They were just elected. What did they have 8 hours to fix everything. Israel won't even allow them to have the money that Israel collected from the Palestinians.
Gee.. not like they didn't have several years PRIOR to the election to develop a plan for governing, or at least the necessary financial support, right?
To date, Israel has not allowed it and the US has backed that up in the UN. But you ignored the statement of purpose which was quite clear. The statement of purpose was to have a US presence in the mid-east.
Well, they haven't exactly permitted a US base in Israel either, so what's your point??
Or have they?? I had to look, though I had not heard of any US bases in Israel, but it might appears that maybe we're both talking out of our butts:
rense.com
rense.com
citizinemag.com
The U.S. military also has a substantial “secret” military presence in Israel, according to the new book “Code Names” by journalist and former U.S. intelligence official William Arkin. Although Israel has already served as a forward base for U.S. expansion in the Middle East since the 1960s, the revelation of secret U.S. bases in the state is a new one. According to Ha’aretz, Arkin asserts that since September 2001, the U.S. has set up five secret bases in Israel. The American military is present at “Ben-Gurion International Airport, in the Tel Aviv suburb of Herzliya Pituach and in three other sites … The book also offers a detailed description of U.S. military ties and secret presence in countries in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa following the 2001 attacks.”
Personally, I have no idea.. And it was not a subject that I was privy to during the past two years. But if true, I don't think it's a politically smart idea. While I'll defend Israel's right to exist, I'm not particularly keen at seeing their political interests viewed as being our own.
But I would rather see such a base in the West Bank, with NATO forces there to ensure that whatever Palestinan State that develops is not a threat to the entire region. After all, the UN and Europeans have been the primary impetus behind the creation of such a state, since Jordan renounced the terroritories, thus they bear a measure of responsibility for ensuring it becomes a TRUE democratic society, not merely one that elects a non-democratic faction to snuff that democracy out.
On Iraq. I could suggest breaking up Iraq again. But what's the point, the Administration has precluded it.
That's NOT FOR US to decide. If we did that, we'd be no better than the colonial powers the cobbled the country together in the first place.
And the message it would send to the rest of the world would be to energize ethnic civil wars which would then re-energize authoritarian and "strong man" leaders who could hold these countries together..
Either that, or we'd see the world reshaping itself into little ethnic islands, each constantly at war with one another. Nations incapable of actually manifesting economic progress and likely to resort to wars of genocide against other neighbors, in order to capture their resources.
No.. it's VERY IMPORTANT to be seen as working to preserve these countries to the greatest extent possible. If they are going to fracture, then let them be the ones to make that decision (even if it involves violence or civil war), while we stand by ready to assist ALL the parties in trying to reconcile.
And btw.. Just because YOU'RE out of ideas related to Iraq, doesn't mean the rest of us are. Maybe it's just because you don't have the patience to let the current ideas take hold. Things are just not happening at the kind of pace you'd like.
On Sudan. You can protect Darfur which is a small region of the Sudan.
HELLO!!! The Darfur region is LARGER THAN IRAQ!!
Iraq: 434,934 square kilometers (167,929 sq. mi).
Darfur: 493,180 km² (196,555 sq. miles²)
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
And moreover, it lacks anything NEAR the infrastructure that already existed in Iraq (roads, airbases, power.. etc).
Maybe you should read this article before you get too fired up about going into Darfur. It's pretty obvious that you need to increase your education about the region, if not your geography. It really helps to know how large an area you're going to be peace-keeping in, before deciding how many troops you need:
washingtonpost.com
There's a border control point on the US/Canadian border that is operated under the honor system.
Yeah.. I know.. it's ridiculous.. But hey.. it works both ways, right? They are just as susceptible to terrorism from the US crossing over there.. lol.. And we have those big-@ss lakes up there too.. Maybe we should mine them.. ;0)
But in all honesty what needs to happen is for Canada to adopt similar standards with regard to ferreting out terrorist networks. If they fail to do so, then the resolution will be to tighten up border security, with the consequences for trade and commerce. But better intelligence sharing is certainly a must, on both sides.
You can't stroll into North Korea and have any hope of having a democracy.
I don't have any plans to. But let's say that N. Korea attacks the south? Upon being defeated, there way of avoiding the reuniting of the two Koreas. So does that mean that South Korea has to become a dictatorship, or N. Korea needs to become a democracy? Hmmm....
Really? What was the economic impact of changing policy to not allow hijackers in the cabin vs. the economic impact of flying a 747 into the world trade center?
Hey.. I'm with you on that... It seems a small price to pay to have the cabin doors locked and bullet-proofed. I also think it's a good idea to arm the pilot with a pistol carrying frangible bullets (that don't penetrate the actual aircraft).
Absolutely prevents or significantly reduces the probability. See DoD Dir 5200.16 [S]
If you're referring to nuclear security, DoD Directive S-5200.16, then first off, you're dealing with a document that is over 35 years old.
Secondly, even discussing nuclear security is a very sensitive subject that I'm not willing to discuss with you. Provide an open-source article and I might opine on its content. But I'm not going to permit myself to be engaged in such a topic that is obviously highly classified.
Hawk |
