Debate : 16332


Off-Topic / Debate / 16332

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Mike Petrucelli

(...) subject (...) Well I have been reading her articles for about 2 years now. She does not side with either conservatives or liberals all the time. Her opinions (and I do understand it is an opinion) are formed with the facts at hand. The simple (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Scott Arthur

(...) That is *not* what I asked (...) Not "the facts", just the "facts at hand"? What are her information sources? AIPAC? (...) They may not be the "evil oppressors Palestinians portray them to be", but they are still evil oppressors. Just take a (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Mike Petrucelli

(...) side (...) The statement was a validation of Mona Charen not mindlessly accepting Government Propaganda from either side of the issue. (...) Primary source research, not the "News." (...) they (...) 18 months of suicide bombings will have that (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Scott Arthur

(...) I see. I suppose my problem is that I don't view this as a "conservatives" v "liberals" issue. (...) Hmm. That sounds a little vague. Her reporting appears very selective to me. (...) Perhaps they should never have invaded in '67? *If* it (...) (23 years ago, 13-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Scott Arthur

(...) Yes, I know it's a big IF! Scott A =+= Have you inspected Arthur’s Seat yet? (URL) reasonable man adapts himself to suit his environment. An unreasonable man persists in attempting to adapt his environment to suit himself. Therefore, all (...) (23 years ago, 13-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Dave's Anti-American Rant (you've been warned) was Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —David Koudys

(...) I believe that the most un-American place in the world right now is America. If this 'wonderful' country was founded on 'freedom' and the 'Pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness', it ain't showing right now. 'America-Love it or (...) (23 years ago, 13-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Dave's Anti-American Rant (you've been warned) was Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Bruce Schlickbernd

I love the smell of napalm in the morning. :-) Bruce (23 years ago, 13-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Dave's Anti-American Rant (you've been warned) was Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Mladen Pejic

I just can't help myself... Urge too irresistible... Must quote _Full Metal Jacket_... ARGH! Forgive me... --- Pogue Colonel: Marine, what is that button on your body armor? Private Joker: A peace symbol, sir. Pogue Colonel: Where'd you get it? (...) (23 years ago, 13-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Dave's Anti-American Rant (you've been warned) was Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Scott Costello

Let me begin my "pro-American" Rant by saying that I do truely love Canada, in my heart it is a very close second to the nation of my birth, so please do not construe my remarks as "anti-Canadian", as that is not how I intend them. But I certainly (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Dave's Anti-American Rant (you've been warned) was Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Ross Crawford

(...) Well, just to get in my usual nit-pick, Canada may have come up with the variant called "ice hockey", but the origin of the game of (field) hockey is actually unknown. 4,000 year old drawings depicting men playing a version of the game have (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Dave's Anti-American Rant (you've been warned) was Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —John Neal

(...) "Most"? *All*, and by a long shot. (...) Yes, but while we're at it, we need more warm places to vacation, so let's annex Central and South America, too, and become The United States of Americas:-) -John (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Dave's Anti-American Rant (you've been warned) was Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —David Koudys

My post was a rant. In oh so many ways I am thankful that our neighbour to the south is the USofA. I don't think I would be as happy if *any* other country was our closest trading partner, and I will forgive *any* country's transgressions that had (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Dave's Anti-American Rant (you've been warned) was Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —David Koudys

(...) Let me clarify :) It wasn't Nixon who got the kids in the car, it was the guy who worked in the West Wing. The worker got his kids in the car, drove up to the white house and pointed out to his kids that the most powerful man in the free world (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Dave's Anti-American Rant (you've been warned) was Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, as a criticism of public-funded programs, it wasn't a very strong point, so don't feel bad if you don't understand it. We've had countless discussions here about the US Gov't prying into everyone's dirty laundry (or medical history), and (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Socialised Medicine (was Re: Dave's Anti-American Rant (you've been warned)) —Simon Bennett

(...) OK. Can anyone who thinks a public health care system is a bad idea please explain why that argument does not hold for a public education system. To me, and I would guess to most who support these two things, they are both about ensuring (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Socialised Medicine (was Re: Dave's Anti-American Rant (you've been warned)) —Dave Schuler

(...) I should begin by pointing out that you snipped the text in a way that makes it look like David K's comments came from me, but I don't think it was intentional. To answer your question, many who favor privatized health care also favor a (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Socialised Medicine and Socialised Education —Simon Bennett

(...) Indeed. My apologies. (...) Oh they probably are, but they cost more, and it is divisive in terms of 'equality of opportunity' to have them. This is also interesting. What do you think is the benchmark they are using for unacceptability? Is it (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Socialised Medicine (was Re: Dave's Anti-American Rant (you've been warned)) —James Trobaugh

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Simon Bennett writes: <snipL (...) Oh how I wish they would privatize the education system here in the states, but due to the power of the teacher's unions it won't happen country wide anytime soon. I know a few cities (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Socialised Medicine (was Re: Dave's Anti-American Rant (you've been warned)) —David Koudys

(...) The vouchers was a great idea--you send your kid to whichever school system you're most comfortable with, whether it's run by your church or someone else, or even home schooling, and your tax dollars goes to that school system. In this way (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Socialised Medicine (was Re: Dave's Anti-American Rant (you've been warned)) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Why not just abolish taxes for schools rather than having the half-way measure of vouchers? No question of the government subsidizing religion (and who has the biggest chain of private schools? I'd guess the Catholic Church -and believe me, (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Socialised Medicine (was Re: Dave's Anti-American Rant (you've been warned)) —Simon Bennett

(...) Fine, but I *really* am asking why you think private is better (and I don't mean just for those who have the money to pay for it. I mean for the nation) You don't appear to have evidence yet. The example you give is interesting though as I the (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Dave's Anti-American Rant (you've been warned) was Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —David Koudys

(...) There might not be an obviously *stated* implication, but an *inherent* implication--"Those that don't have money, don't get" I am charging money for the services I render, and if you cannot afford to pay, you don't get my services. It's *in* (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Dave's Anti-American Rant —Dave Schuler

(...) Again, you're characterizing the system to portray it as unfair, but it's not a fair characterization. The fact that it's a 2-tier system is actually irrelevant, since it would be that way in any case. If health care is privatized, and if (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Dave's Anti-American Rant —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I don't see being "anti-corporation" and "anti-capitalism" as at all the same thing, BTW. If the corporations we are talking about are the sort of crony driven parasitic influence purchasers as ADM, (or US Steel) for example, I am about as (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Dave's Anti-American Rant —David Koudys

(...) When it comes to having Doc Martens vs no-name sneakers, or an SUV vs S.P.O.C., or veal vs pork chops, that's to the wealth of the individual. I could care less if my fellow human has the whereforall to afford the 54 inch screen TV or the (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

DMs (was: Re: Dave's Anti-American Rant) —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) Doc Martens are actually very nice shoes, and affordable, too. Perhaps they are more expensive "over there"? My "office shoes" (dressy DMs) are ten years old, and they still look new. My ten-hole shoes are close to ten years old, and are (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: DMs (was: Re: Dave's Anti-American Rant) —Maggie Cambron

(...) In addition to my other garage sale FOTW (URL) found some new Doc Martens (1460 boots) in my size for $5! The only thing is they are a forest green color, and I was forced to take two CD's (Erasure and Duran Duran) and a Terry Brooks novel (...) (22 years ago, 12-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: DMs (was: Re: Dave's Anti-American Rant) —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) That's great! The CDs and book are probably not that bad, and I kinda like non-black DMs. I used to have a pair of cherry red three-hole shoes. Nice ones. Fredrik (22 years ago, 13-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Dave's Anti-American Rant (you've been warned) was Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Mike Petrucelli

(...) The 'American System' is broken. That is why I said the 'ideals' of the constitution. If the system was working as it should then most of the problems would not exsist. There is no such this as a perfect system but the ideals of the (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Mike Petrucelli

[snip] (...) Ah, I see. [snip] (...) Well if 5 Arab armies had not attacked them they probably would not have. (...) *If* it meant peace then yes I do think Israel would hand back the West Bank. That was why Barak was elected and offered peace to (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Scott Arthur

(...) You should have paid more attention in history class. This is not quite true. (...) Has all the land taken in '67 ever been offered back... I don't think so. (...) To a certain extent they are "oppressors". Check their human rights record! (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —John Neal

(...) It was a pre-emptive strike. This does not mean that the Arabs weren't going to attack anyway-- they were. The war was unavoidable (for Israel). Israel wisely seized the upper hand. For you to say that they "invaded" shows that *you* did most (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Scott Arthur

(...) Nite quite John. Let's just look at one front. The claimed issue for engaging Syria was that Israeli farmers were being harassed by the Syrians - they (the farmers) made a presentation to the Israeli cabinet which reportedly concluded the (...) (23 years ago, 15-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —John Neal

(...) <snip long quote which you have *already* offered elsewhere which I can't find relevant> Just answer this question "yes" or "no": Would the Arabs have invaded Israel if they hadn't acted first? (...) "Mostly over"? It's never "over" for the (...) (23 years ago, 15-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Scott Arthur

(...) The quote demonstrated: a) Why Israel wanted the war. b) How they provoked it. (...) The battle was "mostly over". Israel was reluctant to advance substantially into Arab territory as they feared a counter attack by external powers (i.e. the (...) (23 years ago, 16-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —John Neal

(...) Israel tricked the Syrians. Fine. The purpose was to control the Golan Heights so as to provide a safe buffer between her and Syria. It was a completely *defensive* strategy. Has Israel used this strategic advantage against Syria in an (...) (23 years ago, 16-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Scott Arthur

(...) Wrong. Read the quotes again. (...) Indeed. (...) We've covered that ground before. (...) How many years later? (...) Not quite. (...) He got it back because he *did* attack! His attack made Israel understand that they had to speak to him. (...) (23 years ago, 16-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Mike Petrucelli

(...) place. (...) current (...) getting (...) Odd? The Arab countries that controled the land (and forced the Arab refugees now called Palastinians into the refuge camps in the first place) have not requested the land back. Dispite this 97% of that (...) (23 years ago, 15-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Scott Arthur

(...) That is a notion which is quite wrong. (...) You have *not* answered my question have you? The answer is no! (...) Who made them refugee's? I accept it would have been more convenient for Israel if the Arab states had accepted them into their (...) (23 years ago, 15-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Mike Petrucelli

(...) never (...) true. (...) West (...) years (...) Bank. (...) disagree (...) years, (...) refugees (...) be (...) media (...) Israel. (...) This excerpt from one of Mona Charen's articles conters your argument far better than I can and includes (...) (23 years ago, 15-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Scott Arthur

(...) (Given that this thread-let was about Ms Charen's integrity, I’m bemused that you are using her to justify your argument(!). Have we went full circle?) Even if true, I don't agree it does answer my argument. My questions to you were: 1. Who (...) (23 years ago, 16-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Mike Petrucelli

[snip] (...) That is why I used an excerpt that contained its sorce reference. (...) Arab propaganda. Not all Arabs (Palestinians) fled Israel in 1948, because they did not belive the silly things that the dictators tell them. (like the Saudi-Arabia (...) (23 years ago, 17-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Scott Arthur

(...) If "not all", then how many? Israel was able to clear 80% of Palestinians from the area (~700,000 individuals), I happen to think that had more to do with their aggression than it does alleged reports of "Jewish Vampires". However, I don’t see (...) (23 years ago, 17-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Mike Petrucelli

(...) circle?) (...) they (...) How about people that moved into an area 1-2 years before the the country was formed by the UN. The only reason they moved there was because the Arab countries were trying to discourage the UN from putting Israel (...) (23 years ago, 18-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Scott Arthur

(...) That does not really answer my question. Your point, even if true, does not justify Israel’s actions in any way. Does it? (...) To be honest, I have no idea. (...) I can't agree with that view. (...) Peace on Israel's terms? Barak went to the (...) (23 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) If the word "soldier" is used in the wide sense here, the last statement is probably flase. It is a common opinion that the ultimate Japanese capitulation was caused by the heavy civillian casualties after the atomic bomb attacks. Prior to the (...) (23 years ago, 18-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —John Neal

(...) Grow up. (...) Do you really think so? I really don't. The Intifada is a result of (...) What we are talking about here are two separate issues, which have been uniquely intertwined by Islamic extremists. First, you have the issue of autonomy (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Scott Arthur

(...) lol. A very adult statement! (...) Thanks for your view! (...) On Israel's terms? (...) ...and the way to cut-off Hammas is with the education of their support, not killing civilians. But remember, there are extremists on both sides... and (...) (23 years ago, 13-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —John Neal

(...) Well, I am already being proven right, because it appears even today that Israel will refuse to allow the creation of a Palestinian state that is lead by murderous thugs like Arafat and his terrorist organizations. And frankly, I don't blame (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) This is not consistent with my understandment of the recent events. Are you refering to the decision by the dominant Israeli party Likud to forever oppose the creation of an independent Palestinian state on the West Bank? Apparantly, Sharon is (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Peace in the Mid-East? —Scott Arthur

Fredrik, I agree with what you say relating to Likud. John, I would like to add that just because the your views and Likud's concur it does not mean that anyone is "proven right". Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)