To Mr. and Mrs. America and all the ships at sea: “Fears of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict growing into a regional war expanded as Israeli warplanes bombed targets deep inside Syria in a surprise air strike.”
This was the gist of press reports - not from this month - but from four years ago. Nothing serious developed then, so why shouldn’t we assume that the bombing of Syria two weeks ago will turn out to be equally benign?
In the most recent attack, which earned a “no comment” from President Bush at his news conference yesterday, Israel is said to have destroyed a Syrian-Iranian missile base in northern Syria that was allegedly financed by Iran as well as another facility reportedly containing nuclear materials provided by North Korea. The sources for this information, which you will note neatly involves just about all the “evil empires,” include the pro-Israel web site, “Yid With Lid.”
Few announcements are more revealing in the political world than denials and “no comments.“ It’s more than reasonable to assume that one of the purposes of the president’s press conference, then, was to subtly broadcast that the attack, in fact, did take place. And, if that’s so, then there may be a few reasons to take the current situation more seriously than the one four years ago.
And not because Syria might respond in kind, necessarily, but because this could be the opening salvo by the forces of good in a widening of the Middle East conflict. The ultimate target here is, very likely, Iran, which, we are told, is grooming itself to be a member of the nuclear club.
Also, this is happening at a time when the United States has brought its naval strength in the Persian Gulf back up to include three carrier groups. Certainly an effort of this magnitude isn’t aimed entirely at the war in Iraq.
Finally, the region is considerably less stable than it was four years ago and, in many ways, the forces of good have been taking it on the chin. The situation in Iraq speaks for itself. In Afghanistan, the Taliban has reasserted itself. Al Qaeda has established a massive presence in Pakistan. After driving Israel back last year, Hezbollah has become much stronger and more effective in Lebanon. And Hamas, which advocates the destruction of Israel, has taken over the Gaza Strip.
The forces of good need to score some points, and perhaps more importantly, the Republican Party and the defense industry need to reestablish a warlike climate to avoid fading away like old soldiers.
Undoubtedly, in the ongoing international game of chess, Iran is watching the latest moves by Israel and the U.S. very closely. Hopefully, its response will serve to forestall any aggression.
Nevertheless, the world has edged a little closer to a broader conflict….
Dave McGill, News Correspondent……………….
Dave’s column, “The Contrarian,” generally published every Wednesday, to Gather Essentials: News will sometimes present a contrary view to various aspects of the news, or an alternate take on the conventional wisdom of the day, and will occasionally also appear on other days of the week………….
Dave has been a senior officer of a large eastern insurance company, involved in economic projections and investment strategy, president of a Midwestern mortgage banking company, and a financial consultant in Southern California, serving clients in the field of commercial real estate development…………….
You can find all of Dave’s “The Contrarian” columns at: http://gather.com/thecontrarian...... Keep up with Dave’s other postings and Gather activity by joining his Gather network – just click here: http://atadaskew.gather.com........ You’ll find Dave and other News Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other News experts at News.gather.com.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 89
I wonder if the Reichs Chancellor said no comment when asked about the attack on Pearl Harbor?
I thought the aggression was a "force of good," David. Why would you hope to see that "forestalled?" Or is "just enough aggression" a good thing, but too much is bad?
I have also been watching this section of the chess board (the Israel-Syria incident) the last couple of weeks, and I think I am more optimistic about the effect of the "incursion".
No... Wait, scratch that...
Yup, and we sure seem to be helping it come.
Christians on the War Path. Jesus must be so happy.
Paul W., you are correct to point out that there may turn out to be a good side to this. It should be noted that this could be no more than a warning to Iran (and N. Korea)which will hopefully produce results. Thanks for adding that point.
And Dave A., you seem to be cleverly trapping me in my own words...and that too is a good point. However, I'm not sure that I ever said that "just enough aggression" is a good thing. At this point, I certainly don't believe it.
The world has become a risky arena and I have a very uneasy feeling about the speed at which everything seems to be heading in the wrong direction. Consider, for example, the following items, which received little press coverage in our mainstream media.
Earlier this year, the U.S made arrangements to provide billions of dollars worth of military equipment to our friends in the middle east on top of the billions we have already provided to Pakistan. And now comes Russia, announcing two weeks ago that it has promised more than a billion dollars worth of advanced weapons to Indonesia, a nation with a population of 240 million.
In addition, Russia announced last month the reinstatement of the Soviet-era practice of having nuclear bombers routinely make long distance flights that bring them within striking distance of the United States and its allies. Vladimir V. Putin said, of the around-the-clock operation:
"Today (8/17/07), just after midnight, 14 strategic missile aircraft, together with support and fuel planes, took off from seven airfields across Russia."
In another recent announcement, Russia suspended participation in a key European arms control treaty, saying it would no longer allow NATO inspections of its military sites nor limit the numbers of its tanks and other heavy conventional weapons.
Reportedly, the anti-aircraft equipment that unsuccessfully defended the Syrian installations, was provided by Russia.
And these items just address one area of risk in a very shaky world....
There are plenty of criticisms along the way going back 100 years or more depending on where you want to start or whose side you want to prefer but the point is that we have a group of countries that are inimical to our way of life. We are not perfect by any means, but as David says we are the forces of good. Can you imagine if this war was going the other way that an Islamic army occupying a Western country would even be talking about democracy or when to leave?
No ... we need to face the facts that yet again we have a failure of humanity to be human, and the imperfect West as the forces of good is yet again we are going to have to show merciless and overwhelming force to an evil and belligerent culture to save the world from that evil. We might as well accept it, and maybe even start thinking now about how to avoid this again in the future, but I doubt we can, it is in our bones.
I think it is sad but maybe understandable that some of our own people do not believe we are the forces of good in this or that it is avoidable ... but as the threat gets closer most of us can recognize it for what it is, even if we do not like it.
Iran needs to be taken down unconditionally. Their people need to know why,and that it is not being done against them but that it will be done. This could have been done a long time ago at lesser cost to everyone, so the sooner the better in my opinion.
And I wish everyone would stop this idiocy of promulgating a war all in the name of God. Since when is our God better than theirs? Think about it, based on these premis, we've knocked ourselves back several thousand year.
Do what the "colonial masters" did with the IRA but on a much larger scale. Talk and negotiate.
errr David, do you know the status of the Indonesian military? They are so ill equipped, ill advised and technologically backwards, not to mention corrupt that they wouldn't be able to fight their way out of a paper bag that's been sitting in water for a week. The question that remains in my mind is out of that $1 billion +, how much of it ended in the pockets of generals, politicians et al.
This is a true story I heard from friends when I was in Singapore. Back in the mid 80's there was a meeting of Indonesian generals and the topic of economic reconstruction was brought up. They took a look at Germany and Japan and came to the conclusion that if they went to war with us and got the shit kicked out of them, then the US would help in rebuilding the country so that they might be a new economic super power. All this was going well until one general said, "what happens if we beat them?"
Oh did I mention the fact the the indonesian military is also full of delusion.
Patrick, the IRA never threatened the existence of Britian, or to use nuclear weapons, or to attack other countries ... your parallel is not so parallel.
The solution might not be a Pax Americana, rather it might be a War Americana or a World War Terrorista wherein the difference would be a brief surgical regime change or drawn out low intensity effort as in Iraq versus continuing and escalating terrorism all over the world possibly leading to many deaths and distruptions in the Western economy.
The choice is clear, and to say we have no tried negotiations, where do you get the gall to say that? The world has tried to help Iran saying we would give them nuclear POWER, all they have to do is to not develop nuclear WEAPONS, and let Russia process their nuclear waste. They refuse, and they only reason would be that they are serious about developing nuclear arms. If they are serious about the nukes, they are also serious about attacking Israel and the US. Have you not been paying attention, or you just think Amadhinejad is misunderstood? What?
And what would happen if they launched nukes against Israel or any other country bruce??? As the french said, not only Theran but Iran would be leveled.
By the same token bruce, where have you been or have these simple facts been ruled out as unworthy news.
When did terrorista become a word?
The negotiations and talk with Iran have been going on since 1970's.
With the rhetoric being used by Amadhinejad or bombing Israel and the US
escalating, the idea that talking or negotiating is being taken seriously by
Iran's government is difficult to believe.
As to your second point, I do not think you are correct there either, but to
find out your scenario means that Israel or some other country has to'
absorb a first strike, possible nuclear. Do you know that Israel would
be gone after a first strike on Tel Aviv?
That is not an option, and the kind of threatening and belligerent
rhetortic from Iran parallels the same kind of crap from Hitler, and
other madmen who explained just what they were going to do if
they ever got the power.
I think the time for talking is over, and I am glad to see break in
this, and some action by Israel. (In Syria). This kind of madness
cannot be allowed to continue in this world any longer.
It would also be unlikely that leveling Iran would be a response
to an attack on Iran ... the fact is that there is not good answer
to Iran after they do the deed, overwhelming preemption on the
government military, economy and elite is the only way to do it.
Murdering an entire nation after their crazy government provokes
response is a reckless act that the US would be shamed for forever.
Wouldn't it be wiser to reopen and seriously look into this peace proposal as opposed to weigh the option of trying to wipe each other out? The thing to remember is that even if this peace plan were to be initiated, it would be years before it is fully ratified and put into effect due to the nature of diplomatic negotiations... but at the very least, one would have a period of peace.
Also, why do you lump all the muslims into the radical islamic factions ... don't you believe there are moderates?
> I doubt very much that, despite the rhetoric, Iran intends
> to nuke Israel. Bombing it is not a sensible option ... nor
> is it an effective one.
It may or may not be true. Even if you thought this was true,
maybe even a dead certainty, if you are a leader responsible
for the security of the free world you can never make that
gamble without being totally incompetent and irresponsible.
It is sad, but in the absense of any honorable action or stability
I think the US is doing the best we can by pushing forward bit
by bit in the Middle East. These countries have the chance at
any time to change their tunes, but we should not be swayed
as long as they play games we should move forward to crush
their governments and motivate regime change and Democracy.
As hard as is it and as bad as we are at it, what other choice do
we have but to hope or gamble, and either of those are not an
option in my opinion. Thank "???" whatever that we have the
strength and power still so that our survival does not yet depend
on this and we can accomplish it without all out war.
Patrick, my only point with respect to the billion dollars of advanced weaponry for Indonesia and our own distributions to various countries is that it's not making the world any safer, any more than the proliferation of handguns has made this country any safer.
And Bruce, I can't believe you said "the time for talking is over." What propaganda are you listening to." Is this what Rush or Fox News are saying? I'm amazed to hear it, especially from you. It's a plain as the nose on your face - and let me make it perfectly clear that I've never seen you, its just an expression - that this administration (and I use the word loosely) - has never cottoned to "talk" from day one.
Bush violated his agreement with Congress by short circuiting any "talk" before jumping into the war in Iraq. It is clear to anyone who has watched the miserable process called our foreign policy that Bush would much rather launch a preemptive attack than settle the problem (unprofitably for the defense, oil, etc. industries) through negotiation and diplomacy. Despite recommendations by the Iraq Study Commission and many others he has steadfastly refused to play the diplomacy card. How can you say what you did, Bruce?
Also, I agree with you, Bill Lawrence, Iran would not use the nukes if it had them. They know full well they'd be destroyed if they did. In a way, as I wrote once to the dismay of many, the nuclear bomb can be the great peacemaker. Certainly it is the great equalizer. Just look at Pakistan, a much smaller country than India, but now one that is on a par, militarily, because it has as many and probably more warheads than does its arch enemy....and presto, no wars between them since the "parity" has been achieved.
I'm not advocating nuclear proliferation, but it won't be the end of the world if Iran joins the club....it won't be the disaster that the neo-cons would like us to believe it would be....
This is why the Saudi peace plan should have been given a chance to work ... speaking of which, do you think a Saudi could go to Jerusalem and throw money around buying mansions and yachts and flaunting their religion as they drink and whore? Also, how many Christian churches are there in Israel, they're just as bad as the Saudi's ... if you build one the ultra orthodox jews will burn it down.
The most tolerant arab countries vvs religion are Lebanon and once upon a time Iraq where Christian churches flourished.
I cannot believe that you David, think that Amadhinejad has any intention of talking, I just think like you said, you are ready to appease him so it does not bother you if we wastes our time. Even your phrasing shows your habituation to the idea ... your comment that it will not matter if Iran "joins the club" frames the debate as if the nuclear club was a country club, and Iran the poor discriminated against minority that is prohibited against joining. There is a reason no on in the friggin' world wants Iran to get a nuclear weapon ... and that is that it can lead to nothing good for anyone.
Yes, Saudis can go to Israel is they like because Israel is a western secular
democracy, despite it being a land mostly settled by Jews. To ask if Saudis
can throw around money is a foolish question. Jews cannot even set foot
in Saudi Arabia. The original King Saud hated Jews and wanted them all
dead like Americans and most people in the West cannot even imagine.
We already fought WWII and no country has the right to murder a race
a people or a country. There are Christian churches as well as Mosques
in Israel ... and this ends my commentary to you Patrick since you fail
to know that and make up facts why should I waste my time?
The more tolerant Lebanon has been the more they have been
overrun by radical Islam, and the more everyone else has suffered.
Islam has brought only misery pain backwardness and death to everyone
including its own.
Diplomacy, incidentally, can go way beyond just Iran. It's an incredible leap to assume that there is no non-violent course to achieve the desired result. It is equally incredible to think the forces of good are going to take on the entire world of Islam and win. Someone needs to wake up and smell the roses. In over four years, we haven't been able to win in just Iraq, and Islam stretches from Morocco to the Phillipines and encompasses between 900 million and 1.4 billion people.
What I will agree to is that the Bush administration's high handed policies have antagonized so many countries in the world that his ability to seek international cooperation in a campaign of diplomacy may be weakened somewhat. We can only hope that he doesn't commit any further mistakes during the balance of his term, so his successor can start an appropriate process with a cleaner slate. I don't have much confidence that such will happen, however. I'm afraid he's determined to create another crisis, but I hope I'm wrong.
It seems to me, with great sadness, that humanity is on a course that will ultimately cause it to be largely obliterated. That is not primarily the fault of the U.S. or of any one country. A strong case can be made that it is the fault of religious extremists and in that respect, you are right to condemn the radical Islamists, but the right wing religious fundamentalists in this country and in Israel are not entirely innocent by any means.
If anything comes out of the next election, I hope it's sanity (ifg it's not too late).....
>> many civilized people would rather put lives at risk
>> than exhaust every peaceful effort to avoid bloodshed
I guess I would think it was a shame as well if that was
what was happening.
David, I don't recall quoting you on Iran unless I lift something
verbatim to give my reaction. If I misquoted you it was not
my intent. You are one of the people on Gather that I think
of as open minded and thoughtful so please explain where I
misquoted you.
When even France is starting to make saber-rattling statements
I think it is starting to dawn on the world that Iran does not
respond to word. I'm not dismissing that diplomacy is still
possible, but at this point the well is so poisoned that Iran would
have to virtually surrender and lose face in front of the world for
all the wacked things they have said for so long ... and who would
believe them? Seriously, would you? The people in the know, even
the experts ran the whole damn Iraq war because of this kind of
thing, but then to assume irrationally that Iran is bluffing or doing the
same thing is not a leap that can be made rationally either.
The non-violent course needs to be picked up by Iran ... not the West.
Absolutely any time Iran wants to stop this they can. Do you disagree?
Islam is very big, and thankfully the cancer of radical Islam has not
spread through it ... I think that is the whole point. Do you really
want to sit back as our own oil money goes to the Saudis and then
to Mosques all over the world radicallizing Muslims?
Take a look at the book "The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim's
Call for Reform in Her Faith by Irshad Manji. There are lots of voices
out there telling us exactly what Islam is, what the problems are,
what their goals are, and how it has to be stopped. Islam does not
change like the West does. Islam is a closed system and to affect it
a change has to come from inside or the outside has to be broken.
I see the people on the world stage acting like idiots for many reason,
mostly because we all are idiots and history has largely been the rampaging
or strong idiots in wave after pointless wave. The small progress that has
been made has generally come from the West, but we have just as many
wackos trying to overextend our reality.
We have the peaceniks trying to overextend their world built around the
60's to this historic era. We have the neocons trying to impose their
vision of the world. The globalists. The corporatists. Wall Street ... we
all think that when one world view gets a majority that something
right will happen.
This is why Islam is so dangerous right at this particular time to the
West. Right now the West is starting to grapple with its next
step. There are lots of idea and lots of disagreement, and it is
like an egg quickening trying to evolve into something better, trying
to look at its problems and solve them.
Islam makes us have to NOT look at our problems in order to
survive the threat from outside. Islam does not need to evolve,
Islam is 10+ centuries behind us and its closed totalitarian structure
makes it very very stable. A Muslims grows us with 100x the
amount of regimentation focused like a lased with the technology
bought from the West to make individuals slave to Allah.
The West is on the precipice of understanding that the individual
is the most valuable thing, diverity, tolerance.
How can we possibly coexist with Islam?
I think most of our leaders have heard the data, read the news,
talked to the real experts and they know this to be true. That
is why despite all this crazy stuff from the President, it is not
being seen as so crazy. Bush was right, this is a crusade ...
but it is a defensive crusade on our part. We have been the
ones who have been attacked.
The question is not if sanity will come out of the next election,
it surely won't, but our determination to survive and prevail
may lead to the path of sanity, because I think all roads of
radical Islamic terror lead to insanity.
Bruce, you are an intelligent man with compassion attempting to understand and find peace. It is no surprise though that you have been swayed by the seemingly rational logic of the present administration's move to go to war with Iran for all of the reasons they have presented and you have bought into ... please give it some more thought.
Bush & Company have far different ambitions than the peace that we ALL seek, they have visions of being dominate (as in DOMINATION ! ) in this world, it is a frame of mind shared by peoples of a certain position as the heads of the money/food chain of multi-national Corporations that have long had this ambition and will stop at nothing to achieve it. Those folks live all over this world, THEY are the real country club type that will only allow a select few of their own stature join ranks with them ... I know, it sounds just like BS from a flipped out whacko ... but as far as I am concerned that IS the case ... their methods are to remain in the shadows and buy up the peoples they think can serve them and scare the hell INto the rest as needed to serve their goals.
The scare tactics work well for normal people that are attempting to exist and hopefully get ahead in a world of ever increasing complexity and problems ... but the way being pushed to solve the problem of terrorists will only create far more problems ... you do not put out a fire by attempting to pour more fuel into it ... like begets like and if followed through, gains like exponentially, as a snowball rolls down hill getting ever larger with each revolution as the ever enlarging area picks up ever more from the area rolled over ...
The more people that begin to support the idea that we can solve this terrorist problem by force, the greater the size of the fire and the snowball ... the problem will only get worse ... and far more people will suffer far greater hardships and death. But death may well seem like a blessing as compared to the suffering that will be going on all around.
Our world militaries have new technologies that you and I are not even aware of, that are nasty beyond imagination ... and some are anxious even to use them in real life (and of course, death) situations ... the higher you exist up the food chain, the better your protections and ability to travel away from problem areas. We the people will not be so fortunate. Most of the people required to get on board to make this happen will also end up victims of their own participation to what-ever degree ...
The troubles that will come from what has been expressed as a necessary move (war on terror) will only escalate completely out of any control on a world wide basis ... it will not at all solve the 'problem' ... if one desires to be fearful, involve it all of the way, picture the REAL ending, not the simplistic view that we can surgically remove terror ... Iraq is a good example on a very small scale ...
I suspect the supporters of such an idea actually believe that we (whoever that is) have the military might in the form of bombs ... that via a wider war we can then draw our own troops back somehow to be able to devastate all that get in the way by sheer unrestrained firepower ... you may think that will work, but it will not ... the short and especially the long term outlook is no where as 'pretty' and clean as one may prefer to imagine ... we ain't seen nuthin yet !!!
Because for centuries those Muslims have been backwards, stuck in their own wars with each other and local enemies, Jews, Christians, etc and they did not have nuclear weapons and trillions of dollars.
Arab Wahabi Islam is being exported, the model I use is it is much like the Evangelical Christian movement, except it is violent. We used to call them "Jesus Freaks" long ago, now this movement is huge in the US. Arab Islam has way more money and a dramatic goal that supercharges its hopeless downtrodden peolpe.
You see Israel as the source of the problem Bill, but you are wrong, the source of the problem is the backward intolerant Islamic religion that absolutely will not let any non-Muslim group survive. It is is OK to break Iraq apart in to Sunni Shiite and Kurd areas, why has it never been OK to put aside an area of the Middle East for the Jews?
You want to see Israel as the criminal, but you are just wrong.
First, Israel displaced about 300 thousand Palestinians. Subsequently about 6 million Jews have been expelled from Arab countries and forced to move to Israel.
In India it was OK when radical intolerant Muslims declared their independence and created East and West Pakistan out of Indian terroritory. They kicked out the Non-Muslims again. Now they want to expand into Kashmir.
When does Muslim aggression and intolerence become acknowledgable on your radar Bill or are you just not looking, or OK with it?
It is not like many different responses have not been tried with this group of people.
Keeping on talking is tantamount to doing the same failing think we have been doing forever and expecting a different results ... a definitiion of insanity, and yes, I think your interpretation of events is insane Bill.
out there telling us exactly what Islam is, what the problems are,
what their goals are, and how it has to be stopped. ... "
I know something of Irshad, admire her and her philosophy a lot. I would like everyone to read her book and UNDERSTAND what she says in it. It is based a lot on the message in my own book ... which is that this world lives in a DUALISTIC belief system where things involve too much attention to the extremes. That is what gives us this polarization that leads to such much division and conflict ... people choose their rights and insist the other is wrong ... the other does the same from their viewpoint seeing themselves as equally 'right' ... all about separation of the wheat from the chaff ...
That Duality think MUST be transcended to TRINITY think ... via that transcendence of thought we would come to realize and then the KNOW the Spirit of God that INterconnects us all ... it is unconditional love of the quality that will even let us kill each other IF that is what we think we want and need, it will also allow the suffering that will go along with it as the needed lesson that will over time make us reconsider ... there is no getting away from the consequences for those so involved.
All of our religions and leaders, secular and otherwise SHOULD come into this awareness of the NEED to go to the next level of the SPIRITUAL. That is now an esoteric realm that our normal and common exoteric viewpoints actually know nothing about. What little they have heard, scares them and causes them to label it heretical and of an evil or dark occult nature ...
Well, if anything, those leaders in the shadows I earlier mentioned may well be involved in such darkness as was Hitler's henchmen ... because there IS a dark version.
But there is also a 'white' version that is OF the LIGHT of LOVE ... and it is well known by a relative few. It is those that should be listened to, I consider myself to be one of them. I do have a message this world needs, and would very much like and enjoy beyond their present ability to even imagine ... it is much the same message that Irshad suggests ... THAT ALL of THESE WORLD RELIGIONS GROW UP !!! Christianity is in as much need as the rest.
> to understand and find peace. It is no surprise though that
> you have been swayed by the seemingly rational logic of the
> present administration's move to go to war with Iran for all
> of the reasons they have presented and you have bought
> into ... please give it some more thought.
Jerry old pal, please consider the purchase or a brain, and a
clue to go with it in order to jumpstart yourself into some kind
of reality. The tired new age religious slogans you promulgate
really don't stimulate any thinking, or action, thought I guess
they sound good if you are in dark room smelling the incense.
Sheesh!
Oil-rich Arabs have been obscenely wealthy for a very long time, but it was only after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and our subsequent post-war withdrawal from the area, leaving a lethal vacuum, that the trouble started. Then, to protect those Saudis, we later stationed troops on "sacred soil" (a ridiculous concept, but still...) and gave bin Laden his cause. We had him on the ropes until we invaded Iraq. Now he and the Taliban are resurgent. But these are the people we need to fight, not Islam itself, however backward and intolerant it is (and there I certainly agree with you). But no matter how many divisions we send over there, we aren't going to establish democracy by the sword...and if we did, we'd have a raft of very anti-American governments to contend with. The object of our policy should be to avoid having to go to war...not to court it.
I didn't say that and I don't think that. What I said was: "I'm not advocating nuclear proliferation, but it won't be the end of the world if Iran joins the club....it won't be the disaster that the neo-cons would like us to believe it would be...."
There's a big difference between (it won't matter) and (it won't be the end of the world)....
Also I feel very strongly about my statement that the right wing religious fundamentalists in this country and in Israel are not entirely innocent by any means.
The battle to keep religion and politics separated will continue to be one of the most important issues as we go down the road. Through the insidious process that we have developed of giving special interests a diaproportionate impact on the political process, religious extremists have exerted far too much influence, and their points of view are far removed from what we have read to be the teachings of Jesus.
Imagine what the world would be like if all countries, including the U.S., but especially North Ireland/England, Israel and the Islamic nations all maintained a true separation of church and state.
It is amazing to me that those who are attempting to break down this barrier cannot see the dangers of what they are trying to accomplish...
This is exactly the argument though, and I think it does matter if Iran joins the club, and I believe it is worth a lot of effort to remove this military weapon from these people in fact I believe it is worth hitting Iraq's reactors and if necessary their military installations.
I reiterate that the right wing fundamentalists to me seem like a group that the Republicans woos for their votes, and to a certain extent appears in our population every once in a while, like the General who talked about Iraq and God, I guess I don't see them has having much power or setting politicy. I am disturbed by them, but mostly when I run across them in my life I dislike them. When they start beheading people here I will support bombing them as well. ;-)
If you understand the criticality of separating religion and government in this country I wonder why you cannot see its danger in the Middle East, or dismiss it as "over there"?
Where pray tell are the Christian churches ... I never saw one when I was in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, nor did I see any mosques in the interior of the country.
Upon some more in depth thinking,you have a point there, especially if the Russian military aid includes kilo class submarines. If memory serves me right, in the late 80's/early 90's Indonesia bought several kilo class subs and shortly after, Malaysia bought an equal amount. Not to be outdone, Singapore followed suite and bought a dozen or so Swedish diesel subs. It was shortly after this regional arms race that China decided to modernize their entire fleet and boy oh boy did they ever do that.
Reason: the Straights of Malacca, an extremely shallow and narrow sea lane that accomodates 99% of all shipping from the far east to europe vvs. If you were to sink 2 freighters or oil carriers in the straights, you'd be shutting down trade for a long time and crippling a lot of economies along the way.
bruce k: Because for centuries those Muslims have been backward...
It is over only the past few hundred years that Islamic society has fallen behind the West in science, technology, and the arts. Prior to that time they led the West. It is this relatively recent downward trend--in the opposite direction from what you have suggested--that has led to increased hostility, desire for retaliation, and suspicion in Islam toward the West. (See, for example, "What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response" by Princeton Historian Bernard Lewis.)
Bill Lawrence: "Then, to protect those Saudis, we later stationed troops on "sacred soil" (a ridiculous concept, but still...) and gave bin Laden his cause..."
The concept of the sanctity of Islamic territory and protection from the contaminating influence of infidels dates to the middle ages. This is not not well understood in the West. Leave it to a shrewd, though unhinged, demagogue like bin Laden to pick up on themes that have great purchase with Muslims everywhere. Though his logic is often tortured and his reading of Islam seriously flawed, bin Laden echoes deeply held resentments across Islamic communities.
The Islamic culture has many beautiful things about it, music, food, and some of the most classic architecture ever built in my opinion as well as some legitimate criticisms of the West. That said, it does not matter when their belligerent expansionist stance has terrorized many groups of people in the past as far back as you care to go, and threatens the future of the West and the world today.
Islam also in the past, and in most of the world today has not been so totalitarian and terroristic as the fundamentalist terrrorists in power and money today, so whatever you have to say about Islam or Arabs is the past really does not have any relevance to this situation today. Today's dilemma is unique and all I hear in terms of almost all discussions are some clumsy attempts to force it into some small historic event that whoever is posting at the moment may think they understand, like early Islam, the Crusades, Viet Nam, WWII. These simplistic statements usually are meant to force someone to agree with them by appeal to history ... I cannot say how many times I have heard the phrase "read your history", "read some history", "read a history book sometime" by people do not know what they are talking about, but they are proud to have read their one history book and think that it makes them an expert.
I continue to believe that radical Islam is a huge threat to the world in many different ways and that our actions now save Western lives as well as Muslims lives and reduces terror. Mistakes have been made, really bad mistakes that we should have avoided, but we didn't. The goal needs to remain the same, the discussion should center about alternatives and strategy, not retreat.
Association of Christian Churches in Israel
Don't believe ALL the anti-semitic propaganda you read in the world ... try to keep at least one small corner of your mind open just a smidge.
Of course you do not see Mosques or Churches throughout Israel, but Israel is a tolernat society ... like almost NONE of the Islamic Arab Middle Eastern countries.
Israel is also not trying to take over the world, and is a democracy.
Don't want to talk about the past? Then there is your biased and confused misunderstanding of the current situation. You make the telling mistake of sliding from such terms as "Islam" to "radical Islam" to "fundamentalist terrorists" without making much distinction among them. As a result, your own personal belligerent expansionist stance doesn't add up to much.
Dave ... I made appropriate distinction between Islam and the radicals even if you do not agree. I disagree the American is belligerently expansionist. Let's be clear, in this world the distinction is not between being expansionist or isolationist, it is being forward moving or letting another power take the lead and moving backwards.
The Iraqis at first were happy to get rid of Saddam Hussein, but George Bush tossed aside any plans for rebuilding in favor of sending Paul Bremmer over to disband the Baathe party, the Army, and let the country be given over to the gangs.
What is the goal. The goal is to stop Iran from engagingin and supporting terrorism in the world, as well as to stop Iran's building a nuclear weapon. I think bombing Iran's military bases and the nuclear reaction can be the beginning to a slowly tightening noose that will pressurise their government to expel Amadhinejad, but either way it is still a neccessary action.
First, if you see the Iraq invasion/occupation as essentially a "good" initiative, but poorly executed, then that's a generous assessment, to say the least, at this late date. Perhaps it's a template that you could use to gauge the projected results of an attack on Iran. What are the potential actions/consequences of the various players? Keep in mind that Iran is a huge, wealthy and fiercely proud country, a large proportion of whose inhabitants currently have a positive attitude toward America and things American. It ain't Iraq.
Goals. Understanding the goals of all the players, along with their world view and cultural biases, is absolutely essential to conflict resolution. Demagogues have a way of painting their chosen enemies with a single hateful color that seeks to justify the most ruthless actions. One must take care not to be swept up.
Hmmm, it almost seems as if this is the goal...
> so that they can take what they see as their rightful
> place as a regional superpower, able to counter Israel.
Bill, I can just say your thinking process is non-existent.
Applying the characteristics of a reasonable "person" to
this country that has none of your nice Western values is
just the height of non-thinking. After all this time to say
that is lunacy.
Counter Israel ... in what? Israel is not terrorizing anyone.
Israel is not expanding its area. Israel is not run by a
totalitarian terrorist religion complete with suicide bombers.
Israel is not carrying out or funding world wide terrorism.
What the f*ck are you using your brain for, a doorstop?
Ahmadhinajad is just some blabbering idiot with bad grooming
who happens to the be president of the country. Why do no
other president of countries talk about wiping other countries
off the map, or destroying the West. Bluster ... that must be
it. Sheesh, if you think Amadhiejad is a great leader of Iran
what the hell could you possibly say bad about President
Bush? Maybe you and Dave need some brain surgery to fix
the blood flow to your brains ... obviously you are not getting
enough - or any.
You and Dave are just terminally passive fools in permanent
denial who ought to thank you lucky stars that someone is able
to do your thinking for you. Left alone you would probably get
yourselves and your families possible your country dead.
While Hezbollah assassinates all the Christian leaders in
Lebanon you fools will talk about how Democractic the
process is.
Hahahahaha ... sorry, but that is hugely funny. That is way funnier than Reagan thinking Greneda was a threat. Way funnier.
The time for advocating talking has been tried and tried and tried and tried again. When and if you take any time to look at the character of their responses, at this point even if they did make some kind of effort, there is a 100% probability that they would be stalling or lying. They have already been caught lying several times. Lying about exporting terrorist arms and support, lying about their aims with nuclear power ... they do not need centrifuges if all they want to is to have some nuclear plants.
Maybe you are are willing to trust them and take the chance, I just think there is something wrong and dangerous about being so gullible and irresponsible.
Don't give me the BS that I do not know other people from other countries. Maybe you need to actually think about what you are saying and the chance you are taking before you flap your lips risking the lives of Americans and the existence of Israel and Europe.
And - oh - by the way, Bush got a 72 and a 73 in the two economics courses he took in college. Somehow, that must have slipped his mind a couple of days ago when he said he got A's. (just a small needle)....
Bush, Dave, but some of the more exhuberent critics when they launch
into fantasy or paranoia do deserve mention.
Just out of curiosity, if we do invade Iran as you want to, will you volunteer to be part of this holy grail to wipe out islam and bring christianity to the heathens?
My guess is an emphatic no, but that's just a guess.
Never mind that no one really thinks bombing them will be effective (except Bruce, I guess, and maybe our leaders), never mind that most Iranians are actually not anti-American, but will be one nanosecond after the first bomb falls, never mind that the entire Muslim world and all of our allies (except Blackwater -- thank you, Patrick) will turn against us...it will be another brillliant foreign policy coup for the Administration.
Right.
No wonder we're bleeding ourselves dry in the Middle East.
You talk about how the Iranians like American all except one-man who controls the country. You do not seem to understand the political or military realities about that, but it doesn't keep you from bringing up the most absurd comments.
Are we going to invade? How long is the occupation? Do you think we will be welcomed with open arms? blah blah blah...
I am not happy about the conflict with Iran, I am just not in denial about it.
I am not getting my big kicks in life by living in a fantasyland of pretending that
a dictator of a country that executes people for going against their religion
is somehow a Demcratic country. A country that talks about destroying
another country by wiping it off the map. A country that aids terrorists and
seeks nuclear weapons.
And you think it is crazy to think it is necessary to do something about this
threat?
So flip it around, you already know what my delusional actions would
lead to .... so what if Iran and Syria take over the Middle East. They
attack and destroy Israel. The price of oil goes us and they squeeze
the living hell out of America and maybe Europe, of they are "nice" to
Europe and become part of the European Union, and institute Sharia
law and continue their pressure on European society.
You are fine with that because as with most Iranians which you say are
pro-Western, you think it is OK that the government of Iran is forced on
them. You must be fine with Islam being forced on Europe, because most
people will still have Western sympathies .. at least until they wipe that
out by killing all the apostates there.
Then what does the US do ... hide behind our oceans?
All your panzy-ass peace talk does not lead to anything. You think
simplistically that the choice is between peace and war ... well, the
world would never have had a war if that was the choice. War is
always forced on the peaceful people from outside, but some criminals
who want your stuff, or your women, or you land, or to enslave you,
it really doesn't matter why.
Yes, we need oil. When it gets cut off or extorted you will see how you
will be sorry we did not fight for it. How much are you going to pay
to drive your cars to your jobs, and heat your houses? Oh, you don't
care about the Americans in the North who heat their houses, that is
another casualty of letting criminals expand in the world, besides they
should not have been living where it is cold anyway. How many absurd
arguments are you going to make and how long are you going to wait
making the actions we have to take harder before you are willing to
stand up and admit a threat to you life?
And they have WMD ... or might have someday, at which point they will be a threat to the world in general and us specifically ... get them first before they get us.
Then get anybody who pops up in support of them or against us ... preemption is best. But be sure to kill them all so as to erase any memories that would cause revenge on their part ... the only good 'other' is a dead 'other' ... fill in the name of the race or religion in place of 'other' ... bruce for dictator of the world ... talk about SHEESH !
In any case, Bruce, you can't escape the "blah, blah, blah" so easily. Actions have consequences, and you'd better get them right before you rush in with a preemptive strike – or, let's call a spade a spade, an act of war against another country – without considering what they might be.
So instead of dismissing everyone as idiots for asking, let's have your analysis. First, what other possible options are there for dealing with Iran? Then, if we bomb their nuclear facilities, what are the consequences? Will it put an end to their nuclear program? How will Iran – and ordinary Iranians – respond to this act? What will it mean for the rest of the Middle East? What will happen in Pakistan as Musharraf – our putative ally – runs for re-election? How will bin Laden use it to advance al Qaeda's goals? What effect will it have on terrorism worldwide and the recruitment of terrorists in the region? How will the Muslim world react to what they will see as our attack on Islam? How will the rest of the world view this act? Will they support us – or can we do it all alone (as we cannot do in either Iraq or Afghanistan)?
Before you pull a Bush and go off half-cocked with no thought for the end game, you need to answer these kinds of questions.
So, please, tell us.
Not true, may Jews from my dad's firm have been there. They don't really care as long as you can make $$$ for them.
I do not think the Saudis are neutral peace brokers in the Middle East on the question of Israel, no.
True but the question is who is the neutral broker here? I don't see any.
Take a look at the book "The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim's
Call for Reform in Her Faith by Irshad Manji.
Pls give me break, even the most moderates of Muslims have shunned her. The one who love her as those who hate Islam.
In India it was OK when radical intolerant Muslims declared their independence and created East and West Pakistan out of Indian terroritory. They kicked out the Non-Muslims again. Now they want to expand into Kashmir.
We have many Indian immigrants in our country, u should go & talk to them. They vl laugh at u if u tell the radical intolerant Muslims declared independence & created Pakistan. Learn some history before speaking, stop distorting facts.
Bruce, ur hate mongering here sound no different that the rants of those whom who hate.
All of this anti-semitism is detailed historically from the beginning of
the country.
It is maybe be true that when the Saudis need someone they allow
need to override their dogma, but that makes it worse. It is a
constant humiliation that they need the West and especially
Jews to operate their country. As well, foreigners may well enter
the country, but it needs special dispensation, they stay in
special areas and they are forbidden to practice their religions.
The US is a neutral broker, it is just that you and the Saudis cannot
see it because you have a preconceived outcome where Israel fails
to exist at some point in the future.
I just love how when I point to Irshad Manji, or Wafa Sultan, or Walid
Shobat you Islamic liars dismiss their lives and their points of view.
You cannot dismiss their facts, and the truths of what they say, you
just attack them personally saying they are dismissed by the same
people who are the terrorist enemies.
Lebanon is becoming radicalized as well due to the assassination
of moderate and non-Mulsim politcians and the incursion of Iranian
money supporting Hezbollah.
Centrist, you are not a centrist in the least and your POV does
not fit into any American mainstream let along centrist beliefs.
Don't waste my time with your lies.
I do and that is the reason why I don't advocate war of any kind. Talk first and keep talking until exhaustion overtakes you then talk some more. Sooner or later some sort of understanding and compromise will arise.
Your blatant disregard for everyones lives is disgusting. Theirs and especially ours.
have u been Saudi Arabia? I have, the only restriction were the 2 holy cities & other than that I could go anywhere. It's no beacon of freedom or liberty but it does not claim to b one either. And yes many Saudis are anti-semite, there's no doubt. But u claimed that Jews are not allowed in the country which is not true & just a bunch of lies.
I m no one to dismiss Irshad Manji, or Wafa Sultan, or Walid Shobat. I have read anything abt the latter two but Wafa Sultan claims to b a atheist according to google results on her. Asking Muslims to learn abt Islam from her would be like asking Saudi kings to preach & spread democracy. And after asking Muslims abt Irshad Manji I reached a conclusion that mainstream & even very moderate Muslim dismiss her as a looney.
bruce, how is ur hate different than the Islamic extremists?
And Bruce, u must joking when u say US is neutral broker? do u follow news/current events or just listen to political pundits on cable & talk shows?
Centrist ... you just don't get it, so what!?
I don't hate Saudis or Muslims, I see some of both groups as being
threats to the world civilization. There is no point is talking more
to you about this, I don't really care about anything you have to
say, I have heard it all before many times and come to terms with.
It doesn't really matter, Iran is going to get attacked soon enough.
Maybe if you cared about these people you would be advising them
to stop with their insanity. But you think they are sane.
And nevermind the pundits, the US has always been a fair and neutral
broker in the Middle East, far more than they deserve. Imagine that
we support the most disgusting regimes on the planet, and support
a nation for the Palestinians. Far more neutral than they deserve.
yes, we do support disgusting regimes. But don't b mistaken that we do it coz we r the good guys but we do it for our interests. But in order to help our country, we do have to make some tough decisions. I would not hold Prez Bush responsible for that.
I have to agree with u that there r some among Saudis & Muslim who r a threat to world civilization but that's limited to those groups. Such ppl r present in every group... we have our share of warmongers too.
bruce, How would u have reacted if it was Syria that attacked Israel not vice-versa. How would have the world leaders & media reacted? How would have the UN reacted? Would we b outraged? We need to learn to call a spade, a spade. No matter, whose spade it is.
The threatening groups in Islam have almost unlimited money, and a system of spreading that money and influence that has radicalized, or united the radical Muslims all over the world. It is a huge threat, why do you persist in dismissing it when we have seen many times over for almost 50 year the effect of these people in the modern world, and you completely dismiss what this threat will look like after they have become nuclear powers. Your thinking is a danger to my life, and the culture that I hold dear.
The fact that my culture is not perfect, has made mistake and gone off the tracks does not bother me, because we are open and free, another dissimilarity to our enemies, who are really enemies to the human spirit.
That view is very common on earth due to the dualistic religious views of good and evil ... it plays out in the thinking of man that they must always war against the lesser aspects ... even here at home it has been a "War on Drugs" that for as long as it has been going shows no sign of winning.
Every single human on this earth has a soul of God inside of them that is based upon the unconditional love of God, the authority of our entire universe not only this rather small world that seems to be everything to most people, if they even have the vision that extends that far, too many do not, it being a much more selfish vision or view.
Given even half a chance, all people will respond in fairness and respect to each other because of the natural nature of God inside of us ... but over eons of time with religious views being somewhat screwed up for the most part and thus mankind always looking objectively for some outside authority for direction because our 'leaders' train and indoctrinate us to do so, so they can be the ones in charge and reap the benefits of our trust ... and those fears that 'they' tell us about and then promise their protection from such manufactured threats, are just more games they play on us ... sadly mankind has now become to believe all of that, those lies have now taken on a life of their own and are playing out in fears on every side, action and reaction ad infinitum ... war and violence beget only more war and violence ... that is a destructive zero sum game for sure in the long term.
That is what has to be turned around by someone sometime somewhere ... that is the kind of thinking that you are seeming to deny ... it is based upon fear, fear that IS justified by THAT way of seeing things ... should we ALL be converted to that way of thinking what would you suppose the outcome would be ? ... I would bet you that at best we would have the world become divided about half and half at first with the hawkish half attempting to kill off the dovish half (justified collateral damage they would call it) along with their perceived hawkish enemies ...
And then when 'that' stage was over, the remaining half would then eventually divide also (due to the human nature inherent where the more liberal would seek love over fear) where the liberal survivors would argue against the pragmatic ridding the society of those that did not buy into the views of the most hawkish ... survival of the fittest where power is justified as the strength of the natural surviving 'winners' ... the only traits worth holding onto and supporting ...
This then becomes like radioactive decay that consists of half lives where each successive period has 1/2 of the number of the previous ... in the end there will be nothing. That is where this philosophy is taking us and that is why it must be turned around to see the real truth of our nature that was designed to be cooperative and with our diversity using our gifts in a creative synergistic way of win win ...
Of course I realise that everyone has also been brainwashed into only paying attention to violence and wringing their hands in fear and maybe being thankful that someone else was the victim instead of them ... so my message will be ignored and they will think they are still safe, that their leader will protect them if they get behind and support that leader ... but as I said, at that rate their day will come also and it will have been too late to protest then ...
The time is now, there will never be a more opportune time to begin to turn our reality building around to a positive rather than a negative ... one is constructive the other is destructive ... it is up to each of us ... really, no leader will do it for us in the end.
But I do really believe that those of us that are not involved with fear and hatreds will experience the opposite, something more akin to love. I am not yet completely convinced that there are not parallel universes operating here in that regard.
Get this through your heads. There is a War coming and in one way or another it will be started by Bush & Co. . Chaney has already suggested the use of nuclear weapons.
When the mushroom clouds come remember who is the agessive nation. The United States. You remember the nation that stands for peace and good will?
Your comment "given half a chance" is a good one ... the problem is we are not given half a chance, there is always something to knock people off balance and make them fear. It is not a fantasy and it was not orginating with the US either.
I also don't know how you can take 50 lines to say something you should be able to condense to paragraph - the paradigm of hot air ... taking up a lot of space with little matter.
> If more people got down to those basics
Yeah, and if more people obeyed the laws we would not have any
crime either, it's easy, just get people to behave. To bad they don't
isn't it?