Somebody call the waaambulance.

Hopenchanged...good one!

Never a poison ray around when you really need one.

/

We can't make peace with Fatah because the United States won't let us.

That has to be the lamest excuse I've ever heard, out of a long line of lame excuses coming out of the Middle East.

I was (and still am) concerned about Obama's support of Israel. He sent US Envoy George Mitchell there in January to put pressure on the Israelis to give up the "settlements" by saying the U.S. would withhold loan guarantees. Whether it happens or not, never has a U.S. administration put such pressure on Israel.

There's a number of articles, but here's one.

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

re: #4 SanFranciscoZionist

We can't make peace with Fatah because the United States won't let us.

That has to be the lamest excuse I've ever heard, out of a long line of lame excuses coming out of the Middle East.

The whole "Stop killing each other" has always been a real deal breaker over there.

The Palestinian triangle offense continues...

Meanwhile, al Qaeda remains on target - kill the Jews and Christians.

"The Christians, the Jews, and the treacherous apostate rulers have pounced on you...you have no other way out from this plight other than to wage jihad," the wing's deputy leader, Saeed al-Shehri, a former Saudi inmate at the US prison at Guantanamo Bay, said in an audio tape posted on a website often used by Islamist groups.

Shehri was one of 30 al-Qaeda members that Yemen claimed to have killed in an air strike in December but this was later denied by the global militant network.

"We advise you, our people in the Peninsula, to prepare and carry your weapons and to defend your religion and yourselves and to join your mujahideen brothers," he said.

I have to admit I did not expect Obama to hold the strong line against Hamas for the reason you stated, but it is a very pleasant surprise and some of us are beginning to realize it. I like it also because it demonstrates, with other examples, Obama's ability to learn quickly and re-orient himself, when it is right and/or necessary.

re: #8 daliarose

I have to admit I did not expect Obama to hold the strong line against Hamas for the reason you stated, but it is a very pleasant surprise and some of us are beginning to realize it. I like it also because it demonstrates, with other examples, Obama's ability to learn quickly and re-orient himself, when it is right and/or necessary.

It's only a surprise if you believed the lies McCain and Palin said about President Obama during the campaign (that he 'palled around with terrorists'). Obama has always been a moderate, and he never had the intention of throwing America and/or Israel under the bus and siding with Hamas.

And meanwhile Israel is starting up negotiations with Abu Mazen and the PA. Hamas wants a war, and more than anything wants to keep pressure on Israel for being the cause of Palestinian suffering. I'd still be naive to think Hamas' temper-tantrum in Russia would change the international community's attitude towards Israel, but it certainly is a step in the right direction in terms of exposing Hamas.

re: #5 marjoriemoon

I was (and still am) concerned about Obama's support of Israel. He sent US Envoy George Mitchell there in January to put pressure on the Israelis to give up the "settlements" by saying the U.S. would withhold loan guarantees. Whether it happens or not, never has a U.S. administration put such pressure on Israel.

There's a number of articles, but here's one.

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

The last few administrations have opposed settlement expansion and called it a impediment to peace.

re: #5 marjoriemoon

I was (and still am) concerned about Obama's support of Israel. He sent US Envoy George Mitchell there in January to put pressure on the Israelis to give up the "settlements" by saying the U.S. would withhold loan guarantees. Whether it happens or not, never has a U.S. administration put such pressure on Israel.

There's a number of articles, but here's one.

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

I take that back. That article says that Bush actually did the same thing.

He [Mitchell] noted that support for the guarantees had been reduced in 2003, but added that no sanctions were being considered and that he preferred persuasion.

Former US President George W Bush's administration whittled down backing for the guarantees after Israel built part of its West Bank barrier.

In 1991, $10bn of loan guarantees were withheld under former President George H W Bush to pressure Israel over the peace process.

That one escaped me :(

re: #11 avanti

The last few administrations have opposed settlement expansion and called it a impediment to peace.

Withholding loan guarantees (although Israel says they don't need them) was apparently something Bush did. I didn't know this. I must add it to my list.

John Murtha, just died.

re: #14 avanti

John Murtha, just died.

No! That's terrible news. My sympathies to his family.

Charles, I think he's learning more about the conflict war that's been going on since 1948. Your concerns were justified, and indeed, when he began his term, his diplomatic approach began to address the issue from the point of view that both sides were equally dedicated to killing. In fact he viewed building apartments in Jerusalem as an act of Israeli aggression.

Now, I can see changes in his approach, and most likely, changes in his assessment.

If he can just learn how the economy works...because he can actually be effective in dealing with that.

re: #14 avanti

John Murtha, just died.

Oh boy... here we go... Time for the fringe tea party idiots to make fools out of themselves...

Prayers to the family... :(

re: #17 efuseakay

Let's hope they don't go down that path.

Now it would be too bad if Abbas (Arafat is a suit, Holocaust denier) and Maashal met in Moscow and there was a car accident...very sad day, indeed

Tell a man by the quality of his enemies as they say...

re: #13 marjoriemoon

Withholding loan guarantees (although Israel says they don't need them) was apparently something Bush did. I didn't know this. I must add it to my list.

Bush loans

re: #3 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Never a poison ray around when you really need one.

/

What the heck is a "poison ray" is it like a death ray that shoots poison?

re: #7 lawhawk

They have had a saying for this for a long time..."First the Saturday people, then the Sunday People..."

re: #21 avanti

Bush loans

Unfreaking believable. Wait till I tell my mother! She was really pissed at Obama over this (and we both support him).

re: #16 Bob Levin

Charles, I think he's learning more about the conflict war that's been going on since 1948. Your concerns were justified, and indeed, when he began his term, his diplomatic approach began to address the issue from the point of view that both sides were equally dedicated to killing. In fact he viewed building apartments in Jerusalem as an act of Israeli aggression.

Now, I can see changes in his approach, and most likely, changes in his assessment.

If he can just learn how the economy works...because he can actually be effective in dealing with that.

What do you think Obama should be doing then?

re: #25 jamesfirecat

With the Middle East or the economy?

re: #26 Bob Levin

With the Middle East or the economy?

re: #26 Bob Levin

With the Middle East or the economy?

re: #26 Bob Levin

With the Middle East or the economy?

Economy.

re: #16 Bob Levin

Since 1948 (!), how about since Isaac and Ishmael, or at least since Mohammed decided that Jihad was the only way to go and transformed the south shore of the Mediterranean into an Islamic lake, forcing the Christians to go north and west for turf...

Looks like James Randi is going to have to shell over that million bucks:

[Link: www.newscientist.com...]

Giving the 'unconscious' a voice

THE inner voice of people who appear unconscious can now be heard. For the first time, researchers have struck up a conversation with a man diagnosed as being in a vegetative state. All they had to do was monitor how his brain responded to specific questions. This means that it may now be possible to give some individuals in the same state a degree of autonomy.

"They can now have some involvement in their destiny," says Adrian Owen of the University of Cambridge, who led the team doing the work.

re: #18 jordash1212

Let's hope they don't go down that path.

Too late. A bunch of them are having a field day at FreeRep...

re: #30 efuseakay

Too late. A bunch of them are having a field day at FreeRep...

But it's not a hate site! /heavy sarcasm

re: #29 RogueOne

How does that touch on Randi?

re: #31 b_sharp

But it's not a hate site! /heavy sarcasm

That's why it's called Free Republic! heh...

re: #32 Obdicut

How does that touch on Randi?

Nothing:

At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant."

To date, no one has passed the preliminary tests.

re: #24 marjoriemoon

Like I said in the Murtha RIP post, Charles some lizards need to be schooled in political literacy; people who don't know who John Murtha was or what Bush the Elder (along with his henchman James "Money is fungible" Baker) did, freezing loan guarantees pushing Saudi AWACS sales through Congress need to be schooled or at least refrain from posting to get some context...good L-rd, I must be getting old!!!

"MOSCOW, Feb 8 (Reuters) - Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal on Monday accused the United States of undermining Palestinian unity efforts and said he saw no chance for peace in the Middle East under Israel’s current leadership."

As opposed to the big push for peace we saw from Hamas during the centrist Olmert administration.../

re: #32 Obdicut

How does that touch on Randi?

He has a million dollar prize out there for anyone who can do a valid demonstration of "facilitated communication".

re: #27 jamesfirecat

One of the issues that I had with him before he was elected was that he could talk for a long time a say very little. One thing the economy needs is clarity. So he has to be very clear about his economic concept. This helps people decide the best way to invest. That's one thing.

It seems that when he began (and this is going to have to change) he believed that government services can serve as the basis for a healthy economy, and this just isn't true. A nation needs to develop a series of products or resources that other nations must have, or really want. So he can say, 'the US will become a leader in energy production and technology--all kinds." For instance.

For that matter, legalizing pot can have the same effect--developing natural resources from the earth. This works somewhat like the English desire for sugar and tea in the 18th and 19th centuries, but without the carnage.

There are also steps he can take to accelerate economic activity. For instance, he just set aside money for nuclear energy. Money hasn't been the issue. Red tape and unpopularity have been the issue. So he can cut the red tape, and talk about the French model for nuclear energy. This will spur investment in power companies.

He's correct in noticing the disparity of incomes, but the best solution is for those who have so much more to want to invest in new businesses and technology. He can talk about this, the virtues of becoming a venture capitalist--again being very clear.

People need to feel they have a grasp on the future--and this is pretty much the job of the President, to give people and economic movers a feeling of what they can expect over the next several years.

You keep reading about the stock markets fluctuation because of anxiety about the future. His job is to reduce that anxiety.

re: #34 avanti

99.9% correct, you forgot the "facilitated communication" prize.

re: #37 RogueOne

I don't think this counts, any more than sign language is facilitated communication.

re: #28 Kobyashi Maru

Since 1948 (!), how about since Isaac and Ishmael, or at least since Mohammed decided that Jihad was the only way to go and transformed the south shore of the Mediterranean into an Islamic lake, forcing the Christians to go north and west for turf...

To tell you the truth, I just go back to 1967 when Nasser said he would push the Jews into the sea. I've been watching the Arab world for some statement to nullify that sentiment since then--and there hasn't been one. In fact, all actions indicate it is still very much the prevailing policy.

re: #5 marjoriemoon

I was (and still am) concerned about Obama's support of Israel. He sent US Envoy George Mitchell there in January to put pressure on the Israelis to give up the "settlements" by saying the U.S. would withhold loan guarantees. Whether it happens or not, never has a U.S. administration put such pressure on Israel.

There's a number of articles, but here's one.

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

THe reality is that there is substantial support for this idea within Israel as well. Many feel that the settlements (particularly growing outposts) are a pariah on the nation. I, as a zionist, and supporter of Israel without qualification, have no problem with freezing all settlement activity, and strongly believe that if there is ever to be peace (this is not up to Israel really) it will include most of the settlements being returned and land swaps for the more permanent ones. I certainly find no fault with Obama for this position, as long as he maintains pressure on extremists like Hamas.

re: #38 Bob Levin

One of the issues that I had with him before he was elected was that he could talk for a long time a say very little. One thing the economy needs is clarity. So he has to be very clear about his economic concept. This helps people decide the best way to invest. That's one thing.

It seems that when he began (and this is going to have to change) he believed that government services can serve as the basis for a healthy economy, and this just isn't true. A nation needs to develop a series of products or resources that other nations must have, or really want. So he can say, 'the US will become a leader in energy production and technology--all kinds." For instance.

For that matter, legalizing pot can have the same effect--developing natural resources from the earth. This works somewhat like the English desire for sugar and tea in the 18th and 19th centuries, but without the carnage.

There are also steps he can take to accelerate economic activity. For instance, he just set aside money for nuclear energy. Money hasn't been the issue. Red tape and unpopularity have been the issue. So he can cut the red tape, and talk about the French model for nuclear energy. This will spur investment in power companies.

He's correct in noticing the disparity of incomes, but the best solution is for those who have so much more to want to invest in new businesses and technology. He can talk about this, the virtues of becoming a venture capitalist--again being very clear.

People need to feel they have a grasp on the future--and this is pretty much the job of the President, to give people and economic movers a feeling of what they can expect over the next several years.

You keep reading about the stock markets fluctuation because of anxiety about the future. His job is to reduce that anxiety.

You raise several good points, still I'd like to respond that while good governmental services can't be the backbone of an economy, at the moment healthcare costs keep going up, and a lot of employees consider healthcare coming with their job a big perk, a perk that gets more expensive as time goes on.

While healthcare alone can't be the basis for our economy, it would seem hard to have a productive business when the "salary", actually make that "benefits" of you employees are being constantly inflated by higher and higher healthcare costs.

re: #28 Kobyashi Maru

Since 1948 (!), how about since Isaac and Ishmael, or at least since Mohammed decided that Jihad was the only way to go and transformed the south shore of the Mediterranean into an Islamic lake, forcing the Christians to go north and west for turf...

You can do that with any war, any conflict. Let's not get too dramatic about the ancient roots of hatred. The modern ones are plenty.

re: #40 Obdicut

Any communication with someone who's unconscious has to be, by definition, "facilitated". This is actually a pretty amazing study. It will be interesting to see where it goes.

re: #44 SanFranciscoZionist

You can do that with any war, any conflict. Let's not get too dramatic about the ancient roots of hatred. The modern ones are plenty.

Welcome to the Balkans, where somebody either stole or f***ed somebody else's goat a dozen generations ago and we've been fighting about it ever since.

re: #45 RogueOne

It is amazing, but it's not mystical in any way. I think you're mixing up the psychic's definition of 'facilitated communication' with a more scientific one, which obviously Randi would have no problem with.

It's totally fascinating, though, and wonderful.

Are there any Palestinian leaders/factions which aren't pushing/riding the "death to all of Israel" thing? I'm unsure if there is even anyone to support or encourage.

Legitimate question, I'm just uninformed and would like some feedback.

re: #46 jamesfirecat

Welcome to the Balkans, where somebody either stole or f***ed somebody else's goat a dozen generations ago and we've been fighting about it ever since.

Per Terry Pratchett, a brawl is about what they said about our Sharon, a feud is about what their ancestors said about our Sharon, and a war is about what their crown prince said about our Sharon.

re: #48 Locker

Are there any Palestinian leaders/factions which aren't pushing/riding the "death to all of Israel" thing? I'm unsure if there is even anyone to support or encourage.

Legitimate question, I'm just uninformed and would like some feedback.

I don't doubt that they DO exist, but I imagine they have a bit of a hard time being all that effective. The "death to Israel" types more or less snuff out their opposition, and I can't help thinking that they'd view any legitimate accomodationist party as a treasonous conspiracy.

The ones likeliest to make and keep the peace are also the ones likeliest to get killed, sad to say.

re: #49 SanFranciscoZionist

Per Terry Pratchett, a brawl is about what they said about our Sharon, a feud is about what their ancestors said about our Sharon, and a war is about what their crown prince said about our Sharon.

I have read Terry Pratchett, and I think actually all of his "adult" Discworld books in the sense of none of the three Nac Mac Feegal books, though I have read The Amazing Morris and his Educated Rodents...

re: #48 Locker

Are there any Palestinian leaders/factions which aren't pushing/riding the "death to all of Israel" thing? I'm unsure if there is even anyone to support or encourage.

Legitimate question, I'm just uninformed and would like some feedback.

Well, there are certainly some who take a more pragmatic view of the world and outwardly support a two state solution (unlike Hamas). However, it is also true that most of them would when speaking to their own, NEVER renounce the goal of "liberating" all of "Palestine" either via force or so called right of return.

re: #43 jamesfirecat

I hear you on that. It's definitely an issue that has to be addressed. We've had several threads on this issue. The best solution that I've heard treat health care like a public utility--with an oversight commission. This would be done on a state by state basis.

Cost is definitely a factor, but so is speed of care. The less steps between the doctor, patient, and payment, the better.

re: #48 Locker

Are there any Palestinian leaders/factions which aren't pushing/riding the "death to all of Israel" thing? I'm unsure if there is even anyone to support or encourage.

Legitimate question, I'm just uninformed and would like some feedback.

Ultimately, no. Fatah is certainly more willing to communicate/ cooperate on certain things, but I'd say their basic goals eventually wind back to 'death to Israel'.

re: #46 jamesfirecat

Welcome to the Balkans, where somebody either stole or f***ed somebody else's goat a dozen generations ago and we've been fighting about it ever since.

I saw a fantastic episode of Nature on PBS last night about the Balkans peninsula. The variety of climate, geography and wildlife was amazing. Definitely worth checking out.

re: #53 Bob Levin

I hear you on that. It's definitely an issue that has to be addressed. We've had several threads on this issue. The best solution that I've heard treat health care like a public utility--with an oversight commission. This would be done on a state by state basis.

Cost is definitely a factor, but so is speed of care. The less steps between the doctor, patient, and payment, the better.

Is a public unity like single payer?

re: #47 Obdicut

You would think that but no. When it comes to FC, Randi is a skeptics skeptic.
[Link: www.randi.org...]

re: #25 jamesfirecat

What do you think Obama should be doing then?

Abolish drug prohibition, every dollar of risk tax collected by the terrorists is unnecessarily ballooning the military budget.

re: #42 Petero1818

THe reality is that there is substantial support for this idea within Israel as well. Many feel that the settlements (particularly growing outposts) are a pariah on the nation. I, as a zionist, and supporter of Israel without qualification, have no problem with freezing all settlement activity, and strongly believe that if there is ever to be peace (this is not up to Israel really) it will include most of the settlements being returned and land swaps for the more permanent ones. I certainly find no fault with Obama for this position, as long as he maintains pressure on extremists like Hamas.

I put the word "settlement" in quotes because I don't like the terminology. I don't think one can "settle" their own land. It's more accurate to call them disputed territories.

I think dismantling these territories is a terrible idea. Specifically in East Jerusalem. They are the only thing between the city and the Arabs. And giving any more land to the Arabs is awful, particularly this land. Gaza, they can have. They do have. Let them all go to Gaza.

And I ask you, if God forbid they did dismantle the territories would it be enough? What then would the Arabs want? The whole of Jerusalem? Yes.

re: #56 jamesfirecat

We're both typing fast, eh? A public utility is like the gas or electric company. The company is private, a monopoly, but the government has an oversight commission to make sure they don't abuse the power. So if you're happy with the way that everyone has gas and electricity, and the costs are reasonable, that's how health care could work.

re: #44 SanFranciscoZionist

You can do that with any war, any conflict. Let's not get too dramatic about the ancient roots of hatred. The modern ones are plenty.

And can I just comment that when we get all huffy about Islam conquering everyone's ass, it does occur to me that no one here seems to think the Romans were eeevil bastages, and that complaints about European imperialism of the sixteenth century on tend to be seen as leftist whinging.

Just a mutter mutter here.

re: #58 Sacred Plants

Abolish drug prohibition, every dollar of risk tax collected by the terrorists is unnecessarily ballooning the military budget.

Lets start with the less dangerous drugs first like Marijuana.

That said I hear that Heroine is a big cash crop in Afghanistan...

That said, that said, even if the US legalizes these things the market won't totally bottom out as there will still be other countries where the will doubtlessly be a black market for the stuff, or are just that crazy about illegal narcotics that without us the market takes a major nose dive?

re: #50 Guanxi88

re: #52 Petero1818

re: #54 SanFranciscoZionist

Thank ya'll very much for the feedback.

re: #61 SanFranciscoZionist

And yet, when folks talk about an imperialist power today--they talk about Israel. *rolling eyes*

re: #60 Bob Levin

We're both typing fast, eh? A public utility is like the gas or electric company. The company is private, a monopoly, but the government has an oversight commission to make sure they don't abuse the power. So if you're happy with the way that everyone has gas and electricity, and the costs are reasonable, that's how health care could work.

Sounds good to me, I just don't think that a product which seems to have no "natural ceiling" (its VERY rare to find a person who will say "no that treatment costs too much I would rather die than get it) should only be given to us by for profit companies without any non profit competition...

re: #63 Locker

re: #52 Petero1818

re: #54 SanFranciscoZionist

Thank ya'll very much for the feedback.

Not at all. For a while, I fell for the "all the Palestinians want Jews dead" stuff. It's an easy one to fall into, though. HAMAS and Fatah, back in the day, execute collaborators, and any sort of a move toward a real peaceful coexistence with Israel is, on their terms, collaboration.

I don't want to start an argument in the Murtha thread, nor do I want to speak ill of the dead and all, but why is it when someone dies all the sudden their a saint? I'm not talking specifically about Murtha, it happens all the time. Why do we feel it necessary to say nice things about dead people?

re: #59 marjoriemoon

I put the word "settlement" in quotes because I don't like the terminology. I don't think one can "settle" their own land. It's more accurate to call them disputed territories.

I think dismantling these territories is a terrible idea. Specifically in East Jerusalem. They are the only thing between the city and the Arabs. And giving any more land to the Arabs is awful, particularly this land. Gaza, they can have. They do have. Let them all go to Gaza.

And I ask you, if God forbid they did dismantle the territories would it be enough? What then would the Arabs want? The whole of Jerusalem? Yes.

I will respectfully disagree with you on this. I, like you, do not for a second believe that Israel was wrong in taking the disputed territories. The Arabs waged war and lost. End of story. But I also do not look to God to dictate the borders of the modern Nation State. Pragmatism must prevail. I do not view the west bank as Israel, any more than Gaza. Borders were drawn in the last 100 or so years not 4000 years ago for me, and I am speaking as a Jew.

I beieve for security reasons, there are some settlements around Jerusalem that must be traded for land.

As for your question would dismantling settlements bring peace? Of course not. It is not enough, and Peace will only be made when the Arabs are ready. But IMHO, Israel should not wait for that to move from the settlements, or at the very least stop expanding them. They are a drain on the moral, economic, military and religious lifeblood of Israel, and they will never produce any net positive result.

re: #66 Guanxi88

Not at all. For a while, I fell for the "all the Palestinians want Jews dead" stuff. It's an easy one to fall into, though. HAMAS and Fatah, back in the day, execute collaborators, and any sort of a move toward a real peaceful coexistence with Israel is, on their terms, collaboration.

Well I ask because it seems that somewhere, somehow, the Palestinians (the people not the leadership or some faction) also "deserve to exist". It's understandable that this idea is hard to discuss or debate without the predicable response about their feelings about Israel. I'm not support those feelings, just humanity and human rights.

I can imagine it's hard to have that discussion on the world stage, however, if every single leader or voice from Palestine is undercut with the "Kill Israel" theme. Just looking for somewhere to cast some positive attention.

re: #67 RogueOne

I don't want to start an argument in the Murtha thread, nor do I want to speak ill of the dead and all, but why is it when someone dies all the sudden their a saint? I'm not talking specifically about Murtha, it happens all the time. Why do we feel it necessary to say nice things about dead people?

Because they often leave families behind, families who deserve to be comforted by society.

That and we're afraid they might come back as vampires, or zombies that's another big reason why we don't speak ill of the dead.

re: #65 jamesfirecat

Right now there is a lot of oversight on every medical facility. And believe it or not, that decision to not have treatment is made every day.

The oversight commission, like state insurance commissions, provide the balance on the monopoly power, and for the most part, they do a good job. The head of the commission is usually an elected position, and this position is a stepping stone to higher office. So, the 'man of the people' reputation has a lot of political power.

The system works.

re: #67 RogueOne

I don't want to start an argument in the Murtha thread, nor do I want to speak ill of the dead and all, but why is it when someone dies all the sudden their a saint? I'm not talking specifically about Murtha, it happens all the time. Why do we feel it necessary to say nice things about dead people?

Because they aren't here to defend themselves. At least that's my perspective.

re: #67 RogueOne

I don't want to start an argument in the Murtha thread, nor do I want to speak ill of the dead and all, but why is it when someone dies all the sudden their a saint? I'm not talking specifically about Murtha, it happens all the time. Why do we feel it necessary to say nice things about dead people?

It's called manners. If one does not hew to manners at a time like that, it can get very ugly very quickly. There is a time and place for it, and just after the death is not the time.

I am just not sure we can take the word of Khaled Meshaal.

It is not crazy to think he might just be doing the Blame the USA and Israel dance just get more support.

re: #70 jamesfirecat

Zombies are always a concern, good call.

re: #75 RogueOne

Zombies are always a concern, good call.

They're called "ambulatory deceased" now, you vitalist!

re: #62 jamesfirecat

Lets start with the less dangerous drugs first like Marijuana.

That said I hear that Heroine is a big cash crop in Afghanistan...

That said, that said, even if the US legalizes these things the market won't totally bottom out as there will still be other countries where the will doubtlessly be a black market for the stuff, or are just that crazy about illegal narcotics that without us the market takes a major nose dive?

When the world was tied into this over the course of the 20th century the single most active proponent of prohibition was not China, and it´s still an issue where the totalitarians can hide behind those governments aspiring to appear less intrusive.

Having said that, Heroin is not a crop but a chemical derivative of a crop (Opium) trading an increased application risk for a decreased detection risk.

re: #72 Locker

re: #73 wrenchwench

I would never say anything to a family member but if a person is a jerk in life, dying isn't going to change that. I had a grandmother die in december and everyone acted like I was unreasonable because I didn't take the time to go to the funeral. I didn't go to the funeral because she was an ass, a major ass. She was an all around horrible person and dying didn't change any of it.

re: #68 Petero1818

I will respectfully disagree with you on this. I, like you, do not for a second believe that Israel was wrong in taking the disputed territories. The Arabs waged war and lost. End of story. But I also do not look to God to dictate the borders of the modern Nation State. Pragmatism must prevail. I do not view the west bank as Israel, any more than Gaza. Borders were drawn in the last 100 or so years not 4000 years ago for me, and I am speaking as a Jew.

I beieve for security reasons, there are some settlements around Jerusalem that must be traded for land.

As for your question would dismantling settlements bring peace? Of course not. It is not enough, and Peace will only be made when the Arabs are ready. But IMHO, Israel should not wait for that to move from the settlements, or at the very least stop expanding them. They are a drain on the moral, economic, military and religious lifeblood of Israel, and they will never produce any net positive result.

If you look at a map of biblical Israel all the way today, you notice how much has been whittled away. The Land has always been the Jewish homeland for 3800 years. We've always lived there. No one questions the rights of any other people to their own country. These are historical facts. Whether you believe it is ours by divine intervention doesn't make a difference.

Having said that, Israelis have done a great deal for peace, including giving up land, but East Jerusalem is too much. Why do you say the territories are a drain on society?

re: #78 RogueOne

re: #73 wrenchwench

I would never say anything to a family member but if a person is a jerk in life, dying isn't going to change that. I had a grandmother die in december and everyone acted like I was unreasonable because I didn't take the time to go to the funeral. I didn't go to the funeral because she was an ass, a major ass. She was an all around horrible person and dying didn't change any of it.

Well I also believe you should do what you want. I bet, however, you didn't sneak into the funeral and tack up a sign saying "Grandma was an Ass!". You showed some restraint and tact, which seems appropriate.

re: #62 jamesfirecat

Abolish drug prohibition, every dollar of risk tax collected by the terrorists is unnecessarily ballooning the military budget.

Lets start with the less dangerous drugs first like Marijuana.

Wow... suddenly my conversations with you previously make a lot more sense...

re: #68 Petero1818

Can we change some terminology here? Instead of 'settlements', and we use the world 'subdivisions' or 'suburbs'. These aren't just tents, these are fully functioning areas connected to plumbing, electricity and gas. The houses are quite nice.

The fact is that the Israelis have kids and need space. The problem is that the Arab world views any Jewish presence on 'their land' as a desecration. Hence the continued call for the West Bank to be Judenrein, same for Gaza.

They've been talking about borders for, a long time. Israel has wanted practical borders, the Arabs want all of Israel. Yes, there are political parties that think Israel should populate its entire territory from the Mediterranean to the Jordan, and Jews could live there. But certain groups don't want that kind of coexistence.

The only time I remember religion getting into the real politics of land is when Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt, since that land has no relation to the Biblical boundaries.

re: #81 Buck

Wow... suddenly my conversations with you previously make a lot more sense...

The 60's just called, they want their ad hominem attack back.

Do you think that Marijuana is more dangerous than cigarettesor alcohol?

re: #83 jamesfirecat

The 60's just called, they want their ad hominem attack back.

Do you think that Marijuana is more dangerous than cigarettesor alcohol?

Or caffeine? Or saturated fats? Shit even Aspirin is more dangerous.

re: #78 RogueOne

re: #73 wrenchwench

I would never say anything to a family member but if a person is a jerk in life, dying isn't going to change that. I had a grandmother die in december and everyone acted like I was unreasonable because I didn't take the time to go to the funeral. I didn't go to the funeral because she was an ass, a major ass. She was an all around horrible person and dying didn't change any of it.

We all have the same debt to pay. We are all identical in that way. You would want the same respect paid to you, particularly since the dead cannot defend themselves. You wouldn't want anyone talking behind your back and if they did, you want to confront them. The dead cannot confront anyone.

We pay respect to a life for whatever good they did. Maybe the good your grandmother did was to birth you mother or father who in turn birthed you. You wouldn't be you without her. If you can't find any respect, then maybe that is one.

re: #79 marjoriemoon

If you look at a map of biblical Israel all the way today, you notice how much has been whittled away. The Land has always been the Jewish homeland for 3800 years. We've always lived there. No one questions the rights of any other people to their own country. These are historical facts. Whether you believe it is ours by divine intervention doesn't make a difference.

Having said that, Israelis have done a great deal for peace, including giving up land, but East Jerusalem is too much. Why do you say the territories are a drain on society?

re: #79 marjoriemoon

If you look at a map of biblical Israel all the way today, you notice how much has been whittled away. The Land has always been the Jewish homeland for 3800 years. We've always lived there. No one questions the rights of any other people to their own country. These are historical facts. Whether you believe it is ours by divine intervention doesn't make a difference.

Having said that, Israelis have done a great deal for peace, including giving up land, but East Jerusalem is too much. Why do you say the territories are a drain on society?

I will take your points in order:
1. The land has had a continuous Jewish presence for 4000 years. No argument from me, but if you think that nobody questions others rights to their land I could direct you to the aboriginal people all over the world, as well as to the India?pakistan historic conflict which also included forced migration. It is not true. Modern nation states require modern not historic solutions.

2. It is not just me who believes that the territories are a drain. Many Israelis have come to that conclusion. Retired General Amos Lapidot, former commander of Israel’s Air Force has spoken about this on Ynet, and other sources. Many Israeli politicians have spoken about it too. Settlements and settlers have required disproportionate costs for services, security, infrastructure and the like. In addition, they have created serious internal tensions in the country and brought the level of rhetoric to an all time high in Israeli politics. They have diverted Israeli attention from pressing socio/economic concerns.

Finally, as I said before, we likely should just agree to disagree on this. We have both had this debate before, and are unlikely to convince each other of anything.
Am Yisroel Chai.
P

re: #83 jamesfirecat

The 60's just called, they want their ad hominem attack back.

Do you think that Marijuana is more dangerous than cigarettesor alcohol?

The objection was not to the word dangerous.

Hey, it is ok with me if you want to legalize pot. I am just saying that if you think it is a good idea, it helps me understand you a lot better.

With all due respect I do not think it is particularly reliable to use the amount of whining and posturing by Hamas as a meaningful measure of the degree of US support for Israel. Hamas in particular, and the Arabs in general, have always been emboldened and become more shrill, by any perceived sign of weakness on the part of Israel or America.
Also, I can't help but wonder whether Russia is rolling out the red carpet for Hamas in part as a result of what Russia sees as an opportunity flowing from America's perceived weakness.

re: #87 Buck

The objection was not to the word dangerous.

Hey, it is ok with me if you want to legalize pot. I am just saying that if you think it is a good idea, it helps me understand you a lot better.

Can you give me a reasonable explanation for why pot shouldn't be legal?

re: #79 marjoriemoon

If you look at a map of biblical Israel all the way today, you notice how much has been whittled away. The Land has always been the Jewish homeland for 3800 years. We've always lived there.
[snip]

By your logic, the land you and your neighbours occupy right now has always been the aboriginal homeland. Care to give it back?

Until recently, the people with the biggest stick ruled. Now, in more rational times, we take the time to consider the historical context and try not to make the same mistakes our ancestors did.

re: #82 Bob Levin

Can we change some terminology here? Instead of 'settlements', and we use the world 'subdivisions' or 'suburbs'. These aren't just tents, these are fully functioning areas connected to plumbing, electricity and gas. The houses are quite nice.

The fact is that the Israelis have kids and need space. The problem is that the Arab world views any Jewish presence on 'their land' as a desecration. Hence the continued call for the West Bank to be Judenrein, same for Gaza.

They've been talking about borders for, a long time. Israel has wanted practical borders, the Arabs want all of Israel. Yes, there are political parties that think Israel should populate its entire territory from the Mediterranean to the Jordan, and Jews could live there. But certain groups don't want that kind of coexistence.

The only time I remember religion getting into the real politics of land is when Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt, since that land has no relation to the Biblical boundaries.

Bob, There are certainly many different types of settlements, and I have seen many. Even in Israel there is common language to differentiate settlements from outposts. Neither are in tents, but the quality of infrastructure is different.

People in Israel have kids. Agreed. They need a place to put them. agreed.

I do not for a second disagree with you that the "problem" is that the Arab world view does not include a place for Israel and that muslim land shall always remain muslim land. No argument there.

I do believe however that the settler movement is a religious movement more than anything else, and as you well know, many are Olim going for the specific purpose of settling. Any time the discussion is about settlements in Israel, their evacuation etc., there is a religious element to it.

re: #87 Buck

The objection was not to the word dangerous.

Hey, it is ok with me if you want to legalize pot. I am just saying that if you think it is a good idea, it helps me understand you a lot better.

Not sure how someone's view on one particular issue helps you understand anything about them other than their view on that one issue. Just trying to make sense of this, no offense.

re: #90 b_sharp

By your logic, the land you and your neighbours occupy right now has always been the aboriginal homeland. Care to give it back?

Until recently, the people with the biggest stick ruled. Now, in more rational times, we take the time to consider the historical context and try not to make the same mistakes our ancestors did.

What would the US response be to sustained rocket attacks from reservations on American towns and cities? It is facile to dismiss the use of force when your ox is not the one being gored.

re: #89 jamesfirecat

Can you give me a reasonable explanation for why pot shouldn't be legal?

Nope... only because I already know what the qualifier "reasonable" means to you (reasonable = you agree with).

re: #86 Petero1818

I will take your points in order:
1. The land has had a continuous Jewish presence for 4000 years. No argument from me, but if you think that nobody questions others rights to their land I could direct you to the aboriginal people all over the world, as well as to the India?pakistan historic conflict which also included forced migration. It is not true. Modern nation states require modern not historic solutions.

2. It is not just me who believes that the territories are a drain. Many Israelis have come to that conclusion. Retired General Amos Lapidot, former commander of Israel’s Air Force has spoken about this on Ynet, and other sources. Many Israeli politicians have spoken about it too. Settlements and settlers have required disproportionate costs for services, security, infrastructure and the like. In addition, they have created serious internal tensions in the country and brought the level of rhetoric to an all time high in Israeli politics. They have diverted Israeli attention from pressing socio/economic concerns.

Finally, as I said before, we likely should just agree to disagree on this. We have both had this debate before, and are unlikely to convince each other of anything.
Am Yisroel Chai.
P

Well certainly I can agree with your last paragraph!

I have family in Israel, but I haven't discussed the topic with them. There's always more pressing family matters.

The closer the Arabs get to Jerusalem, the worse it will be. They have security issues now? What will it be like then? I'm not an Israeli (just a Jew), but it would seem it's worth the cost.

I'll do some searching on your ideas with regard to that.

re: #94 Buck

Nope... only because I already know what the qualifier "reasonable" means to you (reasonable = you agree with).

Okay then, can you give me any explanation for why we should keep pot illegalized?

re: #94 Buck

Nope... only because I already know what the qualifier "reasonable" means to you (reasonable = you agree with).

Alright, what if I asked the question?

re: #93 Spare O'Lake

What would the US response be to sustained rocket attacks from reservations on American towns and cities? It is facile to dismiss the use of force when your ox is not the one being gored.

The response would probably be to send them some blankets infected with swine flu (small pox, whatever).

re: #98 Locker

The response would probably be to send them some blankets infected with swine flu (small pox, whatever).

I'm a bad liberal, I want to make a joke about "caught on like a pandemic" and its horribly tasteless.

re: #91 Petero1818

I agree. I'm just saying that the key to the border position for the Israeli government is that 9 mile waistline in the middle of the country. And that's a completely pragmatic issue.

Regarding the religious aspect of Jews, Israel, the Diaspora--I'd say there's a little bit of room for examination and reflection. And re-examination and re-reflection.

And some people think extending Pi is a long process. Ha.

re: #78 RogueOne

re: #73 wrenchwench

I would never say anything to a family member but if a person is a jerk in life, dying isn't going to change that. I had a grandmother die in december and everyone acted like I was unreasonable because I didn't take the time to go to the funeral. I didn't go to the funeral because she was an ass, a major ass. She was an all around horrible person and dying didn't change any of it.

Wow, I had a grandmother die a year ago December, and "ass" is nicer than what I thought of her. I still would have gone to her funeral if money were no object, and I would have behaved, but I respect your decision not to attend your grandmother's funeral. My mother told me about the snarky things she and her sister muttered under their breath, but they were at least keeping it between the two of them.

Let's not offer each other condolences, eh?

re: #85 marjoriemoon

I'm going to have to disagree slightly. People know if they're assholes. It's not about defending their honor, they either had it when they were living or they didn't. I understand the argument about why people shouldn't say bad things about someone who just died, I just don't see the argument for having to try to find something, anything, nice to say about someone who didn't deserve it when they were breathing. I know that comes across as cold but to me it seems entirely rational.

re: #99 jamesfirecat

I'm a bad liberal, I want to make a joke about "caught on like a pandemic" and its horribly tasteless.

Well, to be fair, the funniest jokes normally aren't known for being "tasteful". Restraint, however, is normally a quality that I admire even if my emulation is very, very poor.

re: #57 RogueOne

I really think what he's referring to there is the version of 'facilitated' when someone claims to be interpreting communication. Anyway, if Randi has to pay a million to good solid science research, I doubt that'll bother him.

re: #98 Locker

Obama would never do that.

re: #104 Obdicut

I really think what he's referring to there is the version of 'facilitated' when someone claims to be interpreting communication. Anyway, if Randi has to pay a million to good solid science research, I doubt that'll bother him.

I think Randi's issue would be that anyone can using this new tech communicate with the certain people who seemed to be unresponsive previously, ergo still no "special psychics" in the human race.

re: #90 b_sharp

By your logic, the land you and your neighbours occupy right now has always been the aboriginal homeland. Care to give it back?

Until recently, the people with the biggest stick ruled. Now, in more rational times, we take the time to consider the historical context and try not to make the same mistakes our ancestors did.

Not really the best analogy. The Indian tribes were as diverse as the Germans, the French, the Italians, etc. They may have all been native peoples, but didn't have the same cultures. Particularly if you compare the Eastern bands to the Western bands.

There is no reason why Arabs and Jews can't live together in peace with Israel governing the land. The Israelis have no problem with that, or wouldn't have if there wasn't war. The land was divided in 1948, half for Jews, half for Arabs. Had the Arabs accepted that partition, they would have lived in peace. The Arabs didn't, made war and continue to make war.

The Arabs have to do their part, and that's stop the war. Then the peace process can continue.

re: #101 wrenchwench

My mother and aunt had the same conversation during my grandmothers funeral. Then they went out and had a nice bottle of wine.

gotta run folks. cya later.

re: #100 Bob Levin

re: #100 Bob Levin

nothing that couldn't be worked out over a bagel and a smear.///

Carbs, fat, and inner peace. I've think you've got something there.

Namaste

And I learned a new word today. Namaste, dude.

Definitely reminds me of my favorite movie, Gandhi. Namaste indeed... or in modern slang... Respect.

re: #96 jamesfirecat

Okay then, can you give me any explanation for why we should keep pot illegalized?

Look, you think that pot is a victim-less issue. So no matter what I say you can always just say well cigarettes are addictive, or cigarettes can kill you. So then you place me in the position of having to defend the tobacco industry. I am not going to play that game.

Cigarettes are a harmful drug delivery system. Over time, it will be marginalized, can't put that genie back in the bottle immediately- it will take time, but make no mistake it will happen.

There is no good reason to make matters worse. No reason to release other harmful drugs on the population. No reason to go backwards.

Oh, you can tell me about all the money that would be saved, or earned by the government... but you would not be able to prove it. I could show you science that links pot to metal illness... but you would dismiss it.

Hey, no problem... tilt at that windmill... it is a free country... lol

re: #115 Buck

Marijuana is in the population already, dude. Your argument pretends it doesn't.

Care to try another?

re: #115 Buck

Look, you think that pot is a victim-less issue. So no matter what I say you can always just say well cigarettes are addictive, or cigarettes can kill you. So then you place me in the position of having to defend the tobacco industry. I am not going to play that game.

Cigarettes are a harmful drug delivery system. Over time, it will be marginalized, can't put that genie back in the bottle immediately- it will take time, but make no mistake it will happen.

There is no good reason to make matters worse. No reason to release other harmful drugs on the population. No reason to go backwards.

Oh, you can tell me about all the money that would be saved, or earned by the government... but you would not be able to prove it. I could show you science that links pot to metal illness... but you would dismiss it.

Hey, no problem... tilt at that windmill... it is a free country... lol

So you think that because a certain collection of chemicals is bad for the human body that the government needs to outlaw it?

(Want to establish this before I go any further if I'm wrong correct me)

re: #115 Buck

Look, you think that pot is a victim-less issue. So no matter what I say you can always just say well cigarettes are addictive, or cigarettes can kill you. So then you place me in the position of having to defend the tobacco industry. I am not going to play that game.

Cigarettes are a harmful drug delivery system. Over time, it will be marginalized, can't put that genie back in the bottle immediately- it will take time, but make no mistake it will happen.

There is no good reason to make matters worse. No reason to release other harmful drugs on the population. No reason to go backwards.

Oh, you can tell me about all the money that would be saved, or earned by the government... but you would not be able to prove it. I could show you science that links pot to metal illness... but you would dismiss it.

Hey, no problem... tilt at that windmill... it is a free country... lol

Why do you sling all this bullshit and not simply defend your statement? Basically all you are saying over and over is that you aren't going to argue because you can't win. If that's they case then maybe you should judge your argument instead of your intended audience.

re: #92 Locker

Not sure how someone's view on one particular issue helps you understand anything about them other than their view on that one issue. Just trying to make sense of this, no offense.

Of course you don't. But you do think caffeine and Aspirin are more dangerous for society than pot.

See? That opinion tells me something about you, it really tells me that any discussion with you would be pointless...

re: #119 Buck

Aspirin is TONS more dangerous than pot.

re: #119 Buck

Of course you don't. But you do think caffeine and Aspirin are more dangerous for society than pot.

See? That opinion tells me something about you, it really tells me that any discussion with you would be pointless...

Probably because I'm not an uninformed (on this subject) and naive bumpkin who will just believe your BS without any supporting evidence what so ever. I can definitely see how you'd consider such conversation "pointless".

re: #21 avanti

Bush loans

You aware this article is from a known Arabist anti-Israel publication, and refers to George H.W. Bush.

re: #122 Alouette

You aware this article is from a known Arabist anti-Israel publication, and refers to George H.W. Bush.

Either way if it is true it proves that Obama wasn't the first doesn't it?

re: #91 Petero1818

Bob, There are certainly many different types of settlements, and I have seen many. Even in Israel there is common language to differentiate settlements from outposts. Neither are in tents, but the quality of infrastructure is different.

People in Israel have kids. Agreed. They need a place to put them. agreed.

I do not for a second disagree with you that the "problem" is that the Arab world view does not include a place for Israel and that muslim land shall always remain muslim land. No argument there.

I do believe however that the settler movement is a religious movement more than anything else, and as you well know, many are Olim going for the specific purpose of settling. Any time the discussion is about settlements in Israel, their evacuation etc., there is a religious element to it.

You are aware if there was no Jewish religion there would be no Israel, right?

re: #123 jamesfirecat

Either way if it is true it proves that Obama wasn't the first doesn't it?

avanti was implying that this was Bush 2000-2008

re: #117 jamesfirecat

So you think that because a certain collection of chemicals is bad for the human body that the government needs to outlaw it?

(Want to establish this before I go any further if I'm wrong correct me)

Do not bother to go further, because that is much to simple a distillation of what I said. I am not saying that all harmful chemicals should be illegal,
and you know it.

re: #120 Obdicut

Ya... sure.

re: #127 Buck

I think he's talking about the side effects of stomach problems, and if you take too much--such as every four hours instead of every six hours, liver damage and possibly failure.

re: #126 Buck

Do not bother to go further, because that is much to simple a distillation of what I said. I am not saying that all harmful chemicals should be illegal,
and you know it.

Then what is the line you support between harmful chemicals that are illegal and ones that aren't?

re: #127 Buck

Ya... sure.

Here you go buckethead:

Acute overdose has a mortality rate of 2%. Chronic overdose is more commonly lethal with a mortality rate of 25%; chronic overdose may be especially severe in children.

wikipedia.org - Aspirin Poisoning

If you can't respond in kind with something about Marijuana then kindly shut the fuck up. Thank you, drive through.

re: #122 Alouette

You aware this article is from a known Arabist anti-Israel publication, and refers to George H.W. Bush.

Despite that, Bush #1 did oppose loan guarantees to Israel.

[Link: www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...]

For many in the Jewish community, Bush's presidency could be encapsulated in his offhand quip to reporters in September 1991 during an AIPAC lobbying effort on Capitol Hill in support of the proposed $10 billion loan guarantee to Israel: "I'm one lonely little guy" up against "some powerful political forces" made up of "a thousand lobbyists on the Hill." The comment triggered a spate of antisemitic letters and comments for which the president later apologized.

Bush had opposed the loan guarantees as long as Israel continued settlement in the West Bank and Gaza. The president finally agreed to a loan guarantee package in August 1992, requiring as a set-off any funds Israel spent to build housing or infrastructure in the territories. Despite this action, the political damage was done. The loan guarantee controversy later motivated Jewish opposition to President Bush, who received no more than 12% of the Jewish vote in the 1992 election (down from close to 35% in 1988). While some claimed that Jewish opposition to Bush caused his 1992 defeat, there is little evidence that this was the case. Other actions had caused problems with the Jewish community as well. In March 1990, Bush expressed objection to "new settlements in the West Bank or in East Jerusalem." His reference to eastern Jerusalem and his suggestion that it was not a sovereign part of Israel created a furor and added to strained feelings between Israel and the U.S.

re: #128 Bob Levin

I think he's talking about the side effects of stomach problems, and if you take too much--such as every four hours instead of every six hours, liver damage and possibly failure.

Ya, if you take too much water you can die.

re: #132 Buck

Ya, if you take too much water you can die.

Thank you for proving that even water is more dangerous than Marijuana.

re: #124 Alouette

trying hard to understand your point...

re: #132 Buck

Ya, if you take too much water you can die.

Its true. And is something that anyone taking extacy shoudl know before they trip...

re: #130 Locker

wikipedia.org - Aspirin Poisoning

If you can't respond in kind with something about Marijuana then kindly shut the fuck up. Thank you, drive through.

LOL you can drown if you have too much water... The mortality rate of overdose of water ???

You can "overdose" on almost anything... Oh, but in your mind you can't be harmed by pot. Taking those big drags of smoke, and holding it in your lungs... Ya no way to be harmed by that.

re: #136 Buck

LOL you can drown if you have too much water... The mortality rate of overdose of water ???

You can "overdose" on almost anything... Oh, but in your mind you can't be harmed by pot. Taking those big drags of smoke, and holding it in your lungs... Ya no way to be harmed by that.

What if you take it in brownies?

re: #133 Locker

Thank you for proving that even water is more dangerous than Marijuana.

Love is like oxygen. You get too much, you get too high. Not enough and you're gonna die :)

This argument always amazes me. I'm a pro-Pot proponent, mostly because I think we spend so much money trying to stop it when it never will.

Alcohol is more dangerous than pot. (I'm assuming we can stick to mind altering substances and not aspirin LOL). We can stop trafficking and terrorism by legalizing, growing it locally. By growing it locally, the government can insure it hasn't been treated with dangerous pesticides or simply allow people to grow their own.

That's more of a case for legalization, but I think decriminalization is a better start. An ounce or less for personal consumption, like they're doing in Colorado.

re: #137 jamesfirecat

It can give you the runs..

Locker, Buck, and Obdicut, if those are even your real names,

We all know 3 things:
1. As long as marijuana is illegal, it's hard to know what you're getting, purity-wise. Nowadays, we have both impurities and Godzilla-weed bred to more strength than our flapper grandmothers in the '30s could ever imagine. The horror stories of people running amok are likely often true, but causality is tricky.
2. When Orwell wrote "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever," he may as well have been referring to academic freedom in the US re marijuana for the last 9 decades. NORML has about the same amount of diversity of opinion as its competition.
3. That wingnut survey we argued over a week ago here at LGF showed the Nirthers are more mainstream than the hardliners on weed, so what is best is trumped by what is possible for the government's role.

re: #93 Spare O'Lake

What would the US response be to sustained rocket attacks from reservations on American towns and cities? It is facile to dismiss the use of force when your ox is not the one being gored.

I had no idea that is what I said.

The comment I answered was about the right the settlers have to live in the land won in the '67 war because Jews have always lived there. The 'always lived there' argument is nonsense, not just because we, as Europeans, have not always lived in North America, making the argument hypocritical, but because the Arabs also have a very long history in what is called the occupied territories. The ownership of that land has changed hands multiple times. It isn't a simple problem where claiming 'we were there first', or 'we were there longest' are simple fixes. It is a complex problem that is going to take a complex solution, if there even is a solution given current attitudes.

My comment really had nothing to do with the ongoing violence. If some Palestinians are lobing rockets into Israel with the intent of killing, then Israel owes it to their population to physically stop that attack. They also owe their population at least an attempt at a more permanent solution which has to include a political aspect. Those settlements, because they are haphazard and based to a large extent on religious grounds, are an impediment to a political solution.

If this were the good old days when might made right then tossing the Palestinians into a corner while the Israeli population grabbed as much land as possible might be acceptable. But this isn't that time, and we've examined enough conflict to know that the good old days were really the bad old days and those types of solutions were crap and didn't last.

If Israel wants that land for expansion, then they should find a carrot big enough that the Palestinians agree to it. The US population is growing fast enough that, much like Israel, more land for expansion would be a good thing, but those nasty Canadians and Mexicans are in the way. Nobody in the US would seriously consider just walking into say, Saskatchewan, to build a settlement, yet the US has fought Canada, and Mexico, in the past so the three countries had to get over a history of aggression. How did they do it? They did it politically, with each retaining autonomy, and economically, where dependencies have developed.

What percentage of Palestinians want Israel wiped out, and what percentage are willing to trade prosperity for acceptance, and possibly land. What percentage of the youngest generation want the Western lifestyle.

How about we get the anti-agw propagandists to redirect their energy to convincing the Palestinian population that a wealthy economy and western lifestyle are just an agreement away, while at the same time disabling Hamas and their ilk physically and economically?

\Loony left rant off.

re: #129 jamesfirecat

Then what is the line you support between harmful chemicals that are illegal and ones that aren't?

The ones that you would consume and only have the purpose of altering and impairing your brain function.

DO NOT BRING UP ALCOHOL. I am serious.

re: #127 Buck

Do you have any fucking clue how many people have medical problems due to aspirin?

Seriously. It can make you bleed in your liver. It can worsen any number of blood-related problems. It's a serious drug, and causes serious problems.

The problems with marijuana are almost exclusively due to it being smoked.

re: #136 Buck

LOL you can drown if you have too much water... The mortality rate of overdose of water ???

You can "overdose" on almost anything... Oh, but in your mind you can't be harmed by pot. Taking those big drags of smoke, and holding it in your lungs... Ya no way to be harmed by that.

So what do I think should be done about cannabis? Its record speaks for itself: no recorded fatalities in over 5000 years of use, millions of satisfied users attesting to its benign recreational and medicinal qualities.

[Link: www.marijuana-uses.com...]
[Link: wiki.answers.com...]
[Link: www.erowid.org...]

Yet still there is nothing to back up your bullshit except "Buck KNOWS different!". In fact, I believe Girth was kind enough to explain your methodology in an earlier thread:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

re: #141 b_sharp

"The US population is growing fast enough that, much like Israel, more land for expansion would be a good thing, but those nasty Canadians and Mexicans are in the way. Nobody in the US would seriously consider just walking into say, Saskatchewan, to build a settlement, yet the US has fought Canada, and Mexico, in the past so the three countries had to get over a history of aggression. How did they do it? They did it politically, with each retaining autonomy, and economically, where dependencies have developed."

Actually, burning down your white house made it easier to get over ///

re: #141 b_sharp

Um, about what percentage of your comment do you actually believe to be true?

re: #142 Buck

The ones that you would consume and only have the purpose of altering and impairing your brain function.

DO NOT BRING UP ALCOHOL. I am serious.

Why not is there some other reason to drink Alcohol? Perhaps the breath enhancement factor?

re: #145 Petero1818

Actually, burning down your white house made it easier to get over ///

I was there recently, they fixed it up since... it looks very nice now.

re: #142 Buck

The ones that you would consume and only have the purpose of altering and impairing your brain function.

DO NOT BRING UP ALCOHOL. I am serious.

Actually, we are learning daily about the many positive uses for pot and THC that do not include impairing your brain function. Or you could just ask any chemo or glaucoma patient.

re: #145 Petero1818

"The US population is growing fast enough that, much like Israel, more land for expansion would be a good thing, but those nasty Canadians and Mexicans are in the way. Nobody in the US would seriously consider just walking into say, Saskatchewan, to build a settlement, yet the US has fought Canada, and Mexico, in the past so the three countries had to get over a history of aggression. How did they do it? They did it politically, with each retaining autonomy, and economically, where dependencies have developed."

Actually, burning down your white house made it easier to get over ///

Hey I'm pretty sure we burned down your capital as well during that war, or at least what would later become your capital!

re: #147 Locker

Why not is there some other reason to drink Alcohol? Perhaps the breath enhancement factor?

To make ugly women more attractive!

re: #150 jamesfirecat

Hey I'm pretty sure we burned down your capital as well during that war, or at least what would later become your capital!

Yeah, but you guys are still scared of us///

re: #142 Buck

The ones that you would consume and only have the purpose of altering and impairing your brain function.

DO NOT BRING UP ALCOHOL. I am serious.

Given freedom of religion in America what if you belong to a group that views Marijuana as a way of stimulating a spiritual connection with powers beyond our understanding?

re: #141 b_sharp

I had no idea that is what I said.

The comment I answered was about the right the settlers have to live in the land won in the '67 war because Jews have always lived there. The 'always lived there' argument is nonsense, not just because we, as Europeans, have not always lived in North America, making the argument hypocritical, but because the Arabs also have a very long history in what is called the occupied territories. The ownership of that land has changed hands multiple times. It isn't a simple problem where claiming 'we were there first', or 'we were there longest' are simple fixes. It is a complex problem that is going to take a complex solution, if there even is a solution given current attitudes.

My comment really had nothing to do with the ongoing violence. If some Palestinians are lobing rockets into Israel with the intent of killing, then Israel owes it to their population to physically stop that attack. They also owe their population at least an attempt at a more permanent solution which has to include a political aspect. Those settlements, because they are haphazard and based to a large extent on religious grounds, are an impediment to a political solution.

If this were the good old days when might made right then tossing the Palestinians into a corner while the Israeli population grabbed as much land as possible might be acceptable. But this isn't that time, and we've examined enough conflict to know that the good old days were really the bad old days and those types of solutions were crap and didn't last.

If Israel wants that land for expansion, then they should find a carrot big enough that the Palestinians agree to it. The US population is growing fast enough that, much like Israel, more land for expansion would be a good thing, but those nasty Canadians and Mexicans are in the way. Nobody in the US would seriously consider just walking into say, Saskatchewan, to build a settlement, yet the US has fought Canada, and Mexico, in the past so the three countries had to get over a history of aggression. How did they do it? They did it politically, with each retaining autonomy, and economically, where dependencies have developed.

What percentage of Palestinians want Israel wiped out, and what percentage are willing to trade prosperity for acceptance, and possibly land. What percentage of the youngest generation want the Western lifestyle.

How about we get the anti-agw propagandists to redirect their energy to convincing the Palestinian population that a wealthy economy and western lifestyle are just an agreement away, while at the same time disabling Hamas and their ilk physically and economically?

Loony left rant off.

Loony rant indeed.

Which tribe are you going to give back the U.S. to? The Cherokees? The Mohawks? The Lakota? Any one of 100s of different bands, different people and customs.

The Jews are ONE people. They have lived in that land consistently for 3800 years. They were there when the European Jews arrived in 1948. They may have been conquered throughout history, but always fought for their land back.

Who are "Palestinians"? What is their heritage? Not in Israel.

The only way the Jews can survive as a people is for Israel to remain the Jewish state. Otherwise we'll eventually have pogroms again.

re: #151 jamesfirecat

To make ugly women more attractive!

Just to strike a blow for equal opportunity I'm sure it has the same affect on ugly men. I can definitely see a skit in the future though... "I don't WANT to drink but it's the only way I can have sex with my husband/wife!"

re: #154 marjoriemoon

I've heard Palestinians argue for roots in the area just as long - claiming descent from Caananites and Philistines. Some historians claim the Hebrews, before they split into Northern and Southern kingdoms and got the label "Jews," were split off form the Caananites at earlier times. It's hard to be certain when most dialogue happens with the volume turned up to 11.

Long story short - they both belong there and need to just do a deal. Israel will never stretch from the Nile to the Euphrates, nor will it ever fall into the sea. Put a 10 mile wide "nature preserve" between you and just do a deal that makes no one happy, then we can all calm down, and our grandchildren will get along.

/no dog in this fight
//no oil under Israel or Palestine

re: #156 keloyd

Long story short - they both belong there and need to just do a deal. Israel will never stretch from the Nile to the Euphrates, nor will it ever fall into the sea. Put a 10 mile wide "nature preserve" between you and just do a deal that makes no one happy, then we can all calm down, and our grandchildren will get along.

Do you really believe it's that simple?

re: #107 marjoriemoon

Not really the best analogy. The Indian tribes were as diverse as the Germans, the French, the Italians, etc. They may have all been native peoples, but didn't have the same cultures. Particularly if you compare the Eastern bands to the Western bands.

What does diversity have to do with it? That just means we're sitting on land from more than one culture. The essence of the analogy is who lays claim to the land. Your argument revolves around the length of time the land was occupied by a specific population. The aboriginals, in their various interweaved cultures, were here a long time, even longer than the Jews were in Israel.

How long they have been living in an area is not an argument for why they should push other populations aside.

There is no reason why Arabs and Jews can't live together in peace with Israel governing the land. The Israelis have no problem with that, or wouldn't have if there wasn't war. The land was divided in 1948, half for Jews, half for Arabs. Had the Arabs accepted that partition, they would have lived in peace. The Arabs didn't, made war and continue to make war.

There is also no reason why Arabs and Jews can't live side by side as autonomous countries.

If I remember my history correctly, and I probably don't, the Arabs felt the land given to the Jews was wrongly taken from them. They felt they had been abused and ripped off. That is why I feel they have to be given something in return, I suspect autonomy might be part of it, so they feel they are getting something back.

The Arabs have to do their part, and that's stop the war. Then the peace process can continue.

I agree. But the Israelis have to as well.

As I said before, because of the history of the area, this is far from a simple problem and my solution, as simple as it is, is hardly an answer. Better minds than mine can come up with something superior I'm sure.

re: #156 keloyd

I've heard Palestinians argue for roots in the area just as long - claiming descent from Caananites and Philistines. Some historians claim the Hebrews, before they split into Northern and Southern kingdoms and got the label "Jews," were split off form the Caananites at earlier times. It's hard to be certain when most dialogue happens with the volume turned up to 11.

Just to clear this up, because I don't like to see references to these things here, Palestinians have absolutely no valid claim to be descended from Canaanites or Phililistines whatsoever. Both claim emerged in the late 70s from the PLO, and both were disproven categorically be many scientists, Historians and anthropologists. It was merely an effort by the PLO to change the terms of the debate.

The Palestinians are most certainly a mix of different Arab groups, and could therefore absolutely not predate the 7th century in Israel. More specifically, there were arabs in Israel, from the 7th century on. What were they? Mostly Syrian and Egyptian according to most Anthropologists.

re: #157 Bob Levin

I'm not typing one of those 3 foot long slabs of text to go into all the nuances of 50 years of Israeli history and 35ish centuries of the rest of it. My 2 sentences were the jist of all that can be said on the subject.

Concepts like justice don't really apply to countries. Israel's borders and "rights" are indistinguishable from what they can take and hold militarily, just like any other nation anywhere, ever. Same goes for Palestine and whoever ends up with the Golan Heights. Human nature constrains our choices to only one, fight until you tire yourself out, then do a deal. Jews and Palestinians are no different than Hutus and Tutsies, English and Scots, Spaniards and Basques, the US and Mexico fighting over Texas, etc. Grab what you can take and defend, then sign a treaty to stop the fighting, then do that "peace through strength" thing.

re: #159 Petero1818

My source on the Caananite and Philistine thing was a Palestinian national friend with a bit of a temper, so the facts are likely on your side, and I had some vague awareness that the whole thing is in dispute. The real question is how much 7-38 century old history and bits of DNA matter vs. facts on the ground. 2 things are always true - everyone hates a pragmatist and the pragmatist is always right.

re: #158 b_sharp

Why does someone have to make the best argument? Why not just go with the facts as they are. Sovereignty passed from Great Britain to the Jewish people in 1948. There was a war immediately declared by the Arabs upon these 600,000 Jews, with a UN created State of Israel.

There were several other wars, the major one being in 1967, again declared by surrounding Arab nations on the Jews, and Israel was victorious--getting sovereignty over the land from the Med Sea to the Jordan.

So there it is. Legally. Historically.

And yet the war still continues, and that war is not part of Israeli culture or growth. But it is a fact of life.

Now you can start making analogies, like why doesn't California have a UN representative? Why isn't there a UN commission overseeing the growth of Salt Lake City? Get it? The rules of sovereignty, legality, ownership that apply everywhere else in the world, and that have applied for thousands of years no longer apply to Israel. Explain that please.

re: #156 keloyd

I've heard Palestinians argue for roots in the area just as long - claiming descent from Caananites and Philistines. Some historians claim the Hebrews, before they split into Northern and Southern kingdoms and got the label "Jews," were split off form the Caananites at earlier times. It's hard to be certain when most dialogue happens with the volume turned up to 11.

Long story short - they both belong there and need to just do a deal. Israel will never stretch from the Nile to the Euphrates, nor will it ever fall into the sea. Put a 10 mile wide "nature preserve" between you and just do a deal that makes no one happy, then we can all calm down, and our grandchildren will get along.

/no dog in this fight
//no oil under Israel or Palestine

That bolded part up there would be a lie. They are not the Caananites nor the Philistines. They are Syrian and Egyptian mostly, some Iraqi. And certainly Islam didn't even became a religion until some 2400 after Judaism.

What angers me the most is the revisionist history about the Jews. Thank you Yassir Arafat. (He was an Egyptian btw.) It sure pulled you in.

If you want Jewish history, read here [Link: palestinefacts.org...]

re: #160 keloyd

Okay, how about the fact that those living in the West Bank and Gaza make it a point to continue fighting? And if they can't win with conventional armies, they take it upon themselves to turn each other into walking bombs intent on killing civilians. How about the fact that the successful suicide bombers are like movie stars in the US, with streets named after them?

You are looking at a culture that is founded and sustained by war and murder. How do you deal with that?

re: #141 b_sharp

Too bad the Islamofascist Jihadists don't agree with you that the days of "might makes right" are past.

re: #160 keloyd

I'm not typing one of those 3 foot long slabs of text to go into all the nuances of 50 years of Israeli history and 35ish centuries of the rest of it. My 2 sentences were the jist of all that can be said on the subject.

Concepts like justice don't really apply to countries. Israel's borders and "rights" are indistinguishable from what they can take and hold militarily, just like any other nation anywhere, ever. Same goes for Palestine and whoever ends up with the Golan Heights. Human nature constrains our choices to only one, fight until you tire yourself out, then do a deal. Jews and Palestinians are no different than Hutus and Tutsies, English and Scots, Spaniards and Basques, the US and Mexico fighting over Texas, etc. Grab what you can take and defend, then sign a treaty to stop the fighting, then do that "peace through strength" thing.

The difference is Israel never "fought until she tired herself out". In fact, if she did, Cairo would be under Israeli rule as would all of Syria. The World pleaded with Israel to show mercy in 67 and 73 when they routed the arabs and when they were within miles of some arab cities. There would be no refugee camps, no territories, and perhaps no Palestinians. But Israel alone, showed mercy and thought that over time it could win a political solution. Apparently it was wrong. The biggest problem is that Palestinians and Arabs generally have never admitted they lost the war, they have never surrendered and negotiated a peace. They just claim that they took a rest to regroup.

re: #163 marjoriemoon

It may be a lie when its made up by propagandists, but, but for the few Arabs I've known, mistake is more precise and less dramatic*. In the experience of the few Arabs I've known, they're told this repeatedly, and educated, mainstream non-fanatics believe it. You correct a mistake, you call out a liar.

Many towns in modern Israel had been Arab (if not properly Palestinian) for centuries before Jews ran them out of their homes in the 40s usually with no compensation. Many towns and neighborhoods in every Arab country (except Saudi Arabia) were Jewish before Muslims ran them out of their homes in 1948 with token or no compensation. Justice is neither here nor there; the only thing that is real is tire yourself out fighting, then do a deal. All the rest is talk talk talk.

*Even our enemies must say something untrue with the intent to deceive in order to lie. Some John Q. public Arab dentist whose heard the propaganda meets the first requirement but not the second.

re: #119 Buck

Of course you don't. But you do think caffeine and Aspirin are more dangerous for society than pot.

See? That opinion tells me something about you, it really tells me that any discussion with you would be pointless...

Buck, you're not informed on this issue.

re: #158 b_sharp

Fine, forget about the 3800 years. You want to talk about modern history? Read Bob at #162. Blame the UN for not doing anything when the Arabs rejected the partition. They could have had their own land then and 10 times over. There was the Faisal Weizmann agreement, the Oslo talks, the Clinton talks, the Road Map. Israel makes concessions while the Arabs do nothing.

21 Arab countries, the most wealthy on the planet. Why are they refugees again?

Bah.

re: #142 Buck

The ones that you would consume and only have the purpose of altering and impairing your brain function.

DO NOT BRING UP ALCOHOL. I am serious.

Of course, because alcohol is a proper argument against what you're saying. A far far more dangerous substance, that is legal.

re: #170 WindUpBird

Of course, because alcohol is a proper argument against what you're saying. A far far more dangerous substance, that is legal.

Buck's argument is that he hopes to one day ban Alcohol and Tobacco because they are dangerous and people shouldn't consume them.

That's a perfectly reasonable theory, but I don't think they work out so well in practice, I think somewhere in our nations dank dark past we tried banning alcohol before, but I can't recall what happened next...

re: #167 keloyd

It may be a lie when its made up by propagandists, but, but for the few Arabs I've known, mistake is more precise and less dramatic*. In the experience of the few Arabs I've known, they're told this repeatedly, and educated, mainstream non-fanatics believe it. You correct a mistake, you call out a liar.

Did you call them liars when they said it? You can simply say, "That is not true."

I can tell you the skin is brown every day for the rest of your life and one day, you'll believe it's true. That doesn't mean the sky is brown.

re: #172 marjoriemoon

I looked into it on the internet at the time, iirc. Both he and I have educations outside of proper history. This long rambling story also included people he knew personally getting killed and losing their land and property. I didn't want to quibble about centuries past when his parents were personally there to be on the receiving end of injustice, whatever the bigger picture was. In the long term, they're no more hopelessly murderous than the rest of us. In the near term, I don't have a problem with Israel taking an exceedingly firm hand.

In any event, I'm not going to argue anymore. My original post said "claimed" descent, not "had" descent. That is true. Arafat was a liar for repeating it on his state-owned media, but all history is the art of seeing truth through a filter of hasbarah.

re: #167 keloyd

Look, you have to read some more detailed history. Before there was a land of Israel, European Jews who could see handwriting on the wall were buying lots of property in what is now Israel. Then, Muslim clerics forbade any such sales.

I promise you, is such sales were allowed, Israelis would privately purchase virtually all of the West Bank and Gaza.

The initial boundaries of the State of Israel (and go back to the Balfour Declaration and watch how the initial promise of land was whittled down) ended up being the Jewish neighborhoods in Palestine.

The Arab states told the residents in 1948 to leave their homes for a few weeks, then come back and claim, not only your home, but whatever property used to belong to the Jews--who will be dead shortly. That Arab plan didn't go as predicted.

Before the 1967 war, those living in the West Bank were Jordanians. Those living in Gaza were Egyptian.

I'm just saying, you've got to read some history.

re: #173 keloyd

I looked into it on the internet at the time, iirc. Both he and I have educations outside of proper history. This long rambling story also included people he knew personally getting killed and losing their land and property. I didn't want to quibble about centuries past when his parents were personally there to be on the receiving end of injustice, whatever the bigger picture was. In the long term, they're no more hopelessly murderous than the rest of us. In the near term, I don't have a problem with Israel taking an exceedingly firm hand.

In any event, I'm not going to argue anymore. My original post said "claimed" descent, not "had" descent. That is true. Arafat was a liar for repeating it on his state-owned media, but all history is the art of seeing truth through a filter of hasbarah.

Well, I'm gonna tell you. Take it as you will. A truthful and accurate history can be found here: [Link: palestinefacts.org...]

It's a lot to read. Print it out. Take it to lunch.

re: #172 marjoriemoon

Did you call them liars when they said it? You can simply say, "That is not true."

I can tell you the skin sky is brown every day for the rest of your life and one day, you'll believe it's true. That doesn't mean the sky is brown.

Whooops.

re: #173 keloyd

Since we all agree that the PLO has basically state run media, and Arafat was a leader of a de facto state, didn't it occur to you how weird that is, to have a seemingly sovereign nation inside of another nation that actually has sovereignty?

Doesn't something here seem very wrong?

And by the way, how do you define hasbarah?

I have to run out for a while. Bye y'all. It's always fun.

Modern history is filled with substantial adjustments to people and borders of sovereign nations; The Russians occupy Kaliningrad; the Brits occupy the Falklands/Malvinas/Northern Ireland. Poland was moved over half a country after WWII and 20+/- million Displaced Persons were resettled. Why are the Palis the only people in the world who "enjoy" refugee status 4 generations after a war?

The Palestinian Arabs were never a "Nation" like Gaul; they just had idiot thug mafia "leaders" who led them down this path we find ourselves on today.

Hindsight is 20/20 and history is always written by the victors. Harry Truman dropped atomic weapons on Japan a fanatical monarchy who thought their emperor was a god because he knew it would save a million GI's and 5 million Japanese if we had to invade the Home Islands; Sherman burnt his way through the south to make sure the losers knew how terrible war is and would drop their secessionist tendencies (well at least Rick Perry thinks he can secede, but I digress)...

Unfortunately the Jews never burnt Cairo and Damascus and killed the entire Egyptian army surrounded in the '67 war. That left the Arabs with a fantasy that they could win a fight, either by massive battles or even better a war of attrition, they outnumber us 30-1.

The US needs to butt out, they have our number if the govt of Israel wants our help they know how to get hold of us; BHO (maybe) has learned what it feels like to be bitch slapped by the Arab countries (all of whom except are totally artificially made up by Britain and France in carving up the Ottoman Empire except perhaps for Egypt) when he reached out to them and they stepped on him.

That was a good lesson, maybe he learned...

That all being said screw Mashaal, let him sleep in a different bed every night b/c he knows he has a bulls-eye on his head. Screw the Russians they can barely hold onto the Duchy of Moscovy and have a terrible demographic. The Chinese have such an inverted age stratification they will fall in a generation, as there will be one person 18-35 to every 6 over 60...Hans hate Cantonese anyway. Get a different energy source whether Al Gore is right or wrong and they can drink their oil...

Acharai le tzanchanim!

That's all I have to say about that...

1. I agree with you and Marjorie on every fact posted. I sais "claim" not "have" descent. Pols and armies must address facts on the ground.
2. My understanding of hasbarah is it literally means 'explanation' and has also gained the looser meaning of 'spin' in politics. If I'm thinking of the wrong word, it won't be the first time, but that was my intention - tweaking your nose using the Hebrew word spin when it's Arab spin, implying the universality of historians telling truthfully,most of the story, except when they can get away with less.

They're talking about P.G. Wodehouse on the next thread. That's way more fun, and it's dinner time, so ttfn.

re: #146 Bob Levin

Um, about what percentage of your comment do you actually believe to be true?

All of it. I also admit it is far too simplistic.
What do you believe?

re: #181 b_sharp

All of it. I also admit it is far too simplistic.
What do you believe?

I entered the thread at comment 16, so...that's what I believe. But if there's anything you want me to clarify, ask away.

I think that a productive discussion on this kind of rules out being simplistic. That's why I asked what you actually believe.

I also think that quite a bit of the arguments on the issue stem from a disagreement about whether this is a 'conflict' or a war. I believe it's a war.
That means you can't reach an agreement until the war is over. It's not over, and everything we hear from Arab media keeps saying that it's not over, with no sign of it letting up.

It's not about property rights or independence--because history doesn't back up these claims. The situation revolves around one side wanting to commit genocide, the other side not really wanting to be murdered en masse. Seen through this lens, all the puzzle pieces fit together.

re: #154 marjoriemoon

Which tribe are you going to give back the U.S. to? The Cherokees? The Mohawks? The Lakota? Any one of 100s of different bands, different people and customs.

You have moved the goalposts by claiming there has to be a single culture in a specific area to claim occupation longevity. In that case, how about I talk about the Cree where I live. They have been here, as a loose group*, for at least 9000 years (evidence of a community was uncovered in the bed of a lake here where varves could be counted.) Should the Cree start building a community in the back yards of my neighbourhood? They can certainly justify it by claiming they have been a single people for >9000 years in this area.

*The language group was broken into a number of small nomadic groups that followed food within an area. I believe the Jewish people were also nomadic and tribal at one point.

The Jews are ONE people. They have lived in that land consistently for 3800 years. They were there when the European Jews arrived in 1948. They may have been conquered throughout history, but always fought for their land back.

Who are the descendants of the people originally conquered by Jews? Are they still around?*

How does your last statement justify the settlements?

*If you look at the history of the area it was pretty messed up.

Who are "Palestinians"? What is their heritage? Not in Israel.

If you want to talk about genetics, that area was populated by the Canaanites somewhere around 3000BCE and by Hebrews and Philistines around 1400BCE. Around 1000BCE the Philistines and Canaanites merged. Neither the Canaanites, nor the Philistines were wiped out, so their genetics should show up in modern groups.

Culturally, the Jewish belief system wasn't codified until ~500BCE and Arabs conquered the area and introduced Islam about ~1000 years later so you have a fair bit of support here.

So I guess the answer hinges on what you are willing to accept as evidence of a people, genetics or culture or a combination. In either case, the Palestinians have been around for a long time as well.

The only way the Jews can survive as a people is for Israel to remain the Jewish state. Otherwise we'll eventually have pogroms again.

This sounds like you are claiming the focus of our talk, the settlements, are being built to preserve Israel as a Jewish state. Care to tell me how that works?

BTW, I never said Israel should stop being a Jewish state, nor have I said they should roll over for the Palestinians. All I have said is the settlements are not justified and should be rolled back.

re: #183 b_sharp

In part of your argument you show how land and population change through force and migration--and you imply that these are forces of history that simply must be recognized.

Then you say that the settlements are not justified, and I ask, according to what criteria? Are you saying that the citizens of a sovereign nation don't have the right to build houses and live within the borders of their own nation?

Perhaps I don't know the history, but I missed all of the land skirmishes that took place when the Israelis forced the native Palestinians off of their land in order to tear down their dwellings and build new ones. If you have that information, put it out here.

Yo Khalid Meshaal -

Russia has its political imperatives, trying to re-enter the world as a Great and Respected Power after the Soviet Collapse.
The Russians are also a generally practical people with a good memory. Does AFGHANISTAN, CHECHNYA or BESLAN ring a bell?
If you weren't "Anti-US" - Sir, The Russians would Kick You to the Curb - Deservedly So.

-S-

re: #183 b_sharp

BTW, I never said Israel should stop being a Jewish state, nor have I said they should roll over for the Palestinians. All I have said is the settlements are not justified and should be rolled back.

One more point. And if we get this rollback, what happens? Peace? Reduction of conflict? History isn't with a person who believes that.

re: #162 Bob Levin

Why does someone have to make the best argument? Why not just go with the facts as they are. Sovereignty passed from Great Britain to the Jewish people in 1948. There was a war immediately declared by the Arabs upon these 600,000 Jews, with a UN created State of Israel.

There were several other wars, the major one being in 1967, again declared by surrounding Arab nations on the Jews, and Israel was victorious--getting sovereignty over the land from the Med Sea to the Jordan.

So there it is. Legally. Historically.

And yet the war still continues, and that war is not part of Israeli culture or growth. But it is a fact of life.

A couple of questions for you. Do the above facts, and I'm not doubting them ,they jibe with what I learned all those years ago, justify settlements that are an impediment to any potential peace initiative? Of the several paths that can be taken, including the current obviously ineffective one, which one do you believe Israel should follow.

Now you can start making analogies, like why doesn't California have a UN representative? Why isn't there a UN commission overseeing the growth of Salt Lake City? Get it?

You have problems with analogy as an argument. I don't blame you, they are difficult.

However your comment is irrelevant to the discussion.

The rules of sovereignty, legality, ownership that apply everywhere else in the world, and that have applied for thousands of years no longer apply to Israel. Explain that please.

I see you have an affection for the genetic fallacy. Why should rules of ownership and occupation remain the same?

Why single out Israel?

The idea that conquering and occupying an area gives you legal claim to that area doesn't apply to anyone any more. According to the international community, including the US, it is no longer acceptable for any country to conquer and occupy another. The US led coalition of 1990 that drove Iraq out of Kuwait is just one example of that.

re: #165 Spare O'Lake

Too bad the Islamofascist Jihadists don't agree with you that the days of "might makes right" are past.

The chance of them occupying Israel by blowing themselves up is pretty low. The chance of them making the Darwin awards is pretty high.

If you read my post you will note the use of 'rational'. I sincerely hope the western powers such as the US, the UK, Canuckville, Germany, and so on are more rational than the Jihadists. They certainly didn't agree with Iraq occupying Kuwait.

BTW, does one example of a group using 'might makes right' mean it is acceptable by the rest of us?

re: #187 b_sharp

Conquer? Let me add some more punctuation marks. Conquer?!!!?? The West Bank, Gaza, and Sinai became part of Israel after the 1967 war. Which was an attempt by the Arab world to destroy the Jewish inhabitants of Israel.

The settlements are an impediment to peace? Really? I noticed how peace broke out in Gaza after the Israeli evacuation. I noticed how peace broke out among the PLO after Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt. I also noticed how peace broke out in Egypt after Sadat signed the peace treaty.

I'm missing this concept of occupation I suppose. In my mind, when one country occupies another, such as the Germans occupying France in WWII, the Germans set up a puppet government to do its bidding, and the occupying nation begins to loot and plunder the nation being occupied. I don't see that happening in Israel, especially since there was no previous country they would be occupying, unless you are referring to Jordan.

But wait, Jordan no longer has claim on that land. I wonder why? Oh that's right. The Arab League punished them, taking away their claim on that land after Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel and gave the sovereignty right to...a terrorist organization, the PLO.

I think you misunderstood my use of analogy, that the previous analogy to the native Americans was not sound, and that there is no historical precedent for the situation we have now.

I must have missed the event you talk about, how Israel invaded some country in the same way that Iraq invaded Kuwait.

And I guess I missed the event in the last 60 years where every country in the world agreed to stop fighting wars, since it's no longer acceptable in the international community.

Hey, me and Rip Van Winkle, right?

re: #169 marjoriemoon

Fine, forget about the 3800 years. You want to talk about modern history? Read Bob at #162. Blame the UN for not doing anything when the Arabs rejected the partition. They could have had their own land then and 10 times over. There was the Faisal Weizmann agreement, the Oslo talks, the Clinton talks, the Road Map. Israel makes concessions while the Arabs do nothing.

21 Arab countries, the most wealthy on the planet. Why are they refugees again?

Bah.

Good points.

- Faisal Weizmann was buggered by the French and Brits.
- The Oslo peace process was buggered by a suicide bomber, a homicidal settler, an assassinated PM, and escalating violence on both sides even before it started. The Palestinians didn't adhere to the agreement and the Israelis continued building settlements. It sounds to me neither side wanted peace.
- Clinton had to deal with an idiot, Arafat. Ehud Barak was voted out.

There are too many on all sides that want to continue. Obviously my solution is far too simplistic.

What do you believe should be done?

re: #184 Bob Levin

Then you say that the settlements are not justified, and I ask, according to what criteria? Are you saying that the citizens of a sovereign nation don't have the right to build houses and live within the borders of their own nation?

Perhaps I don't know the history, but I missed all of the land skirmishes that took place when the Israelis forced the native Palestinians off of their land in order to tear down their dwellings and build new ones. If you have that information, put it out here.

Bob I hate to put this out there as I agree in part with you and in part with B sharp on this but lets be quite clear. The territories are NOT part of Israel. The Israeli government also would not say they are part of Israel. To do so would bring about an untenable situation in which a minority would rule a majority with the majority not having equal rights. It would be more in line with what that ahole Carter called apartheid. IT is not the case. They are territories that Israel is forced to administer because the Palestinians will not agree to a 2 state solution without a right or return.

Also, It is ell established that in 48 and in 67 there were skirmishes in which both sides of the conflict were forcing the other off particular tracts of land. Though it would be nice if examples of this did not exist, Israel too certainly cleared certain areas for Jewish life, just as the Arabs cleared or attempted to clear Jewish villages.

re: #186 Bob Levin

One more point. And if we get this rollback, what happens? Peace? Reduction of conflict? History isn't with a person who believes that.

You remove a Palestinian justification, appeal to the common Palestinian who has had it with the violence and just wants to get on with his life, gain leverage to get the international community to pressure the Palestinian 'government' and open up an opportunity for some effective pro Israeli propaganda on the WEB and in the news.

My point is primarily that although the stick sometimes works, it isn't in this case, and a combination carrot/stick works better. Make the benefits of peace bigger than the benefits of war. The main problem I see, and it is a major one, is Hamas, and the rest of the brainless radicals making decisions.

re: #187 b_sharp

#187 b-sharp

All of what you have said was the POINT of the Oslo Agreement. has there been "bad faith" on the part of the Israelis - perhaps. Has there been "bad faith" on the Palestinian Side? - Don't ask me - I am Jewish and therefore biased.
Ask Former President Clinton - who would have had a LEGACY of Momentous Proportions had he been able to broker a Deal with Arafat and Barack. Clinton
blamed the failure almost entirely on Arafat, after being offered about 93% of Pre 1967 Jordanian and Egyptian Territory, immediately, as a Palestinian State.
I could go on and on, including the "Sopranos stripping" of greenhouses paid for by BILL GATES after the Gaza Evacuation. I will conclude with this with the thought, as said by the Late Abba Eban - "The Palestinians NEVER miss an opportunity - To Miss an Opportunity." I reserve the right to "revise and extend" this missive. 'Nuff for now.

-S-

re: #189 Bob Levin

Conquer? Let me add some more punctuation marks. Conquer?!!!?? The West Bank, Gaza, and Sinai became part of Israel after the 1967 war. Which was an attempt by the Arab world to destroy the Jewish inhabitants of Israel.

Hmm. This is news to me. You mean that the lands taken in the '67 war legally belong to Israel because they were taken in a war? Do you have a link that discusses this?

The settlements are an impediment to peace? Really? I noticed how peace broke out in Gaza after the Israeli evacuation. I noticed how peace broke out among the PLO after Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt. I also noticed how peace broke out in Egypt after Sadat signed the peace treaty.

I'm not sure where this comes from but I didn't say it was the only impediment to peace. Your logic here feels a bit skewed - removing an impediment doesn't automatically produce a positive result unless there is already a tendency toward that result. In this case that is obviously not the case.

I'm missing this concept of occupation I suppose. In my mind, when one country occupies another, such as the Germans occupying France in WWII, the Germans set up a puppet government to do its bidding, and the occupying nation begins to loot and plunder the nation being occupied. I don't see that happening in Israel, especially since there was no previous country they would be occupying, unless you are referring to Jordan.

Kind of a selective definition isn't it?

Try this on for size: "Belligerent military occupation occurs when the control and authority over a territory passes to a hostile army"
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

But wait, Jordan no longer has claim on that land. I wonder why? Oh that's right. The Arab League punished them, taking away their claim on that land after Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel and gave the sovereignty right to...a terrorist organization, the PLO.

OK, meaning they were run by a bunch a bad people. How does this impact the idea of settlements and a political solution?

I think you misunderstood my use of analogy, that the previous analogy to the native Americans was not sound, and that there is no historical precedent for the situation we have now.

If taken in the narrow context it was stated, it was sound. MM claimed settlements were justified by the length of historical occupation by Jews in the annexed(is that a better word?) areas. I simply showed her there is a situation where communities were built where a culture had a claim to a much longer historical occupation where she would reject similar actions to that of the settlers. Her argument that historical occupation is a justification was completely insufficient.

I must have missed the event you talk about, how Israel invaded some country in the same way that Iraq invaded Kuwait.

I can understand that you believe there is a difference because the Arabs attacked Israel rather than the other way around, I can even understand their desire for some sort of buffer zone. What I don't understand is how settlements will do anything but hinder any chance at peace.

And I guess I missed the event in the last 60 years where every country in the world agreed to stop fighting wars, since it's no longer acceptable in the international community.

Hey, me and Rip Van Winkle, right?

Why do you make such broad leaps of logic? Being unacceptable to enter, conquer and occupy other countries is not a guarantee that war will not occur any more than running a red light being unacceptable guarantees that won't happen. It's not even an attempt to stop all wars.

Why 60 years?

Two events of note: 1919 - The League of Nations, and 1945 - The United Nations. Both were attempts to stop wars.

re: #192 b_sharp

Okay, I hear what you are saying--a combination of what else is there to do and an empathy for the normal, non-political Palestinian--who actually wants peace.

That person, or those people are going to have to wrest power from the corruption of the past. I'm sorry, but that's the best that can be done. That's step one. Unfortunately, those are also the people called collaborators and killed.

If you want benefits of peace greater than benefits of war then: 1. The notion of Palestinian victimhood must stop. 2. The UN must get out of the West Bank and Gaza 3. The UN and Europe must stop funneling billions of dollars into corrupt regimes. Right now, because of the UN, Europe, and US trying to be impartial, a belligerent Hamas and PLO are very VERY profitable.

re: #191 Petero1818

I'm aware of the skirmishes before 1948. I'm talking about the more recent history.

Now, regarding the nature of this territory--I'm saying that there isn't any historical precedent for this. In other words, why doesn't Jordan step in and say we'll take it over, or why doesn't Israel just step away? Why isn't it simply declared a nation, since they have their own cops, courts, laws, media, UN rep, 97 armies, charter or constitution, government, elections--it doesn't even come under the category of apartheid, because they are self-governed.

Now, tell me when this bit of land became disengaged from Israel? And how could it become disengaged when the boundaries aren't even clear? And if we are talking about right of return, how can the West Bank tell Israel who it must allow inside the borders of Israel? Don't sovereign nations get to control their own boundaries?

re: #194 b_sharp

Why do you make such broad leaps of logic? Being unacceptable to enter, conquer and occupy other countries is not a guarantee that war will not occur any more than running a red light being unacceptable guarantees that won't happen. It's not even an attempt to stop all wars.

Why 60 years?

Two events of note: 1919 - The League of Nations, and 1945 - The United Nations. Both were attempts to stop wars.

I made a broad leap of logic because you said conquer, as if Israel started the wars in 1967, 1973, and the first and second intifada, and the rocket attacks on Sderot. To be honest, I don't that much about the first intifada, but I was watching the second one pretty closely.

Second, I usually define words using historical precedent. Or prefer to. So, even by your definition, the control of the West Bank has not passed to a hostile army. That would mean there would be an Israeli military governor of the West Bank. There isn't. In fact, as I stated above, they have everything in place to become a nation right now, courts, legislative body in existence--everything.

Here's the link you asked for:

Your text to link...

re: #194 b_sharp

I'm not sure where this comes from but I didn't say it was the only impediment to peace. Your logic here feels a bit skewed - removing an impediment doesn't automatically produce a positive result unless there is already a tendency toward that result. In this case that is obviously not the case.

Then what are we talking about? Shouldn't we be talking about things that will actually produce a tendency towards peace? We've both done a mental experiment, remove the settlements, no peace. We agree on this. So what will actually bring about movement on this issue?

I'll go back to my reply to you in comment 192. Do those three things, and then see how the momentum is going.

Even though I had the last word, I was intrigued enough by Petero's comment about the sovereignty of the West Bank that I did some research, mostly through Wikipedia.

I looked at the Six Day War, which lead me to believe Israel had sovereignty over the West Bank--why?--because that was the limit of the battle front. I believe the Israeli army advanced to the Jordan river. Then I looked at The West Bank--which I'll get to in a moment. I also looked at France, Russia, England, and Germany. The US, I know reasonably well.

Each of the European countries developed by fighting battles and then annexing the conquered territory, the farthest their army reached. Eventually the battles stop, and we arrive at the present day sovereignty. I think I could have done the same, gotten the same results for every country on earth. This means that every parcel of land on the planet can be accounted for under present sovereignty or jumping one back, the sovereignty of a previous country.

Every piece of land, except for one spot. How did the West Bank become the only piece of land on the planet without sovereignty? Well, many UN resolutions helped. Jordan relinquished it--or was forced to relinquish it--in 1988. But Jordan has no great love for this former part of their populace, given recent events plus Black September. Israel retreated. Countries don't do that, but Israel retreated and chose not to annex the West Bank, although there are legal opinions going both ways, that Israel does not have sovereignty, and that Israel does have sovereignty.

So in the world, there are countries, there are geographic areas populated by people who want to have a country, and then there is the West Bank, which might be a country, and it might not. What is certain is that is it run by an organization that has been at war with Israel since 1964 and will never cease to be at war with Israel--that's right, they are not a country, but they have made a formal declaration of war against another nation. Hence there is defensive Israeli military presence on the West Bank--because the terrorist organization the UN has placed in charge of this area is a terrorist organization--that has been entirely too successful at killing Israeli civilians.

There are things about this area that are not clear--such as whether they actually want to be a country, or whether their neighboring countries want them to be a country. Or whether the UN wants them to be a country. Weird paradoxical politics. The only clear thing is that they are at war with Israel. Just because, period.

re: #115 Buck

There is no good reason to make matters worse. No reason to release other harmful drugs on the population. No reason to go backwards.

This is a valid argument against genetically manipulated crops but an insane crime against natural flora.

Hey, no problem... tilt at that windmill... it is a free country... lol

Sorry to spoil your fun, but it´s not a windmill but a meat grinder out there in Afghanistan...

re: #198 Bob Levin

There is no question Bob, that the west bank represents a difficult paradox. The fact is that while everyone would like sovereignty, each country has a good reason to not want sovereignty. The Jordanians, are quite frankly happy to not be involved anymore as they don't want anyone asking too many questions about Jordanian artificial borders to begin with and that it may actually represent a big part of what should have been modern "Palestine". In addition, as you point out, they do not want the Palestinian population further skewing the delicate hashemite / Palestinian population balance.

Israel would love to have sovereignty in a vacuum but is well aware that doing so would bring about the ultimate failure of the Jewish state on minority population grounds.

Palestinians face the fact that if they accept west bank and gaza as a state, they are relinquishing their rights to their "all of Palestine" plan. While this is the only way its going to happen, we have yet to see a Palestinian leader willing to accept that fact in public.

The rest of the Arab world certainly does not want to see the issue resolved as it would mean acceptance of the state of Israel on what they view as Muslim soil. In addition, the Palestinians were commonly referred to as the Jews of the Arab world, in that, largely they were not loved and were disproportionately educated compared to other Arabs. Many Arabs dont give an Flying you know what about them.

Make no mistake though, I believe every human does have a desire for self governance, and Palestinians are no exception. They are victims, even, largely of their own doing, but they are victims of a political football that few have a vested interest in scoring with. The fact that politically noone wants it, but socially, everyone wants it, is as you say, a paradox indeed.

re: #200 Petero1818

Exactly. Then it occurred to me that the issue of settlements is a red herring. If you have a legitimate government forming a legally recognized entity--state, city, county, nation--then you can have legally recognized land deeds. The State can recognize ownership, give land grants, settle property disputes. If those living on the West Bank really want to stop future settlements, then they've got to establish themselves as a sovereign entity that can legally control the land through courts and land deeds. But then again, if there are deeds, then deeds can be sold. This would throw the UN into a tizzy, if Jews end up living on the West Bank complete with property deeds.

So what you have today--legally is closer to a refugee camp that is older than many countries, that could declare itself a country tomorrow if they so choose.

And that would bring peace to the region if the conflicts leading to the use of weapons would be transformed into conflicts between real estate agents.

Which could still lead to weapons. But not as often.

Dear Bob and Pedro,

Why not let the people living here sit down and work things out?

Well maybe nobody but the Israeli government wants to sit and talk? But, in any case, I don't see any outsiders being able to convince either side to capitulate. It's not a matter of ending the "crisis" but managing it. Nobody that I have heard from in the U.S. has the patience to wait as long as it will take to arrive at a "final solution". Get back to me in 4 generations.

Meanwhile: Peace!

re: #202 Jerusalemyte

Dear Bob and Pedro,

Why not let the people living here sit down and work things out?

Well maybe nobody but the Israeli government wants to sit and talk? But, in any case, I don't see any outsiders being able to convince either side to capitulate. It's not a matter of ending the "crisis" but managing it. Nobody that I have heard from in the U.S. has the patience to wait as long as it will take to arrive at a "final solution". Get back to me in 4 generations.

Meanwhile: Peace!

I'm patient enough. I just worry that the final solution isn't the Final Solution.