The [other] Bush Doctrine

[boxcar]

While Bush may enjoy wide support in the polls (which incidentally is on the decline, and I believe it will continue to slide), a large number of Repubs are quite disguntled about how Bush has man[handled] his own domestic agenda. In short, he has allowed the DemRats to so badly dilute his policies that all the bills he has signed into law now have the look and feel of Democratic legislation. Unlike Clinton, who vetoed more bills than anyone would care to count during his two terms, Bush appears to be the kind of unprincipled politician who never likes to say "no" to a situation that calls for "bipartisanship" by comprimising _away_ most of his policies. Generally speaking, being wobbly-kneed when it comes to domestic issues is one thing because our national security usually isn't at risk (however his borders policy with the Nat'l Guard and his ill-conceived amnesty bill for illegal aliens are certainly two valid exceptions); but poor leadership in the international arena is quite another because sending the wrong signals to the wrong nations could lead to unintended dire consequences.

If I were the leader of Taiwan right now, I would seriously be thinking about how to quickly become the 8th offical nuclear power in the world in order to deter mainland China from crushing me into dust particles some day. After seeing how the Bush administration waffles back and forth with Israel at the ebb and flow of every political tide, my confidence in the U.S. would at best be shaky. (I suppose, though, Israel has one thing to be thankful for because most political pundits believe that Israel is already a nuclear power, even though she has consistently denied this. I just hope the pundits are are calling the right shots on this one for Israel's sake!)

Soon after the Passover Massacre, Bush and Powell voiced support for Israel and, of course, accompanied with the usual condemnation rhetoric for Palestinian terrorism. But then when Israel sent its tanks into Ramallah and surrounded Arafat's headquaters, the U.S. joins in with that lustrious neo-communistic organization known as the U.N. and casts its vote with the Nat'l Security Council demanding that Israel withdraw its tanks from the West Bank. Such EQUIVOCAL support the U.S. has for Israel! The Bush Admin. has taken hypocrisy to a new all-time low!

It's perfectly okay for the U.S. to defend itself from future terrorist attacks by vigorously prosecuting a war on terrorism, including on governments who support terrorism, but when the tiny nation of Israel, who is literally surrounded by hundreds of millions of its Arab enemies, does the same, the U.S. tells Sharon to use "restraint" and "think about consequences", etc.

And how long has the U.S., with respect to the Mideast Crisis, been acting as a dog chasing its tail? The Bush Administration isn't the only one who is deluded. You would think that with one administration after another having for all these years spewed forth our inane and ineffective peace rhetoric like a broken record, that someone would have noticed by now that our diplomatic approach isn't working, has never worked, and will never work!

But what makes this particular time in history so critically important for the U.S. and Israel is that the terrorists are actually WINNING their war. They are the ones making all the gains! (Even in our second phase of the war in Afghanistan, we're really not doing all that swell, since far more of the enemy is being allowed to escape than what we're killing or capturing!) Like animals, the terrorists "smell" _fear_ in America's Mideast policy, and this has only emboldened the Palestinian terrorists.

Bush needs to find courage that, perhaps, he didn't even think he owned if he's truly concerned about preserving our freedom in this country and Israel's security. He needs to embark on a Mideast policy that is totally consistent with the Doctrine on Terrorism that he so clearly laid out for Americans in his last State of the Union message.

The next thing he has to do is wake up and smell the coffee. He needs to take count of "all" his true friends in the Middle East. That shouldn't take him very long since the U.S. has only one ally there -- Israel. I believe that ALL the other governments in that region (maybe with the exception of Turkey) are America's unoffical enemies. Yes, they say nice things to our faces in diplomatic meetings, but behind our backs they conspire and plot and plan about how one day they can put the knife in our back! Therefore, once and for all, the Bush Admin. need not worry about upsetting or offending our friends in the region because these "friends" are only a figment of
of the Administration's imagination.

If Bush were ever to get past this mythical friends hurdle, he'd be able to embark on a fresh, new diplomatic path -- one that I believe would be very effective. He'd be able to finally formulate a Mideast policy that would be _consistent_ with his own Doctrine on Terrorism.

The first thing I would do (if I were Bush) is demand that Arafat put an immediate end to all terrorist activities. It matters not anymore if he's directly behind them (which I believe he is) or is indirectly behind them, or whether he can't or won't control the extremist elements. These would become mute points. The only thing that would matter is that Arafat is the HEAD of the Palestinians. Bush would warn Arafat in advance that his failure to control terrorism within a very short, stipulated period of time would result in the breaking off of diplomatic relations with the Palestinians until such time as they elect a NEW head or Arafat actually puts an end to terrorism! Believe me when I tell you that that kind of shot fired over Arafat's bow would be heard 'round the world!

(Remember: since virtually all Arab governments hate us anyway, and since most of them believe we're already heavily biased toward Israel, what more do we have to lose!?)

The next diplomatic step Bush should take is to try to convince the U.N. and all our European "allies" (such as they are) that it's in their best interests and in the interest of world peace that they, too, break off all diplomatic relations with any nation or political entity that harbors or supports terrorists, i.e. Arafat. We'd probably be able to get at least a few states to speak out and to cooperate with us. Even a small number would be cause for great concern for Arafat and his thugs.

Naturally, before Bush would make such a bold pronouncement to Arafat, we'd have a fleet of ships in the Mediterranean and in the Persian Gulf, which would serve as a warning and deterrent against an Arab oil embargo -- something I don't believe the Arabs would risk anyway.

Assuming Arafat doesn't curb his terrorist friends, the next thing Bush should adivse Sharon to do is to build a "buffer zone" between Isreal and the West Bank. If the Palestinians retaliate, then Israel should offically declare war on the Palestinians. No doubt many civilian lives would be lost -- the vast majority of them on the Palestinian side without doubt. But nonetheless Israel has a right to protect herself, and the RESPONSIBILITY for all Palestinian lives lost would fall squarely on the Palestinians' elected leader's head. As the old adage goes, "One bad apple can ruin the entire barrel." There's an awful lot of truth to that.

I cannot understand for the life of me where it written that just because some state or political entity elected its leaders that the U.S., or any other country for that matter, has some kind of moral or legal obligation to carry on diplomatic relations with any political entity that has gone bad -- that is a threat to world security!

Meanwhile, because the Arab world understands and respects power and force, I don't believe a gazillion Arabs would rise up against Isreal. To the contrary. The Arab leaders would quietly go about their business -- no doubt mumbling to themselves, but they would know they're no match for the U.S. or Israel!

It has not escaped my notice this past week how many political pundits have actually entertained the feasibility of all "all out war" between Israel and the Palestinians. (One pundit actually used the "N" word, too!) The very conservative and reserved Tony Snow on Fox News today raised this very issue with one succinct, pithy question that went along these lines -- to paraphrase:

Have there ever been _successful_ and _lasting_ peace negotiations without one party being a WINNER of a war?

As stated previously, I can't think of any. And it seems that other people are starting to realize this, also.

In closing, Bush himself needs to find his own moral compass. He needs to come to the realization that if by his Mideast policies this country is perceived as being weak, undecisive and equivocal, he is putting our country at a great security risk because our enemies will swarm upon us and Israel as the locusts did upon ancient Egypt. Bush is playing a very, very dangerous diplomatic game. Someone really needs to remind him of this in short order.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

Although Clinton vetoed a lot we got almost all of the "Contract For America" by him and what does he do? Why he takes all the credit, of course. As long as Bush meets the Dems halfway he has successfully taken away their agenda and clearing the way for us to have the clear majority in Congess that we, yes, us, Repubs, need to get more tax reform and to get this countries "moral compass" restored. I can't fully disagree with you, but I hope what I just stated is truly what's going on.

[boxcar]

The problem, Lefty, is that Bush doesn't understand what a _mutual_ comprimise means. He hasn't met the Dems halfway at all -- he's met them around 75% of the way, as the Dems have succeeded in removing the teeth from _all_ of Bush's domestic policies. If I had time, I'd enumerate them all for you, but I don't.
Furthermore, I'm in no mood after listening to Bush's drivel today regarding Arafat. Bush sickens me. He told the world that he doesn't consider Arafat to be a terrorist. That the situation with Arafat and the Al-Queda is compltely different. That Arafat "agreed" to the Mitchell and Tenet plans, etc., etc. etc. Where has Bush been keeping his head all these years -- or for that matter for the last 18 months!?

What a gutless, spineless wimp we have for a president. I'm ashamed to call him "my president". I shudder to think about the path, upon which hypocritical cowardly doubletalker could be leading us.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

Well, I don't think he's a wimp at all and knows he has to "tread" most carefully in the Middle East. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. How far along do you think we would be if Gore was Prez? Now there's an, uh, Alpha Male?

[boxcar]

Well, Lefty, if treading "most carefully" means he has to have one standard for terrorism for the U.S., while holding Israel to an entirely different one, then I want no part of him. I'd have more respect for him if he just came right out in full support of the terroristic strategy the Palestinians are employing against Israel. Hell, why not just ship arms to the Palestinians and tell them to drive Israel into the sea and be done with it!? Then he wouldn't have worry about treading carefully anymore, would he?

He is just like his daddy -- a fence straddler who stands for everything, which means he stands for nothing at all.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

After Colin Powell's interview with Fox News this A.M., it is now crystal clear that the U.S. fully intends to sell out Israel. After parroting Bush's "reasons" for why Arafat isn't a terrorist, he stated later in the interview that the Saudi "peace plan" was a "good" one. This view represents a big upgrade from earlier comments by Bush and other senior Admin. officials, who called the Saudi plan merely a "vision" for Mideaset peace.

So, now what we have here is a three ring circus with all three "partners" for Mideast peace talking past one another, since it isn't likely at all that Israel would ever withdraw to its pre-1967 borders. Nor is it likely that Israel would ever agree to a "right to return" conditions for Palestinians.

It's very obvious to me that the Bush Admin. is grasping for straws, hoping against all hope that some kind of settlement can be reached before Israel's next elections, whereby the current polls indicate that Netanyahu would again be elected P.M. Bush knows fully well that if this were to happen, there would be big changes in the Palestinian landscape, since Netanyahu is a strong, principled leader and not an equivocator.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

I agree about Netinyahu that's why Clinton helped get him outta there. I agree Israel has the right to defend itself just as we do but the middle east is one "sticky wicket" as we have to be most careful not to burn our bridges with the rest of the arab world. I don't envy the prez at all and have faith in him. I know you don't and that's your right. A great country, eh?

[boxcar]

Okay, Lefy, you say we have to be careful to not "burn our bridges" with the Arab world. Name one Arab country over there, other than Turkey, who is _truly_ our ally -- truly our friend. Have you read or listened to Kuwait's sentiments toward the U.S. lately -- the country we saved from Iraq less than 10 years ago!?

Even Pakistan, I don't fully trust. They're supporting us because, I believe, because they don't want to be on the losing side on our war on terrorism.

Furthermore, I don't think the U.S. would start WW111 if we broke off diplomatic relations with Arafat. The rest, then, would basically be up to Israel, as I think we could keep out of any military conflict that might ensue afterwards since Israel is capable of fighting its own battles -- somethng the Arab world knows all too well.

A quick history lesson: Military action has been taken against Israel by Arabs in 1948, in '56, in '67 and in '73. Not once have the Arabs come even close to succeeding.

And to change the subject for a moment -- did I not write that Bush must be extremely careful to NOT send the WRONG signals to the world with his Mideast diplomatic policies -- particularly those pertaining to the Palestinians. I said our enemies are like beasts, who once they smell fear, would "swarm upon us..." Well, I find it more than interesting that N. Korea at this _particular time_ now wants to suddenly reopen talks with the U.S. And who do you think would be the primary topic of those talks? S. Korea, perhaps?
Is it No. Korea's strategy now to overload Bush's plate, hoping to get him to waffle on U.S. policy regarding our ally S. Korea?

Every single indication is that the U.S. is ready, willing and able to sell out Israel for our own interests. This was made crystal clear yesterday when Powell said the Saudi plan was a "good peace plan". Well, if we're ready to sell out one of our strongest and staunchest friends we have on this planet, why would N. Korea not think we could be pressured to do the same thing with S. Korea?

I think it's a huge mistake, Lefy, to think for a moment that the Bush Admin. will gain the respect of our enemies by setting different standards for an ally than what the U.S. itself subscribes to, by employing diplomatic doublespeak, and by equivocating on any given apsect of the Mideast crisis from one day to the next. This kind of diplomatic strategy will do only one thing: betray our WEAKNESS. What our enemies would respect and FEAR, however, is a strong, principled, unwavering, and consistent resolve with respect to our policy on terrorism.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

What's with Kuwaite, damn I don't know. What's with these people altogether; most puzzling. It's a "mess" over there; and Bush has got to ne careful. Hey, i'm with you, i'd like for U.S. to align with Israel and rollover thewhole damn MidEast. But they won't listen to me. So I can't fully disagree with you that's for sure, but sure glad Bush has these probs to solve and not Al Gore. That's about all I can say as I don't know enough to say anymore.
Let us pray.

[boxcar]

With this Mideast Crisis, I don't believe Gore would be handling it much differently, frankly.

From what I heard this afternoon, our "fearless leader" appears to caving to pressure from around the world. From what was reported by third parties, Powell might now go to the hot spot next week and try to have Israel and the Palestinians resume negotiations, APART from any ceasfire agreement. (Desparation has set in.)
If this is true, this would represent another major shift in policy.

Boxcar

[Lindsay]

Thanks for starting this very interesting string, Boxcar. I figure I might as well get my feet wet in an "off topic" string.

A few minor corrections to what you wrote: Turkey and Pakistan are not Arab states; I have heard Israeli officials effectively acknowledge that Israel has nuclear weapons; what was going on at Dimona was not much of a secret; diplomacy worked with Egypt and Israel; Israeli militias were fighting and taking land before the Arab states joined the 1948 war; Egypt and Syria certainly DID come close to succeeding in the Yom Kippur War; emergency shipments of American arms helped to avert a catastrophe; Prime Minister Begin called the Six-Day War Israel's choice; when listing the wars, you left out Israel's disastrous 1982 invasion of Lebanon, which included house-to-house fighting between Israelis and the PLO and is thus possibly the best analogy to today; Israel recently pulled out of Lebanon, and the invasion and subsequent war of attrition is widely considered to be a huge mistake for Israel.

I share your hatred of terrorists, but I believe your history lessons are a tad too black and white, not to mention selective. I would be interested in hearing your views on Irgun, the Stern Gang, the Israeli attack on the "Liberty," the attack on the King David Hotel, Sharon's responsibility for the Sabra and Shatila massacres, whether Jonathan Pollard sickens you as much as President Bush does, Israeli strangulation of the Palestinian economy, Israeli relations with apartheid South Africa and fascist Latin American nations, and Israeli reserves who are calling the Israeli occupation immoral. It is my belief that Israel's occupation is coming at the price of her soul.

I realize these questions don't lend themselves to the types of ten-second answers we get on the Fox News Channel, but I see that as a plus. Please feel free to ask me to document any of my statements.

Your posts are always enjoyable, Boxcar. My best wishes to you.

[Lindsay]

Silly me. I forgot to ask you how you apportion blame for the 1956 war.

[boxcar]

Lindsay, you're correct about what you say about Turkey and Pakistan. They are Muslim states.

Time won't permit a series of Mideast history lessons, but suffice it to say that I agree that Israel isn't an angel in this conflict. However, when Palestinians talk about "Israeli occupation", they're referring specifically to lands acquired by Israel in the 6-day '67 war (possibly the shortest "war" in history) when Israel had its back almost literally against the Mediterrean -- with Arab forces attacking from 3 sides. Since Israel was _defending _ itself in that war, WON the war, and in the process acquired as spoils of war some previously held Palestinian land, it is entirely disingenious for the Palestinians, the Europeans, etc. to characterize the West Bank, Gaza, etc. as lands "occupied" by Isreal.

Moreover, I don't believe for a moment that this long conflict over there really has much to do with land. There is deep hatred on both sides that is rooted in the parties' repsective religious beliefs and traditions. However, I will say this about Israel: Israel has, historically, been willing to make peace with any Arab country who wanted the same, as evidenced by Egypt and Jordan. The big problem over there is that the Arab extremeists (and there are plenty of them) DON'T want peace. What they want is another Jewish holacust. (Someone field reporter from Fox News recently interviewed a leader from one of the terrorist orgainizations, and in that interview the terrorist made it abundantly clear that Israel must go -- even out of Israel -- even if a peace deal was reached! He want on to say that Israel "invaded" the land in '48, and has no historcal roots to the land, etc. This is precisely why I firmly believe (as other political analysts and pundits are) that the only pathway to true, lasting peace is indeed another all out war whereby one foe will so demoralize the other, thereby breaking the will of the defeated enemy to fight any longer -- at which point that party will be ready to seriously talk about peace. Otherwise, this conflict will continue indefintely, since it's IMPOSSIBLE for two enemies to have peace when one party doesn't want it.

Do I support what is going on right now in the West Bank? You bet! Israel is simply doing what Arafat has consistently refused to do, i.e. clean out the terrorists. Israel's activity over there is in RESPONSE to ongoing Palestinian terrorism.

Boxcar

[Lindsay]

Boxcar,

Israel struck the first blow in the Six-Day War, destroying much of Egypt's air force while it was on the ground. Israel also struck Syria (Golan Heights) first. At the time, the West Bank was run by Jordan's King Hussein. He had an alliance with Egypt, and after Israel attacked Egypt, Hussein launched a tepid attack on Israel. I thought this was common knowledge.

Menachem Begin: "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

Ezer Weizman, commander of the Israeli air force: The Israeli attack on Egypt, Syria, and Jordan was justified so that Israel could "exist according to the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies."

Yitzhak Rabin: "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it."

A few other things:

You couldn't think of any lasting peace agreements in the absence of total victory by one side: War of 1812. Iran-Iraq War. Israeli-Egypt Wars. Nicaragua Contra War. Civil War in El Salvador. I could go on and on.

The 1969 Soccer War between El Salvador and Honduras was as short as the Six-Day War.

The Israelis respond to Palestinian terrorism. You are correct. But the Palestinians respond to the continuing brutal, suffocating occupation. And anyone who thinks they will quit is mistaken. The 35-year Israeli occupation has produced some of the toughest people on earth. It was a side effect that Israel didn't expect.

I think you went a bit overboard when you called President Bush a sickening coward and a spineless wimp. The Middle East is a complicated place. You are acknowledging this when you decline to discuss the events I listed in my first and second reply. I will be happy to discuss them in depth in the future--the next time this subject comes up again, no doubt.

I have enjoyed the conversation, Boxcar. Thank you.

[Tom]

To me, some tings are so ovious ......

1. Kill Arafat. Now.
2. Kill everyone in the room with him. Now.
3. Take out Iraq - if we have to, nuke Bagdad.
4. Any other nations want to bitch about it, cut off all aid. Every cent. And the same to any other country that sides with them.
5. Continue to "clean out" Palestine. If they want it to stop, let them hand over the terroists, otherwise, there are no innocent palestinians.
6. Make sure that every nation in the world knows that if they want our money, then they damn well better shut up and get on their backs, so to speak. If they take our cash, then they have no right to criticize us. The reason they need our foreign aid is they cannot take care of themselves, for whatever reasons, they are failures and can't cut it. They need the help of a superior nation - USA - to carry them. OK, no problem, but I don't like whores that talk back. Take the cash and shut up. You want an opinion, then pay for it - feed yourselves and speak all you want.
7. Tell Detroit no more gas powered car as of 2004. If Ford, GM and Chrysler can't do it, let them go under and give support to the new companies that will take their places. We have to get out from under our need for oil from this whole worthless armpit of the world. It damn well can be done by then.

But of course, I could always be wrong.

[Lefty]

Tom you had me till no. 7. The govt should not tell Detroit car makers or any other business what to do. Our way is to let marketplace decide.
We got oil, just get the damn libs out of the way and drill for it.
Solar, and all that sounds good but it's not ready for Prime Time and won't be for quite a while,. Petrolium still cheapest way to go and we have plenty in Alaska and Gulf of Mexico.

[smf]

Lefty, you're right (i've always wanted to type that) :)

Bush and many Repubs wanted to drill in the ANWAR (Alaskan Nat'll Wildlife Reserve) but the Dems heatedly tossed in the "far right wants to destroy the world" routine they like to throw. I understand there's a large untapped basin in California that the libs don't want touched also.

After all that tho, it's cheaper to buy from the Middle East I understand than to drill here. That's what I'm told, and what I've read in the papers often. Wood County, TX for example has a potential for a number of years worth of USA's useage of oil that's waiting to be drilled & refined. It just isn't as cost effective, I've heard and read, as buying it.

[BillW]

The things that the liberals overlook is that it's not the far right in _this_ country that want to destroy the world.

While I'm usually into free trace and competition, funding the brainwashing of little children to kill is not as productive as providing Americans jobs (Another thing the liberals hate ... welfare = votes for them )

Bill

[boxcar]

Lindsay, if you had your back at the Mediterrean, with the enemy pushing at both your flanks and from dead ahead, you would have attacked first also. (I know I certainly would have.) All those tanks and troops that were squaring off against Israel weren't out in them thar plains for a Sunday drive. Israel did what she had to do to defend herself in the little bit of real estate she had.

Furthmore, what I said about about two enemies not being able to reach a peaceful settlement apart from them warring against one another, and one emerging a decisive victor is right on the money, since BOTH sides must want peace bad enough NOT to war -- both sides must be willing to compromise. I never said that two non-intransigent antagonists have never reached a peaceful settlement. I even named two such modern day situations -- Jordan and Eqypt, so what's your beef?

Too many extremist Palestinian factions do not want peace. They wouldn't even accept Israel's right to exist if she withdrew to her pre-'67 borders. What these murderous fanatics really want is a pre-'48 border deal! Heck...even Syria and Iraq have said they wouldn't recognize Israel if she were to accept the recent Saudi proposal. (Libya probably wouldn't either for that matter.)

Now you and I could waste a lot of time getting bogged down with every battle, every skirmish, every little ambush that ever took place between Israeli troops and Arabs -- but to what end, sir? I'm sure we could find "atrocities" on both sides, wouldn't you agree? But I'd much prefer to hear your solution to this crisis. How do you get the intransigent Palestinians (including their head honcho Arafat)and other rogue Arab states to understand and appreciate what "mutual compromise" means? I have put forth a semi-reasonable Mideast strategy for the present crisis.

As far as Bush is concerned, I stand by what I said. He's a doubletalker, an equivocator and a hypocrite -- all set to sell Israel out because he wants to keep on track with his agenda for Iraq and, of course, doesn't want to risk an oil embargo.

Although, I will give him this: I liked his speech yesterday morning. It was nearly as good as his post 9/11 address to the nation. (Was disappointed, though, that he waffled once again and caved in to international pressure to get more involved, which he'll do by sending Powell off next week.)

Look forward to hearing _your_ "peace plan".

Boxcar

[Lindsay]

Boxcar,

This is what you wrote, quoting someone on FOX: "Have there ever been successful and lasting peace negotiations without one party being a winner of a war?"

Then YOU answered: "I can't think of any."

I supplied some, and I could have supplied a lot more. I think you know that.

Now you say that for lasting peace, both sides must want peace badly enough not to go to war against each other. Your statement is true but tautological, and, for that reason, worthless as a matter of logic.

Earlier, you wrote: Israel had "Arab forces attacking from three sides."

Now you write that Israel was justified in attacking first.

Which one do you want to go with, Boxcar?

By the way, whom should I believe, Rabin or Boxcar, Begin or Boxcar?

If you have enough time to call President Bush (whom I did not vote for and do not like) a sickening, cowardly hypocrite, you have enough time to address the points I made in my first and second reply. As I have said, I enjoy your posts. You are entertaining, passionate, and, I suspect, sincere. But I have to tell you, with all due respect, that you have made so many factual errors in this string that I'm beginning to think you simply do not know very much about the Middle East. That is no crime, to be sure, but you might want to lose a little of your certitude. If you would like to challenge my assessment of your knowledge of the Middle East, we can play a little game: You list my factual errors, and I list yours. Of course, we have to document our lists.

You asked me for my peace plan:

The United States withdraws all aid from Israel until Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders. When Israel does that, the United States ensures that Israel is a target only a madman would attack.

Now I want you to address the points I made earlier. Please begin with the amount of money the US gives to Israel each year, the Jonathan Pollard case, and your definition of "staunch ally." Thank you, and no hard feelings. I honestly enjoy talking with you.

[boxcar]

Hey, Tom, I'm not sure it would be wise to "nuke" BaggyDaddy at this point, but I do think that if the Admin. really thinks that Iraq poses a serious threat to our national security, we should do whatever it would take to boot SAAAAAADAMM out -- with or without world support -- with or without any coalition. Our national security is not a concern of the world's -- except to say that if the U.S. were ever to fall, all the countries with democratic governments could kiss democracy bye bye.

I agree with your sentiments about foregin aid, which I prefer to call global welfare. Did you know, for example, that the U.N. is toying with the idea of getting a global tax plan passed, whereby all [wealthy] nations would be taxed, with the monies going to the poor nations (ha,ha,ha -- read: to the corrupt regimes in these countries).
Of course, I'd have to think the plan would be progressive in nature, requiring the more wealthy nations to kick in more, especially since the U.S., with only about 4% of the world's population, owning approximately 1/4 of the world's wealth.

Geesh, who says capitalism doesn't work!? The problem, as these neo-communists see it, is that it works all too well, and these autocrats feel they aren't getting their fair share. (Tsk, tsk, tsk.)

Boxcar

[smf]

just so I'm not understood.....

I didn't mean to imply we go to 'Achmed's Refinery, Bait and Tackle Shop' and buy refined oil from the middle east. Of course, that's not the case. My point (which wasn't made very clearly- my apologies) is that it is apparently cheaper for US oil companies to drill, ship, and refine oil *from* middle east fields, than it is to drill and refine it here from our fields.

We now return you to the Lindsay and Boxcar show.....

[cash]

lindsay

nice to see an intelligent, reasoned rejoinder to the dismal bleatings of boxcar. it seems that you have done what others could not. you shut the guy up, at least for a while.

this is a good site for handicapping info, but if you venture over to the off topic forum, it's like taking a stroll on the dark side of the moon.

cash

[Tom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lindsay
[B]Boxcar,

The United States withdraws all aid from Israel until Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders. When Israel does that, the United States ensures that Israel is a target only a madman would attack.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is the problem withthe Middle East - it is full of madmen!
There is something basically, fundamentally wrong with these people. I am so damn sick of hearing what a great religion Islam is. Then how is it that soo many sick perverted maniacs are the one's running around killing people and the rest of Islam applauds them? There is nothing great about a religion that sends little girls out with bombs strapped around their waists.
These are sick, metally unbalanced people and I can't explain it other that it is an epidemic of mental illness. In the wake of 911 and Afghanistan, how can "W" tell Israel to show restraint? They are rooting out terroists and I firmlly belive we should be helping them, not second guessing them.
With all due respect, I do not think there will ever be peace in the Middle East - there is no one with any integrity or morality or even sanity on the side of the Islamic world - they are not focused on this world - they believe in an evil god and they will never be able to be trusted. Who leads the palestinians? If there is a leader, he/she is a sick murdering being not worthy of mercy. If no one is, then how can you negotiate with them? It is catch 22 - if there is leadership, they have to be found and killed. If there is no leaderhsip, then what Israel is doing makes perfect sense. Arafat is clearly, in my mind, a mudering terroist who could have brought some degree of peace at Camp David but he choose not to - because it was never his agenda to live side by side with the Jews. His agenda has always been to take back Israel and drive them out of the region.
The US should focus on killing terrorists and their supporters and then getting out of the Middle East and cutting all ties. And then closing our borders to this part of the world. Our safety is more important than anything the Mid East has to offer. Israel may well have started violence more than once, and the may be wrong more than they are right, but they are controllable. Islam is not.
Israel can turn off the violence, Islam cannot.

The world has gotten smaller. We are no longer safe by our location. 911 should have been a wake up call. Bin Laden and his thugs are much more than a group of isoloted wackos. They are much more the rule rather than the exception. And they will strike again.

[Lindsay]

Cash: Thank you for taking the time to write that. As God is my witness, this will be my last post in the off topic area, regardless of the provocation.

Tom: Over the last several months, you have advocated things that would literally result in the deaths of hundreds of millions of innocent men, women, and children, including my sister's husband's family: nice, gentle, harmless people who have none of the hatred that you are filled to overflowing with. One of my goals in life is to ensure that people like you ALWAYS disagree with me.

Boxcar: I just took the time to read some of your old posts. You and Tom seem to get along quite well. You had no problem with his throwing millions of human beings into the Dead Sea. The estimable Christopher Hitchens just called John Ashcroft a "tuneless, clueless, evangelical Confederate dunce." Ashcroft ain't the only one, Boxcar.

Goodbye.

[Tom]

Perhaps one should be careful whom they declare "jihad" on.
If you want to have a war, you have be prepared for retaliation.
They called for jihad, I listened. Many others have, too. I take war very seriously. And there is only one way to fight a war - to win.

Good-bye.

[boxcar]

Originally posted by Lindsay:

>>
This is what you wrote, quoting someone on FOX: "Have there ever been successful and lasting peace negotiations without one party being a winner of a war?"

Then YOU answered: "I can't think of any."
>>

Since later you say that you took some time to read older posts of mine, you seemed to have overlooked the "so much for history" thread, wherein in the context of that thread it is implied that in order for there to be meaningful, lasting peace, both sides must want peace. Therefore, since many Palestinian Whackos don't want peace with Israel, but instead want to engage in terrorist acts, I don't see any other alternative for lasting peace My comments, "I can't think of any", are in this context. I think most people following these threads understood this.

Moreover, I did give two examples of where peace is attainable when two enemies "bury their swords" (somewhere other than in each other's back) and engage in sincere talks -- i.e. this has happened between Israel and Eqypt and Israel and Jordan.

>>
Now you say that for lasting peace, both sides must want peace badly enough not to go to war against each other. Your statement is true but tautological, and, for that reason, worthless as a matter of logic.

I felt that I had to say this because it appears you failed to understand the obvious. (See my remarks above.)

>>
Earlier, you wrote: Israel had "Arab forces attacking from three sides."

Now you write that Israel was justified in attacking first.

Which one do you want to go with, Boxcar?
>>

Which ever one works best for you, Lindsay.

But seriously, I was always under the impression from everything I've read in the past and heard that Israel came under attack. But assuming you're right and that feisty little Israel struck the first blow at the big bully it was facing, what's the dif? Your point is mute, given your scenario that Israel was virtually surrounded on all sides (since the Mediterrean tends to be somewhat unforgiving when your back is to it), I think it would be safe to say that Israel believed that attack from its enemies was imminent to say the very least. This probably being the case, I think only a village idiot would have hesitated at a first strike.

>>
If you have enough time to call President Bush (whom I did not vote for and do not like) a sickening, cowardly hypocrite, you have enough time to address the points I made in my first and second reply.
>>

Well, I did vote for him, holding my nose really hard, I might add. And I did cite all the reasons why I feel this way about him with respect to his Mideast policy and his own Doctrine of Terrorism. His domestic track record, his continuing waffling back n' forth with respect to Israel, and his departure from his own "doctrine" to another policy for Israel clearly tells me that he's the kind of fellow who is likely to take the path of least resistance when the going gets really tough. He'll do simply what is expedient. I don't believe there is a principled political bone in his entire body.

>>
But I have to tell you, with all due respect, that you have made so many factual errors in this string that I'm beginning to think you simply do not know very much about the Middle East. That is no crime, to be sure, but you might want to lose a little of your certitude.
>>

Really, well let me tell you what I do know. I recognize terrorist acts when I see one or read about one. I recognize who wants peace and who doesn't. I recognize who the aggressor is and who isn't. I know that when even one foe doesn't want peace, that a meaningful, lasting peaceful solution cannot be attained by any pressure from a third party.

>>
You asked me for my peace plan:

The United States withdraws all aid from Israel until Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders. When Israel does that, the United States ensures that Israel is a target only a madman would attack.
>>

Ha!? Excuse me! So, what is it you're saying here? That the U.S. give Isral "super nukes". In all probability, Israel is already a target that only a madman would attack, which would make that part of your plan a no-starter. If this wasn't the case already, I strongly suspect Israel would have been toast by now.

Secondly, I don't believe that it's Isreal who should be forced to make the kind of concession you propose. This would send a HORRENDOUS message to terrorists all over the world -- that the U.S. is ready, willing and able sell out any of its allies, providing terrorists can exert great enough terroristic pressure.

Another reason this is a very bad idea is that Isreal is _not_ the intransigent party here. Isreal has always been ready to negotiate a peace treaty with anyone who is willing to meet them halfway. (Recall Eqypt and Jordan?) But Arafat has never truly been willing to strike a deal with Israel. It anyone needs to be pressured here, it's the Palestinians.

>>
Now I want you to address the points I made earlier. Please begin with the amount of money the US gives to Israel each year,
>>

So? Why wouldn't we send money to an ally? I suppose you think we should be sending money to the Palestinians, too, so they can go out and buy more weapons from Iran, perhaps? So that they can continue their "resistance movement", their "freedom fighting" activities against Israel?

>>
the Jonathan Pollard case,
>>

Please jog my memory on this one. Perhaps I didn't think this case was important enough to file away in my memory banks. Maybe you can convince me otherwise.

>>
and your definition of "staunch ally." Thank you, and no hard feelings. I honestly enjoy talking with you.
>>

I think defining what a true ally would be much like trying to define what pornography is. But perhaps recognizing the two primary characteristics a "stanch ally" would possess would be easier.

For one thing, the U.S. doesn't have very many true, blue allies. Not surprsing, really. On an individual, personal level, most of us are doing very well if we have but a couple of real friends.
I think nations who are democracies and who share at least most of our values could be considered "staunch allies". I certainly would count Britian, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel as being our "true friends".

Most of Europe, while having democratically elected leaders, I don't consider to be our allies due to their strong leanings toward Socialism, which means they wouldn't share very many of the values we do.

The Arab world? Forget them, too. The countries over in that part of the world are all ruled by a bunch of dictators. We have very little in common with their value systems.

I would liken most European nations, certainly most, if not all Arab nations, and virtually all autocratically run governments around the world as either being our enemies at worst, or at best diplomatic "acquaintances" of the U.S.

In short, the U.S., for the most part, is not liked or admired very well by the rest of the world. I believe this is basically for two reasons: Because of all the freedom we enjoy as a democatic republic, and the wealth we've acquired through our capitalistic system.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Lindsay wrote in part:

Boxcar: I just took the time to read some of your old posts. You and Tom seem to get along quite well. You had no problem with his throwing millions of human beings into the Dead Sea. The estimable Christopher Hitchens just called John Ashcroft a "tuneless, clueless, evangelical Confederate dunce." Ashcroft ain't the only one, Boxcar.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Name calling won't get you anywhere, Lindsay -- most especially since you're not above engaging in a bit of sophisty by employing the illogical "argument from silence" strategy. I don't reply to the jot and tittle of most posts. This in no way means, however, that a lack of a specific response implies agreement.

But I am flattered that you took the time to read some of my old posts.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

First, Lindsay wrote:

>>
The United States withdraws all aid from Israel until Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders. When Israel does that, the United States ensures that Israel is a target only a madman would attack.
>>

Then Tom responded in part with:

>>
That is the problem withthe Middle East - it is full of madmen!
>>

And this, Tom, is precisely what is fundamentally wrong with the Mideast right now. You have a bunch of these religious fanatics, Crazies, Whackos who behave as unreasoned, brutish beasts -- whose only mission in life is to become "martyrs" by blowing themselves up and as many Israeli civilians with them as possible. This is, yet, another serious flaw in Lindsay's peace plan (such as it is). What would make anyone think that just giving a chunk of real estate away would serve as a sufficent incentive to Islamic militants in the Arab world to abandon their absurd policies and perverted ideas?

Moreover, Israel, is already militarily superior to all its Arab neighbors, but this hasn't prevented the Palestinians from embarking on their insane suicide missions, has it? I think it would be insane for Israel to put her back closer to the sea than it already is -- which would only make it easier for the Arabs to launch a successful attack.

However, having said all this, Israel might be pressured, yet, to do this very thing. I seem to recall reading somewhere in the Good Book (probably in Revelations) where a peace deal is struck, but that the peaceful climate would only be temporary, with all hell breaking out afterwards (Armageddon).

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Recently Lindsay (our wanna-be historian) posted a few quotes that were allegedly from a few past and now deceased Israeli leaders on their take of the 6-Day War. Lindsay wanted us to believe that these quotations prove that Israel was the aggressor in that war.

Well, yours truly took some time out yesterday to bring myself up to speed on more historic details of that particular war -- since the winning of this war made Isreal the "illegal occupier" of Palestinian land -- according to the Arabs and the U.N.

For one thing, Lindsay did have one thing accurate -- Israel did strike the first blow in that war, which according to him made Isreal the aggressor (more on this later).

Then I found some of the above mentioned quotations that he posted here recently on a couple of websites. One site belonged to Radio Islam which contained all kinds of anti-Israeli
rhetoric, including things such as Zionist Conspiracy that Israel intended to control the Middle East by breaking up the Arab states into small states, etc., etc.

The other site I found was rather curious. It was an anonymous webpage with a link at the bottom that would take you to www.alternative-info.nu. When you click on that link it takes you to site that is written in a foreign language, which appears to be some Scandanavian language -- quite possibly Sweedish. This site contained many links to anti-Jewish stories, articles, etc. -- with only a few of them written in English.

Since these quotes were found only on these sites, I am alteady suspicious of their authenticity. But even if they are genuine, I have to wonder just how badly they were taken out of their larger context. Frankly, I smell a big Revisionist Rat here. Just as there are anti-Semitic groups out there, who will boldly and unabashedly assert that the Holacust during WWII never happened, I'm beginning to suspect that others are trying to rewrite the history of this important Mideast war.
And the major reason I say this is because of the other material I dug up pertaining to those six days in June.

However, before signing off on this particular post, I want to make my position very clear. First, I have no dog in this hunt -- that is to say, I'm not Jewish.

Next, I know that Israeli politics run the full spectrum, just as political opinions and philosphies do in this country. You have those on the Far Right, those on the Extreme Left, and a whole bunch somewhere in between these two positions. So, just because some Israeli Left Winger might have criticized his country for how or why his country conducted that war, etc. doesn't mean that his opinions or views are historically accurate -- that they truly represent the historical facts.

I'm sure everyone recalls the Republican's Contract for America during Slick Willy's first term? The Democrats changed that slogan to Conract on America and busily engaged in trying to scare Americans to death with all their scare tactics. Why, according to the Dems, those cold-blooded, heartless, uncaring Wascally Wepubs' policies were going to starve school children, deprive well Seasoned Citizens of their social security, etc. And, of course,the DemRats had all the numbers and statistics, etc. to back up their claims. But despite the barrage of their brainless rhetoric, there essentially wasn't one shred of truth to what they alleged.

Moral to this little story: Take with a large grain of salt any short, politically-oriented quotes, especially when you don't know the larger context in which those remarks were made, the historical facts, and/or quite possibly the political leanings of the person being quoted, and whether or not he or she had a political axe to grind.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

On either the Time or Newsweek cover (I forget which), there's a picture of a very unhappy, despondent looking YAAASER sitting all alone somewhere. And the cover caption reads, "All Boxed In". Why do I mention this? Because this was precisely the condition Israel found herself in the Spring of '67. Israel was every bit as boxed in as Arafat currently is in his little room at his headquarters. Syrian forces were amassed along Israel's northern border; Egyptian forces were lined up along her southern border; and Jordan and Iraq were to her east, poised for a frontal attack. And, of course, to the west of Israel is the Mediterrean sea -- the sea into which the Iraqi leader at the time swore he would drive Israel.

I think most of us can appreciate just how tough it would be to fight a war on two fronts. Well, Israel had 3 fronts to contend with, with absolutely nowhere to go on the eastern front.

The combined strength of the enemy forces is estimated to have been:

Troops - approx. 465,000
Tanks - approx. 2,900
Airplanes - approx. 800

One site estimated that Israel was outmanned by aobut 50-1, which seems a wee bit high to me. Another site said that Israel was outmanned on the borders by about 3-1 -- which sounds reasonable to me. Overall, Israel was probably outmanned (if we were to go by raw combined populations of these Arab countries at the time) by about 20-1, which seems more realistic to me.

Furthermore, those Arab countries, at that time, were well equipped -- well armed, thanks to our cold war adversary back then -- the Soviet Union. The USSR was clearly pro-Arab, and supplied most of the weaponry to these countries, including rifles, artillery, planes and tanks.

Israel was equipped by the U.S., Britian and France, for the most part. (Lots of irony here as France since then has shifted its support over to the Arabs.)

But the USSR played another important role in that war, as well. It appears they played the role of instigator by feeding the Arabs false reports about Israel -- about how an attack by Israel was imminent, etc.

Meanwhile, Egypt had U.N. troops stationed in the Sinai along Israel's southern border. Nasser, in no uncertain terms, demanded that the troops leave Egyptian soil, which the U.N. did. As soon as the U.N. troops departed, Nasser amassed his own forces along that border.

Moreover, Nasser told Israel that it was shutting the Straits of Tiran. This action would have blocked Israel's access to the Red Sea -- something that Israel had warned Nasser back in '56 that if he ever took such action, it would be considered by Israel as an act of war! Since Nasser didn't listen and closed the Straits, this in itself was sufficient reason for Israel to attack Egypt.

So, on June 5, 1967, Israel launched a massive air attack that lasted for 3 days in order to take out the air forces of all the opposing forces -- not just Egypt's. Israel managed to destroy most of the the enemy's warplanes while they were still on the ground.

The rest of the story is history. With Israel owning the theretofore unfriendly skies, and with Israel's superior battle skills and military machine, she was able to make short work of the enemy.

The losses suffered are in itself an untterly unbelievable set of stats. Israel suffered only around 700 casualities, while the combined losses of the 4 enemy countries were estimated to be at around 20,000.

So, the bottom line to all this is that Israel launched a PREEMPTIVE strike against enemy forces on three fronts because she was literally boxed in! How any straight thinking person can twist this scenario around and say that Israel was the agressor in that war is beyond me. Either such a person is missing a few cards from his deck, or has a dog in the hunt. Just what was Israel supposed to do? Quitely and patiently sit on her thumbs and wait for an all out attack by those forces?

Therefore, given these facts, I still maintain that Israel is not an occupier of Palestinian
land, let alone an "illegal" occupier. It's probably virtually unheard of in world history for a defender in a war to return spoils it captured to an aggressor.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Lindsay said that the problems in the Middle East are very complicated. But I'm not sure that they are nearly as complicated as they are old, and as deep as the enmity runs between Arabs and Jews -- hatred that is "very old and very deep" doesn't bode well for a lasting peace settlement.

Furthermore, the animosity each side feels towards one another goes beyond mere superficial differences in religion -- it goes to exceedingly deep differences -- blood differences. The megabytes of irony is that Jews and Arabs are related! Many here might already know this, but for those who don't, permit me to go into a little bit of ancient history, as you might find this to be informative. I will use for my "history book" the bible.

It is generally known that Abraham is the patriarch of the Jews. God chose Abram (whose name God later changed to Abraham) because he (God) desired to enter into a covenant with him. In the book of Genesis, God promised that from Abraham's loins, he would make a great nation, give the promised land of "milk and honey" to Abraham's descendants, etc. etc. (Time won't permit a full exposition of all the promises of blessings entailed in the Abrahamic Covenant.)

But Abraham and his wife Sarah were up in age, and Abraham feared that Sarah was already beyond child bearing. Being weak in faith, and not believing that God was capable of keeping his promise, Abraham took Sarah's handmaiden -- an Egyptian gal by the name of Hagar and had relations with her. Abraham thought that if he had a son by Hagar that this would be his heir to all the promises God had made to him. But this wasn't to be the case, as God rejected Abraham's way of doing things.

Hagar eventually bore a son to Abraham; but before that (while she was pregnant) the "angel of the Lord" appeared to her and promised that he would greatly multiply her descendants, so that they would be "too many to count". And he went on to say that she will name him Ishmael (which in Hebrew means "God hears").

He also told her that he (Ishmael) would be a "wild donkey of a man", and that his "hand would be against everyone", and that everyone's hand "will be against him", and he will live to the east of all his brothers -- his "brothers" being the heirs of the covenant promises, i.e. more immediately Abraham, Issac and Jacob -- Issac not yet having been conceived by Sarah.

After Ishmael's birth, the biblical text goes on to say that the "Lord appeared to Abram" and expanded on the covenant promise by promising to make Abram the "father of a multitude of nations". However, the text makes it abundantly clear that God's covenant of blessings would be established only with Issac and his descendants.

The only thing pertaining to Ishmael that God promised was that he would bless him and make him fruitful, and would multiply him exceedingly, and that he would become the father of "twelve princes" (no doubt 12 Arab nations). But immediately after God said this, he repeated what he just stated earlier (probably for emphasis) that his covenant would be established only with Issac. Stated differently, only Israel became the "chosen people of God".

Hundreds of years later, the psalmist wrote in the 83rd psalm that the Ishmaelites were God's enemies (and, therefore, the enemies of Israel.)

So, the upshot to all this is that the Israelis are half brothers to the Arabs, having the same daddy, but different mommies :) And moreover, the Israelis are half cousins to the Egyptians, as Hagar eventually returned to Egypt to take a wife for her son Ishmael. So, too, the Arabs and the Egyptians are half brothers.

As a betting man, I'll lay odds of 1000-1 that there will never be lasting peace between Israelis and Arabs. Any takers?

Boxcar