PeterDavid.net

Peter,

I think it's unlikely that Iraq's Prime Minister would be killed but more likely for two future scenarios five years from now:

1. The Malaky(sp) government becomes a Shite version of Saddam's. Imposing its will on many factions to avoid civil war.

or

2. A Lebanon-style power-sharing government with fingers of influence from Middle Eastern states outside its borders.

--Captain Naraht

Mr. David,

You are correct regarding Gates' comment about losing in Iraq. Sometime after his statement that we were not winning in Iraq, he was asked by another senator whether if he agreed that we weren't losing in Iraq. He responded, "Yes, at this point."

There's a that mentions this specifically at slate.com, if you're interested.

http://www.slate.com/id/2154941/nav/tap1/

Oh, good night. Please, please, please tell me we didn't actually pay any money for that report...

Firstly: you can't win if there is no plan,
you can't win if there is no strategy,
you can't win if there is no achievable goal,
you can't win if you can never leave.

Secondly: The curent administration reminds me of a group of children playing Superheroes in a sandbox. Anytime the situation conflicts with thier adopted powers they just add new ones. i.e. "The monsters are made of metal ? Okay, then there is a blowtorch at the end of my finger." It's a civil war = it's sectarian violence. There is more death per day = mission accomplished. Neither side wants us there,Iraq police and military are deserting = we're working hand in hand with the people of Iraq to ensure a peaceful transition of power. Back end drafting = a dedicated, experienced military presence. An aproval rating in the 30's and a crushing defeat in a national election for your party = We're getting the job done and I am a uniter.

Don't forget Bush's win in 2004. A little more than half the people voted for you over some other guy = huge mandate.

Thanks. I also forgot, camel with indigestion = weapon of mass distruction.

The assasination of the democartically elected leader would obviously not be an indication of the situation being a civil war. Come on PAD!

During the Civil War in this country, was the democratically elected leader assisnated? Not until AFTER the Civil War. So *if* said leader is assainsted DURING the conflict, then it bears even less similarities to a civil war.

Bill Myers,

"Oh, good night. Please, please, please tell me we didn't actually pay any money for that report..."

Patience. This is only the first day so they can only touch on the "headlines" of the Report.

I'd be interested to see peoples reaction to statements in the Report like "a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will allow the United States to move forces out responsibly; prompt action by the Iraqi government to achieve milestones, particularly reconciliation; and new diplomatic actions in Iraq and in the region"

or

"Iraq's neighbors and key states in and outside the region should form a support group" to help Iraq achieve long-term security and political reconciliation -- "neither of which it can sustain on its own," (source CNN.com)

How redily will the Bush Administration heed these recommendations?

I'd also be interested in hearing your reaction to these statements, Bill. What do you think?

--Captain Naraht

What gets me is less that the report is stating the obvious that the President announced repeatedly he was eager to hear the input from the Iraq Study Group and that he would be carefully considering their recommendations.

Of course, I fear no one at all is going to call him on that one...either.

Look Halliburton is having record profits. Isn't that what's really important? What's 3000 US soldiers, I don't know how many other "Coalition of the Willing" troops, and hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties among oil company buddies?

We also got rid of all that annoying surplus of ordinance, guided missles, helecopters and Humvees. Now let the feeding frenzy of bidding contractors begin. On another note, we are now well over the 300 mark of murders for the year in my city. Add that in with the other major cities and we have proven, once again, that Americans are still better at killing Americans that any other country. Yeah, we're number 1. Oh...wait.

I like Andrew Olmsted's writings. He's somewhat conservative, but not dogmatic. And being military himself, he writes convincingly on military matters, particularly the logistical end, which almost all the politicians and all the pundits completely miss.

I would recommend that folks seek him out, either on his own blog, or on obsidianwings.blogs.com/ , where he occasionally writes. He brings up points that are interesting and nutritious for thought.

The report went on to observe that the Pope is Catholic and bears defecate in woodlands.

What makes me roll my eyes is the phrasing: the global standing of the United States "could be" diminished. Um, guys? It HAS diminished. Could it diminish more? Possibly...you want to try and avoid that.

I'm holding out hope that maybe, just maybe, Dubya will believe this stuff now that it's coming out of the mouth of somebody he actually seems to respect (Baker) as opposed to somebody he doesn't care about (most other members of the human race, including Cindy Sheehan, everybody in the Democratic Party and everybody working for any media outlet not owned by Rupert Murdoch).

Gates doesn't think the U.S. is winning or losing in Iraq. I used a poker analogy in a post last month, comparing the current stubbornness to stay in Iraq "as long as it takes" to a guy who keeps on betting the maximum in a poker game, who refuses to fold when he doesn't have good cards, and who will keep on throwing away more and more money and losing hand after hand because he thinks that if he keeps at it long enough he'll finally get good cards and win a shitload of money. The fact that he might have to go into debt before that happens, or that the pot he finally does win might not make up for the huge sum of money he loses beforehand, are things he simply doesn't think about.

Now it seems more to me like a drinking contest. We have two people both taking shot after shot, both of whom can really hold their booze and can probably go on a very long time. Well, here's how it ends. By the end of the night, both of these guys are going to be hospitalized for alcohol poisoning, and IF they live, their health will be poor for the rest of their life/lives. So...is it worth it? How much self-destructive behaviour is acceptable to eventually "win"? Augh, I'm using quotation marks like Rumsfeld now...

I don't know that Dubya respect Baker all that much. He's one of Bush 41's cronies and 43 has spent most of his life trying some bizarre oedipal quest to show up daddy. That's why he hired Rummy, a guy 41 disliked in the first place.

That's why he hired Rummy, a guy 41 disliked in the first place.

Really? Didn't know that. Huh. Very odd considering that his parents have been known to stick up for him in the past. Like 41 saying the Hugo Chavez was "an ass" after he called 43 "the devil."

I give up then...is there anybody whose opinion this guy actually respects? Anybody at all?

During the Civil War in this country, was the democratically elected leader assisnated? Not until AFTER the Civil War.

Yes, but attempts were made. By both North & South on the opposing President.

I wouldn't put too much stock in the "Iraq Surrender Group." They and the left have been invested in this country's defeat ever since we began the war on terrorism/islamofacism... all in a mad effort to get political power back in the United States.

DW

The report is a joke. Yes it states the obvious, Dubya failed. Even the far right can't deny that! But it's "solutions" are just as far out as Dubya's. Asking Iran and Syria to take a hand? That's like asking a rabid wolf into your house. They may come to the table, they may openly "agree" and they will do everything behind our backs to make it fail.

As I have said in other postings, we are still headed for either the reunification of Persia or the raise of a religious dictator.

What I think stands the best chance of success if people continue to insist that cutting and running is not an option is dividing the country further. The Kurds in the north 1 country. The middle 1 country and the southern third well I'd even concede leaving our troups there if Dubya continued to insist.

This civil war is about which stupid religious sect rules, so let them all rule!

As for Dubya's reaction I love his response that the report could open bipartisan discussions... Like the report wasn't bipartisan. What we are quickly approaching is the partianship is Dubya and cronies vs Dems and Repubs.

>They and the left have been invested in this country's defeat ever since we began the war on terrorism/islamofacism... all in a mad effort to get political power back in the United States.

Oh yah sure we just love watching this country be handed it's head for the second time in 30 years! Another person demonstrating why this country is so polarized, "the left wants us to loose". No the left wanted us to fight the right war, one where we could win, instead we get 2 wars and our butts kicked in both.

Heh heh, some of the comments crack me up.

How naïve can you be to even imagine the foreign policy of the United States should ever be determined by the public opinion of the world community? What a patently absurd treatise to base an argument around. In doing so you are presupposing all governments throughout the world operate on a level playing field which is hardly the case.

Wow, our standing throughout the world will be diminished? Excuse me while I go over and shed a few crocodile tears, I find myself terribly disaffected by the specter of such an event.

Our nation is not the bitch/whore of the world trying to sidle up to all the other nations in an attempt to be their friend or to be popular.

Admittedly the situation in Iraq is dire to put it mildly but, given the overall history of the region and what had gone on over the last three decades it certainly is better without Saddam than it ever was with him. The biggest mistake our nation ever made was in not letting Norman Schwarzkopf go straight into Baghdad to culminate the first Gulf War. At least the situation would then be resolved by now. People talk as if the Gulf War ended but it never really did. Instead, we lobbed cruise missiles into the place over the next decade and it didn’t make the situation any better.

I want to be sure I understand what is at stake if our standing in the global community lessens - what? Embassies won’t be burned down like they were in Pakistan, Libya and overtaken in Iran? Barracks won’t be bombed like they were in Lebanon or Saudi Arabia?

I will be the first to agree the situation needs to get better and a new approach is necessary to the situation but, what I will not agree with is the popular isolationist rant that runs the United States should never utilize military force as an adjunct to foreign policy. Sticking your head in the ground and hoping a problem will go away doesn’t work. The same people were running around in the late 30’s and that didn’t do anyone any good either.

Do things need to get better in Iraq? Definitely!

Are they better for certain segments of the population? Ask the Kurds or even the Shia.

There are a lot of conflicting goals for the players in the region. Turkey or Iran don’t really want to see an independent Kurdish state. Iran wouldn’t mind seeing a Shia dominated government which it could rule by proxy. Saudi Arabia and Jordan are concerned about having a Shia dominated alliance along their northern borders. It’s not a simple situation and it won’t be solved with a simple solution.

If the EU would become more actively involved along with the Arab League things might improve but again, each group has an agenda of their own none of which may be in the best interests of the majority of people in Iraq (and I am not saying we don’t have an agenda of our own). Abandoning those people is an even bigger crime than leaving Saddam in power would have been.

Saddam is still alive, maybe he can just take back the country and everything will go back to the way it was. All the detractors out there, do you think that would be best?

"Oh yah sure we just love watching this country be handed it's head for the second time in 30 years! Another person demonstrating why this country is so polarized, "the left wants us to loose". No the left wanted us to fight the right war, one where we could win, instead we get 2 wars and our butts kicked in both."

No decision the President has made, nor any he could have made, would have satisfied the Left in this country when it came to this war. We know this from observing what took place in the months of his presidency prior to 9-11, during the attempt at the "New Tone." He lets Ted Kennedy write the education bill and passes it (I still recall the big smile on Kennedy's face and the hearty handshake and Kennedy's arm thrown around Bush's shoulder when the bill was passed) and the Left still couldn't say anything good about it.

DW

"What gets me is less that the report is stating the obvious that the President announced repeatedly he was eager to hear the input from the Iraq Study Group and that he would be carefully considering their recommendations."

Hearing does not equal listening to. And considering the reccomendations does not equal acting on them.

Mister_pj, the world is the world, this country is in it, and with so many countries so interdependent upon each other, other countries' opinions do matter. Disagree? How much are you paying to put gas in your car? And there was one decision about this war that would've satisfied the "left." Don't START the damn thing.

"And there was one decision about this war that would've satisfied the "left." Don't START the damn thing."

To not have started the war on terrorism/islamofacism after 9-11 would have been irresponsible. An arguement can be made as to whether it's been fought effectively, as with all wars (Battle for Kasserine Pass, the Tet Offensive, etc). But to say we should have never started the war (which is erroneous in and of itself because the US was the one that was attacked) is to admit that you do not understand this enemy.

Darin

"And there was one decision about this war that would've satisfied the "left." Don't START the damn thing."

Additionally, most of the leftist congress (who represent the Left in this country) voted for the war.

DW

Geez, is it possible for Americans to become *more* polarized?

Sure. We've been more polarized in the past. (145 years ago, for example) Not that we want to repeat that history, but it is possible.

>>"And there was one decision about this war that would've satisfied the "left." Don't START the damn thing."
>To not have started the war on terrorism/islamofacism after 9-11 would have been irresponsible.

You make the common mistake of confusing the invasion of Iraq with the war on terror.

1 - Iraq is NOT an Islamic state.

2 - Iraq had NOTHING to do with the U.S. terrorist strikes. ALL the participants were Saudis, not Iraqis. Now, how many bombs did the U.S. lob at at Saudi Arabia in this "war on terror"? I forget ...

Now, Afghanistan, on the other paw ...

But, hey, that's not going as well as it might either, because the U.S. is inexplicably (note sarcasm here) tied up in Iraq, rather than concentrating on Afghanistan where they started this was on terror (and then mostly left with it unfinished) and where bin Laden (remember bin Laden) may well be hiding. Butm hey, Iraq is where it's at, right?

"You make the common mistake of confusing the invasion of Iraq with the war on terror."

Actually, no. You make the common mistake of not recognizing that Iraq was a sponser of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda. This was even verified by the 9-11 Commission, which was deemed infallible by the mainstream media.

DW

You make the common mistake of not recognizing that Iraq was a sponser of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda

THis is absolutely false.

This was even verified by the 9-11 Commission

No, it wasn't.

Sure. We've been more polarized in the past. (145 years ago, for example) Not that we want to repeat that history, but it is possible.

I don't think you even have to go back that far. Read some TIME or NEWSWEEK fronm the 60s/early 70s and marvel at the fact that we made it out in one piece.

And Den...don't make the mistake of trying to fight terrorism soley by military might. The US Army is geared for high intensity conflict, which we do very well (so well, in fact, that we will not be threatened by that kind of conflict for decades to come).

What we do NOT do well is counterinsurgency and low level conflicts, which is where you must combine political and military solutions to eradicate terrorists. The mistake of this adminstration is using high intensity conflict tactics to pursue a low conflict strategy.

"I don't think you even have to go back that far. Read some TIME or NEWSWEEK fronm the 60s/early 70s and marvel at the fact that we made it out in one piece."

The problem there is that you would have been reading TIME or NEWSWEEK.

DW

mister_pj:

If you support the war so much, why are you still sitting here whining about it. Get your butt over there and help out our troops.

Darin:

The same for you. Stop whining and get over there and support the troops.

Mr. Scullion - I love how you can totally gloss over all the foreign policy decisions the US made concerning Iraq between the years 1992 and 2000 as if they didn’t exist and have nothing to do with the situation we are currently in. You miss the point entirely in that the war never truly ended - perhaps you are unaware of Operation Desert Strike, Operation Desert Fox, Operation Northern Watch and Operation Southern Watch.

Further, the US is not behind the bombing of the Al-Askari shrine or other instances of sectarian violence. Where is all that high minded furor and rage when it comes to taking a stand to put a stop to events like this?

Seems to me that when the isolationists win, events like what happened in Rwanda occur. Maybe you think things were better for the Kurds when Saddam was going about the business of killing them in great numbers? Or even when he was doing his best to kill the Shia in the south?

I am not so naïve as to believe we don’t have a vested interest in the region but, acknowledge there is some ancillary benefit to our actions. I recall the chestnut: All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Allowing the situation to continue to fester like a boil was not an option.

"You make the common mistake of confusing the invasion of Iraq with the war on terror."

Gotta disagree. There is no mistake made here. It is a willful ignoring of the truth. Typical of Bush's lapdogs.

Mr. Coil - First, I am not whining about anything. Second, how can you be so very certain I am not? Don’t let me stop you though, please do continue, always interesting to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

"Darin: The same for you. Stop whining and get over there and support the troops."

Now here's an example of a thoughtless statement. Without even knowing who I am or what my own personal history is, you throw out a comment like that... essentially suggesting that I "shut-up" (and in the same move attempt to classify what I've said as "whining"). It did give me a chuckle, I'll admit. Truth is, I've had my ass in the grass and I'm no longer elligible to re-enlist anyway due to age. I support the troops by donating time and money to programs designed to assist them and their families. But don't let that discourage you from making any more comments like these.

DW

mister_pj:

Oh, it's just so obvious that you are merely sitting around and whining. Reading between the lines of your posts, you are obviously a chicken-hawk.

Darin:

You don't have to be enlisted to be over there. If you truly believed so deeply in this cause, you would hire yourself out as a mercenary. I hear Halliburton would hire you as "Private Security".

C'mon now, guys... this is Peter David's message board! Surely we can do more than simply call each other names. It doesn't befit someone of his stature to have that kind of thing happen on a blog with his name on it.

DW

And does anyone think anything is really going to change with our Iraq policy?

Baker's report said to neither increase the number of soldiers nor start pulling out the troops.

Sounds to my like just another way to say
"Stay the course."

"Darin: You don't have to be enlisted to be over there. If you truly believed so deeply in this cause, you would hire yourself out as a mercenary. I hear Halliburton would hire you as "Private Security"."

So, in what way am I not supporting the troops? (I find this fascinating.)

DW

And nobody is too old to serve in Iraq. There have been men in their 50s killed there.

If you can't figure out what I am saying,
there are people who are older than 50 serving at this minute.

"Sounds to my like just another way to say
"Stay the course.""

That's the dirty little secret... now that the election is over. The anti-war Left isn't very happy with the folks who just took over the Legistlative Branch.

Another point:

Did anyone notice that NONE of the newly elected Republicans have ever served in the Armed Forces?

Reason?

Chicken-hawks!

"That's the dirty little secret... now that the election is over. The anti-war Left isn't very happy with the folks who just took over the Legistlative Branch."

Oh, you are SO funneeeee. This report was helmed by the Republicans. All the truth is being covered up. Just as has happened for the last 6 years.

And at this point, I must stop for the night.

I, at least, have a job and need to get to sleep.

Pleasant dreams.

Even to all the chicken-hawks in the world.

I've enjoyed stirring up the pot here. You've provided me with some outstanding entertainment. But I do have to get on with my life away from the blogosphere, so this will be my final post on this thread. You all have the last word.

DW

I've enjoyed stirring up the pot here. You've provided me with some outstanding entertainment. But I do have to get on with my life away from the blogosphere, so this will be my final post on this thread. You all have the last word.

Oh, please. Oldest trick in the world.

Got your ass kicked from here to Baghdad and you try to save face in this lame way? Pfaugh.

>C'mon now, guys... this is Peter David's message board! Surely we can do more than simply call each other names. It doesn't befit someone of his stature to have that kind of thing happen on a blog with his name on it.

PAD can defend himself very well, after all he owns the delete button. The question is more if he will deem the clap and pj have been spewing worth a response. I doubt it.

>Seems to me that when the isolationists win, events like what happened in Rwanda occur.

LOL! That is so funny. Isolationists are at fault for Rwanda? ROTHLMAO! Yah, isolationists are so at fault that I never heard the neocons once start an arguement with a lefty to advocate an invasion to bring the tribal cleansing to an end. In fact the only people who begged for us to do something were the left leaning people who you are denigrating with your posts.

>I love how you can totally gloss over all the foreign policy decisions the US made concerning Iraq between the years 1992 and 2000 as if they didn’t exist and have nothing to do with the situation we are currently in.

Oh is that so, well how about a little history lesson. Who's mess are we dealing with now? George Bush 41! The idiot father instead of heading Saddam off BEFORE he invaded had our ambassador give Saddam the green light!

"September 23, 1990, Glaspie expressed concern over the troop buildup, but went on to say:

"We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late ’60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via [Chadli] Klibi [then Arab League General Secretary] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly."

Some have interpreted these statements as diplomatic language signaling an American "green light" for the invasion."

We could have told Saddam he couldn't invade Kuwait without a response from the us. We could have moved troops into the area to scare him off. We could have called for the UN to speak out against an invasion in 1990. It's not like Saddam had made his intention known or that the Kuwaiti and Iraqis had been involved in multiple negotiations over territorial boundries and slant drilling for a long time. No Bush 41 was neutral on the subject until of course Saddam DID invade and then it's INVASION, INVASION! WE MUST DRIVE SADDAM OUT!

So I agree let's not gloss over history, let's discuss the complete incompetance of both father and son!

>acknowledge there is some ancillary benefit to our actions.

God, I feel like I'm watching Fox News! What benefits? Fox news is always yelling about "no one reports the good"... Bunny thing is even they don't have any good to report. Yawn. Typical repub empty claptrap.

>"Darin: The same for you. Stop whining and get over there and support the troops."
>Now here's an example of a thoughtless statement.

Right on the money in my opinion. Anyone who advocates war should also be the same person out fighting it. I don't care how old you are, put yourself into the same position as you do others. But then Bush didn't show up for duty, his daughters are to busy partying and getting kicked out of south american countries to fight in their father's war. Chaney avoided services, none of the newly elected repubs have ever served... Yet these are the same people who keep accusing the left of not supporting the troops. They can't even fight in the war they advocate and they have the audacity to accuse others of letting down the troops...

So if you think this war is so important, GET OVER THERE! NOW! I don't care how old you are, I don't care if you served years ago, if you are willing to put others in harms way then you should be willing to put yourself right next to them! There are plenty of things you can do and make far better money than our troops who are in the cross hairs do. Civilian support staff are being paid 6 figures just to drive trucks between bases. The silence of your inaction is deafening!

Mr Peter,

Nice of you to make this into a partisan rant. At no point in any of my posts will you note any indication of party policy or leanings.

Funny thing is, I have no great love for either 41 or 43 and can blessedly profess to having never voted for Bush outside of forays on a drunken Saturday night.

Since however, I have elicited your righteous indignation, lets pursue your avenue of reasoning further...

[sarcasm filter on] Besides, I have to take a break from sitting around with Bill Buckley, drinking martinis in front of the fire and dreaming up new ways to throw another couple of gen x'ers or y'ers (or whatever letter your using to identify yourself these days) on the fire so we can manage to keep the unemployment numbers articficially low and try and convince everyone we’re experiencing another boom. Cluck, cluck, cluck. [sarcasm filter off]

Acknowledged, our foreign policy has been botched for a very long time. Also, acknowledged there is no great coalition of the willing springing forth to unify together in the defense of Iraq and freedom.

Damnit, I was sure I closed that tag!

I think the Otto analogy is a good one. I made a compilation video to see if we could take that analogy any further.

You can see that here.

Mister_pj:

(God, where to begin?)

Wow, our standing throughout the world will be diminished? Excuse me while I go over and shed a few crocodile tears, I find myself terribly disaffected by the specter of such an event. Our nation is not the bitch/whore of the world trying to sidle up to all the other nations in an attempt to be their friend or to be popular.

Nobody wants to see the U.S. as the world's bitch, despite the desires of SOME people that the U.S. act like the world is ITS bitch.

But you don't seem to realize that even a "superpower" has limited resources!

This particular superpower is, as even Bush realizes, addicted to oil and has no oil, and is dependent on other nations for its oil.

This particular superpower has also, under Bush, gone into DEBT. It's dependent on other nations for money. Once I heard Dennis Miller ask what this deficit thing was. "Do we owe something this money? If we do, fuck 'em!" That's stupid. You know what happens if you don't pay your debts? People won't lend you any more money. So, what then? What happens when China, or whoever, calls in the debt and we say "fuck you"? Nobody in the world will be willing to help pull us out of the financial quicksand we stumbled into again...ever! So it's in our best interest to keep the nations we owe money to HAPPY. If they dislike us, they can call in the debt and we'll be pretty well screwed.

I am not so naïve as to believe we don’t have a vested interest in the region but, acknowledge there is some ancillary benefit to our actions. I recall the chestnut: All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Allowing the situation to continue to fester like a boil was not an option.

Yes...but "good" men cannot be everywhere at once! Look, evil is going to triumph somewhere, like it or not. The U.S. simply does not have the manpower or resources to go around the world stamping it out wherever it lurks, which is all over the place. Anybody who thinks that Saddam Hussein's government was the only one that treated its people with extreme cruelty is woefully ignorant.

And maybe if so many troops weren't tied up in Iraq, and if we hadn't made the U.N. reluctant to work with us by pissing them off, we could form a U.N. peacekeeping force to go into Darfur and *do something*.

Winning and losing become random terms when there are no clear cut definitions of the success or failure criteria.

Leave aside that we austensibly invaded Iraq for a set of reasons that with benefit of 20 seconds analysis turn out to be spurious, there turns out to have been no post victory plan other than 'these guys will welcome us as liberators and embrace democracy'.

It would actually be arguably better if we'd acted as an occupying force and crushed resistance by meeting force with extreme force. (Go look up 'pax romana, pax britannica and pax roxelana')

As a Brit I've worked with a number of Americans over the years and I will offer two very generalised observations;

1) You always seem to be genuinely surprised when people don't like you, or your country, or your country's actions.

2) You frequently follow up the surprise with outrage, insults and/or violence instead of considering that maybe you are at fault in some areas.

Cheers.

As a Brit I've worked with a number of Americans over the years and I will offer two very generalised observations;

1) You always seem to be genuinely surprised when people don't like you, or your country, or your country's actions.

2) You frequently follow up the surprise with outrage, insults and/or violence instead of considering that maybe you are at fault in some areas.

Well, to be fair, you did say they were generalized observations. I would, however, point out that (A)- at the very least, everyone I know who didn't vote for Bush (which translates to about half the voters) would have no problem at all accepting the idea that there are people who don't like us; (B)- plenty of those on the conservative side freely aknowledge that as well, though they may be more likely to consider the source and not take such attitudes to heart; and (C)- if your co-workers actually resort to "violence" when confronted with someone who states a simple difference of opinion, you may want to consider a different line of work. They seem to be hiring some rather unstable people.

My own experience with British people is that they are, by and large, lovely folks with a great sense of silly humor, though perhaps with a tendency for overgeneralizations.

"if your co-workers actually resort to "violence" when confronted with someone who states a simple difference of opinion, you may want to consider a different line of work. They seem to be hiring some rather unstable people."

Indeed they were.. the individual I had in mind was an ex-CIA security consultant we had in while setting up a datacentre in Newcastle. He went to the local police station to try and arrange armed guards for the site, and used to relax by going round the docks looking to start bar-room brawls... He was pretty far out on the probability curve, regardless of nationality, especially if he thought anyone was slagging off the 'US of A'.

Cheers.

"But I do have to get on with my life away from the blogosphere, so this will be my final post on this thread. You all have the last word."

Cutting and running? I'm shocked. What would George W. Bush say? I'm asking because, y'know, if you parroted his words any more than you are now, you'd be perched on his shoulder shouting, "Pieces of Eight! Pieces of Eight!" So I figure if anyone could say what he would say, it's you.

PAD

Truth is, I've had my ass in the grass

All the more reason to re-enlist. The government has stop-lossed thousands of soldiers because they say need to keep experienced people. So your experience would likely be welcomed to help keep the newer soldiers alive.

Here's where you can start.

http://www.goarmy.com/ArmyCareerExplorer.do?page=applyOnline

http://www.goarmy.com/contact/find_a_recruiter.jsp?hmref=cs

A ex-CIA security consultant who starts bar fights for fun? Yeah, I'd say he's pretty out there. Did they ever think that maybe they wouldn't NEED so much security if they didn't have this clown going out and making enemies?

(And how tough WAS this guy? He goes to a foreign country and picks fights with strangers? I know the English are fabled for politeness but wouldn't the odds favor him ending up dead in a ditch somewhere before too long?)

Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 7, 2006 06:46 AM

2) You frequently follow up the surprise with outrage, insults and/or violence instead of considering that maybe you are at fault in some areas.

Violent crime has sharply risen in the U.K. in recent years. And football "hooliganism" in Britain has resulted in riots where numerous people have been killed. The latter problem doesn't occur with anything close to the same frequency or severity in the U.S.

You are not helping your case by making gross overgeneralizations about the U.S., nor by attempting to overlook flaws in British culture. No society is perfect, but that's no excuse for stereotyping.

There are many, many people in the U.S. who are upset about our loss of stature as a result of the Iraq war. Many of us didn't want to our government to invade Iraq in the first place; many more now recognize too late that it was a mistake. Rather than witnessing the behavior of one American and making wild generalizations, you would be better served to learn about the world around you and THEN form your opinions.

Oh -- Captain Naraht, I saw your post and I do intend to respond. I just haven't had time. Your inquiry deserves a thoughtful answer and I'd like to make sure I give it one. I have the day off tomorrow -- that should help. :)

And Den...don't make the mistake of trying to fight terrorism soley by military might.

Okay, I'm confused. When did I make this mistake?

Looks like I missed all the fun last night while I was teaching. I don't really know that I have much all to add, other than the fact that I find it astounding that people still believe that WMDs were found in Iraq, a claim even Bush has given up on. I guess that's where the fightin' 30-percenters come from.

As for the report itself, what struck me is that they included language warning Bush that their suggestions need to be implemented all or nothing and told him that he shouldn't try to take their advice and try to implement them piecemeal.

I think that's the one piece of advice will take and he decides to eventually ignore everything and just continue to "stay the course."

Additionally, most of the leftist congress (who represent the Left in this country) voted for the war.

No, most of congress voted for the war, but most of the democrats voted against it.

You make the common mistake of not recognizing that Iraq was a sponser of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda. This was even verified by the 9-11 Commission, which was deemed infallible by the mainstream media.

No, the 9-11 commission established Iraq did not support Al Qaeda. This isn't the first time you've been corrected on your factual inaccuracy.

But, yes, Iraq was a sponsor of terrorism, paying out $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers from the same oil-for-food kick-backs he paid Dick Cheney $73 million with. When do we declare war on Wyoming?

I wouldn't put too much stock in the "Iraq Surrender Group." They and the left have been invested in this country's defeat ever since we began the war on terrorism/islamofacism... all in a mad effort to get political power back in the United States.

Yeah, those pesky WWII-generation-Bush republicans are just so sick of being political outsiders of those Vietnam-dodging-Bush republicans.

Why do you keep mispelling fascism? Do you have some kind of problem with faces? Is that your real problem with weapons inspections -- too tolerant of faces?

Gotta love the Gov't. It does a heackuva job of spending millions of $ on a report that...pretty much confirms what the rest of the world has known for the past 18 months.

And on a related topic...has anyone else gotten the impression that the real reason why Bush 41 broke down crying last week wasn't beause he was so proud of Jeb...but because he was thinking about how Bush 43 has pretty much ruined Jeb's shots at a successful bid for the White House?

"I've enjoyed stirring up the pot here."

Begs the question--believer in what he says or just saying things for a reaction?

I was going to make some cattle-mutilation/Wyoming joke, but right now I can't think of a coherent one that would be funny to anybody outside my head(they that live in it, though, are currently doubled over in hysterics) so insert your own HERE.

And on a related topic...has anyone else gotten the impression that the real reason why Bush 41 broke down crying last week wasn't beause he was so proud of Jeb...but because he was thinking about how Bush 43 has pretty much ruined Jeb's shots at a successful bid for the White House?

Most definitely. I think he's realized that the idiot son has so badly tranished the family name that it's doubtful that even his smart son's children will have a political career now.

And that's why he got so teary eyed about the 1994 governors race in Florida. Remember in 1994, both Dubya and Jeb ran for governor of their respective states. Dubya won and Jeb lost. That gave the idiot son the headstart to work on a presidential bid. Bush 41 was probably thinking that if only Jeb had won in '94 instead, he'd be the one in the White House and wouldn't have needed Baker to pull his ass out of the fire again.

NBC Nightly News last night asked some people their opinions about the report. One woman called it "Monday Morning Quarterbacking".

Quite frankly, I think that woman needs some sense knocked into her.

Many people, myself included, predicted before this bs war started that it would be likened to Vietnam, that it would be a quagmire, that it would be a colossal failure that would only spread terrorism in the world.

But now it's Monday morning QB'ing? What a crock, what an utter joke some Americans have become.

mister_pj -
I love how you can totally gloss over all the foreign policy decisions the US made concerning Iraq between the years 1992 and 2000 as if they didn’t exist and have nothing to do with the situation we are currently in.

Let's see... Saddam didn't have WMD and he wasn't invading his neighbors.

Seems like those foreign policy decisions were working.

Emperor Bush unilaterally decided otherwise, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Where is all that high minded furor and rage when it comes to taking a stand to put a stop to events like this?

See below.

Seems to me that when the isolationists win, events like what happened in Rwanda occur.

Darfur.

And guess what? I see no furor there, just like there was non with Rwanda. Embarassing.

We are no more isolationist now than we were 10-15 years ago. Our leaders just ignore these places because they have no oil.

If you're going to make such claims about isolationism, you should at least be truthful about them.

but, acknowledge there is some ancillary benefit to our actions.

And what would that benefit be? It certainly hasnt't been a benefit to the Iraqi people, who may be dying in even greater numbers now than they were under Hussein.

It certainly hasn't been beneficial to Americans, who have to pay for this ridiculous war while the real war-mongers like Bush and Cheney have profited.

The whole lot of them should be hung for war-profiteering.

Bill Myers said: "Oh -- Captain Naraht, I saw your post and I do intend to respond. I just haven't had time. Your inquiry deserves a thoughtful answer and I'd like to make sure I give it one. I have the day off tomorrow -- that should help. :)"

Thanks Bill.

Most of the posters here still arguing about Iraq itself and not the report. I like the discussion, but I'd like to hear people's opinions on how the thing can work or what the challeges are to the report. I come to this blog because it keeps the name-calling to a minimum and the thoughtful discussion flowing.

As much as I historically disagree with Mister P, I can't fault his reasoning when he states: "There are a lot of conflicting goals for the players in the region. Turkey or Iran don’t really want to see an independent Kurdish state. Iran wouldn’t mind seeing a Shia dominated government which it could rule by proxy. Saudi Arabia and Jordan are concerned about having a Shia dominated alliance along their northern borders. It’s not a simple situation and it won’t be solved with a simple solution.

If the EU would become more actively involved along with the Arab League things might improve but again, each group has an agenda of their own none of which may be in the best interests of the majority of people in Iraq (and I am not saying we don’t have an agenda of our own). Abandoning those people is an even bigger crime than leaving Saddam in power would have been."

That's the sort of thoughtful comment (whether you agree with it or not) that keeps me coming back to Peter's blog. My response would be "How do we get the Arab Legue and the EU together? By a comprehensive diplomatic strategy that accounts for all agendas." Not something being done there for a while. At least since Yitzak Rabin was murdered.

If we all are responding to the report with a collective "well, duh" what are some of your thoughtful suggestions to make it work?

--Captain Naraht

"... but the idea of going into Baghdad, for example, or trying to topple the regime wasn't anything I was enthusiastic about. I felt there was a real danger here that you would get bogged down in a long drawn-out conflict, that this was a dangerous, difficult part of the world..."
- Dick Cheney, 1996

Apparently 9/11 addled his mind so much that, even when the result were the same has he predicted 5 years earlier, he still went forward with them.

what are some of your thoughtful suggestions to make it work?

I'm not sure I have any. I have no confidence whatsoever that Bush will do anything other than "stay the course" (a phrase he has used several dozen times, then outright lied and said he never used it before).

We are holding the Iraqi government's hand right now, and I think the only way to get them to have a chance of succeeded is to tell them that we're not going to stay there forever, and show them that we're going to follow through with leaving.

So far, the Iraqis have shown no initative, their militia is in shambles, and I wouldn't trust their police either.

Bush has created a situation where, imo, we cannot win. At this point, there is only "how long before we leave?" and "who's heads should roll for this fiasco?"

"... but the idea of going into Baghdad, for example, or trying to topple the regime wasn't anything I was enthusiastic about. I felt there was a real danger here that you would get bogged down in a long drawn-out conflict, that this was a dangerous, difficult part of the world..."
- Dick Cheney, 1996

You know what amazes me about this comment? The bushapologists will throw out every quote they can find that Clinton made about Saddam in order to justify an invasion he never initiated, but develop a strange case of collective amnesia when it comes to Cheney's statements from the same time period about why we shouldn't invade Iraq.

The only possible solution now that seems to me to have a chance to bring peace to the Iraqi people is a massive training of a viable police and military force from within.

This is not impossible--there is nothing genetically deficiant with Iraqis and great soldiers have been made out of less promising material. The greater problem I'd fear would be infiltration by Al Qeada and other forces.

There should be a crash course in training americans to learn the languages needed. Massive infiltration of the insurgency. Use of the kurds in large part for the police force--in exchange for a promise of virtual independence of Kurdistan (Turkey can be told that their acceptance of this is a requirement for any chance of entrance into the EU, though I think that is probably a dead issue and I don't blame the Europeans for feeling that way.)

Might be too late--we should never have dissolved the Iraqi army--but it's better than the frighteningly large number of people I've seen who seriously suggest that it's too bad we can't put Saddam or someone equally totalitarian back on the throne.

The only possible solution now that seems to me to have a chance to bring peace to the Iraqi people is a massive training of a viable police and military force from within.

Yeah, but isn't that what we were supposed to have been doing for the past three years? I agree that there isn't anything genetically wrong with the Iraqis, so the problem then has to be on us. I just heard that our embassay in Baghdad has 1,000 employees, but only 33 of them speak Arabic.

You'd think teaching our personnel how to speak Arabic would have been a priority sometime since 9/11.

You'd think. Weren't a bunch of arab speaking military men kicked out under the "don't ask don't tell" policy? Good to have our priorities, er, straight.

Here, let me make this easy for some of you. You’re right, about everything... about Bush, about the WMD, the mistakes our government has made, the incredible waste of money and lives, it’s made people the world over hate us and we are a horrible, horrible, misguided society for doing what we did - it’s all true - you win!

Now, what is the solution for this country that is royally f**ked if we just pick up all our toys and go home? Do we have any responsibility to put things right or do we just run away? Does anyone ask the question about the aftermath? Is it a fixable situation? What are our options?

Far be it for me to be an apologist for an administration I find barely tolerable (and that’s putting it mildly) but, that aside how do we move forward? If the problem is dealt with see my earlier comment about letting the situation fester and then no matter who wins a race in 2008 they will spend much of their energy trying to figure out a solution.

Oh and regarding Mr. Alfred’s comment: And on a related topic...has anyone else gotten the impression that the real reason why Bush 41 broke down crying last week wasn't beause he was so proud of Jeb...but because he was thinking about how Bush 43 has pretty much ruined Jeb's shots at a successful bid for the White House?

Way to give a guy douche chills first thing in the morning, I could feel the ol’ sphincter tightening up at the prospect (Jeb successful). We can only hope the damage is so severe.

In regard to Mr. Brown’s comment And maybe if so many troops weren't tied up in Iraq, and if we hadn't made the U.N. reluctant to work with us by pissing them off, we could form a U.N. peacekeeping force to go into Darfur and *do something*. Hell man! Don’t you know that‘s in a continent we’ve already raped and pillaged?! If there is nothing in it for us why be so damn high minded!? (again, sarcasm through the cold characters of the interenet may fail to come through but I would agree heartily with you on that)

mister_pj -
it’s all true - you win!

Yeah, you'll really see all of us who were right jumping up and down for joy.

I've said it before: sometimes, it doesn't pay to be right.

But we're certainly paying for Bush being wrong.

Is it a fixable situation?

Imo, no.

Do we have any responsibility to put things right or do we just run away?

Going by Powell's "Pottery Barn" rule, yes, we do a responsibility to Iraq. But we also have a responsibility to our troops not to send them on any missions that are doomed from the start.

Does anyone ask the question about the aftermath?

Every day.

Is it a fixable situation?

Magic 8-Ball says: Highly Doubtful.

What are our options?

And there is the rub. Leaving is a bad option. Staying is a bad option. Trying to get Iran and Syria to play ball with us is a bad option. There really aren't any good options, at least in the short term. That's really the central conclusion of the study group. Can we fix it? I don't know. I hope so.

Like Craig said, I take no pleasure in being right about this mess.

Now, what is the solution for this country that is royally f**ked if we just pick up all our toys and go home? Do we have any responsibility to put things right or do we just run away?

What would it take to do a presidential recall election? It isn't like Gray Davis did anything as severe as invade Utah.

"what are some of your thoughtful suggestions to make it work?"

The big question is just how far Bush is going to act on the suggestions made in the report. Even now, Jack Crouch II is supposedly putting together "options" for the president that will "borrow" from the panel. This isn't an apple barrel. You can't pick the good ones and leave the not so good ones for other people.

One thing that struck me is what Farouq al-Sharaa said. "The entire international community may not be able to solve it. But let them be a little bit modest and accept whoever has the capability to help." That might be the best course I've heard. We made the mess, but instead of just walking around spreading it around like broccoli we don't want to eat, maybe we should turn to other countries and say, "Hey, give us a hand here, will ya?" Might even restore some of the standing we lost with people.

One bad thing about staying: it continues to degrade our military capability.

One, personnel are being worn out (post traumatic stress syndrome) and worn down---this is outside the deaths and injuries. We're maintaining re-enlistment rates, but I suspect that a great deal of it is because the soldiers do not want to leave their comrades back in Iraq in the lurch.

Two, our equipment is being degraded, worn out and broken, and I believe it is NOT being rebuilt and replaced as quickly as it is being gone through. This includes ordinance and weaponry, but more importantly, heavy equipment, construction equipment, etc., some of which has been drawn from the National Guard here in the states. That, of course, is their purpose, but if it's not being maintained and replaced, this is stretching our capabilities for response overall.

No good solutions here at all.

Captain Naraht's Horta Junta Presents:
The Comprehensive Summit for the Middle East:

The Players: USA, Syria, Turkey, Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Israel. the EU, Russia.

The Broad Agenda:
1. The Kurdish Opportunity
2. The Palestinian Opportunity
3. The Sunni and Shite Opportunity
only then...
4. The Future of Iraq

The Dream team of US Diplomats: James Baker III, Jesse Jackson, Colin Powell, James Earl Carter, Senator Richard Lugar (R)IN, Madeline Albright, and of course, Condi Rice.

Mission Statement: "The World won't get no better, if we just let it be...(insert na-na-na's). The World won't get no better...we got change it girl, just you and me..."

--The Captain

Posted by: Mike at December 7, 2006 11:47 AM

What would it take to do a presidential recall election?

An amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Some of you may be thinking, "Uh-oh, Bill responding to Mike equals trouble..."

Worry not. Going forward, anyone who wants to cause trouble will have to do so without my assistance. I am going to ignore future attempts to provoke my anger, because, well... I can.

This isn't an apple barrel. You can't pick the good ones and leave the not so good ones for other people.

That assumes that the recommendations are all good. The fact that this was a bipartisan group in no way ensures that it was a wise one. It could be argued that they were so eager to reach unanimous consent on every suggestion that they compromised when they should have recommended something more specific.

I'm not overly encouraged by what I've read thus far--the idea that Iran and Syria could possibly help the situation seems amazingly naive and removed from reality. Adding "the right of return" to issues the Israelis must negotiate also seems a non-starter. We might convince the Israelis to give their enemies a knife but I don't expect we will persuade them to press it against their throat.

The Dream team of US Diplomats: James Baker III, Jesse Jackson, Colin Powell, James Earl Carter, Senator Richard Lugar (R)IN, Madeline Albright, and of course, Condi Rice.

Condi acting as the stenographer, right?

The Dream team of US Diplomats: James Baker III, Jesse Jackson, Colin Powell, James Earl Carter, Senator Richard Lugar (R)IN, Madeline Albright, and of course, Condi Rice.

Replace Jimmy Carter with Bill Clinton and Jesse Jackson with someone serious.

I'm not overly encouraged by what I've read thus far

I think you may be right there, Bill. From the looks of it, it gives Bush just enough cover to get him through the remainder of his term, yet also gives the obligatory "mistakes were made" acknowledgement to appease the democrats.

Replace Jimmy Carter with Bill Clinton and Jesse Jackson with someone serious.

How about letting Carter stay and replacing Jackson with Clinton?

Bill Mulligan, I know you have a strong point-of-view about Carter, but he IS a skilled diplomat. He proved it when he helped broker peace between Israel and Egypt.

If diplomacy skills are needed, you reach out to proven diplomats.

Communique from the Horta Junta:

In defense of Jesse Jackson: While I don't agree with everthing he says, he HAS negotiated the release of prisoners no one thought would see the light of day. He is an out-of-the-box thinker the Team would need.

Considering the roster of the rest of the Dream Team he is a nice addition who if he says or does something nuts, the more pragmatic members (Lugar, Albright, Baker) will keep him grounded.

--Captain Naraht

Comminique from the Horta Hunta:

First Summit Meeting: January 31st 2007, Sponsored by Egypt and held in Cairo, to take up agenda issues 1-3.

Second Summit Meeting: September 1st 2007, Sponsored by Jordan and held in Amman, to take up agenda issue 4.

--The Captain

And on a related topic...has anyone else gotten the impression that the real reason why Bush 41 broke down crying last week wasn't beause he was so proud of Jeb...but because he was thinking about how Bush 43 has pretty much ruined Jeb's shots at a successful bid for the White House?

Not quite. When 41 broke down, he was talking about Jeb's maintenance of "honor." Contrast that to how utterly dishonorably his eldest son has acted and I could easily understand why Bush Sr. broke into tears.

Bill Mulligan, I know you have a strong point-of-view about Carter, but he IS a skilled diplomat. He proved it when he helped broker peace between Israel and Egypt.

And in further defense of Carter, while he wasn't a great president by any stretch of the imagination, he is greatly respected by many of the players from whom we'd need cooperation in such an effort, which is something this administration sorely lacks.

If diplomacy skills are needed, you reach out to proven diplomats.

So again, I'll ask: Why Condi? When has she ever demonstrated any proven diplomatic skills? What great agreements has she brokered? Yeah, yeah, she was appointed Secretary of State - by the same administration that appointed a guy with no real experience in emergency management to run FEMA, so that really proves nothing.

Condi Rice is still the duly appointed Secretary of State of the United States of America and whether you or I or Joe Six-pack agree or disagree with her, she MUST be involved in the process. Period.

--Captain Naraht

BTW, if you haven't seen today's NY Post, you'll see a nice example of that "fair and balanced" reporting Murdoch's organization is so famous for:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12072006/frontback.htm

Condi Rice is still the duly appointed Secretary of State of the United States of America and whether you or I or Joe Six-pack agree or disagree with her, she MUST be involved in the process. Period.

But what if you want the effort to succeed?

"But what if you want the effort to succeed?"

The same could be said of including ANY of the players. For three years the plkayers have been saying we won't include thus-and-so. Well, were has it gotten us? I say include people in the process who disagree. You have to start somwhere. Regardless of your critisism of Rice, I don't think she would sabotage the thing. Even Nixon went to China.

---Captain Naraht

What would it take to do a presidential recall election?

An amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Next best thing: Impeachment.

Mr. Sasha, I just want to be sure of one thing - you really want Dick Cheney to be president?

Bill Mulligan wrote:
"Adding "the right of return" to issues the Israelis must negotiate also seems a non-starter. We might convince the Israelis to give their enemies a knife but I don't expect we will persuade them to press it against their throat."

Israel must negotiate about the right of return. Ut has to be discussed, there is no way to avoid it. But it must be clear that Israel could never agree to a complete implementation of the right of return. Some Palestinians understand that, although not all are willing to concede it prior to solving the other issues. Others do not. If the majority of Palestinians and Arabs i general do not accept it, than there will be no peace, even if all the other problems on both sides are solved, which is not very likely right now anyway.

In any case, it is less important that the US actually make peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. If we and they are not willing, nobody can do it for us. What's important for the US -- in order to gain the good will of moderates and improve the atmosphere and standing of the US, but not not in order to appease the extremists -- is to have a semblance of a peace process with itself appearibng to pressure Israel to negotiate and make concessions.

Regardless of your critisism of Rice, I don't think she would sabotage the thing.

It's not a matter of sabotage. It's a matter of competence.

Even Nixon went to China.

Yeah well, Nixon may have been a corrupt and paranoid SOB, but he understood foreign policy and a good foreign policy includes diplomacy. It's a lesson no one in this administration has learned.

I agree with Bill Mulligan, one of the most important considerations is the training of Iraqi troops. Currently we have 3-4000 trainers, I believe the ISG recommended increasing that number to around twenty thousand.
I also seem to recall that several European nations initially offered to help with the training, and that Bush turned them down. If that's true, it might be useful to find out if that offer still holds.

Insert joke about France training the Iraqi army here....

Bill Mulligan, I know you have a strong point-of-view about Carter, but he IS a skilled diplomat. He proved it when he helped broker peace between Israel and Egypt.

His latest book (Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid) indicates to me a man who is simply too far removed from reality to be of much use. Though his anti-Israel bias might buy some legitimacy among the enemies of Israel.

Jackson has been good in small time things like hostage situations but this is several orders of magnitude more complicated. Shmoozing and telling people an action will make them look good and get them on TV will not solve any of the longstanding issues of the middle east.

Carter and Jackson are more interested (IMHO) in looking good. That is useful in small things but not in world wide negotiations. They would cut and run when the negotiation hit rough patches or try to negotiate their own deals to hog the credit. They aren't team players.

Obviously, I freely admit that my dislike for the two men may color my perception. I'm serious though that if I had a choice between Jimmy Carter or a random person picked out of the phone book to hold my chldren's lives in his hands I would let my fingers do the walking.

Insert joke about France training the Iraqi army here....

With all the cops being injured in France during the recent Muslim riots, the Iraqis may need to train them.

Posted by: Bill mulligan at December 7, 2006 02:23 PM

I freely admit that my dislike for the two men may color my perception.

In the case of Carter, I do believe your emotions are getting the better of you. Carter failed as president in many, many respects. But I suspect that on the balance, historians will rightly regard Carter more highly than you do. The Camp David Accords alone should assure that.

I have urged perspective about George W. Bush and the relative worth (or lack thereof) he will have in the eyes of historians. With Iraq falling apart, however, it's becoming harder and harder to imagine that he'll end up on anything but the scrap heap of history. His greatest initiative -- the Iraq War -- has been a disaster for this nation. While he does have two years left to play out, it's hard to imagine that he'll be able to salvage this.

Carter, at least, had a success. I can't think of a single true success W. has had. Tax cut package? Contributed to a massive deficit that has hurt our ability to wage the wars he has engaged us in. Prescription drug package? Lied to Congress about the cost and saddled us with a boondoggle. The War on Terror? W. took inconclusive intelligence, and by cherry-picking through it and silencing critics, created a fictitious basis for going to war against Iraq rather than marshalling further resources against our real enemy: Al Qaeda.

George W. Bush? Can't think of a single thing he's accomplished of lasting value. Carter? Yeah, he contributed something of lasting value.

Sorry, my friend. I know this is a sore spot for you, but I think it would be intellectually dishonest not to call this one like I see it. And I believe our mutual commitment to intellectual honesty is one of the foundations of our friendship.

Mr. Sasha, I just want to be sure of one thing - you really want Dick Cheney to be president?

a. If W. goes down, Cheney would almost certainly have warmed the path already.

b. Even if Cheney didn't get impeached, the amount of time he'd spend in office would be a year at most and he'd probably be the most scrutinized chief executive in history.

c. His ticker would probably give out the moment he realized he had completely inherited W.'s mess.

I'm not fan of Carter, but I have to agree with Bill Myers here. The Camp David negotiations had no shortage of rough patches, but getting Israel and Egypt to sign a peace treaty, given that many other Arab and Moslim nations to this day still don't even recognize Israel's existance was a major accomplishment. If opening up China to trade was the one bright spot of Nixon's administration, than the Camp David Accords was Carter's.

I haven't read his new book, but I have heard that he's getting slammed in some quarters for being too critical of Israel. But even if he is too sympathetic to the Palestinian side, that doesn't negate his experience in diplomacy. Certainly, most of the other proposed members of this diplomatic mission are more pro-Israel, so they'd likely balance him out anyway.

I agree with Bill Mulligan, one of the most important considerations is the training of Iraqi troops. Currently we have 3-4000 trainers, I believe the ISG recommended increasing that number to around twenty thousand.

Are these trainers? Or are these trainers WHO CAN SPEAK TO IRAQUI SOLDIERS?

There are substantial differences; there are far too many reports of failures in the training of Iraquis because they could not do simple communication, let alone some of the more complex concepts needed to do security (cue standard complaint about the Army getting rid of qualified translators because they were gay).

This is another matter of nitty gritty logistics...doing the day-to-day detail stuff that has escaped this administration, who are head-in-the-clouds ideologically driven incompetents.

I think the initiation of a Peace Process is a positive step in and of itself.

Since 2001 the US has been engaged for good or ill in a "war process". Maybe its time to remind the world just who has the diplomatic gravitas to broker a peace deal.

We ARE really good at brokering peace. With only a 230 year history we don't have NEARLY the grudge matches that other countries have with their neighbors. Sure, our relations with Cuba are shrill, but we aren't lobbing anything at each other but press releases.

We helped the Palestinians and Israelis.
We helped the Balkans. (In beautiful downtown Dayton Ohio no less.)
We helped the Egyptians and Israelis.
And we tried with a lot of other countries

Besides that I would pay real money to see Jesse Jackson, Richard Lugar and Jimmy Carter having lunch together in Amman Jordan bistro.

--Captain Naraht

I think the initiation of a Peace Process is a positive step in and of itself.

Think that means we're trying to deal with the situation with ALL our tools.

Military power is a rather gross tool; it does certain things well. You need to use it WITH political prowess to be most effective, however. I think alot of the more rabid Free Republic types forget that (aren't the type of states that rely solely on force tend to be dictatorships?).

roger tang:

Even out lighter weight vehicles are wearing out at an alarming rate. Of the SUVs that were outfitted with armor plating, many are now breaking down from the strain of all the extra weight. They weren't designed to carry that much weight. Another sad comment on not being prepared before going in.

From www.cbsnews.com

Bush Spokesman On Implementing Iraq Report: "Jim Baker Can Go Back To His Day Job”…
---------------
Sounds like more Stay The Course.

Even out lighter weight vehicles are wearing out at an alarming rate. Of the SUVs that were outfitted with armor plating, many are now breaking down from the strain of all the extra weight. They weren't designed to carry that much weight. Another sad comment on not being prepared before going in

Well, apparently having the "will to win" is more important than paying attention to the everyday details and logistics for the military.

So...when did we get ahold of some Green Lantern rings?

Courtesy of Andrew Sullivan:

"Some reports are issued and just gather dust. And truth of the matter is, a lot of reports in Washington are never read by anybody. To show you how important this one is, I read it," - George W. Bush today.

Does he have to make Jon Stewart's job that easy?

"Does he have to make Jon Stewart's job that easy?"

Oh, like he can help it.

>Nice of you to make this into a partisan rant. At no point in any of my posts will you >note any indication of party policy or leanings.

You want to parrot Bush, I’ll label you a Bushie. Just like Liberman supposedly is a Democrat. NOT.

>gen x'ers or y'ers

Sorry, no letters here and off topic.

>Instead of typing all in caps (the keyboard equivalent of screaming), I have yet to see >you offer up any solutions for the quagmire Iraq has become.

How about a nursery rhyme for you. All the kings men, couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again. And your reading comprehension is severely lacking, I offered a solution in my post. Split the country into thirds and have a Kurd, Sunni and Shie ruler over their respective country.

Otherwise you find another non secular despot and put him in control. No democracy is going to survive there, period. My real solution which no one likes but is the most logical is gather up the remaining Bathests, arm them and put Saddam in control of them and let them quell the area. Oh I know most egos both lib and con can’t stomach that one.

I could really care less if he was killing his people, because that is the red herring that everyone likes to insert as an excuse. If we REALLY CARED what governments did to their people we wouldn’t be whores for China, we would have moved into Dafur and Rowanda would never have had a movie made about it, among dozens of other regions on the globe. We only care where we have some sort of vested interest and even then, only if we can be the bully and think we can win.

>It remains the decision was made, it’s history, there is no going back. You can be as >angry as you want to be, scream as loud as you want to the moon or to anyone who will >listen but, what is confronting our nation now Is coming up with a solution.

Solution? LOL I’ve outlined our solution, turn them into occupied territory and disband the failed government. The real solution (but one our government will never accept or most of it’s populace) lies with the men and women of Iraq and what they want. The report, the whineing, the whole mess can be summed up with one analogy. “You can lead a horse to water, you can’t make it drink.” The people of Iraq will ultimately decide their fate and right now as they have shown, they really don’t care what you want for them. So you are once again left with the solutions I have stated. A non secular dictator that will do the same things that Saddam did to quell the people or split it into 3 autonomous states and hope for the best. Or carpet bomb the population till they have no desire to fight.

>Do you honestly believe a complete pullout of all Americans in Iraq is in the best interest of anyone or are you willing to let the situation fester for another two years so it is the primary focus of the next executive to hold the office of president? Neither option seems palatable.

I have no desire to keep killing our men in a hopeless quagmire. Do you NOT learn from history? I’d suggest ancient Roman history and their control of outlying regions. This isn’t about our interests, it’s about the people of Iraq and they don’t care about our interests.

>Also, no one wants to seem to acknowledge all the other agendas in the region. Turkey’s agenda, Iran’s agenda, Syria’s agenda - everybody has a chip in the game right now - a total abdication of an American presence in the region sounds good to you?

LOL! The same attitude that got us in there in the first place. Let’s put this in a an easy anology for you to understand. 3 doors down from you the neighbors fight on a nightly basis, it’s the men vs the women. They scream throw things, the cops show up, they won’t file charges, they get hauled off for disrupting the peace and they return afterwards to pick up where they left off. They don’t listen to anybody and don’t care what people think. Now you insert yourself into the argument… What happens? The solution comes from within, they have to want to find a solution. You, the only real thing you can do is lock them up, tie them up or gag them. And they could just as easily turn around and shoot you dead. Get it? Not I didn’t think so.

>Better still, let’s raise the price of gasoline up over $6.00 a gallon, works for me. I just can’t wait to see what the heating bills on all the McMansions are. I want to see you have a choice between filling up your obese gas guzzling turd and feeding your family, or maybe a choice between heating your home and feeding your family.

I own a gas guzzling SUV? Wow I didn’t know that! Let’s see I drive a sub compact. I was hauling recyclables to the recycling plants years before it became a government dictate in most areas. When it comes to gas, I have long been a proponent of ethanol in fact I don’t believe we are going far enough we don’t need the 80/20 we have now we need the flex engines that run on 100% distilled spirits like Brazil.

>Maybe you don’t live somewhere where you drive so your attitude is such you could give a rat‘s ass about the price of gasoline. Well, let’s just jack those fuel prices way, way up so the cost of your groceries (which are mainly trucked around the country) goes through the roof and leaves your wallet full of dust and not much else.

And you wonder why I call you a Bushie. You sure you aren’t living in the 1800’s? You sound like a whaler having a fit over the fact that whale oil is being replaced with crude. Guess what, the oil is going to run out and it’s going to happen anyways. There is nothing that propels innovation faster than need and maybe it’s just what we need to force the switch to bio fuels. I’d suggest the movie “who killed the electric car” besides reading up on all the public “think tanks” big oil employees to promote our continued addiction to oil! 6 months ago some idiot was on one of the Sunday political shows from something like the Association of Oil Producers telling everyone just how it would cost $250,000 a station to switch a pump from oil to ethanol. Even in the face of an actual station owner who called in and said he’d just converted two tanks to 80/20 for a total of $10,000 each Big Oil just kept lying and lying. The Sisters spend millions to assure that what your paranoid ranting is reality and alternative fuel sources don’t gain an upper hand. But keep it up, you’re the problem, not the solution.
Or maybe, just maybe, you’re still suckling at the teat of mommy and daddy, so paying bills isn’t high on your list of priorities (that’s the old rub about the net folks).

Yah, you’re an idiot Bushie.

>War isn’t important so much as a necessary part of how humanity goes about settling its differences.

Hey it’s ranting Rambo! You’ve watched too many John Wayne movies dude.

I think it’s unfortunate, I wish the world were a better place but all the wishing I have won’t change the reality of the world.

The reality of the world is that yahoos like you prefer to use their fists instead of their brains. War is not a natural part of humanity, it’s the easiest for weak minded people. Most ancient tribal societies didn’t go to war, they’d choose 1 warrior from each side who would meet in combat. Sometimes they fought to the death at other times they just fought till one could fight no more. War of mass slaughter is a “modern” addition to humanity’s stupidity.

>I will have to use the ‘nyah, nyah’ defense the next time I attempt to get into an balanced discussion of issues.

Yep, Bushie. Don’t forget to put your fingers in your ears!

>Also, if you can point me to one of those six figure jobbies, I’ll tell you right now I’ll take my chances. I’d drive a truck for six figures.

I doubt you have the spine. Here copy and paste: “job search iraq” into Google.

But I suspect that on the balance, historians will rightly regard Carter more highly than you do. The Camp David Accords alone should assure that.

I'd give more credit to Sadat than Carter but it's true that he did a very good job with the accords. But without the power of the presidency he only has his moral authority, which for me is sorely lacking. With Sadat and Begin we had two men who had a goal they wanted to reach. The current situation is quite different. But if Carter has to be a member I'll take it...distract him with some side issue that will let him get on TV and let the others do the heavy lifting.

I wish I could see a positive outcome in these negotiations...but when you have the Iranians and Palestinians convinced that the Israelis can be exterminated and the Israelis convinced that they won't be...kind of an impasse. Israel's enemies feel no need to compromise--they plan to win the whole enchilada. And Israel can't exactly compromise with a death wish.

"I wish I could see a positive outcome in these negotiations...but when you have the Iranians and Palestinians convinced that the Israelis can be exterminated and the Israelis convinced that they won't be...kind of an impasse. Israel's enemies feel no need to compromise--they plan to win the whole enchilada. And Israel can't exactly compromise with a death wish."

That's a bit of an over-simlification, although I'm also pessimistic about the outcome of negotiations at the moment. Still, if it could reduce the flames temporarily that would be nice.

On a more general note:
Don't be pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian. Don't be anti-Israeli or anti-Palestinians. don't demonize either. Understand that both sides act wrongly on many occasions. Understand that sometimes their are reasons but not excuses for their (our) behavior. Understand the desires, fears and complains of both sides but don't let them become excuses to destroy each other. Understand the complexity of the situation as much as you can. Understand that there are gradients in the attitudes on both sides. Don't allow yourself to be cauht up by the propaganda of either side, even of some of the moderates.

I don't know what Carter's opinions are, but from what I've heard of his book he has shown poor deplomatic judgement similar to that shown by neocons in their attitude to Islam and Muslims, although of course with less dangerous consequences.

I don't want to offend my American friends on this board, and my understanding of the situation in Iraq is very limited, so feel free to tell me I'm talking nonsense. But it seems to that part of the problem is that the US was not willing to risk its soldiers and provide the numbers necessary to defend the Iraqis from the various secterian factions slaughtering them. As a result more and more of them came to rely on their own secterian groups to protect them, thus increasing the numbers of insurgents. Even those who were happy to see Sadam fall and are pro-American are likely to loose confidence in the US and rely more on secterian armed groups if it seems that he Americans are not able or wiling to protect them from the armed forces of the other sect.
I'm not trying to absolve the Iraqi from all responsibility, after all they are the ones killing each other for nothing, but perhaps the US could have done more to protect the Iraqis from secterian violence.

Mr. Peter,

The level of your discourse reveals the level or your intellect. The fact that you can surf over to Wikipedia and cut and paste some text you found there makes you neither insightful nor intelligent. Please, by all means continue with your name calling, it only persists in lowering my opinion of you.

In the interim I’ll choose to ignore your spurious rants and focus on the more intelligent and thoughtful observations I find here (which is usually the case). In the meantime, you might want to invest in a spell checker? Maybe?

Also, anything about ethanol in this country is currently a joke and far, far away from what is happening in some countries in the southern hemisphere where they truly use bio-fuels.

Hey? You wouldn’t happen to be a fan of John Byrne, would you?

I don't think the USA is willing to take heavy losses in any war that does not represent clear and specific dangers to people here. Even if WMDs had been found there would be very little support for the war at this point. I think any future president has to take taht into account--any use of the military has to reach whatever objectives can be reached in a matter of months.

Micha, I agree that it's easy to oversimplify things in teh middle east and I realize that Israel is far from blameless...but very very little that I've seen from the Palestinian side gives me any reason to think that the Israelis have much reason to expect anything to come from negotiations. And it angers me to see so much of the rest of the world so quick to condemn anything the Israelis do when they ignore far worse things from Israel's enemies. I know one can be anti-Israel without necessarily being anti-Jewish...but alternate explanations seem sometimes lacking.

I don't think the USA is willing to take heavy losses in any war that does not represent clear and specific dangers to people here.

I remember a pre-war poll that pretty much nailed the point. Basically, it showed that most Americans were for the war. However, when asked if it meant significant American casualties, they were then overwhelmingly against war.

To which I have to ask, did these people truly believe their wouldn't be significant casualties in this endevour?

What if...

What if Nixon went to China?

What if Anwar Sadat told Walter Cronkite that he was willing to meet with Menachem Begin within the week?

What if Ferdinand Marcos told Ted Coppell he would be more than happy to hold elections in the Philipines?

What if when Cheklosovakia(sp) opened its borders with the West and with East Germany and Mikail Gorbachev issued the Sinatra Doctrine? (Eastern Europian countries could do it "their way")

What if the most intractable US President in modern history invited the major players of the Middle East to a Comprehensive Summit?

What if...
What if...

Stranger things have happened and this American has a right to dream...and hope.

--Captain Naraht

Carter and Jackson are more interested (IMHO) in looking good. That is useful in small things but not in world wide negotiations. They would cut and run when the negotiation hit rough patches or try to negotiate their own deals to hog the credit. They aren't team players.

The deal Carter shuttled between Begin and Sadat -- who refused to even meet with each other -- survived the political fall of Carter, the fall of Begin's party, and the assassination of Sadat, and continues to this day.

If lasting peace in the Middle East can be established by a fop like Jimmy Carter, what does that say of the stupidity of the republican administrations following him, leading us to the mess in Iraq today? Why this persistent devotion to nincompoops?

Even if WMDs had been found there would be very little support for the war at this point.

Except that WMDs are how Bush sold the invasion to the American people.

The first consideration in the Art of War is moral righteousness. Your first priority is building the resolve of your soldiers and breaking the resolve of your enemies. Our invasion would not be feeding the insurgency it's feeding now if WMDs were found. Your lack of understanding of this basic principle is typical of republican chickenhawks.

And it angers me to see so much of the rest of the world so quick to condemn anything the Israelis do when they ignore far worse things from Israel's enemies.

Did it bother you enough to vote against George HW Bush once or twice for selling stinger missiles to Arab terrorists? I feel the same way about those who weigh a penny of democratic lapses the same as a dollar of republican corruption.

Stranger things have happened and this American has a right to dream...and hope.

And you're right to do so. It makes you much better than...well, so many, as we see.

"but very very little that I've seen from the Palestinian side gives me any reason to think that the Israelis have much reason to expect anything to come from negotiations."

I'm afraid that at present neither side has much hope that the other side will come to negotiations with acceptable offers or the ability to implement them.

"And it angers me to see so much of the rest of the world so quick to condemn anything the Israelis do when they ignore far worse things from Israel's enemies."
Many Israelis who were or would have been willing to come out and criticize many of Israel's actions were alienated by the one sided, exagerated, out of context, phony, hypocritical, self rightuous and sometimes false criticism, myself included.
However, it is very important for me not to err in the other direction, if for no other reason than to maintain my credibility.

"I know one can be anti-Israel without necessarily being anti-Jewish...but alternate explanations seem sometimes lacking."
I have seen cases when criticism of Israel lapsed into antisemitism. It is very unfortunate, since criticism is necessary.
In any case, why should anti-Israeli approch be acceptable? It's like saying someone is not anti-christian, only anti-American, not anti-asian just anti-China and so on.

"Stranger things have happened and this American has a right to dream...and hope."
Yes. But as Bush showed, dreamers who do not understand how to handle reality can be dangerous. For me Sharon's unexpected withdrawl from Gaza was a dream come true, but unfortunatly reality came crashing down on us (from both sides) soon after.

In any case, why should anti-Israeli approch be acceptable? It's like saying someone is not anti-christian, only anti-American, not anti-asian just anti-China and so on.

Good point. I was meaning being being critical of Israel but that's not clear.

"And it angers me to see so much of the rest of the world so quick to condemn anything the Israelis do when they ignore far worse things from Israel's enemies."

Part of the reason for that, personally speaking, is the same reason I was so angry when the U.S. invaded Iraq: I believed it was wrong and I did not think the U.S. capable to doing such a thing.

Similarly, I used to believe there were certain things Israel just would not do. I've since, to my dismay, been proven wrong.

That's why I hate it so much. I mean, I expect people who've been labeled the "bad guys" to kill civilians and things like that. So when I hear about that happening, it doesn't surprise me. But when a nation composed of "good guys" does it, it's surprising to me...and a very nasty surprise, too!

If Israel, and the U.S., are held to a higher standard of behaviour than the rest of the world it's because in the past they HAVE behaved better than the rest of the world, and they have been admired for doing so. When they say "screw it, we're gonna sink down to their level, kill civilians, torture people, etc.", all the people who previously admired them for sticking to the moral high ground become disgusted with them for abandoning it.

There's a lot of truth in that, Rob, but I think the world is way too quick to draw moral equivilance between the combabtants. There is, I believe, world of difference between actions that result in civilians dying as a consequence and the deliberate targeting of civilians as a means to an end.

Weird, I got called "Mr. Alfred..."

I heard on the radio the other day that the Pentagon/military has recently...just recently...intiated an intense training program that will embed American troops into Iraqi forces. These American units consist of 11 soldiers that have received intense...something like 60 days...training in Iraqi culture, traditions, and language, with the idea being that they'll work with units of 100 Iraqi soldiers/police in an attempt to train the Iraqi unit to effectively fight the insurgency.

Which prompted me to ask...what the hell was the plan to train the Iraqi forces in the first place? Years after we launched the Mission...whatever that is today...in Iraq, we're just NOW providing some of our troops with any training in the local customs and language? I know it takes some time for the government to get around to doing things, but the military was preparing for actions in Iraq at least a year before setting foot on a tranport overseas.

1Posted by Bill Myers at December 7, 2006 08:12 AM
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 7, 2006 06:46 AM

Bill, taking one quote out of context and then replying with a number of statements - of variable accuracy - that do not relate to what I said, either in or out of context, is doing a lot more to validate my observation than prove whatever point you're aiming for...

Cheers.

There is, I believe, world of difference between actions that result in civilians dying as a consequence and the deliberate targeting of civilians as a means to an end.

That isn't inherent in US law. If you kill someone committing a robbery, the severity of your prosecution is upgraded to murder.

If there really were a world of difference between unintended fatalities and deliberate fatalities, George W Bush would have justified the invasion of Iraq to the American people as simple regime-change. Instead he had to lie about the imminent threat to the US.

You don't let the republican administrations' support of Arab terrorists stop you from voting for them, but when it comes to minimizing the damage our invasion of Iraq has done to us, the region, and our standing in the world, well, you just can't be too pro-Israel, can you?

Okay, lots of things I want to touch on, so bear with me:

Roger: Military power is a rather gross tool; it does certain things well. You need to use it WITH political prowess to be most effective, however.

Absolutely, you need to use all the tools available to you and that's the biggest problem with this administration. Military power should be the tool of last resort, to back up issues when all else has failed. The Bushite view doesn't just view military action as the first options, in many cases, they view it as the only option. This is evident in their contemptuous view of diplomacy. The purpose of diplomatic talks is to try and induce others to give give you something you want or to alter their behavior. That means you don't just talk to governments that are already friendly towards you. You have to negotiate with your enemies. The Bush doctrine, however, treat talks as a reward for altering one's behavior in advance. This cart-before-the-horse approach dooms virtually all talks before (or even if) they begin. It sends the message of "give me everything I want for nothing and then we'll talk."

Alan:Another sad comment on not being prepared before going in.

Which reminds me of Rummy's "you go with the army you have" retort. Another prime example of the Bush infallibility doctrine: Everything is some else's fault.

Alan: Bush Spokesman On Implementing Iraq Report: "Jim Baker Can Go Back To His Day Job”…

Gee, what a shocker. Bush completes his usual cycle: Try to show up daddy, discover it's hard work, create a huge mess, let daddy's friends bail him out, and then treat them with contempt. A whole team of psychologists could spend their entire careers studying the pathology of his oedipal complex.

Bill Mulligan: And Israel can't exactly compromise with a death wish.

Tragic, but true. I believe that the Israeli people are perfectly capable of living in peace with the Palestinians, but too many on the Palestinian side of the still view them as colonizers at best and invading infidels at worst. To the extremists, the only compromise is whether Isreal should be given time to dismantle itself before they rush in to drive their nation into the sea.

Micha: But it seems to that part of the problem is that the US was not willing to risk its soldiers and provide the numbers necessary to defend the Iraqis from the various secterian factions slaughtering them.

To a large extent, that is true. The American people have no stomach for a prolonged engagement in which the goals do not seem to be clear, the factions are constantly shifting, and our leadership does not have any plan for resolving the situation. I think the American people would be more tolerant of some casualties if there was at least the appearance of progress going on. Part of it stems from our experience in Vietnam. Our greatest fear is finding ourselves sucked into another military quagmire where our primary goal appears to be just propping up a falling government.

Bill Mulligan: Even if WMDs had been found there would be very little support for the war at this point. I think any future president has to take taht into account--any use of the military has to reach whatever objectives can be reached in a matter of months.

Blame the limited attention span of our modern society. People walk around thinking, "Damn, I wish we could do something about Darfur - Hey, Brittney and K-Fed broke up!). On the other hand, we're still doing peacekeeping operations in Bosnia, so I think if we could have shown some success in Iraq, the support would be a lot higher than it is today.

Bill Mulligan: I know one can be anti-Israel without necessarily being anti-Jewish...but alternate explanations seem sometimes lacking.

I'm pro-Israel in principle, but I can't say that I agree with every action their government has taken. Maybe I'd feel different if I lived less than 30 miles from people who want to blow me up, but I do feel some of their actions have not be helpful to the long term goal of peace. So, I think you can be critical of the Israeli government and not be anti-Jewish.

That said, I think it's a symptom of our identity politics that some people equate any criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. Just as any criticism of black political leaders sometimes leads to charges of racism.

Micha: Many Israelis who were or would have been willing to come out and criticize many of Israel's actions were alienated by the one sided, exagerated, out of context, phony, hypocritical, self rightuous and sometimes false criticism, myself included.

Gee, that sounds familiar.

Part of the reason for that, personally speaking, is the same reason I was so angry when the U.S. invaded Iraq: I believed it was wrong and I did not think the U.S. capable to doing such a thing.

When I first heard about the abuses at GITMO and Abu Ghraib, I didn't want to believe them. We're Americans, I thought, we don't do that sort of thing. Now I know better and it infuriates me. As democracies, we do and we should expect better behavior from ourselves, whether its the USA or Israel. And I think that's one reason my many people are more outraged over some of Israel's actions. We expect brutal dictatorships to behave like brutal dictatorships. It's the old fable about the frog and the scorpion. They act according to their nature. But we expect better from democracies. We're the good guys, right?

That said, I do believe that there are certain countries that never miss a chance to condemn Israel as another way to "stick it to the Jews".

Bobb: These American units consist of 11 soldiers that have received intense...something like 60 days...training in Iraqi culture, traditions, and language, with the idea being that they'll work with units of 100 Iraqi soldiers/police in an attempt to train the Iraqi unit to effectively fight the insurgency.

I guess it shouldn't be surprising. After all, one of our major miscalculations in Vietnam was not understanding the culture or the history of the region. One would think that we'd have learned, but cultural studies is another one of those squishy things that sounds too much like diplomacy for the neocon crowd to be bothered with.

I hope that some kind resolution in Iraq can be found, but I don't believe that this administrationis capable of finding it.

Mike. That isn't inherent in US law. If you kill someone committing a robbery, the severity of your prosecution is upgraded to murder.

On the other hand, if you kill someone in the defense of yourself or another, you won't be charged at all. Also, if you get into a bar fight and the other person falls and breaks his neck on the bar after you shove it, you'll most likely only be charged with manslaughter because you did not have the criminal intent to kill. Thirdly, if you try to murder someone by shooting them, but you miss and shoot someone else, you will be charged with murder. All three hypotheticals end with the same result: a dead person, but the legal and more judgments are different. So, the intent behind your actions does make a difference in the law.

There's an old X-Men quote that I think of often. Someone...usually Cyclops...is defending Wolverine to the Avengers or FF or one of the non-fringe hero groups. It goes something like "Wolverine may be a jerk, but he's our jerk..."

Of course, at the time, Wolverine was a borderline psychotic killer, held in check only through his association with the X-Men. And this was also a time before such status was a bad thing. Today, it's sort of what makes him attractive...he's a hero that's willing and capable of doing what the other "do-gooders" can't or won't do, and that's kill when necessary. Sometimes when not. When that killer works for you, when he's on your side, he's a hero. When he's fighting against you, he's the worst sort of villian around...one that kills somewhat unpredictably. A pre-reformed Sabertooth.

Rob, I know where you've coming from. I myself have been diappointed with the actions of my government many times, which was why I participated in demonstrations against those policies. I do want my country to do better in that regard. I want to come as close as possible to being the good guys.

However, I have several problems with the approach you represent.
1) The truth is that there are no good guys and bad guys. In the real world things are more complicated. There is a problem with a definition of illegal acts of war that condemns any method used by western armies (or the more hypocritical, only Israel), whigiving the other side a free pass because they are the 'bad guys.'

2) Like I said, part of the problem is not the criticism of Israel, which is justified, but the fact that it is one sided, exagerated, and out of context. The result of that is first that it encourages the other side to continue using terrorism because they know that whatever happens one side will be condemned while their side will be treated as an erring hyperactive child that needs to be placated. Secondly, it harms the credibility of the people condemning Israel, thus ending up legitimizing, in the minds of Israelis, the acts that were condemned. The Israelis tell themselves that the people condemning are not acting in good faith, since they condemn Israel and not the other side, and not themselves for using worse methods in less justified circumstances. Even Israelis who did condemn these actions feel that they have become a tool in the propaganda of cynical terrorists or cynical world governments. Furthermore, since Israel must face complex threats, and the people who condemn them seem to disarm Israel of any method to defend itself (since there are no clean methods), many Israelis conclude that the peoople condemning are basically indifferent to the safety of Israelis.

3) It is not true that either the US or Israel or France or England were good in the past and are bad now. In the good wars (WWII) and in the bad ones (Vietnam) bad things were done. Some that were avoidable. Some that were not. The US went to Iraq and Afghanistan with the best of intentions but also killed many civilians. Probably more than Israel did.

4) The truth is that there is no way to fight wars without harming civilians at all. Does my government do everything it can not to harm civilians? Hell no. Could it do better? Yes. But so long as fighting will be necessary, and I'm afraid it is, civilians will be hurt, even if they are not targeted.

5) To the best of my knowledge Israel, unlike the terrorists, does not seek to kill civilians deliberatly. At times it has not been careful enough not to hit them. But to suggest, as many do, that Israel seeks to kill civilians is false.
It has pressured civilians in other ways, which is sometimes wrong and sometimes right, but not an unheard of method in modern warfare. The US did so in Kosovo.

6) I also have a problem with this method of putting Israel on a pedestal only to then enjoy knocking it off the pedestal. Many countries did in the recent past and do now things that are wrong. But when it comes to Israel, somehow people feel they have a right to be disappointed in a way that they are not even disapponted with their own country. Even worse, Israel is the only country whose actual existence is questioned because of actions which are less than those done by other countries not so long ago (or even now). Imagine that someone would have said that since the US killed civilians in Vietnam and Iraq, or oppressed blacks, one must conclude that it should be dismantled, and its population go back to Europe. Can you imagine how itis to live in a country whose very existence is questioned by intellectuals sitting comfortably in Europe and America?

All I'm asking is this. Realize that wars cannot be clean. Condemn Israel when deserving, and as you would the US, France, Russia, not more. But also condemn the other side, not as an afterthought but as bluntly as you do Israel. This you should do, not only because it is more fair, but because the only way to improve the situation is by being fair. At he moment what we have is people who are either justify everything Israel does and condemns the Palestinians, or justify everything they do and condemns Israel completely. This is not helpful.

Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 8, 2006 08:29 AM

Bill, taking one quote out of context and then replying with a number of statements - of variable accuracy - that do not relate to what I said, either in or out of context, is doing a lot more to validate my observation than prove whatever point you're aiming for...

There was no "context" from which to remove that quote. You stated that based on working with "a number of Americans" you had been able to determine that we react with anger and violence when confronted with the fact that other nations dislike us. You offered as evidence an anecdote about an ex-CIA guy with whom you used to work, as though the actions one man, or a even a few people, are enough to judge a nation with a population of roughly 300 million.

I pointed out to you that many, many Americans today are acutely aware of our loss of stature in the international community (in other words, that a lot of other countries "don't like us"). That very much relates to your initial post. Just saying that it's irrelevant isn't enough to make it so, any more than saying a circle is a square is enough to make that false statement true.

As for the increase in violent crime in the U.K. and the problem with soccer (that's our word for what you call "football," just wanted to avoid confusion) hooliganism in your country, those things are well-documented.

Of course, at the time, Wolverine was a borderline psychotic killer,

This has changed? Since when?

I detest the character of Wolverine. To me, he isn't a hero, even a dark kind of one who kills when it's necessary. He's nothing but a homicidal maniac. Given his history of slicing up people who are supposedly his friends: Rachel Summers, The Thing, Spider-man, Northstar, etc. I can't imagine why anyone would want to consider him to be "our jerk".

"Tragic, but true. I believe that the Israeli people are perfectly capable of living in peace with the Palestinians, but too many on the Palestinian side of the still view them as colonizers at best and invading infidels at worst. To the extremists, the only compromise is whether Isreal should be given time to dismantle itself before they rush in to drive their nation into the sea."

Most of the Arabs will always view Israel as illegitimate colonizers. I also believe that even the moderate among them expect that some they in the future Israel will disappear. The question we ask ourselves is whether there is a majority of Palestinians willing to tolerate the existence of Israel without using any violent methods to undermine its existence? I don't know what the answer to this question.
I suppose that the native-Americans stil think in private of Americans as invaders. But they have come to accept the presence of America. Will, the Palestinians do it?

Among the Israelis there are those who are not willing to accept a Palestinian state next to Israel in tyhe territories captured in 67. Others who are willing on principle but fear that such a state will become a stepping stone for continued fighting agaainst Isreal. Others who support the foundation of such a state, but are unwilling withdraw from only part of the territories seized in 67 (the current prime minister speaks of 90%). Others who support full withdrawl unilateraly but don't believe that this will satisfy the other side. Others who still hope that such a withdrawl can be offered in exchange for full peace. And then there are the Arab-Israeli parties and some Jews who want Israel to withdraw from the terrtories and also expect Israel to dismantle as a Jewish state. The position of the prime minister is the centrist -- he suppports withdrawl but not full withdrawl. The center shifts back and forth betwenn the desire for peace and the fear that peace is unattainable. As a result power shifts between center-left governments who try to make peace but who offer less than 100% of the territory, and center-right governments who rely on military force defering the idea of peace until it's safe.
Doesn't this sounds like a crazy situation?

I belong to the left hat supports full withdrawl. I have not given up on peace but I am not willing to gamble all my money that it can be acheived. However, my side has been loosing ground for some time. One of the reasons is because it is perceived as imcapable of dealing with the threats to Israel.

I said "Of course, at the time, Wolverine was a borderline psychotic killer,"

Den said "This has changed? Since when?"

That's more or less my point. I don't know exactly when that exchange occurred...I want to say mid 80s...when being a homicidal maniac wasa bad thing. Wolverine hasn't much changed...he's pretty much still a raging homicidal maniac. He's just managed to tame that beast in various ways. But he's at his heart a killer, and one that has, can, and will kill in cold blood. It's just that the audience has largely accepted this and embraced it. It seemed to make more people squeemish in the past.

It's one of the things about X2 that struck me...Logan killed. In self defense, sure, but he didn't have to. With an adamantium fist, one punch would KO a normal person. He's got little need to use his claws. The film never dealt with this, just gave the audience what they've come to want...Wolverine literally slicing and dicing his way through his opponents, even if those opponents happen to be US troops just following orders (another fact glossed over).

I suppose that the native-Americans stil think in private of Americans as invaders.

Many aren't the private with that thought. I think there are significant differences between the two situations: One is that native Americans have had more time to get used to the idea of hte US. Also, war and diseases which they had no immunity to have whittled their numbers down to a tiny fraction of what they once were. Finally, the Palestinians have the Authority and Hamas who have been preaching unity among their people. The Native Americans are scattered among hundreds of small tribal nations, each with its culture, language, etc. They're not unified at all.

So, most have come to accept the reality of the situation so the odds of the US experiencing waves of Native American suicide bombers is extremely tiny. Some tribes have even managed to adapt and prosper, creating new business ventures like casinos to separate stupid white people from their money. Others, sadly, are still living in poverty.

But they have come to accept the presence of America. Will, the Palestinians do it?

I don't know. You're probably in better in a better position than I am to judge that. From my reading of history, you have three religions that regard that sliver of land as God's gift to them and the Arab/Moslim world has had about 1000 years of cultural conditioning telling them that they must repel any efforts from the other two religions from establishing power there. So, I'm not too optimistic.

Mister PJ ranted:

>Please, by all means continue with your name calling, it only persists in lowering my opinion of you.

I feel so put in my place by the wannabe Borat of Peter’s blog! NOT!

Actually my opinion of your intelligence can’t be lowered any further, you hit the bottom with your limited brain power Rambo rant. To refresh your memory: “War isn’t important so much as a necessary part of how humanity goes about settling its differences.”

Necessary? Only for those like Bush and people who can’t think! Settling disagreements with your fists, thank god there are many better people in this world than you.

Then it’s off to the insult and run like a child: “In the interim I’ll choose to ignore your spurious rants … In the meantime, you might want to invest in a spell checker? Maybe?” I thought you didn’t name and insult people. But then all I have to do is remember this little masterpiece of insulting rant from you “Or maybe, just maybe, you’re still suckling at the teat of mommy and daddy, so paying bills isn’t high on your list of priorities (that’s the old rub about the net folks).” By the way you may just want to look and see where you are posting when doing the “old rub”. Trying to insult people by being one of them isn’t exactly intelligent. Oh and talk to Microsoft, Bill Gates invented my spellchecker, it’s called word.

>Also, anything about ethanol in this country is currently a joke and far, far away from what is happening in some countries in the southern hemisphere where they truly use bio-fuels."

Yes because people like you would rather destabilize a region and keep doing it in an attempt to get your oil, than suffer a little pain of higher prices and find new ways to feed your need as evidenced by: “Better still, let’s raise the price of gasoline up over $6.00 a gallon, works for me. I just can’t wait to see what the heating bills on all the McMansions are. I want to see you have a choice between filling up your obese gas guzzling turd and feeding your family, or maybe a choice between heating your home and feeding your family.” Are you lobbying your congressmen to invest in alternative fuels. Will your next car be flex or will you just keep guzzeling that gas? Do you ask your favorite station when are they going to switch a pump to 80/20? Do you donate to the organizations that are advocating and lobbying for alternative fuels? Or do you just come on Peter’s blog like a basement pajama boy, internet addicted, mommy funded, gas guzzeler who gets off on Rambo?

>Hey? You wouldn’t happen to be a fan of John Byrne, would you?

Run into a mental wall so you now have to drag a totally unrelated name into this in an attempt to insult me? How limited of you. But out of pure curiosity to see just how limited you are: I collect both the works of Peter and John. John had a very good run on FF, X-Men and Superman and his work on Hulk led into Peter’s excellent run on the title. So yes I am a fan of John’s work.

Tragic, but true. I believe that the Israeli people are perfectly capable of living in peace with the Palestinians, but too many on the Palestinian side of the still view them as colonizers at best and invading infidels at worst. To the extremists, the only compromise is whether Isreal should be given time to dismantle itself before they rush in to drive their nation into the sea.

Today I think one of the leaders of Hamas declared they would never recognize Israel. Not that it matters; I'm always amused at how Israel is expected to give up something tangible (land) in exchange for something intangible like "recognition"---which could then be taken away. hardly seems an equitable trade.

Posted by Bill Myers at December 8, 2006 10:12 AM
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 8, 2006 08:29 AM

Bill, there is *always* context.

I write "and I will offer two very generalised observations;", you then berate me for being too general in my observations.

I freely admit the sample group is miniscule, I'm certainly not suggesting it provides a 100% mapping of you all. It is however relevant when talking about how you are perceived if that is the perception I've formed from that small sample group.

For reasons best known to yourself you then drag in some 'facts' about UK culture and seem to feel it's somewhat underhanded of me for not having mentioned them in my initial post. If I'd been contrasting our cultures, I might have. However, I wasn't, so - unsurprisingly - I didn't.

(BTW, do you really want to get into comparisons of violent crime between the US and UK? Thanks also for pointing out that soccer equates to football. FYI, over here we refer to baseball as rounders...)

You seem to be perceiving a slur on yourself and/or your countrymen which was not intended as such in my original post, and are reacting with some degree of outrage.. Or isn't that where I came in?

Cheers.

Peter, I don't think he reacted with what I would call "outrage" but your point about there not being any intent to contrast cultures is well taken, as was the fact that you did say it was a generalization.

That being said...what exactly IS the purpose of making such a generalization? If I say "Based on this one guy I know, Englishmen tend to be touchy." and you reply "Hey, that's a pretty piss-poor sample size." and I then say "See? Touchy!"...well, I don't see that much understanding has been advanced.

And if all it takes is one bad guy to make us all look bad there isn't much we will ever be able to do to improve our standing.

I freely admit the sample group is miniscule

If I may jump in here, I think the offense was that your sample group wasn't just miniscule, it consisted of just one person. The best you could say was that guy was a jerk. To extrapolate that to 300 million people would be like saying all British people were acid-tongued harpies after watching an episode of The Weakest Link.

Mr. Peter,

Hit a nerve there, did I?

Mr. Peter,

Better still - you win, you’re smarter, more witty, worldly and well rounded an individual than I can or could ever hope to be. I am in awe of your godlike perceptions and razor sharp insight.

You win. It doesn’t get better than that, does it?

You get the prize - what the prize is I’ll leave your massive intellect to figure out.

"I freely admit the sample group is miniscule

If I may jump in here, I think the offense was that your sample group wasn't just miniscule, it consisted of just one person."

If *I* may jump in here, the word is "minuscule."

I don't care that some people hold up "miniscule" as an alternate spelling. Around here, we're going to use the right damned words.

PAD

Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 8, 2006 12:05 PM

I write "and I will offer two very generalised observations;", you then berate me for being too general in my observations.

No, I criticized you for over-generalizing.

Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 8, 2006 12:05 PM

I freely admit the sample group is miniscule, I'm certainly not suggesting it provides a 100% mapping of you all.

Except that's exactly what you did.

Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 8, 2006 12:05 PM

It is however relevant when talking about how you are perceived if that is the perception I've formed from that small sample group.

All that does is show me that you are prone to form judgments based on stereotypes.

Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 8, 2006 12:05 PM

For reasons best known to yourself you then drag in some 'facts' about UK culture and seem to feel it's somewhat underhanded of me for not having mentioned them in my initial post. If I'd been contrasting our cultures, I might have. However, I wasn't, so - unsurprisingly - I didn't.

I made my reasons clear: I wanted to point out that all cultures have their strengths and their flaws. If you need it spelled out further: America-haters are living in glass houses and shouldn't throw rocks.

Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 8, 2006 12:05 PM

(BTW, do you really want to get into comparisons of violent crime between the US and UK?)

I don't know that I want to derail this thread any further, but as I understand it, the murder rate in the U.S. is far higher than in the U.K. On the other hand, rates for violent crimes like assault, rape, and robbery are sharply on the rise in the U.K.

Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 8, 2006 12:05 PM

You seem to be perceiving a slur on yourself and/or your countrymen which was not intended as such in my original post, and are reacting with some degree of outrage.. Or isn't that where I came in?

I reacted with no "outrage." I calmly pointed out the errors in your logic, and suggested that you should learn more about the world around you before making sweeping statements about cultures. I think that's a fair statement and advice that all of us would do well to heed.

Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 8, 2006 12:05 PM

Cheers.

Cheers.

Posted by: Peter David at December 8, 2006 01:41 PM

I don't care that some people hold up "miniscule" as an alternate spelling. Around here, we're going to use the right damned words.

Our contrafibularities for having offended, sir. :)

Posted by Peter David at December 8, 2006 01:41 PM
"I freely admit the sample group is miniscule

If I may jump in here, I think the offense was that your sample group wasn't just miniscule, it consisted of just one person."

If *I* may jump in here, the word is "minuscule."

I don't care that some people hold up "miniscule" as an alternate spelling. Around here, we're going to use the right damned words.

PAD

Here! Here! Hrmph! Hrmph!

Main Entry: min·is·cule
Pronunciation: 'mi-n&s-"kyül
variant of MINUSCULE
usage The adjective minuscule is etymologically related to minus, but associations with mini- have produced the spelling variant miniscule. This variant dates to the end of the 19th century, and it now occurs commonly in published writing, but it continues to be widely regarded as an error.

I should have realized it was an error because of the latin.

Miniscule / Minuscule. Rats. "It's a fair cop guv', but society is to blame!"

Sample group sizing:
"As a Brit I've worked with a number of Americans over the years and I will offer two very generalised observations;"

The number in question is probably 30-40, either in the flesh or in long term telephone relationships. One individual within that group was then highlighted for further comment.

Bill:
"All that does is show me that you are prone to form judgments based on stereotypes."

No, I form personal opinions based on personal observations. If they happen to conform to a stereotype, so be it. (How do you think stereotypes become stereotypes anyway?)

"On the other hand, rates for violent crimes like assault, rape, and robbery are sharply on the rise in the U.K. "

Sadly true. How does that relate to anyone's perception of the US and/or its citizens?

"If you need it spelled out further: America-haters are living in glass houses and shouldn't throw rocks."

America-haters? Which America? AmericaN-haters? Which Americans? For the record I like most of the Americans I've met or dealt with. That doesn't preclude me being aware of some behavioural traits.

"I calmly pointed out the errors in your logic, and suggested that you should learn more about the world around you before making sweeping statements about cultures"

Bill you're either missing the point of what I said, or you're being deliberately obtuse. Take a wild stabbing guess at how little interest I have in determining which is the case.

Cheers.

Posted by: Micha at December 8, 2006 02:12 PM
Main Entry: min·is·cule
Pronunciation: 'mi-n&s-"kyül
variant of MINUSCULE
usage The adjective minuscule is etymologically related to minus, but associations with mini- have produced the spelling variant miniscule. This variant dates to the end of the 19th century, and it now occurs commonly in published writing, but it continues to be widely regarded as an error.

I should have realized it was an error because of the latin.

Here! Here! Hrmph! Hrmph!

Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 8, 2006 02:13 PM

No, I form personal opinions based on personal observations.

You've personally observed 300 million people?

Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 8, 2006 02:13 PM

If they happen to conform to a stereotype, so be it. (How do you think stereotypes become stereotypes anyway?)

Just the way you've described: by someone making selective observations about a small group of people and then generalizing to a larger whole.

Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 8, 2006 02:13 PM

Bill you're either missing the point of what I said, or you're being deliberately obtuse.

No, I completely get your point. I'm just saying: allowing personal observations to lead to stereotypes is an example of illogical thinking.

Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 8, 2006 02:13 PM

Take a wild stabbing guess at how little interest I have in determining which is the case.

Remarks like that suggest you are less interested in discussing ideas and more interested in a sniping match. I find that unfortunate -- for you. The good news for me is that I can turn my attention to the numerous other people who post here. They have varying points of view but share one thing in common: a desire to discuss ideas and learn from each other.

If at any point you'd care to re-engage me in a debate about ideas, you'll find me willing to let bygones be bygones. But if you want to make this personal... you'll have to find another dance partner. Life's too short.

You may have difficulty believing this, but -- I bear you no ill will and I really do hope you have a pleasant day.

I should have qualified when I said that the numerous other people who post here are interested in sharing ideas and learning. MOST of you are. There are a handful of you who are more interested in exchanging insults. Take it from someone who helped force Peter to shut down a thread because I was doing the same: you're entertaining no one but yourselves, and accomplishing zilch. Trust me, I've learned that from bitter experience.

Captain Naraht, I promise to respond to your post later today. :)

mister_pj, I always say when people haven't a foot to stand on in a debate the fall down and insult instead. I'll let you keep the no-prize to salve your ego.

Now why don't you go do something constructive like writing to your congressman to fast track 80/20 or even 100% with tax breaks and such. Instead of ranting from mommy's basement.

"Captain Naraht, I promise to respond to your post later today. :)" --Bill Myers

I will be waiting for you post as we have been... outside .... in the rain....with a wet corsage taped to our silicon hide...>snif

I think I'm catching a sniffle....CHOOO!

-Captain Naraht

P.S. Miniscule miniscule miniscule. It may be wrong but it's fun to type it!

Posted by Brian Peter at December 8, 2006 04:53 PM
mister_pj, I always say when people haven't a foot to stand on in a debate the fall down and insult instead. I'll let you keep the no-prize to salve your ego.

Now why don't you go do something constructive like writing to your congressman to fast track 80/20 or even 100% with tax breaks and such. Instead of ranting from mommy's basement.

Ouch, oh that hurt so much, I’m smarting from that one. Oooohhh the pain.

Onto other topics... I am inclined to agree with you my dear Captain in regard to your wish for a summit.

However, while thinking it would be grand if one summit were all it would take to settle all disputes in the region, I would think the focus would need to address Iraq and Iraq only at the moment.

I’m not even sure it’s going to help but, it is a step in the right direction. There are other nations currently on the ground in Afghanistan but, it doesn’t seem to have significantly altered the situation on the ground there. There are still suicide bombings, attacks on the infrastructure and attacks on government officials in Afghanistan. The situation is as much of a puzzle as Iraq is, it just gets far, far less press.

But the situation in Afghanistan seems far more hopeful than in Iraq. Let's face it, if "victory" is defined as the enemy never being able to do anything, there is no chance od victory. It's a big place with lots of mountains, some malcontents will always be there to cause some trouble. But I don't see the Taliban ever taking over the whole country again.

A much easier job than Iraq though, since the enemy seems less able to hide within the cities and (stupidly) continues to engage in battles where they get slaughtered.

Captain Naraht, way to lay on the guilt-trip! Geez!!! Frankly, there's far more intelligent posters on this board whose opinions are worth far more than mine.

But I really, really, really want to make good on my promise because your posts have been very thoughtful and interesting. It is a pleasure to interact with people such as you.

SO, here goes...

"a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will allow the United States to move forces out responsibly; prompt action by the Iraqi government to achieve milestones, particularly reconciliation; and new diplomatic actions in Iraq and in the region"

I think this is the right answer, but I fear it may be too little too late. By failing to secure weapons depots after wresting them from Iraqi control; by failing to commit an adequate number of troops to the occupation of Iraq; and by disbanding the Iraqi army; we all but created the insurgency. The monster has grown so large and uncontrollable I don't know if we can slay it -- or even tame it -- now.

That said, if there is a sliver of a ghost of a prayer of a chance of salvaging the situation, I think the statement quote above sums up what we need to do. We need to set measurable goals for the Iraqi government, determine what the Iraqi government will need from us to reach those goals, and provide it to them. We need to have a plan for a phased withdrawal, so that the Iraqis begin to realize that they can't use us as a crutch. And we need to pull out all of the stops on the diplomacy front.

It's painful, though, to see these recommendations being discussed only NOW. Had we thought about such things at the outset, we might've avoided a lot of carnage.

"Iraq's neighbors and key states in and outside the region should form a support group" to help Iraq achieve long-term security and political reconciliation -- "neither of which it can sustain on its own,"

Again, I think this may be too little, too late. But it's the right thing to do and at this point I think we need to try before we can in all good conscience give up on Iraq.

Unlike some posters, I believe that with skillful diplomacy even Iran and Syria could be leveraged for at least a partial advantage. No, neither are trustworthy, but both of them want things we could give them... in exchange for sacrifices of their own. It's how the game is played. No guarantee of success, but that too is part of the game.

Some "housecleaning" items...

Micha, Micha, Micha, thank you for once again providing one of the most balanced and insightful views I've seen regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You never fail to illuminate and enlighten.

To Micha, Bill Mulligan, Den, and anyone else who touched on our reluctance to commit enough troops to defend the Iraqis: in large part that had to do with the neocons pet thesis that wars could be run "on the cheap" with the right planning. Unfortunately, that thesis was largely untested and based on very shaky assumptions. Hence, the mess we're in now.

I hesitate to even invoke these names for fear of stirring up more crap, but: Alan Coil, mister_pj, and Brian Peter, none of you is gaining ANYTHING from insulting the other. You all look equally bad and childish. Again, I oughtta know. I was one of the reasons Peter had to shut down a whole thread. Why not learn from my mistakes, rather than repeat them?

Mister PJ wrote: "However, while thinking it would be grand if one summit were all it would take to settle all disputes in the region, I would think the focus would need to address Iraq and Iraq only at the moment."

Actually there is a pragmatic method to my madness. Notice the format of the Summit:

The Broad Agenda:
1. The Kurdish Opportunity
2. The Palestinian Opportunity
3. The Sunni and Shite Opportunity
only then...
4. The Future of Iraq

Please note we are first dealing with the actual religions and ethnicities of the region (Kurdish Shite, Sunni, Palestinian) and not the modern borders. (Iraq, Iran, Israel/Palistinian Authority.)

Draw the borders any which way, the issues will be less Iraq vs Iran and more Sunni vs Shite or a Palestinian State vs recognition Israel's right to exist. Kurd vs other ethnicities (like the Turks or Russians for example).

By formating a summit in this way we can affect change over many borders. And by having Egypt and Jordan sponsor each summit, these moderate states at general peace with Israel get to showcase the results of that peace.

Besides that, Hortas really like falafel. And Ali Akbars in Amman makes the best FLTs in the region (Falafel Lettuce and Tomato).

--Captain Naraht

Bill Myers Stated: "I believe that with skillful diplomacy even Iran and Syria could be leveraged for at least a partial advantage. No, neither are trustworthy, but both of them want things we could give them... in exchange for sacrifices of their own. It's how the game is played. No guarantee of success, but that too is part of the game."

I think this point is your best in response to the Study Group's report. It was worth the wait. You can make it up to me in FLTs. ;n)

Quite frankly Bill, this point you make is the "whole shooting match" if you'll excuse the bad pun. The whole point to peace talks like that is that if people have been killing each other, NEITHER side will call the other trustworthy after or during armed conflict.

Only Pollyannas will believe trust is even an issue. The whole point to ANY peace process is there is a need to talk and it must be done in spite of everyones misgivings-- not born of some foolish notion that your blood enemy just became a Boy Scout so peace talks can take place.

The other side is even worse: believing that because the other is untrustworthy there can be no talks. I'm no pacifist but at some point even in war you have to at least have peace talks. If they are unwilling to even talk, well where does the killing end then? These guys act like its a waste of breath to even invite the Players to the table. Well waste it! People are dying, and you can't even TRY?.

To these folks I want to grab them by their collective lapels and in the immortal words of Captain Spock say "Damn you sir. You will try."

--Captain Naraht

There is, I believe, world of difference between actions that result in civilians dying as a consequence and the deliberate targeting of civilians as a means to an end.

Yup, Bill, I agree. But I also believe both are wrong nevertheless if there is any other option available.

A writer, one who is not PAD and who shall remain nameless, once said that it would've been good to bomb Dublin to smithereens when the IRA declared war on Britain (to be fair, I have no way of knowing whether he really thought this was a good idea or was just ranting mindlessly or both). The sad thing is that Israel actually did something like that earlier this year; to get at a terrorist organization located somewhere within Lebanon, they bombed Lebanon to smithereens. Now, they DID drop flyers saying (I'm paraphrasing of course) "We're about to destroy your neighborhood so you should leave before we start if you don't want to be killed." That's better than nothing...but regardless, the civilian death toll was still far too high and all of that blood is on their hands.

Does that make them better than certain enemies they have, ones who regularly kill civilians on purpose? Yes. But those actions were still, IMO, unacceptable.

The truth is that there are no good guys and bad guys. In the real world things are more complicated. There is a problem with a definition of illegal acts of war that condemns any method used by western armies (or the more hypocritical, only Israel), whigiving the other side a free pass because they are the 'bad guys.'

Valid point. I know it's simplistic to put white hats on one side and black hats on the other, but I couldn't think of another way to explain why I felt the way I did. Nobody should get a free pass if they do something wrong.

Like I said, part of the problem is not the criticism of Israel, which is justified, but the fact that it is one sided, exagerated, and out of context. The result of that is first that it encourages the other side to continue using terrorism because they know that whatever happens one side will be condemned while their side will be treated as an erring hyperactive child that needs to be placated. Secondly, it harms the credibility of the people condemning Israel, thus ending up legitimizing, in the minds of Israelis, the acts that were condemned. The Israelis tell themselves that the people condemning are not acting in good faith, since they condemn Israel and not the other side, and not themselves for using worse methods in less justified circumstances. Even Israelis who did condemn these actions feel that they have become a tool in the propaganda of cynical terrorists or cynical world governments. Furthermore, since Israel must face complex threats, and the people who condemn them seem to disarm Israel of any method to defend itself (since there are no clean methods), many Israelis conclude that the peoople condemning are basically indifferent to the safety of Israelis.

Something tells me I'm gonna have a hard time responding to every response to my earlier post...

I also agree that condemning the actions of one side while ignoring what the other does is unfair.

Here's what I see as the big problem, though. Most of the nations in that area resent Israel's presence on that land. So Israelis are surrounded by people who, if they had their way, would drive them off or kill them. Obviously, not a good position to be in. They're constantly being targeted, and maybe one day they get desperate and start doing things that make the rest of the world say "OMG! That's awful! WHY are they DOING that?!" But when the rest of the world reacts that way, maybe they don't say anything. Maybe they think "if I say anything bad about Israel, they'll think I'm anti-Semitic. Maybe I'll earn a reputation as an anti-Semite. Maybe I'd just better keep my mouth shut." Individuals worry about this, world leaders worry about it too. Perhaps there's also some guilt involved; perhaps after the way the Jews have historically been persecuted, the rest of the world is reluctant to do or say anything against Israel, or Israel's actions. The result is that often Israel has been the one to get the free pass. I have wondered whether, say, Syria could've gotten away with similarly bombing a neighboring country.

The US went to Iraq and Afghanistan with the best of intentions but also killed many civilians. Probably more than Israel did.

Can we really know what the intentions were? Maybe Bush, Wolfowitz, et al had good intentions, wanted to make Iraqis' lives better. I'm not gonna rule it out. Maybe they wanted an ally in the region as leverage against their enemies in the region, and decided to set one up. Maybe they wanted oil. Maybe Bush had a grudge against Saddam for trying to kill his father. There's also something I read about how there was an agreement in place that said all nations had to pay for oil in U.S. dollars, thus there was a steady demand for American dollars...and that Saddam was talking about selling his oil for Euros instead, which would've hurt the U.S.'s economy, and Bush said "well, we can't let THAT happen."

In any case, intentions don't count for much. Results are what matter.

But so long as fighting will be necessary, and I'm afraid it is, civilians will be hurt, even if they are not targeted.

Which is why you fight only when necessary. I'm not necessarily saying that Israel should've just ignored the rocket attacks and the kidnapping of their people, but there must be an option that's somewhere between doing nothing and bombing Lebanon on the scale they did. What about pressuring the Lebanese government to help them against Hezbollah? If the Lebanese government was unwilling to help for whatever reason, what about asking other nations to lean on them as well? What about sending troops or commandos into Lebanon to investigate, to search for the guys with the rockets and for the kidnapped Israelis? These are just the options I can think of off the top of my head. There MUST have been another way...

6) I also have a problem with this method of putting Israel on a pedestal only to then enjoy knocking it off the pedestal. Many countries did in the recent past and do now things that are wrong. But when it comes to Israel, somehow people feel they have a right to be disappointed in a way that they are not even disapponted with their own country. Even worse, Israel is the only country whose actual existence is questioned because of actions which are less than those done by other countries not so long ago (or even now). Imagine that someone would have said that since the US killed civilians in Vietnam and Iraq, or oppressed blacks, one must conclude that it should be dismantled, and its population go back to Europe. Can you imagine how itis to live in a country whose very existence is questioned by intellectuals sitting comfortably in Europe and America?

Actually, that kind of logic was used to justify the Iraq thing ("he gassed and oppressed his own people!"). That's why I said in another post that it would be funny if a coalition was formed to invade the U.S. and capture Bush to try him for war crimes, since he is guilty of some of the same stuff Saddam is. When they captured him, they could tell him "hey, we're just following your example here. You set the precedent that it was okay to invade a sovereign nation and cause limitless carnage and destruction in order to capture, imprison and try that nation's leader. We just asked ourselves 'what would Dubya do?', and this is what we came up with." I don't seriously wish this would happen because of the aforementioned carnage and destruction it would involve, but I still bet the look on Bush's face after they said that to him would be priceless.

Anyway, I don't ENJOY knocking Israel off its pedestal. As for why it's there to begin with...well, when you're young you get told about WW2 and the Holocaust. You hear about it and you think "those poor people! That's awful! And they didn't do anything to deserve it! I feel so sorry for them."

So that's the first thing a lot of people think when they become aware of the existence of Jews: they feel sorry for them, they feel happy that the Jews finally got a country of their own, and they get told that there are bad people out there who are trying to kill the Jews. Naturally they still feel sorry for the Jews and think anybody who wants to kill them must be the "bad guys", must be like Hitler. They think of the current conflict as just like WWII, with innocent Jews being attacked for no other reason than prejudice--except this time the Jews are able to fight back. So they hope that the Jews will be able to win against these evil, Nazi-like people who want to see Israel and all its people destroyed.

It's only later that they learn it's not so simple or one-sided, and that it's more about land and grudges over prior acts of violence than it is about bigotry.

I'm afraid I'm done for now...I'll read more and respond to more later if I can...

Maybe they think "if I say anything bad about Israel, they'll think I'm anti-Semitic. Maybe I'll earn a reputation as an anti-Semite. Maybe I'd just better keep my mouth shut." Individuals worry about this, world leaders worry about it too. Perhaps there's also some guilt involved; perhaps after the way the Jews have historically been persecuted, the rest of the world is reluctant to do or say anything against Israel, or Israel's actions. The result is that often Israel has been the one to get the free pass. I have wondered whether, say, Syria could've gotten away with similarly bombing a neighboring country.

Rob, you made a good post but this is something I just can't see. If the rest of the world is "reluctant" to do or say anything against Israel this is a definition of the word reluctant that I am unfamiliar with.

Those of you who've read Kurt Vonnegut's Kennedy-era Cat's Cradle are already familiar with Peter JP's observation:

Claire Minton's letter to the Times was published during the worst of the era of Senator McCarthy, and her husband was fired twelve hours after the letter was printed.

"What was so awful about the letter?" I asked.

"The highest possible form of treason," said Minton, "is to say that American's aren't loved wherever they go, whatever they do. Claire tried to make the point that American foreign policy should recognize hate rather than imagine love."

"I guess Americans are hated a lot of places."

"People are hated a lot of places. Claire pointed out in her letter that Americans, in being hated, were simply paying the normal penalty for being people, and that they were foolish to think they should somehow be exempted from that penalty. But the loyalty board didn't pay any attention to that. All they knew was that Claire and I both felt Americans were unloved."

What Peter said was:

As a Brit I've worked with a number of Americans over the years and I will offer two very generalised observations;

1. You always seem to be genuinely surprised when people don't like you, or your country, or your country's actions.


2. You frequently follow up the surprise with outrage, insults and/or violence instead of considering that maybe you are at fault in some areas.

Peter cites a flaw commonly observed in Americans by outsiders, and an American here interprets this as a denial of imperfection in English culture:

2) You frequently follow up the surprise with outrage, insults and/or violence instead of considering that maybe you are at fault in some areas.

Violent crime has sharply risen in the U.K. in recent years. And football "hooliganism" in Britain has resulted in riots where numerous people have been killed. The latter problem doesn't occur with anything close to the same frequency or severity in the U.S.

You are not helping your case by making gross overgeneralizations about the U.S., nor by attempting to overlook flaws in British culture. No society is perfect, but that's no excuse for stereotyping.

After denying Americans respond outrageously to the notion we are disliked -- by responding outrageously to Peter -- Bill briefly considered the following:

...many, many Americans today are acutely aware of our loss of stature in the international community...

But then he dismissed America's loss of stature altogether:

America-haters are living in glass houses and shouldn't throw rocks....

Remarks like that suggest you are less interested in discussing ideas and more interested in a sniping match.

...if you want to make this personal... you'll have to find another dance partner.

If Bill can't even see he confirmed Peter's observation of Americans, what reason is there to hope for an American solution to Iraq when the current White House occupant can't even exclude the denial of ever saying "stay the course" from his substantial record of stupidity?

Main Entry: min·is·cule
Pronunciation: 'mi-n&s-"kyül
variant of MINUSCULE
usage The adjective minuscule is etymologically related to minus, but associations with mini- have produced the spelling variant miniscule. This variant dates to the end of the 19th century, and it now occurs commonly in published writing, but it continues to be widely regarded as an error.

I should have realized it was an error because of the latin.

Well, your first mistake (one made by many) was turning to those hacks at Merriam-Webster. ;)

-Rex Hondo-

Hindsight honesty compels me to admit that my dealings with American colleagues were predominantly from the mid '80s through to the late '90s. It's more than possible that there have been changes since then.

(Why didn't I mention that before? Because it didn't occur to me at the time of originally posting that my observation was possibly outdated... Which was wrong of me, and I apologise for that omission)

Cheers.

I love to be an Israelii. Israel never gets condemned on anything because people feel guilty about the holocaust.

Being a perpetual victim like in the holocaust is very good from a PR point of view but has certain obvious disadvantage. Having your own country and your own army that, just like other countries, doesn't always act perfect when defending you, is bad from a PR standpoint. Maybe if England would simply have surrendered to the Germans or if the Irish would have givenm up their wish for independence lives could have been saved.

About Lebanon. I was not satisfied with our army's performance in this wr in many respects. It could have done much better, which wopuld have resulted in less civilian deaths and better consequences. But you have to be aware of the actual situation. The HIzballa was a group in civilian clothing that built bunkers and placed piles of rockets inside and under domestic houses, hospitals and mosques.

"Which is why you fight only when necessary. I'm not necessarily saying that Israel should've just ignored the rocket attacks and the kidnapping of their people, but there must be an option that's somewhere between doing nothing and bombing Lebanon on the scale they did. What about pressuring the Lebanese government to help them against Hezbollah?"

Pressuring them with what? The Lebanese government did not want a conflict with the Hizbulla for obvious reasons. It was easier to allow them to wage a little war against Israel.

"If the Lebanese government was unwilling to help for whatever reason, what about asking other nations to lean on them as well?"

Why, because this worked so well in the past? Other nations don't care. Pressure on the government would only have styrengthened the Hizballa.

"What about sending troops or commandos into Lebanon to investigate, to search for the guys with the rockets and for the kidnapped Israelis?"

If Israel had knowledge of where the soldiers were a commando operation would have been used. One reason why the leader of the Hzzbulla is grinning is because it's impossible.
Israel did find the guys with the guns, they were under many domestic buildings in Lebanon's towns. This is not something you can deal with by one or two commando operations.
Furthermore, as Carter found out, sending commandos into a hostile area is very risky. During the war Israel conducted many commando operations. If one of them would have resulted in a slaughter of the soldiers, Nasseralla would have even more to smile about.
You should also realize what happens when there is a gunfight between commandos (the Hizballa was trained by Iran as commandos) in a residential area. Civilians get hit. So that's not a solution either according to the parameters you set.

"There MUST have been another way..."
Israel made similar mistakes to the US in Iraq. It was not prepared. It conducted a too long war with insufficient forces relying to much on air power. A a result the war dragged on and more civilians were killed. But even if the war was conducted correctly it would have resulted in a massive distruction of the Lebanese towns under which the HIzballa built its bunkers. And some civilians would have been killed.

"6) I also have a problem with this method of putting Israel on a pedestal only to then enjoy knocking it off the pedestal. Many countries did in the recent past and do now things that are wrong. But when it comes to Israel, somehow people feel they have a right to be disappointed in a way that they are not even disapponted with their own country. Even worse, Israel is the only country whose actual existence is questioned because of actions which are less than those done by other countries not so long ago (or even now). Imagine that someone would have said that since the US killed civilians in Vietnam and Iraq, or oppressed blacks, one must conclude that it should be dismantled, and its population go back to Europe. Can you imagine how itis to live in a country whose very existence is questioned by intellectuals sitting comfortably in Europe and America?

Actually, that kind of logic was used to justify the Iraq thing ("he gassed and oppressed his own people!"). That's why I said in another post that it would be funny if a coalition was formed to invade the U.S. and capture Bush to try him for war crimes, since he is guilty of some of the same stuff Saddam is. When they captured him, they could tell him "hey, we're just following your example here. You set the precedent that it was okay to invade a sovereign nation and cause limitless carnage and destruction in order to capture, imprison and try that nation's leader. We just asked ourselves 'what would Dubya do?', and this is what we came up with." I don't seriously wish this would happen because of the aforementioned carnage and destruction it would involve, but I still bet the look on Bush's face after they said that to him would be priceless."

I don't understand the similariy to what I've said. Bush attacked Iraq because he thought its leadership was illegitimate. Israel is attacked and condemned because people think its existence is illegitimate.

"Today I think one of the leaders of Hamas declared they would never recognize Israel."

Ostensibly the position held by the Fatah's Palestinian president Abbas is to recognize Israel and make peace with it and found a Palestinian state next to Israel. There are two problems with him. one, is whether he is willing to make an acceptable deal with regard to Jerusalem and the right of return. I don't know. Two, does he have the strength to get such a deal passed.
Some Israelis suspect that even people like Abbas who do agree to the two state solution are only using it as a cover to either prolong negotiation indefinitly while receiving concessions, or that they seek to use that state as a base for future attacks. But like the Captain said, mistrust is not surprising. I support negotiations, but you have to be aware of the problems.
Slightly to the right of Abbas are the Fatah militants, who may also support the two state solution, and who may be willing to deal over the right of return (I don't know) but believe in continued fighting to force Israel to agree to their terms.
The Hamas is the moderate right. They are unwiling to recognize Israel. Their best offer is a temporary truce in exchange for a state in the West Bank and Gaza and tthe right of return. It should be noted that such a truce was used in the middle ages by Muslims in order to end hostilities, because from a religious point of view Muslims can't make peace with infidels at all. So the Hamas could be said to be agreeing to peace based on their own religious terms. But it can also mean that they just want time to bulid up for another attack. In any case, Isral can't sign a truce for terms that are unacceptable for peace.
The Islamic Jihad is the extreme right, it basically supports continued fighting until victory is acheived.

"I'm always amused at how Israel is expected to give up something tangible (land) in exchange for something intangible like "recognition"---which could then be taken away. hardly seems an equitable trade."

Israelis have acted childishly in their belief in the past that land seized in 67 could be treated as belonging to Israel. I believe Jews loioked at history, in which empires were carved by conquest, and didn't understand why they are not allowed to keep land seized in war. But they were wrong. Eventually they were wiling to withdraw from the Sinai, but still only a (large) minority supports withdrawl from the Golan.
Israel was also wrong in their belief for many years that hey could treat Gaza and the West Bank as parts of Israel without giving citizenship to the Palestinians there. Now a majority understands that we cannot, so ther's support to withdrawl. But since so far partial withdrawls have resulted in increased violence and the rise of Hamas, it is understandable why Israelis have withdrawn into the shell of a military approach, even if this approach alone is wrong.
Bill is right about onething. Most people don't understand that Israel is expected to take tangible security risks in exchange for only words, and that Israel is expected to pay for peace. This is why there is reluctance for peace on the Israeli side. This reluctance is wrong but is understandable.

Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 9, 2006 06:14 AM

Hindsight honesty compels me to admit that my dealings with American colleagues were predominantly from the mid '80s through to the late '90s. It's more than possible that there have been changes since then.

Honesty compels me to admit that I was a bit more combative with you than was necessary. While I do believe you were overgeneralizing, it is true that a significant number of U.S. citizens are unaware of how we are perceived overseas. Not all of us, but a lot of us.

As the fiasco in Iraq has shown, the idea that the U.S. can "go it alone" is false. As a nation we need to be far more aware of what's going on outside our borders, in order to better work with the international community to solve problems.

Micha, I believe in a way you and I share similar frustrations about how our respective nations are perceived. Both Israel and the U.S. have been mythologized by much of the world. Both nations are at once irrationally placed on a pedestal by some and unfairly demonized by others.

I remember a recent BBC poll asking people if the U.S. spent too much money on NASA. I was amazed to see post after post from people in the U.K. saying things like, "Yes, the U.S. should spend more money on the poor." I remember thinking, why the hell do people in the U.K. give a damn about NASA? It's not money coming out of their pockets. I can only imagine the reaction if a U.S. news outlet like CNN conducted a poll where Americans gave their opinions about how Britain spends its national treasury.

As the world's only remaining superpower, I guess the U.S. has to expect some of that. And some of our actions, like the invasion of Iraq, have far-reaching impact. We do have a responsibility to the world, and generally I think we haven't been as mindful of that as we should. I think, however, there are those whose notion of our responsibility is a bit too far-reaching and intrusive.

Posted by: Rob Brown at December 8, 2006 08:33 PM

But when the rest of the world reacts that way, maybe they don't say anything. Maybe they think "if I say anything bad about Israel, they'll think I'm anti-Semitic. Maybe I'll earn a reputation as an anti-Semite. Maybe I'd just better keep my mouth shut." Individuals worry about this, world leaders worry about it too.

Rob, that is completely false. During the recent Israeli-Lebanese conflict, everyone from editorialists to world leaders to bloggers with too much time on their hands were decrying Israel's "atrocities" while failing to condemn Hizbollah with equal furor -- if at all! Kofi Annan disgraced himself and once again tarnished the U.N. by making outrageous and unprovable accusations that Israel had knowingly targeted U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon.

I don't know where you get the idea that the world is reluctant to criticize Israel. Because it certainly isn't.

I think Micha has it right: criticize Israel and the Palestinians when they deserve it, but neither should be demonized or put on a pedestal. Both sides need to be understood for all of their complexities.

I think people should take the same approach in discussing the U.S. and its virtues and failings.

Micha, the sarcasm with which you opened your post is very much appreciated (that was more sarcasm). I'm sorry if what I said frustrates you, but please try to be more patient. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just being honest and there's no way for me to know every little thing about this so I'm going to make ignorant statements sometimes. Bear with me, man.

If Israel had knowledge of where the soldiers were a commando operation would have been used. One reason why the leader of the Hzzbulla is grinning is because it's impossible.
Israel did find the guys with the guns, they were under many domestic buildings in Lebanon's towns. This is not something you can deal with by one or two commando operations.

Look man, I'm sorry, but if Israel had no knowledge of where the soldiers were that is a very good reason NOT to use bombs. That is a reason to send people in covertly so they can search buildings, gather intelligence, etc...because those people don't cause collateral damage! Yes, it's riskier to the personnel than dropping bombs from the safety of thousands of feet in the air, but it's also a hell of a lot more ethical.

Now as for the guns being deliberately placed in residential areas...they put them there for the same reason criminals take hostages. What Israel did was basically the same as a cop shooting hostages, human shields, dead to get at the criminals he had cornered. Or trying to shoot around the hostages, screwing up, and killing several of them by accident. You think that cop would keep his job after doing something like that?

Why, because this worked so well in the past? Other nations don't care. Pressure on the government would only have styrengthened the Hizballa.

If the problem was that serious and you weren't able to find anybody to help stop it then yeah, I guess you're right that other nations don't care. But if a bunch of other nations did offer to help and you put together a gigantic ground army, got permission from the Lebanese gov't. to set foot on their land (after all the nations involved put diplomatic pressure on them), conducted a door to door search of every single building in the area where the guns and prisoners were until you found them, then destroyed the guns, then left...THAT is a solution I could live with because I'm guessing it would involve minimal loss of life and destruction of property.

I don't understand the similariy to what I've said.

I was getting off-topic, sorry. You mentioned how some people could argue that the U.S. should be dismantled because of its previous actions and it reminded me of the hypothetical scenario I described.

*sigh* OK, look, I absolutely hate to admit this, but there are some things I see in black and white, which makes me at least partially similar to some of the people I often criticize like Bush or Bill O'Reilly or whoever. This is one of those things. Again, I apologize, but I'm of the opinion that you absolutely do not kill civilians who've had nothing to do with attacks against you, no matter what. On the part of the U.S., dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have ended the war a lot sooner than it would otherwise have ended, it may have meant that U.S. troops didn't have to fight a long and bloody war of attrition before Japan was defeated, but despite that it was still, IMO, wrong.

Rob, you made a good post but this is something I just can't see. If the rest of the world is "reluctant" to do or say anything against Israel this is a definition of the word reluctant that I am unfamiliar with.

Thanks Bill, and I'm sorry it's that bad. Truth be told, I didn't even start following politics or world affairs until I was shocked awake in 2003, so people all over the world--as opposed to just those in the Middle East--could've been condemning and criticizing Israel my entire life (that would be since 1977) and I wouldn't have been aware of it.

I don't know where you get the idea that the world is reluctant to criticize Israel. Because it certainly isn't.

It's the reason *I* used to dread opening my mouth on the subject, because a lot of people equate saying anything bad about Israel or Israel's actions with anti-Semitism, and that is a label that you do not want slapped on you even if it's total BS. I was guessing that there were a lot of others like myself but maybe I was presuming a lot.

Posted by: Rob Brown at December 9, 2006 08:06 AM

I was guessing that there were a lot of others like myself but maybe I was presuming a lot.

Rob, that suggests you don't read many print or online newspapers or watch much T.V. news (newspapers being more valuable in my opinion). If true, that suggests you're forming your opinions in a fashion much like I once did: by a scant few personal observations combined with a gut feeling and wild leaps of logic. Trust me, I have learned from bitter experience that that is no basis for forming knowledge.

Your opinions are only as good as the facts that back them up. In today's media-rich society, there's no reason to "guess" or "presume" what is factual. I urge you to take some time immersing yourself in the facts (just use reliable sources -- something like "Ida's Insane Blogovomit" probably doesn't fit the bill!) and use them to guide your views.

Israel does not rule Lebanon, and it cannot go around like a police force knocking at people's doors looking for weapons or surronding areas with black and white cars and then calilng to people to come out with their hands down.

The relationship between civilians in Lebanon and the Hizballa and is like the relationship between German civilians and German soldiers during WWII.

To suggest for Israel to join forces with the Lebanese government againstthe Hizballa is similar to a suggestion that the Democratic party join forces with Europe in a war against Republicans.

The international community only considered sending a very limited and not very effective international force after the war not before. I therefore have very limited faith in such force.

It seems to me that he only alternative tactics offered to Israel is to conquer Lebanon completely and then disarm it -- a tactic similar to the one used by the US in Iraq -- then you realize why I'm not that enthusiastic about it. I do believe Israel should have recruited a massive reserve force, invaded southern Lebanon with it and relied less on an air force. But make no mistake, this method would have resulted in civilian casualties.

I appologize if my sarcasm offended you. I am frustrated because I support peace and withdrawl but must also provide answers to the security of Israelis in a world in which peace is not always available or sufficient. When I tell my felow Israelis to withdraw from an area, I must also assure them that if that area becomes a military base for pro-Iranian forces intent on destroying Israel, I will have a credible military solution to assure their security, or else I can never convince them to withdraw.
At the moment I am frustrated with everybody: my friends in the Israeli peace camp that ignores complex reality; the center that offers partial and insufficient solutions, the right that doesn't understand that military force is not enough and that occupying the Palestinians is not a solution; the Palestinians who subotage any partial step in the right direction and send the Israelis to the safety of the right; the Americans who are too pro-Israeli, and does not pressure Israel to shape up; Europians who are too pro-Palestinians and condemn Israel without offering real solutions to its security, and the cynical Russians and Chinese. I'm also frustrated with myself since I don't kow what to do anymore. Unlike Americans and Europeans I don't have a choice to walk away from these problems if I choose. I can't afford to be naive, ignorant or pessimistic.

Look Rob, I know you mean well. But we live in a complicated region in a complicated world. I'm ignorant of many things, and I don't condemn you for your lack of knowledge of every detail. All I ask, from you and from anybody else, is a little caution, a little humility, a little understanding when it comes to discussions about these issues.

Posted by: Rob Brown at December 9, 2006 08:00 AM

Micha, the sarcasm with which you opened your post is very much appreciated (that was more sarcasm). I'm sorry if what I said frustrates you, but please try to be more patient. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just being honest and there's no way for me to know every little thing about this so I'm going to make ignorant statements sometimes. Bear with me, man.

Rob, I don't mean to beat up on you but as experience has taught me this is the sort of thing you must expect if you speak from ignorance. Moreover, I've learned that there is no reason to make ignorant assertions. These days, before I post anything I ask myself, "Do I really KNOW this or do I only THINK I know this?" If it's the latter, I withhold comment until I can learn enough that I can say with confidence, "Yeah, I know this."

Posted by: Rob Brown at December 9, 2006 08:00 AM

Look man, I'm sorry, but if Israel had no knowledge of where the soldiers were that is a very good reason NOT to use bombs. That is a reason to send people in covertly so they can search buildings, gather intelligence, etc...because those people don't cause collateral damage! Yes, it's riskier to the personnel than dropping bombs from the safety of thousands of feet in the air, but it's also a hell of a lot more ethical.

And completely and thoroughly impractical, because there are more houses to search than Israeli soldiers to search them. And Hizbollah can move their weapons around like a shell game (no pun intended).

Posted by: Rob Brown at December 9, 2006 08:00 AM

Now as for the guns being deliberately placed in residential areas...they put them there for the same reason criminals take hostages. What Israel did was basically the same as a cop shooting hostages, human shields, dead to get at the criminals he had cornered.

No, not even close to being the same. The cops, as you point out, generally have hostage-takers cornered and have the luxury of negotiating. That's nothing like the situation in Lebanon, where Hizbollah was spread throughout the country and hadn't been "cornered" in any true sense of the word.

Posted by: Rob Brown at December 9, 2006 08:00 AM

*sigh* OK, look, I absolutely hate to admit this, but there are some things I see in black and white, which makes me at least partially similar to some of the people I often criticize like Bush or Bill O'Reilly or whoever.

Then I think you need to re-examine your belief systems. Because, frankly, I think you are working things in reverse: choosing your beliefs, and then structuring your world-view to fit those beliefs. I used to do the same. I found it is much more productive, however, to learn the facts, digest them, and allow them to help you form your views.

Bill, reading up on these issues is very difficult. Everyone has an agenda. There are many facts and even more spins. I can't claim to have done massive research about these issues myself.

Micha, that's true. But the fact that much of the world roundly condemned Israel for its actions in Lebanon is commonly known -- yet Rob Brown was unaware of even that.

Yeah, I was being simplistic -- deliberately. But you have to start somewhere. Knowledge doesn't come from within, but without. Once you get in the habit of going outside of yourself for facts, the next step is to critically evaluate sources. I've found that it helps to "triangulate" when it comes to media bias (and all news outlets have a bias): I try to get my news from the center (which is a bias all its own, have no doubt), the left and the right.

The reason the holocaust is often mentioned on threads is because they are clear cases of villains and victims. Most of the time it is not like that.

There are some basic principles that can be helpful:
1) the Israelis cannot rule the Palestinians.
2) Israel should always seek to talk with the other side no matter their opinions. They should be the ones to refuse.
3) There is no guarentee that peace is attainable or that negotiations will bare fruit.
4) Because of past conduct both Israelis and Palestinians have good reasons to mistrust each other.
4) Israel is entitled to defend itself but should try not to harm civilans as much as possible realistically.
5) Both the Israeils and the Palestinians must accept the right of the other to a nation-state of their own. Nobody is going to vanish or disintegrate.
6) Deliberatly targeting civilians is wrong no matter what's your grievance.

There's more than enough of me all over this thread, but once again I'd like to reiterate: you never fail to illuminate and enlighten, Micha. You are a remarkable person.

Bill

"Honesty compels me to admit that I was a bit more combative with you than was necessary."

No worries. Spit happens.

As for a way forward - or even a way out - in Iraq, I honestly don't see one that doesn't end in a lot more tears. Same with the whole Middle Eastern Strategic Situation - the acronym says it all.

The United Nations is fundamentally corrupt and flawed, so unless that gets fixed first they can't serve as an effective police force.

(Ideally you need Chinese or Japanese troops funding to go in with a 'clean slate' and start pissing both (all?) sides off equally from square one)

Another option - unpleasant and unpalatable as it is - would be for us to just withdraw all our troops and then take a strict non-interference stance. Let the Iraqis find their own level then talk to the victors.

(Yeah, I'm saying 'us' and 'our'. Regardless of coulda, woulda, shoulda I think the US and UK screwed this pooch as a joint operation)

One part of me still suspects that we're tackling current problems with old solutions. Talk of attacking civilians reminds me of a plaque I saw once: "Welcome to Coventry, twinned with Dresden by the Luftwaffe and Bomber Command"

Regime change to get rid of a dictator? OK, but invade and kill x hundred thousand civilians to do that? It's not exactly an elegant solution...

We need some smarter answers.

Cheers.

Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 9, 2006 10:43 AM

We need some smarter answers.

Agreed.

...

Rob Brown, I realized I had in essence told you "don't post til you know what you're talking about." That was perhaps unduly harsh. While I do believe it makes sense to learn first, and then form opinions, there are many ways of learning. I have learned much from Micha by interacting with him here.

...

Captain Naraht, a final thought: I think you are on the right track with the idea of assembling a diplomatic "dream team" to come up with a way to salvage the mess in Iraq. Even though I believe the chances of success are slim at best, I think we would be fools not to make a sustained good-faith effort before giving up.

I am dubious as to our chances of success because: George W. Bush has paid a lot of lip service to the idea of listening to others finally, but we have yet to see if he'll actually walk the walk; and the world knows that Bush is a politically weak, lame-duck president, which will limit his ability to negotiate.

So I now ask you for a response to the following: do you believe we can overcome the aforementioned obstacles, and, if so, how?

Your turn. :)

Hindsight honesty compels me to admit that my dealings with American colleagues were predominantly from the mid '80s through to the late '90s. It's more than possible that there have been changes since then.

That's an interesting possibility. I can remember back in the Reagan years that some folks were kind of amazed that there were marches in Europe against the USA for supplying Europe with nuclear missiles...while the dust of Chernobyl was wafting over the protestors. It might have been a little more surprising for Americans to feel hated when the alternative at the time was the Soviets.

I think it may also have something to do with the nature of Americans who live in other countries. Here you can look or even sound different from the norm and quite likely you are still an American. Only bigots treat you as a foreigner (and only idiots treat foreigners badly) but an American in France is unlikely to pass unnoticed.

One final note and this is a generalization of my own--in my experience Americans are reluctant to argue politics with foreigners and probably ill equipped to do so. My interest in French politics is limited to when some crazed neo-nazi in on the ballot or when Muslim youth riot in the streets. The average French national here would probably have a far deeper knowledge of American politics. So if they start criticizing the way things are here, an American might feel a bit cornered.

But I'm sorry if this all got too heated. Another generalization--I like Brits. Which seems to surprise some of them since they think the whole Irish thing is foremost in my mind. How can you possibly dislike a people who gave us both Hammer Horror and Monty Python?

I love to be an Israeli. Israel never gets condemned on anything because people feel guilty about the holocaust.

Bwah ha!

The Hamas is the moderate right. They are unwilling to recognize Israel. Their best offer is a temporary truce in exchange for a state in the West Bank and Gaza and tthe right of return.

That's insane. What country would sign such a deal? What country would expect another country to do so?

As the world's only remaining superpower, I guess the U.S. has to expect some of that.

Bill Myers (not to be confused with that idiot Bill Meyers) I'm just picking on this because it's the only thing I disagree with. Why isn't China a superpower? I keep hearing that we are the only one left but I don't know. Big army. BIG army. Submarines, ships, nuclear weapons. HUGE army.

Granted, they haven't done much lately except beat up Tibetan monks and Falun Gong protestors but I would not be in a rush to test these guys. If China invades Taiwan...I wish I could put money on the Taiwanese but...

I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just being honest and there's no way for me to know every little thing about this so I'm going to make ignorant statements sometimes. Bear with me, man.

Rob, we tease because we love...:) A lot of folks have been here for a while and the conversations can be pretty informal.

What Israel did was basically the same as a cop shooting hostages, human shields, dead to get at the criminals he had cornered. Or trying to shoot around the hostages, screwing up, and killing several of them by accident. You think that cop would keep his job after doing something like that?

Ah, but imagine a gunman walking around with a hostage, shooting and killing people as he does and the cops do nothing because of fear of killing the hostage. At some point the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few. Or the one.

*sigh* OK, look, I absolutely hate to admit this, but there are some things I see in black and white, which makes me at least partially similar to some of the people I often criticize like Bush or Bill O'Reilly or whoever. This is one of those things. Again, I apologize, but I'm of the opinion that you absolutely do not kill civilians who've had nothing to do with attacks against you, no matter what. On the part of the U.S., dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have ended the war a lot sooner than it would otherwise have ended, it may have meant that U.S. troops didn't have to fight a long and bloody war of attrition before Japan was defeated, but despite that it was still, IMO, wrong.

I disagree with that opinion but I respect it. And don't apologize for seeing some things as matters of right or wrong.

Truth be told, I didn't even start following politics or world affairs until I was shocked awake in 2003, so people all over the world--as opposed to just those in the Middle East--could've been condemning and criticizing Israel my entire life (that would be since 1977) and I wouldn't have been aware of it.

Well there you go! Me, I've been consistently spouting off since 1979 or so and my batting average is probably no better than yours!

It's the reason *I* used to dread opening my mouth on the subject, because a lot of people equate saying anything bad about Israel or Israel's actions with anti-Semitism, and that is a label that you do not want slapped on you even if it's total BS.

Among some that is probably true. It's a lot less true now. I'm amazed at how anti-Israel some members of the local Universities are. And it sometimes spills into out and out anti-Semitism, of the Der Stürmer variety.

The United Nations is fundamentally corrupt and flawed, so unless that gets fixed first they can't serve as an effective police force.

You can say that again, bro.

Bill Myers stated: "I am dubious as to our chances of success because: George W. Bush has paid a lot of lip service to the idea of listening to others finally, but we have yet to see if he'll actually walk the walk; and the world knows that Bush is a politically weak, lame-duck president, which will limit his ability to negotiate.

So I now ask you for a response to the following: do you believe we can overcome the aforementioned obstacles, and, if so, how?"

Stangely enough, and don't laugh: George Bush himself. I mean Nixon went to China.

The Summit, the Dream Team, the border-crossing format of the agenda, even the moderate Arab locales all hinge upon one unlikely event: What if the most intractable US President in modern history invited the major players of the Middle East to a Comprehensive Summit?

However unlikely all of this none of it goes anywhere unless GW is on board front and center. I'm also of the belief that if a peace process in and of itself is going on it injects hope into communities that feel the only response is a death wish. (Remember the pictures of babies with bombs strapped to them?)

How many Philippinos joined the Communists after Macros lost to Cori Aquino?

Remember the relative calm between the Palestinians and Israel after the 1993 signing.

What happened to the Sandanistas and Contras after the Oscar Arias peace plan?

We must give people on both sides in this region a reason to hope. That won't happen with a Pollyanna Peace Plan. Only Nixon could go to China and I think only President Bush (as unlikely as that is) can initiate this plan.

---Captain Naraht

I'm gonna make this my last post in this blog for at least the next day or two, as I have to do some work I brought home from the office, some housework, and I have to keep a promise I made to myself. :)

Anyway...

The "Unofficial Award for Best Poster in This Thread (Designated as Unofficial Because It's Peter's Blog and I Have No Authority to Give Awards) Award" goes to: Micha and Captain Naraht. Micha gets it for doing his usual bang-up job of educating and enlightening us about his area of the world. The Captain gets it for daring to come up with a creative solution to the Iraq problem... and one that sounds as though it could work.

Peter J Poole and Rob Brown, I seem to be snapping at somebody in every thread these days. This time you took the brunt. Pay me no mind. I am an @$$hole.

Finally... has anyone besides myself noticed that Luigi Novi hasn't done much posting lately... if any? Luigi, if you're reading this, I miss your presence in these parts.

And Rex Hondo, only one post in this thread? You're part of the Guy Party now, sir, and you have to represent. ;)

Oh, wait, forgot something... Bill Mulligan, don't think I don't know how you tried to betray me to the squirrels. Don't think for a minute that this betrayal will go unanswered.

GODDAM HITLER-LOVING NEO-NAZI AL QAEDA SQUIRRELS!

Thanks Bill. I probably don't deserve your compliments, but they are appreciated.

Rob, has anybody ever accused you of antisemitism for criticizing Israel?

Intelligent people should differentiate between antisemitism, anti-zionism (or anti-Israel), unfair criticism of Israel, and fair criticism. Some don't. I try to. I've seen all kinds.

Bill Myers wrote: "The "Unofficial Award for Best Poster in This Thread (Designated as Unofficial Because It's Peter's Blog and I Have No Authority to Give Awards) Award" goes to: Micha and Captain Naraht. Micha gets it for doing his usual bang-up job of educating and enlightening us about his area of the world. The Captain gets it for daring to come up with a creative solution to the Iraq problem... and one that sounds as though it could work."

Thanks for the Award Bill! You LIKE me! You REALLY like Me!

But I would give away a thousand awards for one viable peace process.

Come on Mr. President... I never rooted for you to get anything right before....do this thing.....

---Captain Naraht

P.S. It should be noted that while I DO endorse the inclusion of Syria and Iran, I DO NOT endorse inviting Hitler loving Al Queda squirels to the Horta Junta Comprehensive Summit on the Middle East.

THEY SHALL FEEL THE STING OF MY SQUIRRELY WRATH!!

"We must give people on both sides in this region a reason to hope. That won't happen with a Pollyanna Peace Plan. Only Nixon could go to China and I think only President Bush (as unlikely as that is) can initiate this plan."

Actually, I don't know that it's all THAT unlikely. (Here's my brain-damaged optimism again.) Bush is, I THINK, trying to repair at least his image, if not the image of the country. I can't imagine something that would do more for his image than that.

Great, still MORE squirrels. I think you're all nuts.

Great, still MORE squirrels. I think you're all nuts.

Haha. They think I'm insane. They're the ones who are insane! Soon, there will be sqirrels the size they've never seen before! Who, who like human flesh! And then at just the right moment... attack!

A lot of people seem to be thinking Bush is going to just throw the Iraq Study Group's recomendations over his shoulder. Ruchard Durbin said he didn't know if Bush was ever going to support all the recomendations. I think maybe we should give him time to have the meetings that he's going to have before we jump all over him. AFTER those meetings, though, if nothing looks to be changing, THEN we jump all over him.

(BTW, just watched Discovery launch. That's STILL really cool to watch. STILL wish I could go up. Oh, well, not meant to be.)

On the part of the U.S., dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have ended the war a lot sooner than it would otherwise have ended, it may have meant that U.S. troops didn't have to fight a long and bloody war of attrition before Japan was defeated, but despite that it was still, IMO, wrong.

A very good example of how, in real life, and especially in war, there is very often not an actual right answer. Unfortunately, we often have to simply try to find the answer that is the least wrong.

And Rex Hondo, only one post in this thread? You're part of the Guy Party now, sir, and you have to represent. ;)

Sorry, Bill. Between my regular job, running strategic simulations and forming contingency plans for Z-Day, and doting on my daughter, I just haven't had the time to do sufficient research to form a cogent post on matters of global politics. All part of the "not posting til you have somthing to post about" thing. ;)

Besides, I'm still wondering when we're going to quit chattering about the war in Iraq and start talking about the really important war, the War on Christmas! :P

-Rex Hondo

No matter what side of this debate you are on, stay or withdraw it is fairly obvious after today's Bush radio address and now this report: "Durbin said he challenged Bush's analogy, reminding him that Truman had the NATO alliance behind him and negotiated with his enemies at the United Nations. Durbin said that's what the Iraq Study Group is recommending that Bush do now — work more with allies and negotiate with adversaries on Iraq.
Bush, Durbin said, "reacted very strongly. He got very animated in his response" and emphasized that he is "the commander in chief." Nothing is going to change until Bush is either out of office or removed from office.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_12/010362.php

He is the decider, and like the captain of the Titanic nothing is going to make him change his course or slow down. What an idiot.

Brian, while I can't argue with your reading of the situation, I do have to call you on your Titanic reference. Captain Smith didn't want to go full bore, according to reports from the Congressional hearings. It was Ismay, the lunkhead landlubber from White Star that wanted to make a statement with the speed of the ship. Well, he did. Not the one he WANTED to, but he did. And the Ismay analogy may fit perfectly.

So I now ask you for a response to the following: do you believe we can overcome the aforementioned obstacles, and, if so, how?

Stangely enough, and don't laugh: George Bush himself. I mean Nixon went to China.

The Summit, the Dream Team, the border-crossing format of the agenda, even the moderate Arab locales all hinge upon one unlikely event: What if the most intractable US President in modern history invited the major players of the Middle East to a Comprehensive Summit?...

We must give people on both sides in this region a reason to hope. That won't happen with a Pollyanna Peace Plan. Only Nixon could go to China and I think only President Bush (as unlikely as that is) can initiate this plan.

China hosted Nixon at the prospect of ganging up on the Soviets.

This leverage forced the Soviets to negotiate nuclear weapons limitations. But for simply hosting him in their country, China got Nixon to trash a 3 decade relationship between the US and Taiwan, and George HW Bush to lobby China's membership into the UN, directly resulting in Taiwan's expulsion from the UN. The Great Richard Nixon couldn't even get China or the Soviets to cut their support of the North Vietnamese, the only communists we lost 50,000 soldiers to. China couldn't get a better deal from Monty Hall.

Yes, George Bush disavowing Israel's legitimacy and lobbying the international community to isolate them would certainly lay the foundation for tremendous strides in ending the disaster in Iraq. He would simply be following the republican tradition established by Ronald Reagan when he traded stinger missiles sales for hostages: give the terrorists what they want.

Rob, has anybody ever accused you of antisemitism for criticizing Israel?

Intelligent people should differentiate between antisemitism, anti-zionism (or anti-Israel), unfair criticism of Israel, and fair criticism. Some don't. I try to. I've seen all kinds.

Not so far, Micha, and I'm glad I was talking to somebody as intelligent as yourself when I said these things...however, in my experience there are plenty of unintelligent and/or dickheaded people in the world who might not be able to make the disctinction, or who may not want to.

It seems I should be asking more questions and making fewer statements. Here's my first one: what were the reasons Olmert refused to agree to a prisoner exchange?

Oops, screwed up with the tags. The quoted text from Micha included the paragraph beginning with "Intelligent people should..."

"what were the reasons Olmert refused to agree to a prisoner exchange?"

Imagine this: Al-Quaida kidnaps an American border guard patroling the border with Mexico, and demands tthat the US release all the 9/11 and other terrorists held in US jails.

Eventually there will be an exchange. But part of the reason for the war was to put a clear price mark on such kidnappings. But it was not the only reason. Probably not even the main one. It was more the last straw. Hizballa has been attacking Israel across the border ever since Israel withdrew from Lebanon. It has taken over Southern Lebanon and built, with iraninan money, high tech fortifications (under residences) and stockpiles of missiles, some of which were shot into Israel during the kidnapping and on previous occasions. all this was accepted and officially recognized by the Lebanese government. Hizballa members sat in the government. In effect, the Hizballa created a balance of power in which it was able to attack and kidnap whenever it pleased, confident that nobody will do anything about it, and that Israel will not dare go into Lebanon to stop it. Combine this with the fact that the kidnaping happened in concert with the Hamas kidnapping a soldier and firing missiles into Israel from Gaza following Israel's withdrawl, in effect creating a situation in which government sanctioned organizations were attacking Israel from two directions. Israel had to change the balance of power if it had any responsibility to the security of its soldiers and citizens. Furthermore, since Olmert ran on a platform of withdrawl from most of the west Bank, he had to show that Israel could deal with threats areasing from areas Israel withdrew from.

Oh, and I forgot to add that the person nasseraala wanted released mostly was a Palestinian who infiltrated Israel in the late 70's (prior to Israel's invasion to Lebanon), went into an Israeli city took a father and his daughter hostages and then murdered them. the wife was hiding in the attic with her baby and another child. She covered the face of the baby in order to stifle its crying and the baby died. You can realize why Isrel is reluctant to return this man.

Hmm, yes, I can see why an exchange might not be such a great idea.

About the guy you mentioned: is it pretty much a given he'd cause more trouble if he were set free, or would he simply be too old to engage in the kind of strenuous physical activity I imagine moving through a war zone involves? A common prison sentence for murder in Canada and many states in the U.S. is 25 years to life. This man had served 25 years. Is there any possibility he was no longer a threat, or at least no longer the kind of threat he once was?

My second question is about the rockets. From the media coverage I recall reading at the time, it appeared that the provocation for the bombing was two things: the kidnapping, and the rocket attacks. The impression I got was that Israel's response was out of proportion to the initial attacks, since the total number of people killed by the rockets launched numbered in the dozens, rather than the hundreds or thousands, and that some of the rockets failed to even kill anybody. Am I correct, or mistaken?

If we were talking about missiles deadly enough to kill 50 or 100 people at a time (or more) and it was a barrage that would continue indefinitely, I would not object to bombing the area to take them out. But it wasn't like that.

Was this the sort of thing that could have been weathered? What kind of range did these rockets have--in other words, could Israeli civilians have simply been evacuated to another part of the country where they'd be out of range? Were there any purely defensive measures that could have been taken (example: the shooting down of SCUD missiles in the Gulf War before they hit anything)?

Bill Mulligan:

Ah, but imagine a gunman walking around with a hostage, shooting and killing people as he does and the cops do nothing because of fear of killing the hostage. At some point the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few. Or the one.

The first thing I'd do would be to get everybody out of the area; that would probably be easy since people would see the crazy guy with the gun and haul ass. Then I'd see whether I could move a sharpshooter around behind the guy who could take him down without harming the hostage, or whether tear gas would work, or any number of other alternatives.

So, in the case of Israel, Lebanon, and Hezbollah...was there less bloody alternative?

Posted by: Rob Brown at December 10, 2006 07:07 AM

It seems I should be asking more questions and making fewer statements.

I think the same could be said for all of us, Rob. It appears to have taken you far less time to reach that conclusion than it took me.

It appears to have taken you far less time to reach that conclusion than it took me

LOL, good to know man. :)

Hi, Rob. It's me, the admitted @$$hole. Hope you don't mind me chiming in, even tho your questions were directed to Micha. (I will try to be a bit nicer today.)

Posted by: Rob Brown at December 10, 2006 08:55 AM

A common prison sentence for murder in Canada and many states in the U.S. is 25 years to life.

The severity of the sentence depends upon a number of factors, not the least of which are the circumstances of the murder. What Micha described sounds like it easily fits the definition of First Degree Murder under New York State Law, which carries with it the death penalty or life without parole as options for the maximum sentence.

IMHO, justice includes more than practical considerations. Retribution is sometimes a necessary component of justice.

Posted by: Rob Brown at December 10, 2006 08:55 AM

The impression I got was that Israel's response was out of proportion to the initial attacks, since the total number of people killed by the rockets launched numbered in the dozens, rather than the hundreds or thousands, and that some of the rockets failed to even kill anybody.

Rob, think about Israel's situation as if it were your own. You're surrounded by enemies who question your nation's right to exist, with the ability to attack you with missiles and border raids. They've demonstrated that they are unafraid of retaliation. A "proportionate" response in such a situation is inadequate, and may even embolden the enemy, as it sends a signal that they can attack you at will and expect to pay only a minor price.

From a security standpoint, the only reasonable response is to destroy or at least degrade your enemy's offensive capabilities. If it were the U.S. in that situation, it's the response I would expect... and (heaven help me) want.

Posted by: Rob Brown at December 10, 2006 08:55 AM

The first thing I'd do would be to get everybody out of the area; that would probably be easy since people would see the crazy guy with the gun and haul ass. Then I'd see whether I could move a sharpshooter around behind the guy who could take him down without harming the hostage, or whether tear gas would work, or any number of other alternatives.

I wish Jerry C were here at the moment (Jerry, if you're reading this I hope you're over your flu and things are going well), because he's a cop.

From what I've gathered from talking with other cops, however, I can say with some degree of confidence that hostage situations are never that easy to resolve. There are always hundreds of variables, and never any guarantee that a specific tactic will have the desired results. If the target flinches and the sharpshooter misses, the hostage-taker might start killing his prisoners. Tear gas might give him just enough time to do the same. There are never any quick, clean, easy alternatives. That's why cops always try negotiations first.

The problem with drawing a parallel between some lone nut taking hostages, and acts of aggression between nations, is that in the latter case the acts are supported by a government or terrorist group that needs to be brought to account. It's not enough just to defuse the situation. There must be a deterrent for the future.

And Micha, yeah, I know -- it's not black-and-white. And Israel doesn't belong on a pedestal. But I'm thinking in terms of "how would I react were I in there shoes?" Believe it or not, our situations are not entirely dissimilar. The U.S. did take some flak for the intensity of our assault on Afghanistan after 9/11, just as Israel took some heat for the intensity of its assault on Lebanon. I think both our nations made mistakes, but in broad terms our military responses were justified.

Now, Iraq, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish. We had NO business going into that country. But we did and now we're stuck with it.

IMHO, justice includes more than practical considerations. Retribution is sometimes a necessary component of justice.

Blacks are the leading victims of murder.

State-sponsored execution is certainly retribution -- but if it were retribution for murder, death rows wouldn't be dominated by convicts who kill whites. Take another guess who the death penalty really serves.

About the guy you mentioned: is it pretty much a given he'd cause more trouble if he were set free, or would he simply be too old to engage in the kind of strenuous physical activity I imagine moving through a war zone involves? A common prison sentence for murder in Canada and many states in the U.S. is 25 years to life. This man had served 25 years. Is there any possibility he was no longer a threat, or at least no longer the kind of threat he once was?

Prison is too good for him. Releasing him would be an atrocity. And what message does it send? I think Israel made a HIGE mistake the first time they agreed to an exchange. The result has been more kidnappings.

To my knowledge--coreect me if I'm wrong--the USA has never agreed to such a thing. And as a result, even though we have a HUGE prison population, many of them no doubt with family and friends who would do anything to get them out, you don't see many kidnappings/hijackings/etc that demand the release of prisoners. They know it won't happen.

As for my hypothetical--a crazed gunman using a human shiled as he walks around shooting people--I submit that a man walking at a decent clip can easily outrun any evacuation. Try evacuating a street sometime. I guaran-damn-tee it'll take longer than it takes to walk to the next street. And this guy is shooting at the cops as this happens. And nobody is shooting back?

In the real world, when this happens, the cops shoot back. As they should. Sometimes the hostage gets killed as well, which is a tragedy. I submit, however, that if they let dozens of others get shot while waiting for snipers to take their best shot heads would roll.

Sean wrote:
>Not the one he WANTED to, but he did. And the Ismay analogy may fit perfectly.

While Ismay probably was a factor I'm afraid I don't agree. Smith was the captain of the ship and ship captains while at sea are the dictator. Ismay may have cajolled but it was Smith who was the final decider.

Whichever history you believe, this was Smiths final voyage before retirement or just the second of the new ships he was going to be piloting Smith is at fault. Whites Star wasn't going to do anything to him, he was their most respected captain. After all he wrecked the Olympic, sending it to drydock and delaying completion of the Titanic and they still gave him the Titanic.

Smith was too experienced to let what happened happen if he hadn't been blinded by some specific desire. Ismay, well I'm not saying he doesn't bare some of the blame, at the same time due to the fact he got off the ship, he was a good target in the congressional hearings.

"About the guy you mentioned: is it pretty much a given he'd cause more trouble if he were set free, or would he simply be too old to engage in the kind of strenuous physical activity I imagine moving through a war zone involves? A common prison sentence for murder in Canada and many states in the U.S. is 25 years to life. This man had served 25 years. Is there any possibility he was no longer a threat, or at least no longer the kind of threat he once was?"

Samir Kuntar is unlikely to be involved in future actions. But I think that even Canada would hesitate to release prisoners in response to terrorists taking hostages. It would undermine the credibility of its justice system. Furthermore, even if you were to rel;ease prsoners, as Israel has done in the past, you would also want to make sure this terrorist tactic would not be considered worthwhile in the long run. Remember, methods of terrorism go in and out of fashion if they are considered successful. Highjacking planes was considered successful for awhile. Suicide bombing has gained popularity by being used against Israel and then was imported to NY, London, Madrid, Kahbul and Bahgdad.

"My second question is about the rockets. From the media coverage I recall reading at the time, it appeared that the provocation for the bombing was two things: the kidnapping, and the rocket attacks. The impression I got was that Israel's response was out of proportion to the initial attacks, since the total number of people killed by the rockets launched numbered in the dozens, rather than the hundreds or thousands, and that some of the rockets failed to even kill anybody. Am I correct, or mistaken?

If we were talking about missiles deadly enough to kill 50 or 100 people at a time (or more) and it was a barrage that would continue indefinitely, I would not object to bombing the area to take them out. But it wasn't like that.

Was this the sort of thing that could have been weathered? What kind of range did these rockets have--in other words, could Israeli civilians have simply been evacuated to another part of the country where they'd be out of range? Were there any purely defensive measures that could have been taken (example: the shooting down of SCUD missiles in the Gulf War before they hit anything)?"

Israel's response is not a punishment to a crime, it is a method to stop the citizens of Israel's towns being held hostage by Hizballa's rockets.

How long do you think towns and cities in Israel or anywhere could function if they were routinly attacked by rockets. Even if the casualties were only in the tens or even less?

Israeli houses have bomb shelters, which reduce casualties. But society cannot function if its citizens have to run to shelters at a drop of a hat.

100-200 rockets were shot on Israel at a daily basis during the war.

Do you think that just 5 or 10 casualties from rockets is acceptable?

Any part of Israel is in range of rockets from someplace in the the midle east. How long do you think Israel could survive if it were to evacuate areas in response to rockets?

If an independent Quebec were to bombard an area all the way to Torronto, what would be the adequate response?

The patriot missles were not very effective against SCUDs. It hit the missles, and then the reckage fell on Tel Aviv.

There were methods in development to block rockets, but the financial support was cut. This is probably one of the things Israel would reexamine. But even with such methods. Do you expect Israelis to simply sit while being bombarded as lasers or rockets hit the missiles being fired at them, even assuming the system was 100% foolproof?

When Hizballa intitated the original attack they expected that Israel would bomb some areas. Just as Al-Quiada expected a few tomohawk missiles being shot into Afghanistan after its previous attacks. For them its the cost of doing business.

Like Bill said. In order to have a functioning life we have to make sure Israeli citizens are not bombed whenever our enemies desire and routinly. Our responses should be as proportionate as this goal requires.

"Ah, but imagine a gunman walking around with a hostage, shooting and killing people as he does and the cops do nothing because of fear of killing the hostage. At some point the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few. Or the one.

The first thing I'd do would be to get everybody out of the area; that would probably be easy since people would see the crazy guy with the gun and haul ass. Then I'd see whether I could move a sharpshooter around behind the guy who could take him down without harming the hostage, or whether tear gas would work, or any number of other alternatives."

This was exactly what Israel did. Hundreds of thousands of Lebanese ran away from their homes before Israel bombed. Israel flattened a densly populated area of Beirut. But the number of civilian deaths in 33 days was about a thousand. I believe we could have acheived an even lower rate of civilian deaths by fighting a faster and shorter war, and by being even more cautious when bombing. But it seems clear that had we been carpet bombing and targeting civilians as we've been accused, deaths would have reached much greater numbers.
Obviously, using tear gas was not an option in this case.
For use of gas against terrorists see the experience of Russia against the Chechans who took hostages in Moscow.

Correction:
The Lebanese deaths in total I think were claimed to be a thousand. I don't know how reliable the HIzballa is with regards to the numbers or the ratio of civiliand vs. militants.

Oh, I felt the attack in Beirut was a tactical mistake.

Lots to respond to here. One thing in particular caught my eye:

Bill Mulligan: Prison is too good for him.

Have you been in prison for 25 years? Do you know what it's like? If not, how can you possibly know whether it's too good for him, or not? Me, I'd rather die than go to prison after the stories I've heard about it. Because in many cases, sending a guy to prison is like throwing him in with a pack of rabid dogs and turning a blind eye to whatever happens next. That is tantamount to torture, and I believe torture is worse than killing somebody because torture goes on and on and on for hours or days or months or years and traumatizes a person for their entire life. If somebody gets shot in the head, it's over in less than a minute. Boom, they're dead, they don't suffer. Their loved ones suffer, but they're eventually able to get on with their lives.

The punishment must fit the crime, it must not be WORSE than the crime. If that means life for life, so be it. But 25 consecutive years of brutal beatings, rapes, and dehumanization for the taking of a life? No, I can't condone that.

Even the people I hate most in the world, even those people I wouldn't wish more than a day of agony on. Eventually I'd feel sorry for them, eventually I'd say "OK, they've had enough." I would not wish 25 years of agony on ANYBODY.

I'm sorry to go on about that for so long, but I don't think people really understand what they're saying when they say "prison's too good for him." Goddamn.

I would rather die than be in prison too. but Israel doesn't have a capital punishment. but don't worry about Kuntar rob, he serves his term with the other terrorists, not with common criminals.

Have you been in prison for 25 years? Do you know what it's like? If not, how can you possibly know whether it's too good for him, or not?

I've never had my family murdered either but I have a pretty good idea of how I'd feel if they were. He murdered a kid. In cold blood. For being a Jew. Frankly I think it's only a sense of decency that prohibits us from thowing him into a molten glass furnace , which would be a just punishment.

Even the people I hate most in the world, even those people I wouldn't wish more than a day of agony on. Eventually I'd feel sorry for them, eventually I'd say "OK, they've had enough." I would not wish 25 years of agony on ANYBODY.

If you are seriously suggesting that you would only wish one day of prison on someone who killed your wife and child...perhaps you are a much kinder man than I am. But that seems an insult to the dead and a slap in the face to those left behind.

Considering the fact that many of those who get out of prison are soon back in, I don't know if it is quite the Dantes Inferno that you think it is. You'd think those in the know would do anything to avoid going back. But I have no intention of finding out, so...

OK, I've calmed down somewhat now...

The goal of police forces and military should be to keep people safe, NOT to mete out what they feel is appropriate punishment, NOT to say "I'm going to hurt those motherfuckers so bad they'll wish they were never born." That just continues the cycle of violence and hatred and turns you into a sadist, into somebody who takes pleasure from inflicting pain on others.

Bill Myers: Rob, think about Israel's situation as if it were your own. You're surrounded by enemies who question your nation's right to exist, with the ability to attack you with missiles and border raids. They've demonstrated that they are unafraid of retaliation. A "proportionate" response in such a situation is inadequate, and may even embolden the enemy, as it sends a signal that they can attack you at will and expect to pay only a minor price.

Striking back with equal force sends the message just fine. Striking back with excessive force is immoral. You realize that as a result of Israel's reaction, the survivors of the bombing runs who lost their homes and loved ones probably despise them, right? All it accomplished was to make them more hated and give organizations like Hezbollah a larger pool of people to recruit from.

Retribution is sometimes a necessary component of justice.

Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by "retribution", but if you mean what I think you do then I must respectfully disagree. You want to deter crime, you want to rehabilitate if possible, you want to keep innocent people safe from violent predators. Punishing criminals might serve as a deterrant, but that's it. In the case of the people who attack Israel it seems that it doesn't deter them at all, so you might as well not even bother. Just keep them somewhere where they can't hurt anybody else, or execute them. Is there any reason to make somebody miserable other than your own personal desire for vengeance? Does it accomplish anything, does it make the world better, does it make the world safer?

Rex Hondo: Unfortunately, we often have to simply try to find the answer that is the least wrong.

Agreed.

Bill Myers: If the target flinches and the sharpshooter misses, the hostage-taker might start killing his prisoners. Tear gas might give him just enough time to do the same. There are never any quick, clean, easy alternatives. That's why cops always try negotiations first.

Sure, but in this hypothetical I am suggesting alternatives to "shoot at the guy through the hostage." The sharpshooter MIGHT not succeed and that will make the hostage-taker kill his prisoner. The tear gas MIGHT give him time to do the same. Shooting at the hostage WILL result in the hostage's death.

What I'm saying is that before you take one of the most drastic measures available, you'd better damn well have considered any and all other options and found that none of them have any chance of working. If you've considered everything, I mean EVERYthing, and the only option left is shooting the hostage...or dropping bombs on residential areas...then...all right, if you must.

Micha: Furthermore, even if you were to rel;ease prsoners, as Israel has done in the past, you would also want to make sure this terrorist tactic would not be considered worthwhile in the long run.

Good point. However, I can't help thinking that refusing to negotiate with terrorists hasn't exactly stopped terrorism. In this case it was a choice between two undesirable outcomes: either refuse to negotiate and risk never getting back the guys who were kidnapped, or agree to negotiate and have Hezbollah say "Hey, this is great, now whenever we want something from them all we have to do is kidnap a couple more of their people." It seems to me like a no-win situation.

How long do you think towns and cities in Israel or anywhere could function if they were routinly attacked by rockets. Even if the casualties were only in the tens or even less? Israeli houses have bomb shelters, which reduce casualties. But society cannot function if its citizens have to run to shelters at a drop of a hat.

I don't know how you've managed to function in this kind of environment. The problem here is that, until all or the majority of people in the Middle East become able to accept or at least tolerate Israel's presence there, the problem will continue and it will be unmnanagable. Even if the attacks on Lebanon had worked perfectly, it would've only provided a temporary respite. There would eventually be more attacks on Israel. There really isn't anything I can think of that can be done about it, other than annihilating everybody in the region who opposes Israel's existence or abandoning the region entirely.

100-200 rockets were shot on Israel at a daily basis during the war. Do you think that just 5 or 10 casualties from rockets is acceptable?

If you're saying 1000 to 2000 people on the Israeli side were killed in that span on top of the Lebanese dead, no, I don't think that's acceptable. What was the death toll?

But again, what can be done to put a stop to attacks like that? I honestly can't think of anything. You blow up their weapons, they'll only get more. You kill their people, they'll only recruit more, since they have enough people on their side that they're able to just throw away the lives of many of those people by sending them on suicide bombing missions. You kill their leader, somebody will take his place. I'm sorry, but it seems like no matter how much you do there's no way to win.

But even with such methods. Do you expect Israelis to simply sit while being bombarded as lasers or rockets hit the missiles being fired at them, even assuming the system was 100% foolproof?

Actually, if the system was 100% foolproof there'd be no need to retaliate at all. You could just sit back, watch the rockets get shot down, and laugh at the people firing them; "Ah, look at those idiots, they're still firing rockets even after our defenses have kept the last 792 from hitting us. If they had any brains they'd try something else." Face it, they would look stupid, and you'd be safe.

Any part of Israel is in range of rockets from someplace in the the midle east. How long do you think Israel could survive if it were to evacuate areas in response to rockets?

I don't know. Under these kings of circumstances, I'm amazed you've lasted this long.

But I will tell you this: whenever you go on the offensive and somebody who was not involved in the conflict dies as a result, you make more enemies. Just like the U.S. did when it went into Iraq, and even Afghanistan.

That's why I'm in favor of the U.S. fighting a purely defensive war. Offense doesn't work on terrorists, because terrorists move around. They don't stay in one location that you can blow up without taking out innocent people.

Look at what Bush tried to do: the way he was talking, he wanted to go around the world with his armed forces, going after terrorists wherever they might be, threatening any country that sponsored terrorists. It didn't work. Even the "world's only remaining superpower" can barely manage that with one single country.

What if they tried something else? What if they said "forget occupying nations and trying to change their governments, let's just blow them up instead. Let's nuke any country that harbors terrorists." Can you imagine what would happen if they did that? Sure, they'd kill the terrorists...and a lot of people who aren't terrorists...and they'd be hated all over the world.

By now you might be thinking "OK, why don't you tell me what WOULD work?" I wish I could. I wish I had a solution. I don't. I only know that some things DON'T work, and that I can tell when they aren't working.

I don't know all the reasons why the people behind 9/11 hate the American people so much. I don't know why the people in Hezbollah and Hamas hate Israel so much. There are religious differences, there is the land issue, but I'm guessing that there are also many other reasons, that one terrorist has a grudge against the U.S. because some American military action killed his sister years ago, another terrorist has a grudge against Israel because a piece of their ordnance killed his father in the past.

As long as people keep getting caught in the crossfire and dying, we're adding to the ranks of our enemies. This is much easier said than done, this might even sound stupid, but it seems to me that the only effective way to reduce terrorism and thin those ranks is to adopt foreign policy that angers as few people as possible.

If you are seriously suggesting that you would only wish one day of prison on someone who killed your wife and child...perhaps you are a much kinder man than I am. But that seems an insult to the dead and a slap in the face to those left behind.

24 hours of pain, non-stop, with me able to watch. I might be satisfied during the first hour. Maybe the second. I can't see myself watching the guy in screaming torment for 24 consecutive hours and still saying "more, more, make him suffer MORE!"

Prison isn't non-stop pain, but it is painful, and it's cumulative. If you have 10 minutes of absolute misery per day, every day, for 25 years or longer, well, what kind of effect do you think that'll have on somebody's sanity? And that's assuming it's just 10 minutes a day.

I doubt the recidivism rate is a result of people WANTING to go back, although I realize that in some cases people get to the point where they feel like they can't function outside. I consider it more likely that it's the result of a person's prison experiences turning them into emotionally unstable wrecks of human beings who wind up snapping and getting arrested again, or that nobody is willing to hire them after they get out and they go back to crime in order to support themselves.

Considering the fact that many of those who get out of prison are soon back in, I don't know if it is quite the Dantes Inferno that you think it is. You'd think those in the know would do anything to avoid going back. But I have no intention of finding out, so...

Posted by: Rob Brown at December 10, 2006 05:11 PM

Have you been in prison for 25 years? Do you know what it's like? If not, how can you possibly know whether it's too good for him, or not? Me, I'd rather die than go to prison after the stories I've heard about it.

I think you're leading with your heart, not your head. I think you have a good heart, and emotion certainly has its place in the world. But emotion is highly personal, idiosyncratic, and a very poor lens through which to make decisions about public policy.

You say you've heard stories about how brutal prison can be. But have you put them in context? In 2000, the U.S. prison population was roughly 2.2 million. According to a group called Stop Prisoner Rape, Inc., about 25,000 prisoners in the U.S. are raped each year. That's roughly 1.1%. It's still an alarming statistic -- but hardly an epidemic.

Posted by: Rob Brown at December 10, 2006 05:11 PM

Because in many cases, sending a guy to prison is like throwing him in with a pack of rabid dogs and turning a blind eye to whatever happens next.

The statistics don't seem to bear that out.

Posted by: Rob Brown at December 10, 2006 05:11 PM

That is tantamount to torture, and I believe torture is worse than killing somebody because torture goes on and on and on for hours or days or months or years and traumatizes a person for their entire life. If somebody gets shot in the head, it's over in less than a minute. Boom, they're dead, they don't suffer. Their loved ones suffer, but they're eventually able to get on with their lives.

The punishment must fit the crime, it must not be WORSE than the crime. If that means life for life, so be it. But 25 consecutive years of brutal beatings, rapes, and dehumanization for the taking of a life? No, I can't condone that.

I believe your conclusion -- that prison is tantamount to torture -- is based on faulty premises, as I've demonstrated above.

By the way, please be careful about portraying murderers as the real victims. I know someone whose 21-year-old nephew was murdered this year. He had taken some of his adult friends, and a little girl, to see a local musical production. He returned home and dropped the girl off to his family. He was then going to take his friends out for a late dinner. But a group of would-be robbers was walking down the street and decided that this young man and his friends were potential witnesses. They walked up behind the car, surprising everyone within, and fired a gun at my co-worker's nephew. The bullet tore through his skull and brain, and then through one of the breasts of a female in the front passenger's seat.

My co-worker's nephew spent time in a coma and then died. Before he did, his head swelled up to the size of a watermelon.

Not only do the passengers of the car have to live with the trauma of what they witnessed that evening -- a bullet tearing through the head of their friend -- but the boy's parents have become severely depressed.

The victim, by the way, was a well-loved and respected pianist in his father's church. The victim had just gotten his minister's license, and eventually wanted to become a funeral director.

That last part is so painfully ironic my eyes well up with tears when I think about it.

Rob, I truly believe you have a good heart and are passionate about what you believe. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but you're kind of putting your foot in it here.

Prison is filled with criminals, many of whom are violent. That certainly increases the probability of problems. But, you know, if you don't want to end up there, a great place to start is by not committing crimes.

I'm aware that our justice system is imperfect, by the way. But that doesn't mean that everyone who ends up in prison is a victim.

1Rob, I'll give you a very short answer so as not to drag this too long.

1) The situation of Israeel dealing with neighboring enemies, and the situation of distant Europeans, Americans and Canadians dealing with international terrorists like Al-Quaida is quite different.

2) Israel does not win and does not find perfect solutions, it survives. It survives by providing its people with a livable environment. Most of the time our life is as normal as any western country. But in order to achieve that we use a combination of defensive and offensive measures. We sometime have to fight wars. These measures are not perfect. I defenitly would like to see my governnment make better use of diplomacy and make a greater effort for peace. But we do survive, rather well actually. This is not a theoretical discussion in some distant country across the atlantic, it's practice. It depends among other things on the fact that our neighbors know there is a price for attacking us.

For example, a few years ago we had weekly and almost daily suicide attacks that killed many. Now we haven't had one in many months, and even when one does succeed, it kills few. Back then peolle (not myself) were afraid to go out to restaurant or be in buses, now our life thrives again. That's how we live.
-----------------------
Bill Mulligan wrote:
"He murdered a kid. In cold blood. For being a Jew."
Here is a point I consider very important, although not all Israeis understand it, and I'm not sure the Palestinians make the distinction. But, when Jews live as a powerless minority and some antisemite kills one of them, he is killed for being a Jew. But we have made a decision not to be powerless by founding our own country with its own army. This power comes with responsibility. we are no longer passive but active. We are not killed for being Jewish now, but for being Israelis, for belonging to a country that has good and bad policies that have political consequences. I consider it a very important distinction.

It does that by using defensive methods and offensive methods that deter its enemies from striking, not always but some of the time. Every once in a while we fight wars. Not perfect wars that end al the problems,

Posted by: Rob Brown at December 10, 2006 06:35 PM

Striking back with equal force sends the message just fine.

Really? Because prior to the invasion of Lebanon, that's what Israel was doing -- reacting to each provocation with a relatively proportionate response. It wasn't working.

Prior to September 11, 2001, that's how we'd react to terrorists. They'd commit an attack against us, we'd lob some rockets at an area believed to be a terrorist camp. Again, didn't work. We ended up with the attacks of 9/11.

I'm afraid the facts don't bear out your thesis that proportionate response sends a message "just fine."

Micha--point taken. But would he have done what he did if he knew that the family was one of the many Israelis of Arab descent?

But still, point taken.

And I might add, I doubt very much that I would be as even handed as you are were our positions reversed. You are a true credit to your country, even if you feel like you are being assailed from both extremes.

Rob-- As Bill Myers said, you have a good heart. I suspect, as time goes on, you will have reason to have a less benign view of criminals (I'm not suggesting you are pro-criminal, by the way). But it is important that we remain humane, even to those who may not appear to deserve it. For myself, I don't really have much ability to feel any sense of mercy to certain elements...but this is not something that I think makes me a better person.

To Bill Myers:

I'm truly sorry that your friend and his family had to go through what they did and live with the aftermath, it sounds horrible.

I never said that criminals were the "real victims", just that the punishment doesn't always fit the crime. If somebody becomes part of that 2.2 million, I don't think that fits the crime. If, on the other hand, he goes to prison and winds up preying on other inmates, that punishment also doesn't fit the crime because the guy isn't suffering much at all and he's continuing to victimize people, some of whom might only be in there for possession of marijuana or something.

I consider myself a liberal but one place I break from the majority of liberals is on capital punishment. I'm not in favor of dragging everybody to the gas chamber or injection table kicking and screaming and sobbing, but if it's a case where a guy did something like what you described and doesn't care at all, then I'd say he should die. Also, if we've got a case of somebody who has a life sentence and would rather die than spend the rest of his life in prison, why put him on suicide watch? Why not grant him his wish? You get a dangerous criminal out of the way and you're no longer spending taxpayer money to feed and house him.

That's how I'd deal with certain unrepentant murderers. As for people who commit manslaughter or grand larceny or fraud or any number of other things, I'd have to think about that. But whatever conclusion I come to, it won't involve rape (unless the crime was rape, because then the punishment would fit the crime).

Prior to September 11, 2001, that's how we'd react to terrorists. They'd commit an attack against us, we'd lob some rockets at an area believed to be a terrorist camp. Again, didn't work. We ended up with the attacks of 9/11.

Bill, we ended up with those attacks because Dubya breezed into office, wondered why Clinton had been paying so much attention to some guy named "Bin Laden", ignored the memo telling him Bin Laden was determined to attack inside the U.S., and just went about everything half-assed.

The WTC was bombed in '93. It was not attacked again until 2001, in other words it was not attacked during the Clinton administration. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Islamic terrorists even managed to attack a location on U.S. soil (I'm obviously not counting embassies) before that. Timothy McVeigh did so, but he was clearly not working with Bin Laden.

Do you think anything Bush has done is working any better than what was tried before? I've heard people point to Libya and saying "See? By invading Iraq we showed everybody we were serious and scared Libya into getting rid of ITS weapons." But Libya did not disarm because of the invasion of Iraq, as explained in the piece "Why Libya Gave Up The Bomb" by Flynt Leverett. Google it, you can read it on many different sites.

To Micha:

It sounds like the problem isn't as bad as I thought, but it still don't envy you guys your position.

To Bill Mulligan:

For myself, I don't really have much ability to feel any sense of mercy to certain elements...but this is not something that I think makes me a better person.

I don't feel that makes me superior or anything, I suspect it's just a result of my own past suffering that I feel that much compassion for others who suffer. Even if that person has done something to me, I'll eventually feel sorry for them if I see them suffer enough.

To Bill Mulligan and Myers:

Thanks for what you said about me having a good heart, cause even if I turn out to be wrong on everything else I'd hope that at least my heart would be in the right place.

Oops again. I said:

The WTC was bombed in '93. It was not attacked again until 2001, in other words it was not attacked during the Clinton administration.

I'd meant to type "it was not attacked again during the Clinton administration," since that administration does include 1993.

> Maybe you don’t live somewhere where you drive so your attitude is such you could give a rat‘s ass about the price of gasoline. Well, let’s just jack those fuel prices way, way up so the cost of your groceries (which are mainly trucked around the country) goes through the roof and leaves your wallet full of dust and not much else.

We're headed that way regardless because those in charge may have bleated all the right words back in the 70s about never being held hostage at the pumps again but they weren't willing to back those words up with action. ie spending what it took in a Project: Manhattan-style effort to come up with a viable alternative to digging more holes in the ground. And we're still paying the price - figuratively, as well as literally - for that lack of leadership.

> And football "hooliganism" in Britain has resulted in riots where numerous people have been killed. The latter problem doesn't occur with anything close to the same frequency or severity in the U.S.

Apples and oranges. There is little in the U.S. that can begin to compare with the intensity of emotions involving soccer/football which exists in Britain and some other countries. Look at Canada and Hockey. The 'Rocket Richard riots of the 50s, for example.

> You'd think teaching our personnel how to speak Arabic would have been a priority sometime since 9/11.

And you'd think having a Secretary of State who is conversant with the region and its problems would have been a priority. But, no.

> Way to give a guy douche chills first thing in the morning, I could feel the ol’ sphincter tightening up at the prospect (Jeb successful). We can only hope the damage is so severe.

Then again we may yet wind up with Billary in charge. Talk about lose-lose ...

> Regardless of your critisism of Rice, I don't think she would sabotage the thing.

Her specialty is the late Soviet Union. You're telling me that, after the hash she'd done of her last job, the Shrub administration couldn't find ANYONE better suited to the Middle-East-centered problems the U.S. is having to deal with?

>I expect people who've been labeled the "bad guys" to kill civilians and things like that. So when I hear about that happening, it doesn't surprise me. But when a nation composed of "good guys" does it, it's surprising to me...and a very nasty surprise, too!

Not to anyone who has studied history in high school. At least, not to anyone who studied it 30 0r 40 years back. They may have 'sanitized' it since then. Wouldn't surprise me.

>The Bushite view doesn't just view military action as the first options, in many cases, they view it as the only option. This is evident in their contemptuous view of diplomacy. The purpose of diplomatic talks is to try and induce others to give give you something you want or to alter their behavior. That means you don't just talk to governments that are already friendly towards you. You have to negotiate with your enemies.

That has been known to work when you're dealing with a centrally-controlled entity with clearly-defined borders, and possessed of an ability to make concessions or reach a compromise.

How do you compromise with a people who just want you dead and are willing to die in the attempt to achieve that goal? How do you enter into diplomatic talks with a fragmented entity with a fluid chain of command? How do you negotiate with those who just want to eradicate your society as even an abstract concept?

> 1) The truth is that there are no good guys and bad guys. In the real world things are more complicated.

It was, I think, John Wayne who once said "They tell me the world isn't just 'black and white' and I say why the hell not?"

> even if those opponents happen to be US troops just following orders (another fact glossed over).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are laws governing what the U.S. military can do within American borders. If so, those orders may have been of questionable legality in which case one would be perfectly within one's right to oppose them.

> A writer, one who is not PAD and who shall remain nameless, once said that it would've been good to bomb Dublin to smithereens when the IRA declared war on Britain (to be fair, I have no way of knowing whether he really thought this was a good idea or was just ranting mindlessly or both). The sad thing is that Israel actually did something like that earlier this year; to get at a terrorist organization located somewhere within Lebanon, they bombed Lebanon to smithereens.

Bit of a difference, old boy, between the IRA placing a bomb in the occasional mall and Hezbollah lobbing rockets at Israel. For a more accurate comparison, what if the IRA were lobbing war surplus V-1s at London? Oh, wait, someone did do that. And got their country - Nazi Germany - bombed out in retaliation. And rightly so.

> As a Brit I've worked with a number of Americans over the years and I will offer two very generalised observations;
1. You always seem to be genuinely surprised when people don't like you, or your country, or your country's actions.
2. You frequently follow up the surprise with outrage, insults and/or violence instead of considering that maybe you are at fault in some areas.

I'm soprry to say that some years back, in Osaka, I confronted a caucasian tourist with "Hey what part of the States are you from?" He answered [actual answer lost in the dimness of time], then asked which part I was from. "Oh, I'm not from the States, I'm Canadian." To which he asked how I knew he was an American. "Easy, just the way you were shouting obscenities at the locals just now."

Yeah, I know, that's a minority of cases. But it does do a nice job of feeding the stereotype.

>Now as for the guns being deliberately placed in residential areas...they put them there for the same reason criminals take hostages. What Israel did was basically the same as a cop shooting hostages, human shields, dead to get at the criminals he had cornered. Or trying to shoot around the hostages, screwing up, and killing several of them by accident. You think that cop would keep his job after doing something like that?

Depends. Again it is a bad analogy. More to the point would be if the hostage-taker had an accomplice in the back room lobbing mortar shells all around the neighbourhood. In that case the cop should get a medal for stopping them.

> On the part of the U.S., dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have ended the war a lot sooner than it would otherwise have ended, it may have meant that U.S. troops didn't have to fight a long and bloody war of attrition before Japan was defeated, but despite that it was still, IMO, wrong.

Go to Japan and talk to older Japanese who were around back then. Get their opinion. I have. Many figure it was indeed the right thing to do. The imperialist military had the country in a stranglehold and would quite happily have used up every last Japanese defending their screwed-up sense of 'bushido'. Seeing a couple of cities vanish in the blink of an eye is what got the Emperor to take a hand in putting an end to it. Am I happy it happened? No. But the alternatives - either bloody invasion, or starving them out - would have been worse.

>The impression I got was that Israel's response was out of proportion to the initial attacks, since the total number of people killed by the rockets launched numbered in the dozens, rather than the hundreds or thousands, and that some of the rockets failed to even kill anybody. Am I correct, or mistaken?

Irrelevant. Just because their weapons were not terribly accurate is no excuse to wait until they get better gunsights.

> But I think that even Canada would hesitate to release prisoners in response to terrorists taking hostages.

Depends on who is at 24 Sussex. Nowadays? Maybe not. But when then-Prime Minister Trudeau was confronted with just that situation - the home-grown FLQ kidnapping a Labour Minister and a British Diplomat (eventually killing the Minister) - he didn't hesitate to declare martial law, called in the army and stomped the terrorist movement flat. That was 35 years ago and they haven't resurfaced since.

> Actually, if the system was 100% foolproof there'd be no need to retaliate at all. You could just sit back, watch the rockets get shot down, and laugh at the people firing them; "Ah, look at those idiots, they're still firing rockets even after our defenses have kept the last 792 from hitting us.

The Katyushka(sp?) rockets probably cost a few thousand a piece. Interceptor missiles probably cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions a piece. How many billions are you, as a taxpayer, willing to see go down a rathole before you decide the government should put a stop to it?

"Miniscule"? Ah, yes, very fond memories of my years there, back in the days of abbreviated female fashions. ;-)

(PAD doesn't have a monopoly on playing with the language...)

A digression:

" And football "hooliganism" in Britain has resulted in riots where numerous people have been killed. The latter problem doesn't occur with anything close to the same frequency or severity in the U.S."

The cultural analogy is probably that 'what team do you support' is akin to 'what gang colours do you wear' in some of your less salubrious urban centres. There's also a sectarian element to much of the antipathy (Catholic vs Protestant).

Historically (past 100 years) there have been clashes between supporters of rival clubs, ranging from the high spirited to the mindlessly violent, but the figures are on the decline thanks in part to technology and legislation used to identify and exclude from matches the hard core offenders:

Statistics on football-related arrests and banning orders 2005-2006
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/football-disorder/

Arrests for football-related offences down by 7%, to 3,462 - this follows on from a 11% decrease in 2004­-5 and a 10% decrease in 2003-4. This represents a 22% reduction over three years after annual adjustments.

There remains a lingering domestic football disorder problem but for the second year running the total number of arrests at League and Cup matches was the lowest since records began.

League attendances in excess of 29 million saw just 2,651 arrests – an arrest rate of less than 0.01, or one arrest per 10,973 spectators.

Describing fatalities as "numerous" is arguably stretching things a tad though. I recall 96 fatalities at Hillsborough, but they were not due to hooliganism: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_disaster)

Apart from that I don't recall any recent fatalities, and they would probably be rare/sensational enough to have been the lead story on national news.

Cheers.