ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Faux News tends not to be notably selfcritical.

Google Baghdad + looting and see what you come up with.

There's enough material there to keep you going for weeks.

Such as this:

The Pentagon has defended its non-action by saying that it agreed to protect the sites during battle, as distinct from any looting that came afterward. Splitting hairs, anyone? The United States could easily have done more to stop the ransacking. The looting of the museum began on Friday; it extended, according to a BBC radio report, for three days, at which point there still were no guards posted outside the building. Numerous newspapers quote Iraqi citizens who saw American patrols impassively watch as looters carted away vases, jewelry, pots, and other goods. The Guardian reported on Monday that U.S. Army commanders had just rejected a new plea from desperate officials of the Iraq Museum for aid. And the fires at the National Library and the Ministry of Religious Affairs took place two whole days after the looting of the museum began. Americans ought to have protected the museums, just as we posted Army patrols outside the National Ministry of Oil.

http://www.slate.com/id/2081647/

The bigger problem "back then" was the simple fact that Saddam's munitions were not protected, so they ended up used against our coalition forces.

Here again is the incompetence of the Bush regime who ignored General Shinseki's recommendation to have more troops on the ground after the initial phase of the war. He was booted out by Bush.

As the war progressed, Bush kept telling the American people that he would provide more troops if the generals asked for them, but we knew there were no "extra" troops to be had. They ended up using the same troops for longer and multiple assignment in war zones that were against all war strategy. Even today, we have more soldiers committing suicide.

Netanyahu cites secret deal with Bush to justify more settlements

Revelation puts more strain on relations with US as Obama heads for Middle East

By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem

Wednesday, 3 June 2009

The Israeli government of Benjmain Netanyahu is seeking to deflect Washington's demand for a total settlement freeze by complaining that it ignores secret agreements between his predecessors and the Bush administration that construction in existing Jewish settlements could continue.

The rift between Mr Netanyahu's government and the US appeared to deepen yesterday, with a clear declaration by President Barack Obama that a freeze " including on "natural growth" of West Bank settlements " was among Israeli "obligations".

. . .

The Israeli government is arguing that Ariel Sharon, with reservations, agreed in 2003 to the internationally endorsed Road Map and the withdrawal of 8,000 settlers from Gaza in 2005, only on condition that Israel could proceed with expansion within the physical boundaries of existing West Bank settlements. A senior Israeli official familiar with the current talks with the US said: "When the government of Israel adopted the Road Map... it was based on understandings reached with the US. It is hard for the US to say we have to keep to our commitments but ignore the understandings."

. . .

Israeli officials also complain that the new team in Washington is making "no distinction" between settlements in the larger blocs that Mr Bush told Mr Sharon in 2004 he expected would be in Israeli territory in any final status deal with the Palestinians, and those elsewhere in the occupied West Bank. Although the Bush administration later "clarified" that borders were a matter for negotiation, Israel swiftly assumed it was entitled to continue building within such blocs.

There is no sign that President Obama sees himself bound by any such covert oral understandings reached with his predecessor's administration " the status and durability of which has reportedly been challenged with vigour by US officials. Mr Obama told National Public Radio: "I've said very clearly to the Israelis both privately and publicly that a freeze on settlements, including natural growth, is part of those obligations." He added that Palestinians also had parallel obligations to improve security and end incitement.

. . .

The row has exposed the extent that the Bush administration was willing to sanction settlement-building, despite its publicly stated policy. Dov Weisglass, who was the closest lieutenant of then-prime minister Sharon, said in a newspaper yesterday that the deals originated in a 1990s agreement on "natural growth" which was further refined in 2002, "though the Americans completely denied the existence of the understandings". They have been confirmed by Bush administration assistant secretary of state Elliott Abrams.

complete article
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We'll see how far the Obama administration is willing to go to reverse the corrosive influence on the so called "two-state solution" to the Israel/Palestine Conflict of the Bush Administration's veritable green light on Israel's expansion of its settlements on expropriated Palestinian land.

interesting that the 'money paragraph' in the article was the last one--the only paragraph you elected to omit from your post, Infrablue.

This paragraph is interesting:


Now of course it can be argued that Israel should withdraw all Jewish settlements from the West Bank. It can be equally argued that the Israelis who live on the West Bank should be allowed to live wherever they choose, and if they choose to live in a newly established Palestinian nation that should be their choice unless of course the Palestinians kick them out--(I wonder if anybody would be accusing the Palestinians of racism or 'war crimes' in that case?) Or it can be argued that possession is nine tenths of the law and Israel controls the land.

But setting all that aside, if a compromise could be achieved re those settlements in order to reach a mutually peaceful agreement, the paragraph I quoted from the article certainly seems like a reasonable route to go.

Great speech by President Obama in Cairo - especially the part related to this topic.

Oh please! In my opinion, as an American that voted for Reagan and both Bushes, the speech was a compendium of pandering to the sensitive egos of the Muslim masses.

I think the speech can backfire, since Muslim radicals might now think they have to be more vociferous about the negative qualities relating to the "infidel" nations. Talking to bullies is a waste of time, especially when one is the biggest kid on the block, so to speak, in my opinion.

The thought of a new Palestinian state gives off a definite stench to thinking people.

They can envisage that Hamas and its sharia law would soon control such a country. Then, Hamas's rocketeers would have a can't miss shot into Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

Your fears are unfounded. Your conclusions about what the future will hold with a two state solution is based on ignorance. Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands must cease; that's how you seek peace.

On the contrary, I would judge that only a well-founded democracy and its security forces could control and suppress extremists who would otherwise seek to operate within its borders.

Roll on, the Palestinial state, with full international cooperation and support.

I don't understand your statement. Are you saying that the new state somehow could not be a terrorist one controlled by Hamas? I think there is a great likelihood that it would resemble Afghanistan when it was under the Taliban. The Pal women would be the biggest losers.

Gaza voted for Hamas only because Israel had throttled the state. The only option they had was to fight.

With a fair and even chance in the new state, and international funding and cooperation, Hamas would not prosper. The people want peace, of course they do, peace with honour.

That's the most important point missed by the Israel apologists. There would be no need for further violence if the Palestinians had a place to call "home," and had all the freedoms and opportunities to improve their lifestyles. Without it, they lose nothing by expanding violence against the Israelis who occupy their country, and take away their freedoms and their lands.

But then, if the Palestinians did have their own state, what would prevent them from still attacking Israel with rockets and terror attacks?
If they can achieve thru terror what they want, why would they stop using terror to get more and more?

And if they continued to use terror tactics, would you then say that Israel was justified to go in and destroy them completely?
After all, if the Palestinian state were to continue to attack Israel, wouldnt it then be an actual war?

Yup, I would agree with that. But that Palestinian state must be a viable one, with access to water and shipping ports for trade.

At this point, that will mean taking control of water sources away from some of the Jewish settlers and giving it to the Palestinians.

Cycloptichorn

You might want to rethink that statement.
Based on your definition of a viable state, you have just demoted every landlocked country to being nonviable.
Im sure Switzerland appreciates being told they arent viable.

Also, why should Israel give up any land or access to any shipping ports?
If there were no seaports included in the original 2 state plan, why should Israel be forced to give one up?

And as for access to water, an independent state should be able to provide for its own citizens, without outside help.
If the Pals want water for their independent state, let them develop it on their own.

Or, is it your contention that Israel must give land, then help their enemies develop that land.

Oh, really? What natural resources do the Palestinians have to exploit, in order to produce an economy? Practically nothing, and without shipping ports, they cannot export said resources.



Well, most of the land they would have to give up is land they stole through the use of force.



The Pals had water before the Israelis stole most of it to fuel their settlements. What you are talking about is farcical and hardly fair.



Yeah, it is my contention that Israel must return illegally occupied land, and they ought to help develop that land as the price for their brutality towards the Palestinian people for over 60 years now.

Cycloptichorn

You either intentionally or accidently ignored part of my question, so I will ask again...



Are you suggesting that the original 2 state plan be modified in the Palestinians favor now?

And why not? Israel **** all over the 2 state plan long ago.

If the Palestinians can be given a contiguous strip running from the Gaza strip to the West bank, they can easily build their own seaports in Gaza.

Cycloptichorn

FALSE! It has been the PAs (i.e., Palestinian Arabs) who "**** all over the 2 state plan long ago"--And, repeatedly ever since! The PAs were given and offered multiple opportunities to build such a state, but ignored those opportunities in favor of repeatedly attacking Israel.

Israel in return, in its own defense, stole land from the Palestinians, occupied it, and developed it.

If the PAs prefer a 2 state solution over destroying Israel, they should start arresting members of their community that shoot at Israel, instead of celebrating them.