Bush's 3 little words, 1 big betrayal

[Scarletprayers]

Shiloh357 is absolutely correct!

[RGR]

Personally, I think our president has done some incredibly stupid things already such as invading a country that hasn't done anything to us, making sure that I don't have social security when I'm older (though I have to pay into it now, I probably won't see it come back to me when I retire), etc.

Fluffy,

Invading a country that he honestly believed had WMD was not stupid. I don't have all of the research in front of me, but Clinton thought Saddam had WMD; as a matter of fact, the liberal socialists in the Senate were urging Clinton to go after Saddam in some way or another.

Social Security is a bit off topic, but I'll let 'er rip. #1, since when has it been government's responibility to take care of us? That was unheard of until FDR and his so-called New Deal (actually a Socialist Deal). Bush is simply trying to fix the mess he inherited with Social Security; if he didn't, you and I sure wouldn't have anything to go on when we got older. Personally, I contribute into a 401K up at work; maybe you're not in a position where you can and I don't mean anything by it. Who would you trust better with your money-yourself or the government? I trust me better than a bunch of politicians. I use government assistance when needed but if the government would stop taking confiscatory deductions on our paychecks, I might have a bit more to do with!

[Gerioke]

Personally, I think our president has done some incredibly stupid things already such as invading a country that hasn't done anything to us, making sure that I don't have social security when I'm older (though I have to pay into it now, I probably won't see it come back to me when I retire), etc.

Fluffy,

Invading a country that he honestly believed had WMD was not stupid. I don't have all of the research in front of me, but Clinton thought Saddam had WMD; as a matter of fact, the liberal socialists in the Senate were urging Clinton to go after Saddam in some way or another.

Social Security is a bit off topic, but I'll let 'er rip. #1, since when has it been government's responibility to take care of us? That was unheard of until FDR and his so-called New Deal (actually a Socialist Deal). Bush is simply trying to fix the mess he inherited with Social Security; if he didn't, you and I sure wouldn't have anything to go on when we got older. Personally, I contribute into a 401K up at work; maybe you're not in a position where you can and I don't mean anything by it. Who would you trust better with your money-yourself or the government? I trust me better than a bunch of politicians. I use government assistance when needed but if the government would stop taking confiscatory deductions on our paychecks, I might have a bit more to do with!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

5 year plans and new deals wrapped in golden chains

And I wonder, still I wonder who'll stop the rain

[Guest shiloh357]

I agree, but I still do not see the big problem with what the president said.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Reb,

Putting Israel back to the 1949 armistice lines would be disastrous for Israel. The one things that stands out the most in my mind is that Israel would have to give Jerusalem back to the Arabs. Jersualem would become and Arab town. That is not going to happen. It would mean that those who died to bring Jerusalem back into Jewish hands, died for nothing.

Furthermore It would give control of all the water to the Arabs. I don't think it takes much imagination to see where that will lead.

Bush is simply not aware of these facts. At least I hope he is not. I would hate to think he knew all of this and was pushing ahead, anyway.

[RGR]

Personally, I think our president has done some incredibly stupid things already such as invading a country that hasn't done anything to us, making sure that I don't have social security when I'm older (though I have to pay into it now, I probably won't see it come back to me when I retire), etc.

Fluffy,

Invading a country that he honestly believed had WMD was not stupid. I don't have all of the research in front of me, but Clinton thought Saddam had WMD; as a matter of fact, the liberal socialists in the Senate were urging Clinton to go after Saddam in some way or another.

Social Security is a bit off topic, but I'll let 'er rip. #1, since when has it been government's responibility to take care of us? That was unheard of until FDR and his so-called New Deal (actually a Socialist Deal). Bush is simply trying to fix the mess he inherited with Social Security; if he didn't, you and I sure wouldn't have anything to go on when we got older. Personally, I contribute into a 401K up at work; maybe you're not in a position where you can and I don't mean anything by it. Who would you trust better with your money-yourself or the government? I trust me better than a bunch of politicians. I use government assistance when needed but if the government would stop taking confiscatory deductions on our paychecks, I might have a bit more to do with!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

5 year plans and new deals wrapped in golden chains

And I wonder, still I wonder who'll stop the rain

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John Fogerty?

[Gerioke]

Personally, I think our president has done some incredibly stupid things already such as invading a country that hasn't done anything to us, making sure that I don't have social security when I'm older (though I have to pay into it now, I probably won't see it come back to me when I retire), etc.

Fluffy,

Invading a country that he honestly believed had WMD was not stupid. I don't have all of the research in front of me, but Clinton thought Saddam had WMD; as a matter of fact, the liberal socialists in the Senate were urging Clinton to go after Saddam in some way or another.

Social Security is a bit off topic, but I'll let 'er rip. #1, since when has it been government's responibility to take care of us? That was unheard of until FDR and his so-called New Deal (actually a Socialist Deal). Bush is simply trying to fix the mess he inherited with Social Security; if he didn't, you and I sure wouldn't have anything to go on when we got older. Personally, I contribute into a 401K up at work; maybe you're not in a position where you can and I don't mean anything by it. Who would you trust better with your money-yourself or the government? I trust me better than a bunch of politicians. I use government assistance when needed but if the government would stop taking confiscatory deductions on our paychecks, I might have a bit more to do with!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

5 year plans and new deals wrapped in golden chains

And I wonder, still I wonder who'll stop the rain

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John Fogerty?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bard of the 60s - 70s

[Guest shiloh357]

I agree, but I still do not see the big problem with what the president said.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Reb,

Putting Israel back to the 1949 armistice lines would be disastrous for Israel. The one things that stands out the most in my mind is that Israel would have to give Jerusalem back to the Arabs. Jerusalem would become and Arab town. That is not going to happen. It would mean that those who died to bring Jerusalem back into Jewish hands, died for nothing.

Furthermore It would give control of all the water to the Arabs. I don't think it takes much imagination to see where that will lead.

Bush is simply not aware of these facts. At least I hope he is not. I would hate to think he knew all of this and was pushing ahead, anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We must be looking at two different maps. I'm not trying to be smart, the Armistice map I am looking at does not give all of Jerusalem to anyone. As for control of the water, I don't see that either.

I'm too tired to look it all up tonight, haven't slept for days, I'll try to get back on it tomorrow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My apologies Reb, I should have worded my statement better. What I meant was that it gives all of biblical Jerusalem to the Arabs, which is simply unacceptable. It pretty much gives all of Eastern Jerusalem back to the Arabs.

Forcing Israel to give up territory it won its self-defense is not in keeping with established protocol where the rules of war are concerned. Any gains of territory a country procures as a result of defending itself in an attack, are the legal property of that country. If we were attacked by Canada, from Ontario, and we sent forces into Ontario to neutralize their forces, any land we gained would become the legal property of the US government.

Israel abided by the armistice lines until they were attacked again in 1967. ALL of Jerusalem, and Israel's sovereignty are the "spoils of war." Israel won the right to be where it is in self-defense, and they should not be required to give it back.

What makes ANYONE think that the Arabs would honor the armistice lines today? They have never honored ONE agreement with Israel, and they don't believe they have to since Israel is an infidel nation, and they are free to use any means, including deception to overcome infidels.

People for some reason forget that Israel is not dealing with governments that possess any semblance of sanity where politics or foreign policy is concerned. The Arab governments are not operating from the same paradigm that we are. The Arabs don't want East Jerusalem, they want all of it. They don't want a two-state solution, they want all of Israel as a Palestinian state. In their minds, this is just another step toward their ultimate goal.

No more concessions, no more peace plans, no more road maps. The Arabs must unequivocally, unconditionally, and publicly declare their complete acceptance of Israel's right to exist, and their willingness to live in peaceful coexistence next to a Jewish state. Israel has already given too much, more than anyone else would, and now the onus is on the Arabs to give. Furthermore to show their sincerity in wanting to live in peace with Israel, they should petition the United Nations for Israel to have a seat on the Human Rights Commission, and the UN Security Council. The Arabs should show their support for Israel to have all of the voting privileges offered every other member nation.

Until the Arabs show their willingness to give. Israel should stand its ground and not give ONE square inch of ANYTHING.

As for the water, look at where the main source of water is located: It is located in the East, the land Israel is expected not to live in. Since the Arabs view the armistice lines as ultimate international borders, how do you think they are gong to view the water treatment facilities and water distribution works that Israel has built in the last sixty years? You have to think like they do. From the Muslim mindset, ALL of this is their's, not Israel's. That includes the water.

From the Arab point of view, the armistice lines are the fore runners to international borders, which means that they are the borders of a future Palestinians state, which will be used as the launching pad for the procurement of the rest of Israel as a Palestinian state and the extermination of any Jewish presence in the land.

Furthermore, Bush in his statement used the armistice lines in conjunction with his desire to see a contiguous Palestinian state. He claims that a state of separated territories will not work, yet to make the Palestinian state contiguous, Israel must become a state of separated and isolated territories.

The problem with the President's remarks is that it gives all the advantages to the Palestinians without them having negotiate. His remarks not only require Israel to give up what it rightfully won through self-defense but forces Israel to give up even MORE land making it borders nearly indefensible, leaving the southern half of Israel vulnerable and isolated. The President shows the same lack of understanding of the conflict as previous administrations have. It seems the whole world takes temporary leave of their senses when ever Israel is part of the equation.

[Guest shiloh357]

Ok, I think now I see your point, I think I need to get the entire text of the speech.

If in fact he has made a misstatement that would harm Israel I don't believe it would be put forward into actual practice.  He has been a staunch supporter, at least to my way of thinking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yeah, I think it would be a good idea to get everything he said and post it here.

[dgolvach]

Why does Israel ( a sovereign nation)even need Bush's permission to do what they feel they need to do to protect themselves? Are they bound to a treaty that President Bush signs off on or one they feel good about?

Dan

[other one]

I really hope you all understand that this will not end unil the arabs all die. Hopefully it will be the Lord that does it, but unless he changes the hearts of those who have apposed Israel since the days of Abraham it will not end until one or the other is all dead, and I read that the Lord Himself will fight for the Nation of Israel. My prayers are that my country is not among the enemies of Israel when things get really out of hand, and they are destined to do just that.

Of course we did just dump about a million and a half pounds of vaporized uranium238 in the area for the winds to blow around over a thousand mile radius over the next few years, so who knows, maybe old George just fixed the problem for everyone by 2012.