Are you suggesting that the reason why Hamas was established in 1987 and Hezbollah in 1982 were solely to eradicate the state of Israel which was established in 1947? One needs to understand what was going on in the occupied territories and in Lebanon in the ‘80s to give rise to these two groups.

Members and supporters of both groups, one Suni Palestanian and the other Shia Lebanese, had long-standing grievances against the majority leadership of their respective government; Hamas against the corrupt Arafat–led PLO and Hezbollah against the decades of Christian Maronite/Suni Muslim leadership dominance in Lebanon. That combined with decades of failed U.S. Middle Eastern policy have created this catastrophe. I say U.S. because we are the only superpower in this world; economically, militarily and politically.

Are you suggesting that by wiping out Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as all their supporters and even their “sympathizers,� we rid ourselves of the “evil-doers� in this world? How many people will be killed if World War III were to take place? Isn’t an extended olive branch worth the lives of 10s of thousand? The olive branch needs to be extended to the real power brokers in that region: Iran and Syria. To continue to ignore them diplomatically, to label them as members of the axis of evil, to isolate them has not brought peace and prosperity to anyone; it only gave birth and rise to Hamas and Hezbollah.

Mimi, blame everything on the United States. It's a typical liberal solution to a complex problem. The leaders of Syria and Iran have made many choices over the past decade, ones that ingrain hatred for democratic nations and vow to dismantle them. I have no sympathy for Hamas or Hezbollah. They have decided to work through militant channels rather than diplomatic ones to achieve their goals - the destruction of Israel. It's amazing that no Arab nation on the peninsula would take in the Palestinians and offer them land to resolve their decades long dispute with Israel. Yet when Israel relinquishes land in the Gaza strip, after years of negotiations, Hamas, now a political entity, raids the border and kidnaps and Israeli soldier. I don't support WWIII and the killing and maiming of innocents, but that is exactly what has taken place in the regimes of Hamas and Hezbollah. Where were your protests when HHezbollah killed 241 Marines in Lebanon? I guess that was justified from your standpoint. Only when Arab nations rise up for righteousness — their own, not U.S. righteousness — will peace return to the MIddle East. The Arabs, however, believe in undemocratic regimes and Ali Baba style governments to meet the demands of their people. Hamas and Hezbollah both represent a hindrance to peace and prosperity. They'll be fighting western civilization for as long as they exist in the militant mindset they have adopted to get what they want.

Jim:

When Hezbollah struck the marines in Lebanon, I was living in West Beirut attending an Armenian college so I know first hand the terrorizing capabilities of Hezbollah both on innocent Lebanese, American by-standers and American marines sent there to help bring peace to that nation.

I have also seen so many people suffer without the means to end that suffering. I do not think I am blaming everything on the United States; I am acknowledging that we are a powerful people and we have capabilities that most other nations do not have.

By the way, what is Ali Baba style of government?

Mimi, why do we always get caught in the middle of things? Why do we have to be the world's policemen? Why can't other nations, or regions of nations, take care of their own part of the world? I would love to go back to what George Washington said in his Farewell Address: Avoid foreign alliances and commitments. But no one steps up to help out and we end up getting stepped on. The world is so complex and so small now, that anything that happens 8,000 miles away can impact us. Terrorism allowed to expand will eventually reach our shores - a fact we learned tragically on 9/11. Certainly, you have experience living in Lebanon and must understand some of the complex history that has influenced the different factions in Beirut. As a superpower we have an obligation to help and offer solutions. Unfortunately, we make mistakes and will continue to do so because once America chooses a side, rightly or wrongly, we are open to criticism and attack. We have a commitment to defend Israel just like we have a treaty to defend Japan and Taiwan. It puts us in a brutal position to comply and help our allies who sometimes get into trouble on their own. Speaking of the barracks bombing n Beirut, I was the best man at the wedding of my college roommate, US. Marine Corps Officer. Frank D. Pelli. Frank was stationed in Beirut when he was given leave to return home to the states for the birth of his first child, a daughter named Ashley. In order to get the leave, he had to switch dates with another Marine. As it turned out, the bombing occurred on the week my friend returned to the states. His comrade perished in the bombing. Pelli retired four years ago after serving in the corps for 25 years or so. He left as a Major and now teachers online foreign affairs and history courses to soldiers serving overseas and on U.S. bases as part of the Pentagon contract. It's amazing how fate works, andt not a day goes by that my friend doesn't think about the sacrifice his fellow marine made in service to his country. It ended up saving Frank's life as it turned out.
Sorry to digress, but if Hamas and Hezbollah won't cooperate fully in government after being given the political means to do so, how can anyone expect them to be trustworthy and civil in any discussion?

When you say there’s a “coming battle between the civilized, secular world and the demonic, religious fundamentalist world,� on which side do you place Gingrich and his supporters? The religious fundamentalists who are catered to by our current administration pose as much of a threat to our liberty and freedom as do those on the other side of the world. And how can you not attribute at least some of the blame for the current chaos in the Middle East to U.S. foreign policy. While history will record that this President Bush had one of the most inept and dangerous foreign policies in this country’s existence, it was the Carter administration that blew it back in 1979 when they let the religious fundamentalists in Iran win out over the liberals who had helped depose the Shah. Tragically, our current administration’s ineptitude and malfeasance has transformed America from a major player in the war on terror to a passive target that’s marking time until a new administration – of whatever party – takes over in Washington thirty months from now.

Was it Golda Maier who said peace will come to the middle east when arabs love and value their children's lives as much as the Jewish people do?

The problem, my Arab apologist friends is that leaders of most Arab countries do not want peace. They want to blame all their problems and the poverty running rampant in those countries on the United States and on Israel. That way, when the mostly uneducated masses are starving and don't have basic necesseties that most of the free world takes for granted, they'll blame Americans and Jews for what ails them instead of their own governments and their failed policies.

If Arab nations didn't teach their poor people that the U.S. and Israel were the reason why they're starving, then they might more closely examine why their leaders are living in palaces and leading luxurious lives and say "hey, how come I'm living in a tent or a shack and my "leader" is sitting on a toilet made of gold?"

Don't tell me with all that oil to sell the governments of Saudia Arabia, Iran and the other rich oil producing nations have any reason for poverty. No, my friends. Arab governments don't really want peace. Otherwise, they'd end up out of power.

Kind of like Democrats in Massachusetts, wouldn't you say Jim?

Richard, from your standpoint on the Far Left I guess you could equate Rootin' Tootin' Newt in the religious extremist crowd, but I see him as a pragmatist. Newt says what most Democrats are afraid to hear. the world is a dangerous place where terrorists are breeding to spread fundamentalist Islam to take over the world, not to join in it. Europe, or as Oriana Fallaci calls it, "Eurabia" has descended into an us against them environment where waves of religious fanatics are demanding their own part of countries. They don't want to assimilate; they want to control. The northern Scandinavian countries are petrified and tightening immigration controls to shut down their borders to Arab immigrants. The New York Times ran a story on the front page two months ago describing the clandestine techniques these countries, including France, are using to monitor their movements, speeches and broadcasts. In fact some of those techniques have now been adopted by our National Security Agency, but guess who gets blamed for violating the civil rights of domestic civilians and foreigners? The United States. Denmark and the Netherlands have two of the most sophisticated strategies to curb Arab immigration to their countries, because they don't want their centuries of culture and civil order to be diminished. Right or wrong, the residents of that country have a duty to protect their quality of life and to make choices that will sustain their nation's prosperity. Some leftists would say they are being discriminatory against Arabs. I say they are taking necessary precautions, just like the Bush Administration is and has been doing since 9-11. The war against terror was bound to attract our participation even if 9-11 hadn't occurred. That 9-11 did occur just means that a Republican had to make the difficult choice rather than a Democrat. Yes, the Bush administration has underestimated the tenaciousness of the Islamofascist crowd and overestimated the resolve of moderate Muslims to enact change. by I equate the moderate Muslims to minorities in this country who need protection so they can eventually prosper in thought and action. Bush never said this fight would be easy. He's made comments that it could take decades to finally bring peace to this region of the world. iraq is just one battlefield in a broad war to change a climate of distrust, deception and destruction among ethic tribes, sects and factions. But if we are to secure the rights of man and keep our nation and those of our allies safe, the battle has to be joined. I really believe Democrats were united in solving foreign problems, instead of making political hay about them, Osama bin Laden and his ilk would not be long for this earth.
As for Jimmy Carter, you make a very good point. In fact, Carter's the last Democrat I ever voted for for President, outside of Paul Tsongas in the 1992 primary. His response to the Iranian crisis gave me pause for ever considering someone of his political style again, and that included Bill Clinton.

Osama, your thinking is sound and underscores why young Arabs living under the shackles of wealthy monarchies that fail to assist the advancement of their subjects are willing to join in with terrorists who promise them 72 vetal virgins if they blow up a cafe of innocents.
Golda Meier was prescient. Talk about a tough leader. We could use her now.
As for Massachusetts Democrats, they shouldn't be lumped in with foreign radicals and killers. Most Democrats are well-intentioned even though they follow an exclusive tyranny in the Bay State that is all their own. It usually goes like this: tax, spend and ignore citizens' initiative petitions and votes.