idrankwhat

I consider it "tough love". It would work out better in the long run for almost everybody. The Congresscritters would just have to show up, do their job of legislating, not waste their time and our money getting stroked by lobbyists, and go home. The lobbyists would probably get pissed off because they'd have a lot more trouble buying legislation, so hopefully they'd quit. Then, as a bonus, everything would get cheaper for the consumer because the large corporations wouldn't have to spend billions of dollars per year on bribes, I mean lobbying. What's not to love?

That's not "flip-flopping", it's "pandering". Get it straight. It's not the same thing at all. That's very true. And it's also very sad that you can't get elected unless you do it and that more people don't recognize it for what it is. As a side bar, I'd like to propose that we get a Congressman to slip a provision into a spending bill (it'll never get noticed that way). I propose that the US adopt China's method for dealing with government employees who are found to be corrupt and derelict in their duties

He could have crushed it, especially the "voted for it before....." gift that he gave his detractors. All he had to do was state, in fewer words than he's used to, that he voted for one form of the bill that contained a method to pay for the war and against the version of the bill that wanted borrow that money. He also might have been able to play on it by illustrating that changing your mind occasionally is a good idea, especially when all evidence indicates that you were wrong in the first place. Barging ahead when all indicators point that sanity is in the other direction is not the sign of a good leader, only a hard headed one like we have now.

I won't deny that Kerry did a lousy job on a few issues like being able to speak concisely when it was demanded. Why he couldn't crush the "flip flopper" thing is beyond me. But Bush won because of the misinformation campaign with regard to Iraq and the "war on terror", the partisan factor where "my team has to win regardless of who the candidate is", and the fact that when the right runs a baseless, jingoist smear campaign that they're better at it. Neither side presented a good "vote for me" argument, as usual. It also doesn't help that our voter turnout is poorer than probably any other "democratic" country in the world, including Iraq.

No, you have that wrong. It's "George Bush's America" and that's all there is to it. His eight years will no doubt be referred to in history as "the Bush Monarchy." There are so many lost souls that need a king, no matter how corrupted, to do their thinking for them, telling them what to do, whilst taking everything he can from them. Don't think for one second that Bush works for us. He'd shrub off an impeachment so fast it would make your head spin. And probably turn the military of the US against it's own citizens as he did it. This might be funny if you didn't seem dead serious. Do many people really view the current administration and those who elected Bush in such outrageous terms? I'd say it was slightly overstated, and I'd only offer a couple of exceptions. I'm not sure that he'd be able to use the military to protect his royal backside. He's already misused the military. And he's so unpopular that I don't think they'd let it happen again very easily, especially on a home front. Also, I think that the majority of Bush voters were/are simply poorly informed. The Bushies dedicated a lot of time to that end. Keep 'em fat, dumb, happy and afraid and you can get 'em to do all sorts of tricks. I saw a great bumper sticker over the weekend. "Ignore your rights and they'll go away".

Yes they are reconcilable. There is a group of people who have stated that they want Israel wiped off the map. They also have said that if Israel would return to its internationally legal borders they they WOULD INDEED recognize the state of Israel. On the other hand you have a small but influential portion of Zionists who who believe that all of the land is theirs to take, or reclaim if you prefer. That is what is happening in the West Bank. They are continuing to take land that is not theirs to take and they are doing it by force, without international consent and they are brutally oppressing and trying to "transfer" the resident population. There is no way to have peace unless Israel stops with the illegal and inhumane expansionist activities in the West Bank. I do take into consideration what the Israelis have been through in the past but much of what they're dealing with now is preventable if they would quit the aggressive land grabbing. That's why I say, that even with what has happened to them in the past, they are bringing it on themselves right now. Have you watched any of the Israeli settler violence against the Palestinians in those videos? It's sickening, especially when I think that I'm helping to pay for it. If Israel would leave its illegal West Bank settlements and return to its borders, the international community would come in and insure that Israel lost none of the land that is legally theirs and would take over border security. And the Palestinians, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, even Hamas have stated that they would agree to live side by side, in peace with Israel if they would do that. To quote the Hamas Prime Minister, Ismail Haniyeh in June 2006, "We have no problem with a sovereign Palestinian state over all our lands within the 1967 borders, living in calm." This problem is indeed reconcilable, but not until the debate is open, full and honest and all sides are held accountable.

the thread is running out of steam. we'll take a couple weeks off and then repeat it again the next time someone needs to complain about big bad Israel. Running out of steam? Are you kidding? I'm finding out more and becoming more and more disgusted every day. And why repeat it? That would be a tremendous waste of time and the typical name calling, talking point half truth arguments are what I was trying to steer away from. Facts, figures, maps, videos, photos and testimonials are much more informative, even to those who may not want that much preconception crushing information.

This is actually the only reason I would ever want to see Hillary in the White House. Now THAT would be justice. I'm willing to bet that a hole would appear in the ozone layer over DC with all the simultaneous pants crapping

I noticed that he's sticking to his attempted Jedi mind tricks. alQaedaIraq911alQaedaIraq911 alQaedaIraq911alQaedaIraq911 alQaedaIraq911alQaedaIraq911 alQaedaIraq911alQaedaIraq911 freedom alQaedaIraq911alQaedaIraq911 alQaedaIraq911alQaedaIraq911 alQaedaIraq911alQaedaIraq911 alQaedaIraq911alQaedaIraq911 victry alQaedaIraq911alQaedaIraq911 alQaedaIraq911alQaedaIraq911 alQaedaIraq911alQaedaIraq911 alQaedaIraq911alQaedaIraq911 terrrrrists alQaedaIraq911alQaedaIraq911 alQaedaIraq911alQaedaIraq911 alQaedaIraq911alQaedaIraq911 God Bless 'Merica Hmmm...that's what I thought. Mentioning AQ in Iraq 30 times in one speech does look ridiculous.

Still awfully quiet. Maybe some balance will help. But you have to read both otherwise you're only getting part of the picture. http://www.btselem.org/english/Gaza_Strip/20070625_Gilad_Shalit.asp http://www.btselem.org/english/Testimonies/20070322_Police_Officers_torure_and_abuse_workers_witness_Hamamdah.asp

I don't want to be accused of being a post hog but it's getting kinda quiet in this thread. Hopefully that's because people are busy reading and watching the videos on the B'Tselem site. I've had enough of them for one day. I just wanted to add a few points about the illegal settlements and their impact on the West Bank and the proposed Palestinian "state". The settlement activity is unauthorized and illegal as referenced in UNSCR 242 and the fouth Geneva Convention. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states "...the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population in the territory it occupies." That seems clear enough that Israel's actions constitute a clear violation. I'm not sure precisely what the current conditions are but in Clinton's proposed plan there were to be buffer zones surrounding settlement footprints. They are to extend about 400 meters outward from the settlements and are a zone in which no Palestinian is allowed to enter. There were also earmarking areas that were either Israeli only roads between the settlements or they were "life arteries" that supplied water, electricity, sewage and communications to the settlements. These "life artery" zones are to be anywhere from 500 to 4000 meters wide and no Palestinian enter or cross the area. Some of these prohibited zones cross from Israel, through the proposed Palestinian "state" to the Jordan River valley. I can hardly see how this could lead to the stated goal of a sovereign, contiguous, viable Palestinian state.

The list doesn't go very far up the chain does it?

If interested, here's some video. http://www.btselem.org/English/Video/Index.asp

I'll be the first to admit that I have not. My primary sources for this information have been the Carter Center and B'Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories. http://www.btselem.org/English/index.asp

Allrighty, It would probably be a better use of my time to go shoot billiards with a rope but here goes. There are a few things more that I've wanted to mention about the situation in the West Bank that most people are unaware of and that pertain directly to the subject of this thread. The "apartheid" term, I believe, is appropriate to describe the conditions in the West Bank. There are two groups of people living in the same area with one completely dominating and controlling the other and a policy of unequal rights, and with basic human rights being denied. Some examples of the oppressive tactics that Israel is employing include: Routine confiscation of land and destruction of Palestinian property with no compensation, typically for "security" purposes. The delay/blocking of shipments of produce, mostly at the Allenby bridge into Jordan, until it rots, justified by the notion that it would negatively impact the economics of Israeli farmers or because a member of the Palestinian family spoke publically against the occupation. Palestinian farmers not being allowed to replant trees that have died. Ancient olive orchards being bulldozed. Untreated sewage from illegal Israeli hilltop settlements running into the fields and villiages below. Schools and bookstores closed and padlocked leaving unemployed educators and students out on the streets. Then, if the Palestinians get angry and protest tanks and bulldozers are sent in to destroy the homes of anyone involved, even if the involvement constisted of no more than watching. B'Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights has reported that an average of twelve Palestinian familes have lost their homes for every one family that has participated in attacks against Israelis, including throwing stones. Many Palestinians are rounded up and detained for any number of reasons, men women and children. Once in jail they can be kept indefinitely with no charge or contact with counsel. If they are eventually charged it's often along the lines of "disturbing the peace". They are often kept in civilian jails but are subjected to military tribunals, so basically the military gets to be the accuser, judge and jury. Jimmy Carter's book "Peace, Not Apartheid" refers to one of the uglier examples, in Hebron, an area with a number of significant holy sites. About 450 militant jewish settlers have moved in with several thousand Israeli soldiers for protection. The UN reports that there are about 150 checkpoints in and around the city. The settlers are heavily armed. The confiscate homes adjacent to theirs and drive Palestinians away from the holy sites, accusing them of being tresspassers. Sometimes the confrontations are quite physical and deliberate. When this happens the military imposes long curfews on the 150,000 Palestinian residents, keeping them from any normal daily activities such as work, school, going to the market. Many Palestinians believe that the intent is to drive them away from the area. I think they might have a valid argument. And to top it off, money sent as aid to the Palestinians, even money from USAID, is intercepted and either withheld or used in settlement development. Israel denies that the money is used for settlement activity but they don't deny that is often withheld. They said that they confiscate it so that it doesn't get diverted to finance violent acts and that, since Israeli farmed products have priority in the marketplace, that it doesn't make sense to allow the Palestinians to enhance the development of their agriculture. To be continued.

I may have made my last post pre-maturely. This is a reasonable addition to the discussion. I may or may not return to this discussion I don't know yet. But I do want you to know that I don't condone Palestinian war crimes. Pointing out how Israel has failed to pursue peace doesn't mean that the Palestinians haven't hindered it as well.

Looks like we've gone full circle in this thread. I apologize for allowing myself to get baited back into the typical shit fest. That will teach me to read a crapload of material and try to elevate the conversation from the typical name calling and talking point regurgitation that always accompanies discussions on this topic. The only think sadder than ignorance is wanton ignorance. Sorry if I wasted anyone's fucking time. Please return to your comfortable pre-conceptions.

I agree with you 100%. The whole situation is horrible and I fault both sides for not doing what they can to work this out. The reason for my postings has been to provide some information to show that the information that we receive regarding this conflict is extremely one sided. I don't fault Israel for going after people who attack them. But the people who attack Israel are individuals, not a race. We hear about the suicide bombings and some of the IDF activities but we never hear about how Israel has been treating the Palestinians who are trying to live in a peaceful coexistence with Israel. It really is apartheid in every sense of the word. Hold on, let me stop before I get started again. The bottom line for me is that I want Israel and the Palestinians to settle this problem in a manner that is fair to both parties. It's in their best interest as well as that of the rest of the world, especially us here in the US. Peace can be had but there are extremists on both sides who are preventing it. And it's not going to happen unless there's a strong third party that makes it happen.

The only thing I've tried to perpetuate is some honesty and balance in the debate. I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same. Your contribution so far has been anger. Period. If you have a problem with the information that I've posted in this thread then I'd appreciate it if you would do some research and tell me which facts, quotes and figures are in error. As far as I know the information is correct whether you like it or not. I don't want to be wrong. If you can, correct me or ask people questions. Otherwise your ranting contributions don't add anything of value to a discussion that has, for the most part, been somewhat civil.

There may be, but I don't think that any of them are here on DZ.com. On the other hand, there are probably some people other than myself who understand that the situation is desperate and it might drive people to such extremes. As an aside, are you interested in which side has killed more civilians?

Are you attempting to justify the “production of Palestinian orphans” because of good CPU designs? I am beginning to understand why you side with the Israelis on this issue if you value Palestinian life less then microchip then it all makes perfect sense I just attributed the insensitive comment to the frustration that many people may be feeling when they find out that everything's not as black and white as they thought it was. I could be wrong, but I hope not.

Well then I'm not alone. "Settlement activity must stop. And it has not stopped to our satisfaction." Secretary Colin Powell — September 21, 2003 “Our position on settlements, I think, has been very consistent, very clear. The secretary expressed it not too long ago. He said settlement activity has severely undermined Palestinian trust and hope, preempts and prejudges the outcome of negotiations, and in doing so, cripples chances for real peace and prosperity. The U.S. has long opposed settlement activity and, consistent with the report of the Mitchell Committee, settlement activity must stop.” Mr. Richard Boucher, U.S. Department of State –Daily Press Briefing -- November 25, 2002 “Consistent with the Mitchell plan, Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop, and the occupation must end through withdrawal to secure and recognized boundaries, consistent with United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338.” President Bush’s Rose Garden Address – April 4, 2002 “The Israeli people also must understand that . . . the settlement enterprise and building bypass roads in the heart of what they already know will one day be part of a Palestinian state is inconsistent with the Oslo commitment that both sides negotiate a compromise.” President Clinton’s farewell address to the Middle East -- January 7, 2001 “We write you because we are concerned that unilateral actions, such as expansion of settlements, would be strongly counterproductive to the goal of a negotiated solution and, if carried forward, could halt progress made by the peace process over the last two decades. Such a tragic result would threaten the security of Israel, the Palestinians, friendly Arab states, and undermine U.S. interests in the Middle East.” Excerpt from a letter written to H.E. Benjamin Netanyahu on December 14, 1996. The letter was signed by: James A. Baker III (Former Secretary of State), Zbigniew Brzezinski (Former National Security Adviser), Frank C. Carlucci (Former National Security Adviser), Lawrence S. Eagleburger (Former Secretary of State), Richard Fairbanks (Former Middle East Peace Negotiator), Brent Scowcroft (Former National Security Adviser), Robert S. Straus (Former Middle East Peace Negotiator), Cyrus R. Vance (Former Secretary of State). “Every time I have gone to Israel in connection with the peace process on each of my trips I have been met with the announcement of new settlement activity. This does violate United States policy. It is the first thing that Arabs--Arab governments—the first thing that Palestinians in the territories—whose situation is really quite desperate—the first thing they raise when we talk to them. I don’t think there is any greater obstacle to peace than settlement activity that continues not only unabated but at an advanced pace." U.S. Secretary of State James Baker – May 22, 1991 “My position is that the foreign policy of the United States says we do not believe there should be new settlements in the West Bank or in East Jerusalem. And I will conduct that policy as if it’s firm, which it is, and I will be shaped in whatever decisions we make to see whether people can comply with that policy. And that’s our strongly held view.” President George H.W. Bush, press conference –March 3, 1990 "Since the end of the 1967 war, the U.S. has regarded Israel as the occupying power in the occupied territories, which includes the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The U.S. considers Israel's occupation to be governed by the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the 1949 Geneva Conventions concerning the protection of civilian populations under military occupation." Thomas Pickering, US Ambassador to the United Nations -- November 27, 1989 “The Reagan Plan states that ‘the United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements during the transition period (5 years after Palestinian election for a self-governing authority). Indeed, the immediate adoption of a settlements freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks. Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be fee and fairly negotiated.” Reagan Plan –September 1982 “Our position on the settlements is very clear. We do not think they are legal.” President Carter -- April 1980 interview “Substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under the convention and cannot be considered to have prejudged the outcome of future negotiations between the parties on the locations of the borders of states by the Middle East. Indeed, the presence of these settlements is seen by my government as an obstacle to the success of the negotiations for a just and final peace between Israel and its neighbors.” William Scranton, US Ambassador to the United Nations, UN Security Council -- March 23, 1976 Need more?

I think it's cute the way you bolded Israel's part, but not the other part. The part I find more relevent in this discussion. I answered the question accurately. I put in bold the point that was pertinent to the question. Once again, those resolutions are and have been a part of every peace deal of which Israel has agreed to. They are a part of the current Roadmap. They are represented in Israel's STATED policy as well as that of the US. You don't think Iran holding holocaust denier conventions and spewing other destruction rhetoric runs counter to the notion of an 'unmistakably clear acceptance of Israel?' And Iran's conference has what to do with this discussion? By your own declaration, Israel is the more powerful party in this concern. Can you cite historical precedent where the bully nation accepted uneven compromise when it didn't have to? Law of the jungle says the little guy has to make nice if he expects the bully to stop hurting him. Lobbing missles and car bombs is hardly an enticement. And if Israel didn't have a viable nuclear counterstrike capability, it would still be fighting off invading nations. We're not talking about the "law of the Jungle". We're talking about the law as it was laid down by the entity that created Israel and how it applies to Israel. It's also the law as the US and the international community sees it.