Decision ‘08

Time’s Up?

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she has achieved general agreement on terms to end hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, and predicted that a ceasefire could take hold this week.

Israel’s defense minister, meanwhile, told the Israeli parliament the army would “expand and strengthen” its ground campaign against Hezbollah even as it implements a 48-hour pause in aerial bombardments in southern Lebanon.

If a ceasefire is implemented this week, then look for Israel to rush in as many ground troops as possible in order to seize territory before the fighting stops, territory that they won’t relinquish until the new UN-brokered forced arrives, in order to create a buffer zone…

39 Responses to “Time’s Up?”

1 mikebdot Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 7:08 am
Don’t you mean in order to procure more bargaining chips? Are you saying this (rushing troops to seize territory) would be acceptable behavoir? Or would you respond “hey, this is a war, anything is acceptable behavoir” which seems to be a popular neocon warcry…
2 Mark Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 7:15 am
Not at all. Mike, you have to understand that Hezbollah will move in and establish themselves again in a heartbeat. Israel needs to occupy the land until the peacekeeping troops arrive, or the whole damn war will have been for nothing…or are you in favor of ‘peace’ that leaves terrorism intact, which seems to be a popular liberal rallying cry?
3 mikebdot Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 8:01 am
Mark, if Israel gains land, it does not hurt Hezbollah’s ability to establish themselves. They are already established. All it does is further hatred towards them (Israel). Surely they realize this.

The boogeyman “terrorism” will remain intact, regardless of what land Israel controls. The only way you can prevent people from shooting you in the face is to quit making people have a motivation to shoot you in the face. What is their motivation? Is it really to remove Israel from existence? Why do I care? Why should the average American care about Israel’s plight? They don’t care about my day to day plight. They don’t send me money. They don’t send me guns to protect MY family. Nothing has been handed to me. How is there this disconnect between typical Republican thinking (personal responsibility, no hand-outs, etc.) and everything we’ve given to Israel? What dividends have been paid back to us? I honestly want to know the answers to these questions, not trying to be belligerent.
4 Mark Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 8:27 am
Well, Mike, I can’t engage you if you honestly don’t care about Israel’s existence, and you make it clear you don’t…sorry, there’s too much distance between us on this question. I take Israel’s right to exist as a given, and proceed from there…

I must say I find your attitude towards Israel to be incredible…surely you might want to read back over what you’ve just written and reconsider…
5 Ryan Bonneville Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 10:04 am
At least Mike has the guts to come right out and say it: who cares about Israel? Well, for one, I do. Israel has the right to exist and it’s in our best interest to have a tough democracy in the region.
6 mikebdot Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 10:09 am
Now, just a minute, you are the one saying any given country has some inherent right to exist (within some boundaries THEY have chosen). How is it that I am being unreasonable in questioning this? Why didn’t we just let the Germans keep the land they took over during WWII (regardless of the atrocities committed, it should have been their RIGHT to exist where they chose to). Why not let the Mexicans come into America and claim parts of the land for themselves? It’s their RIGHT after all. Come on.

Perhaps you can answer the sincere question, what exactly are we getting out of this? Give me a reason to care about Israel’s existence and perhaps I will, but I see none at this time. If someone takes over the land and allows the Jews to live without killing them or forcibly removing them from their domiciles, I would have no qualms. If someone took them over, killed them or forcibly removed them, I would have no problem attacking said country and helping them fight, but if they allowed them to live peacefully, I see no reason to care one way or the other. I don’t give two turds about where their borders are. The specifics involved mean absolutely nothing to me.
7 peter Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 10:11 am
I think the answers to Mike’s questions come from several places. The first is self-interest: we need all of the friends we can get, especially in the Middle East. Also, Israel gets first-class intelligence through Mossad and shares it with us. If we abandon our allies, our foreign policy loses all credibility – our relationships with other countries become marriages of convenience. We have learned through experience that isolationism does not work, and many bad things can happen to us if we retreat behind our borders and refuse to disengage.

The other reason is that, in my opinion, there is a moral quality to our foreign policy which requires us to support a country like Israel, which is surrounded by hostile enemies (or there should be, anyway). Think of JFK’s promise in his inaugural address to bear any burden and pay any price. Unless you believe that nothing distinguishes America from other countries except superior wealth and military might – and these things can change – then it is incumbent on us to support allies such as Israel, up to and including the use of military force.
8 mikebdot Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 10:16 am
Also, to clarify (it’s a fine point, but one which I must mention), this statement “Is it really to remove Israel from existence? Why do I care?” in comment 3 isn’t saying that I want Israel destroyed, but if some other nation does and they go to war, why does this necessarily have to concern me? Why should America be interested in this? Israel has no more right to exist than any other nation which has been destroyed in the past. Did the Sioux nation have a right to exist? How about the Aztecs? What ever happened to ‘might makes right’? I thought that’s what neocons were about? I guess it should be amended “Might makes right, unless you’re attacking a Jewish nation, then, you’re anti-semitic for even thinking about it”.
9 mikebdot Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 10:22 am
Peter: Why don’t we switch it up and support Iran/Iraq/and most of the rest of the middle east and call for Israel to give up it’s land and live peacefully with whatever nation they become assimilated into? Wouldn’t this buy us a few more allies in the middle east? Just saying this pretty much destroys point one (i.e. if we reverse the table and call for Israel’s destruction, we have just bought far more middle eastern allies than we currently have).

Point two is taken though. I know there is some sort of moral quality here, I’m just not sure what it might be.

My fatal flaw is “I’m not willing to die for what I believe, because I could be wrong.”
10 Mark Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 10:25 am
Mike, I’ve never claimed the neocon mantle, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to. I do believe, as Peter said, that morally, we have no choice but to support Israel. They are our allies, and they are, of course, a very special case - the country was born in the afterglow of genocide, and to pretend that that is irrelevant is to play games I don’t wish to participate in.

I guess we could also take your arguments and say why should I give a damn if Africans die of AIDS? What are they giving me? No baby with AIDS in an African country has ever put a dime in MY pocket. And if that sounds ridiculous to you, then you can imagine how your arguments on Israel sound to me.

As for the Sioux and Aztecs - do we really want to base our policies on our worst moments? Slavery was legal, too, until a scant 130 years ago - yet we surely wouldn’t use a defense of it as a basis for our current policy.
11 peter Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 10:43 am
Mike: why should we call for Israel to give up the land it’s been living in for nearly sixty years? It would be like offering a deal to North Korea where they could have South Korea if they give up their nukes.

The objective isn’t to have as many allies as you can get, regardless of what you do. The objective is to do the right thing and to attract allies who are motivated by the same ideals of justice and democracy that we have (or that we espouse, anyway). If other nations know that we will steadfastly support our allies – provided they share our values and are non-belligerent – then in the long run we will attract more friends than if we base all of our decisions on what is most expedient at that moment.
12 mikebdot Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 11:11 am
Peter: Why should we continue to send money to them if they can hardly keep control over land they’ve had for 60 years? That doesn’t seem like a good long-term investment to me. I don’t think we SHOULD call for that, but saying that if we did we would certainly increase the number of allies. Devil’s advocate.

I did enjoy your aside “(or that we espouse, anyway)”. Very nice. I see no reason to be duplicitous.

As for your point, yes, “do the right thing” is the objective and that was point 2 (paragraph 2 I guess is better) in your first comment. The first point you made was about numbers of allies in the middle east…

Also, when did we ever practice isolationism for an extended period of time? Furthermore, is “isolationism” still “isolationism” if only done in a specific part of the world?

Mark: I’m not saying a country born out of genocide isn’t relevant, but it also doesn’t mean it was the correct thing to do, just because it was born out of genocide. Claiming Israel has the right to exist simply because it already does exist is absurd.

I do agree there is a moral issue at stake, but, like I said, I don’t know what it is. It’s easy to see what that might be for people dying of AIDS in Africa (to prevent more people from contracting the disease and to treat those already ill), but what exactly is it in Israel?

You know as well as I do that that list was not exhaustive (Siouxs, Aztecs). Heck, since you bring up slavery, why didn’t we give African Americans a country of their own since it was kind of like genocide? Maybe we should do it now. Do you want me to keep listing them?

Do you not agree that “might makes right”?
13 peter Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 11:23 am
Mike: the reason to support Israel is not because it is a “good investment.” It’s been an awful investment. We’ve had to send them billions of dollars (as well as Egypt, which receives money as a result of the Camp David accords). We’ve alienated much (most?) of the Arab world and Western Europe.

If all you consider is cost-benefit analysis, then we would have thrown Israel under the bus years ago. However, even Henry Kissinger – the king of realpolitik – strongly supported Israel. If all you consider is cost-benefit analysis, then we would have thrown Israel under the bus years ago.

You have to ask yourself how we differ from Stalinist Russia or Maoist China. Their foreign policy was purely based on self-interest. Are we better than that?
14 megapotamus Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 11:37 am
Israel truly is the rock on which the ship of liberalism will ultimately crash. Petde v Mike is instructive. Mike, you might wonder why France had any interest in aiding a bunch of dirty rebels to a fellow monarch IF you were a wondering man. You might just as well ask why you have a duty to help your neighbor toss water on his burning house in the case of Israel. The inversion between the moral posture and the moral reality of the Leftist is truly an astonishment, or would be if it weren’t so tediously routine. I am so angry and disgusted that I am shaking.
15 Mark Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 11:39 am
Mike, ever heard of Liberia?…
16 mikebdot Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Peter: Sure we are (different than Mao/Stalin), but that isn’t what we’re talking about. We’re not killing people in our country for their beliefs (we’re killing them in other countries). Also, Kissinger was a Jew. That makes his support of Israel quite understandable.

Logically, how else am I supposed to rationize spending government time/resources on something besides cost/benefit analysis? There are certainly benefits insofar as we are fighting for beliefs, etc., but nobody here has told me what exactly those are. Then, there are those like mega who feel sick because I am asking a simple question, yet they give no answer. Why are we there mega? I don’t give two craps about France. Nice metaphor about the burning house that is Israel. What are you talking about? Maybe I’ll take your metaphor a step further, when you play with fire you get burned. How’s that?

Mark: Thanks for the link. Was aware that it existed, but was not aware that we created it for that specific purpose. I was thinking more of a smaller country within our mainland, like, say, the size of Israel. Maybe Delaware would be adequate? Or maybe Maryland? You know, somewhere, right in the middle of country surrounded by white people. Perhaps that would be a better parallel to Israel?

Ok, correct the crazy lefty (speaking of which, I’m not affiliated with any political party, which I’ve stated numerous times, sorry to Mark if he feels like I’m insinuating he’s a neocon, but I was talking about the neocons for real, who will always fight for Israel for the sake of having it exist, even if it turned out it didn’t deserve to, which, I’m not saying is true, only speaking in a hypothetical) time: is this not ultimately about land? Specifically, the land which contains large amounts of water/Jerusalem? Is this not the entire issue? Why is this any different than any other land war? Because of the genocide Mark says. I don’t understand how this makes this any different. What exactly does the genocide in WWII do to the discussion? It makes Israel required to exist in perpetuity? Pardon me for not understanding/asking about this. How exactly am I supposed to use “genocide occurred 60 years ago” in my logical train of thought which ends in “send money to Israel”?

A. Genocide occurred
B. Israel formed
…
?. Send money to Israel

Please fill in the rest. Then, answer why [A] belongs in the train.
17 Mark Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Mike, I’m flabbergasted, truly. I can’t continue the discussion. If you can’t take as a basis for discussion Israel’s right to exist, I’m sure not going to keep going down the same path. I won’t argue for Israel’s right to exist; I take it as a given. Period.

If you must know the answer, then you won’t find it on a blog. You’ll need to read about the history of the Jewish race, how the Romans conquered Jerusalem and burned down the Second Temple, about the Diaspora, about the long ugly history of anti-Semitism and pogroms in Europe and Russia, about the ugly rise of Nazism, about Auschwitz, about Herzl, about Zionism, about the bonds between the Chosen People and the Promised Land, the Old Testament…

Sorry, Mike, but I don’t want to have this discussion. As I said, my basis for argument begins with an assumption: Israel has the right to exist. If we can’t agree on that, than I don’t want to go any further…
18 mikebdot Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Mark: I find it odd that you can’t even debate this very fundamental assumption you are making. Does any nation have the right to exist? I’m not very fond of the idea of a nation state in general (think, “I am a citizen of the Earth”), so perhaps you can begin to see my main qualm. I’m flabbergasted that you are flabbergasted. I’m not being dishonest or deliberately obtuse (which isn’t to say I’m not actually being obtuse). But, I suppose I’m the odd man out in Israel posts from now on? Oh well.
19 Ryan Bonneville Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 1:12 pm
On a different note, we don’t need for Israel to have a right to exist; we need merely to want for Israel to exist. They’re the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, they are steadfast allies who provide us with information, and sticking with them provides much-needed stability and continuity to our foreign policy. Most of that was already mentioned by Peter and hasn’t been adequately addressed. Inasmuch as liberal democracy is better than barbaric dictatorship, Israel is better than the alternative. It is right to encourage more liberal democracies in the world, and it is imperative that we defend the ones that exist against aggression. Trying to replace the moral requirements of American foreign policy with benefit-cost analysis is the sort of craven nonsense that has helped bring the Middle East to where it is (see, for instance, our support of Saddam over Iran, our decision not to support the Iraqi rebellion after the first Gulf War, and so on).
20 mikebdot Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Ryan: You are performing benefit-cost analysis when talking about liberal democracies. I happen to agree that liberal democracies are indeed better than barbaric dictatorships. But the dominos will not fall by force, only by example. It’s one thing to make allies, but when one is going to be taken over by another country, that doesn’t make it your business to get involved, just because they are allies or do you all think it is our obligation since they’re our allies?

I do disagree that the information we get from Israel is all that important. There are plenty of ways of getting information that don’t involve them. Of course, both sides of this are speculation as we don’t really know how reliable any of their information is, let alone how much they actually provide us. Herein lies one major problem with such a secretive government (not just the current administration). There is no way for the populace to make heads or tails out of major policy decisions.
21 Mark Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Mike, you’re really off-base here. They’re our allies, but we shouldn’t get involved if someone wants to destroy them? That’s a damned odd definition of an alliance. Regardless, I find it sickening that we are even discussing this. Israel has the right to exist. If you don’t care to acknowledge it, it doesn’t make it any less true.

You know who else doesn’t mind if Israel ceases to exist? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran. The entire civilized world has condemned his comments. I don’t feel a need to justify something so self-evident as Israel’s right to exist and I won’t any further…
22 mikebdot Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 2:00 pm
When was Israel granted the right to exist? Who granted that right? Does Palestine have the right to exist? Do we? Did Dresden? How about Nagasaki or Hiroshima? Just because you say Israel has the right to exist doesn’t make it any more true. All you can offer me is a truism here? I’m quite disappointed. Do nations who aren’t our allies have a right to exist? Do barbarous dictatorships? Do terrorists? Do liberals? Do I?
23 Mark Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Mike, I offered you a whole host of reasons - Israel’s 3,000-year-old relationship with the land, its cultural and religious history, the repeated attempts by Babylonians, Romans, Christians, and now Muslims to extinguish them, whether by murder or oppression, the pogroms, the anti-Semitism, the history of the Zionist movement, the UN-imposed partition after World War II - it’s not a truism.

Enough. I’ve said all I intend to say on the subject. You’re always welcome here, and if others want to take up the banner, they can…but I can’t contribute anything except the slight offering of the 3,000 year history of the Jews, and basic principles of human rights and sovereignty…
24 Ryan Bonneville Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 2:56 pm
Mike, I disagree that what I’m doing is performing b-c analysis, at least in any traditional sense. Liberal democracies aren’t better than dictatorships because they lead to better outcomes; they’re better because they are intrinsically more just. Inasmuch as I’m counting justice as a benefit, you can say I’m doing b-c analysis, but it’s pretty unlike the kind of b-c analysis you seem to want to do.

I’m staying out of the “right to exist” argument as much as possible, in that I find natural rights a pretty shaky proposition. Israel’s “right to exist,” if you want to call it that, for me boils down to the fact that the U.S. has an obligation to defend liberal democracies against aggression. If China invaded Japan or India, I would expect us to be there. If Pakistan invaded India, I would expect the same (note that that would involve acting contrary to an established alliance, but would still be the right thing to do). This may just be some kind of cool-headed calculus about what kind of country is the right friend to have, but the moral dimension that guides it is what I take to be the important feature.
25 peter Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Mike: sorry to bail out of the discussion, but all Hell is breaking loose at the office and I have my day job to attend do. However, I would recommend that when you have the time, you might want to read Moral Man and Immoral Society by Reinhold Niebuhr. Niebuhr was a Catholic theologian who argued that men as individuals have a moral compass, but when they aggregate in the form of a government, the state has no moral code and simply acts out of its own self-interest. It sounds as though your thinking falls in that mode, and it is by no means an illegitimate argument. However, Niebuhr asks how the world would be different if governments also lived by a moral standard – and you might want to ask yourself the same question, and then apply it to the Middle East –
26 fatman Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 7:59 pm
Mike, if you want to do a cost/benefit analysis of US support of Isreal, you have to include the benefit of the IAF’s destruction of Iraq’s French-built Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981. Do you really want to think about how much more difficult it would have been to chase Saddam out of Kuwait if he’d had nuclear or even atomic weapons? Or what the consequences would have been if we hadn’t chased him out of Kuwait?
27 fatman Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 9:04 pm
I might also point out that if you seriously believe that reversing our policy on Isreal would win us any friends in the Mid-East, then your naivete is showing. Or else you’re just not paying attention.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22314

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who were serving as America’s ambassadors to France and Britain respectively, met with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, who was Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain. They were trying to negotiate a peace treaty with the Barbary states (modern day Morocco, Algiera, Tunisia and Libya) so as to end the attacks on US shipping by the pirates of the Barbary Coast.

During the negotiations Jefferson and Adams asked Adja why our shipping was coming under attack. His reply to them was

“… that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.” (Do I need to add that there wasn’t a Zionist in sight?)

That’s been the history of Islam ever since Muhammad founded it. First they conquer, either through military might, diplomatic chicanery or, as they’re doing in Europe now, by outbreeding the infidels. Then the conquered peoples have three choices: become a Muslim or become a dhimmi (and pay for the privilege of continuing to live) or become a corpse.
28 peter Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 9:39 pm
fatman:

1) interesting point about Osirik
2) I have to disagree about Islam: I’ve been to a number of Muslim countries and (with the exception of Saudi Arabia) I have always been treated exceptionally well. While anecdotal evidence doesn’t count for much, there are a number of Muslim countries which have always been (to my knowledge, anyway) peaceful and non-belligerant — Indonesia and Malaysia come to mind –
29 fatman Says:
August 1st, 2006 at 5:29 am
peter:

I have no doubt that Muslims can be gracious hosts -especially if it’s in their best interest. My point though, was and is that Islam, from everything I’ve seen of it, demands that it’s adherents forcibly convert, subjugate or kill all the non-believers that they come in contact with, by any means necessary. Including laying low and waiting for the right time to strike.

I also have no doubt that most Muslims take that command metaphorically. Unfortunately, in the Mid-East at least, the aggressive Type A types who take it literally also seem to be ones with their hands on the reins of power.
30 mikebdot Says:
August 1st, 2006 at 8:54 am
fatman: The same could be said of many Christian nations throughout the past. Many deaths have been the result of Divine Right. There are many Type A Christians that think it is their duty to convert heathens (such as myself) to Christianity. All religions have had this problem throughout their history. However, for the most part, most people of all religious sects are reasonable people who understand differences between themselves and people from other religious sects.
31 fatman Says:
August 1st, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Mike:

Being a heathen atheist myself, I understand what you’re saying in your last comment. And I agree with it. The big difference, however, between Christianity and Islam - and I won’t speak to any other religion - is that Christianity went through a Reformation and, for the most part, gave up Holy War as a means of proselytizing the non-believers. Islam is still awaiting it’s Reformation. And until that happens, we have to deal with Islam as it is practiced now, particularly by it’s most aggressive factions.
32 mikebdot Says:
August 2nd, 2006 at 9:27 am
The Reformation was a painful process. But, it came from within. I think this is how it has to be. In my opinion, all we can do is lead by example, not with many guns. The only reason we give two flying craps is because of Israel and oil. Or is that too simplistic? They can’t touch us militarily. Until we show them that their little terrorist attacks have no effect on how we live our lives, they’re going to keep doing them. The World Trade Center was a drop in the bucket. It was tragic. It caused damage and people died because of it, but the only way to stop the extremist is to let him know he is not affecting you. It shows they are weak. That attack was an isolated incident that could have been prevented with the procedures that are now in place at the various airports. Now, we’re spending huge sums of money and even more lives to prevent another one from occurring, but it will in fact occur (and have been occurring in other nations since that time). There is nothing we can do to stop it. They’ll occur until the Reformation you describe. Until that time, I will live in a small town in the midwest. If they kill me, they are stupid. It’s that simple.
33 fatman Says:
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:23 pm
You know Mike, I was going to try and counter your latest by citing all the terrorist attacks against the U.S. that have occurred in the last twenty-five years or so, many of them by terrorists who later found safe haven in Iraq, or point out that if we don’t keep the Islamofascists from tying up a sizable chunk of the world’s oil supplies we could end up looking at $200 a barrel oil and $10 a gallon gasoline, or suggest that standing around with our hands in our pockets while terrorists destroy Isreal (or try, anyway) will only convince them that they can do the same to us. But I won’t.

The reason I won’t is because you’re delusional. Or drunk. Or dense. Or some combination of the three. That’s only explanation for advancing the argument that “if we just ignore them, they’ll go away and leave us alone or at least not attack us so much that it becomes more than a nuisance.”

I’m done with you.

(Mark, if you delete this, I’ll understand. I just had to get it off my chest. Sorry.)
34 mikebdot Says:
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:30 pm
How many during the past 25 years have died because of a terrorist attack in the US? Come at me with your numbers. I’m fair game. I don’t post here to ruffle feathers. If all you can do is become mad at me you’re not going to do a very job leading the nation in destroying the terrorists or preventing them from attacking us.

Ok, that said, let’s say # of terrorist related deaths over the past 25 years is about 5,000 to 10,000 (in the US). I have no idea, I couldn’t find a direct stat online without taking 20 minutes to research (I’m at work, so pardon me). To me, that one terrorist attack (9/11) of 3,000 people is indeed an isolated incident within the multitude. In any event, there are more of our own citizens that kill each other than there are terrorist attacks. I don’t understand why there isn’t as much outrage. How about drunk driver related deaths per year. There were 16694 such deaths in 2004 alone. Should drinking be outlawed because there are this many stupid idiots out there? No. You cannot take a common cause action on special cause events. This is what we are doing when we decide to convert everyone to a democracy. Is democracy a good one to run a nation? Sure, I think so, but I don’t think it is anyone’s place to say how you should or should not run your country, unless there are agreed upon treaties being broken (which was clearly the case in Iraq, but how you respond is the political part of the game and a discussion that’s a different thread).

There are many ways to resist terrorism. Killing them all isn’t the only one. How does one prevent drunk driving from occurring? Teach people self-control. Pass laws that punish such behavoir. Make people AWARE of what is occurring. The same can be done to terrorism. Educate the nations around the globe. Show them what it is like in our country and why we think it is better (if they happen to be harboring terrorists) and go on living. If you don’t have the same faith in our country, what’s the freaking point in defending ourselves?

I refuse to live in fear of terrorists. I don’t care how expensive gasoline gets. I can ride a bike to work. We need to become less dependent on gasoline regardless because it’s not a healthy position to be in. This can be done but the politicians are bought and paid for by people who supply the gasoline. Big surprise.

Supporting the formation of Israel was a very big mistake in my opinion and we’re going to be paying for our part in the mistake for hundreds of years. If it is destroyed it is by no means a loss to us. It may empower the (Arab) people in the region for the short term, but in the long run it doesn’t really have any effect on America. Nobody will ever be able to come take us over on our soil. It’s a veritable impossibility.

Call me whatever the hell you want, that certainly won’t change my views.
35 mikebdot Says:
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:35 pm
Oh, by the way, the biggest logistical mistake with the formation was Israel is that the nation is so damned small it’s very difficult to defend from 10,000 miles away, not that it was actually formed (for those who think that was an anti-Semitic statement). It’s just a logistical nightmare, especially since every single country in the immediate vicinity was against it being formed in the first place. Our foresight is absolutely terrible.
36 Mark Says:
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Mike, you’re not going to gain any ground with me (nor I suspect with my readers) with comments like this:

Supporting the formation of Israel was a very big mistake in my opinion and we’re going to be paying for our part in the mistake for hundreds of years. If it is destroyed it is by no means a loss to us.

That’s extremely callous to the Jewish people, and you’re mistaken to think that we ‘formed’ Israel. With all due respect, you need to research the history of Israel…
37 mikebdot Says:
August 3rd, 2006 at 2:37 pm
You can read into it like that if you like, but I meant “loss” regarding our ability to exist in the United States. I.E. if Israel were destroyed/taken over, our country would still function completely normally. That’s all I’m saying. You really have a knack for finding the one statement that sounds completely unreasonable when read by itself. Sometimes I’m not the best at putting words together either since I’m an engineer and all, but man, you remind me of Oliver Willis sometimes…

We didn’t FORM Israel, per se, but we definitely gave them all the weapons they wanted/needed to defend themselves. It’s not as though they could just fabricate fighter planes with the abundance of steel foundaries there, is it? Come on now. If you think we had nothing at all to do with Israel’s formation I’ll completely stop filling your comment boxes regarding Israel. Do you not agree that it is a logistical nightmare? We should have told them to take over more land.
38 Mark Says:
August 3rd, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Nah, fill the comment boxes all you want…you don’t have to agree with me, but I’ll never agree with you on this issue, either. It’s not just the land, it’s the little fact of 3-4,000 years of Jewish history are embedded in that land…
39 julia Says:
February 25th, 2007 at 10:05 am
i agree with mike all the way