<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ignatius Concludes Bombing &#8220;Not Likely&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/08/03/ignatius-concludes-bombing-not-likely/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/08/03/ignatius-concludes-bombing-not-likely/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:22:32 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: andy</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/08/03/ignatius-concludes-bombing-not-likely/#comment-158654</link>
		<dc:creator>andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:56:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4496#comment-158654</guid>
		<description>And Americans wonder why there is "blowback" terrorism against them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And Americans wonder why there is &#8220;blowback&#8221; terrorism against them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim R.</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/08/03/ignatius-concludes-bombing-not-likely/#comment-158651</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim R.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:25:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4496#comment-158651</guid>
		<description>Richard Vajs writes,

"They are capable of stealing land off of the Palestinians, herding them into the Gaza like Nazis herding people into the Warsaw Ghetto, denying them education, access to medical care, shooting them out of spite, dumping human waste on their property, poisoning their livestock, appropriating their wells, and even physically attacking their children. "

I don't doubt that over the years the Israeli government has not been kind to the Palestinians and has in fact at times treated them in an unfair, cruel and reprehensible way, and I for one make no excuses for them. However, I am curious about some of the examples you give. I am not saying your are right or wrong but I really would like more information on it. Where do you get these examples from? From what sources?  I mean dumping human waste and shooting them out of spite? I don't know, maybe it has happened but I would like to know where you get your sources from on that. As a matter of fact, I have travelled to the west bank and I never saw anybody doing anything like that to Palestinians, not that it might not happen, but I did not see it. They certainly are extremly poor and I felt bad for them but I never so the kind of wanton abuse you mention. And in fact the only one that got things thrown at was me. I had fruit and bottles thrown at me since I was with a Jewish group. And as God is my witness I did or said nothing to provoke anybody. Another friend of mine was in Hebron and he was walking to synagogue when he and a family came under sniper fire. They had to dive behind an IDF jeep to save their lives. Also, are you aware that some Israeli doctors peform free treatment for the Palestinians and that there have been cases of Israeli people that have donated organs to save the lives of Palestinians? I don't think all Israelis are quite as evil as you make them out to be.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Richard Vajs writes,</p>
<p>&#8220;They are capable of stealing land off of the Palestinians, herding them into the Gaza like Nazis herding people into the Warsaw Ghetto, denying them education, access to medical care, shooting them out of spite, dumping human waste on their property, poisoning their livestock, appropriating their wells, and even physically attacking their children. &#8221;</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t doubt that over the years the Israeli government has not been kind to the Palestinians and has in fact at times treated them in an unfair, cruel and reprehensible way, and I for one make no excuses for them. However, I am curious about some of the examples you give. I am not saying your are right or wrong but I really would like more information on it. Where do you get these examples from? From what sources?  I mean dumping human waste and shooting them out of spite? I don&#8217;t know, maybe it has happened but I would like to know where you get your sources from on that. As a matter of fact, I have travelled to the west bank and I never saw anybody doing anything like that to Palestinians, not that it might not happen, but I did not see it. They certainly are extremly poor and I felt bad for them but I never so the kind of wanton abuse you mention. And in fact the only one that got things thrown at was me. I had fruit and bottles thrown at me since I was with a Jewish group. And as God is my witness I did or said nothing to provoke anybody. Another friend of mine was in Hebron and he was walking to synagogue when he and a family came under sniper fire. They had to dive behind an IDF jeep to save their lives. Also, are you aware that some Israeli doctors peform free treatment for the Palestinians and that there have been cases of Israeli people that have donated organs to save the lives of Palestinians? I don&#8217;t think all Israelis are quite as evil as you make them out to be.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eugene Costa</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/08/03/ignatius-concludes-bombing-not-likely/#comment-158647</link>
		<dc:creator>Eugene Costa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:12:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4496#comment-158647</guid>
		<description>As Fletch (Phil Silvers) says to Sam Bass (Lee Van Cleef): "These are not your guns, Sam--they are your teddy bears...."</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As Fletch (Phil Silvers) says to Sam Bass (Lee Van Cleef): &#8220;These are not your guns, Sam&#8211;they are your teddy bears&#8230;.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jack</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/08/03/ignatius-concludes-bombing-not-likely/#comment-158646</link>
		<dc:creator>jack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:54:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4496#comment-158646</guid>
		<description>TimR. What are we going to do about Israel's hundreds of atomic weapons? They threaten to use them all the time and are by far the most dangerous nation in the world.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>TimR. What are we going to do about Israel&#8217;s hundreds of atomic weapons? They threaten to use them all the time and are by far the most dangerous nation in the world.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Simon Tregarth</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/08/03/ignatius-concludes-bombing-not-likely/#comment-158622</link>
		<dc:creator>Simon Tregarth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 05:44:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4496#comment-158622</guid>
		<description>John L, good to see your comments again.  As someone who is totally opposed to EC's proposed 'oil nationalization', I am curious as to your take on his opinions re: the US oil industry.  I disagree with EC on moral and economic grounds, but there is also a political dimension that the wise curmegeon Fred Reed exposed in one of his columns.  FR makes a good case that one of the few brakes upon the warmongers of DC is the price of oil.  To the extent that the centgov can divorce oil prices from its overseas enormities will the US subject not care about DC's depredations.  The grumbling over 4frn/gal oil is enough to give pause at this moment to Shotgun Dick and his imperial posse, else the US centgov would be at overt, rather than the current covert, war with Iran.  Twelve frn/gal gas would cause a tidal wave of protest against DC - I do not know how pertinent a consideration potential high gas prices will be in future DC political calculations.  Oil nat would also give the US mil, the world's largest gas guzzler, first rights to gas, further distorting supply and demand.  To the extent that the oil industry is a handmaiden to DC, EC is correct re: recognition of the fact.

EC, a clarification regarding Bastiat and the Socialists:http://www.lexrex.com/informed/otherdocuments/thelaw/law09.htm
If you can find Bastiat in sympathy with the Socialists in that statement or any other within "The Law", more power to you, and I would appreciate it if you shared your discovery with me.  Your insistence on impeachment is superb - had the impeachment power been in wide but careful use since at least Adams pushed through the Alien and Sedition Act, we would not have the hellish imperial state we are in now.  That we and the world suffer underneath our imperial burden further strengthens my belief in peaceful anarchy, since even a constitutional government cannot restrain itself from its own nature. Funny zinger above regarding the Irans accepting US capitulation - rather be an observer of your wit than a target.  ST</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John L, good to see your comments again.  As someone who is totally opposed to EC&#8217;s proposed &#8216;oil nationalization&#8217;, I am curious as to your take on his opinions re: the US oil industry.  I disagree with EC on moral and economic grounds, but there is also a political dimension that the wise curmegeon Fred Reed exposed in one of his columns.  FR makes a good case that one of the few brakes upon the warmongers of DC is the price of oil.  To the extent that the centgov can divorce oil prices from its overseas enormities will the US subject not care about DC&#8217;s depredations.  The grumbling over 4frn/gal oil is enough to give pause at this moment to Shotgun Dick and his imperial posse, else the US centgov would be at overt, rather than the current covert, war with Iran.  Twelve frn/gal gas would cause a tidal wave of protest against DC - I do not know how pertinent a consideration potential high gas prices will be in future DC political calculations.  Oil nat would also give the US mil, the world&#8217;s largest gas guzzler, first rights to gas, further distorting supply and demand.  To the extent that the oil industry is a handmaiden to DC, EC is correct re: recognition of the fact.</p>
<p>EC, a clarification regarding Bastiat and the Socialists:http://www.lexrex.com/informed/otherdocuments/thelaw/law09.htm<br />
If you can find Bastiat in sympathy with the Socialists in that statement or any other within &#8220;The Law&#8221;, more power to you, and I would appreciate it if you shared your discovery with me.  Your insistence on impeachment is superb - had the impeachment power been in wide but careful use since at least Adams pushed through the Alien and Sedition Act, we would not have the hellish imperial state we are in now.  That we and the world suffer underneath our imperial burden further strengthens my belief in peaceful anarchy, since even a constitutional government cannot restrain itself from its own nature. Funny zinger above regarding the Irans accepting US capitulation - rather be an observer of your wit than a target.  ST</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim R.</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/08/03/ignatius-concludes-bombing-not-likely/#comment-158619</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim R.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 03:54:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4496#comment-158619</guid>
		<description>Andy,

I am happy to stand corrected. India's Muslims have been there quite a long time. But I still say that her Muslim population is her biggest problem, well, that and over-population. How would I have stopped Pakistan from getting nuclear weapons? Same way I would stop Iran: First try diplomacy. Offer them economic incentives and the like (this is the carrot approach). If that fails you try the "stick approach." Put more diplomatic pressure on them. Get UN resolutions odering them to stop their nuclear weapons program. If that fails, you go on to economic sanctions, starting with mild sanctions and making them progressivly more severe if they fail to give in. As a last resort you have the US Air Force go in there and bomb their nuclear facilities, send in the Special Forces for a covert raid, whatever it takes to get the job done. So since you asked, there you have it, that's how I would do it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Andy,</p>
<p>I am happy to stand corrected. India&#8217;s Muslims have been there quite a long time. But I still say that her Muslim population is her biggest problem, well, that and over-population. How would I have stopped Pakistan from getting nuclear weapons? Same way I would stop Iran: First try diplomacy. Offer them economic incentives and the like (this is the carrot approach). If that fails you try the &#8220;stick approach.&#8221; Put more diplomatic pressure on them. Get UN resolutions odering them to stop their nuclear weapons program. If that fails, you go on to economic sanctions, starting with mild sanctions and making them progressivly more severe if they fail to give in. As a last resort you have the US Air Force go in there and bomb their nuclear facilities, send in the Special Forces for a covert raid, whatever it takes to get the job done. So since you asked, there you have it, that&#8217;s how I would do it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/08/03/ignatius-concludes-bombing-not-likely/#comment-158618</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 03:13:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4496#comment-158618</guid>
		<description>Your right. WE NEED NEW PARTIES. Parties that will truly represent the people and not special interest groups. At the foreign policy level there really is no difference at all between the Republicans and the Democrats. Both are fully committed to an imperial foreign policy. Both are essentially bought and owned by AIPAC. For all practical purposes America is a one-party state. We have the ILLUSION of democracy but that's all it really is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your right. WE NEED NEW PARTIES. Parties that will truly represent the people and not special interest groups. At the foreign policy level there really is no difference at all between the Republicans and the Democrats. Both are fully committed to an imperial foreign policy. Both are essentially bought and owned by AIPAC. For all practical purposes America is a one-party state. We have the ILLUSION of democracy but that&#8217;s all it really is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: andy</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/08/03/ignatius-concludes-bombing-not-likely/#comment-158615</link>
		<dc:creator>andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 01:54:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4496#comment-158615</guid>
		<description>Actually Japan wanted to surrender as early as 1944 when Saipan fell to the advancing Americans. This caused the collapse of Tojo's government. It was only the "unconditional surrender" policy that prevented this. Japan wanted guarantees regarding the emperor's safety and status.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually Japan wanted to surrender as early as 1944 when Saipan fell to the advancing Americans. This caused the collapse of Tojo&#8217;s government. It was only the &#8220;unconditional surrender&#8221; policy that prevented this. Japan wanted guarantees regarding the emperor&#8217;s safety and status.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: andy</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/08/03/ignatius-concludes-bombing-not-likely/#comment-158614</link>
		<dc:creator>andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 01:50:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4496#comment-158614</guid>
		<description>Tim, you are as ignorant of India as you are of the Islamic world. India DIDN'T "let too many Muslims in there". Those Muslims have been in the sub-continent for a millenium. By the way, you never did ANSWER my question. How EXACTLY would "YOU" (I put YOU in quotations since I'm pretty sure your a chickenhawk) have prevented Pakistan from obtaining nuclear weapons?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tim, you are as ignorant of India as you are of the Islamic world. India DIDN&#8217;T &#8220;let too many Muslims in there&#8221;. Those Muslims have been in the sub-continent for a millenium. By the way, you never did ANSWER my question. How EXACTLY would &#8220;YOU&#8221; (I put YOU in quotations since I&#8217;m pretty sure your a chickenhawk) have prevented Pakistan from obtaining nuclear weapons?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim R.</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/08/03/ignatius-concludes-bombing-not-likely/#comment-158611</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim R.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 00:22:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4496#comment-158611</guid>
		<description>No, of course, it is not a good thing that India got nuclear weapons. I wish no other countries got nuclear weapons. But, compared to Pakistan, India is a much safer nation to have nuclear weapons. India is a civilized nation that is inhabited by peaceful Hindu people who are not homicidal maniacs like the Muslims running around in the hills of Pakistan. India's biggest problem is that she has let to many Muslims in there. Her people have been murdered, trains have been bombed, the Indian parliament was attacked a few years back, all by Muslim fanatics.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No, of course, it is not a good thing that India got nuclear weapons. I wish no other countries got nuclear weapons. But, compared to Pakistan, India is a much safer nation to have nuclear weapons. India is a civilized nation that is inhabited by peaceful Hindu people who are not homicidal maniacs like the Muslims running around in the hills of Pakistan. India&#8217;s biggest problem is that she has let to many Muslims in there. Her people have been murdered, trains have been bombed, the Indian parliament was attacked a few years back, all by Muslim fanatics.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Lowell</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/08/03/ignatius-concludes-bombing-not-likely/#comment-158606</link>
		<dc:creator>John Lowell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2008 22:49:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4496#comment-158606</guid>
		<description>Pretty much my vision of things as indicated above, JP. Great minds think alike. :-)

We are rendered passive here, I'm resigned to that. The only thing that will avert an attack on Iran is the imminence of an horrific economic calamity, not that one isn't in the offing. The reptiles that make up the American political class simply use the two party structure as a way of funnelling discontent into a meaningless franchise watching it emerge later, eviscerated, through some wormhole into the void. The hope of the next election consists solely in the swelling of the extremes, and that means Nader and Baldwin, basically. The Barr and Green Party candidacies are irrelvances that awaits  suitable euphemisms. As some here know, I've been "checking" on Barr periodically and will continue to do so. The system needs purified of its filth and, in my view, Barr's no help. Best to sit tight, stay home on election day and watch the whole affair crumble of its own accord.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pretty much my vision of things as indicated above, JP. Great minds think alike. :-)</p>
<p>We are rendered passive here, I&#8217;m resigned to that. The only thing that will avert an attack on Iran is the imminence of an horrific economic calamity, not that one isn&#8217;t in the offing. The reptiles that make up the American political class simply use the two party structure as a way of funnelling discontent into a meaningless franchise watching it emerge later, eviscerated, through some wormhole into the void. The hope of the next election consists solely in the swelling of the extremes, and that means Nader and Baldwin, basically. The Barr and Green Party candidacies are irrelvances that awaits  suitable euphemisms. As some here know, I&#8217;ve been &#8220;checking&#8221; on Barr periodically and will continue to do so. The system needs purified of its filth and, in my view, Barr&#8217;s no help. Best to sit tight, stay home on election day and watch the whole affair crumble of its own accord.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: richard vajs</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/08/03/ignatius-concludes-bombing-not-likely/#comment-158603</link>
		<dc:creator>richard vajs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2008 21:51:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4496#comment-158603</guid>
		<description>Tim R,
        Of course, most Jews have evolved. Generally when thinking of Jews, I get a mental picture of a concert violinist or some doctor like Jonas Salk. Jewish ethics can be very high. But not the Israeli government leaders or the so-called "settlers" - these are paranoid sociopaths with a racist world view. They are capable of stealing land off of the Palestinians, herding them into the Gaza like Nazis herding people into the Warsaw Ghetto, denying them education, access to medical care, shooting them out of spite, dumping human waste on their property, poisoning their livestock, appropriating their wells, and even physically attacking their children. They compound their guilt by lying, mooching and stirring others to warfare. These particular individuals are "evolved Jews" like the guys who dragged the black man on a rope behind their pick-up are "evolved white men".</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tim R,<br />
        Of course, most Jews have evolved. Generally when thinking of Jews, I get a mental picture of a concert violinist or some doctor like Jonas Salk. Jewish ethics can be very high. But not the Israeli government leaders or the so-called &#8220;settlers&#8221; - these are paranoid sociopaths with a racist world view. They are capable of stealing land off of the Palestinians, herding them into the Gaza like Nazis herding people into the Warsaw Ghetto, denying them education, access to medical care, shooting them out of spite, dumping human waste on their property, poisoning their livestock, appropriating their wells, and even physically attacking their children. They compound their guilt by lying, mooching and stirring others to warfare. These particular individuals are &#8220;evolved Jews&#8221; like the guys who dragged the black man on a rope behind their pick-up are &#8220;evolved white men&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
