the current bombing of Afghanistan, in which thousands of innocents have been killed -- these numbers have long since been debunked. See the bit at the end of this piece for details. Indeed, if anything, we have gone out of our way, including putting our own people on the ground at risk, in order to avoid civilian casualties.
U.S. backed assassinations or attempts in Afghanistan, Cuba, Vietnam... -- Cuba I'll grant you (and this was the brainstorm of liberal icon Kennedy, of course). VietNam was a war (and a just one -- see below), and so is Afghanistan, so I'm not sure what your point is...
the Gulf War -- what's your complaint here? That the US went to war to defend a nation which had been brutally siezed, and another that was in danger, at the request of the nations involved, and at the head of a multilateral coalition of a scale the world had hardly seen before?
the VietNam war -- again, what's your complaint here? The US went to war to defend a weak ally set upon by a bloodthirsty totalitarian neighbor. If you have any doubt that we were on the right side of this one, consider the fact that Ho Chi Minh and his thugs murdered more VietNamese in the three years after the war ended than had died in the preceeding 25 years of war. No, the only tragady of VietNam is that the three US presidents involved were too arrogant to explain to the people why the war was needed, so we lost our will to win it...
conscription -- leaving aside that we haven't drafted anyone for years, there are strong arguments on either side of this one. There are certainly circumstances under which the draft would be acceptable and necessary, so we are left only to argue about whether it has been used well in the past.
McCarthyism -- now a whole mythology has grown up around this one, so I think it's reasonable to point out a few facts:
The US was in fact heavily infiltrated by Soviet spies in the 30s, 40s, and 50s. This is confirmed by Soviet and American documents declassified at the end of the cold war.
In our current Manichean fable of that era, the (in reality quite small) number of peopls who lost jobs over their connections to the Communist Party has been greatly exaggerated.
Due to Joe McCarthy's grandstanding and publicity-seeking, the quite real issue of Communist infiltration has been discredited unfairly -- indeed, President Truman remarked
that "the greatest asset the Kremlin
has is Senator McCarthy." Because of his excesses, any attempt to
point out the great extent of very real infiltration which did occur is
now easily hand-waved aside with a simple drop of a name.
support for oppressive states like Israel, Saudi Arabia -- Saudi Arabia I'll give you, but in what sense is Israel, a free democracy with equal rights for all of its citizens, `oppressive'? Even with the Saudis, we didn't create them, and I like to hope that we'd support any non-fundamentalist alternative to their regime.
support for dicators in Iran, Iraq, Chile, Nicaragua, the Philippines... -- not all of these stand (in particular, with the end of the cold war, we now know that the CIA was as taken by surprise by the coups in Iran and Chile as anyone else was), but the larger issue is that, yes, sometimes we backed the lesser of two evils. What would you propose we should have done? I'm also amused that Nicaragua, where the US backed rebels who fought for and won free democratic elections makes your list...
concentration camps for Americans of Japanese descent -- you have chosen the word `concentration camp' carefully for connotations which do not fit the subject at hand, but the point is the same. Yes, these were a terrible abuse, but they were also a reaction to the very real fact that there were spies operating in the Japanese-American community. In particular, Pearl Harbor was planned based on intelligence from American citizens of Japanese descent.
COINTELPRO -- there is a lot of rumor and propaganda surrounding a very small number of actual abuses in this area. Care to provide reasoned cites (not lefty conspiracy-theory rags)?
Hiroshima, and even more so Nagasaki -- what's your complaint here? Many Americans, and even moreso many more Japanese than died in these two cities would have died in an island-by-island invasion of the Japanese homeland. This was averted. Looks like a good move to me...
one of the world's largest prison populations -- we're actually pretty far behind China, but this is not the point. A high prison population proves nothing by itself, so if you want this to sound scary, you have to show not that we are putting people in prison, but that we are putting people in prison unjustly.
the War on (some) Drugs -- I'm sure we're in some agreement here -- remember that just about the only mainstream voices calling for a reversal of Marijuana policy are coming from within the conservative movement, in the pages of publications like the Wall Street Journal and National Review.
the "enemies" list -- Nixon's or Clinton's?
the fiasco at Waco -- I think I'd use a stronger word than `fiasco' for this one, and I suspect we're largely in agreement. I still hope that some day we will see trials of many of those involved, right up to Janet Reno.
racial segregation (including laws still on the books in some states) -- it doesn't accomplish anything to point out that laws are `still on the books' (though you should provide a cite for this, as I haven't seen this claimed before), as any law which violates the constitution is a legal nullity, and the fourteenth ammendment is very clear on this matter.
babies to be taken from their parents... children were compelled to attend boarding schools -- do you have any cite on this happening in recent history?
imprisonment of Leonard Peltier -- the problem with this claim is that like Mumia Abu Jamal, Peltier is guilty as charged, and was convicted with clear evidence. Being a posterboy for conspiracy-theorists does not of itself make you innocent, you know...
football team carrying a racial slur for a name, -- except that in poll after poll American Indians themselves have stated that they do not consider such team names to be slurs at all. The only people who claim this are those who like you appoint yourselves to speak for others who never asked them to.
So on some actual investigation, what looked like quite a list doesn't quite stand up. To answer your question: is the US better than other nations in this regard? Yes. Yes, it is.
Is government a necessary evil? Yes, of course, and that is why systems like ours, with clear limits on the power of government, are essential.
Right, and this is a good example of limits on the power of parliament. On the other hand, as you have already stated that your system bans speaking of certain ideas, clearly there are not enough protections in place...
Love it. The various members of the EU have been enforcing tougher and tougher emissions controls over the last decade
Actually, no. The `improvements in emissions' in Europe stem from the fact that the treaty arbitrarily chooses 1990 levels as its emissions target. Since the horribly polluting plants of Eastern Europe were all taken offline after 1991, Europe looks great, while the treaty demands that the US roll back a decade of rapid economic growth...
You are correct. The EU nations have indeed agreed to ratify.
None of this changes the basically unfair structure of the treaty, however. By setting an arbitrary cutoff of `1990 levels' as an emissions target, the treaty allows Europe to benefit from all the horribly polluting plants in Eastern Europe which went off line after 1991, while demanding that the US roll back ten years of economic growth.
So your point is what, exactly? That we should have just let Ho Chi Minh have his murderous way without putting up a fight, even though asked for help by an ally in desparate straits? Really?
Which is all very well, but there are very good reasons that we have limits on what the government can do even with a majority vote, in the form of the Bill of Rights.
This exists because there are many forms of government power, including telling people what views they may or may not hold, which are simply not acceptable, even with the consent of the majority.
I remember that even children of age of 12 get executed in the US for murder.
Where do you get this stuff, angel'o'sphere? The same place you got your
recent claims that at Tianenmen square the protesters attacked the Chinese Army, and not vice versa (!), and that the people of Tibet enjoy perfect religious freedom?
The EU? C'mon now. This is the same group which tried to ban web caching as an IP violation, and whose laws let any nation demand extradition of any citizen of another EU nation without judicial review, even for actions (such as, say, criticizing the Greek government) which are not illegal in the nations where they were performed.
The Nordic countries? See above -- all are EU members.
Australia? Closer, but no cigar. See their restrictions on speech, which follow the British model, for example.
Japan? Not even close. Read up on law enforcement practices or prior restraint there if you have any doubts.
Of course, since you (angel'o'sphere) claimed
in a recent thread that China has freedom of religion, I'm not sure you're all that clear on the concept here...
The poor in US gets poorer and poorer day by day and year by year. And the rich in US gets richer and richer day by day and year by year.
The problem with this argument is that it assumes that economics is a zero sum game. While it is true that the gap between rich and poor has grown some, it is also true that everyone in American society has gotten richer. To pick a clear illustration of this, in 1990, the bottom 20% of American society had, earned, and consumed as much (after taking inflation into account) as the middle 20% had in 1950. That sure doesn't sound like `getting poorer' to me, much less like something which could be compared to Bangladesh.
Well, I daresay this fellow's sig gives the game away if the rest of his post had not.
Those who want more information on the farce that was Durban may wish to check out
this article -- the punchline being that I sort of doubt the Arab delegates holding up signs which said `Too bad Hitler didn't finish the job' were aiming just at Zionism, and not at Jews in general...
It is IMO interesting to note that the palestinians have always been forgotten, just like the jews.
One very important point here: I would argue that the Palestinians have been not forgotten, but used as pawns by the other Arab states, as a tool against Israel.
In 1948, the Arab nations expelled their Jewish populations, including Jordan, which at siezed the West Bank after Israel became independent. All of these Jews were assimilated into Israeli society, and there are no `refugee camps' or `displaced persons' out of that number.
In contrast to this, Arab citizens were not expelled from Israel, even though Israel was attacked by the entire Arab world. Thos who chose to stay are full citizens of Israel with all the rights of other Israeli citizens -- indeed there were 17 Arab members of Israel's parliament, the Knesset, the last time I checked.
Nonetheless, 400,000 Arabs did choose to leave Israel as war broke out. These people became permanent refugees, for no Arab nation would take them in (indeed Saudi Arabia will not let them even visit, and Kuwait expelled their entire ethnic Palestinian population in 1992. Jordan even fought a war with its Palestinians). It is the problem of finding a home for these people that gave birth to the PA, and to the accords signed at Oslo, by which Israel gave up the land which makes up the PA areas, asking only for an end to the murder-suicide bombings in return.
They never got this end.
I agree with you that suicide bombings are a disgusting and horrible way of 'fighting', killing civilians even worse. Both sides go way back here.
I must say I strongly object to this claim. Can you provide one example of this on the Israeli side?
not only on those doing the actual killings, but also those who support it.
Sure -- but as I said, it seems clear that Sharon did not support the killings, which were not carried out by his men, or under his command.
I only do hope that PLO get Hamas under control,
I would argue that this is naive. The sad truth is that a huge portion of the bombings have been carried out by Fatah, the al-Aqsa brigades, and Force 17, all of which are units of the PLO, not of Hamas. The sad truth is that Arafat is in full control of the bombings.
The problem with your argument on the death penalty is that all you can point to are studies showing that people are going free on appeal -- which as far as I can tell is a perfect sign that the system does in fact have safeguards in place to prevent the execution of innocents.
Indeed, the anti-death-penalty groups have spent years looking for a posterboy, for a case they can point to of someone who was wrongfully executed. I find it very reassuring that they have not yet found one...
No one is per se defending our record with the Native American tribes, just as no one is defending the genocidal wars those tribes were waging against each other over the same land when we arrived. But that's hardly a current complaint, now is it?
Your claim about Texas has already been debunked by another poster. As to `numerous' coups, I would suggest you provide cites, if that is the case.
Finally, the point with Viet Nam is not how many people died in the war, but the fact that we rightly stepped in to stop a murderous totalitarian regime. The only tragedy involved is the fact that the presidents involved were to arrogant to explain to the American people why the war was needed, so the nation lost the will to see it through.
Screaming out racist remarks or slander IS NOT FREE SPEECH.
Which raises the obvious question: once you allow the government to declare certain statements racist and thus forbidden, do you in fact have any freedom of speech at all?
Before you say `yes', remember that the Netherlands have already used the same law (citing the same UN rule) to levy fines against people who questioned the country's immigration policy. That's free speech?
gross overstatement of the facts in the Homolka gag-order
I would argue that this is not an overstatement at all, but at any rate, there are
plenty of other examples of such heavy-handed regulation of the internet by Canadian authorities.
As opposed to deciding that a charity is a "terrorist organization" after the fact and jail you for contributing to it before it was declared so?
Can you provide one instance of someone being jailed for giving to such an organization? One?
Given the return these people see on the taxes they pay
The return they see on their tax rates is a stagnant economy which hurts everyone's standard of living. To pick an example, were Sweden to become a US state, it would not only be the poorest US state, but Swedes as an ethnic group would be the poorest ethnic group in the US -- see here for details.
(Another commentator has addressed your next points well in his reply)
As opposed to bombing the hell out of a third world country when it won't extradite an alleged criminal based on no evidence whatsoever?
Where do you get this? And how would you suggest we respond to the attacks of September 11 -- no credit will be given if your answer doesn't provide for preemption of future attacks.
Even countries where the citizens enjoy the highest standards of living in the world
(eg: Sweden)
See above as to Sweden. I would argue that citizens of the US enjoy the highest standard of living in the world -- as well as enjoying the most freedom.
How about them? Kent state was a tragedy, but hardly an indictment of the entire system. The fact that some states practiced segregation well into the last century is more troubling, but it is a problem which has been solved and is behind us.
Now, mind you, if you asked a Tibetan, I'm sure he could tell you a thing or to about Segregation today, just as a survivor of Tianenmen could tell you a thing or two about attacks on protesters.
Chile? There are lots of amusing conspiracy theories about this one, but the sad truth is that the CIA was as taken by surprise by the coup as anyone else. This comes back to the main problem with theories of overarching government conspiracies -- they tend to presume overarching government competence, which is nearly always in short supply.
Nicaragua? What's your complaint, exactly? That faced with a harsh dictatorship we backed rebels who fought for and won democratic elections?
Viet Nam? Likewise, faced with a brutal regime bent on taking over South Viet Nam, we did our best to prevent that. If you have any doubts as to which side we should have been on, keep in mind that Ho Chi Minh and his thugs killed more people in the three years after the end of the war than had died the preceeding twenty-five years of war.
No, the tragedy of Viet Nam is not that we went, but that three presidents (Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon) did such a poor job of explaining why we needed to be there that we lost the will to finish the job...
Well, what if US stopped selling all that dirt cheap military equipment to Israel?
You are aware that we give as much military aid to Egypt as we do to Israel, aren't you? You are aware that we armed the PA police forces (as did Israel!) even though those weapons are now being used solely to attack Israelis, and not to keep order at all?
... moderate physical pressure...
Keep in mind that this is permitted by the Supreme Court of Israel only in one circumstance: when a bomb is already ticking and a judge rules that the suspect knows where it is. I agree that this is deplorable, but it's not as clearcut as you suggest. Certainly if there were a nuclear charge ticking in lower Manhattan and we had the guy who set it, the pressure to do the wrong thing would be extreme...
And how about those settlers? I mean, 'settlers.' Are they only following the proud American tradition? Is there some, to the rest of the world, unknown territory, totally uninhabited, that we don't know of? Or could there actually be people living there in the first place?
The settlers, who occupy 2% of the West Bank, are living in areas that were Jewish for hundreds of years before the Jordanians drove all the Jews out in gunpoint in 1948. Funny how no one ever talks about these refugees, now do they?
Yes, Israels neighbouring countries have behaved as irrational assholes, but why on earth (or space, to be on-topic:-) must Israel punish the Palestinians?
I would hardly describe the years since Oslo as `punishment'. For a decade now, Israel has been trying to give the West Bank to the PA. All they have asked for in return is a cessation of the murder-suicide bombings. Certainly seems reasonable to me...
Why they elect some massmurderer responsible for the slaying of 1000 civilians in refugee camps as prime minister is beyond me.
Because the claims that Sharon is responsible for the killings at Sabra and Shatilla are specious? Remember that the killings were committed by Falangist militias who have long since turned colors and are now fighting for the Syrians against Israel. Should Sharon have predicted that the Falangists would commit massacres? Maybe. Does that make he himself a murderer? I'd argue no.
The problem with this argument is that each European nation is assessed seperately under Kyoto. Also, since Kyoto is arbitrarily based on 1990 numbers, 12 years of US growth at a time when Europe did not grow much would have to be rolled back to meet the treaty's demands.
Keep in mind that a prominent Dutch politician was fined by the government for the `crime' of suggesting that immigration to the Netherlands should be slowed down. Can you imagine that happening in the US? I can't...
Slashdot Mirror
Then you haven't read much about the environmental disaster that was East Germany. Do so.
- the current bombing of Afghanistan, in which thousands of innocents have been killed -- these numbers have long since been debunked. See the bit at the end of this piece for details. Indeed, if anything, we have gone out of our way, including putting our own people on the ground at risk, in order to avoid civilian casualties.
- U.S. backed assassinations or attempts in Afghanistan, Cuba, Vietnam... -- Cuba I'll grant you (and this was the brainstorm of liberal icon Kennedy, of course). VietNam was a war (and a just one -- see below), and so is Afghanistan, so I'm not sure what your point is...
- the Gulf War -- what's your complaint here? That the US went to war to defend a nation which had been brutally siezed, and another that was in danger, at the request of the nations involved, and at the head of a multilateral coalition of a scale the world had hardly seen before?
- the VietNam war -- again, what's your complaint here? The US went to war to defend a weak ally set upon by a bloodthirsty totalitarian neighbor. If you have any doubt that we were on the right side of this one, consider the fact that Ho Chi Minh and his thugs murdered more VietNamese in the three years after the war ended than had died in the preceeding 25 years of war. No, the only tragady of VietNam is that the three US presidents involved were too arrogant to explain to the people why the war was needed, so we lost our will to win it...
- conscription -- leaving aside that we haven't drafted anyone for years, there are strong arguments on either side of this one. There are certainly circumstances under which the draft would be acceptable and necessary, so we are left only to argue about whether it has been used well in the past.
- McCarthyism -- now a whole mythology has grown up around this one, so I think it's reasonable to point out a few facts:
- The US was in fact heavily infiltrated by Soviet spies in the 30s, 40s, and 50s. This is confirmed by Soviet and American documents declassified at the end of the cold war.
- In our current Manichean fable of that era, the (in reality quite small) number of peopls who lost jobs over their connections to the Communist Party has been greatly exaggerated.
- Due to Joe McCarthy's grandstanding and publicity-seeking, the quite real issue of Communist infiltration has been discredited unfairly -- indeed, President Truman remarked
that "the greatest asset the Kremlin
has is Senator McCarthy." Because of his excesses, any attempt to
point out the great extent of very real infiltration which did occur is
now easily hand-waved aside with a simple drop of a name.
- support for oppressive states like Israel, Saudi Arabia -- Saudi Arabia I'll give you, but in what sense is Israel, a free democracy with equal rights for all of its citizens, `oppressive'? Even with the Saudis, we didn't create them, and I like to hope that we'd support any non-fundamentalist alternative to their regime.
- support for dicators in Iran, Iraq, Chile, Nicaragua, the Philippines... -- not all of these stand (in particular, with the end of the cold war, we now know that the CIA was as taken by surprise by the coups in Iran and Chile as anyone else was), but the larger issue is that, yes, sometimes we backed the lesser of two evils. What would you propose we should have done? I'm also amused that Nicaragua, where the US backed rebels who fought for and won free democratic elections makes your list...
- concentration camps for Americans of Japanese descent -- you have chosen the word `concentration camp' carefully for connotations which do not fit the subject at hand, but the point is the same. Yes, these were a terrible abuse, but they were also a reaction to the very real fact that there were spies operating in the Japanese-American community. In particular, Pearl Harbor was planned based on intelligence from American citizens of Japanese descent.
- COINTELPRO -- there is a lot of rumor and propaganda surrounding a very small number of actual abuses in this area. Care to provide reasoned cites (not lefty conspiracy-theory rags)?
- Hiroshima, and even more so Nagasaki -- what's your complaint here? Many Americans, and even moreso many more Japanese than died in these two cities would have died in an island-by-island invasion of the Japanese homeland. This was averted. Looks like a good move to me...
- one of the world's largest prison populations -- we're actually pretty far behind China, but this is not the point. A high prison population proves nothing by itself, so if you want this to sound scary, you have to show not that we are putting people in prison, but that we are putting people in prison unjustly.
- the War on (some) Drugs -- I'm sure we're in some agreement here -- remember that just about the only mainstream voices calling for a reversal of Marijuana policy are coming from within the conservative movement, in the pages of publications like the Wall Street Journal and National Review.
- the "enemies" list -- Nixon's or Clinton's?
- the fiasco at Waco -- I think I'd use a stronger word than `fiasco' for this one, and I suspect we're largely in agreement. I still hope that some day we will see trials of many of those involved, right up to Janet Reno.
- racial segregation (including laws still on the books in some states) -- it doesn't accomplish anything to point out that laws are `still on the books' (though you should provide a cite for this, as I haven't seen this claimed before), as any law which violates the constitution is a legal nullity, and the fourteenth ammendment is very clear on this matter.
- babies to be taken from their parents
... children were compelled to attend boarding schools -- do you have any cite on this happening in recent history?
- imprisonment of Leonard Peltier -- the problem with this claim is that like Mumia Abu Jamal, Peltier is guilty as charged, and was convicted with clear evidence. Being a posterboy for conspiracy-theorists does not of itself make you innocent, you know...
- football team carrying a racial slur for a name, -- except that in poll after poll American Indians themselves have stated that they do not consider such team names to be slurs at all. The only people who claim this are those who like you appoint yourselves to speak for others who never asked them to.
So on some actual investigation, what looked like quite a list doesn't quite stand up. To answer your question: is the US better than other nations in this regard? Yes. Yes, it is.Is government a necessary evil? Yes, of course, and that is why systems like ours, with clear limits on the power of government, are essential.
And thank you for discrediting your own arguments better than I could have.
Right, and this is a good example of limits on the power of parliament. On the other hand, as you have already stated that your system bans speaking of certain ideas, clearly there are not enough protections in place...
Love it. The various members of the EU have been enforcing tougher and tougher emissions controls over the last decade
Actually, no. The `improvements in emissions' in Europe stem from the fact that the treaty arbitrarily chooses 1990 levels as its emissions target. Since the horribly polluting plants of Eastern Europe were all taken offline after 1991, Europe looks great, while the treaty demands that the US roll back a decade of rapid economic growth...
You are correct. The EU nations have indeed agreed to ratify.
None of this changes the basically unfair structure of the treaty, however. By setting an arbitrary cutoff of `1990 levels' as an emissions target, the treaty allows Europe to benefit from all the horribly polluting plants in Eastern Europe which went off line after 1991, while demanding that the US roll back ten years of economic growth.
So your point is what, exactly? That we should have just let Ho Chi Minh have his murderous way without putting up a fight, even though asked for help by an ally in desparate straits? Really?
Which is all very well, but there are very good reasons that we have limits on what the government can do even with a majority vote, in the form of the Bill of Rights.
This exists because there are many forms of government power, including telling people what views they may or may not hold, which are simply not acceptable, even with the consent of the majority.
The united states breaks all treaties it finds problematic
That's an interesting claim, but you don't provide a single example of the US doing so in your post.
Or are you claiming that the US should sieze and extradite US citizens without judicial review? Oh, gee, that wouldn't be subject to abuses, eh?
I remember that even children of age of 12 get executed in the US for murder.
Where do you get this stuff, angel'o'sphere? The same place you got your recent claims that at Tianenmen square the protesters attacked the Chinese Army, and not vice versa (!), and that the people of Tibet enjoy perfect religious freedom?
In terms of freedom? Let's take a look shall we?
The EU? C'mon now. This is the same group which tried to ban web caching as an IP violation, and whose laws let any nation demand extradition of any citizen of another EU nation without judicial review, even for actions (such as, say, criticizing the Greek government) which are not illegal in the nations where they were performed.
The Nordic countries? See above -- all are EU members.
Australia? Closer, but no cigar. See their restrictions on speech, which follow the British model, for example.
Japan? Not even close. Read up on law enforcement practices or prior restraint there if you have any doubts.
Of course, since you (angel'o'sphere) claimed in a recent thread that China has freedom of religion, I'm not sure you're all that clear on the concept here...
Interesting, so you claim that letting the government decide what views are acceptable is not a violation of free speech? Really?
The poor in US gets poorer and poorer day by day and year by year. And the rich in US gets richer and richer day by day and year by year.
The problem with this argument is that it assumes that economics is a zero sum game. While it is true that the gap between rich and poor has grown some, it is also true that everyone in American society has gotten richer. To pick a clear illustration of this, in 1990, the bottom 20% of American society had, earned, and consumed as much (after taking inflation into account) as the middle 20% had in 1950. That sure doesn't sound like `getting poorer' to me, much less like something which could be compared to Bangladesh.
Of course, as this is the same `angel'o'sphere' who recently tried to claim that at Tianenmen the protesters attacked the Chinese Army, and not vice versa(!) and that there is freedom of religion in China, I wouldn't recommend that readers take what he writes too seriously...
Those who want more information on the farce that was Durban may wish to check out this article -- the punchline being that I sort of doubt the Arab delegates holding up signs which said `Too bad Hitler didn't finish the job' were aiming just at Zionism, and not at Jews in general...
It is IMO interesting to note that the palestinians have always been forgotten, just like the jews.
One very important point here: I would argue that the Palestinians have been not forgotten, but used as pawns by the other Arab states, as a tool against Israel.
In 1948, the Arab nations expelled their Jewish populations, including Jordan, which at siezed the West Bank after Israel became independent. All of these Jews were assimilated into Israeli society, and there are no `refugee camps' or `displaced persons' out of that number.
In contrast to this, Arab citizens were not expelled from Israel, even though Israel was attacked by the entire Arab world. Thos who chose to stay are full citizens of Israel with all the rights of other Israeli citizens -- indeed there were 17 Arab members of Israel's parliament, the Knesset, the last time I checked.
Nonetheless, 400,000 Arabs did choose to leave Israel as war broke out. These people became permanent refugees, for no Arab nation would take them in (indeed Saudi Arabia will not let them even visit, and Kuwait expelled their entire ethnic Palestinian population in 1992. Jordan even fought a war with its Palestinians). It is the problem of finding a home for these people that gave birth to the PA, and to the accords signed at Oslo, by which Israel gave up the land which makes up the PA areas, asking only for an end to the murder-suicide bombings in return. They never got this end.
I agree with you that suicide bombings are a disgusting and horrible way of 'fighting', killing civilians even worse. Both sides go way back here.
I must say I strongly object to this claim. Can you provide one example of this on the Israeli side?
not only on those doing the actual killings, but also those who support it.
Sure -- but as I said, it seems clear that Sharon did not support the killings, which were not carried out by his men, or under his command.
I only do hope that PLO get Hamas under control,
I would argue that this is naive. The sad truth is that a huge portion of the bombings have been carried out by Fatah, the al-Aqsa brigades, and Force 17, all of which are units of the PLO, not of Hamas. The sad truth is that Arafat is in full control of the bombings.
In a word: `none'.
Or can you provide a single instance where this has happened?
The problem with your argument on the death penalty is that all you can point to are studies showing that people are going free on appeal -- which as far as I can tell is a perfect sign that the system does in fact have safeguards in place to prevent the execution of innocents.
Indeed, the anti-death-penalty groups have spent years looking for a posterboy, for a case they can point to of someone who was wrongfully executed. I find it very reassuring that they have not yet found one...
No one is per se defending our record with the Native American tribes, just as no one is defending the genocidal wars those tribes were waging against each other over the same land when we arrived. But that's hardly a current complaint, now is it?
Your claim about Texas has already been debunked by another poster. As to `numerous' coups, I would suggest you provide cites, if that is the case.
Finally, the point with Viet Nam is not how many people died in the war, but the fact that we rightly stepped in to stop a murderous totalitarian regime. The only tragedy involved is the fact that the presidents involved were to arrogant to explain to the American people why the war was needed, so the nation lost the will to see it through.
Screaming out racist remarks or slander IS NOT FREE SPEECH.
Which raises the obvious question: once you allow the government to declare certain statements racist and thus forbidden, do you in fact have any freedom of speech at all?
Before you say `yes', remember that the Netherlands have already used the same law (citing the same UN rule) to levy fines against people who questioned the country's immigration policy. That's free speech?
gross overstatement of the facts in the Homolka gag-order
I would argue that this is not an overstatement at all, but at any rate, there are plenty of other examples of such heavy-handed regulation of the internet by Canadian authorities.
As opposed to deciding that a charity is a "terrorist organization" after the fact and jail you for contributing to it before it was declared so?
Can you provide one instance of someone being jailed for giving to such an organization? One?
Given the return these people see on the taxes they pay
The return they see on their tax rates is a stagnant economy which hurts everyone's standard of living. To pick an example, were Sweden to become a US state, it would not only be the poorest US state, but Swedes as an ethnic group would be the poorest ethnic group in the US -- see here for details.
(Another commentator has addressed your next points well in his reply)
As opposed to bombing the hell out of a third world country when it won't extradite an alleged criminal based on no evidence whatsoever?
Where do you get this? And how would you suggest we respond to the attacks of September 11 -- no credit will be given if your answer doesn't provide for preemption of future attacks.
Even countries where the citizens enjoy the highest standards of living in the world (eg: Sweden)
See above as to Sweden. I would argue that citizens of the US enjoy the highest standard of living in the world -- as well as enjoying the most freedom.
How about them? Kent state was a tragedy, but hardly an indictment of the entire system. The fact that some states practiced segregation well into the last century is more troubling, but it is a problem which has been solved and is behind us.
Now, mind you, if you asked a Tibetan, I'm sure he could tell you a thing or to about Segregation today, just as a survivor of Tianenmen could tell you a thing or two about attacks on protesters.
Chile? There are lots of amusing conspiracy theories about this one, but the sad truth is that the CIA was as taken by surprise by the coup as anyone else. This comes back to the main problem with theories of overarching government conspiracies -- they tend to presume overarching government competence, which is nearly always in short supply.
Nicaragua? What's your complaint, exactly? That faced with a harsh dictatorship we backed rebels who fought for and won democratic elections?
Viet Nam? Likewise, faced with a brutal regime bent on taking over South Viet Nam, we did our best to prevent that. If you have any doubts as to which side we should have been on, keep in mind that Ho Chi Minh and his thugs killed more people in the three years after the end of the war than had died the preceeding twenty-five years of war.
No, the tragedy of Viet Nam is not that we went, but that three presidents (Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon) did such a poor job of explaining why we needed to be there that we lost the will to finish the job...
Well, what if US stopped selling all that dirt cheap military equipment to Israel?
You are aware that we give as much military aid to Egypt as we do to Israel, aren't you? You are aware that we armed the PA police forces (as did Israel!) even though those weapons are now being used solely to attack Israelis, and not to keep order at all?
Keep in mind that this is permitted by the Supreme Court of Israel only in one circumstance: when a bomb is already ticking and a judge rules that the suspect knows where it is. I agree that this is deplorable, but it's not as clearcut as you suggest. Certainly if there were a nuclear charge ticking in lower Manhattan and we had the guy who set it, the pressure to do the wrong thing would be extreme...
And how about those settlers? I mean, 'settlers.' Are they only following the proud American tradition? Is there some, to the rest of the world, unknown territory, totally uninhabited, that we don't know of? Or could there actually be people living there in the first place?
The settlers, who occupy 2% of the West Bank, are living in areas that were Jewish for hundreds of years before the Jordanians drove all the Jews out in gunpoint in 1948. Funny how no one ever talks about these refugees, now do they?
Yes, Israels neighbouring countries have behaved as irrational assholes, but why on earth (or space, to be on-topic :-) must Israel punish the Palestinians?
I would hardly describe the years since Oslo as `punishment'. For a decade now, Israel has been trying to give the West Bank to the PA. All they have asked for in return is a cessation of the murder-suicide bombings. Certainly seems reasonable to me...
Why they elect some massmurderer responsible for the slaying of 1000 civilians in refugee camps as prime minister is beyond me.
Because the claims that Sharon is responsible for the killings at Sabra and Shatilla are specious? Remember that the killings were committed by Falangist militias who have long since turned colors and are now fighting for the Syrians against Israel. Should Sharon have predicted that the Falangists would commit massacres? Maybe. Does that make he himself a murderer? I'd argue no.
The problem with this argument is that each European nation is assessed seperately under Kyoto. Also, since Kyoto is arbitrarily based on 1990 numbers, 12 years of US growth at a time when Europe did not grow much would have to be rolled back to meet the treaty's demands.
Keep in mind that a prominent Dutch politician was fined by the government for the `crime' of suggesting that immigration to the Netherlands should be slowed down. Can you imagine that happening in the US? I can't...