Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

clark · 2003-06-16 13:01:12

There is a larger principle I have avoided because I'm not sure you can handle it.

You may be surprised.

If you want to claim that ?nation? is not inviolate then you state that the other countries of the world such as France or Iran have the right to determine national laws in the U.S. Would you accept that?

No nation is inviolate. I am stating that. I will state such a thing on top of a mountain with stone tablets if I must.

I have no problem with Canada making it's own laws. I have no problem with the Catholic Church making it's own laws. I don't mind the Boy Scouts making their own laws either.

All of that is right, and good- it is individuals and groups making choices that they feel are best for themselves.

What i am saying though is that these same groups can make choices and decisions UP TO A POINT.

There are some choices NO ONE may make.

NO ONE may choose to hurt another person. I am saying that such a choice flies in the face of reason, and no sane individual would coem to the conclusion that such behavior or such choices are valid and allowable.

I don't want to live in Iran, and I would prefer that where I choose to live, I have the most say in the laws that govern civility between groups and individuals. But just becuase I live in America dosen't mean that it's okay for another group of people across the globe to come up with rules that allow for gang rapes and capital punishment.

I am saying that is wrong, and I challenge anyone to reason it otherwise.

You want your government to give you health care, fine.Such a law or idea isn't predicated on the suffering of others.

See the difference?

RobertDyck · 2003-06-16 13:34:05

I do see the difference. There are a few very specific cases where the checks in the U.S. have broken down, how would you react if the other countries or the U.N. intervened?

The Rodney King incident had video taped evidence of police officers beating a suspect. The suspect was charged with speeding on the highway, nothing else. After he was apprehended and surrendered, the police continued to beat him after he was prone on the pavement. The courts let the police officers off. In fact, I saw president George Bush on national television ask for the courts to support the police. That is intervention in a court hearing by the president. The courts are supposed to be independent of the executive branch.

In Waco Texas the Branch Dividians collected guns. They were a cult, but the cult members joined of their own free will. David Karresh was charged with possessing illegal weapons. He was known to jog on the public sidewalk every morning so the F.B.I. could have arrested him quietly. Instead they stormed the complex and everyone died. Janet Reno authorized use of a tank. There is a U.S. federal law that prohibits any civilian agency from using any weapon of war against American citizens. If a tank is not a weapon of war then nothing is. Janet Reno was charged with 130 counts of manslaughter for storming the complex and causing those deaths, but the courts found her innocent. She has never even been charged with the felony of using a weapon of war against American citizens. Investigators found no illegal weapons in the remains of the complex, the only weapons were legal.

The Ruby Ridge incident was a text-book case of entrapment. The individuals had been collecting weapons, but all were legal and they did not sell any illegally. An F.B.I. agent pressured and coerced one of them into selling a shotgun and sawing it off. The fact that it was sawed-off made it illegal. The individual had refused to do that until the F.B.I. agent coerced him. That is the most clear-cut case of entrapment possible. The suspects at Ruby Ridge were not arrested to be tried in court, they were killed.

The Waco Texas and Ruby Ridge incidents existed because someone in Washington wanted to prove that the second amendment of the U.S. constitution does not exist. Both these groups wanted to collect weapons to defend themselves in case government got out of hand. That is why U.S. citizens have the right to bear arms; if the democratic system breaks down the citizens can kick it out by another revolution and install a government that is accountable to the people. Someone in Washington D.C. is willing to kill to prove that only the rich and powerful rule. This is a direct violation of democracy and what the second amendment was put in place to correct.

Then there was the ?Tally Hassle in Tallahassee?.

The U.S. government intervened in Nicaragua to support rich multinational corporations based in the U.S., and overthrew a democratic government to do it. The invasion of Granada was intervention in the people of Granada selecting their own government. They had government corruption since they separated from Brittan but chose a communist government. Ronald Regan didn?t like that so he invaded and forced Granada to select a government style he liked. The U.S. Senate prohibited invasion of Granada, but the president is the commander in chief of the U.S. military so he had the authority to invade anyway. This raises the question of whether the president should be permitted the authority to do so without congressional approval.

How would you like other countries or the U.N. to intervene in these cases?

clark · 2003-06-16 14:01:29

You cite examples of America at it's worst. I will not defend unjust actions, I will simply point along with you.

In terms of specific court cases though, we need to examine the actual court cases. We need to eaxime the testimony, not TV punditry and rhetoric.

Rodney King resulted in widespread riots throughout the US, and has led to reforms in profiling, and police procedures. What we saw though is what a system of condoned violence on others creates. That's why I keep saying no one has the right to hurt another person.

As for Waco, again, we see government use of force. It is sanctified assualt, which is wrong. Who should hold the blame, or the majority of blame must be decided through reviews, not TV or talk shows.

If there is persistent, wide scale abuse within a nation, and no offical, or responsible agency is willing to act to prevent further abuses, then I would love dearly for all other nations of the world to invade and set the situation to right.

Any country.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-06-16 19:37:30

I don't want to divert this discussion down yet another side road but it's already leaning towards the pros and cons of gun-control, so I thought I might make a comment.

Robert made a few observations which caught my eye:-

"... someone in Washington wanted to prove that the second amendment of the U.S. constitution does not exist."
"Someone in Washingto D.C. is willing to kill to prove that only the rich and powerful rule."
"That is why U.S. citizens have the right to bear arms; if the democratic system breaks down the citizens can kick it out by another revolution and install a government that is accountable to the people."

I've lived in England and Australia and I've followed the course of debate about guns and the introduction of legislation to control public ownership of them. Here in Australia, at each and every (very rare) shooting incident, there is another knee-jerk reaction by politicians to make gun ownership more and more difficult. We are now effectively helpless, with only the police and the military (and the criminal underworld) in possession of firearms. I believe the situation in England is about the same as it is here.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it also true that there is a strong movement in America to disarm the populace there too?

What strikes me about the anti-gun lobby is that they tend to comprise mainly people who are left-leaning or liberal in their outlook. These same people are the most vociferous in damning any acts by politicians which might be interpreted as being dictatorial, right-wing, or totalitarian in nature (e.g. the deplorable Waco debacle). These people evidently worry greatly (and quite rightly) about the possibility of our rights being taken away from us by a kind of insidious 'nazification' in and of the higher echelons of politics.
Does anyone else here see the irony in all this? ???

The left-leaning liberal sees his/her enemy as the citizen who touts private gun ownership - popularly characterised as a slavering, red-necked, inbred, ignoramus who believes in shooting first and asking questions later. President Bush himself has been portrayed as a something similar in recent press caricatures.
But .. and here's the rub .. if a government does gradually weasel its way into a position of effective totalitarian control, the ordinary citizen's only hope will lie in guerilla warfare and an armed revolution to reinstate democracy. Even then, the chances of success will be slim in an age of compulsory personal ID, computerised files and ubiquitous video surveillance.

Disarming the populace because of a few lunatics who occasionally kill and maim, while an admirable and ostensibly sensible liberal goal, will ultimately play directly into the hands of those who would enslave us all - be they right or left wing!
Being sweet and kind and nice and taking all the nasty guns away so we can all live in a world of peace and harmony is a noble aim .. provided everybody has peace and harmony as their guiding light!
Unfortunately this is not the case.

I find it interesting that, at least here in Australia, political parties of all persuasions are united in their resolve to part all Australians from their weapons. And they have gradually succeeded over the decades. In the event of a totalitarian coup or a foreign invasion, our ability as individuals to do anything about it compared to, say, back in 1950, is essentially zilch! I believe the English are in the same boat and it looks like America is on track towards the same result, though it will evidently take a little longer there because the constitution will have to be altered in order to take away the last line of defence.

I think all anti-gun, liberal-thinking individuals should sit down and ponder what it is they're doing. It looks to me like they might be cutting their own throats.

Palomar · 2003-06-16 20:48:50

Disarming the populace because of a few lunatics who occasionally kill and maim,

*I see the points you make, and agree somewhat, except for this statement. Of course, you don't live in the U.S.A., so you're not as aware as I am of the gun craziness here.

I admit A LOT of ambivalence, as regards guns and gun control. I did -not- have ambivalence prior to the 1990s, when I would have been 100% in favor of the "right to bear arms"...until all school-shooting rampages and work-place shooting sprees began around 1996. It seems 9/11 put a damper on some of these hot heads (at least for a while, but the trend may be gearing up again)...but god, Shaun, most American schools now have METAL DETECTORS all kids have to pass through prior to entering in the building in the morning. Something is very wrong with a society where even 7-year-olds are in juvenile court for carrying a pistol to school; a 10-year-old in my community, in 2001, was busted on campus for having a pistol. My tiny hometown [smack dab in "The Heartland" of America -- the widespread Midwest, aka "bread basket of America"] had a school-shooting threat around 1999. I know the mother of the twin boys who were plotting this shooting spree; she's 1 year younger than I. That tiny little high school, whose graduating class each year is maybe 75 students at maximum has, since the threat, been making all students enter the building via one door and exit via another, has lock-down drills, etc. The school administrators don't have a choice, but THIS IS LUNACY!

Why does anyone outside of the military need a machine gun? Or an assault rifle? Hmmmmm? Geez, if they can't shoot a #*!%(@$^ deer or pheasant with a rifle or shotgun, TAKE UP FISHING! What else could "right to bear arms" be interpreted as? Does anyone have the right to construct and detonate a dirty bomb? Why not? The Founding Fathers couldn't foresee and thus take into consideration dirty bombs, so it doesn't apply? Well, by the same token, they couldn't foresee and take into consideration assault rifles either! Good grief, back then gunpowder was carried in horns, bullets had to be melted and molded by yourself (unless you were wealthy enough to buy them already made...most people couldn't afford it), you got ONE SHOT from each loading...

Trying to apply the standards of arms THEN in the "right to bear arms" statement to today is like comparing a coach-and-four to a Concorde jet! Hello everyone? AM I MAKING ANY SENSE??!

Sorry.

Anyway, yes it would be wrong to punish responsible, mature, level-headed people who do keep guns because of the nuts. But it seems to me there are many more IRresponsible, stupid people who are wielding guns nowadays.

The culture I live in has got to change, or Rome is going to burn once more. Guns really aren't the issue so much as the cultural mentality and attitudes toward them.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2003-06-16 23:53:27

All very valid points, Cindy.
I think you've covered most of the anti-gun arguments and I agree wholeheartedly that it's a tragedy when going to school starts to resemble a shakedown in a 'speakeasy'.
Ideally, nobody should have a gun.
Ideally, all governments should be trustworthy.
Ideally, there should be peace and love ... and Mars colonies!

But I can't help feeling nervous when we're all being systematically disarmed by governments of all complexions in countries all over the world.
Authorities don't seem to be saying we should control the accessibility of guns in private homes, so as to avoid children getting hold of them. They simply step in and take guns away from everybody. I wonder why?

Talk about a rock and a hard place! Nobody wants lunatics and children running around with weapons but then the last thing we want is a rogue government against which we have no defence of last resort.
I think, on balance, insidious totalitarianism worries me more than guns in the community. Most of my American friends here seem to be constantly afraid that the former is on the rise in their own country, yet many of them appear oblivious to the consequences of being disarmed. I guess it's because the violence is 'here-and-now' while the threat of fascism is a 'someday maybe'.

Whatever your viewpoint, I suggest you think very carefully before allowing politicians too much power to 'protect us from ourselves'.
???

Palomar · 2003-06-17 05:47:07

All very valid points, Cindy.
I think you've covered most of the anti-gun arguments and I agree wholeheartedly that it's a tragedy when going to school starts to resemble a shakedown in a 'speakeasy'.
Ideally, nobody should have a gun.
Ideally, all governments should be trustworthy.
Ideally, there should be peace and love ... and Mars colonies!
But I can't help feeling nervous when we're all being systematically disarmed by governments of all complexions in countries all over the world.
Authorities don't seem to be saying we should control the accessibility of guns in private homes, so as to avoid children getting hold of them. They simply step in and take guns away from everybody. I wonder why?
Talk about a rock and a hard place! Nobody wants lunatics and children running around with weapons but then the last thing we want is a rogue government against which we have no defence of last resort.
I think, on balance, insidious totalitarianism worries me more than guns in the community. Most of my American friends here seem to be constantly afraid that the former is on the rise in their own country, yet many of them appear oblivious to the consequences of being disarmed. I guess it's because the violence is 'here-and-now' while the threat of fascism is a 'someday maybe'.
Whatever your viewpoint, I suggest you think very carefully before allowing politicians too much power to 'protect us from ourselves'.
???

*I think the jist of the trouble is the "either/or" mentality that most humans seem prone to...humankind has a propensity to go to extremes.

I don't see a need to become draconian about it. Outlaw some types of guns and put a limit on how many firearms one citizen can possess at any given time.

Machiavelli believed the citizenry should be allowed to have firearms; in "The Prince" he instructs the prince to whom he addressed that booklet that an armed citizenry could assist the King's armies should it be needed in a time of war. I think Machiavelli was correct in many of his seemingly harsh views of human nature and motivation, etc., but in this area I question him, relative to *this* day and age, and in my nation. Call me a cynic, but if push came to shove and there were an all-out national emergency, I don't foresee any great unifying spirit in this nation; on the contrary, I think there'd be a dozen civil wars. Of course, I could be wrong.

::shrugs::

--Cindy

RobertDyck · 2003-06-17 07:32:04

Well, "the right to bear arms". Here in Canada the issue is a lot less pressing. There was debate regarding gun control legislation, where all options are more control than exists or would be accepted in the United States. Handguns require a Firearms Acquisition Certificate, which takes 90 days minimum and you must have 2 certified individuals sign the form to vouch for you. Once you have that, purchasing a handgun requires another permit with another 30 day minimum wait. These waits are often significantly longer. Any form of automatic weapon is outlawed. The debate regarded whether hunting rifles and shotguns should be registered. The government did bring in that legislation, and found it extremely expensive to run the program. The RCMP said that money would be better spent on the special task force to track down illegal weapons dealers. I think the RCMP (the Canadian federal police) is qualified to make a judgement on that issue.

Luckily, the "right to bear arms" is not as pressing an issue as it is in the United States. The Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents left me understanding why the second amendment to the U.S. constitution was created. Apparently the U.S. culture requires it. In Canada, the government would never dream of doing something like that, and the RCMP is proud of displaying exemplary judgement and minimum force, yet they "always get their man".

The Progressive Conservative party prior to 1993 had a majority government but refused to listen to the people. The most dramatic example was when they chose to replace the Federal Sales Tax with the Goods and Services Tax. The vast majority of Canadians were against it, but the P.C. party pushed it through anyway. The Senate rejected it. Prime Minister Brian Mulroney then replaced some senators with P.C. party members and added more senators. He literally stuffed the senate with individuals whose sole function was to vote on the G.S.T. bill in favour of the P.C. party line. The voters became so irate over this that in the 1993 election the P.C. party not only lost; they won only 2 seats in the House of Commons. It takes a minimum of 12 seats to be officially recognised as a party. What was one of the only 2 parties to rule the federal government in Canada and one of the same 2 parties to found Canada was no longer a party in Canadian federal politics. They have since just barely won enough seats to be officially recognised as a party (they now have 15), but they are still the 4th party in terms of number of seats. Canadian politicians have come to realize that the final and greatest power does rest with the voters.

As long as the only people in the U.S. who are fighting those in power, are other individuals in power, the politicians will continue to view the voters with contempt. That contempt has already resulted in many deaths. The only retaliation has been inappropriate and resulted in more deaths: the Oklahoma bombing. That bomber did state he did it in revenge for Waco. That is the same death cycle as we are seeing in the Middle East. Luckily it has ended. It is time for the politicians to be held accountable. Violence is not the answer. Violence leads to things like school shootings; children learn the only way to resolve a conflict is a bigger weapon than your opponents. The way to prevent that is to permit the wrongly accused to win. That does mean that teachers who wrongly accuse children must be reprimanded in front of the children they wronged. Teachers may find this humiliating, but it teaches children that they can defend themselves without a gun. As long as "the establishment" can do things like kill 130 people in Waco without the officers in charge going to jail, that sends a message that "the establishment" is evil and must be stopped with a bigger gun. The threat from within is greater than the threat from without. The threat to peace and security by the system itself is a much greater threat than an airplane running into a building. Fear of exactly that is why violence is such a part of American culture. The fear and therefore the violence it causes can only be stopped by the offenders within the system being punished severely, and the congressmen being held responsible for ensuring it happens. Congressmen themselves must be held accountable to the American voters. I wasn't aware of metal detectors at grade schools. I have visited schools here in Winnipeg and I can state that even in the poorest neighbourhoods there are no metal detectors. How bad does it have to get before America does something? What message do the voters have to send to get politician's attention? I notice many more voters write to their congressmen than in Canada, but how do you impress upon them that the primary responsibility of any congressman is preventing abuse of authority? This was done in Canada by the voters destroying one of the two major political parties; that party is trying to rebuild but in reality will never again be voted as the government. Is something that dramatic required in the U.S.?

clark · 2003-06-17 08:22:57

This issue of needing a gun to act as the last defense against an ever encroaching oppresive government seems a bit, well, cheap.

Who would you be using the gun against in such a situation?

Politicans? Police? US citizens who swore to defend the Constution?

Which ones are we talking about defending ourselves from?

All of them?

Aren't these same people, or at least two out of the three, US citizens trying to get by in the world? Do you think most of them want to 'oppress' us regular folk?

Of course an unresponsive government that no longer represents the interest of the people whom it is sworn to serve is always possible, but, how would such an event occur?

Wouldn't it take a massive breakdown in the system of checks and balances built into our instutions? Wouldn't it also take a bit of compliance and disregard by the population to allow such events to ever occur?

What is that old saying, the price for freedom is eternal vigelance?

I don't think they were talking about guns with that statement.

We worry about too many guns, not enough guns, or who might or might not have a gun. Yet, the issue of neccessity is made moot by taking as many steps as neccessary to prevent an oppressive government from taking over to begin with.

In other words, we have already lost what we treasure most when we pick up the gun to defend the last bit of what we might have left.

It also boggles my mind that such rationale people seem to be oblivious to other forms of resistance. Have we learned nothing from history? Is violence the only solution? Are guns, violence, and the cycles it breed our only solutions then?

If so, what point is there in dreams of space colonization?

The first riot, the first revolt, will also be the last in space. Either a central authority opens the dome, therby quelling any revolt, or the population rises up and destroys the infrastruicture everyone else depends on.

How many of you actually believe that the Politicans are frightened by a "well armed populace"? Or is it a little easier to believe that perhaps they fear the next election, the next recall?

Occam's Razor folks.

If we do not allow US troops to be used on US citizens, what must we fear from government?
If we do not allow unresponisve leaders that no longer represent our interests to get elected, what do we need guns for then?

Of course preventing tyrany is so much harder than just buying a cheap Saturday night special to prepare for that day.

Just like fast food is so much easier than making your own meal.

Just like watching TV is so much easier than being engaged in your community.

There are legitimate reasons to possess a firearm. Defense the primary one.

However, this idea that a semi automatic anything will protect your freedoms is just rhetoric. It makes the issue easy to think about becuase it requires that you need not think further.

Guns do not create the violence, the people do. Our society is fraying becuase of a lot of other issues going on that cause people to lash out- our technology only enables them to be more effective in their destruction.

If a kid wants to kill, he can do it with either a gun, or stuff he finds under the kitchen sink. The correct focus would be on the situations, or the environment that breeds these kinds of intent.

But what about Isreal?

Palomar · 2003-06-17 08:24:56

I have visited schools here in Winnipeg and I can state that even in the poorest neighbourhoods there are no metal detectors. How bad does it have to get before America does something? What message do the voters have to send to get politician's attention? I notice many more voters write to their congressmen than in Canada, but how do you impress upon them that the primary responsibility of any congressman is preventing abuse of authority? This was done in Canada by the voters destroying one of the two major political parties; that party is trying to rebuild but in reality will never again be voted as the government. Is something that dramatic required in the U.S.?

*You know what I think most of the problem in America is? The brainless "I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT!!" screeching of imbiciles.

Since history books aren't trusted much anymore, I refer all readers to the writings of the Founding Fathers of the U.S.A. themselves: Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Dr. Benjamin Rush, etc. These men believed in society, i.e. that citizens have certain obligations toward the health and betterment of the society. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," YES...but not from an egomaniacal point of view.

Benjamin Franklin, for instance, didn't seek a patent for his lightning rod. This invention of his saved homes and businesses from burning by lightning strike; in his day, buildings which caught fire in such a manner were allowed to burn because people thought the lightning was punishment from God. They would allow the stricken structure to burn to the ground and only save buildings around it. Franklin was on the receiving end of some very nasty criticism when his lightning rod was first introduced...how dare he interfere with God's will? He replied that men put roofs over their heads to protect them from rain and hail stones...so what's the difference? The point is, Franklin refused to seek a patent for his invention and to profit from it because it was, he said, his GIFT to society. This was indeed a gift, because Franklin could have made a pretty penny on the patent. There are numerous examples; Dr. Benjamin Rush (I've posted about him in the 18th Century folder), for instance, donated quite a bit his time and means to giving medical aid to desperately poor people. Thomas Paine willed all of his profits from _Common Sense_ (a bestseller, flying off the printing press) to the army, for the purchase of winter mittens for each soldier. That was more than generous of Paine, as he was at the time basically poor himself; he had been poor all his life. These guys practiced what they preached.

America was NOT built on the screaming, tantrumy childish notions of utter and complete selfishness.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-06-17 09:19:39

America was NOT built on the screaming, tantrumy childish notions of utter and complete selfishness.

Ah, but the 70's were! :;): :laugh:

RobertDyck · 2003-06-17 09:35:02

Clark, you make excellent points. However, that doesn't change the fact that a tank was used to storm the Branch Dividian complex in Waco Texas and 130 people were killed. I don't know how many were killed at Ruby Ridge. The F.B.I. officers and any executive branch personal involved should have been incarcerated. Let the lawyers argue whether it was Murder in the 1st degree, Murder in the 2nd degree, Manslaughter, or some other form of homicide. Use of a tank against American civilians was done and no one is serving a jail term for it. Senate hearing determined Janet Reno authorized the tank; her excuse in those hearings was the she considered the tank to be a "rental car". The excuse of the executive branch at the time was they were concerned about the rise of "militias" which were stock piling guns and undergoing military training should the day come when the federal government would no longer respond to the voters. The fact that so many Americans felt the need to initiate this action tells a lot about the lack trust Americans hold in their own government. The Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents were to send a message to the militias that the government was prepared to use deadly force to wipe them out. But the purpose of the second amendment was to empower a militia of American citizens to overthrow their own government if democratic elections failed to do so. How many Americans with an income under $50,000 per year have been able to get voted into Congress? Elections have become a media circus and cost millions of dollars. If Americans citizens feel the need to create militias to defend against their own government, who am I to say otherwise? The deadly force by the F.B.I. in Waco and Ruby Ridge does prove the need for them. I would like to see a peaceful resolution to that problem, but Janet Reno is not in jail. Who else was involved with it? Was Bill Clinton involved? He did not sign a presidential order.

Now the knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 has been creation of the Department of Homeland Security. The incident I mentioned before of the arrest of a university professor who was developing cures for disease demonstrates that this Department has been given the same powers as the Soviet K.G.B. or Nazi S.S. I have friends in Canada who feel the fall of the U.S. has already begun, and once started it cannot be stopped. Just as Rome fell due to decay from within, the U.S. is collapsing from within.

Ok, now standing back. Treating other countries of the world with respect starts with the fundamental understanding of what is freedom and democracy, how to respect your fellow humans, and tolerance for diversity. The same principles which can build a healthy and civilization within the United States can be applied to create a healthy international community. Respect for a community that wants to live with differing values than you hold is something that a member of the Mars Society should appreciate. Many M.S. members want to build a new society on Mars. Respect for those differences can be applied on Earth today by respecting cultural differences and sovereignty of other nations. That may mean that if they do not wish to resolve their conflict then all you can do is walk away.

Palomar · 2003-06-17 09:51:17

America was NOT built on the screaming, tantrumy childish notions of utter and complete selfishness.
Ah, but the 70's were! :;): :laugh:

*America wasn't founded in the 1970s, ding-dong.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-06-17 10:00:37

Use of a tank against American civilians was done and no one is serving a jail term for it. Senate hearing determined Janet Reno authorized the tank; her excuse in those hearings was the she considered the tank to be a "rental car". The excuse of the executive branch at the time was they were concerned about the rise of "militias" which were stock piling guns and undergoing military training should the day come when the federal government would no longer respond to the voters. The fact that so many Americans felt the need to initiate this action tells a lot about the lack trust Americans hold in their own government. The Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents were to send a message to the militias that the government was prepared to use deadly force to wipe them out. But the purpose of the second amendment was to empower a militia of American citizens to overthrow their own government if democratic elections failed to do so. How many Americans with an income under $50,000 per year have been able to get voted into Congress? Elections have become a media circus and cost millions of dollars. If Americans citizens feel the need to create militias to defend against their own government, who am I to say otherwise? The deadly force by the F.B.I. in Waco and Ruby Ridge does prove the need for them. I would like to see a peaceful resolution to that problem, but Janet Reno is not in jail. Who else was involved with it? Was Bill Clinton involved? He did not sign a presidential order.

*A former acquaintance of mine (an admitted liberal who was a student at Berkeley in the 1960s) -- who pointed out this, this and this immediately post-9/11 and I chalked him up to just an old hippie radical who was overreacting until I saw events unfold which he predicted WOULD unfold in the Bush Administration not long after 9/11 -- had the theory that Timothy McVeigh was "allowed" by the Feds to blow up the Murrah Building in OKC. Not that they furnished the weapons, but rather that perhaps the CIA trained him (unknown to McVeigh and his buddies), and allowed the sequence of events to take place in order to give the American militia movement a black eye, discredit and villify them [but, of course, no one MADE McVeigh do what he did -- he was a lunatic a-hole regardless] and make McVeigh the fall-guy in the process. Now THIS I want to doubt. Just because Bush proved Walter's predictions right regarding the 9/11 aftermath (IMO), doesn't, of course, mean Walter's theory about McVeigh is right.

I sure hope Walter's not right. Damn. But at this point, I don't put much past the government.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-06-17 10:02:09

Respect for those differences can be applied on Earth today by respecting cultural differences and sovereignty of other nations. That may mean that if they do not wish to resolve their conflict then all you can do is walk away.

I reject your sentiment unequovically, without reservation, and in its entirity. You and any who agree with the above sentiment are simply, plainy, catagorically wrong.

I can and do respect other cultures. I believe most decisions should be left in the hands of individuals. I believe most people will come to the right conclusion given enough information by which to make a decision. I also believe that not everyone is capable of making appropriate decisions either. I also acknoledge that while people should be given the greatest latitude to do what they must, there are some things, some choices, no one gets. I am saying some choices made by an individual should not be respected. I am saying some cultural difference should NOT be tolerated, no matter what.

We can not walk away. To do so is to be complicit in the action which we know to be wrong. To view a woman being raped, yet do nothing to prevent the act is to take part in the act itself Robert. Just becuase some people live behind an imaginary line dosen't absolve us of our common fucking human deceny to do what we all know to be correct.

It's easier to say "hey, that's their nation, not my problem" Then we all go back to our Big Mac's and Jerry Springer. t's easier to say, "that family needs to work out its issues", than to call the police, or get involved with your neighbors. Afterall, that's what government is to begin with now.

A mediator between neighbors.

Treating other countries of the world with respect starts with the fundamental understanding of what is freedom and democracy, how to respect your fellow humans, and tolerance for diversity.

I understand what freedom and democracy are Robert. I understand what respect for anothers choice is too. Yet such a sentiment does not require that I relinquish my god damn common sense. As such, I see no reason why I should respect another culture, belief, creed, or nation that behaves in an irrational manner predicated on death, intimadation, or pain to the people who somehow have found themselves born into the situation.

Respect for a community that wants to live with differing values than you hold is something that a member of the Mars Society should appreciate.

I agree, Now, explain why I should respect differing values that allow for gang rapes, torture, or executions.

clark · 2003-06-17 10:31:43

*America wasn't founded in the 1970s, ding-dong.

Modern America was.

RobertDyck · 2003-06-17 10:34:34

You mention calling the police when you see a woman being raped. But the U.S. is not the international policeman, it is just one member of a community of nations. NATO is just a small collection of countries which share the Western culture; one culture. The only international policeman you can call upon when you see atrocities in the Middle East is the U.N. No one else is qualified. But what values have been determined to be universal, what offences can the U.N. intervene in, what authority has the U.N. been given? Invasion of one country by another is a clear-cut area where the U.N. can intervene, but only between nations recognised by the U.N. This has been prevented by a legal loop-hole: Palestine has not been recognised by the U.N. as a country, it is still a territory of Israel. The Middle East accord was supposed to change that, but it hasn't happened yet. If Palestine is treated as a country then the U.N. Security Council has jurisdiction to send troupes to stop the fighting. Palestine has already requested that once. However, the cause of the fighting is a land dispute and the U.N. can only offer its services to mediate that. In the end the parties involved must come to an agreement themselves. However, the U.S. being a concerned neighbour and not the policeman can bring the issue to the attention of the U.N. and can offer its service to mediate, but cannot directly intervene.

clark · 2003-06-17 10:39:46

However, the U.S. being a concerned neighbour and not the policeman can bring the issue to the attention of the U.N. and can offer its service to mediate, but cannot directly intervene.

Why not? What prevents us?

Rules do not have power over us unless we abdicate the power to them.

We know something to be wrong. A law stands in the way of action to correct the wrong. Why should we allow a law to stand in the the way of doing what we know to be correct?

RobertDyck · 2003-06-17 11:12:45

Again, in a small town does the richest man have the right to intervene in every dispute between neighbours in the town? No. It is the police who do that because just one individual will represent his/her own interest or act on bias toward a friend, not act in the best interest of the community. As such, the rich man who interferes is not trusted. This just escalates to fighting against the rich man as well. Hmm. Perhaps that is what the 9/11 attack is all about. That would mean that security at home is best handled by treating countries in the Middle East as peers and letting the U.N. mediate.

Bill White · 2003-06-17 11:34:24

America was NOT built on the screaming, tantrumy childish notions of utter and complete selfishness.
Ah, but the 70's were! :;): :laugh:
*America wasn't founded in the 1970s, ding-dong.
--Cindy

Modern America was.

The 1970s were formative decades for all too many of us, I fear. Now where's my Peter Frampton 8 track?

clark · 2003-06-17 12:27:07

Again, in a small town does the richest man have the right to intervene in every dispute between neighbours in the town? No.

Robert, I agree, I understand what you are saying, and your point is well tempered with wisdom.

HOWEVER (always the but)

I am not suggesting that we, you, I, or any nation intervene in every and any situation. That would be silly and unneccasy. it would lead to greater strife, not less.

I am simply stating that there are some issues where we ALL must intervene. There are some instance, some actions, which is an affront to all of us as people, and borders or beliefs should not be respected in such instances.

Yes, I understand that it is a slippery slope. Yes, I understand that great restrictions and barriers need to be in place to control the use of such intervention. Yet when all is said and done, no amount of barriers or control should decide that we cannot intervene when it is plainly obvious that the actions we wish to intervene in are for th betterment of the people.

We're not talking abotu going in and determing their health care system, or what form of government they may or may not have. That is wrong and unneccessary. What is right, what is neccessary is establishing a stable environment where peace can be achieved- where people are not under constant threat of death or other henious assulats. What is wrong with preventing needless or unneccessary deaths?

It is the police who do that because just one individual will represent his/her own interest or act on bias toward a friend, not act in the best interest of the community.

The police are mere actors- anybody can be a policeman in a time of emergency. Why? Becuase a policemen serves a function. They are not an end to themselves. If there is a fire, are we not capable fo putting out the fire ourselves? Or must we wait for the offical 'fireman' to do it for us?

That would mean that security at home is best handled by treating countries in the Middle East as peers and letting the U.N. mediate.

A 'peer' is someone who is equal, in thought and in action. It is a matter of saying that a 'reasonable' adult is a peer to another 'reasonable' adult. An 'unreasonable' person has no peer in the 'reasonable' adult. The unreasonable person is a child, and should be treated accordingly until such time as they can act as our peer.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-10-01 16:51:39

bullets make money

and dare I say the radical JEWISH lobby

yes there are Jewish lobbies, Hispanic in music, Asian lobby, Irish Italian in politics and consutruction, African American....
..but if you use the word Jerusalem in the USA a mob of ranting loonys will land on your head

Dook · 2005-10-01 19:28:24

Sorry I missed some of the debate.

As a nation founded on Christian beliefs we have biblical ties to Jews and Isreal. It also happens to be the only democracy in the entire middle east.

Benjamin Netanyahu's book A Place Among The Nations is an excellant telling of the Israeli viewpoint. I'll try to be brief.

Jews have lived in the area that is now Isreal since biblical times. Not all of them dispersed in the Diaspora but the area was predominantly Palestinian, and other nationalities/religions, until the turn of the century (1900) when Jewish writers began calling for a return to Jerusalem. Over the next 40 yars Jews returned in massive waves to their ancient homeland and bought homes and farms from Palestinians who took advantage of the increase in the worth of their homes caused by the new demand.

Great Britain departed the middle east and left the west bank for the Palestinians but Jordan immediately siezed that land for itself. For some reason the Palestinians did not go on a rampage blowing themselves up over this.

Now the Jews wanted to declare themselves a nationstate but they knew they were surrounded by probable enemies and no one would dare sell them weapons but Bulgaria (if memory serves me right). So after the guns arrived Isreal declared itself a nation and was instantly invaded by all sides. Many arab countries: Iraq, Saudi Arabia, sent troops to fight against Isreal but the Jews won with only simple rifles. In the three wars that Isreal fought they siezed a great deal of territory. From Syria they won the militarily important high ground of the Golan Heights. From Jordan they had all of Jerusalem and the West Bank, and from Egypt they took Gaza and the huge Sinai Peninsula.

Isreal began developing some of these areas. They built roads, communities, schools, dams, installed utilities, on land the arabs had done nothing with for hundred's of years. Many Palestinians emigrated to nearby Jordan until Jordan closed off the border. They didn't want the Palestinians to abandon the land to Isreal. The arab nations are using the Palestinian people. They give $25,000 for each suicide bomber.

Today the Palestinians living in Isreal are welcome to become Isreali citizens but they refuse.

I have also read books telling the Palestinian side of the story but there is a difference. The arabs openly support attacks on innocent civilians whereas the Isreali government does not.

Palomar · 2005-10-01 19:54:38

The 1970s were formative decades for all too many of us, I fear. Now where's my Peter Frampton 8 track?[/color]

*Peter Frampton, bah. That hair. I had crushes on Shaun Cassidy and Alan Longmuir (Bay City Rollers fame). I still remember Alan's birthday: June 20. Yep, it was love at first sight (adios SC). Hmmmm...and an irony here: It's "S-a-t-u-r-d-a-y NIGHT!" currently. Lol!

Wow, YL Rocket, you really resurrected an ancient thread. Until today it'd been dormant for 2 years, 3 months. Ironically I searched for this thread, to no avail, earlier this year (a relative news article). ::shrugs::

Dook, I read your post. Maybe a few comments soon.

--Cindy

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-10-01 23:11:30

only democracy in the entire middle east.

I was searching for a more recnt thread but could only find this so decided to post my opinion

The crazy religious Arabs and extreme muslim have caused many problems

but Jerusalem a democracy ? yeah, and Hitler was being democratic when he got himself in..
Give us a break !!
because the radicals in tel aviv had a hard history and then can start a zionist terror campaign, and later elect a war criminal as prime minister doesn't mean squat in the international community eyes,
Sharon can't go to Europe cos they'll nab him for crimes against humanity and the Shatila massacre

both sides have made a lot of blood - it takes two to tango

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2003-06-16 13:01:12

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#77 2003-06-16 13:34:05

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#78 2003-06-16 14:01:29

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#79 2003-06-16 19:37:30

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#80 2003-06-16 20:48:50

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#81 2003-06-16 23:53:27

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#82 2003-06-17 05:47:07

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#83 2003-06-17 07:32:04

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#84 2003-06-17 08:22:57

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#85 2003-06-17 08:24:56

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#86 2003-06-17 09:19:39

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#87 2003-06-17 09:35:02

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#88 2003-06-17 09:51:17

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#89 2003-06-17 10:00:37

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#90 2003-06-17 10:02:09

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#91 2003-06-17 10:31:43

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#92 2003-06-17 10:34:34

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#93 2003-06-17 10:39:46

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#94 2003-06-17 11:12:45

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#95 2003-06-17 11:34:24

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#96 2003-06-17 12:27:07

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#97 2005-10-01 16:51:39

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#98 2005-10-01 19:28:24

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#99 2005-10-01 19:54:38

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#100 2005-10-01 23:11:30

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

Board footer