Ohhhh, yeah! Absolutely!

I would add that Aghast seems not only desirous of treating it as a law enforcement problem but a reward for terrorism by having them come to the table of empowerment zones.

I’m sorry. That would be the exact wrong thing to do.

“Otherwise, the period between 1993 and 2001 was a waste, eight years of sleepwalking, of the absurd pursuit of one treaty more useless than the last, while the rising threat—Islamic terrorism—was treated as a problem of law enforcement.”

Thanks for the reference.

I would certainly lump a government that sponsors terrorism that targets innocent civilians as many things. I don’t know about rapists and psychos, however, I would certainly place them in the “bad” category. As far as the “less bad” comment, I dont think it matters if Hamas is less bad than Hezbollah, they are both “bad”. It appears you are trying to turn this into a “if you hate Hamas and Hezbollah, then you hate ALL Arabs” argument, which is quite typical. It is, however, incorrect. If certain people want to dance and cheer like they did on 9/11, then that’s their right. If those same people start crying and complaining when Israeli jets level their town that was a safe haven for Hezbollah, then, no, I don’t have much compassion.

Hezbollah has factions within it that do not agree on violence as a tactic…exploiting that is key.

Please provide specific examples of such divisions inside Hezbollah and then provide specific actions that we could take that could exploit them.

I said the “authority” … meaning the palestinian authority, which is not Hamas.

Tomato, tomahto. If you think the people that protect those who kill innocents are not the same as those that actually do the killing, that’s up to you. Personally, the palestinian authority has proven to be pretty useless.

How can you destroy them without creating more of them.

The same way every war has been fought throughout history. I could care less if they hate America or not, but when they cross the line and start participating, planning, funding, and aiding murderous thugs, then they deserve what they get. The IRA is a great example. The British continued the fight against them and did not “cur and run” as things got bad. Eventually the IRA died out, and not because anyone negotiated with them. The best analogy I heard was that if Hezbollah and Hamas put down their weapons, then there would be no more violence, however, if Israel laid down their arms they would be slaughtered. That’s all I need to know about who the “good” guys are.

Who was being utopian when they said that iraqis would welcome us?

I seem to recall hundreds of Iraqis dancing in the streets and cheering U.S. forces as they tore down Saddam’s statue. I also recall pictures of Iraqis kissing soldiers on their hands or faces as they passed by. If you are suggesting that the entire country of Iraq hates us, then you have been spending a little too much time reading the New York Times. Perhaps when you get back from visiting Iraq you can tell us all what it’s like there.

Finally, I find your assertion that liberals have destroyed our foriegn policy to be bizzare. As if bin laden was ready to surrender, except he saw michael moore’s movie.

Not at all, it has to do with the history of the Clinton Administration. For 8 years, beginning with the attack on the WTC in 1993, we were constantly attacked by Bin Laden and his cronies. Clinton chose to do nothing, at least nothing with anyone but an intern. The fiasco in Somalia, which was Clinton’s fault as he denied the military the equipment they requested, has been quoted by Bin Laden as a perfect example that the U.S. is a “paper tiger”. The rest of Clinton’s tenure certainly proved that statement true. I also noticed that the democratic memebers of congress who are now so opposed to the war, only became so after the situation grew worse in Iraq. So basically, they stayed on board as long as the war was going well, but when the going got tough they began their “It’s Bush’s fault, we didn’t really want to vote for the war!”.

That, and your supposed “knowledge” of what it’s really like in Iraq are the only laughable things here. Well, that and the fact that you STILL have not given us your proposal to fight terror.

Was Charles Krauthammer being funny when he wrote this about idealism as it relates to neoconservatism?

So the Syrian govt. is equivalent to “rapists and psycos”? If you divide the world neatly into two groups, good and bad, you alienate the “less bad” so to speak, by lumping them in with the “worst”.

1) What would you have either the president or State Department do? Ask Congress to give them money? Allow travel to the country freely? What?

They could set up economic development zones as Bush is doing in Pakistan – this is just one of many ways we can positively influence other countries.

2) Hezbollah has factions within it that do not agree on violence as a tactic…exploiting that is key. By ignoring those divisions and assuming that all of Hezbollah is uniformly violent, the only choice we are left with is to destroy it…which didn’t work if you’ve been paying attention.

I don’t think anyone here is uncivilized. I believe you are speaking in good faith out of deep concern for our nation’s safety. Obviously I dissagree about using violence as a response to violence, and may get emotional in arguing that point.

3) I said the “authority” … meaning the palestinian authority, which is not Hamas.

4) Do you have a response to my idea of reconcilliation? Jesus taught peace and forgiveness, so I thought it relevant. (of course you’ll just twist that as if i said we should just forgive terrorists – i’m not saying that) Many Christians are not true to their faith (especially when I hear them advocating turning the middle east into a sheet of glass), and I was pointing out it was the christian thing to do.

5) Who’s being utopian here? You claim that by destroying them we can solve this. How? How can you destroy them without creating more of them. Really, answer that question with a plausible solution and I’ll be totally behind you.

Who was being utopian when they said that iraqis would welcome us?

Who was being utopian when they said that “democracy is messy” as they watched Iraq descend into chaos.

Who was being utopian when they said the insurgency was in it’s last throes?

As an aside, Neoconservatism is actually a liberal (in the old sense of the word) philosophy with very idealistic assumptions. It was implemented in a very haphazard way, and backfired a bit in various ways. I think a big part of the problem is one of accepting that the ends justify the means…without understanding that you can’t ever be sure that the means you are using will get you any closer to the ends that will justify them. In other words, it’s too ambitious and too willing to be brutal to achieve those ambitions…even if the final ambitions are well-intended.

Finally, I find your assertion that liberals have destroyed our foriegn policy to be bizzare. As if bin laden was ready to surrender, except he saw michael moore’s movie. And the idea the liberals are the reason we’re stuck in Iraq, well… something tells me that the insurgent’s success at blowing up troops is what keeps them fighting, not the words of some liberal. Laughable.

One you wipe them all out. This is not exactly feasible.

Two, you employ Reagan-type strategy on how he dealt with Russia. You make it so costly to the terrorist and terrorist supporting countries that they have to change direction.

Funny how so many liberals think we should follow the laws of Europe, and they look to Europe for in trying to decide legalities at times.

BUT, when it comes to terrorism, and it comes to monitoring suspicous calls from outside of the US, well, then we shouldn’t be following Europe at all, we have a Constitution and even though there is precedent contrary to our liberal views and ideology, well, we shouldn’t be following how Eurpoe or the British go about conducting their investigations…..

*rolls eyes*

I swear, the liberal mentality and PC attitudes of this country is going to get us all killed.

It’s ok to have an opinion. But the basis for your opinions are facts that aren’t true.

1) The state Department handles relations between most countries and hasn’t changed their stance or way of dealing with Syria to my knowledge since before Bush. What would you have either the president or State Department do? Ask Congress to give them money? Allow travel to the country freely? What? You spoke vaguely about improving relations and that we could “reason” with them. Just like I mentioned earlier about trying to reason with a rapist or psychos you can’t. Your solutions would get us killed in greater numbers in my humble opinion. Terrorism activities and terrorists can’t be tolerated and we need to be clear post 9/11 that it won’t be tolerated and so what if they are unhappy that we label them (as before 9/11) as a terrorist state. Truth hurts.

2) Growing Hezbollah. Smart. More people dying is your solution result again. Hezbollah won’t magically disarm. Voodoo foriegn policy and then attacking us as neanderthals because you have fuzzy headed utiopian ideas and believe in them isn’t really good debate. You didn’t use the word neanderthal but you come across condescending as opposed to having a simple disagreement.

3) You wrote, “and require that Israel address the grievences of the authority.” Might I respectfully submit that you do not know this topic very well and I sure hope that newbies are not reading your writing and saying, “yeah – right on”. Please list for us here what you think Hamas grievances are and how you think they should be addressed short of Israel being redrawn to not exist on the map. And even removing that issue. How do you address greivances with people with such hatred that teach their kindergarteners hatred and where they only know the desire to suicide bomb and kill Israeli’s. You DON’T negotiate with terrorists or thugs with such psycho nature. And I can only HOPE that people with your philosophy are not elected into office.

4) Are you ad divider or a uniter. Don’t fall into the trap of leftists who talk about the “true” Christians among us as if you or anyone else aren’t really followers and / or are hypocrates based on a simple disagreement on what you think foriegn or domestic policy should be. We tithe more than 10% to the government. We are a generous people and nation not only to people in this country and in other countries. To talk about us as if we aren’t compassionate is to miss the point that we are and shows that you need to be corrected. Do you like it?

5) You wrote, “rather incentives are emphasized.” Yes. Incentives such as strengthening your enemies. And let’s be clear. They are an enemy and evil exists in this world. The guy who had his wife raped in front of him and then possibly murdered understands this. There is an old saying that I’ll paraphrase that if you are not a liberal when you are young you had no heart. But something to the effect that you become conservative when you get a job and pay taxes, have a family or get mugged. Reality sets in at some point. You can learn or continue to think utopian. Conservatives have a heart and a I hope you learn this. But we THINK about our solutions and know and feel that our solutions would RESULT in the greater good. It’s the principle that you should teach a man to fish rather than give him fish. Pretty soon in school age years most people understand this adage. It really is simple. RESULTS matter. It’s ok to feel but as Dennis Prager nailed it the other day when he found the common denominator for libralism on EVERY issue is what do they feel. Without thinking through what their “solutions” would end up doing.

Aghast wrote, “I seriously doubt that our government has the will, competence, and respect needed to get this job done.”

Yes. No thanks to liberals and their reckless words. Freedom of speech is fine but liberals have really been reckless these last few years and have aided the enemy with arguments and talking points and the ability to get much done in this WOT going forward.

I hope you can honestly think of the effect that liberals have had on this country in the last few years with respect to foreign policy. It is many a people’s belief that your words extended the war in Iraq (getting more people killed) as you emboldened the enemy and gave them the feeling that they may be this close “” to getting us to pull out before security is established. Follow through is necessary to prevent a bloodbath. Or is that what you want? It’ll be failure then huh. You could pin the bloodbath on the president.

I fixed it. –ST

The more I think about it, the more dissapointed I am with the options we are left with. This whole thing is just such a disaster. I’ll outline a few ideas that I would like to see attempted. They all flow form the idea that by providing incentives and manipulating these groups politically, they can be brought “into the fold” and the threat they pose can be eliminated.

1. Diplomatic relations with Syria need to be improved. They are a self-interested state like any other, and can be reasoned with, if appropriate incentives are offered. The primary goal here would be to get the weapons flow to Hezbollah cut off, and to encourage Syria to “join the fold” of nations stuanchly opposed to terrorism and support thereof. By offering economic incentives and exploiting the sunni-shiia rift that keeps them seperate from Iran, we can actually turn Syria into a helpful player. I’m not a diplomat…I have no idea what the details of such diplomacy would be in regards to Syria, but I know there are options.

2. Encourage the political arm of Hezbollah. As Hezbollah’s political arm grows, they will have more political representation and become more of the eestablishment. Keep pushing for their unequivocal disarmament…once they are firmly established within the government, exploit internal divisions to create a political environment where hezbollah disarms for internal political purposes.

3. As for Hamas…let them be elected into the palestinian authority, and require that Israel address the grievences of the authority. As they gain political representation with Israel directly they will have less reason to incite violence to advance their goals. This doesn’t mean give them what they want in terms of Whacko demands… but you do have to give them the impression that “legitimate” gripes may be resolved through some course other than violence.

4. Reconcilliation (South africa style):

(The true christians among us should appreciate the value of this)

5. Have the CIA infiltrate these groups’ political wings. Not for the sole purpose of spying… but actually for the purpose of changing the groups themselves through internal lobbying and manipulation. Think of it like this: if every conservative joined the ACLU, one might become a leader and could change the organization, or the conservatives could vote (and convince other members to vote) to stop suing people, essentially shutting down the organization.

Nowhere in my suggestions is the use of force, rather incentives are emphasized. I’m not saying we shouldn’t back up diplomacy with the threat of force…but it must be a credible threat (which, after Israel’s loss, may be difficult to conjure).

This solution requires respected leadership from nations percieved as honest brokers, who have the power to offer the incentives required here. Consequently, I seriously doubt that our government has the will, competence, and respect needed to get this job done.

Finally…these policy prescriptions don’t apply to Iran, Iraq, Al Quaeda and other global jihadists, which are distinctly different problems.

Yeah. Well. I’m creeped out by beheading Islamofacists. You spend your time being creeped out by completely true statements that don’t hurt a soul.

Glad to see you riled up by the presidents comments. We know who we are dealing with when you admit it.

Why do you think that is? Is there a general anti-semitic feeling among europeans or do they think appeasement is the best policy? Personally, I think it is the latter, or perhaps a mixture of the two.