BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: robomatic
Date: 04 Sep 04 - 06:03 PM

I got off a rant on the 'new kind of terror' thread so I'll just say I totally understood what Doug R meant by saying he'd rather fight 'em in Iraq than Phoenix. I think most Americans see it that way in spite of the lack of WMDs.

I also want to say that I do not rate as a Conservative, and I kinda resent the way the Bushies have pasted Kerry into a corner, after all he's the one with the war record. I just hope people in the US aren't as easily sucked in by the pomposity of the RNC Convention. Nevertheless, they put on a good show and are playing hard ball politics well within the American tradition. It ain't pretty but I don't think they're doing anything that hasn't been done by all parties before.

I think Kerry could be plenty tough, but unfortunately the Dem's aren't there yet, by which I mean the Democratic party isn't on the war wagon, or is only partway on. This is a weakness which is probably making Kerry crazy. The Republicans are up there with the biggest flags and loudest war-whoops.

And I have a lot of trouble equating Bush with machismo. I personally see it as bluster, but I guess most people swallow it. Kerry comes off as a pontificator, which has its own problems.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Amos
Date: 04 Sep 04 - 12:51 PM

Dewey:

Ask your higher powers about that. I am pretty sure Bush makes them barf.


A

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Sep 04 - 12:39 PM

guest from NW, I think it all boils down to machismo. Bush has a more macho swagger than Kerry, and in the US, people tend to equate machismo with strong leadership.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 04 Sep 04 - 04:46 AM

"I will still relunctantly vote for BUSH for the good of the security of the country (don't trust the ability of Kerry to
run a war on Terror, and this is a dangerous time for the future of America, here and abroad."

this is a perfect example of what i don't get. how do you compare a guy who has actually led people successfully in combat, held real jobs (prosecuter), served in the legislature for decades and can answer an impromptu question without sounding like a moron to a guy who's a chckenhawk, ducked service, never run a successful business, dodged testimony at the 9/11 hearings until they agreed uncle dick could come along and hold his hand and has arguably done a completely INCOMPETANT job of running the "war on terror" already and come up with the answer that you still have to vote for GWB!

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Dewey
Date: 04 Sep 04 - 02:37 AM

Also sad is the fact that President Bush has little else to run on or talk about other than the War on Terror.

The Country is definitely economically worse off four years after his taking office, Normally a President Gets BOOTED OUT for this!

I will still relunctantly vote for BUSH for the good of the security of the country (don't trust the ability of Kerry to run a war on Terror, and this is a dangerous time for the future of America, here and abroad.

Dewey

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Dewey
Date: 04 Sep 04 - 02:27 AM

Spent and BLEW more money than the Democrats, Sent Our Jobs Overseas! Cheapened the Value Of A U.S. Dollar! Wrecked the GDP of our country for years to come, etc. etc. and under a Republican Adminstration To Boot!

Plus maintained an arrogant attitude in Iraq, and toward others around the world. Not much of a sign of a leader in my handbook!

Wipe the Cocky Grin Off Your Face Mr. President! Your've Divided This Country and Wrecked Our Economy, and worst of all, You've actually made John kerry look like a credible alternative to you!

Dewey (a dis-appointed conservative)

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Sep 04 - 01:18 AM

People who terrorize large numbers of civilians with malice aforethought are committing terrorism.

On that list are: Al Queda, the Chechens, the Tamil Tigers, the Bush administration, the Russian government, Hamas, the Chinese government, Islamic Jihad, and the Israeli government.

And that's just the beginning of the list...

I fear terrorists armed with nuclear missiles, aircraft carriers, tanks, and stealth bombers just as much as I fear those armed with Kalashnikovs and suitcase bombs. More, in fact. They have a far longer reach and they kill far more people...and they own the media and police, mint the money, and collect our taxes.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Terry Allan Hall
Date: 03 Sep 04 - 07:21 PM

Speaking as a "Middle-Of-The-Roader" (neither a Lib nor a Con), I must agree w/ Charley Reese of the Orlando Sentinel...Bu$h is a threat to all of America (and in a very real way, the rest of he world), and it's long past time for his departure...impeachment and imprisonment would be justice, actually.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 03 Sep 04 - 06:45 PM

you can't kill all terrorists. you can't know ahead of time who all terrorists are and pre-emptively kill them. they don't all look alike, think alike , or act alike. to think that these things are possible is a fantasy.

the only way to control terrorism is to gather all the nations facing this threat and work TOGETHER to use all the resources available to accomplish this. nations will not work with people who present them with boneheaded bullying attitudes like "if you ain't with us yer with the terrists!".

a lot of the fighting in iraq right now is being conducted by iraqi people (not "terrorists") who object to the occupation of their "soverign" country.

the main reason conservatives and any one with a lick of common sense should wish for GWBs early retirement is because of his absolute INCOMPETANCY in conducting the war on terror. the fact that he offers that as his strong point and people actually believe it is astounding and a testament to the power of marketing and advertising.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 03 Sep 04 - 06:29 PM

The problem in isolating terrorists is that the political climate in the US has made it possible for them to thrive internationally through such policies as military pre-emption.

This has an effect on what's going on in Russia as well.

The Bush administration is encouraging nations and insurrectionists to be armed to the teeth through the failed Iraq policy. If Bush gets in office, there will be justification on the part of these villains to increase.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 03 Sep 04 - 04:10 PM

Well, it seemed to me, Doug, that your post illustrates your complete misunderstanding of war with terrorists.

Pretty funny.

I don't know if that means we agree or not.

But seriously, folks (folkies?), I don't see how fighting insurrectionists in Iraq keeps terrorists out of the streets in Phoenix. Some terrorists don't come from Iraq and don't care what we're doing there; some are no doubt pleased to have us tied up fighting in Iraq.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: DougR
Date: 03 Sep 04 - 03:37 PM

Uh, Clint, thank you for the kind words.

The fighting that is going on in Iraq is being conducted by terrorists. I don't expect ANY country would try to INVADE the U. S. Your post, it seems to me, illustrates your complete misunderstanding of war with terrorists.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 03 Sep 04 - 01:25 AM

Rant coming.

"I feel secure with all the fighting going on in Iraq instead of the streets of Phoenix."

Forgive me if this sounds like personal insult, but I don't know how else to say it: If you expect me to believe that, you either think I'm stupid or you're stupid yourself.

That is exactly one of those lines "flavoured with redolent, sizzling falsification and penetrating fabrication."

Tell me, please tell me, how the Iraqis could possibly invade the US, much less get as far as Phoenix.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: DougR
Date: 03 Sep 04 - 12:31 AM

Wolfgang: of course Europe is more concerned with the conflict between Palestine and Israel than in the threat that North Korea presents. That's a given. But the sooner we recognize that the threat of terrorism is world-wide the better. North Korea, while not an immediate threat to Germany for example, is a threat to other civilized people. That means that it is a threat to Germany, France, and the rest of Europe. I'm much pissed off that France and Germany does not seem to recognize terrorism as a threat to the whole world. If they did, they would join the U. S. in attempting to eradicate it. Not negotiate with it, that's not possible. It has to be wiped out.

If George Bush is re-elected, the U. S. will, with the help of our allies, do everything possible to eleminate the terrorists before they have an opportunity to attack others.

The situation in Russia is an example of what could happen in any country in the world. The terrorist must be killed before they kill others.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Sep 04 - 12:04 AM

DougR-read Al Franken's book-Lies and The Lying Liars Who Tell Them!

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Sep 04 - 01:17 PM

Doug - We, the Maple Syrup Brigade, the Canadians intent on taking over the USA and utterly destroying all that you hold dear...have not yet worked an attack on Phoenix into our schedule.

It's Scranton we're planning to go after next. Then Schenectady. They are both corrupted bastions of Republicanism.

Phoenix is somewhere way, way down the list I'm sorry to say.

We'll rememer what you said, though, and consider giving Phoenix a higher priority. :-)

(you poor lad, you're living in fantasyland...Phoenix? Fighting in the streets of Phoenix???? Oh...ha! ha! ha! ha! (gasp!) snicker! Oh...God...where ARE those weapons of mass destruction anyway? Darn! Where did I put the Transmogrifier and the Laser-guided Osterizer?)

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 02 Sep 04 - 10:38 AM

Bill D,

don't forget about those Mexican suicide bombers who are always threatening Arizona!

And didn't you see "Red Dawn?"

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 06:36 PM

Phoenix? We were never close to needing to defend Phoenix! Remember, after 9/11, we were expected to react to Osama and view as justified by most of the world. If there had been a Democrat in office, HE would have gone into Afganistan...any president would have.

But not ANY president would have found such a lame pretext for totally stirring up the hornet's nest and changing our image from the 'wronged' to the 'enemy of all Islam'.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: DougR
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 06:25 PM

I sleep like a baby, Amos, because I feel secure with all the fighting going on in Iraq instead of the streets of Phoenix.

Also, it would be appreciated (by me at least) if you would point out the falsifactions and fabrications you so cheerfully accuse the RNC of promoting.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Amos
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 02:40 PM

The problem is that every third line out of the RNC is flavoured with redolent, sizzling falsification and penetrating fabrication. The Bush machine machinates the truth like a pretzel every time it opens its mouth. So they will now put their VP back into his Purple Barney Dinosaur suit and dustoff their over-b;own "Compassion" inflatable sign and wave it around until the cows come home.

I believe this sort of foofarah is fun and games when it is relatively innocent ballyhooing, but when it is orchestrated by Cheny, Wolff and the like is criminal idiocy of the first order. Great speeches are cheap, Doug. In support of the kind of death-mongering your boys have perpetrated, what I wonder is how you sleep after the speeches are over. Or doesn't the smell of warm blood in the hot desert come this far?

A

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: DougR
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 02:19 PM

Perhaps, Lonesome EJ, you are correct when you say Tucker Carlson and George Will have some problems with GWB, but I don't believe you will see either of them beating the drum for John Kerry.

Anybody watch Kerry at the American Legion Convention in Nashville today. I'd say he got a rather tepid reception quite in contrast to the many standing ovations the President received when he addressed the group yesterday. Kerry's efforts to paint himself as "just one of the boys" comes across pretty lame. Funny, but Kerry didn't mention the Swift Boat TV spots even one time during his speech.

John McCain, former NYC mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Laura Bush and California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger made some great speeches already at the RNC in New York City. I can't wait to hear Senator Zell Miller (Democrat) tonight! The VP is scheduled to present a rousing speech tonight too! Tune in to C-Span to hear the most exciting political goings on in a long, long time.

Then tomorrow night tune in to hear GWB tell the nation and the world what he plans to do when he is re-elected in November!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,robomatic
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 12:05 PM

I apologize that I wasn't properly logged in, that GUEST remark above about Halifax and Goliath was robomatic.

I believe another thread with 'Mideast' in the title is developing, so that part of the content of this thread is migrating over there, methinks.

More on Halifax. I love Canada, I love Nova Scotia. I was late for the tour with that period costumed dude. He was remarking that there were almost ten Canadians and only 1 American in the crowd. As I came up I remarked "I'm your second American. We're even, now!" And it's part of why I love Canadians that they smiled, for they all damn well they'd try something like that in reverse next time they visited us.

I've been listening to Maureen Dowd discuss her book: "Bushworld". It's not exactly on topic, since I don't think she's a Conservative. But it might be instructive to read Pat Buchanon's book and Maureens. I just have a lot of trouble buying hard cover books that are topical. In my opinion, topical should be paperback, Hard Cover is for the ages.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 11:11 AM

For further Israel-connected controversy...visit the thread entitled "The Jihad Must Be Stopped"...and enjoy, enjoy, enjoy... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 10:06 AM

Hi, GUEST.

I actually missed the fortress of Halifax on this trip. But I know that it was founded to offset the French power represented by Louisbourg, and only later became a site in the fight against the unruly colonials. In fact, one of the things that pissed the Massachusetts colony off was the founding of Halifax, and the way the Brits handled Louisbourg in general. Massachusetts wanted it to be part of their sphere of influence because it was a major center of both trade and fishing. It would have made Massachusetts easily the most powerful of the colonies. When the British gave Louisbourg back to the French, then destroyed it in a later battle, it really made them mad. In 1745 the British had needed to use Massachusetts troops to take Louisbourg; in 1758 they used British troops based in Halifax. So the existence of Halifax meant that the British army would no longer need to bring in troops from Boston, and Massachusetts was cut out of many lucrative deals. Massachusetts then realized how screwed they were with no representation in Parliament.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 04:09 AM

Cool, Nerd!

I showed up at the fortress at Halifax a few years ago. They had wonderfully period-costumed guides 'splaining the need felt to have such a well armed redoubt against those pesky 'murricans.

LH I seem to recall that Israel was attacked in '48 when it was just aborning, was being attacked by cross boarder raids in '56, and oh, right, three separate Arab countries combined forces to push her into the sea (their language) in '67. That's a lot of bluster!

So by all means blame the winner. An Israeli author named Ephraim Kishon expressed your view as 'sympathy for Goliath.'

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 01:22 AM

By the way, robomatic,

when I said it was "just a European poll" I didn't intend for that to be disparaging toward Europeans! I meant that it was not the opinion of either the writer who was being quoted OR the 'catter doing the quoting, so there was no point making it the central focus of the thread.

In case anyone wonders, I have a great respect for Europeans, speak French quite well and (to relate this to Robomatic's Revolutionary War points) just got back from a trip to the Fortress of Louisbourg and other Acadian sites in Nova Scotia. You won't catch me eating "Freedom Fries"; I prefer pommes frites!

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 01:02 AM

I just requested the change, so let's hold off on any more Israel talk here until that thread is re-titled. I asked for "Middle East Continued" so look for something along those lines.

thanks, all!

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 12:55 AM

Carol,

I'll talk to a joeclone myself. I had a PM from one who already saw the situation, so I'll just have the name changed.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 12:27 AM

If I have your permission, Nerd, I'll see if I can have the title of your thread changed. But I have stated many times that I'm not going to start any threads on the subject of the Middle East.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 11:55 PM

But let's not use this thread to talk about Israel! Although I disagree I will let LH have the last word on Israel if people will let this thread go back to its original topic.

CarolC, don't respond here; begin your own thread if you must respond!

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 11:08 PM

My impression is that while the Arab nations have been great at making florid statements of aggressive intention toward Israel, it is the Israelis that have been the past masters in launching highly effective aggressive attacks upon those Arab countries time and again...and Israel has been the primary aggressor most of the time in actual fact when it comes to real warmaking.

The Arabs bluster, the Israelis attack! And the Israelis take land. And they settle people on it with the intention of occupying it for perpetuity. Sounds like they figure they need "lebensraum" to me...

The only time the Arabs really got it together to make a "pre-emptive" attack on Israel was in 1973.

The rest of the time it's pretty well been Israel right from the getgo. Israel goes wherever it wants to, whenever it wants to, with maximum force. They do what no one else would dare to do (except maybe the USA). They are tremendously skilled at aggression, and at posing as a victim of aggression...a "little guy"...when they are in truth a regionally dominant military power.

Funny how when the other guy does it, though, it's an evil crime, a sneak attack...but when "we" (whoever the "we" is) do it, it's legitimate self-defence. That is self-serving hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 10:47 PM

Thanks robomatic.

I'm still busy (editing a script), so I won't be able to address Nerd's points until tomorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: robomatic
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 10:33 PM

Carol, I'm a proud man to be bookended by your posts!

It's a perceptive point you're making, and while I am not a historical expert I love some of the historical books I've read and some of the great observers of history, and I have serious doubts as to whether history can ever be made 'accurate' to satisfy all parties.

As William Faulkner observed, "The dead past isn't dead - it isn't even past."

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 08:27 PM

Well, it's quite clear that both sides are under the impression they are legitimately defending themselves. That's usually the case in any given conflict.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 08:09 PM

"The Wars of Israel are not a matter of wrong versus right, but a matter of right versus right."

That's an interesting way of looking at it. There certainly was a profound need that was being met by Israel (as well as some other places). Personally, I don't see any need to use history in order to point fingers at one group or another, but to simply understand the reasons for behaviors that, on the surface, don't seem to make any sense. In order to believe the more widely acknowledged historical narratives about the Middle East, we have to believe things about Arabs (or at least Palestinians) that are not necessarily true. And if we believe those things, we can use them to justify doing things to them that maybe we shouldn't be doing. So I think it's very important to make sure that the historical narrative that we are using as the basis for Middle East policies in the US is as accurate as possible.

What I find interesting right now is the different ways that those who have a vested interest in what happens in and to Israel perceive each candidate in relation to their concerns.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: robomatic
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 07:36 PM

I'm surprised no one has brought up Pat Buchanon, who I believe has written a book coming down harshly on the 'neo-cons'.

What I'm not clear about, because I haven't read a lot of this conservative critical works, is are we talking about a severe break. Are these guys advocating voting for Kerry? Is this serious enough to be a break in the Republicans? Because their convention looks pretty damn unified and dare I say, snazzy?

BTW, if you want to take up origin of wars, we can light a nice fire on that ol' chestnut, was the Civil War fought against slavery, or was the War Between the States fought to preserve States' Rights? As far as Israel goes, I have a history book that doesn't agree with Carol's. But it does go so far as to say: "The Wars of Israel are not a matter of wrong versus right, but a matter of right versus right." Which is what makes this subject (and the US Civil War) quite contentious at times, particularly if you have a vested interest.

One other reflection: During the War of US Independence, (or liberation), the common historical view is that about a third of American colonists were pro-revolution, a third were loyal to the Crown, and a third didn't care. There was a huge amount of dispossession and relocation at that time, and one of the results was the beginning of the Anglo - French difficulties in Canada, because until that time almost all the Canadian residents were Francophones, with an English administration.

The point being: Israel resettled the dislocated of other lands, the Arab nations around it did not. We have an inherent imbalance here.

Now my tortured attempt to relate this to the thread title. There seems to be a division in the United States leadership as to how to relate to the mideast in relation to the US special relationship to Israel. The current president is argued to have a special relationship to the Saudi royal family. Is this true? Isn't it remarkable that a conservative American leadership is able to straddle this divide?

As to Europeans taking polls. I guess I'm as willing as any American to believe the worst of Europeans. BUT, without knowing how that poll was structured, what was meant by the word 'danger', in other words, there's not enough information there for me to get all bothered about Europeans. We Americans have produced some pretty flaky polls in our time, and I'm not getting near the subject of
'Freedom Fries'.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 05:59 PM

Since you chose to put my name in the thread title, Nerd, I feel very disinclined to participat in that thread. So I'll put my answers here instead, a little later when I have more time.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 05:50 PM

Look for my response in a new thread, here CarolC, to avoid cluttering this one. Needless to say I don't agree.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 05:33 PM

After all the huffing and puffing from Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. about how Hollywood celebrities know nothing about politics, and should just shut up, I was surprised to see Ron Silver featured so prominently (and Ahhhnold is on the way, although he, like Ronald Reagan, has actually been elected).

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 05:18 PM

CIA Factbook about Israel

Do people in Europe see Israel as a greater threat to peace than North Korea.

Are they? Of course they are. The have fought wars and taken territores from other countries. They are occupying and settling land that is under negotiation. They are treating neighbouring countries as the US cavalry and settlers treated the native Americans.

This is certainly a bigger threat to peace than the current standoff in North Korea.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 04:50 PM

I thought Ed Koch and Ron Silver gave wondersful speeches as Democrats supporting Bush.    I look foward to Zel Miller - democratic senator from Georgia giving the keynote speech supporting Bush.    I also like the democratic mayor from Minnisota coming out for Bush.

I must have missed all the elected republicans coming out for Kerry in the democratic convention.   Maybe they weren't in prime time.

PS- I think the purple heart band aids can be a big seller if they put them on the market.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 04:03 PM

In order to clear up some historical inacuracies in some previous posts in this thread, I am posting this from Simha Flapan, an Israeli historian who played an active role in the 1948 war. According to Flapan, "Arab invasion" was not the reason for the start of that war. Israeli expansionism was the reason for the start of the 1948 war:

http://desip.igc.org/The48ArabInvasionDeconstructed.html

"Flapan divides his book into seven sections, each addressing a myth associated with the birth of Israel. Examining "Myth Five," Flapan argues that it was not the Arab invasion which brought on war, but rather the decision by the Jewish leadership to declare statehood on May 14. Flapan contends that documents show that the "Arabs had agreed to a last minute American proposal for a three-month truce on the condition that Israel temporarily postpone its Declaration of Independence. Israel's provisional government rejected the American proposal by a slim majority of 6 to 4." (p. 9)

Ethnic Cleansing, 1947

The reason the Americans and the international community were alarmed as May 14 approached was that a calamitous communal war had broken out immediately after passage of the U.N. Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947. In the war between the stronger Jewish forces and the less prepared Arab community, parallels can be drawn to the ethnic cleansing that is going on in Bosnia.

Like the Serbs today, the Jewish forces generally did everything they could to force the Palestinians to flee their cities, towns and villages. The Arab flight which numbered 60,000 by the end of March 1948, increased dramatically after April 9, 1948, the date of the infamous Dir Yassin massacre, when Menachem Begin's Irgun (with the tacit complicity of Ben-Gurion's Haganah) slaughtered more than 100 civilians from a "friendly" Arab village near Jerusalem.

News of the massacre, including cases of rape, spread quickly throughout the Arab community and led to the terrified mass flight of civilians in search of safety. Before the middle of May '48 almost 300,000 Palestinians had fled.

Avoiding Repatriation

One reason that Ben-Gurion opted for Statehood on May 14 despite international opposition was because he understood that if he held back and a truce was effected, a new Israeli State might well be forced to repatriate the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians already made refugees. Moreover, by mid-May, there remained more than 500,000 Palestinians in areas that the Jewish forces controlled or desired for their state. Ben-Gurion had no intention of allowing such a large Arab minority to remain in Israel and therefore he chose war. In the end, more than 750,000 Palestinians were exiled forever from their homes.

Flapan also argues that an unprepared Arab nation entered the war reluctantly. The Arab forces were divided politically and, contrary to myth, they were no match for the Jewish forces in numbers either.

Flapan cites figures which indicate that the combined Arab armies totaled no more than 25,000 troops; including 10,000 Egyptian troops, 4,500 Transjordanian troops and perhaps 3,000 troops from Palestine itself, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon respectively. In contrast, all estimates of front-line Jewish troops, united under a single command, put the number at least at 25,000. In addition, some estimates of Jewish forces are as high as 60,000 or 90,000 more if settlement troops, irregular forces and others are counted. (Flapan, p. 196) With these figures in mind, it is easier to see how Ben-Gurion could gamble on a unilateral declaration of the state of Israel on May 14, and war."


Having said that, I agree with Nerd that this thread should not become a thread about Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 08:33 AM

but elephants are such comfy beasts to ride!

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Wolfgang
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 06:14 AM

Most European conservatives would agree - in private.
Please do them that favour.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 05:15 AM

Not on that, but the Wall St. Journal, that well-known leftist rag, last Friday printed another column, by a conservative, stating that it would be better for conservatives if Bush lost. In addition to drawing parallels between Bush and John Major (who presided over a drastic fall in Tory influence), the column also has some great lines--Bush's "fiscal policy has been an orgy of irresponsibility." and:

"If he secures re-election, President Bush can be relied on to press on with a foreign policy based on pre-emptive military force, to ignore the impending fiscal crisis ( on the Cheney principle that "Deficits don't matter") and to pursue socially conservative objectives like the ban on gay marriage. Anyone who thinks this combination will serve to maintain Republican unity is dreaming; it will do the opposite".

Better for Bush to lose--couldn't agree more. Let's see if we can oblige.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 01:54 AM

By the way, I really don't want this to turn into a discussion of Israel, so can we just say that the whole issue was a sideline to the original point? Regardless of whether you think Israel was the agressor or not, as Wolfgang says, it's just a European poll, and does not express the opinion of either Charley Reese or Guest, Frank. Therefore it's not really relevant to this thread, which should be about conservatives turning against Bush. So by all means, if you want to discuss Israel we can do so. But please start another thread.

To get this one back on course, I have heard that the very conservative Lou Dobbs of CNN has also been converted to the anti-Bush side. Does anyone have more information on this?

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 01:38 AM

I disagree, LH. It's easy to say "provocations occurred on both sides, but Israel initiated the full-scale war." All that means is that you decided one of Israel's moves was the start of the war. In fact, by not recognizing Israel, the Arab governments have mostly kept themselves in a perpetual state of war with Israel.

In 1956, Nasser stated outright that he wanted to destroy Israel, took command of the armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan, then blockaded Eilat and Israel's access to the Suez Canal. These last were breaches of treaty and acts of war.

The whole question of Lebanon is irrelevant, because Israel did not annex any territory or claim it for Israel, which is what we were discussing. You wouldn't say that the US expanded its territory by occupying Japan in 1945. So we could argue the merits of that action, but it's not relevant to the size or territory of Israel.

In 1967, Israel did strike first, but after Egypt, Syria and Jordan mobilized their armies and made clear their intentions to attack. Even so, Israel struck only against Egypt; Jordan and Syria then attacked Israel. So the only claim you could make for Israel taking territory through aggression is the Gaza strip, and even that is a stretch.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 12:01 AM

"Each expansion occurred when they had been attacked and defeated their attackers."

Not so. Israel, Great Britain, and France attacked Egypt in 1956, and Israel invaded and occupied the Sinai. Detailed account cut and pasted below:

As part of Egyptian President Nasser's nationalist agenda, he took control of the Suez Canal zone away from the British and French companies which owned it. At the same time, as part of his ongoing struggle with Israel, Egyptian forces blocked the Straits of Tiran, the narrow waterway that is Israel's only outlet to the Red Sea. Israel and Egypt had clashed repeatedly since their 1948 war as Egypt allowed and encouraged groups of Palestinian fighters to attack Israel from Egyptian territory. In response, Israeli forces constantly made cross-border raids in retaliation. Britain and France, both of whom were in the process of losing their centuries-old empires, decided on a strategy straight our of their 19th Century Imperial histories. This plan led to a joint invasion and occupation of the Suez Canal zone by Britain and France. This was meant to reassert control of this vital waterway to the British and French companies stung by Nasser's bold nationalization. At France's suggestion, planning was coordinated with Israel, a fact which all three nations denied for years afterwards.

On October 29, 1956, Israeli troops invaded Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and quickly overcame opposition as they raced for Suez. The next day, Britain and France, following their part of the script, offered to temporarily occupy the Canal Zone and suggested a 10 mile buffer on either side which would separate the Egyptian forces from the Israelis. Nasser of course refused, and on October 31, Egypt was attacked and invaded by the military forces of Britain and France. In response to these developments, the Soviet Union, which at the time was ruthlessly suppressing an anti-Communist uprising in Hungary, threatened to intervene on Egypt's behalf. President Eisenhower of the United States pressured Britain, France and Israel into agreeing to a cease-fire and eventual withdrawal from Egypt. The United States, caught by surprise by the dual invasions, was more concerned with the Soviet war in Hungary and the Cold War than with Britain and France's dealings involving Suez. The last thing President Eisenhower wanted was a wider war over Suez. The war itself lasted for only a week, and invading forces were withdrawn within the month. As a result, Egypt now firmly aligned herself with the Soviet Union, which armed Egypt and other Arab nations for the continuing struggle against Israel.

So, that was an Israeli attack, not an Egyptian attack. (there had been numerous provocations on both sides, but Israel, the UK, and France launched the war) Israel was persuaded to pull out of the occupied Sinai by the USA.

Then in 1967 Israel launched another war, the "Six-Day War", described briefly as: "In a rapid pre-emptive attack, Israel crushed the military forces of Egypt, Jordan and Syria and seized large amounts of land from each. Iraq also participated in the fighting on the Arab side."   

Yes, in '67 it was Israel which launched a devastating surprise attack on its Arab opponents (destroying their air power) and it was in that war that Israel took most of the Arab and Egyptian land that it has since occupied. Israel attacked and the Arabs did NOT defeat their attackers. Jordan lost the west bank, Egypt lost the Sinai, and Syria lost the Golan heights.

Israel also later invaded Lebanon and occupied much of that country for a time.

I make that 3 wars launched by Israel, not upon Israel, all resulting in the occupation of other people's land. (Israelis will claim that there were provocations, and there were...there were plenty of provocations going in BOTH directions on pretty well a fulltime basis. :-) But Israel launched the full scale wars that followed those provocations.)

In 1973 the Egyptians and Syrians launched a surprise attack of their own (having learned a thing or two since '67), and were somewhat more successful than usual...the longterm result was: Egypt was able to arrange a treaty with Israel and get back most of the territory they had lost in the Six-Day War.

For Israelis to perpetuate the absolute myth that they have only been attacked and never been the attacker is rather odd, given this history, but people who can't be bothered to study it may easily believe such a myth.

Read up on the whole sad story at:

"The History Guy - Arab-Israeli Wars"

It is not a site that takes sides on the matter, it's simply a chronological history of the events.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 11:05 PM

Well, I don't want this to devolve into a discussion of Israel. But Israel never planned to expand. Each expansion occurred when they had been attacked and defeated their attackers. It certainly has no plans for expansion now!

I think North Korea would gobble up South Korea if it could, and Iran has many people, both in government and in the clergy, who wish to wage Jihad. That's not to say there's an imminent threat, but both countries may well be powder kegs; certainly moreso than Israel.

But the point of the article again: whether you are conservative or liberal, vote Kerry!

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 09:59 PM

And if Israel won that land in a war, too bad.

How little do you WANT them to be, LEJ?