Cynical Nation

Yes you do have a lot more company now, including me. At least, we have a great president who shows strong leadership these difficult times.

Well, I'm pretty happy with Bush's statement towards Israel and Lebanon. BW, what did you hope he'd say/do?

"Well, I'm pretty happy with Bush's statement "

What statement? The one that he made to Tony Blair while eating food? One would expect the president of the US to be more actively involved and show some real leadership if we are at the verge of world war III, as Barry points out. Of course, leadership and foreign relations is not a strength of W (not that he has any other strengths)

whaddya want him to DO? He said he supports Israel's right to defend itself. I think that says a lot compared with Chirac, Kofi, and the others who only call for Israel to stop. Bush's leadership was to call out Hizbollah and their string-pullers in Syria and Iran rather than decrying Israel's "disproportionate response". Hizbollah could end this right now if they pulled out of Lebanon, disarmed, and released those soldiers (who i fear are already dead).

"whaddya want him to DO? "

To show real leadership like Clinton and several US presidents have shown in the past in major crises like that. If we are really at the verge of world war III, is that how the president of the most powerful country in the world should act? Showing indifference and not even sending someone there IMMEDIATELY to try to work things out. Look at the French. The French prime minister was there (in Beirut) the next day, trying to cut a deal. The French demonstrated much more leadership than Bush in that way.

We all know who is right and who is wrong in this war. Of course and Israel is right, but thats not the point. The point is that as the only superpower in the world we need a president that can exhibit leadership in moments of crisis and help to avoid "world war III".

So you want him to show leadership, i get it! You want him to talk, and to send others to talk and talk and talk and talk.

OK well Clinton certainly looked like he cared at Oslo, etc, but what lasting effect has Clinton had on middle east peace? Making such deals with people who have no intention of fulfilling their obligations has not shown to be very effective (for Israel). Another day, another French ambassador, whoopee. It's apparent to me that world 'diplomacy' through the years has done very little of substance to help.

I think in this case Israel is handling it better than Bush, or anyone else, could. By saying what little he has, Bush has said enough. By not calling for a cease-fire until Israel's demands are met, Bush has shown that he is not 'indifferent'.

Bush has made Israel less secure by starting the disastrous Iraq war. The "neoconservative theory" has been a complete failure in practice.

Bush has an obligation as the President of the US to try to workout a deal so this does not escalate to a full blown war in the middle east. A full blown war in the middle east may well lead to WWIII and thats something that needs to be avoided, and I hope you agree on that.

To show real leadership like Clinton and several US presidents have shown in the past in major crises like that. If we are really at the verge of world war III, is that how the president of the most powerful country in the world should act?

You mean like Rwanda, 1994?

The French prime minister was there (in Beirut) the next day, trying to cut a deal. The French demonstrated much more leadership than Bush in that way.

Yeah...That seems to have gone well.

I want Hizbo out of Israel, i want no more f'ing rockets fired from Gaza and Lebanon, I want Iran non-nuclear. These are the things that are bringing on WWIII, not the neocons. Why are you fighting for the status quo?

Well, I guess if you're going to start the count at our involvement in that war, it would be 9/11/01, but the other side had waged relentless war against us and our interests in that region for decades before - from the Marine Corps barracks bombing in Lebabnon (1983), through the 1993 WTC attack, to the attacks on the USS, the US Embassies in Africa and the attacks on the Pentagon and WTC on 9/11/01...with dozens of smaller attacks in between.

We were over a decade late to the fight.

Sadder still, is that there are still some misguided souls who feel it's not a necessary fight, that we could still negotiate our way out.

We can't "negotiate our way out."

The only way out is to spill lots more of their blood than ours.

It's been such an ongoing problem and will continue to be that i'm not sure it's really all that appropriate to call it WWIII. It makes it sound 'huger' than it actually is.

I mean, we can all imagine what a REAL world war would look like, and this ain't it yet.

It's been such an ongoing problem and will continue to be that i'm not sure it's really all that appropriate to call it WWIII. It makes it sound 'huger' than it actually is.

I mean, we can all imagine what a REAL world war would look like, and this ain't it yet.

"Bush has made Israel less secure by starting the disastrous Iraq war. The "neoconservative theory" has been a complete failure in practice." (BW)
"The French prime minister was there (in Beirut) the next day, trying to cut a deal."
Braveheart, "The problem with the Arab/Muslim world is that there are too many Arabs/Muslims in it."

Our goal should be rectifying that problem as effectively and efficiently as is possible.

"I want Hizbo out of Israel, i want no more f'ing rockets fired from Gaza and Lebanon, I want Iran non-nuclear.

Ofcourse and you are right on that. Everybody wants these things and everybody wants the islamo-fasist nuts defeated and a change in the status quo and a non-nuclear Iran (without islamic lunatics running the country). The question is HOW do you get there. See what the invasion of Iraq achieved: NOTHING. All it did was to destabilize further the region in the short run.

In the long run I think the invasion of Iraq is bad for Israel. Why? Look what kind of people the Iraqis elected. A shiite goverment with ties to Iran. In the long run there could end up being a pro-Iran regime there and that would be bad for everybody.

Sorry, but the neocons have been failing badly. They made a huge miscalculation. They thought they could "install" democracies in the middle east where religious fanaticism is above any common sense. It simply does not work.

"Look what kind of people the Iraqis elected. A shiite goverment with ties to Iran."
"Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni negotiators said early today that the sessions brought a breakthrough on how the 30-plus-seat Cabinet would be divided among factions but that selection of individual appointees was continuing…Shiites 17 Cabinet posts, with eight going to Kurds, six to Sunni Arabs and one to a Christian.

In the 275 seat Parliament, the ruling Shiite bloc won 130 seats, the most of any political list, in the parliamentary elections. The Kurdish Alliance tallied fifty-three seats, while Sunni-led parties won fifty-five seats.

The major Shiite and Kurdish lists fell three seats shy of the two-thirds majority required to control parliament and select a presidential council. Therefore, the two camps must form a coalition with one of the smaller secular or Sunni political blocs."

And once again, Iraq was invaded because (1) it had been at the very top of the U.S. State Department's list of "State Sponsors of Terrorism" since 1990 and (2) harbored and fostered an alliance with al Qaeda (al Qaeda's Ansar al Islam camps) in northern Iraq. Their alliance stemmed from a common enemy, the Kurds. Both Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda targeted the Kurds as their enemies.

Those are the reasons Iraq was invaded - its status as a "leading State Sponsor of International Terrorism" and "friend to al Qaeda" - triggered, of course, by Saddam's Iraq refusing to comply with UN Resolution 1441.

"Installing democracy" and "liberating people from tyranny" were just "feel good" phrases thrown out in an attempt to make Liberal bedwetters feel better about the U.S. croaking a lot of those "friends of al Qaeda" and "supporters of international terrorism."

Israel KNOWS even better than us, that the only "negotiating" you do with terrorists, who want to annihilate you, is at the point of a firing gun...preferably a firing automatic weapon.

"Well that's completely UNTRUE, so it's either a deliberate lie, or perhaps the ignorance resulting from relying on sites like "Media Matters for America" for information.

No, it completely TRUE you like it or not. 1. The goverment of Iraq is heavily shiite-dominated, despite the fact that for the "eyes" they had to include other minorities as well. 2. There are absolutely ties to Iran among some key partners of the coalition that makes the elected Iraqi goverment. As an example, the party of Moctada Al Sadr is a member of the coalition. As an other example" they MOST powerful member of that coalition is the"
"Party for the Islamic Revolution". Thats the #1 party in that coalition. You explain to me how worth was to go in Iraq so the Iraq elected as their number 1 party a party that believes in the "Islamic Revolution".

P.S. These are all facts. I dont watch Fox News, you do :)

Once again, we DIDN'T invade Iraq "to bring democracy to Iraq," or even to "liberate the Iraqis from the brutal tyranny of Saddam Hussein," THOSE goals would've been a waste of resources. You didn't see us doing that kind of thing in Darfur (the Sudan), or in Rwanda, did you?!

We invaded Iraq because (1) it had been at the very top of the U.S. State Department's list of "State Sponsors of Terrorism" since 1990 and (2) harbored and fostered an alliance with al Qaeda (al Qaeda's Ansar al Islam camps) in northern Iraq. Their alliance stemmed from a common enemy, the Kurds. Both Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda targeted the Kurds as their enemies.

Those are the reasons Iraq was invaded - its status as a "leading State Sponsor of International Terrorism" and "friend to al Qaeda" - triggered, of course, by Saddam's Iraq refusing to comply with UN Resolution 1441.

If you watched ANY actual NEWS (even CNN, or CBS) then you'd know these FACTS - Iraq IS religiously appx 2/3rds (64%) Shiite Muslim, appx 32% Sunni Muslim and appx 3% Christian. Ethnically, it is about 75% Arab, about 20% Kurdish and about 5% Turkoman, Assyrian and other.

So, Iraq has a population that is over 60% Shiite Muslim!

If you look above at the ACTUAL and documented breakdown of the new Iraqi government 130 seats out of the 275 seat Parliment (165 seats = 60%) is LESS than 60% (just over 50%), just as 17 seats on the 32 seat governing council amounts to much LESS than 60%, again just over 50% there.

Those FACTS contradict the statement you made that, "Look what kind of people the Iraqis elected. A shiite goverment with ties to Iran."

Obviously you were wrong. In fact, they elected a government that is highly representative of a country with a predominantly Shiite population;

Ethnic groups:
Arab 75%-80%, Kurdish 15%-20%, Turkoman, Assyrian or other 5%

Religions:
Muslim 97% (Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3%

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html

As I've said many times, I'd have supported simply removing Saddam Hussein (the war in Iraq against Saddam Hussein's government lasted less than three weeks)...and then let the Shiite majority (primarily in the south) reunite with Iran, reforming a large part of old Persia (I even like the word Persia), the Kurdish north seek to reform old Kurdistan and the Sunni center would've probably been absorbed by Syria.

BUT that wasn't the path we took AND it wasn't a path supported by the Left or America's Democrats either.

The Iraqis have installed a representative democracy in that country. In fact the over 60% Shiite majority has been, if anything, slightly short-changed in those elections, which directly contradicts the statement you made above.

The problem you run into with our exchanges is that while I consistently give you documented facts (with links, etc), you insist on responding with opinions and wrong-headed ones at that.

"It's been such an ongoing problem and will continue to be that i'm not sure it's really all that appropriate to call it WWIII. It makes it sound 'huger' than it actually is.

I mean, we can all imagine what a REAL world war would look like, and this ain't it yet." (ortho)
(ortho)


In one sense, you're right, but overall, those like Gingrich are even more accurate.

They're right in this regard, this IS a global confrontation, not only in the Mid-East, but in sub-Saharan Africa (Nigeria and the Sudan), in the Phillipines, in India, in Europe (the Balkans)...it is a global clash between a 7th Century culture (Traditional Islamic culture) and a modern one (the West).

It is a unique struggle because there is no common ground between the two forces in conflict today, thus very little hope for a diplomatic compromise.

One side will almost certainly have to eradicate or cripple the other side and that side will estqablish cultural dominance over the future.

While some Liberals act as though they cannot conceive of a future based on monolithic Sharia Law forced on the rest of the world, it is one possible outcome and that's why radical/traditional Islam must be, in effect, stoned to death, by the rest of the world.

You're correct, in so far as it has not YET exploded into the vast violence in very easilly could, with Russia, perhaps China, North Korea supporting the Sharia States, while mainly America, England, Australia, Japan, along with a mostly reluctant Europe, would be alligned against them, and in defense of "the West."

Right. It is certainly a global conflict so far, but i'm just afraid that people's perspectives are so skewed about it that it's only a World War when Israel or the US digs in deep, but that all the aggression from the Islamofascists is regarded as "typical". Israel fights back and everyone goes "oh shit now it's really a war" Well what would they call it last month before Gaza and Lebanon?

That certainly seems true, and I'm sure that it's only coincidental that much of the American media, of late, has taken a decided anti-Israel turn...and that, despite their denials, is something NEW, for institutions like the NY Times, the LA Times and WaPo.

As you suggest, the situation in Israel seems very clear.

Israel gave back the Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip in return for "the hope of peace," and, in return, the Palestinians promptly elected Hezbollah to represent them.

Almost immediately Hezbollah began raining rocket fire down on northern Israel.

Syria and Iran have armed both Hamas & Hezbollah and now stand isolated, even among the rest of the arab world;

Finally, it Seems, Iran Has Overplayed its Hand

USA Today
By Youssef Ibrahim
Wed Jul 19, 2006
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060719/cm_usatoday/finallyitseemsiranhasoverplayeditshand

The attempt by Hezbollah and Hamas to drag the whole Arab world into their war with Israel in the past two weeks has drawn flak in the form of Arab public opinion that neither militant jihadist organizations anticipated.

Speaking in an unusually blunt tone, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Bahrain openly rejected what they described as unilateral "adventurism," telling both groups that they are on their own vis-à-vis Israel. More important, indications are surfacing that a long-silent Arab majority has had enough of being hijacked by extremists in its midst.

In a meeting of its 22 foreign ministers Saturday in Cairo, the League of Arab States did not mince words. "Behavior undertaken by some groups in apparent safeguarding of Arab interests does in fact harm those interests, allowing Israel and other parties from outside the Arab world (read Iran) to wreak havoc with the security and safety of all Arab countries."

The outburst has been long coming, building up ever since the 1979 Iranian Islamic revolution, which poured political militancy into the red-hot religious rivalries between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Iran championed the oppressed Shiites as well as repressed revolutionaries in the Arab world. It also has lent a hand to jihadist Islamic fundamentalists, launching savage wars against their governments and societies in Egypt, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia since the early 1980s:

• Algeria's slow-burning civil war against ferocious armed Islamic groups has claimed more than 110,000 civilian deaths since 1992.

• In Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda terrorists have bombed civilian and oil facilities, killing Saudis and foreigners indiscriminately.

• In Egypt, these extremists have killed secular writers and government officials, burned churches and hounded the Christian minority of nearly 8 million.

Long before targeting the World Trade Center's towers and subways in London and Madrid, jihadists have been relentless in their march to Islamize the Arab world.

The latest outburst in Gaza and Lebanon was particularly alarming to the Sunni Muslim public, as it so transparently bears the imprints of Iran and its Shiite mullahs. This is disconcerting because the Persian nemesis is historically viewed in the region as a neighbor with imperialist ambitions. In pushing its immediate proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, to engage Israel now, Iran reached ever further to set the Arab world's agenda of war and peace by advancing its own agenda to confront the West, Israel included. To be sure, Syria acts as Iran's Sunni agent in the Arab world, supplying access to Iranian arms and material and feeding the cycle of violence. It is working hand-in-glove to accommodate Iran's regional strategy.

For centuries, Sunnis dominated the Muslim world. That began to change in 1979, when the Iranian Shiite mullahs' revolution led to an astonishing ascent of what King Abdullah of Jordan last year decried as a menacing "Shiite crescent" rising above the Sunni Muslim Arab world. Similar alarm was voiced by President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and indeed by Saudi Arabia, the mother of all Sunni regimes. In Iraq, the two sects are engaged in a bloody massacre of one another.

What frightens the Arabs is that Iran has an impressive network already in place to do its deeds.

Even before the United States conveniently dispensed with Iraq - which was the major bulwark against Persians - Iran had planted seeds throughout the region. Hezbollah was formed in the 1980s as Iran's private militia in Lebanon. Shiites loyal to Iran were dispensed to Iraq. And assorted jihadists spread to Jordan, Egypt and Tunisia.

At first, the Iranian motive was self-defense of its young revolution, but by the 1990s its ambitions graduated to regional hegemony. The election last year of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president signaled Phase 2 of the Iranian march, further alarming normally placid Arab majorities who appear to be silent no more.

The collective resistance spoken by Arab presidents, emirs and kings at the highest levels is echoed below among ordinary people. In Lebanon, for instance, it is evident that the people in the streets are blaming Israel, of course, but also Hezbollah for today's crisis.

Ironically, Hamas and Hezbollah's provocation of Israel, coupled with the Jewish state's retaliation, might have opened a new chapter in the greater Middle East discourse - but not the one these groups anticipated. Perhaps the time has come in which war for war's sake might not just bring condemnation from the world at large, but from the Arab world as well."

Youssef Ibrahim, a former Middle East correspondent for The New York Times and energy editor for The Wall Street Journal, is a freelance writer and political-risk consultant based in the United Arab Emirates and New York.

actually isn't the Golan Heights still controlled by the Israelis?

I think they offered it to Syria at one point, but it was rejected.

That's true ortho, it's many of the West Bank settlements that they've turned over.

Israel gets over 1/3 of its water from the north.

"Israel has always related differently to the Golan Heights, and the Sinai desert for that matter, in negotiations. The reason for this is that the West Bank and Gaza have always been viewed by Israel as territories over which the dispute is not with another state. For this reason, the key issues in negotiations with Syria on the Golan Heights have always been over delineating the border, security arrangements and water sources. Negotiations with Syria will be resumed in the future. They must be resumed. As long as there is no comprehensive peace agreement with Syria, the Golan Heights will remain strategically important to Israel. The same goes for the water sources. One-third of Israel's water has its source in the north, and so what flows down from the Heights is very important."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/QA.jhtml?qaNo=49

Israel gave "land for peace" - abandoning the West Bank settlemets and the Gaza strip...the Arab response was the election of Hezbollah as the Palestinian terroritory's government and the subequent attacks on Israel.

I like how the only sacred cow on this blog is Israel. Anyone who isn't brainwashed or deluded can see that Israel is the aggressor. "Kidnapped" soldiers? Aren't those called "prisoners of war"? Israel is holding thousands of those, without trial.

Israel is a U.S. taxpayer funded theocracy. They have killed fifty times more Arabs, many of them children -- using our weapons, that we, the American taxpayer, bought for them.

It is a great crime against humanity.

Because what I say about Israel is unpopular but true, I will again be banned. You cannot speak poorly of Israel! It cannot be allowed!

Go ahead Barry, do as your masters ask.

actually here you won't be killed for your views, but you would for doing the same with Hizbo. Here I just think you're nuts, but welcome back.

What are you idiots talking about. I didn't leave, I was BANNED for not worshipping Israel like Barry.

WoW!

Barely is pretty close to being the Deb Frisch of the CN board, except for the creepy child threats that Frisch likes to engage in (thank God for that).

Sorry Barely, she even has you beat in the anti-Israel department, at least according to Ace at http://ace.mu.nu/

The Deb Frisch Plan For Middle East Peace
– Ace

1) Continue writing like an uneducated moron by calling Washington, DC (I'm not kidding) "war$hington, deecee." The "deecee" part is new. What that is supposed to mean in her paranoid-schizophrenic semiotic system, I cannot even guess. I think that's the proper way to write it according to Strunk & White's The Elements of Batshit Crazy.

2) Move the entire state of Israel to Connecticut. Give Jerusalem to the Muslims.

3) State that this plan is "a no-brainer, really, when you think about it, which of course no one really wants to," a statement that manages to be both vapid and condescending at the same time, which is a pretty neat trick when you think about it (which of course no one really wants to).

4) Complain about the displaced Lebanese while failing to note the thousands of Israelis hiding in bomb shelters.

5) Demand that Israel say "Shalom" (peace) immediately, or we'll say "Shalom" (goodbye) to them, without making an equivalent call for, you know, Hezbollah to stop launching rockets into Haifa.

So it's official Barely, you ain't the only Jew hatin' moonbat...not even the most virulent.

Frisch has upped the ante on ya.

This could be kismet.

BULLsh*t!

I call BULLsh*t!

You LEFT. You even posted a pathos-laden goodbye, right here on this very board.

In fact, I found it, right here;

"Bush is a liar, and a criminal.

Now I say farewell to this blog. It was fun pointing out the absurdity of your childish beliefs, your hypocrisy, and the fact that you really do get all of your information from Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly.

In the end, all you can come up with is "Clinton did it first!" Tsk, tsk, tsk.

You all don't seem to lack intelligence, I must admit, so your minds will remain stubbornly closed to daddy Dubya's real agenda. You will support him, but eventually reality will teach you that you are NOT on his team, as you think you are. He isn't looking out for you.

I'll just hope that even his level of corruption won't break the back of America. We've survived a lot of bad stuff before.

Oh, and Barry -- you should write about the locals going after Souter's property under the very "Government confiscation of property for more tax revenue is OK!" ruling.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/01232006/news/84213.htm

It's better than just being an apoligist for Bush and his fellow criminals.

It's been fun, except for reading JMK's novel length ramblings paraphrasing what Rush said on each and every topic.

Hi ho.

Posted by: Bailey Hankins | January 23, 2006 09:35 AM

Try keeping your lies straight dipshit.

Oh come now, do better research. I left the board at least three times.

Let me try to penetrate your thick noggin with logic, although your underpowered brain seems to be Kryptonite to truth and common sense.

I was banned, meaning that when I tried to post, a page came up saying I was banned. When I switched to proxies, I would post once, and the posts would be removed, then a page would appear saying I was banned again. Eventually, Barry had to review every new post to see if it was me, so he could remove it before it was even posted.

You see, that's why I think I was banned. Is this concept too complex for you?

Let me explain some more. You see, this site is a big joke to me. You are all idiots. I come here to entertain myself at your expense. You amuse me, like a retard who thinks water fountains are magic. I like coming here to watch you put on your Burger King crown of intellect and pontificate incoherently on things you don't understand, repeated whatever you heard Rush say during your Rush Hour lunch at the Elk Lodge.

Even your "proof" here has made me laugh heartily. As usual, you are as wrong as two boys fucking.

Noting the terrorist behavior of Israel, their illegal nuclear program, their disregard for the same U.N. resolutions we use to invade other countries -- this is objective intelligence. It isn't anti-Semitism any more than calling OJ a murderer is racism.

Strap on your Big Bird helmet, retard, school is back in session.

Bullshit.

You got busted in a lie, accept it.

You've been spanked before (by the way, you should be paying me for that), so that's nothing new.

You posted a lame farewell post in late January and weren't heard from again.

Now you're claiming you were subsequently banned after leaving voluntarily?

Does that sound reasonable to you?

It certainly doesn't to me.

Could you have been banned after leaving?

I suppose it's possible, but why? Sure, you are pretty much a dope, who inanely believes Barry (who is a Libertarian and opposes G W on many, many issues) is a "Bush lackey," you're obnoxious and my guess is (just a guess) that you often post drunk, or otherwise impaired, because so many of your posts are ramblingly, incoherant.

As to your anti-Israeli stance, you have every right to hate Israel, just as you do blacks and "foreigners who steal American jobs." It's not a particularly smart tact to take, but it's certainly one your free to employ.

Unfortunately doing that is only blaming others for our own problems and that keeps us from looking at ourselves and trying to solve those problems.

Israel graciously gave up land for peace, dismantling most of the West Bank settlements and returning the Gaza strip.

The immediate response was an illicit and illegal campaign of terror directed by Hamas (elected as the governing body of the Palestinian territories) and Hezbollah.

They immediately fired rockets into Israel and when Israel responded, they kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, after killing eight others. Since no war had been declared, this too was an illicit and illegal action directed against "Israeli peace-keepers."

The fact is, you're lame even compared to other Israel-haters.

At least they go all the way and claim "Israel doesn't really have any right to exist, at least not where they are now."

Of course that argument is idiotic as well, so I'm glad you haven't thought deep enough to have made it.

The Arab world twice sided with the Axis Powers AGAINST England and America (WW I & WW II).

The Germans lost both those wars and so did their allies in the Arab world.

As a result, after both those world wars, the Mid-East was changed. After the First World War, the old Ottaman Empire was divided up and countries like Iraq were created, old Persia was replaced by Iran and many groups were "partitioned" to keep old tempers from flaring.

After WW II, the state of Israel was set up by UN decree in a small portion of the Palestinian territory.

Israel has a right to exist...where they are.

The Arab world has much to atone for, including supporting the Axis Powers TWICE and serving as a Hitler ally in WW II. The Baathist Party in Iraq and Syria is an offshoot of those nation's Nazi Party.

The Europeans and American Leftists (like yourself) who now decry Israel are, for the most part, rabid anti-semites.

How can that be proven?

Because even the rest of the Arab states (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Omar, the UAE) are all alligned against Hezbollah and Hamas on this one.

Just the old "Hitlerian Jew haters" in Europe and America are left on their own, supporting the terrorists against Israel.

That's alright, you have a right, as an American to abhor Israel, to hate the U.S. (at least its current government) and even to love Adolph Hitler.

It doesn't speak very well of you, but you have the right.

Zig Heil, Barely...Big Smile.

"...repeat(ing) whatever you heard Rush say during your Rush Hour lunch at the Elk Lodge." (Barely Hanging)
(Barely Hanging)


PLEASE, DON'T attack the Elks CLub!!!

Next thing you'll be trying to kick the Kiwanis Club, the Rotarians and the American Legion in the nuts as well!

THAT'S America, Barely...that's real AMERICA.

And the Elks don't listen to Limbaugh in the afternoons, they listen to Stephen A Smith from Noon to 2 PM and "the Great Bill O'Reilly" (Hey That's really what they call him)from 2 PM to 4 PM. Then the radio goes off.

The American Legion does the same, but after O'Reilly they switch to Hannity til 6 PM and Mike Savage from 6 PM to 9 PM...at least that's what I heard, I can't vouch for either first-hand, of course, but that's what I hear.

Well, if Barry were honest he could set you straight and admit that he banned me in every way possible until he realized that his blog was dead without me.

I know that you don't let facts get in the way of a good story though, so believe as you like.

Bill O'Reilly is probably as big a liar as Lush, so that isn't much of a saving grace. The man is even dumber than Rush, and that really is an accomplishment.

Now that it has come to light that Israel was showing PowerPoint presentations about their current "act of self defense" ... oops, looks like I was right again!

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/21/MIDEAST.TMP

"Israel set war plan more than a year ago
Strategy was put in motion as Hezbollah began increasing its military strength"

Looks like you are a gullible idiot again. You swallow any line of shit that is fed to you with the proper codewords that your Pavlovian trainers control you with, like "terrorist" and "liberal" ... LOL, what a jackass.

"The immediate response was an illicit and illegal campaign of terror directed by Hamas (elected as the governing body of the Palestinian territories) and Hezbollah."

-- dumbass JMK

The facts:
(07-21) 04:00 PDT Jerusalem -- Israel's military response by air, land and sea to what it considered a provocation last week by Hezbollah militants is unfolding according to a plan finalized more than a year ago.

In the years since Israel ended its military occupation of southern Lebanon, it watched warily as Hezbollah built up its military presence in the region. When Hezbollah militants kidnapped two Israeli soldiers last week, the Israeli military was ready to react almost instantly.

"Of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared," said Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University. "In a sense, the preparation began in May 2000, immediately after the Israeli withdrawal, when it became clear the international community was not going to prevent Hezbollah from stockpiling missiles and attacking Israel. By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board."

More than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to U.S. and other diplomats, journalists and think tanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail. Under the ground rules of the briefings, the officer could not be identified.

In his talks, the officer described a three-week campaign: The first week concentrated on destroying Hezbollah's heavier long-range missiles, bombing its command-and-control centers, and disrupting transportation and communication arteries. In the second week, the focus shifted to attacks on individual sites of rocket launchers or weapons stores. In the third week, ground forces in large numbers would be introduced, but only in order to knock out targets discovered during reconnaissance missions as the campaign unfolded. There was no plan, according to this scenario, to reoccupy southern Lebanon on a long-term basis.

LOL!