Why The US Doesn't Respect us

[pryvateer]

Black Dog,

Of course, the "95 per cent" story is a lie. At no time did israel offer anthing mor ethan Israel never offered more than 88 percent,

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.

That doesn't alleviate the wrongness of the Occupation

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.

The people living there hundreds of years later did not eject the Jews, they just lived there.

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.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Was invading Afghanistan:

-response to 9/11 by going after Al Queada and the Taliban; or - part of a Mid-East agenda

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.

But they didn't. Wasn't there a congressional investigation about that

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.

There's a few problems with that. First, they had someone to negotiate with, they just couldn't reach an agreement. Second, their territory is safe. Israel has nuclear weapons and the support of the greatest power the world has ever known. They are not in strategic danger.

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.

[Argus]

you might want to watch your raghead population or you might just be next

That's ignorant.

True. On the other hand... ask the Dutch... or the Spanish about problems with local immigrant muslims.

[pryvateer]

Argus,

What viciousness? What you're seeing here are some flakes from the far left.

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.

[pryvateer]

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.

[pryvateer]

Terrible Sweal,

Unfortunately, the second (i.e. the facts as presented in your paragraph), are not entirely correct, or not fully inclusive. When you say 'doing the hard and dirty work', you seem to presume that it is the right work or valuable work. I would suggest that there are SOME instances where U.S. foreign policy may be hard and may be dirty, but the work is not right or valuable. The example of the moment is Iraq, but history offers examples from Chile to Vietnam.

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.

[pryvateer]

Black Dog, I saved your quote for last:

War is certainly not bad for business, as the booming U.S. arms trade can attest. Furthermore, the fact is as long as the U.S. and Israel push for peace "on their terms" (terms unacceptable to the rest of the region), then the future will be on eof neverending war, strife and instability.

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.

[caesar]

What a bunch of racist bigoted bs.

[caesar]

Right, most of them lunatics and fruit-loops.

Yes, I agree that you are Argus. Fortunately the majority of Canadians support my view point.

[Guest eureka]

pryvateer!

I had thought of responding to some of your verbosity but I have come to the conclusion that you are nuts.

Your marines have often been their best friends wordt nightmare. Sometimes because they are badly misused by the politicians: sometimes because they are badly led - all your commanders are chosen on the Peter Principle.

Having once served in an army that was allied to you and knowing many who fought, I also knew many whose worst nightmare was to have an American unit nearby.

Think of the Gloucesters in Korea as only one example: shelled by American artillery because you had not learned to tell the time.

Vietnam! There were how many American soldiers there? 500,000 or so and you got whipped badly.

One of the European countries you think is incapable of acting, Britain, pacified Burma with 7,000.

Tryr "reviewing" a few less newspapers a day. That might give you time to think a little. You might even learn how absurd are your claims about Iraq, the WTC, and WMD.

[shackwacky]

I remember a quote from the Canadian author Frawley Marwat that captures the opportunity lost:

Pryvateer, that is Farley Mowat. If you are planning to portray yourself as a leading authority on all things Canadian, please try to get your sources correct.

[Argus]

Right, most of them lunatics and fruit-loops.

Yes, I agree that you are Argus. Fortunately the majority of Canadians support my view point.

If that were true Jack Layton would be in office instead of mocked and jeered as he tries to name drop in the commons.

The majority of Canadians laugh at you.

[Argus]

Your marines have often been their best friends wordt nightmare. Sometimes because they are badly misused by the politicians: sometimes because they are badly led - all your commanders are chosen on the Peter Principle.

Not to say there aren't occasional problems with the marines, and with the sometime American habit of micromanaging by senior commanders, but have you looked at the officer corps of the Canadian armed forces lately? The criteria for promotion to senior ranks is A)fluent bilingualism, B)the ability to brown nose, C)paper shuffling excellence, and D)self promotion skills.

Leadership is not a requirement. In fact, it is often seen as a deterent.

[pryvateer]

caesar, what an intelligent quote:

What a bunch of racist bigoted bs.

Now educate everyone on which component is racist bigoted bs? economics 101, better use of resources?

[pryvateer]

eureka,

I had thought of responding to some of your verbosity but I have come to the conclusion that you are nuts.

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.

Think of the Gloucesters in Korea as only one example: shelled by American artillery because you had not learned to tell the time

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.

Vietnam! There were how many American soldiers there? 500,000 or so and you got whipped badly.

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.

Tryr "reviewing" a few less newspapers a day. That might give you time to think a little. You might even learn how absurd are your claims about Iraq, the WTC, and WMD.

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.

[pryvateer]

argus,

Leadership is not a requirement. In fact, it is often seen as a deterent.

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.

[pryvateer]

shackwacky,

Pryvateer, that is Farley Mowat. If you are planning to portray yourself as a leading authority on all things Canadian, please try to get your sources correct.

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.

[Black Dog]

And Black Dog knows sooo very much about Arab culture and aspirations, Arab history and motivation. No doubt he will treat us to a comparison of the differences between the people and cultures of say, Syria and those of Lebanon and Egypt.

Whatever. Every time you and I have tangled on this subject, you've ended up slinking away.

First of all, MEMRI has never been found to have lied about the translations it makes of Arabic hate speech and literature.

I never said MEMRI lied. They are a propaganda organization which cherry picks the Arab press for content that shows the Arab world in a negative light. It's even run by a former Israeli intelligence officer.

Second, that vast Arab press you're talking about? It's all government controlled. EVERY SINGLE RADIO STATION, TV STATION, AND NEWSPAPER. There is no free press anywhere in the Arab world.

Which is pretty much beside the point, as you can have a government controlled press and still have a range of viewpoints. But you wounldn't know that from MEMRI's work.

So when you see hate literature directed at Jews or Christians what you are seeing is official, government approved hate literature, and you are most unlikely to find it anywhere in the mainstream in the US or Israel. We're not talking about little internet web sites or free handout sheets, but major daily newspapers and national network television.

Uh..no. The mainstream Hebrew language press regularily features extreme anti-Arab/Muslim rhetoric, while the language of the "war on terrorism" here is permeated with racism. As Chomsky said: Arabs are the last "legitimate" targets of racism.

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.

So the oppressiv epolicies of Likud are the Palestinians' fault for not acceppting unreasonable demands? Sounds a lot like "she was asking for it: did you see what she was wearing?'

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

But I've already shown that Likud is not interested in negotiations: only expansion of the West Bank settlements, the encirclement of Gaza and the "freezing" of th epeace process. It's a shame the new Palestinian leader will have no partner for peace.

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.

"Spoils of war" aren't recognized anymore.While it is true that victorious powers can legally occupy hostile territories seized in the course of conflict foreign occupation should be a temporary situation. As well, internaional law reuires the occupying Power to comply with international humanitarian law during its occupation.

International law is very clear on the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the prohibition of population transfer from the occupier to occupied land.

The Israeli occupation has violated all of these principles of international law.

Furthermore: the people who are living in the occupied territories were not responsible for the past actions of Arab states, yet you expect they should bear the consequenses? Not only is that a poor justification for collective puniashment, it is also tinged with the rascist reasoning that all Arabs are the same.

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.

Denial of the existence of the targetted population is always part of any campaign of ethnic cleansing. One could make an even stronger argument that there is no such thing as the Israeli people.

Our decision was to attack the root cause - their stone age governments. 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 you fail to addres why hese governments are the way they are in the first place. Most repressive regimes in the Islamic world were born of postcolonial western intervention and owe their continued existence to material support from the west. Your intervention is simply a continuation of the policies that led to the failure of most Islamic states and the rise of radicalism. Nowhere is that better summed up by Iran, where a secular, democratic government was overthrown by western forces, a tyrannical regime installed in it's place, which led to the rise of the radical Islamic movement and subsequent revolution.

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.

But the policies you are pursuing are already demonstratable failures, and the, in the long run, wiill serve only to radicalize more of the Muslim world against the west. You're speaking the language of crusade (not to mention macho jingoism, which is , in itself, abhorrant).

Every single intelligence organization in the world was in complete agreement including the UN, Sadam had the weapons.

Rolf Ekeus, the former head of the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq, has declared that under his direction, Iraq was "fundamentally disarmed" as early as 1996. Hans Blix, who headed UN weapons inspections in Iraq in the months before the invasion in March 2003, stated that his inspectors had found no evidence of either WMD or WMD-related programs in Iraq. Russia did not believe Saddam had WMD, while French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, declared in January 2003 that "we know for a fact that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are being largely blocked, even frozen."

So the claim that "everyone thought Saddam had WMD" is, at best, dubious.

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.

David Kay, The CIA’s top weapons adviser in Iraq, reported that Iraqy possessed no stockpiles of WMD nor related production facilities. His only conclusion was assertions about Hussein’s “intentions” with claims concerning Iraqi scientific research into weapons or “weapons concepts.”

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.

Ah yes: "action". So manly! Thing is, sometimes inaction, or at least a careful assessment of a situation, is less dangerous than rushing into action. Iraq is a prime example. Anyway, the right-wing obsession with their own masculinity is quite immature.

The United States is not always right but we have no choice as to taking action or sitting on the sidelines.

False dichotomy.

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?

Depends: is it a Halliburton office?

Really, I don't see what my personal viewpoint has to do with anything.

As for Isreali/US comment, collaborating or finding middle ground when your right and the opponent is wrong sounds stupid to me

Absolute declarations of right and wrong sound stupid to me.

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.

Better to live without than to settle for living with a "positive and compelling vision" based in chauvanism and grounded in a bed of lies.

[pryvateer]

Black Dog,

Whatever. Every time you and I have tangled on this subject, you've ended up slinking away.

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.

So the oppressiv epolicies of Likud are the Palestinians' fault for not acceppting unreasonable demands? Sounds a lot like "she was asking for it: did you see what she was wearing?'

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.

But I've already shown that Likud is not interested in negotiations: only expansion of the West Bank settlements, the encirclement of Gaza and the "freezing" of th epeace process. It's a shame the new Palestinian leader will have no partner for peace.

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?

"Spoils of war" ........

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.

Denial of the existence of the targetted population is always part of any campaign of ethnic cleansing

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.

But you fail to addres why hese governments are the way they are in the first place. Most repressive regimes in the Islamic world were born of postcolonial western intervention and owe their continued existence to material support from the west.

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.

Rolf Ekeus, the former head of the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq, has declared that under his direction, Iraq was "fundamentally disarmed" as early as 1996.

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.

David Kay, The CIA’s top weapons adviser in Iraq, reported that Iraqy possessed no stockpiles of WMD

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.

Ah yes: "action". So manly.....

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.

Absolute declarations of right and wrong sound stupid to me.

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.

[Black Dog]

Slinking away? On what topic?

That was addressed to Argus.

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.

Nowhere have I denied teh prescence of anti-Semetism in the Arab press, only that we get an incomplete picture, as well as that similar racist rhetoric in the Israeli or North American press is ignored.

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.

To say Israel is "defending itself" through its aggressive policies of expansion and population transfers to occupie dlands is a bit disingenous. Further more, nowehre Ihave I stated that Isral has no right to exist, only that Israel should abide by the basic standards of behavior for a liberal democracy.

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

Barak had five positions that were non-negotiable: no Israeli withdrawal to pre-1967 borders; Jerusalem to remain undivided and under Israeli sovereignty; no other power to be established west of the Jordan River; most Jewish settlers to remain under Israeli sovereignty even after a final agreement; Israel to accept no moral or legal responsibility for the problem of Palestinian refugees.

As well, his proposal included no territorial contiguity for the Palestinian state, no control of its external borders, limited control of its own water resources, and no full Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories.

Furthermore, Barak's "negotiating" skills left much to be desired: during 15 days at Camp David, Barak and Arafat met for only one hour, and even then they talked mainly about the weather and the food. In his book, former Israeli justice minister Yossi Beilin blames his former boss for failing to develop a personal line to Arafat despite the latter's approaches. Beilin also reports that, on Barak's orders, the Israeli negotiating team never submitted anything in writing to the Palestinians, who were always faced only with the black-and-white choice of accepting the proposals or rejecting them.

So, based on the intractability of Israel's position and teh apparent contempt for the process shown by Israeli negotiators at the time, Barak was never interested in making a fair deal. It was, and has ever been, a matter of Israel's way or the status quo.

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?

Obviously you didn't bother following up on Dov Weinglass, the top SHaron aid who explicitly stated the purpose of the "withdrawl from Gaza"

“The disengagement plan is the preservative of the sequence principle. It is the bottle of formaldehyde within which you place the president's formula so that it will be preserved for a very lengthy period. The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that's necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians."

...

That there will be no timetable to implement the settlers' nightmare. I have postponed that nightmare indefinitely. Because what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns.”

In other words: no settlement; not now, not ever.

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.

WHat are you talking about? UNSCOM destroyed the Iraqi productive foundations related to the different Iraqi nuclear programs. It destroyed the Scud-type missiles and 19 mobile launchers. In addition, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) removed the plutonium, the highly prolific uranium, and the radioactive uranium previously possessed by Iraq. Iraq lost the capacity to convert uranium into nuclear fuel -- building a cascade facility for enriching uranium requires large amounts of highly specialized metals and machinery.

As for Iraqi chemical weapons, UN inspectors destroyed hundreds of chemically armed warheads and artillery shells. UNSCOM’s incinerator burned tons of mustard gas and nerve agents as well as the precursor compounds used to make them. The committee announced that it had supervised the destruction of 76 chemical Scud missiles, 113 warheads, over 60 fixed launching bases, 40,000 munitions, 480,000 liters of chemical munitions, 1,800,000 liters of chemical precursors, and 8 types of delivery systems including missile warheads.

Regarding Iraq’s biological weapons program, the committee revealed that it destroyed the Iraqi seeds stockpile and the biological weapons factory in Alhakam. The UN special commission had destroyed all of Iraq’s known biological munitions, and much of the equipment needed to make new ones.

Your statement is just false.

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.

From a linterview with NBC:

Tom Brokaw: You found evidence of programs that were in place but no weapons.

David Kay: There were a lot of small activities. Now, in the missile field it’s quite different. There were actually large, purposeful programs going on in that area. But in chemical, biological and nuke, it was rudimentary.

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.

But iraq never attacked the U.S. and was never affiliated with those who did. So to paint the invasion and occupation of Iraq as self-defense is a monumental mischaracterization.

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.

This completely falls apart when you consider the many, many cases where those who allegedly champion "our values" fail to live up to them themselves.

[The 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.

Whether that's good or bad depends on the value of the act.

As you say:

The United States is not always right ...

but we have no choice as to taking action or sitting on the sidelines.

Even if that were correct, you still have the choice of whether to take good or bad action.

We could debate each of our little conflicts since the 1960's but to what end?

To provide the context necessary to avoid future mistakes.

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?

Do I believe the United States would attack Afghanistan if terrorists killed 3,000 Canadians? Honestly, no, I don't.

[Argus]

And Black Dog knows sooo very much about Arab culture and aspirations, Arab history and motivation. No doubt he will treat us to a comparison of the differences between the people and cultures of say, Syria and those of Lebanon and Egypt.

Whatever. Every time you and I have tangled on this subject, you've ended up slinking away.

Well, gee, with responses like "whatever" can you really blame me? How can I cope with such levels of literary wit and wisdom.

You didn't answer the question, btw. How about telling us all about the differences between the Syrians, the Palestinians and The Jordanians.

First of all, MEMRI has never been found to have lied about the translations it makes of Arabic hate speech and literature.

I never said MEMRI lied. They are a propaganda organization which cherry picks the Arab press for content that shows the Arab world in a negative light. It's even run by a former Israeli intelligence officer.

They don't hide what they do. They're not there to translate every single issue of every Arab newspaper or TV show or magazine. They're simply there to translate the nastiness they find, and there's plenty of it to translate.

Second, that vast Arab press you're talking about? It's all government controlled. EVERY SINGLE RADIO STATION, TV STATION, AND NEWSPAPER. There is no free press anywhere in the Arab world.

Which is pretty much beside the point,

Oh hardly. This is the official Arab press we're talking about here.

as you can have a government controlled press and still have a range of viewpoints. But you wounldn't know that from MEMRI's work.

Well, tell you what, why don't you find the newspaper articles calling for peace with Israel and saying they're really not that bad, and blaming the Palestinians for much of the violence which occurs.

Uh..no. The mainstream Hebrew language press regularily features extreme anti-Arab/Muslim rhetoric, while the language of the "war on terrorism" here is permeated with racism.

Then let's see it.

[Black Dog]

Well, gee, with responses like "whatever" can you really blame me? How can I cope with such levels of literary wit and wisdom.

You didn't answer the question, btw. How about telling us all about the differences between the Syrians, the Palestinians and The Jordanians.

You didn't ask a question, but were clearly making a facetious remark. Really, as much as try to educate you, there's only so much I can do: why don't you try educating yourself.

They don't hide what they do. They're not there to translate every single issue of every Arab newspaper or TV show or magazine. They're simply there to translate the nastiness they find, and there's plenty of it to translate.

No: MEMRI's agenda is to purposefully choose the most egregious articles and editorials in order to push the extreme-right political agenda of its founders.

Then let's see it.

A good overvew of N.A. media and Islam.

I don't speak hebrew, so I have to rely on the AAD's English language site here.

One doesn't have to look very far, too, in order to encounter real-life examples of racism in Israel. lIKE THE Jewish settlers’ graffiti SLOGANS: “Arabs to the gas chambers”; “Arabs = an inferior race”; “Spill Arab blood”; and, of course, the ever so popular “Death to the Arabs,”

[Guest eureka]

BD is doing a much better job than I could of taking your "arguments" apart so I will just sit back and enjoy.

But really! "We never fought to win." "We won all the battles" I suppose your victories led to so many "strategic withdrawals" to the last helicopter.

Your tone and comments were, and still are, offensive and insulting to every thinking and right minded person and nation. You need to be faced with reality.

[Argus]

Well, gee, with responses like "whatever" can you really blame me? How can I cope with such levels of literary wit and wisdom.

You didn't answer the question, btw. How about telling us all about the differences between the Syrians, the Palestinians and The Jordanians.

You didn't ask a question, but were clearly making a facetious remark. Really, as much as try to educate you, there's only so much I can do: why don't you try educating yourself.

Hey, you're the one who sneered at someone for apparently suggesting their wasn't a great deal of difference between the cultures of Arab states. I've now given you two opportunities to back that up by telling us about the differences and you've weaselled out both times. Clearly you don't know a damn thing about Arab culture and what differences there might or might not be between countries in the middle east

Then let's see it.

A good overvew of N.A. media and Islam.

I don't know as how linking Islam with the terrorism commited by Muslims in the name of Islam is all that racist, certainly not compared to the vitriol seen in Arab media.

I don't speak hebrew, so I have to rely on the AAD's English language site

I didn't spend a ton of time on it, but I found nothing which even remotely resembles the kinds of things the Arab press has been found to be printing and saying about Jews and Israel.

One doesn't have to look very far, too, in order to encounter real-life examples of racism in Israel. lIKE THE Jewish settlers’ graffiti SLOGANS: “Arabs to the gas chambers”; “Arabs = an inferior race”; “Spill Arab blood”; and, of course, the ever so popular “Death to the Arabs,”

We're not talking about graffiti, but if you want to I'm sure there are just as many anti Jewish and anti Israeli graffiti in the Arab world, not to mention those wall murals glorifying suicide bombers in Palestine.

[Tawasakm]

On the issue of respect I'd like to reiterate my earlier point. The most important thing is whether or not Canadians respect Canada. It begins with the self. With so much debate centring around whether or not the US is right and whether or not they should be supported perhaps there is too much importance being given to them in relation to defining Candian identity - both in terms of being pro-US or anti-US.

I think respect for Canada should primarily be derived from the thoughts, feelings and attitudes that its own citizens bear toward it. The level of respect accorded by other nations should be secondary.

Thats my opinion.