It's appropriate that this question appears following the death of Nobel Prize-winning economist Milt Friedman, one of the founders of the school choice movement.
On Charlie Rose almost exactly a year ago, Friedman drew this analogy: The government identifies a proper subsidy -- let's say, food. So does it subsidize the *producer*? That is, does it give money to farmers or grocery stores, and tell them to provide food to people who live within a certain geographic area? Of course not -- that would be absurd. It subsidizes *consumers*, by giving them vouchers (we call them "food stamps") that they can then use to shop around and look for the best value.
The entire model we have set up for education is terrible, from theory to practice. Allowing a quasi-government monopoly to exercise near-complete control of our most precious resource -- our children -- is INSANE. The monopoly will try to do what ANY monopoly does: Freeze the status quo and defend it to the death.
We will never make any REAL progress in education in this country until we understand that our Public School model has some real problems of a systemic, organizational nature, that can't be solved simply by throwing money at them.
"They then superimposed their damage predictions over the actual damage, and again, it matched up near perfectly."
This smells fishy to me. There were a few warnings about the dikes being overrun, it's true. But the real damage came when some dikes failed and were breached, which is a different animal altogether. Are you telling me that these computer models actually predicted not only that the levies would fail, but which ones, and where?
If we've come to expect honesty and straight talk from blogging icons, it's because so many blogospheric leaders have told us we should.
Huh? Wha? I have no idea what or who you're talking about here. Are you telling me that your criteria for whether or not a person is honest is if they tell you they are? If so, please use the pronoun "I". Where on earth did you get "we" from?
If you don't think this is a serious problem to tackle, some experts estimate up to 15 percent of 'original prints' sold at auction houses are actually fake.
Yeah, well, I still don't consider it a serious problem.
I agree completely. I think when Kruschev pounded his shoe on the podium at the United Nations and thundered "We will bury you!" he was talking about burying us in peace, love and understanding.
Hmm. I respectfully disagree. I suspect that if we needed to, we could ramp up production of, say, clothes, on pretty short notice. On the other hand, China can't just start producing its own mass quantity of hard currency. (I mean, obviously it *could*, but you get what I'm saying.)
Shortly after Iraq being overthrown, I remember one of Saddam's top guys, who had been captured, being interviewed, and saying something like "America didn't win because of its culture or anything like that. It just won because of its technical superiority."
I watched this, shaking my head, and thinking, "They will never get it. You could try to explain to this guy, until you're blue in the face, that America's 'technical superiority' DERIVES from its culture -- its freedom to innovate, diversity of ideas, etc -- but you'd just be wasting your breath."
Of course, that's not to say someone else couldn't create a culture that is even MORE dynamic, inquisitive, vibrant, etc. If THAT happened, I would worry about being surpassed. Otherwise, not so much.
"Right now China has got us all over a barrel because they're where we get the majority of our goods"
Not to be too critical, but this doesn't make much sense. It would be just as apt to say we've got THEM over a barrel, because we are their biggest market. In other words, they're where we get the majority of our goods, but we're where they get the majority of their *cash*.
That's "globalization." It increases the degree to which economies rely *on each other*.
One thing I haven't noticed anyone comment on is how similar the "ribbon" idea is to the wordperfect for Mac interface. You had basically a single toolbar, with a single row of buttons on it. Every button activated another toolbar -- ruler, edit, etc. It was actually pretty handy. The button on the "main" toolbar were all text labeled, too, so you didn't have to guess what they were. And it was easy to activate/deactivate toolbars, so you were always just looking at the one(s) you needed without taking up a lot of extra real estate.
I don't get it, mods. In what sense is this post "informative"?
The guy writes "He's seen some western news coverage of religious persecution in China and has assumed that it's something that happens every day. Pure FUD"
Huh? I don't get it. Does the Chinese government restrict their religious persecution to Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays? And if they do, does that make it OK?
And then "The Chineese gov't is not peaches and creme. But it's not the scorched earth hell that so many Americans believe." That's a false dilemmna. The most repressive countries on earth -- let's say, North Korea and, I don't know, how about Saudi Arabia -- also meet this description: Their governments aren't "peaches and cream," but then again, they don't have "scorched earth" either. So what does that have to do with religious repression?
Are you actually *denying* that the Chinese government persecutes and represses religion? Or are you saying that because they are selective, this is OK? And if so, in what sense is this "freedom"?
What if I said "It's fine if you want to write and talk about whatever you want, as long as you understand that you'll be doing it from a prison cell." Would you say, then, that you indeed had the right to free expression?
I wish I had mod points to give you. You'll just have to realize that there at least a few other/. readers who understand your point. Among a certain set, "religious fundies" are the new boogeyman. China going to Mars? RELIGIOUS FUNDIES! Doubts about our public school system? RELIGIOUS FUNDIES! Too much milk in your Latte? RELIGIOUS FUNDIES!
And here's the thing -- I'm not a religious fundie! Indeed I have very little in common with them. But I can recognize a convenient boogeyman/scapegoat when I see it. Come on guys, give it a rest.
Great point. For all the mindless yammering on this thread, you'd never gather that this is very much a gray area, and there are good points to consider on each side.
"it cannot fall under the consent-search doctrine"
I never said it did. I simply pointed out that there are several "en masse" 4A exceptions. The border crossing exception is one. Others, like the DUI exception, don't require consent. Unless I'm mistaken -- and I'll freely back down if I am -- the opinion doesn't deal with this issue. In fact, I can't even find a single mention of the word "consent" in it.
I'll give you the last word on this if you wish. In the meantime, for what it's worth, I note that today's editorial by the Washington Post says "The nation would benefit from a serious, scholarly and hard-hitting judicial examination of the National Security Agency's program of warrantless surveillance... We harbor grave doubt both that Congress authorized warrantless surveillance as part of the war and that Mr. Bush has the constitutional power to act outside of normal surveillance statutes that purport to be the exclusive legal authorities for domestic spying." However, as to the opinion in question, it notes "these are complicated, difficult issues. Judge Taylor devotes a scant few pages to dismissing them, without even discussing key precedents."
I differ from the Post in that I suspect (I shouldn't have said "almost guarantee" above, I'm nowhere near that certain) that the courts will find the program illegal but constitutional. But I frankly can't find anyone who thinks the judge's opinion was a fine piece of judicial craftsmanship. See Jack Balkin and Orin Kerr for more. Over to you...
I'm not going to argue that, but you're missing the point of my post. Whether the so-called "reasonableness test" is met depends on the existence either of a warrant *or a warrant exception*. The opinion fails to explain why the government's actions do not meet the requirements to meet any of the exceptions.
Well, you're kind of talking past me here. I'm not disputing what the 4A says; I'm merely pointing out that the court currently recognizes a number of *exceptions* to it -- similar to the way the courts have recognized that shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is an exception to the First Amendment. But few of the people here at/. seem to grasp this.
More specifically, the court has explicitly recognized that the government has the power to conduct warantless searches in some circumstances. For example, you can be frisked at the border with no probable cause. You know those machines you have to go through at the airport, manned by government TSA employees? Also a warrantless search.
These exceptions are not the govt. saying "trust me, we think this is important stuff," as you say. It's been established that the gov't can, for example, search the contents of floppy disks that cross into the U.S. The current administration's position is: "If we can search stored data, we can, for the same reasons, listen in on spoken conversations." Sure, you can disagree with this. But it's a plausible claim. Now read through the comments and tell me any of the +1,000 super-insightful commenters understand any of this.
"I can almost guarantee that the SCOTUS will also declare it unconstitutional."
And, buried way down here in the comments where the/. crowd will ever see it, I can almost guarantee they won't.
See, here's the thing. The program almost certainly isn't unconstitutional. Yes, the judge has ruled it so, but she produced almost literally no analysis to support that conclusion. She deals with the administration's 4th amendment exceptions arguments by -- almost completely ignoring them. The opinion is, after one day, already taking a drubbing by scholars on both sides of the political spectrum.
Now, here's the other thing: There is a very good chance SCOTUS might find the program *illegal*. But that's not the same thing as unconstitutional. Lots of things are illegal that aren't prohibited by the constitution.
In other words, about 90 percent of this entire/. thread -- including the high-moderated posts -- is being generated by kids who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759"
Ok, so for the moment let's assume old Ben was right. Now, what about people who give up nonessential liberty to obtain a reasonable amount of nontemporary safety?
I've often thought that Ben's statement was more qualified than is realized by a lot of the people who trot it out.
Wow, I was going to point out an error in your post, but as I read through it I realize that's not an easy task -- it's hard to find anything that's *not* an error.
Just for starters, the line-item veto was enacted by a Republican Congress. It was then ruled unconstitutional, not by Congress (which doesn't have that power) but by the U.S. Supreme Court. Among those joining the majority opinion were noted conservatives (hint: that's sarcasm) David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
"Bush has used signing statements to accomplish the same thing."
Huh? How does a signing statement, which carries no weight of law, 'accomplish the same thing' as a line-item veto. Do you even know what these things are?
"Directly related to FISA and the wiretapping, Clinton's administration conducted a few physical searches w/o warrants, which was legal at the time. When it was discovered, and a law was passed saying that a warrant was needed... they stopped."
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Google: fourth amendment exceptions. There are many exceptions providing for warrantless searching, and these exceptions are alive and well (for example, the government doesn't need a warrant -- or even probable cause! -- to frisk you at the border). In fact, this is particularly ironic because many commenters have noted that the judge, oddly, doesn't address these exceptions at all, which is important because the administration is resting much of their case on them.
It sucks that your comment is modded insightful, because factually it's nearly 100 percent wrong.
"The government admitted to tapping all [my emphasis] phone calls that had an end-point in any foreign country."
Huh? Where do you get this? Even the judge's opinion striking down the program had this to say:
It is undisputed that Defendants have publicly admitted to the following: (1) the TSP exists; (2) it operates without warrants; (3) it targets communications where one party to the communication is outside the United States, and the government has a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda.
Every other story I've been able to find on it says the soldiers were captured in northern Israel. For example, this, from the generally pro-palestinian UK Guardian:
"The crisis began on June 25 when Hamas-linked militants in the Gaza Strip carried out a cross-border attack on a military outpost in Israel, killing two soldiers and capturing one. Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas joined the fray in July, attacking a military patrol on the border in northern Israel, killing three soldiers and capturing two. Both Hamas and Hezbollah have said the two attacks were not related."
"The president was referring to the Hezbollah militants who on Wednesday took two Israeli soldiers hostage and killed eight others in a cross-border attack from Lebanon."
I note that the AP dispatch was the first reporting the capture, when things were still obviously a little confused. The Israelis hadn't even confirmed the abduction at the time it was written. Also, note that the dispatch's first and second paragraphs are somewhat contradictory.
I have a question (disregarding the part about "no rocket attacks," which anyone who has ever been to northern Israel knows is completely wrong).
I haven't seen it reported anywhere that the captured Israeli soldiers were taken while "violating the sovereign territory of another nation." May I ask your source for this claim?
"On the other hand, if you leave lebanese alone, treat them as citizens of a sovereign state, not as second class humans, make them improve their economy and live better: Hezbollah support will disappear."
Huh? I don't get it. Lebanon *is* a sovereign state. Israel *was* "leaving them alone", and what it got for that was six years of Hezbollah building itself up into the major power in Lebanon, stockpiling huge weapons caches with backing from the Iranians, and occasionally lobbing rockets and mortar shells into civilian communities in Israel.
Conversely, if Israel was to "make them" improve their economy -- or "make" them do anything, for that matter, well, it wouldn't be treating them as a sovereign state now, would it?
Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and Lebanon. Hamas and Hezbollah could have used that historic opportunity to build actual states and join the community of nations. Instead, they *immediately* turned around and began using the newly vacated ground as staging areas for attacks against Israel. If you were an Israeli, what conclusion would you draw from that?
- Alaska Jack
Noone wants to fight when they have something to lose!
The trouble is that you can't see further from your nose."
Slashdot Mirror
It's appropriate that this question appears following the death of Nobel Prize-winning economist Milt Friedman, one of the founders of the school choice movement.
On Charlie Rose almost exactly a year ago, Friedman drew this analogy: The government identifies a proper subsidy -- let's say, food. So does it subsidize the *producer*? That is, does it give money to farmers or grocery stores, and tell them to provide food to people who live within a certain geographic area? Of course not -- that would be absurd. It subsidizes *consumers*, by giving them vouchers (we call them "food stamps") that they can then use to shop around and look for the best value.
The entire model we have set up for education is terrible, from theory to practice.
Allowing a quasi-government monopoly to exercise near-complete control of our most precious resource -- our children -- is INSANE. The monopoly will try to do what ANY monopoly does: Freeze the status quo and defend it to the death.
We will never make any REAL progress in education in this country until we understand that our Public School model has some real problems of a systemic, organizational nature, that can't be solved simply by throwing money at them.
- Alaska Jack
"They then superimposed their damage predictions over the actual damage, and again, it matched up near perfectly."
This smells fishy to me. There were a few warnings about the dikes being overrun, it's true. But the real damage came when some dikes failed and were breached, which is a different animal altogether. Are you telling me that these computer models actually predicted not only that the levies would fail, but which ones, and where?
- Alaska Jack
If we've come to expect honesty and straight talk from blogging icons, it's because so many blogospheric leaders have told us we should.
Huh? Wha? I have no idea what or who you're talking about here. Are you telling me that your criteria for whether or not a person is honest is if they tell you they are? If so, please use the pronoun "I". Where on earth did you get "we" from?
Alaska Jack
Yeah, well, I still don't consider it a serious problem.
- Alaska Jack
Hear, hear.
- AJ
I agree completely. I think when Kruschev pounded his shoe on the podium at the United Nations and thundered "We will bury you!" he was talking about burying us in peace, love and understanding.
- Alaska Jack
You know, the term "Anonymous Coward" has never seemed so apt.
Grow up, move out of your parent's basement, learn some responsibility. Then we'll talk.
Respectfully,
- America
Hmm. I respectfully disagree. I suspect that if we needed to, we could ramp up production of, say, clothes, on pretty short notice. On the other hand, China can't just start producing its own mass quantity of hard currency. (I mean, obviously it *could*, but you get what I'm saying.)
- AJ
Shortly after Iraq being overthrown, I remember one of Saddam's top guys, who had been captured, being interviewed, and saying something like "America didn't win because of its culture or anything like that. It just won because of its technical superiority."
I watched this, shaking my head, and thinking, "They will never get it. You could try to explain to this guy, until you're blue in the face, that America's 'technical superiority' DERIVES from its culture -- its freedom to innovate, diversity of ideas, etc -- but you'd just be wasting your breath."
Of course, that's not to say someone else couldn't create a culture that is even MORE dynamic, inquisitive, vibrant, etc. If THAT happened, I would worry about being surpassed. Otherwise, not so much.
- Alaska Jack
"Right now China has got us all over a barrel because they're where we get the majority of our goods"
Not to be too critical, but this doesn't make much sense. It would be just as apt to say we've got THEM over a barrel, because we are their biggest market. In other words, they're where we get the majority of our goods, but we're where they get the majority of their *cash*.
That's "globalization." It increases the degree to which economies rely *on each other*.
- AJ
One thing I haven't noticed anyone comment on is how similar the "ribbon" idea is to the wordperfect for Mac interface. You had basically a single toolbar, with a single row of buttons on it. Every button activated another toolbar -- ruler, edit, etc. It was actually pretty handy. The button on the "main" toolbar were all text labeled, too, so you didn't have to guess what they were. And it was easy to activate/deactivate toolbars, so you were always just looking at the one(s) you needed without taking up a lot of extra real estate.
- Alaska Jack
I don't get it, mods. In what sense is this post "informative"?
The guy writes "He's seen some western news coverage of religious persecution in China and has assumed that it's something that happens every day. Pure FUD"
Huh? I don't get it. Does the Chinese government restrict their religious persecution to Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays? And if they do, does that make it OK?
And then "The Chineese gov't is not peaches and creme. But it's not the scorched earth hell that so many Americans believe." That's a false dilemmna. The most repressive countries on earth -- let's say, North Korea and, I don't know, how about Saudi Arabia -- also meet this description: Their governments aren't "peaches and cream," but then again, they don't have "scorched earth" either. So what does that have to do with religious repression?
Are you actually *denying* that the Chinese government persecutes and represses religion? Or are you saying that because they are selective, this is OK? And if so, in what sense is this "freedom"?
What if I said "It's fine if you want to write and talk about whatever you want, as long as you understand that you'll be doing it from a prison cell." Would you say, then, that you indeed had the right to free expression?
"Informative" indeed.
- Alaska Jack
I wish I had mod points to give you. You'll just have to realize that there at least a few other /. readers who understand your point. Among a certain set, "religious fundies" are the new boogeyman. China going to Mars? RELIGIOUS FUNDIES! Doubts about our public school system? RELIGIOUS FUNDIES! Too much milk in your Latte? RELIGIOUS FUNDIES!
And here's the thing -- I'm not a religious fundie! Indeed I have very little in common with them. But I can recognize a convenient boogeyman/scapegoat when I see it. Come on guys, give it a rest.
- Alaska Jack
Great point. For all the mindless yammering on this thread, you'd never gather that this is very much a gray area, and there are good points to consider on each side.
- Alaska Jack
"it cannot fall under the consent-search doctrine"
... We harbor grave doubt both that Congress authorized warrantless surveillance as part of the war and that Mr. Bush has the constitutional power to act outside of normal surveillance statutes that purport to be the exclusive legal authorities for domestic spying." However, as to the opinion in question, it notes "these are complicated, difficult issues. Judge Taylor devotes a scant few pages to dismissing them, without even discussing key precedents."
...
I never said it did. I simply pointed out that there are several "en masse" 4A exceptions. The border crossing exception is one. Others, like the DUI exception, don't require consent. Unless I'm mistaken -- and I'll freely back down if I am -- the opinion doesn't deal with this issue. In fact, I can't even find a single mention of the word "consent" in it.
I'll give you the last word on this if you wish. In the meantime, for what it's worth, I note that today's editorial by the Washington Post says "The nation would benefit from a serious, scholarly and hard-hitting judicial examination of the National Security Agency's program of warrantless surveillance
I differ from the Post in that I suspect (I shouldn't have said "almost guarantee" above, I'm nowhere near that certain) that the courts will find the program illegal but constitutional. But I frankly can't find anyone who thinks the judge's opinion was a fine piece of judicial craftsmanship. See Jack Balkin and Orin Kerr for more. Over to you
- AJ
"You cannot create a warrant exception en masse."
That's going to come as a surprise to the TSA.
- AJ
I'm not going to argue that, but you're missing the point of my post. Whether the so-called "reasonableness test" is met depends on the existence either of a warrant *or a warrant exception*. The opinion fails to explain why the government's actions do not meet the requirements to meet any of the exceptions.
- AJ
Well, you're kind of talking past me here. I'm not disputing what the 4A says; I'm merely pointing out that the court currently recognizes a number of *exceptions* to it -- similar to the way the courts have recognized that shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is an exception to the First Amendment. But few of the people here at /. seem to grasp this.
More specifically, the court has explicitly recognized that the government has the power to conduct warantless searches in some circumstances. For example, you can be frisked at the border with no probable cause. You know those machines you have to go through at the airport, manned by government TSA employees? Also a warrantless search.
These exceptions are not the govt. saying "trust me, we think this is important stuff," as you say. It's been established that the gov't can, for example, search the contents of floppy disks that cross into the U.S. The current administration's position is: "If we can search stored data, we can, for the same reasons, listen in on spoken conversations." Sure, you can disagree with this. But it's a plausible claim. Now read through the comments and tell me any of the +1,000 super-insightful commenters understand any of this.
- AJ
"I can almost guarantee that the SCOTUS will also declare it unconstitutional."
/. crowd will ever see it, I can almost guarantee they won't.
/. thread -- including the high-moderated posts -- is being generated by kids who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
And, buried way down here in the comments where the
See, here's the thing. The program almost certainly isn't unconstitutional. Yes, the judge has ruled it so, but she produced almost literally no analysis to support that conclusion. She deals with the administration's 4th amendment exceptions arguments by -- almost completely ignoring them. The opinion is, after one day, already taking a drubbing by scholars on both sides of the political spectrum.
Now, here's the other thing: There is a very good chance SCOTUS might find the program *illegal*. But that's not the same thing as unconstitutional. Lots of things are illegal that aren't prohibited by the constitution.
In other words, about 90 percent of this entire
- Alaska Jack
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759"
Ok, so for the moment let's assume old Ben was right. Now, what about people who give up nonessential liberty to obtain a reasonable amount of nontemporary safety?
I've often thought that Ben's statement was more qualified than is realized by a lot of the people who trot it out.
- Alaska Jack
Wow, I was going to point out an error in your post, but as I read through it I realize that's not an easy task -- it's hard to find anything that's *not* an error.
Just for starters, the line-item veto was enacted by a Republican Congress. It was then ruled unconstitutional, not by Congress (which doesn't have that power) but by the U.S. Supreme Court. Among those joining the majority opinion were noted conservatives (hint: that's sarcasm) David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
"Bush has used signing statements to accomplish the same thing."
Huh? How does a signing statement, which carries no weight of law, 'accomplish the same thing' as a line-item veto. Do you even know what these things are?
"Directly related to FISA and the wiretapping, Clinton's administration conducted a few physical searches w/o warrants, which was legal at the time. When it was discovered, and a law was passed saying that a warrant was needed... they stopped."
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Google: fourth amendment exceptions. There are many exceptions providing for warrantless searching, and these exceptions are alive and well (for example, the government doesn't need a warrant -- or even probable cause! -- to frisk you at the border). In fact, this is particularly ironic because many commenters have noted that the judge, oddly, doesn't address these exceptions at all, which is important because the administration is resting much of their case on them.
It sucks that your comment is modded insightful, because factually it's nearly 100 percent wrong.
- Alaska Jack
"The government admitted to tapping all [my emphasis] phone calls that had an end-point in any foreign country."
Huh? Where do you get this? Even the judge's opinion striking down the program had this to say:
It is undisputed that Defendants have publicly admitted to the following: (1) the TSP exists; (2) it operates without warrants; (3) it targets communications where one party to the communication is outside the United States, and the government has a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda.
- Alaska Jack
I believe the AP dispatch you point to is wrong.
9 58249,00.html
d /mainD8ITT2L02.shtml
Every other story I've been able to find on it says the soldiers were captured in northern Israel. For example, this, from the generally pro-palestinian UK Guardian:
"The crisis began on June 25 when Hamas-linked militants in the Gaza Strip carried out a cross-border attack on a military outpost in Israel, killing two soldiers and capturing one. Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas joined the fray in July, attacking a military patrol on the border in northern Israel, killing three soldiers and capturing two. Both Hamas and Hezbollah have said the two attacks were not related."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5
Or this, from CBS News:
"The fighting began when Hezbollah kidnapped the soldiers in a cross-border raid."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/17/ap/worl
The New York Times:
"The president was referring to the Hezbollah militants who on Wednesday took two Israeli soldiers hostage and killed eight others in a cross-border attack from Lebanon."
I note that the AP dispatch was the first reporting the capture, when things were still obviously a little confused. The Israelis hadn't even confirmed the abduction at the time it was written. Also, note that the dispatch's first and second paragraphs are somewhat contradictory.
- AJ
I have a question (disregarding the part about "no rocket attacks," which anyone who has ever been to northern Israel knows is completely wrong).
I haven't seen it reported anywhere that the captured Israeli soldiers were taken while "violating the sovereign territory of another nation." May I ask your source for this claim?
- Alaska Jack
"On the other hand, if you leave lebanese alone, treat them as citizens of a sovereign state, not as second class humans, make them improve their economy and live better: Hezbollah support will disappear."
Huh? I don't get it. Lebanon *is* a sovereign state. Israel *was* "leaving them alone", and what it got for that was six years of Hezbollah building itself up into the major power in Lebanon, stockpiling huge weapons caches with backing from the Iranians, and occasionally lobbing rockets and mortar shells into civilian communities in Israel.
Conversely, if Israel was to "make them" improve their economy -- or "make" them do anything, for that matter, well, it wouldn't be treating them as a sovereign state now, would it?
Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and Lebanon. Hamas and Hezbollah could have used that historic opportunity to build actual states and join the community of nations. Instead, they *immediately* turned around and began using the newly vacated ground as staging areas for attacks against Israel. If you were an Israeli, what conclusion would you draw from that?
- Alaska Jack
Noone wants to fight when they have something to lose!
The trouble is that you can't see further from your nose."