pryvateer

Black Dog, Slinking away? On what topic? I read the Arab press - their publications, not a third party interpretation. The Arab world see's Isreal as part of a greater zionist conspiracy, ala Elders of Zion, and feeds their willingness to avoid reality. Just as one example, Mossad was really behind 911 and jews were told not to come to work that day. Their culture has fallen so far that they need someone to blame. There is not one government in that region that has any record of advocating basic human rights. An arab citizen in Isreal has more rights than any Eygptian, Jordian, Syrian - that fact most create a ton is of dissonance with their intelligensia. If your position is Isreal has no right to exist or to defend itself then no dialog is possible between us. I have a very different view on that subject as stated in previous posts. Let me restate for clarity. The Labor government under Baurak went way beyond anything offered before. He acted like a statesman, ignored public opinion, and put a deal on the table that gave Arafat basically everything except Jerusalem and the right of return. Everything else was negotiable. Sole ownership of Jerusalem will never happen, it would be the same as the jews negoitating for Mecca. The othe issue that will never happen is right of return. Because it would be the death of the Isreali state. No Isreali Prime Minister will ever negotiate on those two issues. When Arafat said no, Labor was discredited and the election of Likud was a certainity. That meant that Arafat was going to get Sharon and all of the baggage he would bring. Nice presumptive sale, I didn't agree with your statement at all that Likud would never negotiate. Their startegy to peace was drastically different from Labor's. If Likud never intended to agree with the formation of a Palestinian state (which means peace between two governments), why have they built a fence and removing all of the settlements? Too much there for a single response. I am not well versed anymore in International Law on this topic - so I will do some google work. However unless my memory and understanding of history is flawed, who in the last century (20th) volutarily gave back territory taken in battle while defending themselves? And you are right when you say the local inhabitants didn't start the war and therefore shouldn't pay the price. We agree but what are we or anybody else to do about that - not take the right action to defend ourselves? The history of the arab world's treatment of palestinians is hideous and when taken in toto is far worse than anything done by the Isreali's. Since I don't have any experience in this area, I'll agree with the statement in general terms. However until the colonial powers divided up the middle east after WWI, Irag, Syria didn't exist. The land now called Isreal was known as Transjordan so anybody living there were "jordanians". My point was that there is and never was any country called Palestine and therefore no Palestinians. When they finally negotiate a deal with Isreal, a Palestinian state will exist for the first time in history. If that statement is incorrect, please provide some facts that can be researched. There is some legitmacy in that statement, however their culture is not based on a view of "unalienable rights". That region of the world has always been ruled by autocrats, some benevolent, and some horrific. If in fact the colonial powers had that much influence you would see either an english or french model of governance. I experienced this first hand working for the UN in Africa where the impact of Colonialism is much the same. When talking to citizens of a number of those countries you find out that today's dictator is just another version of others that pre-date Europeans. He provided no evidence to support the statement. There is no documentation to support the weapons were destroyed and no forensic evidence. You cannot destroy biological and chemical weapons without residue. I don't want to repeat myself - so the previous statement stands, the world was not in conflict over whether Sadam had WMD - the conflict was over appropriate action. Because the US spent so much time petitioning the UN to follow-up its words with deeds, we broadcasted what should have been a surprise attack. David Kay didn't say WMD didn't exist, he said there were no stockpiles when we searched Iraq after the war. I'm so tempted to respond inappropriately. Nowhere in my statement suggested that we were being "manly" - that was the last thing being considered. The fact that you read it that way is interesting. One of the challenges of collective action is getting people to agree on how fast to respond and what is appropriate. One of the most dangerous outcomes is called the 'law of the lowest common demoninator", in other words agree is based on the least possible. My statement about heavy lifting is the US will act mutlilaterally when possible but we will not be constrained by it. One example is the Gulf War where Sadam was left in power. Everybody knew that outcome would solve nothing but it was the deal we had to honor otherwise there would be no coalition. My point is simple, if we can get partners when doing the right thing - great, otherwise when will still do it and deal with the grousing and sniping later. When the US was attacked on 911, the decision was to take the fight to them, countries in the region can decide where they stand on the issue and its consequences. If Canada, France, or whoever is going to be pissed at the US for defending itself - fine, and oh by the way the rest of world will enjoy the benefits of US action. Perhaps the essence of our conflict. I don't believe in moral relativism, I believe there is ample evidence of objective truth. The conflict with radical Islam at its core is about values and ideas, just like the conflict with Communism and Nazism. The values of constitutional republics based upon alienable individual rights has already won the war. The march of history is on that side and Islam doesn't know how to deal with it.

shackwacky, Well excuse me for not spelling his name correctly and I find your silence on his quote deafening. I have tried for years to identify what is a Canadian and the only answer I get is "we are not f*cking Americans". It is interesting that your identity is based on what you're not, instead of a positive and compelling vision. And one more thing. After working in Canada for years and suffering the stupid American jokes concerning our knowledge of the cousins up north, are you telling me that understanding Canada and Canadians is a waste of time? There doesn't seem to be a winning hand here.

argus, I had the good fortune of working closely with Canadian Armed Forces and Coast Guard. Your comment closely reflects their descriptions of life in the service. What a long tumble from a great Army and Navy. Canada saved Great Britian and it's Allies in WW1, and was a significant player in WW2. Now you would be hard pressed to beat Luxembourg.

eureka, And your intelligence is overwhelming. I thought this was a medium for debate and sharing of ideas. However if your world view is "don't confuse me with facts", than one of us is in the wrong location. Our Marines, like every other military operation, has it's share of successes and failures. My statement was a simple comment on American foreign policy - be a friend and partner with our allies and make our opponents curse their mothers for being born. The long term impact of this strategy is you wind up fighting fewer wars because the cost is too high. Obviously you do need remedial education on history. The US won every battle without exception and the lost the war because of politics. We never fought to win and certainly didn't apply my marine slogan. The North Vietnamese were months away from packing it in when Nixon decided on "peace with honor" in time for his re-election. If we fought that war like Iraq, Ho Chi Mihn would be buried in an unmarked grave in Bejing. So you want to hold a set of belief's that have no basis in reality. Supporting a position based upon emotion speaks volumes about the intellect behind it.

caesar, what an intelligent quote: Now educate everyone on which component is racist bigoted bs? economics 101, better use of resources?

Black Dog, I saved your quote for last: I was making a point that if you view economics as a continuum from a command economy (communism) on one end, a market economy (capitalism) on the other with the so-called 'middle-way' (socialism and facism) in the center, what the Canada, the US, and Europe have embraced is the middle way. There are no true capitalist or market based countires in the world since the demise of Hong Kong. Only in countries with significant government intervention in the economy is war good for business. Before you respond, what do you believe is a better value, metal used to build a business office employing 500 people or 20 smart bombs? As for Isreali/US comment, collaborating or finding middle ground when your right and the opponent is wrong sounds stupid to me.

Terrible Sweal, Canadians like most of the European community have the luxury of being able to snipe at the US because you are unable or unwilling to act. The United States is not always right but we have no choice as to taking action or sitting on the sidelines. We could debate each of our little conflicts since the 1960's but to what end? Canada has the luxury of sitting on the worlds longest unprotected border with the both worlds greatest economy and military power. Nobody would ever dare pick a fight with you guys because we are standing behind you - how quickly do you believe our petty differences would disappear if somebodty meant Canada harm? Canada had the opportunity to become a Hong Kong, an economic sanctuary of freedom and that is not what happened. I remember a quote from the Canadian author Frawley Marwat that captures the opportunity lost: "Canada had the chance of having French culture, British government, and American business and instead wound up with American culture, French government, and British business" Don't blame me.

Tawasakm, I forgot what great comrades-in-arms the Aussies have been. My read of Howards position is more Thatcherian than just bending to the US. He made a moral decision that we were right in our intentions and methods in the Middle East, and public opinion be dammed. All great leaders are willing to make those decisions and ignore the polls.

Argus, thanx mate, I couldn't have said it better. If people want to support a position with facts it would be intelligent to base it on such. Nothing is printed in the Arab media that isn't government controlled and you saved me from looking up MEMRI. I tire of the kool-aid drinkers. I review about 30 newspapers daily in Asia, the Middle East, Europe and the America's. The fact the 7/8 of the world is anti-semetic is so discouraging. After Hitler, I thought the enormity of the crime will end it forever. However the more the jews refused to be pushed around, the worse they are hated - talk about dammed if you do, dammed if you don't. Like being an American.

Black Dog, So much to respond to so little time - this feels like a tag team wrestling match. I will have to check my sources to agree or disagree with your 88% vice 95%, but still if I concede that for the moment (and only for this conversation), the Palestinians could have achieved at the bargaining table what was militarily impossible. That doesn't change the fact that Arafat never honored any of the agreements. He never displayed any behavior suggesting there was any good faith negotiations and got as a reward the defeat of Labor and the most hard core Likud government conceivable. The good news is he is dead and hopefully his corruption and failure to act in the best interest of the Palestinians are past. They either negotiate with Isreal or they will get even a more hard line government - Bebbie. Make clear what you mean by occupation, is it the original state of Isreal or the results of the 67 and 76 wars.? The Arabs attacked Isreal in 67 and 76 so the West Bank is technically the spoils of war - the price of stupidity. True but by that logic there is no such thing as a Palestinian people. They are Lebanonese, Jordanians, Syrianians, Egyptianians, et. al. The idea of a Palestinian people or country is even more modern than the concept of a jewish state. My apologies for being unclear. Afganistan was a slam dunk, Osama admitted to being behind the attacks, the Taliban were supporting him - so we did them fast and hard. My point was now what? Bombing a 7th century culture wasn't going to address the problem except to satisfy the majority of American people who wanted blood. The core issue in the Middle East are terrorist organizations and the reason for their popularity. No region in the world except Africa is governed so poorly. Mideast governemnts support terrorist organizations in their hatred of the United States to keep the focus away from themselves. Our decision was to attack the root cause - their stone age governments. Islamic culture during the 10th and 11th centuries were the most enlightened in the world, so the problem isn't just Islam. It is a view of government. If we could install a few secular republics in the Middle East, then perhaps we could make life difficult for Saudi Arbia, Syria, and Egypt to name a few. But first we had to strike at the source of 911. You might not like it but the American view of the world is really simple and is the core of the Marine Corp - we are your best friends or your worse f*cking nightmare. And right now for those that means us harm, our goal is to speed up their meeting with allah and the virgins. We don't care what anybody else thinks, our safety isn't subject to world opinion. Trust me - Canada or any other country with a sense of national identity would respond in a simlar manner if they had the ability. Election year politics. The Democratic Party represents domestic socialism and international cowardice. Every single intelligence organization in the world was in complete agreement including the UN, Sadam had the weapons. The fact that it can't be found doesn't mean it was a farce, it means that our "need' to get permission gave him ample time to distribute the weapons. I personally hope the US is wrong and your right - it was a lie but in the absence of facts that is wishful thinking you can afford - we cannot. Besides do you really believe the US will ever get a fair hearing form any international NGO? I don't and that just comes with the turf. Of all the arguments you have made, this is the most specious. After Sadat's death, no Arab leader has backed up their commitments with deeds. Arafat was one of the most corrupt figures of the late 20th century but certainly not alone. Here is the essence of the deal. The Arabs will make real peace with the Isreali's or made to look foolish. The Arabs only need to win once, the jews cannot afford to ever lose.

I totally disagree. Each side knew that even with a best case scenario for first strike, the other side had the ability to wipe them out. So the strategy guaranteed that if you wanted to live, a first strike made that impossible. Attack by one meant the end of both. Today's enemy wants to die so how do we hang a sword over their heads? Try this - what if the United States made a public statement that any attack against the US with non-convention weapons will be responded to with the destruction of Mecca? What radical would want to meet allah with that on their head?

The Terrible Sweal, Ok here it goes 1. Baruak offered Arafat the deal of a life time. The only way the Palestinians could get a better deal was by a total military defeat of Isreal. That being the case why was the deal turned down? Three potential answers; Arafat never intended to negotiate; Arafat was too stupid to realize he had achieved 95%; or he would be dead within hours ala Sadat. The think tank that wrote the original paper took door number three and hypothesized that as long as Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. were powerful forces in the Arab world - no Arab leader could close the deal and survive. The definition of status quo was having both Arafat in power and powerful terrorist organizations with reach into Palenstinian territory. Yes you can play the occupation tune concerning the origin's of Isreal and that was one area where the Isreali position is weak but after the holocaust jews everywhere learned that no christian or moslem was ever going to protect them - they had to have their own country. As for why there, why not - it was their original land. How would you feel if Native Americans made a play to get more their land back from the European invaders? 2. As for comment of an absurd idea - I'm just reporting, it is fact no matter how absurd it might sound. 3. Your best comment is Afganistan. No it wasn't the reason we went there first, it was a direct response to 911 however ending the Taliban's rule is hardly a strategy. We needed a coherent way of looking at the problem and developing solutions. Again my comment wasn't intended to draw your applause, it was to state to the best of my ability what is really going on. The US intends to deny sanctuary for terrorist organizations as well as the sources of non-conventional weapons. Terrorist groups can only buy or steal, they lack the ability to build a highly complex industry from the ground up and go unnoticed. As for comment of being disingenous - isn't that true of all governments? Besides my previously stated information is public knowledge so what disingenuous? We told the world that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, they did and there is no record (or evidence) of its destruction. So in that sense we failed - Sadam's arsenal has been disbursed. 4. The Isreali's will negotiate a peace deal when they have somebody to negotiate with, and have evidence their territory is safe.

The Terrible Sweal - great question. I believe Canada would want the respect of the United States. There are many reasons related to shared heritage, culture, border, economic activity, etc. I think it is easy to obtain. The United States doesn't expect a lackey or lap dog as a partner. Canada is a sovereign nation and has a right to go it's own way. Where Canada gets side ways with the US is when you take the natural conflict we have and make it public, and then side with countires that are not our friends or allies like France. What gets us annoyed is when we are doing the hard and dirty work that most of North America and Europe will benefit from, our so called friends feel compelled to thrust a sharp stick in our eye. Canada must know, as does the British, the Germans, the Italians, and yes the French - they can count on us when in need - so why all the glee from abusing our good nature?

Black Dog, first of all resorting to negative epithets is the sign of not having a convincing argument. On the issue of Arabs, support your position by telling me how many data sources did you use for that statement? I read or at least puruse most of the english language dailies published in wonderfully democratic places like Cairo, Amman, Demascus, etc. to know the enimty directed at Isreal. Their children are taught to hate jews and Isreali's - how do you negotiate a deal based upon honoring your oppponents position? Now for the bait. You need to take a deep breath and research your emotional outbursts. I put the 'war is bad for business" comment in there to test your economic acumen. War is bad for business for a number of reasons but lets keep this simple - valuable resources used to produce war materials are a waste - the only way to draw value from them is either as a deterrent kept in inventory or used in combat that will cost billions of dollars. Compare that to resources spent on producing food or shelter or transportation, or creating more jobs that produce things of value.

The Terrible Sweal, dead on with your comment. It is such a difficult issue to deal with intellectually because how did the US or the UN for that matter gain the right to decide which countries can have nuclear weapons? If you are strong advocate of national soverignty (and I am), then every nation has the right to defend itself. But now lets get pragmatic. If you know a neighbor is arming to the teeth and its weapons cache has the ability end your family's future forever - do you sit back and wait for the event? The conflcit between the United States and the Soviet Union was one of mutually assured destruction. It sounded MAD but in reality bet on the logic that neither side wanted to meet g*d anytime soon. Today's challenge is what if your opponent wants to die and therefore no real deterent exists. We are in the unfortunate position of using pragmatism as the guiding philosophy. I only hope that cooler heads prevail because if the US, Isreal, or any other country feels a legimate threat of devastation, they will act first and seek forgiveness later.

And I'll counter that if you believe that the Arab's will accept anything else than total annihilation of the jews, calling you naive is inadequate. PS - US and Isreal want peace on their terms and will get it, besides war is bad for business

The question on pre-emption needs to be qualified. Where conflict is between nations - the technology exists to neutralize any surpirse attack ala Germany into Poland, Germany into Netherlands and Belgium, Japan attack on Peral Harbor, etc. Under these terms pre-emption is inappropriate. However when the enemy doesn't command a land mass, isn't organizing an army or putting its air force aloft, AND the weapon of choice is a 10 megaton suitcase nuke - no politican who gives a damn about his or her people can sit idly by. Sun Tzu in the fifth century BCE got this one right. As for being a rogue nation, if my choice is being an international pariah with it's people safe or a winner of the good citizen award with 1 million dead - does that require an answer? BTW - until 911 as a libertarian, I was adamently oppossed to the pre-emptive use of force. I no longer have that luxury.

Tawasakm, this isn't my position, it is the thinking/position of the Bush administration. I don't agree with all of it but also understand that the peace process supported by Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton was a failure. There was going to be no peace and I found the change of thinking in Washington refreshing. At least they were willing to be politically incorrect and act with some intellectual honesty. History will decide how smart it was.

The threat to Iran has two sources, the US and Isreal. The United States has the luxury (and desire) to allow the European powers negotiate a deal. Although most US policy makers have no faith in Iranian promises, this is not a problem the current adminsitration wants on its plate at the moment. If Washington didn't have to deal with Iran until 2006 - that would be fine. 2005 is dedicated to building a demonstration project in Iraq concerning a secular republic, and forwarding a Palenstinian - Isreali peace deal that will work. Isreal on the other hand will not display much if any patience. You can disagree with their view, but it will drive their decisions. They are convinced that if the Iranians are able to minituarize a warhead and build a missble based deployment system - the current Iranian government will use it against them. If you listen closely, the Iranians have reserved the right to maintain centrifuges necessary for building weapons grade nuclear materials, and an announcement of a planned communications satellite launch to test missle technology. Isreal will not subject their nation to this type of risk. They will take action sooner rather than later, batten down the hatches for the barrage of bad press, and then welcome behind the scenes praise similar to their 1982 strike on Iraq's nuclear facility. The world will be in an uproar but nobody can or will stop them. To understand Isreal - understand "Never Again"

Tawasakm, in response to your comment on the United States taking its eye off the ball concerning Iraq, I suggest that it is part of a greater plan. Quick history: in response to the Olso Accords in the early 1990's, a number of American policy makers came to the conclusion that no peace between Isreal and the Palestinians was possible given the status quo. So an alternative strategy was developed to shut down terrorist organizations by denying them safe haven in supportive countries. When the Republicans came back into power and it was obvious that no peace was possible with Arafat, this strategy was being dusted off and reviewed as a potential path to peace. After 911, this strategy became US policy with the only question being where to start. Afghanistan was obvious place to start and for a multitude of reasons (UN sanctions being great rationale) Iraq was selected over Iran and Syria. With US forces on both sides of Iran and a nascent freedom movement amoung the affluent, it was believed that the Mullah's iron hand would create a revolution and change of government. Imagine the result: Pakistan, Afganistan, Iran, and Iraq neutralized. Also that would put the US on the border with Syria. Bin Laden was and is a minor player in all of this like a mob boss - the US would love to have him but the goal is the entire operation - not one guy. Prediction: Iran heeds their last chance to back down from going nuclear or in 2005 the US or Isreal will take out their entire military capacity and use the CIA et.al. to spark the revolution. This will halt Iran's and Syria's direct support for terrorist organizations declawing Hamas and Hezbollah (sp), this change along with a new Palestinian leader will enable a real peace deal with the Isreali's. Though this perspective would help, thanx.

Caesar, get a grip - do you really think people who practice a seventh century version of a great faith intend to deviate from the Quran? Their world vision is you are either a believer or an infidel. This group has three choices - convert, be conquered and pay tribute, or die. The US is doing the heavy lifting on a tough job so the weak can safely hide under the bed. With every proclaimation from the likes of Carolyn Parrish and her kool-aid drinkers, Canada loses American respect out of pity; how can such a great nation become so lost? Any country unwilling to stand up for its principles doesn't reserve respect from people who do.