Third Party & Independents: Archives

Has Hamas ever attacked the US? If not, then the point your are making carries very little weight.

The same thing was said about Libya, the hawks were so eager to claim that firm action by Bush had somehow made Gaddafi change his mind about WMD that they broke new ground in specious logic. This was, in fact, a very shallow analysis, that ignored the fact that Libya had been trying to come in from the cold for the last 10 years. It actually said more about the desperation of the hawks to stem the torrent of criticism and to claim any kind of justification for their shortsighted foreign policy blunders.

Bob:
You mention how Libya has been “trying to come in from the cold for the last 10 years”. Its great that they were willing to consider potential action for a decade without actually doing anything about it. Then suddenly, and in your mind coincidentally, they make their move directly after the US shows a willingness to take decisive measures against those who oppose us.

That you cannot see any connection to the timing of Libya’s ACTION, as opposed to conversation, is absurd. There is no doubt that the discussion were going on for a long time—-the point, however, is that they finally acted because they saw potential bad outcomes for non action.

I think Hamas recognizes that the US is no longer the tiger in the cage that can be poked with sticks with impunity. The cage door is opened, and when you poke the tiger, it might just come after you.

Nothing new here. The initial reaction has dissipated and Hamas has just simply returned to its mission — and the mission of practically all anti-Israel terrorists, including Al Queda.

What gets glossed over in all the 9/11, they hate America, “who knew what when” pontificating, the world ignores the most basic of facts: the goal behind ALL of this is to rid the world of Jews. That’s not paranoia or conspiracy. Listen to Osama. Listen to Saddam. Listen to Hamas. Boil it down and they’re all reading from the same playbook.

So when you wonder why it’s not talked about more regularly, ask yourself how much support this country would have for a war to stop the annihilation of Jews in Israel and around the world. Every time you hear the words “war on terror” from an American politician, substitute the word anti-Semitism for terror. And imagine how well that would go over here. We’d have bailed long ago.

With regard to Libya, the reason we’re making friends with Libya now is because it is politically expedient for Bush’n Blair to do so. It appears to give credence to their stance.

Gaddafi, however, rightly recognised that there was an oppertunity achieve his aim of ending years of international isolation by canning his WMD. These were WMD he obviously didn’t need and was never going to use against us. Libya was removed as a threat years earlier through a combination of both military strikes and sanctions. He knew Bush would snap his hand off and give him what he needed if he was amenable to Bush’s need to bolster his foreign policy.

And as you allude to Joe, this was not a coincidence, far from it, this was contrived and choreographed. Bush allowed Gaddafi a means of returning to the fold if he was to help him with the visuals of his war on terror. Nothing wrong with this. But it is a mistake to believe that Gaddafi saw what happened in Iraq and bent the knee. It was an oppertunity for all.

Now if North Korea, a country that has something to gain by haning onto its WMD, had done likewise in the wake of Iraq instead of doing the exact opposite, then your argument would be far more compelling.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Hamas’ stated reason for being the destruction of the “Zionist presence”? What good would “veiled threats” or overt attacks on the US (other than the embassy in Tel Aviv) do vis-a-vis the dissolution of the Israeli state? I don’t think the new leader is making this statement in fear of an “Operation: Palistinean Liberation,” he’s focusing his organization on their goal, and he doesn’t see Hamas attacks on America as good strategy to do so. That said, I hope any attack they attempt fails miserably.
Peace to all of you.

Bob:

Anything to detract from a Bush success, huh?

You say that Bush is only working with Libya because it is “politically expedient”, that this was “contrived and choreographed”, and that “Libya was removed as a threat years earlier through a combination of both military strikes and sanctions.”

First of all, you admit that Gadaffi never saw enough reason to eliminate his WMD’s prior to the Bush administration policies, and now he sees benefit in it. This is certain proof that Bush succeeded in his goal to remove WMD’s. Thanks for pointing that out.

Secondly, you also showed that sometimes military action IS necessary, along with sanctions, in order to neutralize threats. I’m sure at the time, you would have argued that Reagan never should have pre-emptively bombed Gadaffi’s house, because that would certainly result in more terrorist attacks against us. But now, with the benefit of hindsight, you proclaim that to have been successful.

I have high hopes that years from now, you will, with the aid of hindsight, be able to recalculate your current arguments as well.

Bob’s Libya theories notwithstanding… it is still true that Hamas has never targeted the United States - and hopefully will not - because it is obvious that such an attack does not further their goals. Moreover, they do not target European countries either - largely because many Europeans have some sympathy for the Palestinian cause.

In short, the idea that the US’s actions against Al Qaeda and Iraq have forced Hamas to think twice about attacking the US seems like a fantasy to me.

-Cf