I haven't read the piece yet, but how, pray-tell, can Iran solve the Israel/Arab conflict? They don't speak for the Arabs, the Arabs don't even like them. Iran, during the period of the Shah had decent relations with Israel, but that didn't stop the Arabs from hating Israel and making war after war. It is true they can heat things up even further by funding and training HIZBULLAH and HAMAS, but to believe they could "end the Israel/Arab conflict" sounds like another one of these phony miracle solutions we keep hearing about here (e.g. "If only the US President would get more involved and impose a peace agreement!")

Holy shit. This is a terrifying story.
As turned out Feith is the real President and Kristol is vice President, Elliott Abrams was the Secretary of Defense.

In Israel, they conduct Commissions of Inquiry to assess blame and punishment for criminal malfeasance like this.

I have a couple of questions:
(1) Is Equire Magazine known to be the kind of place where heavy-duty foreign policy articles appear?
(2) I have to wonder about this claim that Iran was going to completely change its foreign policy 180 degrees. I recall that for years, a lot of people wrote similar articles about the Cold War saying it was Americas fault-that said Stalin wanted good relations with the US but Truman rebuffed it, or Eisenhower/Kennedy with Khruschev. Jimmy Carter really got to try out this theory by being nice to the Russians and we see how that turned out. It was the "maniac Cold-Warrior" Reagan who finally brought the USSR down, not the do-gooder Carter.
Similarly, for years, even in Israel article after article were written about how the Arabs were begging for peace and Israel was rebuffing it. People like MJ still circulate this myth that Sadat was ready for peace already in 1971 if only Israel would withdraw from the Suez Canal, even though Sadat was publicly beating the war drums and many while others say that Sadat could really only make peace after he had his supposed "victory" of the Yom Kippur War under his belt. In 1971 he was still the untried new guy in town without the prestige of Nasser. Could he really have made peace in those conditions? Of course not.

Thus, does it make sense that revolutionary Iran would suddenly turn its back on over 20 years of propaganda, a long, bloody war with Iraq, endless propaganda about the Great Satan and the little Satan, the MASSIVE investment in HIZBULLAH and Syria and their drive to spread revolutionary Shi'ite Islam around the Muslim world? They seem to be doing fine with the hostile attitude towards Israel and the US. Why change it. Sure, they might send out false signals for some reason to the US, just as Sadat might have in 1971, in order to keep the enemy off balance, or worrying about the upcoming US invasion of Iraq which they feared might have been channelled next against them. But I find it very hard to believe they were prepared to shift their policy to that extent. It is wishful thinking to believe they intended to do that.

While the Iran thing may well have been doable, I doubt Bush had any real opportunity with the Israel-Palestine conflict. Bill Clinton moved heaven and earth there and failed. That Bush could have done any better, even with the best of intentions, strains my credulity a bit too much.

It was the "maniac Cold-Warrior" Reagan who finally brought the USSR down, not the do-gooder Carter.

Although not directly related to this thread, the article in this link should make clear to everyone here why Iran can't deliver Israeli/Arab peace as the article mentioned in the posting claims, and not only that, but why NO ONE, including Abbas or any other Palestinian leader can deliver peace.

Unfortunately, the link isn't working so I am posting an excerpt from the article by Khaled Abu Toameh in the Jerusalem Post:
-----------------------------------------

Khaled Abu Toameh , THE JERUSALEM POST Nov. 6, 2007

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's efforts to impose law and order in the West Bank suffered a setback Monday when gunmen belonging to his Fatah faction opened fire at Palestinian policemen in the Balata refugee camp near Nablus.

--skip part of article---

Five people were wounded in the armed clashes between the two parties in Nablus, prompting the PA leadership in Ramallah to dispatch additional reinforcements to the city.

The confrontation is an indication of the huge challenges facing Abbas and his security forces in asserting their authority in the West Bank after losing the Gaza Strip to Hamas.

However, all indications on Monday were that Abbas was not interested in an escalation because of his desire to avoid internecine fighting ahead of the US-sponsored peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland.

Besides, there is no guarantee that his security forces would agree to participate in a crackdown on Fatah militiamen.

---skip part of article---

The Fatah gangsters, according to local residents, have been behind a spate of crime that has hit Nablus over the past few years. "They're not fighting Israel as much as they are terrorizing the residents of Nablus," said a prominent businessman. "They are the de facto police."

Over the weekend, some 300 policemen were deployed in Nablus as part of a US-backed security plan to boost Abbas's standing in the West Bank ahead of the planned peace conference.

But residents said that other than patrolling the streets and occupying rooftops, the policemen have taken no measures against dozens of gunmen who have long been imposing a reign of terror and intimidation in the largest West Bank city.

Under the terms of the security plan, Palestinian policemen have been permitted to appear on the streets only until midnight, when the IDF becomes responsible for security. PA security officers in Nablus complained Monday that this arrangement made it difficult, if not impossible, for them to carry out their duties.

"People here don't take us seriously because we are not allowed to operate after midnight," one officer told The Jerusalem Post.

But the officer also told the Post that he and his men had not received clear instructions to crack down on the gunmen, especially those belonging to Fatah's armed wing, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades. "No one told us that our mission was to disarm or arrest members of the Aksa Martyrs Brigades," he said.

Gen. Diab al-Ali, the PA security commander of the Nablus area, admitted that Monday's clashes were not the result of a decision to crack down on unruly members of the Aksa Brigades. He said the armed clashes began after policemen "mistakenly" detained the brother of a Fatah gunman from Balata.

"The gunman, who is wanted by the Palestinian Authority, fled to Balata," he said. "We released the brother and apologized to him because he had been detained by mistake."

According to Ali, when a police force tried to enter Balata to search for the gunman, dozens of gunmen and residents pelted them with stones and forced them to flee, leaving behind a police vehicle that was seized by members of the Aksa Martyrs Brigades.

Balata, like most of the Palestinian refugee camps, has always been off-limits to PA security forces.

In the West Bank, the camps are exclusively controlled by Fatah gunmen who function as policemen, judges and executioners.

Balata, the largest refugee camp in the West Bank, has always been considered a hard nut to crack. Several attempts by former PA chairman Yasser Arafat to deploy policemen inside the camp were thwarted by Fatah gunmen, who are esteemed by many camp residents as heroes.

As such, Abbas can't afford a major confrontation with gunmen from his own faction, especially not when many of them are being pursued by Israel. A crackdown on the Aksa Martyrs Brigades in the West Bank on the eve of the Annapolis conference will only undermine Abbas's power and depict him as a pawn in the hands of Israel and the US.

That's why Abbas's instructions to his security commanders in Nablus were to do their utmost to avoid a confrontation with the gunmen inside the refugee camp and to try to resolve the crisis peacefully.

In fact, this has been the undeclared policy of both Arafat and Abbas since the establishment of the PA.

It's very impolite to say such things in a progressive blog.

No, what's impolite is to believe them.

What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority. Molly Ivins

Although most the Esquire piece has been exposed before it's a great synthesis, and relies on interviews with Leverett.

The trolls here only confirm the mindless focus of rightwing neocons on seeing the entire world through Likud eyes and ignoring, with no shame, the interests of the United States. This is who the neocons are. God knows how any of them got a security clearance!

The point that must be remembered is you believe WWII was about going into a 'mode' to 'lash out' at those responsible for Pearl Harbor. Really, that's the most revelatory comment you've ever made during your interminable trolling of cafe discussion threads.

That's your basic view of war, your basic view of government and foreign policy (and discussion threads). Playground shoving. Comic book boasting. Rambo revenge.

Naturally, you think Iran and Saudi Arabia have a similiar fever-swamp mentality. (In Iran's case you could be right.) Fortunately, FDR and Marshall did not.

The gut feeling of someone who's sure Reagan overthrew the U.S.S.R. and Gandhi was an anti-Semite (among the many other pearls of your wisdom) doesn't really hold up as evidence as to whether foreign diplomatic efforts are legitimate.

So far in the hall of shame of people who want to stop conversation:
User Rating
Wordie 0
abdul-hass 1

Interesting comment, although I think the US response was more complex than either lashing out, or not. There was definitely an urge to lash out at the Japanese, expressed by some of the Pacific commanders such as ADM Halsey. Even Halsey, who had given his carriers, at sea slightly before Pearl Harbor, orders to attack Japanese warships if discovered, Halsey also knew that the US Pacific forces needed time both to recover from the direct impact of Pearl Harbor, and for US mobilization to meet its full stride.

Perhaps in the only time Hitler honored a treaty, he did, in response to the Japanese, declared war on the US. That led to close strategic cooperation between the US and UK, who adopted a "Germany First" priority.

Yamamoto, who opposed war with the US, told his government that he could hold the US for 12 to 18 months at most. In reality, it was for 4 (if you take the Doolittle Raid), 5 (if you count the Battle of the Coral Sea) 6 or 7 before there was a serious counteroffensive, on a shoestring, at Midway and then Guadalcanal.

The US accepted that they couldn't hold the Phillipines, and the ABDA forces had to fall back on Australia. I wouldn't call that lashing out, but a sober approach. If anything, the early US goal of a 1943 landing on Europe was the chief example I'd call thinking of lashing out, before wisdom prevailed.

To use Churchill's words from a different situation, Midway "was not the end. It was not the beginning of the end. It was, perhaps, the end of the beginning." While Midway probably was the turning point, it took the Battle of the Phillipine Sea before the Japanese really lost any serious chance of turning the tide, and they internally realized that after the Battle of Saipan. Unfortunately for the US, it didn't know the internal impacts of the early Doolittle Raid, and then the fall of Saipan leading to the fall of the Tojo government.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I respect greatly your knowledge of military affairs, Howard, but never do I recall in your commenting in discussion threads--and I read you thoroughly--never do I recall you characterizing war in terms of 'lashing out,' nor do I think War Colleges teach strategy or tactics in those terms. Isn't the very concept of 'strategy' somewhat opposed the concept of 'lashing out?'

'Lashing out' is more a contemporary conservative approach to war and politics--and a disasterous one.

Well said about strategy. Herman Kahn, one early civilian analyst of nuclear policy, who worked with the military as a consultant, reviewed one target list for nuclear attack, and said "Gentlement, you do not have a war plan. You have a wargasm."

'Lashing out', as a concept, certainly is not part of any strategic approach I know. One determines the objective, the risk, the resources, and determines what has the best chance of working. Indeed, it was a Japanese characteristic, in the latter parts of the war, to launch operations that they rationally knew could not work without a Deus ex machina, but did anyway due to cultural notions of honor.

Lashing out might be a way of describing the appropriate response in some small-unit tactical situations, but I'm not sure even there. I'm thinking especially of the fairly recent Raven 42, where an outnumbered military police unit, guarding the flanks of a convoy, did what seems counterintuitive when ambushed: they accelerated right into the ambush, defeating it in spite of 4:1 odds. In 1991, there was the Battle of 73 Easting, where a US reinforced company took on an Iraqi tank brigade, at odds of something like 7 to 9:1, and utterly destroyed it without US casualties.

That kind of response, however, may be as fast as a counter in a martial art, but, like a countermove in judo, is a thoroughly trained response that came from careful study of the best tactics. I find it difficult to think of an emotional lashing out with aspects of the Raven 42 engagement, where the unit preparation and discipline was such that when a soldier ran low on ammunition, she could run back to a Humvee, reach inside without looking, and grab ammunition from where it was always stored, just so there was no need to search.

I recommend that all who might lash out first read Fred Ikle's Every War Must End. Ikle is a distinguished scholar, but also was a subcabinet official in multiple Republican administrations. Still, he points out that countries that start wars, without clear ideas of victory and defeat, and how to disengage, tend to suffer catastrophes.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

You are correct, I overdid it with the follow up comments. I deserved being a called a jerk.
However, there is no question that MJ is a bigger jerk. While it does excuse me, let me ask you a question,why don't you ever have the balls to call him a jerk?

lockean said:

The gut feeling of someone who's sure Reagan overthrew the U.S.S.R.

The gut feeling of someone who's sure Reagan who finally brought the USSR down

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/001145.html

This reminds me of pre-World War I Russia: "Ah! If only Czar Ronald knew what the cossacks were doing us!" wails Andrew the muzhik. "Czar Ronald is kind! He would help us!"

No one over the age of ten has any excuse for forgetting that the cossacks work for the Czar--not the Czar for the cossacks.

Daniel Pipes was not a czar, he was not even cossack.

How do you now that Zionista is she?

Oh, I don't know...reading her writing for a year or so, and seeing gentle but consistent corrections about gender references.

How do I know you aren't a pimply-faced teenager filled with angst because he couldn't get a date?

How do you know I'm not a cat?

I'm reasonably certain you are human, by application of an inverse Turing test. Were I to have you on one interactive link and a well-designed language processing computer on the other, I'd recognize your greater incidence of grammatical failings.

Indeed, I am reminded of a parable by Leo Rosten, in which a sneering SS trooper said "Jew, I have one glass eye and one real one." Point to the real one and you live. Point to the glass one and you die.

The real eye was promptly selected. "But how could you do that? That glass eye is supposed to be perfect!"

"Yes. It was the one that had humanity and kindness in it."

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

If your opinion, Davai, is that I should have stopped, then I am comforted I went on.

Further, I'm glad you believe I write too much, because that suggests I say more than your fragile ego, intellect, or both can absorb at a given reading.

Now, please give your usual imperial brushoff, as if you are going to climb through the screen and enforce your will on me. Perhaps you might want to pronounce me nuts, which reassures me about my sanity as much as being pronounced sane by the US Department of Defense challenged that assumption.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

As I understand it, Hitler was under no obligation to declare war on the US. That would have happened only if the US attacked Japan. Just like Japan was not obligated to declare war on the USSR since Germany attacked her. Hitler felt war with the US was inevitable because of the undeclared war FDR was fighting with Germany in the North Atlantic (shades of the Gulf of Tonkin but LBJ's biographer Robert Caro praises FDR for this deception).

Bar, you are making good points, however, just after invasion of Iraq, US were in the strongest position. Was not that the right time to negotiate with your enemies?

There is much logic in your point, Davai, but my basic assumption in all these discussions is that the Arabs do not, and will not recognize Israel under current conditions. Yes, there is a concept of "shooting and negotiating at the same time". This is another version of the IRA's old "the rifle in one hand and the ballot box in the other". The British rejected this and finally got the IRA to accept a REAL cease-fire.|
As I have said before, if the 2 Kings Abdullah (Saudi Arabia and Jordan) and Assad and Abu Mazen were to come to the Knesset, Sadat-style, and make a plea for peace based on a return to the pre-67 borders and a limited right of return (say, 300,000 Palestinians returning to within Israel), I believe that this Israeli gov't would be able to railroad through such an agreement IF A REAL CEASE-FIRE AND RELAXATION OF TENSIONS WAS IMPLEMENTED ON ALL FRONTS, even though most Israelis wouldn't like the terms, and I would vehemently reject them. I mean that Israel would agree to give up the Western Wall (the Arabs would presumably make "guarantees" that Jews would be able to continue to pray there, but once they started harassing Jews going there, the Israeli gov't would not be able to revoke the agreement-everyone is aware of this).

So the question is: Why do the Arabs refuse to make any sort of real peace gestures and simply make more and more demands, while the violence, antisemitic propaganda and boycotts continue? Because, as I have said, recognition of rights of the dhimmi Jews to self-determination is a violation of everything they believe in, and they are willing to pay a high price, including sacrificing their next generation's opporurtunties for real reform and economic growth, all in order to keep the war going. Look at Iraq, how both the Shi'ites are Sunnis are willing to destroy the country, just in order that the other side shouldn't get it.
Thus I view all Arab "peace feelers", like Saddam's and the 2002 "offers" , as simply maneuvering and intrigues, until there is real evidence of a change. The large majority of Israeli agree with me on this, if not on what our next steps should be.

As I have said before, if the 2 Kings Abdullah (Saudi Arabia and Jordan) and Assad and Abu Mazen were to come to the Knesset, Sadat-style, and make a plea for peace based on a return to the pre-67 borders and a limited right of return (say, 300,000 Palestinians returning to within Israel), I believe that this Israeli gov't would be able to railroad through such an agreement . . .

Wasn't this basically what the Saudis were proposing in 2002? (I'm not sure a visit to the Knesset to present the plan was discussed, but I'm sure the Saudis would have agreed in the context of their peace plan likely being accepted.) There's something rather paradoxical in your argument: on one hand you bemoan the fact that the Saudis haven't done what in actuality they largely proposed to do--and on the other hand you dismiss what they proposed to do as maneuvering and intrigue. And furthermore, if the Israeli government really were committed to a peace settlement as you describe with the Palestinians, why would they have to wait for the Saudis and Jordanians to make visits?

Yeah, keep making more and more demands on what "The Arabs" should do to make peace - while you continue expropriating lands, committing genocide against the Palestinians, and expanding. Like we don't see whats really going on.

BINGO! Here's what you wrote:
--------------------------
I'd note that greater Persian culture seems to have more cultural context for deal-making. loya jirga is not a recent concept, nor is the Arab proverb "myself against my brother, my brother and I against the family, the family against the tribe, the tribe against the world."
-----------------------------

In Iraq, it is "their" tribe against the "other" tribe. Both accuse each other of being in league with the dhimmi Jews. Both agree that Israel is bad but that is not enough to end their fratricidal warfare. All it mean is that both Sunni and Shi'ite members of the Iraqi delegation to the UN will denounce Israel together while they continue fighting each other at home (Sunnis say that the break-away sectarian Shi'ites are actually part of a Jewish plot to divide Islam).
In one of MJ's recent threads I mentioned that Jerusalem is the third holiest city to Islam, in addition to being Judaism's holiest city. One of the posters here who doesn't agree with my positions commented that he was surprised that I, as a "right-wing Orthodox pro-settler Religious Zionist" would acknowledge Muslim attachment to the city. But my whole position is based on what Muslims believe and the deep influence of their traditional culture and why this prevents them from granting any legitimacy to any Jewish state of whatever size. I am amazed how Americans are totally oblivious to the cultural differences in people, mistakenly thinking that people are really esentially the same around the world and react the same way to economic and political stimuli. It is this that led Bush to the Iraq tragedy and the same mentality that keeps pushing MJ and those who agree with him to keep pushing for the implementation of disastrous policies that will only bring war.

Thank you Wordie,
Finally you understand disruptive nature of the comment that MJ made in the middle of the serious discussion.
Let's hope that Andrew Golis explains him what's the appropriate behaviour for an moderator in tpmcafe.

real substantive knowledge of the topic at hand.

[This is a reply to bar-K's 12:24 comment above.]

Mann and Leverett (according to the article) thought Iran and the Saudis were making serious offers. Maybe they're wrong. And even if the offers were serious that doesn't mean they'd pan out in verifiable agreements. Most negotiations don't pan out.

But how do we benefit from the Bush admin unilaterally, preemptively, seemingly gratuitously, blowing off both offers?

You seem to suspect that current Iranian mullahs and Saudi royals are like pre-9-11 Saddam Hussein in their approach to foreign policy. (I don't see why they would be, but let's say that's true) Surely, you would not refuse to negotiate with either country solely because of your suspicions? The U.S. has a foreign service. Surely, you wouldn't refuse to use it?

Britain never asked the IRA to publically accept the existence or legitimacy of England, Northern Ireland, the British Empire, or anything else

In Northern Ireland or anywhere else, no prudent opponent is going to make concessions before negotiations begin, and no prudent opponent is going to bargain away concrete advantages for the sake of vague promises of goodwill.

Wordie.

Zionista said that davai has a knack for ruining a good circle jerk. She exhibits a sly sense of humor at times.

(BTW, you managed to find one of the few non-disgusting definitions of a "circle jerk" from that site. While more acceptable for this venue, it's derivative of the basic descriptions of the phenomenon and divorced from the original context, it's somewhat lacking.)

I won't call this exactly trolling, but Davai, you give the sense of immediately dismissing the situation with a counterattack, rather than exploring to see if there is relevance. You might get more value by listening a bit, or asking truly clarifying questions, not immediately challenging questions. Sometimes, it may take several rounds of discussion to see if there is relevance, and immediate counterattack is unproductive in eliciting such information.

Did IRA have in it's platform the goal of destruction of England the British Empire?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Lally: I did notice that the other definitions were pretty creepy, but (revealing my naivety here), I wasn't really clear on the definition, so I had to look it up. It may be a bit of a stretch, but so often, the discussion does tend to devolve into posts that fail to demonstrate "any real substantive knowledge" (being mostly diatribes against M.J. and "gotcha" questions). That "adversely affects" the rest of us "who are actually tasked to do the work" (considering that having an actual discussion might be considered the "work" that we do here). So I still think that definition is at least somewhat appropriate in this case.

At a certain point, it starts seeming useless to try to participate in an actual conversation about the actual topic at hand. When the amount of detritus rises to a sufficent level, what hope is there of talking about anything else? (And I consider my own post here to now be part of the detrius as well!)

Of course, it could be that Zionista was merely referring to the tendency of davai to uprate his own posts, using his sockpuppet, secretweapon.

“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung

No, you don't expose much of anything, and that's not as meant as an endorsement of MJ. You do a lot of namecalling, challenging and attempting to harass anyone who doesn't join in the Two Minutes Hate against MJ, and generally tell a tale of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

If you actually wanted to expose someone, a good start would involve being much more calm and precise. Alas, you do not fit the full Churchillian profile of Clement Attlee: "a very modest man with a great deal to be modest about."

If you actually wanted to expose someone, you'd focus on the goal, rather than reflexively attacking a new and reasonable line of discussion, such as the comparison between what worked in Northern Ireland and if it could be applicable to I-P. British Empire? Do you ever read history that isn't either Zionist or Leninist? Sometimes, it is better to hold one's words and be thought a fool, rather than release them and confirm your status as such.

If you actually wanted to expose someone, you might come across as less of an armchair chickenhawk, eager for others to do battle and be at risk. As much as I may disagree with B-K, he walks the walk as well as talks the talk, to borrow a bit of slang.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

You do a lot of namecalling

challenging

and attempting to harass anyone

Even Israelis in the government don't think Iran is really a threat to Israel's existance although they won't admit it in public

Daniel Levy has the excellent blog; "Prospects For Peace". He is a highly respected Israeli

Wordie.

The creepy definitions are the relevent ones. Sigh. I have that on good authority.....

"When the amount of detritus rises to a sufficent level, what hope is there of talking about anything else? (And I consider my own post here to now be part of the detrius as well!)"

Mine as well, mine as well.

Sometimes my warped sense of humor gets the best of me.

Be careful davai, the majority opinions of Israelis on some issues are repugnant to much of the world, especially to most Americans as they are redolent of parts of our own shameful past.

This post ends my participation in this OT discussion.

Lally,

There's a relentless awfulness to kiss-up kick-down authoritarianism that really is depressingly universal. Bar-K could be a West Bank settler, an Egyptian prison guard, a medieval Dominican friar, a U.S. movement conservative mouthing off on social security, or me when I was 14 (I'm ashamed to say).

I remember going to my Dem friends houses and baiting them with little obnoxious pseudo-facts like Bar does, and the exquisite gambler's joy I felt winning arguments w/o knowing what I was talking about (arguments stolen seemed sweeter than discussions earned), particularly by taking advantage of their assumption that I wouldn't deliberately lie.

So I'm in no position to throw stones and I certainly have no expertise on the Middle East, but bending over backwards to pretend that trolls aren't trolls just b/c what they're saying might not be trolling if said in a different context by someone else, is a good example (IMHO) of why kiss-up kick-down Authoritarians rule so much of the world so much of the time.

I'm afraid he offers the same guilty pleasure of pouring piles of quarters into a whack-a-mole game. Yes, I agree. Banning is appropriate.

The last set of exchanges, actually, have made me more certain about that. After several bonks of the 2x4 over the head of the mule, he began to approach a statement about Northern Ireland that made a minimal amount of sense. That, in turn, demonstrated that had he had a trainable capacity for eventually contributing, but, in the meanwhile, his approach seemed to be either an adaptation of the "monsters from the id" in Forbidden Planet, or, the description of a programmer I knew who was reputed to program by putting his gonads in series with his fingers and locking out his cortex.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Your simplistic "all other issues were resolved by that time" indicates a childish impatience,

I said

My point was that there was no need for Britain to ask IRA to accept legitimacy of England or British Empire. The only real issue was the fate of Northern Ireland. All other issues were resolved by that time.

Other isues = legitimacy of England or British Empire with excepttion of the issues related to Northern Ireland.

I'm not sure what we argue about. I can't be more clear.
Bye now

I agree, At least my comments are short

It should be obvious that I am aware of those differences, and honing on those that are culturally Arab and coincidentally Muslim, rather than conflating them with Persian culture.

You appear to be making the assumption that there is no way for Muslim -- undifferentiated Muslim -- culture to make peace with Israel. In that case, while the consolidated Muslim powers have no plausible ability to destroy Israel at this time, what alternative do you offer? Continuing Israeli expansion and massive retaliation would be one thing if it was not dealing with a culture that has a certain fringe element that considers suicide attacks a perfectly viable tactic, rewarded with Paradise.

If one looks at that fringe, I wouldn't especially worry about an Iranian nuclear threat, some distance away. I'd be far more worried about just the right (or wrong) group of well-funded extremists coming together, and doing better than Aum Shiryo did with its failed biological attacks.

The industrial base for genetic engineering is a good deal simpler than for nuclear-armed missiles. Most people with a decent background in microbiology can cite some quite specific approaches to engineered agents that literally might constitute a doomsday machine. I'd have to check on the sensitivity of the amphibians, but one thing comes fairly easily to mind, which could wipe out all vertebrates through the reptiles.

You and others have mentioned existential threats to Israel. I'm more concerned about existential threats to the world, not immediately imminent, but that very well could come after another couple of decades of the I-P status quo. Can you offer any reason that I should feel confident that the situation will resolve before the wrong elements come together? Military biological warfare programs were almost always much more constrained than the layman realized, with human-to-human spread very undesirable, due to the lack of control.

Ken Alibek did allude to one experimental Soviet program that did have elements of a doomsday machine, although the birds and reptiles probably would survive. If there's a group that assumes that its death, along with most of the world, would speed them to Paradise, why should it not be assumed that is a possibility? After all, some serious consideration is being given to dealing with an asteroid or comet hitting the earth; there are reports that both the US and Russia have agreed to keep their highest-yield thermonuclear weapons in reserve for such a contingency.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Laffy,

So you encouraged this individual to inflict his opinions on the site and then you skipped off merrily to live your life in peace leaving us to endure helplessly his misinformation campaigns till the end of time?

I'm sure making Israelis watch Fox News to instruct them in the American Right would be similiarly valid to a point, but once a source is known not to be reliable what further instruction is to be gleaned? Where's the off switch?

Somewhat ungratefully,

l

WTF is lackerman?

piss off yourself.

Absolutely correct, the IRA never threated to destroy the UK or march into London.

It was also correctly pointed out that the secularization and modernization of the Republic of Ireland made closer links with the South much less intimidating to the Ulster Protestants. Would anybody say the same think is happening in the Arab/Muslim Middle East? Are the countries there becoming more tolerant, more modern, more economically productive? Is the Christian minority being treated better or are they under more pressure? Are Jews portrayed in a better or worse light in the media and propaganda?

There have been Israeli Arab suicide bombers, a few. More Israeli Arabs have been involved in helping prepare for the attacks, such as transporting the bomber to the scene of the attack. However, their participation has been much less than those of the Judea/Samaria Arabs.

One last comment to you. I am singularly unconcerned about your opinion about what I can or cannot do. As far as I'm concerned, I have been convinced that it is useless to interact with you, and I will add my voice to those in favor of your banning. I encourage others, at this point, to zero rate any post of yours; I trust you to start contributing about as much as I trust George Bush.

That's not censorship -- it's Josh's site, Josh's rules, and Josh's decisions. You want freedom of speech, set up your own site, and I promise I won't come.

You are the weakest link. Goodbye.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]