Well, she is the best looking Muslim-loving Marxist I have ever seen!

Jubal,

If Ms. Baltzer is a "left-wing anti-Israel stooge [who] pretends Palestinian terrorism doesn't exist," does that mean you're a "right-wing pro-Israel stooge who pretends Israeli human rights abuses don't exist"?

I don't agree with the totality of Ms. Baltzer's position, but she makes some important points about Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians under the justification of national security.

If Ms. Baltzer is a "left-wing anti-Israel stooge [who] pretends Palestinian terrorism doesn't exist," does that mean you're a "right-wing pro-Israel stooge who pretends Israeli human rights abuses don't exist"?

No, Mr. Whipple. Although you know nothing about my views on Israel and the Palestinians, that certainly didn't stop you from imagining what they are in order to construct a nice little straw man.

Not that I'm surprised.

Yeah, who does those Israelis think they are? Citing "national security" just because the Hamas/Palestinian Authority are firing rockets at Israeli civilians?

Then, Jubal, please enlighten me. Your initial post gives no hint of what you believe the truth is, only an attack on Ms. Baltzer.

DSTC: Rockets fired at civilians are inexcusable, but that's what terrorists do -- they terrorize people in an attempt to get a government to change its policy. The Palestinians can't fight Israel militarily, so that is their only option. Israel, for its part, is starving the residents of Gaza by closing the borders and destroying the livelihoods of West Bank residents by erecting a wall.

The truth, as they say, is somewhere in the middle. The Palestinians have blood on their hands, but so does Israel. But we expect bad behavior from the Palestinians; as a purported Western democracy, Israel should be held to a higher standard.

Oh goody. The old moral equivalence approach. I always liked hearing that during the Cold War. No wonder you're a Ron Paul supporter. I suppose the Israelis are asking for it, like Ron Paul thinks we were asking for 9/11.

Israel, for its part, is starving the residents of Gaza by closing the borders

Yet, the Hamas government somehow manages to keep the power going for its rocket manufacturing.

Huh - maybe Hamas should stop attacking Israel and focus on being a government that cares about its people, rather than a terrorist group. Something tells me the Israel would back off.

Or maybe Israel could trade land in return for promises of peace. Oh wait -- they tried that. The Palestinians got land, but they didn't give Israel any peace.

But I suppose that's Israel's fault somehow.

DSCS: You are putting words in my mouth. Of course Hamas and the Palestinian Authority are to blame for attacks on civilians and for being completely inflexible in dealing with Israel. But Israel has also gone overboard in its responses -- particularly with helicopter rocket attacks that kill innocent civilians along with the intended target.

I'm honestly sick of the two-dimensional thinking that comes from a certain quarter of the Republican party -- the kind that paints America, Israel, and their allies as lilly-white protectors of international justice. The truth is a lot more complex and gray than that, and a little reading would perhaps help you see it. (Chalmers Johnson's Blowback is a good place to start.)

But Israel has also gone overboard in its responses -- particularly with helicopter rocket attacks that kill innocent civilians along with the intended target.

The huge moral difference being Hamas TARGETS civilians.

The situation isn't so gray or complex that we can't tell the good guys from the bad guys.

Whipple made an excellent point. Since when does being "anti-Israel" presume left-wingness - as was certainly implied in the original post? Maybe in the new Neocon dispensation.

The Israel "amen corner" in Congress derided by Pat Buchanan had a full complement of Democrats from lots of liberal places.

Mr. Whipple-

Your source is Chalmers Johnson? The same Chalmers Johnson who wrote "The Sorrows of the Empire"?

Sure enough, some real good credible information you're basing your opinion on.

*sarcasm*

D'Anconia:

Please find a dictionary and look up "ad hominem." Then come back when you have something substantive to say about Johnson's research.

The neocon myth of "they hate us because we're free" has been dying for years. Time to comes to grips with reality -- people around the world hate us because we bomb them, overthrow their governments, patrol their coastlines, support insurgents, and otherwise try to make them do what we want. Purity of intent isn't good enough; people want to live their lives without our interference. Until we stop making ourselves a target, we will be a target.

The United States is the greatest nation on earth. We have a noble vision. But for the last 60 years we've been trying to force-feed it to the world, and they don't want it.

D'Anconia,

I have to confess my ignorance here: I don't know anything about Chalmers Johnson. But I have read Washington's Farewell Address in which he admonishes American posterity to avoid foreign adventure and intrigue.

Washington made an excellent Father of the Nation, but would have made a very poor Neoconservative.

The latter, seemingly, have something of an imperial vision for America - although they use lots of verbal camouflage as practical exigencies arise.

What they needed to try to make their vision a reality was a useful idiot to run for president on a non-interventionist platform plank. And they found him.

That last comment was mine.

"The United States is the greatest nation on earth."

When we're not bombing everyone and trying to overthrow their governments?

Which is it, Mr. Whipple?

You're mantra sounds very similar to the line Pravda put out during the Cold War. Thank God the grown-ups in charge ignored that kind of self-loathing then.

RP:

If America had heeded Washington's Farewell Address, there'd have been no NATO and no Marshall Plan. France, Italy and Greece would have become Communist dictatorships, and the rest of Europe either Finlandized or Red. The Pacific would have become a communist lake.

And we'd be alone, without allies, either Finlandized ourselves or maintaining a Fortress America.

I have found a kindred soul in Mr. Whipple!

Charmin: I would say that "moral intent" is hardly relevant here, though your argument that Israeli forces don't target civilians flies in the face of overwhelming evidence, so...it's kind of a moot point.

You can find all sorts of well-documented instances of "willful killings" and atrocities carried out by Israeli forces, in hundreds of reports by reputable human rights organizations all over the world -- American, British, Israeli. There's not exactly a dearth of them.

I'm not saying that atrocities committed by either side are even remotely justifiable (I'm sure at least someone will suggest that), but anyone serious about ending the conflict can't feign moral righteousness about Palestinian terrorism, and then stay quiet about the occupation.

Jubal, when was the last time you devoted any blog space to that brutality?

Will anyone comment on the inherent anti-Semitism in the insinuation that a legitimate Jew -- that is, one who isn't using it as a "shield" -- wouldn't stray from Zionism, or refrain from publicly criticizing Israel?

I know a few Jews that may have a problem with that.

Mr. Whipple-

Chalmers Johnson made a lot of sense earlier in his career but for the last 15 years I've heard nothing but the same old "they wouldn't have attacked us if we didn't support Israel so much!", self-loathing, rhetoric coming from the old man. I've been to two of his lectures and both times he was embarrassed by the College Republicans.

Your "ad hominen" attacks on neo-conservatives aside, if you intend to place blame for 9-11, WTC, and Cole attacks, on our foreign policy, please go ahead and take a front row seat at Rev. Wright's church.

Either that or go join a drum circle with the rest of your hippie friends and sing for peace.

"Bring all the troops home and all will be well around the world! Finally! World Peace!"

Good lord, if hating hippies makes me a neo-con, sign me up.

By the way, Chalmer's expertise is on Asia, not the Middle East, which was the original point of this post.

Jubal, when was the last time you devoted any blog space to that brutality?

In case it had escaped your eagle eyes Chris, this is "OC" Blog. I only posted this because this person is speaking in OC.

And is this overwhelming evidence of which you speak similar to the overwhelming polling evidence you were citing regarding how the Iraqis hate us?

Unfortunately the jingoism expressed by DSTC and D'Anconia has gripped the Repubican Party and is unlikely to let go. These gentlemen are still living in the late 1950s when we were facing the "red menace"; now, with the Soviet Union gone, they desperately need to find other enemies to fight.

This concept is staggeringly simple: If America does things that piss other people off, they're going to have a reason to hate and attack us. That doesn't mean retreating from the world -- it just means stopping the "schoolyard bully" attitude that drives our need to make sure every other country toes the American foreign policy line. Israel's problems are Israel's problems, not ours; we need to avoid "entangling alliances" that will drag us into regional conflicts that have no American interest (like Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq, and every other military adventure of at least the last 20 years). Stop trying to pick fights with every third-world country.

The United States is the greatest nation on earth because of the principles enshrined in our Constitution. Throughout our history we have strayed from those principles (slavery and civil rights being two notable examples), but, fortunately, we've always managed to right ourselves. I fear that the neocon vision of Total War with Everyone will be the mistake from which we will never recover.

You may now continue with your childish ad hominem attacks against me. (The Michelle Obama comment was particularly facile.)

These gentlemen are still living in the late 1950s when we were facing the "red menace";

I like the use of the scare quotes, as if there were no "red menace' in the 1950s -- and you might recall that particular "red menace" persisted until 1991, Mr. Whipple.

I'd submit you are still living in the 1970s amongst that segment of American opinion that believed we had no vital interests anywhere, and if we just stopped making the Soviets mad and got over our "inordinate fear of Communism" then everything would be just fine. You're finding other enemies and dangers to ignore.

And where is this Total War with Everyone you keep talking about? When did Iraq and Al-Quaeda become "Everyone"?

This concept is staggeringly simple: If America does things that piss other people off, they're going to have a reason to hate and attack us.

I think that's the approach battered wives try with their abusive husbands. Doesn't seem to work.

Mr. Whipple-

If you classify me calling you a freaking hippie as an ad hominem attack, then I am guilty as charged.

First you said 60 years, then you realized that was a stupid thing to say, now you are down to the last 20 years. That's part of the problem with folks like you. You change the narrative to fit your agenda.

Feel free to express your opinion about what you believe to be the "end of times" because of the "radical neo-conservative agenda", but don't blame us for not adhering to your belief that the last 20 years of American history presents enough evidence of an evil Empire being built. That's just stupid, and that's why Chalmers looks silly every time he's confronted by people who know their history.

"I think that's the approach battered wives try with their abusive husbands. Doesn't seem to work."

Brilliantly put.

Some folks have a hard time understanding this concept.

The British Empire many, many years ago ruled many countries. They continued to withdraw into English territory. Now they have Terrorists blowing up things in their own country and marching in their streets carrying signs that say such things as "Death to those who disrespect Allah". It's also hard to find a church with a good attendance in England these days.

Let us hope America's churches (well except for those like Rev. Wright's church) continue to fill each Sunday, and that we keep our shores free of terrorists. Those here are still allowed to march in our faces with the same such signs but at least we have a free country where we can be reasonably sure there will not be war in the streets today. Tomorrow may be another story.

I have many good Muslim friends and I feel for their historical misfortune.

I definitely can not condone Israelies attacking against innocent Palestinian public/children and I truly pray for their safety.

However, the very chiiling fact is that there are plenty of extremists whom are willing to sacrifice their own children to KILL one more Jewish person!!!!!! .......their hatred toward Jews are running so deep that nothing can make them to embrace the idea of "peaceful co-existence " period.

Yes, I have spoken to these extremists as their good friend but I have not been successful, yet... but then again, I still believe in miracle...... when they can open hearts for Jesus first.

Wow, it's a sad day when a handful of thugs who got lucky in attacking America on 9/11 can seriously be compared to an abusive husband and a battered wife.

This sort of self-righteous view of American foreign policy (yes, over the last 60 years, but especially the last 20) will be the end of us all.

Oh, wait! I almost forgot the money quote from the Dear Leader himself:

"If we're an arrogant nation, [foreign nations will] resent us; if we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we’ve got to be humble, and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom."
— George W. Bush, Presidential debate with Al Gore, 12 October 2000

"This sort of self-righteous view of American foreign policy (yes, over the last 60 years, but especially the last 20) will be the end of us all."

I don't see my view as being self-righteous, but based on reality instead. If your idea of good foreign policy is based on the three wise monkeys philosophy(hear no evil, see no evil, say no evil), I sincerely hope your kind is never in charge of the DoD or the State Department.

lol, oh Jubal. One day we should have some coffee -- I mean, a lot of it -- and just hash out our brewing contention. Or maybe a beer, I don't know. Do OC Bloggers drink?

Anyway, I do think the public opinion records, which demonstrate an overwhelming majority of Iraqis who want us out -- along with an uncomfortably high rate of them that support attacks against US forces -- reflects some hatred there.

But let's not hash out that argument. Sure, this woman is speaking in Orange County, this is an Orange County blog, and you're bashing her -- fair enough. Have you uncritically examined any of her points about Israeli brutality?

I'll be honest; I am not familiar with this speaker, but the fact that you seem oblivious to Israeli terror is really unfortunate, man. I know I keep saying it, but it doesn't take a lot of effort to uncover.

“We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us” Golda Meir

It is a death cult we are dealing with.

If your idea of good foreign policy is based on the three wise monkeys philosophy(hear no evil, see no evil, say no evil), I sincerely hope your kind is never in charge of the DoD or the State Department.

Not exactly. We certainly have right to defend ourselves, and it's in our best interest to be widely engaged in the world politically and economically. What I would like to see is less saber-rattling, less "do what we say or else" diplomacy, and less telling other countries what they must do to make us happy. A pre-9/11 George W. Bush humble foreign policy.

It is a death cult we are dealing with.

Oh, puh-lease.

"Not exactly. We certainly have right to defend ourselves, and it's in our best interest to be widely engaged in the world politically and economically."

Your argument fails when it attempts to distinguish between defending ourselves and building a foreign military presence; the two are congruent. But at least you admit that you don't think we should be widely engaged in the world in a military way. We have a disagreement on that basic principle. I believe it is in the best interest of the United States to strategically place our troops around the world; you don't. It's pure and simple.

Let me ask you a question though...are you any good at the board game "Risk"?

Dear Mr Whipple:

Have you been living under a rock? Death means happiness to terrorists, their martyrdom insures them 70 virgins and a nice heavenly life for eternity. They strap bombs to children and women and send them into marketplaces. Call it what you want, but death cult is close enough for me.

F. Lee Bailey is right on the first half of his statement.

However, not all Muslims are death loving terrorists even though their Koran book actually teachs spreading Muslim religion with deadly force.

We should love and respect Muslims as they are our own christian brothers with prayers.

the comment by Anon @ 12:25pm was me by the way

I believe it is in the best interest of the United States to strategically place our troops around the world; you don't. It's pure and simple.

That's fine, as long as you understand the inevitable outcome of that policy: The build-up of anger and resentment among people who don't particularly like being told what to do in their own countries.

That problem is at the root of the terrorist threat we face today. Instead of helping to build schools and provide economic opportunities for people, we prop up dictators and use their countries as bases from which to extend our military reach around the world. (Pakistan and Uzbekistan are only the latest examples of this sort of approach.) People in those countries who have no hope for the future then blame us and become willing to fight and die for that belief.

So what begins with noble intentions ultimately returns to bite us in the rear end.

The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, good people who want what we in the West want -- adequate food and shelter, and a better life for their children. Many of them love America while hating our foreign and military policies. Some few have become extreme in that hatred.

There is a much better way to resolve the hatred and fear of America held by much of the world's population, and it doesn't lie in bombing and invading their countries.

Things to think about as the Bush administration ramps up for a late-summer/early-fall campaign against Iran.

Believe it or not, our Pres. Reagan was one the most respected leader around the globe.

CRA:

That was a different time, when the world was polarized between states loyal to the U.S. and those loyal to the Soviet Union. With the U.S. now the lone superpower, there's no one we can point at and say, "They're worse than us."

As Uncle Ben told Peter Parker, "With great power comes great responsibility." And we're failing miserably in managing the American Empire.

When you could strap a bomb to your child's chest and send him/her off to kill themselves and others or even cheer their suicide because they murdered Jews, well my friends, you have a death cult.

I have 2 children and the thought is so beyond comprehension it is completely inconceivable.

Islam is a death cult. And some day the West will wake up and help all radical Muslims find their 72 virgins.

Not yet though.

F. Lee Bailey,

You ignorantly and unjustifiably confuse Islam with a radical fringe movement within Islam. Just as IRA bombers in Northern Ireland were not representative of Christianity as a whole, radical Muslim extremists are not representative of Islam as a whole.

I would suggest educating yourself a little on the history and practice of Islam, and perhaps even visiting a mosque and getting to know some actual Muslims. I suspect you'll be surprised.

Mrwhipple, your statement "...........managing the American Empire"
shoud have been written "....quickly disappearing American Empire"!

Not only we are losing our economical might but we are also becoming "mentally stranded" due to deterioration of good education base and lost of our pride in being a strong, visionary American.

We must work together to bring back that "Burning Torch" with the vision of our founding fathers by trusting our God foremost.

Whipple,

Your friends, the moderate Muslims, don't seem to care that people blow themselves up in their name so why should I.

Are the idiots at UCI some of "radical fringe" or are they "not representative of Islam as a whole?"

Please educate me oh brilliant one.

This sort of self-righteous view of American foreign policy (yes, over the last 60 years, but especially the last 20) will be the end of us all.

It's hard to take someone seriously who presumably believes containment was a manifestation of self-righteous arrogance.

That's fine, as long as you understand the inevitable outcome of that policy: The build-up of anger and resentment among people who don't particularly like being told what to do in their own countries.

Genius! I now understand the genesis of all those Japanese, Korean, and European terrorist groups who have been bombing and attacking us for the last 60 years out of anger and resentment over our huge troop presence and telling their governments what to do.

F.Lee:

The UCI contingent is representative more of typical college-going young people who have more zeal than knowledge. Go to any political or religious club or group on campus and you're just as likely to find people who hold views that are extreme compared to more mature adults of the same philosophy in mainstream society.

The problem is not Islam, the problem is youth and idiocy.

DSTC:

You are obviously ignorant of the great deal of resentment held by, for example, Okinawans against the U.S. Marine base and the not-infrequently bad behavior of Marines stationed there.

You carefully chose three of the least-problematic examples of resentment against in-country U.S. forces. There are many other places around the world where things are not so rosy.

I am not ignorant of it. But I don't fixate on it and construe it as representative of how the world feels about the U.S.

It's you who are trying to characterize the post-war American foreign policy as fomenting worldwide anger and resentment. I point out the largest, longest-standing, most emblematic examples of that foreign policy and how they have not produced the problems you claim they will, and you get bent out of shape.

Whipple-

"You carefully chose three of the least-problematic examples of resentment against in-country U.S. forces. There are many other places around the world where things are not so rosy."

The difference is that the folks in Okinawa understand the importance of the US forces, in the past, the present, and the future. There may be a day in the near future when we will be able to bring our troops back from Japan, but with the threat of North Korea sending missiles over Japan's airspace, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Go ask the Japanese and I guarantee you a majority of them (outside of the Okinawa folks who are a little bit sensitive of Americans' rudeness when going out to get drunk) are content with the US military presence in their country and its impact on keeping their northern neighbors at bay.

The folks in the Middle East don't understand the benefits of having a US military presence quite yet, but I suspect the ones who deserve our help, eventually will.

The difference between you and I is that I actually believe more in the moderate Muslims than you do. I believe they will eventually understand the benefit of our help, and will turn against their more radical Muslim friends. You, on the other hand, claim to have an "understanding" of what the Muslims want/need and you have ZERO trust on what the moderate Muslims can do.

I believe in giving them a chance. You don't.

I would like to see Muslims having a greater hope in this gift of life from our loving Jesus Christ.

DSTC:

It's you who are trying to characterize the post-war American foreign policy as fomenting worldwide anger and resentment. I point out the largest, longest-standing, most emblematic examples of that foreign policy and how they have not produced the problems you claim they will, and you get bent out of shape.

I am not "bent out of shape." I am merely pointing out the fact that there are many -- not all, but many -- people around the world who see us as a schoolyard bully. That was less so during the Cold War when there were two stark alternatives, and many nations were forced to choose between them. But now that we are the only remaining superpower, there are many who don't want to be under our thumb.

So we can choose to be the world's Supernanny or we can let people determine their own path. There are upsides and downsides to both approaches; I favor the latter.

D'Anconia:

The folks in the Middle East don't understand the benefits of having a US military presence quite yet, but I suspect the ones who deserve our help, eventually will.

That's a shockingly condescending statement!

I suspect after being the catalyst for the deaths of between half a million and a million Iraqis, and the displacement of two to four million more, that they the "folks in the Middle East" have good reasons not to "understand the benefits of having a US military presence quite yet."

The difference between you and I is that I actually believe more in the moderate Muslims than you do. I believe they will eventually understand the benefit of our help, and will turn against their more radical Muslim friends. You, on the other hand, claim to have an "understanding" of what the Muslims want/need and you have ZERO trust on what the moderate Muslims can do.

I believe in giving them a chance. You don't.

This has nothing to do with "giving them a chance" and everything to do with putting myself in their shoes. If a foreign power -- say, China -- invaded the U.S. under pretense that our government was a military threat, and was now occupying our country in an attempt to control armed resistance against that occupation by people who wanted the right to self-determination, I know for a fact that I would be siding with the resistance. And I strongly suspect that an extended Chinese occupation would only foment more anger and resentment against their forces. (Funny how polls of Iraqis tend to show the same thing.)

And I haven't even mentioned the $1 trillion annual cost of keeping nearly 600,000 military personnel stationed around the world. With our country rapidly sinking into a depression, that's a lot of taxpayer money that's going for what, at best, amounts to a debatable foreign policy.