|
29 Mar 02 - 03:54 PM (#678998) Subject: Bush as a World Leader From: Tweed Is this an oxymoron? In light of today's extreme events in Israel, shouldn't we be hearing something from our prez? Are there no better equipped diplomats in the right wing arsenal besides Dick Cheney? What did he manage to do while over there last week anyhow? Almost as if he took a briefcase full of arms contracts and got everybody to sign up for new stuff to try out on one another. Are we just plain morons for allowing this man "W" to lead the United States of America? Where is he now, out hiding easter eggs on the ranch from himself? Sorry to go out on a rant. I'm just continually amazed by the way things are turning out these days... |
|
29 Mar 02 - 04:00 PM (#679004) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: Little Hawk He wasn't elected by the World...nor has he yet succeeded in conquering all of it (keep your fingers crossed on that one). Therefore, I submit, he is not a "world leader". - LH |
|
29 Mar 02 - 04:07 PM (#679009) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: SharonA I know what you mean, Tweed. The only reason I'd want to stand behind Bush is to smack him upside the head.... not that that would "larn 'im" anything.... Oh, well, it could be worse: he could've choked to death on that pretzel and Cheney could've become the World Leader.... |
|
29 Mar 02 - 04:20 PM (#679016) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: SharonA According to ABC News, "...the United States has withheld comment on the [Israeli] attack [on Arafat's compound], saying it was 'assessing appropriate responses to events in the region.' " I take this to mean that the speechwriters haven't finished writing a statement for Bush to read, to save Bush from saying something stupid extemporaneously. |
|
29 Mar 02 - 04:27 PM (#679020) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: katlaughing Here's what Colin Powell has to say: A text of Secretary of State Colin Powell's briefing on Friday, as transcribed by eMediaMillWorks Inc.: Well, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The president and his national security team have been following the very serious situation in the Middle East since last night. Early this morning, we began a National Security Council meeting which included the president via television remote, as well as the vice president, the secretary of defense, myself of course, the director of central intelligence, Mr. Tenet, national security adviser Rice and chief of staff Andy Card. Last night also I was in a conference call with the president and Dr. Rice to review the situation, and immediately after talking to the president I also had the opportunity to talk to Prime Minister Sharon, who was in the middle of a cabinet meeting, as you know, in Israel. In that conversation with Prime Minister Sharon, he advised me that the cabinet was meeting to decide what action the Israeli government should take in response to the recent spate of terror incidents, and he also advised me that whatever actions they might decide to take, it would not include bringing any harm to Chairman Arafat or killing him, and subsequent statements by Israeli officials suggest that it is not their intention either to capture him. They have determined to isolate him, and as you know, Israeli Defense Forces are now operating in Ramallah, and there has been a significant call-up of Israeli Defense Forces. I have a call in to Chairman Arafat and hope I will have a chance to reach him right after this press conference. General Zinni remains in the region, and he and our diplomatic representatives in the region are in touch with both Israeli and Palestinian officials. General Zinni did speak to Chairman Arafat earlier today. Once again, terrorism, terrorism that targets innocent civilians, have dealt a serious blow to the effort to achieve a cease-fire and to find a political solution to the crisis in the Middle East. Once again, terrorists have set back the vision of the Palestinian people for a state that would live in peace, side by side with Israel. The United States condemns these acts of terror and those responsible for them. In recent weeks, there was cause for some guarded optimism. As you know, beginning last fall, the president put down his vision at the United Nations for a Palestinian state living side by side in peace with a Jewish state, Israel. We also saw positive reaction to the speech that I gave in Louisville. And then just a couple of weeks ago, the United Nations passed an important Security Council resolution introduced by the United States, and went through the Security Council in a record period of time with a vote of 14-0 and only one abstention, Syria, calling for a state for the Palestinian people. The Arab summit in Beirut earlier this week, while it did not provide a complete solution, it laid out a vision, a bold vision, what was put forward by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, and it was embraced by all of the Arab nations. Prime Minister Sharon, in recent weeks, showed a great deal of flexibility with respect to conditions he had previously held to, with respect to what it would take to get into the Tenet work plan. From what I am reading and hearing, I'd like to quote our own ljc and "fuck aw!" We should be in the streets demanding that the entire Bush regime be ousted. |
|
29 Mar 02 - 04:45 PM (#679032) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: Amergin i thought this was going to be another joke thread..... |
|
29 Mar 02 - 04:54 PM (#679036) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: SharonA Nope, 's no joke. Arafat has made a statement, too (quoting from CNN): " 'They either want to kill me, or capture me, or expel me,' Arafat said, speaking by telephone to Al Jazeera television from his Ramallah headquarters. 'I hope I will be a martyr in the Holy Land. I have chosen this path and if I fall, one day a Palestinian child will raise the Palestinian flag above our mosques and churches.' Arafat also said no one in the Arab world would 'surrender or bow' to Israel and warned that 'to Palestine, millions of martyrs will flow.' " ...or should I not have posted that, since we're supposed to ignore flamers? |
|
29 Mar 02 - 05:11 PM (#679039) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: Lonesome EJ So are we saying that the situation would be better if Bush were to be directly involved? Somehow I don't think so. So who should be negotiating an agreement? Jimmy Carter? William Cohen? Jessie Jackson? And what, other than an immediate cease-fire, should be the objective? Restoration of the pre-67 borders? That's what it will take to get Arab recognition of the Israeli "right-to-exist". |
|
29 Mar 02 - 05:12 PM (#679040) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: MarkS Wonder if posters could give an opinion of just what would be an appropriate course of action for the Bush administration to take vis a vis the situation in the Middle East? Maybe some good ideas could trickle down to Washington. Or maybe not! But some good suggestions here might make an interesting thread. Mark |
|
29 Mar 02 - 05:13 PM (#679042) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: Lonesome EJ Looks as though we're on the same wavelength, Mark. |
|
29 Mar 02 - 05:20 PM (#679045) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: JedMarum Palestinians will succeed in killing off Isreal - or the Israel will kill all the Palestinians. When there is a victor there will be peace. Not until. Israelies bought up land and took land then populated it with tens of millions of Europeans, displacing the large population that used to live there - then they wonder why the Palestinians got pissed. The Palestinians never had a government, fought back through terrorist activities - today they ruthlessly sacrifice their youth on suicide missions to kill non-combatants and wonder why the Israelies retaliate. F*ck 'em. Let 'em kill each other off. When they're finished we'll talk to whoever is standing! |
|
29 Mar 02 - 05:24 PM (#679051) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: CarolC Could someone explain to me what the objection is to restoring the pre-67 borders? |
|
29 Mar 02 - 05:31 PM (#679055) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: JedMarum Carol - that is the best idea yet. Problem is, no one is talking to anyone ... the hate and the war are raging and will NOT stop soon. The devil will be in the details; exactly what are the borders, how are shared lands ruled, who controls which side of the steets, who polices the the new rules ... these details can't be worked out while blood is still fresh in the streets ... streets of both. |
|
29 Mar 02 - 05:35 PM (#679059) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: CarolC This situation reminds me of that movie called "The War of the Roses" with Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas. The futility of the whole thing astonishes me. |
|
29 Mar 02 - 05:50 PM (#679067) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: Lonesome EJ See this link for an informative collection of maps of Israel from '47 til today. click. |
|
29 Mar 02 - 06:04 PM (#679073) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: katlaughing LeeJ, good questions. IMO, any of those you listed would probably do a better job than those of the current regime of warmongers. I had a real spark of hope, a few days ago, when I heard the proposal for the pre-67 borders. I cannot believe the futility of what continues. kat |
|
29 Mar 02 - 06:25 PM (#679085) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: artbrooks Carol, those were never borders in the first place. All of the neighboring Arab countries invaded Israel within 24 hours of the UN's declaration of Israel as a state. The 1967 "border" is actually the cease-fire line that was established after they nearly finished Mr. Hitler's job for him. They aren't exactly defendable against anything. For example, Tel Aviv International Airport sits almost on top of it, and there was originally only an eight-mile-wide corridor between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Artillery or rockets on the Golan Heights would (and did) threaten Israeli towns all around the Sea of Galilee. The Old City of Jerusalem was on the Jordanian side of the border, and Jews weren't allowed to worship at the site of the Temple Mount between 1949 and 1967. I don't know if there is a solution. My personal favorite is to pull all of the Israeli settlers and the Israeli military out of the West Bank and Gaza, set up fortified borders, and let the Palestinians have their state... without the jobs that they were commuting to in Israel before the current troubles. The question of the Palestinian refugees will have to be addressed, but a little known fact is that more Jews left the countries in the Middle East for Israel (often lucky to keep the clothes on their backs) than Palestinians left what is now Israel...and none of these people are in refugee camps. Mr. Bush isn't very high on my "greatest presidents" list...and Mr. Sharon is somewhat lower, but none of their predecesors had any luck in solving this either. |
|
29 Mar 02 - 06:32 PM (#679089) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: CarolC Thanks, artbrooks. Perhaps you can answer another question I've been wondering about. Do you have any idea why the Arab countries surrounding Israel are/were not willing to take in the Palestinian refugees? |
|
29 Mar 02 - 06:34 PM (#679092) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: GUEST,guest I thought you were talking about Sam Bush. |
|
29 Mar 02 - 06:41 PM (#679099) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: artbrooks Nobody is ever going to say this, of course, but they certainly get more sympathy living in refugee camps (which have a lot more concrete buildings than they have tents) then they ever would if they had been absorbed into the population 50 years ago, as the Jewish refugees in israel were. |
|
29 Mar 02 - 06:49 PM (#679103) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: DougR I predicted in a similar thread weeks ago that the unrest at that time would lead to full scale war between Israel and the Palestinians . I still believe that is what will happen. Whoever wins the war will dictate the terms of peace just has been the case in every other conflict I can recall. Then, perhaps, there will be peace in that region. As to the original question. Yes, Bush is a world leader. Had Gore won, he would be a world leader. Were Bill Clinton still president, he would be a world leader. If OBU was president, HE would be a world leader. The point is, whoever the president of the United States is, he/she will be a world leader. The effectiveness of leadership is an entirely different question. DougR |
|
29 Mar 02 - 06:52 PM (#679106) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: CarolC Are you saying that garnering sympathy for the Palestinian cause was the reason that the governments of the Arab states in question wouldn't take the refugees in? |
|
29 Mar 02 - 06:52 PM (#679107) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: CarolC My last is to artbrooks. |
|
29 Mar 02 - 07:09 PM (#679119) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: artbrooks Yes, Carol, that's what I'm saying...and its not an uncommon perspective on the issue...but hardly the "official" position of any Arab nation. |
|
29 Mar 02 - 07:11 PM (#679120) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: Gareth Ah! DougR, a pertinant comment. Although from this (East) side of the pond there does seem to be a lack of coherent, long term thought from Bush. Having had my ear bent tonight by one of the less intelligent "leftist" types accusing the oil companies of fermenting the present conflict in Afghanistan, and I have no doubt it will shortley be an article of faith in some circles that the Bush administration deliberatly failed to stop WTC 9/11 in order to give cause for an invasion, I am a little short tempered on the subject. The pure economic and military strength of the US of A make Bush the Younger a world leader. Nothing I have seen, from a distance, makes me have any faith in his capability to fill such a role. Perhaps it is time that the US of A, as a whole, looked at cause rather than fire fighting the effects. I fear that the present cycle of retailation, counter retaliation, and " get your retaliation in first", does nothing to enhance any hope for general stability in the Middle East - in fact its comming very near the old Crusaders Slogan " Kill the lot - God will recognise his own." And that is frightening. Gareth. |
|
29 Mar 02 - 07:54 PM (#679139) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: kendall With God on one side, and Allah on the other, it is a crap shoot.(Sarcasm intended) SHARON must have know this would happen back when he went into that holy place. He was told that it would stir up the Arabs. Arrogant bastard. CarolC picture this: We took California from Mexico in the ninteeth century in a "war". What if the U.N. decided that we had to give it back? What do you think the Californians would do? There are hundreds of Jewish settlers in the "occupied territories" What about them? Bush is a great world leader...if we all want to go to hell. |
|
29 Mar 02 - 07:56 PM (#679140) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: Little Hawk And without Mr. Hitler, there wouldn't be any Israel in the first place...which has to be one of the most ironical (but predictable) results of a criminally insane policy of naked aggression in all recorded history. Experience has shown that when you try to wipe a people out, they often have a way of coming back even stronger than before. It may also demonstrate this in the case of the Palestinians and the Arabs generally...given time. Israel (and its backer, the USA) could succeed in achieving what others have failed to do since Mohammed. Consider the parallels: Hitler and his supporters in the 1930's and 1940's saw the German people as a people who had been unfairly attacked from all sides by a host of enemies (the Allies in World War I), a people who had been brutally wronged (by the treaty of Versailles and the war reparations, and the loss of German lands in several border areas). He felt that to recover those lost lands was a sacred mission. Having already recovered most of them, by bluffing, he was not satisfied yet, but decided that the expanding German population needed more "living room"...on its borders to the East, mainly. This room would be taken by force, if other means failed, and occupied by German settlers when the local "subhuman" population (the Slavs) had been subdued or driven out or killed. This led eventually to his attacks on both Poland and the Soviet Union and embroiled him in an endless series of military conflicts with virtually all his neighbours. He also believed that the Germans were a "Master Race"...a "chosen people" would be another way to put it. This belief of his amounted to a deep religious conviction. It was clear to him that Germans were morally and in every way superior to Slavs and most (if not all) other people. He also believed that the Germans had SUFFERED unjustly, and that therefore they were entitled to revenge, retaliation, and whatever stern measures were needed to secure them their proper place in the world...no matter what the price might be to others affected by this expansionist policy. Although he was surrounded and heavily outnumbered by his enemies, he had an elite military force, better equipped and far better trained than most of its opponents, with superb discipline and great patriotic fervour. This allowed him to defeat his enemies time and time again in lightning fast campaigns, making maximum use of air power and tank warfare under brilliant and unorthodox commanders...blitzkrieg warfare. The Luftwaffe was the most experienced and deadly air force in the world in 1939-40, and the German tank tactics were second to none. First you wiped out the enemy air force with a surprise attack, then you broke through with tank divisions and encircled and destroyed their armies. The only problem for this well-oiled war machine was...it simply had too many enemies. It couldn't kill or occupy all of them...although it certainly tried to. Its enemies increased with every year, their numbers swelled with embittered fighters from the conquered areas, keen on striking a blow of vengeance. In the end, Hitler achieved only the complete isolation and total destruction of his own Nazi regime. Does any of this sound familiar? Move it ahead into the post World War II era...up till now. The Israelis will never succeed in killing all the people they have alienated, unless there is a nuclear conflict that kills pretty much everyone in the region, Israelis included. Nor will the Palestinians succeed in killing all the Israelis, except at the very same horrific price...their own destruction. Hitler was a man with a bitter grievance. His "people had SUFFERED!" He created a paranoid state that came to power through terrorism, stole land, and wrecked havoc on its neighbours. He also created another people with an even bigger and more bitter grievance...the international Jewish community, following the almost unbelievable travesty of the Holocaust. These were a "people who had SUFFERED!" Those people in their turn have created a paranoid state that came to power through terrorism, stole land, and wrecked havoc on its neighbours, and continues to do so. In doing so, they have created another people with a bitter grievance...the Palestinians and Arabs in the Middle East...who were already embittered by previous Turkish, French and British imperialism in any case...truly a "people who have SUFFERED!" (The usual story...) The Palestinians and Arabs are not yet well organized enough to create a modern elite military state which can defeat its enemy (Israel) by blitzkrieg, but they are paranoid, they are committing terrorism, and they are on the same destructive path by which their enemy and his enemy before preceded them. There are no good guys in this story, but there sure are a whole lot of innocent bystanders and victims of the violence that has been unleashed. It's a mistake to assume that one side is good and the other side is evil. Both sides are acting by the law of the jungle...and he with the best military forces dominates the conventional battlefield...using tanks and airplanes to commit acts of vengeance and terror, while he with the weaker military resorts to snipers and suicide bombers to commit similarly pointless and hideous acts. It won't end until we demolish the mythology of "good guy/bad guy" that inflames the thinking on both sides...and find a genuine will for peace on both sides. It won't end until they each stop thinking they're better than the other guy is...until they each comprehend that the other guy has SUFFERED just as much as they have and is not a subhuman monster. That would be a quantum leap in perception, but I do not necessarily believe it's completely impossible. The great powers, like the USA could help the process immeasureably by playing a genuinely neutral and helpful role in negotiations...and not continually arming the comabatants against each other. (But that would be bad for business, so I don't think you'll see it happen...it might happen if the situation becomes too dangerous to tolerate, however.) - LH |
|
29 Mar 02 - 08:16 PM (#679151) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: Lonesome EJ If you look at the maps on the link I showed earlier, you will find that the "Jewish State" circa 1947 was a gerrymandered grouping of jigsaw puzzle parts, intermingling Jewish areas with Palestinian or Arab controlled ones. Now, first of all, who mandated this bizarre blueprint for a country? Apparently it was basically the British, who maintained Palestine as a protectorate at the time, although I'm sure that the rest of the Allies gave approval, patially as a means of assuaging their own guilt in the wake of the Holocaust. It should have been apparent to anyone that this non-contiguous patchwork could never function as a defensible entity, especially in an area where enemies would be found on all sides. And so we see the gradual expansion and connection of territory in Israel as much an act of self-preservation as anything else. In 1967, Israel reached its zenith in terms of occupied territory, but later was willing to barter the Sinai back to Egypt in exchange for diplomatic recognition and the cessation of hostilities. After all, was the Sinai vital to Israel as anything but a buffer against Egypt? It was certainly not prime settlement territory. But look again at the 67 map. The Gaza Strip, West Bank, and Golan Heights are contiguous and habitable, as well as constituting buffers against Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. These areas, in the years since 67, have filled with Jewish settlers (many living in the homesteads abandoned by Palestinians now in exile) who have vowed not to be moved.
|
|
29 Mar 02 - 08:35 PM (#679159) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: CarolC artbrooks, you said, "but hardly the "official" position of any Arab nation". Do you have any idea what the "official" positions of the Arab nations in question are? |
|
29 Mar 02 - 08:45 PM (#679164) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: Bill D an admirable explanation and analysis, Little Hawk...perceived "suffering" is a major component of the current mess. Israel, being better armed and organized, can currently muscle their way around the Palestinian population...unless they push TOO hard, in which case they anger all the Arab/Muslim states and have another 1947-1948 situation--with bigger guns involved. Sadly, there seems to be no 'leader' cabable of stating the obvious...that two dogs can't have the same bone, unless they divide it, and no one seems to think that half a bone is worth much... (Oh..a picky aside... One does not 'wreck' havoc, one 'wreaks' havoc.A very common mistake, but one of my particular pet peeves about language misuse....wreak is the present tense of 'wrought' as in "What hath God wrought?") ok...carry on..(it was still a well thought out piece of writing) |
|
29 Mar 02 - 08:46 PM (#679165) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: artbrooks Carol, I believe that the Arab Summit that ended yesterday agreed that the refugees (and their descendents) must be allowed to return to Israel as a condition for peace. Or it may be that this was in the original proposal floated by the Saudis and it changed during their discussions, but this has been their position pretty consistently. I also think I heard that Mr. Kadaffy of Libya goes one step further by stating that there should be an integrated nation of what is now Israel and the occupied territories, and that all of the Jewish inhabitants should be disarmed as part of this integration. The King of Jordan did not attend the meeting, for undisclosed reasons, and the Israelis wouldn't let Mr. Arafat go. |
|
29 Mar 02 - 08:50 PM (#679171) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: Bill D there seems to be some confusion about the 'right of return' part of the proposal. Whether it means "all those with claims to residency" or simply "those who were physically displaced" or some other ambiguous group...perhaps it was left vague on purpose. |
|
29 Mar 02 - 09:06 PM (#679177) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: CarolC Does anybody know what the official reason given 50 years ago by the Arab states who wouldn't absorb the Palesinian refugees into their populations was? If, in fact, they gave one? |
|
29 Mar 02 - 09:09 PM (#679179) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: GUEST Gareth... Church History "Kill Them All, Let God Sort Them Out!" This saying, actually used in some circles today and historically in military situations, got its beginning during the terrible persecution that Christians suffered in 13th Century Europe. The freedoms we enjoy could not be imagined in that world over seven hundred years ago. It is important for us today, to know the hard-hearted mindset of those who opposed the Truth fueled by the evil machinations of a Machiavellian-style papacy in Rome. The policy set by Rome at that time is still in force doctrinally. This is known as "Nulla salus extra ecclesium" ("Outside the Church there is no salvation.") It was "open season" on those who taught any doctrine other than that which the Pope allowed and this made such people enemies of the Catholic Church. In 1210 AD, Pope Innocent III unleashed "orders of fire and sword" against a group of heretics throughout Europe, mostly remembered as Cathars. Of special note, at the great city of Beziers, France there was a terrible massacre of heretics. Though the actual count will never be known, it is thought that perhaps 100,000 people were ultimately slaughtered. The papal forces besieged Beziers and all inside were commanded to surrender and repent. The heretics inside, also known as Waldensians or Albigensians, were believers in a widespread form of gnosticism which threatened the greedy and materialistic goals of the Papacy. According to a Catholic source, "Caesarius of Heisterbach: Medieval Heresies," after the city was taken, at a cost in life of thousands of defenders, about 450 heretics were "examined" by the inquisitors and many of them claimed to be Christians rather than being heretics and would not repent. Others claimed to be good Catholics and did not want to die. Fearing the possibility that these were lying, must have caused the infamous phrase to first be uttered. In Latin, "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset" or "Kill them all. God will know His own." This was a misunderstood reference to 2 Tim. 2:19 which in part reads, "The Lord knoweth them that are his" (KJV). About fifty were hanged, the rest were burned to death. At this time, most Catholics felt that life on earth was simply a brief interlude to prepare for the hereafter. If one led a godly life, God would know of it, and the reward would be eternal paradise. So, this statement made perfect sense according to the concepts of Catholic righteousness. If every single soul in Beziers were killed, the good would go to Heaven and the evil would go to Hell, and so the papal killers were doing God's work. The New Testament says, John 5:22, "For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son," (NKJ) And, obviously, man is not to murder (Luke 18:20; James 2:11). Were there New Testament Christians in Beziers? The Cathars were truly heretics, but we also can see from the testimonies the Catholic examiners themselves left behind, there could have been a good many true Christians among them. At this time in history and for centuries before this there were many regions of Europe that had been benign homes for the faithful. Though always a serious persecutor of the faithful, the Catholic Church truly became the main exterminator of Christians when it became militarily powerful beginning in the 12th Century.
|
|
29 Mar 02 - 09:17 PM (#679186) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: CarolC GUEST, your description of Catholics sounds remarkably similar to the Protestants who were busy burning "witches" just a few centuries ago. No rest for the wicked, eh? |
|
29 Mar 02 - 09:34 PM (#679196) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: GUEST One reason that I never elaborate on "Christian" when asked for my religion CarolC... ;-) |
|
29 Mar 02 - 09:38 PM (#679199) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: kendall Does anyone know more about the "Balfour Declaration" than I do? I know it pre dates Hitler by quite a few years. |
|
29 Mar 02 - 09:43 PM (#679204) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: GUEST http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/balfour.htm |
|
29 Mar 02 - 09:52 PM (#679207) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: artbrooks Balfour Declaration: made by Arthur Balfour, British Foreign Secretary, in a letter to Lord Walter Rothschild in 1917. It was very short (117 words) and contained the following clauses "His Majesty's government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" and (the national home should not prejudice) "the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". This was several months before British General Allenby had taken Palestine from the Turks. |
|
29 Mar 02 - 10:34 PM (#679219) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: Little Hawk Yep, and the wicked seem to gravitate into the halls of power far too often... Good description of some of the Catholic Church's atrocious historical record, GUEST. I think the American Indians or the Cathars might well have responded by saying: "Inside the Church there is no salvation," and they would have been a good deal closer to the mark. Bill - Yeah, it's "wreak havoc" all right, and I used to know that too...must be getting tired, I guess... :-) Here's an afterthought...the Israelis don't trust the Palestinians (with good reason) or the Arabs either (ditto), and the Arabs and Palestinians don't trust the Israelis (for equally good reasons). That makes it extremely unlikely that either side can be depended upon to adhere to the terms of ANY agreement for very long...unless there's someone far more powerful holding them to it. The moment they see a clear advantage, they will take it, and the fighting will resume. (Still, to seek an agreement is definitely wiser than to simply continue fighting...) The real problem here is similar to the problem in Africa, where numerous wars have simmered or flared for decades now and where genocide has been attempted frequently...it's similar to the problem in Latin America, where the Reagan administration conducted a completely illegal war by proxy against Nicaraugua until they wrecked the place, despite unequivocal rulings against the USA for so doing by the World Court, whom the USA simply ignored. It's similar to Chechenya and to Afghanistan, where the Russians and Americans played power games at the expense of the Afghan people, and sowed the seeds of the future Taliban. The problem is...there is no impartial world authority with the teeth to back up impartial rulings and enforce a totally consistent body of international law and justice regardless of the ambitions of great powers OR local despots. There is no real world armed forces capable of enforcing world law. The World Court is a sham if it cannot command force greater than any single nation, and if it cannot enforce a ruling on the USA, and the UN is a sham when a few powerful countries in the Security Council can veto any initiative of that body that they don't like...or the USA can refuse to pay its yearly dues (which was the case for a long time). So, what I'm saying is: Someday in the future we have to form a genuine New World Order...not dominated by any single country or any group of countries, but representing all nations in an equal way. That World Order's first business would be: A worldwide Bill of Rights and Common Laws, a worldwide Court of Justice, a single truly multinational military and police force enlisted from all nations equally, and a worldwide initiative to immediately start assisting devastated economies in poor areas, and improving education in all areas. Then...the disarmament of ALL individual nations in terms of long range offensive weapons, and the disbanding of all standing national armies. Then...World citizenship. World rights. A world minimum wage. No travel restrictions. This would only be possible following an approximate equalization of social services, job opportunities and wages worldwide...otherwise the poor areas would simply flood into the rich areas, and you would soon have civil insurrection. It's just a dream now, but...so were democracy, the 35 hour week, labour unions, unemployment insurance, racial equality, religious freedom, and women's rights...once. They were all just a dream. Until then, the strongest and richest will rule...and the poor and weak will strike back from the ghettos and the shadows in whatever way they can, and no one will truly be safe. Even the biggest nuclear arsenal will not make anyone safe no matter where he lives as long as the world community of nations exists in a state of legal, military, and moral anarchy...which is what it basically has now, beneath a thin veneer of misleading rhetoric and patriotic flag waving. No one is safe. That was proven by Sept 11, as much as by the slow destruction of the Sandinistas in Reagan's illegal terrorist war. There is no justice out there, because there is no neutral, disinterested authority out there with the power or the means to enforce justice. And no superpower or local despot wants such a neutral authority to exist. In fact, they will do anything they can to stop it from ever happening, because once it does, their era is over...just like Al Capone's. Finished. - LH |
|
29 Mar 02 - 10:45 PM (#679224) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: CarolC 35 hour work week, LH? Who's got that then? |
|
29 Mar 02 - 10:50 PM (#679226) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: DougR Uh ...so? Is Bush a world leader? DougR |
|
29 Mar 02 - 11:05 PM (#679234) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: Little Hawk Yeah, Doug, Bush is technically a world leader, I suppose...since the USA is the world's most powerful nation. My original post was sort of a joke or a satirical comment. Carol - Maybe I meant a 40-hour week, eh? I have a sort of a 12-hour work week, or something like that, since I run my own small company here. I'm damned lucky and I know it! I fill in the time by pontificating on Mudcat, and doing other enjoyable things like that. - LH |
|
29 Mar 02 - 11:06 PM (#679235) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: CarolC He might be if he wasn't a puppet, DougR. (Oohh... Did I just say that?) |
|
29 Mar 02 - 11:09 PM (#679237) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: CarolC I'd say you more than justify your existance with what you do while filling in your time, LH. |
|
29 Mar 02 - 11:10 PM (#679238) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: GUEST Little Hawk.. The North American Indians were more tolerant and religious than most Christians profess themselves to be. "most Christians sow their wild oats all week, then go to church on Sunday to pray for crop failure" LOL |
|
29 Mar 02 - 11:26 PM (#679248) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: Little Hawk Damn straight, GUEST! The Indians were extremely puzzled as to how a people could confine their religious consciousness and behaviour within the walls of one small building for an hour or two a week, and forget about it the rest of the time. This simply made no sense at all, from the Indian point of view. Neither did chairs, for that matter, and the Indians found the sight of people sitting on them downright hilarious. They were similarly amused by saddles, and thought that the saddle horn was possibly there to hold or protect the rider's private parts from injury. - LH |
|
29 Mar 02 - 11:54 PM (#679262) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: Chip2447 Speaking as a minority here at the Cat, personally I think Bush is doing a far better job than his predecessor or the flunky could have ever had hoped to have done. We do have to remember that Bush does not run the country on his own, there is a duly elected Democratic Senate that has choosen not to interfere. Sharon wont be happy until the Palestinians are history. Hilter was evil for his attempted genocide. What makes Sharon any different? The situation in the middle east is horrific, but, who is killing more of whom? Any one of the past American leaders could have put a stop to it simply by demading that Israel pull out of the invaded lands under penalty of having all of their military aid diverted to Arab countries and/or Palestine to level the playing field. Bush has inheirited a bad situation that keeps getting passed down to the next guy. Clinton didnt stop it, nor did Bush the elder, nor Reagan, or Carter, or Ford or Nixon. How far back do we have to go before we find a President/World Leader who was able to stop it? Chip2447
|
|
30 Mar 02 - 01:36 AM (#679312) Subject: RE: BS: Bush as a World Leader From: GUEST Golda Meyer said " the only time there will be peace between the Arabs and Jews is when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us" You guys should see the palestinian version of Sesame Street where they praise Allah and tell children to become martyrs by blowing up jews... and on and on and on we go.... |