The Shotgun Blog
Monday, July 24, 2006
Kerry to the rescue
Sen. John Kerry says that the current war between Israel and Hezbollah "wouldn't have happened" if he had been elected in 2004, instead of George W. Bush.
Scrappleface has an equally insane idea: Bush should send Kerry to the region as his emissary!
Posted by Ezra Levant on July 24, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Kerry to the rescue:
Yea, right. I have to agree with Anne Coulter's assessment that had the Lefties (Demos) won several American cities would be in ashes from Islamists and Israel probably would no longer exist. While I disagree with Mr. Bush on several issues (lack of pulling the plug on govt. spending, illegal immigration, etc.) I am very thankful he was in charge when 9/11 happened.
If Kerry were in Canada, he would run for the leadship of the NDP.
Posted by: Alain | 2006-07-24 8:46:33 PM
Alain, I don’t think either Layton or Graham have the clarity of thought to say “We have to destroy Hezbollah” like Kerry did.
But , I really don’t know what to make of Kerry’s comments on Hezbollah. He complains about Bush and Iraq but he voted for Iraq before he voted against it. Doesn’t he think it makes more sense for Israel to take out Hezbollah than for the US to do it? The US will certainly end up writing checks for the restoration of Lebanon but they don’t need to get in the front lines this time, so why should they?
Is this about Kerry and the Democrats finally seeing an erosion of Jewish support? Lieberman’s hawkish views are getting the cold shoulder from Democrats. Is the Jewish vote starting to move right?
Kerry was always confused, but now, admitedly, he has me confused.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-07-24 9:41:06 PM
Yeah, right. I supposed he'd have headed the whole thing off at the pass by driving a swift boat up and down the Dead Sea flying a peace flag. Better not let the Arabs catch you smoking dope, Johnny; they take a dim view of that sort of thing over there.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2006-07-24 10:21:10 PM
sKerry could well become the Jimmy Carter of the 21st century. Thanks goodness he is not any body in the US politics
Posted by: Winston | 2006-07-24 10:55:08 PM
Is it that difficult to perhaps ASSESS what Kerry is saying, and then either dismiss it or conclude that it has some merit??
Forgetting the "it would be better if I was President claim", the fact is that in the 6 years that Bush has been in power, the US has done very little to come up with a NEGOTIATED agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians (the real crux of the problem). Yes, Bush talked about the "road map" but then proceeded to allow Israel to continue it settlement expansions in the West Bank.
There are two ways to neutralize Hesbollah and Hamas: militarily (but for how long?) and politically / diplomatically (with the whole world on board). The second way can only happen with a strong, secure Israel (fully armed and even with a security wall if she so chooses!!) - BUT within the pre-1967 borders.
Am I just naive or why is it that this simple solution (that guarantees Israel's right to exist and gives the Palestinians a viable nation) so elusive? I believe the United States is the only party that can accomplish this sort of agreement (i.e getting Israel to give back land that it has no intention of giving back). The Europeans would agree with this, and it would be a "take it or leave it" situation for anyone (Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, etc) who doesn't believe in Israel's right to exist AT ALL.
So, getting back to Kerry: unless he were to provide the Palestinians with a viable homeland, he would be no further ahead of Bush or any other recent President. IMHO, the death of Rabin was the end of any possibility for peace.
Posted by: Geoff H | 2006-07-25 9:15:37 AM
How do you negotiate without someone to negotiate with? You can't negotiate with someone who comes in and lies, takes all of your concessions then goes back to killing you. That is what the Palestinians have been doing.
If the Palestinians were interested in peace they would already have their state. They are not interested in peace so what is there to negotiate?
Hezbollah has been very honest in its goals. They have said they are not interested in a two-state solution. They are trying to destroy Israel.
‘We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you’,
said the former leader of Hezbollah, Hussein Massawi. And on October 22, 2002, Hassan Nasrallah told Lebanon’s Daily Star,
‘If they [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them world wide.’
Hamas has said much the same thing. There are other terrorist organizations that all say the same thing. They don't want a peaceful solution that includes Jews that aren't dead.
So, what's there to negotiate with? What good does yapping do? You can't talk sense to people who value their own lives less than they value Jew killing.
Posted by: Warwick | 2006-07-25 9:24:29 AM
Warwick, very good reasoning!! Perhaps NEGOTIATED is the wrong term. They need to make a unilateral decision - however, the one that Olmert was talking about a few months ago won't fly. Israel will NEVER have peace and the support of too many nations unless it completely evacuates the Occupied Territories.
It is up to the WORLD at large to guarantee Israel's existance - economically, politically and militarily. Right now, the only other governments in the world that support their desire to keep parts of the West Bank is the USA and the Harper Conservatives. No one's asking them to give up Tel Aviv, or return to Europe, or move to New York. But the basis of ALL of the trouble is the fact that the Palestinians don't have a homeland and the scraps that Israel wants to give them is just not good enough, or morally acceptable.
Israel itself was created without negotiations (for the most part, though Jordan and Egypt never accepted the new borders). Fine. Just create Palestine, give them a country and get on with it. If you truly want to isolate the "anti-Israel existance" factions, this is the only way. The Palestinian cause has a lot of support outside of the United States and western Canada, that also doesn't support terrorist activities against Israel. It's a reality that never seems to enter the discussion, and why many Canadians are dismayed that Harper has moved Canada away from being a neutral party interested in BOTH sides.
Interesting sidebar: for CONFIRMED Harper supporters, he is being seen as a man of conviction for supporting Israel. And maybe he is. But by siding so obviously with one side, he has killed any hope of ever having a majority government. I say CONFIRMED because everyone patting him on the back was ALREADY a Harper supporter. Any undecideds will defeintely NOT like his stance (i.e Liberals or Bloc supporters that he was hoping to sway - i.e. the "Reagan Democrats" of Canada).
(Note: I voted Conservative in the last election because I saw them as a source of new blood. However, their foreign policy has awakened any fears I had about them. I don't believe I'm alone)
Posted by: Geoff H | 2006-07-25 9:53:24 AM
So, you believe that in order to get a conservative government into majority government, you have to be co-opted with the enemy?
That is what the ISM, the terrorists and the leftists want you to believe.
If we permit that thinking to remain, we are going to be flooded with positions that legitimize the position of terrorists and their organizations in this state, in the same manner as individuals have attempted to legitimize the existence of terrorist organizations in the middle east. The intellectual vaccination that terrorist sympathizers utilize to inject their venom into a nation, is that IF you are not soft on terrorists, then you cannot have a majority government, that the majority of people will support the existence of a terrorist organization.
Well, I for one, am NEVER EVER EVER going to support the existence of the idea that there is a legitmate perspective, that in order to get a majority, that terrorists must be supported. We have seen that view result in the massive destruction of people, places and things in lebanon. Nations have the right to defend themselves, and the stupidest reasons they supported terrorists, are the MAIN reason why their nation is getting blown to bits!
And, in the farmework where terrorists are not legitimate, nor will they ever be legitmate, there is not a second given to any position that round the table negotiations are possible, as they simply are only possible, between folks who are partners in peace. Since the very essence of a terror group is your death, there is not a single iota of basis for a discussion. The terrorists and their groups are either destroyed, or they will resurface, in your neighborhood!
Posted by: Lady | 2006-07-25 10:26:28 AM
Getting out of the occupied territories is what led to Hezbollah firing rockets into Israel from Lebanon and Hamas firing rockets into Israel from Gaza. In both cases, Israel occupied those territories in order to protect Israeli citizens from attack.
The "international community" demanded that Israel trade land for peace. Israel gave up the land and was attacked for it by the Arab terrorists.
Giving up the West Bank and Golan Heights won't work any better than giving up Gaza or Lebanon. In both cases the Arab terrorists spun Israel's withdrawal as weakness and exploited it as such.
It was the Arabs who rejected the "Palestinian" homeland, not Israel. The Arabs attacked Israel several times before the "occupied territories" were even occupied. The issue isn't a Palestinian state. The issue for these terrorists is the existence of a Jewish state. They aren't interested in sharing, living in peace or being civilized neighbours. They are interested in Jew killing even if they die along with the Jews. They have been poisoned from birth by their hate. They are a death cult. Their society has been thoroughly ruined.
And the "world" (aka the UN) has been less than useful in protecting anyone. Ask the Rwandans.
I do think you mean well but boy are you naive... As for Harper, I doubt this will be a liability.
Posted by: Warwick | 2006-07-25 11:23:40 AM
Let's have a contest to see who could possibly be more unsuited and inapporpriate to this task as Senator John Kerry.
I'll start: Al Gore.
Posted by: Scott | 2006-07-25 11:47:49 AM
Posted by: Warwick | 2006-07-25 11:55:04 AM
No, I'm not naive, I am just looking for a practical solution. You will not defeat Hamas or Hezbollah militarily. The reason being that every time there is an incursion against them (justified or otherwise), they gain support on the "Arab street". Given the higher birth rate amongst Muslims (in that area and in general), every maiming and death (again, justified and not) gives rise to new fighters.
Israel is not expanding settlements in the West Bank for "defensive" purposes (to believe that is incredibly NAIVE). Buiding a security wall was for defensive / security purposes - and that's why I support the concept (despite the outcry from people who may think more like me), if not where they chose to build it.
Right now, the United States (and I guess, Canada via the Conservatives) are the only two nations on Earth that unquestionably, without reservation, support Israel. Now Israel, like the United States, may believe that being mighty militarily means that you don't need any other friends. But that will not give them peace.
Lady: having a neutral position does not "co-opt you with the enemy". The neutral position that I suggest is not between Hezbollah and Israel. Canada needs to be neutral between establishing a viable Palestinian homeland and ensuring FULL security for Israel's existance. The Harper government's tone in recent days gives a PERCEPTION that it is adopting the American approach of not being unbiased.
I didn't say Harper's position would "hurt him" -his confirmed supporters will like what he's saying. I maintain that if he is trying to make political gains - to get to a majority (such as gaining votes in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver) - this will not help him one iota. His foreign policy allignment with the currrent US administration will only hurt him in the parts of Canada where he was hoping to make gains.
You say "nations have the right to defend themselves". Of course they do. So do people. The Palestinians do not have an air force or tanks or other fancy weaponry supplied by the US. How do you propose that they fight back against "occupiers" (as the Israelis are known, they aren't "visitors"). There seems to be an idea that if you are a nation with real weapons, it's all good. But if you fight back, you're a "terrorist". It's all semantics. Many people view Hamas and Hezbollah as "freedom fighters". You would likely disagree. Some people view the US as "terrorists" for their incursion into Iraq. Again, you would likely agree.
Perhaps it's an apple-oranges comparison but the 9-11 attacks "DIRECTED at civilians" killed 3000 civilans while the Iraq invasion "NOT directed at civilians" has killed tens of thousands of civilians. Likewise, the Hezbollah attacks on civilans have killed less than fifty civilans, while the Israeli attacks "not on civilians" have killed over 400 civilians.
I'm sure there'll be a neo-con response about "terrorist, blah, blah, Islamofacists .... blah, blah, self defense, yada, yada" but the numbers don't lie.
That's why I can't be a good little neo-con: I don't see the world in good versus evil, black and white, us versus them. I maintain that you can isolate "terrorists" politically by not giving them a cause. Well, like it or not, the Palestinian situation is a big cause for anyone not American, Israeli or in the Conservative Party of Canada.
Posted by: Geoff H | 2006-07-25 12:33:11 PM
Unsuited? I don't even need to hypothesize. How about Condie Rice?? "Here's some money for humanitarian help; now run because here comes another Israeli bomb (I just delivered them myself)". She just looks like she has no concept of the HISTORY of the region (i.e. like Harper et al she's focused on what's transpired over the last two weeks). Does she even know why Hezbollah was created in the first place? (i.e. as a response to the 1982 Israeli invasion)
Doe Peter McKay know anything? Does he care? (methinks not, for a guy who sold out his party and then lost his girlfriend to the Liberals :-) )
Posted by: Geoff H | 2006-07-25 12:42:18 PM
Your assertion of the "palestinian's" right of self defence is a false one. Palestinians and Arabs aren't defending themselves - they are the aggressors. It's their attacks that are responsible for Israel's reaction. If you dislike Israel's reaction, don't give them anything to react to.
Posted by: Warwick | 2006-07-25 12:43:31 PM
I'd say your lefty roots are coming out...
I'd also say that Dr. Condoleezza Rice PhD is a more than qualified candidate.
See here background here:
You show your own ignorance of the History of the region.
You mention the origin of Hezbollah but omit the reason for Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon. Do you think Israel invaded Lebonon just did it for fun?
Arafat's PLO was using Lebanon to launch terror attacks into Israeli territory after the Six Day War of '67. After the civil war that Arafat and his terrorists started in Lebanon the PLO had a mini-state in south Lebanon (as Hezbollah does today.)
It has also not occurred to you that an organization that you say is there for the purpose of getting Israel out of Lebanon would have been of limited use as Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000. Hezbollah didn't stop killing Jews.
To close, it may be best if in the future, you don't start an argument with "it just looks as if..." Your emotional observation of what you think Condi "looks like" is of dubious value.
Posted by: Warwick | 2006-07-25 1:05:59 PM
Warwick, Condi Rice is in there right now because she's willing to do Bush's dirty work (and it's not an easy job when your viewpoints are so wildly unpopular as the current US Administration's). She's a lapdog. Colin Powell knew that he couldn't, in good conscience, carry that message. So he "resigned" or was "pushed". Having a PhD doesn't give her more credibility with the rest of the world when the policy she's spouting is so biased and makes little diplomatic sense.
I'm hardly a lefty. Reading a description that you left in another thread, I'd say that I'm much like you (other than your thirst for war, or as you called yourself a "hawk"). I'm a fiscal conservative (probably even more to the right than most Conservatives in this country) but a social progressive (pro-choice, pro gay marriage, anti-racist, and pro-equal rights for people throughout the world - Jew and Palestinians alike).
Unlike, the "righties" here I don't diminish the lives of people. An innocent Jew dying in Haifa is the same as an innocent Muslim or Christian dying in Lebanon.
Four children under 8 from Montreal died last week in southern Lebanon. Your reaction, as with most neo-cons, would be "so what?". I consider them innocent, you probably consider them to be Hezbollah operatives. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Spare me the history lessons on Lebanon. Of course Israel had good reason to initially invade. But are you now going to justify the massacres for which Sharon was once indicted as well?? I'll have to dig up the link but Bin Laden once cited those massacres as "justification" for what became 9-11.
Posted by: Geoff H | 2006-07-25 1:19:44 PM
Neither Sharon nor the Israelis took part in that massacre. Sharon's guilt was limited to not stopping the massacre which they knew was likely. I guess the Israelis are responsible for the defence of their enemies?
Perhaps you can explain how that is different from Kofi Anan and Bill Clinton's inaction in Rwanda?
Oh, I forgot! Sharon is an Israeli Jew so always wrong in the eyes of the world.
Rice hasn't yet sold a policy on this latest crisis and given here past I'm sure she is well versed in the conflict's history. She has stated that any peace has to be lasting and sustainable. That is code for UN resolution 1559 must be enforced and Hezbollah has to get out of Lebanon. Seems reasonable enough to me. If the UN wasn't in favour of 1559, what did it pass it for?
As for civilian deaths, every one is a tragedy. The difference is why they died. I see civilian deaths that are not intended as a result of war targeting combatants as morally different than a civilian death due to a deliberate terrorist attack targeting civilians.
This is the difference between Hezbollah and Israel. Hezbollah launches attacks while hiding behind their own civilians and these attacks are aimed at Israeli civilians. These are war crimes. Hezbollah is responsible for both sets of deaths and is the reason they need to be defeated.
If Lebanon's regular army can gain the strength to take control of their whole country the chances for a real, lasting peace will improve. Weakening Hezbollah is the only way to accomplish this. Negotiating a ceasefire only prolongs the conflict, allows Hezbollah to regroup and rearm and ensures more attacks and counter-attacks to come. This is why I support Israel's actions. It's not because I want to see a whole lot of civilian deaths.
Posted by: Warwick | 2006-07-25 1:42:35 PM
Warwick, I agree with your entire last paragraph.
However, it is obvious to everyone that you will only have a lasting CHANCE at peace once Israel evacuates the entire West Bank and gives up its claim to Arab East Jerusalem (like resolution 1559, there's one on that as well - though there are many vindictive UN resolutions directed at Israel, why is it that the US and Israel dismiss EVERY UN resolution against Israel, yet cite 1559 ad nauseum???).
Posted by: Geoff H | 2006-07-25 1:48:33 PM
How bout this?
Israel goes into southern Lebanon and helps the Lebanese government keep the terms of 1559.
Win-win ... right?
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-07-25 1:53:43 PM
Set you free,
I agree!! I have no problem with 1559.
Then work on a Palestinian homeland. Just think, Bush's presidency is viewed as perhaps the worst in history. If he could get the Palestinians the homeland they wish, yet guarantee Israel's security, his reputation would be beyond reporoach. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone in his Administration gives a damn about the Palestinians, and so therefore, peace itself.
Posted by: Geoff H | 2006-07-25 2:10:33 PM
The reason there are few who give a damn about the Palestinians is that they seem not to give a damn about themselves.
What in hell is wrong with a group of people who send their 14 year old children to blow themselves up in the midst of a grocery store or pizza place?
The Palestinians main problem is their death cult. They care less about their own lives than they do about killing Jews. Whey they want to live more than they want to kill Jews, peace will be possible. Only then will it be possible.
The Palestinians have had the opportunity to gain their state at any time in exchange for nothing more than peace with Israel. All they have to do is behave. So far this has been too much to ask for. There is no "partner for peace" in the ME.
Posted by: Warwick | 2006-07-25 2:15:58 PM
They live in squalor. They have been let down by their own leadership (corrupt, violent) and pillaged and humiliated by Israel. What do you expect them to be like??
I agree that when Rabin was alive, their were some great opportunities. The Palestinians missed them.
Likewise, in recent years, the Israelis have made offers that are just not fair. I sound like a broken record but pre-1967 borders is the one agreement the entire world can agree to. Israel's right to exist would be confirmed and there would be no "occupation".
There are no partners for peace right now - on either side (Rabin was the last Israeli that was sincerely looking for peace). The world needs to put its foot down. Unfortunately, the US (at least until 2008) is not looking for an equitable settlement.
Posted by: Geoff H | 2006-07-25 2:25:43 PM
What evidence have you seen that I seemed to have missed about Palestinians wanting their own homeland?
The people there are descendants of Mohammedan invaders in the seventh century who overran lands which had been predominantly Christian.
They are pretty much professional victims ... never having or wanting their own self-rule. If they were on a football team, they would only play on the defensive side of the ball and refuse to carry the ball themselves.
At least, that's what the evidence shows.
After the fall of the Roman Empire, that part of the world was subject to the expansionism of the Second Great Jihad, the Ottoman Empire.
After the Ottomans were toppled, the area became a protectorate as the Allied powers carved up the area in the famous conference in Paris in 1919.
My point is, these people wouldn't know how to rule themselves. It's ingrained into them to be victims because it's all they know.
Their fellow Arabs in the region despise them (just check out middle eastern blog like www.bigpharaoh.com) and say they can't be trusted to keep their word.
They were offered a statehood they never had alongside Israel in 1948. They were offered statehood more recently, but that offer was rejected by Yasser Arafat.
They truly are pitiful.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-07-25 2:35:28 PM
Set you free,
I can't disagree with you. They are pitiful, and they live a pitiful existance. I'm just asying that if you want to avoid turmoil in that region, some overture must be made (perhaps help them to help themselves).
PERCEPTION can be a killer, and the perception right now, is that they are overrun by a US-backed Israel. The actions of the US in Iraq don't help. All this help ferment hatred against the US and Israel - some justified, some not.
They live in squalor, they can't help themselves. Then having to watch Russian Jews and "Instant Israelis" from Brooklyn living on the land you so desire, that has been in your family for centuries - well, you begin to see why the area is in conflict.
A columnist in the Washington Post recently wrote that setting up Israel in 1948 was a mistake but something that we have to live with (he's not being anti-Israel, just saying that the original intent was not well planned). I think he nailed it.
Posted by: Geoff H | 2006-07-25 2:46:08 PM
First of all, Geoff, it’s rather difficult to get past the “it would be better if I was President” claim, because that is pretty much what he said—as usual, he didn’t flesh it out in any meaningful way. Speechmakers may get paid by the word, but voters pay by weight of content, and Kerry came up short. Way short. Sometimes I wonder whether he even thinks this stuff up himself or whether his speechwriter (or even his trashy, gold-digging wife) does it for him.
Secondly, the U.S. has no legal or moral responsibility to act as the mediator in the ongoing turf war between Palestine and Israel. If I had seen video of Palestinians dancing in the street on September 11, and then been shown their foreign-aid bill (more per capita than anyone on Earth, much of it from the U.S.), I wouldn’t be terribly inclined to help out, either. It has never failed to amuse me that the Arab nations, who hate America, suddenly feign contriteness whenever the time comes to jerk Israel’s leash. That is the U.N.’s job, not America’s. The fact that America has power where the U.N. has none is irrelevant; ability does not equal responsibility.
Thirdly, I see no reason why Israel should not keep the land she won in the 1967 war, which she did not even start. U.N. dogma notwithstanding, to the victor belong the spoils. Only an idiot would go all in with someone holding all the high cards if all he had were a pair of dog-eared deuces, which was exactly what the Arabs did. If they wanted the land, they shouldn’t have put it on the betting table. If they want it back, they’ll have to offer something in return besides SCUD missiles and suicide bombers.
Oh, yes. And you are naïve.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2006-07-25 5:24:47 PM
No, Geoff. It is up to ISRAEL to guarantee Israel’s existence, which they do quite effectively against heavy odds. Palestinians were offered a partition in 1948. They chose terrorism, and in so doing, forfeited any claim to the land. The fact that the Palestinian cause has a lot of support makes no difference, because no Western country except the U.S. is even remotely inclined to do anything.
As for Harper moving Canada off the fence, it’s about time. It’s time Canadians stood for something and started being proud of who they are, instead of taking comfort in who they’re not.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2006-07-25 5:28:58 PM
Geoff wrote (rather petulantly, I might add): “Perhaps it's an apple-oranges comparison but the 9-11 attacks "DIRECTED at civilians" killed 3000 civilans while the Iraq invasion "NOT directed at civilians" has killed tens of thousands of civilians. Likewise, the Hezbollah attacks on civilans have killed less than fifty civilans, while the Israeli attacks "not on civilians" have killed over 400 civilians.
“I'm sure there'll be a neo-con response about "terrorist, blah, blah, Islamofacists .... blah, blah, self defense, yada, yada" but the numbers don't lie.”
Most of the civilians in Iraq were killed by other Iraqis, not Americans, but of course George Bush is a “neo-con” and so everything is his fault. And if you think those 50 Israelis are the ONLY civilians Hezbollah has ever killed, think again. Hezbollah cannot exist without the connivance of the local population; indeed, they hide themselves among them. And even the U.N. admits that it’s acceptable to risk civilian casualties to take out an enemy that won’t don a uniform and fight in the legal manner.
Numbers do indeed lie, when wielded by an ideologue. The truth doesn’t matter to you; you think the world should conform to your way of thinking, instead of adjusting your thinking to conform to the world. You cherry-pick whatever factoids seem to support your point of view, conveniently omitting the ones that don’t. Then you get all huffy and morally superior and blow people off like a contemptuous teen, mouthing over and over again, “I don’t SEE why this can’t be”; “I don’t SEE why that can’t be.”
You’re right about one thing. You don’t see.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2006-07-25 5:38:21 PM
Geoff wrote: “Warwick, Condi Rice is in there right now because she's willing to do Bush's dirty work (and it's not an easy job when your viewpoints are so wildly unpopular as the current US Administration's).”
Is there a SINGLE Leftist in this country who can get through a whole debate without crapping in Bush’s ashtray? He’s an obsession with you guys. For the sake of those people who DO boast a shred of maturity, get a room. Oh, and the “wildly unpopular Bush” won the election. Martin lost. Boo-hoo. And since when is negotiating a ceasefire “dirty work”?
Geoff wrote: “She's a lapdog. Colin Powell knew that he couldn't, in good conscience, carry that message. So he "resigned" or was "pushed". Having a PhD doesn't give her more credibility with the rest of the world when the policy she's spouting is so biased and makes little diplomatic sense.
She has more credibility than you, and probably less bias.
Geoff wrote: “I'm hardly a lefty. Reading a description that you left in another thread, I'd say that I'm much like you (other than your thirst for war, or as you called yourself a "hawk"). I'm a fiscal conservative (probably even more to the right than most Conservatives in this country) but a social progressive (pro-choice, pro gay marriage, anti-racist, and pro-equal rights for people throughout the world - Jew and Palestinians alike).”
Ah, yes—not a “liberal,” but a “progressive.” I’ve heard this argument before; it’s not convincing. This is not a case of “what’s in a name”; in the political arena, it’s what you say that counts, not what you say you are. And it shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that you can’t be both a fiscal conservative and a social progressive, because Leftists have yet to devise a way to make progressivism cheap.
Geoff wrote: “Unlike, the "righties" here I don't diminish the lives of people. An innocent Jew dying in Haifa is the same as an innocent Muslim or Christian dying in Lebanon.”
Yes, and more innocent people have died as a result of Islamic terrorist action than have died as a result of Israel’s incursions. The Middle East is a nest of vipers; only the tough survive. And yet the Israelis have not yet reached they point where they hate Arabs more than they love their own children. Strange, that.
Geoff wrote: “Four children under 8 from Montreal died last week in southern Lebanon. Your reaction, as with most neo-cons, would be "so what?". I consider them innocent, you probably consider them to be Hezbollah operatives. We'll have to agree to disagree.”
This sentence puts the lie to your previous assertion that an Israeli’s life is as important to you as a Lebanese’s or a Palestinian’s. You have yet to wring your hands over Israeli deaths.
Geoff wrote: “Spare me the history lessons on Lebanon. Of course Israel had good reason to initially invade. But are you now going to justify the massacres for which Sharon was once indicted as well?? I'll have to dig up the link but Bin Laden once cited those massacres as "justification" for what became 9-11.”
Ah, yes. No self-respecting liberal has any use for history (or math). Those are two subjects at which they almost universally seem to suck. Why do you wring your hands over the acts of a Lebanese Christian militia, but remain tight-lipped about the far huger atrocities committed by the janjaweed Islamic militias in Africa? It would appear that you have Louise Arbour’s highly selective and Israel-phobic vision. Your total one-sidedness makes no sense otherwise.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2006-07-25 5:52:41 PM
Geoff wrote: “They live in squalor. They have been let down by their own leadership (corrupt, violent) and pillaged and humiliated by Israel. What do you expect them to be like??”
Lots of countries have corrupt leaderships and have been “pillaged” and “humiliated” by their neighbours. Their citizens haven’t turned into mindless, death-seeking zombies. They receive more aid per capita than any other ethnicity, and have the strong moral support of all their neighbours except one. What do I expect from them? Better. Much, MUCH better.
Geoff wrote: “I agree that when Rabin was alive, their were some great opportunities. The Palestinians missed them.”
And they missed the one just handed to them—Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza strip and the dismantling of settlements, often incurring the anger of their own people in the process. They still screwed it up. They’re so obsessed with their own victimhood that they can’t get past it.
Geoff wrote: “Likewise, in recent years, the Israelis have made offers that are just not fair. I sound like a broken record but pre-1967 borders is the one agreement the entire world can agree to. Israel's right to exist would be confirmed and there would be no "occupation".”
Yes, you do sound like a broken record. Most ideologues do.
Geoff wrote: “There are no partners for peace right now - on either side (Rabin was the last Israeli that was sincerely looking for peace). The world needs to put its foot down. Unfortunately, the US (at least until 2008) is not looking for an equitable settlement.”
Funny how “the world” = “the U.S.” when a sewer has to be cleaned, but when the U.S. starts acting unilaterally, whoa, better slow down. This hypocrisy on the part of the Left is just delicious.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2006-07-25 5:59:06 PM
Shane, your head is so far up your neo-con ass, I'm surprised you haven't choked on it.
Yeah, you're no idealogue. You mention "liberal" how many times per post?? And that's a small "l" liberal you keep citing because you're a US-wannabe, some sort of Anne Coulter fanboy. Any self-respecting Canadian on the right attacks Liberals (big L, geddit) because they were an obvious target after years of wastage, fence-sitting, etc. But no, you wanna be a big Yankee Neo-Con, not some small-time Canuck Conservative.
"Can't be a social progessive and fiscal conservative at the same time"?? Social conservatives, like you, are so full of hate. It's got nothing to do with money. My taxes aren't going up to pay for gay marriage or women who make their own reproductive choices. It's not my business, so I'm not a hater like you. But yes, I do like lower taxes, stricter rules on welfare, etc - so wouldn't that make me a fiscal conservative?? I voted TWICE for Mike Harris, the most hated Premier in the history of Ontario, strictly for his tax policies. Guess I'm a true lefty.
If you love Bush and the USA!! USA!! USA!! so much, why don't become a reservist and go to Iraq and get yourself blown up by some sort of roadside mine. It's the least you can do for "your" country.
Re-read my posts. I decry the loss of ALL life that has nothing to do with direct conflict (i.e. innocent Israelis within Israel proper)
You actually made some very salient points about the Palestinians - which I wholeheartedly agree with - in the midst of your Coulter-like gnashing of teeth about "liberals". If you stuck to your points, and less about your ideology and obsession with the American Extreme Right (as in just right of the Nazis), you may just win me over.
No, go back to your Fox News and leave me the f*ck alone.
Posted by: Geoff H | 2006-07-25 6:29:30 PM
Furhermore, ShaMe, if you're gong to back-calculate about how many Israelis that Hezbollah has killed, then you might want to Google the number of Lebanese killed by Israel between 1982 and 2000. The numbers might scare you. And I know this might be a bit complicated for you, but you have to also factor in all of the deaths that occured DUE to the invasion that would not have occured otherwise (such as the Christian Militia massacres that Sharon was complicit in).
Likewise in Iraq, you have to include all the Iraqis that have died at the hands of Insurgents because the US created the situation and destabilization for the Insurgents to do what they're doing. Saddam was a lot of murderous things but there weren't any foreign Insurgents blowing people up when he was in power.
Now, as a good neo-con, you will likely tell me that the US invasion and occupation has perhaps led to 50,000 deaths but Saddam may have killed twice that number had he not been removed. Perhaps, but as with most half-baked neo-con theories, we'll never know, will we??
Posted by: Geoff H | 2006-07-25 6:47:33 PM
Shane Matthews -
Should I bother to try to learn what "neo-con" means? Geoff H uses that term a lot seemingly as a pejorative catch all anti-American phrase.
Conservatives don't need new names. It's the liberals who need to keep coming up with "Progressives" or something to replace the bullseye label: Communists. ; - )
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-07-25 7:29:53 PM
Another sign of the Leftist, Geoff, and that is calling names. Call names, hurl catcalls, define yourself by who you’re not. Yeah, you’re a real winner, all right. Little wonder you identify with perhaps the most pitiful bunch of losers ever to get airtime on the international media. If you have any lingering hopes of convincing anyone you’re anything but a Leftist, forget them.
“Social conservatives like you are so full of hate”? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Your screeds drip with the foulest bile, overflow with spite, and demonstrate an endless font of bitterness. You also demonstrate your shortsightedness by offering two hot-button issues of “social progressivism” and then try to make a case that because the cost for these two is (supposedly) small, that all socially progressive programs will have small cost. Unfortunately, history shows us that social programs cost money. No wonder you’re so disillusioned; you have irreconcilable internal philosophical conflicts. Kind of like being fat AND skinny. Or tall AND short. Or wanting to, anyway.
By the way. A recent poll commissioned by a California University actually found CNN to be CENTRIST, with Fox News only slightly to the Right. Yes, there are truly a lot of “conservatives” who like to dump on Bush, Fox, and Israel all in the same sentence. Oh yeah, we’re practically tripping over them.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2006-07-25 7:49:05 PM
Are we talking about the number of Lebanese killed by Israel, Geoff? Or, like a gun-control nut who rolls in suicides, accidents and legal-intervention shootings to buff his numbers, do you count ALL Lebanese who died in that country’s 15-year civil war, whether killed by Israelis or not? Because hey, everybody knows that terrorism is Israel’s fault. It is an international conspiracy of Jews plotting to take over the world. I wonder if you realize just how much Hitler you sound.
And no, I DON’T have to factor in all the deaths that resulted from the invasion. Because you have no guarantee that there would have been no civil war without Israel. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein has offed close to a million of his own people during his reign of terror, and the great majority of civilian deaths from 2003 onwards have happened not because of what the Americans have done, but in spite of their efforts to stop them—and over 2,500 have died trying to.
Your problem is that, like most Leftists, you're an immature and insecure narcissist. You think the world should reflect what you think instead of the other way round. You are prone to rely wholly on unsupportable conjecture, quick to leap to false conclusions, and all too eager to take up the cudgels if someone disagrees with you. Baiting you into revealing your true colours was indeed laughably easy. You have more in common with the Palestinian suicide bombers than most Canadian conservatives. Certainly you have the microscopic and hate-obsessed worldview.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2006-07-25 7:57:48 PM
Conrad, "neo-con" means "neo-conservative." The ironic thing is that those who are today called liberals have become the entrenched reactionaries, a reversal from the usual order of things and basically a hangover from the radical 1960s. In the classic sense, a "liberal" was someone who opposed oppressive laws and taxes. "That government governs best which governs least" is in truth a liberal axiom. Only to the generation that grew up since JFK died has liberal come to take on its present meaning in the U.S., and like everything else, it's something they've hijacked.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2006-07-25 8:00:15 PM
Shane, take a pill. That's the problem with conservatives - if someone disagrees with them, they practically shit their pants trying to refute them.
You can live by your Anne Coulter-Fox News-Dick Cheney-Karl Rove-Steve Harper brand of conservatism. Personally, I can call my beliefs anything I want. If I like low taxes but am not a hater like you, then that's just me. Perhaps I'm religious and don't believe in pre-marital sex. That would be conservative too.
You don't have to be a blood-thirsty, salivating hater to be called conservative. Just get over yourself already. I see your new buzzword is "Leftist". Oooh scary.
CNN is hardly centrist. Sure, they're not foaming at the mouth like Fox News, wishing to bomb anyone who doesn't agree with them. But they're hardly objective, and are deeply afraid of challenging the Amreican or Israeli positions. Just watching CNN tonight - all of the foreign correspondents are in Lebanon, the Yank ones in Israel (where they can be nice and safe).
Posted by: Geoff H | 2006-07-25 9:45:43 PM
Geoff wrote: "Shane, take a pill. That's the problem with conservatives - if someone disagrees with them, they practically shit their pants trying to refute them."
Unlike Leftists, who simply crank out as many insults and obscenities as they can think of, then flounce off claiming victory.
Geoff wrote: "You can live by your Anne Coulter-Fox News-Dick Cheney-Karl Rove-Steve Harper brand of conservatism. Personally, I can call my beliefs anything I want."
Go ahead, Shakespeare. Just don't be surprised if nobody but you understands your musings.
Geoff wrote: "If I like low taxes but am not a hater like you, then that's just me. Perhaps I'm religious and don't believe in pre-marital sex. That would be conservative too."
Here we come back to hate again. What would you Lefties have left in your arsenals if you were forbidden from making emotional attacks? To judge from the relentlessly personal tone of your posts, it would be the equivalent of putting duct tape on your mouth--you've had nothing left but air, which is equally unconvincing whichever orifice it emerges from.
Geoff wrote: "You don't have to be a blood-thirsty, salivating hater to be called conservative. Just get over yourself already. I see your new buzzword is "Leftist". Oooh scary."
And you don't have to be Papa Stalin or Little Mao to be called a Leftist. By the way, I prefer "Leftist" to "liberal" because those whom society today calls liberals are anything but, a point addressed in an earlier post. However, I think I trust the boys at Oxford more than a petulant adolescent in need of a good belting.
Geoff wrote: " CNN is hardly centrist. Sure, they're not foaming at the mouth like Fox News, wishing to bomb anyone who doesn't agree with them. But they're hardly objective, and are deeply afraid of challenging the Amreican or Israeli positions. Just watching CNN tonight - all of the foreign correspondents are in Lebanon, the Yank ones in Israel (where they can be nice and safe)."
Visit http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664 and see what UCLA political scientist Tim Groseclose has to say on the matter. Granted, this is only one study, but that's exactly one specific reference to a credible source more than you have managed to truck up in your entire sick exchange.
The fact that a media outlet doesn't sick up on Bush's shoes every time he walks by (unlike some people who are afraid to call themselves "Leftists") doesn't make them toadies or fraidy-cats. News is just that, news. If you want commentary, surf over to moveon.org. And I notice YOU are not in Lebanon OR Israel, which means you are even nicer and safer. At the risk of getting personal, you're a sanctimonious, hypocritical weenie. No wonder Canada is disappearing from the world stage, if they, along with the Democrats, have become the Western version of the Palestinians.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2006-07-26 7:29:28 AM
Saying one has to be your version of neutral to support a viable Palestinian state has nothing to do with right and wrong.
Case in point, Hamas and Hisbollah exist to destroy the State of Israel. There can be no neutral position on this whatsoever. This issue is as old as the ages. It is like saying that because T-rex needs to eat, and you are its food, that a neutral position is neccessary, in order for T-rex to eat you.
Being against the terrorist groups is a legitimate position.
You cannot have a neutral position on terror!
The notion that this is true is totally baseless!
Being against terrorists is also a principled position, because one is against terrorists here, there and everywhere inbetween.
It is a matter of equality as a principle, and a position that respects the rights of people to safety and security all the time.
Being neutral merely means absconding one's self, from a position, whereby others would sooner kill you than look at you.
If you ignore the facts as they are, you would then agree that women, such as myself, should be locked up, covered up, and raped by their men folk, without a means of defending themselves, as is evident under shariah.
I would not that my government would be neutral on that, so I expect my government to not be neutral on terrorists and terrorism.
And, in case you are wondering, and to inform your loose numb-skull of the facts, Israel has done more to help the Palestinian Authority gain self determination, than any other entity out there, in the history of the existence of the Palestinian Arabs, as they were created, in 1967.
The Palestinian Arabs, on the other hand, have walked away from the negotiation table.
The Palestinian arabs have elected a terrorist government into power.
The Palestinian Arabs have declared their desire to destroy the State of Israel, in the open.
Canada, and all free nations have the obligation to recognize the fact that the Hamas position, is a position of war!
And the State of Israel, has the right to defend herself against all terrorists!
And, if you think for one second, that there are only two nations on the planet, who are oppossed to the terrorists, well, you happen to be dead wrong, once again!
The entire western world is oppossed to terrorists.
The issue has never been with whether to be against them, but rather in how they should be dealt with!
And, when it comes to acts of war, there is no gray area whatsoever! Hisbollah and Hamas are waging war against the tiny State of Israel.
Israel is a State, and has the right to defend herself.
Hamas and Hisbollah are not States, and they have no right to attack civilians, and wage war against a State, whether here, there or anywhere! They have no right to organize violence, and own and operate war machinery as such.
And those who have been financing this terrorist effort, are in violation of International law!
And folks like you, who try to sell neutrality on terrorism, disgust me!
Posted by: Lady | 2006-07-26 1:44:40 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.