Bush links Hezbollah to Ali-Q
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4787207.stm



I really can't believe you guys voted for this dick-head.

Tell me just what about the article you think is stupid then.

'Linking their actions with insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said they all wanted to "establish safe havens from which to attack free nations". '


The aim of Hezbollah is to derstroy the state of Israel. Other nations, free or otherwise, are outside of its remit.



"He says that as well as intelligence efforts to foil terror plots against US civilians, the ongoing military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq are part of that same battle, as is Israel's conflict with Lebanon. "

Israels attack are aimed at Hezbollah rocket launching sites.

Afgahnistan was home to the Taliban, who sheltered Ali-Q

Iraq supposedly had WMD's that could be unleashed on the UK within 45 minutes.



These are, to most intelligent people, disparate facts.

How do you make the linkage?

Although they don't all have the same objectives, these groups often supply each other with weapons, shelter, or inteligence. Hez may not be making plans to launch rockets against the UK or US once they're done with Israel(I'm sure they'd take the chance) but I'm sure they would continue to use their influence to help other Islamic groups who are. Each one we wipe out is progress.

each what you wipe out is progress?

hezbollah has no axe to grind againt the US or UK, and neither does Hamas.

You (and your insane president) are confusing regional organisations with limited objectives with the real threat of global terrorism by ali-q.

They are seperate and distinct threats..... treat the regional one as global and you will indeed have a gobal war on your hands.

Embarrassing that a 'big dic' attitude would proclaim a blanket 'they are all evil' attitude. Many Islamic groups do (or at least did) talk to Americans. Many openly define who is a valid target and who is off limits or more of a friend. Once Americans could even walk into the Bekaa Valley as Israeli warplanes attacked Syrian troops; and be welcome as friends. Of course you knew that before assuming they are all evil? Apparently not.

Amazes me how many now see enemies everywhere. Amazes me how many do as UT does - automatically label Israel as the good guys and Islamic or Arabic organizations automatically evil. It really would help for so many to first learn the region.

Extremists among us routinely define Hezbollah as something equivalent to bin Laden. Those without any knowledge parrot that brainwashing.

Who was welcoming Israelis into Lebanon with flowers and rice when Sharon (illegally) attacked even Beirut? (*) Do you remember? And if not, then how do you know who is good and evil?

Those same people who welcomed the Israeli army with flowers and rice became Hezbollah because of what the Israeli army then did to those people. Hezbollah stands as defenders of Lebanon; was created as a result of continued Israeli assaults on Lebanese Shia. Hezbollah has no interest in attacking the US. Did you first learn facts and details; not the propaganda that, for example, UT routinely proclaims.

You know the difference between Hezbollah and Hamas? (*) You better long before any opinions are formed. Especially now that George Jr - champion of the mental midget - proclaims enemies everywhere. Hamas and Hezbollah are completely different. Do you know why? (*)

Hamas also has rules about not harming Americans. How can this be when Syria and Iran finance these organizations? Guess what. UT routinely uses the Rush Limbaugh 'simplistic' logic to hype good and evil. But then such Rush Limbaugh logic works when some fail to first learn details such as history.

Learn who they are long before making these blanket assumptions. Asked were some questions above - followed by (*). If you got any answer wrong - and this was real basic stuff - then you have not clue about the Middle East. If you got even those most basic questions wrong, then you are fodder for George Jr brainwashing about enemies everywhere.

And then it gets so much more complicated. My longer posts hardly scratched the surface. And yet every detail in those longer posts should be common knowledge if you have enough information to make assumptions about who is good and who is evil.

Did your eyes glaze over because you had already decided who is good and who is evil? Or are you easily recruited to the dark side - Cheney Doctrine - because learning facts is too hard; because it is so much easier to jump to conclusions. There is little difference between George Jr and the Emperor in Star Wars - except that the emperor knew how the universe actually works and was not told his agenda by Dick Cheney.

Get a grip. If you think for one minute that Hezbollah is your enemy, then so are the people of Europe, Japan, China, Russia, India .... Remember the principles upon which our current government operates. If necessary, we should be prepared to attack Germany, India, or Russia. Why do you worry about Hezbollah?

Did you eyes glaze over even with this short response? Then how do you expect to know who is good and who is bad. This was the executive summary of the abridged report after government censors editted it. And yet it is too complex? Welcome to the Middle East - where once Americans were warmly welcomed even in Syrian dominated Bekaa Valley. Again, why did you not know this?

He who aids my enemy is my enemy. All of these groups are in contact with each other and help each other achieve their goals. The biggest and most obvious hub right now is Iran, which is the real target we need to be blasting. Israel is our ally, and Hezbollah is their enemy who happens to be buddies with our enemies. Bush is saying that any nation who is waging war against a terrorist organization seeking its destruction is fighting the same battle we are, and it's true. Just substitute the word 'America' for 'Israel' and it's the same rhetoric.

George Jr also wants Armageddon. Do you? Do you advocate mass world wide murder only because some mythical character may then return? Do you advocate the mass murder of Jews? Your posts demand and justify that. Again, you are posting as an American with too much testosterone, hyped by rhetoric (that Hitler also used to hype war on his enemies), and with only a two year grasp of the world.

Israel is our ally? Then explain Israeli spying on the US. Explain the 'accidental' attack on the USS Liberty. Israel is bought and paid for. Again, can you cite those numbers? And why not?

Guess what. We also had friends among most of those Arab groups - until George Jr even got you to view the world in 'black and white' / 'good and evil' AND to want Armageddon.

Americans could once be welcomed in the Bekaa Valley - which you did not even know. But then you see the world in black and white which means you would make good cannon fodder. Which means you selectively remember history - or never even learned it. Meanwhile, honest people see many parties all with legitimate gripes.

Again, 9th Engineer - you could not even answer basic questions and yet somehow know a president must be right when he routinely operates against all good and patriotic Americans.

George Jr who did not even know what countries were adjacent to Israel is now and somehow right? This is the same man who could not stop reading a child's book when told "A second plane has just hit the World Trade Center. America is under attack." This same man did nothing when told America was under attack. And you believe his lies about Israel? You could not even answer basic questions about the Middle East. At least you probably know what countries are adjacent to Israel. And yet you would believe a man that dumb? Says so much about whether your make decisions as a Engineer - or as a brainwashed extremist.

9th Engineer - you are totally wrong. Your mindset is perfect for a military enlisted man who does what authority figures demand without question - and dangerous as a decision maker.

The enemy of my ‘bought and paid for’ friend is my enemy? Only when your world is ‘black and white’. Only when you don’t want to first learn how the world works. But then you apparently want Armageddon. Your logic previously created WWI. Did you learn that lesson from history?

Word substitution is a dangerous game. Words mean specific things.

tw, look at the time stamps on my last post and the one in which you asked all those questions. I didn't answer any because I hadn't seen your post before writing my last one and didn't notice it afterward.

I'll oblige your demand for a knowlege test when I have time to write a post of that length(not at 12:30am) to shut you up. I don't think it'll matter though, since I don't care about things like who welcomed us back then if they are doing things I find abborent now.

In return however, you had better clarify just what the hell you mean by me wanting Armageddon, as well as why I shouldn't write you off as a complete nutcase Kaczynski-esque conspiracy theorist. Do I advocate world-wide murder so that some mythical character will return??? I don't know whether to laugh until I short-circuit my keyboard with drool or take offense. I think I know what you are suggesting, something about starting the End of Days, but if you honestly believe stuff like that (or that the government operates based on it) it isn't worth my time to discuss anything with you.

Oh...so that's what the timestamp is for!

Move the state of Israel to the USA, problem solved. America's got plenty of room and seem to get on o.k.

They could build a replica Jerusalem (with some original artifacts obviously) al la Disneyworld to keep the orthodox Jews happy. Hell, Florida would be ideal wouldn't it?

Similarly, the 7/7 guys and last week's jerkoffs were thinking too globally as well, right Jay? Surely their beef isn't with the UK.

Hezbollah hates the US viciously.

It is thought to be responsible for the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon: killing over 200 peacekeepers, which were the worst losses for the USMC since WW2 and the first use of large-scale suicide bombing by vehicle.

Both the US and UK governments have reached the conclusion that Hez is an illegal terrorist organization, and have labelled it as such.

Both nations demanded its disarming through the UNSC in 2000 (res 1559) which created a problem for it, because 100% of its money and power comes from being armed.

The bigger problem than common enemies is common ideas.

Hezbollah - innovated suicide bombing of innocents by truck, in the name of shia islam

Hamas - innovated suicide bombing of innocents by backpack, in the name of sunni islam

Al Qaeda - innovated suicide bombing of innocents by plane or train, in the name of sunni* islam

Now, tw is convinced that the "shia", "sunni" and "wahabbi" are the most operative words in this post.

Of course he plays the usual tw game of making it into a quiz for you to solve, rather than simply having a normal discussion and stating the facts. Now why does he do that? The question is left as an exercise for the reader.

*edit

I haven't been in the Cellar for a while.....I just thought I'd catch up a little on the latest aguments raging in here...... God the American Administration is depressing though aint it? I mean.....I've seen more thought out villains in a Superman comic than the ones portrayed in the War on Terror. But hey...why bother looking in depth and forming an intelligent analysis when you can paint the world in white hats and black hats and just get on with the fun stuff?

We've stepped through the looking glass, right is wrong and wrong is right and the villains are running the show. We step up our actions and treat the whole of Islam as an enemy then point fingers when they 'aid and abett' each other in the fight. Wouldn't we help each other when attacked? Didn't we help each other when attacked? Do we provide each other with military equipment and assistance when needed? Does this relationship of mutual aid and assistance permeate the whole of the 'civilised' world?

The only difference between us assisting each other in this war and them assisting each other in this war is that we can hang ours on the Governmental hook. Countries in the Middle East who assist the likes of Palestine....well, I don't see the difference between that and the UK tramping into Belgium or France to help defend against Germany.

We have created and are continuing to create a universal enemy. Yey, aren't we clever?

We found something we're good at, why not stick with it?:eek:

Welcome to mid and late 1960s Vietnam. It will get much worse and more depressing because all the same arguments are being spun with different words.

Domino Theory or 'we must attack then in Iraq so that don't come after us here'. Same myths. Same conclusions based in a 'big dic' attitude. Even violating basic Military Science principles to justify a political agenda. Thirty years later: things tend to repeat only because a new generation does not learn why a 'big dic' attitude only makes things worse. The new generation always thinks a bigger kid with a bigger stick will always make things better. The new generation is so untempered by reality as to still think in terms of what they were taught in nursery rhymes : 'good verses evil'.

The world is chock for of conflicting and justified perspectives. An adult child becomes an adult adult when he learns about perspective and discovers the lie about ‘good verses evil’. Deja Vue Vietnam. Therefore we know from history that it will get more depressing. We even know that we will elect a president after George Jr who makes things even worse - because the 'big dic' attitude subverts intelligent thought and promoted childhood 'good verses evil' myths.

This is of course why the US has had allies like Stalin, Pinochet, Marcos, Saddam Hussein, and of course, Osama bin Laden.

So, if Hezbollah (Shiite) and Al Queda (Sunni) hate each other, which one is our ally?

aheh. Good question Rich.

Although it wasn't before, it is now a generally understood principle of US foreign policy that the enemy of our enemies is not necessarily our friend. I've heard that stated many times since 9/11 from all sides of the aisle.

Neither, the question doesn't even make sense. I never said 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', rather, 'he who aids my enemy, is my enemy'. My point was that it's pointless for an organization to feign friendship with someone, and then help another one try to kill them. Hezbollah seeks the complete destruction of Israel in direct violation of the U.N., they intentionally kill civilians and then hide among their own people to guarentee innocent deaths on their side for use as justification (this is defined as a war crime).

Actually, you were repeating Bush's statement of 'he who attacks my enemy is my friend', which is very similar to 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'.

I do not support the deliberate targeting of civilians.
I do not support the indiscrimnate bombing of civilians.

I expect insurgents to hide among civilian populations because this is what insurgents do, including insurgents who were our founding fathers and our current allies. If the Revolutionary War had occurred in the 1940's I would not have supported the British using Lancasters to bomb Philadelphia to get at George Washington.

Of course GW himself burned out entire Indian villages to get at 'insurgents'.

Read my original post again! #7. For the last time I said 'he who aids my enemy, is my enemy'. How are you turning that into 'he who attacks my enemy is my friend', or 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' over and over again!? Yeesh! :smack:

... which is exactly what the British were saying about the principle IRA supporter - America? That concept – no matter how it is rephrased - still remains a simplistic attitude of those who learned only from nursery rhymes. Welcome, instead, to a real world chock full of perspectives.

So if Iran's most despised enemy in 2000 was the Taliban, then Iran was our ally? But again, you remember that history? How then did a nation that could have been a friend instead become a despised enemy? Same question also applies to Vietnam. Simplist logic also got how many Americans killed in that "A Bright Shining Lie:"?

"he who aids my enemy, is my enemy" is for those whose knowledge comes from the Daily News or Rush Limbaugh. The world is far more interesting.

Well said DanaC. My thoughts exactly although I doubt you'll get much support from anyone who can't see clearly. ;)

Knowing Juniors habit to divide the world in good and bad and his limited alcohol damaged grey cell capacities, I'm not at all surprised.

I read that Condi Rice has great problems with her boss's approach to the Lebanon crises. She wants direct talks with Syria, but these are the bad guys so we won't talk to them. In the past heavy weights like Kissinger, Holbrooke, Baker, Shultz, Albright talked to them, but these times diplomacy is not an option, only pre-emptive wars. Just see what this has lead to...

Would now be a good time to launch into a rousing chorus of "Always look on the bright si-i-de of life. Ta da. ta da ta da ta da."

Makes you long for the simple days of mad hatters and tea parties and late, late rabbits.

I saw in a different post, Bri lamenting the fact that the worlds press apparently hates Americans and sees them as the 'bad guys'. This led to a discussion in which one of the conclusions drawn was that the world hated America when she was acting as policeman of the world.....and equally hates America when she refuses to do so. Therefore America cannot win.

I think that's wrong. I think this thread here shows pretty adequately why it is that so much of the world hates America's actions. If you simplify the world too much lo and behold your actions within that world do not have the simple effects expected.

And since the UK has been on all these misadventures, it would seem the rest of the world also hates the UK, and equally as harshly, no?

No?

Well then it must be a little more... complex than that.

Actually, Undertoad, you arent far wrong. Many groups who previously held the UK in some esteem now have something approaching contempt for us. Why? Because, as you say, we have been with the States on many of these misadventures. We have burned up most of our global credibility in Burning Bush's Shock and Awe Show. Now we're intent on jettisoning what's left of the goodwill we're afforded whilst we scrabble along besides the States providing a verbal echo to everythin Bush says.

Next time you see Blair and Bush together on a newsfeed, listen carefully. You'll hear a high pitched keening noise. That's us, the Great British public, weeping in shame.
"Yo Blair!" *cringe*

Thank you, DanaC.... I could'nt have put it better.

While I can swallow my gall that Blair has subverted labour away from socialism, I truelly hang my head in shame in respect of his foreign policy.

He does make me ashamed to be a Brit.

That subversion of labor you refer to is one of the best things I think he's done. Look at the situation in France, that's where socialism will take you and further.

Indeed, Casey Jones....


Good food (roast British lamb) good wine and railways that run on time.


And a government that responds to the people, not the corporates.

Jay, care to join me in a rousing round of The Internacionale?

"Oh Comrades come rally!
The last fight we will face!!
The Internacionale,
Unites the human race!"


I thankya...thankya, yes we're here all week.

Okay that was perhaps a touch too far. I wonder if UG turned purple when he read that?

God help us eh? Us forlorn and misguided socialists, with nothing better ahead of us, than a future that looks like France.

Why, if only we embraced naked capitalism, we could have a glorious country like America, where the citizens are free to fail and starve on their own terms if they don't have the sheer guts to succeed. Glory glory to that, amen.
America the beautiful, where the poorest have to choose between seeking medical assistance or buying a meal. Glory glory. Makes me drool just thinkin about it. Just think of the sheer scale of wealth available to so many people....and the only price is one paid by an unseen, unheard underclass.
Glory glory, hallelujah.

*waiting for the fireworks*

;)

When I compare the lifestyle of 'average' US citizens and that of 'average' Australian citizens, I count my blessings twice and then a couple more times just to be sure.

The level of poverty in the US is frightening for a country which is the 'world power' and yet the people of that country have no idea they're living in a fools paradise.

Of course, that's only my opinion, but it's pretty well supported by fact. The most important being that in Oz we have an unemployment rate of less than 6%. The minimum wage for an adult worker is over $15 in most industries, and our social services offer free health care for anyone who can't afford it.

I'm pretty sure I know which is the lucky country, and it's definitely not the world power.

*Nods*
The American dream would be really great if everyone in America got to dream it. Unfortunately vast swathes of the population live in back breaking poverty. Parents working 12-15 hour days (doing two minimum wage jobs) seeing nothing of their kids and still barely keeping the bailiffs from the door.

I have a friend in the States. He's an ardent republican, very patriotic, lived a good life, done it all right. Married the girl, worked all his life etc etc.When the latest baby was due, he cashed in his health insurance in order to be able to cover medical bills. I asked him what happens if you have an accident ? what happens if you get sick? He said,

"Well, I just drive real careful now. I stay away from sick people. I better not get sick, I can't afford to."

Choosing whether to have healthcare for parent or child? That seems wrong to me.

This reminds me of a documentary about living on the St.Andreas Fault. House prices are amongst the highest in the US, despite the danger of an enormous earthquake that can happen any day.

Houses for sale near LA under a mountain where 10 years ago a landslide killed 10 people were sold within days for collossal prices (sea view). One could see the mountain hanging over the houses...

A shrink was asked for this behavior and he said "Americans live in a constant denial"...

There appears to be a massive gaping hole in this story, since employer health insurance is pre-tax out of your paycheck, private health insurance is quarterly payments, and medical bills under insurance will never be higher than the deductable. There is no such thing as a medical savings account here. If he had insurance, and didn't make a ridiculous error such as taking a $5000 deductable, the insurance bills would inevitably be cheaper than the medical bills, and there's no way any sort of "cashing out" could improve his position.

Maybe you were thinking of his retirement fund. If you don't have health insurance, you can cash out your retirement early, for medical expenses, without penalty. That's if you DON'T have insurance. But you claim he did.

Oh, UT, let them have their fun. It makes them feel better.

The level of hatred in this thread is nearly palpable. It saddens me.

I can understand the hate when it comes to our foreign policy, but they can feel free to hoard all the "blessings" of State Socialism. If you don't want to risk being free don't immigrate here. We have a lot of work ahead of us separating connected Republicans from the government teat but let's not compound the problem.

They don't mention that if you need dialysis at 70 their 'health care' system lets you die. Not cost effective. Oh, and that bypass you needed three years ago? You've been bumped again. Sorry.

Hmmm, well if you float through highschool doing ok but nothing great, go to work at 19 because you want to be able to afford a car and your own appartment instead of taking out loans and assistance to pay university costs, and your biggest contribution to the system is stamping forms then guess what? You don't deserve the same quality of life as someone who takes the hard road for the first 30 years and puts off the car and parties and girlfriends/boyfriends and personal freedom in order to come out on top in the end.
Choose to be only average and you will be taken care of in an average manner.

Amen.

My 20 year old is planning his future. His vision at this point includes living in a room in the basement, eating his parents food, and playing video games for the rest of his life. He is chronically depressed, has no insurance, delivers pizzas part time, has a broken car, and flunked out of his first year of college.

I have been trying to impart the lesson of "do for yourself or die" lately. He has responded by beginning to self harm.

Life is difficult, as a rule.

Bashing Bush is soooo 2003.

Hey, Did anyone else catch the great Charlie Rose discussion on Iraq, Iran, the cease fire, diplomacy and military options with Richard Holbrook and Bill Kristol last night? It was terribly interesting and a discussion that should be much much more public. Charlie let them debate it out. pushed to clarify the rhetoric.

Both agree: Rumsfeld needs to go, now. Holbrook wants to devise a way out of Iraq civil war and regroup/strategize the enire region ASAP, Keep Afghanistan on the front burner, ramp up diplomacy, turn away from Rumsfeld's errors. Staying will do nothing but result in more US deaths and debt and is worse than the political embarassment of starting to pull out.
Kristol is not ready to give up and shift yet on Iraq, pushing for 30K more troops to stabilize Bagdad. Pulling out is a still worse outcome, embolding the enemy than staying.

http://www.charlierose.com/
they promise an online video soon.

Rumsfeld *and* Bush will go when the last possible dollar has been bled from public coffers, and not before. Haliburton should declare itself to be either a religion or a government any day now.

Nightline once did this stuff (Nightline now being too much like a Barbara Walter's interview).

Kristol has been calling for Rumsfeld's resignation for well over a year now. Interesting reason why: Rumsfeld is too attached to a failed strategy. Rumsfeld (just like McNamara) is a marvelous thinker. But just like McNamara, he is not able to admit his massive failures. Kristol said that even George Jr is starting to realize this.

The strategic concept that Rumsfeld inherited was flawed - although Kristol will not openly admit this (nor outrightly deny it). Kristol says Rumsfeld's own tactical objectives and how he has engaged those objectives is also flawed - because of Rumsfeld.

Notice troop increases that Kristol calls for. 40,000 troops in Iraq. And yet Holbrook uses lessons of the Balkans to demonstrate how many troops were really needed: 500,000 to 600,000.

Both men agree that the US will never put sufficient troops into Iraq. And both men agree that the consequences of total withdrawal will be disastrous. However these are same reasons for not withdrawing from Vietnam. Just like in Vietnam, the status quo is a formula for defeat - Holbrook repeatedly used the word untenable. And just like in Vietnam, both men agreed (by their silence) that neither has a workable solution outside of more troops.

Holbrook made one other point that I have heard previously - that raised an ear. From two UNPO reports in July: Stepping back to a more strategic perspective, Holbrook noted that every capital from Cairo to New Delhi is only one bomb away from total war. This region has never been this unstable. Although every potential hotspot is equally dangerous, Holbrook noted the one location that has a connection to most potential disputes: Iran.

What is the greatest challenge to America? China. Why? Because of a severe decline of US presence and influence throughout the world. What Holbrook did not say, and yet what should be obvious: China is simply doing what America once did to become so powerful, influential, and so welcome everywhere in the world.

Kristol, a founding member of Project for New American Century that in part defines US policy in terms of securing oil sources at all cost, often surprises by being more pragmatic. Holbrook has always been one of the most interesting strategic thinkers I have even heard. Remember, Holbrook got Milosevic to negotiate himself out of a job. When Wesley Clark tried to continue that task, Clark could not do it. Holbrook had to be recalled from retirement.

I did not realize how much I missed Charlie Rose until his heart attack in Paris - especially with the pathetic staff that replaced Koppel. Only other place to get any such analysis is George Stephanopolis' round table or Russert interviews. The discussion with Holbrook, Kristol, etc are hard to find and essential to understanding the world.

I wish Gingrich had been there. Gingrich is better than Kristol at grasping pragmatic realities. Maybe Gringrich could have defined an exit strategy - or at least define a strategic objective for Iraq. As both Holbrook and Kristol noted by their silence (and they danced around this issue), we don't even have a strategic objective in Iraq which is a first step to defeat - another lesson from Vietnam and Somolia. Another reason why the US (Nato) was so successful in the Balkans.

Appreciate the relations of senior staff. Rumsfeld is and has long been a loyal ally to Cheney. This is really a Cheney White House. Rumsfeld will not go without Cheney's specific approval. And Rumsfeld has inherited a failed strategic objective because that objective is the Cheney doctrine. Cheney depends heavily on Rumsfeld. The two are very loyal allies. Notice how even Condi Rice is extremely careful to no cross swords with these two men.

Holbrook stated that he believed there was no longer a possible military solution/strategy for Iraq. Kristol was the optimist, but you could see his sweat. We dont have the troops to pursue the current greatly expanded mission.

Shit. So which bad outcome is better? When do you lose a battle to win a war?

I was grasping to understand why each man thought we could not provide enough troops. I was struck - and I am not sure I got this right - that both agreed we neither have enough troops nor do we have the political will to put enough troops into Iraq. If I understood what they were saying, they both agreed fully on that point. Welcome to the Vietnam conundrum. The one thing I remember about Vietnam was the despair even as "The Whole World is Watching" in Chicago and again at Kent State. We have not yet achieved that despair. As Holbrook continued to comment, ie Kirkuk, that despair may be approaching quickly. I think he exaggerated. But it is Holbrook which means we must pay attention.

It was one of the reasons why we so need someone like Clinton back in office. He saw that problem in Somalia and had the balls to avoid that quagmire before we got in too deep. Most people have little grasp of how Clinton so successfully avoided quagmire in both the Balkans and Somalia. Too many would not see how close we came (or could have come) to disaster in both situations. But what is most interesting - who was doing so much of the strategic thinking? Holbrook.

Holbrook was a master at using the carrot and stick - skillfully used military force as a negotiating tool. Did not use the military as a solution - but only one tool in getting Milosevic to negotiate himself out of a job. It was (only) part of that Bugs Bunny reference.

Add to the despair, this from The Economist of 12 Aug 2006: Instability and violence is only increasing everywhere - even in Basara. Even in the US, logical thought is being replaced by interpretation based upon feelings and facts generated from propaganda. Deja Vue Vietnam where we met the enemy and he is us.

Ueber-neocon Kristol from the Weakly Standard wants war with Iran, NOW!

He predicted that US troops would be welcomed by the Iraqi's with flowers and mirre.

Reagan had these neocons blabbering to him also, but he had the guts to negotiate with Gorbachov when the chance was there. If the world was according the neocons there would be still a Cold War around...

Kristol and his gang need to STFU, NOW!

tw, refer back to my post on why I didn't answer your questions. Since then I have been doing more research both Hezbollah and Hamas but the differences were not of the sort that changed my opinions. Most of them involve what group of people they are trying to wipe off the face of the Earth and their area of operation. Both are extemely vocal in their wish to kill all Americans and this has only changed from time to time to keep the U.S. from halting aid. In fact, now more than ever I think that both groups need to be destroyed. Any group that states genocide as its reason for existance should be removed from power no matter where in the world they operate.

The neoconservative agenda needs to be challenged and called out. That was what was refreshing about the program. Even though I do not agree with Kristol, I do feel that both he, Holbrook and Rose are ultimately on my side. (I'm thinking he would frown on my being "honor killed" or acid doused for daring to contradict my husband or father's religion. ) I am more interested in challenging and changing his suggested tactics than shutting him out. (this desire also countering the neocon playbook)

We need to get a lot smarter about this.

The neocons have highjacked US foreign policy with all the consequences now being seen in the ME. Cheney, rumsfeld, Feith, Ledeen, Abram, Wolfowitz, Perl are calling the shots with their Pax Americana and turning the ME into a powder keg which will set the world on fire. They are on your side, but at what cost?

Read this Clean Break Document. Strategy for a Greater Israel. Look who wrote the document and all becomes clear.

As hard is it might be you probably need to give him an ultimatum and a timeline for either moving into his own apartment or returning to school. The longer he sits around the harder it will be to change later on. I suffer from chronic depression myself and it's nearly impossible to make tough decisions it that state. By taking the burden on yourself and forcing him to confront himself you, in a sense, relieve him of the pressure holding him down and give him a better chance to take control of himself.

You have been visiting too many extremist sources. Hamas, in particular, has long had a strong 'hands off Americans' policy. AIPAC will do everything possible to obfuscate that fact. But again, can you see through the fog of propaganda to find a structure?

The Middle East has long been a complicated morass of so many with different agendas. Whereas bin Laden was an American ally, he then became an American enemy sometime after an event that changed the world: 1 Aug 1990.

Appreciate, for example, why the USS New Jersey off the coast of Lebanon did so much damage to American influence and respect in the Middle East. Appreciate why US Marines were attacked in their Beirut barracks. Why would those who talk to Americans then attack those same Americans (and why those Marines were not allowed to load their guns)? Again, nothing ‘black and white’ about it. And yet so many Americans will proclaim with hatred and a political agenda that *they* were always trying to kill Americans in Lebanon.

Who was spying for America in Iraq in the 1990s? Syria. Again, in a world of 'black and white', you might deny this reality. But again, the Middle East is fabulously complex. To simplify it for the cannon fodder, some (ie AIPAC) will proclaim repeatedly that Hezbollah and Hamas want to kill Americans. If they say it enough, it then is confused with facts. Instead, we cut through those lies and propaganda to find reality.

Same reason why Ho Chi Minh, a strong American ally, somehow became the hated enemy. Propaganda again hyping hate to the cannon fodder. Don't be cannon fodder. Keep digging; keep learning. You are now doing what is necessary for a minimal grasp of this fabulously complex region that we stuck our nose into. This quagmire has sucked us in by our nose because too many Americans blindly saw the world only in 'black and white' - exactly like Vietnam. Too many Americans are such cannon fodder as to say, “Rush says what has to be said”. An informed person knows otherwise – can separate propaganda from reality and from their real intentions.

For example, an informed person back in 2002 could obviously see that Saddam was never a threat to America. That Saddam had absolutely no interest in conflict with America. That Saddam had been doing everything possible to be an American ally – until completely blindsided by his Kuwait mistake. Meanwhile so many Americans knew otherwise; facts be damned.

The world did not change on 11 September. The world changed 1 Aug 1990. Understanding the complexity and a complete reversal even in American public attitudes is necessary to appreciate why that date is so important.

Kristol started with what looked like it would be a tirade against liberals, and then eventually backed into a centrist type discussion. Once the Bugs Bunny agenda had been settled, then Kristol returned to a type of Kristol who is more interesting - without his political agenda. Same type of Kristol was an early promoter for the removal of Rumsfeld - because he also provided reasons with his declaration.

Holbrook also made an interesting comment about being on such good terms with Gingrich and with Kristol's father. I don't think it was an idle comment which might be why Kristol started with a touch of venom. But again, the show was an hour. It takes that long to discuss any minor aspect of the Middle East - which is why short posts on this topic are so often nothing more than propaganda tirades. Which is why Nightline is now a flawed program.

Which mistake most likely was emphasized by the fact that Saddam talked to the US Ambassador Glaspie a week before the Kuwait invasion and informed her about it. She clearly said that the Kuwait issue was not associated with America.

transcript:

Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptab le?

Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles).

As tw says, keep digging and you'll learn that nothing is as it seems...

Irving Kristol's motive in promoting a global American crusade is not to expand America's democratic ideology, since that is now officially defunct, but simply to expand America's power, along with his own power as the chief theorist and architect of this adventure. Indeed, now that they’ve given up even the pretense of the noble beliefs that they have loudly professed for the last several decades, what else is there?

It did for the neocons. Neoconservatism went into something of a slump after the demise of the U.S.S.R. because the U.S. had lost its ideological rival and main reason for international crusading; and that the September 11th attack, by forcing America back into the international arena in a more active and expansive role than ever, is the fulfilment of the neocons' deepest needs, particularly their need for power.