LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

two different planets

Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 10:49:19 am PDT

Charles Krauthammer has it right: Peace Through Democracy.

The president's proposal for democratizing Palestine is a fundamental rejection of the Oslo conceit that you could impose upon Palestinian society a PLO thugocracy led by the inventors of modern terrorism and then be surprised that seven years later it exploded in violence.

After a decade of ignoring the Palestinian Authority's corruption, its incitement to hatred, its militarization of Palestinian society, its glorification of violence, indeed, its creation in Palestine, as nowhere else on earth, of a deeply disturbed cult of death, the United States has declared that with this leadership there can be no peace.

The Bush proposal is grounded in the larger American idea that the spread of democracy is fundamental not only to the spread of American values but also to the achievement of peace. Ironically, the man who first insisted that this idea had to be applied to the Middle East is Natan Sharansky, hero of the gulag. Drawing on his experience in the struggle against Soviet tyranny, Sharansky has for years argued that there could be no progress in peacemaking until the Arabs democratized. This earned him the sneers of the Oslo sophisticates as just another right-winger trying to derail the Oslo "peace process" by making "impossible" demands on the Palestinians.

Sharansky was right. Had he been listened to earlier, we might have derailed the "war process" that was Oslo.

I agree that the only real way to achieve peace in the Middle East is by democratization. But the hitch is that all the surrounding Arab countries are also thugocracies, with a deep antipathy toward democracy and a vested interest in keeping things just like they are.

Here’s how the Arab News sees the Bush proposal, in an article written by (heh) “Charley Reese:” Bush: Sharon's dummy.

The entire Arab world at last is willing to make peace with Israel, and Sharon and Bush are flatly turning their backs on the opportunity. Sharon is doing so because he has no intention of ever making peace with the Palestinians and says so frequently. Bush is doing it because he does whatever Sharon tells him to do. In doing that, Bush is sending a clear signal to the Arab world that he looks upon it with the same racist, colonialist attitude of Sharon. Arab suggestions and advice count for nothing. Bush seems to think he can always bully and/or bribe the Arab countries into going along with whatever Sharon decides to do.

That is an extremely dangerous assumption.

Among the many subjects Bush never bothered to study is general semantics, and its most important lesson is that today is not yesterday. The Middle East in 2002 is not the Middle East in 1948. The United States in 2002 is not the United States in 1991. The age of the Western stooge is coming to an end in the Arab world. A new generation of Arab leaders is in the wings. Mr. Bush is, vis-a-vis the Middle East, like the old segregationists in the 1960s who refused to recognize that American blacks had finally said, "Enough is enough."

America's (and Israel's) military superiority rests entirely on its high-technology Air Force. It is only a matter of time before the Chinese or the Russians make an air-defense breakthrough that will erase that superiority. And once we have to go man to man, tank to tank, without domination of the sky and ground by air power, Americans will learn that we are not the superpower our politicians claim we are. The day will come when we will not be able to bomb defenseless people with impunity, and on that day, Americans will wish they had relied more on diplomacy than on force

Is that a threat?

In case you had any lingering doubt about how the Saudis feel, the ever-despicable M. Kahil sketches it out for you (the full-sized image is broken):

Advertisement

42 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 denise  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 9:16:30am

Notice how even in this macho, kick-U.S.-ass fantasy world, the Arabs must rely on outside help. "It is only a matter of time before the Chinese or the Russians make an air-defense breakthrough that will erase that superiority."

I don't know, but I have a hard time wrapping my brain around the notion of the Chinese and Russians wanting to take the drastic step of trying to wipe out our Air Force, or helping the Arabs do so.

2 AG in Houston  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 9:17:24am

Isn't Charley Reese the Anti Israel guy from the Orlando Sentinal?

3 AG in Houston  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 9:25:03am

Just found this turd...

[Link: www.britannica.com...]

It gives the same email for Charley Reese.

This guy is a nutcase. I don't think he even works for the Sentinel anymore, but then again, I could be wrong.

4 Spoons  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 9:27:26am

The cartoon is dumb. Sharon should be shown as Bush's tongue to make the point he's getting at.

(Not that I agree, I'm just saying).

5 John Brennan  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 9:53:15am

'US military superiority rests on ..'

HA HA -- does this asshole realize that we are spending more on defense then the next highest 9 COUNTRIES COMBINED! (yes , that would include the EU countries, China.. etc..)

we are not only miles ahead, the gap is widening ..

of course, the vaunted heroism of the Arab foot soldier could neutralize our technical advantage ..

that's just about the funniest analysis on a war topic I have seen yet .. 'Boys, we're screwed, the Russians have developed a killer 'air defense' system , we'll have to surrender!'

HAHAHA ...

6 William in CO  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 10:06:45am

Right on Denise!! That quote stuck out to me too. The Arabs will have to rely on outside technology from some other actually inventive country to kick out us nasty imperialist punks who came with our outside technology and our weird "science" thingy to extract and give value to the only natural resource in the region.
I'm not sure which is ultimately sadder, that they won't (in their current backward state) ever produce things on their own that will match ours, or that they seem to know this already as shown in their own hypothetical "We'll show em...one day!" articles. Do they honestly think the Chinese or the Russians will be some sort of great benevolent master once we're off the scene? And do they doubt that once we're gone that the Russians and Chinese would surely fill our void (there is a lot of money to be made) and indeed become a master? I mean, if they are relying on future advanced arms instead of ideas for fundamental societal changes, and they can't even make the freakin arms, isn't that just a recipie to be further dependence in the future?
It's like they don't mind the concept of a yoke so much, they'd just like it to change from time to time.

7 John  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 10:35:21am

To level the playing field and help them with their self-esteem I think we should also

1. Trade-in our M-16s for pea shooters;

2. If they fire a weapon at us, fall down & die even if the round doesn't come close;

3. Not use any of our discriminating high technology

etc.....

8 J Lichty  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 10:43:06am

Good point Spoons about Kalihl not even putting Sharon on the tounge instead of Bush.

I guess he is as stupid as he is hateful.

9 E. Nough  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 10:59:53am

I think Mr. Reese is simply counting on the Russians and the Chinese creating some "breakthrough" air hardware that Arabs will be able to buy to effectively use against the U.S. and Israeli air forces.

First, note that Mr. Reese is an American, at least technically. Basically, he is regurgitating the Chomskyite line that our own power and "arrogance" will be our undoing -- and then, to go further, he actually looks forward to that day. This guy is a classic idiotarian gluesniffer. No wonder Arab News likes him so much.

As for the Russians or the Chinese making a USAF-killer plane, puh-leeeze! The Chinese are decades behind in aircraft design; they buy old Russian aircraft and copy them, not altogether well. The Russians still might, but they are no longer a match for the U.S. aircraft industry. More to the point, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and most of all, Egypt, are armed with the latest and greatest American hardware -- not like it did any good for the Kuwaitis or the Saudis, and it won't help the Egyptians much either. Israel already kicked Arab ass all over the place back in '48, '53, '56, and '67 -- when the Israelis were grossly outnumbered, and the Arabs had the all the latest weapons from the Soviets. If the Mr. Reese thinks that the Arabs can win if only they get newer weapons, he is fantasizing like a teenager with a stack of Playboys.

...One final irony. Most of the jets Arabs bought from the USSR were MiGs, airplanes that came from the Soviet design bureau founded by A. Mikoyan and M. Gurevich -- respectively, an Armenian and a Jew.

10 Ruprecht  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 11:36:33am

E. Nough, you forgot the war in 1973, and the invasion of Lebanon in 82.

What happened in 53?

11 BarCodeKing  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 11:38:03am

Reese used to write for the Sentinel but I believe he either "retired" or they put him out to pasture. He does, however, still write a syndicated column. He used to just be a big-time isolationist, but he's clearly gone 'round the bend.

When someone's stuff starts appearing on the Arab News site, it clearly shows that his weltanshauung isn't screwed on just right.

12 Mike  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 11:39:29am

Every aspect of American military force from top to bottom is superior to anything the Arab could ever hopt to aquire. Our soldiers' training, equipment, communications, tactics, armor, everything is so far ahead of anything any Arab army could ever hope to field that this blowhard is laughable when he talks about the Arabs just needing some magic bullet to beat our air force and then they will be our equals.

13 Kevin in Dallas  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 11:42:14am

Would love to get Reese's e-mail address. Didn't the Egytians and the Syrians use Soviet arms when the Israelis kicked their asses in '67?

14 pete  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 12:07:20pm

A few nights ago I watched a Discovery channel program called "Inside the Kill Box" about the Gulf War. One piece detailed how the a US tank squad fell into a trap set by the Republican Guard and proceeded to destroy something like 60 (maybe more but I forgot) tanks in 26 minutes. Ground forces vs. ground forces... no chance

15 Bill Herbert  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 12:08:49pm

Kevin:

you can email Charley Reese at briarl@earthlink.net

Apart from the sheer stupidity of it, I just cannot believe that he's actually rooting for our enemies.

I can't believe Andrew Sullivan actually apologized for his Fifth Column remark.

16 Andrew  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 12:09:53pm

You guys are missing one other big point.... that fearsome future Russian Air Force will more than likely be flying ALONGSIDE the US, ansd usisng some of our hardware while US anti-missile ships defend the Russian homeland, courtesy of Mr. Bin Laden's Chechnya efforts. (saw wacky-Zacky Mousawi's full diatribe on smokinggun.com. Didja know alongside calling for the destruction of the US, he also called for the total destruction of Russia?). These guys just don't get that they are pissing off just about EVERY non-Muslim on Earth, and when the time comes to bargain, they have.... oil (OPEC stock is plummeting), sand, and rage....period. Why the hell are the Chinese gonna come galloping to their rescue anyway. (Oops, Chinese Muslim rebels operating in Afghanistan...oops).

Talk about "not relying on diplomacy". D'oh!

17 E. Nough  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 12:12:25pm

Ruprecht writes:

E. Nough, you forgot the war in 1973, and the invasion of Lebanon in 82.

I deliberately excluded those, because they happened after Israel became a U.S. ally, and started receiving American hardware. The point was to show that Israel spanked the Arabs even when they had all the latest goodies, and the Israelis did not.

What happened in 53?

Raids and a small-scale conflict with Egypt, if I am not mistaken.

18 Damian Penny  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 12:17:32pm

"When someone's stuff starts appearing on the Arab News site, it clearly shows that his weltanshauung isn't screwed on just right."

Robert Fisk's stuff appears in the Arab News quite frequently. John Pilger, too. 'Nuff said.

19 E. Nough  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 12:24:08pm

Andrew, the Russians and Chinese continue to sell weapons and technology to the Arabs, both because the Arabs have money to pay, and because much as the Russians and Chinese dislike Arabs and Muslims in general, they'd rather have counterweights to U.S. influence in the world. The Soviets were actively cooperating with Arab countries even as they were fighting the mujaheddin in Afghanistan.

Of course, the world has changed, and the Russians have bigger problems than worrying about their sphere of influence these days. They certainly aren't about to use their military to help Arabs, as they might have done in their days of being a superpower. But they will still sell them weapons and technology, as long as Arabs have the money.

The Chinese are a wildcard. Right now, they can't project power with their military, and are thus little more fearsome than, say, Europe. But if that changes, they may very well decide to expand their sphere of influence against the U.S., Russia, and India -- and that may very well involve backing the Arabs and Muslims. (Note the recent state visit to Tehran.) A bonus for them might be that the Muslim countries will sell out the Uighurs, as a return favor. You never know.

Still, at the moment, there is no reason to think that the Arabs are going to get backing from anybody worthwhile, and if the Chinese become a global power and work on an alliance with the Arabs, any effort at "diplomacy" will have nil effect. So Reese is still a pinhead; but we knew that.

20 BigDogDaddy  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 12:44:19pm

Just curious for other people's thoughts here. The Muslims like to tout how Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world today. If the democratized, what do you think that would eventually do to the spread of Islam? I believe it would stagnate it. If people were free to choose and have a say in their government without fear of beatings or beheadings, I think many would eventually turn away from the oppression of their Islamist taskmaster. What say you?

21 Bigbad  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 1:00:51pm

Islam is incompatible with democracy, it encourages theocracy. The muslim world will never become democratic.

22 Indepundit  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 1:01:50pm

Has anyone considered what a Palestinian democracy might look like? Remember this JMCC opinion poll?

-- Recent Israeli incursions further radicalized Palestinian public opinion increasing support for Arafat, Fateh and Hamas and depreciating support for Palestinian Authority agencies and negotiations.
-- More Palestinians consider goal of Intifadah is to liberate historic Palestine, not ending Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

[Link: www.jmcc.org...]

I'm all in favor of democracy, but I don' expect it to solve all of the problems in the Middle East.

23 Ben Noah  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 1:46:06pm

In my view, having Hamas or Hezbala leader elected democratically or even taking over the PA would make Israel's job much easier. Neither group are as skilled at diplomatic abracadabra as Arafat, and that's an understatement. Also, both are already on the US list of terror groups.

24 Kevin in Dallas  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 2:03:17pm

Another aspect of history that Mr. Reese ignores is that the U.S. will spend whatever it takes to be militarily superior to its enemies. How does he think we won the Cold War?

25 M. Simon  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 2:49:15pm

E. - We are at peace with the Chinese despite their bluster. Just as we are at peace with the Russians. The telltale sign is an exchange of defense ministers. We did this with Russia in '88. Which is how I knew the cold war was over several years before the general population.

Note that peace does not mean a lack of friction. Just no desire to go to war over the frictions.

Americam industru is working to re-invent the auto. Electrically operated engine valve - the electronic cam shaft. All auxiliarys like the water pump, and power steering electrically operated plus engine only runs on demand - no idling. Thus we get rid of belts and pulleys which continuously rob power.

This is the first step on the road to getting America off fossil fuels for transport.

The other big step is the deployment of wind farms. We installed about 1 nuke equivalent of wind power last year. Wind costs are declining 6% a year for new installations. Projected to stay on that path for at least 20 years. Subsidised wind is now cost competitive with coal. The Congress has passed a two year extension to the tax credit. Expected to extend it for four years. When wind will be competitive with coal without the subsidy.

Technology is comint to our rescue not theirs.

By around 2005 American oil use will start to decline. By 2065 we will use no fossil fuels in America. Zero.

As oil goes below $15 a barell for sustained periods the Arab economies collapse. They will have nothing to sell. As they are so ready to admit.

The third step will be the cost reduction of the fuel cell.

I am giving a talk later this summer at an altrnative energy fair at the Ogle County Fair Grounds in Illinois for those in the neighborhood. I will no doubt be surrounded by lefties and Islamokazie sympathizers. What they don't realize is that by promoting alternative energy technologies they are cutting their friend's throats. Well the left was always all heart and no brains. Of course most of the right is all head and no heart. If we could only get a combination of the two.

I call myself a Free Market Green.

26 M. Simon  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 2:56:18pm

I forgot to mention that coal prices for fuel coal have collapsed in America. Coal use is already declining here.

World wide it is already declining 1% a year. With no Kyoto treaty. Capitalism is truly wonderful.

27 Joseph Alexander Norland  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 3:13:58pm

Krauthammer and most of the readers who commented above, missed one PRINCIPAL point: the Bush musings, as delivered in his speech, do not reject Pal sovereignty. One may well ask Krauthammer (and LGF commentators): if Arafat is once again elected, just as Adolf Hitler was elected, and if Arafat presents some kind of a democratic front that the gullible EU-nicks buy, does that mean a second sovereign Pal state?

Lets give an unequivocal answer:

Autonomy - yes; sovereignty - never.

28 M. Simon  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 3:18:24pm

There is no future in an alliance with the Muslims. This is obvious to all the major foreign ministries of the world. Except maybe the pEU. Maybe even them. It could be why they are so frantically supporing the Arabs. As usual they bet on the wrong horse. The Chinese may dabble but will in general keep the Muslims at arms length. The rot has set in to Arabia.

Of course sell them your old junk while they still have money. Rob them while they go down. Jak roll them. Even sell them "state of the art". By the time they figure out how to use it and get it mass deployed it will be junk. If America doesn't accelerate the process.

Besides pieces of a defense system are not an integrated system. As the Iraqis were taught.

29 M. Simon  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 3:20:23pm

Bush has made it clear to those who listened that American policy is dependent on the kind of state they elect. Elections are not enough.

30 Joseph Alexander Norland  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 3:21:16pm

Within minutes of posting the comment above I discovered an excellent article on this very topic by Joseph Farah. ["Excellent article" = an article that agrees with me]. See it at:

[Link: www.worldnetdaily.com...]

31 Tatterdemalian  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 3:22:43pm

I hope they fix the major problems with electric cars soon. It's nice to proclaim that electric cars will eventually outperform fossil-fuel ones if we just do enough research, but I'll believe it when I see it. Research has a funny way of slamming into brick walls; I'm still waiting for my room-temperature superconductors and holographic television set.

32 M. Simon  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 3:34:27pm

I correspond with Joe regularly. He is OK.

But sometimes he is a hysteric.

Let him go back and parse the speech again. Bush clearly stated that elections are not enough. A change in policy is required. Elections are a test to see if the policy has changed. Having elections is not the point. They are merely a test of a policy change.

BTW you ought to see go off on gays. Most amusing. Not pretty but amusing. "Gays gonna steal our kids". Some how he finds gay sex irresistable. Very interesting.

33 M. Simon  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 3:39:12pm

Electric cars are not the answrer until fuel cells come down in price.

Hybrids are the current answer and are being deployed by all the majors in a big way starting in late 2003.

If Charles would give me some space I have written extensively on the subject and have a lot to say on the subject.

I am an aerospace electric power systems designer and was a Nuclear Reactor Operator in my Navy days. I know a little about the subject. It appears most of you could use a knowledge upgrade on the subject.

34 Ray  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 4:50:44pm

There is an weapon that can nullify all airpower and armor.

It is the UN.

The Palestinians used it very effectively.

We will have to be very carefull about what treaties we sign. We are very lucky that Bush kept us out of the ICC. If Gore were president, our military pilots would have been tried for war crimes.

35 Yehudit  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 6:09:51pm

Nice to meet another Free Market Green. Conservatives seem to have an ideological stake in poo-pooing the voluminous evidence for global warming and any alternative energy sources. I guess just because the Left is in favor, they have to be against.

It's always refreshing when people argue an issue on its merits.

Good website for conservatives on the reality of energy conservation and renewable resources: [Link: www.rmi.org...]

36 RG Fulton  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 7:25:43pm

When the Islamists refer to democracy, they mean: shura (Islamic council) democracy. Deciding on the basis of conscience is anathema to Moslems. You may recall that the Taleban called together (last September) the shura oligarchy, to chose whether to extradite bin Laden or to protect him. Fortunately, their decision proved fatal to them.

37 D J Shafer  Fri, Jun 28, 2002 8:08:25pm

FYI- Hitler was never elected to anything. (He finished second once.) Hitler gained power when an enfeebled von Hindenberg selected him as Chancellor in Jan. 1933. Hindenberg thought that a coalition with the Nazi party would bring greater stability to the government. (Sound familiar? Making deals with low-lifes never brings them into the fold. It always takes the appeaser out.) After the Field Marshall died, Hitler grabbed power via the trusty "emergency measures" route throwing in terror and murder as needed.

38 M. Simon  Sat, Jun 29, 2002 5:43:04am

I'm no believer in GLOBAL WARMING.

The models used to PROVE this idea can't even predict the past let alone the future. In fact the planet has yet to fully recover from the "little ice age" of the 1500s. We are not yet even as warm as it was during the time of Jesus let alone as warm as it was 500 BC. (about 2.3 deg C warmer than today).

At current rates of technical change America (and most of the rest of the planet) will be off fossil fuels by 2065. In 100 years or less there will be no fossil fuel use for energy production any where on the planet, excepting those tring to keep their 409s running for nostalgia and historical purposes.

I favor the move to Green technology for engineering reasons - economy. It is more efficient. And it will put the Arabs at our mercy - where they belong. Oil is not edible.

Global warming in my opinion is a scam to extract money and favors from the gullible.

Here is some science data and a few scientists (15,000) who back me up.

[Link: www.oism.org...]

39 John Johns  Sat, Jun 29, 2002 6:36:59am

"Subsidised wind is now cost competitive with coal. "

Sooo... Atomic energy is cost competitive with back yard bar-b-que grills. Competitive means just that. If a subsidy is involved, there is no competition.

Free market greens are a hoot.

Regards and have a nice day :)

40 M. Simon  Sat, Jun 29, 2002 9:58:23am

John,

In your infinite ignorance you are a hoot.

Wind power electricity is declining in cost 6% a year. By about 2006 unsubsidised wind will be competitive with coal.

That rate of decline in wind cost is projected to run for at least 20 more years.

6% a year is roughly 50% a decade decline. in 20 years wind will be less than 1/3 the cost of coal or nuclear.

BTW this is about the same rate of decline coal fired plants achieved at the turn of the century (1900) and continued for over 50 years.

There really is a mountain of ignorance about our energy future out there Charles.

BTW this is an enegy war. Islam is just used to motivate the troops. The reason the troops don't know this truth is that they might want some of the $$$$$$$$.

I would have prefered a declining subsidy. Of about 8 years duration.

In fact though the subsidy is not a digging into the pocket of the government is set up as a reduction in taxes.

I favor reducing taxes. So a permanent "subsidy" wouldn't bother me at all.

41 Joseph Alexander Norland  Sat, Jun 29, 2002 3:10:23pm

A note to DJ Shafer (comment 37):

I'm sorry that you failed to provide an e-mail address, which would have permitted me to clarify a few points without hogging Charles' space. But since you cast doubt on the veracity of my comment, I have to quote below passages from the literature concerning Hitler's ascendency. The bottom line is this: Hitler, the leader of the party that emerged as the largest in the last pre-war election of Mar 1933, continued his way to power by perfectly legal means, just like Arafat is likely to do in the coming elections. Here is the quotation:

In the July, 1932 elections, the Nazi Party won 13,745,000 votes which gave them 230 out of the 608 seats in the Reichstag. Although the Nazis were the largest party, they were still short of a majority.

In September 1932, the Nazi members of the Reichstag, together with support form the Center Party elected the prominent Nazi Herman Goering as President of the Reichstag (equivalent to House Speaker).

On January 30th, 1933 President Hindenburg decided to appoint Hitler chancellor in a coalition government with Papen as Vice-Chancellor.

In the elections of March 5th 1933, the Nazis only managed to acheive 44 percent of the votes.

The Enabling Act, placed before the Reichstag on 23rd of March 1933 was to allow the powers of legislation to be taken away from the Reichstag and transferred to Hitler's cabinet for a period of four years. The act required a two-thirds majority, but passed easily with the support of the Center and Nationalist parties. Thus dictatorial powers were finally conferred, legally, on Adolf Hitler. By July 14th Hitler had proclaimed a law stating that the Nazi Party was to be the only political party allowed in Germany.

42 Django  Sat, Jun 29, 2002 9:21:32pm

Krauthammer's an optimist.

Democracy in the Palestinian areas means no peace with Israel.

Peace with Israel means no democracy in the Palestinian areas.

You can have peace. Or you can have democracy. You can't have both.


This entry has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

log in
Name:
Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? My Account Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► LGF Hits

► Slideshows

► Resources

► Never Forget

► Statistics

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

► News/Opinion

More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

A bunch of scruffy no-names.


50% off Columbia DVD Sale
New Lower Prices on Textbooks! Shop Now!