HousingPANIC - The Housing Bubble Blog with an Attitude Problem, 2005

July 14, 2006

90 comments:

Anonymous said...: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday an Israeli strike on Syria would be considered an attack on the whole Islamic world that would bring a "fierce response", state television reported.

"If the Zionist regime commits another stupid move and attacks Syria, this will be considered like attacking the whole Islamic world and this regime will receive a very fierce response,"

Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying in a telephone conversation with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.; July 14, 2006 11:12 AM
Anonymous said...: Wonderful of Keith to post pics of his girlfriend...; July 14, 2006 12:09 PM
Downturn said...: Could that be the "Fat Lady" singing?

Yup, it's over!!; July 14, 2006 1:08 PM
Bill said...: would this be considered the nail in the coffin

http://tinyurl.com/hsewu; July 14, 2006 1:34 PM
The Thinker said...: Believe me, I have something to say about every subject imaginable, however, I rely on Keith’s intriguing posts and the readerships contributions to get me going. I cannot simply conjure up insight on cue.

With respect to the Israel issue, it is true that the Israelis have a right to defend themselves, but my personal belief is that the course they have currently chosen to take will only escalate confrontation.

Despite what some trolls would say, this problem cannot and should not be solved by wiping out the opposition. The Arab world will (and should) always be there and we had all better figure out a way to get used to each other.

Martin Luther King had a dream that we would all get along (or was that Rodney King), either way, it was good advice.

The current situation in the Middle East between the Jews and the Arabs is like a fight between husband and wife, they may fight hard, but in the end, they will still have to live with one another and the worse they make it now, the harder it will be to patch things up later.

Unfortunately it appears as though the current Israeli administration is taking its foreign policy cues from the Bush Doctrine. And this foreign policy has failed us and will fail them.

The object of the terrorists is to escalate confrontation and create a rift between groups. Just look at Iraq where the terrorists are turning Sunni against Shiite. The Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists are trying to fan the flames of conflict between the West and the Arab world. When we respond to their terrorist acts with force we are playing into their hands.

We must fight terrorism with vigilant defense and restraint. If we had not invaded Afghanistan or Iraq after 9/11 we would have had enjoyed global sympathy and could have spun that sympathy to win hearts and minds to our side thereby delivering a decisive blow to the terrorist cause. Instead we went after them with force, and with every one terrorist we brought to justice 100 more emerged. Even Luke Skywalker knew that striking down evil out of anger only makes evil grow stronger.

However, it takes real courage for a leader to turn the other cheek when faced with a situation such as 9/11, a courage that our President unfortunately lacked. It is ironic that this Christian wisdom was ignored by our President who is so dedicated to the Christian faith.

This is not to say that when a country attacks us we should not fight back. An enemy nation may be defeated by force. However, this conflict is not a conflict between nations; terrorism is more akin to criminal activity. By attacking Lebanon, Israel is weakening the Lebanese government and risks causing chaos in that country. Chaos that would only make it easier for the Islamists to gain power. What if we bombed Mexico City every time a Mexican illegal immigrant committed a crime in the U.S. Do you think that would solve anything?; July 14, 2006 2:19 PM
Anonymous said...: I have often wondered how Bush could veil himself in Christianity and not follow "turn the other cheek", "lift up thy brother" and "love thy enemy". Thinker - loved your post - eloquently written as usual.; July 14, 2006 2:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Izreal iz just tryin' to provoke Iran so they kin bomb there nukular fasilities. Who iz that horny beotch in the pikture?; July 14, 2006 3:05 PM
Anonymous said...: "Who iz that horny beotch in the pikture? "

Jo Mama; July 14, 2006 3:54 PM
Anonymous said...: I agree that invading Iraq was a mistake, although Bush & the Neocons, had me convinced it was probably necessary at the time. But Afghanistan was a true terrorist base inside a rogue state, where the 9/11 attacks were planned. Afghanistan was a necessary initiative, but Bush & the Neocons underestimated the resources they would need to permanently stabilize the country. They diverted those resources to Iraq instead.; July 14, 2006 3:58 PM
Anonymous said...: "We must fight terrorism with vigilant defense and restraint."

Vigilance and restraint are wonderful qualities. I'd say we exercised due "restraint" after attacks on WTC(I), the Kobar Towers, the USS Cole, our embassies in Africa, and finally WTC(II). How often does a terrorist group have to strike before The Thinker says enough is enough? Yes, Jesus counseled us to turn the other cheek, but I doubt he intended we make an occupation of it.

"The current situation in the Middle East between the Jews and the Arabs is like a fight between husband and wife"

Now there's a simplistic and totally vapid take on the region. Israel is a relatively civilized, successful country in a region of economic basket-cases ruled by despots. Groups like Hamas use the poverty, envy and unrest among young people to foment hate against Israel and by extension, the United States. The solution is to develop economies in the region that will lead to opportunity for young arabs. That can never happen as long as Hamas and its backers in Iran continue on their quest to eliminate israel.; July 14, 2006 4:05 PM
The Thinker said...: In the end it was proven that Saddam was not a threat to us. Moreover, he was effective at preventing sectarian violence and keeping the Islamists in check. He would have been our ally in the war on terror for the right price just like Gadaffi. I think he could have been bought out for cheap compared to the cost of the war.

We must ask ourselves whether bringing democracy to the Middle East is a good thing or a bad thing. It is in some respects a noble goal, however, democracy means majority rule, and that only works where the majority of the populous is educated and rational.

We all know that, in some of these countries that Bush is seeking to bring democracy to, the populous is less than educated and rational. In these cases it may be better to leave governance to the educated and rational elite.; July 14, 2006 4:33 PM
Anonymous said...: The thinker, are you a pussy?

"If we had not invaded Afghanistan or Iraq after 9/11 we would have had enjoyed global sympathy and could have spun that sympathy to win hearts and minds to our side thereby delivering a decisive blow to the terrorist cause."

What will you do when someone pulls a gun on YOU in NYC? Will you give him your wallet, turn the other cheek, and tell your fellow citizens that he is a bad man and rally support.

If Bush did something wrong, it was that he didn't use enough military to do the job. I would have supported him if he decided to nuke Afghanistan off the map.

The key is to make the repriasal of terrorism so unthinkiable that no one will ever contemplate it. You kill 1 American, we kill 5000. A 'severe consequence' doctrine will also force reason among those not directly involved. If I know I will die if you, my neighbor, blows up a school, then I will be much more likely to turn you in or prevent you from taking action.; July 14, 2006 4:38 PM
Bill said...: CNN just reported that rockets fired into Isreal were made in Iran...so I guess we know where this is headed....right Anonopuss; July 14, 2006 4:41 PM
Anonymous said...: "In the end it was proven that Saddam was not a threat to us. Moreover, he was effective at preventing sectarian violence and keeping the Islamists in check. He would have been our ally in the war on terror for the right price just like Gadaffi. I think he could have been bought out for cheap compared to the cost of the war.

We must ask ourselves whether bringing democracy to the Middle East is a good thing or a bad thing. It is in some respects a noble goal, however, democracy means majority rule, and that only works where the majority of the populous is educated and rational."

In the end.....key words. Hindsight is 20/20. I think we should have left Iraq alone as well. Democracy is a pipe dream in the middle east. Blame it on yuppie SUV driving fools who needs cheap gas to live within their budget.

Anyone who thinks Iraq is about "Sadddammm" is naieve. It is about oil, pure and simple. The US chose to take out Iraq (as a weaker nation) to establish future military first reponse bases in the middle east. Now if Saudi Arabia decides to fuck around, we're already there. Same for Iran.

Israel is another problem. They have a right to defend themselves. The MSM continues to ignore the Palestenian blight, but in the end, they have nothing so they have nothign to lose. The best thing Israel could do would be to give each Palestenian a good life, good job, secruity, and build a modern society. Those who want to cause trouble should be executed in the public sqaure. Even those moronic pussies that want to die for their religious cause don't have that much balls.; July 14, 2006 4:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Notice the breast protectors...

My dollar says we see a nuclear explosion in the middle east soon.; July 14, 2006 4:58 PM
Anonymous said...: We are really screwed! I mentioned to an aquaintance that it will be difficult to sell my rental property as the Middle East becomes consumed by an all out regional war. He responded, "What does that have to do with your rental property?" This is why the fat lady has sung. People are ignorant of the larger picture that has been looming since FDR and King Saud shook hands in 1945. We have purposely been kept in the dark. I agree that a mushroom cloud appears imminent in the mideast, and we will all suffer.; July 14, 2006 5:15 PM
Anonymous said...: waiting for godot sez:

Jo momma.

Well, godot's momma has four legs, eight titties and wipes her butt on the living room carpet.; July 14, 2006 5:27 PM
The Thinker said...: I would guess that Iran gave Hezbollah instructions to initiate this conflict to divert attention from Iran's nuclear ambitions during the G8 summit.; July 14, 2006 5:34 PM
Anonymous said...: In the end taking out Sadamm has accomplished nothing. What we should have done was retaliate in Afghanistan and killed Bin Laden. That's it. Should have done nothing else. That way terrorists know that if you invade us we will hunt you down and kill you. But now what terrorists think is well I can run and hide and the U.S will never catch me or if they do I will got to trial which will become a ridiculous scene right out of a movie. This administration is so crooked that they let Bin Laden get away on purpose so that we had some justification to invade Iraq. I've heard the term blood for oil. I always thought it meant foreigners blood not the blood of our boys and girls in Iraq. The president deserves to be in jail. If my boy or girl went to Iraq and was killed you better believe I would have a bullet ready for that God loving moron we call a President. Never seen someone quote the bible and then start an unnecessary war in the same week. Put Sadamm back in power and let's get the F outta there. Who cares about Iraq, Israel, Iran, Syria or Lebanon anyway. Let them work out their problems on their own. I betcha if their was no oil in the middle east this administration wouldn't care how many Jews and Arabs wiped each other out. F Bush, Cheney and that Fat f*ck Rove.

And F these housing prices! Can't wait to see prices plummet and investors crying! Send all flippers to Iraq to do some good for all the damage they caused! Send all the illegals to Iraq as well and let them earn their citizenship! Bring our troops home so they can get paid big bucks to build crapboxes in Phoenix.; July 14, 2006 5:43 PM
Anonymous said...: I pray that both sides come to a peaceful resolution in the Middle East because essentially they're fighting over the crappiest strips of land I've ever seen.; July 14, 2006 5:56 PM
Anonymous said...: For those of you who haven't read it yet, check out "Confessions of an Economic Hitman", by John Perkins.

http://tinyurl.com/q846d

Whatever you may think of him as a person, if only half of what he says is true, we're all in deep, deep *hit. Be very afraid of your Government.....; July 14, 2006 6:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Maybe so, but by their own admission the Jews moved into a land which was not theirs because their "god" told them to. I find this a little creepy. Instead of bombing the crap out of Beirut why don't they have their "god" smite their enemies for them?; July 14, 2006 6:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said...
Maybe so, but by their own admission the Jews moved into a land which was not theirs because their "god" told them to. ..

Not entirely true. The current situation is yet another thing to blame the British for, as they 'offered' the land (in exchange for a 'hasty retreat' from the area after WWII) to the diplaced Jews after the War. Other places were offered - Unganda and Libya being two of the other places proposed as a 'homeland', but as Jews have historically considered that part of the Mediterranean coast as holy then its no surprise that they chose to create thier homeland there.

As to what they've done with the place since...well, its not up to me to say.

Historical viewpoints on the creaton of Israel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_of_Israel; July 14, 2006 6:17 PM
Anonymous said...: The thinker is right on one point. It will be harder for all parties to get together and live with each other. A country has the right to defend itself! Extreme groups have said they never want peace and so be it wipe them off the face of the earth so the rest of us can live in peace.; July 14, 2006 6:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Good point pullet.; July 14, 2006 6:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Israel + USA = Toast

Russia + China + Iran = Ruling Team

Checkmate.; July 14, 2006 6:42 PM
Anonymous said...: brokersleaveyoubroke said

"Kill tons of people? The war has killed ten times what Saddam killed."

The Iraqis put sadam's kill count at around 1 Million during is reign. I don't think we have killed 10 Million, yet.

I know you were trying to make a point but try to keep the foam accumulation around the mouth down a bit.; July 14, 2006 6:54 PM
blogger said...: I,ll be in sweden through sunday night might not be able to post much so talk amongst yourselves!! lots of good posts here and below to chew on

man, good place to hang out if the world is going crazy + not a lot of islamists running around sweden (but sure a lot of blondes!); July 14, 2006 7:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Stinker da Thinker said: "I would guess that Iran gave Hezbollah instructions to initiate this conflict to divert attention from Iran's nuclear ambitions during the G8 summit."

I will add that the Iranian prez has been playing us like a fiddle. He supports the insurgency on both sides. He has raised the price of oil through his ramblings of nuke ambition. He bought some hundreds of tons of gold last fall. His oil and gold are way up. He plays the Syrians like puppets. But notice that he has not directly attacked the US or Israel?

Ya gotta give this guy, he who was in on the ground floor when they took our embassy during Carter, credit. His plan is playing out pretty well so far. Funny how most of the people in his country hate him. They love their country as most other people in the world love theirs, but they hate him and how poor they are.; July 14, 2006 8:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Israel should have done the same thing back to Hezbollah:

Go into Lebanon, capture some of them.
Then trade.

Bombing Lebanon itself, like the airport, is a very foolish move.

In Lebanon there was increasing upset over Syrian and, to some degree, Hezbollah domination and aggressiveness. Israel could have used this feeling to their advantage and perhaps Lebanon could have at least partially disengaged from the problem.

Now, everybody in Lebanon is fighting mad, even the ones who wanted Hezbollah and Syria out. Now the argument, "Hey you need us {syria + hezbollah} to protect yourselves against big bad Israel" will work quite well.

Bad mistake by another dumb politician who wanted to prove his manhood.

Yes, Bush wanted to get Saddam to prove he was more of a man than his father.; July 14, 2006 8:15 PM
Anonymous said...: The "Thinker" doesn't do much thinking at all. Instead, he gives us a bunch of mushy platitudes like this:

Hamas terrorists are trying to fan the flames of conflict between the West and the Arab world. When we respond to their terrorist acts with force we are playing into their hands.

What a bunch of nonsense. Europe and the U.S. sat on their hands as Nazi Germany threatened it's neighbors until finally we had to act. I'm sure that idiot pacifists said things just like this "playing into their hands" line to justify weakness and inaction in the face of a gathering threat. Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist groups regard conciliatory gestures and restraint as signs of weakness and that only emboldens them further. Israel withdraws from Gaza and what happens -- knuckleheaded Palestinians reward Hamas' "victory" by voting them into office, virtually guaranteeing decades more suffering for themselves. Israel withdraws from Lebanon, and Hezbollah continues to launch rockets over the border and they kidnap some Israeli soldiers. That's what you get you show softness.

Can you imagine what people would make of The Thinker's statements if they were made in the context of terrorist groups in Mexico attacking border towns in the U.S.? Or if they crossed into the U.S. and kidnapped a couple of U.S. soldiers? "Hey, let's not play into their hands. Violence begets more violence. We still have to live with these guys so let's not damage the relationship" Do you think that the American people would listen to this mushy-headed liberal BS for a second? The Israelis shouldn't either. Playing nice with terrorists is never going to win them the respect of the Arab people. In fact, backing down will only win the terrorist "victors" more accolades from the Al Jazeera-educated Arab masses, just as we saw with the Hamas electoral victory this year.; July 14, 2006 8:21 PM
Anonymous said...: "If we had to we could generate a war machine like we did in wwII that other countries could not come close too."

That is not correct. Our industrial base is decimated. We have good technology but our brains are now subcontracted to foriegners, as is our manufacturing. I will use as one example the space program. Once we could do Apollo. No way today.

But we would prevail in a real global conflict. I hope it does not happen because it would really break the bank of J6P and the rest of us. War is very wasteful.; July 14, 2006 8:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Maybe the prez was right on with the axis of evil. Syria, Iran, and the NK monkeys.

Too bad we are so nice. We could have instead referred to them as the axis of radiated wastelands.; July 14, 2006 9:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Bush iz stoopit.; July 14, 2006 9:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said...
What a bunch of nonsense. Europe and the U.S. sat on their hands as Nazi Germany threatened it's neighbors until finally we had to act.

Er...not strictly true.
Most of Europe was having seven shades of *hite blown out of it during the early part of the war. The US stepped in when their ships were being decimated by U-Boats. Remember that, for Europe, the war actually started in 1939, a full two years before US intervention.

anonymous said...
In Lebanon there was increasing upset over Syrian and, to some degree, Hezbollah domination and aggressiveness. Israel could have used this feeling to their advantage and perhaps Lebanon could have at least partially disengaged from the problem.

Yeah, way to go Israel. Lebanon had been doing a pretty good job of getting its house in order/fences mended all on its own before this, literally, blew up in thier faces.

Still, you elect crazies, you get...well..crazyness. On all sides.

The only people who really get hurt from this are your average Israeli/Palestinian/Lebanese in the street. Who, according to all sides concerned, just want to get on with thier lives, be happy, raise their kids without the possiblilty of them being blown up.

..and let's not forget that crazy comes in all flavours. Muslims, Jews and Christian alike.

And, frothing Anonymous (to differentiate you from other 'anonymouses', here), what makes you think you have the man power, fire power and political will to wade into a Third War, when the other two are going so very well?

Just because 9/11 happened doesn't give the US Carte Blanche to barge in and 'liberate' anyone that is percieved as a 'threat' by Mr and Mrs US Average-In-the-street. Its one of the many reasons that the US is hated by so many people in other countries..

The rest of the world isn't, by and large, a direct threat to the US people (the US govt, well, thats a different story), so stop being so paranoid and bullish. As hard as it is to understand, its not always all about you.
No one likes you for it. Wake up and smell the coffee. People in other countries are neither naive or stupid, and on the whole know much more about America than you know about them. The 'theory of entitlement' doesn't just apply to the Wealth Effect

As for Hamas - well, they were democratically elected - like it or not. You, nor any other country, has the right to depose a party democratically elected by its own people. After all, its what the US touts as its 'greatest export', isn't it? Freedom and Democracy...?

Anyway, apologies to all Americans on this forum who don't think as WhateverAnonymous thinks. Sometimes this belligerant puerile bombast just gets my goat. Bear in mind that the vast majority of TROTW ( The Rest Of The World) blames US Government Policy, not the American people, for what is happening at the moment.

OK, nothing to see. Move along now ;-); July 14, 2006 9:26 PM
Anonymous said...: yep; July 14, 2006 9:29 PM
Anonymous said...: yep to pullet too.; July 14, 2006 9:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Yup, I also disagree with debt is wealth. Maybe he should call himself "ignorance is smart".

Iraq and Iran borders were defined by the Brits, not the US.; July 14, 2006 9:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Bush is not to blame for 60 years of Mideast crap.

Bush is to blame for adding lots of shit to the crap pile.

Based on a purile view of this:

When you deal with terrorists, you must know that force is all they understand. You take the gloves off. You let them know in no uncertain terms that if they want to go on thinking it is a good idea to mess with you and your people, it is going to be extremely expensive every time they do so. You don't negotiate with them, you don't appease them.

The answer is that's correct, but HOW to implement that is the key question.

When Israel sent Mossad quads to liquidate those responsible for the Olympic atrocity---they were doing it properly.

When they, like Blustering Bush, bomb the Beirut Airport (hey, any terrorists hanging out in the departure lounge?) they're making things worse.

Pissing people off, and making them more likely to help terrorists, isn't going to work.

There is smart tough and dumb tough. Smart tough beats dumb tough. Right now Osama Bin Laden is smart tough.; July 14, 2006 10:21 PM
Anonymous said...: It is because history unfolds based on economic fundamentals; ideology is only used secondarily and retroactively to justify action and manipulate the populous.

I also disagree with that as incorrect Marxist analysis.

If it were so, North Korea would be opening its economy to China and South Korea.

If it were so, the Palestinians would realize that they have no oil and would do better by integrating economically with Israel.; July 14, 2006 10:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Bank of Japan DID raise by 25 points today. But gold held firm.

Time to put Chris Laird on the ignore list.

Gold and Stock Cream Out
http://www.kitco.com/ind/laird/jul102006.html; July 14, 2006 10:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey, Keith

You've been noticed in USATODAY blog:
http://tinyurl.com/fyvwa

For real estate entrepreneurs, signs of trouble in my hometown

..." One thing's for sure, this blogger is sounding Code Red about real estate overall."

Congrats!; July 14, 2006 10:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey, Keith

You've been noticed in USATODAY blog:
http://tinyurl.com/fyvwa

For real estate entrepreneurs, signs of trouble in my hometown

..." One thing's for sure, this blogger is sounding Code Red about real estate overall."

Congrats!; July 14, 2006 10:26 PM
Anonymous said...: speedingpullet said...
Who, according to all sides concerned, just want to get on with thier lives, be happy, raise their kids without the possiblilty of them being blown up.

anonymous said..
Unfortunately, not really. Nearly a majority of Arabs believe in the complete elimination of Israeli Jews by force {"from the river to the sea"}, and a fair number are happy with "martyrdom" of their children in suicide attacks against Israelis, Westerners and other designated targets.

I find it hard to believe over 1 billion people, from over 100 countries, share exactly the same beliefs.

If you had said " nearly a majorty of Fundamentalist Islamic Governments believe... then I would agree with you.

As already noted - crazy comes in all flavours.

People in the Middle East aren't any different from people in the US. Almost all of them want to make a bit of money, live somewhere decent, have a steady job, fall in love and raise families.

Assuming that people outside of the US want anything different from what people want inside the US, just goes further along in demonising 'foreigners' , creating barriers and fostering the "Us vs Them" mentality so prevalent over here at the moment.; July 14, 2006 10:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Right now Osama Bin Laden is smart tough.

Yeah, real smart. Living like a scared rat in a cave in Pakistan, cut off from money, unable to leave the region, and his mighty assault on the infidels reduced to some sporadic audiotapes. His Taliban buddies got all blown-up in the carpet bombing. Only friend he's got left is the NY Times. He was praying for Zarqawi to get it because he was showing bin Laden up. Super tough.; July 14, 2006 11:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Bush has been responsible for more tyrrany than he could ever hope to eliminate. 9/11 was quite clearly allowed to happen (if it wasn't outright planned by the US).

What the Hell? This blog is retarded and the posters are FRINGE LEFT WING wackos.

Liberals, please move to North Korea or shoot yourselves or get AIDS and die; July 14, 2006 11:18 PM
Anonymous said...: YetAnotheraAonymous said...

What the Hell? This blog is retarded and the posters are FRINGE LEFT WING wackos.

Liberals, please move to North Korea or shoot yourselves or get AIDS and die

See, this is why the US is known and revered around the world for its deep intellectual thinking and resonable stance...

...oh, hang on, its the bleatings of a yet another SWM....;-)

Tell you what, lookee, see that bridge over there? They're selling the land under it!
Quick, get in now, before the prices go up!!
Don't wait!!!

Meh, this is like shooting fish in a barrell.

Tell you what 'anonymous' (don't even have the cojones to give us a moniker, eh), if you want to have a proper, reasoned discussion about the Middle East, then please, I'm up for it.

Otherwise, crawl back under whichever rock you're using as shelter. I really can't be bothered, in this heat, to be trolled anymore; July 14, 2006 11:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Translation: I don't have a job currently

Yep. Unemployed 30-something white guy all full of white-guy angst and guilt. Probably a former web designer living in Berkeley or - even more likely - Oregon. Not sure what to rail against, so he'll rail against THE ESTABLISHMENT, that's always a crowd-pleaser. Rebel without a clue.; July 15, 2006 12:17 AM
Anonymous said...: People in the Middle East aren't any different from people in the US. Almost all of them want to make a bit of money, live somewhere decent, have a steady job, fall in love and raise families.

Jesus Christ -- somebody sing Kumbayah so we can all join hands and sway back and forth. Western liberals love to assume that everyone else is just like us -- same worldview, same values... They all just want to rent DVDs and go to Bed Bath and Beyond on the weekends.

You have absolutely no understanding of Muslim culture. They're actually nothing at all like us (and I've been there). Men can have four wives. Women aren't allowed to drive, and they cover their bodies from head to toe. They walk a few steps behind their husbands in public. It takes the testimony of four women to equal that of one Muslim man. Conversion from Islam is a death-penalty offense. Their hatred of the Jews is a seething undercurrent throughout their society (OK, that part is just like France and much of Europe). When they're not shooting at the Jews, they're blowing up each other's mosques and bus stops.; July 15, 2006 12:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Wow, you guys is smart. A person who lives in Bush's Amerikkka and spends their time posting anonymous comments to housing blogs and you guess that they are unemployed? Whoa! Don't go out on a limb there Carnac.; July 15, 2006 2:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Keith

Are you gay? You are in your 40's I believe, no wife no kids and you travel a heck of alot. If I were a profiler, and knowing only this little information about you I would say that you fit the profile of a homosexual, not that there's anything wrong with that.

Sure there are lots of blondes in Sweden, but which gender are you interested in?; July 15, 2006 3:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Oh Keith! Come back! How did this thread get from the fat lady singing to your sexual orientation? Marriage is overrated! Have fun with the blondes in Sweden.; July 15, 2006 3:58 AM
The Thinker said...: I think the trolls are half the fun of this blog.; July 15, 2006 4:12 AM
Anonymous said...: ""People in the Middle East aren't any different from people in the US. Almost all of them want to make a bit of money, live somewhere decent, have a steady job, fall in love and raise families.""

"Jesus Christ -- somebody sing Kumbayah so we can all join hands and sway back and forth. Western liberals love to assume that everyone else is just like us -- same worldview, same values... They all just want to rent DVDs and go to Bed Bath and Beyond on the weekends.

You have absolutely no understanding of Muslim culture. They're actually nothing at all like us (and I've been there). Men can have four wives. Women aren't allowed to drive, and they cover their bodies from head to toe. They walk a few steps behind their husbands in public. It takes the testimony of four women to equal that of one Muslim man. Conversion from Islam is a death-penalty offense. Their hatred of the Jews is a seething undercurrent throughout their society (OK, that part is just like France and much of Europe). When they're not shooting at the Jews, they're blowing up each other's mosques and bus stops. "

Agreed.; July 15, 2006 4:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Oh an one more thing,

Judging by your tone you are either a European who was saved by America (and my grandparents) not ONCE, but TWICE in the past 100 years.

Secondly, you can bet your bottom dollar I would suit up in a military uniform and fight for our freedoms, SUV driving asshole and all. That's probably more than you can say. I am ready if my country needs me. I may not agree with everything that goes on here, but I'm willing to put my balls on the line.; July 15, 2006 5:09 AM
Anonymous said...: eah, real smart. Living like a scared rat in a cave in Pakistan, cut off from money, unable to leave the region, and his mighty assault on the infidels reduced to some sporadic audiotapes. His Taliban buddies got all blown-up in the carpet bombing. Only friend he's got left is the NY Times. He was praying for Zarqawi to get it because he was showing bin Laden up. Super tough.

Please, think smarter.

Osama Bin Laden was previously living in a cave or rural camp prior to 9/11. He likes goats better than people. If he wanted to live in a palace all he had to do was repudiate his jihadism and go back to Saudi Arabia pick up a few wives and a few more concubines and join his obscenely rich family.

Nevertheless he managed, successfully, to tweak the most powerful nation on the country and drive it into hysteria. Given that his actual power is so utterly miniscule compared that of the USA it's a remarkable (and revolting) achievement.

Again, think about his goals: what does he care about the MOST? He says it right out: the recruitment of Muslims worldwide into an ideology of global Islamic rule and hatred of all Westerners and extermination of Jews. In this, he has been extremely successful, and aided by his manpiulation of US "dumb tough" policy.

This didn't include Afghanistan---which started out smart, and got dumb as soon as they started looking for Saddam before Bin Laden.

One thing about radical Islamic fundmantalists: they don't keep ideological secrets. Al-Qaeda has said that their goal in 9/11 was to provoke the US into such a disproprotionate and brutal invasion of Afghanistan that the whole Muslim would would revolt against the West. He wanted a replay of the USSR. He was disappointed this didn't happen, and how fast they lost in Afghanistan. But then when first he escaped when outnumbered 100:1, and moreover when W, Shotgun and The Don blustered into Iraq he was in rapture because now it was really taking hold.

Now the neocons are walking into every damn minefield his minions and ideologues have been planting.; July 15, 2006 5:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Please, think smarter

Wow, anonymous, with the length of your post, I would have expected you to actually make a point. You're refuting my assertion that bin Laden has been effectively neutralized post 9/11 by pointing out what he did pre 9/11. Then you rambled about the invasion in Iraq without explaining how that has helped bin Laden directly. He's:
Still holed up in Pakistan
Still cut off from funds
Still unable to launch major attacks against U.S. assets

Again, think about his goals: what does he care about the MOST? He says it right out: the recruitment of Muslims worldwide into an ideology of global Islamic rule and hatred of all Westerners and extermination of Jews. In this, he has been extremely successful

You idiot -- this has been one of the main tenets of Islam since its founding. Islam expanded through military conquest and it describes the world in two parts: the "House of Islam" (territory and peoples already under Islamic rule) and the "House of War" (those territories and peoples yet to be conquered). Bin Laden didn't invent any of this. Why do you think so many followers flocked to him? Because it was a brand new idea? Of course not. The people who joined him already shared his vision and saw an opportunity to take action on it. Fortunately, many of them were killed in Afghanistan.

Your absurd position is like saying that the West fighting the Axis in World War II only made pan-Germanic peoples more sympathetic to Hitler.

As for turmoil in Iraq, that's bad for Bin Laden's Sunni movement. If democracy fails, it is the Shiite majority who will take over and advance their own theocratic doctrine, not Bin Laden's Wahabbi brand. If for some reason they don't prevail, then the secular Baathists will regain power, and that doesn't further Bin Laden's goals, either.

Looks like you could do some "thinkin smarter" yourself.; July 15, 2006 7:57 PM
Anonymous said...: The political objective of terrorism is purely recruitment. Anyone who has done any real studies in political science knows this. The goal is to elicit a disproportionate response from your target by commiting outragous and desparate acts. This is as true in the middle east as it has been in Ireland.

This situation cannot be compared with nazi Germany. Although each is certainly evil and should be stopped, Germany was strategically and deliberately attempting to forecfully take control of the world - and potentially had the capabilities to do it. Although funded by rich oil arabs, when compared to the economic and military might of the West, these guys really don't have two nickels to rub together. Terrorism is the tool of the weak because the strong can wage war. Despite its horrific aspects, 9/11 was not a real threat to national security or our freedon the way Hittler was.

I believe the war on terror would be better fought without the constant media attention and fear mongering. The over coverage of the war on terror only plays into the hands of the terrorists and in my opinion, fuels the idea that Americans are afraid. America needs to show that it is not afraid. But this is not necessarily accomplished by invading Iraq - Afganistan was necessary.

On the military front, the war on terror should be conducted quietly but with effective and lethal force. Those that are real threats must be found and killed. I see no way that terrorists can be defeated through regional conflict.

Calling eachother pussies because we have different opinions on how to fight a difficult problem like terrorism is ridiculous and embarrassing.; July 15, 2006 8:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said...
Calling each other pussies because we have different opinions on how to fight a difficult problem like terrorism is ridiculous and embarrassing.

Thank you, the voice of reason at last. No, I'm not being sarcastic - its nice to actually see a post where someone has thought beyond the "kill, kill, kiil!!! Or you're all a bucha pansies" argument.

Its one of the big differences I've noticed about USA vs Europe: over here in the USA, its amost impossible to have 'arguments' ( as in, a discussion where both sides take differing views), because many people don't want to hear opposing points of view.
Over in Europe its easier to have heated discussions with out it resorting to name-calling and jingoism. People seem less entrenched in thier views, and more open to 'discussion' rather than browbeating thier opponent into submission
Not saying its perfect there either, but there's less of the "I'M Right and YOU'RE wrong, so SHAADUP!" kind of stuff thats been going on here recently.

Anyway, if anybody wants to have a sensible, rational discussion about whats going on in the Middle East, then I'm all for it.

On the subject of Osama bin Laden: I can't remember the name of the documentary, but it charted the relationship between the Bush family and the House of Saud.

They had some guys who knew bin Laden both before and after his relationship with Al Qaeda started, and bascially said that many Fundamentalist Islamic organisations thought he was a bit of a joke.

That he made out he was this tough, mean fighting machine, but in reality most groups only suffered his presence because of the enormous amounts of money he could give them, due to being a minor noble in the Saudi Royal family.

So - that's the way I like to think of him these days - a Poor Little Rich Boy trying to buy friends and influence people with his enormous wodge of money. Kinda takes the wind out of his sails as far as I'm concerned.
Rather than being the Devil Incarnate, he's just a parasite on the periphery, trying to make hay out of his infamy.

Anyway, more than happy to hear dissenting opinions, but please stop calling me a liberal pussy (or whatever) if they don't jibe with yours.; July 15, 2006 9:43 PM
Anonymous said...: I see no way that terrorists can be defeated through regional conflict.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Let's take the current situation in Lebanon. The Lebanese government and its people have allowed Hezbollah to wage a proxy war against Israel. Despite their protestations of innocence, it was in fact Lebanon's choice to allow Hezbollah to remain in place after the Israeli withdrawal -- one of their politicos said as much in a CNN interview (he said Hezbollah had won the people's respect for driving Israel out of Lebanon and therefore deserved to stay). So here we have an elected goverment deciding to have its southern border controlled by a terrorist organization. But -- oh oh! What if the terrorist organization does something crazy, like say, launching rockets at a neighboring country or kidnapping its soldiers? It invites reprisals that are decidedly not good for your country and its citizens.

Lebanon is now learning this lesson the hard way. They thought they'd be able to scream for help and the world would come running to their rescue. Instead, the world is telling them to f-off; you're at the mercy of the Israelis. "Oh man!" the people are thinking. Maybe these Hezbollah assholes are screwing up the country and inviting Israel to drop bombs on our airport and capitol. Maybe this psychotic desire that Hezbollah has to destroy Israel is going to destroy us, too. Maybe the world isn't going to save us. Maybe this policy of letting a terrorist paramilitary wage a proxy war on behalf of Iran on our southern border isn't in our best interest. Let's get these dickheads out of the picture before they bring us down with them.; July 15, 2006 10:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Over in Europe its easier to have heated discussions with out it resorting to name-calling and jingoism.

Over in Europe it's easier to discuss things, period, because that's all they ever do. When action is needed, they talk and debate, and defer, and all agree that it's "very complicated". But they don't act -- ever. When the Bosnia conflict was taking place right in their backyard, and threatened to become a broader regional conflict, what did they do? Nothing! If the U.S. didn't finally play the role of adult and stop the killing, it would probably still be going on. Europeans are great talkers, and I'm sure they're having very polite discussions about Darfur and Iran's nukes and North Korea and Muslim fanatics bombing India. The Madrid train bombings and the London subway bombings were probably delightful subjects for intellectual discourse. Of course, if it hadn't been for the threat of American military force, they'd be having those conversations in Russian today.; July 15, 2006 10:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can negate the use of terror as a means of battle.
...
We are quite far from moral hesitations on the national battlefield. We see before us the command of the Torah, the most moral teaching in the world: Obliterate - until destruction. Utterly blot out their remembrance...and destroy them completely. (Exodus 17:14 and Numbers 14:45) We are particularly far from this sort of hesitation in regard to an enemy whose moral perversion is admitted by all.

Quote from The Front, a Lehi underground newspaper August 1943

The Irgun was classified by the British authorities and several other Jewish organizations as a terrorist organization, while others considered it to be an independence movement.

Terrorists? Yes, the Middle East is swarming with them on both sides of the fence. We suffered from one oil embargo thanks to our support of Israel. What are we going to get this time?; July 15, 2006 10:27 PM
Anonymous said...: We suffered from one oil embargo thanks to our support of Israel. What are we going to get this time?

Wow, Tom. I guess you're not of the mind that a nation should willing to pay a price for doing the right thing. Our support of England in the defeat of the Nazis came with a high price too -- a much higher price than high gas prices and lines at the pump. Yeah, Tom, you're right -- we could have avoided the whole oil embargo thing if we had just let the Arab countries drive the Israelis into the sea, as was their stated goal. How shortsighted of us.; July 15, 2006 10:47 PM
Anonymous said...: The right thing???

What every American needs to know about Israel/Palestine.

Click

Here; July 15, 2006 10:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said...
The Madrid train bombings and the London subway bombings were probably delightful subjects for intellectual discourse.

Actually, no, it was more a case of "@uck, here we go again".

Both Spain and England have a long history of home-grown terrorism. ETA in Spain, and the IRA in England. Sad to say, people in Europe are just more used to terrorist attacks. The USA has had one, so far. Albeit a spectacular, huge and awful one.

Another reason why Eurpeans are more likely to talk rather than act is that thier parents and grandparents saw first-hand what a huge armed conflict can do.
It was only in the 80's and 90's that some Londoners finally moved out of pre-fabs into built homes, from the colossal damage done to London during WWII.

Some cities in France, England and Germany had to be rebuilt from the ground up, as there was literally nothing left of them. England didn't stop food rationing until 1957.

Europeans talk more, because they know the consequences of fighting. Not to say that the US didn't help hugley both before and after the War, but Americans never had bombs dropping in thier cities the way that most of Western Europe did. People still remember that stuff. It makes them hesitant to make it happen again.; July 15, 2006 10:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Another reason why Eurpeans are more likely to talk rather than act is that thier parents and grandparents saw first-hand what a huge armed conflict can do.

They saw first-hand the consequences of inaction in the face of a gathering threat. WWII was much worse than it would have been had England and France not appeased Germany in the 1930s and turned a blind eye to Hitler's preparations for conquest. As Winston Churchill aptly put it, England was faced with a choice between war and dishonor. She chose dishonor and got war.; July 15, 2006 11:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Christ, Tom, could you find a more one-sided web site? Didn't you find the URL "ifamericansknew.org" to be a hint that it might be a bit biased?

Here's your site's insightful description of the 1973 war:
In 1967, Israel conquered still more land. Following the Six Day War, in which Israeli forces launched a highly successful, Pearl Harbor-like surprise attack on Egypt, Israel occupied the additional 22 percent of Palestine that had eluded it in 1948 — the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Here's a more balanced explanation of the events leading up to the 1973 "suprise attack" by Israel:
On May 30, Jordan signed a five-year mutual defensive treaty with Egypt, thereby joining the military alliance already in place between Egypt and Syria. Jordanian forces were placed under the command of Egyptian General Abdul Munim Riad. This put Arab forces just 17 kilometres from Israel's coast, a jump-off point from which a well coordinated tank assault would likely cut Israel in two within half an hour. Such a coordinated attack from the West Bank was always viewed by the Israeli leadership as a threat to Israel's existence. On the same day, Nasser proclaimed: "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel ... to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not of more declarations."[13]; July 15, 2006 11:52 PM
Anonymous said...: By the way, the second passage is from wikipedia, which you referenced several times in an earlier post.; July 15, 2006 11:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Come on, people. Do you really think it is a coincidence that tensions are rising with precisely the nations and regions that have most of the oil? The apparent cultural and ideological differences are just being played up to justify conflict politically.

Enough of the 8th-grade Social Studies analysis. Your argument that most conflicts involve economics, therefore all conflicts are driven by economics is banal at best. As for your musing about the "coincidence" that an oil-rich area is experiencing turmoil, how do you explain North Korea? Is that oil rich? How about the bombings in India? Was that driven by economics? I'd love to hear that analysis. Darfur? I thought that was a land grab, but maybe I was wrong. Northern Ireland? No hatred between Protestants and Catholics there, just simple economics didn't you know. How about Bosnia? Nothing at all to do with ethnic hatred, just a big economic deal, right? Rwanda -- was Big Oil behind that one too?; July 16, 2006 12:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Come on, people. Do you really think it is a coincidence that tensions are rising with precisely the nations and regions that have most of the oil? The apparent cultural and ideological differences are just being played up to justify conflict politically.

Again, blind Marxist view of history. The West didn't have ideological problems when UK and Norway struck oil---quite to the contrary. Of course Chavez's beef is economic, as he is a Marxist.

And the West also has problems with Pakistan and Afghanistan---no oil there. But radical Islamists galore.

At the least, it should be pretty obvious that oil-rich nations (Iran, Russia, Venezuela) are becoming increasingly bold. Why might this be? Probably because they have realized they have greatly-increased economic power, and they are wielding it politically.

Obviously, but power enables them to pursue their ideological goals, which is very different from asserting that there is no ideology really other than money.; July 16, 2006 12:36 AM
Anonymous said...: On the military front, the war on terror should be conducted quietly but with effective and lethal force. Those that are real threats must be found and killed. I see no way that terrorists can be defeated through regional conflict.

Yes!

Actual terrorists: captured and extinguished, in the quiet of the night.

Then in the regional areas: play nicey nicey to make the Achmed six-pack not so volatile, and thereby reduce support and backup for the terrorists.

"Speak softly, and carry a big sniper rifle."

This is smart tough.

Bombing the shit out of random civilians living nearby is "dumb tough" and never works.; July 16, 2006 12:44 AM
Anonymous said...: "Wow, anonymous, with the length of your post, I would have expected you to actually make a point. You're refuting my assertion that bin Laden has been effectively neutralized post 9/11 by pointing out what he did pre 9/11. Then you rambled about the invasion in Iraq without explaining how that has helped bin Laden directly. He's:
Still holed up in Pakistan
Still cut off from funds
Still unable to launch major attacks against U.S. assets"

We agree more than we agree, so let's hold on.

Bin Laden's operational control was successfully disrupted by the operation in Afghanstan. I agree that was a necessary move.

Bin Laden's ideological goals (recruitment) were NOT supported by the US invasion of Afghanistan, contrary to what he wanted. But they were

Bin Laden does not have much power personally, but Bin Ladenism---which is the real danger regardless of the man behind the beard---has greatly increased in potency by the invasion of Iraq. Given that he is an ideologue he'd think that he's winning. Of course he'd rather be Caliph---and if there were a fundamentalist revolution in Pakistan, not unlikely, he would emerge from hiding and be a favored ""guest"" of the Caliphate of Pakistan, and he'd regain plenty of power.

Again, ideologues on his side gained power by invasion of Iraq.

And of course the fact that Bin Laden is using old Islamic ideas is obvious---but the strength of the radicalism and militarism has not been constant throughout history. It is more like the violence of the earliest Mohammadean conquests, but without historical ideas of honor, and with many elements of 20th century totalitarianism and media control.

Bin Ladenism doesn't have to be exactly equated with Islam but some US actions are making that more and more true. That is the problem.

"As for turmoil in Iraq, that's bad for Bin Laden's Sunni movement. If democracy fails, it is the Shiite majority who will take over and advance their own theocratic doctrine, not Bin Laden's Wahabbi brand. If for some reason they don't prevail, then the secular Baathists will regain power, and that doesn't further Bin Laden's goals, either."

Any form of radical Islam is bad for the US's security.

The unfortuanate fact is that Saddam Hussein was the best of many loathsome alternatives.

Bin Ladenism in the rest of the Arab world was certainly inflamed by the US invasion, you can hear it all the time.; July 16, 2006 12:55 AM
Anonymous said...: That's why WMD-free Saddam was attacked while WMD-heavy Kim Jong-il walks free.

Yeah, Americans have never fought a war against North Korea... Brilliant analysis.

Wikipedia is hardly an authoritative source.

Dude, you crack me up. A couple of posts later, you're telling us all to go check out the wikipedia page on Saladin.

Chavez is right when he says that this could lead to a new holocaust.

Well if that font of credibility Hugo Chavez said it, it must be true. I wonder what Kim Jong Il thinks about it?; July 16, 2006 1:34 AM
Anonymous said...: "I see no way that terrorists can be defeated through regional conflict."

"I couldn't disagree with you more. Let's take the current situation in Lebanon. The Lebanese government and its people have allowed Hezbollah to wage a proxy war against Israel."

While Israel's recent actions in Lebanon may be justified, is Israel now safer as a result? Will these actions decrease future terrorist attacks in Israel? Are the Lebanese really blaming Hezbollah for their problems and the destrcution of Beruit or is further hatred for Israel being fueled. Will the killing of Lebanese civillians (some Christians too) hurt or help Hezbollah's cause? Unfortunately, there may be no real solution for Israel's problems in the middle east and the fact that many arabs are bent on its destruction.

I do know that after this wave of violence simmers down (hopefully it will), Israel will still share a border with Lebanon and will still be surrounded by countries and people that hate it. The further this escalates, the more difficult it will be in the future for the region to return to any kind of relative peace.; July 16, 2006 2:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Israel is a strategic liability.
What is the U.S. getting out of this relationship? It seems like a one way benefit for Israel. They are a small country surrounded by people who want to destroy them. When the U.S. supports Israel, we put ourselves in danger. There is no economic, political, or social benefit to having Israel as an ally. We should dump them.; July 16, 2006 3:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Read it and weep you red-blooded macho flag-waving keyboard warriors..its a new century and a new world...the game has shifted.

Hegemonic Tyrant Courts Doom

Finding itself in Republican sights and with no Democratic power center to offer protection, National Public Radio is turning into an upscale version of Fox “News.” Nevertheless, information still gets out if the listener is sufficiently attentive.

On July 5, NPR’s “All Things Considered” interviewed two warmongers for their views on the North Korean missile test. One was Ashton Carter, a Clinton administration assistant secretary of defense, now at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. The other was Ambassador Christopher Hill, an assistant secretary of state in the Bush regime.

The Clinton DOD assistant secretary is coauthor of a recent article advocating a unilateral U.S. military attack on North Korea. His first pitch on NPR was that the whole region, not just the United States, is threatened by North Korea and that everyone should gang up to make it behave. The NPR interviewer asked Carter to reconcile his multilateralism with his own recommendation for the United States to unilaterally attack North Korea. Carter replied that North Korea’s missile was developed to attack us, so we had to protect ourselves.

When the NPR interviewer asked Carter why deterrence would fail with North Korea when deterrence succeeded in the case of the more powerful Soviet Union, Carter agreed that North Korea was not sufficiently insane to launch an attack on the United States. So, if the United States is not in danger of being attacked by North Korea, why does Carter want to attack?

The answer is, well, you see, if we permit North Korea to develop any weapon with which they might be able to stand up to us on some issue critical to North Korea, well, they might not do as we want them to do. Carter could not conceive of a world in which any country existed that might be able to behave differently than the United States dictates.

Hill agreed, but he came at it in a different way. Hill’s view is that it is China, Japan and South Korea’s responsibility to make North Korea behave as the United States wants it to. Both Hill and Carter agreed that no country, with the exception of Israel, has a right to any interests of its own unless it is an interest that coincides with U.S. interests. No other interest is legitimate.

Listening to the pair of hegemonic maniacs, I realized that the United States is the new Rome—there is no legitimate power but us. Any other power is a potential threat to our interests and must be eliminated before it gets any independent ideas. The United States, however, is far more dangerous than Rome. Rome saw its world as the Mediterranean and, for a while, Northern Europe, but the United States thinks the whole world is its oyster. The Bush regime is busy trying to marginalize Russia, and neocons are preparing war plans to attack China before that country can achieve military parity with the United States.

Gentle reader, consider what it means when our government believes other countries have no right to their own interests unless they coincide with U.S. interests. It means that we are the tyrant country. We cannot be the tyrant country without being perceived as the tyrant country. Consequently, the rest of the world unites against us.

How is the United States, which has spent three years proving that it cannot successfully occupy Iraq, a small country of only 25 million people, going to control India, China, Russia, Europe, Africa and South America?

It’s not going to happen.

What it does mean is that the U.S. government, in its hubris and delusion, is going to continue starting wars and attacking other countries until a coalition of greater forces smashes us. Even among our European allies we are already perceived as the greatest threat to world peace and stability.

Our power is not what it once was. We are weak in manufacturing and dependent on China for advanced technology products. We are dependent on China to finance our wars, our budget and our trade deficits. How long will China accommodate us when it reads about Bush’s plans to prevent it from achieving military parity?

The Bush regime thinks that it can have every country under its thumb. Neocons are fond of proclaiming that it is a unipolar world in which the United States is supreme. This is a fantasy, and it is rapidly becoming a nightmare.; July 16, 2006 3:48 AM
Anonymous said...: While Israel's recent actions in Lebanon may be justified, is Israel now safer as a result? Will these actions decrease future terrorist attacks in Israel? Are the Lebanese really blaming Hezbollah for their problems and the destrcution of Beruit or is further hatred for Israel being fueled. Will the killing of Lebanese civillians (some Christians too) hurt or help Hezbollah's cause? Unfortunately, there may be no real solution for Israel's problems in the middle east and the fact that many arabs are bent on its destruction.

So I guess they should just roll over and die, is that it?

Yes, the Lebanese will turn on Hezbollah. In fact, Saudi Arabia even denounced them. If the minutemen began shooting rockets at Mexican border towns (because the prime minister of Canada told them to) and Mexico shot back, Americans may get pissed at Mexico but they'd also think "Hey, maybe those minutemen have got to go." As for Lebanese civilians getting killed, it happens in war. We didn't refrain from bombing German cities in WWII because we were afraid of making enemies with the German civilian populace.

Israel is safer now that it has shown that it will fight back. The definition of "safer" isn't "everybody loves them now", it's "their enemies know not to f*ck with them". If they finish the job this time and drive Hezbollah out of Lebabnon, they'll have a whole lot less to worry about. Then in another 15 years or so, the Arabs will decide to take another run at it and get their asses kicked again -- it never fails. And so on...; July 16, 2006 3:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Every civilian killed will create 10 new terrorists. Israel should fight back in a more constructive way than killing civilans and destroying infrastructure. They can bomb and show they are tough, but it won't work. You'll see.
It's dumb tough.; July 16, 2006 4:12 AM
Anonymous said...: Thinker, you said "We must ask ourselves whether bringing democracy to the Middle East is a good thing or a bad thing". I understand your best intentions, but ... IT IS NOT OUR BUSINESS TO TELL OTHER PEOPLE HOW TO LIVE...; July 16, 2006 4:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Every civilian killed will create 10 new terrorists.

Really? We bombed the shit out of Germany in the 1940s and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. So, there should be millions of German terrorists now, right? 10 to 1?; July 16, 2006 5:16 AM
Bill said...: we are headed for deep do do

http://tinyurl.com/rz87t; July 16, 2006 8:21 AM
Anonymous said...: "Really? We bombed the shit out of Germany in the 1940s and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. So, there should be millions of German terrorists now, right? 10 to 1?"

Obviously this is a totally different situtation. Apples and Oranges. That was a different era with a different enemy. The Germans were not muslim extremists, and that bombing was in the context of total war, as they were doing the same thing to Britain. Comparisons are often made between the situation in the Middle East and WWII, which is incorrect. Often there are comparisons between Saddam and Hitler, which I find rather silly. Yes, Saddam was a fascist dictator with evil intentions, but his power in 2003 was so weak compared to the Nazis in 1939 that it is laughable. Saddam had a degraded army and had been under sanctions for 12 yrs. The sanctions were not perfect, but they kept him in a box. As a comparison, the Nazis had the most powerful and technologically advanced army at the time and rampaged across Europe with ease. That is a real threat, something to legitimately scared of. Saddam was a joke.

Also, don't forget that Saddam was our buddy in the 1980s when he was attacking our bigger enemy Iran. We supplied him with weapons, proven fact. Have you not seen the pic of Saddam shaking hands with Rumsfeld?; July 16, 2006 3:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes, the Lebanese will turn on Hezbollah. In fact, Saudi Arabia even denounced them. If the minutemen began shooting rockets at Mexican border towns (because the prime minister of Canada told them to) and Mexico shot back, Americans may get pissed at Mexico but they'd also think "Hey, maybe those minutemen have got to go."

Well Americans are more sensible than Middle Easterners----though who knows for how long.

To make the analogy complete, let's also assume that those Minutemen shooting rockets also previously managed to dislodge the armed forces of Mexico, who were supplied by the world's best maker of advanced weaponry, i.e. Japan.

And the minutemen have Congressional representation now and own the regional governments. And that many locals in Texas, with guns, will fight viciously any attempt by the central government to oust or disarm the Minutement. And that the Minutemen are better armed than most of the regular Army troops.

That's about close to the reality of Hezbollah.; July 16, 2006 5:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Whatever happened to real ambition in this world? I mean who cares about killing a few jews or Arabs. Why doesn't someone get real ambitious and like shoot Bush or Cheney. Or rape Condoleeza's lesbian lover. Let's get something interesting on the news.... Iraq please go into civil war so we can bring our troops home. Does anyone disagree that outright civil war will mean that we failed and force us to bring our troops home? We don't belong anywhere near the Middle east. We will be paying a $100 a barrel for oil soon, and you know what we deserve it. And our economy will pay the price. I can see America on it knees begging Hugo Chavez for some oil.
America doesn't make anything anymore and sells out anything we do still manage to make. This is the greatest country in the world and we will all be wanting to leave soon. BUt guess what, other countries won't be giving us visas. We'll be stuck in this nightmre living among all the right winged assholes waiting for God to show.; July 17, 2006 6:21 AM
Anonymous said...: America will be brought into a ever expanding war in the middle east. How, American rescue helicopters shot down while trying to rescue citizen who are in lebanon. The weapons used will be from Iran and the US will bomb inside lebanon and on the borders. We (US) will be in the fight sooner than the world thinks.; July 17, 2006 12:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Hi Blogger, I found your blog quite informative.
I just came across your blog and wanted to
drop you a note telling you how impressed I was with it.
I give you my best wishes for your future endeavors.
If you have a moment, please visit my stock market news site.
Have a great week!; July 20, 2006 1:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Your are Nice. And so is your site! Maybe you need some more pictures. Will return in the near future.
»; July 22, 2006 2:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Hi there Blogger, a real useful blog.Keep with the good work.
If you have a moment, please visit my average mortgage rates site.
I send you warm regards and wishes of continued success.; July 23, 2006 11:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Hi there Blogger, a real useful blog.Keep with the good work.
If you have a moment, please visit my sed rate site.
I send you warm regards and wishes of continued success.; August 03, 2006 3:03 PM
Anonymous said...: online alarm clockhttp://www.alarmmonitorsecurity.infoI brought some batteries, they weren;t included.online alarm clock; September 15, 2006 7:48 AM

HousingPANIC - The Housing Bubble Blog with an Attitude Problem, 2005 - 2008

July 14, 2006

90 comments:

About Me

HP blogs & websites

Blog Archive