Posted by Elizabeth on September 12, 2001, at 20:31:34
In reply to Re: two wrongs... » Elizabeth, posted by Adam on September 12, 2001, at 10:07:32
> OOPS, I really blew it on that one. I got it backwards (it's been a while since that class on Vietnam). The War Powers Act was signed as a countermeasure to the Executive Order for military action. Basically, the president has the ability to commit military forces for a certain period of time before either A) congress must vote to declare war or B) no war is declared and forces are returned.
Bush Sr. found ways around that, IIRC. ("The Persian Gulf Conflict?")
> You get the idea, though: The president, according to the constitution, can commit the full military for something like 100 days before a vote on whether or not we are technically at war must be made.
That's not bad. (I mean, for the President. :-})
Say, did anybody read the Tom Clancy novel _Executive Orders_? That's what I'd like to see 'em do (not that they're going to, or anything, for various reasons).
> > > Powell, no doubt, will not dream of cutting off the marionet strings at a moment like this.
> >
> > I'm a little confused by this remark too.
> >
> Powell is the only real dyed-in-the-wool moderate in the cabinet right now, and I think his lustre may have faded when he took on the whole Republican party at their national convention.Ahh. He's the smartest one in the bunch, in my book. Should be president himself, I'd even say (if it has to be a Republican, that is).
> You know, those rather bold statements about the need for affirmative action.
I like that he's that brave. Most moderate Republicans wouldn't have the balls to challenge the party line like that even if they wanted to.
> He is one of the least independant Secretaries of State in recent memory, and the word in Washington is that his moderate stance on a variety of issues isn't really appreciated by the Bush-Rice-Rumsfeld troika.
That's just terrible.
> So he's been marginalized, which is fairly remarkable for a Secretary of State.
We can't have any rational, moderate people running the country now, can we? :-P
> Rather than make a stink about it, Powell has capitulated completely. He does what he's told, and apparently provides little input. He has comfortably put himself in the role of underachiever, perhaps to avoid perpetual conflict and alienation.
Oh well. So much for bravery. Maybe he'll change his mind and run for prez in the future. I bet he could win, even in the current hair-split climate, by getting bipartisan support. (He was just speaking on the local ABC affiliate, BTW.)
> This statement would likely end my friendship with my former boss if she ever found out, but here's how I see it: Calling Israel a democracy is kind of like calling pre-Mandela South Africa a democracy.
Point taken, although I think that compared to the other places in the region, Israel really does come out the moral winner (we'll probably both get flamed for this). I think the creation of Israel was done very irresponsibly: they -- I'd say "we" but I wasn't even alive at the time -- gave the Jews a country where somebody else was already living. It's not that the Jews shouldn't have gotten a place to live where they would be able to feel safe and welcomed, just that it was done with a remarkable lack of consideration for those who already lived in the place. It probably wouldn't have been possible to give the Jews a Jewish-only country (or is it country club?) in any fair way. The U.S. and other Western countries ought to have offered them asylum and assisted them in getting to wherever they wanted to go where they would be welcomed.
The creation of a state that's only superficially secular, based on a religious belief of a group that believes they are the "chosen people," seems like something the US should have had no part in.
Personally, I'd be happy for all the Jews in Israel to come to America -- we have vast amounts of unpopulated land where the climate (political and metetorological) is far more inviting than that darned desert. It'd probably increase our chances of getting Democrats elected to national office. < g > They could even have a Jewish "state" (with a truly secular govt, of course) right here, which would have a Jewish majority and a Jewish cultural feel.
> Apartheid is slightly more constitutionally subtle in Israel, but it is just as devastating to the Palestinians who live there.
Yeah, I know. The creation of Israel wasn't very smoothly done.
> This is, in no way, meant as a vote of support for the likes of Arafat (who's Nobel Peace Price has renedered the entire concept of a Nobel Peace Price a ludicrous joke).
Hey, didn't Steven Soderbergh -- that guy who directed _Erin Brokovich_ and _Traffic_ -- win one of those too? (I mean, not that they weren't good films, but wouldn't an Oscar have been more appropriate?!)
> It must be noted that "Israel" as an independant nation had not existed, if it ever in fact existed, for something like 2500 years.
And the claim that it should exist is based on the belief of a particular religious group (and, according to them, a particular *race*) is rather...well, untenable, to a secularist like myself. At the same time, if I have to choose a side today, I'd still take Israel over the Arab nations. It's just a question of which side is more fanatical and bigoted than the other. < putting on my asbestos underwear here >
> The Palestinians, from the outset, rejected the legitimacy of the new state of Israel, and have been paying for that, ever since.
Just like the Republicans rejected the legitimacy of Clinton's Presidency...? :-}
> It's not just the Israel, mind you, who have hurt them (the Jordanian Bedouins, ironically enough, killed tens of thousands of them in Jordan, when they got out of line), but since the Arab world has become more-or-less united against Israel, Jews are now the primary target of united Arab wrath.
Keep in mind that Jews make up less than 3% of the world's people and came very close to being completely wiped out only half a century ago. I think they genuinely represent a special case.
(Incidentally, in searching for that statistic, I found the following web page, which I found rather creepy in a eugenics-ish way: http://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles2/majority.htm. What do you think?)
> I don't think there is any effective, forcible way to eliminate the fanatics.
Yeah, they'll just hide behind innocent civilians. If we attack, we're the bad guy; if we don't, they win.
> Religious fanaticism is a disease that thrives on violence, and on real or perceived victimization to perpetuate itself.
(What's this, the "disease model" of religious radicalism? < g >)
> Making love instead of war, under such circumstances, isn't just airy-fairy-mooshy-queer-commie-liberal nonsense, it's about the only effective policy.
If it's all right, I'll pass on "making love" if it turns out that OBL is the responsible one. He's kind of icky.
> The worst thing you could do to someone like that (in their mind) is make them embrace you.
I think if we tried it they might surprise us (and themselves).
I also can't help but think of the catchy tag line, "what would Jesus do?"
-elizabeth
poster:Elizabeth
thread:11152
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20010909/msgs/11277.html