Third Party & Independents: Archives

Excellent article, with one exception. You can’t blame this administration for the wrong-doings of Islamo-Fascists. They are murdering scum and I fear that no matter how hard the Israeli’s try to cope, there will never be an end to thier suffering.
“Failure of leadership from the Bush Administration? I say yes, what say you?”

To the contrary, this administration has been very pro-active in dealing with this matter. So was the Clinton administration. How could I have predicted that Bush would somehow be to blame on this matter. He was also apparently, responsible for the UN bombing. Where does it end? Are there no bounds to the blame game?
I say no, what say you?

I say it is never going to end. I think all the Palestinian militant groups are murdering scum and terrorists. Israeli should follow our lead and start their own war on terror. Stop giving in, don’t give up any more land and don’t release anymore prisoners.

Pete—

It is no secret that the Bush Administration took a decidedly hands-off approach to the Middle-East conflict until the Blair Administration pushed the matter to such an extent as to probably make U.S. intervention in the conflict a condition of British participation in the Iraq War. The British realize that eventual peace of the whole region hinges on peace in the Middle East. They, and the rest of the world recognize that U.S. leadership is needed to exert pressure on the parties involved in order to make peace.

So, the hands-off approach to the Middle East the Bush Administration espoused for the first two years of his term was a failure of leadership, clear and simple. Was Bush directly responsible for the bombing in Jerusalem, no, but the failure his administration to engage the litigants from day one of his administration IS a failure of his leadership, pure and simple, like it or not.

The circle of violence in this conflict is, I fear, endless. No matter, no matter, no matter what the US does. In fact, I think it is time for us to back-out. Leave them be and let them solve it.

Our hands are full.

Robbie

PS: All this news has obscured the fact that Chemical Ali came back from the dead (he was killed April 6, remember) to be captured!

Both sides are murderous scum and terrorists, that’s the real problem. We are mired in it and have picked sides (billions of dollars per year and anti-boycott laws explicitly for Israel). If we act overtly and back Israel we invite more terrorism to our own doorstep (bad politically), and if we step back, Israel will slaughter everyone they think is a threat.

After 9/11, we should have nuked Jerusalem and Mecca; religious extremists on both sides are causing this to spiral out of control.

My comment about nuking Jerusalem and Mecca is jokingly. I really don’t want to see the Mossad or Al Qaida at my door anytime soon.

If something goes wrong it must be Bush’s fault. After all, Israeli/Palestinian relations were all sweetness and light until he came into office, right?

Of course this represents a failure of his roadmap to peace, but what administration has succeeded in this morass?

The Palestinians are now working against there own interests. The Wye river accords represented a reasonable compromise, but for whatever reason it was rejected by Arafat.

The Bush administration was probably smart to take a hands off approach to the situation initially, feelings still ran too high after the Clinton’s failure to secure a peace agreement. Unfortunately, we are apparently back to the square one again. More violence, less chance of peace. From the U.S. perspective I think the only thing to do is let the situation burn itself out a bit

Andy Mac

I talked about this issue in my column entitled..
“Moral relativity in foreign policy as it applies to Islam and war.”
Which was vilified by the left, by the way

I don’t think there will ever truly be peace until there is a victor and a vanquished.
I wish it did not have to be this way but at least someone is trying. That is what is most important.

I don’t think it is Bush’s fault. Nor was it Clinton’s fault that things were smoother when he as Prez.

It is squarely the fault of Israel and Palestinians. We do not belong in a position to take blame or credt for squabbles between thrid-world countries.

BTW - when are we going after the WMD in that region?

someday I will learn to proofread my posts… someday

1. Why do we support a nation that responds to viloence with assasinations?
2. Why is Israel the only country we have a formal agreement with not to spy on?
3. Why does Israel continue to attemp to settle on Palestinian land AND THEN GET SURPRISED when those settlements (full of innocent women and children) get attacked?
4. Why is Israel building a wall to separate themselves from the Palestinians? And why is this wall being built not along the actual property lines but rather arbitrarily, cutting villages and farms in half and (conveniently) isolating people from their community wells?
The cycle of violence is horrifying, trajic, and sick. It’s a shame that the Palestinians are consistently villified while Israel plays the part of the coerced innocent.

Bad stuff happened… blame Bush. It’s easier to do than looking at the real issues involved. To suggest Bush hasn’t been pressuring Syria to cut terrorist ties is to close your eyes to reality. To suggest Bush is being nonchalant about Middle East peace is to ignore what’s really happening.

That’s okay though, it makes better rhetoric to blame Bush for all the world’s ills.

The administration’s failure began with the short-sighted invasion of Iraq. The administration failed to recognize what many pundits and media journalists recognized before the invasion, namely, that such an invasion would fuel terrorism and rally the terrorists.

The invasion of Afghanistan was a good move and fully justified. Had we remained in force there, to rebuild the country, the coalescing of our enemies (Al Queda terrorists) would have been much further from the Israel and Palestinian territory.
As it is, our enemies are now drawn in very close proximity to Israel and Palestinian territory and are mingling and, no doubt, working with, the enemies of Israel.

Arab media and Al-Queda knew there were no significant Al-Queda ties to Iraq, and when Bush falsely announced there were, it rendered the invasion of Iraq an imperialist aggression in the minds of many thousands of Arabs, who are now willing to fight for a “just cause” to doom America’s invasion to failure.

Back on July 3, I wrote an article which suggested what Bush should have known before invading. Namely, that the real war would take place after Saddam’s fall and we would be mired in a new Viet Nam where only a few hundred could use sabotage indefinitely to bring America’s ‘victory’ to ruin.

Had the administration sought and waited for UN support and backing before invading, this scenario would likely have never existed, and Iraq, would likely not have seen such an influx of saboteurs from outside of Iraq. In addition, our costs and our losses would have been shared to some degree and American lives and tax dollars could have been spared. But, alas, the short sightedness continues to cost us and will for years to come.

DRRemer, perhaps this was the plan all along? Would more terrorism in the region justify more retaliation from the US? But for what aim? It is evident that the US is looking to do little more than keep a foothold in Iraq (neither conquering nor establishing a bonifide democracy).

I cannot believe, that men who strategized for a decade on the removal of Saddam, have no post-removal plan or that an aftermath of rebellion was not conceived in their postulating.

Could it be perhaps that this was indeed expected and even wanted? But for what gain? For more target countries? For the appearance of an ever-growing enemy, thus facilitating a state of perpetual war?

I hypothesize. But consider the alternative, that we have been led down a continuous path of folly and error, which is irrational and makes little sense.

Suicide bombing is terrorism. End of story. Terrorists should be destroyed. They are cowards and it is no way to fight any kind of battle.

Walking onto a bus full of civilians ( clearly old men, woman and children ) and blowing yourself and the civilians up shows me you are crazy and all your friends and supporters are too. I don’t care if you think I am on your land or you are on mine. I will retaliate. I will build a wall to keep you out, I will make your life a living hell and if I can I will kill you.

The terrorist are acting like elitists, if you are not as religious or a different religion then them … you are a target. Even you supporters and defenders of the terrorists. Plain an simple you are not as religious or as elite as them and worst of all you are American. Wake up, you’re a target too.

Stephen wrote:

“perhaps this was the plan all along? “

That is such a frightening thought. I remember discussing the idea before the invasion, a ‘wag the dog’ scenario but with real combat. It remains in the back of my mind. If true, it would mean that the military industrial complex as advisors to Bush, succeeded in duping him (for Bush could not hope to survive reelection if a clear and quick victory cannot be found).

It is not a stretch to conceive that Bush was duped out of a second term in the name of American imperialism through trade and military sanction. However, it would mean, that for Bush or any successor, getting out from under the complex’s course of action will be difficult in the extreme.

I surely hope this is not the case.

“It is evident that the US is looking to do little more than keep a foothold in Iraq (neither conquering nor establishing a bonifide democracy).”

I am not clear on your point above. If what you say is true, why is Bush insisting on total control of military action in Iraq which is now becoming a stumbling block for other nations to volunteer forces? It would seem a foothold would be better accomplished by inviting the UN security council to take a shared, or, even full command control of the military situation.

“I cannot believe, that men who strategized for a decade on the removal of Saddam, have no post-removal plan or that an aftermath of rebellion was not conceived in their postulating.”

I agree, it is a huge stretch to believe this was an oversight. Lends even more credence to the idea that perhaps the complex just didn’t share their assessment or strategy for the aftermath, and the President didn’t ask the kind of probing questions he should have.

Or, the President bought their song and dance about how an invasion into Iraq would prepare the American people for the kind of deficits and debt that would be required to create a world domination military infrastructure. In this event, America is really being led down the wrong path.

If democracy for our national government is such a good thing, why isn’t it a good thing for world government, in which we are a member? Miltary offense capable of deterring and preempting any kind of challenge from any other nation on earth, either militarily or economically, is not the path toward democracy.

“But consider the alternative, that we have been led down a continuous path of folly and error, which is irrational and makes little sense.”

Dilemma! It made sense to someone, even if it does not make sense to the rational critical thinking public. Therein, lies the demise of democracy. When government takes actions on this grand a scale, it either does so with the informed consent of the people, or ceases to be a democracy. The majority of Americans according to the Zogby poll this week believe what our government is doing makes sense. So, for the moment, we still have a democracy.

We will never have a democracy. America is not a democracy it is a representative democracy. It is a good thing we are all not critical thinkers or we would all be wrong.

Nick—

Don’t tell that to the progressive people of California, they think they are both!

It could all be a massive conspiracy by the trilateral commision, space aliens and a resurrected corpse of Adolph Hitler via Arnold Shwarzenegger, but I doubt it. I think your problem is that you are seeing everything in Iraq as negative because that is the way it is being portrayed in the media. My friend Matt Adams just returned and he is really pissed off at the way the media is portraying the war. We conduct 800 patrols a day and occasionally they are hit by a handful of whackos. 99% of the people just want thier electricity back on and want a new government so they can be rid of us, by the way, the power is mostly back on in Iraq but you won’t hear about it on the news because it is boring. A lot of anger is being focused inward there rather than at the US troops because thier own people are destroying thier infrastructure and causing the rest of the population to be shot at.

Nick, this is not an ice cream, this is a chocolate ice cream.

This is not a democracy, it is a representative democracy.

Sheeesh! The tools of logic are words. Faulty tools, faulty end product. And no amount of excellent tools will render a quality project if the design is bad. (foregone conclusions do that, you know).