Iraqis in Iran chant "death to America!"

[Wayne Grabert]

They don't want Saddam. They don't want America. They're just so damned fussy! (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=1HYAG55ASH4NKCRBAEZSF EY?type=worldNews&storyID=2550552)

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iraqis stormed their embassy in the Iranian capital on Friday, tearing down photographs of Saddam Hussein but also chanting "Death to America."

Iran's supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei welcomed the overthrow of the Iraqi leader by U.S. troops but urged them to quit Iraq immediately.

"You toppled Saddam, so now leave," he said in a sermon at Friday prayers attended by tens of thousands of worshippers.

(snip)

Chanting "Death to Saddam," "Death to America" and "We want a democratic government," the protesters, including women wearing the traditional black chador, carried banners of the Badr Brigade, SCIRI's armed wing which it says numbers tens of thousands of fighters.

The occupation ended after three hours when police arrested about 50 people. Police also confiscated film and cassettes from news photographers and television cameramen, witnesses said. No Iraqi diplomats were present at the time.

There are about 200,000 Iraqis living in Iran, many of them Shi'ite Muslims who fled their country after a failed Shi'ite uprising against Saddam in 1991 at the end of the Gulf War.

To Jedi Knight: Jedi, since you are arguably the most articulate and perceptive of the conservatives on this board, IMHO, what is your perspective on this? Could this be trouble for the occupation?

[crackmonkey]

You're surprised that some Shi'ite extremists hate America? What's newsworthy here - that some of them used to live in Iraq?

[kedo1981]

Just so we know; do you want it to be trouble for the “occupation”?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
To Jedi Knight: Jedi, since you are arguably the most articulate and perceptive of the conservatives on this board, IMHO, what is your perspective on this? Could this be trouble for the occupation?

Wayne: Is this your attempt to out-Jedi him?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
You're surprised that some Shi'ite extremists hate America?
Oh, so if they hate America, they're extremists? Compared to whom? The great mass of America-loving, politically moderate Shi'ites in southern Iraq? :D

Surprise! The Shi'ites in Iraq, not just the exiles in Iran, have been saying that American troops should leave soon after Saddam was toppled. Here is an indication (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-08-chalabi-icover-usat_x.htm) of how moderate they are:

In a potential complication for both Chalabi and prospects for democracy, Chalabi, ironically, has forged an alliance of convenience with Iran, a non-Arab Shiite Muslim country that Bush has included, along with Iraq and North Korea, in a so-called "axis of evil."

But his support among Iraq's Arab Shiites is minuscule compared to backing for senior Iraqi clerics, such as Ayatollah Mohammed Baqikr al-Hakim. Hakim heads another exile faction, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI).

Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East expert at the Congressional Research Service, says Iran is acquiescing in the U.S. ouster of Saddam and support for Chalabi — for now. "SCIRI has a true power base in Iraq with guerrilla fighters and a network of activists," Katzman says. "They feel it would be very easy to get rid of Chalabi after the Americans pull out."

Shiite clerics still in Iraq are demanding that a new government include significant representation for Shiites, who comprise two-thirds of Iraq's 24 million people. In telephone interviews, the clerics also say they want a speedy end to the U.S. military presence in the country.

"Since it's the Americans who've come to free Iraq, the Americans can stay and put things together again and help organize elections," says Sheikh Yussef al-Khirallah, a cleric in the southern Iraqi town of Rifa'i. "But we're hoping the Americans will leave soon."

Senior officials in neighboring Sunni Arab countries fear that a more democratic Iraq would bring to power a Shiite theocracy like that in Iran.

Leon Fuerth, former national security adviser to Al Gore, warned a conference of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington last week that regime change can have unintended consequences. He reminded the audience that in 1953, the CIA engineered the return to power of the pro-Western Shah of Iran. The Shah was overthrown in 1979 and replaced by a radical theocracy headed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Iran remains the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism, according to the State Department .

"You all happy with what we got in his (the Shah's) aftermath?" Fuerth asked.

SCIRI is the same group mentioned in the link of the first post of this thread.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Wayne: Is this your attempt to out-Jedi him?
LOL.

[crackmonkey]

Yes. Iran had essentially a proxy army near the Iranian border, Shi'ite zealots. Some of these want to collect some Yankee scalps. On the other hand, many of the Shi'ites in Baghdad and in the southern marshes are delighted with George Bush, but don't want a prolonged American presence in Iraq. The two views are distinctly different. Not a difficult concept.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
They don't want Saddam. They don't want America. They're just so damned fussy! (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=1HYAG55ASH4NKCRBAEZSF EY?type=worldNews&storyID=2550552)

To Jedi Knight: Jedi, since you are arguably the most articulate and perceptive of the conservatives on this board, IMHO, what is your perspective on this? Could this be trouble for the occupation?

You mean liberation?

I don't see anything unusual with that display of protest against America and the former Iraqi regime. The Shai have always despised Saddam because of the Iraq-Iran War, and the two states have been cultural competitors. The Iranians are Persians and separate themselves from other states in the middle east in an eye of superiority.

The Iranian religious leadership cells get folks wound up from time to time to direct attention away from their own failed regime. That happens in every nation-state system from North Africa through the Middle East and Persia. They push the misery of the people away from the regimes that rule them and onto the shoulders of the "Great Satan" and Israel.

Now, what the leftist media failed to mention in the article, which they do deliberately, is that there are millions of Iranians that would love to be liberated by the United States. They want to be free and they want Brittany Spears posters and MTV.

The Iranian regime knows that the Pentagon has every building inside Iran topographically integrated into war plans. Iranian military generals know that what happened to Iraq could happen to Iran in roughly the same amount of time. The same with Syria.

That means that nothing will endanger the liberation of the Iraqi people if the US doesn't allow it, and Iran is merely blowing off some steam to keep their people busy. I wish the leftist global media would talk about the millions of people that are not in the minority protesting over there who wish freedom, but the leftist media isn't really that interested when populations become free.

Where to worry about Iran--I would worry about Iran developing and deploying nuclear weapons. After the war in Iraq, these Islamofascist countries now know beyond a doubt that if you want to engage the United States militarily you better have nuclear weapons. The US used Roswell technology on Iraq and countries around the world are sweating at how militarily superior we are. Superior conventional capability attacks Islomofascist regimes directly even if military power is not used against them because these regimes constantly tell their internal populations that Allah is connected to the regime's survival. Well, when a country like Iraq falls by the waist-side in two weeks, that doesn't say much for Allah, does it?

That is why every nation-state actor that has a muslim connection will pursue nuclear weapons development if they have the resources. It is the only way to bring the United States to the bargaining table and relatively assure the survival of Islamofascism. That is why Iran is building nuclear weapons and designing them in Tehran University, and has recently built a new Uranium enrichment facility using centrifuges.

The United States, IMO, is going to be forced to confront these regimes because nuclear proliferation must end if the human race is going to survive. Nuclear weapons in the hands of a mass religious cult like Islam is very, very bad. If Islam was, by its nature, a tolerant religion, then states whose sole religious institution was Islam wouldn't form a crisis when acquiring advanced nuclear technology. The radical left exacerbates this problem by using the leftist global media to say that Islamofascist regimes need to be respected for their "diversity" and "multiculturalism". Nothing could be further from the truth. Islamic states are demonstrating a level of fascism not seen since the National Socialists ran Germany and the Nazi state.

I see no diversity and multiculturalism in Islamic states. I only see grave and imminent danger.

JK

[Wayne Grabert]

You see? That's what I mean. No one else gave me such a thorough and thoughtful a reply.

I am skeptical of your claim about Iranians wanting the US to liberate them, JK. A couple times before I've cited articles indicating that pro-democracy Iranians living in Iran do not want U.S. help. They don't trust the United States. However, who wouldn't want Britney Spears posters? (Schwing!)

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

I see no diversity and multiculturalism in Islamic states. I only see grave and imminent danger.

JK
Would that include Iraq?

[Gem]

Didn't the Americans in 1953 (might be wrong ont he date) used the CIA to overthrow their democracies and install the Shah? When they rebelled in the late 1970s, weren't they pissed at the American puppet regime? Aren't they happy that America supported Iraq (old news, really) in the Iran-Iraq war? That's the double standard the US is blamed to have.

I don't buy the "supporting the lesser evil" theory, considering that they could have supported the "lesser good" back then.

My view of the situation is that the moderates in Iran should get control WITHOUT American intervention, because then it would show the world that Islam IS compatible with democracy.

It seems sometimes that people forget there's a political spectrum on all issues.

Gem

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Gem
My view of the situation is that the moderates in Iran should get control WITHOUT American intervention, because then it would show the world that Islam IS compatible with democracy.

But is democracy compatible with Christianity? (http://www.bettybowers.com/nl-nov2001.html)

[Gem]

But is democracy compatible with Christianity?
Or Pluto's Republic?
odd, pluto ranked democracy right next to tyrany.
but he's probably gonna be discredited because he has communist ideas (it really looks like it).

Ironic if you ask me.

Gem

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Gem

Or Pluto's Republic?
odd, pluto ranked democracy right next to tyrany.
but he's probably gonna be discredited because he has communist ideas (it really looks like it).

Pluto (http://www.teemings.com/shorts/disney/characters/pluto.html) a communist? I thought he was apolitical. :eek:

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem

Or Pluto's Republic?
odd, pluto ranked democracy right next to tyrany.
but he's probably gonna be discredited because he has communist ideas (it really looks like it).

Ironic if you ask me.

Gem

You mean Plato lol. Pluto's Republic hehe.

JK

[corplinx]

Isn't the press in Iran saying we are killing civillian Iraqis by the boatload and trying to occupy Iraq to steal their oil and defeat Islam?

In other words, the Iraqis in Iran are chanting just what I would expect them to.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
You see? That's what I mean. No one else gave me such a thorough and thoughtful a reply.

I am skeptical of your claim about Iranians wanting the US to liberate them, JK. A couple times before I've cited articles indicating that pro-democracy Iranians living in Iran do not want U.S. help. They don't trust the United States. However, who wouldn't want Britney Spears posters? (Schwing!)


Would that include Iraq?

I think that Syria and Iran are making some very grave mistakes in their reaction to the democratization of Iraq. Syria is taking Baath Party members into the country thinking that they will reestablish themselves later.

Iran is already sending arms and equipment to the Shai in Southeastern Iraq to support a potential fracturing of the country at a later date and the absorption of Basra.

To me, I think that the US is going to be put into the position where we have to liquidate both Syria and Iran. It may not happen soon, but a collection of circumstances that form a piling on will lead to war with those countries. If we don't go to war with Syria at the minimum I will be surprised.

JK

[Gem]

If we don't go to war with Syria at the minimum I will be surprised.

Thereby confirming the conspiracy theory that the US wants to dominate the whole middle east.

The US ain't going into Syria this presidential term my friend JK, it's going there (or iran) next term.
If history repeats itself, Bush Senior wasn't reelected even if the Gulf War was tremendously succesful.

But 9/11 might be the ticket.

Gem

Edited to add: Oh yes, it is Plato. Damn I feel silly.

[Tricky]

Actually, this could be just the break Bush needs. If the locals don't want us there, then we are free to leave at any time. We don't have to rebuild the infrastructure, we don't have to bring democracy, we don't have to do squat, because they have asked us to leave. It is the best of both worlds for Bush, because Daddy is avenged, but he doesn't have to bother with that troublesome post-war stuff.

I can see the it now: "We tried to liberate them but those dumb Arabs don't know how to be liberated, so we're just gonna let them fight it out among themselves."

Another benefit is that if anyone asks us where the WMDs are, we can say, "we knew exactly where they were, but since they asked us to leave, we can't show you." Oh, this is a happy day for the Bushies.:rolleyes:

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem


Thereby confirming the conspiracy theory that the US wants to dominate the whole middle east.

The US ain't going into Syria this presidential term my friend JK, it's going there (or iran) next term.
If history repeats itself, Bush Senior wasn't reelected even if the Gulf War was tremendously succesful.

But 9/11 might be the ticket.

Gem

Edited to add: Oh yes, it is Plato. Damn I feel silly.

What I am talking about isn't a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are cool and I like them especially the JFK conspiracy theories and the TWA Flight 800 conspiracy theories, etc, but what I am talking about is different than a conspiracy theory.

No, what I am talking about is real world events that cause war. For example, a Syrian soldier shot and killed a US soldier today in Iraq. Those are the types of incidents that can lead to war between nation-states.

Syria is taking in members of the Baath Party into the country, fully knowing that the US is looking for every one of them. That can lead to war.

Syria is shipping tons of arms and ammunition into Iraq. That can lead to war.

It only takes a very small but precise trigger for wars to start. I think Syria is stepping on that trip-wire now. I say that not as a conspiracy theory, but in reaction to what occurs when a hostile terrorist state (Syria) interacts with a democracy in a negative way (The United States).

I think Syria's days are numbered. Maybe we should start a clock.

JK

[Gem]

True, but there are many more things to consider declaring war on another country, even a weak one like syria.
Political: After Iraq, it is possible we get mroe friends because some (not all) friends, but attacking another country so quickly will be perceived by center leaning people as war mongering (talking about those who were undecided/for the war who will change their minds). Iraq was also a diplomatic gone bad, another invasion will further complicate peace in the region (Bush does want to stop the palestinian-israeli conflict).
But here's the good news: Iraq touches syria and jordan, two isreal potential threats. Let's just say that having the Americans at your back makes you nervous at night.
Economical: OPEC didn't put embargos and lower production because
1: they're greedy
2: Saddam isn't their good old buddy, since he captured Kuwaiti oil (wasn't it an OPEC country?)
If they attack syria, the population might be more angry. Iraq qas ok, not many liked saddam. But Syria is another thing.

Also, consider this.
The official reason the US got involved in North Viet Nam was because they attack one of their ships. (The real reason we all know why). It is because of this that I beleive Syria will not be invaded on a trivil issue of weapon shipments (like russia), and holding Baath party members. Bush had a hard time convincing the world with the WMD argument, that "weapon shipment" will just be very hard, if not impossible.

Right now however, they're going to North Korea. North korea "is" learning from Iraq, by giving ground (agreeing to multilateral talks). But North Korea probably won't attack south korea or Japan, because it knows that the US is capable of the "shock and awe" doctorine, and will not be detered by world opinion and UN.

Like I said before, wait for the next presidential term for the next war. I garantee there's going to be another war int he region.

Gem

Eddited to add: A clock like sylvia's clock? only this time it will actually come true?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Tricky
Actually, this could be just the break Bush needs. If the locals don't want us there, then we are free to leave at any time. We don't have to rebuild the infrastructure, we don't have to bring democracy, we don't have to do squat, because they have asked us to leave. It is the best of both worlds for Bush, because Daddy is avenged, but he doesn't have to bother with that troublesome post-war stuff.

I can see the it now: "We tried to liberate them but those dumb Arabs don't know how to be liberated, so we're just gonna let them fight it out among themselves."

Another benefit is that if anyone asks us where the WMDs are, we can say, "we knew exactly where they were, but since they asked us to leave, we can't show you." Oh, this is a happy day for the Bushies.:rolleyes:
Yes, and as you probably are aware, a bad day to come for the rest of us.

The risk is that Iraq could become another Afghanistan circa 2001. Usama has to be loving the current turn of events and relishing the future, especially since Afghanistan is once again becoming another Afghanistan circa 2001.

The amateurs in the Bush Leage Administration (BLA), now that they've opened the Pandora's Box, will continue to make missteps. Instead of making the Arabs think twice by letting the UN play a major political role and reducing the US profile in Iraq, they will confirm (rightfully so) all of the Arabs' worst suspicions by installing a puppet and maintaining a large US/UK military presence and relegating the UN to sharing the costs of humanitarian assistance. The BLA will continue the propaganda war against Syria and Iran. At Israel's request, (http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.04.11/news1.html) the circle may be widened to include Lebanon.

Of course, the terrorists will attack the troops, but they'll also come here. Hell, they're practically being invited!

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Gem

Like I said before, wait for the next presidential term for the next war. I garantee there's going to be another war int he region.

No, we probably won't have to wait (http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,935959,00.html) that long.
The United States has pledged to tackle the Syrian-backed Hizbollah group in the next phase of its 'war on terror' in a move which could threaten military action against President Bashar Assad's regime in Damascus.

The move is part of Washington's efforts to persuade Israel to support a new peace settlement with the Palestinians. Washington has promised Israel that it will take 'all effective action' to cut off Syria's support for Hizbollah - implying a military strike if necessary, sources in the Bush administration have told The Observer .
Apparently, Israel thinks the US is its proxy. (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=283271&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y)
Israel to U.S.: Now deal with Syria and Iran
By Aluf Benn

Two of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior aides will go to Washington for separate talks this week. National Security Advisor Efraim Halevy will discuss the regional implications of the Iraq war and the fall of the Ba'ath regime, and the prime minister's bureau chief Dov Weisglass will bring the White House Israel's comments on the "road map" plan for a peace settlement.

Israel will suggest that the United States also take care of Iran and Syria because of their support for terror and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Israel will point out the support of Syria and Iran for Hezbollah, which the U.S. considers an important target in the war against international terrorism.

American officials recently said in closed conversations that the U.S. will act against Syria and Iran, but not by military means. Let's hope the "not by military means" part holds true.

[corplinx]

My guess is we won't have to invade Syria to take care of Hezbollah.

Hezbollah is a serious destabilizing force in that region and if we had any balls we would have taken care of them after they, the PLO, and Islamic Jihad turned beirut into rubble.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by corplinx
Hezbollah is a serious destabilizing force in that region and if we had any balls we would have taken care of them after they, the PLO, and Islamic Jihad turned beirut into rubble.
I thought that was Sharon and the IDF.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

I thought that was Sharon and the IDF.

I think you are thinking of Gozilla and Rodan who turned tokyo into rubble.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by corplinx


I think you are thinking of Gozilla and Rodan who turned tokyo into rubble.
I think you are revising history. Here is reality. (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/israel-palestine/2001/0627shar.htm)
For it's also worth remembering just what the Israelis did when they reached Beirut in 1982; they surrounded it with gunboats and tanks and bombed it from the air. Mr Sharon's men have already done the same, on a smaller scale, against Gaza. The story of Gaza in 2001, complete blockade, attacks with F-16s and gunboats and tanks, is exactly the same story as Beirut in 1982.

And, of course, it was Mr Sharon in 1982 who invented the 2,000 "terrorists" in Sabra and Chatila - in reality packed with unarmed civilians - before sending the Phalange into the camps.

[Mel]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I think that Syria and Iran are making some very grave mistakes in their reaction to the democratization of Iraq. Syria is taking Baath Party members into the country thinking that they will reestablish themselves later.

Iran is already sending arms and equipment to the Shai in Southeastern Iraq to support a potential fracturing of the country at a later date and the absorption of Basra.

To me, I think that the US is going to be put into the position where we have to liquidate both Syria and Iran. It may not happen soon, but a collection of circumstances that form a piling on will lead to war with those countries. If we don't go to war with Syria at the minimum I will be surprised.

JK

I agree, Jedi.

This whole situation is like some kind of surreal choreographed ballet..... each action & reaction has been carefully considered and the Bush administration is COUNTING on a number of Arab countries of playing into their game plans.

Syria sure is cooperative, Iran is taking a little more time to get with the program.

I can fairly feel Saudi Arabia shaking with fear..... they are the big prize.

IMO, if we DON'T follow through on this unfolding plan..... it will be one more example of the US starting something and not seeing it through to completion.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Thankfully most of still hold out hope that we can elect a non-war monger in the next election. Then we can focus on doing what Bush has publically claimed we will do. We can actually START supporting Afganistan and we can help rebuild Iraq.

Too bad the democrats are such pussies and most republicans favor Bush. I don't think Nader has even considered what would happen if he somehow won.

Originally posted by Mel


I agree, Jedi.

This whole situation is like some kind of surreal choreographed ballet..... each action & reaction has been carefully considered and the Bush administration is COUNTING on a number of Arab countries of playing into their game plans.

Syria sure is cooperative, Iran is taking a little more time to get with the program.

I can fairly feel Saudi Arabia shaking with fear..... they are the big prize.

IMO, if we DON'T follow through on this unfolding plan..... it will be one more example of the US starting something and not seeing it through to completion.

[Mel]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot
Thankfully most of still hold out hope that we can elect a non-war monger in the next election. Then we can focus on doing what Bush has publically claimed we will do. We can actually START supporting Afganistan and we can help rebuild Iraq.

Too bad the democrats are such pussies and most republicans favor Bush. I don't think Nader has even considered what would happen if he somehow won.



I agree that the democrats have been painfully SILENT and that in itself scares me.

It's nice to 'dream' of electing a "non-war monger" in the upcoming elections but do you honestly believe that would placate the masses in the Middle East? Would they automatically stop hating America and put aside their silly thoughts of exporting terrorism all over the free world?

IMO, the second we entered this war in Iraq is the time we started a major chain of events and I'm afraid we can't just call "Time out" in this game. At this point..... we are LESS safe than we were a few months ago & THIS is no time to stop and ask Muslim fundamentalists, "OK..... have you had enough yet?"

This is a question of a whole REGION hating infidels MORE than they care about the well being of their own citizens. They are more than content to continue using their own citizens as pawns so their own corrupt governments may stay in power.

To really address the problem, we MUST convince each govt. in the region that EXPORTING terrorism outside their own borders is no longer acceptable and will NOT be permitted.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot
Thankfully most of still hold out hope that we can elect a non-war monger in the next election. Then we can focus on doing what Bush has publically claimed we will do. We can actually START supporting Afganistan and we can help rebuild Iraq.

That's too long to wait.

You can try writing to your newspapers and Congressmen to get some ideas and sense in the air. It's not too late to salvage some good from the bad situation.

We can "deal with" Syria and Iran regarding Hezbollah non-militarily, but it would require a major psychological shift in the Bush League Administration (BLA)--dealing with other heads of state with respect.

Rummy has already played the bad cop. Sharon has signaled a softening of his stance and now says he's ready to cede some settlements (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=535&ncid=535&e=7&u=/ap/20030413/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_8) for peace and that there may be new opportunities for peace. What if Bush were to start with Syria by inviting Assad to Washington, treating him with all the dignity and respect accorded a visiting head of state, and discuss the "vital role" Syria needs to play to establish a Palestinian state? (These guys like their egos to be stroked and it makes it easier for them to make concessions and save face with their people when making them if they are regarded by the other party with respect and importance.) Syria, and then Iran could be made to understand how ending support for Hezbollah was essential to the "roadmap" to peace and the establishment of Palestinian sovereignty.

Peace between Israel and Palestine would go a looooong way towards rectifying the overall situation in that region. If the BLA were to also allow the UN and international peacekeepers to play a larger role in both Iraq and Afghanistan, that would also ameliorate matters. Then some of all those billions of dollars that would have been spent waging war and (on less than half-ass attempts at) reconstruction in other Middle Eastern countries could be used to truly improve the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

$75-billion and counting for war and occupation in Iraq, a measly $300-million (added in at the last minute!) for reconstruction in Afghanistan! (That's a 250:1 ratio, folks--0.4%.)

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Mel

I agree that the democrats have been painfully SILENT and that in itself scares me.

That's why we need to get behind this guy. (http://www.sharptonexplore2004.com/) He doesn't shut up.

[Mel]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

That's why we need to get behind this guy. (http://www.sharptonexplore2004.com/) He doesn't shut up.

Yes, just what this country needs..... another buffoon for President.


I liked your previous post and I agree with what you said...... but then we would have to keep our collective fingers crossed and hope:

1) Bush has suddenly learned the fine art of diplomacy

2) Assad wants peace? I think we're treading on thin ice but hey..... it's possible.

3) Iran doesn't suddenly & visciously clamp down on its own citizens rather than allow silly ideas like democracy spread beyond their borders.

4) Sharon won't blow a gasket when the PLO once again turns down Israel's offer. And he can remain calm even WHILE the suicide bombers try to derail the peace process.

5) Anybody besides the Jews & the USA actually WANTS peace in Israel....... it's not everyday that you find such convenient pawns as the Palestinians.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Mel

2) Assad wants peace? I think we're treading on thin ice but hey..... it's possible.

Hey, I've always felt the same towards Sharon, but you have to push the envelope.

After the last 2 1/2 years, I think the Palestinians may be willing to surrender their "rights of return" within Israel in exchange for Israel's surrender of settlements in the occupied territories. It's a deal they both should make, but it is easier said than done. Israel's hardcore right wing would feel betrayed by such a deal. Of course, they'd feel betrayed by any deal that would surrender a square inch of the West Bank or Gaza Strip, so surrendering settlements too isn't that much bigger a leap--though the sh*t would hit the fan.

[crackmonkey]

To comment on an earlier point... Israel didn't destroy Beirut. They merely kicked around the rubble that the Palestinians and Hezbollah created. Lebanon was 'liberated' when the IDF withdrew, and Syria marched right in after them. It's not often that I hear Syrian occupation of Lebanon condemned the same way as the Israeli occupation of Gaza...
With Hamas and Hezbollah in the picture, do you really think that any political settlement between the Palestinains and Israel is possible?

[Mel]

It sure doesn't look good, does it?

Unless the surrounding governments in the region are ready, willing and able to stop meddling in the affairs of Israel and the Palestinians, it really isn't "safe" for Israel to make deals with the PLO.