idrankwhat

Looks like more than a fly by to me. http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7000000/newsid_7005800/7005856.stm?bw=nb&mp=wm&news=1&ms3=6&nol_storyid=7005856# P.S. If they're launching an attack from Golan, doesn't that technically mean that they're attacking Syria from Syria?

It still isn't Israel's to occupy. Self control? By that Israel means it can have something it calls a "state" but travel through that non-contiguous state, imports, exports, airspace, airwaves, etc are all under Israeli control. We went over that earlier too. You're quite aware of how much of an misstated oversimplification that talking point is. Why don't we start small with the ceasing of the issuance of building permits and then having the settlers leave the illegal settlements?

Didn't Julie Andrews sing that in the "R" rated version of "The Sound of Music"? "Raindrops on roses and weed, beer and Halo....."

The modern state of Israel already has internationally recognized borders. By international law as expressed by the very institution that founded the modern state of Israel, Israel must give back the land it has taken since 1967 unless a mutually acceptable land exchange can be agreed to. I've heard that line before. Yet I still see land being taken. It's kind of hard to convince people that you want to give it back if you continue to take more. We've been over this many times before which is why I didn't participate very much earlier in this thread. You think that Israel has some right to the land outside of its borders. I (and the UN and the US) don't.

I've shown you repeatedly that this is not the case. That you hold on to this belief and continue to support the forcible land grabbing in the West Bank is why Israel has a problem and why I have a problem with Israel. My argument is based on the Geneva Conventions, numerous UN resolutions, maps, and public statements by Israeli and US officials. Your assertion that the land is in dispute comes from where?

Do you believe that Israel has the right to any land that they can forcibly take? Do you believe that Israel has the right to ignore human rights and support an apartheid occupation? You gonnna answer mine with more questions? Unfortunately, I must pull the plug and drive back to Montana. Will continue in a few days. Really; no kidding. To answer yours. Yes and Yes

YES.. and they need to keep the land until a viable peace is made. Until then if it provides their people more security as a buffer against a warring nation then so be it. They made peace with Egypt... the land was returned...get it??? Do the Arabs who stayed in Israel have more rights than a typical Arab in Syria or Iran or the rest of their repressive and neighbors who live under dictatorships? Do those Arabs have more rights than the Jews did that USED to exist in the neighboring countries...until many of them were murdered and driven out??? See post # 36. And until that changes and there's actually an honest, balanced discussion about the issue, this exercise will continue to amount to: "Ouch" "Quit it" "Ouch" "Quit it" "Ouch"....

Why not? Didn't they offer to rush to Rush's rescue. How much more fair and balanced can you get than that?

Do you believe that Israel has the right to any land that they can forcibly take? Do you believe that Israel has the right to ignore human rights and support an apartheid occupation?

Ain't that the truth?

No. But they answer Rush's question.

1980, average CEO salary was 42 times the average worker. 2005, average CEO salary was 411 times the average worker.

Well, considering the Pentagon's history of spying on activists and keeping their information in a database, these stories don't sound so far fetched.

Thanks for the clarifcation. If done well and thoughtfully, there actually could be an interesting topic there. ... The problem is that not only did he blow the metaphor, he blew the explanation of the blown metaphor, and I don't think he tried to explain his misspokenism.

You're absolutely right. It's a perfect example of how the political trash machine works. 1) Post a baseless, inflammatory story. 2) Fuel the fire with empty rhetorical exchange. 3) In a fair and balanced way, post a retraction of sorts. 4) Continue to cover the non-story and provide a forum for continued empty rhetorical exchange. 5) Let the story die, knowing that it's already placed in the subconscious, awaiting retrieval for use in a later exchange of empty, hateful, irrelevant rhetoric.

Year old story but here's the poop. JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, I don't know, Wolf. If war breaks out between Pakistan and Afghanistan, you know, you may have some guys coming by andknocking on your door asking for transcripts. Ordinarily, we don't do a question two days in a row, but this is important enough to be an exception. The House just passed President Bush's bill to redefine the treatment of detainees, and the Senate's expected to do the same thing tomorrow. Buried deep inside this legislation is a provision that will pardon President Bush and all the members of his administration of any possible crimes connected with the torture and mistreatment of detainees dated all the way back to September 11, 2001. At least President Nixon had Gerald Ford to do his dirty work. President Bush is trying to pardon himself. Here's the deal. Under the War Crimes Act, violations of the Geneva Conventions are felonies. In some cases, punishable by death. When the Supreme Court ruled the Geneva Conventions applied to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, President Bush and his boys were suddenly in big trouble. They had been working these prisoners over pretty good. In an effort to avoid possible prosecution, they're trying to cram this bill through Congress before the end of the week when Congress adjourns. The reason there's such a rush to do this, if the Democrats get control of the House in November, well, this kind of legislation probably wouldn't pass. You want to know the real disgrace of what these people are about to do or are in the process of doing? Senator Bill Frist and Congressman Dennis Hastert and their Republican stooges apparently don't see anything wrong with this. I really do wonder sometimes what we're becoming in this country. The question is this: Should Congress pass a bill giving retroactive immunity to President Bush for possible war crimes? E-mail your thoughts to CaffertyFile@ CNN.com or go to CNN.

(in reference to post #13) Nice post Darius.

Hitlery? Is that some sort of fascist accessory?

Press- give the candidates equal time and quit picking the shortlist for us.

Here we go again. When reading history it's generally a good rule to not skip every other paragraph.

I saw the clip on the Daily Show. Unbelievable. Just when you think it can't get any more embarrassing.

[email] Anybody know if this bill passed? Scumbag is too nice of a word.

Now apply this standard to President Bush. Just ignore him. I wish they would, but that should have been done years ago. The one good thing about A__jad's speech, at least they didn't have to sign a loyalty oath to hear what he had to say

Probably blockade the Strait of Hormuz. Cutting off 20% of the world's oil supply (aka. "our interests in the region" in Bushspeak) will piss off some people. Our carrier groups aren't hanging around the area just to give Cheney a place to rattle his saber.

What I've been wondering is why the opponents don't understand that by raising a big stink about his visit that they're creating precisely the situation that they say they don't want. Instead of drawing attention to his visit and creating a media circus why don't his detractors just simply ignore him? His opponents have created the news storm and given him a platform that will be broadcast all over the world. In addition to his words you now have those of an extremely rude US University President and video and audio of protesters booing and frothing at the mouth. It's a win for Ahmandinejad. It's just like the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ". Not a very good movie but millions of people saw it because a bible thumping mob made it incredibly popular.