"Do they hate us for what we think and how we live," Anonymous asks in Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror (buy it here), "or do they hate us because of what we do in the Muslim world?" The until-recently anonymous author believes it's the latter: "What we as a nation do, then, is the key causal factor in our confrontation with Islam."

Imperial Hubris is a thought-provoking book that challenges assumptions held by Americans about their nation's foreign policy. Even when its prescriptions are wrong, Imperial Hubris provides value in allowing the reader to see the global conflict pitting Islam against the West (or, perhaps more accurately, Islam against the rest) through our enemies' eyes rather than our own.

For instance, seeing al Qaeda's leader described as a "pious," "generous," and "courageous" man who could be played by Errol Flynn leaves the reader to briefly wonder if Anonymous might be Osama bin-Laden. He's not. He's former senior Central Intelligence Agency officer Michael Scheuer, and though his characterization of bin Laden chafes Westerners that characterization describes how many Muslims view the terrorist leader. The imperial hubris the book discusses involves a series of comforting delusions: foreigners universally desire to be like us, most Arab Muslims hate al Qaeda too, and what we do internally (free speech, elections, racy movies) primarily fuels our enemies' actions rather than what we do externally (billions in aid for Israel, establishing military outposts in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Uzbekistan, and points beyond in the Islamic world, and recent interventions in Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Sudan, and Afghanistan). In addition to altering aspects of our foreign policy, the author recommends a shift in the war on terrorism from "law-enforcement tactics" to military ones and abandoning the cowardly practice of "finding others to do hard and bloody things" in favor of a more do-it-yourself approach. Most significantly, Imperial Hubris calls for discarding the Wilsonian approach of democracy-building and the reembrace of the Washingtonian approach of a foreign policy based on the just interests of America.

"As a people, Americans have a heritage to be proud of and one that is worth defending with their children's lives," Imperial Hubris explains. "It is not, however, a heritage whose experiences, heroes, wars, scandals, sacrifices, victories, mistakes, and villains can be condensed, loaded on a CD-ROM, and given to non-Americans with an expectation that they will quickly, and at little expense, become just like us."

So are we to assume that you pretty much agree wholeheartedly with his thesis?

By the way, I love that whenever people on either side of the isle want to find a way to blame Israel, they cite the "billions" figure, always leaving out the fact that we give almost as much to countries like Egypt.

Also, why no post on Lebanon? Could it be that we are now seeing the results of Bush's actions, with a despotic government stepping down after being pressured by its people? I wonder if the recent democratic election in Iraq had the slightest involvement...

Nah, of course not. Bush/Neo-cons/etc. are bad and we should not meddle in the affairs of other countries.

Bush's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to a massive democratic upheavel throughout the middle east. We are seeing democratic reform not only in Lebanon, but also in Egypt, and Libya is rapidly becoming more and more friendly towards westerners and Americans in dealing with government. American support for the Ukraine's orange revolution threw back forever the old screen of Russian domination. The vision of George W. Bush has led to A liberated Iraq, a liberated Afghanistan, a cornered and desperate Iran, extremely progressive democratic reforms beginning to take place in the Middle East, specifically in Lebanon, Libya, and Egypt, and to a much lesser extent Saudi Araiba. In Israel, peace talks are holding more promise for success than ever before.

In short, George W. Bush, in the first year of his second term, already would rival Ronald Reagan for the title of the single most effective U.S president on foreign policy since the end of World War II.

Iraqi Election Day was an event comparable only to the fall of the Berlin Wall in the effect it had on history. Just as the Berlin Wall forever destroyed communism as a possible path for world leadership, Iraqi election day has forever crippled Middle East totalitarianism.

In review:

Iraq is a free and democratic state
Afghanistan is a free and democratic state
Democratic reforms are begging to take root in Lebanon.
Democratic reforms are beginning to take root in Egypt.
Much smaller, but still hopeful democratic reforms are beginning to take place in Saudi Arabia.
There is more hope for a peaceful end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict now than ever before.
Iran is cornered and the Mullahs are fearful.
Syria is cornered and the Baathists in Damascus are fearful.
Russian domination of Eastern Europe has been firmly checked once again.

Oh, but oh yeah, there were no WMDs in Iraq.

"Iraqi Election Day was an event comparable only to the fall of the Berlin Wall in the effect it had on history." Do you own a time machine? Iraqi Election Day was less than one month ago.

"By the way, I love that whenever people on either side of the isle want to find a way to blame Israel, they cite the 'billions' figure, always leaving out the fact that we give almost as much to countries like Egypt."

According to USAID and the State Deparment, Israel and Egypt received about $3 billion and $2.1 billion dollars of foreign aid respectively. I don't consider what amounts to nearly a $1 billion dollar (although this amount seems relatively small in comparison to the massive deficits being run up by a Republican Congress and Republican President) gap evidence that the United States is giving "almost" as much to Egypt as it is to Israel.

For the record, I don't think we should be in the business of bankrolling either country.

However, I'd love for you to cite for me where among the limited and enumerated powers in the Constitution you find a power for the federal government to take my wealth and redistribute it around the globe. Moreover, I can't understand why a conservative, who would presumably favor less taxation and government spending by his own country, would advocate sending tax dollars to the governments of other nations. Foreign aid seems incompatible with a conservative limited government philosophy.

First off, isn't this almost blasphemy?

"Iraqi Election Day was an event comparable only to the fall of the Berlin Wall in the effect it had on history."

Two words: Jesus Christ

"Oh, but oh yeah, there were no WMDs in Iraq."

Well, to your credit, at least you're admitting this openly. I think it is past time for the Administration to admit the same thing and level with the American people.

Many of the advocates of this war (perhaps not you, Ben-T, but many others) have now shamelessly shifted their justifications for this war from being in self-defense - that the US was "threatened" by an impoverished third world nation with a third rate military - to bringing about a "global democratic revolution" (where again is our government authorized to participate in this sort of activity by the Constitution?).

Ben-T cites Iraq and Afghanistan as being "free" states, yet that is very debatable. Iraq hasn't drafted a Constitution yet, although the winners of the election are promising that all law will be "based on Islam", while in Afghanistan we still haven't found Osama and large portions of the country are still very much hostile and dangerous. Labeling these nations as "free" does not make it so.

What's the big deal about "democratic reform"? Elections took place in Alegeria in the early 1990s and we know how that turned out. Would the two Bens support a referendum in Palestine on Israel getting out of the occupied territories?Finally, a whole range of "democratic reform" in the greater Middle East is not justification for 1,500 American dead and scores of thousands wounded.

One more question for you, Ben-T, when do you plan on joining Woodrow Bush's gallant crusade? I will never support a war I would not be willing to fight myself.

"I don't consider what amounts to nearly a $1 billion dollar (...) gap evidence that the United States is giving "almost" as much to Egypt as it is to Israel."

Well, it is evidence, whether or not you want to "consider" it. Furthermore, a hateful, repressive, undemocratic country like Egypt simply does not deserve as much as our primary ally in the Middle East, the "little America", Israel.

"I don't think we should be in the business of bankrolling either country."

We're not "bankrolling" Israel. Israel provides us with benefits (both militarily and technologically) and vice versa. We are no longer living in the 19th century. Whether you like it or not, the age of globalization and interconnectedness between countries is here to stay.

"I'd love for you to cite for me where among the limited and enumerated powers in the Constitution you find a power for the federal government to take my wealth and redistribute it around the globe."

Aiding developing countries is a good thing, and it makes no difference to me whether I can cite the Constitution to defend that idea.

"Moreover, I can't understand why a conservative, who would presumably favor less taxation and government spending by his own country, would advocate sending tax dollars to the governments of other nations."

I completely support tax cuts. You're ignoring is a key point. As Thomas Sowell has pointed out, it's tax *rates* which are being cut. After Reagan slashed taxes in the 80s, tax *revenues* were higher than ever. I'm fine with the government helping people out, as long as we get to keep as much of our own money as possible.

"Would the two Bens support a referendum in Palestine on Israel getting out of the occupied territories?"

Israel has, on numerous occasions, attempted to do just that. In fact, Sharon has called for that explicitly, and has made it a priority in his government. Where do you get your news from, Z-Mag and The American Conservative? Just last week, Israel released hundreds of Palestinian terrorists from Israeli prisons as a good will measure, in hopes that there might be some lasting peace.

"One more question for you, Ben-T, when do you plan on joining Woodrow Bush's gallant crusade?"

This is such a specious argument. There is more than one way to support the country and to support the spread of freedom.

Isreal has made numerous attempts to create an independent Palestine, each time the PLO or a similar organization ruins it via terrorist attacks, once again proving that an independent Palestine is a serious security threat to the Israeli people.

Couple other notes here.

The Jesus Christ remark. I wouldn't compare Christ with the fall of the Berlin Wall or Iraqi Election Day. The life and death of Jesus Christ had a much larger effect on history than either of those two things, but also a very different kind of effect, which is what I was referring to. I would not think to put The Berlin Wall or Iraqi Election Day on that platform, the life and the death of Jesus Christ was the most important event in the history of the western world.

To Mr. Flynn.

Yes, I posses a time machine.

No, obviously I am simply making a prediction, but I am also very sure of myself.

Oh yeah, another note.

Never believed there were WMDs in Iraq, I opposed the war at the beginning of it. I made my shift on the Iraq war well after it was obvious there were no WMDs, and made it based not on self defense, but on what I believe the proper strategy for winning the greater war on terror is, and how that fits into the application of the Truman doctrine to the Middle East, or as it is now called, the Bush doctrine.

The WMDs remark, btw, was sarcastic in nature.

"Aiding developing countries is a good thing, and it makes no difference to me whether I can cite the Constitution to defend that idea."

I don't have time to respond to Ben's post in its totality, but I just wanted to draw some additional attention to this comment. It makes no difference? Really?

Ben just tossed the doctrine of limited and enumerated powers out the window.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the billions we give to Egypt is a result of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty whereby Egypt agreed to recognize Israel's right to exist and also not to attack it again in exchange for the US giving Egypt billions in aid and Israel making a few concessions. Since we paid off Egypt for Israel's benefit shouldn't the money going to Egypt also be counted as aid to Israel?

"Well, it is evidence, whether or not you want to "consider" it. Furthermore, a hateful, repressive, undemocratic country like Egypt simply does not deserve as much as our primary ally in the Middle East, the "little America", Israel."

Israel is a developed nation. Why, can't it get off the dole?

You cite Egypt, yet, I don't consider a nation where it is officially illegal for Christians to proselytize the standard for libertine. What was that about "little America" again?

What benefits have we received from Israel? The U.S.S. Liberty? John Pollard? The extensive amount of Israeli espionage in our government? Why would a supposed ally conduct such operations on a friend?

"Ben just tossed the doctrine of limited and enumerated powers out the window."

I simply stated that I don't think every facet of the way we interact with other countries must be backed by some Constitutional excerpt. I consider the Constitution sacred for its internal value, primarily.

"Since we paid off Egypt for Israel's benefit shouldn't the money going to Egypt also be counted as aid to Israel?"

This is insanity. You people go to great lengths to indict Israel.

"Israel is a developed nation. Why, can't it get off the dole?"

Since the day it was created, literally, it has been bombarded by enemies who want to "push the Jews into the sea." While this potential fate may be fine with you and Buchanan, decent human beings are concerned about its survival. We are Israel's only true ally in the world, and if we can help it build a military to defend itself from a bunch of genocidal lunatics, good.

"You cite Egypt, yet, I don't consider a nation where it is officially illegal for Christians to proselytize the standard for libertine."

Are you out of your mind? Have you ever been to Israel? People of all religions can live, vote, and worship however they'd like.

"What benefits have we received from Israel?"

A long list of technological and medical advancements, military equipment, a democratic ally in the Middle East... You're right, nothing.

"The extensive amount of Israeli espionage in our government?"

You really do believe in some kind of global Jewish conspiracy, don't you? You guys make me sick.

-ben

Ben Litchman:

"People of all religions can live, vote and worship however they like."

Absolutely wrong. Israel puts quotas on the number of Gentiles that may live within its borders.

"Decent human beings are concerned about its survival."

Decent human beings are also concerned about the tens of thousands of people in Africa dying everyday because of starvation and AIDS. Why should the United States give more money to prosperous Israelis than starving Africans?

"A long list of technological and medical advancements, military equipment, a democratic ally in the Middle East."

First, the United States paid for all that technological and medical research. We could have gotten the same results by increasing research grants to American universities. There was no need to fund research in Israel.
Second, Israel is not a democracy. It's a theocracy--a state "for the Jewish people."

"Are you out of your mind?"

No. What I'm referring to is the "anti-missionary" laws passed by the Knesset in 1977. The laws have supposedly not been enforced, however my point stands - that officially it is illegal to proselytize in Israel.

"A long list of technological and medical advancements, military equipment, a democratic ally in the Middle East..."

Well, go on and list them then.

"You really do believe in some kind of global Jewish conspiracy, don't you? You guys make me sick."

There you go putting words in my mouth, as in your comment about "decent people" you seem to be interested in preventing a substantive discussion from taking place. My point about Israeli espionage in the Pentagon, which the FBI is in the process of investigating, stands. Its not like it is unprecedented in history (see John Pollard). I am still curious as to why an ally feels the need to spy on its friend.

"Absolutely wrong. Israel puts quotas on the number of Gentiles that may live within its borders."

My post had nothing to do with quotas. Furthermore, if you think using quotas in immigration makes a country unfree, then the United States, too, has been quite an unfree country.

"Decent human beings are also concerned about the tens of thousands of people in Africa dying everyday because of starvation and AIDS. Why should the United States give more money to prosperous Israelis than starving Africans?"

Although many of your comments (along with others' comments) against Israel hint at a more sinister underlying reason for this lashing out, I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to ignorance. The United States spends more than twice as much as *the rest of the world combined* as far as contributions to the AIDS problem plaguing Africans goes.

"Second, Israel is not a democracy. It's a theocracy--a state "for the Jewish people.""

This is just stupid. It's difficult to reason with unreasonable people, so I'm having a hard time trying to figure out how to spell this out to you. Here, maybe this will work. Read this essay I wrote a few months back. You can skip the beginning and head into second page, where I begin to address moronic claims like that one.

"Well, go on and list [Israeli advances] then."
How lazy can you be; it took me 5 seconds to find this on Google:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/MFA+Spokesman/2005/Israel-+Technology+for+the+next+generation+17-Jan-2005.htm

"My point about Israeli espionage in the Pentagon"

...which you claimed was "extensive"...

"Its not like it is unprecedented in history (see John Pollard)."

I'm not familiar with Pollard, but obviously there will be isolated, terrible cases for any country. Unless one is a bigot, one judges a country by the rule, not the exception.

"I am still curious as to why an ally feels the need to spy on its friend."

It doesn't. Citing but one egregious example proves nothing (other than the groundbreaking, monumental idea that good countries occasionally do stupid things).

-ben

"Furthermore, if you think using quotas in immigration makes a country unfree, then the United States, too, has been quite an unfree country."

The United States does not have religious quotas. Israel does. People of all faiths are welcome to practice their religion in the United States--not so in Israel.

"The United States spends more than twice as much as the rest of the world combined as far as contributions to the Aids problem plaguing Africans goes."

Yes, and the United States spends more than 100,000 as much as the rest of the world combined as far as contribusions to Israel goes. All this money is going to a country where there is a high standard of living, everyone has food to eat, and there is plenty of potable water. The money would be better off going to starving people who lack food, water, clothing and shelter.

"This is just stupid."

If my argument is so stupid, then why don't you refute it? Calling it stupid and citing some puerile essay you wrote does not prove anything.

"The United States does not have religious quotas. Israel does. People of all faiths are welcome to practice their religion in the United States--not so in Israel."

So, by your logic, it can be said that people of all nationalities are not welcome in the United States. Of course, that would be false. It would be equally false and mind-numbingly ignorant to suggest that there isn't religious freedom in Israel.

"If my argument is so stupid, then why don't you refute it?"

I have already dealt with stupid anti-Zionist claims before, so I cited an essay where I examine that argument.

"So, by your logic, it can be said that people of all nationalities are not welcome in the United States."

No. That is not what I'm saying. The United States does not have quotas on the number of Christians, Muslims, or Jews that may live withing its borders. It does not do that because that would be religious bigotry of the type Israel is unique in practicing.
What the United States practices is population control. But the population control is fair because it is open to all. Unlike Israel, the United States does not discriminate against immigrants based on religion, race or creed. That is the salient difference between Israel's immigration policy and the United States' policy.

"I have alread dealt with stupid anti-Zionist claims before, so I cited an essay where I examined that argument."

Which "argument"? The "stupid anti-Zionist" one? Oh, okay, that clears things up! Face it, dude, Israel is a theocracy. The nation's charter states that it is a nation "for the Jewish people." Israel's highest court has said that there could be no Israel without the Jewish peoples. The country employs religious quotas. According to the government, and the Israeli Supreme Court, citizens of Israel are to be called "Jews," not Israelis. This is a religious country with an unyielding religious bent. It is a theocracy plain and simple.

Tsk tsk tsk Reader, you still cant seem to find a way to prove that theocracy and democracy are mutually exclusive systems of government! Israel is a state for the Jewish people and has a theocratic, Jewish system of government. That is true. Israel is one of the most tolerant, free, and liberal nations in the world. That is also true

Israel's brand of "theocracy" does not equate with that of say, Iran, and you won't be able to make a convincing case for that no matter how hard you try.

"Israel is one of the most tolerant, free, and liberal nations in the world."

Har-har. Good one.

"Israel's brand of theocracy does not equate with that of, say, Iran."

Actually, the comparison with Iran is a pretty good one. Both countries have elections, but voters put into office leaders who solidify the theocratic hold on the countries (any candidate stupid enough to run on a religious tolerance platform would be wiped out in either country). To my knowledge, Iran does not have laws that are as explicitly theocratic as Israel, though--i.e., no religious quotas, no religious basis for the state, etc.

"...you still cant (sic) seem to find a way to prove that theocracy and democracy are mutually exclusive systems of government."

Theocracy and democracy are NOT exclusive systems of government. A country can have elements of both. However, situations will arise in which the two elements will conflict, and at that time the state will show which element is prevalent. Israel has shown time and again that the theocratic element is prevalent. Its highest court has stated that there can be no State of Israel without the Jewish people; it will not allow Gentile citizens to change the designation on their passports from "Jewish" to "Israeli,"; and, as James pointed out, Israel does not allow Christians to proselytize on its soil. It is a theocracy first and a democracy second.

"I'm not familiar with Pollard, but obviously there will be isolated, terrible cases for any country. Unless one is a bigot, one judges a country by the rule, not the exception."

Pollard is an example, but his is far from an isolated case. As the brouhaha over Larry Franklin demostrates. What about Israel selling advanced weapons technology to the Chinese during the 1990s?

"Citing but one egregious example proves nothing (other than the groundbreaking, monumental idea that good countries occasionally do stupid things)."

The Pollard affair was far from just a "stupid" thing, it was a traitorous sort of thing, that put the lives of US agents behind the Iron Curtain in jeopardy, something I hope all patriotic Americans would condemn.

"It does not do that because that would be religious bigotry of the type Israel is unique in practicing."

This is absolutely insane for so many reasons. Firstly, even if Israel were practicing "religious bigotry" which it very simply is not, how can you blatantly lie and suggest it would be "unique"? Do you have any knowledge whatsoever of the Middle East? Do you know that Jordan bars Jews from citizenship? Do you know that one of Saudi Arabia's limits to getting their equivalent of a green-card is that you cannot be Jewish, nor can you have even TRAVELED to Israel.

If you are aware of these facts, you are a despicable liar.

The group "FreedomHouse" rates the level of freedom (taking into account, political freedoms, religious freedoms, and civil liberties) in countries all over the world. Here is their information on Israel. Seriously, you should try to be informed before you spew hateful nonsense.

"Unlike Israel, the United States does not discriminate against immigrants based on religion, race or creed."

No, it discriminates based on nationality. And, at least in the past, the quotas were *not* equal in the United States.

Also, since all of you love Buchanan so much, why don't I hear any complaints about ideas espoused in his magazine such as encouraging more European immigration in order to preserve the European character of this nation? I wonder why that is? I dare not have any oh-so-kneejerk theories as to why you focus your scorn on Israel.

"According to the government, and the Israeli Supreme Court, citizens of Israel are to be called "Jews," not Israelis."

Israel's Supreme Court is considered one of the best in the world. As far as Israel being a country solely for Those Whose Only God Is Usury, perhaps you will be surprised to learn that Israel has two official languages, Hebrew *AND* Arabic.

"the comparison with Iran is a pretty good one."

I'm done with you. What an unimaginably dumb comment.

"but [Pollard] is far from an isolated case."

It seems to be the only case that has been proven. Perhaps others are being *investigated*. Of course someone who already hates a country will jump onto any claim presented by an elite media who do their best to sully the image of that great country.

"What about Israel selling advanced weapons technology to the Chinese during the 1990s?"

What about America, historically, selling weapons to despots all over the world? And, I may be mistaken, but didn't Clinton himself deal with the Chinese in a similar manner?

The point here is that many of you have two standards: one for Israel, and one for the rest of the world. That is bigotry.

-ben

"No, it discriminates based on nationality. And, at least in the past, the quotas were *not* equal in the United States.

Also, since all of you love Buchanan so much, why don't I hear any complaints about ideas espoused in his magazine such as encouraging more European immigration in order to preserve the European character of this nation?"

Do you think its okay for Israel to discriminate in its immigration policy on the basis of nationality? Do you support the construction of the security fence? Do you think its okay for Israelis to want to perserve the Jewish character of the state? If so, do you think its okay for Americans and Europeans to attempt to perserve the ethnic character of their respective states?

"It seems to be the only case that has been proven. Perhaps others are being *investigated*. Of course someone who already hates a country will jump onto any claim presented by an elite media who do their best to sully the image of that great country."

Your whole "hate" routine is getting old. If you want to have a discussion let's have one, but I don't see a reason to continue to entertain this.

"The point here is that many of you have two standards: one for Israel, and one for the rest of the world. That is bigotry."

Your point about Clinton and America selling arms to dictators (including Sadaam during the 1980s, when he was a "good guy") is well taken. I submit that we'd greatly limit the number of these embarrassing episodes if our nation would return to the foreign policy vision of men like Washington (something you manifestly reject).

Also, you're the one who called Israel "little America", not me. If that is true, why shouldn't Israel be held to a higher standard? I hold the United States to a higher standard than Zimbabwe, Chad, and Libya, does that mean I'm "bigoted" against America?

"Do you think its okay for Israel to discriminate in its immigration policy on the basis of nationality?"

I lean more towards an open-borders policy for immigration, so I'm not a fan of immigration quotas at all.

"Do you support the construction of the security fence?"

Yes, but the security fence is at best a tangential issue to immigration. It is solely about security. (There has been an 80% decrease in the number of suicide bombings since its construction, so it also has proven to be successful).

"Do you think its okay for Israelis to want to perserve the Jewish character of the state?"

Yes, I can understand that, to a degree.

"If so, do you think its okay for Americans and Europeans to attempt to perserve the ethnic character of their respective states?"

Sure, to a degree. That's precisely my point: you subscribe to one of these and not the other. I say that it is understandable for any nation to want to preserve its culture and things of that nature, and you say that it is, too, unless that nation is a tiny Jewish country the size of New Jersey.

"I submit that we'd greatly limit the number of these embarrassing episodes if our nation would return to the foreign policy vision of men like Washington (something you manifestly reject)."

I submit that we reject detente, try to minimize our friendly relationships with tyrannical regimes and pressure them (without military force, whenever possible) to make internal changes. This is what Bush is doing. This is what Reagan did. Both men were criticized, not only by leftists, but pretty significantly within their own ranks for their tough and immutable stance in defense of freedom and in rejection of totalitarianism.

"If that is true, why shouldn't Israel be held to a higher standard? I hold the United States to a higher standard than Zimbabwe, Chad, and Libya, does that mean I'm "bigoted" against America?"

We have to hold the entire world to a high standard and then see how they measure up, accordingly. The obvious truth to anyone who is even mildly informed is that liberal democracies like the United States, Israel, England, etc. are far ahead of the rest. None are perfect. That is all I was trying to get across.

-ben

"Do you know that Jordan bars Jews from citizenship? Do you know that one of Saudi Arabia's limits to getting their equivalent of a green-card is that you cannot be Jewish, nor can you have even TRAVELED to Israel."

No. I was not aware of any of that. All of that is terrible. But Israel's religious quotas are only marginally better.

"Perhaps you will be surprised to learn that Israel has two official languages, Hebrew *AND* Arabic."

Good for Israel. What's the word for that? Window-dressing?

"The point here is that many of you have two standards: one for Israel, and one for the rest of the world. That is bigotry."

Israel is a developed nation. Its people enjoy an extraordinarily high standard of living. Many advisors to its government were educated in the United States. It receives $3 billion annually from the United States, and some of that money comes from my tax dollars. I have every right to expect more from Israel than, say, Eritrea.

"I have every right to expect more from Israel than, say, Eritrea."

The point you seem to be missing is that you GET more (in any measurement) from Israel than, say, Eritrea.

"The point you seem to be missing is that you GET more (in any measurement) from Israel than, say, Eritrea."

What am I getting? For $3 billion a year?

"What am I getting? For $3 billion a year?"

Your nickname must be a misnomer. Read this goddamn thread over again.

Actually, I remembered a couple of very specific things that I haven't mentioned already in this thread. The first and most important is that Israel destroyed Hussein's nuclear facilities in the early 80s (and then faced international condemnation). Secondly, I believe Israel votes with us more often than any other country in the UN.

-ben

"Your nickname must be a misnomer. Read this goddamn thread over again."

I did. And I still don't think the United States is getting a good return on the $3 billion it gives to Israel every year.

"The first and most important is that Israel destroyed Hussein's nuclear facilities in the early 80s."

Israel destroyed a single Iraqi reactor in 1981. Big deal.

"Secondly, I believe Israel votes with us more often than any other country in the UN."

At over $5 million a pop, those are some pretty expensive votes!

"Israel destroyed a single Iraqi reactor in 1981. Big deal."

Correct, it is a big deal. That is, unless you wanted to see a major US city blown up by an Iraqi nuclear bomb in mid-2003.

"That is, unless you wanted to see a major US city blown up by an Iraqi nuclear bomb in mid-2003."

Ha-ha. Interesting doomsday scenario Ben!

"Interesting doomsday scenario Ben!"

You have essentially forfeited. This "doomsday scenario" would have been completely plausible if Hussein still had nuclear weapons and we attacked Iraq. Thank God for Israel. (I also thank the many decent fellow Americans for being some of the foremost supporters of this small, resilient nation).

Back to the main point: Like Reagan, Bush is absolutely right and his actions have led to the spread of democracy around the world, which will, in turn, make the world a safer a place. If Lebanon, Palestine, and Egypt didn't convince you, how about what's happening in Bolivia right now? Going to post any time soon on these amazing stories, Dan?

Sadly, I think I spoke too soon about Bolivia. My apologies for the error!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/03/06/bolivia/index.html

The idea of Socialists overthrowing a government doesn't exactly fill my heart with glee.

Ben, when something "amazing" happens in Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, or Bolivia, I'll be sure to post. But as your reference to, and subsequent retraction of, Bolivia shows, you are just name-dropping countries without anything beyond a superficial understanding of what's going on.