"I am a uniter, not a divider!"-George W. Bush, most every Campaign 2000 speech.

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."-George W. Bush, televised speech on 9/11/01.

"WASHINGTON, June 27 (UPI) -- U.S. President George Bush's job approval rating rose 5 points to 38 percent in an ABC News-Washington Post poll published Tuesday.

Iraq is influencing the numbers the most, ABC said. While 58 percent of the 1,000 adults polled still say the war was not worth fighting and 64 percent say Bush lacks a clear Iraq plan, there was a 5 percent positive jump each on U.S. progress in Iraq and how Bush is handling it.

Bush has improved by 14 points among Republicans in the past month, to 82 percent approval.

For the Democrats, 71 percent of those asked said they lack a clear Iraq plan as well.

Among other negative views, 58 percent of respondents said the war has not contributed to peace and stability in the Middle East, and 75 percent said it has damaged the United States' image in the rest of the world.

The poll was conducted by TNS from June 22-25 and has a margin of error of 3 percentage points."

Despite his approval ratings "soaring" to 38%, doesn't this imply that at least 62% of Americans support terrorism? Are we going to invade ourselves?

Some of those 62% who disapprove are Republicans...who are they for, and what are they against?

Uniter? Hmmm...

Fish on...

Todd

How does America come out a winner in this war on terrorism.........
Very complex situation today, but if we honestly want world peace, we have to do the following.....
1) Turn our backs on Israel and see if their extermination will bring about peace in the middle east.
2) If #1 doesn't work, we turn N. Korea and Iran into glass
3) Answer to the world for using nukes again.

We have become a "kind and gentler" nation and we may suffer greatly for it.

Sky Soldier
p/s Democrats better win majority in the house and senate this coming November, or the draft dodging Bush administration will bankrupt America.

-------------------------------------------------




Is that your answer or final solution to 'the problem'?

Looky there, Catbox Rory, the so-clever out of context editor.

I think the fear of many people is that it might not be Israel that is eliminated if Israel actually got the green light. I don't think they would mind dropping a few atomics on some of their neighbors. Years ago I heard rumors that they might actually have thermal bombs, which would leave no radiation. Could you imagine what would happen to the world we know if Israel started dropping nukes whenever they felt like it? I think that Israel is kind of like a wolverine, backed into a corner. It maybe that we are involved with Israel as much to protect others from an unleashed Israel, as to protect Israel itself. Sure, China and Russia may jump in, but do you thnk they would be immune from being nuked. America may be the only reason Armegeddon is not really happening,... yet. I don't care if I am alone or with twenty guys, I aint ever going to try to put a mad wolverine in a bag. Sure, we eventually would get it in the bag, but I doubt it would ever be worth it.

Personally, part of me would love to see what would happen if we abandoned Israel, the other half would be scared to death. I think that it is very possible that the only real reason we are in Iraq is that if we weren't, Israel would be. The fallouts of that are something we, dependent as we are of fuel in the region, aren't willing to risk. We would never hear that from anyone, as the political fallout would be unbearable for any politican to handle. There would also be the risk of more terrorism.

I guess, the truth may be that just keeping out Israel may be the real victory itself.

The world is well stocked with both good and evil roles to play. I personally think abandoning Israel would be evil. Just my gut feeling. In 1948 the Arabs in combined strength could not defeat the Israelis. In 1967 the West had to stop the Israelis from destroying the alignment against her. In 1973, although the enemy achieved tactical suprise in their attack across the Suez and in the desert, Israel still managed to prevail. Closest call they had experienced since the British deserted their Mandate. I think the powers that be in Israel may well have decided that if the future hold their immolation, as nut in Teheran threatens, they will glass the whole damn region. I mean from Tripoli to the Caspian. I bet they could do it. If I was running the country I would have damn well acquired the wherewithal by now. They have the stomach for it I presume.

Sard,

I think you're right that if Israel feels it's going down, they don't plan to go alone.

Another point Salmo g. I bet the devices are already in place. Won't need any aircraft or missiles to effect delivery.

Not sure what you mean, Sard. I think aircraft are the only means Israel has for delivering nukes. Admittedly, my info may be out of date. I don't understand how Israel already has nukes in place to take out those who try to take out Israel.

Yeah, Israel could glass the whole region and you guys would celebrate like no tomorrow. Oorah!Typical Monday Night Football mentality.

You chest-thumpers out there (and you know who you are) belong in a stadium, not on a political stage.



"What good is spilling blood?...it will not grow a thing."

It would seem Moe that you confuse the ability to empathize a situation you don't have to experiece with being pro or con on the issue. I suspect that Israel will not push the button until some Islamic nitwit holds a loaded gun to her head. To think anyone would celebrate the killing of so many and the destruction of so much history is pretty damn foolish.
To deal with Israel's ability to penetrate the various services of her opposition is not so difficult. The first time the Israelis weren't reading the mail was in 1973. And you can bet they have fixed that. I would think that the Israelis have WMDs planted and tended in every Islamic city of any import. Their life insurance so to speak. They learned MAD from the USSR and the USA. I don't believe they would bet their future survival on anything but a royal flush.
The biggest problem for the Israelis is the foolish image concious nit wits in the United States that want to make points with a cult of assassins.

Am I the only one that sees (once again) the inherent arrogance and hypocrisy that it takes to utter both the first and last sentences of your last post, sardo?

Empathy is so far from any form of conservative thought as to render it virtually a useless concept in their fundamentalism.

Empathy is understanding the concerns and feelings of others...not the evangelical imposition of your thoughts and feelings onto others.

Fish on...

Todd

I find your accusation of arrogance riotous Todd. You, mr. humble pie, what a laugh. You spend so much time looking down your nose that it's a wonder you don't need the services of an eye surgeon. Do you always generalize the term conservative or is it just a political tic that crops up now and then? You have no monopoly on empathy. I am pleased that you seem to have the word in your vocabulary. If you cannot empathize with the Israelis, that is your problem. The fact that a World power did its' best to eliminate them from the gene pool does give them a bit of a complex. Hell if I was an Israeli in a position of power I would eliminate every member of Hamas and Hezbollah that I could identify. Turnabout is fair play and there is no such thing as 'fair' in War. The only way I would stop is when the two organization previously mentioned dropped their arms, stopped the suicide bombers and pledged on their belief in Allah that the atrocities sponsored by them are over.
If that means kicking Syria's butt to make it happen, so be it.
There is even a bit of room for some empathy for the Arabs in all this. They have been crapped on big time by the world powers mainly because they sit on a huge chunk of the planets fossil fuel. It would be a lot easier to sympathize with them if they spent a little more time and effort trying to upgrade the conditions under which most of the people live, rather than encouraging "JIHAD."
Get some windex Todd and wash your glass house.

...I'm still busy trying to find out where I said anything about Israel at all...you're not deflecting again, are you?

Fish on...

Todd

No. Reflecting. Since the post that prompted you to paint me arrogant and hypocritcal was about Israel, I wonder at your puzzlement. Not dodging are you Todd? By the way the term arrogant is well taken. You should know about the symtoms. Since you too are afflicted. Although I won't call you a Stanford Grad. I think smug is the descriptive adjective for those illaterati. lol
Hope my presentation wasn't too crude.

Sard, my intuition may be wrong, but it seems that even though you present yourself as being neither pro nor con, you actually come across as being very much pro. You consider non-empathy for Israel as being a "problem". Isn't that indicative of a pro position? So perhaps I'm not mistaking anything after all.

Back to the thread, conditions of victory and withdrawal... victory not achievable and never was, withdrawal should be sooner rather than later...see Vietnam. Also known to some of you as "cut and run" I guess, but I can't deny that's just the way I see it. Not that we've been defeated, just that we should not have pursued this course in the first place. If your strategy is fundamentally unsound, you don't need to be defeated to lose.

Just to show you how all of us are right on the pulse of the world...

http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060713-024416-5542r

Analysis: Changing game rules in Lebanon?
By DALAL SAOUD

BEIRUT, Lebanon, July 13 (UPI) -- Would Israel be able to change the rules of game in Lebanon that have been in place since it withdrew its forces from the country in May 2000, ending 22 years of occupation?

Israel has launched a new military offensive called "Just Reward" against Lebanon with the purpose -- as it initially declared - of securing the release of two of its soldiers snatched by Hezbollah guerrillas on the border early Wednesday.

Again, Israel's real intentions were quickly revealed: to push Hezbollah militants away from its border and force the deployment of Lebanese Army forces on the Lebanese-Israeli frontier.

Dealing painful blows to Lebanon and its already ailing economy, Israel sent its warplanes and warships to bombard hundreds of targets across Lebanon: houses, bridges, airports, schools and Hezbollah TV broadcast units. Some 48 people, including children and many members of at least two families, were killed and more than 100 others wounded.

The Israeli bombing that was limited to areas in south Lebanon soon spread to reach Beirut's international airport, recently renamed after the late Prime Minister Rafik Hariri who was killed in a massive bomb explosion that hit his convoy in Beirut on February 14, 2005.

Three air strikes and the few missiles that hit the airport's two tarmacs were enough to demonstrate how far Israelis, who claimed that the airport was "a central hub for the transfer of weapons and supplies" to Hezbollah, might go in their offensive. The attacks also prompted thousands of tourists, especially from the Gulf region, to pack up and find a way to return home. The safest route, at least for the time being, was the one leading to Damascus in neighboring Syria.

Two military airports in eastern and northern Lebanon were also hit by Israeli jets in a clear move to prevent the usage of those airports as alternatives to Beirut airport. Israel announced that it will maintain a sea and naval blockade on Lebanon to force the Beirut government to take control of the southern region where Hezbollah guerrillas are positioned.

By destroying nearly 20 bridges in south Lebanon, access to and from Beirut becomes extremely difficult. The road linking Beirut to the Syrian border is also threatened by a similar fate. A Syrian security source at the Lebanese-Israeli border, however, told United Press International that "no one would dare such an escalation."

But there are fears that the Israeli attacks and Hezbollah counter-bombardment on northern Israel, during which the Shiite group used for the first time a new and more sophisticated kind of rocket called "Raad-One," would escalate into a regional war. The situation in the Palestinian territories is already explosive, while tension marks the relations of Syria and Iran -- both supporters of Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas movement -- vis-a-vis the United States.

The Lebanese government, which was quick in distancing itself from Hezbollah's Wednesday action, Thursday called for a comprehensive cease-fire and total cessation of Israeli hostilities.

Israel, for its part, made clear that its military campaign against Lebanon will not stop until the Lebanese army is deployed along the international border and takes control of security on the Lebanese side of the frontier.

Lebanon has been pressed to deploy its army along its border with Israel since Israel withdrew from south Lebanon in May 2000. But Israel's failure to relinquish the disputed border area of Shabaa Farms when it pulled out its troops have kept Hezbollah armed and poised to resist.

Israel and Hezbollah are once more face to face and showing intensified aggression and resolve.

Sooner or later, guns will fall silent and both parties will have to negotiate indirectly to discuss the fate of the two Hezbollah-held Israeli soldiers and the roughly 10,000 Lebanese, Palestinian and Arab prisoners that have been held in Israeli jails for many years.

To be sure, Israel will not allow Hezbollah -- as its leader Hassan Nasrallah suggested Wednesday -- to join hands with Hamas to conclude a prisoner swap that would include another Israeli soldier captured by Hamas-affiliated militants in Gaza on June 25.

An Israeli source close to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told UPI Thursday that Israel was ready to negotiate a swap with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and hinted for the first time it was willing to release prisoners. Such a move would aim at separating future exchange negotiations with Hezbollah.

According to the source, Israel also aims at "changing the equation" in the region and dismantle what it called as the "Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas axis."

In an indicative development, the Lebanese cabinet, which met twice Thursday, emphasized in a statement "its right and duty to expand its authority on all the Lebanese territories." There was no objection from Hezbollah, which is represented in the government with two ministers.

Referring to this clause in the cabinet statement, Information Minister Ghazi Aridi explained "it does not mean sending the army tomorrow morning to the south."

This could well signify the beginning of an effort to force Israel to stop its attacks and excessive use of force against Lebanon. Disarming Hezbollah remains another issue.

Not really in my opinion. Stopping Hezbollah and Hamas is the name of the game. As long as those folks lob missiles or suicide bombers at the Israelis the war goes on. Israel deludes itself into thinking that appeasment of the Hamas Palestinians would improve the quality of life in the area. Now they know better and hopefully will have no more brain flatulence.

It could get uglier, that's for sure...Syria and Iran foot the bill for the Hezbollah, and Iran has said that any attack on Syria is an attack on them...and with the Israelis being the most motivated soldiers in the world, I don't think that would stop them.

The U.S. will try to contain the violence to between Lebanon and Israel, but that will entail getting Syria and Iran to keep their noses out of it, which may not be as easy as asking them nicely.

Fish on...

Todd

This is kind of what I was aiming at in why I think we jumped into the Iraq war. I feel the U.S. didn't want Israel to exercise its muscle too much. Now, with the political fallout of Iraq, it may be the U.S. feels forced to sit this one out, which means Iran and Israel are probably going to end up at each other throats. This may be why the hinting about us going into Iran has been going on. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Israel might have been pushing for us to go into Iran. When the U.S. hesitated, they upped the escalation the first chance they got.
It will be interesting to see if they pull back and then we suddenly find the resolve to go after Iran. I think the fear is real of Israel going after Iran, and then the rest of the area joining in the fight. Are we then forced to help our ally? And then what about China and Russia rushing to help Iran? This really could get ugly fast.
I don't know the answer, thats for sure. Do we want Israel to dictate our foreign policy, or do they already dictate it by default? Imagine how just the entire region fighting could disrupt our oil supply and then our economy? Then think about a full scale nuclear blowout. Unless we can talk Israel into leaving the area, which we all know isn't going to happen, it may just be a matter of time until the area really does start Armegeddon. Don't fool yourself into thinking peace can happen with Israel in the picture, it just doesn't appear possible.
On a side note, this is why we really do need to find alternative oil reserves or energy sources.