Columnist: Draft Rush

[dampier]

> Does his inexperience in the matter cause his advice to be
> considered "dubious in value?"

Sure does. Limbaugh, much like O'Reilly who still implies on his shows that he was in combat (yeah, as a photographer for the media), attempts to ride on a wave of pro-soldier popularity by positioning himself as closely to the military as possible, and then accusing the other side of being anti-soldier, anti-American, etc. But truth be told, Al Franken has spent more time serving our troops on his USO tours than Limbaugh ever did. Further, Franken doesn't have to imply he's some sort of comrade in arms as some of these shows on the right do. Ultimately, people like Limbaugh promote the use of the military to solve conflicts from the comfort of his studio, well rested in knowing he'll never have to face the ultimate sacrifice of giving his life for one's country. But he'll happily trash soldiers who have served and disagree with this president on Iraq, implying he is the more patriotic, the more engaged and pro-troop, and overall the better guy.

The vomit moment came when some guy called up Limbaugh and ACTUALLY SAID that if Rush had a show back in the 60s and early 70s, we would have never lost Vietnam!!!

> I dare say Rush is more knowledgeable about world politics
> and history than about 99% of the people in the military.

That is an attack on our troops. Obviously you are anti-American and are calling our troops stupid. Time for you to leave the country you flag burner.

Just borrowing a page from Karl Rove there.

> And at least 50% of congress.

Just saying this stuff doesn't make it true. In fact, it's ridiculous. Among Limbaugh's many Oxy-colored clouds of history:

"We have had Kosovo, which, I mean, it went without any casualties. There was no -- you know, Republicans didn't raise a lot of hell about that. Didn't try to divide the country over it." -and- "I can't see where this is America's problem. If a bunch of these ex-Communists want to kill each other, why do we always have to be involved? Why is it America's job to solve the world's problems?" (apparently except in Iraq.)

Rush on torture: "This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You ever heard of need to blow some steam off?"

Rush on global warming: "There is no such thing as global warming."

Rush on sports: "You just gotta be who you are, and I think it's time to get rid of this whole National Basketball Association. Call it the TBA, the Thug Basketball Association, and stop calling them teams. Call 'em gangs."

Rush on Israel: "Clearly we must be on the side of Israel. As a Christian nation, I mean, the Bible makes it clear that a God fearing nation needs to be on the right side during the last days."

Even Rush on toilets: "You think they had toilets in Europe before we came along? They didn't. They still don't have toilets in Europe that make any sense. Even after we're here. You ever been to Europe? Use some of their toilets, even in some of the finest hotels, it's amazing!"

It is amazing that anyone trusts this guy.

 

[dampier]

> I don't think many people on this board actually work in
> radio. It's pretty much a bunch of people who get tired of
> posting on Moveon.org. It will go on for a while until a
> conservative responds once to often and then the Mod shuts
> down the thread.

Oh please. Some guy reposts the same story every morning for a week, the moderator says enough regurgitation, let's wait for something new, and that is anti-conservative censorship?

Cry me a river.

 

[Wilkins_Micawber]

> Oh please. Some guy reposts the same story every morning
> for a week, the moderator says enough regurgitation, let's
> wait for something new, and that is anti-conservative
> censorship?

Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

 

[954]

Rush Foibles

> The vomit moment came when some guy called up Limbaugh and
> ACTUALLY SAID that if Rush had a show back in the 60s and
> early 70s, we would have never lost Vietnam!!!

Rush as a teenager on radio? ROTFL.

> Among Limbaugh's many Oxy-colored clouds of history:
>
> Rush on torture: "This is no different than what happens at
> the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going to ruin
> people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our
> military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them
> because they had a good time. You know, these people are
> being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a
> good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional
> release? You ever heard of need to blow some steam off?"

Rush may be a blowhard, but I think what they did in Abu Graib was closer to frat games than torture.

> Rush on global warming: "There is no such thing as global
> warming."

He's right. At least the way it has been presented by activists.

The Little Ice Age just ended approx 155 years ago. Climate has been constantly changing for billions of years. But how many of the people who cry "global warming" have even HEARD of The Little Ice Age?

> Rush on sports: "You just gotta be who you are, and I think
> it's time to get rid of this whole National Basketball
> Association. Call it the TBA, the Thug Basketball
> Association, and stop calling them teams. Call 'em gangs."

I couldn't care a fig about the NBA or the NFL, but he's right. This applies to professional sports in general. Heard of the Dolphins' Ricky Williams? ... who flunked the drug test three times, and is inexplicably still making big bucks and being regarded as a sports hero -- rather than sitting in jail. Whether it's drugs or whoring around, professional athletes and entertainers, in general (with notable exceptions), are the highest-paid scumbags and sleazeballs on earth.

> Rush on Israel: "Clearly we must be on the side of Israel.

Because it's a democracy and an ally in the fight against terrorism.

> As a Christian nation, I mean, the Bible makes it clear that
> a God fearing nation needs to be on the right side during
> the last days."

Phhhhhhhhht! Whatddaya expect from these religious right bozos?

My mother taught me that you do the right thing because it IS right, not for any reward you might anticipate.

> Even Rush on toilets: "You think they had toilets in Europe
> before we came along? They didn't. They still don't have

To whom does he refer to when he says "we"? The Catholic Church? (Toilets hadn't been invented yet.) The Republican Party? The American Expeditionary Force? Or the EIB Network?

> It is amazing that anyone trusts this guy.

He's even more ignorant about computers! See http://www.univox.com/writer/rush.html for a laugh.

73s from 954<P ID="signature">______________
</P>

 

[bierkenstock]

Go back even farther. As I recall from Sunday School, the Israelites took Cannan away from the Cannanites. And many 18th and 19th Century writers, as I recall from freshman year American Thought and Language, considered the US a "promised land" and claimed divine sanction to take it away from the Indians.

The Jews were driven out of Palestine (70 AD) by the Romans, not the Arabs. It would seem far more just and logical to give the Zionists part of Italy.

By your logic, since Abraham came from Ur, Israel can also claim Iraq.

And we Celts can claim most of Europe (France/Gaul, Spain, Switzerland/Helvitca, Turkey/Galatia, Macedonia, most of the Balkans and, of course, England .....

>
> Actually, if go you waaaay back, I mean waaaaaaaaaaaaay,
> waaaaaaaaaaaay back, "Bierk", the Jews had their land taken
> away from them. (I'm talking about during Biblical times, my
> friend.)
>
> So the whole "Native American-thing" on your part is bogus
> too.
>
> <P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by bierkenstock on 08/17/05 07:04 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[2001]

> Go back even farther. As I recall from Sunday School, the
> Israelites took Cannan away from the Cannanites. And many
> 18th and 19th Century writers, as I recall from freshman
> year American Thought and Language, considered the US a
> "promised land" and claimed divine sanction to take it away
> from the Indians.
>
> The Jews were driven out of Palestine (70 AD) by the Romans,
> not the Arabs. It would seem far more just and logical to
> give the Zionists part of Italy.
>
> By your logic, since Abraham came from Ur, Israel can also
> claim Iraq.
>
> And we Celts can claim most of Europe (France/Gaul, Spain,
> Switzerland/Helvitca, Turkey/Galatia, Macedonia, most of
> the Balkans.....
>

Okay, look......Israel was driven out of their land, they wanted it back (and got it). Taking part of Italy makes no sense. That area was never theirs (for any length of time, not even for a day) to begin with. So I don't follow your "logic", Bierk.

And earlier you mentioned how the Native Americans had their land "taken" from them. The fact of the matter is, is that you had a clash of cultures (and yes, that obviously includes "religious beliefs") in the 1600's, 1700's, and 1800's here in America. Unfortunately, those cultures could not/would not agree to coexist. As a result, there were many battles fought and ultimately the white settlers won. That sort of thing has happened all throughout world history! What happened in America centuries ago was no different.

Now, there's that old saying...."To the victors goes the spoils".....After WWII, the victors gave the Jews the land they once occupied back to them so that never again would one nation or dictator be able to "round them up" and try to "wipe them out" the way that Hitler tried to do. And, yes, they gave the Jews the land they once had lived in together almost 2,000 years earlier--before they were forced out of it and made to scatter like flies to other areas/lands. Seemed like a good idea! It made sense to a lot of folks at the time, Bierk!

The Jews were now free people and completely capable of defending themselves against any nation/mad-man dictator (like Suddam Hussein) that would try to bring harm to them as a people/nation!

Wow! What a concept, eh?!


Today the Jews of Israel feel like they are where they should be, and nothing short of war will ever make them leave. Just like the United States is where it feels it should be and nothing short of war will drive it away.

Now Israel's neighbors have one of two choices. Either accept Israel where it is and the millions of Jews that live there, and just live a peaceful coexistence....or they can declare war on Israel and try to wipe them out/drive them away. Recent history would suggest that Israel's neighbors can't quite bring themselves to accept the idea of living side-by-side with their Jewish neighbors, so for them, war seems to be the only solution. But sadly, Israel will never give up its land now that it has it back in its own hands ! Israel will blow itself up (and its neighbors, for that matter) before that ever happens!!

And, oh by the way, don't kid yourself. The "occupied territories" that you always hear about on the news that are the alleged/supposed reason for the decades-long conflict in Israel are such a red herring! The fact of the matter is, is that the Muslim nations in that area of the world hate Isreal and want to see it (and its people) destroyed.....period! The struggle over there is simply about the existence of Isreal itself....not about the relatively small areas of land it controls presently that the Arabs/Muslims want back. Try not to let the politicians and/or the media fool you into thinking otherwise.

For Israel, their struggle is a struggle for survival! And for Israel's neighbors, it's all about a slow and steady campaign to try and wipe Israel out!


> >
> > Actually, if go you waaaay back, I mean waaaaaaaaaaaaay,
> > waaaaaaaaaaaay back, "Bierk", the Jews had their land
> taken
> > away from them. (I'm talking about during Biblical times,
> my
> > friend.)
> >
> > So the whole "Native American-thing" on your part is bogus
>
> > too.
> >
> >
>

 

[JohnnyMorganWXJX]

Israel-Palestine: Some History

At risk of this being off-topic (I think it is already), here goes.

> Not 1967 - 1947. And 1917.

There were three big aggressor wars against Israel (as a state): 1947-48, 1967, 1973. There a coalition of Arabist states (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Baathist Iraq) fought to destroy Israel's state existence. It was a war of aggression by the Arab states, and was for land and national identity.

The others, 1956--Suez Crisis, and 1982--Lebanon, were launched by Israel as (at the time) "preemptive attacks". Suez was launched against the new Nasser regime seen as openly hostile and aggressive towards Israel. It wasn't (yet). But 1956 was the start of plans for the United Arab Republic (Egypt and Syria) and Nasser's excuse to seek Soviet aid (and equipment). The war was stopped by US/UK and Soviet agreement taht it was wrong, and everyone retreated back to 1948 lines.

Lebanon was another "preemptive strike" against Syrian terrorists purportedly intent on attacking Israel, with full backing of the Syrian and Lebanese (Syrian-backed) governments. Israel "won" that one, but it was costly, both in lives and in international opinion.

> First, rent "Lawrence of Arabia." The Arabs, including the
> Palestinians, were promised independence after World War I,
> in return for helping to fight the Ottoman Empire (which at
> the time, included most of the middle east including
> Palestine). Instead, the Brits and the allies sold them out
> and took over.

Hence, the British Mandate of Palestine and Trans-Jordan. Lasted for almost 30 years, until unrest caused the British to say "the hell with it, we'll let someone else deal". And so they did. But the UN was that someone else, and they crafted the state of Israel out of the seemingly historic land inhabited by Jews in biblical times. It was essentially a forced handover, correct. But the British had been avoiding the issue for many many years, so it was only a matter of time. Plus, after the Holocaust, the West felt a moral obligation to provide a safe-haven to the remaining European Jews (they also saw the writing on the wall with the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. Anything Hitler did, Stalin also did.)

> After World War II, the allies decided to turn most of
> Palestine over to Zionists. This was supposedly in response
> to the holocaust but the Nazis were responsible for the
> holocaust, not Arabs. Palestinians were dispossesed and had
> their homes taken from them. And sympathy for Palestinians
> is not "anti-semetic" because Palestinians are Semites.

It was the UN, not necessarily the allies. True, the West was feeling moral guilt after the Holocaust and wished to protect the European Jewry from further disaster in Soviet hands. It just so happened that the British had a prime piece of land ready.

You're also correct that the Palestinians--native to the area--are Semites. But a large number of "Palestinians" then, and now, are immigrants from other bordering, or not bordering, Arab states, like Jordan. Their argument is to the existence of the state of Israel on the land occupied by Palestine. But the Palestine they wish to remember was a 20th century invention. It was not just Israel, but also Trans-Jordan, parts of Syria, and parts of Iraq (which was itself a separate British possession). After 1948, and certainly after 1967, most of the native Palestinians fled to Jordan--who refused to accept them. Ditto in 1973. It was this "people without a home" mentality that caused Yassir Arafat's rise in 1969--and began the war of attrition.

So, Israel is not most of Palestine--it is but a part of the mis-named British Mandate in Palestine.

> So it is questionable who is the "invader" here. And a lack
> of respect and compassion for the plight of native
> Palestinians betrays the ethical principles of Judaism.
> It's no different than the attitudes of Europeans toward
> American Indians in the 19th, 18th and 17th Century.
>
> Strange: why is it impossible for anyone to criticize Israel
> (on anything) without being called an anti-semite?

There is some "criticism" of Israel that is anti-Semetic, as that term is known today (meaning, anti-Jewish)--most being calls for destruction of the state, massacres of the people, etc. Also, blame on Israel and/or the Jews for the root cause of the problems there could probably be considered "anti-Semetic". But a discussion of what should have happened nearly 60 years ago, or even 90 years ago, is valuable. And discussion of the solution today is valuable as well--as long as no one urges the destruction of a state or a people based solely on their position, race, religion, or belief.

> Yes, both Democratic and Republican administrations have
> followed similar policies on Israel, apparently motivated by
> a desire not to alienate Jewish voters and political
> contributors. And to appease the Christian religious right
> (which thinks that any day now, Israel will rebuild the
> Temple in Jerusalem and Jesus will return). Politics always
> trumps principle.

It's not quite that simple (though, no doubt, that probably is a consideration--political donations and symbolic support is politically advantageous). But a much stronger basis for our support of Israel comes from the American belief that Israel should exist, and succeed. We were part of her formation, and we almost believe that if the US doesn't back her, she will fall.

But the interesting thing about the "Christian religious right" is that they are fairly new converts to the support Israel crowd. Many evangelical doctrines are against that thinking, precisely because they are Jews and not Christians. Evangelical thinking doesn't even accept Catholic thought--I've heard my mother say many times (n.b. I'm Roman Catholic from birth, she's a recent convert to evangelical (Pentecostal) Christianity): he's not CATHOLIC, he's a CHRISTIAN. (You figure that one out--I can't. Last I checked, Sunday, Christ was right there above the alter at St. Ambrose.)

I will proffer this: I think the best friend as President Israel ever had was Richard Nixon. He was a firm single-stater. His only downside was his hemming-and-hawing about sending the goods to defend the Yom Kippur invasion in october 1973. It was politically motivated (Soviet detente was in the balance, as was his career--Watergate). Only an impassioned plea from Kissinger convinced him to sent the Israelis F-4s and A-4s, as well as Mediterranean ship protection (the Sixth Fleet was anchored between Cyprus and Lebanon)--including two carrier groups. But until that point, Nixon was a big AIPAC recipient, hosted Golda Meir and Begin continuously, as well as Henry Ford II (who, unlike his father's famous beliefs, was stidently pro-Israel).

 

[bierkenstock]

Re: Israel-Palestine: Some History

A very well thought out post.

My main point: The UN, dominated in 1947 by the victorious allies, decided to create a "safe haven" out of land that was not their's, nor was any part of the Middle East part of the spoils of war. They fulfilled their moral obligation with somebody else' homeland. Big countries took land from an indigenous people without their consent. What the UN (and before it, the League of Nations) did was wrong to begin with, and the state of Israel is (as the lawyers say) "fruit of the poisonous tree."

As my mother used to say: Two wrongs (Holocaust and UN mandate for Israel) do not make a right.


>
> Hence, the British Mandate of Palestine and Trans-Jordan.
> Lasted for almost 30 years, until unrest caused the British
> to say "the hell with it, we'll let someone else deal". And
> so they did. But the UN was that someone else, and they
> crafted the state of Israel out of the seemingly historic
> land inhabited by Jews in biblical times. It was
> essentially a forced handover, correct. But the British had
> been avoiding the issue for many many years, so it was only
> a matter of time. Plus, after the Holocaust, the West felt
> a moral obligation to provide a safe-haven to the remaining
> European Jews (they also saw the writing on the wall with
> the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. Anything Hitler
> did, Stalin also did.)
>
> It was the UN, not necessarily the allies. True, the West
> was feeling moral guilt after the Holocaust and wished to
> protect the European Jewry from further disaster in Soviet
> hands. It just so happened that the British had a prime
> piece of land ready.
>
> You're also correct that the Palestinians--native to the
> area--are Semites. But a large number of "Palestinians"
> then, and now, are immigrants from other bordering, or not
> bordering, Arab states, like Jordan. Their argument is to
> the existence of the state of Israel on the land occupied by
> Palestine. But the Palestine they wish to remember was a
> 20th century invention. It was not just Israel, but also
> Trans-Jordan, parts of Syria, and parts of Iraq (which was
> itself a separate British possession). After 1948, and
> certainly after 1967, most of the native Palestinians fled
> to Jordan--who refused to accept them. Ditto in 1973. It
> was this "people without a home" mentality that caused
> Yassir Arafat's rise in 1969--and began the war of
> attrition.
>
> So, Israel is not most of Palestine--it is but a part of the
> mis-named British Mandate in Palestine.
>

 

[2001]

Re: Israel-Palestine: Some History

> A very well thought out post.
>
> My main point: The UN, dominated in 1947 by the victorious
> allies, decided to create a "safe haven" out of land that
> was not their's, nor was any part of the Middle East part of
> the spoils of war. They fulfilled their moral obligation
> with somebody else' homeland. Big countries took land from
> an indigenous people without their consent. What the UN
> (and before it, the League of Nations) did was wrong to
> begin with, and the state of Israel is (as the lawyers say)
> "fruit of the poisonous tree."
>
> As my mother used to say: Two wrongs (Holocaust and UN
> mandate for Israel) do not make a right.
>
>
Yeah, and just where exactly would you have carved out the new Israel? Huh, Bierk?

Somewhere near the North Pole?


> >
> > Hence, the British Mandate of Palestine and Trans-Jordan.
>
> > Lasted for almost 30 years, until unrest caused the
> British
> > to say "the hell with it, we'll let someone else deal".
> And
> > so they did. But the UN was that someone else, and they
> > crafted the state of Israel out of the seemingly historic
> > land inhabited by Jews in biblical times. It was
> > essentially a forced handover, correct. But the British
> had
> > been avoiding the issue for many many years, so it was
> only
> > a matter of time. Plus, after the Holocaust, the West
> felt
> > a moral obligation to provide a safe-haven to the
> remaining
> > European Jews (they also saw the writing on the wall with
> > the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. Anything Hitler
> > did, Stalin also did.)
> >
> > It was the UN, not necessarily the allies. True, the West
>
> > was feeling moral guilt after the Holocaust and wished to
> > protect the European Jewry from further disaster in Soviet
>
> > hands. It just so happened that the British had a prime
> > piece of land ready.
> >
> > You're also correct that the Palestinians--native to the
> > area--are Semites. But a large number of "Palestinians"
> > then, and now, are immigrants from other bordering, or not
>
> > bordering, Arab states, like Jordan. Their argument is to
>
> > the existence of the state of Israel on the land occupied
> by
> > Palestine. But the Palestine they wish to remember was a
> > 20th century invention. It was not just Israel, but also
> > Trans-Jordan, parts of Syria, and parts of Iraq (which was
>
> > itself a separate British possession). After 1948, and
> > certainly after 1967, most of the native Palestinians fled
>
> > to Jordan--who refused to accept them. Ditto in 1973. It
>
> > was this "people without a home" mentality that caused
> > Yassir Arafat's rise in 1969--and began the war of
> > attrition.
> >
> > So, Israel is not most of Palestine--it is but a part of
> the
> > mis-named British Mandate in Palestine.
> >
>

 

[Les]

I have but one question

How much is the Rush Limbaugh organization paying to have these
threads started and maintained?

I am a long-time subscriber to the P.T. Barnum theory of broadcasting:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS BAD PUBLICITY.

The attention lavished on knocking Rush, or anyone, works only
to enhance their image among those who already like them and
to arouse curiosity in those who've never heard of them to give
it a try.

If you hate something and don't want others enticed into trying
it, just don't talk about it. I firmly believe that the PSA's...
"This is your brain on drugs"...."Just Say No" did more to boost
heroin and meth sales that would a blue-light special on the
stuff at K-Mart!
<P ID="signature">______________
God save us from those who would save us from ourselves! P-l-e-a-s-e!!!!!</P>

 

[JohnnyMorganWXJX]

Re: Israel-Palestine: Some History

> > A very well thought out post.
> >
> > My main point: The UN, dominated in 1947 by the victorious
>
> > allies, decided to create a "safe haven" out of land that
> > was not their's, nor was any part of the Middle East part
> of
> > the spoils of war. They fulfilled their moral obligation
> > with somebody else' homeland. Big countries took land
> from
> > an indigenous people without their consent. What the UN
> > (and before it, the League of Nations) did was wrong to
> > begin with, and the state of Israel is (as the lawyers
> say)
> > "fruit of the poisonous tree."
> >
> > As my mother used to say: Two wrongs (Holocaust and UN
> > mandate for Israel) do not make a right.
> >
> >
> Yeah, and just where exactly would you have carved out the
> new Israel? Huh, Bierk?
>
> Somewhere near the North Pole?

I think his point is that he would not have carved out an Israel--a position which, though I disagree with it, has merit. If I may put words in his mouth (he can correct me here, if I'm wrong)--because the West was behind the creation of Israel as a Jewish state for European Jews, a state could have been carved out of victor's spoils in Europe (or Asia, though that's not likely). Or, the Jewry could have stayed in Europe as it was and remained in their homes, or at least home countries.

It was this latter course that would have assured a second Holocaust of European Jewry under Soviet auspices; the first course, while it might have been feasible, laid the question on the laps of the allies, which they didn't want. (So much for that moral guilt, huh?)

I do want to take exception to one part of Bierk's post: "The UN, dominated in 1947 by the victorious allies, decided to create a "safe haven" out of land that
was not their's, nor was any part of the Middle East part of the spoils of war."

I'll argue that the Britsih Mandate was a spoil of war--World War I, as extension of the Ottoman Empire's collapse and defeat in 1916. Britain was the only nation then capable of taking it as empire possessions--the US was not yet strong enough, and (here's a shock) France was past its imperial prime (or getting there).

So, the question is more a moral issue about conquests of war, and whether the issue of Manifest Destiny (in US history) is correct or not. That seems to guide the 1947 UN decision and US involvement in support on a philosophical level.

 

[k9ez]

Re: Only if Franken gets drafted too

> > > Them's fightin' words!
> > >
> > http://ww>
> >
> w.humaneventsonline.com/images/FrankenCPAC/FrankenCPAC15.jpg
>
> >
> > >
> >
> > I found it VERY interesting that no one responded to this
> > post. Guess they are too busy ripping on Rush Limbaugh to
>
> > notice.
> >
>
> I think the radio commercial that Jessie Ventura for
> Operation Truth was doing a good job of explaining that
> chickenhawks like Rush and the others who talk up this war
> and never served have no idea in the slightest about
> fighting a war much less strategizing.
>
> The folks at the Jesus General blog setup a new "project"
> for chickenhawks:
>
> http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
>


By Chickenhawks, I assume you are referring to PEOPLE of some kind......

So you are such an expert on war.... please inform us all. Have you served? I have not, but many other have not as well. If you have not, using your logic, you should have no opinion as well.

BLOGS... ugh why would I want to read a BLOG???? Just to read someones ramblings? I think I will pass.

 

[2001]

Re: Israel-Palestine: Some History

> > > A very well thought out post.
> > >
> > > My main point: The UN, dominated in 1947 by the
> victorious
> >
> > > allies, decided to create a "safe haven" out of land
> that
> > > was not their's, nor was any part of the Middle East
> part
> > of
> > > the spoils of war. They fulfilled their moral
> obligation
> > > with somebody else' homeland. Big countries took land
> > from
> > > an indigenous people without their consent. What the UN
>
> > > (and before it, the League of Nations) did was wrong to
> > > begin with, and the state of Israel is (as the lawyers
> > say)
> > > "fruit of the poisonous tree."
> > >
> > > As my mother used to say: Two wrongs (Holocaust and UN
> > > mandate for Israel) do not make a right.
> > >
> > >
> > Yeah, and just where exactly would you have carved out the
>
> > new Israel? Huh, Bierk?
> >
> > Somewhere near the North Pole?
>
> I think his point is that he would not have carved out an
> Israel--a position which, though I disagree with it, has
> merit. If I may put words in his mouth (he can correct me
> here, if I'm wrong)--because the West was behind the
> creation of Israel as a Jewish state for European Jews, a
> state could have been carved out of victor's spoils in
> Europe (or Asia, though that's not likely). Or, the Jewry
> could have stayed in Europe as it was and remained in their
> homes, or at least home countries.
>
> It was this latter course that would have assured a second
> Holocaust of European Jewry under Soviet auspices; the first
> course, while it might have been feasible, laid the question
> on the laps of the allies, which they didn't want. (So much
> for that moral guilt, huh?)
>
> I do want to take exception to one part of Bierk's post:
> "The UN, dominated in 1947 by the victorious allies, decided
> to create a "safe haven" out of land that
> was not their's, nor was any part of the Middle East part of
> the spoils of war."
>
> I'll argue that the Britsih Mandate was a spoil of
> war--World War I, as extension of the Ottoman Empire's
> collapse and defeat in 1916. Britain was the only nation
> then capable of taking it as empire possessions--the US was
> not yet strong enough, and (here's a shock) France was past
> its imperial prime (or getting there).
>
> So, the question is more a moral issue about conquests of
> war, and whether the issue of Manifest Destiny (in US
> history) is correct or not. That seems to guide the 1947 UN
> decision and US involvement in support on a philosophical
> level.
>

Well, here's the bottom line: In Israel's mind, they are where they should be (regardless of who saw to it/allowed it). Israel will never go away. They are there to stay. Isreal's neighbors need to accept that fact once and for all. And that's just all there is to it!

I truly believe that what many human beings in this world fail to realize (or what they refuse to accept) is just how deep the fundamentalist Muslim hatred is "for all things Jew". The Osama bin Laden's of the world blow up our buidings and say, "Hey! If you guys would just walk away from Israel, we'd gladly leave you Americans alone!"---And sadly, there's waaay too many fat, dumb, non-thinking Americans who honestly think that bin Laden has a valid point. But bin Laden's efforts to end any sort of American invovlvement in the Middle East is just a means to an end.----And that "end" is the complete destruction/annihilation of Israel.

Now, I have a feeling that Bierk will say something completely bizarre, like: "Well, hey, if them guys half way around the world want to kill each other, then that's fine with me! As long as no Amercan soldiers die as a result from it, like the way they are dying right now in Iraq."

But like I told Bierk, Israel will use nuclear weapons and completely level the entire Middle East before they will ever give up and/or lose control of "their land".

And you can count on it!

And when "the nukes start flying through the air" over in that part of the world....then "their problem" becomes everyone's problem (worldwide)!!!

 

[KlunkLetter]

> Go back even farther. As I recall from Sunday School, the
> Israelites took Cannan away from the Cannanites. And many
> 18th and 19th Century writers, as I recall from freshman
> year American Thought and Language, considered the US a
> "promised land" and claimed divine sanction to take it away
> from the Indians.
>
> The Jews were driven out of Palestine (70 AD) by the Romans,
> not the Arabs. It would seem far more just and logical to
> give the Zionists part of Italy.
>
>>I hate to do this. I really do, but it is a pet peeve of mine. It is AD 70, not 70 AD. I am enjoying the history discussion, can we start a radio show about it sometime
>>>
> By your logic, since Abraham came from Ur, Israel can also
> claim Iraq.
>
> And we Celts can claim most of Europe (France/Gaul, Spain,
> Switzerland/Helvitca, Turkey/Galatia, Macedonia, most of
> the Balkans and, of course, England .....
>
> >
> > Actually, if go you waaaay back, I mean waaaaaaaaaaaaay,
> > waaaaaaaaaaaay back, "Bierk", the Jews had their land
> taken
> > away from them. (I'm talking about during Biblical times,
> my
> > friend.)
> >
> > So the whole "Native American-thing" on your part is bogus
>
> > too.
> >
> >
>

 

[desertv]

Re: Only if Franken gets drafted too

> > > Them's fightin' words!
> > >
> > http://ww>
> >
> w.humaneventsonline.com/images/FrankenCPAC/FrankenCPAC15.jpg
>
> >
> > >
> >
> > I found it VERY interesting that no one responded to this
> > post. Guess they are too busy ripping on Rush Limbaugh to
>
> > notice.
> >
>
> I think the radio commercial that Jessie Ventura for
> Operation Truth was doing a good job of explaining that
> chickenhawks like Rush and the others who talk up this war
> and never served have no idea in the slightest about
> fighting a war much less strategizing.
>
> The folks at the Jesus General blog setup a new "project"
> for chickenhawks:
>
> http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

Like FDR, Woodrow Wilson, and Bill Clinton? (None of them served in the military)
>

 

[coolidge]

Re: Only if Franken gets drafted too

> I think the radio commercial that Jessie Ventura for
> Operation Truth was doing a good job of explaining that
> chickenhawks like Rush and the others who talk up this war
> and never served have no idea in the slightest about
> fighting a war much less strategizing.
>
> The folks at the Jesus General blog setup a new "project"
> for chickenhawks:
>
> http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/


Nice work in squeezing one oblique radio reference into your partisan political ranting.

 

[coolidge]

Here's a shorter version of your post that should save you time in the future:

"I don't agree with Rush Limbaugh and for some reason feel the need to share that fact with strangers."

 

[coolidge]

> Limbaugh, like many of these war hawks that seem to be in a
> hurry to invade this or that, never served a day in the
> military, making his views on such matters dubious in value.
>

By your "logic" (and I use that term quite loosely in this circumstance), Kennedy should never have advocated the moon program since he wasn't an astronaut.

 

[2001]

> > Limbaugh, like many of these war hawks that seem to be in
> a
> > hurry to invade this or that, never served a day in the
> > military, making his views on such matters dubious in
> value.
> >
>
> By your "logic" (and I use that term quite loosely in this
> circumstance), Kennedy should never have advocated the moon
> program since he wasn't an astronaut.
>

Agreed.

This so-called "logic" kills me too. It's the old "If you're not in the military, or if you've never served in the military, then you are in no position to comment on it or advocate the use of it" argument.

It's such a ridiculous argument that's so full of holes it's laughable.

 

[2001]

> Here's a shorter version of your post that should save you
> time in the future:
>
> "I don't agree with Rush Limbaugh and for some reason feel
> the need to share that fact with strangers."
>

I can almost hear it now........

Homeless Guy: "Hey, Buddy, you got any spare change you can lend me? I don't drink or smoke, mind you. I just need it for bus fare. Honest!

Dampier: "Oh sure, I've got some spare change here for you. But first, let me ask you something."

Homeless Guy: "What's that?"

Dampier: "Do you ever listen to Rush Limbaugh's radio show?"

Homeless Guy: "Uhhh, no, not really."

Dampier: "Well listen, have a seat on this park bench over here and let me tell you why I hate him so much."

Homeless Guy: "Say mister, can I make a deal with you?

Dampier: "What sort of deal?"

Homeless Guy: "Well, if I come clean and tell you that I really want your money so I can get me some booze and cigarettes, will you spare me the Limbaugh story and just hand over the change so I can be on my way?"

Dampier: "No, sorry, I won't. I've changed my mind. Now beat it, you bum!"