I agree that aggressive tactics used by the US cross a line but I also think that there are several more lines to go before it reaches Chuckie Taylor.

What are these "lines" you're talking about. Are they like yardlines on a football field? How many prisoners in US custody need to go blind, be driven insane, or be murdered, before you're satisfied?

Do you believe that the law is a "line"?

"The United States has always practiced torture routinely"

How so?

I nominate David Rivkin to your list of notorious torture apologists. Recently caught him on grit TV vs. Horton and Michael Ratner on torture. His points seemed to be: 1) there is no need to investigate because the facts are known; 2) an investigation would only demoralize the intelligence community; 3) [torture] policy differences are things that reasonable people can disagree on without going to court.

http://lauraflanders.firedoglake.com/2008/12/30/justice-after-bush-iraqi-refugee-stories-and-distributing-resonsibility-2/

http://www.bakerlaw.com/FindLawyers.aspx?Abs_Ppl_ID=A4F45B59-815B-4A91-9E21-1AE8768A834E

Why do I, a typical right-wing American voter with no Jewish connections, keep supporting Israel?

I have no idea. Really.

But I have learned one thing today, after burning way too much time here at UT. And that thing I've learned is this: If you can argue on a topic for hours, and days, and years, and decades, and the argument never advances, then you know that the terms of the argument must be changed.

And so I propose that we fundamentally change the argument. From now on, I propose that US foreign policy should be based on what is best for Belgium.

"Ok... I'm confused."

You're not confused a bit. You're simply arguing a point.

You specify evil Iranian funding for Hamas, but neglect to specify mountains of US aid to Israel. You specify evil Russian arms for Hamas, but neglect to specify mountains of US arms to Israel. You specify that Hamas receives aid from "Muslim countries".

By making these distinctions, by specifying Russia, and Iran, and Muslim countries, what point are you making? What are you trying to say?

If we really don't know who funds Hamas, then why am I constantly told specifically about Iran's contribution to Hamas? Why, do you think, is Iran singled out in this manner?

And why did you also point to "Muslim countries" as funders specifically? Is not the great majority of population in the "Occupied Territories" Muslim? Would you think it more acceptable if the funding was from Hindu countries?

And why did you specify Russian arms? Are you concerned that Hamas arms are not American? Do you feel that US arms manufacturers are being unfairly excluded? (Actually you might have a point there--as the US is the leading exporter of arms worldwide, you might well think that something was indeed odd if American arms weren't dominant in every country).

We're constantly reminded that Hamas is funded by Evil Iran. And now the spectre of Russian arms.

Do your rules apply to Hamas as well? They have the support of Muslim nations including Iran. They also receive weapons from Russia and others.

Hamas Funding, via

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hamas-funds.htm

3. The Financial Assistance Infrastructure

The Hamas has an extensive network of financial sources, operating within the framework of Dawa activity, with a total value of tens of millions of dollars a year.

Gulf States - A considerable proportion of the aforementioned funds originate from various sources in the Gulf States (The Gulf Cooperation Council States). Most of the funding is from Saudi Arabian sources, with a total value of $12 million a year.

Iran - Its contribution is estimated at $3 million a year.

Charitable associations in the Territories - Funds are raised for the Hamas through the mosques (a convenient domain for fundraising and recruitment of members) and through charity associations and foundations.

Charity associations overseas

Are you claiming that--in addition to the Israeli blockade of Gaza--Hamas is also blockading Gazans?

Everyone involved is culpable. That said, I firmly believe Israel has the sovereign right to exist and I will be operating from that assumption.

Do you also operate from the assumption that all peoples on the planet have an equal right to exist?

you cannot base a foreign policy simply on a moral aversion to killing innocent people

there is so much more to consider

Yes, you can. If innocent people need killing, you simply define them as not_innocent, and then proceed. This works just as well as the other foreign policies.

a map so convuluted and byzantine as to look like a Texas house district...

Superb!

[clink]

The Wisdom of the Senate was supposed to save us from all that. I wonder what happened.

And I'm not at all sure that GWB was elected two times. Or even one time. But I take your point.

Related to that--Bush often equates democracy with peace. He assumes that democracy leads to peace, and all sorts of other good national decisions. In reality, I wonder if democracies have been just as war-like as other governmental forms--from Athens to the present.

I think what democracy does, if functioning correctly, is to better collect and direct national will to do something. That 'something' may still be totally stupid and wrong, but if so, many more people have bought into it.

Yesterday, on the inimitable CNN, Hamas was referred to as a "democratically-elected terrorist organization".

Given the twin US foreign policy pillars of 1) turning the world democratic and 2) ridding the world of terrorism, the establishment simply can't handle Hamas--The Matrix stutters every time it is mentioned.

Interesting comment on Zbig--are you referring to Afghanistan?