Jonsa

I don't have to justify jewish terrorism. Their goals were achieved and that fact in an of itself "justifies" their action. You know that whole "to the victor....." thing. And on the day that palestinians claim victory with the establishment of their own country, you can bet that their "terrorists" will be lauded and their actions "justified". That's the way it works in this world. Well, I agree that Israel has been active in stymieing Palestinian national endeavours. But why just point to the Israelis in this regard? All of the arab world has contributed to the situation. Arafat and his gang of thugs and all the other gangs of thugs running around the territories have contributed to the situation. The UN has contributed to the situation. And sure as hell the palestinians have contributed mightly to sabatoging their own national aspirations. I also agree that the Israelis are occupiers of the WB and Gaza and Golan. I also agree that this occupation and subsequent "facts on the ground" annexation are at the expense of the palestinians. So? You want to debate if jewish terrorist are relevant or perhaps if the Grand Mufti really was a Nazi (NOT). I'll grant its of historical relevance, but I'd rather debate the really relevant issues of the contemporary situation. those examples are long after Arafat and his gang of thugs began international operations. So He still be da daddy.

Really. Jewish terrorism in 1948 is not relevant today. It would be pretty much the same for the palestinians if Arafat had actually stopped active support for terrorist activities, but he didn't. Educate yourself about Hamas. As a Islamist organization they have always had political, charitable and military wings. Hamas has largely abondoned tactics that failed to work and got them nothing but disproportionate retaliation. (As an aside the day the IDF iced Yassin was a good day) Now, you want to discuss whether the palestinians have the right to resist occupation? Okay, I happen to strongly agree that they do. The fact that they have suffered under corrupt and inept leadership, stupid strategies, pitifully celebrated incredibly "expensive" petty victories, been pawns of their arab/muslim brothers, have continually missed opportunities for the future by wallowing in the past, created a culture of hatred and adulation of death, those things ARE relevant. Somehow you and your compadres what to establish some moral equivalence at best or at least excuse the more aggregious resistance/terrorist activities of the palestinians. I think this is also irrelevant to the real issues at hand. And as long as people wish to engage in a debate over the actions of bygone generations, the focus can't be on the present. Please explain to me why you think "irrelevant" and "okay" are equivalent.

Let's see, you want me to beleive that jewish terrorism in the 1930s and 40's is relevant to the contemporary issues of this conflict? I am not ignoring historical fact. I am saying that that this terrorism became irrelevant when Israel was created, the terrorist organizations were disbanded and absorbed by the IDF and a democratic political process was installed. A political system where the former politically motivated terrorists could participate. I am just going by history I lived thru. I'd luv a specific reference if you have it.

I don't justify it. I merely say that as far as discussing the contemporary conflict it is not relevant. Its an irrefutable historic fact. Yes, the JDL was a terrorist organization and Kach is outlawed in Israel. Again, I fail to see the point you are trying to make.

You are absolutely right about the oil economy not lasting forever. You look at it as some kind of conspiracy. I look at it as economic necessity. Yes, we should be motivated to find a viable economic alternative to petroleum. Viable means it has to be portable, have a relatively safe method of distribution, have at least a comparable yield, have a comparable cost. This means it requires an enormous manufacturing infrastructure eventually exceeding the trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars currently invested in petroleum and its machinery. So while you can lament about big oil and government conspiracies all you want, its all trumped by the fact that the world today runs of petroleum. Its going to take decades to move off it regardless of how racuously righteous anti oil/climate change proponents get. Firstly I suggest you educate yourself on the size of the US armed forces (active and reserve)particularly in comparison to other nations. I beleive you want to refer to their budget which is approximately as large as the total of the next 18 nations combined. THE ENTIRE GLOBE IS OIL DEPENDENT. And please try to expand your perspective about the US global power projection. I suspect you were not an adult during the cold war. Yes I'm serious. Try again. There isn't a single US military base on foreign soil that is there against the express wishes of the host country. Not some demonstrators, but the government of the country. And you are just plain wrong about what transpired in the philippines.

And exactly how is that relevant to the situation today? Are you attempting to claim some kind of equivalency or justification for palestinian terrorist activities of today? My claim was that the jewish terrorist groups stopped their terrorist activitites and took up political activities. Arafat was supposed to do the same. Except he didn't. Why do I get the impression that you say this sneeringly? NO, Arafat was the father of international terrorism. As for starting the whole thing in the region, you should read a history book or two. It wasn't the jewish terrorists that started the conflict, they were born of the conflict. Not at all. I am well aware of jewish terrorism (I'm not sure of what you mean by many other acts) and claim they are not relevant to the current debate because Israel became a reality, the terrorist groups disbanded and some of their leaders became politicians. Neither the conflict nor the debate is about moral equivalency. I do believe that palestinians have the right to resist occupation. its just that they have been plagued by bad leadership, stupid strategies, a string of pyhric and incredibly expensive "victories" and the development of a culture of hatred and victimhood that has them constantly lamenting the past instead of forging a future for themselves. And that's not even mentioning all the lebanese christians who wanted him iced, nor all the jordanians that wanted him drawn and quartered, nor the tunisians, syrians and egyptians that hated him as well. It truly is remarkable that he survived as long as he did. Like I said - historic. Yeah. I agree that likud doesn't want a palestinian state. I said that Arafat didn't stop supporting terrorism and despite the letter in 93, never altered the Covenant nor rescinded the 10 step plan. so what exactly is the point you're trying to make?

I don't know what you mean by "tolerate" Egyptian tv running the protocols and the blood libel crap. IIRC, there was quite the diplomatic flap over it, but in the end nothing was done, because nothing could be done other than jumping up and down and having a bit of a tantrum. Perhaps you are unaware of the cultural attitude towards jews in muslim lands for the past 1500 years or so (with a brief respite from c.1490 to c.1550 Ottoman empire). There has been a persistent "jews are our enemy" meme running thru muslim cultures since the time of the prophet. It sure as hell wasn't all peace and tolerance and love like some would have us believe. The egyptian government has never really been an "ally" of Israel. They signed the treaty to get Sinai back, said no thanks to gaza and tepidly and tacitly agreed that sharm al sheik was a great place to vacation. they penned in the gazans out of their own self interest. They don't like palestinians as a rule and remember that they sparked a couple of civil wars in other countries and for the most part are dominated by Islamists.

Wrong. There are no US military bases in the philippines, in accordance with the philippines governments refusal to extend the 1947 and rejection of the "friendship,peace and co-operation" treaty that was to replace it 1991. Try again.

My views of Israel are realistic in that it is neither all good nor all bad. It has its warts like every other place and its people seem to behave like people everywhere else. I do know an anti=semite when I see one, but a critic of Israel is not necessarily the same thing and most often isn't. I think that US foreign policy is intrinsically righteous and moral. I also think it is continually thwarted by outside influences. I also think it is continually thwarted by internal influences that can't understand a cultural difference if it hit them in the head.

Yes, I am fully aware of the history of the region and of the terrorist campaigns conducted by the jews prior to the war of independence. that they were terrorists is no longer relevant to the equation since the rationale for their terror campaign was satisfied with independence and a democratic political process. Arafat OTOH, being the father of international terrorism figures most definitely in the equation since after all of it he became the founding President of the PA and maintained support for terrorist groups and never renounced the PLO ten steps. He will no doubt go down in history as one of the world's greatest survivors.

Your point being? Oil remains the foundation of this civilization and will continue to do so until viable portable alternative sources can be economically manufactured, distributed and maintained. Your whining about the maneouvering of oil companies is irrelevant to the fact. And surprise surprise the oil companies, the trust fund states that pump billions a year outta the ground, the investement bankers, stock brokers and all those involved in the infrastructure, don't want it to end. Wow, who could have imagined such a diabolical conspiracy? Not really a response to what I wrote, but I'll respond directly to you. That damn oil market. The oil pumped from american soil might not even go to america and in many cases americans don't get a red cent for it. I'd get really pissed at all those "free market" type people who think that deregulation and capitalism make everything better. Us foreign policy doesn't necessarily make sense, but it is focused on national interests and security. That there might be alignement in some of those interests with multinational coporations is to be expected and reasonable. I suppose thinking that foreign policy is all about multitional profit generation/retention, is a legitimate position. It'd be a simplistic and inadequate explanation of the realpolitik, but probably makes you feel better. So you think that the military/industrial complex after attaining a primary position in the global economy would start cutting back on its power voluntarily? You think that most of those foreign bases are not artifacts of WW2,Korea or the cold war? Once there, why leave when you can project your power anywhere in the world? Thats US foreign policy. What is so hard to understand? Most cases its not true? Oh really, like which ones weren't bought and paid for in US blood and treasure? don't claim something isn't true when you obviously have absolutely no idea. Name one country where the US maintains a base that the host country has told them to get out? Just one will do.

Ah, my response was about the religious perspective of when a fetus becomes a person. And of course there is a need for a declaration from a legal perspective, don't be ridiculous. there was a time when people thought the earth was flat. Late term abortions amount to less than 1% of all abortions. And that isn't about birth control, its about health. I don't think baby killing is acceptable. I think terminating a pregnancy is acceptable in a whole variety of situations. Its not about "empowering" a women. Its far more fundamental than that. It goes to the nature of being human. Our bodies are our sole domain and what occurs within them is competely our business. Period. Again, its ain't none of your business what decision another women makes about her own pregnancy. You may sneer at her reasoning, her "selfishness" etc., but you have no right to interfere. A fetus isn't a baby. It merely has the potential to be a human. That ain't inhuman. It isn't viable until at least 6 months, closer to 7 months. The fact that I don't appprove of abortion as merely a method of birth control, is a personal opinion. I don't approve of a lot of behaviours but my disapproval doesn't automatically deem them to be evil or morally or legally wrong. Now really. That kind of spurious analogy does nothing to advance the discussion.

Special interest lobbies are an integral component of the American political landscape. You have a beef about a particular lobby's influence - meaning it's success in getting its point across to legislaturers and bureaucrats, okay. Its called politics. Its called democracy. Listen we all know that Jews control the world. It says so in the protocols.

Its easy to condemn Israel. they are the powerful occupiers of territories deemed by the international community as "not theirs". But that's a simplistic perspective, ignorning how Israel's actions and strategy were shaped as much by nationalistic objectives (such as self preservation) as by Arab rhetoric and actions following the humiliation of al-nakba. this is not a black and white situation. If it was, it would have been resolved years ago. Its a long, painful and convoluted history. the nuances of the contemporary political decisions and compromises are lost in time. Witness the bitter arguments over the absence of the word "the" in UN 242. Are some of the actions of Israel "illegal" in view of international law. Undoubtedly, but international law is ALWAYS trumped by security and survival. And for anyone to deny that the "liberation of all of historic palestine" does not remain the primary objective of the vast majority of palestinians, arabs and muslims, they merely exhibit their ignorance. Pro palestinians ignore that fact that the PLO was formed to destroy Israel, and that Arafat was a terrorist and gangster that sparked three civil wars in neighbouring ARAB countries. Yet they thought he was the guy that Israel should make peace with. And in a monumental display of American diplomatic muscle that actually happened. Unfortunately trusting a terrorist gangster does not an easy peace make. Likewise, Israel still hated the bastard and in the end when he cynically launched the second intifada to stop his legislature's investigation into how much money he stole, his true colors came to light. He had his shot to create a nation called palestine, and he blew it with his corruption and single minded hatred of Israel. Then came the Hamas fiasco. On the other side, Israel has been a brutal occupier at times. It has been arbitrary and callous. Its"facts on the ground" strategy is annexation pure and simple and steals a future palestinian state's assets. They have ignored UN resolutions and brushed off the self righteous condemnation of countries around the world. Given all that, imagine if there was a country called palestine on the WB and Gaza that had elected a Islamist (Hamas) government. Its a sovereign nation with a military, with control of its own airspace, its own borders and all the other stuff that comes along with being a sovereign nation. Now imagine you are an israeli and your government appeased everyone, conformed to all the UN resolutions, came in from the cold as a rogue nation and helped the palestinian nation be born. and now you face a war of extermination. How would you feel about that - your country did the "right thing" and could die because of it? There isn't a nation on earth that would risk such a thing happening.

He means its an american organization run by americans with a view to influence american policy in a particular direction - in this case to make kissy kissy with Israel. Why would any american have a problem with that?

I think a minor tweak to the maritime laws and piracy drops way way down. Simply allow merchant vessels to carry small arms with say a couple of RPGs, a few grenades and maybe one 50 cal machine gun and have a couple of sailors trained in weapons use. the pirates can't sink a tanker with an RPG, but an RPG'll sink any of the pirates boats.

Interesting turn. the nature of evil equates to abortion in some peoples minds. The jews don't consider a fetus a person. The Catholics have never officially decreed when a fetus becomes a person. The protestants haven't either. The muslims have a couple of different variations on a theme but essentially abortion is tacitly allowed up to 120 days. I beleive that a woman has the right to determine what goes on with her body. OTOH I don't beleive that abortion should be a form of birth control. I beleive that a fetus does not become a person until it can be viable outside the womb with medical assistance. so lets call that third trimester. IMHO Abortion is not inherently evil. It is not murder. It is extinguishing the potential of human life, but that is philosophically and materially different than extinguishing a human life.

Are you serious? they don't really produce anything? The deliver the government services that are necessary to the operation of the whole damn country. they don't add anything to the treasury? Not only do they pay taxes, but the spend their wages in the economy, you know buy shit and consume shit, they invest their savings. Unsustainable pensions and benefits? is this all of the public union workers or just some? At what level does a benefit or pension become unsustainable. Did the union member create this unsustainablity or was it the irresponsiblity of their employers? How many of these people are economically sheltered - all of them, or just some of them - what percentage? It is not the worker who does this at the expense of joe sixpak its the politians. Does the private sector compete with the public sector for employees? Does a private sector worker make as much or more than an equivalent in the public sector? Why do you really think that public sector workers arent worth as much nor contribute as much as private sector workers> could it possibly be that you have absolutely no clue? that you drink the koolaid, swallow the sound bites and feel satisfied that you have a handle on reality?

Never mind that unions were instrumental in the creation of the middle class. Never mind that unions were instrumental in creating workplace safety laws, and anti child labour laws, and a whole host of other labour laws designed to protect workers. Never mind that the the employers agree to union contracts. If they pay a smaller percentage for health coverage and pension contributions that other workers in the private sector, its the employers that did that. ' Never mind that the teachers and firefighters, road maintenance works, jail guards, etc. are working stiffs with families who deliver necessary services to the rest of their communities Never mind that they pay taxes just like everyone else does (except the rich). Nope, they are just lazy blood suckers who have caused financial havoc and are to blame for the budget crisis facing governments throught the US.

Good for colo. I Not sure about the 1988 ref to rvw. Morgentaler case got the 69 law struck down. Really? do you have a reference for this? Of course the number of late term abortions in Quebec would be miniscule, but why wouldn't they send them to Ontario? It'd be way way cheaper.

Its no big deal if he loses this fight. If he wins it becomes a very big deal. You'll see this in every republican controlled state. Busting the unions has massive political implications. Have you watched the coverage on FOX? Seems these unions are nothing but greedy bums out to destroy the country, why they're almost un-american!! The implications are indeed scary. Since Citizens united, There is huge money on the left - e.g. the oil billionaires et al. pouring money into Rove's various enterprises, but the only big money on the left is unions. Busting the unions, would clear the field. consider the implications of that in this era of "big money elections". all hail the Koch brothers!

Those quotes were bullshit and you know it. And these large donations. Yep Its amazing that these congressmen and senators can be bought for a lousy 500 or $1000 bucks. Not even the price of a really good night out on the town. You are accusing the US Congress of accepting bribes. You are accusing the american political process of corruption on a penny ante scale.

Seems that one of the newly elected governor of Wisconsin first moves is to attempt to bust the various public employee unions under the guise of fiscal constraint. I could understand going to the unions in hard economic times and saying things like you need to contribute a little more to your pension plan or that we need to switch from a defined benefit program, or that you need to pay a little bit more for your medical insurance. That is at least a reasonable and even understanable negotiating position. But he went a helluva lot farther than that. He basically has proposed eliminating the collective bargaining process. He wants to restrict collective bargaining only to salaries and to further restrict salary increases only to inflation - effectively killing collective bargaining. Strangely, he is only "restricting" collective bargaining to those public employee unions that did not endorse him in the last election. Seems police state troopers and firefighters all keep their rights. Seems he wants to privatize as much of the state's services as possible including prisons. ONly in america can incarcerating criminals be a profit center. Now, Madison wisconsin looks like Cairo. thousands of protestors peacefully protesting and refusing to leave. the republicans are doing a great job of exploiting the economic conditions (that they had a huge hand in creating in the first place) to impose some of their more extreme ideological beleifs in the guise of combatting the financial crisis. Interestingly they seem to think that the "mandate" they were given to reduce spending and create jobs, means crushing unions, losing public sector jobs and reducing government revenue as much as possible. My My, what fascinating times.

That would be Canada - decriminalized in 1969 then struck down 1988 and since then we've had no abortion laws. that isn't happening now, particularly since our healthcare pays for it.

No, belief is not having absurd blind faith. Definition of BELIEF 1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing 2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group 3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence Please note definition #3