if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
Hamas Jefferson
by Lee
By now you’ve all heard of the near civil war going on among the Palestinians.
Firing into the air, Fatah gunmen and police stormed Palestinian parliament buildings on Saturday in growing unrest after their long-dominant party’s crushing election defeat by Hamas Islamists.
Hamas leaders meanwhile rejected as “blackmail” Western demands that it renounce violence against Israel or risk losing aid vital to the survival of the Palestinian Authority. Hopes of peacemaking with Israel have been pushed further into limbo.
Turmoil since the parliamentary election landslide has fueled fears of inter-Palestinian strife as Hamas tries to form a government and possibly take over security forces packed with Fatah loyalists at odds with the Islamic militants.
Thousands of gunmen from President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah held protests across the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip on Saturday, many firing automatic rifles into the air.
They took over parliament in the West Bank city of Ramallah for about 20 minutes, shouting demands from the roof before descending peacefully. Fatah militants and police also seized the parliament building in the Gaza Strip.
The gunmen demanded Fatah leaders resign. They also aimed to dissuade the party from any idea of sharing power with Hamas or letting it control security forces—after Hamas politburo chief Khaled Meshaal said it planned to form “an army”.
In a way, the election of Hamas might turn out to be the best thing to ever happen to the Middle East peace process. Why? On the one hand you have the Fatah party, corrupt to its very core. Then, on the other, you have Hamas, which is a terrorist organization, but at the very least was a party offering something in the way of an alternative. So the Palestinians voted against the corrupt status quo which has gotten them nowhere, and chose Hamas. The problem is that Hamas will never be able to negotiate with the outside world with any degree of legitimacy. The Palestinians will end off even worse than they were before.
For years, starting with Arafat, the Palestinian leadership has claimed that it cannot crack down on groups like Hamas. “Of course, we do not support these terrorist groups,” they would say. “But it is not within our power to prevent every terrorist group from operating, it is simply impossible.” And the pussies in the UN, always too willing to believe any dictatorial thug, have taken the Palestinians at their word. “Of course we can’t take a hard line against the Palestinians, it’s not the leadership committing these terrorist acts.”
Well, now it is. Now the terrorists are running the show. So one of two things is going to happen. The first is that the terrorist attacks against Israel continue. The result of this will be total diplomatic isolation from the west. No longer can the Palestinian government claim that they aren’t behind terrorist attacks. The layer of plausible deniability that the UN and the handwringing pussies in Europe have always hidden behind is now gone. The other possibility is that Hamas might actually adopt a softer tone, to reshape its policies. If so, good for them. If they do, however, it will be a true test for the motivations of the Palestinians themselves. Do the people want to simply live and work and share the land with the Israelis? Will the Palestinians be happy with a state in the pre-1967 borders? Or will they oust the softer Hamas in favor of a more radicalized approach?
The Hamas victory is forcing both the Palestinian government and the Palestinian people to lay their cards on the table. And the world will be a better place for it. Let the games begin.
Comments
I completely agree, Lee. Good post.
I was thinking back to when Sharon was elected; he adopted an extremely hardline attitude to the Palestinians, promising to crack down on militants. It didn’t take him too long to realize that ultimately, there was no alternative to finding a political solution.
The Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, has stunned right-wing colleagues by declaring that his country’s “occupation” of the Palestinian territories “cannot go on indefinitely”.
In the face of scathing criticism from his own Likud party, Mr Sharon hit back with language more befitting Israel’s liberal peace camp.
“You may not like the word, but what’s happening is occupation,” he told Likud MPs on Monday.
“Holding 3.5 million Palestinians is a bad thing for Israel, for the Palestinians and for the Israeli economy. We have to end this subject without risking our security.”
I didn’t like Sharon, for many reasons, but I really felt that he had turned some kind of corner. I am hoping for the same from Hamas, now that they have to deliver more than just rhetoric and bombs.
I think this qualifies as “red-on-red” military engagements, Harley.
No matter who wins, we do.
there was no alternative to finding a political solution.
Yes, there was. And he implemented it beautifully - the wall. Isolate the Palis, and make it tougher for the bombers to get through, and et the whole world see how they operate when left alone.
See the answer? They elected the ones doing the bombing, removing any facade of a middleman, and making the next attack by the Palestineans an act of war.
Sharon was a lot smarter than his critics thought. “You guys want a state? OK. Let’s see what you do with it.” Well, here we are. The Palis can’t blame anybody but themselves now.
Yes, there was. And he implemented it beautifully - the wall. Isolate the Palis, and make it tougher for the bombers to get through, and et the whole world see how they operate when left alone.
Yeah, well if only he hadn’t decided to build it through Palestinian communities - separating families, and people from their livelihoods. If he had built straight down the 1967 borders, I wouldn’t have had a problem with it.
Funny how you forgot to mention that, DW.
This election was a good thing. Hamas has been operating with wide support in the region, while their government has received billions pretending to be something else. This Fatah government has been a mask - and now they have been unmasked. Some estimate 90% of the money has been skimmed off from corruption. Now Hamas is the government, and must deal with roads, hospitals, waging their terror campaign, schools, destroying Israel, the arts, AIDS, bird flu, a space program, and begging the world for more money.
Some time soon they will realize that if they want stuff, they need to behave like adults. This election accelerates that.
I don’t think they’ll be able to change their ways. They’ve bred generations of extremists who hate jews and aren’t going to be able to simply turn off the momentum of attacks. There are still kids coming up who aspire to blow up Jews.
It’s as if they’ve unleashed a force that they can’t be contained.
I’ve never actually believed the peace process would succeed. Of course, I support taking the higher road. But, at the end of the day, they’ll just be back to their barbaric ways and eventually, we’re going to get fed up with their crap once and for all.
Let the PA areas become Thunderdome. I’d be happiest if two factions entered and neither left…
Now Hamas is the government, and must deal with roads, hospitals, waging their terror campaign, schools, destroying Israel, the arts, AIDS, bird flu, a space program, and begging the world for more money.
A Palestinian Space program...??
SUV, have you been at the Gaffer’s home brew again?
Perhaps a few bits of the suicide bombers have left the atmosphere.
Great title, so long as noone takes it too literally (Sheehanites).
If he had built straight down the 1967 borders, I wouldn’t have had a problem with it.
Why would he willingly give back something that cost his countrymen blood and lives to take? You know that the only two countries on the planet that have willingly given back land after winning that land in battle are the United States and Israel?
Given that Hamas (their new government, in case you haven’t heard) has dedicated itself to the utter destruction of the Israeli state, I think allowing them a little bit of a defensive border is not unreasonable. Of course, if that’s your goal, too, I can see why you wouldn’t want to allow them to be safe inside their own borders…
A Palestinian Space program...??
There’s an Israeli Space program… *shrug*
Palestinian Civil War...it has a nice ring to it.
May they kill each other from now on until every last one of those wretched, sub-human, terrorist vermin are maggot buffets.
Holy fuck i just got it......
This is the worlds largest experiment, in evolution.
“think of it as Evolution in action.”
Given that Hamas (their new government, in case you haven’t heard) has dedicated itself to the utter destruction of the Israeli state, I think allowing them a little bit of a defensive border is not unreasonable
Rubbish, it’s a land (and water) grab, pure and simple - the same thing is happening in Jerusalem. And exactly how will depriving Palestinian farmers of viable income benefit Israeli security?
A Palestinian Space program...??
SUV, have you been at the Gaffer’s home brew again?
And exactly how will depriving Palestinian farmers of viable income benefit Israeli security?
By preventing the Palestinean rocketeers from being able to launch weapons against the Israeli settlements. Those Palestinean “farmers” never seem to grow anything but rocket launch sites. Strange, that…
it’s a land (and water) grab, pure and simple
Rubbish. Why are they called the “pre-1967 borders”? What could possibly have happened in 1967 to cause Israel to seize that land?
Fatah and Hamas both want to wipe out the Jews. Fatah says one thing in English and the opposite in Arabic. But if the world communities keep on throwing money at the Palis there will be no impetus for them to change.
Actually Stogy The UN resolution 242 (1967) recognized that there probably would be border changes it was only a cease fire line before. The Arabs are not even offering peace but temporary cease-fire until they are stronger. If Lee does not mind I can post a bunch of statement from The British and US ambassador on the UN on this item. The Pali idea of peace is first the West Bank and Gaza than the rest of Israel. There have been Arab attack against Jews since 1920s. By the way back then the Jews called themselves Palestinian. The Palestine Brigade of WWII symbol was the Star of David. The Jerusalem Post was the Palestinian Post. The Arabs called themselves Arab back then.
Those Palestinean “farmers” never seem to grow anything but rocket launch sites. Strange, that…
It’s easy to come to the wrong conclusion when you don’t have any of the facts, eh DW?
Let me help:
It might surprise you to know that many Israelis also believe that what is happening is a land grab. They have volunteered to help Palestinian farmers harvest their crops: mainly citrus fruits and olives. You see, not all Palestinians are violent. And to suggest so is really quite racist.
Here’s what the Economist had to say about the whole land grab thing.
The Arabs are not even offering peace but temporary cease-fire until they are stronger.
No need to post. I know what you are saying.
The best solution would be to help the Palestinians realize that they have more to gain from a peaceful relationship with Israel than they do from the destruction of it.
You see, not all Palestinians are violent.
No, just the majority of them. I imagine there were a few pacifists among Vader’s Imperial Stormtroopers, too.
Here’s what the Economist had to say about the whole land grab thing.
It’s not a land grap to hold onto land won in combat, especially when that combat is spurred by the other side. An analogous situation would be if Canada were to invade the US, end up losing British Columbia, and then whine about losing the war (and the land) for the next fifty years, only to have people like you call it a “land grab” on the part of the US.
Just remember, then as now, it wasn’t the democracy that started the war.
The best solution would be to help the Palestinians realize that they have more to gain from a peaceful relationship with Israel than they do from the destruction of it.
Especially since they would never actually be able to cause that destruction to actually occur. Israel has beaten the Arabs multiple times.
“When the Palestineans love their children more than they hate the Jews, then we will have peace.”
I imagine there were a few pacifists among Vader’s Imperial Stormtroopers, too.
Um, weren’t they all clones?
An analogous situation would be if Canada were to invade the US, end up losing British Columbia, and then whine about losing the war (and the land) for the next fifty years, only to have people like you call it a “land grab” on the part of the US.
Yes, but there will never be peace without a viable Palestinian state. The wall deprives a future Palestinian state of critical land and water resources.
“When the Palestineans love their children more than they hate the Jews, then we will have peace.”
And when the Israeli far right give up the settlements in the West Bank, then there will be peace. Fifty plus years of war has brought neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians closer to victory. It will have to be a political settlement.
And if the Hamas subhumans and the Fatah animals kill each other off in a bloody and brutal civil war, so much the better.
Just like someone from the left who would stand with the terrorist, hu Stogy? You fucking appeasers make me sick.
The original StormTroopers were clones. In later times (presumably after their ranks had been depleted and the cloning facilities were no longer feasible) they used human recruits. The Empire still placed a premium on physical similarities in height and build, hence Princess Leia’s remark to Luke-
“aren’t you a little short for a StormTrooper?”
Yes, but there will never be peace without a viable Palestinian state
What a toilet bowl full of crap that is. What exactly constitutes a “viable” Palestinian state by this definition? Does there have to be so much acerage of land, etc? A viable state is made by a govt and populace that WANTS to make it viable, period.
They had a deal handed to them by Israel that gave them 97% of what they wanted, Arafat elected to throw that away and gamble on a new intafada to get that additional 3%.....and maybe a few extra crumbs as well.
So now, well they’ll goddamn well get what Israel feels like giving to them. And if that’s all that they have now, too fucking bad. Let the Hamastanian farmers you cry about go vandalize Arafats grave instead because it’s his fucking fault things stand the way they do now.
Lots of viable nations make do with scant resources.
Um, weren’t they all clones?
Identical twins are “clones”, as well, but they can have differing temperaments, can they not?
Yes, but there will never be peace without a viable Palestinian state.
Given their actions and tactics to date, they haven’t shown that they deserve a state, but you aren’t aware of the facts, stog. The area currently known as “Jordan” was called “The Transjordan” and was intended to serve as the homeland for the Arabs. Link
The plan was approved by the UN General Assembly, but the Arab countries immediately declared war on Israel, which they lost, starting a tradition that lasted through the present day.
So, long story short, the Arabs who call themselves “Palestineans” are Arabs that were supposed to have been settled in Jordan, but they were so offensive that they were kicked out of every other Arab state.
The upside for the Arabs is that they could get rid of their undesirables, and still have a means of blaming the Jooos. Why is it, after more than half a century, that they have more guns than hot water heaters? More explosive caches than office buildings? No infrastructure, but a thoroughly vetted suicide bomber enlistment program…
Fifty plus years of war has brought neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians closer to victory.
Because the Israelis have been extraordinarily gentle and forbearing. They have let it go with retaliations for the bombings, rather than actually engaging with all-out warfare.
The Arabs have barely learned that we CAN fight, but think that we are afraid to do so. They think that the Israelis are the same way, not seeing that it is US and world opinion that has kept them as quiet as they have. Do you honestly think that no one noticed those Scud missiles being launched from Iraq during the first Gulf War?
Drum dont confuse him with facts.... his head migth explode....
and some poor sap wouldhave to clean up teh mess, think about taht poor guy.
Britain long and sick history of being against Israel is not a secret. The Israel makes concession it is not enough. Millions of Jew would be alive today if the Brits lived up to the League of Nation mandate that promised a Jewish Homeland in 1920s. Even the Arab leader of Arab revolt during WWI agreed. The British have not release their record on the Palestine mandate for the obvious reason but statement like.
{I apologize Lee for putting in these long quotes}
“In 1937
Antony Eden later wrote to his private secretary, “If we must have preferences, let me murmur in your ear that I prefer Arabs to Jews.”
“Neville Chamberlain, Britain’s Prime Minister in that most pivotal period of the shaping of British policy, 1937-1940. Chamberlain told his cabinet that “If we must offend one side, let us offend the Jews rather than the Arabs”. 25”
“In 1944, Henry Morgenthau, United States Secretary of the Treasury to President Roosevelt said “The British were apparently prepared to accept the probable death of thousands of Jews in enemy territory because of “the difficulties of disposing of any considerable number of Jews should they be rescued”
“In 1949 Ernest Bevin, then British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, says “It would be too high a price to pay for the friendship of Israel to jeopardize, by estranging the Arabs, either the base in Egypt or the Middle Eastern oil.”
I assume The British Commonwealth nations like Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc etc will be returned to aboriginal, French Dutch. Of course the Jew lived in Israel a long time before Arabs ever heard of Mohammed. And the Romans did not buy the land from the Jews and the Arabs did not buy the land from The Byzantine Empire (successor to the Romans)
On bias from The Economist, http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x;_outlet=10
which has lot of advertising from Saudi.
The types of Jew who do not think the Arabs aims are not violent are moonbat. The majority Of Israelis would love negotiate with anybody but even they realize their is no permanent peace.
By the way Stogy used a 3-year-old story from Economist which failed to include the fact that UN resolution 242 expected border changes and Stogy does not indicate the fence has changed. Of course Stogy does no use Al Jazerra but the Economist has a well-known bias. It could not even be correct in it economic prediction that it was making in the early 1990s of the rise of the EU and the decline of the US economy.
Stogy Arafat in many speeches in Arabic said Oslo was the first step, then when the Arab population grew they would go for the rest of Israel. His plan for the right to return was demographic time bomb for Israel. Muslim percentage of the population in Israel itself is twice after the 1948 war of independence. There have been UN sponsored Palestine (do the Arab have a P in their alphabet) event where they show no Israel. The Arabs have been talking about driving Jew into the sea since the 1920s. The PLO was formed in 1964 before the 6-day war. Previous the terrorist attack was by the Muslim brotherhood. The Jews were ethnically cleansed from Arab land but you never hear of this situation. My brother-in law father was forced out of Egypt and the only thing he was able to take was a watch that he swallowed. By the way Medina the 2 holiest place to Muslim was a Jewish settlement until the Mohammed took up the sword.
Think of it this way: the Israelis have the right to imprison every goddam Hamas “politician” on the grounds that he’s a terrorist. Israel now has the right to cripple the Palestinian leadership because they can call it illegal.
I do not believe that acreage or land rights are contingent to the success of a state.
Saudia Arabia is huge, but a shit hole nonetheless.
Saudia Arabia is huge, but a shit hole nonetheless.
And just look at Canada…
The other possibility is that Hamas might actually adopt a softer tone, to reshape its policies.
Hamas are the junkyard dogs of Iran. Any outcome will surely be heavily influenced by Ahdmine-whatever the fuck his name is. Question is, just what will it be.
“When the Palestineans love their children more than they hate the Jews, then we will have peace.”
Couldn’t a neutral party have made the exact same quote to Americans during WW2 and said:
When the Americans love their children more than they hate the Germans & Japanese, then we will have peace.
And it be just as a stupid thing to say as when you do Drum?
I understand that you all feel the need to defend Israel from the attacks of the left. I want to make it clear that I fully support the right of Israel to exist, the right of Israeli people to live without fear of attack, and to have the long term viability of their state guaranteed. I also agreed with Sharon in his assessment that the occupation of Palestine harms Israel as well as Palestine.
I also don’t support the use of violence on the part of the Palestinians at all. I have said this before: violence on the part of the Palestinians is a self-defeating policy. It enables the Israelis to basically do what they want in the West Bank in the name of security. Rick, I in no way support, condone, or defend the practice of terrorism. Trying to understand it, though is really very important, as any military analyst will tell you.
This should be the point where you start thinking: surely there have been abuses on both sides that have contributed to this conflict? How can you solve a conflict unless you understand the causes of the violence?
Now from the left, we only hear how Palestinians are the victims, and from the right we only hear about how Palestinians are all terrorists who want nothing more than the complete destruction of Israel. The Stern Gang? The West Bank settlements? The suicide bombings? The intifada? How can it be that just one party is at fault. Go beyond the party lines and look at the fundamental issues which underlie this conflict: it’s the inevitable consequence of the displacement of a large number of people from their traditional homeland.
Of course there were Jews living there (for centuries), but there were also Palestinians, many of whom fled in 1948 with nothing. The Arab governments have used them as pawns to enhance their own political power. They are deprived of opportunity to enhance their own lives and the lives of their children. Many of them turn to violence. They seek a set of beliefs which justifies their violent behavior. The violence brings more violence.
So here it is, plain and simple: the conflict will not be solved until the fundamental causes which are driving it are removed.
Be careful that you don’t confuse positions with needs (this is Conflict Resolution 101). The IRA claimed that they would never stop the armed struggle until the British were thrown out of Ireland. But they have found a different way to have the needs of their communties met. It could turn out the same way with the Palestinians, and Hamas. It’s too early to say, but I am not without hope.
I am keeping an open mind. This is why I endorsed Lee’s comments above.
The Palestinian vote was not about land, water, politics, etc--it was about religion.
The landslide “victory” resulted from Hamas’s platform that Palistine would become an Islamic state. This was a muslim celebration. The few Palestinian Christians were certaintly not dancing (by which I mean shooting AK-47s into the air) in the streets.
It is because of Islam’s abject intolerance, 14th Century ignorance and zeal to destroy Isreal that is the heart of the problem.
Get rid of the religion, get rid of the problem.
When the Americans love their children more than they hate the Germans & Japanese, then we will have peace.
You forget that the Palestineans have more in coommon with the Germans and Japanese than the Americans do, because they started the war. They are fighting against a democracy.
And they will lose just as badly.
Couldn’t a neutral party have made the exact same quote to Americans during WW2 and said:
When the Americans love their children more than they hate the Germans & Japanese, then we will have peace.
And it be just as a stupid thing to say as when you do Drum
I missed the part of WW2 where we strapped dynamite vests onto our minor civilian children and sent them to blow up Japanese and German civilians you bloody asshat
In addition, since Hitler would’ve been content to throw most of our children into an oven or at best a slave camp, your statement further makes no sense.
Nobody cares about Hitler, terrorism, or the destruction of Israel. What is the Hamas position on gay marriage, gays in the military, and abortion?
I missed the part of WW2 where we strapped dynamite vests onto our minor civilian children and sent them to blow up Japanese and German civilians you bloody asshat
That’s irrelevant. The quote is meant to be clever because it shows adults letting their children go to what they consider war, and die in the only way they consider they can offer resistance. Yes, they are utter idiots for doing this and I couldn’t possible imagine doing that, but is it really fundamentally different to sending your kids off to fight in a war when there is little chance of them coming back alive (WW1 for example where life expectancy in some places was a matter of days) - remember we are talking about their kids dieing, not what they are fighting for our how they did - which Drum is why your response is irrelevant.
The problem with Palestinians is what they do, its not that their parents do not love their children. That’s just silly. It might sound like a clever quote but it really istn’t.
The Palestinian vote was not about land, water, politics, etc--it was about religion.
Ah, see I think religion is the excuse. The cause is social deprivation, frustration, humiliation. Once the cycle of violence has started, yes, it becomes about religion.
Get rid of the religion, get rid of the problem.
Yes (using this to continue my analysis). By addressing the above causes of the conflict, you will reduce intolerance, violence and support for extremist groups. You can’t do it any other way, because the more you apply force, the stronger they will believe.
Nobody cares about Hitler, terrorism, or the destruction of Israel. What is the Hamas position on gay marriage, gays in the military, and abortion?
Istn’t that obvious? This is why I never really understand the right attacking the left as being Islam/terrorist etc lovers. In fact the left fundamentally disagrees with conventional Islam on pretty much everything. The left wants Islam to get through a reformation as much if not more than the right does.
Ah, see I think religion is the excuse. The cause is social deprivation, frustration, humiliation. Once the cycle of violence has started, yes, it becomes about religion.
It’s about religion in the same way it was in Northern Ireland. That might be how people pick their sides but that is not the underlying cause.
Yes (using this to continue my analysis). By addressing the above causes of the conflict, you will reduce intolerance, violence and support for extremist groups. You can’t do it any other way, because the more you apply force, the stronger they will believe.
Had their been functioning schools and hospitals and no corruption its unlikely Hamas would have been elected. It’s sort of the same way that if the Democrats get in during 2006 it will be more because the Republicans are seen as corrupt than because of anything the Democrats have to offer.
In fact the left fundamentally disagrees with conventional Islam on pretty much everything.
Because they hate Republicans more. I can think of no other reasons for why they would be willing to surrender to the terrorists (including the famous “Cut-and-run” tactic used so successfully the last time we lost a war), or why they see the terrorists as “Minutemen” (predicting that “their numbers will increase and they will win"), or why they would meet with representatives of the people that killed their son, but the facts are irrefutable. Why not ask them the next time they hand you that envelope full of the latest Donk talking points.
Because they hate Republicans more.
That argument cuts both ways.
I can think of no other reasons for why they would be willing to surrender to the terrorists (including the famous “Cut-and-run” tactic used so successfully the last time we lost a war)
As you have never been able to provide an argument against the fact that US forces were on the point of complete collapse in Vietnam (which I have posted here twice before), this does not hold water.
And as I have said already. I see almost no alternative to US forces remaining in Iraq for another year. I don’t like it, but I can’t see an alternative.
As you have never been able to provide an argument against the fact that US forces were on the point of complete collapse in Vietnam (which I have posted here twice before), this does not hold water.
I still don’t believe the whole “complete collapse” bullshit, stog, simply because even the VC generals admitted that they never won a battle against our troops. That makes it not a “fact”, but a point of view arranged by the media and Democrats in Congress…
The “collapse” was because of a loss of support from here in the US. When your funding is cut in the (Democratically-dominated - peaking with a 295-140 supermajority in 1965-7) and you are told to capture a hill (after having just given it back for the fifth time), when untrained Democrats in the White House and Congress are micromanaging every incident, when national news is concentrating only on negative news and body counts, when hippies lying about being combat veterans “confess” to “war crimes” (that never actually happened) and when admitted Communists and Socialists are demanding that the US surrender and withdraw, that kind of shit affects morale.
Cut morale, cut funding, cut public support, and allow the returning troops to be met at the airport to be spat upon and called “baby killers” by the cowardly little shits who claim their cowardice as a virtue, and you, too, can make it appear like a collapse.
But our military forces won every single engagement. That is a fact. Link
On How much The Arab love thewir family.
The Palestinian mother who raised her sons to be suicide terrorists, and is a celebrity in Gaza, has been elected to the Palestinian Parliament.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=1536576
“In Gaza, Farahat is known as Um Nidal, or Mother of the Struggle — a mother who sent three of her six sons on Hamas suicide missions against Israeli targets.”
But our military forces won every single engagement. That is a fact. Link
Oh I don’t deny that. But when you have five aircraft carriers all put out of action by their crews AT THE SAME TIME, you have generals warning that whole batallions are refusing to fight, you have officers being fragged on a weekly basis, you do have to start asking questions.
the returning troops to be met at the airport to be spat upon and called “baby killers” by the cowardly little shits who claim their cowardice as a virtue
This happened a lot less than the right would have us believe.
The really stupid thing is that it was primarily a war of nationalism, not communism. You still can’t accept that the US lost the war because it was not a war that could be won, so you take the easy target: blame your political enemies.
But when you have five aircraft carriers all put out of action by their crews AT THE SAME TIME, you have generals warning that whole batallions are refusing to fight, you have officers being fragged on a weekly basis, you do have to start asking questions.
That reverts back to the low morale, and the troops not being the automata (note to Ditza - this is the plural of ‘automaton’) that the Left would have them be. They know that they just lost their best friend to take an objective, only to have the top kicks say that the White House ordered that they pull out, thus showing that those deaths (since there more than just the one) were essentially being thrown away.
Congress - again, dominated by Democrats - cut the funding to the troops, preventing them from fighting or flying while TV broadcasts were filled with the pro-Communist protests in the big liberal cities (like San Francisco and New York) and sonorous pronouncements about how we were “losing” (even though we actually weren’t.
Perception becomes reality, and the troops don’t want to fight when they feel that their sacrifices are being wasted.
But which side is for ignoring all of the sacrifices to date, by people who refuse to fight fair, with every single mistake being dragged out over and over again by the media who WANTS the Rethuglicant in the Oval Office to lose and keep losing because he isn’t as “advanced” as they are - why, just look at all the mistakes he makes when answering hostile questions!
The really stupid thing is that it was primarily a war of nationalism, not communism.
By the Communist Government in the North, heavily subsidized and supplied by the Communist Soviet Union, in exchange for any American military secrets or high ranking POWs they happen to find…
This happened a lot less than the right would have us believe.
That it happened at all is indicative of exactly how the far left actually views the military.
This is an interesting discussion, but I have to go out.
Save your ammo for later ;)
Just to keep you from distraction though, I thought you might enjoy this.
This happened a lot less than the right would have us believe.
Hell, let’s just say it never happened at all. Welcome to revisionist history 101.
The really stupid thing is that it was primarily a war of nationalism, not communism. You still can’t accept that the US lost the war because it was not a war that could be won, so you take the easy target: blame your political enemies.
You mean the political enemies that were the PR reps for those that wanted to see the defeat the US? The same thing is happening today. Even though I have stated a million times here I wasn’t for the Iraq war, no one has called me a terrorist sympathizer here. You know why? Here are some reasons:
1) We are there now, and leaving would help no one (which it appears you at least agree with this one).
2) The US already stated they would be out of Iraq once there is stability. I believe that statement, lefties do not.
3) The instability in that country is not coming from the US, but by those that want to disrupt the voting process, injure as many civilians as they can, and disrupt the infrastructure in order to keep the fighting going as long as possible. Why would they do this? Because they know the US will get the blame, which it does. Don’t believe me? How many lefties/sympathizers ever denounce these tactics? How many blame the US? Of course they don’t like the label of being a sympathizer, but they have earned it.
4) The left believes that the US is the cause of the instability by going after the insurgents, who deliberately hide in hospitals, mosques, and other civilian areas to maximize civilian casualties.
5) The lefties blame the US for not going after the insurgents, and letting violence get out of hand.
6) I blame the insurgents for these problems, for the slowness of recovery, etc. Most lefties, including you, like to blame the US.
7) Minimize the success of what the US has done, and highlight its failures. Normally, when there are two teams, two people, or two thoughts, that oppose each other, the way you can determine what side the third person is on by finding out which side he will give little attention to success, but a lot of attention to failure. Just a little tip for you dipshits that don’t think we can see through the bullshit. This includes some politicians like Ted Kennedy. Read about what he thought of some of these Iraq elections, or any progress for that matter.
Next entry: A Matter of Rights
Previous entry: The Chronic-What-Cles
yeah, but the body count............