If so, why did Fallon resign?? Doesn't sound like a "new" way of thinking in the Bush Administration.

basic structure of discourse w. us, the unwashed; by priests, generals, princes, kings, modern politicians hadn't changed since even before rise of sumer'n city states. it consists of selfpraise, blame, invocation of great perils, 'promises', jingoism, general statements, etc. oh what, oh what would politicos- the hired mouths- do, if they couldn't make 'promises', mother of all lies. i evaluate all or most politico/priestly 'promises' as lies. (the words under single quotes denote their false symbolic values).

I think once President Bara Omaba is in office he will be able to draw all faiths together and Islam will not look so bad to everyone. Maybe they will be nice to us when we leave Iraq, if we can just get him or someone here in America.....hmm!

plainfacto: "My point is this: If Abbas wants to have any semblance of peaceful coexistance with the Israelis"

Abbas has no more business setting Palestinian government policy than Oh.. say... Ron Paul currently has any right to speak for American policy.

He's NOT elected, or a legitimate spokesman for Gaza OR the Palestinian people... Just a faction.

A U.S. armed and trained faction.

Yet you speak as if Abbas matters.

It matters if the Gazans don't want a civil war with one side directly funded by the U.S..

That's blackmail friend.

You want to be party to that?

Who doesn't like my opinions? The Israelis or the Palestinians? I'm going to assume you meant the Palestinians...

My point is this: If Abbas wants to have any semblance of peaceful coexistance with the Israelis, it would be essential to keep IDF out of the Strip. The ONLY way that can be accomplished would be to oust Hamas. He hasn't been able to control them, he hasn't been able come to terms with them; so what else is left for him to do? Abbas knows who they are and where they live, he needs to make a choice that is in the best interest of his constituants.

For arguements sake, if I were to live in the Strip, and Hamas was getting my neighbors killed for what Hamas does - I would say that it is time for them to leave. They would have a better lot if they could push them out; who knows - they may even get adequate provisions and better living conditions if they did this. I can only hope that get their Palestinian act together and remove their own hindrances and stop being their own worst enemy.

As if you care...

plainfacto: "Why doesn't the Palestinians themselves kick out Hamas altogether before Israel has to do more damage in retalliation? If the Palestinians do not boot them out, then they can be considered as complicit to the actions of Hamas. As it is now, the situation is only asking for a huge escalation in Israeli retalliation to commence any time soon..."

Because they don't consider surrendering their sovereign rights an option?

Because the hamas government was elected in an internationally monitored election (unlike the United States)and they are waiting (in vain) for a Western controlled UN to intercede?

I dunno.. Maybe because they don't like you and your opinion?

Speaking of Gaza:

GAZA CITY, Mar 4 (IPS) - Two F-16 missiles were all it took to bring down the five-story headquarters of the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions (PGFTU). In Full: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41445
("In Full", The way genocide is supposed to be.)

Newsflash:

A Palestinian gunman entered a semenary in Jerusalem and sprayed many students inside killing at least eight and injured two dozen more just a few hours ago. The gunman has been killed after his rampage. Students have accumulated outside the location of the incident and have begun to chant 'kill the Arabs'. A group referred to as the 'Imad Mughniyah Martyrs Brigade' has claimed responsibility; but authorities claim that Hamas is most likely responsible...
------------------------------

Hamas had been sending rockets into Israel for the last few weeks and killed a student Sderot. The IDF retaliated with air strikes and soldiers and killed an undetermined number (figures vary) of suspected Hamas militia and citizens in the past week.

I can see why the Israelis did wht they did - in order to protect their citizens. The media has taken the side of Hamas, saying that it was unnesessary for Israel to use so much force. But I see that the Israelis have become fed up with the constant barrages of missiles sent by Hamas frome the Gaza Strip.

Why doesn't the Palestinians themselves kick out Hamas altogether before Israel has to do more damage in retalliation? If the Palestinians do not boot them out, then they can be considered as complicit to the actions of Hamas. As it is now, the situation is only asking for a huge escalation in Israeli retalliation to commence any time soon...

Arkin writes:

-- But I see little difference between the characterization of Fallon as the firebreak between war and peace, and Mullen speaking up against a policy option that he knows the next president might adopt. --

Of course Arkin see little difference. Because he view all things through the distorted lens of a Washington insider.

The characterization of Fallon as a firebreak was made by Thomas P.M. Barnett, who Arkin calls 'an otherwise well-respected analyst'. This is the same T. Barnett who authored "The Pentagon's New Map" and proclaimed proudly on the pages of Esquire Magazine in 2003 "LET ME TELL YOU why military engagement with Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad is not only necessary and inevitable, but good." I have doubts that his characterization of Fallon as a firebreak is any better than his characterization of a war with Iraq as 'inevitable, but good'.

As for Admiral Mullen, Arkin implies he is espousing "options that he knows the next president might adopt". I contend Mullen has been espousing those same options to the current President. And will continue to espouse them to the next President (if he is still CJCS) because Mullen believes it the best advice he can offer any President (Dem or Rep). In short, I find it intellectually disingenous for Arkin (who sees political motives in all things occurring inside the beltway) to convey that same point of view onto a career Naval Officer who has been apolitical thoughout his 30 plus years of service.

A Bi-Cameral or Co-Regent Presidency...

In the future we will have to have the Constitution of the United States amended. We have a bi-Cameral House now, what we need is a bi-Cameral or Co-Regent office of the Presidency.

We need someone who is capable enough to see to the domestic affairs of this nation, and a separate Commander-and-Chief to oversee the military(the latter would not have to be a civilian.

We will get the necessary changes made in the future! For now we have to live with politically divided citizenry, and a just as politically divided military!

P.S.

The 600,000 citizens of the District...

should be reminded that Senator John McCain nixed the most recent effort to secure Congressional Representation for the citizens in the District of Columibia.

It doesn't affect me on the west coast, however, someone needs to say it. Is that the kind of person that we need to be President?

//"I think a precipitous withdrawal, any withdrawal which puts us into a situation where we sacrifice the gains in Iraq, where Iraq falls apart in that part of the world, is something that would concern me greatly,"\\ -Adm Mike Mullen JCS

I think that sums up my feelings - too.
Thanks Mike!

War is not optional! It is too horrible! You only go to war when you have no choice. I put Pearl Harbor and 9/11 in the latter category. As a four year old, the first current event I remember was Pearl Harbor, and it has been one thing after the other since that event. I prefer diplomacy instead of war, and I believe most of the huffing and puffing coming out of the Administration and Congress could be settled through diplomacy. However, I do believe in a prepared military, and I want to see it well armed for any war for which we have not choice. If their is no option but war, it would be a good idea to consult with military leaders. A good leader is a good listener.

Again:

"Whether it's the surge in Iraq, a change in U.S.-Pakistani relations or options in dealing with Iran and North Korea, the uniformed military leadership -- much of which has also been changed by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates -- is enjoying a period of great influence."

Which is EXACTLY WHY the founding fathers were DEAD SET AGAINST a standing army.

But the constitution is just a go-da-n piece of paper according to GW... and I guess you too?

False Buffalos are wasting my time

"Whether it's the surge in Iraq, a change in U.S.-Pakistani relations or options in dealing with Iran and North Korea, the uniformed military leadership -- much of which has also been changed by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates -- is enjoying a period of great influence."

Which is EXACTLY WHY the founding fathers were DEAD SET AGAINST a standing army.

But the constitution is just a go-da-n piece of paper according to GW... and I guess you too?

In case I'm right that Iraq is mainly about oil,
I do not think that a President Obama would get the allowance to decide cancelling Operation Oilgrab.

Big Money & Corporate Media & The Soldiers would blackmail Obama: Either you go on with our engagement in Iraq, or we will destroy your Presidency.

And he will be wise enough to cave in - because THEY CAN.

Hillary Clinton would continue the Iraq misadventure anyway.
McCain would even escalate it and wage war with Iran.

These are the choices, I suppose.

And China will patiently watch this US self-destruction - and wait for the right moment to pull the OilEast over to them.

The Rev says, whatever the KGB wants him to!

America is evil!