Has Anything Changed ?

Playback Editor on 12/25/06

Below is an article I stored a few months back and came upon as I accessed my archives. I recall it caused quite a controversy at the time when Ariel Sharon called for Jews to leave France where anti-semitism was at an all time high and violence was in the air. I remember Chirac was quite displeased with Sharon for making such a statement. He felt he was wrong and that it only added tension to the issue. I have since learned the issue is a bit more complex.

France has the largest Muslim and Jewish population in Europe. The French political system is one that is based upon all citizens are French first. Every citizen is a Frenchman. From all the information I have been able to ascertain, the vast majority of anti-Semitic violence is from the Muslim population. It is not a reflection of the non-Muslim French population. This is not to say that the non-Muslim, non-Jewish French population would prefer not to have to deal with the problem, but the record should be clear. It is a Muslim driven problem. Additionally, the French government does not in any way ignore it. They take immediate and direct measures to punish guilty parties. The difference is that they definitely prefer to keep their issues to themselves and not have every news agency reporting it, hence fanning the flames.

Who is to say who is right? There is a major problem in France with a huge, unassimilated Muslim population. The burnings of a summer ago were no accident. Only time and French actions will determine how it will pan out over time. However, no matter how one rationalizes it, it is not a pretty picture for the small Jewish population.

FEARFUL JEWS FLEEING FRANCE - CBS NEWS REPORT

A relative holds a sign reading "Leave in peace" as a family of French Jews arrive at Charles de Gaulle airport in Roissy, north of Paris, Wednesday July 28, 2004. (AP)

(CBS/AP) Just 10 days after Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon enraged French leaders by urging France's Jews to leave for Israel, a group of 200 French Jews arrived to start a new life in the Jewish state, with Sharon at the airport to greet them. As one émigré told CBS News Correspondent Mark Philips: You wear something to say you are Jewish and you have difficulty. We are afraid. It's simply that we are afraid." At a welcoming ceremony, Sharon appeared to try to correct the damage from his earlier statements, saying anti-Semitism threatens the Western world, without singling out France. "We therefore very much appreciate the determined actions of the French government, as well as the French president's stand against anti-Semitism. We hope that his determination will serve as an example to other countries as well." Softening his earlier appeal, Sharon said, "Jews must come to Israel not because of hatred or fear. Jews must immigrate because it is their homeland." Emerging from the plane, the immigrants sang "Heveinu Shalom Aleichem," or "we bring peace to you," a traditional Hebrew song of greeting. A heavyset man with a beard, wearing a white shirt and skullcap, danced, his arms above his head. Carol Ben Guigui, 41, carrying a dog in her arms, said: "In five or 10 years, all the Jews of France will be in Israel because of anti-Semitism." "Welcome to Israel," Sharon said, "welcome home."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/world/main632610.shtml

Kerry (Today) Calls for Time Table on Withdrawal

In Washington Post today, Senator John Kerry's case for a scheduled withdrawal from Iraq.
THE CASE FOR FLIP-FLOPPING

When Resolve Turns Reckless

By John F. Kerry Sunday, December 24, 2006; Page B01

There's something much worse than being accused of "flip-flopping": refusing to flip when it's obvious that your course of action is a flop.
I say this to President Bush as someone who learned the hard way how embracing the world's complexity can be twisted into a crude political shorthand. Barbed words can make for great politics. But with U.S. troops in Iraq in the middle of an escalating civil war, this is no time for politics. Refusing to change course for fear of the political fallout is not only dangerous -- it is immoral

I'd rather explain a change of position any day than look a parent in the eye and tell them that their son or daughter had to die so that a broken policy could live.
No one should be looking for vindication in what is happening in Iraq today. The lesson here is not that some of us were right about Iraq or that some of us were wrong. The lesson is simply that we need to change course rapidly rather than perversely use mistakes already made and lives already given as an excuse to make more mistakes and lose even more lives.
When young Americans are being killed and maimed, when the Middle East is on the brink of three civil wars, even the most vaunted "steadfastness" morphs pretty quickly into stubbornness, and resolve becomes recklessness. Changing tactics in the face of changing conditions on the ground, developing new strategies because the old ones don't work, is a hell of a lot smarter than the insanity of doing the same thing over and over again with the same tragic results.

Half of the service members listed on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial died after America's leaders knew that our strategy in that war was not working. Was then-secretary of defense Robert McNamara steadfast as he continued to send American troops to die for a war he knew privately could not be won? History does not remember his resolve -- it remembers his refusal to confront reality.

Clark Clifford, the man who succeeded McNamara in 1968, was handpicked by President Lyndon B. Johnson because he was a renowned hawk. But the new defense secretary reviewed the Vietnam policy and concluded that "we cannot realistically expect to achieve anything more through our military force, and the time has come to begin to disengage." By the time he left office, he had refused to endorse a further military buildup, supported the halt in our bombing, and urged negotiation and gradual disengagement. Was Clifford a flip-flopper of historic proportions, or did he in fact demonstrate the courage of his convictions?
We cannot afford to waste time being told that admitting mistakes, not the mistakes themselves, will provide our enemies with an intolerable propaganda victory. We've already lost years being told that we have no choice but to stay the course of a failed policy.

This isn't a time for stubbornness, nor is it a time for halfway solutions -- or warmed-over "new" solutions that our own experience tells us will only make the problem worse. The Iraq Study Group tells us that "the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating." It joins the chorus of experts in and outside of Baghdad reminding us that there is no military solution to a political crisis. And yet, over the warnings of former secretary of state Colin Powell, Gen. John Abizaid and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff, Washington is considering a "troop buildup" option, sending more troops into harm's way to referee a civil war.

We have already tried a trimmed-down version of the McCain plan of indefinitely increasing troop levels. We sent 15,000 more troops to Baghdad last summer, and today the escalating civil war is even worse. You could put 100,000 more troops in tomorrow and you're only going to add to the number of casualties until Iraqis sit down together at a bargaining table and compromise. The barrel of a gun can't answer the question of how you force Iraqi nationalism to trump sectarian loyalty.

The only hope for stability lies in pushing Iraqis to forge a sustainable political agreement on federalism, distributing oil revenues and neutralizing sectarian militias. And that will happen only if we set a deadline to redeploy our troops.

Last May, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the head of U.S. forces in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad gave the new Iraqi government six months to make the necessary political compromises. But a deadline with no teeth is only lip service. How many times do we have to see that Iraqi politicians respond only to firm, specific deadlines -- a deadline to transfer authority, deadlines to hold two elections and a referendum, and a deadline to form a government -- before we understand that it's time to make it clear that we are leaving and that we will not sacrifice American lives for the sake of squabbling Iraqi politicians?

CONTINUED 1
document.write('2')
22
document.write('Next')
NextNext >

The Ever Shrinking Europe ... Population Realities !!

The shrinking birthrate in Europe is quite real. The effects will be felt for generations in many different, most dramatically in population demographic shifts. This is an object of awareness and of some concern to many that is discussed rarely, similar to most issues challenging Europe. Here is an article from DW-World that makes mention of the situation.


Best Christmas Gift for Germany: More Children?
Germany's family affairs minister has said she's confident a new government-funded parents' support program will result in Germans having more children and help reverse the steep decline in the nation's birth rate. »Mehr zu: title"

DW-WORLD
DW-World: German Population Plunge Expected

The Bottom Line on Iran ....

Playback Editor on 12/24/06

An interesting article from today's Jerusalem Post that basically says all the international community's huffing and puffing over Iran's direct and blatant claims regarding Israel is nice, but the article asks who will really stand up to Iran? It is clear the Iranian hardliners have every intention of calling the West's bluff. It's a nasty game of chicken.


View from America: The real denial By Jonathan Tobin

Iran's threat requires action, not just harsh talk about Holocaust buffoonery.

Listen to the military experts at The New York Times....

Playback Editor 12/24/06

Sunday's New York Times on 12/24/06 was typical ... a lecture on all the Bush Administration military wrong doings, of course leaving out so many details that could support today's troop numbers as more than sufficient. While having no problem personalizing issues as if the administration demonstrated no empathy along the way. The irony is that the New York Times would have been the first to criticize the call for more troops in a draft situation.

A Real-World Army
Larger ground forces are an absolute necessity for the sort of battles America is likely to fight during the coming decades.

While elsewhere in the paper, far from any front page headline, there is a minor mention of a buried article detailing Iran's blatant refusal to agree to the U.N. sanctions for their nuclear program, a victory achieved by our president leading a consensus from the international community. As if it happened on it's own.

MORE NEWS
Iran Condemns