mr mahs

(In a chant) CONSPIRACY! CONSPIRACY! CONSPIRACY! CONSPIRACY! This comparison of your's to the third reich is getting as old as you bro.. If we were never attacked then you might have a leg to stand on but after the 11th, zero argument..

May 28, 2003 -- WITH his prestige at its highest, thanks to his spectacular victory in Iraq, President Bush is heading for his first attempt at peacemaking in the Middle East. By taking up the challenge, George W. has decided to follow all his predecessors, from Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton. If all goes well, Bush will meet Israeli Premier Ariel Sharon and new Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) for a troika summit in Egypt in the next few days. The hope is that the summit will fire the starting shot on Bush's "road map." Published last year, the "road map" commits the U.S. administration to the creation of a Palestinian state by 2005. The Israeli Cabinet's decision to accept the "road map," albeit with reservations, is one sign that a breakthrough may yet be possible. The new Palestinian Cabinet, too, appears keen to play along, if only because it cannot develop an alternative. Sharon and Mazen have already met twice and promise to iron out some of their differences before they meet Bush. There are other reasons for optimism. The United States is now more strongly present in the Middle East than ever before. Its victory in Iraq has removed one of the key illusions of Arab radicalism about a "strongman," such as Saddam Hussein, some day wiping Israel off the map. The Syrian Ba'athists and the Iranian mullahs are also shaking in their pants, and unlikely to sabotage the peace process as they have always done. Yet it is not at all certain that Bush will succeed where his predecessors failed. Nor can one be sure that the summit, and indeed the entire Middle East visit, have been carefully planned and prepared. A visit by a U.S. president should be a major event, well prepared and sure to lead to tangible results. Bill Clinton debased the exercise by embarking on too many visits that produced too few results. (E.g., he met Yasser Arafat 22 times, far more than any other foreign leader.) Bush has won much respect, part of it grudging, in the Middle East by showing that he is not a photo-op time-waster. So far he has done what he said he would, especially by toppling Saddam. He should not be dragged into dicey diplomatic exercises and promise to deliver what is not his to deliver. The belief that the United States can impose peace is based on a dangerous illusion. No "road map," least of all the one on offer, would lead anywhere unless the two nations directly concerned make a strategic choice of peace. Israel may have taken such a decision in 2000 when it was rebuffed by Arafat. But in the present circumstances, it is not certain that a majority of Israelis are prepared to take the risks needed for fresh attempts at peacemaking. On the Palestinian side, the situation has always been more ambiguous. It is quite possible that, given a chance, a majority of Palestinians living in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem would seek peace. But they have never been given such a chance by a leadership, much of it imported from the outside, that has always played the peace card only as a tactic. An analysis of Arafat's contradictory statements over some 30 years shows that he has always been careful to maintain the dream of wiping Israel off the map as part of his broader political vision. To be sure, political leaders must be judged also by what they do. And by that standard, Arafat has manifested his lack of commitment to peace on numerous occasions. Each time he was obliged to take the final plunge to make lasting peace possible, he walked out. Arafat knows that a peaceful Palestine would become a democratic Palestine. He also knows that there is no room in any democracy for the type of politician that he is. Arafat can function only in the context of conflict, tension and uncertainty. One might ask: Why should we bother about Arafat? Has he not become "irrelevant" now that Mazen is prime minister? No. Arafat is as in control today as he was before Mazen received a phone call from the White House. Arafat controls the purse strings, retains a veto on major appointments, and, last but not least, commands Al Fatah and its armed group, the Tanzim. The majority on which Mazen depends in the Palestinian National Council (parliament) consists of men and women loyal to Arafat. Arafat will not let anyone emerge as an alternative Palestinian interlocutor in any peace process. In 1992, he deployed all his resources to destroy Haidar Abdel-Shafi, who had emerged as an alternative Palestinian leader at the Madrid Peace Conference. And now, our sources report, Arafat is spending a good part of his time setting up roadblocks for Mazen even before the latter has started on Bush's "road map." Arafat is not the only problem. A substantial body of Palestinian opinion is also opposed to peace. A hard core represented by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and a number of smaller leftist and Islamist groups, make no secret of their hopes to "liberate" the whole of pre-1948 Palestine - which means dismantling Israel. "We reject the two-state solution proposed by Bush," says Abdelaziz Rantissi, a Hamas leader. "There are no ifs and buts about our position. . . . The creation of Israel was an injustice that must be undone. There can be no compromise." Others support a "one state" solution. This, too, means dismantling Israel and replacing it with a secular state, for both Palestinians and those Jews who might wish to stick around. These are the crucial issues that the "road map" ignores. The "road map" is a patchwork, written by many hands - including French, Russian and U.N. - and thus full of contradictions. It is as dicey as a meal cooked by four chefs with different recipes and styles, and different plans for the guests. (Some may want to poison the guests!) What is to be done? Some problems do not have immediate solutions. The way to deal with them is to contain them and wait until the context changes. How might the context change in this case? The first step is to hold free and fair elections so that the Palestinians have a chance to directly choose between peace and war. This writer is confident that, given a chance, they will choose peace. Despite his financial and organizational clout, Arafat is unlikely to win a majority in a free and fair election, especially if Mazen joins the moderate center that already holds a third of the seats in the parliament. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other radical groups are likely to end up with 30 percent of the votes. It is important that they be integrated into the democratic system. Once the Palestinian people have elected a new leadership with a clear mandate for peace, they could enter meaningful negotiations with Israel under U.S. auspices. A new elected leadership will enjoy the legitimacy and moral authority needed to do what Mazen cannot: i.e., disarm the armed groups, starting with the Tanzim, that pursue their own agendas. Palestinian elections should not be postponed further. The current parliament has outlived its constitutional term and no longer reflects the mood of the Palestinians. As things stand, the Bush peace mission is unlikely to succeed, if only because the "road map" is a dubious recipe for meaningful negotiations. Nevertheless, two caveats must be made. The first is that the "road map" is now the only show in town, and as such must at least be tried. The second: George W.'s karma may again work wonders. Dubya's opponents have always predicted he would fail: from the presidential election tussle of 2000 to the Afghanistan campaign and the liberation of Iraq, and passing by his large tax cuts. Each time, Bush's karma decided otherwise. Why not this time, too?

Isn't Geo-political change the goal? I think war is avoidable but unfortunatley I feel containment will only appease the promblem of a govt which has publicy threaten Isreal and conducted numerous terrorist operations on the US & U.S. interests. You brought up some good points regarding ant-americanism and that it will be fueled by what is perceived as occupation of another muslim nation but is the outcry from the muslim world today that loud regarding Iraq.. I think the world realises that Sadam had to go and with enough attention given to Irananian govt they will suffer the same faith, either by us or internally..

test

I know def strange characters run around here.. Don't let her fool you she really beleives that crap..

The perfect murder theory makes sense.. Have peole destroy them and then kill the people who got rid of them.. The sad thing is the conspiracy thinkers of all people would not beleive that explanation sad, but true..

He had them all the evidence points that way.. The chemical suits the atropiene injections mobile labs The Tigris river has high level of Sarin gas in it. The unwillingless to produce evidence to the world that he did not have them. That alone shows his pride was bigger then his brain. He wanted to be portrayed as this arab leader who stood up to the AMERICANS... BUT HE WAS CRUSHED!!!! And some arabs are mad? Are we viewed to the world as bigger monsters then Sadam/ or are people that dumb to put arab pride before logical thinking??

I have to disagree with you a little on the urgency with Iran.. I wish I still had the article of the that scumbag leader saying the SECOND they get a NUKE they would sacrifice all of IRAN for a martyrdom operation! North Korea is feeleing the heat from CHINA and Russia so they will fold eventually.. With Iran they are the grandfathers of terrorism and need to be removed. Like you said the environment in that countries government and society suggest that an implosion is likely, I hope it is true but a liitle help from us wouldn't hurt;)

IRAN is next... What is interesting is what Russia will do. I want to see if they realise that the pennies they are receiving from Iran is not worth it's isolation from the United States, economically and diplomatically... time will tell.

Iran's supreme leader vowed today not to compromise with the United States, and accused Washington of seeking to strip Iran of its values. Yesterday Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said that the United States believed that Iran had done too little to sever ties to terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda, and to forsake nuclear weapons programmes. Washington, which has branded Iran as part of an "axis of evil" of rogue nations, together with Iraq and North Korea, has accused Tehran of developing nuclear power stations as a mask for a weapons programme that would be illegal under the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). "The US is pressuring Iran in order to make the Iranian Government and nation give in to a superpower," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was quoted as saying by state television and radio. The Ayatollah said: "Those who are intimidated by the enemy's demands will retreat step by step and finally surrender. But nobody has the right to do so, and the nation will not allow it," said during a meeting with MPs. He accused the United States of using its "media empire to spread the virus of fear and anxiety among officials", adding that US officials "will not be satisfied until Iran's officials and people cast aside their values." Meanwhile Russia rejected US objections over Moscow's co-operation with Tehran regarding a nuclear power station. Igor Ivanov, the Foreign Minister, was quoted by the Interfax news agency as saying: "We have spoken about the fact that there cannot be any objections with US representatives and those of other countries who expressed their concern on this matter."

Motorcycle: as the rush comes..

Leverage, it's the American way!

The TSX is the accord in the UK. http://www.honda.co.uk/front.html I agree totally with what you are saying why spend 27k for a 4 banger when you can get a loaded v6 accord. I leased the accord ex 4cyl and absolutly love it (quick for what it is) and def worth the money 23k<. I would like to see a mini suv from Acura. I like the HRV from honda..

Good read bro.

Arabs like yourself beleive Isreal doesn't have a right to exist guess what?? it does so get over it!!!

trace me internet tough guy..

IGLOO- good buddy glad to have you with us today.. I will bet my left family jewel that she really beleives that bull shit web-site.

You are dreaming!!! All those things you mentioned are inter-twined and based with us supporting Isreal...

Who are you kidding.. what else in the world can it be???

You didn't answer.. Do you think it was funded by the U.S??

The PROMBLEM is simple.. Terrorists don't appreciate, to say the least the military and financial support we lend to Isreal, as long as that is happening it's muslims vs christians and jews IN THEIR EYES.... bottom line..... We will always support the only democratic country in the region or else the holocaust woud be a walk in the park sister. With our assistance to Isreal the murdorous hunger will grow, thats why it's our responsibilty to wipe it clean from the earth... WITH US OR WITHOUT US!!!!

BUMP... Please humor us...

Thank you! Finally someone with some common sense.