quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:

I don't even think I'm being overly idealistic. My take on the situation is this: Israel's imperative is security, Palestine's is nationhood, and on top of that there are overlapping territorial claims.

These things are not irresolvable, and not mutually exclusive.
The Arab neighbors have made very clear in the last 50 years, four wars and relentless terrorism that their true goal is the annihilation of Israel, not peace with Israel in ANY form.
If this were not so, then Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and a large bloc of the Egyptian people, if not the Egyptian government, would not all be actively funding, or otherwise endorsing/enabling terrorism against Israel.

How does the recent Arab League proposal sponsored by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia fit into that theory?

You acknowledge that the Egyptian (and the Jordanian and Turkish governments) have very normal relations with Israel. How does this fit into your theory?

quote:



As I said prior, Palestine's statehood is just a stepping stone, on the path toward further terrorism toward Israel, and Israel's eventual destruction. I've yet to see any evidence of goodwill by the PLO or any surrounding Arab nations, beyond lip service to peace.
Do you honestly mean to say, then that you do not think there should be a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank?

quote:


quote:
Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:


This is what is patently obvious about it

there's been fighting in that region since before there was a 'United States'.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:


Eh? You mean the Crusades? The Ottoman Empire had fighting in Central Asia. There was not a fear and loathing of a Jewish state until the Jewish state was created.
I think that's rather the point, counter to the point you were making, T-Dave:
The Arabs are extremely hostile to the existence of Israel, in any shape or form.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave:

And world opinion is not something the US has ever been bothered by, anyway
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:

As in, the US is increasingly prone to doing as it will, unilaterally, without paying heed to consensus. So if it decided to go and do a Judge Judy, it could.

On the Bill Moyers program I mentioned earlier, there was a panel of scholars, many who favored the Arab and European perspective of Israel (i.e., pro-Palestinian ), and repeatedly condemned U.S. support of Israel, and other U.S. foreign policy as "simplistic", to which Charles Krauthhammer finally responded that U.S. "simplicity" had bailed out European sophistication three times in the last century (referring to U.S. action in WW I, WW II and the collapse of the Eastern Bloc between 1989-1991.
A glib, ludicrous answer from Krauthammer. US simplicity consisted of incredible reluctance to be involved in opposing tyranny until well after the event had started. It consisted of the long standing school of thoguht that it should not be part of Europe's wars, and that the rest of the world should be left to its own problems.

The fact that the US had the resoucres to stem of swing the tide is something else entirely from its policies.

I'm gratified that there is now a proclativity towards international proactive conduct. Heads out of the sand, and a realisation that the globe is smaller. Sept 11th should have taught Americans that, if nothing else.

quote:


I'd also add the 1991 Persian Gulf War, which was the equivalent of neutralizing Hitler in 1938, before Hitler became a threat).

The point being, any number of times, American unilateralism has occurred in similar circumstances, when the rest of the world refuses to act.

The Gulf War was a coalition war. I don;t see your point on that.

quote:

We've seen how effective U.S. cooperation with U.N. policy and world opinion has worked in bringing down Saddam Hussein's government in the last 12 years.
(As in completely INeffective.)
Hang on a minute. Since when it is in the UN charter to bring down governments?

There is a pervasive school of thought in the US that the UN is something which it is not - the tool of the West. It is not, and was never meant to be so. It is a forum for diplomacy, not somehting the US (or anyone else) can count on to do its bidding.

quote:


And even with the U.S. complying with U.N. resolutions in Iraq, which provides enough of an economy for Saddam Hussein to more than provide for his people, the U.S. is blamed by the Arab world and liberals worldwide for the suffering of the Iraqis.
The suffering of the Iraqis is due to the whims of Saddam in refusing to allow weapons inspectors in. Sanctions were the only leverage available againt Iraq.

I agree with you though if you're saying that Arabs have an unhappy history of externalising blame.

quote:

So if we comply with world opinion we're vilified, and if we invade Iraq and try to put an end to Hussein's tyranny, then we're arrogantly acting unilaterally, and imperialists and so forth.
You're now drifting in your argument away from something which I think you were weak on, towards invading Iraq (which I agree with).
quote:


Same thing in Afghanistan.
Huh? World opinion is with the US on this. the complaints I have heard have been about the number of civilian casualties. Overall, there is recognition that the US is going out of its way to avoid civilian casualties by using expensive smart weaponry (it'd be cheaper to use dumb bombs, but higher in civilian deaths). The current complaint it that the US is not willing to help Afghanistan in nation building, unwilling to match the contributions of Japan and the EU.
quote:

Same thing in Bosnia.
Same here. Which newspapers were you reading?
quote:

Same thing in Somalia.
US opinion was to get out when soldiers were killed. World opinion favoured the military and humanitarian intervention.
quote:


Same thing in Haiti.
How was world opinion against intervention in Haiti? My recollection was that the only complaint was, again, the half-heart job. Lack of committment to getting a job done is a valid cause for complaint.
quote:


Same thing in Kosovo.
And other places, I forget.
And again, wrong. How on earth was world opinion against US inetervention in Kosovo? I remember headlines screaming for a land assult, and the US being criticised for relying upon aircraft.

Something tells me that your version of world opinion, shaped by your media which in turn provides your public with the news it wants to hear - that the US is an unappreciated martyr for its efforts - is quite different from the media I hear.