Thoughts on a Hamas led Palestine ?

Please, let's keep this discussion on Hamas and not hijack the thread with US politics. Your cooperation is appreciated.

 

Why Hamas' Victory is a Positive Result LINK

 

Let's see:

--Iran's 300 underground nuclear sites are for peaceful purposes, and

--The Hamas victory is a good thing.

but:

--Bush having the NSA eavesdrop on conversations involving al Qaeda without warrants is wrong, and

--the war in Iraq is wrong.


Will you clarify for us, Ken, who the bad guys are?

 

You didn't read the article I just linked, did you, ftr. It appears that you assumed something.

Also, I did not say that Iran was only doing peaceful nuclear research. I did say that if it is proven that it is doing nuclear bomb work and intended to use it for a first strike that then we need to decide how to act to stop them.

Also, I did not say the war in Iraq was wrong. I supported the invasion of Iraq and in the same situation I would still support doing so. The results, however, have made me wiser and that is why I want solid proof this time before I will support military action against Iran.

 

Bush said the elections were a wake-up call for the Palestinians' corruption-ridden Fatah Party. "The people are demanding honest government. The people want services," he said.

- Source

 

Ken,

Actually, I did, including:

I don't care if "democracy" is successful. So far, it apparently is. That makes it not so obviously a good thing. A majority of crazed animals is not a good thing (let us not forget it was Palestinians in the streets celebrating 9/11--animals for doing so). Of course it means Hamas will have to make a choice. That goes without saying; it is the reality of being in power. That doesn't make a Hamas government a benefit just because terrorists have to make a choice. A corrupt Arafat being replaced by a corrupt Fatah being replaced by terrorists is not necessarily a good progression. Their becoming corrupt eventually doesn't make them much worse. Incorruptible terrorists is not an improvement over corrupt terrorists, as Arafat.

 

Huh? You are saying that democracy is not a good thing because you don't like the results of an election? Surely I am misunderstanding you, ftr. Please clarify.

 

Ken,

Knowing what you "know" now (to the extent that any of us do, I understand), should we have invaded Iraq?

 

Nope.

 

Ken,

You are saying that democracy is not a good thing because you don't like the results of an election?

The election of monsters doesn't make them any less monsters. It just means the electorate are either stupid or no less evil.

 

Did you also read this:

"There will be no excuses or ambiguities when Hamas fires rockets on Israel and launches suicide attacks against civilian targets. Until Tuesday, the PA could hide behind the excuse that they were not directly responsible and they could not rein in the "militants." Now the "militants" are the militia of the ruling party. They are one and the same with the Palestinian Authority. If they bomb Israel from Gaza — not under occupation anymore, and is therefore, technically, part of the Palestinian state the PLO proclaimed in Algiers in 1988, but never bothered to take responsibility for — that is an act of war, which can be responded to in kind, under the full cover of the internationally recognized right of self-defense. No more excuses that the Palestinians live under occupation, that the PA is too weak to disarm Hamas, that violence is not the policy of the PA. Hamas and the PA will be the same: What Hamas does is what the PA will stand for."

 

Vox populi is not vox Dei.

 

So, is the war in Iraq wrong or not? Are we right to be there or not?

 

Don't go knocking the voters because you don't like the results, ftr. I remember watching some high school or college students on C-SPAN back in the 1980s discussing politics and they were saying that the only reason that Ronald Reagan was elected president was because of ignorant, uneducated, dumb Southerners.

So please don't go down that road, ftr. You are playing into the hands of the elitists when you do so.

 

It was right to go in at the time because I and most Americans believed President Bush.

I think I am wiser now. And I hope that most of my fellow Americans are, also.

 

Who said that it was?

Personally, while on this earth I prefer a bad choice in a democracy over a good choice in a tyranny.

 

People who are evil compared to whom?

Whom else do you want to prevent from voting - all non-Bush supporters in the United States perhaps? </font>[/QUOTE]All people are evil.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Yep.

Isaiah 64:6 (KJV)
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.


Romans 3:9-18 (KJV)
What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; [10] As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: [11] There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. [12] They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. [13] Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: [14] Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: [15] Their feet are swift to shed blood: [16] Destruction and misery are in their ways: [17] And the way of peace have they not known: [18] There is no fear of God before their eyes.

 

Ken,

Don't go knocking the voters because you don't like the results, ftr. I remember watching some high school or college students on C-SPAN back in the 1980s discussing politics and they were saying that the only reason that Ronald Reagan was elected president was because of ignorant, uneducated, dumb Southerners.

So please don't go down that road, ftr. You are playing into the hands of the elitists when you do so.

Are you equating the questioning of Reagan's victory with questioning whether it is right that terrorists are elected? These people are proven monsters. Elections didn't sanctify them or purify their program/agenda. If that makes me one of "the elitists", that is fine. Monsters are monsters, whether or not they are crowned by the electorate. As I said, it means the electorate are either stupid (perhaps just misguided, though the people celebrating on 9/11 weren't "misguided") or evil. If it is elitist to question the electoral judgement of such voters, call me elitist. Had they elected Hitler (they might as well have) or Pol Pot, would that legitimize either?

Yes, it is good that people have the right to elect their leaders, but when the people put such animals in power, it doesn't speak well for democracy. Which is exactly why our Founders wisely gave us a republic instead of a democracy. Only, as John Adams said, a moral and religious people are prepared for such government. Does that mean that no one else should have democratic systems? Of course not, but it certainly means, as this election has proven, that evil is not legitimized through the franchise.

 

Democracy(including republics) is a terrible form of government...except for all of the other forms.

But I think you are missing Emanuele Ottolenghi's point in the column I linked. There can be no hiding now. If Hamas commits acts of terrorism the Palestinian government can't simply diavow them as they have before since Hamas is the government. Everyone's hands are on the table now - and that is a positive development. Either Hamas will clean up its act or else Israel will clean out the Palestinian government through military force.