Israeli Navy Raids Gaza Aid Flotilla, 10 Confirmed Dead

[myata]

If Israel does indeed relax their blockade, will they be experiencing a new wave of attacks from Gaza as a result? It could very well be, and if so will any of the blockade protesters on this forum admit that Israel was right? I'm not holding my breath.

The problem of rocket attacks from Gaza is real and serious (here's an informative link, though it must be cautioned that not all references appear to be independently verified: Wikipedia: current attacks on Israel). Population of border regions of Israel has full right to live without fear of random and potentially deadly attacks.

The question is what international community wants to do about it? Does it wants to begin (I can't say continue because till now all such efforts had little credibility) a serious effort of reducing mutual hostility and building minimal trust between the hostile sides that is necessary even for a meaningful conversation about lasting settlement? Of would it continue to watch the cycle of violence where one hostility is used as an excuse for another, perhaps out of measure or proportion, and cheering for its chosen side?

Trying to look objectively, one can identify two priority agendas where progress has to be made before negotiations of lasting peace could start in earnest, these being, 1) bringing to complete and unconditional halt the expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied territories and 2) bringing under control Palestinian militancy in Gaza. From that perspective let's note that while overall militancy has subsided to a significant extent, there hasn't been similar movement on Israel's side settlement construction; not to mention that to maintain credibility of the peace process, not only construction of new settlements would have to cease, but the removal of existing ones should begin at some stage to be negotiated between the sides. Failure to do so would maintain the actual state of occupation, i.e. hostility that is counter productive to any serious dialogue of lasting peace.

What can be done, practically? I believe that any country genuinely interested in seeing real movement in this area must have realized by now that partisan approach does not produce desired (or ostensibly desired?) results. Some sides or factions are willing to wait out unfriendly times or political environments perhaps hoping to make further gains in the future. The only way to make the parties move is to apply real and practical measures telling them very clearly that persistently hostile and/or aggressive behaviour would no longer be tolerated, without conditions, excuses or justifications. It certainly has to be made clear to till now untouchable democratic darling of the region, as well as any hostile factions on the other side. In regard of that latter, one could only regret the missed opportunity to establish some minimal understanding and dialogue following Hamas popular election (not unlike it was done in Northern Ireland), rather than taking the default - and obviously counter productive path of hostility and exclusion, which could achieve nothing more (or less) than limiting the range of options and communication channels to influence this faction to move along the path of peace and eventual settlement.

[Guest American Woman]

I agree. The Israel-can-do-no-wrong fanatics, while loud and screechy and prone to accusing the planet Earth of anti-semitism, are ultimately the losers when it comes to public outrage.

As opposed to the "loud and screechy" 'Palestine-can-do-no-wrong fanatics'? Because I'm really wondering what you think the difference is.

[bush_cheney2004]

Population of border regions of Israel has full right to live without fear of random and potentially deadly attacks.

The attacks are not just potentially deadly...they are deadly.

The question is what international community wants to do about it? Does it wants to begin (I can't say continue because till now all such efforts had little credibility) a serious effort of reducing mutual hostility and building minimal trust between the hostile sides that is necessary even for a meaningful conversation about lasting settlement? Of would it continue to watch the cycle of violence where one hostility is used as an excuse for another, perhaps out of measure or proportion, and cheering for its chosen side?

Moot point...Israel as a sovereign state that will continue to defend its interests, regardless of what the "international community" thinks.

Trying to look objectively, one can identify two priority agendas where progress has to be made before negotiations of lasting peace could start in earnest, these being, 1) bringing to complete and unconditional halt the expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied territories and

..and how do you propose to do that?

2) bringing under control Palestinian militancy in Gaza. From that perspective let's note that while overall militancy has subsided to a significant extent, there hasn't been similar movement on Israel's side settlement construction;

Nor should there be.....settlement inertia forces an obvious conclusion and realization yet to be accepted.

not to mention that to maintain credibility of the peace process, not only construction of new settlements would have to cease, but the removal of existing ones should begin at some stage to be negotiated between the sides.

The "peace process" is more for the hand wringers outside of the region.

Failure to do so would maintain the actual state of occupation, i.e. hostility that is counter productive to any serious dialogue of lasting peace.

Perhaps a "lasting peace" is not to be realized...ever.

What can be done, practically? I believe that any country genuinely interested in seeing real movement in this area must have realized by now that partisan approach does not produce desired (or ostensibly desired?) results. Some sides or factions are willing to wait out unfriendly times or political environments perhaps hoping to make further gains in the future.

Yep...what's your hurry?

The only way to make the parties move is to apply real and practical measures telling them very clearly that persistently hostile and/or aggressive behaviour would no longer be tolerated, without conditions, excuses or justifications. It certainly has to be made clear to till now untouchable democratic darling of the region, as well as any hostile factions on the other side.

Not tolerated by who? Please be more specific.

In regard of that latter, one could only regret the missed opportunity to establish some minimal understanding and dialogue following Hamas popular election (not unlike it was done in Northern Ireland), rather than taking the default - and obviously counter productive path of hostility and exclusion, which could achieve nothing more (or less) than limiting the range of options and communication channels to influence this faction to move along the path of peace and eventual settlement.

Wow...that's a mouthful....of more of the same. Seems the peace wonks are guilty of the same strategy as the warring factions.

Edited June 24, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[bloodyminded]

As opposed to the "loud and screechy" 'Palestine-can-do-no-wrong fanatics'? Because I'm really wondering what you think the difference is.

Perhaps there is no difference at all.

[myata]

The attacks are not just potentially deadly...they are deadly.

No, you haven't read the reference.

Moot point...Israel as a sovereign state that will continue to defend its interests, regardless of what the "international community" thinks.

It can be helped in attempts to reach understanding that some of its "defence" strategies are counter productive to the long term stability in the region, and therefore its own stable future.

..and how do you propose to do that?

For starters, all people, organization and countries genuinly interested in seeing progress should attempt to take objective and vocal position, encouraging positive moves and clearly condemning any hostile acts. I.e. to keep an objective, comprehensive and persistent attention on the situation. Rid for good of default coin words and evaluate each act on its own merit, so that there's no confusion, misunderstanding or ignorance about any act or development, either positive or hostile.

Nor should there be.....settlement inertia forces an obvious conclusion and realization yet to be accepted.

The only inertia it forces would be that of hostility and conflict. So you're right, taking real and practical steps to make hostile sides realize that becomes a logical necessity for any third party genuinly interested in seeing progress in settlement and long term stability in the region. Of course it needn't apply to parties whose real goals are different from that. Everybody knows that there's no better way to influence aggressor than gentle peaceful talk and friendly pat on the shoulder, not like you're inventing anything new here.

The "peace process" is more for the hand wringers outside of the region.

While there're those, also outside of the region, who keep conflict aligth by pouring massive amounts of assistance to parties directly involved in hostilities, correct?

Perhaps a "lasting peace" is not to be realized...ever.

Perhaps.. but these comments are about working in that direction. Because short of giving it all up and submitting to the world authority of peaceful democracy and justice and its peacefully democratic allies and protege, it seems to be the only logical option. Because world authority isn't about to withdraw itself from all interference in the matters, and let all things take their natural course, is it?

[bush_cheney2004]

No, you haven't read the reference.

Such a reference is not needed to understand the obvious.

It can be helped in attempts to reach understanding that some of its "defence" strategies are counter productive to the long term stability in the region, and therefore its own stable future.

Israel has actually thrived under such conditions....understanding and stability are the banal terms of onlookers.

For starters, all people, organization and countries genuinly interested in seeing progress should attempt to take objective and vocal position, encouraging positive moves and clearly condemning any hostile acts. I.e. to keep an objective, comprehensive and persistent attention on the situation. Rid for good of default coin words and evaluate each act on its own merit, so that there's no confusion, misunderstanding or ignorance about any act or development, either positive or hostile.

"Progress" can be defined in many ways....for "all people".

The only inertia it forces would be that of hostility and conflict. So you're right, taking real and practical steps to make hostile sides realize that becomes a logical necessity for any third party genuinly interested in seeing progress in settlement and long term stability in the region.

Third parties interested in "seeing" anything for the region are not primary considerations for the principals involved. "Peace" rings hollow given the number of conflicts in progress elsewhere on the planet, often at the behest of those "third parties".

Of course it needn't apply to parties whose real goals are different from that. Everybody knows that there's no better way to influence aggressor than gentle peaceful talk and friendly pat on the shoulder, not like you're inventing anything new here.

That's the whole point, as neither have you.

While there're those, also outside of the region, who keep conflict aligth by pouring massive amounts of assistance to parties directly involved in hostilities, correct?

Yes...with enthusiasm and political vigor. A decided diasadvantage for peaceniks who have little to offer except platitiudes.

Perhaps.. but these comments are about working in that direction. Because short of giving it all up and submitting to the world authority of peaceful democracy and justice and its peacefully democratic allies and protege, it seems to be the only logical option. Because world authority isn't about to withdraw itself from all interference in the matters, and let all things take their natural course, is it?

Peaceful authority is an oxymoron.

[myata]

Such a reference is not needed to understand the obvious.

No, you're right, factual knowledge isn't needed to those who base their opinion on alternative inputs.

Israel has actually thrived under such conditions....understanding and stability are the banal terms of onlookers.

As well as massive assistence from outside. But as you learned from investment advice, past is no guarantee of the future. Things may (and in fact, tend to) change, just look at e.g. Russia or South Africa, their grip on power looked so solid and unquestionnable only a few short decades back.

Third parties interested in "seeing" anything for the region are not primary considerations for the principals involved.

Yes...with enthusiasm and political vigor. A decided diasadvantage for peaceniks who have little to offer except platitiudes.

You'll be surprised how much effect (in the eventuality of things) just one objective view can make. Future works in strange ways check e.g. the aforementioned examples. And speaking of those vigorous powers, again, it's only a matter of waiting out long enough, as no power lasts forever, not based on factual recorded history at least.

Peaceful authority is an oxymoron.

While aggressive one is a bully. See really hard to invent anything new here.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, you're right, factual knowledge isn't needed to those who base their opinion on alternative inputs.

Again, more churn for the "third parties"....the principals know already.

As well as massive assistence from outside. But as you learned from investment advice, past is no guarantee of the future. Things may (and in fact, tend to) change, just look at e.g. Russia or South Africa, their grip on power looked so solid and unquestionnable only a few short decades back.

This is where you lose big time...."massive assistance" was the price for peace achieved in 1979 at great cost to the United States, not peaceniks without any skin in the game. What are they/you willing to contribute besides platitudes?

You'll be surprised how much effect (in the eventuality of things) just one objective view can make. Future works in strange ways check e.g. the aforementioned examples. And speaking of those vigorous powers, again, it's only a matter of waiting out long enough, as no power lasts forever, not based on factual recorded history at least.

Neither does peace...it's all good.

While aggressive one is a bully. See really hard to invent anything new here.

Yet the "bully" made peace....not the peaceniks.

Edited June 25, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[myata]

This is where you lose big time...."massive assistance" was the price for peace achieved in 1979 at great cost to the United States, not peaceniks without any skin in the game. What are they/you willing to contribute besides platitudes?

Keep dreaming.. or imagining things? (US-Israel military assistence).

Israel is the biggest receiver of US military assistence. Others get some as long as they fall in line (supporting their questionnably democratic but certainly friendly regimes as a side benefit).

Yet the "bully" made peace....not the peaceniks.

All things happen in this world. Based on the results of decades since it becomes clear that "peace" was not the main intent there, more like side effect.

Edited June 25, 2010 by myata

[bush_cheney2004]

Keep dreaming.. or imagining things? (US-Israel military assistence).

Assistance guaranteed in peace accords includes economic, military, and humanitarian aid. The only one imagining otherwise is you.

Israel is the biggest receiver of US military assistence. Others get some as long as they fall in line (supporting their questionnably democratic but certainly friendly regimes as a side benefit).

The USA is spending far more in Iraq and Afghanistan....and for joint commands with Canada (e.g. NORAD).

All things happen in this world. Based on the results of decades since it becomes clear that "peace" was not the main intent there, more like side effect.

Again, you try to ignore and diminish the tangeable...even as you have achieved nothing of equal measure. What will you do...what will you spend...what will you contribute? The Americans have paid...and continue to pay.

[myata]

Assistance guaranteed in peace accords includes economic, military, and humanitarian aid. The only one imagining otherwise is you.

Including one that happened before the accords? What about its role now, when Israel is persisting in clearly aggressive policy? Keep droning the mantra.

The USA is spending far more in Iraq and Afghanistan....and for joint commands with Canada (e.g. NORAD).

And these questionnably peaceful democracy projects somehow explain the role of its assistence in the Middle East?

Again, you try to ignore and diminish the tangeable...even as you have achieved nothing of equal measure. What will you do...what will you spend...what will you contribute? The Americans have paid...and continue to pay.

And obtain results fully consistent with their contribution. I'm only commenting on the choice of words, e.g. "peace" that seems to have very little semantical meaning in this context.

Speaking of paying I'm of opinion that it does not solve all problem nor is it the best remedy for every case. As an alternative I propose objective view and clear unambiguous reaction to events by international community (or rather its part that is genuinly interested in seeing progress toward real, bilateral peace). Let's see which approach will get us to the goal, in the long run.

[bush_cheney2004]

Including one that happened before the accords? What about its role now, when Israel is persisting in clearly aggressive policy? Keep droning the mantra.

What about it? Unlike Palestine, which also receives American aid, Jordan and Egypt have not attacked Israel with rockets.

And these questionnably peaceful democracy projects somehow explain the role of its assistence in the Middle East?

Of course, and places the magnitude of American aid in proper context. How much peace are you willing to pay for?

And obtain results fully consistent with their contribution. I'm only commenting on the choice of words, e.g. "peace" that seems to have very little semantical meaning in this context.

The words mean nothing when spoken by those with nothing else to offer (but words).

Speaking of paying I'm of opinion that it does not solve all problem nor is it the best remedy for every case. As an alternative I propose objective view and clear unambiguous reaction to events by international community (or rather its part that is genuinly interested in seeing progress toward real, bilateral peace). Let's see which approach will get us to the goal, in the long run.

But you are still dodging the cost of such "unambiguous" reaction. I ask again, what are you willing to pay, and who will pay it?

[myata]

What about it? Unlike Palestine, which also receives American aid, Jordan and Egypt have not attacked Israel with rockets.

Yes I see that illegal landgrab is nowhere in your picture (and neither in that of multiple US administrations, of course in the real and practical way discarding worthless rhetorics).

Of course, and places the magnitude of American aid in proper context. How much peace are you willing to pay for?

Those money buy no peace, only temporary surrogate.

The words mean nothing when spoken by those with nothing else to offer (but words).

Better still than only "offering" force and dictate.

But you are still dodging the cost of such "unambiguous" reaction. I ask again, what are you willing to pay, and who will pay it?

No, you'll actually save, and in more than one way (not in the least in more credible position on international peace and justice).

Edited June 25, 2010 by myata

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes I see that illegal landgrab is nowhere in your picture (and neither in that of multiple US administrations, of course in the real and practical way discarding worthless rhetorics)

Again, "illegal landgrabs" are not in and of themselves fatal....unlike a rocket attack. Please settle up with the First Nations in Canada first.

Those money buy no peace, only temporary surrogate.

Bought more peace than anything you have offered to date. Talk is cheap.

Better still than only "offering" force and dictate.

Yet more "peace" has been obtained than mere words and protest.

No, you'll actually save, and in more than one way (not in the least in more credible position on international peace and justice).

That is the least most important thing of all, except to you and others who think it is a good substitute. It is clear that you offer nothing of substance, just like always. Even Rachel Corrie had more courage and conviction than you.

[myata]

Again, "illegal landgrabs" are not in and of themselves fatal....unlike a rocket attack. Please settle up with the First Nations in Canada first.

Only if that's how you want to see it (i.e. ignore destruction and fatalities originating landgrab and only notice those from rocket attacks). No, neither is anywhere near a justification and/or excuse for clearly aggressive persistent policy that greatly undermines any possibility of peace and one that US so obviously prefers to ignore (in all practical sense) keep talking about how it's going to bring "peace".

Bought more peace than anything you have offered to date. Talk is cheap.

Yet more "peace" has been obtained than mere words and protest.

Only for as long as buck keeps coming. After that, and in the absense of real peace based on even minimal trust and mutual understanding, only god almighty knows, if he or she cares.

That is the least most important thing of all, except to you and others who think it is a good substitute. It is clear that you offer nothing of substance, just like always. Even Rachel Corrie had more courage and conviction than you.

If your idea of substance is lots of green paper, guns and throwing one's weight around, then no nothing of the kind. As said we'll just have to see it play out. Not like there hasn't been any big and powerful bullies in the long history of this planet and look where they are now. Like, all without one exception. Trusting math, it's only a matter of when.

[bush_cheney2004]

Only if that's how you want to see it (i.e. ignore destruction and fatalities originating landgrab and only notice those from rocket attacks). No, neither is anywhere near a justification and/or excuse for clearly aggressive persistent policy that greatly undermines any possibility of peace and one that US so obviously prefers to ignore (in all practical sense) keep talking about how it's going to bring "peace".

Israel can laugh at your reprimands concerning "landgrabs"....you seem to think that because it happened in Canada long ago, subjugation is complete and land claims are frivolous. This is Israel's time...a young nation entitled to the same (and very modest) claims compared to your "Crown".

Only for as long as buck keeps coming. After that, and in the absense of real peace based on even minimal trust and mutual understanding, only god almighty knows, if he or she cares.

This has nothing to do with "god"...that's just another departure from reality.

If your idea of substance is lots of green paper, guns and throwing one's weight around, then no nothing of the kind. As said we'll just have to see it play out. Not like there hasn't been any big and powerful bullies in the long history of this planet and look where they are now. Like, all without one exception. Trusting math, it's only a matter of when.

The IDF is not half-way around the world killing the locals....like Canada and the United States.

[myata]

Israel can laugh at your reprimands concerning "landgrabs"....you seem to think that because it happened in Canada long ago, subjugation is complete and land claims are frivolous. This is Israel's time...a young nation entitled to the same (and very modest) claims compared to your "Crown".

Nothing like tired, well worn out and screechy adage to drop on every occasion where there's absolute and total absense of any meaningful response, correct?

This has nothing to do with "god"...that's just another departure from reality.

But of course it's all about reality, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and dozens ot other places where "peace" etc (and maybe even "democracy"!) were/are kept only by steady flow of foreign cash and arms and puff away in smoke the moment it stops.

Edited June 26, 2010 by myata

[bush_cheney2004]

Nothing like tired, well worn out and screechy adage to drop on every occasion where there's absolute and total absense of any meaningful response, correct?

Correct...you have not provided any meaningful response. You refuse to recognize Israel's sovereignty and inherent right to self preservation even as you admit and approve of First Nations "landgrabs" and subjugation because it happened "300 years" ago...LOL! This is called cognitive dissonance.

But of course it's all about reality, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and dozens ot other places where "peace" etc (and maybe even "democracy"!) were/are kept only by steady flow of foreign cash and arms and puff away in smoke the moment it stops.

So there we have it...your fantasy world of words, and my reality funded by cash...including peace accords. This is because I don't think you understand fully the underlying reasons for conflict to begin with.

[myata]

Correct...you have not provided any meaningful response. You refuse to recognize Israel's sovereignty and inherent right to self preservation even as you admit and approve of First Nations "landgrabs" and subjugation because it happened "300 years" ago...LOL! This is called cognitive dissonance.

No need for anything high science here, it's only understanding that things are (supposedly) different now than 300 years back. And my deepest apologies if it didn't break by now, there's nothing more I could do for you other than maybe suggesting to revisit kindergarten again?

Of course one could also ask for the proof of that aforementioned approval, except I don't really care because it's so obviously false and has not the least relevance here because if the same logic held, it would meen that it'd be fine to burn witches, deprive women of votes, have slaves, smack your neighbor with a bone and so on as far down the scale of nonsense as one wishes to descend, but sorry I've no time for that now.

So there we have it...your fantasy world of words, and my reality funded by cash...including peace accords.

Correct, cash that is being paid to friendly regimes to among the other things (like preserving themselves, no not through brilliant ascend of democracy though but through plain old force and brutality) support these "peace accords". As all things funded (see examples earlier) as well as the obvious logic, this state of affairs will exist for as long as line of credit is extended. And if the bank runs out of cash? Sorry, no assurances can be provided.

While my "fantasy world" (thanks for the credit, but I'm afraid it's misplaced as that truth has been known for ages) is of course nothing more than obvious observation that every regime built on power and domination eventually runs out of steam and collapses. And, unlike the cash solution, this principle appears to be 100% true, at least I don't know a single exception in all the history.

This is because I don't think you understand fully the underlying reasons for conflict to begin with.

Any "underlying reasons" could not disprove the obvious point that to begin any meaningful discussions of lasting negotiated settlement, the active hostilities must cease. And if we aren't working for a settlement through mutual agreement and negotiation, then there's no point in talking, the force and time will sort it out, with or without interference from outside.

Edited June 27, 2010 by myata

[bush_cheney2004]

No need for anything high science here, it's only understanding that things are (supposedly) different now than 300 years back. And my deepest apologies if it didn't break by now, there's nothing more I could do for you other than maybe suggesting to revisit kindergarten again?

....the dodge continues.

Of course one could also ask for the proof of that aforementioned approval, except I don't really care because it's so obviously false and has not the least relevance here because if the same logic held, it would meen that it'd be fine to burn witches, deprive women of votes, have slaves, smack your neighbor with a bone and so on as far down the scale of nonsense as one wishes to descend, but sorry I've no time for that now.

...better, but still not dealing with Crown "landgrabs" that continue to this day in several provinces, not just 300 years ago. Rockets away....to Hamilton!

Correct, cash that is being paid to friendly regimes to among the other things (like preserving themselves, no not through brilliant ascend of democracy though but through plain old force and brutality) support these "peace accords". As all things funded (see examples earlier) as well as the obvious logic, this state of affairs will exist for as long as line of credit is extended. And if the bank runs out of cash? Sorry, no assurances can be provided.

Still works better than the mouthful of nothing you have proposed. Let's see....peace with cash...no peace without cash...that's a no brainer!

While my "fantasy world" (thanks for the credit, but I'm afraid it's misplaced as that truth has been known for ages) is of course nothing more than obvious observation that every regime built on power and domination eventually runs out of steam and collapses. And, unlike the cash solution, this principle appears to be 100% true, at least I don't know a single exception in all the history.

Correct...you don't know of one.

Any "underlying reasons" could not disprove the obvious point that to begin any meaningful discussions of lasting negotiated settlement, the active hostilities must cease. And if we aren't working for a settlement through mutual agreement and negotiation, then there's no point in talking, the force and time will sort it out, with or without interference from outside.

This is utter nonsense, as the very history tyou are so fond of demonstrates the exact opposite. Open warfare often has the ability to accelerate a "settlement". Egypt and Jordan figured this out long ago after getting their asses handed to them.

[myata]

....the dodge continues.

Correct, and so again: should burning of witches be justified today because somebody was allowed to do that 300 hundred years back? Keep trying to use your own logic, without unnecessary dodging.

Still works better than the mouthful of nothing you have proposed. Let's see....peace with cash...no peace without cash...that's a no brainer!

Nope, it's more like cash instead of peace, check your references.

Correct...you don't know of one.

And that's good enough as none has been cited yet.

This is utter nonsense, as the very history tyou are so fond of demonstrates the exact opposite. Open warfare often has the ability to accelerate a "settlement". Egypt and Jordan figured this out long ago after getting their asses handed to them.

Then the same argument works on both sides. Are you advocating return to full blown warfare as the way to settlement? Then, you can't really call anything on this timescale "final". There're simply too many possibilities and alternatives especially if cash starts running out.

[Bonam]

While my "fantasy world" (thanks for the credit, but I'm afraid it's misplaced as that truth has been known for ages) is of course nothing more than obvious observation that every regime built on power and domination eventually runs out of steam and collapses. And, unlike the cash solution, this principle appears to be 100% true

Oh and regimes based on non-violence and kumbaya-singing last forever? What are some of the world's longest lasting continuous civilizations? Let's see... China, Rome, Ancient Egypt, heck even England. What exactly were all these civilizations doing during their millennium or longer existences?

Edited June 28, 2010 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

....Then the same argument works on both sides. Are you advocating return to full blown warfare as the way to settlement? Then, you can't really call anything on this timescale "final". There're simply too many possibilities and alternatives especially if cash starts running out.

Yes....absent economic incentives, the conflict will continue until one side prevails. Your proposition for peace using only words is the least productive solution, as it guarantees a violent stalemate without conclusion because it fails to address the underlying economic and political issues.

You remind me of my spouse when we were faced with an oven broiler kitchen fire...while I fought the fire, she was more concerned with silencing the very irritating smoke alarm!

[myata]

You remind me of my spouse when we were faced with an oven broiler kitchen fire...while I fought the fire, she was more concerned with silencing the very irritating smoke alarm!

Of course one could "fight" the fire by pouring flammable stuff into it (guns, money to buy them, load of useless words and total, absolutely predictable absense of even most minuscule real act to address obvious acts of aggression). At least that smoke alarm was there to tell everybody who's interested what's going on.

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course one could "fight" the fire by pouring flammable stuff into it (guns, money to buy them, load of useless words and total, absolutely predictable absense of even most minuscule real act to address obvious acts of aggression). At least that smoke alarm was there to tell everybody who's interested what's going on.

Right...that's what you and your proposals do....loads of useless words and reports of a "fire", while doing nothing to engage the actual conflict. By your own admission....you are a passive mouthpiece.