[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on Jan 25 2007, 01:31 AM, said:

Well can we agree that India is not a small country?

and pakistan has nukes....whatever that means

Well, it certainly suffered from small international influence.....and likely still does.

Hmmmn, Pakistan, an Islamic nation with a dictator as head of state. (Pervez Musharraf certainly seems to be a very intelligent and savvy leader.) Developed nuclear weapons somewhat serruptitiously. Where were the American fear-mongering and threats against this state that harbors Taliban, AlQaeda and (if he is still alive) Osama? Oh yeah, I forgot, he is "supported" by Bush et al. (He was smart enough to "say" he was with the US. (which has gotten him several assasination attempts btw.))

Wait up, how much oil is in Pakistan?.....oh yeah, none. qed

[Winstonm]

Does anyone actually fear the country of Iran having nuclear weapons? Can anyone seriously believe that the moment nukes are available to Iran they would launch a nuclear offensive against Israel? Seems to me that the real "fear" is that Iran would provide nuclear weapons to terrorists - but I have a difficult time believing that a nuclear weapon could be smuggled into the U.S. by a terrorist - and the bombay doors on the al-Qaeda airforce don't work too well.

Pakistan is in a position to do the same thing - and they harbor terrorists, supposedly - dang, we need a bigger army because we're going to have to invade darn near everyone before this is over.

I do not understand the rationale of using military action to try to solve a criminal problem. The people killed by terrorists are not killed on the battlefield, they are killed on the streets. There is no "War of Terror". There are terrorists, who commit crimes - this is in the province of police work.

Pakistan, India, and even North Korean have or are in the process of trying to create nuclear programs - we didn't invade any of these countries. The leader of N. Koreas is surely as insane as anyone in Iran.

It is another odd coincidence that the only country we have super-hyped fear about is Iran, and Iran has lots of oil and is part of the PNAC plan for American imperialism.

Should we have preemptively attacked the U.S.S.R. when Kruschev pounded his shoe on the table at the U.N. and claimed "We will buy you." He was talking about the U.S. too. Now we have Iran, who is not directly threatening the U.S., and somehow we have to stop this madman 10 years before he could produce a single bomb.

It doesn't make sense. Coincidence, of course, happens. But when coincidence piles up on coincidence ad infinitum, it makes a trash heap that after a while begins to smell strongly of fish.

[pbleighton]

"1) Ok Peter votes for an in depth investigation into many complicated issues after a nuke strike on the USA."

Your question implied, in my reading at least, that an independent terrorist group rather than a country launched the strike. Was I correct?

If so, do you have the intellectual honesty to throw out a few scenarios, along with your judgment as to the appropriate response? Apparently you think the issue is crystal clear, so it should be easy for you. I expect that the answer to this question is no, but I can always hope

If not, MAD applies.

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

If you wish to follow your "insane" leaders, you will swallow their tripe and do what they say. There is still time to turf them out (I hope) and get back on track. Please

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Jan 25 2007, 05:41 AM, said:

pbleighton, on Jan 24 2007, 09:21 PM, said:

"If a small stolen or bought nuke from the USSR or wherever was used by terrorists on the Usa or Israel what is the moral response?"

What are the circumstances?

What are the connections?

It matters, a lot.

Peter

1) Ok Peter votes for an in depth investigation into many complicated issues after a nuke strike on the USA.

Thorough investigation sounds like a good idea to me, especially when we're talking about using nuclear weapons.

Back in the day, Mutually Assured Destruction "worked" because there were very few nuclear powers. If the United States were to be attacked, we could be pretty damn sure that either Russia or China was to blame. Most of the MAD scenarios involved ensuring a retaliatory capable after one side (or the other) launched a massive first strike.

These days, the world looks very different. Nuclear weapons are getting easier to come by. There is a very real worry that weapons might come into the hands of a non-state actor. I would argue that the most most important deployment scenario is that a terrorist group might succeed in smuggling a single crude device inside of a container ship. One day, we wake up and Baltimore, or Houston, or Haifa is gone... Think 9/11 only two to three orders of magnitude worse.

Personally, my main priority after any such attack would be trying to determine who was responsible for lauching it. Some form of retaliation would (probably) be right and proper, but it would need to be targetted appropriately.

I would hope that the lessons of Iraq where we're repaing the benfits of invading the wrong country would lead people to understand the benefits of "in depth investigations".

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Jan 25 2007, 07:54 PM, said:

I would hope that the lessons of Iraq where we're repaing the benfits of invading the wrong country would lead people to understand the benefits of "in depth investigations".

How can a scapegoat be the "wrong" country? Iraq would have served ok as a scapegoat if the war had been won. Thought experiment: suppose Iraq was, after a couple of weeks of U.S. occupation, turned into a stable, pro-Western despotism a la Saudi Arabia and everybody were happy. How big a fraction of the U.S. population would even know that there had been no WMDs, no Bin Laden connection, no other valid excuse for invading Iraq? How many would care?

[pbleighton]

"Thought experiment: suppose Iraq was, after a couple of weeks of U.S. occupation, turned into a stable, pro-Western despotism a la Saudi Arabia and everybody were happy. How big a fraction of the U.S. population would even know that there had been no WMDs, no Bin Laden connection, no other valid excuse for invading Iraq? How many would care?"

Thought experiment: suppose that the moon were made of delicious, nutritious green cheese. We could build moon cheese shuttles, and the problem of world hunger would be solved.

Peter

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Jan 25 2007, 12:54 PM, said:

mike777, on Jan 25 2007, 05:41 AM, said:

pbleighton, on Jan 24 2007, 09:21 PM, said:

"If a small stolen or bought nuke from the USSR or wherever was used by terrorists on the Usa or Israel what is the moral response?"

What are the circumstances?

What are the connections?

It matters, a lot.

Peter

1) Ok Peter votes for an in depth investigation into many complicated issues after a nuke strike on the USA.

Thorough investigation sounds like a good idea to me, especially when we're talking about using nuclear weapons.

actually mike's question was

Quote

"If a small stolen or bought nuke from the USSR or wherever was used by terrorists on the Usa or Israel what is the moral response?"

and peter's response was

Quote

What are the circumstances?
What are the connections?

It matters, a lot.

what possible difference do "the circumstances" make? that implies that there are circumstances under which someone could possibly be justified in setting off a nuke in the usa, which all americans should (i would think) think of as an act of war... the connections? what does that mean?

thorough investigation is fine, if the aim is to determine upon whom to visit annihilation

winston said:

Does anyone actually fear the country of Iran having nuclear weapons?

israel evidently does

Quote

Can anyone seriously believe that the moment nukes are available to Iran they would launch a nuclear offensive against Israel?

i don't know, but the question is can anyone seriously believe that the moment nukes are available to iran *israel* would launch a (maybe nuclear) preemptive strike against iran?

[Winstonm]

Quote

that implies that there are circumstances under which someone could possibly be justified in setting off a nuke in the usa, which all americans should (i would think) think of as an act of war...

Well, here is on fool who would not consider it an act of war - it would be an act of terrorism. I mean, with whom would you war? It's not like the perpetrators would all dress in uniforms and occupy one specific region in Iran or Iraq and say, Hey, we did it, and then sit quietly while we turned them to dust with our nukes.

No, when you talk about terrorists, the ones who kill with actions, you are talking about people who appear normal but who harbor a dark secret - they live two lives. These types must be ferreted out.

IMO, terrorism can never be classified as war - it is criminal - it is murder. Homicide is legal in war else everyone who ever fired a weapon or dropped a bomb from a plane would be a criminal. There is no such waiver of stipulation for terror. It is murder, never condoned, never justified, and never to be tolerated.

But it isn't war. And you can't end terror by attempting to stop their backers, those countries who might harbor them. You can only stop terror one terrorist at a time.

Quote

thorough investigation is fine, if the aim is to determine upon whom to visit annihilation

And what country would you annhiliate for the sins of the few? In the State of the Union Address, Bush himself said the terrorists were a tiny minority....then what is the purpose of wiping a country from existence? Criminals have to be sought out and punished - killing a few hundred thousand innocents as "collateral damage" does nothing to stop terror - indeed, it only provides a reason for those on the fence to slide to the other side.

Quote

QUOTE (winston)
Does anyone actually fear the country of Iran having nuclear weapons?


israel evidently does

QUOTE

I meant does anyone in the U.S. And even if Israel "fears", is that justification for them attacking Iran? If it is wrong for Iraq to invade Kuwait, it is wrong for Israel to attack Iran. Once you open the door to "preemptvie" attacks, you open the door to false propoganda and lies to justify warfare. The risk is not worth the potential gain.

Quote

Can anyone seriously believe that the moment nukes are available to Iran they would launch a nuclear offensive against Israel? 


i don't know, but the question is can anyone seriously believe that the moment nukes are available to iran *israel* would launch a (maybe nuclear) preemptive strike against iran?

Would that make Israel "right"? Under this theory, the U.S. should have long ago banned all Muslims flying on U.S. airplanes as they might hijack one and fly it into the World Trade Center. Or perhaps ban all Islamics entry to the U.S. because one or two might set a bomb in the basement of the WTC.

When you act preemptively our of fear, you are invalidating another's rights and placing the assuaging of your own paranoia above their freedom of choice.

Doesn't sound very democratic to me - and that's what I thought the U.S. was trying to do - spread decocracy across the middle east - or at least to those countries that have some worthwhile oil reserves.

[luke warm]

winston, i personally think israel has reason to believe that certain people wish to harm all jews, and i think they take seriously the words of those who express those views... when such people are the leaders of countries, waiting could lead to mass murder, as happened last century... so whether or not it would be "fair" for israel to preemptively attack should be viewed from an historical perspective

fair is in the eyes of the beholder, and if those eyes have seen the results of failure to act in such upclose, personal ways - well, could they really be blamed for not waiting for it to happen again?

Quote

And what country would you annhiliate for the sins of the few?

i don't know... maybe the country that gave the nuke to the terrorists? or the country that harbored the terrorists while the weapon was produced?

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jan 26 2007, 03:06 AM, said:

what possible difference do "the circumstances" make? that implies that there are circumstances under which someone could possibly be justified in setting off a nuke in the usa, which all americans should (i would think) think of as an act of war...

Here's a hypothetical: Lets assume that Bush and company decided that the danger that Iran might get a nuclear weapon was too great. They decide to start bombing Iran. Iran responds by launching missile attacks against US carriers in the gulf. Things escalate, and in a matter of months we end up in a major war. The US air force establishes air superiority over Iran and we start major bombing campaigns against Iranian infrastructure and civilian targets. Unfortunately for US, the Iranian already have one or two nukes that they bought from Pakistan. They manage to slip one into Baltimore and set it off...

Is this "justified"? Hard to say. I would argue that its not justified. There are behavioral norms that should apply even during a war. One of those is that you don't destroy civilian population centers for the sake of destroying civilian population centers. Other people seem to feel differently. For example, you and Mike often seem to advocate concepts of total war and asymmetric responses. Countries can (and should) do whatever they see fit to protect their interests. For example, Israel is justified in launching an attack against Iran based on a hypothetical future threat. However, whats good for the goose is good for the gander. If you accept that the US has the obligation to take any action to advance its national interests it would seem the height of hypocracy to assume that the Iranians should behave differently.

This is one of my major issues with you, Mike, Dwanye, and the rest of your ilk. You act as if the US has the right do whatever it damn well pleases and everyone else just needs to suck it up.

Interesting to see how "relative" your behavioural norms are. Actions are good if they are taken by Americans and Israelis. Actions are bad if they are taken by Arabs or "old" Europe.

[Winstonm]

Quote

winston, i personally think israel has reason to believe that certain people wish to harm all jews, and i think they take seriously the words of those who express those views... when such people are the leaders of countries, waiting could lead to mass murder, as happened last century... so whether or not it would be "fair" for israel to preemptively attack should be viewed from an historical perspective

Jimmy, as much as I admire you and your even-mindedness, I have to respectfully disagree.

First, let my state that I am not in any way anti-semite or anti-Israel - that said, let me also state that I am not totally and blindly pro-Isreal. I have supported Israel when I thought they were right and chastised them when I thought they were wrong or gone too far.

The holocaust was an atrocity that hopefull will never again occur - but the holocaust was an atrocity against Jews, not the State of Israel.

Jews are dispersed worldwide, living in many countries - to suggest a threat from Iran on Israel is the same type of threat as the holocaust is disinginuous. If, say, Israel voluntarily disbanded their country, there would be no "bounty" on Jews paid by Iran. It is the country, not the people, that is at risk. The threat to destroy Israel is not genocide, as there is a huge Palestinian population still there.
Nukes do not descriminate.
If Israel wants to rattle its swords to protect itself as a country, that much I can understand - but when they start bringing up the ghost of the holocaust as somehow being the same thing as a threat to the country, I find the argument unconvincing.

In 1948, just prior to Israel declaring statehood, the U.N. had adopted a resolution to separate the territory into two distinct lands, Palestine and Israel. But before this could occur, Israel declared statehood, and the U.S. soon supported that statehood, and the idea of an independent Palestine died - which the world, through the U.N., had decided was best. To me, Palestine has a reasonable complaint.

There appears to me to be no "melting pot" in Israel. The Jews are in power, and the Palestinians are not treated equally, do not have the same political strength, and are not incorporated into the society as is the case in the U.S.

The jews in Europe had a horror inflicted upon them, and it should never be forgotten. Israel has been attacked. These are truths. But I think it fair to keep in mind that Israel is not the total innocent victim she portrays, and that there are always two sides to every story and the truth usually lies somewhere between the two.

Quote

And what country would you annhiliate for the sins of the few? 


i don't know... maybe the country that gave the nuke to the terrorists? or the country that harbored the terrorists while the weapon was produced?

See, not so easy is it? Who do you punish, the population of the country who "might" have harbored terrorist or who "might' have supplied a bomb. Do you really want to go to war with Russia if the Russian Mafia sold a black market nuclear weapon to a terrorist?

Terrorism is a complex issue - it requires a complex answer. Bombing the hell out of everyone is simplemindedness to the extreme. IMHO. It is a criminal action. What do you do with crimes? You solve them and punish the guilty - you don't blow up mother's house, killing 10 sleeping children inside because the one son who lives there sells dope out of the kitchen window.

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on Jan 25 2007, 10:17 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 26 2007, 03:06 AM, said:

what possible difference do "the circumstances" make? that implies that there are circumstances under which someone could possibly be justified in setting off a nuke in the usa, which all americans should (i would think) think of as an act of war...

Here's a hypothetical: Lets assume that Bush and company decided that the danger that Iran might get a nuclear weapon was too great. They decide to start bombing Iran. Iran responds by launching missile attacks against US carriers in the gulf. Things escalate, and in a matter of months we end up in a major war. The US air force establishes air superiority over Iran and we start major bombing campaigns against Iranian infrastructure and civilian targets. Unfortunately for US, the Iranian already have one or two nukes that they bought from Pakistan. They manage to slip one into Baltimore and set it off...

Is this "justified"? Hard to say. I would argue that its not justified. There are behavioral norms that should apply even during a war. One of those is that you don't destroy civilian population centers for the sake of destroying civilian population centers. Other people seem to feel differently. For example, you and Mike often seem to advocate concepts of total war and asymmetric responses. Countries can (and should) do whatever they see fit to protect their interests. For example, Israel is justified in launching an attack against Iran based on a hypothetical future threat. However, whats good for the goose is good for the gander. If you accept that the US has the obligation to take any action to advance its national interests it would seem the height of hypocracy to assume that the Iranians should behave differently.

This is one of my major issues with you, Mike, Dwanye, and the rest of your ilk. You act as if the US has the right do whatever it damn well pleases and everyone else just needs to suck it up.

Interesting to see how "relative" your behavioural norms are. Actions are good if they are taken by Americans and Israelis. Actions are bad if they are taken by Arabs or "old" Europe.

Why is it that you say what I say but say it so much better?

From my perspective, there is so much deep truth and knowledge available in what we think of as "trite" sayings that most of us discount - you cannot know a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes....

Have we really considered what this means? It means we cannot understand totally another human being unless we are that other being. If we had been born in Iran, raised by Islamic parents, seen wars and civil unrest, would we think the same way we do now? If our leaders, our presidents and prophets, preachers and teachers, had railed against the evil of Israel would we still hold them dear?

It seems to me the last time we had a sane man in the White House, he was murdered, but before he died he said, "We all share this same small planet, breath the same air...."

This was the man who diffused the cold war not with bombs, but with words and radical ideals that peace had a higher priority than war.

And when he was gone, we did what we always seem to do - went back to war.
There seems to be a lesson there, but I can't quite grasp it.....

[helene_t]

pbleighton, on Jan 25 2007, 08:20 PM, said:

Thought experiment: suppose that the moon were made of delicious, nutritious green cheese. We could build moon cheese shuttles, and the problem of world hunger would be solved.

It's a petty that the Republican dynasty is about to collapse since otherwise the next president of the U.S. would have a great job for you. I see it before me:

"There is no scientific evidence for hunger in the third World, it's just anti-patriotic propaganda. But just in case that food shortage becomes a problem in the future, we've decided to implement the plan of our scientific adviser, Peter: To devote all NASA's resources to the Cheese Harvesting Program.

As a side benefit, NASA will not waste any resources on Earth monitoring and other liberal-biased pseudoscience."

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jan 26 2007, 06:15 AM, said:

Quote

And what country would you annhiliate for the sins of the few?

i don't know... maybe the country that gave the nuke to the terrorists? or the country that harbored the terrorists while the weapon was produced?

Winston re-iterated a very important point: If there is going to be a nuclear attack on the United States, odds are its going to come from a non-state actor. Here is a hypothetical...

1. The terrorist cell responsible for planting the the bomb in a container ship was a group of Islamic radicals based out of Hamburg Germany

2. The funding for the attack came from a distributed network of Wahhabist extremists, many of whom are located in Saudi Arabia. Some, though not all members of this network are closely connected with the Saudi Royal family. This network funds and wide range of projects, ranging from construction initiatives in Yemen to schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan to social programs and reconstruction projects in Lebanon. Financial controls are extremely lax and significant amounts of money disappear into various side projects.

3. The actual bomb seems to have been purchased on the Black market. Its unclear whether the bomb came from an ex-Soviet Republic or Pakistan.

Don't get me wrong: I very much agree that the United States would need to take action if one of our cities was attacked with a WMD. However, its far from clear what type of action should be taken. Assume a scenario like the one described above: I believe that the United States would be justified in taking extreme measures to deal with the individuals responsible for a nuclear terrorist incident, however, I don't thing that we would be justified in launching our own WMDs at Germany, Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan. 99.999999999% of the people that we killed would have nothing to do with the incident in question.

We would be no different from the terrorists.

[pbleighton]

"It's a petty that the Republican dynasty is about to collapse since otherwise the next president of the U.S. would have a great job for you."

I don't understand why I've never got a job offer from any president.

I could solve so many of their problems.

Peter

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jan 25 2007, 11:07 PM, said:

The holocaust was an atrocity that hopefull will never again occur - but the holocaust was an atrocity against Jews, not the State of Israel.

that's true, but it doesn't preclude from being true my remark that "... i personally think israel has reason to believe that certain people wish to harm all jews... " in your opinion are there certain people who wish to harm (i.e. kill, maim, torture) all jews, and are some of these people leaders of countries? that's all i said, or meant

Quote

If Israel wants to rattle its swords to protect itself as a country, that much I can understand - but when they start bringing up the ghost of the holocaust as somehow being the same thing as a threat to the country, I find the argument unconvincing.

i think they do so because of statements made by certain people who hate not only the state of israel but jews as a race... i honestly don't think you believe that there are no people who sincerely wish all jews were dead, and that some of these people are leaders of countries, but i could be wrong

Quote

In 1948, just prior to Israel declaring statehood, the U.N. had adopted a resolution to separate the territory into two distinct lands, Palestine and Israel.  But before this could occur, Israel declared statehood, and the U.S. soon supported that statehood, and the idea of an independent Palestine died - which the world, through the U.N., had decided was best.  To me, Palestine has a reasonable complaint.

i don't believe that's quite accurate... the idea of an independent palestine didn't die, it was killed by the arabs of the day... it was the arabs who refused to accept the u.n. resolution and attacked israel... israel was perfectly willing to do what the u.n. wanted, until the attack... from wikipedia:

"After the United Nations proposed to partition the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine into two states, Jewish and Arab, the Arabs refused to accept it and the armies of Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq, supported by others, invaded the newly established State of Israel which they intended to destroy. As a result, the region was divided between Israel, Egypt and Transjordan."

Quote

But I think it fair to keep in mind that Israel is not the total innocent victim she portrays, and that there are always two sides to every story and the truth usually lies somewhere between the two.

that's true, israel has its share of guilt also... but i asked this question before, and i'm not sure if you answered it... if israel announced and followed thru with destroying every weapon in its possession, would anyone in the arab world attack them? if the arab world did the same with its weapons, would israel attack it? i'm asking for an opinion, i realize we can't *know*

hrothgar said:

This is one of my major issues with you, Mike, Dwanye, and the rest of your ilk. You act as if the US has the right do whatever it damn well pleases and everyone else just needs to suck it up.

i'm not sure either mike or dwayne would be pleased with you putting them in my "ilk"... but i do believe that america's interests should be paramount when formulating policy - don't you? sure compromise is a good thing, sure diplomacy is a good thing, but there are times when neither work

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jan 27 2007, 03:14 AM, said:

I do believe that america's interests should be paramount when formulating policy - don't you? sure compromise is a good thing, sure diplomacy is a good thing, but there are times when neither work

It depends on what you mean by "America's interests". I suspect that you and I would this very differently.

I believe that America is a near hegemon. However, I believe that our long term interests demand that we strengthen international institutions like the United Nations and try to establish a rule of law between nations.

America's predominant position will not last forever. We are best served creating using our position to work towards a just and equitable system that will serve us when in the future when the world returns to its traditional multi-polar state.

I would even go so far as to argue that the duration of our position as a hegemon will (largely) depend on the extent to which we shackle our ambition. If we act as single minded unilateralists and pursue partisan self interest we inspire the world to tear us down.

[Winstonm]

Quote

If Israel wants to rattle its swords to protect itself as a country, that much I can understand - but when they start bringing up the ghost of the holocaust as somehow being the same thing as a threat to the country, I find the argument unconvincing.


i think they do so because of statements made by certain people who hate not only the state of israel but jews as a race... i honestly don't think you believe that there are no people who sincerely wish all jews were dead, and that some of these people are leaders of countries, but i could be wrong

Jimmy, I don't see how this can be as Arabs and Jews lived side by side in Brittish controlled terroroty - it was Zionism, the birth of the state of Israel that caused the furor. Sure, there may be those who hate all Jews, but like terrorists they make up a small percentage I would hope.

Quote

In 1948, just prior to Israel declaring statehood, the U.N. had adopted a resolution to separate the territory into two distinct lands, Palestine and Israel.  But before this could occur, Israel declared statehood, and the U.S. soon supported that statehood, and the idea of an independent Palestine died - which the world, through the U.N., had decided was best.  To me, Palestine has a reasonable complaint.


i don't believe that's quite accurate... the idea of an independent palestine didn't die, it was killed by the arabs of the day... it was the arabs who refused to accept the u.n. resolution and attacked israel... israel was perfectly willing to do what the u.n. wanted, until the attack... from wikipedia:

"After the United Nations proposed to partition the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine into two states, Jewish and Arab, the Arabs refused to accept it and the armies of Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq, supported by others, invaded the newly established State of Israel which they intended to destroy. As a result, the region was divided between Israel, Egypt and Transjordan."

Jimmy, you may be dead right about this as I was working on memory and did not take the time to refresh - and I apologize to anyone offended by my error - it was not my intent to offend but just a poor, old, tired mind at work.

Still, even this shows what I am trying to say - the objection was not about Jews living in the area but about a creation of Israel as a state.

Quote

if israel announced and followed thru with destroying every weapon in its possession, would anyone in the arab world attack them? if the arab world did the same with its weapons, would israel attack it? i'm asking for an opinion, i realize we can't *know*

As you say, all we can do is form opinion; but a better opinion should be based on history than guesswork, no? My understanding is that Jewish immigrants migrated to the Brittish terrirory after the war, living with Palestinians. There was friction.
The U.N. tried to correct the troubles, and the rest is history.

I think there are some people who hate Jews because they are Jews, but not every Arab automatically hates Jews. If there were no armies, would there be mass fistfights? No, I don't think so. There would be some, I'm sure.

Not being from that region, I don't know the underlying hate/no hate line between Arab and Jew, whether it is ingrained by culture or is open to reason - I would like to think with greater overall education and prosperity, reason would reign supreme.

But you run into the challenge of hard-core fundamentalist Islamics, who think the dark ages were the "best of times" and today is the "worst of times", and when poverty and ignorance is rampant, these types of leaders have a built-in following.

[pbleighton]

"it was Zionism, the birth of the state of Israel that caused the furor"

It was prior to that, in the 20's.

http://en.wikipedia....stine_(mandate)

Peter