750 trucks per day into Gaza before Hamas was elected. All they have to do is say they want peace and they will become prosperous merely by location. Israel would love to be a partner in peace and prosperity.

They can build missiles or they can build tractors. It's completely up to them.

There is very little that anyone can say positive about Hamas.

I have heard that from Israel also, that their goal is the complete destruction of the Palestinian people. The radicals on both sides want mutual destruction. The sad part, there are LOTS of Palestinians, and also Israelis, who truly want peace. I seem to remember when Clinton was office, they were making headway. You seem to want to only blame Hamas, but the Israeli govt has just as much blame. It is the Zionist religion causing problems as much as Hamas.

Again, I really believe we should stop all funding to Israel. I'm hoping President Obama can help broker some kind of peace treaty.

That is not the official stance of the Israeli government. It is the official stance of Hamas, the current government of the Palestinian People. You can't continue to put radical beliefs and statements by minority extremists on the government as a whole.

The fact that al qaeda has been able to recruit more people than they would have otherwise. That is pretty much agreed upon by most people. Our govt may not have been liked very well before the Iraq war in certain parts of the Middle East, but our credibility in most parts of the ME has since tanked with a majority of the people over there. That isn't saying the people hate us as a people, but they hate our govt's politics with regard to them. We have been meddling in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries for a hundred years. They don't like it. Now we have waged a war against a country that did not attack us. We have used torture and humiliation against their people, many of whom were not really terrorists. We have held people for years, with no access to legal representation or a trial. Those things have done more to help al qaeda than Osama bin Laden could have dreamed of doing on his own.

Can you honestly say that you would not feel hate for another country if they did those things to you or your country?

I wasn't talking about those groups of people. Those situations are very different from the one we are in now. You cannot compare them, it's like comparing apples and oranges.

Citation needed

The bulk of the aid started, along with military aid to Egypt, during the 1979 peace negotiations. Without the aid, Israel had no motivation to give up the Sinai peninsula, with its oil, and its strategic military positions from which Israel had been attacked several times. But, you know, whatever.

It is the pre- 1967 borders, when Israel took over the West Bank and Gaza.

There are some extremists in the Israeli govt who want this. Do they all? Probably not. But to think there aren't some is gullible. Zionist thought is to completely take over the country.

Then you should have no problem finding a citation.

If they did it to my corrupt, terroristic government? Boo fuckin' hoo. If they screwed up the occupation period and allowed my country to be run by thugs? Unacceptable, but if left to pick sides I know where I'm going.

It is not. Situation much worse in Vietnam. We invaded. We waged war. Along they way we burned villages. We screwed up, and it led to the deaths of millions. Where are the Vietnamese terrorists?

Hell, where are the Cambodian terrorists? You google "Cambodian terrorists" and the result is Did you mean: canadian terrorists ...that's bloody hilarious.

It was on Frontline a couple of years ago. I don't remember the name of the program, but you can go online to pbs.org/frontline and watch any of their shows. They are all available online.

It doesn't matter how it started, I'm talking about the situation now, today. If we quit funding them and started brokering a peace treaty, along with other countries (both Middle Eastern and European), maybe they would be forced to work it out eventually.

[quote=Undertoad;529062]Then you should have no problem finding a citation.[quote]

good grief. Do you not watch commentators on news channels? General consensus among many people is we have made terrorism worse, not better. Do all people think that? Of course not. I'm not going to look for citations right now, but if you really want me to I will another time. You could just google it yourself.

Well, we took over the prison where Saddam tortured people, and then we commenced to humiliate and torture the people as well. We have turned their country into a battleground for terrorists for the past 6 years. Thousands of people have been displaced because of us, and over 100,000 have died, many of them children. If we just HAD to go and remove Saddam, then we should have allowed the Iraqi people to have control over their own country and their own destiny, and just stayed to help them rather than to dictate to them and occupy them. Maybe things would have turned out differently, for us and them. But we didn't. We screwed this up in every conceivable way possible.

It is the same in that respect. But in every other way it isn't. For one thing, the world is much more global now than it was then. It is much easier for Islamic terrorists to move around now. They are well funded and trained. Islamic terrorist organizations already existed before we invaded Iraq and they had been waging jihad for years before we went in, and they had already attacked us twice, here, and in various other places around the globe, in addition to attacking other western countries. We in turn attacked a country that had nothing to do with the attack against us. The Middle East is an entire region that is connected. We have been meddling in the affairs of the Middle East for decades. We have propped up dictators and supported coups in different countries, and we have supported Israel in their fight against Palestine. We have bases in Saudi Arabia on sacred ground. So, no, it is not at all the same situation.

HA!

It is not the official policy of the Israeli government. Their solution is the 2 State Solution and they are waiting for Hamas to agree to their right to exist as a country. Extremists and Ziontists do not run the Israeli government nor do they control the Army.

I have seen more than one documentary/interview with members of Hamas where they have said they would agree to the 2 state solution if Israel agreed to the pre-1967 borders. ummm, lots of members of the Israeli govt are Zionists.

http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=529003&postcount=1
 

Perhaps not.
Peace rules as polls close in Iraq
Only time will tell. Also, the United States did not start a war against the country of Iraq.

Semantics. We killed their people and broke their country. We have some good news don't ruin it with self-deception.

*nods* We helped them tear down one brand of tyranny and then allowed another to rise in its place. In Saddam's Iraq you could die for many things. Political activism, trade unionism, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, being Kurdish. Rarely did people die for being un-Islamic. Rarely were women dragged from the streets and beaten for an accidental breach of some extremist sect's own conception of Islamic dress code.

In large sections of Iraq women are living amidst a Taliban-style gender panic. Fury and fear of female licentiousness.

To butcher a Franz Fanon quote: wars of national survival increase the central authority of the father within society.

Defeat in war is the ultimate emasculation. The response is rarely pleasant for the female half of the population.

Look at it this way, at least under Saddam you could play soccer in the olympics for his brother and have no worries.

And let's no forget about thos pesky Kurds.

Hamas attempts to reconcile. I am not sure this is going to help. But it does sound like a similar tactic of getting the Israeli's hit them with a hammer again and gain sympathy from the international press.

Gaza Militants Launch Rockets Into Israel

FEBRUARY 1, 2009, 7:49 A.M. ET

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123348818069836725.html

I consume news as a hobby. Being unemployed, I watch approximately 8 hours per day of daytime cable news alternating between CNN, Fox, and MSNBC; listen to Dennis Miller's 3-hour radio talk show almost every day; and read scores of stories on the net via news aggregators. My opinion is that al Qaeda recruited easily in Iraq because they became the umbrella organization for terrorism there, as our presence infuriated a radical minority in Iraq and attracted 40-50% foreign fighters from other countries. We then kicked their ass nine ways from Sunday, with the assistance of the Iraqi people and especially trbal leaders and clerics. And now they are unable to recruit. al Qaeda is a toothless monster outside and does not seem as able to recruit as they were ten years ago, at least judging from their ability to carry out attacks worldwide.

So when I ask for a cite, I'm not being argumentative; I just believe that you're talking out of your ass, but I'm giving you the opportunity to back up your words and prove me wrong. This is how I for one would like it to work in the Current Events/Politics side of the Cellar.

I respect you for getting the numbers right. Here's a "60 Minutes" exchange in 1996:

Bold mine. Sanctions preferable? You could make a good case. The world preferred them. Hussein didn't mind; he built palaces with the corrupt oil-for-food money, and when there were people dying, he just dug mass graves for them. Containment was easier and sure was cheaper.

Unless all of Saudi Arabia is sacred, our bases were just on "ground". And BTW we left in 2003.

I think there is a HUGE difference. But, I'll let it go since we are celebrating :)

I said this many times before but no one listens. Politicians are liars. We acknowledge this in the United States but when an Iranian or Hamas leader lies to get public support, no one can accept it.


Though, I think this is an over simplistic view on the situation. There are many more forces than this.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1035414.html

Another source:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24235665/

Hell I'll just google it for you:
http://www.google.com/search?client=...=Google+Search

Now lets look at this from a logical standpoint. Hamas is dependent on the Palestinian population's support. We can greatly assume that both Israelis and Palestinians want peace on their terms. So, if a peace can be reached that the Palestinian population accepts, Hamas will be forced to accept as well. So technically, even if Hamas is lying about the 1967 borders, which could be possible, it won't matter if the vast majority of Palestinians accept a truce because they will kick Hamas out.

This is an over-simplistic view though. The situation is not as simple as "Both sides agree to peace and then it will magically happen".

You have forgotten where Hamas gets its support, Iran. Where do you think all that cash they have been handing out comes from.

And that is awesome. It doesn't negate all the massive mistakes we made up until very recently. If we had done things correctly, we could have had the same results years ago, at much less cost, and with much less human sacrifice.

We did not start a war against the country of Iraq? Really? What would you call it then? We bombed the crap out of Iraq. We took over the country. We brought in contractors from OUR country to do all the work. We hired American workers to work for them. We've had soldiers going into people's homes and searching them. We imposed curfews on the people. We took over a prison where Saddam Hussien tortured people, imprisoned Iraqis and others there, and then proceeded to humiliate and torture them. We have been fighting over there for 6 years. In fact, we decided to fight the war on terrorism there, in Iraq, so we wouldn't have to fight it here, according to Bush anyway. Before we went there, there was no terrorism in Iraq. So how is that not a war against Iraq?

Let me ask you something. If some country, say China, came to the United States and did all of those things, do you think the people of this country would not think that was a war against our country and our people?

Yeh, we could have left it up to the UN too. Oh wait we tried that.

Yes, I probably would since we are a democracy, not really a valid analogy to me.

I'm not talking out of my ass. There has been a lot of debate whether our going into Iraq increased al qaeda's ability to recruit. I am of the opinion that it has. And according to National Intelligence Estimate that came out in 2006, it has.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0925/dailyUpdate.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092301130.html
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat..._effect_1.html
http://www.nowpublic.com/iraq_war_in...st_attacks_600
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...642825,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3756650.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005...8/iraq.alqaida

What does that have to do with the war we're fighting now?
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

How many Iraqis have been displaced... 4 million
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/0...am-report.html

So we should just take over every country that has dictators? Or where there are human rights violations? Or genocide? Are you saying we should be the world's police? Because let's be clear about what you are saying we should do here. What are you saying we should be, or do? Should we invade Darfur next? What about China?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...m_Saudi_Arabia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64th_Ai...itionary_Group

Why is it OUR JOB to police the world? What if the world doesn't want us policing it?

So let me get this straight, you think that the United States has the right to go into any sovreign country that is not a democracy, and take over, so we can spread democracy? That is not very democratic.

Thank you; I believe it now, well cited.

We should act in our interests, as does every nation on the planet.

Because the entire planet knows how America acts -- and is all right with it. That's why. We're in the century-old habit of restoring order and leaving, and it's pretty clear to everyone who looks that this is basic to our political structure. Nobody in charge of a nation gets the creeps when our troops hit the beach nearby, or anywhere, for that matter. And frankly, no objections that matter to the world have been raised, either. The bad actors, yeah, they complain -- but nobody thinks the assholes should have it their way. The people who cheerlead for the assholes and bad actors within states are in America invariably the American Left, and this is considered the behavior of retards by everyone not of the American Left.

Reeeally? So tell me: just how are despotic oligarchies (most of the nondemocracies are so ruled) maintained, and democracy doesn't occur? That's right, it's by the oligarchies' naked force. That, sugarpop, is what's not very democratic.

Remove the oligarchy's naked force and thus its ability to impede the development of democratic republican government, and you've got a good thing going, do you not? With the oligarchy eviscerated and neutralized, can they impede a democracy arising? No, they can't, and that's fine. It's amazing how many just plain Cellarites can't wrap their brains around this concept -- they are obsessed with trying to hit me over the head with straw-man arguments. Well, straw-man arguments are just that -- they're fakes. I annoy the hell out of these people when they find I don't do their fakes and aren't impressed by them. They can't grasp that I know better than that sophomoric stuff like Rich's -an addition to a quote box. Stunts like that are not reinforcements to your argument, Rich. How is it you didn't see that, Rich? Is it because you think Left? Looks that way to me!

You have to be a special kind of subadult to stay Left, I find. The Left wants you both immature and dependent. None for me, thanks.

So far, your thinking looks heavily clouded. The Left does that to otherwise good people, and the way into clear light and clear thinking is to research what the American conservative periodicals are saying. Personally, I resent the American Left, and think them foolish. It also amuses me that they prove their foolishness so regularly and abundantly.

I think you only got to 9 on the condescending meter there UG. Have another go and see if you can do better. lol

Seriously though, sugarpop has a good point, and unlike yourself, I happen to agree that it's not the US's job to 'police' the world.

It's rather sad that in some conflicts the US has chosen to inject themselves, yet in others they choose not to. I wonder what they criteria is for the US to stand up for democracy and shout/shoot down genocide and so called oligarchies? Would you care to tell me why the US didn't intervene in Rwanda and continues not to depose Mugabe? Surely those genocides are equal to anything Hussein ever committed?

And are not these all unconscionable offenses? Are these not the great sources of mankind's misery? Do they not stink in the nostrils of God and man? I say they are and they do. It's because I'm a human being. It's because I appreciate governance that is moral, rather than Orwellian.

You?

The best and most secure removal of despots occurs from within, not by the invasion by external forces attempting to impose their own brand of democracy.

Examples like:

The labor movement in Poland and the intelligentsia movement in the Czech Republic

The yellow revolution in the Phillipines.

The rose revolution in the Republic of Georgia.

The purple revolution in the Ukraine.

The end of apartheid in South Africa

A rainbow of relatively peaceful transition from despot to democracy!

Quite right, Ali, and it drives me to a fury. Quibbles over exactly what is the national interest always muddle the signal that we, or anyone, send. I put it down to the world's imperfection, and make such peace with it as I can. But there's always the hope of unsheathing justice's sword sometime later.

Oh well, I guess maybe some day we'll all know...or not. :)

No arguments there, redux; these have all the good features you mentioned.

But, for the people of freedom, there's really no odds at all in who actually removes the oppressor, so long as the oppressor be removed. Sometimes it is peaceful and civilized, excellent, good for the common weal. Sometimes the oppressor puts up a fight, and then it's the artillery that presents the "arguments of kings." And things get done the hard way -- because the oppressor has too much of a taste for behaving in his sociopathic way.

This is something else that has to stay in view: in the small, shallower talent pools of Third World governance, a highly motivated sociopath can rise to head of state. Sociopathic rulers preside over sociopathic states, whereupon everything in the jurisdiction goes to shit. Where's the reason to let that happen? I've never heard of one that I thought was worthwhile. Prosperity is not found under sociopathic, all-powerful rulers. Prosperity is found where capital P Power is not the be-all, end-all, and where power's scope is strictly limited in both area and time.

I'm here to say that hard way or easy way, it must get done. Otherwise the body politic suffers from tumors, to say nothing of zits.

See, this is why Aliantha and I often disagree but never fight: she's got this knack. Me, seriously, not so much.

And from Mr Yon.

Because we have very little international interest in those places. Same reason we are not in Darfur. We learned our lesson in Somalia. Hell, even the Europeans can't police their own backyard. Why did we go into Bosnia? You have to pick and choose. You are right, I totally agree, we cannot and should not go in and police the world. Nor should we lay our lives down for these places that are just total shit. But don't turn around and ask us why we will not come and help anymore, because hopefully those days are over. Countries want us to help only when it is their own self interest. Hey, that sounds just like the US.

It sounds like everyone really. I think everyone will be pulling their heads in over the next few years anyway. Who can afford to go to war atm?

Sorry to interrupt, but the English Nazi in me demands that I correct those of you who believe that the USA is a democracy. It is not...yet.

The United States as established is a federal republic...the rule of law, not a democracy which is the rule by a majority.

Here is a nice video to explain the difference.

Thank you and goodnight.

You be highly mistaken if you believed that any of us don't know what we formed and why we dumped you.
:D

Because, it wouldn't be profitable for corproate America. We are so self-righteous, but if another country acted the same way we do, we would be all like, how dare they. They must be destroyed.

Our going around trying to "spread democracy" is no different from what Russia did, or Germany. And the truth is, if a country IS democratic, but unfriendly to our government or corporate America, we fund coups and install dictators. Hey, as long as they give us what we want. Only in the end, these things always come back and bite us in the ass, which is exactly what happened with Saddam Hussien, and also Osama bin Laden.

Yes, they do, and we should act on behalf of those people. But not with war, and not under US military control. There are other ways. If there needs to be military action, it should be done by NATO, with cooperation of the world and the UN.

yea yea, I know. But we have this need to spread democracy, because we are supposedly a democratic people.

Nope, thats not what I'm saying, not by a long shot.

Please elaborate then. I'm interested in your opinion.

I honesty don't think there is any "one" answer to that question. Where is the line in a world of gray? I dunno. I don't believe there is any clear equation to the question. I think each situation needs to be evaluated on its own set of circumstances. It would be convenient if there were, but there isn't.

Hamas leader praises Iran's help in Gaza 'victory'

That'll help the situation - NOT.

How did I forget that?

Completely agree. If a country is ready to become a democracy, they can do it themselves.

Because it is a fact completely ignored in this situation. Not only ignored, it is down right denied. The fact that Iran is the fuel of the fire needs to be repeated hourly.

Yes. Iran supports Hamas. US supports Israel.

Kind of like a mini cold war...

Sorry, that dog does not hunt. You are supporting Hamas and it is obvious in your posts. Iran does not admit to their support of Hamas, even though the wold knows that is bull fucking shit. SO do you support Hamas? Please tell us where you stand on this issue. NOW.

There is no doubt where the US stands. Fuck Hamas.

What is obvious is that I do not support Israel. That does not equate to being pro-Hamas.

Come on bro. Don't blow smoke up our skirts. You have not said a damm thing that went against a Hamas position since you have been on here.

Why would I say anything against Hamas besides showing you guys that I can be anti-Hamas as well. 95% of this forum is very pro-Israel so I'm never going to argue against Hamas on here. I have argued against pro-Hamas with many other people. Their stance doesn't make any more sense to me, hence why I always say that BOTH sides lead to this problem and that it is a power problem, not moral.

Hmm - I'm with Ali - Parking Lot!

I don't buy it. You have defended the actions of Hamas repeatedly.

So? I will defend numerous groups I don't support.

Good enough. I respect that. Defend the terrorist organizations. I would be interested in your defense.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

None of us are there. We are all outsiders to this bloody mess. The news we watch is skewed (whichever direction) and the situation so mind-numbingly complicated with politics, personality, vengeance and power (on both sides) that we cannot hope to have a clear picture until the history books are being written in fifty years time, or a hundred.

It is good that pierce will come here and state the other side of the argument. Were it not for Pierce and a couple of others, we would only see one side here. That cannot help anybody's understanding. In such a fraught setting, there are no clean hands. All we are doing here is arguing gradations of blood and dirt. Those who are truly friends to Israel should hear what the Palestinians are screaming. Those truly friend to Palestine, should listen to Israeli cries.

It is not yet time for them to hear each other. Those of us outside and removed have a duty to hear them both.




And that really is the last thing I post in this thread.

Can't hear the Palestinians because Hamas is blocking them out with their noise.