if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
Al-Corpsi
by Lee
We’ve had plenty of false hopes before, but…
Today, according to Pakistani military sources, U.S. aircraft attacked a compound known to be frequented by high level al Qaeda operatives. Pakistani officials tell ABC News that al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s top lieutenant, may have been among them.
U.S. intelligence for the last few days indicated that Zawahiri might be in the location or about to arrive, although there is still no confirmation from U.S. officials that he was among the victims.
The attack took place early this morning Pakistan time in a small village a few miles from the border with Afghanistan.
Villagers described seeing an unmanned plane circling the area for the last few days and then bombs falling in the early morning darkness.
Eighteen people were killed, according to the villagers who said women and children were among the fatalities.
But Pakistani officials tell ABC News that five of those killed were high-level al Qaeda figures, and their bodies are now undergoing forensic tests for positive identification.
Officials say Zawahiri was known to have used safe houses in this area last winter and was believed to be in the area again this winter.
And thus we see the power of war and intelligence and military might and being allied with Pakistan instead of France.
Comments
And thus we see the power of war and intelligence and military might and being allied with Pakistan instead of France.
And thus we see that the US is again willing to sell out democracy in order to fulfill its short-term political and military objectives.
And thus we see that the US is again willing to sell out democracy in order to fulfill its short-term political and military objectives.
How so? Seems like a fairly straightforward act of war.
Oh, that’s right, you don’t think we’re actually at war, do you?
And thus we see stogy is as clueless as ever.
And thus we see that the US is again willing to sell out democracy in order to fulfill its short-term political and military objectives.
Let’s correct that.
And thus we see that the US is again willing to protect worldwide democracy alone in spite of international opposition’s short-term idiocy and economic objectives.
There. That’s better.
And thus we see that the US is again willing to sell out democracy in order to fulfill its short-term political and military objectives.
Exactly how did we sell out democracy? This is your statement, defend it if you can.
Because Pakistan is run by a military dictatorship, one that is a little progressive in places and a little more liberal than the norm. Stogy is “fucking stupid” because he seems to think the war is a “short-term political and military objective” rather than what it is in real life, a “LONG-term” one. What Stogy wants is the US to turn everyone non-democracy into a demoracy AT THE SAME TIME. If it can’t do everything at once, than it shouldn’t even bother trying....
Exactly how did we sell out democracy?
Well, we didn’t take a vote of the UN Security council and attempt endless economic embargos before we let loose the dogs of war and killed innocent women and children. Nor did we send a stern letter of warning to the terrorist mud hut village asking that they surrender the “alleged” terrorists to be tried in the international criminal court. We are such a police state and Bush=Hitler…
While I hope they got the assorted terrorists they were after, I’ll believe it when the bodies have been identified.
Been down this particular path of dissapointment too often already - too much jumping ahead of the data with pronouncements. I’m not pouring a scotch until the fat lady sings on this one.
What Stogy wants is the US to turn everyone non-democracy into a demoracy AT THE SAME TIME. If it can’t do everything at once, than it shouldn’t even bother trying....
Thank you Poosh, now I don’t have to type it out.
Posted by stogy on 01/13/06 at 06:14 PM
And thus we see that the US is again willing to sell out democracy in order to fulfill its short-term political and military objectives.
I read the main post, and before I clicked on the comments, I thought to myself what stupid fucking comment has Stogy made about this.
Of course he didn’t fail to disappoint.
So what’s your solution Stogy?
Oh that’s right, Lefties don’t have one. It’s just damned if you do, damned if you don’t in your world.
Oh, and by the way Stogy, I’m sure Zawahiri escaped any harm, so don’t lose any sleep thinking 2006 is ruined for you. Besides, Hamas is still around too giving out medicine to the youngsters and the poor.
stogy
And thus we see that France is again willing to sell out democracy in order to fulfill its short-term political and economic objectives
by their support saddam hussein in Iraq. Which evil despot in control of a military regime was/is worse?
Sound stupid? Not as dumb as your claim though.
Sorry to miss the fun - I forgot to get back to this thread.
To clarify - the US has a consistent policy of supporting dictatorships (i.e. Pakistan, central asian republics, Egypt - well, pretty much) who have the same military/foreign policy objectives while slamming democracies (they’re the ones who’s governments actually represent the will of the people) who don’t.
At the same time you lot condemn the UN as being run by a bunch of unrepresentative dictators, you are actually selling weapons to them.
Here, by the way, are my predictions for Iraq: Rather than let a government dominated by Shi-ites really take control, the US will engineer a coup by a “friendly” dictator just as the troops pull out, thus ensuring that Iraq remains US friendly well into the future, and US strategic objectives are met. Human rights, however, go out the window.
The pedigree is all there. It’s only a matter of time.
by their support saddam hussein in Iraq. Which evil despot in control of a military regime was/is worse?
And that explains why US military aid and intelligence actually increased to Iraq in the period after the gas attacks on Kurdish rebels does it?
It’s pure hypocrisy. You can’t be the night in shining armour unless you work to keep it clean. And frankly, yours is all rusty.
k
You clearly have no understanding of the word “hypocisy” which is no suprise.
Sorry to miss the fun - I forgot to get back to this thread.
TRANSLATION: I forgot to take my Ritalin.
To clarify - the US has a consistent policy of supporting dictatorships (i.e. Pakistan, central asian republics, Egypt - well, pretty much) who have the same military/foreign policy objectives
Looks like the realities of global politics don’t apply in the the liberal land of chirping birds and lollipops.
I suppose we should have bombed and invaded them before we enlisted their help in the war against communism (then) and terrorism (now)
while slamming democracies (they’re the ones who’s governments actually represent the will of the people) who don’t.
Which “democracies” are you referring to? France, Germany and the rested of the “vaunted” EU?
Perhaps they’re being “slammed” because the United States doesn’t subscribe to the notion that dropping your pants, bending over and grabbing your ankles for the islamofascists is a viable foreign policy.
At the same time you lot condemn the UN as being run by a bunch of unrepresentative dictators,
Unfortunately it’s true. Do you deny that assertion?
you are actually selling weapons to them.
Got any links to back that up? (Spare us links that claim we sold obsolete equipment to countries like ‘Outerbumfuckistan” or sales made during the Cold War. It’ll merely highlight your total ignorance regarding the realities of global politics)
Here, by the way, are my predictions for Iraq:
This should be good. ROFLMAO
Rather than let a government dominated by Shi-ites really take control, the US will engineer a coup by a “friendly” dictator just as the troops pull out, thus ensuring that Iraq remains US friendly well into the future, and US strategic objectives are met. Human rights, however, go out the window.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Why am I not surprised?
Since the liberal moonbat fantasy of a “Vietnam ending” for the Iraq war has gone by the wayside, I suppose they have to pray to Gaia for the next best scenario.
The pedigree is all there. It’s only a matter of time.
I hate to break it to you but we’re discussing global politics, not a dog show.
I think you need to take some more Ritalin so you can stay focused.
And that explains why US military aid and intelligence actually increased to Iraq in the period after the gas attacks on Kurdish rebels does it?
You forgot to mention how the CIA made all those Iraqi Abrams tanks look like Russian tanks, those F-15s look like Russian MIGs and those M-16s look like Russian AK-47s.
Next time, try to think your comments through before parroting the liberal moonbat nonsense.
It’s pure hypocrisy. You can’t be the night in shining armour unless you work to keep it clean. And frankly, yours is all rusty.
Did you think that one up yourself or did you plagerize it from “Liberal Moonbat Prose for Dummies”?
Looks like the realities of global politics don’t apply in the the liberal land of chirping birds and lollipops.
nope. everything is black and white.
nope. everything is black and white.
Yet they prattle on about “shades of grey” and “nuance”.
Go figure…
They couldn’t see “a shades of grey” if it raped them.
To clarify - the US has a consistent policy of supporting dictatorships (i.e. Pakistan, central asian republics, Egypt - well, pretty much) who have the same military/foreign policy objectives while slamming democracies (they’re the ones who’s governments actually represent the will of the people) who don’t.
At the same time you lot condemn the UN as being run by a bunch of unrepresentative dictators, you are actually selling weapons to them.
Supporting or tolerating. There is a big difference. What do you suggest we do? Sanction them (lefties bitch on that one)? Demand they allow us into their country to go after the terrorists (lefties bitch on that one)? How about attempting a peaceful cooperation, as there are enemies hiding in those countries, and going in like a cowboy and carpet bombing isn’t the answer. Here is the fucking problem with you. You’ll take shots at any of the policy we use, but you won’t suggest an answer. We all know why though, because it would involve us bending over and taking it up the ass by your buddies in al Queda and Hamas. Prove me wrong. Go ahead.
Stogy, why you’re trying to be diplomatic and negotiate with terrorists, they’d cut your infedel tounge out and stick it up your ass so you can taste how full of shit you are. You can’t be democratic with people that refuse to be democratic back. In a sense, just going and killing them is democratic because that’s the treatment they would give us. All’s fair dick.
OK - lots to answer here, but let me start with this one:
You’ll take shots at any of the policy we use, but you won’t suggest an answer. We all know why though, because it would involve us bending over and taking it up the ass by your buddies in al Queda and Hamas. Prove me wrong. Go ahead.
You conflate opposition to current US policies with support for Al Qaeda, when in fact it is no such thing. Killing the leadership of Current US policies are doing little to stop Al Qaeda - the US takes out a leader and create a martyr. There are plenty of people to step up and take their places. Last week an American general in Iraq warned of the consequences of rebels in Iraq returning to their own countries and practicing the same brand of terrorism against their own governments. He said that Iraq had become a training ground for terrorism (links if needed, I am too lazy to dig out the story).
Now what kind of democracy do you suppose that the Iraqis have learned from the American presence in Iraq? Well, it’s OK to torture your enemies if the need arises, along with indefinite detention without charge. It’s OK for the government to control the press, and to write its own stories if need be. Cash payments to tribal leaders are OK if it means that they stay on side. If someone points at a house and says there is a terrorist in it, there must be, and all the people in the building are consequently guilty as charged of associating with terrorists, and deserve to die.
Doesn’t sound like much of a democracy to me.
Here is the alternative. The US drops the policy of do as I say and not as I do. The end result doesn’t automatically justify the means - in fact, it almost never does. The means IS the end result. Unless you are willing to act in a way that supports democracy, then you have no right to expect it of others.
Now in the other thread, someone said that violence works. Yet at the same time you are expecting all the different ethnic, religious and cultural groups to work together to form a new nation. In Iraq’s case, violence is only going to lead to civil war.
At the same time you lot condemn the UN as being run by a bunch of unrepresentative dictators,
Unfortunately it’s true. Do you deny that assertion?
No. Not at all - it’s just that half of them are in your pocket. You’ll support them as long as they support your objectives. I mean, if that’s what you want to do, then OK, but you really should drop all the crap about supporting democracy.
And on the Iraq coup? You really think that US will allow a pro-Iranian government to (democratically?) take power in Iraq?
My turn to laugh.
Pure hypocrisy.
Since the liberal moonbat fantasy of a “Vietnam ending” for the Iraq war has gone by the wayside, I suppose they have to pray to Gaia for the next best scenario.
It wasn’t really a rebuttal, was it.
You forgot to mention how the CIA made all those Iraqi Abrams tanks look like Russian tanks, those F-15s look like Russian MIGs and those M-16s look like Russian AK-47s.
Nor is this. I am completely aware that other countries sold arms to Iraq at the same time. They are just as guilty of following a bankrupt policy. Unfortunately, it doesn’t actually mean that the US is off the hook.
Next time, try to think your comments through before parroting the liberal moonbat nonsense.
Not a rebuttal etc. You really need to do better than that.
You conflate opposition to current US policies with support for Al Qaeda, when in fact it is no such thing.
Yes, stogy, it is. There is not a whole lot of gray area. They declared war on the Western world and all its cultures. “Submit or die!” are the choices they give us. Your “philosophy” of non-violence only has those two choices.
But we have declared a third - active opposition by use of force. You don’t have any other options. And - by your own admission - you don’t support any of them, which makes you wrong, no matter which way you turn.
There are plenty of people to step up and take their places.
Less capable, less trained, less effective. And with the constant threat of instant death-without-warning, the margin of those willing to risk their life in an increasingly obvious futile effort to force the US to capitulate as it has done so often in the past under your kind of policies.
Doesn’t sound like much of a democracy to me.
It’s a war - declared by the other side. They don’t get to bitch because we wage it more effectively.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t actually mean that the US is off the hook.
No, but it means that the US is NOT the source of all evil in the world. We have frequently made mistakes in the past, and will make them in the future. Unlike those that do nothing and call it virtue, we are at least trying to do the right thing.
So until you can come up with a better alternative that actually stands a faint chance of working in the real world, you don’t have the right to gripe about it. (Funny thing about that. You’ve been invited to provide a real solution several times, and have failed - or refused (which I doubt is the right word, since refused implies capability but not willingness, and I haven’t seen any ability on your behalf to actually justify your utter inaction.
Being wrong some of the time is heaps better than being wrong all the time.
But we have declared a third - active opposition by use of force. You don’t have any other options. And - by your own admission - you don’t support any of them, which makes you wrong, no matter which way you turn.
To make it simple:
1. I oppose Al Qaeda
2. The current policies of the US will not stop Al Qaeda.
3. The US is pursuing a policy which is contrary to its own interests.
4. Therefore I oppose US policy.
I propose:
1. The US acts in a way which is morally consistent with what it says. No torture. No extraordinary rendition. No control over the press. No under the table payments to tribal leaders.
2. Using minimal force only when absolutely necessary (this means copping it on the chin if necessary). It also means that you have to try to arrest suspected terrorists, rather than shooting first.
3. Working to alleviate the conditions in the world which lead to violence and terrorism.
4. Talking to the terrorists to try to bring them into a peace process (I know that I am going to cop flak for this one, but I am ready).
5. This, long term, is a much better way to protect US interests.
No, but it means that the US is NOT the source of all evil in the world. We have frequently made mistakes in the past, and will make them in the future. Unlike those that do nothing and call it virtue, we are at least trying to do the right thing.
I don’t think the US is evil. I have never said it was. The US is also allowed to make mistakes, as is any other country.
You’ve been invited to provide a real solution several times, and have failed - or refused (which I doubt is the right word, since refused implies capability but not willingness, and I haven’t seen any ability on your behalf to actually justify your utter inaction.
I did before, but I guess you missed it. That’s OK. You are entitled to make mistakes, too. ;)
2. The current policies of the US will not stop Al Qaeda.
Funny, they seem to be doing a pretty good job. Down about 80%, and the top men all running for their lives. I’d say that was pretty good at “stopping” them.
Of course, since this isn’t a war against just Al Qaeda, this is all moot.
No torture.
Done. (Except that anyone mentioning this seems to think that anything harsher than a kind word counts as “torture”, which isn’t true, no matter how many times you make the accusation.)
No control over the press.
You honestly think that the government controls the press? Boy, what farkin’ planet are YOU living on?
3. Working to alleviate the conditions in the world which lead to violence and terrorism.
Bringing freedom means bringing them prosperity. You can’t bring prosperity by just sending cash. (cv central Africa)
Talking to the terrorists to try to bring them into a peace process
Like I said, you give that a try. Let us know how we can find your next-of-kin to find out what happened to you, and whether they killed you in a halal style (cutting off your head with a steak knife), or just shot you in the head and dumped your body on the side of a street…
Maybe you weren’t paying attention when that was tried with Arafat at Oslo. He was given 97% of what he wanted, and he STILL refused it, preferring to kill Jews instead. Talk didn’t accomplish anything, and it’s funny how you talk about the Palis being “non-violent”, when it is the Palis declaring the conflict (read the Charter of Hamas for full details). Would non-violence by the Jews work against the Palis, or would they take it as surrender and increase the suicide bombings?
It also means that you have to try to arrest suspected terrorists, rather than shooting first.
This is a war, stog, not an attempt to limit some international criminal gang smuggling drugs.
They mean to KILL us, in large numbers, and in such a way as to cause maximum terror among those not directly affected. Arresting them requires a lot more in the way of intelligence, which your tactics will not allow us to gather (either by questioning or through intercepts), with most of those looking to see the US lose demanding that we give non-citizens (who are looking to commit mass murder) the same civil rights we give some poor schmoe who was doing five over the limit.
Of course, if you can talk them into coming out with their hands up, we will be more than happy to arrest and incarcerate them for long enough that the world can change without their evil influences. (In between your pleas for mercy and their shouts of “Allahu Akhbar!”, that is. See above.)
And thus we see the power of war and intelligence and military might and being allied with Pakistan instead of France.
That petulant little dig looks quite foolish now.
Allow me to make my own.
How many america haters has this little mistake cost? How many future terrorists. Why play into their hands, this is what they wanted, remember?
This great ally is same pakistan that won’t let american forces search the areas where they know al qaeda are. If bin laden was in france do you think they would protect him? Who’s really an ally?
I should have put the title, let me be clear, this was a I can’t follow directions.
Perhaps time for an update on the main post?
Funny, they seem to be doing a pretty good job. Down about 80%, and the top men all running for their lives. I’d say that was pretty good at “stopping” them.
Of course, since this isn’t a war against just Al Qaeda, this is all moot.
Since it (and other terrorist organizations) is an organization without any real infrustructure, people can join just by saying “I’m a member.” While there haven’t been any attacks on the US in a while, there have been plenty elsewhere. And as you take them out, members are replaced.
No torture.
Done.
No. Not done. You need to look at the waver the president signed when he signed this into law. Didn’t hear about it?
You honestly think that the government controls the press? Boy, what farkin’ planet are YOU living on?
The one where Lincoln is paid and paying to have stories planted in the Iraqi press.
Like I said, you give that a try. Let us know how we can find your next-of-kin to find out what happened to you, and whether they killed you in a halal style (cutting off your head with a steak knife), or just shot you in the head and dumped your body on the side of a street…
Hmm… so you actually don’t approve of current US backchannel attempts to engage the Iraqi resistance in dialog. Noted. Given that virtually every insurgency has been resolved through some kind of political process - whether it takes 1 year, or 50 years to get to that stage, I wonder how YOU percieve that the US and Iraq will get out of the current situation.
They mean to KILL us, in large numbers, and in such a way as to cause maximum terror among those not directly affected. Arresting them requires a lot more in the way of intelligence, which your tactics will not allow us to gather (either by questioning or through intercepts), with most of those looking to see the US lose demanding that we give non-citizens (who are looking to commit mass murder) the same civil rights we give some poor schmoe who was doing five over the limit.
So you also support summary execution. For that’s what it is. Every time the US bombs a house where there are women and children you are engaging in collective punishment. Strike up one victory for the insurgency.
Bringing freedom means bringing them prosperity. You can’t bring prosperity by just sending cash. (cv central Africa)
On this we agree.
sorry I’ve horsed the page. </a>
Maybe you weren’t paying attention when that was tried with Arafat at Oslo. He was given 97% of what he wanted, and he STILL refused it, preferring to kill Jews instead.I trashed this argument before. He was offered nothing like 97%. What he was offered was a series of cantons not unlike south africa during the worst excesses of apartheid. You really need to get your facts straight before spouting off like that.
sorry I’ve horsed the page.
Seems to be catching…
Since it (and other terrorist organizations) is an organization without any real infrustructure, people can join just by saying “I’m a member.”
But they can’t actually DO anything without support, training and infrastructure. Which requires organization. We are extraordinarily effective of late at disrupting that infrastructure, by cutting off funding and disrupting the governments that support, finance, train and protect these asshats. That requires the use of force pour encourager les outres.
The attack on Iraq (after TWELVE YEARS of negotiations and “non-violent” methods of encouragement) caused Libya to give up its WMD program. It has caused other massive changes throughout the region, as well, but none of those changes would have taken place without that first use of force, if only to show that we are willing to use force.
What would your tactics have accomplished? Saddam would still be in charge, the Iraqi people would still be oppressed, tortured, murdered and dumped in mass graves (a few hundred thousand more victims of “non-violence"), and terrorists would still be receiving training, supplies and money from that Oil-For-Food scandal.
All that would still be going on if it weren’t for the use of military force.
On this we agree.
But that would mean that you agree that there has to be some way of forcing men who are freely violent from govong up that power voluntariky. The only thing that would work is equal or greater force. (You think that the street gangs would worry about the cops if they had them outgunned?)
so you actually don’t approve of current US backchannel attempts to engage the Iraqi resistance in dialog.
That isn’t US backchannel. that’s the Iraqi government. I’m all for non-violent methods, if they work. But your version of non-violence stops there. Once it has failed (which it almost always will, and even when it does work, it’s because of the stick that the carrot looks so tempting), you have nothing left to use.
Once you say “please”, what more can you add? “With sugar on top”?
I wonder how YOU percieve that the US and Iraq will get out of the current situation.
By making the use of violence too expensive (with the threat of immediate response with overwhelming force), not by saying “petty please with gumdrop buttons”. Non-violence is a goal, not a tactic.
“We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”
I trashed this argument before. He was offered nothing like 97%. What he was offered was a series of cantons not unlike south africa during the worst excesses of apartheid. You really need to get your facts straight before spouting off like that.
“And what was {Prime Minister Ehud} Barak’s offer? What did Arafat throw away? Barak offered 97% of the occupied territories and a suggestion backed by the Clinton administration to share Jerusalem.”
(That was from just after the Oslo meetings between Barak, Arafat and Clinton.)
Iraq a haven for terrorist training…
And believe it or not stogy sometimes the addage of “cut off the head and the body will die does work.
Oh yeah, these guys really need to learn from us on torture. Next they’ll learn that gas makes car go, and fire = hot.
Minimal force? ARE YOU FUCKING STUPID?! That’s what Bill Clinton did for 8 years. Worked like a charm didn’t it? You fucking ignorant terrorist sympathizer.
Here’s a question and I want a direct answer. Do you support american soldiers, yes or no?
That’s completely unrelated to any other statements here but I’ve seen you dodging your stance on it by claiming its not relevant or someone is assuming that one position is your stance. Well there’s the question stogy, you cheese-filled vagina. Answer it.
oh the shame of it. how ironic the words I tried to use as the link text were “botched attempt”
Silly liberal - can’t even blame things on the Republicans without screwing everything up for everybody, requiring those very same Republicans to come and clean up YOUR mess.
Again.
I’d say I was surprised, but it wouldn’t be true.
haha is that directed at me drum? is everything screwed up for everybody now? what a sad little troll you are.
Janes’ disagrees with you.
“And what was {Prime Minister Ehud} Barak’s offer? What did Arafat throw away? Barak offered 97% of the occupied territories and a suggestion backed by the Clinton administration to share Jerusalem.”
Let’s have a look at the actual maps upon which the offer was based?
Overall map based on the Wye Proposal
Yep. Looks like cantonment to me. In fairness to Jane’s. Much of the detail didn’t come out until quite a bit later.
Stogy, can you please list for the the details of Arafat’s counter-proposal? You know, since the Israeli one was unacceptable, what did he offer in return?
Oh, that’s right. He didn’t make a counter offer. He just got up and walked out.
is everything screwed up for everybody now?
No, because the conservatives have come through and fixed the things that the pathetic little SFBs like you have broken in your pathetic attempts at “debate”.
Just like in Iraq, come to think of it. A Republican was given a clear task, screwed it up and lost his job, and the Donks dithered and fiddled while the torture rooms rang out with the screams of the innocents. Eight long years, with things getting steadily worse. Now that there is a Republican in office again, things have changed for the better, and you do nothing but blame others for your own shortcomings.
A tale, for your edification:
A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, “Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don’t know where I am.”
The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, “You’re in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.
She rolled her eyes and said, “You must be a Republican.”
“I am,” replied the man. “How did you know?”
“Well,” answered the balloonist, “everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to do with your information, and I’m still lost. Frankly, you’ve not been much help to me.”
The man smiled and responded, “You must be a Democrat.”
“I am,” replied the balloonist. “How did you know?”
“Well,” said the man, “you don’t know where you are or where you’re going. You’ve risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You’re in exactly the same position you were in before we met but, somehow, now it’s my fault.”
You know, since the Israeli one was unacceptable, what did he offer in return?
Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. Thus it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase.
Article 10: Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war.
Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal
Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void.
Talk will work really well against a group founded on those principles, won’t they, stogy?
Minimal force? ARE YOU FUCKING STUPID?! That’s what Bill Clinton did for 8 years. Worked like a charm didn’t it?
In many ways I agree with you here. For all his charm (which I found quite sleazy), Clinton was quite an ineffective president.
But here is my answer to you. Every time you use force unjustly, you add moral strength to the enemy. Clinton didn’t use minimal force - he used unjust force: he bombed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan for which there was no evidence of chemical weapons manufacture. Terrorism is also an unjust use of force, and of course, it gave Americans strength to fight it. But using the wrong methods against an enemy that you have not even bothered to try to understand… well, they may have been counting on that.
And believe it or not stogy sometimes the addage of “cut off the head and the body will die does work.
Yes, but then quite often it does not. Why do you think the Burmese government are so afraid of Aung Sang Suu Kyi? It’s much better to keep your enemy alive and discredit his/her ideas, than allow them to go into martyrdom with their credibility intact. That’s when you get body growing new heads.
Here’s a question and I want a direct answer. Do you support american soldiers, yes or no?
It’s not actually relevant to this topic, but I’ll be happy to answer the question elsewhere on another day. In fact, I’ll send a bottle of scotch to anyone who can work out what my answer will be, and why I think so.
Oh yeah, these guys really need to learn from us on torture. Next they’ll learn that gas makes car go, and fire = hot.
I didn’t say they needed to learn torture from you. I said it was hypocritical to preach democracy while practicing torture at the same time. If you can’t even live up to your own rhetoric, why should you expect others too?
You fucking ignorant terrorist sympathizer.
Whatever - if you are too simple to see the differences, I am not going to bother debating this point any more.
Stogy, can you please list for the the details of Arafat’s counter-proposal? You know, since the Israeli one was unacceptable, what did he offer in return?
Oh, that’s right. He didn’t make a counter offer. He just got up and walked out.
Yes. He did walk out. No counterproposal. But did I say that I supported Arafat? Once again, because I brought up the issue of Palestine, I must automatically support Arafat.
He was a corrupt politician and a poor negotiator, who gained strength from buying his friends and never selling out to his enemies.
But he also knew that accepting Barak’s proposal would be like signing his own death warrant.
Every time you use force unjustly, you add moral strength to the enemy.
And every time you use it inadequately, you increase the self-confidence of your enemy and reduce your own reputation. Which is worse, because it tells your enemy that there is nothing that your enemy can do, even if he wants to, because of the fear that some in the capitulation party might frown.
It’s not actually relevant to this topic, but I’ll be happy to answer the question elsewhere on another day.
Why not just answer the fucking question, you coward?
I call you coward for several reasons, and I’ll be happy to send you a bottle of scotch if you can figure them out. (I’ve given you enough clues in this conversation, across several threads, to figure out one or two, but I don’t think you’re smart enough.)
The moral cowardice you display is yet another issue.
But he also knew that accepting Barak’s proposal would be like signing his own death warrant.
So talking and honest attempts at negotiation does no good when you’re dealing with terrorists. Got it. (How ‘bout that Charter, eh? Sounds like they’re really interested in peace, eh?)
Whatever - if you are too simple to see the differences
You’re not giving anyone a chance to see any differences, stog. You attack us while defending the terrorists, yet claim that you aren’t actually doing that. We ask you what your position is on issues, you dodge the question, and heap on more insults.
Do you support the American troops, yes or no?
Answer the question.
Talk will work really well against a group founded on those principles, won’t they, stogy?
Yes, the covenant is a problem, but I don’t see why it shouldn’t be talked about. Why shouldn’t it be part of the negotiating process.
I am a strong supporter of the right of Israel to exist and to be secure from attack. But here is a great example of violence not working. Some fifty years of fighting, and still things are no better.
I have said this before - there are people in both Israel and Palestine (Hamas) who gain strength from the violence. Every time things improve and it looks like peace might be a possibility, these groups work to disrupt the process - bombing a bus in Israel, taking out some Hamas leaders. Calling off the talks is giving them what they want - giving in to terrorism. These groups need to be sidelined. The talks go on, regardless of violence.
4. Talking to the terrorists to try to bring them into a peace process (I know that I am going to cop flak for this one, but I am ready).
Answer the question.
Hey. No fair. I have to give other people a chance for the bottle of scotch even if you don’t want it. It’s like organizing a lottery, but only selling one ticket. Back in line, man!
We ask you what your position is on issues, you dodge the question,
I think I have been pretty clear. I think you interpret the things I say to fit your own ideas, which is pretty natural.
and heap on more insults.
But this statement left me gaping. When did I insult anyone in this thread? I have been enjoying the discussion immensely, and haven’t felt the need to attack anyone personally.
but I don’t see why it shouldn’t be talked about.
Because that is their position. What is there to talk about? Grammatical niceties? Dangling participles?
Getting them to change the fact that “Armed struggle is the ... overall strategy” is going to take more than talk. It is going to require some way to show them - up close and personal - what the end result of such policies will be. Talk-talk is just noise, and does nothing, especially against people who see negotiation as nothing more than a chance to regroup and rearm. (It’s called hudna. Look it up.)
These groups need to be sidelined.
Which means that they will commit ever greater acts in order to retake center stage. They will not be silenced, by your own logic, and trying to ignore them only makes things worse. Confronting them with words does nothing. They must be taken out of the equation or they will never stop.
What else do you have? More talk? Oh, there went another bus! Chalk up another victory for the “non-violent” side. What’s another dozen Jews, right?
I am a strong supporter of the right of Israel to exist and to be secure from attack.
Which means that they must be able to defend themselves from groups like the PLO and Hamas, both of whom have dedicated themselves to the utter destruction of Israel. That takes force. Fifty years of talks have managed nothing but fifty years of suicide bombers and Iran a cunthair away from having a nuke.
Say, that reminds me, talk seems to be deterring them a whole lot, doesn’t it? What will it take? A bomb in Tel Aviv?
When did I insult anyone in this thread?
Oh, that must have been another stogy that said “if you are too simple”, right?
Do you support American troops, yes or no?
Yes. He did walk out. No counterproposal. But did I say that I supported Arafat? Once again, because I brought up the issue of Palestine, I must automatically support Arafat.
He was a corrupt politician and a poor negotiator, who gained strength from buying his friends and never selling out to his enemies.
But he also knew that accepting Barak’s proposal would be like signing his own death warrant.
That’s not the point. Let’s see if you’ll be intellectually honest enough to agree with what I below.
Barak’s proposal wasn’t acceptable? Fine, I can handle that. Say, for argument’s sake, it wasn’t. Why didn’t he say, “No, this is bullshit. Here’s our list of demands.” You know, standard negotiating tactics. Arafat was sitting there with the Prime Minister of Israel and the President of the United States. If there was ever an opportunity to actually reach a negotiated peace settlement that was it. So, rather than say, “No, this proposal is not acceptable to me. What we demand is A, B, and C,” Arafat simply got up and walked away.
Why? Because ANY peace proposal that recognized Israel’s right to exist, that they have just as much right to that land as the Palestinians, would be unacceptable. In other words, he was not willing to accept any peace proposal whatsoever.
During the last Olympics there was an Iranian judo champion who was slated to fight an Israeli. The odds were that the Iranian would win, he was at the time the world champion. However, he withdrew from the competition, because he claimed that by fighting the Israeli he would be ostensibly recognizing that Israel was a legitimate nation. He went back to Iran a hero. However, I suspect that the motivation was much more simple: he didn’t want to face the prospect, however small, of getting his ass beaten by a Jew. He could fight and possibly lose, or he could walk away and remain a hero.
This is exactly what Arafat did.
There is no settlement that Arafat would have accepted. Israel could have offered to return everything outside their original pre-1967 boundaries and it still wouldn’t have been acceptable. So Arafat, rather than making any kind of effort at a negotiated peace, simply got up and left, and went back a hero for doing so.
This is my main problem with the whole Palestinian situation. I am a firm believer in the right of the Palestinian people to have their own state. They were offered one in 1948 and rejected it. There have been numerous offers since then and they have all been rejected. I am more than willing to recognize that Israel’s hands are not clean when it comes to the situation there, but it’s hard to deny that the main obstacle to peace in that region today is coming from the Palestinians and the terrorist enterprises they both spawn and support and NOT from the Israeli side of the table.
In short, you can support the Palestinians all you like, but the fact remains that they could have had a state in 1948, and they could have had one after the Oslo meeting, and they have rejected all of them. Arafat was not willing to make any concessions whatsoever, and had no interest in negotiating. Because as long as the Palestinians remain stateless he remained in power. And now that he’s gone, and Israel has pulled out of Gaza, the second intifada is still going strong.
If the Palestinians are not willing to accept Israel’s right to exist, then they’re not worth supporting in any sense of the word.
I think I have been pretty clear.
Given that you have yet to actually answer the question, you’ve been about as clear as a brick wall.
Why won’t you answer the question?
answer the fucking question you terrorist sympathizing scumbag. Direct answer no more dodging around.
and I loved this:
he bombed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan for which there was no evidence of chemical weapons manufacture.
A pharmaceutical factory with ties not only to saddam hussein but also osama bin laden. And soil samples take from around it that were not typical common or likely for an aspirin factory. Fucking idiotic coward.
Stogy and his ilk: The Neville Chamberlain’s of the 21st century
Because that is their position. What is there to talk about? Grammatical niceties? Dangling participles?
Drumwaster - now you are just toying with me. A man of the world like you would surely know that there are always positions in negotiation which are there to be given up.
Getting them to change the fact that “Armed struggle is the ... overall strategy” is going to take more than talk. It is going to require some way to show them - up close and personal - what the end result of such policies will be. Talk-talk is just noise, and does nothing, especially against people who see negotiation as nothing more than a chance to regroup and rearm. (It’s called hudna. Look it up.)
Well, talk is only noise if no-one is listening, which is too often the case. And as far as ‘showing them - up close and personal.’ You don’t think that’s already been tried? It hasn’t worked. Israel has three choices - to continue the struggle as is, to escalate it, or to try to work toward a genuine solution.
Oh, that must have been another stogy that said “if you are too simple”, right?
Well, considering that I was responding to this:
Minimal force? ARE YOU FUCKING STUPID?! That’s what Bill Clinton did for 8 years. Worked like a charm didn’t it? You fucking ignorant terrorist sympathizer.
I don’t think my comment was completely unreasonable ;)
Go on - point out all the times I called you “fucking stupid” in this thread. Oh, I didn’t?? No, I didn’t. And nor will I. It was what other people - mainly those without the patience (?) for a real rebuttal.
:)
A man of the world like you would surely know that there are always positions in negotiation which are there to be given up.
Like what? “We’ll let ten Jews live, in a nice zoo somewhere, with the other monkeys and pigs”?
You don’t think that’s already been tried?
Yes. Three times, and the Israelis have beaten back the aggressors each time. They were struck by Scud missiles during the first Gulf War, each of them a potential chemical warhead, in an attempt to garner sympathy with the other Arab nations. (They didn’t retaliate, on our orders.)
Every time Israel attempt to capture and incarcerate these terrorists, there are people like you demanding that they be set free again.
Go on - point out all the times I called you “fucking stupid” in this thread. Oh, I didn’t?? No, I didn’t. And nor will I.
And why? Because that would be equivalent to calling me an interstellar planetoid - which is not true, either.
Israel has three choices - to continue the struggle as is, to escalate it, or to try to work toward a genuine solution.
You think they haven’t been trying to work out a genuine solution? Arafat walked away. Not once, not twice, but three different times that I can think of, right off the top of my head. (Probably more.)
How can you talk to someone who isn’t interested in anything you have to say? And whose public goal is your death and destruction by any means possible?
Tell us what you would say. What would you ask for and what would you offer in return.
Lee - I am still thinking about my response. I’ll answer shortly.
In the meantime, Buzzion, the Al-Shifa story started to fall apart almost as soon as the ground was cool. And I mean, it really fell apart. I mean have a look through some of these references:
James Risen and David Johnston, “Experts Find No Arms at Bombed Sudan Plant,” New York Times, February 9, 1999, p. 1.
Sheila MacVicar, “Blinded by (Bad) Science,” ABC News, February 10, 1999.
Maureen Rouhi, “No Trace of Nerve Gas Precursor Found at Bombed Sudan Plant,” Chemical and Engineering News, February 15, 1999, pp. 11-12.
Vernon Loeb, “Plant Owner to Sue U.S. to Free Frozen Assets,” Washington Post, February 26, 1999, p. A3.
Ali Sultan, “Sudan Plant Owner: Bin-Laden Not Involved,” Al-Ittihad (Abu Dhabi), March 9, 1999, p. 23; in FBIS document FTS19990315001805, March 9, 1999.
Vernon Loeb, “Ex-CIA Analyst: El Shifa Not What U.S. Claimed,” Washington Post, March 30, 1999, p. 15.
There are tons more, though.
the Al-Shifa story started to fall apart almost as soon as the ground was cool.
Because of better information. So you’re saying it was yet another failure of the Clinton intel team.
Fair enough.
But what if the intel had been good. Would the attack have been justified, yes or no?
But what if the intel had been good. Would the attack have been justified, yes or no?
Ah, good question. Probably, yes, if there were no other alternatives.
Here’s a question for you: If you, as president, were planning such an attack, what do you believe would be adequate compensation if you subsequently discovered that you had made a mistake?
Probably, yes, if there were no other alternatives.
No alternatives, like (say) another twelve years of delay and obfuscation? Another 17 broken UNSC Resolutions?
How good does the intel have to be? If it was an accepted fact around the world (every nation - on both sides of the issue - agree on the interpretation, based on their own independently-gathered data, can anyone be held to blame if that data turns out to be faulty?
Lee - I am really grateful for such a considered response. I actually agree substantially that much of the Palestinian response has been driven by, well, for want of a better word, extreme anti-Zionism, and yes, the example of the Iranian wrestler is a good example.
There is no settlement that Arafat would have accepted. Israel could have offered to return everything outside their original pre-1967 boundaries and it still wouldn’t have been acceptable. So Arafat, rather than making any kind of effort at a negotiated peace, simply got up and left, and went back a hero for doing so.
I’d like to question the basis of this. The offer reported by the media may not have been exactly what it seemed (i.e the maps I posted earlier). Also, is it really fair to look at a conflict in terms of only one side? The Israelis were not passive in this time.
FAIR posted this comment well after Camp David. It’s worth reading it all, but I have pulled a section of it. They footnote many of the key points, too.
Although some people describe Israel’s Camp David proposal as practically a return to the 1967 borders, it was far from that. Under the plan, Israel would have withdrawn completely from the small Gaza Strip. But it would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank--while retaining “security control” over other parts--that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government (Political Science Quarterly, 6/22/01; New York Times, 7/26/01; Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 9-10/00; Robert Malley, New York Review of Books, 8/9/01).
The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region’s scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.
Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new “independent state” would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called “bypass roads” that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.
Israel was also to have kept “security control” for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.
If this is true, then I can say that I certainly would not have accepted this as an offer. And here’s another question: How do we know that Arafat didn’t make a counteroffer? Just because it wasn’t made public, doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen:
The Camp David meeting ended without agreement on July 25, 2000. At this point, according to conventional wisdom, the Palestinian leader’s “response to the Camp David proposals was not a counteroffer but an assault” (Oregonian editorial, 8/15/01). “Arafat figured he could push one more time to get one more batch of concessions. The talks collapsed. Violence erupted again” (E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, 12/4/01). He “used the uprising to obtain through violence...what he couldn’t get at the Camp David bargaining table” (Chicago Sun-Times, 12/21/00).
But the Intifada actually did not start for another two months. In the meantime, there was relative calm in the occupied territories. During this period of quiet, the two sides continued negotiating behind closed doors. Meanwhile, life for the Palestinian population under Israeli occupation went on as usual. On July 28, Prime Minister Barak announced that Israel had no plans to withdraw from the town of Abu Dis, as it had pledged to do in the 1995 Oslo II agreement (Israel Wire, 7/28/00). In August and early September, Israel announced new construction on Jewish-only settlements in Efrat and Har Adar, while the Israeli statistics bureau reported that settlement building had increased 81 percent in the first quarter of 2000. Two Palestinian houses were demolished in East Jerusalem, and Arab residents of Sur Bahir and Suwahara received expropriation notices; their houses lay in the path of a planned Jewish-only highway (Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 11-12/00).
Sorry for the long post. I’d be interested in your response.
You do know that every palestinian group that uses a map for a “Free and liberated Palestine” is an image of the entire state of Israel, don’t you, stogy-the terrorist sympathizer? That’s what they want and that is their goal. But go ahead and believe that they will be willing to compromise for less than that (and be satisfied and keep their word on it too)
In the meantime I’ll continue to laugh at your neville chamberlain-like ways, terrorist bootlicker.
How good does the intel have to be? If it was an accepted fact around the world (every nation - on both sides of the issue - agree on the interpretation, based on their own independently-gathered data, can anyone be held to blame if that data turns out to be faulty?
That’s why I asked you my question - which you ignored (I guess you forgot it in your excitement). I accept that intelligence is sometimes (often) faulty. So why not create a system of checks and balances. It’s really not good enough just to say afterward: “er, sorry, we got our facts wrong.” So how would you deal with this?
You do know that every palestinian group that uses a map for a “Free and liberated Palestine” is an image of the entire state of Israel, don’t you, stogy-the terrorist sympathizer?
OK. To clarigy - your sentence (I think?) claims that every Palestinian group uses a map which claims all of Israel as part of Palestine. There are groups that don’t use such maps, and most Palestinians have accepted that there will be a two-state solution (as do I).
Now in answer to you, I would say that there are SOME Israeli groups who use the same map - but Israel stretches all the way to the Jordan River.
stogy-the terrorist sympathizer?
Perhaps I could make a bumper sticker with that on it.
And I have to say, I admire the way you handled my rebuttal of the Sudan pharma factory. Best to let it slide, move onto the next issue.
:)
Yeah well I figured drum handled it well enough for my tastes neville, and you never ever refuse to cover something others bring up, do you?
Do you support american soldiers, yes or no? Quit dodging the question, no one wants to take you up on your bottle of scotch.
That’s why I asked you my question - which you ignored
Gosh, you mean there are questions that have been asked, yet not answered?
What can we possibly do to correct this problem?
How about you start answering a few questions you have yet to even acknowledge first?
1. Do you support the American troops, yes or no?
2. What would you have done to correct the issue, when talk (fifty years of it) hasn’t gotten anywhere, and the Palis are dedicated to the use of armed struggle as a strategy? ("More talk” results in nothing more than “more innocents killed”, so know that up front...)
3. Given that Arafat “couldn’t possibly have” accepted any peaceful solution, what possible good could any further attempts at a peaceful solution do?
Commit yourself to a point of view, and we’ll talk.
There are groups that don’t use such maps, and most Palestinians have accepted that there will be a two-state solution (as do I).
No one in charge of things. None of the terror groups that are actually running Palestine accept the existence of Israel and have dedicated themselves to its destruction. Shouldn’t that come at a price, just like all tantrums?
Welcome back, DW. Considering that I have answered more of your questions than you have of mine, I don’t feel too guilty.
1. Do you support the American troops, yes or no?
It is true that I haven’t answered this question, but this is a 3-day discussion with you, and I don’t have the time or energy to start it now. Also, I haven’t finished with the current topic yet. Ask it to me next week and I promise that I will answer - I should have more time as we move into February and March.
What would you have done to correct the issue, when talk (fifty years of it) hasn’t gotten anywhere, and the Palis are dedicated to the use of armed struggle as a strategy?
I have actually answered in this thread and many times before. So far there has been far more violence than talking in Palestine - where has that got anyone?
3. Given that Arafat “couldn’t possibly have” accepted any peaceful solution, what possible good could any further attempts at a peaceful solution do?
No. That’s not a given. Did you even read my post earlier. What leader in their right mind would have surrended huge swathes of their most fertile land, accepted cantonment of their territory, given away water rights and border control. Having to ask permission from a foreign power to travel in your own land does not equal statehood.
I was really hoping for an intelligent response to the long post from earlier (the Barak offer not really being all it was cracked up to be) - I would be happy if you could point out its inaccuracies (as I am sure you can),but instead Drum, you’ve just moved the debate along again.
So I answered question two and three. Not bad considering. Your turn.
Damn, this thread came alive, and you have to give Stogy some credit for attempting to answer some questions. Too bad I missed this, but horse racing and football were priorities yesterday.
1. The US acts in a way which is morally consistent with what it says. No torture. No extraordinary rendition. No control over the press. No under the table payments to tribal leaders.
I have no problem with this. The problem is anything is considered torture these days. Anything but 5 star accommodations is torture to people like you I’ve seen your posts before on this subject.
2. Using minimal force only when absolutely necessary (this means copping it on the chin if necessary). It also means that you have to try to arrest suspected terrorists, rather than shooting first.
Certain countries have made it difficult for us to just walk right in and do a search and seizure of terrorists. Would you suggest that we violate the agreements we have? Make up your mind on which is right. Take Pakistan for instance. We aren’t allowed to just walk right in with troops. Also, when a person or group is shooting at you, just telling them to spread eagle and put their hands behind their back doesn’t work. Get a clue to reality.
3. Working to alleviate the conditions in the world which lead to violence and terrorism.
That’s nice, but are we to interfere with other countries or aren’t we? Please be specific on this. What if those oppressive rulers tell us to fuck off?
4. Talking to the terrorists to try to bring them into a peace process (I know that I am going to cop flak for this one, but I am ready).
I’m still waiting for the day that one Lefty will protest and tell the insurgents to put down their weapons and go to the negotiating table. There are always two sides. I don’t ever see you asking the other side to cooperate as well being the apologist that you are for these organizations.
Here’s a good bit of news from Palestine which (mostly) supports my view. I’ll even include the bit that doesn’t in the interests of fairness. Note that the source is a respected Israeli University, and not some fringe wacko banana skin-smoking crackpot from down your way:
• 51% of the respondents believe that President Abbas is capable of implementing his platform in regard to arms’ chaos and insecurity.
• More than 74% of the respondents support a truce with Israel; in Gaza support for a truce reaches 83%.
• 72% expressed their opposition to militant parades, carried out by some factions; the percentage of opposition in Gaza Strip increases to 82%.
• 60% of the respondents still oppose the disarming of the various military groups (brigades). The percentage of opposition to disarming in Gaza is 50%, while the percentage of support is 45%.
There is tons more there. But the main thing is that the Israeli unilateral withdrawal from Gaza has led to a general decline in support for radical groups, and a significant growth in support for disarming of those groups. This happened before, as I have shown in other threads, particularly in the period immediately after Oslo.
I am going to have to go to bed, Section 8, but I will pick up on this one:
Certain countries have made it difficult for us to just walk right in and do a search and seizure of terrorists. Would you suggest that we violate the agreements we have? Make up your mind on which is right. Take Pakistan for instance. We aren’t allowed to just walk right in with
But, women and children were killed. It matters not that countless women and children were surely saved. Never mind the fact that they were hanging with the second most wanted terrorist in the world.
[/moonbat]