Posted on 04/09/2002 7:58:36 AM PDT by Edward Watson
Now the US Governement wants Israel to show restraint, as it needs much of the surrounding region to launch an invasion of Iraq. You can agree or disagree, but this is why it needs to appear "impartial."
Thousands of innocent civilians? Since when? Have you been reading the Euroweenie peacenik papers?
It's also just one more part of the obvious deception.
We don't need Arab allies, but we also don't need hostile Arab distractions when we go against Iraq and the WMDs.
Between the lines, hasn't it occurred to you that Sharon's strategy and Bush's are the same? All they're publicly "disagreeing" on is the timetable for Israeli withdrawal. Sharon is a warrior, and hardly soft on Palestinians, so why do you suppose that is? Why do you suppose Sharon and Bush "tolerate" the suicide bomb-murderers?
Because of the threat of WMD-tipped SCUDS from Saddam.
Israel is in a dilemma similar to Churchill's in WWII, when he possessed the Nazi Enigma Codes...
Does he save a few now, and risk the greater carnage from
HitlerSaddam?That the answer is "yes" should tell you something about the Iraqi threat we all face.
I don't like the answer to this question any more than you do but IMHO the answer is . . . OIL AND WORLD ECONOMIES TIED TO OIL.
In short, all disruptions in the middle-east are evaluated as to their impact on world economies. Remember when Libya invaded Chad? Neither do I! That's because it had no impact on anyone's economy.
Israel can defend itself and root out terrorism right up to the point that it jeopardizes our economy. I have no problem being WRONG here; I just can't find any other answer. Is there?
If your view is that we should never deal with people who do terrible things, then we should never have worked with the Soviets in WW II to defeat Hitler; Stalin was arguably a bigger murderer and despot than Hitler ever was.
I am an ardent supporter of Israel, but President Bush's job is to try to advance the interests of the United States first. Right now, he sees the primary focus of that responsibility to be destroying the infrastructure of terrorism around the world, and Saddam Hussein is next on his list.
Does anyone really believe it is by coincidence that Saddam chose now to increase his payments to the families of suicide bombers? He knows that as long as things are in such an uproar in Israel, the other Arab leaders will not support an attack on him. Bush has walked very carefully here with Israel, giving them time to finish the major thrust of their offensive, but in order to get support from the other Arab nations for our fight against Saddam, Bush has to demonstrate that he has some control over Israel. That is why he got frustrated when there was NO signs from the Israelis of pulling back.
As much as we might all like the idea of packing up all of the Palesitnians and shipping them to Egypt or Jordan, it is not going to happen. It is called realpolitick, meaning we have to deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it was.
When they have been damaged enough, they will be only too happy to let us take out Iraq. In the meantime, let Israel take care of their own business.
Our government at work. 'Nuff said.
Bingo....
Although the way I see it....
This is all about controlling the oil production worldwide.
And those who wind up in control, will rule the world
at our expense.
Wasn't it President Bush himself who described the current crisis as a war against "Evil"?
If your view is that we should never deal with people who do terrible things, then we should never have worked with the Soviets in WW II to defeat Hitler; Stalin was arguably a bigger murderer and despot than Hitler ever was.
But this isn't my point.
I am an ardent supporter of Israel, but President Bush's job is to try to advance the interests of the United States first. Right now, he sees the primary focus of that responsibility to be destroying the infrastructure of terrorism around the world, and Saddam Hussein is next on his list.
How can President Bush "advance the interests of the United States" when he is showing the world, especially, the Arab world that hates us, that he is not merely willing to stab his only dependable friend in the back to appease the Arabs, he is incapable of being consistent in his statements? How can he expect the world to take him seriously and that he means what he says? Who said it, "Walk softly and carry a big stick?" As Afghanistan proved, the Islamist Arabs only respect one thing - determined power. Whatever happened to the worldwide jihad that was promised by the pundits if the US ever invaded Afghanistan or bombed during Ramadan? Even I was fooled. I forgot that no matter how much Islamist Arabs hate and despise us, they refuse to side with those who are clearly LOSERS. As long as there's a chance of an Islamic group eventually emerging triumphant, they'll support them, but the moment that group's fate is sealed, they trip over themselves in distancing from them.
Does anyone really believe it is by coincidence that Saddam chose now to increase his payments to the families of suicide bombers? He knows that as long as things are in such an uproar in Israel, the other Arab leaders will not support an attack on him.
Of course. However, the moment the Palestinian terrorists are thoroughly crushed, no Islamic Arab, notwithstanding Saddam, will lift a finger to help them.
Bush has walked very carefully here with Israel, giving them time to finish the major thrust of their offensive, but in order to get support from the other Arab nations for our fight against Saddam, Bush has to demonstrate that he has some control over Israel. That is why he got frustrated when there was NO signs from the Israelis of pulling back.
Let's modify the old WWII saying shall we? "The Americans will fight to the very last [Israeli Jew] - "Canadian" in the original." If President Bush expects to succeed in the war against terrorism, he'd better let Israel do what it has to do to defend its people.
As much as we might all like the idea of packing up all of the Palesitnians and shipping them to Egypt or Jordan, it is not going to happen. It is called realpolitick, meaning we have to deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it was.
I've often wondered at the taboo of mass expulsion of the Palestinians. Why? No one lifted a finger to prevent the mass expulsion of French Algerians. No one prevented the millions of Germans from being expelled from Poland. Did anyone help the Serbs who were expelled from Kosovo and Bosnia? Did anyone other than the Israelis help the 600,000 Jews who were expelled from the Arab states after the 1948 war? Who's currently helping the white Zimbabweans and Christian Sudanese and Nigerians who are being expelled from their homes? Why then deny the fact "No Arab=no terrorism"?
In short, all disruptions in the middle-east are evaluated as to their impact on world economies. Remember when Libya invaded Chad? Neither do I! That's because it had no impact on anyone's economy.
Israel can defend itself and root out terrorism right up to the point that it jeopardizes our economy. I have no problem being WRONG here; I just can't find any other answer. Is there?
IMO you are exactly right. Our economy can probably withstand the Israeli/PA conflict.Considering that Iraq is an oil producing state, the combination of that fiasco and the removal of Hussein would probably create enough tension in the world oil markets to affect our economy. Thus, GWB would like to see the conflict end so he can pursue his own agenda. It doesn't seem to bother him that his policies are baldly hypocritical.
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.