Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Setting a couple or records straight

I've been thinking about this for some time, and just haven't had the time to do it. But now that I have a moment, I'd like to clear up a couple of things.

First, I got a little riled at Derick recently and blasted him, but I did it completely out of proportion to what was called for. If I want to consider my straight forward manner to be a positive thing then I've got to be just as straight forward when I realize I'm wrong. So that's what I'm doing now. I was too hard on Derick, he didn't deserve it, and I apologize.

I realized what was bothering me about Derick's constant thumping on corporations. I see a lot of this talk coming from those in our country who want to turn the US into a marxist government. It is becoming the "in" thing to do among this group. And while I had no reason to suspect Derick fit that mold, that was what was getting under my skin. A couple of posts he made later made it all hit home with me that 1> he *isn't* coming at it from that direction, and 2> a lot of what he says regarding corporate greed among a few companies I agree with. Once I realized what it was that was jabbing me, I realized why I was reacting to Derick's posts the way I did. I'm not saying I agree with him entirely, just that I have sorted some of it out, and understand where my problems lay in regard to his talk about corporations.

So Derick, please accept my apology. I'm really not a mean guy. Just a straight forward one. And hopefully, one who is honest with that straight forwardness as well.

Next, George. I don't agree with a single thing George says. I think George is one of the most misguided individuals I've ever met when it comes to politics. But I don't mean a single word of my conversations with him to imply an attack on him as a person. So if anything I wrote in my conversations with you George seemed like I was attacking you personally, I apologize. You have a right to your opinions, and it was not my intent to define you as a person based on your opinions. I was attacking your views, yes. But not you as a person. We can each attack the others' views all day long. That's part of a debate. But I never once intended anything I said to be taken as an affront to you as an individual.

I'll still take you on head on over your politics, George. But at least now you'll know it's the politics, not the man, that I'm laying into. Heck, I might even get the truth through to you eventually!

I feel better now. I think I'll go chase the cat around the house for a while.....


Alpha Doggie

I went away for the weekend, so I just saw this now...

Larry, apology accepted. It takes a strong man to admit when he's made a mistake. And, I really appreciate what you've written. After our first "run in" when I behaved so poorly, then apologized for it, you accepted my apology fully. I should, and will, do the same. Virtual hand-shake and slap on the back.

I'm also glad that you understand exactly what my complaint is with the CEO's of some US corporations. I realize that my brain runs far faster than I can type. Often my posts skip a lot of details that I assume the reader will fill in.

In addition I'd also like to say "thanks". I hope other people on the forum that have read my posts and been disturbed by what I have said will come to the same understanding you have about what I'm saying. I don't expect everyone to agree, but I don't want people reading more into my words than what is actually written.

Thanks again,
Derick

Larry,

Where did you first hear about the World Court and the UN Army? I've never heard about any of this. I don't think this has been talked about in any of the media. Am I right about this? If so, you should write to Bill O'Reilly at Fox News; he'd have a field day with this story. Or better yet, you should have your own show! FWIW, I agree with you on subject of killing babies while the PETA people are viewed as "do gooders". Not to mention the irreverant "art" we are forced to pay for with our tax dollars.

Derick

The UN only needs 3 things to become the One World Government. With these three things, they can control every country in the world, financially, legally, and militarily. The three things they need are 1> an army. 2> the right to tax. 3> A world court to enforce their laws, both those that put them in power and all future laws they choose to pass. These three things will be controlled by a totally unelected group of people, none American, all communist, and all hostile to the US. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights will be subordinate to their own Constitution.

UN leader doesn't know good from evil
Bill Clinton set it in motion
Gore guilty too
UN army includes \"civilian policing\"
US soldier threatened with court martial for refusing to wear UN army uniform
Another soldier threatened, no help from government
The UN will force Americans to give up their guns
Then they take away your right to own property
Take from the rich and give to the poor
And so they become the government of the New World Order
Another site about UN army
And another
And yet another

This is not conspiracy theory stuff. This is happening right now, as we speak. In fact, just yesterday there was an attempt to vote these UN taxes into existence. President Bush flatly refused to consider it. Sooner or later, another traitor like Bill Clinton will occupy the White House, and it will occur.

If you want to stay on top of things like this, a very good all-round news website to visit regularly is
Newsmax.com

[ March 24, 2002: Message edited by: Larry ]

Very serious stuff and very informative, Larry. Thanks for the links.

where do you get this u.n. conspiracy stuff, larry? it sounds pretty paranoid to me.

i went to the maxnews website and i didn't see any news. i saw lots of strong opinions with no facts to substantiate the statements made. who are these people on this site passing judgment of right and wrong at the u.n.? these are editorials, and they don't come across as terribly enlightened ones.

an example on the u.n. stuff:

"The United Nations has miserably failed to keep world peace. Instead it wrongfully politicizes its resolutions and decisions.

The U.N. was wrong to limit the Gulf War participants to only liberating Kuwait by driving Iraq out but not allowing the participants to continue into Iraq and replace Saddam Hussein. Resolution 80 should have authorized the United States to continue into Iraq and replace Saddam Hussein with a democratic leader who would not develop nuclear and biological weapons."

last night i was browsing in the local bookstore and came across michael moore's new book, "stupid white men." was quite relieved to see it is now the number one national best seller. maybe people are not as snookered by "president" bush as it would appear from this forum.

i suggest you read it if you are looking for information. while it is also biased, at least moore did his homework. i don't see any sign of that on the maxnews site.

really, do you have any idea who is publishing that site? i'm just asking, because i really have to wonder what "credentials" they have to make these statements. moore at least is a seasoned investigative reporter who knows how to get real information, even if you disagree with his conclusions.

a choice example of their so-called "reporting":

"It looks like the hideous campaign finance law is going to go through the U.S. Senate at the end of this week like you-know-what through a goose. The bill will then head to President Bush's desk, where he'll violate his oath of office by signing it."

you call this journalism? and in the same breath some of you would declare the mainstream media has a liberal bias? maybe you call them biased because you don't want to be confused by the facts?

btw, larry, or anyone here who agrees with him, this is not in any way a personal attack. i am sincerely flabbergasted by what seem to me to be really extremist views here. with all due respect for you as friends and fellow human beings, do you really believe this stuff???

In a word, yes.

I'm actually more of a National Review type of guy (their website is
here ) but in reading this Newsmax site I don't see much that I would disagree with.

I am sure that would come as a shock to someone who sees Michael Moore as mainstream (touting his book as a counter to ideological bias is a real head scratcher for me) and cannot refer to President Bush without quotation marks around President. My sense is that you also see "liberal" as synonomous with mainstream and Conservative is just another word for wacko.

No offense meant to you but you could at least consider the possibility that there is truth outside of the (yes, liberal) mainstream media.

Peace.

[ March 24, 2002: Message edited by: JBryan ]

well, i went to the national review website and read the op-ed piece on campaign finance reform. i thought it reasonable and well-reasoned, though i'm not in possession of enough facts to judge the merit of its conclusions. but clearly this is a reasonable publication, even if one doesn't agree with its politics.

conservative does not equal wacko to me at all. some of my best friends are conservatives. and i even qualify as an economic conservative myself.

however, maxnews is hysterical in tone, and really out there in its statements. i would not put in the same class as national review. its tenor is that of a fringe publication.

and i didn't hold michael moore up as a 'counter to ideological bias'. i said he was biased, as he clearly is. but at least he arrives at his opinions by investigating and considering the facts (much as they do in national review).

and yes, i happen to believe that michael moore is more mainstream than many here would allow. piano world is just about the only place i encounter support for right-wing ideology in my daily life. and i live in a very conservative state with quite a few wackos in it. or am i now to believe that the freemen and the militia are mainstream?

(just to clarify, i'm not saying the freemen and militia are liberal, i'm saying that even out here in montana, they are so fringe that i almost never encounter those attitudes in my daily life.)

furthermore, as a professional critic of the press (yes, that is actually how i earn my livelihood), i would never disagree that truth may lie somewhere outside the mainstream media. in fact, i know all too well that it does. but i see conservative bias in the media just as much as i see liberal bias. surely you would not consider fox television to be liberal?

what my colleagues and peers and community members see is that last november we were subject to a coup, an overthrow of our government. the man who sits in the white house was not elected; he was appointed by the supreme court. thousands upon thousands of black people in florida were stripped of their voting rights illegally in order to make this possible.

does the mainstream media report on this? heck, no. they just wave the flag and heaven forfend they should criticize the "president" in a time of war. they aren't doing their jobs.

(and no, i will not, can not call that imposter a president).

i say, send in the u.n. military to oust this puppet government and seat the rightful winner of the election, the guy who got the majority of the votes. they right these wrongs in third world countries, why not here?

maybe we need the u.n. in order to insure that democracy survives, because our own government appears to have lost its soul, and certainly has lost the rule of law.

peace to you, too.

I would agree that the militias and the Freemen are outside of the mainstream.

I see Fox News as a counter to the liberal bias I have endured in the media for the last 25 years. They do actually present both sides and probably only appears conservative by contrast. The majority of the media are overwhelmingly liberal and assrtions to the contrary have reached the point of being laughable.

I disagree vehemently with your interpretation of events surrounding our last presidential election but I don't see that arguing the point with you is going to yield any positive results. All I can say is if you believe that the other guy won on the basis of the popular vote then you need to review the Constitution.

It is good that you are not completely closed minded to other, more conservative, sources. However, I am surprised at your apparent belief that the UN would be doing a good thing in overthrowing our government and installing "the other guy". Especially in light of your reaction to Larry's post as being paranoid.

Maybe we should just agree to disagree and get back to pianos.

ah! but we are in the coffee room! no piano discussions here!

i'll agree to disagree with you. like i said initially, i am not attacking anyone here. but i do feel it is a proper and responsible exercise of my first amendment rights to state my views publicly. these discussions are healthy, and they are important.

p.s. i was being a bit flippant in my comments about having the u.n. overthrow the current administration. but i do think that what happened is not that different than what happens in many other countries, where we then intercede to protect "democracy". the election was corrupted. and i'm familiar with the constitution. people were illegally stripped of their right to vote in districts that clearly favored al gore. and the supreme court stepped in to decide the election by fiat instead of ordering a recount, or allowing the country to wait until the final tally was in.

this is pretty horrifying to me, as it is to many, many, many other people i know. and i don't see our ideas and perceptions reflected in the mainstream media.

[ March 24, 2002: Message edited by: pique ]

Sorry, I just don't see it that way.

BTW, I was born and raised in Casper, WY so we were probably neighbors of a sort not so long ago.

Cheers

Larry, practically everything you've said on here about politics strikes me as being narrow-minded, illogical, and fanatically biased. Of course I don't fundamentally hate you or anything, but I can't resist this debate!!!

I totally agree with pique's first post. These websites are propagandized toward certain types of thinking which I consider alarmist and uneducated (for far too many reasons to summarize at once). Sensationalistic titles like "Then they take away your right to own property" are entirely ignorant of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 17 of that declaration sums up their position on this matter: " (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property." If one is going to be straight forward, then at least post the official UN site: http://www.un.org/ and the UN's site on the International Conference on Financing for Development (which is what Larry's talking about): http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/ . Also, you included a link to one Global Policy Forum article that supports your ideas, but why not help people form their own opinions by viewing GPF's objective guide to the taxes here: http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/glotax/

I'm certainly not claiming to be a UN expert, but I will illustrate one (of many) reasons why I consider Larry's recommended sites quite "off":

Check out the "Campaign" headline on the John Birch Society homepage (the sponsor of links 5-8): " Get US out! of the United Nations. Unlike the U.S., the UN does not recognize the supremacy of God and views itself as the source of "rights." As the source, it can give and take away "rights" at its whim. In addition, any government body strong enough to govern the world would be strong enough to oppress the world. Help Get US out!”

Diplomatically dense stuff. Assuming that the United States government is still supported by our entire population in all its diversity, which god's rules should be "supreme"? America is not simply a Christian empire, and I seriously doubt that America's Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists -- whatever -- would appreciate living under the conditions that the John Birch Society endorses.

In a similar vein, the "Restoring America" website (see the sponsor of the 11th link) appears to be all about "proving" that America should be run by a group of fanatical Christians (or whatever they are). Their type of unwillingness to interpret governmental documents in relation to current social situations is just as dogmatic and counter-productive as the Taliban's rigid interpretation of the Koran.

I know a lot of Christians who would be embarrassed to be associated with these sites' ideas.

Let's see.... I've now been called:

uneducated
narrowminded
fanatic
wacko
illogical
extremist

and a couple more I've probably missed. This has been done by a person who thinks Michael Moore is a "seasoned investigative reporter", and a guy from Britain who has decided he understands America better than an American does.

Let me assure you first off that I am far from uneducated. I am also far from narrow minded. The rest of the things you've called me are to be expected from liberals with their eyes shut. That's your first line of defense.

The views that I was talking about were formed not from the websites I linked to, but from lots of study on these subjects. I simply did a google search and listed the first ones that popped up, since they talked about the points I wanted to make in answering Derick's question. I assure you that I have far more in depth and substantive proof of my views that these links. As soon as I have time to address them, I will.

For now though, please note how quickly liberals jump all over anything that challenges their views, and the names they call those who do it. I never cease to be amazed though at how a liberal will attack conservative views as "uneducated", or "fanatical", or "narrow minded", then turn right around and do the same thing with comments about how "Bush was not elected" and the accompanying false information that is the fodder of the liberal left's pat "line", or quote from an uneducated fanatic like Michael Moore, simply because he agrees with their views.

I will address this as soon as I have the time to gather up the necessary documentation, and when I do, you won't be able to claim it is just a bunch of "conspiracy nuts" with websites. Of course, I don't expect either of you to accept a word of it.

Unfortunately, Larry, facts usually support conservatives. Therefore, liberals base their arguments on feelings and unsupported opinions which are then screamed from the mountaintops until they can mistakenly call the returning echoes substantiation for their point of view.

Have you seen much in the press about the recent survey of American Indians? Over 80% didn't think there was anything wrong with pro and college teams using American Indian references for team names or mascots and so no reason to change them. Yet, we continue to hear that the Fighting Sioux, the Raiders, or the Chiefs need to change their names. Four out of five Indians couldn't care less, but the other one knows that those four are just too ignorant to be offended. And yes, they want to be called American Indians, not Native Americans.

I apologize, Larry, for ranting off topic in your thread.

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: DT ]

larry,

if this latest post of yours typifies your capacity to comprehend what you read, i wouldn't trust any conclusions you draw from anything you have read, no matter what the source.

i never once, in any of my posts, called you ANY names, or said anything about you as a person AT ALL. if you can't readily see that, then why should i trust your interpretations of anything else?

and if what i hoped would be a balanced discussion among friends is going to devolve into name calling, demagoguery, and blanket attacks against all people of a certain type, whichever type that is, i'm outta here.

that is 'way boring and i have better things to do.

jbryan modeled three excellent examples of how to disagree with civility. maybe it's because he's a Westerner. we get a lot of practice doing that out here. comes with the geography.

and DT, since you don't know all liberals, don't paint everyone with the same brush. and your comments about indians is deeply offensive. they are not "too ignorant" to care. recently there was a team that named itself "whitey" to shock people into realizing just how offensive team names like the "braves" are.

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: pique ]

You are twisting what I said. What I said was that the small minority who were offended think that the others are too ignorant. I believe they, the 80% plus, know exactly what offends them and what doesn't and they are not offended by team names or mascots. If you followed up on the Whiteys story, you found that they were snowed under with requests for team shirts, and that extremely few white people were offended. Most didn't care, just like the American Indians.

I do apologize for painting all liberals with the broad brush suggestion that facts mean less to them than factoids. This should only apply to those who fit the mold and protest this being brought to light. Liberals who base their arguments on firm evidence and not feelings should ignore that statement.

Now, come on Larry...Alden was talking about American foreign policy, and I don't think that one needs to be American to understand or be informed about American foreign policy (not to mention that he spends a great deal of time in he US each year). Knowing him personally, I'd be more than willing to wager anything on his knowledge of politics versus that of most Americans. For the love of God, we had a 41% voter turnout last presidential election. What does that tell you about domestic enthusiasm for electing leaders who (at least superficially) represent your views?

No reason to go ad hominum, folks.

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: Brendan ]

I didn't mean it to be a personal attack, on him *or* Pique. His comment was that I was uneducated and narrow minded. He bases this on the websites I gave as examples, apparently thinking the John Birch Society is full of ignorant narrow minded fanatics. So once I can sit down and do it, I will provide him with the proper links with proof he cannot dispute.

As to the American Indians thing - *I'm* American Indian. So I can speak to this with authority. DT is correct all the way around. We do not like being called "Native Americans". We are American Indians. "Native Americans is a "PC" term that is silly. Most American Indians don't care *what* you name your ball teams. We *do* have a small number of morons in our midst, however, who want to stir up trouble and stage protests over the names of ball teams. Most American Indians think if you've got time to worry about that, you aren't busy enough. The other part of me is white. Most of the white people I know think naming a ball team "The Mighty Whiteys" is a hoot! They think it's about time people stopped discriminating against them. They were feeling left out.

And yes, I'd say the ratio of worthless Indians to productive Indians who know how to use their brains is about 1 in 5.

Pique,

Since I'm new around here let me emphasize as others have also stated, this is a disagreement of political philosophy not a personal attack.

I have seen and heard this statement made many times since the election. I have not seen any facts substantiating any of these claims. Accusations yes("coup", "overthrow of our government", "disenfranchisement"). Facts, no. (Why if someone read your comments out of context they might think you were talking about a particular first lady who illegaly, behind closed doors, tried to federalize one seventh of the U.S. economy a few years back. )If you can provide some facts to back up some rather serious claims I'd be interested in reading them.

On the other hand I believe Dr. Thomas Sowell speaks very well to the bastardization (can I use that word?)of the legal system that occured in that election.


Dr. Sowell Dec 21, 2000 Alice in Florida

"Other shrill voices, led by Jesse Jackson, have been raised, claiming that blacks were "disenfranchised." Yet, in all these weeks, nobody took that claim to the courts, where they belonged, since racial disenfranchisement would be a violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution of the United States. Instead, these inflammatory charges were taken to the media and Jesse Jackson is now threatening to take them to the streets."

I pulled that qoute from another article by Dr Sowell you will find here .

Now while I know this will not change your personal political views I hope you can understand that there are others who are as passionate as you in their beliefs, who beleive differently than you, and are as mainstream as all liberals believe themselves to be.

BTW, as you may have guessed I think very highly of Dr Sowell. If you are interested in reading any of his books might I recommend, "The Vision of the Annointed: Self-Congratulations As a Basis for Social Policy".

So am I going to be run out of town now that I just got here? Help! Larry!

Hey, anybody want to talk a little NASCAR? How about that Jeff Gordon divorce?

I shoulda' just stuck to pianos, I shoulda' just stuck to pianos.

JohnC,

I am also a big fan of Thomas Sowell and have read the book you listed. He really nails down the left by subjecting a lot of what passes for "received wisdom" to the cold light of logical analysis and exposes it for what it really is. Another good book by him is The Quest For Cosmic Justice. The title really says a lot by itself.

noted and appreciated :-)



how do you want your facts? i can provide excerpts from the writings of others, which is equivalent of what all the conservatives here are offering. i can present the research of others, people whose research i trust. but it will be denigrated here as worthless because conservatives don't respect the same sources i do. and i don't respect their sources. therefore we have a draw.

the only way i could PROVE what i believe to be true is to go and pull the public records that demonstrate the facts of the situation. lots of other people have already done this for us. but of course, they are "biased" or in some other way not trusted by conservatives.

i don't know why i should take the words written in the national review or by thomas sowell as gospel, and reject what has been written by michael moore or the new york times, simply because all of you say it is less legit.

pulling those documents myself, through a foia request, is time-consuming, and something i wouldn't take the time to do unless i was paid for it, because i have other work i am being paid for that would take away from it. and i feel it is redundant work--others have already done it for me. so, we'll have to have a war of the news sources.

why don't you present documentation that disproves what i have been saying? no, not what thomas sowell says, or anybody else, but the actual public record.

as for sowell's op ed piece about the election, there are things in it i agree with, but i don't draw the same conclusion he does from the facts. i agree that both parties were out to win at any cost. i am not an apologist for the democrats by any means. i personally think there should have been a careful state-wide recount of all the voting districts, not just a few.

more harm was done to the nation by not having this recount than ever could have happened by delaying the results.



of course i understand that. all i am asking for is for reciprocal recognition and respect. i am always curious to know how others arrive at their views and what has shaped that view of the world. i would venture to say that that is a very respectful attitude.

for example, thomas sowell is an interesting case study, a black man who touts the conservative line and speaks out against affirmative action. i like independent thinkers, and sowell certainly has taken the unconventional and politically incorrect road. i like that in a person, too. i can understand why someone with his background would be scornful of much of the legacy of the civil rights movement. i'm a female who has always succeeded in the world, and i don't think much of women who expect to be handed everything just because they are an "oppressed" majority. it's ridiculous and it diminishes black people and women.

on the other hand, i haven't read much of sowell, only what i could glean from the links you sent me to. but here is what kirkus review thought of one of his books:

"From Kirkus Reviews
A cosmic straw man is vanquished in the fight against dangerous ideals such as social justice and equality. This is not the place to look for original ideas or honest analysis. Presumably, Sowell's (Migrations and Cultures, 1996, etc.) goal is to entertain those who share his convictions rather than convince open-minded readers, and this audience will be pleased. ``Cosmic justice'' is presented as a fundamental departure from the ``traditional'' conception of justice, which Sowell claims has the ``characteristic of a process,'' rather than of a particular outcome. He conveniently forgets to mention that this ``tradition'' dates back only to the emergence of liberal-democratic states and that contrasting notions of procedural vs. substantive justice remain the subject of lively debate. Admitting legitimate disagreement over even something as slippery as justice would soften the blows he aims at those who think inequality and any associated oppression raises concerns a just society should address, and Sowell is not one to temper a political argument simply to maintain intellectual integrity. He is not straightforwardly defending inequality, of course, but rather is pursuing the familiar strategy of attacking measures that could alleviate it. Sowell, a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford, boldly asserts that those who believe equality should be pursued through public policy ``assume that politicizing inequality is free of costs and dangers.'' No names are mentioned, and it is indeed hard to imagine that anyone would believe there are no costs or dangers. By stating the issue in terms of extremes, however, he ducks the real issuethe challenge of weighing costs and benefitsand avoids the need for incorporating any subtlety into his discussion. Confronted with such disingenuous blather, readers may find Sowell's criticism of others applies well to Sowell himself: ``To explain the levels of dogmatism and resistance to facts found in too many writings . . . it is necessary to explore what purposes are served by these visions.''

Oh no. You cannot require us to prove what you assert is incorrect. It is up to you to prove the validity of your assertions. Then it would fall upon us to rebut.

The fact is that a statewide recount of all precincts would have been fair and (I believe) seven out of nine on the Supreme Court agreed with that. It was also the finding of these same justices that anything short of a statewide recount would amount a disenfranchisement of those Florida (and, indeed, it could be argued for the rest of the United States) voters whose ballots had not received the same level of scrutiny as was applied to those of the counties (Gore supporting predominately) hand picked by the Gore Campaign to overturn the election. The problem was there just was not enough time to examine every ballot in Florida.

Along with the shifting standards of dimpled, hanging, or swinging chads (God, I had hoped I had heard the last of that) that had been applied to these counties the US Supreme Court was troubled by the inequities in the way a Palm Beach County ballot was handled as compared to Miami/Dade or even, say, Pensacola. If there was a renegade court in all of this it was the Florida Supreme Court which seemed to be making its own election law on the fly and it took the US Supreme Court to put a stop to it.

After the election several news organizations pored over all of the Florida ballots and, it seem, every conceivable way they could count the things seemed to come out with Bush as the winner.

There were no disenfranchised voters in Florida, At least no more so than anywhere else in the United States. Just a concerted effort to make it appear so. This in furtherance of a time honored method of reversing elections (that is, trolling through spoiled ballots for favorable votes) that has been used time and again in local elections but, until now, never in a national election.

BTW, the Kirkus review you cited is a very superficial analysis of Sowell's work and betrays the philosophical leanings of the reviewer. As you said, we distrust one another's sources so you will need to read the book yourself and cite specific examples of the inadequcy of his conclusions (by way of rebuttal).

Well, I'm gonna tell a politically incorrect Indian joke, and then tomorrow I'm going to give Pique that indisputable proof she wants. I'm going to take each one of the points I made and deal with them one at a time.....that way the liberals will be able to keep up.... (chill out - just teasing you). The first one I will deal with is the statement I made about the UN wanting to take away the right of a civilian to own land. It will come directly from their own writings, and will be well documented.

Now, here's the joke:

An American Indian, an Arab, and a cowboy were sitting in a bar. The Indian said "Once we were many, now we are few." The Arab responded smugly with "Once we were few, now we are many."

The cowboy shifted his toothpick, smiled at the Arab, and said "That's because we haven't played cowboys and Arabs yet."


PS: Pique, I;ve got a feeling that after tomorrow night you're going to be pulling a lot of records......

Pique,

I appologize for the fact I cannot seem to get the "quote" feature to work on this reply. But these quotes are your's verbatim.

"how do you want your facts? i can provide excerpts from the writings of others, which is equivalent of what all the conservatives here are offering. i can present the research of others, people whose research i trust."

Well, that is all I asked for.

"but it will be denigrated here as worthless because conservatives don't respect the same sources i do. and i don't respect their sources. therefore we have a draw."

How can we have a draw if you have not presented your side? Sure we probably won't agree, but when you make accusations ("what my colleagues and peers and community members see is that last november we were subject to a coup, an overthrow of our government. the man who sits in the white house was not elected; he was appointed by the supreme court. thousands upon thousands of black people in florida were stripped of their voting rights illegally in order to make this possible.") you should be willing to provide some type of "support". Those are very serious charges.

I knew you wouldn't agree with me but I did give you a perspective and some issues as noted by Dr Sowell that would support my view. I'm only asking for the same from those on the other side.

"the only way i could PROVE what i believe to be true is to go and pull the public records that demonstrate the facts of the situation. lots of other people have already done this for us."

OK, just point me to the "proof" please. Hard to believe that "proof" is out there but you don't want to clear it up for us poor misguided souls on the right.

"but of course, they are "biased" or in some other way not trusted by conservatives."

I cannot pass judgement on that which I haven't seen. But then as I noted neither of us will convince the other to switch sides. But I am willing to allow a good serious exchange of ideas to be pondered by those who may be more on the fence. Why is it that so many on the left just don't want to discuss the details of the issues but instead prefer to make bold unsupported accusations? Over and over again.

"i don't know why i should take the words written in the national review or by thomas sowell as gospel, and reject what has been written by michael moore or the new york times, simply because all of you say it is less legit."

Well, you don't have to. But you could digest the statements of Dr Sowell and rebutt them with a perspective from one of your champions.

"pulling those documents myself, through a foia request, is time-consuming, and something i wouldn't take the time to do unless i was paid for it, because i have other work i am being paid for that would take away from it. and i feel it is redundant work--others have already done it for me. so, we'll have to have a war of the news sources."

Hard to have a war if the other side doesn't want to defend their position.

"why don't you present documentation that disproves what i have been saying? no, not what thomas sowell says, or anybody else, but the actual public record."

This was my favorite quote of yours. Why don't I just assume your right, state your view and then argue against it? It is impossible to argue against facts not presented. This approach is right out of the Liberal Media 101 class.

"i personally think there should have been a careful state-wide recount of all the voting districts, not just a few."

That's fine to have an opinion, but that is no basis for ignoring the law.

"more harm was done to the nation by not having this recount than ever could have happened by delaying the results."

Another bold statement that cannot be proved. However, I happen to think plenty of bad things could have happened to country that allowed itself to not have a leader for an indefinite period of time. I believe the founders of our country felt this way too which is why they laid out the laws and timetable for electing a president. The bad guys don't play by the rules you know. Sept 11 could have been moved up and done even more damage to a country without a leader....for one possible "harm" that could have been done.

As said so may times before by so many others, (come on' now, in unison) "We'll just have to agree to disagree."

Now please, I just gotta know what do you think of Jeff Gordon's divorce????


JBryan,

Dr Sowell should be required reading for every kid in school. But then views like his are anathema to most all of the public schools.

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: JohnC ]

Hi, Larry and others:

and a guy from Britain who has decided he understands America better than an American does.

I'm NOT getting into this discussion but I can't help but point out that we don't have a clue whether BAlden is American or not. His location lists us/uk. Is he a US citizen living/working in Britain? A Brit in the US? A left-wing albino commie hermaphrodite with uncontrollable acne? We don't know and unless Alden enlightens us, we'll never know. The wonderful world of the internet.

My point for all is that I think we're all jumping too quickly into name calling and unfounded assumptions. I think these "discussions" get really boring because of it.

Nina

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: Nina ]

Nina! How did you know that I'm a left-wing albino commie hermaphrodite with uncontrollable acne? And how did I know that you're a glass-eyed narcoleptic - the left one! - with a secret passion for biting your toenails in public places? We're soulmates - it's uncanny! Actually I have dual citizenship, and I'm not particularly enamored with Michael Moore (I know, you weren't referring to me there).



If something seems fanatical or extremist to me, which adjectives should I use other than the words "fanatical" and "extremist"? It has nothing to do with "defense," but rather with mere communication. I define "uneducated" as being an unwillingness to consider diversity. The fact that you supplied these websites as supporting evidence of your three statements about the UN's supposed evil domination of the world lead me to believe that they reflect your opinions. If a website with a political agenda, such as the John Birch Society, obviously ignores the existence of at least half of the population (which it does by assuming that their version of non-mainstream Christian philosophy should rule America), couldn't its views legitimately be called fanatical, biased, and uneducated? I mean, what else would you call politics of that type? These are just logical questions that have nothing to do with being "liberal" or "conservative" !!!

As for narrow-mindedness, notice Larry's opinions on the "Watch These" thread:

"The arabs aren't capable of being rational. You can't reason with them." -- and -- "You assume too much when you assume these people are capable of accepting logic and reason, or even understanding it. The cold reality is, they only understand brutality. So you can't reason with them. You can only hunt them down and kill them." -- and -- "The rest of them should be attacked to whatever degree is necessary until there are none left to attack. Your way attributes values and logic to the attackers when there are none...."

Oddly enough, statements like these (and I certainly didn't list them all) closely parallel those uttered by early Europeans in reference to American Indians.

"Feeling impotent" is liberal jargon....." -- and -- "The answer is *not* to change the way of the victim. " Of course the victims of 9/11 didn't deserve to die, but he apparently refuses to consider the proposition that other countries may have legitimate complaints against America; instead, he asserts that the U.S. is innately right about everything.

"And in this country, I would have started a program of deportation of anyone who thought the way you do (referring to George). "

Who can honestly blame me for suggesting a bit of tunnel-vision?



I can't vote yet, so I'm not associated with any political party. Once I can, I won't be either a liberal or a conservative in the way in which you seem to refer to them - as die-cut personalities with definite boundaries around what they think. You appear to use the word "liberal" in a cynical way to quickly pigeonhole anything you don't like! I assume that you can think for yourself, so I'm not going to call you a horrid "conservative" - and anyway, the term "conservative" doesn't connote anything negative to me, because I first assume that people think above the "herding instinct" and thus initially treat what they say individually. Perhaps we could just examine ideas without assigning them to parties. Isn't that what Bush's campaign rhetoric on getting beyond petty party babble was all about? (By the way, try saying petty party babble 10 times fast!)

Anyway, Larry, I won't mind a bit if you'd like to call me an idiot (or something worse) - after all, perhaps that's the only word that comes to mind - all in the spirit of debate! :p

"I define "uneducated" as being an unwillingness to consider diversity."

I'm at work and time demands that I sidestep most of your post, but I have to say I find that a very interesting definition of the word "uneducated."

nice post, alden. welcome to america. i share your views on the silliness of the terms conservative and liberal and how they are used by some members of this forum, and i appreciate your stepping in to say those things, as i have neither the time nor the energy to address everything being written here.

as for the issue of my providing documentation, as i said, that is too time consuming. if someone else here wants to pull documents, let them do it. i actually do have a job, and already spend more time than i should at piano world. and i have nothing to prove about my own views.

as for the suggestion that i at least provide news sources that i trust written by those who have already pulled documents. fine--go read michael moore's new book, "stupid white men." it was published in january or february and is already in its fourteenth printing. it is on the national best seller list. if bushie had the approval ratings the conservative press wants us to believe he has, there is no way moore's book would be selling at the levels that it is.

someone somewhere back there suggested we are engaged in a "war" in this topic. i don't fight wars. when the amount of time and energy necessary to have a discussion here becomes greater than my limited resources permit, i simply can't participate at that level. not to mention that i'm not interested in fighting.

guys, i get paid to do investigative reports. i know what is involved in getting the facts that will fully support conclusions. i can't possibly do that here, but i can tell when i read something if the writer has done their homework or not. and web sites that espouse a point of view are highly suspect in that department. and that is an understatement.

as for the supreme court decision on the election, i think the nub of our disagreement is whether it was right to foreclose the full recount in florida. i don't agree that there wasn't enough time. we should have made all the time it took.

as for whether blacks were in fact disenfranchised, it is a matter of public record that the state of florida purged its voter rolls of anyone who "might" be a felon, including lots and lots of blacks who weren't. and it is a fact that polls were closed in black districts with people still waiting on line to vote.

i know this from reading sources i trust, like daily newspapers that have been recognized for excellence. i'm sure all of you have read the same reports if you are at all alert readers. i've made some reading suggestions. i'm even thinking of subscribing to the national review for a while to see how the other half lives.

and larry, if you provide real proof of anything here, i'll gladly accept it.

peace and cheers all around.

I heard that! I am also similarly encumbered and have taken more time with this than I should. Take care.

Uh, Pique, that someone would be you in this quote from your previous post.

"pulling those documents myself, through a foia request, is time-consuming, and something i wouldn't take the time to do unless i was paid for it, because i have other work i am being paid for that would take away from it. and i feel it is redundant work--others have already done it for me. so, we'll have to have a war of the news sources."

I know this is going to start a flame war but I'm going to say it anyway...

One thing that has always irked me about conservatives is that they often show no respect for opposing points of view.

This morning, on Fox News, a conservative syndicated columnist (Michelle something) made the statement "... we conservatives, who respect the rule of law..." Implication, liberals do not respect the rule of law.

I don't classify myself as liberal or conservative. I know I have some very liberal views as well as some very conservative ones. That said, the extremist liberals and conservatives should all be tossed in a pit and left to rot. Both of these groups are destroying our country.

But getting back to my original point, it has been my observation that moderate conservatives are often the first to "throw stones" and give little digs (as illustrated above) at moderate liberals.

I'm looking forward to the proof Larry is going to offer, as well as pique's response.
I have an open mind about *most* things (CEO bonuses are an exception!)

Derick

Derick,

I agree that there are to many ad hominem attacks associated with debating of issues. I respect your (and Pique's) point of view and while I may not agree, I have respect for intellectual honesty. That is something that, at times, seems in short supply on both sides. You have demonstrated it and so has Pique. As for my ideology, I will quote Walter Williams who says "I am not a conservative, I'm a radical. Like Thomas Jefferson".

Larry,

Just a quick comment on the liberal/Democrat and conservative/Republican issue. This thinking is pervasive thru-out the media and has, as you've indicated, filtered into the minds of every American, including the politicians.

What gets me is how 95% of the Democrat and Republican politicians feel they have to march lock-step with the party line without questioning anything. And, for the most part, Republican does equate with conservative and Democrat with liberal.

Not to get off topic, but I voted for Ralph Nader. Not because I liked him, but because I knew Gore had NY wrapped around his finger. I didn't like Gore and what the Democratic party usually stands for, nor did I like Bush and what the Republicans stand for. So I registered a protest vote. I couldn't, in good conscience, vote for either of the major candidates. I *hope* some of the Nader votes registered with the major parties that people out there are unhappy with their philosophies.

That said, I thank God that President Bush is in office to fight this war on terror. While we will never know what would have happened under Al Gore, I don't have the confidence that he would have been up to the task. I do have issues with President Bush, as I would have had there been a President Gore.

Derick

derick: the very embodiment of the man who defies categorization! voted for nader, supports bushie!

hm, i see that i did use the word "war" to tongue in cheek describe how we might throw references back and forth at each other. however, you might notice that i have declined to do that.

and someone after me posted about how if we're going to have a war, i have to have weapons, or something like that.

back to work! these political threads sure are an attractive nuisance.

larry, i am awaiting your documentation with acute interest!

FWIW, John Derbyshire (a recent citizen of U.S. who was born in Great Britain and whose wife was born in China) is a computer programmer who also writes. His column today, http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire032602.shtml has a section on the liberal/conservative or Democrat/Republican differences. I wonder if he's following this thread.

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: DT ]

Why are there so many extremely conservative guys on this board? I am actually scared. Is there a correlation between piano and conservatism? While, I always respect Larry's candor and wit, and I think he is a terrific guy, I shudder at his opinions. Pique, Alden, thank you for contributing to this thread. There was an exchange between George and the same gang here, and I was hoping more people like you would participate and dilute the sting of their views. I am not much of a debater, so I can't really put my .02 cents. I am deeply troubled, though.

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: Sam ]

Sorry that you are deeply troubled Sam. There is actually nothing about us to be frightened of. We are really very nice people.

BTW DT, the link you gave does not work. I think this is correct:

John Derbyshire

I have corresponded briefly with John by email since we have something in common. My wife is from China as well and I spent two years over there working on a project for GTE and the PLA. Sounds sinister but it really isn't. The PLA runs everything in China.

Sam,
No need to be scared or troubled. As JBryan says, we are really nice people.

The problem is somebody once told you that all conservatives are extremists. Not true.

OK.

Sam,

As I said above, I don't classify myself as liberal or conservative. But, if I HAD to classify myself, I'd say I'm more liberal than conservative.

That said, the far left frightens me much more than the far right.

While I don't agree with all of the thoughts/opinions expressed here, I haven't heard any that I consider "frightening". I'm not trying to rag on you, I'm just saying I think what has been expressed here is well within the "normal" range.

Normal for me, so consider the source.

Derick

Summary of coffee room political discussions so far:

- Range of opinions is wide

- Quality of discourse is low. Ideological fervor and name calling seems to provoke more posts than pragmatic analysis.

- 'The Media' is mistrusted and perceived as as biased from both right and left sides of the political spectrum.

- Many moderates opting out of the discussion altogether

T2

There's nothing wrong with name calling.

What I'm worried about is the smiles.

The smile on the face of Bin Laden....

.....reading all this.....

As a youth, I was extremely liberal but now I consider myself to be a middle-of-the-road, mainstream American who has found from a half century of experience that Mark Twain was correct about Congress. The term moderate more accurately describes by political viewpoint than it does that of Tom Daschle or Arlen Specter.

Larry

I have been away from the computer for a few days, so I have just read this.

No, I did not take anything you said as a personal attack on me. Indeed, I do not take anything anyone says on the Internet as a personal attack on me since no one knows me well enough to be able to do that.

I would say that I accept your apology if I felt one was necessary. One is not. So, rather than accept your apology, let me rather thank you for your humility in posting this. It says a lot about you as a man.

What you have done in responding to me is nothing more than passionately expressing your views of what I say and for that I also thank you. This country, this society, is made less by people who do not feel passionately about it.

It is clear that you and I are on different ends of the political spectrum. But we are much the same in one way, I think. We both see that actions and events do not occur in a vacuum. They are part of a whole. The total puzzle can only be seen when one is able to put the pieces together. If more people could see the connections between the various actions and decisions our political leaders make, they would have a far better understanding of how the world runs.

I suspect that if you and I were to sit down some evening over a bottle, (or two or three) of wine, we would scream and yell at each other, both seeing the other as stupid and conspiratorially inclined -- and end up having great respect for each other.

Again, thank you.

Actually Norbert, if bin Laden understood this country at all, he would read this and be scared. Look at the discord, the frustration, the passion. And yet....

I suspect last September 11 all of us felt much the same unity and support for our country. We may have differnet views of what should be done about it, but I suspect we are all Americans first.

And that is what should scare bin Laden. We are diverse, and yet united. Not unlike a family that fights at every Thanksgiving dinner; but see one of the siblings attacked by an outsider and you will see no one more united in its defense of the one attacked than that constantly warring family.

(BTW, I too agree that we had a coup in the last election. All one needs to do is to read how the Supreme Court majority rejected their own individual political and judicial philosophies to make the findings they did. When people who have maintained a pretty good record of intellectual integrity discard that integrity for a particular political purpose, one has to ask why. One also has to ask who was behind it all).

And that's the very point needing to be made....

Thank you.

[Stop smiling, Bin Laden, you *******!]

George, finally - we agree on something! My brother!!!



Oh, well, I knew it couldn't last forever. Sort of like the coyote and sheepdog in the old WB cartoons, clocking out and having their workday lunch together, then clocking back in to do battle against each other a minute later.

You're insane, of course, but I still respect you.

This one's coming from memory, so please correct my mistakes...


Before WWII, a group of Germans were invited from the German Embassy in Washington, to attend a football game. Football in those days was even a more violent sport than it is now. (Consider that 12 players had died in one season at the turn of the century.)

After watching the frenzied crowd, seeing the players engage in orchestrated mayhem for four quarters of a hard fought, physical game, the German contingent was amazed to see the teams meet at mid-field and shake hands after the contest.

The general consensus was that Hitler most definitely did not understand the American pysche, and should never, ever go to war with a nation as crazy as ours.


I may or may not like your economic views or your politics - no matter who you are - but I will fight to the death for your right to voice your opinion.


As long as I can also speak mine.

(Voltaire)

Cuba? Iran?

Come on, Brendan. You're smarter than that. Do you really think that Cubans are being oppressed by the US? I suppose that's why they load up in old rickety boats til they're about to sink and risk their lives to get to Florida. And Iran? Come on!

Castro is the one who is oppressing the Cuban people, not America. And Iranian oppression is at the hands of their rulers as well.

Please tell me you were trying to make a joke, and that you know better.

I didn't say that we are oppressing them presently. Who put Castro in power? Who gave the Shah political asylum?

Brendan,

If I read you correctly I believe what you are saying is that people live in oppression in Cuba and Iran becaue of our support of Batiste ans the Shah. The fact is, we did support these men because they helped provide political stability in their respective regions. However, in Cuba, Castro shot his way into power and in Iran we abandoned the Shah when his corruption and oppression became too much of a political liability (even though we gave him assylum after Khomeini came into power). The most that could be said in these two cases is that we did not do enough to change the conditions under Batiste and the Shah leading to their eventual overthrow.

However, it was in our national interest to support a stabile regime but not in our interest to engage in determining the conditions under which these people live. To a large extent, it is their responsibility to change their own governments and change them they did.

It could be argued that we did not support these men enough (while, possibly, applying pressure on them to change their ways) since the conditions under which these people live are far worse then they were before.

The sad truth is that global politics never seems to lend itself to easy clear cut actions. There always hve to be trade-offs and no matter what the outcome there will always be those who will say we should have done something different.

Larry is correct. No one in the world lives under oppression because of what we have done but it could be said that some do as a result of what we haven't done. But just what is our responsibility for the people in other countries.

So you don't think that there's a degree of responsibility incured when we install leaders who turn into despots?

It's not just the fact that Castro turned into a communist sympathizer, it's the fact that we put him there and, if anything, humiliated ourselves in international foreign policy with the Bay of Pigs (and when we sponsored Iraq in their war with Iran).

Look, I am in no way saying that the United States is the "Great Satan" that Iran claims us to be, but you'll surely agree that our actions, albeit intended drastically different than they came to fruition for, surely had a lasting, negative effect on international relations and the foreign perception of America in the latter half of the twentieth century?

Anyone here remember Nicaragua? We absolutely supported an inhuman and corrupt regime because we were afraid of the alternative.

Our hands are definitely not clean.

But whose are? I think as a nation we need to be honest about where we've made major mistakes and learn. I am concerned about the revisionist history that can and does creep into our national consciousness.

AND I think by and large that we are doing this and are better off for it. The process is slow but we are moving in the right direction.

Nina

Nina,

I think your history is a little off. We did not install Castro in Cuba. We opposed Castro. In Nicaragua we, once again, abandoned Samoza who was a despot but in so doing, we paved the way for the Sandanistas who were outright Communists. In both the case of Nicaragua and Iran (which, coincidentally, were events during Carter Administration) we abandoned the leaders we had been supporting out of a sens of political fastidiousness only to condemn their people to more brutal regimes. In Cuba, we supported Batiste right up to the end even though we botched the Bay of Pigs operation when we withheld air support and allowed the Cuban forces sent by us to languish on the beach and eventually be captured or killed. Oncer again, global politics is not exactly cut and dried.

I haven't been following this thread but I just wanted to point out that the U.S. very much put Castro into power, and supported his overthrow of Batista (sp?). Castro was "supposed" to be anti-communist. It wasn't until he gained control that he revealed his Marxism, causing that U.S. to say "****!" and spend the next couple decades trying to get rid of the monster of our own creation.

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: wghornsby ]

For the US to say its hands are clean of oppressive regimes in the world is like the little kid who goads his older brother into doing something, and then feigning innocence when Mom or dad get angry. We can delude ourselves with propoganda all we want, but that is all it is...propoganda

Just like any other imperial power in history, since WWII, the US has used its military, political and diplomatic might to pursue the needs of the industrial countries to the detriment of the third world and has supported and kep in power many, many oppressive regimes. We do this even today.

It is only because of our supprt that Israel is able to oppress the Palistinians. It is only because of our troops in Saudi Arabia that the Sauds maintain power. Kuwait lives under opppressive fundamentalist Islamic laws, as it did before Iraq invaded. We fought a war to restore those rulers and kick out a man we, ourselves, put in power. Hussein is our creation and the people of Iraq are now suffering not only from him, but from our economic sanctions as well because we made the original mistake of installing Hussein.

Throughout the Middle East, the US is using its power to maintain the status quo so we can get the oil -- and the people of Middle East are suffering because of it. yep, those countries are rich -- the rulers and upper classes, that is. But most Middle eastern countries oppress women, even as we keep them in power.

Our record in Central and South America for the past 100 years, since Teddy Roosevelt, is one of siding with dictators and tyrants for the benefit of US economic interests. Let us remember Oliver North and the Reagan hooligans -- all of whom were pardoned by Bush1 so that his involvement would not be uncovere din court trials.

The IMF and the World Bank's policies are set by the US. They are policies which bankrupt the developing nations, making them economic serfs to serve the industrialized nations. They are not policies meant to foster the development and growth of these nations.

The US refuses to take any action against slave labor in China or child labor in much of Asia. Thes epeople are oppressed by their governments and we, through our economic prowess and lack of political will, encourage and support this oppression because we want cheap tennis shoes.

The US holds high values. But we too often fail to live up to them. We talk the talk, but too often we do not walk the walk. And then we wonder why men like Osama Bin Laden find it so easy to foster such severe hate against us that men will literlaly die to attack us.

Bush2 said last weekend in South America that poverty is the breeding ground for terrorists. Any sociologist will tell you this is true. I arguied this on another thread and was soundly attacked for this theory. Too bad we are not smart enough to realize that if we were to create a coalition and attack poverty and injustice in the world with the same vigor we attack terrorists, we would be far more secure and would find our economy would be stronger because of the openning of markets throughout the world.

Hi, JBryan:

No argument here. BTW, I didn't say we installed Castro in Cuba.

My point is pretty much the same as yours. Politics can be a messy business with changing goals and strategies. It's not a good guy vs bad guy thing once you get past individuals. (For example, you will not get an argument from me that Pol Pot, Hitler, and bin Laden are simply pure evil in human form, but I can't say the same about Cambodians, Germans and Afghanistanis).

Nina

Nina,

Your point is well taken.

wghornsby,

I don't believe we ever actually supported Castro's revolution even though, toward the end, we did break off relations with Batista (spelling is correect. Old age does terrible things to memory) and even withheld arms shpments to him.

George,

I only wish I had time to respond to this diatribe but I have to work.

George, George, George......

Israel is *not* "suppressing the Palestinians." I've given you plenty of proof about this, but you've got to start reading it. The land where Israel has been the land of the Jews since the dawn of recorded history. All the Jews did was get it back. The reason it was given back to them was because at the time no one else wanted it. It was overgrown, unusable trash land. No one was there. Once the Jews moved back into the area, they did an absolutely amazing job of turning it into productive land. Then Arabs began to move in. Jordan attacked them and took part of it away from them.

The people who are being oppressed are the Israelis. They had the dubious honor of having land that belonged to them to start with being "given to them", only to have the Arabs sit around and wait for them to fix the place up again, and then move in and try to take it away from them. What should happen is for Jordan to be put on notice that they have to give back the land they have already taken away from Israel, and then all the "Palestinians" should be made to move there and keep their mouths shut.

I just can't for the life of me figure out why you refuse to see this one simple fact. The proof of it is in abundance.

hey, larry and i agree about something! israel is NOT oppressing the palestinians.

however, i think a better solution would be to integrate palestinians and israelis in israel. there are movements within israel, by israelis, to do this. there's a school where palestinian and israeli parents send their children with the conscious intent of teaching them to live peaceably together.

we need a world peace conference in israel, something that would demonstrate to the world how the leaders can sit at the same table together.

Let us take a little stroll through history, if we may.

If we want to go to the historical record, maybe the land Israel now occupies should be given back to the people who were there when Moses led the Jewish people out of Egypt and conquered "the promised land" and took it away from its rightful owners at the time. Hmmm....just how far back are the Israeli's willing to go to respect an ancient claim on land. Not THAT far, I suspect.

The Jews left Palestine as a governmental/societal force after the fall of the Temple in the first century AD. They did not return until the late 1940's. If we are going to argue that any peoples who controlled land 2000 years ago have the right to it now...well, I think we all know where that leads us, especially in terms of the United States.

After WWI, Britain was the preemminent power in the world. It partitioned the Middle East into the kingdoms and countries we know today. Britain decided on the boundaries as well as the leaders who would run these countries. Britain wanted to create Israel then, not for any altruistic reason, but to get the Jews out of Europe. They were unable to create Isrel then, however, because of opposition by the Islamic peoples in the region. Yes, they opposed te idea Israel even back then.

After WWII, the United Nations, trying to rebuild Europe and feeling a massive sense of guilt,forced the creation of Israel -- mainly so the Europeans would not need to worry about Jews during the resettlement of all of the refugees created by the war. They could just ship them all off to Israel and leave it at that -- or so they thought.

The Arab countries protested during the entire time of the debate. To argue the land was not wanted by anyone is to ignore the historical record. The Arabs saw Palestine as their own, demanded, in vain, that Israel not be formed. Immediately upon its formation, the Arabs attacked.

Several wars later, all the time with the Arabs attacking the formation of the Isaeli's as usurpers of the land, we come to the 1967 War. In that War, Isarel conquered vast amounts of Arab territories and occupied them. The international community encouraged Israel to use this land to negotiate for peace.

In the 1970's and early 1980's, Israel announced a policy of creating Jewish settlements in the occupied lands. The international community argued against this policy vociferously, realzing that it would become a major obstacle to peace.

Israel, however, prevailed and began to build these settlements. Exactly what the international community feared would happen has now happened. Israel needs to defend its citizens in the occupied territories, their continued existence is a major source of contention and Israel cannot muster the political will to relocate these people back into the boundaries of Israel itself.

In the late 1980's, Israel's capital was Tel Aviv. But it wanted Jerusalem. Again, against international protests because Jerusalem as Israel's capital was viewed as an incendiary development, Israel moved its capital. What is one of the major points of contention now? The status of Jerusalem.

Today, Israel controls the economy and the quality of life within the Palestinian camps. They control the flow of people. They control employment possibilities (Israel will not allow the development of industry in these territories, requiring Palestinians to work within Israel if they are going to find employment). Israel controls the basic utilities, using electricity, water, medical care and all sorts of other pressure points as tools of control. They provide them or deny them at the whim of Israel's government and for the political and economic purposes of the Israeli government, not to the benefit of the Palestinians.

The Palestinians are not allowed to have weapons of any sort, although some get smuggled in. The Palestinians live in poverty and political and social impotence. All maintained by Israel -- and supported by the United States through its political influence as well as the massive amounts of military and economic aid we supply.

And so, we find the very conditions which Bush2 said create the nurturing ground for terrorists. The Palestinaians are driven to protest their lot violently, using rocks against tanks (American supplied) and, in the most extreme, using suicide bombers who are willing to give their lives to fight the country that has placed their people in such dire straits "Give me liberty or give me death!".

Israel is the clear oppressor of the Palectinian people. One can argue they have the right to defend themselves. This is true. But the problems they have with the Palestinians they, themselves, have had a major hand in creating, through the development of settlements in the occupied territories through the establiushment of Jerusalem as their capital.

And all of this is justified on the basis of some sort of historic right to occupy the land.

Are the Arabs and Palestinians hands clean in all of this? Definitely not. But they protested, argued and fought wars throughout the 20th century against the establishment of Israel. Clearly, Palestine was territory they felt was important to them and that they wanted to control. The fact it was unindustrialized and barren does not mean they did not have a right to it or that it was land which the major powers could decide to hand over to others for any reason at all.

Israel is here to stay. A Palestinian state is simply a matter of the US recognizing it. The US has now been attacked on its own territory because it has not had the political guts to do what is just in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It is time to put Israel in its place, identify its actions for what they are, create the Palestinian state, provide it with the same level of assistance we have provided Israel for the past 70 years, and put an end to this killing and evil that both sides are perpetrating on each other and the rest of the world.

If we can use the Bible as a historic document, there is no linkage between the original inhabitants of "The Promised Land" and modern day Palestinians.

The Jews killed all of the Cananites. All of them. And they even killed "the beasts of the field".

If that is correct (and I believe it is), the Jews, ipso de facto, ARE the people of Israel.

There is no one else left.

Sorry George, but your history is almost totally incorrect. As for ancient history, Jews have occupied the region that is now Israel continuously since the dawn of civilization. There is no such thing as a "Palestinian". The Israelis have not persecuted or oppressed anyone. They are Jordanians. Five Arab nations attacked Israel on the very first day they became a state, and Israel kicked their butts. Had the Arabs left Israel alone, there would have been no "Palestinaian refugees". These "refugees" are Jordanians who had the misfortune of living in the part of Jordan that Jordan lost in the war they initiated and then got their butts kicked in.

Here, read some history so you'll have your facts straight:

The real history behind Israel & "Palestine"

This says it about right Larry. One thing George does not seem to understand in all of his talk about Israel creating a Palestinian state is that the Palestinians are not interested in a Palestinian state coexisting with Israel. They will be satisfied with nothing less than the elimination of Israel. Does the term "blood libel" ring a bell with anyone? How could anyone believe that a people taught from birth that Jews use the blood of Moslems and Christians to leaven their bread are people with whom you would want to coexist peacefully.

I read it Larry. There is something strange about an essay which claims there never was a Palestine, but then says it was given that name by the civil authority (Romans) 2000 years ago, has been referred to by that name for all of that time --and even in the essay is called Palestine. Something just does not seem to fit when we are told not to do what people have done for 2000 years and which the author him/herself does.

A question for you though, Larry. With your intense dislike for the UN and your fear it seeks to impose a world government, why are you so vociferous in support of one of the UN's most intrusive actions -- an action which took land from one political entity and gave it to another without regard to the desires of the people who lived there or governed it.

If the UN's intrusion into the US's affairs is bad, was not its intrusion here in the 1940's in another country's affiars -- especially one which took territory from it, also bad?

Or are you selective in your support of the UN? If you agree with the results of its actions, it is a good organization; but if you disagree it is bad?

Go back and read it again, George. The answers to your questions are all there, very clearly explained. But when you read it this time, read it slowly and *understand* it as you go, and leave your preconcieved notions out of the picture. If you do, you will see that you have been fed a line of propaganda that leaves you viewing things upside down and backwards through a mirror's reflection. If you ever get it, George, you will experience an epiphany.

George,

Your rebuttal to this article posted by Larry is awfully weak. I don't believe the author ever makes the point that there has never been a region that has been referred to as Palestine. His point is that there never were any Palestinians with a Palestinian culture and language. That the term Palestine was simply concocted by the Romans as a slur to the original indigenous people (the Israeliites) and the name has simply been in use since then as an administrative convenience. "Palestine" is a contrivance. That was the point.

In reference to the point you make about the UN. This seems to typify a common debating tactic I have seen used by many on the Left as well as the Right. Show some small point of inconsistency in an opponents argument no matter how trivial, label him as a hypocrite and simply walk away without ever addressing any of the points central to the issue. It is a cheap game of gotcha that I find intellectually dishonest. What you are really saying is that because Larry supports an action the UN was involved in back in 1948 that he now has no right to call for its abolition. Pretty lame.

The fact is, the UN is a very different organization than it was in 1948. An organization that was begun as a forum where countries with differences could enter into a sort of collective arbitration as an alternative to war has become something very different today. They no longer seem to carry out that original mission very well but have, instead, become a megaphone for Marxists and third world despots. I am not quite where Larry is as far as their abolition but after voting the United States off of the Human Rights Council (while retaining countries like Sudan) and that racist conference on racism in Durban last summer I am very close. I would say about a hair's breadth.

Well there's your first problem. You see, that's not the definition of the word "uneducated".

I could just as easily say that this sentence perfectly demonstrates your "first problem" - again, that you're considering things from one point of view only, as if words can't have more than one meaning! I agree that education means "studying the subject matter and learning the facts that pertain to it." Our definitions don't appear to be mutually exclusive - "studying the subject matter" is the same thing as "considering diversity" - my way of defining education just leaves room for situations where the facts are less clearly defined and might be variables depending on the observer, instead of being concrete observation shared by all. For example, both the U.S. and the terrorists saw the concrete fact that the World Trade Center was ruined. Americans are also sure that it's a fact that September 11th was a horrible day. But the members of Al Quaeda, on the other hand, would say that it's a fact that September 11th was a day when "God was Great." The ability to see those types of (subjective) "facts" as they appear "in truth" according to different people (ie. the diversity factor) is also an integral part of being educated, is it not? That is why I define education as a willingness to consider diversity.

I totally agree with you when you say " We are all uneducated about something."

But if someone has studied a subject, knows the facts, and arrives at a conclusion that differs from the liberal point of view, the liberal does then call that condition "an unwillingness to consider diversity".

No, as I pointed out last time, your earlier quotes - not my liberal or conservative status - make me think that you have "an unwillingness to consider diversity." :p

The problem is, I *have* studied the subject matter, and I *do* know the facts that pertain to it.

Then you already knew that the UN Declaration is based on ideas directly against statements like "Then they take away your right to own property" and "[They'll] Take from the rich and give to the poor."

Of course you realize that *your* view also ignores at least half of the population as well. But I assume that when *I* ignore half the population when I state my views, I am showing myself as "uneducated", but when a liberal does it, they are showing "a willingness to consider diversity"....

The point is that I'd never assume that the opinions I share "should" rule the country without diverse, popular consent, while several of your sites appear to "know" the one-and-only "truths" that "should properly" or even "divinely" determine America's government.

I assumed the reader would be "educated" and understand that I was referring to Arab terrorists. Don't twist what I'm saying just to win a debate. Keep it clean. You were fully aware that I wasn't referring to the Arab population at large.

Yes, I was fully aware that you were referring to the terrorists -- my analogy was really about the fact that you were denying rational capabilities to humans, which is also how the Europeans legitimized their killing of American Indians. That brings me to your comment That's what we're doing, George - removing the source of the problem. We're chasing them down and killing them like the worthless dogs they are.

Killing people like worthless dogs - what would that make us? The civilized nations must truly act civilly - by being a member of the UN, we're obliged to recognize humans as such, which means admitting their rational capabilities (since that's the main thing that sets us apart from other animals) even though the terrorists didn't respect the civilians they killed and even though we don't comprehend the terrorists' version of logic (Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.) Doing anything other than that would be a diplomatic faux pas. After all, I think many Middle Easterners have been taught to look for America's supposed hypocriticalness, so we should make sure that we aren't providing any.

If you have a problem with me, don't drive your car through my living room window and kill my family to try and get my attention. I won't care about your problems at that point.

Your anger is totally justified, and there is no excuse for the extreme methods they chose. Still, I think that we would be better off considering their problems:

Larry's example: Suppose a group of gang members decided to take over your house. My answer would be to defend my house, and if necessary, kill those gang members who were invading me. The rest of the gang can learn from this that if they try to come into my house they will get killed too, so they'd better learn to leave me alone. I don't really care why they felt a need to take over my house. It has nothing to do with anything. It's my house. Using your ideas, I should give them my house so as to not **** off the rest of the gang, and then talk to them to find out why they are so angry, and to find out why they wanted my house, then set about finding them other houses to give them so they won't attack any more houses. The answer is to defend your house, and not worry about why they chose to be thugs.

Suppose the gang members are made up of hostile neighbors, they try to take your house, and you kill a few. Of course you're not going to give them your house! But eventually other affiliated gang members will try to damage your house again. After they try this several times, aren't you going to wonder what they're thinking? Won't you look back and say, "Oh, if I had only known what the problem seemed like in their minds, maybe all of this could have been resolved earlier?" For instance, suppose your house was the only one in the neighborhood that refused to use garbage containers; instead, suppose you just throw all your stuff around so that it gets in their lawns. But it's your house, so why care? The answer is that it's your house, but everyone's neighborhood. If one acts egocentric enough to assume that one's house is an ivory tower, it's no wonder they want to kick down your door. Of course America has many great qualities that other countries do not - I think everyone can assume that to be accurate. And of course the U.S. has done many things to help other countries - I don't deny that, either. But there are also things that the we could be doing better and with more insight toward other people and nations. Until there is some sort of open-minded dialogue on "problems-as-others-see them," there will be an ongoing threat to the "house. "

But again, your support against that: I don't see America as being "innately right" about everything, but I don't give a rat's behind about these countries' "complaints".

They don't have a valid reason [for attacking]. They make up their reasons.

To you, their reasons don't seem valid; to them, what they believe is very valid. One has to be able to regard every opinion at an equally serious level even if one tends to think that their ideas are absurd, because the consequences of their "nonexistent" reasons are obviously quite real. By the way, they don't "make up" their reasons - much of what they go by can be "proved" by their (highly rigid) interpretation of the Koran. It's parallel to the way that the "Restoring America" group selectively "proves" its radical Christian agenda through its highly rigid interpretation of "Founding Fathers' Quotes."

Sorry if I seem to be coming on a bit strong, but then again, I think it's fair to cross-examine like mad when talking about logic !!!!

This seems to fly in the face of the objective fact that the destruction of the World Trade Center was an act of pure evil. What their subjective opinion of that is is irrelevant except as a sort of odd academic excercise. It neither informs our course of action nor sheds light on any facts that would be mitigating.

JB, do you have any thoughts of your own, or are you just Larry's lackey?

Don't worry - once I write my post proving how the UN - with the help of left wing radical groups and left wing politicians - are in the process of putting the right to own property in the hands of the UN, are right now placing millions of acres each year into the reach of the UN's desired area of control, how the federal government is forcing people off their land by the thousands right now in preparation for the eventual control by the UN, you will be screaming for the abolishment of the UN.

Then, when I address the issue of the purpose of a World Court and a standing UN army, you will be ready to join a revolution to take back our country from the federal government.

It will be well documented. But of course, we will still have to deal with closed minded liberals who refuse to see what's happening right under their noses, because they lack the ability to see "diversity in thought"........They will lable me a kook because they will refuse to let reason overcome partisan views. But there will be a few who rise above mere political views, who use an open mind, and who can see the moves on the chessboard. They will never be the same again.

Don't get personal, Walter. It may come as a shock to you, but JB may actually share my views. That would tend to cause the things he says to look similar to mine. In a personal attack, one could also say that those arguing the liberal line are being lackey's to one on their side as well. If you have something to contribute to advance the opinion of one side of the debate or the other, say it, But if all you're interested in is slinging snotty comments, you need to sit on the sidelines and see if you can learn something.

I have reread it, Larry. It does not answer my questions. What it basically does is rehash. albeit in some detail, the argument that Israel has an ancient claim to the land all onthe basis that the land belonged to oither people and the term Palestine is not an ancient term. I see this as a falacious argument as a basis for supporting Israel because we are not prepared to recognize other "ancient" claims other places in the world -- it would be ludicrous to do so.

JBryan, you are right. In addition to rehashing the ancient claim it also argue there never was a Palestinian state. But then again, before Charlemagne, there never was a French state or a French people, before Romulus and Remus there never was a Roman state and before the immigration of Europeans and the subsequent American revolution, there never was an American state or culture.

This issue before the US today, however, is not over whether Israel has a right to exist. Others on this Board had argued that the Palestinian cause was not a valid one because 1) Israel was in its ancient homeland and 2) the Arab countries had never really wanted the land the UN gave to Israel in the first place and were only using this argument to justify their actions. I was simply rebutting this argument.

To me, Israel has a right to exist only because today it DOES exist and the people there have a right to their own government and to develop their own society as they see fit. Whether it was right or wrong for the UN to do what they did 60-70 years ago really does not matter, nor does the fact the Jews ran the place until the Roman broke them up. I also believe the Palestinians have the right to self determination and the right to their own state because those who held the land before 1967 and who rightfully have a claim to that land want to give it to the Palestinians for a Palestinian state.

The Arabs can scream all they want about Israel having to go. It simply is not going anywhere and they need to accept this and get on with their lives. Israel has to stop screaming that the Palestinians have no right to self determination and no right to the occupied territories. Those territories were not given to Israel by the UN, Israel's permanent occupation and settlement of them has never been condoned by the international community and has been condemned by the UN.

If those countries which controlled the occupied territories before 1967 and to whoim Israle must return the land now want to give these territories to the Palestinians for a Palestinian state, they have a right to do this --whether or not there has ever been a Palestinian culture or society before.

The violence in the Middle East must stop. Israel is oppressing the Palestinian peoples and killing innocent people within the occupied territories. The Palestinian peoples are attacking Israel and killing inncocent people.

The security of the United States has now been directly affected by what these people are doing to each other. Over 3000 Americans were killed on 9/11 in a reaction to America's overt support of Israel and America's lack of support for the legitimate claim for statehood by the Palestinian people. Whether any of us like the Palestinian cause or not does not matter. The US is being subjected to terrorist attacks overseas and here at home because of our actions in the Middle east, specifically our actions vis-a-vis Israel and the Palestinians. Our men and women are now in a war (an ill-conceived on, I believe) because of our strong tilt towards Israel. John Ashcroft and Bush2 are tearing apart our freedoms as Americans in response.

As self defense of our own people and to stop the Bush2 assault on American freedoms, we have the right to demand and to act to cause a cessation in what is occuring. We also have the power to do so.

No, we are not going to make these people love each other. But we can and must demand that Israel stop the oppression, that Israel withdraw from the occupied territories, that Israel recognize the aspirations of the Palestinians for statehood (also demanded, btw, by the same UN which created Israel -- you know, the one Larry supports! <g>).

And because for 60-70 years we have poured massive amounts of money into the creation and development of Israel, a similar investment will likely be needed to establish Palestine. It will be far cheaper and far more effective than stationing troops in countries all over the world and fighting the multi-front war Bush2 is setting up. We must do this as well. As Bush2 has finally figured out, if poverty and disenfranchisement are eliminated, the breeding ground for terrorists is also eliminated.

The US goal must be first and foremost to protect Americans. Secondarily, it is to do so within the values of the American culture -- values of self determination, of fair economic growth, of the dignity of the individual.

To continue to argue all of the same arguments of the past several decades is fruitless and leads us no where. It certainly does not secure the US or American citizens. It simply continues the quagmire we have allowed ourselves to get into.

It is time we stop it, take decisive action, exert our power and put a stop to all of this silliness. Israali's and Palestinians need not be killed any longer. The US need not be attacked any longer. But this will occur only when we have the guts to take the actions necessary to stop it all.

Yes, you *could* say that. But you would be wrong on two levels. You are *assuming* that I am only considering things from one point of view. As it happens, I have examined *both* points of view, and arrived at a conclusion. This conclusion differs from yours. I am now trying to get *you* to consider both points of view. Second, one could claim the definition of the phrase "wash the car" is "get out the sandpaper and air hose", but that doesn't change the real meaning of "wash the car".

Quote

No, as I pointed out last time, your earlier quotes - not my liberal or conservative status - make me think that you have "an unwillingness to consider diversity."

Then let me clear up your erroneous thinking. I have considered both sides. I have considered diversity. And I have arrived at the conclusion that there are far too many people spending time trying to focus on the gray areas in the middle, and as a result those who focus on the hard reality of what is and what isn't are the ones who are getting things done. I have also been a liberal. Shocked? But it is a bankrupt point of view. And all the "looking for shades of gray" stuff most rank and file liberals spend their time focusing on is causing you to miss the big picture of what is happening around you.

Quote

Then you already knew that the UN Declaration is based on ideas directly against statements like "Then they take away your right to own property" and "[They'll] Take from the rich and give to the poor."

No, I do not already know that. What I know is that if you believe that then you have been tricked. I suggest that you practive what you preach as I lay out the true goals of the United Nations, and show your education as you "consider diversity" by studying the information I will be giving you with an open mind, ready to accept the truth even if it goes against everything you formerly held as truth - just like you think I should do.

Quote

Killing people like worthless dogs - what would that make us?

Patriots. Defenders of freedom. Defenders of our land and our way of life. Having a spine. Refusing to lay down and let a bunch of lunatics run all over us.

Quote

After they try this several times, aren't you going to wonder what they're thinking? Won't you look back and say, "Oh, if I had only known what the problem seemed like in their minds, maybe all of this could have been resolved earlier?"

No. It is not my responsibility to wonder why you are attacking me. It is my responsibility to protect myself from your attacks. You are the aggressor, not me. Only when *you* lay down your weapons and approach me with civility should I consider it. But not while you are attacking me. That is the actions of a wimp, and a sure way to lose the battle.

Quote

For instance, suppose your house was the only one in the neighborhood that refused to use garbage containers; instead, suppose you just throw all your stuff around so that it gets in their lawns. But it's your house, so why care? The answer is that it's your house, but everyone's neighborhood.

OK, let's use your logic here. Let's act with civility. This would mean that the neighbors should come to me in peace and find out what is causing me to be such a slob, and find out what they can do to help me stop being such a slob. This is the flaw in your logic. You refuse to assign the same rules to the one that starts the attack that you want the attacked to follow when dealing with the attacker. You justify the neighbors' attack against the slob, and assign the responsibility of finding out what the problem is to the slob. I assign the rules to the neighbors. If they have a problem, let them come to me in peace and discuss it, and see what the problem is and how it can be resolved. At that point, I would be happy to peacefully negotiate with my neighbors and come up with a resolution. But if they attack my home, drive their car through my front window and kill my family, then I am not going to care why they did it. I am going to defend myself.

Quote

If one acts egocentric enough to assume that one's house is an ivory tower, it's no wonder they want to kick down your door.

Liberal pap. What someone thinks about their house is irrelevant. I can think my house is the Pearly Gates if I want to. If you want to kick in my door just because you don't like what I think about my house, you just don't have a reasonable excuse for your actions, and you deserve to be shot dead the instant your foot comes through the door.

Quote

Of course America has many great qualities that other countries do not - I think everyone can assume that to be accurate. And of course the U.S. has done many things to help other countries - I don't deny that, either. But there are also things that the we could be doing better and with more insight toward other people and nations. Until there is some sort of open-minded dialogue on "problems-as-others-see them," there will be an ongoing threat to the "house. "

You minimize the good and maximize the bad. In maximizing the bad, you fail to "consider diversity". People shouldn't bite the hand that feeds them. So since you admit we have done good things for other countries, don't you think they owe it to us to approach any percieved wrongs we have done with civility instead of hostility? Don't you see that they already have the proof that we are willing to do the right thing if they do so? We have no obligation to consider their complaints under any other method of negotiation.

Quote

To you, their reasons don't seem valid; to them, what they believe is very valid. One has to be able to regard every opinion at an equally serious level even if one tends to think that their ideas are absurd, because the consequences of their "nonexistent" reasons are obviously quite real.

The lady who drowned her five kids thought her reasons were real and valid too. That didn't make her reaons valid, and it didn't mean anyone was required to consider her insane logic when dealing with her actions.

Quote

By the way, they don't "make up" their reasons - much of what they go by can be "proved" by their (highly rigid) interpretation of the Koran.

And the lady who drowned her kids thought she was saving them from Satan. Did she make up her reasons? Yes. Just like the fanatics in Afghanistan did. Again, your problem in understanding this is your insistence on staying inside the gray areas. If you only deal with the gray areas, you'll never get anything done. The gray areas is where her insanity lay - the black and white of it was that she killed 5 kids. The gray area of the terrorists involves worrying about why they feel the US has harmed them, trying to figure out how to get them to see they are misinterpreting their holy book, and on and on. The black and white of it is they have killed thousands of innocent people, and are organized to kill thousands more. The solution isn't to deal with their insanity. The solution is to stop them. *Then* you can deal with their insanity, and sort out the real injustices we may have done from the fantasized ones of their own creation.

Quote

It's parallel to the way that the "Restoring America" group selectively "proves" its radical Christian agenda through its highly rigid interpretation of "Founding Fathers' Quotes."

"Give me liberty, or give me death"

How many interpretations of that can you come up with?

Does this qualify as "thought" in your view?

Actually, Larry, many interpretations. It all depends on how someone defines liberty and what someone sees as the responsibilities that come with liberty.

As you know, liberty is not license. It is limited and requires the responsible exercise of it.

It seems to me that much of this discussion hinges on just this issue -- what is America's rights under its liberty in the world and have we acted with the appropriate responsibility? And what is the liberty others in the world have, and have they acted with appropriate responsibility? And how do we handle things when the two concepts of liberty collide and/or one does not believe the other has acted with the required responsibility?

You see, Larry, there is a gray area as much as you do not want there to be one. There is not a common understanding of words such as liberty and responsibility. And more to the point, there is no common understanding of what rights and legitimate actions that flow from having liberty. No one individual's or country's concept of liberty is the correct one.

And so, we stumble into the gray area. And to co-exist and to achieve a world in which we can exercise our liberty without fear, we must agree to a common acceptance of the terms, even if it is not the totality of what we believe.

To stand rigid in our own beliefs limits our ability to enjoy and live in liberty because the only recourse we give to others who see our exercise of our liberty as infringing on their right to exercise their liberty is to react with force -- hence we have wars, conflicts and the erosion of freedom by those who would do so to supposedly safeguard them. Unless of course, we have somethng like the UN, imperfect though it may be, where we can at least try to work things out with civility.

George,

You have just posted the most thoughtful of your posts to date. There is much here I could probably agree with. I wish I had more time to discuss it but I am now at work (or, at least, I should be).

Let me just say that the issue of there being Palestinian and Isreali states coexisting side by side is not really a problem for me, most Americans, or even most Israelis. The problem seems to be with the Palestinians and many in the Arab world who are solely intent on the destruction of Israel.

After re-reading this discussion, one glaring fact starts to emerge. Many of the posters in this thread have made a common mistake of assuming the common man in the Arabic world thinks like the average American or European, and has the same values and mores. This is blatantly not true.

At the heart of any Arabic government, is an autocratic, ruthless government. It dosen't matter if it is a theocracy in Iran, a monarchy in Jordan or a dictatorship in Iraq. All of these governments(and any other Arab country's government you care to name) have in common the ability to ruthlessly opress their citizens when it serves the purpose of the state. The Arabic people respect force and ultimate authority. They do not respect weakness or wavering.

As an illustration I offer the example of the hostages in Beirut. When American or European hostages were taken, there was much agonizing, and second-guessing, debate and diplomacy. Witness the results.

When a Russian hostage was taken, the Soviet Union's response was quite different. They kidnapped the brother of the alledged perpetrator of the crime. The KGB cut off his head, placed it in a basket, and left it on the doorstep of the individual who had committed the crime. Inside the basket, attached to the severed head, was a note in Arabic that said to return the Russian hostage or the perpetrator's entire extended family would be executed and his name would be wiped off the face of the Earth. The hostage was returned unharmed. No other Soviet citizens were kidnapped.

Now while I do not advocate lopping people's heads off, consider the difference in the actions of both the US and the USSR. And consider the outcome of those actions.

By Western European standards, the Arab world still operates under more primitive rules. Complicated solutions will not work. At the root of this discussion, is the simple fact that two different peoples are competing for the same piece of land. Eventually, the strong will survive and the loser will be vanquished. thus it has always been, and will always be. And it will not matter one whit what anyone thinks.

Then, Jolly, if complicated solutions will not work, what solution do you suggest?

Clearly, it would be fruitless to follow Israel's solution because it simply does not work. They have fought wars and are no more secure. They have reacted with massive violent power to terrorist acts, and they are less secure now then they have been in decades. They have imposed economic and political sanctions on the Palestinians and get suicide bombers killing their citizens in return.

So, if war,military responses and political and economic sanctions do not work, then what do you suggest we do?

Or do you think we will be successful where the Israeli's have not been?

(BTW, you are right. The values of the Islamic World are, in many ways, different than ours. Their political structure and their cultures are different than ours. But this does not mean that they do not also seek to live in peace, to be able to go about their business without interference and to live their lives as they see fit this is one area in which we tend to agree with them. of course, they do not have troops stationed in our country, forcing their presence on us -- whereas we have troops in theirs and force our presence on them. Maybe it is time to get ours out and leave them alone).

There have been two wars there, neither of which was started by Israel. The Arabs were the aggressor both times. No amount of reasoning with the Arabs has worked, and they won't discuss in anything that involves letting Israel exist. So since defending themselves twice has not stopped the aggression, I think it is time for them to let those who do *not* want to be in the line of fire know of their intent to blow the Palestinian side off the face of the earth to give them time to get out, and then wipe the whole bunch off the face of the earth. You can't be attacked by something that doesn't exist. And when you're dealing with people who insist on acting like animals, you have to treat them the same way. They won't quit coming after them, so they must simply eliminate them from the equation.

Perhaps the solution is closer than you think!

As of today, Lebanon has stated that it wants the 350,000 Palestinean refugees out of it's country. As of today, Saudi Arabia and most of the Arab world will recognize Israel's right to exist if the Palistineans are given land. With the exception of Jerusalem, I think the Israelis have signaled they might entertain just such a proposal.

The Arabs will only push the Palistinean cause only as long as it meets their ultimate political aims. Methinks the Arab world has given serious thought to what might happen, if a REAL war breaks out in the occupied territory, and if the U.S. ultimately becomes involved. It is much better to sell your oil on the open market, than to have an occupying army sell it for you, at whatever price the conquerer deems appropriate.

I think that the Arab world is starting to understand the better part of valor is recognize Israel's right to exist. And I don't think that if a shooting war breaks out in the occupied territory, they will give Arafat much more than lip service.

Because, you see, Israel does have a military industrial complex. They do not buy their all of their weapons from the U.S. They build a very good, improved version of the old F5, with improved Israeli electronics. They build a very good combination tank/armored personnel carrier. They have the finest infantry rifle in the world, the Galil. And they are the only country in the Middle East known to have nuclear weapons, and to posess the delivery systems to use them anywhere in the region.

Maybe appeasement dosen't work so well, after all.

An armed society is a polite society - Robert Heinlein

Jolly

You are right. Appeasement has not and never will be the answer.

But recognition of the goals of each side and then compromising to get to these goals is.

You are also right that no one is going to move anywhere in their positions until it is in their own benefit to do so. May not be the most courageous thing to do, but it is the way things are.

However, Israel has yet to give an offical response to the proposal. Why is this?

I recall when Anwar Sadat of Egypt offered offhandedly to go to Jerusalem. Menachem Begin almost immediately issued the invitation. And a peace treaty was the ultimate result.

Why has Sharon not offered to immediately begin negotiations based on the saudi offer? Why has George Bush not immediately called the leaders to meet and discuss this offer as the basis for peace?

This is, of course, the solution to the Israeli problem. It is the only one. It has always been the only one. Israel back to its pre-1967 borders. The Arab countries recognize Israel's right to exist.

I wonder why the delay in Israel's response? There is a reason Sharon has not jumped at this when it gives Israel what Israel has always said it wants. Could it be Israel has lied all these years?

Clearly, work would need to be done on this proposal. But why has the work not begun? Why are the negotiations not underway? Why has Israel refused to immediately negotiate? Why has the US not forced them to?

Where the heck is George Bush acting like the leader of the only super power the way he is?

The Arabs have made the offer. Each day Sharon delays a positive response to begin negotiations is another day of killing, another day closer to killing the entire proposal.

Why do we allow this?

George,

This should help to answer your questions.

Actually, it doesn't. But it does explain the on-going bumbling by the US (kind of explains it from the National Review's pro Israeli viewpoint).

It comes down to the US being the only party that can stop this. But we refuse to do so. Why? What is Bush2 gaining by perpetuating the killing and the lack of security for the US, which should be his first responsibility, but obviously isn't.

If tomorrow, Bush2 just said "Screw all these people. I have a country to defend," and then announced immediate recognition of the Palestinian State in the occupied territories, defining East Jerusalem as the palestinian Capital and west Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, informed Israel they had six months to get all the settlers removed from the occupied territories or all aid would stop, informed Arafat that there were going to be elections within 6 months, under US supervision and that with the installation of a new government in Palestine, the US would establish a Marshall Plan type program to build factories, housing, infrastructure, etc. and informed all parties that if they screw up any more the US was simply backing out and they could all have at each other ----

If Bush2 did this, the killing would end, the problem would be solved and the US, within 2-3 years could turn its attention elsewhere.

But no, we pussy foot around and wring our hands over two sides who would rather argue who was the aggressor on that day and who was acting out of self defense and who did this and who did that.

It is time to put an end to this and neither side is capable of negotiating an end. We are so heavily involved anyway, we might as well unilaterally impose a solution and have done with it.

A bit heavy handed don't you think, George. Doesn't seem to go well with the hands off posture you prescribe for those countries harboring terrorists plotting our destruction. I know you believe that what you are suggesting here would bring peace while our military actions in Afghanistan and, soon, in Iraq will lead to conflagration in the Middle East but you are exactly 180 degrees wrong. What you are suggesting would lead to conflagration. The Palestinians would use their new found advantage to further their war against Israel. If you don't believe me then just look at the history since Oslo. On the other hand, if we persist in taking on those governments who harbor terrorists we will eventually prevail and the region will be more stabile. Just imagine Iraq without Hussein and with a government chosen by the people. Sure would put a lot of pressure on the House of Saud would it not.