Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Sometimes pictures are better than words
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Michael Ramirez again captures the essence of Jimmy Carter.



(HT: Linda Morgan)
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
You righties can just stew in the fact that Jimmy Carter is wiser, smarter, more experienced, and better looking than all of you. Plus he has a better body odor. And more prominent teeth.

Thank goodness we have him to poke Bush and Rice in the eye. Well, him, plus the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, CBS.... Hmmm, I guess there are a lot of others that like to poke Bush in the eye, but anyway, Jimmy has a Nobel Peace Prize and that gives him a unique ability to eye-poke. And it lets him know intuitively that a wise policy of giving in to terrorists is always a better strategy than any kind of yucky interventionism.

History will treat him well, because we leftist social science professors just drool over Jimmy’s anti-Americanism.
 
Written By: Ott Scerb
URL: http://cluelessprof.maine.edu
Not to mention, Carter’s Nobel Peace Prize itself was a poke a Bush.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Jimmy Carter: he’s no horse’s a$$, he’s an a$$ of a$$es.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
Two years ago this week, you [Pelosi] stated that House Democrats had a ‘commonsense plan’ to ‘lower gas prices,’ ” the letter said. “In light of the skyrocketing gasoline prices affecting working families and every sector of our struggling economy, we are writing today to respectfully request that you reveal this ‘commonsense plan’ so we can begin work on responsible solutions to help ease this strain.”
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
marvelous, excellent likeness
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
There you all go getting me confused again.

I thought Algore was the baby jesus.

He can save the democrat (not to be confused with the democratic) party.


I say "run Al ....run"

 
Written By: SkyWatch
URL: http://
After that well done pre-emptive strike, I’d be surprised were the real Professor to chime in.

Yet some lefties are like salmon. Not only will they fight all odds to return to the hole that spawned them, they sometimes succeed. (apologies to all salmon.)
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Glorious....
LOL


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
I say "run Al ....run"
Do you put that on your front bumper?
 
Written By: AIDA
URL: http://
McQ is a proponent of the Maliki government in Iraq. The Maliki government loves the Iranians. It follows that McQ loves the Iranians.

Of course, McQ also hates Carter, a veteran of our armed forces.

Sad.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
sad too.Lol
 
Written By: jenny
URL: http://www.business-sunrise.com
McQ is a proponent of the Maliki government in Iraq. The Maliki government loves the Iranians. It follows that McQ loves the Iranians.

Of course, McQ also hates Carter, a veteran of our armed forces.

Sad.
What’s sad is A) you’ve somehow come to believe this and B) you think your argument is "logical".
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Would someone please send the EMTs to my house? I read Mkultra’s comment and my brain tried to process it as if it were normal logic before I realized it was from Mkultra. Now I’m frozen in place in some type of terrifying mental nested loop and can’t get to the phone.

Thanks.
 
Written By: Terry
URL: http://
MK: He served in the armed forces.
Great, Jimmah, thanks for the service.
What have you done for us since?

Get the idea?


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Well, we all know that MK is above any negativity when it comes to anyone who has served in the military. He/She/It would never offer criticism against any veteran. That is a clear and indisputable fact!
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Of course, McQ also hates Carter, a veteran of our armed forces.
Oh, puh-LEEZE. You hate McCain, who is also a veteran of our armed forces. You also hate McQ, another veteran. And I’m pretty sure you hate Dale, yet another veteran.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
Yeah, you have to vote for McCain, MK, since he served in our Armed Forces.

Glad the litmus test has finally been boiled down.

Hooduh thunk MK was a one-issue voter?
 
Written By: rob
URL: http://
While you guys wallow in ignorant contempt for someone who actively works on principles with which you disagree, I prefer this cartoon. Remember, CDS stems from the same virus as BDS.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Yep Scott. Keep defending him.

Ignorant contempt? He buddies up to people who want to see me and my family dead. That’s ignorant, huh? You are a piece of utter garbage.
 
Written By: Twizz
URL: http://
There’s no such thing as CDS, Erb. We’re blaming Carter for things he’s clearly done and is continuing to do. On the flip side, if you really believe the cartoon that W is merely sitting around, well, thanks for demonstrating your BDS (once again).

What you "prefer" and what is "real" are dramatically at odds. You talk of "principles," forgetting that "principles" aren’t always correct and hence is meaningless justification. Even putting that aside, you really live in delusion if you think Carter is somehow building "peace" in the Middle East. Carter went to Syria to play nice with self-avowed terrorists, came back with a lie about Hamas’ "concessions," and is now lying about the State Department warning him not to go. So simple that one would think even an academic could understand.

There’s only one way to achieve true peace in the Middle East. Find terrorist. Kill terrorist without mercy. Lather, rinse, repeat as necessary.
 
Written By: Perry Eidelbus
URL: http://eidelblog.blogspot.com
While you guys wallow in ignorant contempt for someone who actively works on principles with which you disagree,
Let’s see; Carter helped Mugabe come to power in Zimbabwe, he asked the Soviets for assistance against the real enemy, Reagan in ’80 and ’84, he tried to talk Canada out of supporting the first Gulf War, he helped Arafat write propaganda, and he "negotiated" with the North Koreans resulting in a deal where they received mucho American aide and no oversite while the proceeded to develop nukes.

Yes, I disagree with his "principles".
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
While you guys wallow in ignorant contempt for someone who actively works on principles with which you disagree..

Does anyone know the exact number of millions Carter and his Center have received through the years from Arab and Muslim sources that helped to ’solidify’ his principles?
 
Written By: anonymous
URL: http://
Twizz to Boris:
You are a piece of utter garbage.
At the end of the day and the beginning of the next, yes.

In between: batting practice.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/

There’s only one way to achieve true peace in the Middle East. Find terrorist. Kill terrorist without mercy.
Alas, if only it were that easy. First of all, terrorism is a strategy, so there is no set number of terrorists. Someone can be an average citizen until they decide to engage in a terrorist act. Therefore killing terrorists, if it has the side effect of angering a population and killing civilians, can simply generate more terrorists. Also, if it were that easy, you’d think people would have done it by now. It’s easy for an arm chair warrior to spout off stuff like that, but the real world is much more difficult.

The problem in Palestine is that the Jews and Palestinians destinies are linked. They each have strong reason to believe they are right. For the Arabs, the Jews are mostly European colonists who have taken control of land that should belong to the Arabs. They don’t mind Jews living there, but they don’t want to cede sovereignty (in a full Palestine, Arabs would be the majority). After all, what kind of rationale is it to say ’we should have this land because people with the same religion had it 2000 years ago? To the Jews, the Arabs weren’t building up the land, they bought it, and after the holocaust, they thought they had moral claim to build the state of Israel.

The good news is that most Palestinians accept the existence of Israel, and want peace. Most Israelis do too. The bad news is that extremists and militarists on each side see the other side as inherently evil or inferior and have the capacity to incite anger and violence to prevent peace from being reached. Emblematic of this are the two Nobel prize winners, Yitzak Rabin and Anwar Sadat, each assassinated by extremists on their own side.

But there is no fix. Israel’s inability to handle Hezbollah last year and the US problems in Iraq and Afghanistan (where the Taliban and al qaeda are resurgent) show that you can’t defeat terrorism with a slogan, or even with raw military power. Asymmetrical warfare and in fact terror strategies in an age of globalization requires a multifaceted approach. In the Mideast, first and foremost is to undercut the appeal of extremism, as has been done with al qaeda. But if you go out guns a blazin’ and say you just want to ’find and kill the terrorist,’ you’ll actually find the numbers of terrorists growing, and be less able to achieve progress.

Ultimately you can’t be pro-Israel without being pro-Palestinian and vice-versa. Carter understands that, and he understands that Hamas will not go away or simply be wiped out. So sooner or later, they’ll have to be brought on board. Carter’s work for the Camp David Accords ended the series of Arab-Israeli wars as Egypt recognized Israel. That was perhaps the most important development in the Mideast process, and Carter deserves a lot of credit for achieving it.

(And for those who try to find little tidbits ’Carter did this or that’ about Zimbabwe or something, you can do that for any President. Reagan thought Iran could be won over too — and of course Mugabe early in his career was a much different leader)
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
For the Arabs, the Jews are mostly European colonists who have taken control of land that should belong to the Arabs.
They don’t mind Jews living there
they thought they had moral claim to build the state of Israel
he understands that Hamas will not go away or simply be wiped out. So sooner or later, they’ll have to be brought on board.
One does not know how to approach such statements. You seem to believe them and, as a professor entrenched in the revisionist machinations of the New Enlightenment, it would seem foolhardy to attempt to correct you, as I am but a lowly peasant whose life status hardly measures up to your worldly wisdom. My only hope is to wait for a time when social justice turns the truck around and comes back to let me jump in the back seat.


 
Written By: rob
URL: http://
Just one item from the last Boris twittering:
Israel’s inability to handle Hezbollah last year
Generally, Boris, you know who cannot handle whom based on the side that screams for the cease fire, which was Hezbollah, in case your convenient memory let that slip away.

That the Israelis were not entirely pleased with their military performance and audited it with some ferocity should not be confused with the smack down that Hezbollah took in that encounter, despite the fact that per usual they cloaked themselves in civilian populations, who they like to get killed for valuable propaganda advantages with people...like you.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
rob:
One does not know how to approach such statements.
It helps if you watch an episode of Mr. Rogers Neighborhood followed by a video of a ritual al-Qaeda heheading. In that mix you find the mushy, loose bowels contextless jabbering (Jew-hating?) ignorant lazy and far Left perspective of Boris Erb, who, might I add (it is time for the annual mention) is a backwoods political science professor married to the daughter of a former Soviet Communist Party official.

That, I believe, is how you approach such statements.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
One does not know how to approach such statements.
You seem to think that because you have a negative reaction to those statements they aren’t true. But I guarantee you, I do not make those statements without having thoroughly studied the issue, teaching once a whole class on the Arab-Israeli conflict, and looking at arguments and perspectives from a variety of sources. This is not an easy issue, and you do yourself no favors if you only approach it from one side. If you disagree with a statement, you state your disagreement and support it. If you can’t do that, then perhaps you need to ask questions and explore the subject. Consider:

For the Arabs, the Jews are mostly European colonists who have taken control of land that should belong to the Arabs.

This was the view starting after WWII, and underpins the rationale the Arabs have for denying the legitimacy of the Israeli state (including our Saudi allies — they do not have Israel on their maps). Now, most Israelis there now are the children or grandchildren of those colonists, or have moved from elsewhere, but to the Arabs, they are an outside force, to them this is colonialism.

They don’t mind Jews living there

Again, almost all Arabs argued from WWII onward that as long as there is a sovereign Palestine (which would by demographics be Arab dominated) Jews could live there. Some extremists now after 40 years are questioning that, and that’s what has to be dealt with.


they thought they had moral claim to build the state of Israel


What on earth could bother you about that statement. I’m comparing the Arab perspective to the Israeli perspective. Are you saying they didn’t believe they had a moral claim to build the state of Israel?


he understands that Hamas will not go away or simply be wiped out. So sooner or later, they’ll have to be brought on board.


Do you disagree with this statement? OK, the conventional view is that Hamas is so entrenched now that it can’t be eliminated, but as with the PLO before, has to be brought to make compromises. It’s harder with Hamas because the PLO was political rather than religious, and it’s easier to compromise with politics rather than faith. But Hamas does not have the hearts and minds of the Palestinians, who voted for them not out of hatred for Israel, but anger at how the PA had become utterly corrupt and incompetent, while Hamas seemed honest and very good with social work. But perhaps you think Hamas can be eliminated? How? And why isn’t that being done now?

Not only were these statements all true, but not even controversial. So perhaps you should "begin" by really learning more about the complexities of the Mideast.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Here is my simple test. Hamas and their kind, lay down their arms and stop fighting. What happens?

Israel lays down her arms and stops fighting. What happens?

Yep Scott, Hamas can be negotiated with.

I am sure you would have been very proud of Chamberlin as well when he came back from his meeting with Hitler with a promise of peace in our time.
 
Written By: Twizz
URL: http://
This:
But I guarantee you, I do not make those statements without having thoroughly studied the issue, teaching once a whole class on the Arab-Israeli conflict,
Scott, you do not have the scholarly attributes required to "thoroughly [study]" anything.

And "teaching once a whole class" on it couldn’t possibly help you. Teaching twenty or thirty "whole classes" on it wouldn’t do it either.

Remember, pal, I watched you jump out of your own pants to start declaring victory for Hezbollah just a couple years ago. You could barely contain yourself. And I know you for what you are. That sort of enthusiasm for successful terrorism against Israel has a very distinct odor to it. Don’t forget that when you’re "not reading this."
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/

Yep Scott, Hamas can be negotiated with.

I am sure you would have been very proud of Chamberlin as well when he came back from his meeting with Hitler with a promise of peace in our time.
Since neither Hamas nor Israel are going to lay down their arms, your "test" is irrelevant to actually dealing with the issue. Is Israel morally superior to Hamas? Of course. But what does that mean in terms of actually creating security?

Chamberlain is also irrelevant. Negotiating with does not mean appeasing or giving into. You can also have tough negotiations. Though I will go into an historical aside: Chamberlain was expecting war with Germany, but his military didn’t think they’d be ready until 1943. His strategy was to try to win time and maybe even avoid war by appeasing legitimate German interests — undo Versailles, but at the same time prepare for war. The Conservatives (Chamberlain’s party) tended to see Bolshevism as the real threat, and were divided on how to deal with Nazi Germany. Only Churchhill really saw Hitler and Nazism for the threat it was. Chamberlain became convinced war was inevitable in March 1939, but thought the Soviets would prevent any quick strike by Germany on Poland. Then came the "devils’ pact."

Hamas is real. Hamas cannot be destroyed at a price Israel can afford (otherwise they would have done so by now). It does have vulnerabilities. Patient, tough negotiating, bringing in other states and giving the Palestinian people a sense that Israel is going to stop collective punishment would help.

Because the Palestinians and Israelis again have linked destinies. The Arabs won’t be pushed into the desert, the Jews won’t be driven into the sea. They either figure out how to live together, or they can keep killing each other until terror tactics become so deadly that the place becomes uninhabitable.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Remember, pal, I watched you jump out of your own pants to start declaring victory for Hezbollah just a couple years ago. You could barely contain yourself.
Martin, Erb was just a shill for that so-called Mideast expert Juan Cole. Cole declared loud and clear, ’cause his Iranian masters told him so, that Hezbollah had won a major victory. Now this was three days into the war when Cole started running his victory laps but that did not deter the young Erb-meister from parrotting his hero’s blatherings. Approximatley 8 days later, with Hezbollah screaming for a truce, Cole announced that Israels acceptance proved beyond a shadow of a doubt how he had been right all along - much to the glee of said Erb-meister.

Erb could sing from the old gospel:
He Leadeth Me, He Leadeth Me
By His Own Hand He leadeth Me
His Grateful Follower I Will Be
For By His hand He Leadeth Me


The only question is whether he is following Cole or Carter?
Is there a difference? Both are Muslim Fundamentalist shills.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Boris,

Your platitudes about negotiation are belied by the continuing fact that Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. That is the reason Hamas exists, to bring about that end.

But Jimmy Carter’s foolhardy venture in personal diplomacy, and personal moral vanity, is irrelevant to any serious negotiation that could take place.

Israel would entertain Hamas’s rejection of violence as a "show me" as in show us you mean it.

Meanwhile, Hamas "bargains" with such things as the destitution unto starvation of Palestinians, who would surely collapse even further at the withdrawal of Western aid.

But people like you, Boris, are and always have been the terrorist’s best friend.

In fact, the Chamberlain comparison to your views is an insult to Chamberlain, not you. His motives weren’t malign, just naive.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
SShiell:
Martin, Erb was just a shill for that so-called Mideast expert Juan Cole. Cole declared loud and clear, ’cause his Iranian masters told him so, that Hezbollah had won a major victory.
To be "fair" to Cole, Erb cannot be blamed totally on him. Boris drinks from the source.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
teaching once a whole class on the Arab-Israeli conflict
This is your foundation of authority?
from a variety of sources
a dubious statement, given your performance in this venue
But Hamas does not have the hearts and minds of the Palestinians, who voted for them not out of hatred for Israel, but anger at how the PA had become utterly corrupt and incompetent, while Hamas seemed honest and very good with social work.
The PA had become corrupt and incompetent? It was founded that way. That’s why Arafat died with a personal fortune gleaned from years of keeping foreign aid away from his people. Ya know, to keep the people hungry and keep the Joos in the crosshairs. You’re telling me it took them 30+ years to realize this? Why the hell didn’t you tell them, Scotty? You knew the whole time and you know the region and politics better than anyone. Why, oh why, did you let them suffer so? And when will you broker a peace agreement for Chicago, by the way? Carter’s busy, so it’s left to you to save those brave Americans trapped in that quagmire. We’re waiting, sir.
Not only were these statements all true, but not even controversial.
To you and yours, I understand.
Chamberlain is also irrelevant. Negotiating with does not mean appeasing or giving into. You can also have tough negotiations.
You are a first-order historical hairsplitter. Kudos, sir. Bloody good form. Really.
 
Written By: rob
URL: http://
Rob, if you think I’m wrong, why don’t you actually form a counter argument. You are right that the PA and PLO were corrupt really from the start, and Arafat himself put his own greed and desires ahead of the Palestinian people. But there was immense progress made in the two decades after 1978, and my main point remains. Israel cannot win security through military means. Hamas cannot destroy Israel. Somehow they have to find a way to co-exist or they will keep killing each other, with WMD terror becoming more likely as the years pass.

You have to deal with the reality of the situation, just proclaiming good guys vs. bad guys and rejecting another analysis doesn’t do that. Perhaps you don’t want your own perspective challenged at all? Look at conditions on the ground. Analyze. Learn the various perspectives and options, look at what’s worked and failed in the past. This is too important to be just a political game.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Carter’s work for the Camp David Accords ended the series of Arab-Israeli wars as Egypt recognized Israel. That was perhaps the most important development in the Mideast process, and Carter deserves a lot of credit for achieving it.
No he doesn’t. Sadat and Begin began the process, using Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu as a go-between. Carter was brought into it since they needed the American taxpayer to finance it. The key negotiations were done before Carter was involved.
(And for those who try to find little tidbits ’Carter did this or that’ about Zimbabwe or something, you can do that for any President. Reagan thought Iran could be won over too — and of course Mugabe early in his career was a much different leader)
As president, Carter played a key (and unknown, until recently) role in making sure Zimbabwe had elections until Mugabe won. And anyone with a clue knew what Mugabe represented.

And of course, Iran was and is a problem due to Carter’s stupidity.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Don:
using Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu as a go-between.
No kidding. I did not know that, or if I did it escaped down the memory hole.

Then again, he was what you might call a "no nonsense" sort of man.

It would also argue that the Soviets thought they had something to gain from it.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
But to Erb, Carter is a HERO!

To the rest of the non-Muslim world, the Liberal Narrative as the lone exception, Carter is a disgrace. Former NYC Mayor Ed Koch, a life-long Democrat, wrote last week that Jimmy Carter was "a miserable president" and "a miserable human being now as he prepares to meet with Hamas."

Ed Koch, it seems, has a way with words.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Erb, you’ve done it again. You’ve ignored the point.


Can you kindly tell me who it is that’s responsible for setting Foreign Policy in the United States of America? Can you kindly tell who it is that’s empowered by the Constitution to do so?

When you answer that question, take a good, LONG look at Carter and tell me that what he’s doing is contemptible. We didn’t see Ike or Nixon go around making Foreign Policy decisions while Carter was in office, did we, and God KNOWS we would have been better for it.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
No kidding. I did not know that, or if I did it escaped down the memory hole.
I think that Reason magazine had a good article on it.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Rob, if you think I’m wrong, why don’t you actually form a counter argument.
Why bother? You ignore counter arguments that undermine your thesis. And don’t pretend for a second that you don’t have thugs and heroes all mapped out in your world. But I know your intellectual integrity hinges on your keeping a facade of objectivity. This is the hallmark of today’s academe. Unfortunately, your slip shows all too often.
 
Written By: rob
URL: http://
By the way, Michael Ramirez is the newly-minted Pulitzer Prize winner for his editorial cartoons. I thought that meant something to you lefties?
 
Written By: rob
URL: http://
But I know your intellectual integrity hinges on your keeping a facade of objectivity.
I’ve been looking for a way to express that point. This is it. Thanks. "Facade of objectivity" is exactly the phrase I was looking for.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
I’ll be here all week. Please tip your waitress.
 
Written By: rob
URL: http://
No he doesn’t. Sadat and Begin began the process, using Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu as a go-between. Carter was brought into it since they needed the American taxpayer to finance it. The key negotiations were done before Carter was involved.
That is completely false. In fact, the Camp David talks went on much longer than expected, and nearly came apart a number of times. President Carter managed to keep the two sides talking and hammered out an agreement. To say that the talks were basically done before the negotiations at Camp David is objectively, absolutely, and completely false. You either are purposefully posting false information, or else you haven’t really looked into the history here.
Can you kindly tell me who it is that’s responsible for setting Foreign Policy in the United States of America? Can you kindly tell who it is that’s empowered by the Constitution to do so?
Powers are split between the President and Congress, with the Congress having slightly more power on paper (though in practice the President manages to get more because Congress refuses to assert itself). But unless you want to live in a dictatorship, private citizens have the right to disagree, act on that disagreement, and talk to people they want to in order to try to improve things in the world.
Why bother? You ignore counter arguments that undermine your thesis.
I take counter arguments seriously, and counter them, and sometimes can be persuaded. If you can disprove what I wrote, then put up. Or hide behind insults and assertions like a little coward. It might work in the blog world when other posters agree with you. But you wouldn’t stand a chance in a real world setting where you’re judged on your argument and evidence, not on your bravado. Given what you write, I think you don’t really know much about the situation, but have a political point of view probably based on your general ideology and emotional connections, not on any real analysis or understanding.

I think the problem some of you have with me is that you can’t defeat my arguments. Rather than thinking that perhaps, gee, this guy might be right, maybe we should take him seriously, you lash out with insults and ridicule, a kind of defense mechanism against having to question your deep pre-conceptions. That’s sad.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Speak the truth about Carter, and Erb’s knees start jerking.
Amazing, isn’t it?
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Why bother? You ignore counter arguments that undermine your thesis.
I take counter arguments seriously, and counter them, and sometimes can be persuaded. Stop laughing! Really, I do! No, I can’t name a single example where I’ve done that at QandO, but that’s just because it’s populated by dense righties like you that can’t come up with serious arguments. It’s Yon this and Roggio that and you guys have the nerve to take what Petraeus and his people say seriously, as if a military thug-type like that ought to be trusted.

If you can disprove what I wrote, then put up. I mean disprove it in a way that we wise leftists would accept. You’ll never be able to do it, of course, since you lack godlike powers of political science, but don’t you have enough guts to try? Just because you know up front you’re going to fail at convincing me is no reason not to try, is it? Please try. It gives me something to do and validates my own self-image when people take me seriously and engage with my arguments, no matter how repetitious and lame they are.

Or hide behind insults and assertions like a little coward. Yes, that’s right. If you don’t respond to every single post I make, no matter how many times I say the exact same thing over and over and over again, you’re a coward. I decree it. You owe me the time and trouble to try and refute every point I make, even knowing that I will continuously miss the point of your remarks and ignore you anytime you really nail me to the wall, I mean, actually put forth a serious argument for which I don’t have a ready-made leftist talking point. Well, ignoring people like me might work in the blog world when other posters agree with you. But you wouldn’t stand a chance in a real world setting where you’re judged on your argument and evidence, not on your bravado. Say, in a faculty lounge, or a debate sponsored by some feminist organization. You would never be able to cope, mostly because you are not wise in the ways of post-modernist thought and thus cannot sort your supposed facts from the higher wisdom dispensed by people like Juan Cole and Jimmy Carter.

Given what you write, I think you don’t really know much about the situation, but have a political point of view probably based on your general ideology and emotional connections, not on any real analysis or understanding. And I, of course, would never, ever be like that. I only write about things I understand intimately, but of course I understand the totality of world affairs intimately. Stop laughing! And I never get emotional about the issues, and never call anybody names or anything like that. And the coward thing I did above doesn’t count. Stop laughing, I said! Really, I mean it! Stop laughing! You sound like some kind of hyena!

I think the problem some of you have with me is that you can’t defeat my arguments. Of course, no one can. The magnificent edifice of post-modernism allows me to construct ironclad arguments that are true by the very axoims of post-modernism. So when you naively think you have defeated them, I just whip out a post-modernist counter which explains why you’re full of it. But you still have to take me seriously. Otherwise you’re a coward, like I said before.

Rather than thinking that perhaps, gee, this guy might be right, maybe we should take him seriously, you lash out with insults and ridicule. Well, I’m always right, so you should take me seriously. Please take me seriously. Really, you should. Everyone would win. You would get the benefit of my vast experience and godlike powers of political science, and I would get what I always deserve, which is someone to take my arguments seriously and validate my self-worth. Instead, you’re displaying a kind of defense mechanism against having to question anything I want to argue about. That’s sad. So sad. It makes me want to cry. You don’t want me to start crying, do you?
 
Written By: Ott Scerb
URL: http://cluelessprof.maine.edu
Given what you write, I think you don’t really know much about the situation, but have a political point of view probably based on your general ideology and emotional connections, not on any real analysis or understanding.
Well, that sounds familiar. As a member of the bowtied class ensconced in the heart of liberal Northeast intelligencia, you’re projecting.
I think the problem some of you have with me is that you can’t defeat my arguments.
You’ve documented well what you think our problem with you is. My problem is you being solidly left and portraying yourself an objective centrist. I understand that you are centrist by liberal Northeast standards. That doesn’t equal centrist for the rest of the country. Quit pretending you don’t have a skewed perspective. You’re a Juan Cole bootlicker, fercryinoutloud.
you lash out with insults and ridicule, a kind of defense mechanism against having to question your deep pre-conceptions.
I actually question them all the time. It’s not my fault that you reinforce them.
 
Written By: rob
URL: http://
My problem is you being solidly left and portraying yourself an objective centrist.
That’s just silly. Besides the fact I reject the left-right dichotomy as being a fiction (though one people often cling to), my views are very different from the left on a variety of issues. I’m for major tax reform to reduce tax burden and complexity. I’m for fiscal conservatism, and distrust governmental power at all levels, I think we have a vastly over bureaucratized over centralized government in the US. Indeed, my critique on the Iraq war is very similar to my opposition to Clinton’s war in Kosovo (I even had a letter to the editor printed in TIME harshly critical of Clinton’s war). I also very much oppose big government social engineering, which not only tends not to solve problems, but creates conditions of dependency and inefficiency. The problems in Iraq stem from the fact it’s not really a war (the war was won in 2003) but a social engineering experiment to try to reshape their political culture in a way that is probably impossible — and at the very least costly.

But hey, actually talking about issues and ideas is too hard, isn’t it? Better just to label people left or right, ignore what they really write, and just insult/ridicule/label them so you don’t have to do any hard thinking. That seems to be your approach, and you really only hurt yourself, and your country, with such intellectual laziness.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
I reject the left-right dichotomy as being a fiction
What is this? This is one of those high-falutin’ ideas you academics come up with to make yourself seem superior to the rabble. You’re above the national debate. We get it.
a social engineering experiment to try to reshape their political culture in a way that is probably impossible — and at the very least costly.
What you’re actually describing is the war on global warming.
That seems to be your approach, and you really only hurt yourself, and your country, with such intellectual laziness.
Talk about your intellectual laziness. You stole that from Jon Stewart.

You’ve got your own set of pat insults, buddy. Despite your seersucker, you’re really not above it at all.
 
Written By: rob
URL: http://
Talk about your intellectual laziness. You stole that from Jon Stewart.
No I didn’t. What did Stewart say?

Anyway, I’ve never claimed to be above it all (and am wearing actually jeans and a flannel shirt at the moment). You seem to be suffering some kind of inferiority complex where you imagine people are thinking they’re better than you and you have to prove yourself. I’m simply noting that you are responding to ideas and arguments with nothing but insults and ridicule, and that is the sign of someone who hasn’t really thought through the material and tends to be giving just a gut reaction. That’s intellectual laziness. I’d love it if you’d actually post an argument, give some evidence, and explain your position. But that would take some work, wouldn’t it?
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Back to issue at hand - the Carter foibles. Carter has one thing and one thing only on his mind - His Legacy - His legacy as a President and his legacy as a Nobel laureate.

First - His legacy as a President. BAAAAARRRRRRFFFFFFFF! ’Nuff said.

Second - His legacy as a Nobel laureate. BAAAAARRRRRRFFFFFFFF!

It is no wonder the western world considers him the *sshole of the Democratic Party and the evidence can be seen in how fast the rest of the Party is trying to distance themselves from the man.

So you can praise him til the sun goes down and that will not change the fact that when he sticks his nose into the world scene he is dispicable human being. Any questions?
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Anyway, I’ve never claimed to be above it all (and am wearing actually jeans and a flannel shirt at the moment). See how wrong you are? My seersucker is at the cleaners, which just goes to prove that you don’t know me at all. You seem to be suffering some kind of inferiority complex where you imagine people are thinking they’re better than you and you have to prove yourself. The fact that I continually come across as smug and condescending doesn’t mean I think I’m better than you. Not at all! I mean, I actually am better because of my PhD and my godlike powers of political science, but I do my best to hide that from you dense righties.

I’m simply noting that you are responding to ideas and arguments with nothing but insults and ridicule, and that is the sign of someone who hasn’t really thought through the material and tends to be giving just a gut reaction. Anyone who responds to my ideas and my arguments that way is a coward, as I said in another comment. All of you QandO commenters owe me the time and trouble to respond to every argument and point I make. If you don’t, that’s intellectual laziness. I decree it. No matter how many times I argue the exact same thing and dismiss anything you argue to the contrary, you still owe it to me to respond to all of my arguments, or I’ll call you a coward and intellectually dishonest. Because I need you to respond to me. People have stopped, and don’t do anything but ridicule me, and I just don’t understand it. Don’t you want to engage me? Please? I’ll play nice. I’ll come back and post and post and post and reply and reply and reply, and we can go back and forth a thousand times. Of course, you’ll never convince me of anything and I’ll always strive to get the last word, and none of my arguments will make any sense to you, but if you don’t play this game with me, then you’re just a coward and intellectually lazy. I decree it.

So I’d love it if you’d actually post an argument, give some evidence, and explain your position. But that would take some work, wouldn’t it? Well, you owe me that work. My own self-worth demands that I take huge amounts of my time every day to engage with others so that I can grant them the privilege of learning from my vast stores of expertise and acumen. And it’s not an obsession to keep posting here in the face of ridicule, oh no. The fact that I keep posting here when everyone has decided that I’m an obtuse fool is because I’m so good and objective and intellectually honest, unlike you dense and dishonest righties. Who won’t play my game as long as I want and devote infinite amounts of time to giving me the engagement that I so desperately need. Please come back and play? Please?
 
Written By: Ott Scerb
URL: http://clueless.maine.edu
So you can praise him til the sun goes down and that will not change the fact that when he sticks his nose into the world scene he is dispicable human being. Any questions?
Oh, lots of people praise him world wide, he is perhaps the most respected American on the planet. A small subset who don’t like his actions like to use a lot of crude language to try to attack him. But they’re impotent. He can do what he wants, history will judge him as a superb ex-President, he has the accolades. You can, however, complain and call names in some blog, if it makes you feel better. That hurts no one, especially not Carter. He’s got the world stage. You’ve got comment section 8390 at Q & O.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Boris on Jimmy Carter:
Oh, lots of people praise him world wide, he is perhaps the most respected American on the planet
Jimmy Carter is exactly as depicted in the Ramirez cartoon that began this thread.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Oh, lots of people praise him world wide, he is perhaps the most respected American on the planet.
In the Muslim world you mean. OpEds have surfaced the world over regarding Carter’s trip and schmoozing with Hezbollah. Even his own party is fighting to put distance between themselves and him. You can - and it seems you will - choose heros based upon your own set of standards. Don’t even presume those standards merit anything but disdain where I come from.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
In the Muslim world you mean.
No, the entire planet. Even those who criticize his talking to Hamas still admire Carter the decent, principled and kind human being. You don’t seem to tolerate people acting on very different beliefs and premises than you without having to see them as bad people. Good people can disagree on things, even intensely.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
You seem to be suffering some kind of inferiority complex where you imagine people are thinking they’re better than you and you have to prove yourself.
Imagining? You’ve said it yourself many times in smug, self-congratulatory language. Again, everything is wasted down the memory hole with you.
that is the sign of someone who hasn’t really thought through the material and tends to be giving just a gut reaction.
Really? So reading Yon and Totten (among others), who give fairly sober, even-handed accounts of the war, wins and losses, vs. reading, say, your assessments leaves one to wonder: who’s right? who’s wrong? Frankly, your lack of credibility over and over again outweighs your credentials. I’m no genius but I’m no slouch either. And I’m not intimidated by a professor who drones, "you don’t seem to know much about the subject. Here’s a Juan Cole book for you, though I doubt you’ll understand it." Get over yourself. One’s credibility is far more influential in the real world than status.

You’ve built a persona here on this site that reeks of elitist snobbery — on purpose. Then you pretend this wasn’t your intention. Maybe it’s willful ignorance on your part, but I wanted to give you more credit that you’ve done it intentionally.
Oh, lots of people praise him world wide, he is perhaps the most respected American on the planet.
Probably true, as most of the world respects despots and dictators. So you’re really not saying much.
history will judge him as a superb ex-President, he has the accolades.
This really is the key for you, isn’t it? How many left-wing societies give him prestigious awards? You’re a sucker for that stuff.
He’s got the world stage. You’ve got comment section 8390 at Q & O.
You say this as if the point is to hurt Carter’s feelings. What grade are you in?
Jimmy Carter is exactly as depicted in the Ramirez cartoon that began this thread.
Conundrum: Ramirez won a Pulitzer, long prized by lefties. (By the way, how did that happen? They’ve given those to exactly five conservatives in the last 25 years?) That’s like matter meets anti-matter. I guess the Nobel (global) outweighs the Pulitzer (national), so there you go.
You don’t seem to tolerate people acting on very different beliefs and premises than you without having to see them as bad people. Good people can disagree on things, even intensely.
I guess that’s why I can volunteer for Habitat without much liking the founder. Now I don’t have to feel so conflicted about it. Thank you, Grampa.
 
Written By: rob
URL: http://
We won’t bother to mention...again...that this recent effort by the great man was yet another great failure....

Oh, I guess we will mention it after all.

Meanwhile the wolkenkuckucksheim generator in the Northeast continues.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
OK, I think I’ve got it figured out. First, look at the Ramirez cartoon. See Jimmy Carter? Now, find Carter’s anus. That’s Erb.
 
Written By: Grocky
URL: http://
Really? So reading Yon and Totten (among others), who give fairly sober, even-handed accounts of the war, wins and losses, vs. reading, say, your assessments leaves one to wonder: who’s right? who’s wrong?
First, the discussion was on Israel and Palestine, I don’t think Yon or Totten is there. But I read ALL sides, not just trusting pro-military reporter/bloggers. If you selective choose to believe only those whose perspective is close to yours, you are simply looking to support your pre-existing biases.

The rest of your post is silly. You can fantasize all you want about my intention or the like, but since I’m not claiming any special knowledge or authority, it looks more like you are indeed intimidated. Otherwise, why even bother worrying about what another person does for a living, why not respond to the content and arguments...unless deep down you feel intimidated. Or as Shakespeare put it: Methinks thou doth protest too much (is quoting Shakespeare too elitist for you?)

You came into this attacking me and calling me names. If you want a civil, friendly exchange, you have to do your part. Because name calling on the usenet is meaningless, internet insults are easy and plentiful. Real content and discussion, THAT has value.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
trusting pro-military reporter/bloggers
You haven’t read them, have you?
 
Written By: rob
URL: http://
Boris:
Otherwise, why even bother worrying about what another person does for a living, why not respond to the content and arguments...unless deep down you feel intimidated. Or as Shakespeare put it: Methinks thou doth protest too much (is quoting Shakespeare too elitist for you?)
Oh dear, someone put the Tuesday afternoon disk into the ERB-4 on Friday evening.

Must have been the janitor, helping out the IT staff so they could get a head start on the weekend.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
You haven’t read them, have you?
Au contraire (yikes, that was French, must be elitist...) I have them book marked, and actually recommend/assign those and other sites. On the one hand, they give a very limited picture of the entire conflict, and the strategic situation. They also give an important perspective on that limited aspect, one to be taken seriously. But they are not to be read uncritically, any more than al jazeera is to be taken uncritically. You have to cast your net wide and compare a variety of perspectives to start figuring out what’s really happening.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
You haven’t read them, have you?
Au contraire (yikes, that was French, must be elitist...) I have them book marked, and actually recommend/assign those and other sites. Notice that I have danced around the question and not actually said I’ve read them, because I kind of just glance at those sites, but that’s understandable because they’re not really that helpful. They give a very limited picture of the entire conflict, and the strategic situation. Only brilliant people like Juan Cole can see the whole conflict through the clarifying lens of leftist, anti-war, anti-Americanism. Thus they are the sources that I really rely on for all of my opinions, as my comments here clearly indicate.

Those other guys also give an important perspective on that limited aspect, one to be taken seriously. Well, with my facade of objectivity, I have to pretend to take them seriously. But they are not to be read uncritically, any more than al jazeera is to be taken uncritically. They’re just pro-American hacks producing pro-American propaganda, just like al jazeera is Arab media producing propaganda. You have to cast your net wide and compare a variety of perspectives to start figuring out what’s really happening. And some of those sources must have the wise perspective of anti-American leftists, because those are really the only ones that make any sense.
 
Written By: Ott Scerb
URL: http://cluelessprof.maine.edu
Now that I have a chance to return, I’m gratified I’m not the only one to call you on your BS.

On terrorists, you said:
Alas, if only it were that easy. First of all, terrorism is a strategy, so there is no set number of terrorists. Someone can be an average citizen until they decide to engage in a terrorist act. Therefore killing terrorists, if it has the side effect of angering a population and killing civilians, can simply generate more terrorists.
You’re so disconnected from reality that you can’t see the simple truth: terrorists are those who commit terrorism. Thus, you kill anyone who practices terrorism. You say it’s a "strategy," so you tacitly admit there that a "terrorist act" is definable.

The number of terrorists, whether stable, growing or having the potential to grow, is meaningless. Did you never consider that armies have no set number, either? Look at enlistments immediately after 9/11. Not that I’m at all saying the 9/11 attacks were "justified" in any way, but Americans were "angered" about being attacked. So it happens on both sides: the difference is that only side can be right.

Like in any other war, you keep fighting, killing, until the enemy no longer fights. And as we’ve now defined, if there are no more terrorist acts being committed, there are no more terrorists.
Also, if it were that easy, you’d think people would have done it by now. It’s easy for an arm chair warrior to spout off stuff like that, but the real world is much more difficult.
Actually, it’s easy for an "arm chair warrior" like myself to see what really needs to be done. Unlike Israel’s politicians that eventually oversee its military responses, or academics like you with a terrorist-apologist agenda, I don’t have any misguided notions of following popular opinion or heeding politics.

Israel doesn’t go after terrorists as it should, like the previous blunder in Lebanon, because it’s become too worried about looking "bad" in the eyes of the world. Terrorists have the de facto support of the so-called "interational community." The terrorists hide behind women and children, and when collateral damage occurs, Israel is the one blamed, not the cowards who use "human shields" with the deliberate tactic of getting Palestinian women and children. Unfortunately, Israel is trying to find the "balance" between the two, when there are only the two extremes of fighting all-out, or allowing terrorists to launch rockets, burglarize Israeli homes and shoot the residents, etc. This is the state of the "conflict" in a nutshell, and for all your academic training and experience, you can’t seem to fathom it.

You also said:
The problem in Palestine is that the Jews and Palestinians destinies are linked. They each have strong reason to believe they are right.
The first statement is false, and it’s not made true merely because you follow it with a true statement (only so because it’s so generic). "Believing" you are right does not matter. One must be right. For example, you believe you’re right. Most of the rest of us know you’re wrong.

In addition to what I will add below, the problem is that Arabs can’t accept that they got their butts kicked three times, after being the initiators of war each time.

You also said:
For the Arabs, the Jews are mostly European colonists who have taken control of land that should belong to the Arabs. They don’t mind Jews living there, but they don’t want to cede sovereignty (in a full Palestine, Arabs would be the majority).
In fact, Arabs didn’t care about the desert where the Jews started settling. Arabs themselves created the arid land, which was once "a land of milk and honey," via centuries of ecological neglect. But then the Jews restored the land, and suddenly the Arabs wanted it back.

I would say that I’m surprised you don’t know this, but you’re an academic, after all, and are not confining your "reasoning" to reality nor truth. If the Arabs really don’t mind Jews living there, why are Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran so adamant about completely destroying Israel? How do you expect "negotiations" to take place with someone who only feigns negotiations?
After all, what kind of rationale is it to say ’we should have this land because people with the same religion had it 2000 years ago? To the Jews, the Arabs weren’t building up the land, they bought it, and after the holocaust, they thought they had moral claim to build the state of Israel.
Your "we should have this land" notion is a strawman. Jews’ claim to the land is because they didn’t just "buy" the land, but because suddenly Arabs wanted back the previously worthless land that they’d freely given up to these "European Jews." Since then, Israel’s gained more land because of an old phrase: spoils of war. You attack me first from your adjoining territory, I kick your butt, and I’m going to get reparations by taking some of your land.

You and your anti-Semitic buddy "Reverend" Wright should completely support the restoration of Israel. In carving out a new state of Israel, those "evil white Europeans" were merely giving back land that they took away 2000 years ago.
The good news is that most Palestinians accept the existence of Israel, and want peace. Most Israelis do too.
"Peace" in what way? There’s peace with both sides co-existing, and peace with one side completely dead. You don’t seem to realize that most Palestinians want one kind of "peace" so much that they elected a party dedicated to the utter destruction Israel.

Elsewhere, you said that votes for Hamas weren’t pro-Hamas but more anti-PA. Oh, so if one devil doesn’t work, people should elect someone who’s even worse?
The bad news is that extremists and militarists on each side see the other side as inherently evil or inferior and have the capacity to incite anger and violence to prevent peace from being reached. Emblematic of this are the two Nobel prize winners, Yitzak Rabin and Anwar Sadat, each assassinated by extremists on their own side.
The difference between Sadat and Rabin is that the former somewhat tried to work for real peace with Israel, while the latter was working against his own country’s best interests.
But there is no fix. Israel’s inability to handle Hezbollah last year and the US problems in Iraq and Afghanistan (where the Taliban and al qaeda are resurgent) show that you can’t defeat terrorism with a slogan, or even with raw military power.
If you think Israel’s military blunders last year were an example of "raw military power," you have no idea what military power is. The effort was so half-fought that it would have been laughable were it not so pathetic.
Asymmetrical warfare and in fact terror strategies in an age of globalization requires a multifaceted approach.
Rhetorical nonsense. Warfare requires only one thing: winning.
In the Mideast, first and foremost is to undercut the appeal of extremism, as has been done with al qaeda. But if you go out guns a blazin’ and say you just want to ’find and kill the terrorist,’ you’ll actually find the numbers of terrorists growing, and be less able to achieve progress.
No, it’s only a matter of killing enough terrorists, and razing enough homes, so that succeeding generations realize, "Hmm, maybe this terrorism stuff isn’t that great after all."

If it breeds more terrorists, so be it. Then you escalate as well, and you get it over with as soon as possible. Fight the battle all-out now, instead of piecemeal over decades. Appeasement has never worked.
Ultimately you can’t be pro-Israel without being pro-Palestinian and vice-versa.
This would have been somewhat correct in the past, when it was pitiable that the Palestinians were victims of their own unelected leaders. However, your statement has been inaccurate ever since the Palestinians used popular democracy to declare terrorists as their government.
Carter understands that, and he understands that Hamas will not go away or simply be wiped out. So sooner or later, they’ll have to be brought on board. Carter’s work for the Camp David Accords ended the series of Arab-Israeli wars as Egypt recognized Israel. That was perhaps the most important development in the Mideast process, and Carter deserves a lot of credit for achieving it.
The only reason Carter cannot understand less today is because he already understood zilch as president. Yeah, Egypt recognized Israel — and what did that accomplish? Other Arab nations didn’t follow suit, and Carter was too stupid to realize it. Nor was Egypt’s recognition really that important: after losing Sinai, Egypt was hardly in a position to go against Israel anymore.

Answer these directly: do you really think Hamas will go for "peace," and if so, what kind of peace? Do you really trust Hamas to accept and accept sincerely terms for peaceful co-existence?
You have to deal with the reality of the situation, just proclaiming good guys vs. bad guys and rejecting another analysis doesn’t do that.
Actually, the reality of the situtation is that one side is good, and one side is bad. I am "rejecting another analysis" because anything else is incorrect.

Like I said before: What you "prefer" and what is "real" are dramatically at odds. You talk of "principles," forgetting that "principles" aren’t always correct and hence is meaningless justification. Even putting that aside, you really live in delusion if you think Carter is somehow building "peace" in the Middle East. Carter went to Syria to play nice with self-avowed terrorists, came back with a lie about Hamas’ "concessions," and is now lying about the State Department warning him not to go. So simple that one would think even an academic could understand.

Go learn about "principles," as opposed to living life like a popularity contest, and you might someday be able to call yourself a man.
 
Written By: Perry Eidelbus
URL: http://eidelblog.blogspot.com
Very Well Done, Perry.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
terrorists are those who commit terrorism. Thus, you kill anyone who practices terrorism. You say it’s a "strategy," so you tacitly admit there that a "terrorist act" is definable.
Well duh. But as counter-terrorist specialist Paul Pillar (who headed the CIA counter terrorism unit) noted, you can’t defeat a strategy, and you can’t "win" a war on terror. You seem not to understand the basics. I’ll try to help walk you through it.

Did you never consider that armies have no set number, either? Look at enlistments immediately after 9/11. Not that I’m at all saying the 9/11 attacks were "justified" in any way, but Americans were "angered" about being attacked. So it happens on both sides: the difference is that only side can be right.
Ah, but look at what’s happening. Iraq is getting extremists ground to recruit and replenish their ranks, while it’s dividing the US, overstretching our military, and weakening us economically. You’re giving a rather vague "armies can grow too." But the reality is the way this being played out our resolve and military readiness is decreasing, while our actions help the extremists there. In any event, you don’t deny my point: killing more terrorists often only increases their number. And if it were so easy that you could just "kill the terrorists," don’t you think someone would have done that before? Clearly, you are being very simplistic.

And your silly rant about terrorists getting support from the international community, and apparent attempt to blame all them "academics and politicians" for not seeing the reality that you think you see (psst — you’re suffering a delusion) is simply a mark of how out of touch with reality you are. You don’t understand the real world, you’re lost in a maze of slogans and bravado.

Most Palestinians want peace with Israel, they don’t want Israel destroyed. Only anti-Palestinian bigots, who are no different than anti-semitic bigots, would try to argue that. There are extremists on each side, the extremists have more in common with each other than they would care to admit.

But here you show just how totally out of touch you are — I laughed out loud:
The difference between Sadat and Rabin is that the former somewhat tried to work for real peace with Israel, while the latter was working against his own country’s best interests.
Ah, so blogger boy thinks he knows the interests of Israel better than a General who masterminded the 1967 war, knew all the intelligence information, understood the region and its leaders. You know better than Rabin! That is precious. It also shows just how bizarre your view is.

Yeah, Egypt recognized Israel — and what did that accomplish? Other Arab nations didn’t follow suit,
LOL! Gee, what did it accomplish? Well, Arab-Israeli wars in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973...then they stopped. Without Egypt, there was no chance for an Arab-Israeli all out war. Jordan also later recognized Israel. The Saudis did not, but altered policies. Ending a series of Arab-Israeli wars is a huge accomplishment. The fact you don’t get that, well, that speaks volumes!


Answer these directly: do you really think Hamas will go for "peace," and if so, what kind of peace? Do you really trust Hamas to accept and accept sincerely terms for peaceful co-existence?
Ultimately, I think that like with the PLO, Hamas will be forced by circumstances, especially through real diplomacy, to accept a viable Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel. Yet extremists who want to demonize the other side will, on both sides, try to prevent that. If they succeed then at some point Palestine will be nothing but rubble — destroyed in WMD terrorism that will kill Jews and Arabs indiscriminately. The rest of the world will shake its collective head and move on.

But the destiny of the Palestinians and Israelis are linked. Israel kills far more innocent Palestinians than innocent Israelis are killed by Hamas. Both sides need to recognize they can’t "win" by military means, they’ll just push towards the horrible result I describe above. I think Hamas is showing signs of changing its diplomacy. I think more effort needs to be made to talk with Syria and Iran. Because Israel will never be secure without the Palestinians having a viable state, and vice-versa. And if they want to kill each other to the point of mutual destruction, well, I don’t want the US to have any part of it. That’s their problem, not ours. Let’s help them achieve peace if we can play a positive role, but only if they work towards positive ends.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Actually, it’s easy for an "arm chair warrior" like myself to see what really needs to be done. Unlike Israel’s politicians that eventually oversee its military responses, or academics like you with a terrorist-apologist agenda, I don’t have any misguided notions of following popular opinion or heeding politics.
Oh, another precious comment. Yeah, an arm chair warrior with a computer knows better than Israel’s leaders, academics, and others, what needs to be done. Why, a simple slogan! Kill the terrorists! It’s so easy, but it never occurred to all these military, political and academic types who apparently are apologists for terrorists.

The utter absurdity of your statement is hilarious. I’m still chuckling.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Ultimately, I think that like with the PLO, Hamas will be forced by circumstances, especially through real diplomacy, to accept a viable Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel. The circumstances that force them to do so will be wise leftists like me posting long comments like this one with massive word counts that exert an inexorable pull on Hamas because of quantum gravitational effects, just like the ones Alan Sokal talked about. In fact, if we wise, peace-oriented leftists keep doing things like sending geniuses like Jimmy Carter over there, Hamas will inevitably become a beneficient, non-violent social club where Palestinians can enjoy a hearty beverage (non-alcoholic because of their religion, of course) and discuss ways to get along better with Israelis. You’ll see. As long as you don’t stand in our way, this can happen.

Yet extremists who want to demonize the other side will, on both sides, try to prevent that. Especially those mean Israeli extremists, who have the nerve to defend themselves against the indiginous brown people they displaced. If they succeed then at some point Palestine will be nothing but rubble — destroyed in WMD terrorism that will kill Jews and Arabs indiscriminately. The rest of the world will shake its collective head and move on. Well, actually the rest of the world will find a way to blame America for the whole thing, and since we are in fact always guilty because of our imperialist hubris throughout the world, we’ll deserve their blame.

But the destiny of the Palestinians and Israelis are linked. Israel kills far more innocent Palestinians than innocent Israelis are killed by Hamas. No, I don’t have any sources for that besides left-wing, pro-Palestinian propaganda sites - why do you ask? Don’t you trust those emphathetic pro-Palestinian leftists to be objective? I mean, it all depends on the what the word "innocent" means, doesn’t it, and those nasty Israelis are a lot less likely to be innocent than the virtuous brown people in Palestine.

Both sides need to recognize they can’t "win" by military means, they’ll just push towards the horrible result I describe above. So the answer is just for Israel to give up eventually, since they have the stronger military. If they have the nerve to defend themselves, the horrible result will definitely come to pass. I think Hamas is showing signs of changing its diplomacy. I’ve previously discussed how "diplomacy" is a magic word that can cure any political problem, and by listening to wise leftists like Jimmy Carter, Hamas is starting to realize that. I think more effort needs to be made to talk with Syria and Iran. That way, we can induce them to follow the same path and depend on the magic of diplomacy to make the world perfect. Yes, I know those countries are run by thugs trying to acquire nuclear weapons and who support terrorism throughout the world. But we certainly shouldn’t threaten any force against them because we can use magical, non-coercive diplomacy to make it all work out. All you have to do is give control to we wise leftists, and voila! (More elitist French...;) See? I do so have a sense of humor! Now stop laughing! It was just a little, mild joke! You’re not supposed to laugh at me like I’m on that show Jacka—.

Because Israel will never be secure without the Palestinians having a viable state, and vice-versa. Once the Palestinians have a viable state, it will all just work out and the Israelis will be totally secure, and they should look forward to that day and give up as much land and other concessions as necessary to make it happen, instead of having the nerve to distrust the Palestinians’ motives and continue to defend themselves. Stop laughing! It’s true, I tell you! The Palestinians just have not been given a chance to do that! Well, yes, I know they’ve been given fifty years of UN aid to get their act together, but that doesn’t count!! Stop laughing, I said!! And if they want to kill each other to the point of mutual destruction, well, I don’t want the US to have any part of it. That’s their problem, not ours. But that doesn’t mean we shouls just stand by and let Israel kill millions of innocent Palestinians under a bogus claim of defending themselves, oh, no. We should exert as much pressure on Israel as we can to give in to reasonable Palestinian demands, and to stop killing innocent Palestinians, where "innocent" is defined as "justifiably mad at Israel." Let’s help them achieve peace if we can play a positive role such as putting pressure on Israel to do things they would otherwise regard as stupid and suicidal, but only if they work towards positive ends such as the superiority of the Palestinians so those uppity and mean, innocent-baby-killing Israelis get taught a few valuable lessons.
 
Written By: Ott Scerb
URL: http://cluelessprof.maine.edu
Israel kills far more innocent Palestinians than innocent Israelis are killed by Hamas.
And why is that Erb?

Israel kills more civilians - You are probably right. And the reason? Hamas, as with all the rest of the Brave Palestinians (sarcasm) hide behind children and fill the buildings they occupy with mothers with infants and other defenseless civilians. Any strike against Hamas, Hezbollah, or any of the other such organizations will always end with civilian casualties. That is not the Israeli intent but the intent of Hamas et al. Or do you dispute this?

Fewer civilians killed by Hamas - Not from lack of trying. During this current period of "Truce" dozens of rockets are fired daily into Israel. To date over 3,000 such rockets have been fired since the Israeli unilateral departure from Gaza. Where they land, who knows? And Hamas cares not one whit. Or do you dispute this?

So, in fact, your statement is ludicrous. Try something new for a change, Erb. Show us you can really think and reason on your own. Try writing something that does not pass for a talking point right out of the Liberal Narrative.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
So, in fact, your statement is ludicrous.
You admit it’s probably right, but then call it ludicrous.

That is ludicrous!
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
You admit it’s probably right, but then call it ludicrous.
And you make the statement as if the Israelis are operating like the Palestinians, regardless of civilian casualties. The PA shoots off hundreds of $50 backyard constructed rockets that can kill just as effectively as the $50,000 munitions the Israelis use - when it indisciminitley hits someone. The reason for the $$ discrepancy? The Israeli desire to limit civilian or collateral damage - whereas the PA could care less.
That is ludicrous!
But you don’t dispute the points. And, as usual, you deflect the discussion when you get caught going off the deep end.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
The real path to peace in Palestine? As Golda Meir, late Prime Minister of Israel, said: "Peace will come when the Arabs start to love their children more than they hate us."And not before - all else will be but a momentary pause in the killings.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
And you make the statement as if the Israelis are operating like the Palestinians, regardless of civilian casualties.
You read far too much into statements. The statement was to help you understand the perception of Arabs and Palestinians. They see lots of dead innocent Arabs and Palestinians due to Israeli attacks, and read reports of Israeli soldiers goading young Palestinians out in the open in order to shoot at them. They’ve seen intensely horrific images. They know that Israeli civilians have been mostly protected from much violence, except for a number of suicide bombing cases which many in the Arab world think went too far. In short, you need to learn to understand the perspective of the other side, rather than just find an excuse to dismiss it as irrational, inferior or different. Most Arabs are good people, most Palestinians are good people. They get upset when loved ones are killed, they identify with their own people and causes, just like you or anyone else does. THAT is the point!

Unless people really make an effort to understand different perspectives, they’ll lock themselves into a mentality whereby they find reasons to see their side as good, noble and just, and the other side as a caricature, picking out all the negatives to focus upon, and not understanding why they feel as they do. And, as long as that continues, so will the violence. Remember, the destinies of the Palestinians and Israelis are linked. They’ll either find a way to live together, or they’ll die together.

You may have the last word. I’m shifting to spending more time studying two languages (Italian and Russian), working on a new book project, and enjoying the outdoors (as described in my blog today). Feel free to e-mail, but I’m cutting blog commentary out for now, it’s not very productive, even though I feel I’ve learned a lot about other perspectives and participating here has helped me understand how others approach things, and has made me a better teacher. Thanks for that!
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Most Arabs are good people, most Palestinians are good people. They get upset when loved ones are killed, they identify with their own people and causes, just like you or anyone else does. THAT is the point!
And Israelis, whose sons or daughters are killed senselessly by suicide bombers or a Kazaam rocket fired blindly into the sky, are any less likely to be upset? You, like most of the Left, view civilian casualties as a one-sided affair. Only Palestinian civilians are killed in your world view - the other side don’t count - they are only Jews - that is the appearance of that sort of comment.

I tend to approach the Palestinian problem rather simply and have said it more than once on these pages:

If the Palestinians lay down their arms and commit completely to non-violence, what happens? The war is over and they have a country they can call their own - Palestine.

If the Israelis lay down their arm and commit completely to non-violence, what happens? The war is over six months later when the last Jew is slaughtered by the Palestinians and they now have an even larger country they can call their own - Palestine.

Or more simply stated: "Peace will come when the Arabs start to love their children more than they hate us." Golda Meir.

You say the two sides are linked and you are right. And when the one side recognizes and garuntees the security of the other, the war will end - not until then. For if the Israelis accept anything less then they have given up and the slaughter (or genocide depending on your point of view) begins. If you believe otherwise, then maybe you should just go back into your academic hole and come back out when it is all over.

By the way, good luck with you book project.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider