US Elections 2008

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by bayoab

This is how politics has been for years. It doesn't matter what the person actually stands for, just what they are caught saying. The main stream media has been running "sound bite politics" and making americans believe that is all that matters.

It's partially that, and also partially that nobody really wants to commit to anything. If you express yourself clearly, you'll immediately alienate people who hold an opposing view. It would seem that many politicians attempt to either satisfy all views or never really state their own... at least, until they're securely in office. Very few politicians are willing to be candid. I've only ever read an interview with one candid candidate (a candidate for senator in Oregon, I believe - interview was on Slashdot) and it was incredibly refreshing. Whether you agreed or not, the viewpoints seemed to have thought put into them and the guy sounded like a real person. By comparison, if you ever watch many "high level" politicians field questions it's simply amazing to realize at the end of a one-minute response that they said a lot of things, but none of it was an answer to the question or really an answer to anything.

What also bothers me is how many politicians are getting into long-term promises. I'm glad that they're thinking about the future, but I'm skeptical that it's little more than an excuse for inaction. For example, with environmental plans (which largely have to be long-term) candidates state how they're doing things to get to a certain level by the year 2030 and other long-term dates. I appreciate the long-term thinking, but do they honestly think that their plans are going to stick, or that people won't forget about what they said in a few years? Some of these politicians will likely be long retired even halfway into the timeframe that their plan should be acting. I want to hear what they plan to do now and how they plan to ensure that their proposals continue to be followed even when they're no longer on the political scene.

[WanderingKnight]

Umm... did Clinton say that she'd "obliterate Iran" were they to attack Israel?

And people at Pennsylvania voted her because of that? O.o

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[Reckoner]

Ledgem, it is the exact thing you're talking about, this change, that is really getting to me. I'll say this, Obama is very adept at naming our problems that we need to change. But on the other hand, he has failed to give us the people any knowledge of what he actually "really" plans to do. What exact change does he plan to inact I may ask you? Please tell me. I'm not looking forward to giving a man who I don't know at all, is inexperienced as a politician, and have no trust built up in, the most powerful position in the world. This is why I rather go with Mccain than Obama, I at least know the guy. He's pretty straightforward on his politics, much to the dismay of his own Republican party and comes off as being a pretty respectable person, way more so than Clinton. If he was going for universal health care and didn't have this view on our war, he'd definitely get my vote over even Clinton.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Ledgem, it is the exact thing you're talking about, this change, that is really getting to me. I'll say this, Obama is very adept at naming our problems that we need to change. But on the other hand, he has failed to give us the people any knowledge of what he actually "really" plans to do.

I think he detailed his plans just as clearly as the other candidates... do you have any specific areas that you felt he was deliberately foggy about?

What exact change does he plan to inact I may ask you? Please tell me.

I get the impression that the main idea of change is that he's going to be a politician who isn't quite like the other players in the game. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is hard to say at this point, and it'll largely depend on his values. I'd prefer it to what currently seems to be happening, where politicians care more about getting into and staying in a position of power than to use their position for the good of the people.

I'm not looking forward to giving a man who I don't know at all, is inexperienced as a politician, and have no trust built up in, the most powerful position in the world. This is why I rather go with Mccain than Obama, I at least know the guy. He's pretty straightforward on his politics, much to the dismay of his own Republican party and comes off as being a pretty respectable person, way more so than Clinton. If he was going for universal health care and didn't have this view on our war, he'd definitely get my vote over even Clinton.

If McCain were elected I'd be pretty happy - much happier than I am with Mr. Bush, and probably happier than I would have been with Mr. Kerry. The idea of having something totally different is very appealing to me, though. It makes Obama stand out as being very different from Clinton or McCain in my mind.

The idea of experience is a strange one, and I know it's one that Clinton has been playing against Obama. Obama isn't exactly inexperienced, and personally I like the thought that he's experienced enough to have gotten this far (you don't get onto a presidential nomination without knowing what you're doing) but he hasn't been in long enough to be a part of the "good old boys' club" or indoctrinated into feelings of disconnection from the public. That's just speculation (and hope) on my part.

Regarding "most powerful position in the world" - I'd like that changed, as well. The president should be the single embodiment of the American people, and who gives direction in times of crisis. The ones who really handle the important business are in the legislative branch - Congress. It isn't the president's job to come up with all sorts of plans and laws, it's the president's job to carry them out. The ones who come up with those things are in Congress. It's easy to lose sight of the basic functions of the government given that each election makes it seem as if the president will be carrying the entire White House on his shoulders. I suppose it'd be rather boring if presidents would simply show how they have good manners, can interact well with foreign people, understand the Constitution, and negotiate well with others.

PS: To the anonymous negative repper, I appreciated the change in my reputation accompanied by that clever remark, thank you very much. The next time you simply disagree, try using the post button instead. I like to reserve negative rep for snooty remarks or when people are being uncivil. You'd have gotten a negative back from me for that poor use of the feature, and I guarantee you mine would have stung a heck of a lot more than yours

[Vagrant0]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Ledgem, it is the exact thing you're talking about, this change, that is really getting to me. I'll say this, Obama is very adept at naming our problems that we need to change. But on the other hand, he has failed to give us the people any knowledge of what he actually "really" plans to do.

Which is part of the problem I mentioned. People only seem to take notice of a certain pastor which has been characterized as a wingnut based on not a whole sermon, but just a small portion of one. Then there's the whole flag lapel pin thing, the bitter comment (which was initially presented without any context, despite there being context in the original speech). It's to the point that you'd need to go to the candidates website to see any of those issues addressed. It's not merely the fault of the media for being so shallow, it's also the fault of the party for allowing this travestry to continue as it has. Obama tried taking a stance against this sort of meaningless discussion, and all he got was criticism for "complaining". It's this sort of infighting, from people who are hoping to convince others that they deserve one of the most powerful public positions that makes me ashamed to be an American. Unfortunately it won't be until a candidate gets decided upon that the issues actually get looked at, and by then it may be too late.

The fact of the matter is that Obama is going against one of the most powerful political families in the country, and has managed to hold his own. He has also managed to get supporters from independants and republicans, far more than Clinton (even after Rush Limbaugh suggested republicans hop the fence and vote Hillary just so that McCain has an easier task). So suggesting that Obama can't win states with a higher amount of electoral votes is a bit of a stretch.

And Hillary's "experience" is also questionable. She seems to be giving too much credit to the mistakes she made "helping out in the white house" (medicare for one), and her uneventful position as a newyork senator. Obama on the otherhand has managed to get things done in arguably one of the more corrupt states in the union, without being corrupted himself. I doubt Hillary could make a similar claim, especially given who she's been having fund her campaign. Organizations like those don't give you money if they aren't getting anything back in return.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I can respect all three candidates, but of the three only Obama seems to get the big picture - we want change.

If there is not many things he can use to back up his claims, then he is not different than Clinton. And, even he claims himself, that he and Clinton are more than 90% the same in their approach. And saying the remaining 10% will make him the change maker, I highly doubt it.

And, of course, claiming that he is going to bring change, and putting the old faces in front to get votes does not suggest to me that he is about change. This is politics, and change is just a slogan he was able to create and use effectively after all the wrongdoings of a Republican politician with no understanding of anything. Other than that, as a Democratic candidate he is not much different from other Democratic nominees, including Clinton and Edwards, and the other no-names as of now.

You know, let me give you a simple example. I find the idea of Obama being the change mak
er compared to Clinton as silly as the idea of Clinton being the leader from day one. They are pretty much close in everything. The only change here I see is the name Clinton being reused again, in the White House. Anything other than that, is just politics, playing with the words, etc.

Originally Posted by KholdStare

And yes, I'm very worried for the democratic party. For the people who support Obama, do you really think McCain is better than Clinton, and vice versa?

Just check Huffington Post to see what the Obama supporters think. Being better is not issue here anymore. It is all about hate. Thanks to fanatics of both sides, it has come to the level of Clinton voters hating Obama and doing anything to not make him President, and Obama supporters hating Clinton and doing anything to not make her President. The loser here will be Obama, because Clinton received the higher amount of support among the core Democratic party supporters. And they can easily move to McCain considering his credibility, likability, honesty, and experience.

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Umm... did Clinton say that she'd "obliterate Iran" were they to attack Israel?

And people at Pennsylvania voted her because of that? O.o

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

I don't think it is that difficult to notice the difference. If they were to attack Israel, not if I believe they would attack Israel. And, believe, that is what Obama would also do. There are realities in American politics, that Obama can neither change nor attempt to play with.

Oh, did I also mention that she mentioned also "if Iran were to use nuclear weapons" in its attacks too. since Israel is somehow considered as part of US, let me ask you this. If another country would have nuked your country, what would you want to do?

[Cut-Tongue]

I'm all about Obama. Anyone who thinks hes unclear on stances should just check out http://www.barackobama.com/issues/, it breaks it down into readable sections.

[WanderingKnight]

There are realities in American politics

That's why I said,

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

Nothing's gonna change, at least not fundamentally.

since Israel is somehow considered as part of US, let me ask you this. If another country would have nuked your country, what would you want to do?

My country doesn't consider a country that practically invaded and illegitimately took over lands that didn't belong to it part of its own, so I can't comment on that issue.

Did I mention that things won't change fundamentally? That's what I meant by that post. The friendship between Israel and the US has been highly disruptive of relationships in the Middle East ever since the State of Israel was born, and it ain't gonna change anytime soon. And that's what's really wrong with the US and its international policies. Iraq and Iran are merely circumstances.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

That's why I said,

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

Nothing's gonna change, at least not fundamentally.

Again, you are mistaken. Bush exploited those politics to fit his needs. He went overboard. That is not the case here. Attacking someone that does not have the power to attack is one thing, attacking someone after he attacked another using the worst kind of weapons is another thing. Am I allowed to expect from you to see the difference between two?

My country doesn't consider a country that practically invaded and illegitimately took over lands that didn't belong to it part of its own, so I can't comment on that issue.

Really? May I ask whether your ancestors have been living in where you live for the last thousand of years, or whether your ancestors came and kill the natives at where you live to control the lands?

Did I mention that things won't change fundamentally? That's what I meant by that post. The friendship between Israel and the US has been highly disruptive of relationships in the Middle East ever since the State of Israel was born, and it ain't gonna change anytime soon. And that's what's really wrong with the US and its international policies. Iraq and Iran are merely circumstances.

I am not saying US is correct in their blinded support of Israel. But, saying Iran and Iraq are consequences is not accurate either. It is a combination of badly-interpreted Islam, highly-corrupted lifestyles that is colored with damaging tribal effects, the dictators that are being born to such corrupted cultures, western countries making those countries the way they are by supporting them with many things they have in return for favors, oil and money. You may hate US for their politics, but know that they are not alone in that guilt. There are a lot of countries deeply involved in that, either in the beginnings (like the colonial empires of the past) or the end.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

since Israel is somehow considered as part of US, let me ask you this. If another country would have nuked your country, what would you want to do?

How is Isreal considered part of the US by anyone? There are reasons the US supports Isreal, some of them are legitimate, others well not so much. This isn't the place to go into it though.

I don't see why people are making a big deal about Clinton's statement. If any nation launched a nuclear attack against pretty much any of our allies we'd almost certainly respond with a retalitory strike no matter who was in office. If Iran were to launch a nuclear strike and get away with it, everyone would want nukes and be far more willing to use them when they get them. Right now having a nuclear weapon is as much a liability as a deterant. You can't even seriously think about using it because if you do you will die. Once someone gets away with a strike, that changes.

Though Isreal wouldn't need our help to nuke Iran back anyway. They won't admit it, but that Isreal posseses nukes has been an open secret since the 70s. Even if they don't have an actual stockpile of nuclear weapons, they have the materials and technical knowledge to build them in short order.

Of course this is a moot point since Iran does not have nuclear weapons and won't for quite some time, assuming they restarted their weapons program. If they haven't, well then they won't have nukes at all.

[WanderingKnight]

Again, you are mistaken. Bush exploited those politics to fit his needs. He went overboard. That is not the case here. Attacking someone that does not have the power to attack is one thing, attacking someone after he attacked another using the worst kind of weapons is another thing. Am I allowed to expect from you to see the difference between two?

I'm willing to bet that whether they used nukes or not is irrelevant. Just think about it. Anyone who steps into Israel will probably be considered hostile (if there aren't other interests involved), nukes or no nukes, as it is a threat to the US dominance in the region. The bit about nuclear weapons is just a PR stunt to make it not sound that bad, apparently you fell for that too.

What I meant is that the alliance between the US and Israel is prejudicial to the stability of the region. The fact that, Bush or no Bush, the US and Israel are still going to be friends is what I was pointing out by that phrase.

Really? May I ask whether your ancestors have been living in where you live for the last thousand of years, or whether your ancestors came and kill the natives at where you live to control the lands?

The Spaniards came, looted the whole land, killed off the majority of the indigenous population over here, and left. That happened centuries ago, though. The latest thing that happened in that respect dates from 1880, during the so-called Desert Conquest here, and I'm not justifying that either. Still, it doesn't change the fact that the UN, guided by American interests, illegitimately gave the land to Israel, displacing a lot of native Palestinian people, in fucking 1950. We were way past a world of democracy in those years.

But, saying Iran and Iraq are consequences is not accurate either.

CIRCUMSTANCES. Not consequences. Read, please, before posting. They are circumstances in the fact that they're a nuisance to the US dominance in the region. Whether it was Iran or fucking Argentina, it wouldn't have changed a thing.

I don't see why people are making a big deal about Clinton's statement. If any nation launched a nuclear attack against pretty much any of our allies we'd almost certainly respond with a retalitory strike no matter who was in office.

That is a bit naive, my friend. If it was Israel, the UK or another friendly power the one that used nukes against Iran, I don't think the US would actually go and occupy it. The same reaction would receive any country who nuked another one in a region the US doesn't have interest in.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

How is Isreal considered part of the US by anyone?

If a country is bound to protect itself and another country as if they are pretty much the same, then, you can consider the second one as part of the first at the least in terms of the national security policy. Israel is a crucial part of US politics, and I don't think there is another country who can reach that level in terms of the strength of the ties in-between.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

If a country is bound to protect itself and another country as if they are pretty much the same, then, you can consider the second one as part of the first at the least in terms of the national security policy. Israel is a crucial part of US politics, and I don't think there is another country who can reach that level in terms of the strength of the ties in-between.

That isn't even close to true. Many countries have protection agreements between them and they don't consider that country part of them. Also, the US doen't even come close to protecting Israel from the frequent attacks it gets. The US just sells them the equipment to protect themselves. Clinton made this comment to reaffirm herself the Jewish vote since Obama said he will meet with Hamas. Israel is plenty capable of protecting itself from a lot without anyone's help. There is a reason why Israeli security is considered one of the best in the world.

I personally don't see a problem with Obama saying he will actually meet with these "terrorists". I'd rather see that than worthless strongly worded letters from the UN and the US holding its military over their heads.

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Still, it doesn't change the fact that the UN, guided by American interests, illegitimately gave the land to Israel, displacing a lot of native Palestinian people, in fucking 1950. We were way past a world of democracy in those years.

Not going too far into this because it is off topic, but it was not just the Americans. The victors of the world war were all involved and it is way more complicated than you are making it out to be. All sides were up to tricks in doing this. The creation of Israel and its borders are an extremely complex topic which every side conveniently forgets parts of it to further their arguments.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Still, it doesn't change the fact that the UN, guided by American interests, illegitimately gave the land to Israel, displacing a lot of native Palestinian people, in fucking 1950. We were way past a world of democracy in those years.

I assume you mean the establishment of Israel? Well, that's certainly not how it happened. You make it sound like there was no Jewish presence there prior to 1948, and that Israel simply kicked out all the Palestinian people who'd been living there historically. Neither is accurate. (And then there's the involvement of all the Allied nations, Britain especially).

But since this is a US Election thread rather than an Israel thread, I'll try to stop there.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

I'm willing to bet that whether they used nukes or not is irrelevant. Just think about it. Anyone who steps into Israel will probably be considered hostile (if there aren't other interests involved), nukes or no nukes, as it is a threat to the US dominance in the region. The bit about nuclear weapons is just a PR stunt to make it not sound that bad, apparently you fell for that too.

Just like you mentioned, Clinton's speech is to show the response Iran would get if they take extreme measures in their actions. It is just a warning, and, quite honestly, Iran deserves no less than that, especially when their leader goes around telling about nuking Israel from time to time. Normally, Iran has no chance to win against Israel using normal kind of weapons, so using nukes is the only way for them to achieve something, and get something in return. That is basic politics, and understandable statements. It is not the same as what Bush had done.

What I meant is that the alliance between the US and Israel is prejudicial to the stability of the region. The fact that, Bush or no Bush, the US and Israel are still going to be friends is what I was pointing out by that phrase.

I see it both negative and positive. US has the power to increase the stability in the region as well as decrease. So, the allience may work well depending on how you use it. Of course, that kind of effect is also true for Iran and other countries. But, there is no way that Iran would use that power to stabilize the region, especially when they do nothing but cause trouble using their secret military forces in Lebanon and other places in the region.

The Spaniards came, looted the whole land and killed off the majority of the indigenous population over here. That happened centuries ago, though. The latest thing that happened in that respect dates from 1880, during the so-called Desert Conquest here, and I'm not justifying that either. Still, it doesn't change the fact that the UN, guided by American interests, illegitimately gave the land to Israel, displacing a lot of native Palestinian people, in fucking 1950. We were way past a world of democracy in those years.

The point is it happened, and it is already in the past. It is not much different than the borders in Middle East being drawn by the interests of some evil lords of the time, without thinking about the future problems it can cause considering the past relationships between those tribes. Everyone needs to get over what happened already to reach an agreement. And, that is the least the people from a completely unrelated country can do. (I am from Middle East so I have rightful interest in the politics of the region, as it is directly affecting my country)

CIRCUMSTANCES. Not consequences. Read, please, before posting. They are circumstances in the fact that they're a nuisance to the US dominance in the region. Whether it was Iran or fucking Argentina, it wouldn't have changed a thing.

I am glad to have you given an agreeable discussion point. At the least it let you spell nice little curses at the end. I must say, hatred should be a funny thing!

That is a bit naive, my friend. If it was Israel, the UK or another friendly power the one that used nukes against Iran, I don't think the US would actually go and occupy it.

If you want to hang on to such biased beliefs to continue your hatred, that is your rightful choice. All can say is, good luck with those.

Originally Posted by bayoab

That isn't even close to true. Many countries have protection agreements between them and they don't consider that country part of them. Also, the US doen't even come close to protecting Israel from the frequent attacks it gets. The US just sells them the equipment to protect themselves. Clinton made this comment to reaffirm herself the Jewish vote since Obama said he will meet with Hamas. Israel is plenty capable of protecting itself from a lot without anyone's help. There is a reason why Israeli security is considered one of the best in the world.

They are very close friends. If you can share your military secrets with another country without having any problem with it, that would go beyond your typical protection agreements. This is how it is seen from the outside, and by some on the inside. That is just an opinion. Anyway, this is getting off-topic, so I will also stop here.

[WanderingKnight]

I see it both negative and positive. US has the power to increase the stability in the region as well as decrease.

The US is not interested in stability, the US is interested in control. Iran is a threat to the US dominance over the region, and Iran will eventually get (indifferent of religion, government, nukes, or anything else) invaded and occupied, as it happened with Iraq, and the US president of the time will only have to utter a couple of silly excuses such as "they were a demonic regime which took pleasure in torturing innocent civilians". The US is also interested in moving the enormous military industry that serves as a base for its economy, which gets stalled and doesn't produce if there's no war to be fought, but that's a bit of a stretch and is a little harder to analyze.

(Note that I'm not justifying Iranian or Iraqi actions by any means).

And finally, it's not about "hatred". I don't hate you nor any US citizen, for that matter. But I do reserve my rights to be critic of the US government, as throughout its whole history during the 20th century it has been nothing more than hypocrisy after hypocrisy after hypocrisy. Ask the 30 000 disappeared people under the military regime that the US supported during the 70s here, under the pretense of "preventing the spread of communist ideas". Ask about the enormous increase in our foreign debt during those years, and the leash that the IMF (also controlled by the US, by the way) has had and still has around our necks since that time.

The fact that you can't see past the insult I wrote, which was merely ejaculatory and wasn't directed at anyone at all, doesn't help your point, either.

Not going too far into this because it is off topic, but it was not just the Americans. The victors of the world war were all involved and it is way more complicated than you are making it out to be. All sides were up to tricks in doing this. The creation of Israel and its borders are an extremely complex topic which every side conveniently forgets parts of it to further their arguments.

I agree, I was simplifying the issue a lot, but it was my intention to be a little bit more graphic and point out that Israel wasn't created out of the goodwill of the peoples of the world.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

That is a bit naive, my friend. If it was Israel, the UK or another friendly power the one that used nukes against Iran, I don't think the US would actually go and occupy it. The same reaction would receive any country who nuked another one in a region the US doesn't have interest in.

Obviously the implication is that the attack was carried out by someone who is not allied with the US as well. The US would never let things reach the point of a nuclear exchange between US allies unless there was absolutely no way to avoid it. In that case one of the nations, possibly both would cease to be considered an ally.

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

If a country is bound to protect itself and another country as if they are pretty much the same, then, you can consider the second one as part of the first at the least in terms of the national security policy. Israel is a crucial part of US politics, and I don't think there is another country who can reach that level in terms of the strength of the ties in-between.

By that logic there are a lot of countries that are really a part of the US but no one told them. The US has mutual defense treaties with a lot of other countries. That in no way makes them part of the US.

Not to mention the US has not historicly intervened in Israeli conflicts. The only instance where the US actually used military force to protect Israel was in desert storm when they US deployed patriot missile batteries to defend against iraqi scuds with mixed results. The reason for doing it wasn't because we love Israel so much, rather to keep them from getting directly involved in the war and splitting the alliance with other arab nations we had built.

Really Israel isn't one of our closest allies either. Sure we give them a lot of military aid, but we don't have a mutual defense treaty with them. There is the implied protection of the US in the event of nuclear attack that pretty much all of our allies could claim, but it hasn't been officially stated. If someone were to launch conventional attacks on them, we'd sell the Israelis more stuff, but send troops? Probably not unless they ask for UN assistance.

Edit: Meant UN assistance not US assistance. Saying unless they ask for US assistance doesn't really make my point.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by bayoab

That isn't even close to true. Many countries have protection agreements between them and they don't consider that country part of them. Also, the US doen't even come close to protecting Israel from the frequent attacks it gets. The US just sells them the equipment to protect themselves. Clinton made this comment to reaffirm herself the Jewish vote since Obama said he will meet with Hamas. Israel is plenty capable of protecting itself from a lot without anyone's help. There is a reason why Israeli security is considered one of the best in the world.

I personally don't see a problem with Obama saying he will actually meet with these "terrorists". I'd rather see that than worthless strongly worded letters from the UN and the US holding its military over their heads.

That makes Obama more appealing in my eyes. What makes Hamas unique as far as terror organizations go is that they don't simply brainwash people, or carry out attacks and do little else. The aspect that we hear less about is how Hamas serves in politics and as a community organization. We only know of Hamas as a group of militants/terrorists who fire rockets into Israel and engage in other methods of destruction. This makes Hamas very difficult to deal with. The local people support Hamas and see any opposition to Hamas as clearly evil. Whether the local people are aware that Hamas carries out militant actions or not, I can't say. Regardless, Hamas offers aid to people who are basically forsaken by their own governments and the international community - even if they know that Hamas is destructive, they're likely to feel that it's justified. After all, how could such a wonderful organization that engages in building schools and repairing houses be killing innocents at the same time?

Making threats against Hamas only serves to increase the divide between the civilians who see Hamas as a good organization and those who oppose Hamas' other activities. To meet with Hamas would be to show respect for them, and would likely make the Hamas supporters feel respected, as well. It's one step toward removing a will and a rationalization to fight - not that reasons to fight can't easily be constructed, but this is probably the way that such organizations should be handled.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

What makes Hamas unique as far as terror organizations go is that they don't simply brainwash people, or carry out attacks and do little else.

That is a first...non-brainwashed suicide bombers....Al Kaeda can use those.

After all, how could such a wonderful organization that engages in building schools and repairing houses be killing innocents at the same time?

I guess, we should ask the same question to Bush and Cheney. How, indeed?

To meet with Hamas would be to show respect for them, and would likely make the Hamas supporters feel respected, as well.

US does not have to meet with Hamas to solve the problem. That is why Obama's inexperience will cost US a lot, if he gets elected and continues to make and follow such unrealistic remarks. Because, a US that gives up a lot to meet with Hamas, will definitely not get what it wants.

If I were a member of that organization, I would do exactly that. Cause, you may not know, but those people, the ones in Hamas, have no hurry to reach a solution, instead, they don't mind to blow away any kind of attempt that would not suit them. And, believe me, any kind of thing that would suit them, will never suit for Israel. That is why, US needs to go and talk directly to the Palestine people, instead of initiating contact with Hamas.

And, if you want to initiate contact, isn't it better to initiate contact with Bin Laden, after all, he was an ex-employee. Closer than Hamas to US.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

US does not have to meet with Hamas to solve the problem. That is why Obama's inexperience will cost US a lot, if he gets elected and continues to make and follow such unrealistic remarks. Because, a US that gives up a lot to meet with Hamas, will definitely not get what it wants.

Last I'd heard, the Palestinian government was divided between the old group and a new, Hamas-driven one. The Hamas government had the support of the people, while the old government had the support of Israel and some of the international community. I'm not suggesting that we should side with whoever seems more likely to win, but you know? If Hamas becomes the Palestinian government and has the people's support we're all going to be hated by them for speaking against their beloved leaders without ever having even spoken with them.

Bin Laden may be viewed as some sort of a freedom fighter by some, but he doesn't hold any real power and I don't believe that everyone in the Arabic world is a fan of his, either. Negotiations with him wouldn't really mean anything, given that there isn't really anything to negotiate over. Hamas, as a leader of the people, is worth talking to and establishing a relationship with. From what I understand many of the Palestinians are angry because they feel forsaken. Would forcibly going in and shaking up their government (which they support) foster good will toward anyone? It didn't work so well in places like Cuba, Vietnam, or Iran, and I don't think it'd be any better here. Hamas may engage in some despicable actions, but if we want to resolve anything then we need to stop demonizing them by calling them terrorists and sit down and talk. We have a relationship with China, even though they've threatened military action against Taiwan before, right? The only crude difference is that we call Hamas a terrorist organization, and the PRC a legit form of government.

It's not as simple as just having a conversation, of course. I'd hope that the government would read up on social customs and the atmosphere there, and approach the situation appropriately. Culture counts for a lot. (For example, as I've heard it, part of the reason why the Gulf War occurred was because Saddam Hussein's brother was told in a very calm manner that if they invaded Kuwait then the US would retaliate. Because the government agents spoke calmly and weren't pounding their fist on the table and shouting, Saddam's brother reported back that the US was insincere about fighting and wouldn't get involved. The rest is history.)