Posted on 10/24/2003 1:40:51 PM PDT by Pubbie
As opposed to the peace and popularity that Israelis enjoy now? I'm having a hard time envisioning things getting much worse. A decisive "hot" war, which Israel can win, would be preferable to this slow-motion war of attrition and genocide that Israel can never win.
The article refers to the wall as a "project that has divided communities and disrupted the lives of thousands of Palestinians" while not mentioning anything about why it is being built. Are relocations and restrictions on access to Israel more of a disruption than being blown to bits?
Doesn't it strike you as being just a little bit odd that the article almost completely ignores addressing the reasoning and motivation for building the wall, while presenting all sorts of reasons for opposing it?
If the wall is such a bad thing for Israel, then why are those who have sworn to destroy Israel universally opposed to it? Wouldn't it be better for them to encourage Israel to act against its best interests?
I know I'm spouting a lot of rhetorical questions here, but they are worth getting answers to. When you find yourself on the same side of an issue as mass murderers and terrorists, it's not a bad idea to wonder why you are agreeing with them.
By comparing this wall with the Berlin Wall, which was built to keep people in, not keep them out, you are confusing defense with oppression. Why not a comparison to the Maginot line, which would be far more accurate? Hopefully, this defensive line would be more successful, of course.
Your opinions betray you. You may want to study and consider this issue more thoroughly.
Suggestion: Take a deep breath, calm down, bend the elbow of your right arm, and relax. Statements like these don't impress anyone with your wisdom. Try facts. They will grow on you.
It's called the truth. Look into it.
BTTT
Until the CFR purge is complete.
And you wrote ... As opposed to the peace and popularity that Israelis enjoy now?
It might be more precise to say ...
The wall will mean war, a war that will have many more Americans rooting for Palestineans because of the wall.
You wrote ... If the wall is such a bad thing for Israel, then why are those who have sworn to destroy Israel universally opposed to it?
You've assumed that those sworn to destroy Israel are always wrong.
Ditto that regarding your comment ... When you find yourself on the same side of an issue as mass murderers and terrorists, it's not a bad idea to wonder why you are agreeing with them.
You wrote ... By comparing this wall with the Berlin Wall, which was built to keep people in, not keep them out, you are confusing defense with oppression.
There is no confusion over the fact that walls preventing the movement of people generally work to the detriment of those who build them. The oppressive Berlin Wall revealed the inherent evil in Communism, and the defensive Maginot wall revealed stupidity within those Western Europeans that depended on it.
And now we have the prospect of a Palestine Wall, a wall that is "defensive" to Israelis and "evil" to Palestineans, an Israeli Wall that might both betray (as in Berlin) and defeat (as in Maginot) Israel.
Walls can start wars, they will not prevent them.
"When goods cross borders, armies will not." --- Frederic Bastiat
Quotation source reference ... from Lawrence Reed's statement in center column on page four of linked (click here) document.
Frederic Bastiat is the 19th century French author of "Economic Sophisms," in which certain governmental actions (walls, tariffs, make-work projects, protectionism, etc.) are shown to be absurd. The famous line is probably in "Economic Sophisms," but I haven't found it yet.
Except that the State Dept. is full of career civil "servants" and such types who have been there for many years. They have their own agenda. They can thwart the will of a President because they can "go slow" and "passively obstruct" that which they do not want, and go really fast on stuff they do want. Plus they can quietly do things in direct opposition to the administration in power as long as they are quiet and secretive about it.
"You guys have a rift in the State Dept"!
CFR was mentioned discretely..then a ref to Zbigniew Brzenzski..Grand Chessboard and..."lets go visit some Stans".
Americas presence in the many Stans...the posturing to access the frontiers of Eurasia and Asia...nearly text book of Zbigniews design.
U.S. is in Iraq as a chess move to support the other Geostrategic implimentations.
Russia ..sitting in the wings...saying.."We know what you are up to".
These moves force nations like Iran..Turkey..Pakistan..India and Russia to manuever for the future.
America has the power to get the board moving...now comes the counter chess peice moves.
Pakistan and India...is it desired to drive them to a conflict in the future?
If you see a plan forming..and you cannot stop it..is it in your interest to drive it faster than the controllers desire?
Russia benefits by the U.S. over extending herself....China too.
Turks know what it takes to rule the Silk road...history has a way of repeating itself.
Now Nato is being drawn into the Asia/EurAsia.
Back to Pravda;
CFR has 2 elements within...the Fabians..and non Fabians.
Unless Bush gets it right...they will see him and the Republicans to the door in 2004.
Syria has had state dept rescuing her for decades now..and still does.
Puitn can sit back and watch to see which power bloc within the CFR comes out on top for 2004.
Kinda why Russia is helping Iran to aquiese and sit on the fence for a while.
With Saudi's pining for nukes...Pakistan hinging her future on a projection that her nuclear forces are 'Boosted fission'...things could get messy..and fly off the handle.
India can clobber Pakistan.and easily take the nuke hits.
Pakistan would wind up loosing her nuclear forces entirley..the Gulf Arabs dream of having alot of nukes would be cut off.
Israel benefits...
U.S. benefits..as nations choose U.S. military ordiance over Russian.
Alot of pawns get killed in the chess game.
Grand Chesboard is a bold move...it could lead to conflicts that could escape the parameters the designers are machinating.
provocative thoughts: bttt
Questions: Pravda is privately owned now. Is it under the influence of former Soviet loyalists? It's a cauldron of anti-Americanism today.
Do you see Russian or Chinese money flowing into PR firms and other mechanisms for changing world opinions? I'm looking for leads.
Re: Fabian/non-Fabian CFR types -- who's who?
Who continues to protect Syria and why?
Do we have corroborated evidence of Pak nukes heading for Saudi? I know about the recent reports, but what I read were whispers rather than hard news.
What were Gingrich's desired changes, and where have they gone?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.