Condi says we aren't safe yet

[NorthSideSox72]

So Condi Rice echoed W's statements that we are safer, but not safe, from terror. And that more attacks are still possible.

 

Duh.

 

Here is my question: How can these very smart people be so dumb as to think they can defeat terror in this manner? Its as if they don't understand the very nature of the beast. They could kill thousands of them, kill off three quarters of those capable of serious attacks, and guess what? The other quarter would STILL be a threat, and that group would easily add to their ranks by using the renewed hatred against the U.S.

 

Newsflash for the Administration: You cannot defeat terror as if it were a nation-state. Not possible. Your attempt to create a cage match in Iraq will not allow you to conveniently attract and defeat all terrorists in this manner. And most importantly, if you do nothing to address the core causes of the hate which creates these animals, then the "war" will be fought in perpetuity.

 

To borrow from a great film quote... these are the dumbest smart people I have ever seen in the political arena.

 

Of course, here is the wildcard, and the reason why the next administration may end up making all the same mistakes (regardless of party). To actually unwind our current position in Middle East affairs (that being one of weakness - overextended militarily, needing local resources to survive, and horrific PR), and to make some inroads into eliminating the root causes of hate (poverty, corrupt governments, interference by global powers, and the rise of control-hungry religious crusaders in all the major religions of the region), would take a LOT of time and a LOT of money. It will take more than 4 or 8 years. And further, it will take a kind of courage that American politicians seem to have become allergic to - the kind that doesn't involve using violence as a tool.

 

Courage means putting yourself at risk to help another. By that definition, it takes a lot more courage to stand up and address these concerns, than it does to just point a finger and say "you are wrong, and we will destroy you for it."

[Rex Kickass]

In my opinion, there are too many politicians who use the existence of a terror to fight against as a plus rather than a minus.

[NorthSideSox72]

In my opinion, there are too many politicians who use the existence of a terror to fight against as a plus rather than a minus.

Also an excellent point. But if ot goes on for too long, that will cease to work for them.

[kapkomet]

There's an excellent piece I read on all of this earlier this weekend. I'll see if I can dig it up. It's basically an article on Iraq, why we have to stay, and why the whole thing is a house of cards.

 

It clearly states why Bush has gotten trapped into the 'stay the course' mentality - and Iran has won a very important piece of the chess match. It's not 'check-mate', but it's certainly 'check' on that front.

[Flash Tizzle]

Newsflash for the Administration: You cannot defeat terror as if it were a nation-state. Not possible. Your attempt to create a cage match in Iraq will not allow you to conveniently attract and defeat all terrorists in this manner. And most importantly, if you do nothing to address the core causes of the hate which creates these animals, then the "war" will be fought in perpetuity.

 

Of course, here is the wildcard, and the reason why the next administration may end up making all the same mistakes (regardless of party). To actually unwind our current position in Middle East affairs (that being one of weakness - overextended militarily, needing local resources to survive, and horrific PR), and to make some inroads into eliminating the root causes of hate (poverty, corrupt governments, interference by global powers, and the rise of control-hungry religious crusaders in all the major religions of the region), would take a LOT of time and a LOT of money. It will take more than 4 or 8 years. And further, it will take a kind of courage that American politicians seem to have become allergic to - the kind that doesn't involve using violence as a tool.

Hold on--

 

We're somehow supposed to "eliminate root causes of hate" by devoting resources to address problems such as corrupt governments and officials?

 

 

How exactly does this occur?

 

Sure, sounds idealistic, but explain how we address the issue? I find it's a problem beyond our control. When a sizable portion of the 19 hijackers were educated individuals from well-off families, you realize issues such as poverty and dispair -- which many associate with terrorism -- have no bearing on this issue.

 

Honestly, I'm tired of hearing about the Middle East and their issues. Why should we ultimately care how their citizens regard us? Don't tell me, "because it's the right thing to do," or "these people are oppressed!!111." If that were the case, Darfur wouldn't nearly be the slaughterhouse it has become.

 

Yes, we've certaintly created discontent because of our war efforts. No denying that fact. But if it were up to me, I'd remove our presence from that region of the world. Atone for our mistakes. This would ultimately cure terrorism quicker than grand visions of institutional change. Essentially kills two birds -- distance ourselves from connections with Israel, and remove the rally-cry of terrorist organizations whom criticize American presence in Saudi Arabia, among other countries.

 

Finish what we need to finish with Iraq and their government and then leave.....them....alone.

[NorthSideSox72]

Hold on--

 

We're somehow supposed to "eliminate root causes of hate" by devoting resources to address problems such as corrupt governments and officials?

How exactly does this occur?

 

Sure, sounds idealistic, but explain how we address the issue? I find it's a problem beyond our control. When a sizable portion of the 19 hijackers were educated individuals from well-off families, you realize issues such as poverty and dispair -- which many associate with terrorism -- have no bearing on this issue.

 

Honestly, I'm tired of hearing about the Middle East and their issues. Why should we ultimately care how their citizens regard us? Don't tell me, "because it's the right thing to do," or "these people are oppressed!!111." If that were the case, Darfur wouldn't nearly be the slaughterhouse it has become.

 

Yes, we've certaintly created discontent because of our war efforts. No denying that fact. But if it were up to me, I'd remove our presence from that region of the world. Atone for our mistakes. This would ultimately cure terrorism quicker than grand visions of institutional change. Essentially kills two birds -- distance ourselves from connections with Israel, and remove the rally-cry of terrorist organizations whom criticize American presence in Saudi Arabia, among other countries.

 

Finish what we need to finish with Iraq and their government and then leave.....them....alone.

 

What you are hitting on here is an important point - why do we care? I answered that, but maybe I need to be more direct. We care because we NEED that region. Thus, are position of weakness. We need their natural resources.

 

And by the way, if the Administration made a priority of getting us off of oil (which is what I was getting at as one of the things we need to do), and if we stopped supplying Israel with arms... instead of starting a war in Iraq, arming Israel and then trying to feign neutrality... then I could have respected that position. Because then there would at least be SOME chance that they would leave us alone as well.

 

But there is no guarantee in that. None. We could leave Iraq and Afghanistan, stop supplying Israel with arms, and even reduce our need for their oil dramatically. But will that work at this point? Or will the hatred follow us across the globe anyway?

 

Also, you are seriously mistaken if you think poverty and despair have no bearing on terrorism. They are absolutely key pieces to the puzzle. Osama came from a rich family too, you know. But who are the people who support him bodily? Who are the suicide bombers? Who is the public that now sides with those who would oppose the U.S.? They are the masses. And they are not rich.

Edited September 10, 2006 by NorthSideSox72

[Flash Tizzle]

What you are hitting on here is an important point - why do we care? I answered that, but maybe I need to be more direct. We care because we NEED that region. Thus, are position of weakness. We need their natural resources.

 

Oh, I agree. I'd be foolish not to acknowledge the importance of the Middle East to our countries economic livelihood.

 

But couldn't we still import oil without an actual military presence in the Middle East?

But there is no guarantee in that. None. We could leave Iraq and Afghanistan, stop supplying Israel with arms, and even reduce our need for their oil dramatically. But will that work at this point? Or will the hatred follow us across the globe anyway?

It'll likely follow us. For what we've done recently in Iraq, there's an entire generation who'll grow up despising our country. Even if peace prevails in the Middle East, and we removes ourselves from occupied countries, there's still the high probability children of Iraq will bottle their anger inside and someday -- perhaps 20 years from now -- launch terrorist attacks against our nation. I believe it's important to break the chain of terrorists arising from American wars. The original gulf war was important in creating Al-Qeada. Who knows what develops from the recent one, which has gone on nearly 10 times longer.

 

Also, you are seriously mistaken if you think poverty and despair have no bearing on terrorism. They are absolutely key pieces to the puzzle. Osama came from a rich family too, you know. But who are the people who support him bodily? Who are the suicide bombers? Who is the public that now sides with those who would oppose the U.S.? They are the masses. And they are not rich.

It's an important piece, yes, but my purpose in citing the 9/11 terrorists is to suggest addressing poverty won't affect nearly as much as people may believe.

 

IMO, the difference between someone who's a poor Al-Qeada member and an educated, middle class Al-Qeada member is the person with more money/higher education has access to larger terror plots. It's sort of an odd, microcosm of society -- people with money are given more opportunities. They're the ones who can travel, pay for tickets, attend flight school, etc.

 

It's just a situation in which I believe we're better off not meddling. We attempt to educate the children of Islamic countires, we'll be accused of pushing Western ideas on them. Teachers will be kidnapped, threatened, killed, etc. We give them money for rebuilding, corrupt rulers (Saddam) build their palaces and ignore their citizens. We attempt to push leaders who may establish democratic rule, they're immediately discredited for being pawns of our country.

 

Yeah, I don't know what the hell we can do.

 

And to hear to people talk about attacking Iran? Wow, we'd really be on the receiving end of generations upon generation of terrorists.

[NorthSideSox72]

Flash, you asked me what we could be doing about the hate factors I mentioned, and about our position of weakness at this point. I didn't respond to those right away, as I didn't have time to write a cogent response. Well, I still don't have much time, but here is a brief list of things that could be done to make things trend better, other than simply killing terrorists. Some are already being done, others are not. Some are more likely to happen than others. Some will probably never happen...

 

--Dramatically increase funding and prioritization of alternative energy research and design (this is talked about, but never really followed up on by Congress), and set hard deadlines for certain technologies to be available. How do you do this when the oil companies own all the patents, you ask? Simple. The U.S. government has the authority, if it chooses, to loosen patent protections if it is needed for national defense. This occurred during WWII. Give the oil companies an ultimatum - build this stuff now and reap the benefits, or we remove the patent protections and open it up to anyone who wants to have at it. Their choice.

--Stop funding the Israeli military (directly and indirectly)

--Strange as this sounds... send MORE troops to Iraq, so we have some hope of actually stabilizing that country in the short term. Less crime and more stability in that country can buy us a lot of good will, potentially. And that whole military control to Iraq ceremony was a bit of a farce - it was just one infantry division, not the whole military. Things over there are not stable enough to start to withdraw.

--Allow for an independent Kurdistan (this was discussed in another thread - others disagree with me)

--Express a willingness to broker any peace deal where Israel and the Palestinians are willing to come to the table

--Key any peace deal as above on a neutral jerusalem (if neither will accept that, then we can't help them)

--Structure economic deals so that when Iraq stabilizes a bit more, companies from all over the globe will source some manufacturing and other plants in Iraq for cheap. This allows for a working middle class, and draws people from all over the region in a positive manner.

--This same economic plan, which could be modeled after countries like India, can be "encouraged" in countries like Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Jordan and other already-stable nations in the region. Money is a powerful tool, more so than our military in many ways, and I think it wouldn't take much to get that done. The U.S. is already working towards this in Turkey.

--Engage in a war of information, particularly via the internet, in countries like Iran and Syria. Be better at marketing than the extremists are. Those countries find it difficult to keep people off the net, much as they try. That could be our "in". Its an ideal spot for CIA, who is recruiting a ton of intelligent, tech savvy college grads nowadays, who could be enticed to work oversease just part time and still achieve this end.

--Northern Iraq (Kurdistan) has many valuable natural resources, including natural gas and certain metals. Financially encourage American companies to set up shop there, by investing the initial capital for them, and assuring them that first purchases will be made by our own military there.

--To combat corrupt officials and governments, it depends on our relationship with them. This is complicated. Jordan is already helping us this way, though its not well-publicized. Unlike Pakistan, Jordan maintains a relationship with us AND tries to market the positives of US presence to its own people. In Iraq, the key is selective bargaining. Make it an edict, up and down the coalition, that business will be given to bidding parties based primarily on their conduct. This is not easy to do, but can be attempted at least, and would encourage local business middle men treat their folks a little better. This sort of good will is tough to track, but ultimately might do some good. U.S. companies do this all the time - suppliers must meet certain criteria for quality, environmental impact, etc.

--Another avenue that I don't think has been attempted is to try to open up a better dialogue with Islam, but here in the States. If that relationship could improve (perhaps by meeting some of their requests here), then that good will could flow back to the Middle East. Islam, like all religions, sees its clerics and high officials do a lot of moving around internationally. Plus there is the pilgrimage. If Muslims in the U.S. think more highly of us, then that effect could bleed over to others. Its a back door way of building a bridge to peace. Time consuming yes, and no guarantee, but it will probably be a positive in the long run.

--One thing they are already doing in Iraq which is a positive is CCC-like situations, where locals are given jobs in cleaning up and setting up new facilities and resources for Iraq. This was a major success in Japan and Germany. This can be furthered by giving those plants contracts to build things to be sent back to the U.S.

--Here is a final one - and I am probably going to get flamed for suggesting it. But I think it would be very helpful in the long run if we increased the immigrant limits for most Middle Eastern countries. Keep the security requirements the same - but allow many, many more who pass to come over, especially those with education and the ability to find work. I think many people in those countries know at heart how much better things are here. If they see more and more of their friends and family going to the U.S. and enjoying life there, that will be of great benefit.

 

So, there are some of my ideas. Many are politically difficult because they either appear to be somehow fraternizing with the enemy (complete B.S. to me, but for many, stubbornness is seen as courage), or because their effect cannot be easily measured. But the effect would occur nonetheless.

[samclemens]

CIA: 5,000 Terrorists Captured or Killed

 

does this belong in this thread? it seemed to fit here best at first glance and i dont have time to make sure because i'm at work. but i think the above article is worth noting.

[Balta1701]

CIA: 5,000 Terrorists Captured or Killed

 

does this belong in this thread? it seemed to fit here best at first glance and i dont have time to make sure because i'm at work. but i think the above article is worth noting.

Some 70,000 people received weapons training and religious instruction in al-Qaeda camps, German police say.

 

The claim came at the retrial of Mounir al-Motassadek, a Moroccan man accused of involvement in the 9/11 attacks, which were partly planned in Germany.

 

A German police officer told the court recruits at the camps were taught they had a duty to kill US citizens.

Linkity.

[Jenksismyhero]

I think the war on terror is like the war on drugs.

 

Is it going to solve the problem completely? No.

 

Is it doing something to solve the problem? Yes.

 

 

I just don't buy the argument that the more we fight terrorists, the more terrorists we make (both in our actual fighting against them and collateral damage done while fighting). First, you can't make someone hate you more when they are ready to strap a bomb on themselves in the name of jihad. That's the peak of hatred. Second, any collateral damage done pales in comparison to what they do to their own people on a daily basis. Do we make mistakes? Absolutely, see the whole prison fiasco. But you can't tell me something like that makes every middle eastern person want to become jihadists when they have to hear about the same jihadists killing women and children on a daily basis. We create as many enemies as we gain supporters, you just never hear about the supporters.

 

Also, I think that automatically writing off a military campaign to rid the world of a hatred ideology is wrong. Although terrorism is more complex in many ways, there have been other hateful ideologies throughout history that have been eradicated by war. Most recently WWII defeated nazism and fascism. Obviously many distinctions can be made between the two, but I still think they are very similar: lots of poor people pissed off at their lot in life, some rich elite, some crazy spokespeople for an ideology and an enemy to blame it on.

 

 

 

Just my two cents.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think the war on terror is like the war on drugs.

 

Is it going to solve the problem completely? No.

 

Is it doing something to solve the problem? Yes.

I just don't buy the argument that the more we fight terrorists, the more terrorists we make (both in our actual fighting against them and collateral damage done while fighting). First, you can't make someone hate you more when they are ready to strap a bomb on themselves in the name of jihad. That's the peak of hatred. Second, any collateral damage done pales in comparison to what they do to their own people on a daily basis. Do we make mistakes? Absolutely, see the whole prison fiasco. But you can't tell me something like that makes every middle eastern person want to become jihadists when they have to hear about the same jihadists killing women and children on a daily basis. We create as many enemies as we gain supporters, you just never hear about the supporters.

 

Also, I think that automatically writing off a military campaign to rid the world of a hatred ideology is wrong. Although terrorism is more complex in many ways, there have been other hateful ideologies throughout history that have been eradicated by war. Most recently WWII defeated nazism and fascism. Obviously many distinctions can be made between the two, but I still think they are very similar: lots of poor people pissed off at their lot in life, some rich elite, some crazy spokespeople for an ideology and an enemy to blame it on.

Just my two cents.

 

Some responses...

 

1. Naziism was present in a grand total of one country - Germany. Its presence elsewhere was at the margins. Islamic extremists, while not a majority of the population anywhere (as you note), are present in force throughout that entire region. And the fact that they are so spread out, and not the majority anywhere, makes the WWII or any other nation-state war model useless.

 

2. By fighting in Iraq, and by fighting terror in other places, we do not make people hate us more. We make more people hate us. There is a distinction there. Its that middle ground of folks in those countries who were tolerant previously, and now no longer are, that make this scary.

[jackie hayes]

--Stop funding the Israeli military (directly and indirectly)

I hear this so often, and the logic behind it just baffles me. I guess the point is to take away what links us to Israel, so noone will be mad at us. But Israel is our ally -- if it is attacked, and we've withdrawn military support, we will have two choices. Either go in ourselves to restore its sovereignty, or let things fall where they may. The first alternative seems a lot bloodier and more chaotic than allowing the Israelis to defend themselves (which they've proven very capable of doing). The second alternative could be the worst situation of all -- Israel doesn't have nukes for nothing.

 

Usually this is followed by the argument that times have changed, Israel won't be attacked, etc. How anyone can look at the Midddle East -- with national leaders like Ahmadinejad, with much popular support for the elimination of Israel, and with attacks actually happening through fronts like Hezbollah -- and believe that a nation as tiny and as hated as Israel is in no danger of being attacked, I'll never understand.

[NorthSideSox72]

I hear this so often, and the logic behind it just baffles me. I guess the point is to take away what links us to Israel, so noone will be mad at us. But Israel is our ally -- if it is attacked, and we've withdrawn military support, we will have two choices. Either go in ourselves to restore its sovereignty, or let things fall where they may. The first alternative seems a lot bloodier and more chaotic than allowing the Israelis to defend themselves (which they've proven very capable of doing). The second alternative could be the worst situation of all -- Israel doesn't have nukes for nothing.

 

Usually this is followed by the argument that times have changed, Israel won't be attacked, etc. How anyone can look at the Midddle East -- with national leaders like Ahmadinejad, with much popular support for the elimination of Israel, and with attacks actually happening through fronts like Hezbollah -- and believe that a nation as tiny and as hated as Israel is in no danger of being attacked, I'll never understand.

My logic isn't to make people less mad at us, or that Israel can defend itself. Neither are the main point to me.

There are two main problemsx I have with us staying involved is that I don't see Israel as being any more right or wrong than the Palestinians at this point. And I think that's been true for some time. Secondarily, if we want to be seen as a real broker of peace, then we cannot possily be credible in that role if we heavily support one side of the conflict and not the other.

[jackie hayes]

My logic isn't to make people less mad at us, or that Israel can defend itself. Neither are the main point to me.

There are two main problemsx I have with us staying involved is that I don't see Israel as being any more right or wrong than the Palestinians at this point. And I think that's been true for some time. Secondarily, if we want to be seen as a real broker of peace, then we cannot possily be credible in that role if we heavily support one side of the conflict and not the other.

So which option? Prop up Israel with our own military, or leave it to its own devices?

[Rex Kickass]

Well if we leave them to its own devices, they should be fine. Unless the devices we sold them don't work.

[jackie hayes]

Well if we leave them to its own devices, they should be fine. Unless the devices we sold them don't work.

Funny guy...

[NorthSideSox72]

So which option? Prop up Israel with our own military, or leave it to its own devices?

Leave Israel, and the Palestinians, alone (in terms of military support of any kind). Then hopefully, get a chance to broker a deal which will be seen as fair.

[jackie hayes]

Leave Israel, and the Palestinians, alone (in terms of military support of any kind). Then hopefully, get a chance to broker a deal which will be seen as fair.

Not the question. Once we withdraw military support/supplies, Israel's military will begin to degrade (lack of munitions, parts). I think it's obvious that it will take quite a while after the withdrawal of support for the US to gain legitimacy in the eyes of Palestinians. If Israel falls under heavy attack, perhaps by other nations, perhaps by pseudo-independent militias like Hezbollah, perhaps by more amorphous enemies, what do we do? Or is there 0% chance that any such attack happens?

[NorthSideSox72]

Not the question. Once we withdraw military support/supplies, Israel's military will begin to degrade (lack of munitions, parts). I think it's obvious that it will take quite a while after the withdrawal of support for the US to gain legitimacy in the eyes of Palestinians. If Israel falls under heavy attack, perhaps by other nations, perhaps by pseudo-independent militias like Hezbollah, perhaps by more amorphous enemies, what do we do? Or is there 0% chance that any such attack happens?

OK, that's a different question. But my answer is unchanged. Stop supplying them. They will still get munitions and supplies elsewhere, mind you. Just not high-end stuff.

 

As for Palestinian respect, there are two elements of importance here. One, it has to be made public that we have stopped arming Israel. Two, there will be more pressure elsewhere on the Globe put on the Palestinians TO trust us if we do this as well.

 

As for Israel's fortunes, well, I guess they'll have to learn how to play nice. Now, if they DO play nice, and they get attacked... different story. But that is where the U.S. needs to step in a broker, and enforce, a deal. And it needs to be enforced equally against ANYONE who breaks the rules, Isreal or otherwise.

[jackie hayes]

OK, that's a different question. But my answer is unchanged. Stop supplying them. They will still get munitions and supplies elsewhere, mind you. Just not high-end stuff.

 

As for Palestinian respect, there are two elements of importance here. One, it has to be made public that we have stopped arming Israel. Two, there will be more pressure elsewhere on the Globe put on the Palestinians TO trust us if we do this as well.

 

As for Israel's fortunes, well, I guess they'll have to learn how to play nice. Now, if they DO play nice, and they get attacked... different story. But that is where the U.S. needs to step in a broker, and enforce, a deal. And it needs to be enforced equally against ANYONE who breaks the rules, Isreal or otherwise.

Okay... Imo, you're too optimistic about Israel's fortunes. The regional powers who want Israel gone balance 2 things -- How much do we want them gone? and How likely is it that we can accomplish that? The answer to the second is, Not very, because Israel is so far superior technologically. Taking away that deterrent sounds like very, very bad policy to me.

 

It's easy to say that if Israel would just "play nice", everything would be better. But Israel has not historically initiated many of its conflicts (although I would agree that they've often been guilty of escalating them beyond any reasonable limit). It took the Palestinian lands in response to an attack. And I think Israel was right to go after Hezbollah in Lebanon, given that the Lebanese government is too weak to rein it in. That doesn't mean that I agree with their tactics (FAR from it), but the answer isn't to make them incapable of meaningful response.

 

Then there's the practical side. Suppose this policy were already in effect. With our troops already overextended in Afghanistan and Iraq, and tension with Iran to boot, do we want to be responsible for going into Lebanon to neutralize Hezbollah (really, a pretty formidable organization)? Certainly, it's not acceptable that rockets are fired into Israeli cities, something has to be done.

 

And if we were to always 'have Israel's back', why would anyone perceive us as neutral?

 

It seems that you are working off the assumption that Israel always creates its own problems. Given that, sure, I can understand the argument -- take away their weapons and they won't be such bullies. But I don't believe that's been true, that history has been so one-sided.

 

I don't want this to explode as per usual. I'm done.

[longshot7]

My logic isn't to make people less mad at us, or that Israel can defend itself. Neither are the main point to me.

There are two main problemsx I have with us staying involved is that I don't see Israel as being any more right or wrong than the Palestinians at this point. And I think that's been true for some time. Secondarily, if we want to be seen as a real broker of peace, then we cannot possily be credible in that role if we heavily support one side of the conflict and not the other.

 

Really? Do you really believe that?

 

If the Palestinians disarmed, there would be no more violence over there. But if the Israelis disarmed, there would be no Israel.

 

We have to support the "right" over the "wrong" in this conflict. It's that simple.

[NorthSideSox72]

Okay... Imo, you're too optimistic about Israel's fortunes. The regional powers who want Israel gone balance 2 things -- How much do we want them gone? and How likely is it that we can accomplish that? The answer to the second is, Not very, because Israel is so far superior technologically. Taking away that deterrent sounds like very, very bad policy to me.

 

It's easy to say that if Israel would just "play nice", everything would be better. But Israel has not historically initiated many of its conflicts (although I would agree that they've often been guilty of escalating them beyond any reasonable limit). It took the Palestinian lands in response to an attack. And I think Israel was right to go after Hezbollah in Lebanon, given that the Lebanese government is too weak to rein it in. That doesn't mean that I agree with their tactics (FAR from it), but the answer isn't to make them incapable of meaningful response.

 

Then there's the practical side. Suppose this policy were already in effect. With our troops already overextended in Afghanistan and Iraq, and tension with Iran to boot, do we want to be responsible for going into Lebanon to neutralize Hezbollah (really, a pretty formidable organization)? Certainly, it's not acceptable that rockets are fired into Israeli cities, something has to be done.

 

And if we were to always 'have Israel's back', why would anyone perceive us as neutral?

 

It seems that you are working off the assumption that Israel always creates its own problems. Given that, sure, I can understand the argument -- take away their weapons and they won't be such bullies. But I don't believe that's been true, that history has been so one-sided.

 

I don't want this to explode as per usual. I'm done.

 

 

Really? Do you really believe that?

 

If the Palestinians disarmed, there would be no more violence over there. But if the Israelis disarmed, there would be no Israel.

 

We have to support the "right" over the "wrong" in this conflict. It's that simple.

 

Judging by your responses, I think you are misunderstanding what I am getting at on this particular point. Probably my fault for not describing it better. Plus, what I am getting at may seem counter-intuitive. So I'll try it a different way...

 

Israel is far, far superior to anyone else in the region militarily. And they are being supported in that regard by the U.S. I think we all agree on that. The result is a stilted power struggle.

 

Do I think that the Palestinians will suddenly give up violence because Israel is less well-armed? Of course not, that is ridiculous. Do I think either side should completely disarm? No, and they don't need to. Do I think Israel creates all its own problems? Not at all. In fact, as I've stated previously, the biggest blame for all of this can be placed squarely at the feet of those who created Israel in its current location. So what do I mean then?

 

Think of this analogy - a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians (if it is even possible) requires a foundation on either end (like a bridge). But as it stands now, one end of the bridge is well-fortified concrete and steel, and the other is a pathetic mess of mud thatch and wood. It won't support the weight. And further, it is the U.S. that keep re-fortifying the stronger side, which in turn keeps weakening the already weak side. We, therefore, are part of the reason why peace will not work.

 

By discontinuing our military support of Israel, and putting people in the region off their stilts, we can start the whole foundation over from the bottom. As a neutral presence, we can stengthen both sides. Now, clearly, we will not achieve an immediate understanding from the Palestinians. But if we SHOW them our hand in the region, and make a real attempt and being a broker of peace, then we have a chance. And further, by doing this, we will get overwhelming support from the UN towards a peacekeeping force with some actual teeth.

 

Does this make it a little more clear? The playing field needs to be level, and we need to put down the shovel. Its the only way I see it working.

[jackie hayes]

Just to clarify my previous posts then, and not to add, I'm not only thinking about Palestine. And then to add a little, yes, contrary to what I said, I think that's essential. Hezbollah, for example, is much better armed than any group in Palestine. The bridge analogy -- two sides only -- is misleading.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 11, 2006 -> 02:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the war on terror is like the war on drugs.

 

 

Oh please. The war on terror hasn't been that big of a flop.