Ralph Nader Doesn't Qualify for Ballot in Oregon!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Bush chose to believe reports of WMD's in Iraq, and links between Hussein and Bin Laden, despite many indications that that information was just plain wrong. He made dramatic speeches to the US public emphasizing the grave threat to the US ("the next warning we get may be in the shape of a mushroom cloud") and the link between 9/11 and Iraq, then pushed through the resolution supporting war with Iraq based on incorrect intelligence.

Seems pretty similar.

It was readily apparent at the time that Bush was riding that horse to rally the people, but that it was only a minor motivation. Established nations have few circumstances in which they can use such weapons in an offensive manner. But it's good for propoganda. I'm sorry if you bought it.

But no one here could know the attack on the Maddow was BS. And indesputably, the results were far more grevous.

It's a bit of a topic drift, but let me ask you - under what plausible scenario would we have peacefully resolved the problems with Saddam and Iraq. I believe the second war was inevitable regardless of which party was in the White House. Sometimes war is the answer to a problem.

If we go back in history a bit longer, we have Pearl Harbor and the Lusitania as more clouded events used to motivate national fury. And before that, the Maine. Seems like SOP for us.

[billvon 3,107]

> I'm sorry if you bought it.

Not only did I not buy it, I got blasted on here by people who "knew better." When I questioned the WMD evidence, a common reply was "What, you believe Saddam Hussein over our own government?"

A strange world we live in, where a dictator is more believable than our own goverment in the end.

>It's a bit of a topic drift, but let me ask you - under what plausible
> scenario would we have peacefully resolved the problems with
> Saddam and Iraq.

Same way we've dealt with North Korea for the past 50 years. Did we ever resolve the problems? No; we didn't even win the war. But we lived with the fact that there was a nation who did things we didn't like.

>I believe the second war was inevitable regardless of which party was
> in the White House. Sometimes war is the answer to a problem.

How are we better off now? Which problem has been solved?

>If we go back in history a bit longer, we have Pearl Harbor and the
> Lusitania as more clouded events used to motivate national fury.
> And before that, the Maine. Seems like SOP for us.

Pearl Harbor was a bit different. If Hussein had launched an attack and destroyed a military base in Florida, I'd be the first one to argue for a war. He didn't.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Same way we've dealt with North Korea for the past 50 years. Did we ever resolve the problems? No; we didn't even win the war. But we lived with the fact that there was a nation who did things we didn't like.

Technically, we're still in a state of war/conflict with DPRK. No peace treaty was signed.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,107]

>Technically, we're still in a state of war/conflict with DPRK. No peace
>treaty was signed.

I agree. Yet we've lived with it; even managed to deal with them diplomatically, despite them being the epitome of communist evil. (To use today's terminology, terrorist evil.)

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Technically, we're still in a state of war/conflict with DPRK. No peace
>treaty was signed.

I agree. Yet we've lived with it; even managed to deal with them diplomatically, despite them being the epitome of communist evil. (To use today's terminology, terrorist evil.)

We (The "Framework" 1995-6, Clinton) failed in our diplomatic efforst with DPRK. Continued diplomacy gets derailed just as progress might be made and that freak, Kim Chong-il.

DPRK is a failure. The rest is simply denial.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,107]

>We (The "Framework" 1995-6, Clinton) failed in our diplomatic
> efforst with DPRK. Continued diplomacy gets derailed just as
> progress might be made and that freak, Kim Chong-il.

>DPRK is a failure. The rest is simply denial.

Hmm. Perhaps I missed the Korean War II. But if not, we have essentially left each other alone for nearly 50 years now. We gave him some fuel, which was nice of us, and a reactor, which was dumb.

And if we can leave each other alone for another 30? Jong-Il will be dead. His predecessor may be the same; if so we will have to play the same games with him. He may be better, in which case we have made progress without killing ten thousand people. And that would be a good thing in my book.

There is a growing sentiment in the US that unless a country does what we want, the next step is to send the bombers over. There is great value in simply leaving people be as long as they are not attacking us. Our allies are our best defenses in the war on terror, and every time we accidentally kill another ten thousand people, we lose ten times that number in allies.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Perhaps I missed the Korean War II.

No you didn't. It simply that the first one isn't over yet.

My point about the diplomacy being a failure is that we have no official diplomatic ties to DPRK, other than their mission at the UN and through the Swedish embassy in-country being the "protective power".

Quote

But if not, we have essentially left each other alone for nearly 50 years now. We gave him some fuel, which was nice of us, and a reactor, which was dumb.

You said it. Though I don't think it's been quiet along the DMZ. Someone here on DZ.com must have experience in what it is like over there. I don't think we're leaving each other "alone" per se.

Quote

There is a growing sentiment in the US that unless a country does what we want, the next step is to send the bombers over. There is great value in simply leaving people be as long as they are not attacking us. Our allies are our best defenses in the war on terror, and every time we accidentally kill another ten thousand people, we lose ten times that number in allies.

The problem with that is that Clinton broke one of the benchmark rules of US foreign policy: Not to negotiate with terrorists or their sponsors. Like you said, we gave them a reactor, that was dumb. Additionally, our ally in ROK probably has a slightly different opinion, since it's our troops sharing the front line with them.

Edit to add: Anyway, Nader doesn't qualify for the Oregon ballot.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,107]

>The problem with that is that Clinton broke one of the benchmark
> rules of US foreign policy: Not to negotiate with terrorists or their
> sponsors.

That's a benchmark?? We CREATED the Mujahideen (radical islamic terrorists) as a force to be reckoned with; we gave them billions in aid and weapons so they would kill Russians for us. We funded the Contras. We currently support Uzbekistan because they are our "allies in the war on terror" despite their use of torture and assassination as political tools. We are great friends with Saudi Arabia despite very clear ties between them and Al Qaeda and the 9/11 hijackers.

There is simply no such benchmark. And there shouldn't be; that should be up to each administration. Does an administration think that negotiating with Sharon and Arafat will yield results? If so, then they should be free to try. Do they think that that's useless? Then they shouldn't try. But they should be free to decide to do that even though Arafat is a staunch supporter of palestinian terrorism.

>Like you said, we gave them a reactor, that was dumb. Additionally,
> our ally in ROK probably has a slightly different opinion, since it's
> our troops sharing the front line with them.

Definitely, but that's true of any front line.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

A strange world we live in, where a dictator is more believable than our own goverment in the end.

More believable to you, perhaps. Given his track record of blocking UN inspections, I wasn't going to believe him until our troops proved otherwise.

Quote

How are we better off now? Which problem has been solved?

We eliminated a regime that was hostile to us and was a constant distraction. We removed a leader who was sending cash payoffs to families of suicide bombers in Israel - that alone is enough to me. Given the chance, Saddam would have become a threat again. Now he won't, and any new leadership in Iraq will remain well heeled.

Preemption seems to be the word of the day now at the Capitol Building. This whole process of looking for who was to blame for 9/11 is a nice political game, but rather pointless otherwise. It's clear that for at least as long as Bush stays in office, America has adopted the big stick diplomacy route again.

[billvon 3,107]

>More believable to you, perhaps.

He said he had no WMD's. Bush said he did. The truth was that he had no WMD's that the combined efforts of 100,000 US troops have been able to find in a year.

>We eliminated a regime that was hostile to us and was a constant
>distraction.

And created an insurgency that is killing hundreds of US soldiers.

>We removed a leader who was sending cash payoffs to families of
>suicide bombers in Israel . . .

And created dozens of new suicide bombers instead.

>Given the chance, Saddam would have become a threat again.

Threat to who? I agree that he causes trouble when given the chance, but to claim he was an imminent threat to the US is simply not in line with reality.

>Now he won't, and any new leadership in Iraq will remain well heeled.

Is it your claim that the Sadr militia is well heeled, or that they are of no consequence?

>Preemption seems to be the word of the day now at the Capitol
> Building. This whole process of looking for who was to blame for
> 9/11 is a nice political game, but rather pointless otherwise.

It makes me sick that you think that looking into the deaths of 3000 americans is a political game, honestly. I challenge you to go out to the gap in Manhattan where the World Trade Center towers once stood and tell yourself "Well, no reason to make sure that doesn't happen again!" I have a feeling you will change your mind quickly.

>It's clear that for at least as long as Bush stays in office, America
> has adopted the big stick diplomacy route again.

Unfortunately, he keeps swinging at the wrong people.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It makes me sick that you think that looking into the deaths of 3000 americans is a political game, honestly. I challenge you to go out to the gap in Manhattan where the World Trade Center towers once stood and tell yourself "Well, no reason to make sure that doesn't happen again!" I have a feeling you will change your mind quickly.

Blowing away the Taliban and Saddan is the most direct way to make it less likely to happen again. You cannot prevent execution of an attack and maintain our fairly free and open society. You simply cannot. However, you can change the motivations.

One method is to play nice with everyone and hope they return the favor. History has proven that to be idiocy - there will always be those that will take advantage of your kindness. And it's very difficult for these oil barrons to continue to rule over starving peasants unless we are protrayed as the Western infidels - the people see enough images of our standard of living to know they are being screwed.

The other method is to scare the shit out of them - we are the biggest motherfuckers on the planet and it can be made clear that attacks on us will no longer go unanswered. Clinton's biggest failure in foreign policy was in ignoring past attacks, or sending symbolic bomber attacks. Safer for troops, but ineffective. But now we're at a state where it's clear that housing enemies like al Queda will put you on our target list. When we're no longer the reigning power, we'll just have to bend over and take it. But that's a while down the road.

Stop pretending the hearings are anything but political. It's an election year and the Democratic Party would like to pin the blame on the Bush Administration. It would be fair to blame the prior Administration, and fairer to admit that it would have happened regardless. Read the transcripts - esp Kerry's - he used a considerable portion of time to grandstand. And yet the big question on their minds was why didn't we react and attack someone. Yet the same shouldn't apply to Iraq.

All the above is massive topic drift from where it started as minor drift: Iraq isn't remotely close to Vietnam, and the dwindling civil rights now far exceeds those in the late 60s.

Bill, you're on record now as:
1) against the second (first?) war on Iraq
2) against the unconstitutional Patriot Act/etc
3) think that 9/11 was preventable.

So I have to ask you - how? Do you have a magic bullet that protects us from bad guys, maintains our freedoms, and doesn't require beating up on desert nations? Or do you just like to complain? Hindsight is great, but it's not a solution.

As for our troops, I want them out of there. Complete the transfer like the locals want and let them figure it out. Our objectives there are complete. Iraq has a chance now, which is better than their status quo, but they have to do the lifting now.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Iraq has a chance now, which is better than their status quo, but they have to do the lifting now.

I agree, but the muscles they need to lift with are atrophied. There has been remarkable progress made in the past year. The US will have a significant presence there for at least another year to continue the "muscle building".

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,107]

>Blowing away the Taliban and Saddan is the most direct way to make
>it less likely to happen again.

Once again you are forgetting who pulled off 9/11. Killing tens of thousands of innocent people is the best way to gurantee that there will be a new generation of people who hate the US enough to fly a plane into a building.

Let me ask you this. If an army invaded your town, and blew the top of your child's head off (accidentally of course) and then talked about how you had been "liberated" - would you just accept that? Or might it make you mad enough to fight them, even give your life trying to destroy them?

Every time we kill another child we create a new Khalid Almihdhar. Every time we kill an innocent man we make a new generation of suicide bombers from his sons. Think defending against a dozen terrorists is tough? Try ten thousand.

>You cannot prevent execution of an attack and maintain our fairly
> free and open society. You simply cannot.

"Those who are willing to sacrifice essential freedoms for security deserve neither freedom nor security."

>The other method is to scare the shit out of them - we are the >biggest motherfuckers on the planet and it can be made clear that
> attacks on us will no longer go unanswered.

Did we get Bin Laden? Did we win the Vietnam War? Did we win the Korean War? We may be the biggest bullies on the planet, but there are battles we can't win. In the war on terror, our allies have captured far more Al Qaeda operatives than we have - which means that being nice (and maintaining allies) has done more for us than beating the shit out of people who had nothing to do with 9/11.

>When we're no longer the reigning power, we'll just have to bend
> over and take it. But that's a while down the road.

And on that day, you better pray (for your family's sake) that the UN is not just a joke, and that we have learned the art of diplomacy a bit better.

>Stop pretending the hearings are anything but political.

And stop pretending that 9/11 is a political football. 3000 americans died; they deserve better than being the pawns in your political grandstanding.

>Bill, you're on record now as:
>1) against the second (first?) war on Iraq
>2) against the unconstitutional Patriot Act/etc
>3) think that 9/11 was preventable.

1) Correct, I was against the war as a unilateral US war.

2) I am against the Patriot Act as it has been implemented. It was a good idea initially.

3) Of course 9/11 was preventable. Everyone who has testified has said that they would have done anything to stop it, they just didn't "connect the dots" as Rice put it. We stopped the Millenium Bomber, so clearly it's possible to find and stop terrorists.

Does that mean that Bush bears the responsibility for 9/11? Of course not. He (or more accurately his administration) just made a mistake. Answer: fix the mistake and MOVE ON.

>So I have to ask you - how? Do you have a magic bullet that protects
> us from bad guys, maintains our freedoms, and doesn't require
> beating up on desert nations?

1. Fix the structural problems in our intelligence organizations that both Rice and Clarke have described.

2. Better relationships with the nations that could help us in our 'war on terror.' This means diplomacy, which isn't as much fun as war, but can yield much better results (and so far has.)

3. Harden our borders. Crack down on illegal aliens.

4. Go after Al Qaeda militarily and don't stop until he's captured or dead. Avoid wasting time and lives in countries that had nothing to do with 9/11.

5. Stop supporting Israel. Let them know with plenty of warning - say, ten years - and then gradually cut back on aid.

Is any of this easy? Nope, it's hard. But sometimes you need someone in charge who can make the hard (even unpopular) decisions.

>Or do you just like to complain?

I like to do both. (BTW what have you, personally, done to help prevent another 9/11?)

>As for our troops, I want them out of there. Complete the transfer
> like the locals want and let them figure it out. Our objectives there
> are complete. Iraq has a chance now, which is better than their
> status quo, but they have to do the lifting now.

Would you be OK handing over power to al-Sadr?

We are in a poor position now. If we leave now, there's a good chance the fledgeling Iraqi government would fall to al-Sadr's militia. That would leave us with a radical islamic government proud of the fact they had defeated the evil americans, and you can bet that they will be our strongest enemies in the middle east for quite some time. Heck, they could launch the next 9/11 - and this time they'll have a real air force.

We can stay until there are no more rebels. That could take ten years, which is what some military estimates of how long we'd have to stay there were.

We can try to split the difference, in which case we are gambling that a US-created government will stand in a country that is, more and more, hating the US and everything it stands for.

I think the least painful way out in the long run involves a lot of dead US soldiers, and that's staying until the new government can defend itself against the civil war that's already in progress.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Once again you are forgetting who pulled off 9/11. Killing tens of thousands of innocent people is the best way to gurantee that there will be a new generation of people who hate the US enough to fly a plane into a building.

The US didn't kill tens-of-thousands to motivate OBL. In fact, all that soured OBL's milk was when the Saudi Kingdom rejected his request to defend Saudi Arabia agains't any pending attack from Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait. Once the Saudis allowed foreign troops on his "sacred" land's soil, it pushed him over the edge. Never mind the fact that the US had been building infrastructure there for decades, so OBL isn't always the sharpest knife either.

Quote

Let me ask you this. If an army invaded your town, and blew the top of your child's head off (accidentally of course) and then talked about how you had been "liberated" - would you just accept that? Or might it make you mad enough to fight them, even give your life trying to destroy them?

A former landlord of mine was a holocaust survivor. She lost two sons in WWII, one of them from Allied bombing (he was slave working in a factory IIRC), one in the concentration camp (I do not remember where she was). We had only talked about her experience once. When troops arrived at the camp, she recalled her feelings as being "a joyful sorrow". She reunited with her husband and they came to the US and started a new family (this time she had two daughters).

Quote

3) Of course 9/11 was preventable. Everyone who has testified has said that they would have done anything to stop it, they just didn't "connect the dots" as Rice put it. We stopped the Millenium Bomber, so clearly it's possible to find and stop terrorists.

"There was no magic bullet" - Dr. Rice, 4/8/04
"The millennium bomber was not due to high-alert. It was due to an alert customs agent" - Dr. Rice, 4/8/04 (Paraphrase).

Quote

5. Stop supporting Israel. Let them know with plenty of warning - say, ten years - and then gradually cut back on aid.

Stop supporting the only democracy in the region? WTF are you reading to come up with opinions like this Bill? That's a sure fire way to see another 6 million jews slaughtered within a 100 year period, but only after another 20 million muslims meet their maker when Israel uses its nukes in the last gasp effort to survive. It would be glowing glass parking lot from Cairo to Damascus to Riyadh surrounding smoking pits of body parts from Beirut to the Negev Desert.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,107]

>The problem with that is that Clinton broke one of the benchmark
> rules of US foreign policy: Not to negotiate with terrorists or their
> sponsors.

Looks like Bush is breaking that "benchmark" as well:

------------------------
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Police will return to their posts in the holy city of Najaf after reaching an agreement with the militia of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, the city's police chief and an al-Sadr spokesman said Monday. . . .

The reported agreement in Najaf between coalition forces and militia loyal to al-Sadr was disputed Monday by a coalition source close to the situation.

-------------------------------

U.S. Looks for New Solution in Cease-Fire (LA Times)

FALLOUJA, Iraq (news - web sites) — A patchy cease-fire took hold in this battle-torn city Sunday as U.S. officials said they were seeking "political" solutions to pacify the area and, elsewhere in the country, disband a militia loyal to a virulently anti-American cleric.

The move to stress negotiations over military action marked a significant tactical shift for American officials here, who until the weekend had been vowing to crush the two insurgencies threatening Iraq's stability. The change came as guerrillas appeared to extend their influence closer to the capital Sunday, shooting down an Apache helicopter about 3 miles from Baghdad's airport and cutting off communications between military posts on a key road leading west from the city.

[Gawain 0]

I know and I really don't understand why we're doing this. This was attempted in Afghanistan too.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Once again you are forgetting who pulled off 9/11. Killing tens of thousands of innocent people is the best way to gurantee that there will be a new generation of people who hate the US enough to fly a plane into a building.

Knowing that their actions will lead to the deaths of 10s of thousands of their people gives them pause. Let's be clear - they started that one. The death and destruction that followed were the consequence of their attack. Turning the other cheek and accepting such a loss was not an option for the US.

Quote

>You cannot prevent execution of an attack and maintain our fairly
> free and open society. You simply cannot.

"Those who are willing to sacrifice essential freedoms for security deserve neither freedom nor security."

Uh, that's my point, Bill. The only way to minimize this risk, these institutional changes you later suggest are vital, are a sacrifice of our essential freedoms. You're straddling the fence nicely, there.
I'm much more willing to accept military action there, than loss of liberties here.

Quote

And stop pretending that 9/11 is a political football. 3000 americans died; they deserve better than being the pawns in your political grandstanding.

I wasn't the one grandstanding at those hearings.

Quote

3) Of course 9/11 was preventable. Everyone who has testified has said that they would have done anything to stop it, they just didn't "connect the dots" as Rice put it. We stopped the Millenium Bomber, so clearly it's possible to find and stop terrorists.
3. Harden our borders. Crack down on illegal aliens.

Be serious. We can't even stop bales of pot from being inported into the country, and we've been fighting that battle for decades. Again - we can't prevent it on our end. We can only make the consequences too dear on the other side. Or live like the Chinese do.

Quote

5. Stop supporting Israel. Let them know with plenty of warning - say, ten years - and then gradually cut back on aid.

First you quote Ben Franklin about liberty vs security, and now you suggest we sacrifice our biggest friend in the region to curry favor with militants? Nice, Neville.

When the region stops its war on Israel, we can stop funding them. The last thing we or peace needs is a desparate nation with 1000 nukes under attack from every direction.

[billvon 3,107]

>Knowing that their actions will lead to the deaths of 10s of thousands
> of their people gives them pause.

How's that working in Israel?

>Let's be clear - they started that one. The death and destruction that
> followed were the consequence of their attack. Turning the other
> cheek and accepting such a loss was not an option for the US.

Bzzt! Wrong, thanks for playing. Al Qaeda, not Saddam Hussein (or any Iraqis) pulled off 9/11. We might as well have invaded Saudi Arabia to punish the people who pulled off 9/11 (since many had their homes there, and Saudi businessmen financed Al Qaeda.) But we wanted to get Saddam anyway, and WMD's were a convenient excuse.

>Uh, that's my point, Bill. The only way to minimize this risk, these
> institutional changes you later suggest are vital, are a sacrifice of
> our essential freedoms. You're straddling the fence nicely, there.
>I'm much more willing to accept military action there, than loss of
> liberties here.

I agree 100%, and I support military action against the people who pulled off 9/11.

>I wasn't the one grandstanding at those hearings.

Then stop claiming that any investigation into 9/11 is just a political game. To tens of thousands of people it is far more real than that.


>3. Harden our borders. Crack down on illegal aliens.

>Be serious. We can't even stop bales of pot from being inported into
> the country. . .

Because we don't care to. If we cared to stop such things we could. In any case, bales of pot aren't the issue - illegal immigrants and fradulent visitors are.

>5. Stop supporting Israel. Let them know with plenty of warning -
> say, ten years - and then gradually cut back on aid.

>First you quote Ben Franklin about liberty vs security, and now you
> suggest we sacrifice our biggest friend in the region to curry favor
> with militants?

No. We should not curry favor with ANYONE - the Israelis, or the Arabs, or the Kurds. That's the point.

>When the region stops its war on Israel, we can stop funding them.
> The last thing we or peace needs is a desparate nation with 1000
> nukes under attack from every direction.

Then accept lots of american deaths and more terror attacks. Your choice. But remember that you made that choice knowing what the consequences might well turn out to be. You can support Israel but you will eventually pay the price, and the next time it might be one of those 1000 nukes used against the US.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Knowing that their actions will lead to the deaths of 10s of thousands
> of their people gives them pause.

How's that working in Israel?

They still exist as a country, no? It's isn't the same deal anyway - they (we need a proper descriptor, but I don't know if we can lump them all as one, and terrorist, or militant, or oppressed palestinian all fail)
are living around and within Israel's borders and have a history going back millenia. Thanks to their nuclear force they've at least escaped any full out wars for over 30 years now.

Oh, and now that Saddan isn't going to be pay $25k to the suicide bombers families, let's see if they get as many volunteers.

Quote

Bzzt! Wrong, thanks for playing. Al Qaeda, not Saddam Hussein (or any Iraqis) pulled off 9/11. We might as well have invaded Saudi Arabia to punish the people who pulled off 9/11 (since many had

I've never stated otherwise. This is again a poor application of the pronoun "them" to lump together all our non friends in the region. I refer to "them" as any that would join an organization like al Queda with the intent to attack us. All of them are becoming far more familiar with the notion of US retalition than ever before.

Quote

>I wasn't the one grandstanding at those hearings.
Then stop claiming that any investigation into 9/11 is just a political game. To tens of thousands of people it is far more real than that.

The timing is inescapable, the speeches by the commissioners never more clear.

Quote

No. We should not curry favor with ANYONE - the Israelis, or the Arabs, or the Kurds. That's the point.

Then accept lots of american deaths and more terror attacks. Your choice. But remember that you made that choice knowing what the consequences might well turn out to be. You can support Israel but you will eventually pay the price, and the next time it might be one of those 1000 nukes used against the US.

Selling out our allies never yields good results in the long run. Didn't work out well in 1939 either. We will always be on closer terms with Israel than anyone else in the region. And that's not a bad thing. Dumping them to make us more likeable by killers is no answer.

[tattoojeff 0]

Nader is a spoiler.

[billvon 3,107]

>They still exist as a country, no?

Yes they do. And I will ask you again - do you consider Israel a country where the threat of force has stopped terror attacks?

>Thanks to their nuclear force they've at least escaped any full out
> wars for over 30 years now.

That's like saying we have low crime rates in Portland because we have nuclear weapons. Israeli's nuclear weapons are pretty useless inside Israel, which is where most of the Palestinians who initiate terror attacks live.

>Oh, and now that Saddan isn't going to be pay $25k to the suicide
>bombers families, let's see if they get as many volunteers.

According to the Isreali Minister of Foreign Affairs there were 6 people killed by suicide bombers in 2000, and 150 people killed by suicide bombers from Apr 2003- Apr 2004.

Seems like now that Saddam is gone they are getting far more volunteers. Could it be that there are more angry Arabs willing to die to kill Israelis and Americans?

>Selling out our allies never yields good results in the long run.

Do you object to our selling out of our ally Saddam Hussein? Is it your opinion that we should not have abandoned him?

We have given Israel a tremendous amount of aid - billions in weapons and other direct aid over the years. It's time to make it clear that they must someday stand on their own two feet. Give them as much time as they need to make that happen - but make that happen.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Thanks to their nuclear force they've at least escaped any full out
> wars for over 30 years now.

That's like saying we have low crime rates in Portland because we have nuclear weapons. Israeli's nuclear weapons are pretty useless inside Israel, which is where most of the Palestinians who initiate terror attacks live.

It's called deterrence Bill. It's what kept the Cold War, "cold". It's also what has kept Syria and Egypt from "trying" again.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,107]

>It's called deterrence Bill.

Deterrence only works if the enemy knows you will use it. Nuclear weapons would have done nothing to stop 9/11; terrorists know we won't nuke Manhattan to stop a jetliner. Nuclear weapons won't stop a wave of suicide bombers in Israel, nor will they stop a mass uprising in occupied areas, because they know the Israelis will not drop nuclear weapons on Israel.

[kelpdiver 2]

[replyDo you object to our selling out of our ally Saddam Hussein? Is it your opinion that we should not have abandoned him?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Deterrence only works if the enemy knows you will use it. Nuclear weapons would have done nothing to stop 9/11; terrorists know we won't nuke Manhattan to stop a jetliner. Nuclear weapons won't stop a wave of suicide bombers in Israel, nor will they stop a mass uprising in occupied areas, because they know the Israelis will not drop nuclear weapons on Israel.

It's no coincidence that the scuds launched at Israel in 1991 did not have chemical agents on them.

Israel will drop nukes on its own soil if it's the last thing they do. Won't stop the one off attacks, but it does keep entire armies away.