11 August 2006

Saving Lieberman

We awoke this morning, like the rest of you, to news of a terrorist plot that had been stopped by the British with help from US and Pakistani intelligence services. Considering that we return to the states (from Cambridge via London) in just over two weeks, we are somewhat relieved. The Patriot Act, greater collaboration with foreign intelligence services (in this case, Pakistan)--especially the British, and increased attention to our own, averted what could have been a replay of 9/11.

Responses have been typical--if not predictable--from some Democrats and Angry Left bloggers. Democrats have long been the party of minorities, environmentalists, pro-choice advocates, the working class. Since when did it become the party of conspiracy theorists (Michael Moore, etc.)? They march out the tired trope that the threat of terror will help Republicans in the coming election. Ignoring the obvious whacked out conspiracy theory that this threat was somehow "contrived" by Karl Rove and his merry band of spinmeisters, don't they think that maybe, just maybe, the reason they are afraid this will help Republicans is because their party remains "weak" on fighting terror?

Democrat supporters will respond that the idea that they are "weak" on terror is simply a perception and not reality. If it were simply a perception the Angry Left wouldn't have voted for the fool, Ned Lamont, rather than Joe Lieberman. Senator Lieberman has proven himself to be a vocal supporter of the War on Terror, Israel, and the U.S. position in Iraq. Liberal readers of this blog will repeat (time and again, they will repeat) that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Fine. Saddam had no direct involvement with 9/11. Few people would have ever made that argument to begin with. Bush certainly didn't. This is simply liberals favorite straw man to burn when complaining about the war. The consensus is--even among most liberal dems--that if we don't finish the job in Iraq, it will turn into post-Soviet Afghanistan. And that's the real worry. That, our friends is the true concern. Not that Iraq will turn into Vietnam.

Despite the wish of a press that came of age following Vietnam and Watergate, Iraq is not Vietnam and Bush is not Nixon. In the Cold War we were fighting a nation-state--the Soviet Union. Our war today is not with any specific country, but with a transnational ideology--what President Bush today referred to today as Islamic fascists. Borders, treaties, diplomacy, the Geneva Convention, the UN--none of these things mean anything to these Muslim radicals. They hate the West (America included) and will ally themselves with whoever or whatever will provide them the means to attack their target. This much is evidenced by Afghan history over the last 20+ years. Sunnis will unite with Shiites will unite with secular terrorists will unite even with the US in order to defeat a common enemy.

Whether you agree with the reasons we (collectively speaking) are in Iraq or not (and we know many of you did--at least, you did when an overwhelming percentage of Congress voted for war, and some 80% of Americans were in favor of the same, according to opinion polls), you must realize that to pull out now would be disastrous. It would result in a few things of which we can be absolutely sure. First, civil war will engulf Iraq. Besides the obvious negatives for the people of Iraq, such an event would create in Iraq a sort of safe-haven for terrorists, a la Afghanistan pre- and during the reign of the Taliban. Call that reason self interest and a philanthropic long view for our emerging allies, the Iraqis. Secondly, and equally as important, it would send the message that we will back down each and every time the going gets tough. It will tell the islamofascists that all they have to do is outwait us (think Lebanon with President Reagan and Somalia with President Clinton). Whatever else Iraq did, it gave teeth to our War on Terror and sent a message to terrorists and terror sponsoring states. Pulling out anytime before the job is done would tell Iran, Syria, and North Korea (are we forgetting anyone?), that we don't really mean what we say. For the carrot and (big) stick diplomacy to work, they must believe that you will actually use the stick.

All of this makes Lieberman's loss to Lamont all the more incomprehensible. The Angry Left and Democrats generally, send the message that not only are they not tough on terror, they are ignorant of the possible ramifications of an early pull-out. So Lieberman supports Israel, so what? So do most Americans. Most Americans recognize the difference between Israel attacking Hezbollah and civilians dying because Hezbollah uses them as shields, and the out and out disregard for human life--civilian or otherwise--Hezbollah shows by shooting rockets into Israeli cities.

Senator Lieberman understands what's at stake in Iraq and the War on Terror. Like most Americans, he may not now like that we are even in Iraq, but he understands what will happen if we cut and run. But we don't mistake his loss for a popular grassroots groundswell of support for immediate withdrawal. And neither should you. As we learned way back in our high school politics class, the only people who vote in primary elections are the extreme fringes of both parties. That a liberal state like Connecticut was able to produce enough people from the Angry Left to vote in Ned "the fool" Lamont shouldn't surpise anybody. It is telling, however, that a state as liberal as Connecticut, could barely scrape up enough left-wingnuts, completely ignorant of reality, to elect someone whose only semi-coherent position seems to be immediate troop retreat from Iraq.

This fringe position attracted a scant majority of people in a primary election in one of the most liberal states in the Union. At best, this news is no news. No news because come November, when closer to 50% of the electorate turns out rather than a mere 10%, Senator Lieberman, running as an Independent, will win going away. And if he doesn't, Democrats will deserve to be labeled "weak on terror," because they will have turned out one of their toughest, Senator Joe Lieberman.

26 comments:

the narrator said...

Senator Lieberman has proven himself to be a vocal supporter of the War on Terror, Israel, and the U.S. position in Iraq. Liberal readers of this blog will repeat (time and again, they will repeat) that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Fine. Saddam had no direct involvement with 9/11. Few people would have ever made that argument to begin with. Bush certainly didn't.

Huh? What? Both Cheney and Bush claimed that Saddam and Iraq were involved with 9/11. Bush backed off while Cheney was still making the claim.

Bush, his neo-conservative pals, and their pawn Powell advocated 9/11 and mythical WMDs as justification for attacking Iraq. They were wrong on both accounts. The only justification for keeping troops in Iraq is that we f*cked up their country so bad, that it's our responsibility to help them fix it up.

Your straw-man caricature of the left is blatantly flawed.

It seems that you want to hold onto this myth that terrorists hate Americans 'just because.' There is a real reason why terrorist aggression is being held against America and other Western powers. The CIA calls it blowback. People need to stop asserting that terrorists hate Americans and need to start asking why they hate us.

patient observer said...

Narrator your comments are, once again, like a breath of fresh cow dung. You characterize the attitude of the Angry Left that we should "Blame America," for all our terrorism woes because it MUST be our fault. That is exactly the attitude that will continue to alienate moderate democrats and further polarize partisanship, pushing the party further and further left where 'mainstream' is a place once occupied by radicals, a place where the only thing Democrats can rally around is a cut-and-run strategy.

Then again, maybe the caricature painted here (and at least it wasn't of Mohammed, I'm sure you view the Islamofascists' response to THAT as the West's fault, too) was blatantly flawed--you just never explained how.

Anonymous said...

Hey, let's all pretend that there's some big difference between the right and the left.

Ronny Mexico said...

That's right the narrator, if we'll only do a little introspective self-examination, then we'll be able to understand why it is terrorists hate us and solve the problem (is it the excesses of Hollywood? our support of Israel? gosh, what is it? how can we appease these guys?!). I'm sure they're rational enough that in a moment of clarity, they'll recognize all we're doing to make ourselves more appealing to their radical hate of all things not islamofascist, and give up their evil plans against the US. Because everyone knows that suicidally killing civilians is a wholly rational course of action. Yup, I think you're on to something there the narrator.

the narrator said...

i'm not promising any magical sudden changes, nor do i think that will occur. however, no positive change will occur until america starts questioning and responding to the questions of why american hatred has developed. muslims in the middle east have not always hated america, nor did they wake up one morning and for no reason think to themselves, "geez, i think i'm going to hate america and their freedom today. let's go kill them!" there is a reason why middle eastern muslims hate america, and going in and killing and attacking them is in no ways going to decrease their hatred, collective numbers, and desire to commit terrorist attacks.

if there is anything i've said just now that you think is false, please tell me which it is.

muslim wa borne in a state of violence. mohammed, who was a military leader, saw violence as a way and the only way to defend his people and their way of life. because of much of the economic destitution and tribal communites of the middle east, the middle east has not quite left this violent state of life. their worldview is completely different than ours. (much of the same could be said about the early latter-day saints who lived in a fairly violent frontier america, committing extremely violent acts against their neighbors which would seem disgustingly deplorable to us today - but completely and religiously justified to them).

this is not a battle of good and evil as bush rhetoric puts it. it's a battle of evil vs. evil, almost every war is a battle of evil vs. evil. the winners just get the opportunity to declare themselves good and justified. the war on terror is no different. do i find the terrorist acts deplorable? yes. very much so. but i also realize that they come from a very different worldview than i come from. as robert mcnamara (former secretary of defense during vietnam, and military strategist durring wwii) regretably put it, we need to start empathizing with the enemy. we need to start trying to understand how and why they feel the way they do. until then, we will always be in a war of evil.

Humble Servant said...

Narrator, your sympathy for The Terrorists is disgusting. The United States is a chosen country that was ordained by God to be a land of freedom. It is not capable of doing evil, otherwise God would pass His blessing on to another country. I encourage you to read the Book of Mormon, where Joseph Smith successfully predicted that Christopher Columbus would come to America after being prompted by the Holy Spirit. Please then read Moroni 10:3-5 and ask God if those things are true. I promise you that if you want to believe it bad enough, you will be able to convince yourself of its truthfulness and a confirmation of the Spirit (trhough your feelings) will soon come.

Ronny Mexico said...

I'm not sure what your religion's history has to do with the current situation the narrator. Did they strap dynamite to their teenagers and have them blow themselves up in areas crowded with civilians?

I'm sure Jake appreciates your comments as before. You exactly fit his profile of the Angry Left and prove his point for him.

Don't you think you're use using generalizations in saying that Mohammed was the author of this violence? I think even the neocons you criticize would be able to distinguish between mainstream islam and the radicals who blow themselves--and civilians--into the next life. I guess that's just you empathizing with the terrorists, right the narrator?

morgan said...

Narrator-

Why do you think the terrorists hate the West? What should we do differently to bridge the gap? What is the common ground we should find? Should Israel go away? Should we take MTV off the air? How about Christianity? Should that be renounced?

I do not consider myself to be an expert on the Middle East. I am really asking you what you think we could do to solve the problem. It seems like you are advocating empathy and compromise. I like that. I just don't know what we should be compromising on. What middle ground should we be looking for? Do you think the terrorists are willing to compromise? Should we be looking at this as salary arbitration rather then war? I am really interested in hearing what you or the people that represent you think the solution is. Thanks.

the narrator said...

I realize that I am guilty of some threat-jacking here. Sorry.

Humble Servant:

I can't help but feel that your comment was sarcastic. Otherwise, I'm not entirely sure of how to respond. America has been guilty of committing evil on several accounts - enough that if it was necessary for me to list one, you are stubborn to a point where you would not accept it anyways. The BofM does not preclude a nation from committing evils, the Nephites did it plenty of time, long before being destroyed.

Ronnie Mexico:

'm not sure what your religion's history has to do with the current situation the narrator. Did they strap dynamite to their teenagers and have them blow themselves up in areas crowded with civilians?

No. They just killed innocent civilians and burned their homes in retribution of evils that they feel were waged against them. Furthermore, they believed their actions were completely justified by their faith.

Don't you think you're use using generalizations in saying that Mohammed was the author of this violence?

I am not saying that Mohammed was the author of terrorism. I am just saying that the violent aspects of the lesser Jihad were developed during the violent time of Islam's development.

I think even the neocons you criticize would be able to distinguish between mainstream islam and the radicals who blow themselves--and civilians--into the next life.

Huh? I don't believe I was making any general claims that made terrorists indistinguishable from the rest of Islam. In fact, I deplore such an idea. I've met far too many pacifist Imams and Islamic thinkers to think such was the case.

Morgan:

Why do you think the terrorists hate the West? What should we do differently to bridge the gap? What is the common ground we should find? Should Israel go away?

I don't know, but I think these are important questions we need to start asking.

Should we take MTV off the air? How about Christianity? Should that be renounced?

I think if we start asking the former questions, these latter ones will be irrelevent.

I am really asking you what you think we could do to solve the problem. It seems like you are advocating empathy and compromise. I like that. I just don't know what we should be compromising on. What middle ground should we be looking for? Do you think the terrorists are willing to compromise? Should we be looking at this as salary arbitration rather then war? I am really interested in hearing what you or the people that represent you think the solution is. Thanks.

I honestly don't know. My frustration is that instead of openly asking these questions, Bush and his cohorts go off on their rhetoric about terrorists "hating freedom" and "hating america" and "hating this-and-that." My first thoughts are that the US needs to rethink their relationship with Israel. Bush and everyone were bitching up and down about Iraq's violations of UN regulations, but constantly supported and defended Israel for committing even more violations. A sign in the West Bank once read "GREEN GRASS IS A TERRORIST ACT." Israel used and abused their control of land and water to afflict pain and suffering on the men, women, and children of an over-populated Palestinian region of the Gaza Strip. While terrorism seems and is a terrible act in our eyes, what else are many of these Palestinians supposed to do? They have no army that can wage a war against Israel. Their children are suffering from dehydration while Israel uses their water rights to water unused golf courses, parks, and fields. Should they just sit and watch their children cry? What if some super-power forcibly removed us white Americans from our homes and gave the homes and land back to Native Americans or some other group? Would you fight back? After several years of watching your family without a place to call home, would you want to give them one? Our terrorists are another groups freedom fighters. The question we need to start asking is why do they feel this way. I don't know all the answers. As I have said before, spend some time with Bonner Ritchie. Ask him what he witnessed through his years working in the Middle East.

I made some claims earlier and asked if anyone disagreed. Here they are again...

(1)no positive change will occur until america starts questioning and responding to the questions of why american hatred has developed.
(2)muslims in the middle east have not always hated america,
(3)nor did they wake up one morning and for no reason think to themselves, "geez, i think i'm going to hate america and their freedom today. let's go kill them!"
(4)there is a reason why middle eastern muslims hate america,
(5)and going in and killing and attacking them is in no ways going to decrease their hatred, collective numbers, and desire to commit terrorist attacks.

Do you disagree with any of these statements? If so, which and why? If not, I think that my assertion that more open discussion about the 'whys' need to be made.

Voice of Raisin said...

Jake, was there a reason you twice called Lamont a "fool?" I haven't been too engulfed in the news lately other than headline scanning of the liberal media and maybe I missed something that would answer my question, but wasn't it you that once defined and condemned ad hominem attacks in your posts? I can't help but believe the real Jake hiding behind that blind conservative idealism would say to himself, "I kind of feel silly calling a successful businessman like Lamont a fool when the President I have supported so adamantly failed in his military service, nearly in college, arguably in his business ventures, and most certainly in his presidency. Gulp."

Another question Jake: Could you ever possibly admit that the war was a mistake? I know it hurts to be wrong, but how can you deny reality? If I could have shown you how the war was going now back when we used to debate the invasion (actually, I think I did warn you of this, and you thought I was buying into liberal brainwashing) would you really have been so supportive? Honestly? And come on Jake, attacking the "Angry Left" when so much of this disaster can be placed at the feet of the Republicans makes you sound like a broken record that will sing the same song no matter what happens in a changing reality. I have enjoyed a lot of your posts and I think you write very well, but that last one seemed uncharacteristically weak. Have you been hitting the pubs over there? That's usually my excuse for the late night ramblings.

One last thing: Given what we have observed in Iraq over the past couple of years, what makes you think our staying there will make anything better?

Narrator:

Yeah, that was me being sarcastic as the Humble Observer. Great comments.

Fernando said...

Just catching up on all the comments. My thoughts:

1) I wouldn't classify all Mid East Muslims as hating Americans (or Westerners for that matter); it's a small percentage

2) I don't understand what all the hype is about given the fact that this new terror threat doesn't present us with anything new. Liquid explosives have been around for a long time; terrorists have been around for a long time

3) Banning liquids on flights is silly; has anybody considered the economic impact of all the items that we are throwing away? I'm sure millions of dollars of goods are being wasted each day this new restriction is in place.

4) Public transportation is and forever will be vulnerable to terrorism; look at America's buses and trains as an example; there is no security... you could have luggage w/ explosives and nobody would say a thing

5) I'm not a big fan of Israel's continual attacks; I think they're more aggresive than they should be; while it may be true that Hezbollah uses people as shields... why is Israel targetting peace (civilian) convoys? Their answer is that Hezbollah is transporting weapons through them...

6) I found John Mueller's comments on terrorism to be enlightening. From a purely statistical and economical standpoint, we're wasting far too much money on Homeland Security.

Ronnie Mexico said...

Ah Raisin, good to see you're back fighting Jake tooth and nail on obscure points from his post.

Following your example...

How did Bush "fail" in his military service? Was it because he didn't average a medal a week like Kerry?

As I recall, his performance at Yale was also better than Kerry's and a far cry from failing as you assert. To check my memory I did a little google search and turned up this article in the Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student?mode=PF
Of course, John Kerry is hardly the Mendoza line for success. He couldn't even win the election!

Have you seen the balance sheets from his business ventures?
Just curious.

I think I'll let history decide whether or not his presidency has been a failure.

Hey Fernando, check the news. Reports that Israel targeted a peace convoy (in this case, a funeral procession) were misreported by Reuters. Turns out there happened to be a funeral procession in the same town a few bombs fell on Hezbollah, though no bombs fell near it. You cool with Israel now?

Ronnie Mexico said...

Sorry the narrator if it seemed like a I left you out. I just forgot. Sorry.

I'm also sorry for making it sound like I actually expected you to respond to my sarcastic question about your religion telling people to strap dynamite to themselves in order to blow up civilians. I didn't really mean for you to answer that, but I can understand how you got confused.

Seriously though, why all the references to your religion? I know Jake is/was (?) a student at BYU but he didn't seem to mention the religion in his post. I guess I don't really care why you do it and more just hope you'll quit doing it. It makes no sense to those of us who don't know or care to know the history. Please, for the love of whatever God you worship, come up with a better comparison. Please?

Bonner Ritchie, Bonner Ritchie, enough with the Bonner Ritchie stuff. I looked this guy up and he doesn't even have a wikipedia page (though maybe you could write one for him?). I don't even know if he really did what you say he did, you know, get to be good buddies with Yasser Arafat. But if he did it would make him a completely unbiased source on Israel, right?

Gosh Raisin, I'm starting to understand why you like goading Jake so much.

the narrator said...

Seriously though, why all the references to your religion? I know Jake is/was (?) a student at BYU but he didn't seem to mention the religion in his post. I guess I don't really care why you do it and more just hope you'll quit doing it.

I do it because Jakes posts and ideas have very glaringly conservative Mormon undertones which are quite obvious to those in the know. I'm sure Raisin would agree. Second, because Jake advertizes his posts on a very Mormon-centered blog (provopulse.com). Third, because the point of the analogies is that religiously motivated/justified violence is just as much a part of his own religion's history.

Bonner Ritchie, Bonner Ritchie, enough with the Bonner Ritchie stuff. I looked this guy up and he doesn't even have a wikipedia page (though maybe you could write one for him?). I don't even know if he really did what you say he did, you know, get to be good buddies with Yasser Arafat. But if he did it would make him a completely unbiased source on Israel, right?

The reason I bring up Bonner Ritchie is because he's the only person I've met and had lunch with who has spent the last two decades studying middle-eastern relations. His friendship with Arafat largely developed after he had seen the struggles the Palestinians faced. You can toss out your ad-hominems if you want. I'm just saying that there is much more to the story that the pro-Israel propaganda spewed out by our media.

Raisin said...

Ron, I was just trading one ad hominem for another. Kind of hard to define a fool, isn't it? Maybe you just know one when you see one, or when you hear one give a Presidential press conference!

Glad to see you have learned the joys of friendly political goading.

Narrator, don't feel like you should back away from inserting religious jabs into your comments. Holding up the mirror to others is good for them.

Ron Mexico said...

I'm sorry this religion thing has taken me so long to understand, the narrator. This is the question I should have asked, "does Jake's religion advocate strapping bombs to people to blow other people up?" My bad.
But isn't it a little presumptuous of you to say what his religion tells people to do though? How do you know?

Oh, now I get it, this Bonner Ritchie guy saw all the Israeli human rights violations (they water their damn golf courses!(sorry jake, i'm mock imitating the narrator)) and then said, 'I've got to get to know this Arafat guy and see what he thinks about the Israelis watering their golf courses.'
The fact that the two of them became buddies did nothing to color his opinion of Israel, I'm sure.
One other question: if I buy you lunch, does that mean you'll believe everything I have to say? And another thing, you don't have to tell me you got lunch together to convince me that you're friends. I believe you the narrator! That's why I'm letting you do his wikipedia page. Don't be so paranoid the narrator, no one's trying to take that away from you.

Raisin, are you really that lonely for a liberal friend that you feel the need to encourage the narrator? Just because you both have the same favorite word - ad hominem - doesn't mean you have to be friends. I guess I just think you could do better, that's all...

patient observer said...

...and the narrator loses all credibility in one fell swoop.

Raisin said...

Ron, I appreciate you telling me that you think I could do better. I need the encouragement at times. It can be hard being an Angry Liberal, and my contempt for anything wholesome has really alienated me from most other humans, and the loneliness soon followed. I don't even have a girlfriend I could pressure into having an abortion right now! Sigh. But maybe if the gays get their way and are allowed to marry, the decay of the family will soon follow and all other sorts of previously condemned lifestyles will then become acceptable... Like my fetish for dressing my dog up like Carl Marx and having him bark orders at me while I stand at naked attention. (There goes a little credibility.)

Ron, you are a fairly new addition to the landscape of Jake's comments section, unless you are just going by another name, and maybe you don't realize that for a long time the only dissenting voice was mine. I think very highly of Jake, but we just happen to not agree politically, and for a long time my comments generated very strong comments from his readership. So it is nice to have someone else take the heat for a change, and it doesn't hurt that I agree with a lot of what he says and in my biased opinion no one here can hang with him when it comes to debating. Not that that is the only thing that matters, and so before I would ever want to break my withering loneliness by making a new friendship, I guess I should ask him something: Narrator, do you ever dress animals (household or barnyard) up like liberal prophets and expose yourself to them? I'm not going to tell you the right answer to the question, but depending on your response, do you want to hang out sometime?

the narrator said...

...and the narrator loses all credibility in one fell swoop.

I'm glad I had some in the first place.

Narrator, do you ever dress animals (household or barnyard) up like liberal prophets and expose yourself to them? I'm not going to tell you the right answer to the question, but depending on your response, do you want to hang out sometime?

No, but I have thought of doing that with Ronnie Mexico.

Raisin said...

Raisin anxiously awaits the response to his attempt at friendship. Upon reading that he was not only rejected, but rejected for none other than Ron Mexico, he slumps back into the cold embrace of his computer chair in his empty room in his empty house in his empty world, and grows slightly number. Fido barks ferociously for Raisin to pull himself together and report for duty, but it’s no use. Nothing helps. After several hours of soaking in the green glow if his computer screen, his numbness gradually turns to sadness which then bursts into rage. He quickly logs on to the World of Warcraft and spends the afternoon mercilessly killing Trolls with his 54th degree Warlock. Oh the carnage!

Raisin said...

Raisin anxiously awaits the response to his attempt at friendship. Upon reading that he was not only rejected, but rejected for none other than Ron Mexico, he slumps back into the cold embrace of his computer chair in his empty room in his empty house in his empty world, and grows slightly number. Fido barks ferociously for Raisin to pull himself together and report for duty, but it’s no use. Nothing helps. After several hours of soaking in the green glow if his computer screen, his numbness gradually turns to sadness which then bursts into rage. He quickly logs on to the World of Warcraft and spends the afternoon mercilessly killing Trolls with his 54th degree Warlock. Oh the carnage!

Raisin said...

Sorry I accidentally posted that twice. My hands were just trembling from excitement after my Warlock just found a new pair of battle boots that can take 40 hit points of damage and provide +3 points of arch support.

Fernando said...

R. Mexico, thanks for the heads up. I've actually being moving across the country over this past weekend, so my access to the news was limited.

As for Israel, I'm don't have any major issues with them; I just feel that they didn't fully think out their plan. Kinda like how the U.S. thought it'd be a quick and easy war w/ Iraq. I don't think Israel intended this conflict to last very long. I do believe that it's best that Hezbollah be removed from Lebanon and that Lebanon get its act together and get control over its entire nation rather than allowing a terrorist organization to rule the southern portion of its country.

Raisan, I'm surprised that you're a computer geek. I wouldn't have expected it.

Raisin said...

Fernando, I actually have never played World of Warcraft, and you didn't take the bit about my dog seriously, did you? In truth, I don't have a dog... just twisted fantasies. That was a joke too.

Fernando said...

Sorry, Raisan, but I completely ignored your comment about the dog. (lol)

As for WoW, never touched the game cuz there are better things to do in life.

You think the cease fire will last?

Uva Seca said...

Based off of historical precedence, I would say the chances of the ceasefire lasting are about 100%. It would surprise me if there was ever another conflict between Israel and her neighbors, and I think this is the beginning of lasting peace and mutual respect and tolerance in the region. Freedom appears to be on the march, and those pesky evildoers are on the run. If only we can help bring democracy and stability to Iran like we did to Iraq, then I think we could put a date on the calendar for a Christian, Muslim and Jewish singalong in Jerusalem. Just don't invite those naysaying liberals.

StatCounter