wouldn't it be great

[Anonymous]

> WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT TO TURN ON THE TV AND HEAR GEORGE W. BUSH OR JOHN
> KERRY GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH AFTER THE ELECTION?
>
>
>
> As you all know, the defeat of Iraq regime has been completed. Since
> congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission
> in Iraq is complete.
>
> This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American
> forces from Iraq. This action will be complete within 30 days. It is now
> to begin the reckoning.
>
> Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries
> which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is
> short. The United Kingdom, Spain, Bulgaria, Australia, and Poland are
> some of the countries listed there. The other list contains everyone not
> on the first list. Most of the worlds nations are on that list. My press
> secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening.
>
> Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those
> nations on List 2 ceases immediately and indefinitely. The money saved
> during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the
> Iraqi war
>
> The American people are no longer going to pour money into third world
> Hell-holes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption.
> Need help with a famine? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France.
>
> In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this
> money toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home.
> On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we
> will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face
> of the earth. Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize? Try France, or
> maybe China.
>
> To Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Yo, boys. Work out a peace deal
> now. Just note that Camp David is closed. Maybe all of you can go to
> Russia for negotiations. They have some great palaces there. Big tables,
> too. I am ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with
> France, Germany, and Russia. Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are
> retiring from NATO as well. Bon chance, mes amis. I have instructed
> the Mayor of New York City to begin towing the many UN diplomatic
> vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid parking tickets
> to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I
> don't care about whatever treaty pertains to this. You have tens of
> thousands of unpaid tickets. Pay those tickets tomorrow or watch your
> precious Benzes, Beamers, and limos be turned over to some of the finest
> chop shops in the world. I love New York.
>
> A special note to our neighbors. Canada is on List 2. Since we are
> likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to
> try not pissing us off for a change. Mexico is also on List 2. President
> Fox and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude
> adjustment. I will have a couple extra tank and infantry divisions
> sitting around. Guess where I am going to put em? Yep, border security.
> So start doing something with your oil. Oh, by the way, the United
> States is abrogating the NAFTA treaty ---starting now.
>
> We are tired of the one-way highway. It is time for America to focus on
> its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of
> isolationism. I answer them be saying, "darn tootin."
>
> Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the
> world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on
> the planet. It is time to eliminate hunger in America. It is time to
> eliminate homelessness in America. It is time to eliminate World Cup
> Soccer from America. To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thanks
> guys. We owe you and we won't forget. To the nations on List 2, a final
> thought. Drop dead.
>
> God bless America. Thank you and good night.
>
>
> If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in
> English, thank a soldier.

[johnb]

Perzactly....the only change I would add is tell the Israelis to get the Uhauls ready, pack the Arabs up and sent them to an Arab state. All the Arabs in all of Israel. To include Judea and Samaria and the Gaza. Then blow up that damned Mosque above the Wailing Wall.

Get out and stay out.

[Anonymous]

Get out and stay out.

Isn't that a statement that has more force coming from an Arab perspective, given that there were more of them there first, and Israel created their state by force, extending their borders from the UN designated area into Arab lands? Sounds to me like the Israelis are largely the ones doing the occupying.

In fact, the term occupation is used quite freely by even senior Israeli officials. They know that they stole Arab land and are destroying Arab livlihoods but they know too that there isn't enough political will to stop them from so doing.

How is it appropriate, or even absolutely right for its apologists, for Israel to create itself by violence and occupying the land of others while such a practice is explicitly illegal in international law and nearly 100% of people would, rightly, condemn that act anywhere else on the globe?

It seems also to be in poor taste to advocate violence and call for the destruction of holy religious sites in any religion. Let me suggest that John is not quite as far from the closed minded fundamentalists that he so detests in that respect. Reread his post. His lament for Israel is "Oh, if only we could drive out our enemies and blow up their most precious things." This coming from a man who on every opportunity to do so will remind us of the injustice and inherent wrongness of (some of) Islam's desire to rid its land of others, to convert the world, and to treat others as if they were, well, cargo to be packed into trucks.

Excellent show John.

Mark

[dhyatt]

Get out and stay out.

Isn't that a statement that has more force coming from an Arab perspective, given that there were more of them there first, and Israel created their state by force, extending their borders from the UN designated area into Arab lands? Sounds to me like the Israelis are largely the ones doing the occupying.

[snip]

Mark

Mark!
How's it going up in Boston? :-) I hope school is working out for you. I disagree with your above paragraph(s) BTW. Israel 'extended' their borders beyong the U.N. mandate during the six day war in 1967 only after being attacked. Egypyt and Syria attacked and they LOST. If you want to blame someone for the so called occupation of Palestine (which is historically mostly in Jordan except the Jordanians didn't/don't want the refugees), then blame Egypt and Syria. They started it. Frankly, I'm surprised Israel has been as tolerant as they have been...

[editor_andy]

Hmm....sounds like something Patton would say if he were president.

Lol, his Fireside Speech.

[Anonymous]

Hey Don. Boston is treating us well so far. My wife and I have been here for nearly two weeks now, classes start in the next few days. I had forgotten how easy it is to eat well and cheaply in larger citites, though it hardly makes up for the rents.

Just a note about your post. I was actually referring not to the 6 days war, but further back to Israel's founding itself. Its borders on May 14 1948 extended past the UN partition plan and far, far extended it after the war of independence that same year.

With respect to the '63 conflict, it is universally acknowledged that Israel attacked first. Granted, many will claim it was self defense and Israel's need to act preemptively, though I am not personally swayed by this line of reasoning. Regardless of who was at fault for attacking (and if Israel wasn't this time, they certainly were when they invaded Egypt the first time in the mid 50's) the fact remains that it is illegal to gain territory as the result of armed conflict. That doctrine is rightly a cornerstone of international law. It do not blame, as it were, Israel for attempting to gain land post conflict as much as I do the remaining international community for allowing the final negotiations to have that character. Israel was given exceptions on account of its particular historical situation. Now, Israel might be deserving of some special recognition and help, however I do not think that such decisions as were made following the wars of 48, 58 or 63 are in keeping with the spirit of the law nor foster the kind of global justice towards which we should be striving.

Also, I should note, please don't think I'm saying that the Arab community generally is without fault for the violence in Israel. Israel has been unabashedly invaded on more than one occassion and has responded appropriately. However, Israel intself is not guiltless with respect to the historical and present day violence it faces. It too has been on the aggressive end of invasion and currently is on the aggressive end of an occupation.

[johnb]

Isn't that a statement that has more force coming from an Arab perspective, given that there were more of them there first,

Actually Mark, that's nonsense and I suspect you know that. The Jews were in Israel long before Islam was invented. The Romans expelled the Jews from Jerusalem but in the countryside there were huge numbers of them all along. It wasn't until the Moslem invasion of Israel and the subsequent centuries of persecution under Moslem totalitarian rule that the Jewish population in the countryside began to decline. Their status as dhimi's coupled with the Arabs, then the Turks transfer of Moslems into the area as settlers is this occured. The Arabs are simply not native to the area and in fact came as invaders, occupiers, and settlers. The goal was cultural genocide of the native Jews. Up to the 1930's the Jews were under the threat of a pogrom from the Arabs. Hebron had a large population of Jews until the Arabs rose up and massacred them in the 1930's, causing many to flee. Today there are few Jews in Hebron and the hard left considers the Arabs to be "natives" and the Jews "occupiers". Too bad you guys don't apply that same logic to the status of American Indians and the descendants of European colonizers/immigrants. You have one standard for everyplace else and a second standard for Israel. Forgive me for thinking the left wants nothing more than to see the Arabs launch a second Holocaust. The Arabs are pretty blunt about wanting to exterminate Israel and the Jews and all the left can see the Arabs as some sort of victim. Odd, very odd.

[johnb]

With respect to the '63 conflict, it is universally acknowledged that Israel attacked first. Granted, many will claim it was self defense and Israel's need to act preemptively, though I am not personally swayed by this line of reasoning.

As usual Mark, you don't know what you're talking about. You're allowing the traditional leftist antipathy for Jews block objective thinking.

First, it was 1967, not 1963.

Second, Egypt, Syria, et al, massed troops on their borders with Israel. Peaceful countries don't do that. Germany didn't mass troops on the Polish border in 1939 for the hell of it. Case White was quite serious and aggressive. The US does not mass troops on the border with Canada and Mexico. We aren't going to attack them. That type of action is indicative of aggressive intent. Especially worrisome with countries where the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is perenially on the best seller list and the target nation is less than an hours drive wide and full of Jews.

Third, short of large scale massacre's, as occured all through the record of Islam's past contact with Jews, I'm at a loss to consider what you would consider "persuasive". If the testimony of Arab leaders, media, individuals, and organizaitons to the effect that they want Israel destroyed is not going to sway you or other leftists I don't suppose smoke from a crematoria will either.