GW04, I have to ask if you ever stop to cheque yourself and your "facts" before you state them. I probably won't be the only one to tell you that the US does not have the highest standard of living. In fact, our neighbour to the north, Canada, has been consistently recognised by the UN as having the highest quality of living index in the world. This has happened year after year.

  Also, the US is not a "Conservative nation" as you have cited it. It certainly has the highest rate of conservatism in all of the Great-8 nations, but as far as Liberal vs. Conservative goes, in the US we are split right down the middle. You have chosen to evoke the common right-wing tactic of equating yourselves with the concept of America itself, in order to obfuscate the truth and make it appear that if one is a left-winger, s/he is un-american.

 I will paraphrase Bill Maher in saying that Conservatives tend to regard America and her government the way a four-year-old does his mother. Mommy can't do wrong. Perhaps, it is time for the right-wing to recognise that America and the American government are not one and the same. One can still love and support his/her nation, and denounce the actions and opinions of his/her government and leaders. The right-wing labels Liberals as people who "hate and loathe America" simply because we look at other nations making better social progress than ours and we expect our country to not only compete, but lead. And so far, we aren't doing that.  




Couldn't have said it better myself.



Cat

We must be looking at two different newspapers then - The Daily Telegraph never calls itself "The Telegraph" or even "The London Telegraph"... and if you were to describe the DT to any Brit as "pretty liberal", they'd laugh in your face.  Private Eye terms it "The Torygraph", and for good reason.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Cat


I'll second that

   GW04, I have to ask if you ever stop to cheque yourself and your "facts" before you state them. I probably won't be the only one to tell you that the US does not have the highest standard of living. In fact, our neighbour to the north, Canada, has been consistently recognised by the UN as having the highest quality of living index in the world. This has happened year after year.

  Also, the US is not a "Conservative nation" as you have cited it. It certainly has the highest rate of conservatism in all of the Great-8 nations, but as far as Liberal vs. Conservative goes, in the US we are split right down the middle. You have chosen to evoke the common right-wing tactic of equating yourselves with the concept of America itself, in order to obfuscate the truth and make it appear that if one is a left-winger, s/he is un-american.

 I will paraphrase Bill Maher in saying that Conservatives tend to regard America and her government the way a four-year-old does his mother. Mommy can't do wrong. Perhaps, it is time for the right-wing to recognise that America and the American government are not one and the same. One can still love and support his/her nation, and denounce the actions and opinions of his/her government and leaders. The right-wing labels Liberals as people who "hate and loathe America" simply because we look at other nations making better social progress than ours and we expect our country to not only compete, but lead. And so far, we aren't doing that.  


Very well put.  Let me add that when polled on most issues a large majority, no matter how they define their politics, comes down on what GWB would call the "liberal" side.

We must be looking at two different newspapers then - The Daily Telegraph never calls itself "The Telegraph" or even "The London Telegraph"... and if you were to describe the DT to any Brit as "pretty liberal", they'd laugh in your face.  Private Eye terms it "The Torygraph", and for good reason.

Yeah, I was going to say, isn't the Telegraph what they call a "Tory paper"?  I've seen those pro-Bush suck-ups from that paper on TV over here.  Sheesh!
You'll notice GWBush2004 posts links to newsmax.com, the Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, and the Weakly Standard magazine.  None of these make any effort at objectivity at all, but they play this dumb game of saying, "Well, at least you know where we're coming from, we don't pretend to be objective, unlike the liberal media."  Just look at the editorial pages of any of these so-called "liberal" newspapers, such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the Boston Globe, and you'll find plenty of conservative columnists, from George Will to Robert Novak.  The right wing media doesn't offer liberal voices the same copious and un-badgered access.  Fox News does bring liberals on--to beat up on them.  You know, with Fox you've got Geraldine Ferraro or some other putz sitting across from Sean Hannity, who keeps shouting "Yes or no, is America safer?  Yes or no! You didn't answer the question!  Just answer the question! Yes or no! Is America safer?  Answer the question!  I'll turn you mike down if you don't answer the question!  That's the problem with you liberals, you don't answer the question! Yes or no! It's that simple! You on the Left just don't get it...."

I can't emphasize enough how important it is to realize the Right wing in America has all told a $400 million a year propaganda machine.  The money comes from foundations such as Bradley, Olin, Coors, and Scaife.  The fund the think tanks, such as The Heritage Foundation, The American Enterprise Institute, the Manhattan Institue, the Hudson Institute, and others.  The think tanks in turn fund and organize the propaganda you hear from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, The Weakly Standard, the American Spectator, and so forth.  They fund Conservative writers and pundits, such as Dinesh D'Souza, William Bennett, Michelle Malkin, George Will, and dozens of others.
The right-wing propaganda machine also infiltrates the so-called "mainstream" media.  It's quicker and cheaper to go to the Heritage Foundation or the Manhattan Institute and get a packaged expert with a media-friendly set-up than to send out investigative reporters from your own organization.  Whereas Heritage is too well-known to pass over as neutral, I frequently see "scholars" from Manhattan, Hudson, and others, allowed to give commentary and analysis without qualification of a right-wing position.
I use the word "propaganda" because all these philanthropic (or misanthropic, as the case may be) Foundations exist explicitly to promote right-wing political power.  In the '60s the corporatists and the conservatives got together and decided they had to rescue Conservatism from the dominance of Keynesian economics and progressive social values.  It worked.  Thirty-five years later you've got over half the American electorate ready to vote for the worst president we've had in a century because the right-wing propaganda machine has billed him as a "tough-talking God-fearing Texas conservative cowboy who takes no crap."  There's no substance behind the image, there's just the image.
As you can see, consumers of this right-wing propaganda, such as our GWBush2004, have no trouble quoting the ready-made prefab flapdoodle the spin machine spits out in bite-sized chunks.  It's all soundbites, name-calling, sloganeering, and chest-beating, but it's much more comfortable than thinking for yourself.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world and tens of millions of Americans watch in horror as this juggernaut lurches forward to "win" another four years for Bush and further imperil us all.

As Philbo points out, "it doesn't matter who John Kerry is."  Is't that sad?  I've lived in Massachusetts for Kerry's entire tenure in the senate and often couldn't remember we had a senator named John Kerry.  It's particularly sad because, like the other 49 states, we only have TWO senators!  Yet the rest of the world and the smarter 49% of American voters knows George W. Bush is doing us so much damage, even a Woolworth's mannequin would be better!

---because you can't spell "conservative" without CONS!

---because you can't spell "conservative" without CONS!



I take it you read my signature before posting that, the ''you can't spells liberals without lies'' part.  Just wondering what problem do you possibly have with The Weekly Standard, its one of my favority magazines and is very well written.  Fred Barnes is the best.

President Bush, saving your as*, like it or not!

I take it you read my signature before posting that, the ''you can't spells liberals without lies'' part.  Just wondering what problem do you possibly have with The Weekly Standard, its one of my favority magazines and is very well written.  Fred Barnes is the best.

President Bush, saving your as*, like it or not!

Short answer: I despise the WS because it is a shill for the military-industrial complex, corporate power, and the Republican Party.  Ditto Fred Barnes.
Ironically, Murdoch runs the WS at a loss.  The magazine can't make it in the free market, but it's such a useful tool for infecting other media sources with propaganda that it's well worth News Corp.'s investment to keep it afloat.

If you want to understand what I mean by the connection between William Kristol and the military-industrial complex, and the WS shilling for corporate power and the GOP, I suggest you do some reading up of people you don't like.  I would start with David Brock's book The Republican Noise Machine, which you can now get online real cheap: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400048753/104-6179073-6033543?v=glance

I'm not a conservative, so naturally I disagree with conservative perspectives.  However, WS is not an independently "conservative" journal of opinion, and Fred Barnes is no journalist. 
I'm not saying YOU shouldn't be conservative, I'm saying you owe it to yourself to research your sources of opinion and the agenda behind them.

Dennis-the-neocon-mouthpiece-Miller had Sen. Gephardt's daughter on his panel tonight.  He kept praising her father as sensible, reasonable man as opposed to that snotty creep Kerry.  I remind everyone this is what the right-wing does.  They praise a Democrat not seeking power to put down another one that is.  If D-i-c-k Gephardt were the presidential nominee, Miller would be sneering caustic diatribes against him every night.  The entire $400 million a year Rightie spin machine would be making Gephardt out to be the devil incarnate as we speak.  That's why it doesn't matter who the Democrat nominee is.

I don't usually advocate violence, but Dennis Miller is the kind of snotnose punk we all grew up with who won't stop making smutty remarks about your girlfriend and ratting to the office when you cut class UNTIL four guys hold him down in a bathroom stall and pummel him to a bloody pulp for about 20 minutes!

.

I don't usually advocate violence, but Dennis Miller is the kind of snotnose punk we all grew up with who won't stop making smutty remarks about your girlfriend and ratting to the office when you cut class UNTIL four guys hold him down in a bathroom stall and pummel him to a bloody pulp for about 20 minutes!


Man is a whore  ( in order to avoid a charge of libel I will add "in my opinion").  Oh... sorry... I have to
modify this.  I should not have referred to him as a man, but I can't quite figure out what I he actually
is.

Man is a whore  ( in order to avoid a charge of libel I will add "in my opinion").  Oh... sorry... I have to
modify this.  I should not have referred to him as a man, but I can't quite figure out what I he actually
is.



He's Karl Rove's bearded ventriloquist dummy!

He's Karl Rove's bearded ventriloquist dummy!


Got his nose so far up his butt they use the same toothbrush ;D

I am NOT the world and I do NOT want Kerry.... :-\\

Oh yea, the world wants Kerry.  Look at some of the countries that have endorsed Kerry as President:

North Korea (they even broadcast his speeches on the state run radio)

Al Jazeera

Mahathir Mohamad, Prime Minister of Malaysia (who considers all Jews to be "international criminals"

Fidel Castro

Iran

Lybia

Syria

China


Like I want to take advice from THESE people!

Got his nose so far up his butt they use the same toothbrush ;D

That's a good one!  I'll have to remember that.
;)

Like I want to take advice from THESE people!

Overlooking the illogic of your conclusion, from whom do you wish to take advice?

"What the world needs now is Kerry, sweet Kerry..."
:P

Overlooking the illogic of your conclusion, from whom do you wish to take advice?


How about ourselves?

I have never liked the idea of needing a "coalition" or "consensus" before taking any action that might be vital to our national interest.

Over the years, it has become obvious that every nation is after it's own interests first.  And I include our own among them.  But that is only natural.

But in the last few years, it is becoming more obvious how corrupt the UN has been.  At one time, I thought the Jim Birch Society was a bunch of "Right Wing Nuts".  But the more I see, the more I begin to agree with them.

For me, the "Oil For Food" program was a big wake-up call.  Strange, how the countries that profited the most from this boondogle of greed and corruption are the same countries that most strongly opposed our intervention with Iraq.

And in the last year, Russia has started to complain less and less, as they are now faceing their own terrorism problems.

No matter how people complain how we deal with them, we are nothing like Russia.  In the 2 most bloody actions, they have killed a vast number of both terrorists and civilians, some with chemical weapons.  And while the "world" still screams at us, I hear a deafening silence about how they deal with terrorists.

In fact, Russia is finally starting to admit that there are most likely ties between the Chechnyan terrorists and Al-Qaeda.  And there is no question that Al-Qaeda is behind the attacks in Spain earlier this year.

I feel that the "war on terrorism" is the right thing to do.  And no, this is not "a war for oil".  I have been hearing this for most of my life, and it just makes no sense.

If what a lot of people claim is true, we would have long ago allowed Israel to take over all of the middle east, and would have all the oil we need.  According to the Fundamentalist Muslims, we are a nation in the back pocket of Israel.  And as such, we should be supporting them in anything they do.  Never mind the fact that they attacked one of our ships, and we have often convinced them to pull OUT of Arab territory.

And if this is all about oil, then why is our strongest ally in the middle east the only nation in the region without oil?  If this was really about oil, we should dump Israel as an ally, and take sides with Egypt, or Iran, or Syria.  Then we can broker the destruction of Israel in exchange for all the oil we want.  Since we are run by multi-national companies anyways, that would only make sense, right?

No, wait.  We are also run by Evil Greedy Jews.  Then we should be supporting Israel in it's attempt to take over the world, starting with the Middle East.  No, wait.  We have spoken out against Israel many times.  I already said that.

I am so dizzy and confused.  I am not sure who controls us anymore.  Remind me again, are we controlled by Jews in Israel, or huge conglomerate corporations?

How about ourselves?

I have never liked the idea of needing a "coalition" or "consensus" before taking any action that might be vital to our national interest.

Over the years, it has become obvious that every nation is after it's own interests first.  And I include our own among them.  But that is only natural.

But in the last few years, it is becoming more obvious how corrupt the UN has been.  At one time, I thought the Jim Birch Society was a bunch of "Right Wing Nuts".  But the more I see, the more I begin to agree with them.

For me, the "Oil For Food" program was a big wake-up call.  Strange, how the countries that profited the most from this boondogle of greed and corruption are the same countries that most strongly opposed our intervention with Iraq.

And in the last year, Russia has started to complain less and less, as they are now faceing their own terrorism problems.

No matter how people complain how we deal with them, we are nothing like Russia.  In the 2 most bloody actions, they have killed a vast number of both terrorists and civilians, some with chemical weapons.  And while the "world" still screams at us, I hear a deafening silence about how they deal with terrorists.

In fact, Russia is finally starting to admit that there are most likely ties between the Chechnyan terrorists and Al-Qaeda.  And there is no question that Al-Qaeda is behind the attacks in Spain earlier this year.

I feel that the "war on terrorism" is the right thing to do.  And no, this is not "a war for oil".  I have been hearing this for most of my life, and it just makes no sense.

If what a lot of people claim is true, we would have long ago allowed Israel to take over all of the middle east, and would have all the oil we need.  According to the Fundamentalist Muslims, we are a nation in the back pocket of Israel.  And as such, we should be supporting them in anything they do.  Never mind the fact that they attacked one of our ships, and we have often convinced them to pull OUT of Arab territory.

And if this is all about oil, then why is our strongest ally in the middle east the only nation in the region without oil?  If this was really about oil, we should dump Israel as an ally, and take sides with Egypt, or Iran, or Syria.  Then we can broker the destruction of Israel in exchange for all the oil we want.  Since we are run by multi-national companies anyways, that would only make sense, right?

No, wait.  We are also run by Evil Greedy Jews.  Then we should be supporting Israel in it's attempt to take over the world, starting with the Middle East.  No, wait.  We have spoken out against Israel many times.  I already said that.

I am so dizzy and confused.  I am not sure who controls us anymore.  Remind me again, are we controlled by Jews in Israel, or huge conglomerate corporations?

Who the h*ll is Jim Birch?

Who the h*ll is Jim Birch?


Forgive me, I mean John Birch.  I admit, I am half-drunk as I wrote both the last post, and this one.

The "John Birch Society" is an ultra-right wing political movement.  While I agree with some of their ideas, they are far to right-wing for me to be comfortable with.

John Birch was a Christian missionary who chose to serve in China.  In 1940, he disguised himself as a Chinese peasant to serve in China, during the worst of the attacks against that country by Japan.  After the Doolittle raids against Japan, he was the leader of the group that found Col. Doolittle, and lead him and the crews of 12 other bombers to freedom.

After that, he became much more involved with Allied Intelligence.  He was an agent for the "Flying Tigers".  He spent a lot of time working for the Chinese and Americans, trying to aid in the eviction of the Japanese from China.

On 25 August 1945, 10 days after the end of the war against Japan, John Birch was captured by Chinese Comunists.  After all of the aid he gave China during the war against Japan, he got his reward.  He was shot in the legs, executed with a pistol shot to the back of the head, then his body mutilated.  Because the US Government was trying to open a "dialog" with the Comunist Chinese, they supressed the truth of the incident.

In 1958, the "John Birch Society" was formed.  While it is not influential now, at one time it was a very powerful force in the US.  Ultra Right-Wing, they have long been opponents of Communism.  The following is how they are described in the "Houghton-Miller Guide To American History":

The John Birch Society, an organization of the radical Right, was established in Indianapolis in 1958 to combat what was perceived to be the infiltration of communism into American life. Its founder, Robert H. W. Welch, a Massachusetts businessman, named the society after a Baptist missionary who had been killed by Chinese Communists in 1945. Starting with only eleven members, the John Birch Society grew rapidly, drawing considerable support from rich conservatives; by the early 1960s it had an estimated annual income of $5 million and a membership of 60,000 to 100,000. John Birchers placed their principal emphasis on the extent to which communism had established control over the U.S. government; among those they accused of being "dedicated, conscious agents of the Communist conspiracy" were President Dwight D. Eisenhower, cia director Allen Dulles, and Chief Justice Earl Warren. The society has produced an extensive list of publications, offered cash prizes for college essays on topics like the impeachment of Warren, and maintained that the United States must become as conspiratorial as the communists in order to combat their subversion of American society.

*****

While I disagree with a lot they say, I am starting to agree with one of their major ideas, "The US Out Of The UN".

http://www.jbs.org/

Oh yea, the world wants Kerry. Look at some of the countries that have endorsed Kerry as President:

North Korea (they even broadcast his speeches on the state run radio)
...

China

Like I want to take advice from THESE people!

So don't - take advice from the rest of the world, instead.  Face it, outside the US, nobody wants GWB.


While I disagree with a lot they say, I am starting to agree with one of their major ideas, "The US Out Of The UN".

The UN is a bit like democracy: it ain't perfect, and it screws things up in many ways; but until somebody can think up something better, it's the best we've got: it's certainly a humungous amount better than a hegemonic USA doing whatever they like because they've got more military might than anybody else.

So don't - take advice from the rest of the world, instead.  Face it, outside the US, nobody wants GWB.


And I could not care less.  I may not like the PM of Canada, but it is not my place to tell them who to place in charge of their government.  (BTW, I do not even know who it is, I just used Canada as an example).  And last time I heard, Tony Blaire is supporting Bush.  So that kinda makes your "nobody" statement a bit of an exageration.


The UN is a bit like democracy: it ain't perfect, and it screws things up in many ways; but until somebody can think up something better, it's the best we've got: it's certainly a humungous amount better than a hegemonic USA doing whatever they like because they've got more military might than anybody else.


I would like to know where the UN has actually DONE it's job.  Can you actually name one place where the UN was successful in ending a war WITHOUT the US being involved?  I sure can't.  I see areas all over the world where UN Peacekeepers have been for over 30 years, and there is still fighting.

In fact, the only war I can think of that was actually ended with a return to the original border was Korea.  While this was a UN conflict, the US was the major combatant on the South Korean side.  And Korea is still in a "state of war".  But because of US military presence, it is the longest standing "cease fire" in the world.

Viet Nam was also a UN intervention.  But we know how that went.  I can go on and on.  Somalia, Yugoslavia, Angola, Sudan, the list just goes on and on.  The UN is content to sit on it's butt and collect money from criminal genocidal dictators, but will in reality do nothing to actually protect the common people of war torn areas.

So the Secretary General of the UN (and his ministers, and his son) get rich on Iraqi oil.  Saddam gets to build more palaces.  The Iraqi people starve to death.  And during this, the US is portrayed as the villan who is "starving women in children".

If this is the modern UN, I want nothing to do with it.  How about the UN actually doing it's job.  Hey, UN.  There is genocide being done in Rwanda and Sudan.  Go do something about it! 

No, wait.  There is no oil to exploit in a graft scheme in Rwanda and Sudan.  I guess the UN will sit it out again.

And I could not care less.  I may not like the PM of Canada, but it is not my place to tell them who to place in charge of their government.  (BTW, I do not even know who it is, I just used Canada as an example).  And last time I heard, Tony Blaire is supporting Bush.  So that kinda makes your "nobody" statement a bit of an exageration.



I would like to know where the UN has actually DONE it's job.  Can you actually name one place where the UN was successful in ending a war WITHOUT the US being involved?  I sure can't.  I see areas all over the world where UN Peacekeepers have been for over 30 years, and there is still fighting.

In fact, the only war I can think of that was actually ended with a return to the original border was Korea.  While this was a UN conflict, the US was the major combatant on the South Korean side.  And Korea is still in a "state of war".  But because of US military presence, it is the longest standing "cease fire" in the world.

Viet Nam was also a UN intervention.  But we know how that went.  I can go on and on.  Somalia, Yugoslavia, Angola, Sudan, the list just goes on and on.  The UN is content to sit on it's butt and collect money from criminal genocidal dictators, but will in reality do nothing to actually protect the common people of war torn areas.

So the Secretary General of the UN (and his ministers, and his son) get rich on Iraqi oil.  Saddam gets to build more palaces.  The Iraqi people starve to death.  And during this, the US is portrayed as the villan who is "starving women in children".

If this is the modern UN, I want nothing to do with it.  How about the UN actually doing it's job.  Hey, UN.  There is genocide being done in Rwanda and Sudan.  Go do something about it! 

No, wait.  There is no oil to exploit in a graft scheme in Rwanda and Sudan.  I guess the UN will sit it out again.


Perfect, great job Mushroom.

http://www.icknieldwaymorrismen.org.uk/Assets/The_Side/Current_Side/JimBirch.jpg
Morris dancer and mummer Jim Birch of the
Ickfield Way Morris Men
Oxfordshire, UK.
:D




Forgive me, I mean John Birch.  I admit, I am half-drunk as I wrote both the last post, and this one.



I'll see your John Birch Society and raise you a glass of fascist grape juice!
The John Birch Society? Give me an effing break!  Next you'll be singing the praises of Joe McCarthy, just like Ann Coulter and her white supremacist publisher, Regnery.

Speaking of Regnery, here's a place where you can meet your own Ann Coulter:
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=17524

raise you a glass of fascist grape juice!


Fascism is one step above socialism.

Fascism is one step above socialism.

"Fascism is capitalism plus murder."
--Upton Sinclair

"Fascism should rightly be called corporatism as it is a merger of state and corporate power."
--Benito Mussolini

Fascism is one step above socialism.


You might try READING a bit about political ideologies ans systems before shooting your mouth off.  Socialism like Sweeden?  Get real.

And I could not care less. I may not like the PM of Canada, but it is not my place to tell them who to place in charge of their government. (BTW, I do not even know who it is, I just used Canada as an example). And last time I heard, Tony Blaire is supporting Bush. So that kinda makes your "nobody" statement a bit of an exageration.

Yep, it's an exaggeration, but not much of one.  And I'm not telling you or any of your countrymen how they should be voting: but I know that it would definitely affect my voting intentions to know that the overwhelming majority of the world's population would rather have *anybody* else.  You can be insular and isolationist if you like, but who is president does affect the rest of the world - so we are entitled to an opinion, even though we can't do anything about it.


I would like to know where the UN has actually DONE it's job. Can you actually name one place where the UN was successful in ending a war WITHOUT the US being involved? I sure can't. I see areas all over the world where UN Peacekeepers have been for over 30 years, and there is still fighting.

When the UN does its job best, you don't get any fighting.  Sure, as a military outfit the UN is a non-starter: but this is as much to do with the attitudes of member states as with the UN itself.  But to continue your own question: how many times has ending a war been successful even with US input?  It isn't the UN per se that's the problem: trying to solve problems using military force pretty much never provides a solution - all it can do is force people to stop fighting, and usually only temporarily.

  That's because when the UN is serious about ending a war, who do they come running to?  US, that's who ::)

Yeah, and anyhow, the U.S. don't pay no mind to what the UN says nohow.  It's like the schoolyard bully, "Oh, whatchoo gonna do about it?"  Remember the schoolyard bully always had his little pal tagging along after him who'd say, "Yeah, whatchoo gonna do about it, huh?"  That's Israel.

When the UN does its job best, you don't get any fighting.  Sure, as a military outfit the UN is a non-starter: but this is as much to do with the attitudes of member states as with the UN itself.  But to continue your own question: how many times has ending a war been successful even with US input?  It isn't the UN per se that's the problem: trying to solve problems using military force pretty much never provides a solution - all it can do is force people to stop fighting, and usually only temporarily.


Then tell me, when has the UN been successful in preventing a war?  By the time they bother to get involved, it has already started.

As for how often a war has been successfully ended with US input?

Korea
Kuwait
There are 2 glaring examples.  In both of them, the UN took charge and actually ended the war.  This is unlike how the UN handles things, which only prolongs the incident.

The UN tries to act like a cop.  It puts the troops of it's countries in harms way, and tells them to not get involved.  That is nonsense, and only leads to the deaths of the troops trying to stop the conflict.  Lebanon and Somalia are great examples of this mentality.

Or even more telling, how about the success of the UN in Cyprus?  Last I heard, they are still killing each other after almost 30 years.  The UN is proposing yet another "Cyprus Plan".  Turks, Greeks, and UN Soldiers are still dying.  And no end is in sight to this.

The UN has been promising to help settle tension in the Middle East.  Yet, Israel is still attacked almost daily.  But who is the bad guy here?  Israel, of course.  Damm those Jews, for wanting to live in their ancancestralmeland.

Of course, the UN tried to make a Palestinianate at the same time they created modern Israel.  But the Arab nations wanted an "all or nothing" solution.  The UN solution?  Do nothing.

Of course, there is still Rwanda.  Is the UN ever going to actually stop the genocide?  They already removed their troops because it was "to dangerous".  To me, this just proves how impimpotentd useless the UN is today.

Then tell me, when has the UN been successful in preventing a war?  By the time they bother to get involved, it has already started.

As for how often a war has been successfully ended with US input?

Korea
Kuwait
There are 2 glaring examples.  In both of them, the UN took charge and actually ended the war.  This is unlike how the UN handles things, which only prolongs the incident.

The UN tries to act like a cop.  It puts the troops of it's countries in harms way, and tells them to not get involved.  That is nonsense, and only leads to the deaths of the troops trying to stop the conflict.  Lebanon and Somalia are great examples of this mentality.

Or even more telling, how about the success of the UN in Cyprus?  Last I heard, they are still killing each other after almost 30 years.  The UN is proposing yet another "Cyprus Plan".  Turks, Greeks, and UN Soldiers are still dying.  And no end is in sight to this.

The UN has been promising to help settle tension in the Middle East.  Yet, Israel is still attacked almost daily.  But who is the bad guy here?  Israel, of course.  Damm those Jews, for wanting to live in their ancancestralmeland.

Of course, the UN tried to make a Palestinianate at the same time they created modern Israel.  But the Arab nations wanted an "all or nothing" solution.  The UN solution?  Do nothing.

Of course, there is still Rwanda.  Is the UN ever going to actually stop the genocide?  They already removed their troops because it was "to dangerous".  To me, this just proves how impimpotentd useless the UN is today.

I'm not exactly a big fan of the U.N., but it is U.S. strongarming that makes the institution particularly impotent.  Oh, all those great deals the we, the U.N., and the Israelis offered the Arabs?  All of them lies.  You didn't see it in the main stream press, but the Barak deal that was supposed to be like 98% of what the Palestinians wanted?  That was a prescription for South African-style Bantustans.  I mean that deal was rotten to the core.  There's a reason you didn't see that map very much!  Oh, and it was Barak who walked away from the negotiations...they gloss over that fine point too.
What are you going to say about a country that elects a psychopathic terrorist buthcher for its prime minister? 
I feel sorry for innocent Israeli families who lose loved ones in terrorist attacks, but there's lots of evil politics on their side.  Yasser Arafat is Mother Theresa compared to Ariel Sharon!
::)

I'm not exactly a big fan of the U.N., but it is U.S. strongarming that makes the institution particularly impotent.  Oh, all those great deals the we, the U.N., and the Israelis offered the Arabs?  All of them lies.  You didn't see it in the main stream press, but the Barak deal that was supposed to be like 98% of what the Palestinians wanted?  That was a prescription for South African-style Bantustans.  I mean that deal was rotten to the core.  There's a reason you didn't see that map very much!  Oh, and it was Barak who walked away from the negotiations...they gloss over that fine point too.
What are you going to say about a country that elects a psychopathic terrorist buthcher for its prime minister? 
I feel sorry for innocent Israeli families who lose loved ones in terrorist attacks, but there's lots of evil politics on their side.  Yasser Arafat is Mother Theresa compared to Ariel Sharon!
::)


Israel is in violation of a number of UN resolutions, more that Iraq was, so why have we not invaded Israel?  We are quite content to use the UN when it suits our purpose and ignore it when it doesn't.

Peace keeping is no easy task when antagonistts want to kill each other, so the UN has not been a great success in that area, but how many potential conflicts have been resolved through its good offices?  One also has to look at its relief work, health work, etc have accomplished.

Israel is in violation of a number of UN resolutions, more that Iraq was, so why have we not invaded Israel?  We are quite content to use the UN when it suits our purpose and ignore it when it doesn't.

Not to take sides or anything, but the UN resolutions against Israel were approved by the general assembly only, so they're not binding, whereas the resolutions against Iraq were voted on by the 15 members of the security council, which means that they are binding.

Not to take sides or anything, but the UN resolutions against Israel were approved by the general assembly only, so they're not binding, whereas the resolutions against Iraq were voted on by the 15 members of the security council, which means that they are binding.

Yes, chapter VI resolutions are non-binding and are supposed to concern recommendations for otherwise peaceful states.  Chapter VII resolutions are binding and intended to deal with state acts of violence and aggression.  That stack of U.N. resolutions against Israel are indeed non-binding.
Here's the rub.  Chapter VI resolutions are not subject to veto, chapter VII resolutions are.  Whenever the U.N. tries to pass a binding resolution against Israel, it gets vetoed by the U.S. and Israel.  Sometimes a third nation, such as Micronesia or the Dominican Republican will join the veto, but they always include the U.S. and Israel.
So no matter how vile Israel behaves, all the U.N. can do is apply a chapter VI resolution and say, "Hey you guys, cut that out!"
I don't know why the right-wingers and the Zionists complain so much about the U.N.  It looks to me like they've got the game sewn up!

Damm those Jews, for wanting to live in their ancancestralmeland.


Assuming I have deciphered that correctly, let me say this...

Modern day Israel is the Palestinians' ancestral homeland as well. And, indeed, more so than it was for the Jews back in 1940, seeing as how the Palestinians have been living there for the past 1000 years or so, while the vast majority of today's Israelis are children or grandchildren of post-war European immigrants. These immigrants' ancestors, before the holocaust, had been living in their respective countries for centuries. It was unfair for the UN to approve just swooping in and deporting thousands of Palestinians whose family's had been there for a millennium, so that a bunch of foreigners could come in, because somehow their religious persuasion entitled them to that land.

This to me sounds like Orthodox Christians from Greece going into Istanbul and kicking out all the Muslims and renaming the city Constantinople.... just because their religion was born there.

Modern day Israel is the Palestinians' ancestral homeland as well. And, indeed, more so than it was for the Jews back in 1940, seeing as how the Palestinians have been living there for the past 1000 years or so, while the vast majority of today's Israelis are children or grandchildren of post-war European immigrants.


Don;t forget, the UN Resolution authorizing the creation of Israel also created the state of Palestine.  But both the Palestineans and the other Arab nations would not accept it.  To them, it was "all or nothing".  In fact, the "West Bank" was a region of "Palestine" that Jordon refused to release for the "Nation Of Palestine".  If they had simply accepted the original resolution, Palestine would be just as old as Israel is.

And Jews have lived in the area too.  Do not think that the area was only Muslim since the time of Mohammad.  Add to that the fact that there is actually no such thing as "Palestine".

Palestine is the modern version of "Philistine".  The word itself means "a region where there is no nation or state".  In other words, unclaimed land.

Palestine was the name for the region, because nobody claimed it.  It had no ruler, no king, no government.  It was a land of nomads.  Only when Europe colonized the area was it given the name "Palestine".  When they left the area, it was left in disorder because there was no form of government.  Modern Isreal jumped in to fill that void.  The "Palestinian people" themselves did not do this.

Compare this to the rest of the region.  Trans-Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Quwait.  These and other areas quickly became nations.  They had ancestrial "ruleing families".  They had some form of "Aristocracy" to fall back on for an initial form of government.  "Palestine" had nothing, because there never was such a nation.

To European's, the closest comparison is to the word "Barbarian".  To Rome, Barbarians had no culture.  And in some ways, that is true.  The Goths and Visigoths did not have any one king or ruler.  It had many smaller clan leaders.  Ancient England had the same problem.  So did the American Indians.  Without central control, the tribes easily fell to the unified power if the United States.

So before you continue about "Palestine", realize exactly what it actually is.  Ask a "Palestinian" what their histoy is, and they will not be able to go more then 100 years.  This is because before then, it did not exist.  Palestine (even to the Middle Eastern nations before Europe coonized it) was a worthless wasteland.  The word itself means "a region without a nation".

http://israel.net/timetospeak/2.htm

Don;t forget, the UN Resolution authorizing the creation of Israel also created the state of Palestine.  But both the Palestineans and the other Arab nations would not accept it.  To them, it was "all or nothing".  In fact, the "West Bank" was a region of "Palestine" that Jordon refused to release for the "Nation Of Palestine".  If they had simply accepted the original resolution, Palestine would be just as old as Israel is.
More self-seriving far-right Zionist fantasies. 
It's too late and I'm too tired to respond to this gobbledygook, other than to say that people who make a habit of taking what does not belong to them need to wind all kinds of tales to justify the wrongs they commit.
Israel gets to maintain its state of bullying and savagery thanks to a generous gift from U.S. taxpayers.
The site you have linked to, Mushroom, should be treated with the same skepticism as a site called I-Love-Arafat.org, if there was one.

As for how often a war has been successfully ended with US input?

Korea
Kuwait
There are 2 glaring examples. In both of them, the UN took charge and actually ended the war. This is unlike how the UN handles things, which only prolongs the incident.

Two "glaring" examples - you mean the only two examples?  (I'm assuming the first "UN" is a typo)

And if Kuwait was such a success, why is there fighting in Iraq now?  And was Korea really that successful: a divided country with a maniac intent on getting nuclear weapons in charge of one half?

The US has, with one arguable exception in Korea (which was fought under a UN banner, IIRC) exactly the same record in resolving conflicts as the UN.  I agree with you  that the UN tries to act as some kind of global police force, but police can only enforce the law with the public's consent- there is no "overwhelming force" to ensure compliance in every world hot-spot.  I'm not disagreeing, either, with the various cock-ups with "peacekeeping" forces (such as those in Srebrenica); I started off saying the UN isn't perfect: it's not even very good at this sort of thing - but it's still better than the US throwing its weight around, pretending it's always the good guy.

As for your remarks about Israel: as I've just added in a comment to my parody about Ariel Sharon, I come from a quite strongly pro-Israel background - one side of my family being Jewish probably has something to do with it - but I am utterly revolted by the current Israeli agreement-breaking, overreacting and just plain land-stealing.  But that's for another thread, methinks.

".
Palestine was the name for the region, because nobody claimed it.  It had no ruler, no king, no government.  It was a land of nomads.  Only when Europe colonized the area was it given the name "Palestine".  When they left the area, it was left in disorder because there was no form of government.  Modern Isreal jumped in to fill that void.  The "Palestinian people" themselves did not do this.

http://israel.net/timetospeak/2.htm


Let's take a close look at the Europeans that colonized Palestine, leaving religion out of it, tough, but it
can be done.  After WWII there was an influx of the Europeans from the vanquished Germanic regions
into Argentina, South Africa, and Palestine.  In many cases they came with money, power, or both If you look at the history of these countries in regards to there politics and the treatment of the most vulnerable in these regions there seems to be some striking similarities.  This is something that I have been hashing out and would like some outside comments.

Fisrt off, I don't care what the rest of the world thinks. They don't vote here. This is America this is not the world. 6 billion people in the world and a poll is done with 34,330 non Americans. Are they kidding me? That is supposed to represent what everyone in the world thinks. But like I said, I don't care what the rest of the world thinks.

One thing that I noticed while reading the political threads, and that is the posters who are against Bush and other conservitives are very good at being immature. I've seen alot of name calling and talking about violence. Why is that? You're like a bunch of little kids who don't get there way and have to throw a fit.  Here's a tip for you. Grow up!  HAHAHA you people are sad. And for the real tough person who said Dennis Miller should be beat up, why don't you do it yourself? Action not words.

One thing that I noticed while reading the political threads, and that is the posters who are against Bush and other conservitives are very good at being immature. I've seen alot of name calling and talking about violence. Why is that? You're like a bunch of little kids who don't get there way and have to throw a fit.   Here's a tip for you. Grow up!  HAHAHA you people are sad. And for the real tough person who said Dennis Miller should be beat up, why don't you do it yourself? Action not words.

I didn't say he should be beaten up.  I reiterate, he is an obnoxious and primitive-minded person.  He reminds me of people who are so mean and awful they don't mend their ways until they are beaten up. 

One thing that I noticed while reading the political threads, and that is the posters who are against Bush and other conservitives are very good at being immature. I've seen alot of name calling and talking about violence. Why is that? You're like a bunch of little kids who don't get there way and have to throw a fit. Here's a tip for you. Grow up! HAHAHA you people are sad. And for the real tough person who said Dennis Miller should be beat up, why don't you do it yourself? Action not words.

Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle.

ISTM that the Kerry camp try much harder to keep to politics rather than personality; the Republican side don't have very much going for them, and Kerry ain't president so he doesn't have a record to bash, so all they can do is use ad hominem attacks, and make it as personal as possible.


Fisrt off, I don't care what the rest of the world thinks. They don't vote here. This is America this is not the world. 6 billion people in the world and a poll is done with 34,330 non Americans. Are they kidding me? That is supposed to represent what everyone in the world thinks. But like I said, I don't care what the rest of the world thinks.

I rest my case.

Fisrt off, I don't care what the rest of the world thinks. They don't vote here. This is America this is not the world. 6 billion people in the world and a poll is done with 34,330 non Americans. Are they kidding me? That is supposed to represent what everyone in the world thinks. But like I said, I don't care what the rest of the world thinks.

Arrogance from America will encourage terrorism from lesser powers.  Arrogance is not in our national interest.  Why should you personally care what other nations of the world think of America? That's a question you can answer yourself....if you want to.

and Kerry ain't president so he doesn't have a record to bash,



True, but we republicans like to bash his awful 19 year U.S. Senate record.

True, but we republicans like to bash his awful 19 year U.S. Senate record.

It's less painful to hear the Republicans distort Kerry's senate record than fantasize about Bush's presidency!
:P ::)

It's less painful to hear the Republicans distort Kerry's senate record than fantasize about Bush's presidency!
:P ::)


Distort?  Tell me then, what is not true?  They have simply given direct quotes he has made (sometimes with the recording of him making it) and shown both his voting record and his attendence record.  How is that "distorting"?

Oh no, wait, I forgot.  He voted for the war before he voted against it.

More self-seriving far-right Zionist fantasies. 
It's too late and I'm too tired to respond to this gobbledygook, other than to say that people who make a habit of taking what does not belong to them need to wind all kinds of tales to justify the wrongs they commit.
Israel gets to maintain its state of bullying and savagery thanks to a generous gift from U.S. taxpayers.
The site you have linked to, Mushroom, should be treated with the same skepticism as a site called I-Love-Arafat.org, if there was one.


Interesting.  Zionist???

How about reality.  I used that link because it was the first one I found.  But that is not where I learned about it.  It is simple truth.  But I forget, the truth is changeable, depending on what you want it to be.

Instead of tearing down the site, consider what it says.  And you notice I did not copy from it, but used parts of it.  Consider those parts I mentioned.  They are facts.

And kindly knock off the "Zionist" stuff.  That is rather offensive.  Or do you really believe that the Jews are behind all of the pains of the world?

Interesting.  Zionist???

How about reality.  I used that link because it was the first one I found.  But that is not where I learned about it.  It is simple truth.  But I forget, the truth is changeable, depending on what you want it to be.

Instead of tearing down the site, consider what it says.  And you notice I did not copy from it, but used parts of it.  Consider those parts I mentioned.  They are facts.

And kindly knock off the "Zionist" stuff.  That is rather offensive.  Or do you really believe that the Jews are behind all of the pains of the world?

That cheap shot isn't going to work, Mr. Mushroom.  I don't see Israel as an innocent victim, nor do I see Arafat, the PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and so on, as noble freedom fighters.  When Israeli settlers take land that does not belong to them, terrorism is the result.  I'm not talking right and wrong, I'm talking cause and effect.  This is a state and political issue for me, not an ethnic or religious issue.

Add to that the fact that there is actually no such thing as "Palestine".

Palestine is the modern version of "Philistine".  The word itself means "a region where there is no nation or state".  In other words, unclaimed land.

Palestine was the name for the region, because nobody claimed it.  It had no ruler, no king, no government.  It was a land of nomads.  Only when Europe colonized the area was it given the name "Palestine".  When they left the area, it was left in disorder because there was no form of government.  Modern Isreal jumped in to fill that void.  The "Palestinian people" themselves did not do this.

Compare this to the rest of the region.  Trans-Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Quwait.  These and other areas quickly became nations.  They had ancestrial "ruleing families".  They had some form of "Aristocracy" to fall back on for an initial form of government.  "Palestine" had nothing, because there never was such a nation.

To European's, the closest comparison is to the word "Barbarian".  To Rome, Barbarians had no culture.  And in some ways, that is true.  The Goths and Visigoths did not have any one king or ruler.  It had many smaller clan leaders.  Ancient England had the same problem.  So did the American Indians.  Without central control, the tribes easily fell to the unified power if the United States.

So before you continue about "Palestine", realize exactly what it actually is.  Ask a "Palestinian" what their histoy is, and they will not be able to go more then 100 years.  This is because before then, it did not exist.  Palestine (even to the Middle Eastern nations before Europe coonized it) was a worthless wasteland.  The word itself means "a region without a nation".

http://israel.net/timetospeak/2.htm


To me, the political institutions that governed Palestine in the past are irrelevant to the discussion of a Palestinian state. What matters are the people who were living there, whether they were under the authority of any kind of organized government or not.

Don't forget, before 1776, there never existed a country known as the United States of America. There were just a group of British colonies on the east coast of North America whose people were all citizens of Britain. But then, those people decided they should have their own country, and they got it. So why shouldn't the Palestinians get their own country, now?

Let's take a close look at the Europeans that colonized Palestine, leaving religion out of it, tough, but it
can be done.  After WWII there was an influx of the Europeans from the vanquished Germanic regions
into Argentina, South Africa, and Palestine.  In many cases they came with money, power, or both If you look at the history of these countries in regards to there politics and the treatment of the most vulnerable in these regions there seems to be some striking similarities.  This is something that I have been hashing out and would like some outside comments.




I out this in a few days back and never got anything back on it.  So I'll paste it and see if I get any bites.
And Mushroom, since when is Zionist considered an offensive term?

That cheap shot isn't going to work, Mr. Mushroom. 


Cheap shot?  Excuse me.  But maybe you are honestly ignorant.  To the vast majority of Jews, "Zionist" is an offensive term.  It is largely similar to going up to a German and calling him a "Nazi".


I don't see Israel as an innocent victim, nor do I see Arafat, the PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and so on, as noble freedom fighters.  When Israeli settlers take land that does not belong to them, terrorism is the result.  I'm not talking right and wrong, I'm talking cause and effect.  This is a state and political issue for me, not an ethnic or religious issue.


Neither do I.  But once again, you point fingers and patronize.  You talk politics.  What is "Palestine"?  You are aware that the UN Resolution that created Israel also created "Palestine", right?  And are you aware that the region set aside for "Palestine" was taken over by Jordan, right?  Israel did not occupy any "Palestinean" territory until after it was attacked by Jordan, Syia, Egypt, and other nations.

I find it interesting that Jordan occupied "Palestine" from 1948 till 1967.  During that time, they did nothing for "Palestine".

You see, to them it was an "all-or-nothing" problem.  As long as Israel existed at all, there would be no peace.  Well, over 50 years later Israel still exists, and there is still no peace.  I find it hard to feel sorry when rock-throwers are shot.  Especially when those "rock throwers" then turn themselves into what Tom Clancy has so wittingly called "Not So Smart Bombs".

But Mr. Clancy also has had the solution, if "Palestine" would take the chance.  I often wonder what would happen if the militants would put down their rocket launchers bombs and machine guns, and try the things that Ghandi taught.  It is a real shame that Palestine and the rest of the middle east could not take a lesson from India.

I out this in a few days back and never got anything back on it.  So I'll paste it and see if I get any bites.
And Mushroom, since when is Zionist considered an offensive term?


To many people, "Zionist" is a term that relates to a "Jewish Supremist" movement.  To others, it refers to the mysterious "ZOG" and other mythical groups that in reality control world politics, corporations, banks, and other entities.

Try reading some of the works by Mr. Butler, and others of his ilk.  "The Turner Diaries" are a great example of anti-Jewish (and just about anti-everything else) literature.

I have often lived in Jewish communities.  After I left the military, the owners of 4 places that I worked were Jewish (3 of these were Immigrant Jews).  I myself even considered converting in the past to the Jewish faith.

Whenever I hear people in here saying things like "Neo-Con", I know that "Zionist" is right around the corner.  It does not take much work to find the number of "Anti-Israel" websites that list them side-by-side.  If you doubt me, type "Neo-con" into http://news.google.com, and look at your responses.  To these people, "Zionists" rule the world already.  They own all the banks, the Corporations, and most of the world Political entities in bondage.

To many people, "Zionist" is a term that relates to a "Jewish Supremist" movement.  To others, it refers to the mysterious "ZOG" and other mythical groups that in reality control world politics, corporations, banks, and other entities.

Try reading some of the works by Mr. Butler, and others of his ilk.  "The Turner Diaries" are a great example of anti-Jewish (and just about anti-everything else) literature.

I have often lived in Jewish communities.  After I left the military, the owners of 4 places that I worked were Jewish (3 of these were Immigrant Jews).  I myself even considered converting in the past to the Jewish faith.

Whenever I hear people in here saying things like "Neo-Con", I know that "Zionist" is right around the corner.  It does not take much work to find the number of "Anti-Israel" websites that list them side-by-side.  If you doubt me, type "Neo-con" into http://news.google.com, and look at your responses.  To these people, "Zionists" rule the world already.  They own all the banks, the Corporations, and most of the world Political entities in bondage.

I know the word "Zionist" takes on negative connotations from the abusive ways anti-Jewish movements use it.  Zionism has a long and complex history.  There are good things and bad things in that history.  I'm sorry if you sincerely think I'm anti-Jewish.  I think you know I am not anti-Jewish, and you know that I know you are hammering on rhetoric, not substance.  I am most strongly against many of the actions taken by the Israeli government.  Don't jump to conclusions from my criticisms of the Israeli government, nor from my criticisms of the U.S. policy toward Israel.
A lot of conservatives these days like to say we Arab sympathizers want to drive the Jews into the sea.  Nonsense.
The Israeli government is committing atrocities against the Palestinian people.  I would like the atrocities to stop and justice and reparations for the Palestinians to start.  A healthy percentage of Israeli Jews would like to see this too.  They know it's the only way to create a safe and secure state of Israel
BTW, the 1948 partition did not "create" the state of Palestine.  Palestine had been there for thousands of years.  It did create the new political territory called Palestine, which Israel conquered over the next 20 years.  Anti-Arab activists from Golda Meier to Jerry Falwell have said there is no such thing as Palestine and there is no such thing as a Palestinian, but that's a dastardly lie.
And, as Forrest Gump would say, that's all I have to say about that.

BTW, the 1948 partition did not "create" the state of Palestine.  Palestine had been there for thousands of years.  It did create the new political territory called Palestine, which Israel conquered over the next 20 years. 


EXACTLY!  YOu said it yourself: "which Israel conquered over the next 20 years"!

Where was "Palestine" during that time?  Nowhere.  Jordan took over that land (Trans-Jordan they called it), and did not let the nation of Palestine be created.  This could have been solved in 1948, if Jordan, Syria, and other nations had kept out of it and let Israel live in peace.  But they wanted an "all or nothing" solution, preferably with no Israel at all.

And no, I am not in any way Pro-Israel.  I for one have not forgotten the USS Liberty.  And Israel has been caught many times stealing classified information from the US.  It is long rumored that both their nuclear wapons plans and the material inside of them were stollen from the US.

Israel is no saint.  It is also not the source of all evil.  There is blame on both sides.  But with people blowing themselves up on busses and in night clubs, it is hard to feel pitty for the other side.

The PLO and other such organizations will never get support from me, as long as they do things like this.  To me, any group that uses terrorism on civilians does not deserve to achieve it's goals.  This is also why I used to respect the groups in Ireland, until they stopped attacking military targets and started to attack civilians.

If these "Not So Smart Bombs" were attacking targets like military bases, military convoys, and the like I could respect them as guerilla fighters.  I could respect them as Soldiers in an unconventional war.  But as long as their targets are civilians, they get no such respect from me.  To me, they are all dogs to be shot down (the people causeing the death, not the people at large).

Palestine is a shame, but a big chunk of that belongs on Jordan and other Arab nations.  And every time Israel makes concessions for peace, the attacks continue.  Is it any wonder that they are tired of useless talks?

Palestine is a shame, but a big chunk of that belongs on Jordan and other Arab nations.  And every time Israel makes concessions for peace, the attacks continue.  Is it any wonder that they are tired of useless talks?

These "concessions" are not what they appear to be.

MaxwellSmart
Arrogance from America will encourage terrorism from lesser powers. Arrogance is not in our national interest. Why should you personally care what other nations of the world think of America? That's a question you can answer yourself....if you want to.
_____________________________________________________________________
philbo
So don't - take advice from the rest of the world, instead. Face it, outside the US, nobody wants nobody wants GWBMushroom And I could not care less. I may not like the PM of Canada, but it is not my place to tell them who to place in charge of their government... _____________________________________________________________________

Quite true; however, if you are going to live with the rest of the World (I won't even discuss travel at this juncture) it does make things difficult to deal when they hear statements like that.  You certainly free to state you don't care.  However, it's my belief and that of a great many people in this Nation that one day this country will care, will need the friendship & support of other countries -- and to disrespect them so arrogantly is not the way to go. 

I realize many in the US are upset about what they believe is disloyalty from our traditional allies regarding their dealings with Saddam and others.  Again, I think those issues should either be placed on the backburner or perhaps we should not be so quick to criticize others until we clean our own house.  If we were to open our "backroom deals" for inspection (both parties) I don't believe this country would emerge smelling so sweet.

By no means am I in love with John Kerry.  He's just the candidate I feel better addresses these issues:

Supreme Court Justice Appointments
Abortion
Social Programs
Prayer in Schools
Environmental Concerns
Government funded embryonic stem cell research

And as for the issue I did not list; the majority of Kerry supporters I know feel it is wishful thinking to believe every terrorist can be killed.  It simply is not possible.  No matter how much the current administration doesn't want to acknowledge it; they, and/or future administrations, are going to have to sit down with other peoples of the World. I know they say you can't negotiate with terrorists whose greatest aim in life is to kill Westerners {Americans first & foremost} however, for each terrorist killed more spring up in his/her place.  They are constantly being recruited/indoctrinated & with a zealot-like fervor which will not be stopped by being bombed into the 'stone age.'  It might do some good to remember the old adage: "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I believe these Empires (to name a few I recall from history class) might remind the government that Pax Americana isn't likely to last forever. 
------------------------------
Roman 
Persian
Byzantine   
British 
Ottoman 

Welcome, Athena -

However, it's my belief and that of a great many people in this Nation that one day this country will care, will need the friendship & support of other countries -- and to disrespect them so arrogantly is not the way to go. 

I couldn't agree more: America may currently be the world's only "superpower", but even so it can't really do *that* much unilaterally.  Hell, even a military force the size of what's in Iraq can't impose US will on that country, even when a majority of the population support them.  The power of any one nation is very limited in terms of what it can force others to do: diplomacy and compromise are far more cost-effective in the long term...