I believe the Israeli side has not explained its argument very well.

It's been claimed that since the recent discovery of natural gas and oil in Gaza territory, off the coast, the Israeli purpose is to make the Gazans go away so Israel can take advantage of those resources.

So, the attack is really about theft. They could have kept the cease fire going. It had been doing well enough until Israel broke it with an incursion to jill fighters working on a tunnel.

It's been claimed, and documented here by Glenn, that the concern by Israel is the terror caused by all the rockets Hamas has been launching into Israel. Grandmothers cannot take showers. They have to worry about how slow they are to make it to shelters. I hear this on Democracy Now recently.

It seems that history shows, from Pearl Harbor, to the bombing of London by the Germans, to the bombing of German cities by the United States, that these efforts do not demoralize a population. It only makes a scattered population more supportive of their own government in response.

So, the remark that the longer the attack the stronger the support that Hamas has.

So, is their goal to just keep stealing their living space and killing anyone who objects? Given how predictable and ironic this has become, I have to complain that they have not explained themselves clearly enough.

Does the FBI and the federal prosecutors behind the investigation of Mr. Tamm have a position on these issues, or are they supposed to do what they are told?

The reason I ask is the FBI seems to be one of the main instruments of oppression in this country. case in point, Mr. Tamm. However, there is a large number of people interested in a number of other issues where the FBI comes in and confiscates evidence, for instance, never to have the stuff see the light of day again.

In a new Obama administration will we have a chance to correct these crimes against justice? Will the FBI come clean about what they've done to enable the Bush administration and members of Congress both Democrat and Republican break the law and to, as you have argued, undermine the rule of law?

So, when an agent or some middle level officer of the FBI or some other security related agency is on the trail of some bad guy, and his or her commanders tell them to back off, so that thereafter the bad guy gets to do his crimes, are we going to see those commanders investigated?

That is one if the changes I'm hoping for.

I am under the impression that the one sidedness of Democratic and Republican politicians is the result of their having way too much influence by Israeli and Jewish lobbying. There's a certain amount of promising, you do this for us, and we'll give you so much pay-back.

But I wonder also whether there is just insufficiant recognition that politicians from the United states have a track record for being one sided throughout history.

They almost always voted to steal native American lands and ghetoize the survivors of settler advancement.

They almost always voted to keep slavery going. Even a civil war was not enough to encourage many of them to give people their due.

There's always overwhelming votes for foreign wars of acquisition and revenge for some slight. There's no, lets wait and see what the evidence provides...There's no, let's hear what can be said for the other side.

Actually, we should not be surprised that politicians cannot imagine two sides to any question. At the moment, it seems there is only one party, though with two labels. And that pary understands the world primarily but superficially in terms of us and them.

They think wrongly they will get points for doing what they're doing, for being such slaves.

Counld you please cite where you heard how Hamas and Israel reacted to the passage of the U.N. resolution?

Just because a resolution is passed, it would seem that it would take work and circumstances for a cease fire to then take place. People don't just stopp shooting in a fire fight.

Also, just because the U.N. says to stop shooting, there may be no reason for either side to think that the other side is going to make a good faith effort to make such a calm in the fighting prevail.

Why would continuing fighting in the immediate aftermath be such a surprising result, and why should what one should expect, that the fighting would continue for awhile, go to making the resolution worthless? The U.N has to put some work into seperating the parties and make them abide by the resolution in their interest.

Glenn said,

"So what's the justification for Obama's inflammatory and seemingly baseless claim on national television that Iran is "pursuing a nuclear weapon that could potentially trigger a nuclear arms race" when the consensus of American intelligence agencies is that they are not doing so?"

There are a number of arguments that claim that since the ability to produce the materials needed for nuclear power production is the same ability that allows one to make nuclear weapons, once Iran has the ability to have nuclear power, it has a bomb. The Iranians have said and the UN has verified that they are developing the infrastructure to make nuclear power materials. Obama is adopting this argument and it is that argument that is justifying his belligerance.

The fact that the non-proliferation treaty grants countries the right to nuclear power and the ability to make its own nuclear power materials, in exchange for agreeing to not make nuclear weapons, is studiously obsfucated.

Obama cannot be too clear about his argument to strangle and /or attack Iran without revealing his underlying attempt to break the NPT.