"The barbarians are at the gates and within the walls, and we are beset on all sides by enemies."-MN

Gates of Vienna: "At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war."

You know it might be easier for Israel if they did "take terratory." Eventually they'd have all of the local area and then begin assimilating the population.

Of course in the modern world this won't happen because of all the politics involved.

"Where are the worldwide demonstrations against terrorism after a bomb is set off at an Israeli bus stop or an Iraqi market?"

That's the question of the GWOT. However, if some cartoons lampooing the "prophet" Muhammad get published by "infidels" then demonstrations, riots and mayhem around the world abounds! 7th century Muslim morality vs. 21st century Judeo-Christian, Western morality. The Left and the MSM seem/are rooting for the Muslims to weaken our current Judeo-Christian society, so that later they can swoop in, rise to power, and re-form Western society in their image. Of course, the problem with this "thinking" is that Islam (with 1.2 billion followers) is a hell of a lot more powerful than the Left/MSM realizes. If Islamists do succeed in destroying Judeo-Christian, Western society, there will be no one left to protect Western Civilization; and the Left/MSM'ers will be the first to lose their heads in the new Islamic Shari'a theocracies.

Of course the world recognizes the difference between us and terrorists. Thats why the world gets outraged when we make mistakes and not when terrorists commit atrocities.

The difference in public treatment of Israel and the US vs. terrorist organizations is really simple. The US and Israel are democratic nations, terrorists are terrorists. No one expects terrorists to act with honor or basic human decency. They do expect that of us and of Israel. Rather than cry about how unfair this double standard is, you should be celebrating it. Our moral standing is (or was) one of our most effective tools for securing our own peace and prosperity.

My question to you is this: why do you want there to be some equivalency between us and terrorists? In the long run, how will it help us if the world sees and expects no differences in the actions of terrorists and us?

I cry big ole' crocodile tears for the IDF, how sad, that they have to follow the rules of war, huh? How much easier it would be if everyone would just stop tying the Israeli's hands, and let them just flatten all of southern Lebanon...and Syria, while they are at it.

Y'know between the 40 year occupation, arbitrary imprisonment, political assasinations, subjugation, theft of water rights, and apathy towards the laws of the international community, I don't understand why the world can't see just how benevolent the Israeli government, truly is. Cry that beloved country....life is indeed precious, just as long as that life is Israeli, otherwise it is irrelevent as long as their interests are served, right?

"meanwhile, if Israel or the United States fail to act with 100% perfection in their targeting of the armed enemy, they are accused of being war criminals. How many hundreds of Amerian soldier lie dead today because we took every precaution against accidentally killing the civilians the enemy deliberately targets? How many Israeli soldiers are soon to be dead for the same reason? Is there no sympathy for them? No tears for their bereaved families? No honorable remembrance of men who died that others might live free?"

--What a lovely image, of a lonely wife, in a wintry, desolate graveyard...except that isn't how it goes, is it? We regard our troops sacrifice as heroism, complete with armed salutes, folded flags, and a place on the mantle of Freedom; But you seem to forget the obvious, which is that soldiers are made to die, civilians are not, so stop confusing the horrors of war, with your sad attempt to conflate the loss of military families, with the need to protect the innocent, even if they are on the other side.

War is perpetrated by the well fed, yet it is always suffered by the poor. Bush and Olmert have slick PR campaigns, and the world stage at their disposal, but the Lebanese or Palestinian somehow gets forgotten in our 12 hour news cycle unless one of them kills some Jews or Americans, perhaps if we would act like adults, and stop ignoring the problems we helped create in the ME, we could begin to fix the issues at hand, instead of trying our campaign of marginalization which has produced nothing more than an ever hotter war.

The enemies of Peace have always been inside the gates, and beset all around us, but they don't wear loin clothes and speak a foreign tongue, instead they dress in thousand dollar suits, making millions for their business partners from the wars they start, and profess a profound concern for the uncounted, unheralded, muted casualty, while at the same time launching precision guided munitions at their homes.

perhaps if we would act like adults, and stop ignoring the problems we helped create in the ME, we could begin to fix the issues at hand...

I thought Jimmah Carter already did that. BTW, what are those issues again?

TEO,

Once again you eloquently express your reverence for the Palestinians, Hamas, Hezbollah, and terrorism in general, and your hatred for Isreal, the United States, and anyone who reveres freedom and liberty.

Once again you have sided with those whose goal is to wipe Israel off the map, and against those who defend Israel's right to exist. In your blind eyes, everything is the fault of the US and Israel. It is our fault that the terrorist strap bombs onto their bodies and blow up buses filled with innocent civilians. It is our fault that the Israelis have provided the Palestinians with land to live on, only to continue to suffer terrorist attacks. It is our fault that the Arab/Mulsim world wants to live in the 7th century, while we and the Israelis want to live in the 21st century.

Mark is dead right. And you are, as usual, dead wrong. You never hear the MSM or most of the civilized world condemn terrorist attacks, against Israel, Iraq, or US interests. They will show Muslims dancing in the streets after the WTC tower collasped, they will condemn the Israelis for defending their country against terrorist attacks, they will condemn the US for attempting to stop terrorism. Think about that for a minute. We are being condemned for trying to stop terrorists from killing innocents around the world. The civilized world should be congratulating and thanking us, not condemning us. Each time we and the Israelis are condemned for defending freedom, the terrorists win another battle in the PR war. And you liberals are their greatest ally.

You guys just can't resist wasting your time on trolls, can you? That is its hope and you delight it by playing along. The only way to get rid of a troll is to ignore it.

Sorry Rev, but its fun slapping them down.

Sorry Rev, but its fun slapping them down.

If it wasn't for the trolls, there wouldn't be any liberals to debate. Most of the liberals can't figure out how to use a computer, and many of those that do can't put together two words that make sense, let alone a complete sentence. So that leaves us with the trolls.

Speaking of trolls, what ever happened to "axis"? I haven't seen him here for weeks.

I, for one, am quite tired of this incessant accusation against the United States and Israel in the War on Terrorism.

Aw, Mark. Would a noogie on the noggin make it all better?

War is perpetrated by the well fed, yet it is always suffered by the poor.

Great line TEO. And true, how ture.

The "barbarians" are the warmongers. At this point in history American and Israeli bombs and bullets are killing many more people then the "barbarians" on the other side. So if "body count"( where have we heard that before) is the measure of winning and losing, America and Israel not only win, they lose. Peace

"Unlike many Islamic extremists, Israel is not seeking to expand her territory, kill those with differing religious beliefs, or oppress those who are not like-minded."

I would definitely agree with the second point (i.e., Israel does not want to kill those with differing religious beliefs). But the first point is certainly debatable. The third point is less so, but not exactly obvious. Let me play devil's advocate here...

How would you feel if the international community decided that, say, the Gypsies needed a homeland and so decided that parts of, say, Indiana was a good place to put it? Obviously, it's a ridiculous example. What claim do Gypsies have over Indiana, right? Okay, so let's change Gypsies to Native Americans -- give them their own country, not a reservation but an honest to God independent country. Let's call it... Indianapolis (lol!). And while the rest of America has fallen on hard times, Indianapolis develops into a thriving democracy with the help of their powerful ally, Uberchina. How would you feel about that?

I'm guessing we'd be pretty pissed off. What right does the international community have to make such a decision? But let's assume it happened. What do we do? Probably we'd try to take it back. But what if we failed? [remember, this is a hypothetical example, and the assumption is that we've fallen on hard times, so bear with me] And in the process of the struggle, what if Indianapolis took over not only the rest of Indiana, but parts of Ohio and Michigan? Would that be okay? Heck, we lost. So it's all fair, right? Well, I'm guessing that we wouldn't think it was okay. And probably the international community wouldn't think so either -- except Uberchina of course. But hey, Indianapolis feels they have a right to the new territory because, first of all, the new territory makes the old territory more defensible. And besides that, it was theirs once upon a time. So they start building settlements in the occupied territories, maybe put up a wall...

I guess that would make you feel even angrier. But obviously you can't strike back directly, because you woudn't win. Uberchina is just too powerful, and they have armed Indianapolis to the teeth. And despite the fact that the international community has issued over 70 resolutions urging Indianapolis to give back the occupied territories, stop building settlements in them, etc., nothing has happened. So what would you do? I mean really... what would you do?

I think at first it would be much easier to come up with things you wouldn't do. You wouldn't target the innocent civilians of Indianapolis, although you might target governmental structures and other symbols of their power. But if that didn't work, what then?

In a nutshell, this sort of scenario is exactly what is being played out in Palestine. And until you can wrap your head around how it would probably feel to be on the weaker end of a power struggle of the type I hypothesized here, you really can't get a feel for any sort of viable solution to the controversy there.

And if you think about it, my hypothetical example isn't exactly that wild of an example. Stuff like this really did happen here, between those of European ancestry and the native population. And basically, we solved the problem with, well... genocide (and disease). So, is that what's on the table here? If not, then what?

Actually, I have a solution to the whole Palestinian crisis -- let them build casinos!

BWAAAHAHAAAA!!

Ricorun

The Arabs could easily solve the refugee problem by taking in the Palestinians. They have plenty of land for them but I think they want to use them as a pawn in their struggle for mid east hegomony and ultimately world domination.

Admitedly as a Christian my judgement is affected. That being said your analysis is fairly sound, however, I think you are over estimating America's contribution here and you are underestimating the power of the Arabs here. The Palestinians have most of the Arab world behind them and they have Russia and China behind them. I think collectively it could be argued that the Palestinians are more powerful than the Israelis.

Besides even if you did remove Israel all it would likely mean is Jihadists assets would simply be relocated. Probably to Western Europe or the US. US support for Israel is best explained by mutual needs. We face the same enemies.

Rico,

I have a friend--I am not going to mention names, since he wishes the privacy of him and his organization be upheld--who has had a few meetings with Sharon (this obviously was earlier in the year, and previous years) regarding the idea that the southern portions of the Sinai could be leased on a rent-to-own basis from Egypt, this could allow the Palestinians fertile land, instead of the rocky land they are fighting with Israel for, right now, and would still allow them hold over what is considered "Palestine" (pre-imperialism terms), so that both Israel and Hamas, Iran and Syria could claim a semblance of victory, and no-one really has to accept an "defeat" or term which appear that they are bowing down to the other side.

I fear the only sticking point is going to be the occupied territories, at some point Israel has to give up all right to Golan and East Jerusalem, even if it is to be jointly administered, the Palestinians need it as their capital, or they will always be seen as giving-in to the jews, and will never get the peace they want from their neighbors.

The key is a deal which allows everyone to claim victory, pride is very important in this part of the world, infact, I would argue it is the ONLY thing that matters, the Jews realize this, otherwise they wouldn't be making a point in lebanon, but the US is going to need to realize that if we are to pour water on the flames, we need to be talking with iran and Syria about their responsibilities regarding the ME.

The Arabs will NOT accept Israel as the regional power, it will never offer us peace, but if the Jews can handle peace and security, while accepting that the Arabs want to feel like head-honchos, then I think we can find a middle-ground without starting a new round of '67 wars.

TEO: I think Israel would be happy to agree to this, if they feel they can trust the Arabs to keep their end of the bargain. We can also talk to the Syrians and the Iranians, however, they will need to treat us equals. They have spent so much time dehamunizing both us and the Jews with their propaganda they will have to get their people past this to live on equal terms with Israel. Iarael and the US will have no problem with publicaly treating them like head honchos.

I would definitely agree with the second point

Was that whole post a joke? I sure hope so.

BP, with all due respect I think you're missing the point. I am not advocating any particular position. All I'm trying to do is to get people to view the problem from a different perspective just so they can understand the situation better. It's the whole Sun Tsu concept: know your enemy -- know how they think, what motivates them, what their issues are. Only then do you have any real hope in defeating them.

Whatever else can be said, I think a very good case could be made that any war is truly won only after the shooting stops. It's what you do in the aftermath that truly counts. No matter how much territory you take over, if you fail to win the hearts and minds of the population affected, you have not won the war -- unless of course you exterminate them. Displacing them is not likely to help all that much, at least not for generations. And even then it's sometimes questionable. I mean think about it... the last time the Jews had an independent homeland in the Palestine area was more than 2000 years ago. The last time they had even a significant presence in the area was almost 2000 years ago, when the Romans eventually kicked most of them out. And yet they still feel drawn to their historical place of origin. Thus, in their case anyway, displacement (diaspora) didn't work all that well. What gives you reason to suppose the Palestinians would be any different?

Rico

You're right it is important to understand how the a group thinks. Sun Tsu, thats the name I have been looking for recently. You analysis is a very good one. I appreciate the perspectives you present.

How would you feel if the international community decided that, say, the Gypsies needed a homeland and so decided that parts of, say, Indiana was a good place to put it?

Noooooooo!!! Not Indiana. California has way more extra room for Gypsies.

The key is a deal which allows everyone to claim victory, pride is very important in this part of the world...

This sounds suspiciously familiar. Oh, yeah, it's the same principle Liberals apply to education and intramural sports. Outcome-based diplomacy -- gotta take into account everyone's feelings and self-esteem. God, Liberals -- ya just gotta love 'em.

You seem to have forgotten that just a few years ago Israel agreed to give Arafat 90% of what he asked for, and his answer was a wave of suicide bombings.

RS,

Why do you ignore the fact that international politics is about a compromise, it isn't about what the strongest nation in the world wants, that is called tyranny.

If what you want is all-out war, then diplomacy doesn't mean anymore than the millions of lives you are condemning to death with your ideas; But if you want peace, then we have to play a game that is thousands of years old. You can't go into the ME and just usurp the rule of Iran and Syria, these are countries who have held sway for reasons, you can't expect to put Saudi Arabia or Jordan or Egypt in that position, because they wouldn't be respected, and it would cause a power vacuum. We need iran and Syria to be strong to keep the sunni and shi'a from killing eachother like they are doing in Iraq, they have serious regional responsibilities which Israel can't and shouldn't try to take-over. This whole joke of a campaign was started by self-important pseudo-historians who thought that they would try what many, many other nations have tried before, to un-seat Iran...as you can see, they have outlasted all of them.

The Red Cross published that 28 corpses were evacuated from Qana, 19 of which were children. The report clashes with the Lebanese report that 57 people were killed.

The Qana unraveling begins...

Scaramonga: "Was that whole post a joke? I sure hope so."

Well, not exactly. Just a mental exercise. Just think about it. And until you do, don't get your shorts in a bunch. I'm not advocating anything except a fuller appreciation of the situation at hand.

TEO: "I have a friend..."

I got the impression there was more to you than met the eye (so to speak, lol!). But you make an important point: most of the West Bank that Israel hasn't claimed for itself is rather crappy -- assuming you're not a goat or a sheep. And even if you were you'd find at best 25% of the area delectable. The rest of it is only good for, well, casinos, lol!! Likewise, I think the worst thing Israel did in recent years was emphasize their claim on East Jerusalem. At the very least they could have been a little more circumspect about it. There may have been a reasonable solution available prior to Sharon's junket there. Refresh me... what incident sparked the intifadah?

And you alluded to another question that I don't think most people have asked -- that being... what's Hezbollah's real cock in this fight? Simple anti-Israeli sentiment only goes so far. My advice is to follow the money. Israel certainly has. If people throw enough money at you you can come up with an excuse for just about anything. But turn that spigot off and suddenly you have to justify yourself on fundamental principles. I'm not at all condoning their tactics, but I do think Hamas has a legitimate gripe. Hezbollah, on the other hand, not so much. They are mostly opportunists and proxies for Syria in their quest to regain control of Golan. In principle therefore they are thus defeatable. And frankly, I'm not so sure returning Golan to Syria would be such a hot idea. Not in the present climate anyway. I like your idea of making it some kind of "jointly administered" territory, depending upon what "jointly administered" means.

By the way Spook, sorry about that Indiana thing. It's just that "Indiana" was such a convenient name. And actually, my first thought was to suggest Massachusetts, but I can't spell Massachusetts. And besides, who cares about Massachusetts? Lol! Also by the way, expect a private email soon.

I'm not advocating anything...

You think I was concerned about what you are advocating? Nothing could be further from the truth. I was concerned that someone, who is usually very careful about what he posts, and displays great knowledge and research skills - not to mention powers of logic, would come up with such a nonsensical post.

It won't get anybody thinking. Scratching heads? Maybe. It was pretty nutty sounding to me. Nothing to do with advocacy.

Scaramonga: "You think I was concerned about what you are advocating? Nothing could be further from the truth."

Well then, given that I was advocating nothing, your ado about it was much about nothing.

I was concerned that someone, who is usually very careful about what he posts, and displays great knowledge and research skills - not to mention powers of logic, would come up with such a nonsensical post.

Gee, I'm flattered. But considering the buildup, isn't it possible that you just don't understand my point? Actually, I did consider posting the thoughts I did very carefully. In fact, I did something I very rarely do -- I actually wrote a second draft! lol! And I did so because I wasn't sure that most people could grasp the concept I was trying to present. So I tried to tighten it up a bit. Whether or not I succeeded sufficiently is an independent question. But in the end I decided that some would understand what I was trying to say, some wouldn't, and it would be interesting to see what (and who) fell out of it. Besides, I have some time today to respond to responses. So I thought it might be interesting. And when you say, "It won't get anybody thinking," already you are obviously wrong.

So I thought it might be interesting. And when you say, "It won't get anybody thinking," already you are obviously wrong.

Who? I know all I was doing was shaking my head in disbelief.

Retired Spook, the 10% they wouldn't give them was water, control of their airspace and control of their seaports. Such a deal. Peace

Scaramonga: "I know all I was doing was shaking my head in disbelief."

Did you hear any rattling?

I'm sorry. That was meant as a joke, and one that was just too hard to pass up.

one that was just too hard to pass up.

Humor is not your forte. Go back to logic and reasoning, you're pretty good at that.

By the way Spook, sorry about that Indiana thing. It's just that "Indiana" was such a convenient name.

And here I thought you did it just to jerk my chain.

And actually, my first thought was to suggest Massachusetts, but I can't spell Massachusetts. And besides, who cares about Massachusetts?

Who cares whether you spelled it right (actually, I think you did) or about the state, either one? Now Connecticut, there's a pretty state - right?

Gozer

I think you have a point. If Israel would "take territory" and hold it with an iron fist, this might be easier. I think this would also be easier for the US. For better or worse, this is not our way. The US brought a force structure to Iraq that was only goood enough to topple the regime. It was not large enough to control the entire country. Since the US and Israel don't currently take territory, it does not cost as much as it should to war with them.