All Hank, all the time.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Manson family, Al Qaeda and the People's Front for the Liberation of Palestine are all too small, if I remember Life of Brian correctly.

What's that? the prequel to Brian's Song? I cried.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


OK. I think our foreign policy needs to proceed from a more practical perspective, but as an academic matter you may raise valid points.

Okay, I will take this a sign of progress.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
It's tepid and reads somewhat begrudgingly, but it's a start. I don't think I misconstrued what you said, because that is the first time you said, what i said you weren't saying.

It's neither tepid. I denounce him. Moreover, it's in no way inconsistent with anything I've said. My point is, we have to deal with these unpleasant people. Why can't you just admit it?

Arafat didn't have a country.

He had a people.

And what tells you working wiht bin Laden might not be a route to some peace?

Did I say that was the test?

Different hypo, what if Musharraff gets overthrown and a Shi'a theocracy coems to power in Pakistan and "elects" bin Laden president. He comes out hiding to accept. Do we deal with him then? Do we let him come speak at the UN?

I doubt it. Whatever Pakistan does can't immunize him for his past criminal acts.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I recall differently.

And there's a point when reckless indifference to civilian casualties becomes functionally indistinguishable from your kind of direct targeting.

You recall differently because you were reading propaganda that was sympathetic to the Sandinistas. The main stream media (and many Democrat members of the US Congress) derided the Contras as terrorists and "US Puppets" who weren't fighting for freedom but were just criminals terrorizing the countryside and using the so called revolution just as an excuse to perpetuate crimes.

However, that view was just a little discredited, when the Sandinistas called a free multiparty election (something they swore they would never do) because the Sandinistas were winning the hearts and mind of their countrymen. Because of your brainwashing you may also be skeptical that the Contras were winning the hears and minds of the Nicaraguans, but it is also important to remember that when these elections were called the contras immediately surrendered their arms (something that casts doubt on their label as criminals - and leaving themselves defenseless is not a likely act for someone who has been terrorizing the local population), and in all the areas the contras were supposedly "terrorizing", contra candidates won seats by large margins. The "contra" backed candidate also won that presidential election. The only place the former contra candidates did not do well were mainly in areas where the contras were not operating and the only information the citizens had on the contras in those areas came from either the Sandinistas or the US media.

If the contras were terrorists and criminals (and not freedom fighters) then why did the Sandinistas call for free elections after the contras started making serious gains, and why did the people in the areas the contras were operating elect so many of them in the election and why did the contra backed candidate win the presidency?

Could it be you were fed some bad information from people who always assumed that anyone the Reagan administration helped must be the bad guys and any one that opposed the Reagan administration must be good?

And to think when the Reagan administration set the ultimatum that they would only stop supporting the contras when free elections were declared, and Kerry stepped in (as a Senator), tried to broker a deal without such a condition and was actually angry that the Reagan administration stood by their principles and wouldn't accept any compromise. If Kerry had his way the Sandinistas would still be in Nicaragua - and this idiot almost became president of the United States. Pathetic.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
But again, Spanky, its made up, by the Brits. Palestinians are indistinguishable from Jordanians, and the truth is that, some quibbling about boundaries in the West bank notwitshtanding, Jordan is the Palestinian homeland. Of course, we need only look to Black September, to see the true measure of Arab brotherhood. The issue is not a homeland or dignity or rights or security for the "Palestinian" people, they and the claims of those issues are solely leverage to wipe Israel off the map.

If a nation is defined by its shared language and culture (France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Greece, Turkey etc.) then the nation of Arabia runs from Bahgdad to Morocco and the land between the Jordan River and the Med is definitely part of it. Or at least was part of it until 1948.

If you don't buy that definition of nationhood then someone belongs to the place where they were born. There were many Arabs (and many descendents of such Arabs) that were born in what is now the nation of Israel. Call them what you will but the area that is now called the nation of Israel is their homeland - not Jordan (meaning not the West Bank or the area East of the Jordan river).

Anyway - that is my opinion.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky You recall differently because you were reading propaganda that was sympathetic to the Sandinistas.

Or maybe you recall differently because you were reading propaganda that was sympathetic to the contras.

Since you didn't respond to the remainder of my post, I didn't read the rest of yours.

And now I'm going to bed. A demain, as the French say.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's neither tepid. I denounce him. Moreover, it's in no way inconsistent with anything I've said. My point is, we have to deal with these unpleasant people. Why can't you just admit it?

It's a little tepid, but I don't understand the construction of your first sentence. Are you affecting the linguistics of Savimbi?

I am not saying that we don't have to deal with unpleasant people. In the pursuit of money I do that every day (that explains the self-loathing Sidd or Wonk or SHP or one of those dudes once cited). I am saying we did not have to and should not have done it with him. He was nothing more than a terrorist and a killer and we and others artifically conferred legitimaxtry on him. It was blackmail and we should have called his bluff.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

He had a people.

.

so does bin laden. If his people wanted a seat at the table they should have been told to send a responsible party. not a terrorist killer.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


Did I say that was the test?

Your post implied it. If there is not some minimum test of the utility then why would argue that we have to deal with Arafat? If there is some minimum test what is it? Asked another way, what becomes a bar to the end or what negative outweighs the utility?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


I doubt it. Whatever Pakistan does can't immunize him for his past criminal acts.

Why? How did Arafat get immunised then? His kills were certainly int he hundreds? The symbolism and effect of the Olympic attack was huge, how are you distinguishing them?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Or maybe you recall differently because you were reading propaganda that was sympathetic to the contras.

Since you didn't respond to the remainder of my post, I didn't read the rest of yours.

And now I'm going to bed. A demain, as the French say.

cutting and running and speaking french during the process. Oh the humanity!!!!

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Spanky
Then wasn’t Israel conquered and those ten tribes disappeared to no one knows where.

They went to America. Don't you read your Book of Mormon?

What do you want me to call the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean?

Israel. Or "land that could have been the country of Palestine if the Arabs hadn't been so retarded."

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Or maybe you recall differently because you were reading propaganda that was sympathetic to the contras.

Since you didn't respond to the remainder of my post, I didn't read the rest of yours.

And now I'm going to bed. A demain, as the French say.

I didn't quote the rest of your post “And there's a point when reckless indifference to civilian casualties becomes functionally indistinguishable from your kind of direct targeting." but I think I responded to it.

I thought I was showing that the Contras, contrary to the propaganda, were not "acting with such reckless indifference to civilian casualties to become functionally indistinguishable from Terrorists".

And yes I may have been reading propaganda that was sympathetic to the Contras that is why I pointed to the results of the election. I think the calling of the elections and the results of the election lend credence to the information I received and cast doubt on the information you received.

Maybe I am wrong? How do the results of the first multiparty elections held by the Sandinistas support your information you received about the activities of the Contras?

As I like to say, people vote with their feet. You can say all you want about how much people like an administration or its policies but the emigration and immigration, in my opinion, always tell the true story. If the Soviet Union was so great why the Iron Curtain? If the US sucks so badly, why do we have to build a wall to keep people out? If Cuba is so great why is everyone trying to get off the island? If the mass of the people in South Vietnam really supported the Vietcong, why did they all try and escape after the Vietcong took over and why did the Vietnamese government have to create their own iron curtain after the war. Why was their massive emigration from Nicaragua during the Sandinista era, and massive immigration into Nicaragua after the loss power. If Iraq is so awful today ( and was better under Saddam Hussein) why did the country lose twenty five percent of its people during his reign and why have Iraqis continually been moving back to Iraq in large numbers ever since our occupation (and still continue to move back)?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
They went to America. Don't you read your Book of Mormon?

Sorry I forgot.

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Israel. Or "land that could have been the country of Palestine if the Arabs hadn't been so retarded."

That is fair.

BTW: I have a good friend from College who is now an officer (Colonel) in the Israeli army. He was stationed in the Golan Heights but he can't disclose his current location. He has been reading the board (he asked me what Americans thought of what is going on here so I told him to read the board), but because he is not a lawyer he does not feel he can post here. He also didn't want to insult me in front of "my friends". I told him to post, but he is too humble and polite. So to paraphrase what he said of my comments:

"your posts consistently demonstrate your complete ignorance of Israeli and Palestinian history and clearly show you have bought into most of the unsubstantiated anti-Israeli propaganda."

In addition he said that my suggestion that Israel should expel the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza shows that "I have no sense of compassion and am devoid of empathy. In addition, my position shows my typical US cowboy attitude of trying to find simple solutions to complicated problems, and such simple solutions always cost untold misery and suffering."

I am still trying to get him to post but until then, I will just have to convey the gist of his emails.

[Spanky]

And I forgot to ad that he met Pat Robertson today (or maybe it was yesterday). This time zone stuff always confuses me. Is that not strange? What the hell is Pat Robertson doing on the front lines? Has anyone seen the footage he has been shooting there?

[Spanky]

Another email from a friend of mine (needless to say I wasn't invited to this briefing).

I attended a White House briefing led by Vice President Cheney. He noted, in his matter of fact way, that the terrorists have no illusion that they will defeat the United States militarily. Rather, they desire to break our will, to have us retreat behind our two oceans noting that we had no business inserting ourselves in Middle East affairs. Then, with the sole remaining superpower out of the way and demoralized, they can dominate the region.

It does seem that many in the United States are pushing for such an outcome. They argue that we have lost too many lives already, it is not our battle, and that we have made no progress. This latter point is buoyed by the observation that a civil war seems to be inevitable in Iraq. The reasoning apparently goes that our efforts have ultimately failed if the terrorists are lobbing bombs at their own people as opposed to us. And therefore we should retreat.

If the retreat of the US is the goal of the terrorists, we have too many voices urging our cooperation. I am certain that there is room for improvement in our efforts in that region, but we can not allow the harassment of our enemies, be it on the battlefield in Iraq or in our commercial airlines overhead, to cause us to retreat.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
And I forgot to ad that he met Pat Robertson today (or maybe it was yesterday). This time zone stuff always confuses me. Is that not strange? What the hell is Pat Robertson doing on the front lines? Has anyone seen the footage he has been shooting there?

No, but I ate breakfast with him once.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Spanky

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
Another email from a friend of mine:

I attended a White House briefing led by Vice President Cheney. He noted, in his matter of fact way, that the terrorists have no illusion that they will defeat the United States militarily. Rather, they desire to break our will, to have us retreat behind our two oceans noting that we had no business inserting ourselves in Middle East affairs. Then, with the sole remaining superpower out of the way and demoralized, they can dominate the region.

It does seem that many in the United States are pushing for such an outcome. They argue that we have lost too many lives already, it is not our battle, and that we have made no progress. This latter point is buoyed by the observation that a civil war seems to be inevitable in Iraq. The reasoning apparently goes that our efforts have ultimately failed if the terrorists are lobbing bombs at their own people as opposed to us. And therefore we should retreat.

If the retreat of the US is the goal of the terrorists, we have too many voices urging our cooperation. I am certain that there is room for improvement in our efforts in that region, but we can not allow the harassment of our enemies, be it on the battlefield in Iraq or in our commercial airlines overhead, to cause us to retreat.

I agree with all that. You hang with a smart crowd.