McGovern Redux in 2004

I guess that makes the 3000 who died at the WTC soldiers, too.

WTF?

GAZE

Doesn't this mean in Deans eyes Hamas are legitimate targets for the Israelis? I don't see a problem.

He's obviously going after the muslim vote. Why does he remind me of a national Grey Davis?

Sad thing is that at least 1 in 3 Dems believe what Dean said.

he meant to say "militant" - JUST AS BAD!

Would anybody but the most LLL vote for this idiot? He must be the sacrificial goat to lose against Bush.

OT.

LONDON, Sept 11 (Reuters) - The United States, Europe and Egypt warned Israel on Thursday against carrying out a threat to expel Palestinian President Yasser Arafat as thousands of his supporters vowed to defend him.

=======================

I'll do a Johnny Depp on this one. Fuck the US.
Fuck Europe. & Fuck Eygpt.

see drudge for story, too tired to post, too tired of this charade. Bush is a fucking hypocrite, as is Colon Bowel.

He's a moron, plain and simple.

Sad thing is that at least 1 in 3 Dems believe what Dean said.

And the true moonbats see him as the Great White Hope. I just finished arguing on another blog with a guy who idolizes Dean and thinks he's "pro-Israel."

Howy is going down in flames.

Jewish democrat vote:

|
|
|
|
/

For all the Bush bashers, this is the "man" who would lead the USA after you refuse to vote for W?

This has become a running gag. His stance can no longer be viewed as a slip of the tongue, but rather a calculated attempted to garner votes from a radical constituency that is rapidly becoming the "mainstream" Democratic voter.

Keep digging, Howie. Keep digging.

YIKES! Dean has been trying to backpeddle from his original comments all week, and now he comes back with this asinine equation of those Islamofascist terrorist being soldiers in a war? That settles it for me, let his campaign die on the vine, and he can take the Arab/Muslim vote with him.

WTF?? Dean needs to make up his mind what he means

I have been slandered and demand an apology! And this sumbitch wants to be Commander in Chief?

Dr Dean- or should I say Dr "Deen". I hope you get the nomination. You'll drive your party over the cliff where it belongs, once and for all. Maybe the real, patriotic, true Liberal party that our country deserves will emerge from the wreckage. Today's Demagogic Party certainly isn't it.

Dean is pandering to the Jew-hating leftist elements in his party - the same kind of losers who get up early to vote for whatever leftwing scumbag the Democrats are pushing.
Jewish Democrats are idiots, mostly senile kneejerk liberal types and as destructive to the future of Judaism and Israel as your run-of-the-mill Hamas-lover.
If Joe Lieberman's nose gets any further up Jesse Jackson's tuchis, he'll be wearing him for a hat.
What a phoney SOB.

Poor fool never misses an opportunity to shoot himself in the foot. Does he have any idea what he's saying anymore? Bouncing all over the place, geez.

Howie Pinball.

In the November 2004 election for president, American's will be given a choice between an American and a democrat. Any bets at this time who the American people will choose?

I've always thought of JW Gacy as kind of a soldier...

Snore. I just hope that voting for Bush is easy. Like I can walk into a voting area and kick something and it votes for Bush.

I agree with #3 papertiger.

If Hamas members are soldiers, they are legitimate targets. Therefore killing Hamas members isn't murder, it's killing the enemy. Killing Hamas leaders is therefore not "assasination", it's killing the enemy.

If Hamas members were NOT soldiers, then killing Hamas members would be murder (if the killing wasn't in self-defense).

What's the problem? (Other than many of you don't like Democrats.)

Go, Howard, go! I may even campaign for you. I want so bad for you to be the commi..., uh, Democratic nominee.

You, sir, just may be the first 50-state loser in history!

So dean supports the soldiers of Hamas? Someone should mail the dean campaign a copy of the hamas covenant and ask him when we can make an appointment to have his wife and kids, who are all jewish, dealt with in accordance with that covenant and the Koran.

Yes, and I am the king of France.

What an asshat!!

A Hamas splodeydope is to a real soldier as Howard Dean is to a credible candidate for president.

D. Edgren

#25

The trouble is that it gives legitimacy to the bastards, legitimacy that they ought not be accorded. In fact, since it can be readily shown that Hamas supports and organizes terrorist activities, it is best to maintain their status as criminals and murderers.

Dean is a Republican implant. He works for the Bush campaign. Don't be fooled. Vote D.

Deam = Jews are morons.

We declare war against Arafat's soldiers, since there is not acutall Palestinean state, we'll just start in Jordan, then Lebanon

Rock and Roll!

John Smallberries-he'll carry Vermont!
This makes me so sick. I wonder if his internet donors are listed on any disclosure sites? I really want to see how many Arab names are on that list.

Dean doesn't care about Jews or Arabs. He just cares about getting votes.
Don't fall for it, Muslims. If he did get elected there would be no need for him to appease you for your votes.

P.S. His wife is a Jew.

(#25) Ralph Kramden:

If Hamas members were NOT soldiers, then killing Hamas members would be murder (if the killing wasn't in self-defense).

The distinction is not between Soldier and Private Citizen but between Soldier and Terrorist.

Hamas members are Terrorists - by definition, killing them is self-defense.

Is Dean going to succeed Arafat, and if so, can we hand him over to the IDF?

Just curious!

The Vermont copperhead, Dean, shame of the Party of Jefferson (but he has plenty of company) preys on the success of the enemies of freedom and liberty.

Since Arafat's days are numbered, is Dean vying for Yasser-Dudes Hammas s job? Just curious....

For once I think Dean may have made some sense.

They are soldiers and it is a war. As soldiers they are cowards and runts, but terror is their weapon of choice. I think we make a big mistake in treating these Jihadis as criminals. That implies that they must be adjudged guilty of a crime before punishment can be meted out. We hamstring ourselves by fighting them at that level.

If we has to fight SS troops on that basis, we'd still be at the Rhine. They were murdering terrorists too.

They are soldiers and we should be free to just go in and kill them as necessary. They hide among women and children. That is regretable but that's their choice. We can take reasonable efforts to avoid killing the innocent, but no more than that. Find them and kill them for what they are, soldiers in a war against the USA and its allies.

Dean is on the other side, like these people:

The New York Times
January 29, 2002

The Great Divide

By Paul Krugman

I predict that in the years ahead Enron, not Sept. 11, will come to be seen as the greater turning point in U.S. society.

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

The Nation magazine
September 22, 2003 issue

The Importance of Losing the War

By Jonathan Schell

[Senator] Biden says we must win the war. This is precisely wrong. The United States must learn to lose this war -- a harder task, in many ways, than winning, for it requires admitting mistakes and relinquishing attractive fantasies.

[Link: www.alternet.org...]

#25 Ralph Kramden: Please come back after you learn to distinguish between a soldier and an unlawful combatant. We'll be here.

This Dean situation is going to drive the Dems absolutely batty. They can't let his statements stand. But they can't attack them without coming down on their precious Jew-killers in the Ummah, and their supporters at home. And don't think for a minute that they want to be perceived as "Jew friendly" while trying to keep a stranglehold on the McKinney/Farakhan/Jackson vote. We could well see them spinning like a top if anyone presses Dean on yet another revealing statement.

I'd also like to add that I hope Dean clearly states how much he hates Jews because many Jews in the north east actually think he's pro-Israel and they won't get a clue until some major media org like Time Magazine or New York Times clearly states or quotes Dean saying something unmistakably pro-terrorist..

Ralph (#25) Kramden:

Your observation, even if well intended (which, frankly, given your aside about Democrats, I doubt), is an afront and slur against every soldier who ever served this country.

To the mooooooooooo oo o o o n...Ralph!

D. Edgren

#30

But the trouble with your view is that if they are not soldiers, then they must be treated as criminals, and should be subject to criminal trials and sanctions for their acts. You can't just kill a criminal legally (if he's not threatening anyone at that moment), you have to try to arrest him and try him in court.

But if he's an enemy soldier, he's a legitimate target - kill him.

I agree they do not behave as we would have our soldiers behave, and therefore it rankles to attribute that label to them.

Perhaps a better word would be "combatant". But for to be morally right to kill them, they can't be seen as civilians.

Wait a second... if we want to treat captured terrorists as 'combatants' and try them in military tribunals, doesn't that make them soldiers.

By extending the same to Pal terrorists, doesn't that mean we (and Israel) can start treating them as the terrorist army that they are? I'm not so sure designating them as soldiers is such a bad thing, a war against soldiers sounds much better to me than some vague war on terror and opens up all sorts of possibilities.

Bulgarwheat goes to Baghdad

Bulgarwheat needs to go to Bagdhad, where is a good place to stay?

#39, Studsup. Breath between inhaling that shit. You usually make more sense.

Well, if they're soldiers, then the Israelis get to shoot them first and ask questions later, right?

What's the problem? Let's get on with it.

CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT
Dean was responding to question "Israel should continue to kill hamas".

his answer was yes = hamas are soldiers
and that soldiers get killed in a war.
he was trying not to sound callous.

About time someone referred to them as soldiers.

Now unleash the full power of the IDF and IAF. Soldier to "soldier."

OT - End the occupation now

End the occupation 2

Laughing Buddha:

We can treat the "non-combatants" any way we please. Unlike French pensioners, we never let them die of heat exhaustion this summer. Go hassle the French. They went on holiday, we let Marines make sure that these scabs did not die. But we're the barbarians? Go figure?

Studsup, I do agree with everything you said after the first sentence however. The SS was a criminal political army who swore a oath to Hitler, not their country.

If KKK members are soldiers, they are legitimate targets. Therefore killing KKK members isn't murder, it's killing the enemy. Killing KKK leaders is therefore not "assasination", it's killing the enemy.

If KKK members were NOT soldiers, then killing KKK members would be murder (if the killing wasn't in self-defense).

What's the problem? (Other than many of you don't like Grand Kleeguls.)

Did I mention FUCK YOU Ralph Kramden?

I could take Dean's place so easily. I would have to say:

"Hamas and Islamic Jihad are innocent civilians"
--

Dean is so suburban it sickens me. I bet he never spoke to a black guy throughout all his childhood.

#27 rayra: Doesn't matter how much they howl. The lefties you're talking about will still come out and vote "against" Bush, even if they don't want to vote for Dean anymore.

#55 Model4

Unless is was Leiberman.

I am a long time reader of this blog, but this is the first time I have posted something.

While doing a search for Little Green Footballs I came across this hateful website.

They are very anti-Israel and from my brief look, they seem to be pretty evil people.

Anyway, they had an ad at the top of the page. And everytime someone clicks on that ad it costs them money. I think it would be great if everyone followed this link. And it will cost the website a few cents. I figure if everyone who reads LGF clicks on it we can put a sevre damper on their funds.

Sure we could out reason them and prove all of their points, but that doesn't work with people who refuse to think.

#43 Edgren

I have the highest respect the men and women wearing the uniform of the US (and the IDF for that matter). Not all uniforms have earned that respect. Ask a US soldier under what circumstances they can morally kill a person. Ask somene who HAS killed in war.

Get a clue.

Dean had black roommates in college by request!

and what he hell do yoiu think his wife is?!

The LLL sites are strangely silent on Dean's Jewish/soldiers screwups. DailyKos, Eschaton and Steve Gilliard are giddy as girls over the possibility of a Dean/Clark ticket.

That'll settle the whole issue.

Bwa. Bwaha. Bwahahahaha!

Unlawful combatants are not fucking soldiers! By international law unlawful combatants (read, terrorist) have no fucking rights!

RK:

But the trouble with your view is that if they are not soldiers, then they must be treated as criminals, and should be subject to criminal trials and sanctions for their acts.

No, because you're excluding the category called "unlawful combatants". Terrorists belong in that category, as do pirates. The laws of war do not protect them, and the criminal laws do not apply to them.

#53 Reaganite

You make about as much sense as most reaganites I've encountered. Which is not much at all.

Bite me.

Wasn't this Arafat shit predictable?

Bah.

He should've been allowed to sit in Ramallah and jerk off. Now he has publicity.

If I kill a Hamas terrorist and he is considered a soldier, is that murder or am I Mr. 187 only when Mr. Hamas is a non-soldier?

I'm confused.

Ralph Kramdem- we never ask, we just do, that's how the military works.

Ralph, baby, get a small clue...troops don't watch their navals, angry bands of 19 year old men with powerful weapons, the dogs of war, bring and wreak havoc of their foes. "We don't need no stinkin' badges..."

#63 Ralph Kramden
What? Using your words to describe another terrorist group doesn't make sense? You are a fucking idiot.

Well, if they're soldiers, then the Israelis get to shoot them first and ask questions later, right?

What's the problem? Let's get on with it.

Terrorists are not soldiers, but unlawful combatants. Soldiers are protected by the Geneva Conventions; captured soldiers have to be treated well and returned to the opposite power at the end of hostilities.

Unlawful combatants can be summarily executed, even after they surrender.

Now, which is the right way to treat a terrorist?

Dean is without a doubt, the most insane person on this planet....though there are a lot of others who are of the same mold, who adhere to his mantra, I would suggest that Mr. Dean, learn to read the JP, and learn the difference between soliders and victims! There is a story there today I suguset you all read, it is about the Applebaum's, Father and Daughter who where discussing her marriage and he being a emergency Dr. were killed at the Cafe.
They where burried on what was suppose to be her Wedding Day......Yeah, Dean .....you need to really see through the fog that is clouding your brain....

Unlawful combatants are not fucking soldiers!

Yeah, I thought you are supposed to wear a uniform and be identifiable as a soldier to be considered one.

Guys, "Ralph Kramden" is clearly an idiot.

Ignore him; maybe he'll decide to go read up on the matter.

#62

I take your point. But if the U.C. is not doing or planning an attack when you encounter them, can you kill them?

If we use Dean's formulation, the IDF is completely justified in killing Hamas members whenever and whereever they are found, whether they are in the act of terror or planning such acts or not. Which is OK by me.

Re; Reaganite

Ralph, you really are a Fucking idiot. Thanks for pointing that our reaganite!

Now I get it, Dean doesn't want to be president of the U.S., he's vying for Kofi Annan's job.

Whatever Hamas is it must be destoyed! And if we know who backs them they too must die . Welcome to the real world. If we dont get them first, people here will be killed by them. Go Isreal, Beat Hamas!!!

They are soldiers. Soldiers from the state. And should be treated as such. Soldiers from the state of ISLAM. They are in COMBAT. They are not "civilians". They should be treated as all soldiers in combat of a Jewish Holy war. Whats wrong with that?

But today the Democratic front-running Presidential candidate Howard Dean went far beyond even these innocuous labels, and called the openly genocidal murder gang Hamas: “soldiers.”

Allah will not deny being a little worried recently that this numbnuts kufr was "going wobbly." How wrong Allah was to doubt a Democrat! As a token of Allah's remorse, please accept this check for 20 million American dollars from the Bank of Riyadh.

Ah, sweet, sweet vitriol!

Let the slings be slung!

#60 paul: If Clark tosses his hat in the ring for pres instead of VP, I think it's likely to crush the candidates that are out there now. Not that Clark can be elected, not that he's discernably better than the others, but he would be someone new. And the Dems are pleading for anything to come down the pike and be better than the crop they have to chose from now, even though many don't realize it.

Clark'll be treated like a golden-boy granted to the party from on high, with the press and pundits dropping the 9 to lavish praise upon him. By the time he sinks himself, he'll have done massive damage to the others.

Actually, that may well be the plan, Clinton goon that he is. Throw him in neutralize everyone. Then it'll be a choice between drafting Gore (if the party looks likely to lose) and drafting Hillary if they look likely to win.

Nick 49, thank you for pointing that out.

It's pretty funny that Dean is pandering to Arabs, since IIRC 78% of them voted for Bush in the last election.

64 Yair:

You were right.

Some Palistinian chick on CNN just called him their "Godfather." Then Matthew Chance did in his Q&A with Aaron Brown.

I wish he was their "Fredo."

Something needs to be done, though.

Poison his food and blame it on week old schwarma.

Ricin in the baby wipes.

Something.

If we use Dean's formulation, the IDF is completely justified in killing Hamas members whenever and whereever they are found, whether they are in the act of terror or planning such acts or not. Which is OK by me.

#72 Ralph

That's not what Dean meant at all. Dean clearly does not recognize a state of war between Israel and the Palestinians. He does not recognize the right of Israel to kill any Hamasnik it can whenever it can. I assume he doesn't recognize the right of Hamas to kill any Israeli soldier it can wherever it can. You may be trying to use his own words against him, but it isn't what he means.

Ralph (#58) Kramden:

Words have meaning, Ralph.

SoCalJustice (#35) is absolutely right on.

Soldier ≠ Terrorist. No way, no how.

I know a couple of folks I served with in the 101st (in the 70s, during the Viet Nam war) who I would enjoy watching you have this conversation with.

As long as it was in person.

To quote C. T. Robot, Ralph, Bite me.

D. Edgren

I take your point. But if the U.C. is not doing or planning an attack when you encounter them, can you kill them?

Yes, because they're terrorists. How do you know they're terrorists? Because they're hanging out with and acting in concert with, people who have ordered and carried out terrorist acts.

LGFers should try to get people to read Allan Dershowitz's book Why Terrorism Works. He argues in simple terms how legitimizing terrorists, as Dean did, adds to their strength. Most people are very confused about what makes a "soldier" or a "war crime."

#59 nick

Some Jewish people think Dean is pro-Jewish because his wife is Jewish... and are planning on voting for him because of this... and we all know Dean really hates Israel.

I am not making it up because I know particular people who are going to vote for him for this and I am sad about this.

And nick, Yes, I know my comment implied that having a Jewish wife was a bad thing. I am 100% aware of what I wrote because my comment was directed towards Muslims. Reread what I wrote. I am talking to Muslims only, and talking on their level (which happens to be a very hateful one by many standards).

I consider myself to be somewhat leftist, and I already didn't like Dean. Now I'm positive that in an election between Bush and Dean I'd vote Bush for no other than that Bush will do less damage to things in general. Actually, as long as we're discussing tolerable Republican alternatives to Dean, I'd say anyone to the left of Santorum and DeLay, excluding anti-semites like Buchanan.

I think pundit underestimate the number of Democrats who share opinions on Iraq closer to Lieberman than Dean. I think its likely that Dean will crumble in South Carlina, and by 2004 we will be seeing national polls with Dean trailing by more than five percentage points from the leading candidate. If this doesn't happen, I'll bet a third-party candidate to the right of Dean will soak up a lot of Democrats who think Dean is an extremist.

"#44 Ralph Kramden 9/11/2003 07:11PM PST

#30

But the trouble with your view is that if they are not soldiers, then they must be treated as criminals, and should be subject to criminal trials and sanctions for their acts. You can't just kill a criminal legally (if he's not threatening anyone at that moment), you have to try to arrest him and try him in court."

Ralphie my boy your logic is flawed. They are what is refered to under international law as pirates as in the pirates of yore subject to summary execution or if you perfer the more modern term,mercenaries. They are outside of the common law.
Ditto for the scum being held in Gittmo. If GW had the brass he would quite lawfully have the whole shot today.

#44 Ralph

But the trouble with your view is that if they are not soldiers, then they must be treated as criminals, and should be subject to criminal trials and sanctions for their acts.

The IDF has tried that, and the last time they attempted to arrest one of the Hamas gangsters, he replied to their knock on the door with a rocket propelled grenade.

To all my Liberal Jewish Democratic friends, the party has abandoned you, they are hateful and have allied with our enemies. They are controlled by a fifth column seeking to hurt our government to punish us for winning the cold war. Vote republican, read Dennis Prager, the evangelicals and conservative Christians are your friends and allies. Viva la Israel.

The 2004 campaign has started, and Dean is working for Bush. What's the problem?

We will march on a road of bones!

We are as invested into hunting down these Hamas animals as the Israelis are. Anyone who mistakes the distinction between 9/11/2001 and the alQueda/Iraqis/Hamas is missing the plain distinction- these are animails that we will hunt, and as Capitalists, we should evolve this into national sport. Let the hunt begin!

#81 SoCalJustice

I dislike him as much as you do. But he can't be killed. It sucks. Let him rot. He's got 4 years before he get's alzheimers and croaks.

Shit this sucks. My main hope is that Sharon outlives him. Fuck Arafat. He needs to watch his people plod to ruination. That is what he led them to.

Yassin, kill, Rantisi, kill, Arafat, rot.

Fuck.

#57 jssh

A lot like stepping in dog shit at the park, huh?

Oh yeah, some of us have already seen their little ad. If we click on it enough it uses up their limit.

;^)

#94 Yair

And why can't they kill Arafat? What happens if they do, aside from eliminating a major threat to Israel's security?

I'm sorry, I lost my temper.

After spending over half my life as a legal combatant when some gordon clone comes in here and tells me that terrorists are soldiers, in the words of Allah, I am " just going to LOSE MY SHIT."

#63 Ralph Kramden

You wrote:

" You make about as much sense as most reaganites
I've encountered. Which is not much at all."

Reaganite's logic was 100% correct in his post #53.

It's called "Reductio ad Absurdum"; demonstrating
that a foolish argument is absurd.

Are you some sort of troll?

This next election will be the first time I won't be voting for anyone. There isn't even remotely a lesser of two evils.

Why can't they wax Arafat?
Quick question...they've been saying, "You can't kill Arafat" for years. Has anything improved? Would anything have changed? I don't think so. Look, Isreal, America is tired of that old, jabbering bomb tosser. Pitch him, already!

Come one now. If Wesley Clark does throw his hat in the ring he is not going to go anywhere. With the vote they are going for in the primary, the super LLL, he would be seen as a "babykiller", part of the vast military industrial complex. Of course I could be naive, I am assuming that they will follow their old habits of demonizing the military. But since he isn't a Republican they will probably cherish him. Anyway, should be fun to watch - add another shrimp to the barbie and watch the flame burn 'em all.

look what I found..

[Link: www.deanforamerica.com...]

This next election will be the first time I won't be voting for anyone. There isn't even remotely a lesser of two evils.

There really isn't? Bush and whichever of the 9 Democrats who get the nomination are exactly equal in every respect? Surely you don't believe that. Even if both candidates stink to high heaven, one has to be worse than the other. You don't really buy into Nader's nonsense that both parties are identical, do you? No two candidates are identical either.

Whatever dean says now about the Israeli/Palestine issue on tactics is pointless as the situation in the middle east changes on a regular basis and he will only be able to say something useful when he is in a position to do something about it. If you look at all his other positions, you may see that he has a general worldview that makes sense in a fashion. If you believe that you must always live by the sword then you may not like his world view. It is very similar to the Clinton world view, don't go around trying to make enemies, but if that happens try to deal with them as appropriate.

Clinton could not just claim that the following are enemies and therefore we need to take over countries. Remember, many of the military did not like him no matter what he did. But somehow or another we still had a very large somewhat effective military afterwards even though it still had the serious military design issues. (Note: this is not according to me but according to the groups that hate both the fighter mafia and wheeled ground units)

But, this also goes after that we are currently engaged neither in 2nd generation nor 3th generation warfare but in 4th generation warfare. It requires different ways of doing things. The US military is not currently fully cut out and designed to deal with this type of war nor s the Israeli military really setup to do it. If you have a few countries trying to attack Israel, it is setup to deal with it. (a nice 3rd generation war they can do)

To really fight a 4th generation war you have to have your psych ops groups running tactics for the entire military. It may be necessary to run 4th generation tactics against groups that use 4th generation against you. Special Forces methods do actually get into 4th generation methodologies which is why they have been at times very successful.

The crazyman doesn't know if Israel is really using their masters at psych ops to the fullest extent (Jewish women are renown for their psych ops and by the time that they have been mothers for a few years they have honed the skill to a perfection (the crazyman hears from an Indian father complaining about his year old Jewish daughter performing psych ops against him))

Robert C,

I understand the rules that you cite and the Geneva Convention. But, what I am really saying is that I think the time has come to re-evaluate those rules. Those rules made sense in the context of a war fought by nation states or their equivalent with certain tactics and tools (i.e. uniforms). Those rules do not work in the current engagement and we follow them to our detriment. To not follow them does not automatically mean that we have to use the same tactics as the terrorists (and become as savage as them), but we have to have the flexibility to employ a workable military solution that will defeat the enemy. Drawing bright lines in this sort of conflict is not easy but I think new rules need to be considered.

What do you do if, as they have in Canada, catch 19 illegal immigrants engaged in suspicious conduct? Shoot them on sight even though they are unarmed? I think not. Wait until they become more dangerous and then get search warrant. Nah. I would not do what the Canadians intend on doing, which is to quietly release them all bit by bit back into society.

They are illegals, how about coralling them and sending them to Gitmo for a military tribunal? Works for me.
(In California under Gray Davis, of course, we would give them a drivers license).

What if you bust them and find them assembling bombs? Killing every last one of them works for me too?

To be perfectly frank, I don't think it's a good idea that the Democrats get mired into the anti-Israel quicksand. There are number of reasons for this but consider these few:

1, the more legitimacy given to anti-Israel views, the more those views must be taken into account when formulating policy. Nothing would give anti-Israel views more legitimacy than having the Presidential candidate of a major political party enunciate those views;

2, the historical ties between the Democratic Party, Labor, and Jews would be irretrievably be broken. I know there are some who would welcome that. However, Jews do not constitute an essential ingredient to the Republican Party. They have almost no influence in any leadership position within the Republican Party or Republican office holders. How many Jews are in Bush's cabinet? In addition, most Jewish office holders at the national level are Democrats. Most Jewish national Democrats are pro-Israel. A weakened Democratic party thus weakens their positions as well.

3, Without a strong counter-weight, i.e., without a strong party in opposition, the Republican Party would be free to pursue the pro-business and usually anti-Israel agenda of Big Oil. Do you really trust Bush not to take the interest of Big Oil in account on issues of importance to them but which might have a negative consequence to Israel?

There's other reasons too. I'm just tired of typing.

#99

"This next election will be the first time I won't be voting for anyone. There isn't even remotely a lesser of two evils."

Do the country a great favor,please don't vote fool.

Howard Dean's slide into politics came slowly: He was a volunteer for Jimmy Carter's 1980 re-election campaign and won election to the Vermont House in 1982. "That I saw more as community service because he was representing all of our neighbors and it was part time," says Judy Dean.

oy

(from the above link)

Good news: It took Dean exactly one week to all but kill his candicacy.

Bad News: I think his attitude towards Israel is very common in the Democratic Party.

LGF Seattle Chapter.

#99 Teacake -

This next election will be the first time I won't be voting for anyone. There isn't even remotely a lesser of two evils.

Congratulations!!!!!!!! Your are the proud recipient of the first of many to come MASON award (Most Asinine Statement Of the Night) So far..

#83 D. Edgren,

One of the dudes I train with is ex-MACV-SOG Special Forces.

He's also a legitimate 9th Degree Black Belt.

10 different kinds of scary, scary dude. I've learned a lot from him.

I'd love to see him discuss lawful vs. unlawful combatants with our pal Ralph.

Amusing.

Pain and suffering often is.

#105 Studsup

I am sure you know, the Geneva convention applies to the "High Contracting Parties" who signed it, and applies to interantonal conflicts.

neither is applicable to the Israeli/pal conflict.

And why can't they kill Arafat? What happens if they do, aside from eliminating a major threat to Israel's security?

Because the guy has been out of the picture for a while. Yeah, he pushes around bullshit prime ministers. He dies in anonymity in a few years. Now he shoots his mouth off.

This is bullshit.

You know. Instead of making a big deal out of him, they should actually waste him. It is better than threatening to waste him. Arafat? Live, or kill him immediately. What do we have now? BS? Like I said, he *can't* be killed.

This sucks. Rot, or announce that he is dead. I hate the debate.

Best course of action is rot.

There really isn't? Bush and whichever of the 9 Democrats who get the nomination are exactly equal in every respect? Surely you don't believe that. Even if both candidates stink to high heaven, one has to be worse than the other. You don't really buy into Nader's nonsense that both parties are identical, do you? No two candidates are identical either.

Right. For example, Kerry is weakened by water-elemental attacks, while Gephardt is strong against them. Sharpton evolves at Levels 15 and 35, whereas Bush does not evolve at all.

Oh wait. Did you say "Candidates" or "Pokemon"? Never mind...

I am going to vote, and I am going go support candidates that have our great nations interest at heart. Dean does not, George Bush has been fighting this war for two years, I'm confident enough in GW to see that he is able to get the job done.

Good enough for me.

91 Mr Pol

The 2004 campaign has started, and Dean is working for Bush. What's the problem?

You are so good. You know it don't you ; - ?

Anyway, if we are lucky enough and Israel gets rid of
arabfat, what in the hell are we going to cook for our celebration dinner? Nu?

#112 ploome

neither is applicable to the Israeli/pal conflict.

Nor does it apply to the WoT.

Re #80:

It's pretty funny that Dean is pandering to Arabs, since IIRC 78% of them voted for Bush in the last election.

That seems unlikely. A Zogby poll showed Bush winning among Arab-Americans in 2000 but with only 45.5% (Gore 38%, Nader 13.5%).
[Link: www.jordanembassyus.org...]

Re #86:

Some Jewish people think Dean is pro-Jewish because his wife is Jewish... and are planning on voting for him because of this... and we all know Dean really hates Israel.

There may be people saying this, but if you see one, ask them to come up with a better explanation. I mean, not only does Joe Lieberman have a Jewish wife, but Lieberman himself is Jewish, so if your criterion is "connection with Jews," there's no reason for Dean to be your first choice. That would be like saying that you're going to vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger because he has a short, easy-to-spell name.

Some Jews prefer Dean to Lieberman, and they have their right to prefer who they prefer, but Dean being more pro-Jewish doesn't strike me as valid.

By the way, I note that there is another poster (#90) in this thread who also goes by "Joshua." However, we are different people.

Ploome (#108):

Yeah, poor neighbors.

His "gradual slide" into politics makes me think of nothing so much as the slugs (and the slime trails they leave) in my garden.

Oy is right (and I'm not even Jewish).

D. Edgren

#106 Lumiere

That's an argument for not totally abandoning the Democratic party; not an argument for not voting Republican in increasing numbers.

The fact is that the Democrats take the Jewish vote for granted and don't feel they owe Jews squat for votes; conversely the Republicans have learned that the Jewish vote is not theirs to earn and therefore they really don't feel they owe Jews squat. To the extent that both parties are pro-Israel it is less about pandering for Jewish votes and more about the fact that the people of our good country are pro-Israel; Jew and gentile alike.

I think the optimal situation is where, say, 40% of the Jews will invariably vote Democrat and 40% will invariably vote Republican -- and then let the two parties fight for 20% who could vote either. And Jews should support both parties financially in roughly those numbers.

#116 selpaw

Anyway, if we are lucky enough and Israel gets rid of arabfat, what in the hell are we going to cook for our celebration dinner?

I didn't plan a celebration dinner... Frankly he's not worth it.

drive the dean luddites crazy go to their blog and leave statements like this

Mr. Dean is crumbling:
"There is a war going on in the Middle East, and members of Hamas are soldiers in that war," Dean said Wednesday.

Hamas terrorists are soldiers? Great, the Israel should kill all of the Hamas soldiers. Wait, that is not what Dean meant. He meant that Hamas terrorists who decapitate, burn alive, or impale Jewish children are good ol' soldiers
who should be protected by the Geneva Convention.

Bullshit! I hear Gen Wes Clark is going to run for president.
Maybe somebody with some sense!

Shame on Dean. The rise and fall....

Howard Dean for President!

oh pleeeeeeeeeaase like that will ever happen in this lifetime

or the next

#12 reaganite

For all the Bush bashers, this is the "man" who would lead the USA after you refuse to vote for W?

Like I said, this is the here and now! Bush is the president at the present not dean or anyone else.

I am not going to be silent about Bush just because dean is an asshole. Bush has sold out Israel. Period. He has allowed the state department to take over the oval office. He answers to the saudi's and takes advice from his dad. He is behaving like a puppet.

#113 Yair

Because the guy has been out of the picture for a while.

I'm afraid you're wrong. Israel has uncovered ample evidence, from Arafat's own records, that he is an active and ardent enabler, financier, fomenter and supporter of terrorism against Israelis. Arafat is not "oiver battul" even though he looks like a sick old man. He still is The Man. Arafat is and always was a strategic threat to Israel; and if not to Israel's existnence than to the lives of Israelis.

#117 reaganite

neither is applicable to the Israeli/pal conflict.
Nor does it apply to the WoT.

Actually, the Geneva conventions do apply. The countries funding, harboring, or equipping terrorist organizations are de facto at war with Israel and the U.S., and committing war crimes.

selpaw (#116)

Anyway, if we are lucky enough and Israel gets rid of arabfat, what in the hell are we going to cook for our celebration dinner? Nu?

LOL! You're lovable :-)

#124 selpaw
I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you. You decide, Bush or a Dem.

James,

So kill him or let him rot. Not this. This is crap.

Unbelievable.

#129 Yair

I agree. Kill him, I say.

#126 Mr Pol

Actually, the Geneva conventions do apply. The countries funding, harboring, or equipping terrorist organizations are de facto at war with Israel and the U.S., and committing war crimes.

Apples and Oranges, we're both right. On this point I agree with you 100%.

Mr Pol:

How about champagne and dessert then? Hmmm?

Either you put a missile up Arafat's ass, or you let him rot until he blabber's incomprehensible bullshit.

What is this? Tell me? James?

sharon has to go...

he has botched this...

arafat is now a hero...

PR will mount to condemn israel....

The arab and ISM scum are sticking to the scum,
making it impossible for the IDF to expel him....

Is this just political spin of Sharon...

What will it take for the govt to do something???

Bravo to the J Post for stating the unequivocal.
Sharon should have killed Arafat in Beirut 20 years
ago.

#132 zulubaby

*Sigh* Tatin of pears and spices, then. No chocolate.

Yair wants to wake up and hear:

1. Arafat is jerking off in Ramallah

2. Arafat is dead.

Yair does not want to hear that Arafat has been given the platform for attention and BS.

Which do you think has occurred?

Yes, James, I don't disagree with you. I do believe that as a group Jews, like other groups, should reward those candidates who support their agenda when possible and candidatures who can enunciate an over-riding principle or position when they cast their vote against the interest of the group. Thus, I was quite proud that 39% of Jews who voted in 1984 for President gave their vote to Reagan despite having a Democratic challenger with very strong ties to the Jewish community.

Dean, much like Carter, scares the crap out of me. As for the other Democrats, I'll wait and see. It's really just too early for me to write-off the Democrats.

#106

When it's apparent that USA has abandoned Israel,
Israel will have no choice but to go nuclear.

She is not going to die alone but to take as many muslims down with her, plus France.

But in the meantime, it is imperative for every single Jew to vote, period. It doesn't matter which candidate, but just show the polls that a high percentage of Jews vote and that's what the Politicians look for.

JG

# 79, Model 4, That looks like the plan. Time will tell. Clark looks like he's wound up like a clockspring ready to let the coo-coos out and its only a quarter to 3.

Yair

What is this? Tell me? James?

Two possibilites:

o Total stupidity.
o Part of a trick of some sorts; maybe the intent is to have Arafat killed in crossfire as they attempt to capture him. Maybe the attempt is to up the ante of what Israel could do to make what they will instead do (smash Hamas) more palatable when they back down from this threat.

Personally I think it's the first choice.

#136 Yair

Yair apparently isn't old enough to notice that the real world doesn't give a shit about what he wants. In a few years, after Yair has grown some pubic hair, he will understand that Israel is giving time to the moronic international community to vent before Israel acts, to reduce the political cost of the elimination of Arafat. Just like Israel did when it stated it would wipe out Hamas, 48 hours before it started doing it.

Personally I think it's the first choice.

Yep, number one.

Shit. Alright, let's hope for the best.

Prayers.

A few months ago, I read that Karl Rove wanted Dean to be the democrat's candidate in 2004.

Now I understand why.

I would describe Hamas as a jihaditerrorist organization, a part of the world-wide jihaditerrorist network, driven by the murderously psychopathic radical Islamist ideology. Its MO is the use of splodeydopes.

To call the Hamas terrorist splodeydopes "soldiers" is to dishonor the military tradition that follows rules of war.

Jihaditerrorists do not follow any of the the rules of war. The war against jihaditerrorists needs to be effective, and there is no obligation to follow rules of war since the jihaditerrorists do not.

That does not mean sinking to their level. They use tribal terrorist warfare, targeting the innocent or massacring at random. But it does mean that they do not deserve any sympathy, nor can they claim any right to have their victims follow the rules of war.

"Terrorists" or "unlawful combatants" or "criminal warriors" gives the general idea. "Soldiers" is misleading, because it tends to give criminal warfare some legitimacy.

#141 Mr Pol

I'm glad you're so confident, but we've seen Israel essentially do much of nothing in response to three years of murderous madness. I'm not so sure that informing the international community that it intends to expel Arafat (so he can make mischief in places where Israel can't eavesdrop on his conversations or monitor who he visits or who visits him) is exactly a brilliant scheme.

(Please leave the ad hominems out. No one wants to watch you and Yair have a fight for 80 posts.)

SocalJustice:

Ricin in the baby wipes....That's an interesting proposal.

I think, however, that tetrodotoxin might be a better choice. Better absorbtion of its used on the face and lips.

Norwalk virus would be good for kicks, and its quite stable in a moist environment. .

Mycotoxins

[Link: mycoherbicide.net...]

sometimes have a disagreeable odor or color, but if he uses scented baby wipes, should be considered.

Hmmmmm.......

/wistful fantasy

Mr Pol (#135)

Perfect! I'll forgive you the chocolate just this once :-)

Yair apparently isn't old enough to notice that the real world doesn't give a shit about what he wants.

What do I want Mr. Pol?

In a few years, after Yair has grown some pubic hair,

Was it you sucked my dick last night, or was it your significant other?

he will understand that Israel is giving time to the moronic international community to vent before Israel acts, to reduce the political cost of the elimination of Arafat.

What is your solution, Pol? Hmmmm? Nuke the paleo's?

Is giving Arafat a platform your idea of a solution?

From our friend Mr. Powell (from FOX) - While the administration tried to restrain Israel, Secretary of State Colin Powell said there must be a freeze on Jewish settlements and the removal of unauthorized outposts on the West Bank.

In an interview with Al-Jazeera (search), the satellite network that blankets the Arab world, Powell also said "there are problems" with the security fence Israel is constructing to separate itself from Palestinian-held territories.

128 reaganite

#124 selpaw

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you. You decide, Bush or a Dem.

Thank you.

Thank G-d for Dean. Now every die hard republican can deflect the blame. I voted for Bush. I supported him on his war on terror every step of the way.....until he made it clear in everything he said that his war on terror was much different then the war on terror every single Israeli is engaged in. And please don't tell me that he got tuff on hamas. Come on, this was the morally correct thing to do so I am not going to drop to my knees on that one.

I refuse to blindly follow.

Bush is a turn coat. It makes me sick. For now, I am finished with him. I have the right to for he sold himself to the wrong people. He made ugly deals at the expense of Israel. You and anyone else can pretend this has not happened, fine.
Just for the record, no Jew should vote democrat ever again but this does not mean they should rush to the arms of GWB. *No Jew should have to compromise even though this has been the expected norm for Jews forever*

Tonight before I go to sleep I will thank G-d for the blessing and ability to think and see on my own.

Perfect! I'll forgive you the chocolate just this once :-)

Perfect Mr. Rogers, I'll get my dog to lick your ass. Be sure brown nosers slather it first. My dog isn't a brown noser.

#145 James

I'm not confident, I'm cynical. I stated about two weeks ago that Israel would destroy Hamas because it was an existential threat to Sharon's gov't. It happened. Now Arafat's well-being is an existential threat to Sharon's gov't. So Arafat will be killed if he resists being expelled.

Any politician on this planet understands that sometimes, a gov't must act to stay in power. Once they've all paid lip service to their voters, they'll all shut up. Just like they did when Sharon announced Israel would destroy Hamas. Stating it publicly puts the gov't in a position where it cannot change its position without being kicked out; so no political or diplomatic pressure can be applied any more. Two very smart moves, and both times Shalom and Netanyahu are behing the moves.

(Yair's tone, in this and other threads, really gets on my nerves.)

150 Jonny
Who "currently' in government mouthed the arab sentiment better than Colin Powell when it came to settlements?
What the heck he is still better then any democrat so I will adore him even though he beats the shit out of Israel every chance he gets.

#151 selpaw
As I said,

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you. You decide, Bush or a Dem.

You're not pulling me into this one.

Yair (#152)

What did I do to deserve that? You have no style, you know that? I'm sick of you and your abuse. Every thread you're on you manage to insult someone.

Yair's tone, in this and other threads, really gets on my nerves.)

Oh dear me. I got on Mr. Pol's nerves. Mr. Pol, you never get on my nerves. I think you have a problem.

148 rayra
I would rather have splinters in my ass then be led like sheep. Both sides stink so I will sit on the fence just as long as I want.

#157 Yair

Poor boy can't take it. Go complain to your momma.

Yair apparently isn't old enough to notice that the real world doesn't give a shit about what he wants. In a few years, after Yair has grown some pubic hair, he will understand that Israel is giving time to the moronic international community to vent before Israel acts, to reduce the political cost of the elimination of Arafat. Just like Israel did when it stated it would wipe out Hamas, 48 hours before it started doing it.

Zulubaby, parse this comment, by your sexy sweatheart, Mr. Pol.

Where did I insult him in this thread, prior to this comment?

Answer, and shut up.

155 reaganite
very transparent but you have your right to ignore me.

Yair (#160)

Watch it.

#153 Mr Pol

I stated about two weeks ago that Israel would destroy Hamas because it was an existential threat to Sharon's gov't. It happened.

Pardon me? It happened? I seem to have missed that. When did it happen?

*imagines tetrodotoxin-tipped crossbow bolts*

#161 selpaw

very transparent but you have your right to ignore me.

Wow, I try to avoid an argument and now I'm "transparent". Okay, I'll bite, what's your point? You want Dean instead of Bush in office?

he said, "there is a war going on in the Middle East, and members of Hamas are soldiers in that war, and, therefore, it seems to me that they are going to be casualties if they are going to make war." so it's okay.

Mr. Pol

When did Israel "destroy" Hamas?

#163 James

You missed it? A systematic campaign of elimination has started, and the ROE have evolved to allow a lot more collateral damage, as well as the elimination of so-called "political" and "spiritual" leaders. It's not going as fast as we'd like it, but it's started and it's not going to stop.

You didn't comment on the rest of what I explained. Does that mean that you disregard the whole post because we disagree on the Hamas elimination campaign, or does that mean you agree with my point?

Watch it.

Watch what?

Are you the brain behind LGF?

Somehow I think not. If Charles wants to write me an email telling me to cool it, he can. No such warning.

I didn't start the insults. Your lover Pol has. Eat me.

Enough! Zulubaby, Mr. Pol, Yair, cool it! These are some hard times but there's no reason for us to be turning against each other. If we do, the terrorists win.

127 zulubaby

LOL! You're lovable :-)

Watch out. You'll most likely get thrown out for thinking so ; - ))

Mr Pol. I repeat:

Anyway, if we are lucky enough and Israel gets rid of arabfat, what in the hell are we going to cook for our celebration dinner? Nu?

Deathberg,

After we defeat the Paleo's, there will be a civil war among the Jews. You heard it here first.

#167 RightIsRight

I should have said, it is happening.

#171 selpaw

See above. Pink champagne, and Tatin of pears and spices. The cake is an excuse to drink more champagne, actually...

#170 Deathberg

Bah. Let the kid throw a few insults if it amuses him. It's less annoying than having him repeat the same moronic question 200 times in a thread.

You didn't comment on the rest of what I explained. Does that mean that you disregard the whole post because we disagree on the Hamas elimination campaign, or does that mean you agree with my point?

I disagree with that analysis. What you seem to be essentially saying is that Sharon commited himself to expelling Arafat, like he boxed himself into a corner where politically he has to expel Arafat or be proved a liar. If that were so it would be a gutsy move with no utility. Why show all your cards?

Ah Deathberg, listening to One Foot in the Grave. Glorious.

President Bush will bot shake hands with Arafat, that in it's self speaks volumes

And if we also did not have to fight the LLLs in the media, Congress, schools, we as a people could focus on this resurgence of facisim.

So.......If Arafat leaves, the Arabian asswipe industry will go bust.

Bah. Let the kid throw a few insults if it amuses him. It's less annoying than having him repeat the same moronic question 200 times in a thread.

Actually, it seems to amuse you, Pol.

#175 James

Now that he is effectively committed and cannot back down, what kind of political pressure can Bush apply?

That's your answer.

reaganite
No. I do not want Dean as president. I want a president to tell the truth no matter what because that is the right thing to do. Until then nothing and I mean nothing will change in this world.

So for now I will not vote for anyone.

#174

I'm gonna celebrate a line of coke, a Cuban cigar and a glass of congac.

#179 Yair

Yes, actually, your behaviour on this thread amuses me.

Well there ain't nobody left to impress
and everybody's kissing their own ass.
Their's 666 on the kitchen floor,
ain't no fire in the pants.

Oops sorry,
Even with a preview I screwed up.
I meant President Bush will not shake hands with the fish

#181 selpaw

In a perfect world I'd agree with you. But Plato explained it first. In a republic, you don't vote for: you vote against.

Keep trying Pol.

#185, but Colin Powell will suck his dick.

I think the arguments here that Dean used the term "soldiers" to imply that the terrorists are legitimate targets is a bit of a reach.

But how's this for even more of a reach? Perhaps Israel is willing to accept a Palestinian state as that would allow it to declare all-out war against that state. Just a thought.

#181 selpaw

So for now I will not vote for anyone.

Think about what you just said. If W loses the next election what happens? Dean or any of the next 8 dwarfs, or worse, billary, becomes the CINC. What happens then? Think about it.

I am not 100% happy with W. Since my namesake, I haven't met any pol worth my vote. W has mine again in 04.

Now that he is effectively committed and cannot back down, what kind of political pressure can Bush apply?

Same as before. Sharon will tell Bush "What can I do? I promised." and Bush will say "Do it and we will bring you down and deal with your successor who will listen to me".

Jonny (#182)

LOL!

#190 reaganite

Yep, that was Plato's argument. You don't vote for the best choice. You vote to avoid the worst. Nothing changed in the last 2,400 years.

#189, Israel just wants to survive, Palistenian state or no Palistenian state. Israel is fighting for its existence.

Wow

I got here late.

But I see a lot of cannibalism in this thread.

I am not one who usually advocates "taking a step back". I like to operate on rage. It keeps the motor clean.

That said, I think a few of the right-minded regulars here are engaging in a wrong-minded pissing contest. I see those with the same goals, but different means to go about attaining them, engaging in battle.

Let's take a step back. Let's examine who our REAL enemies are.

Difference of opinions are wonderful. But let us not stoop to the level of the enemy while proclaiming them.

Question for those who are swearing Arafat shouldn't be killed: What happens if he chokes on a sandwich tomorrow and dies? Israel just up and disappears? His death is a given, it's only a matter of when. Judging from results, the sooner the better. If it goads any jihadis into attacking Israel openly, it'll only have them dying more readily by attacking Israel's strengths.

Mr. Pol: Well, your theory about Sharon and Arafat stopped me in my tracks. I don't feel like believing it, but Sharon has shown similar tenacity with the Hamas operations. And that has gone over quite better than I thought it would. It also doesn't seem to me that the Euros, Arabs and press are behaving as breathlessly as they would have months ago at this Israeli cabinet decision. Hopefully my ear hasn't just gone deaf to this out of disgust.

selpaw (#171)

Watch out. You'll most likely get thrown out for thinking so ; - ))

I'll take my chances.

Mr Pol the Tatin sounds wonderful. We do need another desert of chocolate for Zulubaby. The second desert we will consume in the early morning hours to help with the hangover ; -))
Don't forget we need a first course as well.

BTW: the picture of the Tatin was not flattering one bit. I could tell you what it looks like to me but it would throw Yair into a tailspin.

#191 James

Just before an election, Bush cannot publicly side against Sharon in the fight against terrorism. Forget it. It will not happen.

Howard the Brainless Big-Mouth-Runner

Arafat won die. He'll bitch an moan about shit. Mark the words. He is unkillable.

selpaw, I think you have some intelligent things to say and I have read many of your posts with interest....... But giving up your right to vote?

One of the reasons America went to war in Iraq was so that the Iraqi people would have exactly that - the right to vote.

In fact people are dying all over the world just to get the right to vote.

#193 Mr Pol

Yep, that was Plato's argument. You don't vote for the best choice. You vote to avoid the worst.

You know my views. I wouldn't say "worst" by a any long shot. W is by any stretch the best choice. "Lame Duck" presidents finish their agenda. I'm happy with this one's agenda. He has to get re-elected to finish it.

#196 Model4

No, you're not deaf. Even Chirac has shown restraint on this topic. And France backed down and allowed the E.U. to list Hamas as a terrorist organization, after vetoing it for more than 3 years.

This is the very first time I see an Israeli gov't doing some effective P.R. It's entertaining to watch.

#198 selpaw

A first course? Pink champagne. What's wrong with alcohol?

Just before an election, Bush cannot publicly side against Sharon in the fight against terrorism. Forget it. It will not happen.

I'm not trying to be contrary, but he can easily do it in private. In fact, all the Israel ball twisting had been in private, has it not? I don't recall Bush saying anything publically that explains Sharon's acceptance of the road map. Besides, we're 14 months away from the election. In exactly one year from now I'd agree with you that Buch can't side against Sharon on terrorism but he has a lot of latitude at the moment.

#203 reaganite

Yes, I know your views, and I agree with them: any Dem is the worst choice.

(Please leave the ad hominems out. No one wants to watch you and Yair have a fight for 80 posts.)

no?

rofl

190 reaganite
In principal I agree with you. See I am not sooo bad.

I'm just really pissed. I feel as though I gave my trust, I mean I had this gut feeling that Bush was real but he has let me down so badly.
Bottom line:
No matter how twisted my thinking may be when it comes to Israel I am one tough bitch.

#205 James

Heh. That's the beauty of the announcement. No private threat can make Sharon back down. Forget it.

#191 James:

Bush will say "Do it and we will bring you down and deal with your successor who will listen to me".

First, at this point that shouldn't matter to Sharon. As far as I can glean, he's done everything and more anyone could expect of America's friend. And his people are still being butchered in the streets. In this circumstance, losing his job should be a far inferior worry.

I don't know what you think Bush's chances are of bringing Sharon down are, but I guarantee you that Sharon is in a position to bring Bush down with a snap of his fingers. All has to do is address the press and say that Bush has sold Israel out and is a hypocrit on the War on Terror. Bush's base and queasy newcomers would revolt. The Dems would seize on this and be as pro-Israel as anyone could wish for. And Sharon thanks them for their kind and moving support. American Jews, who lean Dem anyhow, would move totally to the Dems. Not just in this election, but for decades to come, whereas now some are eyeing the GOP, or at least four more for Bush.

Honestly, I think both men are trying to do their best in the overall long-term WoT and war for Israel's survival (and certainly making mistakes along the way). Each could truly screw the other over royally if this weren't the case.

204 Mr Pol we will have Pink Champagne for our first course only if we have a second desert which is chocolate.

#184 Yair,

Too drunk to post.

Use the excuse.

Otherwise, you are hosed. You've come across as a complete asshole, who is rather clue impaired as well.

Admit it, holmes.

We've all fucked up when we were, well, fucked up.

(there you go, holmes. An escape hatch. Have the good sense to dive through it)

#194 Jonny: I agree that Israel is fighting for survival. I'm just wondering if they are behing held back right now by international law and legal precedent from doing what needs to be done. Charles linked to a Jerusalem Post article earlier this evening that talks about the IDF deliberately holding back in their military operations so as to spare civilians.

If "Palestine" became a recognized nation, there would be international law and legal precedent to back up Israel should it declare war on Palestine in self defence.

As it is now, I don't think there's any sort of modern precedent among civilized nations for a threatened state declaring war on a non-nation entity that's located in territory he threatened nation gained control of in previous conflicts.

I'm probably not explaining this very well, but quite simply: there's no modern legal precedent for all-out war against terrorists. But there is modern legal precedent for declaring war against another state in self defence.

If Palestine became a state, Israel could do what's long been needed: fight back with full force.

(Please leave the ad hominems out. No one wants to watch you and Yair have a fight for 80 posts.)

LOL. ROTFLMAO! ROTFL!

Who posted this? Too many posts.

Ploome, I'm here to amuse you.

Love, Yair

#211 selpaw

OK.

#213 Lickmuffin,

I see your point. Zionista told a great joke on another thread which I will repeat here:

Two Jews are lined up against a wall in front of a firing squad.

The first Jew says, "We're supposed to get a last cigarette. I'm gonna demand my last cigarette."

The second Jew says, "Shut up. You'll get us in trouble."

Pol,

What ever happened to Michaelmas Goose?

Delicious! Prunes and Giblets!

Mr Pol
YES.
Very nice, indeed. Very very nice!

It is the perfect time for pears and chocolate.
I will away over the weekend but I will practice making it next week.

#208 selpaw
Totally OT.
One of the weird things about my job, I've played with their pets. You can tell a lot about people by their pets. No, I'm really talking about pets. Happy people have happy pets. Assholes have assholes for pets. The Bush's dogs? I laughed every day watching his springer. Covered in mud coming off the south lawn, you could see it in the dog's eyes, a happy dog.

I was never allowed anywhere near Slick Willy's pets...

Bush has to get re-elected to finish the job.

Well at least the French and Bleguims are good for one thing - making yummy chocolate and champagne for us to celebrate with when Israel finally takes out Arafish.

Iron Fist,
I love how you call people holmes!
Good to see ya.

#213 Lickmuffin

there's no modern legal precedent for all-out war against terrorists.

Actually, there is. See articles 100 to 111. All members of any organization that ever hijacked a plane can legally be killed wherever they are by anybody who wishes to. This includes the PLO, and all its splinter groups, including Hamas.

Charles,

Is this motherfucker dude the same Yair we've been talking with the last couple of months?

Radical personality change, if it is.

reaganite, I love your anecdotes...You reveal a very human side to those whose shadows we discuss in our cave.

Iron Fist,

Give him a break, he's had a few drinks tonite.

selpaw: If for some reason you absolutely can't see picking one candidate for another, be sure and vote. In that case, it won't matter who you cast for, but in the future you'll be part of a state/demographic they'll pay more attention to.
-----------
And right now, though all but certain to vote for Bush, I'm going to send the best protest I can to the RNC for the seven Americans killed by PLO terrorists recently, while Bush did nothing. Just realized that I can bring the whole party to its knees by returning all the postage-paid envelopes they keep sending me.

BTW, no, I don't see it as OK that Israelis died. But considering the office, a president ignoring murdered Americans is inexcusable.

#212 Iron Fist

Dear Iron Fist,

I didn't start the insults.

FYI, I care not for your excuses. I need none. Be fair and criticize the others, or lose credibility.

Your threats are meaningless to me. I seek no fight with you. If you want, blow me away with your assault rifle.

Get it? I am not able to be intimidated.

Peace, love, Slayer, and guns.

#210 Model4

First, at this point that shouldn't matter to Sharon. As far as I can glean, he's done everything and more anyone could expect of America's friend. And his people are still being butchered in the streets. In this circumstance, losing his job should be a far inferior worry.

I agree with you, in fact I agree with your entire post -- accept for one thing: Sharon's behavior thus far has shown that he values not pissing off Bush over anything else in the world.

#217 Yair

Michaelmas Goose is a Christmas dish. Arafat will be removed before Rosh Hashanah.

Michaelmas Goose is a Christmas dish. Arafat will be removed before Rosh Hashanah.

Well then remove him and stop this BS. That's is all I am saying. I don't want him alive. But again, kill him or let him rot in Ramallah. Israeli gov't is blowing this.

#224 evariste
I pass on my experiences. Sometimes I actually try not to argue. I know why I'm a W fan.
I just re-enlisted not too long ago. If W doesn't win, I will no longer serve this nation.

#228 James

Sharon's behavior thus far has shown that he values not pissing off Bush over anything else in the world.

This has totally changed in the last few weeks... In fact, it changed as soon as Sharon's political survival was at stake. Which is something any politician understands.

#213 Lickmuffin: There's another benefit that comes with Jordyptian sovereignty, should it ever come to pass. Ever hear of the Louisiana Purchase? Not that it's something I'm recommending happen, but it is a theoretical option. Especially after "the cause" is dead and gone, nobody feels like funding these savages anymore, Israel is free to go after them nation-to-nation, and the place remains the shit-hole they've made for themselves.

#213

I'm probably not explaining this very well, but quite simply: there's no modern legal precedent for all-out war against terrorists.

One word: Afghanistan.

The Taliban was not recognizes as the legitimate government of Afghanistan by the UN or any nation in the world save for three. There's your precedent.

The trouble with the "give them a state and then declare war on it" idea is that there is a parallel for that -- it's called the State of Israel.

If Israel were forced to go to war with a nascent state of Palestine then Israel would be (wrongfully) accused of doing exactly what 5 Arab countries tried to do to Israel just as it became independent. Israel doesn't need that headache. It will become part of the historical record that Israel tried to snuff out Palestine just as an attempt was made to snuff out Israel at the outset. Best way to avoid this is to avoid statehood for Palestine.

#230 Yair

What you want is irrelevant. Israel is handling it in the best and cheapest way for Israel, not for you. If you want to have a say in what Israel does and how it does it, go live in Israel and you'll be able to vote.

What you want is irrelevant. Israel is handling it in the best and cheapest way for Israel, not for you. If you want to have a say in what Israel does and how it does it, go live in Israel and you'll be able to vote.

LOL, Mr. Pol I know you want to kill Sharon, traitor that you think he is, kill anyone who isn't for transfer, kill anyone who isn't for distant settlements, go Avigdor.

STFU.

#236 Yair

You don't know shit, and proved it again, Gordon.

Arafat. Let him go. It is inexpensive. Mr. Pol.

"Never doubt the decisions of the Israeli government."

Mr. Pol

#228 James: Don't get me wrong, I despise Sharon's public behavior of late. Were I one of his citizens, he'd be out of office and/or I'd be in jail. But I do hope there's bigger things afoot than a peon like myself can glean, that Sharon's just being the bigger man and doing what will ultimately be best for his nation and people. And if he were rendered impotent by Bush, hard to explain why he wouldn't resign.

So how far does someone let him roll with it? When do you say that it's too much? A hard question to answer. He'd have passed my limits some time ago. I'll be happy to live with the shame of having jugded him wrong for the rest of my life though, based on the hope others here have given me about his strength and character.

Don't expel Arafat. He'll just become a celebrity geust at Chiracs house. Kill him!

#238 Yair

Again, you don't know what nor whom you are talking about.

Mr. Pol, you amuse me. Keep it up, idiot. Call me Gordon. Nice try.

226 Model4

Thank you. Your words were excellent and quite clear. Support but not blindly. It is the blind silence which kills. I see you are not blind nor silent and that is good.
Very good. I respect you an awful lot.

I understand the importance of voting. It is a beautiful privilege and it is sad that so much of the world is deprived of this gift. I could go on for hours as to my past life and the hard work I have given for my candidates. I mean bone killing physically and mentally tough hard work.

I guess now I feel I have the right to protest in this way even if it is the perceived wrong way. I could continue here and expound on my feelings for I truly have an awful lot to say about this but I guess I will sign off for now. Thanks again.

Hmmph

well, I guess cannibalism rules.

Know thine enemy.

#227 Yair,

Cool Holmes, ya know, whatever...

Don't insult me. Ya don't offend me. Ya don't even piss me off.

What you are burning is credibility.

Being taken seriously.

If Charles comes back telling me that you are really Jackoff Smirnov or such, then I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Otherwise, that bridge you just burned...

Rather permanent.

#239 Model4

One thing you could consider is his visit to India. India and Israel are effectively allying against Islamic terrorism. Which for India means Pakistan, and Pakistan knows it. I don't think the Bush administration liked this move very much.

Iron Fist ..... Nooooooooooooooooooo! don't get dragged into this!

Can we stop being cannibals? Please?

Again, you don't know what nor whom you are talking about.

Indeed! Just *who*, *who* are you Mr. Pol?

Iron Fist, can you please get Yair out of here?

Stop this pointless bickering right now, or I'm going to shut off comments. It's extremely unseemly on this day of all days, and my patience is running out. And if I get a bunch of "well, he started it... no he started it..." comments I'll ban the lot of you.

You're turning our comments into a fucking kindergarten classroom, and I'm sick of being the classroom monitor.

219 reaganite
You're ok.

Good night.

#251 Charles

Sorry. You're right. I lost my temper. Won't happen again.

Iron Fist,

I have no beef with you.

If the bridge I "burned" is permanent, than so be it. I am not afraid.

Your intimidation tactics don't work online. Yeah, you can kick my ass with martial arts, and go to jail. Rule of law. Or shoot me. Go to jail. Rule of law.

Get in an argument motherfucker. Personally, I think you pull a good deal of BS.

#246 Mr. Pol

What is with America and India? One of the first things I thought would happen after 9/11 was an anti-terrorist alliance with India, since they have been victims of unrelenting terror for the last 50+ years, but then the US started bumlicking Pakistan???

I'm done Charles.

#252 selpaw
Good night my friend.

#251 Charles,
Hai, Sensei

#255 Jonny

I don't know enough about the relationships between India and the U.S. to comment. Sorry.

I love Steven den Beste. At the top of his page right now it says

20030911: For the three high school students who talked to me today at the mall, here are the articles I told you about: The Ideological War within the West by John Fonte, The Jacksonian Tradition by Walter Russell Mead, and my outline of the causes of the war and the strategy the United States is pursuing to win it.

He was hanging out at the mall, taking the time to explain his stuff to some random high schoolers!
Rock on den Beste!

Mr Pol,

Great posts. Especially liked the thought about Hamas (and possibly Arafat) though I'm left to wonder why they used mini-bombs in the first try (hopefully) at Yassin.

selpaw, Model4, reaganite, and hell just about everyone else,

I would love to see cold hard evidence that George W Bush is not owned by the Saudis. If that happens, I'll vote for him, no worries. Even if it doesn't, odds are that I'll vote for him by the lesser of two evils principle.

But if he is really a Saudi puppet, I'd like a Republican challenger. I'm not (yet) a registered Republican, so I'm not sure whether my say matters to the party elders, but it'd be great to see someone from the Republican ranks pushing George on the Saudis.

Zulubaby check out our menus. There is something very special for you thanks to Mr Pol

Mr Pol I left a comment for you.

lyla tov. Be safe everyone!

Charles, this is the second time I didn't start stuff and got censored.

Memory banks, activate.

So Dean thinks that terrorists=soldiers. That sounds suspiciously like this:
Judicial Activism is Going Global

The liberal elite, or “New Class,” (search) as he terms it, will stop at nothing to impose its moral and legal framework on the rest of society, and is using foreign courts, multinational treaties and international law to achieve it, he said.

“The internationalization of law, I think, is a most interesting and alarming topic,” Bork said. “It is farther along than you think.”

In his book, Bork details examples, including Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer's (search) references to the "useful decisions" by the Privy Council of Jamaica, the Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe for a 1999 case involving allowable delays of executions.

In 1989, Justice William Brennan (search) cited the rejection of capital punishment “throughout the world” in his dissent in a case upholding the execution of man whose crime was committed when he was a minor.

“International law becomes one more weapon in our domestic culture war,” Bork said.

“I don’t see that as a problem at all,” said Anthony Arend (search), professor of law at Georgetown University, who added that the knowledge of legal precedent abroad helps judges making difficult decisions.

“I see them using [foreign law] to inform their judgment and broaden the context of how an issue is being played out,” Arend said.

What a brave new world we live in.

Yair,

Drop it.

This isn't the way to act on this day.

We should all step back and look at the big picture.

Ok. Dropping it. Swear, no more on this thread.

#261 Ariel

Especially liked the thought about Hamas (and possibly Arafat) though I'm left to wonder why they used mini-bombs in the first try (hopefully) at Yassin.

What I heard is that the ROE cannot be changed overnight both for operational and political reasons. I'd appreciate reaganite's insight about the operational side - he's AF, while the only thing I know about choppers is how to call 'em for support. The political reason is clear, though. By changing the ROE step by step, the international uproar has been kept low and easily managed. If the first strike against Rantisi had been bombing his house, what would have happened?

Lumiere re:#106

I agree with point 1 but not 2 or 3. Believe me, there is a place for Jews in the Republican Party. The GOP has been trying desperately to recruit ethnic/religious minorities in America for two decades. With the exception of Hispanic/Latino voters, they haven't had much luck, more due to Democrat fear-mongering and these groups dependence on the social program goodies that the Dems drop them than any latent rascism in GOP ranks. Also, I agree that "Big Oil" is a huge influence over the GOP and that they will always seek to keep the supply coming by pacifying the rotten royals of SA, Kuwait, Bahrain, etc. But one of the largest voting blocs in the GOP is the so-called Religious Right, which is really nothing more than a loose coalition of pro-morality groups and evangelical Christians who promote an agenda of higher levels of civic morality and responsibility. They are VERY pro-Israel. Yes, it is to a certain extent because of the big role that Israel is supposed to play in the End of Days, but hey, do Jews really care WHY evangelical Christians are pro-Israel, as long as they are (read Dennis Prager)? They are pro-Israel, and they are the GOP's core base, and a GOP presidential contender offends evangelical Christians at his peril. If Jews joined the GOP in force and allied with evangelical Christians to DEMAND Israeli peace and security and no mercy for the so-called "Palestinians," Big Oil would start looking for oil in other places, it's that simple.

I understand that some Jews have little in common with GOP positions. Many Jews are social liberals (pro-choice, anti-death penalty, pro-federalism, want a larger welfare state, pro-affirmative action, anti-vouchers, etc, etc.) who have little in common with the GOP other than being pro-Israel and in favor of a strong, aggressive national defense and anti-terror stance. But when the nation is at war (which we are) national security must trump all. It does for me. Besides, several Jews hold downright conservative opinions on a lot of issues. Every Orthodox Jew I've met has been ardently pro-life (that's only less than a dozen though, and may have more to do with where I live than their faith) Still more are in favor of tax cuts and reigning in spending.

There are also Jews in Bush's cabinet. Ever heard of Paul Wolfowitz? If he ain't a big dog in the Bush camp, we need to redefine what a big dog is.

So my Jewish friends, have no qualms about voting GOP. We welcome you to our side. Let the Democrats rot in the putrid grave they have dug themselves. Come on over and feel what it's like to be a WINNER!

I know a little bit about the US-India thing. India pissed us off throughout the Cold War by leading something called the Non Aligned movement. It was meant to allow as India to avoid picking a side in the Cold War because they resented superpower dominance & colonialism; in practice it meant that India was a de facto Russian satellite since anyone that wasn't behind NATO lines (like Switzerland) yet claimed neutrality fell under the sway of the more ruthless side with fewer qualms. IE the USSR. They built their military mostly on USSR hardware and tactics. They have had a long-standing enmity towards Israel, which only recently has started to turn around.
Anyone with more expertise/information is welcome to jump in and rebut me or augment my meager info.

#250 zulubaby,

You know my limits :-)

Some good news.

I have a new nephew, born 9-11-03.

His intended initials would have been W.T.C.

My sister, being reasonably paranoid (if you knew my family history, you would understand why paranoid is reasonable) has decided to change his name. Nevertheless, despite being 2 months premature, my nephew is doing well.

Whatever else you can say about my family, we are survivors :-)

Love ya, Zulubabe

Good night all.

Hug the ones you love.

Forget the petty differences of the day.

Embrace the truth.

Above all, fight for what is right.

#269 evariste

One thing I always wondered about is the influence of China on India's position. For India, the short-term threat is Pakistan (and Bengladesh now), but the real existential threat is China. Despite the "communist brothers" bullshit, the U.S.S.R. and China have been in a cold war since 1953. And China has been close to the U.S. since 1970 or so.

Alas, this is a part of the world I do not know enough about to really understand what is (or was) going on.

#270 Iron Fist

Congratulations to you, your sister and her husband.

#270 Iron Fist

My sister, being reasonably paranoid (if you knew my family history, you would understand why paranoid is reasonable)

Sorry, OT but this made me laugh! My original marriage date would have been 666 (6th day, 6th month, of 86), I jokingly mentioned this to my soon to be ex. She changed it to a day later! LOL. Should I have been more paranoid?

Iron Fist (#270)

Mazel Tov! That is fabulous news, I'm so happy for you :-) May he only know love, happiness and peace in his life.

I love you too. Plenty.

What is with America and India? One of the first things I thought would happen after 9/11 was an anti-terrorist alliance with India, since they have been victims of unrelenting terror for the last 50+ years, but then the US started bumlicking Pakistan???

For starters there is the Non-Aligned thing, as evariste #269 pointed out. India chose to remain "neutral" when we sure as hell could have used them, so no surprise that we're not coddling India. Let them come to us hat in hand and we'll see.

However I basically feel that you're right. The US should have a good relationship with India, not Pakistan. I understand that we had to deal with Pakistan after 9/11 because of the fact that Pakistan and Afghanistan border each other. Luckily Musharraf is no Arafat. Even if he is a bad guy, the fact is that he more or less has accomodated us.

My major problem is not that we're giving him carrots , but that the carrots come at the expense of India. In light of the fact that Pakistan was indirectly responsible for 9/11 (through their support for the Taliban) I think the only carrot that Musharraf earned for his decision to play ball with us post-9/11 was our decision not to hold him responsible for 9/11. So rather than giving Pakistan analingus we should signal them that they can count their lucky stars that we're not jumping in bed with India as part of our response to 9/11. Certainly we should not jump into bed with Pakistan at India's expense.

Besides, India is second only to China in terms of population. India is the future. Why not work towards having a good relationship with that country?

Congratulations on your new nephew, Iron Fist! May his scales be shiny and strong...

#268 Jetstorm: Huh? Every single person in Bush's cabinet is Jewish. Don't you get the Arab News? Just teasing, good post.

Jewish voters are gonna do what they're gonna do. There's a lot of reasons for them to go GOP, especially now, but it's their choice to make, and momentum's a bitch. Hell, a better way to look at it is to just sever the Dem ties, and vote for whichever party/candidate is the best one on a four-year basis. In fact, that's always the best way to be. Look how much each party has changed over the last twenty to forty years alone.

Evangelical Christians (hell, Christians period) have a bad rap in the eyes of Jews. No point in denying it. I just hope they, of all people, will refuse to give into paranoia and stereotypes.

#267 Mr Pol

I'd appreciate reaganite's insight about the operational side

While I often end up on the operational side, I'm really a support troop. Your Brother in law Caton would be a better source.

I have a new nephew, born 9-11-03.

Iron Fist,

Congratulations! Best wishes to him and his parents. Hope you all have a lot of nachas from him! :D

#273 Mr Pol,

Thanks, holmes.

Kid was 2 months premature, but it looks good. If you (or anyone else reading this) happen to be the praying kind, I'd appreciate a little prayer.

If you feel it is appropriate.

Again, thanks.

#270 Iron Fist
Knocking my last one back for your new nephew. Long happy life to him.

#279 reaganite

Caton wasn't AF. I'll ask him, but I don't think he knows what a change in the ROE means in operational terms. Different weapon load? Different tactics? Different crews? My ignorance of AF operations is second only to my curiosity.

Iron Fist (#281)

If you (or anyone else reading this) happen to be the praying kind, I'd appreciate a little prayer.

I know the right people ;-)