OT Scarlet Begonias

"Once in a while
you get shown the light
in the strangest of places
if you look at it right"
from Scarlet Begonias - The Grateful Dead

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/op...22qaddafi.html

Muammar Qaddafi is absolutely right. Well, except for the
name. Isratine is silly, how about Palestrael ? ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Jan 22, 1:24*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
"Once in a while
you get shown the light
in the strangest of places
if you look at it right"
from Scarlet Begonias - The Grateful Dead

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/op...22qaddafi.html

Muammar Qaddafi is absolutely right. Well, except for the
name. Isratine is silly, how about Palestrael ? ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken,
I read the article you linked, and I, at least in part, agree. The
problem is, we're not dealing with Israelis and Palestinians, we're
dealing with is Israelis, Muslim extremist nutcases from several
countries, and the Palestinian people caught in the middle. If the
second faction could be eliminated, unification could work, but in the
meantime, the best that the Israelis can do is to defend themselves.
Obama can arrange meetings, negotiate cease fires, etc, etc etc, maybe
even win a Nobel peace prize for his efforts. But in a short time
after, it will be back to business as usual. I voted for Obama, but
when I did, i did not believe he could solve this problem.

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:31:26 -0800 (PST), george9219
wrote:

On Jan 22, 1:24*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
"Once in a while
you get shown the light
in the strangest of places
if you look at it right"
from Scarlet Begonias - The Grateful Dead

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/op...22qaddafi.html

Muammar Qaddafi is absolutely right. Well, except for the
name. Isratine is silly, how about Palestrael ? ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken,
I read the article you linked, and I, at least in part, agree. The
problem is, we're not dealing with Israelis and Palestinians, we're
dealing with is Israelis, Muslim extremist nutcases from several
countries, and the Palestinian people caught in the middle. If the
second faction could be eliminated, unification could work, but in the
meantime, the best that the Israelis can do is to defend themselves.
Obama can arrange meetings, negotiate cease fires, etc, etc etc, maybe
even win a Nobel peace prize for his efforts. But in a short time
after, it will be back to business as usual. I voted for Obama, but
when I did, i did not believe he could solve this problem.

Now hang on a sec...when they all see a dude from Chicago named
"Hussein" walking across the Sea of Galilee carrying Oprah, they'll be
pretty impressed...

HTH,
R
....OK, so truth be told, if anyone saw the Chicago Bears' defensive line
carrying Oprah across a mud puddle, they ought to be pretty ****in'
impressed, but that's not really the point I'm trying to make...

wrote in message
...
...OK, so truth be told, if anyone saw the Chicago Bears' defensive line
carrying Oprah across a mud puddle, they ought to be pretty ****in'
impressed, but that's not really the point I'm trying to make...

well, that just sucks.....if you're going to toss a softball setup line, at
least let one of us hit the ball out of the park.
(I confess to thinking that if I saw anyone capable of that task I'd be
scared as much as impressed)
Tom

On Jan 22, 3:31*pm, george9219 wrote:
I read the article you linked, and I, at least in part, agree.

I mostly agreed also, though he glossed rather quickly over the
substantial issue of right of return as if a magic wand would make
that happen.

The
problem is, we're not dealing with Israelis and Palestinians, we're
dealing with is Israelis, Muslim extremist nutcases from several
countries, and the Palestinian people caught in the middle.

To compound that, there also Israeli extremist nutcases; and both them
and their Muslim counterparts have such a diverse set of motives
(ideology, territory, money, power, all of the above) that addressing
them is like playing endless whack a mole.


If the
second faction could be eliminated, unification could work, but in the
meantime, the best that the Israelis can do is to defend themselves.

Actually, I think that's the least they can do. The best they could
do would be to understand *why* the Palestinians are firing the
rockets and try to address some of those economic, political, and
social issues. Bombing the hell out of Gaza isn't going to solve the
problem, and it's not a defense of Israel.

It may provide a temporary respite from rocket attacks; but killing
someone's family isn't going to make them stop trying to kill you
back. It plays into the hands of the militant and extremist leaders
of both sides, makes peace less attainable, destabilizes the region,
and further jeopardizes the security of the Israeli people it purports
to defend. It's a downward spiral that feeds on itself. An absence
of attacks isn't peace, an absence of reasons to attack is peace.

I agree that Obama isn't likely to succeed where generations of others
have failed; but he seems, at least at first blush, to be bringing a
new approach. We can hope.

On Jan 22, 4:57*pm, rb608 wrote:
On Jan 22, 3:31*pm, george9219 wrote:

I read the article you linked, and I, at least in part, agree.

I mostly agreed also, though he glossed rather quickly over the
substantial issue of right of return as if a magic wand would make
that happen.

The
problem is, we're not dealing with Israelis and Palestinians, we're
dealing with is Israelis, Muslim extremist nutcases from several
countries, and the Palestinian people caught in the middle.

To compound that, there also Israeli extremist nutcases; and both them
and their Muslim counterparts have such a diverse set of motives
(ideology, territory, money, power, all of the above) that addressing
them is like playing endless whack a mole.

If the
second faction could be eliminated, unification could work, but in the
meantime, the best that the Israelis can do is to defend themselves.

Actually, I think that's the least they can do. *The best they could
do would be to understand *why* the Palestinians are firing the
rockets and try to address some of those economic, political, and
social issues. *Bombing the hell out of Gaza isn't going to solve the
problem, and it's not a defense of Israel.

It may provide a temporary respite from rocket attacks; but killing
someone's family isn't going to make them stop trying to kill you
back. *It plays into the hands of the militant and extremist leaders
of both sides, makes peace less attainable, destabilizes the region,
and further jeopardizes the security of the Israeli people it purports
to defend. *It's a downward spiral that feeds on itself. *An absence
of attacks isn't peace, an absence of reasons to attack is peace.

I agree that Obama isn't likely to succeed where generations of others
have failed; but he seems, at least at first blush, to be bringing a
new approach. *We can hope.

You've got part of it right. The main thing, though, is that it isn't
the Palestinian's that are firing the rockets, it is Hamas, Hezbolah,
and god knows what other factions from those entities dedicated to the
destruction of Israel, that are firing the rockets. The Palestinian
people are pawns in this game. They are victims of a common strategy
of Muslim terrorists. Are there radical militant Israelis? Sure there
are, but all in all, I think the Israelis have shown restraint in the
recent past. What would the US reaction be if Mexico started lobbing
munitions at us? Also I believe that the timing of the beginning and
end of the Israeli action was not a coincidence.

george9219 wrote:
On Jan 22, 1:24 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
"Once in a while
you get shown the light
in the strangest of places
if you look at it right"
from Scarlet Begonias - The Grateful Dead

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/op...22qaddafi.html

Muammar Qaddafi is absolutely right. Well, except for the
name. Isratine is silly, how about Palestrael ? ;-)

Ken,
I read the article you linked, and I, at least in part, agree. The
problem is, we're not dealing with Israelis and Palestinians, we're
dealing with is Israelis, Muslim extremist nutcases from several
countries, and the Palestinian people caught in the middle.

To be fair you have to acknowledge that there are extremist nutcases
on both sides. Hamas was elected by the Palestinian people in free
and fair elections and the Israeli response was to turn Gaza into
a concentration camp. How would you react if Canada closed our
borders because we voted in Republicans ? (Not that I'd blame them ;-)

If the
second faction could be eliminated, unification could work, but in the
meantime, the best that the Israelis can do is to defend themselves.
Obama can arrange meetings, negotiate cease fires, etc, etc etc, maybe
even win a Nobel peace prize for his efforts. But in a short time
after, it will be back to business as usual. I voted for Obama, but
when I did, i did not believe he could solve this problem.

Obama cannot solve this problem, but this problem cannot be solved
without him or someone like him. It really is as simple as a bumper
sticker, if you want peace work for justice. Justice in Palestine
means one state where all races, all religions and all people share
the same protections under the law. Just like here in the US.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:33:32 -0600, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Justice in Palestine
means one state where all races, all religions and all people share
the same protections under the law. Just like here in the US.

But that will never be with Iran wanting Israel totally destroyed, and
supporting that destruction. Take Iran, Syria, and probably Lebanon
too, out of the picture and there just might be a peace the Arab and
the Jew can accept. But Iran doesn't want that, and will continue to
throw its monkey wrench into any solutions. Do not expect very much
until Iran stops its harassment policy of Israel. And if the world
doesn't soon act to do something about Iran, Israel will, and it won't
be pretty.

I hope that Obama can get something done. I wish him good luck. I AM
still waiting, however, when the color of a man's skin doesn't matter
in any situation. That was MLK jr's dream. If we can elect a woman
president without going googoo over the fact she is a woman, elect a
Jew president without doing the same, or elect a homosexual without
the same fanfare that Obama has because he is half black, then we will
have progressed as a nation. When we can say Obama was the 44th MAN
inaugurated as President of the United States, then and only then,
will we have defeated the racisim that still exists.

Dave

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
When we can say Obama was the 44th MAN
inaugurated as President of the United States, then and only then,
will we have defeated the racisim that still exists.

Dave

True, but first steps have to be taken, and this is but a first step.....
Tom

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:24:15 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
.. .
When we can say Obama was the 44th MAN
inaugurated as President of the United States, then and only then,
will we have defeated the racisim that still exists.

Dave

True, but first steps have to be taken, and this is but a first step.....
Tom


Tom, my youngest daughter made that first step 35 years ago when she
was 6. Her grandmother was watching her play outside, and when Paula
came inside for a drink, Granma ask her which of the little girls was
her best friend. Paula looked out and said, "The one with the green
shorts." The only girl with green shorts on was also the only black
girl out there. She and her sister are the same way today. They
think of Obama as the 44th President, not the first half white/half
black president. What happens if we have a full blooded black? Will
he be known as the first full blooded black president? It is racial
bordering on racism to refer to Obama as the first black president.
We need to get over all this hype about his race. He's a man. He's
the President. Get over the fact that he is black.

Dave, half Republican, half Democrat. Half Canadian French. half New
England Yankee. And always Half Assed.