Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThis is the second part of a five-part series on Barack Obama's Middle East. Yesterday, Part I covered the so-called War on Terror. Today, in Part II, the subject is Afghanistan and Pakistan. The series will continue all week.
During the last three months of 2008, I spent a lot of time interviewing many of Barack Obama's advisers on Afghanistan and Pakistan. To summarize their collective view: the war in Afghanistan cannot be won militarily. Instead, it will require a combination of military power, state building, training of the Afghan National Army, economic support and development aid, regional diplomacy (including Iran, India, and Russia), and negotiations with "reconcilable" elements of the Taliban-led insurgency. But, they argue, it is impossible at present to conduct useful talks with even moderate components of the Taliban, because the Taliban believes that it is winning the war. Thus, Obama's advisers say, a military surge is necessary not to "win" the war in Afghanistan but to stabilize the situation and to convince the Islamist insurgent leaders to come to the bargaining table. (Take a look at my piece in The Nation, "Obama's Afghan Dilemma.")
It is a dangerously flawed strategy. And it is one that could unravel Obama's presidency.
So far, Obama has not outlined a formal strategy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan, and by all accounts he will conduct a detailed review of the war during his first months in office. That leaves at least some hope that Obama will change course. Sadly, however, he has committed himself to an escalation of the war, and it will be exceedingly difficult to dissuade the Obama administration from making the mistake the president-elect seems determined to make. He's already compounded his poor decision to retain Robert Gates as secretary of defense by keeping George Bush's Iraq-Afghanistan coordinator, General Douglas Lute, as the new White House's National Security Council coordinator for America's two wars. It's not encouraging as a sign of new thinking.
So what are the flaws in Obama's emerging plan?
First, it is incorrect to portray the war in Afghanistan in such dire terms that an immediate military escalation, or "surge," is needed to prevent a Saigon-style collapse of Kabul. Under current circumstances, the United States cannot defeat the Taliban and its allies, nor can it take control of the large swaths of southern and eastern Afghanistan where the Taliban is in control. By the same token, the Taliban cannot capture Kabul, and it cannot overrun US and Afghan military bases. The war is essentially stalemated. Therefore, if Obama's foreign policy team believes that it needs a few months, or more, to conduct a review of US strategy in the war in Afghanistan, it has plenty of time. There is no military logic behind the need for more troops to stabilize Afghanistan during such a review.
Second, in all of the literature, speeches, and thinktank papers on Afghanistan, there has not been a single cogent explanation of how additional US and NATO forces can be deployed to make strategic gains in the conflict. Perhaps Obama and his military commanders plan to develop a deployment strategy during their first months in office. But to announce plans to add as many as 30,000 US troops -- doubling the US force -- over the next year is a classic example of "shoot first, aim later." If Obama truly believes that tens of thousands more US troops can turn the tide in Afghanistan, then he ought to develop the plan, and then explain it in detail to the American people. On the contrary, many experts on Afghanistan assert that by sending more troops, the United States will further inflame the insurgency. These critics argue that a great deal of the Afghan insurgency is a reaction to the US-NATO occupation of the country. It is the occupation, including its hamhanded efforts to impose Western-style democracy on Afghanistan and to inculcate Western-style values in an exceedingly backward and conservative society, that provides the most effective recruiting poster for the Taliban. Many, perhaps most of the insurgents are not hard-core, ideology-driven Taliban partisans, but they are angry, alienated, and fearful Pashtun tribal conservatives who are being driven into the arms of the Taliban. If that's true, then sending more troops will make the situation much worse.
A recent article in the Washington Post provides a shocking glimpse into Obama's flawed strategy. According to the article, Obama and his team "do not anticipate that the Iraq-like surge will significantly change the direction of a conflict that has steadily deteriorated." Instead, says the Post, the deployment of 30,000 more US forces is designed simply to buy time for the Obama White House to figure out what to do. Concludes the article:
"Obama's national security team expects that the new deployments, which will nearly double the current U.S. force of 32,000 (alongside an equal number of non-U.S. NATO troops), will help buy enough time for the new administration to reappraise the entire Afghanistan war effort and develop a comprehensive new strategy for what Obama has called the 'central front on terror.'"
In my Nation piece, I provided a detailed account of why the "surge and negotiate" policy is wrongheaded. Besides the two flaws cited above, there is a deeper problem that relates to American objectives in Afghanistan. If the goal is to eliminate or neutralize Al Qaeda, then we've already won the war. If the goal is to eradicate the Taliban, remake Afghan society, and modernize its culture, then America is looking at a Thirty Years' War. There are some, including some human rights and women rights activists, who believe that reorganizing the social basis of Afghan society is an achievable goal. It is not. There are other, darker forces who believe that a long-term US presence in the heart of central Asia is an important geo-strategic goal for the United States, vis-a-vis Russia and China, in the struggle for regional influence and access to oil and natural gas.
It's encouraging, in a small degree, that Obama has said -- since being elected -- that US goals in Afghanistan are "very limited" and the "No. 1 goal" is to stop Al Qaeda and to ensure that Afghanistan "cannot be used as a base to launch attacks against the United States." If he sticks to that limited goal, and abandons any pretense that the United States can bring democracy and the Enlightenment to Kandahar, then perhaps he can be persuaded not to go along with the generals in expanding the war. Perhaps.
The true exit strategy for the United States in Afghanistan is to put a complete withdrawal of US forces on the table, in order to draw Taliban-linked insurgents into productive talks. To start the process, an immediate partial pullout -- say, 5,000 troops -- on a unilateral basis could get the ball rolling. Additional withdrawals could be accompanied by a negotiation process among the Karzai government in Kabul, various regional warlords and tribal leaders, former Taliban, moderate (and even not-so-moderate) current Taliban representatives. The governments of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, which have close ties to the Afghan Taliban, would have be get involved actively. So would the anti-Taliban neighbors of Afghanistan, including India, Russia, and Iran, who sponsored the Northern Alliance that resisted Taliban rule. And all of these countries -- plus the United States, the EU, China, and others -- would have to put lots of money on the table to cement the deal. (I've proposed a fund of at least $100 billion over ten years.)
Getting this done, given Obama's apparent determination to surge, won't be easy. Indeed, it may be impossible. It will take a combination of public pressure, efforts by Congressional committees, task forces led by anti-surge "gray beards," and continued resistance by NATO, especially Germany, to sending additional troops into the quagmire.
It will also require a vast effort by the United States to support Pakistan's civilian government in its fearful and tentative attempt to clip the wings of the pro-Taliban Pakistani military and its intelligence service, the ISI. And it will take aggressive efforts by the United Nations and the international community to faciliate a Pakistan-India peace process, since, ultimately, a lasting accord in Afghanistan will have to rest on the foundation of a deal between Pakistan and India.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
Simpole question...
Why let the Taliban have it back?
Why let the Bin L:adens of the world go back in and open more training camps to kill Americans?
Why let Sharia take the women back to the 6th century?
Why let Afganistan tumble COMPLETELY into a despotic state?
Why would youy advocate this being the end result of your recommendations?
Moderate Taliban? Isn't that like a moderate NAZI?
Modersate Stalinist?
Moderate Khmer Rouge?
Moderate Mao?
Dreyfuss...does your mother know you believe in these things?...
Whats next..Easter Bunny, Santa Claus?
Moderate Bin Ladens and AQs...or maybe you do believe..
a true believer?
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/14/2009 @ 10:24am
The enemy has become the Taliban.
But the Taliban has never attacked the US. Its Saudi guests did that.
The US invaded to get those Saudi guests -- or so W&Co told us at the time. The US let those handful of Saudi warriors escape, by not engaging them, but sending in unmotivated Afghan mercenaries.
When Afghanis, under the loose leadership of former Taliban, began resisting the foreign occupation of their country, they, all labeled Taliban, became the enemy of the US.
What is the US goal there? "Stability" we're told. IOW, no more resistance to foreign military.
Given Afghanis' history of never having been brought to their knees by foreign invaders, how many Afghanis does the Pentagon (& its suppliers) plan on killing to accomplish this historical 1st of no resistance to foreign military?
Afghanistan is larger than Texas. Extremely mountainous.
Shall we aim for a million dead Afghanis? More? Plus tens of billions in bribes. To allow the foreign military to remain & guard the pipeline that the US will build.
Afghanistan will be Obama's political demise as was Vietnam for LBJ.
The Pentagon's imperial project, shared by US oil interests, is suicidal for the rest of US.
Posted by sloper at 01/14/2009 @ 10:27am
"But, they argue, it is impossible at present to conduct useful talks with even moderate components of the Taliban, because the Taliban believes that it is winning the war. "
Dreyfuss contributes to their beliefs...
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/14/2009 @ 10:28am
The war in Afghanistan is as pointless as the one in Iraq, sending more troops is a waste of time in both. Time to bring them all home, wasted lives, time and resources.
Posted by Caj at 01/14/2009 @ 10:33am
What IS the definition of a "moderate Taliban"?
Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 10:46am
What IS the definition of a "moderate Taliban"?
Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 10:46am | ignore this person | warn this person
I'll bet JM will say a "dead one."
Posted by OneVote at 01/14/2009 @ 10:59am
'It will also require a vast effort by the United States to support Pakistan's civilian government.....'
Lots of heavy lifting and we are so tired.
Even the military admits to exhaustion.
Time to broker a deal and come home.
Posted by OneVote at 01/14/2009 @ 11:04am
"It's a dangerous flaw that could unravel Obama's presidency". With all his superb judgement in his campaign, suddenly here is another catastrophe in the making. If he is being "ordered" by the shadows in the government or not, either way, it will not only unravel his presidency but the country. It seems that the powers that be are determined to maintain chaos to justify their New World Order, what else? Makes one think that the economic meltdown was planned for the same reason. Remember the Mossad shooting at Americans IN IRAQ to create chaos (they were traced by their special rifles with cameras) obviously trying to foment a civil war. And they sure got it. The Mossad wanted to keep the US there permanently for Israel's security and to hell with the US economy.
Posted by mystic7 at 01/14/2009 @ 11:10am
Dreyfuss contributes to their beliefs...
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/14/2009 @ 10:28am
Good point Your Mother. If the Taliban are anything, they are avid readers of the Nation.
Posted by HAL9000 at 01/14/2009 @ 11:20am
I'll bet JM will say a "dead one."
Posted by OneVote at 01/14/2009 @ 10:59am
You would lose that bet..
a good terrorist or Islamist or Jihadists or suicide bomber is he has a premature explosion(as he belys up woul;d be great and take others who send him to paradise, now travel with him) is a dead one.
I believe a moderate Taliban like a moderate Nazi, Stalinist, Jihadist,ect., is an oxymoron...
kinda like "I support the troops but not the war" logic.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/14/2009 @ 11:26am
jomamma-It's unfortunate that you were never in the military.Had you been then you would know that those who are in the military are humans and not a war.You would know that one can support those humans and not support the war because they are entirely separate from one another,but to you our troops are not human and are just the war they fight.
Posted by i'm nobody at 01/14/2009 @ 11:45am
I believe a moderate Taliban like a moderate Nazi, Stalinist, Jihadist,ect., is an oxymoron...
kinda like "I support the troops but not the war" logic.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/14/2009 @ 11:26am | ignore this person | warn this person
Wonderful analogy JM.
Posted by OneVote at 01/14/2009 @ 11:47am
Posted by i'm nobody at 01/14/2009 @ 11:45am
My father was a bombadiar in the Air Force and my son was in the Navy.
Thank you for playing. Please try again after the waiting period.
Next.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/14/2009 @ 11:50am
Does DREYFUSS have any concept of negotiating from a position of strength? or See any credibility problems with pulling out 5,000 Magical troops AFTER saying 30,000 more are going in?
Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 01/14/2009 @ 11:27am | ignore this person | warn this person
Worked wonders for the Soviet Union didn't it Happy.
Posted by OneVote at 01/14/2009 @ 11:52am
jomamma-It's unfortunate that you view your own family members as a war and not as humans.Again,it is unfortunate that you avoided serving your country because it would have taught you a valuable lesson.Those in the military are humans and not the war they fight.Please,learn that.
Posted by i'm nobody at 01/14/2009 @ 11:56am
Posted by OneVote at 01/14/2009 @ 11:47am
Which is why I'm asking....what IS a "moderate Taliban" that Robert Dreyfuss mentioned?
Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 12:12pm
Very good assessment. I've read many accounts and I'm fortunate in knowing people over there (2 working as translators, who are brothers and 1 guy who served in the military there) and a few things need to be understood: the Neo-Taliban can be talked down NOW if US troop withdrawal is put on the table. Now if Karzai and others want some int'l assistance, Muslim troops (not from Iran, Pakistan etc. so as to not inflame one side or the other) could be brought in to bolster policing efforts in cities (partnered with Afghans) as more Afghans get trained. Stipends to poor families and stepped up job re-training (and aid to the Pashtun south) and farming would transform things in ways a surge can't. Incorporating willing Neo-Taliban will take out the sails of armed resistance very fast as the Neo-Taliban will turn on their compatriots who want to keep fighting as they will have much to lose. Pashtun nationalism can also then be addressed here (the Taliban in Pakistan is the group that needs to be fought with force as they are far more destructive and have little domestic support as most Pashtuns prefer the Awami National Party). A peace with India regarding Kashmir would free up Pakistan to go after the Taliban and in the process put out overtures to allow them to also take part in elections (which they will likely lose in most instances). I think Obama needs to re-assess the idea of an Afghan surge and go with an alternate plan of negotiation. I do agree that this issue needs to be 'attacked' within the scope of regional issues.
Posted by nukemind at 01/14/2009 @ 12:13pm
Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 01/14/2009 @ 12:00pm
I love the irony of HAPPY bemoaning an "Imperial Presidency"....now.
Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 12:14pm
Which is why I'm asking....what IS a "moderate Taliban" that Robert Dreyfuss mentioned?
Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 12:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Did you see this article? Interesting.
'Who Are the Taliban? By Anand Gopal
This article appeared in the December 22, 2008 edition of The Nation.
December 3, 2008'
Posted by OneVote at 01/14/2009 @ 12:22pm
People have such short memories.
Have you forgotten the Buddha statues at Bamyan?
Have you forgotten the banning of sports & music there, using the stadiums instead for public floggings and executions?
Afghanistan's radical clerics began a campaign to crack down on "un-Islamic" segments of Afghan society. The Taliban soon banned all forms of imagery, music and sports, including television, in accordance with what they considered a strict interpretation of Islamic law.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/14/2009 @ 12:23pm
This is a very limited and superficial understanding. I was outraged to see them destroy the Buddha statues, but you miss the point and are clearly just extracting 'info.' from editorials and MSM. Nor do you understand Afghan society and nationalist aspect that can (and often does) supersede religion. You also appear unaware that this is a different Taliban, often called 'Neo-Taliban'. Meaning they have different factions, some of which have changed their views on certain things (the group in Pakistan is much worse) such as women's rights. Nor is allowing this group to take part in govt. going to mean they become the main national party as they won't. Over time, Pashtun nationalism will find other means of expression, which were destroyed by the Soviet invasion. If you think the Taliban are simply an expression of Islamic fundamentalism, then you completely miss what is going on. They are also (in the vacuum) a Pashtun nationalist party. In Pakistan, the Awami are secular Pashtun nationalists, while in Afghanistan there is mainly the Taliban. There is a stalemate and this will remain so as the Afgh. north won't bow to the Taliban. Political incorporation is practical, reaslistic and the best way to stop the fighting.
Posted by nukemind at 01/14/2009 @ 12:34pm
Posted by OneVote at 01/14/2009 @ 12:22pm
Yep, read it. And not sure if talk of "Taliban moderating their positions" is true or naive thinking. It seems to recall the bad paradigms set up during the Cold War...
that of the Right (and our government most of the time) supporting dictators who were capitalists and allowed some free press, but were still dictators and killed the opposition...and the Left supporting dictators who were socialists and curtailed civil rights and jailed the opposition. The old "Pinochet v. Castro" option. And both sides claiming if we "stuck it out" with THEIR guy(s) that "eventually things would get freer!"
Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 12:36pm
I believe a moderate Taliban like a moderate Nazi, Stalinist, Jihadist,ect., is an oxymoron...
kinda like "I support the troops but not the war" logic.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/14/2009 @ 11:26am
This is another ignorant assessment. The Taliban are ALSO a Pashtun nationalist party. If you want to comment and not be challenged, you need to do some homework outside of editorials and the MSM. The NEO-TALIBAN are not a single united group and many are just Pashtuns who joined up to fight American invaders as they see them and to challenge their ethnic rivals, the Tajik-Hazara-Uzbek alliance. This is quite typical of people who have not studied Afghanistan and simply hone in on one aspect, Islamic fundamentalism. By contrast, in Pakistan, Pashtuns HAVE a nationalist party that they widely support and most people oppose the Taliban. Without a nuanced comprehension, people will continue to flounder in looking for only military solutions. Keep in mind that Pashtuns are themselves varied. The pre-Soviet Pashtuns were hardly interested in Sharia law for example and many leaned towards nationalism and socialism. Some intellectuals continue to espouse these views as well. A Taliban that takes part in the political process will eventually be challenged by these other Pashtuns, especially as more refugees return from Pakistan. Lumping the Neo-Taliban into one group is like saying all Christians are aligned with Rick Warren, which no one would do if they have a clue.
Posted by nukemind at 01/14/2009 @ 12:43pm
Posted by nukemind at 01/14/2009 @ 12:43pm
Maybe you should be blogging Obama instead of the Nation, where at least 30 people a day feed here.
It seems to me that the Taliban in areas they are set up or have retaken by night are reverting to their "old" ways which set up the invasion of Afganistan in the first place..
I don't care how much you differeniate the names..it boils down to a 6th century man wanting to run rough shod over the people and rule them like a war lord, dispencing Gods law. Enough already.
Your way, I see Osama moving back in under a passive eye..
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/14/2009 @ 12:50pm
Yep, read it. And not sure if talk of "Taliban moderating their positions" is true or naive thinking. It seems to recall the bad paradigms set up during the Cold War...
Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 12:36pm
Some have moderated. The best assessment I've read about the Taliban comes from Nir Rosen, who was embedded with Taliban fighters (google him and you'll get what he's writing about them).
As long as the Taliban can be incorporated into govt. it can then be 'controlled' in that its officials will have much to lose by not playing ball. Afghanistan has been through much worse than the US has ever gone through (think 9/11 times a million or the Civil War times 100). The continuing fighting is happening because Pashtuns don't feel they are represented even with Karzai who is widely viewed as more pro-Tajik (the Sunni Persian speakers). The Taliban, if they can be brought in, will have to adhere to the law as part of any incorporation and agree to take part in an electoral process and also agree to step down if defeated in free and fair elections. The negotiations must include US troop withdrawal or this will not happen. People need to read Afghan history. These people won't stop fighting until foreigners are gone. Period. It's a quagmire and we need to start considering a different approach. If the Soviets, who were ruthless beyond anything we've done, couldn't stamp our resistance, why do people actually believe NATO forces can? New approach is needed and fast and I just hope Obama comes to that realization sooner rather than later before more American troops and Afghan civilians get killed.
Posted by nukemind at 01/14/2009 @ 12:54pm
The old "Pinochet v. Castro" option. And both sides claiming if we "stuck it out" with THEIR guy(s) that "eventually things would get freer!"
Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 12:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Right on! I am scratching my head on where we can find an example of a "moderate" government that we have sponsored or brokered that has lasted and is not embroiled in turmoil. Seems like moderation is fleeting, and perhaps illusory. Moderation perhaps can be bought for a short while, but its evolution is like the proverbial pendulum.
Posted by OneVote at 01/14/2009 @ 12:55pm
I don't care how much you differeniate the names..it boils down to a 6th century man wanting to run rough shod over the people and rule them like a war lord, dispencing Gods law. Enough already.
Your way, I see Osama moving back in under a passive eye..
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/14/2009 @ 12:50pm
Still missing the point. You glossed over the Pashtun nationalist outlet the Neo-Taliban has been providing. Nor are you aware it seems that many join them to fight the US as opposed to putting the country back to a 6th century way of thinking. I'm not in favor of religious govt. of any kind, but it's not my call or yours. As for Osama bin Laden, he can remain persona non grata, if in a unity govt. it is clearly stated that foreigners (all of them) are not allowed to interfere in Afghan affairs. Pashtun nationalists are often as opposed to Arabs as they are to Iranians, Pakistanis and of course Americans interfering in their affairs. While you're focused on the Taliban's extreme interpretation of Islam, which is a valid criticism, you miss the larger vacuum they fill, ethnic nationalist expression. There is no real Pashtun secular alternative party like in Pakistan, but after some time and a real electoral process, I have little doubt that people will tire of the Taliban's laws. In Peshawar, Pakistan when the Awami Party boycotted and Islamic parties won there was widespread discontent as they banned music, movies etc. Then when the Awami Party came back, they won in a landslide. The Neo-Taliban need to be allowed to take part in the Afghan political process and in elections, with the express stipulation that they will stop fighting, will adhere to rule of law and elections, and will step down if voted out as long as foreign troops leave.
Posted by nukemind at 01/14/2009 @ 1:00pm
YourJomamma,
In your first post, the first post on this thread, you ask a series of questions:
=====================
Simpole question...
Why let the Taliban have it back?
Why let the Bin Ladens of the world go back in and open more training camps to kill Americans?
Why let Sharia take the women back to the 6th century?
Why let Afganistan tumble COMPLETELY into a despotic state?
Why would youy advocate this being the end result of your recommendations?
............
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/14/2009 @ 10:24am
=====================
There is no logical or reasonable answer for your question because there is no logic or reason why any person would want those things to happen. There is no credible reason why any person would want to go backwards.
Promoting those things defies any semblance of common sense.
On the other hand, you have already and will get plenty more answers back!
The reason why? God only knows. It just totally boggles the mind. What causes some people on this site to have the thought process they do is beyond me, beyond comprehension period.
If your questions caused some people to think about the impacts, that would be one thing. But they don't - they (bloggers responding to you) just regurgitate the same anti- American, anti-Bush, anti-Israel, anti-war, anti-everything drivel that they may have programmed with speed keys on their computer, so they are ready to respond whenver somebody like you asks questions they refuse to give a coherent answer to.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/14/2009 @ 1:23pm
If your questions caused some people to think about the impacts, that would be one thing. But they don't - they (bloggers responding to you) just regurgitate the same anti- American, anti-Bush, anti-Israel, anti-war, anti-everything drivel that they may have programmed with speed keys on their computer, so they are ready to respond whenver somebody like you asks questions they refuse to give a coherent answer to.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/14/2009 @ 1:23pm
Missing the point here as well. The Neo-Taliban ARE already back. They largely dominate the south and have been threatening Kabul itself. I've also got other news, most Afghans oppose US intervention, either despise or mock Bush, side with the Palestinians regardless of who they are, but also most Afghans are tired of the fighting, but feel a lack of actual government. A COHERENT answer delves into what motivates the Afghans, their history, society, ethnic groups as well as religious fundamentalism. Otherwise, one ends up looking at this from an American prism as if that is always the answer. Bang-up job by the Bush administration on that score too. I mean they failed in Afghanistan and yet some people want to continue without ever cracking open a book about Afghanistan as they feel much more comfortable watching the MSM feed them more of the same safe conventional 'reporting' if one can call it that.
Posted by nukemind at 01/14/2009 @ 1:32pm
Lvl,
It admirable for a Christo-Zionist like you to lament the destruction of the Buddha status by Taliban, however, I know that a fellow like you will never shed a tear for a million humans slaughtered by your hero, Bush, in Iraq. What is really remarkable is this selective morality you are putting on display. You are readily willing to shed alligator's tear over the stone, while condoning the murdering of the innocents, because it appeals to your extreme ideological tendencies.
Posted by CripThink at 01/14/2009 @ 1:49pm
The death toll in Gaza has surpassed 1,000 people killed as of today. A third of these fatalities were children -
Posted by syfriendly at 01/14/2009 @ 2:11pm
Sysfriendly,
Guys like Happylonghorn and lvl, don't give a damn about the children of Gaza, Afghanistan, Iraq or any other place on earth. Unless the victims are Jews, then they are not victims. By the way, in addition to the 1013 dead in Gaza, you forgot to mention the near 5000 wounded; 48% of them are women and children. The Israeli war criminals are losing their mind. It has been 19 days since they started this carnage, and yet, few hundreds Palestinian fighters are standing to the Israeli mighty war machine and beating it.
Posted by CripThink at 01/14/2009 @ 2:27pm
You cannot get the loony fanatics here to agree on anything so what makes anyone think that you'll get the loony fanatics there to agree to anything?
Posted by i'm nobody at 01/14/2009 @ 2:30pm
I think Obama will have to get a real strong grip on this Israeli policy for sure, this cannot continue the way it is. I don't know how many more people have got to be killed in Gaza for us and the rest of the world to wake up. Especially when we have Olmert blind siding Condi Rice with his ask/demand to stop us voting for this peace treaty!! If that doesn't prove who is pulling our strings then I don't know what will, we are just the puppets of Israel plain and simple.
Posted by Caj at 01/14/2009 @ 2:56pm
lvl,
Yes, it is indeed a tragedy that a guy like me can't see your version of peace. Your peace is the chauvinistic version and the one-sided version; peace that is based on the Armageddon mythology. It is the version of peace which requires the ethnic-cleansing of the entire Palestinian People to make room for you and your Zionist friends to erect the Second Temple, to please your version of God.
All what I have been hearing from you in the past weeks is your cheer-leading for murdering more Palestinians. All what I heard is your glorification of the Nazi, war criminals Israeli leaders; and now you are going after the poor Afghanis; you are going for more blood.
Let me ask you bluntly; do you believe in a Palestinian homeland in Gaza and on the entire West Bank? Do you believe that the American invasion of Iraq was an unprovoked war crime? Do you believe that Jesus would have approved the killing of a million Iraqi civilians? Do you believe that Jesus will ever return to the same peace of land where the Israelis have transformed into a crime scene for thousands of Palestinian children?
Posted by CripThink at 01/14/2009 @ 2:58pm
I don't care how much you differeniate the names..it boils down to a 6th century man wanting to run rough shod over the people and rule them like a war lord, dispencing Gods law. Enough already.
Did anybody else immediately have lvl come to mind?
I may have become inattentive after a while. Can anyone identify a single one of the bombastic pronouncements of Happy, JM, Rio, etc. that hasn't been subsequently contradicted by events?
Posted by canaarak at 01/14/2009 @ 2:58pm
lvl some points to reconsider,
You claim: 2. I have always supported the int'l agreements that gave the Arab Palestinians 75% of Palestine and the Jews 25%. You and the Arabs are the ones that oppose that agmt. That agmt does not include the WB and Gaza, which were taken from Jordan and Egypt as disputed territories under int'l law and not from the Arab Palestinians.
This is incorrect. The Arab League proposals are much more generous than the 1948 plan you are referring to (I guess) and simply ask Israel to return to the 67 borders for peace with the ENTIRE REGION. Israel has largely ignored these proposals as it increases settlement activity. Also, even Hamas accepts this proposal: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1035414.html. So you're flat out wrong. Also, Transjordan was not considered part of British Palestine so this makes no sense and your excluding of the WB and Gaza also makes no real sense.
There are virtually no international laws that accept your rationalization of hostilities between the US and Iraq. You are forgetting that war was not declared as authorization to use force is not the same thing. Regardless, IF you were paying attention, you'd recall that the State Dept. contradicted the Bush admin.'s WMD argument (until Cheney talked to them) and CIA analysts complained about being pressured into 'finding' evidence that didn't exist. You cannot rationalize lies and bend int'l law to suit a purpose. Nor is the reason you give, the reason we heard from the Bush admin. IF their purpose was to a end a conflict that they felt was still open, then why didn't we hear it from them? It was, as Wolfowitz stated to Paul O'Neil, "an administrative' decision as to how to find a reason to go to war with Iraq.
Posted by nukemind at 01/14/2009 @ 3:39pm
The death toll in Gaza has surpassed 1,000 people killed as of today. A third of these fatalities were children -
Sy, that's the sickest and saddest part of it all - even if one were to think in some sense that the collective punishment of an entire people is ok (because the people from which a group of criminals spring are in some sense responsible for producing them), how can anyone claim that CHILDREN are responsible for such?
Posted by FDR43 at 01/14/2009 @ 3:46pm
Hamas is responsible for all of the unneccessary death and suffering.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/14/2009 @ 4:06pm
holy fork!
larry, PUT DOWN THAT BONG!
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 4:15pm
Posted by nukemind at 01/14/2009 @ 1:32pm
nuke, before you get too deep into it with SJCHERMAK, keep in mind he's a major ditto-head who "doesn't know who AIPAC is" nor "remembers much from '1984' since he read it in high school!"....
but he's a daily visitor to rushlimbaugh.com!
So realize what you're dealing with.
Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 4:19pm
No one has said children are responsible. Hamas is responsible for all of the unneccessary death and suffering.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/14/2009 @ 4:06pm
Explain these events so that your view that Hamas is solely responsible can be deemed even remotely acceptable:
1)Did Israel break the truce with targeted killings, yes or no? Here's a hint: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians
2)Is it not true that Israeli elections as opposed to security concerns the reason for the fighting? Google Gaza conflict and Israel elections and find out why this war was started by the Israelis.
3)The blockade and attempted coup to break-up the united govt of Fatah-Hamas was okay? Here's a hint: http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis80.html
Now tell us again how Hamas is SOLELY responsible. At the very least, it takes two to tango and Israel it seems started this conflict because of an election. Do you have anything other than your own personal opinions or propaganda to make a valid point?
Posted by nukemind at 01/14/2009 @ 4:21pm
but he's a daily visitor to rushlimbaugh.com!
So realize what you're dealing with.
Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 4:19pm
Duly noted. I like to think that civil dialogue and an actual exchange of provable points can still reach people who are even 'dittoheads', but I could be wrong. Thanks for the heads up.
Posted by nukemind at 01/14/2009 @ 4:23pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/14/2009 @ 3:28pm
What happens if Labour (Avoda) retakes the Knesset and gives the Palestinians Gaza and the West Bank in perpetuity?
Given it's a violation of both the League of Nations and "God's plan"?
Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 4:23pm
Hamas is responsible for all of the unneccessary death and suffering.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/14/2009 @ 4:06pm
'The first prerequisite for waging an insurgent guerrilla war- fare campaign, therefore, is the existence of a significant level of dissatisfaction with the status quo being perpetuated by the ruling regime. Concomitant with that requirement is a need for insurgent movements to have popular support. Through propaganda and indoctrination, insurgents attempt to point out the excesses and immoral acts of the ruling regime and convince the population that armed rebellion is the only way it can be removed from power. The insurgent movement further seeks to gain popular sup- port by taking up the general causes o disenchantment existing within the general populace and serving as the armed vanguard of the people in their struggle to improve their daily existance.'
Excerpt from............. Author : Clark, Major Jackie K, U.S. Marine Corps Title: Che Guevara: Fundamentals of Guerrilla Warfare Short Title: Guevara
You know Liv.....sometimes the mule kicks back. Perhaps if Israel were more beneficient with the Palestinians, Hamas wouldn't have so much support? Take a lesson from a Che. Hamas is.
Posted by OneVote at 01/14/2009 @ 4:24pm
Hamas is responsible for all of the unneccessary death and suffering.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/14/2009 @ 4:06pm
holy fork!
larry, PUT DOWN THAT BONG!
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 4:15pm
You send rockets into your neighbors house from a school yard and you expect no incoming in return?
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/14/2009 @ 4:38pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/14/2009 @ 4:29pm
"False arguments" appears to mean ignoring reality and evidence. You haven't really refuted anything, but please try harder. But, okay, we'll play this.
From your source: "In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687, both still in effect, the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction."
NO WMDs were found AND we have this from the UN: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june04/blix_3-17.html
Also, from you: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations"
Hmm, see above about Israel breaking the truce which you conveniently ignore. You also ignore their backing of a coup attempt against an ELECTED govt. (which Bushco also supported)
You write: "The Arabs did not agree to the 1948 UN resolution and signified it by voting against it and then invading Israel."
Indeed, the Arabs declared war, BUT not before Israel invaded Palestine designated areas. See Avi Shlaim's book (and Benny Morris who agrees with on Israel's 'right' to Greater Israel, but is more honest about how the Palestinians were removed and their land stolen). This resolution was ostensibly a great powers decision, BUT it is ancient history. We are talking about the new settlements lines in question, the 1967 borders, which both sides focus on. Even Olmert admitted that the problem is the Occupation and a return to the '67 borders is the solution: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1036118.html. Of course, Israeli leaders ignored this and Olmert said it because he's out. ALSO CONTINUED...
Posted by nukemind at 01/14/2009 @ 4:45pm
'Palestinians are mistreated however on a daily basis through illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands, the summary appropriation of Palestinian property by Israelis over the years and countless other economic indignities meant to make life hard for any Arab who has the misfortune of being born in the Gaza Strip or the West Bank. Arab nationlists around the Middle East and Islamic rabble rousers around the world have used the failed Israeli-Palestinian relationship as a rallying point for hatred of the U.S. and the West in general.'
Excerpt:
Bush Administration Got One Right with Rebuff of Israeli Requests for Aid to Attack Iran January 11, 2009 by Pelikan Filed under: Bush Foreign Policy, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Posted by OneVote at 01/14/2009 @ 4:53pm
3. WB and Gaza are legally, disputed territories under int'l law and not occupied based upon 1&2 above and the '67 war with Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. Israel did negotiate with Egypt and returned the Sinai peninsula to Egypt.
This is a curious interpretation and is not correct either. Your rationale is straight out of Likud's 'assessment' where you no doubt picked it up. The San Remo Conference, for those who want to know, was the Anglo-French IMPERIALIST agreement (also involving Turkey, which walked out) and part of their usual highhanded decision-making on behalf of the poor natives. This is also found on Ultra-Zionists sites which look for 'documentation' to validate claims of a Greater Israel. This is NOT a binding agreement as it pertains to today and it is a matter of opinion (largely of Israelis and Zionists) that this supersedes UN resolutions (overlooking that Israel's creation was a resolution, which is of course comical). So Israel's creation being simply a recommendation I guess is non-binding as well by your rationale (or the rationale you've 'borrowed')?
As for Arab nations and their existence, first and foremost, there are virtually no parallels to this current conflict so this is a distraction tactic. Int'l law disputes Morocco's claim to the Western Sahara for example as well since it was never part of their country until they unilaterally annexed it. Part and parcel ALL countries are created through arbitrary decisions involving borders and where they exist. The current int'l consensus remains that Israel is outside its determined borders as per the 1967 lines determined by Res. 242. This has been withheld by the Int'l Court, the highest legal body addressing such matters. Next.
Posted by nukemind at 01/14/2009 @ 5:03pm
Show me that Magic has retracted his intent to send (ie double) our troops in Afghansitan, or that his Deficit or his Inauguration will be less than double GW's?
I'll give you the inauguration. I would observe that a monumental celebration is in order after suffering through 8 years of W.
The other two... Where is the 'event?' The intent that you have divined has not yet come to pass. Are you the thought police?
LMAO
Posted by canaarak at 01/14/2009 @ 5:05pm
why should ethnic cleansing be rewarded ? the palestinians did not leave voluntarily the territory of today's israel when the state was "created" by western powers in 1948. below is what one of the leading israel-based israeli historians of the creation of modern israel, benny morris, said during a famous interview he gave to haaretz (for link: google "morris haaretz survival of the fittest").
[...]"Remember another thing: the Arab people gained a large slice of the planet. Not thanks to its skills or its great virtues, but because it conquered and murdered and forced those it conquered to convert during many generations. But in the end the Arabs have 22 states. The Jewish people did not have even one state. There was no reason in the world why it should not have one state. Therefore, from my point of view, the need to establish this state in this place *o v e r c a m e_t h e_ i n j u s t i c e* that was done to the Palestinians by uprooting them."
morris explains what "uprooting" means elsewhere in his haaretz interview: orchestrated mass rapes, massacres, and harassments by jewish armed bands.
hence creating the jewish state was such a noble goal that it was ok for the jews to rob, rape, and massacre the palestinians "like the arabs did".
that's why the palestinians "left voluntarily" the Young Besieged State Of IsraelTM (the only democratic one!).
how long will decent people keep tiptoeing around this monstrosity and keep asking the palestinians to make "concessions"!? it's time to expand israel to cover both the west bank and gaza and to transform the racist state into a non-confessional democratic state for everybody with no special rights for anybody (btw, apartheid south africa was "democratic" too).
Posted by erplus at 01/14/2009 @ 6:03pm
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Regan Administration, Paul Craig Roberts, wrote a powerful essay on how the Bush Administration has turned the United States to an Israeli colony. Very interesting insight into the Israeli total dominance of our White House, our Congress and our media:
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01142009.html
Posted by CripThink at 01/14/2009 @ 6:37pm
Olmert is leaving office in part to his views. Just as we would oust any president who started giving away our nation.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/14/2009 @ 6:38pm
Not really, no. He is being ousted by his party because of a corruption scandal. Actually, he spoke out primarily because knowing he has no political life left, he gave what is the most honest set of announcements of his (and any Israeli PM) life. Interesting that you are to the RIGHT of even some Israeli leaders on this.
It is NOT theirs to give. You are in the minority on this and your perspective, as we have seen, has no recognition by the int'l community or int'l law. Why not be honest and just say you support imperialism when you like one group of people OR said people are part of your religious perspective as rightful owners of a certain piece of real estate? I won't argue with a PERSONAL view. Any other argument is simply disingenuous on your part.
It would depend what land was being given away and for what purpose. If Puerto Rico, which gets to vote on its fate, decided to secede (it has not obviously so far), I would have no problem with it. Nor would I have a problem if Indian reservations were given national states (as in countries). I also would not fight a secession by the South. One can accept your way, military confrontation to keep territorial integrity and/or claims alive OR one can accept a civilized perspective as with the former Czechoslovakia which split up without firing a single shot (and throw in Canada allowing Quebec the right to decide if it wants to separate here).
Posted by nukemind at 01/14/2009 @ 6:54pm
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Regan Administration, Paul Craig Roberts, wrote a powerful essay on how the Bush Administration has turned the United States to an Israeli colony. Very interesting insight into the Israeli total dominance of our White House, our Congress and our media:
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01142009.html
Posted by CripThink at 01/14/2009 @ 6:37pm
Good read CT. Especially liked the irony of Bush immediately interrupting a speech to take Olmert's call, but Bush wouldn't immediately interrupt what he was doing to respond to 9/11 attack.
We need to realize that our elected representatives do not represent our interest, we are just their source of treasury funds, past, present and future. To them, we are just the good faith and credit slaves. Time to throw off the shackles and take back our government. Israel's control of our government and its facilitators here at home is appalling and treasonous.
Posted by OneVote at 01/14/2009 @ 7:39pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/14/2009 @ 7:40pm
For a guy who thinks the UN should be dissolved and that the US and other countries have absolutely no responsibility to abide by UN resolutions, you sure are using alot of UN resolutions to support your position today.
What's the deal? If a resolution is contrary to what you think, it's no good and has no validity. If it's in line with what you think, it's the international letter of law and must be upheld. Gosh Liv, how can you look at yourself in the mirror? Don't you see hypocrisy written all over your face?
Posted by OneVote at 01/14/2009 @ 8:00pm
The extent of Israel's required withdrawal was deliberately not specified in the resolution--an example of "creative ambiguity" made possible by omitting the definite article in front of the phrase "territories occupied in the recent conflict". Internal documents and the rare public pronouncement, however, make it clear that, although U.S. policymakers never definitively spelled out the exact boundary envisioned between Israel and any Arab entity, the basic assumption of successive administrations was that Israel would not keep the occupied territories. Johnson said publicly in 1968 that whatever borders were finally agreed to "should not reflect the weight of conquest". The U.S. envisioned a virtually full withdrawal on all fronts, excepting only some possible "minor border adjustments" in the 1967 lines to straighten and rationalize boundaries. In fact, on the Egyptian front, under the 1979 peace treaty, Israel withdrew totally from the occupied Sinai Peninsula--a point not lost on other Arabs still negotiating their own agreements.
http://www.counterpunch.org/kchristison0628.html
Posted by nukemind at 01/14/2009 @ 8:42pm
To lvliberty1,
Ah, so you've lifted Ariel Sharon's reinterpretation AND gone to Eli Hertz' INTERPRETATION: http://www.mythsandfacts.org/ReplyOnlineEdition/chapter-8.html
Sorry, no sale. Here's the problem(s), you (well the people whose view you've borrowed) want to look at this from 'wording' and the personal view of Lord Caradon rather than international law. This is, of course, nonsense. International law is what binds resolutions and not the personal opinions of drafters. This resolution is cited in the Oslo Accords (again pertaining to its legality and its reference to the 1967 borders) and the legal wrangling as been used to undermine the real intent and meaning of this resolution. The Int'l Court of Justice ruled that anything past the 1967 borders was in fact NOT part of Israel.
Posted by nukemind at 01/14/2009 @ 8:47pm
When the General Assembly couldn't reach consensus on a comprehensive resolution, deliberations moved to the Security Council. In November 1967 the Security Council unanimously approved Resolution 242, the preambular paragraph of which emphasized "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." The main framer of 242, Lord Caradon of the United Kingdom, later recalled that without this preambular statement "there could have been no unanimous vote" in the Security Council. (15) Fully 10 of the 15 Security Council members stressed in their interventions the "inadmissibility" principle and Israel's obligation to fully withdraw while none of the five other members registered any disagreement. (16) For its part the United States repeatedly made clear that it contemplated at most minor and mutual border adjustments (hence Carter's caveat of "mutually agreeable land swaps"). Jordanian leaders were told in early November 1967 that "some territorial adjustment will be required" on the West Bank but "there must be mutuality in adjustments" and, on a second occasion, that the U.S. supported "minor border rectifications" but Jordan would "obtain compensationfor any territory it is required to give up." (17) _When Israel first proposed annexation of West Bank territory, the U.S. vehemently replied that 242 "never meant that Israel could extend its territory to [the] West Bank," and that "there will be no peace if Israel tries to hold onto large chunks of territory." (18) In private Israeli leaders themselves suffered no illusions on the actual meaning of 242. During a closed session of the Labor Party in 1968 Moshe Dayan counseled against endorsing 242 because "it means withdrawal to the 4 June [1967] boundaries, and because we are in conflict with the SC [Security Coun
Posted by nukemind at 01/14/2009 @ 8:47pm
The above was from Norman Finkelstein's article on the matter, whose URL is too long to put in here. The article focuses on a REAL CHRISTIAN (at least one I can respect), Jimmy Carter, but also mentions the legality, historical background and meaning of how the int'l community holds that the 1967 borders are what is considered Israel.
Also, to be noted: "Secretary-General U Thant subsequently observed [of res. 242], because "everyone agrees that there should be no territorial gains by military conquest."
As it stands, the international community and law are NOT on Israel's side and they know it. And for the record when someone says, "Israel is entitled to the land that not only G-d promised them, but mankind legally agreed to in 1922 and 1946."
Actually, the Great Powers agreed. No one asked the Palestinians. And you lose all credibility with 'God promised them.' Give me a break, that is, as I said, your personal religious opinion. I don't believe in any deity and if that's part of the basis of your argument, you have nothing of any bearing here and no room to criticize others who are religious fanatics. Israel WAS not promised the entire British Mandate of Palestine. You have looked for loopholes, to transparently, seek out something to back Israel's claims for religious reasons. 'Mankind' has nothing to do with and no mention of what mankind believes today (and not the 1940s when only the Great imperialist powers)? Of course not. The LEGAL CONSENSUS today, according to the Int'l Court of Justice and numerous other UN resolutions (of course the only one you choose to support is the one calling for the creation of Israel, telling enough) is that anything past the 1967 borders IS NOT PART OF ISRAEL. Period.
Posted by nukemind at 01/14/2009 @ 8:59pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/14/2009 @ 8:25pm
This is true. LVLIB considers only one international organization an "authority"...
the League of Nations from 1922!
Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 9:17pm
No, because I pointed out that the UN resolutions did not carry the weight of law in this matter.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/14/2009 @ 8:25pm
What resolutions do you consider to carry the weight of law with regard to Israel? For instance...Resolution 181....of no legal weight?
Posted by OneVote at 01/14/2009 @ 9:46pm
You send rockets into your neighbors house from a school yard and you expect no incoming in return?
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/14/2009 @ 4:38pm
the wheels on the bus go round and round.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 10:18pm
the League of Nations from 1922!
Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 9:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Let me guess - British Mandate for Palestine?
Posted by OneVote at 01/14/2009 @ 10:29pm
at least we've got this:
5 DAYS 10 Hrs 29 Min 22.5 Sec
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @ 01:31am
Monday night, when W issues his blanket pardons, some solace will enter the dark spirits of war criminals everywhere, a tiny beacon of hope. If the Americans can get away with it, we can too.
Posted by sloper at 01/15/2009 @ 02:57am
You have to admit, the exchange below, earlier on this thread, is hilarious!
Lib intellectuals passing advice and information back and forth, impressed with how much intellect and knowledge they, the enlightened libs, possess.
In other words, libs full of it. ("it" in this case is B.S.)
I really believe that the people who run The Nation website need to ask Comedy Central to put a link on their home page to The Nation!
http://www.comedycentral.com/
==========================
Posted by nukemind at 01/14/2009 @ 1:32pm
nuke, before you get too deep into it with SJCHERMAK, keep in mind he's a major ditto-head who "doesn't know who AIPAC is" nor "remembers much from '1984' since he read it in high school!"....
but he's a daily visitor to rushlimbaugh.com!
So realize what you're dealing with.
Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 4:19pm
========================
but he's a daily visitor to rushlimbaugh.com!
So realize what you're dealing with.
Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 4:19pm
Duly noted. I like to think that civil dialogue and an actual exchange of provable points can still reach people who are even 'dittoheads', but I could be wrong. Thanks for the heads up.
Posted by nukemind at 01/14/2009 @ 4:23pm
=========================
Posted by sjchermak at 01/15/2009 @ 07:58am
'While most US allies in Europe and elsewhere have called for an immediate ceasefire since the Israeli bombardment of Gaza began on 27 December, the Bush administration has been unwavering in its refusal to condemn the campaign or suggest a timeline for its conclusion.
The US Congress has also expressed its strong support for Israel's actions in Gaza. Last week, both the House and Senate overwhelmingly passed non-binding resolutions in support of the military campaign.
But polls indicate that both members of Congress and the public at large may be more skeptical of the Israeli offensive than the official positions of the US government would indicate.
An anonymous poll of 68 congressmen conducted by National Journal found that 39 percent of Democrats and 12 percent of Republicans felt that Israel had used "too much" force in Gaza. Nevertheless, over 90 percent of representatives voted in favor of the House resolution, which placed all blame for civilian casualties in Gaza upon Hamas.
And in late December, a Rasmussen poll found that the US populace as a whole supported the Israeli offensive by a narrow 44 to 41 percent margin. Among Democrats, 55 percent felt that Israel should have tried to find a diplomatic solution first.
The diplomatic spat over Olmert's comments, along with this alleged disparity between US public opinion and policies on Israel-Palestine, have given new intensity to an old set of debates.'
Excerpt:
Olmert's claims revive specter of "Israel Lobby" Daniel Luban, The Electronic Intifada, 14 January 2009
Posted by OneVote at 01/15/2009 @ 09:40am
The only way to peace in Afghanistan and between Israelis and Palestinians is for people to learn to live as neighbors in their daily lives. They need to agree to a hudna, stop fighting for a period of years to give an opportunity for attitudes to change. Hatred and killing and blaming will continue to lead nowhere. False political settlements will continue to break down. Isolated acts of violence should not be allowed to break the hudna. The hudna will also allow for true leadership to emerge. Only through time can understanding and respect grow. We cannot bring peace when we are shortsighted and desire the world, a people, a nation to be in our own image.
Posted by Notebookwriter at 01/15/2009 @ 3:27pm
The 'Taliban' were cutting the heads off of the Brits in the 1840's. What makes our government think that we will change anything in Afganistan? The Afganis will have their way regardless. Why are we trying to thwart the will of Afganis? Get out now and get our house in order...
Posted by tea at 01/16/2009 @ 07:47am
bush can secure his legacy as the president who successfully defeated terrorism by finally getting Osama bin Laden. Beginning next Wednesday, this guy won't have that much to do. If he had any guts, as "Joe Citizen," he would announce that he's personally going after the guy; that he's going over to Afghanistan/Pakistan to call-out bin Laden. Boy, that one single act would certainly endear the masses of Americans in his favor. Do it Mr. bush! You get bin Laden and I'll start spelling your name again with a capital "B." It would be the honorable thing to do.
Posted by coloneblog at 01/18/2009 @ 12:19pm
"You are forgetting that war was not declared as authorization to use force is not the same thing."
The only serious mistake I've seen in your posts. There is nothing in the reasons for vesting the power to declare war with Congress that indicates that the form of a formal declaration of war must be adhered to. The concern was to prevent an executive from unilaterally starting a conflict. In fact, Congress authorized the use of force against the Barbary Pirates in 1801 with an authorization of force rather than a declaration of war.
LL As I have repeatedly pointed out, the same UNSC resolution that declared Iraq in material breach also indicated that the Security Council retained jurisdiction over the matter. Thus, the US had no authority to unilaterally use force in response to Iraq's breach.
Posted by brunowe at 01/20/2009 @ 12:33am