2012 U.S. Presidential Election Thread

[cromartie]

The problem that the US faces is the money in the system that gets candidates elected and lobbies and gains influence.

I agree with you. Unfortunately, I also have to agree with those that assert that campaign contributions constitute free speech. And as elections are public, those are covered under the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. Trust me, I would love publicly financed campaigns and I recognize the futility of term limits. (With term limits, only lobbyists have unlimited terms). But we're stuck, more or less, with the system we have.

The White House (neutral Budget Office) said they put two wars on the credit card. The roots of this was in the Project for a New North American Security

The two wars on a credit card is true. But let's be careful to differentiate Afghanistan, which in my mind was justified, from Iraq, which in my mind was not. People will debate the latter forever, from a Daddy fulfillment to a PNAC conspiracy. My own personal opinion was it was a strikingly incompetent effort to secure access to the oil in the ground. Oil is a finite resource. The Russians have it (and have it in spades and as countries like Mexico and Norway start to exhaust their supply, Russia will wield significantly more influence than they do currently). The Chinese want it. So the idea with Iraq was to establish a colonial hedge against Iran and other countries that wanted access to oil from the area.

Howling, 'that's not fair' when America polices the world, and the rest of the world talks a good game but stays home is essentially a teenage reaction.

I'm not necessarily howling that it isn't fair. But by the same token we invest too much military spending on programs that don't adapt themselves well to the next generation of warfare, and we maintain more of a presence internationally than arguably we should. We learned a hard lesson in the 1930s about isolationism that proved to be the one bit of history we won't repeat. As to your other point, we weren't exactly leaders on Libya, that role went to the French and it was one instance where the President did a good job at telling other leaders to either put up or shut up. And the French, to their credit, put up, for a change.

I think Romney is going to do just fine with Hispanic voters

As of this morning, according to Gallup, Romney is -38% nationwide among Hispanics, -45% among Jewish voters. And the swing area of Florida isn't the north, it's Orlando.

Have you read about 'preference falsification?' I think we're going to see a lot of it in the run up to this election.

You mean another way of stating the 'Bradley Effect' we heard so much about in 2008? If that were abundant in significance this time around, as we were told it was four years ago, there would be a marked difference between live polling and automated polling. After all, if you're only saying you're voting for candidate X because it's the socially correct thing to do, you would have no reason to indicate that to an automated poll.

I realize saying Obama has destroyed the US economy is over-egging the pudding, but it aint far from the truth.

In light of the fact we've had two bubble economies crash in the last 13 years, I'd say it is fairly far from the truth, actually. The tech bubble crash in 2000 and the housing bubble crash in 2008 along with two wars were pretty significant hits to the economy. It's important to differentiate who/what caused the crashes, which wasn't Obama, to who is arguably not doing enough to help shepherd the economy which can reasonably be pinned on both the last two iterations of Congress and the current administration's lack of ability to think outside of the existing economic box on solutions. Plus, we've been punting responsible measures both in private and public industry for decades. Decades of IBGYBG negotiating on all sides of the table have left the auto and airline industries in shambles. The predominate short term return on dividends approach to business management has helped decimate the middle class. There are a multitude of factors that have led us to where we are. Behaving like teenagers in the common space while wrapping every decision in jingoism doesn't help much.

[Toppy Vann]

Putting aside the fact that Gov. Romney has racked up more Pinnochios than all candidates for President of either party have been caught at since Bill Clinton left office, what does this stuff say about his character:

This is funny actually while against the rules for debates! Romney in violation of the rules cheated with note cards. Watch the video - wow this sure suggests a serious character flaw:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/0 ... 42790.html

Mitt Romney Campaign Says Candidate Had A Handkerchief, Not A Cheat Sheet, At The Debate

The Huffington Post | By Sam Stein Posted: 10/05/2012 12:11 pm EDT Updated: 10/05/2012 5:22 pm EDT

In college and univ. he was wearing police uniforms.

”Romney impersonated policeman in Mich., Calif.
June 24, 2012|Michael Kranish, Globe Staff

Lewis Black vividly recalls the day when his Stanford University classmate, Mitt Romney, put on a police uniform, walked behind a mutual friend, and ­announced gravely,
“You’re ­under arrest.”

It was, Black said in an inter­view, just one aspect of Romney’s continuation of a prank he had begun during his high school years: impersonating a police officer. Black said Romney was known to put a police-like whirring cherry top on his white Rambler, put on a uniform, and ride around in a “fake police car.”

“I remembered him telling us that he liked to pull people over,” Black said.

Classmates: Mitt Romney Impersonated Police Officer In High School And College

The Huffington Post | By Nick Wing Posted: 06/07/2012 10:43 am Updated: 06/07/2012 12:43 pm

A magistrate at Cranbrook, Romney's boarding school, recounted a famous prank in which Romney dressed up in full uniform and a badge, and placed a police light on top of his vehicle in order to pull over a car full of friends on a double date.

The story has also been told in the book The Real Romney as a magistrate at Cranbrook, Romney's boarding school, recounted a famous prank in which Romney dressed up in full uniform and a badge, and placed a police light on top of his vehicle in order to pull over a car full of friends on a double date. well as by fellow students of the future Massachusetts governor.

This one is also acknowledged to have occurred but Romney denies that he knew the screaming student get a hair cut against his will was gay. Irrespective these incidents today would result in charges!

As a high school student, Romney's mischievous disposition was frequently on display. Classmates told the Washington Post in a piece published last month that this sometimes led him into unpleasant territory, such as the time he and a group of friends pinned down a screaming boy -- who was presumed to be gay -- and gave him a "hack job" haircut with a pair of scissors.

[South Pender]

Frankly, I think this kind of rumor-like stuff from decades ago is not worth considering or repeating. The Republicans tried this with Obama (Reverend Wright, that other guy that was an activist, etc.). The Democrats pulled that with Bush (the DUI arrest when he was young). In my opinion, it's desperate politics and unworthy behaviour. We all did things when we were 16 or 17 (Romney's age, I believe, in the gay boy incident) that make us blanch today (when we're in our 50s or whatever). We sure wouldn't want people to judge us today (after decades of good deeds) on the basis of a prank when we were kids--to insist that our true character was revealed by a few adolescent missteps. Romney was, evidently, a prankster. He isn't today; he's had a very solid working life and reflects a lot of virtues. Frankly, it's pretty hard to see this guy (much as many may want to) as an unworthy person. He's been a model family man (not a hint of scandal), hard worker, and a guy who donates a huge proportion (something like 20%) of his income to his church. He was a successful governor and a phenomenally successful businessman. Sure, he had a great start in life, but his accomplishments are almost entirely his own.

Having said all that, let me note that I'm not a strong Romney supporter. But it's not because of all this irrelevant stuff that's been dug up by the Democrats. I think he's genuinely out of touch with ordinary people. I think some of the Republican themes are mean-spirited. I think Paul Ryan's budget ideas will really hurt middle- and lower-class people. I think trickle-down economics is a clever Republican concept that represents a rationalization for widening the income gap in the US (which has widened steadily and considerably since the 60s), but which has no empirical evidence supporting it as an economic driver.

However, Armageddon will not occur if Romney is elected. In some ways, things will be better. In my own opinion, I think that a stronger presence in the Middle East and, particularly, a stronger backing of Israel than Obama has shown is important. (Others, of course, will disagree with that sentiment.) I think Iran is a stupendous threat to the world, and Romney might well do a better job of preventing them from ever acquiring nukes than Obama would, with his somewhat hesitant and sometimes waffling stand on this file. Things might be better for Canada if the US can get its enormous debt under control, and I think everyone would agree that this is more likely to happen with a Republican in the White House.

I like Obama. I think he has a very good heart and is an extremely intelligent and persuasive man. I applaud him for getting the foot in the door with universal health-care. At this point, the Affordable Health Care Act has yielded a system that is long way from being really effective and functional, but it is a start in a climate once--and still in many quarters--really opposed to any government intervention into health care (over and above Medicare and Medicaid). But not everything he has done--and would do--is, in my opinion, the best. He has been too disengaged with Congress, and, as a result, he's failed on some files. As noted, although he's had some foreign policy successes, his position on Israel and Iran has been indecisive and weak. In the first debate, he seemed a little disengaged and reflective (something that seems to offend some), rather than definitive and certain in the way Romney was. However, I think we should remember Bertrand Russell's comment that "the trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure, and the intelligent are full of doubt"! All things considered, though, if I were American, I'd probably vote for Obama, but I won't cry if Romney is elected because some of what he would do would be good too.

Most of all, for the first time in decades, I'm grateful we do not have the congressional system of government in Canada. I've always admired the Americans and their government institutions, but now it's clear that the system can badly misfire when partisanship, posturing, stubbornness, and ego overshadow good judgment. With our parliamentary system, we don't face the kind of ridiculous and crippling gridlock in our government (even though it sometimes seems this way) to nearly the extent we've witnessed in the last three years in the US Congress.

Finally, I wish the two US campaigns were focused solely on the issues--which are so very important--instead of this petty, irrelevant character-assassination stuff we're witnessing. And the endless lying--I guess the euphemism is "spin"--on both sides really. No one should believe a single point made by either candidate until finding out what the fact-checkers say about it. I guess we see a little of this in Canada too, but it's my impression that the level of this is far, far lower here. It's frightening to think that this very important election result might be determined not by who is most competent to be President, but by whose character has been less blackened in the process or whose lies have been less exposed.

[Toppy Vann]

If you checked the links - my stuff was not about rumours. It has been confirmed by Romney. It is not something linking him to a Rev. Wright or some urban terrorist who out of jail come to the same community meeting that Obama was at. That I agree is wrong but the other stuff is admitted and speaks to character.

Wearing a police uniform was criminal back then - just as an aside. His dad was Gov and that suggests a certain type of entitlement sense.

[South Pender]

If you checked the links - my stuff was not about rumours. It has been confirmed by Romney. It is not something linking him to a Rev. Wright or some urban terrorist who out of jail come to the same community meeting that Obama was at. That I agree is wrong but the other stuff is admitted and speaks to character.

Wearing a police uniform was criminal back then - just as an aside. His dad was Gov and that suggests a certain type of entitlement sense.

Actually, TV, I referred to this as "rumour-like stuff." By this, I meant that it had, in my opinion, about as much relevance to the important current decision that the American people must make as do unfounded rumours. I must disagree with you in insisting that poor decisions made in one's teenage years (which, I imagine, all of us have made; I certainly know that I did) "speak to character." These actions speak to the "character" (as inchoate as it is at 16 years of age) of the 16-year-old. We grow up. We mature. We improve on our earlier flawed behaviour and try to do better, often later regretting our younger bad actions. One's "character" (or moral development as psychologists would refer to it) is not immutable. Whether Romney's teenage behaviour would really have been judged as truly criminal behaviour is unclear to me--but somehow I doubt it. So, in my opinion, it is potentially misleading and prematurely-negative to imply criminal behaviour on Romney's part. All these "did you know what he did when he was 16?" whisperings--the stuff of nasty character-assassination campaigns--are just dross when placed alongside the really important policy positions and philosophical differences that really help us to know the suitability for office of each man. In my opinion, we should ignore this extraneous noise. What I'm saying, TV, is that a candidate's teenage behaviour should not be regarded as predictive of his likely performance as president. Perhaps what a candidate did six years ago as a senator would might be somewhat predictive (but even that would very likely have a low correlation with later behaviour--political decision-making being so situationally-specific), but not something 40 years ago when the candidate was a different, developing person. On this point, we may have to agree to disagree.

Finally, you have cited the Huffington Post mention of the cheat-sheet in the debate as though it is a fact. From all that I've seen online today, however, this was a rumour that has since been discredited. (See link below.) See, in particular, in the last paragraph: "Romney is seen wiping his face with it [the supposed cheat sheet] during the closing statements of the debate."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/0 ... 42790.html

I believe that this malicious red herring represents the very kind of nonsense that distracts people from what's really important in this campaign and election.

[Sir Purrcival]

Frankly, even if Romney was the greatest candidate ever, the Republican ticket is really a bunch of tickets. The Republican Party has too many disparate factions to be effectively appeased IMO. Too many of their numbers are right out of the dark ages in their thinking when it comes to heathcare, the military, foreign policy and so on. I would be curious as to what, those who support Romney, think he would be able to accomplish in the Middle East over and above Obama or any of the other US presidents have been able to accomplish over the last 50 years. Two versions of Bush had their crack at it, so did Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Clinton and so on. Did any of them really make that situation better long term? Frankly the American public appears to be tiring of the whole mess. Things are tough at home, people want jobs, nice houses and good lives. Sending their young men and women into places where the locals they are supposed to be helping would just as soon shoot at them than thank them is wearing thin. It' is costing them a huge amount of money, the improvements have been tenuous and if anything the region is becoming more fundamentalist than ever.

The Reps. had their turn at it for 8 years under Bush. The result of that was the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. The basic philosophical difference seems to come down to how much Federal control are people willing to tolerate in their lives. The economic crash showed just how well things were managed when the Feds took too much of a hands off approach. I wouldn't want too much control either but I thank goodness that in this country at a time when it mattered, we had someone smart enough regulating our bank system enough to protect us from the worst of the ravages of the recession. And no, it wasn't our reigning economist Mr. Harper. I shudder to think what kind of mess we would have been in had Harper and Co. been in charge of things when the foundations for the current recession were being laid. If there was a chance for a do over, I think there would be a lot of Americans who would opt for a little more Federal regulation if it meant that they too could have avoided some of the mess they found/find themselves in.

[South Pender]

Interesting, Sir Purrcival. In my analysis of US foreign policy, I wasn't thinking of becoming involved in another war in the Middle East, but rather being more proactive in stopping Iran. There's no question that Obama has been reluctant to stand strongly behind Israel, despite his boilerplate rhetoric. His rude, and at times dismissive, treatment of Netanyahu has been well documented. Many believe that he is not really pro-Israel at all. Now, there are lots of people who believe that Israel should not receive Western support, but I'm not one of them; I think they need our support in spades. So reasonable people differ on their feelings about Israel, but I do believe that Romney would be the stronger ally of the Israelis.

There is some question about whether Obama would step in strongly to prevent an Iranian blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 40% of the world's oil passes. Romney has made it clear that (a) he would send US warships to the Strait in a New York minute if such a blockade were even threatened, and (b) he would help Israel with a strike at Iran if the evidence suggested it. Obama has been weak and vacillating on this file. And this is not a policy around which you'd see Republican party divisions. Despite considerable heterogeneity of philosophy within the GOP, a strong military presence and response is a common value. Of all of Obama's initiatives and policies (most of which I approve of), this is the one area in which he has, in my opinion, been weak.

I certainly cannot agree with you about the state of our Canadian economy had Harper been responsible for managing it when the foundations of the recession were being laid. Actually, he was in charge of it during some of that period--2006-2008 (although not during the years of bank regulation; I think we can thank Paul Martin for that). Any economist will tell you that Harper's handling of our economy has been exemplary--within the parameters that are imposed on any PM by the House. We can hate Harper for being insufficiently liberal, I guess, and ignoring the little guy a little more than the Liberals would have, but it's foolish, in my opinion, to diss him for economic issues. Harper has been PM for more than 6 1/2 years now; the fact that, of all the major economies of the world (consider the G20), ours is, in most ways, the strongest speaks volumes about Harper's acumen in this area whether you like him or not. And, don't you think the Canadian Conservatives have slid a long way towards the political centre under Harper? Many political talking heads have identified the almost-imperceptible difference between the Tories and the Liberals now on most issues.

[Toppy Vann]

Let's face it. Conservatives in North America are profligate spenders all the while screaming for smaller gov't. Our gov't is no exception. If you speak to federal civil servants today they will tell you privately they have never seen so much interference in even the most minor decisions for political benefit to the governing party. But the kind of voter who votes more for who aligns with their prejudices will love them regardless.

Romney is scary on the Middle East as he is listening to the neo-cons on the Middle East. Those are the guys who advised on the Iraq War and of course they will invest heavily in those companies that are making the money off tax payer funded wars they can't afford. There is no country in that region including Turkey who want a war in Syria and an escalation there. The Arab Spring was seen in this part of the world as wonderful and clowns I know posted on boards in Hong Kong, how soon it will come to China - all the while posting from Hong Kong, China. Now the Arab Spring is looking like it might be heading to Winter as this gives terrorists a large window to crawl into. Libya was a country of all of them that I thought might have a very good chance. All the supporters of that country's take over are now seeing it as a scary place that might be ungovernable. It has resources and just over 6 million people - unlike Egypt which has NO resources and over 80 million people where tourism is key as they have not much else.

I fear that if the US does anything stupid in fighting a war with Iran that our PM like so many weak people who lacked courage of their youth for the rough and tumble of sport will want to send our troops and money to take that place apart. We forget that it is not the Iranian people who are bad - it is their gov't.

The United States have been the most successful western democratic on the face of the earth and got their by being internally focused. They joined both world wars late and reluctantly.

[Sir Purrcival]

Interesting points Toppy. I'm want to respond to a couple. Let's talk about Israel for a second. It is my opinion that they are also a large part of the problem in the middle east. As much as I don't agree with rockets being fired at settlements, it has been the Israeli policy of expansion, division and enforced poverty which have gone a long way in stoking the flames of hatred. I don't think they would have been loved in any case but when you essentially tell the indigenous peoples of a region that they have no place there because your religion says you were promised the holy land, well, lets just say try winning that case in any court. They came, they conquered and armed up. Frankly, I have had some problems with the US indulgence of their actions. They have needed support over the years and it would have been well if the US had used that need to temper the Israeli's approach to the Palestinians. Netanyahu is one of the worst in this regard IMO. His policy of allowing expanded settlements which have pushed Palestinians off land would be enough to push any group to react violently. The US IMO has been more concerned with having an ally in the region (something in very short supply for them) rather than actually concerning themselves with what the Israeli's have been doing. In general, I find US foreign policy crude at best. They like to call themselves the world police. Police don't police for their own personal benefit (those that do we call crooked). Just today, Mr. Romney is suggesting that if he is president, he will consider supporting rebel groups in Syria with training and weapons. That is his novel idea? Reminds me a lot of what they did with the Taliban and we all know how well that worked out. They seem to lack the know how of when to get involved and when to stay out and subtlety doesn't appear to be their strong suit. I would much rather that they be a little less knee jerk (Obama like) verses their usual trick of roaring into situations hiding behind the rhetoric of making the world more democratic. If history teaches us anything, it is that people would rather live under their own "bad" government rather than a good one imposed by a foreign power.



Harper and the economy. I based my opinion on that score on the fact that Mr. Harper and co were for deregulation and opposed to the constraints imposed on our system which essentially saved our bacon prior to his coming to power . It was also Mr. Harper and Co who were telling us when the rest of the worlds economy's went to hell, that there would be no recession in Canada and no deficits. A month later, a completely different tune. For the most part, Mr. Harper has been living off the benefits that he received when he came to power. Most of his post recession measures have been smaller, watered down versions of what Obama has been doing. He also had no majority until this last election so his abilities to chart his own course were extremely limited. No one can say for sure what he might have done had he come to power a few years earlier but his admiration for the US style of economy is well known. At the time he seemed to be against regulation of the banks so even though the economy is currently doing well in comparison to most other nations of the world, I'm not quite so ready to concede that Mr. Harper or his polices are the reason.

[Toppy Vann]

While this is focused on the United States there is lots that Stiglitz is saying that should be a wake up call to Canada. If you want to see him interviewed go to the Charlie Rose archives as he talks of this new book. This is no left wing radical but an economist who sees a dramatic shift that he says Buffet describes this way: “There’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years and my class has won.”

The 1 Percent’s Problem

Why won’t America’s 1 percent—such as the six Walmart heirs, whose wealth equals that of the entire bottom 30 percent—be a bit more . . . selfish? As the widening financial divide cripples the U.S. economy, even those at the top will pay a steep price.
Related
Read Joseph E. Stiglitz’s “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%,” from the May 2011 issue and his Q&A on innovation, and the Reagan administration.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012 ... inequality

What Stiglitz notes is that capital gains (Canada 50% and US 15%) is supposed to be about investment in the economy but many of the products like the credit swaps that sunk AIG and got them a bail out do nothing to increase the size of the economy. This makes a lot of sense. What he is saying is that you can give tax incentives for creating expansion of the economy. I assume he supports what Romney says is not true but it is (that US companies get tax breaks for going overseas - that is fact and he basically lied in the debate.

[South Pender]

Let's talk about Israel for a second. It is my opinion that they are also a large part of the problem in the middle east. As much as I don't agree with rockets being fired at settlements, it has been the Israeli policy of expansion, division and enforced poverty which have gone a long way in stoking the flames of hatred. I don't think they would have been loved in any case but when you essentially tell the indigenous peoples of a region that they have no place there because your religion says you were promised the holy land, well, lets just say try winning that case in any court. They came, they conquered and armed up.

To suggest that the Israelis are hated by the millions of surrounding Arab peoples because of settlements is just wrong. From the very beginning of the State of Israel in 1948, the Arabs (and more recently the Iranians) have pledged to "wipe them [the Israelis] off the face of the earth." The early Arab-Israeli wars were before settlement activity. Remember that it was the United Nations that agreed to provide a homeland for displaced Jews around the world--a people that had been brutally treated by most of the rest of the world (including Canada). The Israelis weren't given that tiny strip of land because of their religious views of the promise of the Holy Land, but rather because they had no homeland whatsoever, and were shunned by most of the nations of the world. Boatloads of Jewish refugees were turned away (including one from Canada) with literally nowhere to go.

Now the Israelis face an existential crisis with Iran. What would you have them do with a huge nation that has dedicated itself to, again, "wipe them off the face of the earth," and about to acquire the means to do just that? And, should their military power be insufficient to fend off annihilation, would you have the only country able or willing to help them just let this annihilation happen? Perhaps I'm naive, but I believe that the American sentiment to help Israel is based on much more than having an ally in the Middle East. The Americans are a generous people and they collectively have a heart. To most--and this includes pretty well all denominations of Christians as well as Jewish Americans--to allow the Jewish homeland to be annihilated by a bunch of theocratic gangsters is just fundamentally wrong and completely intolerable. Actually, I don't think that, if push came to shove, Obama would allow this. My concern is that his somewhat vacillating and weak performance so far may encourage and embolden Ahmadinejad and the theocratic thugs he answers to, and, as a result, allow the situation to go much further towards nuclear attack than would stiffer and more resolute support for Israel now, before this gets close. I think Romney would provide this stronger and more certain opposition to Iran.

If history teaches us anything, it is that people would rather live under their own "bad" government rather than a good one imposed by a foreign power.

What history are you reading that teaches us this? Subjugated people may not like to have things imposed on them by a foreign power in general (particularly if what is being imposed is for the benefit of that foreign power), or the messy, inconvenient, and bloody process that attends regime change, but if, at the end of the day, the resulting government is democratic, they will take to it like ducks to water. Just witness the recent Libyan response on the streets to the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi. If a foreign power frees them from living under the heel of a despot, I believe they'll take that in a nanosecond. And take a look at the enormous improvements to the living standards of women in Afghanistan that have resulted from the Western intervention there. Is there any evidence that the Iraqis are less happy now (with their nascent democracy) than they were under Sadam Hussein's heel? Sure, while the war was raging, many were wanting the Americans out, but that was because of the extreme hardships of war. Now that the country has moved a little towards a democratic state, are they complaining about that and wishing they had a thug back to suppress them?

[Sir Purrcival]

OK, lets try and defend some of my statements.

JC - here is a youtube video of some of Harper's statements. He did say no deficits (echoed by Jim Flarhety) but began hedging as time went along in the 2008 campaign. I already acknowledged that he changed his tune along the way. If he was suggesting that no deficits were to be limited to one year, he was sure pretty unclear about that especially early on. I don't think he was anywhere near as clear as you were. If he had made statements the way you did, I wouldn't have an issue.

Steven Harper

Jim Flarerty
http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/s ... rnational/

His rhetoric on issue was all over the place. I don't blame the guy for running deficits. Lots of PM's have run deficits, what I don't appreciate are misleading statements to the contrary. He did change his message and I will give him that but it revisionist to say that he promised no deficits and somehow limited that to some specific scenario.

I don't think he has been an unmitigated disaster but he hasn't been the economic genius that he seems to like to portray abroad when touting the health and strength of the Canadian economy.


South Pender -I never said that the Israeli's were hated just because settlements. You are right they were in the bad books with the locals from about 1944 on when the mass migrations started. What I was saying was that their policies regarding settlement expansion have only fanned the flames of that enmity. I also wouldn't read too much in the the UN"s partitioning of Palestine in 1947. They had little choice in the matter, they had to try something or else they would likely have seen the whole situation explode. Not something that war weary nations of the world where willing to face at the time. The British tried to stem the flow into the region originally establishing an immigration quota of 18000 persons for year. In a 3 year period from about 1945 through to 1948 more than 200,000 settled in Palestine. 450,000 between the years of 1922 and 1948 when they declared statehood. The fact is that a whole group of people essentially moved in over a short period of about 30 years , took over a portion of the region and dispossessed a large number of the indigenous peoples. What would your reaction likely be to such a circumstance if you experienced the same kind of displacement?

I completely understand why the Israeli's are armed to the teeth. If they want to survive as a nation, they have to be but at the same time, many of their policies towards the Palestinians haven't won them a lot of praise around the world, and that is disregarding those nations who have a religious axe to grind. The point that I was making was that the US has/had influence over the Israeli's, they should have used it more effectively to temper the Israeli's ongoing mistreatment of the Palestinians. Americans are generous to a point but they are also driven by money and politics. The US have shielded and aided as many notorious characters over the years as well. Marcos, the former Shaw, Batista, Noriega. Their moral compass is very selective when they perceive they have interests at stake.

As for the good government vs bad government comments. How many examples would you like me to cite. There are lots of examples both historically and even currently where it is clear that locals would rather rule their own destiny even if badly rather than allow a foreign power to run their country even if benignly.

Afghanistan is probably the most current example which you mention. What do you think is going to happen their when the US finally leaves? It will revert to form. Even now, there are elements inside the country, bombing, shooting and killing Americans. They may not all feel that way but at the end of the day, there is enough ignorance and hatred to make the whole thing go to pot. There are many examples of British Colonialism including our own that back up the point I am making as well. South Africa, India, numerous countries in Africa and the Caribbean all desired independence and self- government. In many cases, after the British departure, the entire place went to hell in a hand basket but there hasn't been a single request that I can think of to have the Colonial powers back. There are some democracies that have flourished but there have been just as many that have flopped. As for Libya which you mention, hardly a functioning democracy at the moment. Syria is going the same way. The current regime may not survive but it is pretty clear that the fighting will turn factional after the current government is gone. Your point was that people will willingly embrace democracy when given the chance. In many cases, I don't think that democracy is really the rallying point around some of these conflicts, it is more reaction against the never ending oppression of one leader. What happens after that leader is gone is another matter entirely. The verdict on Iraq is still out.

No interpretation is all encompassing. All are simplifications by necessity. I just want you both to know that I realize that.

[South Pender]

South Pender -I never said that the Israeli's were hated just because settlements. You are right they were in the bad books with the locals from about 1944 on when the mass migrations started. What I was saying was that their policies regarding settlement expansion have only fanned the flames of that enmity. I also wouldn't read too much in the the UN"s partitioning of Palestine in 1947. They had little choice in the matter, they had to try something or else they would likely have seen the whole situation explode. Not something that war weary nations of the world where willing to face at the time. The British tried to stem the flow into the region originally establishing an immigration quota of 18000 persons for year. In a 3 year period from about 1945 through to 1948 more than 200,000 settled in Palestine. 450,000 between the years of 1922 and 1948 when they declared statehood. The fact is that a whole group of people essentially moved in over a short period of about 30 years , took over a portion of the region and dispossessed a large number of the indigenous peoples. What would your reaction likely be to such a circumstance if you experienced the same kind of displacement?

I believe that the Israelis "took over" only the tiny sliver of land allotted by the UN. They may have settled in a larger part of what is now labeled Palestine, west of the Jordan River, but they were not master of much of that.

I completely understand why the Israeli's are armed to the teeth. If they want to survive as a nation, they have to be but at the same time, many of their policies towards the Palestinians haven't won them a lot of praise around the world, and that is disregarding those nations who have a religious axe to grind.

I think we need to be honest here and acknowledge that there is really nothing the Israelis can do to win them "a lot of praise around the world." They are not hated by much of the world primarily for their settlement activities, but simply, for the most part, because they are Jewish. The fact that they have developed an extremely successful country from the little patch of land they were allotted has sown the seeds of envy among the millions of Arabs surrounding them. And antisemitism is still going strong in the wider world millenia after its first appearance. I'm not speaking from personal experience here, nor that of my family, as I'm not Jewish, but the remark by the French delegate a few years ago who, not suspecting he was heard by anyone except the person he was talking to, labeled Israel a "sh*tty little country" demonstrated this deep-seated and longstanding hatred of the Jews. Their only truly reliable ally is the US, and, as I've noted, I think the US should step up to the plate and provide the necessary support in stronger terms than Obama has.

As an aside, perhaps, it has been a source of puzzlement to me why the left wing of this country is so anti-Israel. We have a provincial leader of a CUPE union advocating a boycott of speeches by Israeli intellectuals, and now the (increasingly left-wing) United Church of Canada, attempting to promote a boycott of Israeli products. I just don't understand the nexus here of the Canadian political spectrum and support (or its opposite) for Israel.

The point that I was making was that the US has/had influence over the Israeli's, they should have used it more effectively to temper the Israeli's ongoing mistreatment of the Palestinians.

Interestingly, the Palestinians and other Arabs with by far the best quality of life are those living in Israel!

As for the good government vs bad government comments. How many examples would you like me to cite. There are lots of examples both historically and even currently where it is clear that locals would rather rule their own destiny even if badly rather than allow a foreign power to run their country even if benignly.

Afghanistan is probably the most current example which you mention. What do you think is going to happen their when the US finally leaves? It will revert to form. Even now, there are elements inside the country, bombing, shooting and killing Americans. They may not all feel that way but at the end of the day, there is enough ignorance and hatred to make the whole thing go to pot. There are many examples of British Colonialism including our own that back up the point I am making as well. South Africa, India, numerous countries in Africa and the Caribbean all desired independence and self- government. In many cases, after the British departure, the entire place went to hell in a hand basket but there hasn't been a single request that I can think of to have the Colonial powers back. There are some democracies that have flourished but there have been just as many that have flopped. As for Libya which you mention, hardly a functioning democracy at the moment. Syria is going the same way. The current regime may not survive but it is pretty clear that the fighting will turn factional after the current government is gone. Your point was that people will willingly embrace democracy when given the chance. In many cases, I don't think that democracy is really the rallying point around some of these conflicts, it is more reaction against the never ending oppression of one leader. What happens after that leader is gone is another matter entirely. The verdict on Iraq is still out.

Well, we may have been talking about two slightly different things. I don't doubt that people don't like having a foreign power running their country. But I wasn't arguing that they would like this. My point was that all people would prefer a government free of oppression from a despot. If the US can help a country throw off the oppressive leader and evolve into a democratic state, then I do believe that the people would greatly prefer this to their former heavily-suppressed lives. You seem to think that the Afghans would rather live under the oppression of the Taliban than free of this despicable movement (who just today shot in the head a 14-year-old girl who had been writing anti-Taliban pieces). I don't suggest that they'd all be really happy living under foreign (US) rule, but I'm pretty damn sure that almost all of the women would be. But, as I said, what I think they'd most like would be to be freed of despotic and corrupt leaders and allowed to develop a democratic state.