Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 It's a good thing we have the New York Times on our side! The New York Times, citing anonymous U.S. and Israeli officials, reported Tuesday that the United States and Israel were considering a campaign to starve the Palestinian Authority of cash so Palestinians would grow disillusioned with Hamas and bring down a Hamas government. New York Times...our friend.
Taro T Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 It's a good thing we have the New York Times on our side!New York Times...our friend. 602664[/snapback] Instead of considering it "regime change" like the NYT does, I would consider that a policy of actually following our stated policy. Theoretically, the US does not deal with terrorists. Hamas definitely supports and performs terrorist activities. The Palestinians elected the terrorists. If they want to be governed by terrorists, there should be consequences. Not giving them tons of money could reasonably be expected to be one of those consequences.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 It's a good thing we have the New York Times on our side!New York Times...our friend. 602664[/snapback] Heard that on the radio this morning. My first thought "This is news? Isn't it just sort of a foregone conclusion?" My second thought was "What, the Times expects us to unquestioningly provide foreign aid to groups whose policies are directly antithetical to ours?" Does the Times even perceive a difference between supporting a process by which policy is made, yet not supporting the policy that's ultimately formed? I have no real problem with the Palestinians electing Hamas; and Hamas is certainly entitled to their opinion. But I fail to see how we're somehow required to support Hamas just because they were chosen to represent the Palestinians.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 But I fail to see how we're somehow required to support Hamas just because they were chosen to represent the Palestinians. 602728[/snapback] Because we are the world, we are the people, and we're only over there to spread democracy and show how great it works for these dumbasses. So if it may not be working, we have to fix it. Don't you eat any of this crap, or do you just hurl it?
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 Instead of considering it "regime change" like the NYT does, I would consider that a policy of actually following our stated policy. Theoretically, the US does not deal with terrorists. Hamas definitely supports and performs terrorist activities. The Palestinians elected the terrorists. If they want to be governed by terrorists, there should be consequences. Not giving them tons of money could reasonably be expected to be one of those consequences. 602713[/snapback] Oh please, this is non-news that has been widely reported. Even CNN and Fox had it, not known for the breaking news capability unless there is a plane crash. Actually, NYTIMES was late on the switch too, probably does your heart some good.
Taro T Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 Oh please, this is non-news that has been widely reported. Even CNN and Fox had it, not known for the breaking news capability unless there is a plane crash. Actually, NYTIMES was late on the switch too, probably does your heart some good. 602748[/snapback] You're right. It is non-news. It's the US (and hopefully other nations as well) following through on claims that they won't support regimes that support terrorism. I wouldn't necessarily call that promoting "regime change", although either MSNBC or the NYT does. Failure to give money to a government that supports policies that are directly contradictory to US interests is not directly inciting "regime change".
UConn James Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 Even CNN and Fox had it, not known for the breaking news capability unless there is a plane crash. 602748[/snapback] Get your facts straight, you lemming! They break to 2-hour high-speed car and motorcycle chases, too!!! To the topic, this is like news that I won't have to pay taxes to support a diddler who molests my children. What the eff is the problem?
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 Get your facts straight, you lemming! They break to 2-hour high-speed car and motorcycle chases, too!!! To the topic, this is like news that I won't have to pay taxes to support a diddler who molests my children. What the eff is the problem? 602803[/snapback] Actually the news part is that according to the NYTIMES, the U.S. and Israel are considering "U.S. and Israelis Are Said to Talk of Hamas Ouster" Now that is News!
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 Because we are the world, we are the people, and we're only over there to spread democracy and show how great it works for these dumbasses. So it if may not be working, we have to fix it. Don't you eat any of this crap, or do you just hurl it? 602742[/snapback] Actually, I never bought the "spreading democracy" bull sh-- either. When the !@#$ was it conclusively determined that western-style liberal democracy is workable in an Islamic society? And even if it is...hasn't anyone ever heard the cliche "Be careful what you wish for."?
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 Actually, I never bought the "spreading democracy" bull sh-- either. When the !@#$ was it conclusively determined that western-style liberal democracy is workable in an Islamic society? And even if it is...hasn't anyone ever heard the cliche "Be careful what you wish for."? 602845[/snapback] Yep, no kidding, can you say Iran. Fox News had someone on last night talking about plans to selectively bomb Iran, the only true Democracy in the entire region. Granted a right wing Muslim one, still ironic isn't it.
GG Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 Actually, I never bought the "spreading democracy" bull sh-- either. When the !@#$ was it conclusively determined that western-style liberal democracy is workable in an Islamic society? And even if it is...hasn't anyone ever heard the cliche "Be careful what you wish for."? 602845[/snapback] There's also the other side of "be careful" in that the elected leaders are accountable to the electorate and the electorate should also consider the impact on their lives that elected leaders will have. The Palestinian vote for Hamas was a bigger nod to oust Fatah. But now, Hamas will have to deal with managing the territories without US & Israel support.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 There's also the other side of "be careful" in that the elected leaders are accountable to the electorate and the electorate should also consider the impact on their lives that elected leaders will have. 602856[/snapback] We didn't. But at least mans can't marry.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 There's also the other side of "be careful" in that the elected leaders are accountable to the electorate and the electorate should also consider the impact on their lives that elected leaders will have. The Palestinian vote for Hamas was a bigger nod to oust Fatah. But now, Hamas will have to deal with managing the territories without US & Israel support. 602856[/snapback] No kidding, herding cats is probably easier.
KRC Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 There's also the other side of "be careful" in that the elected leaders are accountable to the electorate and the electorate should also consider the impact on their lives that elected leaders will have. The Palestinian vote for Hamas was a bigger nod to oust Fatah. But now, Hamas will have to deal with managing the territories without US & Israel support. 602856[/snapback] ...and they know that they cannot continue their actions (violence) if they want the support from the U.S. I do not see this as a bad thing long term. They were democratically elected. That shows the people that if the government does not give you what you want, you can vote them out. Now that Hamas is in, they are responsible for things that happen. Right now, they are no longer receiving U.S. support. They need the support in order to do what they need to do (rebuild, social programs, etc). Therefore, they will need to stop the violence in order to regain the support. This is a good thing. If they do not stop the violence, thereby not getting back the U.S. support they desperately need, then they will be voted out. This minimizes support for Hamas in the future. Again, this is a good thing. Overall, I think that this is a good thing for them long-term. I see it reducing violence coming out of Hamas.
GG Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 Overall, I think that this is a good thing for them long-term. I see it reducing violence coming out of Hamas. 602869[/snapback] No it is not. It is a very very very bad thing. NYT says so.
KRC Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 No it is not. It is a very very very bad thing. NYT says so. 602873[/snapback] Sorry. Haven't read the Times yet. Damn, I knew I needed to read the Times before knowing how I should think.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 ...and they know that they cannot continue their actions (violence) if they want the support from the U.S. I do not see this as a bad thing long term. They were democratically elected. That shows the people that if the government does not give you what you want, you can vote them out. Now that Hamas is in, they are responsible for things that happen. Right now, they are no longer receiving U.S. support. They need the support in order to do what they need to do (rebuild, social programs, etc). Therefore, they will need to stop the violence in order to regain the support. This is a good thing. If they do not stop the violence, thereby not getting back the U.S. support they desperately need, then they will be voted out. This minimizes support for Hamas in the future. Again, this is a good thing. Overall, I think that this is a good thing for them long-term. I see it reducing violence coming out of Hamas. 602869[/snapback] You may be right. Seems to me, however, they just did vote out the government that didn't give them what they want. Now they've got Hamas. Hamas will take a few years before they find out for sure that Hamas gives them less of what they want. And several years from now, they will vote Hamas out. Then someone else will come in and, unless hell freezes over, screw things up enough until the 2015 version of Hamas promises them something else they think they want. So frankly, I don't see this as a good thing. I see this as a waste of however many years Hamas is in power.
pdh1 Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 Yep, no kidding, can you say Iran. Fox News had someone on last night talking about plans to selectively bomb Iran, the only true Democracy in the entire region. Granted a right wing Muslim one, still ironic isn't it. 602853[/snapback] Was that Jackass who won in Iran a complete long shot? I recall hearing people in Iran saying the vote was fraud. It would have been like Pat Bucannan be elected here.
GG Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 You may be right. Seems to me, however, they just did vote out the government that didn't give them what they want. Now they've got Hamas. Hamas will take a few years before they find out for sure that Hamas gives them less of what they want. And several years from now, they will vote Hamas out. Then someone else will come in and, unless hell freezes over, screw things up enough until the 2015 version of Hamas promises them something else they think they want. So frankly, I don't see this as a good thing. I see this as a waste of however many years Hamas is in power. 602880[/snapback] I think that the timetable is more compressed than that. A big reason why Fatah had no choice by to accept a recent truce is that with Intifada II, Arafat decimated PA's economy in 4 years. So, it's not like Hamas is even starting where Arafat did in 2000. If Israel & US cut off all funding, unrest will come much quicker and Hamas will have a choice of total revolt or putting down its arms very quickly. Don't forget, a lot of support for Hamas comes from people who don't want to fight anymore.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 I think that the timetable is more compressed than that. A big reason why Fatah had no choice by to accept a recent truce is that with Intifada II, Arafat decimated PA's economy in 4 years. So, it's not like Hamas is even starting where Arafat did in 2000. If Israel & US cut off all funding, unrest will come much quicker and Hamas will have a choice of total revolt or putting down its arms very quickly. Don't forget, a lot of support for Hamas comes from people who don't want to fight anymore. 602935[/snapback] And Hamas will put down their arms quickly. And wait a few months or years and then quickly pick them up again. What is "had my fingers crossed!" in Arabic?
Recommended Posts