Of course it's a debate worth having. Of course this is a task for the Congress—although it's the president's job to demand that Congress step up to the plate since they're not doing it on their own. They have abdicated their responsibility. I don't think that the Bush admin changed anything. They adapted what existed to their needs by arguing that certain practices were legal under the existing framework. I'm talking about a new legal framework that would clarify the present murky situation, where captive enemy combatants have rights but not all the rights we have as citizens and so forth. What's been done so far is simply patchwork. I always thought that this was a great failure of the Bush admin, but now I see that constitutional scholar President Obama isn't interested in this either.
I agree that this would be an interesting debate to observe for a layman. What irritates me is that people like Katherine/ED Kain can only see the situation as a chance for them to show off their righteousness (as if they and their ilk were the only people concerned about human rights), which only makes it all that much harder for the real job to get done.
they support unlimited government powers on things like torture and domestic surveillance
Sadly, I think you are exactly right on that count, Katherine…
Sadly, Katherine can't stop using this kind of straw-man exaggeration. People will disagree where the limits should be placed, but nobody supports such unlimited powers. In fact, the whole issue is raised simply because the Bush admin set those limits where others don't want them to be. Unlimited it certainly was not. If Katherine/ED Kain were to engage in argument about these limits instead of engaging in name-calling and admiring their own moral righteousness, we might find out how well-founded ideas are.
The point is, we do not have a legal framework adequate to asymmetric warfare, which would allow us to deal with enemy combatants and still remain true to our historic values. The kind of moral preening Katherine/ED Kain engage in is not helpful in this regard.
Bob:
The problem with your #1 is that you don't show that the Iraq war was "unnecessary and contrived." You have only shown that the evil neocons/Zionists/Jews advocated attacking Iraq—as early as 1997! But I have shown you reasons why it was necessary and not contrived. This means that—even back in 1997!—there were solid justifications for it.
You say "the administration had a war with Iraq as a possibility" as early as 2001 as if this were damning evidence…of something. Don't you want your national security leaders to develop war plans against sworn enemies like Saddam? What's wrong with it? Do want them to sit around discussing stuff like a in graduate seminar until we're actually invaded before developing war plans? Or what?
Humor me: you can answer my questions like I answered yours (even the same damn question three times) forthrightly. Remember, you called me a liar ["But that is just false, and you know it."] on the WMD question. I should be pissed about this, but I'm not. I just want to understand where you're coming from and you're not giving me any help.
What's wrong with my rhetoric?
Why do you think that "the whole world thought that Saddam had WMDs before the invasion" is a lie?
Why do you deliberately misinterpret me about the preemptive war question?
Why is it wrong to say that Saddam was part of terrorist networks?
What does “Is ‘restating’ Bush rational really your best argument?” mean?
Thanks, Katherine. But we already knew that you love human rights more than your intellectual opposition. However, you're doing the right thing by reminding us at every opportunity.
Preemptive war (or a preemptive strike) is waged in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived inevitable offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war before that threat materializes. Preemptive war is often confused with the term preventive war.
I said that preemptive war was considered just but I find upon reading the Wikipedia article that there is no real agreement on this. Wikipedia explains that there is a "tension" here because, even though one hasn't been attacked, preemptive war is clearly defensive.
I said that the Iraq war was not preemptive because there was no imminent threat from Iraq. I am not making the preemptive argument at all, nor has any evil neo con/Zionist/Jew.
I said that the Iraq war was preventive: it was supposed to forestall an attack before it became imminent. Thus, if we consider only this element, the Iraq war was not just. However, there was a whole package of justifications for the war of which prevention was only one element. The most important among these elements is the fact that the Gulf War never really ended with Saddam's defeat and the UNSC produced umpteen binding resolutions against him. Non compliance with any of these would justify an attack and Saddam failed to comply with all of them over many years. Also there was the fact of daily skirmishes in the no-fly zones and the reasonable prediction that one of these would escalate into all-out war, as Saddam fired upon our aircraft. The facts of asymmetrical warfare imply that a so-called rogue state like Saddam's (or Iran today) can arm insurgent organizations with WMDs and thereby deny any participation in an eventual attack. Leaders responsible for national security cannot simply sit back and tell the people that their hands are tied by international law in the face of threats of this nature because they would lose elections (to consider only the practical side of politics). Therefore, they have to consider preventive attacks as a response if they're responsible. At the time, I supported Bush's decision to ask for Congressional authorization for an attack against Iraq and I supported the overwhelming votes in favor. I have seen nothing in the interim that would make me repudiate this. One has to consider what was known at the time the decision was made, not what has happened since. I don't consider those that opposed the original decision to be unpatriotic or anything like that. I just consider them wrong. But I do consider those that have repudiated their votes or support since then as intellectual cowards. This is the main reason I supported Hillary for president. She showed a lot of guts there and I want a president with the guts to do the right thing.
There were a lot of reasons to consider Saddam being part of terrorist networks and thus to consider his possession of WMDs to be a threat. He had held meetings with al Qaeda; after the Gulf War, Saddam had made a big effort to "Islamicize" his regime; he harbored known terrorists; al Qaeda in Iraq, under Zarqawi, was in Iraq after the invasion of Afghanistan; Ansar al Islam, another al Qaeda affiliate, was dug in in northern Iraq; etc etc. I'm just writing off the top of my head since I doubt that your questions are sincere.
It is true that the whole world thought that Saddam had WMDs before the invasion. The only reason we now know he didn't is because we invaded. The debate running up to the invasion was about containing Saddam not about whether he had WMDs or not. All this is common knowledge. Bush never said that Saddam had nuclear weapons but only that he was trying to acquire them. Various post-invasion investigations have borne this out. What was wrong with my rhetoric, according to you?
I can't answer the question, "Is 'restating' Bush rational really your best argument?" because I don't understand what you're trying to say. Talk about poor rhetoric!
Like I said, I don't think your questions are sincere. I think you already knew the answers before asking. You have deliberately misinterpreted me and I can't imagine why. So now: what's up with you? Spill your guts and tell me your own ideas instead of carping about my "rhetoric."
Damn co-opters! First you co-opt the word “marriage” and now the word “torture!” By the way, is “beheading captives on video” really considered torture? I thought that was murder…
You mix in some (failed and juvenile) sarcasm with some silly nit-picking instead of addressing the substance of Emmanuel's comment. This will get you some knowing nods and smiles from your friends but it lowers your standing otherwise.
[Sleep deprivation, slapping, placing on high-ranking al Qaeda suspect in a box with what he was told was a stinging insect], ladies and gentlemen, is what supposedly made America the moral equivalent of al Qaeda. Do you suppose that if Barack Obama could get a guarantee that American captives of terrorists would from now on be subjected to no more than the above, he would waste a second in okaying it?
Slapping is a nasty business, but if you tell me it’s torture I’ll slap myself to make sure I’m awake. Though chances are I am, seeing as I’m regularly sleep-deprived. And confession by bee sting simply must be used in the next Austin Powers movie.
Nevertheless, Obama describes it all as “a dark and painful chapter in our history.” This is national security as farce. Here’s what gives the game away: in Obama’s statement we read, “In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution.”
What’s the sentence for assault with an imaginary insect, anyway?
How Obama can grant immunity on this is simply beyond me.
Here's why:
My guess is that there will be no investigation because they are too many skeletons in the Democratic closet that are too hot to let loose. Any investigation of rendition would expose the moral cowardice of Clinton's team vis-à-vis rendition and protecting Americans against al-Qaeda, as well as their post facto lies about demanding that Arab governments pledge to treat rendered terrorists according to U.S. and international standards. Such an investigation would also unavoidably open up the all the material deliberately hidden by the 9/11 Commission about how very little the Clinton and Bush administrations cared about effectively protecting Americans before 9/11.
I do not believe that any American president has ever orchestrated, constructed or so closely monitored the torture of other human beings the way George W. Bush did.
Scheuer shows why this is just wrong:
All of the whining to date has been nothing more than a Democratic effort to politically hang Mr. Bush -- which is not a bad idea for his starting of the Iraq war -- and to make sure that the far worse things that happened to those rendered under the direction of that merry pair of felons, Clinton and Berger, are hidden from public view.
Bob: I never said that the war was unnecessary because there was no imminent threat.
I said it was necessary to prevent the threat from becoming imminent. I'm only restating Bush's (and many others') rationales circa 2002-03—especially in the aftermath of 9/11.
This is what I understand to be the doctrine of preventive warfare—just one of many adaptations we must undergo to adapt to asymmetrical warfare.
I merely disagree with the assertion that the US has the right to use any means it considers necessary to prevent any threat to its global dominance from arising.
God! I hate it when people put words in my mouth. Where did you get the idea that I "asserted" the above? Where did you get the idea that anyone has asserted the above? As much as I've read about foreign and national security policy, I have yet to read anyone "asserting" such things. See what I mean about your use of hyperbole in the service of your rancid thirdworldism? To repeat—although I know it's useless—I was explaining how I say we should respond to the threat posed by the global Islamist insurgency under asymmetric warfare. That is far from "any means, any threat, anywhere to any threat to global dominance" that you attribute to me. I was very clear in stating my preference for so-called soft power in this war. Please try and keep up.
As for the rest, I'm confident that we can deal with non violent threats as we always have: with Shumpeter's "creative destruction"-style capitalism. If that's neoconservative doctrine, then so be it.
You say you're aware of the global Islamist insurgency. But then, you say it's really not all that dangerous because it's "unsupported" by the vast and overwhelming masses of Muslims, violent or not. So then, it's a teeny-tiny global insurgency. Nothing to see here; just move on. Even if this were true—which it certainly is not—what would be wrong with "preventive" warfare against them? Why not defeat them while they're so small and helpless? Why wait until their strength grows? Remember that they declared war on us, not the other way around.
I'm sure that I am neo conservative if that means that I support my country's global power. It's an inheritance from our past—starting with Washington—who founded the modern US Navy—and Jefferson—who sent them to defeat the jihadists of the eighteenth century in Northern Africa. These two events together established the "freedom of the seas," which allowed American business to go global. Even you can see how "freedom of the seas" benefits anyone at all who wants to do business in the world and doesn't want to pay protection money—like European states were doing back in the eighteenth century—to jihadists. But it benefits us more because we have a gigantic head-start. It's our job to preserve and protect this head-start that was gained by our forefathers. I think would be a crime to throw all this away for some multiculturalist/thirdworldist pie in the sky. I know that if we weren't "dominating," then some other country would be. The US, after all, is just after business opportunities. As long as one plays by the rules of business, one is free to come and go as one pleases and to think as one pleases. If I were Muslim or Arab, I'd prefer to be dominated—and even occupied—by this than by some sick enforcers of public morality of a religion like Islam.
It was also - and this is something you’ve missed - about validating a new and radical military doctrine: that it is acceptable to invade a country that does not pose a threat and is not threatening to attack the US purely on the basis that they may, at some future point, be able to attack the US. It is American exceptionalism on steroids.
As usual, Katherine exaggerates and mistates the issue in accord with her overripe thirdworldism, which sees the US as a colonial/imperialist/neocolonial power bound to steal resources from the poor and wretched of the Earth and sees the consolidation of US "global power" as illegitimate. It's a hard fact to assimilate, but the combination of US hard and soft power has done more to lift the "third" world out of despotism and poverty than any thirdwordism has ever done or is ever likely to do.
The issue isn't something as hyperbolic and overstated as "the US can invade anywhere." Preemptive war is the same as a defensive war. There never has been any doubt as to the legitimacy of preemptive war. However, in the case of Iraq, no one can claim that it was preemptive since their was no imminent threat from that country—and Bush never did claim as much and in fact claimed that there was no such imminent threat. The issue was prevention of the threat posed by Iraq becoming imminent, where a preemptive war would have been legitimate according to any philosophy of just war. The US has no reason to invade "anywhere" as long as there are no threats to prevent.
Before March 2003, the whole world—not just the evil neocons/Zionists—thought that Iraq had WMDs and that they wanted a nuclear weapon. That we didn't find the WMDs is not material to this at all. The realities of today's asymmetrical warfare make it imperative to prevent such threats from materializing—from becoming imminent—for the simple reason that once a nation—like Iraq before 2003—has such WMD/nuclear potential they cannot be deterred from making them available to jihadist organizations. These organizations have made it clear that they see the use of such weapons as legitimate in their global jihad.
It's not an attractive fact for thirdworldists like Katherine, but there is a global insurgency active today with the goal of imposing Islamic law everywhere. Their MO is asymmetrical warfare and the doctrine of prevention is but one attempt to deal with this asymmetrical threat. More needs to be done by our leaders to change our national security doctrines to deal with asymmetrical warfare but I'm glad to see that—when push comes to shove—Obama did the right thing by affirming the doctrine of prevention. My own personal hobby-horse here is that we should be using much more soft power than we are today. We should be calling upon Muslim states and Muslims worldwide to reciprocate the respect we give them—to assimilate the fact that the world works according to our rules now. This only means a certain respect for national sovereignty that the West acquired in the seventeenth century—the so-called Westphalian system. This only means respect for pluralism. It means that there will never be a worldwide ummah of Muslim believers under Islamic law to replace the Westphalian system.
In contra ED Kain, this will be as lasting as the global insurgency fought by jihadists—as it should be. It's one thing that has kept ED Kain and Katherine safe to offer their hyperbolic critiques of their nation's use of power. It is not even similar in essence to the subversive operations we fought during the Cold War since it is openly stated and since geopolitics is so radically different today than it was then. For my part, I want my nation to have the most power that it can possibly have in the face of the jihadist threat. It doesn't matter that today jihadists are not in a position to threaten our existence because that's exactly where they want to be. Therefore we should be guided by doctrines that prevent this from even becoming a possibility, as we have been so far. Once it is possible, then it will simply be too late to stop the massive death and destruction that jihadists will wreak on us.
Applying that same understanding to America is part of E.D.’s point.
No, it isn't. ED Kain said that these wars were "American-instigated." That's not even close to saying that any nation will protect its own interests, if need be, by war, which is an utterly banal "analysis" of any situation whatsoever and has nothing to do with imperialism, as it's generally understood. Please try to keep up.
So, explain how these wars were "American-instigated."
After that, you can explain how "consolidating strategic power" is "imperialist" and how America "controls" oil resources. Whatever you say will not be in line with any reasonable definition of "imperialism" or "control."
Miles Stuart:
In all your wisdom, you haven't seen the crowds marching and chanting "Death to Israel/Death to the Jews" and so forth during the Gaza war? If this isn't anti-Semitism then what on Earth is it? Is this what you'd call principled objection to Israeli policy?
Why isn't the ADL a reliable source of attitude survey info for you? I'd like to see your critique but I fear it's just because they're Jews and committed to fighting anti Semitism. Therefore you must think that they are hopelessly biased--or something along those lines. Which is a hopelessly juvenile critique. If not, then show me I'm wrong.
The Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project disagrees with you (http://nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=20124):
Like the Pew surveys, recent Anti-Defamation League (ADL) polls of eleven European nations found growing anti-Jewish sentiment. For example, concerns about the loyalty of Jewish citizens and fears of Jewish economic power have become more widespread in France, Poland and Spain.
They find that between 20 and 46 percent of Europeans in six nations hold "increasingly negative" opinions of Jews, which includes questioning their loyalty to their countries. In Spain the number is 46 percent. That is, if you go to Spain, chances are that one out of two people you'll meet will hold these opinions about Jews. In the US, the number is six percent.
You should read more carefully. I don't like having people put words in my mouth. I never called Katherine anti Semitic. The only people I did call anti Semitic are Europeans, which I have demonstrated. I was only speculating on Katherine's motivations for taking the Arab side in the conflict and saying that she possibly is a Euro wannabe. But she may even be Palestinian for all I know.
Now that you've put yourself forward as an expert, explain how, in Katherine's words, "The Israelis made a lot of promises and didn’t keep them" during the Oslo process. Then show how the Palestinians/Arafat kept his.
Katherine's comment about "no enforcement mechanisms" is puerile. There are no such ironclad "enforcement mechanisms" in regards to any international agreement. Any nation can "opt out" whenever it wants to, for any reason whatsoever, if it assumes the consequences. These kinds of consequences will not be any less serious for Israel than for anyone else. Show me why this is wrong, as long as you have "completely endorsed" her comment.
Expain why "Kuwait, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq" are "American-instigated wars." Remember that Iraq invaded Kuwait, for example. I'm interested in how you can spin any of this to our disadvantage and show how "arrogant and imperialist" we are. Wait: forget Iraq for now. Just focus on the other wars and show how they are "American instigated."
It just happens to be true that we fought to preserve France and to protect them in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War. And it just happens to be true that they have repaid us with sh$t. And it doen't make any difference to me that they supported us back in 1783--that was the old monarchy, after all, and they supported us to weaken the British, not as an expression of friendship.
Just because someone's views are popular, or "reflect popular opinion" doesn't make them correct. I'd say that the President's job isn't to represent popular opinon but to do and say the right thing.
I hope that Obama's saying that we are not at war with Islam will be accepted by Muslims--Bush's identical and repeated declarations never were. Is there really anyone sane--or non Muslim--who thinks we are? But for that to happen, Muslims would have to change. That won't happen as long as our President thinks it's so important to make obsequious speeches to them.
As for the all-important Respect that Obama promised Muslims: I'd have a lot more respect for him if he also demanded respect from them in return. Now, that would be an "eloquent" speech worth listening to.
Now I see your point. It was my fault for being so slow. I didn't know about the inflation in Zimbawe, so it's again my fault.
But Palestinians already have such a situation. Isn't this just the post colonial situation in general, with varying economic debacles and causes of high mortality? Consider Algeria today, for example--one of the first anti colonial struggles. "This is seen as preferable" to French rule, etc etc. India and Pakistan are interesting contrasts in this regard: India preserved as much of British culture as they could, while Pakistan--the modern world's first Islamic state--started a fire as a first resort. On top of all this, one of the Arabs'/Muslims' major issues with the modern world is precisely its being fractured into so many weak post-colonial nation-states, in contrast to the Islamic doctrine of the community of believers. One has to sympathize with them as today's losers, but when they have to bomb thousands of innocent people to prove their point, they lose my support.
So, in spite of everything, I doubt that your distopic projections are relevant.
When you talk about "people who sympathize with the Palestinans" you lose me completely. I sympathize with them myself and I'm the last one to blame Israelis for their problems. I hope I made myself clear above that I accept the US/EU Roadmap strategy, which includes creating an acceptable level of governance and economy in Palestine and all the rest. Also, I made the point to distinguish the Palestinian masses from the leadership, which has consistently betrayed them for decades. I'm still naïve enough to think that a critical mass of Palestinians exists who would be happy to live in their own state peacefully alonside Israel. There were many such poeple and communities before the Huseinnis (I don't remember the spelling) clan polarized everyone. It's notable that Arafat was a member of this clan.
The main reason why I say that whatever bleak future you can imagine for Palestine is irrelevant is that (I'm sorry have to say) a lot of the "sympathizers" you refer to do not have a Palestinian state as their major goal--that goal would be the destruction of Israel.
As for my thin skin--you're damned right! Armor--never leave home without it! Why should I?
The sentence you refer to has two independent clauses, i.e., it's a compound sentence; i.e., it's composed of two sentences joined by the word and. I quoted the second clause/sentence accurately. That's why I put the capital P in brackets: to indicate that I had modified the original, which is an accepted convention in writing.
I left out the first clause/sentence to be kind to you [here comes a subordinate clause] because it's just an absurd hypothetical. Inflation never reaches two million percent and it never happens that everybody gets cholera, no matter how serious an epidemic. What difference does it make, anyhow?
I don't know of anyone who "disagree[s] that Israel truly has a deep, deep responsibility to the pathetic Palestinians." This strikes me as more hyperbole in the service of your poorly-expressed beliefs. People just disagree on the limits of such responsibility.
Again, from the Roadmap[and I'm just quoting Phase I for illustration purposes]:
such action should be accompanied by supportive measures undertaken by Israel. Palestinians and Israelis resume security cooperation based on the Tenet work plan to end violence, terrorism, and incitement through restructured and effective Palestinian security services. [Emphasis added to show that Israel accepts its deep, deep responsibility]
Why isn't it acceptable to you that one can show one's deep, deep feelings of responsibility by insisting that Hamas change its covenant and accept Israel's existence, especially since this is a sure-fire way to restart the peace process and possibly reach a final-status agreement?
Why don’t you quit critiquing my citation practices and explain to me why I’m “throwing around the whole ‘anti-semitic’ [sic] slur?”
[P]eople who disagree that Israel truly has a deep, deep responsibility to the pathetic Palestinians are far, far too quick to start throwing around the whole “anti-semitic” slur.>/i>
Just to give you a taste of the situation, here's Phase I of the Roadmap:
Ending Terror And Violence, Normalizing Palestinian Life, and Building Palestinian Institutions
In Phase I, the Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence according to the steps outlined below; such action should be accompanied by supportive measures undertaken by Israel. Palestinians and Israelis resume security cooperation based on the Tenet work plan to end violence, terrorism, and incitement through restructured and effective Palestinian security services. Palestinians undertake comprehensive political reform in preparation for statehood, including drafting a Palestinian constitution, and free, fair and open elections upon the basis of those measures. Israel takes all necessary steps to help normalize Palestinian life. Israel withdraws from Palestinian areas occupied from September 28, 2000 and the two sides restore the status quo that existed at that time, as security performance and cooperation progress. Israel also freezes all settlement activity, consistent with the Mitchell report.
At the outset of Phase I:
* Palestinian leadership issues unequivocal statement reiterating Israel’s right to exist in peace and security and calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire to end armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere. All official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel.
* Israeli leadership issues unequivocal statement affirming its commitment to the two-state vision of an independent, viable, sovereign Palestinian state living in peace and security alongside Israel, as expressed by President Bush, and calling for an immediate end to violence against Palestinians everywhere. All official Israeli institutions end incitement against Palestinians.
That's why I say that Palestinians have a responsibility for their own pathetic lives.
Why don't you explain to me why I'm "throwing around the whole 'anti-semitic' slur?"
Accusations of antisemitism are accurate once a person starts blaming Zionists/Israelis/Jews for the whole problem. Here's why: there's a great European tradition of such Jew-blaming going back a thousand years. People then are correct if they see such attitudes in the current situation.
The Palestinians have now rejected a state six times in the last eight years: in 2000 at Camp David; in 2001 with their rejection of the Clinton Parameters; in 2003 with their refusal to implement Phase I of the Roadmap; in 2005 when they received all of Gaza to show they could live side by side in peace, and turned it into a staging area for rockets and tunnels into Israel; in 2006 when they elected a terrorist government dedicated to Israel’s destruction; and in 2008 when they rejected Olmert’s plea to accept his last best offer in the Annapolis process.
The above doesn't even consider their rejection of a state in 1937, 1947… How's that for patethic?
Like I said above, "They are and have been in the throes of one gangster-like clan after another since Zionism began, from the Husseinis before the partition to today’s Hamas. According to Benny Morris, there were enough Palestinians who wanted to live in peace with Israel from the beginning to have formed a state alongside them if it hadn’t been for Arab clan politics."
That's why the Roadmap emphasizes Palestinian institution-building.
I know I'm talking to the wall here, but I can't help myself.
Too bad Pandora isn't everywhere. Licensing agreements, according to their web page. I got on their list for when they make the agreement—fat chance!
Anita O'Day; Rachell Farrell; Liz Wright; Jane Monheit; Diana Krall (why not? She has a great voice); Abbey Lincoln; KD Lang; Kate Bush; Nina Simone; Bonnie Raitt (not jazz, but she's outta sight!)
I've got a lot of stuff in Spanish—I love the boleros! Just so you see I've got a romantic streak to me!
It looks like you're thinking through some of this stuff so you get the last word. I'll look forward to your next post on this topic to see how you evolve.
I love the idea but can't get the service here in Mexico. What's the deal here? Mexico is North America's piracy capital and yet...
So… what music do you like? I have a shitload of lady jazz singers if you're interested. I can easily put them up on my dropbox account for you if you want to trade some stuff...
ED Kain: "The [Palestinians will] never be the ones to make the right first move. Not gonna happen. It’s going to be up to Israel in the long run."
This is amazingly fatalistic on your part and it even borders on the sort of "soft racism of lowered expectations" that Bush spoke about. Where did you ever learn such an attitude?
Aside from the fact that Israel has made a whole series of "first moves" in the past, you're saying that Palestinians are incapable. I reject this completely. They are and have been in the throes of one gangster-like clan after another since Zionism began, from the Husseinis before the partition to today's Hamas. According to Benny Morris, there were enough Palestinians who wanted to live in peace with Israel from the beginning to have formed a state alongside them if it hadn't been for Arab clan politics.
US policy should be to convince them that they have lost and that Israel is here to stay. This is what Goldberg calls
« A smart idea: ...Perhaps it is nevertheless worthwhile talking to Hamas - not about its contribution to peace but rather about what is stated in its covenant. Perhaps those who espouse the view that we must talk with Hamas will first talk with it about these subjects? Who knows, perhaps it will change its principles? I do not expect this to happen exactly, but I am certainly curious to know what those who think Hamas is the key to peace in the Middle East will say about these things»
I for one agree on both counts: Hamas is the key to peace and they must change their principles. ED Kain wants to drag the settlements across the trail but until this happens—settlemente or no settlements—there will be war.
Jaybird:
The Palestinians—a pathetic bunch (ED Kain dixit) destroyed more than synagogues. The evil settlers left a lot of infrastructure that could have served to create an economy, but which was systematically looted and destroyed. That's what I meant when I said that "Palestinians could still have tried to make a go of it" in spite of everything.
In fact, this is exactly what Israelis have done throughout their history: taken what they could and made it grow. That's why they have a strong and prosperous nation today.
Max: "The concern is that Iran will give a small terrorist organization a nuclear warhead or warheads to launch at its discretion–preventing Israel from retaliating against Iran while doing massive damage to Israeli infrastructure/populace."
Which is just what I've been saying: "These attacks could include some sort of nuclear weapon supplied by Iran, which is the whole point."
Which is just what ED Kain says is "just talk" and declines to explain why he has such certainty about it that he can advocate that Israel put itself at risk.
That is, until they unilaterally dismantle the settlements and evacuate the West Bank. This will somehow cause peace to occur—but again ED Kain declines to explain why or how this could ever happen.
What would happen is that Hamas/Iran would be within ten miles of Tel Aviv and 75% of the Israeli population—close enough for the concern that Max explains to materialize.
On “The Torture Memos”
Of course it's a debate worth having. Of course this is a task for the Congress—although it's the president's job to demand that Congress step up to the plate since they're not doing it on their own. They have abdicated their responsibility. I don't think that the Bush admin changed anything. They adapted what existed to their needs by arguing that certain practices were legal under the existing framework. I'm talking about a new legal framework that would clarify the present murky situation, where captive enemy combatants have rights but not all the rights we have as citizens and so forth. What's been done so far is simply patchwork. I always thought that this was a great failure of the Bush admin, but now I see that constitutional scholar President Obama isn't interested in this either.
I agree that this would be an interesting debate to observe for a layman. What irritates me is that people like Katherine/ED Kain can only see the situation as a chance for them to show off their righteousness (as if they and their ilk were the only people concerned about human rights), which only makes it all that much harder for the real job to get done.
"
Sadly, Katherine can't stop using this kind of straw-man exaggeration. People will disagree where the limits should be placed, but nobody supports such unlimited powers. In fact, the whole issue is raised simply because the Bush admin set those limits where others don't want them to be. Unlimited it certainly was not. If Katherine/ED Kain were to engage in argument about these limits instead of engaging in name-calling and admiring their own moral righteousness, we might find out how well-founded ideas are.
The point is, we do not have a legal framework adequate to asymmetric warfare, which would allow us to deal with enemy combatants and still remain true to our historic values. The kind of moral preening Katherine/ED Kain engage in is not helpful in this regard.
On “What the Iraq War Is and What it Isn’t”
Bob:
The problem with your #1 is that you don't show that the Iraq war was "unnecessary and contrived." You have only shown that the evil neocons/Zionists/Jews advocated attacking Iraq—as early as 1997! But I have shown you reasons why it was necessary and not contrived. This means that—even back in 1997!—there were solid justifications for it.
You say "the administration had a war with Iraq as a possibility" as early as 2001 as if this were damning evidence…of something. Don't you want your national security leaders to develop war plans against sworn enemies like Saddam? What's wrong with it? Do want them to sit around discussing stuff like a in graduate seminar until we're actually invaded before developing war plans? Or what?
Humor me: you can answer my questions like I answered yours (even the same damn question three times) forthrightly. Remember, you called me a liar ["But that is just false, and you know it."] on the WMD question. I should be pissed about this, but I'm not. I just want to understand where you're coming from and you're not giving me any help.
What's wrong with my rhetoric?
Why do you think that "the whole world thought that Saddam had WMDs before the invasion" is a lie?
Why do you deliberately misinterpret me about the preemptive war question?
Why is it wrong to say that Saddam was part of terrorist networks?
What does “Is ‘restating’ Bush rational really your best argument?” mean?
On “The Torture Memos”
Thanks, Katherine. But we already knew that you love human rights more than your intellectual opposition. However, you're doing the right thing by reminding us at every opportunity.
On “What the Iraq War Is and What it Isn’t”
Bob:
I really don't get you. Wikipedia
I said that preemptive war was considered just but I find upon reading the Wikipedia article that there is no real agreement on this. Wikipedia explains that there is a "tension" here because, even though one hasn't been attacked, preemptive war is clearly defensive.
I said that the Iraq war was not preemptive because there was no imminent threat from Iraq. I am not making the preemptive argument at all, nor has any evil neo con/Zionist/Jew.
I said that the Iraq war was preventive: it was supposed to forestall an attack before it became imminent. Thus, if we consider only this element, the Iraq war was not just. However, there was a whole package of justifications for the war of which prevention was only one element. The most important among these elements is the fact that the Gulf War never really ended with Saddam's defeat and the UNSC produced umpteen binding resolutions against him. Non compliance with any of these would justify an attack and Saddam failed to comply with all of them over many years. Also there was the fact of daily skirmishes in the no-fly zones and the reasonable prediction that one of these would escalate into all-out war, as Saddam fired upon our aircraft. The facts of asymmetrical warfare imply that a so-called rogue state like Saddam's (or Iran today) can arm insurgent organizations with WMDs and thereby deny any participation in an eventual attack. Leaders responsible for national security cannot simply sit back and tell the people that their hands are tied by international law in the face of threats of this nature because they would lose elections (to consider only the practical side of politics). Therefore, they have to consider preventive attacks as a response if they're responsible. At the time, I supported Bush's decision to ask for Congressional authorization for an attack against Iraq and I supported the overwhelming votes in favor. I have seen nothing in the interim that would make me repudiate this. One has to consider what was known at the time the decision was made, not what has happened since. I don't consider those that opposed the original decision to be unpatriotic or anything like that. I just consider them wrong. But I do consider those that have repudiated their votes or support since then as intellectual cowards. This is the main reason I supported Hillary for president. She showed a lot of guts there and I want a president with the guts to do the right thing.
There were a lot of reasons to consider Saddam being part of terrorist networks and thus to consider his possession of WMDs to be a threat. He had held meetings with al Qaeda; after the Gulf War, Saddam had made a big effort to "Islamicize" his regime; he harbored known terrorists; al Qaeda in Iraq, under Zarqawi, was in Iraq after the invasion of Afghanistan; Ansar al Islam, another al Qaeda affiliate, was dug in in northern Iraq; etc etc. I'm just writing off the top of my head since I doubt that your questions are sincere.
It is true that the whole world thought that Saddam had WMDs before the invasion. The only reason we now know he didn't is because we invaded. The debate running up to the invasion was about containing Saddam not about whether he had WMDs or not. All this is common knowledge. Bush never said that Saddam had nuclear weapons but only that he was trying to acquire them. Various post-invasion investigations have borne this out. What was wrong with my rhetoric, according to you?
I can't answer the question, "Is 'restating' Bush rational really your best argument?" because I don't understand what you're trying to say. Talk about poor rhetoric!
Like I said, I don't think your questions are sincere. I think you already knew the answers before asking. You have deliberately misinterpreted me and I can't imagine why. So now: what's up with you? Spill your guts and tell me your own ideas instead of carping about my "rhetoric."
On “The Torture Memos”
You mix in some (failed and juvenile) sarcasm with some silly nit-picking instead of addressing the substance of Emmanuel's comment. This will get you some knowing nods and smiles from your friends but it lowers your standing otherwise.
"
Abe Greenwald:
"
How Obama can grant immunity on this is simply beyond me.
Here's why:
Michael Scheuer
Sullivan:
Scheuer shows why this is just wrong:
On “What the Iraq War Is and What it Isn’t”
Bob: I never said that the war was unnecessary because there was no imminent threat.
I said it was necessary to prevent the threat from becoming imminent. I'm only restating Bush's (and many others') rationales circa 2002-03—especially in the aftermath of 9/11.
This is what I understand to be the doctrine of preventive warfare—just one of many adaptations we must undergo to adapt to asymmetrical warfare.
"
God! I hate it when people put words in my mouth. Where did you get the idea that I "asserted" the above? Where did you get the idea that anyone has asserted the above? As much as I've read about foreign and national security policy, I have yet to read anyone "asserting" such things. See what I mean about your use of hyperbole in the service of your rancid thirdworldism? To repeat—although I know it's useless—I was explaining how I say we should respond to the threat posed by the global Islamist insurgency under asymmetric warfare. That is far from "any means, any threat, anywhere to any threat to global dominance" that you attribute to me. I was very clear in stating my preference for so-called soft power in this war. Please try and keep up.
As for the rest, I'm confident that we can deal with non violent threats as we always have: with Shumpeter's "creative destruction"-style capitalism. If that's neoconservative doctrine, then so be it.
You say you're aware of the global Islamist insurgency. But then, you say it's really not all that dangerous because it's "unsupported" by the vast and overwhelming masses of Muslims, violent or not. So then, it's a teeny-tiny global insurgency. Nothing to see here; just move on. Even if this were true—which it certainly is not—what would be wrong with "preventive" warfare against them? Why not defeat them while they're so small and helpless? Why wait until their strength grows? Remember that they declared war on us, not the other way around.
I'm sure that I am neo conservative if that means that I support my country's global power. It's an inheritance from our past—starting with Washington—who founded the modern US Navy—and Jefferson—who sent them to defeat the jihadists of the eighteenth century in Northern Africa. These two events together established the "freedom of the seas," which allowed American business to go global. Even you can see how "freedom of the seas" benefits anyone at all who wants to do business in the world and doesn't want to pay protection money—like European states were doing back in the eighteenth century—to jihadists. But it benefits us more because we have a gigantic head-start. It's our job to preserve and protect this head-start that was gained by our forefathers. I think would be a crime to throw all this away for some multiculturalist/thirdworldist pie in the sky. I know that if we weren't "dominating," then some other country would be. The US, after all, is just after business opportunities. As long as one plays by the rules of business, one is free to come and go as one pleases and to think as one pleases. If I were Muslim or Arab, I'd prefer to be dominated—and even occupied—by this than by some sick enforcers of public morality of a religion like Islam.
"
As usual, Katherine exaggerates and mistates the issue in accord with her overripe thirdworldism, which sees the US as a colonial/imperialist/neocolonial power bound to steal resources from the poor and wretched of the Earth and sees the consolidation of US "global power" as illegitimate. It's a hard fact to assimilate, but the combination of US hard and soft power has done more to lift the "third" world out of despotism and poverty than any thirdwordism has ever done or is ever likely to do.
The issue isn't something as hyperbolic and overstated as "the US can invade anywhere." Preemptive war is the same as a defensive war. There never has been any doubt as to the legitimacy of preemptive war. However, in the case of Iraq, no one can claim that it was preemptive since their was no imminent threat from that country—and Bush never did claim as much and in fact claimed that there was no such imminent threat. The issue was prevention of the threat posed by Iraq becoming imminent, where a preemptive war would have been legitimate according to any philosophy of just war. The US has no reason to invade "anywhere" as long as there are no threats to prevent.
Before March 2003, the whole world—not just the evil neocons/Zionists—thought that Iraq had WMDs and that they wanted a nuclear weapon. That we didn't find the WMDs is not material to this at all. The realities of today's asymmetrical warfare make it imperative to prevent such threats from materializing—from becoming imminent—for the simple reason that once a nation—like Iraq before 2003—has such WMD/nuclear potential they cannot be deterred from making them available to jihadist organizations. These organizations have made it clear that they see the use of such weapons as legitimate in their global jihad.
It's not an attractive fact for thirdworldists like Katherine, but there is a global insurgency active today with the goal of imposing Islamic law everywhere. Their MO is asymmetrical warfare and the doctrine of prevention is but one attempt to deal with this asymmetrical threat. More needs to be done by our leaders to change our national security doctrines to deal with asymmetrical warfare but I'm glad to see that—when push comes to shove—Obama did the right thing by affirming the doctrine of prevention. My own personal hobby-horse here is that we should be using much more soft power than we are today. We should be calling upon Muslim states and Muslims worldwide to reciprocate the respect we give them—to assimilate the fact that the world works according to our rules now. This only means a certain respect for national sovereignty that the West acquired in the seventeenth century—the so-called Westphalian system. This only means respect for pluralism. It means that there will never be a worldwide ummah of Muslim believers under Islamic law to replace the Westphalian system.
In contra ED Kain, this will be as lasting as the global insurgency fought by jihadists—as it should be. It's one thing that has kept ED Kain and Katherine safe to offer their hyperbolic critiques of their nation's use of power. It is not even similar in essence to the subversive operations we fought during the Cold War since it is openly stated and since geopolitics is so radically different today than it was then. For my part, I want my nation to have the most power that it can possibly have in the face of the jihadist threat. It doesn't matter that today jihadists are not in a position to threaten our existence because that's exactly where they want to be. Therefore we should be guided by doctrines that prevent this from even becoming a possibility, as we have been so far. Once it is possible, then it will simply be too late to stop the massive death and destruction that jihadists will wreak on us.
On “adventures in invective”
Applying that same understanding to America is part of E.D.’s point.
No, it isn't. ED Kain said that these wars were "American-instigated." That's not even close to saying that any nation will protect its own interests, if need be, by war, which is an utterly banal "analysis" of any situation whatsoever and has nothing to do with imperialism, as it's generally understood. Please try to keep up.
So, explain how these wars were "American-instigated."
After that, you can explain how "consolidating strategic power" is "imperialist" and how America "controls" oil resources. Whatever you say will not be in line with any reasonable definition of "imperialism" or "control."
On “Israel, Alone”
Miles Stuart:
In all your wisdom, you haven't seen the crowds marching and chanting "Death to Israel/Death to the Jews" and so forth during the Gaza war? If this isn't anti-Semitism then what on Earth is it? Is this what you'd call principled objection to Israeli policy?
Why isn't the ADL a reliable source of attitude survey info for you? I'd like to see your critique but I fear it's just because they're Jews and committed to fighting anti Semitism. Therefore you must think that they are hopelessly biased--or something along those lines. Which is a hopelessly juvenile critique. If not, then show me I'm wrong.
The Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project disagrees with you (http://nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=20124):
They find that between 20 and 46 percent of Europeans in six nations hold "increasingly negative" opinions of Jews, which includes questioning their loyalty to their countries. In Spain the number is 46 percent. That is, if you go to Spain, chances are that one out of two people you'll meet will hold these opinions about Jews. In the US, the number is six percent.
You should read more carefully. I don't like having people put words in my mouth. I never called Katherine anti Semitic. The only people I did call anti Semitic are Europeans, which I have demonstrated. I was only speculating on Katherine's motivations for taking the Arab side in the conflict and saying that she possibly is a Euro wannabe. But she may even be Palestinian for all I know.
Now that you've put yourself forward as an expert, explain how, in Katherine's words, "The Israelis made a lot of promises and didn’t keep them" during the Oslo process. Then show how the Palestinians/Arafat kept his.
Katherine's comment about "no enforcement mechanisms" is puerile. There are no such ironclad "enforcement mechanisms" in regards to any international agreement. Any nation can "opt out" whenever it wants to, for any reason whatsoever, if it assumes the consequences. These kinds of consequences will not be any less serious for Israel than for anyone else. Show me why this is wrong, as long as you have "completely endorsed" her comment.
On “adventures in invective”
Expain why "Kuwait, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq" are "American-instigated wars." Remember that Iraq invaded Kuwait, for example. I'm interested in how you can spin any of this to our disadvantage and show how "arrogant and imperialist" we are. Wait: forget Iraq for now. Just focus on the other wars and show how they are "American instigated."
It just happens to be true that we fought to preserve France and to protect them in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War. And it just happens to be true that they have repaid us with sh$t. And it doen't make any difference to me that they supported us back in 1783--that was the old monarchy, after all, and they supported us to weaken the British, not as an expression of friendship.
Just because someone's views are popular, or "reflect popular opinion" doesn't make them correct. I'd say that the President's job isn't to represent popular opinon but to do and say the right thing.
I hope that Obama's saying that we are not at war with Islam will be accepted by Muslims--Bush's identical and repeated declarations never were. Is there really anyone sane--or non Muslim--who thinks we are? But for that to happen, Muslims would have to change. That won't happen as long as our President thinks it's so important to make obsequious speeches to them.
As for the all-important Respect that Obama promised Muslims: I'd have a lot more respect for him if he also demanded respect from them in return. Now, that would be an "eloquent" speech worth listening to.
On “The Madman of Tehran”
Now I see your point. It was my fault for being so slow. I didn't know about the inflation in Zimbawe, so it's again my fault.
But Palestinians already have such a situation. Isn't this just the post colonial situation in general, with varying economic debacles and causes of high mortality? Consider Algeria today, for example--one of the first anti colonial struggles. "This is seen as preferable" to French rule, etc etc. India and Pakistan are interesting contrasts in this regard: India preserved as much of British culture as they could, while Pakistan--the modern world's first Islamic state--started a fire as a first resort. On top of all this, one of the Arabs'/Muslims' major issues with the modern world is precisely its being fractured into so many weak post-colonial nation-states, in contrast to the Islamic doctrine of the community of believers. One has to sympathize with them as today's losers, but when they have to bomb thousands of innocent people to prove their point, they lose my support.
So, in spite of everything, I doubt that your distopic projections are relevant.
When you talk about "people who sympathize with the Palestinans" you lose me completely. I sympathize with them myself and I'm the last one to blame Israelis for their problems. I hope I made myself clear above that I accept the US/EU Roadmap strategy, which includes creating an acceptable level of governance and economy in Palestine and all the rest. Also, I made the point to distinguish the Palestinian masses from the leadership, which has consistently betrayed them for decades. I'm still naïve enough to think that a critical mass of Palestinians exists who would be happy to live in their own state peacefully alonside Israel. There were many such poeple and communities before the Huseinnis (I don't remember the spelling) clan polarized everyone. It's notable that Arafat was a member of this clan.
The main reason why I say that whatever bleak future you can imagine for Palestine is irrelevant is that (I'm sorry have to say) a lot of the "sympathizers" you refer to do not have a Palestinian state as their major goal--that goal would be the destruction of Israel.
As for my thin skin--you're damned right! Armor--never leave home without it! Why should I?
"
The sentence you refer to has two independent clauses, i.e., it's a compound sentence; i.e., it's composed of two sentences joined by the word and. I quoted the second clause/sentence accurately. That's why I put the capital P in brackets: to indicate that I had modified the original, which is an accepted convention in writing.
I left out the first clause/sentence to be kind to you [here comes a subordinate clause] because it's just an absurd hypothetical. Inflation never reaches two million percent and it never happens that everybody gets cholera, no matter how serious an epidemic. What difference does it make, anyhow?
I don't know of anyone who "disagree[s] that Israel truly has a deep, deep responsibility to the pathetic Palestinians." This strikes me as more hyperbole in the service of your poorly-expressed beliefs. People just disagree on the limits of such responsibility.
Again, from the Roadmap[and I'm just quoting Phase I for illustration purposes]:
Why isn't it acceptable to you that one can show one's deep, deep feelings of responsibility by insisting that Hamas change its covenant and accept Israel's existence, especially since this is a sure-fire way to restart the peace process and possibly reach a final-status agreement?
Why don’t you quit critiquing my citation practices and explain to me why I’m “throwing around the whole ‘anti-semitic’ [sic] slur?”
"
Just to give you a taste of the situation, here's Phase I of the Roadmap:
That's why I say that Palestinians have a responsibility for their own pathetic lives.
Why don't you explain to me why I'm "throwing around the whole 'anti-semitic' slur?"
Accusations of antisemitism are accurate once a person starts blaming Zionists/Israelis/Jews for the whole problem. Here's why: there's a great European tradition of such Jew-blaming going back a thousand years. People then are correct if they see such attitudes in the current situation.
The Palestinians have now rejected a state six times in the last eight years: in 2000 at Camp David; in 2001 with their rejection of the Clinton Parameters; in 2003 with their refusal to implement Phase I of the Roadmap; in 2005 when they received all of Gaza to show they could live side by side in peace, and turned it into a staging area for rockets and tunnels into Israel; in 2006 when they elected a terrorist government dedicated to Israel’s destruction; and in 2008 when they rejected Olmert’s plea to accept his last best offer in the Annapolis process.
The above doesn't even consider their rejection of a state in 1937, 1947… How's that for patethic?
Like I said above, "They are and have been in the throes of one gangster-like clan after another since Zionism began, from the Husseinis before the partition to today’s Hamas. According to Benny Morris, there were enough Palestinians who wanted to live in peace with Israel from the beginning to have formed a state alongside them if it hadn’t been for Arab clan politics."
That's why the Roadmap emphasizes Palestinian institution-building.
I know I'm talking to the wall here, but I can't help myself.
On “Pandora Conundrum”
Max: last.fm works great! Fantastic! Now I'm a believer... Thank you!
"
Too bad Pandora isn't everywhere. Licensing agreements, according to their web page. I got on their list for when they make the agreement—fat chance!
Anita O'Day; Rachell Farrell; Liz Wright; Jane Monheit; Diana Krall (why not? She has a great voice); Abbey Lincoln; KD Lang; Kate Bush; Nina Simone; Bonnie Raitt (not jazz, but she's outta sight!)
I've got a lot of stuff in Spanish—I love the boleros! Just so you see I've got a romantic streak to me!
Check this out. Or this.
On “The Madman of Tehran”
It looks like you're thinking through some of this stuff so you get the last word. I'll look forward to your next post on this topic to see how you evolve.
Thanks for everything
On “Pandora Conundrum”
I love the idea but can't get the service here in Mexico. What's the deal here? Mexico is North America's piracy capital and yet...
So… what music do you like? I have a shitload of lady jazz singers if you're interested. I can easily put them up on my dropbox account for you if you want to trade some stuff...
On “The Madman of Tehran”
ED Kain: "The [Palestinians will] never be the ones to make the right first move. Not gonna happen. It’s going to be up to Israel in the long run."
This is amazingly fatalistic on your part and it even borders on the sort of "soft racism of lowered expectations" that Bush spoke about. Where did you ever learn such an attitude?
Aside from the fact that Israel has made a whole series of "first moves" in the past, you're saying that Palestinians are incapable. I reject this completely. They are and have been in the throes of one gangster-like clan after another since Zionism began, from the Husseinis before the partition to today's Hamas. According to Benny Morris, there were enough Palestinians who wanted to live in peace with Israel from the beginning to have formed a state alongside them if it hadn't been for Arab clan politics.
US policy should be to convince them that they have lost and that Israel is here to stay. This is what Goldberg calls
« A smart idea: ...Perhaps it is nevertheless worthwhile talking to Hamas - not about its contribution to peace but rather about what is stated in its covenant. Perhaps those who espouse the view that we must talk with Hamas will first talk with it about these subjects? Who knows, perhaps it will change its principles? I do not expect this to happen exactly, but I am certainly curious to know what those who think Hamas is the key to peace in the Middle East will say about these things»
I for one agree on both counts: Hamas is the key to peace and they must change their principles. ED Kain wants to drag the settlements across the trail but until this happens—settlemente or no settlements—there will be war.
"
Jaybird:
The Palestinians—a pathetic bunch (ED Kain dixit) destroyed more than synagogues. The evil settlers left a lot of infrastructure that could have served to create an economy, but which was systematically looted and destroyed. That's what I meant when I said that "Palestinians could still have tried to make a go of it" in spite of everything.
In fact, this is exactly what Israelis have done throughout their history: taken what they could and made it grow. That's why they have a strong and prosperous nation today.
"
Max: "The concern is that Iran will give a small terrorist organization a nuclear warhead or warheads to launch at its discretion–preventing Israel from retaliating against Iran while doing massive damage to Israeli infrastructure/populace."
Which is just what I've been saying: "These attacks could include some sort of nuclear weapon supplied by Iran, which is the whole point."
Which is just what ED Kain says is "just talk" and declines to explain why he has such certainty about it that he can advocate that Israel put itself at risk.
That is, until they unilaterally dismantle the settlements and evacuate the West Bank. This will somehow cause peace to occur—but again ED Kain declines to explain why or how this could ever happen.
What would happen is that Hamas/Iran would be within ten miles of Tel Aviv and 75% of the Israeli population—close enough for the concern that Max explains to materialize.
"
Here's another one. You'll see that this clip is from 1999. The plans for some sky-born anti aircraft mines will seem far fetched—all talk—until 9/11.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.