the allies did they would not have done,and this is a good thing. It is true that wars inevitably have collateral damage. But this should only make us hesitate more about going to war, which is not to say that we should never go to war. This war, probably not the smartest decision. Why would you want to get involved in a war in the middle east if you didn't have to is beyond me.

(I wrote something on the whole gay marriage issue, but it seems to have vanished. I wonder what happened. Well, on to the next issue).

Just to illustrate what I've said above, here are is what is going on here in Iasrael-Palestine. I feel glum and have a bad feeling things are going to escalate, so I thought I'd give you a taste of moral dilemmas.

We (Israel) withdrew from Gaza. But Gaza is still the same miserable place it were, surrounded by Israel, and we still control the west bank.

The Palestinians are shooting little missiles on the civilian town and villages near Gaza. Mostly to keep the flames at a certain level, and there prestige and spirits high. It has no military value. Nobody has been killed, but that's part luck part their shity equipment. They did hit a school. Eventualy they will get better or smuggle better equpment from Egypt. I should also add that sometimes these missiles hit palestinians.

The people shooting are local gangs loosly associated with the Fatah (formerly the ruling party), and the Islamic Jihad which is associate with Iran. The Hamas (who are now in power) have maintained a unilateral cease fire, and the Palestinian President (Fatah) is opposed to the shooting. But they are not likely to stop it. In fact, the Hamas's fighters were clamoring to return to the armed struggle and may have been involved.

The Israeli public have been pressuring the army to do something (not that much pressure is needed). So the army started shooting back. From tanks, which is not very accurate; from helicopters (more accurate, but this is a densly populated area); and by using ground forces. They killed some of the people operating these missiles, and some leaders, including a guy from the Hamas who was supposed to head a newly structured police force. Unklike Zarqawi, these people have local ties, which means people wil want to avenge their death. But this is not the good part. On friday a whole family picnicing on the beach was wiped out, except for a mother (now in an Israeli hospital I think), and two sisters. It is possible that they were hit by an Israeli shell or a Palestinian rocket.

So now the Hamas says theceasefire is over. They accuse Israel of committing crimes against humanity and started shooting missiles on the towns inside Israel, one wounded so far. For now, the Israeli press at least is still humanistic enough to spend much time saying how terrible it is that a family died, and what can we do to prevent it. Not all Israelis are as humanistic, I'm sorry to say. But if the situation escalates and suicide bombings and missile casualties increase, the Israeli public is going to care less about Palestinian civilians killed. Anyway, as far as the Arabs are concerned, Israelis kill children all the time for fun. Palestinian children have died, and I'm not always sure we did all we could to prevent it, but it is annoying to be lectured by people who cheer suicide bombers.

The Israeli extreme left have demonstrated against what the army did. As far as they are concerned, since Israel is not willing to offer peace to the Palestinians which include full withdrawl from the West Bank, than Israel is guilty. Not all Israelis on the left are sure that peace can be reached on these terms. But the current government is not offering these terms or negotiations at all. One reasonable justification is the continued terrorism. But it is also because he government is not willing to offer that much. In the past I aranged similar demonstrations (we had one with an Israeli and Palestinian coffins). But now I'm a little fed up with the extreme left's one sided and self rightuous attitude. I'd like to demonstrate against Israel and the Palestinian actions, but that choice is not on the menu.

I have a bad feeling things are going to escalate again and I find this depressing.

I find it strange that he US considered getting involved in this kind of reality.

I find it strange that he US considered getting involved in this kind of reality.
****

Something has to and had to be done to shock that area of the world into the 21st century. I believe if we can somehow establish a semi-functioning democracy there, it may in the very long run, make things better. It is hard to see how the area could get much worse. I would hope that this can still happen, and that in the long run, the people turn away from terrorism and al-quaeda. If not things will only escalate from here. and we will have no choice but to unleash our full military might, which won't be pretty.

"I guess it really depends on what you think is worth it and the chance of success (lets assume you think the fetal cells are human life). Where does destruction/experimentation fall into acceptable areas, and where is it equivalent to the Nazis?"

Okay, I'm done with you. You have violated Godwin's Law not once, not twice, but three times in this one thread. That's the three strike rule (established just now) and I won't be replying to you anymore. In case you're unfamiliar with it--from Wikipedia:

"Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is, in Internet culture, an adage originated in 1990 by Mike Godwin that states:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.[1]

This adage was formulated because many people compare anyone and anything they mildly dislike with Hitler. There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress."

Others can talk with you, of course, as they see fit, but I'll be ignoring you.

PAD

Posted by: spiderrob at June 11, 2006 08:21 PM

Something has to and had to be done to shock that area of the world into the 21st century.

Easier said than done, as our experience in Iraq has shown.

I believe if we can somehow establish a semi-functioning democracy there, it may in the very long run, make things better.

They have one: Israel.

We've been trying to establish a democracy in Iraq, but as we've seen, many Arabs are willing to resist anything they perceive to be U.S. imperialism. Worse, in Iraq, Saddam's brutal regime, as morally unacceptable as it was, had the practical effect of keeping ethnic factions at bay. Without Saddam's brutal regime to keep control of the country, those ethnic factions that have been chomping at the bit to start killing each other now have the ability to do so.

It is hard to see how the area could get much worse.

No, it's not: Iraq could descend deeper into civil war. Or it could be taken over by an extremist Islamic dictatorship like the one that runs Iran. Or Iran could acquire nuclear weapons and use them.

I would hope that this can still happen, and that in the long run, the people turn away from terrorism and al-quaeda. If not things will only escalate from here. and we will have no choice but to unleash our full military might, which won't be pretty.

Unleashing our "full military might" would be very ineffective against Al Qaeda, a group that does not fight conventionally. A full frontal military attack works best against an enemy with an army that will meet you on the battlefield in full force. An enemy that skulks in the shadows and uses civilian jets, cars, poisons, and diseases as weapons must be fought in a different way.

I could envision a scenario wherein Al Qaeda unleashes smallpox or some other highly contagious and deadly disease on us, provoking us into annihilating Afghanistan with nuclear weapons. I shudder to think what might happen if it came to that. Global armageddon, I think, is not an unlikely ending to that scenario.

Or Iran could acquire nuclear weapons and use them.

I was going to replying saying sheets of glass are easy to imagine.

Also, I'm not sure where spiderrob was going with the "shock them into the 21st century" comment.

It apparently hasn't worked in Afghanistan or Iraq, yet some out there think we should try and stick the taser into Iran next anyways.

Posted by: Micha at June 11, 2006 08:15 PM

Just to illustrate what I've said above, here are is what is going on here in Iasrael-Palestine. I feel glum and have a bad feeling things are going to escalate, so I thought I'd give you a taste of moral dilemmas.

Micha, while no one is truly safe in the age of global terrorism, I am writing this post in a position of relative safety compared to the situation you in which you live. I shudder to think about the dangers that people in your region are forced to live with as a matter of course.

I sincerely and devoutly hope for your continued well-being, and for a peaceful resolution to the tragic Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Posted by Craig J. Ries at June 10, 2006 11:55 AM
1) Considering Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq before we invaded it, aren't the chances pretty good that all of his victims would still be alive if we hadn't attacked?

If it were only that simple.

All things considered, some of these poor souls probably would've still ended up victims to some other madman, whether Saddam, other terrorists, or our own soldiers, who have quite the happy trigger fingers lately.

--I'll have to remember that the next time I'm walking down a dark street at night and see some waving a wad of cash; I might as well mug him and take it because if I don't someone else probably will. And they'd probably use it to buy drugs where I'd use it to help pay rent.

Apparently Zarqawi wasn't that important at all to the insurgency; the Pentagon started inflating his importance in Iraq before the war began and the propaganda campaign continued up through his death. The foreign fighters he controlled made up a relatively tiny fraction of the Sunni insurgency, and the greatest damage they did - getting larger groups of Sunnis and Shiites to tear at each other - has already been done. This recent profile of him in The Atlantic makes him out to be a bit of an idiot by terrorist standards, and The New Republic - generally a pretty hawkish, pro-war mag - is actually worried they'll replace him with someone competent. I'm glad he's dead, but I don't have high hopes this'll turn things around.

spiderrob:
I believe if we can somehow establish a semi-functioning democracy there, it may in the very long run, make things better.

Bill Myers
They have one: Israel.

wow. that's a really interesting point that you raise. many people tout the idea that if we could put a democracy in the middle east it would benefit the whole region. for some reason, i had never really considered the fact that there is one there.

this is going to be an extremely thorny question. first, i want to make clear that i'm not trying to question Israel's right to exist or anything like that.

my question is, do people think that the existence of Israel, a functioning democracy, has benefitted the region as a whole?

The problem with using Israel as the Token Democracy in the middle east is, apart from the fact that there are those who either don't recognize it or want it obliterated, is that the Israelis aren't the ones we're trying to convince. It's the Islamic countries that we look at as Bad for whatever reasons(not saying I disagree with the reasons, just saying that's who we're trying to change) that we want to say, "Hey, you know, things could be better for you if you weren't treating 21st century people like they're in the 15th. Why don't you get the chip off your shoulder and just talk to us?" Unfortunately, a lot of this gets lost in playground one-upmanship masquerading as religious orthodoxy. "My ALlah is better than your God or Your God..." or whatever.

From Bill Myers' post:
I believe if we can somehow establish a semi-functioning democracy there, it may in the very long run, make things better.

They have one: Israel.

Um, actually, there is another functioning democracy in the Middle East; it's called Turkey. And its democracy has lasted despite America's best efforts to thwart it.
Lebanon had a functioning democracy until demographics caught up with it. (Anyone interested in seeing how religious involvement in determining a government's makeup can learn some terrifying lessons from the Lebanese experiment.)

Of course, having a democracy has never been an important feature when it could affect US foreign interests. In fact, being a Middle Eastern democracy can be a liability if the US doesn't gain anything from it. A couple of our "allies" in the so-called war on terror have human rights' records that are as reprehensible as Saddam's Iraq.

Posted by: Sean at June 12, 2006 12:31 AM
The problem with using Israel as the Token Democracy in the middle east is, apart from the fact that there are those who either don't recognize it or want it obliterated, is that the Israelis aren't the ones we're trying to convince. It's the Islamic countries that we look at as Bad for whatever reasons(not saying I disagree with the reasons, just saying that's who we're trying to change) that we want to say, "Hey, you know, things could be better for you if you weren't treating 21st century people like they're in the 15th. Why don't you get the chip off your shoulder and just talk to us?" Unfortunately, a lot of this gets lost in playground one-upmanship masquerading as religious orthodoxy. "My ALlah is better than your God or Your God..." or whatever.

Um, may I remind you of a certain US military official who actually was *promoted* after using similar language? Gen William Boykin stated in a speech before a religious group "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real god and his was an idol", referring to a battle against a Somali warlord in 1993. The man was promoted to Lieutenant General as well as being named as an Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence not long before this and similar comments were made public.
Despite these comments, he was not removed from his job at Defense nor did his military career suffer from this incendiary position (which was, at least on the surface, 180 degrees from his President's stated position regarding Islam; of course, we all know what that's worth).
Also, we should remember that Israel has a number of religious parties which are as hostile to Muslims as any Islamist party may be towards Israel. A couple of the more extreme parties have openly advocated that all Muslims be driven from Israel.

Posted by: Sean at June 12, 2006 12:31 AM

The problem with using Israel as the Token Democracy in the middle east is, apart from the fact that there are those who either don't recognize it or want it obliterated, is that the Israelis aren't the ones we're trying to convince.

I'm sorry for not being more clear about my point. I was trying to highlight the fact that the message of democracy, if coming from a messenger to which the Muslim world is unlikely to listen, isn't going to be very helpful. As you said, many Muslims don't recognize Israel as a legitimate state. Moreover, Israel is in conflict with the Palestinians. So a democracy in Israel is not likely to rub off on other countries.

By the same token, efforts by the U.S. to instill democracy in that region will face similar challenges. Many Muslims see us as conquerors of Iraq, not liberators, which makes it kinda hard to get across a message of democracy.

Posted by: JosephW at June 12, 2006 01:58 AM

Um, actually, there is another functioning democracy in the Middle East; it's called Turkey.

Excellent point. I hadn't even been thinking about Turkey, which is indeed a democracy.

And you are correct that the U.S. has supported non-democratic regimes when it suited us. Yet another reason why we may not be the ideal heralds for democracy in the Middle East.

May I ask, though, why you felt the need to start out your post with "Um?" It comes across as condescending and arrogant, and I daresay it increases the chances that your points will fall on deaf ears. I know I was a little put off at first. I mean, why bother taking the time to make a good point, only to phrase it in such a way that you irritate and anger your intended audience?

I'd suggest that you try not to assume that people like me are stupid or potential adversaries, and you'll find us more likely to listen.

"Micha, while no one is truly safe in the age of global terrorism, I am writing this post in a position of relative safety compared to the situation you in which you live. I shudder to think about the dangers that people in your region are forced to live with as a matter of course."

Thanks Bill, but my intention was more to show the dilemmas we face. The physical dangers are not that great, and our daily lives run pretty smoothly, which is more than can be said about Iraq or the Palestinians. The Israeli army is able to maintain a reasonable level of security, although not to eliminate terrorism completely. The frustration is more on the political level than on the level of personal safety for me. Although I do not live next to Gaza. But even the ones who do still have a functioning daily life of Western standards.
---------
Israel has been used by democratic forces in the middle east as a challenge to despotism, and as an excuse by despots for not allowing democracy. It evens out. Even if there was no Israel there would be no democracy probably.

Turkey is somewhat distanced from the rest of the middle east.

Lebanon's democracy was based on arranging the counties in a way that insured the balance of power of the different sects.

Said extremist religious parties in Israel are not representative of as large a segment of the Israeli public as the Islamists, and most of them are not as bad as Islamists. Some are. But the are only a part of a minority of the Israeli public. Which is not to say that the majority's opinions do not contain racism, but not on the level of the Islamists.

----------------
"Something has to and had to be done to shock that area of the world into the 21st century. I believe if we can somehow establish a semi-functioning democracy there, it may in the very long run, make things better. It is hard to see how the area could get much worse. I would hope that this can still happen, and that in the long run, the people turn away from terrorism and al-quaeda. If not things will only escalate from here. and we will have no choice but to unleash our full military might, which won't be pretty."

This is bad on many levels:
1) Going to war claiming it is about WMD and actual threat to the US when the purpose was to reshape the middle east.
2) Going to war without an actual threat is usually a bad idea.
3) If I say that "shocking the midle east into the 21st century" sounds like Israeli arrogance that would not be a compliment. For now the shock seems to have sent Iraq in the opposite direction.
4) "I believe if we can somehow establish a semi-functioning democracy there, it may in the very long run, make things better." Going to war for such a tenuous theory is bad. The idea that the middle east will see democracy and love it is problematic. I really hope it ends well. It could also be claimed that the threat of US violence helped Lebanese and Egyptian supporters of democracy. But there were better ways to help democracy move toward the 21st century that did not involve a visit to the 7th. Ways that were les harmful. The harm benefit ration for democracy in the middle east is not good right now.
5) "It is hard to see how the area could get much worse." Things are worse than before the war.
6) "I would hope that this can still happen, and that in the long run, the people turn away from terrorism and al-quaeda. "
The war in Iraq may hopefully being democracy to Iraq, but it was bad for the war on terrorism. It had the opposite effect. Terrorism cannot be beat out of the Middle East. And it only helped Al Quaida. Even if democracy is built terrorism will remain. The way to defeat Al Quaida is to cut its popular supprt, the war has done the opposite. After 9/11 the US was in a position to fight terrorism effectively. It could also have promoted democracy. But somehow these two goals got mixed up in some half baked theory that the US can just come in and reshape things.
7) "If not things will only escalate from here. and we will have no choice but to unleash our full military might, which won't be pretty."
Going to a war in order to avoid a hypothetical future war is bad thinking. Bill is also right. The war on Al-Quaida usually do es not require a heavyhanded use of force. Not all wars are D-day. In any case, going into Iraq has now reduced the US's ability to deploy forces or threaten with the use of force when necessary.

Posted by: Micha at June 12, 2006 09:49 AM

The physical dangers are not that great, and our daily lives run pretty smoothly, which is more than can be said about Iraq or the Palestinians.

Oh, well, in that case, I rescind my good wishes!

(Kidding! Kidding!)

I think the hope for a final and lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians lies with people like you, Micha. People who care about their own nation, but are nevertheless able to care about the plight of their putative "enemies" as well.

1Others can talk with you, of course, as they see fit, but I'll be ignoring you.
****
Ignored by Peter David and banned by John Byrne in the same month. Wow. That is a badge of honor.

I thought I was asking an interesting and thought out philosophical question in line with what you were talking about.

I didn;t call someone a Nazi or anything like that. It seems ludicrous to me that you can never bring up Nazis, Hitler or WWII. I can see where doing so in a stupid manner "Bush is Hitler" (though in another thread our troops were compared to the SS with nary a comment by you), your a fascist, kind of thing would be stupid.

I thought I'd asked and tried to explore a decent philosophical question, and certainly one that was relevant to your question.

I won't be losing sleep over the fact that you are "done with me" though.

Like JB, you seem to have something of a chip on your shoulder when people disagree with you strongly, forcibly, but sincerely and with an attempt to back up their opinions with facts

In this case, i didn't even disagree, just was expanding the philosphical debate. I wasn't playing the Nazi card when talking about experimentations.

JB and PAD two sides of the same coin. Cool.

If I say that "shocking the midle east into the 21st century" sounds like Israeli arrogance that would not be a compliment.

****

Franklu, though I am not Israeli, I don't care. When those nations can establish governments that aren't routinely supressing their people's basic human rights, then i will be less arrogant.

Until then, get over yourselves, the 1400s are over, join us in modern times, treat your people decently, stop blaming everyone else for your problems, and treat your people like human beings and improve the cesspool of the area you live in. You and the world will be better off.

Things are worse than before the war.

*****
Yeah, I mean heck, before the war, there weren't murderous people there intent intent on killimng thousands of our people. Oh wait.....Oh, and they were heroes for doing so?

My mistake.

I think the hope for a final and lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians lies with people like you, Micha. People who care about their own nation, but are nevertheless able to care about the plight of their putative "enemies" as well.

I would have more hope if not for the reality that the Palestinian counterpart to Micha would have a evry good chance of being killed by his own people. It's going to be very difficult for a true Palestinian leader to emerge in these conditions--imagine having to tell the people who rejoiced in the "martyrdom" of their own children that it was for a lie.

I've always felt bad for the average Russian, who endured a life of pointless deprivation in the cause of communism only to find out, in the twilight of their lives, that the sacrifice was for nothing. I think it may even be worse for the Palestinians, though right now I have a hard time working up much sympathy.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 12, 2006 10:48 AM

I would have more hope if not for the reality that the Palestinian counterpart to Micha would have a evry good chance of being killed by his own people. It's going to be very difficult for a true Palestinian leader to emerge in these conditions--imagine having to tell the people who rejoiced in the "martyrdom" of their own children that it was for a lie.

I'll acknowledge that my hopes may be naive. But I believe there is power in hope. Nelson Mandela could have been forgiven, I suppose, for giving up hope during all those years he was in prison. But had he done so, he'd never have had the chance to change the course of South Africa's history.

I've always felt bad for the average Russian, who endured a life of pointless deprivation in the cause of communism only to find out, in the twilight of their lives, that the sacrifice was for nothing.

That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that many hard-working Russians found a way to keep themselves and their families going so that they, or their children, could see the fall of communism.

I think it may even be worse for the Palestinians, though right now I have a hard time working up much sympathy.

I don't. It's a complicated problem. On the one hand, I believe Israel has a right to exist, and the Arab nations that have been plaguing Israel since its re-establishment have only themselves to blame for creating so formidable an enemy.

On the other hand, the Palestinians who occupied the land upon which Israel was founded anew were born long, long, long after the Israelis were first driven from their homeland. These Palestinians suddenly found themselves being punished for the sins of their ancestors, and were left without a homeland.

Israel has, in some ways, gone from being the oppressed to being the oppressor. There are valid reasons for that, and I am not condemning Israel. I am simply trying to take a balanced view.

It is easy for us to say that the Palestinians are by and large simply irrational and hate-filled people. On the other hand, were I a Palestinian, it's hard for me to say with certainty that I wouldn't be part of the Intifada. I'd like to believe that I wouldn't, but how can any of us be sure?

On the flip side, it is equally easy for me to say, "Damn it, Israel, stop being so lousy to the Palestinians!" But, you know, I don't live in Israel, a nation surrounded by enemies who have sworn to drive it off the map.

The people in the house with him weren't innocents. They were providing a safe-house for the most wanted terrorist in the country. Does anyone really think that if ground troops were sent in these people wouldn't be taking up arms and firing at the forces?

That's a rather dumb, binary way of thinking. Just as likely (if not more so) is that a head of household hosted Zarqawi and the women and minors had to take it because of his say-so. Or that Zarqawi targeted a house with a pregnant women specifically because there was a pregnant women there--if he was killed, it'd be a propaganda tool.

Bill, you are being too kind. I used to be a low level activist in Peace Now, but now I am very inactive. I'm afraid I lack the fire trhat creates good activists. A fire which seems often to come with a sense of self rightuousness and narrowmindedness unfortunatly.

-----------------
"Yeah, I mean heck, before the war, there weren't murderous people there intent intent on killimng thousands of our people. Oh wait.....Oh, and they were heroes for doing so?"

It is worse because now many more Iraqis are dead, and the country is in shambles.
It is worse because now many more people hate you with greater intensity, after the damage you have caused.
It is worse because now you have sent Americans close to their homes where they can easily hit them. That's service for you.

Al Quida was a fringe group that was not that popular, with little popular following or ties, which had to make elaborate plans in order to hit western targets not very frequently. The attack on Iraq pushed them to the mainstream, gave them more legitimacy and opportunity to act.

"Franklu, though I am not Israeli, I don't care. When those nations can establish governments that aren't routinely supressing their people's basic human rights, then i will be less arrogant.

Until then, get over yourselves, the 1400s are over, join us in modern times, treat your people decently, stop blaming everyone else for your problems, and treat your people like human beings and improve the cesspool of the area you live in. You and the world will be better off."

You really don't know the middle east well enough to be that arrogant. I don't know it that well, and my mother teaches it in the university.
Even if we allow that there are things wrong with the middle east, do you think that bombing, shocking, and invading is the way to go? Would the US's bad qualities change for the better were they invaded by a benevolent invador? Or would the bad only get worse? In the case of the Muslims the answer is that the worse attitudes of self-rightuosness, support of terrorism and victimization have become worse.
-----------------
Bill Myers, the Israeli Palestinian conflict is too complicated. It will be enough to say that the Palestinians have reasonable grievances but tend to do the wrong things to address them.

Bill Mulligan. There are Palestinians that talk peace. I'm afraid the distant view you and Bob have of the middle east makes you blind to the nuances. This is not to say that there are not many annoying thought patterns, even among the more peaceful, but attitudes are not uniform.

I recently started reading blogs by Muslims around the world, and about the middle east. It is both illuminating and encouraging and I highly recommend it. The internet enables us to see the point of view of other people more easily than ever before.

Here is small sample of IMiddle Eat blogs.

http://ontheface.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/6/11/2022686.html
This is an Israeli site by a Canadian born Israeli. It has many links to other Israeli and Arab sites. This link deals with the recent events and includes the attitude of Palestinian bloggers.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/
This is a blog by an American visiting the middle east. Very interesting. The newest post has Lebanese speaking for peace.

http://kmgr.blogspot.com/
This site is by an Iranian living in Canada.

http://www.sandmonkey.org/
This is a pro-American Egyptian

http://wahdah.blogspot.com/
This is an Algerian living in America. Note his attitude to Zarqawi.

http://www.mideastweb.org/
This is an Israeli political site presenting good analysis and moderate views about the Israeli Palestinian conflict and other issues. This is less illuminating on the personal level but offers more professional analysis.

http://classic-diva.blogspot.com/
a site by a girl in Saudi Arabia

http://perpetualrefugee.blogspot.com/
A site by a Lebanese who has recently visted Israel. It is profound.

I highly recommend taking a peak in some of these sites just so we can realize that there are people out there with original complex thoughts.

I've tried to post some links to blogs but for some reason this site prevents it.

I recommend a blog by an American visiting the the middle east called Michael J. Totten.

A site by an Israeli-Canadian called On the Face.
This wil also give you links to many other sites, few of which I've visited.

An Egyptian site called SandMonkey.

An Iranian site called Kamangir.

An Algerian-American called the Morr Next Door.

A Lebanese site called Perpetual Refugee. He has recently visted Israel, and his account is amazing.

I highly recommend peeking at these sites to see the world is more complex than we sometimes realize. It also restores some hope inhuman kind.

Micha-
You got caught in the filter while we were being hit from another source. I have reconfigured your previous posts so I think they should all show up without duplicates.
Kath

Thanks

Micha, you are being too humble. There are many forms of "activism." Your willingness to help us educate ourselves may seem a small thing to you, but education is the foundation for understanding, understanding is the basis for rational thought, and rational thought is the basis for rational decisions.

Will this discourse appreciably change the world? Most likely not. But true and lasting change, I've found, happens slowly over time, and in small increments. You never know what can happen when you build bridges of understanding.

And when I say "understanding," I'm not talking about complete acceptance. I reject Al Qaeda's terrorism as evil, for example. But how can we combat it if we don't understand it and where it came from?

Micha,

Thanks.

Micha, yeah, what Bill Meyers said. You don't have to be a sign carrying protestor to get things done (I might even suggest that the people who get things done tend to be the ones LESS likely to make a big show of it). Your efforts here to broaden our perspective may have greater effects than you can know.

Personally, I have a better than average background dealing with folks from the Middle East. One of my sisters is Iranian (long story). My mom went to Columbia University and would bring home people from the region--we actually dinners with Palestinians and Israelis and they would joke--sorta--about how the next time they would meet it would be on the battlefield.

The funny thing is, on a personal level, the Arabs were, by an large, much more likeable than the Israelis, who tended to come off a bit more harshly. Given what I know now I understand them better but at the time my sympathies would have gone to the Arabs...except they were and in far too many cases still are unwilling to accept the reality that the Jews ain't leaving. 60 years of having the same lessons pounded home have done nothing. Watching the world enter a golden age of information and technology while they, sitting on wealth beyond the dreams of Croesus, have fallen further and further behind has done nothing. Watching Israel become a major military and cultural power while they have degenerated into what is for all practical purposes a death cult has done nothing.

And I don't get it. The Arabs I've known, to a one, have been kind, generous to a fault, intelligent (though with a serious lack of skepticism), real salt of the earth. This...blindness as it pertains to Jews and Israel baffles me. An alien looking at Earth might conclude that anti-Semitism is some kind of viral disease, predominant in societies that are about to fall into ruin.

I'm pissed at the Palestinians because I don't think they have any excuse. They are not inferior to their Jewish neighbors but they have allowed corrupt leaders to scam billions of dollars given to the Palestinian people and lionized those leaders in the process. They've allowed “religious” leaders to blaspheme one of the world's great religions, twisting it into their image, turning actions that would, by any decent interpretation, be damnable sins into noble acts of martyrdom.

Certainly, there are voices of courage and moderation among the Arabs. But if the general population doesn't desire real peace, and I don't know that they do, what chance do these people have?

1which had to make elaborate plans in order to hit western targets not very frequently

****
I am interested at how you define not very frequently. Seemed pretty frequent to us, and 9/11 could have easily been the death of 10,000 or more had they not evacuated the towers as much as they did, and had the flights been a little later in the day.

Yea, I think there was an awful lot of hatred then.

Even if we allow that there are things wrong with the middle east, do you think that bombing, shocking, and invading is the way to go? Would the US's bad qualities change for the better were they invaded by a benevolent invador? Or would the bad only get worse?
****
I'd bring up a certain time period where invading, bombing, shockig etc. completely changed several peoples.

"even if we allow" wow can you, can you please allow that something might be wrong with these barbaric nations that can't even get along with each other or provide basic decency for their people? Can you please???????

You really don't know the middle east well enough to be that arrogant.

******

You have no idea how well I know the middle east, or how well I don't. The arrogance is presuming someone who thinks differently than you is ignorant.

Posted by spiderrob8 at June 12, 2006 02:24 PM

You have no idea how well I know the middle east, or how well I don't. The arrogance is presuming someone who thinks differently than you is ignorant.

Actually, your ignorance and belligerence come through loud and clear. Frankly, your posts are far more combative and ill-reasoned than you are willing to believe, and that may have played a part in Peter's announcing that he would ignore you going forward.

As an aside, it was asinine to compare Peter to John Byrne in the "If I Were a Conservative Voter..." thread. I would actually agree that at times Peter takes disagreement a bit more personally than is warranted. But at the same time, even if he becomes totally sick of someone to the point of choosing to ignore them, he still lets them post in his blog because he believes in the importance of free speech.

I think the proper response to that is to say, "Thank you, Peter."

So, thank you, Peter.

spiderrob8, I'm guessing that what I have to say is going to make an enemy of you, which isn't my intent. But I believe this needs to be said, so I'm going to say it anyway. I'm a troll who has been desperately trying to reform. So I know just what it is that drives someone to join an online discussion and start picking fights, because it's a bad habit I myself am still trying to control.

My advice to you, therefore, is not coming from a perceived vantage point of superiority. Quite the opposite. I know where you're coming from because I'm there, too. And I'm telling you that if you approach a discussion looking for fights, you'll find them. You'll also find that people increasingly tune you out. I know. It's happened to me.

Conversely, if you come into a discussion willing to treat people the way you'd like to be treated, you will find that people increasingly tune you in, and you have an opportunity to influence them with your ideas.

You can dismiss my advice if you wish. That is your inalienable right. But I'm telling you that I know from direct experience that the "golden rule" is not just fluff: it really works.

But at the same time, even if he becomes totally sick of someone to the point of choosing to ignore them, he still lets them post in his blog because he believes in the importance of free speech.
*****

JB is not infringing on my free speech just because he doesn't give me a platform to speak there anymore. He doesn't have to provide me with such a platform. If someone kicks me out of their house, they are not infringing on my free speech.

However, you are right that the methods are different, for sure.

When i was a wee one I never knew that the writer of the incredible Hulk would ignore me on his blog

Actually, your ignorance and belligerence come through loud and clear.
****

I'm not ignorant at all. I'm very, very informed, and if it is a topic I am not informed on, I don't post.
I don't believe I've picked fights. More like the original blog entries did that. For the most part, i've argued hard, but backed up my arguments, with the facts as i've seen them.

The shock the middle east stuff not so much-but then, I am sick to death of people making excuses why that area of the world is a nightmare, and forget about the severe abuses and shocking inhumanity demonstrated by virtually every government there. The people I am more sympathetic too, but even they often support terrible terrorist groups and regimes though not always. and i'm also tired of "yeah, he was a killer but that might help Bush that he's dead so let me come up with 97 reasons it is a bad thing that he's dead, and bring up Osama, even though 95 of those reasons would apply to his death as well."

It is a shame, too, because it doesn't have to be that way.

And you didn't make an enemy-I have no enemies (from my viewpoint), and certainly not going to have one over political arguments. My friends and I have long argued like that since we were like 12 about politics. Then we get a pizza.

The ignore post was odd, though, because I really thought that I was engaging in a solid philosophical debate, thinking out loud, not coming to any real conclusions, and certainly not calling anyone a nazi or anything like that. My other posts which did make comparisons to nazis and WWII I felt did so on legitimate grounds, again not name calling. Its absurd to say the biggest war in history can never be referenced again. There was no maliciousness or arbitrariness. Legitmiate comparisions/analogies to Nazis/Hitler/Fascism WWII are inevitable-its the bgiggest war in history and the defining moment of the 20th century. It has shaped the world we live in.

Just because some guy I don't know made his "law" I'm supposed to treat it like Monroe doctrine or something.

Micha,
the Israeli Palestinian conflict is too complicated. It will be enough to say that the Palestinians have reasonable grievances but tend to do the wrong things to address them.

And yet you've given what is probably the most succinct and profound one sentence summary of it that I have seen in a long time.

Just jumping in here kinda late but I think that "Godwin's Law" is an arbitrary pronouncement by someone who must have thought he was being very clever. To insist that when someone brings up Hitler they're lost the debate implies, that the best way to win a debate is to disallow the most pertinent corollay.

I didn't vote to adopt Godwin's "Law"

Civil Disobedience against Godwin's Law!!!
Mention Hitler and Nazis as often as possible!!! Revolt, revolt ;)

Counterfactuals are so much fun ;)

"Just jumping in here kinda late but I think that "Godwin's Law" is an arbitrary pronouncement by someone who must have thought he was being very clever."

Yes, that would be "Godwin."

"To insist that when someone brings up Hitler they're lost the debate implies, that the best way to win a debate is to disallow the most pertinent corollay."

He brought up Nazis not once, not twice, but three times in three different responses. No one else has. It's not "pertinent." It's his default reply when he wants to find a quick way to attack an argument. It's just laziness.

"I didn't vote to adopt Godwin's "Law"."

Tragically, this blog isn't a democracy, so...

PAD

Posted by Spiderrob8 at June 12, 2006 04:41 PM

Civil Disobedience against Godwin's Law!!!
Mention Hitler and Nazis as often as possible!!! Revolt, revolt ;)

Oh, God, even in jest, that's just asinine. I mean, you can start your own blog and set your own rules. Blogs these days are dirt cheap. Trust me, I started my own blog and I can barely afford a pizza.

Oh, God, even in jest, that's just asinine.

*****
Lighten up Bill.

For the record, one reason one the Nazis are often brought up, is because its morally clear. Virtually everyone agrees that the Nazis were super bad guys, and virtually everyone supports that war.

So when someone says "This should never be done" or "could never be done" or "isn't right" it is effective to say, "But it was done in that war" and the person agrees. Then you say "and you approve of that war of course" and they say yes. and then you say "so you don't really mean what you say. You mean it is ok to do that in certain wars, like say WWII. But you don't approve of that tactic here, or that reason here. But you do there. So really, it just comes down to whether you think the war is important enough "worth it" or not. I admit you don't think it is. But I do. therefore, when X is done, or Y is the reason given for war, or Z helps President so and so, I am all for it, because to me, this war/action whatever is worth it."

Historical comparisons are often very useful that way. "Ha ha, Bush's approval rating is as low as Nixon's. That proves he sucks as a President and will be remembered as the worst president ever (though I can only name like 8)." "True, it is as low as Nixon's I might say. But it is also as low as Truman's. today, his approval rating is much higher among academics and people in general. So, maybe Bush will go down in history poorly. But his low approval rating doesn't make it so. and in fact, even Nixon was partly rehabilitated in the minds of the public in the end."

WWII and Hitler were somewhat unique, but not sooo unique they have no relevance at all. Quite different saying "So and so is Hitler. That's what Hitler always said. Emperor so and so." That's demonizing an opponent so you can dismiss their arguments and differences with you without actually having to confront their ideas, and challenge your own thoughts.

So Godwin can jump in a lake for all I care about his "law". Heck, I thought it was the John Byrne law.

Thamls Bill Mulligan, I appologize for saying your ignorant. However, in the business of changing the way people think making a Big Show is a good thing. Martin Luther King wrote about the dramarization of the grievances or something to that effect. We tried to do that a bit when I was active, but leftists tend to live in yjeor own world at times, which makes the drama incommunicable, or so I felt. Still, I am happy to do the little I do through the net. It is a new way of communication.

About your experience with Israelis and Palestinians, I dislike getting into generalizations, but it could be said that Arabs have an ingrained strict system of etiquette, while the Israelis really do not. Bernard Lewis (middle Eat expert) said that it's a comflict between one side that is very polte and one that isn't. However, I believe this is one of the reasons Israelis are flexible and adaptable (maybe Jews in general too?), and the Palestinians are rigid.

Antisemitism is like a virus.

I get annoyed with the Palestinians very often too. Unlike some in the Israeli Peace camp, I never thought that they are without reproach, while at the same time I do not use their stupidity to hide ours.

About whether the Palestinian majority want peace, I do not know. It is hard to tell, although polls show that they do. My own opinion is that most do, but not all of them are able to reconsile this choice wih their deep desire to restore what they've lost. There is a similar inability in the Israeli side to reconsile wanting peace and doing what is necessary. This is part of the tragedy. We are close, but not enough.
I recently read an interview with an American-Palestinian refugee whose mother stil wore the key to a house lost in 1948. So he told her that if she returned she'll have to learn Hebrew and such, and the key vanished. It probably was difficult for her. I doubt any Jews wore keys of houses lost in Europe or in the Middle East. My father doesn't.

You are right spiderbob/ I assumed that the fact that you make broad generalizations about the middle east and believe it your right to invade and reshape things the way you see fit no matter the consequences to be a sign of ignorance. But you may be well informed and still think the same way.

----------
"I am interested at how you define not very frequently"
Let me tel you what I define frequently. When you hear an ambulance and think: oh, another suicide attack. I should call my family and tell them I'm fine, and send the usyual E-mail to friends and family. Abd then you listen to the news and say, good, only 4 casualties this time. Frequently is two attacks per week. In Iraq things are even worse. Infrequently is what we have now. One suicide bombing with four casualties on averege every two months or so.
In the beginning of the Intifada they didn't have enough recruits for suicide bombings so they planted bombs. At the hight, after many Palestinians got killed, then they had an endless supply of recruits for suicide bombings.

I do not envy the US for 9/11. But then you had a small group of people hating you and dedicated enough to plan an elaborate attack. Now there are many more who were humiilated and lost family in the war who hate the US. This is not an improvement.
--------------
I'm the last person to defend despotism in the middle east. I dispute your right to shock them into the 21st century, or that such an action will improve the situation. Now you get to be barbaric too, while still being allied to other despotic regimes.
---------------
"I'd bring up a certain time period where invading, bombing, shockig etc. completely changed several peoples."

A hidden reference to WWII. Unfortunatly our little conflict (Israel, not Iraq) suffers from all too many such comparisons. And it never helps. But beyond that, WWII was not what you'd call a common event. It was unique in every respect. Nor was it such a shining example of bringing democracy to peoples that you imagine.
Western Europe needed the US's military to defeat the Germans, but they had earlier democratic tradition. The Germans and Italians also had a European democratic tradition. After the war despotism remained in Spain, Portugal, and of course Eastern Europe. So, only in Japan did bombing create a deocracy, in one very unique case in a unique society. The rest of east Asia had to develop in there own ways. The US helped Korea start a democracy by fighting the north. But eventually it was the Koreans who removed despotism from their country without US bombs.
In other parts of the world democracy and progress were accomplished without bombing or invasion. The countries in question got US help at times (and opposition at others), but they formed democracy without shock and awe.
It should also be remembered that the US did not get into WWII for the sake of promoting democracy. There were more immediate issues.
It should also be recalled that the US track record in involving itself in international issues is not so great that it should go arround dictating and giving marks to countries for their barbarity.
-------------
So really, I'm not saying that the middle east is not in bad shape, or that wars are always wrong, or that Zarqawi's death was not a good thing. But seriously, the image of America marching in and bringing freedom to the world at gunpoint, while the masses cheer on is a dangerous fantasy. Try to understand the complexities involved, the limitations of military power, the restrictions you must put on yourself before you attack.

For the record, one reason one the Nazis are often brought up, is because its morally clear. Virtually everyone agrees that the Nazis were super bad guys, and virtually everyone supports that war.

But that's precisely why it's so lazy an argument and is so easily abused one. It's like the "when did you stop beating your wife?" question. How do you counter that argument. People, particularly on the web, have pulled out the "that's just like Hitler and the Nazis" card over anything that even mildly annoys them too many times. Everytime it's used, it cheapens it even more. In the 10+ years since Godwin made his pronouncement, the Hitler comparison has become so cheapened that today, it's almost meaningless.

After righting my previous reply I was afraid it would seem I don't take 9/11 seriously. This is not the case. I've always wondered what's worse, one big shocking attack with thousands of casualties, or your 5-10 casualties in a restaurant or bus every once in awhile.

I don't envy the Americans at all. Nor do I take it lightly. But, I think on a purely strategic level the first case is better. When you have many people engaged all the time in trying to kill you with unsophisticated weapons and strategy, and with a seemingly endless supply of recruits from a supportive civilian population it is harder to fight it. A group like Al-Quida that has few people, less popular support, closed cells, elaborate plans, and who have to cross half the world to get to you, can be dealt with in ways that you can't with groups like Hamas. Of course, Al-Quaida is not a walk in the park, I do not take it lightly, but I thing from a strategic point of view it is better than fighting the insurgency in Iraq or Somalia or Palestine.

Writing not righting. It's 2:00 AM here. Stupid mistake.

Posted by: Micha at June 12, 2006 05:49 PM

About whether the Palestinian majority want peace, I do not know. It is hard to tell, although polls show that they do.

Most people claim they want peace. The question is whether or not they're willing to make a sacrifice to achieve the goal. Many aren't, and there's the rub: turning conflict into peace inevitably requires a significant sacrifice.

My own opinion is that most do, but not all of them are able to reconsile this choice wih their deep desire to restore what they've lost.

That's a terrific insight. And I fear the conflict between your people and theirs will continue until the majority of Palestinians realize that the costs of their desires outweigh the potential benefits. One hopes that such a realization won't come too late.

There is a similar inability in the Israeli side to reconsile wanting peace and doing what is necessary. This is part of the tragedy. We are close, but not enough.

It's a two-way street, though. I remember when Israel offered unprecedented concessions to the Palestinians, only to have their offer rejected out-of-hand by Yasser Arafat. I've always believed that Arafat's refusal to come up with a counter-offer was borne out of a fear that making peace with Israel would leave him without an enemy 'round which to rally his people. So he sacrificed the long-term interests of the Palestinians on the altar of his selfish interests.

Posted by: Micha at June 12, 2006 07:12 PM

Writing not righting. It's 2:00 AM here. Stupid mistake.

Not stupid at all. You are in fact one of the most intelligent people I've encountered, on or off the Net.

By the way, I never thought you were belittling 9/11. Your ability to communicate is far better than you give yourself credit for.

Now go to bed!

Certainly,we do not face frequent suicide bombers. I'd argue that the fact that we haven't been attacked since 9/11 is a sign of some things we have done right, no matter how many more supposedly loved us before, and hate us now. It is a difficult thing to say though, and to attribute credit too, because you never know what tomorrow will bring. I do know this-on 9/12/01, virtually everyone thought more and more attacks were coming, and up thgrough the beginning of the Iraq war, people were sayoing we'd have to get used to suicide bombings like the Israelis. So far, no. Coincidence? I really don't think so.

I also think you discount what role war played in creating, maintaining, or shaping democracy. War saved democracy in England, War saved Western Europe, War ended naziism.fascism as a politicalworld threatening force, War saved Germany from itself,war created democracy in Japan-in fact total overwhelming destructive insane war, war led to democracy in Korea (and the South Vietnamese woud have been far better off had we won that war), war created this country, war freed the slaved in this country and crreated the conditions to pass amendments that, while it would take 100 years, ensured the rights of black Americans, and proxy wars and a military build helped bankrupt the Soviet Union which helped free Eastern Europe. Reminds me of a slogan-War has never solved anything Peace is then hard. Democracy and freedom is hard-it is more than simply giving people the right to vote like some people think-you need to give information, ensure that minority rights are protected, give voice to the majority without oppressing the minority. Of course it is more than just war-you need ideas, great men and women, continued checks over abuses, police forces, anmd people willing to take the chance offered them. and sometimes democracy comes quickly like in Japan. Usually its a struggle-the United States did not have true democracy for all its citizens for 200 years-the 1970s-yet the germ had to start somewhere.

I can't believe I forgot about Turkey. (I'm not kidding, either.)

Micha, seriously, not to just jump on the bandwagon, but I would classify your ideas as remarkably clear, well considered, and exceedingly well communicated. Throw in the fact that you're exceedingly polite, even going so far as to clarify further a remark you thought might cause offense (it didn't for me at least) and you give me hope that maybe there is something to hope for. Don't worry abouthow "active" you are. Change is more often brought about subtly.

Something to remember, touched on indirectly by Bill Myers above. Peace means different things to different people. It means more to have peace than to just not have fighting. Peace doesn't mean everyone has what they want, because sometimes different people want different things. Peace is allowing others to have what they can while they allow you to have what you can. (I hope that makes sense outside my head.)

Thanks Bill and Sean.

"It's a two-way street, though. I remember when Israel offered unprecedented concessions to the Palestinians, only to have their offer rejected out-of-hand by Yasser Arafat. I've always believed that Arafat's refusal to come up with a counter-offer was borne out of a fear that making peace with Israel would leave him without an enemy 'round which to rally his people. So he sacrificed the long-term interests of the Palestinians on the altar of his selfish interests."

It was a little more complicated than that. It has been much discussed, but part of it is a little like Bill Mulligans dinner table. The Israeli prime minister made the Arafat an offer of 95% of the occupied territories, and felt he was being very generous, as if he was doing them a favor. His whole attitude was take it or leave it. The Palestinians could not really accept it although it was more than they were offered before. But they made no briding offers. They expected to get what they feel they deserved (which was more than Israel could agree to), viewed the Israeli offer not as a positive development but as an insult as well as part of an Israeli-American plan to twist their arm, felt they were being generous to even entertain a compromise with Israel, and completely ignored the Israeli needs, especially with regard to Jerusalem and the refugees. Then both leaders went around the world blaiming each other, as if a good soundbyte on CNN will get them anything. The Israelis viewed this as proof that the Palestinians don't want peace. The Palestinians saw this as proof that the peace process was pointless, and felt the only way to get anything was by going to the tried method of 'resistence' (rioting and terrorism) and international pressure on Israel. When the fighting started the Israeli army was committed to teaching the Palestinians that they won't get anything by violence, so they used excessive force. Then things spiraled out of controled, neither side would stop, each fel its ideas aboutr the other side confirmed, the peace makers were discredited and the hardliners took over. And the rest is history.

At that time period killing Palestinian terrorists probably did more harm than good. I believe the Israeli army could have tried to deescalate things on the early stages and tried harder not to kill civilians. But at a certain point things got so out of control, and the Palestinian revenge list go so long, that the use of aggressive military force become unavoidable, and the Israeli army was able to reduce the flames and provide greater security. They lso learned to be more careful about human rights violations, partly as a result of what the Israeli peace camp did. We also succeeded in getting the Israeli public to understand that continued occupation is not in Israel interest. But the peace camp is still discredited, and the Israelis have more faith in force and unilateral action than faith in peace (not without cause).

I believe that the Palestinians were more wrong than Israel, but Israel actions were not completel right either. As an Israeli my focus is on my side, although, unlike some of my friends, I don't believe in making excuses for the Palestinians. One of the stupider things they did was believing that Clinton was too pro Israeli, and that the next guy will be better fo them. The theory you suggest about Arafat may be right. Many Israelis believed so. But it had been used as a justification for avoiding negotiations and taking a hardline approach. It is only a theory. It is hard to tell what Arafat was thinking because he never talked straight. In any case, after the Peace talks collapsed, the Israeli governments never considered returning to negotiations to find out. Part of the reason is that they were not willing to offer even what the previous prime minister offered.

spiderrob:

>Certainly,we do not face frequent suicide bombers. I'd argue that the fact that we haven't been attacked since 9/11 is a sign of some things we have done right, no matter how many more supposedly loved us before, and hate us now.

You could say that, but you have little to no factual information that supports that statement. To the best of my knowledge, there have only been 2 other foreign attacks on American soil in the 200+ years that this country has been around, the Attack on Pearl Harbor and the first bombing at the WTC. The first occured over 60 years ago and the second happened about 10 years before it was hit again. That timeline alone indicates that the frequency of attacks is not enough to believe that your statement is factual.

If you believe the government that a few attacks have been stopped before they took place, than the number of attempts have actually increased significantly since the U.S. government went to war on terror.

The attacks that have been prevented were not doneso due to troops being sent to Iraq, a move that has united much of the Arab world against us, but due to covert government intelligence being utilized to bring these planned attacks to light before they occur.

>It is a difficult thing to say though, and to attribute credit too, because you never know what tomorrow will bring. I do know this-on 9/12/01, virtually everyone thought more and more attacks were coming, and up thgrough the beginning of the Iraq war, people were sayoing we'd have to get used to suicide bombings like the Israelis. So far, no. Coincidence? I really don't think so.

Not coincidence, no. It is due to a combination of a multibillion dollar intelligence budget and geography.

Fred

"Certainly,we do not face frequent suicide bombers. I'd argue that the fact that we haven't been attacked since 9/11 is a sign of some things we have done right, no matter how many more supposedly loved us before, and hate us now. It is a difficult thing to say though, and to attribute credit too, because you never know what tomorrow will bring. I do know this-on 9/12/01, virtually everyone thought more and more attacks were coming, and up thgrough the beginning of the Iraq war, people were sayoing we'd have to get used to suicide bombings like the Israelis. So far, no. Coincidence? I really don't think so."

Give yourself a pat on the back. The US did well. The fact that here were no other attacks, especially not the kind we had here, show two things.
1) Apparently Al-Quaida has not succeeded in recruiting many people or building something among the local Muslim population. They seem to prefer the American Dream to martyrdom, and have less of a feeling of discontent than Muslims in Europe and the Middle East.
2) Your ability to use intelligence and security measures to protect yourselves is greater than the ability of Al-Quida to orchastrate an attack on US soil.
It is also possible that Al-Quida's focus has shifted to fighting in Iraq. And that some malcontent muslims in the US have left the country to fight elsewhere, rather than fight in the US. But the above points are still valid.
Of course there is always the risk of somebody doing something. Wasn't there something in Canada? But still, this is not Gaza, where the recruits came lokkoing for the Hamas recruiters so they could become martyrs, avenge deaths of relatives, insult to their honor and so forth.

It is also not Iraq. The opposite of everything I said is true of the American situation in Iraq and the rest of the middle east. Here terrorists have the will, the popular support born out of outrage and hate, the recruits and the means to attack Americans, which are greater than the abiility of the US to stop them. If this war ends well, it will probably involve some deal with the insurgents that will satisfy their honor and sectorial interests. And even then, each group will probably have their own militias for a while.

I was also worried that the US will have suicide bombings in great frequency. I'm happy that it ididn't happen. I don't think attacking Iraq helped the US. I think it harmed it and the war on terrorism. It is possible that in the long run it will bring a good outcome for the cause of democracy. I hope so. But it would still not make it a smart war.

"I also think you discount what role war played in creating, maintaining, or shaping democracy. War saved democracy in England, War saved Western Europe, War ended naziism.fascism as a politicalworld threatening force, War saved Germany from itself,war created democracy in Japan-in fact total overwhelming destructive insane war, war led to democracy in Korea (and the South Vietnamese woud have been far better off had we won that war), war created this country, war freed the slaved in this country and crreated the conditions to pass amendments that, while it would take 100 years, ensured the rights of black Americans, and proxy wars and a military build helped bankrupt the Soviet Union which helped free Eastern Europe. Reminds me of a slogan-War has never solved anything Peace is then hard. Democracy and freedom is hard-it is more than simply giving people the right to vote like some people think-you need to give information, ensure that minority rights are protected, give voice to the majority without oppressing the minority. Of course it is more than just war-you need ideas, great men and women, continued checks over abuses, police forces, anmd people willing to take the chance offered them. and sometimes democracy comes quickly like in Japan. Usually its a struggle-the United States did not have true democracy for all its citizens for 200 years-the 1970s-yet the germ had to start somewhere."

I'm no pacifist, nor do I think wars are never necessary. I don't think they should be sought, especially in order to make social experimentys in democracy in an alien culture based on a theory tthat in the distant future it would make the denizens in the middle east better people (i.e. more like Americans). The historical examples you cite are examples where people fought to defend or liberate their countries or their allies, not to do social experiements baed on the assumption that it will prevent some future war. The Americans chose to fight and sacrifice for their freedom, which is admirable. They also chose to sacrifice their lives to come to the aid of Europeans and the Koreans when they were fighting for theirs, which is also laudable. The proxy wars of the cold war + Vietnam are nothing to brag about, but the pressure on the USSR (but not actual fighting), did help liberate Eastern Europe, although it was they who actually stood up to tyrany in the end, relatively without violence. However the americans did not have the right to choose for the Iraqis to sacrifice their lives on American terms, in order to conduct an American attempt to form a democracy in an alien culture especially when Iraq (unlike Japan) did not attack or threated the US and their allies at the time. It should also be repeated that Japan and Korea (to a lesser degree) were the only places in which the US successfully formed a democracy where there was none before. So deciding to go into a country to form a democracy o these terms was an unwarranted act of arrogance on the US's part. There were ways to help democracy develop in the middle east, slowly, gradually, like it did in Eastern Europe, South American and Asia (not always thanks to the US if I recall). And the US's ability to help that goal would have been much greater.

Full scale military attacks should be reserved to cases of actual self defence (of self or allies), and in immediate humanitarian crises like Kosovo or Darfur. Had the Iraqis decided to fight Saddam on their own, the US would have acted right in helping them. But what they did was take the choice on itself.

"It's a two-way street, though. I remember when Israel offered unprecedented concessions to the Palestinians, only to have their offer rejected out-of-hand by Yasser Arafat. I've always believed that Arafat's refusal to come up with a counter-offer was borne out of a fear that making peace with Israel would leave him without an enemy 'round which to rally his people. So he sacrificed the long-term interests of the Palestinians on the altar of his selfish interests."

I don't know whether I'd classify being concerned about getting assassinated as a selfish interest.

You have to remember, a sizable portion of Arafat's constituency consisted of people who consider the only acceptable negotiation to end thusly: All the Israelis leave. The back up position is, all the Israelis die. If they leave because they're all dead, that's good too. By his own admission, he was concerned that if he took the deal, he was a dead man. His own people would kill him. I can't say he did the right thing in terms of his peoples' future, but in terms of his personal safety, my guess is that he was probably right. For that matter, he might well have figured that he would agree to a deal, come home, announce the deal, be dead inside of a week, and his successor would say, "Deal's off."

It's easy to say that the majority of Palestinians want peace. But considering a majority of Palestinians--or at least voting Palestinians--put in charge known radicals who have spent decades declaring they want to push Israel into the sea, I'm not convinced. If their own previous leader was afraid to talk peace to them for fear of his life, that says a lot.

PAD

Give yourself a pat on the back. The US did well

As Fred said, I don't believe this to be the case at all.

Consider: Israel, albiet a much, much smaller country than the US, protects their borders, does a lot with security, etc. Yet, attacks still happen.

Whereas if somebody really wanted to make a suicide bombing here, they could probably do so at will. But aside from 9/11 there has been nothing.

No, it's not because of our inept government stopping attacks, it's because such attacks are not even being attempted.

it's because such attacks are not even being attempted.
***
That ust begs the question why though. (aside from the fact that several attacks in the amking have been stopped, and I am sure many others disrupted in the early stages, that had we done nothing would have succeeded but we shall never know. Like if something had disrupted 9/11 planning early on-we would never know what we had missed out on).

one thing is that muslims in this country are fairly assimilated, have loyalty to this country, and are relatively happy and well off compared to the situation in other countries.

another reason why large scale attacks may not have happened is simple time. or money has dried up some. or leaders have been killed and plans disrupted. or calls have been intercepted. or the ones who were most angry are in Iraq now fighting, or other places. the distance between us and our enemies, while no longer determinative, still is a wide gulk, unlike Israel which is surrounded. the fact we are doing many things more now than before.luck. the government is bloated and slow, but it still has done things, and those things have undoubtedly had impacts no one will know-because non of us is The Watcher and can view alternate timelines where those things were not done. It is probably all of these things, and more, hough more attacks are only a matter of time.

There were ways to help democracy develop in the middle east, slowly, gradually
****

Not to be flippant about it, but it is 2006. Time's up. It it more than past time to take steps toward granting basic freedoms and democracy. I don't expect change over night-it took us 200 years to get ours more right than not, given we excluded a large part of pur population from the process. but it is time to start. I don't care if they are more like Americans. I do care that most of the governments there are terrible, horrible giovernments, and the ideology of these terrorist groups is disgusting and insane. The fact it has any popular support at all as opposed to being a fringe group should be a source of shame for those people. There is a reason they have troubles there and it isn't the "Jews and the Americans." It is their own governments and the way they allowed their culture to be hijacked.

That just begs the question why though.

Yes, it does. And I don't have any quick and easy answers.

another reason why large scale attacks may not have happened is simple time.

How often have there been large-scale attacks in Israel? By large-scale, I'm thinking something along the lines of what happened in London.

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any, but everybody is welcome to refresh my memory of specific incidents. But for the most part, they've been lone suicide bombers that had some stuff strapped to their chests.

This style of attacks was also what was done in London, although it was done with multiple people at once, and unfortunately involved crowded buses and subways. I'm not knowledgable in the least of Israel's public transportation systems, but if they had a subway, it certainly would've been targetted too.

The 9/11 hijackers also proved that it isn't difficult to get into the country - most of them, if not all of them, arrived here legally. Some of them were also well off, much like the suicide bombers in London. So, getting to the US isn't that great of an obstacle.

Materials for bombs probably aren't all that difficult to get in the US either.

The world may never see another 9/11, although I don't hold out much hope. But lone suicide bombers? It's just too easy in the long run.

>The fact it has any popular support at all as opposed to being a fringe group should be a source of shame for those people. *snip* It is their own governments and the way they allowed their culture to be hijacked.

Wow. This is exactly how I felt as the U.S. entered the war without providing its people any real proof of their allegations. I watched as those people, due mostly to their own fear and anger, followed like sheep and actually condemned anyone who suggested that there were some very visible facts that contradicted what our government was telling us and that we get more info or more than a shred of proof before going to war.

Using your reasoning above, do my unsuccessful protesting, public statements and discussions with those supporting the war leave me "allowing my government to be hijacked"?

It it more than past time to take steps toward granting basic freedoms and democracy.

So, why the Middle East and not Africa? Why not Cuba, China, and the other Communist countries of Asia?

The method by which we, the US, are picking and choosing who should have democracy forced upon them is rather ridiculous and egotistical on our part.

I said it awhile back, and I'll say it again: you cannot force democracy upon people. They have to take it for themselves. As you can see, this hasn't happened in Iraq, and it hasn't exactly happened in Afghanistan.

But it did happen in Turkey, and in some small fashion in other Middle Eastern countries.

The fact that we continue to choose military action to enforce democracy on others is never going to help.

So, getting to the US isn't that great of an obstacle.
*****
True, it is easy to get here legally and illegally. However, legal immigration has been tightened somewhat with new computer checks, and even students from "friendly" countries have said they have had more difficulty getting here, so maybe that has slowed things down.
***
Materials for bombs probably aren't all that difficult to get in the US either.
*****
No, as Tim McVeigh showed.
****
The world may never see another 9/11, although I don't hold out much hope. But lone suicide bombers? It's just too easy in the long run.
*****
That is definitely true, especially given the size of the country, though how many is the unknown question. People who immigrate here are not as radical as in Europe. They get assimilated. Those who come here to start trouble obviously can.

I don't know. The problem is, despite the fact that overall, the suicide bombings wouldn't kill that many people compared to our population, so the risk would be small, the fear created would hurt our economy tremendously, and psychologically hurt our people

Craig: "No, it's not because of our inept government stopping attacks, it's because such attacks are not even being attempted."

Please, be nice enough to give the devil his due sometimes. We have stopped a few small cells and arrested some twits who were planning to do really stupid crap. Granted, planning and doing aren't always the same thing but it is a fact that we have done this.

Slag on Bush all you want. Have a blast. But at least acknowledge that there are guys out there in local and federal law enforcement who just might be doing it right and have their acts together no matter who is sitting in The White House. There have been arrests related to Al Qaeda in the U.S. since 9/11. People have busted their asses to make us safe. Don't slag off on their efforts because you want to slag off on Bush. Makes you look as bad as the other side.

Fred: "If you believe the government that a few attacks have been stopped before they took place, than the number of attempts have actually increased significantly since the U.S. government went to war on terror."

Not really. Go back and actually look up what happened after the first WTC bombing. We arrested the people who did it, got information from them about others in the U.S. who were planning several follow ups and arrested those people as well. Again, planning isn't always doing but you reduce the chance of someone doing to 0% when you make them spend the rest of their life in a tiny prison cell.

So, why the Middle East and not Africa? Why not Cuba, China, and the other Communist countries of Asia?

The method by which we, the US, are picking and choosing who should have democracy forced upon them is rather ridiculous and egotistical on our part.
*****

The middle east currently is where the immediate threat arises from. That is obvious. It is that area of the world sending out people to other places to randomly kill people in large numbers. We've helped bring, and the people in many areas have helped themselves bring, or bring back, some freedom and some democratic steps in many areas. We can't do it all ourselves. But this area of the world has to stop.

Africa is undoubtedly a mess for many reasons and there is no easy solutions for that. But one thing at a time.

China should keep us awake at night. I have real fear for china. direct action against china is impossible given their size and military and nuclear weapons. Hopefully, economic reform and cultural exchange is having an impact on China.

Wow. This is exactly how I felt as the U.S. entered the war without providing its people any real proof of their allegations. I watched as those people, due mostly to their own fear and anger, followed like sheep and actually condemned anyone who suggested that there were some very visible facts that contradicted what our government was telling us and that we get more info or more than a shred of proof before going to war.

Using your reasoning above, do my unsuccessful protesting, public statements and discussions with those supporting the war leave me "allowing my government to be hijacked"?

****

To compare us to culture that is beheading people, kidnapping people, severely oppressing women, sending their 12 year olds out with bombs strapped to their chest and celebreating when they die,and the like to me is more ridiculous than any kind of comparison to Hitler or the Nazis could ever be.

My opinion would be totally different anyway, but I am not here to argue the war again per se. In my opinion, given 9/11, any President, Bush, Clinton, etc. would have been derelict in their duty in not taken the action that Bush wound up taking, at least in some form. To bring up WWII, it would be kinda like after Pearl harbor if we hadn't fought Germany simply because they had not yet attacked us. After 9/11, I don;t believe we could wait until the proof was the attack or aid provided to enemies, especially given the odd history of Iraq and the United States. No proof is absolute, but most believed thier were weapons there (and given the actions and gameplaying of Iraq, I can forgive the ignoring of some contrary evidence), including many Iraqis, and certainly Saddam who had governments pushing to end the sanctions hoped to restart the programs once those sanctions ended. and in the end you have to go with the intelligence that you and others have-even Bobby kennedy later admitted they couldn't tell from the photos really what the heck was in Cuba-they had to trust the Cias judgment. I regret that it ties our hands with Iran. However, perhaps you can take some solace in that-if we had not gone to Iraq, we would almost certainly be in a war with Iran right now, or at least have bombed the heck out of it. One war started the other averted.

That;s an interesting alternate reality-What if Jimmy Carter had committed overwhelming force in some form during the hostage crisis. What would Iran and the Middle East look like today? No one can really know.

>>>The fact it has any popular support at all as opposed to being a fringe group should be a source of shame for those people. *snip* It is their own governments and the way they allowed their culture to be hijacked.

>>Wow. This is exactly how I felt as the U.S. entered the war without providing its people any real proof of their allegations. I watched as those people, due mostly to their own fear and anger, followed like sheep and actually condemned anyone who suggested that there were some very visible facts that contradicted what our government was telling us and that we get more info or more than a shred of proof before going to war.

>>Using your reasoning above, do my unsuccessful protesting, public statements and discussions with those supporting the war leave me "allowing my government to be hijacked"?

>To compare us to culture that is beheading people, kidnapping people, severely oppressing women, sending their 12 year olds out with bombs strapped to their chest and celebreating when they die,and the like to me is more ridiculous than any kind of comparison to Hitler or the Nazis could ever be.

You spoke to the culture, not the government or its leaders, and the fact that the majority aren't fighting against it. The comparison doesn't necessitate that there be no dissimilarities and states on its own whether one agress with it or not.

You spoke to the culture, not the government or its leaders, and the fact that the majority aren't fighting against it. The comparison doesn't necessitate that there be no dissimilarities and states on its own whether one agress with it or not.

******

I really don't know what this means.

PAD wrote

"You have to remember, a sizable portion of Arafat's constituency consisted of people who consider the only acceptable negotiation to end thusly: All the Israelis leave. The back up position is, all the Israelis die. If they leave because they're all dead, that's good too. By his own admission, he was concerned that if he took the deal, he was a dead man. His own people would kill him. I can't say he did the right thing in terms of his peoples' future, but in terms of his personal safety, my guess is that he was probably right. For that matter, he might well have figured that he would agree to a deal, come home, announce the deal, be dead inside of a week, and his successor would say, "Deal's off."

Arafat was afraid that he will be assassinated if he made a deal on the terms offered to him by the Israeli prime-minister. It does not follow that he feared making any kind of deal. That is a possibility, although there is no denying that he negotiated with Israel and has made made statements recognizing Israel in the past. I also don't know whether the terms that he would have found worth risking would have been acceptable to even Israelis who support peace. We never found out since he did not make a counter offer, and then the war started. Some Israelis in the peace camp believe that he was willing to make peace on reasonable terms, others do not. But since he ued to talk from both sides of his mouth it is hard to tell.

"It's easy to say that the majority of Palestinians want peace. But considering a majority of Palestinians--or at least voting Palestinians--put in charge known radicals who have spent decades declaring they want to push Israel into the sea, I'm not convinced."

The pollster and experts claim that their main motivation for voting Hamas was the ineptitude and corruption of the previous government, and not support of their rejectionof peace. The Palestinian president is trying to put this theory to the test by having a referendum on a paper speaking about a Palestinian state in the 67 borders (but not explicitly about peace with Israel).
In any case, I believe that most Israelis want peace despite voting for right wing governments in the past and present. I also believe most Americans are not evangelical homophobes despite Bush's victory in the 2004 elections.

"If their own previous leader was afraid to talk peace to them for fear of his life, that says a lot."
He was not afraid. He talked peace. But he also talked Jihad. It is hard to tell what the Palestinians want because they don't have the kind of political discourse we are accustomed too in western countries. Instead of placing two clearly opposing views on next to the other they usually strive for national consensus and bury the differences under rhetoric. So was Arfat talking about Jihad to placate Palestinian public opinion but was sincere about peace, or the reverse or both? It is hard to tell.

"Not to be flippant about it, but it is 2006. Time's up. It it more than past time to take steps toward granting basic freedoms and democracy. I don't expect change over night-it took us 200 years to get ours more right than not, given we excluded a large part of pur population from the process. but it is time to start. I don't care if they are more like Americans. I do care that most of the governments there are terrible, horrible giovernments, and the ideology of these terrorist groups is disgusting and insane. The fact it has any popular support at all as opposed to being a fringe group should be a source of shame for those people. There is a reason they have troubles there and it isn't the "Jews and the Americans." It is their own governments and the way they allowed their culture to be hijacked."

True. But our experience is that occupation and bombing them doesn't change their attitude. What does change their attitude is comfortable living, fear of Israeli reprisal, and when Muslims are killed in suicide bombings.
In any case, the US does not have the right to shock them into the 21st century just because you're tired of waiting for them. It doesn't really work anyway.

Atttacking Afganistan was justified since it was the base of operations for Al-Quida. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It was reasonable to fear that if Iraq had WMD, they might have found their way to the enemies of the US. This is usually what I tell people when I try to convince them that the US did not go to war for oil. But, if the WMD was just a ruse for an attempt to create a pro-American democracy, than the war started with a lie, which is bad. If the US sincerely thought there were WMD, than you had bad intelligence, which is not very good either. Furthermore, by attacking on bogus claims you reduced your ability to use force or threaten with its use when it was really necessary.

The analogy to Germany in WWII doesn't work because Hitler had a direct alliance with Japan, had actually declared war on the US + the British were close allies of the US who the US had good reason to help + Hitler posed a strategic threat since he was conquering peaceful European countries right and left + had the US not intervened than Stalin would have marched from Germany to Western Europe after defeating Hitler.

Israel has suffered suicide bombings in buses and in more than one place at a time. Sometimes they work in two's, the first one detonates, and the second after the rescue forces arrive, or at least after people start giving CPR.

1The analogy to Germany in WWII doesn't work
****

ANy analogy has differences, or it would be the same thing. I think it does work. Germany had never attacked us, and we were supplying an enemy of theres. They were not a direct threat to us, nor would they be for some time. We could have simply not supplied the British AND negotiated with them aftert Pearl Harbor, in effect divying up the world or spheres of influence. We didn't and we were right not to IMO, but we had options, and there declaration of war on us was a result of our own (imo justified) actions. However, we were out to defeat an ideology, not just a single regime that attacked us.

Similarly, we are now out to defeat an ideology, and a system of isamic fascism, both terrorist groups, nation states that support terrorist groups, and nation states that themselves are islamic fascists (for want of a better term). that does not begin or end in afghanistan, any more than it began and ended when the 9/11 hijackers died. Future presidents will be forced to fight other "wars" in the middle east as well, big ones or small ones. For the record, it wasn't one thing that caused the Iraq War (either WMD or oil (in other words the life blood of society) or terrorim or the history or the violation of un sanctions or the breaking of the ceasefire or heloping out a people tyrannized-it was all of those things. They are all in the congressional resolution for war, and Bush's speech for war, and were all part of the buildup to war). Reminds me of when Apu became a US citizen on the Simpsons while taking his citizenship exam

Proctor: All right, here's your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War?
Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter--
Proctor: Wait, wait... just say slavery.
Apu: Slavery it is, sir.
:

>>You spoke to the culture, not the government or its leaders, and the fact that the majority aren't fighting against it. The comparison doesn't necessitate that there be no dissimilarities and states on its own whether one agress with it or not.

******

>I really don't know what this means.

My point was that a comparison between cultures is reasonable. To say that it is more ridiculous than to compare the U.S. culture to Hitler or Nazis is, well... ridiculous. It is not the leadership that is being compared, but the cultures. Much of your original wording that I responded to ("The fact it has any popular support at all as opposed to being a fringe group should be a source of shame for those people. *snip* It is their own governments and the way they allowed their culture to be hijacked. ") was focused on the people and allowing it to happen or even supporting it. A majority of the U.S. population that spoke out at the time of our entry into Iraq was supportive of it. Seems like an easy comparison of allowing ourselves to be hijacked by a government to me.... possibly even worse since more of us could have spoken out about it or at the very least let those questioning to question without insulting, threatening, ewtc them.

Having posted in defense of those who do their job right....

I now give you the other side. "Security" indeed.

(CNN) -- A man using a fake identification card was able to enter the Homeland Security Department headquarters in Washington, he said, even though the United States government considers the type of Mexican-issued card he used invalid.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/12/dhs.fakeid/index.html

I don't think world war II was fought by the Americans as a war against an ideology. Although I do not wish to detract from the sincerety of the American people. I think the war was fought for very cold calculated reasons.

The list of reasons brought to justify the war in Iraq does not seem to strengthen the justification but rather to weaken it. It feels rather piled up. It seems as if the US emerged from 9/11 and Afganistan, and just picked a random country to attack that had little to do with the original cause. The fact that the WMD issue, which was the most visible justification (Collin Powell in the UN and so forth) ended up being wrong only makes things seem worse.

[Although I never said that the war ended in Afganistan or after the death of the hijackers. Give me a little credit on these issues.]

The fun thing about Islamic terrorism is that they don't have nation states and governments you can simply attack. So I doubt Americans will go to wars in the mddle east, especially after Iraq. I doubt the American public would support something unless there is a really good case. And this will be hard considering the nature of Islamic terrorism and Islamism in general.

About Iraq. The truth is that I shouldn't be the one to talk. Look at the Iraqi blogs (some pro American). their life seems as crazy to me as mine does to you. Compared to them, Israel is like a quiet pacific Island. I just took a peek, and it makes this whole discussion seem a little too theoretical to me.

1[Although I never said that the war ended in Afganistan or after the death of the hijackers. Give me a little credit on these issues.]
****

I will.

their life seems as crazy to me as mine does to you.

*****
No doubt. I can;t even imagine going through it. However, what I am wagering on is that this makes Iraq better in the long run (and hopefully even the middle east in the very, very long run). It's really impossible to say right now because the war is not over yet. In the middle of a war is always going to be chaos, senseless death, etc. But sometimes, something better emerges afterwards. and I'm hoping it does here too. I think it may. My beef is not with the Iraqi people (at least the ones who are blowing up other Iraqis). I'm optimistic, even while acknowledging what we are trying to do is incredibly hard.

So I doubt Americans will go to wars in the mddle east, especially after Iraq.
******

I was using the term war in terms of bombs, missiles, special forces, etc. I doubt we will have something so large in the near future, but I have no doubt that more bad things will happen, connected to groups in countries unable or unwilling to stop them, and that we will have to take action.

Spiderrob's comment above, about how easy it is to get into this country legally and illegally, though the legal channels have been tightened up, brings to mind something my American Government teacher said when I was in high school. The problem with stricter laws is that the people that will obey the laws aren't the ones that we have to worry about. If someone is determined to do something that happens to be illegal, it won't matter how strict the law is, they're going to break it.

****Posted by Fred Chamberlain at June 13, 2006 08:13 AM

spiderrob:

>Certainly,we do not face frequent suicide bombers. I'd argue that the fact that we haven't been attacked since 9/11 is a sign of some things we have done right, no matter how many more supposedly loved us before, and hate us now.

You could say that, but you have little to no factual information that supports that statement. To the best of my knowledge, there have only been 2 other foreign attacks on American soil in the 200+ years that this country has been around, the Attack on Pearl Harbor and the first bombing at the WTC. The first occured over 60 years ago and the second happened about 10 years before it was hit again. That timeline alone indicates that the frequency of attacks is not enough to believe that your statement is factual.

If you believe the government that a few attacks have been stopped before they took place, than the number of attempts have actually increased significantly since the U.S. government went to war on terror.*****

Leaving aside attacks that have happened to U.S. citizens outside of the country (i.e. USS Cole, ect.), the actual frequency of attacks may be greater than you think, pre-911. Years ago I read an opion column about the 'shoe bomber' (remember this one? The guy who had some explosives in his tennis shoe, and seated on a plane right above the fuel tanks, and was caught becasue he was clumsy about setting the shoe 'off'?), and the columnist made an interesting comment/connection to the other airplane disasters (planes blowing up mere minutes/an hour into their flights) that have occurred over the years, explosions that were blamed on faulty mantienence and design flaws. What if those other disasters weren't accidents like they said, but the result of other 'shoe bombers' seated over fuel tanks successfully completing their holy missions to destroy 'infidels'? In other words, 'dry runs' to what we have now, but done in such a manner that the victims never noticed it happening?

A thopught to keep you awake at nights. . . .

Chris

1That timeline alone indicates that the frequency of attacks is not enough to believe that your statement is factual
****
No it doesn't. Things have obviously changed. It is ludicrous to think that before when you needed real money and backing, probably of nations, to come and reek havok have much to do with today. Much of that history simply doesn't count. the world is different now. Its like saying the chance of getting a computer bug is small because from 1776-say 1990 almost no one got computer bugs. or in the 1930s saying "Your crazy, the chance of airplane deaths are almost nil. No one died from airplane deaths for over 150 years." Yeah, the world had changed

As for attacks increasing since the war on terror, of course. Attacks from the British against us increased due toi the Revilutionary War, we had much more Southerners shooting at Northerners in the Civil War than before, more lives were lost post pearl harbor from the Japanese than pre and during pearl harbor. That;s like saying FDR was dumb to go to war, since the Japanese killed far more after the day that will live in infamy than before. A 1000 Pearl Harbors would not have killed that many

Besides, like I said, 9/11 started a whole new ballgame. It was a major attack that undoubtedly now will be followed by more,

****
In other words, 'dry runs' to what we have now, but done in such a manner that the victims never noticed it happening?****

There is a theory that is what happened to the plane that exploded in Jamaica Queens after 9/11. A second shoe bomber However, i am not sure that is credible.

Has there been any hostility on the part of American civilians toward American soldiers returning from Iraq, like there was during Vietnam?

Has there been any hostility on the part of American civilians toward American soldiers returning from Iraq, like there was during Vietnam?

*********
No. Except for some very extreme left wing websites, there really have been no reports of anyone being hostile to them. Quite the opposite in fact. ALmost all Americans have been extremely supportive of the soldiers/marines.

"Has there been any hostility on the part of American civilians toward American soldiers returning from Iraq, like there was during Vietnam?"

The lack of animosity towards returning troops is probably due to a better informed public. People seem to be better able to comprehend that the soldiers are the instruments of policy, not it's makers.

So, three suicides are good PR, and "assymetric warfare".

Then what, pray tell, do you call 2 250 lb. bombs?

11People seem to be better able to comprehend that the soldiers are the instruments of policy, not it's makers.
*****

It is interesting though. If you do believe the policy is immoral, that we are slaughtering innocents and that was inevitable, that war was illegal, immoral, etc., then anyone who has volunteered post Iraq War, should be considered as bad as Bush or anyone else. or the soldiers who support the war no matter when they joined, which was most of them, possibly to this day.

Plus, if you are one who always thinks that America uses its foreign policy illegally or immorally, that we haven't fought a moral war since WWII, that we are indiscriminate in our killings and kill and intimidate innocent civilians, then anyone who volunteered for the military should be considered despicable, especially if they re-up

After all, they are volunteers-they choose to be part of it.

whereas in vietnam, many were volunteers, but many were forced to be there through the draft.

I don't think people would put up with people who felt that and expressed it today (even in Vietnam it was a vocal minority who loathed the troops-though afterwards most people just wanted to forget about it) but it seems pretty logical depending of course on why you are against the war. So no, I am not saying anti-war means anti-soliders, I am saying based on some reasons people are against the war, if you hold those reasons, then you should be. If you hold different reasons for being against the war, then no, but some reasons, sure. and to be fair, some few people have followed through.

11People seem to be better able to comprehend that the soldiers are the instruments of policy, not it's makers.
*****

It is interesting though. If you do believe the policy is immoral, that we are slaughtering innocents and that was inevitable, that war was illegal, immoral, etc., then anyone who has volunteered post Iraq War, should be considered as bad as Bush or anyone else. or the soldiers who support the war no matter when they joined, which was most of them, possibly to this day.

Plus, if you are one who always thinks that America uses its foreign policy illegally or immorally, that we haven't fought a moral war since WWII, that we are indiscriminate in our killings and kill and intimidate innocent civilians, then anyone who volunteered for the military should be considered despicable, especially if they re-up

After all, they are volunteers-they choose to be part of it.

whereas in vietnam, many were volunteers, but many were forced to be there through the draft.

I don't think people would put up with people who felt that and expressed it today (even in Vietnam it was a vocal minority who loathed the troops-though afterwards most people just wanted to forget about it) but it seems pretty logical depending of course on why you are against the war. So no, I am not saying anti-war means anti-soliders, I am saying based on some reasons people are against the war, if you hold those reasons, then you should be. If you hold different reasons for being against the war, then no, but some reasons, sure. and to be fair, some few people have followed through.

It is interesting though. If you do believe the policy is immoral, that we are slaughtering innocents and that was inevitable, that war was illegal, immoral, etc., then anyone who has volunteered post Iraq War, should be considered as bad as Bush or anyone else. or the soldiers who support the war no matter when they joined, which was most of them, possibly to this day.

I disagree. I think you can honestly disagree about the reasons and justifications for this war or the way in which the PTB have executed it and not think that the other person is despicable. I know that's becoming an increasingly foreign concept in politics these days where it seems like you can't even disagree with smaller issues like the minimum wage without thinking the other person is in league with the forces of satan, but such is life under the "uniter".

There's no disputing that the people our soldiers are fighting are bad people. There's also no disputing that innocent people will get hit in the crossfire. Such things are inevitable in war, which is why it is the duty of the citizenry, not the soldiers to hold our elected officials accountable for the orders they give and the conflicts they engage us in.

Vietnam was the direct result of good intentions gone awry combined with politicians we thought they were going to have a quick and clean victory but then refused to change course once they knew it wasn't going to work out that way. And that sounds very familiar.

I'm not against all wars on principle, but I am still unconvinced that this war at this time was either justified or a wise course of action. That doesn't mean I have to hate the soldiers. They were given a thankless job to do and deserve our support in getting the job done. Nothing would make me happier than to see a stable and free Iraq that was able to defend itself right now. I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

I hope I'm wrong, but given the track record how Bush, Dick, and Rummy have run things so far, I'm not optimistic that this will happen anytime soon.

1Vietnam was the direct result of good intentions gone awry combined with politicians we thought they were going to have a quick and clean victory but then refused to change course once they knew it wasn't going to work out that way. And that sounds very familiar.
*****

I'd like to make the Spider-Rob corrallary to Godwin's law. Every time Vietnam is brought up in the context of talking about war, that person has to run through a sprinkler system naked at 4 am.

But otherwise, Den, obviously from your post, your not one of the ones I'm talking about. I am saying that some people's arguments against the war are such that logically they cannot but take issue with those who chose and were not forced to fight for it or to return to fighting it. Your post shows that your views and reasons for being against the war do not mean logically you should be against the troops. I wasn't pulling an Archie Bunker

I'd like to make the Spider-Rob corrallary to Godwin's law. Every time Vietnam is brought up in the context of talking about war, that person has to run through a sprinkler system naked at 4 am.

Since I was responding to your use of Vietnam as an analogy, I'm cool with that. :)

Anyway, I think the Vietnam comparison is nearly as overused as the WW II/nazi comparison. It's also inevitable in any war we'll be fighting for the foreseeable. But I think there are important parallels that need to be discussed. Vietnam was executed by ideologues who didn't understand the history or the culture and just assumed that the natives would welcome foreign intervention in the name of "freedom" and "democracy". The result was our soldiers spending the better part of decade getting slogged down into a guerrilla war on one hand while trying to prop up a puppet regime in the other. Change the jungle to the desert and you have a situation that looks a lot like what we have in Iraq. Compound that with centuries of sectarian and tribal violence that we've stepped into and you've got our situation in Iraq now.

Can the Shi'ites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds eventually learn to share power? Sure, but how likely is it really given the history and the current state of affairs?

The result of our intervention in Vietnam was the exact opposite of what we wanted to achieve: a communist state in southeast Asia. It is still very likely that the ultimate likely that in trying to create a democracy in Iraq, we'll end up creating another fundamentalist theocracy.

Maybe, but with or without us, Vietnam would have been communist (well, maybe not if Truman had taken Ho Chi Minh up on his request for aid against the French right after WWII).

It is possible Vietnam could have succeeded though, maybe, if it was fought differently. Some argue that if North Vietnam had been hit harder, and if the protests at home hadn't grown, the North would not have known inevitably the US government would have to stop, do to home grown opposition.

or what if Ike had given into his advisors and used nukes on the North Vietnamese as the French wanted him to in 1954. "My God man, we can't use those weapons on asians for the second time in ten years" I believe he said.

Then again, had Watergate not happened, some argue the peace agreement would have been able to be enforced by Nixon, with US aid and bombs, not men, and Saigon never would have fallen.

Then some say if JFK had not allowed the corrupt but strong leader of South Vietnam to be killed in 1963, the South could have had a strong government to effectively oppose the north. Instead, weak and ineffective leaders led the south, that couldn't inspire any support from the people.

or maybe if Nixon had been elected in 1960, he couod have done his Soviet Union/China thing earlier, and it would have more effectively squeezed Vietnam.

or maybe not. maybe it was inevitable.

You can play lots of "what if" games all the time. Like what if we had gone into Iraq following the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force instead of the Rummy Doctrine of light and fast force? What if we hadn't depended on the belief Chalabi would just be able to take over after we airlifted him in? What if we had waited until the intelligence on the WMDs was rock solid? What if we hadn't disbanded the Iraqi army? What if Kerry had managed to take Ohio?

Everyone has their opinions about how such alternate histories would have worked out. And nearly all of them are probably wrong.

"You can play lots of "what if" games all the time."

Den, you are quite correct as far as your reasoning goes. We can play "what if" with the past all day and all night, and resolve pretty much nothing.

Instead, play "what if" with the present and forseeable future.

1) WHAT IF the the various political groups
hold their collective noses and work together to take away control of the House from the neo-con hawks next November?

2) WHAT IF people start demanding their news providers move beyond sound bites designed to entertain an ADD afflicted gerbil?

3) WHAT IF people saw "issues" such as gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research for the diversions that they are?

4) WHAT IF people ignored the bread and circuses of "reality TV" and started watching insightful and analytical news reporting instead?

5) WHAT IF everyone stopped allowing themselves to be dragged into the black/white, good/evil, right/wrong, us/them funhouse that is GeorgeWorld?

6) WHAT IF everyone demanded accountability from their elected officials?

Not likely to happen, but it could be very interesting.

Didn't the Us suport a non-democratic regime in Vietnam?

1Didn't the Us suport a non-democratic regime in Vietnam?
*****

Non-democratic regimes, there were several I think. I think the thinking was our enemy was communism, and that when you don't live under an ism, it is easier to push the government over time toward democracy. But the main thrust was stopping communism.

either way, considering what happened when we left, they would have been better off had we succeeded.

"either way, considering what happened when we left, they would have been better off had we succeeded."

Why? It seems they have a nice quiet Communist dictatorship. It was probably a relief after al the years of war.

I was being glib with the post above. Obviously it is a more complicated issue.

The big problem was that back then the choice was between US backed dictatorships and communist dictatorships. The communists seemed to have been more popular, possibly because the Pro-American dictators were following very aggressive capitalism. I don't know if any of the US bavked dictatorships were ever pushed by the US toward more democracy. Chile seemed to have moved from pro American dictatorship to democracy but not thanks to the US. Nicaragwa moved toward democracy from the left side. But I don't really know much about these issues. Vietnam seems to have ended as a quiet communist dicatorship, better than some worse than others. It is hard to imagine how things could have turned differently for them. Or whether the harm caused by the US would have somehow ended in a future good.

I think there is some more hope for Iraq. But even if the war ends, it will probably be by some deal with Sunni factions, and some terrorism may remain. Militias wil probably remain, as well as corruption, some oppression and torture, and Islamism.

1Why? It seems they have a nice quiet Communist dictatorship. It was probably a relief after al the years of war.
*******

The "reeducation" camps and other measures post war would seem to show it was pretty bad for th south vietnamese, who otherwise might have had a chance for a better life, like how South Korea evolved.

Spiderbob, I don't know if S. Korea is the ruke or the exception. But my problem is more on the matter of principle. All the what if's and eventuallys are very nice. But the US experimented in the lives of many, often ignoring the will (in Vietnam), the culture, and the safety of the people it was supposedly helping. Even if we ignore the selfish economic motivations of the US (or on behalf of US companies), what I see is the kind of good intentions in which the abstract ideal becomes more important than the actual humans involved. Communism had good intentions too, you know. They also have their what ifs and eventuallys (Nazism is different in that although it was striving to paradise, like everybody else, it clearly had an intention to exclude some races from it). But when the abstract becomes more important than what the will and the lives of the people, than at the end the ideal is compromised too. Especially for the US, whose ideal pretty much starts with the word 'the people'.

I hope this rouund the Americans will at least let the south americans make their own mistakes.

As usual PAD and other Dems seem to think THEIR point of view is the dominant POV. It isn't. Gas prices are high but there are no gas lines. People pay the price. Maybe if the gasoline tax (Fed and State) was cut, there would be relief. You can disagree with the Iraq war but when you say soliders are dying at a stunning rate how do you define STUNNING? I notice you didn't type that soldiers are dying at a RECORD rate because that would be a lie. The last time I checked soldier die in war. When did this change?

PAD and other Dems seem to think that any gay marriage proposal is a conserative agenda. In 2004, gay marriage bans had BI-Partisan support. Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act not G.W. Is Clinton a bigot?

Exit polls had Kerry winning in 2004. Bush won with 60 million votes. What do polls mean? This mid-term is all about LOCAL issues.

The stock market is over 11,000. Umemployment is at 4.6 percent. Gold is over 700 dollars an once. Housing starts are at an all-time high. Don't think none of this will be forgotten in November.

If I were to take PAD seriously, then FDR is the worst president of all-time. He spied on civilians, he interred Japanese American citizens, he tried to stack the supreme court, he approved of using the atomic bomb which killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese. Not to mention the bombing of Berlin and Toyko. No wonder FDR didn't win Time's Man of the Century award.

"If I were to take PAD seriously, then FDR is the worst president of all-time. He spied on civilians, he interred Japanese American citizens, he tried to stack the supreme court, he approved of using the atomic bomb which killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese. Not to mention the bombing of Berlin and Toyko. No wonder FDR didn't win Time's Man of the Century award."

A little history lesson for ya. Harry S Truman ordered the use of the a-bomb. FDR had this little health issue called "death". The order was given after Truman was apprised of the propbable casualtu numbers for Operation Olympic/Cornet, the invasion of the Japan, scheduled for 1946.

The invasion would have had three bad results. 1,initial casualty numbers for the Allied troops over 50,000. 2, the Russians would have gotten a strong foothold in the Western Pacific. 3, the ensuing guerilla war would have lasted up to 10 years. Although I agree with Jerry Garcia that to "choose the lesser of two evils is to still choose evil", sometimes they are the only choices left.

Secondly, as an aside to all the don't tax and out-spend consevatives, taxes are a governments revenues. They pay for things like police, health care, oh and the "War on Terror".

What amazes me and, I believe, other contributors, is that gay marriage, abortion, and other "issues" only come up when somebody needs people to look the other way for a while.

I can't comment to whether Bill Clinton is a bigot. I can't comment to whether W is one either. I can comment to the fact that since the Republican party manged to grab control of the whole federal government, I have never seen such a collection of secrecy, cover ups, stubbornness, and corruption.