"when Sadat was assasinated, egypt got a little more radical. when Arrafat died, we got hamas and hezbollah grabbing power. we put in the shah, they forced him out and gave the keys to kohmenni. there seems to be a pattern that after a leader who would "deal with us" we get ones who won't as easily and lead the anti-us rhetoric."



hey,,,i appreciate you using my words...but next time give the people you quote the credit, ok? it's responsible journalism to reference your quotes. plus i'm scratching my head trying to figure out how my words are supportive of present and past policy...my point was that the more we meddle, the worse things get



other than that...fine article:)

Another Israel-type nation in the Middle East would be a bad thing? How?

it's responsible journalism to reference your quotes

of course, but i didnt want to make it a personal thing so no one would be offended one way or another.

my words are supportive of present and past policy...my point was that the more we meddle, the worse things get

I think i identified your comment as a refutation of those policies. i said "The last of those statements is really telling and confirms that we seem to be always pursuing the wrong policies".may be i should have been more clear.

I was just trying to get all the ideas that are floating around together so i can see the whole pic. and yours stands out as an honest assessment of the whole thing.

Another Israel-type nation in the Middle East would be a bad thing? How

another flash-point in the middle east is not a dangerous thing, not just bad?

The region is already burning, and it is "not bad" to add another flaming spot there? and get Turkey involved too?

and even if the region was not burning as it is, we just have the right to devide nations, create or intensify existing problems and control their resources? Then we say, they are waaaay behind the world in development?

and then wonder why they hate us and target us?

And to what end is that? is that the best (or the only) way to pursue our interests there?

If that is not AGAINST our economic interests i dont know what is. Unless of course, we have other unidentified and never declared interests.

The region is already burning, it is "not bad" to add another flaming spot there?

Heck no if the "falsh point" ends up as a island of progress in an ocean of regression around it. Israel is a stunning success compared to it's very backward neighbors. Add in the fact that it has only been up and runnign for 50 years compared to literally thousands of years for it's neighbor nations and their progress is even more stunning.

We need more Israel-type stets in th middle East in a desperate way. Or we could just abandon the region to the 7th century in the interests of avoiding more problesm. As though the removal of Israel would do a damn thing to "stop the region from burning".

The area will be a cesspit without intervention ergo it is in our interest to see it develop and not regress. Cesspits make poor trade partners.

Israel is a stunning success compared to it's very backward neighbors.

50 years at war, tens of thousands killed and injured, perpetual citizen's insecurity, unknown future, total dependance on others for EXISTENCE/Viability, and a foreign culture in the middle of a totally different one. This is what you call "stunning success"?

I would hate to see your definition of failure.

It all depends on what you want to achieve really. If that is what we are looking for, then all is good and fine. and let's do more.

But my whole point is this: The majority of the American people dont see it that way. not just now, but always. American majority in general never supported this kind of thinking. so why is their elected government pursuing these policies?

That is the main question.

of course, but i didnt want to make it a personal thing so no one would be offended one way or another.

i understand, but it's not offensive, it's proper.

I think i identified your comment as a refutation of those policies. i said "The last of those statements is really telling and confirms that we seem to be always pursuing the wrong policies".may be i should have been more clear.

no, you were clear enough...i missed that and am big enough to admit it.

I was just trying to get all the ideas that are floating around together so i can see the whole pic. and yours stands out as an honest assessment of the whole thing.

thank you very much:)

take care:)

was just trying to get all the ideas that are floating around together so i can see the whole pic. and yours stands out as an honest assessment of the whole thing

of course, if ya do footnote my quote and identify me as saying it, you can assure yourself an attack from the neoconservative elements here who have been trying to play "gotcha" games with me and "lawyer" everything i say here for the past 3 years. they are under some impression that if they can chip off 1% of something i say, it somehow "proves" something...instead of having a robust civil debate like the rest of us have.

see...(look above)

Show some statistics from reputable sources proving your claim, or don't presume to speak for 'the majority' of Americans

this is how it starts,,,then expect every piece of evidence to be "lawyered" as if we were in criminal court.

and of course, the quote pulled by the neocon is an "off to the side" comment you made, not the crux of the article which was about how we deal with the mid east arabs and seem to always get it wrong.

You sound like Col Gene when you do that, and he has no credibility at all.

the col, next to me, is probably the most "ganged up on" brave soul who dares speak against the administration on this blog site. the col's credibility is fine with everyone else,,,not to say he's rigt about everything, but his efforts and views are obviously sincere and he does as much, if not more research than most before opening his mouth.

this is how it starts,,,then expect every piece of evidence to be "lawyered" as if we were in criminal court.

When you say "most of Americans" it isn't unreasonable to ask for a bit of supporting evidence (even jus a shitty newspaper poll). Of course if you have no evidence it seems like a much bigger deal.

Colgene is a hack who can't be bothered with even the most modest of research or backing. Call him on one of his "everyone knows x" claims and ask for proof, he runs away. Just mousing over and seeing his name is enough for me to know that it isn't worth the bits to click on.

Jesus asking for a friggin hyperlink isn't "lawyering" it's called "blogging".

The majority of the American public has always been extremely supportive of Israel

The Point was not regarding a particular issue, it was about the policies in general. And i think you know how americans feel about all these foreign policies that i mentioned, specially the military ones.

and by the way, support for Israel doesn't mean support for the policies. You can support Israel and still do it in a fair way so not to offend a whole region or create new enemies.

Of course if you have no evidence it seems like a much bigger deal.

I thought we assume honesty in expressing our opinions. asking for proof each time you read something you dont agree with sure sounds like what they do in a court room.

We are supposed to be writing our opinions, anyone could be wrong or right.

I usually answer the point , not ask for a proof for the point. the reason i do that is this: suppose the point is valid and i got the proof and i still dont like the point, would the proof prevent me from saying my opinion about it? many of us don't like things that are true. and we still have the right to oppose it. don't we?

that is the whole idea. Argueing about proofs and injecting other side issues really inhibits useful debates.

hope we all concentrate on the ideas not personality or character of each other.

We all Citizens of JU in the cyber space universe. lets not bring the troubles of the real universe to this silent one.  

if ya do footnote my quote and identify me as saying it, you can assure yourself an attack from the neoconservative elements here who have been trying to play "gotcha" games with me

now you know why i didn't -.

But i hope it is all in fun and good humer.

as they say, we can disagree and still be not disagreable.

You went off the beam as soon as you went into the "empire building" arena.

Show some statistics from reputable sources proving your claim, or don't presume to speak for 'the majority' of Americans. You sound like Col Gene when you do that, and he has no credibility at all.

Where did you get the idea that i speak for anyone, let alone the majority? i, and i suppose everyone else, is speaking MY opinion. only elected officials are supposed to speak for the majority. not everyone who speaks his/her mind.

I also think, judging any opinion should be based on the opinion itself not on who is saying it. and that is my opinion -.