Harry Reid just supported the Bush admin on not calling for a cease fire in Gaza

according to MSNBC.

I don't believe much will change even when Obama comes into power :'(

StudsT

:puke:

Change?

Pelosi will be right behind him on behalf of House Democrats.

StudsT

MR. GREGORY: Should there be an immediate cease-fire?

SEN. REID: If the Hamas organization will agree and there is some degree of certainty that they will follow through. They, in the past, have simply not lived up to what they said they would do. If there's a way of enforcing this cease-fire, then yes. Otherwise, Israel has to continue till they stop the rockets and mortars coming into Israel, maiming, injuring...

MR. GREGORY: Right.

SEN. REID: ...and killing Israelis.

MR. GREGORY: So you, you're in sync with the Bush administration on this point?

SEN. REID: Yes, I am.

source...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28493781/

the current crop of Democratic leaders. Obama is still a bit of an unknown, but Pelosi, Reid, Rahm Emanuel, Feinstein, Bill and Hillary - they all leave me cold these days. I look at these people and know that they do not represent me or what I (maybe naively) thought the Democratic Party stood for.

I think the only Dem I still admire even remotely is Kucinich.

I have little hope of Obama bringing "change".

and the www helps more of the story be told - much to the chagrin of our leaders ;)

:hi: diamidue

StudsT

:sarcasm:

or you know, I could wring my hands like you are.

A lot you know about nothing.


:eyes:


FWIW, I'm an American Catholic in the South. My first husband is Palestinian, my second and current (and last) husband is Jewish. He HATES what Israel is doing. Just so you know that there are people who know what the fuck is going on.

Why would that change now?

i am not surprised in his stance and remain hopeful that Obama will be able to bring real change to our mid east policy which is murderous and harmful to all concerned but I am not optimistic.

time will tell.

StudsT

I do hope that Obama and Clinton will try to break the cycle in the M/E. Hillary is now free, because she most likely has no future political aspirations (won't need that AIPAC money). This may be the best last chance. I'd love to see Obama make some statement now. His lack of statement looks too politically expedient at best, and overly cautious at worst. There are just too many lives being lost to NOT send the message that there will be change - and you will work to bring lasting peace.

edited to change the word cowardly to "overly-cautious". I do not think Obama is cowardly. I'm typing too fast. Apologies.

i have nothing but hope with Obama, too... hopefully he and she can break the cycle of violence or at the very least be impartial and honest arbiters in this long running dispute.

:hi:

StudsT

:eyes:

from the many cease fires in that region throughout the years? Has any cease fire accomplished anything?

And no, I do not foresee anything changing about this conflict during his administration. Either one or both sides will find a reason to fight unless their own people come to their senses for peace.

that has been suffering for decades, for starters and what i most care about now... secondly, it would hopefully force the 2 sides to talk directly with each other.

StudsT

that is exactly the point of this. What would be the gain on a cease fire but to delay suffering for some other time?

in talk there is much more hope than in killing.

StudsT

base their actions in religious fanatism.

i guess, we will have to agree to disagree.

StudsT

I have to disagree. To put a bandaid on a conflict and then feel all warm and fuzzy about ourselves while we put money on this conflict from underneath the table I think it is hypocritical. PEOPLE in Palestine and the Israelies need to WANT peace, not the US, not NATO, not the world, but them.

which is by no means a 'bandaid' we are talking about hundreds of people in just the past few days.

and I am not sure what you mean by 'delaying' the killing as NO ONE can see the future and talking CERTAINLY provides hope vs where we are now.

alas, if you are a defeatist I would then also consider we have nothing more to discuss.

StudsT

... with your actions in a nutshell. Since one side is not able to subject the other or come to an agreement, that side will simply say that there is nothing more to discuss and either walk out or attack the other.

Believing that people die because leaders are disconnected to their people's wants is not being a "defeatist". Knowing that there is an inevitable end to life is not "defeat".

as that means the mass killings and terror will STOP, immediately.

how you see that as a bad thing i guess i will never understand :shrug:

StudsT

But we cannot force (at least in my opinion) peace on two nations that ignore peace. We have factions within their nations that want to obliterate the other and both sides believe they are entitled to do that. How can we change that? We can't. When I said "delaying" death I refer to the fact that more blood shed will occur in the future even with a new cease fire. If you read that I don't want peace that is far from the truth.

we can talk about bigger things like stopping the ethnic cleansing after that.

StudsT

Primarily because there is nobody on either side of the conflict willing to honor the terms of the cease fire. There is no cease fire, and there can be no cease fire with the current crop of morons in charge of both sides in the conflict.

and as I understand recent history Hamas was able to enforce a cease fire with Israel even while Israel continued to blockade gaza... after Israel attacked Hamas in Gaza and refused to negotiate they allowed the cease fire to expire.

They certainly sound like they are able to be negotiated with to me.

StudsT

Hamas has all but admitted to using the previous cease fire to recover from their war with Fatah and prepare for a new offensive against Israel, and Israel has all but admitted that they were using the cease fire to gather intelligence about Hamas for a new offensive in Gaza. That's not a useful basis for peace negotiations, and both sides know it. Furthermore, as for justification, both sides have PLENTY of justification for wanting to kill the other. But that doesn't make it the right thing to do. Until both sides accept that their justifications are irrelevant, the current situation will continue. I see nobody in a position of power on either side willing to say what needs to be said, which is that "while we have plenty of justification for wanting to kill the other, this path only leads to doom." Until I see people standing up and saying that, I don't believe anything will change.

I do.

StudsT

You believe in talking only what you want to hear. And you'd have none of what you don't want to hear. Your idea of talking is talking at people, rather than to them.

aren't I entitled to them?

StudsT

And I am entitled to tell you that I think your opinion is foolish nonsense.

but as a policy i don't discuss with rude hot-heads on the internets, so take good care and cya :hi:

StudsT

You're far too trig for that. That's why your argument upthread with Lost-in-FL is simply a figment of my imagination. You'd never degrade yourself such, kennit?

No doubt, the sainted Bill Richardson will receive the same brush off from the pristine likes of the Dem Senators...:eyes:

makes me chuckle

and the industrious elves comment

Oh, that silly Ralph Nader and his ridiculous claims about the lack of differences between the parties.

Reid said today on Meet The Press:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/washington/05diplo.html?hp

11th paragraph.