Olmert-a: When Your Political Prospects Are Dead

Perhaps Olmert-a should come to mean politically dead.

This is absolutely incredible. I wish I could say I don't believe it, unfortunately, I do. Israel is withdrawing, meanwhile Hezbollah will keep its weapons? There aren't enough words to describe this atrocity. And the way it is being spun suggests the Bush administration was behind Israel 100%, but Olmert wasn't up to the task of finishing a war he started.

If this is so, Olmert is done and he should be. And that the UN would allow a terrorist group like Hezbollah to thumb its nose at their resolution without so much as a whimper only further demonstrates the utter worthlessness of the body.

Hizbullah will not hand over its weapons to the Lebanese government but rather refrain from exhibiting them publicly, according to a new compromise that is reportedly brewing between Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Seniora and Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah.

See The Strata-Sphere for the bit about Bush and Olmert. Also see this from Caroline Glick in the JP.

From all sides of the political spectrum calls are being raised for the establishment of an official commission of inquiry to investigate the Olmert government's incompetent management of the war in Lebanon. These calls are misguided.

We do not need a commission to know what happened or what has to happen. The Olmert government has failed on every level. The Olmert government must go.

Comments

[xxx]

Duh,

I have to say I told you so.

"Destroying" Hezbollah is impossible because Hezbollah is synonimous with the population of Southern Lebanon. Thus, unless you are willing to cleanse the entire area of all people...fighters, sympathizers, women and children...it will inevitably rebuild.

Israel and the U.S. made several critical errors. Surprisingly, the Israelis seemed caught off guard by the ability of Hez fighters, they must have been modeling Bush Co. and started to believe their own PR about Terrorist Cowards. Israel and the U.S. appeared, again, irrationally, to believe that the world and the Lebanese would condemn Hezbollah for the destruction being caused by Israeli airfire. Again, believing your own propaganda, DUMB. When you start out a military campaign in terms of ABSOLUTES, again, dumb. If Israel had said, we're going to go in and clean these guys out, teach them a lesson about menacing Israel and weaken if not destroy them, then, nobody would be calling this a failure. But instead, when they and Condi are saying that Hezbollah has to be destroyed, which is impossible without killing tens of thousands of Lebanese and literally reducing the entire area to rubble, 100% of it, then you cannot DESTROY them.

Yup, this badly thought out, poorly executed campaign has all the hallmarks of a Bush/Cheney/Neocon plan.

Now that the Neocons have successfully democratized Iraq, destroyed Hezbollah, I guess it's time to invade Iran.

Good luck to ya.

[Carol Herman]

Caroline Glick is usually wrong. A big promoter of Bibi. And, a spokeswoman for the settlers. Does she have an audience? Yes. But a lot of them are wishful thinkers.

Olmert's got something powerful going for him. And, that's that propaganda, and press releases, rarely work over time. And, he's more like Bush, than any other politician I've ever seen. He's not like Golda Meir at all.

Given the kinds of damage nasrallah wanted to inflict, which he could have inflicted on masses of foot troops and infantry; what amazes me is that you'd think Israelis would miss the successes. Do they?

Yes, there are two kidnapped soldiers by nasrallah. And, his mouth flapping that "he's won. He's won." (Depends if he's really pulling this off. Or not. Because arabs don't admit the truth in public. And, we never expect the MSM to "verify.")

Olmert's major problem? Dahlia Itzik. Arik Sharon HATED HER! He had no desire to offer her a seat in Kadima. WHen Shimon Peres threw a tantrum for his lap dancer. Then, Olmert, not knowing what to do with this mongrel, back knife stabbing idiot, gave her the job of Kenesset "addresser." So she's run to Bibi, in a secret meeting. To start a process of "investigation." Well? The lawyers on the left are always available to do that. Just like they are in America.

People vote. To get to that place Bibi needs to collect 61 signatures inside the knesset; where people notice how far it got him when he took on Arik Sharon.

Soon Arik Sharon's funeral comes. And, time enough to stand down from assorted branches. Some people know more than your average arab in the street. ANd, Jews will discuss this among each other.

Hezbollah, of course, will be of one voice. But I don't think the arab's souks and tents fool all that many people? Maybe, they do?

But next up will be the cash register. Where Bush holds some keys to the booty that follow "Investment Capital." What happens if Bibi couldn't extract as much from Uncle Sam? Besides, don't some people remember what Bibi was like as PM? They seem to remember Ehud Barak's disasterous run. Just asking.

[rwilymz]

""Destroying" Hezbollah is impossible because Hezbollah is synonimous with the population of Southern Lebanon."

...which means, by your admission, that there are no "civilians" in southern Lebanon.

Doesn't it?

The answer is: yes.

Now, personally, I consider there to be far fewer "civilians" than most people do, since "civilian" requires, per the rules of war, absolute non-belligerence. But "synonymous"? Your words, not mine.

So the next time the bullets fly, you'd better not be here whining and whimpering about any "Lebanese civilian" deaths, cuz you've just declared there aren't any to die.

[xxx]

Sympathy and non belligerence are not the same.

Thus, a woman who 'sympathizes' with Hezbollah is still a civilian, her children are civilians.

Ethnic cleansing via mass killing is a highly efficient way to manage troublesome populations, always has been.

I am glad you are being honest now that what you are and have been advocating all along is the killing of all the Lebanese in Southern Lebanon who are or might be sympathetic to Hezbollah.

I'm not sure how many people that comes out to, maybe 100,000? maybe 300,000?

[Ray]

IDF should use Western Union telegrams instead to announce incoming attacks to enable the leadership and their families to escape, flyers are kind of flimsy. and the advancing IDF after ammassing on the border for days awaiting orders, should carry bullhorns to announce their impending attacks.
Olmert says that if a rock is thrown the IDF will flatten the town it came from, as rockets were being fired at retreating IDF colunms, Somone should put a muzzle on that guy, before he destroys what little credibility/deterrence they have left!

[splashtc]

Don't have to kill thousands- only their leaders.

[Carol Herman]

Olmert LOSES only if there's a need to re-start a moving war, again. In Lebanon. I'd add, this includes having to fight IN Syria.

In other words, Olmert only LOSES if there's ESCALATION, ahead. A need for Israelis to return to their bunkers. AND, the USA refuses to assist in cleaning out Syria and Iran's clocks. (Given that American troops are in Iraq; and Syria and Iran are as much a problem to Iraqis as to Israelis,) THAT WOULD BE THE FAILURE SIGN. That would be an impossible task for Israel, anyway. And, Olmert's not the PM to commit to full fledged KILLING of arabs in Lebanon and Syria. (I just don't see this one looming.)

Sure. The media will go crazy yelling that nasrallah won. But that's their agenda. And, for Israelis there are enough SHERLOCK HOLMES about, to argue the points of why Olmert didn't screw up. And, why the IDF did the best it good. Getting Israel RE-POSITIONED in Lebanon. To really be a threat to syria, now.

While the lebanese have to sort through their own failures. (Yes. They really failed by allowing their nazis to come "to paris." And, Vichy them.)

Olmert's strong suit is still the INVESTMENT CAPITAL AMERICA NEEDS TO BRING TO THE TABLE. And, Bush must have made promises, or Olmert wouldn't have taken risks like this.

While, at least those who lived in bunkers for 33 days, might be drawing different conclusions as soon as they calm down.

By the way, no one mentions how the IDF saved the day! Because nasrallah's plans ran deeper than his "little incursion" to kidnapped two IDF soldiers. His eyeballs were on capturing METULLA. But he didn't!

Maybe, in the "investigation" ahead; there will be compliments spreading to the troops. And, not vilification. But we shall have to wait and see.

And, we shall have to wait for Arik Sharon's funeral, where finally his "assisted machine living" stops being the horror that it is.

[xxx]

Ecept, that doesn't appear to have been the strategy in the invasion of Lebanon. Mass bombing from the air doesn't smack of a strategy to kill the leaders, or even to kill Hezbollah soldiers, but to punish the communities from which Hezbollah recruits come from and in which they reside.

Of course, this kind of civilian punishment is explicitely prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.

Awe, shucks, wait a minute, I forgot, our own Attorney General has told us the Geneva Conventions are an antiquated, quaint concept that isn't workable in the world today.

[Carol Herman]

The Americans, both in Iraq (where massive troop buildups is not building democracy, but is at least giving Americans a toe-hold in a waste land), and in Afghanistan. I think you're seeing a NEW MILITARY APPROACH to the WAR ON TERROR.

For the IDF? Up ahead, besides relying on heavier bombs for the air force, I'll venture that even with "pull out" from Lebanon; there are SPECIAL FORCES behind the lines. That's the AFGHAN MODEL. It works with the dope dealers,who still have access and free lines of moving their countraband throughout the tribal networks. But it limits the Taliban.

And, that may be the model, ahead, as well for the Israelis? You just never know. Since nasrallah is probably gunning for Siniora; why would Israel NOT help some Lebanese politicians survive, here?

Why do you think everything that's going on is published in newspapers?

[Norman Rogers]

I am bemused by all of the caterwauling about Israel's "losing" the war.

Here is how things stand (my view):

1. This was a battle, not a war.

2. This was Lebanon vs. Israel (Hezbollah IS Lebanon), and if you count the casualties and battle damages, Israel won by a TKO.

3. No matter how many weapons and how many troops Hezbollah retains, Lebanon will not again so try to singe Israel's beard.

4. Iran's cards have been played and they have lost. Hezbo spent over half their missiles store and inflicted precious little damage for all their sound and fury. Now the threat is gone. Yes, Hezbo can start firing them again -- but they won't. They didn't work when tested and would work less well if used again (think of the Battle for Britain and the great Blitz).

5. I predict the GWB will link recovery aid to Lebanon with Hezbo disarmament. Lebanon will have to choose: Give up the proxies or squat in your own filth.

6. The IDF has gotten a good lesson (watching the success of the Yanks in Iraq wasn't enough). The IDF will come up with counters to Hezbo's use of wire guided missiles in lieu of tube artillery and will train the troops to avoid sheltering in buildings in site of enemy positions. And tank commanders will be taught to keep their heads down and their hatches battened. And the IDF will greatly strengthen training of regular troops and reserves. And the IDF will get substantially greater operating funds.

I don't know if Olmert will survive -- and I don't know if he should survive. I need to know more about the advice he was given and the warnings he received (from Rice & co).

But, PLEASE! Chill out! So what if the Hezbillys dance in the street? Smell the rotting corpses in their bunkers and gauge their appetite to rejoin the battle.

[old trooper]

The propaganda war continues...The Hizbullah War Encourages a "Third Intifada"
18:02 Aug 15, '06 / 21 Av 5766
by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=110135

*****Don`t Believe Everything That You See in Print***** (But Believe This article)
If you think that the existing 'government' in Lebanon is relevent, guess again.
Hezbollah won control of Lebanon. Period. And nothing else.

There will be another war as soon as Syria and Iran re-supply, re-equip and send more advisors to Lebanon, in flagrant violation of all of the past and most recent UN Resolutions. Hezbollah, Syria and Iran have no rules to respect. Their agenda is clear, the elimination of the state of Irsael. The UN Force, yet to be determined, is under no mandate to disarm Hezbollah, despite UN Res. 1559.

At that point in time look for the US to get involved. By then Olmert will be history, as well as the current chief of staff of the IDF. Israel went it alone and with great restraint, regardless of what any or all of you seem to believe. In the Third Intifada, Israel will not stand alone.

This War is not about the survival of Israel. It is about the survival of Western Civilization.

I give Res. 1701 less than a month. There are no provisions for monitoring any Lebanese ports or borders for arms shipments. There is no mandate to disarm Hezbollah. "Ahmadinejad is the New Hitler" as Benjamin Netanyahu stated. Then Olmert must be the New Neville Chamberlain.

[wjo]

"X"

Where is Nasrallah's signature on the Geneva Conventions? The late Mr. Zarqawi's? Bin Laden's?

When will the ICC indictment of Nasrallah be preferred for war crimes in purposely targeting civilian areas with rockets? Louise Arbour, where are you?

[rwilymz]

"Sympathy and non belligerence are not the same."

Changing the terms?

AlREADY??

The ink wasn't even dry on my pixels before you changed the terms of your pissant whine.

So "Hezbollah is synonimous with the population of Southern Lebanon" is NOT what you meant to say, now. Right?

Or will you change your mind again when someone else catches you being an ignoramus.

[xxx]

I am really sick of your stupid 'technical' responses and semantic arguments as well as your purposeful misreading of the Geneva Conventions.

Do you suppose that say, when Country A, a signatory to the GC, invades Country B, a non signatory that means that Country A can massacre civilians at will? NO.

The countries that sign onto the Geneva Conventions are agreeing to ceretain behaviors with respect to treatment of civilian populations during armed conflicts. If your country doesn't sign the GC, then your soldiers/combatants don't get the protections but your people do, universally.

But since you purposely interpreted my previous posts, let me splain it again. Southern Lebanon is full of Hezbollah sympathizers, those people who view Hezbollah as protecting them against Israeli aggression. The members of Hezbollah are Lebanese citizens, mostly coming from and residing in Southern Lebanon. Thus, the only way to DESTROY Hezbollah, rather than temporarily wound it, is to not only kill all the Hezbollah members and fighters but also to kill all the rest of the potential pool of FUTURE Hezbollah recruits, namely the entire civilian population of Southern Lebanon. Now, since it is obvious that every single person residing in Southern Lebanon is not actively engaged in supporting Hezbollah, since certainly, babies and children, can't do this, I obviously didn't mean that every single person in Southern Lebanon was a de facto member of Hezbollah, as you well know, But because you can't win the argument in terms of reality and facts, you choose to try and win on wordplay.

Just like a Neocon. Torture is only torture when I say so, the Geneva Conventions are good for me when I say so...

Pathetic.

[xxx]

I guess Nasrallah will be brough up on war crimes for firing rocktets at civilian populations as soon as the IDF is brought up on war crimes for purposefully bombing civilian populations.

[xxx]

I guess Nasrallah will be brough up on war crimes for firing rocktets at civilian populations as soon as the IDF is brought up on war crimes for purposefully bombing civilian populations.

[Bill Faith]

Excellent post, very interesting. TypePad is giving me proxy errors for some reason but I'll link to it after bit. Meanwhile you might appreciate "Israeli F-15s downed over Lebanon" --- http://www.oldwardogs.us/2006/08/israeli_f15s_do.html

[wjo]

"X"

My you are clever. Let me see if I can get my knuckles up off the ground to rebut you.

Israel is a nation state. Israel recognizes the rule of law, has international commerce with the world, has a recognized constitution, democratic tradition and legitimate and functioning government. Israel is a member of International bodies and signatory to international treaties. It was founded by people to whom the most despicable war crime in history visited.

Hesbollah is not a nation state. It does not recognize the rule of law, has limited commerce with the world, has no recognized constitution, democratic tradition and is not a legitimate or functioning government. It is not a member of any International bodies [save as an observer] and not of any international treaties. It was founded by people convinced that there was no despicable war crime visited on the founders of Isreal, but if there was, they deserved it.

Hesbollah lives in the shadows of the international order. It has purposely tried to destroy civilian populations with rockets. It committed aggressive acts of war. It maintains a military organization in the face of a recognized nation state's legitimate armed forces.

Now tell me o font of wisdom of international law and convention, which actor here is more likely to abide by those laws and conventions? If the ICC acted, who would extradite a war criminal?

As I tried to explain to you before, an international convention does not apply to a non-state actor. If a convention is violated, then comity in its
application may also be voided.

You talk a great game of indicting the IDF for its alleged war crimes, but please do your homework and stop drinking KosKoolaid.

Nasrallah is an out-and-out war criminal. If you want the ICC to be nothing more than a joke, indict his fat ass and put him in the dock.

[xxx]

Lebanon is a nation state, with a democratic government and is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions if I am not mistaken.

Thus, Lebanese civilians, whether they are sympathetic to Hezbollah or not, are entitled to all the protections afforded them by being residents of a nation state that subscribes to the Geneva Conventions.

Thus, if the IDF, did in fact impose collective punishment on the Lebanese population of Southern Lebanon by purposely targeted civilian areas then that would be A WAR CRIME.

[rwilymz]

"If your country doesn't sign the GC, then your soldiers/combatants don't get the protections but your people do, universally."

Yes... point?

"Lebanon is a nation state, with a democratic government and is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions..."

Yes... point?

"Thus, Lebanese civilians, whether they are sympathetic to Hezbollah or not, are entitled to all the protections afforded them by being residents of a nation state that subscribes to the Geneva Conventions."

Yes... point?

"Thus, if the IDF, did in fact impose collective punishment on the Lebanese population of Southern Lebanon by purposely targeted civilian areas then that would be A WAR CRIME."

Big "IF" there.

Another part of the GenCons that you are "purposefully misreading" -- and I can say this because I, for one, have pointed it out to you several times -- is that any nation-state's military is allowed to shoot at ANYone who is shooting at them, or who -- in their battlefield opinion -- is **likely** to be shooting at them.

Thus, when paramilitary combatants in civilian clothes fire on uniformed soldiers, and those paramilitary civilian-look-alikes are hiding in civilian quarters, affecting every manner of civilian conduct up until opening fire, then it would be darned difficult for even a highly sensitive and sincere doofus like you to prove that there was any "willful" attack on civilians qua "civilianity", nor any "collective punishment" of same for sympathies to paramilitaries.

Just because civilians die in armed conflict neither means they were specifically targeted as civilians, nor does it automatically imply war crime.

[old trooper]

Hey X
Lebanon is irrelevent.

They had no ability to disarm Hezbollah in compliance with UN Res. 1559.

The Lebanese Government and Army was infiltrated by Hezbollah. Period.

Hezbollah is neither respectful of the soviergnty of the Lebanese government, the rules of the Gen. Convention or the Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments or any other silly Schoolboy notions that You entertain. They are TERRORISTS, Jocko. They make their own rules.

You are either fatally naive or hopelessly ignorant.

You do not understand the Culture, the Mindset or the Intent of Terrorist Groups that are resident in the Middle East. Your posts are snippets of Sophomoric arguments that support those thugs as if they would spare you from their actions if you were in their reach in Damascus, Mogadishu or Baghdad.
You are an Infidel. And a very sadly PC one at that. Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Queda and Islamic Jihad do not share your desire for a PC world.

The Lebanese people are at the mercy of those who show no mercy. Get it? Are you willing to step up and travel over there to investigate? Your face would be on tomorrows milk cartons!

War Crimes? What you know about that would suit a gnat for a suppository! Hezbollah honors No Rules. There are no War Crimes in Jihad. They do not think in your terms.

Your sense of Western Values mean Nothing to Them.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/WJL.htm

Give this a good read before you post any more of your tripe.

[xxx]

I am not misreading anything, willfully or otherwise.

By the way, most Hezbollah fighters do, um, ya know, wear camoflauge uniforms and opening carry their guns, I know that really throws a monkey wrench in your..they all look alike, hiding among the civilians and all idea of them, but I believe sadly that your view runs counter to REALITY.

Hezbollah fighters are not civilian look alikes, making it even harder to understand how it is the Israelis keep mistaking women and babies and children for Hez fighters.

Bad luck I guess.

[rwilymz]

"But since you purposely interpreted my previous posts"

What else should I do with them?

"Southern Lebanon is full of Hezbollah sympathizers"

According to you, southern Lebanon is "synonymous" [two "y"s by the way] with Hezbollah.

"those people who view Hezbollah as protecting them against Israeli aggression."

I'm more cynical than that. I think most of the S.Lebanese support is for providing the roads and schools [with Syrian and Iranian funds] that Lebanon can't.

"The members of Hezbollah are Lebanese citizens, mostly coming from and residing in Southern Lebanon. Thus, the only way to DESTROY Hezbollah, rather than temporarily wound it, is to not only kill all the Hezbollah members and fighters but also to kill all the rest of the potential pool of FUTURE Hezbollah recruits, namely the entire civilian population of Southern Lebanon."

But you're a simpleton; of course you'd think that. Without Syrian and Iranian funding, Hezbollah would dry up and be just another random mob of Really Pissed Off Antagonists, of which the world has no shortage. Wanna kill Hezbollah? Someone suggested going after their leaders; won't work; they'll find others. Go after their supply lines/funding channels. An army -- even a proxy army -- tends to quit in rather short order when they no longer have supplies.

"Now, since it is obvious that every single person residing in Southern Lebanon is not actively engaged in supporting Hezbollah"

You said "synonymous", not me.

"since certainly, babies and children, can't do this, I obviously didn't mean that every single person in Southern Lebanon was a de facto member of Hezbollah"

You *still* said "synonymous".

"But because you can't win the argument in terms of reality and facts, you choose to try and win on wordplay."

You don't like reality and facts; they tend to get in the way of your ridiculous fantasies.

"Just like a Neocon."

Who? me? HAHAHAHAHAHA. Just this morning I was accused of being a terrorist sympathizer wouldn't know enough to duck when shot at because I reminded someone that not one terrorist plot has been stymied by the high school graduates working at TSA, who make everyone walk around barefoot and steal their brylcream.

"Torture is only torture when I say so"

Only if you are the one authorized to define "torture".

"the Geneva Conventions are good for me when I say so..."

Only if you're the USSC.

[xxx]

you make me sick.

[rwilymz]

"I believe sadly that your view runs counter to REALITY"

You also believe the Pal-Arabs get a do-over. Belief without support is religion.

"Hezbollah fighters are not civilian look alikes"

Right. They wear Really Fierce Scowls®. My mistake.

[old trooper]

X
Read this then get back.

The cure for Ignorance is Information.

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/party_gc

Don`t reference it, Read it. Your generalities do not apply. Your Opinions are not Facts. You bias is not Wisdom. The link lists signatories and the Articles. Reference Articles next time you care to post.

[xxx]

Yeah, what pray tell is your point?

Israel and Lebanon, both signatories. I have read the relevant articles.

Yeah, I know Hezbollah is a NON STATE ACTOR and they don't get POW protections.

I also know that a civilian is a civlian is a civilian and when you sign on to the GC you agree NOT to target civilians and NOT to recklessly engage in military operations with a high risk of killing a lot of civilians.

And I know that is most especially true in a PRE-EMPTIVE INVASION, since Lebanon and Israel are NOT at war, Israel has an even greater moral and legal burden of preventing needless civilian casualties and of not targeting cvilian installations.

Like I said, the Jews got the biggest DO OVER in history, since they lost any claim to Judea back when Rome took it over, 2000 years ago.

It's too bad none of you are honest debaters, you are either frothing at the mouth Arab/Muslim haters or totally dishonest people like Rwilyzm..

Ya know, the cell phone terrorists weren't charged, so what are you complaining about, oh, well, they were charged but charges were dropped, well what are you complaining about...when you get called out in a complete LIE or FALSEHOOD you just change the subject.

[wjo]

"X"

The Humanitarian protections you invoke are found in a Protocol Additional "Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts". Israel has not ratified this Protocol and is not a signatory. Lebanon has ratified it. The United States is a signatory, but it is not ratified by us.

Now, Israel is a signatory to the Rome Convention for creation of the ICC. Lebanon is not.

Please tell me under what authority you plan to indict the IDF for violation of a treaty which they are not bound to observe but in a court they do.

Please tell me which Lebanese court will now be trying Nasrallah and all Hesbollah leaders for violating Lebanese law. There will be none, I submit.

Hesbollah's mockery of the weaknesses of international law should be apparent, even to you.

[xxx]

I have never seen so many people so intent on finding a legal way to justify what is, on its, face unjustifiable.

IF Israel imposed collective punishment on Lebanese civilians for supporting Hezbollah in terms of purposely targeting civilian infrastructure, houses and people they knew to be fleeing refugees then, I don't really care who signed what, it is morally repugnant.

Just like I don't care what Bush wants to call it, if he wants to make it legal and say it's great and a helpful tool, if you make a prisoner urinate and deficate in his own clothing for days at a time that is INHUMANE TREATMENT. I don't need the Geneva Convention to tell me that, or Article 3 or any other fucking piece of pater to tell me what should be obvious to a normal, sane person. That is treating your prisoner worse than I would treat a dog. It's disgusting.

[wjo]

Ahem, BDS strikes again.

"X" your position collapses in the face of reasoned argument. Your moral compass is not the guide of nations.

You keep throwing out words and phrases that have particular meaning, but when called on it you go apoplectic. People who invoke a legal argument ought to be able to butress it with that law.

Law and morality are linked, the only question is what moral paradigm is linked. Flailing about because it is not yours is not an argument, it is a prayer.

[xxx]

Really,

Is that why Israel has been condemmed across the world for its actions in Lebanon? Because my silly little view is silly and unimportant.

Or you know, MAYBE, my view, is what most people believe, that civilized nations are supposed to act civilized and when they commit atrocities they are to be punished and despised.

But, I can see why you all love the Bush Administration so much, since it relies solely on language to fashion the "truth"...objective reality isn't important, centuries of historic precedent, not important. Bush says what torture is and that is that, if he says skinning a man alive is'nt torture, well, then it isn't, so great. Bush says Hezbollah was defeated, so that's that. Life can remain black and white. Americans and Israelis riding in to save the day and fight for freedom and democracy, if we have to torture a few people, rape some women, murder some children along the way, well, that's a small price to pay for saving democracy and freedom and ya know, The American Way.

[wjo]

"X", I might add that not everything considered "immoral" is also illegal. Abortion, for example. Adultery, for example.

They may or may not be immoral to you, but they are to others. The fact that they are not forbidden in law is repugnant to some.

You hint at invoking natural law to support you, but invoking it might mortify you because it is accepted by those anathema Christian Evangelicals and Fundamentalists.

[xxx]

Obviously.

Since it is universally considered immoral for innocent children and civilians to be killed as "collateral damage" in war, but is not illegal unless it can be proven that it was done on purpose, and then, apparently, only if everyone is from a country that signed on to all the right protocols and amendments, properly notarized and dated, otherwise you get a pass.

At present, the 'civilized world' agrees on a broad set of universal principles about acceptable behavior. Torture is unacceptable. Rape and murder are unacceptable. Due process is a good thing. Equal treatment is a good thing. Soldiers killing civilians for fun is a bad thing. Democracy is a good thing.

Beyond those broad principles, there is room for much disagreement on what should be legal and what is immoral: drugs, prostitution, abortion, assisted suicide, sex outside of marriage, pornography, privacy, parental rights, prisoner rights, media rights, governmental authority, gun rights. These issues are perceived in black, white and every shade of grey, depending on your perspective.

It just seems to me that America being the one to backslide on this very small list of things the civilized world has agreed on for the last 50 years is tragic.

And a bad omen of things to come. Que 1984 music.

[wjo]

Oh my "X",

What a great sleuth you are.

Everyone arguing contrary to you MUST be arguing FOR rape, murder and torture.

You argue that anyone not willing to accede to your silly position is brain dead and cannot see nuance.

How is it that you can invoke an absolute position, but when one argues there is gray in that area, THEY are the poltroons. But of course, no one who would argue with you can actually be anything but evil and have a zombie-like adherence to whatever Karl Rove says. You are the lone free thinker here.

As for your example, please tell me where Bush has decreed that skinning a man alive is not torture. Please tell me where in American law torture, rape and murder are permitted. Nowhere but your imagination I'll wager.

[xxx]

As you know, I am sure, the Bush Administration is in the process of trying to redefine the meaning of torture as well as to get retroactive protection from the 1990's law that made it a crime to violate the Geneva Conventions, specifically common article 3.

As I am sure you also know, the Bush Administration is in the process of redoing its plan for trying the Gitmo detainees, which includes several provision that run counter to the current military code of justice, including allowing evidence to be admitted not seen by the defendant and allowing evidence to be admitted that was obtained through coersion, both of which are currently outlawed.

The Bush Administration is also seeking a more narrow definition of what would be considered 'abuse' of a detainee or prisoner.

And lastly, it cannot have escaped your attention, that the Bush Administration has asserted its right to detain anyone accused of terrorism, even an American citizen, for an indefinite period of time, without access to counsel and without access to the evidence against him or access to any of the traditional civil, criminal or military court due process protections. While the supreme court curtailed some of these policies, a huge grey area remains as to exaclty what if any right someone, anyone, accused of being a terrorist actually has.

It is a fact that cannot be disputed that people have been tortured and murdered in U.S. custody, including some innocent of any crimes at all.

[wjo]

In fact, if international law is to be invoked here it does not consider "collateral damage" immoral. What is sought to be curtailed is deliberate damage.

What international law also seeks to prohibit is perfidy in war, such as feigning civilian, non-combatant status.

Let me see now: feigning civilian, non-combatant status while launching rockets + launching rockets that deliberately target civilians = war crimes.

Please do me a favor and read the cited Protocol where it addresses these issues. Do a mental checklist where the standards about the requisite considerations that must be followed before attacking civilian areas.

In this war, who did this? Israel or Hesbollah?

Israel, not being bound by this Protocol, follows it anyway. Hesbollah never heard of it, even though as citizens of Lebanon they are bound to follow it.

Who is the moral actor then?

As well, if you were depending on a court to try a person for war crimes, on whom would you depend? I'll put my money on the system that acquitted an accused concentration camp guard.

By making claims that do not stand up to scrutiny, you destroy your position.

Israel is a land of law. Hesbollah land is a land of outlaws. Where is your damnation of obvious war criminals?

Israel is not perfect, as no nation is perfect. Nonetheless, in comparison to her neighbors and her adversaries, she looks more like an angel than a demon.

[xxx]

Israel is a land of laws except where it concerns the Palestinians, and then all that democracy falls by the way side, in my opinion.

My only point has been that both sides should be treated the same, and that an atrocity committed by Israel is to be equally condemmed as one committed by Hamas or Hezbollah, which I bring up because I see that we condemn everything and anything that Hamas or Hezbollah do, painting them as bloodthirsty, crazed, religious fanatics who cannot be reasoned with but must be exterminated like vermin. While anything and everything that Israel does is either justified or an accident, which isn't true and it isn't reality. The suicide bomber is condemned but the Israeli soldier who shoots a 13 year old girl or runs over a peace protester with a tank gets a pass. It is this double standard that breeds hatred of America among Arabs.

Clearly, the Israeli's havent sunk to our low, since the last thing I read from a Palestinian prisoner he was complaining about being forced to sleep on a dirty mattress in a cold cell, he wasn't mentioning beat hung from the ceiling, stripped naked and forced to masterbate anyone, attacked with dogs or the host of 'new technqiues' that we have invented.

[wjo]

"X", more black and white I see.

We are wrestling with a dilemma of international law and how it is applied in American law when dealing with enemy combatants. Do you already have a complete answer to all issues raised in a novel situation like that raised by these persons? Of course you do, anything Bush seeks is evil and wrong and illegal and inhumane and unconstitutional and contray to international law. Really, what do you recommend be done with these folks that: (1) ensures they cannot harm others now or in the future; and, (2) that will ever appease the hurt sensibilities of the international human rights, peace and brotherhood crowd.

Further challenges:

Name one United States citizen who is being held indefinitely. No cop outs of hidden in secret CIA prisons permitted.

Name all innocent persons tortured and/or murdered and on whose authority this was done.

[xxx]

1. Novel situation? What novel situation? There have been assassination plots, terrorist plots and enemies of the state since the beginning of time. What is wrong with the current military court system? Why do we have to invent a new category solely to deprive these people of the rights that we as Americans claim to hold as so important. Why do we need to hold people indefinitely without charging them or without giving them lawyers or without seeing the evidence against them or using evidence gained from coersion or torture? If we have proof they are terrorists then bring it on, try them and sentence them. Why do we need all of these unlimited powers?

2. Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, born in Brooklyn. He was held without being charged for OVER THREE YEARS, and he was only finally charged when yep, the USSC intervened and ruled that an American citizen couldn't be held indefinitely on American soil, cause see, BushCo. argued that they could. Read it again. He was held in prison for over three years with no charges filed against him. This cannot be justified by the war on terror or 9/11 or any other reason, it is not acceptable to treat anyone like this, let alone an American citizen. This means, again, that the Bush doctrine holds that if the goverment "says" you are a terrorist then you basically have no rights, the only right you have is not to be tortured, under their narrow definition of torture, that's it. Please, how can anyone agree this is justifiable, or legal or even helpful in anyway to keeping us safe?

3. His name was Dilwar, he was an Afgani cab driver picked up and murdered by American soldiers, even the military says he was innocent and just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Of course no one 'ordered' his murder, but Bushco's blurring of the line of what was and was not acceptable behavior combined with ridiculous rhetoric painting all muslims as crazed animals led to what everyone with a brain predicted it would lead to: Abuse, Torture and Murder.

An Afgani general was also murdered by army forces but I am not sure if he would qualify as "innocent"

All of this is well documented and easy to find on the Internet.

[wjo]

"X" :

1. Confining terrorists captured in a war is something novel. The United States did not invent this "new category", it is an existing one in Geneva. It describes those NOT entitled to POW rights. What they are entitled to is not well defined.

However, not even POW's are entitled to the rights you claim should be accorded to these folks. As well, POW's are to be held for the duration of a conflict.

There exist reasons not to accord enemy combatants the rights you believe they should possess. First, they are not entitled to any by law (a debatable point). Second, you legitimize them by elevating their status. Three, the strong possibility of triers of the case being intimidated by violence or threats of violence. Four, the neccessity of maintaining state secrets so not to imperil methods or secret information. You may disagree on these points, but they are concerns.

As for coerced testimony, that is tied up in a disagreement about what is lawful and unlawful coercion. We still argue about the acceptable parameters of a police interrogation in this country.

The Constitution assigns broad powers to the President as Commander in Chief during wartime. Abraham Lincoln deemed it broad enough to suspend Habeas Corpus and declare the Emancipation Proclamation. Padilla succeeded did he not in having his day in court. Habeas corpus, Bill of Rights, etc. I know of no evidence that Padilla was tortured. I also am unfamiliar with any American citizen being unlawfully detained and tortured as you suggest. Moreover, show where the President in the purported exercise of his powers as Commander in Chief has abridged or suspended law relating to torture.

As for the last, these instances are crimes under existing U.S. law. I understand that criminal charges were brought against Dilwar's murderer. How then is the behavior endorsed?

[xxx]

Yes, real war time, not rhetorical war without end against a noun. The WAR ON TERROR will certainly go on for the rest of my life and probably, oestensibly forever, so basically you are saying that because George W. Bush says we are AT WAR that as Commander in Chief he can turn this country into a dictatorship for the forseeable future.

We are not AT WAR. We may be under siege, we certainly have enemies and many willing to harm us or destroy us but this is not WAR in the conventional sense that WAR POWERS have been understood. This was the first and biggest stupid capitulation to the Bush propaganda frenzy of post 9/11. Who are we at war with? What country? If we are at war with Al Qaeda, then why did we invade Iraq? Are we at war with Hamas but not the Palestinian people or are we at war with them too? Are we at war with the Hamas representatives that were democratically elected or just the guys that are actually committing acts of terror? Are we at war with Hezbollah even though they don't really seem to care too much about us other than our support for the hated Israelis? Are we at war with Iran? Why? What did they do to us in the last decade? Are we at war with Islam? Dear God I hope not since this is what Bin Laden WANTS US TO DO, this is his goal. He wants us to torture Arabs and rape Iraqi girls and kill babies. He would gladly have the U.S. slaughter millions of Arabs if he thought it would ignite Islam to rise up and take us out. When we demonize all Arabs, when we unconditionally back Israel, when we refuse to talk to key parties in these areas we are playing into radical islam's hands. When we turn our back on the Palestinians, we are his best advertisement. Bin Laden is like Stalin in that his own people are like pawns to him, he would sacrifice as many as it took if he thought he could win.

This is akin to the Cold War, where with a few notable exceptions, no one demanded that we surrender our civil liberties forever and ever until the Russians collapsed.

Padilla ONLY got his day in court because the Supreme Court said he had to, the more important point is that DOJ argued against this, argued and might have won that it was okay to keep an American citizen detained forever. Does this not disturb you in the least? Are you so confident that the government will never make a mistake? Will never see, say a 'cell phone terrorist' when all there really is is a college kid trying to make some cash off the books? Are you so willing to put your whole freedom and everything this country stands for in the hands of 'the government' with no transparency, no checks or balances, no nothing?

I already cited the Bush administration's position on changing the definition of torture and abusive treatment. This also is all over the internet including the text of Gonalez memo and his testimony, which I have already posted links to previously.

I don't think the military does endorse murder or torture. It is also a matter of record that MANY military lawyers and military personnel argued against the changes in interrogation techniques and argued against the changes in torture definitions and adherence to GC common article 3 in detainee treatment. But of course they lost out to the neocon freaks. What I have said is that when you muddy up the rules, stretch the rules or give the rules a wink and a nodd then you are going to get exactly what we got: prisoner abuse, torture and murder. That is why, sometimes the line is solid, for a good reason.

I just can't understand how anyone could defend the administration's failed policies in the so called war on terror. It is a fiasco. Iraqis are looking back on Saddam fondly, at least Bahgdad was safe then, those who can get out are leaving. And now, what are we going to do, blame it on the Iraqis for not being able to self govern and split the first chance we get? We opened this Pandora's Box with an overabundance of lies and arrogance and abject stupidity and still, 3 years later, we appear to have NO STRATEGY, none, zero, no idea how to fix things except hope for the best. I mean, if we need to double the troops then let's do it, if 300,000 soldiers can secure the country so we can stand down in 5 years instead of 25 years, let's do it.

This Israeli incursion into Lebandon, also POINTLESS. Nothing has changed except that more people are dead and disillusioned and oh yeah, more Arabs have more reasons to hate Israel and America. Well aint' that great.

And still, the neocons are dreaming about now invading Iran? oh my god. Talk to some Arabs about Iranians and see what they tell you the chances of success are there. Carpet bomb them? For what reason? What have they done? They didn't back 9/11 either. So they don't like us, okay. We aren't the most popular kid on the block anymore and we won't be for a long time to come, maybe never. That doesn't make Iran an evil empire that needs to be destroyed. They want nukes. Who can blame them? If I was Iran I would want nukes too, because Israel has them, because it would make me a player. But we, again beleiving our own propaganda have to assume that Iran wants to nuke US. Jesus Christ, if the USSR didn't nuke anybody, Iran isn't going to nuke anybody especially israel, being that its full of palestinians.

The whole mindset of the administration is nuts, it has nothing to do with historical reality or the differences in aspirations that the various arab states have, the alliances or the reasons for the terrorist groups to have formed in the firstplace.

[qwfwq]

XXX: Are you still here stinking up the place, Barbie? You must love talking to yourself. Get a room. Ot better yet, get your own blog. Fuck you.

[rwilymz]

"I know that is most especially true in a PRE-EMPTIVE INVASION, since Lebanon and Israel are NOT at war, Israel has an even greater moral and legal burden of preventing needless civilian casualties and of not targeting cvilian installations."

Not applicable. Israel responded to an act of war from Lebanese territory, by a group acting with impunity from Lebanese territory, which means Lebanon was not doing its part, even nominally. Lebanon is technically at fault, although you and I and everyone else may agree that they had no ability to do anything about Hezbollah -- technically, they are at fault.

"the Jews got the biggest DO OVER in history, since they lost any claim to Judea back when Rome took it over, 2000 years ago"

In that case, so did the Palestinians, and the Syrians -- especially the Syrians. The Syrians hadn't had a country since the fall of the Assyrian Empire way back about the time writing was invented. But they get a country thanks to the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, France, Britain, and the post-colonial meddlers.

If you're going to play stupid-ass games with history you'd better know some first.

"Is that why Israel has been condemmed across the world for its actions in Lebanon?"

Israel has been "condemned" across the Arab world, and half-heartedly. Israel has been TSK-ed by the rest of the world. That's a far cry from the past.

"centuries of historic precedent, not important"

This is funny, you complaining about others discarding centuries of historical precedent when you condemned Israel -- you and Syria and Iran -- for doing what every other nation has been allowed to do, without substantive criticism, since Westphalia. Irony is not your long suit is it?

"Since it is universally considered immoral for innocent children and civilians to be killed as "collateral damage" in war..."

Only if your "universe" is you and a handful of other pacifists. Civilian casualties aren't even blinked at by 2/3 of the world.

"Why do we have to invent a new category solely to deprive these people of the rights that we as Americans claim to hold as so important."

"We" didn't create a new category of anything; the GenCons did that, and for the reason that operating outside of the rules of "civilized war" puts you outside of consideration for humane treatment.

American civil rights apply, per US Constitution, to US citizens and those the law deems as protected. US civil law is vacant and void when it comes to foreigners, caught in foreign lands, waging war on the US.

The whole "we have these rights, we owe it to the world to always live up to these standards" is vacuous shinola.

"His name was Dilwar, he was an Afgani cab driver ..."

And you found his name on a "Crimes of the US" website which also lists the 75 "super secret" invasions of central and south American banana republics we've committed, coincidentally only under Republican presidents, and which, magically, have escaped everyone else's knowledge -- except 'x' and Hugo Chavez.

"We are not AT WAR...[pretentious screed deleted]"

Whether or not you personally believe the proper Ts were crossed and the appropriate Is were dotted, both the Constitution was satisfied, and so is international law.

"This is akin to the Cold War, where with a few notable exceptions, no one demanded that we surrender our civil liberties forever and ever until the Russians collapsed."

Funny; "implied consent" was created out of thin air during the Cold War, and that is a far more insidious deletion of civil rights than anything you and I might criticize from the Patriot Act.

"And still, the neocons are dreaming about now invading Iran?"

So are the Liberals. The Liberals moreso, actually, since the thing with Liberals seems to be that the "real problem" is always the next thing down the list and not what is currently going on. This is why the Liberals are saying that Lil Kim and Ahmadinejad are what we "really" should have dealt with.

[rwilymz]

"I know that is most especially true in a PRE-EMPTIVE INVASION, since Lebanon and Israel are NOT at war, Israel has an even greater moral and legal burden of preventing needless civilian casualties and of not targeting cvilian installations."

Not applicable. Israel responded to an act of war from Lebanese territory, by a group acting with impunity from Lebanese territory, which means Lebanon was not doing its part, even nominally. Lebanon is technically at fault, although you and I and everyone else may agree that they had no ability to do anything about Hezbollah -- technically, they are at fault.

"the Jews got the biggest DO OVER in history, since they lost any claim to Judea back when Rome took it over, 2000 years ago"

In that case, so did the Palestinians, and the Syrians -- especially the Syrians. The Syrians hadn't had a country since the fall of the Assyrian Empire way back about the time writing was invented. But they get a country thanks to the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, France, Britain, and the post-colonial meddlers.

If you're going to play stupid-ass games with history you'd better know some first.

"Is that why Israel has been condemmed across the world for its actions in Lebanon?"

Israel has been "condemned" across the Arab world, and half-heartedly. Israel has been TSK-ed by the rest of the world. That's a far cry from the past.

"centuries of historic precedent, not important"

This is funny, you complaining about others discarding centuries of historical precedent when you condemned Israel -- you and Syria and Iran -- for doing what every other nation has been allowed to do, without substantive criticism, since Westphalia. Irony is not your long suit is it?

"Since it is universally considered immoral for innocent children and civilians to be killed as "collateral damage" in war..."

Only if your "universe" is you and a handful of other pacifists. Civilian casualties aren't even blinked at by 2/3 of the world.

"Why do we have to invent a new category solely to deprive these people of the rights that we as Americans claim to hold as so important."

"We" didn't create a new category of anything; the GenCons did that, and for the reason that operating outside of the rules of "civilized war" puts you outside of consideration for humane treatment.

American civil rights apply, per US Constitution, to US citizens and those the law deems as protected. US civil law is vacant and void when it comes to foreigners, caught in foreign lands, waging war on the US.

The whole "we have these rights, we owe it to the world to always live up to these standards" is vacuous shinola.

"His name was Dilwar, he was an Afgani cab driver ..."

And you found his name on a "Crimes of the US" website which also lists the 75 "super secret" invasions of central and south American banana republics we've committed, coincidentally only under Republican presidents, and which, magically, have escaped everyone else's knowledge -- except 'x' and Hugo Chavez.

"We are not AT WAR...[pretentious screed deleted]"

Whether or not you personally believe the proper Ts were crossed and the appropriate Is were dotted, both the Constitution was satisfied, and so is international law.

"This is akin to the Cold War, where with a few notable exceptions, no one demanded that we surrender our civil liberties forever and ever until the Russians collapsed."

Funny; "implied consent" was created out of thin air during the Cold War, and that is a far more insidious deletion of civil rights than anything you and I might criticize from the Patriot Act.

"And still, the neocons are dreaming about now invading Iran?"

So are the Liberals. The Liberals moreso, actually, since the thing with Liberals seems to be that the "real problem" is always the next thing down the list and not what is currently going on. This is why the Liberals are saying that Lil Kim and Ahmadinejad are what we "really" should have dealt with.

[xxx]

Ridicule me all you want,in the real world, it appears that it is my view that holds sway and no the hysterical rantings of the neocon blogs.

No WMD in Iraq, check.
Unrest not from foreign 'terrorists but locals, check.
Iraq descends into sectarian violence and civil war, check.
Loosening of interrogation standards leads to abuse, check.
Taliban resurgent in Afganistan, check.
Bin Laden and Al Quada still going, check.
Hezbollah not destroyed, check.
Hezbollah stature increased, not decreased, check.
Israel stature decreased, not increased, check.
Supreme Court rules not legal to detain Americans without trial for indeterminate time, check.
Supreme Court rules Gitmo kangaroo court plan unconstitutional, check.
Cell phone terrorists not terrorists, check.
Missing Egyptian students not terrorists, check.
Iran thumbs nose at U.S., check.

I do realize that objective reality doesn't and won't interfere with the warped views espoused here, and that you will all keep on, just like Georgie clinging to the idea that The Plan Is Working, history will judge you to be the fools that you clearly are. Sadly the damage that has been done due to these misguided poorly crafted 'strategies' is all to real.

[rwilymz]

"No WMD in Iraq, check."

Uncheck that check.

"Unrest not from foreign 'terrorists but locals, check."

Uh ... Hezbollah is Lebanese Shi'a -- supplied by Syria and Iran. Is the "unrest" local? or foreign-bought?

The Baathist/Sunni in Iraq are Iraqi Sunni -- supplied by Syria and led by an Egyptian. Is *that* "unrest" local? or foreign-bought? The Shi'a in Iraq are Iraqi shi'a -- supplied by Iran. Same questions.

You have an extremely convenient definition of "local". It means what you want it to mean. Just like your wet-panty criticism of the meaning of "torture" ... remember?

For someone who claims to not like equivocation and disingenuity, you sure engage in an awful lot of it.

"Iraq descends into sectarian violence and civil war, check."

Apart from politicians playing politics, I don't recall many seriously thinking it wouldn't. And frankly, it's a good thing. But then, sure, you'll accuse me of being [boo hoo hoo] a cold, callous "hater". To be honest, I can live with that.

"Loosening of interrogation standards leads to abuse, check."

Everything leads to abuse. Irrelevant. No points awarded.

"Taliban resurgent in Afganistan, check."

It'll come and go for years. Don't plot the graph and extrapolate too quickly.

"Bin Laden and Al Quada still going, check."

Not really. They haven't had any measurable success since Bali. They're running on fumes and trying to maintain relevance by attaching themselves to the Terrorist Du Jour -- Zarqawi a few months ago and Hezbollah recently.

"Hezbollah not destroyed, check."

Won't happen until the war expands to Syria and Iran. No points here either.

"Hezbollah stature increased, not decreased, check."

For a Middle Eastern paramilitary to go nose-to-nose with Israel and not be completely eliminated is "stature". It'd be like you hopping into the rink with George Foreman. If you can duck and dodge for 3 minutes, woohoo, you had success and "gained stature".

"Israel stature decreased, not increased, check."

Israel's in it for the long-haul, not press release viability. Irrelevant.

"Supreme Court rules not legal to detain Americans without trial for indeterminate time, check."

Ooooh. Damaging!! Gosh, what next? Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus is "naughty"?

"Supreme Court rules Gitmo kangaroo court plan unconstitutional, check."

No, unlawful. They are not the same.

"Cell phone terrorists not terrorists, check."

??? This is irrelevant to anything.

"Missing Egyptian students not terrorists, check."

Don't recall anyone seriously thinking otherwise.

"Iran thumbs nose at U.S., check."

Chalk this up with "rain is wet" and "gravity works downward".

You're negative in the point-scoring, 'x'.

"I do realize that objective reality doesn't and won't interfere with the warped views espoused here"

Most especially your warped views. This is the first thing you mewled today that is unqualifiedly accurate.

[xxx]

LOL,

We invaded Iraq to liberate it so it could descend into civil war? That was the plan?

Okey dokey.

We are not going to invade Syria and Iran, you need to get over that dream of conquering the entire ME from a military standpoint. The U.S. military will never allow it to happen no matter what you want.

I will predict something else, the Brits are going to have a tough time actually proving these lastest guys were really planning something, what with them not having passports or bombs or bomb making material and coincidentally being nabbed BEFORE they allegedly could do a dry run, coincidentally right before the US November elections.

How can you be an airplane suicide bomber without a passport? You can't.

[rwilymz]

"We invaded Iraq to liberate it so it could descend into civil war? That was the plan?"

Oh no! Certainly not. At least not the *stated* plan.

But you're looking small-picture [duh! you would; you're small-minded and a-historical] [and an ignoramus].

Pan-islamists hate the US. They hate the West. And have since ever. Even before the Crusades. Which is why two different muslim empires invaded Europe before the Crusades, and which spawned the Crusades as a defensive operation.

But pan-islamists are of a few flavors. One is "sunni" flavor, another is "shi'a" flavor. If the sunni and shi'a join forces, they can combine resources, be a more efficient military operation and have more success.

But if the sunni and the shi'a are divided between fighting the "zionist crusader" AND fighting each other ... then the zionist crusader comes out with an easier war.

You probably haven't read Clauswitz, have you?

"We are not going to invade Syria and Iran, you need to get over that dream of conquering the entire ME from a military standpoint."

Not my dream. It'd be far from the preferable daydream, even. It'd be much more practicable to push both back where necessary, allow them to both supply opposing factions in Iraq, and wait for Syria's opposition parties to finally topple their government, and the 2/3 Iranian population who are not the "islamic revolutionaries" to get fed up with having to hide their black market tatoos and body piercings.

Just because your boogeyman is the "Christian Armageddonist" doesn't mean that everyone who points out your paranoias is what you fear.

"...coincidentally right before the US November elections."

And I predicted you'd come spouting this predictable denunciation.

How's your knee? Still jerking?

You're nothing if not comedic, 'x'.