Happy Thanksgiving, President Obama (And Some Second-Term Advice)
To President Obama;
The millions of Americans who voted for you will likely sit down on Thursday and give thanks that you will be our nation's leader for the next four years. Our thanks will be added to you and your family's thanks for the same thing, I assume. We all sincerely hope you and your loved ones have a very happy Thanksgiving this year.
You will enter your second term as president with a full four years of on-the-job experience, and this too should be something America can be thankful for. If, that is, you have learned some of the lessons from your first term and make a sincere effort to change what needs to be changed in your second.
There are hopeful signs that this may indeed already be happening. The biggest lesson you should have learned from your dealings with Congress over the past four years is to not start negotiating from your compromise position. This is "Negotiation 101" -- any Union leader in the country knows this basic rule for how the negotiating game is played. If you want a trillion dollars, start by asking for three trillion dollars. Allow the other side to "talk you down" to one trillion dollars. That way you not only get what you want, you allow the other side to "save face" and claim they've gotten the better of you in the deal (since they can claim to their followers "we got Obama to cave on two trillion dollars that he wanted!"). This is basic, basic stuff but it was also the source of real weakness in your first term.
Democrats (and most Americans) know that politics requires compromise to get much of anything done -- even in normal times. So while the vocal Left will decry your compromises at times, deep down they know that even incremental progress towards a goal is much better than anything they could have expected out of President (shudder) Romney.
But also, at times, you need to stand firm. Draw a few lines in the sand. Refuse to give in. Not every time, of course, but if you pick your battles and choose issues that the American public is overwhelmingly on your side, you can win these battles even against recalcitrant Republicans. And even if you lose, they'll wind up paying the political price for obstructing you.
The first of these fights will be over ending the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000. Republicans are going to fight tooth and nail for "closing loopholes" rather than raising the tax rates. This should be your first line in the sand. The American people elected you to raise rates -- you certainly campaigned on it clearly enough. Over sixty percent of the public stands behind you on this issue, and some polls put support for raising rates as high as three-fourths of all Americans. You've already issued a veto threat, so now all you need to do is stand firm. Either the House Republicans can go along with this, or you can just force the issue by vetoing any bill which falls short. But don't back down, or else it will never again be possible for Democrats to raise any taxes for any reason, for the rest of your term. If you back down, you will have done the equivalent of agreeing to Grover Norquist's pledge. This would be a weak way to start your second term indeed.
If Republicans dig in their heels, then use the bully pulpit. One of your biggest weaknesses during the first half of your first term was your inexplicable refusal to do what Ronald Reagan used to call "going over the heads" of those in Washington and the media, and "speaking directly to the American people." You can do this, too. To great effect. Getting the public firmly behind you is crucial to getting Congress to do much of anything.
In your first term, you dropped the ball on using your online bully pulpit as well. The impressive legion of supporters you had built up for your campaign never heard a call to arms (or to the phones, more accurately) on any important issue, after you were elected. Instead, your email list gathered cobwebs, before you dusted it off again in 2012 to gin up campaign contributions. Don't make this mistake again. Again, there are signs that you plan to ask your online supporters for feedback, but even these signs are a bit disturbing, such as requiring day, month, and year of birth to even complete the survey. This isn't exactly "anonymous" feedback, and anyone even slightly concerned with the use of personal data online will not even make it past the first screen. Do you really want our feedback, or are you just data mining your supporters? Please send a clearer message in the future.
Which brings up one other tiny point. When dealing with the vocal Left, please don't allow Rahm Emanuel within 500 miles of the White House. Repeatedly (and graphically) insulting what should have been your strongest supporters was just politically stupid (note: I refuse to use the same term Rahm used about the Left, no matter how appropriate it would be right here).
Finally, allow me to close with a broad suggestion. When you and Congress have a contentious issue that absolutely must be resolved, please show some leadership. Again, you've been doing a much better job of this since your first few years, but it will be crucial with Republicans being able to block legislation in both houses. Don't allow some obscure Senate committee to yammer for months on end over an issue, because you and I both know what the outcome will be -- absolutely nothing, other than a lot of hot air released into the Washington atmosphere.
If you have to compromise, then compromise. If you have to twist arms, then twist arms. But, either way, don't just sit on the sidelines and assume Congress will get it done. They won't. Harry Reid just isn't strong enough (and doesn't have enough leverage) to get it done on his own. The White House has to take the reins -- early -- and drive the negotiating process. This doesn't mean you'll win on every issue, and it certainly doesn't mean we expect you to get everything you want while blocking every Republican idea, but you have to be seen as leading the talks on how to solve problems, even if you fail. The American public will give you a lot more credit if you fail -- but fought as hard as you could to reach an agreement -- than they will if you don't even try.
I don't mean to sound too harsh, Mister President. As I said, there are millions of Americans who are going to start off their Thanksgiving statements with "I am thankful Barack Obama will be our president for four more years..." this Thursday. Because we are looking forward (and, yes, we even have lots of hope) that in the coming years we can sit down and begin with "I am thankful Barack Obama was our president this year because he accomplished the following..." before we feast on turkey with all the trimmings.
Happy Thanksgiving To All!
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!
Chris, this is very sound advice that should probably be sent straight to the White House if you haven't done so already. (don't forget to always include http://www.chrisweigant.com with every piece of advice you send!)
It's the kind of advice that should really go without saying and the president has even sounded at times like he understands that this is sound advice. But, it's also the kind of advice that a president needs to hear, regularly and forcefully.
The goal now should be to win back effective control of Congress and the online mobilization effort for that should have begun on Nov 7th and would have if the president really understands your very important advice.
Hope you have a wonderful Thanksgiving and relaxing break away from the computer!
And so it begins.... :D
Michale
003
CW,
I actually hope that Obama reads your column and follows your advice..
I would also add this little note:
President Obama,
Remember that you are president for ALL Americans.. Even the ones who didn't vote for you.
You are a president for those who curse your name, who rally against anything and everything you do.
It is your DUTY to represent THOSE Americans as ably and as strongly as you represent those who support you...
Anything less and your presidency will be a failure..
Michale
004
What would Thanksgiving be without a little conspiracy theory?? :D
Peace, turkey pardoned by President Obama last Thanksgiving, euthanized
http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/national/peace-turkey-pardoned-by-president-obama-last-thanksgiving-euthanized
:D
Michale.....
005
Spot on article. Obama needs to remember what the Republicans are trying their hardest to ignore: he was elected because all of his policies are overwhelmingly popular. Don't make the mistake that the GOP is (and has been for a while now) making - listen to the people!
And Happy Thanksgiving Americans!
Do you really want our feedback, or are you just data mining your supporters?
In case anyone from the administration reads this site, let's have this included in every column until they respond.
In case anyone from the administration reads this site, let's have this included in every column until they respond.
Here here dsws!
The goal now should be to win back effective control of Congress and the online mobilization effort for that should have begun on Nov 7th and would have if the president really understands your very important advice.
My holiday wishes for the President to focus on are one, the economy.
And two, campaign finance reform. We're not going to see real political change until we can limit the influence of money.
Happy Turkey Day everyone!
-David
In the comments to another post,
[48] dsws wrote:
...
I'm having trouble coming up with anything the Republicans are for, that's good for the country.
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/11/19/the-eternal-game-of-chicken/#comment-30027
I thought of one: lowering the corporate tax rate. I haven't verified it myself from primary sources, but I think we have one of the highest rates in the world, offset by tons and tons of credits, deductions, and outright loopholes. We should clear a lot of that out, and have a lower corporate rate like most of the rest of the world. A lot of the burden of corporate taxes gets passed along to customers and workers anyway.
It's not all that much of a partisan issue: a lot of Democrats are for it too, although I'm sure there's plenty of disagreement about exactly what loopholes should be closed. But on the whole, cutting the rate is supported somewhat more by Republicans, so it counts.
Sorry Liz and Michty..
I have been wracking my brain to come up with a comment worthy of the great 007.. But nothing has come to mind...
I let ya'all down. Soweee... :(
I'll go with the best I've got from the only TRUE James Bond there will ever be..
"World domination. The same old dream. Our asylums are full of people who think they’re Naploeon. Or God."
-Sean Connery, Dr NO
:D
Anyways, to business...
From a previous commentary about Hate Speech...
Michty,
Oh no doubt that there are other ethnic/religious battles in the 21st century...
But you simply CANNOT find any other instance where anyone but Muslims react so fanatically uncivilized, simply on the COMPLETE AND TOTAL BASIS of a perceived insult such as drawing a cartoon or insulting a god..
No matter HOW anyone tries to spin it, that is NOT civilized behavior...
And it should NOT be condoned or mitigated even by mentioning the insult in the same breath as the uncivilized behavior...
I think even dsws agrees with me and if HE articulates such agreement.... well..... :D
Michale
007
And, we also have ANOTHER area of complete agreement.
This idea of data mining by Team Obama???
Can I assume that, in the future when such privacy invasions are brought up by yours truly, there will be continued agreement?? :D
Michale
008
David,
And two, campaign finance reform. We're not going to see real political change until we can limit the influence of money.
We'll never see it, David as much as it pains me to say..
Asking Congress to take the money out of elections is like asking Congress to work for nothing more than the satisfaction of helping fellow Americans..
They would look at you like you are a bug from another planet....
" 'Tis sad 'tis true... 'Tis true, 'tis sad. "
Michale
009
I think we are all missing the point of the Hate Speech issue anyways..
NO WHERE (rational that is) on the face of the planet could saying that Muhummed is a dick-smacking pedophile could be construed as "Hate Speech"...
No doubt, it's rude, crude, socially unacceptable and thoroughly disgusting, even if it's true, which I obviously have no idea of that.
But Hate Speech???
If THAT qualifies as "Hate Speech" than ANY derogatory hateful/hurtful statement could be construed as "Hate Speech"...
Under that definition, calling Bush a liar or Cheney "Darth Vader" could be considered "Hate Speech"...
Michale.....
BTW, michty ... I happened to stumble on this the other. Quite possibly its the single most spot on piece of cultural analysis I've seen describing the difference between British humor and American humor ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k2AbqTBxao
(It's also tremendously funny ... nothing beats the Brits when it comes to humor)
Lest it be lost in a dead thread, and since the subject has been broached here, I'll link my most recent post on hate speech: http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/11/19/the-eternal-game-of-chicken/#comment-30052
In brief, I say that hate speech is coercive threat aimed at maintaining unjust social hierarchy: be complicit in the subordinate status of the group in question, or else.
It needs special treatment in the law because it functions effectively as coercive threat even though both clauses typically have a level of vagueness that would preclude "true threat" exclusion from free-speech protection.
In brief, I say that hate speech is coercive threat aimed at maintaining unjust social hierarchy: be complicit in the subordinate status of the group in question, or else.
That's kinda my point...
Saying Muhhamed is a dick-smacking pedophile is NOT a threat, implicit or otherwise...
It seems that the apologists crowd want to make ANYTHING that offends Muslims, "Hate Speech", even if it violates the most basic of civil rights...
That's just wrong...
Michale
010
David,
In another comparison between Brits and Americans....
What IS it about the UK sci fi shows???
I watched a couple seasons of Primeval and was simply appalled at the complete and utter lack of believability..
It lead me to one of two conclusions..
Either the Brits are the most gullible people on the face of the planet (which I know from personal experience is NOT true) or else they are simply very undemanding in their TV viewing habits...
Michale
011
else they are simply very undemanding in their TV viewing habits...
That's not meant to be insulting, even if it came out that way..
There is something to be said about a healthy society who doesn't obsess over "reality" shows or realism in their shows and the like...
Michale
012
I watched a couple seasons of Primeval and was simply appalled at the complete and utter lack of believability.
Idunno. I haven't watched much since Red Dwarf (which really was more of a comedy than a sci-fi).
My guess, as you hinted at, is that technology and realism is simply less important than script and character.
There is something to be said about a healthy society who doesn't obsess over "reality" shows or realism in their shows and the like.
Agreed. Though I do love sci-fi shows like Firefly and the newer Battlestar Galactica (which I've almost made it through for the second time). However, towards the end of Battlestar Galactica, I'm finding that the heavy drama would be quite ripe for parody. Firefly never made it quite that long :)
-David
Current law is a bit closer to my position than I thought:
The high court more directly addressed true threats in a pair of Virginia cross-burning cases collectively known as Virginia v. Black(2003). One case involved a Ku Klux Klan leader named Barry Elton Black, who burned a cross in a field with the permission of the property owner. The other case involved two individuals who burned crosses in the yard of a neighboring African-American family. In separate cases that became consolidated, the Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of a Virginia state law that prohibited “any person or group of persons, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, to burn, or cause to be burned, a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place.”
Another provision of the law created a presumption that all cross-burnings were done with an intent to intimidate. In its decision, the Court upheld the bulk of the Virginia law, but invalidated the section that provided that all cross-burnings were presumed to be intimidating.
In deciding the case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in her plurality opinion offered a definition of true threats:
“‘True threats’ encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals. The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat. Rather, a prohibition on true threats protect[s] individuals from the fear of violence and from the disruption that fear engenders, in addition to protecting people from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.”
She added, “intimidation in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death.”
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/true-threats
There should be a presumption that cross-burnings are done with intent to intimidate. It should be appropriately rebuttable, but it should be presumed. Likewise with a wide swath of usually-threatening hateful speech.
But you simply CANNOT find any other instance where anyone but Muslims react so fanatically uncivilized, simply on the COMPLETE AND TOTAL BASIS of a perceived insult such as drawing a cartoon or insulting a god..
You need to come to Europe, Michale. Ours is a region where people get stabbed and killed just because of songs they sang at football games! The idea that we, in the West, are perfectly civilised while Muslims are a bunch of radical nuts is nonsense. Every group has their bad apples. Always have and most likely always will.
No doubt, it's rude, crude, socially unacceptable and thoroughly disgusting, even if it's true, which I obviously have no idea of that.
But Hate Speech???
Of course it could. It seems silly to us because we don't have the same beliefs in them and (I am pretty correct in thinking this) we think most religions have ridiculous beliefs. But I could see how when you've spent your entire life worshipping this sacred religious head, who is supposed to be kept clean and free of slander, you might not take kindly to people ignoring this and slandering the one thing you hold sacred above all else. Heck, I've seen people in the Western world get angry and upset and violent about WAY worse things...
David,
Stephen Fry is a very smary guy. Ha that rhymes.
And yes British sci-fi is weird. Just look at Doctor Who. I don't get it either.
Nice cartoon linking what happened in Israel/Gaza to drone attacks: http://www.rall.com/rallblog/2012/11/23/president-obama-weighs-in
michty,
You need to come to Europe, Michale. Ours is a region where people get stabbed and killed just because of songs they sang at football games! The idea that we, in the West, are perfectly civilised while Muslims are a bunch of radical nuts is nonsense. Every group has their bad apples. Always have and most likely always will.
Yea, football games I can see. We have that here as well... But ya don't see any movements to eliminate football games do you?
No.. The onus and consequences is on those perpetrating the violence.
AS IT SHOULD BE..
But that isn't even in the league of people being beheaded and massive destruction solely based on a cartoon insult...
I've seen people in the Western world get angry and upset and violent about WAY worse things...
For example???
When I was an Air Force cop, myself and my partner had to appear in court over a "Provoking Speeches And Gestures" charge... The judge was condescending my partner to the extreme and lecturing her that simply flipping the bird doesn't amount to "Provoking Speeches And Gestures"...
My partner said, "That's fine your honor. Have a nice day." and flipped off the judge... :D
My point??
In the grand scheme of things, something as silly as drawing a cartoon of a mythical figure is HARDLY worth beheading someone. I don't care WHO you are or WHAT the context is.
It is simply uncivilized.
PERIOD
And is utterly and completely without justification..
And yes British sci-fi is weird. Just look at Doctor Who. I don't get it either.
I have never been one to understand the attraction of Dr Who.. The concept of Primeval was interesting so I watched it.. I stuck with it for about a season and a half (about 4 days)...
It just got too weird for me..
and THAT is saying something.. :D
Interesting cartoon..
But why does Obama look like a black Homer Simpson?? :D
Michale....
Ooops
That last one was 013
Michale
014
It is simply uncivilized.
It's pretty much in the same context of firing guns in the air as celebration..
It's completely and utterly uncivilized. Not to mention downright moronic.
Michale.....
015
Michale,
But that isn't even in the league of people being beheaded and massive destruction solely based on a cartoon insult...
Let me be clear: I think the outrage over the cartoon was moronic. I don't think the cartoon was 'hate speech' and I found it laughingly ironic that (the minority of) some (radical) Muslims responded to a comedic cartoon suggesting Muhammed was a suicide bomber with 'we aren't suicide bombers, I'm going to suicide bomb you for those comments!'
Comedy is a difficult area but generally gets an exception from 'hate speech' since it is rarely intended to incite violence. Comedians do and should be allowed to push the boundaries in the name of comedy.
The video is completely different to the cartoon. It's intention was to insult and offend and, arguably, incite violence. That's why I suggested it might be considered hate speech... The two don't even compare.
For example???
But I am sticking with my point that Western people react just as badly. People get killed because they 'looked at my girlfriend' in bars and all sorts of stupid crap everyday. Saying that we are completely civilised is to ignore the minority in our population that does this stupid crap as well as the minority in the Muslim population that does...
But why does Obama look like a black Homer Simpson?? :D
I don't see it. It is an exaggerated cartoon, I don't get why his nose is so big!
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-considers-allowing-corporate-cash-inauguration_663894.html
Yep.... Obama wants NOTHING to do with Corporate Cash....
Unless there is something in it for him... :^/
You see, David, why it's impossible to separate the cash from the politicians???
Michale
015
http://www.foxbusiness.com/investing/2012/11/19/death-twinkies-union-contract-hit/
And THIS is why Unions are part of the problem and NOT part of the solution...
Michale
016
You need to come to Europe, Michale. Ours is a region where people get stabbed and killed just because of songs they sang at football games!
We have sports riots here, although I'm not aware of any cases of fans murdering opposing fans. Anyway, I certainly agree that trying to pass the West off as "civilized" in implicit contrast to "uncivilized" Muslims is silly. There are a billion or so Muslims in the world, and Americans get bent out of shape over a handful of threats or murders, not because we really think it matters more than the same number of murders in Detroit but because it lets us pat ourselves on the back for our supposed superiority.
Hate speech against Muslims is possible, because Muslims are in an inferior position, that threats can enforce. Hate speech against the West by Muslims makes as much sense as a scene where a racketeer is making veiled threats to get the merchant not to pay protection money.
And THIS is why Unions are part of the problem and NOT part of the solution...
gross overgeneralization. unions can be either or both. if the endeavor is successful the union can take part of the credit, if it's not successful it can shoulder part of the blame - in the case of hostess, 21.18% of the 850 million dollars of blame (i mean debt).
~joshua
gross overgeneralization.
True.. very true..
It just chaps me arse that most here think that Unions are the end all be all, but never quite acknowledge that Unions are, by and large, as greedy and self serving as corporations..
Michale.....
017
Major Nelson has gone to that great genie bottle in the sky..
Or, if you prefer, JR Ewing has gone to the heavenly Southfork..
He'll be missed...
Michale.....
018
Anyway, I certainly agree that trying to pass the West off as "civilized" in implicit contrast to "uncivilized" Muslims is silly.
Now there's a false equivalency if I ever heard one! :D
Sure.. We have our moments in the West. If one looks (not even all that hard) one can cherry pick an uncivilized act or 12..
But to claim that Muslims and the West are on the same rung of the civilization ladder??
THAT is silly...
In the West, the uncivilized moments are the exception rather than the rule and are dealt with on their own "merits" so to speak..
In the Muslim world, (at least the Middle Eastern part of it) it's a way of life. And when it does happen, the Left of the Westerners fall all over themselves to excuse and mitigate the uncivilized violence..
To put it in a sports context, it would be as if a pundit/journalist reported that there was massive rioting in Jacksonville when the Jags lost and then followed up the report by saying, "But the rioters team lost, so......"
The latter does NOT excuse the former in any way, shape or form...
Now, the standard response from the Left is, "Of course the insults don't excuse the rioting and killing!"
Then WHY bring it up!??
Simply by equating the two, the Left is mitigating and excusing the violence...
Michale....
019
Given the US government and its parts drives much of the politcal debate outside of the USA. I thought I could bring another perspective to your discussions. Namely, Australia very similar political battles, even some of the same players running the campaigns. The influence of immigration, racism, debts, deficits and taxes of course.
A huge sigh of relief floated over here when the Democrats got back into the saddle. Do you think that the house will put forward any workable legislation? Can higher taxes get through the system or are the vested interests too powerful?
Keep the great work Chris, this site often has the best explanations of how the system in Washington works.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84195.html
Looks like any hope of bipartisanship and actually have Congress work TOGETHER is shot all to hell...
Michale.....
020
But to claim that Muslims and the West are on the same rung of the civilization ladder?
So how do you explain the Christian crusade here in the U.S. that wants to bring on war with the Muslim world because they want the End of Days?
How do you explain the general hatred for Muslims in our country?
The big difference I see Michale is that the Christian side has better weapons. I don't believe this makes Christians any more "civilized".
How many Iraqis did we kill in the last war, for example?
Yet you're somehow able to justify that while calling Muslims "uncivilized".
I don't agree with either side but it's a dangerous precedent to start saying one group is "more civilized" than another.
-David
So how do you explain the Christian crusade here in the U.S. that wants to bring on war with the Muslim world because they want the End of Days?
Which "Christian Crusade" would that be???
How do you explain the general hatred for Muslims in our country?
Easy... They are not doing enough to opposes Muslims brutally butchering innocent people.
How many times do you see Muslims go on the record to defend Israel??
Sure it happens occasionally. But definitely not enough that is commiserate with their numbers.
How many Iraqis did we kill in the last war, for example?
That is *war*... It happens in WAR. There is no declared war against Muslims..
Unless, of course, you are contending that all Muslims are terrorists.. :D But I don't think that is what you are saying... :D
Comparing what happens in war to what happens in terrorism is like comparing Eskimos and alligators.
Yet you're somehow able to justify that while calling Muslims "uncivilized".
Damn skippy... The evidence is all around. In Saudi Arabia, men are sent a tweet if their wives leave the house..
You call that civilized???
I don't agree with either side but it's a dangerous precedent to start saying one group is "more civilized" than another.
I don't see it that way... Prisons are filled with uncivilized people. Do we not call a spade a spade, just to be politically correct???
Michale.....
Let's be clear. The Muslims that are uncivilized are the Middle Eastern variety...
And not all of them, by any means..
But enough to know that the moderate peaceful Mid East Muslim is the exception, rather than the rule...
Michale....
I don't agree with either side but it's a dangerous precedent to start saying one group is "more civilized" than another.
So, you don't think Leftist elites are "more civilized" than rednecks?? :D
Michale.....
023
"Our Lord and Savior, Barack Obama"
-Jamie Foxx
Nope....
No racism there... :^/
Michale
024
Looks like many Republicans are throwing Norquist under the bus...
Now I guess we'll see if Democrat's claims that THEY are always ready to compromise is factual... :D
Someone pass the popcorn! It's gonna be a fun show! :D
Michale
025
Which "Christian Crusade" would that be???
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1184546/Donald-Rumsfelds-holy-war-How-President-Bushs-Iraq-briefings-came-quotes-Bible.html
Now this isn't all Christians. But there is a lot of support for war against Muslims from some of our more fundamentalist religions.
That is *war*... It happens in WAR.
So all al Qaeda has to do is call it "war" and it's civilized?
Or ... on the contrary ... all they have to do is call what we do "terrorism" and it's "uncivilized".
It doesn't look like there's much difference to me except what we call it. And, we have better weapons. Especially when we basically made up the reason to go to war with Iraq.
-David
It doesn't look like there's much difference to me except what we call it. And, we have better weapons. Especially when we basically made up the reason to go to war with Iraq.
How long have you known me??
I simply REFUSE to believe that you don't know the difference between terrorism and war! :D
Terrorism IS uncivilized. No two ways about it..
Now, if you want to delve into semantics, then one could also say war is uncivilized as well..
But they are VERY far apart on the ladder of what is and isn't civilized...
Just as Muslims (by and large) and Westerners (by and large) are very far apart on the civilized ladder..
What would YOU say about a society that thinks it's a smart idea to shoot guns in the air for celebratory purposes??
What would YOU say about a society that treats women as property..
Surely you would agree with me that these are NOT the marks of a "civilized" society...
Michale.....
026
I'll even meet you part of the way..
I will state that Middle Eastern Muslim society has some uncivilized tendencies...
Much more so then are part of Western societies...
That's a compromise I can live with.. :D
Michale
027
I'll even meet you part of the way.
I would say that there are elements of all civilized societies that could be more "civilized".
For instance, I don't agree with some of the aspects of how certain Muslim groups treat women.
Just like I don't agree with how some societies fire guns into the air for celebratory purposes ...
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1208808.ece
Or what about all the mass shootings we have here in the U.S.? A lot of people might say this makes us uncivilized ...
:)
-David
I would say that there are elements of all civilized societies that could be more "civilized".
I would agree.. However, some more than others...
Or what about all the mass shootings we have here in the U.S.? A lot of people might say this makes us uncivilized ...
But those mass shootings are NOT the norm...
The uncivilized behavior in the Middle East *IS* the norm.. At least, it was when I was there. From all reports, it hasn't changed much..
Just like I don't agree with how some societies fire guns into the air for celebratory purposes ...
I read an article where an entire wedding party was electrocuted when celebratory gun fire brought down hot power lines on to the party, killing dozens..
There is a Darwin Award in there somewhere.. At the very least, an honorable mention...
Michale.....
Nice cartoon linking what happened in Israel/Gaza to drone attacks
i understand the parallel that rall is attempting to make, but the connection fails on many levels. for one, drone strikes attempt to take out military targets - although there may be civilian casualties, they at least are aimed at striking combatants. the same can not reasonably be said of rockets fired haphazardly at residential areas with no military value to speak of.
the other major area where this fails is that the US and pakistan are both sovereign countries. the gaza strip is not a sovereign country, it is a disputed region governed by an organization that is classified by the international community as a terrorist entity. based on both their actions and their professed goal of destroying israel, they are not entitled to receive the same mitigating consideration from israel that we are from pakistan.
There is a Darwin Award in there somewhere.. At the very least, an honorable mention...
Heheheh. Now stupidity seems to span all cultures equally ... :)
-David
Neither Christianity nor Islam are monolithic, the branches in each reflect both philosophical and regional/cultural factors, there is no temporal supreme authority within either C or I , and temporal authorities that do exist within the various branches of C and I frequently squabble (to the point of bloodshed) among themselves, right up to the present day, mind you.
To get your general bearings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Islam_branches_and_schools.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ChristianityBranches.svg.
Vague and unquantified talk about whether Christianity or Islam is less civilized is about as productive as asking whether or not the American League is better than the National League. When it comes to barbarism, on any given day, any team, from either league can beat any other, inside or outside of their league. As to seasonal trends, just wait 'till next year.
As the prophet Bart Simpson puts it: It's not the little stupid differences that are important, it's the big stupid similarities.
i understand the parallel that rall is attempting to make, but the connection fails on many levels. for one, drone strikes attempt to take out military targets - although there may be civilian casualties, they at least are aimed at striking combatants. the same can not reasonably be said of rockets fired haphazardly at residential areas with no military value to speak of.
the other major area where this fails is that the US and pakistan are both sovereign countries. the gaza strip is not a sovereign country, it is a disputed region governed by an organization that is classified by the international community as a terrorist entity. based on both their actions and their professed goal of destroying israel, they are not entitled to receive the same mitigating consideration from israel that we are from pakistan.
Well said....
Hamas is like the schoolyard coward that runs up to the smaller kids and kicks them in the shins and then runs away to the teachers when the smaller kids' big brothers show up...
In the vernacular of "cartoons" this one....
http://i.b5z.net/i/u/1219065/i/ISRAELI_vs_PALESTINIAN_SOLDIER.jpg
.... says it best, IMNSHO
Michale
029
Heheheh. Now stupidity seems to span all cultures equally ... :)
Now THAT, I can unequivocally agree with... :D
Michale
030
the gaza strip is not a sovereign country, it is a disputed region governed by an organization that is classified by the international community as a terrorist entity
Do you think a two-state solution would ever be possible?
-David
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I have to put my 2 cents in.. :D (have to pad my numbers SOMEHOW.. :D)
Do you think a two-state solution would ever be possible?
The Palestinians would be allowed to live in peace side by side with Israel if they would just be content to live in peace side by side with Israel...
But destroying Israel is more important to them than their own state....
Michale.....
It doesn't look like there's much difference to me except what we call it.
The difference is that they're them and we're us. If we were fighting with rocks and improvised devices, we would still deem ourselves righteous.
Do you think a two-state solution would ever be possible?
I don't think the number of states is all that relevant. I don't entirely understand why the State of Israel is such a potent symbol, mobilizing the bile of countless unrelated humiliations. I don't entirely understand why the citizens of Israel feel compelled to elect governments that will order hundredfold collective punishment. Solve both of those and you have your solution, whether the number of states on that territory is one, two, zero, or a hundred.
I don't think the number of states is all that relevant. I don't entirely understand why the State of Israel is such a potent symbol, mobilizing the bile of countless unrelated humiliations. I don't entirely understand why the citizens of Israel feel compelled to elect governments that will order hundredfold collective punishment. Solve both of those and you have your solution, whether the number of states on that territory is one, two, zero, or a hundred.
You seem to believe that Israel is the problem..
You are in error..
Israel is only the "problem" insofar as they will not, as a country, walk themselves into the sea and drown themselves en masse...
As long as Palestinians resort to terrorism and elect OTHERS who resort to terrorism as their representatives, Israel will always... repeat.. ALWAYS.. have the moral, ethical and legal high ground.
It's really THAT simple...
Michale
032
Do you think a two-state solution would ever be possible?
i do think it's possible. today's terrorist organization can be tomorrow's legitimate government; for that to happen, all they need to do is stop shooting. when hamas decides to pursue its ends exclusively through nonviolent means, israel's extremist/settler factions will lose their pretext for controlling the country's policy agenda, and real negotiations can begin.
when hamas decides to pursue its ends exclusively through nonviolent means, israel's extremist/settler factions will lose their pretext for controlling the country's policy agenda, and real negotiations can begin.
Completely agree..
While I would be the LAST one to sing the praises of Hamas, it is undeniable that they have done good. Their hospitals are good, their organization skills are good and their schools are a cut above..
But their terrorism, unequivocally, utterly and completely, negates EVERY good deed ever done.
Michale
033
Re: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84195.html
Under the current rules, it's impossible to threaten to filibuster. The "filibuster" as it now exists is simply a 60-vote requirement for passage of normal bills. There's nothing to threaten. You just vote when the chair says vote, and if you have 41 nays to 59 ayes, then the nays win. If the majority leader wants to hold up other business and keep calling votes he'll lose, he may. But that's something he can do, not something the senators opposed to a bill can do, or threaten to do.
today's terrorist organization can be tomorrow's legitimate government; for that to happen, all they need to do is stop shooting
Nope. They would also need to find another basis for their legitimacy in the eyes of their own constituents. Their claim on the support of Palestinians (as well as on the support they receive from Iran and from various Arab countries) is that they're leading the struggle against Israel. There's no way for them to become a legitimate government without, y'know, becoming a legitimate government.
israel's extremist/settler factions will lose their pretext for controlling the country's policy agenda, and real negotiations can begin.
It does actually seem like they're hurting their own best interests.
If they would protest peacefully and keep at it it seems like it would isolate the extremists on the Israeli side.
-David
p.s. Thomas Ricks owns Fox News on Benghazi ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhp9A43aeKM
... and gets cut off almost immediately :)
If they would protest peacefully and keep at it it seems like it would isolate the extremists on the Israeli side.
And if the Palestinians DON'T protest peacefully, let's condemn THEM and not the Israelis..
What a notion, eh!???
Michale
034
David,
It does actually seem like they're hurting their own best interests.
Well, Israeli leaders, like their Palestinian counterparts, have been hurting their own best interests for decades now.
And, frankly, the US has shown only intermittent signs of effective leadership throughout this same period. However, I continue to hold out some hope that Obama/Biden will not allow the present opportunity for real change on this front and in the wider region to slip easily through their hands.
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is no longer an issue that can be ignored if the US wishes to maintain any sort of leadership role in the Middle East and North Africa.
And if the Palestinians DON'T protest peacefully, let's condemn THEM and not the Israelis.
I don't condone non-peaceful protests. However, at the same time, I don't condone certain Israeli right-wing stances such as their current policy in Gaza of "mowing the grass" every couple of years.
Doesn't seem like either side is completely innocent in this one. I know there's a faction in Israel that would truly like a two-state solution. But I think the right wing would do what it could to block anything along these lines.
-David
I don't condone non-peaceful protests. However, at the same time, I don't condone certain Israeli right-wing stances such as their current policy in Gaza of "mowing the grass" every couple of years.
That's the problem.. You put the actions of Hamas and the reactions of Israel on the same moral teir...
But I agree with you about "mowing the grass"... Israel should just pave over Gaza, put up a beach resort, condos and a casino and be done with it..
Doesn't seem like either side is completely innocent in this one. I know there's a faction in Israel that would truly like a two-state solution. But I think the right wing would do what it could to block anything along these lines.
Here's an idea...
What if missiles stopped raining on Israel??
Do you think that maybe THEN the Right Wing faction MIGHT be interested in what Palestinians have to say??
I am always stunned that there is such opposition to that ONE SIMPLE idea...
QUIT raining missiles down on Israel..
THEN let's talk...
Michale.....
Let me put it into another context...
If you had a band of rednecks driving by your house at all hours of the day and night shooting into your house and at your property because you had pissed them off over some grievance..
Wouldn't you FIRST want them to stop shooting into your house BEFORE you sat down with them to address their grievances???
Michale
036
Interesting how the Gaza fracas has taken all the steam out of the Iranian-nuclear-missile-existential threat to Israel talk.
The rule of thumb seems to be the world can't multitask.
The rule of thumb seems to be the world can't multitask.
Ain't THAT the truth! :D
Michale
037
Report: U.S. Planned On Blowing Up Moon With Nuke During Cold War In 1950s
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/11/26/report-u-s-planned-on-blowing-up-moon-with-nuke-during-cold-war-in-1950s/
"Sir!! You can't blow up the moon!!!"
"Would ya miss it?? Huh?? Huh?? Would ya??"
-Austin Powers:The Spy Who Shagged Me
:D
Michale
038
RE Michael[65]
"What if missiles stopped raining on Israel??"
Israel might talk, but they won't offer Hamas much in the way of concessions. Hamas hasn't much to bargain with, except to say it will stop shooting. Hamas rockets are a nuisance to Israel, but they aren't decisive. If Gaza isn't shooting at Israel,it might as well not even be there, for all the Israeli's notice it. No economic connections.
Israel can offer a counter proposal, "stop launching dumb rockets at us, we'll stop hitting YOU with our much more lethal smart weapons, and if that's not enough, we'll enter send in the army. Either way, we'll impose the status quo." This is what passes for negotiation between highly asymmetrical powers with no vital economic links.
Politically, the leadership of both Hamas and Israel benefit from this dynamic. About the only demonstrably effective thing that Hamas can do is launch rockets - it looks terrific. Netanyahu also looks effective to his constituents by responding forcefully (and now defensively with Iron Dome)to the Hamas rockets. Its a Win/Win!
This is a stable dynamic, a local optimum in a greater geopolitical landscape which probably contains a much better optimum, but which nobody can find a path to.
You can couch all of this in terms of moral, ethical and legal terms, and all that and $1.25 will buy you a small coffee. You might as well argue morality, ethics and laws with glaciers, or volcanoes (I think I stole this from Vonnegut).
This is basically a blood feud. Each side can ratchet back to counter ever earlier historical provocations by the opposing side that are part of the perceived chain of conflict. All the way back to the Roman occupation, all the way to Exodus if need be. This is pointless and counterproductive. Nobody really remembers who started it.
If you want fix the situation, focus on NOW. Devise positive incentives for peaceful profitable cooperation between all parties. But, if this were easy, it would have been done decades ago. Sixty years of experience, we know how this works most of the time. Still, diplomats can take a cue from Mr. Micawber, who was ever optimistic that something will(might)turn up.
Do you think that maybe THEN the Right Wing faction MIGHT be interested in what Palestinians have to say?
I think they wouldn't. This is based on their history as an occupying force. But I think international pressure on them might intensify and force them to be. Peaceful protest might neutralize the Israeli right's use of the terrorist argument.
Similar to how the right in our country fought to characterize the Occupy movement as terrorists.
You put the actions of Hamas and the reactions of Israel on the same moral teir.
No. I am pro peace. You seem to be pro Israel.
Remember that the Israelis are basically an occupying force. One that has constantly worked to expand their settlements further into Palestinian territory using force.
I do believe that this would be more apparent, however, if they fought through more peaceful methods.
And if you look at what all the rockets they fire accomplish, the argument for peaceful protests is even stronger.
-David
This is a stable dynamic, a local optimum in a greater geopolitical landscape which probably contains a much better optimum, but which nobody can find a path to.
Sigh. Unfortunately, much of this is likely true. But I think some of the Arab spring may have changed this. And this is what I fear the Israelis really fear. Peaceful change.
Because if the Palestinians ever realize they can put more pressure on Israel through peaceful protest, what would Israel do?
My guess is that they'd try to start a war.
-David
I lean toward the theory that Israel fears Hamas cannot enforce an enduring peace, nor manage a viable economy that will pay for it over the long haul. Haaretz speculated that Abram Jabari was assassinated precisely because he couldn't control militant groups in Gaza.
Israeli politicians in the ruling coalition fear backing a failed peace that will blow back on them. Peace with Gaza look to them as high risk, low potential for lasting reward.
If Hamas stopped launching rockets, there would be symbolic provocations until they (or some other Palestinian faction) resumed. If necessary, a few rock-throwing children would be shot.
The laager mentality needs its enemies. And when you kill 90,000 people you need to either keep justifying it or have a clean break.
(Source for 90k: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/casualtiestotal.html)
It's not that I have a negative impression of Israel in particular. It's that I have a pessimistic view of armed conflict in general. I think WWI was a relatively nice war, because most of the people killed were combatants, and pretty much no one even tried to commit genocide. Compared to the Lord's Resistance Army, and countless others throughout history and prehistory, the Israelis and the Palestinians are both saints.
Hawk1983 [34] -
We've got Canadians (Canadiennes?), Scots, a few very quiet Irish, English, and many others with much lower profiles. I certainly think a few Aussies would add in a positive way to the mix! And I promise nobody (that's NOBODY out there, got that, folks?!?) will make "shrimp on the barbie" idiotic jokes.
I do apologize for not approving your first comment earlier. From this point on, you'll be able to comment instantly, as long as you keep to one link per comment (multi-link comments get automatically flagged by the comment spam filter).
A huge sigh of relief descended upon the United States, too, at least to 52 percent of us....
I think the House will be dragged kicking and screaming towards any progress... I think there's going to be a big intramural battle in the GOP in the House in the next six months... Boehner on one side and Cantor and Ryan on the other.
We'll know the answer to your higher taxes question in the next three or four weeks. I think "yes" at this point, but only about 55% to 45%.
As for your last comment... the system in Washington works?!? Who knew? It's certainly news to me!
:-)
-CW
Stig,
Let me put it to you this way.
I'll modify my previous analogy to fit your idea that, since the rockets are "dumb" and don't usually hurt anyone, it's OK..
You live in your house with your family. At all hours of the day or not, a large group of rednecks drive by your house and shoot at it with old style muskets and single shot shotguns. More often than not, they don't hit anyone. But the do damage and it is very nerve-wracking...
Would you want to live under those conditions??
Of course not. No SANE person would..
Again, I am gabberflasted that people actually believe that ISRAEL is the problem here..
Ignoring the religious aspects of whether are not the land belongs to Israel from ancient/religious history, in the here and now, the Palestinians are a conquered people. Too bad, soo sad, shit happens.. They started wars to eliminate Israel and they lost.. They have absolutely NO CLAIM to any of the land..
To give you ANOTHER apt analogy, imagine if today's Native Americans (a PC moniker that actually MAKES SENSE) starting lobbing "dumb" missiles from their reservations into nearby communities in order to get their land back. The US, of course, would blockade said reservations, just as Israel is blockading Gaza...
If the missiles continued to fly out of reservations, what do you think the US would do??
Pave over the reservations and build government run casinos...
Until such time as the missiles stop and the terrorism ceases, Israel is completely and utterly morally, ethically and legally in the right on ANY action they take up to, but not including, terrorism itself...
These are the facts... Well, these are opinions, backed up by a buttload of facts...
Michale
039
I think they wouldn't. This is based on their history as an occupying force. But I think international pressure on them might intensify and force them to be. Peaceful protest might neutralize the Israeli right's use of the terrorist argument.
This is based on their history of an occupying force, *while missiles and terrorism is still occurring*.
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to indicate how Israel would respond when the missiles stop and the terrorism stops because neither has EVER stopped..
You put the actions of Hamas and the reactions of Israel on the same moral teir.
No. I am pro peace. You seem to be pro Israel.
Peace at any cost is nothing but slavery..
Of course I am pro-Israel. Israel is the victim of terrorism. What sane person WOULDN'T be "pro-Israel"?
If one is not Pro-Israel then the only other option is that one is pro-terrorism.
Remember that the Israelis are basically an occupying force.
Bullshit..
Israel is as much an "occupying force" as the US is an "occupying force" of the lands of the Native Americans..
One that has constantly worked to expand their settlements further into Palestinian territory using force.
Ya mean when they left Gaza?? When they left south Lebanon??
The facts do not fit your claim...
I do believe that this would be more apparent, however, if they fought through more peaceful methods.
Ya think?? :D
Of course it would.. If the Palestinians actually used PEACEFUL protests 100%, then the onus would be on ISRAEL...
"The Palestinians just learned how to destroy Israel!"
-Jack Ryan, SUM OF ALL FEARS
And if you look at what all the rockets they fire accomplish, the argument for peaceful protests is even stronger.
Again, 1000% agreement...
By continuing the terrorism and the rocket attacks, the Palestinians clearly indicate that it's not PEACE they want.
They want the elimination of Israel.
And yet you still believe that Israel is the problem??
Again, it's an opinion that amazes me, given all the facts of the issue..
Michale
040
Stig,
If you want fix the situation, focus on NOW. Devise positive incentives for peaceful profitable cooperation between all parties. But, if this were easy, it would have been done decades ago. Sixty years of experience, we know how this works most of the time. Still, diplomats can take a cue from Mr. Micawber, who was ever optimistic that something will(might)turn up.
You seem to be an intelligent person...
I posted an idea on how to fix the Israel/Palestinian situation a while back.. I would be interested in your thoughts.
First let me preface it by saying I am not some hoity toity lawyer or diplomat. I am a simple ground-pounder, retired military, ell-tee (MI) during Desert Storm.. In short...
"We're men. If we can't eat it or fuck it, we'll kill it!"
-Robin Williams, Live At The Met
:D Anyways....
Here's my solution...
Turn the Sinai over to the Palestinians. This becomes their state. Egypt, Jordan and Syria will be responsible for building the new Palestine. Israel will provide financial assistance along with the US and the US will deploy forces within Palestine to guarantee the peace.. Egypt and Palestine will run the Suez jointly and share in the profits.
This would solve practically EVERY problem in the Middle East. Palestine would have resorts dotted up and down the Red Sea and along the Med. This would provide a rich and vibrant economy for Palestine.
It also puts the onus on the countries who are, at the VERY least, partially responsible for the current situation. Egypt, Jordan and Syria.
Of course, this could never work. Syria is too busy killing it's own people (which is ironic. Israel kills one palestinian and the Left is apoplectic. Syria kills thousands of it's own citizens and no one says boo). Egypt is on a power hungry acid trip. Jordan is the only decent one of the bunch (the King is a Trekker. :D) but even Jordan doesn't have a great record on dealing with the Palestinians.
Palestine would never allow US forces to guarantee their peace...
And, of course, the biggest problem is that Israel would still exist..
And THAT is the crux of the problem the Palestinians have.
But, ya gotta admit.. My plan WOULD work if we were dealing with logical and rational adults..
But, on the otherh and, if we WERE dealing with logical and rational adults, then my plan wouldn't even be needed...
Anywho, I am curious as to your thoughts...
Michale
041
I know ya'all would rather gouge out yer eye with a spoon rather than read foxnews..
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/11/27/electronic-deer-deterrent-could-prevent-over-1-million-accidents-each-year/?intcmp=features
But THAT is pretty ingenious...
Michale
042
And yet you still believe that Israel is the problem?
Back to your favorite trick ... fighting w/ straw men. I said there were many problems.
You are the one who sees things as Israel good, Palestinians "terrorists".
This is based on their history of an occupying force, *while missiles and terrorism is still occurring*.
When Jewish people left Europe after WWII and simply starting setting what is now Israel, there were no terrorist attacks.
-David
Anywho, I am curious as to your thoughts...
I realize that there are more problems with this plan than one can shake a stick at..
My only criteria was, "Is it a FAIR plan."
Given the history of the region, I believe it IS a fair plan..
Michale....
You are the one who sees things as Israel good, Palestinians "terrorists".
There is a reason for that.
Because Palestinians are the ones committing terrorism or aiding and abetting terrorism..
Israel is not..
Ergo..
Israel good..
Palestinians bad..
Michale
044
Because Palestinians are the ones committing terrorism or aiding and abetting terrorism..
Israel is not..
If you come back with that BS statement, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", I will shirley whack yer pee pee!
:D
Michale
045
Michael, RE [76]
You running up quite a bar tab on your bet, but it's for a good cause and I'm happy to inspire more posts to help The Grand Poobah keep the lights on (Heh, Heh).
First, firing dumb munitions isn't OK, but I avoid moralistic/legalistic assessments because they are fundamentally unhelpful to either understanding the situation or figuring out how to control it.
I do try and empathize with both sides, put myself in their situation and (to the best of my ability) their culture. Surprisingly ;- ) often, I find myself thinking, man, I just want to throw something at that SOB!
This sort of role playing is helpful, especially when you are analyzing highly asymmetrical conflicts. What you want is a payoff matrix, not how many angels can dance on a pin. Other than that, your Red Neck scenario is apt, I would just add that the Jewish household has large mortgage payments, has done extensive landscaping and architectural renovation and can't afford to move.
Second, Israel is not THE problem, it's just one of The problems, along with Gaza, Egypt, Syria, Iran, US, GB,Saudi, ...... France (just had to include France) Actually, I'd prefer to substitute the neutral term actor for problem in this context.
Why all the effort to use neutral formulation? To avoid demonizing any side in the conflict. Demonization breeds disrespect, disrespect causes you to underestimate the ingenuity and willpower of the weak side, and to overestimate these factors as applied to the stronger side. IMHO, disrespect has probably lost more battles and wars than any other single factor. (That includes political battles, GOP).
When Jewish people left Europe after WWII and simply starting setting what is now Israel, there were no terrorist attacks.
True.. That's because the Palestinians were too busy getting their asses kicked to think about terrorism...
It was war. Palestinians lost..
That's it...
Palestinians had four choices..
They could accept things as they are and work with their people to build the best they can with what they got.
They could fight back with conventional/guerrilla tactics.
They could use peaceful disobedience and peaceful protests which would get the entire world behind them..
But the Palestinians chose the 4th option which is, by far, the WORST possible choice..
They chose to resort to terrorism thereby earning the contempt and condemnation of the entire civilized world...
The Palestinians are their own worst enemy... They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity..
As long as the Palestinians resort to terrorism, Israel has a blank check to deal with them up to, but not including, terrorism itself..
Michale
046
Why all the effort to use neutral formulation? To avoid demonizing any side in the conflict. Demonization breeds disrespect, disrespect causes you to underestimate the ingenuity and willpower of the weak side, and to overestimate these factors as applied to the stronger side. IMHO, disrespect has probably lost more battles and wars than any other single factor. (That includes political battles, GOP).
I prefer to call a spade a spade.. As I mentioned above, I am just a knuckle dragging ground pounder. I leave all the PC, theory and koom by ya "I'M OK YOU'RE OK" crap to those who are a higher pay grade than myself..
As long as the terrorism continues and missiles continue to rain down on Israel, she is not ANY part of the problem..
Once the terrorism stops, I'll be the FIRST one to stand up to Israel and say, "OK, bitches.. Put up or shut up."
Until that time comes, Israel has my full, complete and unequivocal backing to do whatever she feels necessary to insure the survival of her people up to, but not including, terrorism itself..
Do I feel sympathy for the Palestinians. Some.. Just as I feel some sympathy for the citizens of Dresden and Hiroshima..
But that sympathy is tempered by the knowledge that they CHOSE their fate.. No one put a gun to their heads and FORCED them to support mad psychotic rulers and representatives...
When the Palestinians chose to join the rest of the civilized world, I am POSITIVE that the rest of the world, INCLUDING Israel, will welcome them with open arms and open hearts..
Until that day comes, they will continue to die by the thousands knowing that they are the architects of their own fate..
Michale
047
You running up quite a bar tab on your bet, but it's for a good cause and I'm happy to inspire more posts to help The Grand Poobah keep the lights on (Heh, Heh).
I appreciate all the help I can get.. :D
Michale....
048
Michael, moving on to [78]
I think you are on the right track, but substitute Gaza and West Bank for Sinai, with some land trading to adjust the borders of Gaza, West Bank and Israel.
Too many Palestinians in Gaza and the WB to move into Sinai, which is basically too arid to sustain a large number of people. Geography IS destiny.
Israel basically made some huge strategic blunders after the '67 war. The Bar Lev line along the canal seemed like a good idea at the time, but it was too far from Israel to support with reserves, and Israel's small, conscript army has always depended upon effective mobilization of reserves. Actually, Egypt made exactly the same strategic blunder at the beginning of the '67 war, from the other side of the Sinai towards Israel. The Sinai just isn't that good a buffer zone.
Second strategic blunder was occupying all the West Bank and building settlements. This was less intuitive, and therefore more excusable, but what effectively happened over the years was Israel roughly doubled the length of its borders with the West Bank and isolated about 15% of it's Jewish population on the wrong side of it. The basic rule of a robust defense is to keep your lines of communication short and compact.
Ooops. This made terror bombing the settlements too easy, which caused the Israeli's to build a wall, which made Palestinian life in the occupied West Bank even sh*tier hole to live in than ever before, and therefore made a transitional Palestinian state more risky for Israel, and less viable as a functional state.
Going back to pre '67 borders is unacceptable to most Iraeli's, but some land trades for more rationale borders would probably be attractive to all but the extreme right wing, which does hold effective veto power.
Other than these locational issues, you and I are in surprisingly good agreement. I think we would also agree that the odds of such an agreement in say a 5 year frame works are much less than another round of dumb rocket fire from Gaza and a sharp response from Israel. The payoff matrices just don't look good. To me, they look tragic, but not 4 Horseman Bad. Most people will live with that. Literally.
AKADIJAN, RE [80]
"When Jewish people left Europe after WWII and simply starting setting what is now Israel, there were no terrorist attacks."
Jews have been returning to Palestine since the time of Cyrus the Great. It was a trickle just prior to 1948, when it went exponential (and not just from Europe).
Attacks on Jewish settlements and neighborhoods occurred during the period of the British Mandate (and before) accounts read a lot like White settlers vs Native Americans.
The British generally kept a lid on it, the level of partisan armament was low. Before that, it was the Turks, who were the non Arab occupiers of Palestine.
Michael RE [86]
Never did any ground pounding myself, but I have a lot of relatives who did. One uncle fought it out with the Japanese in the Philippines while he was in his twenties, saw a lot of atrocities, saw and did some things he wasn't proud of, but he came to respect his opponents as smart tough soldiers, which is probably a major factor explaining why he lived to return home and start a business.
In his mid forties he returned to get business with Japan. By his 50s he was living for six months in Japan, riding the early bullet trains, six months in the USA, with a moss garden and gravel in his back yard in The States. Samurai swords in the den, an old, good set. He was not a college guy, but he educated himself, it was in his nature. My family's Marco Polo.
So, you never know. Your pay grade may change.
And Now For Something Completely Different: Fox gets called out on their Benghazi coverage, do not take it well http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PbUz3pIPmTY
What can I say?
A pair of Nobel Prize smart bombs fly through the window of the Fox News Room bunker, demolishing same.
We'll be right back, after this message.
So, you never know. Your pay grade may change.
I just hit the big Five Oh recently.. I don't think there is a pay grade advance in my future any time soon.. :D
Your uncle sounds like an honorable man...
"In war, all things are pre-forgiven."
-Word Of Honor
Michale
048
David,
You seem to think that, in the Palestinian/Israeli issue vis a vis the terrorism, there is another side of the story.. That the Palestinian's side of things is of import..
Do you think the same thing holds true with racism?? By that, I mean do you think that the KKK's "side of the story' is important when addressing their racism??
I don't..
There is no "other side of the issue" when it comes to racism..
Nor is there an "other side of the issue" when it comes to terrorism..
In my opinion, anyways...
Michale
049
I think you are on the right track, but substitute Gaza and West Bank for Sinai, with some land trading to adjust the borders of Gaza, West Bank and Israel.
I'd largely agree with this as well. I think you'd also have a hard time convincing the Palestinians to move even further out of land they feel is theirs to the Sinai. Gaza and the West Bank much more likely.
And Stig ... I'll be honest and say that I feel a bit out of my league (as most people probably are) when discussing Israel/Palestine. Simply because there's so much history. It's very similar in many ways to how the Greeks and Turks to this day still do not like one another. It goes back thousands of years. So appreciate the notes you share. Quite interesting.
And michty ... Michale must have gotten the same memo McCain got. Because both seem to be switching away from Benghazi as an issue :). That guy totally owned the the Fox News anchor!
-David
Nor is there an "other side of the issue" when it comes to terrorism.
Perhaps, but there are two sides to the Palestinian/ Israeli issue.
Perhaps, but there are two sides to the Palestinian/ Israeli issue.
As long as Palestinians resort to terrorism??
No there is not...
That's been my whole point.
Palestinians completely negate their ENTIRE position by resorting to terrorism...
Michale.....
050
Palestinians completely negate their ENTIRE position by resorting to terrorism.
Please ... while I know this is your favorite tactic - call someone a terrorist and then scream to high hell for political reasons (see Iraq, see Occupy Wall St, see 9/11, remember when you called me an "economic terrorist" because I pulled my money from a bank?) - you can separate terrorism from other things.
For instance, Hamas=terrorists does not logically lead to everything Israel does=always right.
Your position would make wiping out all the Palestinians in Gaza acceptable (as you stated above). This is ridiculous.
I do, however, agree with you that the Palestinian position would be stronger w/o Hamas.
-David
Michael,how do you define terrorism?
My own definition would be: calculated application of force to civilians, civilian infrastructure and/or civilian assets with the overall intent of coercing the policies or a targeted state
How do you define war?
I would define it as:
State application of armed forces against an enemy state's armed forces with the intent of controlling territory, destroying enemy armed forces, and/or destroying the ability and will of enemy armed forces to fight, with the overall objective of coercing governmental policies of the targeted enemy state.
David,
And michty ... Michale must have gotten the same memo McCain got. Because both seem to be switching away from Benghazi as an issue :). That guy totally owned the the Fox News anchor!
You SURE you want to go with that?? :D
G.O.P. Senators Not Satisfied as Rice Concedes Error on Libya
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/us/politics/after-benghazi-meeting-3-republicans-say-concerns-grow-over-rice.html?hp
Michale
051
Please ... while I know this is your favorite tactic - call someone a terrorist and then scream to high hell for political reasons (see Iraq, see Occupy Wall St, see 9/11, remember when you called me an "economic terrorist" because I pulled my money from a bank?) - you can separate terrorism from other things.
To be fair, I have always had a problem with applying terrorism to economics.. I was up front about that..
I believe that I settled on Economic Extortion as a more apt term...
:D
Your position would make wiping out all the Palestinians in Gaza acceptable (as you stated above). This is ridiculous.
No, it's called war... If the only way to secure the survival of the people of Israel would be to wipe out all of Gaza??
Then I would whole-heartedly support such a move...
Michale
05
Stig,
My definition of terrorism comes from over two decades in the CT, LEO, military and security fields...
"Terrorism is defined as ongoing and systematic attacks of violence specifically targeted against innocent civilian persons or property for the purpose of furthering a political, economical or ideological agenda."
As far as war goes, I'll go with Von Clauswitz..
"War is the extension of politics by other means"
-Gene Hackman CRIMSON TIDE
:D
Michale.....
053
No, it's called war... If the only way to secure the survival of the people of Israel would be to wipe out all of Gaza??
Then I would whole-heartedly support such a move...
As long as Palestinians commit terrorism and support terrorism, they deserve no sympathy or no mercy...
Sans Humanite'
Just as the KKK deserved no sympathy or no mercy when they were terrorizing Black people...
Michale.....
054
Michael, my point about the definitions is that I've never found a definition of war that doesn't (uncomfortably) overlap the definition of terrorism.
This is especially true of the wise, sly and Machiavellian definition penned by Clauswitz.
As soon as war is fought in the proximity of civilians, non combatants are killed and injured and their property is damaged and destroyed. Sometimes it's deliberate policy, but it occurs even when the military principles of necessity, distinction and proportionality are scrupulously applied. There are tables for predicting the collateral to be expected. It's not unreasonable to view warfare as fractional terrorism, with the proportion of terror being especially high for strategic bombing and the use of drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Any collateral damage victim is going to have a very hard time drawing the distinction.
So, with asymmetrical conflicts, you tend to get asymmetrical definitions of terror that are internally consistent, but slide right past each other. The weak armies freedom fighter is the strong armies terrorist. The strong armies unfortunate victim is the poor armies martyr. Terrorism is effective for the weak side largely because the inevitable retaliation strengthens the domestic political hand of the weak side. Just another factor in the sustained stable equilibrium between Israel and the Palestinians.
This is not an Arab vs Israeli viewpoint. Irgun employed terror tactics during the creation of the Israel. When you are militarily weak, terror is your only effective option, and moral justifications are easy to accept.
Irgun employed terror tactics during the creation of the Israel.
AHa! I was wondering if the Irgun was going to enter into the discussion.
Lemme ask ya.. Was the King David Hotel attack a terrorist act or an act of war?
:D
As to the definitions of terrorism vs war, I disagree that they overlap. As person intimately familiar with both, I can assure you that they are as similar as night and day.
Michale.....
055
So, with asymmetrical conflicts, you tend to get asymmetrical definitions of terror that are internally consistent, but slide right past each other. The weak armies freedom fighter is the strong armies terrorist. The strong armies unfortunate victim is the poor armies martyr. Terrorism is effective for the weak side largely because the inevitable retaliation strengthens the domestic political hand of the weak side. Just another factor in the sustained stable equilibrium between Israel and the Palestinians.
Interesting notion..
I once got into a fierce debate with a writer over at HuffPo.. (No, not CW.. :D) It was regarding the fact that Hamas places missile launchers within civilian areas..
She stated that, "Of course Hamas places their weapons in civilian residential areas. It's a small location that has nothing BUT civilian residential areas" or words to that effect.
I asked her if she had ever been to Gaza. I told her that I have and there are LOTS and LOTS of wide open spaces away from civilians that Hamas could locate their munitions..
And it's true...
http://goo.gl/maps/k3QV7
That's a close-up of northern Gaza at the Israeli border. You can see lots and lots of wide open spaces...
Then she came back with "Well, they can't put their weapons there!! They'll get destroyed!!" or words to that effect..
I then knew that, militarily speaking, I was dealing with someone a few fries short of a happy meal.. :D
My point is, one side doesn't get to change the rules of warfare simply because they would get their asses kicked if they followed the rules.
You fight a war within the rules of war or you reap the consequences of going outside the box..
As I explained to David above, Palestinians have 4 options for dealing with this issue..
1. Accept it and do the best they can with what they got.
2. Make war on Israel using conventional/guerrilla means and tactics...
3. Use peaceful protests and civil disobedience
4. Employ terrorism.
Unfortunately for EVERYONE, Palestinians choose the option 4 which is the WORST possible option that they could choose..
Hamas is responsible for more Palestinian deaths than anyone else. Even if one ignores the bloody revolt Hamas inflicted on Fatah in their takeover of Gaza, simply by placing their launchers in civilian areas, putting weapons storage areas by schools and mosques, THEY are the responsible party when it comes to Palestinian civilians.
There is an old "joke" amongst operators in the region. When the attack alert sounds in Israel, Israel rushes her civilians into shelters.
When an attack alert sounds in Gaza, Hamas rushes it's civilians to the attack target..
One of those sayings made sadder by the fact that it's completely true...
Michale
057
Any collateral damage victim is going to have a very hard time drawing the distinction.
"Hay wait! You just killed a civilian!!"
"We project a 7% collateral casualty rate. Acceptable."
"Yea, unless you happen to be part of that 7%."
-Blue Thunder
:D
You seem to believe that the RESULT of an attack is the determining factor in defining terrorism.
This is not accurate. In this particular case, intent is the key..
As Joshua pointed out above, our drone attacks around the world are directed at legitimate military targets. That there is collateral damage is regrettable. But the collateral damage was not the intent, ergo it is not terrorism..
Now, if we go back to WWII, I admit things get dicey.. One could look at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, etc etc and make the case that those were terrorist attacks as defined.
But they were all also legitimate military targets. Hiroshima had key iron works facilities and Nagasaki had deep water ports. (or vicie versie.. I can never keep the two straight) Dresden also had infrastructure that was vital to Germany's war effort... I am sure that a secondary or tertiary was to show the leadership of the two countries what could happen if they continue their present course. That would make the attack uncomfortably close to the definition of terrorism, but only close. As it is the primary intent that is the defining point..
If your intent is to take out a legitimate military target then, by definition, it is not terrorism. Regardless of the collateral damage.
Michale
058
If your intent is to take out a legitimate military target then, by definition, it is not terrorism. Regardless of the collateral damage.
Of course, proportionality is also a factor.
Although a logical case could be made for it (ever read FAIL SAFE?), nuking an entire city to kill one enemy combatant would likely be an inappropriate application of force.
It is this aspect (I suspect) is where most of ya'all have a beef with Israel..
Michale....
Michale RE [105]
The Grand PooPah's lights can burn a little longer.
"By this insane act of terrorism 93 innocent people have been killed or are missing in the ruins." - Clemente Atlee, British PM.
Rappaport, in Attacking Terrorism: Elements of a Grand Strategy considers it one of the most lethal terrorist attacks of the 20th century.
MI 5 considered it an act of terrorism
Enders, in The Political Economy of Terrorism called it a model for terror of the 1980s
Menachem Begin argues the warning given by Irgun differentiates the attack from terrorism, even though the warning was to the wrong people and therefore woefully ineffective.
Myself, since I put War and Terrorism on a continuum considering both effect and intent, I color it a dark shade of gray. There are better examples of highly purified terrorism committed by both Arabs and Jews from the late days of the Mandate. Everybody talks about King David because the body count was so high.
A lot of history comes to guilty, with extenuating circumstances.
Michael, RE [106] This is some of your best stuff, I agree with virtually all of it, but contextualize differently.
The Fox knows many things.
The Hedgehog knows one big thing.
Fox:Hedgehog debates are always interesting.
Yes, a lot of ignorant people called the King David Hotel an act of terrorism.
Just as a lot of ignorant people called the Fort Hood shooting an act of terrorism...
At the time, the King David Hotel housed the British Regional MCC.. Therefore, it was a legitimate military target.
There were reports at the time that the Irgun phoned the KDH ahead of time to warn of the attack so that civilians could be evacuated.
For very suspect reasons, the warnings were ignored..
Everybody talks about King David because the body count was so high.
Which is also why everyone assumes it was terrorism...
Michale...
062
Michael, RE [106] This is some of your best stuff, I agree with virtually all of it, but contextualize differently.
Thanx.. If I can't be informative, the next best thing is to be entertaining.. :D
Fox:Hedgehog debates are always interesting
Amen to THAT! :D
Menachem Begin argues the warning given by Irgun differentiates the attack from terrorism, even though the warning was to the wrong people and therefore woefully ineffective.
I read it differently. I sensed reluctance on the part of the Brits due to the PR blitz they would reap from a lot of innocent people being killed.
Much like Hamas telling it's citizens to ignore the leaflets from the Israelis and stay put in the targets... er... houses...
Michale
063
Michael, RE [107]
I believe location in the war:terror continuum is determined by both intent and result.
This is consistent with "just war" doctrines of necessity, distinction, and proportionality.
Just War doctrine is consistent with greater good (lesser evil) theory. Sitting on your hands is generally not a responsible strategy: you must make hard decisions, and you may get them very wrong. Motives may be pure, but you may still commit an act of terror. I frame it that way because a want a strong incentive for people to get it as right as they can.
You are only as good as your last surgical strike.
This is a tough standard, but it's what I what I want from people conducting war in my name using my money. Great, lucky leaders pull it off.
I believe location in the war:terror continuum is determined by both intent and result.
I, respectively, disagree..
In combat, results rarely indicate intent..
Michale
064
In other words, no war plan survives contact with the enemy...
Michale
068
In other words, no war plan survives contact with the enemy...
"This is battle, and battle is a highly fluid situation.
You plan on your contingencies, and I have.
You keep your initiative, and I will.
But you don't share command. It's never a good idea."
-John Travolta, BROKEN ARROW
:D
Michale
069
Michael, RE [115]
"no war plan survives contact with the enemy"
Quite so, that's why doctrine and training are so vital
However, strategic objectives shouldn't change much, or at least quickly. Expect paths to change, but the goal should be focused. Lack of a fixed focused strategic goal describes US in Iraq 2 and Afghan.
CW, if you tune in: can I get a cut? ;-)
However, strategic objectives shouldn't change much, or at least quickly. Expect paths to change, but the goal should be focused. Lack of a fixed focused strategic goal describes US in Iraq 2 and Afghan.
But we are not talking strategic objectives.. As I understand our discussions, we're more geared with the tactical aspects as that would more closely resemble a terrorist attack...
Let me give you a perfect example.. A while back, US fighters shot up a wedding party. The party was firing guns in air (sensing a pattern here?? :D) and the fighters took it for incoming fire and responded appropriately..
Now, if one looks at the RESULT (dozens dead at a wedding due to US fighters blowin' the shit out of them) then one would reasonable assume 'Terrorist Attack'.
However, if one looks at the INTENT (taking out a hostile threat) then it is clear that no terrorist attack occurred..
Fort Hood is another prime example. If one looks at the RESULTS (Dozens dead in a work place shooting by some nutjob screaming 'ALLAH AKHBAR!!') then one would immediately think terrorism..
But when one looks at the TARGET (uniformed military members on a military base) then it's clear that Fort Hood was an attack on a legitimate military target...
Intent is the primary indicator of a terroist attack. Target is a secondary indicator..
CW, if you tune in: can I get a cut? ;-)
Sheet, if you REALLY wanna get me going, just say that Star Trek 90210 is the BEST Trek ever!!! :D
Michale
072
But when one looks at the TARGET (uniformed military members on a military base) then it's clear that Fort Hood was an attack on a legitimate military target...
Now, if we REALLY want to muddy the waters, we could assume a military housing area or military barracks as targets...
The latter would likely be a legitimate military target.. The former is a little more dicey and unclear...
Michale
075
On another note...
Is Egypt about to become the new Iran?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/100191795/is-egypt-about-to-become-the-new-iran/
OH MY GODS!!!!!!
WHO could have POSSIBLY forseen that Egypt would go the way of Iran!!???
Oh wait... I think it was me!!!! :D
Michale
078
On another note...
Is Egypt about to become the new Iran?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/100191795/is-egypt-about-to-become-the-new-iran/
OH MY GODS!!!!!!
WHO could have POSSIBLY forseen that Egypt would go the way of Iran!!???
Oh wait... I think it was me!!!! :D
Awwww, com'on people!
Ya'all take great delight in pointing out when I royally scroo the pooch and call it wrong..
The LEAST ya'all could do is acknowledge it when I call it dead on ballz accurate... :D
Michale
086
Michael, Back in the Saddle! That's the spirit!
What is the end point defining what an Iran like Egypt is?
What is the settlement date?
Let the prognostication begin!
Nothing remotely similar on Intrade International Events yet.
Of course we'll hail you if you are right, fair is fair. On the flip side.....the gauntlet of shame.
TS,
I simply pointed out the fallacy of "leading from behind" (AKA The Coward Of The County)..
When one forgos leadership, events happen that are contrary to one's interests...
Contrary to popular Leftist opinion, the US never had a seat at Egypt's table because the US couldn't be bothered with RSVPing...
Now Egypt is well on it's way to an Islamist theocracy and there ain't diddley squat the US can do about it..
Sometimes I just hate being right....
Michale
087
Michael
You might be right about the Egyptian Islamist theocracy. Sometimes I think the USA is on a path to a Christian theocracy. At this moment in history, religious fundamentalism is the bane of good government.
But come on, the US doesn't just have a seat at the Egyptian table (which I'll bet has really nice linen), we have a guest house out back. Egypt is the second biggest recipient of foreign aid. 1.3 Billion in military aid each year, plus economic aid, which is being juiced with another billion pledged to assist in the transition to "democracy." Which I like you, am kind of sceptical will resemble the Western variety.
But the military is a powerful political force in the country, and has a secular outlook. It's also fairly popular with the man on the street, who sees it as a protector of the people, and a way for his son to have a respected and well paying career.
The Egyptian military runs its own slice of the economy with it's own industry and business investments far removed from guns tanks and bullets. The top brass is fabulously wealthy and would like to stay that way.
This situation is in some ways reminiscent of pre-Rev Iran, except there is nobody really equivalent to the Shah and the Palavi clan. Who were viewed as illegitimate by a huge chunk of the population. Who were not populist, or even faux populist.
So it's a different Egyptian dynamic than 70s Iran.
Maybe fundamentalists can turn the army and run the country with a supreme religious leader, a council of clerics, and a figurehead ex mayor annoying the West as secular mouthpiece, but firmly under the thumb of the mullahs - the Iranian model. But there are a lot of forces opposing that trend. In the Egyptian square, in the Egyptian army and elsewhere.
The sky is a bit wobbly, but it's not falling. Yet.
Personally, I wouldn't hang my hat on any one forecast at this time, except the one that things muddle along without any radical shifts for at least a year. That's usually a safe bet for big, entrenched corporations, like Egypt. Egypt is useful to the US, the US is useful to Egypt. Egypt is hard to fix.
Michael, I'm not yanking your chain when I say you should read Nate Silver's "Why Most Predictions Fail-but Not All of Them." Nate may be the current darling of the left, the LGBT community and of Dems, but there is nothing remotely left, LGBT or Dem in his methods. He actually comes across as libertarian leaning to me. He's a good writer.
In closing, if you are right, I'll hail you as incredibly perceptive. And you of course, can whale and snark on me. Which is why this is fun.