Green Party: Israel must surrender

Sadly, and in defiance of all logic, reason, and humanity, the Green Party of the US has issued an edict calling Israel a criminal nation that must surrender to Palestinian terror. Conspiciously there is no condemnation or even acknowledgement of any Palestinian responsibility to end the oft quoted ‘cycle of violence’ there, only a call for Israel’s surrender.

"Israel's treatment of Palestinians -- those who are Israeli citizens as well as those in the territories -- is comparable in many ways to South African apartheid, and has resulted in a cycle of violence and lack of security for both Israelis and Palestinians," said Mohammed Abed, a member of the Green Party of Wisconsin. "A stable and just resolution of the conflict requires the full realization of the human rights of Palestinians and Israelis." Green Party

Sadly, this position is either one of profound ignorance, or insidious hatred and anti-semitism. How can anyone who calls themselves liberal, (or progressive) and all that such self-identification entails, overlook the intense hatred of Jews as a component in this conflict? An anology would be blaming the North for the Civil War, completely ignoring slavery as an issue, and calling for the North to surrender in order to 'break the cycle of violence'.

This Week's Palestinian Authority Sermon: We (Muslims) Will Rule America; Israel is a Cancer; Jews are a Virus Resembling AIDS; Muslims Will Finish Them Off

"With the establishment of the state of Israel, the entire Islamic nation was lost, because Israel is a cancer spreading through the body of the Islamic nation, and because the Jews are a virus resembling AIDS, from which the entire world suffers.

"You will find that the Jews were behind all the civil strife in this world. The Jews are behind the suffering of the nations... memri.org

David Duke, beloved strawman Republican for the left, is on speaking tour throughout the Middle East and is being very well received.

Just how are these full realizations of Palestinian and Israeli human rights to occur?

The Green Party is already on record as supporting the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and to receive compensation for their losses; immediate Israeli withdrawal from all lands acquired since 1967, including the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem (see news.independent.co.uk...); maintenance of Jerusalem as a shared city open to people of all faiths; suspension of U.S. military and foreign aid to Israel; complete dismantling of the Israeli separation wall; and serious consideration of a single secular, democratic state as the national home of both Israelis and Palestinians. Greens have affirmed the right of self-determination for both Palestinians and Israelis.

Strangely, these are similiar to the 'Palestinian terms of surrender' for Israel. Only the Green Party's version is missing the final step, or final solution if you like, of purging the land of all jews. Strange that the Green Party doesn't mention anything about that.

Could it be that the rejection of the original 'one state solution' is the reason Palestinians lost their homes in the first place?

If Palestinians decided to renounce terrorism and violence and seek true peace, a one state solution would be possible because it is not in Israel's interest to kill Palestinians. The occupation doesn't exist because of Israeli desires to oppress Palestinians, it exists because Arab hatred for Jews was more important than keeping homes.

Why wouldn't the far-left Green Party come to the conclusion that they should pressure the Palestinians to stop acts of terror in order to stop the conflict?

Israel, like us, is a democratic state. The Palestinians on the other hand prefer a more fascist state where the PA controls all media, all elections, and Palestinian 'Israeli collaborators' are routinely shot in the street.

1. The Green Party of the United States (GPUS) publicly calls for divestment from and boycott of the State of Israel until such time as the full individual and collective rights of the Palestinian people are realized. green party

Progressive logic in action.

Posted by Eric Simonson at November 29, 2005 3:34 AM
Comments
Comment #96664


Hi Eric,

Could you share your understanding of apartheid in South Africa and the state of commerce and class within the United States the decade preceding the Civil war?

Thanks.

Posted by: jo at November 29, 2005 4:54 AM
Comment #96704

Eric,
Who knows maybe some day they may be right; however, it is a shame that they missed their opportunity to be considered a serious contender in the up coming political battle for control of “We the People.”

No, current political unrest and the emergence of the level of corruption leaves me wondering if the Grand Old Party’s of the Democrats and Republicans can handle the Strom Winds gathering at the horizon. 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012 all will be huge elections in America and will carry great ramifications on how all Humans on Earth will live over the next Century and beyond. So remarks like that of the Green Party do not surprise me. The Libertarians have been having that problem for years after they agreed to support the legalization of pot so that they could increase the membership size. Yet, that is their right and I will enjoy debating them on the issue.

However, I want to see the Republicans defend the position that President Bush has established with his economic policies. IMO, this is where the Green Party can really hurt the Republican Party Ideology.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 29, 2005 9:04 AM
Comment #96715
The Green Party is already on record as supporting the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and to receive compensation for their losses; immediate Israeli withdrawal from all lands acquired since 1967, including the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem (see news.independent.co.uk…); maintenance of Jerusalem as a shared city open to people of all faiths; suspension of U.S. military and foreign aid to Israel; complete dismantling of the Israeli separation wall; and serious consideration of a single secular, democratic state as the national home of both Israelis and Palestinians. Greens have affirmed the right of self-determination for both Palestinians and Israelis.

It all sounds reasonable and fair, except for the aid thing, and the right of return. Why the big fuss?

Germán

Posted by: German at November 29, 2005 9:24 AM
Comment #96722

Eric,

“If Palestinians decided to renounce terrorism and violence and seek true peace, a one state solution would be possible because it is not in Israel’s interest to kill Palestinians. The occupation doesn’t exist because of Israeli desires to oppress Palestinians, it exists because Arab hatred for Jews was more important than keeping homes.”
___________________________________

Amen to that. Couldn’t have said it better myself. I only hope that these libs would understand this and stop (STOP!) defending these terrorists via this multiculturalism crap!

Posted by: rahdigly at November 29, 2005 9:39 AM
Comment #96724

Isreal is on their rightfull land. The Palestinians are the intruders.
God gave that land to Abraham (Gen 13:14-18). Then promised to Isaac, Abraham’s son(Gen 20:12).
Isaac ahd 2 sons Esau and Jacob. Esau (the oldest) sold his birthright to Jacob (Gen 25: 29-34). Isaac gave his blessing to Jacob (Gen 27: 1-29) These two events gave the land to Jacob. Jacobs name was changed to Israel by God in Gen 23: 24-28. Jacob had 12 sons that became the 12 tribes of Israel.
The book of Exodus is the story of The Children of Israel leaving Egypt and going to their promised land.
In the book of Joshua God drives out those that are in the land and gives it to the Children of Israel.
Time or space won’t allow me to mention the many times that God has told the Israelis that that land is theirs.
There are also a whole heap of referances to Christ sitting on David’s throne. David’s throne was in Jeruslaem. Jeruslam is in the land that God gave to Abraham.
There is no place in the Bible where God took the land away from the Children of Israel. So the land is still there’s.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 29, 2005 9:56 AM
Comment #96729

Amen to that. Couldn’t have said it better myself. I only hope that these libs would understand this and stop (STOP!) defending these terrorists via this multiculturalism crap!

============

Yeah, blowing them up and filling them with bullets is a far more palpatable option. I mean, this solution of killing them could in no way feed into the system that creates these individuals.

That is a sad perspective you have man. No faith in your fellow man to reverse their position when shown a better alternative. When the threat of death is upon any man, their biological instict is to fight back. When you have no fear of death you fight harder. Libs (as you call them), are desperately searching for a peaceful alternative. There is absolutely NO SHAME in that. There is nothing that these people are trying to take from you that our government hasn’t been doing for years brother, wake up. How can a “conservative” label themselves as such when the only thing they want to conserve is their own life, not the lifes of others? That makes no sense.

I truly believe that only love will conquer hate. Its time to give peace a real chance because bullets and bombs have accomplished jack squat (aside from making YOUR “enemies” more voracious and desperate).

Posted by: tree hugger at November 29, 2005 10:13 AM
Comment #96733

“There is no place in the Bible where God took the land away from the Children of Israel. So the land is still there’s”

Would that be true for Americans also?
Some indians believe their god gave them this land.
We fought them and won, and now, what was their land given to them by their god, is rightfully ours.
To the victor go the spoils.
Let the middle east determine its own future.

Posted by: kctim at November 29, 2005 10:22 AM
Comment #96735

Since when is “multiculturalism” a support of terrorism?
Since when is being a liberal a supporter of terrorism?
Since when is Mohamed Abed voice of the Green Party?
Since when is the Green Party the voice of liberals?

I actually though there was a chance I would agree with Simonson on something, but it doesn’t go beyond “The green party is wrong and bigoted”

Like tree said, we’re all looking for answers but simplistic jingoism, promotion of violence, and reliance on hate gets us only more of the same.

Posted by: Dave at November 29, 2005 10:23 AM
Comment #96738

tree hugger wrote:
“Yeah, blowing them up and filling them with bullets is a far more palpatable option. I mean, this solution of killing them could in no way feed into the system that creates these individuals…That is a sad perspective you have man. No faith in your fellow man to reverse their position when shown a better alternative.”


Were you talking about the palestinians and their solution to exterminate Jews from this planet? How come you don’t have the “Gonads” to tell this to the palestinians/terrorists. Why are you trying to convince us that we’re wrong. Convince the people that are definitely wrong. But you won’t do that b/c, with us, you can debate; with the terrorists you’d get your head chopped off for saying that “love” crap around them.


“I truly believe that only love will conquer hate.”

Ok, well they don’t. Good luck trying to convince them.


“It’s time to give peace a real chance because bullets and bombs have accomplished jack squat (aside from making YOUR “enemies” more voracious and desperate).”

We don’t make them more voracious; they were doing this for thousands of years, way before we “created more of them” or “made them more voracious”. Get a clue will ya…

Posted by: rahdigly at November 29, 2005 10:28 AM
Comment #96743

Dave,

You certainly have a profound sense of what is going on in the world, don’t you?! The terrorists are like snakes. They don’t think, they just react. You can’t train them and you can’t appease them. What you have to do is cut the head off the snake, before it bites you. The Israelis certainly know this, that’s why they are not taking to you and treehuggers mantra “give love and peace a chance”; they actually know what’s going on.

Multiculturalism is playing right into to the hands of these terrorists by trying to “understand” them and “reason” with them; all while making everyone else out to be the enemy except the actual enemy (THE TERRORISTS!). The liberals want to fight Bush and the repubs and make them out to be the terrorists and hamstring our troops and policies in dealing with this hateful enemy.

You & treehugger want to play with snakes, you go right ahead; the US and Israel will cut the heads off these snakes. That’s for sure…

Posted by: rahdigly at November 29, 2005 10:42 AM
Comment #96753

rahdigly,

The terrorists are like snakes. They don’t think, they just react. You can’t train them and you can’t appease them.

Should be wonderfull to live in your fantasy land!

What you have to do is cut the head off the snake, before it bites you.

Or you take all their venin out of them, making them far less dangerous. You could argue that beheading is a way to accomplish that too, but it’s not the best way. And like in every ecosystem, any predator have both pro and cons sides. Terrorists included.

The Israelis certainly know this, that’s why they are not taking to you and treehuggers mantra “give love and peace a chance”; they actually know what’s going on.

Did they? Really?
How long are they figthing terrorists already without huge success? How come they didn’t fix this *issue* long ago then???

Multiculturalism is playing right into to the hands of these terrorists by trying to “understand” them and “reason” with them;

Understand them, sure. You should know better about “know your ennemy”. It’s not because one try to undertsand motivation(s) of an ennemy that he (will) agree with him.

You & treehugger want to play with snakes, you go right ahead; the US and Israel will cut the heads off these snakes. That’s for sure…

Then what do they wait for? Snakes birthrate beat their policy maybe?

Please, go buy a color tv, maybe you will see how the world is not like your black & white fantasy.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 29, 2005 11:19 AM
Comment #96754

rahdigly,

Don’t put words in my mouth. “Multicultuarlism” does not support terrorism, it supports the idea of eliminating the causes of terrorism by first trying to understand what they are. Maybe that’s too subtle a difference for some people.

Does your car have a bumper sticker that says: “Kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out”?

Posted by: Dave at November 29, 2005 11:21 AM
Comment #96755
An anology would be blaming the North for the Civil War, completely ignoring slavery as an issue, and calling for the North to surrender in order to ‘break the cycle of violence’.

The War For Southern Independance WAS the fault of the North in an illegal power grab in direct contradiction of the Constitution of the United States. Slavery was an issue, but a minor issue (contrary to revisionist history texts). The major issues were economic and political.

But this is a subject for another time and place.

Posted by: Jim T at November 29, 2005 11:21 AM
Comment #96760

Jim,

Thanks for the history lesson. Don’t forget Big Brother’s mottos:
Ignorance is Strength
War is Peace
Freedom is slavery

Posted by: Dave at November 29, 2005 11:30 AM
Comment #96761

Ron,

Isreal is on their rightfull land. The Palestinians are the intruders. God gave that land to Abraham (Gen 13:14-18). Then promised to Isaac, Abraham’s son(Gen 20:12). Isaac ahd 2 sons Esau and Jacob. Esau (the oldest) sold his birthright to Jacob (Gen 25: 29-34). Isaac gave his blessing to Jacob (Gen 27: 1-29) These two events gave the land to Jacob. Jacobs name was changed to Israel by God in Gen 23: 24-28. Jacob had 12 sons that became the 12 tribes of Israel. The book of Exodus is the story of The Children of Israel leaving Egypt and going to their promised land. In the book of Joshua God drives out those that are in the land and gives it to the Children of Israel. Time or space won’t allow me to mention the many times that God has told the Israelis that that land is theirs. There are also a whole heap of referances to Christ sitting on David’s throne. David’s throne was in Jeruslaem. Jeruslam is in the land that God gave to Abraham. There is no place in the Bible where God took the land away from the Children of Israel. So the land is still there’s.

Oh man. You lost me after Esau the oldest! No wonder nobody knows who’s right or wrong on such conflict. Israel land should be the most expensive real estate on earth! Bloody hell, for what? A few old non-legal books saying which people *own* it?

BTW: what about natural americans’s claim about *their* land!?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 29, 2005 11:30 AM
Comment #96762

Eric,

Your posts are becoming more and more focusless, and as a result more and more tiresome. Each one a hodgepodge of the wackiest quotes one can find on the internet, all displayed to try and somehow make you appear to be the sole reasonable person on the planet.

P.S. Any particular reason you chose to emphasize the name of the speaker from the Green Party?

Posted by: Burt at November 29, 2005 11:30 AM
Comment #96763
The War For Southern Independance WAS the fault of the North in an illegal power grab in direct contradiction of the Constitution of the United States.

**Insert Dueling Banjos here**

Posted by: Burt at November 29, 2005 11:34 AM
Comment #96766

Yo, Houdini.

“Should be wonderfull to live in your fantasy land!”

I’m not the one in fantasy land; your the one trying to debate this with ignorance, not me.


“Or you take all their venin out of them, making them far less dangerous. You could argue that beheading is a way to accomplish that too, but it’s not the best way.”

Now, by “taking all their venom out of them” wouldn’t that be violating their basic rights, not to mention extremely “insensitive”? Will you take out the venom with “love”? And, how are you going to take the venom out, with “peace”? Who’s going to do it? You?!


“How long are they (Israelis) figthing terrorists already without huge success? How come they didn’t fix this *issue* long ago then???”

Oh, “Without huge success?” Look up the “Six day war” pal, then you’ll see how much success the Israelis had. Here, try this one out for size:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

The Israeli’s are fighting them still because the enemy won’t listen to reason nor accept any deals. Where have you been? Yasser Arafat had refused every “peace” deal under the sun; b/c he made so much money off of that war. And, Clinton, in 2000, was trying to work a deal that would have given up at 90% of Israeli land to those heartless palestinians (PLO) bums! And, Arafat refused; now is that establishing peace on his part? Don’t think so, talk to the Palestinians not anyone else. See how far you get with them? Ha!


“Understand them, sure. You should know better about “know your ennemy”. It’s not because one try to undertsand motivation(s) of an ennemy that he (will) agree with him.”


I know the enemy (and so does Israel) and we know what they’re capable of. I don’t need another 9/11 (or worse) to know thy enemy and what they can and will do. Do you remember 9/11? Were you this sympathetic towards the enemy then? How many more 9/11’s do you need before you realize that peace and love won’t work?!!



“Then what do they wait for? Snakes birthrate beat their policy maybe?”

That’s why the Palestinians modo is “eye for an eye”, and the Israelis’ is “two eyes for an eye”. They don’t play brother. These Jews are in the middle of the desert surrounded by the enemy and they kick their butts whenever the palestinians step out of line.

Posted by: rahdigly at November 29, 2005 11:54 AM
Comment #96767

Personally, I don’t have a dog in this fight, and I don’t have a God in this fight either. There are so many gross inaccuracies it’s hard to know where to start.

First, I don’t support the idea of a nation dominated by an official religion. I don’t support theocracy. It’s a bad idea, whether it’s in Israel or in Iran. I dont’ care which sacred text declares its followers special or chosen. I really don’t believe God thinks one group of people is more special than another. It’s silly.

Second, Israel is not a democracy. Did you know a party cannot run for office in Israel if it advocates a secular government? The US Green Party would absolutely, positively not be allowed to field a candidate in Israel if it advocated replacing a Jewish state with a secular state.

Third, how can a democracy allow the right of return for jews, but restrict immigration for non-jews? The apartheid metaphor is very apt. If you are not jewish, you cannot purchase land wherever you want in Israel. Did you know that?If you are not jewish, yet volunteer to serve in the Israeli armed forces, a council of Rabbis will deny you, refuse to let you join.

Look, there is an enormous amount of hatred and bad blood in that region. The Israelis and the Palestinians have done each other egregious harm. Yes, it cuts both ways, folks.

Because of the Holocaust, and because the Israelis have been good allies to the US, we feel a need to protect them. Understandable. But the national interest of Israel is not the same as the national interest of the US. They have their own nukes. They have WMD’s. They are more than capable of taking care of themselves. And if Israel persists in maintaining a Zionist state at the expense of others, it is hardly surprising others will violently reject the idea.

If you support the idea of maintaining a Zionist state, fine. But be honest about it. Know what you support, and why.

Posted by: phx8 at November 29, 2005 11:55 AM
Comment #96769

I would prefer if the Palestinians integrated into Israel. Nothing like a democracy where Palestinians will outnumber Israelis. Why doesn’t Israel allow that?

Posted by: Aldous at November 29, 2005 12:05 PM
Comment #96773

Phx8,
“Because of the Holocaust, and because the Israelis have been good allies to the US, we feel a need to protect them. Understandable. But the national interest of Israel is not the same as the national interest of the US. They have their own nukes. They have WMD’s. They are more than capable of taking care of themselves.”
____________________________________________

One of the reasons we back Israel is b/c we know that, if we didn’t back them, they would wipe out the entire middle east, including themselves. They are prepared to rid the world of the palestinians, as well as themselves, in order to keep the Palestinians from wiping them out, first. Remember, the Iranians sole purpose to go Nuclear is to rid the world of Israel; unless, of course, you actually believe the Iranians when they say it’s for Nuclear power, not for Nukes. Yeah, ok, whatever Mullahs!

We get involved in this b/c, if they were to nuke that region, 3/4 of the world’s supply of oil would be radioactive for over 50 years. Yikes!

How long do you think people in this world would last without oil? Can you say caveman? Think about it!

Posted by: rahdigly at November 29, 2005 12:24 PM
Comment #96774

As rahdigly pointed out, Arafat refused peace for his own profit. Unfortunately, in doing so he created a “State of Hate” in the palestinians. They are a lost generation, their TV glorifies “martyrdom operations”, their music justifies genocide, and schools teach that growning up to become a homicide bomber is noble.
Unlike rahdigly, I’m not willing to let them all die in poverty just to create more suicidal murderers that we have to kill later. I wish I had the answer, but I definately haven’t heard it yet.

Posted by: Dave at November 29, 2005 12:28 PM
Comment #96775

If I didn’t know better Aldous, I would think you were being disingenuous.

Why won’t Israel allow it? Why did Israel pull out of Gaza? Why are they going to pull back from limited areas of the West Bank?

It’s simple. They realise that the palestinians are outbreeding them. They cannot, and in fairness, do not want to rule over a sullen underclass. If there were a one state solution, then Israel would relatively quickly become an arab state, assuming it wished to maintain its dubious claim to democracy.

I know that Palestinians have committed dreadful atrocities against civilians. I know that Arafat was a corrupt disaster for the Palestinians. I also know that Palestinians live lives of humiliating degradation, totally dependant on Israeli whimsy for the economic wellbeing and their physical security. Israel has all of the cornucopeia of US arms. The palestinians have only Kalashnikovs to resist with. In those circumstances, when people have lost all hope, then they will don the suicide belts of irrationality. Or maybe its not so irrational. If you do not have rational choices to make a life, then what is left, is all. And don’t forget, Israelis were the first to emply terrorism. Remember Deir Yassin. Remember Jaffa gate.

If you demonise people, don’t be surprised if they start behaving like demons. As my mother used to say, give a dog a bad name………..

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 29, 2005 12:28 PM
Comment #96782

Dave,
“I’m not willing to let them all die in poverty just to create more suicidal murderers that we have to kill later. I wish I had the answer, but I definately haven’t heard it yet.”
______________________________________

Many Americans aren’t willing to have anymore 9/11’s b/c the muslims are unhappy or upset with us. How about promoting democracy and education; instead of them learning the radical hate that many of them grow up with? With this democracy, they can have the muslims denounce the radical extremists that have hijacked their religion. What do you say to that?

Posted by: rahdigly at November 29, 2005 12:38 PM
Comment #96784

The people here seem to forget that Israel would NEVER have negotiated if not for terrorism. It is the realiziation that the suicide bombers will keep coming regardless of how much force Israel uses that has compelled Israel to the bargaining table.

In any case, Israel will never give up the West Bank. They control all the water and all the arable land. Gaza is a DESERT!!! It would be foolish for the Palestinians to stop fighting on such pathetic terms.

Posted by: Aldous at November 29, 2005 12:42 PM
Comment #96788

rahdigly:

Democracy did not help the Native Americans from getting massacred.

As a Republican, I suppose you will be content when someone takes your house, land, water and natural resources. Some people are not.

Posted by: Aldous at November 29, 2005 12:47 PM
Comment #96789

Were you talking about the palestinians and their solution to exterminate Jews from this planet? How come you don’t have the “Gonads” to tell this to the palestinians/terrorists.

I was speaking to man’s obsession with violence that transcends all boarders. It takes more gonads to be peaceful than the alternative, which is why i carry such a burden.

Why are you trying to convince us that we’re wrong. Convince the people that are definitely wrong. But you won’t do that b/c, with us, you can debate; with the terrorists you’d get your head chopped off for saying that “love” crap around them.

Im not trying to convince you that your wrong or that they are wrong, because you and they have a deeply routed belief that only violence and bring peace, that only violence can bring about progress, that only through violence will your goals and objectives come to fruition.

“I truly believe that only love will conquer hate.”

Ok, well they don’t. Good luck trying to convince them.

To convice them we need to show them. Lead by example. The only example that we have on display mirrors the same tactics that they use, only with more sophistication. In the end, it is still ugly and unneccessary. In the end, we are right where we started. If they take my life or the life of a country-mate, that is their choice, which is a tradgedy. Myself, my conscience will not allow me to mirror that action. I do not want to, i do not need to.

“It’s time to give peace a real chance because bullets and bombs have accomplished jack squat (aside from making YOUR “enemies” more voracious and desperate).”

We don’t make them more voracious; they were doing this for thousands of years, way before we “created more of them” or “made them more voracious”. Get a clue will ya…

Wow, thanks for showing me the light. I am now convinced that only a mass genocide can solve this pesky terrorism problem. Thanks man.

Posted by: tree hugger at November 29, 2005 12:48 PM
Comment #96790

Paul,

The Isrealies were not the first uses of terrorism, it’s gone back to the middle ages. It’s only the pals who’ve taken it to the mass murder of civilian level. (unless you count pesky little things like Dresden and Nagasaki and Hiroshima)

Aldous,

Negotiate with who? Do you mean the losers of wars who left their home because their arab leaders promised they could go back after the war and kill the Jews not yet dead? You forget that it was the zionists who converted the desert they had into cropland. The arabs still have crap because that’s what they made with what they had.

rahdigly,
They’re not ready for our style democracy and are at least 2 generations away from a sane system. Meanwhile, they need a benevolent autocracy. Look at iraq, everything is decided by a few shieks, Imams, whatevers. The people have no need for an individual vote, they follow their leaders without questions. (Kind of like Republicans)

Posted by: Dave at November 29, 2005 12:54 PM
Comment #96793

Aldous,
“Democracy did not help the Native Americans from getting massacred.”

It sure didn’t.


“As a Republican, I suppose you will be content when someone takes your house, land, water and natural resources. Some people are not.”

No, I’m definitely not “content when someone takes your house, land, water and natural resources”, that’s why I don’t follow socialism and/or communism. And, I’m not necessarily a Repub; however, if it helps you demonize me and block out my comments, then so be it. Debate the issues, instead of worrying what party one’s affiliated with.

Posted by: rahdigly at November 29, 2005 1:02 PM
Comment #96794

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again:

I have never met an Arab that I could trust further than I could throw him.

Anyone who expects that a “peace accord” achieved with the Palestinians would last longer than a few months needs to spend some time in the Middle East, and live amongst the poor, downtrodden souls. A week there would seem like a year living on the streets of the South Bronx. If you survive, then come back and rejoin the discussion. The idea of peace is a wonderful thought, but it’s a Western ideal and contrary to the Arab way of life. Any attempt to force our ideals on their culture is doomed to failure.

As for supporting Israel, I would prefer their form of government to those exhibited by their neighbors. Of course, if Israel didn’t exist, then we’d be discussing whther we should be supporting Egypt or Syria in their battle for control of the Arabian Peninsula.

You can’t argue with a fanantic, and you can’t placate one, either. You can only eliminate them.

Posted by: Ray at November 29, 2005 1:05 PM
Comment #96795

i have never come across a place, online, or on the air that portrays republicans and conservatives as a lunatic racist cult as thoroughly as this.

Posted by: jo at November 29, 2005 1:05 PM
Comment #96796

Your analogy is faulty. The north was responsible for the so-called civil war. The CSA was a sovereign nation when the USA invaded in a brutal war of aggression. Slavery wasn’t the reason for the war. It was a power grab by corrupt northern elements hostile to the separation of powers embodied in the constitution. The northern interests also knew that if the south were allowed to gain its independence the north would lose control of the raw materials it needed for its industrial economy.

Posted by: steve at November 29, 2005 1:05 PM
Comment #96800

Tree hugger,
“I am now convinced that only a mass genocide can solve this pesky terrorism problem. Thanks man.”

Well, if we follow your advice: “To convice them we need to show them. Lead by example…If they take my life or the life of a country-mate, that is their choice, which is a tradgedy. Myself, my conscience will not allow me to mirror that action. I do not want to, i do not need to.”

Then, you certainly will have “mass genocide” of Americans, that’s for sure. Do you want that? Do you want America & Israel to lose?

If you can’t “live with yourself being like them” then why don’t you follow through with this “Lead by example” speech by actually leading by example?

Now, before you do that, take a look at what the peace movement can do to persuade these terrorists:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/29/D8E69AT81.html

Posted by: rahdigly at November 29, 2005 1:13 PM
Comment #96802

Philippe Houdoin

What do you mean by Natural American?
Anyone born here is a Natural American regardless of race. So yeah they CAN claim the land as theirs.

kctim,
Sorry, God didn’t give this land to the Indians.
The only people that he gave any land to was the Israelis.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 29, 2005 1:22 PM
Comment #96807

**Insert Dueling Banjos here**

Posted by: Burt at November 29, 2005 11:34 AM

Typical responce you’d expect from a yankee. Specially one that knows the yankees are to blame for the war, but who’s pride won’t let him admitt it.
If the Yankee army would have gotten their asses out of the The Confederate States of America, a soverign country, there wouldn’t have been a war. And most likely the South would’ve rejoined the Union as soon a that yankee President was out of office.
BTW, I know the yankee history books don’t teach this, but Lincoln WASN’T going to force the South back into the Union. He believed that it would rejoin the Union on it’s own.
He also wasn’t going to force the South to free the slaves. Believe or not Lincoln believed in states rights. Something the North didn’t.
He was forced to do both by the yankee hot heads that want a war with the South.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 29, 2005 1:37 PM
Comment #96809


Let’s see if that closes the italics.

Realisitcally continuing to argue over does Israel or Palestine have a right to exist is pointless. The real blame for the creation of the situation in the first place goes England. Creating a “jewish homeland” in an area where it had already been demonstrated the differing religions had a hard time co-existing was stupid.

So now what? Palestine will never get the right of return. They will be lucky to end up with the parts of the West Bank they were promised. The arab nations that have taken in the refugees and refused to make them citizens, keeping them in refugee camps are just as responsible for Israel as to the plight of the Palestinian people.

Palestinians have killed Israelis, Israelis have killed Palestinians, innocents have died, profits have been made and all the while the real victims here have been those caught in the crossfire. Palestine has to be able to develop it’s own economy. That is just starting now and is really the only way to end this. A free productive people who have the means to take care of themselves at least partially from an economic standpoint are less likely to feel their only option is suicide bombing. That is one of the major mistakes Israel made when it cut off a great portion of Palestines economy, that is what the goal should be is to continue to create economic growth. It probably wasn’t possible under Arafat, but? It is certainly possible now, it would be more possible if some of the very Arab nations who use Palestine as an example of how horrible Israel is would get off their collective behinds and help Palestine grow economically. (As well as allow those who have been refugees all this time to become citizens).

My three shekels worth….

Posted by: Lisa Renee at November 29, 2005 1:42 PM
Comment #96821

Why don’t Israel allow those Refugees to come home instead? Surely, that is the democratic thing to do? Just let them all come back and have an election!!! One man, One vote.

Posted by: Aldous at November 29, 2005 2:34 PM
Comment #96826

“Sorry, God didn’t give this land to the Indians.
The only people that he gave any land to was the Israelis”

Ron
YOUR God didnt give it to the indians but THEIR god did.
Only religious faith determines which side a person thinks is right.
Religious faith started this mess but will not end it.
Simply loving mama earth, huggin trees and giving terrorists hugs will not end it either.
So, as with most things on this subject, it comes down to the US doing one of two things: support those who support us or support those who wish to kill us.
Faith in the US and our Constitution or faith in the terrorists and their way of life?
My faith lies only with the US, no matter who is president, and our way of life.
Eric clearly shows where this leftist groups faith lies; with the terrorists and their way of life.

Posted by: kctim at November 29, 2005 2:48 PM
Comment #96831

Ron,

Why don’t you and the rest of the Hazzard County Dukes right an old wrong and secede now? I promise you that the North won’t fight you this time.

Heck, we’ll even throw in Indiana as a lovely parting gift.

Posted by: Burt at November 29, 2005 3:03 PM
Comment #96835

This whole “God gave us the land” thing is a bunch of crap. Until god comes down himself and says, “lay off the jews i gave them this land, mess with them and its lightning strike in the ass” then Ill believe unitl then the arguement has no legitimacy, the bible and any other religious text was written my humans. And there fore not the actual word of god. Im gonna write a “holy book” in that book it will state “And then GOd spoke and said “Paul your apartment is now yours, payith no more rentith, its is yours.”
I encourage everyone else who doesnt want to share to just say God gave me the land.

Posted by: Paul at November 29, 2005 3:17 PM
Comment #96842

Ron,

AMEN, brother. At least I now know one other person here who actually reads history books instead of letting them sit on thier shelves to impress dinner guests.

Burt,

We’d LOVE to leave a government that is a Dictatorial Triumvirate with Absolute Powers and that masquerades as a Democracy…and you could keep Indiana.

Posted by: Jim T at November 29, 2005 3:59 PM
Comment #96846
He was forced to do both by the yankee hot heads that want a war with the South

Hogwash.

Lincoln had one agenda. His was to preserve the union at all costs. He didn’t WANT to go to war, but he was not about to let the states leave the union and was willing to go to war to do so. He also made sure that at Fort Sumter the SOUTH were the ones who fired on the Union fort first. He did that because he wanted the first move to war to be from the South (which it was) before deciding to use military force to bring the union back together (which he did).

He was also an abolishionist, but had decided to live with it as a necessary evil. Until the point came when it would make the most sense to end it (which he did). No, slavery was not the reason for the war, but its end was a necessary and happy outcome.

Now, Ron, coupling your complete lack of perspective on the war and your belief that imaginary people have the ability to assign ownership of anything to anyone, I am going to have to say that your views on these subjects are a bit flawed.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 29, 2005 4:13 PM
Comment #96848
The Libertarians have been having that problem for years after they agreed to support the legalization of pot so that they could increase the membership size.

LoL,

and the Republicans have been having problems after they agreed to deny homosexuals the ability to marry so that they could increase their membership size.

and the Democrats have been having problems after they agreed to support a woman’s right to an abortion so that they could increase their membership size.

really, why can’t it just be that the Libertarian Party is against the government having any say on what we do with our own bodies as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else?

You’d think that people would have learned the lessons of Prohibition, all of which are playing out again now in front of us.

But to claim that it was done ‘just to increse the membership roles’ is not only a tacky assertion, it’s blatantly false.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 29, 2005 4:19 PM
Comment #96854

Rhinehold
I know Lincoln didn’t like slavery. But he knew forceing an end to it wouldn’t be the best way to handle the issue, as the emancipation proclamation proved. That along with ‘Reconstruction’ helped to usher in one of the darkest periods of human rights in our history. The problems caused by these two events are still rearing thier ugly heads today.
And your wrong about Lincoln wanting a war with the South. But then yankee history books lie about most everything else about that war.
God IS NOT imaginary. If you don’t wish to believe in God that’s your business. God has NEVER tried to prove his existance and I’m not going to try.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 29, 2005 4:29 PM
Comment #96862

Lets see if this fixes the italics.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward at November 29, 2005 4:43 PM
Comment #96865

RESPONSE TO GREEN PARTY

Your vision sounds great.

But are you at all concerned that out of 22 Arab countries, there is not one single democracy that respects human rights? Isn’t it somewhat naive to believe that Hammas would somehow allow Palestine to become the first free Arab state?

Also, you may have missed some implications of your plan.

For one, where would Arab gays and lesbians flee to when their family or government wishes to execute them for crimes against Islam? Israel has been a safe heaven for them, but clearly that would end.

Second, Israel has the only thriving middle eastern economy based on productivity and innovation. A single state solution with an Arab majority would no doubt reverse this trend as Arab societies have demonstrated an aversion to liberal economic principals necessary to avoid rampant poverty and illiteracy.

Furthermore, the Jews that are currently fleeing Europe for the first time since the Holocaust due to harassment may be somewhat concerned when they find out that the separation barrier which has saved thousands of lives (on both sides) was removed. Of course I am sure they will be relieved to find out that the Green Party has figured out a better way to stop jihadist terrorism, not just in Israel but for all countries identified as enemies of Islam.

On a separate note, I am actually relieved you have taken up this issue as part of your platform. The Green Party surely believes that all Arabs (or humans for that matter) are equally deserving of human rights no matter which country they call home. Therefore, there is no doubt that the Green Party will issue press releases that address the following issues in the Arab world.

1. Sexual slavery of imported virgins and rampant poverty of divorced women in Saudi Arabia
2.”Honor Killings” of raped women in Pakistan, Jordan, and Gaza
3. The plight of the Kurds, Copts and other minority groups in the Arab world who must conceal their religion to avoid harassment
4. Holocaust denial and hatred towards Jews in official children’s text-books and Arab state owned media

I am sure that your decision to single out Israel, the only democracy in the middle east, was just a random. Of course, by not addressing these issues which effect millionss, some may believe that the Green Party seems to only care about the Arabs who are oppressed by the Jews.

It is shame that the Green Party only wishes to condemn the one democracy in the middle east that at least tries to respect human rights.

P.S. You forgot to mention the aid that Palestine recieves every year from America and the United Nations. Of course, please divide this figure by half as it has been established that half of this aid is lost to government curroption and terror financing.

Posted by: JordanR at November 29, 2005 4:46 PM
Comment #96866

Ron,

1) Reconstruction was *NOT* a problem. The *end* of reconstruction was. Again, you show your lack of knowledge of the time period in question.

2) I am not wrong in what Lincoln did or did not do, of course I make the mistake of actually READING what HE wrote… Damn yankees…

3) God is most certainly imaginary. And until you can prove otherwise I will never stand for anyone trying to make any decision that affects MY life by invoking whatever he was preported to have said or not have said. And that you invoke your god while dismissing another’s is another example of ignorance extreme.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 29, 2005 4:47 PM
Comment #96867

Rhinehold,
Because I have to go to work, I do not have the time to link to the references of the parties that will show our political parties have used an issue or two to gain membership. However, look up what some political party members have said on the matter and you’ll find out that all political parties will take on an issue or two just because they want support from a different group.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 29, 2005 4:49 PM
Comment #96868

Ron, there was no provision in the Constitution for secession. Ergo, the South violated the very Constitution under which this nation was founded as a United States. The North ended the South’s illegal secession, in much the same way the Federal Gov’t. warned those in Texas awhile back, that secession was not an option under our Constitution.

The South tested the metal of the Constitution, and they found that metal very hard, indeed, fortunately. For surely, if the South had won, another War would have ensued between the two self proclaimed nations and the closer to the present that occured, the more devastating the destruction would have been. Look at how many wars the differing peoples of Europe had to fight against each other right up to 60 years ago, in order to finally arrive at an accord whereby the nations would no longer fight each other over territory and radically differing governments.

Surely we would have had to fight those similar wars between N. and S. again and again before finally resolving an accord. We fought it once, it was solved, and united, we became the greatest nation on earth. Pretty damned hard to argue them facts in favor of the position that the Civil War did not have the proper outcome, in my book.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 29, 2005 4:50 PM
Comment #96886

Jordan,
First, Israel is not a democracy. If a country restricts the full rights of citizenship to one group, and denies those rights to large numbers of inhabitants in its territory, that is not a democracy. Do you understand this?

Second, Israel is an economic basket case. Israel receives more US foreign aid than any other country in the entire world, billions upon billions of US taxpayer dollars, every year, year after year.

Oh.

Not supposed to mention that in polite society, are we?

Rah,
Good point earlier about a nuclear Iran possibly confronting a nuclear Israel. Makes perfect sense to me. They’d both be forced to come to terms with each other, and themselves. Mutually Assured Destruction kept the US & USSR from destroying one another during the Cold War. Even religious fanatics would hesitate to end it all on a nationwide basis. MAD would work for the religious loons of the Middle East too.

Posted by: phx8 at November 29, 2005 6:01 PM
Comment #96899

David
I’m not saying that the South was right to seceed from the Union. If I had been alive then I might have ended up fighting for the Union. I really cann’t say. I can see both sides of the issue. The Union was right in not wanting Seccesion. The South was right in trying to preserve States Rights. I’m sure a lot of men that fought on both sides did some serious soul searching before deciding which side they were on.
I’m a strong believer in the rights of the States. However the Federal Government has been trampling them for well over 140 years. But I’m not going to advocate that the South or any other state seceed from the Union, unless it’s California.
The war Between the States (I won’t call it the more derogatory names Southerners call it) might have been avoided if the North hadn’t wanted to trample the rights of the Southern States to decide what’s best for them.
I know I’m going to get told again that I don’t know nothing about that period, but the war was about States Rights. Slavery, which I couldn’t support, was only a minor point.
Both sides had their share of hot heads that were wanting war so bad they could taste it. Funny, when it did come those same hot heads didn’t go fight.
BTW, Just kidding about California.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 29, 2005 6:34 PM
Comment #96902

Here are the numbers on US aid to Israel, posted by pro-Israel site:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html

In summary, the US provides @ $5 billion/year in aid to Israel, for a population of just under 7 million- year after year after year.

Posted by: phx8 at November 29, 2005 6:52 PM
Comment #96910

What phx8 said — exactly.
Euro Paul and Dave, you’ve made good points.
btw, I recently left the Green Party — not because of this particular topic, but because of a few other things they’ve been advocating that make no bloody sense to me whatsoever. I truly wish I could return to the Democratic Party, but to my dismay, they still aren’t displaying enough cajones in the face of the Neocon’s to suit this girl.

As for the above article, once again Eric is doing everything he can to paint all Greens (or alternately, Liberals) with one big brush in order to show as much disdain and intolerance for people on the left as is possible. I think of it as careful balancing act he’s always performing — over the top, but not so much that he’ll get himself kicked off this blog.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 29, 2005 7:28 PM
Comment #96916

The idea of “Palestinians” didnt exist until about 1948. Until then the word Palestinians was usually used to describe Jews. The Arabs that now call themselves Palestinians are not a distinct ethnic or historic group from other Arabs. The currently disputed area is not there homeland. The nation of Israel was created by the UN in an area that had the great combination of being the ancient jewish homeland and being largely uninhabbited and undesired. In 1948 the idea of Palestinians and the “West Bank” were invinted. This happened after the Kingdom of Transjordon and 5 other Muslim nations launched an unprovoked invasion of Israel. The Israelis won but the Transjordans stayed in possesion of Judea, Samaria and part of Jerusalem. They Transjordans immediatly expelled all the Jews and destroyed all Jewish houses of worship and institutions including desecrating cemeterys.
The invaders then invented the ideas of the “West Bank”. The lie of the “Occupied Territories” was invented after Israel defeated
a second unprovoked invasion by the same Muslim countries.
Israel has repeatly offered land and other concesions for peace, the terrorist PLO leadership repeatedly rejected peace and attacked civilians. Arab leaders have publically admitted they intend to reclaim all formerly Muslim territories which includes Israel and Spain.

Posted by: Kelly at November 29, 2005 7:53 PM
Comment #96937

The Green Party is right on track. And Israel would not be able to continue its terrorizing the Palestinian people without the billions it gets annually from the US.

Israel has murdered far more Palestinian men, women and children with their US weapons, they have committed attrocities that the victims of Nazis would be ashamed of. The Israel of today resembles the Third Reich and the Palestinians get the treatment that Germans gave Jews.

Remember the USS Liberty!!

Posted by: Carolyn LW at November 29, 2005 8:39 PM
Comment #96971

Ron,
Anyone have a copy of the deed? If not, can anyone show, really show, that they personaly have a lineage to the land?

Posted by: ec at November 29, 2005 10:46 PM
Comment #97000

Kelly,
You write: “The Arabs that now call themselves Palestinians are not a distinct ethnic or historic group from other Arabs.”

That does not make it ok for them to be permanently exiled from their homes, does it?

“The currently disputed area is not there homeland.”

Kelly, come on. The Palestinians lived there.

“The nation of Israel was created by the UN in an area that had the great combination of being the ancient jewish homeland and being largely uninhabbited and undesired.”

Not to the people who lived there. Google it. In the 1920’s the area was inhabited by about 600,000 people, of which @ 11% were Jewish. An additional 100,000 Beduoin also inhabited the area.

Kelly, your version of events are inaccurate. Please, read up on the topic. Much of what you say about the Arabs is correct. However, you go off the rails with an imaginary version of events which even the most rabid Zionists would be embarrassed to put in writing. You find it easy to condemn the Arabs, but rely upon wishful thinking when it comes to the jew’s side of the conflict.

Remember, Leon Uris writes fiction, not history.

Posted by: phx8 at November 30, 2005 1:30 AM
Comment #97012

2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012 all will be huge elections in America and will carry great ramifications on how all Humans on Earth will live over the next Century and beyond. So remarks like that of the Green Party do not surprise me. The Libertarians have been having that problem for years after they agreed to support the legalization of pot so that they could increase the membership size. Yet, that is their right and I will enjoy debating them on the issue.

Henry,

It would be ashame to throw away our future over a little weed. The Libertarian party’s plan for America is impressive, and the only one that fully supports the Constitution.

Since when is the Green Party the voice of liberals?

Dave,

Apparently any group that says anything the right doesn’t like is the voice of liberals.

First, Israel is not a democracy. If a country restricts the full rights of citizenship to one group, and denies those rights to large numbers of inhabitants in its territory, that is not a democracy. Do you understand this?

phx8,

Do you consider the U.S. a democracy? If yes, based on your definition?

Back to the topic. The scary part of these types of issues are their complexity. It’s a situation of damned if you do and damned if you don’t. I don’t know about you but I want someone in Washington deciding these things that knows what they are doing.

I’m not saying Bush is stupid. See, I didn’t say it. But do you guys on the right really have that much confidence in this administration’s ability to make an intelligent decision that isn’t going to get us all killed? I don’t.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 30, 2005 2:43 AM
Comment #97044

Second, Israel has the only thriving middle eastern economy based on productivity and innovation.

P.S. You forgot to mention the aid that Palestine recieves every year from America and the United Nations. Of course, please divide this figure by half as it has been established that half of this aid is lost to government curroption and terror financing.
Posted by: JordanR at November 29, 2005 04:46 PM

You neglect to mention that this thriving state receives huge transfers in aid from the US, and huge private donations from the Jewish diaspora. Are you seriously suggesting that these cash injections have no influence on Israels economy?

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 30, 2005 5:48 AM
Comment #97093

phx8

Kelly is a lot closer than you. Can you think of anything without “Google” ? Leon Uris wrote a historically accurate novel of Israel. Go ahead and dispute the major themes of the book (s). Please I will wait while you Google it. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs left the nation of Israel before the first war. They were told to do so, as it would be a conquered land when they returned. So sorry…they got their ass kicked. Then they attacked again…and lost. And so on and so on. It is not their homeland. They left it voluntarily and gave up any claims to it. To say they can have it back now is ignorant of the facts. The nation of Israel’s border was set up with all of the Kibbutzim and Moshavim included. This made for a ragged map. The Arabs sold the Israelis land they did not want to sweat over to make it useful. After the Jews made the swamps and the desert produce food, the lazy Arabs wanted the land back. Go figure. Perhaps you need to actually visit the area, or find a new search engine to do your research. Good luck.

Posted by: Libertarian2 at November 30, 2005 8:58 AM
Comment #97103

phx/Paul;
Of course $5 Billion a year (I don’t know where you got that number but we give $660 Million in aid) makes a difference to the $129 Billion GDP Israeli economy. Will it collapse without it? I doubt it very much. But let’s do a little comparison:
The WestBank and Gaza Strip
got $2 billion in aid for a $1.8 Billion GDP and we’re spending $6B a month in Iraq.

In the end, the arabs lost and have continued their collapse into a sado-masachistic version of their religion. These psychoses are supported by despotic regimes in order to retain their authority and are dependent upon external enemies in order to deflect attention away from their own internal problems. Only the weak blame others for their own self-created problems and only the foolish think destroying Israel will solve the so-called Palestinian ‘problem’.

Posted by: Dave at November 30, 2005 10:36 AM
Comment #97107

Wow… I jumped in late, and there’s just so MUCH to reply to! Where to begin? I think I’ll start..here:

Why don’t you and the rest of the Hazzard County Dukes right an old wrong and secede now? I promise you that the North won’t fight you this time.

Heck, we’ll even throw in Indiana as a lovely parting gift.

As an Arkansas native who’s now living in Indiana, I don’t know whether to be offended or laugh my ass off….

For those of you who say that slavery was a minor issue in the Civil War, you obviously haven’t studied the subject very deeply (or have done so via a one-sided syllabus). After having read over 100 different sources, from authors both Yank and Reb, I must disagree — slavery was a MAJOR issue in Southern succession. Read the writings of southerners to each other during that period, starting around the time of the 1860 election. They weren’t concerned with what Lincoln would do to the country economically. They weren’t concerned with arguments of States Rights. They were scared — no, frightened out of their minds — that the “niggers” would kill their sons and rape their daughters if given the chance. They were afraid that the election of Lincoln would be enough to spark slave riots. Lincoln wasn’t an abolitionist, but he DID want to prevent the spread of slavery into the West. The Southerners, who were facing an ever-growing slave population that about 2/3 of their wealth was tied up in, that they couldn’t sell off (because the international slave trade was banned), saw this as a death sentence. THAT is why they left the Union.

Well, to be fair, that’s why the first 5 states — the Deep South — left the Union. The rest didn’t leave until the War began, and many of them DID leave over States Rights issues, as slavery wasn’t as big of a deal to them anymore. But without slavery, there never would have been succession, and without succession there never would have been War.

Not that there wasn’t an economic element to the war. Economics is almost entirely why the North fought. To them, it wasn’t about slavery. (Go back to 1860 and try to find a dozen white Yankees who were willing to give their lives to free black men they had never met… you won’t have an easy time of it.) The North fought the war because their entire economic model was based on selling goods to the South (due to protective tarriffs that made European goods more expensive than Yankee goods). Emancipation only became an issue after the War started (and the North wasn’t faring very well at the time).

As for whether succession was legal or not, it all depends on whether you considered the Union to be formed by the STATES or by the PEOPLE. Less than 50 years earlier, the NORTH argued that succession was legal, and could be used if necessary against the dominant policital power of the South. (Google “Hartford Convention” for more information.)

So, like most conflicts, the fault was by no means one-sided, despite what text-book historians would like us to believe.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 30, 2005 10:52 AM
Comment #97112

As for the Israeli-Palestinian debate (which actually belongs in this thread)…

Once again, there are two sides to this debate, and they’re both wrong. :-)

Most of the current problems in the region date back to the British occupation, which ended with the founding of Israel in 1948. In order to create a Jewish homeland, the British uprooted a great many Palestinians and moved them, usually without compensation, from the region. Since then, the Palestinians have been fighting to regain what they see as “their” land, while the Israelis have been fighting to defend “their” land. In the process, both the Palestinians and the Israelis have committed atrocities and human rights violations. The lion’s share have been committed by the Palestinians (in the form of terrorist attacks), but Israel is NOT innocent in this.

Today, Palestinians in the region — even those with no allegiance or ties to terrorists or their supporters — are treated as second-class citizens by the Israeli government. If you are Palestinian, you are guilty until proven innocent. Israel is afraid of a true democracy in the region — for fear that the Jewish population there will be outnumbered — but still wants/needs the land as a buffer to defend against aggressive neighbors. The innocents among the Palestinian people are caught in the middle.

Unfortunately, U.S. involvement tends to make the problem worse, not better. We’re so blindly adamant about defending Israel at all costs that we refuse to acknowledge the wrongs that they commit in the conflict. We’ve used our UN Security Council veto over 20 times against resolutions critical of Israel, even when all other 14 nations on the Council supported the resolution. (And yet we were critical of France for threatening a veto the Iraq resolution when we couldn’t even get 9 votes to support it.) So the Palestinians have had no voice in the government of Israel to represent them, and no international voice that the U.S. doesn’t silence with a veto. No wonder they’re desparate.

Now we’re in Iraq, which we say we’ll be out of in a few years, as soon as we get things straightened out and kick out the terrorists. Once they have an independent government, freely elected, that can run things, we’ll leave. But for how many decades has Israel been occupying the Palestinian territories without serious progress in building a government there? Ask yourself this: Who has more freedom today — the Iraqis or the Palestinians? And why?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 30, 2005 11:26 AM
Comment #97115

“Can you think of anything without “Google”

Yes.

“Leon Uris wrote a historically accurate novel of Israel.”

Wow. I’ve seen some doozies on Watchblog. I’ll have to look through the archives to see if this is the stupidest statement I’ve seen on this site. I’m impressed. Give me some time, because there is a lot of competition over the years. But right out of the gates, this statement ranks. Wow. So much ignorance packed into 9 little words. Quite an achievement!

“It is not their homeland. They left it voluntarily and gave up any claims to it.”

They left before an impending war. Some were forced to leave. Most left thinking the jews would be annihilated. But regardless of why people leave there homes, it does not mean they are leaving on a permanent basis.

If you go grocery shopping, and return to find someone else has moved in, and claims it for their own because you left, does that make sense? The government of Israel made such a declaration when it confiscated Arab property.

Doesn’t matter if they left for good reasons or bad reasons. No government has the right to confiscate property and give it to a different ethnic group. You would have no difficulty agreeing if this involved different governments and ethnic groups, for it has happened many times in the past, with Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and others.

“After the Jews made the swamps and the desert produce food, the lazy Arabs wanted the land back.”

Yeah, we had the same problem with Native Americans here in the US. Lazy indians. They weren’t using the land. We made it into something. Then they have the gall to whine about it. Sheesh.

Posted a month or two ago under a different name, didn’t you Libertarian2? Run along, now. Will look for your posts in another month or two, after you’re over the embarrassment of the current post.

Dave,
The $5 billion number is correct. Check the link I posted earlier. That is a significant number. If 4% or 5% of the US economy somehow disappeared, it would be devastating.

No question, the Arabs did themselves tremendous harm when they dedicated themselves to the destruction of the state of Israel. It made any kind of peaceful, negotiated situation impossible. Had the Arabs/Palestinians used non-violent resistance, they could have achieved what they wanted decades ago, to everyone’s advantage.

Most Americans understand where the Arabs went wrong. But as Kelly’s & Lib’s posts demonstrate, most Americans have seriously skewed ideas about where the Israelis went wrong.

Posted by: phx8 at November 30, 2005 11:48 AM
Comment #97144

phx8;

My source is the CIA World Fact Book.
Your source states the total is $2.6B, you probably added the total and military sub-totals together.
Of your totals nearly all is military grant money. And that is what would impact Israel (unless of course the arabs stopped trying a to implement a new genocide, then who needs the bombs or walls).
In the end, it’s really about 2-3% vs. 110%. The first helping stabilize a parlimentary democracy, the second a dictatorial lunatic asylum.

As far as where the “Israeli’s went wrong”, I think they should have destroyed the arab cities during the first few wars instead of worrying about civilians. That would have left their enemy rebuilding their cities rather than their armies. The hell with the high road, I mean the low road is working so well for Bush afterall…

As for your grocery store analogy, come on. The better analogy is leaving your house waiting to return to take your neighbors farm.

And for turing desert into farmland, the Israelis did it, the arabs have not. I don’t think it’s laziness, I think it’s their failed political and economic systems.

Posted by: Dave at November 30, 2005 12:53 PM
Comment #97200

Dave,
Yes, $5 billion represents a total.

Admittedly the grocery store analogy is weak. I can think of a Civil War one, but probably better not to use it…

You write: “And for turing desert into farmland, the Israelis did it, the arabs have not. I don’t think it’s laziness, I think it’s their failed political and economic systems.”

Yes, the American Indians also suffered from failed political and economic systems. We certainly settle their hash.

Posted by: phx8 at November 30, 2005 2:39 PM
Comment #97223

Rob Cottrell
Where did you live in Arkansas?
I have a sister in West Fork, up in Northwest Arkansas.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 30, 2005 3:32 PM
Comment #97260
Where did you live in Arkansas? I have a sister in West Fork, up in Northwest Arkansas.

Far southeast Arkansas — Monticello, McGehee, Arkansas City, and Hermitage. Pretty much right along the Mississippi River just north of the Louisiana border. One of the most economically depressed areas of this country. You know it’s bad when rural counties all vote Democrat…. ;-)

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 30, 2005 5:44 PM
Comment #97376

phx8,

MAD would work for the religious loons of the Middle East too.

I agree, going MAD is a solution in Middle East, even if it sounds weird ;-)
But, sadly, MAD peacefull effect will be voided as soon as US will break it by using mini-nukes somewhere…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 1, 2005 7:19 AM
Comment #97379

Ron Brown,

Philippe Houdoin

What do you mean by Natural American?
Anyone born here is a Natural American regardless of race.

Sorry, I mean Native Americans, not Natural.

Sorry, God didn’t give this land to the Indians.

Your God, no. Their gods and precedence did.

The only people that he gave any land to was the Israelis.

And look there the mess God(s) did!
ID at work, I guess…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 1, 2005 7:34 AM
Comment #97419

rahdigly,

Remember, the Iranians sole purpose to go Nuclear is to rid the world of Israel; unless, of course, you actually believe the Iranians when they say it’s for Nuclear power, not for Nukes.

No, but I also don’t believe that they only want nukes to use on Israel. Remember, there are several nuclear nations in the world, and only one has ever used them on another nation. No nation is looking forward to nuclear war.

No, I believe Iran wants nukes for the same reason everyone else does — as a deterent to invasion. That way, if Iran tried to exert its power on a neighbor (such as the newly ‘democratic’ countries of Iraq and Afghanistan), countries like the U.S. would be more willing to negotiate with them, and less willing to invade them.

The record shows that the U.S. is not willing to go to war with nuclear powers, because Americans are too afraid of WWIII. We’re cavalier about invading podunk little nations with little to threaten us with, but we won’t start wars that could become nuclear. So, obviously, the easiest way to deter an American invasion is to get nukes.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at December 1, 2005 11:16 AM
Comment #97421

Ron Brown:
God gave Israel to the Jews, huh? So, if God comes to me tonight and tells me that I own all of Georgia, does that give me the right to raise an army, move down there and take it over? And kick out everyone who lives there now? And call them terrorists when they try to get rid of me? According to your logic, it does give me EXACTLY that right.

To you “war of southern independence” folks:
The South so HATED America that they attacked it. They took up arms against it. They killed Americans. You folks are glorifying treason. Why are you so proud of that?

Posted by: ElliottBay at December 1, 2005 11:25 AM
Comment #97424

(one of these days I’ll start using the “Preview” button…)

rahdigly,

Remember, the Iranians sole purpose to go Nuclear is to rid the world of Israel; unless, of course, you actually believe the Iranians when they say it’s for Nuclear power, not for Nukes.

No, but I also don’t believe that they only want nukes to use on Israel. Remember, there are several nuclear nations in the world, and only one has ever used them on another nation. No nation is looking forward to nuclear war.

No, I believe Iran wants nukes for the same reason everyone else does — as a deterent to invasion. That way, if Iran tried to exert its power on a neighbor (such as the newly ‘democratic’ countries of Iraq and Afghanistan), countries like the U.S. would be more willing to negotiate with them, and less willing to invade them.

The record shows that the U.S. is not willing to go to war with nuclear powers, because Americans are too afraid of WWIII. We’re cavalier about invading podunk little nations with little to threaten us with, but we won’t start wars that could become nuclear. So, obviously, the easiest way to deter an American invasion is to get nukes.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at December 1, 2005 11:30 AM
Comment #97432

ElliotBay,

To you “war of southern independence” folks: The South so HATED America that they attacked it. They took up arms against it. They killed Americans. You folks are glorifying treason. Why are you so proud of that?

Are you proud of such treasonous individuals as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Paul Revere, and other Revolutionary War heroes? They, too, took up arms against their country. Why are YOU proud of THAT?

America wasn’t the same country in 1860 that it is today. Loyalty was to one’s State first, and to the Union second. If you asked Robert E. Lee what nation he fought for, he would have answered “Virginia”. In fact, if Virginia hadn’t left the Union, he probably would have ended up leading the Union Army! But he refused to commit treason against his homeland, and so he fought for that land.

Perhaps if he hadn’t had such a “my land, right or wrong” attitude, he would have been more open-minded. But, unfortunately for him, he let his patriotism get in the way. I suggest you be careful in your blind allegiance, lest your fate be the same one day.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at December 1, 2005 12:04 PM
Comment #97447

Rob,

My point was that some of the same people who are excoriating those who disagree with the invasion and occupation of Iraq as unpatriotic are the same ones who are proud of their ancestors for taking up arms against the United States of America. I was sarcastically pointing their double standard.

Posted by: ElliottBay at December 1, 2005 1:12 PM
Comment #97454

ElliottBay

God gave Israel to the Jews, huh? So, if God comes to me tonight and tells me that I own all of Georgia, does that give me the right to raise an army, move down there and take it over? And kick out everyone who lives there now? And call them terrorists when they try to get rid of me? According to your logic, it does give me EXACTLY that right.

If God did it would.

To you “war of southern independence” folks: The South so HATED America that they attacked it. They took up arms against it. They killed Americans. You folks are glorifying treason. Why are you so proud of that?

In 1860 there wasn’t any United States anymore. At least not as far as Southerners were concerned. It was The Confederate States and The Union States.
Also As Rob pointed out the Southerners held loyalty to their states first and to the country second. Accually, most Northerners were the same prior to 1860. If the North had seceeded insted of the South, the Northerners woulld have fought for their states just the same as the Southerners fought for theirs. In fact most did. They weren’t fighting for the union anymore than most Southerners were fighting for the Confederatecy.
But you won’t get any yankees to admitt that now.

When have you ever heard me say that those who disagree with the war in Iraq are unpatriotic?
I disagree with them, but if you’ll read some of my previous post you’ll see I ALWAYS defend the right of someone to disagree with US policy. Hell I disagree with it at times.
O wait a miniute I just figured it out. I disagree with those that are against the Iraq war so I’m calling them unpatriotic. Now I get it! They can disagree with me, but I cann’t disagree with them.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 1, 2005 1:34 PM
Comment #97455

Rob,

I believe Iran wants nukes for the same reason everyone else does — as a deterent to invasion.

So do I. And so does all world leaders.
Recent US foreign policy push some countries to go MAD (Mutual Assurance of Destruction). For good reasons.

I’m not happy that more and more nukes are build. But if it’s the price for a MADness peace, why not… At least nobody die until… all dies.

The next humankind step should be to abandon *all* nukes. Which nuclear country will be the first to make this move? Will the others follow his example or laugh at him?

If you think it’s an utopian step, thinking that a few countries can stop forever many countries to get nukes is as utopian…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 1, 2005 1:35 PM
Comment #97512
The next humankind step should be to abandon *all* nukes. Which nuclear country will be the first to make this move? Will the others follow his example or laugh at him?

Unfortunately, the more realistic approach is to develop a *conventional* weapon that packs the power of a nuke, without all that nasty fallout. Only then will countries abandon their nukes.

And, for the record, this isn’t that unlikely. We already have “bunker buster” bombs that, with conventional technology, produce more powerful blasts than the A-bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Of course, today’s nukes are MUCH more powerful than they were in the old days, but it’s still not out of reach.

The other option is to convince countries to give up *most* of their nukes, and keep only a small stockpile as a security blanket. In fact, I wonder how many *unofficial* nuclear nations there are, that have nukes but don’t advertise it.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at December 1, 2005 3:51 PM
Comment #97538

Hey, Ron Brown! I got this book that says God gave ME that land. So get behind me in my quest to take over that part of the Middle East for me and my family. What? You doubt the veracity of my claim? Why, my whole family believes it to be true. Are you trying to oppress me and deny my religious beliefs? How could you? We’ll just see about that. I’ll get the UN to back me and we’ll come and take over your house and force you to go live somewhere else. Also, I’ll control the government where you live and you won’t have a voice. That’ll teach your infidel ass.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at December 1, 2005 4:46 PM
Comment #97542

Mental Wimp
Then quit yakking and go take it.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 1, 2005 4:57 PM
Comment #97557

Yep, that’s what it comes down to. You got it.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at December 1, 2005 5:34 PM
Comment #97582

Ron,

So the “America - love it or leave it” motto didn’t apply to the confederates, huh? For them “America, love it or try to destroy it” was OK?

Posted by: ElliottBay at December 1, 2005 6:20 PM
Comment #97591

ElliottBay
I’ve tried to explain the thinking at the time of the war. If your yankee brain cann’t process the information then I’m wasting my time.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 1, 2005 6:33 PM
Post a comment