So you oppose sanctions and you oppose military action. What would be your solution, unconditional surrender (and I mean by the US?)
My solution is a mass popular movement in the nations affected. You're either fighting ideas or you're fighting a repressive government, or both. You can't fight a idea with bombs. Bomb and idea and it becomes infinitely more strong. On the other hand, get the people on your side and you have an unstoppable force. The head of state is just one man controlling others.
In any case, I neglect to see how starving off mass segments of a population, drastically increasing child mortality rates, or bombing a hundred thousand civilians, decreasing living standards, etc, solves the problem at all, which was the topic of this thread.
Unconditional surrender by the United States? To what? I'd love an end to the US enforcing its economic/political interests at a total and utter inconsideration for the people of the world. Call me unpatriotic all you want, I'm an Australian, not an American.
Furthermore, if you want to look at a government that doesn't represent its people, you need look no further than your own. Every 4 or 8 years the people get together and vote for the other party because neither actually satisfies their desires. It's no secret. The difference between the US and other nations of the world opposing their populations is that... the US is the US, and the US has an elaborate system set up to gain public opinion while still opposing their interests. The US people have no choice but Democrat or Republican. Any other candidate can't get together the money required for a campaign, and will have little name recognition. How many people know of Ralph Nader or Ron Paul? Ron Paul has no chance of getting the nomination, and Nader can't seem to get into many presidential debates because they're controlled by the people who want the same parties in power: the media, and the parties themselves.
Alfons said:
A typical liberal position, I suggest, you yourself will drive to Israel and enjoy your beloved Palestinian bandits live.I sure thereafter you will never support this friends.
I'm not exactly certain what you're trying to say, it's often best to reread your posts to make sure they make sense from an English perspective.
Anyway, I gather you're saying I'm a typical liberal, and that typical liberals support my position on the Palestine. Not sure what you said after that, perhaps you can enlighten me.
Anyway, large segments of the US population are in favor of some form of two state solution, it's by no means a "liberal" thing. Note I'm talking about the population. The people who are supposed to represent the population, the politicians, are near unilaterally opposed to me. Obama (the supposed communist fuhrer) has had a policy not different at all from that of past presidents, at least in outcome (Obama likes to talk big to please his base, but has a habit of never actually doing anything differently).
To suggest that the Democrats are on the side of middle east peace is absolutely downright laughable.
