hezbollah's reasons for kidnapping

[planetx]

funny how the 'liberal' media have simply _stopped_ reporting why the Hezbollah kidnapped the Israeli soldiers. Hezbollah have reiitereated the reason on several occassions.

in most conflicts it is assumed that as truce is found that prisoners are exchanged.

it certainly looks bad for Israel when they refuse to negotiate the release of 'women and children' from incarceration.

[planetx]

sorry, canadian federal politics is probably the wrong forum for this.

[cybercoma]

funny how the 'liberal' media have simply _stopped_ reporting why the Hezbollah kidnapped the Israeli soldiers. Hezbollah have reiitereated the reason on several occassions.

in most conflicts it is assumed that as truce is found that prisoners are exchanged.

it certainly looks bad for Israel when they refuse to negotiate the release of 'women and children' from incarceration.

No nation with half a braincell rewards the kidnapping and murder of inncoent people by negotiating or pandering to the demands of these criminals.

[Black Dog]

No nation with half a braincell rewards the kidnapping and murder of inncoent people by negotiating or pandering to the demands of these criminals.

Snark.

[August1991]

I know this post is way off topic, and in the wrong category, but that "snark" deserves a History Minute.

BD, that was a one-term Democrat president (arguably one of the worst this century - except for his appointments) who got the US involved in the Iranian hostage dealings. Maybe the US has learned its lesson.

If you read Carter's book "Keeping Faith", everything bad about his presidency becomes obvious. POTUS was on the floor of the Oval Office, looking through computer printouts, to figure out how to unfreeze Iranian bank assets. No wonder that when Carter met Reagan as a courtesy handover, he was appalled to discover that Reagan was supremely uninterested in the arcane details of the White House.

Standing in a beautiful forest, Carter could only see tree bark.

[jdobbin]

If you read Carter's book "Keeping Faith", everything bad about his presidency becomes obvious. POTUS was on the floor of the Oval Office, looking through computer printouts, to figure out how to unfreeze Iranian bank assets. No wonder that when Carter met Reagan as a courtesy handover, he was appalled to discover that Reagan was supremely uninterested in the arcane details of the White House.

And subsequently, Reagan didn't know what was going on in his own Whitehouse basement. At least that's the story they stuck to on Iran-Contra.

[jbg]

I know this post is way off topic, and in the wrong category, but that "snark" deserves a History Minute.

BD, that was a one-term Democrat president (arguably one of the worst this century - except for his appointments) who got the US involved in the Iranian hostage dealings. Maybe the US has learned its lesson.

If you read Carter's book "Keeping Faith", everything bad about his presidency becomes obvious. POTUS was on the floor of the Oval Office, looking through computer printouts, to figure out how to unfreeze Iranian bank assets. No wonder that when Carter met Reagan as a courtesy handover, he was appalled to discover that Reagan was supremely uninterested in the arcane details of the White House.

Standing in a beautiful forest, Carter could only see tree bark.

In retrospect, I think that Carter was abysmal. At the time, the harder, more effective neo-con approach largely pioneered by Reagan had not been tried, and was barely open to discussion.

His tools, and imagination, were limited.

[jdobbin]

In retrospect, I think that Carter was abysmal. At the time, the harder, more effective neo-con approach largely pioneered by Reagan had not been tried, and was barely open to discussion.

His tools, and imagination, were limited.

Reagan was a populist who scored well with Democrats. He didn't believe in the social aspects of neo-cons and but let them take the lead on the economy. By the end of his term, he had to introduce a tax increase to bail out of the huge debt.

[jbg]

Reagan was a populist who scored well with Democrats. He didn't believe in the social aspects of neo-cons and but let them take the lead on the economy.

Neo-cons are not, in general, so-cons. He basically did not push their agenda, though he made some noises. So-cons are generally unelectable in the US.

By the end of his term, he had to introduce a tax increase to bail out of the huge debt.

Wrong. He introduced a big tax cut in 1981 which was partially rolled back in 1982. The 1986 bill was revenue-neutral. His term ended in January 1989. The tax increase was a take-back of about 1/3 of the tax cut a year earlier, and the deficits were dropping by the time he left office.

[jdobbin]

Wrong. He introduced a big tax cut in 1981 which was partially rolled back in 1982. The 1986 bill was revenue-neutral. His term ended in January 1989. The tax increase was a take-back of about 1/3 of the tax cut a year earlier, and the deficits were dropping by the time he left office.

Sorry, I meant that the payroll tax on Social Security kicked in the year he left office. It is considered part 2 of the Reagan tax increases.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh060804.shtml

The reforms that you mentioned, introduced by two Democrats if my memory holds true, was indeed revenue neutral. It did lead to the Savings and Loan collapse though which hurt Bush Sr. badly.

There was some huge economic growth under Regan but it came at a price of a huge deficit. In many ways, Bush Sr. was saddled with trying to bring things under control.

[jbg]

The reforms that you mentioned, introduced by two Democrats if my memory holds true, was indeed revenue neutral. It did lead to the Savings and Loan collapse though which hurt Bush Sr. badly.

There was some huge economic growth under Regan but it came at a price of a huge deficit. In many ways, Bush Sr. was saddled with trying to bring things under control.

Not really. Bush Sr. slammed the brakes too hard, and for no reason. Typical of old-school, i.e. Red Tory, Republicans rather than neo-cons.

[jdobbin]

Not really. Bush Sr. slammed the brakes too hard, and for no reason. Typical of old-school, i.e. Red Tory, Republicans rather than neo-cons.

I dunno. His cuts set the stage for big surpluses in the Clinton years. If he had six more months, he might have had both the war and the economy on his side. Timing is everything in politics. Bush Sr. had some bad timing when it came to his second term bid.

[jbg]

Not really. Bush Sr. slammed the brakes too hard, and for no reason. Typical of old-school, i.e. Red Tory, Republicans rather than neo-cons.

I dunno. His cuts set the stage for big surpluses in the Clinton years. If he had six more months, he might have had both the war and the economy on his side. Timing is everything in politics. Bush Sr. had some bad timing when it came to his second term bid.

Except that old-school, i.e. Red Tory, Republicans always seem to have "bad luck"; Hoover, Eisenhower (towards the end, when the post WW II and Korea boom fizzled), Nixon, Ford and Bush Sr. The laissez faire and/or neo-cons seem to have good luck with the economy; Theodore Roosvelt, Harding, Coolidge, Reagan and Bush Jr. (stock market is near record levels despite gripes, inflation relatively low, and unemploymnet relatively low). Except for Carter and the end of the Johnson years, Democrats seem to have fairly good "luck" on economy. I think the worst mixture, then, are the big-government Republicans.

[jdobbin]

Except that old-school, i.e. Red Tory, Republicans always seem to have "bad luck"; Hoover, Eisenhower (towards the end, when the post WW II and Korea boom fizzled), Nixon, Ford and Bush Sr. The laissez faire and/or neo-cons seem to have good luck with the economy; Theodore Roosvelt, Harding, Coolidge, Reagan and Bush Jr. (stock market is near record levels despite gripes, inflation relatively low, and unemploymnet relatively low). Except for Carter and the end of the Johnson years, Democrats seem to have fairly good "luck" on economy. I think the worst mixture, then, are the big-government Republicans.

I don't know that I think of Bush Sr. as a big government type. I'm no Republican but he did address spending and the deficit that was still huge after the Reagan years.

The bad luck for Bush was the betrayal of conservative Republicans to Perot who made the deficit an issue (although Bush was dealing with it). It led to Clinton winning and he inherited large surpluses courtesy of that 1990 deal on taxes and spending.

[jbg]

I don't know that I think of Bush Sr. as a big government type. I'm no Republican but he did address spending and the deficit that was still huge after the Reagan years.

The bad luck for Bush was the betrayal of conservative Republicans to Perot who made the deficit an issue (although Bush was dealing with it). It led to Clinton winning and he inherited large surpluses courtesy of that 1990 deal on taxes and spending.

Clinton did his own tax increase. Luckily it didn't damage incentive too badly. That actually created much of the "surplus". Also, I'm not sure if "disaster relief" was counted in the budget figures, but Clinton was overly generous with that expenditures. By the way, this made Bush Jr. look bad after Katrina, even though the money Clinton gave New Orleans to rebuild the levies was diverted.