Iran?

[ForemanRules]

The Evolution of US Policy
The Madrid conference and its aftermath are concerned with the situation that arose in the wake of the June 1967 war, which left Israel in control of Egypt's Sinai peninsula, the Syrian Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip (administered by Egypt), and the West Bank (administered by Jordan, its status unrecognized internationally). Other issues are not under consideration. To mention only the most obvious, while the status of the West Bank is a topic of debate, Israel's incorporation of the other half of the Palestinian state proposed in the original UN partition resolution of 1947 is a settled issue. Jordan's illegitimate occupation of the West Bank figures prominently in US-Israeli propaganda; the fact that the Palestinian state was, in effect, partitioned between Jordan and Israel, with no small amount of collusion, and that Egypt fought in the 1948 war in part to counter the ambitions of Britain's Jordanian client, is left to scholarly monographs.28

Another settled issue is that the conference is based on UN resolution 242, adopted by the Security Council in November 1967. This resolution keeps to inter-state relations, avoiding the Palestinian issue, and is therefore acceptable to the US and Israel, as distinct from many other UN resolutions dating back to December 1948 that endorse Palestinian rights of varying sorts that the US does not acknowledge (though in some cases, the US voted for the resolutions). UN 242 is also acceptable because of its ambiguity. Crucially not settled is what the resolution means; it was left intentionally vague to assure at least formal acceptance by the states of the region.

The resolution opens by "emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security." It calls for "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict," "termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries...."

With regard to the meaning of these provisions, two crucial questions arise. First, what is the meaning of the phrase "from territories occupied"? Second, what is to be the status of the indigenous population of the former Palestine, the Palestinians, who are not a "State" and therefore do not fall under the resolution?

Both questions reached the Security Council in January 1976, in the resolution discussed earlier, incorporating the basic wording of UN 242 but extending it to a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. The resolution answered the first question by calling for a settlement on the Green Line. It answered the second by calling for a Palestinian state in the territories from which Israel would withdraw. As noted, it was vetoed by the United States, effectively terminating any UN role in the peace process, apart from gestures. Given US opposition, all such proposals, however vague, are off the agenda, out of the historical record, not part of public discussion. The two basic questions concerning UN 242 therefore remain unresolved. To be more precise, they will be settled by force, that is, by the United States, in international isolation. A different approach to the two questions left unsettled in UN 242 had been formulated by UN mediator Gunnar Jarring, who proposed a plan calling for a full peace treaty on the Green Line. This proposal was accepted by President Sadat of Egypt in February 1971. Israel recognized it as a genuine peace offer, but rejected it; the Labor party was committed to broader territorial gains from the 1967 war. Note that the Jarring-Sadat proposal offered nothing to the Palestinians. The basic problem is not Palestinian rights per se, but rather the fact that recognizing them would bar Israeli control over the occupied territories.

At the insistence of National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, the US backed Israel's rejection of the Sadat offer, adopting Kissinger's policy of "stalemate." As usual, the US decision to back Israel's rejection of the Jarring-Sadat peace proposal removed the events from history and public discussion, at least in the United States. In Israel, in contrast, even conservative Middle East specialists recognize that Israel may have "missed a historic opportunity" in 1971 (Itamar Rabinovitch, asking whether Israel also missed such an opportunity when a Syrian proposal was rejected in 1949).29

The Jarring-Sadat proposal was virtually identical to official US policy, formulated in the State Department plan of December 1969 (the Rogers Plan). It also conformed to the general interpretation of UN 242 outside of Israel. The Rogers plan suggests that this was also the US interpretation at the time, a conclusion supported by other evidence. In an important article in a British Middle East journal, Donald Neff, a well-known US journalist and historian specializing on Middle East affairs, reviews a State Department study based on records of the 1967 negotiations.30 This study, leaked to Neff, has been kept secret "so as not to embarrass Israel," Neff concludes. The study quotes the chief American negotiator, Arthur Goldberg, who was strongly pro-Israel. Goldberg informed King Hussein of Jordan that the US "could not guarantee that everything would be returned to Jordan; some territorial adjustments would be required," but there must be "a mutuality in adjustments." Secretary of State Dean Rusk confirmed to Hussein that the US "would use its influence to obtain compensation to Jordan for any territory it was required to give up," citing examples. Goldberg informed officials of other Arab states "that the United States did not conceive of any substantial redrawing of the map." Israel's withdrawal would be "total except for minor adjustments," Goldberg assured the Arabs, with compensation to Jordan for any such adjustments. His assurances led them to agree to UN 242. In a private communication to Neff, Dean Rusk recently affirmed that "We never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war." The US interpretation of UN 242 contemplated "minor adjustments in the western frontier of the West Bank," "demilitarization measures in the Sinai and Golan Heights," and "a fresh look" at the status of Jerusalem. "Resolution 242 never contemplated the movement of any significant territories to Israel," Rusk concluded.

Advocates of Israeli policies in the United States commonly claim that this interpretation of UN 242 is contrary to the stand taken by Arthur Goldberg and the US government generally. Thus the news columns of the New York Times inform us that the Israeli version of UN 242, which permits Israel to incorporate unspecified parts of the conquered territories, is "supported by Arthur J. Goldberg," citing later comments of his in which he did indeed support the Israeli version.31

One of the more extreme apologists, Yale Law professor and former government official Eugene Rostow, claims that he "helped produce" UN 242, and has repeatedly argued that it authorizes continued Israeli control over the territories. In response to his claims, David Korn, former State Department office director for Israel and Arab-Israeli affairs, wrote in November 1991 that helped produce' Resolution 242, but in fact he had little if anything to do with it." He was an "onlooker," like "many others who have claimed a hand in it." "It was U.S. policy at the time and for several years afterward," Korn continues, "that [any border] changes would be no more than minor." Korn confirms that "Both Mr. Goldberg and Secretary of State Dean Rusk told King Hussein that the United States would use its influence to obtain territorial compensation from Israel for any West Bank lands ceded by Jordan to Israel," and that Jordan's acquiescence was based on these promises. Rostow's pathetic and evasive response contests none of these statements.32

The available evidence leads us to conclude that the US kept to the international consensus until February 1971, when it rejected the Jarring-Sadat initiative. US isolation increased in the mid-1970s as the international consensus shifted to recognition of a Palestinian right of self-determination. Since February 1971, the US has been essentially alone in blocking the "peace process." The standard version here is quite different, of course.

Kissinger's support for Israeli intransigence led directly to the 1973 war. Sadat's repeated warnings that he would go to war if the US and Israel continued to block any diplomatic initiatives were dismissed during this period of extreme US-Israeli triumphalism, on the assumption that Israel's power was overwhelming and "war is not the Arab's game," as explained by Israeli Arabist and director of military intelligence General Yehoshaphat Harkabi (now a dove), in a statement less extreme than many. General Ariel Sharon's ravings were particularly noteworthy.33 On the same assumptions, the US rebuffed Sadat's offers to drop Soviet patronage and transform Egypt to a US client state.

The 1973 war shattered these illusions. It turned out to be a near thing, and Henry Kissinger, no great genius but able to recognize the mailed fist, realized that policy must shift. The US then turned to the natural fall-back position. Since Egypt could not simply be dismissed as a basket case, the obvious strategy was to accept it as a US client state and remove it from the conflict. This was the goal of Kissinger's "step-by-step" diplomacy, a process accelerated by Sadat's 1977 trip to Jerusalem and finally consummated at Camp David, over the strong objections of leading elements of the (by then, opposition) Labor party, because the treaty required that Israel abandon the northeastern Sinai settlements that Labor had established.

The import of the Camp David settlement was obvious at once. With the major Arab deterrent removed from the conflict and a huge increase in US aid, Israel would be free to accelerate its takeover of the occupied territories and to invade Lebanon, which it had subjected to devastating bombardment and occasional terrorist attack for years, as part of its interaction with the PLO in southern Lebanon. In 1978, Israel invaded Lebanon, killing several thousand people, driving out hundreds of thousands more, and placing the southern zone under the rule of a murderous client force. Israel still remains in defiance of UN Security Council resolution 425 (March 1978) ordering it to withdraw from Lebanon unconditionally and immediately. In 1982 Israel invaded again after a year of Israeli terror attacks intended (in vain) to elicit some PLO response that would serve as a pretext for its plan to destroy the PLO as a political force, thus ensuring Israeli control over the occupied territories while placing Lebanon under Israeli suzerainty. The 1982 invasion was far more devastating, with over 20,000 killed, mostly civilians. Integration of the occupied territories meanwhile continued apace.

The obvious import of Camp David is by now sometimes acknowledged, in Israel, quite frankly. Israeli strategic analyst Avner Yaniv writes that the effect of the Camp David agreement, removing Egypt from the conflict, was that "Israel would be free to sustain military operations against the PLO in Lebanon as well as settlement activity on the West Bank." Expressing a widely-held consensus among Israeli experts and political figures, he adds that the 1982 invasion of Lebanon was intended to "undermine the position of the moderates within [the peace offensive' " and "to halt [the PLO's] rise to political respectability." It should be called "the war to safeguard the occupation of the West Bank," General Harkabi observes, having been motivated by Begin's "fear of the momentum of the peace process." The US backed the Israeli invasion, presumably for the same reasons, well-known at the time, unless we are willing to attribute to US intelligence and planners an extraordinary level of ignorance and stupidity.34

The Camp David accords offered the Palestinians limited "autonomy" under Israeli rule for an interim period. Israel and Egypt agreed on specifics by 1980, according to US mediator Sol Linowitz, who regards the Palestinian rejection of this offer as a tragic error on their part, noting accurately that the 1980 proposal is the most they can expect from the US and Israel today. Palestinians rejected it at the time, Linowitz notes, on the grounds that it would preclude authentic self-government in an independent state, and they also objected to the exclusion of their political representatives, the PLO, a stand that Linowitz regards as completely unreasonable -- for Palestinians, not Jews. Reporting Linowitz's views, New York Times correspondent Sabra Chatrand adds that Likud Prime Minister Menahem Begin favored the autonomy proposal "because the idea seemed to resolve the Palestinian issue while leaving Israel in fundamental control of West Bank and Gaza" -- precisely the point at the time, and still today.

Neither Chatrand nor Linowitz see any merit in the Palestinian unwillingness to "leave Israel in fundamental control of West Bank and Gaza." On the rejectionist assumptions that are an entry ticket to polite society in the United States, Palestinian unhappiness with such an outcome merely reveals that Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, in a standard formula. The racist undertones also provide more than a little insight into the prevailing intellectual culture here. Particularly noteworthy is the praise lavished upon Palestinian negotiators who don't simply hang from trees and brandish submachine guns but speak "poetically" (as Thomas Friedman puts it) and "pragmatically," adapting to US terms while deferring their "unrealistic" demands for the rights granted as a matter of course to the Jewish immigrants who displaced them -- not that they have much of a choice, given the monopoly of violence in the hands of the United States and its Israeli client, and the monolithic system for transforming the real world into images suitable for the needs of domestic power.

Chatrand observes further that "after years of conflict with Israel, uncounted deaths, and even more hardship, Palestinians have abandoned their earlier conditions" -- not the first demonstration of what John Quincy Adams called the "salutary efficacy" of terror. Observing the conventions, Chatrand also reports that the United States, a helpless victim as always, "tried and failed to get Israel to stop building Jewish settlements in the occupied territories," while vastly increasing US aid for their construction.35 It could be argued that the Palestinians should have accepted the proposal that left Israel "in fundamental control" of the occupied territories, but it is unlikely that the outcome would have been any different. Those with the guns and the money determine the meaning of the words, and there is little reason to suppose that the US would have chosen not to lend its decisive and active support to Israel's expansion into the territories and attacks on Lebanon had Palestinians agreed to accept Israeli-run "autonomy."

Sadat's 1977 peace initiative was less acceptable from the US-Israeli perspective than his 1971 proposal, because it called for Palestinian self-determination, in accord with the changing international consensus. Nevertheless, Sadat is hailed as one of the grand figures of the modern age for his 1977 efforts, while the 1971 proposal has been removed from history. The reasons are those just reviewed. In 1971, the US backed Israel's rejection of his peace proposal, though it offered nothing to the Palestinians and scarcely deviated from official US policy. Such facts are politically incorrect, therefore banned from history by the guardians of Truth. By 1977, US policy had shifted for the reasons noted, and the US had accepted Egypt as a client state within its regional system. Though of course the US dismissed at once the terms that Sadat proposed in Jerusalem, it could proceed with its own rejectionist project, with Sadat playing his assigned role, therefore achieving heroic stature. As always, history is established by the powerful.

The Camp David agreement is regarded in the US as a great triumph of US diplomacy, and the model for what should come next. That too is understandable, given the actual record.

[ForemanRules]

The Prospects

Let us return finally to the three original questions: What is the reason for the timing of the Bush-***** initiative? Does it signify a departure from the traditional US stand? What is the meaning of the conflicts between the US and Israel?

The most plausible answers seem to be that the initiative is badly needed for domestic and regional political reasons, but otherwise simply extends traditional US goals. The conflicts with Israel remain focussed on the issues that have always been in dispute: the modalities of rejectionism.

The underlying US government thinking has been discussed before in these pages. To review briefly, US diplomacy is guided by a strategic conception that has changed very little over the years. The primary concern is the energy resources of the region, which are to be managed by the "Arab Facade," under the effective control of the US and its British ally. The family dictatorships must be protected from indigenous nationalism by regional enforcers: Turkey, Israel, Iran (under the Shah), Pakistan, etc., the "periphery pact" of Ben-Gurion's hopes and strategy. U.S.-British force lies in reserve. Regional actors are granted rights insofar as they contribute to "stability," a term of art referring to the establishment and enforcement of this system. The Gulf tyrannies naturally have rights, as did Saddam Hussein before he committed the crime of disobedience, the only one that matters, on August 2, 1990. Israel has been regarded as a major component of this system from the 1960s. It has also served US interests worldwide, carrying out tasks that the US had to delegate to others because of domestic opposition or for other reasons, and cooperating in intelligence matters and weapons production and testing. The Palestinians, in contrast, offer neither wealth nor power. Accordingly, they have no rights, by the most elementary principles of statecraft.

The US stance can be traced back to 1948, when the Pentagon, impressed by Israel's victories, recognized it to be the major regional power after Turkey and a potential base for US power. As for the Palestinians, US planners had no reason to question the assessment of Israeli government specialists that the Palestinian refugees "would be crushed": "some of them would die and most of them would turn into human dust and the waste of society, and join the most impoverished classes in the Arab countries." As noted, this was the traditional position of liberal Zionism, and the wording is repeated by such Labor party leaders as Yitzhak Rabin until today. On these assumptions, there has been no need for any concern over the fate of the indigenous population of the former Palestine.

The operative principles were well expressed by New Republic editor Martin Peretz, one of the more extreme anti-Arab racists and apologists for Israeli atrocities, just before Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, when he advised Israel to administer to the PLO a "lasting military defeat" that "will clarify to the Palestinians in the West Bank that their struggle for an independent state has suffered a setback of many years," the essential purpose of the invasion. Then "the Palestinians will be turned into just another crushed nation, like the Kurds or the Afghans," and the Palestinian problem -- which "is beginning to be boring" -- will be resolved.36 His timing may have been off, but basic principles are resilient in states with unchallenged power. Peretz's attitude towards the Kurds also captures US policy succinctly, as we have recently seen once again.

Control over Middle East energy resources provides important leverage in world affairs and guarantees a badly needed flow of capital to the economies of the United States and Britain. The system of regional management has changed in detail, but the operative principles have not. The course of diplomacy is understandable in these terms.

From the US perspective, a preferred outcome of the current diplomatic maneuvers would be: First, an "interim agreement" between Israel and the Palestinians, which would enable Israel to extend its control over the territories within the framework of Labor Party rejectionism; Second, steps toward commercial and diplomatic relations between Israel and the Gulf rulers, thus extending and making somewhat more overt the tacit alliance of the past several decades; Third, arrangements for the Golan Heights that would ensure Israeli control of the crucial water resources while satisfying Syrian nationalist goals, at least symbolically. If the US rejectionist program is not advanced in these ways, the US will easily win a valuable propaganda victory by placing the blame on Middle East fanatics who have disrupted Washington's noble intentions. It is reasonable to expect that the policies of the past years will then be pursued in other ways.

If US interests are reassessed and Washington decides to press Israel beyond what its leadership would accept, Israel does have certain options, despite its extreme dependency on the United States. The nature of these options has been the topic of considerable discussion within Israel. Writing about the matter almost 10 years ago, I quoted Aryeh (Lova) Eliav, one of Israel's best-known doves, who deplored the attitude of "those who brought Samson complex' here, according to which we shall kill and bury all the Gentiles around us while we ourselves shall die with them." Others too regarded the greatest danger facing Israel as the "collective version" of Samson's revenge against the Philistines, recalling Prime Minister Moshe Sharett's diary entries from the 1950s, in which he recorded the "preaching" of high-level Labor party officials "in favor of acts of madness" and "the diabolical lesson of how to set the Middle East on fire" with "acts of despair and suicide" that will terrify the world as "we go crazy," if crossed. Israel's nuclear power, well-known to US authorities for many years, renders such thinking more than empty threats. Writing in 1982, three Israeli strategic analysts observed that Israel's nuclear capacity included missiles able to reach "many targets in southern USSR," a threat -- real or pretended -- that may well be aimed primarily at the United States, putting US planners on notice that pressures on Israel to accede to an unwanted political settlement could lead to an international conflagration. The reasoning was explained further in the Labor party journal Davar, reporting Israel's reaction to the Saudi peace plan of August 1981, with the "signs of open-mindedness and moderation" that the government of Israel regarded as a serious threat. Israel's response was to send military jets over the oil fields, a warning to the West of Israel's capacity to cause immense destruction to the world's major energy reserves if pressed towards an unwanted peace, Davar reported.37 The world has changed since, but Israel's "Samson option," as Seymour Hersh calls it in a recent book, remains alive.

Serious Israeli analysts today express considerable concern over what may lie ahead. One of Israel's leading military commentators, Lieutenant-Colonel Ron Ben-Yishai, was interviewed recently on the Bush-***** initiatives. "This might be the last chance we have to make peace," he said. He expected the current diplomatic efforts to fail. This failure will lead to a war, which should last "a minimum of three to four weeks," a "conventional war" with some surface-to-surface missiles but mostly a ground war, with uncertain prospects and surely grim consequences.38 There has been a rash of similar predictions, referring to a war with Syria that Israel might initiate with a preemptive strike. The US will surely do what it can to prevent that, but even US power reaches only so far. If the US keeps to its rejectionist stand, Israel will continue to integrate the territories, the core local conflict will remain unresolved, turbulence and antagonisms will fester and intermittently explode, and a stable regional settlement -- let alone a just one -- is most unlikely.

[ForemanRules]

More here good stuff here

http://www.chomsky.info/index.htm

[swing]

Foreman, great information!

Neither Iran, nor North Korea have stated they desire to destroy America. It is every countries inalienable right to defend itself, and to acquire the weaponry to achieve that aim. I don't believe any country should have nuclear capability for weapons. However, having said that, it would only be just to even the playing field, if one country has nuclear weapons, every country has the right to those same capabilities.

The bottom line is that the powerful desire to remain powerful. Its easier to bully others when you possess a major weapon they do not. When Britain, France, and China acquired nuclear weapons the same was said concerning them, particularly China, "if ___ acquires nuclear capabilities they will pose an enormous threat to the United States' security." The only threat these countries pose, is a threat to the US global expansion and colonialism.

If you want to talk about a country threatening global stability, I challenge any person to name a single country that has engaged in more global conflicts in the 20th century than our beloved country. Anyone up for the challenge?

I revel in my brilliance!

[Weatherlite]

First off, CLIFFSNOTES!! Damn that's too much to read.

Second....*sigh*

[oldtimer]

They should allow everyone to have nukes. I mean think about it, if you had a small "nuke pistol". If someone pisses you off, don't just shoot a hole in his head; shoot a hole in his entire neighbouhood!

Joking aside, a country having nukes or not means nothing, we're in a stage where if a country fires one nuke, it's game over, it's a world war on steroids (no pun intended).

Having said the above, yeah I too hope that Iran doesn't develop nukes, they are right next door O_o.

[Bob Smith]

Originally Posted by swing

If you want to talk about a country threatening global stability, I challenge any person to name a single country that has engaged in more global conflicts in the 20th century than our beloved country. Anyone up for the challenge?

Who is the first country that everyone calls when something goes wrong in the world? The United States. Who bitches when the US doesnt want to help? Everyone else in the world. Natural disaster in Indonesia, lets call the Americans and ask for money. Earthquake in Pakistan? Get the Americans on the phone. AIDS in Africa? Those Americans will help us. A lot of countries hate us, or at least dislike us, yet we are the first ones they run to when something happens to them.

To me, thats a bad problem to have. Most countries want our help when a problem arises, and they want our money when a disaster occurs. Id rather be much more selective in who we help militarily and much less involved financially.

[Beefy]

Whether or not I agree with our government's foreign policy, or if I like the current President, or if the economy is great, etc...I am an American. A citizen of the undeniably greatest country in the history of the world.

What happened to our (United States citizens) since of nationalism? Why do we even care what Iran or France or China thinks of us? Who gives a shit if we are bullies? That's for the rest of the world to worry about, since we are the only superpower.

It's really sad that we've got so many fools running around screaming about other countries' rights and how the U.S. sucks. Wake up and be greatful that you're a citizen of the United States of America.

[swing]

Originally Posted by Beefy

Whether or not I agree with our government's foreign policy, or if I like the current President, or if the economy is great, etc...I am an American. A citizen of the undeniably greatest country in the history of the world.

What happened to our (United States citizens) since of nationalism? Why do we even care what Iran or France or China thinks of us? Who gives a shit if we are bullies? That's for the rest of the world to worry about, since we are the only superpower.

It's really sad that we've got so many fools running around screaming about other countries' rights and how the U.S. sucks. Wake up and be greatful that you're a citizen of the United States of America.

I served in the military. However, my loyalty is first and foremost to truth and justice. If you do not care about your fellow human beings than you sir have some serious issues to overcome. I care how our government's foreign policies affect others, eventually it will come back to haunts us.

If the US hadn't interferred with Iran during the Shah's reign, or assisted Saddam in power we wouldn't be in this mess we are in now. But people like you do not believe in governmental responsibility. But you'll start crying when your children or grandchildren are killed because of today's governmental conduct.

[ForemanRules]

Originally Posted by swing

I served in the military. However, my loyalty is first and foremost to truth and justice. If you do not care about your fellow human beings than you sir have some serious issues to overcome. I care how our government's foreign policies affect others, eventually it will come back to haunts us.

If the US hadn't interferred with Iran during the Shah's reign, or assisted Saddam in power we wouldn't be in this mess we are in now. But people like you do not believe in governmental responsibility. But you'll start crying when your children or grandchildren are killed because of today's governmental conduct.

Great post!!!!!

[Kayz]

Originally Posted by swing

I served in the military. However, my loyalty is first and foremost to truth and justice. If you do not care about your fellow human beings than you sir have some serious issues to overcome. I care how our government's foreign policies affect others, eventually it will come back to haunts us.

If the US hadn't interferred with Iran during the Shah's reign, or assisted Saddam in power we wouldn't be in this mess we are in now. But people like you do not believe in governmental responsibility. But you'll start crying when your children or grandchildren are killed because of today's governmental conduct.

blah, blah, blah....and if Christopher Fucking Columbus hadn't set sail in 1492, it's likely none of us would live in this great country. We can play monday morning quarterback all day long, but that adds nothing to the debate.

Iran has called for the destruction of Israel, which is one of our strongest allies. Iran had better be fucking happy that the US is still working with the EU and the UN (which is a joke of an organization), because we are the only thing stopping Isreal from fucking annihilating Iran. Iran has called for the destruction of the western Zionists (HMMMMM.....I wander who that is).

I too agree that if a fight is inevitable, land the first blow....and make it decisive!! It is quite obvious to me that Iran will never get along with the US, most of Europe, nor Israel. "Peaceful negotiations" are a lost cause in most parts of the middle east because those regimes do not desire Peace. Look at N. Korea, Kim Jong Il rules thru fear and he runs a fantastic propaganda machine that has the citizens of N. Korea convinced that the US is coming to kill them in their sleep. These people are so afraid of what will happen to them that they NEED Kim Jong Il to protect them....they would not know what to do without him. Yet they are so sheltered from the real world that they do not have the capacity to reason for themselves that they just might be better off without him.

And I know that the flip side to all this is that the "US is the biggest terrorist state in the world....we kill more innocent people than any other country." Well we never asked to be the world police, but we are so live with it. We also do a lot of good for countries. Now I know that that does not make up for the innocent lives lost, but lets be reasonable. What is the alternative??? Leave the middle east altogether?? Leave Cuba??? Leave Africa??? Leave the Phillipines??? Leave Indonesia??? Sure, we can do that...but if our troops leave,......our money, food, medicine, doctors, etc. leave too. Would that go over well??? Probably not because the countries we speak of are 5000 years older than the US and they are so technologically inferior to the US, which is 230 years old, that it is downright frightening.

Hell, look at Palestine and Hamas. The US and the EU have already threatened sanctions and cutting off aid to Palestine and the Palestinians are fucking crying in their beers. All of a sudden Hamas wants to negotiate an aid package and they will abide by all international law.....yeah fucking right?????

...and if my son or grandson died in Iraq, I'd certainly be upset...but I'd be proud that he fought for his country and I would want his colleagues to finish the job so that he did not die in vain.

[swing]

You're talking about peace...name one single country in the 20th century that has warred with the global community more than the US...I challenge you! Peace is not installing and supporting corrupt regimes. The US is well aware of atrocities these dictators are committing, and what do we do? Give them more money as long as they fulfill our bidding. You have absolutely zero sense of humanity. Let the US withdraw our troops, medical supplies, money, etc leave. The only individuals benefitting are the dictators. I've travelled to more than 20 countries, and the OVERWHELMING majority of the populations have stated they want us out of their country. We're like parasites, everywhere we go we cause mayhem.

This country was great, and can become great again once we get our heads out of our butts. Our government is so detached from reality, that Rice is saying "we had no idea that the Palestinian people were so fed up with Fatah." Duh, dummy...where have you been the last 2 years? And, we did ask to become the global military police, this was the intentions since Theodore Roosevelt was in office. Power corrupts...and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And how in the hell is going to someone's crippled country, and picking a war with them "defending our country?" There was absolutely no aggression committed by Iraq, nor did they pose any threat to us.

We are on the same inevitable path of self-destruction as the former USSR. The same manner in which they were unable to defeat Afghanistan and Chechnya, is the same way we are unable to militarily defeat the insurgents in Iraq.

You can speak about attacking Iran all you want. This displays your lack of knowledge concerning the subject. It would not be in our best interest for Israel, nor ourselves to attack Iran. Why? Because Iran is predominately Shia. Guess what? So is Syria, Lebanon, and most importantly Iraq. If we have our hands full with the Sunni minority in Iraq, what do you think would happen if the Shia in Iraq begin attacking the troops. Not to mention Shia fighters from Lebanon, and elsewhere? A Pentagon report issued last week stated "the US Army is stretched to its breaking point." And you people want another war. You put on an Army uniform and go fight the battles!

[ForemanRules]

Originally Posted by swing

You're talking about peace...name one single country in the 20th century that has warred with the global community more than the US...I challenge you! Peace is not installing and supporting corrupt regimes. The US is well aware of atrocities these dictators are committing, and what do we do? Give them more money as long as they fulfill our bidding. You have absolutely zero sense of humanity. Let the US withdraw our troops, medical supplies, money, etc leave. The only individuals benefitting are the dictators. I've travelled to more than 20 countries, and the OVERWHELMING majority of the populations have stated they want us out of their country. We're like parasites, everywhere we go we cause mayhem.

This country was great, and can become great again once we get our heads out of our butts. Our government is so detached from reality, that Rice is saying "we had no idea that the Palestinian people were so fed up with Fatah." Duh, dummy...where have you been the last 2 years? And, we did ask to become the global military police, this was the intentions since Theodore Roosevelt was in office. Power corrupts...and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And how in the hell is going to someone's crippled country, and picking a war with them "defending our country?" There was absolutely no aggression committed by Iraq, nor did they pose any threat to us.

We are on the same inevitable path of self-destruction as the former USSR. The same manner in which they were unable to defeat Afghanistan and Chechnya, is the same way we are unable to militarily defeat the insurgents in Iraq.

You can speak about attacking Iran all you want. This displays your lack of knowledge concerning the subject. It would not be in our best interest for Israel, nor ourselves to attack Iran. Why? Because Iran is predominately Shia. Guess what? So is Syria, Lebanon, and most importantly Iraq. If we have our hands full with the Sunni minority in Iraq, what do you think would happen if the Shia in Iraq begin attacking the troops. Not to mention Shia fighters from Lebanon, and elsewhere? A Pentagon report issued last week stated "the US Army is stretched to its breaking point." And you people want another war. You put on an Army uniform and go fight the battles!

Great post....the only thing I disagree with is: that you said " This country was great, and can become great again "...read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States and then tell me when America was just and great???

[Kayz]

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

Great post....the only thing I disagree with is: that you said " This country was great, and can become great again "...read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States and then tell me when America was just and great???

LOL....you read one book and can say with a straight face that America is NOT just and great??? Wow. I too could do a google and find really long articles to support any point I make. I could also cite books that support my point. HOwever, you have yet to make a point or offer your own take/opinion...all you have done is criticized everyone else's opinions while offering no original thoughts. I'm interested in what YOU think...what should we do (if anything) with Iran??? How should we handle Palestine and Isreal???

Look, I'm not saying that America has never done bad things and killed/harmed innocent civilians, but to label this country as unjust is a little over the top IMO. It is very easy for people to point out the negative all the time, but difficult to admit that the US does more good for the world and it's other nations than any 2 countries combined. Everything is relative. It's this constant doom and gloom that makes me sick. Nothing in life is perfect, but you have to deal with things the way they are. Hell, this conversation would not even be permitted in many of the countries we speak of. Everyone on this board always says "..if you support the war, then you go over there a fight it." Well, if you don't like this country and feel that it has been unjust since it's creation, then leave!!!! You, Streisand, Penn, and Baldwin can hang out in a 3rd world country.