I would say really.

As a man, president and his administration...
- ordered an attack on the Brookings Institution
- 13 of the 'president's men' jailed (2 were A.G.s)
- Agnew resigned after allegations of bribery* (as governor) led to a conviction on tax fraud.
- "Townhouse Operation" crime wave itself
- Associated Milk Producers Inc, IT&T...even the Checkers thing foreshadowed all the sketchy 'campaign donations'

...and the Vietnam peace talks affair was in the same league as Eric's dad's 1st impeachment charge ('tho not as president)...if pushed to support 'how bad was bad' remember Nixon put marijuana on the schedule one drug list, essentially to criminalize blacks, was a much much larger crime to humanity. emptied the penny jar and a twenty from the till, if you will.

But I get your point.

[Hardin administration was pretty awful too]


* something his former lawyer said he admitted went on "for a thousand years"

There never was an issue about concessions. They always were ready to accept their fate. But even the peace talks before only included the condition that their emperor was left untouched. And thats exactly what the USA gave them later. So not accepting peace with them was a farce from the start, no matter from what side you look at it.

Truman didnt restrain Stalin. Truman provoked Stalin massively, making him think that they would invade Russia next or at least start a war with them, which started the cold war.
The USA was always provoking, especially at the start of the cold war. Theres a well known video on Youtube (prolly even here) that shows exactly where and when nuclear tests happened. It makes perfectly obvious how much the USA provoked the Soviets.

and peace talks are now back to the dark ages.

There's no spin. It's an accurate and fair assessment of the situation. There are more players in the game than just Isreal and the Palestinians. There's plenty of blame to spread around and the situation is not the sole pervue of any one side.

I have more historical perspective than you perhaps, but I recall quite well the peace efforts of the 70s, 80s, 90s, and early 00s where Isreal made concession after concession after concession. But it was never enough. The objective of the militant Pals is not peaceful coexistence. It is the complete elimination of the Isreali state.

Therefore you and others like you are operating from a false position that only exists within the confines of your fantasies. You probably haven't been around long enough, and so you don't remember that this is all ground that has been covered before over and over and over.

You think that Isreal is to blame for this mess because you think there is some mythical 'concession' Isreal could make that would make the Palestinians happy. Baloney. The so-called 'peace' talks of the 70s, 80s, 90s, and early 00s proved unequivocally that there are NO concessions Isreal can make that will satisfy the Palestinians. The only thing that will satisfy them is when Isreal is booted out of 'thier' country.

So your argument is an utterly false magician's choice, and I think even yo know this deep down. Isreal is doing what it thinks it needs to do in order to prevent the deaths of thier citizens. That's the right of any country, and the main duty of a government. I don't blame them for that. They want security from a bunch of uncompromising, half-insane terrorists. Who doesn't?

What the Palestinians need to do is reign in thier extremists and show they are willing to give Isreal a peaceful option that will actually work. Frankly, I don't think that is possible because there are too many factions in the Middle East (Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, et al) that are too intent on keeping a bunch of poor, angry Palestinians around as a stable of useful idiots to funnel bombs to.

Ok, so you added some good details to this unilateral plan for peace; the UN comes in and enforces it, the US and EU broker the agreements.

Then there would be far fewer attacks on Israel; I agree. Still, what does Israel do when one or more of those attacks occurs? I feel like you didn't answer my question earlier. If no one dies, I presume you'd say Israel should sit tight and continue to maintain a peace. At what point would Israel be justified in ending a peace in response to an attack?

I also can plainly see the potential for some whackjob Israeli showing up in a mosque with a rifle; it happened once before. However, there's a large difference between one murderous, identifiable zealot unconnected to the Israeli government, which is the kind of attack that has never met with the approval of the Israeli people, and a suicide bombing or a rocket barrage, which has been accepted as a valid tactic by the vast majority of the Palestinian people.

To Geo, if you've never seen such a "worldwide shift of opinion against Israel's actions," then I must ask if you've ever read the news before? Israel has always been castigated for military action, this reaction by the international community looks like nothing new to me, except insofar as it was possibly more supportive than it has been in the past of Israel's right to defend itself.

Furthermore, you might as well flip your first statement around and apply it to Gaza and the West Bank - Israel has rotated through various governments that push land-for-peace, aggressive peace talks, and of course military action. The Palestinians have, in my experience, more often had leadership interested in pursuing military action.

>> ^bcglorf:
Finally, I must insist that Israeli aid to the region must not be ignored either. If Israel really wants the region cleansed, why are they still the largest individual provider of humanitarian aid to the region? You know what the biggest complaints where when the borders where closed? Access to Israeli hospitals that where previously available to Palestinians living on the border. And for unemployment caused by closing the border, it was because a great many living in Gaza were working in Israel.


Err? Israel imposed a blockade on Gaza since 2007.

U.N. humanitarian chief John Holmes said that while Israel had been letting some relief supplies into Gaza, with 60 truckloads entering on Monday, that was "wholly inadequate", as about 100 truckloads a day of flour or grain alone were needed. Stocks of fuel were "more or less zero", meaning Gaza's power plant might have to shut down at any time, while medical supplies were "just about enough to cope", Holmes said.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LV538165.htm

A boat delivering 3.5 tonnes of Cypriot medical aid to the Gaza Strip has been rammed by Israeli naval vessels in international waters, activists say.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7805075.stm

"The Commissioner-General of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA), Karen AbuZayd, on Monday warned that new restrictions Israel planned to impose on the West Bank could force the agency to curtail its humanitarian aid to the Palestinian territory."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/925748.html

Billions of aid dollars pledged to the Palestinians to bolster peace talks with Israel are having a muted economic impact because of Israeli restrictions on travel and trade, the World Bank said on Sunday.
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL2616242520080427

The United Nations is accusing Israel of imposing arbitrary taxes on humanitarian relief supplies - including food and medicine - being ferried to Palestinians in occupied territories. The levies charged by Israel were "unreasonable and unique", Peter Hansen, commissioner-general of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for Palestine Refugees, told a meeting of donors Wednesday.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/aid/2002/0925israel.htm

On average, the U.S gave more than $6.8 million* to Israel each day and
gave $0.3 million** to the Palestinians each day during Fiscal Year 2007.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/usaid.html

Yeah, the rocket attacks were bad.

So were the multiple tank sorties by the Israelis over the last 20 years. So was the original creation of the state of Israel where Jewish imigrants pushed out the Syrians who owned the area. Then we can go back to the Saracen empire, the Romans empire, Moses fucking over the heathens etc etc etc.

Imo the heathens got a raw deal and the whole area should go back to them...

Let's get over who through the first fucking stone. Pre-emptively invading a country is wrong, starving people is wrong, rocket attacks are wrong.

Backing either side is wrong, condemning both and encouraging them to work their shit out is pretty much the only course of action if you're going to get involved either way. Enabling either side (with monetary/military aid) merely increases the conflict and precipitates another humanitarian disaster (like we need more of those atm).

Withdraw all support. When both sides have run out of food and guns and are willing to play nice, organise peace talks.

Surely America has the stomach for that, it would cost a hell of a lot less than the Iraqi expedition for oil (in money and lives). Might even ease the suffering of thousands of people who live in constant fear...