Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Middle East Speech Discussion Thread

Posted on 06/24/2002 12:48:28 PM PDT by RCW2001

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,401-1,4501,451-1,5001,501-1,5501,551-1,568 last
To: SJackson
So that's the logic. That's the first time I've ever seen it presented clearly. I usually get a stream of vitriol when I bring it up. Thanks.

Now....this logic reminds me of the gun grabbers stating that the mention of the militia in the First Amendment clearly modifies the entire document, despite the fact that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" clearly stands on its own.

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

:snip:

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

In the first place, the first paragraph feels the need to specify that "forcible" transfers are forbidden, meaning that not all transfers are forcible. The final paragraph, which not only stands on its own but refers to the precise opposite activity as the first, merely says "transfers".

There was a meeting of the Geneva Convention signatories in 1999. Only Israel and the US did not attend. The vote on the interpretation of Article 49 was unanimous: it applies to the settlements. The Mitchell Report also stated that opinion, and Bush re-endorsed it yesterday. So in effect, all the nations of the Convention interpret Article 49 in that manner, except Israel.

-Eric

1,551 posted on 06/25/2002 7:22:55 PM PDT by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1542 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda
Actually, the President made it very clear that terrorism has to stop, and I doubt that anyone on these boards disagrees with him there. But he specifically invoked Mitchell on your anschluss lobby. A subtle message, but a clear one.

Only an unsubtle pig uses nazi jargon twice on one thread to describe Jews. Sieg Heil, moron.

From "Dutch" (the authorized Reagan biography), first hardcover edition, page 465:

(William) Clark further believes that Reagan suffered, in his quiet way, from moral guilt. "I've always felt that he overreacted to the Holocaust - its horrors left such a mark on him that he let his emotions flow into almost any issue involving Israel. As if he were compensating." This did not mean that the President forgave Begin and Ariel Sharon, the Israeli Defense Minister, for encouraging the carnage there (in Lebanon). Revealingly, at the height of Israel's bombardment of Beirut, he invoked race memory in a furious telephone call to Begin:
I told him that it had to stop or our entire future relationship was endangered. I used the word holocaust deliberately and said the symbol of his [sic] was becoming a picture of a 7 month old baby with its arms blown off.
Robert McFarlane, listening, was astonished at the vehemence and rapidity of his speech. So, apparently, was Begin, who called back within minutes to say the attack was being stopped.
Sometimes when someone is being completely intrasingent, confronting them with what they hate most works. Especially if the shoe fits.

-Eric

1,552 posted on 06/25/2002 7:34:34 PM PDT by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1544 | View Replies]

To: Scholastic; Registered; kristinn; Keyes For President; goldilucky; Joy Angela; christine11; ...
-
1,553 posted on 06/25/2002 7:34:43 PM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1452 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
Did you have a cite a completely contemptable biography of the great Ronald Reagan? I detest Edmund Morris' way of writing this biography. I stopped reading Dutch as soon as I figured out that Morris was making up completely imaginary characters in order to describe Reagan to the audience. I consider that to be an unethical tactic and a sorry way to write a biography about a truly great man.

I recommend Dinesh D'Souza's bio on Reagan, it is ethically written, respectful, and accurate.

1,554 posted on 06/25/2002 7:39:01 PM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1552 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
Takes FJC for this ping. This thread is a MONSTER!
1,555 posted on 06/25/2002 9:08:18 PM PDT by Joy Angela
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
anybody there?
1,556 posted on 06/25/2002 10:31:52 PM PDT by goldilucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1553 | View Replies]

To: unsycophant
The more things change, the more they remain the same.
1,557 posted on 06/25/2002 11:37:24 PM PDT by Sam Spade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1451 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
Did you have a cite a completely contemptable biography of the great Ronald Reagan? I detest Edmund Morris' way of writing this biography. I stopped reading Dutch as soon as I figured out that Morris was making up completely imaginary characters in order to describe Reagan to the audience. I consider that to be an unethical tactic and a sorry way to write a biography about a truly great man.
I knew that Morris had done it before I read the book. Once I finally read it I felt it was a better book than I expected it to be, but less than it could have been.

Regardless, it was the official authorized biography, and Morris had better access to records and recollections than any other biographer. Since neither Clark nor McFarlane was a made up character, and since it's a matter of historical fact that the Reagan Administration pushed for Sharon's removal in the wake of the Beriut invasion, there's no reason to think the incident is inaccurately depicted.

I recommend Dinesh D'Souza's bio on Reagan, it is ethically written, respectful, and accurate.
I also prefer D'Souza's book. At times it borders on hagiography (side note: will Hellary's memoirs be considered "autohagiography"?), but considering the subject this is entirely understandable. >:)

Unfortunately, nowhere in D'Souza's book does he discuss our relations with Israel.

-Eric

1,558 posted on 06/26/2002 3:07:01 AM PDT by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1554 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
We needed to get rid of Mike Brown like 10 years ago.
1,559 posted on 06/26/2002 5:10:39 AM PDT by carton253
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1546 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
Sometimes when someone is being completely intrasingent, confronting them with what they hate most works. Especially if the shoe fits.

Your shoe seems perennially stuck in your mouth. Reagan may have used the word holocaust in a discussion with Begin after a child was accidentally killed, but YOU have been using Nazi jargon to describe Israel's current defense against savages who have been told by Bush they will not have a state until they cease terrorism. YOU are not Reagan. You couldn't tie Reagan shoelaces. Oink oink, SH and AA.

1,560 posted on 06/26/2002 8:09:00 AM PDT by Yehuda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1552 | View Replies]

To: ChadGore; American Preservative; Pissed Off Janitor
BTTT
1,561 posted on 06/26/2002 8:24:03 AM PDT by Yehuda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1534 | View Replies]

To: Sam Spade
Life is a circle. We are all trapped on the wheel.
1,562 posted on 06/26/2002 8:28:44 AM PDT by unsycophant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1557 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
You are correct, D'Souza did not mention relations with Israel in his book.

Nonetheless, I am still apalled by the way Morris wrote his authorized biography of Reagan. I do not believe that Reagan would have been happy with this book, had he the ability to read it. That's the main reason why I won't even bother to read Morris' Theadore Rex biography.

1,563 posted on 06/26/2002 10:42:07 AM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1558 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Ping!
1,564 posted on 06/26/2002 10:46:30 AM PDT by diotima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1563 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator
11 and 12 were simply ludicrous comments, not threats, racism, or namecalling. Why pull these posts? Let's let these people make fools of themselves, rather than breaking out the Bush thought police...
1,565 posted on 06/26/2002 7:53:17 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
Why trust "Dutch" for commentary? Doesn't that have a fictional character in it?

1,566 posted on 06/26/2002 7:54:58 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1552 | View Replies]

To: unsycophant
And here we are posting the same pointless thoughts again and again, throughout internet eternity.
1,567 posted on 06/26/2002 8:12:39 PM PDT by Sam Spade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1562 | View Replies]

To: Sam Spade
"Pointless thoughts"?? Hey now!

Eternity is just too damned long to think about.

1,568 posted on 06/26/2002 10:03:06 PM PDT by unsycophant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1567 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,401-1,4501,451-1,5001,501-1,5501,551-1,568 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson