Your view on recent Middle East crisis

[JennyC]

The purpose of this poll is to see how BetterMost members feel about the recent Middle East crisis. They are really two questions, but I would like to keep the response in one place since I think one question leads to another. 

Which party bears the majority of the responsibilities with the recent escalation of the conflict, the loss of lives, is it Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, etc? We can debate these questions for hours and hours, just like how they dominate major media outlets these days.  But at the end of the day, everyone has a position on this (no position is also a position).  Let’s hear it. 

Thanks for taking the poll.

[David]

None of any of this is justified.   Neither side can have it all.   Logic would dictate that the land be divided 50/50.   But seeing that both parties will never agree to this, the bloodshed will continue forever.

There will be peace in the mid East only when parents learn to love their children more than they hate their enemies.

[David In Indy]

Well, this is complicated.

Hezbollah kidnapped 2 Israeli soldiers. They (Hezbollah) also positioned rockets and missles very near the Israel/Lebanon border. Israel has a right (and a duty) to protect itself and its' citizens....

BUT.......

Bombing Beirut, Tyre, and other Lebonese cities for 8 days (as of July 19th, 2006) is a very unfair and unbalanced retaliation for 2 or 3 kidnapped soldiers. I agree Hezbollah started all of this. But so far 300 people (mostly civilians) have been killed and 1000 others have been injured. Over 500,000 Lebanese have now been displaced because of this conflict.

Hezbollah should not have kidnapped these Israeli soldiers. But Israel has overreacted in my opinion.

President Bush should step in immediately and demand that Israel stop these attacks and bombing campaigns over Lebanon and Gaza. If he doesn't, this conflict will soon spiral out of control and we will find ourselves in the middle of World War III.

When I  was young, people use to say "World War III will be fought with nuclear bombs and World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones".

President Bush better do something about this, and he better do it fast! 

I hate to sound negative, but I have ZERO faith in our "president" and somehow (just as he  did with Iraq) I think he will be making some more bad and irresponsible decisions in the near future.

God help us all. 

[YaadPyar]

None of any of this is justified.   Neither side can have it all.   Logic would dictate that the land be divided 50/50.   But seeing that both parties will never agree to this, the bloodshed will continue forever.

There will be peace in the mid East only when parents learn to love their children more than they hate their enemies.

Perfectly put.  Thanks, David.

[Giancarlo]

The response towards Hezbollah is very balanced, and one has to remember they didn't just kidnap the soldiers. After the Israelis went to try to get them, Hezbollah responded by firing hundreds of rockets into densely populated Israeli cities. The reason why the Israelis have continued the bombings for eight days now is because these Iranian-built rockets are being fired deep into Israel killing citizens. Israel has no choice but to neutralize the threat. Some here really do not understand. How would you feel if these rockets could go deep in your country? These are what Israel is trying to destroy. Israel in no way over-reacted.

President Bush from what I heard is going to demand an end to these attacks in as little as a week. My views may be impacted by the fact that I am pro-Israeli.

WWIII? Overstatement. In fact saying that we might end up in WWIII is an emotional statement. This is pretty much involving one area of the globe. Iran nor Syria would ever think about attacking Israel because they would lose. It is that simple. Israel has a military machine that is unprecendented in the entire middle east. It has been known to defeating a 500,000+ military (Egypt) in 6 days.

My source on the information about it being a week: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/07/19/1153166455516.html

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/07/19/1153166454897.html

That's one week before the US joins powers that are demanding for a cease-fire. Once that happens, Israel will find its support dramatically reduced for continuing the strikes and it may have to halt that. I think the reason for this again, is to destroy the rockets.

Also Lebanese Prime Minister Faoud Saniora I believe is exaggerating how many people have been killed, injured and displaced by this. I don't think it is even close to what he is saying.

[JennyC]

Thanks for taking the poll, David (in Hartford), David (in Indianapolis), Celeste, and Giancarlo.

I would like to clarify that I didn’t mentioned Hezbollah's role in starting the conflict in the question because everyone here is all well informed, and I assume that goes without saying.  It’s definitely not my intention to give them as well as other parties that support them a free pass.  The recent debate, however, is more focused on whether or not Israel used excess force.  Israel definitely has the right to defend itself when under attack. The question is whether it’s morally right to protect it’s own citizen and to reshape Middle East political layout by taking other innocent lives (even though it’s not the intent, but nonetheless the result).  Is the world’s goodwill on Israel at the beginning of the conflict fading away.

Secondly, I just realized that the poll that I created is not scientifically correct (?), where one option only says that US government’s response is not balanced, but didn’t specify whether it’s more in favor of Israel or the other side.  But again, that goes without saying.   So just to clarify the option “No, US government’s response is not balanced” translates to US government’s response is more in favor of Israel, i.e. not putting enough pressure on Israel to end the conflict.

[vkm91941]

As long as you have two factions who are so diametrically opposed, each believing in the aboslute rightness of their claims and absolute wrongness of any opposing point of view, each believing they are right in the eyes of GOD and this land is their GOD given birthright, as long as these nations do not function 100% in the 21 century and are still seeking recompense for preceived wrongs hundreds if not thousands of years old; there will be no peace in the middle east only escalation.  I agree David  God help us all....

 

[delalluvia]

Israel has the right to defend itself, but I agree with David that they're using a wrecking ball to squash some mosquitos.

Thinking of sending in land troops to another country because they were shelled - on a limited basis - and 3 soldiers were kidnapped?

I believe Israel is going for an aggressive show of strength to keep their enemies at bay.

Mess with us and this is what you get.

And who can blame them since they are surrounded on all sides by people who do not like them?

I have read though that a lot of Israel's economic and military budget comes and has come from the U.S.

Israel is in a very precarious situation.  Unless they keep their borders firm, they will not exist much longer as a country.  And not from warfare.  There are enough Arab-Israelis who live there and near enough that they might reproduce in enough numbers that sooner or later, the Jewish people of Israel might find themselves in a miniority position in their own country and be - legally - voted out of existence.

I'm not sure that they as a people might not react with extreme violence to the potential loss of their way of life there.

"Apres moi, l'deluge." as the saying goes.

[David In Indy]

WWIII? Overstatement. In fact saying that we might end up in WWIII is an emotional statement. This is pretty much involving one area of the globe. Iran nor Syria would ever think about attacking Israel because they would lose. It is that simple. Israel has a military machine that is unprecendented in the entire middle east. It has been known to defeating a 500,000+ military (Egypt) in 6 days.

It doesn't really matter what Syria or Iran would or would not do at this point.

Were you ever a boyscout Giancarlo? If so, do you remember what they taught you the very first time you went camping? In my boyscout troop they taught us to completely clear the area, 10 feet in diameter, of anything flammable before we built a fire. Why? Because fire has a tendancy to jump as it burns (the wood popping and throwing off sparks for example).

This conflict in Israel, Palestine and Lebanon could easily incite war in other areas. Many officials have speculated this conflict is an offshoot of the Iraq war. There was a major terrorist attack in India several weeks ago. The FBI and CIA tell us there are Hezbollah sleeper cells in the United States and more than likely they are ready to strike. North Korea has already tested some medium and long range missles and the country says it will test some more. Iran may not want to "play war" today, but apparently it is more than happy to supply weapons to others who do feel like "playing".

You are still very young Giancarlo. I love your optimism (and I am not patronizing you when I say that). You may be correct. In fact, I hope you are correct.

It's as if the Mideast is a warehouse full of gunpowder, dynomite and gasoline, and some of our world leaders want to stand inside and play with matches.   

[Giancarlo]

Were you ever a boyscout Giancarlo? If so, do you remember what they taught you the very first time you went camping? In my boyscout troop they taught us to completely clear the area, 10 feet in diameter, of anything flammable before we built a fire. Why? Because fire has a tendancy to jump as it burns (the wood popping and throwing off sparks for example).

No I wasn't, so that's completely irrelevant. I don't get why you are bringing up that comparsion. Israelis were attacked and soldiers got kidnapped. I'm sorry that I do not believe in the same soft approach that some believe around here.

This conflict in Israel, Palestine and Lebanon could easily incite war in other areas. Many officials have speculated this conflict is an offshoot of the Iraq war. There was a major terrorist attack in India several weeks ago. The FBI and CIA tell us there are Hezbollah sleeper cells in the United States and more than likely they are ready to strike. North Korea has already tested some medium and long range missles and the country says it will test some more. Iran may not want to "play war" today, but apparently it is more than happy to supply weapons to others who do feel like "playing".

Not really. Especailly not at this point. Many officials have speculated this conflict is an offshoot of the Iraq war? Incorrect. This has been going on for decades. Israel was in Lebanon for years (since the 1980s), so it can be stated that this is an offshoot from that war, not the Iraq war. You made a big assumption that isn't really true. There have been several major terrorist attacks in India because of their occupation of Kashmir. That wasn't even the biggest terrorist attack they had. That terrorist attack was to push India's withdrawl from Kashmir. The FBI and CIA tell us that? Really?

North Korea's missile technology is ancient.

You are still very young Giancarlo. I love your optimism (and I am not patronizing you when I say that). You may be correct. In fact, I hope you are correct.

You're bringing up my age? Why? I'm sorry but if you think my age makes me inexperienced you are dead wrong. I have seen a lot of this world, and have visited something near 30 different countries. I have lived in a half dozen different countries. Many people in the US haven't even left the country. I myself have lived in Ecuador for three years, and have visited Colombia about a dozen+ times.

If I'm so young and complacent, why do I know so much about the history of the wars that occurred between Israel and other middle eastern powers? Age is not the measure of wisdom or intelligence in my opinion.

[David In Indy]

If I'm so young and complacent, why do I know so much about the history of the wars that occurred between Israel and other middle eastern powers? Age is not the measure of wisdom or intelligence in my opinion.

Most young people I know are often very upbeat and optimistic about the world and the future. That's all I meant by it Giancarlo.

Actually I was paying you a compliment.

[Giancarlo]

Trust me, I'm not overly optimistic about this world. I know that war is never going to end. I'm not a peace activist either. I know that wanting peace in this world is unrealistic.

[vkm91941]

Enemies of Israel's Enemies: Israel's New Friends?

For the first time, Arab leaders are speaking out against Hamas and Hezbollah for attacking Israel. What's going on? 
-By Jamal Dajani 

Far more surprising than U.S. statements of support for Israel's assault on Gaza and Lebanon are similar proclamations from Arab governments. Just before the Israeli cabinet gave Prime Minister Olmert the green light for more attacks, a spokesperson for the Saudi government called for Israeli restraint, but blamed the current conflict on Hezbollah's seizure of two Israeli soldiers. "There is a difference between legitimate resistance and miscalculated adventures," he stated.

The official for the Saudi Ministry of Information hit hard on Islamic resistance groups in Lebanon and Gaza. Those groups, he said, should "bear the consequences of the crisis they have created."
Meanwhile, both King Abdullah II of Jordan and President Mubarak of Egypt warned that Hezbollah is dragging the Arab world into conflict through its misguided gambles and adventures. The majority of Arab regimes has been silent about Israel's new two-front war. Their foreign ministers to the Arab League will not meet to discuss the crisis until July 15, three days after the start of Israeli air attacks and time enough for Israel to completely destroy Lebanon's infrastructure.

Israeli attacks on Lebanon or Gaza are not something new; nor are prisoner exchanges between Hezbollah and Israel. To date, there have been three prisoner exchange deals between Israel and Hezbollah (July 1996, June 1998 and January 2004) and several prisoner swaps between Israel and the PLO. The most famous swap was in May 1985, when in exchange for three Israeli soldiers held by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Israel released 1,150 Palestinian political prisoners. So why the overblown Israeli reaction to the capture of several Israeli soldiers, and the Arab silence this time?

In a new strategy shift, the dependence of Palestinians and Lebanese on Arab regimes to confront and contain Israel politically and militarily has ended. Militant groups from Palestine to Iraq -- groups known in the Arab world as the Islamic Resistance and as "terrorists organizations" by Israel and many Western countries -- have been taking matters into their own hands. Arab masses have long realized the powerlessness of their leaders to end the conflict in Iraq or alleviate the suffering of the Palestinians. People throughout the Middle East remember the failed mediation attempts by King Abdullah II of Jordan and President Mubarak of Egypt to lift the September 2002 siege on Yasir Arafat. Arafat remained a prisoner in his compound until few days before his death on November 11, 2004, when he was air-lifted to a military hospital in France only after French President Jacques Chirac intervened.

At the same time, as Arab regimes' influence over organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah has waned, Israel has lost a kind of buffer zone. Unlike the PLO in the past, neither Hamas nor Hezbollah is dependent on Arab state support. Syria's influence over Hezbollah takes second place to that of Iran.

Hence, the Israeli government is very concerned that any success achieved by Hamas or Hezbollah will open the way for more groups -- perhaps even Al Qaeda -- to fight Israel or terrorize Israelis.

Arab regimes are very concerned as well. The aftershocks left by the elections in Gaza are still felt beneath the seats of monarchs and leaders stretching from Riyadh to Rabat. Many Arab rulers are threatened by democracy and the rise of Islamism in the region. In Gaza, they are challenged by a democratically elected Islamist government, Hamas. In Egypt, the challenge comes from the Islamic Brotherhood, and in Lebanon, from Hezbollah, commonly referred to as a "state within a state."

Away from the sectarian violence that has plagued Iraq, Hamas (a Sunni organization) and Hezbollah (Shiite) have found themselves on the same front, fighting a battle for their survival. The survival of each is dependant on the other. Similarly, Arab regimes and Israel have forged an undeclared alliance to rid themselves of the growing menace in the region, "popular Islamist movements." Israel is doing the bombing and destruction, while Arab regimes quietly cheer on the sidelines.

Today, on Al-Manar Television in Beirut, Hassan Nassrallah, the Secretary General of Hezbollah, answered the Saudis and others and said, "As for the Arab rulers, I will not ask you about your history. Just a brief word, we are adventurers...We never bet on you, we always bet on God."

Did the Arab rulers bet on Israel? Did Hezbollah and Hamas miscalculate? The coming days should tell.

[Giancarlo]

It turns out many arabs don't actually support Hezbollah, especially not in this crisis. What happened was quite simple... Hezbollah launched the first attack against Israel, and Israel simply defended itself. Apparently, Israel was effective in getting its message out that it was defending itself. Saudi Arabia usually NEVER sides with Israel, which is a bit of a shock to me. In addition the Iranian people want their government to stay out of this crisis. The regime in Iran might be vocally supporting Hezbollah, but its people are getting frustrated and want the government to focus on domestic issues instead.

The Iranian people actually want their government to stop supporting Hezbollah.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1218020,00.html

 Parvin Heydari, an Iranian mother of two, was flipping back and forth between the nightly news and Oprah when a bulletin on an Iranian state channel caught her attention. It urged Iranians to boycott what it called "Zionist products," including those made by Pepsi, Nestle and Calvin Klein, and warned that profits from such products "are converted into bullets piercing the chests of Lebanese and Palestinian children." As evidence, the voice-over intoned, "Pepsi stands for 'pay each penny to save Israel.'" Heydari says she changed the channel, as she has no intention of crossing Nestle's Nesquik off her shopping list. "Lebanon has nothing to do with us," she says. "We should mind our own business and concentrate on policies that are good for our economy, and our kids."

To many observers in the Western world, Hizballah, the Lebanese guerrilla group battling Israel, is a mere puppet of Iran. Some are convinced that Hizballah triggered the crisis on Tehran's orders to divert world attention away from Iran's controversial nuclear plans. But client states are not necessarily as docile as one might think. Just as Israel sometimes takes actions that surprise (and even displease) the U.S., Hizballah does things Iran has neither ordered up nor necessarily approves of.

It's impossible to know the precise origins of the current crisis in Lebanon, but since it erupted two weeks ago, the mood in Tehran has swung between indifference—the fighting rarely makes the headlines—and resentment over Iran's longstanding sponsorship of Hizballah. True, there have been officially sponsored rallies declaring support for Hizballah, whose leaders pledge religious allegiance to Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatullah Ali Khamenei. But the emotional support for Hizballah common throughout the Arab world is largely absent here.

[starboardlight]

There will be peace in the mid East only when parents learn to love their children more than they hate their enemies.

or peace anywhere for that matter. but well said David.

[Giancarlo]

This is getting very interesting indeed...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060724/pl_nm/mideast_france_dc_1;_ylt=Am04UjkXVt7_6iSnfK4bEW4UvioA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

PARIS (Reuters) - France and the United States worked together to oust
Syria from Lebanon and, despite tactical differences due to divergent agendas in the region, they agree who is to blame for the current crisis -- Hizbollah.

The born-again allies, their rift over Iraq a thing of the past, want to isolate and disarm the Shi'ite Muslim group, whose backers Iran and Syria underscore the wider strategic issues at play in the latest round of Middle East conflict.

Israel began its assault on Lebanon after Hizbollah seized two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on July 12. Some 373 people have since died in Lebanon. At least 37 Israelis have been killed in Hizbollah rocket attacks and clashes.

Both Washington and Paris have accused Hizbollah of provoking the Jewish state and leaving Lebanon -- a French-speaking Middle East state with historical ties to France -- to bear the brunt of Israel's riposte.

"The Americans have never been interested in Lebanon as such, (they) have always reacted regarding Syria and regarding Israel," said Olivier Roy, head of research at the France-based CNRS institute.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060724/ap_on_re_mi_ea/rice_24;_ylt=Ao3SMyLHSdVg52Mhfcrijc0UvioA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

BEIRUT, Lebanon - In a surprise visit to a battered Beirut, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice praised the beleaguered prime minister of Lebanon on Monday for his courage in struggling to contain the fighting between the Hezbollah militia and Israel.

[ekeby]

Some years back I saw an interesting little story--just a paragraph, really--in the NY Times. It said that a United Nations statistical study had found that the one constant in all military conflicts was that the participating countries had a large population of unmarried males.

Trust me, they weren't talking about a lot of gay men. The statistics referred to populations that were too economically depressed to support new marriages and thereby more children.

I think military conflicts are always about what population number one has and about what population number two wants that population number one has. The rationale for conflict is always embellished with religion and moral righteousness, and that makes figuring out what is true and what is not true very difficult to determine.

I know that might sound off topic, but that's the bottom line of what I think about the current Israel slash Lebanon slash Palestine situation.

I'm glad to see the question raised here. Just goes to show that BetterMost people are a little better; they're at least thinking and talking about the situation. The average American has very little understanding of their country's foreign policy, particularly in the middle east and specifically in Israel and Palestine. This is why our government-in-power can do pretty much whatever it wants wherever it wants to. Unfortunately, the rest of the world doesn't know this.

The only thing that will get the average American to turn their attention to the middle east is the rising price of gas. That's why I'd like to see it go sky high--the sooner the better. Clearly, people getting killed by the hundreds every day means next to nothing.

Back to the unmarried male situation. Brace yourselves. China's birthrate has been 2 to 1 male to female for the last 20 years, and they will soon have about a billion unmarried males.

[delalluvia]

Back to the unmarried male situation. Brace yourselves. China's birthrate has been 2 to 1 male to female for the last 20 years, and they will soon have about a billion unmarried males.

Yep, and they're all going hungry for food and women.  For patriarchal societies to get hold of modern technology, then be limited in birth rates to 1 child, they will always choose boys because the men will grow up to 'take care of the parents when they are old'.  Unfortunately, their short-sightedness didn't take into account that almost EVERYone because of their culture thinks the same way, so no one chooses to give birth - and allow to live - any daughters for their sons to marry, so the grown men will have to leave their parents to go find a wife and probably never come back, so they've pretty much screwed themselves.

[Giancarlo]

Holy... someone really went through this whole thread and wiped out a lot of posts, including many posts I have made. That was totally unjustified. I think I'm just going to leave this forum because of that. I'm almost thinking of deleting my account and not coming back. That was such a waste of my time just to see them all deleted like that. There were like three or four pages in this thread. What a waste of my god damn time... Don't think I didn't spend time writing some of my insights, which are now GONE.

[JennyC]

Holy... someone really went through this whole thread and wiped out a lot of posts, including many posts I have made. That was totally unjustified. I think I'm just going to leave this forum because of that. I'm almost thinking of deleting my account and not coming back. That was such a waste of my time just to see them all deleted like that. There were like three or four pages in this thread. What a waste of my god damn time... Don't think I didn't spend time writing some of my insights, which are now GONE.

Giancarlo,

I am surprised to hear that your posts have been deleted.  I read this thread frequently (for obvious reasons. )  I didn't notice any posts from anyone (including yours) have been deleted.  Can you please raise this issue to the moderator?  We don't want to see any posts (as long as it's not personal attack) being deleted, regardless whether or not we agree with each other's opinion.  Is it possible that you were thinking another thread (e.g. Energy/Resource Saving Tips thread, which has 3 to 4 pages posts)? Let's research what is going on a little bit more.

[Giancarlo]

Giancarlo,

I am surprised to hear that your posts have been deleted.  I read this thread frequently (for obvious reasons. )  I didn't notice any posts from anyone (including yours) have been deleted.  Can you please raise this issue to the moderator?  We don't want to see any posts (as long as it's not personal attack) being deleted, regardless whether or not we agree with each other's opinion.  Is it possible that you were thinking another thread (e.g. Energy/Resource Saving Tips thread, which has 3 to 4 pages posts)? Let's research what is going on a little bit more.

I swear I am not mixing this up... I swear I remember this thread being 3-4 pages... I had more insight in here... I swear on it!

[JennyC]

I swear I am not mixing this up... I swear I remember this thread being 3-4 pages... I had more insight in here... I swear on it!

In this case, let's mention this to Phillip as I don't think there is a mod for Polling Place.  Only mod or the people who posted the post should be able to delete an existing post, at least this is my understanding.

[vkm91941]

The number of pages decreased because Phil increased the number of posts we can see per page.  But please be sure your posts are missing because I can have him research it next week.  (not before because his father is have surgery tomorrow for colon cancer so he will not be around until next week)  Let me know Giancarlo we can get to the bottom of it if you really feel your posts are missing.

[Giancarlo]

No, I guess I was mistaken. I'm sorry for my reaction... I guess I'm not thinking quite clearly right now. Sorry.

[vkm91941]

No, I guess I was mistaken. I'm sorry for my reaction... I guess I'm not thinking quite clearly right now. Sorry.

OK no worries.  But remember if you ever have any problem please feel free to PM me or any moderator.  We can get to the bottom of it and if need be correct the problem.  I'd hate to lose you.

[Giancarlo]

I'll stay here... I guess I better get some sleep. Catch you all later.

[JennyC]

Back to the unmarried male situation. Brace yourselves. China's birthrate has been 2 to 1 male to female for the last 20 years, and they will soon have about a billion unmarried males.

Ekeby,

You are right that China has above normal male birth than female, but it’s definitely NOT 2 to 1 male to female.  The normal sex ratio at birth is around 103 to 107 male vs. 100 female. In China, the sex ratio is 108.5 male to 100 female in 1982; 111.3 : 100 in 1990, and 116.9 : 100 in 2000. (you may google “sex ration at birth” to see the ratio around the world).  It’s believed that this imbalance is mainly caused by the abortion of female fetuses and infanticide as the technology to identify fetus gender becomes more available to the general public and is relatively cheap. The increasing imbalance has been duly noted by the society.   Recently, new laws have been introduced to make any non-medical necessary identification of fetus’ gender illegal.  Some official efforts are underway to shift public opinion on the value of daughter, and prompting gender equality.

This, however, is no easy task for a country with thousands years of male dominated culture and agriculture based economy (particularly in the rural areas).  China’s One Child policy started late 70’s has long been criticized by the western world. The fact remains that China, with limited resource, can not afford to not have some population control policy in order to improve people’s living standard.  Some developed countries may support their population with limited land/resource with more industrialized economy.  But not china where the majority of the population still live in agriculture based economy.  There is simply not enough land to support the population growth.  Without the population control policy, China would have not seen the double digit economy growth rate for more than 10 years.  I actually have seen some analysis article that comparing China’s economy development with some other third world counties, like Mexico, Philippine.  Relatively smaller size of family has been attributed to be one of the reasons for China’ success.

Some basic facts regarding China's population:
- China reached 1.3 billion population on Jan 6, 2005.  This date has been postponed by more than 4 years due to the implementation of One Child policy (or Family Planning policy as referred by some).
- 51.65% of the population is male and 48.5% female (this number may be a few years old)
- 40.53% China's population live in cities/towns, 59.47% live in villages or other rural areas.
- Birth rate in 2003 is 12.41/1000, death rate 6.4/1000, population natural growth rate 6.01/1000
- Based on UN estimate, China's population will reach 1.5 billion around 2030.  China's population will peak around 2040.


I am not debating China’s One Child policy here.  It’s a tiresome topic for me.  For the people who believe its immoral, it will always be immoral.  For the people who believe it’s necessary, then what should be debated is the implementation of such policy, not its principle.

Enough of the population talk as it’s really OT for the topic.  Let’s go back to talk about Middle East.

[Giancarlo]

What the one child policy has done has caused the premature aging of the population. Typically a population would age when a country reaches developed status, because people would have less children. But this is happening at an exacerbated rate in China.

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/ChinaFood/data/anim/pop_ani.htm

Some of you might find this shocking.



This is likely to put enormous stress on China's fragile social system. By these estimates 35-40% of China's population will be above the age of 60 by 2040. This however did as is intended, but controlling population growth and causing future declines:

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/ChinaFood/argu/trends/trend_10.htm

In 1995, China's population reached 1.23 billion. In its most recent (medium variant) projection, the UN Population Division estimates that China's population will increase to 1.49 billion in 2025 and then slightly decline to 1.48 billion in 2050 (see Table 1). This is equivalent to a population increase of roughly 261 million people between 1995 and 2025 and a population decline of 3.7 million between 2025 and 2050 (see Table 2). In other words, during the three decades between 1995 and 2025 China's population will increase by a number of people roughly equivalent to the total population of the USA. To meet this additional  demand is one of the core problems of China's food security.

Not much attention is paid to the aging population of China... here is another report:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-06/09/content_337985.htm

[JennyC]

Giancarlo, thanks for the information on the China's aging population issue.  Both sites presents pretty balanced information.

[JennyC]

Now back to Middle East.

There is a cover story in The Economist July 22nd – 28th 2006 on the Middle East Crisis.  Among many media coverage and analysis on the Israel/Lebanon conflicts, this article sticks with me.  I am still sorting out my online access issue with them, therefore can not post the entire commentary here.  I typed part of the article (excuse me if there are any typos in it)

"The Economist's primary focus is world news, politics and business.  It's known for taking a strongly argued editorial stance on many issues.  It does not print by-lines identifying the authors of articles. In their own words: It is written anonymously, because it is a paper whose collective voice and personality matter more than the identities of individual journalists."  (from wikipedia)

Given the brief introduction of The Economist, please note that the article may present a strong opinion and it’s not neutral. Now on with the article…

****************************

The Accidental War
--A pointless war that no one may have wanted and no one can win.  It should stop now.

The war that has just erupted apparently without warning between Israel and Lebanon looks miserable familiar.  The wanton spilling of blood, the shattering of lives and homes, the flight of refugees: it has all happened in much the same way and just the same places before.  In 1982 an Israeli government sent tanks into the heart of Beirut to crush the “state within a state” of Yasser Arafat and his Palestine Liberation Organization. A quarter of a century later, Israel’s air force is pulverizing Lebanon in order to crush the state within a state established there by Hezbollah, Lebanon’s Iranian-inspired “Party of God”.  That earlier war looked at first like a brilliant victory for Israel.  Arafat and his men had to be rescued by the Americans and escorted to exile in faraway Tunis.  But Israel’s joy did not last.  The war killed thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, along with hundreds of Israeli and Syrian soldiers.  It brought years of misery to Lebanon- and, of course, no peace in the end to Israel.  The likeliest outcome of this war is that the same futile cycle will repeat itself.

…….

This is madness, and it should end.  It is madness because the likelihood of Israel achieving the war aims it has set for itself is negligible.  However much punishment Mr Olmert inflicts on Hezbollah, he can not force it to submit in a way that its leaders and followers will perceived as a humiliation. Israel’s first invasion of Lebanon turned into its Vietnam.  It is plainly unwilling to occupy the place again.  But airpower alone will never destroy every last rocket and prevent Hezbollah’s fighters from continuing to send them off.  No other outside force looks capable of doing the job on Israel’s behalf.  At presents, the only way to disarm Hezbollah is therefore in the context of n agreement Hezbollah itself can be made to accept.

George Bush is in no rush to rescue Hezbollah.  And why, he must wonder, should he?  This organization killed hundreds of American marines in 1983.  It is part of an alliance, consisting also of Iran, Syria and Hamas, working against America’s interests and friends.  Pro-American governments, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, bluntly blame Hezbollah for this latest wasteful war.  Israel is asking for more time, perhaps another week or two, to complete its demolition of Hezbollah’s arsenal and create a new order in Lebanon.  Though Condeleezza Rice, Mr Bush’s secretary of state, says she is bound for the region, there is no concealing the American temptation to dawdle.

Hurry, please
That is a mistake.  Hezbollah can not be uprooted.  It is not going formally to surrender. Its past struggle against Israel has won it the fierce loyalty of many Lebanese Shias, and its present one will add to their number even if it comes off worse.  Israel’s security will not be enhanced by destroying the rest of Lebanon.  By weakening the Lebanese state, and its fragile but well-intentioned government, Israel just weakens the already feeble constrains Lebanon tries to impose on Hezbollah’s actions.

What is needed now is a way for both sides to climb down.  Israel must get its soldiers back, Hezbollah’s departure from the border area and an undertaking that Hezbollah will not attack again.  The Lebanese army or a neutral force should then man the border.  Hezbollah needs to be given a way to consent to these changes without losing face.  Squaring this will take times, ingenuity and the full engagement of the United States.  It will not bring peace to the Middle Best, but it might silence a dangerous new front.  America should start its work at once.

***************************

[Giancarlo]

I hate to say this but I do not agree with the economist here. In fact, what I think is that Hezbollah must at least be reduced. I know it probably won't be defeated, but it has to be reduced and its capacity to make war has to be reduced.

[delalluvia]

The key to trouble all over the world - cultures where pride/honor are tied to manliness/power/status:

Hezbollah needs to be given a way to consent to these changes without losing face.

[vkm91941]

Just seems to me GWB is making enemies for the US faster than he can send troops in to kill them...all in the name of democracy... that's almost as bad as those who hide behind G*d to do it. 

I got this e-mail today thought I'd share....



Dear Victoria,

United with one voice, Democratic leaders from Joe Biden to John Murtha sent a clear message to George Bush -- it's time for a New Direction in Iraq. Our plan is straightforward: we believe that a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq should begin by the end of 2006. And our soldiers in the region should transition to a more limited mission focused on counterterrorism, force protection of U.S. personnel, training and logistical support of Iraqi security forces.

Read the letter below and add your name by visiting:

http://giveemhellharry.com/iraq

Thank you,

Harry Reid


July 30, 2006

The President
The White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President:

While the world has been focused on the crisis in the Middle East, Iraq has exploded in violence. Some 6,000 Iraqis were killed in May and June, and sectarian and insurgent violence continues to claim American and Iraqi lives at an alarming rate. In the face of this onslaught, one can only conclude that the Baghdad security plan you announced five weeks ago is in great jeopardy.

Despite the latest evidence that your Administration lacks a coherent strategy to stabilize Iraq and achieve victory, there has been virtually no diplomatic effort to resolve sectarian differences, no regional effort to establish a broader security framework, and no attempt to revive a struggling reconstruction effort. Instead, we learned of your plans to redeploy an additional 5,000 U.S. troops into an urban war zone in Baghdad. Far from implementing a comprehensive "Strategy for Victory" as you promised months ago, your Administration's strategy appears to be one of trying to avoid defeat.

Meanwhile, U.S. troops and taxpayers continue to pay a high price as your Administration searches for a policy. Over 2,500 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice and over 18,000 others have been wounded. The Iraq war has also strained our military and constrained our ability to deal with other challenges. Readiness levels for the Army are at lows not seen since Vietnam, as virtually no active Army non-deployed combat brigade is prepared to perform its wartime missions. American taxpayers have already contributed over $300 billion and each week we stay in Iraq adds nearly $3 billion more to our record budget deficit.

In the interests of American national security, our troops, and our taxpayers, the open-ended commitment in Iraq that you have embraced cannot and should not be sustained.

Rather, we continue to believe that it is time for Iraqis to step forward and take the lead for securing and governing their own country. This is the principle enshrined in the "United States Policy in Iraq Act" enacted last year. This law declares 2006 to be a year of "significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq." Regrettably, your policy seems to be moving in the opposite direction.

This legislation made clear that Iraqi political leaders must be informed that American patience, blood and treasure are not unlimited. We were disappointed that you did not convey this message to Prime Minister Maliki during his recent visit. Reducing the U.S. footprint in Iraq will not only give the Iraqis a greater incentive to take the lead for the security of their own nation, but will also allow U.S. forces to be able to respond to contingencies affecting the security of the United States elsewhere in the world.

We believe that a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq should begin before the end of 2006. U.S. forces in Iraq should transition to a more limited mission focused on counterterrorism, training and logistical support of Iraqi security forces, and force protection of U.S. personnel.

Additionally, every effort should be made to urge the Iraqis to take the steps necessary to achieve a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources. It is also essential to disarm the militias and ensure forces loyal to the national government. Finally, an international conference should be convened to persuade other governments to be more involved, and to secure the resources necessary to finance Iraq=s reconstruction and rebuild its economy.

Mr. President, simply staying the course in Iraq is not working. We need to take a new direction. We believe these recommendations comprise an effective alternative to the current open-ended commitment which is not producing the progress in Iraq we would all like to see. Thank you for your careful consideration of these suggestions.

Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Leader
Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader
Dick Durbin, Senate Assistant Democratic Leader
Steny Hoyer, House Minority Whip
Carl Levin, Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee
Ike Skelton, Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee
Joe Biden, Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Tom Lantos, Ranking Member, House International Relations Committee
Jay Rockefeller, Vice Chairman, Senate Intelligence Committee
Jane Harman, Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee
Daniel Inouye, Ranking Member, Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
John Murtha, Ranking Member, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee

Add your name now:

http://giveemhellharry.com/iraq

[dly64]

This whole Middle East crisis is driving me mad. I am a pacifist … just so you understand my POV. IMO, President Bush has created much of the instability in that region by insisting the US invade Iraq to rid Sadam “Insane” and promote democracy. What has happened? Increased sectarian violence, children being murdered, and our so-called “good men/women in uniform” torturing, berating and raping other human beings. It makes me sick! I am not saying Sadam Hussein was a good or ethical leader. However, we had no exit strategy. We had nothing! We assumed that the Iraqi people would welcome us with open arms. Bullocks! Bush completely underestimated the difficulty of the situation. Furthermore, Bush does not understand the word “diplomacy.” He reacts and says that it is because of our “war on terror” … yeah, right.  We are not safer than we were before. IMO, we are more of a target than ever before.

As for the whole Israel/ Lebanon conflict … it is just one more thing that makes me livid. If Israel was any other country doing what they are doing …. The US would be condemning them. Instead, we turn our backs because Israel is our “ally.” We close our eyes to all of the civilians being murdered at the hands of the Israeli soldiers. Again, the word “diplomacy” is not in Bush’s vocabulary.

All I can say is that Bush must have a small penis because he keeps using “guns” as a way to achieve so-called democracy! What a laugh! The man does not understand the word.

I am sorry I went off of the deep end about this issue. However, it just burns my butt that he proclaims he’s spreading democratic values and liberties when he continues to abuse his power here at home and strip us of our own civil liberties!

[ekeby]

This whole Middle East crisis is driving me mad.
As for the whole Israel/ Lebanon conflict … it is just one more thing that makes me livid.

I couldn't agree with you more. I just wish the rest of the world understood how powerless the American people have become and how politicans have used their power for truly evil purposes. Nothing about any of it makes any sense to me.

What infuriates ME most is that if we had taken this--what is it now $80 billion?--and put it into a kind of Manhattan Project to develop alternative energy, we'd have given quality work to Americans, and we'd have a technology to export. Not to mention defusing some of the hatred the world has for us. Instead, we've got the biggest debt load in history and a last house-of-cards economy. Not to mention 100,000 dead. Stupid stupid stupid. A small penis is the only thing that explains it, if you ask me . . . .

Watch the price of gas inching up just enough for huge profits but not enough to start a revolution. If you think that's a free market economy at work, I've got a bridge for you to look at . . . .

[ednbarby]

ekeby (love your handle, by the way), I couldn't agree with you more, myself.  What I'd like to see is gas going up to about $6 a gallon.  That would be enough, I figure, to force a revolution.  A revolution that would force people to turn to mass transit, bicycles, super-fuel-efficient cars, and return to the urban centers of our country.  And those urban centers would finally be refurbished the way they deserve to be, and all of us schmos in the suburbs and exurbs would live there and enjoy the sense of community people in my generation grew up with before the world got flat.

What I'd also like to see is Jake G. at my doorstep with a dozen white roses enmeshed in lavendar lilacs wanting to whisk me away in a chariot drawn by unicorns, and that ain't happening, either.

What infuriates me the most about this latest Middle East crisis, and every one before it, really, is my and just about everyone else's powerlessness in the whole thing.  I want to take all these people - all these religious extremists from every faction - and smack some sense into them.

Man, being a true pacifist is tricky business in this world.   

[dly64]

I couldn't agree with you more. I just wish the rest of the world understood how powerless the American people have become and how politicians have used their power for truly evil purposes. Nothing about any of it makes any sense to me.

What infuriates ME most is that if we had taken this--what is it now $80 billion?--and put it into a kind of Manhattan Project to develop alternative energy, we'd have given quality work to Americans, and we'd have a technology to export. Not to mention defusing some of the hatred the world has for us. Instead, we've got the biggest debt load in history and a last house-of-cards economy. Not to mention 100,000 dead. Stupid stupid stupid. A small penis is the only thing that explains it, if you ask me . . . .

Watch the price of gas inching up just enough for huge profits but not enough to start a revolution. If you think that's a free market economy at work, I've got a bridge for you to look at . . . .

AGREED! I think that if Bush would invest 1/10th in the future of our children’s education vs. more and more money into a war we’ll never win … we might be getting somewhere. It pains me to think that the rest of the world associates us (US Americans) to be in line with Bush’s policies. I get more and more concerned as to where our country is going. But you know …. I am irritated at those who chose to put Bush back in office. We are certainly in worse shape because of it. (Have you ever thought about what our nation would be like had our valid president, Al Gore, been put in office? We would be a completely different country. And, IMO, a much better country!!)

Errrrrr …..

[ednbarby]

Have you ever thought about what our nation would be like had our valid president, Al Gore, been put in office? We would be a completely different country. And, IMO, a much better country!!

I think about it all the time.   

[dly64]

What infuriates me the most about this latest Middle East crisis, and every one before it, really, is my and just about everyone else's powerlessness in the whole thing.  I want to take all these people - all these religious extremists from every faction - and smack some sense into them.

Man, being a true pacifist is tricky business in this world.   

Ditto! I couldn't agree with you more!

I think about it all the time.  

We are so on the same page!!

[ekeby]

ekeby (love your handle, by the way), I couldn't agree with you more, myself.  What I'd like to see is gas going up to about $6 a gallon.  That would be enough, I figure, to force a revolution. 

What I'd also like to see is Jake G. at my doorstep with a dozen white roses enmeshed in lavendar lilacs wanting to whisk me away in a chariot drawn by unicorns, and that ain't happening, either.

Agree  . . . $10 a gallon even better!  We'd have a progressive government so fast it would make Bush's head spin like he was in The Exorcist.  LOL re Jake and white roses . . . he should stop by my place too . . . .

"ekeby" . . . everybody always thinks it's "eek by" but it's actually "ek bee", taken from a province in Sweden. Given my situation, eek by is appropriate too . . .

[David In Indy]

All I can say is that Bush must have a small penis because he keeps using “guns” as a way to achieve so-called democracy!

Ooops! She didn't just say that, did she?

You go girl! 

I couldn't agree with you more Diane!

[David In Indy]

I got this e-mail today thought I'd share....

.........

Mr. President, simply staying the course in Iraq is not working. We need to take a new direction. We believe these recommendations comprise an effective alternative to the current open-ended commitment which is not producing the progress in Iraq we would all like to see. Thank you for your careful consideration of these suggestions.

Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Leader
Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader
Dick Durbin, Senate Assistant Democratic Leader
Steny Hoyer, House Minority Whip
Carl Levin, Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee
Ike Skelton, Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee
Joe Biden, Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Tom Lantos, Ranking Member, House International Relations Committee
Jay Rockefeller, Vice Chairman, Senate Intelligence Committee
Jane Harman, Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee
Daniel Inouye, Ranking Member, Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
John Murtha, Ranking Member, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee

Add your name now:

http://giveemhellharry.com/iraq

Thank you again for posting this Victoria.

Of course, it doesn't surprise me that my senator Richard Lugar (R Indiana) isn't on the list of names. After all, he is George Bush's Top Boy.

I am distressed I didn't see our Democratic senator, Evan Bayh on the list. I guess even the Democrats in Indiana are really Republicans.... wolves in sheep's clothing probably.   

[Giancarlo]

This whole Middle East crisis is driving me mad. I am a pacifist … just so you understand my POV. IMO, President Bush has created much of the instability in that region by insisting the US invade Iraq to rid Sadam “Insane” and promote democracy. What has happened? Increased sectarian violence, children being murdered, and our so-called “good men/women in uniform” torturing, berating and raping other human beings. It makes me sick! I am not saying Sadam Hussein was a good or ethical leader. However, we had no exit strategy. We had nothing! We assumed that the Iraqi people would welcome us with open arms. Bullocks! Bush completely underestimated the difficulty of the situation. Furthermore, Bush does not understand the word “diplomacy.” He reacts and says that it is because of our “war on terror” … yeah, right.  We are not safer than we were before. IMO, we are more of a target than ever before.

As for the whole Israel/ Lebanon conflict … it is just one more thing that makes me livid. If Israel was any other country doing what they are doing …. The US would be condemning them. Instead, we turn our backs because Israel is our “ally.” We close our eyes to all of the civilians being murdered at the hands of the Israeli soldiers. Again, the word “diplomacy” is not in Bush’s vocabulary.

All I can say is that Bush must have a small penis because he keeps using “guns” as a way to achieve so-called democracy! What a laugh! The man does not understand the word.

I am sorry I went off of the deep end about this issue. However, it just burns my butt that he proclaims he’s spreading democratic values and liberties when he continues to abuse his power here at home and strip us of our own civil liberties!

I received a lot of criticism for my position on the Iraq war, but I do support it. And I feel that we need to give Iraq some time to achieve what it has to. It would be foolish to pull out now, afterall of this. I am not for Bush nor do I even like him, but I do understand why we did what we did. Also several of my friends have been to Iraq in the military, and do not dare generalize them. I'm sorry but I take deep offense to that. There are only a few people in the military responsible for those abuses and they have been reprimanded and punished.

I'll probably receive deep criticism from people here, but I have to say I AM NOT A PACIFIST. I'm a realist and am pragmatic.

"Instead, we've got the biggest debt load in history and a last house-of-cards economy."

Not exactly. The economy is actually quite resislent (especially to high oil prices) and the debt load is really not that big. In relation to the GDP (value of goods and services provided) it is smaller then that of European countries.

[Giancarlo]

Agree  . . . $10 a gallon even better!  We'd have a progressive government so fast it would make Bush's head spin like he was in The Exorcist.  LOL re Jake and white roses . . . he should stop by my place too . . . .

"ekeby" . . . everybody always thinks it's "eek by" but it's actually "ek bee", taken from a province in Sweden. Given my situation, eek by is appropriate too . . .

We need a libertarian government, not a conservative or progressive one. A libertarian government would really solve a lot of problems in this country.

[dly64]

Also several of my friends have been to Iraq in the military, and do not dare generalize them. I'm sorry but I take deep offense to that. There are only a few people in the military responsible for those abuses and they have been reprimanded and punished.

I'll probably receive deep criticism from people here, but I have to say I AM NOT A PACIFIST. I'm a realist and am pragmatic.

Please accept my apologies ... I did not intend to insinuate that all service men/ women were engaging in unethical behavior. I am aware that the majority of our armed men/ women are good people who believe in what they are doing. I get a little carried away sometimes with my thoughts.

Ultimately, my belief is that violence begets violence. Evil begets evil. Hatred begets hatred. What we, the USA, have done (IMO) is create an environment of violence, evil and hatred.  We have options, but choose not to exercise restraint. We react with guns and rhetoric. We put good men and women in a situation that is bound for failure. More and more people die every day. For what? So-called democracy? (Personally I wish Bush would make his all-to-precious daughters serve in the military. Then he might consider a change in strategy since, currently, he has no regard for human life. Nor does he pursue the option for peace. It’s “shoot now, ask questions later.”)

[Giancarlo]

Ultimately, my belief is that violence begets violence. Evil begets evil. Hatred begets hatred. What we, the USA, have done (IMO) is create an environment of violence, evil and hatred.  We have options, but choose not to exercise restraint. We react with guns and rhetoric. We put good men and women in a situation that is bound for failure. More and more people die every day. For what? So-called democracy? (Personally I wish Bush would make his all-to-precious daughters serve in the military. Then he might consider a change in strategy since, currently, he has no regard for human life. Nor does he pursue the option for peace. It’s “shoot now, ask questions later.”)

Well that is certainly your opinion, but I thought with my own eyes that taking the action we did in Iraq was necessary. Though I do not like Bush, I think it is not really fair to say he has no regard for human life. Trust me, I really don't like the guy at all.

[ekeby]

We need a libertarian government, not a conservative or progressive one. A libertarian government would really solve a lot of problems in this country.

I live in Wisconsin; we have a big Libertarian presence here. I've been interested in their "take over a state" movement (can't recall the name of it now), and have wondered why gay people haven't thought about doing the same kind of thing at some level.

I don't have a real good handle on Libertarianism. As far as I can make out, it means different things to different people, with personal liberty at the core. In an ideal world, any political philosophy would work fine. In an ideal world, every citizen would be informed and engaged and pragmatic and ethical. It's not an ideal world.

I don't quite understand how you square Libertarianism with invading Iraq. I would think those two things were not compatible, but like I said, I don't have a good handle on Lib. philosophy. But re Iraq. I believe the sole reason our ruling junta invaded Iraq was to secure and assure access to the oil fields, because of the Saudi royal family's tenuous hold on theirs. The stated reasons are window dressing. I don't find the real motives reason enough to have caused all the death and destruction. Some wars may be justified, but I don't think this one is. Nothing you say will likely change my mind, just as nothing I say will probably change yours.

[dly64]

Well that is certainly your opinion, but I thought with my own eyes that taking the action we did in Iraq was necessary. Though I do not like Bush, I think it is not really fair to say he has no regard for human life. Trust me, I really don't like the guy at all.

I understand your POV. I am just at the opposite end of the spectrum. It sounds as though you are close to people who serve and you have a different perception of the rationalization for the war. For me, I just get sickened by the violence and hatred that is so prevalent in our world. What are we teaching our youth?

BTW  … I am glad you don’t like Bush. The man makes me cringe every time I see him. You might not have that severe of a reaction …. but, tell ya what, I most certainly do!

[Giancarlo]

I live in Wisconsin; we have a big Libertarian presence here. I've been interested in their "take over a state" movement (can't recall the name of it now), and have wondered why gay people haven't thought about doing the same kind of thing at some level.

I don't see why more people haven't supported libertarians because they are more moderate then republicans.

I don't have a real good handle on Libertarianism. As far as I can make out, it means different things to different people, with personal liberty at the core. In an ideal world, any political philosophy would work fine. In an ideal world, every citizen would be informed and engaged and pragmatic and ethical. It's not an ideal world.

There is pretty much one major type of libertarianism (along with smaller variants of it). Libertarianism is not one uniform set of beliefs. I'm not saying it is an ideal world, but we ought to make the best of it. Libertarianism is predominantly dominanted by the personal liberated oriented center right crowd (wordy I know).

I don't quite understand how you square Libertarianism with invading Iraq. I would think those two things were not compatible, but like I said, I don't have a good handle on Lib. philosophy. But re Iraq. I believe the sole reason our ruling junta invaded Iraq was to secure and assure access to the oil fields, because of the Saudi royal family's tenuous hold on theirs. The stated reasons are window dressing. I don't find the real motives reason enough to have caused all the death and destruction. Some wars may be justified, but I don't think this one is. Nothing you say will likely change my mind, just as nothing I say will probably change yours.

I don't agree at all. And I think it is a big assault on me as a person that you try to tell me my beliefs are not compatible with Iraq. If I said I supported the Patriot Act in its entireity then you would have a case. A very strong case, as many elements (which have been now removed) in the Patriot Act impede of personal liberties. However, I do believe in the war in Iraq. And I think your statements are a bit too reactionary. Ruling junta? Excuse me? He's going to be gone in 2008. Goodbye, adios Bush. No more of him ever. And if we were so dead set on taking those oil fields why didn't we seize them? They have been handed over to the government. Thanks for insulting me and my views, and then attempting to define what I should believe in. You do nothing but alienate people who have different views then you. I think this war was justified, and guess what? I won't ever change my mind on this one.

[Giancarlo]

I understand your POV. I am just at the opposite end of the spectrum. It sounds as though you are close to people who serve and you have a different perception of the rationalization for the war. For me, I just get sickened by the violence and hatred that is so prevalent in our world. What are we teaching our youth?

BTW  … I am glad you don’t like Bush. The man makes me cringe every time I see him. You might not have that severe of a reaction …. but, tell ya what, I most certainly do!

I just think "Well he is going to be leaving office in 2008, so might as well see if there is going to be a better candidate." You must understand I have voted both ways before. But the republicans in California are far different then other republicans in this country. Though I am libertarian, I have talked with gay republicans in this state (I'm also working for the Arnold Schwarzenegger campaign).

I hate to be a pessimistic... but there always has been violence in this world. The cold war was a far worse time to live in (though there was not active wars, there was plenty of wars all over the world). The two years we should not forget are 1993 and 1994. Those were some of the most violent years of our time (when huge massacres occurred in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Burundi and neighboring countries).

[dly64]

I hate to be a pessimistic... but there always has been violence in this world. The cold war was a far worse time to live in (though there was not active wars, there was plenty of wars all over the world). The two years we should not forget are 1993 and 1994. Those were some of the most violent years of our time (when huge massacres occurred in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Burundi and neighboring countries).

You are right, there has always been violence in the world and plenty of wars. Being older now, I am much more in tune with the prevalence of global instability. In the mid-nineties, I was only interested if my hair and makeup looked all right. I now have to back track to understand all of the damage that has incurred in past years. Many (most) of these wars are/were bred from hatred spanning hundreds to thousands of years. It is that deep-seated hatred that I cannot understand. I doubt that I ever will. My optimism is that we can find a way to break the cycle of abhorrence. But until we can understand each other’s POV without preconceived notions and without guns, we will never know peace. My frustration is that we, US Americans (or more specifically, the Bush administration), choose not to even engage in diplomacy. You can say I am an idealist, and there is truth to that. However, I am not convinced that the current Iraqi crisis and its regional ramifications would even be happening if we, the USA, would have attempted diplomacy instead of a rush to violence.

[Giancarlo]

You are right, there has always been violence in the world and plenty of wars. Being older now, I am much more in tune with the prevalence of global instability. In the mid-nineties, I was only interested if my hair and makeup looked all right. I now have to back track to understand all of the damage that has incurred in past years. Many (most) of these wars are/were bred from hatred spanning hundreds to thousands of years. It is that deep-seated hatred that I cannot understand. I doubt that I ever will. My optimism is that we can find a way to break the cycle of abhorrence. But until we can understand each other’s POV without preconceived notions and without guns, we will never know peace. My frustration is that we, US Americans (or more specifically, the Bush administration), choose not to even engage in diplomacy. You can say I am an idealist, and there is truth to that. However, I am not convinced that the current Iraqi crisis and its regional ramifications would even be happening if we, the USA, would have attempted diplomacy instead of a rush to violence.

I wanted diplomacy, but I think over a decade of wrestling with Saddam was enough. I really got tired of him and his regime, and I thought it was time for him to go. The 1990s were not a peaceful time in this world at all. I would know that Iraq would only get worse if Udai Hussein took power. Udai Hussein was killed in the war itself. I think if Udai Hussein did get power after Saddam Hussein left, we would be looking at one of the despicable dictators ever, surpassing that of Slobodan Milosevic and Pol Pot combined. Udai Hussein himself have even killed his own friends. There are people out there that would do anything to prevent a process from going forward. I am putting my support in the current adminstration in Iraq, reluctantly. I do not support everything that it has done.

Nonetheless, even now is more peaceful then the early 1990s. 1993/1994 were the most violent years of my lifetime. I however didn't know that at the time.

[ekeby]

And I think it is a big assault on me as a person that you try to tell me my beliefs are not compatible with Iraq. Thanks for insulting me and my views, and then attempting to define what I should believe in. You do nothing but alienate people who have different views then you.

Exsqueeze me? I told you I didn't have an understanding of Libertarianism and I didn't know how a Libertarian would justify invading Iraq. I thought that was pretty straightforward: I was looking for enlightenment. Which, by the way, I didn't get. I certainly did NOT attempt to define your beliefs. How you got that notion I have no idea. You need to re-read what I wrote.

[Giancarlo]

Exsqueeze me? I told you I didn't have an understanding of Libertarianism and I didn't know how a Libertarian would justify invading Iraq. I thought that was pretty straightforward: I was looking for enlightenment. Which, by the way, I didn't get. I certainly did NOT attempt to define your beliefs. How you got that notion I have no idea. You need to re-read what I wrote.

I thought you were saying: Well as a libertarian you can't be for the war in Iraq.

I did give you why I was for the war in Iraq several times.

[Front-Ranger]

My question is, Did Bush ask the Israelis to start an advance on Lebanon in order to deflect attention from the disaster in Iraq??

[dly64]

My question is, Did Bush ask the Israelis to start an advance on Lebanon in order to deflect attention from the disaster in Iraq??

In all reality, I don't think so. There has always been a lot of tension between Israel and Hezbollah. Israel used the kidnapping of their two soldiers as an excuse to invade Lebanon. But guess what? It wasn’t Hezbollah that suffered! It was the civilians whose homes have been destroyed and whose mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, children, etc. have died. And Bush refused to intervene while all of this was happening …. supposedly all in the name of “terrorism” … what a joke! Of course how could we, as US Americans, have any credence in brokering a cease fire when we invaded Iraq? (Can you guess that I don’t agree with Bush’s policies?  )

[Scott6373]

(Can you guess that I don’t agree with Bush’s policies?  )

Gee I would have never thought it...LOL...I agree with you about it not being a ploy on GW's part.  Now if it had been asked if Dick Cheney planned something like that...well then I would be hard pressed not to agree, but poor GW is floating out there in the wind.  He has to know he's lost the White House for the Republicans.

[dly64]

Gee I would have never thought it...LOL...I agree with you about it not being a ploy on GW's part.  Now if it had been asked if Dick Cheney planned something like that...well then I would be hard pressed not to agree, but poor GW is floating out there in the wind.  He has to know he's lost the White House for the Republicans.

LET'S HOPE!!!! Errrrr ... this nation (USA), IMO, has really suffered at the hands of our “intelligence challenged” president. Why, oh why couldn’t have Gore, the true winner, become our president? We would be living in a very different country if that had occurred. Sigh!

[Scott6373]

True but Al had bad breath...I met him.  Why of why couldn't Marting Sheen have been elected.

[dly64]

True but Al had bad breath...I met him.  Why of why couldn't Marting Sheen have been elected.

Oh no!!! Was it coffee breath or chronic halitosis?  So not good!! Martin Sheen could have been a very good alternative!

[Giancarlo]

In all reality, I don't think so. There has always been a lot of tension between Israel and Hezbollah. Israel used the kidnapping of their two soldiers as an excuse to invade Lebanon. But guess what? It wasn’t Hezbollah that suffered! It was the civilians whose homes have been destroyed and whose mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, children, etc. have died. And Bush refused to intervene while all of this was happening …. supposedly all in the name of “terrorism” … what a joke! Of course how could we, as US Americans, have any credence in brokering a cease fire when we invaded Iraq? (Can you guess that I don’t agree with Bush’s policies?  )

I think there are problems on both sides, and I think you are not criticizing Hezbollah enough. Hezbollah suffered heavy blows and much of its capacity to make war was crippled, but it was not eliminated. I am not changing my position on this. Israel had a right to defend itself, and Hezbollah is responsible for the suffering of the Lebanese people.

How could the US intervene? What were they to do exactly? I mean, in 1982, over 200 US Marines were killed in Beirut by the same group in question, Hezbollah. Do you think the US would really want to intervene militarily? If anything a cease fire was reached by both the French and US governments. So I think it is not quite far to accuse the US of inaction.

I was for the war in Iraq too.

"Why, oh why couldn’t have Gore, the true winner, become our president?"

I despise both, but even I know that Gore was not the true winner. But they both (Bush and Gore, and Bush and Kerry for that matter) are idiots... so what can I say...

[dly64]

I think there are problems on both sides, and I think you are not criticizing Hezbollah enough. Hezbollah suffered heavy blows and much of its capacity to make war was crippled, but it was not eliminated. I am not changing my position on this. Israel had a right to defend itself, and Hezbollah is responsible for the suffering of the Lebanese people.

How could the US intervene? What were they to do exactly? I mean, in 1982, over 200 US Marines were killed in Beirut by the same group in question, Hezbollah. Do you think the US would really want to intervene militarily? If anything a cease fire was reached by both the French and US governments. So I think it is not quite far to accuse the US of inaction.

Did I ever say that the US should respond with military action? No. I am a pacifist. What I am saying is that we could have tried to broker a cease-fire. Our current administration does not understand the meaning of diplomacy. It believes in the “gun-slinger” mentality … “shoot and ask questions later.” I cannot condone this type of irresponsible and irreverent view of human life.

I am not siding with Hezbollah. But I can see why the Lebanese people are more supportive of them than they were before. They see Hezbollah as the saviors. And, IMO, the US is a terrorist target … more than ever before …. because of our policies and practices. Okay …. I’m ready to get slammed for that opinion. But, that’s what I believe.

As a side-bar note …. Al Gore won the popular vote and it was a sad day when the partisan Supreme Court put the whiny, irresponsible George Bush in the White House (I am not being literal here. But it was their votes that paved the way for Bush to become our next president). And, as for intelligence (i.e. a high IQ), Gore has it, Bush doesn’t. Lastly, if Gore would have been our president, the US would not be in the quagmire that we are engaged in currently. The Middle East is a house of cards. Bush started messing with it and now everything is beginning to tumble.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion as I am to mine. I can’t change your mind and vice versa. So I value you what you have to say, even if I can’t agree with it.

[Giancarlo]

Did I ever say that the US should respond with military action? No. I am a pacifist. What I am saying is that we could have tried to broker a cease-fire. Our current administration does not understand the meaning of diplomacy. It believes in the “gun-slinger” mentality … “shoot and ask questions later.” I cannot condone this type of irresponsible and irreverent view of human life.

While I do not like the present adminstration, I must respectfully disagree. The adminstration was seeking a diplomatic option, and one was attained by agreement with the French government. So I really don't see how your views are accurate. Keep in mind, I have my fair share of disagreements with this adminstration.

I am not siding with Hezbollah. But I can see why the Lebanese people are more supportive of them than they were before. They see Hezbollah as the saviors. And, IMO, the US is a terrorist target … more than ever before …. because of our policies and practices. Okay …. I’m ready to get slammed for that opinion. But, that’s what I believe.

Actually this is a false view, that is not correct at all. Why? Because the Lebanese people really want nothing to do with Hezbollah and are fully supportive of Lebanese Army troops moving in. I've spoken with countless Lebanese who live here in the US, and they too are supportive of the Lebanese Army, and utterly hate Hezbollah. It is not my fault you can't look at what good is being done here. They hate Hezbollah, and Hezbollah is just full of hot air. The US has always been a terrorist target (more then ever before? I disagree with that too). You can believe in what you want. Fine by me. But I'm going to voice my viewpoints also. This is why I refuse to recognize those on the left or right as viable leaders.

Either way, there IS AN AGREEMENT for 15,000 possibly French-led UN Peacekeeping Troops, backed by 15,000 Lebanese Army troops with Armored Units... to take charge in the Southern areas of Lebanon. Don't get me wrong, I would of liked to see this happen before... and it is awfully sad that it took a one month war that resulted in the deaths of close to 1,000 people (added on both sides) to get to this agreement. I think it is rather pathetic. Of course, we must also look back at the complacency of the Clinton adminstration with regards to the DRC, Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda. Millions died there and very few people said anything about it. It took several million dead for anything to be done.

Rather then taking an inactive isolationist strategy of the world (as you want), I want a hands on approach with respect to culture differences.

As a side-bar note …. Al Gore won the popular vote and it was a sad day when the partisan Supreme Court put the whiny, irresponsible George Bush in the White House (I am not being literal here. But it was their votes that paved the way for Bush to become our next president). And, as for intelligence (i.e. a high IQ), Gore has it, Bush doesn’t. Lastly, if Gore would have been our president, the US would not be in the quagmire that we are engaged in currently. The Middle East is a house of cards. Bush started messing with it and now everything is beginning to tumble.

Okay for one, I'm a non-partisan so lets just clarify this one. Second, both of them were whiny. Irresponsible? Well I would have to meet both to see for myself. Third, Gore didn't win the election (as additional recounts showed that the lead in Flordia was growing for Bush). Finally, IQ tests don't mean anything. If an IQ test was geared towards math and science, I would do poorly on it. Would it mean I'm an idiot? No. It just simply shows those are not my strong points (rather say modern history and political science are). If Gore would have been our president, I would think the same things would happen. And you know very little about the middle east as it is. Since when was Bush messing with it? Iraq is one thing, but Lebanon? The US is not in any way involved in Lebanon besides the donation of $50 million or so to the Lebanese Government for its military, as well as sizable equpiment donations.

Proof: http://www.lebarmy.gov.lb/English/Equipments.asp

The US Administration provided the LAF with military equipment at symbolic prices:
750 Armored Personel Carriers
3000 Tactical Wheeled Vehicles
bullet    
27 CSB Bridge Boats

So don't tell me the US government isn't doing anything to help the Lebanese government.

I usually don't like defending the president, as I really don't like him, but I have problems with people launching unfair attacks on the US.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion as I am to mine. I can’t change your mind and vice versa. So I value you what you have to say, even if I can’t agree with it.

And you certainly didn't.

[Front-Ranger]

My question is, Did Bush ask the Israelis to start an advance on Lebanon in order to deflect attention from the disaster in Iraq??

I still wonder about this. Seems far-fetched and Syriana-ish. But such things are in the history books. Or, could it be a case of Bush and the Israelis starting some secret maneuvers in Lebanon, which got out of control, so to fix it they decided to start a war? Or is it an innocent and internal matter, where Lebanon is split in two with factions fighting against each other, and the war is an attempt to heal itself. I don't have a vote on this matter, just questions.