Annapolis is Pointless

[Big Don]

Umm they most certainly did invade. They expanded there borders into the West Bank and parts of Syria. They also continuously break law and also take no regard for innocent life. Unless you figure if your Palestinian you're not innocent.

They did indeed expand their borders into the West bank and parts of Syria, however, what you fail to state is they didn't invade, they took that land AFTER being invaded by (numerically) superior forces.

I'm no fan of terrorists or any extremists but Israel is not without blame, and most definitely Britain is not without blame either.

And we don't play hardball with Saudi not because we don't want to drill at home but because our President and his family have for decades done private dealings with them in the oil business. The Prince and the aristocrats in Americans society repeatedly rub each other's backs.

So, it is Bush's fault we don't play hardball with the Saudis? OK then, what was Clinton's excuse, he said he would fight terrorism too...
Or Reagan's? Reagan wasn't an oilman, he was an actor...
You blame Bush because you don't look for real answers, only convenient scapegoats.
The number of times Israel has initiated hostilities with anyone are few in the extreme. The last instance in fact was the bombing of Saddam's nuclear plant in 1981, that is twenty-six years ago...

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Umm they most certainly did invade. They expanded there borders into the West Bank and parts of Syria.

That was the price of their misguided 6-Day war. If our neighbors used geographic features to launch an invasion/attacks on us, Id take it after we kicked their asses too.

 

[newGuy12]

That was the price of their misguided 6-Day war. If our neighbors used geographic features to launch an invasion/attacks on us, Id take it after we kicked their asses too.

Totally understandable.

 

[jim777]

A great article here:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/11272007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/no_lasting_peace_314090.htm

 

[michaeledward]

One of the premises of the War in Iraq, was that it was going to remake the Middle East; a democratically elected government in Iraq was going to be a beacon to other countries in the region, leading to a domino theory of democracy.

At least, that is what I think the President told us ... you know, 'Freedom is God's gift to mankind'.

Well, we are now in a Post-Democratic-Iraq timetable. Iraqi's have held several national elections.

Maybe the point of Annapolis is to measure the changes in attitudes, and changes in lattitudes among the Middle East players vis-a-vis the removal of "The Tyrrant".

Or, maybe, there is no diplomatic dividend for the illegal invasion and occupation of a Middle East country.

 

[CoryKS]

Thanks for that article, Jim. Always good insight from Col. Peters.

If you want a sober perspective on the Annapolis dog-and-pony show, just ask yourself this: Who will leave disappointed, if nothing much results?

The Arabs won't care. They came because we got on our knees and begged.

The Israelis will just be relieved that their latest trip to the geostrategic dentist is over.

Any Russians soiling the furniture at the Naval Academy will be delighted if another American effort flops.

And the Europeans just popped in to check the "we care" box.

The only unhappy campers will be us. We set ourselves up. Again.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Or, maybe, there is no diplomatic dividend for the illegal invasion and occupation of a Middle East country.

Is there such a thing as a legal war...??

 

[michaeledward]

Is there such a thing as a legal war...??

Yes.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

Big Don, a well expressed article with some wisdom to it. The situation is unacceptable and nobody's been able to fix it yet. Asskicking seems at least as likely to work as anything that's been tried so far.

On the other hand, "you're either with us or agin' us" is a slippery road. Especially when you're dealing with entire nations. There are Saudis, and Americans and Canadians who'd like nothing better than to eat Cheerios out of our childrens' skulls. And for every one of them there are literally millions of innocent folks who do their best every day and come home to families they love. They're in their country of birth by nothing but dumb luck, just like you and me.

Let's not go painting with that wide a brush just yet. It's that sort of attitude that creates suicide bombers in the first place.

 

[Big Don]

Big Don, a well expressed article with some wisdom to it. The situation is unacceptable and nobody's been able to fix it yet. Asskicking seems at least as likely to work as anything that's been tried so far.

On the other hand, "you're either with us or agin' us" is a slippery road. Especially when you're dealing with entire nations. There are Saudis, and Americans and Canadians who'd like nothing better than to eat Cheerios out of our childrens' skulls. And for every one of them there are literally millions of innocent folks who do their best every day and come home to families they love. They're in their country of birth by nothing but dumb luck, just like you and me.

Let's not go painting with that wide a brush just yet. It's that sort of attitude that creates suicide bombers in the first place.

The West Wing was an unabashedly leftist show, in spite of that, and because of the awesome writing, I loved it. There was an episode in which a favorite doctor of the president's was killed by terrorists and the president was counseled to ensure the response was in proportion to the terrorist act. Sheen was awesome as he ranted, nearly screaming the question"What is the virtue of a proportional response?"
Even the unashamedly liberal staff of that show KNEW that proportional responses do NOTHING to stem terrorism, not a thing.
To quote Cool Hand Luke, "Some men, you just can't reach..." Terrorists are not rational people, treating them as if they are is not only foolish, it is dangerous. To stop terrorism we need to drop the hammer so hard and so severely on terrorists that the mere memory of how we deal with terrorists strikes fear into the hearts of everyone. Terrorism will only cease when we choose to make it unmistakably clear that anyone who chooses that path will suffer extreme, and wholly disproportionate consequences.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

Absolutely agreed. Anybody who would intentionally harm (or through inaction deliberately allow to be harmed) an innocent is no longer human -- view them as a potential source of soap and lampshades. Kill them and expunge their names from every written record.

Only thing I'm objecting to is a growing sense of jingoism about Islam, Muslims and the Middle East. A nation harbors or supports terrorism? Glass the capital. Embargo them so the poorest starve while the leaders (who made the decision) maintain their lifestyle by squeezing more from their subjects.

We're at war with Terrorists, and rightly so. Trouble is, a lot of folks seem to think that means we're at war with all Fundamental Muslims. Or even all Muslims. That's as wrongheaded as the guys who think killing an American gets you into heaven.

Sure, there are Yanks who the killing of is sure to get you on the right side of the Lord. But most of us are pretty okay.

 

[Big Don]

Absolutely agreed. Anybody who would intentionally harm (or through inaction deliberately allow to be harmed) an innocent is no longer human -- view them as a potential source of soap and lampshades. Kill them and expunge their names from every written record.

Only thing I'm objecting to is a growing sense of jingoism about Islam, Muslims and the Middle East. A nation harbors or supports terrorism? Glass the capital. Embargo them so the poorest starve while the leaders (who made the decision) maintain their lifestyle by squeezing more from their subjects.

We're at war with Terrorists, and rightly so. Trouble is, a lot of folks seem to think that means we're at war with all Fundamental Muslims. Or even all Muslims. That's as wrongheaded as the guys who think killing an American gets you into heaven.

Sure, there are Yanks who the killing of is sure to get you on the right side of the Lord. But most of us are pretty okay.

Muslims are increasingly associated with terrorism for two reasons:
1 The only people committing terrorism in the name of religion right now happen to claim to be Muslim.
2 The majority of Muslims who we are repeatedly told are peaceful and fun loving, are more afraid of the terrorist in the next pew than they are of the Americans 8900 miles away, so they don't speak out at all. Which is as sad as it is understandable.
I have no idea if mosques have pews, but, you get my point.

 

[CanuckMA]

I agree..what "amuses" me is how all the Arab countries are up in arms over the "Palestinian Problem" but none of them are willing to carve out a chunk of their country for them, or seem to be offering any significant ideas of their own. Its about eliminating the Jews and NOT about "liberating the Palestinians". Anybody who believes otherwise is kidding themselves.

Let's not forget that between 1948 and 1967, Gaza was under Egyptian, and the West Bank under Jordanian control. They both did a bang up job of helping the 'Palestinians'.

Points: Prior to 1948 the term Palestinian refered to the Jews living in the British Mandate of Palestine. The Arabs aligned themselves with Syria. The term Palestinian in reference to the Arab population did not come into play until 1964 when the Egyptian Arafat started to use it as an excuse for his terrorism.


Look at the original partition plan. It created 2 states, one Jewish, the other Arab. Neither were contigious. Both carved up the land mass according to the majotity population.

There as never been a Palestinian nation When the Romans invaded, they called the region Philistinia, basically to piss off the Jews. Since the Roman invasion, and until 1948, that region has always been under some foreign power, the British being the latest one, having won it from the Ottoman Empire.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

Muslims are increasingly associated with terrorism for two reasons:
1 The only people committing terrorism in the name of religion right now happen to claim to be Muslim.
2 The majority of Muslims who we are repeatedly told are peaceful and fun loving, are more afraid of the terrorist in the next pew than they are of the Americans 8900 miles away, so they don't speak out at all. Which is as sad as it is understandable.
I have no idea if mosques have pews, but, you get my point.

That's sort of my point...

1. The IRA is a political group, but gets much of its support by manipulating religious sentiment. Also, abortion clinic bombings (a couple still happen most years) are absolutely Christian terrorism.

2. In truth, the majority of 'peaceful and funloving' (I'd argue fun loving based on what I know of the Quran's view on sex) have never met or seen a terrorist. If there's fear in a country, it's of the overly restrictive laws -- something about Islam seems to support dictatorships.

Despite this, a lot of very reasonable, intelligent, honorable men and women -- folks who don't say '******' in public and would boycott a shop they knew to discriminate against Asians -- seem to be viewing Muslims as a group and becoming very comfortable with punishing the lot of them for the behavior of a tiny, crazy minority.

 

[Big Don]

The IRA never claimed their actions would lead to 72 virgins. Christians around the world were the FIRST and LOUDEST critics of the terrorist activities in Ireland, this is just not the case with Muslim terrorists. Abortion clinic bombings?http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/murders.asp they (a biased pro-abortion site) only list 10 murders/attempted murders and 200ish arsons and bombings, that is a far cry from the toll taken by Muslim terrorists, and again, Christians are the first people to say killing/bombing clinics is wrong. You really cannot compare isolated incidents by Christians to the widespread Muslim terrorism. There is no promise of virgins for Christiam martyrs. The claim that Christian terrorism is the same as Muslim terrorism may have been true during the crusades, but, that was nearly a thousand years ago, and Christians have gotten over it. People who throw this particular red herring show their disdain for all religions, nothing more.

"You are known by the company you keep" Is that unfair? Well, that depends, do you hang around criminals and thugs without speaking out against their actions? If so, than you deserve a level of suspicion and you share a portion of guilt for your de facto condoning of them. When a Christian commits a crime,other Christians loudly, publically and in no uncertain terms condemn the act, this cannot be said of Muslims.
If the vast majority oppose terrorism, than why don't we hear from more of these moderate Muslims? For a majority they are pretty damn quiet in the face of horrific actions.
The only times we hear from the "moderate Muslims" is when a movie dares to portray the antagonists as being of Middle Eastern lineage. Casey Kassem was all aflutter over Aladin for pete's sake.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

You make a fair point that there is substantially more terrorism committed in the name of Islam than of any other religion. I do believe there are aspects of Islam that make one more susceptible to manipulation than many other religions.

Again, all I'm arguing is the lumping everybody together. "The company you keep" is absolutely fair in some circumstances, but not when you're talking about one's country.

You and I are American out of dumb luck. Saudi citizens didn't get to choose their birth nation. And most don't have the resources to emigrate.

 

[michaeledward]

Again, all I'm arguing is the lumping everybody together. "The company you keep" is absolutely fair in some circumstances, but not when you're talking about one's country.

It becomes a less cogent argument when the company to which you refer is by its very nature secretive and deceptive.

One may believe they are involved with education of young children and health care for poor families, that the funding may come from Hamas makes it difficult to know if you are doing good, or ill.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Yes.

Then explain that. Legal in what sense?

 

[Big Don]

You make a fair point that there is substantially more terrorism committed in the name of Islam than of any other religion. I do believe there are aspects of Islam that make one more susceptible to manipulation than many other religions.

Again, all I'm arguing is the lumping everybody together. "The company you keep" is absolutely fair in some circumstances, but not when you're talking about one's country.

But we aren't talking about one's country, we are talking about one's religion. Even in Saudi Arabia, I would imagine there are differences in tone from one mosque to another. If a person believes that infidels (that's you and me, bub) should be killed they can go to one of those mosques, if they are part of the "vast majority" of Muslims we hear about they can go to a different mosque, but nothing, except cowardice stops any Muslim from speaking out against those who would murder in the name of Islam. If your friend killed people out of a misguided religion, you'd stop him or alert the authorities so he would be stopped, wouldn't you? Or would you be so craven as to let him continue? That is my problem with the supposed "peaceful" majority of Muslims. While they may not wish us harm and may indeed wish us well, they haven't yet taken a stand, en mass and spoken out against terrorism and the terrorists in their midst.

You and I are American out of dumb luck. Saudi citizens didn't get to choose their birth nation. And most don't have the resources to emigrate.

They may not have the resources to emigrate, but they have mouths that can speak out against terrorism and terrorists. If terrorism is so abhorrent to the majority of Muslims, why aren't they speaking out against it? Why aren't they pointing out those among them who foster terrorism? Their deafening silence is interpreted by many as a de facto approval, or at the very least a tacit acceptance. Were there a lot of Muslims, here and abroad, speaking out against terrorism and terrorists, the idea that Islam is the Religion of Peace™ would be a little easier to believe.

 

[Big Don]

Then explain that. Legal in what sense?

Congress voting to approve the use of force in Iraq wasn't legal? Damn...