So if Hamas will never compromise, how exactly can Obama put pressure on them, and what good will it do?

For long lasting peace in the ME between muslims and jews, Israeli territory needs to include Gaza and the WB. Muslims living in this expanded Israeli nation should be emigrated out to Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan. Putting aside the difficulty of getting from here to there, a reconfig along these lines does solve a lot of problems. No more daily tension between jews and muslims, sharing the same space. The borders between Israel and its neighbors would be drawn along natural, geographical lines. What with the crazy mullahs in Iran getting nukes, Israel can make a strong case that it needs the extra territory to survive an Iranian first strike. That surviveability is needed to a.) obviate the necessity of an Israeli strike on Iran before it gets the nukes. b.) lessens the need for Israel to be quick on the trigger and launch before absolutely necessary in a crisis. One way to accomplish this rearrangement is with money. Just as a starter, giving 5 million people $10,000 each costs $50 billion. That is bernie madoff scam money. What about $300 billion to the Jordanian and Egyptian governments to set aside the space and accept

Quoting DenvilleSteve: For long lasting peace in the ME between muslims and jews, Israeli territory needs to include Gaza and the WB. Muslims living in this expanded Israeli nation should be emigrated out to Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan.

Putting aside the difficulty of getting from here to there, a reconfig along these lines does solve a lot of problems. No more daily tension between jews and muslims, sharing the same space. The borders between Israel and its neighbors would be drawn along natural, geographical lines.

What with the crazy mullahs in Iran getting nukes, Israel can make a strong case that it needs the extra territory to survive an Iranian first strike. That surviveability is needed to a.) obviate the necessity of an Israeli strike on Iran before it gets the nukes. b.) lessens the need for Israel to be quick on the trigger and launch before absolutely necessary in a crisis.

One way to accomplish this rearrangement is with money. Just as a starter, giving 5 million people $10,000 each costs $50 billion. That is bernie madoff scam money. What about $300 billion to the Jordanian and Egyptian governments to set aside the space and accept

Quoting kezboard: So if Hamas will never compromise, how exactly can Obama put pressure on them, and what good will it do?

And why should Israel compromise? Israel's long term strategy, since its founding ( and prior ) has been to get and keep all of Palestine. Why give up now, when they are closer than ever to the goal line? Consider that there is a roll of the dice chance that there will be major changes in the US within the next decade. The Obama deficit could bankrupt the nation, California could descend into chaos, republican states could secede from the union. With so many aging, dependent citizens, the feds cant cut spending to balance the budget. And it cant raise taxes and still compete against foreign based companies. Add into the mix the most out of touch with reality president since Jimmy Carter and you have what is called check mate. Yes, the republican people no longer care enough to want to govern. But, dont count Hillary out in terms of running against a weakened Obama in 2012. From the Israeli perspective, it is smart to delay and see how willing and able the US is

Obama has criticized Hamas and Hezbollah. It goes without saying he doesn't think firing rockets at Israel is productive. Both groups also remain terrorist organizations to the United States. Like kezboard says, what more can be said?

None of what you say is going to happen. It would also be wrong (violation of international law) for it to happen. The United States has never supported such a policy either and won't ever.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: For long lasting peace in the ME between muslims and jews, Israeli territory needs to include Gaza and the WB. Muslims living in this expanded Israeli nation should be emigrated out to Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan.

Putting aside the difficulty of getting from here to there, a reconfig along these lines does solve a lot of problems. No more daily tension between jews and muslims, sharing the same space. The borders between Israel and its neighbors would be drawn along natural, geographical lines.

What with the crazy mullahs in Iran getting nukes, Israel can make a strong case that it needs the extra territory to survive an Iranian first strike. That surviveability is needed to a.) obviate the necessity of an Israeli strike on Iran before it gets the nukes. b.) lessens the need for Israel to be quick on the trigger and launch before absolutely necessary in a crisis.

One way to accomplish this rearrangement is with money. Just as a starter, giving 5 million people $10,000 each costs $50 billion. That is bernie madoff scam money. What about $300 billion to the Jordanian and Egyptian governments to set aside the space and accept

It's not permanent nor as comprehensive as President Obama is trying to present it but BYE-BYE, BABYLON EXITING IRAQ'S CITIES, VICTORIOUS goes along way towards vindicating the wisdom of the surge and the courage it took to implement it in the face of determined interference from the opponents of it. And yes Ralph Peters does some things for FOX.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: For long lasting peace in the ME between muslims and jews, Israeli territory needs to include Gaza and the WB. Muslims living in this expanded Israeli nation should be emigrated out to Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan.

Putting aside the difficulty of getting from here to there, a reconfig along these lines does solve a lot of problems. No more daily tension between jews and muslims, sharing the same space. The borders between Israel and its neighbors would be drawn along natural, geographical lines.

What with the crazy mullahs in Iran getting nukes, Israel can make a strong case that it needs the extra territory to survive an Iranian first strike. That surviveability is needed to a.) obviate the necessity of an Israeli strike on Iran before it gets the nukes. b.) lessens the need for Israel to be quick on the trigger and launch before absolutely necessary in a crisis.

One way to accomplish this rearrangement is with money. Just as a starter, giving 5 million people $10,000 each costs $50 billion. That is bernie madoff scam money. What about $300 billion to the Jordanian and Egyptian governments to set aside the space and accept

Just a reminder: Bush's insane war on Iraq ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Over 4,000 US soldiers are dead -- many of them teenagers -- who would otherwise have had long lives. Thousands more have permanent disabilities. Their parents, children, spouses, lovers and friends will grieve forever. The Iraqi civilian toll is hugely catastrophic, and the sheer waste of hundreds of billions of dollars (which otherwise could have improved the lives of countless Americans and recipients of US aid) is mind-boggling. The war was tragic and foolish -- the worst national disgrace and the worst infliction of pain on others since Vietnam. To trumpet the surge as a triumph is to celebrate barbarism and miss the opportunity to learn the real lessons of pointless wars of aggression.

Wonderment, Ruined their lives or provided them with a brighter future (maybe both?)? Saddam Hussein's regime would still be in place if it wasn't for the invasion. The occupation has been hard on both the United States and Iraq, but Iraq is going to make it and be a much better place for it. To not acknowledge the good that has come from the invasion and occupation is ignorant and sad. So I agree with Ellen Laipson that Lebanon + Obama + Iran + Iraq = Good.

Yada yada yada!
Let's see a brutal megalomaniac that had murdered millions is dispatched and sent to his reward in the afterlife. 25 million additional humans living in what is shaping up to be a relatively free democracy. Momar Gadhafi(/Kadhafi/Qadaffi)
WMD and Nuclear program surrendered. These are three direct results of the liberation of Iraq. One could make a reasonable argument that Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon and the current unrest in Iran are due in part to the liberation of Iraq. Far from being a catastrophic event it is turning out to be the empowering of people event that the neoconservatives sold it to be. As with all things in the ME events mature in their own time not an artificial time table.

Quoting Wonderment: Just a reminder:

Bush's insane war on Iraq ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.

Over 4,000 US soldiers are dead -- many of them teenagers -- who would otherwise have had long lives. Thousands more have permanent disabilities. Their parents, children, spouses, lovers and friends will grieve forever.

The Iraqi civilian toll is hugely catastrophic, and the sheer waste of hundreds of billions of dollars (which otherwise could have improved the lives of countless Americans and recipients of US aid) is mind-boggling.

The war was tragic and foolish -- the worst national disgrace and the worst infliction of pain on others since Vietnam.

To trumpet the surge as a triumph is to celebrate barbarism and miss the opportunity to learn the real lessons of pointless wars of aggression.

Very well said, Wonderment. It also remains to be seen what will happen from here. Before anyone declares victory (for about the fifteenth time in the past three years, it seems), I'd like to see the US troops pulled back a little bit further than the FOBs on the outskirts of the cities. Say, like back to the US. Longer term, we also have to wait to see

Quoting Wonderment: To trumpet the surge as a triumph is to celebrate barbarism and miss the opportunity to learn the real lessons of pointless wars of aggression.

This has all the common-sense, courage and integrity of Harry Reid declaring the war as lost, willing to squander all that was sacrificed to bring freedom to Iraqis. But at least you left out a 'General Betray-Us' blast. But have heart, there is still hope for the followers of dhimmitude and appeasement that The One will fumble this and bring tyranny back to Iraq. He's already shown his true colors regarding democracy and freedom in Iran, Honduras, etc. and speaking of reminders: http://www.vietcatholic.net/News/Html/68729.htm

Quoting harkin: ... all that was sacrificed to bring freedom to Iraqis.

Is that why we invaded? My memory must be playing tricks on me. I could have sworn George and Dick started a war on the false pretenses of imminent threat from Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Most of which, it now appears, were "substantiated" by torturing "confirmations" out of prisoners, at the direction of the Bush White House.

Quoting piscivorous: It's not permanent nor as comprehensive as President Obama is trying to present it but BYE-BYE, BABYLON EXITING IRAQ'S CITIES, VICTORIOUS goes along way towards vindicating the wisdom of the surge and the courage it took to implement it in the face of determined interference from the opponents of it. And yes Ralph Peters does some things for FOX.

Anyone who links to Ralph Peters for any reason except sheer mockery is certifiably Full Metal Wingnut. Stand by for sputtering about AD HOMINEM!!!1! in 5..., 4..., 3...

Quoting piscivorous: Yada yada yada!
Let's see a brutal megalomaniac that had murdered millions is dispatched and sent to his reward in the afterlife. 25 million additional humans living in what is shaping up to be a relatively free democracy. Momar Gadhafi(/Kadhafi/Qadaffi)
WMD and Nuclear program surrendered. These are three direct results of the liberation of Iraq. One could make a reasonable argument that Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon and the current unrest in Iran are due in part to the liberation of Iraq. Far from being a catastrophic event it is turning out to be the empowering of people event that the neoconservatives sold it to be. As with all things in the ME events mature in their own time not an artificial time table.

all true. But your view is not going to be considered by the democrats. Look at how they are siding with Chavez in the current Honduras matter. I dont see any alternative to secession from the federal system for those who support individual liberty, reasonable regulation of the exchange of goods and services, and a prohibition on routine deficit spending.

Quoting Lyle: None of what you say is going to happen. It would also be wrong (violation of international law) for it to happen.

The United States has never supported such a policy either and won't ever.

But it would work a lot better than a two state solution. The irregular, arbitrary borders of the two state solution guarantee border area conflict well into the future. Much better that the Jordan river separate the two sides.

President Obama took days to say a single word about Iran. But go ahead and give him credit for the protesters in Iran.

Quoting bjkeefe: Anyone who links to Ralph Peters for any reason except sheer mockery is certifiably Full Metal Wingnut.

Stand by for sputtering about AD HOMINEM!!!1! in 5..., 4..., 3...

Leave him alone! As a republican he has no voice in the decision making of the feds yet is forced to take on the debt the democrats are piling up. At a minimum people should be allowed to voice an opinion without harassment.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: At a minimum people should be allowed to voice an opinion without harassment.

So what's your problem with me voicing mine?

Quoting bjkeefe: So what's your problem with me voicing mine?

I dont care what you post. Other than a quick glance, I dont read what you write.

The Iraqi people and historians will also remember how "horrific a mess" Saddam Hussein was for the people of Iraq before the United States of America ended his "horrific a mess" of a regime. The United States of America and allies have given the Iraqi people the hope for a better future. The sacrifices made for that won't ever be forgotten.

Quoting freedomforall: President Obama took days to say a single word about Iran. But go ahead and give him credit for the protesters in Iran.

Obama's decision making is more than a bit loony. He does not want a free trade agreement with Columbia, gives Angela Merkel the evil eye for resisting the call to deficit spending, does not want to interfere in Iran yet jumps immediately into a murky situation in Honduras.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: But it would work a lot better than a two state solution.

The irregular, arbitrary borders of the two state solution guarantee border area conflict well into the future. Much better that the Jordan river separate the two sides.

You be sure to tell that to the Jordanians, Steve. Why didn't anyone think of this before? It all seems so simple now! I reccomend you forward your name and contact info to the authorities in Stockholm, as soon as possible.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Obama's ... gives Angela Merkel the evil eye ...

Hmmm. Now where do we suppose you came up with that line? Oh, right. Well, good to see you and the rest of the wingnut parrots aren't relying on El Rushbo for all of your talking points.

Quoting Lyle: The Iraqi people and historians will also remember how "horrific a mess" Saddam Hussein was for the people of Iraq before the United States of America ended his "horrific a mess" of a regime.

The United States of America and allies have given the Iraqi people the hope for a better future. That sacrifices made for that won't ever be forgotten.

Yes, 40% of the American population shares this sentiment. For the remainder, the ruling majority, the sacrifices are not just forgotten, they are ignored and disparaged. And how many American soldiers are being killed in Iraq and Afg today because of restrictive rules of engagement? I suspect many. The more you examine the details the worse you find it to be.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Yes, 40% of the American population shares this sentiment. For the remainder, the ruling majority, the sacrifices are not just forgotten, they are ignored and disparaged. And how many American soldiers are being killed in Iraq and Afg today because of restrictive rules of engagement? I suspect many. The more you examine the details the worse you find it to be.

Would have been a lot fewer soldiers killed in Iraq if we hadn't invaded in the first place. Try not to forget that.

Quoting bjkeefe: Would have been a lot fewer soldiers killed in Iraq if we hadn't invaded in the first place. Try not to forget that.

Right, and Saddam would be responding how to the Iranian nuclear weapons program? I doubt any democrat will answer this question. My answer is he would have Iraq acquiring nukes also. The subsequent use of those nukes would kill millions. The American soldiers put their lives on the line to prevent the spread of nukes in the ME.

Quoting bjkeefe: Hmmm. Now where do we suppose you came up with that line?

Oh, right.

Well, good to see you and the rest of the wingnut parrots aren't relying on El Rushbo for all of your talking points.

Drudge is touting 650 million page view in the last month. Fascinating how rare talent is as judged by how few if any other people are on the web running a site as well as he does.

I can't believe you all are taking DenvilleSteve seriously. He's an obvious troll.

Quoting gwlaw99: I can't believe you all are taking DenvilleSteve seriously. He's an obvious troll.

No one takes him seriously. Sometimes it's fun to toy with him, though. If you've ever seen a cat play with a moth, you know what I mean.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Drudge is ...

Thanks for confirming.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Right, and Saddam would be responding how to the Iranian nuclear weapons program? I doubt any democrat will answer this question. My answer is he would have Iraq acquiring nukes also.

That's because you're a bed-wetting wingnut who has no idea what that situation in Iraq was in the early 2000s. If you'd ever read or watch anything that didn't stroke your fears, you'd know this. Of course, if pigs had wings ...

Quoting bjkeefe: Is that why we invaded? My memory must be playing tricks on me. I could have sworn George and Dick started a war on the false pretenses of imminent threat from Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Most of which, it now appears, were "substantiated" by torturing "confirmations" out of prisoners, at the direction of the Bush White House.

BJ, I admire your perserverance in reminding the mythomaniacs, who too often post here, that their forgetfulness, their fabulations and their ex post facto justifications of a pointless war will not be allowed to pass unnoticed. Bon Courage!

Quoting bjkeefe: That's because you're a bed-wetting wingnut who has no idea what that situation in Iraq was in the early 2000s. If you'd ever read or watch anything that didn't stroke your fears, you'd know this.

Of course, if pigs had wings ...

no answer to my question. cant learn without an answer. How would Iraq be responding today to the Iranian nuke program if Saddam and the Baathists were still in control?

Quoting gwlaw99: I can't believe you all are taking DenvilleSteve seriously. He's an obvious troll.

Doesn't sound like a good thing, but I can't deny it since I don't know what it is. In regard to substance, do you support the Obama trillion dollar deficits? I think it is immoral to place those debts on the backs of taxpayers in the years to come. It is also wrong that minority republicans have to repay debts they did not want in the first place. Your view?

Quoting DenvilleSteve: no answer to my question. cant learn without an answer. How would Iraq be responding today to the Iranian nuke program if Saddam and the Baathists were still in control?

No idea. I imagine a combination of bluster, back-channel outreach, public statements of approval (when they wanted to diss the US), etc. Pretty much the same as I imagine the other countries in the region are playing it now. One thing I do know, though: They would not have started a crash program to build their own nukes. They simply were unable to.

Actually Saddam Hussein wanted to have WMD. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission concluded that at some point he wanted to start up his WMD programs again. So Denville is not entirely wrong about this. Saddam wouldn't have used the WMD probably, but he would have tried to build them if the Iranians were building them. The Saudis and the Emirates would probably pay the U.S. and/or Europe for nukes if Iran ever built them. Part of the big deal behind keeping Iran nuke free is keeping the other non-Shia oil producers in the region nuke free as well.

Quoting Lyle: Actually Saddam Hussein wanted to have WMD. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission concluded that at some point he wanted to start up his WMD programs again.

Yeah, well I wanted to play shortstop for the Yankees, win a Pulitzer Prize, solve nuclear fusion, live in a Moonbase, and boink Farrah Fawcett. There's often a gap between what we desire and what we can attain.

Quoting Francoamerican: BJ, I admire your perserverance in reminding the mythomaniacs, who too often post here, that their forgetfulness, their fabulations and their ex post facto justifications of a pointless war will not be allowed to pass unnoticed.

Bon Courage!

Well said. It's difficult work Brendan is doing - he with the other right-thinking people on this board, including you - but it is absolutely essential. If people like you and Brendan don't hold the line against wingnuts' attempts to rewrite history and transform conventional wisdom, we will be living under President Sarah Palin in less than four years.

Saddam Hussein at one point did obtain WMD and in the 80s he had purchased/stole a nuclear arms program from Pakistan/Europe.

Quoting Lyle: Saddam Hussein at one point did obtain WMD and in the 80s he had purchased/stole a nuclear arms program from Pakistan/Europe.

There is every indication that whatever he may have had back then did not last. In particular, there was no evidence found to support a claim that he was on the verge of having a useful WMD capacity prior to the Bush/Cheney invasion.

Quoting bjkeefe: No idea. I imagine a combination of bluster, back-channel outreach, public statements of approval (when they wanted to diss the US), etc. Pretty much the same as I imagine the other countries in the region are playing it now.

One thing I do know, though: They would not have started a crash program to build their own nukes. They simply were unable to.

I dont see why they would not be able to build or acquire nukes. Israel was sufficiently concerned that they bombed the Iraqi nuclear facility. With the $billions in oil revenue, Saddam had the means to get nukes. He feared/distrusted Iran enough to start a war with the country. Of course he would have had to match the Iranian nuclear weapons program with his own.

Quoting TwinSwords: Well said. It's difficult work Brendan is doing - he with the other right-thinking people on this board, including you - but it is absolutely essential. If people like you and Brendan don't hold the line against wingnuts' attempts to rewrite history and transform conventional wisdom, we will be living under President Sarah Palin in less than four years.

will never happen. There are too many dependent people in the US who fear the market economy policies an actual republican would implement. Notice that Hillary is getting the word out today that she advised Obama to speak out against the Iranian governments handling of its national elections. She will run against Obama in 2012.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I dont see why they would not be able to build or acquire nukes. Israel was sufficiently concerned that they bombed the Iraqi nuclear facility. With the $billions in oil revenue, Saddam had the means to get nukes. He feared/distrusted Iran enough to start a war with the country. Of course he would have had to match the Iranian nuclear weapons program with his own.

No. He was shut down by the sanctions and being closely watched. And anyway, let's not forget where you and your brethren started with this -- that it was necessary to invade because he supposedly already had them.

Quoting bjkeefe: There is every indication that whatever he may have had back then did not last. In particular, there was no evidence found to support a claim that he was on the verge of having a useful WMD capacity prior to the Bush/Cheney invasion.

Was the Libyan nuke program that Bush/Cheney rolled up real, fictional or exaggerated? If real, you have to explain why Khadaffi could get a program in progress but Saddam could not.

Quoting bjkeefe: No. He was shut down by the sanctions and being closely watched. And anyway, let's not forget where you and your brethren started with this -- that it was necessary to invade because he supposedly already had them.

I dont see how sanctions could have been continued against Iraq while Iran is allowed to build its nukes without similar sanctions.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Was the Libyan nuke program that Bush/Cheney rolled up real, fictional or exaggerated? If real, you have to explain why Khadaffi could get a program in progress but Saddam could not.

Well, Steve, for someone who said two hours ago ...

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I dont care what you post. Other than a quick glance, I dont read what you write.

... I have to say you've gotten awfully obsessed with reading my answers. I'm tired of answering your YEAH BUT WHAT IF??? questions. I can see there will be no end to them. Time for you to go outside and play.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I dont see how sanctions could have been continued against Iraq while Iran is allowed to build its nukes without similar sanctions.

op.cit.

Actually there was evidence/intelligence that suggested he had WMD prior to the invasion, which is why the U.N. weapons inspector was inspecting Iraq. It turns out he didn't have them, however... or we didn't find them. Saddam Hussein also wanted the whole world to think that he had them.

This has all the common-sense, courage and integrity of Harry Reid declaring the war as lost, willing to squander all that was sacrificed to bring freedom to Iraqis.

Harkin, the blood of the 4,000+ American soldiers you purport to love is on your hands. Forever. Every adult American who supported this idiotic invasion owns a share in the slaughter. Some claim they were caught up in the hysteria of 911; some claim they were hoodwinked by Bush; some have apologized. But those of you who refuse to get it after 6 years are lost in pathetic rationalization and obscene triumphalism.

Quoting Lyle: Actually there was evidence/intelligence that suggested he had WMD prior to the invasion, which is why the U.N. weapons inspector was inspecting Iraq. It turns out he didn't have them, however... or we didn't find them.

Saddam Hussein also wanted the whole world to think that he had them.

Can't disagree with that. Although I wonder how good the evidence and intelligence were (given the dubiousness of some of "old Europe" and how hard Colin Powell had to trump up his UN presentation, plus what we are starting to find out now about the actual manufacturing of e & i), there isn't any doubt how Saddam was playing his hand at the time. I still think, though, that the lack of anything found by the inspectors should have been an unambiguous signal that we did not have to invade Iraq immediately, that they were not an imminent threat, and that the attitude should have been "How do we continue to manage this situation?" and not "Fuck it. I'm tired of Saddam's antics." I also continue to believe that Bush and many in his administration had it in their collective minds starting 20 Jan 2001, if not before, to

Quoting DenvilleSteve: all true. But your view is not going to be considered by the democrats. Look at how they are siding with Chavez in the current Honduras matter.

You might have a look at Joshua Keating's post (via) to understand why the first criterion in judging a foreign policy stance ought not be the consideration of whether or not Hugo Chavez agrees with it.

Quoting bjkeefe: You might have a look at Joshua Keating's post (via) to understand why the first criterion in judging a foreign policy stance ought not be the consideration of whether or not Hugo Chavez agrees with it.

the concluding sentence makes light of very real concern the coup leaders have of narco gangsters taking over the country:
"... Or you could just keep pretending that the Soviets are on the verge of taking over Latin America. ..." The narco gangsters, backed by Cuba and Chavez, are killing people in Central and South America. They are undermining governments. They have to be stopped. As I understand it, the military in Honduras acted on the instruction of the Supreme court and without objection of the Congress.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: the concluding sentence makes light of very real concern the coup leaders have of narco gangsters taking over the country:
"... Or you could just keep pretending that the Soviets are on the verge of taking over Latin America. ..."

The narco gangsters, backed by Cuba and Chavez, are killing people in Central and South America. They are undermining governments. They have to be stopped. As I understand it, the military in Honduras acted on the instruction of the Supreme court and without objection of the Congress.

This has what to do with you trying to connect the "democrats" to Chavez?

Quoting DenvilleSteve: the concluding sentence makes light of very real concern the coup leaders have of narco gangsters taking over the country:
"... Or you could just keep pretending that the Soviets are on the verge of taking over Latin America. ..."

The narco gangsters, backed by Cuba and Chavez, are killing people in Central and South America. They are undermining governments. They have to be stopped. As I understand it, the military in Honduras acted on the instruction of the Supreme court and without objection of the Congress.

I thought you might have known something I don't know but after googling I'm pretty sure you made this all up. I can't find any evidence that the coupsters were concerned about the drug cartels, who are mostly only a problem for Mexico. You might be confusing them with Columbia's FARC guerillas who also traffic narcotics on the side, and who are actually (to some extent) supported by Chavez, but again there seems to be no stated concern over this whatsoever.

I believe that there were people interested in finishing the job against Saddam Hussein well before Bush was elected. So some people were probably looking at what they could do to bring about his demise from day one of the Bush administration. I have no problem with that. He was our responsibility to deal with since we had supported him during the Iraq-Iran war. We also had not properly supported the Iraqis who had stood up to him after the liberation of Kuwait. He kept messing with the weapons inspectors and we had to keep the no-fly zone going which along with liberating Kuwait is what brought about 9/11 in the first place (stationing troops on holy soil, etc.).

Quoting Lyle: I believe that there were people interested in finishing the job against Saddam Hussein well before Bush was elected. So some people were probably looking at what they could do to bring about his demise from day one of the Bush administration. I have no problem with that. He was our responsibility to deal with since we had supported him during the Iraq-Iran war. We also had not properly supported the Iraqis who had stood up to him after the liberation of Kuwait. He kept messing with the weapons inspectors and we had to keep the no-fly zone going which along with liberating Kuwait is what brought about 9/11 in the first place (stationing troops on holy soil, etc.).

Yes, these are other complicating factors. None of them, however, equates to "his WMDs are an imminent threat." Maybe at some point we would have had to use military force in ways beyond containment and showing that we were holding the proverbial big stick. But I'll never believe we had no choice but to invade when we did, I still think it was a bad decision (not to mention

Quoting bjkeefe: Yes, these are other complicating factors. None of them, however, equates to "his WMDs are an imminent threat."

Maybe at some point we would have had to use military force in ways beyond containment and showing that we were holding the proverbial big stick. But I'll never believe we had no choice but to invade when we did, I still think it was a bad decision (not to mention dishonest and maybe illegal), and I still think, even though there are better than they were two to four years ago, we and the Iraqi people are still worse off than we all might have been had the US not invaded when it did.

I don't think the argument was made that "we had no choice but to invade". There was a brief discussion about why we should invade (Bush focused on WMD) and Congress supported invading. The nation being riled up post 9/11 made it an easier pitch to make to the American people. I don't think the U.S. or Iraq is worse off. Iraq is much better off. There is hope there now and Saddam Hussein no longer exists. People have suffered greatly, but trying

Quoting Lyle: I don't think the argument was made that "we had no choice but to invade".

Our memories differ. Perhaps not those exact words, but certainly that was the Bush Administration's exact tone. Echoed, to be sure, by no shortage of lackeys, cheerleaders, stenographers, and spineless members of Congress.

Quoting Lyle: I don't think the U.S. or Iraq is worse off.

Another place where we'll have to agree to disagree.

Quoting Lyle: [...] Saddam Hussein was firmly entrenched in Iraq. [...]

Same answer.

Quoting Lyle: Just listen to Aaron David Miller's latest diavlog.

I did. And responded, briefly, and at length, to what I heard.

Quoting Lyle: Iraq has that now and hopefully will sustain it, and join the rest of the democratic world in our shared modernity.

On that, we can agree. There is always hope.

Quoting bjkeefe: ....It seems to me at least plausible that a few more years of keeping Saddam bottled up could have led to desirable outcomes (from the point of view of the US, the Iraqis, and other parties in that region), had the people in charge of the US been interested in making that effort. However, they were not, in the slightest. They came into power thinking that there were only two options -- utter capitulation of the other or war, and did not show maturity, patience, or the responsibility that real leaders must have.

That is part of the problem BJ you base a great part of your argumentation upon what you believe and feel, often in direct conflict with the factual data. It was President Clinton and his team that first came to the realization that no matter the deal with Saddam the megalomaniac would ignore the agreement when he choose to do so. The history of rule by Saddam is replete with this behavior. It was they that made it the official policy of the United 'States to overthrow Saddam. Your instance that President Bush and his team

I realize that it is hard for you and a few others to believe that a direct attack on American soil, with the death toll merely in the low thousands, is a significant enough event to make the President do a 180 on his stated foreign policy goals and what it would take to protect America.

Allow me to do the necessary grunt work for your argument, under the theory that if I repeat a stupid lie a few million more times, mentally disabled and illiterate people may believe it. Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is far; 2+2=3
Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is far; 2+2=1
Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is far; 2+2=1
Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is far; 2+2=1
Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is far; 2+2=1
Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is far; 2+2=1
Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is far; 2+2=1
Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is far; 2+2=1Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is far; 2+2=1
Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is far; 2+2=1
Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is far; 2+2=1
Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is far; 2+2=1
Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is

Quoting piscivorous: That is part of the problem BJ you base a great part of your argumentation upon what you believe and feel, often in direct conflict with the factual data.

Sweeping generalizations much?

Quoting piscivorous: It was President Clinton and his team that first came to the realization that no matter the deal with Saddam the megalomaniac would ignore the agreement when he choose to do so. The history of rule by Saddam is replete with this behavior. It was they that made it the official policy of the United 'States to overthrow Saddam. Your instance that President Bush and his team came in there looking to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam is in direct conflict with that administrations repudiation of the policy of nation building which was stated often and loudly prior to 9/11/01.

I don't dispute that Clinton did some saber-rattling. However, that is quite a bit different from actually invading, don't you think? More to the point: You should be a little more skeptical of promises made in public on the campaign trail, even when they come from your guy. You should also read Russ Baker, who

The Bush administration never made the argument that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. The Bush administration linked Saddam to Al Qaeda and other terrorists, but not to 9/11 itself. People inferred the former from the latter, however. Where Saddam Hussein was connected to 9/11 was the fact that U.S. soldiers were ever only stationed in Saudi Arabia because he invaded Kuwait. If Saddam Hussein had never invaded Kuwait, 9/11 may not have ever happened. Arab Muslim terrorists may have found other reasons though. Who knows.

Quoting Lyle: The Bush administration never made the argument that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. The Bush administration linked Saddam to Al Qaeda and other terrorists, but not to 9/11 itself. People inferred the former from the latter, however.

This is only very narrowly true. The Bush Administration created the sense of the connection with a lot of statements, hints, and off-the-record leaks, and their mouthpieces often carried the ball across the goal line. Look up the stats on the number of people who believed Saddam was either responsible or partly responsible for 9/11, correlated with where people got their news. Here's a starting point.

The United States of America and allies have given the Iraqi people the hope for a better future. The sacrifices made for that won't ever be forgotten.

Just another reminder: not being killed with your whole family in a suicide bombing while you're at a restaurant > hope for the future. I'm willing to say that if Iraq turns out to be a coherent and relatively well-functioning democracy, or even a teetering state with a fledgling democracy like Lebanon, you can make the argument that maybe it was a mistake or a bad idea for the US to invade, but it worked out for the better and it's a sort of good thing it happened. I'd even make that argument then. But we'll see, won't we. If it doesn't, if it turns into a dictatorship again or collapses in some other awful way, then the flash of hope was so totally not worth any of it.

Quoting Wonderment: Allow me to do the necessary grunt work for your argument, under the theory that if I repeat a stupid lie a few million more times, mentally disabled and illiterate people may believe it.

Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is far; 2+2=3
Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is far; 2+2=1
Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is far; 2+2=1
Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is far; 2+2=1
Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is far; 2+2=1
Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is far; 2+2=1
Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is far; 2+2=1
Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is far; 2+2=1Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is far; 2+2=1
Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is far; 2+2=1
Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is far; 2+2=1
Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is far; 2+2=1
Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is far; 2+2=1
Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is far; 2+2=1
Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is far; 2+2=1
Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is far; 2+2=1
Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is far; 2+2=1
Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is far; 2+2=1
Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is far; 2+2=1
Saddam Hussein: 9/11
Up is down; black is white; near is

Look up the stats on the number of people who believe in ufos, aliens, or that elvis ain't dead. Millions of people believe all kinds of ridiculous things... like that Bush did 9/11 itself. Think about how many French people think that. Remember how many of the conspiracy books sold in France? I agree that the idea that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 was out there. The face of the administration wasn't on it though. Really intelligent people like Christopher Hitchens and the like had no problem talking about Saddam's links to al Qaeda and other Middle Easter terrorists.

He's already shown his true colors regarding democracy and freedom in Iran, Honduras, etc.

Right. Because supporting democracy and freedom means applauding a military coup in Latin America and doing all you can to make the Iranian opposition look like tools of a foreign government. A true champion of democracy would have stood up and declared his support for Mousavi regardless of the effects it would have on Iran, and supported a military effort to get rid of the president of Honduras because he's not a very good democrat, regardless of the effect that might have on the democratic institutions there. That's nutty.

Which do you think is less welcome, the evil eye or the shoulder grope?

Quoting Lyle: I agree that the idea that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 was out there. The face of the administration wasn't on it though.

Sorry, I think you're flat wrong on this one. No point in talking about it anymore, though.

Who in the administration was the face of that argument then?

Quoting bjkeefe: Sweeping generalizations much?

Not really.

Quoting bjkeefe: I don't dispute that Clinton did some saber-rattling. However, that is quite a bit different from actually invading, don't you think?

It'all about pretext, as I'm sure you are quite aware. He didn't seem to have all that much trouble killing civilians with an unsanctioned and arguably illegal bombing campaign in the Balkins now did he?l

Quoting bjkeefe: I More to the point: You should be a little more skeptical of promises made in public on the campaign trail, even when they come from your guy.

My guy? Because I supported some of his decisions and policies, primarily those dealing with GWOT, does not make him my guy. I generally vote holding my nose and pick what I think to be the lessor of two evils. I would only say Campaign finance, renditions, inderfinate detentions, DADT, DOMA ....

Quoting bjkeefe: You should also read Russ Baker, who discovered that Bush had told his biographer about his plans well before becoming president:

If memory serves, I believe Paul O'Neill (Bush's first Treasury Secretary) also speaks to this, in the book he did with Ron Suskind ... Yes. Here's a CNN report about that. You should read The Price of Loyalty someday. It's a good one.

Got a good laugh out of

Dec. 9 , 2001, Meet the Press:

Russert: Do you still believe there's no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?

Cheney: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that--it's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he [Mohammad Atta] did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point, but that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue.

Sept. 8, 2002, same venue:

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that. On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohamed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently

Quoting piscivorous: [...]

Noted. I see no reason to continue this. Your view of reality and mine do not sufficiently overlap.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: But it would work a lot better than a two state solution.

The irregular, arbitrary borders of the two state solution guarantee border area conflict well into the future. Much better that the Jordan river separate the two sides.

Israel could in theory opt for a one-state solution that is truly democratic and inclusive of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Of course, this would mean an end to the Jewish state as we know it, much like the white South Africa came to an end. It probably won't happen that way. A fair and equitable two-state solution would only delay Israel's eventual demise as a Jewish state because the Arabs, like the Spaniards under 700 years of Moorish occupation, have the patience and the will to wait it out. So I guess that leaves Israelis with the daunting task of pulling off another round of ethnic cleansing that will put off the inevitable as far into the future as possible. Or will it?

Typical Bush speech pre-invasion: Paragraph about terrorists.
Paragraph about Sadam.
Paragraph about WMDs.
Paragraph about terrorists.
Paragraph about terrorists.
Paragraph about Sadam.
Paragraph about WMDs.
Paragraph about WMD's.
Paragraph about Sadam.
Paragraph about terrorists. I happen to agree with the idea of invading Iraq. There is almost always more suffering in the short term when trying to change a situation for the better, but that doesn't mean you don't, because after a big enough time interval there will be less suffering then if you did nothing. However, let us not pretend that he was honest in his selling of the Iraq invasion, which he clearly was not. Also, lets not pretend we did it for humanitarian reasons either, as there are dozens of places far worse off we could/can improve significantly with far less effort then what has been expended in Iraq. My real complaint about Bush and the Iraq war was just how short sighted he and his administration was, which resulted in a far worse situation then it had to be.

Quoting grits-n-gravy: Israel could in theory opt for a one-state solution that is truly democratic and inclusive of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Of course, this would mean an end to the Jewish state as we know it, much like the white South Africa came to an end. It probably won't happen that way.

A fair and equitable two-state solution would only delay Israel's eventual demise as a Jewish state because the Arabs, like the Spaniards under 700 years of Moorish occupation, have the patience and the will to wait it out. So I guess that leaves Israelis with the daunting task of pulling off another round of ethnic cleansing that will put off the inevitable as far into the future as possible. Or will it?

I don't know why everybody is so apocalyptical about this. I'd bet in 30 years Israel and Palestine will be like Belgium and Holland. I sure you can find a Walloon who holds an ancient grievance about the Dutch, but nobody really gives a shit anymore. Some for Germans and Frenchers, Koreans and Japaners, etc. Peace can break out faster than people think.

Quoting claymisher: I don't know why everybody is so apocalyptical about this. I'd bet in 30 years Israel and Palestine will be like Belgium and Holland. I sure you can find a Walloon who holds an ancient grievance about the Dutch, but nobody really gives a shit anymore. Some for Germans and Frenchers, Koreans and Japaners, etc. Peace can break out faster than people think.

You're probably right about the French and Germans, but from what I understand Japan actually makes the opposite point. If there's a contingent of die-hard ultra-nationalists who refuse to accept any culpability for anything then resentment can simmer for generations.

Quoting pampl: You're probably right about the French and Germans, but from what I understand Japan actually makes the opposite point. If there's a contingent of die-hard ultra-nationalists who refuse to accept any culpability for anything then resentment can simmer for generations.

Sure, but nobody cares about them. Korean culture is even really hot in Japan now. A lot of people fall into the trap that hard-headed militarism is the way the world really works, that hippies are all dummies, but peace is really pretty normal. The real conflict in the world isn't between states, it's between the warmongers within states versus everybody else.

Peace can break out faster than people think.

A beautiful sentiment/observation! Inshallah.

Yeah, that's not saying Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. Cheney did muddy the waters with his comments though.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Typical Bush speech pre-invasion:

Paragraph about terrorists.
Paragraph about Sadam.
Paragraph about WMDs.
Paragraph about terrorists.
Paragraph about terrorists.
Paragraph about Sadam.
Paragraph about WMDs.
Paragraph about WMD's.
Paragraph about Sadam.
Paragraph about terrorists.

Oh, I agree... but they never explicitly said Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. They said Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda was behind it. Did they want to really go after Saddam Hussein? Yes. Did they use 9/11 to do so? Yes.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Also, lets not pretend we did it for humanitarian reasons either, as there are dozens of places far worse off we could/can improve significantly with far less effort then what has been expended in Iraq.

I've never argued this. A lot of people did support invading Iraq based on humanitarian/democracy arguments, but that was separate and apart from the Bush administration's rational.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: My real complaint about Bush and the Iraq war was just how short sighted he and his administration was, which resulted in a far worse situation then it had to be.

I completely agree with this.

Quoting bjkeefe: Anyone who links to Ralph Peters for any reason except sheer mockery is certifiably Full Metal Wingnut.

Stand by for sputtering about AD HOMINEM!!!1! in 5..., 4..., 3...

From a book review of The Accidental Guerrilla by Robert Farley:

Seven years ago, David Kilcullen was an obscure officer in the Australian Army. He served in East Timor, and wrote a dissertation on guerrilla warfare in traditional societies. Today, he is the military equivalent of a rock star, with a degree of influence in the US military rarely enjoyed by foreigners. Kilcullen rose to prominence by developing and codifying a set of principles for fighting modern counter-insurgency warfare, and became part of the team that imprinted these principles institutionally in the US military. Accidental Guerrilla describes his experiences and the essentials of his theory of guerrilla warfare.

[...]

This is a fairly standard description of what has come to be accepted as modern counter-insurgency theory. It is embodied doctrinally in FM 3-24, to which Kilcullen contributed and which bears obvious similarity to the argument laid out in Accidental Guerrilla.

[...]

Kilcullen takes a short aside to denounce Ralph Peters, who criticized the counter-insurgency turn as being too

Great review. Sounds like a very interesting book. And Kilcullen would be a great bhTv guest (with Farley interviewing him, of course.) Good find!

I'm glad you have finally discovered David Kilcullen. I believe I tried to tell you about him quite sometime back. I wounder what your response was in the way-back machine?

Quoting piscivorous: I'm glad you have finally discovered David Kilcullen. I believe I tried to tell you about him quite sometime back. I wounder what your response was in the way-back machine?

I do, too. Think you can use your mad skillz to find out? Or are you just blowing smoke again?

Quoting bjkeefe: Anyone who links to Ralph Peters for any reason except sheer mockery is certifiably Full Metal Wingnut.

The latest example.

Wasn't that what basically happened when Israel was created 61 years ago???? Look back at all the cases of placing people into countries/towns according to religious/nationalist groupings (for this read Bosnia/Herezergova, Serbia, Croatia, Korean Penninsula, Turkey etc) over the last 100 years. Lets look at what happenend to those countries: Bosnia/Herzegova - War & Ethnic Cleansing
Serbia - As Above
Croatia - As Above
Korean Penninsula - War, currently broken by ceasefire that will probably collapse in the next 5 - 10 years
Turkey - Mass Genocide of Armenians, split of Armenia from Turkey, and state denial of genocide (despite massive evidence in State archives that it was planned the whole time) And lets not forget when Nazi Germany decided that the Jewish religion was responsible for Germany losing WWI - ethnic cleansing on a truly horrific scale! Whenever you use religion as the reason for killing a group of people, there will ALWAYS be someone who insists on "avenging" them, and we start all over again. This leads me to ask one question.................................... which arms manufacturer do you have shares in? I would have thought they were still making a decent profit!!

Dude, read the reports from the IAEA - THERE WAS NO WMD OR NUCLEAR CAPABILITY! AND THAT WAS CONFIRMED BY USA INTELLIGENCE REPORTS BEFORE WAR STARTED!! Lets face it - Bush went to war for oil, and now he's probably not going to get as much as he wanted. Life must suck.

Bravo! So eloquently (and utterly accurately) said!

Quoting kiwimel: Dude, read the reports from the IAEA - THERE WAS NO WMD OR NUCLEAR CAPABILITY! AND THAT WAS CONFIRMED BY USA INTELLIGENCE REPORTS BEFORE WAR STARTED!!

Lets face it - Bush went to war for oil, and now he's probably not going to get as much as he wanted. Life must suck.

DUDE IS CAPS LOCKS STUCK ON, or do you think it makes your point more salient or true to shout it? At least in your ranting you could include the link to the information that has such strong evidence as to assure your conviction.