Our government scares the poop out of me...

[dreamgirl]

Good points there one and all RS, I also have a few;

I completely agree!!! We whether it be American people or brittish, or whatever country you are from, don't know half of the world threats. Anyone can stipulate what it may or may not be, but only the very few world leaders know what is really going on. I'm sure all of these countries wouldn't send their troops and risk lives for the hell of it if something major wasn't going on over in Iraq.

[redsquirrel]

I'm sure all of these countries wouldn't send their troops and risk lives for the hell of it if something major wasn't going on over in Iraq.

The major thing that is going on is something WE and the Allies created. There is nothing going on anymore except for suicide bombings and insurgency. The US went in under completely false pretenses regarding the WMD. Allies followed because they are just that- Allies.

We forced democracy on the country....Sure, we think democracy is great, but do they?

[redsquirrel]

:agree: May not happen in my lifetime, but it will happen. With the military recruitment numbers going down, it is just a matter of time before the gov. will not be able to defend itself.


Granted they found no link as of yet, but you can't just pack up and leave after invading a country when you BELIEVED you were doing the right thing!

You're right- we can't pack up and leave after we completely destroyed the country AND it's democracy. Now we have to clean up the mess we made.

So, now instead of knowing FOR SURE there were WMD before invasion, we find out there was nothing....which corroborates w/ the UN research. And quite frankly, they aren't gonna find any.

[redsquirrel]

I dont think the us entering Iraq gave terrorists any more reason to attack than they already have in their minds. I think the US just needed to plan things out a little better. Terrorism isnt going anywhere , whether we sit back and do nothing or take an active role against it.

Well, I maybe could agree with you here if France had been threatened or attacked. They are one of our Allies who blatantly denounced our actions in Iraq, and have they had any attacks on their country?

[Stonecold54]

[QUOTE=bad14u Granted they found no link as of yet, but you can't just pack up and leave after invading a country when you BELIEVED you were doing the right thing![/QUOTE]is that sacrasm? that is the whole problem is that people do stuff based on beliefs instead of facts...would you say the same thing if someone said that you should be kept in jail on the belief that you commited a crime instead of being found guilty of something?

[Stonecold54]

I completely agree!!! We whether it be American people or brittish, or whatever country you are from, don't know half of the world threats. Anyone can stipulate what it may or may not be, but only the very few world leaders know what is really going on. I'm sure all of these countries wouldn't send their troops and risk lives for the hell of it if something major wasn't going on over in Iraq.

the US bullies people into helping us. we basically support every nation anyway so they probably feel obligated to help.

[Primal Instinct]

Sadam could have possibly distributed chemical weapons to terrorists ( we know he had them, he used them on his own people)

Do we REALLY know this or is this what you have been told repeatedly by someone with an ulterior agenda? I assume that you are talking about the infamous gassing of the Kurds in 1988 in Halabjah. Guess what? I've got some startling news for you....the US Marine Corp reviewed the Iran-Iraq War (as they do in every world military altercation) and have determined that it was highly unlikely that Iraq gassed the Kurds. Why? Because the gas used to kill them was a cyanide based gas that is evident when you look at the victims because they have blue tinge at their extremities and they suffered from extreme muscle contractions (blood agents do this type of damage) which broke spines of the victims. That is why the prisons strap the victims into chairs or on beds- it's not for the victim's benefit- it's for your own benefit as a witness not to see this gruesome disfiguration occur.

Anyway, the Iraqis had never used blood agents like cyanide before. They simply didn't have that type of cyanide-based weapon in their arsenal. They did use mustard gas and other things of that nature but not cyanide. Do you know who DID use cyanide gas in chemical weapons attacks? Iran. They have been documented using this weapon during the Iran-Iraq War, whereas the Iraqis had never used such an item before. Uncomfortable yet?


So, why would the Iranians gas the kurds if they were revolting against Saddam who is their sworn enemy? That's an easy one. They have much to gain by an attack on these Iraqi rebels. The Iran-Iraq War was over and both nations were pretty much broke and drained of resources from the 10 year long conflict and neither side actually gained anything from it. After this war, the Kurds in northern Iraq staged an uprising against Saddam Hussein after much public and private encouragement by President George H. W. Bush - they were under the impression that they would receive US military support once it began- they never got it. It was like the Bay of Pigs fiasco in Cuba, middle eastern style. That's why they still don't trust us today. Anyhow, Saddam issued his elite Republican Guard to brutally put down the uprising. The Iranians respond with a gas attack on this region and it's a win-win situation for them because they first can get a parting post-war shot in on the cream of the crop of Saddam's forces (Republican Guard) AND Saddam's enemies get gassed in the process, making him look even more evil in the eyes of the world. Iran wanted an overthrow of Saddam in order to establish a second Islamic fundamentalist state (like they are) in the region and had for years incited riots among the shia population of Iraq, which was a primary cause for Iraq to declare war on them after he made several UN pleas to intervene in the matter and nothing was resolved.


The trouble was that Iraq didn't possess that type of weapon and Iran screwed it up in that respect. None of this really mattered though because it's perception that really matters and not facts. Another important aspect of this story is that 5,000 dead is pure exaggeration. Intelligence reports indicated far less fatalities along the lines of 500-1100 dead but who's going to argue and what would be the point anyhow? What's even more interesting is that it is very difficult to kill that many people in a chemical weapon attack such as perpetrated on the Kurds. Some of the reasons that it's so hard to achieve a high mortality rate is because of the inability to concentrate such lethal doses outdoors due to wind patterns, disbursement of accurately placed chemical munitions shells and most importantly, the intense heat from the sun and ambient air temps which burn off most of the chemical before it can seriously affect the intended targets.


Why do you think that the Bush White House was sooo silent about the Kurds' gassing? Bush Sr. KNEW that Iraq didn't do it through his vast intelligence connections in the CIA, NSC, DIA and other agencies. He was after all, the former Director of the CIA before he was a Vice-President or President of the US. To this day, he STILL receives daily intelligence briefings from CIA, DIA, NSC, NSA, FBI and other agencies even though he is no longer active in our government. That is a president's right after leaving office. How else would he and his cabinet have known? It was the US that sold him most of his artillery and chemical weapons to begin with! We didn't send him any cyanogens that we later claimed he used. LOL. That is what is so laughable about these arguments of him gassing the Kurds. He didn't have the weapons used on them to begin with just like he didn't have nuclear capability that Dubya/Cheney & Co. knowingly claimed.


Anyway, the George W. Bush administration case against Saddam was built upon the premise of WMD, which include nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The Kurd gassing thing fit the bill nicely for this purpose. What they don't tell you (and don't want you to know) is that chemical weapons are highly unstable mixtures that have short shelf lives. The typical chemical munitions shell can only last about 5 years tops before it degrades and becomes basically inert. Add the intense desert heat into this mix and stuff just doesn't last as long as they'd like you to believe.



Here is a link to the US Marine Corp report on Iraq BEFORE THE CASE TO INVADE IRAQ WAS FIRST EVER MADE in 1997 by the neoconservative ideologues: MARINE CORPS HISTORICAL PUBLICATION- FMFRP 3-203 - Lessons Learned: Iran-Iraq War, 10 December 1990

Quote:
"Tabun is a crude agent; however the Iraqis are believed to
have developed satin, a more sophisticated variety that acts
like tabun. This was supposedly employed during the 1988
attack on the Al Faw peninsula, and in several of the other
operations which made up the Tawakalna Ala Allah campaign.
However, we doubt this was the case. Similarly, we find no
evidence whatsoever that the Iraqis have ever employed blood
gasses such as cyanogen chloride or hydrogen cyanide.

Blood agents were allegedly responsible for the most
infamous use of chemicals in the war—the killing of Kurds at
Halabjah. Since the Iraqis have no history of using these two
agents-and the Iranians do-we conclude that the Iranians
perpetrated this attack. It is also worth noting that lethal
concentrations of cyanogen are difficult to obtain over an area
target, thus the reports of 5,000 Kurds dead in Halabjah are
suspect."



You just have to know WHERE to look for valid and accurate information so that we can sift through all of the bullshit. It's still out there. This purpose of this post isn't to act as an apologist for Saddam because he definitely was a tyrannical despot but the arguments used by certain hawkish elements in the media and certainly the Dubya cabinet describing Iraq as an immediate national security threat to the US were patently false, like many of the other insinuations made to increase the fear level and provide some justifications for an invasion of a country that would otherwise not be allowed to happen by US citizens and Congress without a concerted rallying effort by well placed neoconservative ideologues in the media and government. When those reasons for a US led invasion looked in doubt, we then played the "humanitarian" card, claiming that Saddam was a brutal dictator and killed millions of his own people. As a government, we are only "humanitarians" when it suits our needs. Our "justice" is very selective. Case in point: What are we doing to stop the government sponsored genocide in Darfur? Nothing, Darfur has no oil deposits worth mentioning.


Without 9/11, Bush would have never been able to get away with invading Iraq. It seems rather convienient that the 9/11 attacks ever happened for him, if you really think about it. Furthermore, if he didn't invade Afghanistan first, we would have never bought the Iraq threat either. He was playing the public's fears to enact an agenda for war in Iraq first devised in 1997 by many of the SAME members of his cabinet and advisors. No suprise there. On another board I frequent (non-bodybuilding), I called this war before Bush was in office for more than 2 months and people laughed at me. They aren't laughing anymore. :(



EDIT- I apologize for the novella, but I really felt that such a general misconception needs be pointed out in order to illustrate how easily public trust can be abused and their perceptions altered. This is done to us everyday on many levels by our government and mainstream media and it's sometimes hard to discern truth from fiction.

[Mr I]

Do we REALLY know this or is this what you have been told repeatedly by someone with an ulterior agenda? I assume that you are talking about the infamous gassing of the Kurds in 1988 in Halabjah. Guess what? I've got some startling news for you....the US Marine Corp reviewed the Iran-Iraq War (as they do in every world military altercation) and have determined that it was highly unlikely that Iraq gassed the Kurds. Why? Because the gas used to kill them was a cyanide based gas that is evident when you look at the victims because they have blue tinge at their extremities and they suffered from extreme muscle contractions (blood agents do this type of damage) which broke spines of the victims. That is why the prisons strap the victims into chairs or on beds- it's not for the victim's benefit- it's for your own benefit as a witness not to see this gruesome disfiguration occur.

Anyway, the Iraqis had never used blood agents like cyanide before. They simply didn't have that type of cyanide-based weapon in their arsenal. They did use mustard gas and other things of that nature but not cyanide. Do you know who DID use cyanide gas in chemical weapons attacks? Iran. They have been documented using this weapon during the Iran-Iraq War, whereas the Iraqis had never used such an item before. Uncomfortable yet?


So, why would the Iranians gas the kurds if they were revolting against Saddam who is their sworn enemy? That's an easy one. They have much to gain by an attack on these Iraqi rebels. The Iran-Iraq War was over and both nations were pretty much broke and drained of resources from the 10 year long conflict and neither side actually gained anything from it. After this war, the Kurds in northern Iraq staged an uprising against Saddam Hussein after much public and private encouragement by President George H. W. Bush - they were under the impression that they would receive US military support once it began- they never got it. It was like the Bay of Pigs fiasco in Cuba, middle eastern style. That's why they still don't trust us today. Anyhow, Saddam issued his elite Republican Guard to brutally put down the uprising. The Iranians respond with a gas attack on this region and it's a win-win situation for them because they first can get a parting post-war shot in on the cream of the crop of Saddam's forces (Republican Guard) AND Saddam's enemies get gassed in the process, making him look even more evil in the eyes of the world. Iran wanted an overthrow of Saddam in order to establish a second Islamic fundamentalist state (like they are) in the region and had for years incited riots among the shia population of Iraq, which was a primary cause for Iraq to declare war on them after he made several UN pleas to intervene in the matter and nothing was resolved.


The trouble was that Iraq didn't possess that type of weapon and Iran screwed it up in that respect. None of this really mattered though because it's perception that really matters and not facts. Another important aspect of this story is that 5,000 dead is pure exaggeration. Intelligence reports indicated far less fatalities along the lines of 500-1100 dead but who's going to argue and what would be the point anyhow? What's even more interesting is that it is very difficult to kill that many people in a chemical weapon attack such as perpetrated on the Kurds. Some of the reasons that it's so hard to achieve a high mortality rate is because of the inability to concentrate such lethal doses outdoors due to wind patterns, disbursement of accurately placed chemical munitions shells and most importantly, the intense heat from the sun and ambient air temps which burn off most of the chemical before it can seriously affect the intended targets.


Why do you think that the Bush White House was sooo silent about the Kurds' gassing? Bush Sr. KNEW that Iraq didn't do it through his vast intelligence connections in the CIA, NSC, DIA and other agencies. He was after all, the former Director of the CIA before he was a Vice-President or President of the US. To this day, he STILL receives daily intelligence briefings from CIA, DIA, NSC, NSA, FBI and other agencies even though he is no longer active in our government. That is a president's right after leaving office. How else would he and his cabinet have known? It was the US that sold him most of his artillery and chemical weapons to begin with! We didn't send him any cyanogens that we later claimed he used. LOL. That is what is so laughable about these arguments of him gassing the Kurds. He didn't have the weapons used on them to begin with just like he didn't have nuclear capability that Dubya/Cheney & Co. knowingly claimed.


Anyway, the George W. Bush administration case against Saddam was built upon the premise of WMD, which include nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The Kurd gassing thing fit the bill nicely for this purpose. What they don't tell you (and don't want you to know) is that chemical weapons are highly unstable mixtures that have short shelf lives. The typical chemical munitions shell can only last about 5 years tops before it degrades and becomes basically inert. Add the intense desert heat into this mix and stuff just doesn't last as long as they'd like you to believe.



Here is a link to the US Marine Corp report on Iraq BEFORE THE CASE TO INVADE IRAQ WAS FIRST EVER MADE in 1997 by the neoconservative ideologues: MARINE CORPS HISTORICAL PUBLICATION- FMFRP 3-203 - Lessons Learned: Iran-Iraq War, 10 December 1990

Quote:
"Tabun is a crude agent; however the Iraqis are believed to
have developed satin, a more sophisticated variety that acts
like tabun. This was supposedly employed during the 1988
attack on the Al Faw peninsula, and in several of the other
operations which made up the Tawakalna Ala Allah campaign.
However, we doubt this was the case. Similarly, we find no
evidence whatsoever that the Iraqis have ever employed blood
gasses such as cyanogen chloride or hydrogen cyanide.

Blood agents were allegedly responsible for the most
infamous use of chemicals in the war—the killing of Kurds at
Halabjah. Since the Iraqis have no history of using these two
agents-and the Iranians do-we conclude that the Iranians
perpetrated this attack. It is also worth noting that lethal
concentrations of cyanogen are difficult to obtain over an area
target, thus the reports of 5,000 Kurds dead in Halabjah are
suspect."



You just have to know WHERE to look for valid and accurate information so that we can sift through all of the bullshit. It's still out there. This purpose of this post isn't to act as an apologist for Saddam because he definitely was a tyrannical despot but the arguments used by certain hawkish elements in the media and certainly the Dubya cabinet describing Iraq as an immediate national security threat to the US were patently false, like many of the other insinuations made to increase the fear level and provide some justifications for an invasion of a country that would otherwise not be allowed to happen by US citizens and Congress without a concerted rallying effort by well placed neoconservative ideologues in the media and government. When those reasons for a US led invasion looked in doubt, we then played the "humanitarian" card, claiming that Saddam was a brutal dictator and killed millions of his own people. As a government, we are only "humanitarians" when it suits our needs. Our "justice" is very selective. Case in point: What are we doing to stop the government sponsored genocide in Darfur? Nothing, Darfur has no oil deposits worth mentioning.


Without 9/11, Bush would have never been able to get away with invading Iraq. It seems rather convienient that the 9/11 attacks ever happened for him, if you really think about it. Furthermore, if he didn't invade Afghanistan first, we would have never bought the Iraq threat either. He was playing the public's fears to enact an agenda for war in Iraq first devised in 1997 by many of the SAME members of his cabinet and advisors. No suprise there. On another board I frequent (non-bodybuilding), I called this war before Bush was in office for more than 2 months and people laughed at me. They aren't laughing anymore. :(



EDIT- I apologize for the novella, but I really felt that such a general misconception needs be pointed out in order to illustrate how easily public trust can be abused and their perceptions altered. This is done to us everyday on many levels by our government and mainstream media and it's sometimes hard to discern truth from fiction.

Fuck me sideways, S/C where have you been hiding all this? :eek:

[bad14u]

is that sacrasm? that is the whole problem is that people do stuff based on beliefs instead of facts...would you say the same thing if someone said that you should be kept in jail on the belief that you commited a crime instead of being found guilty of something?

No sarcasm. Maybe, and I do mean MAYBE, Saddam didn't have WMD but he is giulty of genocide and God only knows what else. A majority of his own people wanted him out so I would say we did them a favor.

[Scrumhalf]

What has happened has happened and we are where we are today but looking ahead, the US needs to:

a. Get Israel and the Palestinians together, knock some heads together and fix the Palestinian issue once and for all. If we really work on it, I have no doubt we can have this solved. It is not going to please the extremist fringe on either side (Hamas or the Eretz Israel factions) but it should be fine for the 90% of the population who really want to have two countries side by side so that they can get on with their lives. That in itself should address a major problem that is hampering our image in the Middle East.

b. We need some kind of sane energy policy that gets us out of the current situation we are in where we need to cozy up to every tinpot dictator with an oil reserve. Is the fact that virtually every terrorist recently is from Saudi Arabia a coincidence? The rulers of Saudi Arabia couldn't care less about the lives of the people there - they are billionaires living in their palaces and getting richer off the oil they sell to the West. Meanwhile, unemployment runs at 50% among Saudi youths - prime fodder for the terrorist recruiting machine.

c. Not sticking our noses in the Middle East for a few years would be a welcome change. Islam missed out on the Reformation and Renaissance and until they get out of the 7th century, the Star Trek Prime Directive may be a more sensible foreign policy to follow than what we are using now. This is being a bit facetious of course, but we really need to reevaluate how we engage with this part of the world.

There are so many parts of the world that are behaving in a civilized way - I would rather have our government use its influence in getting trade and exports going to various developing countries in Asia and maybe even Africa if we can use USAID in an effective way. That would be much better long-term investment for the US economy and industry.

[redsquirrel]

Maybe, and I do mean MAYBE, Saddam didn't have WMD but he is giulty of genocide and God only knows what else.=

What about the genocide in Somalia, and Rwanda, and Bosnia, and the genocide that continues today in Africa??? What have we done with those dictators?

Did we invade THOSE countries?? No- we tried to defend those being persecuted, with humanitarian interests....and then just left. In Iraq- theirs is an economic interest, first and foremost.

[Scrumhalf]

I am all for rooting out dictators but we need to do it in an evenhanded way like RS indicates. The world did nothing in Rwanda. I Right now, we know that atrocities are being committed in Darfur but the world can't get its collective act together and act decisively - simply declaring something to be genocide doesn't fix the problem. Mugabe in Zimbabwe may not be presiding over genocide but his government's patently illegal land grab from white farmers is going to indirectly kill so many people in his country simply from starvation that it will have the same effect in the end.

Like it or not, we are the only superpower and the world's policeman and the last thing the world wants is a policeman that uses his power unevenly.

[Primal Instinct]

What has happened has happened and we are where we are today but looking ahead, the US needs to:

a. Get Israel and the Palestinians together, knock some heads together and fix the Palestinian issue once and for all. If we really work on it, I have no doubt we can have this solved. It is not going to please the extremist fringe on either side (Hamas or the Eretz Israel factions) but it should be fine for the 90% of the population who really want to have two countries side by side so that they can get on with their lives. That in itself should address a major problem that is hampering our image in the Middle East.

b. We need some kind of sane energy policy that gets us out of the current situation we are in where we need to cozy up to every tinpot dictator with an oil reserve. Is the fact that virtually every terrorist recently is from Saudi Arabia a coincidence? The rulers of Saudi Arabia couldn't care less about the lives of the people there - they are billionaires living in their palaces and getting richer off the oil they sell to the West. Meanwhile, unemployment runs at 50% among Saudi youths - prime fodder for the terrorist recruiting machine.

c. Not sticking our noses in the Middle East for a few years would be a welcome change. Islam missed out on the Reformation and Renaissance and until they get out of the 7th century, the Star Trek Prime Directive may be a more sensible foreign policy to follow than what we are using now. This is being a bit facetious of course, but we really need to reevaluate how we engage with this part of the world.

There are so many parts of the world that are behaving in a civilized way - I would rather have our government use its influence in getting trade and exports going to various developing countries in Asia and maybe even Africa if we can use USAID in an effective way. That would be much better long-term investment for the US economy and industry.

These are all great points, Scrumhalf! The trouble is that they are not achieveable (or certain parties don't want it to happen) for many reasons.


This is somewhat simplified but here goes... With regard to the Israeli-Palestinian settlement, both Islam and Judaism lays claim to Jerusalem and both religions regard the exact same location as a holy spot in their respective religions. For the Jews, the Temple Mount is the site of the first and second Jewish temple in Jerusalem. Here's the stickler: in Judaism, it is also the site of the final temple and will signify the coming of the Messiah. A major conflict of interest occurs here because it just happens to be the exact same site as the location of the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, which were built in 600AD and ranks as the third most holy site in Islam. So for the Jews, the coming of the messiah cannot take place until Solomon's Temple is rebuilt. This can only take place with the destruction of the two Muslim shrines and the rebuild of Solomon's Temple there. You see the dilemma?




As for the US presence in the middle east and Saudi Arabia and Iraq, although it is not outwardly spoken by government officials, the US wants to destroy OPEC. If they can't destroy it, they will settle for controlling its oil production. This is undeniable and has been evidenced by our actions in the region. Saudi Arabia is the #1 oil producer and leads OPEC but they are still subserviant on many levels to the US. By taking over Iraq and setting up shop there (right next door to Iran, currently the #2 oil producer) we can bully the Saudis into capitulating to our production wishes and at the same time, cower Iran into following along. This can happen if we control Iraq and bring their considerable oil producing capabilities to reality. Iraq (under US supervision) would then become the new OPEC leader and the other member nations would therefore fall in line, especially Iran, since an intimidating US and it's military will be sharing a border with them. The other main OPEC entity is Venezuela in South America. The US has already attempted to discredit and remove their president Victor Chavez there in 2002 and we currently support guerilla efforts to overthrow his government. Venezuela represents about 15-20% of US imported oil. Do you see the pattern forming here yet?


We don't want to own the oil in the middle east. We want to control its production- and it's prices. This is not necessarily guaranteeing it's a good thing for us as US citizens though. We also would be held to potentially outrageous gas pricing like which we haven't yet seen. So, that is one of the main reasons for our action in Iraq. The other reason (and more importantly) that we want a US presence and influence in Iraq and the middle east that no one has yet publically mentioned is that we want to control their WATER RIGHTS. Water is THE most important resource in the middle east. If we control the water rights, we control everything else there. Iraq is particularly valuable in this aspect because of the great rivers flowing through it. After all, Iraq (Mesopotamia in ancient times) was the cradle of civilization and provided all of the grain for the region. Think about the stranglehold that someone who controls the major water resources in the middle east would have on the region. Heavy shit.


We will probably take in Iraq and financially and militarily support it for its lifetime as an orphan in the region, just like we did with Israel. The real problems will begin with friction between these two countries when Israel (a sworn enemy to the old Iraq government) sees some of its revenue sources cut from US handouts in order to help support Iraq. This will signify some trouble down the line, as Israel doesn't like to share anything with others very much.

[Scrumhalf]

......

This is somewhat simplified but here goes... With regard to the Israeli-Palestinian settlement, both Islam and Judaism lays claim to Jerusalem and both religions regard the exact same location as a holy spot in their respective religions. For the Jews, the Temple Mount is the site of the first and second Jewish temple in Jerusalem. Here's the stickler: in Judaism, it is also the site of the final temple and will signify the coming of the Messiah. A major conflict of interest occurs here because it just happens to be the exact same site as the location of the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, which were built in 600AD and ranks as the third most holy site in Islam. So for the Jews, the coming of the messiah cannot take place until Solomon's Temple is rebuilt. This can only take place with the destruction of the two Muslim shrines and the rebuild of Solomon's Temple there. You see the dilemma?

Agreed...I am very familiar with the historical background of this conflict... I didn't mean to imply that this is easy. It would involve compromises from both sides. But the bottom line is that the Eretz Yisrael concept which calls for Israel to take over all the historical lands of Israel is really not something that is compatible with coexistence with the Arabs.

Tom Friedman, the NY Times columnist, wrote a wonderful book a while back called 'From Beirut to Jerusalem," the ideas in which are as relevant today as they were 20 years ago when the book was written. It is highly recommended reading to anyone wanting to understand this sorry saga better.

He makes the point that Israel has a decision to make: It can only pick 2 of the following 3 things - all the historical lands of Israel, being Jewish and being democratic. It CANNOT have all 3.

It can have all the historical lands of Israel, but if it wants to be a Jewish state, it can only do so by disenfranchising a large population of Arabs who will outnumber Jews. On the other hand, if it wants wants to offer full citizenship to all people, it will cease to be Jewish as there will be a lot more Arabs than Jews in this land.

On the other hand, it can only be Jewish and democratic by giving up heavily Arab lands, i.e. the West Bank and Gaza. Of course, this means that it has to give up on the Eretz Yisrael concept which is near and dear to the Jewish far right.

A tough dilemna to be sure - something that requires resolute leadership. Nobody on the Palestinian side has stepped up the plate on this one - it requires a visionary US President and a Israeli PM willing to appeal to the largely silent Israeli center to steer this course and make it happen.

[Mr I]

What has happened has happened and we are where we are today but looking ahead, the US needs to:

b. We need some kind of sane energy policy that gets us out of the current situation we are in where we need to cozy up to every tinpot dictator with an oil reserve. Is the fact that virtually every terrorist recently is from Saudi Arabia a coincidence? The rulers of Saudi Arabia couldn't care less about the lives of the people there - they are billionaires living in their palaces and getting richer off the oil they sell to the West. Meanwhile, unemployment runs at 50% among Saudi youths - prime fodder for the terrorist recruiting machine.

c. Not sticking our noses in the Middle East for a few years would be a welcome change. Islam missed out on the Reformation and Renaissance and until they get out of the 7th century, the Star Trek Prime Directive may be a more sensible foreign policy to follow than what we are using now. This is being a bit facetious of course, but we really need to reevaluate how we engage with this part of the world.

My thoughts exactly :3some: