K-9

Reports are that most of their weapons have come in through Egypt via eastern Libya. Huge stores of weapons from the Gaddafi regime have been missing since he was overthrown. After the embargo was lifted back in 2004, most of his arms came from EU countries, including Italy, Great Britain and France. Their Qassam rockets were most likely homemade. Very easy and very cheap to produce with common materials.

Well, if Hamas had the balls to put on a uniform, attack another uniformed army, remove their uniforms and then hide among the civilian population, I might be persuaded. That and if they'd move their rocket launchers to a non-populated area. Still, I'd be interested in learning more about it.

I suggest there's a difference between guerrilla warfare waged against a uniformed army vs. lobbing bombs into civilian populations and then hiding among the populace to avoid retaliation. Now I don't proclaim to be any Revolutionary War expert and I could be persuaded if you could suggest where to look for additional information. Somehow, George Washington as a terrorist general was never taught. Unless I missed that class.

No worries here, SFiNS. Never crossed my mind to take your comment personally. I think I know where you're coming from most of the time. Peace. Very well stated, eleven. That really capsulizes the argument for me. And while we're on the subject, terrorism just isn't a very smart military tactic. In as much as I think these leaders are not stupid people, I seriously have to question their motives in this regard.

Why don't they launch their rockets from remote areas? Why don't they fight in the open? Yeah, I know. They're SMART brave men. I'm sorry but anyone who hides behind the cover of innocent woman and children to avoid retaliatory counter-attack is a coward in my mind. Feel free to parse the language any way you like.

I rest my case. Look at the areas in the Mid East that don't have this kind of strife and you'll see similarly favorable economic indicators. In areas with strife, very bad economic indicators. Here's a snippet from an article about the jobless rate in Gaza. Vast amounts of people cannot be dismissed from the economic equation without serious repercussions. That is as old as time itself. Here's the rest of the article. I think it really underscores the issues in Gaza. Shame on Hamas for exploiting their suffering. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/03/palestinian-man-dies-setting-himself-alight

You've just described the major underlying issue for the entire region: an inordinate amount of unemployed and disaffected people, most of them males between the ages of 20-30, with little hope that things will get better in their lifetimes. And for good reason. There have been generations of such people who never saw their situations improve. Age old religious conflicts are a symptom, nothing more. It comes down to economic opportunity and a chance to improve the lives of your children. In that regard, these people are no different than anyone else in the world.

Nobody has the right to kill any innocent civilians in any conflict. It's not a question of rights though. If only it were that simple.

Those warnings by the Israelis to stay away from Hamas militants have saved many lives over the years. The problem is, the cowards from Hamas won't stay away from non-militant Palestinian population. Israel is ramping up their ground game and will invade Gaza to take out launch sites and stabilize the area. This will be a big test for Egyptian leadership. And there is something we all have to remember about the their rhetoric: what they say publicly to mollify their people vs. what they say and do privately are two entirely different things much of the time. They have to play to their electorate while at the same time being politically expedient with the rest of the world. It's always been a fascinating lesson in Middle Eastern politics.

Hypocritical much? We are so lucky to have you here to teach us that elections have consequences. Given my leanings. LOL! Get over yourself.

Sounds to me like you're involved in hating just about everything from reading your posts celebrating all the bad news in any given day. Every other post has been an "LoL" of some sort or another. And given that sorry display, I don't think I'd be very interested in what you're involved in anyway.

You make too many assumptions in your post. Not worth responding to given your intractability. You may want to look that word up. It too, can be an important thing to consider when deciding who to vote for. Oh, and there are other elections than just presidential campaigns. You should probably get involved on more local levels while you're at it.

Oh, so your snark was meant for me I see. You have embarrassed yourself once again. I've voted for a Republican candidate in one race of another in nearly every election, including this one, for as long as I've been of voting age. Over 30 years now. It matters greatly what the candidate has to say or what his "message" is as you put it. The rest of your post just confirms what all your other post-election posts says about you.

Can't speak for anyone else but it all depends on what I "learn" about him. I'd have no problem at all in voting for Jindal if he speaks what I need to hear concerning the issues I find important. The media will have little to do with it. I'll watch the debates during the primaries, etc. and form my own opinions based on what he says directly and not through the media at all.

Diplomacy is a nuanced science. There is no need for any two world leaders to be buddies. But Obama and Netanyahu are FAR from not getting along. Things have been far more heated at times in the past. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/15/us-palestinians-israel-usa-timeline-idUSTRE62E45Z20100315

There is no big problem with US/Israeli relations. And if you want a time when things were just as "strained" do some research on our relations with Israel during Reagan's 2nd term and Bush 1's term. Like I said, James Baker himself barred Netanyahu from the State Department during that period. The Johnson and Nixon administrations had big issues with Israel as well. The US has historically played a delicate balancing act in the Middle East vis a vis our key diplomatic relationships with other players in the region. Especially those that hold sizable, long-time US investments. And that is absolutely essential. You seem to have little appreciation for that very important element of our foreign policy in the region. Do you dismiss Netanyahu's and Romney's long friendship entirely here? Nothing wrong in wanting to your friend and former work colleague elected president but to think that Bibi's rhetoric during the campaign wasn't geared to his support for Romney is naive.

The Romney campaign's suggestion that US/Israeli relations were strained and that Obama was not a friend to Israel's cause in the Middle East was for nothing more than an attempt to scare Jewish voters in the US, particularly in Florida. I find that shameless indeed because nothing can be further from the truth. And yes, the Jewish voting block in this country usually leans towards the Democratic candidate. I find nothing wrong with trying to court and convince ANY voting block to your side but I disagree when that is done through lies and manipulation. And Netanyahu, Romney's good friend and former work colleague in Boston, was more than willing to go along with it.

I think you have that backwards but that's been the case with most US Presidents since Israel became a state. And it doesn't help that Netanyahu is a world class prick, especially to his political adversaries in Israel. World leaders don't have to get along, they seldom do actually. But they do have to co-exist peacefully.

Like I said, I'm not going to comment on the rest of your post at this time. I was merely pointing out that the assertion that Israel is on their own or that US/Israeli relations are strained is unfounded and based largely on campaign rhetoric and the fact that Netanyahu backed his old Boston friend and colleague. Bibi wasted no time in backtracking as soon as the election results were in, by the way. Just full of congratulations for Obama. Like any diplomat would. It's too bad for him that he backed the wrong horse and that the shameless attempt to garner a larger percentage of the US Jewish vote didn't come to fruition for Romney. As to the press conference, was Obama asked a question about Israel and the mid-East situation? Did he deflect or avoid a question about it? I honestly don't know as I didn't watch it.

I won't comment on the rest of your post but as to this part, nothing could be farther from the truth. US/Israeli ties are as strong as ever. This idea that he doesn't get along with Obama was trumped up during the campaign season to prop up Romney. That's no coincidence given that Netanyahu and Romney have known each other since they were colleagues at Boston Consulting Group in the 70s. They are old buddies. But if you really want to know when Netanyahu and the US weren't on the same page, go back to when he was Israeli Ambassador to the UN during the Reagan years. Hell, James Baker had him banned from the State Department at one time when he was Secretary of State for Bush 1.

I'm mainly talking about scholars at Hebrew University in Jerusalem who have only been studying the issue for 54 years now. 54 years. It's known as The Bible Project. And I understand why you needed to fix my text.

Which version? Scholars know the Bible has indeed changed over the millennia both in translation and context.

His bigger job is to get everyone in his caucus that signed the Norquist pledge to renege. Including him. I seriously doubt he has the nads to get that done. Nobody has had the nads since Tip O'Neil. Which brings to mind one of my favorite Reagan quotes: "My 80% friend is not my 20% enemy."

One of my favorite and timeless quotes from him:

Can't believe students in Philly would choose Obama over Chuck Bednarik.