BS: Bush's Speech II

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 11:58 PM

He's be better advised to start a world wide whispering campaign to promote the notion that separating church from state could save Islam from the capitalist influences of the West!!

Then they could get busy cleaning up their infrastructure and economy and have enough opportunity that terrorism would no longer appear attractive.

For all the religous overlays, these fights are, as always, about money, acclaim, admiration, peer approval, power, and getting laid.

The religous overlays just act as a sort of lubricant or justification. The commodity exchange is "We'll give you all the rationalizations and pre-packaged thoughts you need, so you won't have to think for yourself. That way you can never be wrong! In exchange, you give us total power over your lives. Deal????"

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 09:38 PM

This thread points the necessity of preserving the secular aspect of the Constitution...the separation of church and state. We see the need for this now when the Taliban represents the religious fervor in the extreme.

Religion must be separated from the religious experience as Jung has pointed out. We have an inalienable right to a religious experience but no right to cram our religious beliefs down another's throat. This is what wars are made of and the truth that the Taliban forces us to see.

Fortunately we are not just a Christian, or a Jewish, or a Hindu or Muslim nation....regardless of what some would have us believe. Those who believe otherwise are as the Taliban, theocrats who alienate all others who do not believe their way.

Yet we are entitled to our worship as Americans as long as we keep separate our government from any theocracy. Thomas Jefferson recognized this. That's why he was a Unitarian. They believe in separation of church and state.

The Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, extremist Shi'ites, Sunnis or those who advocate violence in the name of God as well as our own theocrats are antithetical to every American ideal.

This is a conflict over religion. The basis of almost every war. In Germany, Nazism was a kind of religion. It employed violence directed at a different religious group. The Irish "troubles" are about religion. Communisim as practiced under Stalin assumed a guise of religion and employed violence toward religous groups as they do today in China.

Mr. Bush should be very careful about trying to theocratize the government by too many "Christian" references.

In short, God bless the separation of church and state. Amen.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: kendall
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 01:02 PM

I've heard a few Canadians complail about the health care, but, try and take it away! Is it really that expensive when compared to the cost here?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: GUEST,Greenspan
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 12:58 PM

I wouldn't be to hasty to call Canadian health care free considering how badly you get reamed with taxes to pay for said health care.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: kendall
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 11:13 AM

GOOD

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 11:04 AM

This thread seems to have reached terminal degradation with prejudice.

So I am not starting a Part III!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: kendall
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 08:22 AM

Now Doug! Do you know why politicians never use bookmarks?

They prefer to have their pages bent over.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: flattop
Date: 01 Oct 01 - 11:33 PM

Are those Canadians whining again?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: DougR
Date: 30 Sep 01 - 09:53 PM

Some of 'em might even bend over, eh, Kendall? :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: kendall
Date: 30 Sep 01 - 09:46 PM

Politicians will stoop to anything to get their man elected.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Sep 01 - 07:07 PM

kendall - I find that hard to believe! Who would say nasty things about Canucks??? Who would stoop so low!!! The only thing wrong with us Canucks, who are an inoffensive people by nature, is that we keep forgetting to sweep out the entrances to our igloos. Oh, and our mounted police sing dreadful operatic pop songs to girls named Nell when they should be patrolling the border for Muslim terrorists...

And we've got mostly free medical care. (Buncha damn commies, if you ask me!) :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: DougR
Date: 30 Sep 01 - 06:26 PM

Hilarous, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Amos
Date: 30 Sep 01 - 06:04 PM

Here is a different point of view on Bush's speech. A real crackup.

Regards,

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: kendall
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 09:10 PM

How about the "Canuk" letter? One of the boys in Nixons' dirty tricks dept. sent a letter around with Muskies' logo saying things not nice about "Canucks"

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: kendall
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 09:07 PM

So, you dont remember the "happy warrior" one? I'm not surprised!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: DougR
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 02:23 PM

Pardon, Kendall, but I think you may be a bit confused (no offense).

That ad depicted a sweet little girl picking daisies in a field and suddenly in the back ground there was an illustration of an atomic bomb explosion.

That was an ad Lyndon Johnson's folks ran on TV warning Americans that Barry Goldwater would use the Atomic bomb if elected.

That was one of the dirtiest, but most effecitve TV political ads in television history.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 01:55 PM

Meanwhile, pink tuutuus to the right, yellow chiffon tuutuus to the left, and bunny-lovers muster amidships!! Sheesh.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 01:46 PM

Part of bin Laden's Fatwa is the mission to replace Western governments with Muslim governments.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: SharonA
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 01:27 PM

I haven't gotten the impression that the al Quaida is interested in converting the world, but just in eliminating everything they don't believe in and everyone who doesn't believe what they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 10:40 AM

Whether popular or not, the al Quaida form of Islam is essentially a cult, in the worst sense of the word, using the forms and selected beliefs of Mohammed to support anti-social, non-cooperative attitudes. The vast majority of the Islam world seek survival and a modicum of brotherhood in the world. This fundamentalist minority seeks the transformation of the world into its own image by force.

And the funny thing is that if the divested the secular obsessions from the religous and metaphysical principles, they could stand a much better chance of converting the world. An anti-humanitarian religion founded on the heavyhanded constraint of human accomplishment and individuality starts the footrace out by shooting itself in the foot.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 10:39 AM

In your guts you know he's nuts: but he sure was colorful. HE was the only politician to make a concerted effort to clarify the UFO question as well. After that he lost all trustworthiness of the secret branches of the government. After all, if he told the truth of how unknowledgable we really are what else would he blab.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Skeptic
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 10:21 AM

Whatever happened to the Birchers anyhow?

troll

They are alive and well and here: The John Birch Society

if I did the blicky thing right

You can even join but after looking around a little I think you'd find them a mite liberal. ;-)

Hope the gig goes well. (I know its out of character but this is my "one nice thing a week" I promised momma I'd do.)

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Troll
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 09:47 AM

Remember the one put up by the John Birch Society?
"Save Our Republic! Impeach Earl Warren!"
Whatever happened to the Birchers anyhow?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: kendall
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 09:15 AM

All true. I'm sure the Democrat party did that billboard thing. There used to be a lot of that, remember the one the Republicans came up with? Hubert Humphrey grinning like a dog eating bumble bees with an atomic explosion in the background?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 12:58 AM

Actually Kendall, that was a rip of his campaign slogan which was then "tailed" with the second.....To be correct here as I know you want to be:

"In your heart you know he's right,
But in your guts, you know he's nuts."

I also liked, "In your heart you know he's right....Far Right!"

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: DougR
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 12:24 AM

Geeze, Kendall, those billboards must have been paid for the by the Democratic party. I did't see any out west! And YOU were a Barry Goldwater supporter? The billboards must not have meant much to you THEN.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Troll
Date: 28 Sep 01 - 10:41 PM

How about the one on Jimmy Carter: "In his heart he knows your wife."

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: kendall
Date: 28 Sep 01 - 09:42 PM

Does anyone remember how Barry Goldwater used to keep sticking his foot into his mouth? He was always explaining what he meant. Thats maybe why they had those billboards that said IN YOUR HEART YOU KNOW HE'S NUTS.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Skeptic
Date: 28 Sep 01 - 09:08 PM

Interesting take on the speech from the 9/26 Jersusalem Post

Jerusalem Post - Wednesday September 26, 2001

What Bush got right - and wrong By Daniel Pipes

(September 26) - In his speech defining American policy on September 20, President George W. Bush explained what he meant by declaring "war on terror" and told the American people what it will mean to them. Overall, it was a strong presentation, with some parts exactly right, but it also contains errors that urgently require fixing.

Let's start with five good points:

* The enemy's goal: It's "not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life."

That involves "remaking the world - and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere." The president shows no illusions that al-Qaida's problem is American freedoms or United States policy in the Middle East, but something far more ambitious - the very existence of the US in its present form. As he put it, "In Afghanistan, we see al-Qaida's vision for the world," one which applies no less to New York than to Kabul.

* The enemy's nature: It is the heir "of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century... they follow in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism." (What happened to Communism, though? Omitted so as not to offend China?)

* The enemy's method: Individuals from more than 60 countries are recruited, taken mainly to Afghanistan, trained, then sent to "hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction."

* The enemy's brutality: Its leadership "commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women and children."

* Defining the problem: The airline hijackings on September 11 constituted an "act of war." They were not crimes, but part of a concerted military effort by al-Qaida, "a radical network of terrorists," and the governments supporting it.

But the president also got five matters wrong:

* The enemy's identity: He avoids calling America's opponent by its name - militant Islam - preferring euphemisms such as "terrorist group[s] of global reach." Two problems here: Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy; and not explicitly defining the enemy leads to confusion and dissension.

* The enemy's location: The address dealt only with foreign threats ("drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest," "pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism"), ignoring the more delicate but equally vital US domestic angle.

The new "Office of Homeland Security" has not just to protect Americans from foreign attack but extirpate the enemy within US borders.

* The enemy's appeal: The president dismissed al-Qaida's version of Islam as a repudiated "fringe form of Islamic extremism."

Hardly. Muslims on the streets of many places - Pakistan and Gaza, in particular - are fervently rallying to the defense of al-Qaida's vision of Islam. Likewise, the president's calling the terrorists "traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam" implies that other Muslims see them as apostates, which is simply wrong.

Al-Qaida enjoys wide popularity; the very best the US government can hope for is a measure of Muslim neutrality and apathy.

* US goals: These are inconsistent. "Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al-Qaida who hide in your land" implies that were the Afghan authorities to hand over a few individuals, the war effort would end, with no further concern about militant Islam. Contrarily, saying that the war effort will continue until "every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated" implies an ambitious effort against the forces of militant Islam. This contradiction contains the seeds of future problems. Bush needs to clarify that the latter is his real goal.

* US foreign policy: "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This unrealistic bifurcation will not work in the real world of messy and competing interests. Preventing terrorism may seem like the only priority this week but it's not likely to maintain such total paramountcy for long, and making policy on this basis will lead to problems.

In short, while the president showed an excellent understanding of militant Islam - calling it totalitarian was especially important - he shied away from specifying it as the enemy and made unrealistic statements about the nature of the struggle ahead. These mistakes need urgently to be fixed, before they do damage.

(The writer, director of the Middle East Forum and former professor of strategy at the US Naval War College, can be reached via www.DanielPipes.org.)

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Amos
Date: 28 Sep 01 - 04:33 AM

I knew that performance was too good to last....

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Troll
Date: 27 Sep 01 - 10:40 PM

Presumably he meant"help the United States win this war,which the terrorists are waging against freedom.
But I see what you mean. It's about as bad as the Newspaper whose headline read -at the death of a prominent socialite- GONE TO HER LAST ROASTING PLACE. Regardless of what he MEANT this is what he said.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Sep 01 - 06:47 PM

OK, gang- I don't know WHAT happened with that last post.Supposed to read as follows:

Ahhh...I see, Amos. It IS easy once you know the secret.

Actually, Dubya clarified things himself in today's speech in Chicago. I just saw and heard him on the TV news asking the other countries of the world to help the United States "win this war against freedom".

No joke. I couldn't make this up.

Despairingly, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Sep 01 - 06:42 PM

Ahhh...I see, Amos.
"win this war against freedom".
No joke. I couldn't make this up.

Dispairingly, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: InOBU
Date: 27 Sep 01 - 04:59 PM

I gotta run, but I can already hear the flames being kindled for the Flaming of Larry! Salude!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: InOBU
Date: 27 Sep 01 - 04:58 PM

Hiya gang... This was such a long thread, and I have to get ready for a rehersal, so if this has been said, forgive me, but it seems rather obvious. We seem to be adopting the Israli modle of hit back harder than you were hit, and well, I suppose that is a good idea if you want NYC to be as safe as Hebron. Let's face it all the internal security and military responce does not seem to have stoped terror in Israel. Maybe, being the clever nation we are, we can think of a better way. And, as we tell the world that we are the only nation with good govenment and liberty, don't you think we are intelligent enough to come up with a solution, like getting rid of anonimous banking. Bush says uncover Ben Ladin's bucks, I say, get rid of the banking practices that make criminals able to hide their money, of course with the Bush brothers unique banking and investment history, that idea may not be worth the loss of well... six thousand lives?
Cheers Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Amos
Date: 27 Sep 01 - 04:18 PM

Greg:

You need the secret decoder mantra: being in Bush's hands is worth two times more than being given the bird...

Once you use that as the decryption key, the rest becomes magically clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Sep 01 - 01:58 PM

If you MISunderestimate something, does that mean you OVERestimate it? Need a little help here...

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 27 Sep 01 - 12:59 PM

This is the first time I've been back to visit the Mudcat since before the September 11th attack. So I hope nobody minds if I respond to the original topic of this thread, and ignore much of the discussion that has followed.

I voted for Gore in the last election, and was disappointed when Bush won (the way he won didn't help). I consoled myself by remembering that some of our greatest Presidents -- including Lincoln and FDR -- were not highly regarded when they took office. But I did not have high hopes for this one.

However, in the last two weeks I believe that the President's performance, including his speech before Congress last week, has been exemplary. He has articulated what happened, why it happened, and what we can and should do about it, with great clarity and vision. No, he has not spelled out every detail of our response to this act, nor should he do so; in warfare, particularly modern warfare, it is unwise to reveal too much about your strategy and tactics to your opponent. But he has said that we will respond with every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic initiatives, financial mechanisms, and military force. He has also made it clear that our response will not consist of, or be limited to, a quick military assault designed to satisfy a momentary hunger for vengeance; rather, it will be a carefully coordinated effort by ourselves and our allies to destroy both the leadership and the foundations of terrorist organizations. While the goal of eliminating terrorism entirely is probably not achievable, we will strive to weaken, disrupt, and destroy as much of the terrorist apparatus as we can. I think this is a worthy objective, and that there is much we can do to make the world a safer and saner place.

Anyone who imagines that we can do this without any engagement of our military forces is naive. American planes dropping loaves of bread on starving Afghanistan is a fine and poetic image, and if that's part of what we do, I certainly don't object; in fact, it is becoming increasingly apparent that providing substantial additional aid to South Asia will be a big part of our plan. Understanding the roots of people's frustrations and anger at the USA is also important, and I believe we must be prepared to reexamine the effects our foreign policy has on other peoples; this reexamination is underway, and I believe that our government understands very well the dangers of focusing on military might while ignoring all of the complexities of the world in which we live. But sympathy and understanding will not be enough to deter terrorists or prevent future tragedies like this one. The United States has been viciously attacked, and thousands of innocent civilians have been killed in the blink of an eye by people who won't even admit or explain their actions. The war has been brought to us, and we must respond vigorously.

I don't fault the President for surrounding himself with capable people; I commend him for it. The alternative would be to stoke his ego and/or enhance his public image by surrounding himself with lesser lights, in the hopes that he would shine brighter by comparison. Similarly, I believe that, whether or not he wrote the speech he delivered to Congress last week, it was his message, and it was clear to me that he was speaking from the heart. In my opinion this was one of the greatest political speeches of our times; the situation called for it, and he rose to the occasion.

Whether we like it or not, the United States is the most powerful nation on earth. We cannot and should not insist that the rest of the world make itself over in our image, and we have erred in the past when we have tried to do just that. But we can and must accept the challenge that has been presented to us, and try to lead our own country and the rest of the world out of the dark place that we now find ourselves in. I pray that we are up to the task, and I am grateful for the intelligent, compassionate, and determined way that our President has tried to show us all how to take the first steps.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Amos
Date: 27 Sep 01 - 10:10 AM

The Washington Post is making more of an effort to return to normalcy. The paper includes this quotation from Bush:

"The folks who conducted to act on our country on September 11th made a big mistake....They underestimated America. They underestimated our resolve, our determination, our love for freedom. They misunderestimated the fact that we love a neighbor in need. They misunderestimated the compassion of our country. I think they misunderestimated the will and determination of the commander in chief, too."

But not his literacy level, eh? No misunderestimationmabobbing on that score.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Sep 01 - 09:48 AM

Thanks , and apologies. I did not even know what *G* meant. Your suggestion could work but maight be as difficult as a one world religioan "HELAMIAN" *G*

I received many derogatory posts as of late. The normal rules of civility are a kindness that is appreciated by all. There has been a little voice in the background noise that says "be careful what you say in these heated times". It pracitally feels like a threat to free speech from within.

The little voice I was referring to is the one that only just recently warns that words of peace and understanding will be ferociously attacked. You have seen it everywhere lately. Responses to words of peace recently beget words like; wussies, cowardly pacifists, misguided, unpatriotic and thinly veiled death threats.

If I may resort to hyperbole , When you are questioning if it is safe to speak , freedom of speech is dying within you. If you feel powerless to engage in action , freedom is dying all around you.

Although I have never advocated a do nothing policy, in fact quite the opposite, some have reacted with unrestrained hostility to the very concept of reason. Case in point; I posted the very words * "we must seek a peaceful resolution lest we spiral into an ever deeper spiral of hate and war". These words were met by a barrage of hate and anger. * By a quirk of fate the Pope uttered these very words the next day.

Kahlil Gibran wrote "of what can I speak that does not already move in your own heart?" If peace and understanding are moving in the hearts of some people's hearts today, it is withered and suffering an infection of hate. You see my words are not directed solely at ourselves (the perceived victims) but the aggressors (the perceived killers) as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Troll
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 11:30 PM

Don, I don't have any idea what you are talking about. The bit about being wrong in public was meant as humor and was followed by a "G" in parentheses which is Forum shorthand for "grin". If you took it otherwise, I apologize. I don't feel that any reconciliation is needed since I disagree with just about everybody at one time or another. By and Large, I don't take it personally.In fact I seem to remember posting a congratulatory message to you and CarolC at one point.
If bin Laden publishes more, and no one else posts it, I most certainly will.
As for draconian final solutions, I don't see anything that I have suggested as draconian
Nuke 'em all and let God sort 'em out; THATS draconian.
The major reason that men like bin Laden have it in for Israel -and us, due to our support of them- revolves around the control of the Holy Places in Jerusalem. They fear that they will not be allowed to go there freely to worship and that the site will be damaged, defiled, or even destroyed.
In fact since the Dome of the Rock is situated on the site where Solomans Temple stood, the restoration of the temple is necessary before the Messiah will come, and there are groups in Israel who have already tried to lay a cornerstone, the fear of destruction is not unfounded.
Declaring Jerusalem an international city under UN governance would neatly solve a host of problems.
Since no side would agree to such a thing, the best way to accomplish the deed, in my mind, is to seize the day and do it.
This, coupled with a pull-out from Saudi Arabia would remove bin Ladens main recruiting and fund raising tool.
I really don't see how that's draconian, but not everyone sees things the same way.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: kendall
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 10:13 PM

Didn't Arafat recently say that Israel has the right to exist? Also, many Arabs live on barren land. The Bedoins of North Africa for instance. Here again, they dont think like we do!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: DougR
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 10:12 PM

Aye, troll, there's the rub.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Amos
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 09:57 PM

The threads of the Israel-Palestine situation go a lot deeper than just the US being bad because they support Israel and Israel took all that land awqay.

For one thing, a great deal of the land from which Israel was initially built was sold by Palestinians, in deals negotiated by the British using funds provided by the Rothschild banking family in an effort to solve the eternal problem of homelessness for a whole people.

Second of all, another great deal of the land that has been occupied by Israel since then has been won in war. That is not a nice thing, but it is historically recognized.

Third of all the land acquired to build Israel on was largely barren, fruitless, and unirrrigated and un-arable. The sweat and industry and engineering needed to make it arable, or build infrastructure, was undertaken by the new tenants who took occupancy under a lawful agreement. So demanding it back without offering fair compensation for the improvements is a bit off,. too.

At least that's how I remember the story. I am open to correction if my facts are wrong. I recognize that the situation of Palestinians caught up in the games of nations ha sbeen awful, unthinkable, and harsh, and I think it should be rectified by peaceful and productive means. But I think we should stick to whatever facts we can find in evaluating the Middle East's bizarre dynamics.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 09:32 PM

Thats OK troll I know you have decided your mind is made up without the bothersome ritual of actually reading a post. There seems to be no reconcilliation since I disagreed with you once. Just go ahead and post some more 'The best of Loony Bin Laden' tracts or some draconian final solution of your own. ;-)

But seriously with all due respect and without sarcasm, Could you explain to a poor ol country boy like myself how your policy of peace in the mid east/Jerusalem works ?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Troll
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 09:24 PM

Paul, you are quite correct. The Jewish population of the US is very active politicaly, especially where Israel is concerned. Various groups and congregations raise millions of dollars for Israel each year and they exert a lot of pressure on our Govt. to keep support for Israel at a high level.
It's a lot like people who send money to Ireland (NOT for the IRA) to "help out" , or Turks in Germany who send money home to Turkey.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 09:15 PM

Not for the 1st time, Amos, I find myself in agreement with everything you have said

Regarding Israel, I think the British were instrumental in setting it up...though possibly only because we had 'governance' of much of that part of the World at the time.

It has to be said that I think the perception of the US's involvement with Israel in the present/recent past, at least in the UK, is that its due to the understandably very important Jewish Vote in the States?

(& I hope thats not seen as any kind of a criticism, or offensive to anyone..its just my own personal assessment of how those understandably close ties seem to be viewed by a lot of people over here in Britain)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Troll
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 08:40 PM

Donuel: I'm with Doug and I will defend your right to be publicly wrong! (BG) Kendall, we have a very large and politically active Jewish population, hence massive support for Israel. And who said you were anti-semitic?
Don't they know that Liberals can't be anti-semitic? It says so right inthe handbook.
Page 32.
Doug, re: Jerusalem, I wasn't thinking of asking both sides if it would be ok with them. Just DO IT! Fait Accompli. Here it is and these are the new rules. Cause trouble and you are out of here and you can't come back.
You want to worship here, fine. But the first hint of trouble...

troll ***How are they to accomplish this? How the hell should Iknow.***

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: DougR
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 08:03 PM

Who did, Kendall? Donuel: no, I agree with you. I don't think "administration" would do that. And no one else has the right to!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: kendall
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 06:37 PM

That was the point I was going to make, the modern state of Israel was created by the United Nations. Why do we carry 90% of the load to protect them? And dont you dare accuse me of being anti-semite!