French foreign minister speaks out - Page 8

[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>

One more thing: In that post where you said you respected groverat and then made a list of insults that Scott has used, you said that Scott called France xenophobic. Groverat said that about Europe. Scott didn't write that.

[ 02-20-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
you are right, but Groverat said friendly words too. BTW i apologize for that one to Scott, but i stay to my position for the others.
This thread was initiated by Anders, and Scott turn mad on it. I just reply to this thread because Anders ask me my opinion personnaly. The thread just turned after that to a bashing against my countrie. When someone here write an antiamerican topic like "why americans are so stupid" i refuse to reply to such stupid and immature thread, thinking it was too much an honor to reply to it.

Scott amuse you because he wrote in a blunt way, it's not always funny when you are on the other side. I will dump on him, as far as i am concerned. For the other abrasive people i will dump on them, just if i feel implicated. I a m not a moderator, so i don't have any right to do the police and to place me at a higher position than any member of AI.

AI is a beautifull place, with open speaking, it would be bad if everything was under control, so let's try to stay ourself in the limits.

:eek:

<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=105001690" target="_blank">Where's the Posse?</a>
It's high noon for the civilized world. Let timorous Europeans go home to their kids.

BY R. JAMES WOOLSEY
Monday, February 25, 2002 12:01 a.m. EST

Paris, Berlin and Brussels are unhappy with the United States. French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine has called President Bush's axis-of-evil characterization of Iraq, Iran and North Korea "simplistic." German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said the U.S. was treating Europeans like "satellites." And the normally sensible European Foreign Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten called Mr. Bush's approach "absolutist" and "unilateralist overdrive."

Mr. Patten excepted, much of what is going on here is that many generally leftist members of the European elite have craws in which plain talk gets stuck--they gagged on Ronald Reagan's characterization of the Soviet Union as an evil empire and they are gagging again now.

It's hard to understand the Europeans' problem if one looks at the specific behavior of the regimes that rule Iraq and North Korea by torture and murder, and that also develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles in violation of their international obligations. There's virtually nothing about them that is not evil. Iran is a more complex case, because there is a genuine reform movement in the country as a whole and within part of the government, but the nation's power is still wielded--and the use of terrorism supported--by the small group of murderous mullahs whose behavior is on a par with their kindred spirits in North Korea and Iraq.

"Axis" may be a slight stretch because Germany, Japan and Italy were somewhat more aligned than the current gang, although there is definite cooperation on missilery between Iran and North Korea, and some past cooperation on terror between Iran and Iraq.

And my goodness, as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld might say, how is the U.S. not consulting? Mr. Bush has just been in Asia consulting. Vice President Dick Cheney is headed to the Mideast to consult. Secretary of State Colin Powell is never not consulting.

No, what is agitating the Europeans is not really any inaccuracy in what the president has said, nor is it any failure on America's part to act collegially. Rather, it is a perverse commitment to the proposition that no American good deed should go unpunished. Many members of Europe's elites--British Prime Minister Tony Blair and a few other stalwarts being conspicuous exceptions--persist in a waspish and reality-denying worldview, the centerpiece of which is that anything that America is decisive and enthusiastic about is highly questionable at best.

A substantial part of this derives from their having chosen to lead the good life, to maintain generous social services, take long vacations and let the U.S. bear the principal burden of preserving the world's peace. There is no disdain quite as sour as guilt-driven disdain.

Life is imitating art here--the particular piece of art being the classic Western of half a century ago: "High Noon."

In the film, the marshal of the small town of Hadleyville, Will Kane (played by Gary Cooper), has just stepped down from his job and gotten married. As he is leaving town with his new bride, played by Grace Kelly, he learns that the gang leader who once dominated and terrorized the town has been pardoned by the governor of the state and is arriving on the noon train to meet his old gang and return to power. After a few minutes of indecision, the marshal decides to return to town over the strong objections of his pacifist wife. He starts to organize a posse to protect the town.

But as high noon nears, it becomes increasingly clear that the good citizens of Hadleyville, who had helped the marshal clean the town up years before, can now produce only a cornucopia of excuses: "If the marshal's not here there won't be any trouble--it's just personal trouble between him and Miller [the gang leader]"; "the politicians up north caused the mess--let them deal with it"; "what will they [potential investors] think if they read about shooting in the streets?"; "I'm no lawman, I just live here."

Most poignant is the scene between the marshal and a longtime loyal deputy who backs out of helping as noon approaches because he is worried about his young children. "Go on home to your kids, Herb," says the marshal, and goes out to face the gang alone.

Only the marshal's new wife, who at first had left him, returns at the last minute and helps him prevail against all odds. For a small Quaker lady who hates guns, she does quite well: one kill and one assist. As the townspeople realize he has won and come out of hiding to congratulate him, the marshal looks at them sternly, drops his badge in the dirt, and he and his wife drive away.

In today's front-page version of this story, the work on weapons of mass destruction being conducted by states that support terrorism is the noon train pulling relentlessly nearer. The French government and French oil companies are surely Academy Award material as a collective real-life version of the film's hotel clerk who is fixated on how good the saloon business will be once the gang is back in town.

Many other Europeans will find excellent models in the film to help them perfect both their excuses for inaction and their condescension toward their protector. Fred Zinnemann, the director of "High Noon," knew this moral territory well--as a refugee from Austria he had seen all the techniques for rationalizing appeasement and the deadly consequences of not challenging evil regimes before they can wreak total havoc.

"Ah," anti-American Europeans reading this very piece this morning will likely respond, "you see how the Americans idealize the impulsive Wild West cowboy and his unilateralist approach to dealing with the world. How naive. How droll."

So here are two quick ripostes. Cowboys are normal people--some are impulsive, some are loners, some are neither. But what you are rejecting is not a modern-day cowboy, but rather a modern-day marshal, and marshals are different. They and their equivalents, such as GIs, have chosen to live a life of protecting others, whatever it takes. That's not being impulsive--it's deciding to be a shepherd instead of a sheep.

Second, like the U.S. today in moving against the axis, the marshal in "High Noon" was trying very hard to be multilateral--he desperately wanted a posse. He just had no takers. What the marshal was unwilling to do is to give up doing his duty just because everyone else found excuses to stay out of the fight.

Go on home to your kids, Europeans. Go on home to your kids. And then start praying that when it's over we won't drop our badge in the dirt.

Mr. Woolsey, a Washington attorney, was director of Central Intelligence from 1993 to 1995.

I loved this film, great moovie , one of the best western in the history of cinema.

in this article the author said that the US was in a certain way the marshall of the world.

I am sorry to said that but this assesment is wrong in a juridic point of vue. A federal marshall is appointed by the US governement, and he is one of his representant for the law. Law and right is behind him, people have to help him.
Us is not the marshall of the world, nobody give the legitimaty to US to be the world's marshall. US can be the avenger of the world, but not the marshall. The fact that US is the unique superpower of the world , is a democraty,and a land of liberty does not give him this right.

Us is the most powerfull and respected allies of Europe but this comparison is obnovious. The fear of some leaders of Europe is that US turn into a sort of avenger. In Comics, avengers are not totally clean at the exception of superman who came from an another planet.

I am astonished that a influent man of USA can make that sort of comparison, if me, Powerdoc speaks of Marshals and cowboy, you will have the right to bash me and i will merit it. Perhaps it's irony, but write an entire article about a comparison with a (great) moovie is very strange.

Unluckily the world is far much more complicated than even a good moovie, the joke is that article came from a man who certainly knows better than me or you all the complexity of the world.

And the final sentance is just a joke, he suppose that Europe is totally harmless against attacks : pure fantasy, even if we are weaker than US we are stronger than many states of this world.

well said Powerdoc.

Just the idea of this cowboy comparison reveals the reasons why some are distrustfull of the hyperbole: why?
because it bespeaks a "Cowboy" view of the world.

in other words: his justification shows the underlying problem in high releaf: in broad daylight: in the light of clear day: or in the light of high noon.

and not even the days of the 'cowboys' were at all like the wide-screen idealism of Hollywood: its just so appropriate that this article would pretend to use such an obviously simplistic metaphor to paint a picture of a complex reality.

[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>well said Powerdoc.

Just the idea of this cowboy comparison reveals the reasons why some are distrustfull of the hyperbole: why?
because it bespeaks a "Cowboy" view of the world.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I can tell by your reply you didn't bother to read it.

What's wrong with cowboys? I heard they really cleaned up out west.

Not true scott . . .

I think rather that the fact that you printed it as legitimation reveals that you haven't thought about the issue beyond your felt need to defend every word out of Bush's mouth.

It is a persuasive article, if you arleady have your ideas set in stone, but it is a revealing article because persuasion works with just these kinds of simplifying metaphors.

If you remember, the whole point is: the hyperbole of Bush's remarks reveal a simplistic notion of real conditions.

an example of simplifying real conditions would be to describe the situation using a movie: and a cowboy movie to boot!! (intended) and then sqeezing in all the corellate conditions as if they were aptly described in the 'hollywood's film's characters.

This is so perfect its amazing that you can't admit it: its just so true to life.

i would hope that what this says is not true of America, namely: we look at the world and see a hollywood action pic and we are the troubled hero against the world.

<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>
I am sorry to said that but this assesment is wrong in a juridic point of vue. </strong><hr></blockquote>

It's a metaphor. It doesn't have to correlate precisely.

[quote]<strong>A federal marshall is appointed by the US governement, and he is one of his representant for the law. Law and right is behind him, people have to help him.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And they didn't. Which is the author's point.

trying to dig up a good english speaking source for my death - toll claim, that even Scott can't argue with (don't worry, it's comming Scott!). I found this piece of interesting reading:

Courage to Refuse - Combatant Letter 2002

We, reserve combat officers and soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces, who were raised upon the principles of Zionism, sacrifice and giving to the people of Israel and to the State of Israel, who have always served in the front lines, and who were the first to carry out any mission, light or heavy, in order to protect the State of Israel and strengthen it.
We, combat officers and soldiers who have served the State of Israel for long weeks every year, in spite of the dear cost to our personal lives, have been on reserve duty all over the Occupied Territories, and were issued commands and directives that had nothing to do with the security of our country, and that had the sole purpose of perpetuating our control over the Palestinian people. We, whose eyes have seen the bloody toll this Occupation exacts from both sides.
We, who sensed how the commands issued to us in the Territories, destroy all the values we had absorbed while growing up in this country.
We, who understand now that the price of Occupation is the loss of IDFs human character and the corruption of the entire Israeli society.
We, who know that the Territories are not Israel, and that all settlements are bound to be evacuated in the end.
We hereby declare that we shall not continue to fight this War of the Settlements.
We shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people.
We hereby declare that we shall continue serving in the Israel Defense Forces in any mission that serves Israels defense.
The missions of occupation and oppression do not serve this purpose and we shall take no part in them.

Current signers number: 283

also, here is a link for you on the general <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55529-2002Feb23.html" target="_blank">death-toll</a>

and something for your viewing (dis-)pleasure:<a href="http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_story.html?FRONTID=MIDEAST&STORYID=APIS7HT7 3901" target="_blank">(quicktime...)</a>

[ 02-25-2002: Message edited by: New ]</p>

Uh man. Just to add. In the movie the Marshall was retired. He came back because he was facing down the "evil doers" if you will. He didn't have to. He could have left town. He had no obligation to help the town. He'd done his job. But he did because that's the kind of guy he was.

<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson022502.shtml" target="_blank">Misunderstanding America</a>
We're not the ones with the problems.

By Victor Davis Hanson, author most recently of Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power.
February 25, 2002 8:20 a.m.

[quote]In the last six months we have witnessed an unprecedented level of hostility voiced toward America by an array of European intellectuals, EU officials, and those in the media from London to Rome. At a time of war we expect such enmity from our enemies in the Middle East. Americans are accustomed to such opportunistic broadsides from Cuba and China - and of course venom from the lunatic states of North Korea, Libya, Iran, and the like. Yet it is unnerving to hear constant European recriminations over everything from Guantanamo Bay and our injunction of the word "Axis" to plans to topple Saddam Hussein and preserve Israel.

As sort of an informal survey, I counted talking heads that I have listened to recently on public and cable television. In the last five weeks, I have heard eight from India, and six from Russia. All were reasonable, supported more or less the efforts of the United States to combat terrorism, and seemed genuinely to appreciate American institutions. In contrast, the last 13 European allies I saw - French officials, British journalists, and EU bureaucrats - have uniformly voiced dissatisfaction with America. In some cases they express an almost visceral dislike of the United States. Perusal of some European magazines and newspapers reveals a similar continuum of disdain...

... Europeans also have a strange way of looking at the history of the twentieth century. Just because on two occasions they have wrecked their civilization and suffered greater tragedy than we is no reason to forget the origins and remedies of those great calamities. Let us remember that Germany, Austria, France, and England almost ruined Western culture between 1914-18. Only the belated entry of a million American soldiers stopped the bloodletting. Two decades later, deviant states in Italy and Germany nearly ruined the West a second time - in the process eliminating 6 million of Europe's finest citizens. Western Europe - the bedrock states of the EU of Holland, France, and Belgium - could do little and capitulated in a matter of weeks. All were liberated only due to the efforts of muscular and unsophisticated Americans. I suppose that concern with Europe is why we said "Hitler first," even though it was the Japanese, not the Nazis, who had attacked us directly and were the most immediate threat.

There is no need to recount the half-century of the Cold War. Despite the shrill nonsense of Euro-Communists and socialists, few doubt that had America not stood firm in creating NATO, the entire continent would have been conquered in the manner of Eastern Europe. Then there are the minor affairs, beyond the Berlin Airlift and the American assurance to risk New York and Washington to stop Soviet armor from reaching Bonn and Paris. The British created Israel, and then bailed with the rest of Europe when it became clear that continued support would endanger the friendship of their former colonial subjects - now full of oil and terrorists - in the Gulf, Syria, Egypt, and Iraq. The Europeans most recently sat paralyzed in fear as 250,000 of their neighbors were butchered in the former Yugoslavia - and that was after Soviet tanks were being melted for scrap.

So there is a sad pattern to this sad century. We did not beg to get involved in two world wars. The Soviet Union was no threat on land to us. We didn't know much about the Middle East or the Palestinian problem or Serbia. But somehow we certainly were needed for something by someone to prevent a catastrophe.

The Europeans apparently talk only to our elites on the East Coast, who in turn apparently worry whether they are treated politely or rudely in London or Paris. But the vast majority of Americans simply could not care less. They do not think K-Mart or Target are crass; they eat fast food instead of hour-long lunches because they work at hectic 40-50-hour a week jobs that would send much of Europe into a revolution. They are trying to assimilate millions of some of the poorest people in the planet into their culture - a far more daunting task than reuniting East and West Germany.

In this regard, Europe should pay closer attention to America's demography as well. Some of us teach classes made up of 60-70 percent from immigrant students from Mexico, the Punjab, or Southeast Asia. These newcomers have little immediate cultural or emotional ties with Europe. Even two decades ago, all my Hispanic friends in our local community were vehemently cheering on Argentina, and damning rumors of American assistance to England. By 2050, a quarter of the population will be of Hispanic heritage; perhaps another 20 percent Asian and African American. Their view of Europe will be predicated on its attitudes in the here and now, not on a reservoir of good will based on a common emotional bond or ethnic heritage...<hr></blockquote>

[ 02-25-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>trying to dig up a good english speaking source for my death - toll claim</strong><hr></blockquote>

Just be sure to include the circumstances of the death. When some 14 year old gets killed when throwing rocks at someone with a gun I don't consider that an "innocent death". Please remove the "martyrs" from the list. They don't count either.

boy, you really are stupid... Did you watch the quicktime?

[ 02-25-2002: Message edited by: New ]</p>

Even the French in Canada are a pain in our butts. Turns out that Quebec is a haven for Muslim terrorists because they allow easy entry for Algerians and other Fench speaking countries in an effort to fortify the number of Fench speaking folk in Canada. They don't run strident background checks or anything. ..................................

Oh wow. No mention of the pregnant ISRAELI woman shot at... <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,46443,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,46443,00.html</a>

That's odd it hasn't been mentioned. Lets see a stubborn palestinian in a car was shot at because they wouldn't stop at a roadblock where soldiers had orders to shoot at cars that ignored orders to stop: Bad Israel!!

Pregnant Israeli woman gets attacked at night by Al Aqsa ( a very nice group of young men named terrorists by the evil empire of America and Israel) : those dirty Jews were asking for it!

I think we in the US do too much hand-wringing over European criticism. We should stop being so thin-skinned.

Europe is trying to become a political/economic counterweight to the US - I say great! Bring 'em on. We need another superpower in the world. Better Europe than, say, China.

And I'd guess that Germany and Britain, who will probably generally see more eye-to-eye with the US, will be more influential in the EU than France.

Well? Maybe they should build their military rather than rely on the US.

They have their own militaries. They also don't need very large militaries.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>They have their own militaries. They also don't need very large militaries.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You are perfectly true.

[quote] The Europeans apparently talk only to our elites on the East Coast, who in turn apparently worry whether they are treated politely or rudely in London or Paris. But the vast majority of Americans simply could not care less. They do not think K-Mart or Target are crass; they eat fast food instead of hour-long lunches because they work at hectic 40-50-hour a week jobs that would send much of Europe into a revolution. They are trying to assimilate millions of some of the poorest people in the planet into their culture - a far more daunting task than reuniting East and West Germany. <hr></blockquote>


Err, some minor points...

1. The idea that Europeans in general eat hour long lunches is ridiculous. Talk about expanding sterotypes about France on all of Europe. Way to go. All of the US must be like Tennessee then...

2. The idea that a 40 - 50 hour work week is unknown in Europe is just as dumb as well. Here in Germany, it's 38.5 hrs/week for regular workers, but in a lot of jobs you can forget about that, especially in jobs that require academic degrees and offer decent career paths. We do have more holidays though (in my case, 28 days a year).

3. Which brings us to the weirdest thing of all : the alleged correlation between working a lot and eating lots of fast food. To me it seems that most of the _regular_ fast food eaters are the working class types and pupils. I know a lot of people who often work 60 hrs+ weeks (virtually all of them have an academic background) and I have yet to witness a workload induced fast food epidemic.

4. The next wonderful allegation is that one of the factors why the population is so stressed out is because they have to integrate so many poor immigrants. Sheesh! It really must be a horrible thing to suffer from that Mexican guy who mows your lawn for $3.50/hour. My god. That would really stress me out, too.

5. Historically speaking, the US is an immigration country while European countries are not. Things have changed a bit, and it's about time to open your eyes. One example : Germany has a higher immigration rate than the US (4.01 vs 3.5 per 1000 population). The school classes with lots of pupils who are really struggling with the local language exist here just as well.

6. Also, since Germany pays lots of money to jobless people (well, maybe some Scandinavian countries pay more, but in comparison to the US it is LOTS), the integration of immigrants is a much more costly endeavour for tax payers here that it is in America. I don't understand the whining.

7. If you add 75% of Mexico as the 51st state, then we can talk about a task of the size of the German reunfication. Taking in a few immigrants a year does not count.

Man, I really hate it when people accuse other people of being cluesless while having no clue themselves....

[ 02-26-2002: Message edited by: amyklai ]</p>

BRussel said:
Better Europe than, say, China.

Hate to break it to you but China already is an economic/political superpower. In fact they're the only one that rivals the US at the moment. We need to play nice with the chinese for some time to come while encouraging them to slowly loosen their grip on the people.

[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>Hate to break it to you but China already is an economic/political superpower.</strong><hr></blockquote>China has a huge population, but their economy is still third-world. The US economy is about 10 trillion, and China's is about 1 trillion. So per capita, our GDP is about 40 times larger than theirs. Theirs is growing, but it won't catch up with the US or the EU for a long, long time.

Many of the individual countries in Europe, like France, Germany, Italy, UK, have larger economies than China. Combined, I believe the EU is about the same as the US.

And China is still basically isolationist in its foreign policy.

So I don't agree that China is a superpower.

[quote]Originally posted by amyklai:
<strong>
Man, I really hate it when people accuse other people of being cluesless while having no clue themselves....
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah, I hate that too.

This is from a <a href="http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inf/magazine/31/work.htm" target="_blank">1999 study</a>.

[quote]US workers put in the longest hours on the job in industrialized nations, clocking up nearly 2,000 hours in 1997, almost two weeks more than their counterparts in Japan, where hours worked per year have been gradually declining since 1980, according to a new statistical study of global labour trends published by the International Labour Office (ILO).

The study examines 18 Key Indicators of the Labour Market (KILM) including labour productivity, labour costs and hours worked. It shows that the US pattern of increasing annual hours worked per person (which totalled 1,966 in 1997 versus 1,883 in 1980, an increase of nearly 4%) runs contrary to a worldwide trend in industrialized countries that has seen hours at work remaining steady or declining in recent years.

The long working hours of US and Japanese workers (whose 1995 total was 1,889 annual hours worked versus 2,121 in 1980, a decline of more than 10%) contrasts most sharply with those of European workers, who are logging progressively fewer hours on the job, particularly in the Scandinavian countries such as Norway and Sweden where hours worked in 1997 were, respectively 1,399 and 1,552 per year.

In France, which recently introduced legislation limiting the work week to 35 hours, men and women workers put in 1,656 hours in 1997 versus 1,810 in the 1980s. In Germany (Western), the annual total of working hours was just under 1,560 in 1996 versus 1,610 in 1990 and 1,742 in 1980.

Workers in the United Kingdom, putting in 1,731 hours annually in 1997, appear to have neither gained nor lost much free time since 1980 when they worked 1,775 hours. Irish workers' annual hours dropped from 1,728 in 1980 to 1,656 in 1996, putting them roughly on par with Switzerland (1,643), Denmark (1,689 hours for male workers in 1994) and Netherlands (1,679 for male workers in 1994).

Workers (both men and women) in Australia logged only slightly longer hours than their counterparts in New Zealand in 1996 (1,867 versus 1,838). Canadian workers have seen their work schedules decline by more than a full work week during the last decades, with 1996's result of 1,732 hours closely resembling 1980's total of 1,784....<hr></blockquote>

One more thing: the cost of immigration is considerably more than the price of labor. There are also stresses on the education, health care and criminal justice systems.

That doesn't disprove anything I said.

I did say that we have longer vacations (and probably more holidays as well) than Americans.

Do the math. I posted my vacation days per year (28 days; I've been out of university for 2 years now). Compare that to the amout of days of vacation Americans get, multiply the difference by 8 hours and you'll see the difference in work hours / year shrink considerably.

[ 02-26-2002: Message edited by: amyklai ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by amyklai:
<strong>
That doesn't disprove anything I said.

I did say that we have longer vacations (and probably more holidays as well) than Americans.

Do the math.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You do the math. Americans get less vacation but we still get vacation time. The difference is about a week or two, depending on which European country you're comparing with the U.S. Add 40-80 hours to those European totals and it's still not in the same ballpark.

[ 02-26-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>

What I want to know is whether it's better or worse to work 2000 vs. 1500 hours per year? Are Americans rich but unhappy?

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:

<strong>What I want to know is whether it's better or worse to work 2000 vs. 1500 hours per year?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Fair question. Depends on where you are in life. What are your goals? Are your goals truly worth the long hours?

<a href="http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Al_Aqsa_Fatalities.asp" target="_blank">Here's a decent link, Scott!</a>
Why don't you read every page on this site (notice who has published the numbers), and if you still think everything is balck and white, don't bother to post an answer, ok?

[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong> don't bother to post an answer, ok?</strong><hr></blockquote>

um? okay. ooops I just did <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

ohh, and what a great answer it was!

Did you read any of the linked information?



[ 02-26-2002: Message edited by: New ]</p>

Here's mine

It's the Anti-Semitics Stupid!

[ 02-26-2002: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Anders:
<strong>LOL. We have a saying here in Denmark that probably can´t be translated correctly to english but I´ll try anyway:

Scott is beyond educational reach

And no: The name is not optional. The saying was invented with scott in mind.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Why? Because I don't tow the party line? I read and learn a lot. I'm much more open than most of the people here. I'm so ****ing smart I see targetting buses and malls as an illegitimate means to obtain an objective. And I say so. Very vigorously.

But Scott, we aree with you that targeting buses and malls are illegitimate means to obtain an objective, but we also think that there are illegitimate ways to occupy and oppress (spelling?) a whole people for 35 years...

Don't you see this at all?

And did you read any of the information I linked to?

I think some people believe Israel is NOT occupying and that the land is their own birthright. You can't give it to them 50 years ago and then expect them (Israel) to just pack up and leave. Not gonna happen.

Years ago Israel offered to give the West bank to Jordan. They turned it down. Seems Jordan is fed up with Palestinians also.

What about the Palestinians in Lebanese camps, why haven't they been dispersed to live normal lives in other Arab countries? Seems their Arab 'brothers' don't want them either.

Funny, only Israel, the victors in every war waged against them, are trying to help Palestinians gain a State. Find another trritorial conquest that was reversed by the victors willingly?....................

[quote]Originally posted by steve666:
<strong>Years ago Israel offered to give the West bank to Jordan. They turned it down. Seems Jordan is fed up with Palestinians also.


.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Right but the term fed up is not the best. There is many palestinian in Jordan, and the king is not palestinian himself but (pardon me if i am wrong) he is from a minority who is in charge of Jordan. The king does not want to have more Palestinians people that he already has, to keep his power in place.