Letters to the Editor
-
ok, now for you tom
i realize more palestinians get killed than arabs. more vietnamese got killed than americans - about 50 times as many. are you unhappy about that? your understanding of jesus doesn't include american soldiers having to stand in for him, does it? the ratio of palestinian deaths to israeli ones is not anything like 50/1 - it's more like 3/1. why? well, in Jenin (where arafat declared a genocide and the UN went along with him - till an investigation proved it a lie), the israelis went house by house, losing many. if the israelis simply wanted to STOP IT. they easily could - by saturation bombing, just like in vietnam - or iraq. but they don't. so what CAN they do? they can put up barriers and walls and check points which makes life miserable for the arabs. I DON'T WANT the arabs in israel. i'm hoping that Obama can make some sort of a deal where they don't bother us. i don't have much faith in either their intelligence or their industry or their creativity. but if, in some sort of state they come closer to the 21st century than the 14th they are in today, that would be fine with me. it's just not possible to disengage. it was a mistake to keep it. everybody realizes it now.
Theologically, if the catholic church just bothered taking care of it's own sins rather than everyone else's it would loved much more. but it decided that the jews needed to change (benedict added this back to the Good Friday - the traditional christ killer liturgy - service (john 23 had erased it - to my mind John 23 was the only holy pope)). LOOK i only took you to task because you don't want to hurt my feelings unnecessarily - i understand that and appreciate it. but really, the catholic church has FAR to go. catholics gave a lot of thought to true repentence and reconciliation and forgiveness. i once made a list for myself (this isn't catholic theology, only my own ethics) they are a bunch of r's. the first is Rejoice. you can't really have repentence if the miscreant is still rejoicing. that was the catholic church till the holocaust. they were happy at jewish suffering - it proved that they were correct. the next is Regret. if maybe only regret at being caught. that's *almost* where the church is today (they don't admit complicity). the next is Remorse, feeling sorry. realizing you caused pain. then Repentence, a determination that it not happen again and Restitution, trying to make it better as best you can. what could the church do? it is rich and it has much land. it could make a second israel if it so desired. (of course it won't, i'm just saying what it *could* do). let's see Rejoicing, Regret, Remorse, Repentence, Restitution, there were originally seven but i see i can only remember 6, good enough since it'll never happen, with the final, Reconciliation. -
@Dolores Flower Nuclear Umbrella II
Still couldn't find much detail yet about Hillary's concept of a nuclear umbrella, so perhaps it's a new policy. If you yell at me, I can do the same for Obama. Here are some interesting bits:
2007 Foreign Affairs article by Hillary Clinton (background)
To help our forces recover from Iraq and prepare them to confront the full range of twenty-first-century threats, I will work to expand and modernize the military so that fighting wars no longer comes at the expense of deployments for long-term deterrence, military readiness, or responses to urgent needs at home. As the only senator serving on the Transformation Advisory Group established by the U.S. Joint Forces Command, I have had the chance to explore these issues in detail. Ongoing military innovation is essential, -- Hillary Clinton
www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86601-p10/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html2008 Excerpt on Nuclear Umbrella from ForeignPolicy.com
The key question here is credibility. How, for instance, would you convince the Soviets that the United States really would risk New York to defend Paris? During the Cold War, U.S. strategists achieved this credibility in several ways (pdf). First, American troops were deployed heavily in allied territory, placing them in the way of any nuclear attack. Second, U.S. nuclear weapons were often deployed in forward locations and sometimes integrated into allied command structures. Third, the umbrella only got extended to countries with which the United States already had strong alliances. Unfortunately, even in Gulf regimes that are friendly to America, all of these preconditions are weak or nonexistent (pdf) -- which does not bode well for Sen. Clinton’s proposal. In addition, Iran does not have the ability to project power globally like the Soviet Union did, making any direct threat to U.S. interests unlikely. I should also note that any Iranian nuclear weapon is still a long ways off, and attempting to deter the Iranians is premature at this point.
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/86882008 Excerpt on Nuclear Umbrella from American Conservative:
BTW, in an analysis that I published in the Nieman Report I proposed several questions on Iran that the media should address the presidential candidates:Q. The recent incident in the Strait of Hormuz highlighted the danger that provocations by either side or just misunderstanding could ignite a Tonkin-Gulf-like military confrontation between the U.S. and Iran that could degenerate into an all-out war. Do you believe that President Bush has the legal power to retaliate militarily against an alleged Iranian provocation without Congressional authorization?
Q. Are you concerned about a so-called “surprise” in a form of a Tonkin-Gulf-in-the-Persian-Gulf that could affect the outcome of the election? Have you or your aides raised this issue with officials in the administration or discussed it with your colleagues in Congress?
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/04/17/more-on-that-nuclear-umbrella/No suprise that these guys don't like the Nuclear Umbrella concept. Good debate questions, though.
2007 Excerpt, Foreign Policy in Focus: Hillary Clinton on Military Policy (Iran)
She has a very different attitude, however, regarding even the possibility of a country the United States does not support obtaining nuclear weapons some time in the future. For example, Senator Clinton insists that the prospect of Iran joining its three Southwest Asian neighbors in developing nuclear weapons “must be unacceptable to the entire world” since challenging the nuclear monopoly of the United States and its allies would somehow “shake the foundation of global security to its very core.” She refuses to support the proposed nuclear weapons-free zone for the Middle East, as called for in UN Security Council resolution 687, nor does she support a no-first use nuclear policy, both of which could help resolve the nuclear standoff. Indeed, she has refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against such non-nuclear countries as Iran, even though such unilateral use of nuclear weapons directly contradicts the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the same treaty she claims the United States must unilaterally and rigorously enforce when it involves Iran and other countries our government doesn’t like.
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/481