Huckabee has every bit as good a chance of taking this nomination as Romney. He's polling ahead of Romney nationally in the WSJ and Bloomberg polls. Romney can't win in CA or NE. He can't win in the South or Midwest. So where can he win? No where that will bring this race closer. A vote for Romney is a vote for McCain.

You do realize that "the votes of traditional Republicans" would go to Ron Paul. He is the traditional Republican. McCain and Romney are the ones considered neo-cons or "new conservatives". New conservatives are generally described as war hawks with liberal leaning spending tendencies. This describes Romney and McCain to a T.

The Edwards thing is a pretty big deal, considering he's likely to endorse Obama. Bear in mind that all of the Super-Duper Tuesday polls that put Hillary in dougle-digit leads were conducted before the Kennedy endorsement (which will carry weight with the main-line Democrats) and the Edwards quit. Could it be the nudge Obama's been waiting for?

The American monkey-in-chief race seems a bit more interesting now that some of the monkeys have bumped their heads and been knocked out, but the fact of the matter is that the American election will not have as much bearing on matters as navel-gazing Americans think.

German ships traveling to Gaza, spiking oil prices, a falling dollar and collapsing American economy are far more important issues than the chattering of the marmosets in the monkey cage of those who would be the monkey-in-chief in Washington.

Wake up and smell the chads, people!

Huckabee and Paul are done. Finished.

Stick a fork in 'em.

Clavos,

"Huckabee and Paul are done. Finished."

I'm not so sure about Paul. He's got money and a core of backers who could care less about which of the other candidates run, or if he might be a spoiler. If he is serious, he will run on a third party ticket.

Les

anyone who allows the likes of Anderson Cooper to walk all over him as Paul did last night is far too much of a wimp to be Prez

or was he trying to give his supporters something more to whine about - ?

troll,

"or was he trying to give his supporters something more to whine about - ?"

I doubt if he was trying to come off as a wimp, but he is. That's why I said, 'if he is serious'. I have my doubts.

His mob doesn't seem to care about such trivialities. His reactionary appeal is to the freaked out middle class.

Les

Huckabee has every bit as good a chance of taking this nomination as Romney. He's polling ahead of Romney nationally in the WSJ and Bloomberg polls. Romney can't win in CA or NE. He can't win in the South or Midwest.

Huckabee has no chance at all. Romney may not be able to win California, but he can win New England states, which at least makes him competitive. The problem for Romney AND Huckabee is that the midwest, the southwest, California and New York are all going to go to McCain. End of story.

You do realize that "the votes of traditional Republicans" would go to Ron Paul.

Quite true IF he were not campaigning as such an extremist and if he had not sold his campaign to the lunatic fringe.

He is the traditional Republican.

No, you're wrong. Paul is a libertarian Republican, which is an element within the party with a long history and which is compatible with traditional republicanism, but it is not the traditional mainstream of the party. Traditional Republicans are fiscally conservative, socially indifferent or libertarian, and strong on defense. Paul is fiscally conservastive, socially conservative and weak on defense.

McCain and Romney are the ones considered neo-cons or "new conservatives". New conservatives are generally described as war hawks with liberal leaning spending tendencies. This describes Romney and McCain to a T.

Like most Paul supporters you have no idea what Neocons are or whio Neocons are and just throw the term out at anyone you don't like. Traditional Republicans have always supported a strong defense, and that does NOT make them Neocons just because there's a superficial similarity. And if you think Romney and McCain have the same position on military or foreign policy you're just not paying attention.

Dave

troll,

The idiots who want to be "president" of your country are not what are dropping like flies. It's your economy. And as you all know, presidents can do little about the economy.

It matters little which idiot presides over the fall of your nation. What matters is that it is going down....

The American dollar continues to fall against the shekel and against the euro. Look at the bottom of the above link and you'll see the value of the dollar against the shekel in the lower right hand corner (about 3.6xx) and against the euro towards the center of the page (about $1.4xxx). In addition, as an added fillip, Jobless claims surge in latest week. First-time claims jump back to 375,000, the loftiest level since October. Against this, the presidential race is meaningless. I repeat. It doesn't matter which idiot presides over the dissolution of the wealth of the American people.

Ruvy,

"It doesn't matter which idiot presides over the dissolution of the wealth of the American people."

It does matter some, but not enough for the majority of us to vote for them.

Les

Ruvy,

Economic and business cycles are the norm. Returns will be more moderate for awhile. True, the US is in a downturn. True, Bush doesn't know what steps to take, preferring more deficit spending to budget control, and other sound monetary and fiscal policies. True, politicians are jumping on his bandwagon to buy votes in November, little caring what it costs future generations.

But a permanent "dissolution of the wealth of the American people" is maybe going a little too far. Your distaste of all things American has clouded your perspective somewhat.

Knowledge is better than fear or, in your case, wishful thinking, when assessing a nation's economic future.

"Paul is fiscally conservastive, socially conservative and weak on defense."--Dave Nalle

Not squandering our military resources on a neo-con nation-building, empire building agenda would seem to create a much stronger defense to me. Not pissing in everyone's pool would seem like a much stronger defense to me. Actually going after Al Qaeda in a an asymmetric attack using special forces and a policy of Letter of Marque would be a whole lot more fiscally responsible and a whole hell of a lot more effective at actually punishing those who took credit for 9/11.

Instead we are destroying other nations. We will eventually have to leave them (at probably no better off than they are now or have been for the last couple of years) with nothing but more death and destroyed infrastructure for them and more debt for us. Let's leave and tell them that when they figure out a peaceful government and stop their civil-war we will give them X amount of money -10% per year that it takes them to resolve their problems.

Every remaining candidate except Dr. Paul is ready to go into Iran, and McCain is chomping at the bit to do so. The last thing we need is a 3rd battleground on our hands, and for no good purpose. Our military is stretched thin, they are burnt out, and they need a break. If we open up another can of worms that we cannot win (we are occupying their country, we would never surrender, to assume they would is foolish) we will surely have to reinstate the draft. Except this time we won't have the huge numbers of the baby-boomers to fall back on and will wind up drafting a larger percentage of a whole generation and women to boot.

Maybe if our Armed Forces had been home instead of being picked off one by one trying to subdue other nations in pre-emptive wars we could've done something about the aftermath of Katrina. Boy wouldn't it have been nice if we would have had a couple hundred helicopters and several thousands troops within a few hundred miles (101st Air Assault Division, Ft Campbell KY) of that disaster. What are we going to do in the next disaster, what if its a nuclear one? You do realize that our troops are the ONLY large force we have that has ANY training in nuclear operations? Or equipment to deal with it?

We are fighting a NON-nation-state enemy by trying to conquer nations states. Our current strategy is akin to trying to swat a flea with a pair of golf-cleats while sitting in a rubber raft; we're unlikely to ever hit our target, and the more we try the faster we create new holes, which just causes the whole raft to sink that much faster!

Instead of making more enemies we should dismantle our empire, make the homeland more secure, and fight our real enemies in a real and effective manner. Ron Paul is the only one even willing to talk about these ideas...how can anyone consider that weak on defense?


/end rant

Ruvy,

There are a lot more of our dollars floating around overseas than there are at home. If/When the dollar ceases the be the international standard many of those dollars are going to come back here to buy up as much as they can before inflation causes them to become completely worthless. When that happens the Federal Reserve will have absolutely no tricks on its hands other than to say "give us all your money and we'll exchange it for new bills at a 20 to 1 rate."

Exactly how much confidence would that leave in our dollar? Exactly how would our economy survive while they got their crap together long enough to do it? The value of our money is being destroyed by poor fiscal policy, it is only a matter of time until that policy comes back to roost. We are using fiat money, the most memorable instance of that failing was when Germans in the Weimar Republic (pre-Nazi Germany) were using a literal wheelbarrow of cash to buy a loaf of bread. IT HAS HAPPENED HERE. The original U.S. dollar was a "continental" it was based on a promise too. It was such a disaster that the Constitution went so far as to REQUIRE that we be on the gold or silver standard. Our predecessors lived through this, now we will get the privilege of repeating our history.

At 19:31 our time, 12:31 New York time, your dollar was worth NIS 3.616. Put differently, a $1,000 pension, would get you NIS 3,616 - barely enough to get by even in the "low rent" district where I live.

When I moved here in July 2006, that same $1,000 got you NIS 4,400. That is quite a drop in value, Lee. Put a little differently, the dollar is worth 80% of what it was worth last in July 2006. That is less than two years. Daily, the dollar seems to go down.

And then there is all that good news about the banks and the sub-prime crisis, all the folks getting laid off, and the fact that America is a debtor nation. As was pointed out above, when all the dollars floating overseas go home, your dollar will be worth garbage, and three generations of lives will have been ruined. That is what is coming your way. I don't envy you where you are.... I pity you.

Ruvy,

"I pity you."

Please don't. It will certainly be an interesting experience. It will be difficult and some won't survive but I believe we can rise to the occasion and come out much, much better for it and go on from there.

We need a thorough house cleaning anyway. There is much baggage that will be difficult to remove, but also an enormous wealth to cherish and save.

Les

Ruvy is big on the pity thing. I got it from him yesterday. I feel bad for him considering how high that horse he sits on must be and how great that fall is going to hurt. Perhaps me and the other Jews here should convert to Ruvyism and just follow him...

now now - it's impolite to turn down a dose of pity freely offered

"What matters is that it is going down...."

Actually, Ruvy, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter any more than any other empire going down ever has.

That said, IMO it's a long way from "going down," but if it does, who cares?

At 19:31 our time, 12:31 New York time, your dollar was worth NIS 3.616. Put differently, a $1,000 pension, would get you NIS 3,616 - barely enough to get by even in the "low rent" district where I live.

So what you're saying here is basically that a low income in dollars used to make you better off in Israel than you would be in the US, and now the value is closer to equal. Wouldn't that suggest that the dollar has been inflated and is now moving towards its more natural value?

Dave

Let's add some more wood to the fire, Dave.

Food prices appear to be on the rise. And the pattern seen is that this will be a permanent change. This is quoting the International Herald Tribune, hardly a source of conspiratorial banter. Let's look at the article, shall we?

The agency's food price index rose by more than 40 percent this year, compared with 9 percent the year before -- a rate that was already unacceptable, he said. New figures show that the total cost of foodstuffs imported by the neediest countries rose 25 percent, to $107 million, in the last year.

At the same time, reserves of cereals are severely depleted, FAO records show. World wheat stores declined 11 percent this year, to the lowest level since 1980. That corresponds to 12 weeks of the world's total consumption -- much less than the average of 18 weeks consumption in storage during the period 2000-2005. There are only 8 weeks of corn left, down from 11 weeks in the earlier period.

Prices of wheat and oilseeds are at record highs, Diouf said Monday. Wheat prices have risen by $130 per ton, or 52 percent, since a year ago. U.S. wheat futures broke $10 a bushel for the first time Monday, the agricultural equivalent of $100 a barrel oil. (Page 16)

I'm all for an increase in food prices. It makes small farmers more competitive and helps balance out the decrease in prices for most manufactured goods. Combined with the increase in fuel costs this should lead to an increase in localized food distribution which will help increase food independence and profits for local farmers.

And BTW, while the dollar may be down vs. the Shekel - as if anyone in their right mind cares about Shekels - it has been more or less stable against the Euro (a currency which actually matters) for the last two months.

Dave

Snow in the forecast doesn't mean the sky is going to fall.

Except to Chicken Little.

Hey Ruve, here I was defending you a couple of days ago for your ability to stay on-topic. Oh well, no one died and made me Thread Sheriff. Too bad though. I'd be the rootin-tootinest Thread Sheriff these parts had ever seen. The funny thing is, by changing the subject to currency rates, you literally turned the topic to the price of tea in China.

One big difference between the Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney race is that the Dems are split on race/class/sex, and the Republicans on ideas. That seems appropriate, because the Democratic Party has no ideas except race, class, and sex.

It seems like Nalle is rooting for McCain. The more I think about it, the more he seems like a bad nominee. In recent years, both parties have run unpleasant war heroes with no particular vision for the future. They've both lost badly. McCain had really better articulate what he wants to do as president.

Exchange rates have both good and bad effects. A weakening dollar increases the cost of oil, but it also makes American manufactured goods less expensive relative to imports. A weak dollar increases foreign investment. Nalle is right: the most important thing is to get your currency to its correct value.

Ruvy, why are you so passionate over this?

There's nothing you can do about it.

If the USA tanks, it tanks.

The world and humanity will go on.

Those who have to work will continue to do so, they'll just be working for Chinese and Indians.

No big deal, Ruvy.

History rolls on.

And humanity always survives.

Quite.

So if you Republicans (you should drop the 'Re' by the way. That way we might get some decent beer in this country) have any interest in retaining the White House at all, you must back McCain. That is, unless Charlton Heston Rombles and his shiny Ronald Reagan hair can dupe enough floating voters between now and November into thinking it would be a neat idea to vote for him.

There is that other somewhat fatalistic school of Republican thought, however, which holds that it would in fact be a good idea to let a Democrat get in and balls things up for a few years, just to remind everyone what a Bad Thing the Democratic Party is.

Which is going to look pretty silly in four years in the Democrat in question actually does a decent job and the country continues happily onward.

Hands up who's leaving the country if Hillary gets elected!

Of those, hands up who wants to move to Israel just to annoy Ruvy!

Huckabee and Giuliani are finished. The final will be between McCain and Obama.And Obama will win. McCain can't win because people know that he is a Stoic, not a Hero. His solution to Iraq is the stoics solution to stay a hundred years, which no one wants (except a few neocon fakers who always say crap like that). The brave solution of a real hero is to say the Iraq Invasion was a mistake, GWB is a fraud, and we have to pull out and save our position as a world leader. But that's not McCains way. Just as it wasn't LBJs way or Nixons way.

But pursuing this misbegotten "war on terror" scam is just not in the cards. Only a few holdouts in the USA still subscribe to this theory, and they all seem to have retreated to the safe confines of BlogCritics. Even Perle and all those other hawks have pulled their horns in. Cf. "Vanity Fair".

I can give you citations if you're too inept to find them yourself. Just ask.

25: "One big difference between the Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney race is that the Dems are split on race/class/sex, and the Republicans on ideas. That seems appropriate, because the Democratic Party has no ideas except race, class, and sex."

Baronious, don't you think that's a tad reductionist?

"I can give you citations if you're too inept to find them yourself. Just ask."

Any volunteers?

Anyone want to be considered "inept?"

Just ask.

It seems like Nalle is rooting for McCain. The more I think about it, the more he seems like a bad nominee. In recent years, both parties have run unpleasant war heroes with no particular vision for the future. They've both lost badly. McCain had really better articulate what he wants to do as president.

Baronius, I never suggested that McCain was my first choice. I probably won't even vote for him. But he is a candidate I can back, even though I disagree with him on some issues. I can't say the same for Romney.

Exchange rates have both good and bad effects. A weakening dollar increases the cost of oil, but it also makes American manufactured goods less expensive relative to imports. A weak dollar increases foreign investment. Nalle is right: the most important thing is to get your currency to its correct value.

Has anyone else been watching the balance of trade numbers? They've gone from about a 3-1 imbalance at the end of Clinton's term to almost even as of the latest report.

Dave

Well that's counting lead toys and such...

The U.S., a low-wage export platform?

Doc: "So if you Republicans (you should drop the 'Re' by the way. That way we might get some decent beer in this country)"

Mate, if they beacme the publican party, even I'd join.

On a serious note, I watched bits and pieces of the CNN coverage last night on Aussie TV of the republican debate. Romney came across to me as way too smarmy, and seemed to be backpeddling a lot to cover his blurter.

Huckabee didn't have much to say that sounded like he had any kind of vision for the future of the US, and Ron Paul, despite the fact that he does make some sense but it's counteracted in equal parts by too much non-sense, just came across as irrelevant, not helped when said he wanted to talk about "the gashouse" problem. Whoops. I noticed that Paul didn't get much of a look in and wasn't asked much by the panel, and nor did Huckabee (who wasn't happy) which is the best indication yet that it really is now a two-horse race (although we all knew that, didn't we).

McCain, however ... well, he was a bit of a surprise packet even if he and Romney were content to snipe at each other for much of the debate. I must say I have been sceptical in relation to ALL the GOP candidates, with Romney at least looking the goods but in my view carrying too much baggage because of his background and his record in Massachusetts.

McCain the elder statesman? Is this where the GOP is headed.

It's going to be almost as bizarre as the recent Australian election, where the public had the unenviable choice of two nerdy-looking blokes facing off, with the best, more compassionate and most believable nerdy-looking bloke winning.

The scenario for you: a blow-dried consummate politican who also happens to be a Mormon or a 71-year-old who supported the invasion of Iraq vs and whose main claim to fame seems to be McCain-Fiengold versus the hitherto virtually unknown black guy or a woman who just happens to be the wife of a brilliant former president who it could be argued sullied the office in the most bizarre of ways.

Interesting. But here's my tip: deep-down still very conservative America isn't ready for Obama and its first black president, nor its first woman president and her "first laddie". While it's not fact, I believe many voters in the US would believe that a vote for Hillary would really be a vote for Bill, who has had his turn.

So at the point where it should be getting really interesting, it's come down to this. Last night to me looked like a snore-a-thon, and a great antidote to insomnia. None of those blokes really deserve to be sitting in the oval office on that performance, and if I were a yank, they'd never get my vote.

But will the vote be motivated by a desire to get rid of the neocons and their influence?

America ... this is it - you decide (while I watch on with bemused fascination from the safety of 13,000kms' distance, with the entire breadth of the Pacific Ocean as a buffer zone from the fallout)!

"While it's not fact, I believe many voters in the US would believe that a vote for Hillary would really be a vote for Bill, who has had his turn."

I'm not as sure as you seem to be, Stan, that it's NOT fact.

More good news for McCain. Today Texas Gov.
Rick Perry and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger both endorsed him. Can Aaaahhhnold serve as VP legally?

Dave

"a very real possibility that with a final contest between McCain and Obama we could actually see an election with two nominees who you have to respect even if you don't necessarily agree with them. It might help restore some confidence in our ability to use a mighty tool like democracy responsibly."

Well writ. Kudos

"Can Aaaahhhnold serve as VP legally?"

As a matter of fact, I saw a segment last night (I don't remember where) wherein a reporter asked him that very question.

Arnold's reply (and it looked like he had actually researched it) was no, you must be US born to serve as Veep.

I guess I'll have to turn down McCain when he asks me...

Sigh.

Remember that, constitutionally speaking, the VP's main function is as an understudy for the President. Since the President has to be a native-born citizen, anyone in line to be the President must also be.

This was an actual issue during Watergate, when Henry Kissinger was in the line of succession but ineligible to be Pres.

RE: Comment 35

Y'know, in a reasonable world, the first viable female candidate for President would be a widower-Senator with two college aged kids.

For some strange reason, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of some guy hanging out in the background, let alone an ex-prez hanging out in the background...

Right, "Widow-Senator"...

Arnold's reply (and it looked like he had actually researched it) was no, you must be US born to serve as Veep.

I think the restriction must be that you have to be born a US citizen, not necessarily born on US soil. I'd hate to think I was ruled out because my mother didn't fly back to the states to give birth to me - or do it in the foyer of the embassy.

Dave

Aha, and here's a bit of trivia to throw in. McCain was born in Panama to two US parents. So far no one's called that into question, but I bet Hillary has lawyers working on it. Romney can't touch the issue because his dad ran for president and he was born in Mexico.

Dave

Here's the clause from Article II, Section 1, outlining the qualifications for being President:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

OK, so what exactly is meant by a 'natural born citizen'?

What did the Founders mean by 'at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution'? Obviously they recognized that finding someone competent enough to be President in their day who was actually born in the country would be a lot trickier than it is now - but did they really intend to say, "If you weren't a natural born US citizen on the date we all signed this, too bad"?

I'm sure Dave has all the relevant Supreme Court deliberations at his fingertips... Lay it on us, brother.

"natural born citizen"

Does that rule out C-Section? Or Clone?

I guess immaculate conceptions are also ineligible...

But Jesus was naturally born. I don't see any legal issue revolving around paternity.

Point taken, Les.

But he'd probably have a problem on the separation of church and state principle...

Clavos,

"But he'd probably have a problem on the separation of church and state principle..."

Taking the oath to uphold the constitution might seem like an obstacle.

But not really. Let's say a certain Mike Huckabee actually won the Electoral College vote. I don't think he would be legally challenged on that point. If he were it would be summarily dismissed.

Les

If Jesus ACTUALLY were to run for president all political Hell would break out. There would be the Church and state issue but nothing compared to the born-again Christians denying Him and calling for His crucifixion.

I'm sure Dave has all the relevant Supreme Court deliberations at his fingertips... Lay it on us, brother.

As far as I can tell it's never been challenged or ruled on. There have been several instances where it might have been, but none of those candidates made it to the White House.

From what I can tell the general opinion of lawyers consulted on the issue is that if you qualify for citizenship by birth, either because you were born in the US or born to two US citizen parents, you're qualified to be president. The wording in the Constitution is a bit ambiguous, but I'm pretty sure no one is interpreting it to limit the qualified candidates to people born prior to 1787, though that would guarantee an excellent selection of dead guys for the office.

Hell, Adams' corpse would probably be a better president than Mitt Romney.

Dave

"Hell, Adams' corpse would probably be a better president than Mitt Romney."

He might possibly be electable but the issue of succession would immediately come up.

I actually don't see anything in the constitution specifying that presidents have to be alive.

Dave

Ah, not specifically, Dave, that's true. It all depends on whether one forfeits one's citizenship when one kicks the bucket.

I say we put Justice Roberts and the gang to work right now on this vital constitutional question.

As some in Louisiana would have it we could have Ronald and Nancy Regan on the ballot. If they won, we would end up with Nancy as president.

When America's sons and daughters are dying on the ground in Iraq we will have president Mccain and all the people who vot3ed for him like Nalle to blame.

But don't blame me. I voted for Romney and tried to warn everyone else about Mccrazy.

I meant to say IRAN. Typo. Sorry.


When America's sons and daughters are dying on the ground in IRAN we will have president Mccain and all the people who vot3ed for him like Nalle to blame.

But don't blame me. I voted for Romney and tried to warn everyone else about Mccrazy.

Dave,

Right now I'm listening to your Big Tent Show for 1 February (I slept through it this morning), It's interesting to listen to you and the other guys talking. I'll re-iterate that I do not think these elections are meaningful at all. I agree with Paul here.

Having been active in American politics, and mildly active in Israeli politics (to the degree my Hebrew allows) I have finally realized how much Paul is right about the parties being run by a cabal of the moneyed interests in the States, and pretty much controlled by the Americans and Europeans in this country.

that's right, ruvy. us europeans and americans gave you your country, so we can take it away! muahahahahaha.

if you don't think these elections are important at all, do you really think we would be in the same boat we are now if gore had become president in 2001? i get the feeling that, while life might not be drastically different, the world's political landscape would certainly look a bit calmer.

and maybe these elections aren't meaningful at all to you... but then again, your country's little tiff with all its neighbors (and all its backers,) really doesn't change my day-to-day either.

Ha! McCain wasn't born in Panama. He's very clear on that point. He was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which was US soil at the time of his birth.

Actually, Baronius, if he was born on a US base in the Canal Zone then he was born on US soil, but technically the rest of the CZ was under at least nominal Panamanian administration and was considered Panamanian soil.

Some of the Romneyites are already raising this issue on far-right websites. Personally I think it's a non-starter.

Dave

My understanding is that McCain doesn't have to be born on US soil (because that's NOT what the Constitution says), provided both his parents were natural-born US citizens. That qualifies you as a natural-born citizen. There is provision for that and it's a moot point anyway because he wouldn't be running if he couldn't. So if I'm correct, if he was born four inches outside the canal zone, it doesn't matter.

I believe the qualification is simply that you have to be a US citizen FROM BIRTH - which he is. Thus, you could be born in outer Mongolia to US parents, and therefore still eligible.

Being eligible for dual citizinship wouldn't be an issue either as in some circumstances, even if you took it it doesn't stop you from being a US citizen and a natural-born one. Although I'd imagine it wouldn't go down too well. I would suspect also that the wording of the constitution may be open to future decisions of the Supreme Court.

You Yanks don't even know your own rules :)

Come on, fair dinkum, get a grip. Why should an Aussie know them and you blokes don't?

I've said this here before, but I certainly do believe that if Gore had been allowed to take his seat in the Oval Office, we would not now be in Iraq. I don't believe he could have prevented the 9/11 attacks - maybe, but probably not. We would have, I suppose, attacked Afghanistan, but there would have been no incursion into Iraq unless Saddam had done something so provocative that it couldn't be ignored.

Much of today's political landscape would definitely be different. Better? I don't know. Different? Yes.

B-tone

Baritone, do you believe that Gore was ripped off?

And do you believe that Bush's presidency is not legit because of the controversial recount?

I realise this is a divisive issue in the US, but I'm not always sure that Bush actually did win fair and square. There always seems to be some lingering doubt about it. It's history now, of course, as Bush was the one in the end with the runs on the board and history will simply point to that. The result is everything, no matter how bad the umpiring.

Perhaps the whole count in the disputed district should have been scrapped and the poll run again just to remove any of that doubt.

Stan,

The principal "disputed district" was here. Florida.

The votes were recounted independently more than once in privately sponsored (by the St. Petersburg Times and the Miami Herald) efforts. According to both of those sponsoring newspapers (which are left of center, editorially; especially the Times), no evidence of fraud was found.

Some of our friends here on BC who are more to the left than I, will probably have issues with this, but it is a matter of record.

I don't think this issue will be settled in everyone's minds for years, if ever.

I'm not suggesting fraud, but a stuff-up is always a possibility - especially with dem dere new-fangled votin' masheeens.

Press reports I read here at the time confirm your view that there will always be lingering doubt about the result, particularly given how close it was.

Apropos of nothing, Stan, don't you think that "They're Dropping Like Flies After Florida" sounds like it should be the title of a George Formby song?

It IS a George Formby song isn't it?

A twin to that other classic, "Imagine Me on the Maginot Line".

Stan,

I don't know if Gore was ripped off. There were, as Clavos states, a number of unofficial recounts that apparently would not have changed the outcome. But, also, as Clavos suggests, questions regarding the validity of the outcome will long remain. If there was any significant fraud, we may never know.

But it should also be remembered that while the situation in Florida got most of the media attention, there were very close contests in other states as well that did not receive the scrutiny that took place in Florida, plus the fact that Gore DID get the most votes nationwide.

What I stated above, though, is not so much an effort to rehash the election, but rather simply to point up that a Gore administration would have, IMO, not been as ready to go to war as the Bushies. I sincerely doubt that invading Iraq would have been on the table. It's obviously a moot point, but it does leave one to wonder given the tragic turn of events since 9/11 - the death and destruction, the incredible cost of waging this war, our loss of credibility in the eyes of much of the rest of the world, etc.

All we can do now is to hope that whoever inherits the WH will get us out of Iraq as quickly and cleanly as possible, and that efforts will be made to rebuild our reputation as a world leader, rather than that of a war mongering gunslinger.

B-tone

I realise my view might make make me unpopular in some quarters, but America was right to stand up for itself.

I guess the real issue is that there are ways, and then there are ways.

SS,

Stand up about what?

But it should also be remembered that while the situation in Florida got most of the media attention, there were very close contests in other states as well that did not receive the scrutiny that took place in Florida, plus the fact that Gore DID get the most votes nationwide.

They escaped scrutiny because Democrats didn't make an issue of them, largely because investigation would have revealed the massive democrat-backed fraud in some of those states. By emphasizing Florida they managed to make a non-issue of the even more outrageous fraud in states like New Mexico and Missouri.

Dave

that's right, ruvy. us europeans and americans gave you your country, so we can take it away! muahahahahaha.

The only thing Europeans ever did for us was provide us with 6,000,000 dead bodies and 17 centuries of humiliation and persecution.

We drove the perfidious lying Brits out with our own terrorism, we won this land without your help and if you pricks think you can take OUR country away from us, zing, you're in for a very nasty surprise. We shoot, now, and we shoot to kill - particularly Europeans and Americans.

When the time comes, you'll discover that to your own horror.

Have a good week....

Oh, and just a thought, zing - your crappy little euro, along with the dollar, keeps dropping against the shekel. I'm not sure why, but it doesn't appear to bode good for either of you.... Americans or Europeans....

Ruvy, you're sounding more and more like the mouse that roared. Try and get a grip will ya?

The US and Europe are going to remain two of the world's leading cultures and economies for many a long year yet, certainly 'til long after you have shuffled off the global stage.

I noticed that too, Ruvy. The strength of the normally worthless Shekel against other currencies is truly bizarre.

Dave

The US and Europe are going to remain two of the world's leading cultures and economies for many a long year yet, certainly 'til long after you have shuffled off the global stage.

I wouldn't bet on that, Chris. One reason I'm here, and that I remain here, is that I intend to be around (if G-d gives me to be around) long after Europe and America have collapsed and come to us for help and support.... I may not live to see it, but my kids will live to see the fall of the land they were born in.

Once, I took my family (who were all born in Minnesota) to see the Statue of Liberty. The day will come when that statue, just like the Colossus of Rhodes it is modeled after, has fallen to the ground, and the country it represents has fallen as well. And this nation and people will yet be here, secure in our homes.

Go ahead and laugh, Chris. But I will laugh last.

Comprehension seems to be taking a huge battering today. Ruvy, in the space of one sentence you state that you intend to be around long after the US and Europe have collapsed and that you may not live to see it!

You also seem to be under the impression that a combined population of around one billion people would turn to distant and tiny Israel for help and support! Roar, mouse, roar!

ruvy: "The only thing Europeans ever did for us was provide us with 6,000,000 dead bodies and 17 centuries of humiliation and persecution."

now, now, ruvy. you know as well as i do how the modern state of israel came about. no one is denying that the holocaust and jewish persecution happened. europeans weren't particularly nice to anyone, even themselves.

"We drove the perfidious lying Brits out with our own terrorism, we won this land without your help and if you pricks think you can take OUR country away from us, zing, you're in for a very nasty surprise."

ha. dude, calm it down. it was just a joke, like when mothers say "i gave you life, i can take it away." haha. joke. humor. it's a thing that most people have, even about tough subjects. and no, you didn't win that land without european and american help. it was fucking taken away from innocent people and given to you, when those giving had no right to give in the first place. if you missed it, some people think that decision is controversial.

"We shoot, now, and we shoot to kill - particularly Europeans and Americans."

really? and what about the all the non-jewish semites? them too, remember... you gotta kill them too. you really are getting quite blood-thirsty there, ruvy. it's kinda pathetic. a little bit scary, but not too much. we could just stop sending you bullets.


"When the time comes, you'll discover that to your own horror."

cool! i'm glad it's ISRAEL that will finally take down america. so all of this "visit israel!" advertising is really just a ploy? so israelis want to kill american tourists... and i thought they just wanted the bucks... good to know. thanks for the tip.

lucky for all of us, israel is tightly locked in a deathmatch with islam... so i doubt that the rest of us have to worry about it. you guys have fun playing!

israel: "this is our land!"
islam: "but it was ours!"
israel: "and before that it was ours!"
islam: "and ours before that!"
israel: "and before that, ours!
islam: "and etc!"
israel: "you are nothing but terrorists!"
islam: "you are nothing but terrorists!"
israel: "stop killing us, or we will kill you!"
islam: "no, you stop killing us, or we will kill you!"
israel: "you stop first!"
islam: "you stop first!"
israel: "we will never stop!"
islam: "we will never stop!"
israel: "we will kill you all!"
islam: "we will kill you all!"
israel: "the streets will run red with..."
islam: "...your blood? i know, i know, same to you!"
israel: "don't interrupt me!"
islam: "[raspberry]"
israel: "i'm telling god."
islam: "go ahead, tell allah that you are a threat to his people."
israel: "his people? ha!"
islam: "we are the chosen ones."
israel: "huh uh. we are the chosen ones. god says so."
islam: "where? i cannot find any such passage in the koran saying that the infidels are chosen by god..."
israel: "you're reading the wrong book!"
islam: "you're reading the wrong book!"
israel: "no, my book clearly states that this book is the right book."
islam: "ha! and my book says that your book is not the right book and that my book is, in fact, the right book."
israel: "i'll flush your book down the toilet!"
islam: "don't start that shit with me."
israel: "was that a pun?"
islam: "no, it wasn't. at least not intentionally... you're grasping at straws."
israel: "you're grasping at straws!"
islam: "what... what were we arguing about?"
israel: "oh, land, religion, killing, etc. you know, this is our land..."
islam: "no it's not, this is our land."
israel: "malarky. and you stop worshiping my god in that heathen way."
islam: "it's my god, and you're the heathen."
israel: "call me a heathen one more time, and i will kill you, heathen."
islam: "call me a heathen one more time, and i will kill you, heathen!"
israel: "man, fuck this, i'm gonna kill you and all that are like you."
islam: "wanna just get back to senseless violence that does nothing but destroy our homes and lives and economies?"
israel: "finally we can agree!"
islam: "we're a couple of fools, eh?"
israel: "call me a fool one more time and i will kill you!"
islam: "what else were you going to do anyway?"
israel: "point."
islam: "this is pointless."
israel: "what? this conversation?"
islam: "well, yeah, and all the bombing and shit."
israel: "you gonna quit?"
islam: "like hell i will."
israel: "that's a good boy."

...And then the bell rings, recess is over...

Dave,

You never fail to make mention of what you call "massive" voter fraud by the Dems. There have been a number of allegations but pitifully few convictions - most for what were isolated incidents, many caused by the ignorance or confusion of individual voters.

Most of the investigations were promulgated by the Justice Department as directed by the Bush Administration. A number of the controversial federal judge firings were the result of many of those judges refusing to pursue voter fraud investigations which they found to be, at most, spurious.

And you don't mention similar accusations against Reps in a number of states, perhaps most notably in Ohio and Florida as well, of voter intimidation, and disenfranchisement through cancellation of voter registrations, the failure to open certain, normally heavily Democratic polling places, short changing polling places of either machines and/or ballots, etc. To suggest that only the Dems were involved in voter fraud or intimidation 2000 or about any other election is unfair and just wrong.

B-tone

oh.

ruvy: "And this nation and people will yet be here, secure in our homes."

the "yet" in that sentence denotes a present tense state of being that will continue into the future, right? then "security" must be relative...

ruvy, go read your history on israel and jerusalem. if you're so sure about history repeating itself across centuries (and great distance), why are you so sure that jerusalem will escape its own past? what makes this jewish occupation of jerusalem any more permanent than those of the past 3,000 years?

oh, and do you care to make a bet? since you believe that my dollar will be worthless, we'll bet in pounds of flesh. if you're still in israel when america goes the way of the romans, i'll get my ass over there and you can take it off. the whole ass. and the hole on the ass too, if you like. this i promise. of course, if you aren't there, that means you are either dead or somewhere else. at which point, you should contact me for my pound of flesh. say a man-boob or something. unless you are dead. so leave your man-boob (left or right, i care not), conditional on the current state of america as a viable nation, in your will. thanks!

Ruvy I've always considered you a reasonable guy but c'mon....

"The only thing Europeans ever did for us was provide us with 6,000,000 dead bodies and 17 centuries of humiliation and persecution.

We drove the perfidious lying Brits out with our own terrorism, we won this land without your help and if you pricks think you can take OUR country away from us, zing, you're in for a very nasty surprise. We shoot, now, and we shoot to kill - particularly Europeans and Americans."

It was only because Americans, the British, and Russians offered up their own lives that it was 6,000,000 and not every last Jew on the planet.

And even today it's only the presence of America that allows Israel to exist. If there was no America Israel long ago would have succumbed to the more "enthusiastic" adherents of Islam.

It was only because Americans, the British, and Russians offered up their own lives that it was 6,000,000 and not every last Jew on the planet.

And even today it's only the presence of America that allows Israel to exist. If there was no America Israel long ago would have succumbed to the more "enthusiastic" adherents of Islam.

Bing,

Do me a favor and stop being a patronizing fool. Actually, do yourself the favor and stop deluding yourself. America, by refusing to bomb the route to a single concentration camp in WWII, even after the invasion of Normandy, lost what little moral superiority it had a long, long time ago. Twice, in 1967, and 1973, the Americans tried to bully the Israeli government into not attacking the Arabs when it was clear that the Arabs were prepared for war. In 1967, they failed, thank G-d. In 1973, they succeeded. And then Kissinger, fresh from having had Allende killed in Chile, welshed on the arms deal he made with Moshe Dayan.

Should I go on spilling the shitty truth all over your beloved country?

The British were given a Mandate by the League of Nations in 1919 to develop a Jewish National Home in the lands that now comprise Jordan and Israel. Not only did they separate out all of the East Bank of the Jo0rdan and bar it from Jewish settlement, they reneged on the charter of the Mandate. The British were told by Vladimir Jabotinsky back in 1937, that if they couldn't handle the Mandate they should hand it to people who could - us Jews. They refused. Instead, by locking the doors of the Mandate they promised to make a Jewish national home, they guaranteed the death of millions of Jews who would never be able to flee for their homeland. Thus, they lost any moral authority they may have had to talk. The French have always been a pack of whores, and whores have no moral authority to lose.

The Christian countries of Europe were happy to persecute Jews and kick their butts, lying through their teeth about out people and discriminating against them.

Sorry, Bing. America's government and Europeans generally have a shitty record where my people are concerned, and nothing you can say can clean up that shitty record.

zing's assholish remarks show his ignorance and stupidity, but that is not my problem. For your own sake, don't think that wrapping yourself in the Stars and Stripes makes you look better.

zing,

I won't bet your ass for anything. I see enough of your shit here, I don't need to see more. Make your bet in shekels.

But you won't collect.

Israelis in general, and Ruvy in particular seem to have an inbred superiority complex. It is that, along with the "separatist" tendancies of many Jewish communities, which has been instrumental in bringing on much of their misery over the centuries.

I am not in any manner insinuating that the holacaust was justifiable. However, there are reasons why one group of people may find another suspicious or offensive. It doesn't just happen out of thin air. Assumed superiority, I suppose owing to the belief in their being "the chosen" people of god, has at least a tendancy to wrankle one's neighbors. Take god out of the equation, which I do, and there is absolutely nothing about Jews or any other identifiable group which renders them inherently superior to anyone else.

I don't care to make a pissing contest out of this, but Ruvy and other Israelis should realize, like it or not, the U.S. could obliterate their country with a push of a few buttons. All things considered, the U.S. has shown rather unprecidented restraint in the use of its arsenal, not the least of which are untold numbers of nuclear weapons. Doubtless, if we were to make use of them, it would ultimately be very unwise, but we do have a goodly number of super patriot hawk nutballs who wouldn't bat an eye at deploying atomic weapons wherever they saw fit. I am not predicting such an eventuality, but everyone should keep that possibility in mind.

Ruvy seems to assume that it's all about Israel. The great majority of people in this world don't even know where the hell it is, let alone any significance it may have in world politics.

B-tone

They're equally convinced that god is on THEIR side

"Israelis in general, and Ruvy in particular seem to have an inbred superiority complex."

And "superiority complexes" are invariably compensation for deep-seated feelings of inferiority...

Ask any shrink.

B-tone,

Your country's leaders have nothing to gain by nuking Israel and too much to lose. Too much of American mythology is wrapped around worshiping a Jew as a god. One of the big problems of Christianity is that we Jews are not supposed to have nukes, or an advanced anything. We're supposed to be reliant on Christian society for inspiration, etc. etc. And it just isn't happening that way.

That is a reality.

And no, it is not "all about Israel" - yet, anyway. But that is very liable to happen. Your press keeps far too much attention on this tiny country, and your government puts far too much pressure on our leaders to turn into qvislings for your benefit. And our leaders do turn into qvislings for the sake of your country, and betray their mandate to us.

As for your presidential elections, they are all but decided. It's all over but the vote stealing come Wednesday, and all the events afterwards will simply be confirmations of which two unsatisfactory idiots will crashing horns for the privilege of being entrusted with the power to nuke this country - IF THERE ARE ELECTIONS.

In the meantime, your present president (remember the stupid monkey, Bush?) is making it all about Israel. He spent some more time speechifying about "two states side by side" in what is now Israel in his Speech From the Throne State of the Union Address, and plans to visit here in May, and possibly after that, if he can't squeeze some kind of deal out of the region to get another dysfunctional Arab state by then. So he'll be returning at least twice....

Hey, B-tone, I ain't tellin' the prick to show up....

Ruvy,

Frankly I can't imagine a scenario wherin we would nuke Israel. What seems to elude you, Ruvy, is that if the U.S. had acted solely in its own best interest, Israel would have been history decades ago. A great deal of the hate that is aimed at us is owing to our support of Israel. Our vested interests lie far more with the oil rich countries which surround you. Your militancy seems to be aimed about everybody. You are sitting on a lot of hate and resentment. I hope you have a plentiful supply of antacids.

B-tone

B-tone,

"A great deal of the hate that is aimed at us is owing to our support of Israel. Our vested interests lie far more with the oil rich countries which surround you."

Sir Ronald Storrs explained the value of a Jewish state in its "forming for England a 'little loyal Jewish Ulster' in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism."

It was so the Arab masses exploited by their own regimes would be sidetracked into focusing their anger and attention on Israel, leaving these regimes in power so they could keep delivering the oil on British terms.

As a result of WWII, Britain ceded control these resources to the United States. It was and is still, in the interest of the U.S. to have Israel there for precisely the same reason.

Les

However, those regimes (with the notable exception of the Saudis) are themselves becoming increasingly inimical to ours and Britain's interests, as well as their masses.

Does not bode well.

We need to be pouring all the resources we can muster into alternative fuel R&D...

"...those regimes (with the notable exception of the Saudis) are themselves becoming increasingly inimical to ours and Britain's interests, as well as their masses."

Yes, that was certainly the case with Iraq under Saddam Hussein. It is precisely for this reason that Iraq became the target for regime change and further stabilization.

It's also because of the relative weakening of the Israeli regime which tends to diminish its ability to carry out its assigned role. It's an indication of the fact that the U.S. can't depend on its surrogates in the region. It has to station considerable troops on a permanent basis.

The good thing is that more will see that Israel is NOT the SOURCE of the problems in the Middle East.

ruvy: "zing's assholish remarks show his ignorance and stupidity, but that is not my problem. For your own sake, don't think that wrapping yourself in the Stars and Stripes makes you look better."

ruvy, you're the one saying that israelis would be happy to kill americans and europeans. you're the warmonger here. it's a not a good thing to be. if anyone on this site blindly wraps up in their national identity, it would be you.

my "assholish" remarks only try to show the circular nature of your arguments with islam. if that (the circular nature...) doesn't show "ignorance and stupidity," then i'd like to see how you define the words. and if you think i've missed something in this conflict... well, then, enlighten me. as far as i can see, it's just two old cultures acting like children. there's gotta be some point where you step back and think, "this is stupid." and it is. the whole world can see it. if it wasn't so dangerous, we'd all be laughing at the both of you.

(and i am laughing at the both of you. come on, the little play was pretty funny. i had a little giggle. come on, ruv, chuckle some.)

(if you want to make a real argument, rather than just calling me an asshole--which doesn't hurt me one bit--you go ahead. also, i have never claimed that jewish-christian relations have always been peachy, so don't try that.)

as for you wanting to bet me in money, why would i want to use your money? it would just be a pain in the ass to cash it in. now if you want to tack on conversion fees and pay me for my time at the bank, sounds good. i suppose.

fine. you make the bet. from what i can figure you're in your 50s or so, meaning that america better be no more within 30 years, give or take a decade. i, myself, would be far more willing to bet that, within the same time span, israel or some islamic country blows the whole region into the stratosphere.

...shit, i just read this one:

"One of the big problems of Christianity is that we Jews are not supposed to have nukes, or an advanced anything. We're supposed to be reliant on Christian society for inspiration, etc. etc. And it just isn't happening that way. That is a reality."

wow. never thought of that. why haven't we invaded yet? that's certainly what we, not as christians, but as "westerners," i suppose, try to do with asians and arabs... but i really don't think a majority of americans or europeans have any bigger problem with jews having the bomb than they do with their own countries having the bomb. come on ruvy... are you trying to say we're jealous? and that's why we do what now?

how did america become israel's enemy anyway? probably because we aren't israel. or ruvy's version of it.

as for les slater's comment. there you have it. that's probably the truest thing said all day. sigh... israel's just the buffer that keeps arab oil coming. what happens when our dependence on that oil runs out? probably total war, which israel (excepting ruvy) doesn't want any more than the rest of the world (excepting ruvy's brother militants in islam). it's a sad state of affairs.

israel was just a stupid idea. shoulda just given them greenland.

Les,

That's certainly a warm and fuzzy basis for our support of Israel. The honorable knight of the realm's statement isn't necessarily true. Had Israel never come into existence, or had it been quickly snuffed out, there would likely have been other means to control the oil rich states to our benefit. Again, this doesn't speak well of our motives. We prop up Israel to focus others hatred against them with us riding rough shod over all of them, all in the interest of keeping the oil flowing our way.

How does this NOT make us (and other countries dependent on middle eastern oil) self serving opportunists?

B-tone

B-tone,

"Had Israel never come into existence, or had it been quickly snuffed out, there would likely have been other means to control the oil rich states to our benefit."

Of course this is PROBABLY true, however things HAVE developed the way they did.

Les

Greenland's a GREAT idea!

Is it too late to move them???

Hitler favored Madagascar. The climate's more hospitable anyway. Hell, it's better than Israel is.

Dave

Ruvy, in his blind hatred the British, whose empire this country was once part of and whose freedoms and values we enjoy in Australia today, conveniently forgets they were the only European country prior to and during WWII that opened their doors up to large-scale Jewish immigration.

They were the only ones who, seeing the writing on the wall and the Nazis' murderous intent becoming more and more obvious by the day, organised their own citizens to go into the occupied territories and those not yet occupied, to rescue jewish children and bring them to England where they were boarded with families and cared for for the duration of the war - and going into those places to effect these rescues was dangerous work indeed for all concenred.

But Ruvy knows about the kinder transports. What bums me off about Ruvy's argument is that the total war dead of the British and the dominions was about 1 million, more than double that of the US, and that's not inclding civilians killed in bombing raids.

He conveniently forgets that had the British alone in Europe not stood up to the Nazis with an amazing force of will for a country almost totally unprepared for war in 1939 and barely 20 years earlier had lost so many men and the flower of its youth that almost no single family was unaffected, today he might still be running a hamburger joint in minneapolis and either the Soviets or the Nazis would be in control of Europe, and there would most likely have been no Israel.

He also forgets that it wasn't the British who started a war of aggression in europe with a brutal ideology designed to inflcit suffering and death on millions, but the Nazis. That's where you should be looking Ruvy. Don't blame the British for the deaths of 6 million.

The fact the British wanted to move slowly in Palestine, knowing the volatility of the region and what the arab reaction would be, only makes sense now in the fullness of time.

You are today looking at the result of that zionist uprising in Israel and Palestine.

That's the other thing Ruvy conveniently forgets, whilst celebrating the murder of British soldiers trying to keep the peace, many of whom had not long before already risked their own lives in a long war to rid the world of a scourge that had threatened to wipe out his people completely.

So where was the perfidy Ruvy? I say it wasn't with the British but with the members of the murderous zionist/nationalist terrorist organisations who decided to take matters into their own hands.

Zionism sowed the wind, and is today reaping the whirlwind. That is the reality Israel faces today, and why it needs to acknowledge it if anything is to change.

Baritone: "Stand up about what?"

Oh, just the small matter of lunatics flying jets full of Americans into skyscrapers full of Americans.

Certainly in my book that's an act of war. So why shouldn't America stand up for itself.

I'm not talking about Iraq here either.

When you're the big kid on the playground you have to stand and take it or else everyone will accuse you of being a bully no matter how much you were provoked. Sad fact of life in gradeschool.

Dave

But I am talking about Iraq. Most of the world was with us post 9/11 and accepting of our incursion into Afghanistan. There were a few dissenters, but the majority of countries - their governments and their people - aligned with us.

But our war against Iraq was, for many, the straw that broke the camel's back. Few outside the Bush circle (and, unfortunately, a majority in Congress) bought the idea of Saddam being a true threat to anyone, and at no time was there an established link between Iraq and Al Qaida. All of the efforts by the inspectors pointed to their being no significant stockpile or on going development of WMDs in Iraq.

So, just what was it that we were standing up for with our invasion of Iraq?

If the U.S. is to be accepted as a world leader, we must approach world issues not by shooting from the hip, but through painstaking diplomacy.

Most of the world has long been aware of our military prowess. Of course, since becoming bogged down in Iraq, its effectiveness has come into question. But, prior to Iraq, our military had a pretty much unquestioned reputation of world supremacy. With that, we could always negotiate from a position of equally unquestioned strength. In that regard we are now in a not dissimilar position than when we were stymied in Vietnam. Our credibility was in question then, and is now.

The intervening years coupled with our quick dispatching of Saddam's "mother of all battles" military was, if not satisfactorily resolved, still impressive leaving little doubt about what our military was capable of.

Now, though, such is not the case. It has been made painfully obvious just how limited our military abilities are and how we can be, if not defeated, made to pretty much march in place. Of course, we always have the trump card of our nuclear arsenal, but it is also understood that circumstances would have to be extremely dire, before we would revert to their use. Consequently, we are now stuck in Iraq with our backs to the wall.

Again, just what the hell were we standing up for?

B-tone

"...prior to Iraq, our military had a pretty much unquestioned reputation of world supremacy. With that, we could always negotiate from a position of equally unquestioned strength. In that regard we are now in a not dissimilar position than when we were stymied in Vietnam. Our credibility was in question then, and is now."

Strong point, B.

What bums me off about Ruvy's argument....

Stan,

Evidently, what really bums you off is this: that I don't seem to give a damn that "the British alone in Europe ... stood up to the Nazis with an amazing force of will for a country almost totally unprepared for war in 1939 and barely 20 years earlier had lost so many men and the flower of its youth that almost no single family was unaffected..."

I suspect that your family was affected by heavy losses in the Great War. I sense that much of the anger in your comments stems from my apparent insensitivity to those losses.

Truth of the matter is I hadn't thought of those losses at all - but it is not an issue of not giving a damn. It's an issue of not connecting all the dots. Sometimes those dots are behind a shadow and hard to see. Once the shadow is removed, it is easy to see how the dots connect.

Stan, you're not going to like what I say here, but I'm not being diplomatic. I'm being straightforward. But I'm not being mean, either.

I do not forget the kinder transports and other efforts of a beleaguered nation to help Jewish refugees in WWII. And those efforts should not be minimized. At least one person who writes here benefited from the refuge the British Isles provided to Jews fleeing Nazi Germany in the late 1930's.

Nor do I forget the fact that it was the Nazis who did the actual planning for a "final solution" for my people, and who carried it out with a lot of help from Frenchmen, Poles, Croatians, Slovaks and Lithuanians.

But now let's look at what happened, as opposed to what could have happened, and perhaps what ought to have happened. What happened was that the British slammed the door shut to the Jewish national home just when Jews needed the doors to be opened wide to admit every Jewish refugee from all over the world. The vast majority of the Jews in Europe would not be allowed to escape to the one logical place they should have gone, Eretz Yisrael.

So, compared to closing the doors of the Mandate, the kinder transports were a piss poor booby prize. "I'm not letting your family into your home, but I'll take a kid or two into mine... The rest of you, keep a stiff upper lip and all that rot! Ta ta!"

That, in its essence, is what the kinder transports were. It doesn't make those who took Jews into their homes any less heroic, it makes the government that forced them to take Jews into their homes more hypocritical and more evil. This same government, and its American allies, refused to ever bomb a single railway to a death camp - even after the invasion of Normandy made it obvious that the Allies had figured out the Enigma Code the Germans were sod damnably proud of.

Those children - AND THEIR ENTIRE FAMILIES - could have gone to Eretz Yisrael and NO British families would have been inconvenienced.

The fact the British wanted to move slowly in Palestine, knowing the volatility of the region and what the Arab reaction would be, only makes sense now in the fullness of time.

If you absolutely must catch a train, and its just beginning to move OUT of the station, your run like hell to catch it - or you miss out.

In 1937, when Ze'ev Jabotinsky testified before the Peel Commission investigating events in the Mandate, he made a number of cogent points.

1. The British, who were responsible for the development of a Jewish National Home, refused to develop a plan to do so. In fact, they impeded the efforts of the Jewish community here. While he didn't mention this, the story of the original Palestine Electric Company - now the Israel Electric Company - is a woeful tale of engineers begging British bureaucrats to let them build!

2. The British did not need to spend blood or money defending against the Arab riots or rebellions. Had the British armed the Jewish settlers in this country, who were more than willing to fight to defend their land, the Arab riots would have been dealt with expeditiously, and no British blood would have been spilled.

What Jabotinsky implied was even more important in light of the events that were to try Britain so sorely.

3. Had the British opened the land to Jewish settlement, instead of trying every trick they could to impede it, they would have had loyal allies who would have crushed Nazi rebellion all over the Middle East - like Iraq and Syria, for example. British policy was just the opposite of this.

They resisted allowing Jews to volunteer for the British Army, and closed the land off to Jews, creating a righteous resentment that only grew more furious with time, as knowledge of the Nazi death camps spread throughout the Jewish world. British policy spawned the Stern Gang and the determination of the Etze"l to rid the land of the perfidious betrayers. And despite the efforts of the Hagana to stop them, the Etze"l finally did drive the Britsh out of here.

4. Finally, in 1937, Jabotinsky warned of a catastrophe facing the Jews of Europe. He told the lords in chambers that the British government had to reverse its policy in order to enforce its Mandate. The British government refused out of FEAR of the Arabs.

A different policy could have been employed. The Arabs could have been driven out as they rebelled. They British were not newcomers to expulsions, having expelled Zulus and Maoris from their homes respectively, and while they did not invent the concentration camp - the Spanish did - they knew how to use it to put down a rebellious population. Don't believe me. Ask any Afrikaner. Firmness, along with cultivating a Jewish ally in the Middle East, could have made for a solution to the problem at least around the Mediterranean and the Jordan, and could have made for a steady supply of oil guaranteed by Jewish guns.

But that didn't happen. And now we face the whirlwind that the British sowed out of fear in 1920, 1929, 1937, and finally 1939. In 1937, the Jews were in the position of orphan children asking, as did Oliver Twist, for "more". The British wardens not only refused "Oliver Twist" more, but attempted to starve him as well.

Stan, this is not blind hatred. It is cold analysis.

Ruvy,

The question now is what do you believe that the world owes Israel and Jews in general? What do you reasonably expect, which is a very different question?

We still live in a world where genocide and other mass murders are largely ignored. Not just by the U.S. and western Europe either. Most of the world has closed its eyes to the plight of hundreds of thousands of people murdered in Africa and many other places. Is it owing to racism? Probably. As unseemly as that may be, this, too, is "cold analysis." It's a reality not likely to change anytime soon.

B-tone

"The Arabs could have been driven out as they rebelled. They British were not newcomers to expulsions, having expelled Zulus and Maoris from their homes respectively, and while they did not invent the concentration camp - the Spanish did - they knew how to use it to put down a rebellious population."

Think about this. This is the voice of the settler calling on the Throne to brutally put down any rebellion of native peoples. 'They do, after all, have these skills; I mean, like what they did to the Zulus and Maoris. And they got the concentration camps too.'

Disgusting!

You don't get to have your cake and it eat it too Ruvy.

Simple fact: One country alone in Europe in 1940 was left fighting the Nazis - the people who murdered 6 million of your people.

I know exactly why the British didn't open up Palestine to mass jewish immigration (or return, as you might put it).

They were fighting for their lives (and in reality, for the freedom of the whole of Europe, on their own, and were vastly unprepared for war on any scale at that time.

Can you imagine them confronting the Nazis in Europe, the Axis in the middle-east, and then having to deal ALSO with an Arab uprising at the same time (which they did, in Iraq, but thankfully for you and everyone else on this thread, ONLY in Arab).

Commonsense and a will to survive doesn't always translate to perfidy, except in your book when it comes to this stuff. You are looking at the wrong people to blame Ruvy - blame the ones who did the killing.

You will never convince me that you are right. I see the problems now besetting the region as a result of the zionist terrorism that led to the setting up of the state of Israel. Doesn't mean I don't believe it shouldn't exist. I do. But the excuses and the blame game are starting to wear thin.

Yes, my views probably are coloured by the suffering of the British people in two world wars (and yes, that of my own family) - wars that they didn't start, nor want (and their lack of preparation for both should confirm that view).

You know as well as I do that the world would be a very different place if they hadn't been the only ones in Europe at that time to really stand up to a gang of murderous bullies and a hateful ideology in the Nazis (you know, the ones who thought it a good idea to eliminate an entire race of people).

I don't believe for one moment they knew or understood how the jews were to be treated. I suspect they knew full well there would be persecution, but I guess civilised people don't imagine that another people would set out to kill other human beings on an industrial scale just because of their religion.

It's laughable that you think your analysis of this stuff is simply based on cold hard fact- you know as well as I that there is only one view that you subscribe to.

And on the Maori: The Poms signed a treaty with the Maori at Waitangi, and if any country on this Earth is a good example of two peoples from vastly different backgrounds living together in peace, love and harmony, New Zealand is it. If it's not perfect, it's as close as you'll get in that situation.

Perhaps there was always a lesson in that for Israel and the Palestinians.

And I'll also add here that the treatment of the Zulus by the British and later by English-speaking South Africans was a lot better than it was at the hands of the Boers (in fact there was no comparison really), whose leaders were the people who set up the Nazi-like apartheid republic in South Africa.

Les: "Disgusting!"

Nice one Les. I'm getting tired of Ruvy's skewed view of history and the double standards, and his having no room for any other view while we try to accommodate.

Mine may be somewhat skewed as well, but at least it involves an understanding of what my own people have done. That applies to indigenous Australians as well.

Ruve just seems to want to verbally belt anyone over the head if they don't subscribe to this single-argument argument.

Baritone, you are forgetting one thingb about Iraq ... Saddam Hussein, and his stalinist regime.

Call me old-fashioned, but I do think a regime whose favourite party trick was to put people feet first into industrial paper shredders deserved to be excised from this Earth.

I lived there as a kid, I still speak regularly to Iraqis and I can tell you they had NO problem with the US liberating them from Saddam. Most thought it was great.

It's what happened afterwards that was a problem. In a way, it actually shows the naivety of the US to a certain extent (if we forget the Machiavellian manoeuverings of Bush co) that not really being colonisers in the accepted sense, they didn't have much idea of what to do after the shooting stopped.

That's where it all turned pear-shaped. That, the flying of the Stars and Stripes on the statue of Saddam in Baghdad, and sending a bunch of reservist military policy from Doodad County to Abu Ghraib, tasked with one of the world's most sensitive military missions.

Ultimately of course the reason for that is in the second-last paragraph above.

But blame Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld and co, not America.

I have no argument about how ghastly Saddam's regime was. I certainly don't rue his demise. But, when it comes down to what was in the best interest of the U.S., the invasion of Iraq was a disastrous choice. Given where things are today, how many Iraqis have died since our invasion? How many do you suppose would have died if Saddam was still in power? It matters little who is pulling the trigger, you wind up just as dead regardless. Beyond the #s of Iraqi dead and the far greater #s maimed or otherwise wounded, there is also the destruction of infrastructure, businesses, homes, etc. tp consider as well.

Pretty much no matter how you look at it, the Iraq war has been a cluster fuck that has made life miserable for most Iraqis and beyond all of that, there remains the loss of over 4200 coalition soldiers and nearly 30 thousand wounded (as of 2/1/08 according to CNN.) Is this really better than life under Saddam? You can talk ideology if you like, or even consider just what fucking animals Saddam and his sons were, but to suggest that the last 5 years would have been worse under Saddam is a difficult argument to substantiate.

B-tone

You didn't read my whole post?

I did say what happened afterwards was the problem. And there might have been other ways of getting rid of him. Badly planned and badly thought out, in the wash-up, as everyone's recognising now.

Then again, in the building of empires, sometimes there's a knock-on effect.

I read your entire post. You can't really separate the two - the invasion and the aftermath. They are all of a piece. Our ultimate "defeat" of the Iraqi army was never really a matter of doubt. Had any thought been given to the aftermath, perhaps we could have avoided much of the consequent turmoil, death and destruction.

My point was and is that it is America's reputation that has suffered the consequences of Bush's mistakes in Iraq and elsewhere. We are perceived as the playground bully. We are perceived as being so arrogant that we thumb our nose at the rest of the world and do whatever the hell we please without considering the opinion or welfare of others.

B-tone

Well, I'm not sure that people around the world who didn't like seeing thousands of Americans killed in one go in New York are that convinced America IS the playground bully.

The big, goofy kid maybe, doing and saying the odd stupid thing, and having to put up with snide remarks from the smaller kids ... sorry mate, but I just don't see America as a bully in the way that I'd consider others as bullies.

Yes, it's not perfect. Far from it. And in retrospect, Iraq probably was a really bad idea. Still, it might be time to leave and to let them sort it out.

Baritone,

The question now is what do you believe that the world owes Israel and Jews in general? What do you reasonably expect, which is a very different question?

To answer you in a sentence, the world owes us nothing, and therefore, I expect nothing.

The problem that I outlined is not "what the world owes us". The problem that I outlined is what the British government agreed and promised to do, and its utter refusal and and subsequent failure to live up to its agreement. All through the sad history of the Mandate, the British obstructed its very goal, the establishment of a Jewish national home. The British were totally aware of the murderous character of the Arabs living in the country, and all through the entire history of the Mandate, the British did the very least they could to stop that murderousness. This Stan ignores. This you ignore as well.

While the Germans did the actual killing in the death camps, it was clear by 1935 what the Germans intended; the British were warned openly in 1937, and still they refused in 1937 to open the doors of a Jewish national home to people who needed it badly and were to have barely anywhere else to go. The Nazis killed the Jewish animal in the cage - but the British LOCKED that cage. So, they are just as responsible as the Germans for the murder. And to compound the guilt, neither the Americans nor the British ONCE bombed a death camp or the routes to the death camps. Stan doesn't appear to like this, and neither do you, but those are the facts of history.

That genocide continues on the planet after what Stalin did in the Soviet Union, and Mao did in China, and after what Hitler did in Europe, shows how how animalistic and savage humans remain, including Brits, Americans and Australians.

YOU ARE NOT FREE FROM GUILT, NOR ARE YOU ACQUITTED FROM JUDGMENT.

The question is not what the world owes the Jews. The world owes the Jews nothing, and we Jews OWE YOU moral behavior befitting a nation of priests that we have not delivered.

SO WE JEWS ARE NOT FREE FROM GUILT, NOR ARE WE ACQUITTED FROM JUDGMENT. THE GERMAN SUCCESS ION MURDERING US OFF IN EUROPE WAS PART OF THAT JUDGMENT.

What is OWED YOU is judgment. We Jews are entirely incapable of delivering that judgment, as too many of us still stupidly admire you and think you are all something better than the animalistic savages you are. The record of Americans killing Iraqis in war, the firebombings of German cities in World War II, the extermination of the Indians on the American continent, all should serve as a reminder of what you are; the divide and rule perfidy of the British in Cyprus, Fiji, Ireland, Canada, India, Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Guyana, and yes, in Eretz Yisrael all should serve as a reminder, but it doesn't. Faced with tis accusation, Stan will protest that the British were merely using methods of imperial control that the Romans developed 20 centuries earlier. And he will be 100% correct! Jewish prophetic vision views America and Britain (as well as Europe) as ROME! And you all will get the judgment that ROME deserved 20 centuries ago

So this judgment will have to be Divine Judgment. As an atheist, you may regard that as merely calling in a superhuman murderer to accomplish one's goals. That is exactly how The Atheist Manifesto characterizes the Torah in the ONE chapter it actually devotes to Jews (much of the rest of the book is one long rant against Christianity).

But nevertheless, that is what it will have to be. Whether you or I or Stan believe in this occurring or not is irrelevant. It's on its way and coming soon.

For you, Stan, I have provided excerpts, should you desire to read them, of Vladimir Jaotinsky's testimony before the Peel Commission in January, 1937. I sought for a link providing the whole text (which I have in a book The Zionist Idea), but after a good hour of searching, I found no such link. So I have to settle for these unsatisfactory excerpts, limited as they are.

"...Why should the Jews in Palestine be forced to prepare for self-defense underhand; as though committing a legal offense? You know what a pogrom means in Jewish history; we know what pogroms mean in the history of Mandatory Palestine. The Jews have never been allowed to prepare for that holy duty of self-defense, as every Englishman would have done. We had in our case to prepare by underhand methods, with insufficient equipment, with insufficient drilling, in an amateurish way."

"...Why should the impression be created in this country that we want Johnny, Tommy and Bobby to defend us? We do not. If, in the building of Palestine, sweat and gold have to be employed, let us give the sweat and let us give the gold; if blood has to be shed by the defenders of Palestine, let it be our blood and not English blood. But that suggestion has always been turned down."

"...There is only one way of compromise. Tell the Arabs the truth, and then you will see the Arab is reasonable, the Arab is clever, the Arab is just; the Arab can realize that since there are three or four or five wholly Arab Stat