Gary Kamiya places way, way too much emphasis on alleged historical injustices done by the West to the Arab and Islamic world over the past 100 years as the main driver for today's problems. I cannot find any single issue raised by Kamiya that rises to the same level of significance, for example, that slavery has and still does in the US. Most of the historical injustices mentioned by Kamiya were all largely indirect in nature and have become more footnotes to history instead of front-page headlines, including the propping up of unpopular dictators. Granted, the British and the French drew the lines in the sands of the Middle East to suit their own colonial interests in 1920 but the locals really did not care - the tribal affiliations were and still are the strongest arbiter in the region. I just don't get the sense that everybody around the world is a freakin history expert on events that occurred prior to their everyday experiences. There are exceptions, of course, such as the aforementioned slavery in the US, the Holocaust (which the author believes is irrelevant to the matter at hand or he would have mentioned it), the atomic bombing of Japan, etc. Need I go on?

What the author is promoting is the far left intrepretation of history that places all the responsibility and blame for the ills in the world at the feet of the great "imperialist hegemonic power", the USA and that everybody else is a "victim" and is therefore entitled to a lifetime of reparations, if you will. Kamiya always writes these long-winded dissertations on world events that seem to go nowhere. He is waiting for some future US administration to buy into his worldview, despite the fact he never articulates any consequences to his misguided ideas.

Take for example the current "right of return" sticking point in Palestine, which the author probably believes is some neocon conspiracy to deprive the Palestinians their heritage. The hard reality is that there simply is no way that this will ever be accepted, despite the wishes of the author, into any comprehensive agreement over Palestine. Israel would lose its Jewish character overnight and that simply will not happen. So move on. If this was so goddamn important why did'nt Nasser negotiate something back in 1960 while there were only 100,000 people at-stake. Now we have 5.5 million people that are supposedly displaced all over the Middle East, equal to the population of Israel.

My conclusion is that the Bernard Lewis' point of view is more firmly rooted in reality and provides the best approach to solving intractable issues. That is why people like Kamiya are always on the outside and frustrated.

I am disturbed by watch_this_space and her obvious narcissistic personality disorder: she already hates her unborn child because it may not be "perfect" and life with an imperfect child could be messy and inconvenient.

Shame on you.

Jennilaya's main argument is the classic pro-choicer which basically says that "its my body and I will do with what I want with it and I don't need anyone telling me what to do....". The case is "closed" by arguing that life does not even become viable until the third trimester at the earliest, so what's the harm, it's not a real human being. Maybe it's a potential human being. Maybe not. Who the hell knows, who the hell cares. To summarize: "Stay out of my business. Since when are you the moral compass for 50% of the population". After reading some of her posts, I got the feeling she is panicking because she knows she really did not close her own case after all. She knows that there are some critical parts missing in her argument such as when does life really begin and should there logically be any difference between a "potential human being" and a human being? Is this distinction even important? None of this foundation came through in any of her posts; she was great at being emotional but not so great at offering anything substantial, so I have concluded she lost the debate with Anonymous.

This is usually where pro-choicers end up when keeping score with the opposition. They can't close. If they could close their case, this debate would have ended thirty years ago. Having said that, maybe their case was flawed from the start.

Your post is useful towards better understanding the pro-choice position and it is also respectful, which is a rare commodity these days.

How would your argument unfold if the opening premise is changed such that a post-conception human fetus is presumed to be as human as its mother?

Joan, you are always on Scarborough Country. Why don't you try Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity? Their viewership is 20 times larger than Joe "six-pack" Scarborough.

I do agree with you that Chris Matthews is a real political junkie and can be tough on Dems particularly the lefty types. Matthews was really tough on Bill Clinton back during impeachment, but I don't think he holds that against Hillary. I think he sees Hillary as an overly scripted political lightweight who is not "the real deal" to use Joe S. explanation for everything.

Why is that far left shills such as yourself IMPLY that the war will end if the US pulls out (meaning, of course, ASAP). You know exactly what will happen if the US pulls out precipitously, but you really don't give a "bleep" because you can make a career out of blaming somebody else for the carnage. This is the same gross dishonesty and deceit that you beat up the administration for, yet you conveniently ignore the consequences of your own proposals, both real and implied.