Give war a chance II

[ibrodsky]

A Real War
Fighting the worst fascists since Hitler.

Victor Davis Hanson

Saddam's Baathists recently blew apart Japanese diplomats on their way to a meeting in Tikrit to discuss sending millions of dollars in aid to Iraq's poor. Their ghosts join those of U.N. officials who likewise were slain for their humanitarian efforts. On the West Bank, three Americans were killed: Their felony was trying to interview young Palestinians for Fulbright fellowships for study in the United States. In turn, their would-be rescuers were stoned by furious crowds — not unlike the throngs that chant for Saddam on al Jazeera as they seek to desecrate or loot the bodies of murdered Spanish and Italian peacekeepers in Iraq while the tape rolls. All this, I suppose, is what bin Laden calls a clash of civilizations.

Jews at places of worship are systematically being blown up from Turkey to Morocco — along with British consular officials murdered in Istanbul, American diplomats murdered in Jordan, and Western tourists, Christians, and local residents murdered by Muslims in Bali, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. The new rule is that the more likely you are to help, give to, or worship in the Middle East, the more likely you are to be shot or blown up.

Most of the recent dead were noncombatants. All were either attempting to feed or aid Muslims, or simply wished to be left alone in peace. Their killers operate through the money and sanctuary of Middle East rogue regimes, the implicit support of thousands in the Muslim street, and the tacit neglect of even "moderate" states in the region — as long as the tally of killing is in the half-dozens or so, and not noticeable enough to threaten foreign investment or American aid, or to earn European disapproval.

But when the carnage is simply too much (too many Muslims killed as collateral damage or too many minutes on CNN), then suspects are miraculously arrested in Turkey or Saudi Arabia, or in transit to Iran or Syria — but more often post facto and never with any exegesis about why killers who once could not be found now suddenly are. No wonder Pakistani intelligence officers, Palestinian security operatives, Syrian diplomats, and Iraqis working for the Coalition are all at times exposed as having abetted the terrorists.

Yet it hasn't been a good six months for the Islamists' public relations. Billions the world over are slowly coming to a consensus that the Islamists' killing has cast as a shadow over the Middle East — a deeply disturbed place, better left to stew in its own juices. Only its exports of oil, religious extremism, and terror — not its manufacturing, science, medicine, banking, tourism, humanitarianism, literature, research, or philanthropy — seem to earn global attention. This is all a great tragedy, but one that, after September 11, gives us no time for tears.

Remember, even apart from all the killing in Israel and Iraq, all of the deadly terrorism since 9/11 — the synagogue in Tunisia, French naval personnel in Pakistan, Americans in Karachi, Yemeni attacks on a French ship, the Bali bombing, the Kenyan attack on Israelis, the several deadly attacks on Russians in both Moscow and Chechnya, the assault on housing compounds in Saudi Arabia, the suicide car bombings in Morocco, the Marriott bombing in Indonesia, the mass murdering in Bombay, and the Turkish killing — has been perpetrated exclusively by Muslim fascists and directed at Westerners, Christians, Hindus, and Jews.

We can diagnose the cause of this new fascism's growth — which has very little to do with the old canard that racism, colonialism, and the CIA are to blame. Instead, corrupt thugs in the Middle East have for years looted state treasuries. They have imposed Soviet-style state autocracy on tribal societies. And they have stripped basic human rights from a skyrocketing population — one that has received just enough Western medicine and technology to ensure an explosive birth rate, but not enough to encourage the commensurate social, economic, and cultural reform that would prevent such growth from making life in a Baghdad or Cairo desolate.

The demise of the Soviet Union left a terrible legacy — one rarely acknowledged by our own Middle East specialists. Its Stalinist machinery was left in place to kill and torture in awful places like Libya, Iraq, and Syria — but without the coercive force of the Soviets to ensure that such deadly antics did not expand across borders to draw the Russians into unwanted confrontations with the United States. In turn, without Communists to worry about, so-called moderates in places like Egypt and Jordan — excepting, of course, the petrol states of the Gulf — had very little in common, or much leverage, with the United States.

So with the demise of the Cold War, these pathologies came to full maturity. Globalization enticed the appetites of the impoverished — as cell phones, the Internet, and videos, along with fast food and cheap imported goods, gave the patina of prosperity. In fact, internationalization only reminded 400 million that they could have the junk of the West, but without its freedom, material security, education, health care, and recreation. It is one thing to call a friend on a cell phone, and quite another to realize that one's society cannot make the phone, cannot fix it, cannot improve upon it, and cannot even use it as desired — and is reminded of these failures by the very fact of the imported device's daily use.

If the onset of democracy in India, Malaysia, and Indonesia suggested that Islam was not incompatible with consensual government, that hopeful message apparently did not catch on in much of the Middle East. Far from attempting to end the endemic problems of sexual apartheid, illiteracy, religious intolerance, polygamy, and everything from "honor" killings to state-sanctioned legal barbarism, most autocracies in the region allowed Islamic extremists and apologists to champion just such "differences" — as if the existence of such Dark Age protocols and endemic anti-Semitism were proof that the Arab world suffered none of the weakness and decadence of a soft West. Enough fools in the West were always around to nod rather than to challenge such Hitleresque romance — and even to invite such fascists from the Middle East to speak in Europe and the United States to the "oohs" and "ahs" of a few stupid and spoiled self-hating elites.

Into this vacuum stepped the Islamists — fed by Saudi money, blackmailing dictators as they saw fit, championing the poor and dispossessed who found their messages of hatred against the United States and Israel a salve for their own wounded pride and misery. It did not hurt that their enmity of the West was about the only topic of free expression allowed in censored state media.

In their defense, the mullahs in the madrassas at least realized that if it were left to corrupt tyrants like Saddam Hussein, Khadafi, and Assad to offer alternatives to the West, the Arab world would soon be caught up in the same liberalization that had swept Asia and parts of South America and Africa — to the chagrin of the patriarch, imam, and warlord, whose currency is deference received rather than freedom granted.

[ibrodsky]

This strange new fascism explains why millions in the Middle East who in theory do not like a Yasser Arafat, Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin laden still find consolation in the unrelenting opposition of these killers to the West. Kids whose parents were butchered by Saddam Hussein and are now fed and protected by American money and manpower nevertheless dance upon a burned out Humvee while shouting for Saddam to return. The same is true of those on the West Bank who have their capital looted by the Palestinian Authority, their relatives jailed or murdered, and their votes and speech curtailed: They will still praise Arafat to the skies — if he at least mutters some banality about hating the West. Because these are irrational responses — people acting from their appetites and impulses rather than their heads — we here in the United States, in our arrogant worship of our god Reason, with no confidence in or appreciation of our singular civilization, have gone about things pretty much all wrong.

Remember the worry about "getting the message out"? We all know the tiresome refrain: If the Arab world just knew about all the billions of dollars we give; all the Muslims we saved from the Balkans to Kuwait; all the censure we incurred to ease Orthodox Russians' treatment of Muslims in Chechnya, to stop Orthodox Serbian massacres of Albanians, or to discourage Chinese attacks on their own Muslim tribes; then surely millions of the ill-informed would reverse their opinion of us.

Sorry, the truth is just the opposite. The Arab street knows full well that we give billions to Jordan, Egypt, and the Palestinians — and are probably baffled that we don't cut it out. They also know we have just as frequently fought Christians on their behalf as Muslims; they know — if their voting feet tell them anything — that no place is more tolerant of their religion or more open to immigration than the United States. Yes, Islamists all know that opening a mosque in Detroit is one thing, and opening a church in Saudi Arabia is quite another. Hitler wasn't interested in Wilson's 14 Points or how nicely Germans lived in the U.S. — he cared only that we "cowboys" would not or could not stop what he was up to.

No, the message, much less getting it out, is not the problem. It is rather the nature of America — our freewheeling, outspoken, prosperous, liberty-loving citizens extend equality to women, homosexuals, minorities, and almost anyone who comes to our shores, and thereby create desire and with it shame for that desire. Indeed, it is worse still than that: Precisely because we worry publicly that we are insensitive, our enemies scoff privately that we in fact are too sensitive — what we think is liberality and magnanimity they see as license and decadence. If we don't have confidence in who we are, why should they?

To arrest this dangerous trend requires a radical reappraisal of our entire relationship with the Middle East. A Radio Free Europe, though valuable, nevertheless did not free Eastern Europe; nor did Voice of America. Containment and deterrence did. As long as governments in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and many Gulf states encourage hatred of the United States, we must quietly consider them de facto little different from a Libya, Syria, or Iran. For all the glitter and imported Western graphics, al Jazeera and its epigones are not that much different from Radio Berlin of the 1930s.

We had also better reexamine entirely the way we use force in the Middle East. We did not drive on to Baghdad in 1991 out of concern for the "coalition" — and got 350,000 sorties in the no-fly zones in return. We chose to worry about rebuilding before the current war ended, and let thousands of Baathist killers fade away, and in the aftermath allowed mass looting and continual killing before our most recent get-tough policy.

In fact, anytime we have showed restraint — using battleship salvos and cruise missiles when our Marines were killed, our embassies blown up, and our diplomats murdered; allowing the killers on the Highway of Death to reach Basra in 1991; letting Saddam use his helicopters to gun down innocents — we have earned disdain, not admiration. In contrast, the hijackers chose not to take the top off the World Trade Center, but to incinerate the entire building — proof that they wished not to send us a message but to kill us all, and to kill us to the applause of millions, if the recent popularity of Osama bin Laden and his henchmen in the Arab street is any indication.

We had better rethink the entire notion of dealing with the mythical moderates within regimes like Iran and Syria. I am sure that they exist, as they existed in Saddam's Iraq. But we see the moderates now in Iraq and — with all due respect — they are not exactly the stuff of Ethan Allan, Paul Revere, or the Swamp Fox. In fact, in the Middle East, tens of thousands of democrats are more passive in their desire for freedom than are a few hundred fascists in their zeal for tyranny. We should accept that dissidents would never have toppled Saddam on their own — and are not quite sure what to do even in his absence. Victory alone, not stalemate or a bellum interruptum, will free the Arab people and extend to them the same opportunities now found in Eastern Europe.

In short, there is no reason for any American diplomat to have much to do in Teheran or Damascus — the haven of choice for many of the killers who bomb in Turkey, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. "Getting the message out" to a Syria is like traveling to Warsaw in 1950 to convince the government there how nicely Poles are treated in Chicago; sending peace feelers to Teheran is analogous to doing the same to Cuba in about 1962; discussing policy with Saudi Arabia is like talking to Gen. Franco about the perils of Mussolini or Hitler; incorporating Jordan in our resistance is like counting on a France circa 1940.

Peace and harmony will come, but only when the Middle East, not us, changes-which, tragically, will be brought along more quickly by deterrence and defiance than appeasement and dialogue. President Bush was terribly criticized for his exasperated "bring them on," but that was one of his most honest, heartfelt — and needed — ex tempore remarks of this entire conflict.

We are not in a war with a crook in Haiti. This is no Grenada or Panama — or even a Kosovo or Bosnia. No, we are in a worldwide struggle the likes of which we have not seen since World War II. The quicker we understand that awful truth, and take measures to defeat rather than ignore or appease our enemies, the quicker we will win. In a war such as this, the alternative to victory is not a brokered peace, but abject Western suicide and all that it entails — a revelation of which we saw on September 11.

Despite some disappointments about the postbellum reconstruction and the hysteria of our critics, our military is doing a wonderful job. We should understand that they have the capability to win this struggle in Iraq and elsewhere — but only if we at home accept that we have been all along in a terrible war against terrible enemies.

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200312050838.asp

[L@mplighterM]

Peace will come to the Middle East when hell freezes over and the same can be said for the rest of the world. Nations are continuously preparing for war while hoping for peace. I haven’t seen a peaceful world in my lifetime and I doubt that peace can ever be had. How would it be possible to reach a plateau of peace when other nations prepare for war?

I think its far better to be in a perpetual state of war versus being a pacifist nation that shuns war, a nation like that wouldn’t survive. Peace for the lack of a better can only be achieved through military might.

Islam is on a Crusade against the west at the moment and it’ll most likely gain momentum over the coming years. Islamic fundamentalists and their supporters have shown that they play to win. One Islamic nation that I see as hotbed for fundamentalism already has nuclear capabilities and more will follow eventually.

It may be true that Pakistan is an US ally of sorts but that could change at the flick of a finger. I wouldn’t be surprised to wake up one morning and find that Iran has nuclear weapons.

There are cards to play right now and if the west doesn’t play the hand right there’ll be dark clouds ahead.

[alexbmn]

the conflict will not end because the Israelis can end it but wont ,and the Palestinians want to end it but cant.

[L@mplighterM]

I think the Palestinians can end the terrorism if they want to but it wont happen. Squealers end up croaked so there’s not much motivation for anyone to turn in terrorists.

If there were people there that are willing to turn in suspected terrorists who would they turn to? The PA?

Years ago I saw a guy running through my back yard and climb over my back fence. When he was on the other side he looked over the fence towards the front yard. I wondered what was happening!

I walked from my kitchen to my living room and looked out the window there were cops all over the place. My neighbor’s car was totaled!
I went out and told the cops that the guy had scaled my fence. Later I went down to the police station and picked the guy out of a line up.

Some months went by and I was served with a subpoena to appear in court because the guy had been charged with robbing banks in his lunch hour.

A week or two after I got the subpoena I started having threatening phone calls and there were dozens of B&E’s. I laid in wait for the SOB or his buddies but it was always a no show.

To make a long story short someone killed my 17-year-old poodle. I testified and the guy was convicted but all he got was a slap on his wrist.

In this particular situation I lost my dog but throughout Islam testifying has far deadlier consequences.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by alexbmn
the conflict will not end because the Israelis can end it but wont ,and the Palestinians want to end it but cant.
Let's correct this statement to fit reality on the ground:

The conflict will not end because Israel can't end it but it wants to and the Palestinians want to end Israel but it can't.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
To make a long story short someone killed my 17-year-old poodle.
I'm sorry to hear that.

In contrast, we here in Israel have an unwanted poodle that we can't seem to get rid of.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by alexbmn
the conflict will not end because the Israelis can end it but wont ,and the Palestinians want to end it but cant.

you've got it entirely @ss-backwards, of course. Three cheers for disinformation on campus.

[IsraelAdvocate]

Originally posted by alexbmn
the conflict will not end because the Israelis can end it but wont ,and the Palestinians want to end it but cant.

The name of this conflict is the "Al-Aksa Intifadah".
That is Arabic for Al-Aksa (mosque) Uprising. It is an Arabic word.
Created by Arabs. Concieved by Arabs. Planned by Arabs, as the PA communication minister boasted in 2000. The so-called conflict is nothing more than an Arab terror campaign to force Israel into giving concessions.

The Palestinians do want to end the conflict, but only after they have destroyed the state of Israel. Israelis do not have to sit by on thier hands and wait for Palestinian terrorists to kill them, anymore than America has to sit idly by, waiting for Al-Qaida to kill more Americans.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

[IsraelAdvocate]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM


To make a long story short someone killed my 17-year-old poodle. I testified and the guy was convicted but all he got was a slap on his wrist.

In this particular situation I lost my dog but throughout Islam testifying has far deadlier consequences.

Well did it ever occur to you that in the interest of creating security, maybe your dog was informing on Hamas terrorists, and out of revenge, they got even with him?

Stranger things have happend to human (looking) Palestinians.

:rolleyes:

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by IsraelAdvocate
Well did it ever occur to you that in the interest of creating security, maybe your dog was informing on Hamas terrorists, and out of revenge, they got even with him?

Stranger things have happend to human (looking) Palestinians.

:rolleyes:

The dog was killed to intimidate me so I wouldn’t testify and so were the B&E’s but it didn’t work. When I started getting the calls the cops told me that the guy was in custody so it must be his buddies, later I found out that he had escaped custody.

I moved my family out ahead of time (I had sold the property a couple of months earlier for development) and some nights I would sneak into the house under the cover of darkness.

One night around 3:00AM someone walked up my front steps and I sprang into action. I thought this is it! My dog started howling like a banshee and with gun in hand I was ready to face the enemy.

Go figure! It was kids playing Nicky, Nicky nine door, nothing like that had ever happened there before (I had lived there about 15 years).

[alexbmn]

lol i knew that if I didnt paste the line from its original source there will be a misunderstanding. What I meant is that Israelis could end the conflict by killing huge numbers of Palis in one day and throwing out the rest but will not do so,while the Palestinians desperately want to do that but dont have the ability.

[Formula]

Damn LampLighter -thats one hell of a story. :)

Sorry about your dog though. :(

[Canajew]

Originally posted by alexbmn
lol i knew that if I didnt paste the line from its original source there will be a misunderstanding. What I meant is that Israelis could end the conflict by killing huge numbers of Palis in one day and throwing out the rest but will not do so,while the Palestinians desperately want to do that but dont have the ability.

but this of course would not really "end" the conflict at all. it would just shift the front lines a bit. And while this option is not logically impossible, it is practically impossible given foreign pressures and palestinian propaganda.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Canajew
but this of course would not really "end" the conflict at all. it would just shift the front lines a bit. And while this option is not logically impossible, it is practically impossible given foreign pressures and palestinian propaganda.
It will shift the lines a lot. The Jordan valley border is relatively much easier to monitor. Furthermore, large numbers of forces would be freed up, as they will no longer be needed in Judea and Samaria.

They would be under Jordanian control and have less freedom to attack than they do now. Hussie Jr. is no more fond of Arafat and the PLO than was his father, Alav Haknobel.

Please not that while I favor population transfer, I disassociate myself from AlexBM's words "killing huge numbers of Palis in one day", which I find as abhorrent as Arabs shouting they want to slaughter the Jews all the time.

I have no desire to kill anyone unless they're out to harm me.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
It will shift the lines a lot. The Jordan valley border is relatively much easier to monitor. Furthermore, large numbers of forces would be freed up, as they will no longer be needed in Judea and Samaria.

They would be under Jordanian control and have less freedom to attack than they do now. Hussie Jr. is no more fond of Arafat and the PLO than was his father, Alav Haknobel.

Please not that while I favor population transfer, I disassociate myself from AlexBM's words "killing huge numbers of Palis in one day", which I find as abhorrent as Arabs shouting they want to slaughter the Jews all the time.

I have no desire to kill anyone unless they're out to harm me.

I agree with you that militarily this will make Israel more secure (at least in the short to medium term). It will make borders more defensible and thus decrease the impact of the conflict, but the aggression of the Palestinians against Jews would still continue unabated or with addtional impetus. Further, as you must be aware, this conflict is being fought just as much in the realm of international public relations as it is on the ground, and expelling millions of people into Arab countries which would undoubtedly use them as pawns and keep them in limbo just like they did with the 48 refugees and the 67 refugees would cause massive damage to isarel's image abroad, which is genuinely important.

What needs to be done first and foremost is that the Palestinians' international offensive against truth and their giant propaganda effrots are neutralized. I have no idea how, it would probably take years of concerted effort, but the negativer views the world has agaisnt israel are a major constrictor of practical Israeli policy.

I have said for a long time that the only way to get the Plaestinians to stop fighting is to convince them that they lost, and that they cannot win. With world support on their side, they will never reach this point. Even right now they believe they are in a relative postion of strength based on the condemnation of the security fence out of the west, based on the ongoing demonization of Sharon in the press (based, in part in the current round, on the Plaestinians fictitious (quasi)endorsement of the geneva accords) and based on the continual pressure of the worlds' 'progresive leftists' agaisnt the evil zionist-imperialist conspiracy (and all that BS).

In this respect, the front lines in this conflict are more in the realm of public opinion than on the battlefield. And on this axis, the palestinians have no reason to stop fighting, and have not given up the dream of destroying Israel. So no matter where you put them, whether in the west bank or in Jordan, they will not stop.

Of course the rabid anti-semitism tought in their schools and which permiates their culture (both Palestinians and the rest of the Arabs) is also a big problem, and also perpetuates the conflict. but I have no idea at all how to deal with that.

[Oh Jerusalem]

I think I should clarify that, while I advocate transfer, It should only be done for those that refuse to live here in cooperation with the Jewish State.

I think I've said it before here. I advocate granting, after a trial period, citizenship to all non-Jewish residents of Israel. This citizenship would have to grant them equal rights and opportunities in civil life and limited political opportunities.

For example, I don't believe Arabs should have any say in matters such as security and Jewish matters in Israel.

If you ask me, the way things are going here, this is going to happen one way or the other. Either we take the initiative soon and reseize Judea and Samaria (I'm for returning Gaza but not unilaterally) or we will be forced to fall back to pre-67 borders, from where the Arabs will continue with a final attack in their age old attempt tp annihilate us.

Those are my predictions of what's going to happen here.

[L@mplighterM]

I don’t understand how an individual can be granted limited citizenship.
Would the Supreme Court uphold such a law? I don’t think it would be in Israelis interest to open the floodgates and grant citizenship to Arabs.

The difficulty in allowing such a move would stem from the fact that 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc generation Arabs could turn out to be Jew killers even if the original immigrants were peaceful.

In any event if you have a pair of white rabbits that produce two offspring’s that produce two more and so on versus a pair of black rabbits that continuously have six or seven babies and so on, eventually the place would be overrun by black rabbits. Arabs have more children!

It appears to me that the bottom line is that Islam wont rest until Israel and the territories are eradicated of Jews, Arabs wont rest until that becomes a reality

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
I don’t understand how an individual can be granted limited citizenship.
You establish the laws to enact it.

Would the Supreme Court uphold such a law?
Indeed Israel's supreme court is a hinderence to resolving many a problem here.

I don’t think it would be in Israelis interest to open the floodgates and grant citizenship to Arabs.
Citizenship should not be taken for granted. I recommend a lengthy trial period. I also recommend clear laws for stripping non-Jews of their Israeli citzenship under appropriate circumstances.

The difficulty in allowing such a move would stem from the fact that 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc generation Arabs could turn out to be Jew killers even if the original immigrants were peaceful.
A one-way ticket out for them then.

Things could turn out very well for both sides if you punish the offenders harshly and reward the adherents with almost all of the everyday opportunities, liberties and freedoms granted to Israeli citizens.

For those that don't like it, there's plenty of water to drink in Gaza.

In any event if you have a pair of white rabbits that produce two offspring’s that produce two more and so on versus a pair of black rabbits that continuously have six or seven babies and so on, eventually the place would be overrun by black rabbits. Arabs have more children!
As I said, this requires a 2nd class citizenship with political limitations.

It appears to me that the bottom line is that Islam wont rest until Israel and the territories are eradicated of Jews, Arabs wont rest until that becomes a reality
Definitely a possibility or even a probability. That's why I don't reject population transfer as an option.

As for the title of this thread, read Answering Ehud Olmert (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1070942847457&p=1006953079865), by Michael Freund, in today's Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/).

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
You establish the laws to enact it.

Indeed Israel's supreme court is a hinderence to resolving many a problem here.

Citizenship should not be taken for granted. I recommend a lengthy trial period. I also recommend clear laws for stripping non-Jews of their Israeli citzenship under appropriate circumstances.

A one-way ticket out for them then.

Things could turn out very well for both sides if you punish the offenders harshly and reward the adherents with almost all of the everyday opportunities, liberties and freedoms granted to Israeli citizens.

For those that don't like it, there's plenty of water to drink in Gaza.


As I said, this requires a 2nd class citizenship with political limitations.

Definitely a possibility or even a probability. That's why I don't reject population transfer as an option.

As for the title of this thread, read Answering Ehud Olmert (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1070942847457&p=1006953079865), by Michael Freund, in today's Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/).

There are countless incidents where up to 4th generation Muslims living in the west that support the destruction of Israel. Muslims/Arabs never accepted the creation of the State of Israel and they never will.

Second class citizens that pay first class taxes?

If I were an Arab I’d tell Israel to stick it! Why settle for that if you believe you’ll get the whole pie one day? If I were indoctrinated to think I’d get it all I wouldn’t settle for less.

Some believe that Israel has been victorious since 1948 because of divine intervention. I don’t!

In 1967 it was intellectual military superiority and the preemptive strike that temporarily ended the conflict after six days. The 1983 conflict demonstrated quite clearly to me that a ragtag collection of terrorists is not that easy to defeat and I would say that battle ended in a stalemate.

Times are changing!

I think it was General Custer that said, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian”. I don’t agree with that statement but I certainly believe that the 70% +/- of Palestinians that support suicide bombings are an obstacle to a ceasefire and should be eliminated.

For starters build the Great Wall of Israel at least it’ll give future generations something to look at. Shoot any Muslim that tries to scale the wall or dig under it.

Arabs/Muslims are Arabs/Muslims and they wont change, they cant if they want to be true to their religion.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
Some believe that Israel has been victorious since 1948 because of divine intervention. I don’t!
This is indeed one of the biggest causes for many of our sorrows throughout history and how much more so now.

But this is not the Religion forum, so I'll end my discussion of this point here.

[MGB8]

You counter their propaganda on two fronts - (1) what is the end-result of "anti-Zionism"/the end of Israel, and how is that different from Nazi goals? (2) the use of historical facts, from the fact that there was no Palestinian state (or Jordan ie. East Palestine, or Lebanon or Iraq or, to a lesser extend, Egypt - that in fact all these names mean nothing, the west drew up lines which crossed Arab tribal borders; the mass immigration to the WB post 67 by Pal's; the fact that Jordan ruled the WB pre-67, etc. etc. etc.)

As for the second problem, that's the demographic problem, and is more difficult. One idea would be to turn Israel into a semi-democratic Monarchy or even Theocracy. That way elections would be less important, ala all the Arab nations, where no Arab has a real vote.

However, that's not realistic.

The more long term, and difficult, but possible solution is to simply take some draconian steps to reduce the Arab presence in Israel, including the expulsion of Arab criminals who do anything related to terrorism, including joining terror parties (including Fatah -which means "conquest", if you didn't know). A Pal-Arab terror state is part of that equation, too, unfortunately.

[CanDo]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
I think it was General Custer that said, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian”. I don’t agree with that statement but I certainly believe that the 70% +/- of Palestinians that support suicide bombings are an obstacle to a ceasefire and should be eliminated.
[/B]

It is sad. For decades, the majority of Arabs, worldwide, have shown that they do not want a peaceful coexistence with non-Arabs, especially Jews.

For a lasting peace, Israel has got to find a way to "export" all Arabs someplace else. If that "someplace else" is Gaza, so be it.

Then the world could say that the Arabs don't want Jews and the Jews don't want Arabs. An equitable arrangement.

And, if the Arabs only want to be among Arabs, then let them have a few million more!

[ibrodsky]

Krauthammer knows the score:


Aftershocks of war Charles Krauthammer

December 26, 2003 | Print | Send

``Libya Vows to Give Up Banned Weapons; Two Decades of Sanctions, Isolation Wore Down Gaddafi''
-- Washington Post headline, front-page news analysis, Dec. 20.

WASHINGTON -- Yeah, sure. After 18 years of American sanctions, Gaddafi randomly picks Dec. 19, 2003, as the day for his surrender. By amazing coincidence, Gaddafi's first message to Britain -- principal U.S. war ally and conduit to White House war councils -- occurs just days before the invasion of Iraq. And his final capitulation to U.S.-British terms occurs just five days after Saddam is fished out of a rat hole.


As Jay Leno would say, what are the odds? The nine months of negotiations with Libya perfectly frame the war on Iraq and the fall of Saddam. How is it possible to ignore the most blindingly obvious collateral benefits?

Imagine this kind of thinking 50 years ago: ``Japan Surrenders --Years of War Deprivation Proved Too Much.''

Dateline Tokyo, Aug. 14, 1945. Japan capitulated yesterday to the allies, worn down by the accumulation of hardships from the war begun with the sudden outbreak of violence in Hawaii in December 1941. The housing shortage in Tokyo had become particularly acute, especially since the nights of March 9 and 10. And there also has appeared to be an abrupt downturn in recent economic activity in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Sen. John Kerry was equally ridiculous in his explanation of the Libya deal: ``An administration that scorns multilateralism and boasts about a rigid doctrine of military pre-emption has almost in spite of itself demonstrated the enormous potential for improving our national security through diplomacy.''

Unlike Howard Dean, Kerry is not a foreign policy ignoramus. Does he really believe that the Libyan surrender is a triumph of multilateralism? Does he really think that Libya's capitulation -- coinciding precisely with a pre-emptive war that destroyed Saddam Hussein -- is a contradiction of the ``rigid doctrine of military pre-emption''?

What kind of naif thinks that this is a triumph for ``diplomacy,'' as if, say, Bill Clinton had sent Warren Christopher to Tripoli and he chatted Gaddafi into surrendering his WMDs?

The Democrats seem congenitally incapable of understanding that force has not just the effect of disarming the immediate enemy, but has a deterrent effect on others similarly situated. Iraq was not attacked randomly. It was attacked as part of a clearly enunciated policy -- now known as the Bush Doctrine -- of targeting, by pre-emptive war if necessary, hostile regimes engaged in terror and/or refusing to come clean on WMDs.

Mullah Omar did not get the message and is now hiding in a cave somewhere. Saddam did not get the message and ended up in a hole. Gaddafi got the message.

Diplomacy is fine. But we are dealing not with Canada but with gangster regimes. In rogue states, the only diplomacy that ever works is diplomacy at the point of a bayonet. Why, even the hapless Hans Blix went out on a limb to speculate that ``I would imagine that Gaddafi could have been scared by what he saw in Iraq.''

Ashton Carter, co-director of the Harvard-Stanford Preventive Defense Project, agreed that ``what we did in Iraq put countries like Libya on notice that we're really serious about countering proliferation.'' To be sure, Carter prefaced this obvious truth with the Blixian phrase ``one certainly hopes that.'' But that is to be expected from an adviser to Howard Dean.

Do the Democrats really not see the larger picture, or do they pretend not to because it is an election year? The domino effects of the Iraq campaign are already in clear view. It is no accident that Iran has agreed to surprise nuclear inspections. Mind you, I do not hold much hope for this; it will take far more to disarm the mullahs, possibly U.S. airstrikes during a second Bush administration. But for now, Bush's willfulness and determination in Iraq have persuaded Iran to grab a European plan for inspections rather than face the wrath of the United States.

Elsewhere in the Middle East, Hezbollah has been quiet since the war. Syria has made its first peace overture in years. Libya has now confessed and capitulated on WMDs.

And that's not counting Iraq, which with Saddam captured has finally turned a historic corner and may be on its way to establishing the first pluralistic, representative pro-Western Arab polity in the region.

These are not triumphs of diplomacy. These are the aftershocks of war.

[MGB8]

Its embarassing to be a Democrat at these times - thank g-d for Lieberman.

Dems, IMO, have a lot of great things for them.

For example, a national health care subsidy system (done correctly to foster competition between doctors and consumers still bearing many use determining costs) would take financial pressure off business who have to bear the costs of health care right now - making life much simpler for employers! yay. It would also have positive benefits for worker's comp, since much of the medical costs would be within that framework.

Progressive taxes help the economy work by correcting the standard market failures that heavily favor those who start with money over those who don't, outside of performance and talent and skill (the more money you have, the more power you have to essentially "cheat the system" and the better information you have as well as ability to jump barriers). Such redistributed moneys go right back into the consumption cycle and back up the chain - "trickle UP economics".

Standardless "Free" trade forces the US not to compete on productivity (Qtty/qlty of product per manhour) but instead against essentially slave labor that destroys environments, a DIS-INCENTIVE to productivity advancements (why should you do something a better way when you have slave labor to do it?) This lowers the US standard of living and does little to help the newly "opened" nations.

On social issues Democrats favor toleranace, which is generally (though not always) the right place to be.

Now...that's not to say that Dems don't tend to want to overregulate everything and put too much money into government, where it can be lost to friends of politicians instead of put into efficient use - but that happens on both parties too (see, ie Connecticut, the omnibus budget bill).

And That's not to say that some go too far towards socialism, forgetting that they failure of socialism is that it doesn't reward hard work, creativity and productivty, where as capitalism does (if market failures are addressed).

But there are areas where Democrats need to have open and honest debate, to stand up to Republicans who too often seem to be the party of Social Darwanism, where who cares if people are abusing the system (ie. monopolies/ENRON/etc.) if our friends are doing well...

BUt then, they come out en masse and support the uber-left, discrediting themselves so much....

Thank g-d for Joe Lieberman. Even Tom Daschle and Schumer - more left, but not anti-US power lefties, just people with policy differences from the right.


Originally posted by ibrodsky
Krauthammer knows the score:

[Noam]

Good one.

America is BLESSED to have thinkers like Krauthammer on its side.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by MGB8
Its embarassing to be a Democrat at these times...

Understatement of the last fifty years.


Dems, IMO, have a lot of great things for them.

For example, a national health care subsidy system (done correctly to foster competition between doctors and consumers still bearing many use determining costs) would take financial pressure off business who have to bear the costs of health care right now - making life much simpler for employers! yay. It would also have positive benefits for worker's comp, since much of the medical costs would be within that framework.

Actually, government programs are the reason healthcare is now so expensive, bureaucratic, and (increasingly) incompetent. Contrary to what Dems and other assorted Socialists think, in a free market sellers must deliver services at prices buyers can afford. The myth is that technology has driven up healthcare costs. The reality is that paperwork, price controls, and tort law have driven up prices.

In other industries, technology drives costs down and efficiency up. It's no coincidence that the same people who think a line-up that includes Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, Carol Mosley-Braun et al believe that under a free market sellers would price themselves out of business.

The worst part is barely mentioned. Increasingly, market forces and the important signals they send are being taken out of the equation. Consumers are taught to believe the bulk of healthcare costs will be paid by others. Meanwhile, choices are eliminated in misguided attempt to reduce costs. In my own family, we face the prospect of not being able to choose the most qualified healthcare providers even at lower cost--because they are outside "the network."

A national healthcare plan would be a disaster. Contrary to the propaganda of ideologues and people who have only casual experience, every national program has been a failure. In the UK, people are told "there is nothing medical science can do for you" not because there are no therapies but for budgetary reasons. Thus, the bureaucrats purposely mislead people into thinking they are not treatable when the reality is that at their age they are simply not covered at that cost level. In Canada, people wait months for life-saving surgeries while morons with colds and flu keep emergency rooms clogged as they seek "free" healthcare.


Progressive taxes help the economy work by correcting the standard market failures that heavily favor those who start with money over those who don't, outside of performance and talent and skill (the more money you have, the more power you have to essentially "cheat the system" and the better information you have as well as ability to jump barriers). Such redistributed moneys go right back into the consumption cycle and back up the chain - "trickle UP economics".

Nonsense. Besides being immoral, progressive taxes discourage work, innovation, and even rule of law. An entire industry has been created just to help those willing and able to spend a few hundred dollars to navigate the system. In many cases, the result of progressive taxation is that rich people pay no taxes at all.

The first problem is that the Federal and most State governments have turned into monsters so addicted to revenue growth that they have expropriated organized crime and taken over the gambling industry. So we have the spectacle of government agencies running lotteries and persuading local communities to host riverboat casinos.

A reasonable flat tax with greatly streamlined tax law would guarantee that the poor pay little and the rich pay the most. But this idea is too 'extreme' for the accountants, lawyers, and IRS personnel who make their living off voluminous and confusing tax law.


Standardless "Free" trade forces the US not to compete on productivity (Qtty/qlty of product per manhour) but instead against essentially slave labor that destroys environments, a DIS-INCENTIVE to productivity advancements (why should you do something a better way when you have slave labor to do it?) This lowers the US standard of living and does little to help the newly "opened" nations.

The free market is what made this country great. The anti-capitalist view is cut from the same cloth as the anti-American view. No amount of US law is going to force other countries to change their behavior. However, free markets ensure that the best products at the best prices win. Slave labor is perhaps good for making teddy bears and t-shirts, but not computers and automobiles.


On social issues Democrats favor toleranace, which is generally (though not always) the right place to be.

Uh huh. Like tolerance for Palestinian mass murders.


Now...that's not to say that Dems don't tend to want to overregulate everything and put too much money into government, where it can be lost to friends of politicians instead of put into efficient use - but that happens on both parties too (see, ie Connecticut, the omnibus budget bill).

Nor is it to say the Dems don't engage in vote fraud in nearly every major city...


And That's not to say that some go too far towards socialism, forgetting that they failure of socialism is that it doesn't reward hard work, creativity and productivty, where as capitalism does (if market failures are addressed).

So instead you advocate a sort of half-socialism, which you hope will only deliver half failures?


But there are areas where Democrats need to have open and honest debate, to stand up to Republicans who too often seem to be the party of Social Darwanism, where who cares if people are abusing the system (ie. monopolies/ENRON/etc.) if our friends are doing well...

Actually, the only monopolies are government-created: Amtrak, the USPS, the old Bell System, etc. In a free market, there are no monopolies, because large companies naturally lose the ability to innovate quickly and have too much overhead to serve niche markets that often grow into mass markets.

Notice that in the relatively unregulated area of electronics that products have become more powerful while prices are constantly reduced. Heck, the migration from videotapes to DVDs hardly started when DVD players were available for as little as $20.

Meanwhile, in healthcare a single aspirin taken in hospital can cost more than $20!


BUt then, they come out en masse and support the uber-left, discrediting themselves so much....

Thank g-d for Joe Lieberman. Even Tom Daschle and Schumer - more left, but not anti-US power lefties, just people with policy differences from the right.

Connect the dots. The Dems and the Left go together. Unfortunately, most Jews have been programmed from birth to be Dems and can't shake their obsolete views. The Republicans are far from perfect, but they are certainly better than the alternatives presented by the party of political correctness, socialism, appeasement.

[IsraelAdvocate]

Originally posted by alexbmn
lol i knew that if I didnt paste the line from its original source there will be a misunderstanding. What I meant is that Israelis could end the conflict by killing huge numbers of Palis in one day and throwing out the rest but will not do so,while the Palestinians desperately want to do that but dont have the ability.

Now I understand. I was wondering what was wrong here.

;)

[MGB8]

Ibrodsky, this is a different line of argument, so maybe doesn't belong here.

In response though, you are wrong on many of the facts.

For example, the administrative costs of medicare are about 2% of the program, compared to between 15-25% of private insurers.

In terms of tort laws - the relative costs of litigation in the US HAS NOT CHANGED since the 1970's - not the amount of suits, the average judgment or settlement amount - nothing (adjusted for population growth and inflation.)

What has changed is insurer profit margins, pure and simple.

As for your assault on progressive taxes - they do not cause the very wealthy to not pay taxes nor are they a disincentinve to innovation or hard work. You pay taxes on the margin, so when you enter a new tax bracket, its only every NEW dollar that you make that is taxed at a higher rate - so even if you only take back 60 cents on the dollar, that 60 additional cents is still incentive to earn. In fact, by making it HARDER to be richer, it is a GREATER incentive for the most talented to work harder (thus make more money).

The Rich who don't pay taxes ARE essentially COMMUNIST SUPPORTERS, who are looking to avoind paying to support for the country and system that keeps them free and secure. People who, even legally, can afford to pay taxes and yet hide money off-shore or expense personal goods as business expenses - are stealing money from the government - they are no better than petty theives.

Your statement that there are only state created monopolies is a falsehood, also. Barriers to entry and unfair competition practices (ie. buying out competitors before they can compete ala Standard Oil and US Steel, dumping, etc.) all happen on a day to day basis. Also, oligopoly poses certain risks, as well.

You are right that slave labor in general can only do simple manufacturing, but with technology improving, the capability of slave or slave level labor is improving every day. Standardless trade hurts the US because it doesn't rewarrd productivity per manhour, which is what should matter.

You need to go back and look at the late 1800's, which is where we are heading policy wise. The US was most productive in the 50's and 60's, which had a much more "socialist" aspect to it, and much more wealth redistribution and circulation. That distribution to middle income peoples, who spend and invest almost all of their money (as opposed to the very wealthy) improves corporate earning and the economy as a whole.

Instead, the poverty rate and the uninsured in the US have been increasing every year (especially since the rate has not kept up with inflation in real terms.)

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by MGB8


For example, the administrative costs of medicare are about 2% of the program, compared to between 15-25% of private insurers.

That is a ridiculus claim. Government programs such as Medicare are notoriously bureaucratic and inefficient.

You are also ignoring the fact that under medicare much of the administrative cost is born by healthcare providers. This is why doctors in individual private practice have been driven out of business.

Businesses competing in free markets are always more efficient than government programs, because government programs are staffed by people who seek job security over excellence.


In terms of tort laws - the relative costs of litigation in the US HAS NOT CHANGED since the 1970's - not the amount of suits, the average judgment or settlement amount - nothing (adjusted for population growth and inflation.)

What has changed is insurer profit margins, pure and simple.

I won't argue with your claim about the 1970s, because that is roughly when things got out of control.

I haven't studied insurance company profit margins, but I don't see many people buying stocks in that sector. However, government programs tend to have the opposite effect of what was intended. Thus, programs designed to offer a low-cost alternative drive small companies out of business, leaving just a few big companies that know how to play ball with politicians.

Of course, your analysis is totally oblivious to the ill effects of government programs on important factors such as quality of healthcare and consumer choice.


As for your assault on progressive taxes - they do not cause the very wealthy to not pay taxes nor are they a disincentinve to innovation or hard work. You pay taxes on the margin, so when you enter a new tax bracket, its only every NEW dollar that you make that is taxed at a higher rate - so even if you only take back 60 cents on the dollar, that 60 additional cents is still incentive to earn. In fact, by making it HARDER to be richer, it is a GREATER incentive for the most talented to work harder (thus make more money).

The Rich who don't pay taxes ARE essentially COMMUNIST SUPPORTERS, who are looking to avoind paying to support for the country and system that keeps them free and secure. People who, even legally, can afford to pay taxes and yet hide money off-shore or expense personal goods as business expenses - are stealing money from the government - they are no better than petty theives.

That is your emotional analysis. It only requires a little logic to see that progressive taxes are unfair and are based on the socialist dream of redistributing wealth.

Under a flat tax you pay taxes in proportion to what you earn. Those who make little pay little in taxes. Those who earn more pay more.

Your claim that making it harder for people to get rich is an "incentive" is laughable.

The reality, which you ignore, is that progressive taxes were devised by politicians seeking votes. They promised the majority of people, who are not rich, that they would make the rich minority pay a disproportionate share of taxes. (This is the Democrats greatest contribution to our political life: they promise favors to every interest group in exchange for votes.) However, since Democrat politiains are themselves rich, they also devised a way for themselves and their friends to avoid progressive taxes. Thus, they created a byzantine system of exemptions, tax shelters, and loopholes. Thus, the Kennedys can keep the money they made in bootlegging while they cook up legislation to persecute the Bill Gates.


Your statement that there are only state created monopolies is a falsehood, also. Barriers to entry and unfair competition practices (ie. buying out competitors before they can compete ala Standard Oil and US Steel, dumping, etc.) all happen on a day to day basis. Also, oligopoly poses certain risks, as well.

No, the only real monopolies are state-created. The USPS, the Bell System, Amtrak, etc.

In a free market, investors are free to continually start new companies. Though big companies can buy small companies, they will only do so selectively, as they must balance that strategy against their desire to increase profits--which requires cost containment.

In contrast, when the government sets up a monopoly it can simply pass legislation to outlaw competition in that business, which it often does.

Thanks to modern technology, far more people can invest in companies, and there is more information enabling new companies to find and capture niche markets.

Thus, the computer industry is a wonderful example that--contrary to the claims of socialists--while some companies are driven out of business by competition new companies are continually being formed. The net result is increasingly powerful/useful products and lower prices for consumers.

If healthcare were allowed to operate as a free market, we would see a blossoming of new diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventative products and services. Prices would gravitate to levels that consumers could afford. It is only due to government interference and bureaucracy that an aspirin administered in hospital costs $20 per dose!


You are right that slave labor in general can only do simple manufacturing, but with technology improving, the capability of slave or slave level labor is improving every day. Standardless trade hurts the US because it doesn't rewarrd productivity per manhour, which is what should matter.

Nonsense. As technology improves, it enables automation. Thus, there is less need for unskilled labor. The idea that a bunch of government policy wonks should determine how/when productivity should be rewarded is laughable. The market is far more capable of recognizing and rewarding superior value.

If superior value is derived by providing tens of millions of dirt-poor Chinese low-paying jobs, who are you to decide they should be unemployed instead? What we should seek is to ensure their political freedom through displomatic and military pressure, which will ensure they have opportunities to seek education, emigrate, and so forth. Throwing them out of work is a foolish way to protect US jobs that can and should be done by robots.


You need to go back and look at the late 1800's, which is where we are heading policy wise. The US was most productive in the 50's and 60's, which had a much more "socialist" aspect to it, and much more wealth redistribution and circulation. That distribution to middle income peoples, who spend and invest almost all of their money (as opposed to the very wealthy) improves corporate earning and the economy as a whole.

Nonsense. First, this isn't the late 1800s. As I've described, technology enables more people to invest and provides investors with more and better information. It's no longer possible for a handful of big companies to keep emerging markets their private secret. Nor can they stop new companies armed with new technologies.

Contrary to your claim, the 50s were not "more socialist." The era of huge government programs began in the 60s. Still, these programs were intended to be affordable. It was in the 70s that we discovered that once you create "entitlements" you have to pay for them no matter how huge and out of control they become.


Instead, the poverty rate and the uninsured in the US have been increasing every year (especially since the rate has not kept up with inflation in real terms.)

This is propaganda. In the U.S., people who own their own home, a car, and other modern conveniences are routinely counted as "poor." Why? Because such rigged counting helps politcians seeking to justify ever more government programs.

Really, between the opportunities and government programs in this country, you have to go out of your way to be what would be considered "poor" in most of the world. I believe most of the uninsured are uninsured by choice: they know that there are major hospitals in every city that cannot turn away someone who is in need of treatment.

The dirty little secret is that major hospitals already receive massive federal aid so they can treat the "uninsured." So in reality, nobody in this country is uninsured. Many uninsured are young people who are betting they won't get sick. Others simply know that if they do, someone else--the government or a charity--will foot the bill.

I prefer the Jewish philosophy that says the moral solution is to help those in need with loans--not gifts. Let them know that they are expected to pay for the help they received once they get back on their feet. The Democrats have created a society of arrogant people who think others owe them something for nothing.

[MGB8]

Ibrodsky,

The majority of your responses are based on ideology and anecdote and not fact. You need to do some serious research on the numbers.

For example, the medicare and poverty line figures that I gave you are accurate.

Your "dirty little secret" doesn't take into account that an uninsured person may be mandated treatment in an emergency room, but the hospitals get pennys back on the dollar, and still turn away plenty of people.

Meanwhile business has to bear the burden of insuring its employees, raising the unemployment rate by raising the cost of having employees.

Do you know what the poverty line for a family of 3 is in the US? Its about 17,000$ (pre-tax, although only a small portion of that is taxed, likely unprogressive state taxes as well as SSI, which is a regressive tax - never was a savings program), if I recall correctly. If has not been adjusted for increases in standard of living, nor of health insurance costs.

17K is about 1.3K per month, again, before taxes. Now start deducting costs - rent (say cheap at 600$ for a family of 3), transportation to get to work (car insurance, minimum level, varies greatly on the area, but 150 per month is common.) Add Health care (if they have it, cheap version at 100$ per month), and you have 450$ per month for deductables, education, clothes, food, car inspections, breakdowns, etc. etc. etc. And what was it, 15% of our population is like that? and growing?

Frankly, most of your arguments are COMPLETELY based on belief and not at all on EVIDENCE or FACT. (You say "always" and "never" - and there is NOTHING in economics that is "always" or "never" - always or never are moral and religious terms.) You can't argue on that.
In fact, even modern economic thought admits that market failures exist, happen all the time, are based on the faulty underlying assumptions of hte models we use to understand economics, and only if you adjust for them do you have a prosperous economy.

The Market is important, the most important thing. But in order for it to work, you need to adjust for market failures - lack of "perfect information" and mobility, barriers to entry, anti-competitive behaviors.

Bottom line, though - market needs DECADES to adjust to changes, and and the margin, at the instant, its a zero sum game (no growth occurs at the instant.) If wealth gets too concentrated, you create social unrest (angry poor), not to mention that sales orriented companies that do not target those with wealth begin to fail (no more consumer money.) We have avoided that to some extend by consumer debt (a bad thing in the amounts its in now). BTW - 2/3 of the US economy is US CONSUMER SPENDING!

BTW - the 50's and 60's had many of the programs we have to day. Kennedy's increases to those programs where not as large as you'd like to think.

Unfortunatley, conservative economists are so blinded by their own greed that they do not see that they do not realize it creates the 1880's and 1890's like conditions that produces ideas like Communism and the potential for social upheaval.

Its not about handouts, its about making sure failures of the market are adjusted for.

These are economic differences. I hope that you are willing to entertain the possibility that you may be wrong (I am), and actually LOOK at the statistics and the history, as well as the impact of standardless trade (which does not include other first world nations - Japan, UK, Germany, etc, who have standards equal to ours) on US employment and general innovation - to see if the "rush to the bottom" occurs. Moreover, look at the impact of tax evasion as more and more lower and middle income people learn the secrets that the wealthy have been using for years to avoid supporting their country, their safety and property protection (one of the largest parts of the US economy) and the social stability that protects them.

[ibrodsky]

MGB8,

I suppose it is clever of you to simply declare your positions are based on fact and mine aren't. But if we dig down deeper in any of the issues we'll find that it's just the reverse.

For example, you said:


Your "dirty little secret" doesn't take into account that an uninsured person may be mandated treatment in an emergency room, but the hospitals get pennys back on the dollar, and still turn away plenty of people.

But that's not true. Only private hospitals can limit their treatment of the uninsured to emergencies. Major hospitals that accept federal aid *must* treat everyone. (They make up for the low return by charging the rest of us exorbitant prices.) People don't really get "turned away," they simply get referred from small private hospitals to large medical centers.

My source is the CEO of one of the largest hospitals in the U.S. About a year ago I attended "mini medical school" and he was one of the lecturers. This was all carefully documented in his PowerPoint presentation.

I don't dispute that $17K in annual income is very low. My point is that in most countries that is still more than what the average family earns. Plus, you need to add in all of the government programs and charitable aid that are available to people at that income level. For example, despite claims that private schools are "only for the rich," there are many private schools in this country that provide 100% scholarships for needy students.

The real cause of poverty in the US is the breakdown of the family--the traditional safety net--which is a direct result of misguided government programs.

I wish I had time to respond to all of your mistatements, but I don't. However, I must add that I never accused Pres. Kennedy of initiating entitlements. That was Pres. Johnson, but the cost of those entitlements was nothing then compared to today... my point being that many of these well-intended programs turned into boondoggles with a life of their own.

[MGB8]

Ibrodsky,

Until the last post, almost everything you wrote was essentially "that's nonsense ... because I believe it is so" - and not based on any facts or even logic. and idealogical approach to ecomics, as opposed to an evidence based approach.

Why do China and India have the fastest growing economies in the World right now, though both are MUCH more "socialist" than we? Why is the US behind many socialist European countries in education? Why do countries like Sweden and Finland have stronger middle classes and equal standards of living without 1/50th of our natural resources? I'm not saying that these countries have "the answers" - but they certainly have experiences and policies which are important for us to analyze.

getting referred away because you are injured, but not injured enough, having to go across town, etc. That's a problem. Have you ever been uninsured? I have - not pretty, not easy at all. The hospitals have an interest in looking as good as possible - try to get the other perspective, also.

More than that, where these people insured, then maybe we wouldn't have the exorbinant prices for the rest of us?

as for other countries - it generally costs a LOT less to live in another country (take Argentina - I have personal knowledge of it - public health care, with 17K per year you live with a MAID!) - and in many you still have access to highly advanced medicine, computers, cell phones, university, etc etc etc.

Thankfully, the weakening dollar is finally re-adjusting these differences, although I have no idea what the final adjustment will be (that's what the market is for!).

The policy differences that we are expressing are exactly what needs to go on between Dem's and Repub's. There are legitimate policy differences that need to be explored using data and evidence and history.

These are issues not about whether government programs sometimes become boondoggles (they sometimes do - and need strict accounting and transparancy programs - but you can't use the term "always" - there are inneficiencies in Private business - if you've worked and seen books and budgets, you know that's the case. Government sometimes has some perverse incentives, though - things that need to be gaurded against.)

Note that government provides the VAST majority of scientific research in this country via Government - through grants, the military, etc. Even through government in terms of patent protections (which can create your "government monopolies").

The problem with busness is quarterly thinking (Wall Street) - not long term thinking (which got us in trouble in the 70's and 80's....)

Regardless....that was the point of my original post - that there are issues that this country needs discussion about - in general how we address the market's failures (externalties, barriers, anti-competitive behaviors, inequality of information and mobility, etc.) - to decide how little government we can get away with, really - BUT, guys like Dean have hopped on an anti-war bus simply due to their opposition to Bush.

Take a look at Lieberman - differences in economic policy, but an understanding of what it takes to keep the US, and the rest of the world, safe.

Peace, and happy arguing!




Originally posted by ibrodsky
MGB8,

I suppose it is clever of you to simply declare your positions are based on fact and mine aren't. But if we dig down deeper in any of the issues we'll find that it's just the reverse.

For example, you said:



But that's not true. Only private hospitals can limit their treatment of the uninsured to emergencies. Major hospitals that accept federal aid *must* treat everyone. (They make up for the low return by charging the rest of us exorbitant prices.) People don't really get "turned away," they simply get referred from small private hospitals to large medical centers.

My source is the CEO of one of the largest hospitals in the U.S. About a year ago I attended "mini medical school" and he was one of the lecturers. This was all carefully documented in his PowerPoint presentation.

I don't dispute that $17K in annual income is very low. My point is that in most countries that is still more than what the average family earns. Plus, you need to add in all of the government programs and charitable aid that are available to people at that income level. For example, despite claims that private schools are "only for the rich," there are many private schools in this country that provide 100% scholarships for needy students.

The real cause of poverty in the US is the breakdown of the family--the traditional safety net--which is a direct result of misguided government programs.

I wish I had time to respond to all of your mistatements, but I don't. However, I must add that I never accused Pres. Kennedy of initiating entitlements. That was Pres. Johnson, but the cost of those entitlements was nothing then compared to today... my point being that many of these well-intended programs turned into boondoggles with a life of their own.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by MGB8


Why do China and India have the fastest growing economies in the World right now, though both are MUCH more "socialist" than we? Why is the US behind many socialist European countries in education? Why do countries like Sweden and Finland have stronger middle classes and equal standards of living without 1/50th of our natural resources? I'm not saying that these countries have "the answers" - but they certainly have experiences and policies which are important for us to analyze.

I don't know by what measure China and India have the "fastest growing economies in the world right now." The US economy, the largest in the world, grew by >8% last quarter. However, India and China have have enjoyed strong growth recently as a result of moving away from socialism and towards free markets. In doing so, they have attracted huge foreign investment and increased their exports.

The U.S. public education system is a disgrace and should be dismantled. However, I am not impressed by European "education" that creates a populace that thinks Israel is the greatest threat to world peace and leaders who liken George W. Bush to Adolph Hitler. To my knowledge, education in countries like Japan and S. Korea is delivering better results than either the U.S. or the anti-Semitic European welfare states.


getting referred away because you are injured, but not injured enough, having to go across town, etc. That's a problem. Have you ever been uninsured? I have - not pretty, not easy at all. The hospitals have an interest in looking as good as possible - try to get the other perspective, also.

I have zero sympathy for people who can't pay and get referred to other hospitals in non-emergencies. It is precisely this attitude--that those who don't have health insurance should not experience the slightest inconvenience--that is wrong with this country. What incentive is there for them to get health insurance if there is no penalty--not even inconvenience!-- for not having it?

The important thing is not that healthcare should be free for those who can't or won't pay, but that quality healthcare be available to anyone who needs it and is willing to pay as best they can. I have extensive experience in this area, both personal and professionally, and I can say with certainty that consumer choice has been steadily eroded due to government regulation and this plays a large role in both skyrocketing costs and inconsistent if not declining quality.


as for other countries - it generally costs a LOT less to live in another country (take Argentina - I have personal knowledge of it - public health care, with 17K per year you live with a MAID!) - and in many you still have access to highly advanced medicine, computers, cell phones, university, etc etc etc.

Talk about opinions based solely on ideology... The US still has, by far, the best healthcare system. People come from all over the world to the US for treatment. Plus, in every country with socialized medicine that permits private medicine, private medicine is flourishing. Of course, since socialized medicine is just an ideological term for a government-created monopoly, citizens in those unhappy countries are forced to pay for the "free" healthcare system even if they have chosen to use private care.


The policy differences that we are expressing are exactly what needs to go on between Dem's and Repub's. There are legitimate policy differences that need to be explored using data and evidence and history.

I don't think anything needs to go on between Democrats and Republicans. Instead, what this country needs is reform to ensure that all political parties are run independently of the government. There is also something wrong with a country in which there are only two parties with any influence, and they simply take turns controlling the White House and Congress.


These are issues not about whether government programs sometimes become boondoggles (they sometimes do - and need strict accounting and transparancy programs - but you can't use the term "always" - there are inneficiencies in Private business - if you've worked and seen books and budgets, you know that's the case. Government sometimes has some perverse incentives, though - things that need to be gaurded against.)

The point you are missing is that when private companies are inefficient their profits and market share decrease. When government, which largely operates in a monopoly environment, is inefficient it simply means that taxpayers are stuck paying more for less.


Note that government provides the VAST majority of scientific research in this country via Government - through grants, the military, etc. Even through government in terms of patent protections (which can create your "government monopolies").

OK, I won't say "nonsense," but I don't know any polite way to tell you you are way off. I have >25 years of experience in emerging technologies and very little of the technology that comes to market is the result of government-funded research. (Of course patent protection plays a role, but that is a completely different subject--better known as Rule of Law.)

Government primarily funds what is known as "basic research." This is just a euphemism for research that more often than not has no practical applications. I'm not saying that there has never been any good government-funded research; there has. But I am saying you are wrong to claim the "vast majority" or even a slim majority of fruitful resaerch is government-driven. The vast majority comes from private industry.

Let me give you an example. The government launched a massive program to map the human genome. This was only made possible by DNA sequencers invented by private industry. Plus, a private company got to the finish line first at a fraction of the cost. Of course, you will never hear that from the National Institutes of Health, because the thousands of people who work there are paid by the government. So the *fact* that private industry made it all happen is neatly swept under the rug.


The problem with busness is quarterly thinking (Wall Street) - not long term thinking (which got us in trouble in the 70's and 80's....)

That's clearly not true. Throughout the 80s and 90s startups received vast investment in the hope that in 5 or 10 years they would become the next Intel. It is true that business has pulled back to reassert much-needed fiscal discipline. It is also true that to be successful over the long-term, you need to at least demonstrate fiscal discipline over the short term.

There is a large venture capital industry in the US and I don't know a single VC that expects payback within one or two quarters. They are all still looking years out, though they now demand more realistic business models.


Take a look at Lieberman - differences in economic policy, but an understanding of what it takes to keep the US, and the rest of the world, safe.

He is the only semi-reasonable Democrat candidate. However, he is clearly unelectable. His whiney voice and personality are simply not what this country needs in the midst of a world war against 21st century Nazism. The majority of voters know that instinctively.

Please don't take my arguments personally. When I say "nonsense" I am attacking ideas, not you. I refuse to preface every statement with "I respectfully disagree," but you can assume that I do respectfully disagree.

[MGB8]

Ibrodsky,

Same here. Disagreements are just that - to be evaluated over time and with experience.

MORAL differences are an entirely different beast.




Originally posted by ibrodsky
I don't know by what measure China and India have the "fastest growing economies in the world right now." The US economy, the largest in the world, grew by >8% last quarter. However, India and China have have enjoyed strong growth recently as a result of moving away from socialism and towards free markets. In doing so, they have attracted huge foreign investment and increased their exports.

The U.S. public education system is a disgrace and should be dismantled. However, I am not impressed by European "education" that creates a populace that thinks Israel is the greatest threat to world peace and leaders who liken George W. Bush to Adolph Hitler. To my knowledge, education in countries like Japan and S. Korea is delivering better results than either the U.S. or the anti-Semitic European welfare states.



I have zero sympathy for people who can't pay and get referred to other hospitals in non-emergencies. It is precisely this attitude--that those who don't have health insurance should not experience the slightest inconvenience--that is wrong with this country. What incentive is there for them to get health insurance if there is no penalty--not even inconvenience!-- for not having it?

The important thing is not that healthcare should be free for those who can't or won't pay, but that quality healthcare be available to anyone who needs it and is willing to pay as best they can. I have extensive experience in this area, both personal and professionally, and I can say with certainty that consumer choice has been steadily eroded due to government regulation and this plays a large role in both skyrocketing costs and inconsistent if not declining quality.



Talk about opinions based solely on ideology... The US still has, by far, the best healthcare system. People come from all over the world to the US for treatment. Plus, in every country with socialized medicine that permits private medicine, private medicine is flourishing. Of course, since socialized medicine is just an ideological term for a government-created monopoly, citizens in those unhappy countries are forced to pay for the "free" healthcare system even if they have chosen to use private care.



I don't think anything needs to go on between Democrats and Republicans. Instead, what this country needs is reform to ensure that all political parties are run independently of the government. There is also something wrong with a country in which there are only two parties with any influence, and they simply take turns controlling the White House and Congress.



The point you are missing is that when private companies are inefficient their profits and market share decrease. When government, which largely operates in a monopoly environment, is inefficient it simply means that taxpayers are stuck paying more for less.



OK, I won't say "nonsense," but I don't know any polite way to tell you you are way off. I have >25 years of experience in emerging technologies and very little of the technology that comes to market is the result of government-funded research. (Of course patent protection plays a role, but that is a completely different subject--better known as Rule of Law.)

Government primarily funds what is known as "basic research." This is just a euphemism for research that more often than not has no practical applications. I'm not saying that there has never been any good government-funded research; there has. But I am saying you are wrong to claim the "vast majority" or even a slim majority of fruitful resaerch is government-driven. The vast majority comes from private industry.

Let me give you an example. The government launched a massive program to map the human genome. This was only made possible by DNA sequencers invented by private industry. Plus, a private company got to the finish line first at a fraction of the cost. Of course, you will never hear that from the National Institutes of Health, because the thousands of people who work there are paid by the government. So the *fact* that private industry made it all happen is neatly swept under the rug.



That's clearly not true. Throughout the 80s and 90s startups received vast investment in the hope that in 5 or 10 years they would become the next Intel. It is true that business has pulled back to reassert much-needed fiscal discipline. It is also true that to be successful over the long-term, you need to at least demonstrate fiscal discipline over the short term.

There is a large venture capital industry in the US and I don't know a single VC that expects payback within one or two quarters. They are all still looking years out, though they now demand more realistic business models.



He is the only semi-reasonable Democrat candidate. However, he is clearly unelectable. His whiney voice and personality are simply not what this country needs in the midst of a world war against 21st century Nazism. The majority of voters know that instinctively.

Please don't take my arguments personally. When I say "nonsense" I am attacking ideas, not you. I refuse to preface every statement with "I respectfully disagree," but you can assume that I do respectfully disagree.