US should also take on Iran, Libya, and Syria: Sharon

[Comadreja]

Sharon says U.S. should also disarm Iran, Libya and Syria: Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq. "These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve," Sharon said to a visiting delegation of American congressmen. http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=263941

[PATRICK]

1. By that logic

Sharon and his nukes should go too. Going public with this betrays weakness at home and lack of influence(currently) with the WH schedule. Since the latter is futile what good does it do to beg for help?

Is it being an "irresponsible" state that is cause for invasion or having some figment of a WMD? Haiti had none so it must be the former. For Sharon to bring up the fairy tale Arab weapons only reminds us of the more credible Israeli "secret" weapons he should shut up about in this context.

An irresponsible statement, but one that further indicates the WH plan for a total foreign policy triumph has fallen very short and behind schedule.

[bemildred]

4. "Going public with this betrays weakness at home and lack of influence"

Surely, but also that he is not in a position to take care of
the business himself, and that the information warfare being
conducted on this issue is not having the desired effect.

[shadu]

2. Better idea: Put Sharon and his thugs in cages, then start to make peace

Let Europe handle the whole affair.

[Palestine]

5. Be still, friend

I have noted your recent involvement with the ISM.
Please take the time to study the thrust of what they are accomplishing. At the core of it all is non-violence.
Of course we do not approve of Sharon and his republican
philosophy; of course we do not accept the claims of
unrestrained Zionism.
This is more important: We must work together, Palestinian and Jew
alike, to form a greater society. Your time would be better invested
in action in the name of peaceful and free Palestinians than in participating in an endless flame war where very little can be accomplished.

Peace

[PsychoDad]

10. Well said

"This is more important: We must work together, Palestinian and Jew"

I think the majority of everyday people would agree. But it is the hawkish minority that propels all of us, Jew, Palistinian, American, headlong toward the abyss with craized abandon.

Change will not come from these men. It is in the hands of the common people to bring change.

[Resistance]

3. Hey Sharon

:puke:

Your state and military is the irresponsible ones. You murder civilians, you steal their land, you bulldoze their homes. You kill peace activists, journalists, UN workers, and anyone you feel like 'eliminating'. Yet you call other countries irresponsible?

Please, shut the fuck up you dirtbag

[Herschel]

6. Surely we will agree

It is better these irresponsible states not have weapons of mass destruction.

[bemildred]

7. That's not the question.

The question is will they agree that it is better if they do not
have WMD? And if they don't agree, can they be stopped from
constructing WMD? The answer to the second question is "no",
not in the long run, and that is why threats and military action
are an inferior approach to the problem.

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. They can be stopped

But their leadership would have to be changed.

[bemildred]

21. I do not think the genie can be kept in the bottle

indefinitely by force, but you are welcome to your opinion.
You will note that there are already a number of nations with
nukes that are not on the approved list. There is no reason
other than wishful thinking to imagine that the list will grow
shorter.

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. Force would work

But it would have to be applied sooner or later. Perhaps the major nuclear powers could declare they will blast anyone who tries getting or developing nukes. However, they would have to go ahead and do so.

[bemildred]

28. So you feel that it is merely weakmindedness

or something like that which has prevented the US from,
for example, destroying N. Korea's nuclear capability?
Or China's? I think it is the fear retaliation that has
prevented it. And if that is so, then it seems to me
that the notion that "force would work" is vacuous, it
does not work because any notion of what "work" means must
include not getting ourselves nuked or otherwise attacked
in return.

There has been no time since the first nukes were created
in 1945 during which the US had it in its power to enforce
such a nuclear prohibition, except at the risk of unacceptable
damage to US interests, allies, and forces. You may be sure
that we would have done so if we could.

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. The world has not worked together on those issues

The major states -- including Russia and China -- need to cooperate on this.

North Korea could be told they will simply be allowed to starve and if they take any provocative action, they will be obliterated.

That gives them no choice and if they continue with their nuclear plans, then they would be attacked jointly.

[bemildred]

30. And it isn't going to work together anytime soon, either.

Therefore, the genie cannot be kept in the bottle.
QED

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. Some genies can be

Iran, for instance. It should be made clear to them that if they move forward, we will blast their nuclear facilities sky high.

[bemildred]

34. Fine.

And then, as now, they say some translation of "Fuck You",
and we say: "Please Mr. Putin, would it be all right if we smack them",
and He says: "Nyet",
and we go back to step one: "Iran should give up their nukes"

[drewb]

8. I think we will agree that...

I like chicken,

I like liver,

Meow mix,

Meow mix,

Please deliver!

:loveya:

[Resistance]

17. In addition, drew

meow meow meow meow

meow meow meow meow

meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow

:party:

[PsychoDad]

9. I would support...

A fully WMD free mid-east. That would include all countries, including Israel.

[number6]

11. Hey Sharon (expletive deleted)

:P

[Jack Rabbit]

12. Sharon is nuts

Iraq is not a model for disarming a rogue nation.

Iraq was disarmed long before this time last year. The invasion was staged for reasons entirely different those stated.

[bemildred]

20. It appears to me Sharon is encouraging the Congresspersons

to continue supporting the war effort in Iraq. The whining
about Iran, Syria, and Libya is more or less a reflex by now,
I think.

[_Jumper_]

13. PNAC agrees

The Likud and PNAC agendas are strikingly similar. How can progressives support Likud?

[GabysPoppy]

14. You miss the point

Progressives are supporting Israel, not Likud. Were Barak and the Labor party still in control, the haters of Israel would have to find other "bogeymen" to try to hide their hate. Sharon as PM just makes it too easy for them.

[meti57b]

15. GP, .... well-said!!!

The way you have stated this, is an exact description of the situation.

[Resistance]

18. oh so the posts around here

calling Sharon a "man of peace" were really code for being against Likud.

Gotcha. (I think.)

[GabysPoppy]

19. You think incorrectly

[Resistance]

24. then let me ask you directly

do you support Sharon? Do you think he is a man of peace?

[_Jumper_]

44. How many Sharon supporters are here?

I/P is like the twilight zone of DU.

[Jack Rabbit]

22. That's absurd, Mr. Resistance

The pro-Likud posters here can be counted on the fingers of one's right hand.

The assertion that to support Israel implies support for Sharon has no more validity than the assertion that support for America impies support for Bush.

[Resistance]

25. no - the point still remains

some here do call themselves "progressives" while openly admitting support for Sharon as a "man of peace". This fact directly contradicts the claim made by GabysPoppy that "progressives are supporting Israel, not Likud".

I did not make the assertion that support for Israel implies support for Sharon.

The bottom line is this: some "progressives" do indeed support Likud (at least on this board, if we work from the assumption that everyone here is a progressive).

[Jack Rabbit]

42. I would suggest . . .

. . . that the problem is the way the word progressive is abused, not whether it is possible for a progressive to support Israel.

[GabysPoppy]

27. Thank you Mr. Rabbit

But you did not fully explain to the gentleman the total meaning of my post. It is comman practice for this forum to interpret or should I say re-interpret a poster's intention to both avoid the question or to redirect it's meaning.

I have no doubt my meaning was understood fully and completely.

[Forkboy]

31. No kidding

It is comman practice for this forum to interpret or should I say re-interpret a poster's intention to both avoid the question or to redirect it's meaning.

Too bad it isn't confined to just one side.

[drdon326]

35. Butterflies

.

[Malikshah]

36. Progressives supporting Israel?

Wow, when did I miss that little memo.

My goodness, what a major disconnect.

Guess progressive means different things to different people. Oh, and I guess consistency is not in order.

Folks can call themselves progressive as much as they want--but if they support occupation, Labor, Likud, what-have-you, then they need to look at the definitions...

Must be hard to breathe with all that sand down there.

[anti-NAFTA]

38. Agreed.

There's a difference between supporting Israel and supporting Israeli imperialism, which is driven not by progressive ideals but by military-industrial interests, real estate interests, and bigotry. Why can't more of my fellow Jews understand this?

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GabysPoppy]

51. That sir is insulting

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GabysPoppy]

60. You have to twist and wring my words

to support that allegation. But then again, one can usually expect that when they are without facts.

:shrug:

[_Jumper_]

61. Then explain your reasoning

Perhaps I misinterpreted you when you said people support Sharon because they support Israel.

[GabysPoppy]

62. I never said that

so you may be mistaking me for someone else. Or you might have "wanted" to see words to that effect and imagined them.

That has been known to happen around here also.

[_Jumper_]

63. Post #14

GabysPoppy (1000+ posts) Fri Mar-12-04 06:58 AM
Response to Reply #13

14. You miss the point


Progressives are supporting Israel, not Likud. Were Barak and the Labor party still in control, the haters of Israel would have to find other "bogeymen" to try to hide their hate. Sharon as PM just makes it too easy for them.

http://www.freelori.org /

---------------------------------------------------------------------

That was in response to me asking how progressives could support Likud. You seem to be saying that Likud's policies are supported by some progressives because they want to support Israel.

[GabysPoppy]

64. Please read it again to yourself

very slowly this time.

Let me know which sentence is giving you problems.

It also may be wise to try to understand it within the context of previous statements.

[_Jumper_]

67. What did it mean?

Instead of making attacks, why not explain it?:)

[GabysPoppy]

68. ask someone else - n/t

[_Jumper_]

69. Very compelling

n/t

[Jack Rabbit]

65. In defense of GabbysPoppy

He didn't say that. I have never seen him say that and I do not believe he would.

Mr. Poppy knows as well as anyone here that support for Israel no more implies support for Sharon, Likud and the Israeli right than support for America implies support for Bush and the GOP.

Some people think of the discussion on this board as being basically a two-way argument between partisans of either sides. Some people who argue on this board behave more like cheerleaders than participants in a serious discussion. I shall decline to name these individuals, but suffice to say that neither partisan camp has a monopoly on them.

However, as I see it, there is a third element that seeks to envision a just resolution to this conflict rather than advocate one side deserves to "win" at the expense of the other.

Mr. Poppy and I may place our emphasis in different places, but I believe we both belong to that third element. While he and I have some disagreements, I will defend his goals and his integrity.

[GabysPoppy]

66. Thank you, Jack

Your check will be in the mail on Monday. I will also defend your integrity with my utmost fervor as soon as you explain those pictures I have of you taken New Year's eve.

Sorry, I needed a moment of levity today

:silly:

[kalian]

46. That's what worries me....

just which "progressives" are you referring too?

[GabysPoppy]

52. May I remind you

Who is Welcome In the I/P Forum, who is not:

We welcome progressives of all stripes and specifically note the I/P forum has many progressives whose affinity lie on opposite ends of the I/P debate. Do not assume that because someone is Pro-Israeli or Pro-Palestinian they are not progressive. A good rule of thumb for those who will do well are those who are actively seeking a peaceful and respectful settlement and are genuinely interested in a rational discourse of events in the I/P conflict.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[_Jumper_]

55. One can be progressive and pro-Israel

However, how can any progressive support apartheid?

[GabysPoppy]

57. Your comparision

of Israel and apartheid is totally inaccurate and slanderous.

[_Jumper_]

59. Hebron

In Hebron 600 Israeli settlers use 6/7 of water. The remaining 1/7 is doled out among 240,000 Palestinians. That isn't apartheid? That is progressive?

I was talking about conditions in the Occuiped territories. I am not sold either way on conditions in Israel.

[lefty_mcduff]

23. Hey Mr. Sharon

Why don't you, and your glorious ID disarm these baddies yourselves. You may not be keeping up with the news, but we're kinda occupied with your other stellar suggestion...

[_Jumper_]

33. Why is he telling the US what to do?

n/t

[anti-NAFTA]

39. Because he controls the US.

David Frum (actually a Canadian), Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and others control Bush's administration. There is some speculation that their sworn enemy James Baker might have a place in the next Bush administration which gives me some hope that even if Bush wins the world won't go to shit but I wouldn't bet on it.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[anti-NAFTA]

41. No.

The media isn't neoconservative as far as I know. Neoconservative and Likudist doesn't mean pro-Israeli or Jewish. Nixon was pro-Israeli; Carter was; Clinton was; Kerry is. Neoconservatism and their counterparts in Israel believe in regional hegemony and are for a military industrial complex inseperable from the one Bush is creating in America.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[_Jumper_]

45. I don't buy that

But it is obvious he has influence over it. The question is, how much?

[anti-NAFTA]

47. That's what I meant.

Perle is undeniable his spokesman, so it's clear that there's a lot of it, particularly in the Pentagon.