Though it seems obvious at this point which choice you’re going to make.

KMC1 – Let’s get this perfectly clear; Are you saying that Saddam didn’t have WMDs, or are you going to shut up before you embarrass yourself further?

In other words, is this statement on your part carelessness, ignorance, or maliciousness?

Merovign on December 3, 2007 at 4:31 PM

Wow. Stopped taking your medications today huh?
Please tell me that you don’t really believe a couple hundred mustard gas shells were the *real* reason we went to war with Iraq?

In other words, is this statement on your part carelessness, ignorance, or maliciousness?

Buckle up, trouble is on the way sooner or later.

davod on December 3, 2007 at 3:00 PM

I don’t know how that pertains to Israel bombing Syria and claiming it was a Nuclear facility?

I do not know about the Israelis.
But the French, Brits, Russkies, and G.d knows how many other countries did.

Missile used against Israeli ship was developed in China

Here is more info for you.
http://www.gtr5.com/

As I was writing my earlier post (9:44 PM), I was thinking, “Now what if China (who has better missiles and more powerful nukes) were to sell their wares to radical Muslims?” I stopped short of saying that, not wanting to go too far, but then I just read this:

See this remarkable investigative piece put together by little ole moi for more information on China selling technology to our enemies.

Missile used against Israeli ship was developed in China

Or this Strangelovian Joyride to Hell

Thanks, for posting the link; that was an interesting read.
“Even if Iran did not exist, it would be an uphill battle to convince the Arab world to actually give up, rather than merely go through the motions of giving up, what has become a key organizing principle of both its politics and society. Peace with Israel in the Arab mind, even in the context of creating a Palestinian state, means acquiescing in a monumental act of injustice.”

Iranian, Syrian ranking members hurt and killed in some odd missile explosion? Thoughts at the time were chem/bio but maybe it was instead radiological?

C-Low on December 2, 2007 at 11:04 PM

Of course it was, the Iranians were attempting to modify a couple of their Shahab-3 missiles from carrying chemical warheads to allow it to carry what they anticipated would be their new nuclear warhead.

Unfortunately for the Iranians the Israeli’s blew up their missiles, stole their plutonium and then blew up their Syrian Nuclear weapons assembly facility.

Here’s what my jpost friend had to offer. (A column he’d already written, but very much on point.) His thesis is that the “peace process” is much less determinative of events in the Middle East, than it is reflective of them.

Money quote:

We should remember that the last major wave of peacemaking, starting with the 1991 Madrid Conference and culminating in the 1993 Oslo Principles, came precisely at a time of US ascendance. The Soviet Union had recently collapsed, and a US-led coalition had summarily reversed Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. . .

Whether 2008 is the year that Arabs and Israelis agree to make peace depends most of all on whether it is the year that Iran’s terrorist regime falls, is forced to capitulate, or is otherwise convincingly prevented from obtaining the Bomb.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195546761780&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer

I suspect that the Israelis just scared the bejeebers out of the bad neighbours. I mean, think about it, they flew thousands of miles UNDETECTED, blew something up, and flew back with no reprisals.

Not only bombed them, I read somewhere that commandos went in first and may have secured some of the material.

Compare the world reaction and news coverage for this to the reactions when Israelis bulldoze the house of a terrorist. Where is ambulance-man and the fake victims?

where is Michael Moore? These were harmless plutonium smelters.

I have been praying the Israelis would move. I hope it was effective.

I owe them one

I wonder what Hamas is up to. It’s like a code-language they’re talking in, isn’t it?

Yeah. I don’t know what their game is. I mean I can think of a few benefits, but not strong enough to project as causes/motivators.

My original question remains, since it ain’t about a deal, what was Annapolis about? I can’t believe Pres. Bush is ignorant of all this. So what’s his game? I also disagree about the legacy angle that the MSM is pushing.

I agree re: Bush; I highly doubt this is legacy related. However, if Bolton is to be believed, which I have no reason to question, outside of Iraq foreign policy is delegated to Condi.

Bolton commented she has more power than any of her predecessors back to Kissinger’s dual office — which is not meant as an insult to Bush, merely a comment on his faith in her. So what did she hope Annapolis would accomplish that fits into his administrations vision? Got me.

Reconciliation between the two factions would undermine all of Israel and America’s efforts to isolate Hamas and rout out extremism in region. Hamas refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist and advocates violent resistance against the Jewish state.

Israel has warned PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas not to reunite with Hamas.

“Hamas is a terror organization, and any connection of any type whatsoever to Hamas will not bring peace – not to Israel and not to the Palestinians,” a Foreign Ministry official said.

Either way–no deal. If Abbas goes it alone w/o Hamas, then they reject the deal internally. If Abbas tries to go with Hamas, then Israel rejects any deal. I don’t think Pres. Bush would force them on this point either, because he was one of the first President to use the T-word with respect to the Pals, and pushed for the isolation of Hamas y Europe. My original question remains, since it ain’t about a deal, what was Annapolis about? I can’t believe Pres. Bush is ignorant of all this. So what’s his game? I also disagree about the legacy angle that the MSM is pushing. Legacies are for egotists. Whatever other faults Pres. Bush may have, that isn’t one of them. In the meantime I wrote to a friend I have at Jpost; it’ll be interesting to get his take.

On Wednesday, Hamas said that it will hold reconciliation talks with Fatah and hinted it may be ready to give up control of the Gaza Strip.

The article link where the above is quoted from.
And the EU says they will accept it and deal through Fatah administrators.
Then that 11.04 article from the other post, Abbas releases Hamas prisoners.
–

I’m not sure I buy it

That’s good, I’m not selling:) Just somethings I had read/heard. Hard to tell what’s what, all media seems to have a viewpoint to push.

Same as your example: Good cop/Bad cop. The ‘peaceful’ branch does it’s part to get Israel to make concessions and the non-peaceful part continues the irritant to continue to force Israel to the table with the ‘peaceful’ part.

Interesting. I’m not sure I buy it, but I’ll keep an open mind. Hamas is hard-line Islamist, they’ve been banning music festivals where women sing, etc. If Abbas does sign something, he’d better sleep with one eye open. Even if the Pals win what is now a tepid war, they will surely lose the peace. With all those militias over there, it will be warlord against warlord, although Hamas kicks ass in the end. Then, armed with whatever terriorial or security concessions it has won from Israel in your scenario, they attack again. Same crap, over and over. There never was a worse year for bombings than the year following Oslo. The memory of that bombing during the holiday of Purim still makes me nauseous. Maybe Likud will manage to get Netanyahu in there before they can conclude this disaster in the making.

But I do some digging and see if I can find it again.

Spirit of 1776 on December 2, 2007 at 11:10 PM

I’d appreciate it.

ITookTheRedPill on December 2, 2007 at 10:35 PM

WOW! That seems really strange, given how one would assume that China would want to do as little as possible to make waves. I would think that they would continue to allow others to play the part of the “bad guy,” while they play the part of necessary evil. Selling advanced weaponry to a country is one thing, and even letting small arms funnel through the black market to non-state entities hardly causes a ripple, but allowing missiles to get into the hands of AQ is another thing all together. At least it is from my perspective.

Senior officials in the Prime Minister’s Office said the North Korea-Syrian connection was not raised when Song met with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. The two men did, however, discuss the Iranian nuclear issue, with Olmert stressing the importance of economic sanctions against Iran, including those that bypass the UN Security Council.

Livni was more blunt, saying “the international community is concentrating efforts to sever commercial and financial relations with Iran, to increase pressure on that country, and we must not allow Iran to evade these significant actions by presenting Asian alternatives. When Europe takes action against Iran – Iran turns to Asia.”

—————–

Why should they play footsie with Fatah? I’d love to read something on that if you have it handy.
smellthecoffee on December 2, 2007 at 10:49 PM

Same as your example: Good cop/Bad cop. The ‘peaceful’ branch does it’s part to get Israel to make concessions and the non-peaceful part continues the irritant to continue to force Israel to the table with the ‘peaceful’ part. Violence is what kept the last deal from being done, and so just to get back to the table Israel has to give up more than before each time.

I don’t have a link on hand, sadly. But I do some digging and see if I can find it again.

Makes you kind of reassess another old story that never seemed to make sense at the time.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L19908453.htm

Iranian, Syrian ranking members hurt and killed in some odd missile explosion? Thoughts at the time were chem/bio but maybe it was instead radiological?