We'll see if Condi comes up with anything. You'll probably think she isn't trying hard enough because she's not giving away the whole store...

For that matter, what do *Americans* respond to, except force

Now that's just stupid. How many resolutions in Iraq? How many surrounding Israel? The problem is a world body that cannot act independently of the selfish motives of its members. That's how we get to this position. Every. Single. Time. We can't head off the war with diplomacy because it goes totally unsupported, while people are dying. We can't count on the U.N. to take a position, and do the right thing.

Would be great if that had been tried â?¦

Are you friggin' stoned Anderson? Arte you really saying that we have never tried to get Palestinians to reject terror? Hell, even your hero cigar n' a blue dress tried that.

Alas, my analytical ability has kept me alive for this long, which is more than I can say for your current tack.

Perhaps you are right that WW 111 was the cold war. I remember the Cold War from start to finish and can tell you that during that period of time I never felt as threatened as I do now. Americans, during the cold war were "Together" to fight the fight". Now, we have not only to feel threatened by terrorist but we are threatened from within and we are NOT together as the result of the 2000 elections and a hell of a lot of Left Wing Liberals doing everything possible to divide our country and make us a weaker nation.

Thinking about it further, Maybe WW 111 really started when Bush beat Gore in the 2000 elections.

Really? Remind me what else the West has tried?

At least the â??only responing to forceâ?? meme isnâ??t as tired as the â??if we all could just get alongâ?? meme.

Right, which is why I didn't say any such thing. (For that matter, what do *Americans* respond to, except force?)

Would be great if that actually worked anywhereâ?¦ North Korea, Iran, Iraqâ?¦

Would be great if that had been tried ... and your naming 3 completely different situations doesn't inspire much faith in your analytical powers, alas.

Knee-jerk anti-Israel or anti-Palestinian sentiment is not going to get anyone anywhere, except further down the present path.

Clique? Now you lost me. I am a free thinker.

Andersen- you just haven't been paying attnetion to world affairs. MAybe to busy bashing the President or making contributions to the ACLU... In case you missed it, the only leaning Syria will take seriously is quite literally, a threat of force.

At least the 'only responing to force' meme isn't as tired as the 'if we all could just get along' meme. I don't think there's much in the way of diplomacy that hasn't already been tried and tried again.

If we can get to where Palestinian reaction to terror attacks is â??bastards, quit messing things up for usâ?? instead of cheering like their team scored a goal, then weâ??ll see progress.

Would be great if that actually worked anywhere... North Korea, Iran, Iraq...

Now who's dreaming.

I don't think Syria's military is any great shakes, and I don't think they can afford to be ostracized. Syria isn't especially oil-rich, is it? Note that I'm not advocating invasion or attacks--look up "leaning on."

1.) Weâ??re not â??miredâ?? in Iraq. If the U.S. were faced with a threat from Iran, you would see what our militaryâ??s capabilities are. For now, Iâ??m fine with keeping some things on the down-low.

In your dreams, sir.

2.) If we were against Israel on EVERY issue, these terrorsits would continue about their business. They simply donâ??t give a damn about what we think. They only respond to force.

Aside from the stupidity of the "only respond to force" meme, this misses the point. No one cares about persuading the terrorists. They're unpersuadable and a small % of the population. What we need is to win over the civilians without whose support the terrorists can barely function.

If we can get to where Palestinian reaction to terror attacks is "bastards, quit messing things up for us" instead of cheering like their team scored a goal, then we'll see progress.

The sports analogy is accurate. Few people who cheer a team on have anything to gain by its win. The Palestinian attitude to terror demonstrates their alienation from any sense of real involvement or consequences in the continuation of terror. They feel they have nothing to lose.

Go on, point to where I said that. Here or anywhere else.

I'm not a member of ANYONES clique but my own. I do my own thinking. I recommend you try it.

Cernig

Congratulations, you have confirmed that you are one of the "Babbling Idiots"

Get a Life dingbat, Just how stupid can you be, If we lost Israel, the entire Middle East would be lost and you would be running around like the chicken. (You know, with your head cut off)

'Leaning' on Syria would likely lead to the total regional conflict everybody's concerned with.

1.) We're not 'mired' in Iraq. If the U.S. were faced with a threat from Iran, you would see what our military's capabilities are. For now, I'm fine with keeping some things on the down-low.

2.) If we were against Israel on EVERY issue, these terrorsits would continue about their business. They simply don't give a damn about what we think. They only respond to force.

Blowing up Lebanese women and children is recruiting for Hezbollah and Hamas. I appreciate Israel's frustration, but they're not fixing anything here. Quite the contrary.

Leaning heavily on Syria would at least rein in Hamas a bit. Unfortunately we don't have much to lean on Iran with.

Note that if we (1) weren't mired in Iraq and (2) didn't take Israel's side on every single issue, we would be a lot more influential right now. As it is, why pay attention to the U.S.?

Letâ??s not use one tragedy as an excuse to commit another atrocious crime.

Like what? By whom?

Itâ??s time the Israel is brought to heel - it is out of control.

Yeah. How dare they attempt to defend themselves.

Rather, to push a notion of right or wrong without including balance (i.e. judgements of proportionate or disporportionate intent, actions or beliefs) is itself an example of moral relativism.

Kind of like justifying kidnappings, beheadings, and suicide bombs, while demonizing air strikes, detention of combatants, and the like. I guess it all just depends on how you apply your even-handedness.

So if the DNC decides to launch an armed invasion of the Capitol, thereâ??s no qualitative difference between that and trying to get Democrats elected to a majority of seats?

Of course there would be, were such a paranoid fantasy to actually occur. My entire point is that the moral judgement process that leads us to who is right or wrong, good or bad in any given situation includes such universals as the concept of balance - "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". How else do you intend to arrive at a judgement?

To say the idea of balance is "a sickening moral relativism" is begging the question. Rather, to push a notion of right or wrong without including balance (i.e. judgements of proportionate or disporportionate intent, actions or beliefs) is itself an example of moral relativism.

Regards, Cernig

It's time the Israel is brought to heel - it is out of control. Start with cutting aid. It does not need it.

Not really buying most of the arguments here.

If there is anyone that does not think that WW111 didn�t start on 9/11, then he or she is a babbling idiot.

I think what started on 9/11 was the active phase of World War Four (the Cold War was WW3) but I doubt we're far apart otherwise.