Happy New Year! More Freedom Exists

[Annie]

http://www.command-post.org/gwot/2_archives/009290.html

Check out the link, it has embedded info

December 31, 2003
2003: A GOOD YEAR FOR FREEDOM
Ralph Peters sounds a particularly cheery note in a New York Post editorial which begins with the rather bold statement,

EVEN if terrorists attack our homeland before the stroke of midnight, 2003 will still have been a year of remarkable progress on every front in the global War on Terror - and the greatest year for freedom since the Soviet Union's collapse.
While one could quibble about the further erosion of freedom domestically, it's certainly true that removing Saddam made the world a better place. Whether Iraq will be "free" in a Western sense five or ten years ago is not something I'd want to bet on, but it's almost inconceivable that its people won't be far better off than they were a year ago. And, as Peters notes, the effects are being felt outside Iraq as well:
* Our president's courageous decision to target Saddam himself while sparing innocent Iraqis upset the traditional rules of warfare, according to which the draftees die while the ruler survives by signing a peace treaty.

Even though our attempted "decapitation strikes" failed, the message sent to the world's dictators and sponsors of terror had far more force than Western pundits yet realize. And our ultimate, humiliating capture of Saddam left every remaining tyrant worried that he might topple next.

* As a result, Libya has opened its nuclear facilities for inspection, while Iran hastened to strike a no-nukes deal with European governments anxious to save face after their support of Saddam backfired disastrously. North Korea has grown remarkably subdued. Syria treads cautiously. No tyrant wants G.I. Joe as his houseguest.

* Even Saudi Arabia, the great incubator of terror, has become newly cooperative, both because the terrorists - predictably - bit the many hands that fed them and because Riyadh's relative importance has declined precipitously with G.I. Jane in Baghdad.

* We've continued to kill and capture terrorists by the thousands, dismantling their networks, seizing their assets and destroying their bases. Terrorism won't disappear in our lifetimes, but its reach and capabilities have been powerfully reduced.

I largely agree with this assessment, although I'm less sanguine that terrorism as a political tool has been seriously hampered. As Peters notes, this war proved once again that the United States is simply unstoppable in traditional combat operations. Thus, terrorism or other asymmetric means are the only options for those who want to fight back. But Peters' larger point is right: by attacking the infrastructure of the large terrorist networks, we render them less potent. And by demonstrating our resolve by fighting back as aggressively as we have (although I believe much less aggressively than we should have) we have proven that our enemies will not achieve their goals with terrorism.

And this is worth noting as well:

Whether facing down Taliban remnants in Afghanistan or shaming the rest of the world into providing more assistance to Africa's struggle against AIDS, we've made an epochal break with the tradition of wealthy states embracing easy short-term solutions instead of engaging long-term problems. Future historians will regard 2003 as one of the dates when history made a great turn, as a global 1776.
I'm not going to predict how historians will view this from a distance; my guess is September 11, 2001 will be seen as the turning point if indeed it looks like a sea change actually occured. It's not like the United States hasn't given humanitarian assistance in the past, but it may well be that the AIDS fund is the most emblematic harbinger of a new era. This is a problem that we've largely ignored for two decades. That we've suddenly gotten involved in a massive way at a time when it would have been easy not to--given huge budget deficits, a weak economy, and a multi-front war--does seem to indicate a reassessment of our global priorities.

Cross-post from OTB

Posted by James at December 31, 2003

 

[DKSuddeth]

I'd say its rather presumptive on his part. We haven't had alot of success in nation building in our history.

 

[Annie]

For once we agree on something, we HAVEN'T had a lot of success at nation building, with the exceptions of Japan and Germany, in which case, I think to some extent we are mimicking in Iraq. Nevertheless, Peters point is that they are better off than they were, you would disagree?

 

[acludem]

Japan and Germany were very different from Iraq. Japan and Germany weren't so divided by religion. Oh yeah...and we had plans when we rebuilt those two countries and also international cooperation, two things we don't currently have in Iraq.

 

[Annie]

we had plans when we rebuilt those two countries and also international cooperation, two things we don't currently have in Iraq.

by acludem

The Marshall plan was the book used for Iraq, very similar. Just because you say 'no plan' doesn't make it so.

'International cooperation' after WWII is more of a joke than the coalition of the willing, there really were no other countries able to do more than say, "Go forth and do what you will."

 

[bamthin]

Aren't we in Code Orange right now? Are you in complete denial? Do you feel safer now than before the Iraq occupation? I don't know about you, but when I see Code Orange and the FBI warning local law enforcement to watch out for people with almanacs, I am not getting a warm fuzzy feeling.

The bottom line is that America has gained more enemies, the kind who have no qualms about blowing themselves up in the name of Allah, then we would have had we not invaded Iraq. They stopped estimating civilian casualties in Iraq at around 9,000. Do you know how many enraged survivors that leaves? Do you ever think about the young boys who lost their Dads and what revenge they dream of?

The best way to make the US safer was to treat the Israelis and the Palestinians equally and working hard for a fair and reasonable solution there. The best way to protect the American citizens was to keep our noses out of Middle East affairs to save profits for US big oil interests. Your selective memory has caused you to forget that Saddam was our bug chum in the 80's. We had no business arming him with WMD and going against the UN in investigating his human rights violations right after they occured.

Do you have any idea how dirty and crooked and materialistic that makes the US look over there? Have you also forgotten the support we promised the Shia after Desert Storm only to back out at the last minute because we were afraid the Shia may be Iranian sympathizers? Do you know how many Shia were slaughtered when we allowed Saddam to fly his helicopters into the "no fly" zone to exact his revenge and put down the rebellion?

These people have so many reasons to not trust the US. I guess you just don't get it.....

-Bam

 

[Annie]

America has gained more enemies, the kind who have no qualms about blowing themselves up in the name of Allah, then we would have had we not invaded Iraq.

best way to make the US safer was to treat the Israelis and the Palestinians equally and working hard for a fair and reasonable solution there

you to forget that Saddam was our bug chum in the 80's. We had no business arming him with WMD and going against the UN in investigating his human rights violations right after they occured.

All of the quotes by Bam. Kind of hard to know where to start here. I do not think we have 'gained more enemies' due to Iraq war. On the contrary, we have lost many and weakened many of those that remain.

Also, I disagree with you about Israel and Palestinians. Our support of Israel has not one thing to do with the broader WOT, though some would like us to think so. IF we stopped supporting Israel, which isn't going to happen, the Islophamists would still hate us.

They, meaning the terrorists would try to hit us over and over again, regardless of Iraq or Israel. You are the one that is delusional or perhaps afraid.

The US had much less to do with arming Saddam than our European 'allies', that's a fact and you can check by googling or dogpile or whatever.

Now the following has some merit. I don't think many thoughtful people forget this setup, and it was a disgrace. Funny thing is, they are just grateful that we finally moved in, not loving us, but glad that Saddam is gone. That was a dark spot on us.

Have you also forgotten the support we promised the Shia after Desert Storm only to back out at the last minute because we were afraid the Shia may be Iranian sympathizers? Do you know how many Shia were slaughtered when we allowed Saddam to fly his helicopters into the "no fly" zone to exact his revenge and put down the rebellion?

 

[r3volut!on]

http://monkeyfist.com/ChomskyArchive/essays/selective_html

Selective memory and a dishonest doctrine
December 21, 2003
by Noam Chomsky

All people who have any concern for human rights, justice and integrity should be overjoyed by the capture of Saddam Hussein, and should be awaiting a fair trial for him by an international tribunal.

An indictment of Saddam's atrocities would include not only his slaughter and gassing of Kurds in 1988 but also, rather crucially, his massacre of the Shiite rebels who might have overthrown him in 1991. At the time, Washington and its allies held the "strikingly unanimous view (that) whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for his country's stability than did those who have suffered his repression," reported Alan Cowell in the New York Times. Last December, Jack Straw, Britain's foreign secretary, released a dossier of Saddam's crimes drawn almost entirely from the period of firm U.S.-British support of Saddam. With the usual display of moral integrity, Straw's report and Washington's reaction overlooked that support.

Such practices reflect a trap deeply rooted in the intellectual culture generally -- a trap sometimes called the doctrine of "change of course," invoked in the United States every two or three years. The content of the doctrine is: "Yes, in the past we did some wrong things because of innocence or inadvertence. But now that's all over, so let's not waste any more time on this boring, stale stuff."

The doctrine is dishonest and cowardly, but it does have advantages: It protects us from the danger of understanding what is happening before our eyes. For example, the Bush administration's original reason for going to war in Iraq was to save the world from a tyrant developing weapons of mass destruction and cultivating links to terror. Nobody believes that now, not even Bush's speechwriters. The new reason is that we invaded Iraq to establish a democracy there and, in fact, to democratize the whole Middle East.

Sometimes, the repetition of this democracy-building posture reaches the level of rapturous acclaim. Last month, for example, David Ignatius, the Washington Post commentator, described the invasion of Iraq as "the most idealistic war in modern times" -- fought solely to bring democracy to Iraq and the region. Ignatius was particularly impressed with Paul Wolfowitz, "the Bush administration's idealist in chief," whom he described as a genuine intellectual who "bleeds for (the Arab world's) oppression and dreams of liberating it."

Maybe that helps explain Wolfowitz's career -- like his strong support for Suharto in Indonesia, one of the last century's worst mass murderers and aggressors, when Wolfowitz was ambassador to that country under Ronald Reagan. As the State Department official responsible for Asian affairs under Reagan, Wolfowitz oversaw support for the murderous dictators Chun of South Korea and Marcos of the Philippines.

All this is irrelevant because of the convenient doctrine of "change of course." So, yes, Wolfowitz's heart bleeds for the victims of oppression -- and if the record shows the opposite, it's just that boring old stuff that we want to forget about.

One might recall another recent illustration of Wolfowitz's love of democracy. The Turkish parliament, heeding its population's near-unanimous opposition to war in Iraq, refused to let U.S. forces deploy fully from Turkey. This caused absolute fury in Washington. Wolfowitz denounced the Turkish military for failing to intervene to overturn the decision. Turkey was listening to its people, not taking orders from Crawford, Texas, or Washington, D.C.

The most recent chapter is Wolfowitz's "Determination and Findings" on bidding for lavish reconstruction contracts in Iraq. Excluded are countries where the government dared to take the same position as the vast majority of the population. Wolfowitz's alleged grounds are "security interests," which are non-existent, though the visceral hatred of democracy is hard to miss -- along with the fact that Halliburton and Bechtel corporations will be free to "compete" with the vibrant democracy of Uzbekistan and the Solomon Islands, but not with leading industrial societies.

What's revealing and important to the future is that Washington's display of contempt for democracy went side by side with a chorus of adulation about its yearning for democracy. To be able to carry that off is an impressive achievement, hard to mimic even in a totalitarian state.

Iraqis have some insight into this process of conquerors and conquered. The British created Iraq for their own interests. When they ran that part of the world, they discussed how to set up what they called "Arab facades" -- weak, pliable governments, parliamentary if possible, so long as the British effectively ruled. Who would expect that the United States would ever permit an independent Iraqi government to exist? Especially now that Washington has reserved the right to set up permanent military bases there, in the heart of the world's greatest oil-producing region, and has imposed an economic regime that no sovereign country would accept, putting the country's fate in the hands of Western corporations.

Throughout history, even the harshest and most shameful measures are regularly accompanied by professions of noble intent -- and rhetoric about bestowing freedom and independence. An honest look would only generalize Thomas Jefferson's observation on the world situation of his day: "We believe no more in Bonaparte's fighting merely for the liberties of the seas than in Great Britain's fighting for the liberties of mankind. The object is the same, to draw to themselves the power, the wealth and the resources of other nations."

 

[r3volut!on]

Kathianne wrote:

Also, I disagree with you about Israel and Palestinians. Our support of Israel has not one thing to do with the broader WOT, though some would like us to think so. IF we stopped supporting Israel, which isn't going to happen, the Islophamists would still hate us

I beg to differ. It is my opinion that one of the most significant reasons the United States is a target of terrorism from Muslim extremists IS the fact that we, alone, support Israel.

I know there are other reasons, but for now, I'm mainly interested in hearing what you think those reasons are, and how you think those reasons would stand up if the US were to take a fair stance in the Israel/Palestine conflict.

By the way, Kathianne, you're one of my favorite people to discuss with, just so you know

 

[eric]

the US were to take a fair stance in the Israel/Palestine conflict

What would you consider a fair stance ?

 

[nbdysfu]

"First, to take part in a discussion, one must understand the ground rules. In this case, I don't. In particular, I don't know the answers to such elementary questions as these: Are conclusions to be consistent with premises (maybe even follow from them)? Do facts matter? Or can we string together thoughts as we like, calling it an "argument," and make facts up as we please, taking one story to be as good as another? There are certain familiar ground rules: those of rational inquiry. They are by no means entirely clear, and there have been interesting efforts to criticize and clarify them; but we have enough of a grasp to proceed over a broad range. What seems to be under discussion here is whether we should abide by these ground rules at all (trying to improve them as we proceed). If the answer is that we are to abide by them, then the discussion is over: we've implicitly accepted the legitimacy of rational inquiry. If they are to be abandoned, then we cannot proceed until we learn what replaces the commitment to consistency, responsibility to fact, and other outdated notions. Short of some instruction on this matter, we are reduced to primal screams. I see no hint in the papers here of any new procedures or ideas to replace the old, and therefore remain perplexed." --------Noam Chomsky

 

[nbdysfu]

"At the 1967 New York forum he acknowledged both “the mass slaughter of landlords in China” and “the slaughter of landlords in North Vietnam” that had taken place once the communists came to power. His main objective, however, was to provide a rationalization for this violence, especially that of the National Liberation Front then trying to take control of South Vietnam. Chomsky revealed he was no pacifist.

I don’t accept the view that we can just condemn the NLF terror, period, because it was so horrible. I think we really have to ask questions of comparative costs, ugly as that may sound. And if we are going to take a moral position on this—and I think we should—we have to ask both what the consequences were of using terror and not using terror. If it were true that the consequences of not using terror would be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue to live in the state of the peasantry of the Philippines, then I think the use of terror would be justified.

It was not only Chomsky who was sucked into supporting the maelstrom of violence that characterized the communist takeovers in South-East Asia. Almost the whole of the 1960s New Left followed. They opposed the American side and turned Ho Chi Minh and the Vietcong into romantic heroes.

When the Khmer Rouge took over Cambodia in 1975 both Chomsky and the New Left welcomed it. And when news emerged of the extraordinary event that immediately followed, the complete evacuation of the capital Phnom Penh accompanied by reports of widespread killings, Chomsky offered a rationalization similar to those he had provided for the terror in China and Vietnam: there might have been some violence, but this was understandable under conditions of regime change and social revolution. "----------Keith Windschuttle

 

[nbdysfu]

When asked if you believe your vote has an influence on your government, in lockstep fashion, say:

"They know, even if we choose not to, that the United States has been devastating the civilian society of Iraq while strengthening Sadam Hussein, and it’s been supporting a very harsh military occupation that is now in its 35th year in Israel, over the Palestinians. The U.S. has been pretty much alone in the world in imposing that very cruel domination with economic and military and diplomatic assistance. That’s quite well known there and even the most pro-American wealthy Muslim businessmen bankers have the same feelings others do. When Bin Laden talks about these things there is a resonance. They may hate him. Most of them do hate him because they overwhelmingly oppose his terrorist violence and his Islamic fanaticism, but a good part of the message does reflect what people believe and with justification."----Noam Chomsky

Accept this line, because a many-laureled linguistics professor told you 'heel', and flagellate your guilt blissed american soul with his authoritative edict.

 

[nbdysfu]

As to what Chomsky thinks of our support of Israel:

"In March of 1989, not long after the appearance of the first edition of this book, A. M. Rosenthal of the New York Times wrote a column to mark the tenth anniversary of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty. The column was generally favorable to Israel, although he also chided Israel for what he called its "historical error __ the refusal to recognize the reality of the Palestinian people and passion."

One of Rosenthal's points was that Jordan is a Palestinian state (Jordan's territory is situated in the original British mandate of Palestine), and Rosenthal opposed the creation of a second Palestinian state in this territory. This was enough to once again provoke Noam Chomsky's legendary bile. He wrote:

We might ask how the Times would react to an Arab claim that the Jews do not merit a 'second homeland' because they already have New York, with a huge Jewish population, Jewish-run media, a Jewish mayor, and domination of cultural and economic life. (1)

As it happened, Rosenthal did not use either the words or the concept of a "second homeland." Nonetheless, Chomsky saw fit to put these words between quotation marks to attribute them to Rosenthal. Chomsky habitually, as we shall see in the body of this book, misrepresents the writings of others. But let that pass for the moment.

What is actually most noteworthy in this passage is Chomsky's unpleasant tone about the Jews of New York and the fact that his malice does not conform to familiar "anti-Zionist" left-wing doctrines. Chomsky's target here is very simply Jews, without any pretense whatever about being "anti-Zionist-but-not-anti-Semitic."

When Chomsky wrote these words, there was indeed a Jewish mayor in New York, and a large Jewish population. There were Jews in the media on all levels. There were also many Jews in cultural and economic pursuits in New York. These facts are not in dispute.

But what are "Jewish-run media?" What is meant by a Jewish "domination of cultural and economic life?" These hateful expressions are staples of traditional anti-Semitism. They suggest that Jews do not act as individuals but only as agents of a larger Jewish cabal. The anti-Semitic propagandist says that Jewish artists and business men and journalists do not pursue such professions as other men would. No, to him such Jewish men and women are "running" the media, "dominating" culture and the economy, all in their capacity as Jews, all for the sake of a Jewish design.

But wait a minute. Is it Chomsky himself who makes these anti-Semitic allegations? Or is it some unnamed anti-Semitic Arab? Chomsky does not say. Nor is he explicit, assuming that it isn't he but rather his hypothetical Arab who is speaking, in telling us whether he would regard the accusations as justified.

But what he fails to do explicitly he does by indirection. By mixing legitimate facts with allegations of "running" media and "dominating" culture, all in the same sentence and in the same tone, he endorses and justifies the anti-Semitic assertions. And he does all this without taking direct responsibility. Chomsky, as always, is __ what is the word __ clever.

Actually we have here a fine example of the well-known Chomskyan method of devious ambiguity. He says the anti-Semitic thing by very clear implication, and then, with the wink of complicity to his neo-Nazi following that we shall encounter again, there is a built-in explanation of it all to his left-wing following: it is not I who would ever say such a thing, not I at all, but how can I help it if an oppressed Arab makes such interesting observations?

***

Hidden from tourists and from most of its citizens, the fringes of Israeli society harbor a fair number of babblers, seers, zealots, and other assorted know-alls. Such people are of interest mainly to social scientists and journalists who make a living describing the quaint and the curious. Ordinary Israelis merely shrug a shoulder: surely Jews, like everyone else, are entitled to a quota of maniacs.

But even in Israel, tolerant as it is of the eccentric and the deranged, the case of Israel Shahak gives pause. Without a question, he is the world's most conspicuous Jewish anti-Semite. His specialty, moreover, is quite rare these days even among non-Jewish anti-Semites; quite rare, that is, since the demise of the Nazis. Like the Nazis before him, Shahak specializes in defaming the Talmud. In fact, he has made it his life's work to popularize the anti-Talmud ruminations of the 18th century German anti-Semite, Johann Eisenmenger. (2)

Now a retired chemist, Shahak travels the world to propound a simple thesis: Jews (with only a rare exception __ guess who that might be) are evil. The Talmud teaches them to be criminal, and Zionism compounds the evil. Naturally, Shahak is an active, enthusiastic supporter of the most militant Arab terrorists.

Shahak's most recent tract, Jewish History, Jewish Religion (London and Boulder, Colorado, 1994) demands that Jews repent of their own sins and of the sins of their forefathers. First of all, says Shahak, Jews should now applaud, retroactively, the "popular anti-Jewish manifestations of the past," for instance the Chmielnicki massacres of 17th century Ukraine. These were "progressive" uprisings, according to Shahak.

Concerning the Jews of our day, Shahak reveals that "Jewish children are actually taught" to utter a ritual curse when passing a non-Jewish cemetery. Moreover, he tells us, "both before and after a meal, a pious Jew ritually washes his hands....On one of these two occasions he is worshipping God... but on the other he is worshipping Satan."

On its own, being so hopelessly crackpot, Jewish History, Jewish Religion would hardly find enough buyers to pay for its printing. But this little booklet is not on its own. It has a foreword by a famous writer, Gore Vidal, who tells us that he, Vidal, is not himself an anti-Semite. And it carries an enthusiastic endorsement, right on its cover, by Noam Chomsky. Says Chomsky: "Shahak is an outstanding scholar, with remarkable insight and depth of knowledge. His work is informed and penetrating, a contribution of great value." (3)

So that is how scholarship is judged these days at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

***" -----Werner Cohn

 

[nbdysfu]

The university (MIT) also hosts an article by Alan M. Dershowitz

detailing a chronology of Chomsky's views on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

 

[Annie]

By the way, Kathianne, you're one of my favorite people to discuss with, just so you know

by r3volut!on

How could I not respond? Flattery will get you everywhere.

It is my opinion that one of the most significant reasons the United States is a target of terrorism from Muslim extremists IS the fact that we, alone, support Israel.

I know there are other reasons, but for now, I'm mainly interested in hearing what you think those reasons are, and how you think those reasons would stand up if the US were to take a fair stance in the Israel/Palestine conflict.

First off, I do not think the fact that 'we alone support Israel' is much of an argument, by a rational thinking person. Unlike Europe, the US, even in its colonial existance, does not have a broad history of anti-semitism. Yes, there were groups, (KKK) and others that had problems with them, (and nearly everyone else), but as a whole Jews were accepted/left alone.

The Palestinians have a problem with our support of Israel, but they are not the Islamicists that threaten us. They are not all that strong in the practice of Islam to begin with. Many are Christian, more are probably 'secular.'

Saudi Arabian leadership, they use hate for Israel with the same level of committment that they used to finance Wahabbism and bin Laden, to project threats to someone/someplace else.

Egypt has made a 'peace' with Israel, not friends, but co-existors. (See Mubarek's advice to the Palis in the past few days.)

Turkey has had a working relationship with Israel since WWII. That's why those synagogs were being guarded by Turkish police. They trade intel with Israel. Both are democracies.

India, albeit with an Islamic minority, has recently been consulting with and trading with Israel.

No, as far as 'world opinion' goes, Europe is the problem for Israel at the UN and for financing Palestinian terror. Europe is the continent with hundreds of years history of anti-semitism and pograms. I do not see Europe as a whole as a terrorist threat to us. Today, I don't know what tomorrow will bring and alliances seem to be shifting faster than Stalin changed from the Axis to the Allies, I do think France in particular, Germany to some degree, Russia, and Belgium are our active enemies. They are our enemies in the way that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' sort of way. Not in a terrorist type of way.

The terrorists for the most part are fighting a religious war, while we think we are fighting a political war. We, meaning the US led coalition believe that if we 'root out' the terrorists, help the 'people' create the circumstances where they can 'grow wealth', i.e., first preference establish democracy, second choice any system that is aimed at modernity, they will stop hating us.

I think the WOT is being fought the right way, but perhaps with the wrong thinking. The 19 hi-jackers were from upper middle class families, from Saudi Arabia or Egypt, supposedly friendly countries. There 'beef' against US is that we exist as infidels. I don't know if it would bother them as much if we were a poor country, the idea that it's 'jealousy' strikes me as too trite, yet I don't see them bombing Mexico. I don't think increasing the 'wealth' of these countries or all the aid in the world will change their thinking. I think that those that are committed to destroying us are the 'true adherents' to Islam. Most people in those countries are not as rigid in their beliefs, thus less likely to participate in jihad. Yet, there is enough 'truth' to the extremists view of things that the 'regular' people are not condemning in the strongest terms not aiding in identifying those that mean us all harm.

The extremists exist in every country. The type of orthodox beliefs seem to be spreading and I don't think it has that much to do with US actions. It was happening prior to 9/11, funded predominately by the Saudis.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by Kathianne
All of the quotes by Bam. Kind of hard to know where to start here. I do not think we have 'gained more enemies' due to Iraq war. On the contrary, we have lost many and weakened many of those that remain.

This is just a few non-Middle Eastern countries views. Do ypu want me to dig up the before-after Iraq feelings of the Middle Eastern countries?

]survey

Originally posted by Kathianne
Also, I disagree with you about Israel and Palestinians. Our support of Israel has not one thing to do with the broader WOT, though some would like us to think so. IF we stopped supporting Israel, which isn't going to happen, the Islophamists would still hate us.

Would you at least concede that one of the benefits of a succesful WOT by the US would mean that life for Israel would become much easier and continuing settlement activities would be less difficult? If so, does that even make you wonder a little bit?

I propose to you that a STRONG US stance against Israeli digressions and actions against the Palestinians, would go much further to making a dent in the WOT than invading Iraq.

Originally posted by Kathianne
They, meaning the terrorists would try to hit us over and over again, regardless of Iraq or Israel. You are the one that is delusional or perhaps afraid.

I disagree. I am positive if the US stops meddling in Middle Eastern affairs and takes a harder line against the activities of the Israelis, that the general perception of the US among islamics, radical or otherwise, will begin to improve. I am convinced that if the US takes all the money that it has spent ($200+ billion for Saddam alone) and will spend, it can develop energy technologies that will lessen our dependence on Middle East oil and make our meddling presence there irrelevent. We developed an atomic bomb when we had to, I am sure we can do whatever we need to and save US lives in the process.

Originally posted by Kathianne
The US had much less to do with arming Saddam than our European 'allies', that's a fact and you can check by googling or dogpile or whatever.

"At the time of the visit , Iraq had already been removed from the State Department's list of terrorist countries in 1982; and in the previous month, November, President Reagan had approved National Security Decision Directive 114, on expansion of U.S.-Iraq relations generally. But it was Donald Rumsfeld's trip to Baghdad which opened of the floodgates during 1985-90 for lucrative U.S. weapons exports--some $1.5 billion worth-- including chemical/biological and nuclear weapons equipment and technology, along with critical components for missile delivery systems for all of the above. According to a 1994 GAO Letter Report (GAO/NSIAD-94-98) some 771 weapons export licenses for Iraq were approved during this six year period....not by our European allies, but by the U.S. Department of Commerce. "

I guess you didn't Google?

-Bam

 

[r3volut!on]

Originally posted by Kathianne

The Palestinians have a problem with our support of Israel, but they are not the Islamicists that threaten us. They are not all that strong in the practice of Islam to begin with. Many are Christian, more are probably 'secular.'

I didn't intend to imply that the reason Islamic extremists hate us is because of any crimes againt Islam resulting from our support of Israel. What I mean is that, regardless of who the "victims" are, the fact that we support Israel in carrying out it's various atrocities sends a very negative impression to the Islamic extremists about what America stands for, and about what our interests and intentions are. It simply adds a lot of fuel to their already hateful fire.

When the extremists talk about America as an evil empire, they need only point to Palestine to support their case against us.

 

[Annie]

and what do you call the atrocities of the Palestinians against the Israelis? The fence is coming with a history from both sides.

 

[r3volut!on]

yes, but you miss the point - the Israelis are committing their atrocities with OUR help, OUR money, OUR tanks, OUR planes. I certainly don't intend to downplay the atrocities of the Palestinians, but the point is, we're not arming the Palestinians.